Hm Prison Gloucester

REPORT ON

A FULL ANNOUNCED INSPECTION

29 APRIL – 3 MAY 2002

HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS

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

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

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

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

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

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. This is situated on the ground floor, along with a separate association room and the shower facilities.

The primary role of ‘C Wing’ is as a Voluntary Testing Unit, with one spur designated specifically for prisoners attending the rehabilitation unit.

Health Care Centre: A small 15-bed in-patient facility, consisting of two four-bed dormitories, one double cell and five designated ‘safe cells’. Closed circuit television is available in one of the safe cells and another has the facility to be used as a gated cell when required. Integral sanitation and electrics are fitted to all cells. The safe cells, which were installed in 1999, need to be upgraded to meet current specifications. Meals are provided from a servery and taken in the association room. The Health Care Centre also houses various treatment and interview rooms and has its own exercise yard.

HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY

HP01 The healthy prison concept was introduced in our thematic review Suicide is Everyone’s Concern, published in 1999. The four elements of a healthy prison are: • Prisoners are held safely • Prisoners are shown respect as individual human beings • Prisoners engage in purposeful activity • Prisoners are prepared for successful resettlement into the community at the end of their period in custody

Safety HP02 Prisoners were held in a relatively safe environment at Gloucester Prison. In our survey, 72% of prisoners said they felt safe on their first night in the prison and all of the many prisoners we spoke to confirmed that Gloucester was a safe prison. However, this sense of safety was created partly by two factors: • an over-concern with security that concentrated on the rigid application of sometimes petty rules • a general lack of activity for prisoners meant that many spent significant amounts of time locked in their cells.

HP03 The segregation unit was clean and well managed. Staff were professional and caring in their dealings with prisoners and this was clearly demonstrated during our inspection in their approach to a prisoner who was undertaking a dirty protest. The adjudication process was well managed with punishments being fair and consistent; there was very little use of cellular confinement.

HP04 There had been four deaths in custody at Gloucester in the space of a year. Suicide prevention was high on the list of the prison’s priorities. The Governor himself chaired the Suicide Prevention Committee and gave a clear lead and direction to staff in this work. There was also a weekly meeting to review those prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm and the subject of F2052SH procedures. A Listeners suite was located on ‘A Wing’. This was unacceptable and unsuitable, consisting of two 11

chairs and a filing cabinet in a large cell. A recent death in custody investigation report had recommended that staff should carry scissors on night duty but this had yet to be actioned.

HP05 The Reception process for prisoners arriving at Gloucester was somewhat mechanical and the building itself was far from ideal. First night procedures were also in need of review. We found some prisoners who were understandably very fearful at having to share a cell on their first night with someone going through detoxification.

HP06 Detoxification procedures did not conform to the relevant Prison Service Order. This was a major area of weakness with consequences for the safety of substance users admitted to the prison and those they shared cells with.

HP07 Although an anti-bullying strategy was in place, the key elements of it were missing in practice: • bullies were not subject to any programme to challenge or alter their behaviour • victims were offered little structured support • anti-bullying issues were not high on the prison’s agenda • there were few useful posters displayed either to encourage prisoners to report bullying or to discourage prisoners from engaging in bullying activities

HP08 The safe environment at Gloucester could be improved. The generally positive relationships that existed between staff and prisoners provide an opportunity for enhancing aspects of dynamic security as well as improving positive outcomes for prisoners.

Respect HP09 The relationship between staff and prisoners at an individual level was respectful. However, that relationship was essentially passive with staff in the main wings rarely challenging prisoners’ behaviour or proactively engaging with them. As

a result, a ‘comfort zone’ had grown up between many staff and prisoners, in which both were essentially content to live and work in a quiet jail.

HP10 While individual relationships were respectful, elements of disrespect were built into the regime on an institutional level. This had an unintended but significant effect on the lives of prisoners. This was most clearly demonstrated in life for vulnerable prisoners held on ‘B Wing’. Some of these prisoners were living in dirty cells in an environment that was itself less than clean. What little activity there was available consisted of menial work that was not guaranteed to be regularly available. The prisoners were generally left in their cells for long periods of time. In addition, there was no sense that staff were actively working towards enabling most prisoners to return to normal location.

HP11 Other aspects of institutional disrespect were found throughout the establishment in various forms, including: • Prisoners having inadequate time for showers • Dirty toilets on ‘A Wing’ • Some prisoners living in unacceptably dirty cells • Opaque and essentially useless mirrors • Canteen delays of up to 10 days for newly received prisoners who could only then buy a very limited stock of items. Some of these, such as soft drinks, were inordinately expensive and from a stock list that contained very little for minority ethnic groups • A multi-faith room that doubled as a Listener suite and simply contained two chairs and a filing cabinet • Prisoners being allowed to exercise in the rain if they wished but not being provided with the necessary outdoor clothing. This meant that they were left wandering around the exercise yard with towels on their heads in the rain • Some prisoners with false teeth having to hand over their Polygrip to the Health Care Centre as it was considered a security risk

HP12 An ethos of care prevailed in the Health Care Centre and staff there were generally concerned to meet the needs of prisoners. However, the expectations of staff and prisoners as to what was acceptable care were extremely low. Prisoners were held in dirty and smelly conditions. Other than a period of exercise in an unpleasant and barren yard, prisoners only enjoyed short periods of association sitting in front of a television in a communal room. A new health care Principal Officer had been appointed who was determined to improve matters and who was clearly very able and had the support of some very willing staff. Unfortunately, as yet the prison had no overall strategy in place for improving conditions in the Health Care Centre and despite the efforts of the RTFT, there was little evidence that these had, as yet, been translated into better health care for prisoners. We strongly encourage the RTFT to continue working closely with the prison and its local health care partners to ensure the engagement of both in the process.

