Human Resources

Workforce Profile Report
Introduction
IIf you require further copies of this report, please contact On Hendry, there were 22,329 staff the NPS •Stefan 31/12/2004 Assistant HR Managerin Workforce Planning & Information on 020 7217 8556 or There were (including Chief Officers and the NPD). by email at: also 544 Board Members in post at stefan.hendry3@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk this time. Both of these are headcount figures, and are not directly If you have anyto FTE figures quoted in the Quarter 3 comparable comments on this report, please e-mail your commentsInformation Report published in April Workforce to: 2005 NPD.workforceinforeport@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Issue 3 June 2006

CONTENTS
Introduction Supplementary Notes Gender Ethnicity Disability Age Service 1 2 2 8 17 24 32

Headline Figures
• On 31/12/2005 there were 22,886 staff in the NPS (including Chief Officers), 502 Probation Board Members, and 120 staff in the NPD. This is an overall headcount of 24,316 staff in the Probation sector. Women make up 67.18% of the workforce, and continue to outnumber men by an approximate ratio of 2:1. This level of representation is consistent with the public service average of 65.20% (2004 figures). The proportion of men has decreased by 0.86% since last year, and now stands at 32.82% of the staff population While men are in the minority across the NPS in general, they continue to have higher representation in senior operational and support roles. 44.59% of Senior Probation Officers (SPO) are men, as are more than 50% of those at Assistant Chief Officer (ACO) level and above A similar pattern of representation is observed in the NPD, where more than 50% of staff at SEO level and above are men. However, this is consistent with the fact that men make up a greater proportion of the NPD staff population (50.83%). The representation of women in senior NPD posts has improved significantly, but much of this can be traced to the wholesale transfer of staff to NOMS which has reduced the number of staff by 60% The representation of black and minority ethnic groups has increased by 0.88% since last year, and now stands at 11.79% of the Probation workforce. This means that representation continues to be well ahead of the Home Secretary’s Race Equality Employment Target of 8.3% by 2009, and is also

higher than the representation in the general UK population (9.32% in 2004) • The minority ethnic reporting target requiring 95% complete data has been met, with just 2.00% of staff missing ethnic category information The representation of black and minority ethnic groups is generally strong across operational posts but lower in senior support roles. The proportion of black and minority ethnic Trainee Probation Officers has increased substantially since 2004, and is up by 3.07% to 14.50%. However, representation amongst Chief Officers and Deputy Chief Officers has dropped to nil, leaving the top two tiers of management with no black or minority ethnic staff The underreporting of disability continues to fall with missing disability information affecting 9.98% of the staff population. In addition, 15.69% of staff are recorded as genuinely ‘Not Stated’. The representation of staff reporting a disability has increased to 3.67% of the Probation workforce. This is a significant improvement on the 2004 figure, but is still well below the representation of people with disabilities in the wider Public Service workforce (13.00%, 2004 Figures)

Page 1

Supplementary Notes
The information contained in this report has not previously been published. In reading this report, you should note the following: • The report presents a ‘snapshot’ of the workforce at 31 December 2005 • The data is not directly comparable with previous data collected through the RDS Probation Statistics • The data collection date coincides with the end of Quarter 3, and should correlate with those reported in issue 10 of the Workforce Information Report. However, there continues to be some variation between the two sets of data. The discrepancies amount to approximately 166.08 of 20,542.06 FTE across the NPS. This is a 0.78% margin of error between the two reports • This report presents headcount figures only, and not full time equivalent (FTE) figures • Where necessary, this report draws comparison with relevant external statistics. • This report covers the 42 Areas within the NPS, as well the National Probation Directorate and Members of the Probation Boards. • Probation Board Members are included in this report as support staff, but please note that they are not employees of the NPS and are included for information purposes only. •

Terminology & Conventions
• Operational Staff – Represents those staff whose work involves direct contact with offenders on a daily basis Support Staff – Represents all other staff employed within the Service. It is acknowledged that some staff categorised within this group may have some contact with offenders Not Stated – This is used where the information on a particular variable is unknown because the individual concerned has declined to provide their details Blank – This is used where the information on a particular variable is simply not available Zero Values – As with the ‘Blank’ category, there are some instances where data is not available for some individuals on a particular variable. Where this is the case, these individuals have been excluded from calculations. This leads to some variations in staff numbers BME – This is an abbreviation of ‘black and minority ethnic’ used in some tables in this report. Please note that all Areas report ethnicity in terms of the ‘16+1’ ethnic codes used in the National Census

• •

Gender
GENDER BY REGION/AREA On 31/12/2005 there were a total of 22,886 staff in the NPS (including Chief Officers), 502 Probation Board Members, and 120 staff in the NPD. This is an overall headcount of 24,316 staff in the Probation sector. 16,335 of these staff were women, who account for 67.18% of the staff population. This is an increase of 0.85% on the proportion of women recorded at the end of 2004 (66.32%). Women continue to account for approximately two thirds of total staff in the Probation sector, and continue to outnumber their male colleagues by an approximate ratio of 2:1. The other 7,981 staff are men and account for the remaining 32.82% of the total population. Chart 1 – Ranked Gender Representation by Region

NPD South West Wales North West West Midlands East Midlands North East East of England London Yorkshire & Humberside South East National Probation Service
0% 10% 20% 30% 0.61% 1.26% 1.24% 0.07% 1.04% 1.93% 0.86% 40% 50% 0.13% 1.80% 0.72% 0.39%

6.55%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The proportion of women in the Probation Men Women sector continues to be consistent with levels recorded in the Public Service generally, where women account for 65.20% of the staff Chart 1: The red indicator line represents the public service average for the representation of men and women. The arrows at the ends of bars on the population (2004 figures). chart show the direction of change since 31/12/2004, and the figures in white At regional level, the South East continues to show the extent of the change. have the greatest proportion of women at

Page 2

70.44% of the staff population, which is up by 1.93% on the 2004 figure (68.51%). The South West has the lowest representation of women in the NPS at 65.03%. However, this is up by 0.13% on the 2004 figure. The make up of the staff population in the NPD continues to be substantially different to that of the NPS. Women form the minority of NPD staff at 49.17%, although this is up significantly on the 42.61% reported at the end of 2004. GENDER BY JOB GROUP Women represent 63.24% of staff in the operational job category, which is an increase of 0.86% on the 2004 figure. The representation of women in the operational job category continues to be consistent with the generally high representation in the NPS staff population. However, this is not surprising given that operational roles make up almost three quarters of the posts in the NPS (72.80%). Across the operational category the proportion of women has increased in all but two of the job groups. The most noteworthy changes have occurred in the major Probation Officer job groups. The proportion of women in the Probation Officer (PO) job group is up 2.75% to 67.17%, and we have seen a similar increase of 1.96% amongst Senior Probation Officers (SPO) to 55.41%. Despite the increase in the representation of women in the SPO job category, the gender breakdown is still out of kilter with the general representation in the NPS. In last years report it was noted that we could expect to see a continuing erosion of the representation of men in the SPO job group, due to the fact that the representation of women in the job groups that feed these senior posts was high and increasing. The representation of women POs continues to grow, and the increasing number of female SPOs is consistent with the expected pattern. In contrast, the Senior Practitioner (SP) job group has seen an 8.30% drop in the representation of women, down to 61.05% at the end of 2005. A similarly large shift in representation was noted in the 2004 figures, but this volatility in the job group can be traced to the fact that the SP job group is relatively small, and small changes in terms of headcount have a large effect in percentage terms. The TPO job group continues to be predominantly made up of women, accounting for 74.13% of staff. Although this is fractionally down on 2004 figures, the expectation is that, all things being equal, the high proportion of female TPOs should over time translate through to higher representation in the probation officer seniority structure.

Table 1 – Gender Representation by Area and Region
Area/Region Cumbria Cheshire Greater Manchester Lancashire Merseyside North W e st Durham Northumbria Teesside North Ea st Humberside North Yorkshire South Yorkshire W est Yorkshire Yorkshire & Hum be rside Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Ea st Midla nds Dyfed Powys Gwent North W ales South W ales W a le s Staffordshire W arwickshire W est Mercia W est Midlands W e st Midla nds
Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Essex Hertfordshire Norfolk Suffolk Ea st of Engla nd Avon & Somerset Devon & Cornwall Dorset Gloucestershire W iltshire South W e st Hampshire Kent Surrey Sussex Thames Valley South Ea st London NPD Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice

Me n 86 145 507 226 292 1256 110 255 118 483 187 109 217 349 862 140 164 87 107 238 736 75 92 101 244 512 193 71 147 501 912
74 106 181 74 120 101 656 208 217 117 86 63 691 208 178 100 182 202 870 942 61 7981

% 37.07% 32.51% 34.12% 34.56% 34.11% 34.19% 33.64% 33.33% 31.22% 32.86% 33.88% 36.95% 29.17% 29.43% 31.04% 32.26% 32.67% 31.41% 36.90% 32.78% 33.02% 37.69% 31.19% 35.31% 35.01% 34.66% 36.21% 33.65% 33.41% 31.83% 33.07%
30.45% 34.08% 31.81% 27.31% 36.36% 36.73% 32.82% 34.84% 36.59% 34.11% 35.98% 30.88% 34.97% 28.93% 30.07% 29.33% 34.60% 26.41% 29.56% 32.56% 50.83% 32.82%

W om e n 146 301 979 428 564 2418 217 510 260 987 365 186 527 837 1915 294 338 190 183 488 1493 124 203 185 453 965 340 140 293 1073 1846
169 205 388 197 210 174 1343 389 376 226 153 141 1285 511 414 241 344 563 2073 1951 59 16335

% 62.93% 67.49% 65.88% 65.44% 65.89% 65.81% 66.36% 66.67% 68.78% 67.14% 66.12% 63.05% 70.83% 70.57% 68.96% 67.74% 67.33% 68.59% 63.10% 67.22% 66.98% 62.31% 68.81% 64.69% 64.99% 65.34% 63.79% 66.35% 66.59% 68.17% 66.93%
69.55% 65.92% 68.19% 72.69% 63.64% 63.27% 67.18% 65.16% 63.41% 65.89% 64.02% 69.12% 65.03% 71.07% 69.93% 70.67% 65.40% 73.59% 70.44% 67.44% 49.17% 67.18%

Page 3

Chart 2 – Ranked Gender Representation by Area

Dyfed Powys Cumbria North Yorkshire Northamptonshire Suffolk Devon & Cornwall Norfolk Staffordshire Gloucestershire North Wales South Wales Avon & Somerset Sussex Lancashire Greater Manchester Merseyside Dorset Cambridgeshire Humberside Warwickshire Durham West Mercia Northumbria Nottinghamshire Leicestershire London Cheshire Derbyshire West Midlands Essex Lincolnshire Teesside Gwent Wiltshire Bedfordshire Kent West Yorkshire Surrey South Yorkshire Hampshire Hertfordshire Thames Valley
0% 10% 20% 30% 2.64% 0.82% 2.86% 0.60% 1.65% 40% 0.45% 0.84% 3.38% 0.63% 0.41% 0.39% 0.15% 1.12% 0.73% 0.88% 0.11% 0.43% 2.84%

2.31% 2.00% 2.01%

4.38% 0.56% 4.05% 1.22%

0.59% 1.71% 0.84% 2.25%

0.57% 1.26%

0.76% 1.50% 0.36%

1.38% 1.33%

0.73% 0.07% 0.65%

0.11% 2.76% 2.86%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Men

Women

Chart 2: The red indicator line represents the national public service average for the representation of men and women. The arrows at the ends of bars on the chart show the direction of change since 31/12/2004, and the figures in white show the extent of the change.

