This week HMPPS have advised staff of its plans to withdraw practitioner access to the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT), in advance of its removal in several months.
Napo has not agreed to these changes
We have been made aware of several untrue and incorrect statements having been made by regional senior managers to the effect that Napo, and other trade unions, have agreed to this. We have not and will not agree to these plans. It is now for any individual who has made these statements – whether out of ignorance or malice – to urgently account to staff why they have done so, retract their comments and apologise to their colleagues.
In earlier discussions that took place with the trade unions, Napo representatives have clearly and repeatedly explained to HMPPS figures the hugely negative impact their plans would have on the staff involved, and more widely in the workforce.
During these exchanges HMPPS have admitted for the first time that for a significant period the WMT underestimates the workload of the staff involved. They have failed to publicly acknowledge this in their communications on the future of the WMT, making only vague, and frankly misleading, comments on its accuracy.
These plans completely disregard previous agreements made between the employer and the trade unions on staff safety and care. HMPPS appear clueless as to how they now intend to meet their legal duty of care to monitor and manage individual workloads, for ‘sentence management’ staff and all other employees. They cannot adequately explain how they plan to provide workload reductions for staff requiring these, for instance as reasonable adjustments or as facility time for trade union representatives.
Despite claiming to value the importance of staff and their wellbeing, HMPPS have completely failed to ensure that an adequate mechanism to monitor and manage the workload of staff. HMPPS claim to have been aware that the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT) under-reports on the workload of staff but has not communicated that to its employees. They tell us that they have known that this will become worse due to changes planned under the employer’s heavily criticised and under-delivering Our Future Probation Service (OFPS) programme have not yet made sufficient plans to have a replacement in place.
Napo have, for months, been calling on HMPPS to agree to the joint ownership of the Workload Measurement Tool (WMT), including on any future version of this tool, and for its application to as many other workers outside of ‘sentence management’ as possible at the earliest opportunity.
We believe this is the only way for staff to have any confidence on this issue, given HMPPS’s consistent inability to adequately protect us in this regard, and be open and honest with us. Napo will now include demands for positive change, and a completely different approach by the employer, in relation to workload measurement and management.
We will be responding to a letter sent by the employer yesterday after they had decided to enact these changes, regarding industrial action in response to their failure to resolve our longstanding workloads dispute.
17 responses
The situation just gets worse and worse every week 😡.
Hmmm another change NAPO opposes but will happen anyway. What does NAPO want for our future? How are we fighting for it? It always seems like we just react, poorly, to whatever is passed down from the top. I keep seeing mention of a campaign to take us out of HMPPS and even out of the Civil Service, this even being a point in AGM 2025. Perhaps progress / efforts are more visible to reps, in which case, please, communicate better with the rest of us. Right now being a NAPO member feels like I’m a close follower of a really bad football team, with no hopes for a brighter future and the knowledge that I could stay home and save some money and the result would be exactly the same.
Management can try to sell this however they want but I think it’s pretty clear that they are removing WMT so that we, the overworked frontline, cannot use our high wmt as a justification for not meeting performance targets. So management can allocate cases without the frontline questioning it and so that there is possibly less pushback on how overworked we are.
WMT isn’t fit for purpose but those higher up the food chain will continue to use it to their advantage and even more so now if practitioners don’t have access. What’s the rationale for removing practitioner access?
I do not understand why they feel that hiding it from us officers will aid us. We understand that it’s really not fit for purpose but at least we still have a ball park figure. The hiding of it feels very icky and will this transparency gone I have a suspicion that my workload is going to grow rapidly. Not impressed at all!
I find the proposed removal of access to this very worrying, it feels very much like the employer seeking to hide the true scale of the challenges practitioners face and will enable them to withhold the true scale of the issues from front line staff.
It is terrifying. This will leave management to have full capability to discipline you on capacity with no protection from workload analysis.
It is solely to stop staff saying no. To stop staff pointing out their WMT compared to others. And for the more experienced/robust staff, it will ensure they will get double the workload to someone who is struggling. Where will the red lines be? When will overtime be approved? When can we point out we are not nuclear fission and these expectations are impossible.
It is a very dangerous decision and one that indicates, again, the disrespect for front-line staff. Removing transparency will deepen mistrust and elevate mental health issues even further.
Outrageous. It’s widely acknowledged that the WMT underestimates the burden on individual staff. This is just an attempt to hide the reality. Another miscalculated attempt by HMP(p)S to gloss over the catastrophe of our underfunded service and the toll it is taking on the health and wellbeing of colleagues. All it does is deepen the cynicism of the people most needed to keep the show on the road. Agitiating about the perceived shortcomings of our Union is playing into their hands. If you haven’t already, join Napo now and get your collective voice heard. Napo reps are working hard to get that voice heard, and to support individual members, to good effect, who are at the blunt end of this.
To be fair the senior manager who said this in our region issued a swift and what I felt was heartfelt apology. They are humans too, this is just bullying on another level to hard working senior leaders who don’t have a choice mostly in these decisions. I personally feel our regional senior leader is kind compassionate and has done the right thing in what is difficult times for everyone!!!
We can continue to raise concerns, but it is unclear what impact this achieves. Senior management has consistently shown little engagement with proposals put forward through Napo, and this is unlikely to change. Within the wider Civil Service, Probation occupies a relatively small position, which appears to align with current priorities. It increasingly feels as though full absorption into the prison service is a distinct possibility.
