 |
 |
| Publications |
| Home | Press | Publications | What We Do | Who We Are | Search | Site Map | Contacts | Links | ||||
|
|
|||
| > What We Do > Justice > HMIP |
< Previous | Contents | Next >
6.1 The design of this facility assisted in creating an appropriate environment for this important element of the prison routine. The use of holding rooms, compared to the more traditional single cubicles, also reduced the tension and noise, whilst cameras in each of these rooms added to the security and good order in this area.
6.2 A variety of pertinent information was provided by means of an information pack that included 'Reception Information for New Prisoners' and a copy of the Prisoners' Handbook. In addition, a video display in one of the holding rooms ensured that on admission, prisoners were provided with a comprehensive range of information. There was the capability also to provide this information in other languages for those from ethnic backgrounds who had difficulty in understanding English.
6.3 All admissions were interviewed by an Officer and a nurse within the privacy of purpose-built interview rooms. Relevant warrant information and personal details were recorded on the Prisoners' Records System (PRS) within SPIN, with this information also being recorded on Kilmarnock's own Prisoner Data System. All admissions were credited with a £3 advance of wages, which ensured that they had the opportunity to access the telephone.
6.4 Prisoners were provided with adequate clean clothing, which was of a high standard. Personal clothing was secured in cardboard boxes and held in a storage area above the main reception. This area appeared to be sufficient in size for the numbers within the prison and was well managed by staff. We were advised of plans to introduce a system of volumetric control.
6.5 Although a prisoner was working within the reception area, he only carried out domestic duties and had no access to property or warrants, which were held in a lock-fast cabinet. For those prisoners who required to be fed in the reception, the proximity of the kitchen ensured that meals were provided as necessary, without the need for any purpose-built facility within the reception area.
6.6 Overall, we were extremely impressed with the reception facilities. The relaxed atmosphere and the absence of tension assisted in presenting a non-threatening environment to prisoners on their initial admission into prison. The atmosphere appeared totally conducive to assisting an individual who was coming into prison for the first time and staff displayed a helpful attitude at all times.
6.7 We did, however, observe two practices that breached Prison Rules. Firstly, the area for searching admissions was exposed to the view of other prisoners as it was directly opposite the showers and no modesty screen was available. The glass partitions also afforded a clear view of the searching area, which was visible to prisoners as they moved from the holding rooms into the interview rooms. Secondly, it was brought to our attention that few prisoners took a shower on admission and on one of our visits to this area, we noted that the showers had not been used. These issues require to be addressed.
6.8 A 10 day induction programme was available to all mainstream, sentenced prisoners serving 29 days or more. For those sentenced to less than 29 days, a shorter programme, focussing to a greater extent on employment in the prison, was in the final stages of development. An amended induction programme was also being developed for those prisoners who required to be kept separate from the mainstream. Similarly, a two day induction process for remand prisoners was being finalised at the time of our inspection. Copies of the various induction programmes are contained at Annex 3.
6.9 The main programme covered a two-week period and was made up of a variety of elements. The first two days were taken up with reception and medical checks. Days 3 and 4 comprised briefings from a range of service providers, with the prisoner also being provided with information covering the main aspects of his stay at Kilmarnock. This element of the programme was co-ordinated by the Induction Officer, with a number of functional areas involved in its delivery. These included the Chaplains, Health Care staff, the Controller, Physical Education (PE) staff, Sentence Planning Officers and Visits staff, with the Induction Officer filling in if any area was unable to attend. This part of the programme covered all the main elements of prison life in Kilmarnock and whilst the Induction Officer was confident that this was manageable, we were concerned that there was a lot of information being passed to prisoners in a relatively short period of time. The remainder of the induction programme was held in the workplace.
6.10 A central part of the induction process was the completion of a range of risk/needs assessments, including education achievement and psychometric testing to identify issues including impulsivity, anger, depression and addictions. This formed the basis of the individual's sentence plan and the documentation was included in the prisoner's Sentence Planning folder.
6.11 At the end of the induction process, a Sentence Planning Board, made up of the Sentence Planning Manager, the Curriculum Manager, Psychologist, Residential Manager, Industries Supervisor and the individual prisoner was held. The purpose of this Board was to allocate prisoners to work and to agree their sentence plan – i.e. what should be achieved during the part of the prisoner's sentence that was spent in Kilmarnock.
