You are on page 1of 35

Human Resources

Workforce Profile
Report
Introduction Issue 3 June 2006

IIf you require further copies of this report, please contact


CONTENTS
•Stefan Hendry, Assistant
On 31/12/2004 there wereHR Manager
22,329 staff in Workforce
the NPS
Planning & Information
(including on 020
Chief Officers and7217
the 8556
NPD). or There
by email at:
were Introduction 1
also 544 Board Members in post
stefan.hendry3@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk at this time. Both of
these are headcount figures, and are not directly
If you have anytocomments
comparable on quoted
FTE figures this report, please
in the e-mail
Quarter 3 Supplementary Notes 2
yourWorkforce
commentsInfor
to: mation Report published in April
2005
NPD.workforceinforeport@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk Gender 2

Ethnicity 8
Headline Figures
• On 31/12/2005 there were 22,886 staff in the NPS Disability 17
(including Chief Officers), 502 Probation Board
Members, and 120 staff in the NPD. This is an overall
Age 24
headcount of 24,316 staff in the Probation sector.
• Women make up 67.18% of the workforce, and
Service 32
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 higher than the representation in the general UK
last year, and now stands at 32.82% of the staff population (9.32% in 2004)
population • The minority ethnic reporting target requiring 95%
• While men are in the minority across the NPS in complete data has been met, with just 2.00% of staff
general, they continue to have higher representation missing ethnic category information
in senior operational and support roles. 44.59% of • The representation of black and minority ethnic
Senior Probation Officers (SPO) are men, as are groups is generally strong across operational posts
more than 50% of those at Assistant Chief Officer but lower in senior support roles. The proportion of
(ACO) level and above black and minority ethnic Trainee Probation Officers
• A similar pattern of representation is observed in the has increased substantially since 2004, and is up by
NPD, where more than 50% of staff at SEO level and 3.07% to 14.50%. However, representation amongst
above are men. However, this is consistent with the Chief Officers and Deputy Chief Officers has dropped
fact that men make up a greater proportion of the to nil, leaving the top two tiers of management with
NPD staff population (50.83%). The representation of no black or minority ethnic staff
women in senior NPD posts has improved • The underreporting of disability continues to fall with
significantly, but much of this can be traced to the missing disability information affecting 9.98% of the
wholesale transfer of staff to NOMS which has staff population. In addition, 15.69% of staff are
reduced the number of staff by 60% recorded as genuinely ‘Not Stated’.
• The representation of black and minority ethnic • The representation of staff reporting a disability has
groups has increased by 0.88% since last year, and increased to 3.67% of the Probation workforce. This
now stands at 11.79% of the Probation workforce. is a significant improvement on the 2004 figure, but is
This means that representation continues to be well still well below the representation of people with
ahead of the Home Secretary’s Race Equality disabilities in the wider Public Service workforce
Employment Target of 8.3% by 2009, and is also (13.00%, 2004 Figures)

Page 1
Supplementary Notes
The information contained in this report has not Terminology & Conventions
previously been published. In reading this report, you
should note the following: • Operational Staff – Represents those staff whose
work involves direct contact with offenders on a daily
• The report presents a ‘snapshot’ of the workforce at basis
31 December 2005
• Support Staff – Represents all other staff employed
• The data is not directly comparable with previous data within the Service. It is acknowledged that some staff
collected through the RDS Probation Statistics categorised within this group may have some contact
with offenders
• The data collection date coincides with the end of
Quarter 3, and should correlate with those reported in • Not Stated – This is used where the information on a
issue 10 of the Workforce Information Report. particular variable is unknown because the individual
However, there continues to be some variation concerned has declined to provide their details
between the two sets of data. The discrepancies
amount to approximately 166.08 of 20,542.06 FTE • Blank – This is used where the information on a
across the NPS. This is a 0.78% margin of error particular variable is simply not available
between the two reports • Zero Values – As with the ‘Blank’ category, there are
• This report presents headcount figures only, and not some instances where data is not available for some
full time equivalent (FTE) figures individuals on a particular variable. Where this is the
case, these individuals have been excluded from
• Where necessary, this report draws comparison with calculations. This leads to some variations in staff
relevant external statistics. numbers
• This report covers the 42 Areas within the NPS, as • BME – This is an abbreviation of ‘black and minority
well the National Probation Directorate and Members ethnic’ used in some tables in this report. Please note
of the Probation Boards. that all Areas report ethnicity in terms of the ‘16+1’
ethnic codes used in the National Census
• 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.

Gender
GENDER BY REGION/AREA Chart 1 – Ranked Gender Representation by Region
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 NPD 6.55%
in the NPD. This is an overall headcount of
South West 0.13%
24,316 staff in the Probation sector.
Wales 1.80%
16,335 of these staff were women, who North West 0.72%
account for 67.18% of the staff population.
West Midlands 0.39%
This is an increase of 0.85% on the
proportion of women recorded at the end of East Midlands 0.61%

2004 (66.32%). Women continue to account North East 1.26%


for approximately two thirds of total staff in East of England 1.24%
the Probation sector, and continue to
London 0.07%
outnumber their male colleagues by an
approximate ratio of 2:1. Yorkshire & Humberside 1.04%

South East 1.93%


The other 7,981 staff are men and account
for the remaining 32.82% of the total National Probation Service 0.86%

population. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 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
population (2004 figures). 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
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 Table 1 – Gender Representation by Area and Region
1.93% on the 2004 figure (68.51%).
The South West has the lowest representation of Area/Region Me n % W om e n %

women in the NPS at 65.03%. However, this is Cumbria 86 37.07% 146 62.93%
up by 0.13% on the 2004 figure. Cheshire 145 32.51% 301 67.49%
Greater Manchester 507 34.12% 979 65.88%
The make up of the staff population in the NPD
Lancashire 226 34.56% 428 65.44%
continues to be substantially different to that of
Merseyside 292 34.11% 564 65.89%
the NPS. Women form the minority of NPD staff
at 49.17%, although this is up significantly on the North W e st 1256 34.19% 2418 65.81%

42.61% reported at the end of 2004. Durham 110 33.64% 217 66.36%
Northumbria 255 33.33% 510 66.67%
GENDER BY JOB GROUP
Teesside 118 31.22% 260 68.78%
Women represent 63.24% of staff in the North Ea st 483 32.86% 987 67.14%
operational job category, which is an increase of Humberside 187 33.88% 365 66.12%
0.86% on the 2004 figure. North Yorkshire 109 36.95% 186 63.05%

The representation of women in the operational South Yorkshire 217 29.17% 527 70.83%
job category continues to be consistent with the W est Yorkshire 349 29.43% 837 70.57%
generally high representation in the NPS staff Yorkshire & Hum be rside 862 31.04% 1915 68.96%
population. However, this is not surprising given Derbyshire 140 32.26% 294 67.74%
that operational roles make up almost three Leicestershire 164 32.67% 338 67.33%
quarters of the posts in the NPS (72.80%). Lincolnshire 87 31.41% 190 68.59%

Across the operational category the proportion of Northamptonshire 107 36.90% 183 63.10%
women has increased in all but two of the job Nottinghamshire 238 32.78% 488 67.22%
groups. The most noteworthy changes have Ea st Midla nds 736 33.02% 1493 66.98%
occurred in the major Probation Officer job Dyfed Powys 75 37.69% 124 62.31%
groups. The proportion of women in the Gwent 92 31.19% 203 68.81%
Probation Officer (PO) job group is up 2.75% to North W ales 101 35.31% 185 64.69%
67.17%, and we have seen a similar increase of South W ales 244 35.01% 453 64.99%
1.96% amongst Senior Probation Officers (SPO)
W a le s 512 34.66% 965 65.34%
to 55.41%. Despite the increase in the
Staffordshire 193 36.21% 340 63.79%
representation of women in the SPO job
W arwickshire 71 33.65% 140 66.35%
category, the gender breakdown is still out of
kilter with the general representation in the NPS. W est Mercia 147 33.41% 293 66.59%
W est Midlands 501 31.83% 1073 68.17%
In last years report it was noted that we could 912 33.07% 1846 66.93%
W e st Midla nds
expect to see a continuing erosion of the
Bedfordshire 74 30.45% 169 69.55%
representation of men in the SPO job group, due
Cambridgeshire 106 34.08% 205 65.92%
to the fact that the representation of women in
the job groups that feed these senior posts was Essex 181 31.81% 388 68.19%

high and increasing. The representation of Hertfordshire 74 27.31% 197 72.69%

women POs continues to grow, and the Norfolk 120 36.36% 210 63.64%
increasing number of female SPOs is consistent Suffolk 101 36.73% 174 63.27%
with the expected pattern. Ea st of Engla nd 656 32.82% 1343 67.18%
Avon & Somerset 208 34.84% 389 65.16%
In contrast, the Senior Practitioner (SP) job group
has seen an 8.30% drop in the representation of Devon & Cornwall 217 36.59% 376 63.41%

women, down to 61.05% at the end of 2005. A Dorset 117 34.11% 226 65.89%
similarly large shift in representation was noted in Gloucestershire 86 35.98% 153 64.02%
the 2004 figures, but this volatility in the job W iltshire 63 30.88% 141 69.12%
group can be traced to the fact that the SP job South W e st 691 34.97% 1285 65.03%
group is relatively small, and small changes in Hampshire 208 28.93% 511 71.07%
terms of headcount have a large effect in Kent 178 30.07% 414 69.93%
percentage terms. Surrey 100 29.33% 241 70.67%
The TPO job group continues to be Sussex 182 34.60% 344 65.40%
predominantly made up of women, accounting for Thames Valley 202 26.41% 563 73.59%
74.13% of staff. Although this is fractionally down South Ea st 870 29.56% 2073 70.44%
on 2004 figures, the expectation is that, all things London 942 32.56% 1951 67.44%
being equal, the high proportion of female TPOs NPD 61 50.83% 59 49.17%
should over time translate through to higher Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice 7981 32.82% 16335 67.18%
representation in the probation officer seniority
structure.

