You are on page 1of 34

National Directorate

NATIONAL PROBATION DIRECTORATE

PUBLIC PROTECTION & COURTS UNIT

APPROVED PREMISES – RESOURCES REVIEW

SEPTEMBER 2004

1
CONTENTS

1. BACKGROUND/CONTEXT
Project Board
Project Reference Group.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES & SCOPE

3. FINANCE & FUNDING ISSUES


a) REVIEW (bandings, supplements,
reporting, penalties, etc.)
b) PROPOSALS (benefits – extra beds, staff,
consistency, training, etc.)

4. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
a) REVIEW (target occupancy, successful
comps, rewards/penalties)
b) PROPOSALS

5. HUMAN RESOURCES
a) REVIEW (staffing levels, waking cover,
roles, shift patterns, associated hr issues etc.)
b) PROPOSALS (new roles, structure, cover,
pathfinder, separation etc.)

6. INFORMATION & INFORMATION


TECHNOLOGY

a) REVIEW
b) PROPOSALS

7. NEXT STEPS

2
1. BACKGROUND/CONTEXT

1.1 The role and purpose of approved premises has evolved and changed
significantly in the last ten years. A separate strategy, recently published,
has now been developed that brings clarity to the approved premises task. It
will provide an overarching framework for offender accommodation,
bringing a much sharper focus on role and purpose, by reinforcing the
contribution that enhanced supervision in a residential setting can bring to
the management of high risk offenders. Simultaneously, work has
progressed on the approved premises pathfinder. This is taking place across
8 sites and will seek to define elements of a model regime. The final
pathfinder report will be available in Autumn 2004. The resources review is
very closely linked to these two pieces of work and may need refining to
meet any additional requirements arising from the strategy or the outcome of
the pathfinder.

1.2 There has been no recent national review of how revenue resources are
allocated across the estate. The role of the centre has been to provide
funding, but to leave the detail of how this is used to Areas. The Approved
Premises Handbook (April2002) provides general guidance and information
on a wide range of approved premises issues including finance and HR, but
does not seek to define how resources are to be used. NNC Codes and
Conditions of Service have been the subject of local interpretation and there
has been no systematic central monitoring. Inevitably, with over 40
employing bodies this has led to an inconsistent approach across a wide of
range of resource and HR matters nationally.

1.3 The recently published Carter Report and the government response, makes it
clear that further radical reform is required if we are to realise the full
potential of the correctional services. The development of the National
Offender Management Service will bring an opportunity for providers to
reshape their structures and processes so as to demonstrate both cost
effectiveness and the delivery of effective forms of interventions that
contribute to the achievement of national objectives. The resources review
can make an early contribution to the task, for example in providing the
opportunity to look at drawing together codes and conditions and in helping
to define a future staffing regime and supporting structures for approved
premises.

1.4 Evidence from Form H1 along with the Interim Pathfinder Report and the
2003 Census data, demonstrates that the role of approved premises (in terms
of offender profile and type) has changed considerably over the last ten
years, with acceleration in the last five. The profile in the male sector is now
predominantly post release, with a continuing decline of bailee numbers.
Community orders have fallen but not to the same extent as bail. The overall
proportion of sex offenders is high, and covers a spectrum of risk of harm
profiles. There continues to be a significant number of lower risk (possibly
bailees) offenders accommodated in approved premises. For the women’s

3
estate, the profile is very different. Despite the increasing use of custody for
women, post release cases are a minority, with community orders and bail
being the main categories. The Census data also indicates that the risk of
harm profile for women is much lower than in male premises.

1.5 For the first time, we now collect some central information on the
involvement of approved premises in the management of MAPPP work. This
starts to provide evidence on the role of the estate in regard to risk
management placements, particularly in the male estate. To date, there is no
comprehensive centrally held data on the involvement of approved premises
in the delivery of accredited programmes. The interim Pathfinder report
however, suggests only 11% of residents are involved in such programmes.
It is known that a number of areas are using premises to deliver programmes
and are looking to increase this potential. The link to the achievement of
national targets provides a helpful driver for Areas in this respect.

1.6 This changed profile, with an increasing focus of approved premises as a


public protection resource, linked to the potential of the Pathfinder, the
availability and appropriateness of programmes such as ASRO, DIDS, Think
First etc., Basic Skills initiatives and our need to engage with offenders in
accordance with the principles of “What Works”, all indicate a need to
redefine the structures in which approved premises operate. The production
of a new strategic framework for approved premises, allied to the impending
impact of government plans for transforming the management of offenders
set out in “Reducing Crime – Changing Lives”, reinforce the need for the
National Probation Directorate to review how resources are allocated to
approved premises and to provide clear direction and a set of expectations in
respect of future use.

1.7 Project Board: Felicity Hawksley - Chair


Colin Pinfold
Len Cheston
Mike Dubock
Richard Cullen
John Russell
Mike Kilbane – Project Manager

1.8 Project Reference Group: Mike Kilbane – Chair, NPD


John McGartland – Senior Admin & Finance Manager, Greater Manchester
Malcolm Jones – SPO Leicestershire
Eunice Dunkley – NAPBH
Ted Owen – Manager –Vol Managed - LPA
Penny Abbott – Admin Manager, South Yorkshire
Pete Bowyer – NAPO
Stephen Ormerod – UNISON
Brian Siddy – ACO Humberside
Brenda Ball – ACO Thames Valley
John Russell – NPD
Sue Sharp – SPO Hampshire

4
Len Cheston – NPD
Julie Ashton – SPO – Vol Managed - West Yorkshire
Mary Phillips – Board Member, Thames Valley
Lis Pace - ACO Bedfordshire
Chris Brereton – Head of HR Lancashire

1.9 Acknowledgement: The review could not have been undertaken without the
experience, knowledge, and contributions of the Project Reference Group. We
are most appreciative of the commitment from the group, especially at a time
when demands in their own sphere of work are particularly high. Thank you.

2. PROJECT OBJECTIVES & SCOPE

2.1 There are five project objectives:


• To consider the future resource needs of approved premises, including
the current funding formula, and make recommendations for change
• Taking account of current work in PPCU on Performance Indicators,
review target occupancy levels, including rewards and penalties.
• To undertake a review of current staffing levels, waking cover, roles,
responsibilities, shift patterns and associated HR issues. In the light of
emerging findings from the approved premises pathfinder and taking
account of information on the changing role and profile of approved
premises, make recommendations for national approved premises HR
Framework.
• Consider the information and information technology needs of
approved premises, so as to be able to identify the development of
systems that provide accurate, timely and relevant management
information on an area, regional and national basis.
• To ensure that key stakeholders are consulted about and contribute to
the review.

2.2 The scope of the project is as follows:


• The review will cover the whole approved premises estate, including
the voluntary managed approved premises, but excluding
PROSPECTS premises.
• Take account of the development/emerging findings of the approved
premises pathfinder.
• The review will be forward looking and will seek to identify the
financial, staff and other resources that are needed to deliver an
enhanced level of residential supervision, with the aim of protecting
the public by reducing the likelihood of offending.
• The project is complete when the objectives at 2.1 have been achieved.

2.3 Proposals emerging from the review will have implications that require
detailed discussion and dialogue with key stakeholders. This is particularly so
in respect of the HR elements of the review.

5
2.4 Why change? National Performance in terms of achievement of KPI 18 (now
SPM 4) has been improving consistently over the last five years. National KPI
in 2003/04 was 90% occupancy and this was achieved. This excellent
performance has continued into 2004/05. However, it is acknowledged that the
performance target, although successful in driving up the numbers of beds
occupied, is a relatively crude instrument. It does not adequately capture the
contribution approved premises make to the successful management of
offenders or encourage a targeting of the resource towards those for whom
approved premises offer the best solutions, in terms of tailored risk
management packages that enhance public protection.

2.5 The achievement of the occupancy target is not in itself sufficient to drive
forward the development of a greater public protection focus, or our range of
interventions with offenders. It will also be difficult to improve outcomes and
to benefit from the “What Works” learning, without a change in how current
roles are delivered. At a practical level, many Areas may find it difficult to
envisage how to deliver effective interventions to approved premises residents
within the confines of current roles and rota/staffing arrangements. Clearly
there is good practice taking place within the sector but we need to develop
the capacity, including equipping staff to manage the risks presented by this
type of profile, to provide access to planned and effective interventions and
programmes on a regular and consistent basis across the estate.

2.6 It is important to emphasise that the review is not a cost saving exercise. It is
aimed at supporting Areas and Committees in modernising the infrastructure
of approved premises so as to achieve better outcomes, and make a more
consistent contribution to public protection through the delivery of effective
interventions. Success will also enable approved premises to demonstrate
their contribution to the achievement of excellence across the organisation.

