Prison Service StaffTraining and Development

An inspection of the training anddevelopment of operational staff in

the Northern Ireland Prison Service

June 2009

i

Prison ServiceStaff Training andDevelopmentAn inspection of the training anddevelopment of operational staff inthe Northern Ireland Prison Service

June 2009

Presented to the Houses of Parliamentby the Secretary of State for NorthernIreland under Section 49 (2) of the Justice(Northern Ireland) Act 2002.

ii

iii

List of abbreviations iv

Chief Inspector’s Foreword v

Executive Summary vi

Recommendations ix

SECTION 1: Inspection Report

Chapter 1 Overview of Training Provision 3

Chapter 2 Assessment of Training Provision 13

Chapter 3 Supporting Training, Supporting Change 29

SECTION 2: NIPSAction Plan 36

SECTION 3: Appendices

Appendix 1 Methodology 40

Contents

iv

List of abbreviations

C&R Control and RestraintCIPD Chartered Institute of Personnel and DevelopmentCJI Criminal Justice Inspection Northern IrelandCJO Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2008COMPASS Computerised Personnel and Salary SystemDTLF Development,Training and Learning ForumGB Great BritainHQ HeadquartersHR Human ResourcesIiP Investors in People accreditationILM Institute of Leadership and ManagementMDS Management Development SchemeNCO Night Custody OfficerNI Northern IrelandNIA Northern Ireland AlternativesNIPS Northern Ireland Prison ServiceNOS National Occupational StandardsNVQ National Vocational QualificationODP Officer Development ProgrammeOSG Operational Support GradePOA Prison Officers’ AssociationPCO Prison Custody OfficerPDP Personal Development PlanPECCS Prisoner Escort and Court Custody ServicesPEG Prisoner Escort GroupPGA Prison Governors’ AssociationPO Principal OfficerPSC Prison Service CollegePSNI Police Service of Northern IrelandPRISM Prison Record and Inmate System ManagementSfJ Skills for JusticeSLC Strategic Learning CommitteeSMART Specific, Measurable,Achievable, Realistic and Time-boundSMT Senior Management TeamSO Senior OfficerSPS Scottish Prison ServiceSVQ Scottish Vocational QualificationTNA Training Needs AnalysisUK United Kingdom

v

This inspection report considers the quality, uptake and outcomes of training and developmentfor Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) operational staff. The training and developmentof prison staff was identified as a topic for inspection on the basis of individual custodialestablishment inspections since 2004, and the 2007 inspection of the Prisoner ResettlementStrategy undertaken by Criminal Justice Inspection (CJI) and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate ofPrisons (HMIP).

Training and development of staff is a critical component in the development of a modernprison service. It is fundamental to meeting the overall objectives of the NIPS which is toserve the community by keeping in secure, safe and humane custody those committed by thecourts, and to work with prisoners and others to reduce re-offending.

Our inspection found that the training and development of staff within the Prison Service hadtaken steps forward in recent years. There has been a more systematic approach to deliver atraining regime that meets immediate operational requirements and contributes towards thelonger-term development of the Service. The overall quality of the training college and thetraining departments in establishments and the work that they do was well received by staff.

Despite these improvements our inspection also found a significant disconnect between theoverall strategic aims of the Prison Service and the operational delivery of training on theground. The linkage between the ‘Blueprint’ strategy, the Human Resource strategy and theactual content of training courses was weak. The core of the training programme reflectedthe historical legacy of the Service in Northern Ireland, with a continued emphasis on thetraditional security role of the prison officer, although some progress had been made inintroducing more developmental programmes. The changing role of the officer from ‘turn-keyto role model’ is a critical one that requires significant support, and training will play a keypart in this. Our overall finding was that much remains to be done in the developmentof this agenda.

In addition much could have been done to improve the overall effectiveness of the trainingprogrammes through greater connection between training, performance management,competency development and career development. Whilst steps had been taken to improvethe number of accredited courses on offer to staff, this was less widespread when comparedwith other areas of the United Kingdom.

The inspection was led for CJI by Rachel Tupling and I would like to thank, on her behalf, allthose who participated in the inspection process.

Dr Michael MaguireChief Inspector of Criminal Justicein Northern IrelandJune 2009

Chief Inspector’s Foreword

vi

Executive Summary

This inspection aimed to assess the quality, uptake and outcomes of training anddevelopment for operational staff and managers of the Northern Ireland Prison Service(NIPS). The NIPS had set out its strategic intent for the organisation via a ‘Blueprint’ andthere was a recognition within the NIPS, and from the Minister for Prisons, that the NIPSneeded to undergo a cultural change to meet the requirements of it as a modern prisonservice. The human resources and training strategies were not found to be closely alignedto the Blueprint or therefore the strategy of the organisation. The development of a trainingstrategy which relates to the Blueprint and HR strategy is critical in ensuring a direct linkbetween the strategic intent of the organisation, and the operational delivery of training.It is also vital that a routine programme of training needs analyses is undertaken which canbe used to inform this strategy and ensure the NIPS is aware of the changing developmentneeds of its staff.

Until recent years, the NIPS approach to training and development had been viewed by staffas focussing on refreshing basic skills and recuperation to assist staff members to deal withthe difficult working conditions during the Troubles. Whilst this provided staff with someopportunity for annual skills refreshment, it was not underpinned by a comprehensivetraining strategy for the Service. Recent years had seen the introduction of changes whichwent some way to address this lack of focus on training, such as the appointment of a newHead of Learning and Development, the initiation of training needs analyses, training fornewly recruited grades of staff, and recognition of the need for cultural change. Thisprocess of cultural change is from the historic focus on security, which was necessary duringthe Troubles, to one of public protection, where staff engage proactively with prisoners inorder to assist in their rehabilitation. This change process was ongoing and progress hadbeen made but, there was still a way to go to remove staff resistance and fully meet the aimof the NIPS to be a healthy, modern, prison service. Training and development was rightlyseen as being a valuable tool in driving this change.

Tutors at both the Prison Service College and in establishment Training Departments werehighly respected and delivered training to a high standard. However, the managementstructure of the training areas led to duplication and difficulties in maintaining a coherentstrategy and this should be rectified. There were instances where training had not been apositive experience for staff. For example, the majority of days of training attended bystaff tended to be mandatory courses, which were usually the same year-on-year, dueto the need to fulfil health and safety requirements. Residential staff particularly struggledto access training in areas of development, such as pro-social modelling or suicideintervention, and even mandatory training in control and restraint on occasions. Althoughsystems were in place for ensuring that these mandatory training needs were met,difficulties in releasing staff to attend training led to staff qualifications in these areas beingout of date.

vii

Inspectors also found however that staff and managers were able to provide examples ofgood practice and positive feedback. For example, the Officer Development Programme(ODP) was a positive step in driving culture change and preparing staff for the CriminalJustice (Northern Ireland) Order (CJO) 2008, and trainers had responded well to feedbackto make improvements. New staff members expressed positive comments about theirinduction training and were optimistic about their future development. Staff working inspecialist areas had also been able to access training and development, often external tothe NIPS.

The NIPS commitment to deliver training was hampered by the ability to release staff dueprimarily to sickness levels and the fact that this was linked to training on the shift pattern.This had led to recent training events being resourced by overtime, which is unsustainableon a long-term basis and therefore, the release of staff needs to be addressed and thepractice of locking prisoners to facilitate training should cease immediately. There was aview among staff interviewed that the NIPS did not have a long-term strategy for training.It is critical that there is a long-term plan for training, particularly in relation to providingofficers with the skills to meet the new requirements on them arising out of the CJO,building on the recently delivered ODP.

Training and development for middle managers was limited, apart from those undertakingInstitute of Leadership and Management (ILM) qualifications, with many staff acting-up to thenext level for long periods of time with no training. Steps should be taken to address thisby reviewing promotion procedures, in order to ensure that staff receive appropriatedevelopment upon being selected to act-up or promoted to the next level. A trainingcourse which had been provided for Senior Officers and Principal Officers, althoughreportedly having positive results in some areas, was not felt by staff to be linked sufficientlyto their development needs, and therefore represented a wasted opportunity. AManagement Development Scheme up to Principal Officer level was being piloted andseemed to be working well. Co-ordinated training had been limited for Governor grades,with most seeking individual opportunities, although there had been a course delivered forrecently promoted Governors, and a training needs analysis had been undertaken forGovernor grades.

Unlike the prison services in England,Wales and Scotland, the NIPS did not use NationalVocational Qualifications (NVQs) as a foundation for its training. The NIPS training strategyshould be underpinned by such a framework and it is recommended that the Prison Servicelook again at NVQs or similar approaches. Evaluation of training programmes wasundertaken but was ad hoc and it is recommended that this should be done by linemanagers in order to assess the impact of training on job performance.

viii

With the introduction of the CJO, the NIPS has the opportunity to drive forward thecultural change needed but, the appropriate training and development required for officersto deliver their new responsibilities needs to be carefully planned and delivered in theface of continuing budget reductions. The operational delivery of the performancemanagement procedure did not appear to support the process of identifying, accessingand evaluating training and development for staff, and this needs to be improved.

Careful consideration is needed as to how training can assist the NIPS to address theimbalances in its workforce in both prison officer and prison Governor grades. The NIPSwill also face more challenges in the context of devolution, and it needs to ensure that itsstaff and managers are well placed to meet these challenges.

The role of the prison officer was facing significant change at the time of this inspection.The move from a security focussed ‘turn-key’ role to one which focuses on publicprotection through reducing re-offending, requires considerable effort and commitment.Training and development has an important role to play in driving forward this change.The inspection found that, while progress had been made in delivering this change,significant work remains to be done.

ix

Recommendations

• The NIPS should clearly set out a training strategy that relates to theBlueprint for the Service and the HR Strategy arising from that in order toensure alignment between the strategic intent of the organisation and theoperational delivery of training (paragraph 1.12).

• The NIPS should develop a rolling programme of comprehensive trainingneeds analyses for staff at all levels in order to inform the training strategy(paragraph 1.14).

• The training departments based in establishments should be brought underthe management of the Head of Learning and Development at the PSC(paragraph 2.6).

• The NIPS should ensure that line managers effectively utilise the COMPASSsystem to enable them to make proper referrals to and check uptake oftraining courses by their staff (paragraph 2.10).

• The NIPS training strategy should include consideration of alternativeoptions of training delivery, such as e-learning, to enable training anddevelopment to be delivered in a manner which is cognisant of the workingpatterns and environments of staff (paragraph 2.12).

• The practice of locking prisoners in their cells in order to facilitate trainingshould cease immediately (paragraph 2.22).

• Training and development allowances should be protected on the shiftsystem and not impacted upon by high sickness absence to ensure staff areable to access training on a regular basis (paragraph 2.25).

• The NIPS should review its promotion procedures in terms of how processesare communicated to officers and how officers are assisted in preparing forthe next rank, particularly those who are asked to undertake a period ofacting-up (paragraph 2.30).

