Transferring an operational prison from the public to the private sector – the story of HMP BirminghamJerry Petherick

ICPA Conference 27th October 2015

HMP Birmingham

1,450 bed Category B “Local” prison Prime nodal point with probably the highest prisoner churn rate in

the system A challenging history

1964 escape (“in 3 minutes”) of Charlie Wilson, Great Train robber 1974 beatings of the “Birmingham 6” 1980 unlawful killing of Barry Prosser A long standing and extremely negative Industrial relations climate – perhaps the prime

reason for the market testing. In effect the POA used to run the establishment Sir Martin Narey (former CEO of NOMS) “…I used to think evil seeped from Birmingham’s

walls...” Phil Wheatley (former CEO of NOMS) “generations of Governors have been unable to

create change at Birmingham” A long history of difficult industrial relations – who ran Birmingham; the Governor or the

POA?

The competition

Kenneth Clark – Secretary of State for Justice31st March 2011

“The decisions made in this competition will secure significant improvements and savings at all the establishments involved”

And

“this process shows that competition can deliver innovation, efficiency and better value for money for the taxpayer –but also that it can do so without compromising standards”

Why Birmingham?

“It was undoubtedly seen across the prison estate as a game-changer. As a prison governor at another establishment remarked - after Birmingham, if any governor doesn’t think he is part of the competition now, then he is deluded. The competition isn’t about the eight of us who are currently going through it; it’s about all 130 of us.”

Amy Ludlow, Privatising Public Prisons 2015

…but such changes through competition haven’t been seen only at Birmingham

“…this (performance and cost comparators) gives rise to internal pressures to improve performance and cut costs, which have been referred to as the contestability effect. In 2004, for example, the Home Office noted that HMPs Dartmoor and Liverpool had transformed their performance in response to the threat of the private sector.”Amy Ludlow, Privatising Public Prisons 2015

But… I would argue from my personal experience and observations, the transformations at Dartmoor and Liverpool were transient, at Birmingham they are solid

HMP Birmingham - Timeline

April 2009 - Ministry of Justice launches the competition November 2009 - Contract notice published in OJEU September 2010 - Planned date of contract award decision (per OJEU) 31st March 2011 – Contract award decision (7 months delayed) April – September 2011 – Mobilisation period 1st October 2011 – Service Commencement Date 18th October 2011 – Theft of keys, complete re-locking of the prison January 2012 – Unannounced Inspection by HMIP 29th January 2012 – Introduction of new prisoner core day and attendant

staff profiles/shift patterns November 2012 – Serious incident in Healthcare unit March 2014 – Unannounced Inspection by HMIP March 2015 – NOMS / Alison Liebling research published

Where We Started….

Troops on standby after Kenneth Clarke privatises Birmingham prison Guardian 31 March 2011The military has been put on standby as the prison service braces itself for a day of industrial disruption over the first privatisation of an existing British jail. The Prison Officers' Association has instructed branches at prisons throughout Britain to hold lunchtime meetings to discuss their mandate to take industrial action in protest, despite a strike ban. More than 250 staff at Birmingham prison walked out when the decision was announced on Wednesday.

Birmingham Prison: 123 jobs could go BBC News 1 July 2011

Prison officers to vote over privatisation row BBC News 14 April 2011Prison officers in England and Wales are to be balloted on industrial action over the privatisation of jails, the Prison Officers' Association has said.

Winson Green prison to be run privately

Birmingham Post, April 27th 2009

‘The Prison Officers Association reacted with

fury and threatened strike action to stop

“privatisation” of the prison’

Prisons are not for

profit

The process

HMP Birmingham - Challenges

Culture Industrial Relations Overcoming bid period lethargy Gaining trust Creating realistic expectations Managing the transition/transformation stage Leading & developing the prison Managing the politics and the media

Winning hearts and minds Understanding prevailing dynamics Establishing visible presence in the prison (‘Management

by walking around’) Building excellent working relationship with interregnum

governor Pete Small (following departure of the previous governor) and the NOMS team

Open and responsive communications Transparent, fair approach to redundancy process (e.g.

HMP Oakwood) Involvement of existing management and staff Creating sense of future opportunity, potential, excitement Symbols e.g. batons, wearing of uniform and name badges

Engaging with the Unions

Focus on POA as key union at Birmingham Determined but non-confrontational approach Introductory meeting with National & Local POA representatives on

neutral territory Independent facilitation – Dialogue Associates (DA) DA pre-meetings with all key participants to understand real

positions/attitudes/ feelings Revealed the ‘attitudinal landscape’ was more complex/subtle than

public statements – provided basis for engagement Sought to build rapport, trust, respect – interaction, demonstrate

openness, honesty, credibility Formal engagement through the TUPE meetings

Building a shared vision/sense of purpose

Lack of clear prevailing Vision/Purpose for Prison hitherto (except locking people up)

