REPORT ON AN UNANNOUNCED INSPECTION OF HM PRISON FORD 7 – 9 MAY 2002 BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS 2 PREFACE For some time, this Inspectorate has advocated greater use of open prisons, as an important stage in the process of release and resettlement. However, this is not simply a question of decanting men and women into more relaxed and less secure environments. Open conditions should provide opportunities for building the important bridges that will make resettlement easier: maximising employment potential, encouraging responsibility and family ties and building on work already done to tackle problems such as drugs or alcohol misuse. Ford is one of two open prisons that we have recently inspected unannounced. The other is Askham Grange women’s prison. We do not believe that either is providing the environment and facilities that are needed for those, particularly long-term prisoners, about to be released. There had certainly been improvements at Ford in response to our last inspection, particularly in healthcare, education and provision for foreign nationals, and we welcome that. However, we were concerned at the lack of progress in some critical areas of the action plan the prison had prepared following our recommendations. Opportunities to gain vocational qualifications were few; work within the prison was related more to income targets for the prison than to future employment prospects for prisoners; and only 18 of its 50 community out-work places were taken up. The only offending behaviour programme was being cancelled for want of tutors. There was a shortage of psychology and probation staff and no effective personal officer scheme to promote positive engagement between staff and prisoners. These areas are all crucial to effective resettlement, which should be at the heart of what an open prison offers. In addition, the inspection raised concerns about whether racism and bullying were being effectively tackled, and we were astonished that the results of a survey into bullying had been stolen from staff offices. 3 These problems were exacerbated by the effect of prison overcrowding. Ford is the first training or open prison we have inspected since the present overcrowding crisis. It has had two effects. First, some of the accommodation, which was already unsatisfactory, is now unacceptable. Dormitories were excessively crowded and a healthcare waiting room, cleaning storeroom and dining room for less mobile prisoners had all been pressed into service to deal with additional numbers. Simply because prisoners are in a more relaxed and open environment, there is no excuse for living conditions that, in the words of this report are ‘appalling, providing neither privacy nor dignity’. There appeared to be an attitude of resignation about this. We cannot understand how or why some of this additional accommodation had been certified as fit for use, and were concerned that this certification happened by fax during our inspection. Secondly, Ford was being sent prisoners for whom it could do very little. Among those it was receiving were recently-sentenced men, on short and long sentences, who had barely had the opportunity for sentence plans, let alone work to address their offending behaviour. This created a need for more, and more targeted, interventions, than the prison is accustomed, or at present able, to provide. What is more, short-term prisoners are unsuitable for the longer-term community placements that Ford has successfully set up. There was therefore the ludicrous situation that two-thirds of the available community workspaces were unfilled at the time of the inspection. This undermines the excellent work that the prison has done in establishing links with local services and employers. Meanwhile, in the same geographical area, there are long- term prisoners at Standford Hill open prison who cannot work out because the prison has been unable to find suitable community placements. We do not underestimate the difficulty of allocating prisoners suitably in the present overcrowding crisis; but it is nevertheless important to ensure that the rare opportunities the prison system offers to gain real work experience are used to the full. There is much that Ford can do to focus and improve its resettlement role, and we would urge that it is encouraged to implement fully the action plan agreed after the last inspection. However, it will not be able to carry out that role while it is required to accept prisoners that it cannot decently accommodate or positively work with. The 4 effects of overcrowding in local prisons, which receive prisoners into the system, are well documented; Ford provides a graphic illustration of how overcrowding is also undermining the crucial resettlement work necessary to return prisoners successfully into the community. Anne Owers June 2002 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 5 CONTENTS Paragraph Page PREFACE 3-5 INTRODUCTION 7 FACT PAGE 8-9 CHAPTER ONE HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY 