CORRECTIONAL STANDARDS AND MONITORING SERVICE DELIVERY

Transcription

1 CORRECTIONAL STANDARDS AND MONITORING SERVICE DELIVERY John Van Groningen Paper presented at the Australian Institute of Criminology Conference Privatisation and Public Policy: A Correctional Case Study Melbourne, 16 & 17 June

2 INTRODUCTION Good afternoon. In this session, Tim Daly has given you an overview of the major changes which have taken place in the Victorian corrections industry and Tony Wilson has just outlined the work of the New Prisons Project in co-ordinating the development of the State s three new private prisons. I would now like to tell you about the work of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner. The Office was established on 1 July 1995, following amendments made to the Victorian Corrections Act 1986 in late 1994 which established the position of Correctional Services Commissioner. It is the key agency for setting service delivery standards, monitoring services and managing prisoner sentences and placement. The Office reports through me directly to the Secretary to the Department of Justice and the Minister for Corrections. In correctional services new structure, the Office undertakes the role of steering. CORE and the private providers undertake the role of service delivery, or rowing. I must emphasise that the Office does not have any responsibility for the day-to-day management of prisons, and it operates completely independently of both CORE and the private providers. In summary, the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner has primary responsibility for: advising on the development of broad correctional policy; setting service delivery standards for the correctional system; monitoring the provision of services against those standards; assessing and placing prisoners; calculating prisoners sentences; and providing administrative support to the Adult Parole Board. FUNCTIONS The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner has three main functional areas: policy, planning and standards; monitoring and assessment; and sentence management. I would now like to outline the work of each of these key areas. Policy, Planning and Standards The Policy, Planning and Standards Unit, headed by Debbie King, is responsible to the Commissioner for providing advice on the overall planning and strategic direction of the correctional services system and its future requirements in order to maintain the service 2

3 system in a contemporary state. In this context, the Unit has recently begun preliminary work on the development of a Corrections vision document which will take the corrections industry into the twenty-first century. The Unit is responsible for advising on the analysis of trends in correctional populations (assisted by a Statistics Group which has recently been established), the impact of sentencing policies and the identification and development of strategies for consideration by the Commissioner and Government in effectively and economically delivering correctional services. Recently, the Unit was closely involved in the work on amendments to Victoria s sentencing legislation. The Unit is responsible also for the development of broad correctional policy which will set the course for the corrections industry into the future. This includes representing the Victorian corrections system on interdepartmental committees and at national and international correctional forums. For example, the Unit has been active in the development of a drug strategy for corrections as part of the Government s Turning the Tide initiative. Also, Ken Penaluna, who will be speaking at a session tomorrow afternoon, is a key player in the development of national standards for the provision of vocational education and training to prisoners and offenders, in conjunction with the Australian Institute of Criminology (our hosts) and the Australian National Training Authority. In relation to this Conference, the Unit s most important function is its responsibility for setting minimum correctional services delivery standards and outputs for prisons and community correctional services, within the broad framework of the Government s correctional policy statement Corrections - Protecting the Community and Rehabilitating Offenders. Many of you will have already seen the documents Women s Prisons in Victoria: Correctional Policy and Management Standards and Men s Prisons in Victoria: Correctional Policy and Management Standards, which were published in September 1995 and September 1996 respectively, and widely disseminated. These two documents are designed to facilitate the consistent implementation of correctional policy in Victoria, through a set of quality standards for prison operations. The standards are output - focused, with the responsibility and means of implementation of the standards directed to the operator of each correctional facility. The major objectives of the standards are to: maintain or improve the level and quality of services provided in prisons; and encourage management innovation by prison managers to maximise cost-effectiveness. Each standard has the following features: clearly states the service outcomes required; describes all of the necessary service outputs, including standard of service, while leaving the method of delivery to the prison managers; 3

