You are on page 1of 25

Human Resources

Workforce Profile
Report
Issue 1 November 2004
Introduction
CONTENTS
This is the first edition of the Workforce Profile Report for Introduction 1
the National Probation Service (NPS).
Supplementary Notes 2
The report provides a ‘snapshot’ look at the
demographic profile of the NPS workforce as at the 31 Diversity Profile
December 2003, and is based on information submitted
by each of the 42 Probation areas across the UK. Gender 2

It is intended that this report will be produced on an Ethnicity 6


annual basis, and will provide an opportunity to examine
the detailed make up of the service, and to see how the Disability 9
workforce changes and evolves over time. This in turn
will inform the development of staffing strategy and Age 12
workforce planning.
Service Profile
If you require additional copies of this report please
contact Stefan Hendry on 020 7217 8556 or By Region/Area 17
stefan.hendry3@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
By Job Group 17
To comment on the content or style of the report please
send an e-mail to: By Gender 19
NPD.workforceinforeport@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
By Ethnicity 20

Headline Figures By Disability 22

¾ Women make up 2/3rds of the NPS workforce, and 41% of NPS staff recorded in the ‘Not Stated’
outnumber their male colleagues by a ratio of 2:1 category
¾ The average age of the NPS workforce is 43.1
¾ Although men constitute only 33.6% of the overall
years, compared to an average of 39 years in the
NPS workforce, male representation is much higher
UK labour force. Approximately 50% of staff are over
in senior operational and management posts
the age of 40
(approx 45 – 60%)
¾ The NPS needs to consider what succession
¾ Representation of black and minority ethnic groups
planning strategies it has in place in coming years,
in NPS is at 10.5%, which compares favourably to
with 20% of current staff over the age of 50
just 8.0% in the general UK population. This is also
well ahead of the current Race Equality milestone
target of 8.3% by 2009
¾ Representation of black and minority ethnic groups
is strongest in operational posts, and lower graded
support posts (>8%), but significantly weaker
amongst management posts (< 6%)
¾ Analysis of information on staff with disabilities is
limited by the high degree of underreporting, with

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 1


Supplementary Notes
The information contained in this report has not Where such comparisons are made, the source of
previously been published. In reading this report, you the UK population data is referenced accordingly.
should note the following:
‰ This report contains data relating to the 42 Areas
within the National Probation Service. It does not
‰ The report summarises data taken as at 31
December 2003, and as such presents a ‘snapshot’ include data from the NPD. It is intended that NPD
of the workforce at that date data will be included in future reports.

‰ The data contained within this report is not directly Terminology & Conventions
comparable with any previous data collected ‰ Operational Staff – Represents those staff whose
through the RDS Probation Statistics work involves direct contact with offenders on a daily
‰ The data collection date of 31 December 2003 basis
coincides with the end of Quarter 3, and as such ‰ Support Staff – Represents all other staff employed
should correlate with the data for that quarter within the Service. It is acknowledged that some
reported in issue 3 of the Workforce Information staff categorised within this group may have some
Report. However, there is some variation due to the contact with offenders
fact that the two sets of data, although referring to
the same period, were collected at different times. ‰ Not Stated – This is used where either the
The discrepancies have been minimized, but still information on a particular variable (such as
amount to approximately 223 of 19,313.2 FTE ethnicity, gender) is either not available, or the
across the NPS. This presents a 1.2% margin of individuals concerned have declined to provide their
error between the two reports details. Where applicable, the number of staff in the
‘Not Stated’ category is shown
‰ All data in this report is presented in terms of
headcount, and not full time equivalent (FTE) figures ‰ Zero Values – As with the ‘Not Stated’ category,
there are a number of instances where data is not
‰ Where applicable and appropriate, this report draws available for some individuals on a particular
comparison with relevant UK population statistics. variable. Where this is the case, individuals with
This provides a broad reference point against which zero values have been excluded from calculations.
to compare characteristics of the NPS workforce. This leads to some slight variations in total staffing
numbers

Diversity Profile
Chart 1 - Gender Representation by Region
GENDER BY REGION/AREA
As at 31 December 2003 there were No rth West
22,147 staff in the NPS.
No rth East
14,699 of these were women,
comprising two thirds of the total Yo rkshire & Humberside
workforce (66.4%), and outnumbering
their male colleagues by an East M idlands

approximate ratio of 2:1.


Wales
There were 7,448 (33.6%) men
employed in the NPS at this date. West M idlands
M en
The representation of women in the East o f England Wo men

NPS workforce is disproportionately


large in comparison to the composition So uth West

of the general population of the UK.


So uth East
According to data from the National
Census 2002, in the UK the population Lo ndo n
consists of 48.7% men and 51.3%
women. Natio nal P ro batio n
Service
In the table at the top of the following UK
page, the percentages given in red
against each region show the regional 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
proportions of men and women from
the 2002 Census. While there are
some fluctuations, generally they are
Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 2
Table 1 - Gender Representation by Area/Region
consistent with the overall representation for
Men Women Men % Women %
the UK, and show a fairly even split between
men and women, with women slightly more Cumbria 83 138 37.6% 62.4%
prevalent. Cheshire 115 198 36.7% 63.3%
Greater Manchester 478 850 36.0% 64.0%
At a Regional level, North West, South West, Lancashire 222 442 33.4% 66.6%
and Wales have the greatest proportions of Merseyside 267 492 35.2% 64.8%

men, with each at over 35%. In contrast, North West 1165 2120 35.5% 64.5%

South East region has just 31.0% male 48.4% 51.6%


Durham 101 193 34.4% 65.6%
representation in its workforce.
Northumbria 236 483 32.8% 67.2%
Teeside 125 240 34.2% 65.8%
GENDER BY JOB GROUP
North East 462 916 33.5% 66.5%
While women form the majority of the NPS 48.4% 51.6%
workforce at a general level, looking at Humberside 184 336 35.4% 64.6%
gender representation by job group reveals a North Yorkshire 110 180 37.9% 62.1%
great deal of variation underlying this. South Yorkshire 222 496 30.9% 69.1%
West Yorkshire 364 821 30.7% 69.3%
In the operational job category, overall the
Yorkshire & Humberside 880 1833 32.4% 67.6%
proportion of female employees is consistent
48.6% 51.4%
with the generally high representation in the
Derbyshire 125 268 31.8% 68.2%
NPS workforce at 61.5%. It would appear
Leicestershire & Rutland 169 298 36.2% 63.8%
that this trend is set to continue, if not
Lincolnshire 86 187 31.5% 68.5%
strengthen, with 75.5% of Trainee Probation Northamptonshire 93 171 35.2% 64.8%
Officers being women. Nottinghamshire 234 442 34.6% 65.4%
However, there are two job groups within the East Midlands 707 1366 34.1% 65.9%
operational category in which the 49.1% 50.9%
representation of men and women is quite Dyfed Powys 70 102 40.7% 59.3%
different to that found in the general NPS Gwent 95 176 35.1% 64.9%
workforce. North Wales 85 162 34.4% 65.6%
South Wales 219 364 37.6% 62.4%
Amongst Senior Probation Officers, the Wales 469 804 36.8% 63.2%
proportion of men and women more closely 48.4% 51.6%
reflects the general UK population statistics Staffordshire 194 303 39.0% 61.0%
with 47.0% of staff being men, and 53.0% Warwickshire 59 125 32.1% 67.9%
women. West Mercia 132 267 33.1% 66.9%