Page 4

There have been two major shifts in representation of staff within the operational category. The Psychologist job group has seen the representation of men increase by 44.36%, and the ‘Other Operational’ job group has seen an equally large (40.20%) increase in the representation of women. In the former case the change is related to the small number of staff (less than 20) and the relatively high degree of turnover seen in the last year. The latter group owes it’s volatility to the fact that it is a catch all ‘Other’ category, and there is a significant degree of fluctuation in the number and type of staff allocated to it. Women account for 77.02% of the staff in the support category, which is an increase of 0.88% on the 2004 figure (76.44%). The overall representation figure for the support category is heavily influenced by the make-up of the ‘Support Staff Administration’ job group. The staff in this job group account for 66.73% of the entire support category, and 90.47% of them are women. The trend for men to occupy more senior support roles continues to hold true. Men form the majority of staff in the Assistant Chief Officer (ACO), Deputy Chief Officer (DCO), and Chief Officer (CO) job groups (53.42%, 59.02%, and 52.38% respectively). However, in two of the three job groups the representation of women has increased significantly since 2004. In the ACO job group the representation of women has risen by 3.53% in a year, and the proportion for Chief Officers is up by 4.76%. In contrast, the representation of women at DCO level has slipped since last year (down 3.46%). The proportion of men in the Area/District Manager and Section/Function Head job groups has risen in the last year, although only marginally at just 0.80% and 0.24% respectively.

Table 2 – Gender Representation by Job Group (Operational)
Area/Region Se nior Proba tion Office r Se nior Pra ctitione r Proba tion Office r Tra ine e Proba tion Office r Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs Psychologists Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l Me n 552 171 1912 364 2498 3 836 6336 % 44.59% 38.95% 32.83% 25.87% 36.74% 15.79% 55.47% 36.76% W om e n 686 268 3912 1043 4302 16 671 10898 % 55.41% 61.05% 67.17% 74.13% 63.26% 84.21% 44.53% 63.24%

Table 3 – Gender Representation by Job Group (Support)
Area/Region Boa rd Me m be rs Chie f Office rs De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors ACO a nd Equiva le nt Are a /District Ma na ge rs or Equiva le nt Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion Support Sta ff Othe rs Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs Support Sta ff Tota l Me n 332 22 36 172 61 149 455 260 157 1644 % 66.14% 52.38% 59.02% 53.42% 40.67% 35.82% 9.53% 52.42% 40.15% 22.98% W om e n 170 20 25 150 89 267 4319 236 234 5510 % 33.86% 47.62% 40.98% 46.58% 59.33% 64.18% 90.47% 47.58% 59.85% 77.02%

Table 4 – Gender Representation by Job Group (NPD)
Area/Region Se nior Civil Se rva nt Gra de 6 Gra de 7 Se nior Ex e cutive Office r Highe r Ex e cutive Office r Ex e ctive Office r Adm inistra tive Office r Me n 5 9 20 4 8 8 7 % 83.33% 52.94% 54.05% 30.77% 72.73% 44.44% 53.85% W om e n 1 8 17 9 3 10 6 % 16.67% 47.06% 45.95% 69.23% 27.27% 55.56% 46.15%

Women continue to predominate in the generic Adm inistra tive Assista nt 0 0 administrative support grades. As discussed Se nior Pe rsona l Se cre ta ry 0 0.00% 2 100.00% above, women account for just over 90% of staff Pe rsona l Se cre ta ry 0 0.00% 3 100.00% in the Support Administration job group. 50.83% 49.17% NPD 61 59 However, the representation of women has decreased significantly in the ‘Support Other’ job group, dropping 15.01% to a minority of 47.58%. At senior grades. The representation of women is up by least part of this change can be attributed to ongoing 16.62% at Grade 6, up by 15.64% at Grade 7, and up changes in interpretation of the job group boundaries. by 33.23% at SEO level. The proportion of men in the NPD is significantly higher than in the NPS, accounting for 50.83% of the staff population. However, this is down by 6.55% on the male representation figure for 2004 (57.39%). The gender breakdown continues to be broadly consistent with the gender breakdown of the civil service, of which the NPD is a part. The pattern of representation in the NPD shows that men continue to predominate in the more senior posts. Men form the majority of all grades at and above SEO. However, there have been some substantial increases in the representation of women amongst selected Women have previously represented the majority of administrative staff in the NPD, and continue to do so in so far as the Senior Personal Secretary, and Personal Secretary job groups are exclusively staffed by women. However, the proportion of male Administrative Officers is up by 44.44%. Much of the variation in the NPD workforce noted above can be traced to the fact that the number of staff has reduced substantially since 2004. In particular, the wholesale transfer of staff to NOMS in April 2005 has contributed to the approximate 60% reduction in NPD staff numbers.

Page 5

Chart 3 – Ranked Gender Representation by Job Group (Operational)
Other Operational Staff Senior Probation Officer Senior Practitioner Probation Services Officers Probation Officer Trainee Probation Officer Psychologists Operational Staff Total
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 4.68% 0.86% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.00% 8.30% 0.68% 2.75% 1.96% 0.52%

Men

Women

Chart 4 – Ranked Gender Representation by Job Group (Support)
Board Members Deputy Chief Officers/Directors ACO and Equivalent Support Staff Others Chief Officers Area/District Managers or Equivalent Other Specialist Workers Managers-Section or Function Heads Support Staff-Administration Support Staff Total
0% 10% 20% 0.02% 0.88% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0.80% 3.36% 0.24% 15.01% 4.76% 3.46% 3.53% 0.69%

Men

Women

Chart 5 – Ranked Gender Representation by Job Group (NPD)

Administrative Assistant Senior Civil Servant Higher Executive Officer Grade 7 Administrative Officer Grade 6 Exective Officer Senior Executive Officer Senior Personal Secretary Personal Secretary NPD
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 6.55% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 33.23% 4.20% 53.85% 16.62% 10.23% 15.64% 19.70%

Men

Women

Chart 3, 4 & 5: The red indicator line in Charts 3 & 4 represents the national public service average for the representation of Men and Women. In Chart 5, it represents the civil service average.

Page 6

Chart 6 – Proportion of Full vs Part Time Staff by Gender (Operational)

38.36% 61.64% Men W omen 63.63%

36.37%

21.76%

Full Time Part Time

78.24%

Chart 7 – Proportion of Full vs Part Time Staff by Gender (Support)

23.64% Men 76.36% W omen 76.74%

23.26%

35.43%

Full Time Part Time 64.57%

Part time working arrangements continue to be more prevalent in the support staff category than in the operational area. In the support category 35.43% of staff are working part time, compared with 21.76% in the operational category. The former is down by 1.53% from 2004 figures, while the latter is up marginally by just 0.09%. The proportion of men and women that work full time versus part time continues to be consistent with the representation of men and women in the general workforce. In the operational staff category, of the 21.76% of staff that work part time, 61.64% are women, and 38.36% are men. Amongst full time staff, the proportions are

similar with women accounting for 63.63% of staff, and men at 36.37%. Both of these sets of figures are consistent with the proportion of men and women in the operational job category (63.24% women, and 36.76% men). In the support category, of the 35.43% of staff working part time, 76.36% are women and 23.64% men. The full time staff gender split is almost identical, with 76.74% of the staff working full time being women, and 23.26% men. Again, this is completely in proportion to the representation of women and men in the job category (77.02% and 22.98% respectively).

Page 7

Ethnicity
ETHNICITY BY REGION/AREA On 31/12/2005 the representation of black and minority ethnic staff in the Probation sector stood at 11.79%. This is 0.88% up on the same figure recorded a year ago. Please note that the NPD were unable to provide ethnicity information in time for inclusion in this report, and are not included in the figure above. This places the Probation sector well ahead of the UK average for representation of black and minority ethnic groups (9.32% based on the 2004 Government Household Survey), and the service has significantly exceeded the Home Secretary’s Race Equality Employment Target of 8.3% by 2009. Charts 16 through 26 on pages 12 and 13 present the performance of each region against the relevant pro-rated targets, with appropriate comparison to last years figures. Chart 8 – Ranked Ethnic Representation by Region

North East Wales South West South East North West Yorkshire & Humberside East of England East Midlands West Midlands London National Probation Service
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

White Not Stated Blank BME Nine of the ten regions in the NPS have improved their representation of black and minority ethnic staff since last year. Chart 9 – Change in Ethnic Representation by Region

The largest increases have been recorded in the West Midlands and London regions, with gains of 1.52% and 4.72% respectively in the last year. In the case of London, this increase is on the back of a 4.21% increase between 2003 and 2004. The only region to have seen a decrease in the representation of black and minority ethnic staff is the East Midlands, where the figure for 2005 is down by 1.05% on the previous year. All but one Region in the NPS is ahead of the projected target required to allow the NPS as a whole to meet the Home Secretary’s Race Equality Employment Target for 2009. These targets are not official, but have been pro-rated on the basis of population estimates, and are provided for monitoring purposes.

