Report on HM Prison Shotts

HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland 1998

6. REGIMES

Reception

6.1 The Reception area was appropriately located off the prison’s sterile area; it was staffed by two Officers on both staff divisions, including weekends. The Operations Manager, who also held delegated budgetary responsibility for this function, had line management responsibilities.

6.2 As the establishment did not receive direct admissions from the Courts and because liberations were relatively infrequent, the reception workload was light and usually predictable. In addition to receiving admissions to the main establishment, the Reception area also processed prisoners who were going to the NIC and HM Unit Shotts. SPS Operating Standards in relation to reception procedures were generally being met and staff had received full training in the ACT procedures. We did note, however, that there was evidence that notification of the admission of ethnic minority prisoners to the Ethnic Minorities Liaison Officer (EMLO) did not always occur within the laid down 48 hour timescale – see paragraphs 11.14-18.

6.3 Although having sufficient total floor capacity to carry out the main duties, the area was poorly laid out. There were 14 changing cubicles, although only 12 of these were regularly used for holding and changing purposes and we were concerned to note that a fairly large quantity of confiscated property, including some dating back a considerable period, was being held in the other two cubicles. Showering, bathing and toilet facilities were adequate.

6.4 The general waiting area for prisoners contained a small TV and a few chairs but these were in poor condition. In addition, this room was only rarely being used for its intended purpose, its main function appearing to be the storage of property for the following days movements. Adjoining this room was a small archives area which contained a photocopier and racking which was being used to store dead files, dating back up to 10 years. This area also contained an overflow of larger items of prisoners’ property which were not allowed in use.

6.5 We were concerned that the Nursing Room, which was located beside the Reception office, was also being used as a storage facility. This room was so cluttered that nursing staff and prisoners had to climb over boxes to gain access to the area.

6.6 The reception office contained a safe for the temporary storage of cash and valuables and a SPIN computer with two printers, one of which was used to update Prisoners’ Cash Books for ‘A’ Hall and the Segregation Unit. Adjoining this room was the staff toilet/shower area, the staff kitchen, a prisoners’ kit store and a utility room, which included a washing machine for laundering small articles. The main clothing store, which had a total storage capacity for 520 prisoners, was well laid out and had benefited from the recent introduction of lightweight, numbered boxes. Arrangements for handcuff storage, photography, finger printing and emergency hospital kit were all satisfactory and notices to prisoners regarding searching procedures, clothing on escorts and their responsibility for their property in use were clearly displayed.

Comment

6.7 Although this area delivered a generally satisfactory service, particularly in terms of the standard reception procedures, we were disappointed by the drab décor, the cluttered nature and poor lay out of key parts of the facility. Although all arrivals would have previously experienced admission procedures at other establishments, we felt that the present arrangements lacked privacy, were impersonal and did not positively promote the maximum exchange of communication between staff and prisoners. Suggestions for improvement are therefore offered below:-

6.7.1 There should be a review of the Reception layout and decoration;

6.7.2 Items of confiscated property should be disposed of in accordance with SPS policy;

6.7.3 There should be a critical review of the amount of prisoners’ property held in the Reception with any surplus items being sent out; and

6.7.4 Alternative arrangements should be made for storing prisoners’ property to be handed out at visits so that the Nursing station is available for use.

Induction

6.8 All admissions to the establishment were scheduled to arrive on the Thursday of each week and the Induction Programme began the following Monday. With the exception of ‘D’ Hall (see paragraph 6.13), this programme was of three weeks duration and this intensive and detailed programme (see Annex 4) included inputs from specialist staff and where appropriate, took place in the relevant area.

6.9 A particularly innovative session on the subject of visits took place in the visits area and was conducted by one of the FCDOs. This session could be attended by members of the prisoner’s immediate family and included a slide presentation, whilst information about MDT, security and addiction outlined positive ways in which the family might wish to provide support to the prisoner.

6.10 The Sentence Management/Induction Co-ordinator and staff were based in a large office located off the ‘A’ Hall link corridor. The office contained one stand-alone and two SPIN computers which were used to collate statistical information about risk/needs assessment and details on those attending the programmes. The Induction classroom was located off the same corridor and was well equipped with relevant equipment and training aids.

6.11 The Co-ordinator had been in post since the creation of that post in February 1996 and worked weekday main shifts; relief cover was provided from within the Programmes Staff Group. We noted, however, that the present job description was that of a generic Regimes Officer and suggest that it should be re-written to describe the specific duties of this post.

Comment

6.12 We are pleased to acknowledge the positive approach of involving families more closely at the early stages of sentence and commend it as a practice which other establishments ought to consider implementing – at least for those prisoners with medium or long term sentences. We were also pleased to note that the Induction programme included an evaluation of its effectiveness, including feedback from prisoners and critical assessments from those who delivered programme elements. We believe, however, that there are a number of improvements that could be easily introduced to help Shotts maintain its position at the front of the field.

