< Previous | Contents | Next >

Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland: Report for 1999-2000

3.13 Units (North and East)

HM Unit Peterhead as at September 199910 (no previous formal inspection; the Unit was first opened in September 1995)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

3.14 Units (South and West)

HM Unit Shotts as at November 1999 (previous formal inspection November/December 1998)

Following our formal inspection in November 1998 we noted that many of the procedures and practices in place were consistent with the framework contained in the report "Small Units in the Scottish Prison Service", which was published in October 1994. We also commented favourably on the routines for prisoners and the atmosphere of co-operation between prisoners and staff within a structured regime which allowed better assessment of individual progress and change over time. It was therefore pleasing to note that following our intermediate inspection these positive comments were equally applicable to the present operation of the Shotts Unit. However, we were concerned about the lack of psychology services and the impact that might have on prisoner selection and assessment processes. We would encourage a speedy resolution to this particular issue.

The Unit, like any other establishment, is subject to the pressures of change and this is reflected in a new business definition which states:

"Shotts Unit exists to meet the needs of long term prisoners who have been identified as being unable to be managed in a mainstream establishment.

The Unit is resourced to provide an interactive, participative regime in which prisoners are assisted to develop behavioural and attitudinal changes which will enable them to continue their sentence in a more constructive manner."

A detailed operating manual describing the principles, practices and processes of small units in the SPS was compiled by the Unit psychologist and provides a sound basis for future development.

In our formal inspection we recommended that there should be a formal evaluation of the Shotts Unit to establish, inter alia, the relevance and appropriateness of prisoner selection criteria and processes. We had been informed that work had started with Research Branch at SPS HQ to produce criteria for a research and an evaluation project. Progress appeared to be slow and staff in the Unit were unaware of when the research would take place. We reiterate this recommendation and trust that this work will be given appropriate priority given that the Peterhead Unit is to be "mothballed" next year.

The need for a clear policy on drug misuse in the Unit was recognised and was being developed at the time of our visit. We were encouraged to hear that it was not the intention to designate the Unit as a drug free area. The focus would be on preventing drugs coming into the Unit and assisting in appropriate ways those prisoners who require to address their drug misuse.

There was continued uncertainty about exit plans for prisoners leaving the Unit, an issue which had been identified by independent research as long ago as 1992. While it was to be recognised that such plans were dependent upon progress, more should be done to set realistic and achievable goals at an early stage of a prisoner's time in the Unit. Past history usually colours opinions in mainstream establishments which then form barriers to future progress. Sentence management plans should, therefore, set targets and measure progress to enable prisoners to demonstrate tangible and positive changes which would help them to present an up to date and accurate account of themselves.

Our visit coincided with the announcement of closures and rationalisation of the SPS estate, including the merger of the Shotts Unit and the NIC with the main prison. It was therefore not unexpected that staff's attention was focussed very much on possible changes to the operation of the Unit. Given that the planning and consultative processes for managing these changes had just started, there was some speculation and concerns expressed by staff about possible changes to the selection of prisoners, the autonomy of the Unit within the new structure and future staff deployment and transfer. It would be inappropriate to comment until a clearer picture emerges, but these issues will need to be clearly and unambiguously addressed, if the Unit is to be able to carry out its redefined and unique role.

< Previous | Contents | Next >