HMIP Report on HM Unit

Shotts 1998

2. ESTABLISHMENT

Description

2.1 The Unit is a purpose-built facility built to category ‘A’ standard with a design capacity of 12 and a normal operating maximum of 10. It is located within the perimeter of HMP Shotts which, in turn, is located south of the M8 between Edinburgh and Glasgow. Although managed separately with its own Governor-in-Charge, it shares a number of common services with the main prison. It comprises an area of approximately 1½ acres and consists of one main building, a garden area and an all weather games pitch. All are enclosed within a separate secure perimeter wall.

Purpose

2.2 The Unit opened in April 1990 as an additional facility to the Barlinnie Special Unit (BSU). Much of the planning for it had taken into account experience from the BSU and a number of physical design improvements had been incorporated into the Shotts Unit building. The regime had been based on the BSU, with considerable emphasis being placed on prisoners’ responsibility to engage in constructive activity and participation with staff. As in the case of the BSU, initially there had been no prescribed length of time in terms of how long a prisoner might spend in the Unit.

2.3 In October 1994, the SPS published a report entitled "Small Units in the Scottish Prison Service". This was the report of the findings of a working party set up by the Chief Executive to carry out a wide-ranging review of the BSU but also to consider the purpose and role of all small units in the SPS. It defined the purpose of small units as being:-

"To provide an intensive treatment resource for those prisoners who are unable or unwilling to accept the operation of mainstream prisons and who it is agreed might benefit from removal from their prison of allocation."

2.4 That report also recognised the need for a thorough systematic monitoring, evaluation and research into the development and operation of small units so that successful elements of unit regimes might be applied to the mainstream prison system. Such an evaluation has not yet taken place, a matter which should now be addressed (see paragraph 2.11).

2.5 The publication of that report, which among other things heralded the closure of the BSU, set a very different agenda for the Shotts Unit. A synopsis of the report describing the purpose, features and principles of the Unit is contained at Annex B. Specifically, it stated that:-

"Shotts Unit should function as a highly participative, inter active environment in which the prisoner should be continuously and consistently challenged on any unacceptable attitudes and behaviours. It is necessary for prisoners who progress through Shotts Unit to affect at least some degree of change in their coping abilities, attitudes or behaviour prior to their return to the mainstream. If they do not, the Shotts Unit will fail to meet one of its primary aims and may become little more than a facility for extended periods of time out."

2.6 During two intermediate inspections conducted by the Inspectorate on 7 and 28 February 1996, a number of criticisms of the regime were made. Subsequently, the Unit closed for a period of reorganisation between June and August of that year. During that interregnum, a thorough examination of all aspects of the regime was carried out and as a result, a number of significant changes were made in order to ensure consistency with the purpose and operating principles of small units as described in the 1994 Small Units report . This also led to the local production of a statement of Purpose and Regime, a copy of which is contained at Annex C.

2.7 As noted above, the role of the Unit is to enable prisoners, through intensive participation and interaction with staff, to address personal problems and issues in order to resume serving their sentences in mainstream prisons. The criteria for entry are, therefore, loosely defined in the Statement of Purpose and Regime as "presenting management problems resulting from manifest unacceptable behaviour brought about by an unwillingness or ability to cope with prison life". A suitable candidate would be "of at least average intelligence, able to demonstrate reasonable verbal and interpersonal skills and be capable and willing to interact with other prisoners and staff within the Unit. Candidates should normally be serving a sentence in excess of 10 years and should be within the first half of their sentence, be willing to change and go to the Unit".

2.8 That Statement also recognises that to admit the wrong type of prisoner could be very counterproductive and may undermine the purpose of the Unit. The setting of criteria was, therefore, expected to "deliver the Shotts Unit regime to the appropriate people" and "rule out political factors, trade offs between establishments and personal intervention".

2.9 In an attempt to achieve those aims, all applicants are interviewed by an assessment panel from the Unit which comprises the Governor, a Supervisor and one Officer (who is part of a group of Unit officers trained in the assessment process). The purpose of this structured interview is to identify an individual’s needs and to consider whether these could be addressed within the Unit setting. It was accepted that since most applicants were located in the separate cells area of mainstream prisons, the impression they gave could be skewed by their location and immediate past history. If the assessment panel proposed to accept the applicant, the case would be considered by the Small Units sub group of the Executive Committee on Difficult Prisoner Management who would normally endorse the decision and allocate priority to the case. The successful candidate would then engage with Unit staff to draw up a personal development programme for the early part of his stay in the Unit.

2.10 After three months in the Unit, a more detailed assessment and structured development plan would be agreed, including the likely length of stay and an outline exit plan from the Unit.

2.11 In our last formal inspection in 1994, we had recommended that SPS HQ should review the role of the Advisory Committee on Prisoner Management in the selection for prisoners for Units. The process described above is the result of that review and is more streamlined and appropriate with the onus on the Unit’s Assessment Panel to select prisoners whom they consider suitable. That said, however, we note that the selection criteria had not been rigorously applied (see population details at paragraph 3.1 and it was not clear how the selection criteria were chosen, issues that have been raised previously by the Inspectorate. It was disappointing to note, therefore, that while some improvements have been made, these issues have not been satisfactorily addressed. We therefore recommend that a formal evaluation of the Unit should be carried out to establish, inter alia, the relevance and appropriateness of the selection criteria and processes.