Report on an announced inspection of HMP Kingston
16–20 August 2010 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Crown copyright 2010
Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 1st Floor, Ashley House Monck Street London SW1P 2BQ England
HMP Kingston 2 Contents
Introduction 5
Fact page 7
Healthy prison summary 9
1 Arrival in custody
Courts, escorts and transfers 17 First days in custody 17 2 Environment and relationships
Residential units 21 Staff-prisoner relationships 23 Personal officers 24 3 Duty of care
Bullying and violence reduction 27 Self-harm and suicide 29 Applications and complaints 30 Legal rights 31 Faith and religious activity 32 Substance use 33 4 Diversity
Diversity 35 Race equality 36 Religion 38 Foreign nationals 38 Disability and older prisoners 39 Sexual orientation 41
5 Health services General 43 Clinical governance 44 Primary care 45 Pharmacy 46 Dentistry 47 Secondary care 48 Mental health 48
HMP Kingston 3 6 Activities
Learning and skills and work activities 49 Physical education and health promotion 53 Time out of cell 55 7 Good order
Security and rules 57 Discipline 58 Incentives and earned privileges 60 8 Services
Catering 63 Prison shop 64 9 Resettlement
Strategic management of resettlement 67 Offender management and planning 68 Resettlement pathways 71 10 Recommendations, housekeeping points and good practice 77
Appendices
I Inspection team 86 II Prison population profile 87 III Summary of prisoner questionnaires and interviews 89
HMP Kingston 4 Introduction
Kingston is a small specialist prison for life- and other indeterminate-sentenced prisoners. This very positive report, of a full announced inspection, is testament to the benefits that can flow from having a small-scale niche prison, with a settled population. The inspection reaffirmed previous findings that Kingston is a safe and decent place, and also applauded the purposeful regime and sound focus on addressing the risks posed by the very serious offenders in the prison’s care.
Kingston continued to provide a safe environment for staff and prisoners. Safer custody arrangements were good, with little bullying or violence and few instances of self-harm and most prisoners reporting feeling safe. There had been a successful drive to combat the misuse of prescribed medication. Security was well managed and proportionate, and staff rarely had to resort to use of force or segregation.
Despite its Victorian architecture, the environment at Kingston remained clean and bright. Relationships between staff and prisoners were positive and supported by an effective personal officer scheme. Diversity was generally well managed, although black and minority ethnic prisoners reported more negatively about the prison than white prisoners. The prison also lacked a permanent Muslim chaplain. Health services were much improved.
Prisoners tended to stay for lengthy periods at Kingston, and it was therefore positive that all of them could access some form of purposeful activity and there was regular association and exercise. Education provision was satisfactory and there were good library and PE facilities, but some work was menial and there was a need for more vocational training.
There was a sound focus on resettlement and on addressing the risks posed by prisoners. Offender management was good, with timely assessments and suitable interventions, although still more could be done to involve wing staff in supporting prisoners to address their offending behaviour.
Kingston is a small and very specialist prison holding only indeterminate-sentenced prisoners, often with very long sentences to serve. It is commendable that we are once again able to endorse the success of staff in delivering a safe, decent and purposeful prison committed to addressing offending behaviour. However, this success is also a reflection of the benefits of having small-scale specialist prisons focused on their core task and it is to be hoped that this small pocket of excellence will not be lost in the Prison Service’s search for efficiencies and economies of scale.
Nick Hardwick October 2010 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
HMP Kingston 5
HMP Kingston 6 Fact page
Task of the establishment The prison holds male category B life-sentenced prisoners with a wing for category C life-sentenced prisoners.
Area organisation South East
Number held 16 August 2010: 195
Certified normal accommodation 199
Operational capacity 200
Last inspection Short follow-up inspection: 3-5 November 2008
Brief history The prison was built between 1874 and 1876 by French prisoners of war and is a listed building with many of the original Victorian architectural features. Portsmouth’s city arms are evident in numerous places, a reminder of the prison’s original role as a city jail holding men, women and children. It has fulfilled its current role since 1968. Originally the prison accommodated domestic life-sentenced prisoners. However, the population are now more general category B life-sentenced prisoners, including a wing for category C life-sentenced prisoners.
Description of residential units The main prison consists of three wings in the radial design with single cell accommodation. A wing - 69 prisoners C wing - 56 prisoners D wing - 50 prisoners E wing is the category C unit and holds 24 prisoners in a mixture of single and shared rooms.
HMP Kingston 7
HMP Kingston 8 Healthy prison summary
Introduction
HP1 All inspection reports carry a summary of the conditions and treatment of prisoners, based on the four tests of a healthy prison that were first introduced in this inspectorate’s thematic review Suicide is everyone’s concern, published in 1999. The criteria are:
Safety prisoners, even the most vulnerable, are held safely
Respect prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity
Purposeful activity prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them
Resettlement prisoners are prepared for their release into the community and helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
HP2 Under each test, we make an assessment of outcomes for prisoners and therefore of the establishment's overall performance against the test. In some cases, this performance will be affected by matters outside the establishment's direct control, which need to be addressed by the National Offender Management Service.
- outcomes for prisoners are good against this healthy prison test. There is no evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in any significant areas.
- outcomes for prisoners are reasonably good against this healthy prison test. There is evidence of adverse outcomes for prisoners 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 are not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test. There is evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in many areas or particularly in those areas of greatest importance to the well-being of prisoners. Problems/concerns, if left unattended, are likely to become areas of serious concern.
- outcomes for prisoners are poor against this healthy prison test. There is evidence that the outcomes for prisoners are seriously affected by current practice. There is a failure to ensure even adequate treatment of and/or conditions for prisoners. Immediate remedial action is required.
Safety
HP3 Reception and first night arrangements were welcoming and induction promoted responsibility. Safer custody arrangements were sound. Prisoners mostly reported
HMP Kingston 9 feeling safe, and levels of violence were low. Security was well managed and proportionate. The use of force was low and the segregation unit used rarely. The prison had responded effectively to the misuse of prescribed medication. Overall, outcomes for prisoners were good against this healthy prison test.
HP4 Relationships between escort staff and prisoners were respectful and effective between escort and prison staff. The vehicles we inspected were exceptionally clean.
HP5 Reception staff were friendly and welcoming. The physical environment was bright and clean. Holding rooms contained reading material and a television, and prisoners were moved through swiftly. There were arrangements to receive prisoners during the lunchtime period when notice was given. Prisoners were interviewed in private by reception and health care staff. All new arrivals were strip searched but with sensitivity. The reception orderly was also a Listener but was not easily identifiable as such and had little engagement with new arrivals.
HP6 Prisoners were mostly allocated to one of three designated induction cells on D wing which were only basically equipped but from which they moved relatively quickly. The induction orderly gave a comprehensive introduction to generic issues and a tour of the prison. Comprehensive first night assessments, if not completed in reception, were completed by an induction officer or senior officer on the first night. Access to showers and telephone calls was facilitated on the wing if requested. Most prisoners reported feeling safe on their first night
HP7 Induction was innovative. It included all relevant information and gave prisoners the responsibility to get out and about to meet relevant people and have appropriate assessments. The process was supported by staff. New arrivals had a two-week period when they were unlocked and could be paid £15 a week to cover all aspects of the induction programme, after which they were usually allocated work.
HP8 The violence reduction policy was comprehensive and well understood by staff and prisoners. A full-time safer custody officer was supported by residential violence reduction liaison officers and a team of prisoner representatives who had a clear understanding of their role. A comprehensive database of incidents was maintained and demonstrated good information sharing across the prison. The level of physical violence was low and in our survey significantly fewer prisoners than at comparator1 prisons reported feeling unsafe. The prison had endeavoured to consult with prisoners about violence and bullying. Investigations into violent incidents varied in quality. Recorded reviews of open violence reduction dossiers were perfunctory, daily monitoring log entries were frequently too observational, and victim support plans lacked sufficient detail about the support to be provided. The prison had developed an intervention for prisoners on stage two of the anti-bullying scheme.
HP9 The monthly safer custody team was well attended, including by prisoner representatives. Reported incidents of self-harm were low and the current number of open assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) self-harm monitoring documents was broadly in line with the number opened in 2009. Case reviews to support prisoners were multidisciplinary and goals identified in care maps were generally appropriate. The quality of daily observations varied, but we did see some
1 The comparator figure is calculated by aggregating all survey responses together and so is not an average across establishments.
HMP Kingston 10 good evidence of engagement. Listeners felt supported by the prison and reported free access to prisoners in need.
HP10 Intelligence management systems were sound and security information reports processed efficiently. Security measures and systems were mostly proportionate, and there were no banned visitors or prisoners on closed visits at the time of the inspection. The routine use of restraints between vehicles and reception was unnecessary.
HP11 The segregation unit had a limited daily regime which was published to prisoners and consistently adhered to. Segregation was not overused but some individual prisoners had spent lengthy periods of time in the unit. Care plans and formal reintegration plans were not used, although some prisoners were successfully returned to normal location.
HP12 Adjudication hearings were conducted in a designated facility. An adjudication tariff, reviewed in December 2009, was adhered to and hearings were generally properly conducted. There was a robust quality assurance system with written feedback to managers.
HP13 Use of force was very low and documentation completed satisfactorily. Incidents were monitored by the safer custody team and discussed at the security meeting, but the minutes did not indicate adequate quality assurance of documentation. There had been only one recorded use of the special cell in the year to date. The accompanying documentation did not indicate whether the prisoner had been able to retain his clothing, and showed very little engagement with him.
HP14 The integrated drug treatment system (IDTS) was not yet in place. Fewer prisoners than at other category B training prisons said it was easy to obtain illegal drugs. Mandatory drug testing (MDT) rates were very low, averaging 0.88% between February and July 2010, a considerable improvement from the previous year when illicit use of prescribed medication had been a significant problem. The waiting area for MDT was impressive and well equipped. Although only a few suspicion tests were carried out, they returned a high positive rate.
Respect
HP15 The environment was well decorated and clean. Clothing and laundry arrangements were reasonable. Staff-prisoner relationships were mutually respectful and the personal officer scheme was working well. The incentives and earned privileges scheme was sound. Most aspects of diversity were well managed but black and minority ethnic prisoners had poorer perceptions than white prisoners. Chaplains were not available for all faith groups. Health services had improved. Overall, outcomes for prisoners were good against this healthy prison test.
HP16 Residential units were bright and clean and outside areas attractive and well used. Cells were generally clean, well equipped and well maintained, although toilets needed de-scaling. Prisoners could wear their own clothes and had adequate access to laundry and washing facilities. Showers and baths were clean but needed refurbishment and improved privacy. The environment and facilities on E wing were appreciated by the small number of prisoners living there.
HMP Kingston 11 HP17 Staff and prisoners were aware of the incentives and earned privileges scheme, and prisoners were highly motivated to move to, and remain on, enhanced status. The scheme was well managed and demonstrated a responsiveness to individual cases.
HP18 Prisoners were positive about being treated with respect by staff and having someone they could approach. We were impressed by the level of staff engagement with and support of prisoners. First names were routinely used. Interaction between staff and prisoners during association was relaxed and confident.
HP19 More prisoners than at comparator prisons said they had a personal officer and found them helpful. Residential staff were allocated a caseload as personal officers and demonstrated good engagement with a variety of issues concerning their prisoners. Prisoners mostly turned to their personal officers in the first instance and found them responsive.
HP20 Significantly more respondents to our survey than the comparator said the food was good. The perceptions of black and minority ethnic prisoners were significantly worse for both food and the shop, but there was evidence that the prison responded to consultation. The kitchen and servery were clean and generally well maintained but needed redecoration. Breakfast was inappropriately served the evening before it was to be consumed and the baguette meal for Sunday tea was served far too early. The small kitchenette on E wing allowed limited self-catering. Prisoners could dine in association.
HP21 A wide range of goods was available through the prison shop, including fruit and vegetables, but prisoners felt that their wages had not kept pace with shop price rises. Prisoners could order from a wide range of catalogues, and could also have property sent in twice a year.
HP22 A full-time diversity race equality officer covered all aspects of diversity, except older prisoners and religion. He was supported by 10 prisoner diversity representatives and three recently appointed staff diversity representatives. The diversity policy was basic and some elements were irrelevant to prisoners. The bimonthly diversity and race equality action team meeting was well attended and supported by a monthly prisoner representative race advisory group and a responsive action plan.
HP23 There were sound policy, procedures and governance arrangements to support race equality. SMART ethnic monitoring data was analysed effectively and community engagement was good. Black and minority ethnic prisoners had more negative perceptions than white prisoners about safety on their first night and being treated with respect. Their perception that they were more likely to be target searched was correct, as 31% of target searches in 2010 were on black and minority ethnic prisoners who represented just 19% of the population. Racist incident report forms were investigated to a good level, and complainants received a letter informing them of the conclusions.
HP24 Despite a consistently low foreign national population, there was a comprehensive foreign national policy and support for foreign national prisoners was good. They could apply for a free 10-minute international telephone call each month. The needs analysis required updating.
HP25 There were suitable arrangements for prisoners with disabilities and some reasonable adjustments had been made, but prisoners with mobility difficulties had poor access
HMP Kingston 12 to many areas. In our survey, prisoners with disabilities reported negatively about access to work, vocational training, education, library and the gym. All declared prisoners with disabilities had care plans developed through a multidisciplinary approach. Disability was identified and recorded on reception, a care plan devised and multidisciplinary care meetings held. Support for the 30% of the population over 50 was less good and had a predominantly clinical focus. There was a dedicated diversity staff representative for gay and bisexual prisoners.
HP26 Muslim prisoners had suffered through the lack of a Muslim chaplain, and Friday prayers had been affected because there was no dedicated multi-faith room. Attendance at services generally was low and access to the chapel was difficult for those with mobility difficulties. The small chaplaincy team had inconsistent involvement in supporting prisoners through the death or illness of relatives. There were limited additional activities.
HP27 Application and complaint forms were readily available but not envelopes for confidential complaints. The log showed some unacceptable delays in answers to applications, and responses were too often perfunctory. Responses to complaints were generally polite and timely, and a good quality assurance system addressed any concerns.
HP28 There was good partnership working between the prison and health providers, but there had been no recent health needs analysis and no prison health improvement plan. The health care environment was small but functional and clean. The dental and mental health appointment rooms were too narrow and ventilation was poor. Clinical governance arrangements were good. Summaries of care plans for patients with complex needs were available in the hub office (with their consent) to guide staff. There was a reasonable range of clinics for primary care and lifelong conditions, but prisoners did not have an opportunity for a one-to-one confidential consultation with a doctor. Pharmacy and dental services were good. There was appropriate access to secondary health services and few appointments were cancelled by the prison. Patients had access to mental health assessments and individual and group therapeutic activities provided by mental health professionals. There was no mental health awareness training for discipline staff.
Purposeful activity
HP29 All prisoners could access some form of activity. Some work was low skilled and there was not enough vocational training. The quality of education was satisfactory, and the library offered a reasonable service. PE provision and access was good. Association and exercise were reliable. Overall, outcomes for prisoners were reasonably good against this healthy prison test.
HP30 The overall strategic direction for learning and skills was clear and senior managers had a strong focus on raising the profile and improving provision throughout the prison. Quality assurance had been introduced, and an overall self-assessment report drew together all aspects of learning and skills within the prison. There was good use of prisoner feedback to influence curriculum development. Good links between the education and career information providers worked well to inform sentence planning. There were sufficient places to ensure all prisoners were engaged in some form of activity. While some of this was mundane, there had been efforts to add innovative
HMP Kingston 13 opportunities to broaden learning. Initial assessment of prisoners’ literacy and numeracy was satisfactory and allocation to activities was fair and equitable.
HP31 The contract workshop provided the largest proportion of employment. The print and technical drawing workshops provided meaningful work with accredited vocational training and prisoner achievement of qualifications was good. Key skills accredited qualifications were available, but not all the work skills developed received recognition.
HP32 The education provision was limited. The range of courses provided too few opportunities for progress to higher levels and not enough were aimed at improving personal development. There were waiting lists for many of the more popular courses. Overall achievement on courses was good, as was teaching, and there was some individual coaching. Attendance at classes was good and punctuality satisfactory. Individual learning plans did not help learners to identify what they needed to do to progress. Literacy and numeracy provision was not sufficiently well planned. There was not enough support for learners on distance learning courses and few resources to support their studies. The careers information and advice service was insufficient to support all prisoners throughout their sentence.
HP33 The library was a welcoming environment with good access throughout the week and at weekends. Links with the education department were good. The range of stock was generally appropriate but provision for study and texts to support distance learning were poor. There was no data on who used the library so there was no analysis of information to target improvements.
HP34 Access to PE was good, with many prisoners going to up to six sessions a week. Around 65% of prisoners used the gym regularly. Facilities were generally satisfactory and equipment had recently improved. Outdoor facilities were well used for a variety of activities, and some links with community groups had enabled competitive cricket and football. The range of programmes was appropriate for the prison population and focused on promoting healthy living. There was a good range of accredited courses with high achievement but too few prisoners took part. Trained mentors were well used and contributed to the smooth running of the gym, developing good supervisory skills.
HP35 The core day allowed for just over nine hours out of cell for the vast majority. Retired prisoners not at work were unlocked during the day. Association and exercise were rarely cancelled and outside evening exercise was offered in the summer, with most sessions for enhanced prisoners. Outside areas were well maintained, clean and popular with prisoners.
Resettlement
HP36 Resettlement governance arrangements were good and the strategy appropriate. Offender management arrangements were also good. Prisoners had regular contact with offender supervisors. Sentence planning reviews were managed well. Public protection arrangements were sound and also offered case management discussion. Resettlement pathway provision was mostly appropriate for the population, with a focus on supporting family contact. Overall, outcomes for prisoners were good against this healthy prison test.
HMP Kingston 14 HP37 Although prisoners were rarely released from Kingston, the reducing reoffending strategy document was appropriate to the role of the establishment and fairly comprehensive. It covered key aspects of offender management and pathways and was broadly based on a recent needs analysis from identified sentence planning targets. Where appropriate, pathway provision was outlined reasonably well and included objectives for the year. Developments were reviewed and managed well through the bimonthly reducing reoffending strategy group.
HP38 All prisoners were managed appropriately through offender management, even though only a few prisoners with indeterminate sentences for public protection were formally in scope. The four offender supervisors included both prison officers and probation staff. The majority of prisoners were seen frequently and were well known to offender supervisors. There was some one-to-one work but the quality of interaction by offender supervisors varied and needed a greater focus on risk factors. Links with external offender managers were also inconsistent, and many had little or no contact with prisoners. However, information sharing between the offender management unit and probation areas was mostly good.
HP39 Good inter-departmental links, in particular between psychology and offender management staff, facilitated the management of prisoners’ sentences. Significantly more prisoners than the comparator and at our last inspection said they had a sentence plan and the multidisciplinary weekly boards were generally well managed. OASys (offender assessment system) assessments linked in well with these boards, and targets were generally appropriately identified. Personal officers consistently contributed to sentence planning reviews, although the quality of input varied.
HP40 All prisoners were subject to MAPPA (multi-agency public protection arrangements), and public protection arrangements were generally comprehensive. All new arrivals were screened and monthly interdepartmental risk management boards considered individuals subject to monitoring as well as wider public protection issues. A further multidisciplinary group met monthly to consider any problematic or difficult cases to ensure integrated responses, which was positive. There was, however, some inconsistency in the recording of information from both these meetings.
HP41 As very few prisoners were released from Kingston, reintegration planning was primarily oriented to progression to other establishments and recategorisation. Although a pathway lead had been identified for accommodation, it involved no significant work. Any release was managed appropriately through external offender managers using probation-approved premises.
HP42 Finance, benefit and debt issues had not been identified as key in the recent needs assessment, and provision under this pathway was limited to money management programmes provided by education. They were delivered infrequently and on the basis of need.
HP43 Prisoners were supported into education and employment by preparing them to gain the best benefit from employment and training as they moved through the prison system. There were opportunities for prisoners to develop their basic skills and some vocational and work skills. Careers information and advice helped prisoners prepare for employment within the prison system, identifying short- and long- term objectives. Education and employment provision was designed to complement arrangements at establishments to which prisoners were transferred. Prisoners were contacted to identify if it had helped in employment and training at their new prison.
HMP Kingston 15 HP44 Health staff ensured there was throughcare for transferred prisoners. The care programme approach was used for patients with serious mental illness. An end-of-life care pathway was based on joint working with local services.
HP45 Drug and alcohol policies were being updated following a comprehensive and well- written substance use needs analysis. The counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare service (CARATs) was in touch with 67.5% of the prison population, offering one-to-one work, group work and referrals to weekly yoga sessions. There was limited provision for primary alcohol users. Recently started drug service users’ meetings had led to some good incentives for remaining drug free.
HP46 Positive initiatives supported the maintenance of family ties, despite the long distance that many had to travel to the prison. There were monthly all-day visits and between four and five well-attended family days a year supported by the local Sure Start. The new visitors’ centre would offer further benefits to prisoners’ families. Arrangements for visits were generally good, well managed and with few delays, and they took place in a relaxed atmosphere with free refreshments. Visitors were positive about their experience.
HP47 The healthy relationships programme was the only accredited programme, but was broadly appropriate for the population. However, only eight prisoners a year could access the course and waiting lists were long. Where identified needs required access to other programmes, prisoners were transferred to other establishments.
Main recommendations
HP48 The prison should work with black and minority ethnic prisoners to understand why they have a more negative perception of their treatment than white prisoners and take any action needed to address this.
HP49 There should be a permanent Muslim chaplain to ensure that Muslim prisoners have equity and consistency in practising their faith.
HP50 The prison should improve the range and amount of education courses and vocational training to meet the needs of the prisoners.
HP51 The roles of both offender supervisors and personal officers should be clarified to ensure they contribute to reducing or minimising a prisoner’s risk of harm, with specific emphasis on the ongoing assessment of prisoner risk factors and reinforcement of previously learned skills. They should have appropriate training to fulfil this role.
HMP Kingston 16 Section 1: Arrival in custody
Courts, escorts and transfers
Expected outcomes: Prisoners travel in safe, decent conditions to and from court and between prisons. During movement the individual needs of prisoners are recognised and given proper attention.
1.1 We saw positive relations between prisoners and escorting staff, and prisoners were generally satisfied with their experience of the escort contractor.
1.2 Escort staff had respectful relationships with prisoners and effective relationships with prison staff. Information about prisoners was shared systematically. Prisoner escort records were properly completed. All arrivals were planned and generally received as expected, and late arrivals were rare. The cellular vehicles we inspected were especially clean and had appropriate space for prisoners’ property.
1.3 Prisoners were transferred in from prisons across England and Wales and some journeys were over two hours. Despite this, most prisoners reported a reasonable experience. In our survey, 73% of respondents against a comparator of 64% felt well treated by escort staff, 64% against 52% said the cleanliness of vans was good, 95% against 88% said their property arrived at the same time as they did, and 93% against 87% said that they knew they were transferring to Kingston. Prisoners transferring from Kingston were given advance notice of planned transfers.
First days in custody
Expected outcomes: Prisoners feel safe on their reception into prison and for the first few days. Their individual needs, both during and after custody, are identified and plans developed to provide help. During a prisoner’s induction into the prison he/she is made aware of prison routines, how to access available services and how to cope with imprisonment.
1.4 Reception was clean, bright and welcoming. Engagement between staff and prisoners was good and new arrivals were generally processed quickly. First night arrangements were sound and most prisoners felt safe. Induction provided useful and relevant information and gave prisoners the opportunity to familiarise themselves with the regime at Kingston.
Reception
1.5 All new arrivals were planned, and throughput of prisoners was low – between February and July 2010 only 45 prisoners had been transferred into Kingston. Although reception was not routinely open during lunchtime, staffing arrangements were flexible if prisoners were expected at this time and very few prisoners had to wait on vehicles for significant periods. Although the distance from escort vehicles to reception was short, prisoners were routinely handcuffed, which was disproportionate.
HMP Kingston 17 1.6 The reception area had undergone significant refurbishment since the last inspection and communal areas were bright, clean and welcoming. Holding rooms contained reading material and the most-used room had a television but prisoners were generally moved through reception so quickly – usually no longer than 90 minutes – they had no need to use the facilities. Sightlines were good and supervision appropriate.
1.7 New arrivals were strip-searched sensitively. In our survey, 87% of respondents said that they were searched respectfully, against the 74% comparator. It was appropriate that prisoners returning to Kingston from external escorts were only strip-searched if intelligence suggested this was necessary.
1.8 Procedures to process prisoners and the attitudes of staff working in reception were particularly good. In our survey, 86% of respondents said they felt well treated by reception staff, against the comparator of 71%. Officers were respectful and aware of the potential risks to new arrivals. A comprehensive induction policy, covering first night arrangements, effectively directed officers on new arrivals’ initial needs and safety.
1.9 There was a small but functional interview room for private interviews with both reception and health care staff. Prisoners’ personal details were recorded, initial cell sharing risk assessments were completed and their initial prison induction pack was commenced. Prisoners were given a comprehensive information booklet about Kingston.
1.10 Prisoners’ personal possessions were treated with respect, and they were usually able to access their property on their day of arrival. However, we observed an occasion when there were several new arrivals who were given just what they requested for the first evening and the full process of issuing property was completed the following day.
1.11 A Listener was employed as the full-time reception orderly but he was not easily identifiable, and we observed little engagement with new arrivals.
1.12 Canteen packs for smokers and non-smokers were available in reception and routinely offered to all new arrivals.
Recommendation
1.13 Handcuffs should only be used for prisoners moving between reception and escort vehicles on the basis of an individual risk assessment.
Housekeeping point
1.14 The Listener in reception should be easily identifiable to new arrivals.
First night
1.15 New arrivals were mostly located in one of the three designated induction cells on D wing, which was a normal wing. These cells were only basically equipped and not particularly welcoming but prisoners were moved from them quickly. Prisoners said they felt unable to settle as they knew they would be moving after a short period.
1.16 Two dedicated induction officers completed comprehensive first night assessments and were covered by a senior officer if they were unavailable. Interviews took place in private in
HMP Kingston 18 reception or on the wing on the first evening. A further checklist completed within 24 hours ensured that information about a range of rules, regime, facilities and services had also been explained. Any concerns highlighted were logged on case notes and forwarded to the relevant department for action. All records were held in a folder which also contained induction information and on completion was filed in the offender management unit (OMU).
