Hm Prison Gloucester
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORT ON A FULL ANNOUNCED INSPECTION OF HM PRISON GLOUCESTER 29 APRIL – 3 MAY 2002 BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS 2 INTRODUCTION Gloucester is a prison with a great deal of potential. It is a small local prison, with a recognisable catchment area and a strong sense of identity. It is also a prison where staff-prisoner relationships were generally respectful, and in some places, such as the segregation unit and the voluntary drug testing wing, were positive and sensitive. At the time of our inspection, however, that potential was not being realised. Though staff on the two main wings related well at a superficial level with prisoners, and would attempt to deal with problems if requested to do so, prisoners there were not being sufficiently motivated, engaged with or cared for. This was reflected both in the amount of time that they spent in purposeful activity and also in their physical environment and conditions. There were activity places for only 49% of the prison population (and in practice fewer on the two main wings). Association times had recently been shortened. Much of the prison was dirty and unkempt, and prisoners’ clothing, equipment and hygiene requirements were neglected. Essentially, we found that there was a ‘comfort zone’ between staff and prisoners, where both appeared to expect little from the prison, its inmates or its ability to prevent reoffending. The prison’s new management team had put a great deal of effort into improving security systems. However, this should not become the main focus of management attention in a prison whose population is overwhelmingly low-risk offenders who will shortly be released back into the community. Decent physical conditions in the prison and for its prisoners must be a priority. There was also no resettlement strategy in operation, no detoxification programme that met Prison Service standards, and no healthcare action plan. These are all essential components of a healthy prison, and of a local prison which is serving the needs of its prisoners and society. Gloucester certainly has the capacity to develop as an effective and proactive community prison. First, it needs to make best use of its admittedly limited and old physical environment, ensuring that it is clean and bright, that all available space is effectively used; and that prisoners are motivated and enabled to care for themselves and their cells. 3 Secondly, it urgently needs to make progress in its current plans to fill some of the gaps we record in this report. Under a new and energetic healthcare manager, the chronic problems of the healthcare centre can be addressed, provided that she has management support at prison and regional level. A new core day is being negotiated, to allow for more time out of cell. This should be carefully monitored and go hand in hand with support and training for residential staff in positive engagement with prisoners. A resettlement strategy is being planned and needs to be implemented, and linked into community provision, as quickly as possible. Like all local prisons at present, Gloucester will find positive development much more difficult while it is struggling against overcrowding and high population turnover. It cannot, for example, provide acceptable living conditions on its main wings, if two men continue to share cells with an unscreened toilet, where they eat, sleep and perform all their bodily functions. In one such cell we found a man with a permanent catheter sharing with, and supporting, a disturbed and self-harming young man in physical conditions that were degrading and unacceptable. Nor will the prison find it easy to provide sufficient activity spaces, or develop effective resettlement, in the face of rising numbers and the displacement of local prisoners elsewhere. We recognise that this report presents a challenge to Gloucester, its management and staff. We hope that it will help to generate urgent action where this is necessary, assist the prison to build on its strengths, and inform longer term strategies that are appropriate for a local prison in today’s prison service. In developing those strategies, the prison’s managers may find it useful to look at how other local prisons, struggling against similar difficulties, have tried to deal with them: for example, Shrewsbury’s work to create a community prison ethos in a small, old, overcrowded site; Leeds’ efforts to provide an active core day for most prisoners; and Preston’s effective resettlement work. These may provide useful pointers for the way forward. Anne Owers June 2002 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 4 CONTENTS