a) Performance measurement needs to be rationalised
We recommend that the Prison Service shares its measurement techniques with other Government departments. Comprehensive measurement systems have increased the transparency of the performance of the prison estate. Senior management at the prisons we visited regularly use Key Performance Targets (KPTs) to assess their own performance in relation to other comparable prisons. This stimulates overall improvement and in particular encourages the prison to focus resources where attention is needed. However, there are a substantial number of performance measurements. For example, each PFI contract sets out 30-40 performance measures. Alongside this there are 48 KPTs and 61 Prison Service Standards5 set by the Prison Service for public prisons. Most of these performance measures are also applicable to PFI prisons. Therefore it becomes difficult for the individual prisons to monitor their performance against all these targets simultaneously. It is also difficult for Governors and Area Managers to prioritise between so many targets.
The number of performance measures that feed into the weighted scorecard should be reviewed. The weighted scorecard is a management information tool which uses a weighting of KPTs to measure and monitor comparative prison performance according to function. Although we acknowledge the need by the Prison Service to collect essential data, and we support this, we consider that in the case of the weighted scorecard, there is room to rationalise the amount of data that is used in the calculations. A smaller number of inputs would allow for a more rigorous approach to collecting this data. This is supported by our research which suggests that the number of targets could be reduced without reducing the effectiveness of the overall weighted scorecard performance measurement system. When ranked only against the targets which feed directly into the Prison Service's 15 Key Performance Indicators, the performance ranking of the prisons we examined was almost identical to that using all 48 KPTs (paragraphs 1.4; 2.6; and 2.27).
The quality and collection of performance data needs to be improved in the public sector. Data collected by private prisons are monitored by the contractor and by on-site Correctional Services staff and is generally of high quality. The internal monitoring and validity of data collected by public prisons varied. Some public prisons carried out spot checks but others relied on data provided by wing staff and accepted that this may not always be reliable (paragraphs 2.5-2.7).
b) The management of PFI contracts should be improved
The link between performance and financial deductions needs to be monitored closely. There is no clear link between historical performance and the financial deductions which are actually imposed on contractors. For instance, some financial deductions at Altcourse and Parc which were due under the contract had been reduced by agreement (paragraphs 1.8 and 1.11). This means that the data available to us and the Commissioner for Correctional Services on financial deductions cannot necessarily be used to assess a PFI prison either over time or in comparison to other PFI prisons (paragraphs 1.9; 1.21 and 1.22).
Greater flexibility should be introduced into earlier PFI contracts. The balance between containment and rehabilitation in prisons has changed over the last 25 years and it is reasonable to expect that priorities will change over the 25 years of current PFI contracts. For instance, new performance indicators have been introduced in recent years to help reduce re-offending but most of the early PFI contracts have not been amended to reflect this (paragraphs 1.28-1.30).
The system of performance measurement needs to be sharpened. The most recent PFI contracts now contain performance measures based on many of the KPTs which apply to public prisons. Penalty points will accrue if a contractor fails to meet a certain percentage of the target and the number of points will increase as the percentage by which the target is missed increases. The Commissioner for Correctional Services is seeking to introduce this system into existing PFI contracts (paragraphs 1.32-1.34).
The role of Controllers should be enhanced. The role of the Controller is crucial, as they ensure that contractors are performing satisfactorily. However, although the monitoring of PFI contracts is working well, the approach taken is not always consistent. Furthermore, Controllers need to have sufficient experience to adjudicate on prisoner discipline cases (which is also part of their role) along with the skills to understand and monitor a complex contractual relationship. But staff in Controllers' teams felt that the job was not one which is widely respected and might count against them as their careers progress (paragraphs 1.23-1.27).
c) The decency agenda should be developed further in public prisons
The private companies involved in PFI consider that a major private sector innovation has been in the attitude of staff towards prisoners. Our prisoner survey supported this assertion by finding that prisoners held in PFI prisons felt that they were shown greater respect and were treated better than prisoners in public prisons. The Institute of Criminology (Cambridge University) has undertaken pioneering work in this area and is collaborating with the Prison Service on measuring this aspect of the quality of life in prisons. We view this as a positive development which will help the Prison Service take the decency agenda forward (paragraph 2.18).
d) Good practice initiatives in the day-to-day operation of prisons should be shared to a greater extent
The experience gained from the PFI has helped in the successful development of Service Level Agreements. For example, Manchester prison runs an incentive fund which will be distributed to staff in the form of a bonus once any deductions have been made for under-performance. As wages account for the majority of running costs, the private sector has focused on the more efficient use of staff. Shift patterns in PFI prisons allow receptions to open later and visiting times to be more flexible. Other innovations include CCTV, clear lines of sight and design features such as a control room at the centre of a spine system of wings. Although it would be difficult to incorporate such innovations into older public sector prisons, we believe that there is scope to learn from the private sector (paragraphs 3.12-3.20).
The newly-appointed Commissioner for Correctional Services needs to ensure that the PFI programme is managed to ensure that consistently high quality services are provided while innovation and good practice are shared more effectively, irrespective of management, between all prisons in England and Wales.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
5 The Standards Audit Unit (which is part of Prison Service Headquarters) visits prisons to ensure they are complying with the 61 Prison Service Standards, but can only assesses a prison against a third of the Standards on each visit.