6.12 The organisation of the Induction programme was the responsibility of one Officer. He was a very enthusiastic individual who was keen to provide an appropriate programme and had obviously built up a high degree of expertise. There were plans to introduce two relief Officers to carry out the programme in his absence and this is something that we regard as a positive development.
6.13 Although mainstream induction covered a two-week period, we were concerned about the flow of information to prisoners in the first four days and their capacity to cope with it all at such a time. We suggest, therefore, that this aspect of the programme should be reviewed, taking account of the feedback from prisoners. We also encourage the speedy introduction of induction programmes for remand and protection prisoners.
6.14 We were interested to note that the Induction Officer had introduced a Benefits Agency letter. Using this, prisoners only had to fill in personal details before posting in order to claim outstanding benefits that might be due to them. This was a simple but effective idea and is one that we commend to other establishments to consider introducing.
6.15 The establishment was required to provide sentence plans for all prisoner types, to ensure that they were all able to access services through a structured approach. Responsibility for this rested with a Sentence Planning Manager, who had been in post for approximately six months and who operated with a staff of four Sentence Planning Officers. These posts were advertised for PCOs working in the establishment, with the main duties being the administration of the Sentence Planning paperwork and reviews and undertaking welfare requests for prisoners. It had been intended that these Officers would also provide cover for staff on the Wings to allow them to undertake their personal officer duties but due to the existing workload, this had yet to happen.
6.16 For the majority of convicted prisoners, the signing off of the sentence plan took place during the induction period and was carried out at the Sentence Planning Board – see paragraph 6.11. However, we noted that the sentence plans were not consistently filled in nor did they contain targets agreed with the prisoners and typically contained only the prisoner's work allocation and/or educational provision. At the time of our inspection, they were held in a filing cabinet in the Amenities building rather than being located where personal officers and prisoners could have easy access, though a number of improvements to this arrangement were being considered.
6.17 The administration of the six-monthly reviews appeared to be effective in calling up the appropriate prisoners, sending the paperwork out to the Personal Officers and then progressing the return of the forms. The actual review process took the form of progress sheets being filled in by both the Officer and the prisoner, which were then discussed and signed by both individuals. However, staff had not yet received training in the role of a Personal Officer and had only been issued with a guidance pack the week prior to our inspection. We suggest, therefore, that appropriate staff training should be provided.
6.18 In addition, there was typically limited information contained in the prisoner's sentence plan, with the result that the objectives, which were being agreed at the review, were based mainly on the knowledge and motivation of individual members of staff and prisoners. The review papers were then placed in the prisoner's sentence planning file but from a sample of records that were checked, did not appear to initiate any follow-up or action plan at this stage. In essence, this meant that these activities were not fully integrated and opportunities for professionals to work collaboratively to the benefit of the prisoner were limited.
6.19 The prisoner database for tracking prisoners' progress was maintained and any information on the activities in which prisoners were participating was regularly updated. However, the actual outcomes of the activities were not included, nor were Personal Officers to whom we spoke aware that they could access this information when carrying out reviews.
6.20 There was a requirement whenever possible to involve the families of prisoners in this whole process but the structure of the current system did not encourage this. However, this shortcoming had been recognised and proposals to address it had been drawn up.
6.21 As regards remand prisoners, the opportunities available to them were to be outlined in their Custody Plans. However, we could find no evidence of such plans nor did there appear to be many opportunities that remand prisoners could access. Whilst this situation is no different to that found in remand facilities elsewhere in the SPS, our expectations had been raised that at least some inroads were being made into this aspect of prisoner management and it was something of a disappointment to discover that it had not taken place. We suggest, therefore, that this issue be addressed as a matter of priority.
6.22 There was recognition that there were gaps in the current Sentence Management structure and we were pleased to note that proposals for change were actively under consideration. Whilst this was commendable, we suggest that the issue regarding the integration and delivery of services should be pursued as a matter of priority so that prisoners' offending behaviour can be appropriately challenged through an effective sentence and development plan.
6.23 It had also been recognised that persuading prisoners, especially LTPs, to progress to other SPS establishments would present a number of challenges, given the considerable advantages enjoyed by prisoners at Kilmarnock compared to other mainstream SPS prisons. However, issues about progression will need to be addressed by SPS HQ and we recommend that it should be considered at the earliest opportunity.
