 |
 |
| Publications |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
|
|
|||
| > What We Do > Justice > HMIP |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
4.1 In his briefing at the start of the inspection, the Director referred to a number of major issues affecting the establishment. These included the following:-
4.2 The prison started taking prisoners on 25 March 1999. A process had been agreed with the SPS for the screening of prisoners and a gradual build up to full capacity, to avoid any repetition of the mistakes made when HMP Shotts Phase 2 had opened in 1987. Initially, LTPs who volunteered and were considered suitable for transfer to Kilmarnock arrived at the rate of 50 per week. There were planned periods of consolidation before prisoners were accepted directly from the courts, either on remand or as short term convicted prisoners, until the establishment reached its normal operating capacity of 500 in June 1999. The Director described this gradual approach as particularly helpful for the staff, 91% of whom had no previous experience of working with prisoners
4.3 The opening of Kilmarnock has been a success due to a number of factors, including the application of lessons learned from the SPS's experience at Shotts and the experience of Wackenhut, PPS's parent company, in establishing and operating some 50 correctional and detention facilities across the world. This was in spite of the risk that experienced and manipulative prisoners might have conditioned inexperienced staff to be less vigilant and confident in challenging unacceptable behaviour and practices. This danger had been anticipated and support teams of experienced prison staff from other PPS establishments, principally HMP Doncaster, had been deployed during the Start Up phase. PPS had also employed some experienced former SPS Governors, who had provided very helpful advice and useful insights into the Scottish prisoner culture during that phase.
4.4 The risk of staff conditioning should decrease as staff become more experienced and confident but continuing vigilance and leadership will be essential if Kilmarnock is fully to exploit the success it has achieved so far.
4.5 A detailed contract, which set challenging performance measures for the operation of the establishment, had been signed by KPSL and the Director spoke of the focus and clarity which operating to a contract provided. A detailed and comprehensive management information system was in place, with further developments planned, to enable the prison to demonstrate compliance with the contract. Inevitably, there were occasions when he felt the contract constrained the rate of progress but mechanisms were in place to propose changes for consideration where this was considered necessary.
4.6 The benefits of clear direction and a specified level of performance were apparent. Staff at all levels understood their role and their contribution to the successful operation of the prison. The standards set for Kilmarnock are higher in many cases than elsewhere in the SPS and whilst this is significant, perhaps the most important difference is the contract compliance monitoring process. Under this process, detailed performance data is collected, collated and analysed to establish objectively performance levels as well as to identify problems and their causes to allow swift remedial action to be taken. We have not encountered such clarity or focus elsewhere in Scottish prisons and therefore recommend that the SPS considers how the performance management of its other prisons can be improved in light of the experience at HMP Kilmarnock.
4.7 A questionnaire had been issued to all prisoners in the month before our inspection and 132 surveys were completed (26%). Of the prisoners who responded, 88% felt safe and 94% considered that they were treated with respect. Almost one third felt that the facilities and opportunities available to them at Kilmarnock would help them on release, whilst 60% of those who responded viewed the work they were required to do as purposeful.
4.8 The findings of this survey support the data provided through the detailed performance monitoring process. Violence and tension were not obvious features of the environment, due in part to the extensive CCTV surveillance which was acknowledged by prisoners as a powerful deterrent. Staff/prisoner relationships were characterised by courtesy and respect, although some staff said that prisoners were only pleasant when they were getting what they wanted. Similarly, some prisoners said that during the start up phase, staff did not know what was going on and this had led to the perception that they were "at their beck and call". Nevertheless, the efforts to establish and develop a positive culture at Kilmarnock had resulted in more normal relationships between individuals than exist in most other prisons in Scotland – see also paragraphs 9.55 and 10.3.
4.9 The Director considered that drug misuse was the major custody issue. This view was strongly supported by a survey conducted by the Health Centre, which revealed that up to 90% of prisoners admitted to Kilmarnock had recent experience of drug taking, of whom 75% were experienced drug users, with 38% reporting intravenous heroin use. It was clear therefore, that a priority for the prison was to address the problems of drug misuse and considerable effort was being made to reduce the supply of illicit drugs by means of a number of security measures, including the use of drug detection dogs and a high level of random and targeted searching. Additionally, steps were being taken to reduce the demand for drugs.
4.10 Drug misuse in the prison reflected patterns of drug misuse in the wider community and this issue is addressed in greater detail in paragraphs 4.12-36.
