Helping the nation spend wisely

Comptroller and Auditor General Telephone +44 (0)20 7798 7777

Sir Amyas Morse KCB Facsimile +44 (0)20 7798 7990

Email [email protected] Bob Neill MP

Chair, Justice Committee Date 7 December 2018

House of Commons London

SW1A 0AA

Dear Mr Neill HMP BIRMINGHAM

You wrote to me on 6 November inviting the National Audit Office to provide support to your Committee's inquiry into events at HMP Birmingham, in particular the contractual relationship between the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry) and G4S Care and Justice Services Limited (G4S). In the time available before the Committee's evidence session on 11 December, we have not been able to conduct a comprehensive examination of all aspects of the contract, nor of the contract management by the Ministry. However, this letter sets out:

• Some brief background and context on HMP Birmingham;

• An explanation of the arrangements for governance and oversight of the contract; and

• A timeline of key events from the disturbance in 2016 up to the point of step-in.

We acknowledge the assistance that we have received from the Ministry, HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS), HM Inspectorate of Prisons and G4S in undertaking this work to a rapid timetable. I have copied this letter to Michael Spurr at HMPPS and Martyn Kenyon at G4S.

I hope this letter helps you with your inquiry.

2

Background and Context 1 HMP Birmingham (the Prison) is a Victorian prison that was originally opened in 1849 and was later expanded in 2002. Appendix One sets out a map of the Prison. In November 2009, the Ministry invited private sector bidders to submit proposals for providing custodial services at the Prison and four other existing prisons. Bids were invited to operate and maintain the prisons for seven years, but with an option to award contracts for up to 15 years. The Ministry's stated objective in outsourcing the management of the Prison was to obtain delivery of a safe and secure custodial service in a more cost-effective manner for the taxpayer. The Ministry also expected to secure improved performance, with the then Secretary of State for Justice acknowledging that the Prison had been identified as a poorly performing prison.1

2 In April 2011, the Ministry awarded a contract to G4S to deliver custodial services at the Prison for 15 years. The contract is between G4S and the Secretary of State for Justice, on behalf of the Ministry. For the 12 months to November 2018, the contract cost incurred by the Ministry in relation to the Prison was £22.2 million (for the 12 months to November 2017 this was £24.3 million).2 A study of the quality of life of both prisoners and staff during the transition from the public to private sector by the University of Cambridge concluded that, after an initial decline in quality of life, the Prison had shown signs of positive progression by 2013. Prisoners’ overall ‘quality of life’ score improved each year of the study, though remained low compared to other local prisons.3

3 In December 2016 a major disturbance took place at the Prison, causing severe damage and resulting in four wings being taken out of use and some 500 prisoners being moved to other facilities. Following this disturbance, in February 2017, HM Inspectorate of Prisons (the Inspectorate) inspected the Prison, and despite some serious problems, found "a very clear determination on the part of the leadership and staff to move on from the disorder, rebuild and make progress".4

4 In August 2018, the Inspectorate conducted an unannounced reinspection of the Prison, identifying a dramatic deterioration in its condition. The Inspectorate initiated the Urgent Notification protocol5 on 16 August describing a "near total failure to address … previous recommendations" and "an abject failure of contract management and delivery".6 Subsequently, on 17 August, the Secretary of State for Justice issued a contract Notice removing the Prison from G4S's control and placing it under the leadership of a Governor from HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). Another Notice on the same day exercised the Ministry's right to 'Step-In' and take control of the contract on grounds of a contractual breach.

1 Hansard HC, 31 March 2011, vol. 526, col 526. 2 The contract cost for the 12 month period to November 2018 includes a reduction for the 116 places in G Wing, which was not in use during the period. The equivalent cost for the 12 month period to November 2017 takes into account a reduction in prison places available due to the disturbance in December 2016. 3 Liebling et al, Birmingham prison: the transition from public to private sector and its impact on staff and prisoner quality of life - a three-year study, 2015. 4 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, HMP Birmingham, February 2017. 5 An Urgent Notification is a mechanism for HM Chief Inspector of Prisons to raise urgent concerns about a prison and requires the Secretary of State for Justice to respond with an action plan to address the concerns within 28 days. 6 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Urgent Notification: HM Prison Birmingham, August 2018.