6.13 Firstly, we noted that protection prisoners in ‘D’ Hall were only being offered a basic two day Induction programme compared to the three week programme that was available to other prisoners in the establishment. We were told that there were plans to offer ‘D’ Hall prisoners a similarly intensive programme and urge its implementation as soon as possible.

6.14 The main sending establishments were HMPs Barlinnie and Edinburgh and the NIC but there were also long term Young Offenders from HMYOIs Dumfries and Polmont who transferred to prison on reaching the age of 21. Space availability was projected one week ahead from the waiting lists submitted by these establishments. As demand for places exceeded supply, the general principle which applied was to take admissions in turn from Barlinnie and Edinburgh. We were concerned to note, however, that this somewhat arbitrary system failed to take account of the length of time – sometimes up to two years – that LTPs at Barlinnie might have to wait before being allocated a place at Shotts. Additionally, we were concerned that there was no national guidance or co-ordination of the allocation of LTPs to mainstream Prisons other than from the NIC. We are aware that this matter is currently under consideration by SPS Area Directors but urge its earliest resolution.

6.15 We also suggest that, given the predictability of liberations and transfers from Shotts, forward projections of space availability could be extended well beyond the present one week horizon. In our view, this would improve planning and preparation of transfers from sending establishments.

6.16 As noted earlier in this report, with the exception of protection prisoners who were located in ‘D’ Hall, all admissions were accommodated in ‘A’ Hall. This meant, however, that they were located in sections already containing some prisoners who were reluctant participants in the Induction/Sentence Management process as well as those who had been downgraded or had been returned to Shotts from top end facilities or open conditions. We were concerned that this arrangement did not best facilitate the critical settling-in process and unnecessarily risked negative contamination by the disaffected prisoner sub-culture. Accordingly, we recommend the creation of a separate Induction section within one of the residential Halls.

6.17 Finally, we suggest that there should be regular contact between the Programmes Supervisor and his NIC equivalent to enable pre-transfer planning and preparation to take place.

Sentence Planning/Management

6.18 Sentence Management currently being piloted at Shotts and two other establishments (HMP Perth and the NIC), was a development on the theme which seeks to provide prisoners with a structured assessment of their needs and the opportunity to meet these needs during their sentence. It attempted to meet that aim by providing a vehicle for prisoners’ personal development, thereby encouraging them to address their offending behaviour in order to use their time in custody constructively, to prepare for release and to reduce the risk of re-offending following release.

6.19 Details of the Sentence Management process are at Annex 5. The initial phases of the pilot – i.e. Background Information Check and Risk/Needs Assessment – had been under development at the establishment since April 1998 and were to run from October 1998 to March 1999 to inform the Action Planning and Programme stages. The Background Information Check took place during the Induction programme and included an educational assessment and psychometric testing, the results of which were forwarded to the Programmes Supervisor and the Psychology Theme Leader for consideration. At the time of our inspection, 90 prisoners had completed that part of the process with no refusals to participate.

Comment

6.20 Sentence Management is an ongoing process of identifying needs and achievements; developing realistic action plans with prisoners to address these; reviewing progress and adjusting plans as required. We were pleased to note, therefore, that to assist in that process, all forms generated would be contained within each prisoner’s portfolio and Record of Achievement which will move with them through the system and will be retained for future reference should they be returned to Prison. We were also impressed by the initial commitment to the new system by management and prisoners alike, though it was too early to make any formal appraisal.

6.21 We were disappointed to note the lack of monthly updates in a considerable number of Sentence Planning folders and the absence of systems for formal monitoring/auditing by the appropriate Managers and suggest that these issues be addressed.

Risk/Needs Assessment

6.22 As noted at paragraph 6.19, Shotts had been piloting the national risk/needs assessment procedures since April 1998 and to inform that assessment, the Background Information Check was completed during the Induction programme. The risk/needs assessment was the next stage in the Sentence Management process and was undertaken in the three month period following Induction. This was a joint exercise involving the prisoners and specially trained teams of Personal Officers – i.e. four from each Residential Hall.

Comment

6.23 We acknowledge that significant effort had gone into this pilot project. The active participation of all admissions to the establishment since its introduction seven months prior to our inspection was a positive indicator of its relevance, as was the commitment being shown by both staff and prisoners.

6.24 Although we were pleased to note that four staff in each Hall had been specially trained in the risk/needs assessment process, we had some concerns that this was not sufficient fully to meet the demand given that there had been some delays in completing the assessments. We trust, therefore, that additional staff will receive appropriate training as soon as resources permit.

Prisoner Programmes

6.25 Prisoner programme policy was directed by the Programme Strategy Group. This was chaired by the Deputy Governor and met quarterly, though overall responsibility for the delivery of prisoner programmes lay with the Regimes Manager. Daily responsibility for delivery was further delegated to the Programmes Supervisor. The Programmes Team comprised the Sentence Management/Induction Co-ordinator, four Addictions Officers and five Officers delivering SPS Programmes and assisting with the delivery of local multi-disciplinary programmes/groups.