This departure from the general trend West Midlands 420 909 31.6% 68.4%
West Midlands 805 1604 33.4% 66.6%
amongst the operational posts may be
48.9% 51.1%
explained by a corresponding difference in
Bedfordshire 62 163 27.6% 72.4%
average length of service between men and
Cambridgeshire 87 167 34.3% 65.7%
women in the operational category.
Essex 150 340 30.6% 69.4%
The ‘Service Profile’ section of this report Hertfordshire 77 182 29.7% 70.3%
shows that men in operational posts tend to Norfolk 103 179 36.5% 63.5%
have longer service with the NPS than Suffolk 107 149 41.8% 58.2%
women. Having longer service may tend to East of England 586 1180 33.2% 66.8%
mean that men are more likely to occupy 49.0% 51.0%
more senior roles within the operational Avon & Somerset 198 371 34.8% 65.2%
structure. Devon & Cornwall 192 338 36.2% 63.8%
Dorset 101 191 34.6% 65.4%
The second job group which contrasts with
Gloucestershire 76 142 34.9% 65.1%
the general trend is the ‘Other Operational
Wiltshire 61 118 34.1% 65.9%
Staff’ category in which just under 59.6% of
South West 628 1160 35.1% 64.9%
staff are men.
48.6% 51.4%
Beyond these exceptions however, women Hampshire 194 428 31.2% 68.8%
constitute more than 60% of the remaining Kent 170 349 32.8% 67.2%
grades within the operational category, and Surrey 74 200 27.0% 73.0%
form as much as 91.3% of the ‘Psychologist’ Sussex 145 267 35.2% 64.8%
job group. However, this extreme example Thames Valley 191 480 28.5% 71.5%
should be viewed in light of the fact that this South East 774 1724 31.0% 69.0%
is a very small group of staff. Relatively 48.8% 51.2%
minor changes in staff could dramatically London 972 1992 32.8% 67.2%
effect gender representation. 48.4% 51.6%
National Probation Service 7448 14699 33.6% 66.4%
As with the operational staff, the support 48.7% 51.3%
category also shows a wide degree of
variation in terms of the representation of
Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 3
Table 2: Gender Representation by Job Group (Operational Staff)
men and women.
Overall, this category consists of mostly Men Women Men % Women %
women, who make up 77.1% of the staff.
Senior Probation Officer 531 599 47.0% 53.0%
This is mainly as a result of the large number
of women employed in the ‘Support Staff – Senior Practitioner 84 143 37.0% 63.0%
Administration’ job group.
Probation Officer 1958 3400 36.5% 63.5%
This group comprises the bulk of staff in the
support category (70%), and the fact that Trainee Probation Officer 437 1347 24.5% 75.5%
89.4% of the group are women greatly
affects the representation figures for the Probation Services Officers 2211 3437 39.1% 60.9%
support category as a whole.
Psychologists 2 21 8.7% 91.3%
Outside of the administration grades, it is
interesting to note the increased Other Operational Staff 644 437 59.6% 40.4%
representation of men in the management
Operational Staff Total 5867 9384 38.5% 61.5%
roles within the support category.
In a reversal of the general workforce trend,
men make up more than half of those at Table 3: Gender Representation by Job Group (Support Staff)
‘Chief Officer (55.0%), ‘Deputy Chief
Officer/Director’ (53.3%), and ‘ACO & Men Women Men % Women %
Equivalent’ (56.2%) level.
Board Members 290 160 64.4% 35.6%
Although women predominate in the
‘Area/District Manager’ category at 70.8%, Chief Officers * 22 18 55.0% 45.0%
men are again better represented in the
Deputy Chief Officers/Directors 24 21 53.3% 46.7%
‘Section or Function Heads’ group (44.8%)
than they are in the NPS workforce in ACO and Equivalent 168 131 56.2% 43.8%
general.
Area/District Managers or equivalent 26 63 29.2% 70.8%
The representation of men is also more in
proportion to that of the general population in Managers-Section or Function Heads 241 297 44.8% 55.2%
both the ‘Support Staff Others’ (52.3%) and
‘Other Specialist Workers’ (44.8%) job Support Staff-Administration 511 4323 10.6% 89.4%
groups.
Support Staff Others 208 190 52.3% 47.7%
Unlike the operational category, men do not
have a greater length of service than women Other Specialist Workers 91 112 44.8% 55.2%
in the support job groups, and this variable
cannot be used to explain why men tend to Support Staff Total 1581 5315 22.9% 77.1%
hold the more senior roles.

Chart 2 - Gender Representation by Job Group (Operational Staff) Chart 3 - Gender Representation by Job Group (Support Staff)

Senio r P ro batio n Officer


Board Members

Chief Officers
Senio r P ractitio ner

Deputy Chief Officer


P ro batio n Officer

ACO and Equivalent


Trainee P ro batio n Officer
M en
P ro batio n Services Wo men
Area/District Managers
Officers
Section or Function Heads
P sycho lo gists

Support Staff - Admin


Other Operatio nal Staff

Support Staff Others


Operatio nal Staff To tal

Other Specialists
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Support Staff Total

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

* The total number of Chief Officers included in this report is 40.


This is because 2 of these posts were not filled as at 31/12/03.
The remaining two posts were appointed to during 2004.

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 4


GENDER BY EMPLOYMENT Chart 4 – Proportion of Full vs Part Time Staff by Gender (Operational Staff)
STATUS
Part time working arrangements
are much more prevalent in the 38.1% 39.9%
support staff category (32.8% of Men
employees), than they are in the Women
operational staff category (18.8% 61.9% 60.1%
of employees).
This is likely to be because the
support category consists largely
of lower grade administrative
posts, which traditionally are 18.8%
more likely to be offered on part-
time working arrangements.
Generally the split of men and
women between part and full time
work is in proportion to their Full Time
representation in the workforce Part Time
as a whole.
In the operational staff category,
of the 18.8% of staff that work
part time, 60.1% are women and
81.2%
39.9% men. For full time staff in
the same category, 61.9% are
women, and 38.1% men. In both
instances this is proportionate to Chart 5 – Proportion of Full vs Part Time Staff by Gender (Support Staff)
the representation of women and
men in the category as a whole
(61.5% and 38.5%). 23.1% 22.5%

In the support category, women


make up a large part of the Men
workforce anyway (77%), and their Women
representation in both full and part
time employment reflects this fact.
Of the 32.8% of support staff that 76.9% 77.5%
work part-time, 77.5% of these are
women and 22.5% men. Similarly,
amongst full time support staff
76.9% are women and 23.1% men.