4.11 The Director concluded by saying that Kilmarnock had come through a busy and challenging period in good order. He recognised that much remained to be done in regard to regime development and delivery and felt that the most effective way to maintain the high levels of performance and the rate of progress was further to develop the cohesion of the team at Kilmarnock. He felt that as staff's self-confidence was consolidated and staff turnover rates reduced, the establishment would be well placed to set benchmark standards of performance and value for money.
4.12 HMP Kilmarnock serves a community in which drug misuse is high and it was not surprising to find a similar level of drug misuse in the prison population. Nevertheless, the development of a robust, strategic approach towards reducing drug use was still at an early stage at the time of our inspection.
4.13 The prison Health Centre had recently carried out some research to establish levels of drug use amongst prisoners and this had revealed that nearly three-quarters of the population were experienced drug users. Of those that claimed to use drugs, cannabis was the most popular with 80% claiming to have used it. Second most popular was heroin (64%), with 38% claiming previous intravenous use. Ecstasy, benzodiazepine and temgesic use each registered around 40%, whilst crack and amphetamine use was claimed by around 25% of those who responded to the survey. Nearly half (45%) of the respondents said that they were currently using drugs in prison, with more than one third claiming that drug use had significantly contributed to their offending. Of the sentenced prisoner population, one-third had been convicted of drug related offences. Given this range of information and an average random positive drug test rate for the establishment of 33% (see paragraph 4.20), it was clear that between one-third and one-half of the prison population were attempting to continue to use drugs inside the establishment. The drug culture, therefore, was very well established, a situation that had not been helped by the lack of implementation of a strategic approach in addressing this problem.
4.14 The Prison Drugs Strategy Group, whose members were the Medical Officer (MO), Health Centre Manager, Assistant Director (AD) Programmes, AD Residential and Senior Psychologist, was chaired by the AD Custodial Services and had been tasked with reducing the overall levels of drug use. This senior management group had met three times since their inception in January and so far, their approach had been dominated by improving measures to reduce the supply of drugs into the establishment. Demand reduction priorities included appropriate medical detoxification treatment of dependent drug users (see paragraphs 4.33-34) and the development of two residential Wings as drug free areas.
4.15 This group had made a good start but there is still much work to do and we suggest that consideration should be given to the following, as a means of enhancing its function. Firstly, the group membership was rather narrow and would benefit from the inclusion of individuals with a professional background specifically in developing drugs work; the group would also benefit from input by professional drugs workers based in the local community. We noted that the prison health care team had already established strong links with the local Community Drug Team and it could be of great mutual benefit, particularly in the area of developing throughcare, were they to be invited to contribute to the work of the group. The SPS Drugs Strategy Co-ordinator could also advise the group of the integrated approach adopted elsewhere in the SPS and about the revised drug strategy, which provides guidance on how a dynamic and cohesive approach towards drug reduction might be developed. In order to drive forward the initiatives, including the task of writing the prison drugs strategy, the establishment could learn from the approach adopted in a number of Scottish prisons and appoint a Drugs Strategy Co-ordinator.
4.16 The demand for drugs and an entrenched drug culture are constant challenges to the good order and security of any establishment. However, demand appeared to be largely satisfied and there was very little of the violence and intimidation more usually found in a prison with such high levels of drug use. There is the risk, therefore, that any success in supply reduction without a concomitant success in demand reduction may adversely affect this situation.
4.17 The prison had a range of measures in place that were designed to reduce the supply of drugs into the establishment, including a drug dog handler, with one active drug dog and one passive drug dog that had recently completed training. Whilst it was too early to see the effect of this resource, experience in other establishments has shown that the use of dedicated drug dogs can make a significant contribution to reducing the level of supply of illicit drugs – but see paragraph 6.84.
4.18 The prison also had an intelligence team of three, who were becoming increasingly effective. We suggest, however, that more could be done to improve the flow of information in order that areas of priority can be identified and acted upon appropriately
4.19 We noted that PCOs very often worked alone within the residential Wings. They said that when they suspected that drug use was taking place, it required considerable effort and time to be in a position effectively to confront it. An alternative approach has been to submit requests for suspicion tests to be carried out but as noted in paragraph 4.24, it was highly unlikely that these tests would be done. This situation does not support a pro-active approach towards challenging drug use. PCOs were generally at the periphery of efforts to challenge drug supply and appeared largely uninvolved in the work that challenged the demand for drugs. If the campaign to reduce drug use is to be successful, greater consideration should be given to how PCOs might be resourced to be more actively involved in delivering the establishment's drug strategy.