1.17 The induction orderly introduced himself to new arrivals on their first evening, gave them a tour of the prison and talked them through the rules, regime and facilities. Prisoners were allowed to associate, take showers and began to familiarise themselves with the prison in a very relaxed environment. They were allowed to make a free telephone call on request, supervised by a member of staff.
1.18 In our survey, 90% of all respondents said they felt safe on their first night, against the comparator of 80%, but only 72% of respondents from a black or minority ethnic background said they felt safe on their first night, compared with 94% of white prisoners.
Recommendation
1.19 New arrivals should be allocated straight to their allocated longer-term accommodation to support them to settle more quickly.
Induction
1.20 Induction commenced shortly after arrival. As well as the information booklet provided in reception, new arrivals received information from reception and first night staff, a peer supporter and their personal officer, who introduced themselves at the earliest opportunity. In our survey, only 82% of respondents, against the comparator of 91%, said that they had been on induction, although this was significantly better than the 69% at the last full inspection in 2005. Despite this, aspects of the induction were recorded on a checklist and we were assured that induction took place for all new arrivals.
1.21 The induction programme differed from what we usually see but it included all relevant information. Induction was provided on an individual basis, and each prisoner was expected to seek out the staff and assessments he required – including education and gym assessments – within a two-week period. There was good staff support and encouragement for this process and the two dedicated induction officers maintained a database which demonstrated that prisoners had completed all aspects of the programme. Prisoners were unlocked during gaps in the induction programme and could apply to receive protected earnings of £15 a week.
Housekeeping point
1.22 Prisoners should automatically receive protected earnings during their induction period without having to make an application.
HMP Kingston 19
HMP Kingston 20 Section 2: Environment and relationships
Residential units
Expected outcomes: Prisoners live in a safe, clean and decent environment within which they are encouraged to take personal responsibility for themselves and their possessions.
2.1 Residential units were bright and clean, and outside areas were attractive and well used. Accommodation was maintained to a good standard. Association equipment was well maintained and well used. Clothing and laundry arrangements were reasonable. Access to bathing facilities was good, but some showers were in a poor state of repair with limited privacy.
Accommodation and facilities
2.2 Four residential units radiated from a central hub where there was the main office. A, C and D wings were not separated and prisoners could move freely between them during unlock. E wing housed category C prisoners who could also move freely around the residential units, but entry on to E wing was restricted and subject to risk assessment. Outside areas were clean, attractive, well maintained and well used.
2.3 There was no overcrowding and the standard of accommodation was good. Communal areas were clean and bright and wing cleaners maintained a high standard of cleanliness. All cells were single accommodation with integral sanitation and were well equipped and maintained to a good standard. Toilets were appropriately screened but many were dirty and needed a deep clean.
2.4 A full-size snooker table in the centre could be used by all prisoners. In addition there was a pool table on each wing, a darts board on A wing, a games cupboard with a range of board games, and a DVD channel. There were sufficient tables and chairs for prisoners to dine in association.
2.5 The environment and facilities on E wing were appreciated by the small number of prisoners who lived there. Some of the accommodation was shared in a dormitory style but had appropriate privacy, adequate space and natural light and was a pleasant environment. There was no integral sanitation but bathrooms and toilets were available on each landing 24 hours a day and were clean and well equipped. Prisoners on E wing could use all association equipment on the main wings and also had their own table tennis, table football, pool table, well-stocked book shelves, communal television room and small kitchenette.
2.6 The offensive display policy was up to date and consistently applied by staff. Notice boards on the wings were well maintained with up-to-date information about current policies. A newly fitted television on the centre was also used to convey information to prisoners.
2.7 In our survey, 63% of respondents said that cell bells were answered within five minutes, which was significantly better than the comparator of 43% but significantly worse than the 77% in 2005. There was no electronic record of emergency cell call bells and managers did not
HMP Kingston 21 routinely monitor response times, but we were assured that staff responded promptly and appropriately.
2.8 Residential units were generally calm and quiet, and were peaceful at night. In our survey, 88% of respondents said that the prison was quiet at night, against the comparator of 72%.
2.9 Incoming and outgoing mail was processed efficiently. Mail monitoring was undertaken by operational support grades who maintained appropriate records of the reasons for the monitoring. The names of prisoners who had received mail were written on the whiteboard in the centre and it was their responsibility to collect their letters.
2.10 There were two telephones on each wing. Although this did not meet our expectation of one to every 20 prisoners on A, C and D wings, we observed no queues and prisoners told us that the number was sufficient and access good. Telephones on A, C and D wings were in booths and those on E wing were fitted with hoods, which offered a level of privacy.
2.11 Regular consultation with prisoners took place at the monthly amenities committee. There appeared to be no standing agenda but prisoners could suggest agenda items. Minutes of the meetings gave assurance that issues discussed were managed appropriately.
Housekeeping point
2.12 All toilets should be de-scaled and a programme for regular de-scaling should be introduced.
Clothing and possessions
2.13 All prisoners could wear their own clothes. A central laundry provided twice-weekly opportunities for personal clothing and bedding to be washed and dried. There was a washing machine and tumble drier on E wing for prisoners to launder their own clothes, but at the time of the inspection the washing machine had been out of order for almost a month. There were appropriate alternative arrangements with the central laundry, but these did not allow prisoners to wash their clothes personally. The bath house on D wing and annex on A wing had facilities for prisoners to hand wash and dry clothes and bedding.
2.14 The facilities list was appropriate and allowed possessions to be bought through the prison shop or catalogues or to be sent in as part of a twice-yearly clothing parcel. There were no systems in reception to deal with stored property. To exchange property, prisoners had to hand out unwanted or surplus items on visits, send them to the Prison Service central store at Branston, dispose of them or donate them to a charity bag in reception.
Housekeeping point
2.15 The washing machine on E wing should be repaired.
Hygiene
2.16 Standards of cell cleanliness were consistently good. Cleaning materials were readily accessible and in our survey 90% of respondents said that they had good access to cleaning materials, against the comparator of 79%.
HMP Kingston 22 2.17 Prison-issue bedding could be exchanged weekly. Prison clothes were not exchanged but were permitted to be washed with personal laundry. In our survey, 85% of respondents said that they could receive clean sheets weekly, against the comparator of 63%, and 70% against 53% said they were offered enough clean clothes.
2.18 The centre office held a good stock of toiletries which were supplied readily to prisoners on request. There were adequate facilities for prisoners to shower and bathe and we were assured that access was good. Although the baths and showers were clean, some showers were in a poor state of repair, poorly decorated and offered limited privacy.
Recommendations
2.19 Showers that are in a poor state of repair should be refurbished.
2.20 Prisoners should be able to shower in private.
Staff-prisoner relationships
Expected outcomes: Prisoners are treated respectfully by staff, throughout the duration of their custodial sentence, and are encouraged to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Healthy prisons should demonstrate a well-ordered environment in which the requirements of security, control and justice are balanced and in which all members of the prison community are safe and treated with fairness.
2.21 Staff-prisoner relationships were mutually respectful. Most prisoners were positive about staff, and there was an impressive level of staff engagement with and support of prisoners. First names were routinely used. The interaction between staff and prisoners during association was relaxed and confident.
2.22 Staff were uniformly positive in their approach to their work with the life-sentenced prisoners at Kingston. They saw their role as supporting prisoners through the range of issues likely to affect them as they served lengthy parts of their sentence. Staff had a good knowledge of the prisoners throughout the prison, not just those for whom they were personal or wing officers.
2.23 Staff were respectful in the language they used to prisoners and modelled good behaviour in their engagement with them. We saw some relaxed and confident staff who interacted well with prisoners and kept an unobtrusive but attentive presence around the wings and outside areas. Exchanges between staff, prisoners and visitors were constructive and good humoured. Titles or preferred names were commonly used for both staff and prisoners. In our survey, significantly more respondents than the comparator (86% against 73%) said that most staff treated them with respect. However, only 65% of black and minority ethnic respondents, compared with 90% of white, said most staff treated them with respect (see paragraph 4.14).
2.24 The interaction between staff and prisoners we observed was very positive. Staff were respectful in approaching prisoners in their accommodation, and some knocked on doors before entering. The vast majority of prisoners and staff enjoyed good relationships and knew each other well and some more vulnerable prisoners clearly relied heavily on staff support. Prisoners said there were just a minority of staff they avoided as unapproachable or unhelpful. During the inspection, some staff joined prisoners in playing games during association and
HMP Kingston 23 talked with them during exercise. Even when staff were located in offices, they were immediately responsive to prisoners’ questions and requests. The atmosphere was extremely relaxed and easy. The visibility of senior managers was reasonable and prisoners clearly knew the senior management team.
2.25 Staff actively engaged prisoners in the importance of attending activities and addressing sentence planning targets, which were also key considerations for advancement on the incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme. Attendance and punctuality at education, work and vocational training were reasonable (see section on learning and skills).
2.26 Staff were good at explaining the standards of behaviour expected of prisoners and enforcing rules. This was done positively with an emphasis on the positive behaviour that needed to be demonstrated, and prisoners were given several opportunities to comply with the standards expected. Given the good level of staff knowledge of and engagement with prisoners, there was scope for some more in-depth work on risk factors (see sections on strategic management of resettlement and offender management and planning).
Personal officers
Expected outcomes: Prisoners’ relationships with their personal officers are based on mutual respect, high expectations and support.
2.27 The personal officer scheme was working well. Most prisoners found their allocated personal officer helpful. Residential staff were allocated a caseload as personal officers and demonstrated good engagement with a variety of issues affecting their prisoners. Prisoners usually turned to their personal officers in the first instance and found them responsive.
2.28 The personal officer scheme was effective and both staff and prisoners engaged well with it. A ‘personal officer roles and responsibilities’ document had been reviewed in May 2010 but had essentially continued a scheme which was working well. It had been supplemented by a personal officer strategy, which emphasised the links between personal officers and sentence management.
2.29 In our survey, significantly more respondents than the comparator (97% compared with 82%) said they had a personal officer, and more also said they found them helpful (72% compared with 59%). In our groups and individually, the vast majority of prisoners could not only name their personal officer but were complimentary about them and their role. Most said they would always go to their personal officer in the first instance and would wait for them to be on duty, even if they were absent on leave, unless the matter was urgent.
2.30 Personal officers were allocated to prisoners before they arrived at Kingston and kept their caseload irrespective of cell location. The nominated personal officer was not always on duty when their newly allocated prisoner arrived. There was no shadow officer to cover when nominated personal officers were on leave. This meant that case notes were not always kept up to date and prisoners could go some time without contact with their personal officer.
2.31 The personal officers we spoke to knew a good deal about the prisoners on their caseload and about the population in general, so felt confident to deal with issues on behalf of colleagues. There was some good quality paperwork for sentence planning boards, parole dossiers and
HMP Kingston 24 IEP consideration. Comments in the electronic records we viewed were generally of a reasonable standard, although usually monthly despite the change of policy to fortnightly. One prisoner who had arrived at Kingston at the beginning of June 2010 had no personal officer comments on his file, despite a management check that had picked this up and required it to be rectified.
2.32 The majority of the 25 wing history sheets we sampled showed some knowledge of prisoners’ personal circumstances, ranging from deaths of relatives to visits by friends, as well as where public protection issues affected contact with families. In conversation, staff showed a good knowledge of issues currently relevant to those on their caseload.
Recommendations
2.33 The personal officers allocated to new arrivals should be on duty within 24 hours of the prisoner’s arrival and introduce themselves and explain their role and responsibilities.
2.34 Personal officers should make at least twice-monthly entries in the history sheets of prisoners on their caseload.
Housekeeping points
2.35 The personal officer roles and responsibilities and personal officer engagement continuous strategy documents should be pulled together into one guidance document for staff.
2.36 A shadow personal officer should be allocated to cover when the nominated personal officer is absent.
HMP Kingston 25
HMP Kingston 26 Section 3: Duty of care
Bullying and violence reduction
Expected outcomes: Everyone feels safe from bullying and victimisation (which includes verbal and racial abuse, theft, threats of violence and assault). Active and fair systems to prevent and respond to violence and intimidation are known to staff, prisoners and visitors, and inform all aspects of the regime.
3.1 The violence reduction policy was comprehensive and was explained to prisoners during induction. A team of staff and violence reduction prisoner representatives supported the safer custody coordinator. A safer custody database showed good information sharing across the prison. The incidence of physical violence was low and fewer prisoners than in comparator prisons reported feeling unsafe. The prison endeavoured to consult with prisoners about violence and bullying. Investigations into reported incidents varied in quality. Recorded reviews of open violence reduction dossiers were limited. Victim support plans lacked sufficient detail. There was an intervention for prisoners on stage two of the anti-bullying scheme.
3.2 The violence reduction policy had been reviewed in March 2010. The document was comprehensive and user friendly, and was understood by staff and prisoners. Safer custody matters were explained during induction and included in the induction information booklet. The induction orderly who saw all new arrivals (see paragraph 1.17) was also a violence reduction prisoner representative. There was a designated safer custody notice board in the residential area, and safer custody information was also displayed on the television in the centre.
3.3 The full-time safer custody coordinator oversaw both violence reduction and suicide and self- harm matters (see suicide and self-harm section). The coordinator was assisted by four residential violence reduction officers and three prisoner representatives. Prisoner representatives had job descriptions and signed a compact, and their photographs were displayed on the safer custody notice board. The representatives we spoke to were motivated and clearly understood their roles and responsibilities. They met the safer custody coordinator each month before the safer custody team meeting, which they attended and participated in.
3.4 The safer custody coordinator maintained a comprehensive database of all potential indicators of violence and incidents. The database demonstrated that information about violence and bullying was obtained from a range of appropriate resources around the prison, including directly from staff and prisoners, the race equality officer, security and observation books. Unexplained injuries were investigated.
3.5 A monthly report was provided to the safer custody team and the data was used actively. For example, the prison had responded to recent concerns from prisoners about access to the servery at meal times and had introduced a rota. Prisoners could report bullying confidentially through an unacceptable behaviour report (UBR). Forms were readily available and could be returned to a designated locked box on the centre. Records showed that the number of submitted UBRs had reduced significantly from 24 in 2009 to one in 2010. Managers and violence reduction representatives attributed this reduction to the raised profile of violence reduction representatives and the violence reduction policy. It was evident from the violent reduction database that prisoners were reporting incidents of concern to staff.
HMP Kingston 27 3.6 Reported incidents of physical violence were low at three in 2010 to date and six in 2009. The violence reduction database showed that most reported incidents of bullying related to verbal threats and name calling. In our survey, only 10% of respondents, against the comparator of 19%, said they felt unsafe currently. Although the proportion of respondents who said they had ever felt unsafe was close to the comparator at just over a third, this was significantly worse than the 21% at the 2005 inspection.
3.7 Violence reduction liaison officers investigated alleged incidents. The completed investigations we sampled varied significantly in quality – although some were detailed and thorough, others were perfunctory and did not demonstrate sufficient exploration of the incident. Completed investigations were returned to the safer custody coordinator but there was no formal quality assurance.
3.8 The establishment operated a three-stage anti-bullying system. On stage one, prisoners were monitored for 28 days with weekly reviews. On stage two, the prisoner’s incentives and earned privileges (IEP) status was reviewed and regime restrictions considered. For example, if the bullying had occurred at work, the prisoner could be removed from the work party. All prisoners placed on stage two were allowed just one-hour gym each week irrespective of whether the incident had occurred in the gym, which was unnecessarily punitive. The psychology department had recently developed a flexible intervention, based on a cognitive behaviour therapy approach, which could be tailored to address a range of behaviour. Work had also begun to develop a victim support programme based on similar principles. Prisoners placed on stage three could be downgraded to basic regime, located in the segregation unit or considered for transfer from the prison. Records showed that during the first seven months of 2010, 12 prisoners were placed on stage one, one prisoner on stage two and 10 victim support plans were opened. No prisoners were, or had been, on stage three.
3.9 There were four violence reduction reports open at the time of the inspection. Two prisoners were being monitored on stage one following a fight in the workshop, one prisoner was on stage two and there was one victim support plan. Recorded reviews of these documents were perfunctory and did not indicate engagement with the prisoner. This was also the case for daily entries in monitoring logs, which were frequently too observational. In one report the same entry, ‘came to work, no problems’, was entered for five consecutive days (see recommendation 3.26). The victim support plans we viewed were limited and lacked sufficient detail about the support to be provided. For example, in one closed victim support plan the support to be provided was ‘to move cells and [be] given victim support’. We spoke to the prisoner who described not feeling supported while the plan was open.
3.10 There had been a recent violence reduction survey which had been analysed by Portsmouth University but the return rate was very low with only 15 questionnaires completed. Nine respondents said they had been bullied. The prison had also convened a violence reduction forum in a further attempt to consult more prisoners but attendance was very poor. The safer custody team was planning a safer custody fair for November 2010 to encourage more prisoners to engage with the consultation process.
Recommendations
3.11 Managers should regularly monitor anti-bullying investigations to ensure these are consistent and evidence robust enquiry into the alleged incident.
3.12 Prisoners placed on stage two of the anti-bullying scheme should not automatically have their gym restricted to one session a week.
HMP Kingston 28 Housekeeping point
3.13 Victim support plans should clearly state the support to be provided.
Self-harm and suicide
Expected outcomes: Prisons work to reduce the risks of self-harm and suicide through a whole-prison approach. Prisoners at risk of self-harm or suicide are identified at an early stage, and a care and support plan is drawn up, implemented and monitored. Prisoners who have been identified as vulnerable are encouraged to participate in all purposeful activity. All staff are aware of and alert to vulnerability issues, are appropriately trained and have access to proper equipment and support.
3.14 The monthly safer custody team meeting was well attended and included prisoner representatives. Reported incidents of self-harm were low. Assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) procedures were generally satisfactory. Case reviews were multidisciplinary and goals identified in care maps were usually appropriate. Care maps were updated at reviews. The quality of daily observations varied but there was some good engagement. Listeners felt supported by the prison and had free access to those in need.
3.15 The suicide and self-harm prevention policy had been reviewed in July 2010. The document provided guidance for staff on structures to support the care of prisoners and their individual responsibilities, particularly with regard to the assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) self-harm monitoring procedures. The prison also had a continuous improvement plan, which was regularly reviewed and updated.
3.16 Regular ACCT refresher training was delivered, and at the time of the inspection 90% of staff had received training within the last three years. Night staff we spoke to were trained in ACCT procedures, carried anti-ligature knives and were confident about procedures to enter a cell in the case of an emergency during the night.
3.17 All suicide and self-harm issues were managed through the monthly safer custody team meeting. The meeting was attended by a representative from the local Samaritans as well as by Listeners. The safer custody coordinator provided monitoring data to enable the team to identify any patterns or trends.
3.18 There had been 11 ACCTs opened in 2010 to the date of the inspection, broadly in line with the number opened in 2009. There had been eight incidents of self-harm in the first seven months of 2010. There were two open ACCT documents at the time of the inspection. We reviewed these documents and a sample of closed documents. The quality of ACCTs was satisfactory. Case reviews were appropriately multidisciplinary and evidenced a commitment to ensure continuity of case manager. Care maps were usually appropriate and were updated at case reviews. Prisoners attended reviews and were engaged in the process. Although we saw some good evidence of engagement in daily monitoring records, other entries were observational. (See recommendation 3.26.)Timings of required observations at night were sometimes too predictable. Post-closure reviews were routinely completed and filed in closed ACCT documents. There were regular management checks of ACCTs with written comments to help improve practice.
HMP Kingston 29 3.19 There had been one death in custody at Kingston since the previous inspection. The investigation into the death was ongoing.
3.20 There were six Listeners at the time of the inspection. They were each responsible for undertaking the post of Listener coordinator for a six-month period on a rota. One Listener worked in reception and saw all new arrivals (see paragraph 1.11). Listeners told us they were supported by prison staff and the Samaritans, with whom they met fortnightly. Listeners were confident that they had full access to all prisoners in need. The suicide and self-harm policy included a protocol for the use of Listeners. This stipulated that prisoners in the segregation unit could only see a Listener during the night in exceptional circumstances and with the approval of the duty governor, and only through the closed cell door; this was inappropriate. If the circumstances were not exceptional, the prisoner was offered the use of the Samaritans telephone. We found an entry in a closed ACCT where the prisoner had been in the segregation unit for approximately two hours in the late evening and had requested a Listener but had been told this was not possible. There was no record that his individual circumstances had been considered or that a risk assessment had been conducted. The prisoner was returned to normal location very shortly afterwards under the authorisation of the duty governor.
3.21 There was a Listener suite on C wing and a safer cell on D wing. The suite was clean and equipped with a television and tea-making facilities. There were clear protocols for the use of the safer cell and records indicated it was seldom used. The prison also had a gated constant watch cell in the bath house area.
3.22 Prisoners could telephone the Samaritans free of charge through the PIN (personal identification number) telephone system and also had access to a prison telephone line to the Samaritans in a small room on D wing.
3.23 The prison had recently introduced and publicised a single point of contact for visitors and prisoners’ family and friends to report safer custody issues but it was too early to ascertain its effectiveness.
Recommendations
3.24 Night observations of prisoners on ACCTs should be at irregular intervals and not be predictable.
3.25 Prisoners in the segregation unit should be able to have face-to-face contact with a Listener, including during the night.
3.26 Staff observing prisoners on violence reduction measures or assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) self-harm monitoring should engage with these prisoners and show evidence of such engagement in the relevant monitoring records.
Applications and complaints
Expected outcomes: Effective application and complaint procedures are in place, are easy to access, easy to use and provide timely responses. Prisoners feel safe from repercussions when using these procedures and are aware of an appeal procedure.
HMP Kingston 30 3.27 Prisoners had good access to application and complaint forms. There were some unacceptable delays in responses to applications and some answers were too often perfunctory. Responses to complaints were generally polite and timely and quality assurance was very good.
3.28 Prisoners had very good access to application forms. The prison used a quadruplicate application form with a unique reference number, which meant that prisoners were given a receipt. All applications were logged centrally and copies of completed applications were filed. Despite this, we were concerned about the number of applications that remained unanswered for more than five days, and the perfunctory nature of some responses. A quality assurance system had been introduced in June 2010 to address some of the concerns about application forms but it had not yet made any significant impact.
3.29 Complaint forms were readily available although envelopes for confidential complaints were not at the time of the inspection. Complaints were collected and processed by the complaint clerk. Only 260 complaints had been submitted in the previous six months. Responses were generally polite, answered the issues raised and were timely. There was a well-established quality assurance system for complaints, and governance arrangements were very good. Complaints were discussed monthly by the senior management team and there was trend analysis. Data for the previous six months suggested no apparent trends or patterns.
Recommendation
3.30 The number of applications that remain unanswered for more than five days should be reduced and the quality of responses should be improved.
Housekeeping point
3.31 Envelopes for confidential complaint forms should be readily available.
Legal rights
Expected outcomes: Prisoners are told about their legal rights during induction, and can freely exercise these rights while in prison.
3.32 Two untrained legal services officers responded to enquiries about legal advice. The ‘access to information’ scheme offered IT support for appellants. The library had an appropriate range of legal reference books, and legal visits were readily accessible.
3.33 Two staff were designated as legal services officers, and a previous legal services officer was still responsible for access to IT support for prisoners undertaking appeals. Prisoners were told about this support on induction, and notice boards on the centre advertised the staff and other basic information. The designated staff were not formally trained but had learned from the previous postholder and referred some cases to him if needed. Although the legal services officers had no specified time when they were available, they had the flexibility to deal with applications as they arose and there was no backlog. They covered the full range of advice
HMP Kingston 31 and had lists of specialist legal advisers for foreign national prisoners and those undertaking appeals and fighting civil cases. They supported prisoners with the reading, writing or understanding of material if needed. There was no family support worker but prisoners were given information about child care proceedings when necessary.
3.34 There were 44 appellants at the time of the inspection. They had access to special letters if necessary and computers through the ‘access to information’ scheme. The library stocked relevant and up-to-date legal reference books and the mandatory list of Prison Service Orders. Legal visits were available four days a week. In our survey, prisoners were positive about access to their solicitor.
Recommendation
3.35 Legal services officers should be trained to carry out their role.
Faith and religious activity
Expected outcomes: All prisoners are able to practise their religion fully and in safety. The chaplaincy plays a full part in prison life and contributes to prisoners' overall, care, support and resettlement.
3.36 Access to the chapel was difficult for prisoners with mobility problems and attendance at services was low. Facilities for Muslim prisoners were limited and there was no dedicated Muslim chaplain. Additional activities were minimal, and the involvement of a chaplain for prisoners suffering a bereavement was inconsistent.
3.37 The chaplaincy was staffed by one full-time Anglican chaplain assisted by a part-time Catholic chaplain. There was no permanent Muslim chaplain to cater for the 11% of prisoners who were Muslim; during the previous 12 months, a mixture of locum Muslim chaplains and prisoners had been used to lead Friday prayers (see recommendation 3.40). A Sikh chaplain attended the prison twice a month for the small number of practising Sikhs, the Hindu chaplain was not able to visit the prison often and there was no Buddhist provision. A Jewish chaplain was available on call for Jewish prisoners. A Quaker chaplain ran three groups a month, open to all faiths.
3.38 There were two Sunday services for Catholic and Anglican prisoners, although attendance was low at an average of eight prisoners at each. The chapel was small but adequate, although access was difficult for those with mobility problems. Although the chaplain visited cells of prisoners with mobility problems and offered communion, there was no provision for corporate worship for these prisoners. An average of 10 prisoners attended Friday prayers, approximately half of Muslim prisoners. There was no dedicated multi-faith room for Friday prayers, which took place in a room shared with the OMU. This room was occasionally used for parole hearings on Friday afternoons, which meant that Friday prayers had been delayed while a suitable venue was sought. There was a weekly Bible studies class but few prisoners attended this. A dedicated notice board in the centre was up to date and informed prisoners of festivals, services and weekly classes.
3.39 The Anglican chaplain was visible throughout the prison and prisoners said he was approachable. Prisoners who made applications to see him were dealt with in private. He also
HMP Kingston 32 attended sentence planning boards and made contributions. He was involved when a prisoner had a bereavement but this was sometimes several days after the prison or the prisoner had been informed.
