The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents |

Listen

EVALUATION OF THE SCOTTISH PRISON SERVICE'S TENDERING PROCESS FOR SOCIAL WORK CONTRACTS

Executive Summary

The aim of this study was to evaluate the tendering and commissioning process, carried out by the Scottish Prison Service in 2001, for the provision of social work in four prisons, and to consider the broader impact of this approach. The focus was to be upon the process rather than the quality of the tendered services or the longer-term implications.

The main conclusion from the evaluation were:

• Only the four existing Council providers of social work services submitted bids, despite early indications that other agencies were interested in bidding and, therefore, SPS was not able to achieve a choice of contractor.
• At the end of the contracting process, contracts were concluded in two of the four prisons. The objective of setting out clear requirements for the two social work services that were successfully contracted-out was substantially achieved by SPS. Service requirements were based upon National Standards, previous Service Level Agreements and the operational requirements of prison Governors.
• The services that SPS achieved and the cost it must pay are clearer than was previously the case. Contract requirements that oblige contractors to ensure a delivered service, a detailed analysis of administrative overheads and penalties for non-performance, have served to achieve this greater clarity.
• SPS was partially successful in providing firm evidence of value for money in the completed contracts. The development of outcome measures that reflect an analysis of underlying process and the arrangements that are needed in order to ensure a quality product, will enable a more measurable and meaningful value to be attached to significant elements of prison social work services in the future.
• In the short term, the four existing prison social work services and to a lesser extent community based criminal justice services, were disrupted and staff morale was greatly impaired as a result of the contracting process. Disruption was greatest in the two prisons where contracts were not concluded.
• The tendering and contracting process did, therefore, deliver on some of its commitments. There were, however, advantages and disadvantages. The competitive tendering process produced rigorous planning and structured evaluation processes. Local Councils did not, however, fully understand the nature of those processes and could not isolate them from their wider policy concerns. As a consequence, well established trust was undermined.
• Contracting between public bodies for services that are themselves complex and reflect high levels of inter-connectivity may not provide the most effective means of achieving a balance between performance and risk that is appropriate and acceptable to each of the parties concerned.

1 Introduction

1.1 This report summarises the results of a study which took place over November and early December 2001 following a commitment made on 26 June 2001 by the then Deputy Minister for Justice, Iain Gray MSP, to commission an independent evaluation of the Scottish Prison Service's (SPS) tendering and commissioning processes for prison social work services for four prisons. The contracting out of prison social work services was recognised by both SPS and Local Authorities ('the Councils') as marking a watershed in the arrangements by which services that had previously been provided only by local authority social work departments were to be delivered.

2 Aims of the Study

2.1 The overall aim of the project was to evaluate how successfully the tendering and commissioning process for the provision of social work in prisons met its aims, taking into account both financial and organisational aspects of the process and considering the broader impact of the approach. The focus was to be upon the process rather than the quality of the services that were tendered or the longer-term implications.

2.2 The evaluation explored the following issues and questions:

• the extent to which the tendering and contracting process delivered on its commitments and therefore met its aims
• the extent to which there were clear service targets for both action and intended outcome/outputs
• the extent to which published standards for public services were set and met
• were tendered services delivered by the best supplier at the best price
• the extent to which Scottish Prison Service's objectives of: setting out clear requirements for the service; providing firm evidence of good value for money; and providing a choice of contractors were achieved
• the short term impact on the social work services
• the advantages and disadvantages of the approach taken
• the wider impact on the four local authorities and the four prisons
• the extent to which the process worked in harmony with the principles that government and public services should work in partnership and within a shared overall framework with clear priorities on which delivery agencies can focus their energies and expenditure; there should be clear sharing of information across all parts of government

3 Context

3.1 The decision by SPS to competitively tender for prison social work services was related to two immediate considerations.

Failure to establish a general service level agreement

3.2 For approximately three years prior to SPS deciding to contract for prison social work services, a series of meetings and exchanges of correspondence had taken place regarding the introduction of a standard Service Level Agreement for prison social work services. Local service agreements were in place in some areas. The principal points at issue were:

• the conditions upon which a service would be delivered
• the nature of that service
• the cost of the service
• the extent to which costs were transparent and were clearly related to the actual service that was delivered.