HP13 There was a need to build on the respect shown from staff to prisoners at an individual level by introducing essentially respectful institutional practice.

Activity HP14 The activity available to prisoners at Gloucester was insufficient and not always well organised. The prison was old and provided a less than ideal environment, but there were opportunities to make better use of some of the space available.

HP15 Prisoners had good access to PE and the facilities available were adequate. There was a good range of provision and staff were keen and well motivated.

HP16 Opportunities for education and training were not ideal but space was being maximised in the Education Department to enable prisoners to take advantage of the learning opportunities available and they were offered good learning support. However, there was no overall strategy for education and training at Gloucester and no clear management direction given to its content or development. Many opportunities for potential work accreditation were being missed and there was insufficient provision for basic skills needs: of the 60% of prisoners identified as

needing basic skills interventions, only 15% had access to the learning support available. Quality assurance procedures were extremely weak and access to education and training for prisoners throughout the prison was poor; little or none was available to vulnerable prisoners and those held in the Health Care Centre.

HP17 The overall figure for time out-of-cell was extremely low, though it was a more accurate record than had previously been the case. The figure itself, however, hid many disparities, particularly regarding the very limited time out-of-cell available to vulnerable prisoners as opposed to that available to some cleaners in the main part of the prison. Prisoner activity had also been reduced following the curtailment of the core day in the evening. In part, this had been justified by the need to reduce the hours owed to staff, although not all staff were taking the opportunity to leave early in the evening. The practical result was that those staff who chose to stay on were engaged in non-prisoner activities and the time available for prisoners to associate or engage in activity had been significantly reduced.

HP18 There was a significant need to increase levels of activity at Gloucester and to provide a more challenging environment for prisoners. The Governor’s intention to move more staff hours into the daytime period to allow this to happen should be a priority.

Resettlement HP19 Gloucester Prison had not yet grasped the Prison Service’s resettlement agenda and there was no resettlement policy in place. Prisoners’ needs were not being assessed in order to target resources. We interviewed 65% of the prisoners due for release in the two weeks following our inspection; not one had been given information or help regarding jobs, housing or offending behaviour. The levels of release on HDC, which were about two-thirds of the national average for local prisons, were low. Those elements of resettlement that were in place, such as drugs, did not form part of a coherent whole prison approach.

HP20 The sentence plans being completed for prisoners were not working documents. Plans were prepared by the prisoner in consultation with one member of

staff and no sentence planning boards were being held. Targets were being set but these were generally of a poor standard and there was no progress chasing in place. Prisoners were not given copies of their sentence planning targets and were not encouraged to take any responsibility for working towards their completion.

HP21 A personal officer scheme was in place but this was not effective. Personal officers were not making regular or direct interventions into the lives of prisoners and were not directly involved in the sentence planning process. In our discussions with prisoners, we found that very few were aware of who their personal officers were, despite the names of these officers being written on boards on landings.

HP22 Apart from the absence of proper detoxification, work in the area of substance use was generally of a good standard. A new unit, The Glevem Unit, had been established and it was designed and furnished to a high standard. A new drugs programme, ‘Star’, was in place which could potentially make a very positive impact on the lives of prisoners and the CARATS service available was also of a high quality. There had been a clear reduction in the availability of drugs in the establishment.

HP23 There was a need for Gloucester to embrace the concept of resettlement both in theory and in practice if the likelihood of prisoners re-offending on release was to be reduced.

Conclusion HP24 At the time of our inspection, Gloucester Prison had come some way in developing its systems and processes, such as its successful security and standards audits. It now needed to move on from simply achieving performance targets to improving the quality of outcomes for prisoners.

HP25 The Governor was already aware of many of the identified failings and stated his determination to work towards rectifying them. He will be able to build upon essentially good staff-prisoner relationships. This needs to be translated, at

institutional level, into regimes and proactive engagement that provide a decent, purposeful environment for all prisoners held there.

Main recommendations

HP26 The requirements of PSO3550 concerning clinical services for substance users should be fully implemented

HP27 All public areas should be cleaned thoroughly every day and all cells should be cleaned daily

HP28 Prisoners should be given more time out of cell

HP29 There should be considerably more activity spaces available for all prisoners

HP30 The VPU regime should be reviewed to encourage prisoners to work towards return to normal location

HP31 The prison should develop a resettlement policy and strategy based on an up-to-date needs assessment of the population

HP32 There should be an effective Personal Officer Scheme

HP33 The Governor, the regional health care task force and the local PCT should produce an action plan for prison health care as agreed in the local health authority health improvement plan (HimP) and agree a timeframe for implementation. This should include permanent medical cover and integrated nursing services