Page 3
Chart 2 – Ranked Gender Representation by Area

Dyfed Powys 2.31%

Cumbria 2.00%

North Yorkshire 2.01%

Northamptonshire 2.84%

Suffolk 4.38%

Devon & Cornwall 0.56%

Norfolk 4.05%

Staffordshire 1.22%

Gloucestershire 0.43%

North Wales 0.59%

South Wales 1.71%

Avon & Somerset 0.84%

Sussex 2.25%

Lancashire 0.11%

Greater Manchester 0.57%

Merseyside 1.26%

Dorset 0.88%

Cambridgeshire 0.76%

Humberside 1.50%

Warwickshire 0.36%

Durham 0.73%

West Mercia 1.38%

Northumbria 1.33%

Nottinghamshire 1.12%

Leicestershire 0.73%

London 0.07%

Cheshire 0.65%

Derbyshire 0.41%

West Midlands 0.39%

Essex 0.15%

Lincolnshire 0.11%

Teesside 2.76%

Gwent 2.86%

Wiltshire 0.45%

Bedfordshire 0.84%

Kent 3.38%

West Yorkshire 0.63%

Surrey 2.64%

South Yorkshire 0.82%

Hampshire 2.86%

Hertfordshire 0.60%

Thames Valley 1.65%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 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 Table 2 – Gender Representation by Job Group (Operational)
representation of staff within the operational
category. The Psychologist job group has seen Area/Region Me n % W om e n %
the representation of men increase by 44.36%, Se nior Proba tion Office r 552 44.59% 686 55.41%
and the ‘Other Operational’ job group has seen Se nior Pra ctitione r 171 38.95% 268 61.05%
an equally large (40.20%) increase in the Proba tion Office r 1912 32.83% 3912 67.17%
representation of women. In the former case the Tra ine e Proba tion Office r 364 25.87% 1043 74.13%
change is related to the small number of staff 2498 36.74% 4302 63.26%
Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs
(less than 20) and the relatively high degree of
Psychologists 3 15.79% 16 84.21%
turnover seen in the last year. The latter group
Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff 836 55.47% 671 44.53%
owes it’s volatility to the fact that it is a catch all
‘Other’ category, and there is a significant degree Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l 6336 36.76% 10898 63.24%

of fluctuation in the number and type of staff


allocated to it.
Women account for 77.02% of the staff in the Table 3 – Gender Representation by Job Group (Support)
support category, which is an increase of 0.88%
on the 2004 figure (76.44%). The overall Area/Region Me n % W om e n %
representation figure for the support category is 332 66.14% 170 33.86%
Boa rd Me m be rs
heavily influenced by the make-up of the ‘Support
Chie f Office rs 22 52.38% 20 47.62%
Staff Administration’ job group. The staff in this
De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors 36 59.02% 25 40.98%
job group account for 66.73% of the entire
ACO a nd Equiva le nt 172 53.42% 150 46.58%
support category, and 90.47% of them are
women. Are a /District Ma na ge rs or Equiva le nt 61 40.67% 89 59.33%
Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds 149 35.82% 267 64.18%
The trend for men to occupy more senior support
Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion 455 9.53% 4319 90.47%
roles continues to hold true. Men form the
Support Sta ff Othe rs 260 52.42% 236 47.58%
majority of staff in the Assistant Chief Officer
Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs 157 40.15% 234 59.85%
(ACO), Deputy Chief Officer (DCO), and Chief
Officer (CO) job groups (53.42%, 59.02%, and Support Sta ff Tota l 1644 22.98% 5510 77.02%

52.38% respectively). However, in two of the


three job groups the representation of women
has increased significantly since 2004.
Table 4 – Gender Representation by Job Group (NPD)
In the ACO job group the representation of
women has risen by 3.53% in a year, and the
Area/Region Me n % W om e n %
proportion for Chief Officers is up by 4.76%. In
Se nior Civil Se rva nt 5 83.33% 1 16.67%
contrast, the representation of women at DCO
level has slipped since last year (down 3.46%). Gra de 6 9 52.94% 8 47.06%
Gra de 7 20 54.05% 17 45.95%
The proportion of men in the Area/District Se nior Ex e cutive Office r 4 30.77% 9 69.23%
Manager and Section/Function Head job groups
Highe r Ex e cutive Office r 8 72.73% 3 27.27%
has risen in the last year, although only
Ex e ctive Office r 8 44.44% 10 55.56%
marginally at just 0.80% and 0.24% respectively.
Adm inistra tive Office r 7 53.85% 6 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.
NPD 61 50.83% 59 49.17%
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 Women have previously represented the majority of
than in the NPS, accounting for 50.83% of the staff administrative staff in the NPD, and continue to do so in
population. However, this is down by 6.55% on the so far as the Senior Personal Secretary, and Personal
male representation figure for 2004 (57.39%). The Secretary job groups are exclusively staffed by women.
gender breakdown continues to be broadly consistent However, the proportion of male Administrative Officers
with the gender breakdown of the civil service, of which is up by 44.44%.
the NPD is a part.
Much of the variation in the NPD workforce noted
The pattern of representation in the NPD shows that
above can be traced to the fact that the number of staff
men continue to predominate in the more senior posts.
has reduced substantially since 2004. In particular, the
Men form the majority of all grades at and above SEO.
wholesale transfer of staff to NOMS in April 2005 has
However, there have been some substantial increases
contributed to the approximate 60% reduction in NPD
in the representation of women amongst selected
staff numbers.

Page 5
Chart 3 – Ranked Gender Representation by Job Group (Operational)

Other Operational Staff 0.52%

Senior Probation Officer 1.96%

Senior Practitioner 8.30%

Probation Services Officers 0.68%

Probation Officer 2.75%

Trainee Probation Officer 0.00%

Psychologists 4.68%

Operational Staff Total 0.86%

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

Men Women

Chart 4 – Ranked Gender Representation by Job Group (Support)

Board Members 0.69%

Deputy Chief Officers/Directors 3.46%

ACO and Equivalent 3.53%

Support Staff Others 15.01%

Chief Officers 4.76%

Area/District Managers or Equivalent 0.80%

Other Specialist Workers 3.36%

Managers-Section or Function Heads 0.24%

Support Staff-Administration 0.02%

Support Staff Total 0.88%

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

Men Women

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

Administrative Assistant

Senior Civil Servant 19.70%

Higher Executive Officer 10.23%

Grade 7 15.64%

Administrative Officer 53.85%

Grade 6 16.62%

Exective Officer 4.20%

Senior Executive Officer 33.23%

Senior Personal Secretary

Personal Secretary

NPD 6.55%

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

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% 36.37%
Men
61.64% 63.63%
W omen

21.76%
Full Time
Part Time

78.24%

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

23.64% 23.26%
Men
76.36% W omen 76.74%

Full Time
35.43%
Part Time

64.57%

Part time working arrangements continue to be more similar with women accounting for 63.63% of staff, and
prevalent in the support staff category than in the men at 36.37%. Both of these sets of figures are
operational area. consistent with the proportion of men and women in the
operational job category (63.24% women, and 36.76%
In the support category 35.43% of staff are working part
men).
time, compared with 21.76% in the operational
category. The former is down by 1.53% from 2004 In the support category, of the 35.43% of staff working
figures, while the latter is up marginally by just 0.09%. part time, 76.36% are women and 23.64% men. The
full time staff gender split is almost identical, with
The proportion of men and women that work full time
76.74% of the staff working full time being women, and
versus part time continues to be consistent with the
23.26% men. Again, this is completely in proportion to
representation of men and women in the general
the representation of women and men in the job
workforce.
category (77.02% and 22.98% respectively).
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

Page 7
Ethnicity
ETHNICITY BY REGION/AREA Chart 8 – Ranked Ethnic Representation by Region
On 31/12/2005 the representation of black and
minority ethnic staff in the Probation sector North East
stood at 11.79%. This is 0.88% up on the same
figure recorded a year ago. Please note that Wales
the NPD were unable to provide ethnicity South West
information in time for inclusion in this report,
and are not included in the figure above. South East

This places the Probation sector well ahead of North West


the UK average for representation of black and Yorkshire & Humberside
minority ethnic groups (9.32% based on the
2004 Government Household Survey), and the East of England
service has significantly exceeded the Home East Midlands
Secretary’s Race Equality Employment Target
of 8.3% by 2009. West Midlands

Charts 16 through 26 on pages 12 and 13 London

present the performance of each region against National Probation Service


the relevant pro-rated targets, with appropriate
50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100%
comparison to last years figures.
Nine of the ten regions in the NPS have White Not Stated Blank BME

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 North East 0.04%
gains of 1.52% and 4.72% respectively in the
Wales 0.24%
last year. In the case of London, this increase
is on the back of a 4.21% increase between South West 0.10%

2003 and 2004.


South East 0.24%

The only region to have seen a decrease in the


North West 0.02%
representation of black and minority ethnic staff
is the East Midlands, where the figure for 2005 Yorkshire & Humberside 0.32%

is down by 1.05% on the previous year. 0.84%


East of England
All but one Region in the NPS is ahead of the East Midlands 1.05%
projected target required to allow the NPS as a
whole to meet the Home Secretary’s Race West Midlands 1.52%

Equality Employment Target for 2009. These London 4.72%


targets are not official, but have been pro-rated
on the basis of population estimates, and are National Probation Service 0.88%

provided for monitoring purposes. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

The North East continues to be below the Black Asian Mixed Other
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 consistent with the levels of black and minority ethnic
0.05% behind the notional target for the region. The groups in the local community.
fact that the North East region is slightly below target is
Of those staff in the black and minority ethnic category,
well compensated for nationally by the relatively strong
the largest portion identify themselves as ‘Black’ at
representation levels in other regions.
7.06% of the total staff population. This figure is up by
London continues to have by far the largest 0.71% on 2004.
representation of black and minority ethnic staff in the
The next largest group falls in the ‘Asian’ category
NPS (40.20% of total staff), and this has increased
which accounts for 2.79% of the total staff population,
markedly over the last 2 years. This is consistent with
which represents an increase of 0.09% on the same
the fact that London has by far the most diverse
figure reported a year ago.
population in the UK, and is becoming increasingly so.
The North East region continues to have the lowest Similarly, the proportion of staff placed in the ‘Mixed’
representation of black and minority ethnic staff at category has increased by 0.12% to 1.48% of the staff
2.59%. population, and continues to account for the third
largest section of the black and minority ethnic group.
However, across the board in the NPS, the regional
levels of representation continue to be broadly The smallest section of the black and minority ethnic