32.8%

Full Time
Part Time

67.2%

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 5


Table 4: Ethnic Representation by Area/Region
ETHNICITY BY REGION/AREA
White Black Asian Mixed Other Not Stated
The regional representation of black Cumbria 86.9% 0.5% 0.0% 0.9% 0.5% 11.3%
and minority ethnic staff (Chart 6) Cheshire 97.8% 0.6% 1.0% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3%
broadly reflects the proportion of black Greater Manchester 83.1% 5.5% 2.0% 1.3% 1.1% 7.2%
and minority ethnic individuals in the Lancashire 93.1% 0.5% 3.8% 0.9% 0.3% 1.5%
local labour force (Chart 7). Merseyside 93.0% 2.9% 0.4% 2.2% 0.5% 0.9%

London has by far the most ethnically North West 89.0% 3.1% 1.7% 1.3% 0.6% 4.2%

diverse workforce with 31.3% of its


staff being from a black or minority Durham 91.8% 0.0% 1.4% 1.4% 0.3% 5.1%

ethnic background. This is consistent Northumbria 96.4% 0.3% 1.7% 1.0% 0.4% 0.3%

with the fact that London is the most Teeside 97.3% 0.8% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 1.1%

ethnically diverse area in the UK with North East 95.6% 0.4% 1.3% 0.9% 0.3% 1.5%

almost 28% of the local labour force


coming from a black or minority ethnic Humberside 94.4% 1.9% 1.3% 1.0% 0.0% 1.3%

background. North Yorkshire 75.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.3% 0.3% 23.4%


South Yorkshire 86.8% 3.6% 1.8% 1.3% 0.6% 6.0%
In general, all of the Regions within West Yorkshire 82.1% 3.3% 5.7% 1.4% 0.0% 7.5%
the NPS either meet or exceed the Yorkshire & Humberside 85.0% 2.8% 3.2% 1.1% 0.2% 7.6%
representation of black and minority
ethnic individuals in their community. Derbyshire 91.1% 3.1% 3.1% 1.3% 0.8% 0.8%

Consequently, the overall Leicestershire & Rutland 72.8% 4.3% 6.2% 1.1% 0.2% 15.4%

representation of black and ethnic Lincolnshire 93.4% 0.4% 1.1% 0.4% 0.4% 4.4%

minorities in the NPS exceeds (at Northamptonshire 3.4% 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 95.8%

10.5%) that of the general population Nottinghamshire 83.4% 8.1% 4.6% 1.0% 0.7% 2.1%

in the UK (8%). East Midlands 73.6% 4.3% 3.7% 0.9% 0.5% 17.1%

This also means that the NPS is well Dyfed Powys 98.8% 0.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.6%
ahead of the representation target of Gwent 96.3% 1.5% 0.7% 0.7% 0.0% 0.7%
8.3% (to be achieved by 2009) set in North Wales 93.9% 0.4% 0.8% 1.2% 0.4% 3.2%
the Home Secretary’s Race Equality South Wales 94.2% 1.5% 0.9% 0.7% 0.5% 2.2%
Employment Targets. Wales 95.2% 1.2% 0.7% 0.7% 0.3% 1.9%

Amongst black and minority ethnic


staff, the largest proportion of this Staffordshire 95.6% 1.2% 1.2% 1.4% 0.4% 0.2%

group identify themselves as ‘Black’ Warwickshire 89.7% 0.5% 6.0% 1.1% 0.0% 2.7%

(6.4%), followed by those identifying West Mercia 92.2% 4.8% 2.3% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%

themselves as ‘Asian’ (2.5%). Those West Midlands 71.3% 14.4% 7.1% 1.5% 0.8% 5.0%

from a ‘Mixed’ background make up West Midlands 81.2% 9.0% 5.0% 1.2% 0.5% 3.0%

1.2% of the workforce, with a final


0.5% identifying themselves as falling Bedfordshire 79.1% 12.0% 3.1% 0.4% 0.0% 5.3%

into the ‘Other’ category. Cambridgeshire 95.7% 2.0% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.8%
Essex 92.4% 2.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.6% 3.1%
Charts 8 through 11 display how each Hertfordshire 88.0% 5.0% 3.1% 1.5% 1.9% 0.4%
of the broad black and ethnic minority Norfolk 86.5% 0.7% 1.1% 0.7% 0.0% 11.0%
categories described above breaks Suffolk 94.1% 3.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.4% 0.0%
down across the NPS workforce. East of England 89.9% 3.7% 1.6% 0.8% 0.5% 3.5%

The number of staff identified as ‘Not


Avon & Somerset 89.3% 2.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.2% 6.5%
Stated’ is reasonably low 7.5% across
Devon & Cornwall 92.3% 0.8% 0.2% 1.3% 0.2% 5.3%
the NPS. The regions with the highest
Dorset 97.9% 0.0% 0.0% 1.0% 0.3% 0.7%
numbers of staff in the ‘Not Stated’
Gloucestershire 92.7% 4.1% 1.8% 0.9% 0.0% 0.5%
category are East Midlands (17.1%),
Wiltshire 95.0% 1.1% 1.7% 0.0% 1.7% 0.6%
London (15.6%), South East (9.8%),
South West 92.6% 1.7% 0.7% 0.8% 0.3% 3.9%
and Yorkshire & Humberside (7.6%).
The proportion of staff in the ‘Not
Hampshire 80.1% 1.1% 1.3% 0.3% 0.5% 16.7%
Stated’ category for the remaining
Kent 94.2% 1.2% 0.8% 0.8% 0.4% 2.7%
regions are all in the region of 1% to
Surrey 93.4% 2.6% 0.4% 2.2% 0.4% 1.1%
4%.
Sussex 70.4% 1.5% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 25.2%
Thames Valley 85.5% 6.4% 2.5% 1.5% 0.9% 3.1%
South East 84.3% 2.8% 1.4% 1.0% 0.6% 9.8%

London 53.1% 24.9% 3.5% 2.0% 0.9% 15.6%

National Probation Service 82.0% 6.4% 2.5% 1.2% 0.5% 7.5%

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 6


Chart 6 - Ethnic Representation by Region (NPS)

Chart 8 – Representation within the ‘Black’ Ethnic Category


North West

North East

Yorkshire & Humberside Other


8%
East Midlands

Wales White
Caribbean
Black
Asian 21%
West Midlands
Mixed
Other
East of England
Not Stated

South West

South East

London
African
NPS 71%

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Chart 7 - Ethnic Minority % by Region (UK, Nov 2003 Labour


Force Survey)
Chart 9 – Representation within the ‘Asian’ Ethnic Category
North West

North East Other


Bangladeshi 10%
Yorkshire & Humberside
3%
East Midlands

Wales

West Midlands White


B & ME

Eastern
Indian
South West Pakistani 55%
32%
South East

London

UK

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Chart 10 – Representation within the ‘Mixed’ Ethnic Category Chart 11 – Representation within the ‘Other’ Ethnic Category

White & Asian Chinese


18% 17%

Other
38% White & Black
African
12%

Other
White & Black
Caribbean 83%
32%

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 7


Table 5: Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Operational Staff)

W hite Bla ck Asia n Mix e d Othe r Not Sta te d

Se nior Proba tion Office r 85.0% 6.5% 2.4% 1.1% 0.8% 4.2%

Se nior Pra ctitione r 90.3% 3.5% 0.4% 0.4% 0.9% 4.4%

Proba tion Office r 80.7% 7.2% 2.1% 1.5% 0.6% 7.9%

Tra ine e Proba tion Office r 80.0% 4.4% 3.3% 1.8% 0.4% 10.1%

Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs 80.6% 6.5% 2.6% 1.3% 0.4% 8.6%

Psychologists 78.3% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% 0.0% 13.0%

Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff 82.9% 5.1% 1.9% 0.8% 0.7% 8.6%

Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l 81.2% 6.4% 2.4% 1.4% 0.5% 8.2%

Table 6: Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Support Staff)

W hite Bla ck Asia n Mix ed Other Not Sta ted

Board Members 80.2% 6.7% 7.3% 0.0% 0.7% 5.1%

Chie f Officers 97.5% 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

De puty Chief Office rs/Dire ctors 93.3% 2.2% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2%

ACO a nd Equivalent 89.3% 2.7% 1.3% 0.7% 1.0% 5.0%

Area /District Managers or equiva le nt 92.1% 2.2% 1.1% 0.0% 1.1% 3.4%

Managers - Section or Function


91.8% 2.2% 1.5% 0.4% 0.6% 3.5%
He ads
Support Staff-Administration 84.1% 6.7% 2.4% 0.9% 0.5% 5.5%

Support Staff Others 64.1% 12.8% 3.0% 0.3% 0.3% 19.6%

Othe r Specia list W orkers 86.7% 3.9% 3.0% 1.0% 0.5% 4.9%

Support Staff Total 83.8% 6.4% 2.6% 0.7% 0.5% 6.0%

ETHNICITY BY JOB GROUP


In the operational category the representation of that there are only a small number of staff in this group, and
black and minority ethnic staff is broadly consistent the representation is therefore subject to potentially large
with that observed for the NPS in general. As a variations over a short period of time.
result, black and minority ethnic representation is
The representation figures amongst the support staff category
significantly higher than the levels found in the
is somewhat more mixed. Black and minority ethnic
general UK population.
representation is particularly strong amongst the ‘Support
For all job groups except for ‘Senior Practitioner’. Staff – Other’ category where they make up over 16.3% of the
‘Psychologist’, and ‘Other Operational Staff’ black workforce. Representation of black and ethnic minorities is
and minority ethnic individuals make up in excess of also above the level in the general UK population amongst
10.0% of the staff in the group, with the Board Members (14.7%), Administration Staff (10.4%), and
representation in the Probation Officer group as high Specialist Workers (8.4%).
as 11.4%. This compares favorable with the 8.0%
In contrast, black and minority ethnic representation is around
representation of black and minority ethnic groups to
2 - 6% for all of the other job groups in this category. These
be found in the general UK population.
groups cover the majority of senior positions in the
Additionally, it is encouraging to see that the current organisation.
black and minority ethnic representation amongst
The lowest representation is in the Chief Officer group, where
Trainee Probation Officers is well above the figure
black and minority ethnic staff account for only 2.5% of the
for the general population at close to 10.0%.
total.
An area of concern is the ‘Senior Practitioner’ group
The representation of black and minority ethnic staff is strong
in which black and minority ethnic individuals make
at the operational level, and in the lower grade support posts.
up just 5.3% of staff. However, it should be noted
But this strong general representation is masking the lack of
representation in more senior management posts.

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 8


Chart 12 – Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Operational Staff) Chart 13 – Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Support Staff)

Board Members
Senior Probation Officer

Chief Officers
Senior Practitioner

Deputy Chief Officer


Probation Officer

White
ACO and Equivalent
Trainee Probation Officer Black
Asian
Mixed Area/District Managers
Probation Services Officer
Other
Not Stated
Section or Function Heads
Psychologist

Support Staff - Admin


Other Operational Staff

Support Staff Others


Operational Staff Total

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% Other Specialists

Support Staff Total

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Chart 14 – Combined Gender and Ethnic Representation

ETHNICITY BY GENDER
Asian M en
1.02% M ixed M en
There is no substantial difference between Black M en
0.34%
men and women in terms of the relative 2.39% Other M en
representation of black and minority ethnic 0.26%

staff within each group.


Chart 14 shows that each broad ethnic White M en
29.19%
category is represented more or less in
equal proportions amongst men and
women. The proportions are
approximately equal to those observed for
the workforce as a whole.
White Women
Other Women 59.46%
0.30%
DISABILITY BY AREA/REGION
M ixed Women
The main issue affecting a detailed 0.92%
Asian Women
analysis of the rate of disability in the NPS 1.64%
workforce is the high degree of non- Black Women
4.48%
reporting.
Of the 22,147 staff in the NPS, 9,071 have
been recorded as ‘Not Stated’, equating to
41% of the staff population.
the ‘Not Stated’ category is sufficiently low.
Of that 41%, only a minority genuinely reflect a
decision by the individuals concerned not to state On the whole, the number of staff declaring a disability is very
whether they have a disability or not. In the majority low. In the North East and South West regions the number of
of cases, the information is simply not available, or staff with a reported disability is below 1.5%, while the majority
has not been provided. of other regions have representation in the order of 2-5%. The
best representation of staff declaring a disability is in North
The missing information can largely be attributed to West and West Midlands with 7%and 8% respectively.
HR system limitations in the areas. The quality and
complexity of the systems used to record this These figures do not compare favorably with the rate of
information varies considerably from area to area, disability in the UK population. Chart 16 shows that 20% of
and as a result disability information is not always people of working age in the UK have a disability. Of this 20%,
readily accessible. just less than half (9%) are currently in employment (Figures
drawn from the National Statistics publication ‘Labour Market
Because of the high degree of staff in the ‘Not Trends’ Autumn 2002 – Labour Market Experiences of People
Stated’ category, the available disability data cannot with Disabilities).
be treated as being representative of the true rate of
disability in the workforce. The staff for whom we However, because disability is based on self reporting, the low
have a declared disability status do not form a levels of disability amongst staff that have declared their
representative sample of the workforce population disability status may be contributed to by the fact that many
as a whole. As a result, any comments made here people do not understand or believe that they have a condition
on disability are restricted to those regions in which that meets the current legal definition of a disability. This
definition is more inclusive than most staff will be aware of.
Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 9
Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 10
Table 7: Reported Disability by Area/Region