• The impact of training on an individual’s job performance should be reviewedby the staff member and their line manager during the PDP process for alltraining undertaken, and this should be used to review the effectiveness oftraining delivery (paragraph 2.39).

x

• The NIPS should determine the key training topics arising out of the CJO andset out a structured programme of training for staff who require thesecourses over the next three years (paragraph 3.1).

• The review of the PDP process should continue, utilising the views ofmanagers and staff at all levels, and be developed into a more user friendlytool which line managers use effectively for managing and developingperformance which has demonstrable outcomes in terms of training needsidentified and then delivered (paragraph 3.3).

• The NIPS should determine the suitability of NVQs or alternatives asthe basis of a framework for its training and development strategy andre-introduce them in a planned and structured manner to underpin alltraining programmes (paragraph 3.5).

• As part of its wider HR strategy the NIPS should continue to review theimbalances which are present in its workforce and the potential role thattraining can play in addressing these (paragraph 3.10).

Inspection Report

Section 1

1

2

3

Introduction and methodology1.1 The training and development of

prison staff within the NIPS wasidentified as a topic for inspectionon the basis of individual custodialestablishment inspections since2004, and the 2007 inspectionof the Northern Ireland PrisonerResettlement Strategy. The inspectionreports published by Criminal JusticeInspection Northern Ireland (CJI)and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate ofPrisons (HMIP) commented on theNIPS training strategy and maderecommendations regarding theneed to progress in this area. Thisinspection aimed to assess the quality,uptake and outcomes of training anddevelopment for NIPS operational(‘discipline’) staff and managers,and make recommendations forimprovement. Other staff, such asthose in administrative, teaching,catering or healthcare roles, werenot included in this inspection.

1.2 The inspection undertook fieldworkat the three custodial establishmentsin Northern Ireland, the PrisonService College (PSC) and withSenior Management. The fieldworkutilised a qualitative approach withInspectors carrying out face to faceindividual or focus group interviewswith staff at all levels, from support

Overview ofTraining Provision

CHAPTER 1:

grade officers up to GoverningGovernors. Further details on thespecific grades and numbers ofofficers spoken to can be found inAppendix 1. Inspectors also spoke torepresentatives of the Prison Officers’Association (POA), the PrisonerGovernors’ Association (PGA) withinthe NIPS, representatives of Skills forJustice (SfJ) and the Scottish PrisonService (SPS) in order to obtaincomparator data. A review was alsoconducted of documentationprovided by the NIPS and by otherprison services in the UK and theRepublic of Ireland, and of researchmaterial in relation to best practicein training such as that produced bythe Chartered Institute for Personneland Development (CIPD) (e.g.developing training strategies whichare aligned to strategic priorities,training policy et cetera.)

Context of training in the NorthernIreland Prison Service1.3 The NIPS is responsible for providing

prison services in Northern Ireland.Its main statutory duties are set outin the Prison Act (Northern Ireland)1953 and rules made under the Act.At the time of the inspection theNIPS Statement of Purpose was asfollows:“The Northern Ireland PrisonService, through our staff, serves the

community by keeping in secure, safeand humane custody those committed bythe courts; by working with prisoners andwith other organisations seeks to reducethe risk of re-offending; and in so doingaims to protect the public and tocontribute to peace and stability inNorthern Ireland.” In 2007 the NIPSpublished its Corporate Plan for2007-10 and Business Plan for 2007-08. Within this the NIPS set out itscommitment to “continue its supportfor the development and managementof our staff, so that they can contributeeffectively to the achievement of theService’s key targets and objectives andtheir own personal and professionaldevelopment.”

1.4 At the time of the inspection, theNIPS faced a variety of strategicissues which it outlined in its 2007‘Blueprint’ Strategic DevelopmentProgramme. This included prisonerpopulation projection and operationalneeds; development of the prisonservice estate; approach tocontestability; evaluating optionsfor escort services; reward andrecognition (human resourcestrategy); and efficiency. For example,in relation to the first of these‘strands’ the NIPS prison populationwas 1533 at the end of June 2008compared to 1458 on the same datein 2007. Since 2001 the prisonpopulation has risen by over 70% andis anticipated to continue to rise onan annual basis by as much as 50%over the next 10 to 15 years.

1.5 At a conference on NIPS OffenderManagement in November 2008 the

4

Northern Ireland Prisons’ Ministeremphasised the importance of therole of the prison officer in themodern Prison Service, saying “Thepotential for the prison officer to modelbehaviour that we would like prisonersto adapt should not be under-estimated.They include the core values of thePrison Service, and qualities such asresponsibility, co-operation andcompassion.” He also stated that “theprison officer interacts with the prisonerevery day and they have the potential toinspire change. The prison officer hasmore influence over the behaviour ofprisoners than anyone else.”

Human Resources andTraining Strategy1.6 A CIPD factsheet by Anderson

(2008)1 states that “Investment inlearning provides the basis for thedevelopment of the organisation’s humancapital assets, and this requires thoseinvolved in learning and training toensure that learning and trainingoutcomes address the strategic humancapital priorities of the organisation.”Anderson also notes that “oftensignificant change in organisationstakes too long to achieve. Developingappropriate attitudes, skills andcapability amongst key employees sothat they can respond to strategicchange priorities in a timely way, is a keychallenge for organisations and a keyarea where LTD (learning, training anddevelopment) can make an impact.”

1.7 Anderson (2007)2 suggests that thestarting-point for determining thevalue and contribution of learning isthe organisation’s strategic prioritiesand how close the alignment is

1 Anderson (2008) Aligning learning to the needs of the organisation, CIPD factsheet, available on-line athttp://www.cipd.co.uk/subjects/lrnanddev/general/alignlearng.htm?IsSrchRes=1 CIPD: London.

2 Anderson (2007) The value of learning: A new model of change and evaluation., CIPD change agenda, available on-line athttp://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/94842E50-F775-4154-975F-8D4BE72846C7/0/valoflearnnwmodvalca.pdf CIPD: London.

5

between learning and strategicpriorities. The NIPS strategies werereviewed to ascertain how closelythe learning and strategic prioritieswere aligned.

1.8 In the ‘Blueprint’ strand on reward andrecognition the key areas highlightedwere the costs of labour, theextended use of support grades torelease prison officers into front lineduties which include greater prisonercontact, the changes required to theway in which officers engage withprisoners and the agreement of thethree year pay and efficiency package.Although this strand showedconsideration of learning prioritiesand included some learningobjectives, as will be seen later in thisreport, resources were not alwaysfully committed to defined learningpriorities.

1.9 The Human Resource (HR) Strategy2006-09 which had been developedto support the ‘Blueprint’ recognisedthat the change of emphasis awayfrom security and control towardsengagement and intervention “willinvolve significant training.” The HRstrategy sought to support thebusiness aims of the NIPS. Withinthe HR strategy there were key HRthemes identified in the areas of;organisational development/leadership; resourcing; pay andreward/performance; learning anddevelopment; and employee relations.Under each of these themes HR aimswere set out and finally, actionsrelating to the aims, together withlead persons and target dates forcompletion. The aims under thelearning and development themedid not however appear to relate to

the aspirations for the ‘Blueprint’document. For example, there wereno aims regarding developmentaltraining to drive cultural change,identification of training requiredby the new support grades orconsideration of ways to reducetraining costs. There thereforeappeared to be a disconnect betweenthe strategic aims of the organisation(as expressed via the ‘Blueprint’) andthe operational delivery of thesethrough the HR strategy.

1.10 In addition within the learning anddevelopment theme, not all aimswere noted in the action plan andit was unclear why some aims havebeen selected over others. Therewere five overall aims within learningand development (e.g. ‘identify theskills and knowledge gaps within theorganisation and develop a corporatedevelopment programme to fill thesegaps’) but only two of these werenoted in the action plan as havingspecific actions to be undertaken, anindividual identified to lead on thataction or a target date for completion.For example, there was a HR aimrelating to ‘develop a culture wherestaff proactively take responsibility fortheir own development’ yet noexpression of how this would beactioned, by whom or by when. Thisprocess did not seek to make explicitlinks between learning outcomes andkey strategic goals although theperformance development processdoes aim to deliver this.

1.11 Similarly the PSC Business Plan 2007-08 did not appear to link to the HRstrategy as it had actions listed underfour headings; policy/outputs; people;resources; and processes. The list of

6

actions within the people area didinclude targets such as ‘response torequests for learning anddevelopment’ but these targetstended to be aspirational and non-specific. They did not set out SMART(specific, measureable, achievable,realistic and time-bound) objectivesto make them a reality. For example,the vast majority of the targets werestated as ‘on-going’ under thetimescale heading.

1.12 The NIPS training strategy tended tobe more reactive than proactivealthough attempts were being madeto address this. Many staffcommented that training was basedon a reaction to events and that theydid not believe the NIPS had astrategic vision for training. The NIPShad begun to make progress in thisarea as evidenced by the delivery ofthe Officer Development Programme(ODP) and the training for middlemanagers and new Governorshowever, there is still room fordevelopment. It was suggested toInspectors that part of the problemwas that the NIPS Training NeedsAnalyses (TNAs) are not set within astrategic framework such as NVQs orthe ‘Skills Elevator’ model of work-based learning used elsewhere in theUK prison service. The NIPSshould clearly set out a trainingstrategy that relates to theBlueprint for the Service and theHR Strategy arising from that inorder to ensure alignmentbetween the strategic intent ofthe organisation and theoperational delivery of training.

Training Needs Analysis1.13 One of the aims of the HR strategy

was to “identify the skills andknowledge gaps within the organisationand develop a corporate developmentprogramme to fill those gaps.” Untilrecent years, training delivery hadnot been informed by a systematicapproach to analysis and tended to bead hoc and reactive. In 2007 a TNAwas undertaken for Governor gradeswhich aimed to address the feelingthat their training needs had not beenaddressed in a co-ordinated manner.

1.14 At the time of the inspection manystaff stated that, to their knowledge,no TNA had been undertaken fortheir grade. Where TNAs had beenundertaken staff were not widelyconsulted as the PDP process wasused to identify such needs. Workhad been undertaken to consult withthe Strategic Learning Committee(SLC), Senior Management, keyGovernors and key staff to form thebasis of a TNA process. On someoccasions consultations with the SLCappeared to only be a suggestion ofareas that staff need training in, whichcould vary widely, rather than takingaction to relate these to the strategicaims of the organisation. Again, thead hoc nature of this process doesnot appear to encourage continuouslearning. A more systematic methodof undertaking TNAs of all grades ona regular basis, which incorporated awider element of staff consultation,would be helpful to review and keepup to date with training required byofficers to meet the changing needsof the service. This would enable theSLC to redress the balance between

7

headquarters (HQ) initiatives andofficer needs. TNAs should alsobe informed by the views of linemanagers and senior managers, butthese should not be allowed tocompletely overshadow the viewsof the officers themselves. It isrecommended that the NIPSshould develop a rollingprogramme of comprehensivetraining needs analyses for staffat all levels in order to informthe training strategy.