3

Arrangements for governance and oversight of the contract 5 The contract between the Secretary of State for Justice (the Ministry) and G4S is an extensive and complex suite of documents comprising the main contract and some 30 detailed schedules, many with their own constituent parts and appendices. It defines the respective responsibilities of the Ministry and G4S, and the key staff who discharge them. Key posts with respect to overseeing service performance are:

6 For the Ministry:

• A Senior Business Owner (SBO), who is Head of Custodial Contracts, providing operational oversight for all Privately Managed Prisons and enabling enforcement of Contractual obligations at an over-arching level.

• Senior Contract Managers (SCM), provide oversight on a number of prison contracts for which they have operational responsibility. They are the point of escalation from the Controller based on site.

• The Controller, who provides the permanent on-site presence for the Ministry and has rights to roam the establishment freely. The Controller, who enforces contractual implementation and change at an operational level, provides monitoring of G4S and reports to the Senior Contract Manager. The Controller is supported by a small team of Assistant and Deputy Controllers conducting daily monitoring.

7 For G4S:

• Managing Director G4S UK Custodial and Detention Services, with overall responsibility for G4S’s five prisons in England and Wales.

• The Prison Director, responsible for day-to-day delivery of the custodial service, supported by a management team and some 300 custodial staff. The Director is the equivalent of a prison governor, except for some functions reserved for the Controller. The Director meets at least weekly with the Controller for compliance meetings.

• Head of Contracts, responsible for day-to-day contract management.

8 The Ministry has a number of ways in which it can influence how services are delivered under the contract. These include:

• Regular meetings to discuss performance and agree actions, including formal escalation processes where there are concerns;

• The contract performance regime, including Contract Delivery Indicators, which create direct financial incentives;

• Financial remedies in respect of cells being unavailable; and

• Influencing prison maintenance and renewal.

9 In addition, the Inspectorate provides independent assurance over the status of individual prisons through its programme of unannounced inspections. 4

Regular meetings to discuss performance 10 The contract specifies the need for monthly meetings between the Controller and the G4S Prison Director, supported by their respective teams. The Controller's team also reports on progress more generally and on any actions arising. Quarterly Contract Review Meetings take place and these are attended by the contract managers for the Ministry and G4S. This is the more senior and structured meeting where the performance of the Contractor is formally reviewed and assessed. Figure 1 shows how these meetings sit within the overall governance structure.

Figure 1 Levels of governance and key meetings required under the contract

Source: The Ministry's Contract Management Plan for HMP Birmingham

11 The contract provides a formal route for escalating issues, from routine day-to-day management of performance and service delivery, through successive stages of escalation as issues become more serious or protracted, leading ultimately in the worst case to "step in" by the Ministry and potentially to termination of the contract. Figure 2 shows the main stages of escalation. A contractual requirement for each stage is that the Ministry is required to specify its concerns through a written Notice, allow G4S a period of time (to be agreed between the Ministry and G4S but at least 7 days) to respond with an Improvement Plan for resolution, and then allow time for the agreed actions to be implemented.

5

Figure 2 Escalation of issues under the contract for custodial services at HMP Birmingham

The figure shows the stages in escalation from routine service management through to more formal contractual stages should these prove necessary

Notes

1. Some schedules also make additional provision for the Ministry to issue an Outstanding Issue Notice (OIN) between the Improvement Notice and Rectification Notice stages. The Ministry issued an OIN in June 2018, the validity of which G4S has contested.

Source: National Audit Office review of contract documentation

12 In addition to the above process, the contract specifies that G4S shall at all times maintain a sufficient number of staff with the requisite level of skill and experience engaged in the provision of services to ensure that the Prison is a safe, secure and decent environment. The contract requires G4S to notify the Ministry in advance of any significant changes it proposes to the staff levels set out in its resourcing plan. If at any time the Ministry considers that urgent and immediate steps are required to deal with the situation, it may 'Step-In'.

