|
|
|
|
10.1 In examining the operation of the Peterhead 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 view, following this first formal inspection, is that many of the procedures and practices were consistent with the ideals set out in that report. That said, the definition of the role and purpose of small Units was written over 5 years ago and no longer fully reflects the challenging task carried out by staff in the Peterhead Unit. Small Units, which are not simply 'time out units', are by their nature, dynamic and sometimes turbulent places where difficult, occasionally painful, complex and inter-related issues can be tackled.
10.2 In general, we found a busy, purposeful establishment that appeared to be getting over the consequences of a serious incident that had occurred in November 1998. Inevitably, there had been renewed focus on security and order issues, which may have given rise to some loss of trust between prisoners and staff. In addition, some members of staff felt that they had lost a degree of autonomy and this had resulted in some frustration and had impaired inter-personal and inter-group relationships. Nevertheless, we were impressed by the differences in general behaviour and the positive changes that appeared to have been achieved.
10.3 There are, however, no agreed processes for objectively measuring such change, nor has sufficient priority been given to evaluating properly the success or otherwise of small Units in identifying effective ways of working with "difficult" prisoners which could be applied more widely. Furthermore, the lack of performance measures makes it difficult to move prisoners on when they have successfully completed their time in the Unit. We believe, therefore, that further development of the Peterhead Unit as a therapeutic community could face some difficulties, given its inherent geographical isolation and the lack of parameters against which change can be measured. In addition, the contribution of psychology services in the key area of consistency and integrity of approach will continue to be critical to the Unit's development.
10.4 Many of the issues raised in this report are echoed in our 1998 report on the Shotts Unit; for example, we believe there should be greater co-ordination of policies and practices in small Units. This can only come about when there is greater clarity of role and responsibilities between Custody Directorate, Area Directors and Strategy and Corporate Affairs Directorate at SPS HQ. Clear lines of accountability and direction will serve to demonstrate the necessary degree of support and commitment which will enable staff in small Units, including Peterhead, to work effectively with difficult and sometimes troubled individuals.
10.5 In summary, the Unit would appear to be more than a "time out" facility, though we were unable fully to make an assessment of its effectiveness. Much closer focus on the development of objective performance measures is needed, so that its value and contribution to the SPS and to public safety can be set against its very high costs.
|
|
|