Structure ofTraining Delivery1.15 Prior to the signing of the Belfast

Agreement in 1998, the NIPS had avery different approach to the trainingand development of staff to thatwhich it employs today. Due tothe level of security threat, andconsequent stressful workingconditions to which prison officerswere subjected, training was seenby staff as a form of ‘rest andrecuperation’; time away from theestablishment in civilian clothing toupdate basic skills but primarily, tohave what was widely considered tobe a week of relief from the stressesof the prison. As most trainingtook place in the PSC in its pleasantcoastal setting in Millisle, this enabledstaff to relax out of their usualworking environment.

1.16 The content of the training whichwas provided was largely relatedto updating the essential skills toundertake the job of a prison officeri.e. the management of prisoners insegregated conditions. There was notraining in interpersonal skills,

prisoner engagement or resettlement,which are now considered essentialcomponents for the running of ahealthy prison.

Initiatives1.17 When the Maze Prison was closed in

2000 the NIPS rolled out aprogramme called ‘Future Positive’ atwo-day workshop aimed at helpingall staff remaining in the Service toidentify with its vision and values, andto recognise their contribution inachieving the future goals of theorganisation. This was an attemptto make prison officers aware of thechanges to the NIPS and the prisonsystem, but this was frustrated bydisorder in the prisons and laterthe reintroduction of separation inMaghaberry following the SteeleReport3 in 2003. Evidence frommanagers and staff would suggestthat this programme was not valuedby officers and its purpose was notaccepted.

1.18 Despite these efforts little trainingtook place up until the appointmentof the current Director General in2004. At this time the College wasrarely used and the staff within itwere demotivated, particularly inlight of plans to move the Collegefrom its location in Millisle to a newHQ which was planned to be locatedat Hydebank Wood. There was nostrategic focus on learning anddevelopment. The Director Generalaimed to build the capability of thePSC and focus on delivery and onbenchmarking with other trainingproviders.

3 Safety Review Team (2003), review of Safety at Maghaberry Prison (Steele Report), Northern Ireland Office

8

1.19 At the time of the fieldwork the NIPSemployed 2030 staff who workedacross the three establishments;Maghaberry Prison (939), MagilliganPrison (458), Hydebank Wood YoungOffenders Centre and Prison (279)and Prison Service HQ (258). Therewere also 54 staff employed at thePSC. The PSC was situated on a 21-acre site on the outskirts of Millisle,Co Down. The estate comprised themain college building, gymnasium,workshops, dog section training unitand a number of residentialproperties. The PSC also had out-stations for firearms and control andrestraint training. The staff in the PSCwere employed in a variety of dutiesincluding the group of tutors whodesign and deliver training.

1.20 The role of the PSC was to supportthe NIPS in achieving its objectives by:

• developing and implementingtraining strategies which meet thebusiness needs of the Service;

• supporting local management inidentifying the skills, knowledgeand aptitudes required for all postsand locations within the Service,and developing staff trainingprogrammes to meet those needs;

• providing quality development andtraining to help staff carry outtheir agreed role and fulfil theiragreed potential;

• evaluating training anddevelopment to ensure itseffectiveness;

• producing and developing thetraining and development of NIPSspecialists; and

• managing the central trainingbudget to ensure value for money.

The core business of the Collegeincluded induction training; disciplinetraining for recruits and officers;management development;professional development through awide range of nationally recognisedvocational qualifications; specialisttraining including incidentmanagement; hostage awareness;Level Two search training andspecialist dog training skills.

Training figures1.21 Training for staff within NIPS was

primarily provided by three sources;the PSC, in-service (i.e. by trainingdepartments in the three prisonestablishments) and externalproviders. In 2007-08 76% of trainingwas delivered or sourced by the PSC(67% was delivered by PSC tutors,9% by external providers) and 24%was delivered by establishments.

1.22 The numbers in each of the disciplinegrades and training days delivered toeach grade are shown in Table 1.This clearly indicates that the PrisonCustody Officers (PCOs) hadreceived the majority of training inthe previous year, but this isunderstandable due to the length oftheir induction training. Training forPrincipal Officers (POs) and SeniorOfficers (SOs) had reduced from theprevious year with training forofficers staying the same.

9

1.23 The NIPS had a target of five daystraining per staff member per yearalthough 10 days were built into theshift system for training. This was thesame as the Scottish Prison Service(SPS) for officers, although the SPStarget for managers was seven days.Whilst for 2007-08 the NIPS hadachieved its target of five days trainingper member of staff, it wasacknowledged that this would not

have been met had it not been forthe induction training provided toNCOs and PCOs. Table 2 clearlyshows that staff in Prisoner EscortGroup (PEG)/Prisoner Escort andCourt Custody Services (PECCS) hadreceived the majority of the trainingacross the sites with Maghaberry staffreceiving the least of the threeestablishments.

Grade Number Number trainingstaff days delivered

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Operational SupportGrade (OSG) 17 - - 4.1

Auxiliary 1 - - 2.0

Prison Custody Officer (PCO) 174 - - 15.2

Night Custody Officer (NCO) 178 17.3 8.1 9.0

Night Patrol Officer 6 - - 0.3

Officer Grade 1129 5.2 5 5.1

Senior Officer (SO) 175 6.6 10 6.0

Principal Officer (PO) 68 6.1 8 7.5

Governor I 2 3.5 10.5 5.0

Governor II 5 5.2 4 2.6

Governor III 2 3 4 2.0

Governor IV 13 4.5 8.8 3.5

Governor V 25 5.5 6.3 20

Table 1: Numbers of staff in discipline grades and training days delivered

Table 2: Average number ofdevelopment and training daysdelivered per site

Average developmentand training days per person

Maghaberry 4.6

Magilligan 7.4

Hydebank Wood 5.2

PEG/PECCS 15.3

1.24 The budget allocation in 2007-08for all non-central learning anddevelopment opportunities was£606,000 across the Service. Thiswas a reduction of £122,000 fromthe 2006-07 allocation, but the totalspend from the 2007-08 budgetallocation was £586,000, an increaseof £130,000 on 2006-07. The budgetallocation for all PSC spend for 2007-08 was £2.915m and the total spentwas £3.025m with the majority goingon pay and running costs. This was anagreed overspend on initial budgetallocation of approx £110,000 basedon additional capital and staff spendwhich had not been included in theinitial budget. The allocated budgetfor the PSC represents approximately2% of the running costs of the NIPSas a whole.

1.25 At the time of the inspection twoforums supported the developmentof a training strategy and the methodof realising that strategy. TheStrategic Learning Committee (SLC)met three to four times a year,determined the priorities for theNIPS for the year and reviewedprogress against the prioritiesand the impact of the programmes.Inspectors were told that the SLC

used documentation such as theBlueprint, HR strategy, inspectionreports, training needs analysis andoperational knowledge to makedecisions about the priorities,although this did not appear to beclearly articulated in the minutes ofthe meetings reviewed. The SLC wasmade up of Governing Governors, theDeputy Directors and the Head ofLearning and Development.The SLC then fed through to theDevelopment,Training and LearningForum (DTLF) which was attendedby the establishment training PO andPO tutors from the PSC. Inspectorswere told that in general, these twoforums worked well as a mechanismfor determining and delivering thetraining strategy although thepriorities determined by the SLCwere not always followed through asnew priorities took over. Thisillustrates how the learning functionmeets with operational teams, but areonly involved in meeting with seniormanagement of the NIPS and not staffat operational levels.

Culture change1.26 In 2006 a new Head of Training

and Development was appointed atthe PSC and was tasked with thereinvigoration of the PSC and theproduction of a training strategy toset out the NIPS plans for thedevelopment of staff. The Head ofTraining and Development had abackground external to the NIPS.This brought a fresh approach anddifferent skills to the role by tryingto develop accreditation for trainingprogrammes, but faced somechallenges in implementing changesto the training provision within theservice.

10

1.27 With the process of ‘normalisation’of the criminal justice system inNorthern Ireland, a need had beenidentified for changes in the role ofprison officers in the NIPS. Manystaff shared the view that the change‘from turn-key to role model’ wasneeded and this change had beenembarked on, to undergo a shift fromthe historic focus on security to oneof increased engagement by staff withprisoners. There was recognition ofthe need to get the right balancebetween control of prisoners; toensure they are held securely,observed sufficiently and to ensureinappropriate behaviour is dealt with,and care of prisoners; respecting theirhuman rights and taking forward thepublic protection agenda. However,there was some resistance againstthe need for change and some staffwished to retain the ‘rest andrecuperation’ type of trainingprovision.

1.28 The NIPS HR Strategy 2006-09stated:“Even a cursory examination ofthe current climate in the service revealsa high degree of tolerance for attitudesand behaviours that will hinder progresstowards positive change in workingarrangements…much of the change inculture will be driven from progressingactions in specific areas such as selectingand developing staff, and throughmanaging the performance ofstaff…senior managers will need to takeresponsibility for influencing change inthis area…crucial to this is the need toembed NIPS values throughout theorganisation.” This need for changehad led to developments within theNIPS, particularly in terms of trainingand development which are outlinedin Chapter Two.

1.29 The NIPS had also attempted to seekways to release prison officers intoroles through which they could beginto engage with prisoners. This led tothe introduction of PECCS in 2007which will eventually purely bestaffed by former private securitystaff and new PCO recruits. This hadenabled prison officers previouslyworking as part of PEG to return toother prison duties. There had notbeen, however, any major recruitmentinto prison officer grades since 1994and no Governors have beenrecruited externally since 1986. Thishad led to very low turnover whichhad resulted in little opportunity fordevelopment or introduction of newskills for staff, which could in turn,hinder attempts to introduce aculture change. In addition, there hadbeen a severance programme in 2001and recent recruitment had been heldfor support grades to undertake taskspreviously performed by prisonofficers. The low turnover hadresulted in recruitment processesbeing held at times of retirement‘bulges’ as large number of officersretire at the same time and this wasnext due to occur in around fiveyears time.

1.30 As this overview illustrates, trainingand development had been a mixedpriority for the NIPS until recentyears, and attempts to improve thishave been largely piecemeal due to alack of coherent strategy. This hadbeen mainly in a context of difficultworking conditions and resistancefrom staff and more recently onewhere the opportunity to refreshstaff and management pools hadbeen extremely limited despite theneed to do so.

11

12

13

The Prison Service College2.1 Inspectors heard from staff at all

levels that the quality of the tutors atthe PSC was generally considered tobe high and they were considered tobe operationally knowledgeable,despite some of the tutors havingworked at the PSC for long periodsof time. The tutors had allundergone a selection process for thepost and had obtained recognisedtraining qualifications, such asprogrammes delivered by the CIPD.The tutors were also able to accessfurther training for themselves whichwill assist them to develop anddeliver new courses or delivercourses previously only delivered byexternal providers. The tutors hadclearly benefited from the experienceof working in the trainingenvironment and being afforded theopportunity to explore areas of bestpractice. It would be sensible for theNIPS to develop a rotation plan ofstaff from establishments to the PSCin order to maximise the skillstransfer between the training andoperational environments, enhanceflexibility and enable successionplanning.

