Annex 1: note of informal meeting with governors, 5 June 2019
Committee Members present
Robert Neill (Chair), Bambos Charalambous, David Hanson, Victoria Prentis, Ellie Reeves, Marie Rimmer.
Participants
The seminar was attended by 18 prison governors drawn from different regions of England and Wales, as well from the different types of establishments within the prison estate. Representatives from both public sector and contracted-out prisons attended; there were also governors from prisons holding female offenders, open prisons and high-security prisons. The Chair extended the Committee’s gratitude to all governors who attended the event, in particular those who travelled long distances. He also emphasised the Committee’s admiration for prison governors and their staff, many of whom work in very challenging environments.
After a brief introduction from the Chair, participants and Members divided into two smaller groups, both covering broadly the same topics. This note summarises the main points raised during discussions.
Governor empowerment
Governors were asked about their understanding of what ministers mean by “governor empowerment”.
A number of governors thought that each Prisons Minister and Secretary of State for Justice has taken a different view of what is meant by governor empowerment, noting that the recent high turnover of ministers has meant governors are pulled in different directions without long-term strategic direction. A governor commented that they had understood autonomy when Michael Gove was the Secretary of State for Justice, but with subsequent changes of minister thought that empowerment did not now mean what they had initially anticipated. Some governors expressed disappointment that the 2016 White Paper was not fully implemented and that the Government had begun to move away from the direction of travel set out within it. They felt that if the purpose of prisons had been put into legislation there would have been a mandate for prisons to be taken seriously. One governor described feeling deflated after the proposed Prisons and Court Bill fell prior to the 2017 general election.
Governors broadly welcomed empowerment but surmised that this did not lead to full and whole autonomy all of the time. One governor commented that governors have some flexibility within the prison budget to move money around but noted that this comes with restrictions. Most of a governor’s budget is spent on payroll; one governor estimated that 80% of their budget was spent on staffing costs. Another governor said that if a prison is carrying a vacancy the governor can spend that money on other appropriate projects, but they felt there is potential for further empowerment. A governor noted that there are HM Treasury rules around what money can be spent on and that very rigid structures remained. A governor, of an open prison, emphasised the capacity in their prison to raise income from joint enterprises, but commented that it was not possible to fund extra staff positions based on the profits made, whereas a director in a private sector prison can. Governors suggested that it would be good to mirror the flexibility that exists in the private sector.
One governor said that one of their greatest frustrations was the bureaucracy of getting permission to do things. The governor stated that talented governors in the public sector are stifled by constraints. An example given was of an initiative to provide a photobooth for families to use during visits. The governor had tried hard to provide this in a public sector prison but it never happened. Within three months at a private prison the governor had been able to set one up.
Asked about barriers to innovation, governors noted control measures in the civil service and spoke of a rules-based process in which innovation was lost or stifled. Procurement rules were identified as causing delays to delivering reforms and were described as a “constant battle”. Many governors thought that in the private sector, procurement matters moved more quickly, and things could be sourced more cheaply. One governor emphasised a concern that until recently female prisoners had to wear men’s gym clothing.
Many governors felt that trying to innovate was exhausting because they had to jump through hoops and fight to get things delivered. One governor spoke of the challenges of trying to give particular prison residents access to IT, in order for them to carry out a role the governor had assigned to them. Security concerns caused a number of delays and the governor commented that they believed they could have managed and mitigated those risks but felt that others did not understand this. Another governor described their efforts to provide an internet room in an open prison, noting the challenges they had experienced in relation to security, even though the prisoners concerned were able to use the internet in the library when out on temporary release on licence.
Governors spoke of being empowered to set a vision and work with partners but felt that financial restrictions undermined empowerment. It was emphasised that governors have limited authority in relation to capital budgets and frustration was expressed that, even where capital bids were approved, governors were told there was no money to pay for them and therefore bidding was often a waste of time.
Governors also noted that in many instances they are tied to national contracts, which they did not feel enabled innovation. One governor thought that facilities management should be added to governor empowerment, believing it to be important in terms of decency and the public purse. One governor said they felt “held to ransom” over these contracts, noting they had limited authority over contractual levers.
Many governors emphasised how the role had changed significantly over the last decade. Governors now needed to have a good understanding of business functions, such as human resources, contract management and procurement.
Working with others
Governors were asked about working with other organisations within the prison setting. A number of governors emphasised that there are a number of aspects of running a prison, such as healthcare, that they do not have direct responsibility for. Rather they emphasised that there are many areas of work that governors influence, but which require skilful partnership working.