No Disability %

Not Stated %
No Disability

Disability %
Not Stated
Disability
Cumbria 4 217 0 1.8% 98.2% 0.0%
Cheshire 6 301 6 1.9% 96.2% 1.9%
Greater Manchester 31 1089 208 2.3% 82.0% 15.7%
Lancashire 52 562 50 7.8% 84.6% 7.5%
Merseyside 70 10 679 9.2% 1.3% 89.5%
North W est 163 2179 943 5.0% 66.3% 28.7%
22.2% 77.8%
Durham 10 283 1 3.4% 96.3% 0.3%
Northumbria 3 715 1 0.4% 99.4% 0.1%
Teeside 8 356 1 2.2% 97.5% 0.3%
North Ea st 21 1354 3 1.5% 98.3% 0.2%
24.2% 75.8%
Humberside 6 480 34 1.2% 92.3% 6.5%
North Yorkshire 2 139 149 0.7% 47.9% 51.4%
South Yorkshire 68 610 40 9.5% 85.0% 5.6%
W est Yorkshire 30 1153 2 2.5% 97.3% 0.2%
Yorkshire & Humbe rside 106 2382 225 3.9% 87.8% 8.3%
20.6% 79.4%
Derbyshire 11 380 2 2.8% 96.7% 0.5%
Leicestershire & Rutland 0 9 458 0.0% 1.9% 98.1%
Lincolnshire 6 267 0 2.2% 97.8% 0.0%
Northamptonshire 1 256 7 0.4% 97.0% 2.7%
Nottinghamshire 1 11 664 0.1% 1.6% 98.2%
Ea st Midlands 19 923 1131 0.9% 44.5% 54.6%
18.6% 81.4%
Dyfed Powys 0 171 1 0.0% 99.4% 0.6%
Gwent 5 264 2 1.8% 97.4% 0.7%
North W ales 15 231 1 6.1% 93.5% 0.4%
South W ales 21 561 1 3.6% 96.2% 0.2%
W ales 41 1227 5 3.2% 96.4% 0.4%
23.0% 77.0%
S t a ffo rd s h ire 9 485 3 1.8% 97.6% 0.6%
W a rw ic k s h ire 0 183 1 0.0% 99.5% 0.5%
W e s t M e rc ia 0 10 389 0.0% 2.5% 97.5%
W e s t M id la n d s 51 6 1272 3.8% 0.5% 95.7%
W e st M i d la n d s 60 684 1665 2.5% 2 8 .4 % 69.1%
19.9% 8 0 .1 %
B e d fo rd s h ire 5 218 2 2.2% 96.9% 0.9%
C a m b rid g e s h ire 5 80 169 2.0% 31.5% 66.5%
E s s ex 0 9 481 0.0% 1.8% 98.2%
H e rt fo rd s h ire 16 241 2 6.2% 93.1% 0.8%
N o rfo lk 2 278 2 0.7% 98.6% 0.7%
S u ffo lk 5 250 1 2.0% 97.7% 0.4%
Ea st o f E n g la n d 33 1076 657 1.9% 6 0 .9 % 37.2%
17.2% 8 2 .8 %
A vo n & S o m e rs e t 14 555 0 2.5% 97.5% 0.0%
D e vo n & C o rn w a ll 0 528 2 0.0% 99.6% 0.4%
D o rs e t 3 288 1 1.0% 98.6% 0.3%
G lo u c e s t e rs h ire 3 215 0 1.4% 98.6% 0.0%
W ilt s h ire 4 11 164 2.2% 6.1% 91.6%
S o u th W e st 24 1597 167 1.3% 8 9 .3 % 9.3%
19.1% 8 0 .9 %
H a m p s h ire 0 10 612 0.0% 1.6% 98.4%
K ent 22 20 477 4.2% 3.9% 91.9%
S u rre y 4 11 259 1.5% 4.0% 94.5%
S us s ex 20 389 3 4.9% 94.4% 0.7%
Th a m e s V a lle y 5 665 1 0.7% 99.1% 0.1%
S o u th Ea st 51 1095 1352 2.0% 4 3 .8 % 54.1%
16.3% 8 3 .7 %
London 33 8 2923 1.1% 0 .3 % 98.6%
17.2% 8 2 .8 %
N a ti o n a l P ro b a tio n S e rv ic e 551 12525 9071 2.5% 56.6% 41.0%
19.3% 80.8%

Table 7 – Figures appearing in red indicate the proportion of Disabled/Non


Disabled people in the local population.

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 11


Chart 15 – Reported Disability by Region (NPS) Chart 16 – Disability by Region (Labour Market Trends, Autumn 2001)

North West North West

North East North East

Yorks & Humber Yorks & Humber

East Midlands East Midlands

Wales Wales

West Midlands West Midlands

East of England East of England

South West South West

South East South East

London London

NPS UK

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

No Disability Disability Not Stated No Disability Disability Disability (Employed)

DISABILITY BY JOB GROUP Table 8: Reported Disability by Job Group (Operational Staff)
Comment on the rate of disability by job

No Disability %

Not Stated %
group is again restricted by the

No Disability

Disability %
Not Stated
Disability
exceptionally large number of staff in the
‘Not Stated’ category.
While some regions have provided
Senior Probation Officer 38 580 512 3.4% 51.3% 45.3%
sufficient data for some comment to be
made, when the data is summarised by job Senior Practitioner 7 168 52 3.1% 74.0% 22.9%
group this opportunity disappears. All but Probation Officer 168 2988 2202 3.1% 55.8% 41.1%
one of the job groups have more than 20%
of staff in the ‘Not Stated’ category. Trainee Probation Officer 37 983 764 2.1% 55.1% 42.8%

132 3043 2473 2.3% 53.9% 43.8%


Consequently, any comments made here Probation Services Officers

can only be speculative. Psychologists 0 17 6 0.0% 73.9% 26.1%

As you would expect, the rate of disability Other Operational Staff 27 718 336 2.5% 66.4% 31.1%
amongst the different job groups reflects Operational Staff Total 409 8497 6345 2.7% 55.7% 41.6%
the very low rate for the NPS as a whole.
Amongst operational staff, Senior
Probation Officers, Senior Practitioner, Table 9: Reported Disability by Job Group (Support Staff)
and Probation Officer all have around 3%
of staff reporting a disability. However,
No Disability %

Not Stated %
No Disability

Disability %
Not Stated
Disability

this is still well below the kind of figures


we might expect based on the number of
disabled people in the general UK
population. 15 386 49 3.3% 85.8% 10.9%
Board Members

The remaining operational categories all Chief Officers 1 21 18 2.5% 52.5% 45.0%
have less than 3% of staff reporting a
disability, including the ‘Psychologist’ group Deputy Chief Officers/Directors 0 20 25 0.0% 44.4% 55.6%

in which no staff have reported a disability. ACO and Equivalent 2 165 132 0.7% 55.2% 44.1%

Amongst support staff, the proportion of Area/District Managers or equivalent 3 71 15 3.4% 79.8% 16.9%
staff with disabilities is somewhat lower 11 339 188 2.0% 63.0% 34.9%
Managers-Section or Function Heads
than amongst their operational colleagues.
Most job groups in this category have 3-4% Support Staff-Administration 101 2609 2124 2.1% 54.0% 43.9%

of staff reporting a disability. However, the Support Staff Others 5 267 126 1.3% 67.1% 31.7%
‘Deputy Chief Officer’ group has no staff
Other Specialist Workers 4 150 49 2.0% 73.9% 24.1%
reporting a disability, and just 0.7% and
1.84% reporting a disability in the ‘ACO & Support Staff Total 142 4028 2726 2.1% 58.4% 39.5%
Equivalent’ and ‘Support Staff - Other’ job
groups respectively.
because of a lack of understanding (and consequently
In considering the above figures, it should again be reporting) on behalf of staff regarding what conditions are
noted that self reported disability may under- presently considered as constituting a disability.
estimate the actual disability rate in the workforce

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 12


Chart 17 – Disability by Job Group (Operational Staff) Chart 18 – Disability by Job Group (Support Staff)

B o ard M embers
Senio r P ro batio n Officer

Chief Officers
Senio r P ractitio ner
Deputy Chief Officer
P ro batio n Officer
A CO and Equivalent

Trainee P ro batio n Officer A rea/District M anagers


Disability
No Disability
P ro batio n Services Sectio n o r Functio n Heads
Officers No t Stated

Suppo rt Staff - A dmin


P sycho lo gists
Suppo rt Staff Others
Other Operatio nal Staff
Other Specialists

Operatio nal Staff To tal Suppo rt Staff To tal

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

DISABILITY BY GENDER AND Chart 19 – Combined Gender and Ethnic Representation of Staff with
Disabilities
ETHNICITY
Chart 19 shows the Gender and Ethnic Asian M en M ixed M en
0.75%
proportions of those staff who reported 0.56%
Ot her M en
Black M en
that they have a disability 2.26% 0.56%

No particular gender or ethnicity is


disproportionately represented amongst
staff with disabilities. The proportions are
approximately equal to those observed for White M en
36.65%
the workforce as a whole.