Page 8
Table 5 – Ethnic Representation by Area and Region

Not Stated
White

Blank
Asian

Mixed
Black

Other
BME
Area/Region

Cumbria 94.83% 1.72% 0.43% 0.00% 0.86% 0.43% 3.02% 0.43%


Cheshire 95.96% 2.91% 0.90% 0.67% 0.90% 0.45% 0.90% 0.22%
Greater Manchester 81.16% 9.29% 4.85% 2.56% 1.48% 0.40% 8.14% 1.41%
Lancashire 92.35% 6.12% 0.61% 4.28% 0.76% 0.46% 1.53% 0.00%
Merseyside 92.99% 6.19% 2.34% 0.47% 2.80% 0.58% 0.82% 0.00%
North W e st 88.57% 6.75% 2.75% 1.99% 1.55% 0.46% 4.06% 0.63%
Durham 92.35% 2.75% 0.00% 1.22% 1.22% 0.31% 3.98% 0.92%
Northumbria 97.25% 2.22% 0.13% 1.18% 0.78% 0.13% 0.26% 0.26%
Teesside 94.97% 3.17% 1.06% 1.59% 0.26% 0.26% 1.59% 0.26%
North Ea st 95.58% 2.59% 0.34% 1.29% 0.75% 0.20% 1.43% 0.41%
Humberside 94.38% 3.80% 1.99% 1.09% 0.72% 0.00% 1.45% 0.36%
North Yorkshire 97.63% 0.68% 0.34% 0.00% 0.34% 0.00% 1.69% 0.00%
South Yorkshire 91.67% 7.39% 4.70% 1.08% 0.94% 0.67% 0.54% 0.40%
W est Yorkshire 83.22% 11.97% 3.96% 5.99% 1.43% 0.59% 4.64% 0.17%
Yorkshire & Hum be rside 89.23% 7.92% 3.38% 3.06% 1.04% 0.43% 2.59% 0.25%
Derbyshire 91.01% 8.29% 2.53% 3.69% 1.38% 0.69% 0.69% 0.00%
Leicestershire 77.09% 13.35% 4.18% 7.37% 1.39% 0.40% 1.00% 8.57%
Lincolnshire 92.78% 2.53% 0.00% 1.44% 0.72% 0.36% 3.61% 1.08%
Northamptonshire 86.55% 8.97% 4.48% 2.41% 1.72% 0.34% 0.00% 4.48%
Nottinghamshire 81.40% 15.43% 8.26% 5.23% 1.24% 0.69% 1.10% 2.07%
Ea st Midla nds 84.39% 11.13% 4.71% 4.58% 1.30% 0.54% 1.17% 3.32%
Dyfed Powys 98.99% 0.50% 0.50% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.50% 0.00%
Gwent 96.27% 3.05% 1.02% 1.02% 0.68% 0.34% 0.34% 0.34%
North W ales 89.51% 2.45% 0.35% 0.70% 1.05% 0.35% 8.04% 0.00%
South W ales 94.84% 4.59% 1.15% 1.15% 1.58% 0.72% 0.43% 0.14%
W a le s 94.65% 3.32% 0.88% 0.88% 1.08% 0.47% 1.90% 0.14%
Staffordshire 90.06% 3.94% 1.31% 1.13% 1.31% 0.19% 1.88% 4.13%
W arwickshire 89.57% 9.95% 2.37% 6.64% 0.95% 0.00% 0.47% 0.00%
W est Mercia 92.95% 7.05% 4.32% 2.50% 0.23% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
W est Midlands 68.36% 26.11% 15.69% 8.07% 1.72% 0.64% 0.76% 4.76%
W e st Midla nds 78.10% 17.55% 10.08% 5.73% 1.34% 0.40% 0.83% 3.52%
Bedfordshire 73.25% 22.22% 15.23% 4.94% 2.06% 0.00% 3.70% 0.82%
Cambridgeshire 93.57% 4.50% 1.93% 1.93% 0.64% 0.00% 0.64% 1.29%
Essex 92.97% 5.45% 3.16% 0.70% 1.05% 0.53% 0.88% 0.70%
Hertfordshire 79.70% 14.02% 6.27% 3.32% 2.58% 1.85% 5.90% 0.37%
Norfolk 88.48% 2.73% 0.30% 0.61% 1.21% 0.61% 6.36% 2.42%
Suffolk 94.91% 4.73% 1.82% 0.36% 2.18% 0.36% 0.36% 0.00%
Ea st of Engla nd 88.39% 7.95% 4.20% 1.70% 1.50% 0.55% 2.70% 0.95%
Avon & Somerset 88.27% 5.70% 3.69% 1.01% 0.67% 0.34% 5.36% 0.67%
Devon & Cornwall 91.06% 2.53% 0.67% 0.17% 1.52% 0.17% 0.34% 6.07%
Dorset 96.79% 0.87% 0.00% 0.00% 0.87% 0.00% 2.04% 0.29%
Gloucestershire 91.63% 6.69% 4.60% 0.84% 1.26% 0.00% 0.84% 0.84%
W iltshire 95.59% 3.43% 0.98% 0.98% 0.49% 0.98% 0.49% 0.49%
South W e st 91.75% 3.80% 1.97% 0.56% 1.01% 0.25% 2.23% 2.23%
Hampshire 86.37% 3.76% 1.11% 1.53% 0.70% 0.42% 0.42% 9.46%
Kent 94.76% 3.04% 1.35% 0.84% 0.68% 0.17% 2.03% 0.17%
Surrey 89.74% 7.04% 2.93% 1.76% 2.35% 0.00% 2.05% 1.17%
Sussex 81.75% 5.32% 2.09% 1.33% 1.14% 0.76% 8.94% 3.99%
Thames Valley 86.01% 11.37% 6.01% 3.27% 1.18% 0.92% 2.48% 0.13%
South Ea st 87.53% 6.25% 2.82% 1.83% 1.09% 0.51% 2.99% 3.23%
London 54.17% 40.20% 31.63% 4.49% 3.39% 0.69% 5.63% 0.00%
Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice 83.46% 11.79% 7.06% 2.79% 1.48% 0.46% 2.75% 2.00%

Page 9
Chart 10 – Ranked Ethnic Representation by Area Chart 11 – Change in Ethnic Representation by Area

Dyfed Powys Dyfed Powys 0.04%

North Yorkshire North Yorkshire 0.30%

Dorset Dorset 0.04%

Cumbria Cumbria 0.33%

Northumbria Northumbria 0.10%

North Wales North Wales 0.26%

Lincolnshire Lincolnshire 0.35%

Devon & Cornwall Devon & Cornwall 0.43%

Norfolk Norfolk 0.33%

Durham Durham 0.44%

Cheshire Cheshire 0.09%

Kent Kent 0.05%

Gwent Gwent 0.18%

Teesside Teesside 0.69%

Wiltshire Wiltshire 0.37%

Hampshire Hampshire 0.47%

Humberside Humberside 0.17%

Staffordshire Staffordshire 0.35%

Cambridgeshire Cambridgeshire 1.02%

South Wales South Wales 0.53%

Suffolk Suffolk 0.41%

Sussex Sussex 0.58%

Essex Essex 0.34%

Avon & Somerset Avon & Somerset 0.77%

Lancashire Lancashire 0.45%

Merseyside Merseyside 0.55%

Gloucestershire Gloucestershire 0.47%

Surrey Surrey 0.39%

West Mercia West Mercia 0.36%

South Yorkshire South Yorkshire 0.04%

Derbyshire Derbyshire 0.35%

Northamptonshire Northamptonshire 0.82%

Greater Manchester Greater Manchester 0.52%

Warwickshire Warwickshire 1.32%

Thames Valley Thames Valley 0.01%

West Yorkshire West Yorkshire 0.64%

Leicestershire Leicestershire 0.45%

Hertfordshire Hertfordshire 2.78%

Nottinghamshire Nottinghamshire 3.07%

Bedfordshire Bedfordshire 4.20%

West Midlands West Midlands 1.56%

London London 4.72%

50% 55% 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 0% 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
Chart 12 – Representation within the ‘Black’ Ethnic
accounts for just 0.46% of the total staff population.
This is another slight fall of 0.04% on the previous year. Category
Charts 12 to 15 show the breakdown of ethnic origin
within each of the broad ethnic categories.
Other
Generally, the breakdown within each broad ethnic 12.87%
category remains steady, but there are a few notable
shifts from figures reported in 2004.
The general proportions within the black category African
continue to be relatively unchanged from those 20.91%

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 Caribbean
66.22%
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 Chart 13 – Representation within the ‘Asian’ Ethnic
last year. As noted in previous reports, this group Category
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.
Other
The number of staff for whom no ethnic origin 12.08%
Bangladeshi
information is available currently amounts to 2.00% of 4.12%
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
Indian
Table 5 on Page 9. 53.17%
The number of staff in the ‘Not Stated’ category Pakistani
30.63%
currently stands at 2.75%. This is up slightly on the
2.35% reported in 2004.

Chart 15 – Representation within the ‘Other’ Ethnic Chart 14 – Representation within the ‘Mixed’ Ethnic
Category Category

Chinese
20.35% White & Asian
18.11%
Other
33.43%

White & Black


African
12.53%

Other
79.65%
White & Black
Caribbean
35.93%

Page 11
Chart 16 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Chart 17 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional
Targets (North West) Targets (North East)
4% 5% 4% 5%
3% 6% 3% 6%

2% 7% 2% 7%

1% 8% 1% 8%

0% 9% 0% 9%

Chart 18 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Chart 19 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional
Targets (Yorkshire & Humberside) Targets (East Midlands)
4% 5% 8% 10%
3% 6% 6% 12%

2% 7% 4% 14%

1% 8% 2% 16%

0% 9% 0% 18%

Chart 20 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Chart 21 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional
Targets (Wales) Targets (West Midlands)
4% 5% 8% 10%
3% 6% 6% 12%

2% 7% 4% 14%

1% 8% 2% 16%

0% 9% 0% 18%

Chart 22 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional Chart 23 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional
Targets (East of England) Targets (South West)
4% 5% 4% 5%
3% 6% 3% 6%

2% 7% 2% 7%

1% 8% 1% 8%

0% 9% 0% 9%

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 Chart 25 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional
Targets (South East) Targets (London)
4% 5% 20% 25%
3% 6% 15% 30%

2% 7% 10% 35%

1% 8% 5% 40%

0% 9% 0% 45%

Chart 26 – Ethnic Representation Against Regional


Targets (National Probation Service)
8% 10%
6% 12%

4% 14%

2% 16%

0% 18%

Table 6 – Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Operational)

Not Stated
White

Blank
Asian

Mixed
Black

Other
BME

Area/Region

Se nior Proba tion Office r 85.62% 11.71% 7.19% 2.42% 1.53% 0.57% 1.86% 0.81%
Se nior Pra ctitione r 90.89% 7.74% 5.01% 0.91% 0.91% 0.91% 1.14% 0.23%
Proba tion Office r 84.48% 11.52% 6.59% 2.56% 1.84% 0.53% 3.02% 0.98%
Tra ine e Proba tion Office r 77.54% 14.50% 8.24% 3.13% 2.63% 0.50% 5.19% 2.77%
Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs 84.31% 12.10% 7.25% 2.90% 1.62% 0.34% 2.51% 1.07%
Psychologists 84.21% 10.53% 5.26% 5.26% 0.00% 0.00% 5.26% 0.00%
Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff 73.92% 15.06% 11.02% 2.65% 0.86% 0.53% 5.91% 5.11%
Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l 83.17% 12.22% 7.37% 2.70% 1.68% 0.46% 3.12% 1.49%

Table 7 – Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Support)


