3 Implementing new systems and procedures
12. Failure to meet the nine day target in 2002-03
cost the Prison Service the equivalent of £30.8 million.
The Prison Service had made slow progress since the Committee's
examination in 1999 because measures introduced to address sickness
absence problems did not become effective until 2002. Many of
the right initiatives were now in place, including annual sickness
absence targets for each establishment, but the Prison Service
had not acted quickly or decisively enough to dismiss those unfit
for duty, reduce its average sickness absence and eradicate the
culture of absenteeism and poor morale that persisted in poor
performing prisons.[15]
13. Under-reporting in previous
years may account for some of the difficulties faced by the Prison
Service in reducing sickness absence. More accurate data, coupled
with improved management of sick leave had meant that reliable
and relevant information was now available centrally and locally
on sickness absences. Prison Governors were being trained to use
data to identify problems and compare performance between establishments.
These achievements would also enable the Prison Service to benchmark
its performance with other organisations more effectively.[16]
14. The Prison Service had not
introduced an effective attendance management system until November
2002 because the system introduced in 2000, known as the Bradford
Formula, was withdrawn after a legal challenge by the Prison Officers'
Association. Working relations between the Prison Service and
the Union were now stronger. The new sickness absence system had
the Union's backing and staff support, as staff generally resented
those colleagues who abused the system.[17]
15. Over 200 Governors and Heads of Personnel have
received sickness absence training. Three years ago, the Prison
Service introduced a management development and leadership training
programme for staff with first line management potential which
covered dealing with sickness absence. Most prison establishments
had developed local procedures on how to manage sickness absence
in line with centrally issued guidelines, and most staff had also
been issued with guidance.[18]
16. The number of staff on long term sick leave dismissed
for medical inefficiency had increased (Figure 5) and the
number of staff offered medical retirement had reduced. More people
left the Service through ill health in 2003 than in earlier years.
Under the Prison Service's more rigorous approach, those who found
it difficult to return to work had to leave the Service rather
than be offered medical retirement.[19]
Figure 5:
The number of staff dismissed for medical inefficiency or retired
from the Prison Service on medical grounds from 1999 to 2004
Staff leaving Prison Service for medical /
sickness reasons April 1999-March 2004
Source:
Prison Service
17. Prison Service staff morale had been adversely
affected by problems with the implementation of the new Home Office
payroll software, resulting in mistakes in pay. The National Offender
Management Service acknowledged that the introduction of the new
pay system had been unsatisfactory. It had taken the Home Office
over a year to resolve the initial problems and there were lessons
to be learnt.[20]
15 Q 7 Back
16
Qq 49, 76 Back
17
Qq 13, 128 Back
18
Q 37 Back
19
Q 89; Ev 19 Back
20
Qq 106-112 Back
| 
