Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales - Annual Report 2016-2017, 2017
Download original document:
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016–17 HC 208 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016–17 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 5A of the Prison Act 1952 as amended by Section 57 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 18 July 2017. HC 208 © Crown Copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: firstname.lastname@example.org. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications and www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at: email@example.com Print ISBN 9781474146494 Web ISBN 9781474146500 ID 14061733 07/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum. Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. CONTENTS Who we are and what we do 4 1 Introduction 6 2 The year in brief 14 3 Men in prison 17 By the Chief Inspector of Prisons Growing concerns on safety 20 Sharp decline in respect outcomes 29 Locked up and not in purposeful activity 38 Resettlement services not meeting the challenge 46 4 Women in prison 52 5 Children in custody 60 6 Immigration detention 70 7 Police custody 78 8 Court custody and escorts 84 10 The Inspectorate in 2016–17 88 11 Appendices 94 1 Inspection reports published 2016–17 95 2 Healthy prison and establishment assessments 2016–17 97 3 Recommendations accepted in 2016–17 99 4 Recommendations achieved in 2016–17 101 5 2016–17 survey responses: diversity analysis 104 6 2016–17 survey: key responses from men and women 112 WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO Our purpose Education and Inspection Act 2006 section 146; and To ensure independent inspection of places of detention, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 section 9. report on conditions and treatment, and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public. Most inspections take place in partnership with other inspectorates, including Ofsted, Estyn, Our values HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), Care Quality Independence, impartiality and integrity are the Commission (CQC), HM Inspectorate of Probation and foundations of our work. the General Pharmaceutical Council, appropriate to The experience of the detainee is at the heart of the type and location of the establishment. our inspections. OPCAT and the National Preventive Mechanism Respect for human rights underpins our expectations. All inspections carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons We embrace diversity and are committed to contribute to the UK’s response to its international pursuing equality of outcomes for all. obligations under the Optional Protocol to the UN ¡¡ We believe in the capacity of both individuals Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or and organisations to change and improve, and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). OPCAT that we have a part to play in initiating and requires that all places of detention are visited regularly encouraging change. by independent bodies – known as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) – which monitor the treatment of and Our remit conditions for detainees. HM Inspectorate of Prisons is We inspect: one of several bodies making up the NPM in the UK and coordinates its joint activities. ¡¡ adult men’s and women’s prisons in England Our approach and Wales ¡¡ young offender institutions (YOIs) in England All inspections of prisons, immigration detention and Wales facilities, police and court custody suites and ¡¡ secure training centres (STCs) in England military detention are conducted against published ¡¡ all forms of immigration detention, including Expectations, which draw on and are referenced escorts, throughout the UK against international human rights standards.1 ¡¡ police custody in England and Wales Expectations for inspections of prisons and immigration ¡¡ court custody in England and Wales detention facilities are based on four tests of a healthy ¡¡ Border Force custody in England and Scotland ¡¡ military detention facilities throughout the UK, establishment. For prisons, the four tests are: by invitation ¡¡ prisons in Northern Ireland by invitation ¡¡ Safety – prisoners, particularly the most ¡¡ prisons and other custodial institutions in other vulnerable, are held safely. ¡¡ Respect – prisoners are treated with respect for jurisdictions with links to the UK, by invitation. their human dignity. Our remit is set out in section 5A of the Prison Act ¡¡ Purposeful activity – prisoners are able, and 1952 as amended by section 57 of the Criminal expected, to engage in activity that is likely to Justice Act 1982; Section 152 (5) of the Immigration benefit them. ¡¡ Resettlement – prisoners are prepared for their and Asylum Act 1999; Section 46 (1) of the release into the community and helped to reduce Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; the likelihood of reoffending. the Police and Justice Act 2006 section 28; the 1 All the Inspectorate’s Expectations are available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/our-expectations/ The tests for immigration detention facilities are similar but also take into account the specific circumstances applying to detainees and the fact that they have not been charged with a criminal offence or detained through normal judicial processes. The other forms of detention we inspect are also usually based on variants of these tests, as we describe in the relevant section of the report. For inspections of prisons and immigration detention facilities, we make an assessment of outcomes for prisoners or detainees against each test. These range from good to poor as follows: Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are good against this healthy prison/establishment test There is no evidence that outcomes for prisoners/ detainees are being adversely affected in any significant areas. Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are reasonably good against this healthy prison/establishment test There is evidence of adverse outcomes for prisoners/ detainees in only a small number of areas. For the majority, there are no significant concerns. Procedures to safeguard outcomes are in place. Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are not sufficiently good against this healthy prison/ establishment test There is evidence that outcomes for prisoners/ detainees are being adversely affected in many areas or particularly in those areas of greatest importance to their wellbeing. Problems/concerns, if left unattended, are likely to become areas of serious concern. Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are poor against this healthy prison test There is evidence that the outcomes for prisoners/ detainees are seriously affected by current practice. There is a failure to ensure even adequate treatment of and/or conditions for prisoners/ detainees. Immediate remedial action is required. Inspectors use five key sources of evidence in making their assessments: ¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡ observation prisoner/detainee surveys discussions with prisoners/detainees discussions with staff and relevant third parties documentation. Since 1 April 2013, all inspections of adult prisons and immigration detention centres have been unannounced (other than in exceptional circumstances), and have followed up recommendations made at the previous inspection. Prisons are inspected at least once every five years, although we expect to inspect most every two to three years. Some high-risk establishments may be inspected more frequently, including those holding children under 18, which are now inspected annually. Every immigration removal centre (IRC) receives a full unannounced inspection at least once every four years, or every two years if it holds children. Non-residential short-term holding facilities are inspected at least once every six years. Residential short-term holding facilities are inspected at least once every four years. Within this framework, all immigration inspections are scheduled on a risk-assessed basis. We inspect each police force’s custody suites at least once every six years, or more often if concerns have been raised during a previous inspection or by other intelligence. We carry out inspections of court custody facilities in three areas each year. In addition to inspections of individual establishments, we produce thematic reports on cross-cutting issues, singly or with other inspectorates as part of the Criminal Justice Joint Inspection process. We also use our inspection findings to make observations and recommendations relating to proposed legislative and policy changes. 1 SECTION ONE Introduction Introduction by the Chief Inspector of Prisons 6 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction This is my second annual report as HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales. The report describes the activities of HM Inspectorate of Prisons and sets out in broad terms our findings across the various types of detention on which we report. I would like to pay tribute to the support we receive from the leaders and staff of the establishments we inspect, many of whom are working under immense pressure in often difficult and sometimes dangerous circumstances. Without their cooperation, frankness and help our task would be immeasurably more difficult. The Inspectorate also relies heavily on surveys, individual discussions and group work with prisoners and other detainees. I am grateful to all those who have helped enrich our knowledge and understanding of their treatment and the conditions in which they have been held during this past year. At the heart of our work is the inspection of adult prisons, which hold more than 81,000 men and nearly 4,000 women. Last year I reported that too many of our prisons had become unacceptably violent and dangerous places. The situation has not improved – in fact, it has become worse. There have been startling increases in all types of violence. The biggest increase is assaults on staff which, in the 12 months to December 2016, rose by 38% to 6,844 incidents. Of these 789 were serious, an increase of 26%. In total there were more than 26,000 assaults, an increase of 27%. Of the 29 local prisons and training prisons we inspected during the year, we judged 21 of them to be ‘poor’ or ‘not sufficiently good’ in the area of safety. It is widely recognised that the conditions in which prisoners are held has an impact on their sense of well-being. In this context, it is particularly concerning to see that the number of self-inflicted deaths has more than doubled since 2013, and that in the 12 months to March 2017 113 prisoners took their own lives. Self-inflicted deaths are investigated by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), who also makes recommendations to prevent recurrences. We found that one-third of the prisons we inspected had not implemented PPO recommendations well enough, and there were often recurring themes of failure in process and practice. This report points out that in many of these prisons, there have been subsequent self-inflicted deaths. So why is it that so many of our jails have become so unsafe? Many of the reasons have been well documented. The prevalence of drugs inside prisons, and the seeming inability to keep them out has clearly been a major factor. Debt, bullying, and self-segregation by prisoners looking to escape the violence generated by the drugs trade are commonplace. This has all been compounded by staffing levels in many jails that are simply too low to keep order and at the same time run a decent regime that allows prisoners to be let out of their cells to get to training and education, and have access to basic facilities. During the past year, I have seen far too many prisoners who are being held in conditions that cannot be described as decent. In the vast majority of cases this is not because of poor staff attitudes or weak leadership. In fact, it is to the immense credit of staff that in our surveys of prisoners, 74% say that they are treated with respect. In light of the overcrowding in many jails and the excessive time many prisoners spend locked in their cells, this speaks well of the dedication and professionalism of most staff. However, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 7 SECTION ONE Introduction in the area of respect, the fact remains that in the space of a year the percentage of adult male prisons we have judged to be ‘good’ or ‘reasonably good’ has slumped from 78% to 49%. This is a dramatic and rapid decline. If prisoners are to benefit from activities, courses and programmes that can help them rehabilitate and lead better, more useful lives in the future, they need to be able to leave their cells. Our expectation is that prisoners should be unlocked for at least 10 hours a day. According to our prisoner survey, only 14% of prisoners achieve this, and the figure is as low as 4% for young adults and 8% in local prisons. Shockingly, 30% of young adults (aged 18 to 21) being held in adult establishments told us that they spent less than two hours a day out of their cells. Shortages of staff undoubtedly have an impact on how much time prisoners are unlocked, but on occasions we have seen unjustifiably restricted regimes that are clearly counterproductive. These figures suggest a serious deterioration in standards in our prisons, but they do not describe it. What is it like for prisoners on a day-to-day basis? During the course of the year I have often been appalled by the conditions in which we hold many prisoners. Far too often I have seen men sharing a cell in which they are locked up for as much as 23 hours a day, in which they are required to eat all their meals, and in which there is an unscreened lavatory. On several occasions prisoners have pointed out insect and vermin infestations to me. In many prisons I have seen shower and lavatory facilities that are filthy and dilapidated, but with no credible or affordable plans for refurbishment. I have seen many prisoners who are obviously under the influence of drugs. I am frequently shown evidence of repeated self-harm, and in every prison I find far too many prisoners suffering from varying degrees of learning disability or mental impairment. I have personally 8 witnessed violence between prisoners, and seen both the physical and psychologically traumatic impact that serious violence has had on staff. My anecdotal experience is no substitute for the broader evidence-based findings, but if I have experienced this during the course of inspections, what must be the impact on the prisoners and staff who endure these things every day of their lives? It is obvious that there is no quick or easy solution to these deep-seated problems. Some commentators propose a dramatic reduction in prisoner numbers, or a huge increase in investment in staff and facilities. It is not for HM Inspectorate of Prisons to say which is the right approach. That is a matter of policy for government. However, it is undoubtedly the job of the Inspectorate to point out where the imbalance between staff and prisoner numbers adversely affects the treatment of and conditions for prisoners. An immediate impact in far too many prisons is that staff shortages make it impossible to provide a decent, rehabilitative environment. When a person is sent to prison, the state accepts responsibility for their well-being, including their physical and mental health, safety and education. There is clear evidence that for too many prisoners the state is failing in its duty. Thankfully, we found a better state of affairs in women’s prisons. We inspected five establishments during the year, and in only one prison did we judge a healthy prison area to be ‘not sufficiently good’ – this was for purposeful activity. Despite the complex needs and vulnerabilities of many women prisoners, we found that in all the prisons we inspected there were strong outcomes for safety, respect and resettlement. However, it is deeply concerning that the incidence of self-inflicted death and self-harm among women has risen dramatically. In 2016 the self-inflicted deaths of 12 women was the highest figure since 2004, and this is even more worrying in light of the significant decline in the female prison population over Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction that time. In addition, women self-harm at a rate far higher than that of their male counterparts. In fact, they are around five times more likely to do so, which is perhaps consistent with our survey findings pointing to much greater vulnerability among women coming into prison. The closure of HMP Holloway has led to other women’s prisons being more crowded, and also means that more women are now being held further away from friends and family. We shall closely monitor the impact of these developments during future inspections, and hope that the introduction of new ‘community prisons’ for women, and the dedicated focus which should flow from having a single management structure for women’s prisons within HM Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS, formerly NOMS), will have a positive impact on outcomes for women. Perhaps the most concerning findings during the year emerged from our inspections of the custodial estate for children and young people. In the light of the revelations last year about apparent mistreatment of children at Medway Secure Training Centre (STC), we took the decision that we must maintain the momentum of our inspections at STCs and young offender institutions (YOIs). The outcome of those inspections has been very troubling. Not all of the relevant inspection reports had been published within the timeframe covered by this annual report, but in early 2017 I felt compelled to bring to the attention of ministers my serious concern about our findings. By February this year we had reached the conclusion that there was not a single establishment that we inspected in England and Wales in which it was safe to hold children and young people. The background to this dire situation is significant, and I make no apology for repeating here some of the relevant statistics. At that time there were around 609 children held in YOIs and 155 in STCs. The Youth Justice Board Annual Statistics for 2015–16 showed self-harm rates running at 8.9 incidents per 100 children compared with 4.1 in 2011. Assault rates were 18.9 per 100 children, compared with 9.7 in 2011. Our own surveys showed that 46% of boys had felt unsafe at their establishment. The number of those reporting being victimised by other boys had risen significantly, and those who said they had been treated with respect by staff had fallen. Meanwhile, the proportion of boys engaged in a job (16%), vocational training (11%) and offending behaviour programmes (16%) across the YOIs was lower in 2015–16 than at any point since 2010–11. To compound all of this, our inspections of individual establishments showed that none of them at that time reached the standard of ‘good’ or ‘reasonably good’ in the area of safety. The fact that we had reached a position where we could not judge any institution to be sufficiently safe was bad enough, but the speed of decline has been staggering. In 2013–14 we found that nine out of 12 institutions were graded as reasonably good or good for safety. The reasons for this slump in standards are no doubt complex, but need to be understood and addressed as a matter of urgency. It may well be that the decline in the number of children and young people held in custody means those who remain are the most challenging to manage. I suspect this is an oversimplification. The quality and consistency of leadership at these establishments will obviously have a direct impact on the quality of what is delivered. All too often we find that governors, directors and other senior managers for the young people’s estate move from one post to another far too quickly. The aspirations set out in 2016 in Charlie Taylor’s review of the youth justice system are of course welcome, and one can only hope that in due course they will provide a template for a system within which children and young people can benefit from a constructive and productive approach to addressing their behaviour. In HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 9 SECTION ONE Introduction the meantime, we see establishments in which there seems to be something of a vicious circle. Violence leads to a restrictive regime and security measures which in turn frustrate those being held there. We have seen regimes where boys take every meal alone in their cell, where they are locked up for excessive amounts of time, where they do not get enough exercise, education or training, and where there do not appear to be any credible plans to break the cycle of violence. Quite apart from the human cost of these conditions, there is a large amount of resource, such as teachers and classrooms within the estate, that are being paid for but not used because institutions cannot get boys to education either on time or at all. I set out these concerns in a letter to Dr Lee, the Minister for Victims, Youth and Family Justice on 14 February 2017. On 24 February, it was announced that a new Youth Custody Service, as a distinct arm of HMPPS, would become responsible for the operational running of the children and young people’s estate. Time will tell if their work can break the cycle of violence besetting these establishments. The current state of affairs is dangerous, counterproductive and will inevitably end in tragedy unless urgent corrective action is taken. HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ inspection of immigration detention is detailed in this report, and sets out our work at three immigration removal centres, the Cedars pre-departure accommodation for families with children, 18 shortterm holding facilities and one escorted overseas removal. Safety outcomes were reasonably good at two of the IRCs, but there were concerns about the situation at Morton Hall. There was frustration among the detainees that was caused, to a large extent, by the uncertainties facing many of them as to how long they would be detained in what were very prisonlike conditions. There was a considerable amount of antisocial behaviour, some violence and a self-inflicted death. 10 As is so often the case in immigration detention, delays in casework sat behind much of the frustration. It was worrying too that, as in prisons, new psychoactive substances (NPS) were beginning to have an impact within immigration detention. It was good to see that there had been some improvements in the Rule 35 process, designed to protect those with serious health problems or who had been the victims of torture. However, it was a pity that by far the best provision in the immigration detention estate in the UK at Cedars, for use by families with children awaiting deportation or an ensured administrative removal, was closed on the grounds of low use and high cost. It is to be hoped that the replacement facility at Tinsley House will be of similar quality. During the course of the year our joint inspection work with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) developed as we introduced a revised version of Expectations for Police Custody. This had a renewed focus on the vulnerabilities of those coming into custody, on diversity and safety. Police custody has been considerably professionalised in recent years, and the advent of modern, purpose-built custody suites has helped enormously. However, there needs to be a continuing focus on safety, with too many forces still not sufficiently aware of potential ligature points, particularly in older accommodation. There are also still too many deficiencies in the governance of the use of force. We hope to see greater attention to and improvements in these important areas. We have continued in our role as the coordinating body for the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM). In 2016, for the first time, the NPM appointed a fully independent chair, a role previously filled informally by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. I warmly welcome this appointment. The NPM as a body should be as independent as possible from its constituent members, and to that end it would be a positive development in the future for its funding Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction to be transparently separate from that of HM Inspectorate of Prisons, and sufficient to fulfil its increasing and internationally mandated role. The Inspectorate has a programme of thematic inspections, and these are fully referenced within the report. However, I will make particular mention of our report Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection. This report was the second we have produced pointing out the injustice suffered by many prisoners who, through no fault of their own, are unable to demonstrate whether the risk they pose has reduced, and therefore be in a position to make an application for release. There are difficulties and blockages in prisons, probation and the Parole Board. The conclusion of our report was that the only person with the authority and capability to grasp the issue was the Secretary of State. The architects of these sentences now admit that their implementation was flawed. We received an action plan from NOMS (now HMPPS) in response to the report, and shall monitor to see whether the urgency of the issue is matched by the vigour of the response. Our last report on this subject was in 2008 and disappointingly, little has changed in that time except for an increase in the sense of injustice and frustration brought about by these sentences. The year has been marked by an unprecedented political and public focus on the need to improve conditions in our prisons. In early 2016 the then Prime Minister announced a programme of prison reform that was intended to put education at the heart of the process of rehabilitation, and improve the conditions in which prisoners are held. In February 2017, the Prisons and Courts Bill was introduced into Parliament. This Bill contained several important provisions directly relevant to the work of the Inspectorate. Throughout the year, we had worked closely with those who were drafting the Bill, and were pleased to see that many of the proposals in our submission to the Justice Select Committee in September 2016 had been incorporated into the draft clauses. The Bill was lost when the General Election was called in April 2017. Nevertheless, I hope that as far as possible the aspirations of the Bill, particularly in terms of sharpening the response to Inspectorate reports, can be realised through administrative directions. I shall be working closely with officials to this end. However, some important and long soughtafter provisions contained in the Bill appear to have been lost for the forseeable future. For instance, for the first time there was to be statutory recognition of our independence. This was to be achieved through a reference to the Inspectorate being established in accordance with the ‘objective of OPCAT’, the UN’s Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, to which the UK is a signatory. Incorporating this into legislation would have had the effect of making Parliament the guardian of our independence, which would have been a most welcome development. The relationship between HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) as our sponsor department is crucial. At times in the past there have been tensions, not always constructive, particularly in the area of budgetary delegation and financial controls. During the course of the past year HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the MOJ, with the encouragement and support of the Justice Select Committee, have worked closely together to develop a protocol describing how the relationship should work. This document was signed off in March 2017. It sets out the essential elements of our independence, and references the prerequisite of independence for our role as a member of the NPM. It is the first time that there has been an HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 11 SECTION ONE Introduction explicit recognition in this form of our independence, and in due course I hope this will be strengthened in statutory form. As an independent inspectorate without formal powers, we rely upon persuasion, logic, goodwill and publicity to achieve our impact. We are an inspectorate whose role is to find things out and report what we see. Our inspection criteria are underpinned by international human rights standards. This means we are consistent in the standards we expect to see, and are not influenced by policy swings, bureaucratic convenience, resource constraints or political expediency. We neither have nor seek regulatory powers. However, I am concerned by the fact that this year we found – for the first time – that the number of our recommendations that had been fully achieved was lower than the number not achieved. Figure 1: Percentage of recommendations achieved per reporting year2 50 we found all of these to be fundamentally unsafe prisons. To compound the individual failures to implement safety recommendations, we also found across the entirety of our inspections that 42% of recommendations on safety from previous inspections had not been achieved. Perhaps we should not be surprised by the decline in standards. Safety is the basis upon which any other constructive activity in a prison is dependent. Unsafe prisons will not rehabilitate, reform, educate, train or provide a therapeutic environment for the all too many people in them suffering from mental health issues. It is for this reason that I welcomed the provisions in the Prisons and Courts Bill to require a response to our recommendations, and in extreme situations to require the Secretary of State to intervene. Of course, it shouldn’t need legislation to make these things happen. I hope that the new administration sees the obvious good sense of these proposals and quickly implements them by means of unequivocal administrative directions. Percentage 40 30 20 10 0 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 Report Year Achieved Partially Achieved Not Achieved The reasons for this are not always clear, but the impact is. For instance, we have seen far too many prisons achieve the lowest possible grading in the area of safety. In many cases the response to previous recommendations has been unforgivably poor. At HMP Wormwood Scrubs and HMP Featherstone only two out of 20 safety recommendations were achieved; at HMP Swaleside it was four out of 24. Perhaps it is not surprising that During the course of the past year I have seen many prisons and other institutions operating under extreme pressure. The challenges thrown up by the prevalence of illegal drugs and other contraband, increasing violence, too many prisoners suffering from mental health issues, an ageing prison population and a prison estate that in many places is not fit for any purpose, let alone the decent detention of human beings, are stretching hard-working and well-intentioned staff to their limits. Reform is overdue. It is in that context that we decided to review the Expectations upon which we base our work. They will remain grounded in the enduring and independent basis of internationally recognised human rights norms. Our role will remain that of assessing the outcomes for prisoners and detainees, and not of assessing compliance with self-generated policies, or deciding whether those policies are achieving their self-defined objectives. 2 This includes recommendations and main recommendations. Recommendations judged as ‘other’ or ‘no longer relevant’ have been excluded. Data is for all adult male and female prisons and YOI establishments. 12 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION ONE Introduction That is clearly a role for line management, and not for an independent inspectorate. Finally, I would like to thank each and every member of the Inspectorate for their unfailing commitment to our work. Only with their help and support could we deliver every aspect of our inspection programme on time, to the quality that is expected of us, and with the impartiality and integrity that has become our hallmark. It is a vitally important role and they perform a valuable public service. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 13 2 SECTION TWO The year in brief The year in brief 14 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION TWO The year in brief Between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017 we published 86 inspection reports. Adult prisons (England and Wales): 36 prisons holding adult men3 five prisons holding adult women4 Establishments holding children and young people: four young offender institutions (YOIs) holding children under the age of 185 four inspections of three secure training centres (STCs) holding children aged 12 to 18, jointly with Ofsted Immigration detention: ¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡ ¡¡ three immigration removal centres one pre-departure accommodation 18 short-term holding facilities6 one overseas escort. Police custody: police custody suites in 10 force areas with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) Court custody: Other publications In 2016–17, we published the following additional publications: ¡¡ A review of short-term holding facilities, 2011–16 ¡¡ The impact of distance from home on children in custody ¡¡ Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection – a thematic review ¡¡ An inspection of through the gate resettlement services for short-term prisoners (jointly with HMI Probation) ¡¡ Monitoring places of detention. Sixth annual report of the United Kingdom’s National Preventive Mechanism 2015–16 (on behalf of the NPM) ¡¡ Children in custody 2015–16. An analysis of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their experience in secure training centres and young offender institutions (commissioned by the Youth Justice Board) ¡¡ Life in prison: Contact with families and friends ¡¡ Life in prison: Food three court custody areas covering four counties and two areas of London Extra-jurisdiction inspections: ¡¡ three prisons in Northern Ireland7 3 Including Maghaberry prison and Hydebank Wood Secure College in Northern Ireland, and resulting in 37 assessments, including separate assessments for the category C unit at Winchester and the category D unit at Hewell. 4 Including Ash House prison in Northern Ireland. 5 The inspection at Wetherby and Keppel produced separate assessments for each unit. 6 The Calais and Coquelles report covered three facilities. 7 Maghaberry prison received a full inspection and a low impact review in this period. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 15 SECTION TWO The year in brief In July 2016, we also published a new edition, following extensive consultation, of Expectations for police custody: Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for detainees in police custody. During 2016–17 we also began drafting and consulting on a new version of our Expectations for adult male prisons, with the aim of applying these in the 2017–18 reporting period. Our reports and publications are published online at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/ hmiprisons Report publication and other news is notified via our Twitter account. Go to: https://twitter.com/HMIPrisonsnews or @HMIPrisonsnews We made submissions to a range of consultations and inquiries, and also commented on a number of draft Prison Service Instructions and Orders and draft Detention Services Orders, including: Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on support for ex-offenders (21 April 2016) Women and the Criminal Justice System inquiry (2 May 2016) National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) review of the physical health of people in prison (24 June 2016) National Offender Management Service review of incentives and earned privileges scheme (13 July 2016) Lammy review of black and minority ethnic representation in the criminal justice system (25 July 2016) Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs inquiry into older drug users (30 August 2016) Health in Justice and Other Vulnerable Adults review of women in the criminal justice system in London: a health strategy (19 September 2016) Justice Committee inquiry into prison reform (20 September 2016) Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody inquiry into deaths of women in custody (6 January 2017) Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into mental health and deaths in prison (3 February 2017) 16 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION TWO The year in brief HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 17 3 SECTION THREE Men in prison Men in prison 18 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE SECTION THREE Men in prison Men in prison All the findings from prison inspections in this section are based on the fourth edition of our Expectations: Criteria for assessing the treatment of prisoners and conditions in prisons, published in January 2012. During our full inspections in 2016–17, we made 378 healthy prison assessments covering 35 prisons and young offender institutions holding adult and young adult men (figure 3). We have compared the outcomes for the prisons we reported on in 2016–17 with the outcomes we reported the last time we inspected the same establishments (figure 4). Overall, outcomes broadly remained unchanged or declined in each healthy prison area. Figure 3: Published outcomes for all prisons and young offender institutions (YOIs) holding adult and young adult men (37) 6 Safety Respect 8 2 14 9 16 Purposeful activity 7 19 12 13 Good 5 Reasonably good Resettlement 16 4 15 Not sufficiently good 2 Poor Number of HPAs improved/ unchanged/ declined Figure 4: Outcome changes from previous inspection (prisons and YOIs holding adult and young adult men – 37) 20 19 19 17 15 15 14 15 12 10 10 8 5 8 6 5 Declined Unchanged Improved 0 Safety Respect Purposeful Resettlement 8 This figure includes separate assessments for the category C unit at Winchester and the category D unit at Hewell, which were both located separately from the main prisons. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 19 SECTION THREE Men in prison Growing concerns on safety Suicide and self-harm Safety had declined in 15 prisons inspected with just five prisons showing improvement. We continued to find gaps in the identification of risk for new prisoners at a time when they were at their most vulnerable. Levels of self-harm and the number of deaths in custody continued to rise at an alarming rate. Lack of activity, mental illness, illicit substances and growing debt all contributed to prisoner self-harm. Violence continued to escalate at an unacceptable rate, and significantly more prisoners than before told us that they felt unsafe. We identified major concerns about the governance and oversight of use of force and segregation. There were good to impressive services for prisoners with substance misuse needs. There were 324 deaths in male prisons in England and Wales in 2016–17, an increase of 44 from the previous year. These included: ¡¡ 103 self-inflicted deaths (a rise of 10% from the 94 recorded in 2015–16) ¡¡ 194 deaths from natural causes (up from 162 in 2015–16) ¡¡ three apparent homicides (down from six in 2015–16) ¡¡ 24 other deaths, 21 of which were yet to be classified. Levels of self-harm had also risen, from 32,313 reported incidents in 2015 to 40,161 in 2016 – an increase of 24%. Figure 5: Safety outcomes in establishments holding adult and young adult men Good Reasonably good Not sufficiently good Poor Local prisons 0 3 7 4 Training prisons 2 3 5 5 Open prisons 4 0 0 0 High security prisons 0 2 0 0 Young adult prisons 0 0 2 0 Total 6 8 14 9 Outcome of previous recommendations In the adult male prisons reported on in 2016–17, 43% of our previous recommendations in the area of safety had been achieved, 15% partially achieved and 42% not achieved.9 Prisoner self-harming and the number of deaths in custody continued to rise at an alarming rate. In our survey, on average 21% of men said they had problems with feeling depressed or suicidal when they arrived in prison. Many prisons had no coherent strategy to reduce self-harm or suicide, and often we did not find sufficient evidence that enough was being done to prevent such crisis for individual prisoners. In almost three-quarters of our reports on men’s prisons we were critical of the establishment’s response to one or more of the key factors that can contribute to prisoner self-harm or even suicide. We made main recommendations about this in eight establishments. These findings are clearly unacceptable. Despite our repeated recommendations, we still found major weaknesses in assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) processes in many prisons. 9 Note that figures have been rounded and may not total 100%. This applies throughout the report. 20 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison ACCT case management procedures were poorly implemented in many cases. For example, care plans did not reflect all the issues identified in assessments, attendance at case reviews was poor, case management was inconsistent, and few care plans were updated following reviews. In addition, we found little mental health staff input for prisoners with mental health needs, with the exception of those held in the segregation unit. Lewes Isolation, lack of purposeful activity, mental health problems, use of new psychoactive substances (NPS),10 bullying and debt were all highlighted as issues that led to prisoners hurting themselves or attempting suicide. Despite pockets of good practice in suicide and self-harm prevention, prisoners in around a third of inspected establishments were negative about the overall care and support they received during their most vulnerable times. Staff shortages, increased violence and antisocial behaviour, widespread use of NPS and severely restricted regimes characterised many of the prisons we visited. Some prisoners we spoke to said they did not feel cared for or supported by staff while they were in crisis. Some said they felt observed rather than engaged with and we found some in cells with nothing to keep them occupied. Nottingham Despite our repeated recommendations, we continued to find men on ACCTs in segregation units with no exceptional reasons to justify this. Segregation is inappropriate for those at risk of suicide or self-harm, and prisoners rarely receive the care and support they need in such restrictive and punitive environments. Our inspections reported on in 2016–17 found that at least five men took their own lives while in segregation units, of whom four were subject to ACCT case management. Deaths in custody have a major impact on family, friends, other prisoners and staff, yet too few of the recommendations from the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), which investigates all deaths in custody, were given sufficient attention. Around a third of the prisons inspected – including Leeds, Nottingham, Bedford, Winchester, Cardiff and Hewell – were not implementing or reinforcing PPO recommendations well enough, and they had all experienced further self-inflicted deaths since previous inspections. There had been seven self-inflicted deaths since our previous inspection. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman had identified failings in the prison’s early days assessment, care and emergency procedures… some of the concerns were still evident. Leeds In contrast, other establishments did manage the risks around self-harm and suicide well. Recommendations from the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman were taken seriously and most had been fully implemented. The number of self-harm incidents was lower than at similar prisons and prisoners at risk of self-harm told us they were well supported. Staff had a good knowledge of their individual circumstances and ACCT processes were mostly good. Stafford 10 Drugs that are developed or chosen to mimic the effects of illegal drugs such as cannabis, heroin or amphetamines and may have unpredictable and life-threatening effects. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 21 SECTION THREE Men in prison Early days – daunting times for prisoners at their most vulnerable In 2016 there were 26 self-inflicted deaths in prisons within the first month of the prisoner’s reception. These accounted for 22% of all such deaths. A prisoner’s early days in prison can be an extremely daunting experience, and yet we found few improvements in this area. Journeys to prisons were often lengthy and continued to be in very cramped conditions. Although prisoners arriving at local prisons travelled shorter distances, they had often spent several hours in stark court cells with little to do. Such delays frequently resulted in prisoners arriving in large numbers, which affected their first night care and compromised their safety. Some establishments, such as Full Sutton, Wormwood Scrubs and Leeds, had made positive attempts to mitigate such problems through increased use of video links for prisoners’ court appearances. New arrivals were often held in sparse, dirty holding cells with little information about what was available to them during their sentence. The routine use of strip-searching continued in many establishments, and individual risk assessments were infrequent. However, there were a few exceptions. Searching arrangements were appropriate with strip searching only for prisoners coming direct from the court and/or about whom there was relevant intelligence. Glen Parva Some prisons did take steps to alleviate prisoner anxiety in their early days. Exeter made good use of a voluntary organisation, Choices Consultancy Service, with volunteers interviewing all new arrivals, assisting with family contact and providing practical information. In contrast, new arrivals at Hindley spent their first night in unacceptable conditions, and unable to take a shower or make a telephone call. Understanding how the prison works and learning how to navigate through various options, rules and procedures is important to new prisoners. Despite this, the quality of induction programmes was too variable. At Hewell, the process was chaotic; staff dealing with the induction and first night processes appeared overwhelmed by the complexity of needs among their prisoners. However, Norwich and Whatton had made efforts to address the experience and well-being of new arrivals. The prison had undertaken a ‘bus to bed’ exercise in 2015 to understand and improve the experience for new arrivals, from their arrival in the escort van to location in their cell. The resulting action plan had improved outcomes for prisoners throughout the process. Whatton Bullying and violence Figure 6: HMPPS data on assaults11 Assault incidents 12 months ending December 2016 Serious Assaults on Serious assaults staff assaults on staff 26,002 3,519 6,844 789 Quarter to end March 2016 6,073 815 1,526 176 Quarter to end June 2016 6,564 881 1,733 211 Quarter to end September 2016 6,838 960 1,834 222 Quarter to end December 2016 6,547 863 1,751 180 Levels of violence had continued to rise at the vast majority of the adult male establishments we inspected – in one or two, this rise was extraordinary. At Featherstone, 11 These figures have been drawn from the HMPPS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing returns but the detail is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Data on assaults for 2016 is available in the latest published Safety in Custody statistics at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/safety-in-custodystatistics 22 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 23 SECTION THREE Men in prison levels of violence had increased considerably since the last inspection and were far higher than elsewhere; violence against staff had increased the most. At the same time, in most of our surveys significantly more prisoners than previously told us that they felt unsafe – at Leeds, the percentage who said they felt unsafe at the time of the inspection had tripled, from 10% to 31%. This worrying and continuing upward trend in violence was reflected in our judgements. We were sufficiently concerned to make main recommendations about violence at 21 of the 35 adult male prisons inspected. Much of the violence could be attributed to drugs and associated debt, but in some prisons, such as Hindley and Feltham B, it was borne out of the frustration caused by restricted and unpredictable regimes. Despite the good work of the safeguarding team, the establishment as a whole had failed to identify and address factors such as an extremely poor regime, boredom and the lack of access to basic needs that had contributed to the high level of violence. Hindley In too many prisons, a lack of visible leadership had led to a poor understanding of the reasons for the increase in violence, and failure to set appropriate standards of behaviour for prisoners and staff. Prisoners were not usually consulted about the problem of violence, the quality of investigations into incidents often varied, and there was little data analysis to identify patterns and inform action plans. However, some prisons were making a concerted effort to reverse these trends. 24 The number of violent incidents, the seriousness of violence and the level of tension in the establishment had all reduced markedly… More resources and attention by a multidisciplinary management team had been devoted to violence reduction. Elmley This was not the case everywhere, and at many places the monitoring and management of the perpetrators of violence were invariably weak. At Onley, the custodial violence management model, a new NOMS pilot project, was not properly resourced. Across the estate, we found very few interventions to encourage positive behaviour in violent prisoners – instead, prisons relied heavily on punitive measures through the incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme and adjudication process. There was usually very little or no support for victims of violence. In this context, we found prisoners at several prisons, including Wymott, Swaleside and Featherstone, self-isolating in fear for their safety. There was insufficient management oversight of this issue and too often a failure to identify these vulnerable prisoners. As a result, many of them endured an impoverished regime with little support or planning to help them reintegrate. However, some prisons, such as Buckley Hall and Elmley, showed what could be achieved in reducing violence through mobilising multidisciplinary teams and targeting resources effectively. Norwich had also developed a simple but focused overall strategy – 26 to Fix – which included aims to improve safety outcomes. Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison Incentives and earned privileges scheme Despite its inappropriate use at too many establishments, some prisons did use the IEP scheme as part of a strategic plan to reduce violence and address poor behaviour. The scheme was sometimes used alongside mediation and restorative justice programmes to good effect. The establishment was attempting to increase the value of IEP through an ‘active citizenship’12 approach, drawing on research outcomes to motivate prisoners to make sustained positive contributions to the common good of the prison community. The ‘active citizenship’ approach was used to broaden pathways to the enhanced level while remaining within the parameters of national policy. Stafford However, in too many establishments staff and prisoners were often unclear about how the scheme operated, and it was applied inconsistently with little focus on the underlying causes of poor behaviour. In our survey, only 42% of prisoners felt they had been treated fairly under the IEP scheme, and only 40% said that it had encouraged them to change their behaviour. Most prisons viewed IEP as a vehicle to punish bad behaviour rather than motivate good behaviour, and in some establishments the punishments were harsh. Prisoners were also sometimes routinely placed on the basic level of the IEP scheme for a single violent or antisocial act, rather than for a pattern of poor behaviour. As a result, there was often a high number of prisoners on the basic level. The number of prisoners on the basic level of the IEP scheme had trebled since the last inspection, while the number of enhanced prisoners had halved… there was not enough focus on the underlying causes of poor behaviour. Risley The regime for prisoners on basic was variable. While this was managed reasonably at Full Sutton and Elmley, in other places, such as Swinfen Hall, prisoners on basic had only limited time out of cell to demonstrate improvements in behaviour. Use of force and segregation In around two-thirds of prisons reported on, we found high levels of force used on prisoners and significant gaps in its governance. In half the prisons inspected, we had concerns about the quality of documentation used to justify the use of force. Video footage and documentation did not always provide adequate evidence that the use of force was necessary or proportionate to the risk posed. Use of force paperwork had deteriorated from a low base at the last inspection and required immediate action to provide any form of assurance that force was justified. Examples of use of force we viewed on CCTV did not always appear justified or proportionate. Swaleside The use of segregation can lead to the deterioration of an individual’s mental and physical wellbeing and so should be kept to a minimum, with appropriate safeguards. Segregated prisoners should have access to a purposeful regime and be encouraged to return to normal location at the earliest opportunity. This was not the case in some establishments. 12 As set out in a report, Time Well Spent by Edgar, Jacobson and Biggar, Prison Reform Trust 2011. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 25 SECTION THREE Men in prison The segregation unit caused us some concern… there was insufficient day-today operational oversight. Relationships between staff and prisoners were distant… For many segregated prisoners, care planning was inadequate and too many remained segregated for long periods. The regime was impoverished for long-stay prisoners, with little in place to help prevent psychological deterioration caused by prolonged segregation. Full Sutton Growing drug use threatens safety NPS remained a significant issue in most adult male prisons. As identified in our last two annual reports, NPS continued to be linked to violence, debt, organised crime and medical emergencies. Too many prisons still lacked an adequate strategy to tackle drug supply, although more were providing NPS harm reduction information to new arrivals on induction, which was positive. More traditional drugs, including illicit medicines, continued to be a problem. Staff and prisoners told us the prison was becoming more and more unsafe due to intoxicated NPS users, and the violence associated with NPS-related debt and bullying. Although the security department had taken a reasonable approach in countering concerns about NPS in the jail, and the substance misuse service had worked hard to publicise the dangers of NPS use, there was no prison-wide or appropriately integrated approach to the many aspects of supply and demand reduction. Moorland 26 New testing for new drugs While the use of NPS had become prevalent among prisoners, prisons had been hampered in their efforts to tackle this due to an inability to include NPS in drugtesting programmes. After the Psychoactive Substances Bill came into force on 26 May 2016, testing for NPS, including ‘Spice’, was included in the mandatory drug-testing panel; this was initially as a pilot in 34 establishments and then applied universally from late September 2016. It is too early to report on the effectiveness of these measures. The proportion of new prisoners with a drug and/or alcohol problem remained very high, most noticeably among those reporting a mental health problem. Prisoners with substance misuse needs had access to a good range of psychosocial services in most establishments, with impressive provision in some, although a lack of officers restricted prisoner access at Swaleside and Bedford. There was a good range of interventions that addressed substance awareness and harm reduction, including NPS, through information materials, one-to-one sessions and groupwork. An ‘expert by experience’ forum gave prisoners the opportunity to hear from others who had previously experienced negative effects and consequences resulting from using NPS. … as part of the strategic approach to tackling NPS, all incidents of suspected intoxication were video recorded and attended by primary health and/or drug team nurses. Glen Parva Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison Substance misuse services were generally of high quality and easily accessible, and designated drug support units assisted prisoners at different stages of recovery. Most prisons provided safe clinical services but, in a minority, new arrivals had delayed access to prescribing which, with inadequate monitoring in the early days, put them at risk. At a few prisons, high levels of drug availability and a poor regime made it difficult for prisoners to work towards abstinence. Poor management of the prescribing of tradeable medication and poor officer supervision of medication administration queues in a significant minority of prisons continued to give too many opportunities for bullying and the diversion of medication. We observed effective planning for and introduction of the smoking ban in several prisons, including Cardiff, Exeter and Parc, but were concerned to see some prisoners indulging in dangerous practices, such as misusing nicotine replacement patches, which put them at risk. Prisoners were not allowed to smoke anywhere in the prison, which had been smoke free for the previous few months. This was a major achievement, given the throughput of prisoners and their short lengths of stay. Challenges in the pilot phase had been generally well managed, with good co-ordination with NHS smoking cessation clinics. E-cigarettes were available via the prison shop. However, some prisoners were scraping the film from nicotine patches and mixing them with tea leaves to smoke. Some prisoners who had stopped smoking started again on release. Exeter HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 27 SECTION THREE Men in prison 28 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison Sharp decline in respect outcomes ¡¡ Outcomes for respect were the worst for many years. ¡¡ Many prisoners continued to live in very poor and overcrowded cells and buildings. ¡¡ Most prisoners reported respectful treatment by staff, even though staff were now more stretched. ¡¡ Equality and diversity work was often weak, with insufficient support for prisoners from minority groups. ¡¡ Health services were affected by shortages of prison staff and restrictive prison regimes, although most prisons delivered reasonably good health care for prisoners. Our healthy prison assessments for respect had declined sharply this year with the lowest number of prisons for several years achieving a good or reasonably good healthy prison score – only 49% against the 78% we reported last year. The picture in local prisons was of particular concern, with only three of the 14 locals inspected achieving one of these scores. Outcome of previous recommendations In the adult male prisons reported on in 2016–17, 35% of our previous recommendations in the area of respect had been achieved, 14% partially achieved and 51% not achieved. Daily life It is commendable that, given the pressures prisons have been under, most prisoners in our survey continued to report respectful treatment by staff (74%) and that they had a member of staff who would help them if needed (69%). However, significantly reduced staffing in most prisons had left staff extremely stretched. As a result, many prisoners felt unsupported and frustrated at not being able to get day-to-day concerns addressed. We found some prisons, such as Full Sutton and Frankland, providing a prison environment that was clean and well maintained. Here, prisoners occupied single cells and could keep themselves and their cells clean. Stafford, despite dating back to the late 18th century, had residential units that were in excellent condition and communal areas that were impressively clean. However, these prisons were not typical. Many prisoners spent almost all day, and ate their unappetising meals, doubled up in a dirty, damaged cell with an unscreened toilet… The prison had a significant rat problem; we saw them every day and night we visited the prison and a large rat’s nest was very obvious in the grounds. Wormwood Scrubs Overcrowding continued to create problems, and was a significant issue in most prisons. Figure 7: Respect outcomes in establishments holding adult and young adult men Good Reasonably good Not sufficiently good Poor Local prisons 0 3 11 0 Training prisons 0 8 7 0 High security prisons 0 2 0 0 Open prisons 2 2 0 0 Young adult prisons 0 1 1 0 Total 2 16 19 0 … 236 prisoners were held two to a cell designed for one and 144 prisoners were held three to a cell designed for two. Elmley HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 29 SECTION THREE Men in prison These conditions had implications for prisoner safety, as well as their dignity, especially when combined with staff shortages. In some establishments, prisoners had great difficulties in receiving the basic necessities for daily life. Access to prison issue items in residential units was poor. Wing stores were depleted and did not have an adequate range of suitable clothing, spare bed linen or towels. … prisoners and staff said that bed linen regularly went missing… There was a shortage of pillows and kettles in most residential units. Swaleside New arrivals often experienced delays in being able to make their first order from the prison shop, leading many to get into debt and be at risk of bullying by other prisoners. While 54% of prisoners in our survey said it was easy to make a complaint, only 28% felt that their complaints were dealt with fairly. As we have found previously, far too many complaints reflected prisoner frustration at not being able to resolve issues informally. However, at Wymott two representatives from the prisoner council met with staff every month to quality assure and review complaints, which was good practice. Food in prison In July 2016, we published a findings paper on food in prison.13 We reported that, while many establishments were making commendable efforts with the resources available, the daily budget for food of around £2 per person limited what they could do. Prisoners’ opportunities to eat communally were often very limited; most prisoners were required to eat in often cramped cells, sometimes near inadequately screened toilets. In some establishments, lunch could be served as early as 11.10am and the evening meal at 4.15pm. Serving dinner this early, coupled with meagre breakfast packs handed out the night before, meant that some prisoners had a gap as long as 20 hours before their next substantial meal. Equality and diversity work Prisons contain diverse populations, often including prisoners who might be subject to discrimination because of their ethnicity, age, disability, sexuality or other criteria (covered as ‘protected characteristics’ in equality law). The management of equality and diversity work often varied. At some prisons, we found an improved picture, while at others this work had deteriorated or was weak. However, despite weak management, some prisons achieved good outcomes for prisoners with protected characteristics. Despite weaknesses in the strategic management of equality work, staff in the community inclusion team were enthusiastic and innovative, and helped to achieve good outcomes for prisoners in most protected groups. Parc 13 Life in prison: Food, http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/life-in-prison-food/ 30 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 31 SECTION THREE Men in prison In many prisons, stretched resources had resulted in less focus on equality and diversity work. Consultation with prisoners from the protected characteristics groups was mostly poor. Prisoner representatives were not always in place, and many who were received no training and had a low profile in the prison. However, at Elmley diversity representatives were able to study for a City and Guilds award in equality and diversity. Discrimination incident report forms (DIRF) were not always readily available for prisoners who wished to make complaints, and at some prisons investigations were inadequate and took too long. In contrast, other prisons managed such complaints well. Investigations carried out by custodial managers were thorough and we saw examples of staff being asked to do further training or be subject to monitoring. Norwich In March 2017, 26.8% of male prisoners (where ethnicity was known) were from a black and minority ethnic group, largely unchanged from 26.6% in March 2016.14 In our survey, such prisoners were more negative than white prisoners about most aspects of their experience of custody (see Appendix 5). Poor perceptions of safety were a particular concern. Too often, prisons did not act on monitoring data that revealed worse outcomes for prisoners from a black and minority ethnic background. … for our third consecutive inspection, we found that black and minority ethnic prisoners, who made up more than a third of the population, faced potentially unfair treatment across a number of areas. They were less likely to be released on ROTL [temporary licence] and be located on the favoured A block, and more likely to face adjudications. None of these issues had been addressed. Ford The Lammy review In July 2016, we responded to the independent review chaired by David Lammy MP of the treatment of and outcomes for black, Asian and minority ethnic individuals in the criminal justice system. We raised concerns highlighted by our inspections, including: ¡¡ insufficient use of equality monitoring data ¡¡ poorer perceptions for prisoners from a black and minority ethnic background ¡¡ lack of consultation with these prisoners. In our survey, 5% of adult males indicated that they were from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background. Prisons did not always identify everyone from this group, although there were examples of good support from the chaplaincy, outside agencies and internal forums. In our survey, 4% of prisoners described themselves as Gypsy, Romany or Traveller. This group was supported sufficiently well by a chaplain who met with them monthly and gave individual assistance to help maintain family ties. Frankland However, at other prisons, for example Swinfen Hall, there was no meaningful consultation with this group and they told us that they needed more support with contacting their families. As at 30 September 2016, 8,632 foreign national men were held in prison in England and Wales (11% of all male prisoners).15 Provision for foreign nationals was mixed. There were rarely dedicated officers to assist these prisoners, and it was difficult for many foreign nationals to access immigration-specific legal advice. Many wing staff were reluctant 14 Source: unpublished figures from HMPPS. 