3. FINANCE AND FUNDING ISSUES

3a) REVIEW
3.1 Introduction: The current method of providing revenue grant for approved
premises was established in 1993. At present, under the current funding
formula, the grant for approved premises is made up of two main components
Core Grant and Bedspace Grant.

3.2 Core Grant is made up of a number of different elements. The main part is
the banding grant, based on how many bedspaces each approved premises has.
The bands are as follows -
• 17 bedspaces or less
• 18 to 24 beds
• 25 to 31 beds
• 32 to 38 beds
• 39 beds or more

6
3.3 A pension’s cost factor is added, which is different for each probation area.
The Head of NPD's Finance Unit calculates the annual pensions cost factor
using a national survey. A labour cost factor, using a similar method, is also
added for those approved premises sited in London or the South East

3.4 A number of supplements are also currently payable. These are as follows:
*Cluster supplement - payable to those premises that have cluster properties,
based on the number of cluster units.

*Female supplement - payable to premises that have female bedspaces. The


amount is different for female only premises and for mixed premises.

* A large hostel supplement - payable to approved premises that have more


than 38 beds in total – however, Westbourne House already receive an annual
additional amount of £34,000, as agreed by Home Office Ministers after they
were market tested in 1999. Therefore this supplement really only applies to
the 3 South Yorkshire approved premises.

*A supplement is also payable to the 12 voluntary managed approved


premises, in respect of the additional costs that they have to bear.

In addition, there are 2 approved premises, which currently specialise in


taking MDOs (mentally disordered offenders) and have entered into
agreements with local psychiatric hospitals for the provision of additional
services for residents. These premises receive banding grant at 2 bands higher
than they normally would for the number of bedspaces that they have.

3.5 Bedspace grant is paid in full on the assumption that all approved premises
will achieve the target 90% occupancy level. The occupancy levels are
reviewed after the end of each financial year. For approved premises that
have achieved less than the 90% occupancy target an adjustment is made and a
clawback will be taken from the following year's grant. Approved premises
regard this as an "occupancy grant penalty" for failure to achieve the target,
but this is not strictly the case. For premises which have achieved more than
90% occupancy during the previous year, a positive adjustment is made to the
grant. The bedspace grant replaced Housing Benefit and Flat Rate. These
were both claimed in respect of each bed filled and it seems logical to pay
bedspace grant on the same basis. With effect from April 2001, approved
premises have been 100% Home Office funded.

3.6 In 2003/04 the total budget available to approved premises for revenue
purposes was £49m. From this figure £14.4m is payable for the FM contract
(app. £8m for fixed price services, and £6.4m for EM and additional works),
leaving £34.6m for distribution to Areas and Management Committees.

3b PROPOSALS
3.7.1 Work was taken forward with the aim of achieving a more straightforward
funding mechanism and one that is more relevant to current and future needs.

7
The opportunity was also taken to revisit the thinking behind the 5
supplements that are presently paid, to see if these were still valid. The MDO
uplift was also reviewed.

3.8 This work has been done using the following steps -
a) Calculate residents income for the financial year 2003/04
b) Estimate average non-pay running costs
c) Calculate pay running costs, based on 2003/04 prices, on the basis of advice
from the HR subgroup
d) Consider what supplements, if any, should remain

3.9 Calculation of costs


3.9.1 Income
Table One (see Annex) shows the number of approved premises bedspaces at
the present time, split into core beds and cluster beds. Income from residents
maintenance charges was calculated, and came to approx. £1.7m (Table Two-
see Annex).

3.9.2 Non-Pay Running Costs


In order to calculate non-pay running costs, we looked only at core beds
throughout the approved premises sector. Table Three (see Annex) provides
the detail of how these costs have been estimated. To establish non-pay
running costs on an individual basis and then fund each approved premises
separately would be too cumbersome. Our approach seeks to establish an
average payment that could be applied across the whole estate, broken down
into premises with less than 18 beds and premises with 18 beds or more.

3.10 Using this method, average non-pay running costs are ((18 x £24380) plus (82
x £33220)). A total of £3.16m.

Explanatory note: The Annex with various tables is available separately as a supporting document.

3.11 Pay Running Costs


3.11.1 On pay costs, we have worked on the basis that a model staffing regime (See
Section 5 for further detail) would require 2.5 PSOs to deliver planned
interventions, while providing sufficient Supervisor grade staff (9) to be
responsible for the residential element and to achieve double waking cover.
We believe such a model, or something similar, would be suitable for over
80% of our approved premises (the 82 approved premises with 18 or more
bed-spaces). We have again worked on the basis that we need only look at
core sites, and fund cluster supplements differently. On this basis, the one
very large approved premise (Westbourne House) and all of the 18 premises
with less than 18 bed-spaces may well need some further consideration to take
account of extremes of size.

3.11.2 In order to provide indicative costs for the 2.5 PSOs and 9 Supervisors model,
a number of assumptions need to be made. The staffing regime (See section 5
for further detail) proposed would be one SPO/Manager (or probably half an
SPO/Manager for smaller premises), one PO deputy, a half time Admin
Officer, 2.5 PSOs, and nine Supervisors. It is possible to model a number of

8
other staffing regimes using these costs and there will be a debate to be had in
respect of the specific number and grades of staff that make up the
establishment. For comparative purposes, two options, model A (2 PSOs and 9
Supervisors) and Model B (2.5 PSOs and 9 Supervisors) are set out. Our
preferred option is Model B.

The process we have used to cost out the models are as follows -

a) ANNUAL HOURS REQUIRED & HOURS AVAILABLE


Explanatory note: This table has been used to identify the number of staff hours required to provide
double waking cover on an annual basis. It provides a baseline for the number of actual hours a
particular post or number of posts would provide, taking account of annual leave, training etc.

Supervisors (37 hrs pw 1 Post Deduct 9 Posts Deduct Totals


FTE)
Maximum hours pa 1924 17316
Annual Leave (25 days 185 1665
pa average)
8 Bank Holidays (at 120 1080
double time)
8 days training 60 540
Total deductions (365) (3285)
Hours available 1559 14031 14031

PSOs (37 hrs pw FTE) 1 Post Deduct 2 Posts Deduct Totals


Maximum hours pa 1924 3848
Annual Leave (25 days 185 370
pa average)
8 Bank Holidays 60 120
8 days training 60 120
Total deductions (305) (610)
Hours available 1619 3238 3238
TOTAL HOURS 17269
AVAILABLE
MAXIMUM HOURS 17520
TO BE COVERED
SHORTFALL 251 hours
NOMINAL AMOUNT 400 hours
FOR CONTINGENCY
(e.g. Sickness Absence)

*Using 3 PSO & 8 Supervisors would provide 17329 hours (shortfall 191 hours)
*Using 3 PSO & 9 Supervisors would provide 18888 hours (surplus 1388 hours)
*Using 2.5 PSO & 9 Supervisors would provide 18078 hours (Our Preference)
(surplus 809 hours)

9
b) STAFFING COSTS MATRIX (2003/04 prices)

SALARIES

Designation Spinal F/T 0.5 1 2 3 8 9


Column Salary
Point (w/o on
costs)
Senior 154 £31,965 15983 31965
Probation
Officer
Probation 141 £28,092 14046 28092
Officer
PSO 108 £20,217 10109 20217 40434 60651
Admin 100 £18,663 9332 18,663
Officer
Supervisor 78 £14,997 7499 14997 29994 44991 119976 134973

c) UNSOCIAL HOURS
In order to calculate this cost, we looked at what we pay now, using the assumption
that in most approved premises we provide double staff cover at night, with one
awake, usually a supervisor and one asleep, usually an assistant manager.

This works out as follows:


1 x 9 hours x 365 x £2.60 = £8541
plus 1 x 365 x Sleep-in rate (£34) = £12,410
total £20,951
Explanatory note: The figure of 9 hours is used, because work between 10pm and 7am must be paid at time and a
third. SCP 78 hourly rate = £7.79; one third rate = £2.60. Therefore additional cost of one supervisor working
between 10:00am and 7:00am is £8541. The £34 is paid to the sleeping member of staff and costs £12,410 per
annum. We have used an assumed sleep-in payment rate of £34 per night.