CHAPTER ONE

ARRIVAL IN CUSTODY

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for arrival in custody procedures (Reception, First Night and Induction) are: • Safety: Everything reasonable is done to help prisoners feel safe on their reception into prison; prisoners’ needs are identified, including physical and mental health care, in order that they may be cared for and supported by competent trained staff • Safety: Prisoners travel in safe conditions to and from court and between establishments • Respect: Prisoners are held in decent conditions in escort vehicles • Respect: The way in which entry procedures are conducted and the approach of competent staff preserves the personal identity of prisoners, respects their privacy and dignity and is responsive to their individual needs • Respect: Prisoners are made aware of prison routines, how to access available services and cope with imprisonment • Purposeful activity: Prisoners are constructively occupied during their first days in prison, preferably as part of a comprehensive Induction programme • Resettlement and reducing reoffending: Prisoners’ welfare needs are identified and appropriate help offered to deal with them

Courts and Transfers 1.01 Two escort contractors serviced Gloucester prison, one of which was providing a far better and more consistent service. We observed the interaction between, and spoke to, Reception and escort staff. The tensions were evident and the senior managers needed to continue the dialogue to improve relationships. We were pleased to see that one escort contractor attended prison meetings on Suicide Awareness and Self-Harm.

1.02 We looked at the conditions inside cellular vans and noticed that vans belonging to one contractor were considerably cleaner than those of the other. Prisoners in both vans had had short journeys of less than an hour. Prisoners’ property accompanied them to and from court.

1.03 On two days of the inspection week, the prison was full and could not accept new prisoners after 4.30pm. Prisoners then often had longer journeys in order to spend nights in police cells before being placed in a prison the next day.

1.04 We noted that the prison was sometimes not receiving detailed information, such as previous convictions and pre-sentence reports, from escort contractors. This was particularly troubling as, like other local prisons in the area, it had been instructed to receive prisoners on interim warrants, which might not have full details of the offence. This could well prevent proper risk assessment, especially for cell sharing.

Reception 1.05 The prison serviced Crown and Magistrates’ courts mainly in Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Avon and Somerset. Consequently, staff in the Reception area were kept busy with arrivals from and discharges to the courts. Receptions averaged 370 per month, of which 170 were new to Gloucester and 100 were newly sentenced. Prisoners being discharged, usually to court, averaged 370 per month. In the week of the inspection, no prisoners were accepted after 4.30pm as there were no more available spaces. Acceptance was generally on a first come, first served basis, which meant that Gloucester prisoners leaving for court might not have been able to return there afterwards.

1.06 Reception was usually staffed by one Senior Officer supported by a minimum of two officers and more if possible. As a very busy place, it needed thorough and regular cleaning. Given the high throughput of prisoners both arriving and departing, staff dealt with them courteously and briskly, although the poor layout of the entire area made it difficult to work effectively. Prisoners arrived at the Reception entrance on the ground floor and made their way to the floor above where most of the

processing took place. We observed prisoners arriving who had been left in the escort vehicle until the paperwork had been cleared. They then disembarked one at a time for the initial interview, thus ensuring confidentiality at the outset.

1.07 There were two main waiting areas: one was in a virtually bare room with wooden bench seating and out of sight of staff; the other was in a well-lit space overlooked through clear partitions by an office in which prisoners new to Gloucester were interviewed by a Senior Officer. There was a separate small waiting area for vulnerable prisoners. In the main area upstairs, arriving prisoners were strip-searched in an open cubicle in the main office. A recent internal audit had recommended that more privacy was required but no alternative arrangements were in place. Toilets were available, as was a shower/bath, although staff told us that prisoners were not offered a shower unless they were particularly dirty. Since prisoners often arrived on a residential wing late in the evening or on a day when their wing location was not on evening association, they would therefore have to wait at least two days before having a shower.

1.08 Prisoners were seen by a member of health care staff and by a doctor within 24 hours of arrival. The Reception orderly was also a Listener. While in theory this meant that prisoners who were particularly concerned could talk to him, we could not establish how he made himself known to prisoners or how new prisoners understood what a Listener was. A small kitchen in the Reception area contained a fridge, a freezer and a microwave oven. Pre-prepared meals from the kitchen were available for prisoners who were likely to miss the tea meal on the wings.

1.09 Prisoners were not offered a free telephone call in Reception. Furthermore, while they were all given a ‘starter’ pack, they had to choose between a smoker’s and a non-smoker’s version or a phone card (additional phone cards could be purchased). Many prisoners came into prison with little or no money and what they did have was often only loose change. This was therefore a difficult choice for prisoners, particularly smokers, who were spending their first night in custody.

First Night 1.10 Once through Reception, there were no regular arrangements for staff to check that those new to prison were properly settled in and received more attention. By the time most prisoners arrived on the wing, usually ‘B Wing’, association was nearly over and the wing was being prepared for patrol state. Several prisoners told us that they were put straight into their cells and did not see an officer until the next morning. At the time of the inspection, some prisoners spent their first night on ‘A Wing’, moving to ‘B Wing’ the following day as spaces became available. One prisoner new to prison life had been put in a cell with someone in the early stages of detoxification from drugs. The new prisoner was clearly scared as he told us: “My cellmate is okay at the moment but I don’t know what he’s going to do next”. Another prisoner, who had spent his first night on ‘A Wing’ before transferring to ‘B Wing’ the next morning, told us that no one outside the prison knew where he was. He had applied to phone home while on ‘A Wing’ but this application had not been passed on to ‘B Wing’ with him and staff there knew nothing about it. He was not confident enough to approach the staff.