15 Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2016 (27 October 2016) - 9,563 foreign men were held in custody and HMPPS-run immigration removal centres on 30 September 2016 (table 1.7), but 931 of these were held under immigration powers at the two HMPPS-run IRCs, Morton Hall and The Verne (table 1.8). 32 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison to use telephone interpreting services to communicate with prisoners who did not speak English. [Foreign nationals] complained about the poor use of professional telephone interpreting services, leaving some of them feeling isolated, and we saw prisoners being used as interpreters in confidential interviews, such as those in reception. Winchester As in previous years, too many foreign nationals were detained in prisons under immigration powers – 442 on 3 October 201616 – with some prisoners informed too late that they would be detained when they had completed their sentence. Some detainees were held for long periods in prison. For example, we found men at Nottingham and Cardiff who had been detained for six months, and one detainee had been held for nine months in Exeter. The proportion of male prisoners declaring a disability in our survey had reached over a quarter (27%), which was likely to be linked to an increasingly ageing prison population. Prisoners with disabilities continued to be more negative than those without disabilities in almost all our survey questions, especially those about safety and respect. Physical provision for those with the most severe disabilities was generally poor, with few adapted cells and little wheelchair access. We found several prisoners with mobility problems living in unadapted cells. Health care staff assessed these prisoners, but there was no multidisciplinary care planning and links with wing officers and the equality team were poor. Cardiff Sixteen per cent of prisoners surveyed in male prisons were aged over 50. They were generally more positive than younger prisoners about most areas of prison life. But their experience varied between prisons – we continued to find some retired prisoners locked in their cells during the core day, but other prisons offered specific activities. There was good provision for the over60s, with activities daily. These were well attended, with PE and health services staff taking a full part. Full Sutton At Lewes, a quarter of prisoners were over 50 but arrangements to support them were inadequate. Paid carers on F wing looked after around a dozen frail, older prisoners. They provided some good support but received insufficient oversight and had little formal guidance, which meant they were inappropriately responsible for carrying out some personal hygiene and care tasks. Lewes In contrast, Frankland had a ‘buddy’ scheme with good oversight and training for the prisoners who were carers for others. Prisoners over 80 In recent years, we have commented on the increasing number of older and elderly prisoners. The Ministry of Justice has now published statistics on the number of prisoners over 80 held in 2016.17 These show that (for men and women combined) prisons held 234 people over 80 – 219 in their 80s, 14 in their 90s and one over 100. The vast majority, 204, were held for sex offences. 16 Immigration statistics, July to September 2016 (Home Office), detention section. 17 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/594871/prison-population-by-age-offence-group31-december-2016.pdf HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 33 SECTION THREE Men in prison Four per cent of prisoners indicated in our survey that they were gay or bisexual. Typically, we found that fewer were known to their prison, and there were still strong cultural issues in male prisons impeding men from openly disclosing their sexuality. However, some prisons had good support and consultation processes. … there had been a great improvement in the provision for gay and bisexual prisoners. A gay, bisexual and transgender forum met regularly and fed into the equality meetings, and gay and bisexual prisoners spoke highly of the support available to them. Full Sutton More commonly though men were fearful of disclosing their sexuality, with no support in place or consultation forums. Transgender prisoners A Ministry of Justice review following the self-inflicted deaths of transgender women held in male prisons resulted in Prison Service instruction 17/2016, which came into force in January 2017. We welcome the move to acknowledge the wishes of trans prisoners in decisionmaking about which prison they are held in, and also the emphasis that decisions on placement should be made at court before remand or sentence to prison. Young adults At the end of March 2017, the number of young adult men aged 18 to 20 in prison was 4,333 and the majority of male establishments we inspected held some of these young adults.18 Most prisons made little distinction in the treatment of this age group. Just under one-third of the population were young adults… In our survey, young adult prisoners had mixed perceptions of prison life. Their regime on E and F wings was even more restrictive than the rest of the prison, which further limited their time out of cell and access to showers and telephones. Hindley However, we did find an example of a more constructive approach. Provision for young adults had improved... They were now held predominantly on one wing where staff had been trained to deal with this age group. The prison had recognised the need to develop dedicated activities and strategy to improve provision for this group generally. Parc Faith provision Faith provision remained a strength of many establishments. Prisoners could generally access chaplains of their faith, although there were sometimes problems recruiting chaplains for some denominations. Many prisoners reported having no faith. In response to this, Cardiff had employed a Humanist celebrant to cater to the needs of this large group of men. Chaplains provided a wide range of pastoral support, including for bereaved prisoners, attending ACCT reviews and some throughthe-gate work. Prison health services We continued to produce joint reports with the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and inspect services with the General Pharmaceutical Council. Closer working links with Health Inspection Wales improved information sharing on safeguarding and management of health complaints from prisoners. 18 Prisoner data by age group are available in the offender management statistics quarterly release for March 2017: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/safety-in-custody-statistics 34 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison Reviews of health in prison During the year, we made contributions to the NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) review on the physical health of people in prisons and the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry into mental health and deaths in prison – which was a welcome opportunity to support effective evidence-based care for this very vulnerable group. Following these reviews, NICE issued guidance in November 2016, and the Joint Committee published its report in March 2017. During 2016–17, we found that the efficient delivery of health services in prisons was repeatedly impeded by the unavailability of prison officers and restrictive regimes. These had serious detrimental effects in over half the services we inspected. Outcomes for patients were affected in several ways: ¡¡ prisoners could not always get to health appointments, and the high non-attendance rates then increased waiting times for health services ¡¡ patients waited in health departments for up to two hours before and after their health appointments due to a lack of prison staff to escort them ¡¡ inpatients were locked in their cells all day rather than taking part in therapeutic activities to aid their recovery ¡¡ because of restrictions in the regime, patients were issued with their nighttime medication, including sleeping tablets, as early as 4.30pm, reducing its effectiveness ¡¡ external hospital appointments were cancelled due to the lack of prison staff escorts. Despite the introduction of a new appointments system, non-attendance rates were unacceptably high for some clinics; for example 42% for GPs and 76% for longterm condition clinics… The system for arranging health care appointments at local hospitals was efficient. However attendance was hit-and-miss as escort slots were cancelled at a rate of six per week… often on the day of the appointment. Swaleside The last medicine administration was 4pm on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, which was too early for night-time medication. We saw unsupervised medication queues in the health centre and on A wing, which increased the potential for diversion of medicines. Buckley Hall Many prisons struggled to recruit sufficient clinical staff of the right calibre to deliver a safe and effective health service – this affected the management of lifelong conditions, such as diabetes and epilepsy, in more than a quarter of adult male prisons reported on this year. Staffing shortages also affected the regular health staff, who in more than a quarter of prisons had insufficient access to training and clinical supervision. Too few operational staff had access to defibrillators and/or were first aid trained in over half the male adult prisons we inspected; this was very concerning given the high number of health emergencies in prisons. However, despite these challenges the majority of prisons delivered a reasonably good standard of health care most of the time. Health care provision was more likely to be based on assessments that identified the current health needs of the population than in prisons we inspected three years ago. Following the introduction of the Care Act in April 2015, most prisons worked effectively with their local authorities and care providers to deliver social care, some very well. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 35 SECTION THREE Men in prison Prisoners with dementia HM Inspectorate of Prisons facilitated a discussion between the Secretary of State for Prisons and experts in the field on the care of older prisoners with dementia. As a result, the Secretary of State invited the NHS Health and Justice Clinical Reference Group to develop a new approach. Support for prisoners with palliative and endof-life needs was good in most prisons we inspected, and exemplary in Norwich, Whatton and Stafford. Pharmacy services were reasonably good or good in most prisons, although over a quarter had significant weaknesses – for example, patients could not speak to a pharmacist about their medicines or there was insufficient supervision of pharmacy processes. Some prisons had moved to using pharmacy technicians rather than nurses to administer medicines, which was very effective in freeing up nurses to provide patient care. Dental services were good in the vast majority of prisons, but in a minority patients waited far too long to see a dentist. Mental health Prisoners are more likely than the general population to have emotional and mental health problems. Despite this, 40% of prisons had inadequate or no training for prison officers to know when to refer a prisoner for help. Mental health services were good in most prisons although many lacked services, including counselling, for patients with mild to moderate problems like depression or anxiety. However, more than half of prisons were actively identifying and supporting prisoners with learning disabilities, which was a marked improvement on previous years. We did see exemplary mental health support at some prisons, including trained prisoner mental health peer supporters at Swaleside and wide-ranging seven-day-a week provision at Durham. The inability of the NHS to receive patients from prisons into hospital mental health care within the government’s transfer target (14 days) continued in nearly three-quarters of the prisons we reported on. Many patients were left untreated and sometimes deteriorating – often for several months – in the wrong place. Most of the 13 patients transferred under the Mental Health Act since January 2016 had experienced excessive waits for transfer. The average time was 14 weeks, principally because of external issues, including bed availability. Durham 36 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison Inspections in Northern Ireland We inspect prisons in Northern Ireland by invitation from Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland. This year, we carried out three inspections with our partner inspectorates. In May 2016, we visited Hydebank Wood Secure College, which holds young men aged between 18 and 21, and reported that: Overall this is an encouraging inspection where outcomes for young men have improved in three of four healthy prison tests. We also inspected the neighbouring Ash House, Northern Ireland’s only female prison. We were again generally positive about the progress since our last visit: We commend the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the local managers for the bravery and the single minded determination in fostering a culture of improvement and creating a prison with much greater rehabilitation ethos. In 2015, we published a damning report on Maghaberry Prison, Northern Ireland’s high security and largest prison, and made nine key recommendations for improvement. In September 2016, we were part of a joint inspection team that carried out a low-impact review at Maghaberry of progress against these recommendations. The review found that there was continuing progress, but not across the board, and that the pace was slow. We will conduct further low-impact reviews at the prison to support improvement and ensure the momentum continues. Focus on Wales Although criminal justice and prisons are not devolved responsibilities in Wales, we maintained a close relationship with the Welsh Government and a range of partners – including Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales (Estyn) and Health Inspectorate Wales (HIW). In November 2016, the Chief Inspector of Prisons visited Wales to meet the Welsh Government cabinet secretary with responsibility for crime and justice policy, the director of NOMS (now HMPPS) in Wales and various Welsh Government policy leads. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 37 SECTION THREE Men in prison Locked up and not in purposeful activity ¡¡ Activity outcomes for prisoners had improved, but were still only good or reasonably good in around half of prisons. ¡¡ Prisoners, particularly young adults, still spent too much time locked in their cells, and staff shortages often substantially reduced their planned time unlocked. ¡¡ Governors and staff did not give sufficient priority to education and training as a means of reducing reoffending and enhancing prisoner rehabilitation. ¡¡ Around one-third of prisons had too few activity places for the population – and even these were often unfilled. ¡¡ The quality of teaching and learning and achievements of prisoners had improved, but English and mathematics provision continued to be weak. Outcome of previous recommendations In the adult male prisons reported on in 2016–17, 44% of our previous recommendations in the area of activity had been achieved, 24% partially achieved and 32% not achieved. Purposeful activity outcomes in adult male prisons had improved slightly, and this year we assessed 51% of prisons as good or reasonably good, compared with 44% in 2015–16. Once again, the poor outcomes in the two young adult establishments we inspected were of particular concern. 38 Figure 8: Purposeful activity outcomes in establishments holding adult and young adult men Good Reasonably good Not sufficiently good Poor Local prisons 0 5 8 1 Training prisons 3 5 5 2 High security prisons 2 0 0 0 Open prisons 2 2 0 0 Young adult prisons 0 0 0 2 Total 7 12 13 5 Still too little time unlocked We expect prisoners to be unlocked for at least 10 hours a day so that they can attend education or work, engage with health or substance misuse services or plan for resettlement, as well as wash, collect meals, clean their cell and keep in contact with their families. However, in our survey only 14% of prisoners said that they were unlocked for this length of time. When prisoners spend long periods locked in their cells they become frustrated with staff and each other, they are bored and have more time to use illicit substances, and many can suffer deteriorating physical and mental health. We made a main recommendation on the need to increase time out of cell in a third of the prisons we visited. The time that prisoners get unlocked has also become less predictable – mostly as a result of staffing shortages and a rising number of incidents. Many prisons operated temporary restricted regimes to cope with staffing shortages, with prisoners locked up for the night at 6pm or earlier – making it difficult for them to telephone their families and friends. Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 39 SECTION THREE Men in prison As a result of chronic staff shortages, a restricted and too limited regime had been put in place for two years. This had reduced the maximum amount of time unlocked... Evening association periods were no longer provided and the previous practice of unlocking workers for a short period in the evening to access showers and telephones had ceased. Onley However, there were exceptions where we noted the positive benefits of improving prisoners’ time unlocked. The most significant factor in the improved stability of the prison was that time out of cell had become much more predictable. It was still too limited but it was delivered consistently so prisoners could plan phone calls or domestic tasks with confidence. Elmley Time spent unlocked was particularly poor for young adults in prison – in our survey, 30% said they spent less than two hours a day out of their cell, and only 7% were out of their cell for more than 10 hours a day. Figure 9: How long do you spend out of your cell on a weekday? Spend more than 10 hours out of cell (weekday) (%) Spend less than two hours out of cell (weekday) (%) 8 31 Training prisons 15 16 High security prisons 13 11 Local prisons Young adult prisons 4 37 Open prisons 54 2 Average 14 22 The situation in local prisons was very poor and in some, including Cardiff, Winchester and Wormwood Scrubs, a significant number of prisoners spent more than 22 hours in their cell every day. We regularly found more than a quarter of prisoners locked up during the working day, and at Wormwood Scrubs this was 55%. … some prisoners could be locked up for over 27 hours, only being let out briefly to collect their meals. Our roll checks during the working day showed that 46% of prisoners were locked behind their doors. Cardiff Even in training prisons, where the situation was better, between 11% and 16% of prisoners said they were locked up for more than 22 hours. While there were examples of better practice – Buckley Hall, Whatton and Stafford provided 10 hours unlocked for most prisoners on weekdays – we also found some impoverished regimes. 40 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison The regime at Hindley was one of the worst, and possibly the very worst, that inspectors had ever seen in this type of prison. The length of time for which young adults and adults alike were locked up was, in our considered view, unnecessary, unjustifiable and counterproductive. Almost every aspect of prison life for the prisoners was adversely affected by the regime… On one day during the inspection a mere 14% of eligible prisoners were able to attend education. As a result they were being denied opportunities to embark on a path of rehabilitation and eventual resettlement. Hindley Not enough activity places Figure 10: Rates of association, use of gym and exercise in establishments holding adult and young adult men Go on association more than five times each week (%) Prisoners value the opportunity for physical education (PE), which can help with physical and mental well-being, as well as provide the opportunity to gain relevant vocational qualifications. Most prisons had good facilities. However, in our survey only 27% of men said they went to the gym three or more times a week, which was slightly lower than in previous years. Once again, young adults had the least access to PE, with only 13% held in young adult prisons reporting they could go to the gym three or more times a week. We routinely found that staff shortages, including the redeployment of PE staff to other duties, restricted prisoner access to PE. Use the gym three Go outside for or more times a exercise three or week (%) more times a week (%) Local prisons 50 22 42 Training prisons 51 29 51 High security prisons 85 40 31 Young adult prisons 21 13 49 Open prisons 76 40 79 Average 52 27 48 A minority of prisoners said they could go outside for exercise three or more times a week. We expect prisoners to have the opportunity for one hour a day in the open air, but most still only had 30 minutes. Conflicting timetables also meant prisoners had to choose whether to go outside or spend this limited time taking showers or telephoning home. Exercise periods were not long enough and took place during association, which meant that prisoners had to choose between having time in the open air and carrying out other important daily activities, such as making telephone calls to their family or having a shower. Winchester In 14 of the 35 adult male prisons inspected, there were not enough learning and skills and work activity places for all prisoners to take part in education or vocational training throughout the week. This problem was as prevalent in training prisons and young adult establishments as it was in locals. Some prisons had sufficient activity places, which were used well. There were enough activity places for prisoners to engage in full or part time activities throughout the week… Most men were allocated promptly to an activity that met their needs and interests closely. Hewell However, once again we have reported on the widespread and unacceptable failure for prisons to fill the places that were available. This year, around half of all prisons inspected failed to use all their activity places, needlessly leaving prisoners without work, education or training. The process of moving prisoners to learning and skills and work activities from wings was often ineffective and poorly managed, and prisoners often failed to turn up to their allocated activity or arrived late. Poor attendance and punctuality of prisoners HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 41 SECTION THREE Men in prison often went unchallenged by prison staff, which failed to promote a good work ethic and could disrupt teaching and learning. … not all prisoners were allocated in a timely way, and activity places were left unfilled… Almost 600 prisoners were unemployed and often those allocated to an activity arrived late or failed to attend because they had not been unlocked on time or not been unlocked at all. Wormwood Scrubs The role of education and training as a means of reducing reoffending and rehabilitating offenders was recognised in the better performing prisons. There was good support and leadership for learning and skills from senior prison managers, who gave a clear priority and focus to the importance of this area for the rehabilitation of prisoners. Parc However, governors often did not give sufficient priority to education and training, and allowed other activities to interrupt the working day. Prison managers failed to promote a culture and ethos that acknowledged participation in purposeful activity as a key priority. For example, around 40% of prisoners were not engaged in meaningful activity at any one time and too many prisoners failed to return to work following dental, legal or other appointments. Prisoners were also able to attend the gym during the working day which caused unnecessary disruption to learning and failed to promote a work ethic. Channings Wood Shortages of both prison officer and learning and skills staff also resulted in unpunctuality, cancellations and closures. Welcome for prison education report HM Inspectorate of Prisons welcomed Dame Sally Coates’ report on prison education (published in May 2016)19 and the government’s increased focus on education in prisons and its important role in reducing reoffending – particularly as our inspection reports continue to raise serious concerns about the current provision of education in prisons. We are committed to considering how we can best support the report’s recommendations. In particular, our proposed new Expectations for education, skills and work are based on the graded judgements in Ofsted’s Common Inspection Framework, which will help bring the inspection of education and work in prison into line with that in the community. Our proposal is not to give a score for purposeful activity that is higher than the overall education, skills and work score (except in exceptional circumstances). Delivering learning and skills and work We inspect learning and skills and work in prisons in partnership with Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills) in England and Estyn in Wales. Both Ofsted and Estyn make assessments of learning and skills and work provision. This year, around half of prisons were judged less than good in their overall effectiveness, which was a considerable reduction from the just under two-thirds assessed in the previous year. 19 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524013/education-review-report.pdf 42 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison Figure 11: Ofsted assessments in establishments holding adult and young adult men in England Overall Achievements of Quality of learning effectiveness of prisoners engaged and skills and learning and skills in learning and work provision and work skills and work Outstanding Personal Leadership and development and management of behaviour learning and skills and work 1 1 3 2 1 Good 17 20 19 14 18 Requires improvement 14 13 12 17 13 3 1 1 2 3 35 35 35 35 35 Inadequate Total Figure 12: Estyn assessments in establishments holding adult and young adult men in Wales Achievements of Quality of learning Leadership and Overall and skills and management of effectiveness of prisoners engaged in learning and work provision learning and skills learning and skills and work skills and work and work Excellent 1 1 0 0 Good 1 1 2 2 Adequate 0 0 0 0 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 Total 2 2 2 2 The best leadership and management of learning and skills activities were in prisons that worked effectively with key partners to establish a well-planned curriculum that met the needs of prisoners and was linked to identified employment needs. Where there were robust processes to evaluate the provision of learning, skills and work, senior managers were able to identify areas for improvement and set effective action plans. With clear leadership from the governor, managers ensured that learning and skills and work activities were appropriate and had begun to establish a working prison ethos through effective partnerships with local, regional and national employers. Lindholme The prison’s leaders and managers… failed to hold the learning and skills and work providers to account, indicating low aspirations for prisoner outcomes and the quality of provision… In the context of regime restrictions, staff reductions and absences, and other operational challenges, leaders and managers… had neglected to implement an effective strategy for the development of activities… [they] did not use data sufficiently well to inform their decisions about developing and improving purposeful activity. Swinfen Hall In prisons where leadership and management were less than good, quality improvement measures were poor, quality improvement plans were slow to be implemented and governors did not prioritise learning and skills or promote their benefits. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 43 SECTION THREE Men in prison The overall quality of teaching and learning had improved and was rated as good or better in around 60% of the prisons inspected. The quality was often better in the activities provided by the education provider than those by the prison. The overall quality of the education and training funded by the Skills Funding Agency through its Offender Learning and Skills Services was good or better in 70% of prisons inspected – an encouraging improvement on the just over half found the previous year. Coaching on vocational courses was mainly good. Prisoners were unanimous in their high praise for the professionalism, dedication and skills of their teachers and instructors. Qualified and enthusiastic vocational training tutors provided high-quality coaching in the vocational training areas and work… Teachers and instructors applied assessment practice effectively… to plan learning and help prisoners achieve their learning goals. Leyhill Where the standard of teaching and learning was weaker, target setting for prisoners and feedback on their work was often too superficial and failed to guide prisoners on what they needed to do to progress and improve. This meant that prisoners frequently worked at levels below their capabilities and were not challenged enough to progress. Not enough teachers set high expectations or planned activities to prisoners’ starting points and past achievements. Consequently too many prisoners did not fulfil their potential. Most of the more able prisoners were not sufficiently challenged, often working at too low a level. Bedford 44 Prisoners’ personal development and behaviour were good or better in around half of all prisons. Teachers and tutors generally managed inappropriate behaviour well, and there was mutual respect between prisoners and teachers and tutors in most prisons. There had been a slight improvement in the teaching and learning of English and mathematics. However, in too many prisons these areas remained weak, reflected in the poor achievement of accredited qualifications. With the exception of English and mathematics, the overall achievement by prisoners had improved this year, with around 60% graded as good or better. Skills development in vocational training and achievement of accredited qualifications remained good in most prisons. Peer mentors were generally used well to support learning and provided valuable support to fellow prisoners. Peer mentors were keen and motivated to learn, rapidly developed impressive mentoring skills, and most produced high-quality written work in their evidence portfolios. Mentors worked productively with tutors and trainers and provided good support for prisoners during induction and learning sessions. Mentors on the barbering programme provided constructive peer assessments for prisoners and helped them progress at a good pace... Isis Most prison libraries were welcoming, well stocked and supported personal and vocational development. However, in our survey only 35% of men said that they could visit the library at least once a week. Restricted opening times, staffing shortages and unscheduled closures contributed to poor access. Many libraries promoted literacy well and supported prisoners in maintaining contact with their families, through initiatives such as Storybook Dads (where they could record a story for their children). Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison Staff promoted literacy well using a range of initiatives in conjunction with external agencies, for example, family learning workshops run with the local authority, weekly cognitive stimulation therapy groups for older prisoners and story book challenges. Library staff analysed data well to target groups of prisoners not using the facilities and organised initiatives to encourage underrepresented groups to participate. Norwich Poor preparation for work Our inspections found that prisoners did not always have a good work ethic, reinforced by poor attendance and punctuality and not enough to do. In too many prisons, work remained mundane and repetitive. In the better prisons, where work was structured well, prisoners developed good work skills. However, too frequently the skills that prisoners developed went unrecognised and so could not be demonstrated to prospective employers. … too many prisoners were employed on the wings as cleaners and painters where the work was often purposeless, unproductive and largely unsupervised, with the result that many wings and exercise yards were dirty and strewn with litter. Moorland HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 45 SECTION THREE Men in prison Resettlement services not meeting the challenge ¡¡ The community rehabilitation companies (CRCs)20 were becoming more embedded but too many prisoners continued to receive a poor resettlement service. ¡¡ Many prisoners had no current offender assessment (OASys) or one that was out of date, which affected their ability to progress and reduce their risk of harm. ¡¡ Many offender supervisors were still being redeployed, and had insufficient training and support. ¡¡ Public protection arrangements were often reasonable but there were still delays in identifying prisoners’ risk management levels before their release. ¡¡ Despite some shortcomings, we noted some improvement in work to help prisoners maintain contact with their families. Outcome of previous recommendations In the adult male prisons reported on in 2016–17, 37% of our previous recommendations in the area of resettlement had been achieved, 19% partially achieved and 43% not achieved. Of 37 assessments of adult male establishments reported on during the last year, 46% had outcomes for prisoners that were either not sufficiently good or poor. Figure 13: Resettlement outcomes in establishments holding adult and young adult males Good Reasonably good Not sufficiently good Local prisons 1 6 6 1 Training prisons 2 3 9 1 High security prisons 0 2 0 0 Open prisons 1 3 0 0 Young adult prisons 0 2 0 0 Total 4 16 15 2 Integration of provision and support The new model to organise and deliver resettlement services through CRCs had been introduced in May 2015, but many prisoners continued to receive a poor resettlement service. The CRCs were becoming more embedded in prison work but there were persistent shortcomings in the implementation of the new arrangements, which had not generally led to effective joint work for the benefit of prisoners. Integration between departments and liaison between prisons and community responsible officers (formerly known as offender managers) remained weak. The prison’s offender management policy was over five years old, and… had not been updated since the introduction of the ‘through-the-gate’ model of community rehabilitation companies (CRCs) in May 2015. As a consequence, neither document linked effectively to the other or clearly outlined the through-the-gate model to follow. We found considerable variation in practice, especially in the work of offender management unit (OMU) staff. Isis 20 Since May 2015 rehabilitation services, both in custody and after release, have been organised through CRCs which are responsible for work with medium- and low-risk offenders. The national probation service has maintained responsibility for highand very high-risk offenders. 46 Poor Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison Offender management Too few prisoners had up-to-date assessments or sentence plans to help them plan constructively and progress towards a successful release. Since January 2016, NOMS (now HMPPS) has implemented an interim policy to help prisons catch up on OASys backlogs by focusing resources on high priority offenders. This was being used extensively. However, it meant that many other prisoners did not have a full assessment or sentence plan. The role of CRC support for such prisoners was therefore even more crucial than for prisoners with a full OASys assessment. Despite the interim policy, many prisons still had considerable backlogs of OASys assessments and some prisoners had out-ofdate sentence plans. At Risley, 287 prisoners out of a population of 1,101 had no OASys, and 115 were out of date. This was not always the fault of the prisons, which often did not have the resources to complete the number of assessments required. The problem of incomplete assessments was routinely passed from local prisons to training prisons. … half of all prisoners had arrived from local prisons without an assessment and sentence plan, and at the time of the inspection a third of all eligible prisoners still did not have them. Channings Wood Even when prisoners did have up-to-date assessments and sentence plans, they often did not address the issues that underpinned their offending behaviour but instead focused on much broader issues, such as attendance at work and adherence to wing rules. In our surveys of male prisons, only 53% of sentenced prisoners said they had a sentence plan and only 56% of those with a plan said they were involved in its development. Although prison-based offender supervisors were expected to liaise with communitybased responsible officers, this varied considerably. … we found several examples where prisoner behaviour in custody was indicative of risk (incidents of violence and other inappropriate behaviour), which were missed in assessments and not used to inform the community responsible officer. Hindley Prisoners did not receive enough support and guidance from offender supervisors to help them with rehabilitation and resettlement. In some cases, this was because of the redeployment of officer offender supervisors. In the previous six months, over half of the uniformed offender supervisor time had been lost. The consequences of this were huge: the remaining staff were heavily burdened and demoralised; contact with prisoners was largely reactive and absent in too many cases; and prisoners found the lack of response from their offender supervisor very frustrating. Channings Wood Although this was a common theme, there were exceptions. Offender supervisors were not crossdeployed unexpectedly, so they could focus on delivering good offender management… Contact was regular, appropriately focused on progression and risk management, and supported by drop-in sessions four days a week. Ford HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 47 SECTION THREE Men in prison We continued to find that specialist prison officer offender supervisors did not receive sufficient training – in most cases, this was limited to the completion of the OASys assessment. This problem was compounded by a lack of management oversight and quality assurance, which was particularly concerning where these officers were responsible for high-risk cases. In contrast, probation staff managing high- and very high-risk cases received regular supervision from a senior probation officer and their work was generally of higher quality. Although training prisons generally provided access for prisoners to accredited offending behaviour programmes, we remained concerned about the lack of work at some prisons to address offending behaviour. Although [the] range and number of [offending behaviour] programmes appeared broadly appropriate for the population, the lack of OASys or reviews of sentence plan targets meant that many prisoners were not referred for such work. In our sample of cases, we found insufficient offending behaviour work in nearly half and insufficient victim awareness work in more than half of the cases. Hindley Problems for prisoners on indeterminate sentences In November 2016, we published a thematic report, Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public protection, outlining the unique problems experienced by prisoners sentenced to an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP).21 Although the IPP sentence was abolished in December 2012, there was no retrospective change for those already sentenced under the legislation. At 31 March 2016, nearly half of prisoners sentenced to an IPP were still in custody, and 81% (3,330) were held beyond their tariff expiry date (the minimum time set by the court). In one case, Mr C had been given an IPP sentence with a tariff of 22 months, which had expired in 2008. He had very little sentence planning during his first few years in custody and on one occasion he was transferred ‘for the purpose of completing programmes, which after arrival he was assessed as unsuitable for’. Mr C felt that ‘had he been able to access the relevant programmes within his tariff period, his time in custody would have been much shorter’. The report identified three main issues: holding prisoners so far beyond their tariff date was not in the interests of public protection, and raised issues of fairness and justice their continued imprisonment was at a substantial and hard-to-justify public cost the legitimate needs of IPP prisoners put pressures on limited risk management resources, such as offending behaviour programmes, and on the parole process. It was also a great concern that, at a time of rising rates of suicide throughout the prison system, our survey data showed that IPP prisoners were more likely to report ‘problems and feeling suicidal and depressed on arrival in prison, having emotional, wellbeing and mental health problems and having a drug or alcohol problem’. We concluded that ‘IPP sentences have not worked as intended and the current situation in which many prisoners find themselves is clearly unjust’, while noting an openness in government to find new and innovative solutions to the problems our report highlighted. 21 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Unintended-consequences-Web-2016.pdf 48 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 49 SECTION THREE Men in prison Public protection Most prisons had reasonably good arrangements for identifying and managing prisoners identified as a risk to the public. Procedures to identify high-risk prisoners were thorough and relied on a good range of information sources. The inter-departmental risk management team (IRMT) meeting oversaw high risk of harm prisoners and their management both within the prison and towards their release into the community… The meetings were usually well attended and chaired by the senior probation officer. Norwich However, identification of risk levels for prisoners subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) was a recurrent problem. While at Bedford the current levels were confirmed before release and information exchange between the offender management unit (OMU) and in-house probation staff was good, that was not always the case elsewhere. Despite efforts from prisons, risk management levels were often not consistently clarified or communicated back to them in good time for release. There were 25 MAPPA-eligible cases due for release in the three months after the inspection, and most had been assessed as presenting a high or very high risk of harm to others. Despite attempts by the OMU, half of these cases did not have a clear MAPPA management level confirmed by the National Probation Service... Featherstone Reintegration planning Most prisons now had well-established CRC teams, and many worked well. There were generally good links with offender supervisors, especially probation staff, and in many cases appropriate links where necessary to community responsible officers (formally offender managers) from either CRCs or the National Probation Service. Isis However, there were exceptions and practical resettlement support remained inconsistent at best. The demand for resettlement services was high, with an average of 90 prisoners released a month. Delays and difficulties in implementing the CRC arrangements had led to problems in delivering some resettlement services, which were weak. Bedford Most establishments had systems to complete the prisoner’s initial basic custody screening and resettlement plans. However, the national model did not allow for these to be reviewed until three months before release, even if a prisoner transferred to another establishment in the meantime. Prisoners usually had updated resettlement plans completed within their last 12 weeks of custody, and sooner if they had less than 12 weeks to serve. However, completion of plans often did not lead to well-planned resettlement. The Shelter worker and the offender supervisor rarely worked together for release planning, and there was a lack of clarity about the roles and responsibilities of OMU and Shelter/ resettlement work. Thorn Cross While we found some good communication at Isis, especially on issues for which the prison was directly responsible, the outcome of referrals to other departments (such as housing, employment, training and education) or where work was undertaken 50 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION THREE Men in prison by other services (such as drugs, alcohol and mental health) were not consistently recorded or shared with staff in the community, undermining the principles of continuity and effectiveness. At most prisons, there was little or no reliable recording of outcome data, such as the number of prisoners released to sustainable accommodation or entering employment, training or education. ‘Through-the-gate’ resettlement services for short-term prisoners Between April and June 2016, we worked with HM Inspectorate of Probation on a joint thematic inspection to examine the effectiveness of through-the-gate resettlement services.22 We examined the cases of 61 prisoners in custody and after their release into the community, and a further 25 prisoners who had been in custody but which were reviewed by us only after release. All prisoners had served short sentences of less than 12 months. This thematic report describes a number of failings. Assessments of need were often based wholly on what prisoners told workers without any verification or rounded assessment: In too many cases, resettlement planning consisted of no more than referrals to other agencies, recorded as completed once an email had been sent. Furthermore, this inspection found that of the prisoners reviewed: … not enough assistance was given to prisoners to resolve debts. Too many prisoners were released without any accommodation. None of the prisoners had been helped into employment by through-the-gate services and we did not see examples of handover to specialist education or training resources in the community. Because of the lack of integration and provision: … many responsible officers conveyed a lack of hope and an almost fatalistic acceptance of the likelihood of failure. This did not bode well for the released prisoner or the wider community. Contact with families and friends In August 2016, we published a findings paper on prisoner contact with families and friends.23 The paper drew on several previous studies, including two earlier HMI Prisons thematic reports, and a review of inspections during 2015–16. We noted very good and innovative work at some establishments, and acknowledged that most prisons offered support during visits and programmes to engage both prisoners and their families. However, we concluded that arrangements to help prisoners maintain and strengthen those crucial contacts were too variable. We identified a number of these shortcomings in several inspections this year, including a lack of parenting and relationships courses, delays in the start of visits, and concerns that prisoners on different IEP levels had differential access to family contact. However, we found a general improvement, including at Cardiff, Durham, Hewell and Wymott. The range of interventions… to help prisoners maintain or re-establish contact with their children and families was good and had increased since the last inspection. Seven themed family days had taken place in the last year and, in the previous six months, 51 children and 33 families had attended. Access to family days was not restricted to enhanced prisoners… A weekly fathers’ and children’s visit took place… where prisoners could spend time with their younger children in play and educational activities. A weekly homework club provided a structured intervention for older children who were encouraged to bring in schoolwork to complete with their father. Durham 22 An Inspection of Through the Gate Resettlement Services for Short-Term Prisoners, http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/ cjji/inspections/throughthegate2016/ 23 Life in prison: Contact with families and friends, http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/ sites/4/2016/08/Contact-with-families-and-friends-findings-paper-2016.pdf HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 51 4 SECTION THREE Men in prison Women in prison 52 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FOUR Women in prison This section reviews five inspections of women’s prisons – at Bronzefield, Drake Hall, East Sutton Park, Eastwood Park and Foston Hall. The findings reported are based on Expectations: Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for women in prisons, published in June 2014. ¡¡ Women’s prisons still continued to perform better than most prisons for men, but women were held further from home and women’s prisons were more crowded than previously. ¡¡ The population held had become more complex and work to address the complicated needs of women prisoners continued to improve. ¡¡ Relationships between staff and prisoners were generally strong but staff were more stretched than previously. ¡¡ Women had greater contact with their offender supervisors than we see in men’s prisons. ¡¡ Children and families work was very strong. ¡¡ The new resettlement services were not yet fully embedded. ¡¡ Work with women who had been abused, trafficked, experienced domestic violence or involved in sex work remained underdeveloped. Outcomes for women in the five prisons inspected were strong, with all judged good or reasonably good in the areas of safety, respect and resettlement. However, Foston Hall did not deliver adequate purposeful activity (figure 14). We have compared the outcomes for the prisons we reported on in 2016–17 with those we reported the last time we inspected the same establishments (figure 15). Outcome of previous recommendations In the women’s prisons reported on in 2016–17: ¡¡ 53% of our previous recommendations in the area of safety had been achieved, 16% partially achieved and 31% not achieved ¡¡ 39% of our previous recommendations in the area of respect had been achieved, 28% partially achieved and 33% not achieved ¡¡ 46% of our previous recommendations in the area of activity had been achieved, 29% partially achieved and 25% not achieved ¡¡ 52% of our previous recommendations in the area of resettlement had been achieved, 21% partially achieved and 27% not achieved. Figure 14: Outcomes in inspections of women’s prisons reported on in 2016-17 Safety Respect Purposeful activity Preparation for release Bronzefield Reasonably good Good Reasonably good Good Drake Hall Good Reasonably good Good Good East Sutton Park Good Good Good Good Eastwood Park Reasonably good Reasonably good Reasonably good Reasonably good Foston Hall Reasonably good Reasonably good Not sufficiently good Reasonably good HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 53 SECTION FOUR Women in prison Figure 15: Outcome changes from previous inspection (women’s prisons - 5) Number of HPAs improved/ unchanged/ declined 4 4 4 4 3 2 1 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 Safety 0 Respect Purposeful activity Strategic context The government is due to produce a strategy during 2017 setting out plans for five new community women’s prisons focusing specifically on resettlement. This could address the current problem that women’s prisons have in focusing sufficiently on resettlement provision, while also trying to maintain their local function. We would also welcome any additional opportunities for women to spend time in an open prison nearer to their home – currently, many women choose to stay in closed conditions, even when suitable for an open prison, if the options available are further away. It was positive that women’s prisons were now managed strategically as a single cluster, rather than alongside male prisons in the same geographical area. NOMS (now HMPPS) had appointed a deputy director of custody specifically for the women’s estate, which provided opportunities to ensure that these prisons reflected the specific needs of women prisoners. Despite the threat of closure, Askham Grange and East Sutton Park (inspected this year) remained open. Although no women’s prisons were included in the government’s prison reform programme,24 Eastwood Park has been identified as one of 10 ‘Pathfinder’ prisons for the new offender management operation model – these prisons are 1 0 Declined Unchanged Improved Resettlement expected to bring additional staffing and key workers to support rehabilitation work. The government has also committed to reviewing the training of prison officers and any specialist development and training for those working with specific groups, including women. We continued to attend the Ministerial Advisory Board on Female Offenders as an observer. In the last year, the board has focused more on outcomes for women in the community. The closure of Holloway The closure of Holloway in London has had a significant impact on the women’s estate and resulted in more crowding in the remaining women’s prisons. We inspected Bronzefield, just outside London, before Holloway had closed, but the four prisons we inspected later in the year were all feeling the effect of higher numbers of women from a wider geographical area. The most extreme example was Eastwood Park in Gloucestershire, where the already large catchment area had expanded to include Oxfordshire – in addition to areas from Cornwall to Wolverhampton, across Wales and along the south coast. Downview opened in May 2016 and was not yet running at full capacity. 24 Prisons and Courts Bill, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/prisons and courts/documents.html 54 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FOUR Women in prison Figure 16: Numbers held in women’s prisons compared with the previous inspection Numbers held at previous inspection Numbers held at current inspection % change Bronzefield 446 506 +13 Foston Hall 289 343 +19 Drake Hall 283 335 +18 East Sutton Park 100 98 -2 Eastwood Park 327 397 +21 1,445 1,679 +16 Total We compared the population figures from establishments at the time of inspection to those at their previous inspection (figure 16). Although women’s prisons had not lost as many staff as the male estate, the number of women held in these prisons had risen. Greater vulnerability and increasing needs In January 2017, we submitted evidence to the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in Custody’s inquiry into deaths of women in custody; this was based on our survey data from all the women’s prisons visited over the year compared with the last time we inspected them. Although the findings are not representative of the whole women’s prisons estate, they are concerning. While it is difficult to establish causal relationships, there were increased levels of reported vulnerability, mental health problems, substance misuse problems and safety concerns, all of which might potentially contribute to self-inflicted deaths in custody. Our survey data indicated that women arriving in custody were more vulnerable than previously. Significantly more women than previously (39% compared with 32%) said they had arrived at prison feeling depressed or suicidal. The comparison showed that in the last year 41% of women self-reported mental health difficulties compared with 29% at the previous inspection. More women than previously said they had problems with housing, contacting their employer or contacting their family when they arrived. The proportion of women who said they had ever felt unsafe had risen to 52% from 39%. Safety Against this background of increasing vulnerability, it is important that women feel and are kept safe. We rated East Sutton Park and Drake Hall as good for safety and the other three prisons as reasonably good. In our survey, women responded better than men overall on their experience of escort staff and reception. However, many women continued to be transported in escort vans with men, which is unacceptable. A higher proportion of women than men said they had problems when they first arrived at prison (83% against 70%), and women were less likely to say they felt safe on their first night in prison (66% against 72%). (See Appendix 6.) The national centralised case management system for women with complex needs (equivalent to the male category A status) continued to work well. The prison accommodated a highly complex, challenging and varied population. Over half of those surveyed and more than at our last inspection said they had felt unsafe at some time during their stay and many said they had been victimised. However, most women said they felt safe at the time of the survey, levels of violence were not excessive and most incidents were minor. Staff knew the women well. Bronzefield HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 55 SECTION FOUR Women in prison Although women with high levels of need were usually well cared for in prison, we sometimes met women so vulnerable that we considered prison as inappropriate for them. Most prisons held weekly multidisciplinary meetings that supported their work with the most vulnerable women. The roll-out of training for women’s prison staff in creating ‘trauma-informed’ environments – based on the perspective of women who had experienced trauma – supported well-being and helped to keep women safe. However, violence had increased in women’s prisons, with numbers of assaults on women and staff increasing. We sometimes found insufficient challenge of low-level bullying and negative behaviour. Such incidents can cause women distress and can be addressed through formal and informal mediation. Our survey showed an increase in the proportion of women arriving in prison with drug and/ or alcohol problems. While women’s prisons do not have the same problems with new psychoactive substances (NPS)25 as in the male estate, in Drake Hall we found that some women were misusing buscopan (an antispasmodic that reduces muscle movement). In general, safeguarding arrangements had improved in most women’s prisons, which had good links with local authorities. Respect In our survey, women responded more positively than men on many areas of respect. Relationships between staff and prisoners remained a strength in most women’s prisons, and the quality of relationships often helped to mitigate aspects of vulnerability and need of the women held. At Drake Hall, training for a quality mark had a positive impact on the quality of relationships and staff’s ability to understand and respond to problematic behaviour. The prison had recently received the Enabling Environment award from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. This is a quality mark for organisations that can show they promote good relationships and wellbeing; commendably it was the first prison in England and Wales to receive the award. Drake Hall Work on equality and diversity was generally good and we found examples of good practice. The strong leadership, independent scrutiny and genuine involvement of peer diversity representatives and equalities orderlies created and sustained women’s confidence in the prison’s commitment to equality and diversity. Bronzefield Health care Health services were reasonable, but they were struggling to recruit and retain staff. All the women’s prisons visited had up-to-date health needs assessments, which enabled health services to address their requirements. Most women had good access to health care, except at Eastwood Park and Foston Hall. Antenatal support at Bronzefield was impressive. Waiting times for routine nurse appointments were sometimes too long and waits for routine GP appointments were regularly more than two weeks… women waited up to nine weeks for an appointment with the optician. Foston Hall There were significant problems with pharmacy services and medicines management at Bronzefield, Foston Hall and Drake Hall, including timely access to medicines and medication security. 25 Drugs that are developed or chosen to mimic the effects of illegal drugs such as cannabis, heroin or amphetamines and may have unpredictable and life-threatening effects. 