North East Wales South West South East North West Yorkshire & Humberside East of England East Midlands West Midlands London National Probation Service
0%

0.04% 0.24% 0.10% 0.24% 0.02% 0.32% 0.84% 1.05% 1.52% 4.72% 0.88% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

The North East continues to be below the relative level required to meet the Home Secretary’s target. However, representation of BME staff is up by 0.04% on last year, and is now only 0.05% behind the notional target for the region. The fact that the North East region is slightly below target is well compensated for nationally by the relatively strong representation levels in other regions. London continues to have by far the largest representation of black and minority ethnic staff in the NPS (40.20% of total staff), and this has increased markedly over the last 2 years. This is consistent with the fact that London has by far the most diverse population in the UK, and is becoming increasingly so. The North East region continues to have the lowest representation of black and minority ethnic staff at 2.59%. However, across the board in the NPS, the regional levels of representation continue to be broadly

Black

Asian

Mixed

Other

consistent with the levels of black and minority ethnic groups in the local community. Of those staff in the black and minority ethnic category, the largest portion identify themselves as ‘Black’ at 7.06% of the total staff population. This figure is up by 0.71% on 2004. The next largest group falls in the ‘Asian’ category which accounts for 2.79% of the total staff population, which represents an increase of 0.09% on the same figure reported a year ago. Similarly, the proportion of staff placed in the ‘Mixed’ category has increased by 0.12% to 1.48% of the staff population, and continues to account for the third largest section of the black and minority ethnic group. The smallest section of the black and minority ethnic

Page 8

Table 5 – Ethnic Representation by Area and Region
Not Stated

Mixed

Area/Region

Cumbria Cheshire Greater Manchester Lancashire Merseyside North W e st Durham Northumbria Teesside North Ea st Humberside North Yorkshire South Yorkshire W est Yorkshire Yorkshire & Hum be rside Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Ea st Midla nds Dyfed Powys Gwent North W ales South W ales W a le s Staffordshire W arwickshire W est Mercia W est Midlands W e st Midla nds
Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Essex Hertfordshire Norfolk Suffolk Ea st of Engla nd Avon & Somerset Devon & Cornwall Dorset Gloucestershire W iltshire South W e st Hampshire Kent Surrey Sussex Thames Valley South Ea st London Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice

94.83% 95.96% 81.16% 92.35% 92.99% 88.57% 92.35% 97.25% 94.97% 95.58% 94.38% 97.63% 91.67% 83.22% 89.23% 91.01% 77.09% 92.78% 86.55% 81.40% 84.39% 98.99% 96.27% 89.51% 94.84% 94.65% 90.06% 89.57% 92.95% 68.36% 78.10%
73.25% 93.57% 92.97% 79.70% 88.48% 94.91% 88.39% 88.27% 91.06% 96.79% 91.63% 95.59% 91.75% 86.37% 94.76% 89.74% 81.75% 86.01% 87.53% 54.17% 83.46%

1.72% 2.91% 9.29% 6.12% 6.19% 6.75% 2.75% 2.22% 3.17% 2.59% 3.80% 0.68% 7.39% 11.97% 7.92% 8.29% 13.35% 2.53% 8.97% 15.43% 11.13% 0.50% 3.05% 2.45% 4.59% 3.32% 3.94% 9.95% 7.05% 26.11% 17.55%
22.22% 4.50% 5.45% 14.02% 2.73% 4.73% 7.95% 5.70% 2.53% 0.87% 6.69% 3.43% 3.80% 3.76% 3.04% 7.04% 5.32% 11.37% 6.25% 40.20% 11.79%

0.43% 0.90% 4.85% 0.61% 2.34% 2.75% 0.00% 0.13% 1.06% 0.34% 1.99% 0.34% 4.70% 3.96% 3.38% 2.53% 4.18% 0.00% 4.48% 8.26% 4.71% 0.50% 1.02% 0.35% 1.15% 0.88% 1.31% 2.37% 4.32% 15.69% 10.08%
15.23% 1.93% 3.16% 6.27% 0.30% 1.82% 4.20% 3.69% 0.67% 0.00% 4.60% 0.98% 1.97% 1.11% 1.35% 2.93% 2.09% 6.01% 2.82% 31.63% 7.06%

0.00% 0.67% 2.56% 4.28% 0.47% 1.99% 1.22% 1.18% 1.59% 1.29% 1.09% 0.00% 1.08% 5.99% 3.06% 3.69% 7.37% 1.44% 2.41% 5.23% 4.58% 0.00% 1.02% 0.70% 1.15% 0.88% 1.13% 6.64% 2.50% 8.07% 5.73%
4.94% 1.93% 0.70% 3.32% 0.61% 0.36% 1.70% 1.01% 0.17% 0.00% 0.84% 0.98% 0.56% 1.53% 0.84% 1.76% 1.33% 3.27% 1.83% 4.49% 2.79%

0.86% 0.90% 1.48% 0.76% 2.80% 1.55% 1.22% 0.78% 0.26% 0.75% 0.72% 0.34% 0.94% 1.43% 1.04% 1.38% 1.39% 0.72% 1.72% 1.24% 1.30% 0.00% 0.68% 1.05% 1.58% 1.08% 1.31% 0.95% 0.23% 1.72% 1.34%
2.06% 0.64% 1.05% 2.58% 1.21% 2.18% 1.50% 0.67% 1.52% 0.87% 1.26% 0.49% 1.01% 0.70% 0.68% 2.35% 1.14% 1.18% 1.09% 3.39% 1.48%

0.43% 0.45% 0.40% 0.46% 0.58% 0.46% 0.31% 0.13% 0.26% 0.20% 0.00% 0.00% 0.67% 0.59% 0.43% 0.69% 0.40% 0.36% 0.34% 0.69% 0.54% 0.00% 0.34% 0.35% 0.72% 0.47% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 0.64% 0.40%
0.00% 0.00% 0.53% 1.85% 0.61% 0.36% 0.55% 0.34% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00% 0.98% 0.25% 0.42% 0.17% 0.00% 0.76% 0.92% 0.51% 0.69% 0.46%

3.02% 0.90% 8.14% 1.53% 0.82% 4.06% 3.98% 0.26% 1.59% 1.43% 1.45% 1.69% 0.54% 4.64% 2.59% 0.69% 1.00% 3.61% 0.00% 1.10% 1.17% 0.50% 0.34% 8.04% 0.43% 1.90% 1.88% 0.47% 0.00% 0.76% 0.83%
3.70% 0.64% 0.88% 5.90% 6.36% 0.36% 2.70% 5.36% 0.34% 2.04% 0.84% 0.49% 2.23% 0.42% 2.03% 2.05% 8.94% 2.48% 2.99% 5.63% 2.75%

0.43% 0.22% 1.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.63% 0.92% 0.26% 0.26% 0.41% 0.36% 0.00% 0.40% 0.17% 0.25% 0.00% 8.57% 1.08% 4.48% 2.07% 3.32% 0.00% 0.34% 0.00% 0.14% 0.14% 4.13% 0.00% 0.00% 4.76% 3.52%
0.82% 1.29% 0.70% 0.37% 2.42% 0.00% 0.95% 0.67% 6.07% 0.29% 0.84% 0.49% 2.23% 9.46% 0.17% 1.17% 3.99% 0.13% 3.23% 0.00% 2.00%

Blank

White

Asian

Black

Other

BME

Page 9

Chart 10 – Ranked Ethnic Representation by Area

Chart 11 – Change in Ethnic Representation by Area

Dyfed Powys North Yorkshire Dorset Cumbria Northumbria North Wales Lincolnshire Devon & Cornwall Norfolk Durham Cheshire Kent Gwent Teesside Wiltshire Hampshire Humberside Staffordshire Cambridgeshire South Wales Suffolk Sussex Essex Avon & Somerset Lancashire Merseyside Gloucestershire Surrey West Mercia South Yorkshire Derbyshire Northamptonshire Greater Manchester Warwickshire Thames Valley West Yorkshire Leicestershire Hertfordshire Nottinghamshire Bedfordshire West Midlands London
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

Dyfed Powys North Yorkshire Dorset Cumbria Northumbria North Wales Lincolnshire Devon & Cornwall Norfolk Durham Cheshire Kent Gwent Teesside Wiltshire Hampshire Humberside Staffordshire Cambridgeshire South Wales Suffolk Sussex Essex Avon & Somerset Lancashire Merseyside Gloucestershire Surrey West Mercia South Yorkshire Derbyshire Northamptonshire Greater Manchester Warwickshire Thames Valley West Yorkshire Leicestershire Hertfordshire Nottinghamshire Bedfordshire West Midlands London
0%

0.04% 0.30% 0.04% 0.33% 0.10% 0.26% 0.35% 0.43% 0.33% 0.44% 0.09% 0.05% 0.18% 0.69% 0.37% 0.47% 0.17% 0.35% 1.02% 0.53% 0.41% 0.58% 0.34% 0.77% 0.45% 0.55% 0.47% 0.39% 0.36% 0.04% 0.35% 0.82% 0.52% 1.32% 0.01% 0.64% 0.45% 2.78% 3.07% 4.20% 1.56% 4.72% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

White

Not Stated

Blank

BME

Black

Asian

Mixed

Other

Page 10

staff group is covered by the ‘Other’ category, which accounts for just 0.46% of the total staff population. This is another slight fall of 0.04% on the previous year. Charts 12 to 15 show the breakdown of ethnic origin within each of the broad ethnic categories. Generally, the breakdown within each broad ethnic category remains steady, but there are a few notable shifts from figures reported in 2004. The general proportions within the black category continue to be relatively unchanged from those recorded in 2004. There have been only slight changes of less than 1% recorded in all subcategories. In the ‘Asian’ ethnic category there has been a significant decrease in the proportion of Bangladeshi staff compared to 2004. The proportion of staff from this subcategory has fallen by 1.30% in a year, and now stands at 2.91%. There has also been a significant movement within the ‘Mixed’ ethnic category, although an increase in this instance. Following a 3.50% drop in the proportion of ‘White & Asian’ group between 2003 and 2004, representation has recovered with a 3.46% over the last year. As noted in previous reports, this group represents only a small section of the staff population, and this is likely to result in a degree of volatility in the figures over time. The number of staff for whom no ethnic origin information is available currently amounts to 2.00% of the staff population. This figure is down from 3.42% in 2004, and well below the prescribed tolerance level of 5%. However, there are small number of Areas that have exceeded the 5% target, and are marked in red in Table 5 on Page 9. The number of staff in the ‘Not Stated’ category currently stands at 2.75%. This is up slightly on the 2.35% reported in 2004.

Chart 12 – Representation within the ‘Black’ Ethnic Category

Other 12.87%

African 20.91%

Caribbean 66.22%

Chart 13 – Representation within the ‘Asian’ Ethnic Category

Other 12.08% Bangladeshi 4.12%

Indian 53.17% Pakistani 30.63%

Chart 15 – Representation within the ‘Other’ Ethnic Category

Chart 14 – Representation within the ‘Mixed’ Ethnic Category

Chinese 20.35%
Other 33.43%

White & Asian 18.11%

White & Black African 12.53%

Other 79.65%
White & Black Caribbean 35.93%

Page 11

Chart 16 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (North West)
4% 3% 2% 1% 5% 6% 7% 8%

Chart 17 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (North East)
4% 3% 2% 1% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

0%

9%

0%

Chart 18 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (Yorkshire & Humberside)
4% 3% 2% 1% 5% 6% 7% 8%

Chart 19 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (East Midlands)
8% 6% 4% 2% 10% 12% 14% 16%

0%

9%

0%

18%

Chart 20 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (Wales)
4% 3% 2% 1% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

Chart 21 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (West Midlands)
8% 6% 4% 2% 10% 12% 14% 16%

0%

0%

18%

Chart 22 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (East of England)
4% 3% 2% 1% 5% 6% 7% 8%

Chart 23 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (South West)
4% 3% 2% 1% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%

0%

9%

0%

Chart 16 through 26: The upper limit of the red zone represents the minimum level of representation (proportionate to representation in the local population) required by each Region in order for the NPS to achieve the Home Secretary’s Race Equality Employment Target of 8.3% by 2009. The blue marker indicates the representation of black and ethnic minorities in the local community. The dashed indicator line shows the representation figure from last years census, while the solid line shows the representation figure as at 31/12/2005.