1.11 Many prisoners had been given separate explanatory sheets of paper on their first night including information about visits, applications and bail information. Most had also received a blank prison letter and envelope although none of those we spoke to had been given any writing implements. One prisoner had been given a letter but no envelope. A large plastic bag was used for those personal possessions allowed in cell and this served as a container for their clothes thereafter.

Induction 1.12 There was no formal, structured Induction period for prisoners. Induction consisted of an individual interview with a ‘B Wing’ officer and watching an Induction video. While this generally took place during the day after arrival, some prisoners had not been seen until a few days later. There was no equivalent Induction for prisoners on B1 or for patients going directly to the Health Care Centre.

1.13 The Induction video lasted for about 10 minutes and provided a good range of information including health care, bullying, chaplaincy, education, PE, visits and drug

workers. The individual interviews consisted of going through a series of questions that were really aimed at assessing the immediate needs of prisoners. Although it was quite thorough, we observed interviews taking place in the main association area on the wing where anyone could hear what was being said. Space was certainly at a premium on ‘B Wing’ and an alternative would have been the prisoner’s cell while his cellmate waited outside. One Induction session involved an officer and two prisoners together. The interaction between Induction officers and prisoners was relaxed and we observed new prisoners being able to talk to staff because of their helpful approach.

Conclusion 1.14 The arrangements for escorting prisoners to and from Gloucester prison worked reasonably well and prisoners were reaching court on time. Conditions inside cellular vehicles varied. Escort contractors needed to ensure that the prison received all available information about a prisoner and his background.

1.15 Reception staff dealt with prisoners courteously but the layout of the entire area impeded optimum and effective working. Reception was in need of thorough and regular cleaning. The arrangements for strip-searching, showers and phone calls were unsatisfactory. The choice of ‘starter’ Reception packs meant that prisoners arriving without money were extremely vulnerable to accumulating debt and subsequent bullying.

1.16 First night arrangements needed to be better and cell allocation rarely took account of the impact on other prisoners of those coming off drugs. Some helpful preliminary written information was given to prisoners before being locked up for the night.

1.17 Given the large turnover of new prisoners arriving at Gloucester, Induction was appropriately brief but it was thorough and formed the assessment of individual need. Induction interviews were not conducted in private. New prisoners being inducted felt able to talk to staff because of their helpful approach. There was no

equivalent Induction for prisoners on B1 or for patients going directly to the Health Care Centre.

Recommendations

1.18 Prisoner transport vehicles should be frequently and regularly cleaned inside

1.19 Escort services should provide full background information on prisoners, particularly if they are to be received on interim warrants

1.20 Spaces for Gloucester prisoners likely to return from court should be kept for them

1.21 Reception should be regularly and thoroughly cleaned

1.22 Prisoners in Reception should be strip-searched in more privacy

1.23 All prisoners should be offered a shower in Reception

1.24 All prisoners should be offered a free telephone call in Reception

1.25 A phone card should be included in each smoker’s and non-smoker’s ‘starter’ pack

1.26 There should be arrangements whereby all prisoners spending their first night in prison spend quality time with a wing or First Night Officer before being locked up for the night

1.27 Allocation of prisoners to cells should take account of the safety of prisoners

1.28 All new prisoners should be given writing implements

1.29 Individual Induction interviews should take place in private

1.30 All prisoners should receive proper induction as quickly as possible

Legal Rights

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for legal rights procedures are: • Respect: Prisoners are told their rights of access to due process in relation to bail, legal aid, legal representation and appeals and can exercise those rights while in prison • Respect: Unconvicted prisoners are treated as innocent, unsentenced as not having a custodial sentence, and both are given the same opportunities and activities as convicted or sentenced prisoners • Purposeful activity: The regime provides reasonable opportunity to seek release on bail and prepare for trial • Resettlement and reducing offending: The regime provides reasonable opportunity to preserve accommodation and employment and to pursue legitimate business and social interests

1.31 There was no Bail Information Service at Gloucester. At best, prisoners were made aware that they could apply to see an officer about bail and it was usually one of two trained legal services officers on ‘B Wing’ who dealt with such applications. However, there were reference directories on the wing for external legal services as well as a National Solicitors Directory giving details of solicitors outside the prison’s immediate area and other officers used these to provide initial information to prisoners.

1.32 The office originally allocated to legal services officers, the first of four offices, was now occupied by drugs workers dealing with rehabilitation. There were 24

no statistics about the number of applications for bail or the proportion that had been successful. In terms of regime and daily routines, remand prisoners were not treated any differently from other prisoners.

Conclusion 1.33 There was no Bail Information or other legal service at Gloucester. This was inadequate for a prison that handled large numbers of remand and newly sentenced prisoners.

