Reception

6.1 Staffing in the Reception consisted of two Officers on each of the two main shifts. Assistance was provided by four prisoners and we were satisfied that they were not involved with cash, warrants or any other confidential documents and that their personal belongings were kept separate from those of other prisoners.

6.2 Accommodation consisted of a large open area, a holding room, 22 changing cubicles, a medical room, a small laundry, a prison clothing store and a store for prisoners’ personal clothing. There were adequate toilet and shower facilities for prisoners on admission but facilities for storing small articles, such as radios or holdalls, were limited.

6.3 The whole area was very clean with no signs of graffiti in any of the cubicles or in the holding room, with notices providing necessary information for prisoners on admission being on display in both locations. In the holding room, some of the notices about admission arrangements were in a number of foreign languages.

6.4 On average, the Reception processed 15 admissions a day with HMP Barlinnie being the main supplier. Photographs and finger prints were taken where necessary and a Nurse Practitioner normally carried out an examination in the medical room on the day of admission; on the following day, prisoners were seen by the Medical Officer (MO).

6.5 When prisoners could not be processed before it was time to go to the dining hall, meals were provided in the Reception. These were supplied in heated containers from the kitchen to where all utensils were returned for cleaning after use.

Comment

6.6 The Reception appeared to be well managed by competent and enthusiastic staff. There were restrictions on the amount of storage space available for prisoners’ clothing, but we understand that local management did have plans to extend the area in question.

6.7 We were told that some of the prisoners who were transferred from HMP Barlinnie were serving sentences that were so short that they were being liberated the following day. In the interests of general efficiency, therefore, we suggest that arrangements should be made to ensure that prisoners with very few days left to serve on their sentence are not transferred to Low Moss.

Induction and Labour Allocation Board

6.8 All admissions were initially accommodated in Dormitory 1, which had places for 21 prisoners in addition to the two resident passmen. The induction procedure was loosely based around a two-day programme but it was not unusual for prisoners’ participation in the process to be terminated early by the need to create space in the dormitory in order to accommodate new admissions.

6.9 The first day’s procedures were administered by the Residential Induction Officer, with prisoners being actively encouraged to participate in the process. This included reading the SPS Prisoners Information Pack, which contained a local information section. We noted, however, that some of that information was out-of-date and we suggest that local management should review and upgrade the contents, including details of how prisoners can access the Prison Rules. We were pleased to note that all admissions were given access to the canteen on the day of their arrival.

6.10 The second day commenced with a medical examination by the MO which was carried out in the Induction Dormitory Office (see paragraph 8.11). Prisoners were then interviewed individually by the Labour Allocation Board (LAB) which was chaired by the Residential Induction Officer with the membership including a Social Worker, a Chaplain, the Security Unit Officer and an Industrial Supervisor. The LAB met daily Monday to Friday but we were concerned to be told that there were occasions when the only regular attendees were the Residential Induction Officer, the Social Worker and the Chaplain and that there was no system in place to ensure that a nominated deputy attended when a member was unavailable.

6.11 The afternoon of the second day was spent watching videos on HIV/AIDS education or HMP Castle Huntly prior to moving to the dormitory of allocation. Although prisoners were informed of the names of their Dormitory Officers, there was no formal and personalised system of transfer to the mainstream dormitories.

Comment

6.12 Although we were impressed by the dedication and commitment of the Residential Induction Officers, the present system was largely based on the former traditional model of Induction which, in our opinion, did not maximise prisoner choice and involvement and did not systematically assist in identifying the individual and aggregated risk/needs of the prisoner population (paragraphs 6.17-6.19). Given the short-term nature of the Low Moss prisoner population, we urge local management to commence a review of the present Induction system and to include in this review the aim of introducing a coherent risk/needs assessment methodology. Such a revised scheme would require to be supported by the parallel introduction of a Personal Officer Scheme for all prisoners and some form of Sentence Planning Scheme, which would perhaps initially target prisoners serving sentences of six months or over. We understand that the implementation of a Personal Officer Scheme is a Strategic Initiative within the establishment’s 1998-99 Strategic Plan and therefore we strongly support and welcome this initiative.