Recommendations
3.40 Chaplains should be available to meet the needs of all faiths represented in the prison.
3.41 There should be weekly services in a suitable venue for prisoners who have difficulty in accessing the chapel.
3.42 There should be a suitable multi-faith room for Friday prayers.
3.43 A chaplain should be available to support a bereaved prisoner within 24 hours of notification.
Substance use
Expected outcomes: Prisoners with substance-related needs, including alcohol, are identified at reception and receive effective treatment and support throughout their stay in custody. All prisoners are safe from exposure to and the effects of substance use while in prison.
3.44 The integrated drug treatment system (IDTS) was not yet in place, as clinical protocols and the recruitment of two nurses were to be finalised. There were few illegal drugs in the prison. Mandatory drug testing (MDT) rates were low and showed a fall in the previous illicit use of prescribed medication. The waiting area for MDT was impressive and well equipped. Although there were few suspicion tests, they returned a high positive rate.
Clinical management
3.45 The integrated drug treatment system (IDTS) was not yet in place though preparations were under way. At the time of the inspection, no opiate substitutes were prescribed. Following the finalisation of clinical protocols, the local health care trust was due to recruit one band five and one band six nurse. The IDTS was planned to work with 10 to 15 patients a year, with a small proportion expected to be relapsing secondary presentations from within the existing population. In our survey, only 3% of respondents, against a comparator of 8%, said they had developed a drug problem in the prison.
Drug testing
3.46 The diversion of prescribed medication had been a significant problem although there were robust protocols to deal with prisoners doing so. Indications were that the problem was diminishing. The positive random mandatory drug testing (MDT) rate was very low and an improvement on the previous year. In the six months to July 2010, the positive random MDT rate was 0.88%, against a target of 5%.
HMP Kingston 33 3.47 The low availability of illicit drugs was confirmed in our prisoner focus groups and by our survey, in which only 22% of respondents, against the comparator of 30%, said that it was easy to get drugs in the prison. While it was clear that improvements in prescribing policies had contributed to a reduction in the diversion of prescribed opiates, a few prisoners felt that drugs like gabapentin (used to treat epilepsy), for which there was no test, could still be subject to diversion.
3.48 The target for completing 14% of random MDT tests at weekends was exceeded in every month last year, except one when it fell below.
3.49 The MDT suite was clean and appropriately equipped. The holding room was very relaxed, with easy chairs, a good stock of reading materials and useful information on drugs and CARAT (counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare) services.
3.50 At the time of the inspection we were told that there had been seven suspicion tests in the six months to July 2010 with an acceptable positive rate of 57.1%. At the time of the inspection, four prisoners were on a frequent testing programme. Three tests had been conducted in the six months to July 2010 with no positive test results.
3.51 There were two drug dog handlers, with one active and one passive dog each. All legal mail was checked by the active dogs. Cell searches took place on a four-month cycle.
Good practice
3.52 The holding room in the mandatory drug testing (MDT) suite had a very relaxed atmosphere and was a respectful and friendly environment.
HMP Kingston 34 Section 4: Diversity
Expected outcomes: All establishments should be aware of and meet the specific needs of minority groups and implement distinct policies or action plans, which aim to represent their views, meet their needs and offer peer support to ensure all prisoners have equal access to all facilities. Multiple diversity needs should be recognised and met.
4.1 The prison had a sound foundation for diversity work supported by a diversity race equality officer and a well-trained staff group. The work of the diversity race equality action team was predominantly race-focused and some of the other elements of diversity were underdeveloped.
4.2 There was an overarching diversity policy document although several references were staff- specific. The document contained information on the prison’s legal obligations for all strands of diversity, with sub-sections on disability, older prisoners and sexual orientation. There was a separate policy for race equality, religion and foreign nationals. Although the diversity policy identified a number of issues, in a few instances it offered no solution. A further supporting diversity race equality action plan had identified 18 action points for work by the establishment although some of these were similar. The diversity policy document was not available to prisoners.
4.3 A full-time diversity race equality officer (DREO) reported directly to the deputy governor. His role was to cover all the strands of diversity except older prisoners, which was nurse-led, and religion, which was led by the chaplain. Prisoners said that the DREO was readily available and they had confidence in him. The DREO was also the race equality officer and foreign national coordinator. He was supported by three staff and 10 prisoner diversity representatives.
4.4 A bimonthly diversity race equality action team (DREAT) meeting was well attended by the governor and/or deputy governor, managers, prisoners and community volunteers. The agenda was primarily focused on race equality and foreign nationals and did not cover other diversity strands.
4.5 The prison had developed a buddy system for prisoners with disabilities, older prisoners and foreign nationals. At the time of inspection, there were three buddies, one of whom who was paid for his role; the other two carried out a more minor role and were unpaid, and were unaware they might be eligible to be paid.
4.6 The prison had trained 83% of staff in ‘challenge it, change it’ diversity training. A diversity awareness day in 2009, held in partnership with Portsmouth Race Equality Network Organisation, had been well received by staff and a further day was planned for late 2010.
4.7 The prison had carried out four single equality impact assessments on access to education, allocation to labour, the incentives and earned privileges scheme and accommodation. Prisoners were involved in the process through focus groups and any subsequent actions identified were logged in the diversity and race equality action plan. A programme for impact assessments in other areas had been identified. However, we had some concerns about the quality of impact assessments, which did not focus on the potential impact on prisoners with learning difficulties and physical disabilities, non-English speakers and those with religious beliefs. The single equality impact assessments were externally verified by the Portsmouth Caribbean Island Association.
HMP Kingston 35 Recommendation
4.8 The diversity policy document should be updated, made prisoner-specific and link identified issues to the diversity race equality action plan. Both documents should be available to prisoners.
Housekeeping point
4.9 The bimonthly diversity race equality action team (DREAT) meeting agenda should cover all aspects of diversity in depth.
Race equality
4.10 The DREAT covered race equality and there was a prisoner-led race equality advisory group. Community links were well developed and external verification of processes was well established. There were few racist incident reports and the quality of their investigation was good. Black and minority ethnic prisoners had more negative perceptions of their treatment than white prisoners, which the prison needed to investigate.
4.11 About a fifth of the population were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. There was a good range of information on race and race equality on notice boards throughout the prison, including photographs and names of staff and prisoner diversity representatives. There was a comprehensive and concise race equality strategy, although no copy was available for prisoners.
4.12 The DREO, who was also responsible for race equality, was well known throughout the prison and very accessible. The well-attended bimonthly DREAT meeting (see paragraph 4.4) covered race equality. There was a monthly prisoner-led race equality advisory group, attended by the DREO, with an informal agenda. Issues raised by prisoners were dealt with by the DREO or taken forward to the DREAT.
4.13 The DREAT monitored SMART (systematic monitoring and analysing of race equality treatment) ethnic monitoring data but only included the mandatory fields. The data was analysed over a yearly basis to identify any emerging patterns or trends. Black and minority ethnic prisoners were within the specified ranges during the previous 12 months, except for adjudications, where they were below range for two months, recategorisation, where they were above range for one month, and complaints, where they were over the anticipated range for four consecutive months. Although the DREO indicated that the DREAT had discussed the data outside the ranges, the minutes of the DREAT did not reflect this.
4.14 In our diversity survey, prisoners from a black and minority ethnic background responded more negatively than white prisoners in several areas. For example, 65%, against 90%, said most staff treated them with respect, 17%, against none, said they had been victimised by other prisoners because of their race or ethnic origin, and 23%, against 1%, said they had been victimised by staff because of their race or ethnic origin. Black and minority ethnic prisoners in our focus groups and those we spoke to individually felt more discriminated against than their white counterparts. In 2010, 30.7% of target searches based on intelligence supplied by staff were carried out on black and minority ethnic prisoners although they made up only 19% of prisoners, which was disproportionate.
HMP Kingston 36 Housekeeping points
4.15 DREAT minutes should include a summary of investigations into ethnic monitoring (SMART) data that falls outside the anticipated ranges.
4.16 The race equality strategy should be available to prisoners.
Managing racist incidents
4.17 There was an adequate supply of racist incident report forms (RIRFs) on the centre and in the E wing association room. The DREO emptied the box every weekday. In 2009, 36 RIRFs had been submitted, with the same number in the first seven months of 2010. However, 20 of the 2010 complaints had been submitted by two prisoners and not all had a racist aspect. All the RIRFs were investigated initially by the DREO and analysed by the governor to see if further disciplinary investigations were required.
4.18 The DREAT discussed the RIRFs submitted in the previous two months with an overview of incidents. The meeting analysed RIRFs and the DREO kept a database to analyse patterns and trends.
4.19 RIRFs were usually dealt with in a timely manner. The complainant was sent a letter at the end of the investigation detailing the findings and outcomes. Some prisoners told us that they felt that the RIRF process was not taken seriously by the prison, and there was no feedback for complainants to air their views.
4.20 We reviewed all the 2010 RIRFs and found the level of investigation to be appropriate and evidence-based. All the RIRFs had been countersigned by the governor or deputy governor. RIRFs were verified externally by the Prison Service regional diversity adviser and a member of the Portsmouth Caribbean Island Association.
Recommendation
4.21 Feedback should be gained from prisoners who have submitted racist incident report forms (RIRFs) to enable an analysis of complainants’ perception of the process, and any concerns identified should be responded to.
Race equality duty
4.22 The prison had developed a database of prisoners known or suspected of being linked to racial behaviour or intentions (see also paragraph 4.56). The database identified 17 prisoners (approximately 8.6% of the population), and staff we spoke to knew about it and how to access it.
4.23 A black and minority ethnic focus group had been set up in 2009 and had met four times. The group was chaired by the governor or other senior managers. Attendance by prisoners was poor at the outset, with an average of six prisoners attending. In 2010, the group had been extended to work alongside the development of the single equality impact assessments, and this had resulted in attendance increasing to 11 prisoners. There had been only one group meeting in 2010 to date
HMP Kingston 37 4.24 There was a good community engagement strategy and the prison had made good links with Portsmouth Caribbean Island Association, Portsmouth African Union and Portsmouth Sudanese Community, all of whom were represented on the DREAT. The prison, in conjunction with the community groups, had held a series of events to celebrate racial, ethnic and cultural diversity which had been welcomed by prisoners.
Housekeeping point
4.25 Black and minority ethnic focus group meetings should be held more frequently.
Religion
4.26 A specific policy on religion gave staff and prisoners a degree of guidance on religious and cultural matters, but there was no forum where religion was discussed.
4.27 The prison had a policy on religion which laid out how prisoners’ religion was recorded and how access to worship would be managed, including for those prisoners in the segregation unit. The policy also included staff guidance on searching prisoners of different faiths, and religious artefacts and items allowed in possession.
4.28 There was no strategy to prevent discrimination on religious or cultural grounds but work was in progress on such a strategy, which was due to be rolled out in the autumn of 2010.
4.29 A representative of the chaplaincy always attended the bimonthly DREAT, although it did not include religion as a specific agenda item.
Foreign nationals
4.30 The service provided to foreign national prisoners was good and they received regular support visits from the United Kingdom Border Agency. There had been no needs analysis in the previous 12 months.
4.31 A specific foreign national policy covered all aspects of the detention of foreign national prisoners but there was no up-to-date copy available for prisoners. Although there was no dedicated meeting to discuss foreign national issues, there was an agenda item on the bimonthly DREAT. The DREO, who was the foreign national coordinator, had received no formal training but had spent time shadowing at Haslar immigration removal centre.
4.32 There were 15 foreign national prisoners at the time of the inspection (8% of the population), who came from 11 countries. Although the prison had held a foreign national forum, foreign national prisoners indicated that they would prefer a one-to-one meeting with the foreign national coordinator as and when they required help and advice.
4.33 The United Kingdom Border Agency (UKBA) visited the prison on average once a month. Prisoners made applications to see UKBA detailing their request, which allowed UKBA staff to have relevant information to hand during the meeting. Prisoners we spoke to were content with this service.
HMP Kingston 38 4.34 All the foreign national prisoners held during the inspection spoke English. A professional interpreting service was available and had been used once during the previous 12 months. The prison kept a list of staff and prisoner interpreters, who covered nine languages. There had been no needs analysis of foreign national prisoners since early 2009. No local prison policies were available in foreign languages, although the prison had translated several policies during the previous 12 months when it had held a Tamil prisoner. The DREO said that the prison translated documents when needed.
4.35 Foreign national prisoners we spoke to said that they were content with the service given at the prison and they knew the diversity prisoner representatives who assisted foreign national prisoners. They could make an application for a free 10-minute telephone call a month but only if they had not received a domestic visit. This meant that a visit from a friend locally would rule out contact with family abroad, which was disproportionate. The governor amended this process while we were inspecting so that every foreign national prisoner could receive a free telephone call.
4.36 Foreign national prisoners could exchange unused visiting orders for telephone credits every three months, with three unused visiting orders equating to £2 credit. They also received two free airmail letters a month and could also exchange two ordinary letters for a further free airmail letter.
Recommendation
4.37 There should be an annual needs analysis of foreign national prisoners and an action plan based on the results.
Housekeeping point
4.38 An up-to-date copy of the foreign national policy should be available to prisoners.
Disability and older prisoners
4.39 Prisoners with disabilities were supported by the prison. Care plans were multidisciplinary and facilities and reasonable adjustments were good but access to some areas of the prison was poor. Identification of prisoners with disabilities was satisfactory but information available in the event of an emergency was limited. Older prisoners made up nearly one-third of the population. There were plans for a group meeting. The work in this area was nurse-led which created a health care rather than a multidisciplinary approach to the older population. Access to well man clinics was minimal and needed to allow greater participation.
4.40 There was one designated large cell with a shower and toilet that had been adapted for use by a prisoner with a disability. There was a further adapted shower and toilet on E wing. As this was a category C wing, prisoners with disabilities who were category B had to be risk assessed to use this facility, although none had been disadvantaged through this process. The prison had made reasonable adjustments for several prisoners with disabilities, for example a prisoner with dyslexia was given written information on coloured paper, grip rails had been installed in the cell of a prisoner with mobility difficulties and toilets had been adapted for an individual prisoner. There were three mobile ramps at strategic points throughout the establishment.
HMP Kingston 39 4.41 There were 16 prisoners who had personal emergency and evacuation plans (PEEP), which were accessible to all staff in the centre office. However, these were one-page documents that offered little information on the needs of the prisoner in an emergency or the level of assistance required. We were told that more detailed information was held on the IT system but this would take time to access during an emergency. Cell cards had been redesigned to include a section for prisoners to tick if they had mobility, sight or hearing difficulties.
4.42 Prisoners with disabilities were identified on reception, when an induction and disabilities record was completed and passed to the DREO. If a prisoner developed a disability during his sentence, he could make an application to speak with the DREO to discuss his situation. All prisoners with disabilities had a care plan in place, supported by a multidisciplinary care plan meeting.
4.43 The prison’s design meant that access to some areas was difficult for prisoners with mobility problems. In our disability survey, those who identified themselves as a having a disability were more negative than those without about access to work, vocational training and education, the gym and library. Prisoners with disabilities generally worked in the print shop, which was more accessible from the wings. The print shop had a variety of jobs and prisoners could be moved around the different roles depending on their disability.
4.44 Almost a third of the population were over 50, with 14 prisoners past retirement age. Provision for those over 65 was limited, but prisoners could continue to work and nine who were over 65 continued to do so. The prison had recently introduced a quarterly older and disabled prisoners’ group and the first meeting had been held in June 2010. The minutes indicated a good quality meeting with several issues raised by prisoners, although only five prisoners had attended.
4.45 In our survey of older prisoners, respondents were more negative than those under 50 about victimisation by staff (reported by 10% against 2% of those under 50). The older prisoners we spoke to complained about the retirement wage of £3.25 a week, of which £1 had been taken to pay for the television until a month previously. They also said it was difficult to get the two extra blankets available for them in the winter, under the diversity policy, as staff did not always respond quickly to their request. However, older prisoners said that staff were generally good to them, and that they felt relatively safe.
4.46 Although well man clinics were run they were sporadic and on a one-to-one basis – only three over-50s had accessed this service. At the time of the inspection, four older prisoners had care plans, but these were clinician-led rather than multidisciplinary.
Recommendations
4.47 Personal emergency and evacuation plans held centrally should contain relevant information for each prisoner’s needs in the case of an emergency.
4.48 Reasonable adjustments should be made to allow prisoners with disabilities access to all the prisoner facilities at Kingston.
4.49 Well man clinics should be run more frequently to involve more of the population.
4.50 Care plans for older prisoners should be multidisciplinary.
HMP Kingston 40 Housekeeping points
4.51 More prisoners should be encouraged to attend the quarterly older and disabled prisoners’ group meeting.
4.52 Extra blankets should be given to prisoners over 50 automatically at the outset of winter.
Good practice
4.53 Cell cards had a section for prisoners to tick if they had specific disabilities.
Sexual orientation
4.54 Provision for gay and transgender prisoners was limited, apart from a designated staff diversity representative.
4.55 In our survey, 7% of respondents said that they were gay or bisexual. There was no specific support group but a diversity staff representative had been identified with a specific lead on sexual orientation. He saw prisoners on a one-to-one basis and gave advice on safe sex and feelings of isolation. He was also a conduit for advice through the Stonewall support network.
4.56 The prison had developed a gay and transgender policy guidance document that covered aspects of the law and support that would be available for prisoners. There was no copy of the document for prisoners to access. The database of prisoners known or suspected of being linked to racial behaviour or intentions (see paragraph 4.22) had been recently extended to include those with suspected or known homophobic intentions. There were no transsexual or transgender prisoners at the establishment and there had been none since the last inspection.
Recommendation
4.57 Support networks should be developed for gay or bisexual prisoners.
Housekeeping point
4.58 The gay and transgender policy guidance document should be available to prisoners.
HMP Kingston 41
HMP Kingston 42 Section 5: Health services
Expected outcomes: Prisoners should be cared for by a health service that assesses and meets their health needs while in prison and which promotes continuity of health and social care on release. The standard of health service provided is equivalent to that which prisoners could expect to receive in the community.
5.1 There was good partnership working between the prison and health providers, though there was no recent health needs analysis or prison health improvement plan. The health care environment was small but functional. Clinical governance arrangements were good. There was a reasonable range of clinics for primary care and lifelong conditions. Pharmacy and dental services were good. Mental health services had improved.
General
5.2 Portsmouth City NHS Teaching Primary Care Trust (PCT) commissioned health services at the prison. Solent NHS Healthcare (Solent) was the service provider. The health needs assessment was out of date, though it had been agreed to commission a new assessment. There was no prison health development plan. However, the Department of Health prison health performance and quality framework indicators action plan was being used to guide developments. There were minuted Partnership Board meetings that demonstrated integrated working, and relationships were said to be good.
5.3 In our survey, more respondents than the comparator said they found it easy to access a health professional. Respondents who considered themselves to have a disability were more positive that those without about the ease of access to the doctor (78% compared with 57% said this was easy) and the nurse (95% compared with 71% said this was easy).
5.4 Health facilities occupied the area between E wing and the central hub of the prison. On one side of the corridor were dispensary and primary care rooms and on the other a dental surgery and mental health/optician room. The department was small but adequate for function. Some rooms were irregularly shaped or too narrow, some were poorly ventilated and some lacked natural lighting. The clinical records archive, management and administration offices were on floors above health care. Décor and fixtures and fittings were satisfactory. There was an infection control policy, and recent hand hygiene and infection control audits were available. There was a cleaning schedule and facilities were clean.
5.5 Several notice boards on the health care corridor were used to promote health and well-being. Prisoners had free access to this area for long periods of the day.
5.6 Several prisoners who attended our focus groups expressed dissatisfaction with interactions with health professionals, but we observed only professional interactions between health care personnel and prisoners. In our survey, 58% of respondents said that the quality of health services overall was good, against the 34% comparator.
HMP Kingston 43 Recommendation
5.7 The prison should seek the commissioning of an up-to-date health needs assessment by Portsmouth City NHS Teaching Primary Care Trust.
Clinical governance
5.8 The Solent Standards for Better Health (clinical governance) meeting was attended by the Solent prisons coordinator, who chaired monthly matrons’ meetings. Aggregated quality performance data was discussed at the matrons’ meetings, including serious and untoward incidents, complaints and deaths in custody. Trend analysis reports were shared with the standards meeting.
5.9 The matron managed the health service, and was supported by two primary care nurses, a mental health nurse and an administrator. Following our last inspection, staff grade and skills mixes had been adjusted to meet prisoners’ needs better. Uniformed officers regulated access to health care during clinic times. Staff registration checks, job descriptions, appraisal and training records were in order; training received was appropriate and specific to role. Clinical supervision meetings were independently facilitated.
5.10 Resuscitation equipment in a grab bag, automatic external defibrillator (AED), oxygen and suction kit were located in health care. Uniformed officers were being trained pending the location of a further AED in the hub office. There was a log of regular checking and maintenance. Mobility aids could be acquired following attendance at primary care or physiotherapy clinics. Daily living aids could be obtained from the Solent occupational therapy service.
5.11 Prisoner clinical records were kept on Vision (an electronic clinical records system). Paper records were stored in locked cabinets in a locked room. Systems accorded with data protection and the Caldicott principles on confidentiality of personal health information. Clinical records were comprehensive and up to date, though there were occasional examples of cutting and pasting so that records were repetitive. Treatment plans were based on National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance. Records were subject to clinical audit within the Solent annual cycle.
5.12 The health promotion committee met quarterly. Prisoners were represented by health trainers. A separate meeting for older prisoners had begun in June 2010. A ‘world café’ consultation event had been held before our visit and action taken in response to prisoners’ comments on health care.
5.13 Prisoners could complain about their care by filling out a complaint form and posting it in a dedicated box in the hub. Complaints about health care were logged by Solent. There had been 11 complaints in the six months from January 2010; written responses were clear and focused on the issues of concern. PCT patient advice and liaison services leaflets were on display and freely available.
5.14 The Solent manual on the prevention of communicable diseases, including influenza pandemic contingency plans, was kept in health care. There was an information-sharing protocol agreed between partner agencies.
HMP Kingston 44 Primary care
5.15 Primary care nurses saw new arrivals in a small interview room in reception, which afforded confidentiality. Immediate health needs were identified and acted upon. On the induction unit prisoners were given written guidance on how to access health services and they were seen by a GP if required. The reception screening tool did not have a prompt for signs and symptoms of alcohol or substance use withdrawal or related needs. A comprehensive health assessment was offered within three days of the prisoner’s arrival.
5.16 ‘The practice’, a PCT-run GP out-of-hours service, provided doctors who ran three clinics a week and cover at other times. Uniformed officers said that the out-of-hours service was reliable but not often used.
5.17 Information was displayed about sexually transmitted diseases, hepatitis B and C, chlamydia and pandemic influenza. Chlamydia screening was offered to under 25s, and hepatitis B screening to all new arrivals. Individual smoking cessation support was available to prisoners. Following consultation with prisoners, barrier protection was available on demand from primary care, though this was not advertised.
5.18 Health care operated from 8am to 6pm seven days a week. There was a weekly timetable of primary care clinics offered by GPs, the dentist, nurses, and the physiotherapist. The optician and podiatrist visited monthly and there were occasional well man clinics. Prisoners could attend clinics by completing a pictorial health application form and posting it in a dedicated box in the hub which was emptied daily. The duty nurse allocated prisoners to clinics. Triage algorithms were being introduced. Prisoners could see a GP within two working days. They were unable to see a doctor without a nurse being present, which some patients resented. Fewer than one in 10 prisoners did not attend for appointments, and they were followed up. A popular wallet-card system had been introduced to remind older prisoners to attend.
5.19 Each primary care nurse was the clinical lead for a long-term condition, including asthma, cardiac problems and diabetes. The Vision system contained chronic disease registers, and patients with lifelong conditions had appropriate care plans with set review dates. Nurses visited prisoners on the wings if necessary and, with their consent, summaries of care plans for prisoners with complex health needs were placed in the hub office to give uniformed officers information on how best to support them during acute situations. A senior nurse had been designated to lead the care of prisoners over 50.
Housekeeping points
5.20 The reception health screening tool should prompt staff to identify signs and symptoms of alcohol and/or substance use related needs.
5.21 The availability of barrier protection should be better advertised.
5.22 Prisoners should have the choice of an individual consultation with a doctor, subject to risk assessment.
Good practice
5.23 The older prisoners’ reminder cards were a novel, popular and colourful way to remind them to attend for health appointments.
HMP Kingston 45 5.24 The availability in the hub office of care plan summaries for prisoners with complex needs demonstrated joint working and assisted uniformed officers to support prisoners in acute situations.
Pharmacy
5.25 Pharmacy services were supplied by Lloyd’s pharmacists. Pharmacy technicians visited the prison daily, but a pharmacist did not attend regularly and there were no pharmacy-led clinics.
5.26 The storage of medicines was generally good, though we found some loose items in the storage cabinets. There was a British National Formulary in the treatment room but it was out of date. Heat-sensitive products were stored in a refrigerator. The temperature had been recorded daily but incorrectly and not the range. There had been no action to address low temperatures recorded. The thermometer reading had not been reset recently.
5.27 Medications were administered by nursing staff three times a day, at 8.15am, 12 noon and 4.30pm, and twice a day at weekends. Night time doses were given as in-possession medication. Medicines were administered through a gated hatch in the pharmacy room which opened on to the health care corridor. Patients were admitted into the corridor one at a time to receive medications, and an officer was always present.
5.28 Medication was issued as supervised administration or daily, weekly or 28-day in-possession. There was a written in-possession policy, but there was no policy review date. The decision to give medication in possession was noted on the drug administration chart (HR013), though in- possession risk assessments were not appended to the charts but stored in the clinical records.
5.29 There was a special sick policy and a limited list of suitable medications. Medicines administered in this way were recorded on the front of the HR013 charts. We saw that some patients had received frequent supplies of special sick medications but there was no indication of medication reviews. A limited range of medicines was also available on the prison shop list. Some patient group directions were in use. Patients could reorder their regular medications. Out-of-hours medication could be obtained through the GP service after a visit or by faxed prescription. Stock medicines were kept for this purpose and the stock was regularly checked. Prisoners being transferred or taken to court were given in-possession medication unless risk assessment precluded this, in which case the escort staff were given the remaining medication.
5.30 A medicines and therapeutics committee met regularly with good attendance. There was a PCT prescribing formulary but it was not specifically tailored to the prison setting. Prescriptions were computer generated, collected by Lloyd’s at noon and the medications were returned to the pharmacy by 3pm; transportation and delivery arrangements were good. Controlled drugs were not stored at the prison.