6.26 The Addictions Team was based in the former VT complex and delivered a range of drug support interventions (see paragraphs 5.23-25). In addition, they ran an Alcohol Education programme which lasted three weeks and was based on a harm reduction model. There was a total of six sessions with a maximum of ten prisoners per course. Further alcohol support services were provided by Alcoholics Anonymous who ran a weekly self-help group.

6.27 The Programmes Team delivered two SPS Programmes – viz, Cognitive Skills and Anger Management - in addition to the pilot Drugs Relapse Prevention (see paragraphs 5.19-22) and were currently meeting local and national targets. The Programmes Supervisor had carried out evaluations of these programmes which had shown that there had been a positive change in prisoner behaviour, though the evaluation process had been hindered by the lack of nationally agreed qualitative performance indicators. We suggest that such indicators be developed to enable objective evaluations to be carried out.

6.28 At the time of our inspection, the Programmes Team and the Social Work Unit had delivered a revised Pre-Release programme for a small number of ‘D’ Hall prisoners, the first such programme to be delivered for some time. A review of that course was underway, the intention being to deliver a rolling series of such programmes for all liberations. It was estimated that there were on average some 100 liberations annually and to meet this need would require the delivery of ten courses a year. The Programmes Supervisor was currently preparing a bid to Scottish Enterprise for funding under the Gateway Continuing Education scheme with the aim of expanding the course content, thus improving its relevance and effectiveness.

6.29 The Social Work Unit delivered a Coping Strategies programme of 10 weeks duration which dealt specifically with people contemplating suicide or self harm. This programme played an important part in the establishment’s overall Suicide Prevention Strategy and was believed to have contributed to the establishment’s low incidence figures.

6.30 Additionally, the Social Work Team, supported by a Residential Officer, led a Lifers Group in ‘D’ Hall. A similar group had also run sporadically in ‘C’ Hall but was not running at the time of our inspection. During the course of our inspection, a number of lifers spoke to us about the value to them of such a Group. Given the fact that Shotts was currently holding the highest number of lifers in any establishment (108 – i.e. 18.6% of the SPS total) and that these individuals were dispersed throughout all the residential Halls, we suggest that senior management should consider setting up similar groups in every Hall (see also paragraph 6.64).

6.31 The Programmes Supervisor had responsibility for the delivery of an effective timetabling system which would permit each prisoner’s day to be properly allocated to work and programme activity based on risk/needs assessment. Unfortunately, this laudable objective had largely stalled due, we were told, to the introduction of the workshop efficiency scheme, leading to the management of spaces rather than the management of individual timetables. We suggest, therefore, that there should be a comprehensive review of regime delivery in order to ensure that the priorities revealed by risk/needs assessment are given appropriate weighting alongside the priorities for structured work activities.

Comment

6.32 We acknowledge the significant progress that Shotts had made in these areas and the high profile they were being given, in relation to both strategic initiatives and resourcing. This had also been acknowledged nationally, as Shotts had been chosen to run two pilot Programmes. We were particularly impressed by the dedication and commitment of the Programmes Teams to continuous improvement.

6.33 Although the timetabling initiative had stalled, we are optimistic that some of the difficulties can be overcome. It was also gratifying to note that serious deficiencies regarding pre-release provision had been recognised and were to be addressed. Recent staffing additions to the Programmes Team should also further improve programme delivery.

Labour Allocation

6.34 The Labour Allocation Board (LAB) met weekly on Thursdays for the purpose of allocating prisoners to work parties and the Board consisted of the Regimes Manager, an Industries Supervisor and the Regimes Co-ordinator. Vacancies were advertised in the accommodation areas and included selection criteria such as competency levels, qualifications and drug test history. Additionally, the Board considered, on a monthly basis, requests from prisoners for a change in work party and was the forum for removing prisoners from work parties should they fail to meet the necessary standards of behaviour and industry in accordance with a written warning process.

Employment

(i) General Background

6.35 Since our last inspection, there had been a number of very significant changes to the way prisoners were employed. The number of vocational training (VT) courses had been reduced from seven to two – i.e. hairdressing and industrial cleaning - as it had been considered that such an emphasis on VT was inappropriate to the environment. The current courses offered SQA National Certificate Modules in Hairdressing and British Institute of Cleaning Services and Operators Proficiency Certificate Scheme Modules.

6.36 In addition to VT courses and employment on domestic and cleaning duties in the accommodation and office areas, the range of work parties consisted of:-

* Work party for protection prisoners

+ Drug free work party

# Enhanced wages party

6.37 The normal working week was from 0800 to 1200 hours and from 1345 to 1600 hours Monday to Thursday; on Fridays, the worksheds closed at 1200 hours.

6.38 In addition to providing laundry services to a number of prisons, the range of items that were produced included wooden patio furniture, metal roadside frames and security grille gates, printed forms for service-wide use, prisoner clothing and staff uniforms.

(ii) Protection Work Party

6.39 At the time of our inspection, there were 110 prisoners who had sought protection from their peers for a number of reasons, including bullying, drug related debts and the nature of their crimes. In many other establishments, such prisoners spend a considerable part of the day locked up in their cells but we were pleased to note that at Shotts, and in accordance with SPS Operating Standards, they had been given the opportunity to have as normal a routine as possible, including the requirement to attend work parties, the opportunity for education and access to the gymnasium. In addition to their employment in the metal fabrication and textiles work parties, such prisoners were also employed in Hall and office cleaning duties.

(iii) Drug Free Work Parties

6.40 As indicated above, a number of selected work parties had been designated drug free. We noted that the atmosphere in those parties appeared to be far more relaxed than elsewhere and production standards were of a high order. Prisoners so employed spoke highly of this initiative and supervising staff also remarked on the difference between the drug free parties and elsewhere. Those who tested positive for drugs were removed from the work party.

(iv) Enhanced Wages Party

6.41 In the area known as the wood complex, a pilot scheme for a workshop efficiency programme was being carried out. Prisoners employed in those parties were expected to be drug free and to co-operate fully in achieving volume production and quality targets. This meant that they had personal responsibility for what was produced and this had resulted in a significant improvement in outputs, atmosphere and relationships. Prisoners were also involved in discussions with staff to address production targets and related issues, manning difficulties and future plans.

6.42 There were no programmed interruptions to the working week to attend education classes or the gymnasium, though prisoners and staff did play football together on Friday afternoons after work finished. Prisoners could, however, earn up to £17 per week compared to the prison average of £9 but anyone who tested positive for drugs was immediately removed from the scheme.

Comment

6.43 We were impressed with the range and organisation of the work opportunities that were available. In addition, there was a marked difference between parties which were designated as being drug free and the others. This is a concept that we fully support and suggest that the logical next step would be to provide drug free accommodation areas, then link these with the drug free work parties thereby providing a totally drug free environment for those involved.

6.44 The air of purpose and normality in the enhanced wages work parties was most refreshing and encouraging. Equally, a number of difficulties require to be resolved; for example, the maximum length of stay in the work party was expected to be 12 to 18 months. After this time, a prisoner would be employed elsewhere in the prison at a significantly reduced wage, though he could then have access to prisoner programmes and other regime opportunities such as education and the gymnasium. We believe, however, that many prisoners would see this as a backward step, whereas the intention of the concept is as an incentive for prisoners to progress. We therefore question whether Shotts is the best location for such an initiative and recommend that consideration be given to having it as part of a national progression system. HMP Dungavel, for example, might be a more suitable site for this commendable initiative.

Physical Education

6.45 We found an active and motivated Physical Education (PE) team which comprised a Supervisor and four Officers who ran an impressive programme which catered for a range of sporting tastes for both prisoners and staff, including specialist remedial work. Plans were also in hand to start a staff health scheme.

6.46 Facilities consisted of a large gymnasium which was used for a variety of activities, including 5-a-side football, volleyball, badminton and basketball, two rooms containing an extensive range of weight lifting/fitness equipment, suitable office accommodation, limited store rooms and male, female and prisoner shower, ablutions and changing areas.

6.47 The outdoor 11-a-side football field, which had been inoperable at the time of our last visit because of drainage work, was again out of use, this time because of flooding. It was now being converted to a grassed surface and the new upgraded facility was scheduled to open in Spring 1999. A new outdoor all-weather 6-a-side football pitch had also been built and was expected shortly to come into use.

Comment

6.48 We were impressed by the enthusiasm of the PE staff and their commitment to provide a good service to both prisoners and staff. Prisoners had regular access to PE sessions though we were concerned that the numbers actually attending could fluctuate widely due to unprogrammed diversion to other regime activities (including offending behaviour and detoxification programmes, education and medical treatment). In our view, better regime co-ordination would help to iron out the peaks and troughs - see paragraph 6.31.

6.49 We were also pleased to see the new outdoor football facilities which, when opened, should be of considerable benefit to the prisoner population. The high use to which the fitness training equipment was being put was also encouraging but we noted that several items of equipment were nearing the end of their useful lives. We suggest, therefore, that there should be an audit of all the equipment with a view to replacing items as required.

6.50 We also commend the surveys which had been carried out to seek prisoners’ views on how PE should be structured, thereby allowing the PE staff to create an imaginative programme which, whilst meeting their requirement to engage prisoners in activities which would improve their health and fitness, would also meet the prisoners’ needs for a varied and interesting programme.