AGE BY REGION* Whit e Women


55.08%

The NPS workforce is older on average


than the general UK working population.
According to National Statistics, the Other Women
Black Women
average age of the labour force in the UK 0.38% 2.44%
in 2001 was 39 years. However, the M ixed Women Asian Women
average age of the NPS workforce is 1.13% 0.19%

much higher than this at 43.1 Years.


The average age in the NPS varies
regionally, with the oldest workforce being
Chart 20 – Average Age in Years in Years by Region
in the South West where the average age
is 44.4 years. The majority of regions
45
have an average age at or above 42
years, with the youngest workforce in the 44

East Midlands at 41.8 years. 43

Chart 21 (page 13) is a cumulative 42

distribution showing the relative 41


proportions of staff above and below each 40
of the age group categories. This
39
distribution shows that across the NPS as
38
a whole, just under 50% of the workforce
is over the age of 40. 37

36
The age of the population has
implications for succession planning, as 35

there are a significant number of staff


who are at or approaching an age where
they will be considering their future
working options. Chart 21 demonstrates
that approximately 20% of the NPS * Age data was not available for all Board Members and Chief
workforce are currently over the age of Officers and as a result they have been excluded from all age
50. related analyses
Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 13
Chart 21 – Cumulative Distribution of Age in Years for NPS

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35- 39 40 - 44 45 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65+

Table 10 – Average Age in Years by Job Group (Operational Staff) and


Gender
Men Women Overall

Senior Probation Officer 49.9 46.3 47.9

Senior Practitioner 45.7 45.2 45.4

Probation Officer 47.9 43.0 44.8

Trainee Probation Officer 34.3 31.1 31.9

Probation Services Officers 47.4 40.3 43.1

Psychologists 33.5 30.7 30.9

Other Operational Staff 47.6 41.1 44.9

Operational Staff Total 46.8 40.4 42.9

Table 11 – Average Age in Years by Job Group (Support Staff) and


Gender

Men Women Overall

Deputy Chief Officers/Directors 48.5 47.5 48.0

ACO and Equivalent 50.2 47.3 49.0

Area/District Managers or equivalent 48.5 47.3 47.6

Managers-Section or Function Heads 48.0 45.7 46.7

Support Staff-Administration 39.9 43.1 42.8

Support Staff Others 45.5 41.6 43.7

Other Specialist Workers 41.4 40.2 40.7

Support Staff Total 44.2 43.3 43.5

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 14


Chart 22 – Average Age in Years by Job Group (Operational Staff)
AGE BY JOB GROUP
On average operational staff are 60
marginally younger, with an average age
of 42.9 years, than those who work in the 55
support category who have an average
age of 43.5 years. 50

This is principally because the two job


45
groups with the lowest average age are
classified as operational. Trainee
Probation Officers are on average much 40

younger than the rest of the NPS


workforce with an average age of 31.9 35

years. The other group is the


Psychologists who have an average age 30

of just 30.9 years.


However, these two groups are out of the
ordinary in the operational category. The
remaining job groups in this category have
an average age of 43 to 48 years old, Chart 23 – Average Age in Years by Job Group (Support Staff)
which makes them broadly comparable to
the average age for the workforce overall,
60
and with the majority of job groups in the
support category. 55

Amongst support staff, the most notable


difference is the increased average age 50

for those in management positions, all of


whom have an average age in excess of 45

45 years old.
40
According to these figures there is a large
portion of the NPS workforce approaching 35
either the current normal retirement age,
or an age at which they may begin 30
planning for their retirement. Of that group
a good proportion occupy the most senior
roles in the organisation.
Chart 25 (page 15) maps the average age
of each Job Group (X axis) against the Chart 24 – Cumulative Distribution of Age in Years: Operational vs
Region in which they are based (Y axis). Support Staff
The higher the average age, the more red 100%
the display on the chart. The redder areas
90%
identify age ‘hotspots’, which are particular
job groups within selected regions where 80%

the average age of staff is approaching 70%


possible retirement age.
60%

For example, the graph shows that 50%


potential retirements may be an issue
amongst ‘Deputy Chief Officer/Directors’ in 40%

East of England in particular, but also in the 30%


North East and South East regions. There 20%
are also similar issues for Senior
Practitioners in North East, and for Senior 10%

Probation Officers and Psychologists in 0%


Wales. 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35- 39 40 - 44 45 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65+

Operational Support

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 15


Chart 25 – Average Age in years Mapped by Job Group and Region

NPS

London 60-65
55-60
South East 50-55
45-50
South West
40-45
East of England 35-40
30-35
West Midlands
25-30

Wales 20-25
15-20
East Midlands

Yorkshire & Humberside

North East

North West

ACO and Equivalent


Trainee PO

Deputy Chief/Director
Snr Practitioner

SectionHeads
Area/District Manager
Other - Operations

Specialist Workers
Snr Probation Officer

Psychologist
Probation Officer

Support Staff Admin


Probation Serv Officer

Support Staff Others


AGE BY GENDER
A comparison of the age distribution of men and However, length of service is higher amongst women in the
women (shown in Chart 26) reveals that male support job groups, so the same explanation does not follow
employees in the NPS are on average older than for this category.
female counterparts. However, age is a variable that may give us an insight into the
This difference is greatest amongst operational staff, reason why men are more prevalent in the senior posts within
where the average age of men is 46.8 years, the NPS than they are in the rest of the workforce.
compared to just 40.4 years for women. By As men are generally older in NPS, it is likely that they have
comparison, while men are still on average older been in general employment (on average) longer than their
than women in the support group, the difference is female comparators. If this is true, then it may also follow that
much smaller at 44.2 years and 43.3 years they have gained relatively more skills and experience during
respectively. the course of their careers, and would in turn be more likely to
While the difference is greatest amongst operational have attained more senior posts as a result.
staff, it is consistent across all job groups. Charts 28
and 29 (page 16) show that men are on
average older than women in every job group
in both the operational and support Chart 26 – Comparison of Age Distribution (Years) for Men and Women
categories, except for ‘Administration
Support’ where women employees are on 18%
average 3.2 years older than men.
16%
The distribution of ages is interesting when
considered in conjunction with the 14%

representation of men and women by job 12%


group.
10%
We identified earlier that while men overall Women
8%
make up only a third of the workforce in the M en

NPS, they are much more prevalent in 6%

selected Senior operational posts, and in 4%


management posts in the support category.
Greater length of service amongst men in 2%

operational posts was identified as one factor 0%


that may explain the difference in this
category.

