Managerialism and attainable objectives in the New Zealand prison system

Abstract

This thesis addresses some of the issues relevant to ensuring continuation of the improvement in performance and efficiency that has occurred in recent times (Eskridge and Newbold, 1993; Workman, 1992a, 1993b) in New Zealand prisons. It is suggested that the new management approach, which the author identifies as being made up of a combination of New Public Management (NPM) and He Ara Hou (a new way) in the New Zealand prison system, provides the means for continuing this improvement. The introduction examines how the elements of managerialism, including organisational culture and performance indicators (PIs) are central factors relevant to recent changes in the management of New Zealand prisons. From this initial analysis it becomes apparent that for NPM to take hold and succeed in the prison system, it is necessary that both organisational culture and performance indicators be developed and utilised effectively in a manner that facilitates further improvement. The case study explores primarily the use of PIs to measure the output objective of secure containment of sentenced inmates, and it is concluded that the PIs in the prison system are currently being used appropriately and effectively in terms of measuring organisational (macro-divisional) progress against agreed target outputs. At present, however, there is little evidence that secure containment PIs (or indeed PIs for any other output objective, for example reintegration) are being used effectively in enabling management to make comparative assessments of performance across prisons, on a unit-by-unit comparison basis. It is acknowledged, as Carter et al (1992) point out, that increasingly effective use of PIs may come about through an evolutionary "organisational development" process. While this case study may be viewed as part of this development cycle, the author suggests that the ability to undertake meaningful comparative performance measurement is sufficiently important, to management focused on improving prison system performance, that its development should be accorded priority. Without the analytic and diagnostic facility provided by comparative performance measurement, senior management cannot engage in the true "measure, then manage" strategy embodied in the managerialist philosophy and NPM. Obviously the assessment of attained outputs against agreed targets on a divisional level is important. Therefore it is reassuring that PIs indicate the division is meeting its output objectives in secure containment, and albeit with less certainty, in provision of reintegrative programmes for inmates (Department of Justice, 1993a). However, if these divisional targets cease to be met, then it is becomes increasingly critical that management can engage in analysis and diagnosis across a number of prisons. An appropriate performance measure would allow senior managers to determine which prisons are improving their performance or increasing their efficiency relative to others, and to identify which management characteristics distinguish those prisons from those performing less efficiently. Management is then in a better position to implement the contingencies necessary to improve efficiency and performance in selected prisons. The case study encourages optimism that valid comparative assessment measures, based upon existing PIs, can be developed with the assistance of some weighting and correction factors applied to take account of individual prison differences. The approach explored herein is simply a first approximation of the steps to be taken in developing such a comparative performance model. It is offered as an indicative model only. Ultimately the approach adopted may be considerably more complex and sophisticated, but it seems reasonable to argue that PIs can be utilised, if not to ensure that the new management approach succeeds, then at least to increase the likelihood that NPM can be applied in prisons. A similar stance is adopted on the importance of organisational culture. For managerialism to be applied and be successful in prisons, it appears to this author to be a necessary, if not a sufficient condition of its successful application, that it be measured in order to be managed appropriately. Ideally, it should generate a sense of mission within the organisation. For this to occur it is necessary, at a minimum, that organisational objectives are clear, non-conflicting and well communicated and understood by employees. For the organisation to develop and retain a sense of mission, requires that the culture, that is the objective(s) and values of the organisation, are "shared and warmly endorsed by employees and managers alike" (Wilson, 1989). Obviously this is more likely to occur in organisations that have a single, clearly defined objective. The question is asked whether the New Zealand prison system can retain a sense of mission and operate as efficiently while striving to attain dual, potentially conflicting goals of secure containment and rehabilitation of inmates, as it could if operating under a single goal. While the author fully supports the rehabilitation concept, it is apparent that there may be an efficiency "trade-off as a result of allocating equal weight and resources to dual goals. Notwithstanding the dual goal trade-off, this thesis offers some suggestions for facilitating an ongoing improvement in prison performance and increased efficiency. In this author's opinion, if the ongoing quest for improved performance is to be successful there needs to be: 1) Extended and more effective use of PIs for comparative measurement across individual prisons, as well as for measurement of organisational output against agreed targets. 2) Greater attention paid to identification of the existing organisational culture and pro-active change management undertaken, so that the culture can better accommodate new organisational objectives and values, thereby providing support for the organisational reform process. In turn this requires: 3) Some clearer definition of organisational objectives with resolution of any potential conflict among these objectives, and clear communication of the organisational objective(s) to staff. There is clearly a need to measure performance as a precursor to managing it better. Specifically, it is important to be able to measure outputs using PIs and to compare performance across organisational units, before it can be managed more effectively. This has not been possible to date. The second requirement, emphasising the importance of organisational culture and moulding it as part of the reform process, relates to the point made succinctly in the Logan Report (1993a), namely that to date the reform process itself has not been systematic or well-coordinated. Rather it has been a somewhat haphazard process, with destabilisation of the old structures and systems before establishment of the new. Moulding organisational culture effectively depends upon setting clear, non-conflicting organisational objectives. This responsibility does not rest exclusively with management. As in any public sector organisation, ultimately government is responsible for determining objectives. An examination of the political dimension of imprisonment suggests that politicians may not be motivated to define prison system objectives clearly. On one hand they may wish prisons to contribute to their vision of a better society, by rehabilitating inmates and reducing reoffending. On the other hand they will expect prisons to provide the secure containment that accords with the law and order expectations of their voters. It is suggested that the continuing failure of the prison system to rehabilitate in addition to securely containing inmates is evidence of the unattainability of the rehabilitation objective given the resources available and that this should encourage reconsideration of the purpose of prisons in light of what they can realistically achieve.