4.20 The SPS's Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT) policy requires a random sample of 10% of the prison population to be tested each month. An analysis of the results at Kilmarnock suggested an average of 33% testing positive for drug use, though the trend was downward. Given the perceived deficiencies of the procedures in identifying heroin use, this figure possibly underestimates levels of opiate misuse. Figures for the last year are shown below:-
| Month | No. of random tests | No. of random
Positives |
% positive | No. refused/
Rejected testing |
| April |
4 |
2 |
50% |
0 |
| May |
20 |
11 |
55% |
3 |
| June |
33 |
13 |
39% |
3 |
| July |
45 |
17 |
38% |
9 |
| August |
50 |
13 |
26% |
5 |
| September |
49 |
16 |
33% |
5 |
| October |
52 |
19 |
37% |
4 |
| November |
49 |
17 |
35% |
7 |
| December |
51 |
22 |
43% |
10 |
| January |
46 |
15 |
33% |
2 |
| February |
48 |
8 |
17% |
1 |
| March |
48 |
8 |
17% |
2 |
| Total |
495 |
161 |
33% |
51 |
| Monthly average |
41 |
13.5 |
33% |
4 |
4.21 For the months of April and May, the prison population had yet to reach the contracted level and so the random analysis reflects the actual level of the population. For March, 11 results were still outstanding at the time of writing this report.
4.22 The high level of drug use (33%) was similar to HMPs Perth, Aberdeen and Low Moss There was also a very high level of refusals/rejections for random drug testing.
4.23 An analysis of the positive drug test results indicates that cannabis, opiates, benzodiazepines and a mixture of at least two of these dominate. This analysis, combined with the other evidence (see paragraphs 4.13 and 4.20), suggests that the drug culture in the prison can be divided into those who use drugs occasionally and mainly recreationally - i.e. weekend only use - and dependent drug users who attempt to use as frequently as they can.
4.24 We were disappointed to note that an average of only one suspicion test per month had been carried out. Considering the drug culture within the establishment, this is a surprisingly low number and does not provide any real challenge to the prison drugs culture. Staff need to feel confident that in putting forward requests for suspicion tests, prompt action will be taken because without such confidence, they are less likely to be pro-active in challenging drug use when and where it happens. It would appear that many staff were frustrated by the perceived futility of requesting suspicion tests and were simply notifying the security intelligence team of suspected drug misuse.
4.25 Frequent testing of those who provided positive random drug tests had not been carried out until March 2000. However, a decision had been made by prison management that those who failed a random drug test would in future be tested at least twice in the following three months and the necessary support and administrative arrangements were now in place to enable this course of action.
4.26 It was clear that moves were being made in the right direction to make MDT a more dynamic part of the campaign to challenge drug use. However, there was a lack of co-ordination between those responsible for punishing positive drug results and those in the prison who provided support for behavioural change. A frequent testing programme, if it is to be supportive of change rather than simply a punitive approach towards drug users, requires a collaborative, integrated approach and we welcome its introduction.
4.27 The current presentation of collated MDT information was weak and requires attention. MDT information should contribute to the body of knowledge on drug use trends and levels, which should then inform decisions relating to strategy development and resource allocation development. Although MDT was meeting its statutory and contractual obligations, it was failing to make any impact in the prison as part of an integrated approach. Current resource allocation and a staffing level of one full-time Officer is in our view, insufficient to make full use of the range of MDT measures available. Whilst the planned increase in the number of staff trained to carry out tests is a step in the right direction, closer integration of MDT into a cohesive drugs strategy is required.
4.28 MDT is a national initiative and as such, all other Scottish prisons follow a common recording system. In terms of monitoring prison drug use across Scottish prisons, we suggest that adopting a similar approach should be considered by Kilmarnock.
4.29 A Wing in each houseblock had been designated as drug free areas for both short term and LTPs on the enhanced regime, with plans further to extend the provision for LTPs in due course. Testing kits had been purchased and time had been allocated for staff to be trained to use them. By late April 2000, when testing was scheduled to start, the prison should be in a position to operate the Wings as drug free areas. Initially, five tests per week will be undertaken in each area with the aim of testing every prisoner in each area every month in addition to random mandatory testing. It will, however, be important to ensure that consideration is given as to how these drug free areas will operate in a manner which is integrated with other elements of the prison's drug strategy.
4.30 The prison had two full-time psychologists who co-ordinated and ran a range of prisoner programmes. At the time of our inspection, three programmes were running that directly related to drug use – i.e. the basic and the advanced drug awareness courses and a newly introduced, peer education programme for remand prisoners. The courses were co-ordinated by the psychologists but the bulk of the group work was carried out by the prison's Substance Abuse Counsellor and by a Prison Custody Officer (PCO) who was currently being trained in counselling – see paragraph 4.32. The peer education course was co-delivered by two ex-drug using prisoners. The psychologist supervised the practice of the group leaders and recorded the sessions on film.