Page 12

Chart 24 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (South East)
4% 3% 2% 1% 5% 6% 7% 8%

Chart 25 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (London)
20% 15% 10% 5% 25% 30% 35% 40%

0%

9%

0%

45%

Chart 26 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Targets (National Probation Service)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Table 6 – Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Operational)
Not Stated

Mixed

Area/Region

Se nior Proba tion Office r Se nior Pra ctitione r Proba tion Office r Tra ine e Proba tion Office r Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs Psychologists Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l

85.62% 90.89% 84.48% 77.54% 84.31% 84.21% 73.92% 83.17%

11.71% 7.74% 11.52% 14.50% 12.10% 10.53% 15.06% 12.22%

7.19% 5.01% 6.59% 8.24% 7.25% 5.26% 11.02%

2.42% 0.91% 2.56% 3.13% 2.90% 5.26% 2.65%

1.53% 0.91% 1.84% 2.63% 1.62% 0.00% 0.86%

0.57% 0.91% 0.53% 0.50% 0.34% 0.00% 0.53%

1.86% 1.14% 3.02% 5.19% 2.51% 5.26% 5.91% 3.12%

0.81% 0.23% 0.98% 2.77% 1.07% 0.00% 5.11% 1.49%

7.37%

2.70%

1.68%

0.46%

Table 7 – Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Support)
Not Stated

White

Mixed

Area/Region

Boa rd Me m be rs Chie f Office rs De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors ACO a nd Equiva le nt Are a /District Ma na ge rs or Equiva le nt Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion Support Sta ff Othe rs Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs Support Sta ff Tota l

74.50% 88.10% 95.08% 89.44% 91.33% 90.87% 87.52% 68.75% 88.24% 85.77%

14.54% 0.00% 0.00% 9.63% 8.00% 7.45% 10.14% 21.17% 9.21% 10.79%

4.98% 0.00% 0.00% 5.59% 4.00% 4.81% 5.99% 16.73% 3.07% 6.29%

8.57% 0.00% 0.00% 1.55% 3.33% 0.96% 2.76% 3.43% 3.58% 3.08%

0.40% 0.00% 0.00% 1.24% 0.67% 1.20% 1.01% 0.81% 1.28% 0.96%

0.60% 0.00% 0.00% 1.24% 0.00% 0.48% 0.38% 0.20% 1.28% 0.46%

5.18% 0.00% 3.28% 0.93% 0.67% 1.68% 1.47% 4.44% 1.28% 1.90%

5.78% 11.90% 1.64% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.88% 5.65% 1.28% 1.54%

Blank

Asian

Black

Other

BME

Blank

White

Asian

Black

Other

BME

Page 13

Chart 27 – Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Operational)

Senior Practitioner Psychologists Probation Officer Senior Probation Officer Probation Services Officers Trainee Probation Officer Other Operational Staff Operational Staff Total
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

White

Not Stated

Blank

BME

Chart 28 – Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Support)

Chief Officers Deputy Chief Officers/Directors Managers-Section or Function Heads Area/District Managers or Equivalent Other Specialist Workers ACO and Equivalent Support Staff-Administration Board Members Support Staff Others Support Staff Total
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%

White

Not Stated

Blank

BME

ETHNICITY BY JOB GROUP In the operational category the overall representation of BME staff continues to be ahead of the figure for the NPS as a whole. Representation currently stands at 12.22%, which is an increase of 0.99% on the same figure a year ago. Previously the level of representation has been broadly consistent across the major job groups within the operational category, with the majority ranging between 10.00% and 11.00% BME staff. However, the 2005 results show that there has been some differentiation since the 2004 figures were collected. The most notable change is that the proportion of BME staff in the TPO job group has increased significantly, and is up by 3.07% to 14.50%. The continuing growth in BME representation amongst TPOs is a positive sign for continuing growth in the number of BME staff occupying Probation Officer posts in the future. However, there has also been a sizeable drop in the proportion of BME staff in the Senior Practitioner job group since 2004. BME staff now make up 7.74% of total staff in the job group, which is down 2.68% on the 2004 figure. Elsewhere there have been a couple of small increases in BME representation of less than 1% in the SPO and PSO job groups, while the representation figure for Probation Officers has remained static at 11.52%. There have also been eye catching changes in the proportion of BME staff in the Psychologist and Other Operational job groups, with the former decreasing 6.14%, and the latter rising 5.47%. In both cases, these results reflect the usual volatility in these job groups owing to the fact that they refer to relatively small numbers of staff. The psychologist job group has also seen a significant amount of turnover in the last year, while the ‘Other Operational’ group fluctuates frequently due to changing interpretations of its boundaries. In the support category the proportion of BME staff

Page 14

Chart 29 – Change in Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Operational)

Senior Practitioner Psychologists Probation Officer Senior Probation Officer Probation Services Officers Trainee Probation Officer Other Operational Staff Operational Staff Total
0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5%

2.67% 6.14% 0.01% 0.97% 0.69% 3.07% 5.48% 0.99% 10.0% 12.5% 15.0% 17.5% 20.0%

Black

Asian

Mixed

Other

Chart 30 – Change in Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Support)

Chief Officers Deputy Chief Officers/Directors Managers-Section or Function Heads Area/District Managers or Equivalent Other Specialist Workers ACO and Equivalent Support Staff-Administration Board Members Support Staff Others Support Staff Total
0%

2.38% 3.70% 1.39% 2.77% 2.76% 2.85% 1.71% 0.02% 5.43% 0.33% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Black

Asian

Mixed

Other

continues to be well below that in the NPS workforce generally. However, the representation of BME staff is up marginally to 10.79% from 10.46% a year ago. Having said that, the individual results for the job groups within the support category offer a more mixed picture. The two results that will be of concern are the decline in representation at Chief and Deputy Chief Officer level. In both cases the representation of BME staff on 31/12/2005 was nil. This represents a drop of 2.38% and 3.70% in the respective job groups, and leaves the NPS with no BME representation in the top two tiers of the organisation. On the more positive side, the 2005 figures show that BME representation has increased significantly in the next two levels of management. Amongst ACOs, BME representation has increased 2.85% in the last year, and now stands at 9.63%. Similarly, the BME representation amongst the Area/District Manager job group is up by 2.77% to 8.00%. Assuming that these job groups will provide the majority of candidates for

succession to DCO and CO posts in the NPS, the increases in BME representation offer a positive sign for future representation at senior management level. In addition, the representation of BME staff at Section/Function head level is also down, and now stands at 7.45%. This is 1.39% less than at the same stage a year ago. The representation of BME staff continues to be healthy in the lower graded support posts. 10.14% of administration staff are of BME origin, and this up by 1.71% since the end of the 2004. ETHNICITY BY GENDER Charts 31 and 32 on Page 16 show that there continues to be no significant differences between men and women in terms of the representation of black and minority ethnic groups. The representation amongst men is approximately equal to that amongst women, and in both cases this is in proportion to the level of representation as a whole.

Page 15

Chart 31 – Ethnic Representation by Gender (Men)
Asian 3.45% Mixed 1.25%

Chart 32 – Ethnic Representation by Gender (Women)
Asian Black 2.68% 7.13% Mixed 1.69%

Black 8.00%

Other 0.65%

Other 0.41%

White 86.64%

White 88.09%

Disability
DISABILITY BY REGION/AREA The number of staff for whom disability information is missing or not recorded has continued to fall, but is still well above the desired 5% tolerance level. At the end of 2005 9.98% of staff were had no information available on their disability status, which is down from 12.72% in 2004. The situation continues to improve, but the issue of missing information does continue to affect a number of Areas. In the case of Northumbria, West Mercia, and Essex the proportion of staff with missing disability information is close to 100%. However, the number of Areas breaching the 5% barrier has fallen from 9 in 2004 to 7 for the current data collection. The Areas and Regions affected by this are marked in red in Table 8 on Page 17. In addition to missing information, there continues to be a relatively high proportion of staff who have their disability status recorded as ‘Not Stated’. At the close of 2005 there were 15.69% of staff in this category, which is just slightly down from the 15.83% recorded at the close of 2004. representation, the level of reported disability continues to be relatively low across the NPS. The majority of regions have representation in the 3% to 5% range with the North West at the top end of the scale at 6.72%. At the lower end of the scale, the North East and London have the lowest incidence of recorded disability at just 1.43% and 1.38% respectively. In all cases this is well below the 13.00% of staff in the Public Service as a whole that have a reported disability. Charts 35 through 45 on Pages 19 and 20 plot the performance of each Region against the overall Public Service figure As discussed in the last report, the generally low levels of reported disability may be in some part attributable to a lack of understanding by staff about what is defined as a disability. A person’s disability status relies on self reporting, and there may be a number of staff that are not aware that they have a condition that meets the current legal definition of a disability, which tends to be more inclusive than many are aware.

Despite underreporting being an ongoing issue, the improvements in the data collected mean that more confidence can be placed in Chart 33 – Reported Disability by Region analysis of the results. On 31/12/2005 3.67% of the staff population in the NPS were recorded as having a disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act. This is a significant improvement on the 2.81% reported a year ago. The proportion of staff with a disability is up in all but one region, with the greatest increases occurring in the South East, South West, and North West regions (up by 2.53%, 1.79%, and 1.17% respectively). The only region to have recorded a decreased proportion of staff reporting a disability is Wales where the figure is down by 0.02% to 2.91% of the staff population Despite the general improvements in
North West South East Yorkshire & Humberside South West East of England East Midlands Wales West Midlands North East London National Probation Service
0% 1% 2% 3% 0.05% 0.31% 0.86% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 0.09% 2.53% 0.88% 1.79% 0.25% 0.80% 0.02% 1.17%

Staff with a Disability

Page 16

Table 8 – Reported Disability by Area and Region
No Disability Not Stated Disability

Area/Region

Cumbria Cheshire Greater Manchester Lancashire Merseyside North W e st Durham Northumbria Teesside North Ea st Humberside North Yorkshire South Yorkshire W est Yorkshire Yorkshire & Hum be rside Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Ea st Midla nds Dyfed Powys Gwent North W ales South W ales W a le s Staffordshire W arwickshire W est Mercia W est Midlands W e st Midla nds
Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Essex Hertfordshire Norfolk Suffolk Ea st of Engla nd Avon & Somerset Devon & Cornwall Dorset Gloucestershire W iltshire South W e st Hampshire Kent Surrey Sussex Thames Valley South Ea st London Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice

2.16% 5.38% 5.72% 11.01% 7.13% 6.72% 3.36% 0.00% 2.65% 1.43% 1.63% 5.76% 8.20% 2.45% 4.18% 4.84% 2.19% 5.42% 1.38% 2.62% 3.14% 0.50% 1.69% 3.50% 3.87% 2.91% 1.31% 0.47% 0.23% 3.30% 2.21%
2.47% 4.50% 0.00% 7.38% 2.73% 7.27% 3.45% 5.36% 5.73% 2.92% 0.42% 1.47% 4.05% 6.95% 3.89% 3.81% 4.37% 4.18% 4.79% 1.38% 3.67%

97.41% 94.17% 94.01% 88.69% 92.64% 92.98% 96.33% 1.44% 96.83% 47.07% 89.86% 78.64% 91.40% 88.11% 88.33% 94.70% 82.67% 93.14% 96.90% 96.83% 92.78% 98.99% 97.63% 95.80% 90.24% 93.97% 94.37% 99.05% 2.73% 73.25% 68.06%
96.71% 93.57% 1.93% 37.64% 96.97% 92.36% 60.68% 94.30% 80.10% 96.50% 98.33% 97.55% 91.24% 51.74% 95.61% 2.93% 95.06% 95.56% 74.04% 0.28% 70.66%