Governors noted that they lacked contractual levers in areas such as healthcare and facilities management. One governor emphasised the importance of well-commissioned services and working well with other organisations, such as local authorities, to shape services. However, a number noted that they had lost specialists in relation to healthcare, making it more difficult to exert influence in that area.
Specifically, in relation to healthcare, governors emphasised that although NHS England is technically responsible for healthcare, they felt they were held accountable for healthcare in their prison. A number complained that NHS commissioners were slow to respond and lacked an understanding of the prison environment, sometimes prioritising legal risk over risk of harm to prisoners. One governor estimated that they had only 2% influence over who the healthcare provider is, as NHS commissioners technically have responsibility for this area. Other governors raised social care and increasing levels of drugs-use as areas that had a critical impact on the day-to-day running of prisons, but which required a co-ordinated response. A number emphasised that it was not always clear which organisation was responsible in certain situations. One governor gave the example of prisoners with mental health conditions who required constant supervision and whether that was the responsibility of the healthcare provider or prison staff. There is a risk that situations like this could lead to disputes over which organisation should pay for services.
One governor raised concerns about the commissioning of healthcare in private prisons. Healthcare for five private prisons is commissioned directly by the Ministry of Justice, but a different specification is used compared to services commissioned by NHS England. The governor was concerned that this meant prisoners in their care received a different standard of service to prisoners in other nearby prisons.
Governors were broadly positive about the recent changes to education in prisons in England. A number were pleased that prisoners can now start a course in one prison and finish it in another. One governor felt that it was early days in relation to the changes, but that governors had been listened to. The Dynamic Purchasing System (DPS) provides governors with more autonomy, although it remains fairly bureaucratic. However, in relation to the Prison Education Framework (PEF), another governor emphasised there is a lot of collective autonomy, as prisons are grouped into lots and therefore individual governors do not have direct control.
One governor emphasised that under the new education arrangements, the prison kept the same education provider but lost some of its education provision. There were things the prison now cannot provide because they are too expensive, such as construction qualifications.
A number of governors raised concerns about the level of engagement they have with Community Rehabilitation Companies and probation services, particularly in relation to resettlement. There were serious concerns about the number of prisoners being released to no fixed abode and a number of governors raised the problem of being legally required to release people onto the streets even if no accommodation has been arranged. One governor gave an example of a prisoner with a serious mental health condition who was due to be released, but for whom no accommodation had been found in a mental-health facility; prison staff drove him directly to the local accident & emergency department as there was no other alternative.
Governors said they were pleased by the changes to the probation system announced by the Government in May 2019. Many felt the current system, particularly in relation to resettlement, had not worked. Some governors had undertaken their own work to support resettlement in their prisons.
Governors were asked about the extent that they engaged with voluntary sector organisations. Governors said that this varied, but that it down to them to make this happen and therefore depended on individuals having the space and time to make things happen. Governors identified using local resources as an opportunity but noted that these services are also stretched. One governor had formed an advisory panel from the local community to advise them in dealing with difficult situations. Another gave an example of where they had sought support from a local headteacher for advice on how to engage prisoners who did not want to participate in education.
Governors broadly welcomed what they perceived as the direction of travel under the new Chief Executive of HMPPS, to improve engagement with local organisations. They emphasised local authorities and Police and Crime Commissioners as key stakeholders who were important to form strong partnerships with.
In general, governors agreed that they are often held accountable for things over which they have no direct control, although a number provided examples of where good partnership working with other organisations led to positive outcomes. There were concerns that governors are now described as being ‘empowered’ in relation to services such as health and education, when this is not always the case.
Accountability structures
All the governors agreed that they feel responsible for everything that happens in their prison. All said that they were passionate about what they do and that it hurt when things went wrong. Several governors spoke of being well supported either within their region or on a functional basis (for example within the Women’s Estate). One governor spoke of a shift to help and support governors to resolve issues rather than to criticise. A number welcomed the new group structure, where small groups of Governors are now managed by a regional Director. However, a number felt that whilst the new arrangements brought additional support, there was also greater scrutiny as a result.
