 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||
HMIP Report on HM Unit Shotts 1998 5.1 In his initial briefing at the start of the inspection (a full copy of which is contained at Annex D), the Governor outlined his major concerns for the Unit which were as follows:- 5.1.1 The Small Unit’s Report had set a very different agenda for the Unit. Criticism by the Inspectorate during visits in 1996 had also highlighted the difficulties and slow progress in trying to introduce significant changes to established routines and practices. 5.1.2 Providing programmed activities for Unit prisoners had always been a difficult challenge, due in part to the discrete needs and motivation of the individuals. Group work was not considered appropriate to the Unit setting. 5.1.3 Challenging inappropriate behaviour was an area where good progress had been achieved following the closure to reorganise. Mechanisms, which reflected the need for consistency and clarity, had been developed to provide the necessary framework and support for staff. 5.1.4 Misuse of drugs was a significant factor in the behaviour of some individuals. 5.1.5 The vacancy at Deputy Governor level had resulted in an increased workload for the rest of the management team. Interim arrangements had been put in place but the situation was unresolved. (See also paragraph 7.2.) 5.1.6 The Unit was operating at the normal maximum occupancy levels and represented value for money. 5.1.7 The delivery of a therapeutic community within a secure setting presented a number of difficulties, particularly in striking the right balance between addressing underlying, deep seated behavioural and attitudinal problems and preparing individuals to operate more successfully in the mainstream. 5.2 The temporary closure of the Unit had provided an opportunity to address the shortcomings which had become apparent in operating in accordance with the guidance published in the Small Units Report. However, it became apparent during our latest inspection that the guidance itself now needed to be revised and updated to remain appropriate to the changed circumstances which now apply. 5.3 We concur with the Governor’s view that the notion of group work within the Unit setting should be reviewed to reflect the changes in the type of prisoners and the regime. 5.4 The Statement of Purpose and Regime for the Unit, particularly with regard to drug misuse, should either be adhered to more strictly or revised to describe current practice. 5.5 Regime monitoring, maintenance of standards and compliance with laid down procedures had slipped during the prolonged vacancy at Deputy Governor level. The present arrangements require, therefore, to be improved to avoid the risk of regime slippage. 5.6 Mandatory drug testing, which was carried out by staff from the main prison, had been introduced to the Unit in September 1987. In the first 12 months of operation, 43% of prisoners had tested positive. 5.7 The Unit’s Statement of Purpose and Regime lists drug misuse as one of the grounds for exclusion from the Unit and this is interpreted in the Unit as being applicable to those who are not prepared to address their drug misuse. Consequently, prisoners who have tested positive have not been returned to mainstream prisons, since they have expressed the wish to tackle the problem. We were told of a number of cases where there had been significant changes in drug misuse in both the type and frequency. We also noted the remarkable degree of openness with which prisoners spoke of their drug misuse and of their efforts to address the problem. We fully agree with the principle of helping prisoners to adopt and maintain a drug free lifestyle, but ambiguity about drug misuse and exclusion from the Unit ought to be urgently addressed and current practices formalised (see also paragraph 6.12). |
|||
|
|
|
|