0.00% 0.00% 0.07% 0.15% 0.12% 0.08% 0.00% 0.13% 0.00% 0.07% 0.00% 14.58% 0.13% 9.19% 5.51% 0.23% 14.74% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 3.41% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 5.16% 2.51% 0.19% 0.00% 0.00% 23.32% 13.34%
0.00% 0.00% 0.18% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.14% 0.00% 92.96% 0.00% 0.00% 10.81% 98.17% 15.69%

0.43% 0.45% 0.20% 0.15% 0.12% 0.22% 0.31% 98.43% 0.53% 51.43% 8.51% 1.02% 0.27% 0.25% 1.98% 0.23% 0.40% 1.44% 1.72% 0.41% 0.67% 0.50% 0.68% 0.35% 0.72% 0.61% 4.13% 0.47% 97.05% 0.13% 16.39%
0.82% 1.93% 97.89% 54.98% 0.30% 0.36% 35.82% 0.34% 14.17% 0.58% 1.26% 0.98% 4.71% 41.17% 0.51% 0.29% 0.57% 0.26% 10.36% 0.17% 9.98%

Blank

Page 17

Chart 34 – Reported Disability by Area

Lancashire South Yorkshire Hertfordshire Suffolk Merseyside Hampshire North Yorkshire Devon & Cornwall Greater Manchester Lincolnshire Cheshire Avon & Somerset Derbyshire Cambridgeshire Sussex Thames Valley Kent South Wales Surrey North Wales Durham West Midlands Dorset Norfolk Teesside Nottinghamshire Bedfordshire West Yorkshire Leicestershire Cumbria Gwent Humberside Wiltshire London Northamptonshire Staffordshire Dyfed Powys Warwickshire Gloucestershire West Mercia Essex Northumbria
0% 5.11% 3.16% 0.60% 0.74% 3.58% 1.14% 0.15% 0.72% 2.65% 0.87% 0.01% 0.59% 1.11% 1.91% 0.17% 0.47% 2.31% 1.36% 0.71% 2.46% 0.32% 0.07% 0.01% 0.17% 0.10% 0.48% 0.93% 0.31% 1.02% 1.12% 0.50% 0.47% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.39% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 0.77% 0.37% 1.34% 0.08% 6.95%

3.31%

12%

14%

Staff with a Disability

Page 18

Chart 35 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (North West)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Chart 36 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (North East)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Chart 37 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (Yorkshire & Humberside)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Chart 38 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (East Midlands)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Chart 39 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (Wales)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Chart 40 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (West Midlands)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Chart 41 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (East of England)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Chart 42 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (South West)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Page 19

Chart 43 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (South East)
8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

Chart 44 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (London)
8% 6% 4% 2% 10% 12% 14% 16%

0%

18%

Chart 45 – Disability Representation Against Public Service Average (National Probation Service)
8% 6% 4% 2% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18%

0%

Chart 35 through 45: The upper limit of the red zone on the scale represents the average representation of people with a disability in the Public Service population (2004 Figures). The dashed indicator line shows the representation figure from last year’s census, while the solid line shows the representation figure as at 31/12/2005. Table 9 – Reported Disability by Job Group (Operational)
No Disability Not Stated Disability

Area/Region

Se nior Proba tion Office r Se nior Pra ctitione r Proba tion Office r Tra ine e Proba tion Office r Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs Psychologists Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l

5.41% 3.87% 4.52% 3.20% 3.69% 0.00% 3.12% 4.00%

66.24% 79.73% 70.18% 62.19% 71.22% 78.95% 72.46% 70.11%

18.74% 4.78% 15.06% 24.45% 14.57% 15.79% 19.51% 16.03%

9.61% 11.62% 10.25% 10.16% 10.51% 5.26% 4.91% 9.86%

Table 10 – Reported Disability by Job Group (Operational)
No Disability

Not Stated

Disability

Area/Region

Boa rd Me m be rs Chie f Office rs De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors ACO a nd Equiva le nt Are a /District Ma na ge rs or e quiva le nt Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion Support Sta ff Othe rs Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs Support Sta ff Tota l

3.39% 2.38% 0.00% 1.86% 4.67% 3.61% 2.87% 2.02% 3.07% 2.87%

79.88% 52.38% 60.66% 70.19% 81.33% 62.98% 72.71% 64.72% 84.14% 72.56%

0.00% 28.57% 31.15% 19.57% 2.67% 19.47% 15.19% 23.79% 4.60% 14.54%

16.73% 16.67% 8.20% 8.39% 11.33% 13.94% 9.24% 9.48% 8.18% 10.04%

Page 20

Blank

Blank

DISABILITY BY JOB GROUP In the operational staff group the proportion of staff reporting a disability stands at 4.00%. This is higher than the overall average for the NPS, and has increased by 0.90% since the 2004 data was analysed. The job group with the highest proportion of staff reporting a disability continues to be SPO at 5.41%, which is up a further 0.55% on the 2004 figure. There have been increases in the proportion of staff with a reported disability across all but one of the job groups in the operational category. The largest of these sees the proportion of staff with a disability rise by 1.79% in the Senior Practitioner job group, closely followed by a 1.64% increase amongst TPOs. The general upward trend means that all but one job group now have disability figures above 3.00%. The only exception to the general trend is in the Psychologist job group, where the representation of staff with a disability has remained unchanged at 0.00%. In last years report concern was expressed that the representation of staff with a disability was low (and falling) amongst TPOs, as this is where the majority of future Probation Officers would be drawn from. While the representation of disabled staff continues to be relatively low, it has improved markedly as discussed above.

Chart 46 – Change in Disability Representation by Job Group (Operational)
Senior Probation Officer Probation Officer Senior Practitioner Probation Services Officers Trainee Probation Officer Other Operational Staff Psychologists Operational Staff Total
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 0.00% 0.91% 5% 6% 7% 1.79% 0.50% 1.64% 1.16% 1.06% 0.55%

Staff with a Disability

Chart 47 – Change in Disability Representation by Job Group (Support)
Area/District Managers or equivalent Managers-Section or Function Heads Board Members Other Specialist Workers Support Staff-Administration Chief Officers Support Staff Others ACO and Equivalent Deputy Chief Officers/Directors Support Staff Total
0% 1% 2% 3% 0.00% 0.72% 4% 5% 6% 7% 0.00% 1.02% 0.51% 0.82% 0.26% 1.41% 0.63% 3.36%

Staff with a Disability

In the support category the proportion of staff with a disability is reported at 2.87% of the staff population. This represents an increase of 0.72% on the same figure reported last year. As in the operational category, the general trend across the job groups in the support category is for growth in the proportion of staff reporting a disability. The most significant increase since last year has come in the Area/District Manager job group, where the proportion of staff reporting a disability has risen by 3.36%. In the 2004 this job group was third from bottom in terms of representation of disabled staff, and has now moved to the top of the scale in the support category. There was also a sizeable increase of 1.41% in the Other Specialists job group, where disabled representation now stands at 3.07%.

Despite the increases seen this year, all but one of the job groups in the support category continue to be below the national average. However, the gap has closed considerably in most cases. Reflecting the trend observed nationally, the representation of staff with disabilities in the support category continues to be low. However, as noted previously, this may be affected by the fact self reported disability may tend to underestimate the true level of disability in the staff population.

Page 21

DISABILITY BY GENDER/ETHNICITY Charts 48 and 49 show the gender and ethnic make up of the population of staff in the NPS reported as having a disability. In both cases, it is apparent that the relative proportions of the constituent groups are broadly consistent with the make up of the NPS staff population in general. There is no particular gender or ethnic group that is disproportionately represented in the category of staff with a disability. However, there is some evidence that men are slightly more likely to have a reported disability, as 40.43% of staff with a disability are men, compared with representation of 32.82% in the general staff population. Similarly, staff with a disability are more likely to be white. 91.94% of staff reporting a disability are white, compared with the 83.46% representation of white staff in the NPS as a whole.

Chart 48 – Reported Disability by Gender

Chart 49 – Reported Disability by Ethnicity
Asian Black 1.05% 4.32% Mixed 1.52%

Other 1.17%

Men 40.43% Wom en 59.57%

White 91.94%

Age
AGE BY REGION/AREA The average age of staff in the NPS at 31/12/2005 was 43.18 years. This is a decrease of 0.14 years on the same figure a year ago. The median age for the Probation workforce at the end of 2005 was 43.58 years, and 70.67% of the workforce were over the age of 35. This is consistent with the age profile of the broader Public Service in which 72% of staff are over the age of 35. In the majority of Regions in the NPS the average age has decreased over the last year. The largest decreases have been recorded in the East of England (down 0.68 years), and the South East (down 0.60 years). In contrast, the average age of the workforce is up by 0.34 years in Yorkshire and Humberside. Chart 50 – Average Age by Region

South West West Midlands South East London North West East of England North East Yorkshire & Humberside Wales East Midlands NPD National Probation Service
40.0 40.5 41.0 41.5 42.0 42.5 43.0 0.14 43.5 44.0 44.5 0.18 0.34 0.38 0.26 0.60 0.44 0.08 0.68 0.26

0.21

45.0

45.5

46.0

The Region with the oldest staff populatiuon on average is South West, where the figure stands at 44.88 years. This is however down by 0.21 years on last year. The majority of Regions continue to have an average age between 42 and 44 years, with the youngest workforce reported in East Midlands with an average age of 42.03 years (up 0.18 years on 2004). Given the generally ageing popultaion in England and Wales it was suggested in last years workforce profile

report that we could expect to see ongoing general increases in the average age of the NPD workforce. The figures for 2005 do not reflect the expected pattern. An explanation for this may be found in the pattern or recruitment over the last year. Since the end of 2004 there have been substaintial increases in the Probation Officer, Probation Service officer, and Administration

Page 22

Table 11– Average Age by Area and Region
No Disability Operational Disability

Support

Women

Area/Region

Cumbria Cheshire Greater Manchester Lancashire Merseyside North W e st Durham Northumbria Teesside North Ea st Humberside North Yorkshire South Yorkshire W est Yorkshire Yorkshire & Hum be rside Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Ea st Midla nds Dyfed Powys Gwent North W ales South W ales W a le s Staffordshire W arwickshire W est Mercia W est Midlands W e st Midla nds Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Essex Hertfordshire Norfolk Suffolk Ea st of Engla nd Avon & Somerset Devon & Cornwall Dorset Gloucestershire W iltshire South W e st Hampshire Kent Surrey Sussex Thames Valley South Ea st London NPD Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice

48.80 48.51 46.00 46.45 46.72 46.72 45.00 46.38 47.63 46.38 47.27 47.99 47.52 44.30 46.21 44.97 46.90 48.01 48.01 46.06 46.54 49.02 48.91 47.31 45.46 46.94 50.08 45.67 46.87 46.00 47.02 46.53 48.34 45.40 45.70 46.93 49.34 46.95 45.62 48.01 51.77 50.22 49.55 48.40 47.93 48.60 46.30 48.54 46.47 47.69 45.76 46.84

