2 Motivating and encouraging staff to
attend
7. Working in a closed environment with prisoners
can be a stressful occupation and the risk of physical assault
may increase the likelihood of staff taking sick leave. Wide variations
existed in the sickness absence rates between prisons, reflecting
the challenges and difficulties posed by some types of prisoner,
such as those in local prisons where prisoner turnover rates were
higher. High levels of mental illness amongst women prisoners,
coupled with high suicide rates in women's prisons, contributed
to high absenteeism rates amongst staff at these establishments.
By comparison, 'open' prisons, undertaking resettlement work with
lower risk prisoners, were less stressful places to work and had
lower staff sickness absenteeism rates.[10]
8. Prison Governors' annual staff requirement plans
assumed that staff at all establishments would be absent, on average,
for 9 days each year. As a consequence, women's prisons and local
prisons were likely to be under-resourced as their sickness levels
were higher than 9 days. Unrealistic planning assumptions, coupled
with limited scope to 'buy in' additional man hours to cover for
sickness absences caused disillusionment amongst staff, leading
to low morale, resentment and increased stress levels as staff
covered for absent colleagues.[11]
9. The extent to which the Prison Governor and other
local senior Prison Service managers took a firm line with sickness
absence was a key factor in managing sickness absence. For those
working in the more difficult and hostile establishments, any
lack of support by senior management or culture of blame increased
the likelihood that staff would take more time off sick. Effective
management of sickness absence in a prison depended on the calibre
of the Governor to motivate staff to attend and to deal with staff
who took too much sick leave. The Prison Service was training
managers to manage sickness absences and encourage attendance,
and had a policy to deploy in the more difficult prisons Governors
best able to motivate, communicate with and support staff.[12]
10. Some Prison Service and private prisons, however,
consistently achieved lower levels of sickness absence than others
with similar prisoner profiles and working conditions. This situation
was due to a range of factors, including the Governor's enthusiasm
and experience, and firm but fair local management. The Prison
Service could do more to build upon the management style used
in prisons with low sickness absence to achieve lower sickness
absence rates elsewhere in the Prison Service.[13]
11. The large reduction in the number of prison officers
on long term sick leave at Holloway in one year (Figure 4)
demonstrated the difference that could be made by a change in
the Senior Management Team. The establishment had lost contact
with some of its officers on long term sick leave, but the new
Head of Personnel had re-established contact with such staff,
including two employees, one in New Zealand and the other in Sri
Lanka, who were subsequently dismissed without compensation. Of
the 55 staff with over 20 days sickness absence as at 30 June
2002, 22 had since returned to work, 4 had been medically retired
and 17 were dismissed for medical inefficiency.[14]Figure
4: Outcomes for 55 staff at HMP Holloway with over 20 days sickness
absence as at June 2002
| Outcome
| Length of absence as at 30 June 2002
| Number of staff
|
| Dismissed for medical inefficiency
| Up to 31 months
| 17 |
| Successful return to work, including phased return
| Up to 20 months
| 13 |
| Successful return to work, though currently on attendance monitoring
| Up to 2 months
| 9 |
| Resigned or contract not renewed
| Up to 2 months
| 7 |
| Medically retired
| Up to 30 months
| 4 |
| Returned to work but subsequently dismissed for medical inefficiency
| Up to 7 months
| 3 |
| Subsequently age retired
| Less than 2 months
| 2 |
Source: Prison Service
10 Qq 16, 22 Back
11
Qq 3, 8-9, 100 Back
12
Q 27 Back
13
Qq 117-118 Back
14
Q 46; Ev 15 Back
|
