17. PERFORMANCE MONITORING

Transcription

1 17. PERFORMANCE MONITORING 17.1 The Inquiry has asked the Prison Service to address in its Phase II Comprehensive Statement an assessment of where the Prison Service presently is in having efficient mechanisms in place above establishment level for identifying (a) those establishments which are not performing well, and (b) the steps to be taken to improve those establishments PW2 in Section 10 addresses in some detail the formalised arrangements which exist for objectively measuring the performance of establishments and how these are the tools which assist the line management process in improving performance and implementing change This section addresses below some factual differences in relation to the main systems used for measuring performance in the period since PW2 was signed in September The changes are listed under the same headings as appear in Section 10 of the second statement. Standards Audit 17.4 The programme for visits by staff from Standards Audit Unit to each establishment is conducted on a rolling programme consisting of three different "levels" of audit, which can be adjusted to meet particular needs or address specific problems. Level 1 consists of an annual check of establishments' self-audit procedures. Level 2 also includes an examination of security and takes place every two years. A full audit at level 3 includes all areas of work on the inclusion list (see para of PW2), as well as security, and usually takes place every four years. MQPL Surveys 17.5 MQPL teams generally visit establishments the week before the main SAU audit team. Once the results are available in the form of a report that forms the second part of the overall audit report, as described in paragraph of PW2, all establishments are also now invited to meet with SAU to discuss results on an individual basis if they wish, in addition to the feedback seminars previously referred to. 247

2 17.6 The relationship between the main SAU audit and MQPL results is drawn out in the Audit Report, and can provide useful information about the effectiveness of procedures in producing real results for prisoners at ground level The Prison Service regards MQPL surveys as the most recent and powerful addition to the range of tools available to it for assessing the performance of establishments. These surveys are identifying significant differences between similar establishments and highlighting the remaining cultural problems where staff are using old-fashioned and inappropriate styles of interacting with prisoners to exert control. The fact that the quality of relationships can now be measured, and that change can also be measured, has proved particularly effective for identifying apparently high performing establishments which nevertheless are not treating prisoners in a way which is decent and therefore provides focus for the safety and well being of those in the custody of the Prison Service. KPIs and KPTs 17.8 The centrally set KPIs for 2005/6 are: To ensure that no Category A prisoner escapes. To ensure that the number of escapes from prisons and from escorts undertaken by Prison Service staff, expressed as a percentage of the average prison population, is lower than 0.05%. To reduce the number of those testing positive from random mandatory drug tests as a percentage of the population to 2004/05 outturn. compared To reduce the number of serious assaults as a percentage of the prison population compared to 2004/05 outturn. To ensure the rate of self-inflicted deaths not exceed per 100,000 of the prison population in public and contracted prisons. To ensure that the percentage of prisoners held in accommodation units intended for fewer prisoners does not 248

3 exceed 24% of the average population in public prisons and 34.5% in contracted prisons. To deliver 7,000 accredited offending behaviour programmes completed by prisoners, comprising; 6590 programmes in public prisons (including 1,160 sex offender treatment programmes) 410 programmes in contracted prisons (including 80 sex offender treatment programmes) 5850 drug treatment programmes completed, comprising 5250 achieved in prisons and 600 achieved by contracted prisons To ensure that average staff sickness does not exceed 11.5 working days per person in public prisons. To ensure that the number of minority ethnic staff in public prisons represents at least 6% of the total workforce by April To ensure that prisoners achieve 46,340 Basic Skills education awards including: 42,520 awards in public prisons (including 13, 250 entry level; 18,020 level 1 and 11,250 at level 2) 3,820 awards in contracted prisons (including 1,575 entry level; 1,195 level 1 and 1,050 at level 2) To ensure that prisoners achieve 94,400 Work Skills education awards including: 90,000 awards in public prisons 4,000 awards in contracted prisons To ensure that 38,000 prisoners have a job training or education outcome on release in 2005/06 including: 34,890 in public prisons 3,110 in contracted prisons To ensure that 64,765 prisoners will have accommodation to go to on release of which: 59,467 in public prisons and 5,298 in contracted prisons 249

