HMIP Report on HM Prison Shotts 1998

Report on HM Prison Shotts

HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland 1998

5. MAJOR CUSTODY ISSUES

Governor’s Briefing

5.1 In his briefing at the start of the inspection, the Governor referred to a range of issues, the most notable of which included:-

(i) Prisoners

5.2 Shotts contained a number of difficult individuals who could be volatile and impulsive as well as others who were more calculating and manipulative and who exerted considerable influence. The majority of prisoners, however, wanted to serve their sentence with the minimum of disruption, though some felt that Shotts was holding them back from progressing as quickly as possible since they perceived only limited incentives and opportunities for progression, both locally and service wide. The prison also held the largest number of lifers in any single Scottish establishment and these individuals presented their own range of challenges. Nevertheless, the Governor felt that prisoners were being handled in a relatively successful manner, thanks to a series of management strategies which had been established over a number of years and the efforts of an enthusiastic and flexible prison workforce. Equally, as a result of incidents which had occurred in the prison as long ago as 1993 and 1994, he felt it could still be difficult to present the establishment to the media in a positive light.

(ii) Progression System

5.3 The progression system required to be revised to reflect the changes and improvements which have been achieved over the years. To that end, a review had taken place involving consultation with representative groups of staff and prisoners and a report had been submitted for his consideration. A key issue was the use of grille gates to control movement and association within ‘A’ Hall in particular. He also spoke of plans to introduce a progression system within ‘D’ Hall, which contained prisoners who had elected to be kept separate from their peers.

(iii) Work for Prisoners

5.4 The Governor referred to the busy workshops in the prison and the fact that every prisoner had some job of work to do on a daily basis; drug-free workplaces were also on offer (see also paragraphs 6.40-42).

(iv) Health Centre

5.5 The Governor was concerned about the health centre and its ability to cope with the new SPS Standards for Healthcare and with the changing clinical demands of the prisoner population. The present site was now far too cramped and a bid for a new Centre had been included in the latest Strategic Plan (see also paragraphs 8.2-5).

(v) Incidents

5.6 Recorded incidents of violence were generally declining; for example, in the previous year there had been 12 serious prisoner on prisoner assaults (19 in 1996-97) which was comparable to similar establishments.

5.7 The last death from suicide had been in July 1989. (There had been a death in custody in November 1997 but this had been as a result of natural causes.)

(vi) Drugs

5.8 The Governor took the view that the drugs problem in Shotts was no greater than that found in other prisons, or amongst prisoners with comparable sentences. Nevertheless, he was concerned that the detoxification facilities on offer were inadequate for the need. He also thought that the introduction of in-cell TV would be an effective incentive for those testing drug free and would help to counter boredom which could lead to drug misuse, particularly at the weekend.

5.9 He was firmly of the view that the main route for drugs being smuggled into the prison was via visitors. This was despite some of the excellent Family Contact Development Officer (FCDO) initiatives with families, improved security arrangements and more recent initiatives to involve families in addictions programmes (see paragraph 6.9).

Comment

5.10 In general, we have very few comments to add to those made by the Governor. We have, however, added our findings on some of these areas in the paragraphs below.

Drugs

(i) Drug Strategy

5.11 The aims of the Drug Strategy for Shotts, which is predicated on the SPS guidance on the management of prisoners who misuse drugs, are:-

To prevent the entry of illicit drugs;
To reduce the demand for drugs by providing advice, treatment and rehabilitative programmes;
To reduce the health risks for prisoners resulting from drug misuse;
To monitor the use of illicit drugs through random and target testing;
To empower and enable prisoners to accept responsibility for their actions;
To ensure that staff have the necessary knowledge and skills to positively influence prisoners who misuse drugs; and
To provide appropriate accommodation and workplaces for prisoners who do not misuse drugs.

5.12 A local Drug Strategy Group, chaired by the Deputy Governor, had recently been set up to implement this strategy. We noted the wide and appropriate representation of the Group and were encouraged by the energy being brought to bear on their task. However, in a large, complex establishment such as Shotts, there are considerable resources available to be deployed against the threat presented by drug misuse and we consider that these resources could be co-ordinated more effectively if responsibility were to be given to a senior manager, rather than to a committee. We recommend, therefore, that a senior Manager be appointed locally to the full time post of Drugs Co-ordinator. The aim should be to carry out a role similar to that of the Drugs Co-ordinator at HMP Edinburgh and also to complement the work of the recently announced National Co-ordinator at SPS HQ level.

(ii) Mandatory Drug Testing

5.13 Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT) was introduced at Shotts in March 1997 as part of a national initiative to address more effectively the issue of drug misuse in prison. Of the 10% of prisoners selected randomly on a monthly basis, between 15% and 40% tested positively for drug misuse, with heroin accounting for almost half of those results. Analysis of those results indicated that illicit drug use was taking place in varying degrees in each of the Halls with, as might be expected, fewer prisoners in the top Hall producing positive tests.

5.14 It is understood that the majority of prisoners who tested positive smoked either heroin or cannabis. There was also evidence to support the view that a number of prisoners still chose to inject, despite repeated warnings about the serious health risks involved.

Comment

5.15 Prisoners who provide a urine sample which tested positive for drug misuse may have breached Prison Rules but as well as appearing in the Orderly Room, we believe that, in accordance with the national and local policy, such prisoners should also be interviewed by Drug Contact Officers and advised on how to get help to address their problems. This was not taking place at the time of our inspection, due partly to a planned rotation of staff within the Residential function. This, however, remained an essential element in the process and we would expect it to be re-established as quickly as possible so that MDT is seen to be more than simply a vehicle for punishing prisoners for drug misuse.