6.13 As an interim measure until such time as a revised scheme is in place, we suggest that the present system could be improved by formalising the structure within the two-day programme to ensure the daily attendance of key participants at the LAB, which should be chaired by a designated Regimes Supervisor. We also suggest that suitable personalised arrangements for the transfer of prisoners to the mainstream Dormitories of allocation should be introduced.

6.14 On a more general issue, we suggest that, in order to ensure that all prisoners gain full advantage of the two-day Induction process, consideration should be given only to admitting at any one time the requisite number of prisoners to match the places available.

Offending Behaviour Programmes

6.15 Overall responsibility for Prisoner Programmes rested with the Programmes/Activities Manager. At the time of our inspection, all Programmes, with the exception of Cognitive Skills and the Alba House programme, had been suspended in recognition of the fact that there was a need to develop a systematic process for assessing risk/need to ensure that the Programmes were properly developed and targeted.

6.16 For the Programmes that were being delivered, there were two Cognitive Skill Officers/Coaches whilst six Officers worked in Alba House. All of those Officers were deployed full time on Programmes and were managed from within the Residential functional group. In addition to those Programmes, the Social Work Unit had until recently, also been delivering programmes (see paragraph 6.39). A number of Officers had been trained to assist in aspects of those programmes but core duty commitments had prevented the development of their involvement to any significant extent.

Comment

6.17 Local management fully recognised that Prisoner Programmes at Low Moss had not been needs led and consequently, they had been developed and delivered on an ad hoc basis. We, therefore, support the move towards developing a system for assessing prisoner needs and risk, which should ensure that available resources are maximised for their most effective purpose.

6.18 Consistent with the proposal relating to the development of the establishment’s Drug Support Programme (see paragraph 5.22), we suggest that all Prisoner Programmes, including Cognitive Skills and Alba House, should come under the control of the Programmes/Activities Manager.

6.19 From our discussions with staff, it was evident that their understanding of the concept of Prisoner Programmes was restricted and that in general, their commitment was minimal. Residential Officers should become the primary source through which Prisoner Programmes are delivered with Social Workers or external agencies providing specialist support, where appropriate. As well as meeting the requirements of SPS policy, we believe that this arrangement would further enhance the Officers’ role, increase their commitment to Programmes and further enhance relationships between staff and prisoners.

Industries

6.20 Industries were managed by the Programmes/Activities Manager who was supported by three Supervisors and 15 Officers.

6.21 Along with a variety of service-related jobs in Catering, Reception and general cleaning duties, a daily average of almost 240 prisoners were employed in five main work parties as follows:-

• Textiles: Employing an average of 80 prisoners who at the time of our inspection were completing three contracts to make Root Control Bags, Post Office Mail Bags and Overalls.

• Joiners: A daily average of 38 prisoners were employed on contracts for the supply of garden sheds and other garden products.

• Saw Shop: An average of 22 prisoners were employed daily in preparing wood for construction within the Joiners.

• Salvage: This Party employed an average of 80 prisoners serving five different companies who supplied shipping cable which was then stripped to produce a monthly output of approximately 15 tonnes of mostly aluminium.

• Gardens: On average, up to 18 prisoners were employed in the Gardens and Market Gardens area maintaining the grounds in and around the prison and producing vegetables for use in the prison kitchen.

Comment

6.22 Although prisoner numbers were very high in the Textiles work party, the workshop itself was well laid out and organised and there was ample work for all the prisoners employed there. In the Salvage workshop, numbers fluctuated markedly and though they appeared on occasion to be excessive, the static nature of the work and the lack of machinery made it a workshop which was a useful resource for the employment of prisoners serving very short sentences or those with a very low skills base.

