Design-A "greenfield" site enables the prison to be designed and built around the operational requirements of the regime resulting in a more efficient deployment of staff and contributing towards a safer environment. For example, residential accommodation in PCG's prisons is designed along the "hub and spoke" principle of Victorian times. Clear sight lines are established on every wing complimented by extensive camera coverage and individual personal alarms for all members of staff. Activity in the wings is monitored from a small control room located in the hub.
Culture-It is widely accepted that the private sector has brought about a revolution in staff/ prisoner relationships resulting in more humane and decent treatment of prisoners. This has been achieved by recruiting the vast majority of staff with no prior prison experience. As the CBI noted in their recent report "staff bring with them none of the weariness and cynicism that characterises the culture of many public sector prisons." Symbolic of the new environment is the practice of referring to prisoners as "Mr" or by their first name, all staff wearing name badges and the introduction of privacy locks, giving prisoners keys to their own cells. All staff, including managers, wear the same uniform, which in itself is less military in style than the public sector.
Operation-The contractual requirements are largely output based i.e. they specify what is required, leaving us the freedom to decide how, resulting in innovation. However, the increasing scope of Prison Services Orders and Instructions and audit baselines, plus the shadowing of KPTs, all of which specify some level of inputs and assume a certain method of working, all contribute to reducing the scope for innovation.
In moving from HMPS to the Commission, we would also not want to lose the opportunity for Contract Directors (equivalent to HMPS Governors) to interact with their public sector peers on a regular basis under the auspices of HMPS Area Manager meetings. These meetings provide an opportunity to share best practice and new developments in correctional policy.
Performance Measures-On the one hand the performance measurement system enshrined in the contract provides clarity in its articulation of the basis on which our success or failure will be measured. Conversely, the contractual performance regime has been altered incrementally through changes to orders and instructions, extensions to audit baselines and the introduction of KPTs leading to overlap and duplication.
We welcome, therefore, the NAO proposals, which are supported by the CBI, for more effective performance measurement regimes to be developed across the entire prison estate enabling comparisons to be made irrespective of whether the prison is publicly or privately managed. In so doing, it is vital that the Commission avoids imposing layers of inconsistent performance regimes that will stifle innovation and flexibility.
We agree with the NAO recommendation that in revamping the performance measurement system a clear link between performance and financial deductions should be established.
Financial penalties-The financial penalties which accrue from failures in service provision are a powerful incentive to the contract to take the necessary steps to improve performance. Ashfield is proof that the contracting regime works; faced with significant financial penalties and the potential for an ongoing impact on our reputation, the parent companies and leading financiers became actively involved in the process of reform to ensure that Ashfield was returned to a safe and stable situation.