|
|
|
|
5.1 In his briefing at the start of the inspection, the Governor outlined his major concerns for the Unit which were as follows:-
5.1.1 The Unit had been through difficult and occasionally turbulent times since its opening. He referred to the need for the Unit to get "back on the rails" following the incident that had occurred in November 1998. There was a need to recover lost ground on security issues and to revise and strengthen administration and accounting procedures before addressing the development of a social therapeutic prison community.
5.1.2 The key issue was the prisoner mix. This was a major factor in scheduling when a suitable candidate could be taken into the Unit. Not only was it necessary to consider inter-prisoner relationships between former associates and adversaries very carefully but the influence that the individual might exert, either positively or negatively, upon the existing prisoner group also had to be considered. The Governor pointed out that in the past, errors in prisoner selection had created major difficulties for all small Units, including the Peterhead Unit.
5.1.3 For the first time in four years, the Unit was now holding a full complement of 10 prisoners which was a significant achievement, especially in the light of tensions around the prisoner mix. It had also reduced unit costs.
5.1.4 Responsibility for prisoner selection rested with the Governor and psychologist, who considered the suitability of those prisoners who had been referred to the Small Units Strategy Group for a place in a small Unit (either Peterhead or Shotts). It was recognised that drug misuse and the drug sub-culture were significant factors overlaying difficult and inappropriate behaviours in a number of cases. A description of the referral process is at Annex 2.
5.1.5 The psychologist and psychiatrist were extremely useful resources in the operation of a social therapeutic community, by providing professional opinions on the state of mind and behaviours of prisoners, a number of whom had suffered some formal mental illness or psychological dysfunction. They also provided appropriate treatment for prisoners when necessary, as well as support and practical advice to prison officers on a wide range of prisoner management issues. They had a major role in monitoring and measuring the progress made by prisoners during their stay in the Unit, which could be used to reinforce and encourage positive behaviours. They were also able to bring a fresh perspective to how the Unit was developing as a therapeutic community.
4.4.1 Nevertheless, the psychologist who had been the Theme Leader for violent and difficult prisoners had retired in July 1999. Interim arrangements were in place pending a report on the way forward for the delivery of psychological services to small Units in the SPS. However, it was felt that the hiatus had resulted in gaps in monitoring relationships and interaction and a perceived shortfall in support for staff in prisoner management. Regime monitoring and the development and deployment of methods for measuring changes in behaviour over time were also said to have lost momentum. (See also paragraphs 6.17-20.)
5.1.7 The Unit had been tasked to operate as a drug free area and the Governor stated that drug misuse would not be tolerated. Those prisoners who tested positive for drugs would be returned to their sending establishment if they were not prepared to address the problems arising from such drug misuse (see also paragraphs 5.8-16).
5.1.8 The staff mix was also held to be critical to the success of the Unit. There had been a considerable turnover in Unit staff over the last two years and the Governor recognised that since Units were so different to mainstream prisons, it would be almost intolerable for staff (and prisoners) unsuited to such an environment. Even for those staff who were suited, there was an optimum period of no more than 5 years during which an individual could be effective; after that period, performance and the resilience to cope with the pressures both declined sharply.
5.1.9 Responsibility for staff selection lay with the Deputy Governor and Shift Managers, who had developed the selection process to include simulation of key elements of the Unit regime, such as a community meeting and a four group. The Governor felt that this type of recruitment selection process provided information regarding team effectiveness, assertiveness and resilience and found it was very effective for identifying those with attitudes inappropriate to a Unit setting, such as an aggressive stance or an inability to talk things through. It was also intended to include psychometric assessment in the staff selection process. Staff had been recruited to the Unit in a number of ways but not always consistent with the principles stated in the Small Units report and this had effected staff morale and to some extent, had undermined the team.
5.1.10 Staff attendance patterns were not considered to be as efficient as they should be and would need to be revised in due course. The Governor pointed out that some individual TOIL balances were among the highest in the SPS but were expected to come down, now that vacancies had been filled.