5.31 A ‘secure’ pain ladder algorithm had been introduced to rationalise the use of opiate-based prescribing, as prisoners were often transferred into the prison on such medicines and there had been concerns about their illicit diversion (see paragraph 3.47). As a result, there had been an 86% reduction in prescribing of opiate-based items in the 15 months to January 2010.
HMP Kingston 46 Recommendation
5.32 A pharmacist should attend the prison regularly and provide pharmacist-led clinics, clinical audit and medication reviews.
Housekeeping points
5.33 Loose tablets and tablet foils should not be present in medications stock.
5.34 Old reference books should be discarded, and only the most recent copy should be kept.
5.35 Maximum and minimum drug fridge temperatures should be recorded daily to ensure that heat- sensitive items are stored within the 2-8°C range. Corrective action should be taken if necessary, and this should be monitored by pharmacy staff.
5.36 Written policies should record the dates on which they were implemented and are next due for review.
5.37 The in-possession risk assessments of each drug should be appended to the prisoner’s drug administration chart.
Dentistry
5.38 The dental equipment was new. Although spacious, the surgery was an unusual shape and the location of the equipment, especially the chair, had made working processes difficult, in particular for the dental nurse. Generally cross-infection control was good but we observed the dentist opening drawers with gloved hands because she was nearer than the nurse because of the layout of the surgery. Compliance with the new cross-infection measures would not be possible.
5.39 The dentist provided two sessions a week assisted by a registered dental nurse. There was no cover for annual leave or out of hours.
5.40 The dentist triaged applications to see her and placed the prisoner on the waiting list. Around eight patients a session were booked. On the day of the inspection, there were 20 names on the waiting list, the longest wait being six weeks. Urgent cases were seen at the first available session. The non-attendance rate was about one a session. There had been no work to ascertain the reasons why prisoners failed to attend appointments.
5.41 Dental checks, treatment and oral hygiene guidance were similar to that available in the NHS. In our survey, 80% of respondents said the dentist provided a good service, against the comparator of only 44%. Records were properly stored. The provision of radiographs and the consistent reporting of radiographic findings were not consistent with published guidelines.
Recommendations
5.42 There should be arrangements to cover the dentist’s annual leave.
5.43 There should be a formal protocol for dental out-of-hours cover.
HMP Kingston 47 5.44 The non-attendance rates at dental clinics and the reasons why appointments are missed should be assessed.
Housekeeping points
5.45 The dental chair should be relocated to enable the team to operate more efficiently.
5.46 The procedures for the taking of radiographs should be in line with the guidelines published by the Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK).
Secondary care
5.47 Prisoners had no problems accessing clinics and continuing treatment at local general hospitals. Fewer than one in 10 external appointments had been cancelled by the prison in the four months from April 2010.
Mental health
5.48 Although in our survey almost a quarter of prisoners felt they had emotional or mental health problems, uniformed staff had not been trained to recognise when a prisoner had possible mental health problems and take appropriate action. Prisoners who required support for emotional, behavioural and mental health problems had access to daytime activities, including counselling offered by the chaplain, a learning to live with loss group, a variety of education classes and yoga classes for relaxation.
5.49 Solent provided access to primary and secondary mental health services, with a full-time mental health nurse who carried a reasonable caseload and visiting consultant psychiatric and psychology staff. Routine cover for the nurse’s leave was being arranged.
5.50 Prisoners self-referred for mental health care using the appointments system or were referred from primary care. Prisoners with mild to moderate mental health problems had access to Solent self-help booklets on a range of topics, such as dealing with anxiety or phobias, solution-based individual therapy, cognitive therapy and group therapy offered by the improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) team.
5.51 The nurse regularly saw prisoners with serious and enduring mental illness. Each had a care plan jointly signed by the nurse and patient. The consultant psychiatrist reviewed these patients at least quarterly in a multidisciplinary meeting. The mental health practitioner and CARAT workers coordinated care for prisoners with dual diagnosis.
Recommendation
5.52 Uniformed staff should receive training to recognise and take appropriate action when a prisoner has possible mental health problems and work effectively with health staff to ensure his care.
HMP Kingston 48 Section 6: Activities
Learning and skills and work activities
Expected outcomes: Learning and skills provision meets the requirements of the specialist education inspectorate’s Common Inspection Framework (separately inspected by specialist education inspectors). Prisoners are encouraged and enabled to learn both during and after sentence, as part of sentence planning; and have access to good library facilities. Sufficient purposeful activity is available for the total prisoner population.
6.1 There was sufficient purposeful activity to meet the needs of the population, but some of the work was low skilled. Induction and initial assessment of literacy, numeracy and language support needs were satisfactory. The limited range of accredited vocational training programmes was insufficient to meet prisoner needs. Learning and skills overall were managed reasonably well. Processes to assure the quality of provision were satisfactory, and data were collected and used effectively to measure the participation and achievements of learners. Achievement of qualifications was good and most prisoners who joined education and training courses completed their learning aims. Overall the quality of provision was satisfactory and teaching and individual coaching were good. The range of courses in education generally met the needs of participants but there were not enough that focused on personal development and social integration. There was insufficient support for prisoners following distance learning courses. Attendance at education, training and work was generally good and punctuality was satisfactory. The library was a reasonable resource to which prisoners had good access but there was not enough data on its use.
Leadership and management
6.2 The overall strategic management of learning and skills was satisfactory. Senior managers had a clear strategic direction to developing and improving learning and skills provision and its profile within the prison had been significantly raised. In our survey, a majority of prisoners were very positive about education and training. The day-to-day management of education and training was satisfactory. Attendance was generally good and punctuality was satisfactory. Internal links between the new Offender Learning and Skills Service (OLASS) provider, the careers information and advice support (CIAS) service and the prison were good, with effective links to the offender management unit (OMU) and sentence planning.
6.3 The prison provided 199 activity places, which was sufficient to ensure that most prisoners were fully engaged with some activity throughout the week. Although vocational training had expanded since the last inspection the variety was still too small, and there were insufficient courses to improve prisoner’s personal development. There were plans to introduce vocational courses in painting and decorating, horticulture and barbering. There was not enough support for prisoners on distance learning courses.
6.4 Quality improvement arrangements had been improved since the last inspection and were satisfactory. The action planning and improvement process was effective, and targets for improvement were regularly monitored by the senior management team. The self-assessment report was largely accurate and clearly identified many of the strengths and areas for improvement that we found. The report made good use of learners’ feedback, and the self-
HMP Kingston 49 assessment process was clear, inclusive and well understood by staff. Much data about learners was collected and its use to monitor provision and inform improvements was generally satisfactory. All relevant staff had received training on how to identify and deal with vulnerable adults.
6.5 There was a high degree of mutual respect between tutors, instructional officers and prisoners. Tutors challenged inappropriate behaviour and language. There was poor access for prisoners with mobility difficulties to education, library and some workshops but a lift to the education department was to be installed. Education had long waiting lists for the more popular courses. The pay structure was generally fair and there was no evidence that higher pay rates in work were a disincentive to prisoners attending education. Data on participation showed that over 39% of prisoners participated in some form of education. Allocation to activities was fair and equitable.
Induction
6.6 Arrangements for induction were satisfactory, as was the provision of careers information and advice support (CIAS) by Tribal. A member of the education department provided valuable advice on the range of activities available as well as expected standards of behaviour and how to deal with bullying and harassment. Prisoners had an individual interview with a member of the CIAS team which focused on setting long- and short-term goals and information and guidance on how they could best benefit from the activities available. Prisoners were screened to assess their literacy and numeracy levels using an effective screening tool, which assessed their level and support needs. A detailed assessment of prisoners’ wider educational needs was also completed. The planned CIAS review of prisoners’ progress had not yet taken place in most cases, with prisoners awaiting a second interview. Information about support needs was made available to the allocation board.
Recommendation
6.7 All prisoners should have the opportunity to access the careers information and advice support service to review their progress while at Kingston.
Work
6.8 There were about 174 work places a day, of which around 87% were filled. There were places for 60 prisoners in the contract services workshop, 18 in the print shop and 14 in the drawing office. The range of work across the prison included places for 15 prisoners cleaning on the wings, 14 in kitchens, six in the grounds and five in the gym. Others worked in the laundry, stores, prison shop, chapel, education and works department. At the time of the inspection, only one prisoner was unemployed.
6.9 The quality of work and its contribution to the development of useful work skills varied considerably. Some work – for example, in the print shop, gym, kitchen and drawing office – provided interesting and meaningful work, which prisoners valued and enjoyed. Prisoners here gained industry-related work skills and completed set tasks well. In the drawing office, prisoners’ quality of work replicated good commercial standards. Some of the assembly work in the main contract workshop was repetitive and mundane. However, the prison had extended the range of activities there to include art and crafts projects and the construction of small animal and bird boxes, as part of a project with the Wildlife Trust. Prisoners gained enjoyment and personal satisfaction, and in some cases qualifications, from these activities.
HMP Kingston 50 6.10 Since the last inspection the prison had extended opportunities for accredited courses at work. These included a series of National Open College Network (NOCN) level 1 accredited projects in personal development, team working, creative writing and preparation for work in the contract services workshop. Ten prisoners were on accredited programmes and about 40 had successfully completed accredited qualifications in work in the past year.
6.11 In workshops, prisoners received satisfactory inductions into their work activities. Information on health and safety and the use of personal protective equipment was generally satisfactory. There was a good focus on developing relevant employment skills and the work ethic was good in many areas with prisoners working with minimal supervision. Unaccredited work did not recognise and record prisoners’ approach to work or the skills they developed.
Recommendations
6.12 The work available in the main contract workshop should be meaningful employment relevant to current industry standards.
6.13 Work skills developed by prisoners in work that is non-accredited should be recognised and recorded.
Vocational training
6.14 Vocational training was insufficiently varied to meet the needs of prisoners, and did not generally form part of work activities. The technical drawing office, with 16 prisoners, was the only workshop dedicated to vocational training. Five gym orderlies were following sports- industry related training in the physical education (PE) department. The prison had recognised the need to provide more vocational training and there were plans to introduce level 1 painting and decorating, horticulture and barbering as well as the re-introduction of industrial cleaning training in the kitchen.
6.15 The quality of vocational training in the technical drawing office was good. Prisoners progressed well and enjoyed the training and attendance and success rates were high – such as 85% for technical drawing, computer-aided drawing and desktop publishing qualifications. Prisoners could gain a range of industry-relevant level 2 qualifications and progress to level 3 and higher. PE vocational training programmes were incorporated well into prisoners’ gym supervisory work as mentors (see paragraph 6.31). These experiences gave them good employability skills. Prisoners who successfully completed their training in the technical drawing office transferred to the drawing office team, where they completed work assignments for the Ministry of Justice.
6.16 Vocational training was well planned and individual coaching and support were good. Prisoners were well supported, encouraged and motivated throughout their courses by enthusiastic, experienced and well-qualified staff. Arrangements for assessment and verification were robust and the tracking of prisoners’ progress was good. Staff gave prisoners high levels of trust and responsibility, which helped to improve their confidence and self- esteem.
HMP Kingston 51 Education
6.17 The Manchester College had provided the OLASS contract since August 2009. There were approximately 25 full-time equivalent places. Attendance was good at 87%, and punctuality was satisfactory. In addition, approximately 25 learners were following distance learning and higher level courses. The provision for literacy and numeracy was sufficient to meet prisoner needs but there were not enough courses on personal and social development. Progression opportunities were limited in some areas. Learning sessions were offered in the education department, vocational training, work areas and wings, and individual support was available on the wings when required. Classes ran from 8.45am to 11.15am and 2pm to 4.15pm Monday to Thursday and Friday morning. There was no weekend or evening provision.
6.18 Accredited outcomes were good and most prisoners stayed on their courses, achieving a qualification. The standard of learners’ work in lessons was at least satisfactory and good in some subjects, for example, Spanish. There was little learners’ work on display around the classrooms and corridors to celebrate their good work.
6.19 Learners were keen to acquire new skills, and were encouraged to use their personal experiences and develop independent learning skills. Prisoners gained in confidence and generally made good progress. Progression in literacy and numeracy was good.
6.20 Prisoners were consulted about the education provision through surveys by the prison and education provider. They were very positive about their experiences in education and enjoyed their learning sessions, and some with previously poor educational experiences had become very enthusiastic learners.
6.21 Teaching and learning were generally good, as were individual coaching and support. Staff were flexible and used their expertise to develop and expand the range of courses. Tutors managed teaching sessions well and had a good rapport with learners. Class discussions were open and learners worked well together. All learners were engaged and motivated well to achieve. The tracking and planning of assessments was good. However, some lesson planning in classes where learners joined at various stages failed to recognise the different starting points for each learner. Tutors did not always use the information from the initial assessment of prisoners’ literacy and numeracy levels to plan lessons to meet individual needs. The monitoring of learners’ literacy and numeracy progress was not sufficiently clear, and there was some over-reliance on completion of workbooks. At the time of the inspection, six peer mentors supported learners in the education department and a further eight had recently completed peer mentor training.
6.22 The range of subjects focused on literacy and numeracy, information and communications technology (ICT) and wider key skills. Current arrangements to support learners on distance learning programmes were underdeveloped, as was their access to computers, with appropriate support, to research and complete assignments. Prisoners could take two education sessions a week without losing their pay at work. There were limited partnership arrangements to develop prisoners’ education.
6.23 Information, advice and guidance were satisfactory overall. Individual learning plans generally recorded assessments and some included targets. However, few targets were individual and most failed to be specific about what learners needed to do to progress.
HMP Kingston 52 Recommendations
6.24 The planning of literacy and numeracy provision should be developed to support learners’ individual needs.
6.25 Support for learners who progress to distant learning courses should be developed and improved and they should have access to sufficient resources.
Housekeeping point
6.26 Work produced in education should be put on display.
Library
6.27 The library service was contracted to Portsmouth library authority and the library was managed by a part-time librarian supported by two prison orderlies. Wider key skills qualifications were offered to the library orderlies but none as yet had achieved any. The library was in the education block and close to the classrooms. The librarian visited the wings to discuss individual requirements for prisoners unable to access the service. The library was open to all prisoners from 11.30am to midday on most days, including weekends, and was available to those using the education department. Library opening times were advertised around the prison, and prisoners were generally content with the service. In our survey, 71% of respondents, against the comparator of 44%, said they visited the library at least once a week, which was also an increase from 55% in 2005. The library collected data about book issues and loans but was unaware of the number of prisoners who visited.
6.28 The library was relatively small but welcoming. There was a sufficient variety of easy-read material and some resources to support education and training. The library had three computers in a small study area. It stocked an appropriate variety of up-to-date legal reference materials. Availability of newspapers, magazines and journals in any language was limited. Communication with the diversity officer ensured that books were available in relevant foreign languages for non-English speaking prisoners. The library had an effective and well-used inter- library loan facility, and 40 to 50 items a week were delivered to the prison. A monthly book club involved about eight prisoners.
Recommendation
6.29 The library should improve its collection and analysis of data to identify and improve library use across the prison.
Physical education and health promotion
Expected outcomes: Physical education and PE facilities meet the requirements of the specialist education inspectorate’s Common Inspection Framework (separately inspected by specialist education inspectors). Prisoners are also encouraged and enabled to take part in recreational PE, in safe and decent surroundings.
HMP Kingston 53 6.30 The PE department was well managed, and had links to health care and a good focus on promoting healthy living. Access to PE was good. The facilities had been improved and the standard of equipment was good. The use of prison orderlies ensured the smooth running of the gym. Outdoor facilities were used effectively for a variety of activities. There was a good range of vocational qualifications and achievement although only a few prisoners were on accredited courses.
6.31 The PE department was staffed by a senior officer and two PE officers. Access for prisoners was good, with some attending six gym sessions a week. The gym was open throughout the week, including evenings and weekends. PE session times and activities were well advertised around the prison. The PE department had recently focused on promoting the benefits of exercise to non-users. An estimated 65% of the population used the gym regularly. The department was well managed and supervised by experienced and qualified staff. There was particularly good use of five well-trained orderlies who helped the department to meet prisoners’ access needs.
6.32 Recent investment had improved the indoor facilities and the cardiovascular area, and equipment had been updated. The sports hall was adequate to support badminton and basketball. Outside facilities had been improved with an external cardiovascular equipment area next to the frequently used football field. A tarmac area was used for activities such as tennis. However, the all-weather surface area had not been refurbished and was no longer used.
6.33 PE programmes and courses broadly reflected the needs of the population, including specific sessions for the over-40s and individual support for those who were less fit. New arrivals routinely completed a needs analysis on induction, which ensured the correct range of fitness programmes were available. They were also screened through a standard ‘physical activity readiness’ health analysis questionnaire. The PE department had a good focus on encouraging and developing healthy living and had links to health care. Health care staff signed off a ‘fit for PE’ form before a prisoner started PE activities. The PE department also worked well in conjunction with the OMU, and evidence of prisoners’ skills, for example, team building through the healthy relationships programme, was linked to sentence planning.
6.34 Accredited programmes provided good training opportunities in relevant sports industry qualifications, although few prisoners were in accredited learning. There were good links with minority ethnic community groups with opportunities for cricket and football games with prisoners using the prison’s facilities.
6.35 Kit and towels were provided by the stores, as required. Many prisoners chose to wear their own kit. Facilities for prisoners to change and shower were adequate, clean and sufficiently private. The procedures for dealing with accidents and injuries were appropriate.
Recommendation
6.36 The number of prisoners engaged in PE accredited programmes should be increased.
HMP Kingston 54 Time out of cell
Expected outcomes: All prisoners are actively encouraged to engage in out of cell activities, and the prison offers a timetable of regular and varied extra-mural activities.
6.37 Time out of cell was good for all prisoners and exceeded 10 hours a day for category C prisoners on E wing. Prisoners were not routinely locked in their cells and movement between wings was allowed. Outside areas were good, and evening exercise was offered during the summer.
6.38 The core day for prisoners allowed for just over nine hours out of cell activity time, although this was longer for prisoners on E wing who were unlocked till 11pm when they were expected to lock themselves away. We found a small number of prisoners locked up during the core day, but in most cases this was their decision. The core day was published on the centre and in the E wing association room.
6.39 Prisoners of retirement age not at work were unlocked for the core day so that they could walk around and interact with other prisoners. Movement between A, C and D wings was free flow and prisoners were not restricted to their own wings. E wing was locked off as this was the category C wing and movement to and from it was restricted to category C prisoners or those who had been risk assessed.
6.40 Association and exercise were rarely cancelled and prisoners were allowed outside evening exercise in the summer, although until recently this had been limited to enhanced prisoners. The outside areas were maintained to an acceptable level and were clean and prisoners spoke favourably about these facilities.
HMP Kingston 55
HMP Kingston 56 Section 7: Good order
Security and rules
Expected outcomes: Security and good order are maintained through positive staff-prisoner relationships based on mutual respect as well as attention to physical and procedural matters. Rules and routines are well-publicised, proportionate, fair and encourage responsible behaviour.
7.1 Intelligence management systems were sound and security information reports were processed efficiently. Security measures and systems, including restrictions on visits, were proportionate. There were no banned visitors or prisoners on closed visits at the time of the inspection.
Security
7.2 The monthly security committee was chaired by the deputy governor and was generally well attended by representatives from appropriate internal departments and external agencies. Meetings were attended by the drug strategy manager and there were clear links with safer custody. A smaller intelligence committee, chaired by the head of security and operations, took place before the security meeting. This meeting considered the monthly intelligence assessment, which provided an overview of the month’s security information reports (SIRs), and agreed security objectives.
7.3 The head of operations and security had management oversight of the security department and at least one of five operations senior officers was present in the department each day. A full-time analyst processed SIRs. Just over 800 had been received in the first seven months of 2010, which was in line with the number received in 2009. The majority of SIRs related to general security issues and unauthorised possession of items, drugs and breaches of security or system failures. SIRs were processed in a timely and efficient manner. The prison had four residential security liaison officers and information was communicated to staff at morning briefings.
7.4 There had been a full review of physical security arrangements at the prison following a serious breach of the perimeter wall in November 2009. A resulting action plan had included an upgrade of CCTV systems.
7.5 The prison’s two dog handlers conducted the majority of routine cell searches and all intelligence-led target searching.
7.6 Security measures, including restrictions on visits, were proportionate. The minutes of the security committee showed that there had been no prisoners on closed visits in recent months, and there were no banned visitors at the time of the inspection.
Rules
7.7 Local rules were incorporated into the comprehensive induction information booklet, reinforced by regular notices to prisoners published on wing notice boards.
HMP Kingston 57 Discipline
Expected outcomes: Disciplinary procedures are applied fairly and for good reason. Prisoners understand why they are being disciplined and can appeal against any sanctions imposed on them.
7.8 The adjudication tariff was adhered to and there were robust quality assurance arrangements for hearings, with written feedback to managers. Use of force was very low. Documentation was completed satisfactorily but one planned incident had not been video-recorded. Incidents were discussed at the security meeting but there was no record of discussion of the quality of documentation. There had been only one recorded use of the special cell in 2010. The accompanying documentation did not indicate whether the prisoner had been able to keep his clothing. Segregation was not overused but some prisoners had spent a long time in the segregation unit, which had a limited regime. Care plans and formal reintegration plans were not used but some prisoners were successfully returned to normal location.
Disciplinary procedures
7.9 There had been 155 adjudications in 2009 and 67 in the first seven months of 2010. Most charges related to possession of unauthorised articles, disobeying a lawful order and administration of a controlled drug. A separate adjudication room was an appropriate location for hearings. The hearing we observed was properly conducted and the adjudication records we sampled showed that prisoners had the opportunity to seek legal advice and challenge evidence. Three adjudication appeals had been upheld in 2010 to date. There were examples where adjudicating governors had dismissed cases.
7.10 A quarterly adjudication tariff review meeting, chaired by the governor, was attended by adjudicators and other relevant staff, such as the race equality officer. Minutes indicated consideration of key areas, such as the use of cellular confinement and the consistency of awards. The adjudication tariff had last been updated in December 2009. Given that all prisoners at Kingston were serving indeterminate sentences, no charges were referred to the independent adjudicator. Punishments adhered to tariff guidelines.
7.11 The deputy governor quality assured all completed adjudication documentation and gave written feedback to adjudicators, including comments on individual cases and identification of common themes.
The use of force
7.12 The use of force was very low. There had been six recorded incidents in 2010 to date and nine in 2009. Handcuffs had been used in one incident in 2010.
7.13 Use of force was monitored by the safer custody team and by the security committee. Although we were told the security meeting discussed individual incidents in detail, including the quality of completed documentation, this was not reflected in the notes of the meeting.
7.14 Documentation we viewed was completed satisfactorily and there were examples where de- escalation was used. Health care staff saw prisoners soon after incidents, and injury report forms (F213s) were filed with documentation in all cases. However, we found one example
HMP Kingston 58 where health care staff had examined the prisoner through a locked cell door rather than face to face. Just under 90% of staff were trained in control and restraint techniques.
7.15 Planned interventions were usually video-recorded by trained staff but the one planned intervention in 2010 had not been recorded.
7.16 There had been an occasion in 2010 when a member of staff had drawn and used an extendable baton in the segregation unit when he was assaulted by a prisoner. There had been no formal investigation of this incident but the head of operations had examined the circumstances, including speaking to the member of staff and checking the use of force paperwork.
7.17 There had been just one use of the special cell in the segregation unit in 2010. The cell was stark but clean. Strip clothing was laid out on the mattress in the cell, which was inappropriate. The documentation on the use of the cell did not indicate whether the prisoner had retained his own clothing. Although observations were completed to the required frequency, there was very little engagement with the prisoner during his 55 minutes in the cell.
7.18 During the inspection, special accommodation paperwork was drawn up appropriately when furniture had to be removed from a prisoner’s segregation unit cell.
Recommendations
7.19 The security committee should broaden its discussion of use of force incidents to include quality assurance of completed paperwork and this should be reflected in the published minutes.
7.20 Following a use of force incident, health care staff should conduct a face-to-face examination of prisoners involved before completing a F213 (injury to prisoner) form.
7.21 All planned use of force incidents should be video-recorded.
7.22 Records of the use of the special cell should include details of whether the prisoner retained his own clothing.
Housekeeping point
7.23 Strip clothing should not be left in the special accommodation cell.
Segregation unit
7.24 The segregation unit had three ordinary cells and one special cell. There was a shower area with two adequately screened shower cubicles. Communal areas and cells were clean. All three ordinary cells had in-cell electricity. There was no servery in the unit and meals were collected from the servery in insulated containers. Notice boards in the unit displayed up-to- date information, including photographs of managers who conducted segregation reviews. The exercise yard was small and had a small stone seat.
7.25 Prisoners were subject to a full search on arrival in the unit. Segregation was properly authorised and the unit was staffed by specially selected staff from the operations group. A governor visited the unit each day and recorded his or her conversations with prisoners in
HMP Kingston 59 segregation history sheets. Prisoners also had daily access to a chaplain and a member of the health care staff. The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) visited the unit frequently.
7.26 There was a limited regime, which was published for prisoners in the segregation information book placed in each cell. The regime included daily showers, exercise and access to telephones, and was adhered to consistently. In-cell education was provided to prisoners who requested it, and there was a small library on the unit.
7.27 Segregation was not overused. In the previous six months, 14 prisoners had been located in the segregation unit, four of whom were subsequently transferred from the prison. There had been no instances in 2010 of prisoners located in the segregation unit in their own interest. In 2009, five prisoners seeking protection had been located in the unit. All aspects of segregation were monitored at the quarterly segregation monitoring and review group meeting.
7.28 There were two prisoners in the segregation unit at the time of the inspection. One was serving an award of cellular confinement and the other was segregated under rule 45 for good order or discipline. An examination of segregation records showed that some prisoners had spent an excessive time in segregation. In 2009, one prisoner had been segregated for 10 months. A transfer had been arranged after approximately four months, but the prisoner had refused to locate on normal location in the new establishment and was returned to Kingston the same day.
7.29 Individual segregation care plans and formal reintegration plans were not used. However, staff and managers worked with prisoners to assist them in planning for a return to normal location, and prisoners were returned to normal location from the unit. The prisoner whose award of cellular confinement ended during the inspection was given support in planning for his return to normal location.