2.2 The PSC itself was an old buildingwhich created difficulties in terms ofthe running costs and the ability tomodernise. Despite this, Inspectorsobserved that new technology such

as interactive white boards andprojection systems had been installedwhich enabled tutors to use morecreative methods of deliveringtraining. For example the OfficerDevelopment Programme (ODP)used a combination of techniquesranging from the traditional flipchartand pen to a PowerPoint presentationand videos created for the course.The PSC should continue to developthese interactive approaches in orderto enhance the interest of the coursefor participants.

In-serviceTraining Departments2.3 Each establishment had its own

training department consisting of aPO, a SO and an administrativeofficer. The training department wasresponsible to the GoverningGovernor and delivered mandatorytraining such as Control andRestraint (C&R), fire safety andfirearms training, co-ordinatinginduction training for staff movingestablishments or houses, as well asdesigning and delivering specifictraining required by staff in theestablishment or requested by theGovernor, such as suicideintervention or IT training. Some ofthe training departments were alsoinvolved in operational duties forexample carrying out cell searches.There was a consistent view fromstaff at all levels that the local

Assessment ofTraining Provision

CHAPTER 2:

14

establishment trainers were highlyskilled individuals who went out oftheir way to support staff to the bestof their ability by providing relevantand accessible training and answeringqueries which staff had. The in-service trainers also benefited fromhaving a visible presence within theprisons, and were perceived to behighly knowledgeable about theoperational requirements of prisonwork as well as specialist knowledgein the field of training.

2.4 Overall resources in the in-servicetraining departments were good withclassrooms, offices and technologyavailable for various types of training.This meant that some courses,which traditionally would have beendelivered in the PSC could bedelivered in-service, for exampleIT training. This enabled staff andmanagers to use their time moreefficiently, for example by cuttingdown travelling time to the PSC(especially for staff working inMagilligan) and by enabling staff toaccess training and developmentresources in their lunch periods orbefore or after their shift. Staffdid make use of these facilities,particularly in Maghaberry, but inreality, operational priorities alwaysovershadowed time spent at thetraining department.

Tutors2.5 The two sets of tutors in the PSC

and establishments had goodrelationships and the in-servicetutors assisted in the delivery ofprogrammes at the PSC and viceversa. This flexibility meant thatmore programmes could be deliveredand enabled a cross-fertilisation and

development of skills and knowledge.This was often undertaken on agoodwill basis however, and bymanagers or trainers seeking favoursfrom each other, rather than in aco-ordinated fashion.

2.6 This practice was slightly hamperedhowever by the fact that in-servicetraining teams reported to theGoverning Governors who, onoccasions, had different priorities forspecific training in their establishmentto the corporate training prioritieswhich the PSC were working to.Whilst establishments may havespecific requirements from thetraining function which rightly mayneed to be addressed, this shouldbe done in a co-ordinated mannerin order to avoid duplication ofeffort and enable priorities to bedetermined in a cohesive method.Therefore Inspectors recommendthat the training departmentsbased in establishments shouldbe brought under the managementof the Head of Learning andDevelopment at the PSC.

Types of training provided2.7 The types of training provided

broadly fell into two types;mandatory and developmental.The mandatory training primarilyconsisted of C&R basic or advancedtraining, first aid, fire safety andfirearms (for those prison officerswho were issued with a personalprotection weapon); all of which staffwere required to attend annually, andPrison Record and Inmate SystemManagement (PRISM) training. Recentyears had also seen training providedon the NIPS Business Plan. Thedifficulty faced by staff and managers

15

deemed to be relevant to the roleand linked to the needs of theorganisation.

2.8 Table Three shows the top 10courses that were delivered in theNIPS which provides an illustration ofthe focus of the training delivery. Thecourse which was delivered for themost days was the induction trainingto new PCOs which accounted for16% of the training followed by theODP, which accounted for 9% of thetraining. The ODP was considered tobe developmental training, but therest of the training for officers wasprimarily mandatory or refreshertraining (e.g. C&R, PRISM, dogsrefresher training). This demonstrateshow, at the time of the inspection,the focus of training was still onoperational delivery rather thandevelopment.

was that once this mandatory traininghad been planned for, which tookabout three to four days, most stafffaced difficulties in being released toattend more developmentalprogrammes, even though sufficientdays were built into the shift system,due to the levels of sickness absence.The two-day ODP delivered during2007-08 was a developmental coursewhich Senior Management hadprioritised as being mandatory for allofficers as an important first steptowards culture change. Manyofficers spoken to felt that this hadprovided little opportunity for themto undertake anything they perceivedto be specifically tailored to theirown development needs, albeit theyhad not had the full opportunity toidentify these for the future in light ofthe CJO. Such training needs shouldbe fulfilled once they have been

Table 3:Top 10 areas for training delivery (1 April 2007 - 31 March 2008)

CourseTitle No. of days

PCO (Direct Entry) 2171

Officer Development Programme (ODP) 1271

C&R Basic 989

Introduction to PRISM 602

NCO 517

Governor V Training 400

Chase & Hold Initial 332

Continuation Training (Dogs) 310

C&R Advanced 301

Chase & Hold Refresher (Dogs) 259

All Other Training 6276

Total 13428

16

Mandatory training2.9 The quality of the mandatory training

was reported to be satisfactory butstaff reported feeling de-motivatedand often bored by repeating thesame course over and over again,often with the same content, trainersand resources. Obviously suchprogrammes are necessary andprovide an important health andsafety function. But, the NIPS shouldconsider ways to reduce the amountof time spent on these topics, whilststill retaining the critical messages, oralternative methods of delivery sothat staff are not facing the sameprogramme time and time again.

2.10 In-service training departments hadresponsibility for monitoring trainingof staff and ensuring that they werekept up to date with mandatorytraining such as C&R and fire safety.Inspectors heard however that somestaff had not received this training inthe timescales required and thereforewere ‘out of date’. The POA wereparticularly concerned about thisissue and suggested that in someestablishments, a large number ofstaff did not have up to date C&Rqualifications, particularly inMaghaberry. They believed that,although officers are now expectedto monitor their own qualifications,when staff made requests for annualtraining this was not provided.Similar concerns were raised aboutlack of access to firearms training.Some managers also suggested thatsome staff had made consciousefforts to avoid refresher training andhad done so without challenge. Thisobviously raises questions aroundpersonal safety which may become anissue if not addressed. The NIPS

Training Managers are able to use theComputerised Personnel and SalarySystem (COMPASS) to allocatecourse places to staff and monitorattendance however, managers didnot appear to be using these systemsto full effect to monitor referral anduptake of training courses by theirstaff. The NIPS should ensurethat line managers effectivelyutilise the COMPASS system toenable them to make properreferrals to and check uptake oftraining courses by their staff.

2.11 Some staff questioned whether C&Rtraining is necessary for all staff orwhether other types of conflictresolution such as ‘talk-down’techniques should be consideredwhich may serve a dual purpose ofreducing injuries and use less time inproviding refresher training. Ifmanagement consider that C&Rrefresher training is essential and isrequired annually then, this should bemonitored, managed and deliveredaccordingly. Alternatively, if it is feltthat other forms of training, such as‘talk-down’ or crisis interventiontechniques, may meet their needsbetter then this should beresearched, consulted upon and apolicy developed rather than failingto provide training where it isnecessary.

2.12 Some staff also commented thattraining on certain topics was awaste of training time or was notconsidered by them to be ‘real’training. One example given of thiswas a half day training session on theNIPS Business Plan which, whilst staffappreciated the fact that the BusinessPlan existed and some that they

17

needed to be aware of it, they didn’tfeel this warranted ‘training’ especiallywhen this tended to be a briefingwhich was badged as training.Another example was that of newbaton training which Inspectors wereinformed was arranged as ‘turn upwhen you want for a 15 minutesession’ even though it was classed asa half day training session. Thesetypes of training or information givingsessions may be appropriate in thecircumstances but Inspectors did notget a sense that these were pre-planned decisions which had beencarefully evaluated. The NIPS shouldstrive, where such brief training orinformation giving is required, toensure that staff are fully aware of thenature and purpose of the session,rather than being left to believe thatthey are receiving a formal trainingsession, for the purposes of increasingthe training figures, when it is not. Itis recommended that the NIPStraining strategy should includeconsideration of alternativeoptions of training delivery, suchas e-learning, to enable trainingand development to be deliveredin a manner which is cognisantof the working patterns andenvironments of staff.

2.13 In June 2008 the NIPS launched itsDiversity Strategy 2008-10 entitled‘Making a Difference’. During theinspection many staff told Inspectorsthat this would be the next ‘priority’for the NIPS and that they couldforesee all staff being sent on atraining course covering it. Whilststaff appreciated the importance ofdiversity, there were concernsexpressed that what was consideredan immediate need could take away

from what was important. Whilstdiversity is clearly critical in amodern prison service it is importantthat it is seen as a constantbackground to all prison activitiesand underpinning all training, ratherthan a one-off issue which then is metwith cynicism from staff. The POand SO course did include an inputon diversity and the ODP was anexcellent example of how diversityissues, such as the need to treat allprisoners with respect, can beincorporated into a course which isnot badged as ‘diversity training’.The NIPS should continue to developthis but also ensure that the trainersare well versed in diversity andhuman rights issues, in order thatthey can appropriately challenge anycomments from staff which fall shortof expected standards, and do notinadvertently reinforce stereotypesthemselves.

Developmental training2.14 The ODP was developed in order

to begin the process of what wasdescribed as ‘changing hearts andminds’ and begin the preparation ofstaff for the introduction of the CJOwhich will have major implicationsfor the NIPS and its staff. Theprogramme was developed by twotrainers at the PSC and made creativeuse of video technology to try andget staff to think about their rolefrom the perspective of protectingthe public and victims of crime. TheNIPS Senior Management Team madea commitment that prison officersfrom all establishments would attendthe course in their house groups inorder to enhance the impact of thetraining once they returned to theirwork environment. The course

initially received critical feedbackfrom the participants and thereforewas amended to address theconcerns. Inspectors commend thisdecision and responsiveness tofeedback. This led to more positivefeedback from later courses andparticipants reporting that they hadbegun to realise by the second day,the aims and objectives of the courseand how it related to them.

2.15 The course was particularlychallenging for tutors to deliver asmany of the participants were cynical,uninterested in the course content,and were only on the course becausethey had been ‘told’ to turn up.Inspectors observed the course andsaw the tutors work hard to strikethe fine balance between empathisingwith the officers’ concerns and issues,so that they did not build barriersbetween them, but also support theService by delivering the programmeeffectively, and appropriatelychallenging negative attitudes.Some tutors had been brought inspecifically to assist in the deliveryof the ODP from establishments andthis had enhanced the course asthey were able to provide real lifeexamples of issues that had arisenon the landings. Inspectors observedthat this was extremely valuable andwould commend this decision.