In the proposed model, we need to provide double waking cover – with the following
unsocial hours payment:
2 x 9 hours x 365 x £2.60 = £17,082

Explanatory note: The figure of 9 hours is used, because work between 10pm and 7am must be paid at time and a
third. SCP 78 hourly rate =£7.79; one third rate = £2.60. Two supervisors working between 10:00am and 7:00am
would therefore cost £17082 in unsocial hours payments.

d) BANK HOLIDAYS
Supervisors - 72 hours x £7.79 x 8 = £4,487

Explanatory note: It is 72 hours because this will be the total number of supervisor hours required on a Bank
Holiday for 8 Bank Holidays. This is derived from being paid double time for a 12 hour shift (24 hours) plus
receiving TOIL (36 hours), which needs to be taken into account. In order to provide double cover this is 72 hours

e) ADDITIONAL HOURS/OVERTIME/RELIEF

10
Plain time Overtime
251 hours 7.79 11.69
£1955 £2935 £2,935

f) CONTINGENCY
Plain time Overtime
400 hours 7.79 11.69
£3116 £4676 £4,676

g) TOTAL PAY COSTS - Model A: 2 and 9 Model B: 2.5 and 9

1 SPO/Mger £31,965 1 SPO/Mger £31,965


1 PO £28,092 1 PO £28.092
1 P/T Admin Officer £9,332 1 P/T Admin £9,332
2 PSOs £40,434 2.5 PSOs £50,543
9 Supervisors £134,973 £244,796 9 Supvisors £134,973 £254,905

UNSOCIAL HOURS £17,082 UNSOCIAL £17,082


BANK HOLIDAYS £4,487 BANK H £4,487
OVERTIME £2,935 N/A
CONTINGENCY £4,676 £29,180 N/A £21,569

TOTAL £273,976 £276,474


Plus Average 18% On Costs £49,316 £49,764

TOTAL PAY COSTS £323,292 326,238

Model B (our preference) is marginally more expensive for Areas, but seeks to avoid
built in overtime and contingency payments to meet any shortfall in covering planned
hours. In both models, although a FTE SPO/Manager post is identified and costed,
we believe that Areas will want to deploy their middle management resources
according to local operational circumstances. It will continue to be appropriate for
Areas to make a judgement as to the amount of middle manager resource that is
required at each premise.

3.12 NEED FOR CONTINUING SUPPLEMENTS

3.12.1 As discussed in more detail below, we believe that 2 supplements need to be


retained. These are Cluster Supplement and Voluntary Managed Approved
Premises Supplement.

3.12.2 Cluster Supplement


The costings above have been based only on core beds, but we recognise that
there are additional costs involved in managing cluster properties. The cluster
supplement was never paid to solely meet the costs of rents imposed by the
landlords. It was to recognise that there would be additional costs in terms of

11
staff having to travel to make visits there, and other things such as
maintenance costs (which are now be covered by the FM contract).
The supplements for this financial year (03/04) are as follows;

1 or 2 cluster properties (not bedspaces) - £6,200


3 or 4 cluster properties £9,300
5 or more properties £12,400

Our approach has been to deduct the cluster bedspaces from the total
bedspaces of each approved premises, and to make the initial calculation for
paying grant on the basis of the number of staff needed to manage core beds.
Then, for those approved premises which have cluster properties, an additional
amount will be factored in for this, depending on how many units are
managed. We have costed this on the basis of one fifth of a full-time PSO
salary (including on costs) at SCP 108. This gives a cost per cluster of £4771.

3.12.3 Voluntary approved premises supplement


The 12 voluntary managed approved premises do not have a headquarters
body of staff to provide support in the same way that a probation area
managed approved premises might have. They also do not have the same
economies of scale. It also needs to be recognised that there are some
additional costs that are borne by the voluntary managed approved premises,
particularly in respect of FM services. Therefore, we intend to maintain a
supplement but on a short term basis. We propose to do some further work to
establish the actual level of support that should be provided to the voluntary
managed premises.

3.12.4 We have therefore estimated £15,000 per annum for these costs in year 05/06.

3.12.5 Female supplement (mixed and female only) - Background papers from the
Hostels Funding Working Group that met in 1993 disclose the following
information about the decision to introduce a female supplement to the grant -
“We have come to the conclusion that we do need to provide an incentive to
run female spaces and that these places are more expensive, because of lower
occupancy and lower collection of resident contributions.”

3.12.6 In other words, the reason for providing a female supplement was simply to
give approved hostels extra money to cover the loss of income they would
suffer from having empty bed-spaces. This does not seem a good basis on
which to justify the case for having an additional supplement. We are also
aware of anecdotal evidence which suggests that many probation areas simply
add the female supplement to the rest of the grant and distribute it amongst all
approved premises in that area. Therefore the female supplement is not, as far
as we know, being spent on any additional needs that women may or may not
have.

3.12.7 Nevertheless it could be argued that women in the criminal justice system do
indeed have additional needs. There is certainly some evidence that suggests,
for example, that they may have greater healthcare needs. The question then

12
arises as to whether or not the criminal justice system should be paying to
meet these needs. Residents of approved premises are ordinary members of
the community, and are entitled to healthcare in the same way as any other
members of the community. At this stage we are not persuaded of the need to
continue with a female supplement. The Approved Premises Strategy provides
further guidance on how the female estate may be developed.

3.14 Additional Factors

3.14.1 Probation areas with Central Management Units - Some probation areas have
central units that fulfil various functions, including recruitment,
administration, staffing, referrals, allocation, collection and collation of
statistics, and so on. There will always be the argument that of such units
need additional funding. Given the potential that these areas have to benefit
from economies of scale in deploying their overall budget, along with the
availability of HQ resources, we do not propose an additional payment. Areas
may also wish to consider whether or not a regional approach on a range of
approved premises matters, would offer even greater benefits of efficiency and
effectiveness.

3.14.2 Large approved premises supplement - This was introduced for the first time
for the financial year 2000/2001. It is for those approved premises which have
more than 38 bedspaces, and is currently only payable to the three approved
premises in the South Yorkshire probation area. The total bedspaces in South
Yorkshire are as follows -
Norfolk Park - 40 beds
Rookwood - 39 beds
Town Moor - 39 beds

However, if one were only to look at bedspaces on the core sites the following
picture emerges -
Norfolk Park - 31 beds
Rookwood - 24 beds
Town Moor - 18 beds

3.14.3 The amended funding formula will meet the needs of these 3 large approved
premises. We propose to fund the core beds in the main formula and fund the
cluster beds as set out at 3.12.2 above.

3.14.4 GP Services - The Approved Premises Handbook makes it clear that


Regulation 16 places a duty on managing bodies to ensure that all residents
have access to necessary medical and dental treatment. It is also states that
while there is no statutory requirement for Approved Premises to appoint a
Medical Officer, or contract with one General Practitioner to look after all the
residents in the Approved Premises, it can sometimes be helpful to do so.

3.14.5 We wish to avoid situations whereby someone arriving at an approved


premises faces a lengthy delay before being registered with a GP. However,
that having been said, we see no real reason why approved premises should

13
have to pay for GP services. The Department of Health have confirmed that
residents of approved premises are members of the community, and are
entitled to be registered with a GP to receive “general medical services” free
under the NHS, in the same way as other members of the community. At
present, there is a wide range of practice across the estate. Some premises
receiving free services, others pay fees to GP’s ranging from £700 to £7000.

3.14.6 Taking account of the various factors, we propose that payment for GP
services from NPD revenue should be phased out with effect from 1/10/05. If
any approved premises are receiving "enhanced GP services" for their
residents, and wish this to continue, it should be done by way of a formal
contract, and with the knowledge of the local health Primary Care Trust.
Depending on the range of enhanced services provide to the premises,
payment should be met through other Health Service revenue streams (e.g.
DATs etc.) and negotiated locally. The Department of Health have issued a
Circular setting out the fees and allowances payable to doctors for sessional
work (Advance Letter (MD) 2/02 dated 21 June 2002). NPD in discussion
with Department of Health colleagues will seek to develop further guidance
for Areas on the provision of GP services via PCTs.

3.14.7 Mentally Disordered Offenders Approved Premises – The Approved


Premises and Offender Housing Strategy will set out the policy position in
regard to the future requirement for specialist provision. There are two
approved premises that offer specialist MDO services. These are Elliott
House in West Midlands and St Josephs in Greater Manchester (until recently
a similar service was also offered at Canadian Avenue in London). In effect
this means that they receive additional mental health services, either for free
or through local PCT funding. At present, the two approved premises also
receive enhanced revenue funding from NPD through payment at two bands
above what they would normally receive for their number of bedspaces. If
such specialist services are to continue, we believe the cost of the “specialist”
element of the service should be met by the specialist provider, in this case the
Health Service. This should be done, via the local PCT or through some
convenient mutual arrangement between neighbouring PCTs who benefit from
the service. It is therefore proposed that the current arrangements end.

