| STAFF
AND MANAGEMENT |
| |
| Introduction |
| 8.1
The primary purpose of our inspections is the care of
prisoners and the conditions they are housed in;
nevertheless the Inspectorate is also required to comment
on ‘matters of general efficiency’. Here,
management and staff morale can always greatly affect the
quality of life for prisoners and thus we have extended
our description of what has been happening to management
and staff in subsequent paragraphs; 1994-95 was a most
crucial year in this respect. |
| 8.2
There were many challenges for SPS Management over these
busy last 12 months. Many initiatives were being
formulated or put in place, at the same time as a major
restructuring of staff was being evaluated or
implemented, including those in SPS HQ itself. Here SSR,
which amongst other measures introduced a two tier system
for Prison Officers and performance related pay, caused
unprecedented anxiety amongst staff and the SPOA. It was
felt by many that "too much of what was being
proposed was being done in a hurry, if indeed it needed
doing". Also there were fears that as the Review
came on top of many other changes, there was bound to be
increasing confusion. Thus rumour and misunderstandings
dominated for some time, despite frequent explanatory
attempts by Management. |
| 8.3
Industrial action appeared to be a possibility at one
point, in September 1994; two months later the Criminal
Justice Act removed the right of any member of Prison
staff to discuss or take any such action. |
| 8.4
Some results of SSR were becoming apparent as this report
was being prepared. Management at SPS HQ had been
delayered, although individual establishments were at
slightly differing stages of SSR implementation. On 31
March 1995 most members of staff were close to, or had
already been re-assigned to, new posts. Most will have
been working in these new teams for several months by the
time this report is finally published. Nevertheless, the
intervening months could have seen a degree of
vulnerability throughout the Service. For example, some
establishments could not fill all their new posts
immediately, because of previous staff retirements or
recruitment difficulties; some were thus below
complement. Some, including the Inspectorate, would have
wished for a period of consolidation at this juncture.
Further changes for staff may also be inevitable: SPS HQ
have made it clear that what started with SSR is very
much an ongoing and continuous process, with manpower
levels being reduced by a further 2-3% over the next 3
years. [Presumably this will occur irrespective of
overcrowding, or future levels of crime; such is the
pressure on the penal budget.] |
| |
| Management |
| 8.5
Major changes at SPS HQ were announced at the turn of the
year and then implemented shortly afterwards. The post of
Deputy Chief Executive and Director of Prisons was
abolished: the 2 Area Directors also became members of
the Prisons Board at the same time, the full impact of
which has yet to be measured. We hope that emphasis will
continue to be given to Governor and operational
experience at this general level. |
| 8.6
There was no restructuring at Governor I/C level:
however, we caught glimpses of some changing styles of
management and leadership, particularly during SSR and
its later implementation. Workloads for Governors I/C
were heavy and this sometimes affected daily management
standards. However, encouraging signs of managerial and
staff empowerment had also become apparent. These varied
at each prison, but it was evident that Governors I/C and
their Management Teams were taking on a great deal of
what had previously been controlled at SPS HQ level. Full
financial delegation has not yet been achieved, but as
the year ended we were pleased to note that there was now
"increased delegation of financial and purchasing
limits for maintenance and minor works programmes, for
individual establishments". |
| |
| Recruitment |
| 8.7
With SSR taking place, it was not thought appropriate to
start any new recruitment before 13 March 1995. 55 new
Band ‘C’ Officers started training at the SPS
College on that date. |
| |
| Employment/SSR
Implementation |
| 8.8
The main components of SSR, which were arrived at by a
Steering Group in 1993-94 are shown below. Aims included
10% savings in cash for staff pay and a shift in
management responsibility; ‘Front-Line’ staff
were to receive greater recognition and more empowerment.
Implementation was to be over 4 years, starting in 1995. |
- Supervision The ranks
of Principal Officer (PO) and Senior Officer (SO)
were to be abolished. Future line management was
to include a reduced number of managers and
supervisors. There would only be one Governor and
Deputy in each establishment, with the number of
other Governors greatly reduced and incorporated
with POs, to become Unit Managers.
- Works Staff Already
exposed to market testing for several years,
these individuals were also included in SSR. The
future trend was to be towards a gradual
civilianisation of works staff.
- Nursing Staff. See
Medical paragraphs 6.6-9.
- Discipline Staff Only
2 grades would remain in future. Band C Officers
were to be used for basic security duties; D Band
were to be Residential Officers - ie direct
involvement with prisoners as Personal Officers,
etc.
- Pay Performance
related pay was to be extended to all grades,
whereas previously this had only applied to
Governors. Pay protection was assured for the
next 4 years, to cover individuals unable to get
or be selected for the appropriate pay band. A 5%
pay rise over 2 years was also negotiated.
|
| 8.9
Results of the SSR Steering Groups deliberations were
available in Spring 1994: thereafter the general details
filtered down through local management at each prison.