Recommendations
7.30 Prisoners should only be strip searched on admission to the segregation unit following an assessment of risk and authorisation by a manager.
7.31 Formal segregation unit care and reintegration plans should be used with prisoners held in segregation for long periods to support and plan for their return to normal location.
Incentives and earned privileges
Expected outcomes: Incentives and earned privilege schemes are well-publicised, designed to improve behaviour and are applied fairly, transparently and consistently within and between establishments, with regular reviews.
7.32 The incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme was sound and staff and prisoners were well aware of it. Prisoners were highly motivated to move to, and remain on, enhanced level. The scheme was well managed and demonstrated that account was taken of individual circumstances.
HMP Kingston 60 7.33 Prisoners and staff were well aware of the incentives and earned privileges scheme and the mechanisms for moving between the levels. The IEP scheme was subject to annual review and had also been equality impact assessed in June 2010, but there were weaknesses in this process. Actions arising had mostly concentrated on general perceptions of the fairness of appeals, timeliness of reviews and the differentials between standard and enhanced rather than on the potential impact on prisoners with learning difficulties and physical disabilities, non- English speakers and those with religious beliefs, as was the stated intention.
7.34 Although in our groups, and in the focus group for the IEP equality impact assessment, prisoners reported inconsistencies in the way staff operated the scheme, our review of IEP documentation showed consistency in the way warnings were issued and dealt with. At the time of the inspection, 88% of prisoners were on the enhanced level. In our survey, prisoners overall responded more positively than the comparator about being treated fairly in their experience of the scheme (68% compared with 58%). However, our diversity surveys showed more negative experiences for some groups. Black and minority ethnic respondents were more negative than white prisoners about whether they were on the enhanced level of the scheme (78% compared with 95%) and had been treated fairly under it (46% compared with 74%). SMART ethnic monitoring data for the year did not show any anomalies in the prisoners on the different levels of the scheme. In our survey, those who considered themselves to have a disability were also more negative than those without about being treated fairly in their experience of the IEP scheme (52% compared with 72%) and whether the different levels of the scheme encouraged them to change their behaviour (18% compared with 48%). Prisoners aged over 50 were more negative than those under 50 about whether the differential levels of the scheme encouraged them to change their behaviour (24% compared with 46%)
7.35 The differentials between enhanced and standard levels were not significant. They had recently been changed, appropriately, as the reduction to standard had seemed more like being punished than having normal access to prison facilities. For example, evening association in the summer had only been available to enhanced prisoners but was now available to standard prisoners once during the week and once at weekend. Contact with family and friends was, inappropriately, part of the IEP scheme. Only enhanced prisoners could exchange visits for extra telephone credit.
7.36 Although prisoners’ pay was not based on their IEP level, those on enhanced were eligible and prioritised for jobs paying up to £24 a week, whereas those on standard were only eligible and prioritised for jobs earning up to £12.50, and those on basic could only earn £6.50.
7.37 All new arrivals started on the standard level unless there was proof that they had been on enhanced in their previous prison. No one complained that they had been reduced from their previous level on arrival.
7.38 Voluntary drug testing played no part in the IEP decision making process and results of voluntary drug tests were not used in any boards, either for promotion or demotion.
7.39 Prisoners on the basic level of the scheme were restricted to one weekday and one weekend period of association. They could not hold positions of trust, such as being Listeners or prisoner representatives. They had to be closely supervised at work and could not access standard or enhanced work or pay. They were restricted to only one session of gym a week and two one-hour visits a month. Although they were supposed to be set targets to progress from basic through sentence plans, the few prisoners we spoke to who had been on basic felt these were not particularly clear. There was, however, good evidence of engagement with the individual’s ability to progress. In one case where a period on basic looked likely to be
HMP Kingston 61 excessive, the senior officer reduced the target from no IEP warnings in 28 days to none in seven, which was more achievable for the prisoner.
7.40 Although accommodation was not allocated according to IEP level, some prisoners were confused about whether the allocation criteria for category C prisoners to be considered for E wing included being on enhanced. Mobility impaired prisoners were disadvantaged under the IEP scheme as they had difficulties accessing the chapel, library, gym and all bar one of the workshops, so extra gym sessions for being on enhanced were no incentive for them.
7.41 All the IEP documentation we reviewed was consistent in looking for individual prisoners’ patterns of behaviour over time, and the action taken differed depending on whether warnings were for a first or repeat breach of the standards expected. Prisoners were given every opportunity to amend their behaviour before reviews took place and were given a pre-board warning when three warnings put them at risk of demotion. All IEP warnings were issued in writing and there was evidence that prisoners appealed against them, even where they had not resulted in an IEP review. Prisoners were involved in any review boards and had the opportunity to make contributions. Often – particularly for the annual reviews – these contributions were in writing. Prisoners could appeal against IEP decisions, through the IEP scheme or the complaints system, and were helped to do so. On some occasions, the staff member issuing the IEP warning had answered the appeal. As a result of prisoner feedback, all appeals were now dealt with by the residential manager but there had been no cases in the previous six months where appeals had been upheld.
7.42 There was no evidence of prisoners receiving a disciplinary award and being placed straight on to a basic regime. The process for being demoted from enhanced to standard invariably involved at least three warnings before action was taken.
Recommendation
7.43 Opportunities for enhanced family contact should not be dependent on a prisoner’s incentives and earned privileges (IEP) level.
Housekeeping points
7.44 The criteria for allocation to E wing should be published and publicised.
7.45 Targets for prisoners to move from basic should be more specific and supported by staff and available interventions.
HMP Kingston 62 Section 8: Services
Catering
Expected outcomes: Prisoners are offered varied meals to meet their individual requirements and food is prepared and served according to religious, cultural and prevailing food safety and hygiene regulations.
8.1 More prisoners than at comparator prisons said the food was good but the perceptions of black and minority ethnic prisoners were significantly worse. The prison responded to consultation. Menus were balanced and varied and specialist diets were catered for. The kitchen and servery were clean and reasonably well equipped but needed redecoration. Breakfast was served the evening before it was to be consumed and the evening meal on Sundays was served far too early.
8.2 The kitchen was clean and reasonably well equipped but needed redecoration and had some damage to the flooring. Halal certificates were in place and there were separate storage, preparation and utensils for halal food but no separate bratt catering pan.
8.3 The catering team included a manager and three staff. Up to 15 prisoners worked in the kitchen on a rota but could not achieve any catering qualifications. All staff and prisoners were appropriately trained and wore correct clothing.
8.4 Menus operated on a four-week rolling cycle and changed between winter and summer. Prisoners were generally complimentary about the food. In our survey, 62% of respondents, against the comparator of only 32%, said that the food was good but the perceptions of black and minority ethnic prisoners were significantly worse – only 33% said the food was good, compared with 70% of white respondents (see housekeeping point 4.15). Menus were balanced, varied and allowed prisoners to choose five portions of fruit and vegetables a day. Specialist diets, including vegan, vegetarian and halal, were also catered for. Preparations for Ramadan, ongoing at the time of the inspection, had been well received.
8.5 There was one central servery from which all prisoners collected their meals. Service lasted about 30 minutes but meals collected at the end of this period were still sufficiently hot. Prisoners had the opportunity to dine in association and if they chose to dine in their cells, at least all toilets were screened.
8.6 Lunch was served at 12 noon and the evening meal at 5.30pm. However, on Sundays a baguette evening meal was served at 2pm to allow catering staff to go off duty, which was far too early. Breakfast packs were also issued the evening before they were to be consumed.
8.7 A small kitchenette on E wing allowed prisoners some limited self-catering. It included a microwave, toaster and sandwich maker, and was well used and appreciated.
8.8 Catering was only discussed occasionally at the amenities committee and was not part of a standing agenda. A new system replacing the food comments book offered prisoners an individual response to comments made on a card with a unique serial number. There was, however, no log for the new system and it appeared to be not yet well used or well embedded.
HMP Kingston 63 There was a twice-yearly food survey but was this not well responded to. Despite this, there was evidence that the prison was responsive to issues raised during consultation about food.
Recommendations
8.9 The kitchen and servery should be redecorated and damaged flooring replaced.
8.10 The negative perceptions of black and minority ethnic prisoners about food should be investigated and action taken to address these.
8.11 The evening meal on Sundays should not be served before 5pm.
8.12 Breakfast should be served on the morning that it is to be consumed.
8.13 The limited self-catering facilities on E wing should be extended.
Housekeeping points
8.14 There should be a separate bratt catering pan for halal food.
8.15 Food comment cards should be logged on receipt.
Prison shop
Expected outcomes: Prisoners can purchase a suitable range of goods at reasonable prices to meet their diverse needs, and can do so safely, from an effectively managed shop.
8.16 The items available through the prison shop were reasonable but prisoners were dissatisfied with the range and price increases of some. Consultation arrangements had resulted in some changes but not enough. Prisoners could order from a range of catalogues.
8.17 The prison operated the national DHL contract for shop services. Weekly orders were processed, bagged and delivered to residential units. The delivery of orders was well managed. Prisoners could also order a range of items from several catalogues.
8.18 Shop order forms were issued to prisoners each Tuesday along with a printout of their accounts from the previous week. Order forms were returned by 10am on Wednesday. Orders were bagged off site and delivered to the prison on the Saturday morning for issue by staff. New arrivals could experience delays of up to 11 days before they could receive orders from the shop, but in the meantime they could buy extra reception packs and telephone credit.
8.19 Although the list of shop items was reasonable and included fresh fruit and vegetables, prisoners were generally dissatisfied with the range of goods available and their wages had not kept pace with the price increases of some items. In our survey, only 27% of respondents said that the prison shop sold a wide enough range of goods to meet their needs, against the comparator of 46%.
HMP Kingston 64 8.20 There was consultation about the prison shop through the amenities committee, although not all prisoners believed that they had sufficient opportunity to make representations about the shop list. Despite this, there was evidence that the prison was responsive to consultation and there had been many changes to the shop list.
Housekeeping point
8.21 There should be wider prisoner consultation about the shop list.
HMP Kingston 65
HMP Kingston 66 Section 9: Resettlement
Strategic management of resettlement
Expected outcomes: Resettlement underpins the work of the whole establishment, supported by strategic partnerships in the community and informed by assessment of prisoner risk and need.
9.1 There was an appropriate and up-to-date reducing reoffending strategy document, supported by a recent needs analysis based on sentence planning targets from the previous 12 months. Pathway lead officers were identified but, due to the nature of the establishment, some pathway work was minimal. A greater focus on the strategic management of risk across the establishment was needed. There were generally good links between departments.
9.2 The head of reducing reoffending and offender management led resettlement work and was also a member of the senior management team. Because very few prisoners were released from Kingston (only two in the last four years), the primary strategic function was assessment and management of prisoners through sentence planning at the prison. Many prisoners were likely to be held at Kingston for a long time, and at the time of the inspection almost 40% had been there for over two years.
9.3 The reducing reoffending strategy document was up to date and supported by a needs analysis completed in July 2010. The needs analysis was based on the sentence planning targets of prisoners in the previous 12 months and was reasonably comprehensive. The strategy document was linked to the area reducing reoffending policy which, while broadly appropriate, meant that there was significant emphasis on each of the seven resettlement pathways. As Kingston released so few prisoners, there was little or no provision under some pathways and this emphasis was of little benefit. The prison’s unique role required the strategy to have greater emphasis on offender management and the assessment and management of risk across the establishment. Each resettlement pathway had an identified management lead, development objectives were identified, where appropriate, and progress against these was evaluated through the reducing reoffending strategy group.
9.4 The reducing reoffending strategy group met bimonthly and was reasonably well attended by a multidisciplinary membership. Our review of minutes showed that meetings focused appropriately on a broad agenda and were not restricted solely to resettlement pathways.
9.5 The strategic management of resettlement and reducing reoffending benefited from good inter- departmental links across the establishment, largely because of its relatively small size.
Recommendation
9.6 The reducing reoffending strategy document should give clear strategic guidance on how prisoner risk factors should be assessed and evaluated across the establishment.
HMP Kingston 67 Offender management and planning
Expected outcomes: All prisoners have a sentence or custody plan based upon an individual assessment of risk and need, which is regularly reviewed and implemented throughout and after their time in custody. Prisoners, together with all relevant staff, are involved with drawing up and reviewing plans.
9.7 All prisoners were managed by the offender management unit, even though only nine were formally in scope for offender management. Most prisoners were seen relatively frequently by offender supervisors, but there was little communication from offender managers. Most cases were reasonably well managed but we saw limited evidence of work focused on assessing risk factors or reinforcing work from previous offending behaviour programmes. Sentence planning boards were generally well managed. Public protection arrangements were appropriate and the introduction of interdepartmental case reviews was a positive initiative.
Sentence planning and offender management
9.8 All prisoners at Kingston were subject to offender management, although only nine were formally in scope and subject to indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP). The offender management unit (OMU) consisted of 3.6 offender supervisors – two were officer grades, one was a probation officer and the 0.6 post was undertaken by a senior probation officer who was also responsible for public protection and the supervision of the probation officer. There was no distinction in role between officer and probation offender supervisors, and allocation was made purely on the basis of caseload numbers. All new arrivals were seen by their allocated offender supervisor, usually within the first few days, and had an initial sentence plan, or review, within their first three months.
9.9 During the inspection, and in conjunction with colleagues from HM Inspectorate of Probation, we undertook a detailed review of a number of cases, both in and out of scope, and reviewed the contact logs of a further 21 cases. There was no formal agreement on the frequency of prisoner contact by offender supervisors but most prisoners were seen at least every three months, and in most cases far more frequently, with IPP prisoners seen at least monthly. The role of offender supervisors, however, remained unclear and inconsistently applied (see main recommendation HP51).
9.10 All prisoners had identified risk factors, based on their offences and offender assessment system (OASys) analysis, but specific and direct interventions to address these factors were limited at Kingston, with little one-to-one work and only one nationally accredited offending behaviour programme available (see paragraph 9.50). Most prisoners had completed some offending behaviour work at previous establishments. However, we saw little evidence that offender supervisors consistently assessed the behaviour of prisoners in relation to their risk factors or talked to them about how they used and reinforced skills learned and developed in previous work in their daily lives or problems. Although Kingston was in an ideal position to undertake this ongoing assessment of risk and reinforcement of self-management skills, we saw only one example in our review where an offender supervisor discussed with a prisoner how he had used skills learned in a previous enhanced thinking skills programme to resolve a recent wing problem (see main recommendation HP51).
9.11 Links between the OMU and community-based offender managers were variable. Although all prisoners had an identified offender manager, many had little or no contact with them. While
HMP Kingston 68 information was consistently relayed from Kingston to community managers, liaison in response was inconsistent. Offender supervisors estimated that no more than about 10% of offender managers attended sentence planning boards, despite the availability of video or telephone conferencing, and relatively few made written contributions. As an example, at a sentence planning board during the inspection, three of the four prisoners attending did not know who their offender manager was.
9.12 Offender supervisors were responsible for ensuring that OASys assessments and OASys reviews were up to date for all but IPP prisoners. These were linked appropriately with sentence planning reviews and, at the time of the inspection, all were up to date. Sentence planning boards took place weekly and considered up to four annual sentence plan reviews. In our survey, 91% of respondents said they had a sentence plan, against the 84% comparator and 83% response at the last inspection. Boards were generally well managed with an appropriate focus on reviewing and setting annual targets. The multidisciplinary nature of the meeting, including offender supervisors, also ensured there was a range of views. In our survey, 49% of respondents said that a member of staff had helped them address their offending behaviour at the prison, which was significantly better than the comparator of 38%. There were, however, ongoing problems with the psychology department receiving information and files from sending establishments in time for initial boards.
9.13 All personal officers made contributions to sentence planning boards, either written or in person. However, the quality of reports varied considerably. All written contributions were quality checked by wing managers but there appeared little consistency. While the better reports included an outline of custodial behaviour, adjudications and completed offending behaviour work, there was little analysis of how this affected offending behaviour risk factors, or how wing and day-to-day behaviour demonstrated a reduction in or continuation of risk.
9.14 A quality assurance scheme had also been introduced in the OMU. One of the two developing prison service managers linked to the unit checked all OASys assessments, and made a monthly random file review of about eight cases for each offender supervisor’s caseload. While a positive initiative, this latter review focused primarily on the frequency of contact and detail of notes rather than the quality of contact or intervention and risk assessment and evaluation.
9.15 There were reasonable links between the OMU and personal officers, and we saw some evidence of information sharing. Prisoners generally looked to personal officers in the first instance to resolve problems but we saw some examples of personal officers discussing cases with offender supervisors. Some personal officers we spoke to had a reasonable understanding of the sentence plan targets and risk factors of prisoners, although this was variable.
9.16 Due to the nature of their offence, all prisoners were subject to parole reviews. Such reviews were still some way off for many but progress for some depended on the efficient management of the process. Although there had been recent improvement, there remained significant delays in parole reviews. At the time of the inspection, 22 parole reviews were overdue. In the previous week, there had been six oral hearings, of which four were at least eight months late. One prisoner’s review was over 18 months late. Although the prison managed these cases appropriately, it appeared that delays were due to external parole casework.
Recommendations
9.17 Offender managers should play an active role in sentence planning reviews for all indeterminate-sentenced prisoners.
HMP Kingston 69 9.18 The quality assurance system for personal officer sentence plan reviews should ensure consistency and focus on a better analysis and evaluation of behaviour.
9.19 The offender management unit quality assurance scheme should focus more specifically on the quality of contact and interventions and the evaluation of risk.
Housekeeping point
9.20 The psychology department should ensure that prisoner files and/or information about prisoners are available from sending establishments in time for the prisoner’s first sentence plan review.
Categorisation
9.21 Recategorisation was well managed. At the time of the inspection 72 prisoners had been recategorised to C and there was one category D prisoner. Prisoners were evaluated and initially considered for recategorisation at their annual sentence planning review. If recommended, a further board was convened. Recategorisation boards usually occurred monthly. In most cases, prisoners considered by this board were successful. In 2010 to date, 33 prisoners had been considered and only five had not been approved (two were awaiting a decision). In 2009, 36 out of 49 applications had been successful.
Public protection
9.22 There were good arrangements for managing public protection with the senior probation officer taking lead responsibility. All prisoners were subject to MAPPA (multi agency public protection arrangements). In most cases, prisoners had been reviewed appropriately at the previous establishment but this was not consistent. Where appropriate, individuals were considered at the next interdepartmental risk management team (IRMT) meeting.
9.23 IRMT meetings were monthly and were appropriately constituted. Although mandatory representatives attended, attendance by other departments was patchy. All prisoners subject to monitoring restrictions were reviewed through this meeting. At the time of the inspection, 48 prisoners were identified as posing a risk to children, 21 were on the sexual offenders register eight were being monitored for harassment and five were subject to disqualification orders. The IRMT also had a wider brief to review public protection generally, including potentially inappropriate materials, such as films and books.
9.24 To support the IRMT a further group, the interdepartmental risk management meeting, also met monthly but considered specific cases and the best way to manage them. Anyone could request the board to consider a prisoner at any time. There was far greater emphasis on case management with a wider remit than public protection specifically. Offender supervisors usually attended this meeting, along with psychologists, and it was an extremely useful forum in which to focus on difficult or problematic cases. While both the IRMT and IRMM were positive, there was inconsistent recording of information from them in offender supervisor files or reference to prisoners being reviewed.
HMP Kingston 70 Housekeeping points
9.25 Offender management contact sheets should be annotated following interdepartmental risk management team reviews or interdepartmental risk management meetings.
9.26 All key departments should be represented at monthly interdepartmental risk management team meetings.
Resettlement pathways
Expected outcomes: Prisoners' resettlement needs are met under the seven pathways outlined in the Reducing Reoffending National Action Plan. An effective multi-agency response is used to meet the specific needs of each individual offender in order to maximise the likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.
Reintegration planning
9.27 There was little provision for the accommodation or finance, benefit and debt pathways, although this was in keeping with the most recent needs analysis. Some finance, benefit and debt support was available through the education department. There were opportunities for prisoners to develop basic skills and some vocational and work skills, and the prison prepared them for employment and training in prisons to which they transferred. Health staff ensured throughcare of prisoners leaving the prison, and the care programme approach was in use.
Accommodation
9.28 There was no specific accommodation support available. As release to the community was rare, arrangements were made on a case-by-case basis in liaison with community-based offender managers. Release in the first instance invariably involved probation-approved premises.
Education, training and employment For further details, see Learning and skills and work activities in Section 6
9.29 The prison helped support prisoners into education and employment through gaining the best benefit from employment and training as they moved through the prison system, which was appropriate for prisoners serving long sentences. There were opportunities for prisoners to develop their literacy and numeracy skills and a small range of vocational and work skills. Careers information and advice focused on helping prisoners prepare for employment within the prison system, identifying short-and long-term objectives. The prison had a good understanding of the provision available in the prisons where prisoners were likely to be transferred, and its own provision reflected and complemented this. Prisoners who transferred to other prisons were contacted to identify if the learning and skills provision of at Kingston had helping prepare them for employment and training at their current prison. This information was used to plan and develop the overall curriculum
HMP Kingston 71 Mental and physical health
9.30 Health service personnel liaised with receiving prisons or with probation resettlement officers to ensure throughcare for prisoners leaving Kingston. Help was given to assist prisoners locate a GP and dentist. Care plans were shared with staff in hostels, if clinically appropriate. The Solent palliative and end-of-life care policy was in use. Health care staff worked with the local hospice in providing care and training. Prisoners with serious and enduring mental illness were managed using the care programme approach.
Finance, benefit and debt
9.31 Finance, benefit and debt issues had not been identified in the most recent needs analysis by the psychology department. There was no independent debt management advice or support, although the education department provided some courses on financial management. A budgeting and money management course, accredited through the National Open College Network, was available according to demand or need and had only been delivered twice in the previous year. A further course was due with six to eight prisoners on the current waiting list. Business courses and the maths functional skills course included aspects of money management.
Drugs and alcohol
9.32 Drug and alcohol policies were being updated following a comprehensive and well-written substance use needs analysis. CARATs (counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare service) was in touch with 67.5% of the prison population, offering one-to-one work, group work and referrals to weekly yoga sessions. There was limited provision for primary alcohol users. Drug service users’ meetings had begun and had led to some good incentives for remaining drug free.
9.33 There were separate drug and alcohol policies, though the drug strategy fell out of date in April 2010. The alcohol policy was updated in August 2010. A very comprehensive and well-written substance use needs analysis with many recommendations had been completed by an external consultant in May 2010. This was one of the first steps in a review of the drug strategy that would also comprise IDTS as a major component. The drug strategy meeting was held monthly with variable attendance from across the establishment.
9.34 The CARAT (counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare) service had a caseload of 135 (67.5% of the prison population), made up of 43 active, 51 suspended and 36 triaged cases, covered by a civilian senior worker from RAPt (Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners trust), and a uniformed drug strategy officer. The CARAT team delivered group work modules from the IDTS 28-day psychosocial programme as a structured course, with additional input covering relapse prevention. Prisoners said this was a helpful programme; at the time of the inspection, 35 were on the waiting list.
9.35 The CARAT workers additionally processed referrals to a weekly yoga class. Ten prisoners could attend a 10-week course, and those who showed particular motivation could continue after the 10 weeks, if spaces allowed.
9.36 There were 147 compact based drug testing (CBDT) compacts, comprising a mix of compliance and incentive-based testing. Compliance tests were for prisoners working in higher
HMP Kingston 72 risk areas, such as the kitchens, laundry and the recycling workshops. The CBDT positive rate for the six months to July 2010 was 0.8% with 17 refusals, which brought the positive rate to 2.8%.
9.37 The regularity of tests was determined by a computer-based algorithm used to calculate the risk of further drug use, based on previous history and other individual risk factors. Negative test results over long periods not only earned prisoners certificates, but also other incentives, such as extra gym sessions, telephone credits or visiting orders. The additional incentives for producing negative CBDT tests had been introduced following the suggestion of four prisoner representatives who attended the drug strategy service users’ meeting. The first of these innovative prisoner involvement initiatives had been in January 2010 and were planned to be held every four months. Staff attending included the drug strategy manager, CARAT worker, drug strategy officer and a CBDT representative. Minutes showed that many prisoner concerns were being addressed and ideas implemented.
9.38 The CARAT team was not funded to work with alcohol-only clients, though a non-accredited, 10-unit ‘alcohol and offending’ course was run through the education department. There were weekly Alcoholics Anonymous meetings but no other drug or alcohol-related offending behaviour programmes or therapeutic programmes.
9.39 Contact between the CARAT service and community-based, drug-related resettlement agencies like drug intervention programmes (DIPs) were described as being ‘very rare indeed’ due to the low number of releases from the establishment.
9.40 Relatively few prisoners expected to have drug and alcohol problems on leaving the prison. In our survey, only 6% of respondents, against a comparator of 12%, thought they would have a drug problem.
Recommendation
9.41 The establishment should address the currently insufficient level of services for prisoners with primary alcohol problems.
Children and families of offenders
9.42 Arrangements for visits were generally good, visitors experienced few delays and visits took place in a relaxed atmosphere. There had been positive initiatives to support the maintenance of family ties, despite the long distance that many had to travel. There were monthly all-day visits and regular family days, and the new visitors’ centre would offer further benefits to prisoners’ families.
9.43 Visits were available on Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday with up to 16 open and two closed visits at each session. The visits booking line was open each evening during the week, as well as at weekends. Although some prisoners told us that getting through to the booking line could be a problem, we got a response without difficulty. Visitors could book their next visit while at the prison, but they could not book visits by email or text.
9.44 Visitors could book into visits up to one hour before the start of the session. A small waiting area within the prison gate had a range of information and comfortable chairs. The prison was developing a dedicated visitors’ centre.
HMP Kingston 73 9.45 Prisoners waited for their visitors on the wing and went over when they had arrived in the visits hall. This usually meant that visits did not start until about 2.15pm, 15 minutes short of the advertised two hours. Prisoners did not have to wear sashes but instead visitors were given discreet wrist bands. The visits area was small but bright and airy and, although fixed furniture was used, it had a relaxed atmosphere. This was helped by the recent availability of free drinks and refreshments – rolls, biscuits and fruit. Visitors told us that they found staff helpful and polite, and that their experience of visiting the prison was largely positive.