56 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FOUR Women in prison The proportion of women in prison reporting mental health problems is much higher than in the community – in our survey, 65% of women, compared with 42% of men, said they had mental health issues. The mental health service provision was good at Eastwood Park and East Sutton Park, but did not fully meet needs at Foston Hall and Bronzefield. The lack of counselling services at Drake Hall was a significant deficit. As in previous years (and in men’s prisons), too many women requiring assessment or treatment in hospital mental health units waited too long to be transferred – up to 12 weeks at Foston Hall and Bronzefield. Purposeful activity We expect prisoners to have 10 hours a day out of cell. On average, 21% of women achieved this, a higher proportion than in the male estate. At Drake Hall and East Sutton Park (which have relatively open regimes), women were unlocked all day. In our survey, women were generally more positive than men about opportunities for purposeful activity, and more likely to report that they had a prison job, were undertaking vocational or skills training or were in education. In contrast, a longstanding lack of activity places at Foston Hall was compounded by inefficient allocation processes. Almost one-third of women were unemployed and had less than four hours out of cell each weekday. Women on the remand wing did not have daily access to the open air. Whereas all other healthy prison test scores in women’s prisons were at least reasonably good, purposeful activity outcomes at Foston Hall were not sufficiently good. Resettlement Across the women’s estate we saw some very positive work to support women back to the community and address the risks that they posed, and often with far more complex issues than their male counterparts. Some of these problems were extreme. In our survey, 56% of women said they had problems with drugs when they first arrived at the prison and 37% said they had problems with alcohol, both higher than at similar prisons. In addition, 31% of women said they had housing problems and 48%, more women than at similar prisons, said they had mental health problems. Eastwood Park Drake Hall, East Sutton Park and Eastwood Park were rated good by Ofsted. They had enough suitable activity places and promoted personal development. Such problems were compounded by the inevitable fact that many women were held a long way from their families and support networks. Women developed self-confidence and excellent employability skills that prepared them well for work in the prison and on release. Particularly impressive was the willingness of most women to keep themselves purposefully occupied during their time in custody and to improve actively their prospects of successful reintegration into society after their release. Drake Hall The population had recently increased following the closure of HMP Holloway… At the time of the inspection, only 91 women were from within 50 miles of their home area… Nearly two-thirds of them (115 women) had not been released in the area local to the prison. Drake Hall Despite such challenges we saw some extremely positive approaches to work with women. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 57 SECTION FOUR Women in prison Progression and rehabilitation were central to the prison and many women told us their lives had been transformed since arriving at East Sutton Park. All staff, across all areas of the prison, understood their responsibility to support the women with resettlement, and the work had strong leadership. East Sutton Park Similarly, at Drake Hall we found ‘offender management arrangements were largely effective’, and that the culture and team work were ‘impressive’ In most cases, the work of offender management was effective and useful in helping women progress. In some cases, however, staff shortages and redeployment had a significant impact on offender supervisor contact with women and the completion of assessments. Thirty per cent of OASys [offender management system] documents for prisoners managed by prison officers were overdue, some by many months, which potentially compromised work to reduce risks. Foston Hall For most women in custody, release on temporary licence (ROTL) was extremely important, and was widely used to support family ties and promote reintegration. The wide catchment areas covered by most prisons meant that resettlement work by the community rehabilitation company teams in prisons was often complex and challenging. Despite this, most arrangements were reasonable and there were good attempts to access support for women both before and after release. In our joint thematic report on through-thegate services for short stay prisoners,26 we found that outcomes were generally better for women than for men. Nevertheless, at Bronzefield many women were confused about the arrangements, and despite some good work at Eastwood Park, many women did not know who to speak to about post-release support, including for accommodation and benefits. Children and families Children and families work is generally good in women’s prisons, but the increasing distance that women are held from home has been a problem. At Eastwood Park, over a quarter of women had not received a visit since being at the prison. However, the ‘Visiting Mum’ project helped women from South Wales maintain their family links in a supportive and supervised environment. At East Sutton Park, the prison provided transport from the local stations to help visitors get to its rural location more easily. Victimisation abuse and trafficking Many women in custody have been victims of domestic abuse, trafficking and/or have worked in the sex industry; offering support and services in these areas is essential. All prisons took this work seriously and approached women sensitively. The prison adopted a supportive and sensitive approach to abuse. This included a well-thought-out process for asking women during induction about their experiences, allocating solely female staff as caseworkers and providing access to a good range of resources in the prison and in the community. A caseworker planned services to meet the needs of victimised and vulnerable women and an impressive range was provided. Bronzefield Prisons provided a range of programmes, including the ‘Power to Change’ programme at Drake Hall, counselling support at Foston Hall and one at Eastwood Park to support victims of sexual violence. While such work was positive, the provision found this year was not adequate to meet needs, with some prisons merely signposting women to community services. 26 An Inspection of Through the Gate Resettlement Services for Short-Term Prisoners, http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/ cjji/inspections/throughthegate2016/ 58 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FOUR Women in prison HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 59 5 SECTION FIVE Children in custody Children in custody 60 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FIVE Children in custody This section draws on three inspections of young offender institutions (YOIs) holding boys aged 15 to 18 and, jointly with Ofsted (Estyn in Wales) and the Care Quality Commission, four inspections of secure training centres (STCs) holding children (boys and girls) aged 12 to 18. All the findings from inspections in this section are based on Expectations for children and young people, published in June 2012, and the framework for inspecting STCs, published in February 2014. Young offender institutions ¡¡ Of the four units inspected, only the two smallest were judged to be reasonably safe. ¡¡ There had been increasing violence, and measures to address this had reduced time out of cell, so many boys served most of their sentence locked up. Figure 17: Published outcomes in YOIs inspected in 2016–1727 Safety Cookham Wood Not sufficiently good Respect Purposeful Resettlement activity Good Reasonably good Reasonably good Keppel Unit Reasonably good Reasonably good Poor Reasonably good Parc Reasonably good Reasonably Reasonably good good Reasonably good Wetherby Not sufficiently Reasonably good good Poor Reasonably good Outcome of previous recommendations In the YOIs reported on in 2016–17: ¡¡ 28% of our previous recommendations in the area of safety had been achieved, 21% partially achieved and 51% not achieved ¡¡ 29% of our previous recommendations in the area of respect had been achieved, 18% partially achieved and 53% not achieved ¡¡ 43% of our previous recommendations in the area of activity had been achieved, 7% partially achieved and 50% not achieved ¡¡ 27% of our previous recommendations in the area of resettlement had been achieved, 14% partially achieved and 59% not achieved. 27 The inspection at Wetherby and Keppel produced separate assessments for each. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 61 SECTION FIVE Children in custody Figure 18: Outcome changes from previous inspection (YOIs – 4) Number of HPAs improved/ unchanged/ declined 5 Declined Unchanged 4 Improved Boys were negative about key aspects of their early days. In our survey, only 62% of respondents felt they were treated well in reception, 79% said they had problems when they arrived and only 76% felt safe on their first night in custody. 3 2 2 2 2 1 0 Children were still being held regularly at court for four or five hours after their cases had been dealt with. Parc 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 Safety 0 Respect Purposeful activity Resettlement Taylor review of youth justice and the current facilities Throughout this year we have continued to engage with the review of the youth justice system carried out by Charlie Taylor, following our initial response to the review’s emerging findings.28 This review makes several positive recommendations, including the creation of a new custodial estate with smaller education-focused ‘secure schools’. However, we have significant concerns about the lack of progress to improve outcomes in existing YOIs and STCs, where most children will continue to be held. We consider that the overriding priority of the Youth Justice Board (YJB), HMPPS and ministers should be to make children’s custody safe to enable their participation in education, training and offending behaviour work, and the Chief Inspector has raised these concerns with ministers. We hope that the creation of the Youth Custody Service, the appointment of an executive director and the YJB review of secure monitoring will go some way towards this. Early days in custody Despite our recommendations to HMPPS, the escort contractor and the YJB, boys continued to experience long delays at court and unnecessarily long journeys to YOIs, often sharing dirty vehicles with adult prisoners. These avoidable delays inhibited their ability to settle in, and added risk to the first few days in custody. … other wings were noisy with boys shouting out unchallenged, which could be worrying for those new to custody. Cookham Wood The induction arrangements were not good enough, and boys spent too long locked in their cells during their first few days in custody. Behaviour management, violence and antisocial behaviour Behaviour management continued to be ineffective, despite some positive initiatives, and violence and intimidating behaviour remained a feature of life in YOIs. There was no coordinated national approach to address this growing issue. We look forward to assessing the impact of the changes to youth custody, announced in February 2017, in 2017–18. Levels of violence had risen at Keppel, Parc and Wetherby, and we raised concerns about underreporting at Cookham Wood. As a result, too many children felt unsafe. In our survey, 41% of children told us they had felt unsafe and 14% felt unsafe at the time of the inspection, 29% had experienced victimisation by other boys, and 32% reported victimisation by staff. Only one in five boys thought that staff would take it seriously if they reported victimisation. 28 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/02/Response-to-Review-of-the-Youth-Justice-Systeminterim-report-of-emerging-findings.pdf 62 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FIVE Children in custody We continued to report the lack of support for the significant number of boys who were too scared to leave their cells. … there were no longer victim support plans, and PACT [positive attitudes created together, a management action plan] did not provide for the needs of victims. In the context of frequent staff redeployment and an ineffective personal officer scheme, an informal approach was not adequate and there was no safety net for boys whose needs were not brought explicitly to the attention of staff. Wetherby and Keppel We did find some potentially positive developments, including the new progression unit at Cookham Wood, which attempted to deal with boys with particularly complex needs who regularly committed acts of violence. When we inspected the unit was in its early days, and while appropriate in principle, it lacked direction and strategy, the regime was poor and case management was underdeveloped. With the exception of Parc, establishments continued to rely on physically separating boys, rather than mediating or addressing conflict in other ways, with the consequence that too many spent too long locked alone in their cells. Use of force Use of force was high at all YOIs and had risen at Keppel, Parc and Cookham Wood. Most incidents continued to be spontaneous responses to violence, and we saw many instances of staff putting themselves at risk to protect children in their care. However, we also saw evidence of poor de-escalation by staff, as well as examples of staff using pain-inducing techniques and strip-searching children under restraint. Despite some improvements, oversight of use of force required improvement at Cookham Wood, and was poor at Wetherby and Keppel. Oversight of use of force was weak; MMPR [minimising and managing physical restraint] coordinators who were responsible for implementing training, reviewing incidents and chasing documentation were frequently redeployed to other roles. Some incidents were not reviewed for weeks after they had occurred. Not enough staff were trained… Staff still did not complete use of force paperwork in a timely fashion and nearly 300 documents were missing at the time of the inspection… The level and extent of use of force remained unclear. Wetherby and Keppel Suicide and self-harm prevention There had been no self-inflicted deaths in YOIs during 2016–17, and none since January 2012. All inspections found that boys on assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) case management were generally positive about their care. However, at Wetherby boys in crisis were living in cells bare of furnishings and personal belongings, despite being under constant supervision. These sterile conditions gave too much priority to mitigating risk rather than providing a humane environment that promoted well-being. Segregation In our survey, 38% of boys said they had spent a night in a care and separation (segregation) unit. Segregation was rare for boys at Keppel and the lack of a dedicated segregation unit meant use of segregation at Parc was commendably low. But segregation had increased at Cookham Wood and was unchanged at Wetherby; both units were inadequate. None of the boys had sufficient activities to occupy them in their cells and radios were only issued to them during the inspection. We were concerned about the impact of this lack of activity on the few children who spent long periods in the segregation unit. Wetherby and Keppel HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 63 SECTION FIVE Children in custody Living conditions and relationships Living conditions varied across the estate. Boys at Cookham Wood lived in well-equipped modern single cells with in-cell showers and telephones. But at Wetherby, some boys were living in cramped cells with inadequately screened toilets. They were also short of basic items, including curtains and kettles. Relationships between boys and staff varied, but in our survey, only 61% of children said that most staff treated them with respect. There was evidence of deteriorating relationships at both Parc and Wetherby, where the number of children reporting victimisation by staff had also increased. Children’s perceptions of staff had deteriorated since the previous inspection. In our survey, only 55% of children said that most staff treated them with respect and over a third said they would have no one to turn to if they had a problem. 42% of children reported victimisation by staff compared with 20% at the previous inspection, and 18% said they had been victimised after making a complaint. Parc had been treated fairly by the rewards scheme. Only 36% of Muslim boys said they usually had association every day, compared with 60% of non-Muslim boys. Children with disabilities continued to be more likely to feel unsafe, and children looked after by a local authority were less likely receive a weekly visit. Work to identify, understand and address these differences was reasonably good at Cookham Wood, but it had deteriorated at Parc and Wetherby and Keppel. At Wetherby and Keppel, the equality officer was regularly redeployed and did not have enough time to fulfil his duties. The prison had also stopped monitoring outcomes for boys with protected characteristics, which was concerning. The equality manager was unaware of data from the equality monitoring tool for the unit and the main site which showed disproportionate treatment of 15- to 18year olds in the adjudication process and incentives and earned privileges scheme. Limited data were presented to the unit safeguarding meeting on the ethnic background of children and on the use of separation, use of force and self-harm by ethnicity. There were no monitoring data for other protected characteristics. Parc In contrast, at Cookham Wood we saw improvements; most staff were knowledgeable about the boys in their care, and displayed exemplary commitment and patience in frequently challenging situations. We commended the professionalism of staff from all areas of the establishment. However, it was concerning that more than one in five children said they would have no one to turn to if they had a problem. Support for gay or bisexual children remained a significant gap at all sites, and more needed to be done to assure this group that they would be kept safe. At Parc, staff told us that homophobic attitudes were the most difficult diversity issue they faced. Diversity Health Boys with different protected characteristics had significantly different perceptions in key areas of our survey. Those from a black and minority ethnic background were more likely than white boys to report being physically restrained or having received an adjudication, and only 27%, compared with 44%, felt they Newly arrived boys generally received prompt comprehensive health assessments. Access to and the quality of health services at most establishments remained mainly good, although difficulties continued at Cookham Wood, with boys waiting far too long to see the dentist. 64 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FIVE Children in custody We were concerned at Wetherby that health staff did not routinely attend use of force incidents, although they were to be trained in awareness of the MMPR techniques and when to raise concerns. With the exception of Parc, access to exercise remained inadequate with boys entitled to only 30 minutes a day – and, in practice, many did not have even this. Exercise yards were stark. At Cookham Wood, the introduction of medic alert bracelets for boys with potentially life-threatening conditions to help prison staff ensure their safety was an impressive innovation. Taking part in activities Mental health services remained mostly good, although some boys at Wetherby and Cookham Wood continued to experience significant delays in transfer to external mental health services. Time out of cell The implementation of a national core day designed to facilitate education for 30 hours a week in English YOIs had not gone well. Staffing shortages and high levels of violence meant there were interim arrangements during our inspections of Cookham Wood and Wetherby and Keppel, where children had inadequate time out of cell or exercise. During our roll checks, we found around a third of children locked in their cells on each inspection. At Keppel, the figure was 31%, a significant deterioration from our previous inspection when we had found no boys locked up. Time out of cell at Cookham Wood had improved from a low base; in our survey, 34% of boys said that they could go on association every day, compared with 14% in 2015. In stark contrast, Parc was the only YOI to meet our expectation of providing 10 hours a day out of cell. Crucially, all children could access evening association and eat all their meals communally. Boys in custody have often had negative experiences of education in the community. In our survey, 86% said they had been excluded from school before they came into detention, 73% reported truanting at some time, and 39% said they were 14 or younger when they last attended school. Custody provides an opportunity for many of these children to make up for lost time and achieve skills and qualifications to help them become successful adults. It was disappointing that the overall effectiveness of learning and skills and work at Wetherby and Keppel was judged to be inadequate and that the quality of teaching and provision at Parc was only adequate. Only Cookham Wood was judged to be good, with a broad and balanced curriculum offering 21 options in vocational training or classroom learning. However, even here, progress was frustrated by disruptions to the regime that meant that boys too frequently arrived late for sessions. At Wetherby and Keppel the situation was worse: Not all boys attended their planned activities. The frequent shutdowns caused by lack of prison staff prevented boys accessing education and overall attendance at education was low at around 66%. The prison was not able to deliver the required 30 hours of education a week and many boys with short sentences, or on remand, failed to complete their courses before they were released or transferred. Wetherby and Keppel For those who did attend education, the quality of teaching and learning was mainly good, and boys generally behaved well and made progress. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 65 SECTION FIVE Children in custody Figure 19: Ofsted assessments in YOIs holding children 2016–17 Overall effectiveness of learning and skills and work Outcomes Quality of learning for children and and skills and young people work activities Personal Effectiveness of development and leadership and behaviour management skills Outstanding 0 0 0 0 0 Good 1 1 3 3 1 Requires improvement 0 0 0 0 2 Inadequate 2 2 0 0 0 Total 3 3 3 3 3 Figure 19a: Estyn assessments in YOIs holding children 2016–17 Overall effectiveness of learning and skills and work Achievements of Quality of learning prisoners engaged in and skills and work learning and skills provision, including and work the quality of teaching, training, learning and assessment Leadership and management of learning and skills and work Excellent 0 0 0 0 Good 0 0 0 0 Adequate 1 1 1 1 Unsatisfactory 0 0 0 0 Total 1 1 1 1 Provision for resettlement Resettlement provision continued to offer a better picture, with reasonably good outcomes at all establishments. We found well-organised, committed teams of caseworkers and good use of release on temporary licence (ROTL) to support resettlement for boys at Wetherby and Keppel and Cookham Wood. However, too many sentence or remand plans contained generic rather than individually designed targets. In our survey, nearly half of boys were unaware of their plan. We found some good work to support children to maintain ties with family and friends, including the introduction of Skype at Parc and a family therapy service at Wetherby. 66 Caseworkers, education providers and youth offending teams put significant effort into preparing boys for release, but too frequently this was undermined by a lack of accommodation provision. This was particularly a problem for looked-after children – at each inspection we found examples of children not knowing where they would live until the day of release, children being released into unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation and, inexcusably, children released to no address at all from Parc and Wetherby. Delays in the provision of accommodation prevented children making other plans, disrupted through-the-gate support for those with health and substance misuse needs, and prevented enrolment in education on release. This lack of accommodation needs action at national level by the Ministry of Justice, Department for Education and Department for Communities and Local Government. Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION FIVE Children in custody A long way from home The reduction in the number of children in custody and the secure settings in which they are held means that some children are now held further from home than previously. Our thematic report on this issue29 found that distance did not result in differential treatment of children held far from home, and did not affect the involvement of youth offending teams in sentence and remand management. However, children and staff told us that distance made it harder for family and carers to visit and maintain their relationships. We found that each 25mile interval that a child was held from their home area was associated with one less visit from a relative or friend. This is concerning given the importance of families to successful rehabilitation and turning children away from crime. 29 The impact of distance from home on children in custody, https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/ inspections/the-impact-of-distance-from-home-on-children-in-custody/ HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 67 SECTION FIVE Children in custody Secure training centres ¡¡ There had been a decline in the conditions in which children were held in STCs, but some examples of good provision. ¡¡ All of the STCs were judged to be insufficiently safe, with poor behaviour management, high levels of violence and overuse of force to manage children. ¡¡ Staffing shortages and uncertainty about the future of STCs had a detrimental impact. Secure training centres (STCs) are either mixed or single sex sites, and hold young people aged 13 to 18 who are deemed more vulnerable and less likely to do well in a larger institution. All have clear needs to be addressed while in custody and require consistent support to do this. In this reporting period, Ofsted, with HM Inspectorate of Prisons and the Care Quality Commission, published four STC reports – two on Rainsbrook and one each on Medway and Oakhill. It was a period of change across the STC estate. Overall we found a decline in the conditions in which children were detained. Medway was assessed as inadequate overall and Oakhill and Rainsbrook required improvement. At all three STCs, staffing shortages had a detrimental impact on the performance of almost all aspects of the centres. These shortages were compounded by uncertainty about the future of each STC, which affected both children and staff. Management of two centres had changed to providers new to the STC estate, bringing new challenges that leaders and managers in the centres were not effective in responding to. All STCs saw a reduction for some periods in the number of young people they could accommodate safely, due to staffing and the difficulties of maintaining a welltrained and experienced workforce. This put more pressure on the limited places available in secure children’s homes. We were also concerned that the restriction on spaces meant that some vulnerable boys who might have previously been placed in a STC went into a YOI. The management of behaviour required attention in all STCs. Application of rules was inconsistent, as was the use of rewards and sanctions. Levels of violence were high – both assaults on staff and on other young people. At Medway, we found evidence of under-recording of violent incidents. Use of force was also high. At Oakhill, the number of incidents had doubled since the last inspection to more than 70 a month – among the highest we have seen. Oversight of the use of force was reasonably good at Oakhill but was poor at Medway. Rainsbrook had some unacceptable practice in use of force and restraint, and governance needed improvement. Staff at both Medway and Figure 20: Outcomes in inspections of secure training centres 2016–17 Secure training centre Rainsbrook (March 2016) Medway (June 2016) Overall effectiveness Safety Requires Requires improvement improvement Care Achievement Resettlement Requires Requires improvement improvement Inadequate Inadequate Inadequate Rainsbrook (October 2016) Requires Requires improvement Improvement Inadequate Requires improvement Oakhill (January 2017) Requires Requires improvement improvement Inadequate Requires improvement 68 Inadequate Behaviour Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Health Leader effectiveness n/a n/a Requires improvement Good Good Inadequate Requires Requires improvement improvement Good Inadequate Good Requires Requires improvement improvement Requires Requires Requires improvement improvement improvement SECTION FIVE Children in custody Oakhill had used pain-inducing techniques on children, and at Medway the use of these inappropriate techniques was exacerbated by their misapplication by inexperienced staff. Child protection and safeguarding procedures were undergoing review at all three centres. The physical conditions of the STCs had deteriorated to the extent that at Medway we judged there were potential health and safety implications for staff and children. Children mostly reported feeling respected by staff, but relationships were hampered by frequent changes of residential staff. At all three centres, key worker schemes – which should have provided each child with a named member of staff to support them – were ineffective. There was some good work at all the centres. The education provision was good at Oakhill, as was health care at Rainsbrook and Medway and resettlement support at Medway. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 69 6 SECTION SIX Immigration detention Immigration detention 70 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SIX Immigration detention This section draws on inspection reports for three immigration removal centres (IRCs), the Cedars pre-departure accommodation used to hold families with children, 18 short-term holding facilities (STHFs), and one escorted overseas removal. All the findings are based on the third edition of our Expectations: Criteria for assessing the conditions for and treatment of immigration detainees, published in September 2012. ¡¡ In the three inspected IRCs and the Cedars pre-departure accommodation, most outcomes against our healthy establishment tests were at least reasonably good. ¡¡ Some aspects of safety had deteriorated and there was a rise in deaths in detention. ¡¡ A significant number of detainees were held for prolonged periods. ¡¡ There were improvements in the Rule 35 process, which is intended to protect detainees with serious health problems and those who have been tortured or trafficked, but more was needed. ¡¡ New psychoactive substances were an emerging issue. ¡¡ IRC staff were generally respectful to detainees, and there was some good preparation for release work. ¡¡ Conditions in the STHFs were generally appropriate for short periods of detention. ¡¡ The overseas charter removal we inspected was reasonably well conducted. Outcome of previous recommendations30 In the IRCs reported on in 2016–17: ¡¡ 38% of our previous recommendations in the area of safety had been achieved, 19% partially achieved and 43% not achieved ¡¡ 43% of our previous recommendations in the area of respect had been achieved, 30% partially achieved and 27% not achieved ¡¡ 37% of our previous recommendations in the area of activity had been achieved, 26% partially achieved and 37% not achieved ¡¡ 29% of our previous recommendations in the area of preparation for release had been achieved, 26% partially achieved and 44% not achieved. In the year ending December 2016, 28,908 people entered immigration detention, a decrease of 11% on the previous year, which might have been partly due to the closure of Dover IRC in October 2015 and temporary closure of Tinsley House IRC from July 2016. At any time, more than 3,500 people are in immigration detention in the UK. They are held mainly in one of the nine IRCs, the three STHFs or in prisons, which, on 3 October 2016, held 442 people detained under immigration powers.31 There are also 31 non-residential STHFs, which are near ports of entry into the UK or at Home Office reporting centres. Some are part-time or overflow facilities not in regular use.32 30 Excludes four recommendations that required no follow up. 31 Home Office Immigration Statistics July to September 2016 give the figures for immigration removal centres but do not include those held under immigration powers in non-residential short-term holding facilities or police stations (https:// www.gov.uk/government/ publications/immigration-statistics-july-to-september-2016/detention, accessed 30.1.17). While the Home Office does not routinely collect this data, on the basis of Home Office management information, a UK National Preventive Mechanism detention mapping project – Detention Population Data Mapping Project, https://s3-eu-west-2. amazonaws.com/npm-prod-storage-19n0nag2nk8xk/uploads/2017/01/NPM-Detention-Population-Data-Mapping-ProjectFINAL.pdf – estimated that 50,000 individuals were held for short periods in non-residential STHFs in the year to 31 March 2016, or around 138 people a day. There are some caveats to these figures. 