2.24 The weighted scorecard is a management tool which uses a weighting of key performance results in order to allow one prison's performance to be compared to another, regardless of differences in establishments such as the category of prisoner being held. However, the Prison Service told us that its results are not yet sufficiently robust for the ranking of prisons to be published. There is scope for simplifying the scorecard and, once comparable data are available from the private sector, it could be developed into a useful tool to compare performance against KPTs.
2.25 However, performance against quantitative targets does not provide a complete picture of the standards in a particular prison. Senior managers in the Prison Service examine the weighted scorecard in the context of a wide range of other indicators, some of which rely on qualitative judgements. Also, in December 2001, the Prisons' Minister announced a programme of performance testing starting with two under-performing prisons: Leicester and Reading. In selecting the two prisons for this process, the Prison Service examined quantitative data, such as performance against KPTs, and incorporated qualitative judgements from key figures such as the Area Manager, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Board of Visitors22. This enabled the quantitative data to be examined in the context of all the relevant factors while ensuring the process was carried out in a systematic way.
19 |
| Rationalising the KPTs used in the Weighted Scorecard | |||||||||
|
| This Table shows the ranking of the 12 Public prisons in our study according to the Prison Service use of up to 48 KPTs. According to a rationalised approach using the 18 KPTs which are most related to the KPIs, it shows that there is little change to the rank positions of the prisons when the KPTs are reduced. | |||||||||
|
|
| Current Prison Service Method | Rationalised approach | Rank Difference | ||||||
|
|
| Use of up to 48 KPTs | Rank | Using 18 KPTs | Rank |
| ||||
|
| Brinsford | 155.3 |
| 1 |
| 147.5 |
| 1 |
| 0 |
|
| Swansea | 113.2 |
| 2 |
| 109.9 |
| 2 |
| 0 |
|
| Swaleside | 88.0 |
| 3 |
| 52.2 |
| 3 |
| 0 |
|
| Garth | 80.4 |
| 4 |
| 20.6 |
| 4 |
| 0 |
|
| Manchester | 32.4 |
| 5 |
| 10.1 |
| 5 |
| -2 |
|
| Pentonville | -2.3 |
| 6 |
| 12.4 |
| 6 |
| 1 |
|
| High Down | -2.6 |
| 7 |
| -2.5 |
| 7 |
| -1 |
|
| Bullingdon | -17.5 |
| 8 |
| 10.7 |
| 8 |
| 2 |
|
| Lancaster Farms | -18.5 |
| 9 |
| -18.0 |
| 9 |
| -1 |
|
| Chelmsford | -39.4 |
| 10 |
| -16.5 |
| 10 |
| 1 |
|
| Lewes | -189.4 |
| 11 |
| -198.0 |
| 11 |
| 0 |
|
| Grendon | -318.0 |
| 12 |
| -336.6 |
| 12 |
| 0 |
|
| Source: National Audit Office | |||||||||
2.26 Qualitative judgements are an important indicator of the work being carried out in an individual prison and should form part of any overall assessment. For example, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons makes an independent assessment of, among other things, the extent to which the most vulnerable prisoners feel safe. Similarly, the Prison Service has in recent years emphasised its decency agenda which seeks to ensure that prisoners are treated humanely and with respect. As yet, the Prison Service has no means of quantifying this. However, it has commissioned research from the Institute of Criminology (Cambridge University), which is developing a methodology for measuring and comparing the quality of life in individual prisons.23
__________________________________________________________________________________________________
22 The Board of Visitors is now known as the Independent Monitoring Board.
23 See Liebling & Arnold (forthcoming) Prisons and their Moral Performance. 29