9.46 The prison had also developed several initiatives to support the maintenance of family ties. All- day visits were available one day a month, which many prisoners, especially those with families some distance away, took advantage of. There were also four to five family days a year, which prisoners were encouraged to spend with their children (or grandchildren), with activities facilitated through the local Sure Start. The prison had started to develop links with Action for Prisoners’ Families and Kids VIP, and it was anticipated that the new visitors’ centre would facilitate this work still further.
Recommendation
9.47 The prison should introduce alternatives to the telephone booking line for visits, including email.
Good practice
9.48 The availability of free refreshments for visitors during visits added to the relaxed atmosphere.
Attitudes, thinking and behaviour
9.49 The healthy relationships programme was the only accredited programme, but this appeared broadly appropriate for the current population. Only eight prisoners a year could currently access it and waiting lists were long. Transfers to other prisons to complete identified programmes were managed reasonably well. There was some further one-to-one work but numbers were low.
9.50 The healthy relationships programme (HRP) was the only nationally accredited programme at the prison. It had been introduced in 2009 and was currently delivering the second course. The high intensive version of the programme was provided but, due to its length, only one course a year was run, with a maximum completion number of eight. Identification of need for the course was mainly through sentence planning and at the time of the inspection, 34 prisoners had been identified as needing it. It was likely that more would be identified as plans were reviewed. We were told that prisoners could wait three to five years to get on the programme, although a less intensive version was planned to be delivered during 2011 which would allow a higher completion rate. Despite this, the HRP appeared to be an appropriate programme for the population.
9.51 Although the prison had previously delivered CALM (controlling anger and learning to manage it), P-ASRO (prisoners addressing substance related offending) and ETS (enhanced thinking skills) there had been problems in meeting completion targets due to the relatively static population. Although we were told that, generally, prisoners were expected to have already completed ETS or CALM (or their equivalents) before arrival, the recent needs analysis
HMP Kingston 74 indicated that many prisoners still had this requirement; 41 were identified for CALM and nine for ETS.
9.52 Moving prisoners to other establishments to meet sentence planning targets, and in particular offending behaviour programmes, was managed through the OMU. Priority was given to prisoners moving to attend programmes. At the time of the inspection, 45 were waiting for a transfer. Since the beginning of 2010, 61 transfers had been facilitated and, since the prison had been able to manage moves itself at the beginning of July, approximately 30 moves had taken place. The psychology department could assess prisoners for most of the other national accredited programmes, which facilitated transfers.
9.53 Both psychology staff and offender supervisors undertook some one-to-one work, although the number of prisoners was appropriately low. One offender supervisor was undertaking some individual work with a prisoner oriented to anger and aggression, supported and coached by one of the psychology team. One of the probation offender supervisors was developing some further one-to-one work on victim awareness.
HMP Kingston 75
HMP Kingston 76 Section 10: Recommendations, housekeeping points and good practice
The following is a listing of recommendations and examples of good practice included in this report. The reference numbers at the end of each refer to the paragraph location in the main report.
Main recommendations To the governor
10.1 The prison should work with black and minority ethnic prisoners to understand why they have a more negative perception of their treatment than white prisoners and take any action needed to address this. (HP48)
10.2 There should be a permanent Muslim chaplain to ensure that Muslim prisoners have equity and consistency in practising their faith. (HP49)
10.3 The prison should improve the range and amount of education courses and vocational training to meet the needs of the prisoners. (HP50)
10.4 The roles of both offender supervisors and personal officers should be clarified to ensure they contribute to reducing or minimising a prisoner’s risk of harm, with specific emphasis on the ongoing assessment of prisoner risk factors and reinforcement of previously learned skills. They should have appropriate training to fulfil this role. (HP51)
Recommendation To NOMS
10.5 Offender managers should play an active role in sentence planning reviews for all indeterminate-sentenced prisoners. (9.17)
Recommendation To the director of offender management
10.6 Reasonable adjustments should be made to allow prisoners with disabilities access to all the prisoner facilities at Kingston. (4.48)
Recommendations To the governor
First days in custody: reception
10.7 Handcuffs should only be used for prisoners moving between reception and escort vehicles on the basis of an individual risk assessment. (1.13)
First days in custody: first night
10.8 New arrivals should be allocated straight to their allocated longer-term accommodation to support them to settle more quickly. (1.19)
HMP Kingston 77 Residential units: hygiene
10.9 Showers that are in a poor state of repair should be refurbished. (2.19)
10.10 Prisoners should be able to shower in private. (2.20)
Personal officers
10.11 The personal officers allocated to new arrivals should be on duty within 24 hours of the prisoner’s arrival and introduce themselves and explain their role and responsibilities. (2.33)
10.12 Personal officers should make at least twice-monthly entries in the history sheets of prisoners on their caseload. (2.34)
Bullying and violence reduction
10.13 Managers should regularly monitor anti-bullying investigations to ensure these are consistent and evidence robust enquiry into the alleged incident. (3.11)
10.14 Prisoners placed on stage two of the anti-bullying scheme should not automatically have their gym restricted to one session a week. (3.12)
10.15 Victim support plans should clearly state the support to be provided. (3.13)
Self-harm and suicide
10.16 Night observations of prisoners on ACCTs should be at irregular intervals and not be predictable. (3.24)
10.17 Prisoners in the segregation unit should be able to have face-to-face contact with a Listener, including during the night. (3.25)
10.18 Staff observing prisoners on violence reduction measures or assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) self-harm monitoring should engage with these prisoners and show evidence of such engagement in the relevant monitoring records. (3.26)
Applications and complaints
10.19 The number of applications that remain unanswered for more than five days should be reduced and the quality of responses should be improved. (3.30)
Legal rights
10.20 Legal services officers should be trained to carry out their role. (3.35)
Faith and religious activity
10.21 Chaplains should be available to meet the needs of all faiths represented in the prison. (3.40)
HMP Kingston 78 10.22 There should be weekly services in a suitable venue for prisoners who have difficulty in accessing the chapel. (3.41)
10.23 There should be a suitable multi-faith room for Friday prayers. (3.42)
10.24 A chaplain should be available to support a bereaved prisoner within 24 hours of notification. (3.43)
Diversity
10.25 The diversity policy document should be updated, made prisoner-specific and link identified issues to the diversity race equality action plan. Both documents should be available to prisoners. (4.8)
Diversity: race equality
10.26 Feedback should be gained from prisoners who have submitted racist incident report forms (RIRFs) to enable an analysis of complainants’ perception of the process, and any concerns identified should be responded to. (4.21)
Diversity: foreign nationals
10.27 There should be an annual needs analysis of foreign national prisoners and an action plan based on the results. (4.37)
Diversity: disability and older prisoners
10.28 Personal emergency and evacuation plans held centrally should contain relevant information for each prisoner’s needs in the case of an emergency. (4.47)
10.29 Well man clinics should be run more frequently to involve more of the population. (4.49)
10.30 Care plans for older prisoners should be multidisciplinary. (4.50)
Diversity: sexual orientation
10.31 Support networks should be developed for gay or bisexual prisoners. (4.57)
Health services: general
10.32 The prison should seek the commissioning of an up-to-date health needs assessment by Portsmouth City NHS Teaching Primary Care Trust. (5.7)
Health services: pharmacy
10.33 A pharmacist should attend the prison regularly and provide pharmacist-led clinics, clinical audit and medication reviews. (5.32)
HMP Kingston 79 Health services: dentistry
10.34 There should be arrangements to cover the dentist’s annual leave. (5.42)
10.35 There should be a formal protocol for dental out-of-hours cover. (5.43)
10.36 The non-attendance rates at dental clinics and the reasons why appointments are missed should be assessed. (5.44)
Health services: mental health
10.37 Uniformed staff should receive training to recognise and take appropriate action when a prisoner has possible mental health problems and work effectively with health staff to ensure his care. (5.52)
Learning and skills and work activities: induction
10.38 All prisoners should have the opportunity to access the careers information and advice support service to review their progress while at Kingston. (6.7)
Learning and skills and work activities: work
10.39 The work available in the main contract workshop should be meaningful employment relevant to current industry standards. (6.12)
10.40 Work skills developed by prisoners in work that is non-accredited should be recognised and recorded. (6.13)
Learning and skills and work activities: education
10.41 The planning of literacy and numeracy provision should be developed to support learners’ individual needs. (6.24)
10.42 Support for learners who progress to distant learning courses should be developed and improved and they should have access to sufficient resources. (6.25)
Learning and skills and work activities: library
10.43 The library should improve its collection and analysis of data to identify and improve library use across the prison. (6.29)
Physical education and health promotion
10.44 The number of prisoners engaged in PE accredited programmes should be increased. (6.36)
HMP Kingston 80 Discipline: the use of force
10.45 The security committee should broaden its discussion of use of force incidents to include quality assurance of completed paperwork and this should be reflected in the published minutes. (7.19)
10.46 Following a use of force incident, health care staff should conduct a face-to-face examination of prisoners involved before completing a F213 (injury to prisoner) form. (7.20)
10.47 All planned use of force incidents should be video-recorded. (7.21)
10.48 Records of the use of the special cell should include details of whether the prisoner retained his own clothing. (7.22)
Discipline: segregation unit
10.49 Prisoners should only be strip searched on admission to the segregation unit following an assessment of risk and authorisation by a manager. (7.30)
10.50 Formal segregation unit care and reintegration plans should be used with prisoners held in segregation for long periods to support and plan for their return to normal location. (7.31)
Incentives and earned privileges
10.51 Opportunities for enhanced family contact should not be dependent on a prisoner’s incentives and earned privileges (IEP) level. (7.43)
Catering
10.52 The kitchen and servery should be redecorated and damaged flooring replaced. (8.9)
10.53 The negative perceptions of black and minority ethnic prisoners about food should be investigated and action taken to address these. (8.10)
10.54 The evening meal on Sundays should not be served before 5pm. (8.11)
10.55 Breakfast should be served on the morning that it is to be consumed. (8.12)
10.56 The limited self-catering facilities on E wing should be extended. (8.13)
Strategic management of resettlement
10.57 The reducing reoffending strategy document should give clear strategic guidance on how prisoner risk factors should be assessed and evaluated across the establishment. (9.6)
Offender management and planning: sentence planning and offender management
10.58 The quality assurance system for personal officer sentence plan reviews should ensure consistency and focus on a better analysis and evaluation of behaviour. (9.18)
HMP Kingston 81 10.59 The offender management unit quality assurance scheme should focus more specifically on the quality of contact and interventions and the evaluation of risk. (9.19)
Resettlement pathways: drugs and alcohol
10.60 The establishment should address the currently insufficient level of services for prisoners with primary alcohol problems. (9.41)
Resettlement pathways: children and families of offenders
10.61 The prison should introduce alternatives to the telephone booking line for visits, including email. (9.47)
Housekeeping points
First days in custody: reception
10.62 The Listener in reception should be easily identifiable to new arrivals. (1.14)
First days in custody: induction
10.63 Prisoners should automatically receive protected earnings during their induction period without having to make an application. (1.22)
Residential units: accommodation and facilities
10.64 All toilets should be de-scaled and a programme for regular de-scaling should be introduced. (2.12)
Residential units: clothes and possessions
10.65 The washing machine on E wing should be repaired. (2.15)
Personal officers
10.66 The personal officer roles and responsibilities and personal officer engagement continuous strategy documents should be pulled together into one guidance document for staff. (2.35)
10.67 A shadow personal officer should be allocated to cover when the nominated personal officer is absent. (2.36)
Bullying and violence reduction
10.68 Victim support plans should clearly state the support to be provided. (3.13)
HMP Kingston 82 Applications and complaints
10.69 Envelopes for confidential complaint forms should be readily available. (3.31)
Diversity
10.70 The bimonthly diversity race equality action team (DREAT) meeting agenda should cover all aspects of diversity in depth. (4.9)
Diversity: race equality
10.71 DREAT minutes should include a summary of investigations into ethnic monitoring (SMART) data that falls outside the anticipated ranges. (4.15)
10.72 The race equality strategy should be available to prisoners. (4.16)
10.73 Black and minority ethnic focus group meetings should be held more frequently. (4.25)
Diversity: foreign nationals
10.74 An up-to-date copy of the foreign national policy should be available to prisoners. (4.38)
Diversity: disability and older prisoners
10.75 More prisoners should be encouraged to attend the quarterly older and disabled prisoners’ group meeting. (4.51)
10.76 Extra blankets should be given to prisoners over 50 automatically at the outset of winter. (4.52)
Diversity: sexual orientation
10.77 The gay and transgender policy guidance document should be available to prisoners. (4.58)
Health services: primary care
10.78 The reception health screening tool should prompt staff to identify signs and symptoms of alcohol and/or substance use related needs. (5.20)
10.79 The availability of barrier protection should be better advertised. (5.21)
10.80 Prisoners should have the choice of an individual consultation with a doctor, subject to risk assessment. (5.22)
Health services: pharmacy
10.81 Loose tablets and tablet foils should not be present in medications stock. (5.33)
HMP Kingston 83 10.82 Old reference books should be discarded, and only the most recent copy should be kept. (5.34)
10.83 Maximum and minimum drug fridge temperatures should be recorded daily to ensure that heat- sensitive items are stored within the 2-8°C range. Corrective action should be taken if necessary, and this should be monitored by pharmacy staff. (5.35)
10.84 Written policies should record the dates on which they were implemented and are next due for review. (5.36)
10.85 The in-possession risk assessments of each drug should be appended to the prisoner’s drug administration chart. (5.37)
Health services: dentistry
10.86 The dental chair should be relocated to enable the team to operate more efficiently. (5.45)
10.87 The procedures for the taking of radiographs should be in line with the guidelines published by the Faculty of General Dental Practice (UK). (5.46)
Learning and skills and work activities: education
10.88 Work produced in education should be put on display. (6.26)
Discipline: the use of force
10.89 Strip clothing should not be left in the special accommodation cell. (7.23)
Incentives and earned privileges
10.90 The criteria for allocation to E wing should be published and publicised. (7.44)
10.91 Targets for prisoners to move from basic should be more specific and supported by staff and available interventions. (7.45)
Catering
10.92 There should be a separate bratt catering pan for halal food. (8.14)
10.93 Food comment cards should be logged on receipt. (8.15)
Prison shop
10.94 There should be wider prisoner consultation about the shop list. (8.21)
HMP Kingston 84 Offender management and planning: sentence planning and offender management
10.95 The psychology department should ensure that prisoner files and/or information about prisoners are available from sending establishments in time for the prisoner’s first sentence plan review. (9.20)
Offender management and planning: public protection
10.96 Offender management contact sheets should be annotated following interdepartmental risk management team reviews or interdepartmental risk management meetings. (9.25)
10.97 All key departments should be represented at monthly interdepartmental risk management team meetings. (9.26)
Examples of good practice
10.98 The holding room in the mandatory drug testing (MDT) suite had a very relaxed atmosphere and was a respectful and friendly environment. (3.52)
10.99 Cell cards had a section for prisoners to tick if they had specific disabilities. (4.53)
10.100 The older prisoners’ reminder cards were a novel, popular and colourful way to remind them to attend for health appointments. (5.23)
10.101 The availability in the hub office of care plan summaries for prisoners with complex needs demonstrated joint working and assisted uniformed officers to support prisoners in acute situations. (5.24)
10.102 The availability of free refreshments for visitors during visits added to the relaxed atmosphere. (9.48)
HMP Kingston 85 Appendix I: Inspection team
Nigel Newcomen Deputy Chief Inspector Sara Snell Team leader Kellie Reeve Inspector Andrea Walker Inspector Keith McInnis Inspector Kevin Parkinson Inspector Samantha Booth Senior research officer Catherine Nichols Research officer Helen Wark Research trainee
Specialist inspectors Paul Roberts Drugs inspector Paul Tarbuck Health services inspector Simon Denton Pharmacist Christine Windle Dentist Stephen Miller Ofsted inspector Richard Beaumont Ofsted inspector Andrew Broughton Ofsted inspector Nigel Scarff HMI Probation Malcolm Bryant HMI Probation
HMP Kingston 86 Appendix II: Prison population profile Please note: the following figures were supplied by the establishment and any errors are the establishment’s own.
Status 21 and over % Sentenced 194 98 Recall 3 2 Total 197 100
Sentence 21 and over % ISPP 9 5 Life 188 95 Total 197 100
Age Number of prisoners % 21 years to 29 years 36 18 30 years to 39 years 54 27 40 years to 49 years 51 25 50 years to 59 years 36 18 60 years to 69 years 15 7 70 plus years: maximum age=79 5 5 Total 197 100
Nationality 21 and over % British 181 92 Foreign nationals 16 8 Total 197 100
Security category 21 and over % Cat B 124 62.5 Cat C 72 37 Cat D 1 0.5 Total 197 100
Ethnicity 21 and over % White: British 139 70.2 Irish 4 2.1 Other white 15 7.6 Mixed White and black Caribbean 3 1.6 White and Asian 1 0.05 Other mixed 4 2.1 Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 3 1.6 Other Asian 3 1.6 Black or black British: Caribbean 8 4.0 African 6 3.1 Other black 8 4.1 Chinese or other ethnic group: Chinese 1 0.5 Other ethnic group 1 0.5 Not stated 1 0.5 Total 197 100
HMP Kingston 87 Religion 21 and over % Church of England 57 29.0 Roman Catholic 32 16.1 Other Christian denominations 26 8.7 Muslim 21 10.9 Sikh 2 1.0 Hindu 1 0.5 Buddhist 14 7.3 Jewish 2 1.0 Other 5 7.4 No religion 37 18.1 Total 197 100
Sentenced prisoners only Length of stay 21 and over Number % Less than 1 month 9 4 1 month to 3 months 20 10 3 months to 6 months 14 7.17 6 months to 1 year 41 21.02 1 year to 2 years 33 16.92 2 years to 4 years 42 21.53 4 years or more 36 18.46 Total 195 100
Main offence 21 and over % Violence against the person 178 90 Sexual offences 11 5 Robbery 4 2.5 Other offences 4 2.5 Total 197 100
HMP Kingston 88 Appendix III: Summary of prisoner questionnaires and interviews
Prisoner survey methodology
A voluntary, confidential and anonymous survey of a representative proportion of the prisoner population was carried out for this inspection. The results of this survey formed part of the evidence base for the inspection.
Choosing the sample size
The baseline for the sample size was calculated using a robust statistical formula provided by a government department statistician. Essentially, the formula indicates the sample size that is required and the extent to which the findings from a sample of that size reflect the experiences of the whole population.
At the time of the survey on 19 July 2010, the prisoner population at HMP Kingston was 193. The sample size was 128. Overall, this represented 66% of the prisoner population.
Selecting the sample
Respondents were randomly selected from a LIDS prisoner population printout using a stratified systematic sampling method. This basically means every second person is selected from a P-Nomis list, which is printed in location order, if 50% of the population is to be sampled.
Completion of the questionnaire was voluntary. Refusals were noted and no attempts were made to replace them. Eight respondents refused to complete a questionnaire.
Interviews were carried out with any respondents with literacy difficulties. Two respondents were interviewed.
Methodology
Every attempt was made to distribute the questionnaires to each respondent on an individual basis. This gave researchers an opportunity to explain the independence of the Inspectorate and the purpose of the questionnaire, as well as to answer questions.
All completed questionnaires were confidential – only members of the Inspectorate saw them. In order to ensure confidentiality, respondents were asked to do one of the following:
have their questionnaire ready to hand back to a member of the research team at a specified time; seal the questionnaire in the envelope provided and hand it to a member of staff, if they were agreeable; or seal the questionnaire in the envelope provided and leave it in their room for collection.
HMP Kingston 89 Respondents were not asked to put their names on their questionnaire.
Response rates
In total, 106 respondents completed and returned their questionnaires. This represented 55% of the prison population. The response rate was 83%. In addition to the eight respondents who refused to complete a questionnaire, seven questionnaires were not returned and seven were returned blank.
Comparisons
The following details the results from the survey. Data from each establishment has been weighted, in order to mimic a consistent percentage sampled in each establishment.
Some questions have been filtered according to the response to a previous question. Filtered questions are clearly indented and preceded by an explanation as to which respondents are included in the filtered questions. Otherwise, percentages provided refer to the entire sample. All missing responses are excluded from the analysis.
The following analyses have been conducted:
The current survey responses in 2010 against comparator figures for all prisoners surveyed in category B trainer prisons. This comparator is based on all responses from prisoner surveys carried out in eight category B trainer prisons since February 2006. The current survey responses in 2010 against the responses of prisoners surveyed at HMP Kingston in 2005. A comparison within the 2010 survey between the responses of white prisoners and those from a black and minority ethnic group. A comparison within the 2010 survey between the responses of prisoners who consider themselves to have a disability and those who do not consider themselves to have a disability.
In all the above documents, statistical significance is used to indicate whether there is a real difference between the figures, i.e. the difference is not due to chance alone. Results that are significantly better are indicated by green shading, results that are significantly worse are indicated by blue shading and where there is no significant difference, there is no shading. Orange shading has been used to show a significant difference in prisoners’ background details.
It should be noted that, in order for statistical comparisons to be made between the most recent survey data and that of the previous survey, both sets of data have been coded in the same way. This may result in changes to percentages from previously published surveys. However, all percentages are true of the populations they were taken from, and the statistical significance is correct.
Summary
In addition, a summary of the survey results is attached. This shows a breakdown of responses for each question. Percentages have been rounded and therefore may not add up to 100%.
HMP Kingston 90
No questions have been filtered within the summary so all percentages refer to responses from the entire sample. The percentages to certain responses within the summary, for example ‘not sentenced’ options across questions, may differ slightly. This is due to different response rates across questions, meaning that the percentages have been calculated out of different totals (all missing data is excluded). The actual numbers will match up as the data is cleaned to be consistent.
Percentages shown in the summary may differ by 1% or 2% from that shown in the comparison data as the comparator data has been weighted for comparison purposes.
HMP Kingston 91 Survey summary
Section 1: About you
Q1.2 How old are you? Under 21...... 1 (1%) 21 - 29...... 17 (17%) 30 - 39...... 26 (25%) 40 - 49...... 30 (29%) 50 - 59...... 19 (18%) 60 - 69...... 7 (7%) 70 and over ...... 3 (3%)
Q1.3 Are you sentenced? Yes ...... 104 (98%) Yes - on recall...... 2 (2%) No - awaiting trial ...... 0 (0%) No - awaiting sentence...... 0 (0%) No - awaiting deportation...... 0 (0%)
Q1.4 How long is your sentence? Not sentenced...... 0 (0%) Less than six months...... 0 (0%) Six months to less than one year ...... 0 (0%) One year to less than two years...... 0 (0%) Two years to less than four years ...... 0 (0%) Four years to less than 10 years ...... 0 (0%) 10 years or more...... 9 (9%) IPP (indeterminate sentence for public protection) ...... 3 (3%) Life...... 92 (88%)
Q1.5 Approximately, how long do you have left to serve (if you are serving life or IPP, please use the date of your next board)? Not sentenced...... 0 (0%) Six months or less...... 11 (15%) More than six months...... 64 (85%)
Q1.6 How long have you been in this prison? Less than one month...... 1 (1%) One to less than three months...... 3 (3%) Three to less than six months...... 4 (4%) Six to less than 12 months ...... 7 (7%) Twelve months to less than two years ...... 9 (9%) Two to less than four years ...... 17 (16%) Four years or more ...... 63 (61%)
HMP Kingston 92
Q1.7 Are you a foreign national (i.e. do not hold UK citizenship)? Yes ...... 8 (8%) No ...... 95 (92%)
Q1.8 Is English your first language? Yes ...... 94 (93%) No ...... 7 (7%)
Q1.9 What is your ethnic origin? White - British ...... 77 Asian or Asian British - 1 (1%) (75%) Bangladeshi...... White - Irish...... 3 (3%) Asian or Asian British - other...... 0 (0%) White - other ...... 4 (4%) Mixed heritage - white and black 4 (4%) Caribbean ...... Black or black British - Caribbean 3 (3%) Mixed heritage - white and black 0 (0%) African ...... Black or black British - African ...... 3 (3%) Mixed heritage - white and Asian. 0 (0%) Black or black British - other ...... 1 (1%) Mixed heritage - other...... 4 (4%) Asian or Asian British - Indian...... 1 (1%) Chinese...... 0 (0%) Asian or Asian British - Pakistani . 1 (1%) Other ethnic group...... 1 (1%)
Q1.10 Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller? Yes ...... 4 (4%) No ...... 97 (96%)
Q1.11 What is your religion? None...... 28 (27%) Hindu ...... 0 (0%) Church of England ...... 25 (24%) Jewish ...... 1 (1%) Catholic...... 19 (18%) Muslim...... 7 (7%) Protestant...... 3 (3%) Sikh...... 1 (1%) Other Christian denomination . 7 (7%) Other...... 5 (5%) Buddhist...... 8 (8%)
Q1.12 How would you describe your sexual orientation? Heterosexual/straight ...... 97 (93%) Homosexual/gay ...... 2 (2%) Bisexual ...... 3 (3%) Other ...... 2 (2%)
Q1.13 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? Yes ...... 23 (22%) No ...... 81 (78%)
Q1.14 How many times have you been in prison before? 0 1 2 to 5 More than 5 51 (49%) 18 (17%) 22 (21%) 13 (13%)
HMP Kingston 93
Q1.15 Including this prison, how many prisons have you been in during this sentence/remand time? 1 2 to 5 More than 5 2 (2%) 70 (67%) 32 (31%)
Q1.16 Do you have any children under the age of 18? Yes ...... 25 (24%) No ...... 80 (76%)
Section 2: Courts, transfers and escorts
Q2.1 We want to know about the most recent journey you have made either to or from court or between prisons. How was: Very Good Neither Bad Very Don't N/A good bad remember The cleanliness of the van? 9 56 16 10 3 6 2 (9%) (55%) (16%) (10%) (3%) (6%) (2%) Your personal safety during the 12 59 14 6 2 1 1 journey? (13%) (62%) (15%) (6%) (2%) (1%) (1%) The comfort of the van? 2 19 17 40 23 0 1 (2%) (19%) (17%) (39%) (23%) (0%) (1%) The attention paid to your health 4 31 32 11 11 2 6 needs? (4%) (32%) (33%) (11%) (11%) (2%) (6%) The frequency of toilet breaks? 2 15 22 23 20 2 15 (2%) (15%) (22%) (23%) (20%) (2%) (15%)
Q2.2 How long did you spend in the van? Less than 1 hour Over 1 hour to 2 Over 2 hours to 4 More than 4 Don't remember hours hours hours 5 (5%) 24 (23%) 54 (52%) 15 (14%) 6 (6%)
Q2.3 How did you feel you were treated by the escort staff? Very well Well Neither Badly Very badly Don't remember 21 (20%) 55 (53%) 25 (24%) 3 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Q2.4 Please answer the following questions about when you first arrived here: Yes No Don't remember Did you know where you were going when you left court or 96 7 (7%) 0 (0%) when transferred from another prison? (93%) Before you arrived here did you receive any written 22 80 1 (1%) information about what would happen to you? (21%) (78%) When you first arrived here did your property arrive at the 97 5 (5%) 0 (0%) same time as you? (95%)
HMP Kingston 94
Section 3: Reception, first night and induction
Q3.1 In the first 24 hours, did staff ask you if you needed help or support with the following? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Didn't ask about any of 29 (30%) Money worries...... 9 (9%) these...... Loss of property...... 8 (8%) Feeling depressed or suicidal.. 31 (32%) Housing problems...... 5 (5%) Health problems...... 46 (47%) Contacting employers ...... 4 (4%) Needing protection from other 11 (11%) prisoners ...... Contacting family...... 44 (45%) Accessing phone numbers...... 31 (32%) Ensuring dependants were 6 (6%) Other...... 1 (1%) being looked after ......