3.3 At the heart of the matter was the issue of absence cover, which was never resolved to SPS's satisfaction. Unsuccessful attempts to establish a basis for delivering prison social work services that were mutually acceptable resulted in a widespread sense of frustration for all concerned.

Audit Scotland reports

3.4 Successive reports from Audit Scotland and its predecessor body dating back to at least 1997 had expressed criticism of the existing arrangements by which prison social work services were delivered. Concerns focussed upon:

• difficulties in confirming the basis of the charges made by Local Authorities
• whether the level of agreed service had actually been delivered
• the "regularity" of this expenditure

3.5 The reaction of Councils to the decision to competitively tender for social work services was based on the view that National Standards set out a clear responsibility on Councils to deliver those services to agreed professional standards.

3.6 Social work services in prisons are underpinned by the National Objectives and Standards for Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice system (the 'National Standards'). Revised National Standards issued in January 1999 confirmed that prison based social work services were provided by authority of the Secretary of State and reflected the importance of the social work role in prisons being closely integrated with that of other specialist agencies and the work of prison officers. They also emphasised the importance of throughcare services in prison and in the community working closely together in order to ensure a seamless service for offenders and effective arrangements for the delivery of social work authorities' statutory duties. An important fact for the Councils was that National Standards made specific reference only to local authorities providing prison based social work services.

4 Prison Social Work Services Procurement Process

4.1 On 30 March 2000, SPS announced its intention to contract for prison social work services with effect from 1 April 2001. Councils immediately sought to clarify a number of fundamental legal issues that they felt may have had a bearing upon whether the action could have proceeded.

4.2 The first of these issues related to the legal status of the National Standards and whether the action by SPS was legally competent. All of the Councils came to the conclusion that the National Standards could be regarded as no more than guidance and that they did not have the force of law. This position was, however, seen by the Councils as a departure from previously agreed national policy and created a climate of distrust.

4.3 The second issue concerned whether Councils could contract with SPS since it was not a specified body under the Local Authority Goods and Services Act 1970. The Councils concerned came to the view that they had sufficient enabling powers to allow them to proceed with the tendering exercise.

4.4 Councils were also concerned to confirm SPS's view as to whether the Transfer of Undertakings for Public Employees (TUPE) regulations applied should another provider win the contract. Councils were confident in their opinion that the regulations did apply and SPS confirmed in June of 2001 that it concurred with this view.

4.5 Beyond these matters lay broader issues concerning the role of prisons within the criminal justice and community safety agendas where they work alongside Councils. Prison social work links prisons with communities, contributing to the preparation of prisoners for release. As such, it provides a service to SPS directly related to the Councils' arrangements and responsibilities for ensuring that communities are safe and its social inclusion strategies are effective.

5 Outcome of the Tendering Process

5.1 In Clackmannanshire negotiations progressed rapidly and relatively smoothly whilst, at the same time, the Council sought to bring its concerns about the contracting exercise to the attention of senior SPS officials and Ministers. The Council's confidence in local prison managers and the quality of their prison social work service, as well as the constructive ongoing dialogue and consequent reinforcement of previously positive relationships, were all influential in convincing the Council to persevere with the negotiations.

5.2 In Falkirk a number of major concerns on the part of the Council regarding the contract resulted in a much more detailed and time consuming consideration of the issues and how they were to be resolved. Nevertheless, the confidence instilled by continuing positive relationships between key staff again seems to have been one of the more important factors in the judgement reached by the Council to continue with detailed negotiations until a successful conclusion was reached.

5.3 In Dumfries and Galloway negotiations moved ahead rapidly, with most aspects of the contract being dealt with. Despite this, after the draft contract was issued the Council felt obliged to seek a revision of the contract price and negotiations ended shortly afterwards.

5.4 Wider policy concerns influenced the extent to which Edinburgh was able to feel positive about the forthcoming dialogue with SPS. The Council's detailed concerns regarding the broader implications of some of the contract conditions appeared to them to have gone unheard by SPS. This gap led to some breakdown in communications. The efforts of a newly appointed Director at SPS from May 2001 did not reduce the gap between SPS and the Council and, eventually, there was a breakdown in effective communication. In due course, dialogue was re-established.

6 Clear Requirements for the Service

6.1 The staffing, management and administrative arrangements that underpin best social work practice are set out in the National Standards. These were incorporated into the technical specification of the SPS contract and thereby provided a clear set of requirements that providers were required to meet.