6.51 Finally, we were informed that the new annual staff fitness testing programme would increase pressure on the PE department, which was already having difficulty with cover for staff training and other absences. This is something that will require, therefore, to be monitored closely by senior management.

Education

6.52 The education contract was with Motherwell College. Links between the two organisations were well established and liaison arrangements were effective in providing a curriculum which benefited from both continuity and flexibility. The contract provided for a staffing complement of three full-time and 12 part-time teachers and for education on a 50 week basis per year. Curricular adjustments were normally made on an annual basis though they could be made termly if required. Within the prison, the education function was managed by an experienced Co-ordinator who liaised regularly and effectively with the Regimes Manager.

6.53 The Unit was housed in a bright well-appointed facility and comprised three basic classrooms, a computer room, an open learning room, a practical room, an office and a staff room. Resources were adequate for curricular needs and a rolling programme of computer replacement was in place.

6.54 The curriculum programme, which was both balanced and flexible, was informed by an effective and well-established induction process which, after guidance and negotiation, provided volunteer prisoners with a course which was appropriate in both content and level. The curricular programme was on a ‘core plus option’ model with the core element comprising Communication, Numeracy, Computing and Contemporary Issues; the options element included Art, Guitar-playing, Cookery and Salon Reception. The levels of course ranged from basic education to Open University and at the time of inspection, seven students were undertaking Open University Courses. Although there remained a demand for full-time education, a policy decision taken since our last inspection had established education on the basis of four half-day sessions per week. All courses included assessment and certification with the range covering prison, college and national certificates and currently students were on courses leading to Highers and National Certificates. Regrettably, however, there were to be no presentations this year but it is hoped that this was a temporary blip in the system.

Comment

6.55 The quality of education provided at the Prison was very good. The curriculum was well managed and liaison both within the prison and beyond was effective. In our view, the arrangement whereby education was on the basis of four half-day sessions per week seemed to strike the right balance between concentration or dispersal of resources.

6.56 The vast majority of lessons observed during the inspection were of good quality. In addition, the ‘core plus option’ approach to the curriculum was also consistent with the advice contained in our reports of inspections of other establishments and with that of the SPS’s Education Adviser.

Library

6.57 The Library was located near the Education Unit and was being enthusiastically managed on a full-time basis by an Officer who was supported by a passman. It was well stocked with fiction and non-fiction books, in addition to which there were music tapes and talking books; in total over 7,000 items were recorded on a database. The library also provided additional services (such as photocopying) to the prison.

Comment

6.58 The facility appeared to be popular with prisoners and was providing a good quality service. However, we suggest that there should be a review of the arrangement whereby the local library service provides a quarterly exchange of books to ensure that this is the most cost-effective way of servicing the prison library.

Social Work

6.59 The Social Work Unit was located on the top floor of the Administration building and comprised four offices. Two of the larger offices accommodated the social work personnel whilst a third room was used as accommodation for the clerical staff and as a meeting and team room. The Senior Social Worker occupied his own small office.

6.60 The team, all of whom were employed by North Lanarkshire Council, comprised a Senior Social Worker, five full-time Social Workers, one part-time Social Worker and a full-time Addictions Worker though at the time of our inspection, this latter post was vacant but was being trawled. There were also two full-time clerical staff who supplied administrative support to the Social Work and Addictions Team. The part-time Social Worker provided a dedicated social work tasks and addiction service to the NIC, spending one and half days on the delivery of generic social work and one day on addictions work.

6.61 External line management was provided by the Criminal Justice Co-ordinator based in Motherwell, whilst the establishment line management was provided by the Deputy Governor. There were regular formal and informal meetings between the establishment and social work line management in order to review and monitor the service delivery, which was based on the Social Work Unit annual management plan which in turn, was fully aligned to the establishment’s Strategic Plan. Additionally, the Senior Social Worker attended a number of internal specialist forums including the Drugs Strategy Group, the Suicide Risk Management Group and the monthly Heads of Department meeting.

6.62 Negotiations between the establishment line management and North Lanarkshire Council to agree the future scope and volumes of social work service had been completed on schedule, with the establishment ordering 70% volume in statutory work and 30% in non-statutory.

6.63 Social work delivery consisted primarily of statutory work relating to Parole and Pre-Release, Non-Parole licences and Induction/Assessment work with admissions and their families. In addition, non-statutory work included running a Coping Strategies group for vulnerable prisoners twice per week, participation in the recently introduced Pre-Release course, addictions support, Prisoner Family Support Groups and the running of a Lifers Group in ‘D’ Hall.

Comment

6.64 We were concerned to note that there was no recognition of continued Social Work involvement with Lifers groupwork contained in the proposals for the future Service Level Agreement; this is a matter which should be reviewed.