Q3.2 Did you have any of the following problems when you first arrived here? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Didn't have any problems..... 46 (54%) Money worries...... 7 (8%) Loss of property...... 10 (12%) Feeling depressed or suicidal.. 5 (6%) Housing problems...... 1 (1%) Health problems...... 16 (19%) Contacting employers ...... 1 (1%) Needing protection from other 3 (4%) prisoners ...... Contacting family...... 11 (13%) Accessing phone numbers...... 15 (18%) Ensuring dependants were 0 (0%) Other...... 2 (2%) looked after ......
Q3.3 Please answer the following questions about reception: Yes No Don't remember Were you seen by a member of health 71 (68%) 27 (26%) 7 (7%) services? When you were searched, was this carried out 89 (87%) 8 (8%) 5 (5%) in a respectful way?
Q3.4 Overall, how well did you feel you were treated in reception? Very well Well Neither Badly Very badly Don't remember 38 (37%) 50 (49%) 9 (9%) 1 (1%) 3 (3%) 2 (2%)
Q3.5 On your day of arrival, were you offered information on the following? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Information about what was going to happen to you ...... 62 (63%) Information about what support was available for people feeling 52 (53%) depressed or suicidal ...... Information about how to make routine requests ...... 61 (62%) Information about your entitlement to visits...... 55 (56%) Information about health services ...... 62 (63%) Information about the chaplaincy ...... 56 (57%) Not offered anything ...... 22 (22%)
HMP Kingston 95
Q3.6 On your day of arrival, were you offered any of the following? (Please tick all that apply to you.) A smokers/non-smokers pack...... 41 (40%) The opportunity to have a shower...... 56 (54%) The opportunity to make a free telephone call...... 58 (56%) Something to eat...... 71 (69%) Did not receive anything...... 13 (13%)
Q3.7 Did you meet any of the following people within the first 24 hours of your arrival at this prison? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Chaplain or religious leader ...... 39 (38%) Someone from health services ...... 72 (71%) A Listener/Samaritans...... 31 (30%) Did not meet any of these people...... 23 (23%)
Q3.8 Did you have access to the prison shop/canteen within the first 24 hours of your arrival at this prison? Yes ...... 4 (4%) No ...... 101 (96%)
Q3.9 Did you feel safe on your first night here? Yes ...... 94 (90%) No ...... 8 (8%) Don't remember...... 3 (3%)
Q3.10 How soon after your arrival did you go on an induction course? Have not been on an induction course...... 19 (18%) Within the first week ...... 56 (54%) More than a week ...... 20 (19%) Don't remember...... 9 (9%)
Q3.11 Did the induction course cover everything you needed to know about the prison? Have not been on an induction course...... 19 (19%) Yes ...... 53 (53%) No ...... 18 (18%) Don't remember...... 10 (10%)
Section 4: Legal rights and respectful custody
Q4.1 How easy is it to: Very Easy Neither Difficult Very N/A easy difficult Communicate with your 21 51 8 (8%) 10 4 (4%) 6 (6%) solicitor or legal (21%) (51%) (10%) representative? Attend legal visits? 18 37 10 5 (6%) 2 (2%) 18 (20%) (41%) (11%) (20%) Obtain bail information? 0 (0%) 5 (7%) 6 (8%) 1 (1%) 4 (5%) 57 (78%)
HMP Kingston 96
Q4.2 Have staff here ever opened letters from your solicitor or your legal representative when you were not with them? Not had any letters ...... 15 (15%) Yes ...... 51 (50%) No ...... 37 (36%)
Q4.3 Please answer the following questions about the wing/unit you are currently living on: Yes No Don't N/A know Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for 72 11 4 15 the week? (71%) (11%) (4%) (15%) Are you normally able to have a shower every day? 101 3 0 0 (97%) (3%) (0%) (0%) Do you normally receive clean sheets every week? 87 5 0 10 (85%) (5%) (0%) (10%) Do you normally get cell cleaning materials every week? 93 8 1 1 (90%) (8%) (1%) (1%) Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? 64 17 16 4 (63%) (17%) (16%) (4%) Is it normally quiet enough for you to be able to relax or 89 12 0 0 sleep in your cell at night time? (88%) (12%) (0%) (0%) Can you normally get your stored property if you need to? 33 31 20 15 (33%) (31%) (20%) (15%)
Q4.4 What is the food like here? Very good Good Neither Bad Very bad 12 (12%) 53 (51%) 26 (25%) 12 (12%) 1 (1%)
Q4.5 Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs? Have not bought anything yet...... 2 (2%) Yes ...... 28 (27%) No ...... 72 (71%)
Q4.6 Is it easy or difficult to get: Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very Don't difficult know A complaint form 44 (43%) 45 (44%) 10 (10%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 3 (3%) An application form 59 (58%) 38 (38%) 2 (2%) 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%)
Q4.7 Have you made an application? Yes ...... 100 (96%) No ...... 4 (4%)
HMP Kingston 97
Q4.8 Please answer the following questions concerning applications: (If you have not made an application please tick the 'not made one' option.) Not Yes No made one Do you feel applications are dealt with fairly? 4 (4%) 65 30 (66%) (30%) Do you feel applications are dealt with promptly (within 4 (4%) 63 30 seven days)? (65%) (31%)
Q4.9 Have you made a complaint? Yes ...... 64 (61%) No ...... 41 (39%)
Q4.10 Please answer the following questions concerning complaints: (If you have not made a complaint please tick the 'not made one' option.) Not Yes No made one Do you feel complaints are dealt with fairly? 41 22 41 (39%) (21%) (39%) Do you feel complaints are dealt with promptly (within 41 34 30 seven days)? (39%) (32%) (29%) Were you given information about how to make an appeal? 32 23 43 (33%) (23%) (44%)
Q4.11 Have you ever been made to or encouraged to withdraw a complaint since you have been in this prison? Not made a complaint...... 41 (39%) Yes ...... 17 (16%) No ...... 46 (44%)
Q4.12 How easy or difficult is it for you to see the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB)? Don't know who Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very difficult they are 17 (17%) 13 (13%) 31 (30%) 31 (30%) 5 (5%) 6 (6%)
Q4.13 What level of the IEP scheme are you on now? Don't know what the IEP scheme is ...... 2 (2%) Enhanced ...... 97 (92%) Standard...... 5 (5%) Basic ...... 1 (1%) Don't know...... 0 (0%)
Q4.14 Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme? Don't know what the IEP scheme is ...... 2 (2%) Yes ...... 71 (68%) No ...... 26 (25%) Don't know...... 5 (5%)
HMP Kingston 98 Q4.15 Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour? Don't know what the IEP scheme is ...... 2 (2%) Yes ...... 39 (40%) No ...... 51 (53%) Don't know...... 5 (5%)
Q4.16 Please answer the following questions about this prison: Yes No In the last six months have any members of staff physically 1 (1%) 104 (99%) restrained you (C&R)? In the last six months have you spent a night in the 4 (4%) 100 (96%) segregation/care and separation unit?
Q4.17 Please answer the following questions about your religious beliefs: Yes No Don' t know/N/A Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected? 53 19 27 (54%) (19%) (27%) Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in 53 19 21 private if you want to? (57%) (20%) (23%)
Q4.18 Can you speak to a Listener at any time if you want to? Yes No Don't know 67 (65%) 2 (2%) 34 (33%)
Q4.19 Please answer the following questions about staff in this prison: Yes No Is there a member of staff you can turn to for help if you 79 (77%) 24 (23%) have a problem? Do most staff treat you with respect? 84 (86%) 14 (14%)
Section 5: Safety
Q5.1 Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison? Yes ...... 35 (35%) No ...... 66 (65%)
Q5.2 Do you feel unsafe in this prison at the moment? Yes ...... 10 (10%) No ...... 91 (90%)
Q5.3 In which areas of this prison do you/have you ever felt unsafe? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Never felt unsafe...... 66 (73%) At mealtimes...... 6 (7%) Everywhere ...... 6 (7%) At health services ...... 2 (2%) Segregation unit ...... 1 (1%) Visits area...... 1 (1%) Association areas...... 9 (10%) In wing showers...... 11 (12%) Reception area ...... 1 (1%) In gym showers...... 5 (5%) At the gym ...... 7 (8%) In corridors/stairwells ...... 5 (5%)
HMP Kingston 99 In an exercise yard ...... 7 (8%) On your landing/wing ...... 6 (7%) At work...... 8 (9%) In your cell ...... 3 (3%) During movement...... 6 (7%) At religious services ...... 0 (0%) At education...... 4 (4%)
Q5.4 Have you been victimised by another prisoner or group of prisoners here? Yes ...... 27 (27%) No ...... 72 (73%) If No, go to question 5.6
Q5.5 If yes, what did the incident(s) involve/what was it about? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Insulting remarks (about you 15 (15%) Because of your sexuality ...... 1 (1%) or your family or friends) ...... Physical abuse (being hit, 7 (7%) Because you have a disability. 2 (2%) kicked or assaulted)...... Sexual abuse...... 1 (1%) Because of your 3 (3%) religion/religious beliefs ...... Because of your race or ethnic 4 (4%) Because of your age...... 2 (2%) origin ...... Because of drugs ...... 2 (2%) Being from a different part of 3 (3%) the country than others...... Having your canteen/property 4 (4%) Because of your offence/crime 10 (10%) taken ...... Because you were new here... 5 (5%) Because of gang related 3 (3%) issues ......
Q5.6 Have you been victimised by a member of staff or group of staff here? Yes ...... 25 (25%) No ...... 74 (75%) If No, go to question 5.8
Q5.7 If yes, what did the incident(s) involve/what was it about? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Insulting remarks (about you or 8 (8%) Because you have a disability.... 2 (2%) your family or friends)...... Physical abuse (being hit, 4 (4%) Because of your 3 (3%) kicked or assaulted)...... religion/religious beliefs ...... Sexual abuse...... 2 (2%) Because if your age ...... 4 (4%) Because of your race or ethnic 5 (5%) Being from a different part of 3 (3%) origin ...... the country than others...... Because of drugs ...... 3 (3%) Because of your offence/crime... 7 (7%) Because you were new here...... 4 (4%) Because of gang related issues. 0 (0%) Because of your sexuality...... 1 (1%)
Q5.8 If you have been victimised by prisoners or staff, did you report it? Not been victimised ...... 59 (61%) Yes ...... 20 (21%) No ...... 18 (19%)
HMP Kingston 100
Q5.9 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by another prisoner/group of prisoners in here? Yes ...... 25 (25%) No ...... 75 (75%)
Q5.10 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by a member of staff/group of staff in here? Yes ...... 21 (21%) No ...... 80 (79%)
Q5.11 Is it easy or difficult to get illegal drugs in this prison? Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very difficult Don't know 10 (10%) 12 (12%) 10 (10%) 6 (6%) 7 (7%) 56 (55%)
Section 6: Health services
Q6.1 How easy or difficult is it to see the following people? Don't Very easy Easy Neither Difficult Very know difficult The doctor 9 (9%) 12 (12%) 49 (49%) 13 (13%) 11 (11%) 7 (7%) The nurse 3 (3%) 28 (28%) 49 (49%) 10 (10%) 9 (9%) 1 (1%) The dentist 12 (12%) 9 (9%) 33 (34%) 8 (8%) 29 (30%) 7 (7%) The optician 18 (18%) 10 (10%) 35 (35%) 12 (12%) 20 (20%) 4 (4%)
Q6.2 Are you able to see a pharmacist? Yes ...... 38 (43%) No ...... 50 (57%)
Q6.3 What do you think of the quality of the health service from the following people? Not been Very good Good Neither Bad Very bad The doctor 13 (13%) 17 (17%) 36 (35%) 16 (16%) 13 (13%) 8 (8%) The nurse 3 (3%) 18 (18%) 41 (40%) 18 (18%) 13 (13%) 9 (9%) The dentist 18 (18%) 36 (35%) 31 (30%) 5 (5%) 8 (8%) 4 (4%) The optician 23 (23%) 27 (27%) 35 (35%) 8 (8%) 4 (4%) 4 (4%)
Q6.4 What do you think of the overall quality of the health services here? Not been Very good Good Neither Bad Very bad 2 (2%) 12 (12%) 45 (45%) 13 (13%) 15 (15%) 13 (13%)
Q6.5 Are you currently taking medication? Yes ...... 58 (56%) No ...... 45 (44%)
Q6.6 If you are taking medication, are you allowed to keep possession of your medication in your own cell? Not taking medication ...... 45 (44%) Yes ...... 51 (50%) No ...... 6 (6%)
HMP Kingston 101 Q6.7 Do you feel you have any emotional well-being/mental health issues? Yes ...... 23 (22%) No ...... 80 (78%)
Q6.8 Are your emotional well-being/mental health issues being addressed by any of the following? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Do not have any issues/not receiving any help ...... 80 (83%) Doctor ...... 4 (4%) Nurse...... 3 (3%) Psychiatrist...... 6 (6%) Mental health in-reach team...... 8 (8%) Counsellor ...... 5 (5%) Other ...... 2 (2%)
Q6.9 Did you have a problem with either of the following when you came into this prison? Yes No Drugs 8 (8%) 88 (92%) Alcohol 11 (11%) 85 (89%)
Q6.10 Have you developed a problem with drugs since you have been in this prison? Yes ...... 3 (3%) No ...... 99 (97%)
Q6.11 Do you know who to contact in this prison to get help with your drug or alcohol problem? Yes ...... 17 (17%) No ...... 1 (1%) Did not/do not have a drug or alcohol problem ...... 82 (82%)
Q6.12 Have you received any intervention or help (including, CARATs, health services etc.) for your drug/alcohol problem, while in this prison? Yes ...... 15 (15%) No ...... 3 (3%) Did not / do not have a drug or alcohol problem ...... 82 (82%)
Q6.13 Was the intervention or help you received, while in this prison, helpful? Yes ...... 14 (14%) No ...... 1 (1%) Did not have a problem/have not received help...... 84 (85%)
Q6.14 Do you think you will have a problem with either of the following when you leave this prison? Yes No Don't know Drugs 1 (1%) 95 (94%) 5 (5%) Alcohol 1 (1%) 91 (93%) 6 (6%)
HMP Kingston 102
Q6.15 Do you know who in this prison can help you contact external drug or alcohol agencies on release? Yes ...... 4 (4%) No ...... 4 (4%) N/A...... 93 (92%)
Section 7: Purposeful activity
Q7.1 Are you currently involved in any of the following activities? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Prison job ...... 80 (82%) Vocational or skills training...... 23 (23%) Education (including basic skills)...... 39 (40%) Offending behaviour programmes...... 17 (17%) Not involved in any of these ...... 7 (7%)
Q7.2 If you have been involved in any of the following, while in this prison, do you think it will help you on release? Not been Yes No Don't know involved Prison job 5 (6%) 40 (44%) 36 (40%) 9 (10%) Vocational or skills training 11 (17%) 35 (53%) 12 (18%) 8 (12%) Education (including basic skills) 7 (10%) 44 (62%) 15 (21%) 5 (7%) Offending behaviour programmes 11 (16%) 38 (54%) 17 (24%) 4 (6%)
Q7.3 How often do you go to the library? Don't want to go...... 2 (2%) Never...... 5 (5%) Less than once a week ...... 20 (20%) About once a week ...... 16 (16%) More than once a week...... 55 (55%) Don't know...... 2 (2%)
Q7.4 On average how many times do you go to the gym each week? Don't want to 0 1 2 3 to 5 More than 5 Don't know go 27 (27%) 12 (12%) 1 (1%) 12 (12%) 36 (36%) 11 (11%) 0 (0%)
Q7.5 On average how many times do you go outside for exercise each week? Don't want to go 0 1 to 2 3 to 5 More than 5 Don't know 9 (9%) 14 (14%) 19 (19%) 32 (33%) 23 (23%) 1 (1%)
Q7.6 On average how many hours do you spend out of your cell on a weekday? (Please include hours at education, at work etc.) Less than two hours ...... 4 (4%) Two to less than four hours...... 4 (4%) Four to less than six hours ...... 13 (13%) Six to less than eight hours ...... 24 (24%) Eight to less than 10 hours...... 29 (29%)
HMP Kingston 103 Ten hours or more ...... 19 (19%) Don't know...... 7 (7%)
Q7.7 On average, how many times do you have association each week? Don't want to go 0 1 to 2 3 to 5 More than 5 Don't know 0 (0%) 2 (2%) 2 (2%) 7 (7%) 87 (89%) 0 (0%)
Q7.8 How often do staff normally speak to you during association time? Do not go on association ...... 2 (2%) Never...... 7 (7%) Rarely...... 29 (29%) Some of the time...... 33 (33%) Most of the time...... 19 (19%) All of the time...... 10 (10%)
Section 8: Resettlement
Q8.1 When did you first meet your personal officer? Still have not met him/her...... 3 (3%) In the first week ...... 54 (54%) More than a week ...... 29 (29%) Don't remember...... 14 (14%)
Q8.2 How helpful do you think your personal officer is? Do not have a Very helpful Helpful Neither Not very Not at all personal officer/ still have not met helpful helpful him/her 3 (3%) 26 (27%) 42 (43%) 11 (11%) 11 (11%) 5 (5%)
Q8.3 Do you have a sentence plan/OASys? Not sentenced...... 0 (0%) Yes ...... 91 (91%) No ...... 9 (9%)
Q8.4 How involved were you in the development of your sentence plan? Do not have a sentence plan/OASys...... 9 (9%) Very involved ...... 19 (19%) Involved ...... 35 (36%) Neither ...... 5 (5%) Not very involved...... 20 (20%) Not at all involved...... 10 (10%)
Q8.5 Can you achieve all or some of your sentence plan targets in this prison? Do not have a sentence plan/OASys...... 9 (10%) Yes ...... 49 (54%) No ...... 33 (36%)
Q8.6 Are there plans for you to achieve all/some of your sentence plan targets in another prison? Do not have a sentence plan/OASys...... 9 (9%)
HMP Kingston 104 Yes ...... 55 (58%) No ...... 31 (33%)
Q8.7 Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to address your offending behaviour while at this prison? Not sentenced...... 0 (0%) Yes ...... 46 (49%) No ...... 48 (51%)
Q8.8 Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to prepare for your release? Yes ...... 14 (15%) No ...... 80 (85%)
Q8.9 Have you had any problems with sending or receiving mail? Yes ...... 29 (29%) No ...... 62 (62%) Don't know...... 9 (9%)
Q8.10 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones? Yes ...... 17 (17%) No ...... 84 (83%) Don't know...... 0 (0%)
Q8.11 Did you have a visit in the first week that you were here? Not been here a week yet ...... 2 (2%) Yes ...... 23 (23%) No ...... 72 (71%) Don't remember...... 4 (4%)
Q8.12 How many visits did you receive in the last week? Not been in a 0 1 to 2 3 to 4 5 or more week 2 (2%) 67 (69%) 28 (29%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Q8.13 How are you and your family/friends usually treated by visits staff? Not had any visits...... 27 (27%) Very well...... 28 (28%) Well ...... 29 (29%) Neither ...... 9 (9%) Badly ...... 3 (3%) Very badly ...... 0 (0%) Don't know...... 5 (5%)
Q8.14 Have you been helped to maintain contact with your family/friends while in this prison? Yes ...... 43 (44%) No ...... 54 (56%)
HMP Kingston 105
Q8.15 Do you know who to contact to get help with the following within this prison? (Please tick all that apply to you.) Don't know who to contact .. 57 (79%) Help with your finances in 9 (13%) preparation for release ...... Maintaining good relationships 11 (15%) Claiming benefits on release ... 9 (13%) Avoiding bad relationships ...... 10 (14%) Arranging a place at 9 (13%) college/continuing education on release...... Finding a job on release ...... 13 (18%) Continuity of health services 10 (14%) on release...... Finding accommodation on 10 (14%) Opening a bank account ...... 9 (13%) release ......
Q8.16 Do you think you will have a problem with any of the following on release from prison? (Please tick all that apply to you.) No problems...... 47 (55%) Help with your finances in 13 (15%) preparation for release ...... Maintaining good relationships 3 (3%) Claiming benefits on release ... 19 (22%) Avoiding bad relationships ...... 2 (2%) Arranging a place at 10 (12%) college/continuing education on release...... Finding a job on release ...... 29 (34%) Continuity of health services 13 (15%) on release...... Finding accommodation on 19 (22%) Opening a bank account ...... 22 (26%) release ......
Q8.17 Have you done anything, or has anything happened to you here that you think will make you less likely to offend in the future? Not sentenced...... 0 (0%) Yes ...... 62 (69%) No ...... 28 (31%)
HMP Kingston 106 Main comparator and comparator to last time
Prisoner survey responses: HMP Kingston 2010
Prisoner survey responses (missing data has 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.
