HMIP Report on HM Unit Shotts - Management and Staff


.
HMIP Report on HM Unit Shotts 1998 7. MANAGEMENT AND STAFF Management 7.1 The Governor, who had been in post for some four years, headed a small Management Team which comprised a Deputy Governor and three Supervisors. The post of Deputy Governor had been vacant since February 1998 and we noted that there had also been a six month gap between the last Deputy and her predecessor. Comment 7.2 The size of the management team and the nature of the operating environment requires a cohesive and flexible approach if the necessary support and direction is to be given to staff. We were satisfied that there was a clear understanding of each other’s roles and responsibilities, despite the extended vacancy at Deputy Governor level. (Nevertheless, this had resulted in additional loading on the rest of the team, particularly the Supervisors.) We believe this uncertain situation must not prevail, not only because of the additional heavy workload on the Supervisors, but also so that essential co-ordination of policy and practice can take place. We therefore recommend that the uncertainty and discontinuity resulting from the vacancy at Deputy Governor level should be resolved as a matter of urgency. We were told that the arrangement whereby the Governor of the NIC provided leave cover for the Unit Governor was only an interim measure, whilst the Area Director considered a number of other options. Staff Groups 7.3 As is our normal practice during an inspection, we spoke formally to groups of staff and with individuals informally and have summarised the main points as they were put to us. *Environment* 7.4 The unanimous view was that the Unit environment was challenging and required staff to consider more closely the consequences of their decisions and actions to ensure that there was consistency and clarity. Staff also expressed the view that the Unit was a very satisfying place to work. *Staff Selection Process* 7.5 Staff felt that the process was essentially sound, given that there were very few occasions when staff selected for the Unit had opted to return to their mainstream prison after the induction period. *Comment* 7.6 It was not clear that staff in the Unit were being selected against a clear person specification or that the selection process focussed on the candidates ability and suitability to operate effectively in a Unit setting. In our view, there should be a closer adherence to the operating principles defined in the Small Units Report in the matter of staff selection and a common approach adopted for selecting staff to work in small units in the SPS. *Staff Training* 7.7 Staff found the training in team work and support particularly useful, especially in the period following the Unit’s reopening in August 1996 when revised standards of conduct, developed by them, were being introduced. Some staff were not persuaded about the usefulness or necessity for counselling skills, as they had not been trained and had not felt particularly disadvantaged. *Comment* 7.8 We consider that the training programme should focus on the skills and attitudes required to operate in a Unit setting and should be linked to the selection process outcomes, particularly with regard to helping prisoners deal with their aggression, anger and drug misuse. We were pleased to note the general awareness about the risk of conditioning, which had been an issue in the past. *Staff Rotation* 7.9 All staff agreed that the Unit was a challenging place to work and as a result, tours of duty should normally be between two and three years. It was proposed that staff should be seconded from mainstream prisons so that when it was felt that it was appropriate for them to move on, they did not have to apply for vacancies as Residential Officers. They felt that they were at a disadvantage applying for vacancies in another prison because they perceived a bias towards internal recruitment and the selection of Operations staff for Residential duties in mainstream prisons because of cheaper unit costs. They believed that some staff at the Peterhead Unit were seconded from mainstream prisons and that others were receiving help and support from Human Resource Managers in SPS Headquarters and from their Area Director – services that were not available to them. *Comment* 7.10 In our view, it would be helpful for staff and for the operation of the Units if tours at such unique establishments were for a defined period on a secondment basis and we recommend that this should be formally considered, perhaps as part of the wider review and evaluation of the operation of small units in the SPS. *Staff Role* 7.11 Staff were firmly of the view that group work to address offending or unacceptable behaviour was inappropriate in the Unit setting, given the type of individuals held there. They perceived their role to be clarifying and maintaining standards of acceptable behaviour and influencing prisoners by challenging and encouraging. There were some concerns about role ambiguity between custody and order and the less clear areas of care and opportunity. They had not felt competent to deal with the disturbed behaviour of some prisoners and did not consider themselves equipped to help prisoners address their drug problems which, with anger management, they perceived to be the major issues for the Unit prisoners to address. It was disappointing to note therefore that these deficiencies were not being addressed as part of the staff training programme. *Prisoner Selection Process* 7.12 Staff considered that their role in the assessment and selection of prisoners was critical. They generally welcomed the recent change to the selection process whereby experienced Unit Officers would be trained in assessment and selection techniques and would then be part of the selection team. *Comment* 7.13 Given the de facto changes in the terms and conditions of entry into the Unit, particularly in relation to drug misuse, we would expect to see these changes reflected both in the selection process and prisoner contracts to avoid ambiguity and enable a consistent message to be conveyed about the range of opportunities available in the Unit. Administration 7.14 Prisoners’ records and warrants were stored in the Shotts General Office. Since our last inspection, a full time Administration Officer had been appointed to the Unit and this had resulted in a general improvement in the routine operation of the small but busy office and was appreciated by the staff, particularly the Supervisors. Comment 7.15 We found relationships between the Unit staff and support service providers to be generally good. Some Unit staff had been involved in delivering training or briefings to the main prison in areas of common interest and this had helped promote a better mutual understanding of the distinctly different roles of the two establishments.