Recommendation

1.34 Resources should be allocated to establishing an active bail information and legal service provision to prisoners at Gloucester

CHAPTER TWO

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for accommodation and facilities, clothing and possessions, and hygiene are: • Safety: Prisoners live in a safe and hygienic environment • Safety: Prisoners are risk and needs assessed before being placed with other prisoners in shared cells • Respect: Prisoners have their dignity and privacy of life respected while in prison • Respect: Prisoners are encouraged, enabled and expected to maintain an acceptable level of personal hygiene in appropriate, decent residential accommodation • Purposeful activity: Suitable space and facilities on residential units are available and used to permit association activities that meet prisoners’ needs

‘A Wing’ 2.01 A Senior Officer and seven prison officers staffed the wing at meal times. This number reduced to three prison officers throughout the core day and four during the evening. A Principal Officer was in charge of A and B Wings.

2.02 The wing was a typical Victorian gallery design with three landings. Accommodation consisted of: • First landing: 20 double cells and one single cell • Second landing: 18 double cells and three single cells • Third landing: 23 double cells

2.03 On the first day of the inspection, the wing roll was 117. Both remand and sentenced prisoners were on the wing.

2.04 At the time of inspection, the showers and toilets on the third landing were out of use while being refurbished. There was a recess on the second landing with three showers, three toilets and washing basins, and a similar recess on the first landing with three showers, two toilets and washing basins. There were no baths available on the wing. Anyone medically requiring a bath was taken to use one in the medical centre. The showers and toilets were very dirty. We found buckets with dirty water left in the recess area, effluence not flushed away and the showers had ingrained dirt which had evidently gathered over time. The ceiling tiles were dirty and the metal holders had rusted. The public areas were generally clean but the linoleum was coming away from the floor in places and probably presented a health and safety risk.

2.05 The cells were equipped with bunk beds in the double cells, a toilet without privacy screen, in-cell electricity and a television. The cells varied in cleanliness: some were very clean although most were dirty and some smelled. Prisoners told us that they had very little time in the morning, about 20-30 minutes, to wash, shower and clean their cells before being locked up.

2.06 Each landing had a telephone without privacy hood and a hot water boiler. On the first landing, there was a pool table and a large television for prisoners’ use when on association.

2.07 Applications were taken each morning by way of a written form. These were usually dealt with swiftly with the main complaint being the time items requested from Reception took to be processed.

2.08 At mealtimes, prisoners were unlocked a landing at a time. Meals were collected from a central servery and taken back to be eaten in the cells.

2.09 Life on the wing was impoverished with an average of at least 53 prisoners locked up throughout the core day. Prisoners told us that they got on well with staff and the exchanges we saw confirmed that. Staff talked to prisoners when they were unlocked and it was evident that there was no tension between them. The relationships between staff and prisoners were good.

2.10 The Listener suite and multi-faith room were located on ‘A Wing’. There were no interview rooms on the wing and the only place available was the small room at the rear of the Senior Officers’ office. This meant that any conversation could be heard by staff and was therefore not acceptable.

‘B Wing’ 2.11 Apart from B1 landing (covered separately in this report), ‘B Wing’ had mainly double cells on two landings. There were 84 prisoners on the wing throughout the week of the inspection. On each of the two landings, there was one four-bedded cell occupied by wing cleaners and orderlies. Designated as the Induction wing, ‘B Wing’ had a daily turnover of prisoners although a small proportion preferred to remain there. Due to constraints on space, remand and convicted prisoners were often housed together. The regime for both categories was, in any event, the same.

2.12 The wings were of an old Victorian design and cells were equally antiquated. The condition of public areas and cells was poor. All areas were dirty and unkempt, in poor decorative order and there was some graffiti in the cells. Prisoners were locked up for much of the day in cells that had not been cleaned and in-cell toilets were not screened off. The atmosphere in the cells was unacceptable: they were dark, dirty and smelly. In one cell, we found a prisoner with a permanent catheter, sharing in those conditions with a disturbed and self-harming young man. They clearly supported one another; but the conditions in which they did so were unacceptable and degrading.

2.13 All cells had televisions for which each prisoner had to pay 50 pence per week. Prisoners had nowhere to store their clothing and property and consequently made use of the large plastic bags they were given in Reception. There were no waste bins and rubbish was thrown in the corners and under the beds. The conditions inside the cells were often unacceptable.

Clothing and Possessions 2.14 Although remand prisoners could wear their own clothes, they all chose to wear prison issue clothing. Items not allowed in the cells were held in the storage

room in Reception and these were properly secured in boxes with individually numbered plastic seals. Prisoners complained to us of ill-fitting and insufficient clothes, usually tracksuits and underwear. The aim was for prisoners to receive seven pairs of boxer shorts each week. However, many had received only three pairs and, since prison kit was replaced item for item, they never had their full quota of clothing. Tracksuit bottoms were often torn at the crotch and prisoners said that replacements were often in the same condition. Since prisoners had nowhere to store their kit, clean replacements were kept in plastic bags under beds and in corners that were dusty and dirty.

Hygiene 2.15 Prisoners were given an initial issue of soap, toothpaste and one small sachet of shampoo. After that, they had to wait until they could purchase more supplies from the prison shop. Since this often meant waiting up to 10 days or so, these items were frequently acquired by other means from fellow prisoners.