Physical Education

6.23 The staffing complement for the gymnasium comprised three Physical Education Instructors (PEI) who operated on a day and late shift basis which normally enabled the gymnasium to be open from 0800 to 2030 hours on weekdays and from 0800 to 1200 hours at weekends. Under that arrangement, the PEI on back shift would cover the weekend but at the time of our inspection, one member of staff had been on sick leave for a number of weeks which meant that the weekend programme had been cancelled. There were two Discipline Officers in the establishment who were trained Games Officers and who at one time had been used to help with weekend cover. However, in recent times neither had been available because they had been required for other duties.

6.24 The gymnasium was in a converted dormitory and had been opened in 1991. Adjacent to that facility, there was a very well equipped weights/fitness area but from a security point of view, the only time both areas could be used was when two PEIs were on duty. However, a programme was in place which ensured that every prisoner in the establishment had adequate opportunities to attend PE on a regular basis and the average class size was between 25 and 30. An extensive range of activities was available and had been designed to meet the needs of the age groups and the varied interests of the prisoner population, with PE staff being available to assess prisoners’ level of fitness before they embarked on any exercise routine. A booklet outlining the facilities and activities on offer was made available to all prisoners.

6.25 In addition to the indoor facilities, there was an outdoor football field. However, because it was outwith the perimeter fence, certain security precautions/checks had to be satisfied before prisoners were allowed to participate. When outdoor football was taking place, two members of staff were always in attendance.

6.26 There were no shower facilities for prisoners at the gymnasium which meant that they had to return to the dormitories at the end of each session. However, apart from training shoes, prisoners were not allowed to wear their own PE kit which meant that they had to undress before leaving the gymnasium. PE kits were laundered using a washing machine located in the gymnasium complex and a small supply of training shoes was available for those prisoners who did not have their own.

6.27 There had been some delays with regard to the introduction of a risk assessment procedure for the use of PE equipment but one of the PEIs had attended an appropriate course just prior to our inspection and the process was about to begin. All the PEIs were also undertaking training with a view to becoming Assessors for the purpose of offering related SCOTVEC modules to prisoners.

Comment

6.28 We were impressed with the programme of activities currently on offer and given the restraints on space within the accommodation area, the gymnasium seemed to be adequate for the needs of the establishment. Our main concern was that at the time of our inspection, a staffing shortage meant that no weekend programme was available. Given that the weekend regime was restricted and that during that period classes would normally attract attendances of between 25 and 30, this was a significant loss of a valued opportunity for prisoners. We therefore urge local management to review the staffing position in order to provide prisoners with consistent access to a weekend PE programme.

6.29 We were rather surprised to learn that the line manager for the PE staff was the Supervisor in the Textiles workshed. Given the normal day-to-day activities in which the individual in question had to be involved, he rarely had the opportunity to visit the gymnasium. We suggest, therefore, that consideration should be given to brigading the PE function under a Manager whose objectives rely upon a quality PE programme.

6.30 As regards the practice whereby prisoners had to undress before leaving the gymnasium, clearly this is a far from satisfactory situation. However, given the size and location of the gymnasium, we acknowledge that without a major injection of funds in order to provide substantial changing/showering facilities, the present arrangement is currently the only option.

Education

6.31 After a period of instability at the end of the previous contract, the education service was settling into a new arrangement. At the time of our inspection, the situation was that education was being provided on a short-term contract by Education Lecturing Services, a private agency whose Scottish base is in Stirling. The present contract provided one full-time lecturer who offered a programme of basic skills comprising Literacy, Numeracy and Personal and Social Development. At the time of the inspection, Drama was the only additional curricular element on offer, though plans were well advanced for the inclusion of Computing.

6.32 The Education Unit was adequately housed in one large teaching room which also contained a storage cupboard and consideration was being given to introducing room dividers in order to provide more flexibility of use. Resources, which were mainly in the form of textual materials, were adequate to support the current curriculum. The courses on offer were popular and fully subscribed with students being allocated to their courses through the induction process. Courses were organised on a modular basis and were compatible with the arrangements of the Scottish Qualifications Agency, which normally enabled students to complete their courses even though they were serving short-term sentences.