4.31 The content and delivery of the basic drugs awareness course was similar to other courses in Scottish prisons and provided a basic level of knowledge for those who attended the sessions. The content of the advanced drugs awareness course also compared well with other similar courses within the SPS and provided a challenging approach to a prisoner's drug use. This course had the potential to be directly linked to a frequent testing programme for prisoners who persistently failed MDT. The harm-reduction based, peer-led course was an excellent and innovative approach that was particularly suited towards the remand prisoners for whom it had been designed and other SPS prisons could also benefit from involving prisoners in the delivery of courses. All three courses were well organised and run regularly. A total of 66 prisoners had completed the basic course, 40 had completed the more advanced course and 34 prisoners had completed the peer-education course. This was a good start and in terms of future development, we suggest that the resource allocation should be reviewed to reflect the level of identified need. We suggest also that the training needs of the counsellors who deliver the courses should be considered.
4.32 At the time of our inspection, there was one fully trained substance abuse counsellor to meet the needs of a prison population of 500. This counsellor was part of the prison's Counselling Team – see paragraphs 6.30-35. Although the current post holder was a very committed and experienced practitioner, she faced an almost overwhelming demand for her services. This had been recognised by her supervisors in the Psychology Unit and she was supported by a PCO who, at the time of the inspection, was completing a course of counselling training. However, demand was still outstripping supply for the current level of service provision and as a consequence, the potential contribution that the counsellor could make to developing new initiatives was limited. It was expected that the development of the frequent test programme for prisoners who tested positive for drugs would present an additional demand for counselling services.
4.33 The prison offered a basic detoxification programme for prisoners with a range of substance use dependencies. In addition, prisoners (including remands) who were in the establishment for less than three months could be considered for continuation of community treatment. Save in exceptional circumstances, prisoners could only access detoxification once. Demand for opiate detoxification had risen threefold since December. Statistics for the period immediately before our inspection are as follows:-
| Detox Type |
December |
January |
February |
March (1st 3 weeks) |
| Opiates |
10 |
16 |
17 |
31 |
| Alcohol |
6 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
| Benzodiaz |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
| Benzo/Alco |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
| Drugs/Alco |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Methadone |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
| Total |
19 |
19 |
21 |
33 |
4.34 The MO had recently begun to review the prison's detoxification arrangements in light of current practice in the community. There was a high demand for counselling support from those going through the detoxification process but the qualified addictions nurse was able to provide only brief counselling support for the individuals concerned because the demands of her other duties restricted her time available. However, good detoxification practice recognises that counselling is an essential part of the treatment and given the level of demand, we suggest that it should be allocated more resources.
4.35 We concur with the widely held view that drug misuse at HMP Kilmarnock is a major challenge, which reflects the situation in the community. We commend the efforts made to establish the extent of the level of drug misuse amongst prisoners but suggest that greater use of MDT and associated data would be helpful. We would like to see more use of suspicion testing and frequent test programmes, which have been used elsewhere both to deter drug misuse and encourage prisoners to adopt and maintain a drug free life style. Steps were already being taken to do this and we note the speedy response to these suggestions.
4.36 The focus of the nascent Drug Strategy Group has been on supply reduction and whilst this is important, drug misuse can only be tackled effectively if the demand for drugs is also reduced. It was apparent that there was a number of initiatives underway to tackle drug misuse, including links with community based agencies, but they lacked the cohesion necessary for sustained progress. The establishment's drug strategy therefore requires co-ordination, with the various elements integrated to a greater degree than has yet been the case and we so recommend. The appointment of a Drug Strategy Co-ordinator has been useful elsewhere in progressing these issues and we commend the practice.
4.37 The prison operated an anti-suicide strategy termed High Risk Assessment (HRA), which had been programmed in such a way that it was in line with the SPS's ACT Strategy. The documentation used was also very similar.
4.38 An At-Risk Management Team, which was chaired by the AD Programmes, met every two months to review the overall strategy. This team also contained the Senior Psychologist, the Clinical Manager, the Chaplain, House Block Supervisors, the MO, the Senior Social Worker and the Curriculum Manager. All meetings of the Team were properly minuted.
4.39 There was a policy of initiating the HRA protocol for all prisoners on admission who had a history of self-harm, had ever previously been placed on ACT or who simply presented as a risk. All actions and observations were then dependent on which one of the three levels of risk the prisoners had been placed by staff. As well as a watch log, the system made use of a pre-printed form so that the times of observation could be marked clearly, according to the frequency required.