2.16 Prisoners had only about 15 minutes to shower, clean their cells or make a telephone call once they were unlocked to collect their breakfast. With only one set of showers operating on ‘B Wing’, personal hygiene was difficult to maintain. The only other opportunity for showers was after PE or when the wing had association, which was once every three or four evenings and at the weekend. Mirrors in the cells were opaque, making shaving hazardous. Some prisoners tried to polish their washbasin taps for use as an alternative mirror.

2.17 Bedding in cells ranged from reasonable to dilapidated. Many prisoners had no pillows because, staff told us, prisoners took their pillows with them when they were located on other wings. We found little evidence that prisoners were encouraged to keep cells and communal areas clean. There was no staff cleaning officer and, even if they wanted to maintain a modicum of cleanliness, prisoners had inadequate supplies of essential cleaning materials and liquids. Prisoners’ plastic mugs and cutlery were kept in their cells where there was no washing liquid to clean them. The wash bowls and toilets in many of the cells we saw were in an appalling condition.

Conclusion 2.18 Managers and staff had failed to provide prisoners with a basic standard of cleanliness and hygiene or a reasonable standard of accommodation. The condition of public areas and cells was poor and areas were dirty. The single staff office was equally inadequate for its purpose. Conditions inside cells were unacceptable with no screened toilet and inadequate time or materials or keep cells clean and hygienic. Prisoners’ clothing was often damaged and ill fitting and few prisoners had sufficient underwear. Prisoners had limited access to showers and many had to wait more than three days to use one. They found it difficult to maintain even essential personal hygiene.

Recommendations 2.19 All public areas on the wing should be thoroughly cleaned every day and staff should ensure this is properly accomplished

2.20 In-cell toilets should be screened off

2.21 All cells should have cupboards or equivalent where prisoners can store their possessions

2.22 Prisoners should be issued with properly sized clothing

2.23 All prisoners should be issued with sufficient underwear

2.24 Prisoners should be able to purchase personal hygiene items such as soap, toothpaste, shampoo and shaving cream soon after their arrival at the prison

2.25 Wing routines should allow all prisoners time for daily association with other prisoners and showers

2.26 All cells should have clear mirrors

2.27 All cells should be cleaned daily and adequate cleaning materials provided to prisoners

‘C Wing’ 2.28 ‘C Wing’ held up to 81 prisoners and was the designated Voluntary Drug Testing (VDT) unit for the prison. All prisoners had their own cells and these were grouped into spurs of either 16 or 11 cells, located on three landings. The cell doors and the gates to each spur were locked electronically and each spur was monitored by a video camera. Officers controlled the locking system and observed the video recordings from the central office located on the ground floor.

2.29 The cells we inspected were light, clean and well maintained. Prisoners were encouraged through the Incentives and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme and weekly cell inspections to take a pride in the presentation of their cell. ‘C Wing’ was the only accommodation without in-cell sanitation; each spur had a separate toilet area although most cells also contained a pot. Prisoners could use an intercom call system linked to the central office and staff would unlock the cell door to allow the prisoner access to the toilet. During the night, these periods of unlock were timed and the right to be unlocked would be removed temporarily from any prisoner not returning to his cell within the set period.

2.30 All public areas on ‘C Wing’ were clean and well cared for although the condition of the tile flooring was poor in places. The association area had a pool table, television, video and a large number of comfortable chairs. The dining area, which was located by the servery, also doubled as a second association or meeting room. All meals were taken in association in this dining area and hot water boilers were positioned on each landing so that prisoners could make their own hot drinks throughout the day. A pre-select menu was in operation for lunch and dinner. Prisoners had good access to telephones with one on each landing and two on the ground floor - a ratio of one telephone to 16 prisoners. The shower area contained 12 showers and prisoners had daily access to these if they so wished.

2.31 With the exception of kitchen workers who were all accommodated on one spur, all prisoners on ‘C Wing’ were required to sign a VDT compact and undergo regular drug testing. One spur of 16 cells held all those prisoners undertaking the drug rehabilitation programme (see also section on Substance Use). Approximately 40% of ‘C Wing’ prisoners were on the enhanced regime of the IEP scheme and all were expected to take responsibility for themselves and their actions. Staffing levels were based on one Senior Officer and seven officers. The relationships between staff and prisoners were relaxed and respectful. Staff clearly knew the prisoners in their care and sought to treat them as responsible adults. We saw several examples of staff dealing sympathetically and sensitively with prisoners’ concerns or queries and we were particularly impressed by the manner in which the privacy and confidentiality of prisoners was respected. Several prisoners spoke highly of staff and praised individual staff members.

2.32 We were told by staff that a large proportion of prisoners on ‘C Wing’ were in employment. Although the employment levels were better than those for A and B Wings, we estimated that during the week of our inspection between 25 and 30% of prisoners remained on ‘C Wing’ during the day, many of them locked in their cells. Apart from enhanced prisoners, who were given association every night, most prisoners had association every third night. ‘C Wing’ prisoners took their outdoor exercise together with ‘B Wing’, which some staff and prisoners argued undermined the rationale for a separate VDT unit. Overall, the prisoners to whom we spoke had no specific complaints about the conditions or regime on ‘C Wing’, which they believed compared very favourably with life on A and B Wings.

