CA Moving into Probation Operational Delivery (POD) Model

I will now either be working to the POD model or be aware of the plan to move to a POD within my team. My office will likely have been zoned, with a new layout to support this way of working, and I will be familiar with the 10 national POD principles and be ready to start working in this new way from December.

The Case Administrator (CA) is a critical part of the functioning of the POD, enabling others to be proactive rather than reactive. One of the guiding principles of this model is that the administration function forms part of the POD unit and is central to the support of their work. The function of the case administrator within the POD will be to support the management and tracking of the caseload within the POD. This empowers and enables admin staff to take a more pro-active approach to supporting the POD’s work rather than simply being reactive.

Case Administrators will be allocated to each POD to support SPO’s and Practitioners, with tasks including;

• Enforcement
• Updating HETE
• Managing SL Performance measures
• Alerting PP’s of reports due
• ISP’s
• Parole Reports
• Recall reports
• Allocation of new cases
• Termination of completed sentences
• OASys creations

Whilst some areas have moved to centralised administrative hubs, this arm’s length approach does not provide the same opportunities for this function to integrate with PPs to understand and support the caseload. The centralised position of the admin function in the POD will provide direct support to PPs and enable efficient and effective ways of working.

POD National Principles

1. PODs will consist of a cross grade grouping of staff with a mix of PO, PSO and Case Administrator (CA) colleagues. Ideally in a 2:3:1 ratio however this will be subject to local variation in available staff mix. This will also allow for a range of experience within the POD.
2. Probation Practitioners will be allocated SUs with a risk of harm level appropriate to their experience, expertise and grade. Change of assessed risk that results in changing the case Tier will prompt a reallocation of the case, ideally within the POD to provide consistency for the SU.
3. Case knowledge will be shared between POD members. Working as a team will enable probation practitioners to focus on their areas of expertise and play to individual strengths for example to facilitate the direct delivery of RARs.
4. The Case Administrator (CA) is a critical part of the functioning of the POD, enabling others to be proactive rather than reactive.
5. Management of the POD remains the remit of the SPO. Any management or allocation of PO or PSO work remains the remit of SPO.
6. The POD structure will be outlined as part of the induction process for SUs to ensure that expectations and roles are set out from the beginning. This ensures that trust and transparency principles are achieved.
7. Consideration of equalities will be embedded into the POD structure. This will be evident within both the caseload allocation and staffing. (To include considerations regarding the placement of staff with lived experience across PODs)
8. The number of Professional Qualification in Probation (PQiP) learners allocated to each POD will not exceed the number of qualified POs who have completed their Newly Qualified Officer (NQO) period. This ensures that there is adequate support and development opportunities for PQiPs without overburdening the POD.
9. PQiPs will not form part of the 2 PO:3 PSO ratio outlined above, despite being considered as PSOs in the workload management tool for a portion of their week.
10. Where possible, PODs must have an experienced PO within them and therefore cannot consist solely of NQOs.