The South Australian Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Workplace Experience Report states
In December 2022, the Chief Executive (CE) of the Atorney-General’s Department provided a briefing to the Atorney-General regarding an increase in staff turnover within the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (ODPP or the Office) since 2019.
The briefing outlined the CE’s intention to work with the Director of the ODPP (the Director) to seek feedback from those who had left during that period. Like an exit interview, the process would be designed to understand their experiences of the workplace and the factors that influenced their decision to leave. This would allow the Office to identify areas that need addressing through targeted actions to reduce turnover. During initial discussions between the CE and the Director, recruitment was also raised as an issue, with the Director reporting that it was becoming increasingly difficult to atract candidates, with fewer applications received than in previous years, and fewer applications received from senior or experienced legal practitioners. It was agreed there would be benefit in broadening the scope of the work to include recruitment as a second area of focus, and benefit in seeking feedback from the current ODPP workforce at the same time. To provide a greater sense of independence, privacy and confidentiality, and psychological safety for participants in the process, it was agreed that an external consultant would be engaged to undertake the work. It was anticipated that this work would lead to further work, where key findings are explored in more detail. Rosslyn Cox, an independent consultant, was engaged to consult with current and former ODPP staff on the topics of retention and atraction with a focus on understanding the reasons behind an increase in people leaving the ODPP since 2019. A total of 197 current and former employees participated through a survey and individual meetings with the consultant, between 15 March and 2 June 2023.
The process involved the design and distribution of a non-mandatory survey, sent to all current staff and those who had left the ODPP since 2019 with the option of individual meetings with the consultant. In total, 197 out of a possible 287 individuals (67%) participated in the process, 53 former staff (out of a possible 101, 52%) and 144 current staff (out of a possible 186, 77%). Respondents represented every workgroup (legal, clerks, administrative and Witness Assistance teams), and every classification level within the Office including at the most senior levels (LEC1 to LEC5, ASO3 to SAES2, AHP1 to AHP3). The themes identified through the responses were also consistent across current and former staff, which means that the feedback should be read as representing persistent themes, an accurate reflection of the workplace experience and culture from the perspective of most respondents and not simply the concerns of a particular cohort.
The purpose of this report is to represent the perceptions and experiences of current and former employees of the ODPP, to beter understand issues around retention and recruitment. It is intended to be an internal document, the first phase of a broader piece of work designed to address the issues raised through the feedback. In some cases, the report provides additional context and background, as shared by staff, to provide context to some of the themes raised through the process, but it was never intended to be presented as a comprehensive organisational review, a balanced report, with a detailed analysis and synthesis of the issues raised. That work will come later.
The report is intentionally writen in a narratve tone, to represent the voices of staff. It is intentonally writen to reflect the persistent themes that were raised through the survey and the individual meetngs but acknowledges that there are other perspectives. For this reason, litle additional information has been provided to counter or respond to any perceptions unless the context is helpful. As the reader, where your perceptions or experiences differs from those reflected in this report, rather than seeking to dismiss the observation as that of a malcontent, or to correct the perception or challenge the experience, be curious about why so many people share that view. The report refers in the main to legal officers as they represent the largest responding cohort, but the themes presented in the report are based on feedback received from legal officers, law clerks, secretaries, administrative staff and the Witness Assistance Team, and the issues and findings apply to all staff in the ODPP.
In summary, feedback received through the survey and individual staff meetings, suggest that the current workplace experience for most staff in the ODPP is untenable. Respondents highlighted what many describe as unacceptable, unreasonable and unsustainable levels of pressure and stress working at the ODPP and the potential consequences for work standards, professional integrity, wellbeing and work life balance.
The main contributor to the pressure and stress was and continues to be the unrelenting workload driven by volume, increasing complexity, often distressing and difficult content, and the sense of responsibility that comes with wanting to do what’s right for victims, witnesses and their families. Importantly, much of the workload pressure appears to be a consequence of factors beyond the control of the ODPP, who sit within the criminal justice system between SAPOL and the Courts, and who are obliged to prosecute indictable or summary offence against the State, irrespective of current resources. Workload pressure and stress have been compounded recently with the departure of so many experienced senior staff, the additional work that comes with needing to support so many new, less experienced staff, the reality that some staff have work that has previously been managed at a higher classification (e.g. a LEC1 with a legal practice previously managed by a LEC3), and an expectation from the Director that people do more with less in order to meet their obligations as officers of the court.