Not Stated
White

Blank
Asian

Mixed
Black

Other
BME

Area/Region

Boa rd Me m be rs 74.50% 14.54% 4.98% 8.57% 0.40% 0.60% 5.18% 5.78%


Chie f Office rs 88.10% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11.90%
De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors 95.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.28% 1.64%
ACO a nd Equiva le nt 89.44% 9.63% 5.59% 1.55% 1.24% 1.24% 0.93% 0.00%
Are a /District Ma na ge rs or Equiva le nt 91.33% 8.00% 4.00% 3.33% 0.67% 0.00% 0.67% 0.00%
Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds 90.87% 7.45% 4.81% 0.96% 1.20% 0.48% 1.68% 0.00%
Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion 87.52% 10.14% 5.99% 2.76% 1.01% 0.38% 1.47% 0.88%
Support Sta ff Othe rs 68.75% 21.17% 16.73% 3.43% 0.81% 0.20% 4.44% 5.65%
Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs 88.24% 9.21% 3.07% 3.58% 1.28% 1.28% 1.28% 1.28%
Support Sta ff Tota l 85.77% 10.79% 6.29% 3.08% 0.96% 0.46% 1.90% 1.54%

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

Page 14
Chart 29 – Change in Ethnic Representation by Job Group (Operational)

Senior Practitioner 2.67%

Psychologists 6.14%

Probation Officer 0.01%

Senior Probation Officer 0.97%

Probation Services Officers 0.69%

Trainee Probation Officer 3.07%

Other Operational Staff 5.48%

Operational Staff Total 0.99%

0.0% 2.5% 5.0% 7.5% 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 2.38%

Deputy Chief Officers/Directors 3.70%

Managers-Section or Function Heads 1.39%

Area/District Managers or Equivalent 2.77%

Other Specialist Workers 2.76%

ACO and Equivalent 2.85%

Support Staff-Administration 1.71%

Board Members 0.02%

Support Staff Others 5.43%

Support Staff Total 0.33%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Black Asian Mixed Other

continues to be well below that in the NPS workforce succession to DCO and CO posts in the NPS, the
generally. However, the representation of BME staff is increases in BME representation offer a positive sign
up marginally to 10.79% from 10.46% a year ago. for future representation at senior management level.
Having said that, the individual results for the job
In addition, the representation of BME staff at
groups within the support category offer a more mixed
Section/Function head level is also down, and now
picture.
stands at 7.45%. This is 1.39% less than at the same
The two results that will be of concern are the decline in stage a year ago.
representation at Chief and Deputy Chief Officer level.
The representation of BME staff continues to be
In both cases the representation of BME staff on
healthy in the lower graded support posts. 10.14% of
31/12/2005 was nil. This represents a drop of 2.38%
administration staff are of BME origin, and this up by
and 3.70% in the respective job groups, and leaves the
1.71% since the end of the 2004.
NPS with no BME representation in the top two tiers of
the organisation. ETHNICITY BY GENDER
On the more positive side, the 2005 figures show that Charts 31 and 32 on Page 16 show that there
BME representation has increased significantly in the continues to be no significant differences between men
next two levels of management. Amongst ACOs, BME and women in terms of the representation of black and
representation has increased 2.85% in the last year, minority ethnic groups.
and now stands at 9.63%. Similarly, the BME
representation amongst the Area/District Manager job The representation amongst men is approximately
group is up by 2.77% to 8.00%. Assuming that these equal to that amongst women, and in both cases this is
in proportion to the level of representation as a whole.
job groups will provide the majority of candidates for

Page 15
Chart 31 – Ethnic Representation by Gender (Men) Chart 32 – Ethnic Representation by Gender (Women)

Asian Mixed Asian Mixed


Other Other
1.25% 1.69%
Black
3.45%
0.65% Black 2.68% 0.41%
8.00% 7.13%

White White
86.64% 88.09%

Disability
DISABILITY BY REGION/AREA
The number of staff for whom disability information is representation, the level of reported disability continues
missing or not recorded has continued to fall, but is still to be relatively low across the NPS. The majority of
well above the desired 5% tolerance level. At the end of regions have representation in the 3% to 5% range with
2005 9.98% of staff were had no information available the North West at the top end of the scale at 6.72%. At
on their disability status, which is down from 12.72% in the lower end of the scale, the North East and London
2004. have the lowest incidence of recorded disability at just
1.43% and 1.38% respectively.
The situation continues to improve, but the issue of
missing information does continue to affect a number of In all cases this is well below the 13.00% of staff in the
Areas. In the case of Northumbria, West Mercia, and Public Service as a whole that have a reported
Essex the proportion of staff with missing disability disability. Charts 35 through 45 on Pages 19 and 20
information is close to 100%. However, the number of plot the performance of each Region against the overall
Areas breaching the 5% barrier has fallen from 9 in Public Service figure
2004 to 7 for the current data collection. The Areas and As discussed in the last report, the generally low levels
Regions affected by this are marked in red in Table 8 of reported disability may be in some part attributable to
on Page 17. a lack of understanding by staff about what is defined
In addition to missing information, there continues to be as a disability. A person’s disability status relies on self
a relatively high proportion of staff who have their reporting, and there may be a number of staff that are
disability status recorded as ‘Not Stated’. At the close not aware that they have a condition that meets the
of 2005 there were 15.69% of staff in this category, current legal definition of a disability, which tends to be
which is just slightly down from the 15.83% recorded at more inclusive than many are aware.
the close of 2004.
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
North West 1.17%
population in the NPS were recorded as
South East 2.53%
having a disability as defined by the
Disability Discrimination Act. This is a Yorkshire & Humberside 0.88%

significant improvement on the 2.81% South West 1.79%

reported a year ago. The proportion of staff East of England 0.25%


with a disability is up in all but one region, East Midlands 0.80%
with the greatest increases occurring in the Wales 0.02%
South East, South West, and North West
West Midlands 0.09%
regions (up by 2.53%, 1.79%, and 1.17%
North East 0.05%
respectively). The only region to have
recorded a decreased proportion of staff London 0.31%

reporting a disability is Wales where the National Probation Service 0.86%

figure is down by 0.02% to 2.91% of the 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9%


staff population
Staff with a Disability
Despite the general improvements in

Page 16
Table 8 – Reported Disability by Area and Region

No Disability

Not Stated
Disability

Blank
Area/Region

Cumbria 2.16% 97.41% 0.00% 0.43%


Cheshire 5.38% 94.17% 0.00% 0.45%
Greater Manchester 5.72% 94.01% 0.07% 0.20%
Lancashire 11.01% 88.69% 0.15% 0.15%
Merseyside 7.13% 92.64% 0.12% 0.12%
North W e st 6.72% 92.98% 0.08% 0.22%
Durham 3.36% 96.33% 0.00% 0.31%
Northumbria 0.00% 1.44% 0.13% 98.43%
Teesside 2.65% 96.83% 0.00% 0.53%
North Ea st 1.43% 47.07% 0.07% 51.43%
Humberside 1.63% 89.86% 0.00% 8.51%
North Yorkshire 5.76% 78.64% 14.58% 1.02%
South Yorkshire 8.20% 91.40% 0.13% 0.27%
W est Yorkshire 2.45% 88.11% 9.19% 0.25%
Yorkshire & Hum be rside 4.18% 88.33% 5.51% 1.98%
Derbyshire 4.84% 94.70% 0.23% 0.23%
Leicestershire 2.19% 82.67% 14.74% 0.40%
Lincolnshire 5.42% 93.14% 0.00% 1.44%
Northamptonshire 1.38% 96.90% 0.00% 1.72%
Nottinghamshire 2.62% 96.83% 0.14% 0.41%
Ea st Midla nds 3.14% 92.78% 3.41% 0.67%
Dyfed Powys 0.50% 98.99% 0.00% 0.50%
Gwent 1.69% 97.63% 0.00% 0.68%
North W ales 3.50% 95.80% 0.35% 0.35%
South W ales 3.87% 90.24% 5.16% 0.72%
W a le s 2.91% 93.97% 2.51% 0.61%
Staffordshire 1.31% 94.37% 0.19% 4.13%
W arwickshire 0.47% 99.05% 0.00% 0.47%
W est Mercia 0.23% 2.73% 0.00% 97.05%
W est Midlands 3.30% 73.25% 23.32% 0.13%
W e st Midla nds 2.21% 68.06% 13.34% 16.39%
Bedfordshire 2.47% 96.71% 0.00% 0.82%
Cambridgeshire 4.50% 93.57% 0.00% 1.93%
Essex 0.00% 1.93% 0.18% 97.89%
Hertfordshire 7.38% 37.64% 0.00% 54.98%
Norfolk 2.73% 96.97% 0.00% 0.30%
Suffolk 7.27% 92.36% 0.00% 0.36%
Ea st of Engla nd 3.45% 60.68% 0.05% 35.82%
Avon & Somerset 5.36% 94.30% 0.00% 0.34%
Devon & Cornwall 5.73% 80.10% 0.00% 14.17%
Dorset 2.92% 96.50% 0.00% 0.58%
Gloucestershire 0.42% 98.33% 0.00% 1.26%
W iltshire 1.47% 97.55% 0.00% 0.98%
South W e st 4.05% 91.24% 0.00% 4.71%
Hampshire 6.95% 51.74% 0.14% 41.17%
Kent 3.89% 95.61% 0.00% 0.51%
Surrey 3.81% 2.93% 92.96% 0.29%
Sussex 4.37% 95.06% 0.00% 0.57%
Thames Valley 4.18% 95.56% 0.00% 0.26%
South Ea st 4.79% 74.04% 10.81% 10.36%
London 1.38% 0.28% 98.17% 0.17%
Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice 3.67% 70.66% 15.69% 9.98%

Page 17
Chart 34 – Reported Disability by Area

Lancashire 3.31%

South Yorkshire 0.77%

Hertfordshire 0.37%

Suffolk 1.34%

Merseyside 0.08%

Hampshire 6.95%

North Yorkshire 5.11%

Devon & Cornwall 3.16%

Greater Manchester 0.60%

Lincolnshire 0.74%

Cheshire 3.58%

Avon & Somerset 1.14%

Derbyshire 0.15%

Cambridgeshire 0.72%

Sussex 2.65%

Thames Valley 0.87%

Kent 0.01%

South Wales 0.59%

Surrey 1.11%

North Wales 1.91%

Durham 0.17%

West Midlands 0.47%

Dorset 2.31%

Norfolk 1.36%

Teesside 0.71%

Nottinghamshire 2.46%

Bedfordshire 0.32%

West Yorkshire 0.07%

Leicestershire 0.01%

Cumbria 0.17%

Gwent 0.10%

Humberside 0.48%

Wiltshire 0.93%

London 0.31%

Northamptonshire 1.02%

Staffordshire 1.12%

Dyfed Powys 0.50%

Warwickshire 0.47%

Gloucestershire 0.03%

West Mercia 0.00%

Essex 0.00%

Northumbria 0.39%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Staff with a Disability