13 Throughout 2017 and 2018, issues relating to the main areas of concern raised by the Inspectorate were regularly discussed at both monthly and quarterly meetings; specifically:

• High levels of violence;

• Low levels of purposeful activity, including low take-up of education and training; and

• Poor cleanliness of the Prison, as noted in Controller team inspections.

14 On at least two recorded occasions in 2017, the Ministry's representatives raised the prospect of serving Improvement Notices on G4S in respect of continuing high levels of 6

violence. In the event, the Ministry did not serve Improvement Notices until March 2018 (See Figure 3). From November 2017 the Ministry relied on voluntary G4S action plans, and permitted a temporary decant of prisoners out of G Wing (paragraph 19) to support G4S in making the necessary improvements.

15 Minutes of regular meetings periodically mentioned the progress G4S was making in response to the 70 recommendations from the Inspectorate's February 2017 inspection. In October 2017, G4S representatives informed the Controller that they had already closed 32 recommendations and that a further 23 were due to be closed by the end of the month, with only four overdue. The Controller queried how G4S determined that recommendations were in fact complete; the answer was not minuted. When the Inspectorate re-inspected in August 2018 it took the view that very few of its recommendations had been addressed (Figure 4).

16 The Ministry's contract monitoring and review also covered performance against the main Contract Delivery Indicators, which are described below.

Contract Performance Regime 17 The contract contains both Contract Delivery Indicators (CDIs), which have direct financial incentives attached, and a range of other indicators which do not. The contract was originally let with ten Contract Delivery Indicators in place. Since the removal of indicators relating to rehabilitation services, following the Transforming Rehabilitation reforms, the number of CDIs has been reduced to six. Appendix 2 shows the areas of service that are currently covered by CDIs. The CDIs have performance points attached which have an associated financial value. In the event that the threshold for any indicator is breached, the financial value of the performance points will be deducted from the payments made to G4S. In 2017-18, G4S received performance deductions totalling some £217,969 (2016-17: £121,846) through CDIs, under one per cent of the contract cost incurred by the Ministry in relation to the Prison. Of the total points incurred, 87% related to CDI 3 (2016-17: 85%), for positive drug test results above the 12 per cent threshold rate set in the contract.

18 G4S confirmed to us that the number and range of CDIs that it is subject to at the Prison, for operating and maintaining an existing prison, is much less than at prisons that it designed and built itself under the Private Finance Initiative: a PFI prison would have many more CDIs, covering broader aspects of the service. Similarly, the full service specification for the Prison includes 44 criteria and desired outcomes, described in more qualitative terms and not linked to possible financial deductions. Examples include:

• No. 33: "Residential - Management of Prisoners at Risk of Harm to Self or Others: The risk of self-harm, violence and death is managed and reduced. A safe, secure and decent environment is maintained…"

• No. 37: "Incentives and Earned Privileges" Scheme - There is an administrative process which encourages and rewards positive behaviour by prisoners".

Besides meeting the contractual service specification, G4S had an obligation to comply with relevant Prison Service Orders and Instructions (PSOs and PSIs) that are issued by HMPPS. These are the rules, regulations and guidelines by which all public and private sector prisons are run.

7

Financial remedies in respect of cells being unavailable 19 The Ministry can also make deductions to contractual payments when it deems one or more cells to be unavailable, at the G4S's fault. This provides commercial incentives for G4S to keep cells in an acceptable condition. Specifically:

• The Ministry may withdraw a cell's certificate, or issue a non-compliance notice, leading to the related prisoner place(s) being deemed unavailable and therefore not paid for. The Ministry could not provide us with evidence of the extent to which this control had been routinely applied for reasons of cell cleanliness and disrepair prior to March 2018. Monthly visits to the prison by the Senior Contract Manager from March 2018 resulted in instructions to take several cells out of use.

• In the event of wings being severely damaged due to disturbance, as happened in December 2016, the Ministry ceases payment for the affected accommodation. G4S told us that it, and its insurers, have borne the financial consequences in respect of the 2016 disturbance.