6.2 The service requirements for each establishment were also based upon the National Standards and upon previous Service Level Agreements and the declared operational requirements of individual Governors. In the context of a pilot initiative for services that were without exception and which were currently felt by the respective Governors to be of a high standard, this was a reasonable basis upon which to proceed.

6.3 Output volumes were based upon available service information adjusted to reflect anticipated changes in the profile of activity for each prison establishment in the context of other organisational and welfare initiatives.

6.4 In some cases, the service areas that were detailed in the specification were different from those currently being provided and, it appeared from the research, in some cases, with what some Governors wanted. Specifications therefore set out a range of activities and outputs that were seen by local prison managers and social work staff as indicative rather than as being ever likely to be delivered in their entirety.

6.5 Prospective contractors were asked to propose Key Performance Indicators and service levels within their tenders and these were the subject of detailed consideration during subsequent negotiations. The tendering process thereby identified a set of requirements relating to outputs, timescales and volume that constituted a service profile for each unit.

7 Providing a Choice of Contractors

7.1 A crucial factor was the likely market that existed for delivering prison social work services. It was important for SPS that it could be confident that there was a realistic potential that competitors to the Councils would want to enter the market.

7.2 Councils had previously had something of a monopoly in relation to knowledge and experience of the setting and operational demands that were required to be met in delivering an appropriate service; particularly in relation to statutory social work duties that could only be delivered by qualified social workers. The social work and social care sectors are characterised by a complex network of purchaser/provider relationships that require potential bidders considering any market opportunity to weigh in the balance the professional and political impact of a decision to become involved. The tendering-out of prison social work services was generally known to be a highly sensitive matter for Councils and that they considered themselves to be the agencies best placed to undertake this work.

7.3 There was little scope for new bidders to provide value for money by reducing overall costs because of the eligibility of any Council staff transferring to a new employer to do so under the terms of the TUPE regulations. This would require bidders to focus upon ensuring a high quality delivered service if they were to be competitive. In addition particular difficulties had been experienced in recruiting to specific prison establishments because of their geographical location.

7.4 Prior to the SPS Board meeting in February 2000 at which the decision to tender for prison social work services was taken, and in order to test the likely size and composition of the market, SPS took informal soundings of potential voluntary sector bidders. These soundings provided a positive indication that there was a real prospect of creating a competitive bidding market for the services that were being put out to tender.

7.5 The advert inviting organisations to express their interest in the tendering process resulted in nine organisations doing so and, therefore, there appeared to be a continuing prospect that the objective of a competitive situation would indeed develop for at least one of the four contracts. In the event, only the four existing providers submitted bids and, therefore, this SPS objective was not achieved.

7.6 It became apparent to SPS, shortly before the closing date for tenders to be submitted, that Councils would be the only agencies submitting tenders. In line with standard practice in these circumstances, SPS sustained the competitive process by dealing with the prospective contractors as if they were indeed in a competitive situation. They thereby sought to maximise the potential cost and service benefits that could be achieved whilst working in a situation that was highly sensitive and complex.

8 Procurement Approach

8.1 The SPS procurement process seeks to ensure that the service and the provider are fit for purpose, and that they operate, as far as possible, in a manner that is consistent with SPS's internal business imperatives. SPS is involved in procuring a significant number of contracts each year, collectively reflecting a broad range of product and service types and specifications. Of particular note in the context of this particular tendering exercise are the contracts that have been put in place over recent years for education and medical services. These are areas of service that had previously been delivered by monopoly providers and, therefore, operated in circumstances that were not dissimilar to those arising for social work services.

8.2 Councils also have a responsibility to provide or procure services and, through the Best Value regime, they seek to ensure that they deliver value for money in an open and transparent manner. Whilst seeking to ensure that the views of local people are adequately heard and acted upon, in the context of procurement, Best Value principles require there to be a level playing field for all bidders, for the process to be openly accountable and to operate in a fair and even-handed manner. Prospective contractors are provided with all relevant information at the Invitation to Tender (ITT) stage and post-tender negotiations are restricted to dealing with minor adjustments that ensure a best fit with Council requirements.

