|
|
|
|
8.1 The Governor, who had been in post for 2 years, headed a small Management Team that comprised a Deputy Governor and 3 Shift Managers. The Management team was described as being relatively new, having been in post for some 18 months at the time of our inspection.
8.2 The operating philosophy of the Unit was set by the Governor. The Deputy Governor managed the Shift Managers and was also the Finance Manager; the Shift Managers managed the staff who dealt with the prisoners. Responsibility for staff selection and training rested appropriately with the Deputy Governor and the Shift Managers (see paragraph 5.1.9).
8.3 Shift Managers were located in the administration area and had been allocated responsibility for particular areas such as security and communications, activities and staff training and development. Key elements of their job were described as arbitration and resolving difficulties between staff and prisoners, supervision of interactions between staff and prisoners and carrying out the line management role for up to 6 Officers. Previously they had an office in the centre of the Unit but it was felt that the prisoners had tended to bypass staff and approach Shift Managers directly on issues which should have been initially dealt with by the staff. Shift Managers did not consider that their base in the administration area had led to them being somewhat isolated from the staff and prisoners. This was in contrast to the views expressed in the staff group (see paragraph 8.8).
8.4 The management structure at the Peterhead Unit differs from that of the Shotts Unit by having a Deputy Governor, despite the fact that the roles of the Units are very similar.
8.5 We noted that the staff selection process did not include a one month probationary period as recommended in the Small Units Report. In discussion with the Shift Managers it was pointed out that the costs involved would be prohibitive, although some cheaper options were briefly explored. It was also pointed out by the Governor in his briefing that a Unit setting would be intolerable for unsuitable staff who would inevitably become obstacles to progress. We therefore recommend that a one month probationary period be incorporated into the staff selection process.
8.6 As is our normal practice during the course of our inspection, we interviewed a group of staff. The meeting was attended by 10 uniformed staff. We have recorded the views of staff as they were put to us but should not be taken to imply that the Inspectorate is in full agreement with every point raised. The following is a summary of the main points raised.
8.7 Aggressive verbal behaviour and physical threats had been a recent feature in the Unit. Most concerning was when prisoners had presented knives to staff on two occasions. It was apparent that the incident in November 1998, which had resulted in the temporary closure of the Unit, was still a major factor in staff's feelings of vulnerability. Staff spoke of feeling isolated at times with volatile individuals, many of whom had a history of violence towards staff. It was recognised that this was an inherent part of working in the Unit but staff felt that the stresses involved in dealing with 10 prisoners were now disproportionately higher than when they had been dealing with smaller numbers.
8.8 Staff expressed concern about their competence and confidence in dealing with some of the behaviours exhibited by some prisoners. They spoke of the support they had received from the previous psychologist, which they felt was not as accessible to them under the present interim arrangement. They also felt that the location of the shift manager in the administration area had added to feelings of isolation and what they perceived as a growing lack of awareness on the part of management, which made communications more difficult than necessary.
8.9 Following the incident in November 1998, it had been necessary to close the Unit for a short period in order to regain control. Some staff now felt disempowered, since they no longer felt they had the appropriate degree of autonomy to deal with many issues raised by prisoners. By being required to refer to managers much more than previously, they were perceived by prisoners to be powerless and this had further eroded staff's self confidence. Staff spoke of feeling inhibited and described community meetings as being rigidly "stage managed", which contributed to polarisation within the Unit.
8.10 It was pointed out that the variable for training was twice the national allowance. There had been a high turnover in staff, many of whom felt that they had not received adequate training to carry out their new role. Staff spoke of training in counselling skills being provided on their weekend off duty and some felt pressurised into attending. There were trenchant criticisms of the induction process and the failure to deliver the commitments given in the Small Unit's Report in regard to selection, training, probation and most especially, support in developing a range of options to operate effectively in a very challenging environment.
8.11 Some staff indicated that teamwork was an issue and interdivisional communication and working were issues that should be addressed in order to ensure consistency, which was clearly held to be important for the successful operation of the Unit. Some described relationships with the Unit's managers as lacking in trust and spoke of a tendency towards unbalanced, negative feedback during appraisal. Staff did however think that when a domestic problem arose, they were afforded support from everyone in the Unit.
8.12 These were described as being extremely poor and insufficient in terms of quality and quantity. A small room, which contained inadequate size lockers, was also the toilet, shower and changing area. There were no proper areas for taking breaks or meeting in private.
8.13 We advised the Governor and Area Director of concerns expressed by some staff over personal safety and support and they undertook to address these issues with staff at the earliest opportunity.
8.14 The HR Manager had been 4 months in post at the time of our visit. He attended the Unit's Strategic Planning Meeting and was also involved in the monthly management meeting and local Staff Training Committee meetings. His view was that the Unit should consider using outside expertise to support staff in what he considered to be a very stressful environment. He described plans for the Unit to achieve Investors in People accreditation.
8.15 He referred to some factionalism which existed between the main prison and the Unit but felt that integration would be assisted by his presence as a joint Human Resource Manager. Reference was made to the need for an exit policy for staff who are either unsuitable or have served their time in the Unit. He felt that there was an optimum period for staff to stay in the Unit, after which they should be supported in moving on. He stated that he planned to take part in staff selection for the Unit, following training in recruitment and selection processes.
8.16 The Unit had a Staff Training Committee which was chaired by a shift manager and was scheduled to meet every 2 months with a minuted report produced. This process had, however, lapsed in recent months. The chairman stated that he had not had any training for his role in staff training but liaised with the HR Manager, who spent approximately one day per month in the Unit. He claimed that staff training was a very high priority within the Unit. All staff were working towards COSCA Module 1 Groupworking Skills and management were devising a set of core unit competencies, which would inform the training needs of staff. According to the Chairman, this had been some time in the planning but was very much on the agenda.
8.17 The staff training variable for the Unit was 10 days per member of staff and the Chairman was able to demonstrate that this target was being met. He also stated that, in his view, staff training within the Unit took place on a daily basis in the form of coaching and mentoring from managers. He said that a 3-day Unit induction training course had been devised and was being delivered to new recruits.
|
|
|