• The Ministry can also prevent repaired or renewed accommodation from being brought back into use for wider operational reasons. For example, the Prison's G Wing was temporarily taken out of use in November 2017 due to stability issues, and G4S undertook to refresh the Wing at that time. However, the Ministry determined that this was not done to an acceptable standard and the Wing has remained closed. G4S also told us that it had agreed with the Ministry not to bring the accommodation back into use, because of concerns that there were insufficient experienced staff to operate the Prison as a whole at full capacity. G4S estimates the cost to it of the 116 unused places on G-Wing, at £150,000 each month.

Influencing prison maintenance and renewal 20 G4S has obligations under the contract to maintain the premises in good structural and decorative order, taking into account a condition survey conducted at the start of the contract which is to be updated throughout the life of the contract. It is therefore responsible for both planned and reactive maintenance and repair of existing facilities. Unless the contract specified otherwise, the Ministry would normally fund and specify projects to upgrade existing facilities. Some projects, for example those to improve the security and decency of prisoner accommodation, are urgent by nature. More secure windows, proof against drone flights carrying New Psychoactive Substances (NPS) and other contraband, have become more critical to prison safety and stability in recent years.

21 Where the Ministry agrees the need for an asset replacement or upgrade, it may require cooperation from G4S to plan, sub-contract and undertake the works. It may also, where relevant, seek a contribution to fund the works, representing the maintenance savings that G4S might make as a result.

22 Proposed projects to replace 374 windows in the Victorian wings and provide a CCTV system at the Prison were referenced in successive contract management meetings and site visit reports following the December 2016 disturbances. Notes of on-site meetings as early as May and June 2017 referred to ongoing discussions between the Ministry and G4S to identify 8

the business case, funding and the specification for work on new windows and installation of CCTV. Various letters and emails from G4S to the Ministry between February and August 2018 show the company requesting progress on this work, following site surveys in December 2017 and January 2018.

23 The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) for the Prison informed the Minister of State on 15 May 2018 that they had been advised on several previous occasions that new windows and CCTV were to be funded but had lost confidence that these projects would take place. In response the Minister informed the IMB on 24 May 2018 that plans were in place and work on windows was due to commence in the summer. At the time of writing, work on site to replace the windows has yet to be undertaken. The Ministry has concluded that the costs of replacement at £6.1 million, far exceeds previous estimates and so needs to be reconsidered against other investment priorities for the Prison estate.

Timeline of key events 24 In December 2016 a major disturbance occurred at the Prison, causing severe damage and resulting in four wings being taken out of use. As a consequence, the population of the Prison was significantly reduced from 1,470 in October 2016 to 928 in January 2017.

25 In February 2017 the Inspectorate inspected the prison, and despite some serious problems, found "a very clear determination on the part of the leadership and staff to move on from the disorder, rebuild and make progress".7 The population was gradually increased back to 1,426 by July 2017, and by October 2017, the population stood at 1,447 against a maximum operational capacity of 1,450. This is above the prison's Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA) threshold of 1,093, which is defined as uncrowded capacity. Any establishment with an occupancy above CNA is referred to as crowded. Appendix 3 sets out the population of the Prison over time.

26 In November 2017, the Ministry, with the agreement of G4S, removed G Wing from use following further instability in the Prison. Both the Ministry and G4S were also concerned about the level of staffing available at that time.

27 In August 2018, the Inspectorate conducted an unannounced reinspection of the prison. It identified a deterioration in the Prison's condition. On 16 August the Inspectorate issued an Urgent Notification to the Secretary of State for Justice.9 The Inspectorate asserted it found a "near total failure to address … previous recommendations" and "an abject failure of contract management and delivery".10 Subsequently, on 20 August, the Secretary of State for Justice used his contractual 'Step-In' rights, placing the Prison under the leadership of a Governor from HM Prison and Probation Service. In his response to the Urgent Notification on 17 September 2018, the Secretary of State announced the population of the Prison would be reduced by a further 300 places to 1,034.11 Figure 3 sets out the events leading up to the decision to 'Step- In' in more detail.

7 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, HMP Birmingham, February 2017. 9 An Urgent Notification is a mechanism for HM Chief Inspector of Prisons to raise urgent concerns about a prison and requires the Secretary of State for Justice to respond with an action plan to address the concerns within 28 days. 10 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, Urgent Notification: HM Prison Birmingham, August 2018. 11 Secretary of State for Justice, Urgent Notification- HMP Birmingham Response, September 2018.