8.3 It is significant, however, that this was probably the first occasion on which local Councils' social work departments had been required to contract to provide services that had traditionally been undertaken as a core part of their business. Most of the Councils viewed the ITT from SPS as being unduly prescriptive and burdensome. There were a significant number of clauses that gave rise to concerns for Councils but only a limited number that presented fundamental issues that were unlikely to be resolved. These fundamental issues concerned the most sensitive commercial aspects of the contract.

8.4 It is apparent from detailed records that SPS was prepared to pay what was necessary to get the level of service it required. It was not a process that sought to secure a service at the cheapest price. Those not directly involved in a specific negotiation were not, however, aware of this and SPS could not inform them under the rules governing its procurement practice.

8.5 There were occasions when specific legal or commercial issues proved to be problematic for one or both parties and these matters reflected the broader sense of frustration that, from time to time, prevailed on both sides in all four of the negotiations. It was at these times that the particular composition of the Council's negotiation teams sometimes appeared to hinder their ability to deal with the blockages as effectively as they might otherwise have done.

8.6 SPS, for its part, was taken aback by the reaction of the Councils to the draft contracts. From its perspective, Councils were, at this stage, being dealt with openly as the sole bidders and SPS was fully prepared to enter into further negotiations regarding all the outstanding matters that related to the risks and costs to Councils.

8.7 For those Councils that reached the draft contract stage of the process, the significance of having done so was not apparent and they did not appreciate that they were now being dealt with openly as the sole bidder.

9 Financial Penalties

9.1 Of significant concern for Councils was the provision within the specification that additional requirements or detailed terms and conditions could be added at any time during the negotiation phase prior to the formal award of a contract. This was interpreted as opening the door for a contract to be awarded on terms that were significantly different from those on which it had been advertised and, thereby, potentially deny the other original bidders an equal opportunity to bid on the new terms. The Councils were concerned that any such changes could have a bearing on the cost of the service and could open up the process to a legal challenge on the basis that the process did not provide and sustain a level playing field between bidders and would fail to reflect a sufficiently transparent audit trail.

9.2 Whilst this issue remained a matter of concern for Councils, it did not become significant until draft contracts were issued to them after a series of clarification and negotiating meetings had been held. The potential level of the financial penalties were judged by the Councils to represent a fundamental change in the terms of the contract, as they could reasonably have been understood by bidders, given the information available in the ITT. On the other hand, SPS considered that the value of service credits, or financial penalties, could only be disclosed to bidders at the point that draft contracts were issued, as only by then would they be apprised of all aspects of the final bid. However, by the time that the draft contract was issued and the scale of the financial penalties became apparent, the protracted and complex nature of the negotiations made it very difficult for the Councils to view this latest development as being anything other than unreasonable.

9.3 There were three particularly sensitive commercial aspects of the contract for the Councils which became matters of major concern.

9.4 First, whilst the contract made it clear that if SPS was at fault service credits would not apply, the Councils felt that the contract failed to reflect the extent to which the ability of the prison social work service to achieve its output targets was contingent upon the performance of prison officers and the prison management.

9.5 Second, the value of service credits (penalties for failing to achieve targets) was to be determined independently of any consideration of the cost of actually achieving the required output. It was to be based upon a determination of the value that could be attached to the contingent risk faced by SPS if it were to fail in its duty to ensure public safety, by virtue of the social work unit's failure to achieve its target outputs. Thus, SPS would not only be credited with the value of the work related to the missed target but, in addition, potentially with what amounted to a penalty on the contractor, for having missed it. These became major concerns for the Councils.

9.6 Third, SPS could decide that a provider's performance had been unsatisfactory and take whatever steps it considered necessary to put things right without there being any recourse to arbitration.

9.7 SPS was not prepared to carry the burden of responsibility that belongs to a service provider who has failed to deliver the contracted service and these were the aspects of the tender by which SPS sought to shift the burden of the risks to the social work provider. However, the absence of a link between the value of service credits and the cost of actually delivering the relevant service was seen by Councils as undermining effective working relationships between public sector organisations that, of necessity, carry a shared burden of responsibility for overlapping areas of public policy. SPS was happy to take its share of responsibility but it was not prepared to carry the burden of responsibility that belonged to a service provider who might have failed to deliver the contracted service.

10 Communications

10.1 Prior to the decision to tender for prison social work services, working relationships between social work department staff, the SPS national social work advisor and local prison managers at each of the four prison establishments concerned had been excellent. This reflected the fact that a great deal of effort had been put into establishing a local Service Level Agreement in each prison and that the social work services were regarded as being of a very high standard.