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference HMP Kingston 2010 trainer B Category comparator HMP Kingston 2010 HMP Kingston 2005
Number of completed questionnaires returned 106 966 106 68
SECTION 1: General information
2 Are you under 21 years of age? 1% 0% 1% 0%
3a Are you sentenced? 100% 100% 100% 100%
3b Are you on recall? 2% 2% 2% 0%
4a Is your sentence less than 12 months? 0% 0% 0% 0%
4b Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)? 3% 18% 3% 0%
5 Do you have six months or less to serve? 15% 12% 15% 6%
6 Have you been in this prison less than a month? 1% 2% 1%
7 Are you a foreign national? 8% 13% 8% 18%
8 Is English your first language? 93% 89% 93% 91% Are you from a minority ethnic group (including all those who did not tick white British, white Irish 9 19% 30% 19% 27% or white other categories)? 10 Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller? 4% 2% 4%
11 Are you Muslim? 7% 14% 7%
12 Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual? 7% 5% 7%
13 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 22% 17% 22%
14 Is this your first time in prison? 49% 38% 49% 41%
15 Have you been in more than five prisons this time? 31% 16% 31%
16 Do you have any children under the age of 18? 24% 51% 24% 43%
SECTION 2: Transfers and escorts
For the most recent journey you have made either to or from court or between prisons:
1a Was the cleanliness of the van good/very good? 64% 52% 64% 50%
1b Was your personal safety during the journey good/very good? 75% 58% 75% 59%
1c Was the comfort of the van good/very good? 21% 19% 21% 16%
1d Was the attention paid to your health needs good/very good? 36% 34% 36% 30%
1e Was the frequency of toilet breaks good/very good? 17% 13% 17% 14%
2 Did you spend more than four hours in the van? 14% 16% 14% 21%
3 Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff? 73% 64% 73% 68%
4a Did you know where you were going when you left court or when transferred from another prison? 93% 87% 93% 99%
4b Before you arrived here did you receive any written information about what would happen to you? 21% 13% 21% 17%
4c When you first arrived here did your property arrive at the same time as you? 95% 88% 95% 90% Key to tables Main comparator and comparator to last time
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference HMP Kingston 2010 Category B trainer comparator HMP Kingston 2010 HMP Kingston 2005 SECTION 3: Reception, first night and induction
1 In the first 24 hours, did staff ask you if you needed help/support with the following: 1b Problems with loss of property? 8% 10% 8%
1c Housing problems? 5% 11% 5%
1d Problems contacting employers? 4% 6% 4%
1e Problems contacting family? 45% 41% 45%
1f Problems ensuring dependants were looked after? 6% 8% 6%
1g Money problems? 9% 10% 9%
1h Problems of feeling depressed/suicidal? 32% 40% 32%
1i Health problems? 47% 55% 47%
1j Problems in needing protection from other prisoners? 11% 16% 11%
1k Problems accessing phone numbers? 32% 32% 32% 2 When you first arrived: 2a Did you have any problems? 46% 54% 46% 39%
2b Did you have any problems with loss of property? 12% 18% 12% 12%
2c Did you have any housing problems? 1% 7% 1% 2%
2d Did you have any problems contacting employers? 1% 3% 1% 0%
2e Did you have any problems contacting family? 13% 19% 13% 17%
2f Did you have any problems ensuring dependants were being looked after? 0% 5% 0% 0%
2g Did you have any money worries? 8% 14% 8% 9%
2h Did you have any problems with feeling depressed or suicidal? 6% 12% 6% 11%
2i Did you have any health problems? 19% 21% 19% 9%
2j Did you have any problems with needing protection from other prisoners? 3% 6% 3% 2%
2k Did you have problems accessing phone numbers? 18% 19% 18%
3a Were you seen by a member of health services in reception? 68% 78% 68% 71%
3b When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way? 87% 74% 87% 77%
4 Were you treated well/very well in reception? 86% 71% 86% 86%
5 On your day of arrival, were you offered any of the following information: 5a Information about what was going to happen to you? 63% 43% 63% 57%
5b Information about what support was available for people feeling depressed or suicidal? 53% 40% 53% 70%
5c Information about how to make routine requests? 62% 33% 62% 54%
5d Information about your entitlement to visits? 56% 38% 56% 54%
5e Information about health services? 63% 46% 63%
5f Information about the chaplaincy? 57% 39% 57% 6 On your day of arrival, were you offered any of the following: 6a A smokers/non-smokers pack? 40% 58% 40% 61%
6b The opportunity to have a shower? 54% 44% 54% 66%
6c The opportunity to make a free telephone call? 56% 50% 56% 49%
6d Something to eat? 69% 70% 69% 81%
7 Within the first 24 hours did you meet any of the following people: 7a The chaplain or a religious leader? 38% 35% 38% 49%
7b Someone from health services? 70% 71% 70% 83% Key to tables Main comparator and comparator to last time
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference HMP Kingston 2010 Category B trainer comparator HMP Kingston 2010 HMP Kingston 2005
7c A Listener/Samaritans? 30% 22% 30% 52%
8 Did you have access to the prison shop/canteen within the first 24 hours? 4% 19% 4% 17%
9 Did you feel safe on your first night here? 90% 80% 90% 89%
10 Have you been on an induction course? 82% 91% 82% 69% For those who have been on an induction course:
11 Did the course cover everything you needed to know about the prison? 65% 60% 65% 69%
SECTION 4: Legal rights and respectful custody
1 In terms of your legal rights, is it easy/very easy to: 1a Communicate with your solicitor or legal representative? 72% 58% 72%
1b Attend legal visits? 61% 56% 61%
1c Obtain bail information? 7% 11% 7% Have staff ever opened letters from your solicitor or legal representative when you were not with 2 50% 49% 50% 43% them? 3 For the wing/unit you are currently on: 3a Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week? 70% 53% 70% 91%
3b Are you normally able to have a shower every day? 97% 98% 97% 100%
3c Do you normally receive clean sheets every week? 85% 63% 85% 97%
3d Do you normally get cell cleaning materials every week? 90% 79% 90% 91%
3e Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? 63% 43% 63% 77%
3f Is it normally quiet enough for you to be able to relax or sleep in your cell at night time? 88% 72% 88% 80%
3g Can you normally get your stored property if you need to? 33% 34% 33% 58%
4 Is the food in this prison good/very good? 62% 32% 62% 56%
5 Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs? 27% 46% 27% 37%
6a Is it easy/very easy to get a complaints form? 87% 84% 87% 91%
6b Is it easy/very easy to get an application form? 96% 90% 96% 97%
7 Have you made an application? 96% 93% 96% 96% For those who have made an application:
8a Do you feel applications are dealt with fairly? 68% 50% 68% 73%
8b Do you feel applications are dealt with promptly (within seven days)? 68% 50% 68% 78%
9 Have you made a complaint? 61% 67% 61% 68% For those who have made a complaint:
10a Do you feel complaints are dealt with fairly? 35% 29% 35% 36%
10b Do you feel complaints are dealt with promptly (within seven days)? 53% 32% 53% 50% Have you ever been made to or encouraged to withdraw a complaint since you have 11 27% 29% 27% 22% been in this prison? 10c Were you given information about how to make an appeal? 24% 29% 24% 37%
12 Is it easy/very easy to see the Independent Monitoring Board? 43% 35% 43% 55%
13 Are you on the enhanced (top) level of the IEP scheme? 92% 82% 92%
14 Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme? 68% 58% 68%
15 Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour? 40% 41% 40%
16a In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you (C&R)? 1% 5% 1%
16b In the last six months have you spent a night in the segregation/care and separation unit? 4% 16% 4%
13a Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected? 53% 53% 53% 56%
13b Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to? 57% 59% 57% 65% Main comparator and comparator to last time Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference HMP Kingston 2010 trainer B Category comparator HMP Kingston 2010 HMP Kingston 2005
14 Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time, if you want to? 65% 61% 65% 79%
15a Is there a member of staff, in this prison, that you can turn to for help if you have a problem? 77% 70% 77% 85%
15b Do most staff in this prison treat you with respect? 86% 73% 86% 86%
SECTION 5: Safety
1 Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison? 35% 40% 35% 21%
2 Do you feel unsafe in this prison at the moment? 10% 19% 10%
4 Have you been victimised by another prisoner? 27% 25% 27% 24% 5 Since you have been here, has another prisoner: 5a Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends? 15% 14% 15% 18%
5b Hit, kicked or assaulted you? 7% 7% 7% 4%
5c Sexually abused you? 1% 1% 1% 1%
5d Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin? 4% 6% 4% 4%
5e Victimised you because of drugs? 2% 3% 2% 4%
5f Taken your canteen/property? 4% 5% 4% 3%
5g Victimised you because you were new here? 5% 4% 5% 1%
5h Victimised you because of your sexuality? 1% 2% 1%
5i Victimised you because you have a disability? 2% 4% 2%
5j Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs? 3% 4% 3%
5k Victimised you because of your age? 2% 5% 2%
5l Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country? 3% 6% 3% 6%
5m Victimised you because of your offence/crime? 10% 4% 10%
5n Victimised you because of gang related issues? 3% 1% 3%
6 Have you been victimised by a member of staff? 25% 30% 25% 14%
7 Since you have been here, has a member of staff: 7a Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends? 9% 14% 9% 10%
7b Hit, kicked or assaulted you? 4% 3% 4% 3%
7c Sexually abused you? 2% 1% 2% 0%
7d Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin? 5% 9% 5% 2%
7e Victimised you because of drugs? 3% 2% 3% 2%
7f Victimised you because you were new here? 4% 5% 4% 3%
7g Victimised you because of your sexuality? 1% 1% 1%
7h Victimised you because you have a disability? 2% 4% 2%
7i Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs? 3% 5% 3%
7j Victimised you because of your age? 4% 5% 4%
7k Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country? 3% 6% 3% 3%
7l Victimised you because of your offence/crime? 7% 7% 7%
7m Victimised you because of gang related issues? 0% 3% 0% For those who have been victimised by staff or other prisoners:
8 Did you report any victimisation that you have experienced? 52% 44% 52% 34%
9 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by another prisoner/group of prisoners in here? 25% 27% 25% 18%
10 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by a member of staff in here? 21% 26% 21% 18% Main comparator and comparator to last time
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference HMP Kingston 2010 trainer B Category comparator HMP Kingston 2010 HMP Kingston 2005
11 Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison? 22% 30% 22% 28%
SECTION 6: Health services
1a Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor? 60% 31% 60%
1b Is it easy/very easy to see the nurse? 77% 54% 77%
1c Is it easy/very easy to see the dentist? 43% 12% 43%
1d Is it easy/very easy to see the optician? 46% 12% 46%
2 Are you able to see a pharmacist? 43% 45% 43% For those who have been to the following services, do you think the quality of the health service from the following is good/very good: 3a The doctor? 59% 44% 59% 72%
3b The nurse? 59% 53% 59% 81%
3c The dentist? 80% 44% 80% 92%
3d The optician? 80% 44% 80% 91%
4 The overall quality of health services? 58% 34% 58% 68%
5 Are you currently taking medication? 56% 46% 56% For those currently taking medication:
6 Are you allowed to keep possession of your medication in your own cell? 89% 88% 89%
7 Do you feel you have any emotional well-being/mental health issues? 22% 25% 22% For those with emotional well-being/mental health issues, are these being addressed by any of the following:
8a Not receiving any help? 19% 26% 19%
8b A doctor? 14% 31% 14%
8c A nurse? 14% 22% 14%
8d A psychiatrist? 31% 26% 31%
8e The mental health in-reach team? 41% 38% 41%
8f A counsellor? 25% 16% 25%
9a Did you have a drug problem when you came into this prison? 9% 12% 9% 5%
9b Did you have an alcohol problem when you came into this prison? 11% 11% 11% 2%
10a Have you developed a drug problem since you have been in this prison? 3% 8% 3% For those with drug or alcohol problems:
11 Do you know who to contact in this prison for help? 94% 82% 94%
12 Have you received any help or intervention while in this prison? 84% 76% 84% For those who have received help or intervention with their drug or alcohol problem:
13 Was this intervention or help useful? 93% 78% 93%
14a Do you think you will have a problem with drugs when you leave this prison? (Yes/don't know) 6% 12% 6% 2%
14b Do you think you will have a problem with alcohol when you leave this prison? (Yes/don't know) 7% 9% 7% 3% For those who may have a drug or alcohol problem on release, do you know who in this prison:
15 Can help you contact external drug or alcohol agencies on release? 50% 49% 50% 50% Main comparator and comparator to last time Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference HMP Kingston 2010 trainer B Category comparator HMP Kingston 2010 HMP Kingston 2005 SECTION 7: Purposeful activity
1 Are you currently involved in any of the following activities: 1a A prison job? 82% 70% 82%
1b Vocational or skills training? 24% 17% 24%
1c Education (including basic skills)? 40% 37% 40%
1d Offending behaviour programmes? 17% 23% 17%
2ai Have you had a job while in this prison? 95% 78% 95% For those who have had a prison job while in this prison:
2aii Do you feel the job will help you on release? 47% 44% 47%
2bi Have you been involved in vocational or skills training while in this prison? 83% 39% 83% For those who have had vocational or skills training while in this prison:
2bii Do you feel the vocational or skills training will help you on release? 64% 88% 64%
2ci Have you been involved in education while in this prison? 90% 68% 90% For those who have been involved in education while in this prison:
2cii Do you feel the education will help you on release? 69% 79% 69%
2di Have you been involved in offending behaviour programmes while in this prison? 84% 58% 84% For those who have been involved in offending behaviour programmes while in this prison:
2dii Do you feel the offending behaviour programme(s) will help you on release? 65% 83% 65%
3 Do you go to the library at least once a week? 71% 44% 71% 55%
4 On average, do you go to the gym at least twice a week? 59% 60% 59% 62%
5 On average, do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week? 56% 48% 56% 46%
6 On average, do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday? 19% 16% 19% 32%
7 On average, do you go on association more than five times each week? 89% 82% 89% 80%
8 Do staff normally speak to you most of the time/all of the time during association? 29% 25% 29% 23%
SECTION 8: Resettlement
1 Do you have a personal officer? 97% 82% 97% 99% For those with a personal officer:
2 Do you think your personal officer is helpful/very helpful? 72% 59% 72% 69% For those who are sentenced:
3 Do you have a sentence plan? 91% 84% 91% 83% For those with a sentence plan?
4 Were you involved/very involved in the development of your plan? 61% 54% 61% 57%
5 Can you achieve some/all of your sentence plan targets in this prison? 60% 66% 60%
6 Are there plans for you to achieve some/all your targets in another prison? 64% 53% 64% For those who are sentenced: Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you address your offending behaviour 7 49% 38% 49% while at this prison? 8 Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to prepare for release? 15% 13% 15%
9 Have you had any problems with sending or receiving mail? 29% 40% 29% 25%
10 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones? 17% 14% 17% 10%
11 Did you have a visit in the first week that you were here? 23% 23% 23% 15%
12 Did you receive one or more visits in the last week? 29% 27% 29%
For those who have had visits:
13 How are you and your family/ friends usually treated by visits staff? (Very well/well) 77% 50% 77% Main comparator and comparator to last time
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference HMP Kingston 2010 trainer B Category comparator HMP Kingston 2010 HMP Kingston 2005 14 Have you been helped to maintain contact with family/friends while in this prison? 44% 33% 44% 15 Do you know who to contact within this prison to get help with the following: 15b Maintaining good relationships? 15% 14% 15%
15c Avoiding bad relationships? 14% 12% 14%
15d Finding a job on release? 18% 22% 18% 16%
15e Finding accommodation on release? 14% 26% 14% 20%
15f With money/finances on release? 12% 20% 12% 12%
15g Claiming benefits on release? 12% 25% 12% 18%
15h Arranging a place at college/continuing education on release? 12% 19% 12% 13%
15i Accessing health services on release? 14% 21% 14% 22%
15j Opening a bank account on release? 12% 20% 12%
16 Do you think you will have a problem with any of the following on release from prison? 16b Maintaining good relationships? 3% 11% 3%
16c Avoiding bad relationships? 3% 10% 3%
16d Finding a job? 34% 41% 34%
16e Finding accommodation? 22% 35% 22%
16f Money/finances? 15% 30% 15%
16g Claiming benefits? 22% 26% 22%
16h Arranging a place at college/continuing education? 12% 20% 12%
16i Accessing health services? 15% 18% 15%
16j Opening a bank account? 26% 29% 26% For those who are sentenced: Have you done anything, or has anything happened to you here to make you less likely 17 69% 64% 69% 78% to offend in future? Diversity analysis
Key question responses (ethnicity): HMP Kingston 2010
Prisoner survey responses (missing data has 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.
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Black and minority ethnic prisoners prisoners White
Number of completed questionnaires returned 19 84
1.3 Are you sentenced? 100% 100%
1.7 Are you a foreign national? 27% 3%
1.8 Is English your first language? 83% 97%
Are you from a minority ethnic group (including all those who did not tick white 1.9 British, white Irish or white other categories)?
1.1 Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller? 0% 5%
1.11 Are you Muslim? 21% 3%
1.12 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 21% 23%
1.13 Is this your first time in prison? 43% 50%
Was the attention paid to your health needs good/very good on your journey 2.1d 7% 44% here?
2.3 Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff? 53% 78%
Did you know where you were going when you left court or when transferred 2.4a 84% 95% from another prison?
Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with problems 3.1e 52% 42% contacting family within the first 24 hours?
Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with problems of feeling 3.1h 36% 31% depressed/suicidal within the first 24 hours?
Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with health problems 3.1i 48% 47% within the first 24 hours?
3.2a Did you have any problems when you first arrived? 59% 43%
3.3a Were you seen by a member of health care staff in reception? 63% 69%
When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful 3.3b 71% 91% way?
3.4 Were you treated well/very well in reception? 77% 88%
3.7b Did you have access to someone from health care within the first 24 hours? 69% 72%
3.9 Did you feel safe on your first night here? 72% 94%
3.10 Have you been on an induction course? 94% 78%
4.1a Is it easy/very easy to communicate with your solicitor or legal representative? 73% 72% Diversity analysis
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Black and minority ethnic prisoners prisoners White
4.3a Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week? 69% 71%
4.3b Are you normally able to have a shower every day? 94% 97%
4.3e Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? 58% 65%
4.4 Is the food in this prison good/very good? 33% 70%
Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your 4.5 16% 31% needs?
4.6a Is it easy/very easy to get a complaints form? 83% 88%
4.6b Is it easy/very easy to get an application form? 87% 99%
4.9 Have you made a complaint? 67% 62%
4.13 Are you on the enhanced (top) level of the IEP scheme? 78% 95%
4.14 Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme? 46% 74%
Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your 4.15 42% 41% behaviour?
In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you 4.16a 6% 0% (C&R)?
In the last six months have you spent a night in the segregation/care and 4.16b 12% 3% separation unit?
4.17a Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected? 45% 56%
Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want 4.17b 42% 60% to?
4.18 Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time if you want to? 61% 67%
Is there a member of staff you can turn to for help if you have a problem in this 4.19a 55% 81% prison?
4.19b Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect? 65% 90%
5.1 Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison? 48% 32%
5.2 Do you feel unsafe in this prison at the moment? 13% 9%
5.4 Have you been victimised by another prisoner? 36% 25%
Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic origin since you have 5.5d 17% 0% been here? (By prisoners)
5.5i Have you been victimised because you have a disability? (By prisoners) 7% 1%
Have you been victimised because of your religion/religious beliefs? (By 5.5j 13% 0% prisoners)
5.6 Have you been victimised by a member of staff? 36% 24%
Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic origin since you have 5.7d 23% 1% been here? (By staff) Diversity analysis
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Black and minority ethnic prisoners White prisoners
5.7h Have you been victimised because you have a disability? (By staff) 0% 3%
5.7i Have you been victimised because of your religion/religious beliefs? (By staff) 7% 3%
Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by another prisoner/group of 5.9 22% 25% prisoners in here?
5.10 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by a member of staff in here? 33% 17%
5.11 Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison? 22% 23%
6.1a Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor? 62% 61%
6.1b Is it easy/ very easy to see the nurse? 86% 76%
6.2 Are you able to see a pharmacist? 36% 43%
6.5 Are you currently taking medication? 71% 54%
6.7 Do you feel you have any emotional well-being/mental health issues? 17% 24%
7.1a Are you currently working in the prison? 77% 82%
7.1b Are you currently undertaking vocational or skills training? 23% 23%
7.1c Are you currently in education (including basic skills)? 52% 36%
7.1d Are you currently taking part in an offending behaviour programme? 23% 16%
7.3 Do you go to the library at least once a week? 65% 73%
7.4 On average, do you go to the gym at least twice a week? 86% 54%
7.5 On average, do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week? 42% 59%
On average, do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday? 7.6 7% 21% (This includes hours at education, at work etc.)
7.7 On average, do you go on association more than five times each week? 93% 89%
Do staff normally speak to you at least most of the time during association 7.8 23% 30% time? (Most/all of the time)
8.1 Do you have a personal officer? 100% 97%
8.9 Have you had any problems sending or receiving mail? 31% 27%
8.10 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones? 24% 15% Diversity analysis - disability
Key questions (disability analysis): HMP Kingston 2010
Prisoner survey responses (missing data has 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.
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator ility
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Consider themselves to have have to themselves Consider a disability themselves consider not Do a disab have to
Number of completed questionnaires returned 23 81
1.3 Are you sentenced? 100% 100%
1.7 Are you a foreign national? 0% 10%
1.8 Is English your first language? 91% 94%
Are you from a minority ethnic group (including all those who did not tick white British, white Irish or white 1.9 17% 19% other categories)?
1.1 Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller? 0% 5%
1.11 Are you Muslim? 5% 8%
1.13 Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
1.14 Is this your first time in prison? 38% 53%
2.1d Was the attention paid to your health needs good/very good? 39% 36%
2.3 Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff? 64% 76%
2.4a Did you know where you were going when you left court or when transferred from another prison? 90% 94%
Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with problems contacting family within the first 24 3.1e 44% 45% hours?
Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with problems of feeling depressed/suicidal within 3.1h 31% 33% the first 24 hours?
3.1i Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with health problems within the first 24 hours? 44% 49%
3.2a Did you have any problems when you first arrived? 48% 46%
3.3a Were you seen by a member of health care staff in reception? 61% 69%
3.3b When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way? 83% 89%
3.4 Were you treated well/very well in reception? 74% 89%
3.7b Did you have access to someone from health care within the first 24 hours? 61% 74%
3.9 Did you feel safe on your first night here? 88% 90%
3.10 Have you been on an induction course? 73% 84%
4.1a Is it easy/very easy to communicate with your solicitor or legal representative? 83% 70% Diversity analysis - disability
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator ility
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Consider themselves to have have to themselves Consider a disability themselves consider not Do a disab have to
4.3a Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week? 67% 72%
4.3b Are you normally able to have a shower every day? 95% 97%
4.3e Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? 66% 64%
4.4 Is the food in this prison good/very good? 61% 63%
4.5 Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs? 31% 27%
4.6a Is it easy/very easy to get a complaints form? 87% 86%
4.6b Is it easy/very easy to get an application form? 95% 97%
4.9 Have you made a complaint? 69% 59%
4.13 Are you on the enhanced (top) level of the IEP scheme? 91% 93%
4.14 Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme? 52% 72%
4.15 Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour? 18% 48%
4.16a In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you (C&R)? 5% 0%
4.16b In the last six months have you spent a night in the segregation/care and separation unit? 5% 4%
4.17a Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected? 58% 53%
4.17b Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to? 44% 59%
4.18 Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time if you want to? 63% 66%
4.19a Is there a member of staff you can turn to for help if you have a problem in this prison? 74% 77%
4.19b Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect? 82% 87%
5.1 Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison? 40% 34%
5.2 Do you feel unsafe in this prison at the moment? 18% 8%
5.4 Have you been victimised by another prisoner? 45% 23%
Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic origin since you have been here? (By 5.5d 5% 4% prisoners)
5.5i Victimised you because you have a disability? 5% 2%
5.5j Have you been victimised because of your religion/religious beliefs? (By prisoners) 5% 3%
5.6 Have you been victimised by a member of staff? 40% 21%
5.7d Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic origin since you have been here? (By staff) 5% 5%
5.7h Victimised you because you have a disability? 11% 0%
5.7i Have you been victimised because of your religion/religious beliefs? (By staff) 5% 3% Diversity analysis - disability
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator ility
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Consider themselves to have have to themselves Consider a disability themselves consider not Do a disab have to
5.9 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by another prisoner/group of prisoners in here? 34% 24%
5.10 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by a member of staff in here? 23% 21%
5.11 Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison? 23% 22%
6.1a Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor? 78% 57%
6.1b Is it easy/ very easy to see the nurse? 95% 71%
6.2 Are you able to see a pharmacist? 50% 40%
6.5 Are you currently taking medication? 95% 45%
6.7 Do you feel you have any emotional well-being/mental health issues? 31% 20%
7.1a Are you currently working in the prison? 62% 87%
7.1b Are you currently undertaking vocational or skills training? 0% 30%
7.1c Are you currently in education (including basic skills)? 24% 45%
7.1d Are you currently taking part in an offending behaviour programme? 10% 20%
7.3 Do you go to the library at least once a week? 45% 78%
7.4 On average, do you go to the gym at least twice a week? 23% 71%
7.5 On average, do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week? 39% 60%
On average, do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday? (This includes hours at 7.6 18% 18% education, at work etc.)
7.7 On average, do you go on association more than five times each week? 82% 91%
7.8 Do staff normally speak to you at least most of the time during association time? (Most/all of the time) 23% 31%
8.1 Do you have a personal officer? 100% 96%
8.9 Have you had any problems sending or receiving mail? 36% 26%
8.10 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones? 17% 17% Diversity analysis - age Key question responses by age: HMP Kingston 2010
Prisoner survey responses (missing data has 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.
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Prisoners aged 50 and over Prisoners under the age of 50
Number of completed questionnaires returned 29 74
1.3 Are you sentenced? 100% 100%
1.7 Are you a foreign national? 4% 10%
1.8 Is English your first language? 90% 96%
Are you from a minority ethnic group (including all those who did not tick white 1.9 8% 24% British, white Irish or white other categories)?
1.1 Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller? 10% 2%
1.11 Are you Muslim? 4% 7%
1.13 Do you consider yourself to have a disability? 45% 12%
1.14 Is this your first time in prison? 50% 50%
2.1d Was the attention paid to your health needs good/very good? 42% 36%
2.3 Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff? 78% 70%
Did you know where you were going when you left court or when transferred 2.4a 82% 97% from another prison?
Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with problems 3.1e 23% 52% contacting family within the first 24 hours?
Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with problems of feeling 3.1h 15% 38% depressed/suicidal within the first 24 hours?
Did staff ask if you needed any help/support in dealing with health problems 3.1i 34% 51% within the first 24 hours?
3.2a Did you have any problems when you first arrived? 57% 43%
3.3a Were you seen by a member of health care staff in reception? 65% 69%
When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful 3.3b 92% 85% way? Diversity analysis - age Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Prisoners aged 50 and over Prisoners under the age of 50
3.4 Were you treated well/very well in reception? 86% 85%
3.7b Did you have access to someone from health care within the first 24 hours? 69% 73%
3.9 Did you feel safe on your first night here? 87% 90%
3.10 Have you been on an induction course? 66% 89%
4.1a Is it easy/very easy to communicate with your solicitor or legal representative? 73% 71%
4.3a Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week? 79% 66%
4.3b Are you normally able to have a shower every day? 96% 97%
4.3e Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? 69% 61%
4.4 Is the food in this prison good/very good? 66% 60%
4.5 Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs?35% 26%
4.6a Is it easy/very easy to get a complaints form? 93% 85%
4.6b Is it easy/very easy to get an application form? 100% 95%
4.9 Have you made a complaint? 72% 58%
4.13 Are you on the enhanced (top) level of the IEP scheme? 93% 92%
4.14 Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme? 62% 70%
Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your 4.15 24% 46% behaviour?
In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you 4.16a 0% 2% (C&R)?
In the last six months have you spent a night in the segregation/care and 4.16b 0% 5% separation unit?
4.17a Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected? 62% 48%
4.17b Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to?55% 56% Key to tables Diversity analysis - age
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Prisoners aged 50 and over Prisoners under the age of 50
4.18 Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time if you want to? 75% 60%
Is there a member of staff you can turn to for help if you have a problem in this 4.15a 79% 74% prison?
4.15b Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect? 92% 82%
5.1 Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison? 28% 39%
5.2 Do you feel unsafe in this prison at the moment? 13% 9%
5.4 Have you been victimised by another prisoner? 22% 30%
Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic origin since you have 5.5d 0% 6% been here? (By prisoners)
5.5i Victimised you because you have a disability? 4% 2%
Have you been victimised because of your religion/religious beliefs? (By 5.5j 0% 4% prisoners)
5.5k Have you been victimised because of your age? (By prisoners) 4% 2%
5.6 Have you been victimised by a member of staff? 28% 25%
Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic origin since you have 5.7d 0% 7% been here? (By staff)
5.7h Victimised you because you have a disability? 4% 2%
5.7i Have you been victimised because of your religion/religious beliefs? (By staff) 8% 2%
5.7j Have you been victimised because of your age? (By staff) 10% 2%
Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by another prisoner/group of 5.9 26% 26% prisoners in here?
5.10 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by a member of staff in here? 17% 23%
5.11 Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison? 29% 19%
6.1a Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor? 65% 57%
6.1b Is it easy/ very easy to see the nurse? 75% 77%
6.2 Are you able to see a pharmacist? 49% 42% Diversity analysis - age
Key to tables
Significantly better than the comparator
Significantly worse than the comparator
A significant difference in prisoners' background details
No significant difference Prisoners aged 50 and over Prisoners under the age of 50
6.5 Are you currently taking medication? 87% 42%
6.7 Do you feel you have any emotional well-being/mental health issues? 13% 24%
7.1a Are you currently working in the prison? 67% 87%
7.1b Are you currently undertaking vocational or skills training? 18% 25%
7.1c Are you currently in education (including basic skills)? 18% 48%
7.1d Are you currently taking part in an offending behaviour programme? 14% 19%
7.3 Do you go to the library at least once a week? 69% 74%
7.4 On average, do you go to the gym at least twice a week? 45% 67%
7.5 On average, do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week? 55% 56%
On average, do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday? 7.6 18% 18% (This includes hours at education, at work etc.)
7.7 On average, do you go on association more than five times each week? 78% 93%
Do staff normally speak to you at least most of the time during association 7.8 31% 28% time? (Most/all of the time)
8.1 Do you have a personal officer? 100% 96%
8.9 Have you had any problems sending or receiving mail? 28% 29%
8.10 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones? 10% 20%