6.65 Nevertheless, we were impressed by the commitment of the Social Work team and by the positive relationships that existed at all levels, particularly at Personal Officer level. The Social Work Unit had run training courses for Residential staff to help them improve their welfare role skills which we were advised was well received and proving to be effective. Social work services were fully integrated into regime delivery and high standards of practice and service delivery were being achieved. We also agree with the view that the Addictions Worker post, when filled, should be integrated with the Addictions Team and should be managed by the Addictions Team Co-ordinator.

Psychological Services

6.66 Four Psychologists were available, each of whom worked two days per week within the establishment. The service was provided by two Chartered Clinical Psychologists, who spent the remainder of their time at the Douglas Inch Institute or with the National Health Service, and two trainee Forensic Psychologists who were working towards Charter status and who spent the remainder of their time in HMP Edinburgh. All four attended the prison on a Tuesday thereby ensuring ongoing communication and links in their work. They also attended the monthly meeting of all SPS Psychologists, which was described as being useful in ensuring a currency of professional knowledge of penal practice and a shared understanding of working procedures.

6.67 A service level agreement for psychological services was in the process of being drawn up. The main senior management contact for the Psychologists was the Deputy Governor and this was viewed as a positive relationship. To date, there had been fairly tenuous links with Healthcare staff though it was considered that the creation of a Mental Health team would improve that situation. Informal contact with prison personnel was said to have improved as a result of a recent change of office location.

6.68 It was estimated that the work of the Psychology Team was divided into four equal areas – viz, direct clinical work, risk assessment work (which was mainly initiated by the Parole Board or Designated Lifers Tribunals), consultancy/staff training and a management contribution in areas such as the ACT group and Anti-Intimidation work.

6.69 Clinical referrals were received largely from the Medical Officer (MO), the Social Work Unit and Unit Managers and in the 13 months prior to our inspection there had been 88 such referrals. There was a perception that many of those referrals were inappropriate and could have been dealt with by other listening services but we were advised that there was a lack of such services, hence the referrals to the Psychologists. It was also suggested to us that a gap in services existed between what could be provided by Residential Officers and Psychologists.

6.70 Appropriate clinical referrals were described as covering a wide range of areas, including personality disorders, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder and appropriate feedback structures were in place for those making referrals. Work was ongoing to create a local Mental Health Care Team and this was considered as a high priority area as currently there was no provision of Psychiatric Nurses within the establishment. We were surprised to note that the Psychology Department was not involved in the management of prisoners being returned from the State Hospital at Carstairs.

6.71 The focus for the Psychologists’ Risk Assessment work was to give an opinion on the risk an individual would present to the general public on release. We were advised that this was a growing area of work and could involve a series of interviews with the prisoner and external contact with relevant agencies. As part of our inspection, we examined one example of this type of work but considered that there was considerable overlap between this and the information provided by others to the Parole Board.

Comment

6.72 The Psychologists’ consultancy role was evolving. Currently, it was an informal process of support to Officers engaged in casework and we were advised that it was often initiated by the Psychologist in an effort to promote this role. The focus of this intervention was to talk to the Officer about the case and offer advice, support and reassurance as appropriate though it was recognised that there could be some overlap with the line manager’s responsibility in this area. Planned developments in the consultancy area included setting up new groups which would initially be run by Psychologists but would ultimately pass to Officers.

6.73 In the category of contribution to the general management of the establishment, the development of a Mental Health team was thought to be crucial. Another significant development would be the passing of responsibilities for monitoring and supporting prisoner programmes to locally based Psychologists; this was currently carried out by Specialist Theme Leader Psychologists.

Chaplains

6.74 The Chaplaincy Team comprised three Church of Scotland (C of S) Ministers, one Roman Catholic (RC) Priest and one Episcopalian Chaplain. A further RC Sister and a C of S Minister had also previously worked at the establishment and consideration was being given to their replacement. The team currently provided a total of 48 hours support per week, working in rotation on a part time basis.

6.75 Pastoral care was provided on an ecumenical basis but with separate C of S and RC services conducted; religion-specific rites, including confession and Episcopalian Sacraments, were provided as required. Ethnic minority needs appeared to be being fully met, with the appropriate Faith leadership being brought into the establishment when required (though we were advised that the need for this was relatively infrequent).

6.76 A well equipped and centrally located Chaplaincy Centre was used by the Team as a base, with the Chapel being used both for religious services and for secular events such as concerts.

Comment

6.77 The Chaplaincy Team appeared to be well motivated and to be meeting its principal aim of providing spiritual support to the prison community. They had conducted a thorough review of their services and had identified prisoners’ families as an area where they could perform further useful work. To this end more effective links were to be established with the FCDO, an initiative to which we give our enthusiastic support.

6.78 There was, however, a number of areas where there could be improvements; for example, we felt that the Team could be integrated into the new Suicide Risk Management process, particularly at an early stage. More use might be made of the Chaplains’ specialist counselling skills and consideration should be given as to how these skills might be more effectively advertised to staff and prisoners. Secondly, the possibility existed that the scheduling of religious services and exercise periods on Sunday mornings could result in prisoners being deprived of one or other of these statutory entitlements. We suggest, therefore, that this situation is reviewed. Finally, the issue of chaplaincy access to prisoners in the Segregation Unit had not been satisfactorily resolved.