Several governors spoke of the being required to constantly “feed the beast” of people above them in the chain of command wanting assurance. Governors noted that it is not possible for a governor in a challenging prison to improve things quickly. One said that although they had support, they were under pressure due to the high level of scrutiny and demands for assurance on lengthy lists of hundreds on action points. The governor estimated that they could focus on ten things to improve at any one time. Another commented that they were sometimes frustrated that they had to spend a lot of time explaining what they are doing rather than just being able to get on with it. They said that while it was helpful to have independent eyes on things, there is enough monitoring and it can sometimes be distracting. Moreover, governors emphasised that many of the measures used to assess performance are input-focussed rather than looking at outcomes within prisons. One governor described the level of scrutiny as unfocussed, with contradictory views from across HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), sometimes leading to a waste of time and resources. They gave the example of receiving the results of a health and safety audit, which required additional funding to make improvements; however, they were subsequently told by another part of HMPPS that there was no money to make the changes.
A number of governors emphasised the level of scrutiny in the contracted-out estate. They felt the level of scrutiny on prisons run by the private sector was intense and a number said that they felt the role of the Controller, who represents HMPPS in contracted-out prisons, could be utilised more effectively.
The ten prisons project
On the question of the ten prisons project, all governors agreed that the investment it had brought into the ten prisons was positive and welcome. However, they noted that the investment in the selected prisons had taken a long time to come through on the ground. One governor said that it had taken seven months to procure a drugs scanner.
Concerns were also raised that other prisons had suffered because the focus on the ten prisons had diverted attention from other prisons. Some governors commented that the project had taken experienced staff and resources, such as drugs scanners, from other prisons. Some prisons that were part of the project had their populations reduced and some governors from other prisons noted that they had taken extra prisoners as a result. One governor said that this had led to prisoners being held in triple cells, which they felt was unacceptable.
Condition of the prison estate
A number of governors raised the condition of the prison estate as a significant problem. One governor felt the problem was like “a big black hole” and that there needed to be an acceptance of the problem. Governors noted that that the reality of the situation was that to run a decent Prison Service there first needed to be a decent prison estate.
Training, support and staffing
One governor commented that HMPPS is not good at succession planning. Several governors agreed that there is a lack of people who want to take on poorly performing prisons. Many said that the Service does not invest properly in people to become governors of the challenging prisons. One governor suggested that the next governor of a prisoner should be identified early to enable them to be supported and trained to take over. The governors questioned what was done to support people coming through to governor level but acknowledged that governors tend not to ask for help.
One governor said that they had no preparation for taking a temporary promotion to be a governing governor and explained that there is a significant difference between being a deputy governor and a governing governor; the former is about being involved in operations, whilst the latter is focussed on strategy and accountability. They felt they were expected to evolve into the role without being properly prepared and that HMPPS did not manage talent well. Another governor emphasised that they needed more leadership training, particularly in relation to commercial and financial skills. Although governors do have access to finance and human resources business partners, these are shared resources with other prisons. Governors also noted that they are part of a team and that training for other senior leaders within prisons was lacking; there had been some recent improvements, but further changes needed to happen at pace.
Governors noted that there are people at HMPPS headquarters who are at the same grade as governing governors but who do not have experience of the situation on the ground. Some governors questioned why an individual would want to leave a headquarters job to take on a job as a governor at a challenging prison, given that they would experience disruptions in the evenings, weekends and whilst on leave.
One governor suggested that HMPPS needed to look at other organisations that have a more comprehensive programmes for training and development; they gave the example of the police and the way in which it develops its leaders, as well as the role of the College of Policing. It was noted that the estate is diverse and there is a need to plan tailored training for individuals, as managing different prisons required different sets of skills.
The governors discussed incentivising people to want to become governors. One governor noted that there is a high number of people on temporary promotion and raised concerns that HMPPS has for too long taken for granted that people will want promotion, explaining that there was a lack of incentives.
One governor described their previous experience with a private sector provider, stating that they had undergone a 360-degree assessment and had received a training plan for the next year. They said there was a cycle of personal development, a range of training courses on offer, as well as the option of external learning at a university.
Concerns were raised about the retention of staff, with governors commenting that staff often join not planning to stay for very long. Instead staff often want to stay for one or two years then move on to the police or employment in the security industry, where there believe there is a better working environment.
Governors were broadly positive about the implementation of the Offender Management in Custody (OMiC) model. Many felt that additional staff and the new keyworker model were having a positive impact on safety. However, a number of governors identified recruitment as a significant issue, with some unable to recruit enough staff to properly operate the key worker scheme. Other governors emphasised high levels of sickness absence among staff as a significant issue.
Published: 31 October 2019