6.24 The development and delivery of offending behaviour programmes was the responsibility of the Psychology Department. This was led by a Senior Psychologist who was supported by a team of five staff, one of whom was also a Psychologist, the remainder being counsellors – see paragraphs 6.30-35.
6.25 The programmes had been designed and developed by the team and it was clear that a lot of hard work and effort, particularly on the part of the team leader, had gone in to establishing the range of programmes available. There were eight programmes covering elements such as Problem Solving, Skills Training, Advanced and Basic Drug Awareness and Anger Management and the courses were normally held in Education Unit, which provided very good facilities. A Risk/Needs assessment was carried out either during Induction or prior to the prisoner starting a programme. This assessment was complemented by a semi-structured interview to assess the individual's need for the programme concerned. Prisoners could either be listed for programmes as an outcome of the induction process or they could self-refer during their sentence through the request procedure.
6.26 The courses ran almost continuously and most were delivered on a sessional basis over an 8-12 week period. There were waiting lists for the Problem Solving and Anger Management courses, which meant that selection for participation was often determined by parole qualifying or liberation dates. An evaluation process for the programmes was in place and the Anger Management and Problem Solving courses were being presented for accreditation, with the drug programmes to follow in due course.
6.27 Delivery of the programmes was targeted mainly at, though not restricted to, LTPs. For example, short-termers were able to access programmes if they were motivated to do so and were serving a long enough sentence. (Where appropriate, they were also able to obtain one to one assistance.) There were, however, no programmes specifically designed for the short-term prisoner group and no plans to introduce them. In addition, prisoners who were on protection were only able to access a programme when there were sufficient numbers to run a group. They were also restricted to Monday afternoon sessions.
6.28 The only programme available to remand prisoners was the peer-led Drugs Programme, which lasted for one session – see paragraphs 4.30-31. There was an obligation to provide other types of programmes, not all of which would come under the remit of the Psychology Department, but there was no evidence that these were yet available.
6.29 The range and access to programmes for LTPs had been the main focus for the Senior Psychologist and this was evident from the delivery and completion of programmes. We were pleased to find that programmes for this group were being delivered consistently on a rolling basis and that in the main, demand was being met. However, as regards short-termers and remand prisoners, much still needed to be done in order to provide the short, high impact programmes that their length of stay requires. Much more needs to be done for these prisoner groups in the next phase of programme development.
6.30 There was a Counselling Team that comprised the Senior Psychologist, the Psychologist and four trained Counsellors, who provided general counselling support as well as specialist support in addressing addictions. The team members came from various counselling backgrounds and this afforded an eclectic viewpoint to their work. We were advised that on a date yet to be arranged, the team would be joining up with the Registered Mental Nurses (RMNs), with that new group then being known as Prisoner Support Services.
6.31 The Team had been instrumental in establishing some groupwork – see paragraphs 6.24-29. Staff and prisoners to whom we spoke all valued the work that the Counselling Team undertook and it was regarded as being a major source of support for all concerned. There was a waiting list for prisoners to be seen by the counsellors but the aim of the team was to offer a client an appointment within one working week for what was basically an assessment interview. After that first appointment, however, the client could wait a few weeks for ongoing work.
6.32 Office accommodation for the team was shared with social work staff and was very cramped, with no area where the team could meet comfortably as a group away from their desks. When seeing prisoners, the team members used either the general purpose interview room in the Wing or a triage room but neither of these facilities was entirely appropriate. Similarly, we did not consider that the visits room was the ideal location for the 'couples work' that the team also undertook. We trust, therefore, that our suggestion for better interviewing facilities - see paragraph 6.40 - will be taken forward.
6.33 Each member of the Counselling Team was involved in weekly individual management/therapeutic supervision with the Senior Psychologist in addition to which, one member of the team also received individual external supervision that was paid for by the prison. Immediately after our inspection, a system of peer supervision was to be introduced.
6.34 In overall terms, we were impressed with the counselling set up within the prison as a distinct effort to address the needs of the prisoners. However, these services were under pressure to meet a growing demand and we suggest that if legitimate demand continues, options should be explored for increasing resources in this area. In other prisons, prisoners' counselling needs can only be addressed in a limited way by Social Workers, Chaplains or outside agencies who often have limited access. In addition, these bodies do not always have the skills base and/or the time adequately to enter into a counselling relationship with the client.