1.01 - 1.29 10-15 CHAPTER TWO PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST 2.01 - 2.238 16-60 REPORT CHAPTER THREE SUMMARY OF 61-69 RECOMMENDATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE Recommendations To the Director General 3.01-3.07 To the Area Manager 3.08-3.10 To the Governor 3.11-3.72 Examples of Good Practice 3.73-3.79 APPENDIX I INSPECTION TEAM 70 6 INTRODUCTION Short inspections ensure that the Inspectorate visits and checks establishments between full inspections. They are carried out by a small team over two or three days and are usually unannounced. Unlike full inspections, they do not cover every aspect of the prison. Their function is to identify issues of concern or highlight good practice in the treatment of prisoners. Three inspectors, Peter Titley, Joss Crosbie and Marjorie Simonds-Gooding, carried out an unannounced short inspection of Ford between 7 and 9 May 2002. The main purpose was to review progress on recommendations made following the last inspection in September 2000. The team also monitored the treatment of prisoners using the model of the healthy prison as described in Chapter Seven of Suicide is Everyone’s Concern, published by HM Inspectorate of Prisons in 1999. The visit included meetings with prisoners and staff, as well as discussions with the Governor and the Chair and Deputy Chair of the Board of Visitors. The main findings of the inspection were discussed with the Governor, members of the Senior Management Team and the Chair of the Board of Visitors at the end of the visit. 7 FACT PAGE Role of the establishment: A category D open prison for men, Ford is situated to the south of Arundel in West Sussex. Its primary role is to support the prison vision with a strong emphasis on resettlement and rehabilitation. It provides substantial opportunities for prisoners to undertake a wide range of voluntary and paid work in the community. Brief history: The site of the prison has been in the public ownership since 1917 and was used as a military airfield during the latter stages of the First World War. It became a Fleet Air Arm base in 1939 and was commissioned as a Royal Navy Air Station in the Second World War. This remained operational until 1960, when it was acquired by the then Prison Commission and steadily converted to its current use under Prison Service ownership. Area organisation: Kent, Sussex and Surrey. Number held: 451 at 8 May 2002 Cost per place per annum: Based on costs published on 31.3.02 - £12,279 Cost per prisoner place: Not yet calculated following increase of CNA and actual population Certified normal accommodation: 451 Operational capacity: 451 8 Last full inspection: September 2000 Last short inspection: January 1997 Description of residential units: The prison has two residential units: A and B. A Wing has 11 landings, each housing about 19 prisoners in individual cells with washbasins and access to shared lavatories and showers. B Wing is comprised of a series of former naval huts and provides a range of dormitory style facilities augmented by 60 places in more modern units. All prisoners dine in a communal dining hall within A Wing. 9 CHAPTER ONE HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY Introduction 1.01 The concept of the healthy prison was introduced in our thematic review, Suicide is Everyone’s Concern, 1999. The four criteria of a healthy prison are: · Safety: all prisoners are held in safety · Respect: prisoners are treated with respect as individuals · Purposeful activity: prisoners are fully and purposefully occupied · Resettlement: prisoners are prepared for their release and resettlement into the community with the aim of reducing the likelihood of their reoffending 1.02 Inspection reports include an appraisal of an establishment’s performance against this model. In a short unannounced inspection such as this, opportunities for checking outcomes with prisoners are limited. However, from our discussions with prisoners and staff, our observations and documentary evidence, we are confident in the conclusions reached. Some observations may apply to more than one test but we have commented under what we consider to be the primary heading. Safety 1.03 While prisoners generally felt safe, some were concerned that their personal property was not secure. This was disconcerting, particularly for new arrivals whose residential facilities were substandard. 1.04 The use of Listeners was excellent, as were the substantial links with the Samaritans. The Listeners made an important contribution to safety and were able to improve staff understanding of prisoner vulnerability significantly. Some staff were unwilling to make use of the knowledge and experience of Listeners and this is something we urge them to reconsider. 10 1.05 While the incidence of self-harm was low, local statistics should be kept and every incident recorded in detail. 1.06 We applaud the management of health care, where overcrowding had made the situation very difficult.