9

Figure 3 Events leading up to 'Step-In' by the Ministry Date Actions and responses by key stakeholders 16 December 2016 “Concerted indiscipline” results in the closure of four wings (L, M, N and P), and reduction in prisoner capacity. Payments to G4S reduced to reflect the reduced availability. 6 February 2017 HMIP unannounced inspection. Prison is rated Reasonably Good for “Respect" and "Resettlement” criteria, but Poor for “Purposeful Activity” and Not Sufficient for “Safety”. HMIP finds issues with cleanliness and disrepair. April 2017 G4S appoints a new prison Director. April 2017 The Ministry Senior Contract Manager (SCM) monthly visit identifies cleanliness as below standard. 17 April 2017 G4S, with approval from the Ministry, begins to restore occupied places at 15 per week. 21 June 2017 Restoration of places completed as approved operational capacity returns to 1450. 30 June 2017 The Ministry SCM visits. The SCM threatens a contractual Improvement Notice due to rising levels of violence and notes poor levels of cleanliness. July 2017 The Ministry Controller reports that very high staff turnover (equivalent to 48% annually), combined with high sickness and training absences, had stretched resources across the Prison. September 2017 Disturbance on A Wing. 27 November 2017 Reduction of 116 places from G Wing for works planned to complete by February 2018 (the wing remains unoccupied as at December 2018). February 2018 G4S appoints a new prison Director. 12 March 2018 The Ministry issues a formal contract Improvement Notice requiring an Improvement Plan from G4S to address sustained violence, levels of purposeful activity and levels of cleanliness. The Ministry also issues an equivalent Improvement Notice covering Risks of Harm to prisoners. 20 March 2018 G4S responds to the Improvement Notices with two improvement plans, also making requests of the Ministry in relation to: [1] the disproportionate number of higher risk prisoners at the Prison [2] The need to make progress on implementing CCTV, and the window replacement programme [3] Make changes in the conduct of prison searches, and for the training and vetting of staff. 23 March 2018 The Ministry confirms that it is content with G4S’s approach in the Improvement Plan. It agrees to co-operate in progressing G4S’s requests of 23 March. The Ministry proposes that the parties agree criteria to assess progress on outcomes. The Ministry undertakes a review of decency across the site. The review finds a failure to 3rd May 2018 provide safe and decent facilities.

The Ministry requests assurances from G4S that the HMIP Action Plan is being met. Late May 1 June 2018 The Ministry issues an Outstanding Improvement Notice (OIN) citing insufficient progress in addressing instability, the adequacy of the regime, and the state of the accommodation. 5 June 2018 The Ministry and G4S officials meet and agree to work collaboratively to develop a 12 month G4S Improvement Plan by 22 June. 12 June 2018 G4S contests that the Ministry is entitled to issue an Outstanding Issues Notice, on grounds that the Ministry has not specified G4S’s failings, and had not met its own undertakings, as set out on 23 March 2018. 22 June 2018 The Ministry receives a new draft Improvement Plan from G4S, however this is not accepted. 28 June 2018 The Ministry receives an updated Improvement Plan from G4S reporting that all but two actions from the March action plan have been completed. The Ministry requests that the next Improvement Plan contains measurable outcomes to provide assurance that performance is improving. The Ministry also notes that it has agreed to fund the replacement of cell windows in good faith. 30 July 2018 HMIP unannounced inspection begins. 31 July 2018 G4S issues revisions to the June Improvement Plan to the Ministry. This was under discussion at the time of the HMIP inspection and not finally agreed by both sides. 10 August 2018 The Ministry responds to G4S Improvement Plan raising further points mainly with respect to improvements in cleaning. Improvement Plan remains unagreed. Ministry issues an OIN for the Improvement Notice relating to Risk of Harm. 10

16 August 2018 HMIP invokes Urgent Notification protocol. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons inspected the Prison and found conditions to be so bad he issued an urgent notification, requiring the Secretary of State for Justice to respond with an Improvement plan within 28 days. 20 August 2018 The Ministry steps in to the contract. The Ministry appoints a HMPPS Governor, who assumes leadership of the Prison.