6.35 Whilst we were very satisfied with the supervision opportunities for the team, we were also of the opinion that they would benefit from time-out/days away from the prison, in order to further more team building and to explore further training needs and opportunities. We considered also that there would be benefit in examining more innovative and pro-active ways of working as a multi-disciplinary team. At present, there is no formal set up whereby Social Workers, Counsellors, Chaplains and Nurses come together at any level.
6.36 The Social Work Unit was managed by a senior social worker and staffed by two social workers and an administrative worker. One of the workers had been in post since the establishment opened and of the others, there had been one change during the latter part of the year. The team members appeared to have settled well and were obviously committed to delivering a high standard of service. However, the main unsettling factor was the restriction on the existing services caused by the level of resourcing that had been set by PPS.
6.37 Accommodation for the Unit was in the Amenities Building, which also housed the gymnasium and the other service providers, such as Psychology and Sentence Management. The office accommodation for the senior social worker was very small and cramped with no access to a window for fresh air or natural light. The remainder of the team shared an office with the counselling staff. Again, this resulted in very cramped accommodation and there was only one window, which looked on to the gymnasium and these unpleasant working conditions were often exacerbated by the noise of those participating in the PE programme.
6.38 The cover provided to the prison was on the basis of duty appointments that each social worker carried out in turn. However, the level of service that the team was able to provide was limited and because of staffing levels and the team's statutory commitments, the normal waiting time to see a social worker was three days. That said, a system was in place to ensure that priority cases were seen immediately. The remainder of the work carried out was based on meeting statutory requirements – e.g. parole reports, non-parole licences and supervised release orders.
6.39 The social work team was not, however, involved in group work or programme delivery. Similarly, there were other areas where there would normally be a social work role but the demands placed on them meant that there was not the capacity to deliver – e.g. induction, work with families, pre-release (excluding statutory cases), sentence planning and only limited involvement in suicide risk management. This obviously restricted the work of the team and was a source of concern both in terms of job satisfaction and professional development opportunities. It was a concern that we shared.
6.40 The bulk of the work that the team did undertake was carried out on the Wings, originally in the Wing interview rooms. However, following an incident that had given rise to concerns about personal safety, combined with a general lack of privacy, they now used the triage rooms for the purpose of interviewing prisoners. These were, however, obviously designed for medical purposes and did not provide an entirely appropriate environment. We suggest, therefore, that there should be a review of the accommodation arrangements for social work interviews.
6.41 Relationships with prison management were said to be good, with regular informal meetings with the AD Programmes. However, the issue surrounding the resourcing of the unit and consequently the services that could be delivered, meant that the Service Level Agreement had not yet been signed-off. This was being dealt with by East Ayrshire Social Work Services and PPS at a senior managerial level but the lack of resolution meant that there was no agreed management plan to give direction. In addition, the team members were not integrated with other service providers in delivering services to prisoners. The senior social worker had only recently started attending meetings of the Equal Opportunities and the At Risk Management Committees, with his input to the latter being severely restricted by the lack of social work resources available for prisoners at risk. In overall terms, therefore, there did not appear to be many opportunities for integration, even if the resources had been available.
6.42 The division of roles in relation to welfare tasks appeared to be clear but consistency could be affected by the Sentence Planning Officers' requirement at times to fulfil other duties, such as escorting. These Officers had received training in welfare issues and also sought advice from the social work team. Social workers were able to re-direct cases that had inappropriately arrived with them and there appeared to be a sound structure in place.
6.43 The senior social worker had developed an IT programme to log and track the work of the Unit. This was used by all team members and was effective in ensuring that up-to-date information was always on hand. We noted that other prison social work teams were considering introducing that same system.
6.44 The social work team appeared to be committed and positive about the contribution they could make in delivering services to prisoners. However, this was tempered by the issue of resourcing and the focus of the Unit on statutory work. This was obviously impacting on staff morale, as well as restricting the provision of integrated services to prisoners. We recommend, therefore, that there should be a review of the entire work of the unit, including staffing resources, in order to ensure effective social work input.
6.45 The Labour Allocation Board (LAB) met weekly to allocate prisoners to work parties on completion of their induction programme. Membership of the LAB consisted of representatives from sentence planning, industries, education and where appropriate, psychology.