3.15 FUNDING PROPOSALS - CONCLUSION.


In summary, the proposed amendments to the funding formula outlined
above will provide a more transparent method of funding for approved
premises. They give clarity and direction in regard to how revenue funding
should be spent; providing Areas with a budget that is designed to purchase
the resources that are necessary to deliver effective and enhanced supervision
within approved premises, while contributing to improved public protection.
The proposals are sufficiently flexible to meet staffing requirements arising
from the approved premises pathfinder and to aid the delivery of the strategic
framework for approved premises. In summary, the current banding system
would be replaced. Revenue grant would consist of a payment based on the
staffing model, plus a payment for non-pay running costs, and the pension

14
costs factor. Where appropriate, London weighting, cluster supplement and
voluntary approved premises supplement would be paid.

4. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
4a) REVIEW
Performance Indicators

Performance link
4.1 Whatever alterations are made to the formula, we wish to retain an element of
performance link. At present the grant is split into core grant and bedspace
grant. The bedspace grant element is around 32% of this year's total grant.
One way to continue to ensure some element of performance linking would be
to take, say 20% of the total grant, and make the full payment of this element
dependant on performance achievement. Performance could be measured over
a range of factors - not just on occupancy as at present. For example, risk as
measured by OASys or occupancy weighted toward public protection cases.
We believe that a straight forward occupancy target should be retained but
differential targets will be set for female provision, with the intention of
driving up occupancy and performance. The development of performance
targets will also need to be aligned with the emerging approved premises and
offender housing strategy and take into account any issues from the
Pathfinder. In due course, performance measures and quality standards will be
developed for approved premises. These are likely to become the key
determinant of a performance link rather than the current concentration on
occupancy.

4b) PROPOSALS
In due course, further work linked to the Approved Premises and Offender
Housing Strategy for Higher Risk Offenders and the learning from the
Pathfinder, will lead to the development of a much broader range of
performance standards that will be applied across the estate.

5. HUMAN RESOURCES
5a) REVIEW
5.1 There are 100 approved premises scattered unevenly in 37 of the 42 Probation
Areas. There are over 40 employers, taking a variety of approaches to staffing
approved premises and to the associated human resources issues. General
guidance to employers is provided via the NNC “White Book” Conditions of
Service Handbook. However it is clear that in the implementation of these
conditions, variations of practice have developed. “Local Government Codes
& Conditions” continue to be applied in one or two situations.

5.2 This situation has led to a differential treatment of staff carrying out very
similar roles. Various job titles exist for the same or similar jobs. Assistant
Manager, Residential Services Officer, PSO Hostels, Assistant Warden are
titles very much describing a single role. Differentials also exist in respect of
the pay scales that these posts attract, with a top of the scale spread of at least
point 103 to point 115. (Consolidation also applies in some Areas, further
complicating matters). The majority of this grade of staff is on FT equivalent

15
contracts, and works a shift pattern. The primary purpose of the role is to
engage with offenders resident in the premises and be responsible for the daily
running of the premises. This direct work with offenders can often prove
difficult to fulfil. There are the demands of shift work, and on a daily basis the
grade is often drawn toward meeting the immediacy of demands from the
residential function, at the expense of planned interventions. Assistant
Managers are often expected to plug all the gaps and meet all the needs that
arise in their shift, whether or not these are offender focused or are more
concerned with the residential function and the provision of a safe
environment.

5.3 There are similar inconsistencies in respect of the Supervisor grade. These
posts are deployed in various ways but usually in support of the “residential
function” of the premises. The post can be used to provide daytime double
cover, waking night, sleeping night, weekend, early evening cover and so on.
Sometimes, the staff may have a role in one to one work or support groupwork
and other activities with offenders. Often, these posts have contracted hours
that are less than the FT equivalent, for example some supervisors only work
at weekends or in providing night cover. While there can be some short term
benefits to this type of role particularly on flexibility, given the very varied
and individualised work patterns, it is extremely difficult to provide
supervision, support, training or career development opportunities. This can
lead to some supervisors being isolated and not fully integrated into the
approved premises structures. The spread of scale is generally around point
57 to point 75, although consolidated allowances in some areas distort the
picture.

5.4 Over the years, the role of bursars, admin officers, clerical officers, and other
support roles have developed locally. Most approved premises will currently
have a dedicated person responsible for the general day to day admin
functions. For some premises, HQ resources may supplement these functions,
and in others, particularly the larger Areas/larger voluntary providers, there
may be a central admin/management unit.

5.5 During the last five years, the amount of work falling under this heading has
reduced considerably and will continue to do so. Housing benefit claims and
all that accompanied these are no longer necessary. The increasing role of IT
along with the growing confidence and capability of generic staff to use and
benefit from these systems has reduced the demand on admin colleagues.
While there is still some way to go to fully realise the potential of the FM
contract, it will, in due course, deliver significant savings in respect of the
admin functions within an approved premise. In Board managed premises, the
recruitment and selection process for manual, catering and domestic staff has
already gone, as has the direct supervision of this group of staff, food
ordering, stock control and so on.

5.6 In regard to the role of SPO/Manager, over recent years, the offender profile
has changed, staff have gained different skills and the function of the approved
premises will have evolved to delivering a model of enhanced supervision and

16
a greater involvement in public protection issues etc. However, while specific
tasks may have changed, essentially, the role of the SPO/Manager in
providing overall management and leadership to the unit remains the same. It
will also continue to be appropriate for Areas to make a judgement as to the
amount of middle manager time that is required at each premise.

5.7 The majority of premises have at least one Probation Officer on site. Their
role provides the professional advice on all matters relating to the resident
group, including referrals, risk assessment, supervision planning, practice
management etc. In many cases they will be responsible for the supervision of
the Assistant Manager grade. The Probation Officer will be supported and
managed by the SPO and will normally act as the Deputy Manager and as
Manager in the absence of the SPO/Manager. The Probation Officer will
usually act as the conduit between the premises and the fieldwork office(case
manager) on risk management issues, supervision planning, National
Standards and MAPPA arrangements etc.

5b) PROPOSALS

5.8 That a new national HR framework be developed for approved premises. The
principles are based on separating the delivery of what can be termed
residential services, from those that are concerned with planned criminal
justice interventions, into two distinct work streams. Residential services will
primarily be delivered through the Admin Officer and the AP Supervisor staff,
supported by FM arrangements. This work will encompass all those tasks that
are vital to the safe and smooth running of the premises, but are not concerned
with the delivery of planned work/interventions to the resident group.
Criminal Justice Interventions will be the responsibility of the Practice
Manager and the PSO (AP) staff. This separation of the residential services
from interventions will enable the PSO grade to concentrate on the delivery of
interventions and services to the offender group so as to best meet their risk
and needs profile. The PSO work will be guided by the supervision plan and
risk management plan. This approach will ensure that the relevant knowledge
and skills base is available to meet the requirements of the resident group,
while providing and encouraging career development for individual PSO’s.
Draft model job descriptions are available for the PSO(AP) and Supervisor
posts. Both work streams will be led, managed and supported by a
SPO/Manager. Given the nature of residential work, it is accepted that there
will always be the need for a degree of overlap between all roles

5.9 It is proposed that NPS Areas take forward work locally so as to achieve an
approved premises HR structure based on a standard establishment. This will
consist of a Manager, a Practice Manager/Deputy (PO Grade), a half time
Admin Officer, nine AP Supervisors and 2.5 PSO (Approved Premises). There
will need to be some adjustments for very small units and the one very large
unit. It is acknowledged that NPD is not the employing body and will need to
work with and support Boards and Committees, to demonstrate to them the
benefits that will accrue from adopting the new national model.

17
5.10 A simple representation of the model:

Approved Premises Unit Manager (SPO or equivalent)

Practice Manager /Quality


Assurance (PO Grade)

2.5 PSOs (Approved Premises)

Admin officer(part time)


9 Approved Premises Supervisors

5.11 The proposed model will have the following characteristics:


• Provide double cover at all times
• Provide double waking cover during night time hours
• End the practice of staff sleeping in
• Remove the role of Assistant Manager
• Introduce the role of PSO(approved premises) as day work staff
• Introduce the concept of core hours for Approved Premises (linked to Pay&
Rewards work)
• PSO(AP) to be an integral part of the Area PSO resource
• PSO (AP) to have a direct role in undertaking offence focussed work/planned
interventions with offenders so as to more clearly demonstrate enhanced
supervision in the community.
• Defining and developing the AP Supervisor role. Will be restructured to have
a much clearer focus on the residential services aspect of approved premises.
• AP Supervisors will be skilled to deal with crises but will not have a role in
delivering planned interventions. They will be expected to deliver some of the
routine admin work.
• AP Supervisors will provide double cover, including waking night time,
outside core hours.
• Reduce current admin and clerical posts.
• Within the NNC structure establish a new/redefined set of national HR codes
and conditions for approved premises residential staff.
• Identify core/key elements of training for respective grades.
• Provide new national model job descriptions for SPO/Manager, Practice
Manager/Deputy (PO Grade), Admin Officer, PSO (AP), and AP Supervisor.
Initial drafts have been completed and shared with NPD HR, Trades Unions
and PBA.
• Submit national model job descriptions to the Job Evaluation Scheme.
• Establish the principle of secondment to Approved premises for all staff.