10.2 Schedule 1 of the ITT was the same as that used in all SPS procurements and it provided Councils with their first detailed picture of the process that lay ahead. Two immediate areas of concern were the restrictions on communication and the scope for post-tender negotiations.

10.3 SPS was not obliged to inform bidders of the results of its tender evaluation or reasons why a tender was or was not successful, although the ITT indicated that SPS would endeavour to provide such information as the bidder may reasonably require to clarify the principal criteria used in evaluating its proposal. This approach was designed to ensure that tenders were handled on a wholly confidential basis with feedback from SPS on any aspect of the tender being at their sole discretion.

10.4 The SPS procurement process did not directly involve SPS local managers in the negotiation of the contracts and working relationships between the social work units and local prison staff continued on a positive basis throughout this period.

10.5 The size and structure of the social work departments involved in the procurement varied greatly. Where the departments were relatively small, the lead officers were at Service Manager/combined Head of Service level. Where the social work team was led at a more senior level, the nature and importance of the task that lay ahead appears to have been a more significant consideration. This was likely to have resulted in policy and strategic concerns having a more direct influence upon the overall approach that was adopted in the negotiations and the balance of opinion that informed advice to elected members.

11 Short Term Impact upon Services

11.1 The social work staff who were interviewed for this study, all of whom had chosen to work in the prison setting, reflected a strong and enduring commitment to doing so. In this context it is difficult to overstate the detrimental impact that the contracting process had upon the morale of staff.

11.2 Restrictions within the ITT limited the amount of information that staff could receive about the detailed negotiations, but in every case senior officers of the Councils invested an enormous amount of time and energy in supporting their staff. The issue of TUPE was of utmost importance to social workers and administrative staff and whilst Councils were clear as to its application should another bidder have won the contract, this provided little comfort to staff. The uncertainty also affected community-based services as some posts had to be frozen.

11.3 In all four of the prisons, the uncertainties and delays associated with the procurement process led social work unit staff to feel concerned about restrictions that were having to be placed on their work because of the future uncertainties; anxious about their future employment prospects; and fearful for what the future might hold for prison social work.

12 Demonstrating Value for Money

12.1 Prison social work is a complex area of activity operating within an equally complex organisational context that reflects the added dimension of being a closed community. In seeking to determine value for money from social work services it can be argued that it is important to understand the nature of this complexity if a sound judgement is to be reached.

12.2 Outputs are a suitable tool with which to measure only a small proportion of social work activity and yet are the principal means by which the social work prison contracts seek to establish contractor performance. As such they are only a first step to establishing greater clarity and accountability. Outcome measures that reflect an analysis of underlying processes and the arrangements that are needed in order to ensure a quality product, are being developed across a wide spectrum of social care activity in recognition of their greater relevance in attaching a measurable and meaningful value to such services.

12.3 These measures enable the end product to be judged against relevant, specified, process requirements and also provide a basis for determining, on a broader level, the extent to which a service is 'fit for purpose'.

12.4 The Quality Plans that social work units are required to develop during the early months under the prison contracts represent a potentially more important step in shifting the focus from less than adequate output measures to a longer term programme of continuous improvement that will, in time, enable outcome measures to be developed that are relevant and exacting.

12.5 The interdependent nature of most areas of activity in prisons has a direct and important impact upon the application of the social work contracts and the requirements placed upon social work units. The drive to achieve specified service levels and targets in social work will, it can be argued, be undermined until a similar performance culture is applied with equal vigour to all areas of activity within prison establishments.

12.6 The terms of the two completed contracts show that SPS paid a realistic charge for the services and that they did not seek to reduce the price to a level that would be likely to hinder the Councils in delivering a good quality, consistent, service.

12.7 To the extent that the output measures in the contracts are recognised as a first step along the road to a more meaningful measurement of social work in prisons, they represent a suitable baseline from which to progress.

12.8 The contracts attach a specific financial value to the specified service levels which enables each particular output, when related to the relevant volume factor, to be costed. An example is a specified number of particular reports to be produced within a certain timescale. Other measures, however, such as 'direct work with prisoners', are less precise and comprise a wide range of unspecified tasks and activities.