Conclusion 2.33 Both cellular accommodation and public areas on ‘C Wing’ were clean, comfortable and well presented. A good rapport existed between staff and prisoners, with prisoners being afforded some degree of trust and being encouraged to act responsibly. While time out-of-cell and access to association remained open to improvement, the physical conditions and general regime were perceived by staff and prisoners as being superior to those on A and B wings.

CHAPTER THREE

DUTY OF CARE

Anti-Bullying Strategy

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for creating an environment safe from bullying are: • Safety: Prisoners are as safe as possible from bullying behaviour and bullied prisoners are always given full support in any bullying incident • Respect: Neither staff nor prisoners use their position or power to bully others • Respect: Bullying and bullied prisoners are treated fairly and are aware of the systems that operate to prevent bullying behaviour • Purposeful activity: Activities take place to develop self-esteem within an environment which discourages bullying and assists those who are or might be bullied • Resettlement and reducing offending: Street and prison cultures are challenged through effective anti-bullying measures and programmes for all who are involved

3.01 An anti-bullying strategy was in place, directed by a multidisciplinary committee chaired by the head of residence. Meetings were held regularly.

3.02 The strategy was very loosely linked to Prison Service Order 1702 but it was not easy to read or understand. This was noted by the committee at its meeting in January 2002 after feedback from staff showed that they did not understand it. They were unsure of where forms were kept, how to refer people or set up the log. There was reference to what might be done to rectify this but no action points arose from the discussion.

3.03 The main thrust of the strategy was a two-stage approach: • Firstly, the anti-bullying co-ordinator and head of residence reviewed anyone identified as a bully. If satisfied that bullying was taking place, the prisoner concerned was placed on 28 days observation with weekly reviews • Secondly, if the prisoner did not respond, consideration was given to segregating him. There were no interventions to encourage or challenge a bully’s behaviour

3.04 The strategy suggested that support for anyone being bullied could take the form of moving the prisoner to another wing, referring him to a Listener, involving the Samaritans or a prison visitor, informing other departments and encouraging him to participate in education to keep his mind occupied. He would also be placed on an observation log similar to that of the bully. The strategy did not make anyone responsible for ensuring that the victim received support. The above was rudimentary at best but in reality did not take place. We interviewed those prisoners identified as bullies and those identified as victims. The former had been told that they were bullies and would be watched for the next 28 days. Logs were completed. One of the victims did not know he had been identified as such; another said that he had forcefully told staff that he was not being bullied. No one, they said, had told them about any support mechanisms.

3.05 The prison conducted a bullying survey in November 2001 which, according to the anti-bullying co-ordinator’s comments on the front cover, showed that there was not a problem with bullying at Gloucester. According to their findings, 15% of prisoners felt unsafe in the showers; 14% in the recess; 12% in Reception; 10% in visits and 10% moving wing to wing. Over 30% said they had been called names or insulted and 20% said they had had property stolen from their cell. Nearly 30% said they had been threatened with violence by another prisoner. This does not support the conclusion that bullying was not a problem.

Conclusion 3.06 The anti-bullying strategy was not properly managed and it was unclear to staff. It did not meet prisoners’, the prison’s or Prison Service’s needs and

requirements. There was no evidence that victims had been supported or that the behaviour of bullies had been challenged.

Recommendations 3.07 The anti-bullying strategy should be reviewed to meet all the requirements of Prison Service Order 1702

3.08 Meaningful support systems should be put in place for those identified as victims

3.09 For those identified as bullies, interventions and targets to challenge and change their behaviour should be put in place

3.10 The results of the anti-bullying questionnaire should be analysed and a remedial action plan drawn up

3.11 Senior managers should take an active interest in ensuring anti-bullying is given a high profile by placing it as an agenda item on senior management team meetings until they are satisfied it is fully integrated into the life of the prison

Self-Harm and Suicide

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for preventing self-harm and suicide are: • Safety: Prisoners are held in an environment in which all reasonable steps are taken to protect prisoners from self-harm and suicide honouring the prison’s duty of care to every prisoner • Safety: Significant information about individual prisoners at risk of self-harm or suicide is communicated effectively by those who hold it to those who need it and integrated into the support plan • Respect: Prisoners know where to find help and access it in times of crisis or need

• Respect: Raising and maintaining prisoners’ self-esteem, especially in times of transition or change, should be inherent in the prison’s culture, management, regimes and activity • Respect: The treatment of those at risk of self-harm or suicide shall always maintain confidentiality, preserve or enhance the dignity of the prisoner and shall not itself be dehumanising • Purposeful activity: Those prisoners at risk of self-harm or suicide are encouraged to participate in appropriate purposeful activities including specific programmes for their needs in this respect

3.12 The Governor chaired monthly meetings of the Suicide Prevention Management Team (SPMT). There was a good cross-section of representatives from wings, operations, chaplaincy, probation, Board of Visitors and escort contractors. There had been difficulties in appointing a Suicide Prevention Co-ordinator and consequently much of the meetings was taken up with operational minutiae rather than progressing major initiatives. There were plans to include a Listener for part of these meetings but, on the grounds of security, a decision had been made that until SPMT meetings were held in a place other than the Administration block, the Listener could not attend. This was unwarranted.

3.13 Staff were very aware of the likelihood of attempts at self-harm because many prisoners were either new to prison or had been recently sentenced. At the time of the inspection, 62 of 150 staff (41%) identified for training had received the suicide awareness training package. All these staff had regular contact with prisoners.

