Please see the below summary of issues discussed at the last JCC meeting.

Field officer roles

The PSA has been advocating that Field Officer members be made on-going members of staff and a letter was sent to the Assistant Commissioner advising that the PSA believes that the Department has incorrectly catergorised Field Officer’s as casual. The AC advised that the agency was conducting a review of employment arrangements across Community Corrections and therefore was not able to provide a response to the letter. The review is supposed to be completed by November 2023.  While a review of employment arrangements is welcome, the timeframe given of November is too far out for Field Officers.  The PSA has since written to all agencies seeking the number of temporary, casual and contingent staff, and are seeking for them to be made permanent as the NSW Government has announced for staff in the Department of Education.  The PSA is expecting a response to this shortly, and will keep members up to date with developments and our discussions with the Government.

Domestic violence electronic monitoring

The PSA has been advocating that the DVEM unit be allocated more resources due to the nature and volume of the work undertaken. CSNSW informed that the Assistant Commissioner is awaiting a further report. This report will focus on DVEM in on parole units, the area which is most affected by the DVEM component.  This report will be done by June. The PSA is currently awaiting further information from CSNSW now that the report should have been finalised.

Recruitment process clarity and transparency issues

CSNSW advised that there are changes to the recruitment process regarding CCOs.  CSNSW will now start a new CCO as a Grade 5 if they have been appointed from a Talent Pool. However, if a person is appointed via a suitability assessment they will start as a Case Manager Grade 3. CSNSW confirmed that the work to establish a talent pool is being done by the talent acquisition team.

The PSA advised we are aware when the recommendation report comes through, not all referee checks are undertaken. It is only when a talent pool is live that the referee checks are done. The PSA suggested that the checks should be done prior to an individual being put on a talent pool. The PSA emphasised that once someone is put on a talent pool, they have a legitimate expectation that they will have an opportunity to be assigned to the role the talent pool has been created for. However, this is not always the case and members have been left very disappointed because the referee checks have not been finalised. CSNSW acknowledged that Community Corrections were sending mixed messages and that further clarification was needed by management.

Flexibility

The PSA raised the fact the working from home arrangements are complicated by the fact of ‘local agreements’ at Community Corrections offices.

In response, CSNSW advised that flexible working arrangements as a whole is being looked at and the range of local arrangements will be considered as part of this review.

Workloads

The PSA raised that particular offices have very high and unrealistic workloads. The Assistant Commissioner advised he is concerned about this. He believes that there is a lot of “invisible work” that is essential but not recorded on the workload allocation tool but takes up time. The PSA then also raised that a lot of ancillary work can come from parole units and that the PSA was aware the agency was reviewing workloads. CSNSW replied and advised that a workload report will be finalised in June. The main priority of the agency will be to define what work is essential to a role and how to accurately capture this work. An initial report undertaken suggested there was an under allocation of time for tasks, and that Community Corrections needs to do more to capture ‘invisible work’.

The Assistant Commissioner also advised that staff wellbeing would be a part of management KPIs.

Training

The PSA requested an update on the Administration working group. The AC advised that he has not approved the recommendations yet and is still working through the document. The PSA is concerned that there will be no Face to Face OIMS training for Admins

The PSA also raised the issue of CCO primary training, and the current shortcomings of the training as identified by members. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed that one of the major issues from visiting Community Corrections Offices was the existing primary training, particularly, its intensity and how appropriate it is for the role. Community Corrections confirmed that it is in the process of finding resources to review primary training. The review is in its preliminary stage, but the Assistant Commissioner anticipates there will be changes to the primary training out of this review.

PGI update 

The Assistant Commissioner confirmed that practice reviews and quality assurance are now part of the practice directorate within CSNSW, and quality assurance is also to be moved pursuant to the new proposed restructure.

Dress code

The PSA expressed that management expectations around work attire should be consistent for members across the agency. Some members have complained that some individuals are not wearing the appropriate attire for court matters. CSNSW acknowledge this.

OKTA

The PSA raised issues members were having with OKTA. It was agreed that the PSA would provide specific examples following the meeting.

Crimtrack

The PSA raised the delays in on boarding new staff and the problems this creates in an office. Community Corrections acknowledged this and advised they shared the PSA’s frustration with the delays from Crimtrack.

Bankstown – pilot program

The PSA raised the issue of a pilot program whereby officers’ interviews with offenders are recorded. Members have been led to believe it is compulsory to take part in this pilot. The Assistant Commissioner took this matter on notice and will come back to the PSA.

Administrative Supervisors working outside the scope of the Role

The PSA raised with the AC that AS’s are working outside the scope of the Role and that at some locations the AS is being used as an Executive Assistant for the Manager.  The AC is requesting “concrete examples” of this practice.  The AC advised that he was happy to ask Directors to remind Managers of the “scope of the Role”.