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 16


Chart 27 – Comparison of Cumulative Age Distribution (Years) for Men
and Women

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

Women
50%
M en

40%

30%
.
20%

10%

0%
15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35- 39 40 - 44 45 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65+

Chart 28 – Average Age in Years by Job Group (Operational Staff) and


Gender

50

45

40

35
M en
Women
30

25

20

Chart 29 – Average Age in Years by Job Group (Support Staff) and


Gender

55

50

45

40

35
M en
Women
30

25

20

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 17


Service Profile
Table 12 – Average Length of Service in Years by Area/Region
LENGTH OF SERVICE BY AREA/REGION
The average length of service of staff in the NPS is
7.1 years. This is slightly higher for staff in the

Operational Staff

Support Staff
support staff category at 7.2 years, compared to 7.0

Overall
years for staff holding an operational post.
Regionally, the longest serving workforces are in
Wales, the West Midlands, and North West, all of
which have an average length of service at or in
excess of 8 years. Cumbria 7.1 6.8 7.0
At the opposite end of the spectrum, East Midlands Cheshire 7.3 6.3 7.1
and the South East region have the shortest serving Greater Manchester 7.8 8.3 7.9
staff on average at 5.6 years and 4.8 years Lancashire 6.8 8.8 7.3
respectively. Merseyside 9.6 8.6 9.3
North West 7.9 8.1 8.0
Durham 5.7 7.7 6.2
LENGTH OF SERVICE BY JOB GROUP Northumbria 7.8 8.6 8.0
Teeside 6.2 6.6 6.3
For the operational category, the average length of North East 6.9 7.9 7.2
service largely conforms with the seniority of the job Humberside 6.5 6.2 6.4
group concerned. There is a steady reduction in the North Yorkshire 5.3 5.7 5.4
average length of service from ‘Senior Probation South Yorkshire 8.2 8.9 8.4
Officer’ (12.9 years) down to ‘Trainee Probation West Yorkshire 7.3 6.7 7.1
Officer’ (1.5 years*). Yorkshire & Humberside 7.2 7.1 7.1
This stands to reason, as the structure of these Derbyshire 5.8 6.6 6.1
posts is such that people normally join the NPS as a Leicestershire & Rutland 5.5 6.8 5.8
trainee, and then over the course of their service Lincolnshire 6.0 5.1 5.7
have the opportunity to obtain more senior posts. It Northamptonshire 4.8 3.3 4.2
is rare for staff to join the NPS in a senior Nottinghamshire 5.8 4.9 5.6
operational post, as the appropriate experience and East Midlands 5.6 5.4 5.6
skills are difficult to come by in other employment. Dyfed Powys 23.8 19.6 22.2
Gwent 5.4 8.0 6.3
The situation is quite different in the support staff North Wales 5.8 7.1 6.2
category. The job group with the longest service on South Wales 6.8 8.7 7.4
average is ‘ACO and Equivalent’ at 13.5 years. After Wales 8.4 10.0 8.9
this group, there is a steady decline in average Staffordshire 9.7 12.0 10.4
length of service roughly in line with seniority, in Warwickshire 7.9 8.0 7.9
much the same pattern as for the operational posts. West Mercia 6.4 6.5 6.4
However, in contrast to the operational posts, the job West Midlands 7.7 8.5 8.0
groups more senior to the ‘ACO & Equivalent’ West Midlands 8.0 8.9 8.2
category also show a steady decline in average Bedfordshire 5.3 5.4 5.3
length of service, with Deputy Chief Officers and Cambridgeshire 7.2 5.8 6.8
Chief Officers at 9.6 years and 2.8** years Essex 7.8 6.8 7.6
respectively. Hertfordshire 5.6 5.3 5.5
Norfolk 6.0 5.3 5.9
Suffolk 7.3 6.8 7.1
East of England 6.8 5.8 6.6
* Ordinarily the length of Service of a TPO is a maximum Avon & Somerset 7.1 7.5 7.2
of two years. Any extension to this would be in exceptional Devon & Cornwall 6.7 5.3 6.2
circumstances only e.g. due to long-term sickness. Also, Dorset 9.4 6.5 8.4
the figures are based on service start date. Some staff Gloucestershire 2.0 2.0 2.0
may take up a TPO role after having served with the NPS Wiltshire 6.2 5.8 6.1
in another capacity for a period of time, resulting in a South West 6.7 5.8 6.4
service figure greater than 2 years Hampshire 0.0 0.2 0.1
Kent 6.8 8.6 7.3
** Chief Officer service calculations are based on the Surrey 6.4 4.8 5.7
available information, which only provides the date at Sussex 6.5 7.1 6.7
which each CO was appointed to their current role. Thames Valley 5.6 6.2 5.8
Therefore the service figure is a reflection of time in post, South East 4.7 5.0 4.8
rather than total service London 7.4 8.4 7.7
National Probation Service 7.0 7.2 7.1

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 18


Chart 30 – Average Length of Service in Years by Region

Chart 31 – Average Length of Service in Years by Job Group


(Operational Staff)

14

12

10

Chart 32 – Average Length of Service in Years by Job Group (Support


Staff)

14

12

10

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 19


LENGTH OF SERVICE BY GENDER Table 13 – Average Length of Service in Years by Gender (Operational
Staff)
Overall, men have a greater average length of
service with NPS than women. Male employees Men Women Diff
have on average been with the NPS for 7.7 years,
compared to their female colleagues who have an Senior Probation Officer 15.1 11.0 4.0
average length of service of 6.7 years.
However, this difference does not hold true for both Senior Practitioner 11.0 9.5 1.5
the operational and support job categories.
Probation Officer 10.7 7.7 3.0
The difference in average length of service for men
and women is much stronger in the operational job
Trainee Probation Officer 1.5 1.5 0.1
group. Men in operational posts have an average
length of service of 8.0 years, while women in the
same category on average have served 6.3 years Probation Services Officers 5.8 6.0 -0.2
with NPS.
Psychologists 3.0 2.6 0.4
As discussed earlier in the report, this difference
may in part account for increased representation of Other Operational Staff 5.7 4.6 1.2
men in the more senior operational posts in the
NPS. Operational Staff Total 8.0 6.3 1.8
In the support category, the trend is reversed.
Women have a greater average length of service at
7.5 years, than their male colleagues who have Table 14 – Average Length of Service in Years b y Gender (Support
served on average 6.5 years. Staff)

However, analysis of average length of service by Men Women Diff


specific job group explains why this change occurs.
In the operational category men have consistently Board Members 2.7 2.6 0.1
longer average service across all of the job groups
in the category, except for ‘Probation Services Chief Officers 2.8 2.9 -0.2
Officer’ where women have a marginally higher Deputy Chief
average. Officers/Directors
9.1 10.1 -1.1

In the support category on the other hand, women


ACO and Equivalent 14.5 12.3 2.2
tend to have longer average service in most job
groups, except for the ‘Chief Officer’, ‘ACO and Area/District Managers or
14.1 11.6 2.5
Equivalent’, and ‘Section/Function Head’ groupings. equivalent
Managers-Section or
The significant point is that those groupings where 11.4 11.0 0.4
Function Heads
women have greater length of service are the largest
(in terms of number of staff) in the category. Support Staff-
4.4 7.3 -2.9
Consequently, these job groups (particular the Administration
administrative posts) have a significant effect on the Support Staff Others 4.4 4.7 -0.4
overall average for the group.
Chart 33 – Average Length of Service in Years by Job Group and Gender Other Specialist Workers 5.4 7.1 -1.7