6.46 Prisoners were allocated to a work party normally for a minimum of three months, after which time they could apply for such vacancies as might exist. Vacancy notices, which included job descriptions, selection criteria and wages, were posted on notice boards in the residential areas.
6.47 As noted at paragraph 6.8, prisoners serving sentences of more than 29 days attended a two-week induction period during which security and intelligence information was gathered to inform the labour allocation process. Prisoners serving less than 29 days were given a shorter induction programme by staff in the residential areas and then allocated to a job vacancy.
6.48 We were satisfied that the labour allocation process appeared to be working satisfactorily.
6.49 Employment at Kilmarnock was provided by commercial industries, vocational training (VT) and the service sector, which included domestic and catering services.
6.50 The Industries and Commercial Enterprises Manager was responsible to the AD Programmes and operated Kilmarnock Enterprises, which had been established as an independent business unit to secure sufficient contracts to occupy and pay 275 prisoners. Initially, it had been the intention to establish partnership working whereby local companies would provide employment, plant and skills training for prisoners, with the prison providing the workshop facilities and labour force. However, this had not proved to be viable and the commercial enterprises element had now changed its role and was operating increasingly successfully as a jobbing contractor. Accredited skills training had also been provided by a local company.
6.51 This element of prisoners' employment opportunities included wood assembly, metal fabrication, electrical assembly and rope manufacturing, as well the prison laundry and the packaging and figurine-painting work parties. Semi-autonomous, self-managing prisoner teams had been formed in the metal fabrication parties, following accredited training to enable them to exercise greater personal and collective responsibility for achieving production and quality targets. Both LTPs and short-termers were employed in the enhanced work parties, where the wages for those who achieved production and quality standards were significantly higher than elsewhere in the SPS. The average weekly wage was in the region of £18.50. The lowest production wage was £12 for prisoners undergoing training in the workshop, rising to £15 per week on satisfactory completion of training and subject to meeting team production and quality targets, with the potential for team leaders to earn between £35 and £45 per week. On the other hand, we were told that prisoners who did not work did not get paid.
6.52 Certificated training was provided on a diverse range of subjects, including industrial cleaning, horticulture, upholstery, information technology, computer-aided design and catering.
6.53 Prisoners employed in the residential areas as passmen on general cleaning and domestic duties, as well as the usual range of prisoners employed in education, gymnasium, Health Centre and catering, made up about 20% of the total prisoner population.
6.54 The majority of work parties in the commercial industries area were generally busy, purposeful places where production and quality targets were being achieved. A quality assurance system was in place and work was being taken forward to achieve ISO 9002 accreditation. It was evident, however, that not all the prisoners in the work parties were fully employed and a surprisingly high number of prisoners were being retained in the residential areas pending interview or other regime activity.
6.55 Staff deployed to the worksheds were not Instructors nor were they necessarily qualified tradesmen. This may account in part for some slippage in health and safety (H & S) and other standards, which we brought to the attention of the Industries and Commercial Enterprises Manager and about which we have written to the Director.
6.56 We were disappointed to note that apart from domestic cleaning duties in the remand Wing, there was no work available for remand prisoners. Given the amount of time that remand prisoners spend out of their cells, compared to the overwhelming majority of remand prisoners elsewhere in the SPS, we were of the opinion that they could quickly become bored and subsequently engage in some form of unacceptable diversion. We suggest, therefore, that greater efforts should be made to provide work opportunities for remand prisoners.
6.57 We suggest also that CCTV surveillance of the industrial area should be extended.
6.58 Staffing in the gymnasium comprised a Supervisor and four Instructors and the shift pattern that was in operation enabled the facility to be open on Monday and Thursday from 0815 to 2130 hours, on Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday from 0815 to 2030 hours, Saturday from 0900 to 1200 hours and Sunday from 1330 to 1700 hours.
6.59 The facilities consisted of three separate areas. Firstly, there was a large and well equipped gymnasium. It contained four badminton courts, basketball nets and a 5-a-side football pitch and was suitable for a range of other activities. Secondly, there was a fitness area that contained an excellent range of modern items of equipment. Finally, there was an outside grassed, floodlit football pitch. In addition to these areas, there was a staff office, a storage area and changing/shower facilities.
6.60 Specific sessions were programmed for all groups of prisoners, including those in work parties. The number of evening sessions in which a prisoner could participate depended on whether he was on the basic, standard or enhanced regime and we noted that someone who was on the enhanced regime and who was in a work party could participate for up to nine hours per week. We were disappointed to note the low take-up amongst the remand population, a situation that the PE staff put down to the physical condition of many of the individuals concerned, mainly brought about by their drug-taking activity prior to admission.
6.61 Prisoners could participate in programmed activities that led to certification. Many of these were locally produced courses but nationally recognised certification was also available. At the time of our inspection, verification for those courses had to be done through Kilmarnock College but the PE staff were in the process of achieving the qualifications necessary to enable them to undertake that verification process.
6.62 The gymnasium facilities were also available to staff at certain times of the day and fitness testing programmes could be provided by the PE staff - this was also available to the prisoner population. Staff use of the facilities was quite high though we noted that because of the shift patterns in operation within the establishment, not all staff were able to take advantage of this access.
6.63 In general terms, we were impressed with the PE facility and in particular, by the enthusiasm and commitment of the staff. We were also very satisfied with the amount of access to PE that was available to the prisoner population and the fact that they had the opportunity to participate in certificated programmes.
6.64 Although the gymnasium itself was an excellent facility, we were disappointed with the other activity areas. The fitness room was popular with prisoners but was very small for the number of items that it contained and was often very crowded. In addition to creating a rather unpleasant environment, there was also the possibility of some H & S hazards. Attempts were being made to improve this situation by utilising some of the space in the storage area that was adjacent to this room but that was only going to bring about some very limited benefit. We suggest, therefore, that consideration should be given to a complete re-appraisal of this facility with a view to identifying ways of enlarging the area available for this activity, including the possibility of a building extension into the area adjacent to the outdoor football pitch.
6.65 We were also disappointed with the state of the outdoor football pitch, which suffered from poor drainage and what appeared to be sub-standard soil conditions. Attempts to improve this area had left the pitch rutted in parts and combined with the poor drainage, this meant that the pitch was not being used as often as it should have been. In addition to these problems, a large drain cover at one end of the field meant that the pitch had had to be shortened to such an extent that it was not of regulation size to enable the prison football team to join the local amateur league. We suggest, therefore, that if the problems with the pitch surface cannot quickly be resolved, consideration should be given to converting it to an all-weather surface which, given the presence of floodlights, would enable the facility to be used to maximum benefit.
6.66 The Education Unit was based in a purpose-built building that was pleasantly decorated and well furnished. The unit was well equipped, with up-to-date computers and software and had adequate resources for all subjects taught. The room that was used for creative arts was, however, relatively small and its furnishings and equipment limited the activities that could be taught.
6.67 A Curriculum Manager supervised the work of the Unit, along with VT, PE and the library. Good links had been established with managers in the prison and with Kilmarnock College. Four full-time members of staff were employed by the prison authorities and provided most of the teaching. Four part-time members of staff from the College, who provided specialist teaching, supplemented these members of staff. Staff from the prison were able to attend staff development sessions at the College and the College had been a useful source of advice and assistance in setting up the Unit.
6.68 The curriculum offered students basic education – i.e. classes in Communication, Numeracy and Information Technology – and options such as Scottish History, Art and Design, Multi-crafts, Geography, Drama, Upholstery, Calligraphy and Health Education. Students were able to study full-time programmes in either Basic Education or Information Technology. Opportunities for part-time students and for those who were on protection or on remand were much more restricted, partly because of the decision to run classes for four hours in the morning and three hours in the afternoon. Although this was administratively convenient, it resulted in lessons that were fully not effective because they were too long. There were no courses of interest to more able students. In addition, there was no programme of personal and social education, though one was being developed by a member of staff. Almost all classes were uncertificated because approval had not yet been obtained from SQA.
6.69 Although staff/student relations were good, teaching was sometimes unimaginative, with students too often spending a great deal of time completing worksheets. Staff often used board games to break up the long lessons and maintain the interest of their students but these games did not always relate to the subject being taught. Teachers sometimes did not take the opportunities provided by lessons to explore personal and social issues and more attention could have been consciously paid to designing and using opportunities for building up student self-esteem and confidence.
6.70 Education at the prison had some strengths but it also had significant weaknesses. The resources, including staff attitudes, were good but the curriculum and the ways in which it was delivered did not fully meet the needs of the students. We suggest, therefore, that the following action needs to be taken.
6.70.1 Personal development planning should be introduced to ensure that the curriculum offered meets the needs of students.
6.70.2 The choice of classes available to protection prisoners, part-time students and more able prisoners should be increased.
6.70.3 The range of teaching techniques used should be widened to provide greater interest and better opportunities in all subjects for personal and social development.
6.70.4 The time allocated to the morning sessions should be reduced to improve the quality of the student experience.
6.71 The prison library was situated in the Education Unit and all prisoners were able to exchange books at least twice in the week. The annual book budget was £5,500 and the library was staffed by a full-time librarian and a library assistant. Accommodation was good and provided a very pleasant environment. There was a wide range of books, many of which were recreational, though there were also adequate books available to support the curriculum. Prisoners had not borrowed a large number of the books that had been purchased initially and the new librarian was trying to increase the stock of popular books. A video library, financed by prisoners, had been introduced and was proving to be popular.
6.72 Overall, the quality of service offered by the library to prisoners was good. However, there was no effective monitoring or analysis of prisoner participation or of books selected. We suggest, therefore, that the librarian should analyse participation and the relative popularity of books borrowed and select books to maximise participation.
6.73 A purpose-built Chaplaincy Centre, which consisted of areas for worship, meetings and office provision, was located in the centre of the prison. The Chaplaincy team comprised a full time Church of Scotland Chaplain and part-time Roman Catholic and Episcopalian Ministers, supported by a number of lay visitors representing the dominant religious groups within the prison population. The team adopted an ecumenical approach in responding to the spiritual and welfare needs of all prisoners, irrespective of their religious beliefs. The Centre also provided for any prisoner from an ethnic minority background and was knowledgeable and resourced to meet all their particular needs.
6.74 The integrated team approach was extended to other aspects of prisoner management, with involvement in case conferences for those at risk of self-harm and supporting family contact. The provision of a full-time Chaplain assisted in the Chaplaincy being more involved in the day to day management of the prison and ensured continuity within the whole team.
6.75 A wide range of services was provided by the team, including Bible classes, meditation groups and an Alpha Course, which allowed prisoners the opportunity to explore personal issues affecting their lives. The Centre also provided facilities for external organisations such as the Hope Group and Prison Fellowship, which encouraged visitors to attend and join in worship with the prisoners. All these activities were supported and encouraged by local management and much of the success of the Centre had been attributed to this support and by the co-operation of everyone who worked within the prison.
6.76 We were encouraged by the dedication and good work carried out by the Chaplaincy team in many aspects of the life of both prisoners and staff. The team provided a source of support not only for prisoners but also for their families and friends. The Centre was seen as an integral part of prison life and a great source of comfort and benefit to those who made use of it.
6.77 The visits facilities consisted of an external Visitor Centre opposite the main Gate, a separate entrance to the prison and the visits building adjacent to the Gate, which provided a waiting area, the main visits room, the closed visits area and the agents visits facility.
6.78 The Visitor Centre had a reception desk where visitors were processed, an area for handing in property, toilets for male, female and disabled visitors, a baby changing facility and an external children's play area. There were also seats, lockers to retain personal items securely, a payphone with information provided on a telephone helpline for visitors and various leaflets, including a visitors' handbook that contained information about the prison and the visiting arrangements.
6.79 On arrival in this area, all visitors had to go through an identification process that involved a video image and a fingerprint scan. This ensured accurate identification of everyone entering the prison, as well as monitoring the time taken from arrival to entry to the visits area, which is one of a range of performance measures. All hand luggage was required to be left in the lockers before the visitors moved into the prison. Here their identification was checked again before they passed through security measures, which included an airport-style metal detector, a passive drug detection dog and a random rubdown search.
6.80 The main visits area was accessed through a further small waiting area, which had seating as well as appropriate toilet facilities. The visit room was bright and spacious, with seating for 36 visits per session and a small but well stocked canteen run by the WRVS. A children's play area was located at one end of the room and there were plans to cordon this area off and staff it with WRVS volunteers. There were separate holding areas for prisoners awaiting visits and for those that had completed a visit, with a searching facility and two holding cells. Supervision in the visits room was provided by an appropriate number of staff and CCTV surveillance. On completion of their visits, prisoners were randomly selected for a strip search prior to returning to the accommodation areas. We noted that on occasion, prisoners disregarded with impunity notices about remaining seated during visits and approached the visits Supervisor to voice complaints.
6.81 The closed visits area had four booths, with the same number of open booths being available for solicitors and social workers. All these facilities were accessed via a door in the visits room but we were concerned to note that there was not constant supervision in this area and the door into the main visits room was closed when staff were not in attendance.
6.82 Visiting times for remand prisoners were 1330-1630 weekdays and 1100-1230 at weekends, with the system operating on a rolling rather than a sessional basis. Booking was not required and visits normally lasted 45 minutes. Convicted prisoners' visits took place between 1845 and 2115 on Fridays and 1330 - 1730 or 1900 - 2130 on Saturdays and Sundays and were arranged on a booking system, either by telephoning to book in the evenings or by filling in an application form. A confirmation slip was issued the following day and 24 hours notice was all that was generally required. (This confirmation slip also contained information about the conditions attached to the visit arrangements.) Visit sessions lasted one hour, though a two hour visit could be booked Convicted prisoners on the enhanced regime were also given access to six spaces for each of the afternoon sessions from Wednesday to Friday.
6.83 We were generally satisfied with the way that the visits system operated and there seemed to be no problems about prisoners receiving their entitlement. There was a very good WRVS canteen and we were pleased to learn about the proposed improvements to the children's play area. That said, we noted that the visits room was rarely used to its full capacity and we suggest, therefore, that consideration should be given as to how this area could be more fully utilised. We suggest also that the problem about noise levels in the visits room should be addressed.
6.84 The visitors' entrance vestibule became extremely congested when busy and we suggest, therefore, that further consideration be given to the location of the passive drug dog in order to gain maximum benefit.
6.85 Our main concern, however, was about the lack of permanent supervision in the closed visits and agents visits facilities. We suggest, therefore, that the staffing arrangements for these areas should be reviewed.
6.86 As is our practice, we extended an invitation to meet prisoners' visitors to discuss any aspects of the visit arrangements. No one took up our formal invitation but we did take the opportunity to speak to some visitors on an informal basis. We received no complaints about the visit arrangements.
6.87 A Family Contact Officer (FCO) had been appointed but he undertook those duties around his permanent post of Reception Officer, which meant that there was no formal facility time or support structure in place. That said, the Officer concerned was clearly enthusiastic about this role and had submitted ideas for improvement to the appropriate AD. In addition, the Visits Supervisor was designating a member of the visits staff as duty FCO on a daily basis, though this scheme was still in its infancy at the time of inspection. With appropriate management support and more emphasis on training and development, the commitment and approach of staff would easily lend itself to the delivery of an effective service to prisoners' families.
6.88 The Lifer Liaison Officer (LLO) was an Operations Manager who had held the position for approximately three months at the time of our inspection. He had not received any training since taking up those duties but had brought the experience of having been Deputy LLO at HMP Shotts. He had also linked up with one of the ADs, who had similar previous experience of the LLO role.
6.89 The LLO had established systems for Lifers to be able to contact him, as well as a Lifers group – though this was still in its infancy. He had responsibility for completion of Preliminary Review Committee reports, which was one of the early stages in the process of considering the release of lifers on licence. Any requests for information were also channelled through him.
6.90 The current post holder was obviously clear about the requirements for this role and much of the groundwork to put systems in place was being done. However, he was about to leave PPS and there was some concern over how Lifer issues would be taken forward. We suggest, therefore, that with any new appointment, the current work is carried forward and supported by management.
6.91 We met with two representatives of AA, which held two meetings each week in the establishment - one for mainstream prisoners and one specifically for prisoners on protection. The representatives spoke very highly of the support they received from staff of all grades in the prison and confirmed that they had no problems about getting access for the evening meetings. Attendance at their meetings was very good, with about 12 mainstream prisoners attending and around 10 from 'G' Wing and they were currently in the process of building up a pool of names who could be called on to run the meetings. In addition to offering meetings to prisoners, the organisation also offered a throughcare arrangement, which included picking prisoners up at the Gate on their day of release and introducing them to AA members in their home areas.
6.92 The one minor problem that was identified was the occasional late delivery of prisoners, which meant that meeting start times could be as late as 2000 hours. We have, therefore, written to the Director suggesting that steps should be taken to try to ensure that prisoners attending a meeting can be delivered on time.
< 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.
