|
|
|
|
6.1 Aberdeen College had been contracted to provide educational services to Peterhead Prison and the Unit, an arrangement that had been in place for approximately 4 months. Twelve hours of the contracted time were made available to the Unit, with the programme structured around basic education and IT skills. The overall syllabus included word processing, basic numeracy and literacy, survival cooking, art, horticulture and wood turning skills. Each prisoner had access to the full 12 hours provided, with 75% participating on a regular basis. There had been a temporary break in the provision of some aspects of the education courses due to an issue around personal relationships between prisoners and tutors but this had been resolved prior to our visit.
6.2 Induction training was provided for education staff and there had been no problems encountered so far as the safety of teaching staff was concerned; the level of supervision was also said to be satisfactory. The facility for education within the Unit was described as cramped but overall regarded as satisfactory. A tender for a new contract had been compiled with a view to it starting at the beginning of April 2000, with the emphasis on therapeutic activities within a small Unit setting.
6.3 Social work services to the Unit were provided by the Social Work Department operating within the main prison and averaged a half day per week. The development of the personal officer role within the Unit resulted in the social worker having little input into general welfare/domestic issues. The tasks of the social worker focussed therefore mainly on her statutory obligation to prepare a small number of parole reports, participating in prisoner case conferences and latterly, having limited involvement in the induction process. The social worker had little personal involvement with any individual prisoner behavioural issues that had been identified as needing to be addressed. The development of a multi-disciplinary approach to prisoner management had assisted in the acceptance of a social work presence within the Unit and relationships between management, officers and prisoners was said to be good.
6.4 We were satisfied that the social work provision to the Unit met statutory requirements. There was however an issue of role clarity, particularly in the broader context of an integrated multi-disciplinary approach to prisoner management. There was a sense that the social worker was on the periphery of this set up and required to be part of a more cohesive approach. It was therefore pleasing to note that the Prison Social Work Manager and the Unit Governor had engaged in constructive dialogue to address this issue and explore the possibility of increasing social work input through a clearly defined service level agreement.
6.5 Following the lengthy absence on sick leave of the Unit's Occupational Therapist, the service of an outreach worker with a background in forensic psychiatry was procured on a temporary contract basis and had been in place since June 1999. The service provided two half day sessions per week and was structured around a one-to-one approach with prisoners.
6.6 The outreach worker's remit was to respond to prisoners' identified behavioural needs and covered such issues as anger management, stress, depression and occupational/recreational needs. Other issues such as drug and alcohol dependency could be explored and diverted to a more appropriate service provider. The role was seen as complementing staff involvement in dealing with these particular needs, rather than as a substitute. A good working relationship existed between the outreach worker and Unit staff at all levels. This was particularly evident during prisoner case conferencing. Acceptance by prisoners was well established and he expressed no concerns about his personal safety.
6.7 It was the view of the outreach worker that a greater involvement of prisoners' immediate families would assist in dealing with some of the behavioural problems identified within the group. He believed that the potential for positive influencing by family members was not fully realised and the hope and encouragement which the prisoner would receive by such involvement was not fully appreciated. He advocated greater flexibility towards families in order to develop this approach.
6.8 At the time of our visit the period of the temporary contract agreement had been extended, reflecting positively on the service provided. Given that group work was not seen as a practical or desirable approach in a Unit setting, one-to-one interventions offered an appropriate method for dealing with individual prisoner's needs.
6.9 The chaplaincy team at HMP Peterhead, consisting principally of Church of Scotland and Roman Catholic chaplains, was capable of responding to the various religious denominations within the Unit but preferred an interdenominational approach in responding to the social and spiritual needs of the prisoners.
6.10 The two chaplains had considerable experience of Peterhead prior to the Unit opening and were familiar with prisoners, past and present, in the Unit some of whom had spent time in the segregation cells within the main prison. This experience was invaluable in creating a good relationship irrespective of religious belief and was seen by staff as a positive influence on prisoners. The informal approach adopted by the chaplaincy encouraged prisoners to speak quite freely and frankly about a wide range of issues. Working relationships with other service providers were described as very cordial and management constantly encouraged the chaplains to express their views on the overall management of the Unit.
6.11 We were encouraged by the manner in which the chaplaincy operated within such a unique environment and the commitment and enthusiasm they displayed to the diverse demands placed upon their time.
(v) Staff Counselling Supervisor
6.12 Support for staff in their counselling role was provided by an external agent. The need for such a service had been identified at the inception of the Unit, due to the particular stresses associated with this type of work. Assistance was available one day in every 6 weeks and was provided on a one-to-one basis, typically as a result of self referral. It was the view of the staff counsellor that there was a risk that staff who recognised a need to see a counsellor would be reluctant to do so due to the possible stigmatisation associated with a perceived inability to cope with the role and its stressful consequences. However, compulsory attendance by all staff, as a way of anonymising those who take advantage of the service available, was considered to be impracticable due not only to the limited availability of the service but also because of difficulties about imposing "support". Despite these underlying issues, the service was being used and was considered to be extremely useful to staff working within this field. It was evident from later discussions with a staff group that it was an appreciated and highly valued source of support.
6.13 Forensic psychiatry services were provided for a half day each week by the forensic psychiatry team from Cornhill Hospital Trust in Aberdeen, who provided 9 half day sessions per week to prisons in the North East.
6.14 We met with the Consultant who described the main elements of his role as providing psychiatric support to prisoners, supporting staff in dealing with individuals whose behaviour may be linked to mental illness and providing an input to the development of the Unit as a therapeutic community.
6.15 He considered that the description in the Small Units Report of the role of the Peterhead Unit as catering for difficult prisoners who would tend to be of below average intelligence, susceptible to peer pressure and with few social skills as unhelpful and leading to suspicion and stigmatisation. He said that these labels engendered prejudice and could be a factor in some prisoners living up (or down) to often unfounded or obsolete expectations.
6.16 He described much of the prisoners' behaviour as context dependent and said that the Unit presented prisoners with the opportunity for positive change. However, this raised a number of issues that remained to be addressed. Evaluation of small Units was difficult since no measures had been determined nor had an objective process for evaluation been developed. Identifying when it was appropriate for a prisoner to move on was also difficult given the lack of an agreed and applied process for measuring change. Similarly, deciding on an exit plan that would consolidate positive change and support further development was critical to success both in the immediate and longer terms.
6.17 The role of the psychologist was considered to be central to the operation of small Units. Psychology services were provided for one day per week on an interim basis following the retiral of the psychology theme leader for violent and difficult prisoners. The psychologist described her role as supporting positive behaviour change in prisoners, supporting staff in dealing with difficult and sometimes bizarre prisoner behaviours and taking an overview of the operation of the Unit to ensure the consistency and integrity of approach.
6.18 Critical elements of this role were initial assessment of "difficult" prisoners, measuring changed behaviour and providing advice on how to balance the length of stay with the optimum benefit to the prisoner, who was able to understand what changes were required and who recognised the personal advantages in effecting positive changes and returning to the mainstream to complete his sentence.
6.19 It was acknowledged that there was only limited availability of appropriately skilled psychologists and this could prove to be a major inhibitor to the operation and development of small Units, a fact that was fully recognised by SPS headquarters.
6.20 SPS headquarters' responsibility for the evaluation and development of small Units rests between Custody Directorate and Area Directors. In our report on Shotts Unit in 1998, we had recommended that responsibilities for policy development, implementation and operational practices should be clarified and procedures put in place to ensure consistency and provide direction for what are very expensive facilities. Some progress has been made but much still remains to be done. We therefore recommend that these issues receive a higher priority than has been the case so far.
|
|
|