2.16 Formal and long-term evaluationof this programme has yet to beundertaken although seniormanagement suggested that the ODPhas ‘been more successful than couldpossibly have been imagined’ fromanecdotal evidence provided byGovernors. The POA centrally werealso supportive of the course and its

impact on staff. The reactions fromofficers were mixed, as would beexpected for this type of course, withsome staff still not understanding therelevance to their role, but othersrecognising the need for furthertraining. This type of programmewas a positive step towards changingthe culture of the organisation andappeared to Inspectors to be anextremely well-thought out coursewith hard-hitting messages. Morewill need to be done, however, bythe NIPS to keep up this momentum;particularly in order to preparefurther for the new responsibilitiesofficers will face under the CJO.

Specialist training2.17 The NIPS HR Strategy stated that

one of the HR aims was to “ensurethat staff have specialist training tohelp them be more effective in areassuch as separation, hostage, searchand diversity”. However access tospecialist developmental trainingappeared to vary widely. Officers inspecialist roles reported that theyhad been given the opportunity toundertake a wide variety of training inrelation to their role which is verypositive. Examples were given ofresettlement staff being trained inhousing issues, and a member of staffon the Reach Unit receiving a wealthof training including motivationalinterviewing and a week inWhitemoor prison in England.These staff recognised their privilegedposition in relation to gaining trainingopportunities.

2.18 Staff working in the Dogs Sectionwere also provided with good accessto training but it was suggested thatthis was due to the nature of their

18

19

work and that they were able toarrange their own mandatory andrefresher training. Inspectors sawgood examples of collaborativeworking regarding training provisionbetween the Dogs Section and theIrish Prison Service. A recentpartnership approach had seen theNIPS Dog Trainers provide trainingfor dogs and handlers from the IrishPrison Service in order to assist themin addressing the drugs problemsfaced in the Republic’s prisons.This appeared to be well managedand the staff were all highlymotivated and valued by SeniorManagement. This also provided theNIPS with revenue for use of theirfacilities. This experience could bebuilt upon to explore opportunitiesfor joint training with other prison orcriminal justice agencies where bothparties provide an input.

2.19 Other staff from residential areasreported that it was virtuallyimpossible to access specialisttraining and the frustrationsexperienced in trying to rectify this,for example in relation to the needfor training in dealing with foreignnationals. There was also limitedspecialist training for staff whoworked in Hydebank with youngoffenders or with female prisoners, orwith lifers in Maghaberry in relationto the specific needs of thesecategories of prisoner. These needsshould be identified by way of theTNAs as recommended and deliveredto appropriate staff.

2.20 It was suggested to Inspectors thatsome staff already have specialistskills in certain areas but these werenever utilised by training departments

by way of seeking assistance indesigning or delivering trainingcourses. Although one of the HRaims of the NIPS was to “develop aculture where staff proactively takeresponsibility for their own development”,Inspectors were told that proceduresexisted in relation to accessingassistance from external contacts(either free or incurring a cost) inorder to satisfy procurement andfinancial procedures, which they felthindered such access. For example,attempts had been made to facilitateexternal community groups attendingto provide presentations on specificissues, but the procedures made thisincredibly difficult which deterredstaff and left them demoralised.It was felt that money could besaved by using the skills of staff andthe contacts they may have withvoluntary organisations or individualsrather than a reliance on externalproviders. The NIPS may wish toconsider ways in which to betterutilise the skills and qualificationsof staff in developing or deliveringtraining programmes.

Release of officers for training2.21 Inspectors were told of difficulties by

all staff in getting released to attendtraining events. For example theODP, which was mandatory for allofficers, was sometimes cancelled atshort notice by Governing Governorsbecause of operational requirements.In 2007-08, 22% of places at the PSCwere not filled and although therewas potential to deliver 7516 days,the actual delivery was 5834 days.This means that the average costs oftraining which stood at £336 pertraining day at the time of theinspection could be reduced to £262

per training day, if courses wererunning at full capacity. Last minutechanges to planned training aretherefore not only disheartening toofficers, managers and tutors, but alsoimpacts on the financial situation ofthe PSC.

2.22 Staff felt that the fact training couldbe cancelled in such a mannershowed the lack of value that seniormanagement placed on training. Theyaccepted that sickness was a difficultywhich led to an inability to releasestaff from landings, but felt thatinsufficient efforts were taken toprioritise training above otherrequirements. For example manystaff working on the landingssuggested that a potential solution tothis was to lock the prisoners for aperiod of time whilst training wasprovided or to have ‘diminishing tasklines’ in place which reduce thenumber of staff required on thelanding, but also reduce theprisoners’ regime. It was extremelyconcerning to hear such viewsexpressed and it was even moreconcerning to hear that such practicehad occurred previously. Whilst thedifficulties of releasing staff to attendtraining are appreciated and training isclearly important, this should not beat the expense of the core functionof the Prison Service. PreviousCJI/HMIP inspection reports havecriticised the lack of constructiveactivity prisoners are engaged in,and this practice only serves toexacerbate this problem. Inspectorsrecommend that the practice oflocking prisoners in their cells inorder to facilitate trainingshould cease immediately.

2.23 Senior managers identified that therewas a continuing issue with regard tostaffing levels in the houses andsuggested that there was a need toreach agreement with the POA aboutreducing the numbers of staffrequired to run a landing, pointing toother jurisdictions, for example inScotland, where staffing levels of twostaff per landing are not consideredunsafe. There appeared to bedisagreement with the POA overwhether agreed staffing levels hadbeen met. On a day to day basisthere is obviously a need todetermine safe staffing levels, but atthe time of the inspection, highabsenteeism was continuing to be anissue which impacted on staffinglevels. Decreasing resources willcontinue to be an issue for the NIPStherefore this is something that allparties need to work together toaddress, whilst fulfilling their ownobligations and promises made.

2.24 The option that had been used toensure delivery of the ODP was torun the courses on overtime until theend of the 2007-08 financial year,although difficulties arose when notall Maghaberry staff had attendedthe course by the deadline andtherefore extra funding had to befound. Whilst this does indicate theNIPS commitment to the ODP it isunfeasible and unrealistic that trainingcould be run on overtime, on a long-term basis.

2.25 Inspectors were told that previously afive day ‘training week’ was factoredinto the shift pattern which meantthat releasing staff for training wasnot negotiable and staff knew whentheir week was and could prepare for

20

21

it. This training week incorporatedtime for updating mandatory C&R,fire and firearms qualifications inaddition to developmental training.Whilst this clearly has benefits interms of planning and ensuring therelease of staff, it may not necessarilyensure that staff get the most out oftheir training or can accessappropriate and relevant courses, andcould mean that staff have periods ofa year or more without any form ofdevelopment. The removal of thisweek on the shift system was anappropriate decision by the NIPS inan attempt to move away from thetraditional ‘rest and relaxation’ typeof training provided previously.However, this has led to a tendencyfor managers to combine staff trainingwith absence levels as they appear onthe shift system with annual leave as‘non-effective’ time and makereference to ‘the number of trainingand sick days left’. This is veryunhelpful and again, reinforces themessage that training is of little value.The key barriers to training which theNIPS faced were an inefficient shiftsystem and high sickness absence.It is recommended that trainingand development allowancesshould be protected on the shiftsystem and not impacted uponby high sickness absence toensure staff are able to accesstraining on a regular basis.

Recruitment into new staff grades2.26 The shift in focus towards developing

staff as role models and building theirskills in rehabilitation of prisoners,had led to the introduction of newroles such as the OSGs, NCOs andPCOs. These roles were designed toreduce staffing costs and release main

grade officers back into roles withgreater prisoner contact. Forexample, the NCOs covered nightduty when most prisoners wereasleep and therefore have limitedcommunication with staff which hadenabled prison officers previouslyworking nights, to move back intoroles which included more prisonerinteraction. The influx of these newstaff had meant that a large amountof resources at the PSC had beenfocussed on providing inductiontraining. Inspectors observed someof the PCO induction course whichgenerally were of a good standardand contained a mixture of traditional‘chalk and talk’ sessions with thosewhich were more practical.Inspectors heard positive feedbackabout these training courses from thecourse participants, managers and thePOA. The PSC had also been able totailor the courses to make themrelevant to participants, for exampleproviding a condensed course tothose PCOs who have alreadyworked as NCOs. It is importantthat these induction courses areevaluated to ensure that staff arebeing given relevant and importantinformation for their role.

2.27 Staff in these new grades whoInspectors spoke to both inside andoutside the PSC appeared motivatedand keen to progress through theirservice to become main gradeofficers. They felt that trainingcourses were accessible to them andthat their SO would assist them inaccessing relevant courses when thetime was appropriate via their PDPprocess. They felt that the Servicewould assist them in developingtowards higher grades. Some had

22

already been regraded from NCO toOSG grade and had received relevantand useful induction training coupledwith on-the-job training which theyfelt was essential.

Middle Management training2.28 The role of the middle manager is

critical in setting an example to bothstaff and prisoners and leading changein operational areas. Training for SOsand POs had been limited in someareas and training delivered had notbeen particularly well received. Acourse was run for SOs and POs inrecent years which was intended tofocus on the changing role of theNIPS, and the role of the SO and POwithin this, and included training onattendance management, performancemanagement and reducing conflict.These were identified as areas whereline managers were not performingeffectively and therefore neededfurther training. Staff who hadattended this course told Inspectorsthat the course was insufficientlyfocussed on developing relevant skillsfor those who had been in the rolefor some time (e.g. by providing casestudies or examples of how specificissues could be dealt with) and wasmore weighted towards reiteratingHQ policies and procedures in orderto ensure compliance. There waslittle consultation with staff as towhat information they felt should becovered, which meant that the aimsof the participants on the coursewere not met. Staff commented thatthe course would have been betterrun for those new to the graderather than as a refresher. Trainingstaff expressed frustrations aboutbeing placed in the difficult positionof delivering a course that they did

not feel was fit for purpose.Although the evaluation subsequentlyundertaken at Maghaberry indicatesan improvement in managementprocesses by SOs and POs, thisinterference led to this course tosome extent being a wastedopportunity, particularly in motivatingthe SOs and POs to understandthe importance of their role inthe changing Prison Service. TheNIPS should strive to avoid thisreoccurring in the future. The TNAas recommended above should assistin identifying the requirements ofmiddle managers in order thatsuitable programmes can be tailoredto their needs in future.

2.29 SOs and POs were able to undertakethe Institute of Leadership andManagement (ILM) introductorycertificate with the option tocontinue to the full certificate.A total of 53 had undertaken theintroductory certificate and a further20 registered for the full certificate.The ILM was also used by theScottish Prison Service (SPS) toprovide learning for all their middlemanagers. NIPS staff feedback wasmixed on the value of thesequalifications as could be indicatedby the relatively small take-up of thefull certificate (8%). Some felt thatthe ILM did not address managerialdeficiencies whereas some welcomedany training and developmentprovided. An evaluation of thesecertificates would be helpful inascertaining their value for staff andthe service.

