Public Policy: Using Market-Based Approaches - Department for ...

Public Policy: Using Market-Based Approaches
Private and public sector prisons:
● are also subject to inspections by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and
Probation;
● have all Independent Monitoring Board as an independent watchdog
composed of representatives from the local community monitoring the
physical state of the prison, its administration and prisoner concerns; and
● are subject to prisoner complaints procedures administered by the Prison and
Probation Ombudsmen.
Incentives to provide a high quality service
The initial contracts contained only penalties for failure to meet the performance
targets, they did not include rewards for exceeding targets. More recently,
attempts have been made to include incentives for high-quality service, as well
as the penalties for poor performance. These incentives take two main forms. In
the special case of Dovegate Therapeutic Centre, the centre can earn financial
bonuses for performance above the expected standard.
However, in all other contracts bonuses take the form of credits that can be offset
against poor performance points. Such bonuses were introduced in the two most
recent contracts, Bronzefield and Peterborough, and have since been negotiated
and applied retroactively to all existing contracts. Moreover, all private contractors
have the incentive to perform well in order to be considered for re-tender.
The final aspect of the quality assurance regime is the ultimate sanction of
terminating the contract early. The Prison Service is empowered to take over the
prison if it appears that the director has lost, or is likely to lose, effective control
of the prison or any part of it. This power has been exercised in the case of
Ashfield, where HMPS assumed control for five months in 2002 following
concerns for inmate safety.
Performance in practice
The available evidence suggests that the system of performance measures and
contract monitoring used by HMPS has largely been successful in ensuring service
quality, although there are exceptions. Two independent studies have both found
that the best private prisons are among the best prisons in the country.
The NAO evaluated a sample of 21 prisons 95 and found the best PFI prisons are
outperforming most public prisons but that the lowest-performing PFI prison is
among the worst overall. The Coopers and Lybrand (1996) study arrives at a
similar conclusion. It finds that contractually-managed prisons perform well or
better on escapes and visiting entitlement, and better in terms of the number of
95 The NAO’s methodology consisted of collating all available information into a traffic light structure assessing the
performance of individual prisons against a range of indicators and then ranking them according to the number
of red indicators.
100