The latter then had to submit proposals for the structure
and complements at their particular establishment, which
in effect meant the detailed examination and
justification of every single post in the SPS. Governors
I/C then presented submissions to the SteeringGroup,
following which results were then revealed to the work
force. By the turn of the year some establishments were
in a position to start trawling for individuals to fill
the various new posts, starting with Unit Managers. Each
Prison Officer then had to re-apply for his or her own
job, or could apply for other posts, the majority of
which had new roles and titles. Some individuals took
early retirement. Once individuals had volunteered for
posts a variety of different methods were then used to
select the appropriate incumbent. Some prisons ran
Selection Boards, often lasting several days: others
invited applicants to submit essays; some opted for a
mixture of both, or other methods. As one Governor I/C
said, “the magnitude of the task being undertaken
cannot be over-estimated”. |
| 8.10
Workloads at managerial level increased dramatically
during this very anxious period: the heated and confused
atmosphere amongst individual members of staff was also
palpable during many of our inspections, especially from
the Autumn onwards. Meanwhile, as had been forecast much
earlier, even the Chief Executive was required to
re-apply for his own job. Thus it would be no
exaggeration to observe that the entire SPS staff fabric
was scrutinised and rationalised from top to bottom in
the course of 1994-95. The scale of this examination was
probably unprecedented. |
| |
| Staff
Perceptions |
| 8.11
SSR dominated nearly every conversation that we had with
Prison Officers in the course of the year; even towards
the very end, when selections had been made. Individuals
were as cooperative as we had always found them and
willing to talk about aspects of their profession, such
as developing agendas for prisoners. But whenever we
encountered groups of Officers together, the same sense
of grievance and unhappiness appeared to predominate.
Some felt that “SSR was a devious plot, organised to
demoralise the entire prison staff, so that a cheaper
work-force could be hired when they left (ie
privatisation by stealth)”. Others saw it as an
attempt to change the entire culture of the SPS. Some saw
it as a purely cost cutting exercise: a few, but not
nearly enough, saw SSR as an attempt to improve the SPS
and take it forward to higher standards. Many individuals
appeared not to understand the new pay system either,
despite vigorous efforts by Management to describe it in
detail. Thus, some claimed that "they were about to
be robbed of many thousand of pounds in subsequent years
because of SSR"; others said that "they would
be leaving at the first opportunity because of the
unfairness of it all". Very few forecast that the
new staff system would ever work, when implemented. Some
groups also saw the removal of the right to take
industrial action as part of some "wider
agenda". |
| 8.12
Most resented having to re-apply for their own job and
there were understandable worries about the competition
which was engendered amongst fellow Officers, as they
fought to apply for similar posts. Concerns for the
future professionalism of the Service were also expressed
in very forthright terms. These included the experience
lost from those Officers who had retired; fears over the
possible reduction in numbers of Discipline Officers and
the subsequent effect on custody and control were also
voiced. Others saw that this reorganisation when combined
with the civilianisation of other posts could lead to
only a “thin Blue Line” being left in future.
Nevertheless, some privately admitted that SSR was also a
chance for the SPS to put off or delay any official
proposals for market testing or contracting out,
therefore being “the lesser of two evils”. |
| 8.13
We find it difficult to assess the true impact of SSR:
some passage of time may be required before an accurate
perspective can be obtained. What can be said at this
stage is that very few work-forces ever welcome change,
“especially if it is perceived to be hurried,
complicated, or apparently places livelihoods at
risk”. We assess that morale was lowered by the
exercise, but by how much and for how long is not yet
clear. However, very few Prison Officers have actually
resigned and order in most prisons was very good
throughout 1994-95. We believe that the latter is
testimony to the professionalism of Management, Prison
Officers and the Unions and the goodwill of a great many
individuals. We also submit that a period of
consolidation for staff would be appropriate, following
all the uncertainty which has been engendered (given that
it took place in addition to so many other initiatives). |
| |
| Industrial
Relations |
| 8.14
The SPS-TUS view on SSR was that there were many elements
in it which further reduced the morale of staff. Looking
back on the year, and with the benefit of hindsight,
Unions described industrial relations within the SPS as
“having been fairly strained”, particularly in
the early and middle periods. Nevertheless they fully
recognised that they must now look forward on behalf of
their members. |
| 8.15
A number of new issues had to be addressed and included: |
- The Trade Union
recognised that Management had done much to
improve staff facilities, but much still had to
be achieved in this area (see paragraphs
8.21-24).
- Management had also
demanded new levels of individual physical
fitness for Prisoner Officers, which would
require the appropriate time and facilities being
made available.
- Local Whitley
Councils would shortly be forming an integral
part of local industrial relations at each
establishment. Management and the Trade Union
welcome their introduction as a natural
progression of devolving issues from the centre.
- It was also observed
that it was taking too long for Inspectorate
reports to be published (which our Team would
concur with; a maximum of three months from
inspection to publication is the standard we are
now aiming for).
- Finally there was a
strong view that "communications needed to
be addressed to ensure that not only were
messages going out, but were also being
received".
|
| |