2.30 Concerns were also raised aboutthe lack of training or mentoring forthose acting-up into a management

23

role; a practice which occurredfrequently and did not appear, to staffin the establishments, to be effectivelyplanned or managed. Inspectors weretold that officers were asked toact-up to the next level with littlepreparation and sometimes withlimited assessment of their suitability.Several of the officers Inspectors metwith had been acting-up for someperiod of time with no issues raisedabout their performance in the role,but had then not met the standard ofthe assessment for permanentpromotion. This understandably leftthem frustrated, demotivated andwith little faith in the promotionprocess. The assessment processeswere recently opened up to officersat all levels which had met withdiffering views on its appropriateness,but there was an acknowledgementthat this was fairer than in the past.However there still appeared to besome mysticism surrounding the typeof assessment process that was beingused, particularly the use ofpsychometric tests, and how relevantthis was to the role of a prisonofficer. The NIPS should reviewits promotion procedures interms of how processes arecommunicated to officers andhow officers are assisted inpreparing for the next rank,particularly those who areasked to undertake a periodof acting-up.

2.31 The NIPS had five individuals on apilot management developmentscheme (MDS) who were selected atofficer level. These individuals hadundertaken postings in variouslocations across the establishmentsand HQ whilst undertaking NVQ

Level 3 in Custodial Care and theILM introductory diploma in theirfirst year. The current cohort were intheir second year at the time of theinspection and had been promotedto SO level for a year, during whichtime they would complete NVQLevel 3 in Management and the ILMmanagement diploma, before movingto PO level where the MDS wouldend. The individuals on the schemewere required to complete aportfolio of evidence to demonstratetheir suitability for progression to thenext level. An evaluation of the MDScommended the scheme and notedthe positive feedback it had receivedfrom participants, Governors andprison staff. It also provided somerecommendations for improvementincluding the potential to provideMDS candidates with projects duringtheir headquarters placement,improved communication about theMDS and development of mentoringarrangements. There were plans torecruit further staff to the MDS atSO level in the future. This is apositive step in assisting the NIPSto develop future leaders andconsideration should be given torolling it out, taking cognisance ofthe learning points from the firstevaluation. Consideration may alsobe given to management developmentprogrammes for all grades in thefuture.

Governor training2.32 Inspectors were told from several

sources that there was a lack oftraining for Governor grades, to thepoint where some staff said it was‘non-existent’. This could beevidenced by the fact that if trainingfor Governor V grades was excluded

(as a large proportion of this wasmade up of induction training for newGovernors) then the Governorgrades received an average of 3.3 daysin the last financial year. Apart fromthe TNA undertaken in 2007 and aone-day version of the ODP, therehad been little attempt in the last fewyears at a corporate level to addressthis issue. The PGA and the majorityof Governors themselves informedInspectors that they tended to takepersonal responsibility for organisingtheir own training and development.This included accessing furthereducation courses, such as an MSc inCriminal Justice Management atQueen’s University, Belfast orarranging secondments within NIPS,to other UK prisons or into privateindustry. On the whole, this wasusually agreed and funded largely bythe NIPS but there were occasionswhere training had been turned downor Governors had struggled to getsuch approval. There was also aleadership programme availablethrough the Northern Ireland Officewhich had been mandatory forGoverning Governors and lateropened up to other Governor grades.Whilst, in itself, taking personalresponsibility is appropriate for staffat higher management levels, the lackof corporacy in this approach meantthat the NIPS had little control overthe level of skills and knowledge oftheir staff and there was a lack ofstandardisation across the ranks andestablishments.

2.33 The PSC recently developed anddelivered induction training for staffpromoted to Governor V grade whichincluded classroom based learning,visits and information sessions from

external stakeholder organisationssuch as the Probation Board, the NIOand CJI. Whilst staff recognised thevalue of these sessions in order towiden their knowledge of the justicesystem, they felt that there wouldhave been more benefit from extrasessions on the practicalities of beinga Governor, for example in how tocalculate sentences and check files.Although Governors were advised toaddress any remaining skills deficitswith their managers, more formalisedprocesses may have avoided the needto ask junior staff for such advice.Some Governors also felt that theuse of the ILM was inappropriate atthis level due to the fact that manyalready had existing academicqualifications at a higher level. ThePSC was planning to develop anddeliver a Governors TrainingWorkshop in 2008-09 and this wouldbe an appropriate opportunity toensure this is linked to the TNA forGovernors at various grades andtailored to their level of managementand to their existing skills andknowledge base. It would also beimportant, given the currenttransition of the NIPS, to includewithin this programme training onthe topic of managing change.

2.34 The NIPS were undergoing Investorsin People (IiP) re-accreditation insome of the establishments duringthe inspection and this had beenachieved for the new standards. Thiswas obviously a positive indication ofthe value the NIPS places in investingin its staff but again, was met withderision from staff and views that itwasn’t backed up by release of stafffor training. It is important that theIiP is not just seen as a paper exercise

24

and that the NIPS embrace the valuesof IiP in its practices.

NVQs and performance framework2.35 In 2000 the NIPS attempted to

introduce NVQs for discipline staff inorder to enhance the professionalismof the work officers undertook, andto provide a framework fordevelopment. However thisintroduction was hampered by a lackof effective structures for assessment,such as sufficient numbers ofassessors, hasty introduction and alack of clarity for officers as to whatoutcomes the attainment of NVQswould have for them in terms ofreward or promotion, which led tounrealistic expectations andultimately, the process wasabandoned. It was suggested toInspectors by staff inside the PrisonService and stakeholders that thisillustrated the lack of commitmenttowards the introduction of NVQsand the ability to carefully plan suchan important approach to training.It does appear that a lack of plannedproactive strategy in relation toNVQs led to their downfall.

2.36 At the time of the inspection theNIPS used a Performance StandardsFramework for staff in prison gradeswhich was last updated in 2003. Thiscovered the standards required ofprison staff in terms of regimes andre-offending; staff and developing theservice; security; safety and prisonerhealthcare and finance, corporategovernance and improving businessperformance. There were 71standards in total under these fiveheadings. The standards were verysimilar to the current Skills forJustice (SfJ) National Occupational

Standards (NOS) in Custodial Carewhich were last updated andapproved for use in November 2006and implemented on 1 August 2007.A total of 62 NOS have beenidentified by SfJ for Custodial Care asbeing critical to the role of a prisonofficer. The NIPS was a countrymember of Skills for Justice (SfJ)Northern Ireland and thereforeengaged with othercriminal justice agencies on issues ofworkforce skills and also sat on theUK-wide prisons group, with arepresentative of the NIPS chairingthe Custodial Care OccupationalCommittee. This consists ofrepresentatives from stakeholdersinvolved in Custodial Care in theUK. However, at the time of theinspection, this involvement hadresulted in limited impact on NIPSpractice in this area. It would beadvisable for the NIPS to adopt theSfJ NOS for Custodial Care in thenear future, in order to bring it intoline with the rest of the UK.

Evaluation2.37 The NIPS stated that it strived to

evaluate its training programmes atfour levels:

• Level One: Identifying learningneeds and setting objectivesthrough the personal developmentplan (PDP) process;

• Level Two:Assessing the impactof learning events immediatelyafter they have taken place;

• Level Three: Reviewing the extentto which the learning gained fromthe training was transferred to theworkplace – three months afterthe learning has taken place; and

• Level Four: Production of an

25

26

annual assessment of theeffectiveness of learning and thevalue to the organisation.

At Level One there appeared to bedifficulties with the PDP process ashighlighted above and therefore, itwas difficult to evaluate whethertraining was being provided whichaddressed these needs. At Level Twothere appeared to be evaluation viathe traditional method of the ‘happysheet’ which seeks feedback on howmuch participants found the courseworthwhile, the quality of thetrainers etc. This information shouldbe sought in relation to the courseobjectives as much as possible inorder to identify whether the coursehas achieved its initial aims and, whencollated, should provide valuablemanagement data for training tutorsand managers.

2.38 The Level Three evaluation wasundertaken on an establishment leveland was completed by the trainingdepartment PO. It was disappointingto see however that for the year2007-08 this had only beenundertaken via manner of formalreport for Maghaberry, withseemingly little evaluation undertakenin either of the other twoestablishments. Generally thereappeared to be a lack ofstandardisation when reports onevaluation of training were produced.Different individuals producedreports in their own personal styleand there was a lack of standard andcoherent approach to the evaluationof outcomes. This left it difficult forthe reader to ascertain the factsregarding the success of traininginterventions and virtually impossible

to make comparisons betweenestablishments. By contrast the LevelThree evaluation report published for2007-08 for Maghaberry, provided ahigher quality of facts and figures,including training costs, and usefulindicators of success in the form ofimpact measures and outcomes foreach topic area (e.g. attendancemanagement, performancemanagement) for each course orobjectives, outcomes and benefits.This type of report was an exampleof good practice of which Inspectorswould welcome the furtherdissemination. The Level Four reportdetailed costs and numbers of stafftrained, but used Level Two and Threereports to illustrate theireffectiveness.

2.39 Whilst evaluation is clearly importantin the context of training, it appearsto be an overly complicated andresource intensive system which islikely to be removing valuableresources from the task of trainingdelivery. There does not appear tobe a strategy for evaluation whichidentifies which courses requireevaluation and at which level.Consequently, all courses areevaluated simultaneously to the sameextent. It would be more prudent inthe short term to continue toundertake Level One evaluationwhich provides immediate feedbackto the training deliverers as to thevalue of the course, and use theperformance management process toprovide longer-term feedback. Thisshould not be allowed to become anoverly complicated and bureaucraticprocess which imposes excessivedemands on line managers. Whilstprocesses are in place for doing this,

27

there appears to be a reluctance ofline managers to properly evaluatethe impact of training on their staff ’sperformance. Inspectorsrecommend that the impact oftraining on an individual’s jobperformance should be reviewedby the staff member and theirline manager during thePDP process for all trainingundertaken, and this should beused to review the effectivenessof training delivery.

28

Cultural change3.1 Whilst the NIPS was beginning to

drive the cultural change required tomove from a security focus to one ofprisoner rehabilitation, there was stillneed for much more work in thisarea and training is critical in thisprocess. The ODP was a goodstarting point from which toemphasise the role of officers in theprotection of the public and the needto prepare for the CJO, but most staffand managers recognised that therewas still a way to go. Many staff wereconcerned as to whether the NIPSSenior Management recognised theneed to provide further training, andwould have the resources to deliverthese activities. The key areas thatstaff felt they would require trainingon were in relation to duties thatwould be required of them under theCJO such as report writing anddelivery of programmes. It was alsorecognised by staff that they wouldrequire training in pro-socialmodelling techniques (in order todevelop relationships with prisoners),which would ultimately aim to reducetheir likelihood of re-offending. TheHead of Learning and Developmentand the Director of Personnel wereaware of the need for this furthertraining but this will be difficult todeliver whilst the current barriers

continue to prevent staff beingreleased for training. Inspectorsrecommend that the NIPSshould determine the keytraining topics arising out of theCJO and set out a structuredprogramme of training for staffwho require these courses overthe next three years.