Voluntary Organisations

(i) Prison Fellowship

6.79 Prison Fellowship (PF) representatives held regular meetings, though their frequency had been subject to recent variation. The meetings, at which one Officer was also in attendance, were open to all prisoners in circulation with the average attendance being nine. For the PF representatives, contact with the establishment in the first instance was through the Chaplaincy Team.

Comment

6.80 We have written to the Governor suggesting that consideration should be given to returning the frequency of meetings to weekly as staff resources permit.

(ii) Hope Group

6.81 The Hope Group provided a prisoner visitors scheme to those who did not normally receive visits. There was a total pool of 15 volunteers but at the time of our inspection, only two prisoners were being visited.

6.82 Although ecumenical in formation and under the formal arrangements referrals came from the Chaplaincy Team, in practical terms the Hope Group at Shotts was almost entirely an RC organisation. Referrals came solely from the RC Chaplains but the fact that there was only one currently in post had led to the situation where so few prisoners were being visited. Given the fundamental usefulness of the work which the Hope Group performs, we suggest that it should encourage referrals from the other members of the Chaplaincy Team with consideration also being given to regular visits to in-patients in the Health Centre. We were pleased to note that contact had been made with the FCDOs, a development which we support.

Family Contact

(i) Visits

6.83 The visits complex was located within the administration block where the reception area had been redesigned and now included a range of security measures, such as a walk through metal detector and hand baggage screening and drug detection equipment.

6.84 Additionally, considerable effort had been made to make the visitors’ waiting room appear less austere and starkly functional, including the provision of a television. A comprehensive range of information about the prison and access to support groups, including telephone helplines, were also included. Generally, we noted that the atmosphere in the waiting room was far more relaxed than has been encountered elsewhere.

6.85 Visits normally took place in the afternoons on Monday to Thursday and at weekends and in the evenings on Monday to Friday. The entitlement to visits for ‘A’ Hall prisoners was 3 one hour visits per month in addition to which, they could have a one hour quality visit every second month, which could be taken with a normal visit thereby increasing the time to two hours. These quality visits were taken in the afternoon in a more relaxed environment. In the months when these quality visits were taken, the total entitlement increased to four hours. Prisoners in ‘B’ and ‘C’ Halls were entitled to four and five hours of normal visits respectively plus a one hour quality visit every month. The revised routine for ‘D’ Hall would mirror the range of entitlements in the other three Halls.

6.86 The visits room was a large, brightly decorated area with a children’s play area. There were vending machines from which prisoners’ visitors could purchase hot and cold drinks and snack foods whilst a small shop, which was operated by the WRVS on Thursday evening and at the weekends, offered a range of snacks and refreshments and was a facility that was much appreciated by the prisoners and visitors to whom we spoke. Staff also commented to us on the benefits of the facility where children could play without distracting other visitors.

6.87 At the busiest times, the visits area did become stuffy and smoky and we suggest, therefore, that urgent consideration be given as to how this might be improved, either by better ventilation or by the introduction of no smoking sessions which are already available in a number of other prisons.

(ii) Family Contact Development Officer

6.88 The FCDO initiative in the SPS was established in late 1992 and the arrangement we found at Shotts was undoubtedly the best we have seen. We were also delighted - but not surprised - to note that the work of the local team had been recognised through the achievement of a Butler Trust Award. An FCDO was available to visitors at all times in the waiting room and the visitors to whom we spoke all commented positively both on the initiative and on the staff involved.

6.89 The information booklet which had been produced by the FCDOs for prisoners’ visitors was comprehensive, well laid out, clear and regularly reviewed - a copy is included at Annex 6. The establishment had also recently installed a helpline to enable families to become more actively involved in helping prisoners manage their sentence.

6.90 We were impressed with the involvement of the FCDOs in the induction process – see paragraph 6.9. On Friday afternoons, the close family members of prisoners completing their induction programme were invited to the prison where they were briefed together with the prisoner on the role and facilities at Shotts and by means of a slide presentation, the options available to the prisoners in the accommodation areas, work parties, recreation and education facilities. On completion of the briefing, there was an opportunity for questions and any remaining time could be taken up by a visit, which did not count against the monthly entitlement.

Comment

6.91 The visit facilities are among the best we have ever seen. The highly developed FCDO role, the involvement of families in the induction process and the provision of information were all highly commendable. We also noted that the atmosphere at visits had received very favourable comments by almost three quarters of those prisoners who had completed the recent Prison Survey – see Annex 7.

Agents Visits

6.92 There were four rooms off the main visit area which had been set aside for agents visits. These facilities were adequately furnished with staff observation being unobtrusive. At the time of our inspection, agents visits were also taking place in the mornings in the main visit room because of the more relaxed and informal setting.