6.33 The current contract with Education Lecturing Services was subject to review and this should provide an opportunity to extend the range of the curriculum to include computing and creative and aesthetic activities - eg, art and music. The staffing system used by the contract provider created the opportunity for considerable staffing flexibility and therefore for extending the range of the curriculum.

Comment

6.34 In overall terms, management of the service was competent and the size and scale of the operation facilitated good communications between prison management, the education unit and the contractor. The level of service was adequate as were the resources to support the courses on offer but we suggest that the whole system needs to be better organised to ensure that students know what the courses are and where they are to be found. There is also a need to extend the range of the curriculum and to introduce a system of assessment, accreditation and certification. The modular structure of courses already in place should facilitate and open the way for entry into the systems of the Scottish Qualifications Agency and this would give the students the opportunity of participating in a national system of transferable credits. The renewal of the contract also creates the possibility for extending the range and flexibility of the education programme, including the possibility of evening and weekend classes, thereby improving the quality of the education service.

Library

6.35 The library provision at Low Moss was of a very poor quality. It was housed in a small cupboard and comprised a range of old fiction paperbacks with no evidence of any active usage of this facility. We suggest, therefore, that there should be a major review of the service with the aim of encouraging prisoner participation.

Social Work

6.36 The Social Work Unit was located in a pre-fabricated building where the staff had the use of two offices, with a third room being allocated to the Chaplaincy team. The Unit was staffed by a full-time Team Manager who had been in post for 11 years and one full-time basic grade Social Worker who had been six years in post. Both were employed by East Dunbartonshire Social Services Department. Additionally, a Specialist Group Worker who was employed by a Christian Charity, worked a total of three days per week and had been in post for three years. Clerical support was provided on a 50% basis by the establishment’s Typist/Administrative Officer.

6.37 External line management was provided by the Criminal Justice Services Manager for East Dunbartonshire, who was based at Kirkintilloch, whilst the establishment line management was provided by the Finance, Services and Contracts (FSC) Manager. The Team Manager attended the establishment’s Heads of Department meeting which met monthly and he was also a member of the Health Care Policy Group. Levels and scope of service were monitored and reviewed through the Social Work Annual Management Plan at bi-annual meetings, which were also attended by the Criminal Justice Services Manager.

6.38 Current Social Work delivery was based on a traditional prison welfare model with caseloads shared between the Team Manager and the Social Worker. Services delivered included interviewing first time admissions to the establishment following their attendance at the LAB, liaison with Alba House, voluntary after-care liaison and liaison with external voluntary and statutory agencies and prisoners’ families. The Social Worker also held a once weekly Alcohol Discussion Group, at which the average attendance was between six and eight.

6.39 With the exception of the Alcohol Discussion Group, the Social Work involvement in the delivery of Prisoner Programmes had been temporarily suspended at the time of our Inspection but had previously covered four areas - viz, Anger Management, Offending Behaviour, Car Crime and Drug Education (see paragraph 6.15). Subsequently, the Specialist Group Worker had been employed as a Consultant and Coach to selected Residential Officers on groupwork and programme delivery development and reported directly to the Programmes/Activities Manager. The Team Manager had also provided training to Residential Officers regarding the undertaking of basic welfare tasks but there were mixed views from staff and prisoners as to how effectively this was working.

Comment

6.40 In our view, the Social Work staff continued to provide a good standard of practice and service delivery within the traditional model. However, there were significant gaps in provision, particularly in the area of pre-release preparation and courses to ensure that this critical phase was managed effectively.