Performance Management3.2 As well as the training priorities

determined by the SLC, the trainingplan was expected by the NIPSmanagement to be influenced by thetraining needs identified through staffpersonal development plans (PDP)and training needs analysis. The PDPswere collated by in-service trainingdepartments and the analysis oftraining and development requiredwas forwarded to the Head ofLearning and Development to informthe training strategy.

3.3 Inspectors heard negative commentsabout the PDP from staff at all levels.It was considered to be a ‘tick boxexercise’ which was long andunwieldy and, due to the pressure onmanagers to have PDPs completed ontime for large numbers of staff (SOsoften have up to 30 officers undertheir management), was often noteven read by the officer concerned.

29

SupportingTraining, Supporting Change

CHAPTER 3:

Staff reported that the identificationof training and development needs inthe forward job plan was oftenpointless and irrelevant, as theidentified courses never materialisedand therefore the same courses wereincluded year after year as a ‘wish-list’. Whilst it was concerning thatsuch a lacklustre approach is taken toofficers appraisal, it is not surprisinggiven the context of the PDPprocess. This process was generallyundertaken once a year andtherefore did not appear toencourage continuous learning.Inevitably in any appraisal processit is unlikely that all staff will be ableto access 100% of their requestedtraining and development but, itbecomes a pointless process whennone of the requirements are met.Managers have an important role inthe appraisal process in discussing theindividual’s performance and areas fordevelopment, whilst ensuring that therequested courses are realistic butshould also reasonably expect thatthe development needs of themand their staff will be addressed.A review of the PDP process hadjust commenced at the time of theinspection to address some of theseissues. It is recommended thereview of the PDP processshould continue, utilising theviews of managers and staff atall levels, and be developed intoa more user friendly tool whichline managers use effectivelyfor managing and developingperformance which hasdemonstrable outcomes interms of training needsidentified and then delivered.

Training framework and accreditation3.4 Whilst the NIPS had attempted to

introduce NVQs previously, and theiruse had largely been abandoned forthe majority of officers, thereappeared to have been nothingintroduced to fill the gap left in termsof a framework within which theNIPS could plan and deliver itstraining strategy. Some staff were stillable to access NVQs in CustodialCare, particularly those in the newgrades, but this was not consistentacross all levels of staff. Althoughthere were problems with thewidespread introduction of NVQspreviously, these could be relativelyeasily addressed by comprehensiveplanning and setting up processes, andimproved communication with staff asto their purpose and limitations. Forexample, the SPS adopted NOS andall recruits now undertake a two yearprogramme to obtain the ScottishVocational Qualification (SVQ) inCustodial Care Level 3 which isbased on the NOS. This ensures thatall new recruits are trained, assessedand monitored in order to ensuretheir competence in the role. As wellas this, all first line managers aretrained as A1 Assessors to enablethem to assess the competence ofthe recruits against the NVQ unitswhich engages them in theprogramme. The SPS College trainingprogrammes are all based on theNOS and if potential training areasdo not fall within the scope of theNOS, then officers are not trained inthem, as they have been determinednot to be important for the role. TheNIPS did not fully utilise the NOSand therefore did not have this sameapproach.

30

3.5 The POA centrally supported the re-introduction of NVQs and recognisedthat staff were missing out due to theabsence of such a framework. Theysuggested that there had been limitedcommitment previously to theimplementation of NVQs. Therehad been limited use made of theexpertise of Skills for Justice in suchissues, despite the NIPS’s membershipand representation of theorganisation in both Northern Irelandand UK wide. There appeared to belittle conscious alignment of trainingto the Performance StandardsFramework identified as relevant tothe role of staff, and there were nocompetency frameworks in use forprison officers. Inspectors thereforerecommend that the NIPS shoulddetermine the suitability ofNVQs or alternatives as thebasis of a framework for itstraining and developmentstrategy and re-introduce themin a planned and structuredmanner to underpin all trainingprogrammes.

3.6 Most of the NIPS trainingprogrammes were not accredited byexternal verification and accreditedby an independent body. Theexceptions to this were theprogrammes for middle managers,which were accredited by the ILM.The Scottish Prison Service hadgained endorsement by Skillsmarkfor five of its programmes includingthe Officer Foundation Programme(for new recruits) and the localnegotiators programme. This wasseen as beneficial as it providedexternal verification and is the onlyquality standard which is underpinnedby NOS. The Prison Service of

England and Wales uses the NVQsystem to accredit training for newrecruits. Although the NIPS did haveIiP accreditation, this was for theapproach to investing in people as awhole rather than for specificcourses. Accreditation is beneficial asit provides evidence that an externalquality standard has been met.

Development of female staff3.7 The Prison Service has clearly

traditionally been a male-dominatedprofession and the NIPS was noexception to this. Whilst 18.8 % ofthe NIPS prison grade workforce wasfemale, there were only three femalesin the Governor grades (47Governors in total) and all of thesewere at Governor V level. Concernswere expressed by some staff thatthe NIPS did not take proactiveaction to develop its female staff orencourage them to progress throughthe ranks, which was evidenced inthe recent promotion to Governorgrades. The Director Generalrecognised that the lack of femalerepresentation at the higher rankswas a difficulty, and stated that hewould welcome greater numbers inthe future.

3.8 It was unclear however whether thelack of females at higher grades hadarisen from a lack of interest andmotivation in promotion fromfemales in the lower grades orwhether females were unsuitable forpromotion due to either their ownlack of experience or competenceand appropriate development, or dueto the selection processes beingutilised. These two possibleexplanations would of course requiredifferent solutions in order to

31

address them and therefore, the NIPSwould need to identify whethereither, or possibly both, are at playbefore seeking to address theimbalance. For example, if femalestaff did not possess the appropriateskills to move up the grades, thenspecific training could be beneficial toaddress imbalances in the workforce.

3.9 Some staff raised the issue ofexternal recruitment into theGovernor grades which the NIPSpreviously used but has been largelyabandoned. This appeared to beover concerns that external recruitsdo not have sufficient operationalknowledge or ‘jailcraft’ to enterat such a level and would requirea large amount of training orfamiliarisation to obtain this. ThePGA pointed to the fact that mostGoverning and Deputy Governorshad joined the service by the externalroute and suggested that it wasn’tnecessary for an individual to havecome through the officer, SO andPO grades to be a good manager.They also pointed to the benefits ofobtaining an external perspectiveand fresh methods of working.It was suggested that this would bean effective and efficient method ofintroducing more females into theservice, as some females may bemore attracted to a Governor rolethan that of an officer. Whilst otherstaff, including those who had comevia the external route, felt that it wasnecessary to work up through thegrades in order to learn ‘jailcraft’before becoming a Governor,external recruitment is a topicworthy of consideration by the NIPSbut it may be that the roll out of theMDS to more officers may provide a

suitable middle ground.

3.10 Other organisations, which have apredominantly male workforce, havealso faced and attempted to addressthese issues. For example, the PSNIare now on the second version oftheir ‘Gender Agenda’. This monitorsselection of recruits and movementinto specialist roles, promotion,policies and procedures for genderissues. It has put in place supportmechanisms to assist women in thePolice Service in developing andpreparation for higher ranks includingtailored training and development.The NIPS could learn from theexperience faced by suchorganisations should they identifysimilar issues. Inspectorsrecommend that as part of itswider HR strategy the NIPSshould continue to review theimbalances which are present inits workforce and the potentialrole that training can play inaddressing these.

3.11 It is also critical that the NIPSconsiders what it requires in futurefrom its workforce in terms of theskills individuals would need prior toeven joining the service. By attractingthose who have existing skills inrelevant areas, such as in literacy,numeracy and informationtechnology, there would be a lesserrequirement to provide training whennew recruits start. In the futurethese skills will be even more crucialas more reports are required to bewritten on prisoners to informdecisions about sentences andrelease, coupled with increases inaccountability and legal challenge anda greater emphasis on the use of IT

32

systems. Any increase in skillsrequirements however has to bebalanced with a realistic expectationof potential employees in terms ofpay, reward, promotion prospects anddevelopment. As outlined above, inother jurisdictions, NVQs have beenused to encourage development ofrecruits; for example in the rest ofthe UK all new recruits have tocomplete the NVQ Level 3 inCustodial Care in their first 12months of employment but this isrewarded by an increase in salary atcompletion of the probationaryperiod. Outreach to local schoolsand further education colleges canassist in encouraging young peoplewith such qualifications to consider acareer in the NIPS, for example suchas “Prison - Me? NoWay” which theNIPS was engaging in at the time ofthe inspection. The NIPS is due tohave a large number of officersretiring in the next five years andthis is an ideal time to take greatersteps to reach out to younger peoplewho are considering their careeroptions at this stage. This will alsobe beneficial in encouragingapplications from groups which areunderrepresented in the PrisonService such as females and RomanCatholics.

3.12 The recent announcement by thePSNI that funding is available tobuild the new Police, Prison, and FireServices Training College will meanthat the NIPS PSC is due to movefrom Millisle to a new purpose built,state-of-the-art college by the end of2012. This will be a critical time forthe PSC in terms of identifying theirrequirements of the new college,planning for the move, and evaluating

their training delivery to see whatjoint training opportunities areavailable with their two partners. Therecent training of drug dogs for theIrish Prison Service has marked thefuture of this type of partnership withmore plans for future collaboration.It would be anticipated that this typeof arrangement will be used withinthe new college, and that the NIPScan work with its partner agencies toidentify commonalities in training,achieve economies of scale and drawupon each others’ expertise. Whilstconcerns were expressed about theNIPS being swamped by the largeragencies and being seen as a juniorpartner, it is incumbent on NIPSSenior Management to continue toengage with their partners to avoidthis occurring.

33

34

NIPSAction Plan

Section 2

35

36

Recommendation

Response

Date

Responsibility

1TheNIPSshouldclearlysetoutatrainingstrategy

The

Dra

ftTr

aini

ngSt

rate

gyw

illbe

upda

ted

tofu

llySe

ptem

ber

Dep

uty

Dir

ecto

rthatrelatestotheBlueprintfortheServiceandthe

refle

ctth

eBl

uepr

int,

HR

Stra

tegy

and

emer

ging

2009

Fina

nce

&Pe

rson

nel;

HRStrategyarisingfromthatinordertoensure

requ

irem

ents

ofth

ene

wSe

nten

cing

Fram

ewor

k.H

ead

ofLe

arni

ng&

alignmentbetweenthestrategicintentofthe

The

Stra

tegy

will

bead

just

edan

nual

lyto

refle

ctth

eD

evel

opm

ent

organisationandtheoperationaldeliveryoftraining

prio

ritie

sin

the

Cor

pora

tean

dBu

sine

ssPl

an.