18
• Develop the role of the Practice Manger to deliver the quality assurance
function.

5.12 Additional factors –


5.12.1 The new structure will enable approved premises, primarily through the role
of the PO Deputy, to bring a much stronger focus to issues of quality and
public protection in respect of interventions with the resident group. New
performance standards and quality assurance processes along with learning
from the Pathfinder will drive this forward.

5.12.2 AP Supervisor staff will be deployed on a shift work basis including night-
time shifts and working to codes and conditions for staff in residential homes.
All other staff will be day work staff, required to work flexibly and working to
general national codes and conditions.

5.12.3 For AP Supervisors it is intended to explore the possibility of interchange


between similar ECP graded staff.

5.12.4 The end of sleeping in shifts in approved premises. This recognises the need to
give greater attention to health and safety issues, a factor emphasized by the
recent publication of the National Health and Safety Policy Manual which was
developed in conjunction with representatives from Areas, the Trades Unions
and PBA. It will ensure that the resident group and the staff are afforded a safe
and secure environment at all times of the day or night. It also ensures
appropriate oversight is in place, to meet the developing role of approved
premises in providing risk management placements and enhanced supervision.

5.12.5 It is acknowledged that there will be implications for staff that lose their
sleep–in allowance. National and local negotiation will be needed on this
matter. Protection could be made available by some Areas for varying periods
of time, but ideally, we would seek to achieve a coherent approach nationally
via the NNC.

5.12.6 We estimate that at least 50 bedspaces for residents could be added to the total
national bed numbers, by eliminating staff sleep in rooms. This would be the
equivalent of two new approved premises, and represent a significant saving
of capital finance, in the order of £4.0m (and the revenue resources normally
expended in developing new premises along with annual revenue cost of two
premises of about £0.75m).

5.12.7 The proposed framework will lead to a more consistent approach across the
approved premises estate on all HR matters, including codes and conditions.
Codes and Conditions for residential work will need to be reviewed and
revised through the NNC as part of the Pay and Rewards work.

5.12.8 The development of the AP Supervisor role will bring a wide range of benefits
to both the staff group and the management and delivery of services in the
premises.

19
• It will enable the employment of FT equivalent posts that are solely dedicated
to approved premises work.
• The numbers of staff will be sufficient to provide for a proper training and
staff development process to be developed. There will be greater potential for
regional and national dimensions.
• The potential to develop in the supervisor role through interchange with ECP
staff and other similarly graded posts.
• Greater clarity of role and purpose.
• Parity of pay and conditions for staff undertaking the same tasks.
• Sufficient staff resource to enable compliance with the European Working
Time Directive.

5.12.9 The restructuring of the current Assistant Manager role to that of PSO(AP) on
a day work basis, will undoubtedly create a range of issues and anxieties
within the grade. However, it will bring the role into the mainstream of
probation practice, providing the staff group with a wide variety of
opportunities to develop in role and gain new skills and experiences which can
only benefit the resident group and ultimately their own career development.
The current staffing and rota arrangements, allied to the unceasing residential
services demands, often prevent the most committed of AM staff from being
able to deliver and engage offenders in planned and effective interventions.
The new structure will enable them to have this focus and bring with it, real
opportunity to work in a planned and pro-active manner with a very
demanding and challenging resident group. We believe the restructuring of the
role is achievable without any job losses, through integration over time, into
Area PSO establishments.

5.12.10The need for dedicated whole time clerical and admin posts within approved
premises is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. There is no longer a
purchasing or stock control function. Recruitment, selection and management
of manual and domestic staff has been lost with the FM contract. Managing
housing benefit claims has disappeared and there is much less local input into
day to day budget and finance matters. The benefits of IT are becoming more
apparent. The skills of generic staff are increasing to the point that many are
proficient in working with a range of computer based systems. The growth of
technology along with the skills and abilities of a modern 21st century
workforce, will continue to make inroads into clerical and admin tasks. At the
same time, delivery of the FM contract to specification will ultimately free up
operational and support staff to devote more time to the core tasks of enhanced
supervision and direct interventions with the resident group. It is
acknowledged that the introduction of the FM contract has presented a range
of issues to staff and made significant additional demands upon their time
during the transition period, but as these are resolved the benefits of the
contract should be further realised.

5.12.11The new structure, in recognising this process, seeks to re-deploy the admin
resource to a position in which it is more clearly delivering active support to
the core tasks. As ever, the transition period will be the most difficult to
manage, but it is a route we must follow if we are to be part of an organisation

20
that demonstrates excellence in delivery. There are currently a variety of
support type roles within approved premises. The staff will have a broad range
of skills, knowledge, competence and experience that will be welcomed and
integrated into other units within an Area and thus change should be
achievable without any job losses.

5.12.12It is acknowledged that within the HR proposals, there are issues and
perspectives from the Voluntary Managed premises that need to be understood
and integrated. NNC codes and conditions do not apply to Voluntary Managed
premises, although some Committees use them as a baseline. Secondment
policies will vary and many Voluntary Management Committees may not have
the flexibility, size or scope to easily adapt their HR strategies. Work will
continue on this aspect via colleagues in NAPBH and from the Voluntary
Managed sector.

5.12.13We are conscious that the review has already created a degree of uncertainty
and anxiety for staff in approved premises. The proposed changes are
significant and will have a real impact on the working arrangements in
approved premises. However, we believe that the HR proposals allied to the
other changes identified within this document offer the opportunity for
approved premises to position themselves as a quality resource and to be
capable of meeting any future challenges from contestability. They will be at
the forefront of delivering enhanced supervision in the community in a manner
which increases community safety and public protection, while improving the
likelihood of the successful rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders.

6. INFORMATION AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY


6a) REVIEW

6.1 This is an interim position that seeks to identify proposals to the Project Board
that are capable of delivery in the short term, while awaiting future national
developments through NOMIS.

6.2 Development of an ‘approved premises occupancy/vacancy system’


There are two projects related to this deliverable. One is the provision of a
regional data collection system; the second is the supply of a regional vacancy
list to courts and other potential referrers on a daily basis.
Currently, national data is collected through a manual system called H1 form.
Its reports provided information on occupancy and successful completions that
are the current SPMs. The data is rarely used for other purposes, as it is not on
an electronic system. Currently the NPS does not have information on
race/gender of admissions, the risk status, length of stay and destination on
departure. This data could be collected electronically and would enable
regions to provide NPD with up-to-date occupancy and performance
information. It would enable the NPD to have information on the number of
MAPPA level 3 cases admitted to approved premises and provide information
to the centre on bed availability. There will need to be further work to see if
other data needs to be collected as part of this system including number of

21
referrals, risk status of those admitted etc., as well work to develop a full
specification.
An element of the ‘occupancy system’ could be a regional vacancy database.
Approved premises would enter the number of vacancies they would have
onto regional system. Court officers and case managers could then log on the
following day to see where the vacancies were and make appropriate referrals.
The system would generate information on the number of vacancies and take-
up rates. The interface with e-OASys would need to be explored to ensure that
the same data is not being collected twice.

6.3. Development of approved premises performance measures and quality


standards.
Performance measures should be developed and integrated into new quality
standards. This will need to be delivered initially via a paper based system.
The measures and standards could included the following;
• Changes in OASys risk categorization during hostel residence
• LIHMO completions
• Basic skills awards (KPM 2)
• Motivational interviewing interventions
• Pro Social Modelling
• Partnership usage and outcomes
• Residents perceptions (quality measures)
• Monitoring & surveillance (measures the monitoring and surveillance
regime is implemented for individual offenders)
• Daily bed availability
• Levels of attrition and completions of accredited. Programmes.
• MAPPA
• Referrals/needs/admissions/leavers
• OASys data for monitoring of assessments
• Staff training attendance/qualification data

Local and Regional audit using the measures and standards and conducted on
an bi-annual basis would establish a base line of performance across the
estate. Achievement of performance would be reported to the centre.