6.41 Within Low Moss, the statutory basis for continued Local Authority Social Work involvement as outlined in the National Standards for Throughcare (1997) is limited to work in connection with Supervised Release Orders for prisoners serving sentences of 18 months. The future requirement for a prison-based Local Authority Social Work presence will, therefore, have to be weighted against the extension of the Residential Officer role within prisoner programmes and the possible benefits of purchasing services from other external specialist providers. However, the forthcoming development of a Service Level Agreement should facilitate the focused delivery of appropriate Social Work services.

Chaplains

6.42 The Chaplaincy team consisted of three Church of Scotland (C of S) Ministers and two Roman Catholic (RC) Priests, with the latter being assisted by a Sister of that Church. There were currently two vacancies, one for each of the denominations, and the total contracted hours were 25 and 20 respectively. The Chaplaincy team had their office accommodation within the building they shared with the Social Work Unit.

6.43 Services for both denominations were held simultaneously at 0900 hours each Sunday in the Chapel and the Education Unit, with the venues for each denomination being rotated on a monthly basis. An inter-denominational Bible Class was held on a Monday afternoon in the Chapel and was led by either a member of the Prison Fellowship or a Chaplain on an agreed rota basis.

6.44 The Chaplains had representation on the LAB and interviewed all prisoners serving their first sentence at Low Moss. Arrangements for the religious needs of ethnic minority prisoners were met through appropriate liaison with their community-based representatives and the Chaplaincy Team had regular contact with prisoners in Alba House.

6.45 The Senior Chaplain represented the team at the monthly Heads of Department meeting and reported to the FSC Manager. The team enjoyed positive working relationships with their Social Work colleagues and with staff at all levels throughout the establishment. That said, the team operated to a traditional, prison-based Chaplaincy model and felt themselves somewhat marginalised within the overall Strategic direction and regime service provision of the establishment.

Comment

6.46 Although we were satisfied that the religious needs of the establishment were being met, we suggest that there should be a review of the Chaplaincy role with a view to increasing their representation and involvement in relevant areas.

Alcoholics Anonymous

6.47 Representatives of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) had been visiting the establishment for 16 years and held meetings every Monday evening, at which the attendance could vary from about six to over 20. There was a total of nine sponsors who attended on a rota basis with two attending each meeting and bringing with them a maximum of two speakers. Meetings, at which a member of staff was always present, were held in the Chapel and prisoners learned of the service on offer through posters on display in the establishment and by being informed at the induction stage. In addition to the formal meetings, a one-to-one counselling service was available and such meetings took place during the working day. The sponsors met on a monthly basis to discuss the Low Moss prisoners and to determine how further help could be provided for individuals - e.g. offering to collect them on liberation or passing them on to AA groups in their local area after they were released.

6.48 Members of the organisation also visited Alba House on a regular basis to give talks but on those occasions, they attended as individuals and not formally as representatives of AA. Excellent relationships had been established over the years with management and staff at all levels and no major difficulties were drawn to our attention.

Family Contact

(i) Visits

6.49 The visits room was located near the main gate and was a reasonably sized location, able to accommodate comfortably up to 26 open visits. A separate small closed visits facility was located off the main visits area. Visits took place in sessions of one hour on weekday afternoons between Monday and Thursday and on evenings between Monday and Friday; in addition, there were four 30 minute sessions on both Saturday and Sunday. However, the maximum number of visits permitted at each of those three periods differed due to limitations on staff availability. Visits from Legal Agents and Social Workers normally took place on weekdays between 1000 and 1130 hours and again between 1330 and 1530 hours in designated rooms in the visitors’ waiting area.

6.50 Random strip searches of prisoners took place after visits in a customised area ideally located adjacent to the closed visits area and we were satisfied with the numbers and method of selection on each occasion.

6.51 Attempts had been made to improve the quality of the environment within the visits room by introducing furniture conducive to that purpose. However, some of the potential benefits had by necessity been diluted because the seating had to be arranged in straight lines, with visitors on one side and prisoners on the other, in order to accommodate the limited scope of the outdated CCTV cameras. Smoking and food consumption were not permitted in the area and consequently no refreshment facilities were available during visits for either prisoners or visitors.