4.40 A list of the prisoners on watch was produced every day at 1700 hours and was sent to the Houseblocks and the Health Centre. The daily average was seven prisoners on the watch list, which also included the names of prisoners whose cases had recently been closed. The duty Head of Operations checked all open cases every day.
4.41 Prisoners could not be taken off this monitoring process until an HRA case conference had been held, which was done up to a maximum of 72 hours after the initiation of the procedure. Prisoners on watch were also interviewed immediately before any conference dealing with their case and were given the opportunity to attend the conference if they so wished – though we were advised that very few took up this offer. The decision to close a case had to be unanimous.
4.42 As well as case conferences for individual prisoners, there was an HRA group that met twice weekly to oversee the operation of the strategy in relation to the prisoners currently at risk. This group was chaired by either the psychologist or senior psychologist and consisted of the Chaplain and representatives from the counselling team, health care and the Houseblocks.
4.43 We were provided with comprehensive statistics on the working of the strategy since it had been introduced in March 1999 and these showed that in the period to 25 March 2000, a total of 248 prisoners had been placed on watch regimes. Of that total, the main reasons for initiating the HRA procedures were "actual self harm" (20%), "threat to self harm" (19%), "history of self harm" (16%) and "ACT procedure initiated within the last 6 months" (16%). The initiation of the largest number of at risk cases was by the health care team (69%) followed by PCOs (25%). The proportions of at risk prisoners in relation to the levels of watch were high risk (level 1) 6%, medium risk (level 2) 34% and low risk (level 3) 60%. Out of the total, 145 (58%) were convicted prisoners and 103 (42%) were on remand or convicted awaiting sentence. Although the average time prisoners were on observation was nine days, the majority (56%) were five days or less. It was interesting to note that there were four prisoners who had been observed for more than 50 days and one for more than 90.
4.44 We formed the opinion that the establishment had worked hard to set up a well-organised anti-suicide strategy, in line with that which operated within the SPS. The main difference was the central role undertaken by the senior psychologist, including his chairmanship of the At-Risk Management Team.
4.45 From our study of the minutes of the At-Risk Management Team meetings, it was apparent that there had been some problems in ensuring that all staff were trained and confident in the workings of the HRA strategy. We were given to understand, however, that this deficiency had now been addressed. That said, some concerns had been expressed at meetings of the Team regarding to the completion of the HRA documentation. Again, we were assured that this was being addressed. From our study of the medical records, we found only one set of documents that appeared to be deficient but this is clearly an area that requires to be monitored by the HRA team.
4.46 Our study of the Health Centre medical records containing the HRA (ACT) documentation showed that the prison had been obliged to deal with some prisoners who had posed difficult management problems. The patience and professionalism of staff was demonstrated in the way the cases we looked at had been handled.
4.47 The prison had now established a mental health team and we anticipated that this will have an impact on the anti-suicide strategy, by ensuring that the appropriate inter-professional support is provided for at risk prisoners.
4.48 There were three issues that caused us some concern. The first relates to the use of single rooms in the Health Centre for patients who posed a very low suicide risk but behaved in a very violent manner; this is discussed in more detail at paragraph 8.13. Another concern was the high proportion of those 'threatening suicide', which may indicate that some prisoners are beginning to manipulate a caring system for their own self-interest. Thirdly, we were dissatisfied with the quality of CCTV surveillance of the high risk rooms in the Health Centre and we suggest that this should be improved.
4.49 The Samaritans had become actively involved in the prison in November 1999 and since then, they had been familiarising themselves with the prison routines and gaining the confidence of prisoners with a view to setting up a Prisoner Listener Scheme.
4.50 By the time of our visit, the Scheme had been successfully established, with 18 prisoners having been trained by the Samaritans to act as listeners. The listeners work was confined to their own Houseblock, though some listeners had also been designated to work in the segregation unit.
4.51 The listeners were obliged to complete contact forms for any dealings they had with prisoners. A member of the Samaritans attended the prison on a weekly basis to meet with the listener group to review those forms and to lend support to the group's work. These meetings were minuted and each month a different prisoner was given the task of maintaining the minutes.
4.52 The local branch of the Samaritans did not have the resources to meet the prisoners' needs and therefore, this was being done by the Glasgow and Hamilton branches. It is a tribute to the dedication of the organisation that it had been able to give support to prisoners in this way. The representative of the organisation whom we interviewed was fulsome in her praise of the support that prison management had given to the project.
< Previous | Contents | Next >
The information contained on this WWW site is Crown Copyright but may be reproduced without formal permission or charge for personal or in-house use. Privacy and Content Disclaimer.
For general enquiries about this web site email ceu@scotland.gov.uk or fill out our online questionnaire.
