The Trade Union and Professional Association for

Family Court and Probation Staff

Napo Lone Working survey 2017

HS13-2017

Lone working has always been a potential problem for Napo members, but this has got worse since TR (Transforming Rehabilitation) and the increase in agile working (a way of working with which our Napo Family Court members are already very familiar). This report on the Napo Lone Working survey sits in conjunction with HS 14-2017Napo Lone Working Guide. These documents are intended to support and advise members at a time when advances in technology allow for increasing levels ofagile/flexible working.

Our members concerns around lone working and the impact of agile workingwere reflected in a resolution from Napo AGM 2016:

Lone Working

As budgets are cut and working practices change there are many professions where lone working in the community has become the norm. The introduction of mobile technology, reduced offices across the whole of probation and Cafcass, hot-desking and fewer staff on the front line, are likely to cause lone working to be pushed into the limelight. In the last 12 months within one CRC area, staff were moved out of their shared office with the NPS before the next office had opened. Many of the staff were expected to continue to carry out their work without having a base from which to practice, something already experienced by colleagues in Cafcass. Whilst the risks faced by lone workers are similar to other workers in probation and Cafcass, the hazards are greater due to the fact that they are on their own.

This AGM calls upon the Health and Safety Committee to undertake a survey of members to seehow prevalent lone working practices are becoming and what processes are in place to protect staff in these environments. We then call upon Napo to develop guidance for members advising on their rights and responsibilities if/when lone working.

Details of the Napo Lone Working survey

The surveywas sent to all Napo members in May 2017, survey questions were compiled by theNapo Health and Safety committee andOfficer and Officials.

The survey was anonymous - members were given the assurance that they could not be identified from their response.

5000 members were sent the questionnaire, 4400 members via survey monkey and 600 received paper copies.

Survey results

540 members responded – 11% of our membership.

A breakdown of these members by employer is as follows:

  • NPS – 250
  • CRC – 207
  • Family Court – 65
  • PBNI – 12
  • Other – 6

Of the main respondents, NPS members, most were Probation Officers (45%).

76% of all respondents were female

81% of respondentsclassified themselves as white British

The most striking aspects of the survey responses are as follows:

Levels of lone working

  • 61% said they work alone when visiting offenders at their home

•86% of respondents said they work alone when visiting victims in their home

  • 56% of the Family Court respondents said they work alone visiting parties in their home
  • 61% of the Family Court respondents said they work alone with clients in court interview rooms.

Risk assessment

•59% of respondents said they did not have enough information to carry out a risk assessment before a home visit.

•66% of respondents have concerns about lone working - comments detailed included lack of information about clients and risks, the unpredictability of highrisk clients and concerns about other people who might be in properties that were not included in the risk assessment.

Risks

The following are all issues that could increase risk:

Of the clients the respondents work alone with;

-71% are under the influence of drink or drugs

- 85% are emotionally or mentally unstable

- 89% are under stress

- 81% are at risk of being violent

The respondents also work with clients, delivering the following:

50% pass on bad news

87% discuss sensitive issues

77% enforce a rule

80% pass on distressing information

Equipment

  • 25% of respondents have been given a lone working device

– but only 48% of them have been given training in how to use the device.

  • 39% of respondents are not provided with a mobile phone to keep in touch
  • 63% said that when carrying out a home visit at an offenders’ or victims premises or taking a groupout for unpaid, work, they sometimes work in remote areas where there is little access to service or mobile phone reception.
  • Of our Family Court members, 61% said that when carrying out a home visit they sometimes work in remote areas where there is little access to service and mobile phone reception.

Procedure

•70% of respondents are aware of their employer’s lone working policies, but only 52% know what to do in an emergency.

•68% of respondents said they reported their concerns to managers but only 40% of these members felt their concerns were dealt with promptly or efficiently

Workplace environmentwhen working remotely

There was a 50/50 split from respondents as to whether there were adequate facilities;

-29% said there was lack of security including lack of panic alarms, CCTV and other members of staff not knowing where you were

-9% said there was insufficient support, including lack of procedures or guidance, monitoring or support from employers, difficulty contacting colleagues in the office was inadequate

-17% said facilities were inadequate, including no desk, office space, suitable interview space, toilets, water etc….

Verbatim comments from respondents regarding their concerns about lone working were as follows:

Risk assessment

  • Risk assessment forms done on the phone and dependent on offender being honest
  • inaccurate data from hub leading to confrontation with service users, risk assessments done before visit imply that is something goes wrong officer is to blame as offender has been marked as safe

Staff shortages/workloads

  • Lack of support from office base should issues arise, staff shortages are a big concern, inevitably forced to do home visits alone as colleagues aren’t available to help cover feeling guilty asking colleagues to help cover home visits due to work pressures, impression that because staff “manage” to lone supervise, all is ok, but that’s not good enough.
  • relentless schedule forcing staff to take short cuts and compromising personal safety, staff concerns not taken seriously and safety is undervalued,
  • Risk / vulnerability / isolation/ intimidation/ anxiety/ safety / security / distance from any kind of help, fear of being assaulted or offender hurting themselves

Equipment

  • lack of safety equipment because of cost, issues with Solo Protect
  • Unprofessional to expect staff to use their personal mobiles, no alarms for home visits or ones that don’t work, issues with Solo protect device, lone working devices have been taken away, body cameras should be used as a deterrent
  • mobile coverage can be poor

Working in someone else’s home

  • no tangible process for checking up on staff on home visits alone, anything could happen and no-one would know, no info on who else may be at the property
  • Only the bare minimum is put in place, no clear guidance around lone working and home visits
  • dealing with confidential paperwork away from office, lack of office facilities forces home visits

Training

  • potential mental health issues of offenders that staff are not trained to deal with, no training on how to manage a difficult or threatening situation, no training on emergency protocols
  • lack of support networks for debriefing and supervision when difficulties arise, little or no backup from management

Lone working and wellbeing

  • expectation to be available by phone all the time, affects works/life balance, no recognition or contribution being given to work being done at home
  • lone working affects team spirit, emotional and mental health suffers due to isolated ways of working

Where to go from here?

The issues the AGM resolution and the Lone Working survey highlights have been used as the framework for the HS14-2017 Lone Working guide which includes suggestions as regards control measures, remedies and ways forward.

1