Page 18
Chart 35 – Disability Representation Against Public Chart 36 – Disability Representation Against Public
Service Average (North West) Service Average (North East)
8% 10% 8% 10%
6% 12% 6% 12%

4% 14% 4% 14%

2% 16% 2% 16%

0% 18% 0% 18%

Chart 37 – Disability Representation Against Public Chart 38 – Disability Representation Against Public
Service Average (Yorkshire & Humberside) Service Average (East Midlands)

8% 10% 8% 10%
6% 12% 6% 12%

4% 14% 4% 14%

2% 16% 2% 16%

0% 18% 0% 18%

Chart 39 – Disability Representation Against Public Chart 40 – Disability Representation Against Public
Service Average (Wales) Service Average (West Midlands)
8% 10% 8% 10%
6% 12% 6% 12%

4% 14% 4% 14%

2% 16% 2% 16%

0% 18% 0% 18%

Chart 41 – Disability Representation Against Public Chart 42 – Disability Representation Against Public
Service Average (East of England) Service Average (South West)
8% 10% 8% 10%
6% 12% 6% 12%

4% 14% 4% 14%

2% 16% 2% 16%

0% 18% 0% 18%

Page 19
Chart 43 – Disability Representation Against Public Chart 44 – Disability Representation Against Public
Service Average (South East) Service Average (London)
8% 10% 8% 10%
6% 12% 6% 12%

4% 14% 4% 14%

2% 16% 2% 16%

0% 18% 0% 18%

Chart 45 – Disability Representation Against Public


Service Average (National Probation Service)
8% 10%
6% 12%

4% 14%

2% 16%

0% 18%

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

Blank

Area/Region

Se nior Proba tion Office r 5.41% 66.24% 18.74% 9.61%


Se nior Pra ctitione r 3.87% 79.73% 4.78% 11.62%
Proba tion Office r 4.52% 70.18% 15.06% 10.25%
Tra ine e Proba tion Office r 3.20% 62.19% 24.45% 10.16%
Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs 3.69% 71.22% 14.57% 10.51%
Psychologists 0.00% 78.95% 15.79% 5.26%
Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff 3.12% 72.46% 19.51% 4.91%
Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l 4.00% 70.11% 16.03% 9.86%

Table 10 – Reported Disability by Job Group (Operational)


No Disability

Not Stated
Disability

Blank

Area/Region

Boa rd Me m be rs 3.39% 79.88% 0.00% 16.73%


Chie f Office rs 2.38% 52.38% 28.57% 16.67%
De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors 0.00% 60.66% 31.15% 8.20%
ACO a nd Equiva le nt 1.86% 70.19% 19.57% 8.39%
Are a /District Ma na ge rs or e quiva le nt 4.67% 81.33% 2.67% 11.33%
Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds 3.61% 62.98% 19.47% 13.94%
Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion 2.87% 72.71% 15.19% 9.24%
Support Sta ff Othe rs 2.02% 64.72% 23.79% 9.48%
Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs 3.07% 84.14% 4.60% 8.18%
Support Sta ff Tota l 2.87% 72.56% 14.54% 10.04%

Page 20
DISABILITY BY JOB GROUP Chart 46 – Change in Disability Representation by Job Group
(Operational)
In the operational staff group the
proportion of staff reporting a disability
Senior Probation Officer 0.55%
stands at 4.00%. This is higher than the
overall average for the NPS, and has Probation Officer 1.06%
increased by 0.90% since the 2004 data
Senior Practitioner 1.79%
was analysed.
Probation Services Officers 0.50%
The job group with the highest proportion
of staff reporting a disability continues to Trainee Probation Officer 1.64%

be SPO at 5.41%, which is up a further


Other Operational Staff 1.16%
0.55% on the 2004 figure.
Psychologists 0.00%
There have been increases in the
proportion of staff with a reported Operational Staff Total 0.91%

disability across all but one of the job 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%


groups in the operational category. The
largest of these sees the proportion of Staff with a Disability
staff with a disability rise by 1.79% in the
Senior Practitioner job group, closely Chart 47 – Change in Disability Representation by Job Group
followed by a 1.64% increase amongst (Support)
TPOs. The general upward trend means
that all but one job group now have Area/District Managers or equivalent 3.36%
disability figures above 3.00%.
Managers-Section or Function Heads 0.82%
The only exception to the general trend
is in the Psychologist job group, where Board Members 0.26%

the representation of staff with a Other Specialist Workers 1.41%


disability has remained unchanged at
0.00%. Support Staff-Administration 0.63%

Chief Officers 0.00%


In last years report concern was
expressed that the representation of staff Support Staff Others 1.02%
with a disability was low (and falling)
ACO and Equivalent 0.51%
amongst TPOs, as this is where the
majority of future Probation Officers Deputy Chief Officers/Directors 0.00%
would be drawn from. While the
Support Staff Total 0.72%
representation of disabled staff continues
to be relatively low, it has improved 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7%
markedly as discussed above.
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 Despite the increases seen this year, all but one of the
year. As in the operational category, the general trend job groups in the support category continue to be below
across the job groups in the support category is for the national average. However, the gap has closed
growth in the proportion of staff reporting a disability. considerably in most cases.

The most significant increase since last year has come Reflecting the trend observed nationally, the
in the Area/District Manager job group, where the representation of staff with disabilities in the support
proportion of staff reporting a disability has risen by category continues to be low. However, as noted
3.36%. In the 2004 this job group was third from bottom previously, this may be affected by the fact self
in terms of representation of disabled staff, and has reported disability may tend to underestimate the true
now moved to the top of the scale in the support level of disability in the staff population.
category.
There was also a sizeable increase of 1.41% in the
Other Specialists job group, where disabled
representation now stands at 3.07%.

Page 21
DISABILITY BY GENDER/ETHNICITY
Charts 48 and 49 show the gender and ethnic make up some evidence that men are slightly more likely to have
of the population of staff in the NPS reported as having a reported disability, as 40.43% of staff with a disability
a disability. are men, compared with representation of 32.82% in
the general staff population.
In both cases, it is apparent that the relative
proportions of the constituent groups are broadly Similarly, staff with a disability are more likely to be
consistent with the make up of the NPS staff population white. 91.94% of staff reporting a disability are white,
in general. There is no particular gender or ethnic compared with the 83.46% representation of white staff
group that is disproportionately represented in the in the NPS as a whole.
category of staff with a disability. However, there is

Chart 48 – Reported Disability by Gender Chart 49 – Reported Disability by Ethnicity

Asian Mixed
1.52% Other
Black 1.05%
1.17%
4.32%

Men
40.43%
Wom en
59.57%

White
91.94%

Age
AGE BY REGION/AREA Chart 50 – Average Age by Region

The average age of staff in the NPS at


31/12/2005 was 43.18 years. This is a South West 0.21
decrease of 0.14 years on the same figure a West Midlands 0.26
year ago. The median age for the Probation
South East 0.60
workforce at the end of 2005 was 43.58
London 0.44
years, and 70.67% of the workforce were
over the age of 35. This is consistent with the North West 0.08

age profile of the broader Public Service in East of England 0.68

which 72% of staff are over the age of 35. North East 0.26

Yorkshire & Humberside 0.34


In the majority of Regions in the NPS the
average age has decreased over the last Wales 0.38

year. The largest decreases have been East Midlands 0.18


recorded in the East of England (down 0.68 NPD
years), and the South East (down 0.60 National Probation Service 0.14
years). In contrast, the average age of the
40.0 40.5 41.0 41.5 42.0 42.5 43.0 43.5 44.0 44.5 45.0 45.5 46.0
workforce is up by 0.34 years in Yorkshire
and Humberside.
The Region with the oldest staff populatiuon
on average is South West, where the figure stands at report that we could expect to see ongoing general
44.88 years. This is however down by 0.21 years on increases in the average age of the NPD workforce.
last year. The majority of Regions continue to have an The figures for 2005 do not reflect the expected
average age between 42 and 44 years, with the pattern.
youngest workforce reported in East Midlands with an An explanation for this may be found in the pattern or
average age of 42.03 years (up 0.18 years on 2004). recruitment over the last year. Since the end of 2004
Given the generally ageing popultaion in England and there have been substaintial increases in the Probation
Wales it was suggested in last years workforce profile Officer, Probation Service officer, and Administration