Support Staff Total 6.5 7.5 -1.0


10

Tables 13, 14 – The ‘Difference’ column is calculated by subtracting the


9 average length of service of men from that of women. Positive numbers
in red indicate a greater length of service for men over women, and
negative numbers indicate the reverse
8

5
M en (Op) Women (Op) M en (Sup) Women (Sup) M en Overall Women Overall

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 20


Chart 34 – Average Length of Service in Years by Gender and
Job Group (Operational Staff)

16

14

12

10

8
M en
6 Women

Chart 35 – Average Length of Service in Years by Gender and


Job Group (Support Staff)

16

14

12

10

8
M en
6 Women

Table 15 – Average Length of Service in Years by Ethnicity


LENGTH OF SERVICE BY ETHNICITY (Operational Staff)

White employees have a greater average length


of service than those from black and minority White B & ME Diff
ethnic groups across the board in the NPS. This
statement is true of both operational and support Senior Probation Officer 13.5 9.6 3.9
staff, and for all individual Job groups apart from
‘Psychologist’. Senior Practitioner 10.2 9.0 1.1
Nationally, white employees have been with the
NPS for an average of 7.4 years, while staff from Probation Officer 9.1 7.6 1.5
black and minority ethnic groups have average
service of 5.5 years. This is a difference of 1.9 Trainee Probation Officer 1.5 1.3 0.3
years on average.
Probation Services Officers 6.2 4.9 1.4
In the operational category the difference in
average service between white employees and
those from a black or minority ethnic background Psychologists 2.6 2.8 -0.2
is less than the overall average at 1.6 years, while
in the support group it is much higher at 2.4 years. Other Operational Staff 5.6 3.8 1.8

Operational Staff Total 7.3 5.6 1.6

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 21


This difference is likely to be a reflection of two Table 16 – Average Length of Service in Years by Ethnicity (Support
things. Staff)

First, the diversity of the UK population has White B & ME Diff


increased markedly over the last decade or so.
According to National Statistics the number of Board Members 2.6 2.8 -0.2
individuals from an ethnic group other than ‘White’
in the UK population increased by 53% in the 10 Chief Officers 2.8 3.0 -0.2
years from 1991 to 2001. As a result, the number
of people recruited into the NPS during that same Deputy Chief
9.6 9.0 0.6
period would have reflected the changing Officers/Directors
representation.
ACO and Equivalent 14.3 7.2 7.1
Secondly, and in conjunction with the changing
representation in the general population, there Area/District Managers or
12.7 7.6 5.1
equivalent
has been an increasing focus within the public
sector in general on issues of diversity. Managers-Section or
11.4 8.4 3.0
Function Heads
The combination of these two factors has lead to Support Staff-
increasing representation of black and ethnic 7.3 5.6 1.7
Administration
minority staff in the NPS over the same period,
and consequently the average length of service of Support Staff Others 5.3 3.2 2.1
these staff as a group is on average lower than
their White colleagues. Other Specialist Workers 6.4 5.9 0.4

Support Staff Total 7.6 5.2 2.4

Tables 15, 16 – The ‘Difference’ column is calculated by subtracting the


average length of service of ‘White’ employees from that of ‘B & ME’
employees. Positive numbers in red indicate a greater length of service
for ‘White’ employees over ‘B & ME’ employees, and negative numbers
indicate the reverse

Chart 36 – Average Length of Service in Years by Job Group and Chart 37 – Average Length of Service in Years by Ethnicity
Ethnicity and Job Group (Operational Staff)

16
10

10 14

9
12
9
10
8

8
8
White
7 6 B &ME
7
4
6
2
6

5 0
White (Op) Black & Whit e (Sup) Black & Whit e Overall Black &
M inority Et hnic M inorit y Ethnic M inorit y Et hnic
(Op) (Sup) Overall

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 22


Chart 38 – Average Length of Service in Years by Ethnicity Table 17 – Average Length of Service in Years by Disability
and Job Group (Support Staff) (Operational Staff)

16 No
Disability Diff
Disability
14

Senior Probation Officer 14.8 13.2 1.6


12

10 Senior Practitioner 8.6 10.4 -1.9


8
White Probation Officer 11.5 9.2 2.3
6 B & ME

4 Trainee Probation Officer 1.8 1.4 0.4


2
Probation Services Officers 9.2 6.1 3.0
0

Psychologists 0.0 2.6 N/A

Other Operational Staff 8.3 5.9 2.4

Operational Staff Total 9.9 7.2 2.7

LENGTH OF SERVICE BY DISABILITY


As with earlier analysis of disability data, our ability Table 18 – Average Length of Service in Years b y Disability (Support
Staff)
to comment on and trends is severely limited by the
high degree of underreporting. No
Disability Diff
Disability
Generally the data shows that in most cases,
employees with a disability have a greater length of Board Members 2.8 2.6 0.2
service than those without.
On average employees who report having a Chief Officers 3.0 2.7 0.3
disability in the operational staff category have been Deputy Chief
with the NPS for 9.9 years, compared to those 0.0 10.0 N/A
Officers/Directors
reporting no disability who have 7.2 years service.
This is a difference of 2.7 years on average. ACO and Equivalent 1.0 13.9 -12.9

Similarly, staff reporting a disability in the support Area/District Managers or


23.7 12.7 10.9
staff category have on average served 9.8 years equivalent
with the NPS, compared to 7.4 years for those who Managers-Section or
15.1 12.0 3.0
do not have a disability. This is a slightly smaller Function Heads
difference of 2.4 years. Support Staff-
10.2 7.4 2.8
Administration
However, there is a high degree of fluctuation in the
data that can be attributed to the large number of Support Staff Others 11.6 4.4 7.2
employees in the ‘Not Stated’ category. With over
40% of staff not included in the analysis it is Other Specialist Workers 5.5 6.2 -0.7
impossible to draw any firm conclusions on any
actual service related differences in the NPS Support Staff Total 9.8 7.4 2.4
workforce related to disability.

Tables 17, 18 – The ‘Difference’ column is calculated by subtracting the


average length of service of employees with a disability from that of
employees with no reported disability. Positive numbers in red indicate a
greater length of service for employees with a disability over staff with no
reported disability, and negative numbers indicate the reverse

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 23


Chart 39 – Average Length of Service in Years by Job Group and Disability

12

10

0
Disability (Op) No Disabilit y Disability (Sup) No Disability Disability No Disabilit y
(Op) (Sup) Overall Overall

Chart 40 – Average Length of Service in Years by Disability


and Job Group (Operational Staff)

16

14

12

10

8
Disability
6 No Disability

Chart 41 – Average Length of Service in Years by Disability


and Job Group (Support Staff)

24
22
20

18
16
14
12

10 Disabilit y
No Disability
8

6
4
2
0

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 24


REFERENCES

All statistics relating to the population of the Labour Force in the United Kingdom were sourced from the National
Statistics website www.statistics.gov.uk
Specific articles referred to in the creation of this report were:

1. Labour Market Trends: August 2002 – Labour Market Experiences of People with Disabilities

2. Labour Market Trends: February 2003 – Implications of Population Ageing for the Labour Market

In addition to the above specific articles, data on population characteristics was downloaded from the National
Statistics NOMIS database www.nomisweb.co.uk

Enforcement, rehabilitation and public protection 25