12.9 Regards inputs to the service, conditions within the contract place a responsibility upon the contractor to ensure continuity of service, with the associated cost to be met by them from within the contract price. This is consistent with paragraph 504 of the National Standards but represents a significant shift from the previous situation where responsibility for meeting the cost of staff absences was unclear.

12.10 Service credits were designed to ensure that, where service levels were not achieved, an agreed sum was repaid to SPS by way of a credit against the monthly contract fee. This was a further means of ensuring that the service that SPS pays for is what it receives.

12.11 Collectively, these measures represent a significant enhancement of the extent to which SPS has a basis upon which to be clear about the overall level of service that it is paying for. However, they do not yet provide a well-developed profile of distinct areas of social work activity nor a set of meaningful performance measures. To this extent, SPS does not yet have the means by which it can accurately evaluate contractor performance and is, therefore, some way from having a robust basis upon which to determine value for money.

13 Key Issues and Conclusions

13.1 The procurement process resulted in contracts in relation to Glenochil and Polmont. Subsequently, contracts were agreed in relation to the prison establishments in Edinburgh and Dumfries.

13.2 The advantages of the SPS procurement approach included the rigour of the pre-tender planning process that applied previously determined criteria to all aspects of the information supplied by the bidders. The post-tender process provided a clear structure that enabled the key elements of a bid to be considered in a sequence that ensured the most commercially sensitive aspects were based upon an accurate technical specification. In so doing it enabled SPS, as the client, to maintain maximum control over the detail and progress of the negotiations.

13.3 The disadvantages of the approach, in this context, concerned the requirement to maintain a competitive bidding process and absolute commercial confidentiality despite Councils questioning the nature and objectives of the process that they were involved in and not being in a position to isolate their decisions in relation to the contract from those concerning wider policy issues, including that of financial risk. This made it difficult for them to be as single minded in the pursuit of a solution that met the SPS requirements as they might otherwise have been.

13.4 The Councils were consistent in their view that securing a contract could only be achieved if staff were, thereby, able to operate professionally and safely. Their background policy concerns, and the level of financial risk posed by the contracts, reinforced the need for them to focus upon the substance of the negotiations rather than the process by which they hoped to achieve their desired outcomes. The Councils were least comfortable with aspects of the commercial terms of the contract that increased the level of financial risk to them and, even in those cases where contracts were signed, this remained an area of significant concern for the Councils involved.

13.5 The experience of tendering for prison social work services has highlighted the extent to which achieving public policy objectives is dependent upon the agencies concerned being able to work together in pursuit of shared objectives. Public sector bodies serve a variety of stakeholder groups and display a considerable diversity in terms of their culture and strategic priorities. This diversity is a necessary reflection of the enormous range of communities and the breadth of public policy in Scotland today.

13.6 The decision to contract social work services was felt by SPS to be the best practicable means of achieving their objective of being able to demonstrate value for money and satisfactory service delivery. This, however, appeared to the Councils to undermine their key role in relation to public safety and, in so doing, weakened the basis of trust between them and, thereby, the basis for effective partnership working.

13.7 As regards the procurement process, the SPS approach and the approach adopted by Councils share many fundamental objectives but, at the same time, also reflect differences in professional cultures and values.

13.8 This was the first occasion on which Social Work Departments had been required to contract to provide what they considered to be their core business. Their effectiveness in doing so could have been enhanced by developing a more focused and co-ordinated approach to meeting the very particular demands that are placed upon a prospective contractor by the negotiating process.

13.9 It is questionable whether the proposed SPS contract was an effective and necessary basis upon which to secure a service that demonstrated value for money and transferred risk in this way between organisations that were striving to achieve the same objectives.

13.10 The increasing use of framework agreements and other less formal forms of contract within the public sector is an indication of the benefits that are available from a less formal model of agreement, in circumstances where the overall objectives and respective responsibilities have been clarified. In the context of an agreement between two public bodies, such clarity should be achievable.

13.11 The disruption to services in terms of time and resources, and the breakdown in relationships that took place as a result of this contracting process, could be argued to have constituted a high price to pay for establishing greater clarity for SPS as regards costs and service levels. Whilst two Councils did conclude contracts with SPS by the end of the process, the desired outcome should have been achievable through a process that was better able to acknowledge the concerns of both parties whilst promoting an appropriate focus upon performance and accountability.

« Previous | Contents |