Page 22
Table 11– Average Age by Area and Region

No Disability

Operational
Disability

Support
Women

Overall
White

BME
Men
Area/Region

Cumbria 48.80 41.93 44.41 41.71 44.97 44.44 44.24 44.96 44.45
Cheshire 48.51 41.55 44.06 40.42 48.19 43.58 42.43 46.89 43.83
Greater Manchester 46.00 40.95 43.22 41.22 45.65 42.46 42.70 42.54 42.66
Lancashire 46.45 42.02 44.00 36.15 48.60 42.90 43.61 43.26 43.53
Merseyside 46.72 40.76 42.79 41.27 49.38 42.26 43.04 42.15 42.79
North W e st 46.72 41.22 43.44 40.43 47.63 42.75 43.00 43.33 43.09
Durham 45.00 40.94 42.47 34.49 48.72 42.04 41.57 44.43 42.27
Northumbria 46.38 41.92 43.44 39.83 0.00 60.70 42.67 45.10 43.40
Teesside 47.63 40.16 42.58 35.87 43.02 42.38 41.52 45.40 42.40
North Ea st 46.38 41.22 43.01 37.33 46.01 42.49 42.10 45.04 42.89
Humberside 47.27 40.47 42.93 39.76 48.19 42.81 41.98 45.00 42.77
North Yorkshire 47.99 43.34 44.97 38.42 47.46 44.54 44.22 47.15 45.03
South Yorkshire 47.52 41.53 43.24 42.56 47.89 42.83 43.09 43.65 43.26
W est Yorkshire 44.30 40.22 42.06 38.59 44.80 41.83 41.59 41.03 41.42
Yorkshire & Hum be rside 46.21 40.93 42.90 39.69 47.08 42.56 42.35 43.09 42.57
Derbyshire 44.97 38.78 41.02 37.59 46.70 40.43 39.77 43.12 40.76
Leicestershire 46.90 39.18 42.07 39.33 48.80 41.98 40.87 44.43 41.66
Lincolnshire 48.01 42.07 43.62 43.82 49.13 43.57 42.46 46.91 43.87
Northamptonshire 48.01 39.54 42.52 39.88 42.61 42.46 42.49 42.79 42.60
Nottinghamshire 46.06 40.20 42.83 38.92 46.43 41.99 42.16 42.01 42.12
Ea st Midla nds 46.54 39.85 42.36 39.08 47.24 41.94 41.46 43.48 42.03
Dyfed Powys 49.02 43.94 45.84 43.21 39.82 45.86 44.33 48.47 45.83
Gwent 48.91 38.22 41.66 33.84 52.41 41.29 39.67 44.74 41.48
North W ales 47.31 39.94 42.36 45.96 49.65 42.19 41.79 44.56 42.50
South W ales 45.46 39.83 41.80 40.24 44.20 41.81 41.37 42.86 41.79
W a le s 46.94 40.03 42.44 39.94 46.32 42.34 41.50 44.47 42.40
Staffordshire 50.08 43.27 46.33 43.37 46.53 46.04 43.84 47.79 45.75
W arwickshire 45.67 43.46 45.01 36.85 33.97 44.24 42.44 47.31 44.19
W est Mercia 46.87 42.01 43.73 42.27 37.83 58.40 43.13 44.83 43.63
W est Midlands 46.00 41.47 44.24 39.28 47.69 42.42 42.44 44.02 42.91
W e st Midla nds 47.02 42.05 44.69 39.56 47.19 43.71 42.77 45.46 43.69
Bedfordshire 46.53 39.73 42.57 38.91 45.62 41.67 40.80 44.79 41.75
Cambridgeshire 48.34 42.21 44.46 39.18 48.29 44.03 42.85 47.22 44.27
Essex 45.40 41.35 42.59 41.03 0.00 58.36 42.45 43.00 42.61
Hertfordshire 45.70 40.82 43.05 40.43 43.17 48.84 40.53 45.36 42.12
Norfolk 46.93 40.96 43.17 42.85 43.80 43.09 42.37 45.66 43.11
Suffolk 49.34 42.06 44.90 41.93 45.57 44.68 44.12 46.75 44.74
Ea st of Engla nd 46.95 41.23 43.40 40.19 45.17 43.95 42.29 45.13 43.08
Avon & Somerset 45.62 41.37 43.29 41.27 47.66 42.57 42.37 44.04 42.85
Devon & Cornwall 48.01 42.58 44.55 41.28 45.32 43.75 45.69 42.20 44.65
Dorset 51.77 45.49 47.82 36.73 50.73 47.62 46.75 49.74 47.73
Gloucestershire 50.22 44.72 46.99 40.34 59.11 46.60 46.74 46.52 46.65
W iltshire 49.55 41.97 44.08 50.35 30.84 44.50 43.21 46.76 44.30
South W e st 48.40 42.94 45.06 41.73 46.53 44.58 44.75 45.19 44.88
Hampshire 47.93 41.34 43.53 42.52 45.97 43.56 42.60 44.90 43.24
Kent 48.60 44.37 45.61 41.45 50.18 45.44 45.58 45.76 45.62
Surrey 46.30 41.08 42.96 36.62 46.66 55.86 41.36 46.00 42.61
Sussex 48.54 40.31 42.96 39.73 51.90 42.64 42.31 44.86 43.14
Thames Valley 46.47 41.50 43.14 39.19 47.47 42.55 41.91 45.24 42.79
South Ea st 47.69 41.86 43.77 39.69 48.07 43.62 42.94 45.26 43.57
London 45.76 42.08 44.67 41.01 44.80 52.59 42.51 45.18 43.28
NPD - - - - - - - - -
Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice 46.84 41.41 43.59 40.27 47.06 43.09 42.64 44.52 43.18

Page 23
Chart 51 – Average Age by Area

Dorset 0.27

Gloucestershire 0.58

Dyfed Powys 0.41

Staffordshire 0.15

Kent 0.49

North Yorkshire 1.16

Suffolk 1.12

Devon & Cornwall 0.23

Cumbria 0.94

Wiltshire 1.72

Cambridgeshire 0.26

Warwickshire 0.05

Lincolnshire 0.26

Cheshire 0.18

West Mercia 0.00

Lancashire 0.59

Northumbria 0.53

London 0.44

South Yorkshire 0.02

Hampshire 0.50

Sussex 0.45

Norfolk 1.25

West Midlands 0.44

Avon & Somerset 0.12

Thames Valley 0.81

Merseyside 0.42

Humberside 0.37

Greater Manchester 0.28

Essex 0.44

Surrey 0.42

Northamptonshire 0.40

North Wales 0.02

Teesside 0.19

Durham 0.22

Nottinghamshire 0.09

Hertfordshire 1.10

South Wales 0.38

Bedfordshire 0.84

Leicestershire 0.77

Gwent 0.72

West Yorkshire 0.32

Derbyshire 0.18

40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

Page 24
Table 12– Average Age by Job Group (Operational)

No Disability
Disability
Women

Overall
White

BME
Men
Area/Region

Se nior Proba tion Office r 50.35 46.92 49.00 44.62 49.51 48.41 48.45
Se nior Pra ctitione r 48.14 45.67 46.67 45.06 46.35 46.39 46.63
Proba tion Office r 47.34 41.14 43.30 41.28 46.70 43.02 43.18
Tra ine e Proba tion Office r 34.16 31.20 31.70 33.50 35.94 31.62 31.96
Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs 46.56 39.79 42.84 38.71 47.00 42.22 42.30
Psychologists 34.08 32.07 30.80 34.39 0.00 32.39 32.39
Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff 49.13 42.41 46.56 43.67 51.20 45.49 46.11
Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l 46.80 40.21 43.00 40.08 46.69 42.56 42.64

Table 13– Average Age by Job Group (Support)

No Disability
Disability
Women

Overall
White

BME
Men
Area/Region

Boa rd Me m be rs 60.42 57.42 59.93 55.99 65.20 58.99 59.37


Chie f Office rs 53.92 53.57 54.00 0.00 54.65 53.81 53.75
De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors 50.15 49.24 49.37 0.00 0.00 50.03 49.78
ACO a nd Equiva le nt 50.88 48.70 50.38 44.70 49.21 49.97 49.87
Are a /District Ma na ge rs or e quiva le nt 48.67 47.29 48.18 43.40 50.89 47.02 47.85
Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds 49.52 46.79 48.12 43.22 49.34 47.80 47.76
Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion 37.64 43.06 43.07 38.57 46.41 42.07 42.54
Support Sta ff Othe rs 49.33 44.59 48.92 41.45 50.30 48.66 47.10

Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs 42.23 40.51 41.48 38.62 44.90 40.89 41.20

Support Sta ff Tota l 47.02 43.81 45.00 40.81 48.29 44.33 44.52

job groups. Together these job groups account for Officer (down 0.70 years on average), and Probation
74.83% of the total workforce in the NPS. Across all Services Officer (down 0.42 years) job groups. The
three of these job groups the average age has fallen average age of Trainee Probation Officers has also
since last year, most likely due to the rapid intake of dropped by 0.17 years, and continues to be
new staff across the period. In the case of Proabtion significantly lower than almost any other job group in
Officers, the recent increases in staff in post are a the NPS (with the exception of Psychologists). Also as
direct result of the qualification of additional Trainee mentioned earlier, these three job groups make up the
Probation Officers recruited 2 years ago. The TPO job bulk of staff in the operational job group.
group is by far the youngest job group on average in
In contrast, all other operational job groups have shown
the NPS, and the recent large intake of graduating POs
increases in the average age of staff. In particular, the
would reflect this younger age profile. Given the
average age in the Senior Probation Officer and Senior
proportion of staff that the PO job group accounts for,
Practitioners job groups are both up on last year (by
this in turn has an effect on the average age of the
0.23 years and 0.51 years respectively). The trend
service as a whole.
seen in the more senior posts reflects what we should
Chart 59 on Page 28 presents a cumulative distribution be seeing in terms of the ageing population in England
showing the relative proportions of staff above and and Wales, but the effect of this has been outweighed
below various age points. by the significant recruitment of younger staff in the
more junior posts, which also form the bulk of staff
AGE BY JOB GROUP
numbers in the operational category
On average, operational staff continue to be younger
A similar pattern is evident in the support staff category.
than their colleagues in the support staff category. The
Across the majority of job groups, including almost all
average age of operational staff is now 42.64 years,
of the senior management groups, the average age has
which is 1.88 years less that the average for staff in the
increased since 2004. The most sizeable increases
support category (44.52 years).
have occurred amongst Board Members (up 1.18 years
In the operational category there is a distinct split on average) and Section or Function Heads (up by 1.11
between the changes in the average age figures years on average), with other significant increases in
between senior and junior job groups. As discussed the Chief Officer and Other Operational job groups.
above, the average age has fallen in the Probation However, despite the widespread increases in the

Page 25
Chart 52 – Average Age by Job Group (Operational)

Senior Probation Officer 0.23

Senior Practitioner 0.51

Other Operational Staff 1.14

Probation Officer 0.70

Probation Services Officers 0.42

Psychologists 1.25

Trainee Probation Officer 0.17

Operational Staff Total 0.02

30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52

Chart 53 – Average Age by Job Group (Support)

Board Members 1.18

Chief Officers 0.87

ACO and Equivalent 0.36

Deputy Chief Officers/Directors 0.37

Area/District Managers or equivalent 0.84

Managers-Section or Function Heads 1.11

Support Staff Others 0.91

Support Staff-Administration 0.60

Other Specialist Workers 0.28

Support Staff Total 0.40

40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62

average age in the category as a whole, the effect of included in the analysis presented here.
high levels of recruitment in the Administration group
AGE BY GENDER
(which accounts for the lion’s share of staff in this
category) has seen the average age decrease overall. In almost all circumstances, the average age of men in
the NPS is greater than that of women.
Putting aside Board Members, it continues to be the
case that average age tends to increase with seniority. The degree of difference in average age between men
All of the main management grades in the support and women continues to be greatest in the operational
category have an average age in excess of 45 years, job category. Men in this category have an average age
with DCOs, ACOs and Section/Function heads all of 46.80 years, compared to just 40.21 years for
nearing 50 years of age on average. This seems women. The gap between the two groups has
intuitively correct, and fits with the normal progression increased by 0.09 years on average since 2004
of an individual’s career as they age.
Men are older in every job group within the operational
This also fits with earlier assertions that the fact that category, with the greatest age gap occurring in the
men in the NPS tend to be older than Women, may in PSO job group where men are on average 6.77 years
part explain why they are represented in greater older than their female colleagues, although this figure
numbers in senior posts than in the organisation more is down on the 6.90 years recorded a year ago. There
generally. are also significant age gaps between men and women
in the Other Operational and Probation Officer job
Chart 58 on Page 28 maps the average age of each job
groups (6.72 years and 6.20 years on average
group (X axis) against the Region in which they are
respectively).
based (Y axis). The higher the average age, the more
red the display on the chart for the particular Within the support staff category, the pattern is similar,
combination of job group and Region. although the degree of age gap between men and
women is significantly smaller. Men in the support
Please note that the NPD were unable to provide data
category are 47.02 years old on average, while women
on the age of its staff, and as a result have not been