7.0 NEXT STEPS

7.1 For implementation purposes, it will be possible to split the work into two
streams Finance and HR.. Although there are clear linkages, neither stream is
dependent upon the other; however Finance and HR are inextricably linked and
need to be pursued together. A number of Areas have already started to move
down the path of restructuring their staffing resources in approved premises.
Future delivery on the HR issues in particular will need to continue on an Area
basis, so as to fit into overall HR strategies and to take account of a wide range
of local factors, including the number of premises, staff turnover, contracts of
employment, economies of scale etc.

22
7.2 Implementation of the Finance workstream would not be expected to impact
before April 2006. There would then need to be a further significant period to
allow Areas, Boards and Committees to work with staff and their
representatives, so as to realign approved premises structures to accord with
any new framework.

7.3 The outcome of the Pay & Rewards review may have an influence on
implementation.
20/09/2004

23
TABLE ONE - Bedspaces in core and cluster sites - also showing number of approved premises No. of hostels No of CORE
Bedspaces as at October 2003 with this beds in
TOTAL CORE number of beds each hostel
PROBATION AREA APPROVED PREMISES BEDS BEDS Diff
10 beds - 1 10 beds - 1
AVON & SOMERSET ASHLEY HOUSE (Mixed) 22 16 6 11 beds - 1 11 beds - 1
AVON & SOMERSET BRIDGE HOUSE 18 12 6 12 beds - 2 12 beds - 4
AVON & SOMERSET BRIGSTOCK ROAD 28 28 13 beds - 0 13 beds - 0
AVON & SOMERSET GLOGAN HOUSE 16 16 14 beds - 1 14 beds - 3
BEDFORDSHIRE BEDFORD (Mixed) 22 22 15 beds - 1 15 beds - 2
BEDFORDSHIRE NAPIER ROAD 20 20 16 beds - 4 16 beds - 6
CAMBRIDGESHIRE PETERBOROUGH 29 29 17 beds - 0 17 beds - 1
CHESHIRE BUNBURY HOUSE 22 22 18 beds - 17 18 beds - 13
CHESHIRE LINDEN BANK (Mixed) 22 22 19 beds - 9 19 beds - 8
CUMBRIA BOWLING GREEN (Mixed) 24 24 20 beds - 7 20 beds - 7
DERBYSHIRE BURDETT LODGE (Mixed) 26 26 21 beds - 2 21 beds - 2
DEVON & CORNWALL LAWSON HOUSE (Mixed) 19 19 22 beds - 15 22 beds - 16
DEVON & CORNWALL MENEGHY HOUSE (Mixed) 18 18 23 beds - 3 23 beds - 2
DORSET THE PINES 18 15 3 24 beds - 6 24 beds - 7
DORSET WESTON (Mixed) 25 25 25 beds - 7 25 beds - 7
ESSEX BASILDON 26 26 26 beds - 7 26 beds - 7
GLOUCESTERSHIRE RYECROFT (Mixed) 16 16 27 beds - 3 27 beds - 2
GREATER LONDON HESTIA BATTERSEA 10 10 28 beds - 2 28 beds - 2
GREATER LONDON HESTIA STREATHAM 25 25 29 beds - 4 29 beds - 4
GREATER LONDON KATHERINE PRICE HUGHES 19 19 30 beds - 1 30 beds - 0
GREATER LONDON KELLEY HOUSE 21 21 31 beds - 0 31 beds - 1
GREATER LONDON BECKENHAM ROAD 20 20 32 beds - 3 32 beds - 3
GREATER LONDON CAMDEN HOUSE 26 26 33 beds - 0 33 beds - 0
GREATER LONDON CANADIAN AVENUE (MDO) 24 24 34 beds - 0 34 beds - 0
GREATER LONDON EALING 18 18 35 beds - 0 35 beds - 0
GREATER LONDON ELLISON HOUSE 25 25 36 beds - 0 36 beds - 0
GREATER LONDON KEW 22 22 37 beds - 0 37 beds - 0
GREATER LONDON SEAFIELD LODGE (Mixed) 20 20 38 beds - 0 38 beds - 0
GREATER LONDON TULSE HILL 29 29 39 beds - 2 39 beds - 0
GREATER LONDON WESTBOURNE HOUSE 40 40 40 beds - 1 40 beds - 1
41 beds - 0 41 beds - 0
42 beds - 0 42 beds - 0
43 beds - 0 43 beds - 0
44 beds - 1 44 beds - 0

Page 1
GTR MANCHESTER ASCOT HOUSE 22 22
GTR MANCHESTER BRADSHAW HOUSE 26 26
GTR MANCHESTER CHORLTON 27 27
GTR MANCHESTER HOPWOOD HOUSE 18 14 4
GTR MANCHESTER ST JOSEPHS (MDO) 29 29
GTR MANCHESTER WILTON PLACE 27 27
GTR MANCHESTER WITHINGTON ROAD 32 32
HAMPSHIRE DICKSON HOUSE 18 18
HAMPSHIRE SOUTHAMPTON (Mixed) 22 22
HAMPSHIRE THE GRANGE 22 22
HUMBERSIDE QUEENS ROAD 19 19
HUMBERSIDE SCUNTHORPE 19 19
KENT FLEMING HOUSE (Mixed) 25 25
LANCASHIRE HAWORTH HOUSE 26 26
LANCASHIRE HIGHFIELD HOUSE (Mixed) 22 22
LEICESTERSHIRE & RUTLAND HOWARD HOUSE 11 11
LEICESTERSHIRE & RUTLAND KIRK LODGE (Mixed) 32 32
LINCOLNSHIRE WORDSWORTH HOUSE 18 18
MERSEYSIDE ADELAIDE HOUSE 20 20
MERSEYSIDE CANNING HOUSE 12 12
MERSEYSIDE MERSEYBANK 24 24
MERSEYSIDE SOUTHWOOD 29 29
NORFOLK JOHN BOAG HOUSE (Mixed) 25 22 3
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE BRIDGEWOOD 23 18 5
NORTHUMBRIA OZANAM HOUSE 27 25 2
NORTHUMBRIA ST CHRISTOPHERS 19 17 2
NORTHUMBRIA CUTHBERT HOUSE (Mixed) 25 22 3
NORTHUMBRIA PENNYWELL 18 16 2
NORTH WALES PLAS-Y-WERN (Mixed) 23 23
NORTH WALES TY NEWYDD (Mixed) 23 23
NORTH YORKSHIRE SOUTH VIEW 20 20
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ASTRAL GROVE 14 14
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE SOUTHWELL HOUSE (Mixed) 18 18
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE TRENT HOUSE (Mixed) 19 19

Page 2
SOUTH WALES QUAY HOUSE (Mixed) 30 25 5
SOUTH WALES MANDEVILLE HOUSE 26 26
SOUTH YORKSHIRE NORFOLK PARK (Mixed) 44 31 13
SOUTH YORKSHIRE ROOKWOOD 39 24 15
SOUTH YORKSHIRE TOWN MOOR 39 18 21
STAFFORDSHIRE STAITHEFORD HOUSE 18 12 6
STAFFORDSHIRE WENGER HOUSE (Mixed) 26 26
STAFFORDSHIRE WHARFLANE HOUSE 22 22
SUFFOLK LIGHTFOOT HOUSE (Mixed) 22 22
SUFFOLK THE COTTAGE 18 14 4
SURREY ST CATHERINE'S PRIORY 18 18
SUSSEX BRIGHTON (Mixed) 16 16
TEESSIDE NELSON HOUSE 22 22
TEESSIDE THE CRESCENT 20 20
THAMES VALLEY ELIZABETH FRY 21 21
THAMES VALLEY ABINGDON ROAD 18 18
THAMES VALLEY CLARKS HOUSE (Mixed) 18 18
THAMES VALLEY MANOR LODGE 22 22
THAMES VALLEY MILTON KEYNES 16 16
THAMES VALLEY ST LEONARDS 22 22
WARWICKSHIRE MCINTYRE HOUSE 18 18
WARWICKSHIRE KENILWORTH ROAD 19 19
WEST MERCIA BRALEY HOUSE (Mixed) 18 18
WEST MIDLANDS BILSTON 15 15
WEST MIDLANDS CARPENTER HOUSE 19 19
WEST MIDLANDS CROWLEY HOUSE 18 18
WEST MIDLANDS ELLIOTT HOUSE (MDO) 20 20
WEST MIDLANDS STONNALL ROAD 12 12
WEST MIDLANDS SYCAMORE LODGE 32 32
WEST MIDLANDS WELFORD HOUSE 19 19
WEST YORKSHIRE CARDIGAN HOUSE 25 25
WEST YORKSHIRE RIPON HOUSE (Mixed) 24 24
WEST YORKSHIRE ST JOHNS 28 28
WEST YORKSHIRE ALBION STREET 24 24
WEST YORKSHIRE ELM BANK 22 22
WEST YORKSHIRE HOLBECK HOSTEL 24 24