6.52 A small children’s play area was located in the corner of the room and was equipped with a small table and chairs, TV and video and chalk board facilities for drawing. Toy Box provided a valuable service for children on Saturday afternoons and supplemented the children’s equipment with soft toys which, at other times, were retained in a locked cupboard in the visits room.

6.53 The visitors’ waiting area was located in the Gate Complex but was barely adequate. The room was too small for the numbers often required to wait there and the facilities were, at best, basic. There were basic toilet and washing facilities for men and women, though the female toilet did also have baby changing facilities. An effort had been made to make the area more presentable by placing murals on the walls and providing appropriate notices for visitors. Unfortunately, the merits of those efforts were being undermined by the inadequacy of the area which barely achieved its primary purpose. With the exception of a cold drinks machine, refreshments were only available in the area at weekends under a service provided by the WRVS. Nevertheless, this extremely limited service was highly valued by visitors.

6.54 Although a Family Contact Development Officer (FCDO) operated between the visits room and the waiting area, we were concerned to note that no formal supervision of visitors took place whilst they were in the waiting room.

(ii) Prisoners Visitors

6.55 Prior to our arrival, the Governor had published a notice extending an invitation to visitors to speak with members of the Inspectorate team but no one had indicated such a desire. Nevertheless, we took the opportunity to speak to some visitors on an informal basis and they indicated their general satisfaction with the visiting arrangements but expressed concerns about the lack of access to refreshments in both the waiting area and the visits room.

(iii) Family Contact Development Officer

6.56 The role of the FCDO was shared by three Officers on a part time basis, with one being available at most of the visits sessions. One of the Agent’s/Social Work visit rooms in the visitors’ waiting area had been designated for use by the FCDOs but neither they nor the visitors considered that to be a suitable arrangement.

6.57 The basic principles inherent within the recognised FCDO role were being performed in that they were helping visitors with Assisted Prison Visit Applications and general enquiries, as well as ensuring the availability of essential information. However, no formal communication channels were evident which would have enhanced team effectiveness amongst the FCDO team. Also, though management appeared to be committed to the delivery of an FCDO service for visitors, there was little evidence of ownership on their part to the extent that FCDOs felt supported in the role.

Comment

6.58 The clear commitment from staff and management to provide an enhanced visiting environment was being constrained by the rigidity of the seating arrangements which had been organised to accommodate the limitations of outdated CCTV equipment. We believe that security would be enhanced and the visits room environment improved significantly, if the CCTV equipment in that area was upgraded in accordance with the establishment’s related Strategic bid.

6.59 The lack of any refreshment provision for visitors and prisoners in the visits room and on weekdays for visitors in the waiting room was, in our opinion, unreasonable. Several maximum security establishments have vending machines in both their visits and waiting areas and we suggest that security at Low Moss would not be undermined by following their example. In addition, the potential exists for some of the profits accumulated from such an initiative to be used to enhance visits related facilities.

6.60 We had some concerns about the lack of supervision of visitors in the waiting area which, in our view, presented a risk to security. In the absence of staff resources being available, we suggest the installation of a CCTV camera in the visitors’ waiting area.

6.61 Other than on Saturday afternoons when Toy Box were present, the facilities available for children in the visits room were at best limited. FCDOs should, therefore, be encouraged to consider options for extending the facilities provided for young children.

6.62 We suggest that the role of the FCDOs should be formalised to the extent that they report to the Manager who has overall responsibility for delivering the visits service and that regular meetings should take place between both parties to support and enhance the delivery of that service.

6.63 Despite the very obvious constraints that existed in relation to available space, consideration should be given to ways in which the environment in the visitors waiting area could be improved. The FCDO to whom we spoke had a number of commendable ideas but no budget or authority to implement them. The development of the FCDO’s Job Description to include responsibility for recommending improvements to visit related areas, supported by the allocation of funds generated from refreshment sales, would in our opinion greatly assist management in this area.