5.1.11 The role of the Unit was not as widely understood as it should be. This had resulted in criticism which was sometimes ill informed and contributed to a view held by the Unit staff that they had constantly to justify their existence to the rest of the service. To address this problem, briefings on the role of the Unit had been given to staff in "sending" establishments and articles had appeared in the SPS newspaper.
5.1.12 It was important to ensure consistency and clarity in the way the Unit operated – otherwise ambiguity would lead to erosion of standards and regime slippage.
5.2 It is not surprising that a relatively newly established Unit like Peterhead would experience some problems given the task of dealing with a number of difficult and manipulative prisoners who may be suffering from some formal mental illness or psychological dysfunction and with a shared history of creating serious management problems in mainstream prisons.
5.3 We welcome the reduction in cost per prisoner brought about by maximum occupancy of the Unit. It is important, however, not to lose sight of the outcomes and benefits of spending some time in the Unit in order positively to change behaviours, not only for individual prisoners but also for the mainstream prisons so that the Unit does not become simply a time-out unit. Cost is an important factor but "value", however defined, is arguably more important.
5.4 We question why there are differences in the role of prison officers in the prisoner selection process at Peterhead and Shotts Units.
5.5 Staff turnover was also an issue that was raised at the time of our inspection of Shotts Unit and we recommend, therefore, that consideration should be given to posting staff to small Units on a secondment basis for defined periods.
5.6 We were very disappointed to note that a common approach to the selection of staff to work in Small Units had not yet been adopted, despite the comments made in our reports on the National Induction Centre and Shotts Unit.
5.7 We were, however, encouraged by the approach now being taken at Peterhead Unit to assess candidates against a person specification which included teamwork, interpersonal skills, resilience, reasoning skills, maturity and empathy as well as an understanding of difficult long term prisoners.
5.8 The Unit was designated a drug free area and provided ten spaces as part of its contribution to the SPS corporate measure.
5.9 It was acknowledged, however, that a significant proportion of the Unit population had a drugs problem, which had contributed to their difficulties in the mainstream. It would be necessary to address this to allow the underlying problems to be identified and tackled.
5.10 Access to drugs was said to be limited and uncertain because of the relative isolation from sources of supply. Substitute prescribing was not available at the Unit and prisoners were fully aware of this prior to arrival. Support in coming to terms with drug misuse and its consequences was provided on an individual basis by Grampian Addiction Problems Service and specialist staff, including social workers, an outreach worker, psychiatrist, psychologist and health care staff in addition to encouragement from Unit staff and the prisoner peer group. We were told that prisoners who misused drugs did not inject and there was no injecting equipment in the Unit.
5.11 Mandatory drug testing was carried out by staff from the main prison and the results for the Unit had been incorporated into the prison's return. An operational support agreement had been drawn up with the MDT staff to carry out random and voluntary testing for the Unit. Some changes in the number and type of tests had been proposed by the Unit and were under consideration at the time of our inspection.
5.12 We noted that the MDT results for the Unit prisoners had been absorbed into the prison results. Apart from possible administrative convenience, we can see no advantages to this practice and recommend that separate MDT statistics should be kept. We noted that the Unit had been set a target of 10% positive tests in 1998-99 whilst a target of 40% had been set for the year 1999-2000.
5.13 Analysis of the test results showed that random tests typically took place in the last few days of each month and never at a weekend. This is inconsistent with SPS guidance and we recommend that action is taken to resolve this unsatisfactory state of affairs.
5.14 The number of tests (11) that had been carried out since January 1999 is insufficient to provide useful information about drug taking behaviour in the Unit and we recommend that there should be a significant increase and targeting of testing if it is to have its proper impact.
5.15 We were surprised to note that Peterhead Unit staff were not involved in the drug testing process (unlike the Shotts Unit where we noted a remarkable degree of openness about drug misuse and were encouraged by the efforts made to address the problem). Given the difficulties about testing described above, we suggest that consideration should be given to extending the role of Unit staff in this particular area.