Totals 2238 2,138 100

Page 3
TABLE TWO - Income from residents maintenance charges - 2003/04 prices
Annual Annual Total
PROBATION AREA APPROVED PREMISES BEDS Self-cat Half-Board HB Income S/C Income Res Income
-£21.07 -£4.90
AVON & SOMERSET ASHLEY HOUSE 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
AVON & SOMERSET BRIDGE HOUSE 18 6 12 13147.68 1528.8 14676.48
AVON & SOMERSET BRIGSTOCK ROAD 28 28 30677.92 0 30677.92
AVON & SOMERSET GLOGAN HOUSE 16 16 17530.24 0 17530.24
BEDFORDSHIRE BEDFORD 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
BEDFORDSHIRE NAPIER ROAD 20 20 21912.8 0 21912.8
CAMBRIDGESHIRE PETERBOROUGH 29 5 24 26295.36 1274 27569.36
CHESHIRE BUNBURY HOUSE 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
CHESHIRE LINDEN BANK 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
CUMBRIA BOWLING GREEN 24 24 26295.36 0 26295.36
DERBYSHIRE BURDETT LODGE 26 26 28486.64 0 28486.64
DEVON & CORNWALL LAWSON HOUSE 19 4 15 16434.6 1019.2 17453.8
DEVON & CORNWALL MENEGHY HOUSE 18 18 19721.52 0 19721.52
DORSET THE PINES 18 3 15 16434.6 764.4 17199
DORSET WESTON 25 25 27391 0 27391
ESSEX BASILDON 26 26 28486.64 0 28486.64
GLOUCESTERSHIRE RYECROFT 16 16 17530.24 0 17530.24
GREATER LONDON HESTIA BATTERSEA 10 10 10956.4 0 10956.4
GREATER LONDON HESTIA STREATHAM 25 4 21 23008.44 1019.2 24027.64
GREATER LONDON KATHERINE PRICE HUGHES 19 19 0 4841.2 4841.2
GREATER LONDON KELLEY HOUSE 21 21 0 5350.8 5350.8
GREATER LONDON BECKENHAM ROAD 20 20 21912.8 0 21912.8
GREATER LONDON CAMDEN HOUSE 26 26 0 6624.8 6624.8
GREATER LONDON CANADIAN AVENUE 24 24 0 6115.2 6115.2
GREATER LONDON EALING 18 3 15 16434.6 764.4 17199
GREATER LONDON ELLISON HOUSE 25 25 27391 0 27391
GREATER LONDON KEW 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
GREATER LONDON SEAFIELD LODGE 20 20 0 5096 5096
GREATER LONDON TULSE HILL 29 29 31773.56 0 31773.56
GREATER LONDON WESTBOURNE HOUSE 40 8 32 35060.48 2038.4 37098.88

Page 1
GTR MANCHESTER ASCOT HOUSE 22 2 20 21912.8 509.6 22422.4
GTR MANCHESTER BRADSHAW HOUSE 26 2 24 26295.36 509.6 26804.96
GTR MANCHESTER CHORLTON 27 5 22 24104.08 1274 25378.08
GTR MANCHESTER HOPWOOD HOUSE 18 4 14 15338.96 1019.2 16358.16
GTR MANCHESTER ST JOSEPHS 29 29 31773.56 0 31773.56
GTR MANCHESTER WILTON PLACE 27 27 29582.28 0 29582.28
GTR MANCHESTER WITHINGTON ROAD 32 4 28 30677.92 1019.2 31697.12
HAMPSHIRE DICKSON HOUSE 18 18 19721.52 0 19721.52
HAMPSHIRE SOUTHAMPTON 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
HAMPSHIRE THE GRANGE 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
HUMBERSIDE QUEENS ROAD 19 19 20817.16 0 20817.16
HUMBERSIDE SCUNTHORPE 19 19 20817.16 0 20817.16
KENT FLEMING HOUSE 25 25 27391 0 27391
LANCASHIRE HAWORTH HOUSE 26 26 28486.64 0 28486.64
LANCASHIRE HIGHFIELD HOUSE 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
LEICESTERSHIRE & RUTLAND HOWARD HOUSE 11 11 12052.04 0 12052.04
LEICESTERSHIRE & RUTLAND KIRK LODGE 32 32 35060.48 0 35060.48
LINCOLNSHIRE WORDSWORTH HOUSE 18 18 19721.52 0 19721.52
MERSEYSIDE ADELAIDE HOUSE 20 20 21912.8 0 21912.8
MERSEYSIDE CANNING HOUSE 12 12 13147.68 0 13147.68
MERSEYSIDE MERSEYBANK 24 24 26295.36 0 26295.36
MERSEYSIDE SOUTHWOOD 29 29 31773.56 0 31773.56
NORFOLK JOHN BOAG HOUSE 25 3 22 24104.08 764.4 24868.48
NORTHAMPTONSHIRE BRIDGEWOOD 23 5 18 19721.52 1274 20995.52
NORTHUMBRIA OZANAM HOUSE 27 2 25 27391 509.6 27900.6
NORTHUMBRIA ST CHRISTOPHERS 19 2 17 18625.88 509.6 19135.48
NORTHUMBRIA CUTHBERT HOUSE 25 3 22 24104.08 764.4 24868.48
NORTHUMBRIA PENNYWELL 18 2 16 17530.24 509.6 18039.84
NORTH WALES PLAS-Y-WERN 23 6 17 18625.88 1528.8 20154.68
NORTH WALES TY NEWYDD 23 23 25199.72 0 25199.72
NORTH YORKSHIRE SOUTH VIEW 20 1 19 20817.16 254.8 21071.96
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE ASTRAL GROVE 14 14 15338.96 0 15338.96
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE SOUTHWELL HOUSE 18 18 0 4586.4 4586.4
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE TRENT HOUSE 19 19 20817.16 0 20817.16
SOUTH WALES QUAY HOUSE 30 5 25 27391 1274 28665
SOUTH WALES MANDEVILLE HOUSE 26 26 28486.64 0 28486.64
SOUTH YORKSHIRE NORFOLK PARK 44 13 31 33964.84 3312.4 37277.24
SOUTH YORKSHIRE ROOKWOOD 39 15 24 26295.36 3822 30117.36
SOUTH YORKSHIRE TOWN MOOR 39 21 18 19721.52 5350.8 25072.32

Page 2
STAFFORDSHIRE STAITHEFORD HOUSE 18 6 12 13147.68 1528.8 14676.48
STAFFORDSHIRE WENGER HOUSE 26 1 25 27391 254.8 27645.8
STAFFORDSHIRE WHARFLANE HOUSE 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
SUFFOLK LIGHTFOOT HOUSE 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
SUFFOLK THE COTTAGE 18 4 14 15338.96 1019.2 16358.16
SURREY ST CATHERINE'S PRIORY 18 18 0 4586.4 4586.4
SUSSEX BRIGHTON 16 16 17530.24 0 17530.24
TEESSIDE NELSON HOUSE 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
TEESSIDE THE CRESCENT 20 20 21912.8 0 21912.8
THAMES VALLEY ELIZABETH FRY 21 21 23008.44 0 23008.44
THAMES VALLEY ABINGDON ROAD 18 6 12 13147.68 1528.8 14676.48
THAMES VALLEY CLARKS HOUSE 18 18 0 4586.4 4586.4
THAMES VALLEY MANOR LODGE 22 22 0 5605.6 5605.6
THAMES VALLEY MILTON KEYNES 16 16 17530.24 0 17530.24
THAMES VALLEY ST LEONARDS 22 22 0 5605.6 5605.6
WARWICKSHIRE MCINTYRE HOUSE 18 18 19721.52 0 19721.52
WARWICKSHIRE KENILWORTH ROAD 19 19 20817.16 0 20817.16
WEST MERCIA BRALEY HOUSE 18 18 0 4586.4 4586.4
WEST MIDLANDS BILSTON 15 15 16434.6 0 16434.6
WEST MIDLANDS CARPENTER HOUSE 19 19 20817.16 0 20817.16
WEST MIDLANDS CROWLEY HOUSE 18 3 15 16434.6 764.4 17199
WEST MIDLANDS ELLIOTT HOUSE 20 20 21912.8 0 21912.8
WEST MIDLANDS STONNALL ROAD 12 12 13147.68 0 13147.68
WEST MIDLANDS SYCAMORE LODGE 32 32 35060.48 0 35060.48
WEST MIDLANDS WELFORD HOUSE 19 19 20817.16 0 20817.16
WEST YORKSHIRE CARDIGAN HOUSE 25 25 27391 0 27391
WEST YORKSHIRE RIPON HOUSE 24 2 22 24104.08 509.6 24613.68
WEST YORKSHIRE ST JOHNS 28 7 21 23008.44 1783.6 24792.04
WEST YORKSHIRE ALBION STREET 24 24 26295.36 0 26295.36
WEST YORKSHIRE ELM BANK 22 22 24104.08 0 24104.08
WEST YORKSHIRE HOLBECK HOUSE 24 24 26295.36 0 26295.36

2238 383 1,855 2032412.2 97588.4 2130000.6


2130000.6
CONCLUSION

So total resident income is £2,130,000.60 for the year 2003/2004 If we assume 90% occupancy, this becomes £1,917,001

If we then assume a further 10% reduction for bad debts, this becomes a total of £1,725,301. This is an average unit income of £771 per bedspace.