Page 26
Chart 55 – Average Age by Region and Gender Chart 56 – Average Age by Region and Ethnicity

0.09 0.23
South West South West
0.38 1.99

0.01
South East 0.10
0.71 West Midlands
0.01
0.43
West Midlands 0.81
0.15 London
0.40
0.49
East of England 0.64
0.70
South East
0.14
0.25
Wales
0.28 0.09
North West
0.08
0.06
North West
0.16 0.59
East of England
0.13 0.95
East Midlands
0.27
0.01
North East
0.61 2.31
North East
0.19
Yorkshire & 0.27
Yorkshire & 0.42 Humberside 0.75
Humberside 0.38
0.46
0.43 Wales
London 0.20
0.45

0.10
East Midlands
NPD 0.63

0.00 National 0.22


National
Probation Service 0.14 Probation Service 0.05

38 40 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


Chart 57 – Average Age by Region and Disability
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 South East
0.20

women in every job group. In the Support Admin job 0.86

group women are 5.44 years older than men on 0.20


North West
average, a gap which has increased significantly from 0.02
3.21 years in 2004.
1.00
East Midlands
Chart 60 on Page 28 shows the cumulative age 0.37

distribution of men and women across the entire staff 0.39


population. This emphasises the general pattern West Midlands
0.21
discussed above. It also shows the difference between
Yorkshire & 0.34
the two groups in terms of median age. The current Humberside 0.06
data shows that 50% of men are over the age of 47.70
years, compared to 41.4 for women. South West
2.74

0.26
AGE BY ETHNICITY
1.99
Wales
With respect to broad ethnic category and age, staff in 0.25

the white ethnic category are almost universally older 0.20


on average than colleagues from black and minority North East
0.31
ethnic backgrounds.
0.85
East of England
The difference is greatest in the support category, 0.06

where white staff are on average 4.19 years older than 2.78
black and minority ethnic staff, although the gap has London
0.25
closed slightly on the 4.29 years recorded in 2004. This
0.54
difference applies to all job groups within the support National
Probation Service 0.19
category, with the greatest difference occurring
amongst Other Support staff, where the difference 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56
between the two groups is 7.47 years on average.
In the operational job category the difference in Disability No Disability

average age between white and black and minority

Page 27
ethnic staff is slightly less at 2.92 years. It
Chart 58 – Average Age in Years Mapped by Job Group and Region
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 NPS 60-65
Psychologist job groups, where black and London 55-60
minority ethnic staff are older by 1.81 and 50-55
South East
3.59 years respectively. The gap in both 45-50

cases has expanded significantly since South West


40-45

2004 (previously 0.08 and 0.25 years), and 35-40


East of England 30-35
presents a real difference between the two
25-30
groups. West Midlands
20-25
The cumulative age distribution by ethnicity Wales 15-20
(Chart 61, Page 29) again confirms the East Midlands
pattern discussed in this section. The
median ages of the two groups differ by Yorkshire & Humberside

3.95 years in favour of white staff. The gap North East


between the two groups has closed from
North West
4.40 years difference a year ago.

Trainee PO

ACO and Equivalent


Deputy Chief/Director
Other - Operations

Board Members

Other - Operations
Psychologist
Snr Practitioner

Area/District Manager

SectionHeads

Specialist Workers
Snr Probation Officer

Probation Officer

Probation Serv Officer

Support Staff Others


Support Staff Admin
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.
Chart 59 – Cumulative Age Distribution
In this case, it is staff with a reported
disability that are on average older than 100%
staff without a disability.
90%
This pattern applies both to the operational 80%
and support job categories, and to all job
groups within those categories. 70%

60%

Chart 59 through 63: The solid red vertical 50% 43.58


indicator line marks the median age for the 40%
light blue distribution on each chart, and the
solid green line indicates the same figure for 30%

the dark blue distribution (except for Chart 20%


59 where only one distribution is shown).
10%
The red dotted line plots the cumulative age
distribution for the light blue series based on 0%
the 2004/05 census results, while the green <20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 >65
dotted line plots the same for the dark blue
series.
Chart 60 – Cumulative Age Distribution by Gender

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 41.4 47.7

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
<20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 >65

Women Men

Page 28
Chart 61 – Cumulative Age Distribution by Ethnicity

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 40.5 44.4

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
<20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 >65

BME White

Chart 62 – Cumulative Age Distribution by Job Category

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
42.96
50% 45.62

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
<20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 >65

Operational Support

Chart 63 – Cumulative Age Distribution by Disability

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50% 43.51 48.75

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
<20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 >65

No Disability Disability

Page 29
Table 15 – Average Length of Service by Area and Region

No Disability

Operational
Disability

Support
Women

Overall
White

BME
Men
Area/Region

Cumbria 7.72 6.25 6.66 4.12 3.04 6.88 6.43 7.66 6.80
Cheshire 8.24 7.20 7.62 6.82 9.40 7.44 8.18 6.16 7.54
Greater Manchester 8.36 7.48 8.06 7.46 8.20 7.77 7.70 8.01 7.78
Lancashire 8.94 7.96 8.57 5.62 10.51 8.04 8.54 7.46 8.29
Merseyside 10.63 7.57 8.63 7.16 12.62 8.32 8.98 7.68 8.62
North W e st 8.93 7.48 8.14 7.03 9.96 7.84 8.12 7.57 7.97
Durham 7.04 6.57 6.83 6.37 11.83 6.56 6.55 7.26 6.73
Northumbria 9.55 8.35 8.84 6.09 0.00 4.48 8.38 9.61 8.75
Teesside 7.94 6.64 7.17 3.18 3.80 7.15 6.49 8.79 7.04
North Ea st 8.58 7.49 7.97 5.24 8.01 6.84 7.43 8.94 7.85
Humberside 8.30 6.33 7.18 4.23 8.07 7.12 7.15 6.58 7.00
North Yorkshire 7.55 6.27 6.77 7.65 7.27 6.69 7.44 4.94 6.74
South Yorkshire 9.58 8.56 8.94 7.18 13.36 8.46 8.89 8.79 8.86
W est Yorkshire 9.43 8.40 9.01 7.90 11.77 9.01 8.87 8.33 8.70
Yorkshire & Hum be rside 8.98 7.83 8.34 7.37 11.62 8.25 8.35 7.79 8.19
Derbyshire 6.35 6.64 6.61 5.70 7.90 6.49 6.29 7.15 6.55
Leicestershire 7.65 6.45 7.08 6.02 7.62 7.51 6.60 7.66 6.84
Lincolnshire 5.76 6.25 6.05 3.34 12.16 5.82 6.34 5.59 6.09
Northamptonshire 5.15 4.97 5.13 5.11 0.93 5.14 5.34 4.52 5.04
Nottinghamshire 9.70 7.27 8.64 5.79 8.90 8.08 8.83 6.02 8.07
Ea st Midla nds 7.48 6.55 7.07 5.70 8.64 6.97 7.11 6.23 6.86
Dyfed Powys 7.93 6.18 6.87 3.00 0.29 6.88 6.48 7.43 6.84
Gwent 6.18 5.86 6.06 2.62 5.19 5.99 4.62 8.30 5.96
North W ales 7.45 6.12 6.41 5.87 10.57 6.46 6.39 7.15 6.59
South W ales 7.85 6.90 7.32 4.54 7.22 7.39 7.10 7.56 7.23
W a le s 7.48 6.44 6.84 4.35 7.60 6.84 6.42 7.65 6.80
Staffordshire 10.57 9.66 10.53 8.98 6.51 10.38 11.03 8.91 10.00
W arwickshire 5.48 6.41 6.29 4.44 4.29 6.11 5.64 6.88 6.10
W est Mercia 7.78 6.62 7.15 5.03 0.32 4.25 6.71 7.71 7.00
W est Midlands 8.25 7.68 8.41 6.37 12.30 7.64 7.61 8.44 7.86
W e st Midla nds 8.48 7.79 8.48 6.32 11.34 8.22 7.85 8.35 8.02
Bedfordshire 6.82 6.02 6.80 4.61 6.54 6.26 5.59 8.29 6.26
Cambridgeshire 6.96 5.42 6.18 2.02 8.30 5.92 5.27 7.27 5.96
Essex 5.98 6.58 6.51 4.95 0.00 3.66 6.46 6.23 6.39
Hertfordshire 6.15 4.92 6.03 2.97 7.69 8.87 5.13 5.49 5.25
Norfolk 8.48 6.60 7.56 4.50 7.59 7.28 7.33 7.13 7.29
Suffolk 8.32 6.70 7.52 3.32 6.42 7.38 7.26 7.43 7.30
Ea st of Engla nd 7.09 6.11 6.76 3.94 7.34 6.88 6.29 6.78 6.43
Avon & Somerset 6.85 6.82 7.14 5.02 8.83 6.73 6.77 7.00 6.83
Devon & Cornwall 7.28 6.48 6.57 6.63 6.79 5.99 7.34 5.49 6.78
Dorset 8.37 6.11 6.98 9.28 5.64 6.97 7.14 6.48 6.92
Gloucestershire 6.35 6.90 6.89 5.00 2.08 6.77 7.03 6.21 6.70
W iltshire 5.63 4.94 5.14 6.07 2.50 5.21 5.37 4.69 5.16
South W e st 7.11 6.40 6.70 5.66 7.23 6.41 6.90 6.11 6.65
Hampshire 7.00 6.51 7.09 5.71 8.68 7.30 6.70 6.52 6.65
Kent 7.46 7.04 7.24 4.08 9.42 7.09 7.08 7.45 7.16
Surrey 6.16 5.55 5.87 4.61 6.19 4.30 5.77 5.62 5.73
Sussex 5.96 4.84 5.44 3.19 8.57 5.07 5.65 4.37 5.22
Thames Valley 4.74 3.17 3.65 2.43 5.38 3.50 3.70 3.24 3.58
South Ea st 6.29 5.36 5.86 3.49 7.84 5.50 5.75 5.33 5.63
NPD - - - - - - - - -
London 7.99 7.84 8.96 6.48 9.19 4.38 7.38 9.13 7.89
Na tiona l Proba tion Se rvice 7.92 6.98 7.52 6.10 9.19 7.19 7.25 7.39 7.29