5.16 Detailed, objective management information on MDT was being routinely collected both locally and nationally but this information has not been presented in the most accessible way. We suggest, therefore, that a review should be carried out by SPS HQ in order to improve the effectiveness of the information.

(iii) Detoxification

5.17 A 14 day detoxification programme, based on lofexidine and diazepam, was being managed by health centre staff. During the period when they were engaged on this programme, prisoners were located either in one of the two detoxification cells in the health centre or in their own cell. Counselling support was offered on an ad hoc basis by Addictions Unit staff. In the 12 months prior to our inspection, 115 prisoners had started the programme and 90 had completed the course. Of that number, 48 were still in the establishment at the time of our inspection, 17 of whom had produced a negative result at their last drug test.

Comment

5.18 An informal evaluation commissioned by the Health Centre had concluded that the facilities and resources were inadequate for the scale of the problem and that the programme was not effective. We concur with those findings and recommend that the priority, facilities and resources for detoxification should more closely reflect the scale of the problem to be addressed. Additionally, we considered that the programme lacked the necessary co-ordination and multi-disciplinary approach which has been found to be essential to ensure the most effective use of relatively scarce resources.

(iv) Relapse Prevention

5.19 It is accepted that the most difficult period for drug users who make the decision to give up is not in the withdrawal stage but in the months which follow. Having been through the process of withdrawal, most former users find themselves back in the same environment in which they used to take drugs, where they face constant reminders and frequent temptations. In such circumstances, they often find themselves returning to drug use. Also, for many, taking drugs becomes a habitual way of dealing with the pressures of life; with no alternative coping strategies, they often slip back into drug use as the only method they have to make themselves feel better when things are going wrong.

5.20 Shotts had volunteered to be one of the pilot sites for the SPS’s 12 week relapse prevention programme. The first such programme had been delivered between January and April 1998 with nine prisoners from an initial intake of 10 completing the course, seven of whom tested negative at their last MDT; in May 1998, a second course had started with 10 prisoners but this had been abandoned when two of them tested positive for drug misuse and a further seven refused to be tested. At the time of our inspection, a third course was underway.

5.21 The programme followed a model known as "Relapse Prevention" and was based on techniques which had been found to be effective with people who had become psychologically and physical dependent on a substance and who had made the decision to give up. The programme had been designed to help former users who had already withdrawn from drugs to stay off them.

Comment

5.22 These pilot programmes were resource intensive, with two staff being committed full-time to preparation, record keeping and delivery for up to 15 weeks for each programme. The difficulties with the second course and the MDT statistics testify to the need to develop effective programmes to prevent lapses from becoming relapses. We recognise that prison offers some advantages in addressing drug addiction but it would be naīve to expect that there would not be setbacks and disappointments similar to those experienced in the wider community. We consider that the appointment of a local Drugs Co-ordinator – see paragraph 5.12 - would make a significant contribution to the way that drug misuse is tackled at Shotts and would reflect the priority accorded by the SPS to this issue.

(v) Addictions Group

5.23 The Addictions Group consisted of a Supervisor, four Officers and a full-time Addictions Worker whose post had been created following our last inspection. This team was responsible for the delivery of group work, counselling, basic drugs awareness, drugs and health education and staff training as well as having an involvement in the prisoners’ induction programme.

Comment

5.24 The team was well resourced and fully aware of the difficulties and dynamics of addressing drug misuse in a long term closed prison.

5.25 Whilst there was good co-operation with other colleagues in addressing some of the issues, the appointment of a Co-ordinator to draw the various resources together and enable multi-disciplinary working would bring about a much more effective and focused effort.

Prevention of Suicide

5.26 The last suicide in the prison had been July 1989 and although there had been a total of 20 attempts at self harm between February and November 1998, this was not unusual for an establishment of this size. In common with all other SPS establishments, Shotts had recently implemented the new ‘Act to Care’ (ACT) strategy. There was a Suicide Risk Management Act Group which held regular meetings under the chairmanship of the Deputy Governor.

5.27 Staff training had been undertaken as part of the ACT Strategy but at the time of our inspection this had not been completed throughout the prison, though we understand that the training programme was continuing. That said, staff in critical areas of the prison - for example, those working with vulnerable prisoners - had been fully trained and one of the social workers was running a coping skills programme for vulnerable prisoners.

5.28 The Suicide Risk Management Act Group continued to monitor the progress of the implementation of the ACT Strategy and as part of that process, it had undertaken an audit to measure the progress of the implementation of the Strategy. In general terms, the results of the audit that were made available to us showed that the Strategy was well on its way to being fully implemented. Deficiencies such as the absence of a Prisoner Listener Scheme and the failure to invite prisoners to case conferences had been identified. The Listener Scheme was, however, dependent on the Samaritans being able to undertake training and so far they had not had the resources to do this.

5.29 One of the other key issues related to the absence of anti-ligature cells within the prison. Similarly, there was no day care unit though we were advised that such a facility would be established along with the formation of a mental health team, which was to include a full time mental health nurse.

5.30 An audit of the crash packs within the establishment had also been carried out and specific procedures relating to their checking and use had been put in place. In addition, a Care Charter relating to the prevention of suicide had been published for general distribution and display – a copy of this charter is contained at Annex 3.

Comment

5.31 In our view, Shotts had introduced the ACT Strategy in a most effective and humane way. It had identified those areas of the Strategy where the implementation had been deficient or where improvements required to be made and plans had been drawn up to address these areas. In addition, a policy to deal with the needs of vulnerable prisoners, including anti-bullying measures, had been introduced. The establishment of the mental health team and the introduction of a day care unit should add further impetus to the good work which has already been undertaken. However, we suggest that when resources allow, the Prison should have its own anti-ligature cells rather than having to rely on NIC facilities.