Over the past year, numerous changes have been introduced with limited effective challenge. Pay negotiations have stalled, leaving members affected for an extended period, while workloads have increased without clear evidence of meaningful resistance at a national level. In practice, much of the response has fallen to frontline staff and local representatives, who often take on significant personal and professional risk, including heightened scrutiny and micromanagement from local leadership.
There is a clear need for stronger, more decisive leadership at the national level of the union, rather than reliance on assurances that are not matched by tangible outcomes.
Its an extraordinarily stuoid move on part of HMPPS. Justice Cttee would not be impressed. The Treasury needs to know how this dept justifies its budget so stats justifying staff noes etc/office space etcetera have to be produced and staff even as members of public presumably have right of knowledge. Trying to limit access reveals worry on their part..keep pushing forward with protest.
To put another perspective on this, which encompasses most of the points raised already: this is about command and control . Command is the easy bit .. it’s about hierarchy and the way it seeks to justify authoritarian top down directives to do what we are told. Control is more interesting as this move is indicative of fostering disempowerment for front line staff . This is dangerous : knowledge is power and senior leadership are frightened of being challenged for relentlessly overworking pressurised front line staff . There is nothing more challenging than empirical evidence , and this is what the WLMT provides ( as designed and flawed as it is) . Morally , if the WLMT shows an under representation of real work loads , then it’s surely already justifying a reduction in work loads and tells us what we already know .. with evidence! . This information being shared is not in the interests of senior probation leadership , hence the proposed restriction ; all this seems obvious , yet here we are again having to justify our existence as human beings under immense pressure .
Where is the comment I posted ?
Hi There, your comment has now been posted. We approve the comments manually during working hours to prevent the comment section being spammed by advertising bots.
They are only removing the tool to hide how much we are over worked, and how do we now claim overtime if the WMT is removed? As we can only claim overtime for the points we are over! So they are also preventing us from getting paid for the extra work, how much do we have to take ? Stand up NAPO and fight this tooth and nail
What about those who have workload relief on the tool due to disabilities? With the removal of the wmt how do staff get or even see the legally agreed reduction in hours that takes account of their disabilities allowing them to work on an equal basis? Surely this is against the disability discrimination act? Come on Napo make a firm stand on this – disability legislation is clear ! Or do didables members of staff now have no rights ???
If frontline sentence management staff cannot access the WMT themselves, the “alternative” becomes more about how its function is mediated rather than replaced:
1. Manager-led workload allocation
Senior managers interpret WMT data and allocate caseloads accordingly
Frontline staff receive decisions rather than the underlying rationale
2. Verbal or summary briefings
Staff may be informed of workload expectations (e.g. “you are at capacity” or “you can take more cases”)
However, without seeing the tool, transparency is reduced
3. Local tracking systems
Teams may create informal methods (spreadsheets, trackers, peer comparison) to gauge workload
These are usually less robust than the WMT
4. Supervision and escalation routes
Staff rely on supervision to raise workload concerns
Decisions become dependent on management judgement rather than shared metrics
Impact on frontline staff practice and sentence outcomes
1. Reduced transparency and understanding
Staff can no longer see how workload is calculated
Difficulty understanding why some cases are allocated or retained
Impact on outcomes:
Less confidence in prioritisation decisions
Potential inconsistency in how cases are managed across practitioners
2. Reduced professional autonomy
The WMT normally allows staff to evidence their capacity and justify decisions
Without access, they are more reliant on senior management interpretation
Impact on outcomes:
Staff may feel less empowered to challenge unsafe workloads
Decision-making may become more compliance-driven rather than needs-led
3. Risk of mismatch between workload and capacity
Managers may not fully capture day-to-day complexities of cases
Hidden work (e.g. crises, safeguarding, multi-agency demands) may be underestimated
Impact on outcomes:
High-risk or complex cases may not receive sufficient time
Increased likelihood of:
Missed warning signs
Delayed interventions
Reactive rather than proactive supervision
4. Inconsistency between teams or managers
Different managers may interpret WMT data differently
Variability in allocation thresholds and tolerance levels
Impact on outcomes:
“Postcode lottery” effect in sentence management quality
Unequal service delivery and potential fairness concerns
5. Weakened defensibility of practice
Previously, staff could point to WMT data to justify decisions or capacity limits
Without access, this evidence sits with management
Impact on outcomes:
In the event of audits or SFOs, frontline staff may:
Struggle to evidence workload pressures
Be more exposed to scrutiny despite limited control
6. Impact on morale and engagement
Feeling removed from decision-making can lead to frustration
Perception of lack of trust or transparency from senior management
Impact on outcomes:
Lower morale can affect:
Quality of engagement with service users
Creativity in rehabilitation work
Staff retention (long-term impact on service continuity)
In a nutshell –
Restricting frontline access to the WMT shifts workload management from a transparent, evidence-based system to a model heavily reliant on senior management interpretation. This can reduce practitioner autonomy, limit visibility of capacity pressures, and create inconsistencies in workload allocation, ultimately increasing the risk that sentence management becomes reactive, less tailored, and more difficult to evidence—potentially impacting both the quality and consistency of sentence outcomes.