4 HMCIP Reports 17.9 There is a factual inaccuracy at of PW2 in that the protocol governing the response to HMCIP inspection which had previously provided that the Prison Service provide two updated action plans was amended in 2004, not 2000, to provide for a single update after 12 months. The Prison Service Performance Ratinq System With regard to paragraph of PW2, the position with regard to establishments consistently performing at Level 4 is that they will be given "High Performing Prison" status. This provides wide recognition for their achievements across the Service. It has been agreed that from this year High Performing Prison Status will be presented as an annual award to the best performing prisons each year. An additional award for the most Improved Prison will also be made. The Line Management System The principal mechanism for ensuring implementation of recommendations and effective implementation of quality remains the Line Management System The Prison Service believes that the combination of audit reports, performance data, analysis of reports from Independent Monitoring Boards and HMCIP, combined with regular visits and reports from Area Managers, has been effective in identifying prisons with problems and enabling early action to be taken before those problems can grow into significant failure The Prison Service has just delivered its best ever operational performance hitting more of its targets than ever before while still achieving a good security performance and maintaining order and control. The relatively few incidents of concerted indiscipline have been quickly and effectively dealt with and the Service has not experienced a major disturbance since the riot at Lincoln Prison in October

5 17.14 This has been achieved despite enormous operational pressures within prisons around 24% overcrowded operating routinely close to capacity, and with an increasingly challenging prisoner population The progress and constraints were acknowledged by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and her Annual Report for 2003/04 published in January Owers states in her introduction: Anne "The key message of this report is that ours is a prison system that has progressed in many areas, and which is capable of making even more progress. But it is trying to sustain those improvements against an undertow of continuing, unremitting pressure and an increasingly needy and demanding population" Although there is clear evidence of significant and sustained improvements across the Service this does not mean that every prison is operating as well as it can or that individual prisons do not encounter specific operating difficulties and problems There remains a cultural resistance to change in some prisons whilst the nature of the operating environment means that there is always a risk that prisons can regress unless constant, committed and effective line management is maintained at all levels The Prison Service has used a range of mechanisms and processes to support line management in developing a culture of continuous improvement. The Benchmarking Strategy (Performance Improvement Process and Performance Testing Programme) has been particularly effective in helping to accelerate change, and in 'turning around' failing establishments. Again, this is recognised in the HMCIP Annual Report where Anne Owers comments on real progress in a number of areas (including health care, suicide and selfharm, education, resettlement and drug work). With regard to decency she writes: "There has been a noticeable culture change in many prisons, driven by the Prison Service's decency agenda, the persistence of senior managers and the support of key staff. This is also reflected in the requirements placed on 251

6 prisons by the new National Offender Management Service. But there are still cultural backwaters where this has not penetrated; and even more prisons where this is still a fragile construct, vulnerable to a change of governor, a cutback in resources or an increase in pressure" Maintaining momentum and continuing to drive improvement is very clearly a line management responsibility with Area Managers and Governing Governors key to this process. The Prison Service is now better able to identify establishments where performance is drifting or regressing and has demonstrated that it is now prepared to take swift action to address identified weaknesses often through refreshing and reinvigorating the leadership within the prison at Governor and Senior Manager level. The importance of effective leadership within an establishment cannot be overstated Where establishments have lost focus this is often linked to instability or ineffectiveness with the leadership team. For example, recent problems at both Pentonville and Bristol Prisons were in part due to unavoidable and unanticipated changes at Senior Manager level. At Pentonville the Governor was seconded for a protracted period to Iraq at the request of the Foreign Office and the temporary arrangements in place did not work as well as planned. At Bristol a number of unplanned changes of Governor (due to operational requirements within NOMS and ill health) have impacted on the performance of the prison Ensuring good leadership and maintaining effective Senior Management Teams is thus a key objective. Succession Planning is now undertaken in a much more co-ordinated and systematic fashion. The Deputy Director General chairs a Succession Planning Committee which meets weekly to ensure that processes are operating effectively to support Area Managers in maintaining and developing effective teams. However, the 'pull through' of Senior Managers is significant. A combination of factors including the age profile of Governors and Senior Managers (which is increasing the number of retirements each year), the continuing growth in the number and size of prison establishments (to meet the population expansion) and increasing opportunities for Senior Managers to move outside the Prison Service (to undertake other work both within the wider criminal justice field or in the private sector) mean that movement within the Governor and Senior 252

7 Management grades remains at a high level. The quality of individuals at Governing Governor and Senior Manager level is high but the 'pull through' means that managers are moving to senior posts much more quickly than before with less experience than we would like. The line management arrangements which are now in place and particularly the clearly defined Area Manager role mean that the Prison Service has been able to maintain progress and improve establishments despite these difficulties but the challenge should not be underestimated The role of Area Managers in using management information to drive performance and in supporting Governors to develop effective teams has been critical in improving performance delivery across the Service as a whole. 253