41.93 41.55 40.95 42.02 40.76 41.22 40.94 41.92 40.16 41.22 40.47 43.34 41.53 40.22 40.93 38.78 39.18 42.07 39.54 40.20 39.85 43.94 38.22 39.94 39.83 40.03 43.27 43.46 42.01 41.47 42.05 39.73 42.21 41.35 40.82 40.96 42.06 41.23 41.37 42.58 45.49 44.72 41.97 42.94 41.34 44.37 41.08 40.31 41.50 41.86 42.08 41.41

44.41 44.06 43.22 44.00 42.79 43.44 42.47 43.44 42.58 43.01 42.93 44.97 43.24 42.06 42.90 41.02 42.07 43.62 42.52 42.83 42.36 45.84 41.66 42.36 41.80 42.44 46.33 45.01 43.73 44.24 44.69 42.57 44.46 42.59 43.05 43.17 44.90 43.40 43.29 44.55 47.82 46.99 44.08 45.06 43.53 45.61 42.96 42.96 43.14 43.77 44.67 43.59

41.71 40.42 41.22 36.15 41.27 40.43 34.49 39.83 35.87 37.33 39.76 38.42 42.56 38.59 39.69 37.59 39.33 43.82 39.88 38.92 39.08 43.21 33.84 45.96 40.24 39.94 43.37 36.85 42.27 39.28 39.56 38.91 39.18 41.03 40.43 42.85 41.93 40.19 41.27 41.28 36.73 40.34 50.35 41.73 42.52 41.45 36.62 39.73 39.19 39.69 41.01 40.27

44.97 48.19 45.65 48.60 49.38 47.63 48.72 0.00 43.02 46.01 48.19 47.46 47.89 44.80 47.08 46.70 48.80 49.13 42.61 46.43 47.24 39.82 52.41 49.65 44.20 46.32 46.53 33.97 37.83 47.69 47.19 45.62 48.29 0.00 43.17 43.80 45.57 45.17 47.66 45.32 50.73 59.11 30.84 46.53 45.97 50.18 46.66 51.90 47.47 48.07 44.80 47.06

44.44 43.58 42.46 42.90 42.26 42.75 42.04 60.70 42.38 42.49 42.81 44.54 42.83 41.83 42.56 40.43 41.98 43.57 42.46 41.99 41.94 45.86 41.29 42.19 41.81 42.34 46.04 44.24 58.40 42.42 43.71 41.67 44.03 58.36 48.84 43.09 44.68 43.95 42.57 43.75 47.62 46.60 44.50 44.58 43.56 45.44 55.86 42.64 42.55 43.62 52.59 43.09

44.24 42.43 42.70 43.61 43.04 43.00 41.57 42.67 41.52 42.10 41.98 44.22 43.09 41.59 42.35 39.77 40.87 42.46 42.49 42.16 41.46 44.33 39.67 41.79 41.37 41.50 43.84 42.44 43.13 42.44 42.77 40.80 42.85 42.45 40.53 42.37 44.12 42.29 42.37 45.69 46.75 46.74 43.21 44.75 42.60 45.58 41.36 42.31 41.91 42.94 42.51 42.64

44.96 46.89 42.54 43.26 42.15 43.33 44.43 45.10 45.40 45.04 45.00 47.15 43.65 41.03 43.09 43.12 44.43 46.91 42.79 42.01 43.48 48.47 44.74 44.56 42.86 44.47 47.79 47.31 44.83 44.02 45.46 44.79 47.22 43.00 45.36 45.66 46.75 45.13 44.04 42.20 49.74 46.52 46.76 45.19 44.90 45.76 46.00 44.86 45.24 45.26 45.18 44.52

44.45 43.83 42.66 43.53 42.79 43.09 42.27 43.40 42.40 42.89 42.77 45.03 43.26 41.42 42.57 40.76 41.66 43.87 42.60 42.12 42.03 45.83 41.48 42.50 41.79 42.40 45.75 44.19 43.63 42.91 43.69 41.75 44.27 42.61 42.12 43.11 44.74 43.08 42.85 44.65 47.73 46.65 44.30 44.88 43.24 45.62 42.61 43.14 42.79 43.57 43.28 43.18

Overall

White

BME

Men

Page 23

Chart 51 – Average Age by Area
Dorset Gloucestershire Dyfed Powys Staffordshire Kent North Yorkshire Suffolk Devon & Cornwall Cumbria Wiltshire Cambridgeshire Warwickshire Lincolnshire Cheshire West Mercia Lancashire Northumbria London South Yorkshire Hampshire Sussex Norfolk West Midlands Avon & Somerset Thames Valley Merseyside Humberside Greater Manchester Essex Surrey Northamptonshire North Wales Teesside Durham Nottinghamshire Hertfordshire South Wales Bedfordshire Leicestershire Gwent West Yorkshire Derbyshire
40 41 0.18 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 1.16 1.12 0.23 0.94 1.72 0.26 0.05 0.26 0.18 0.00 0.59 0.53 0.44 0.02 0.50 0.45 1.25 0.44 0.12 0.81 0.42 0.37 0.28 0.44 0.42 0.40 0.02 0.19 0.22 0.09 1.10 0.38 0.84 0.77 0.72 0.32 0.41 0.15 0.49 0.58 0.27

Page 24

Table 12– Average Age by Job Group (Operational)
No Disability Disability

Women

Area/Region

Se nior Proba tion Office r Se nior Pra ctitione r Proba tion Office r Tra ine e Proba tion Office r Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs Psychologists Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l

50.35 48.14 47.34 34.16 46.56 34.08 49.13 46.80

46.92 45.67 41.14 31.20 39.79 32.07 42.41 40.21

49.00 46.67 43.30 31.70 42.84 30.80 46.56 43.00

44.62 45.06 41.28 33.50 38.71 34.39 43.67 40.08

49.51 46.35 46.70 35.94 47.00 0.00 51.20 46.69

48.41 46.39 43.02 31.62 42.22 32.39 45.49 42.56

48.45 46.63 43.18 31.96 42.30 32.39 46.11 42.64

Table 13– Average Age by Job Group (Support)
No Disability Disability

Women

Area/Region

Boa rd Me m be rs Chie f Office rs De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors ACO a nd Equiva le nt Are a /District Ma na ge rs or e quiva le nt Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion Support Sta ff Othe rs Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs Support Sta ff Tota l

60.42 53.92 50.15 50.88 48.67 49.52 37.64 49.33 42.23 47.02

57.42 53.57 49.24 48.70 47.29 46.79 43.06 44.59 40.51 43.81

59.93 54.00 49.37 50.38 48.18 48.12 43.07 48.92 41.48 45.00

55.99 0.00 0.00 44.70 43.40 43.22 38.57 41.45 38.62 40.81

65.20 54.65 0.00 49.21 50.89 49.34 46.41 50.30 44.90 48.29

58.99 53.81 50.03 49.97 47.02 47.80 42.07 48.66 40.89 44.33

59.37 53.75 49.78 49.87 47.85 47.76 42.54 47.10 41.20 44.52

job groups. Together these job groups account for 74.83% of the total workforce in the NPS. Across all three of these job groups the average age has fallen since last year, most likely due to the rapid intake of new staff across the period. In the case of Proabtion Officers, the recent increases in staff in post are a direct result of the qualification of additional Trainee Probation Officers recruited 2 years ago. The TPO job group is by far the youngest job group on average in the NPS, and the recent large intake of graduating POs would reflect this younger age profile. Given the proportion of staff that the PO job group accounts for, this in turn has an effect on the average age of the service as a whole. Chart 59 on Page 28 presents a cumulative distribution showing the relative proportions of staff above and below various age points. AGE BY JOB GROUP On average, operational staff continue to be younger than their colleagues in the support staff category. The average age of operational staff is now 42.64 years, which is 1.88 years less that the average for staff in the support category (44.52 years). In the operational category there is a distinct split between the changes in the average age figures between senior and junior job groups. As discussed above, the average age has fallen in the Probation

Officer (down 0.70 years on average), and Probation Services Officer (down 0.42 years) job groups. The average age of Trainee Probation Officers has also dropped by 0.17 years, and continues to be significantly lower than almost any other job group in the NPS (with the exception of Psychologists). Also as mentioned earlier, these three job groups make up the bulk of staff in the operational job group. In contrast, all other operational job groups have shown increases in the average age of staff. In particular, the average age in the Senior Probation Officer and Senior Practitioners job groups are both up on last year (by 0.23 years and 0.51 years respectively). The trend seen in the more senior posts reflects what we should be seeing in terms of the ageing population in England and Wales, but the effect of this has been outweighed by the significant recruitment of younger staff in the more junior posts, which also form the bulk of staff numbers in the operational category A similar pattern is evident in the support staff category. Across the majority of job groups, including almost all of the senior management groups, the average age has increased since 2004. The most sizeable increases have occurred amongst Board Members (up 1.18 years on average) and Section or Function Heads (up by 1.11 years on average), with other significant increases in the Chief Officer and Other Operational job groups. However, despite the widespread increases in the

Overall

White

BME

Men

Overall

White

BME

Men

Page 25

Chart 52 – Average Age by Job Group (Operational)

Senior Probation Officer Senior Practitioner Other Operational Staff Probation Officer Probation Services Officers Psychologists Trainee Probation Officer Operational Staff Total
30 32 34 36 38 40 42 1.25 0.17 0.02 44 46 48 0.70 0.42 0.51 1.14

0.23

50

52

Chart 53 – Average Age by Job Group (Support)
Board Members Chief Officers ACO and Equivalent Deputy Chief Officers/Directors Area/District Managers or equivalent Managers-Section or Function Heads Support Staff Others Support Staff-Administration Other Specialist Workers Support Staff Total
40 42 44 0.28 0.40 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 0.60 0.84 1.11 0.91 0.36 0.37 0.87 1.18

average age in the category as a whole, the effect of high levels of recruitment in the Administration group (which accounts for the lion’s share of staff in this category) has seen the average age decrease overall. Putting aside Board Members, it continues to be the case that average age tends to increase with seniority. All of the main management grades in the support category have an average age in excess of 45 years, with DCOs, ACOs and Section/Function heads all nearing 50 years of age on average. This seems intuitively correct, and fits with the normal progression of an individual’s career as they age. This also fits with earlier assertions that the fact that men in the NPS tend to be older than Women, may in part explain why they are represented in greater numbers in senior posts than in the organisation more generally. Chart 58 on Page 28 maps the average age of each job group (X axis) against the Region in which they are based (Y axis). The higher the average age, the more red the display on the chart for the particular combination of job group and Region. Please note that the NPD were unable to provide data on the age of its staff, and as a result have not been

included in the analysis presented here. AGE BY GENDER In almost all circumstances, the average age of men in the NPS is greater than that of women. The degree of difference in average age between men and women continues to be greatest in the operational job category. Men in this category have an average age of 46.80 years, compared to just 40.21 years for women. The gap between the two groups has increased by 0.09 years on average since 2004 Men are older in every job group within the operational category, with the greatest age gap occurring in the PSO job group where men are on average 6.77 years older than their female colleagues, although this figure is down on the 6.90 years recorded a year ago. There are also significant age gaps between men and women in the Other Operational and Probation Officer job groups (6.72 years and 6.20 years on average respectively). Within the support staff category, the pattern is similar, although the degree of age gap between men and women is significantly smaller. Men in the support category are 47.02 years old on average, while women