Paragraph Page INTRODUCTION 3-4 FACT PAGE 8-10 HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY HP01-HP33 11-17 CHAPTER ONE ARRIVAL IN CUSTODY 18-25 Courts and transfers 1.01-1.04 Reception 1.05-1.09 First night 1.10-1.11 Induction 1.12-1.30 Legal rights 1.31-1.34 CHAPTER TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS 26-32 A wing 2.01-2.10 B wing 2.11-2.13 Clothing and possessions 2.14 Hygiene 2.15-2.27 C wing 2.28-2.33 CHAPTER THREE DUTY OF CARE 33-49 Anti-bullying strategy 3.01-3.11 Self harm and suicide 3.12-3.22 Race relations 3.23-3.35 Substance use 3.36-3.53 Maintaining contact with family and friends 3.54-3.63 Requests and complaints 3.64-3.69 CHAPTER FOUR HEALTH CARE 50-60 Introduction 4.01-4.02 5 Paragraph Page Environment 4.03-4.10 Records 4.11-4.14 Staffing 4.15-4.21 Delivery of care 4.22-4.47 CHAPTER FIVE ACTIVITIES 61-71 Employment 5.01-5.03 Education 5.04-5.25 Physical education 5.26-5.30 Faith and religious activity 5.31-5.38 Time out of cell 5.39-5.46 CHAPTER SIX GOOD ORDER 72-79 Good order 6.01-6.02 Segregation unit and adjudications 6.03-6.04 Use of force 6.05-6.07 Vulnerable prisoners 6.08-6.20 Incentives and earned privileges 6.21-6.25 Categorisation 6.26-6.33 CHAPTER SEVEN RESETTLEMENT 80-86 Management of resettlement 7.01-7.03 Re-integration planning 7.04-7.07 Sentence planning 7.08-7.09 Offending behaviour work 7.10 Key workers (personal officers) 7.11-7.20 CHAPTER EIGHT SERVICES 87-90 Catering 8.01-8.10 Prison shop 8.11-8.17 6 Paragraph Page CHAPTER NINE RECOMMENDATIONS AND 91-103 GOOD PRACTICE Main recommendations 9.01-9.08 To the Director General 9.09-9.11 To the Area Manager 9.12-9.15 To the Governor 9.16-9.113 Examples of good practice 9.114-9.116 APPENDICES I Inspection team 104 II Population profile 105-108 III Summary of prisoner questionnaires 109-138 IV Inspection report of the Adult Learning Inspectorate 7 FACT PAGE Background HMP Gloucester Prison is a category B adult local prison originally built in 1782 and substantially rebuilt in 1840. An additional wing for young offenders was added in 1971 but, at the time of our inspection, young offenders were no longer held at Gloucester. The prison had a CNA of 235 but was regularly holding around 300 prisoners. At the time of our inspection, over 70% of prisoners were aged between 21 and 34 years with 36% aged between 21 and 24. In response to our survey, 92% of prisoners described their ethnicity as white. Role of the Establishment HMP Gloucester is a local prison, serving the Crown Courts of Gloucester, Hereford and Worcester and their associated Magistrates’ Courts Area Organisation South West Area South West Area Manager: Jerry Petherick Number held At unlock on 30 April 2002: 330 Certified Normal Accommodation 236 Operational Capacity 330 Last Inspection Announced: February 1997 Unannounced: March 1998 8 Brief History HMP Gloucester is situated on the quay next to the dock in the City of Gloucester. A prison has existed on the site since 1792. The older areas of the establishment, still in use, date back to the 1840s and are Grade II listed buildings. An additional wing (‘C Wing’), a new gate lodge, visits and Reception facilities with office accommodation have been built in recent years. In the same period, an existing building was converted into a Health Care Centre. Description of residential units ‘A Wing’/‘B Wing’ (B2 & B3 Landings): Both of these Victorian wings are on three levels, housing mixed status adult prisoners primarily in double cells with integral sanitation and in-cell electrics. Meals are collected from a central servery and taken in cell. Association is provided on A1 landing for ‘A Wing’ and on B2 landing for ‘B Wing’. Recesses and showers are available on all landings. B2 and B3 landings are intended to be an Induction unit where all prisoners on normal location receive a three-day Induction programme. However, due to population pressures and limited alternative accommodation, prisoners are permanently located on ‘B Wing’ as required. B1 Landing: Designated as a segregation unit, this is physically divided into two units: one holding R45 own protection prisoners and the other, smaller unit for R45 GOODs and prisoners serving cellular confinement or awaiting Governor’s adjudication. Work and association activities are provided on the landing at various times, dependent on the various regimes. ‘C Wing’: Built in the mid-1970s, this provides single cell accommodation for a maximum of 81 prisoners. The cells are situated on three levels, split into six spurs, and each is fitted with in-cell electrics. Access to night sanitation is possible via electronic locking. Meals are collected from a servery and eaten in an attached dining room.