 |
 |
 |
 |
| . | |||
HMIP Report on HM Unit Shotts 1998 Induction and Further Assessment 6.1 Prisoners admitted to the Unit were given a detailed briefing on the routines and ethos of the Unit and allowed some time to settle in, since their new environment was so different from that which they had left behind. They were reminded of the need to participate in the regime and to meet the terms and conditions of their stay in the Unit; the main areas being general behaviour, projects, personal development and participation. There were standard, non-negotiable conditions relating to security, staffing, visits and a commitment to 20 hours purposeful activity per week. 6.2 The induction process led into a three month period of further assessment when a more balanced view of needs and priorities emerged. During this period, the prisoner was expected to participate more and more fully in the regime and was the subject of daily, weekly and monthly reports which were discussed with him and to which he was invited to add his own comments after seeing the report. 6.3 We were told that the primary focus for addressing needs in the Unit was on anger management and establishing appropriate relationships with staff, so that prisoners would be able to operate more successfully in the mainstream. Given the nature of the environment and the types of individuals held there, it was not considered appropriate to organise and deliver programmes based on group work, which is the SPS preferred approach. Intervention to help prisoners address their needs tended to be on a one-to-one basis with the prisoner setting the agenda by his behaviour, which would be challenged were it inappropriate and encouraged were it reasonable. 6.4 The clearer focus on addressing those problems which brought about the prisoners’ removal from the mainstream is one which we support. This was in contrast to the situation which prevailed at our previous inspection in 1994 and the subsequent follow up visits where there was little evidence of any challenging of unacceptable behaviour. This approach required a high degree of consistency, tenacity and communication for staff and we were satisfied that systems and processes existed to ensure that these elements were in place in the form of written reports on the prisoners’ progress, meetings where the prisoner was appraised of progress and staff meetings to ensure that information was shared and a common approach agreed. 6.5 In addition to anger management, there were underlying problems of drug misuse for many of the Unit prisoners. It was surprising, therefore, to note that the Statement of Purpose and Regime listed drug or alcohol abuse, assault and escape or attempted escape as the main grounds for removal from the Unit. In our view, such inconsistencies were most unhelpful and this is discussed in more detail at paragraph 6.12. 6.6 It was not clear how valid the principle of group work in a Unit setting remains nor how any structured programmes for anger management; interpersonal skills; problem solving; conflict resolution; or any of the other issues as prescribed in the Small Units Report, might be delivered. In our view, these uncertainties arise because of insufficient monitoring of practices against the principles outlined in that Report. The roles of SPS’s Custody Directorate and Area Directors overlap in this area but this has not resulted in the co-ordination and supervision necessary to prevent departure from stated principles or the evolution of practices which are inconsistent with published criteria. We recommend, therefore, that responsibilities for policy development, implementation and operational practices should be clarified and procedures put in place to ensure the necessary consistency and provide direction for what is a very expensive facility. 6.7 At the time of our last visit in February 1996, we had been seriously concerned about regime slippage, a lack of purposeful activity within the Unit and its generally dirty and unkempt condition. Subsequently we were pleased to note that there had been a significant and sustained improvement in most areas. 6.8 The working day for prisoners started at 0900 hours with the cleaning of cell and communal areas. Prisoners spent the first part of the day in cleaning communal areas before participating in activities detailed in individual weekly activity sheets on which was recorded what prisoners did on a day to day basis (see Annex E). This information was incorporated into the wage earning system which allowed staff to calculate the appropriate payment for participation in the regime. This was a major change to what had previously been an unstructured and largely uncontrolled day prior to the shut down in July 1996. It was apparent, however, that a number of prisoners did not fully complete the weekly programmes but this was not reflected in their wages, an issue that should be addressed. 6.9 Prisoners were engaged in a number of activities ranging from art to computer studies to yoga. Work and craft facilities included a wood work area but at the time of our inspection it was shut down pending clarification of a number of health and safety issues concerning training and supervision following an accident in another establishment. 6.10 It was not clear at the time of our inspection that there was widespread understanding about the purpose behind activities – i.e. whether it was to help the more impulsive individuals to formulate and adhere to a plan, to help those with relationship difficulties to work with others or for those with low self-esteem to complete a relatively difficult piece of work successfully. A specific feature of the Unit is to help prisoners address these needs and therefore, it is the basic issue which needs to be consistently reinforced for prisoners and staff so that the Unit does not simply become an expensive time out facility. 6.11 However, the opportunities being pursued by prisoners in the Unit tended to be based on particular interests such as computer studies or gardening rather than on any clear assessment of needs. In the past, we have suggested that there should be structures in place to enable programmes aimed at addressing behaviour in prison and offending behaviour generally to be introduced as part of the formal regime of the Unit. As discussed at paragraph 5.2, it was not clear that the direction and principles outlined in the Small Units Report are as appropriate now as they were in 1994 when that Report was written – see paragraph 6.6. 6.12 There were examples of prisoners who had taken advantage of the opportunity of being in the Unit to address their drug misuse. Equally, whilst recognising that drug misuse was a factor in their inability or unwillingness to cope with mainstream conditions, we believe it is totally contrary to this principle that drug or alcohol abuse are grounds for removal from the Unit. Notwithstanding this most unhelpful inconsistency, we were pleased to note the pragmatic approach which was generally being adopted to drug misuse. There is a clear need, however, for a review of operating principles and practices and we recommend that this should be carried out as a matter of urgency. 6.13 Visit facilities were separate from the main accommodation area and comprised five ‘alcoves’, a small kitchen which allowed for the preparation of snacks, a children’s play area and the usual toilet facilities. In addition, prisoners and their visitors had access to a small garden area. Normal visits were confined to these areas and we noted that visits were supervised in a relaxed atmosphere. 6.14 Visits on weekdays were divided into three separate sessions – i.e. morning and evening sessions lasting two hours and a three hour afternoon session. At weekends, visits were available only in the morning and the afternoon. Each prisoner was allowed a maximum of three visits per week and although the formal position was that a maximum of three visitors could attend at any one time, the system was flexible enough to accommodate more when a special need arose. There was no formal visit pass system in operation. 6.15 Visit facilities were excellent and we were pleased to note that visits had been arranged in such a way as to allow prisoners and their visitors the chance to rebuild or maintain relationships. In our view, however, more could be done to involve families in encouraging prisoners to address the underlying reasons for being in the Unit, particularly in relation to drugs. At the same time we noted that supervision had been much improved since 1996, though it was a matter of concern that security standards in respect of searching were still not being maintained. 6.16 Education services were provided by the main prison and the Unit benefited from the established links with Motherwell College. At the time of our inspection, courses were offered in Art, Computing, Mathematics, English, Bricklaying, Horticulture, Yoga and Cookery. 6.17 This was provided on an as required basis by the main prison and arrangements were described as satisfactory by all parties involved. 6.18 The remit of the Theme Leader for violent and difficult prisoners included the Unit. In this capacity, he provided psychological support to prisoners and also advised staff on a range of prisoner management issues. 6.19 In his briefing, the Governor spoke of his expectation that discussions with the Social Work Manager in the main prison would result in a Service Level Agreement which would improve the range of services for Unit prisoners. 6.20 Catering services were provided by the main prison and were described as very satisfactory. Additionally, a community meal was prepared and shared by prisoners and staff each week. |
|||
|
|
|
|