Page 26

Chart 55 – Average Age by Region and Gender

Chart 56 – Average Age by Region and Ethnicity

South West

0.09 0.38 0.01

0.23

South West

1.99 0.10

South East

0.71 0.43 0.15 0.49 0.70 0.25

West Midlands

0.01 0.81

West Midlands

London

0.40 0.64

East of England

South East

0.14 0.09

Wales

0.28

North West

North West

0.06 0.16

0.08 0.59

East of England

East Midlands

0.13 0.27 0.61

0.95 0.01

North East

North East Yorkshire & Humberside London

2.31 0.27 0.75 0.46 0.20 0.10

0.19 0.42 0.38 0.43 0.45

Yorkshire & Humberside

Wales

NPD National Probation Service 38 40
0.00 0.14

East Midlands

0.63 0.22 0.05

National Probation Service

42

44

46

48

50

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

Men

Women

White

BME

are 43.18 years old. In both cases the average age is down on the 2004 figure, and the gap between the two group amounts to 3.22 years on average. Unlike the operational category, men are not older than women in every job group. In the Support Admin job group women are 5.44 years older than men on average, a gap which has increased significantly from 3.21 years in 2004. Chart 60 on Page 28 shows the cumulative age distribution of men and women across the entire staff population. This emphasises the general pattern discussed above. It also shows the difference between the two groups in terms of median age. The current data shows that 50% of men are over the age of 47.70 years, compared to 41.4 for women. AGE BY ETHNICITY

Chart 57 – Average Age by Region and Disability

South East

0.20 0.86 0.20

North West

0.02 1.00

East Midlands

0.37 0.39

West Midlands

0.21 0.34 0.06 2.74

Yorkshire & Humberside

South West

0.26 1.99

With respect to broad ethnic category and age, staff in the white ethnic category are almost universally older on average than colleagues from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. The difference is greatest in the support category, where white staff are on average 4.19 years older than black and minority ethnic staff, although the gap has closed slightly on the 4.29 years recorded in 2004. This difference applies to all job groups within the support category, with the greatest difference occurring amongst Other Support staff, where the difference between the two groups is 7.47 years on average. In the operational job category the difference in average age between white and black and minority

Wales

0.25 0.20 0.31 0.85 0.06 2.78

North East

East of England

London

0.25 0.54 0.19

National Probation Service 40 42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

Disability

No Disability

Page 27

ethnic staff is slightly less at 2.92 years. It is also the case that white staff are not older on average in every job group. The pattern is reversed in both the TPO and Psychologist job groups, where black and minority ethnic staff are older by 1.81 and 3.59 years respectively. The gap in both cases has expanded significantly since 2004 (previously 0.08 and 0.25 years), and presents a real difference between the two groups. The cumulative age distribution by ethnicity (Chart 61, Page 29) again confirms the pattern discussed in this section. The median ages of the two groups differ by 3.95 years in favour of white staff. The gap between the two groups has closed from 4.40 years difference a year ago. AGE BY DISABILITY As with both gender and ethnicity, the comparison of average age between those staff with and without a disability yields a consistent result. In this case, it is staff with a reported disability that are on average older than staff without a disability. This pattern applies both to the operational and support job categories, and to all job groups within those categories. Chart 59 through 63: The solid red vertical indicator line marks the median age for the light blue distribution on each chart, and the solid green line indicates the same figure for the dark blue distribution (except for Chart 59 where only one distribution is shown). The red dotted line plots the cumulative age distribution for the light blue series based on the 2004/05 census results, while the green dotted line plots the same for the dark blue series.

Chart 58 – Average Age in Years Mapped by Job Group and Region
NPS London South East South West East of England West Midlands Wales East Midlands Yorkshire & Humberside North East North West Trainee PO Deputy Chief/Director ACO and Equivalent Other - Operations Other - Operations Board Members Snr Practitioner Psychologist Area/District Manager SectionHeads Snr Probation Officer Probation Serv Officer Support Staff Others Support Staff Admin Specialist Workers Probation Officer 60-65 55-60 50-55 45-50 40-45 35-40 30-35 25-30 20-25 15-20

Chart 59 – Cumulative Age Distribution
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% <20 43.58

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

>65

Chart 60 – Cumulative Age Distribution by Gender
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% <20 41.4 47.7

25

30

35

40

45

50 Men

55

60

65

>65

Women

Page 28

Chart 61 – Cumulative Age Distribution by Ethnicity

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% <20 40.5 44.4

25

30

35

40 BME

45

50 White

55

60

65

>65

Chart 62 – Cumulative Age Distribution by Job Category

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 42.96 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% <20 45.62

25

30

35

40

45

50 Support

55

60

65

>65

Operational

Chart 63 – Cumulative Age Distribution by Disability

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% <20 43.51 48.75

25

30

35

40

45

50 Disability

55

60

65

>65

No Disability

Page 29

Table 15 – Average Length of Service by Area and Region
No Disability

Operational

Disability

Support

Women

Area/Region

Cumbria Cheshire Greater Manchester Lancashire Merseyside North W e st Durham Northumbria Teesside North Ea st Humberside North Yorkshire South Yorkshire W est Yorkshire Yorkshire & Hum be rside Derbyshire Leicestershire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Ea st Midla nds Dyfed Powys Gwent North W ales South W ales W a le s Staffordshire W arwickshire W est Mercia W est Midlands W e st Midla nds Bedfordshire Cambridgeshire Essex Hertfordshire Norfolk Suffolk Ea st of Engla nd Avon & Somerset Devon & Cornwall Dorset Gloucestershire W iltshire South W e st Hampshire Kent Surrey Sussex Thames Valley South Ea st NPD London Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice

7.72 8.24 8.36 8.94 10.63 8.93 7.04 9.55 7.94 8.58 8.30 7.55 9.58 9.43 8.98 6.35 7.65 5.76 5.15 9.70 7.48 7.93 6.18 7.45 7.85 7.48 10.57 5.48 7.78 8.25 8.48 6.82 6.96 5.98 6.15 8.48 8.32 7.09 6.85 7.28 8.37 6.35 5.63 7.11 7.00 7.46 6.16 5.96 4.74 6.29 7.99 7.92

6.25 7.20 7.48 7.96 7.57 7.48 6.57 8.35 6.64 7.49 6.33 6.27 8.56 8.40 7.83 6.64 6.45 6.25 4.97 7.27 6.55 6.18 5.86 6.12 6.90 6.44 9.66 6.41 6.62 7.68 7.79 6.02 5.42 6.58 4.92 6.60 6.70 6.11 6.82 6.48 6.11 6.90 4.94 6.40 6.51 7.04 5.55 4.84 3.17 5.36 7.84 6.98

6.66 7.62 8.06 8.57 8.63 8.14 6.83 8.84 7.17 7.97 7.18 6.77 8.94 9.01 8.34 6.61 7.08 6.05 5.13 8.64 7.07 6.87 6.06 6.41 7.32 6.84 10.53 6.29 7.15 8.41 8.48 6.80 6.18 6.51 6.03 7.56 7.52 6.76 7.14 6.57 6.98 6.89 5.14 6.70 7.09 7.24 5.87 5.44 3.65 5.86 8.96 7.52

4.12 6.82 7.46 5.62 7.16 7.03 6.37 6.09 3.18 5.24 4.23 7.65 7.18 7.90 7.37 5.70 6.02 3.34 5.11 5.79 5.70 3.00 2.62 5.87 4.54 4.35 8.98 4.44 5.03 6.37 6.32 4.61 2.02 4.95 2.97 4.50 3.32 3.94 5.02 6.63 9.28 5.00 6.07 5.66 5.71 4.08 4.61 3.19 2.43 3.49 6.48 6.10

3.04 9.40 8.20 10.51 12.62 9.96 11.83 0.00 3.80 8.01 8.07 7.27 13.36 11.77 11.62 7.90 7.62 12.16 0.93 8.90 8.64 0.29 5.19 10.57 7.22 7.60 6.51 4.29 0.32 12.30 11.34 6.54 8.30 0.00 7.69 7.59 6.42 7.34 8.83 6.79 5.64 2.08 2.50 7.23 8.68 9.42 6.19 8.57 5.38 7.84 9.19 9.19

6.88 7.44 7.77 8.04 8.32 7.84 6.56 4.48 7.15 6.84 7.12 6.69 8.46 9.01 8.25 6.49 7.51 5.82 5.14 8.08 6.97 6.88 5.99 6.46 7.39 6.84 10.38 6.11 4.25 7.64 8.22 6.26 5.92 3.66 8.87 7.28 7.38 6.88 6.73 5.99 6.97 6.77 5.21 6.41 7.30 7.09 4.30 5.07 3.50 5.50 4.38 7.19

6.43 8.18 7.70 8.54 8.98 8.12 6.55 8.38 6.49 7.43 7.15 7.44 8.89 8.87 8.35 6.29 6.60 6.34 5.34 8.83 7.11 6.48 4.62 6.39 7.10 6.42 11.03 5.64 6.71 7.61 7.85 5.59 5.27 6.46 5.13 7.33 7.26 6.29 6.77 7.34 7.14 7.03 5.37 6.90 6.70 7.08 5.77 5.65 3.70 5.75 7.38 7.25

7.66 6.16 8.01 7.46 7.68 7.57 7.26 9.61 8.79 8.94 6.58 4.94 8.79 8.33 7.79 7.15 7.66 5.59 4.52 6.02 6.23 7.43 8.30 7.15 7.56 7.65 8.91 6.88 7.71 8.44 8.35 8.29 7.27 6.23 5.49 7.13 7.43 6.78 7.00 5.49 6.48 6.21 4.69 6.11 6.52 7.45 5.62 4.37 3.24 5.33 9.13 7.39

6.80 7.54 7.78 8.29 8.62 7.97 6.73 8.75 7.04 7.85 7.00 6.74 8.86 8.70 8.19 6.55 6.84 6.09 5.04 8.07 6.86 6.84 5.96 6.59 7.23 6.80 10.00 6.10 7.00 7.86 8.02 6.26 5.96 6.39 5.25 7.29 7.30 6.43 6.83 6.78 6.92 6.70 5.16 6.65 6.65 7.16 5.73 5.22 3.58 5.63 7.89 7.29