5.16 It was not clear what purpose was being served by designating the Unit as a drug free area, since it clearly was not. We recommend that it should not be so described, since that implies that the focus is on eliminating drug misuse rather than on working with the prisoner to effect positive behavioural change, which is the stated aim of small Units. Prisoners are in the Unit to address deep-seated behavioural problems, some of which may be exacerbated by drug misuse. That is not to say that drug taking in prison could ever be tolerated, especially since it is a factor in the unacceptable behaviour of many of the Unit prisoners past and present; it is part of the problem to be tackled but in our view it is unhelpful and ambiguous to designate the Unit as a drug free area.
5.17 In his briefing, the Governor had spoken of the vision statement, endorsed by SPS Board members, of developing the Peterhead Unit as a model social therapeutic community that promoted positive change.
5.18 The daunting scale of this task was recognised and a number of issues would need to be tackled before sustained progress could be expected. It was recognised in the Small Units Report that Peterhead was not the ideal geographical location for such a Unit but in the absence of finance to build a new facility, it had offered the best option available at that time. The SPS recognises that families can play a major role in helping prisoners use their time in prison in a responsible and positive manner. Family involvement, however, is less developed at Peterhead compared to Shotts Unit due to the geographical isolation.
5.19 Another primary issue influenced by geography was the availability of specialist resources and support. We were told of difficulties in the recruitment and retention of psychologists in the SPS and while interim arrangements have been made to support the Unit following the retiral of the psychologist, the Governor had identified a loss of momentum and continuity of support, which was unfortunate. A report was being prepared on the way forward for delivery of psychology services to small Units in the SPS, which would inevitably have a major influence on the development of the Peterhead Unit as a therapeutic community.
5.20 The critical elements in developing a therapeutic community at Peterhead were described as the ability to identify what kinds of behaviours were amenable to change, a range of strategies and practices to promote positive change and a skilled staff who were able to deploy such strategies appropriately. Fundamental to the achievement of these complex and difficult goals is a clear and objective process for measuring change over time but there are no evaluation criteria or performance measures in place which are necessary to ensure that the process is not subverted, as happened in the Barlinnie Special Unit. It was also recognised that treatment integrity should be monitored, to ensure that interventions met prisoners' needs and that onward movement should be monitored to enable assessment of whether the Units were achieving their objective of assisting prisoners to accept and cope with their imprisonment. It was also considered essential that the operation of the regimes should be monitored in order to identify areas of drift and where necessary, to enable remedial action to be implemented.
5.21 The Small Units Working Group recognised that many of the monitoring and evaluation processes could be carried out at a local level and key indicators, such as the number of violent incidents and breaches of contract agreements, could be used to assess performance against standards. Critical to this process was meticulous internal documentation of the development of the Unit and the progress of prisoners. Specialist Unit staff, particularly psychologists and psychiatrists, were also recognised as having an important contribution to make in this regard.
5.22 In depth evaluations would require to be carried out by professional researchers once the Units had sufficient time to consolidate their operation and responsibility for such evaluation rested with Research Branch at SPS HQ.
5.23 It was disappointing to note that, at the time of writing this report, there had been no such research into the operation of small Units, although we were told that an evaluation of some elements of the regime at the Peterhead Unit were to be included in a research programme on the National Induction Centre. We were also disappointed with the standard of record keeping in the Unit and pointed out some significant gaps and unacceptable variations in standards in a sample of records.
5.24 Whilst acknowledging that the Unit has come through some difficult times when staff (understandably) may have taken their "eye off the ball" as regards evaluation, we did make a similar recommendation to SPS HQ about the need for evaluation of Shotts Unit and the National Induction Centre.
5.25 In our view, it would be extremely difficult for the Unit to develop in a rational, structured way as a social therapeutic community without having clear parameters against which progress could be measured. We therefore recommend that an evaluation of policies, processes and practices be carried out, particularly an assessment of the utility of the prisoner behaviour rating scale which had been developed by the psychologist to measure change over time. In our view, an objective process for measuring change is critical for the future development of Small Units.
|
|
|