4 presents the legislative and policy requirements with which prison managers must comply; and identifies the relevant Australian Standard or policy guidelines which the prison manager should have regard to in developing operational procedures. It is the Victorian Government s expectation that, together with improved innovation and cost-effectiveness in correctional management contributed by the private sector in prison operations, these policy and standards will introduce an enhanced level of services to prisons in Victoria and a very effective working culture for operational staff. A complementary set of correctional policy and management standards for Community Correctional Services has been finalised and will be published shortly. A document titled Projections of Male Prisoner Populations in Victoria, was published in March 1996, and it is intended to update this paper on a regular basis. Finally, the Policy, Planning and Standards Unit also provides guidance to the public and private service providers on the directions that should be reflected in their annual business plans or equivalent. It ensures that correctional policy outcomes and legislative requirements are capable of being achieved by public and private providers involved in the delivery of services. Monitoring and Assessment The Monitoring and Assessment Unit, led by Robin Trotter, is responsible for monitoring the delivery of correctional services in the public and private sectors against the required standards which have been developed by the Policy, Planning and Standards Unit. The Unit is responsible for reporting to the Commissioner on the extent to which public and private service providers have met their contractual/framework agreement obligations. As such, the work of the Unit provides both the substantiation for the payment of fees to private service providers and, if necessary, the basis for the withholding of a return on equity funds under the requirements of the Performance Linked Fee (PLF) - which Tony Wilson outlined earlier - in which equity is returned to the private provider based on their achievement of certain quality benchmarks. The work of the Monitoring and Assessment Unit has assumed a higher profile, and a more critical focus, since August 1996, when the State s first private prison - the Metropolitan Women s Correctional Centre - opened, and this intensified in April this year, when the second private prison - the Fulham Correctional Centre - received its first prisoners. A rigorous framework has been developed for monitoring performance/service delivery in not only the new prisons, but also the remaining public prisons, on a competitive level playing field. This framework is as comprehensive as any which has been implemented elsewhere in Australia and overseas where private prisons have been established. Indeed, all of the private providers, with their extensive experiences in other jurisdictions, have commented on this fact. 4

5 Despite this, a number of misleading reports and statements have appeared recently in the media which have misrepresented the situation and sought to cast doubt on the effectiveness and adequacy of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner s monitoring processes. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the community that high standard monitoring and assessment is in fact well underway at both the Metropolitan Women s and Fulham Correctional Centres. There is no doubt that as the first private prison in Victoria, MWCC has borne the brunt of these allegations which have included suggestions that the prison is awash with drugs and that the prison has not provided the required reports to the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner. Let me say in relation to these allegations, first, that an independent validation exercise of the level of drug use at MWCC has confirmed that the amount of drug use among women at MWCC is no higher than that which existed at Fairlea Prison and is equivalent to levels at other similar prisons. Secondly, a major exercise has been conducted to ensure that the prison has reported all incidents as required. Minor discrepancies in interpretation were discovered as part of this review which have now been rectified. However, these discrepancies were not, as has been suggested, on underreporting of incidents. The monitoring framework utilised by the OCSC includes detailed and explicit contracts, operating manuals and legislative and regulatory requirements. In addition, prior to the commissioning of each private prison, extensive milestones (including commissioning tests) are required to be successfully completed. The features of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner monitoring model include: making the requirements for each provider explicit; monitoring and analysing the data provided by each corrections provider; validating the performance of each provider in key areas on a regular basis; providing each provider with formal feedback; and evaluating the performance of providers against best practice. Implementation of the model occurs primarily through: The documentation and release of system guidelines. This occurs through a process of consultation with providers through a combination of working groups operating at different levels. Observation. On-site monitoring is currently taking place at the two private sector prisons to identify how each provider complies with requirements, and to directly monitor the welfare of prisoners. It is also important at this stage to be visible to both prisoners and major prison stakeholders. Review and analysis of data provided by the provider. This involves on-going assessment of the provider s performance against the requirements and in comparison to other providers. Validating performance. Utilising review and audit techniques to ensure that the provider s service reports can be replicated based on documentation maintained at the prison. A quarterly program is in place. 5