Page 30
Service
LENGTH OF SERVICE BY REGION/AREA requisite skills and experience coming from other
employment.
The average length of service for the entire staff
population at 31/12/2005 was 7.29 years. This is a very Changes in average length of service across the
slight increase of 0.01 years on average since the last operational category have been somewhat mixed
Workforce Profile Report. between 2004 and 2005. There have been increases in
the average length of Service in the more senior
The region with the longest serving staff on average in
operational posts, such as Senior Probation Officer and
the NPS is Yorkshire & Humberside, where staff have
Senior Practitioner (up by 0.29 and 0.467 years
served 8.19 years on average, which is up by 0.76
respectively), as well as an increase in the average
years on a year ago. This compares with the shortest
length of service amongst TPOs which is up by 0.36 to
serving workforce in the NPS, found in the South East,
1.90 years service on average. This contrasts with the
where the figure stands at just 5.63 years on average.
falling average length of service amongst Probation
This is down by 0.60 years on average since 2004.
Officer and Probation Services Officers where the
The majority of Regions in the NPS have recorded an figure is down by 0.12 and 0.33 years respectively.
increase in average length of service since last year. Of Again, this pattern is consistent with the high levels of
those regions recording a drop in the average length of recruitment activity seen in these two job groups seen
service, the largest was in the South East as discussed during 2005.
above.
A similarly mixed pattern is apparent in the support staff
LENGTH OF SERVICE BY JOB GROUP category. The average length of service has dropped
overall, but there have also been some increases
Staff in the operational category have served 7.25
recorded in individual job groups. The biggest increase
years on average, and tend to be shorter serving than was in the Assistant Chief Officer job group, where the
those in the support category who have served 7.39 average length of service has increased by 0.61 years
years. However, the average length of service in the on the figure reported last year. However, the 0.19 year
operational category has increased by 0.08 years since drop in average service in the Administration job group
last year, while the support category average has
has ensured that the category as a whole is down, and
dropped by 0.11 years. The net result is that the gap also reflects the high levels of recruitment seen in this
has closed considerably compared to the 2004 figure. job group as discussed previously.
This is consistent with the ongoing pattern observed in
last 2 years data, with the average length of service of As with the operational category, length of service in
staff in the operational category increasing, and the the support category does loosely align with seniority.
average for support staff dropping. The management positions in the support category are
marked by relatively lengthy average service figures, all
Average length of service in the operational group of which are in excess of 11 years. By comparison, the
continues to approximately align with job group lower graded administrative and specialist job groups
seniority. This is consistent with the fact that the
have average service figures at less than 8 years.
Probation Officer career structure is such that people Again, this is an intuitively sensible result, as it can be
mostly join the service as a TPO, and then expected that people will achieve more senior posts as
progressively gain more senior positions as their career
their career in the organisation lengthens.
progresses. It is rare for staff to join the NPS in a senior
operational post, as they are unlikely to have the

Chart 64 – Average Length of Service by Region

Yorkshire & Humberside 0.76

West Midlands 0.11

North West 0.17

London 0.52

North East 0.62

East Midlands 0.44

Wales 0.01

South West 0.44

East of England 0.29

South East 0.60

NPD
National Probation Service 0.01

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Page 31
Chart 65 – Average Length of Service by Area

Staffordshire 0.20

South Yorkshire 0.30

Northumbria 1.01

West Yorkshire 1.37

Merseyside 0.41

Lancashire 0.51

Nottinghamshire 1.20

London 0.52

West Midlands 0.38

Greater Manchester 0.05

Cheshire 0.57

Suffolk 0.52

Norfolk 1.07

South Wales 0.05

Kent 0.03

Teesside 0.26

West Mercia 0.28

Humberside 0.28

Dorset 1.03

Leicestershire 0.80

Dyfed Powys 0.01

Avon & Somerset 0.22

Cumbria 0.55

Devon & Cornwall 0.84

North Yorkshire 0.30

Durham 0.22

Gloucestershire 0.00

Hampshire 0.02

North Wales 0.07

Derbyshire 0.94

Essex 0.10

Bedfordshire 0.86

Warwickshire 0.16

Lincolnshire 0.04

Cambridgeshire 0.66

Gwent 0.21

Surrey 0.37

Hertfordshire 0.46

Sussex 0.16

Wiltshire 0.60

Northamptonshire 0.30

Thames Valley 2.32

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Page 32
Table 16 – Average Length of Service by Job Group (Operational)

No Disability
Disability
Women

Overall
White

BME
Men
Area/Region

Se nior Proba tion Office r 16.93 12.74 15.20 10.46 13.58 14.60 14.61
Se nior Pra ctitione r 12.13 10.36 11.30 7.96 8.39 11.08 11.05
Proba tion Office r 10.88 7.55 8.67 8.09 10.70 8.49 8.64
Tra ine e Proba tion Office r 1.72 1.96 1.82 2.60 1.82 1.94 1.90
Proba tion Se rvice s Office rs 5.81 6.00 6.13 4.79 8.48 5.94 5.93
Psychologists 4.57 3.79 3.96 3.88 0.00 3.93 3.91
Othe r Ope ra tiona l Sta ff 5.91 5.46 5.85 4.86 7.90 5.68 5.71
Ope ra tiona l Sta ff Tota l 8.24 6.66 7.46 6.08 9.35 7.22 7.25

Table 17 – Average Length of Service by Job Group (Support)

No Disability
Disability
Women

Overall
White

BME
Area/Region Men

De puty Chie f Office rs/Dire ctors 11.47 12.44 11.32 0.00 0.00 11.22 11.86
ACO a nd Equiva le nt 15.13 12.67 14.42 10.33 11.44 13.31 13.98
Are a /District Ma na ge rs or e quiva le nt 13.25 12.86 13.42 7.25 17.12 12.32 13.01
Ma na ge rs-Se ction or Function He a ds 10.51 12.02 11.60 9.94 11.77 10.91 11.48
Support Sta ff-Adm inistra tion 3.96 7.33 7.15 6.44 8.47 6.77 7.01
Support Sta ff Othe rs 5.72 5.34 6.22 4.32 8.39 5.90 5.54
Othe r Spe cia list W orke rs 5.85 7.25 6.90 4.62 7.68 6.40 6.69
Support Sta ff Tota l 6.66 7.61 7.66 6.14 8.66 7.11 7.39

LENGTH OF SERVICE BY GENDER There is no consistent pattern within the job groups in
the support category with regard to the relative length
Overall, men continue have a greater average length of
of service of male and female staff. However, the
service with NPS than women. Male employees have
largest difference in favour of women occurs in the
on average been with the NPS for 7.92 years,
Administration job group, where women have longer
compared to their female colleagues who have an
average service by 3.37 years. While the difference in
average length of service of 6.98 years. In both cases
the Administration job group continues to be large, the
the average length of service figure is very slightly up
average length of service for men and women have
on the 2004 result (up 0.01 and 0.02 years
both dropped since last year (down by 0.27 and 019
respectively), but the gap between the two groups is
years respectively). This reflects the increased
largely the same.
recruitment seen across the year as discussed
The difference between men and women in terms of previously.
length of service continues to have it’s origins in the
LENGTH OF SERVICE BY ETHNICITY
operational staff group, where male employees have an
average service length of 8.24 years compared to an In a continuation of the pattern observed in last 2 years
average of 6.66 years for women. The difference has of this report, white employees have a greater length of
reduced since 2004, with the average length of service service on average than their black and minority ethnic
for men falling by 0.02 years and increasing by 0.15 for counterparts. White staff have served 7.52 years on
women, but continues to be substantial. average (a decrease of 0.02 years), while staff from a
black or minority ethnic background have served an
Within the operational grade, this difference holds true
average of 6.10 years (up by 0.02 years).
for all but two job groups. In the TPO and PSO job
groups, women have a greater average length of The difference is consistent between both the
service than their male colleagues by 0.19 and 0.25 operational and support staff categories, where white
years respectively (see tables 16 and 17 above). staff are on average 1.38 years longer serving in the
operational group, and 1.52 years longer serving in the
In the support staff category the pattern is reversed,
support group. In both cases the average length of
with an average length of service of 7.61 years
service is down on the 2004 result (by 0.06 and 0.03
amongst women, compared to 6.66 years amongst
years respectively) (see tables 16 and 17 above).
men. Both of these figures are down on last years
result, falling by 0.16 and 0.20 years respectively. Across both the operational and support categories, in
all but one job group the same pattern is repeated. The

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 Senior Probation Officer 0.29
the shortest serving job groups (being an
entry level position), this is a minor Senior Practitioner 0.46
difference.
As discussed in previous Workforce Profile Probation Officer 0.12

Reports, the fact that black and minority Probation Services


0.33
ethnic staff are shorter serving on average Officers
is likely to be a result of the fact that the
Psychologists 3.04
recruitment pool from which staff have
been drawn over the years has changed
Other Operational Staff 1.11
along with the ethnic make up of British
society. 0.36
Trainee Probation Officer
Black and minority ethnic communities
have grown in the UK over the last decade, Operational Staff Total 0.08

and the likelihood of a black or minority


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
ethnic person being selected for a position
in the NPS has increased approximately in
proportion. Chart 67 – Average Length of Service by Job Group (Support)
LENGTH OF SERVICE BY DISABILITY
Across the NPS in general, a staff member ACO and Equivalent 0.61
with a reported disability is on average
longer serving than a colleague without a Area/District Managers or
0.37
equivalent
disability.
Deputy Chief
0.25
Staff with a disability have an average Officers/Directors
length of service of 9.19 years (an Managers-Section or
0.32
decrease of 0.34 years), compared to an Function Heads
average of 7.19 years for staff with no Support Staff-
0.19
reported disability (a decrease of 0.03 Administration
years). Other Specialist Workers 0.84

A similar degree of difference, and in the


same direction, can be observed for both Support Staff Others 0.86

the operational and support staff


categories, with a difference of 2.12 and Support Staff Total 0.11

1.42 years on average respectively. The 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16


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.
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 Chart 70 – Average Length of Service by Region and
Gender Ethnicity

Yorkshire & 0.83 0.80


Humberside London
0.75 0.69

0.09
0.08
North West West Midlands
0.23
0.22

0.93
North East Yorkshire & 0.60
0.48
Humberside 1.37
0.35
West Midlands 0.01
0.00 North West
0.63
0.61
London 0.38
0.48
North East
0.84
0.13
Wales
0.04 0.28
East Midlands
1.43
0.18
East Midlands
0.55 0.03
Wales
0.44 0.29
South West
0.45
0.36
East of England
0.45 0.09
East of England
0.22
0.49
0.35
South West
0.91
South East
0.69
0.56
South East
NPD 0.91

National 0.02
National 0.01
Probation Service 0.02
Probation Service 0.02

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Men Women White BME

Chart 71 – Average Length of Service by Region and


Disability

Yorkshire & 0.83


Humberside 0.30

0.12
West Midlands
0.11

0.53
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
East of England
0.86

0.05
South West
0.50

National 0.33
Probation Service 0.03

2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Disability No Disability

Page 35