(paragraph1.12).

Dra

ftSt

rate

gyto

beag

reed

with

SLC

&PS

MB.

2TheNIPSshoulddeveloparollingprogrammeof

TN

As

have

been

unde

rtak

enfo

ra

num

ber

ofgr

oups

June

2009

Hea

dof

Lear

ning

comprehensivetrainingneedsanalysesforstaffat

ofst

aff.

Thi

sw

illbe

deve

lope

din

toa

rolli

ng&

Dev

elop

men

talllevelsinordertoinform

thetrainingstrategy

prog

ram

me

tota

keac

coun

tof

the

need

sof

all

staf

f.(paragraph1.14).

3Thetrainingdepartmentsbasedinestablishments

Thi

sap

proa

chw

asco

nsid

ered

inth

epa

stan

dw

asJu

ly20

09D

eput

yD

irec

tor

shouldbebroughtunderthemanagementofthe

reje

cted

.Fu

rthe

rco

nsid

erat

ion

will

now

begi

ven

Fina

nce

&Pe

rson

nel

HeadofLearningandDevelopmentatthePSC

toth

esu

gges

tion

incl

udin

gth

ear

gum

ents

put

(paragraph2.6).

forw

ard

byth

eIn

spec

tora

te.

4TheNIPSshouldensurethatlinemanagers

Acc

ess

toC

OM

PASS

isre

stri

cted

tode

dica

ted

Aug

ust

Hea

dof

Lear

ning

effectivelyutilisetheCOMPASSsystem

toenable

user

san

dm

anag

ers

dono

tha

vedi

rect

acce

ssto

2009

&D

evel

opm

ent

them

tomakeproperreferralstoandcheckuptake

CO

MPA

SS.

Toco

mpe

nsat

efo

rth

isth

eyw

illbe

oftrainingcoursesbytheirstaff(paragraph2.10).

prov

ided

with

alis

tof

Trai

ning

Coo

rdin

ator

sw

hoca

nac

cess

the

syst

emon

thei

rbe

half.

5TheNIPStrainingstrategyshouldinclude

NIP

Sw

illco

ntin

ueto

deve

lop

ara

nge

ofde

liver

ySe

ptem

ber

Hea

dof

Lear

ning

considerationofalternativeoptionsoftraining

mec

hani

sms

toen

sure

the

mos

tef

fect

ive

deliv

ery

2009

&D

evel

opm

ent

delivery,suchase-learning,toenabletrainingand

oftr

aini

ngan

dth

eop

timum

use

oftr

aini

ngtim

edevelopmenttobedeliveredinamannerwhich

and

wor

kpa

tter

ns,i

nclu

ding

e-le

arni

ngan

dde

liver

yiscognisantoftheworkingpatternsand

atso

urce

.T

his

isto

bein

clud

edin

NIP

STr

aini

ngenvironmentsofstaff(paragraph2.12).

Stra

tegy

.

NIPSActionPlan

37

Recommendation

Response

Date

Responsibility

6Thepracticeoflockingprisonersintheircellsin

Thi

sap

proa

chis

empl

oyed

only

very

rare

lyan

dis

June

2009

Hea

dof

Lear

ning

ordertofacilitatetrainingshouldceaseimmediately

asse

ssed

befo

reus

ing

toen

sure

that

any

impa

cton

&D

evel

opm

ent

(paragraph2.22).

the

regi

me

ism

inim

ised

and

that

itis

the

mos

tap

prop

riat

eap

proa

chto

adop

t.

7Traininganddevelopmentallowancesshouldbe

NIP

Sw

illco

nsid

erth

epr

actic

ality

ofth

eO

ctob

erH

ead

ofLe

arni

ngprotectedontheshiftsystem

andnotimpacted

reco

mm

enda

tion

inth

eco

nstr

uctio

nof

shift

patt

erns

.20

09&

Dev

elop

men

tuponbyhighsicknessabsencetoensurestaffare

Step

sha

veal

sobe

enta

ken

tore

duce

the

leve

lof

sick

abletoaccesstrainingonaregularbasis

abse

nce

whi

chw

illha

vea

posi

tive

impa

cton

the

(paragraph2.25).

num

ber

ofst

affa

vaila

ble

for

trai

ning

.

8TheNIPSshouldreviewitspromotionprocedures

The

trai

ning

need

sof

staf

fpre

pari

ngfo

rth

ene

xtra

nkSe

ptem

ber

Hea

dof

Lear

ning

intermsofhowprocessesarecommunicatedto

orac

ting-

upw

illbe

cons

ider

edas

part

ofth

ero

lling

2009

&D

evel

opm

ent

officersandhowofficersareassistedinpreparing

prog

ram

me

ofco

mpr

ehen

sive

Trai

ning

Nee

dsA

naly

ses.

forthenextrank,particularlythosewhoareasked

toundertakeaperiodofacting-up(paragraph2.30).

9Theimpactoftrainingonanindividual’sjob

Proc

esse

sar

eal

read

yin

plac

eto

allo

wth

isto

happ

en.

Aug

ust

Hea

dof

Lear

ning

performanceshouldbereviewedbythestaffmember

Sect

ion

2of

the

Perf

orm

ance

App

rais

alfo

rmpr

ovid

es20

09&

Dev

elop

men

tandtheirlinemanagerduringthePDPprocess

for

the

iden

tific

atio

nan

dre

view

ofPD

Ps.

Inad

ditio

nforalltrainingundertaken,andthisshouldbe

toth

is,a

thre

e-m

onth

lyev

alua

tion

ofal

lPS

CLe

arni

ngusedtoreviewtheeffectivenessoftrainingdelivery

&D

evel

opm

ent

activ

ities

isob

tain

edfr

omLi

ne(paragraph2.39).

Man

ager

san

din

divi

dual

san

dth

isis

reco

rded

onC

OM

PASS

.T

hese

proc

esse

sne

edto

bere

info

rced

tolin

em

anag

ers

byus

eof

wor

ksho

psan

dtr

aini

ngai

ds.

10TheNIPSshoulddeterminethekeytrainingtopics

PSC

tolia

ise

clos

ely

with

the

CJO

Team

toes

tabl

ish

Dec

embe

rH

ead

ofLe

arni

ngarisingoutoftheCJOandsetoutastructured

and

prio

ritis

eid

entif

ied

lear

ning

need

san

dde

term

ine

2009

&D

evel

opm

ent

programmeoftrainingforstaffwhorequirethese

the

best

mea

nsof

deliv

ery.

The

PSC

will

also

deve

lop

coursesoverthenextthreeyears(paragraph3.1).

and

deliv

era

rang

eof

trai

ning

prog

ram

mes

insu

ppor

tof

the

CJO

amon

gal

lst

aff.

38

Recommendation

Response

Date

Responsibility

11ThereviewofthePDPprocessshouldcontinue,

The

revi

ewof

the

Perf

orm

ance

Man

agem

ent

Syst

em,

May

2009

Hea

dof

Lear

ning

utilisingtheviewsofmanagersandstaffatalllevels,

incl

udin

gPD

Pis

com

plet

ean

dch

ange

sto

the

form

s&

Dev

elop

men

tandbedevelopedintoamoreuserfriendlytool

are

bein

gin

trod

uced

.whichlinemanagersuseeffectivelyformanaging

anddevelopingperformancewhichhas

demonstrableoutcomesintermsoftrainingneeds

identifiedandthendelivered(paragraph3.3).

12TheNIPSshoulddeterminethesuitabilityofNVQs

NIP

Sco

ntin

ueto

revi

ewfo

rmal

lear

ning

met

hodo

logi

esM

ay20

10H

ead

ofLe

arni

ngoralternativesasthebasisofaframeworkforits

tode

term

ine

suita

bilit

yto

mee

tou

rsp

ecifi

cne

eds.

&D

evel

opm

ent

traininganddevelopmentstrategyandre-introduce

Thi

sw

illin

clud

eth

ene

wQ

ualif

icat

ions

Cre

dit

them

inaplannedandstructuredmannerto

Fram

ewor

k,to

bela

unch

edin

2010

,whi

chw

illpr

ovid

eunderpinalltrainingprogrammes(paragraph3.5).

lear

ners

with

indi

vidu

alLe

arne

rR

ecor

ds(L

Rs)

mak

ing

lear

ning

and

accr

edita

tion

anea

sier

prog

ress

ion.

13AspartofitswiderHRstrategytheNIPSshould

NIP

Sco

ntin

uous

lyre

view

san

yim

bala

nce

and

has

Apr

il20

10H

ead

ofLe

arni

ngcontinuetoreviewtheimbalanceswhich

deve

lope

da

com

preh

ensi

veD

iver

sity

Stra

tegy

to&

Dev

elop

men

tarepresentinitsworkforceandthepotential

addr

ess

the

issu

esw

hich

have

aris

en.

Div

ersi

tytr

aini

ngrolethattrainingcanplayinaddressing

isbe

ing

deliv

ered

toal

lst

affa

ndsp

ecifi

cco

nsid

erat

ion

these(paragraph3.10).

isbe

ing

give

nto

need

sof

fem

ale

staf

f.

Appendices

Section 3

39

Appendix 1: Methodology

1a The following staff were spoken to in face-to-face individual or focus group interviewsin the course of this inspection:

HydebankWood

• Main grade officers x 5• Senior Officers x 4• Principal Officers x 3• Night Custody Officers x 2• Training Manager (PO) x 1• Governing Governor x 1

Maghaberry

• Main grade officers x 4• Senior Officers x 4• Principal Officers x 1• Operational Support Grades x 2• Training Manager (PO) x 1• Governor Grade V x 2• Governing Governor x 1• Local Prison Officers’ Association branch representatives x 4

Magilligan

• Main grade officers x 4• Senior Officers x 3• Operational Support Grades x 2• Training Manager (PO) x 1• Training SO x 1• Governor Grade V x 2• Deputy Governor x 1

Prison Service College

• Head of Learning and Development x 1• PO Tutors x 4• Training Managers x 2

40

41

Headquarters/Central

• Director General• Director of Personnel and Development• Central Prison Officers’ Association branch representatives x 2• Prison Governors’ Association representative x 1

1b Observations were undertaken of the following training programmes:• Prison Custody Officer recruit training• Officer Development Programmes• Display by Dog Training section

42

43

Copyright© Criminal Justice Inspection Northern IrelandAll rights reserved

First published in Northern Ireland in June 2009 byCRIMINAL JUSTICE INSPECTION NORTHERN IRELAND

14 Great Victoria StreetBelfast BT2 7BA

www.cjini.org

ISBN 1-905283-39-2

Typeset in Gill SansPrinted in Northern Ireland by Commercial Graphics

Designed by Page Setup