HMIP Report on HM Unit

Shotts 1998

9. GENERAL ASSESSMENT

9.1 In examining the operation of the Shotts Unit, the Inspection Team took note of the framework contained in the report "Small Units in the Scottish Prison Service" which was published in October 1994. Our overall conclusion was that many of the procedures and practices in place on this latest inspection were consistent with that Report. That said, we noted a number of ambiguities which had arisen over time though given the nature and history of small units, this is perhaps not unexpected. Equally, however, considerable progress had been made by management and staff in addressing many of the shortfalls which had been encountered during the course of the two intermediate inspections which were conducted in February 1996.

9.2 On this latest occasion, we found that routines were in place which more closely reflected the mainstream to which the prisoners would return. There was an atmosphere of co-operation between prisoners and staff within a more structured regime which allowed better assessment of individual progress and positive change over time. Separately, however, it was disappointing to note that the Deputy Governor’s post had been vacant for a considerable period of time, a situation which contributed to uncertainty and ambiguity.

9.3 The key to success of any small unit is the presence of highly trained, capable and well motivated staff and in this critical respect, the Shotts Unit appeared to be well served. However, we would wish to see a more structured and objective approach to the selection of personnel and to their initial and developmental training. We would also prefer if the length of a tour of duty were to be more clearly defined and if return to the mainstream was as planned for staff as it was for prisoners. After a period of necessary consolidation, the Unit is ready to move forward in order further to develop ways to help prisoners change their unacceptable behaviour and cope better with long prison sentences.

9.4 Finally, we are conscious that each place at the Shotts Unit costs three times the national average. Periods spent there must not therefore simply be "time out" from the mainstream and this was fully recognised by everyone at the Unit. We were, however, unable fully to assess the contribution made by the Unit not only in terms of value for money or in meeting the public’s expectations but also in terms of its effectiveness in changing behaviours and providing a service to other SPS prisons. We believe, therefore, that a full and independent evaluation of the Unit should be carried out – preferably before the end of this year – to validate the efficacy of regime features and to understand the factors which cause certain features to be successful.