Prisoners Visitors

6.93 Prior to our arrival, a notice had been published extending an invitation to visitors to speak with members of the Inspectorate team. In addition to a number of less formal conversations with visitors, one visitor came forward with a number of suggestions for further improvement to the visits, which were described as very good and generally well organised. These suggestions included a no smoking area in the visitors waiting room and the introduction of a rota system for calling prisoners forward from the Halls for visits. Suggestions were also put forward on how the provision of information for families of life sentence prisoners could be improved and the need for a significant increase in practical help for prisoners with drug problems. We raised these suggestions with the management team.

Lifer Liaison/Early Release Liaison Officer

6.94 At the time of our last inspection in 1994, Shotts had held 62 life sentence prisoners, which represented over 13% of the total lifer population – i.e. 455 - in the SPS. At the time of this latest inspection the number of such prisoners at Shotts had risen to 108, which was more than 18% of the SPS total.

6.95 The combined role of Lifer Liaison Officer (LLO) and Early Release Liaison Officer (ERLO) was the responsibility of the ‘C’ Hall Residential Unit Manager though at the time of our inspection, he had only been in that post for a few weeks and was scheduled shortly to attend a two day training course for LLOs at the SPS College. The designated Deputy was a ‘C’ Hall Supervisor but he had not received any formal training nor had he attended a National Parole Board meeting. The administration of parole reviews in general, including Lifers, was carried out by a Parole Clerk Co-ordinator.

6.96 As a response to the increasing LLO workload, recent changes to legislation and difficulties in meeting deadlines for the preparation of parole dossiers, it had been decided recently to devolve the daily responsibilities for Lifer Sentence Management, Regime opportunities and compilation of parole dossiers to the respective Residential Unit Managers. This move had been supported by the introduction of locally trained Parole Co-ordinators in each Hall and a tracking system to ensure parole dossier completion by the agreed timescale.

6.97 As a result of that change, the primary LLO function was now to co-ordinate the process, including quality checks on parole dossiers, liaison with the Parole Board and Lifer Review Branch, local arrangements for Designated Lifer Tribunals (DLTs) and oversight of sentence management and regime components for Lifers. However, recent legislative changes relating to the review procedures for designated life prisoners had given the LLO a statutory role as the Secretary of State’s representative at DLTs where the Lifer could be legally represented. In addition, further legislative changes to early release arrangements had meant that there had also been an increase in the number of prisoners who were now subject to post-release supervision. As well as placing increased demands on the role of ERLO, it had also resulted in an increased workload for the Social work Unit and the Hall Parole Co-ordinators, including a demand for Pre-Release Programmes – see paragraph 6.28.

Comment

6.98 By delegating day to day management to Residential Unit Managers, Shotts had recognised the need to improve the ways in which life sentence prisoners were managed. This had also allowed the LLO to concentrate on the co-ordination of and quality checks on parole procedures, though we have suggested at paragraph 6.30 that there should be an increase in the number of lifers’ groups in the establishment. In addition, we suggest that the following measures be introduced at local level:-

6.98.1 The Deputy LLO should receive formal training;

6.98.2 Residential Unit Managers should be provided with local training to help them meet their additional duties associated with the management of life sentence prisoners; and

6.98.3 Consideration should be given to splitting the roles of LLO and ERLO between two Unit Managers.

6.99 There was some evidence that there was difficulty for Lifers – both from Shotts and from other long-term prisons - progressing to the National Top End facilities at HMPs Greenock, Perth and Edinburgh. On average, the current waiting list was 12 months and that situation was not helped by a lack of national co-ordination of these places and the additional pressure caused by the number of prisoners serving determinate sentences of 10 years and over. Given the significant increase in the numbers of lifers, both at local and national level, we consider that the current arrangements for their management could be improved. Accordingly, we recommend that a review of such arrangements should be carried out with the aim of developing a national strategy for the management of life sentence prisoners. This review might also consider the possibility of setting more realistic criteria for selection to National Top End places.

6.100 The average length of a life sentence is increasing (currently between 13 and 14 years) and the number of lifers in the system has increased by 30% over the last 10 years (368 – 581) as has the number of prisoners serving in excess of 10 years. We consider, therefore, that there needs to be much greater co-ordination in matching the SPS estate and the prisoner population more effectively. It is surprising to note that there are large numbers of prisoners who meet the criteria for progression or allocation to less secure conditions but who are currently held in maximum or high security prisons when there is a considerable number of spaces in Category ‘C’ and open prisons. This mismatch leads to overcrowding in local prisons, frustration and the risk of stagnation in LTP closed establishments and cost inefficiencies in low security and open prisons. We recommend, therefore, that there should be a strategic review of the estate and clear selection and allocation criteria published to allow a more effective use to be made of a fixed amount of resources.