2164475.04 1948027.536
1753224.782
783.3890895

Page 3
Finance sub group

9% 9%
fte Designation scp Annual NI Super Total
1 SPO 154 31065 2796 2796 36657
1 PO 141 27300 2457 2457 32214
1 PSO 91 16587 1493 1493 19573
1 PSO 98 17607 1585 1585 20776
1 PSO 98 17607 1585 1585 20776
1 PSO 103 18696 1683 1683 22061
1 PSO 103 18696 1683 1683 22061
0.54 SUPV 71 7342 661 661 8664
0.73 SUPV 68 9634 867 867 11368
0.73 SUPV 71 9925 893 893 11712
0.73 SUPV 71 9925 893 893 11712
0.73 SUPV 75 10326 929 929 12185
0.73 SUPV 75 10326 929 929 12185
1 ADMIN 100 18183 1636 1636 21456

£250 Increments 2500 225 225 2950

SPO Standby 13080 1177 1177 15434


SPO Call out 4844 436 436 5716

PSO Bank hols 3732 336 336 4404


PSO addn payments 2340 211 211 2761

Unsocial hours
Overtime
Disturbance
SPO STAND-BY
Sessions Rate Cost NI SUPER TOTAL
9 sessions per week plus 8 Bank Holidays 436 30 13080 1177 1177 15434
Call-Outs estimated annual hours 200 24.22 4844 436 436 5716

PSO
Hours to be covered
1 f/t post 1924
29 days leave -215
8 Bank holidays -136
10 days Supv/Train -74
10 days Sick -74 -499

Hours available per fte 1425

5 PSOs unavailable hours 2495


57 days (285 total) of which estimates required for full or part shift cover.

Proposed rota can absorb absences without the need to cover full shifts and provide double cover.
We need to decide how much to allow for additional cover / overtime payments.

Hours Rate Total NI SUPER TOTAL


Overtime 300 14.58 4374 27 27 4428
Additional Hours 300 9.72 2916 27 27 2970

Hours Rate 1 1/5 cost 8 Bank hols NI SUPER TOTAL


BANK HOLIDAYS
Hours worked (4) 32 9.72 14.58 467 3732 336 336 4404
Misc Hours 100 9.72 972 87 87 1147
Overtime estimate 100 14.58 1458 131 131 1720

6162 555 555 7272

NIGHT SUPERVISORS
Hours to be covered
19 hours * 5 nights * 52 weeks 4940
20 hours * 2 nights * 52 weeks 2080 7020

Unsocial hours (2200 - 0700)


Total of 9 hours per night waking Rate 0.33 Cost NI SUPER TOTAL
8 shifts per month missed 461 * 9 4149 7.35 2.45 10165 915 915 11995

absences
disturbance
FM Contract costs allocated as £7500 per bedspace.
For the purpose of this exercise we shall ignore self catering,
female, cluster and other such supplements.

Non Salary costs.

The following are typical areas of expenditure:

u Maintenance items outside the scope of the contract that are passed back.

f Transport lump sum, essential and casual mileage, public transport,


subsistance and expenses.

u Furniture and Equip

f Photocopier

u Linen

f Meeting Expenses

u Printing and Stat.

u Postage

u Interpreter fees

f Telephones payphone rental, calls, system maintenance, fax maintenance.

u Resident Expenses travel, personal allowance, resident expenses.

f Interview expenses

f Medical fees

f Officer's telephone allowance

f Training

u Partnerships

Method of calculation, u = unit allowance; f = fixed.


TABLE THREE - Estimated non-pay running costs (based on core beds for all 100 approved premises

HEADING METHOD £ COMMENTS 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 39 40 44 Total


Maintenance u 150 items which are outside the scope of the FM contract 1500 1650 1800 2100 2250 2400 2550 2700 2850 3000 3150 3300 3450 3600 3750 3900 4050 4200 4350 4500 4650 4800 5850 6000 6600 88,950
Transport etc
Lump sum u 736 per essential user 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 1472 36,800
Essential mileage u 374 100 miles per essential user per month at 31.2 pence 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 748 18,700
Casual user mileage f 750 nominal 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 750 18,750
Public transport f 100 nominal 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2,500
Subsistance and expenses f 150 nominal 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 3,750

Furniture and Equipment u 250 nominal 2500 2750 3000 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 6750 7000 7250 7500 7750 8000 9750 10000 11000 148,250
Photocopier f 1000 nominal 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 25,000
Linen u 20 nominal 200 220 240 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640 780 800 880 11,860

Meeting expenses f 100 nominal 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2,500
Printing and Stationery u 50 nominal 500 550 600 700 750 800 850 900 950 1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400 1450 1500 1550 1600 1950 2000 2200 29,650
Postage u 10 nominal 100 110 120 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 390 400 440 5,930
Interpreter fees f 1000 nominal 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 25,000
Telephones f 1000 payphones, systems maintenance, fax maintenance 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 25,000

Resident expenses u 125 travel, personal allowance and resident expenses 1250 1375 1500 1750 1875 2000 2125 2250 2375 2500 2625 2750 2875 3000 3125 3250 3375 3500 3625 3750 3875 4000 4875 5000 5500 74,125

Interview expenses f 100 nominal 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 2,500
Medical fees f 4,500 NHS allowance for 3 hours per week 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
Officer's telephone allowance f 280 BT charge 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 280 7,000

Partnerships u 500 nominal 5000 5500 6000 7000 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 10000 10500 11000 11500 12000 12500 13000 13500 14000 14500 15000 15500 16000 19500 20000 22000 296,500

TOTAL COSTS 17750 18855 19960 22170 23275 24380 25485 26590 27695 28800 29905 31010 32115 33220 34325 35430 36535 37640 38745 39850 40955 42060 49795 50900 55320 822,765

Number of approved premises 1 1 4 3 2 6 1 13 8 7 2 16 2 7 7 7 2 2 4 0 1 3 0 1 0 100

NATIONAL COST 17750 18855 79840 66510 46550 146280 25485 345670 221560 201600 59810 496160 64230 232540 240275 248010 73070 75280 154980 0 40955 126180 0 50900 0 3,032,490

This table shows that when looking at core sites only then 81% of approved premises have between 18 and 32 bedspaces. Only 1 is larger than this. Also, 18 approved premises have less than 18 bedspaces.
STAFFING MATRIX

1. SALARIES

Designation Spinal Column Point Full Time Salary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Senior Probation Officer 154 31,065 31,065


Probation Officer 141 27,300 27,300 54,600
Admin Officer 100 18,138 18,138 36,276
PSO 103 18,696 18,696 37,392 56,088 74,784 93,480 112,176
Supervisor 75 14,145 14,145 28,290 42,435 56,580 70,725 84,870 99,015 113,160 127,305

2. UNSOCIAL HOURS

SCP 75 hourly rate 7.35


one third rate 2.45

365 nights * 9 hours * 2.45 * 2 staff 16,097

No of shifts not worked * ( 9 * 2.45)


eg 461 * 9 * 2.45 10,165 26,262

3.BANK HOLIDAYS
Need to determine No of hours worked on a Mon/Fri

eg PSO 25 hrs * 9.72 * 8 1,944


Supv 26 hrs * 7.35 * 8 1,529 3,473

4. ADDITIONAL HOURS / OVERTIME/ RELIEF

unable to work on this with a degree of accuracy until we have sample rotas and an establishment
One full time post provides 1924 hours less leave etc

Unavailable hours Days Hours


Leave 29 215
Training/ Supervision 10 74
Bank hols (4 PSOs) est 316

5. MANAGEMENT STAND-BY

Mon - Fri 260 sessions


Sat - Sun 104 sessions
Bank Hols 8 sessions
476 * rate (est 28.00) 13,328

6. CALL OUT
estimate 2 hours per week
approx £17 per hour * time and half 2,652