32 The Home Office has advised that the Folkestone overflow facility at Frontier House is unlikely to be used again but remains a potential site of detention. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 71 SECTION SIX Immigration detention Figure 21: Outcomes in inspections of IRCs and pre-departure accommodation 2016–17 IRC and contractor Safety Respect Brook House (G4S) Reasonably good Reasonably good Reasonably good Reasonably good Good Good Good Good Reasonably good Not sufficiently good Reasonably good Good Not sufficiently good Reasonably good Good Good Cedars pre-departure accommodation (G4S) Colnbrook (Mitie) Morton Hall (HMPPS) Some concerns about safety Two of the three inspected IRCs were reasonably safe at the time of inspection, but the availability of illegal drugs, especially new psychoactive substances, was a developing problem that had not yet been adequately addressed. The supply and misuse of drugs was the most significant threat to security, and there was evidence of the organised criminal supply of drugs. However, the centre did not have a drug supply [reduction] strategy. Brook House However, all three IRCs now provided satisfactory clinical support for detainees with substance misuse needs, and psychosocial support was available. At Brook House and Colnbrook, incidents of violence and self-harm were not high, and Brook House had managed a complex population reasonably well. Despite some ongoing problems and serious individual incidents, both these centres were reasonably calm. However, at Morton Hall the situation was not as good. Violence reduction work at Morton Hall was reactive and not based on a holistic understanding of the causes and possible responses to violence. At all IRCs, detainees reported feelings of depression or despair. In our surveys, 43%, 48% and 49% of detainees at Brook House, Colnbrook and Morton Hall respectively said they had problems with depression or suicidal feelings on their arrival. There had been a three-fold increase in incidents of self-harm since the previous inspection. During the previous year, four detainees had narrowly escaped fatal or serious injuries as a result of self-harm. The causes of self-harm had not been sufficiently analysed and there was no strategy to reduce it. Morton Hall The implementation of the assessment, care in detention and teamwork (ACDT) case management system for detainees in crisis was not effective enough to provide consistently good support at any centre. There was a tense atmosphere on most residential units and many detainees, especially those detained for the longest periods, were extremely frustrated. Many cited the uncertainty created by their immigration cases and the prison-like environment. Antisocial behaviour was not uncommon. Morton Hall 72 Purposeful activity Preparation for release Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SIX Immigration detention Detention-related deaths There had been a significant rise in detention-related deaths and fewer were due to natural causes. The Home Office reported six deaths from April 2016 to March 2017, compared with three during the previous reporting year. Looked at over a longer period, there had been eight deaths in the 18 months to 1 June 2017, compared with nine in the previous four years combined (1 January 2012 to 31 December 2015). Two of the more recent deaths were self-inflicted, one was a suspected homicide,33 three were drug-related and two followed sudden illnesses. With one exception34 these deaths occurred in detention or within a day of formal release. In some cases, the detainee was released as a direct result of an incident in detention that led to death, such as the assault that led to the suspected homicide. Of the nine deaths in the previous four years, all but two were due to natural causes.35 Vulnerability In response to the Shaw review on the welfare of vulnerable detainees,36 the Home Office had introduced a new policy to manage adults at risk in immigration detention. The policy was not yet widely understood, and there was a lack of communication between centre staff who had contact with at-risk detainees and the caseworkers, based in offices around the country, who decide if detention should be maintained. At both Brook House and Morton Hall, we obtained lists of detainees identified by the Home Office as being at risk of harm under the new policy, but neither the Home Office teams at the centres or custodial managers had these lists. They could not, therefore, systematically identify and support all at risk adults, nor monitor the impact of detention on them over time. We also found people with severe mental illnesses in detention, where their complex needs could not be adequately met. A positive finding was improved application of Rule 35 protections.37 At Colnbrook, over a quarter of Rule 35 reports had led to release, while at both Brook House and Morton Hall a third had done so in the previous six months. However, weaknesses remained in a process that should reflect the highest standards in every case, given the seriousness of the concerns that lead to Rule 35 letters. For example, at Colnbrook, the detention of a torture survivor was maintained without the Home Office making clear what had led to this decision. Men also waited too long for assessments at Colnbrook and Morton Hall, which extended time in detention for some vulnerable people. Length of detention The length of detention remained a major concern. Detainees had been held for an average of about three months at the time of our inspections of Brook House and Morton Hall, and we found many cases of prolonged detention at every centre. The longest period of cumulative detention we found was at Colnbrook, where a man had been held in immigration detention for more than four and a half years. There remains a pressing need for a maximum time limit on immigration detention, especially in light of shortcomings in legal assistance. Detainees could receive half an hour of legal advice at all centres but there were some long waiting times (nine days at Brook House), and many did not have ongoing legal representation. Very few organisations now provide publically funded independent legal advice to detainees which is free at the point of delivery. Bail for Immigration Detainees was the only organisation present in each of the inspected IRCs. 33 Before 2016, there had been only one instance of homicide, a manslaughter at Harmondsworth IRC in 2003. 34 A drug-related death that occurred four days after release. 35 Some of these classifications are awaiting a final inquest verdict. All figures have been provided by the Home Office and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, which investigates fatal incidents. 36 Shaw, S. (2016) Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons: A report to the Home Office, CM9186. London: Home Office. 37 Rule 35 requires notification to Home Office Immigration and Enforcement if a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously affected by detention, including if they may have been the victim of torture. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 73 SECTION SIX Immigration detention Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID) attended the centre every fortnight and held self-help workshops in bail applications. They took on bail cases for longer-term detainees. Brook House Prison-like conditions and poor cleanliness Detainees were held in prison-like conditions at all immigration removal centres. The residential units at Brook House and Colnbrook were indistinguishable from prison units. The lack of ventilation in the sealed air-conditioned units at Colnbrook and Brook House was a recurring problem. The fact that detainees could not open a window in their cells and were still locked in for extended periods clearly affected their sense of well-being. The residential units remained stark and impersonal in design… Many cells lacked curtains and many in-cell toilets were not curtained off. Many cells had ingrained dirt… The lack of ventilation was the most common complaint, and many cells were too stuffy overnight. Brook House What worked well at IRCs We saw good interactions between staff and detainees at all three centres, with many officers trying to help detainees. Detainees’ religious beliefs were respected and chaplaincy services at Brook House were excellent. Written complaints were generally handled appropriately. At Brook House, managers made good efforts to contact detainees who had left the UK with responses to their complaints. Health care was generally good, although staffing shortages and a lack of consulting rooms restricted provision at Colnbrook. At Brook House, the occupational therapist offered a range of group emotional well-being activities. 74 There was a reasonable range of activities at the three centres, including in the evenings, but the women at Colnbrook had less access to them than the men. Library services were generally good, and detainees could use reasonably well-equipped gyms. There were generally good welfare services to prepare detainees for removal or release. At Colnbrook, an impressive range of voluntary organisations supported detainees, and detainees thought highly of the work of the welfare team. In one case the team went out of its way to support a detainee with disabilities on release, including booking a hotel at the centre’s expense and driving the detainee to his ‘temporary admission’ accommodation the next day. Colnbrook At Morton Hall, Children’s Links, a national charity providing services for children, young people and families, provided excellent support to help detainees maintain contact with their families: … a Children’s Links welfare officer had been delivering a new ‘Resettlement, removal and reintegration’ service for detainees who had been issued with removal directions, granted bail/ immediate release or had a pressing family issue. Morton Hall Family detention The Cedars pre-departure accommodation, a specialist facility for the detention of families with children, has consistently provided the best outcomes for detainees in the immigration detention estate. The most recent inspection was no exception. Once again we found a safe, decent, child-centred facility run by motivated and committed staff. Partnership working between the Home Office, the children’s charity Barnardo’s and the detention contractor G4S was strong. However, Cedars Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SIX Immigration detention was closed during the year as a result of high maintenance costs and relatively low use. Barnardo’s has decided that it does not wish to provide services at a planned alternative facility in the grounds of Tinsley House adult IRC, as it does not believe it will provide an appropriate environment for children. A ground-breaking facility has been lost, and replicating the standards that it set will be a challenge. Short-term holding facilities Outcome of previous recommendations In the STHFs reported on in 2016–17: ¡¡ 36% of our previous recommendations in the area of safety had been achieved, 10% partially achieved and 53% not achieved ¡¡ 35% of our previous recommendations in the area of respect had been achieved, 10% partially achieved and 55% not achieved ¡¡ 7% of our previous recommendations in the area of activity had been achieved, 20% partially achieved and 73% not achieved ¡¡ 24% of our previous recommendations in the area of preparation for release had been achieved, 3% partially achieved and 74% not achieved. This year we reported on 20 short-term holding facilities: two residential (Larne House and Pennine House) and 18 non-residential.38 Overall findings were reasonably positive, but there had been insufficient progress on our recommendations for further improvements. As in previous years, STHFs provided generally good treatment for the majority who were held for short periods, but we once again found too many detainees held for up to and over 24 hours in unsuitable facilities with nowhere to sleep or shower, and no access to the fresh air or the internet. The holding room was clean, but cramped and dingy, with no natural light. It was also cold and staff could not control the temperature… It was not suitable for lengthy detentions. Manchester Airport It was positive that Birmingham Airport now had a shower for detainees. Unrelated men and women were still often held in the same holding room, as in Manchester Airport, Solihull and Glasgow Airport. At both the residential facilities, men’s and women’s accommodation were insufficiently separated. Arrangements for safeguarding children were generally sound, but at Edinburgh Airport, a 13-year-old girl and her mother had been held for over 31 hours, which was too long. Although there were specially trained Border Force safeguarding and trafficking teams at the airports, these staff were not available on every shift. Border Force staff at ports and airports had good awareness of the National Referral Mechanism (to identify, protect and support victims of trafficking). Most detainee custody officers (DCOs) were courteous towards detainees. Three detainees were held in the facility at the time of the inspection. DCOs introduced themselves using their first names. They were polite and interacted respectfully with detainees. The interpersonal skills of some Immigration Enforcement officers were poor in comparison. Dallas Court, Salford Use of force was rare, but at Lunar House, an incident involving Home Office enforcement officers resulted in ‘potentially excessive and dangerous use of force’. Despite the concerns of the DCOs present, this was not properly communicated to Home Office managers, who only reviewed the incident after we referred it to them. 38 We published 18 reports; the Calais and Coquelles report covered three facilities. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 75 SECTION SIX Immigration detention At Dover seaport and the Eurotunnel area at Longport the number of migrants arriving clandestinely had decreased significantly since 2015, when we were very concerned at the unacceptably poor conditions at Longport. This facility was no longer used to hold detainees. We inspected jointly with French inspectors39 four facilities in northern France that contribute to the UK’s immigration controls. The facilities remained largely unchanged since our previous visits. In 2012 the Home Office accepted our recommendation that the facility at Coquelles freight ‘be closed or completely refurbished and made fit for purpose’, yet it remained in use and unchanged during our inspection in July 2016. However, a new facility opened in November that year, and the former facility is no longer in use. At Dunkerque, we were pleased to find that the Border Force had trained staff to become certified DCOs. A five-year review Our thematic report, A review of short-term holding facility inspections 2011–2015,40 summarised key themes from the 40 STHF reports published in the five years to March 2016. The review found that most detainees were held safely and in conditions that were appropriate for short periods of detention. However, some facilities were not fit for purpose and some key concerns identified in the last review had not been resolved. These included: the co-location of unrelated men, women and families; excessively long detention of both adults and children in facilities designed to hold people for only a few hours; poor use of telephone interpreting; and lack of access to the open air. Safeguarding adults policies and links with the local authority were also generally lacking, and detention staff usually had insufficient knowledge of trafficking risks and procedures. Following the review, we are now focusing more strongly on these key concerns. 39 Contrôleur Général des Lieux de Privation de Liberté. 40 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/Review-of-STHF-2011-2015-web.pdf 76 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Overseas escorts We published one overseas escort report this year, which was a relatively straightforward charter removal to Albania. The men removed were all compliant, and most were content to return. Departures from the IRCs had improved, and detainees were not unnecessarily segregated before their journey, as on previous removals. Tascor staff were active in tracking down the property of some detainees brought from prisons without it, which was good practice. No force was used on this operation and disembarkation was uneventful. However, some escorting staff fell asleep on the aircraft while supposedly monitoring and caring for detainees. This was potentially unsafe and a concern we have previously raised. There was inadequate use of interpreters. When staff tried to communicate with those who spoke little or no English they relied entirely on other detainees or on gestures to make themselves understood. Detainees under escort: Albania 7 SECTION SEVEN Police custody Police custody 78 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SEVEN Police custody All the findings from inspections in this section are based on Expectations for police custody: Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for detainees in police custody, published jointly with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).41 This section draws on 10 inspections of police custody suites in 10 counties and London boroughs – Avon and Somerset, Dorset, Greater Manchester (GMP), Hampshire, Lancashire, Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) Detention South, South Wales, Sussex, West Yorkshire and Wiltshire. All inspections of police custody in England and Wales are conducted jointly with HMIC and are unannounced. We visit custody suites during the day and night, including early morning visits to observe transfers to court and shift handovers, and night-time and weekend visits to observe the treatment of the range of detainees held in custody. All police custody inspections also include a documentary analysis of custody records and cases. ¡¡ Police forces had a clear focus on diverting people from custody, but management information was not collected or used well enough. ¡¡ Some strategies to manage detainee risk were overcautious, yet many forces overlooked potential ligature points. ¡¡ We continued to find weaknesses in the governance and oversight of the police use of force. ¡¡ Some children continued to be detained in custody for too long when other options should have been considered. ¡¡ Detainees with alcohol or drug dependency had inadequate access to substance misuse services. ¡¡ Several forces had schemes to reduce the number of mentally ill people brought into custody. New police inspection framework In April 2016, we introduced a new methodology for the inspection of police custody suites, placing stronger focus on case analysis, and revised our independent standards for inspecting, producing a new edition of our Expectations for police custody. These changes strengthened our evidence base and enabled us to put increased emphasis on important areas for detainees, such as safety, vulnerability and diversity. The changes mean that we are not able to make like-for-like comparisons in the outcome of previous recommendations to forces, but we will assess their progress on our new suggested ‘areas for improvement’ in future annual reports. Leadership Custody suites represent a small but important and high-risk area of police business. Generally, we found clear management and governance structures for custody, but the emphasis on improving outcomes for detainees was not always strong enough. Although not always achieved in practice, we found a clear focus on diverting people from custody, particularly the most vulnerable. A range of alternatives to custody were normally available and, in some forces, used very well. The constabulary had invested in voluntary attendance facilities, which diverted some individuals from the custody suites. In the previous three years, there had been a 55% increase in the number of voluntary attendees. Avon and Somerset 41 Findings from six of the inspections (Avon and Somerset, Hampshire, Lancashire, South Wales, Sussex and West Yorkshire) were based on the third version of Expectations for Police Service Custody, published in 2016; findings from four (Dorset, Greater Manchester, Metropolitan Police Detention South and Wiltshire) were based on the second version of Expectations for Police Custody, published in 2012. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 79 SECTION SEVEN Police custody Forces made reasonable efforts to engage with partner agencies, particularly over the detention of children and people subject to section 136 of the Mental Health Act.42 However, these efforts often did not result in better outcomes for detainees (see pages 81 and 82). In over half the forces, management information was not collected or used well enough. Apart from Dorset, where there was good collection and use of data, all the other forces had gaps in the information available on custody. The force had poor access to data in relation to custody issues… The force also had difficulty providing data to evidence improvements to support the effective management of custody operations. For example, there was no data to show how many detainees had been strip-searched in custody… [or]… how long all immigration detainees had been held in police custody before being transferred to immigration services. GMP Risk assessment and detainee safety Initial assessments of detainees were focused, with sufficient emphasis on any vulnerabilities. Care plans generally set appropriate levels of observation, which were mostly adhered to, and there was appropriate attention to rousing practice for detainees believed to be intoxicated. However, some strategies used to manage risk were overcautious. With the exception of MPS South, all forces routinely removed clothing with cords and footwear from detainees, even those assessed as low risk. Anti-rip clothing (reinforced clothing that makes it more difficult, but not impossible, to tear and use as a ligature) was used sparingly and for good reason in Wiltshire and GMP. However, in other forces, including Lancashire, West Yorkshire, Avon and Somerset, and South Wales, it was used inappropriately for detainees who had not complied with the initial risk assessment or as a first response to suicide and self-harm concerns – when higher levels of observation would have been more appropriate and given the detainee more dignity and care. Risk assessments conducted by both sergeants and detention officers were comprehensive and properly focused. The routine removal of cords from detainee clothing and footwear was a disproportionate and unsophisticated response to managing risk, and could be an aggravating factor… it was inappropriate that detainees could be left naked for significant periods in order to reduce self-harm. Hampshire Although staff checked the suites every day, they did not always recognise or identify ligature points and we found many examples of which they were unaware in MPS Detention South, Wiltshire, GMP, Lancashire, Avon and Somerset, Hampshire and Sussex. Ligature points in cells and communal areas should be removed or the potential risk mitigated. We reported our concerns to the forces immediately, and they took these seriously and planned to address or offset the risks. In most cases, detainees leaving custody had a pre-release risk assessment to ensure that they could get home safely, although associated practices varied considerably. Arrangements for securing a safe release were sound in MPS Detention South, Wiltshire, GMP, West Yorkshire and Hampshire, but were not always good enough in Dorset, Lancashire, South Wales, Avon and Somerset, and Sussex. 42 This enables a police officer to remove someone from a public place, and take them to a place of safety – for example, a police station. 80 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SEVEN Police custody Pre-release risk assessments (PRRA) we saw were good; they involved the detainee and focused on ensuring their safe release from custody. Custody sergeants appropriately reviewed the initial risk assessments, addressed any ongoing concerns, offered detainees leaflets and highlighted organisations providing suitable services. They also made arrangements to take some vulnerable detainees home. MPS Detention South Use of force Although we have made repeated recommendations about the use of force in custody, we continued to find significant weaknesses in all but one of the inspected forces. Our concerns included: insufficient oversight; inadequate collation and analysis of data; force that was not always proportionate to the threat posed, including the use of Taser and incapacitant spray in the controlled custody environment; handcuffs not removed quickly enough from compliant detainees; inadequate completion of use of force forms to justify why force was necessary; and the disproportionate use of force against self-harming detainees. Apart from Dorset, where the governance of the use of force was excellent, we made main recommendations on several aspects of the use of force in all other forces inspected. To reinforce our serious concerns about the use of force and attempts to drive improvement, we advised chief constables of all forces of our expectation that the governance of the use of force should be improved. Children in police custody We expect that every effort should be made to divert children from custody or hold them in custody for the minimum time possible. In Hampshire and Sussex, custody sergeants tried to divert children from entering the criminal justice system by referring those who admitted their offence to youth offending teams to determine the most appropriate community resolution. But in most forces, we found examples where children were detained unnecessarily, when alternative options could have been considered. This was a particular concern where no local authority accommodation was being provided for children who had been charged and refused bail, and where the delay in attendance of appropriate adults prolonged detention. Care and support given to children detained in police custody varied and was not always good enough. Girls under 18 were not always assigned a named officer as required. The force was not sufficiently effective within its strategic partnerships to ensure good outcomes for children. A particular area of concern was the lack of local authority accommodation provision for children who had been charged and refused bail, resulting in children being detained in police custody unnecessarily. South Wales Health care Each force commissioned its own health services, which created some variation in delivery and service. Some forces, such as Dorset and Lancashire, worked collaboratively with NHS England to improve services. Most detainees had access to good health services while in police custody, although in a few forces, such as Wiltshire, Lancashire and MPS Detention South, difficulties recruiting health professionals had sometimes extended response times. Apart from Avon and Somerset and West Yorkshire, the clinical environment in suites did not always meet the required infection control standards. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 81 SECTION SEVEN Police custody Although a large proportion of detainees presented with alcohol or drug dependency, access to substance misuse services while in custody was inadequate in some or all suites in several forces, mainly due to funding cuts. A large proportion of detainees who entered custody had substance misuse issues. The service for detainees with substance misuse had deteriorated considerably since the previous inspection. Drug and alcohol workers visited custody suites infrequently and there were often long delays in following up detainees who wished to be referred to services. Wiltshire However, services in MPS Detention South, South Wales, Dorset and Avon and Somerset were very good. In South Wales Naloxone, an opiate reversal agent, was available on release to reduce death from opiate overdose, which was good practice. All the forces reported high numbers of detainees with mental health problems. Embedded mental health services were available in at least some of the suites inspected and had improved outcomes. The level of mental health provision was variable, but was excellent in Dorset and Lancashire. However, in most forces, waiting times for assessment and transfer under the Mental Health Act were excessive due to external factors. A mental health triage car operated in each division between 2pm and midnight. Although there were some staffing difficulties that affected the scheme, it was generally leading to a reduction in the number of detainees with mental health problems brought into custody. Lancashire Most forces were addressing the use of police custody as a place of safety for those detained under section 136, although in Wiltshire, Avon and Somerset, West Yorkshire, Sussex and Hampshire the number remained too high. … despite the efforts by police to tackle inappropriate detention under section 136, people with mental health vulnerabilities were still being brought into custody (for example, arrested for breach of the peace) in response to self-harm or suicidal intent… In one case, an individual considered by the mental health crisis team to be a suicide risk had been referred directly to the police for intervention… these decisions were often made in response to gaps in community health services. Avon and Somerset Several forces had introduced triage in the control room or on the street to divert people with mental health needs to the right support. These schemes were reducing the number of mentally ill people brought into custody. 82 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SEVEN Police custody HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 83 8 SECTION EIGHT Court custody Court custody and escorts 84 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION EIGHT Court custody All the findings from inspections in this section are based on Expectations: Criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for detainees in court custody, published in June 2012. This section draws on inspections of court custody in three court areas: Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, London North and East, and Staffordshire and West Mercia, covering eight Crown courts, 16 magistrates’ courts, two combined courts and an immigration and asylum chamber, a justice centre and a tribunal hearing centre. ¡¡ Too many detainees were held in court unnecessarily and for too long. ¡¡ There was a lack of effective systems to identify and manage risks posed to detainees in court custody and on release. ¡¡ While some courts had good conditions, too many had poor environments. Leadership, strategy and planning of court custody HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) had overall responsibility for court custody, and the management of custody facilities in courts was shared between HMCTS, NOMS Prisoner Escort and Custody Services (PECS) and the contracted provider. These arrangements were complicated further as the cleaning and maintenance arrangements were generally held by a Ministry of Justice contract, for which none of the three parties was directly responsible. HMCTS and Serco Wincanton described their strategic relationships as positive but this did not always ensure positive outcomes for detainees held in court custody. All the agencies involved in strategic meetings were aware of the shortcomings of the estate. HMCTS, however, did too little to drive forward improvements and there was not enough focus on the treatment, care and welfare of detainees while they were in custody. Some court delivery managers saw the issue of custody as solely the responsibility of Serco Wincanton, which was unacceptable. Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Formal meetings and communication between the agencies responsible for court custody remained reasonable but did not always result in good enough outcomes for detainees. Processes to escalate concerns about repairs, staff shortages and unnecessarily lengthy detention were not always used effectively, with continuing problems in these areas. Individual rights Our greatest concern across the three court areas was the prolonged and unnecessary detention of too many detainees. A number of factors contributed to too many detainees being held in court custody for unnecessarily long periods. These included delays in the attendance of duty solicitors and court-appointed interpreters, unacceptable delays in obtaining warrants, detainees brought from prison early in the morning to Crown courts when their cases were not listed until the afternoon, and lengthy delays before courts received the authority to release detainees who had been held in prison. London North and East HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 85 SECTION EIGHT Court custody Treatment and conditions Relationships between court custody staff and detainees were generally positive. Staff were usually respectful and dealt with detainees sensitively. However, most staff were not trained well enough to meet the diverse and individual needs of detainees, particularly those with protected characteristics. This was highlighted by the experience of children, who were simply treated in the same way as adults. One of our most significant concerns was the lack of effective systems to identify and manage risks posed to detainees in court custody and on release. There was no systematic risk assessment that brought together all relevant information and outlined how detainees would be managed during their stay in court custody. Detainees continued to be located in cells together before they had a cell sharing risk assessment, which compromised their safety. Levels of observations, particularly for detainees identified as the most vulnerable, were not always adhered to. Staff who visited cells often did not carry anti-ligature knives, potentially delaying responses to life-threatening situations. Arrangements for releasing detainees safely were inadequate in all three court areas. We had many serious concerns about adherence to set levels of observation. In the busier magistrates’ courts, there was no systematic approach to completing checks at the required frequency. We were particularly concerned that checks on the most vulnerable detainees requiring higher levels of observation were not always undertaken. Furthermore, records did not always reflect the actual visits the detainee received. London North and East 86 Person escort records (PERs), which accompanied detainees from prisons and police stations, continued to be of a poor standard. They often lacked sufficient information to provide effective risk assessments and help staff look after detainees properly. For example, in Staffordshire and West Mercia we saw one PER that recorded that a detainee was a ‘suicide risk’ without providing specific details. Conditions across all the inspected courts were variable. Some were good, including most in Staffordshire and West Mercia, Hatfield and Stevenage magistrates’ courts in Hertfordshire, and Wood Green Crown court in London. However, too many had poor environments. Cells were often cold, dirty and covered in graffiti, some of which was offensive. Many cells had ligature points that were not always identified, which meant that risks were not addressed or mitigated. Cleaning and maintenance arrangements were inadequate in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, and London North and East. Lay observers continued to provide useful independent oversight of the treatment and conditions for detainees across the three court areas. Despite dealing with some very challenging individuals, incidents where force was used in court custody were few. We continued to be concerned by the level of handcuffing used in the controlled custody environment, and made main recommendations about this in each court area inspected. Deaths in court custody are rare. There was, however, a death at Thames magistrates’ court in 2015, and it was concerning that not enough attention had been given to ensuring full compliance with recommendations made by the coroner to prevent future deaths. Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION EIGHT Court custody and escorts Health care With the exception of the London North and East courts, demand for health care professionals continued to be low. Court staff broadly described health care provision as helpful but response times of up to four hours made some staff reluctant to use the service. All court custody staff received comprehensive initial training in first aid, but refresher training every three years was insufficient to maintain a level of competence. Detainees transferring from police custody continued to arrive at court without sufficient medication to last them through their time there. This was unacceptable and potentially dangerous for detainees suffering from alcohol withdrawal. The courts in London North and East had good access to mental health and substance misuse services, but these were limited in the other two areas inspected. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 87 10 SECTION EIGHT Court custody The Inspectorate in 2016–17 88 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION SECTION EIGHT TEN The Inspectorate Court custody in 2016–17 Income and expenditure – 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 Income £ 3,507,000 MOJ (prisons and court cells) Home Office (immigration detention) 352,220 Home Office (HMIC/police custody) 300,000 Youth Justice Board (children's custody) 119,864 Other income (HMI Probation, Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Secure Training Centres, Ministry of Defence, Border Force, Criminal Justice Inspectorate Northern Ireland, NPM Members) 176,645 4,455,729 TOTAL Expenditure £ % Staff costs 3,841,090 85 Travel and subsistence 457,830 10 Printing and stationery 30,775 1 Information technology and telecommunications 54,590 Translators 5,898 Meetings and refreshments 2,896 Training and development 33,422 Other costs (including recruitment costs, conferences and professional memberships) 76,107 TOTAL 4,502,605 4 100 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 89 SECTION TEN The Inspectorate in 2016–17 Expenditure 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 Printing and stationery 1% Other 4% Travel and subsistence Staff costs 10% 85% Inspectorate staffing – 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 Our staff and fee-paid associates come from a range of professional backgrounds. While many have experience of working in prisons, others have expertise in social work, probation, law, youth justice, health care and drug treatment, social research and policy. The majority of staff are permanent, but we also take inspectors on loan from HM Prisons and Probation Service (HMPPS) and other organisations. Currently, six staff are loaned from HMPPS, and their experience and familiarity with current practice are invaluable. Staff and associate engagement Every year we gather feedback from our staff and associates. In 2017, we once again participated in the Civil Service People Survey, commissioned by the Cabinet Office and carried out by ORC International. The survey was completed by 73% of HM Inspectorate of Prisons staff and associates, and survey results indicated a score of 82% on the staff engagement index. This was a very strong result; some 18 percentage points higher than even ‘high performing units’ across the Civil Service. This year, we have developed a People Strategy which addresses some of the feedback from the Civil Service People Survey. 90 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION TEN The Inspectorate in 2016–17 Staff and associates 1 April 2016 to 31 March 17 Peter Clarke Martin Lomas Barbara Buchanan Chief Inspector Deputy Chief Inspector Senior Personal Secretary to the Chief Inspector A Team (adult males) Alison Perry Sandra Fieldhouse Paul Rowlands Jonathan Tickner A Team Leader Inspector Inspector Inspector O Team (women) Sean Sullivan Francesca Cooney Jeanette Hall Keith McInnis O Team Leader Inspector Inspector Inspector Y Team (children and young adults) Deborah Butler Ian Dickens Angela Johnson Yvonne McGuckian Angus Mulready-Jones Y Team Leader Inspector Inspector Inspector Inspector I Team (immigration detention) Hindpal Singh Bhui Beverley Alden Colin Carroll Tamara Pattinson I Team Leader Inspector Inspector Inspector P team (police custody) Maneer Afsar Ian Macfadyen Fionnuala Gordon Kellie Reeve P Team Leader Acting P Team Leader Inspector Inspector Health Services team Paul Tarbuck Majella Pearce Head of Health Services Inspection Deputy Head of Health Services Inspection Fee-paid associates Hannah Bradbury Anne Clifford Karen Dillon Steve Eley Sigrid Engelen Deri Hughes-Roberts Maureen Jamieson Martin Kettle Brenda Kirsch Adrienne Penfield Yasmin Prabhudas Jayne Price Nicola Rabjohns Gordon Riach Paul Roberts Andy Rooke Fran Russell Fiona Shearlaw Liz Walsh Inspection Support Officer Editor Inspector Health Inspector Drugs and Alcohol Inspector Inspector Health Inspector Inspector Editor Editor Editor Researcher Health Inspector Inspector Drugs and Alcohol Inspector Inspector Inspector Inspector Inspector HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 91 SECTION TEN The Inspectorate in 2016–17 Research, Development and Thematics Secretariat Staff and associates who left this reporting year Catherine Shaw Helen Ranns Michelle Bellham Head of Research, Development and Thematics Senior Researcher Researcher Anna Fenton Researcher Laura Green Researcher Natalie-Anne Hall Researcher Alissa Redmond Researcher Joe Simmonds Researcher Patricia Taflan Researcher Ellis Cowling Research trainee Emma Seymour Research trainee Anna O’Rourke Lesley Young Jane Parsons Louise Finer Tamsin Williamson Clair Andrew Head of Secretariat Head of Finance, HR and Inspection Support Chief Communications Officer Senior Policy Officer Publications Manager (part-time) Publications Assistant Stephen Seago Inspection Support Manager Caroline Fitzgerald Inspection Support Officer Tinessa Khurana Inspection Support Officer Fay Deadman Paul Fenning Anne Harrower Fee-paid associate Inspector, O Team Personal Secretary to the Deputy Chief Inspector Inspection Support Officer Policy Officer Senior Researcher Inspection Support Officer Inspector, P Team Research trainee Personal Secretary to the Deputy Chief Inspector Research trainee Mark McClenaghan Lucy McKay Tim McSweeney Francette Montgry Vinnett Pearcy Sophie Skinner Jacqueline Ward Heidi Webb 92 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales SECTION TEN The Inspectorate in 2016–17 Stakeholder feedback Communications We conduct an annual online survey of stakeholders. A link to the questionnaire is distributed to our mailing list of contacts by email. In order to reach a wider range of stakeholders we also publicise the survey via staff and professional bulletins, place a link on our website and alert our Twitter followers. During November 2016 we received 221 completed responses to the survey. For the purposes of analysis, stakeholders were grouped into five broad categories: practitioners, managers, lay visitors, stakeholders with experience of the criminal justice system and others. Most stakeholders continued to use our website (launched in 2014, and on a shared platform with other justice inspectorates and independent from the government website, gov.uk) to access inspection and thematic reports. The number of people visiting our website each month increased from 9,695 in April 2016 to 10,009 in March 2017. Feedback was generally very positive about a range of our communications. Over 70% of stakeholders had seen HMI Prisons represented in the national media. Ninety-one per cent of stakeholders said that it was easy or very easy to find what they were looking for on our website. Our reports were similarly positively received, with favourable scores of over 70% in relation to each of length, structure, language, quantity of information, ease of navigation and treatment of diversity issues. However a majority of stakeholders agreed that our reports could do more to highlight positive findings or good practice. Our Twitter feed continued to attract new followers each month, rising from around 5,061 in April 2016 to 7,262 at the end of March 2017. The feed allowed us to highlight the publication of new reports, advertise jobs within the Inspectorate and tell people which establishments our teams were inspecting each week. The findings of our reports continued to be reported in national, international, local and regional media, in print, online and through broadcast media. This ensured appropriate communication with key stakeholders, supporting our overall aim of improving outcomes for those in custody. Feedback on our strategic themes indicated that overall 71% of stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed that we are independent, 62% that we are influential, 66% that we are accountable, 78% that we are capable and 50% that we are collaborative. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 93 11 Appendices Appendix one Inspection reports published 2016–17 95 Appendix two Healthy prison and establishment assessments 2016–17 97 Appendix three Recommendations accepted in 2016–17 99 Appendix four Recommendations achieved in 2016–17 101 Appendix five 2016–17 prisoner survey responses diversity analysis 104 Appendix six 2016–17 survey: key responses from men and women 112 94 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX ONE Inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 201743 ESTABLISHMENT DATE PUBLISHED Metropolitan Police Service Detention South custody suites 5 April 2016 Birmingham Airport STHF 7 April 2016 Sandford House STHF 7 April 2016 Wormwood Scrubs* 12 April 2016 Bronzefield 13 April 2016 Elmley* 19 April 2016 Lewes 26 April 2016 Leeds 27 April 2016 Glen Parva* 4 May 2016 Full Sutton 5 May 2016 Rainsbrook STC 6 May 2016 Nottingham* 17 May 2016 Manchester Airport STHF 26 May 2016 Pennine House STHF 26 May 2016 Wiltshire police custody suites 1 June 2016 Parc 8 June 2016 Parc (juvenile unit)* 8 June 2016 Moorland 10 June 2016 Forest Bank 14 June 2016 Stafford 21 June 2016 Drumkeen House STHF 28 June 2016 Larne House STHF 28 June 2016 Frankland 29 June 2016 Maghaberry 1 July 2017 Lindholme 7 July 2016 Staffordshire and West Mercia court custody 15 July 2016 Wetherby and Keppel 20 July 2016 Capital Building Liverpool STHF 22 July 2016 Dallas Court Salford STHF 22 July 2016 Sheffield Vulcan House STHF 22 July 2016 Swaleside 26 July 2016 Greater Manchester police custody suites 27 July 2016 Colnbrook 28 July 2016 Medway STC 8 August 2016 Cedars 11 August 2016 Chelmsford 16 August 2016 Edinburgh Airport STHF 1 September 2016 Glasgow International Airport STHF 1 September 2016 Festival Court Glasgow STHF 1 September 2016 Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire court custody 13 September 2016 Dorset police custody suites 14 September 2016 Bedford 27 September 2016 Gatwick Airport North Terminal STHF 5 October 2016 Gatwick Airport South Terminal STHF 5 October 2016 43 All inspections of adult prisons and immigration detention centres are unannounced, except for those marked *, which were announced due to exceptional circumstances. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 95 APPENDIX ONE Inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued) ESTABLISHMENT DATE PUBLISHED Lunar House Croydon STHF 5 October 2016 Isis 6 October 2016 Ford 18 October 2016 Foston Hall 21 October 2016 Hydebank Wood 27 October 2016 Ash House 27 October 2016 Lancashire police custody suites 4 November 2016 Risley 8 November 2016 Winchester* 16 November 2016 Drake Hall 22 November 2016 Maghaberry review 23 November 2016 South Wales police custody suites 25 November 2016 Hindley 29 November 2016 Onley 2 December 2016 Buckley Hall 6 December 2016 West Yorkshire police custody suites 7 December 2016 Dover Seaport, Frontier House and Longport Freight Shed STHFs 9 December 2016 Coquelles & Calais STHF 9 December 2016 Dunkerque STHF 9 December 2016 Rainsbrook STC 12 December 2016 Cardiff 13 December 2016 Albania escort 16 December 2016 Avon and Somerset police custody suites 21 December 2016 East Sutton Park 22 December 2016 Whatton 4 January 2017 Thorn Cross 5 January 2017 Hewell* 10 January 2017 Cookham Wood 17 January 2017 North and East London court custody 24 January 2017 Leyhill 25 January 2017 Exeter 1 February 2017 Channings Wood 7 February 2017 Norwich 9 February 2017 Wymott 14 February 2017 Featherstone 28 February 2017 Hampshire police custody suites 1 March 2017 Durham 7 March 2017 Oakhill STC 7 March 2017 Eastwood Park 9 March 2017 Brook House 10 March 2017 Swinfen Hall 14 March 2017 Morton Hall 21 March 2017 Sussex police custody suites 28 March 2017 96 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX TWO Healthy prison and establishment assessments 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 HEALTHY PRISON / ESTABLISHMENT ASSESSMENTS TYPE OF INSPECTION ESTABLISHMENT SAFETY RESPECT PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY RESETTLEMENT LOCAL PRISONS Bedford Unannounced 2 2 2 2 Cardiff Unannounced 2 2 3 3 Chelmsford Unannounced 2 2 2 2 Durham Unannounced 2 2 2 2 Elmley Announced 3 2 2 2 Exeter Unannounced 2 2 2 2 Forest Bank Unannounced 3 3 3 4 Hewell Announced 1 2 3 3 Leeds Unannounced 1 2 3 3 Lewes Unannounced 2 3 2 3 Norwich Unannounced 3 3 3 3 Nottingham Announced 1 2 2 2 Winchester (Main) Announced 2 2 2 3 Wormwood Scrubs Announced 1 2 1 1 Frankland Unannounced 3 3 4 3 Full Sutton Unannounced 3 3 4 3 Buckley Hall Unannounced 3 2 4 3 Channings Wood Unannounced 2 2 2 2 HIGH SECURITY PRISONS TRAINING PRISONS Featherstone Unannounced 1 2 2 2 Hindley Unannounced 1 2 1 2 Isis Unannounced 2 2 1 2 Lindholme Unannounced 1 3 3 1 Moorland Unannounced 2 2 3 2 Onley Unannounced 1 3 2 2 Risley Unannounced 2 3 2 2 Stafford Unannounced 4 3 3 2 Swaleside Unannounced 1 2 2 2 Whatton Unannounced 4 3 4 4 Winchester (Westhill) Announced 3 3 3 3 Wymott Unannounced 3 3 3 3 Parc Unannounced 2 3 4 4 Ford Unannounced 4 3 3 3 Hewell Announced 4 3 3 3 Leyhill Unannounced 4 4 4 3 Thorn Cross Unannounced 4 4 4 4 OPEN PRISONS KEY TO TABLE Numeric: 1 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are poor 2 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are not sufficiently good 3 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are reasonably good 4 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are good HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 97 APPENDIX TWO Healthy prison and establishment assessments 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued) HEALTHY PRISON / ESTABLISHMENT ASSESSMENTS TYPE OF PRISON/ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION SAFETY RESPECT PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY RESETTLEMENT WOMEN’S PRISONS Bronzefield Unannounced 3 4 3 4 Drake Hall Unannounced 4 3 4 4 East Sutton Park Unannounced 4 4 4 4 Eastwood Park Unannounced 3 3 3 3 Foston Hall Unannounced 3 3 2 3 Glen Parva Announced 2 3 1 3 Swinfen Hall Unannounced 2 2 1 3 YOUNG ADULT PRISONS CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE ESTABLISHMENTS Cookham Wood Unannounced 2 4 3 3 Keppel Unit Unannounced 3 3 1 3 Parc CYP Unannounced 3 3 3 3 Wetherby Unannounced 2 3 1 3 Ash House (NI) Unannounced 3 2 3 3 Hydebank Wood Secure College (NI) Unannounced 2 3 3 3 Maghaberry Announced N/A N/A N/A N/A Maghaberry Review Announced N/A N/A N/A N/A EXTRA-JURISDICTION IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRES Brook House Unannounced 3 3 3 3 Cedars Unannounced 4 4 4 4 Colnbrook Unannounced 3 2 3 4 Morton Hall Unannounced 2 3 4 4 KEY TO TABLE Numeric: 98 1 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are poor 2 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are not sufficiently good 3 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are reasonably good 4 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are good Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX THREE Recommendations accepted in action plans received 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 ESTABLISHMENT LOCAL PRISONS RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED PARTIALLY ACCEPTED REJECTED (includes recommendations accepted in principle / accepted subject to resources) MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total Wormwood Scrubs 7 78 85 6 67 73 1 5 6 0 6 6 Elmley 4 51 55 4 46 50 0 4 4 0 1 1 Lewes 4 50 54 4 45 49 0 2 2 0 3 3 Leeds 3 48 51 3 40 43 0 1 1 0 7 7 Nottingham 6 42 48 3 28 31 3 9 12 0 5 5 Forest Bank 3 53 56 3 41 44 0 8 8 0 4 4 Chelmsford 6 58 64 6 51 57 0 5 5 0 2 2 Bedford 5 63 68 5 54 59 0 7 7 0 2 2 Winchester (Main and Westhill) 5 49 54 4 38 42 0 8 8 1 3 4 Cardiff 4 49 53 3 37 40 1 8 9 0 4 4 Hewell (closed and open) - - - - - - - - - - - - Exeter - - - - - - - - - - - - Norwich (closed and open) 2 42 44 1 28 29 1 14 15 0 0 0 Durham - - - - - - - - - - - - 49 583 632 42 (86%) 475 (81%) 517 (82%) 6 (12%) 71 (12%) 77 (12%) 1 (2%) 37 (6%) 38 (6%) Total CATEGORY B TRAINING PRISONS Parc (adults) 3 34 37 3 28 31 0 3 3 0 3 3 Swaleside 5 46 51 5 40 45 0 4 4 0 2 2 Total 8 80 88 8 (100%) 68 (85%) 76 (86%) 0 (0%) 7 (9%) 7 (8%) 0 (0%) 5 (6%) 5 (6%) CATEGORY C TRAINING PRISONS Moorland 5 70 75 5 58 63 0 7 7 0 5 5 Stafford 4 44 48 4 41 45 0 1 1 0 2 2 Lindholme 5 44 49 3 35 38 2 6 8 0 3 3 Isis 7 63 70 7 53 60 0 5 5 0 5 5 Risley 4 51 55 4 46 50 0 3 3 0 2 2 Hindley 6 55 61 5 49 54 1 5 6 0 1 1 Onley 6 64 70 4 49 53 2 14 16 0 1 1 Buckley Hall 5 44 49 5 31 36 0 8 8 0 5 5 Whatton 2 27 29 1 23 24 1 4 5 0 0 0 Channings Wood - - - - - - - - - - - - Wymott - - - - - - - - - - - - Featherstone - - - - - - - - - - - - 44 462 506 38 (86%) 385 (83%) 423 (84%) 6 (14%) 53 (11%) 59 (12%) 0 (0%) 24 (5%) 24 (5%) Total KEY TO TABLE Hyphen (-) – Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting period. (31 March 2017). MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 99 APPENDIX THREE Recommendations accepted in action plans received 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued) ESTABLISHMENT HIGH SECURITY PRISONS RECOMMENDATIONS ACCEPTED PARTIALLY ACCEPTED REJECTED (includes recommendations accepted in principle / accepted subject to resources) MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total Full Sutton 3 34 37 3 25 28 0 9 9 0 0 0 Frankland 4 27 31 4 22 26 0 4 4 0 1 1 Total 7 61 68 7 (100%) 47 (77%) 54 (79%) 0 (0%) 13 (21%) 13 (19%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%) 1 (1%) Ford 4 39 43 3 33 36 0 4 4 1 2 3 Thorn Cross - - - - - - - - - - - - Leyhill - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 4 39 43 3 (75%) 33 (85%) 36 (84%) 0 (0%) 4 (10%) 4 (9%) 1 (25%) 2 (5%) 3 (7%) OPEN PRISONS YOUNG ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS Glen Parva 3 53 56 2 46 48 1 4 5 0 3 3 Swinfen Hall - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 3 53 56 2 (67%) 46 (87%) 48 (86%) 1 (33%) 4 (8%) 5 (9%) 0 (0%) 3 (6%) 3 (5%) Bronzefield 2 35 37 1 21 22 1 12 13 0 2 2 Foston Hall 3 51 54 3 48 51 0 2 2 0 1 1 Drake Hall 1 41 42 1 35 36 0 6 6 0 0 0 East Sutton Park 1 22 23 1 18 19 0 4 4 0 0 0 WOMEN’S PRISONS Eastwood Park - - - - - - - - - - - - Total 7 149 156 6 (86%) 122 (82%) 128 (82%) 1 (14%) 24 (16%) 25 (16%) 0 (0%) 3 (2%) 3 (2%) CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S ESTABLISHMENTS Parc (Juvenile) 0 40 40 0 28 28 0 8 8 0 4 4 Wetherby and Keppel Unit 3 77 80 1 59 60 2 13 15 0 5 5 Cookham Wood 3 51 54 3 37 40 0 10 10 0 4 4 Total 6 168 174 4 (67%) 124 (74%) 128 (74%) 2 (33%) 31 (18%) 33 (19%) 0 (0%) 13 (8%) 13 (7%) 128 1,595 1,723 110 (86%) 1,300 (82%) 1,410 (82%) 16 (13%) 207 (13%) 223 (13%) 2 (2%) 88 (6%) 90 (5%) PRISON TOTAL KEY TO TABLE Hyphen (-) – Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting period (31 March 2017). 1 This figure excludes one recommendation not responded to in the action plan from HMYOI Wetherby. MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations 100 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX FOUR Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 ESTABLISHMENT LOCAL PRISONS RECOMMENDATIONS ACHIEVED (excluding recommendations no longer relevant, housekeeping points and good practice) PARTIALLY ACHIEVED NOT ACHIEVED MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total Wormwood Scrubs 6 78 84 0 17 17 0 16 16 6 45 51 Elmley 5 73 78 1 27 28 3 20 23 1 26 27 Lewes 3 56 59 1 17 18 0 9 9 2 30 32 Leeds 3 40 43 1 12 13 2 6 8 0 22 22 Nottingham 7 61 68 2 22 24 4 18 22 1 21 22 Forest Bank 3 41 44 1 21 22 2 4 6 0 16 16 Chelmsford 4 68 72 1 30 31 1 5 6 2 33 35 Bedford 4 68 72 1 11 12 1 3 4 2 54 56 Winchester (main and West) 7 75 82 3 40 43 0 7 7 4 28 32 Cardiff 7 49 56 4 16 20 1 10 11 2 23 25 Hewell (closed and open) 4 72 76 2 25 27 0 13 13 2 34 36 Exeter 4 47 51 0 16 16 2 3 5 2 28 30 Norwich (closed and open) 4 80 84 3 45 48 1 11 12 0 24 24 Durham 4 67 71 0 22 22 1 14 15 3 31 34 65 875 940 20 (31%) 321 (37%) 341 (36%) 18 (28%) 139 (16%) 157 (17%) 27 (42%) 415 (47%) 442 (47%) Total CATEGORY B TRAINING PRISONS Parc (adults) 1 40 41 1 24 25 0 8 8 0 8 8 Swaleside 6 71 77 0 19 19 1 10 11 5 42 47 Total 7 111 118 1 (14%) 43 (39%) 44 (37%) 1 (14%) 18 (16%) 19 (16%) 5 (71%) 50 (45%) 55 (47%) CATEGORY C TRAINING PRISONS Moorland 5 60 65 2 27 29 0 12 12 3 21 24 Stafford 8 101 109 5 47 52 0 18 18 3 36 39 Lindholme 3 65 68 0 27 27 1 12 13 2 26 28 Isis 4 76 80 0 15 15 1 6 7 3 55 58 Risley 6 62 68 1 21 22 1 15 16 4 26 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Onley 2 49 51 0 18 18 2 9 11 0 22 22 Buckley Hall 5 55 60 0 27 27 3 8 11 2 20 22 Whatton 3 31 34 1 19 20 1 8 9 1 4 5 Channings Wood 2 51 53 0 24 24 0 3 3 2 24 26 Wymott 5 59 64 2 27 29 2 12 14 1 20 21 Featherstone 4 63 67 0 16 16 0 9 9 4 38 42 Total 47 672 719 11 (23%) 268 (40%) 279 (39%) 11 (23%) 112 (17%) 123 (17%) 25 (53%) 292 (43%) 317 (44%) HIGH SECURITY PRISONS MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total Full Sutton 3 47 50 0 24 24 1 4 5 2 19 21 Frankland 3 55 58 2 30 32 0 11 11 1 14 15 Total 6 102 108 2 (33%) 54 (53%) 56 (52%) 1 (17%) 15 (15%) 16 (15%) 3 (50%) 33 (32%) 36 (33%) Hindley N.B. HMP Hindley rerolled; therefore the recommendations were not followed up and have been excluded from this data. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 101 APPENDIX FOUR Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued) ESTABLISHMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ACHIEVED (excluding recommendations no longer relevant, housekeeping points and good practice) PARTIALLY ACHIEVED NOT ACHIEVED OPEN PRISONS Ford 3 48 51 0 27 27 0 3 3 3 18 21 Thorn Cross 2 44 66 1 28 29 1 8 9 0 8 8 Leyhill 2 44 66 0 22 22 1 7 8 1 15 16 Total 7 136 143 1 (14%) 77 (57%) 78 (55%) 2 (29%) 18 (13%) 20 (14%) 4 (57%) 41 (30%) 45 (31%) MR R Total MR R Total MR R Total YOUNG ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS MR R Total Glen Parva 5 69 74 2 31 33 3 20 23 0 18 18 Swinfen Hall 4 55 59 0 12 12 0 9 9 4 34 38 Total 9 124 133 2 (22%) 43 (35%) 45 (34%) 3 (33%) 29 (23%) 32 (24%) 4 (44%) 52 (42%) 56 (42%) Bronzefield 3 67 70 1 38 39 2 14 16 0 15 15 Foston Hall 3 70 73 0 24 24 1 19 20 2 27 29 Drake Hall 1 49 50 1 28 29 0 9 9 0 12 12 East Sutton Park 4 30 34 1 16 17 1 5 6 2 9 11 Eastwood Park 3 44 47 1 16 17 1 14 15 1 14 15 14 260 274 4 (29%) 122 (47%) 126 (46%) 5 (36%) 61 (23%) 66 (24%) 5 (36%) 77 (30%) 82 (30%) WOMEN’S PRISONS Total CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S ESTABLISHMENTS Parc (Juvenile) 0 30 30 0 7 7 0 5 5 0 18 18 Wetherby 3 64 67 0 15 15 2 9 11 1 40 41 Keppel Unit 0 42 42 0 16 16 0 4 4 0 22 22 Cookham Wood 4 75 79 1 29 30 1 14 15 2 32 34 Total 7 211 218 1 (14%) 67 (32%) 68 (31%) 3 (43%) 32 (15%) 35 (16%) 3 (43%) 112 (53%) 115 (53%) 162 2,491 2,653 42 (26%) 995 (40%) 1,037 (39%) 44 (27%) 424 (17%) 468 (18%) 76 (47%) 1,072 (43%) 1,148 (43%) PRISON TOTAL IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRES Colnbrook 3 50 53 1 18 19 2 11 13 0 20 20 Cedars 1 27 28 1 12 13 0 4 4 0 10 10 Brook House 3 72 75 1 27 28 1 18 19 1 25 26 Morton Hall 2 46 48 0 16 16 0 14 14 2 16 18 Total 9 195 204 3 (33%) 73 (37%) 76 (37%) 3 (33%) 47 (24%) 50 (25%) 3 (33%) 71 (36%) 74 (36%) N.B. A small number of recommendations were no longer relevant or unable to inspect, therefore total judgements do not equal total recommendations. KEY TO TABLE Hyphen (-) – Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting period (31 March 2016). 1 This figure excludes one recommendation not responded to in the action plan from HMYOI Wetherby. MR – Main recommendations R – Recommendations 102 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX FOUR Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued) ESTABLISHMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ACHIEVED (excluding recommendations no longer relevant, housekeeping points and good practice) SHORT-TERM HOLDING FACILITIES MR R Total MR R PARTIALLY ACHIEVED Total MR R NOT ACHIEVED Total MR R Total Birmingham Airport 0 32 32 0 13 13 0 4 4 0 15 15 Sandford House 0 6 6 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 4 Manchester Airport 0 18 18 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 15 15 Pennine House 0 15 15 0 2 2 0 3 3 0 9 9 Drumkeen House 0 6 6 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 4 Larne House 0 17 17 0 10 10 0 2 2 0 5 5 Liverpool Capital Building 0 10 10 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 4 4 Salford Dallas Court 0 20 20 0 7 7 0 0 0 0 11 11 Sheffield Vulcan House 0 18 18 0 5 5 0 2 2 0 10 10 Edinburgh Airport 0 21 21 0 4 4 0 1 1 0 12 12 Glasgow Airport 0 18 18 0 7 7 0 1 1 0 8 8 Festival Court 0 14 14 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 8 8 Gatwick North 0 19 19 0 9 9 0 1 1 0 9 9 Gatwick South 0 18 18 0 4 4 0 3 3 0 11 11 Lunar House 0 26 26 0 10 10 0 2 2 0 13 13 Dover Seaport 0 21 21 0 2 2 0 9 9 0 8 8 Calais & Coquelles 0 60 60 0 18 18 0 3 3 0 36 36 Dunkerque 0 18 18 0 4 4 0 2 2 0 12 12 Total 0 357 357 0 114 (32%) 114 (32%) 0 33 (9%) 33 (9%) 0 194 (54%) 194 (54%) Wiltshire Police 0 37 37 0 21 21 0 9 9 0 6 6 Greater Manchester Police 5 26 31 2 7 9 2 5 7 0 13 13 POLICE CUSTODY Dorset Police 6 45 51 6 31 37 0 5 5 0 5 5 Lancashire Police 4 21 25 1 4 5 2 5 7 1 12 13 South Wales Police 3 23 26 0 8 8 2 5 7 0 9 9 Avon & Somerset Police 2 31 33 0 12 12 2 13 15 0 4 4 A Hampshire small number of recommendations4were no23 longer relevant or unable to inspect, therefore total Police 27 3 8 11 0 judgements do not equal total recommendations’. 10 10 1 4 5 Sussex police – Main recommendations2 MR 17 19 0 8 8 0 2 2 2 7 9 4 19 23 1 5 6 2 8 10 0 6 6 30 242 272 13 (43%) 104 (43%) 117 (43%) 10 (33%) 62 (26%) 72 (26%) 4 (13%) 66 (27%) 70 (26%) Albania 0 12 12 0 6 6 0 2 2 0 3 3 Total 0 12 12 0 6 (50%) 6 (50%) 0 2 (17%) 2 (17%) 0 3 (25%) 3 (25%) Maghaberry 9 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 Hydebank Wood 5 69 74 0 25 25 5 24 29 0 19 19 Ash House 6 76 82 0 28 28 4 29 33 2 19 21 Total 20 145 165 0 53 (37%) 53 (32%) 18 (90%) 53 (37%) 71 (43%) 2 (10%) 38 (26%) 40 (24%) OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS TOTAL 59 951 1,010 16 (27%) 350 (37%) 366 (36%) 31 (53%) 197 (21%) 228 (23%) 9 (15%) 372 (39%) 381 (38%) R West – Recommendations Yorkshire Police Total OVERSEAS ESCORTS NORTHERN IRISH PRISONS HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 103 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 Non-Muslim prisoners 1.2 SECTION 1: General information Are you under 21 years of age? Are you sentenced? Are you on recall? Is your sentence less than 12 months? Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)? Are you a foreign national? Do you understand spoken English? Do you understand written English? Are you from a minority ethnic group? (Including all those who did not tick white British, white Irish or white other categories.) Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller? Are you Muslim? Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual? Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Are you a veteran (ex-armed services)? Is this your first time in prison? Do you have any children under the age of 18? Muslim prisoners Number of completed questionnaires returned White prisoners Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis – ethnicity/religion Black and minority ethnic prisoners APPENDIX FIVE 1,513 4,866 805 5,509 % % % % 8 84 6 10 5 20 98 97 6 86 10 13 7 7 99 98 8 85 7 7 5 19 98 97 6 85 9 13 6 9 98 98 87 14 2 47 2 16 3 43 50 5 2 5 30 7 37 49 1 5 2 17 3 45 49 4 28 7 38 49 40 70 66 56 74 31 78 72 64 84 40 67 64 54 74 32 77 71 63 83 43 73 60 47 83 69 43 69 58 46 82 68 72 24 16 5 32 4 19 16 13 16 8 28 70 16 16 3 26 2 18 23 16 29 8 23 72 26 15 4 32 4 19 17 13 17 9 30 70 17 16 4 27 2 18 22 16 27 7 24 SECTION 2: Transfers and escorts On your most recent journey here: 2.1 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 Did you spend more than 2 hours in the van? Did you feel safe? Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff? Before you arrived here were you told that you were coming here? When you first arrived here did your property arrive at the same time as you? SECTION 3: Reception, first night and induction 3.1 3.2 3.3 Were you in reception for less than 2 hours? When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way? Were you treated well/very well in reception? When you first arrived: 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.4 Did you have any problems? Did you have any problems with loss of property? Did you have any housing problems? Did you have any problems contacting employers? Did you have any problems contacting family? Did you have any problems ensuring dependants were being looked after? Did you have any money worries? Did you have any problems with feeling depressed or suicidal? Did you have any physical health problems? Did you have any mental health problems? Did you have any problems with needing protection from other prisoners? Did you have problems accessing phone numbers? KEY TO TABLE Significantly better Significantly worse A significant difference in prisoners’ background details No significant difference Missing data have been excluded for each question. Please note: where there are apparently large differences, which are not indicated as statistically significant, this is likely to be due to chance. 1. Key questions from the survey include all questions with the exception of filtered questions. The following breakdowns are within sample comparisons so sample sizes are smaller; to include filtered questions would further reduce the number of responses. 2. The amalgamated functional types include: local prisons, training prisons, young offender institutions holding over 18s and open establishments published in the reporting period. 3. In order to appropriately adjust p-values in light of multiple testing, p<.01 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons undertaken. 104 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales White prisoners Muslim prisoners Non-Muslim prisoners Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis – ethnicity/religion Black and minority ethnic prisoners APPENDIX FIVE % % % % 67 31 47 63 49 53 70 28 45 62 51 54 71 29 47 61 46 51 69 29 45 62 51 54 50 64 23 22 49 67 35 24 52 60 23 21 49 67 33 24 42 30 36 34 44 42 66 84 81 46 39 40 36 47 43 74 82 79 39 27 33 31 40 39 62 81 80 46 38 40 36 47 43 74 83 79 33 41 9 40 47 14 33 42 11 39 46 13 43 40 46 40 35 38 34 38 52 76 52 45 25 60 18 25 38 41 58 58 59 58 84 66 55 26 60 21 26 50 58 45 53 42 53 76 52 45 24 56 17 25 38 41 64 65 71 57 83 64 53 26 60 21 25 49 56 46 53 43 When you first arrived here, were you offered any of the following: 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 Tobacco? A shower? A free telephone call? Something to eat? PIN phone credit? Toiletries/basic items? When you first arrived here did you have access to the following people: 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 The chaplain or a religious leader? Someone from health services? A Listener/Samaritans? Prison shop/canteen? When you first arrived here were you offered information about any of the following: 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.12 What was going to happen to you? Support available for people feeling depressed or suicidal? How to make routine requests? Your entitlement to visits? Health services? The chaplaincy? Did you feel safe on your first night here? Have you been on an induction course? Did you receive an education (skills for life) assessment? SECTION 4: Legal rights and respectful custody In terms of your legal rights, is it easy/very easy to: 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 Communicate with your solicitor or legal representative? Attend legal visits? Get bail information? Have staff ever opened letters from your solicitor or legal representative when you were not with them? Can you get legal books in the library? For the wing/unit you are currently on: 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week? Are you normally able to have a shower every day? Do you normally receive clean sheets every week? Do you normally get cell cleaning materials every week? Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? Is it normally quiet enough for you to be able to relax or sleep in your cell at night time? Can you normally get your stored property, if you need to? Is the food in this prison good/very good? Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs? Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time, if you want to? Are your religious beliefs respected? Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to? Is it easy/very easy to attend religious services? SECTION 5: Applications and complaints 5.1 Is it easy to make an application? 68 78 66 77 5.3 Is it easy to make a complaint? 48 55 48 55 5.5 Have you ever been prevented from making a complaint when you wanted to? 26 21 29 21 5.6 Is it easy/very easy to see the Independent Monitoring Board? 19 23 19 22 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 105 White prisoners Muslim prisoners Non-Muslim prisoners Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis – ethnicity/religion (Continued) Black and minority ethnic prisoners APPENDIX FIVE % % % % 35 38 12 44 41 11 31 39 16 43 40 11 69 76 64 76 64 71 61 71 21 29 20 28 14 47 20 49 14 47 19 48 SECTION 6: Incentives and earned privileges scheme 6.1 6.2 6.3 Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme? Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour? In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you (C&R)? SECTION 7: Relationships with staff 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect? Is there a member of staff, in this prison, that you can turn to for help if you have a problem? Has a member of staff checked on you personally in the last week to see how you are getting on? Do staff normally speak to you most of the time/all of the time during association? Do you have a personal officer? SECTION 8: Safety 8.1 Have you ever felt unsafe here? 50 47 55 47 8.2 Do you feel unsafe now? Have you been victimised by other prisoners here? 25 30 21 32 31 33 20 31 12 11 2 15 8 3 3 3 11 8 7 6 1 2 3 3 6 5 8 36 14 11 2 20 10 5 6 5 3 3 3 4 1 2 3 5 6 7 5 29 15 13 3 16 8 4 4 5 12 11 9 6 1 2 3 3 7 7 9 43 13 10 2 19 9 5 6 5 3 3 3 5 1 2 3 4 6 7 5 29 8.4 Since you have been here, have other prisoners: 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.6 Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends? Hit, kicked or assaulted you? Sexually abused you? Threatened or intimidated you? Taken your canteen/property? Victimised you because of medication? Victimised you because of debt? Victimised you because of drugs? Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin? Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs? Victimised you because of your nationality? Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country? Victimised you because you are from a traveller community? Victimised you because of your sexual orientation? Victimised you because of your age? Victimised you because you have a disability? Victimised you because you were new here? Victimised you because of your offence/crime? Victimised you because of gang-related issues? Have you been victimised by staff here? Since you have been here, have staff: 8.7 Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends? 14 13 17 12 8.7 Hit, kicked or assaulted you? 7 6 9 5 8.7 Sexually abused you? 2 1 2 1 8.7 Threatened or intimidated you? 16 14 20 13 8.7 Victimised you because of medication? 3 6 5 5 8.7 Victimised you because of debt? 1 1 2 1 8.7 Victimised you because of drugs? 1 3 2 2 8.7 Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin? 13 2 15 3 8.7 Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs? 10 2 18 2 8.7 Victimised you because of your nationality? 7 2 9 2 8.7 Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country? 4 3 5 3 8.7 Victimised you because you are from a traveller community? 1 1 1 1 106 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 Victimised you because of your sexual orientation? Victimised you because of your age? Victimised you because you have a disability? Victimised you because you were new here? Victimised you because of your offence/crime? Victimised you because of gang-related issues? Non-Muslim prisoners 8.7 Muslim prisoners 8.7 White prisoners Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis – ethnicity/religion (Continued) Black and minority ethnic prisoners APPENDIX FIVE % % % % 1 3 3 6 5 4 1 2 4 3 5 2 1 4 4 7 6 4 1 2 3 4 5 2 21 42 10 41 29 24 44 13 57 46 20 43 9 41 31 24 44 12 55 43 SECTION 9: Health services 9.1 9.1 9.1 9.4 9.6 Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor? Is it easy/very easy to see the nurse? Is it easy/very easy to see the dentist? Are you currently taking medication? Do you have any emotional well-being or mental health problems? SECTION 10: Drugs and alcohol 10.1 Did you have a problem with drugs when you came into this prison? 21 32 23 31 10.2 Did you have a problem with alcohol when you came into this prison? 12 21 12 20 10.3 Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison? 40 49 42 48 10.4 Is it easy/very easy to get alcohol in this prison? 20 24 23 23 10.5 Have you developed a problem with drugs since you have been in this prison? 9 13 12 12 Have you developed a problem with diverted medication since you have been in this prison? 6 9 10 8 45 10.6 SECTION 11: Activities Is it very easy/easy to get into the following activities: 11.1 A prison job? 32 46 29 11.1 Vocational or skills training? 29 38 27 37 11.1 11.1 Education (including basic skills)? Offending Behaviour Programmes? 45 17 51 21 41 14 51 21 11.2 A prison job? 49 59 49 57 11.2 Vocational or skills training? 13 10 12 11 11.2 Education (including basic skills)? 27 19 26 20 11.2 Offending Behaviour Programmes? 8 10 7 10 11.4 Do you go to the library at least once a week? 37 34 34 35 11.5 Does the library have a wide enough range of materials to meet your needs? 33 43 29 43 11.6 Do you go to the gym three or more times a week? 31 25 27 27 11.7 Do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week? 50 47 51 48 11.8 Do you go on association more than five times each week? 46 55 47 53 11.9 Do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday? 11 14 11 14 12.1 Have staff supported you and helped you to maintain contact with family/friends while in this prison? 27 32 27 31 12.2 Have you had any problems with sending or receiving mail? 47 44 47 44 12.3 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones? Is it easy/very easy for your friends and family to get here? 30 30 27 30 32 28 28 30 54 7 13 58 6 14 56 8 13 57 6 14 Are you currently involved in any of the following activities: SECTION 12: Friends and family 12.4 SECTION 13: Preparation for release 13.3 13.10 13.11 Do you have a named offender supervisor in this prison? Do you have a needs-based custody plan? Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to prepare for release? HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 107 Prisoners aged 50 and over Prisoners under the age of 50 Number of completed questionnaires returned Do not consider themselves to have a disability Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis – disability/age Consider themselves to have a disability APPENDIX FIVE 1,660 4,725 1,039 5,416 % % % % 84 SECTION 1: General information 1.2 Are you under 21 years of age? 6 7 1.3 Are you sentenced? 82 86 92 1.3 Are you on recall? 10 9 7 9 1.4 Is your sentence less than 12 months? 14 12 6 14 1.4 Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)? 7 6 9 6 1.5 Are you a foreign national? 10 10 8 10 1.6 Do you understand spoken English? 99 98 99 98 1.7 Do you understand written English? 97 98 98 97 1.8 Are you from a minority ethnic group? (Including all those who did not tick white British, white Irish or white other categories.) 14 27 12 26 1.9 Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller? 7 4 3 5 1.10 Are you Muslim? 8 15 4 14 1.11 Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual? 7 3 1.12 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 1.13 Are you a veteran (ex-armed services)? 10 5 17 4 1.14 Is this your first time in prison? 32 41 50 37 Do you have any children under the age of 18? 47 49 21 54 1.15 7 4 42 24 SECTION 2: Transfers and escorts On your most recent journey here: 2.1 Did you spend more than 2 hours in the van? 31 34 37 32 2.5 Did you feel safe? 69 79 77 76 2.6 Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff? 69 70 79 68 2.7 Before you arrived here were you told that you were coming here? 61 63 62 62 2.8 When you first arrived here did your property arrive at the same time as you? 80 82 83 81 SECTION 3: Reception, first night and induction 3.1 Were you in reception for less than 2 hours? 43 47 54 44 3.2 When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way? 77 81 85 79 Were you treated well/very well in reception? 65 67 80 64 3.3 When you first arrived: 3.4 Did you have any problems? 89 64 67 71 3.4 Did you have any problems with loss of property? 19 17 16 18 3.4 Did you have any housing problems? 24 13 13 17 3.4 Did you have any problems contacting employers? 3 4 3 4 3.4 Did you have any problems contacting family? 31 27 22 29 3.4 Did you have any problems ensuring dependants were being looked after? 2 2 1 2 3.4 Did you have any money worries? 23 16 16 19 3.4 Did you have any problems with feeling depressed or suicidal? 37 16 19 22 3.4 Did you have any physical health problems? 33 9 28 13 3.4 Did you have any mental health problems? 54 15 18 27 3.4 Did you have any problems with needing protection from other prisoners? 13 6 8 8 3.4 Did you have problems accessing phone numbers? 28 23 22 25 When you first arrived here, were you offered any of the following: 3.6 Tobacco? 70 70 50 73 3.6 A shower? 29 29 22 30 3.6 A free telephone call? 43 46 32 48 3.6 Something to eat? 62 62 57 63 3.6 PIN phone credit? 51 50 38 53 3.6 Toiletries/basic items? 52 54 52 53 108 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.12 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 Have staff ever opened letters from your solicitor or legal representative when you were not with them? 4.3 Can you get legal books in the library? For the wing/unit you are currently on: Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week? Are you normally able to have a shower every day? Do you normally receive clean sheets every week? Do you normally get cell cleaning materials every week? Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? Is it normally quiet enough for you to be able to relax or sleep in your cell at night time? Can you normally get your stored property, if you need to? Is the food in this prison good/very good? Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs? Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time, if you want to? Are your religious beliefs respected? Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to? Is it easy/very easy to attend religious services? SECTION 5: Applications and complaints Is it easy to make an application? Is it easy to make a complaint? Have you ever been prevented from making a complaint when you wanted to? Is it easy/very easy to see the Independent Monitoring Board? 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 5.1 5.3 5.5 5.6 KEY TO TABLE Significantly better Significantly worse A significant difference in prisoners’ background details No significant difference Prisoners under the age of 50 3.7 Prisoners aged 50 and over 3.7 When you first arrived here did you have access to the following people: The chaplain or a religious leader? Someone from health services? A Listener/Samaritans? Prison shop/ canteen? When you first arrived here were you offered information about any of the following: What was going to happen to you? Support was available for people feeling depressed or suicidal? How to make routine requests? Your entitlement to visits? Health services? The chaplaincy? Did you feel safe on your first night here? Have you been on an induction course? Did you receive an education (skills for life) assessment? SECTION 4: Legal rights and respectful custody In terms of your legal rights, is it easy/very easy to: Communicate with your solicitor or legal representative? Attend legal visits? Get bail information? Do not consider themselves to have a disability Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis – disability/age (Continued) Consider themselves to have a disability APPENDIX FIVE % % % % 48 66 31 23 49 66 32 24 43 67 31 22 50 66 32 24 42 36 36 33 45 41 62 78 77 46 37 40 36 47 43 75 84 80 46 36 42 36 50 42 75 84 80 45 36 38 35 45 42 71 82 79 37 44 13 38 46 13 46 46 9 36 45 13 45 40 32 43 37 37 44 36 52 79 64 51 25 53 18 25 47 57 50 57 45 58 83 62 53 26 62 21 25 47 53 48 53 47 80 89 81 65 36 69 26 40 58 69 59 60 51 52 81 59 50 24 58 19 23 45 52 46 53 46 71 54 28 22 77 53 20 22 82 56 14 29 74 53 23 20 Missing data have been excluded for each question. Please note: where there are apparently large differences, which are not indicated as statistically significant, this is likely to be due to chance. 1. Key questions from the survey include all questions with the exception of filtered questions. The following breakdowns are within sample comparisons so sample sizes are smaller; to include filtered questions would further reduce the number of responses. 2. The amalgamated functional type includes: local prisons, training prisons, young offender institutions holding over 18s and open establishments published in the reporting period. 3. In order to appropriately adjust p-values in light of multiple testing, p<.01 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons undertaken. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 109 Do not consider themselves to have a disability Prisoners aged 50 and over Prisoners under the age of 50 Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis – disability/age (Continued) Consider themselves to have a disability APPENDIX FIVE % % % % SECTION 6: Incentives and earned privileges scheme 6.1 Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme? 38 43 53 40 6.2 Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour? 37 42 40 40 6.3 In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you (C&R)? 15 10 3 13 SECTION 7: Relationships with staff 7.1 Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect? 73 75 89 71 7.2 Is there a member of staff, in this prison, that you can turn to for help if you have a problem? 69 70 79 67 7.3 Has a member of staff checked on you personally in the last week to see how you were getting on? 33 25 34 25 7.4 Do staff normally speak to you most of the time/all of the time during association? 17 19 26 17 7.5 Do you have a personal officer? 46 49 62 45 SECTION 8: Safety 8.1 Have you ever felt unsafe here? 61 44 38 50 8.2 Do you feel unsafe now? 32 18 15 23 8.4 Have you been victimised by other prisoners here? 44 27 27 32 Since you have been here, have other prisoners: 8.5 Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends? 21 11 10 14 8.5 Hit, kicked or assaulted you? 17 9 6 12 8.5 Sexually abused you? 3 1 1 2 8.5 Threatened or intimidated you? 28 15 16 19 8.5 Taken your canteen/property? 15 7 6 10 8.5 Victimised you because of medication? 11 3 5 5 8.5 Victimised you because of debt? 9 4 1 6 8.5 Victimised you because of drugs? 8 4 1 6 8.5 Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin? 6 4 3 5 8.5 Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs? 7 4 3 5 8.5 Victimised you because of your nationality? 5 3 3 4 8.5 Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country? 8 4 4 5 8.5 Victimised you because you are from a traveller community? 2 1 1 1 8.5 Victimised you because of your sexual orientation? 3 2 3 2 8.5 Victimised you because of your age? 5 2 7 2 8.5 Victimised you because you have a disability? 14 1 7 4 8.5 Victimised you because you were new here? 9 5 4 7 8.5 Victimised you because of your offence/crime? 10 6 9 7 8.5 Victimised you because of gang-related issues? 8 5 2 6 8.6 Have you been victimised by staff here? 40 28 19 33 17 12 6 14 Since you have been here, have staff: 8.7 Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends? 8.7 Hit, kicked or assaulted you? 9 5 2 7 8.7 Sexually abused you? 2 1 1 1 8.7 Threatened or intimidated you? 20 12 10 15 8.7 Victimised you because of medication? 10 3 4 5 8.7 Victimised you because of debt? 3 1 1 2 8.7 Victimised you because of drugs? 4 2 1 3 8.7 Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin? 4 5 2 5 8.7 Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs? 4 4 1 5 8.7 Victimised you because of your nationality? 4 3 2 4 110 Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Consider themselves to have a disability Do not consider themselves to have a disability Prisoners aged 50 and over Prisoners under the age of 50 APPENDIX FIVE % % % % Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country? 4 3 2 3 Victimised you because you are from a traveller community? 2 1 0 1 8.7 Victimised you because of your sexual orientation? 2 1 1 1 8.7 Victimised you because of your age? 3 2 3 2 8.7 Victimised you because you have a disability? 11 1 4 3 8.7 Victimised you because you were new here? 5 4 2 5 8.7 Victimised you because of your offence/crime? 6 4 5 5 8.7 Victimised you because of gang-related issues? 3 2 0 3 Prisoner survey responses (adult men): diversity analysis – disability/age (Continued) 8.7 8.7 SECTION 9: Health services 9.1 Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor? 22 24 31 22 9.1 Is it easy/very easy to see the nurse? 44 44 54 42 9.1 Is it easy/very easy to see the dentist? 12 12 18 11 9.4 Are you currently taking medication? 79 44 77 49 9.6 Do you have any emotional well-being or mental health problems? 74 30 31 44 SECTION 10: Drugs and alcohol 10.1 Did you have a problem with drugs when you came into this prison? 39 26 11 33 10.2 Did you have a problem with alcohol when you came into this prison? 27 16 13 20 10.3 Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison? 51 46 36 49 10.4 Is it easy/very easy to get alcohol in this prison? 26 22 15 24 10.5 Have you developed a problem with drugs since you have been in this prison? 16 10 2 14 10.6 Have you developed a problem with diverted medication since you have been in this prison? 12 7 3 9 SECTION 11: Activities Is it very easy/easy to get involved in the following activities: 11.1 A prison job? 38 45 50 41 11.1 Vocational or skills training? 31 37 38 35 11.1 Education (including basic skills)? 45 51 54 48 11.1 Offending Behaviour Programmes? 19 20 22 20 Are you currently involved in any of the following activities: 11.2 A prison job? 48 60 59 56 11.2 Vocational or skills training? 10 12 10 12 11.2 Education (including basic skills)? 20 21 23 20 11.2 Offending Behaviour Programmes? 10 9 10 9 11.4 Do you go to the library at least once a week? 32 36 44 33 11.5 Does the library have a wide enough range of materials to meet your needs? 40 41 52 38 11.6 Do you go to the gym three or more times a week? 16 31 13 29 11.7 Do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week? 41 51 47 48 11.8 Do you go on association more than five times each week? 49 54 59 51 11.9 Do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday? 11 15 19 13 SECTION 12: Friends and family 12.1 Have staff supported you and helped you to maintain contact with family/friends while in this prison? 31 31 40 29 12.2 Have you had any problems with sending or receiving mail? 47 44 33 47 12.3 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones? 33 27 20 30 Is it easy/ very easy for your friends and family to get here? 24 32 27 30 51 59 67 55 7 6 6 6 12 14 14 14 12.4 SECTION 13: Preparation for release 13.3 Do you have a named offender supervisor in this prison? 13.10 Do you have a needs-based custody plan? 13.11 Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to prepare for release? HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 111 APPENDIX SIX Men Number of completed questionnaires returned Women Prisoner survey responses: key questions responses – women/men 702 6,500 % % Are you under 21 years of age? Are you sentenced? Are you a foreign national? Do you understand spoken English? Do you understand written English? 3 87 9 98 97 7 85 10 98 97 Are you from a minority ethnic group? (Including all those who did not tick white British, white Irish or white other categories.) 21 24 3.4 Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller? Are you Muslim? Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual? Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Is this your first time in prison? Do you have any children under the age of 18? Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff? Before you arrived here were you told that you were coming here? When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way? Were you treated well/very well in reception? Did you have any problems when you first arrived? 7 6 25 36 55 54 79 71 90 77 83 5 13 4 27 39 49 70 62 80 66 70 3.7 Did you have access to someone from health care when you first arrived here? 66 66 3.9 Did you feel safe on your first night here? Have you been on an induction course? Is it easy/very easy to communicate with your solicitor or legal representative? Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week? Are you normally able to have a shower every day? Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? Is the food in this prison good/very good? Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs? Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time, if you want to? Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected? Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to? Is it easy to make an application? Is it easy to make a complaint? Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme? Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour? In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you (C&R)? Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect? Is there a member of staff you can turn to for help if you have a problem in this prison? Do staff normally speak to you at least most of the time during association time (most/all of the time)? Do you have a personal officer? Have you ever felt unsafe here? Do you feel unsafe now? Have you been victimised by other prisoners? 66 88 34 67 94 43 37 54 66 59 68 79 60 55 49 5 77 79 20 57 52 18 44 72 83 38 56 82 26 25 47 54 48 54 75 54 42 40 11 74 69 19 48 48 22 32 10 2 30 8 6 3 2 29 11 2 18 5 5 5 2 31 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.14 1.15 2.6 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.10 4.1 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.1 5.3 6.1 6.2 6.3 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 8.1 8.2 8.3 Since you have been here, have other prisoners: 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.6 112 Hit, kicked or assaulted you? Sexually abused you? Threatened or intimidated you? Victimised you because of medication? Victimised you because of drugs? Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country? Victimised you because of your sexual orientation? Have you been victimised by a member of staff? Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales APPENDIX SIX Women Men Prisoner survey responses: key questions responses – women/men % % 9.1 Hit, kicked or assaulted you? Sexually abused you? Threatened or intimidated you? Victimised you because of medication? Victimised you because of drugs? Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country? Victimised you because of your sexual orientation? Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor? Is it easy/very easy to see the nurse? 1 1 12 6 2 1 2 19 43 6 1 14 5 2 3 1 23 44 9.4 Are you currently taking medication? 76 53 9.6 11.4 Do you feel you have any emotional well being/mental health issues? Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison? Is it easy/very easy to get alcohol in this prison? Are you currently working in the prison? Are you currently undertaking vocational or skills training? Are you currently in education (including basic skills)? Are you currently taking part in an offending behaviour programme? Do you go to the library at least once a week? 65 31 7 68 14 26 10 41 42 47 23 56 11 21 9 35 11.6 Do you go to the gym three or more times a week? 25 27 11.7 Do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week? On average, do you go on association more than five times each week? Do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday? (This includes hours at education, at work etc.) Have you had any problems sending or receiving mail? Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones? Is it easy/very easy for your friends and family to get here? 49 54 21 42 25 27 48 52 14 45 28 30 Since you have been here, have staff: 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 9.1 10.3 10.4 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.8 11.9 12.2 12.3 12.4 KEY TO TABLE Significantly better Significantly worse A significant difference in prisoners’ background details No significant difference Missing data have been excluded for each question. Please note: where there are apparently large differences, which are not indicated as statistically significant, this is likely to be due to chance. 1. Key questions from the survey include all questions with the exception of filtered questions. The following breakdowns are within sample comparisons so sample sizes are smaller; to include filtered questions would further reduce the number of responses. 2. The amalgamated functional type includes: local prisons, training prisons, young offender institutions holding over 18s and open establishments published in the reporting period. 3. In order to appropriately adjust p-values in light of multiple testing, p<.01 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons undertaken. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17 113 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Victory House 6th floor 30-34 Kingsway London WC2B 6EX Telephone: 020 3681 2770 Press enquiries: 020 3681 2775 General enquiries: firstname.lastname@example.org Chief Inspector of Prisons Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM The GCS Design Centre This Annual Report was produced by DESIGN102 Contact us at: email@example.com