Source: National Audit Office analysis

28 Given the significance of Inspectorate reports to the sequence of events at the Prison, Figure 4 summarises the progress of the Prison under successive Inspections, and Figure 5 sets out the Inspectorate's assessment of progress in respect of its previous recommendations.

Figure 4

HM Inspectorate of Prisons Reports on HMP Birmingham

The results of the Inspectorate's inspections have worsened over the last three reports.

Inspection Inspection Inspection HMIP tests for a “Healthy Report March Report Report August Prison”

2014 February 2017 2018

Safety: Prisoners, particularly the Reasonably Not Sufficiently Poor most vulnerable, are held safely. Good Good

Respect: Prisoners are treated Reasonably Reasonably with respect for their human Poor Good Good dignity.

Purposeful activity: Prisoners are able, and expected, to engage Not Sufficiently Poor Poor in activity that is likely to benefit Good them.

Resettlement: Prisoners are prepared for their release back into Reasonably Reasonably the community and effectively Poor Good Good helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Notes

1. HMIP scores each test against an outcome of ‘Good’, ‘Reasonably Good’, ‘Not Sufficiently Good’ or 'Poor’.

Source: National Audit Office Analysis of HMIP reports on HMP Birmingham in 2014, 2017 and 2018.

11

Figure 5 Progress Implementing HM Inspectorate of Prisons recommendations made in 2012, 2014 and 2017

Progress in addressing HMIP recommendations has got worse in three out of four of the 'Healthy Prison' tests.

Safety Respect

12 20 18 10 16 14 8 12 6 10 8 4 6 4 2 2 0 0 Fully Partly Not Fully Partly Not Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed Completed 2012 8 6 1 2012 6 5 5 2014 3 2 11 2014 3 4 12 2017 4 2 9 2017 6 0 19

Resettlement Purposeful Activity

14 14 12 12 10 10 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 Fully Partly Not Fully Partly Not completed completed completed completed completed completed 2012 7 8 2 2012 2 6 3 2014 5 1 8 2014 7 0 8 2017 2 0 13 2017 1 1 13

Notes 1. For each inspection, the Inspectorate considers whether the recommendations made in the previous inspection have been implemented. The charts above set out the Inspectorate's opinion as to whether recommendations had been completed across each of its four criteria. For each inspection, the Inspectorate considers whether the recommendations made in the previous inspection have been implemented. The recommendations made in 2012 were reported on in the 2014 report and those recommendations made in 2014 and 2017 were reported on in the 2017 and 2018 reports respectively. The graphs above summarise the findings from each of those reports.

2. In each of the 2014 and 2018 Inspectorate Reports, one recommendation in the "Safety" criteria was deemed "no longer relevant." These are not included in the graphs above and have been excluded from the graphs.

Source: National Audit Office Analysis of Inspectorate reports on the Prison in 2014, 2017 and 2018.

12

Appendix One: Map of HMP Birmingham

29 The map below sets out the layout of the Prison. The disturbance in December 2016 occurred in the modern wings of the Prison. G Wing was taken out of use in November 2017.

13 Appendix Two: Contract Delivery Indicators 30 CDIs have performance points attached to them which have a financial value associated with them. In the event that the threshold for any indicator is breached, the financial value of the performance points will be deducted from the payments made to G4S. The table sets out the number of points scored against each of the CDIs for the years 2016-17 to 2018-19. The financial impact of these points is set out at the bottom of the table for each financial year.