Page 30

Overall

White

BME

Men

Service
LENGTH OF SERVICE BY REGION/AREA The average length of service for the entire staff population at 31/12/2005 was 7.29 years. This is a very slight increase of 0.01 years on average since the last Workforce Profile Report. The region with the longest serving staff on average in the NPS is Yorkshire & Humberside, where staff have served 8.19 years on average, which is up by 0.76 years on a year ago. This compares with the shortest serving workforce in the NPS, found in the South East, where the figure stands at just 5.63 years on average. This is down by 0.60 years on average since 2004. The majority of Regions in the NPS have recorded an increase in average length of service since last year. Of those regions recording a drop in the average length of service, the largest was in the South East as discussed above. LENGTH OF SERVICE BY JOB GROUP Staff in the operational category have served 7.25 years on average, and tend to be shorter serving than those in the support category who have served 7.39 years. However, the average length of service in the operational category has increased by 0.08 years since last year, while the support category average has dropped by 0.11 years. The net result is that the gap has closed considerably compared to the 2004 figure. This is consistent with the ongoing pattern observed in last 2 years data, with the average length of service of staff in the operational category increasing, and the average for support staff dropping. Average length of service in the operational group continues to approximately align with job group seniority. This is consistent with the fact that the Probation Officer career structure is such that people mostly join the service as a TPO, and then progressively gain more senior positions as their career progresses. It is rare for staff to join the NPS in a senior operational post, as they are unlikely to have the requisite skills and experience coming from other employment. Changes in average length of service across the operational category have been somewhat mixed between 2004 and 2005. There have been increases in the average length of Service in the more senior operational posts, such as Senior Probation Officer and Senior Practitioner (up by 0.29 and 0.467 years respectively), as well as an increase in the average length of service amongst TPOs which is up by 0.36 to 1.90 years service on average. This contrasts with the falling average length of service amongst Probation Officer and Probation Services Officers where the figure is down by 0.12 and 0.33 years respectively. Again, this pattern is consistent with the high levels of recruitment activity seen in these two job groups seen during 2005. A similarly mixed pattern is apparent in the support staff category. The average length of service has dropped overall, but there have also been some increases recorded in individual job groups. The biggest increase was in the Assistant Chief Officer job group, where the average length of service has increased by 0.61 years on the figure reported last year. However, the 0.19 year drop in average service in the Administration job group has ensured that the category as a whole is down, and also reflects the high levels of recruitment seen in this job group as discussed previously. As with the operational category, length of service in the support category does loosely align with seniority. The management positions in the support category are marked by relatively lengthy average service figures, all of which are in excess of 11 years. By comparison, the lower graded administrative and specialist job groups have average service figures at less than 8 years. Again, this is an intuitively sensible result, as it can be expected that people will achieve more senior posts as their career in the organisation lengthens.

Chart 64 – Average Length of Service by Region

Yorkshire & Humberside West Midlands North West London North East East Midlands Wales South West East of England South East NPD National Probation Service
3 4 5 6 7 0.01 8 0.60 0.44 0.01 0.44 0.29

0.76 0.11 0.17 0.52 0.62

9

10

11

Page 31

Chart 65 – Average Length of Service by Area
Staffordshire South Yorkshire Northumbria West Yorkshire Merseyside Lancashire Nottinghamshire London West Midlands Greater Manchester Cheshire Suffolk Norfolk South Wales Kent Teesside West Mercia Humberside Dorset Leicestershire Dyfed Powys Avon & Somerset Cumbria Devon & Cornwall North Yorkshire Durham Gloucestershire Hampshire North Wales Derbyshire Essex Bedfordshire Warwickshire Lincolnshire Cambridgeshire Gwent Surrey Hertfordshire Sussex Wiltshire Northamptonshire Thames Valley
3 2.32 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 0.46 0.16 0.60 0.30 0.30 1.01 1.37 0.41 0.51 1.20 0.52 0.38 0.05 0.57 0.52 1.07 0.05 0.03 0.26 0.28 0.28 1.03 0.80 0.01 0.22 0.55 0.84 0.30 0.22 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.94 0.10 0.86 0.16 0.04 0.66 0.21 0.37 0.20

Page 32

Table 16 – Average Length of Service by Job Group (Operational)
No Disability Disability

Women

Area/Region

Se nior Proba tion Office r Se nior Pra ctitione r Proba tion Office r Tra ine e Proba tion Office r Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs Psychologists Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l

16.93 12.13 10.88 1.72 5.81 4.57 5.91 8.24

12.74 10.36 7.55 1.96 6.00 3.79 5.46 6.66

15.20 11.30 8.67 1.82 6.13 3.96 5.85 7.46

10.46 7.96 8.09 2.60 4.79 3.88 4.86 6.08

13.58 8.39 10.70 1.82 8.48 0.00 7.90 9.35

14.60 11.08 8.49 1.94 5.94 3.93 5.68 7.22

14.61 11.05 8.64 1.90 5.93 3.91 5.71 7.25

Table 17 – Average Length of Service by Job Group (Support)
No Disability

Disability

Women

Area/Region

De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors ACO a nd Equiva le nt Are a /District Ma na ge rs or e quiva le nt Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion Support Sta ff Othe rs Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs Support Sta ff Tota l

11.47 15.13 13.25 10.51 3.96 5.72 5.85 6.66

12.44 12.67 12.86 12.02 7.33 5.34 7.25 7.61

11.32 14.42 13.42 11.60 7.15 6.22 6.90 7.66

0.00 10.33 7.25 9.94 6.44 4.32 4.62 6.14

0.00 11.44 17.12 11.77 8.47 8.39 7.68 8.66

11.22 13.31 12.32 10.91 6.77 5.90 6.40 7.11

11.86 13.98 13.01 11.48 7.01 5.54 6.69 7.39

LENGTH OF SERVICE BY GENDER Overall, men continue have a greater average length of service with NPS than women. Male employees have on average been with the NPS for 7.92 years, compared to their female colleagues who have an average length of service of 6.98 years. In both cases the average length of service figure is very slightly up on the 2004 result (up 0.01 and 0.02 years respectively), but the gap between the two groups is largely the same. The difference between men and women in terms of length of service continues to have it’s origins in the operational staff group, where male employees have an average service length of 8.24 years compared to an average of 6.66 years for women. The difference has reduced since 2004, with the average length of service for men falling by 0.02 years and increasing by 0.15 for women, but continues to be substantial. Within the operational grade, this difference holds true for all but two job groups. In the TPO and PSO job groups, women have a greater average length of service than their male colleagues by 0.19 and 0.25 years respectively (see tables 16 and 17 above). In the support staff category the pattern is reversed, with an average length of service of 7.61 years amongst women, compared to 6.66 years amongst men. Both of these figures are down on last years result, falling by 0.16 and 0.20 years respectively.

There is no consistent pattern within the job groups in the support category with regard to the relative length of service of male and female staff. However, the largest difference in favour of women occurs in the Administration job group, where women have longer average service by 3.37 years. While the difference in the Administration job group continues to be large, the average length of service for men and women have both dropped since last year (down by 0.27 and 019 years respectively). This reflects the increased recruitment seen across the year as discussed previously. LENGTH OF SERVICE BY ETHNICITY In a continuation of the pattern observed in last 2 years of this report, white employees have a greater length of service on average than their black and minority ethnic counterparts. White staff have served 7.52 years on average (a decrease of 0.02 years), while staff from a black or minority ethnic background have served an average of 6.10 years (up by 0.02 years). The difference is consistent between both the operational and support staff categories, where white staff are on average 1.38 years longer serving in the operational group, and 1.52 years longer serving in the support group. In both cases the average length of service is down on the 2004 result (by 0.06 and 0.03 years respectively) (see tables 16 and 17 above). Across both the operational and support categories, in all but one job group the same pattern is repeated. The

Overall

White

BME

Men

Overall

White

BME

Men

Page 33

Chart 66 – Average Length of Service by Job Group (Operational) only exception is the TPO job group, where black and minority ethnic staff are slightly longer serving. However, as this is one of the shortest serving job groups (being an entry level position), this is a minor difference. As discussed in previous Workforce Profile Reports, the fact that black and minority ethnic staff are shorter serving on average is likely to be a result of the fact that the recruitment pool from which staff have been drawn over the years has changed along with the ethnic make up of British society. Black and minority ethnic communities have grown in the UK over the last decade, and the likelihood of a black or minority ethnic person being selected for a position in the NPS has increased approximately in proportion. LENGTH OF SERVICE BY DISABILITY Across the NPS in general, a staff member with a reported disability is on average longer serving than a colleague without a disability. Staff with a disability have an average length of service of 9.19 years (an decrease of 0.34 years), compared to an average of 7.19 years for staff with no reported disability (a decrease of 0.03 years). A similar degree of difference, and in the same direction, can be observed for both the operational and support staff categories, with a difference of 2.12 and 1.42 years on average respectively. The gap in the operational category has decreased by 0.48 years on average since the end of 2004, but has increased by 0.13 years in the support category(see charts 66 and 67 above). The trend does not hold true for all individual job groups within the respective categories. The exceptions include the SPO, SP, TPO, and ACO & Equivalent job groups, where staff with disabilities are shorter serving by up to 3 years.
ACO and Equivalent Area/District Managers or equivalent Deputy Chief Officers/Directors Managers-Section or Function Heads Support StaffAdministration Other Specialist Workers Support Staff Others Support Staff Total
0 2 4 6 0.86 0.19 0.25 0.37 0.61

Senior Probation Officer Senior Practitioner Probation Officer Probation Services Officers Psychologists Other Operational Staff Trainee Probation Officer Operational Staff Total
0 2 4 6 0.36 1.11 0.33 0.12 0.46

0.29

3.04

0.08 8 10 12 14 16

Chart 67 – Average Length of Service by Job Group (Support)

0.32

0.84

0.11 8 10 12 14 16

REFERENCES
Workforce demographics for the Public Service used for comparison purposes in this report are drawn from the report ‘Characteristics of People Employed in the Public Sector’ published by the Office for National Statistics in December 2005. In addition this report makes reference to population estimates drawn from the 2004 General Household Survey also published by the Office for National Statistics.

Page 34

Chart 69 – Average Length of Service by Region and Gender
Yorkshire & Humberside North West
0.83 0.75 0.09 0.23 0.93 0.48 0.35 0.00 0.61 0.48 0.13 0.04

Chart 70 – Average Length of Service by Region and Ethnicity
0.80

London

0.69 0.08 0.22 0.60 1.37 0.01 0.63 0.38 0.84 0.28

West Midlands

North East

Yorkshire & Humberside

West Midlands

North West

London

North East

Wales

East Midlands

East Midlands

0.18 0.55

1.43 0.03

Wales

South West

0.44 0.45 0.45 0.22

0.29 0.36

East of England

East of England

0.09 0.49

South East

0.35 0.69

South West

0.91 0.56

South East

NPD National Probation Service 4 5 6 7
0.01 0.02

0.91 0.02 0.02

National Probation Service 2 3 4 5 6

8

9

10

11

12

7

8

9

10

11

12

Men

Women

White

BME

Chart 71 – Average Length of Service by Region and Disability
Yorkshire & Humberside
0.83 0.30 0.12 0.11 0.53

West Midlands

North West

0.18 1.08

London

1.75 0.78

East Midlands

0.53 0.04

North East

0.65 0.54

South East

0.63 0.42

Wales

0.08 0.28 0.86 0.05

East of England

South West

0.50 0.33 0.03

National Probation Service 2 4 6

8

10

12

14

Disability

No Disability

Page 35