Other key factors identified by respondents can be grouped into the following themes, noting that these are themes that were persistently raised by a majority of respondents, but do not necessarily reflect the experiences of every respondent in the process: • Disparity in pay and conditions, particularly when compared with other parts of the public sector. • An apparent lack of recognition by leadership of individual value, contribution, experience and expertise despite significant professional and personal sacrifices. • An apparent lack of organisational support for managing the consequences to wellbeing and work life balance of working under sustained pressure and stress. • An apparent lack of trust and confidence in the Office from leadership demonstrated by a lack of consultation and communicaton, managing by presenteeism, and an associated lack of flexibility in working arrangements. • An apparent lack of on-the-job training and support, as well as professional and career development opportunities to enable staff to achieve the high-quality work standards they hold themselves to. • Practices, policies and procedures that appear to contribute to perceptions of uncertainty, favouritsm, and reinforcing the perception that individuals are seen as disposable resources. • Examples of behaviours that fall short of the Department’s behavioural expectations that don’t seem to be effectively addressed, reinforced by an apparently inconsistent approach to managing performance, and • A Director whose extraordinary intellect, indefatigable work ethic and approach to the law as a vocation, has led to explicit and implied messaging around expectations workload management and wellbeing.
There were of course examples where respondents identified individuals who had demonstrated strong leadership, recognising, rewarding and nurturing high performance, making themselves available to provide support and guidance. In fact every member of the executive team, including the Director, was singled out for individual praise through the process, which of course should be acknowledged and recognised. Most respondents, both former and current staff, across all levels and workgroups, resonated with the themes listed above.
There was also no suggestion that this is a case of people not working hard. In fact respondents were at pains to clarify that any critical feedback needed to be understood in this context: it’s not a matter of people not working hard, it’s a mater of what people are working hard on. For example, you may have an individual in a management or executive role, appointed to that role because they have outstanding legal capabilities but limited skills or interest in managing people, a case of poor job fit. Or you might have an individual in a management or executive role who may have the requisite capabilities, but workload or resources has prevented them from using those skills effectively, a case of poor job design. The most obvious example of this is expectng the Director, appointed because of his exceptional legal expertise and experience, to discharge his powers to prosecute on behalf of the state, while at the same time overseeing the strategic, operational and people management responsibilities of an office of 180 people. What is clear is that the prevailing approach to structure, role design and recruitment has been to value legal capabilities above all others, and to rely on the goodwill of all staff to do whatever it takes to get the job done. This is no longer tenable.
What is notable about this report, is that it is consistent with the findings and observations of two previous reports prepared for the ODPP in 2016 and 2017: an Independent Review of the ODPP conducted by Partners in Performance and Wellbeing Program Report, prepared by AGD’s Workforce Development Consultant Luke Brady. This suggests that addressing the root causes of the issues requires an understanding of historical and current issues, macro (the legal profession and the labour market generally) and micro (the Office and the leadership team) influences on culture, and the distinction between how systemic issues versus actions and behaviours of individuals have contributed to challenges that respondents have raised.
In formulating the responses to this report, consideration should be given to both capability and capacity for change within the ODPP. Capability is understood to be the knowledge, skills and expertise to undertake the work. Capacity is understood to be the amount of work that can be produced within a timeframe based on capabilities and resources. Capacity was cited through this process as one of the possible reasons for a lack of action on many of the issues that have been raised in previous reports. That the realities of the relentless workload mean that proactive change management has not been possible. While it is true that creating capacity is essential to the successful implementation of change (Coombe 2004) change also builds capacity (Heward 2007), the literature points to three critical factors in understanding capacity for change: capabilities and resources (including time), systems and procedures and organisational culture (Judge 2011). It is clear then that building and sustaining capacity requires the necessary capability from the top down (Grisso et al., 1995; Rist, 1995).
What is needed is a rethink of the way the ODPP is structured and operates, with the intention of leveraging the skills of highly competent and experienced legal officers to focus on preparing for and prosecuting the state’s criminal cases, whilst also building new and separate capability and capacity in areas of strategic, operational and people management. At the same time, all people managers must be held accountable for the performance and wellbeing of their teams and must be supported to either build capability in those areas or move to roles that don’t require those capabilities. It is difficult to see how the current arrangements could adequately address the issues raised in this report, when they haven’t been able to up to this point.
In addition the ODPP must engage and work with other areas of the criminal justice system to identify opportunities to manage workload demands and priorities, both into and out of the ODPP. If that cannot be achieved within the constraints of the existing ODPP workforce profile, there seems to be no alternative but to increase the resources in the Office to enable them to meet the increasingly complex and voluminous demands the system places on them.
If this process is to achieve meaningful change, any recommendations need to take into consideration the reasons why previous reports have not achieved the outcomes they were designed to achieve, focus on those factors that the ODPP has control over, and seek to influence change across the legal profession and within a criminal justice system seemingly ill equipped to support the needs of a modern high performing workplace. This will require an honest conversation about the cultural norms within the legal profession, and the need to adapt to a rapidly changing labour market and far more discerning individuals.