Use of ‘Prisoner Journey’ concept as basis for broader sense of purpose and direction – create optimism, sense of a more vibrant future

Engage existing management, staff and unions in developing/fleshing out the Prisoner Journey and supporting elements (Core Day, Staffing Profiles, Culture Change etc)

Challenge the status quo Guard against being diverted from the task

Critical Success Factors

The Director – Pete Small Project management, quality & commitment of Mobilisation

team Sheer hard work Credibility of G4S personnel with prison staff Listening, engagement, honesty/humility, non-dogmatic

approach (partly a function of personalities) Focus on partnership and relationship building (with existing

Management & Staff, Unions, and NOMS) Role of Dialogue Associates in helping manage complex

relationship dynamics We recognised “the moments” – and responded We showed respect We ‘did the detail’ – it’s the “small” things that really matter We held our nerve

The Director’s (Pete Small) approach

This has been pivotal to Birmingham’s success Changing the language from “losing”, “not being wanted by

NOMS” etc Talking to staff – “…the most valuable asset for G4S are the

staff & their experience…” An overt strategy to celebrate the best of the history Combining experience with innovation Clear signposting of issues that would attract negative publicity Being prepared to take strong action against staff who

misbehaved Respecting the Unions but talking directly to staff Communication, Communication, Communication!

The outcomes

Operational Performance

Level 3 establishment (scale 1 = low to 4 = high)

HMIP outcomes

Measure 2009 outcome

2012 outcome

2014 outcome

Safety 3 3 3

Respect 2 3 3

Purposeful activity

3 2 2

Re-settlement 2 2 3

NOMS Analytical Study

• Led by Professor Alison Liebling and a team from Cambridge University’s Prisons Research Centre

• 3 year longitudinal study utilising MQPL+ and SQL processes• 2011, 2012, 2013

• After an initial decline in quality of life, particularly for staff, the prison showed signs of positive progression by 2013

• 7 (of 21) prisoner quality of life dimensions showed statistically significant improvements from 2011 to 2013; “respect/courtesy; humanity; decency; care for the vulnerable; staff-prisoner relationships; fairness and personal autonomy”

• Prisoners’ overall “quality of life” score improved each year of the study – but remained low compared to other prisons

NOMS Analytical Study

• In 2012 there were 10 significant differences between dimension mean scores for White & BME prisoners, in 2013 the only significant difference was in the overall quality of life score. Both groups rated their quality of life higher in 2013 than in 2012 & 2013

• For all staff 17 of the 18 dimension mean scores moved in a positive direction from 2012 to 2013, 13 of them at a statistically significant level

• Overall staff quality of life improved particularly significantly from 2012 to 2013 reflecting a settling down, a stabilising of the workforce and growing confidence in their leadership

• These accomplishments were accomplished against a low baseline and major challenges in the delivery of a constructive regime remained

The Customer’s view

“The mobilisation of this contract was always going to be challenging for everyone involved. The planning and the transparency of the G4S Mobilisation, Transition and Transformation (MTT) plan and the manner in which the G4S and the NOMS teams worked in partnership but with appropriate challenge was pivotal to the success of the Mobilisation and Transition periods.

From the start, G4S put a lot of effort into engaging with staff, unions, prisoners and stakeholders which alleviated many fears about the transfer and enabled G4S to establish firm foundations to deliver the contract and develop the prison.

The establishment has developed well since the handover to G4S. The expected outputs defined by the contract are being delivered but, as importantly, the new cultures are being embedded and are being adopted by the managers and staff through the leadership of the Director, Pete Small.”

Paul Kempster – Leader of the NOMS transition team and now Deputy Director of Custody with responsibility for Contracted prisons

My reflections

What we got wrong;

• We didn’t get enough clarity from NOMS on staff “Terms & Conditions” of employment

• We underestimated the amount of sheer hard work needed and we demanded a huge amount of commitment from our team

• We didn’t maximise the gains we could have made from TUPE

• We underestimated the impact the competition had made on staff

… and what we got right;

• Detailed planning…• …but we had the courage to flex the plan• Recognised the importance of staff and placed them at the

forefront of our plans• Showed respect• Honesty, integrity and humility• Recognised and celebrated the positives already in place at

Birmingham• Chose and trained our team very carefully• Initially met the POA off site• Recognised several crucial “moments” and responded to

them decisively and positively• Recognised the establishment’s management team and

supported them• Chose our fights (e.g name badges vs batons)• Celebrated success

• It has been an undoubted success• For NOMS• For prisoners• But for the staff?• And for the Company?

• That success continues…but will still need nurturing• The “home team” and especially the leader are pivotal to

success• The Competition time frame needs to be shorter but the

contract period needs to be long enough to justify investment• Clarity about staff Terms & Conditions is essential • What does the Commissioner want success to look like?

My reflections: