 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
HM Inspectorate of Prisons report HM National Induction Centre 1998 6. REGIMES 6.1 Every prisoner was allocated a Personal Officer and a meeting between the two of them was held on the day of admission. As well as providing general information on the routine within the NIC, prisoners were given a set of information leaflets and were expected to complete an Activity Sheet for the following day. Because they do not take admissions directly from the Courts, there was normally at least 48 hours notice of any arrival which meant that everything could be ready for the day the prisoner arrived. Recently, a process of interviewing prisoners before they were sent to the NIC had been introduced with the aim of giving them some advance warning of what to expect. We were told that this process had been proving quite successful but so far, it only extended to prisoners in Barlinnie and Edinburgh. Consideration was being given to extending the process to all sending establishments. 6.2 The regime in the NIC had been developed to assist prisoners to cope with the personal consequences of their offending behaviour and to prepare them for transfer to the long term prisons at Shotts, Glenochil or Perth. Until April 1997, that process had been assisted by the creation of mutually-agreed sentence plans between individual prisoners and their Personal Officers. That process had, however, now ceased and in its place the NIC was piloting, on behalf of the SPS, a Risk and Needs Assessment process. This was designed to provide a more structured and systematic understanding of each prisoner’s needs and risk and through the Personal Officer, present the prisoner with a range of specific, targeted intervention programmes aimed at addressing those needs. All Personal Officers and the majority of prisoners to whom we spoke, expressed satisfaction with the Pilot’s progress and already some early intervention work had been undertaken with prisoners as a result of the assessment process. 6.3 Positive views were also expressed about the benefits of the data being gathered which were then used by the multi-disciplinary group at their weekly Case Conferences to pool their knowledge about prisoners. Each prisoner’s case was considered at such a meeting around six weeks after admission and again before transfer, so that behavioural changes could be identified as well as any issues which might require more detailed work at the next stages of the prisoner’s sentence. That system had brought a much more structured approach to the assessment component of the NIC’s work and it appeared that it was also helping staff become even more highly skilled at observing behaviour and identifying needs. It was evident that Personal Officers were being matched to prisoners in a systematic way, with the match being based wherever possible on common ground or empathy rather than on merely cell location as is often the case in mainstream establishments. This practice was clearly paying dividends within the NIC and it is one that we commend to other establishments to consider adopting. 6.4 Formal employment opportunities did not exist in the NIC in the same way as they do in other establishments. Central to the ethos of the Activities Programme was its meaningful and varied nature and the element of choice which a prisoner had in relation to which of the activities he would participate in and from which he would gain most benefit. Participation was compulsory and as noted at paragraph 3.9, the weekday routine revolved around a flexible Programme which embraced up to four activity options on each of three separate sessions. 6.5 Refusal to participate in any activity was deemed to be a refusal to work and as such, was dealt with via the Orderly Room, though this was in fact a very rare occurrence. Category ‘A’ prisoners were treated no differently and were expected to participate fully in the Activities Programme along with the other prisoners, though normal security measures still applied - e.g. they would be escorted and the Cat ‘A’ Book would always accompany them. 6.6 The basic wage paid to every prisoner was £5 per week to which was added a £2 per week bonus for full participation in the Activities Programme. On the recommendation of an Officer and with the approval of someone at Supervisor level or higher, that bonus could be withdrawn if a prisoner was not participating fully. 6.7 The Activities Programme options included access to the NIC’s only workshed which could take up to 22 prisoners, primarily engaged in the production of craftwork for the Prison Charity Workshop or for private sales. Other activity options included a range of Health and Welfare Programmes, an Outside Work party, Education, a series of Information/Awareness Groupwork sessions and Cognitive Skills. The good quality of interactions and relationships between staff and prisoners which was evident throughout our inspection, was obviously enhanced by the flexible working approach adopted by staff. They were all involved in aspects of the Activities Programme delivery and consequently, when prisoners moved from the accommodation area to their activities, the Officers moved with them. 6.8 We were impressed by the innovative and flexible approach which was inherent in the NIC’s regime towards the delivery of the prisoners’ Activities Programme, a model which is to be commended both in terms of its general efficiency and in the way it enhanced the quality of interactions and relations between staff and prisoners. We suggest, however, that management should introduce formal systems to review, update and adjust where appropriate, the content and subject matter contained in the Information/Awareness Group sessions. 6.9 Our pre-inspection meetings with former NIC prisoners had suggested that insufficient attention was being given within the NIC to matters which specifically affected life sentence prisoners, a situation which we were able subsequently to confirm. Although there was a Lifer’s Group which met monthly, with occasional additional sessions being provided by relevant external agencies, little overall co-ordination, planning and relevant programme provision were evident in this most important area. Given that almost one third of the prisoner population was serving life sentences, we consider the early appointment of a fully trained Lifer Liaison Officer, tasked with creating and maintaining a programme relevant to the specific needs of Lifers, to be an essential requirement. 6.10 Physical Education (PE) facilities comprised a well equipped fitness room and an excellent outside area with an all-weather surface which was used for a variety of sports activities. A running track had recently been created around the perimeter of that area and weather permitting, the outside exercise yard was also used for circuit training. 6.11 A PE Instructor was not included in the complement though one member of staff, who had most of the qualifications for such a role, was considered to have responsibility for this function. In addition, six other members of staff had qualifications in a range of activities and were therefore in a position to assist. 6.12 We were impressed by the range and quality of the PE provision, but had concerns about the apparent lack of appropriate systems and monitoring procedures in the use of general fitness equipment in the gymnasium. Whilst we do not consider it necessary for there to be a full time PEI, we suggest that one staff member is given overall accountability for the provision and monitoring of procedures relating to equipment in the gymnasium. 6.13 The Education contract was provided by Motherwell College, with the Education Co-ordinator, who was based in the main prison, being supported by four teachers. Six 1½ hour sessions were being provided during the period Monday to Friday as part of the Regime Activities Programme. 6.14 The weekly programme comprised one session each of Communications (i.e. basic numeracy and literacy), History, Guitar Lessons and Philosophical Discussion and two sessions of Computing, which had recently replaced a Drama class. Class numbers varied in size but the average was around 10 with the exception of the Computing class where, because there were only two computers available, student numbers were necessarily restricted. 6.15 In common with other aspects of the regime, the Education providers suffered due to the lack of overall space within the establishment with only the Computing class having its own small dedicated area. That meant that classes had to be held in areas such as the TV room or the recreation area which resulted in regular distractions due to the normal movement of people around the establishment. 6.16 In addition to the contracted service, the NIC also bought in the services of an Arts and Craft tutor who provided a total of 14 hours per week on Monday to Thursday mornings in the workshed. There was also a metal work/silver smithing class which operated on Monday mornings for three hours. 6.17 The range and nature of the education programme on offer was, in our opinion, adequate for the needs of the NIC. However, the development of the National Risk/Needs Assessment process will in future, assist in more accurately determining aggregated educational need. 6.18 A list of the books held in the main prison library was maintained in the NIC and prisoners could place orders from that list. An additional supply of books which had either been left behind by former prisoners or donated by staff, was also available. 6.19 A part-time Social Worker post - i.e. 2.5 days per week - had been created about two years prior to our inspection and throughout that period, the post had been held by the same individual. The NIC worker was a member of the main Prison’s Social Work Team and she attended that Team’s meetings and was supervised by the Senior Social Worker. Administrative support was provided either by the Team or by the NIC’s Administrative Officer. 6.20 Accommodation was provided within the NIC with the room in which the Social Worker was located being shared with the Administrative Officer. The filing cabinets for holding prisoners’ files and other relevant papers were in the Governor’s office and in the main Prison. The interview room had a large observation panel which could be viewed easily by staff and the Social Worker had been provided with a personal alarm. 6.21 Under current procedures, all admissions were seen within one month of arrival, or earlier if circumstances so dictated, in order to assist with the Sentence Planning process and if necessary, contact would be made with outside Agencies or the prisoner’s family. This information was then shared at the multi-disciplinary Case Conferences - see paragraph 6.3. The Social Worker was also involved in supporting Personal Officers to develop their welfare contact role. 6.22 Work was also progressing towards the introduction later in the year of a Service Level Agreement for future Social Work services. As part of that process, consideration would be given to the possibility of altering the Social Worker’s existing pattern of attendance to include the Friday afternoon visits period. This would provide opportunities for more direct contact with prisoners’ families. 6.23 Over the last two years, the Social Worker had established good working relationships with staff at all levels in the establishment and it was clear that she was very much part of the multi-disciplinary approach to prisoner management. 6.24 At the time of inspection there appeared to be no demand for input from a clinical psychologist. We were advised, however, that should such a need arise, referral would be made through the Medical Officer in the main prison. 6.25 The NIC’s part-time Church of Scotland (CS) Chaplain had resigned in June 1997 and at the time of our inspection, had not been replaced though a Roman Catholic (RC) Priest, who normally provided a Mass for RC prisoners, had agreed to offer a non-denominational service each week. However, he had since undergone surgery, which meant that he was unable to attend. The consequence was that at the time of our inspection no religious services were available, a situation which contravenes Prison Rules - see also paragraph 10.8. 6.26 At the end of our inspection, we were informed that the former CS Chaplain had indicated a willingness to return shortly to the establishment. 6.27 There was no Butler Trust Committee, which meant that staff were being denied the opportunity to gain recognition for any notable contribution they might make. We suggest, therefore, that either a local Committee should be established with the remit of promoting the Scheme or the NIC might seek to gain a place on the Committee which presently exists for the main prison. 6.28 Voluntary organisations had not been visiting the establishment, but consideration was now being given to the allocation of one afternoon Activity Session per week for talks from AA representatives, Prison Fellowship, HOPE Group, etc. The aim was to have 12 such organisations assisting, which would mean that each would be visiting the establishment approximately once per quarter. (i) Visits 6.29 Visits were available every evening Monday-Thursday and in the afternoons on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Sessions lasted one hour, with a booking system in operation. Each prisoner was entitled to a visit every fortnight, though additional visits could be approved provided there was room for them. Prisoners who were free of Disciplinary Reports for two months could have an extended visit which lasted two hours and could be taken at any time outwith the normal visit period, including during the time set aside for the Activities Programme. Every prisoner was also entitled to a Family Visit as soon as possible after admission. Personal Officers made themselves available to prisoners and their families at those visits and many prisoners said they greatly valued this additional support during the initial phase of the induction process. 6.30 Two Officers were always on duty in the small visits room, which could accommodate up to six visitors at one time; a third Officer acted as escort. Two refreshment machines and a children’s play area were also provided. (ii) Family Contact Development Officer 6.31 The NIC had two Family Contact Development Officers (FCDO), one on each shift. However, we were advised that, due to the enhanced access which Personal Officers had with families and the high level of the general information service provided by the FCDOs in the main prison’s visitors’ waiting room, the role of the FCDO was considerably different from that which existed in the larger establishment. We were pleased to note, however, that noticeboards within the visits area were well maintained and that a Visitors Information Leaflet was both up-to-date and readily available. 6.32 The visits room doubled as a class-room for staff training, cognitive skills and other group work programmes. This, coupled with the fact that the existing visits room was very small, had led the Governor to bid for a new - and larger - visits room in his Strategic Plan, a proposal which we support entirely. We had concerns about security camera monitoring in the visits room and have written formally to SPS HQ with some separate suggestions. 6.33 Considerable scope also existed for the services of the FCDO role to be expanded into the provision of a family induction programme, similar to that which was available in the main prison. 6.34 Agents visits normally took place in the visiting room
of the main prison on weekday mornings. This often occurred at the same time as agents
visits for HMP Shotts prisoners but it was clear that good cooperation by staff groups was
ensuring that there was no conflict of interest. |
|
|
|