CDI Purpose Target description and definition Annual 2016-17 2017-18 YTD Total Target 2018-19 3 Mandatory Drug Testing - To encourage a regime 10 Points are applied for each 1% that the rate of drug misuse in the 12.0% 188.4 333.52 63.1 585.02 which minimises drug misuse in the Prison. Prison exceeds 12%, as reflected by those testing positive in mandatory drug tests. Across the prison, measured quarterly. 5 This CDI is designed to ensure that prisoners are The level required is 90% compliance, with a Performance Point 90.0% 0 0 0 0 prepared for dispatch in a timely and accurate accruing for every 1% under the target that is achieved each quarter. manner for court appearances For example, an 85% rate of correctly prepared prisoners ready to leave on time, would incur 5 performance points. 6 Prisoner Complaints This measure requires the The target is that 95% of complaints will be dealt with within timescales 95.0% 0 1.25 0 1.25 Contractor to deal with prisoner complaints in a defined in the Service specification. 5 Performance Points are awarded timely manner. for each percentage point below this threshold. 7 This measure requires the Contractor to set out a The target is 100% (within every 6 months) and 10 Performance Points 100.0% 4 48 0 52 programme of cell searches, meeting the are awarded for each percentage point below this threshold. required test numbers. 8 This focuses on maintaining a team of staff This is expressed as an average number of trained operational staff over 31 66.7 70 0 136.7 trained in Tornado (riot control) techniques. each quarter, and carries 50 Performance Points for each staff member FTE below the target. 10 Created to ensure that the Contractor is obliged The target is to ensure that 95% of prisoners Released on Temporary 95.0% 0 0 0 0 to enforce the terms of Temporary Release Licences comply with their terms of release. 5 points applied for each agreements. 1% below target. The Ministry can impose Performance Points on 20 Performance Points are applied for repeated missing of deadlines on N/A 30 0 0 30 the Contractor for missed reporting deadlines the same target. 5 points for each misreported performance against a and/or misreporting of data as outlined in others Contract Delivery Indicator. CDIs. MITIGATED PERFORMANCE POINTS (66.7) (70) 0 (136.7) TOTAL PERFORMANCE POINTS 222.4 382.77 63.1 668.27 FINANCIAL COST TO G4S £121,846 £217,969 £34,559 £374,374 1. The CDI numbers follow the order of the original contract. 2. YTD (Year To Date) 2018-19 refers to Quarter 1 of the 2018-19 financial year. 3. "Mitigated Performance Points" refers to points that were excluded from the Total Performance Points by the Ministry and therefore have no financial impact. Source: National Audit Office analysis of Ministry of Justice contractual information for HMP Birmingham. 14

31 The following table sets out the CDIs that have been removed since the beginning of the contract.

CDI Purpose Target description and definition Annual Target 1 Settled Accommodation Suspended when responsibility was transferred to 81.5% Community Rehabilitation Companies. 5 points were applied for each 1% below target. 2 Employment after release Suspended when responsibility was transferred to 26.0% Community Rehabilitation Companies. 5 points were applied for each 1% below target. 4 Education and training after release Suspended when responsibility was transferred to 6.5% Community Rehabilitation Companies. 5 points were applied for each 1% below target. 9 The CARATS drug treatment service Withdrawn in March 2012. N/A

Notes 1 The CDI numbers follow the order of the original contract. Source: National Audit Office analysis of Ministry of Justice contractual information for HMP Birmingham.

15 Appendix Three: Prison Population

HMP Birmingham prisoner population and capacity, October 2016 to August 2018

The prison population increased back to full operating capacity six months after the December disturbance.

1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug 16 16 16 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 Adult Population 14701470 915 928 916 911 10061221141714261440141214471432127113171315129013041247122212571153 Operational Capacity 14601475 917 917 917 917 10971236143614501450145014501450133413341334133413341334133413341250 Certified Normal Accomodation (CNA base) 10931093109310931093109310931093109310931093109310931093109310931093109310931093109910991099

Notes

1. Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA), or uncrowded capacity, is HM Prison and Probation Service’s own measure of accommodation. 'CNA represents the good, decent standard of accommodation that the Service aspires to provide all prisoners.'

2. Operational capacity is 'the total number of prisoners that an establishment can hold without serious risk to good order, security and the proper running of the planned regime'. 'Operational capacity will normally be set equal to, or greater than, baseline CNA. It may be set greater than CNA, particularly at local prisons, to allow for an agreed, safe level of overcrowding.'

3. The Contractual Normal Accommodation is set at 1109 prisoners. This is the normal accommodation level set out in the contract.

Source: National Audit Office analysis of HM Prisons and Probation Service performance data for HMP Birmingham and HMPPS Prison Service Instructions. 16