6 Provision of formal reports. Monthly reports are provided by the Office to the Department of Justice in order to validate payments. Quarterly reports on performance are provided to each provider and then discussed with the Department at a formal quarterly meeting. Evaluation. In the medium term this encompasses the building and defining of evaluation criteria/models including Victoria, Australia and world s best practice. In the longer term this will involve the establishment of five to seven performance outcomes to determine the relative performance of corrections providers. The emphasis of the Office s monitoring model is on the facilitation of contractor/provider compliance through explicit guidelines and the release of value added data. This is considered to be crucial to prisoner safety and welfare. The first issue of a regular statistical bulletin reviewing the performance of the Victorian prison system - titled Prisons Performance Review Victoria - is to be released shortly. The bulletin will make publicly available much of the data which has been collected in the monitoring process. Data of the type and detail which will be included in this bulletin has never been published before in Victoria. It will include detailed information on key performance indicators in all individual prisons, public and private alike, and I am committed to the wide distribution of this landmark bulletin. Sentence Management The Sentence Management Unit, previously known as the Classification Section in the superseded correctional services structure, and headed by Kelvin Anderson, is responsible for the classification, placement and sentence planning for prisoners, and the allocation of security ratings to prisoners. It is also responsible for ensuring that prison sentences are calculated correctly. The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner has retained this function because, even though prisoners will be in the custody of either a public or private prison operator, all prisoners remain the responsibility of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner on behalf of the Government. Service deliverers are responsible for the provision of beds at various security levels as determined by the classification process and for the provision of specified services to those beds. The Office places its prisoners in the beds that Government has purchased from the service provider, according to the assessed needs and risks presented by the individual prisoner. By retaining responsibility for the classification and placement of prisoners across the system and for the calculation of sentences, the Office retains direct responsibility for prisoners sentence management. This is a unique approach that avoids problems of costshifting between the public and private providers. It also ensures that the Government maintains a direct responsibility for the security, safety and welfare of prisoners. However, it should also be noted that it is intended that as providers become increasingly mature in their management of prisons and prisoners, there will be increasing levels of delegation given to them to make sentence management decisions. Obviously, increased levels of delegation will be counter-balanced by increased levels of monitoring to ensure the on-going safety and welfare of prisoners. 6

7 Sentence management decisions are driven by information files, known as Individual Management Plans (IMPs). IMPs are created for each prisoner at reception, and become central to the case management of prisoners while they are in custody. IMPs remain with the prisoner for the period of time he or she is in custody. All providers are required to place relevant information as prescribed by the Office on these files. The information remains the property of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner. Computerised data, such as prison incidents, results of disciplinary hearings, internal transfers and changes of work assignments, is uniform and accessible to the Office regardless of where the prisoner is accommodated. Other Functions The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner also has a Deputy Commissioner, Terry O Donoghue, who manages the day-to-day running of the Office, as well as executive co-ordination support staff, a Statistics Group, Legal Officer and Resource Centre. The Department of Justice Corrections Freedom of Information Unit is physically located on the premises of the Office, although it actually reports directly to the Executive Services Branch at Department of Justice Head Office, while the Adult Parole Board Secretariat, which provides administrative support to the Adult Parole Board, is also under my jurisdiction. CONCLUSION The Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner has now been operating for nearly two years. It is a unique body in the correctional services industry in Australia, and indeed there is nothing quite like it at this time anywhere in the world to our knowledge, although recent changes in Queensland indicate that it appears to be moving in a similar direction. The performance of the Office and the experience gained over this period needs to be considered and compared to the basis upon which the Office was established, particularly in the areas of monitoring, relationships with providers, the Minister for Corrections, the Department of Justice, and other Government agencies. Accordingly, an independent consultant is to be appointed shortly to conduct a comprehensive review of the Office and its place in the revitalised Victorian corrections industry over the next few years. I am confident that this review will enhance the effectiveness of the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner as the industry which it oversights moves towards the twenty-first century. 7