3.14 New prisoners in Reception were interviewed by health care staff and the first page of the medical assessment booklet dealt with risk of self-harm. During the inspection, eight prisoners had formal documentation (F2052SH) as being at risk. Five were located in the Health Care Centre, one on ‘A Wing’, one on ‘B Wing’ and one on B1 unit. Open F2052SH reviews were carried out every week by a small group including the doctor and the head of residence. All information on individuals was not always readily available and these review meetings needed to better co- ordinated.

3.15 The Samaritans were part of the help available to prisoners and a Listener scheme was in operation. There were only four Listeners: three on ‘C Wing’ and one on ‘A Wing’. A Listener was employed as an orderly in Reception and we were told that two Listeners attended ‘B Wing’ Induction after the video had been shown. A Listener suite, of sorts, was a converted cell on ‘A Wing’ that doubled as the multi- faith room. The room, which contained a small coffee table and two chairs, was dirty and unsuitable for either purpose.

3.16 In the period from 30th April 2001 to 30th April 2002, there had been 67 incidents of self-harm, averaging five incidents per month. This is low for a local prison, reflecting the relationships between staff and prisoners and the relaxed atmosphere on residential units. Proportionally to the numbers of prisoners in residence across units, the Health Care Centre was the location for the highest number of incidents followed by B1.

3.17 In 2001 there had been three deaths in custody and in each case inquest findings recorded a verdict of suicide. Internal investigations showed that procedures had generally been followed but a recommendation had been made that night staff should carry ligature scissors on their belts. When we visited the prison on one night during the inspection, ligature scissors were still being housed in Response Kits in wing offices. We were told that the prison was awaiting the results of tests by the Safer Custody unit in headquarters to determine the most suitable ligature scissors.

Conclusion 3.18 The Governor chaired monthly meetings of the Suicide Prevention Management Team but there was no Listener representative for ‘security’ reasons. Open F2052SH reviews were carried out every week. There were only four Listeners for a population of just over 300. No Listener was located on ‘B Wing’, B1 unit or the Health Care Centre although a Listener was employed as an orderly in Reception. The Listener suite was unsuitable and inadequately furnished. There had been three suicides in 2001 but the overall levels of self-harm were low. Despite a recommendation arising from an internal investigation on one of the deaths, night

staff did not carry ligature scissors on their belts. Staff displayed a high awareness and understanding about self-harm and the low incident levels were a credit to staff/prisoner relationships and to staff vigilance.

Recommendations 3.19 A Listener should attend meetings of the Suicide Prevention Management Team

3.20 More Listeners should be recruited and priority given to locating them on ‘B Wing’, B1 and in the Health Care Centre

3.21 The Listener suite should be suitably furnished

3.22 Night staff should carry ligature scissors

Race Relations

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for race relations are: • Safety: Prisoners live in an environment in which they are safe from physical, verbal or emotional abuse, intimidation or victimisation or any discrimination on the grounds of race or culture • Respect: Prisoners experience a culture that values diversity and actively promotes, maintains and monitors good practice in race relations • Respect: Foreign nationals and those for whom English is not their first language are enabled to understand and communicate successfully • Respect: Prisoners, regardless of their ethnic cultural background, have equal access to all appropriate facilities and activities within the establishment. Eligibility for benefits and privileges, e.g. risk assessments, are made without regard for race, ethnicity or culture • Purposeful activity: Prisoners and staff are able to recognise and acknowledge the cultural diversity of the prison population

3.23 The prison had an active and committed Race Relations Management Team (RRMT) chaired by the Deputy Governor. Photographs of the Race Relations Liaison Officer (RRLO) and her deputy were distributed widely across the prison and only they had access to the locked complaints boxes located on each wing. It was evident from notes of the RRMT meetings that the team was anxious to identify and address a wide range of issues relating to race and culture, grappling where necessary with some complex and difficult problems. The prison had facilitated some research on race relations by Oxford University and, although the report was not yet published, the Deputy Governor said the interim conclusions had been positive.

3.24 Routine monitoring was in place to try and identify any discrimination in areas such as work, IEP, adjudications, Home Detention Curfew and mandatory drug testing. However, not all departments within the prison were providing the required statistical information. Sixty-one per cent of staff had attended race relations training within the previous three years.

3.25 The proportion of prisoners recorded as belonging to a minority ethnic group varied significantly: 22% in January 2002 and 9% in March. We were told by the RRLO that, at the time of our visit, Gloucester held 10 foreign national prisoners. We were unable to determine this from the population statistics provided, which grouped foreign nationals with those registered as of ‘no fixed abode’. All prisoner documentation was in English and staff were encouraged to use Language Line for translation services when necessary. Those prisoners with families living abroad were provided with airmail letters and allowed to use office phones to make operator- assisted calls.

3.26 We met with a group of seven prisoners; five were black or Asian and two were foreign nationals. Aside from some specific practical complaints, which we subsequently discussed with the RRLO and the Deputy Governor, the prisoners' main concern was a perceived lack of equal opportunity in the allocation of employment. While in general they did not perceive any discrimination by staff or other prisoners, some had felt the need to 'assert' themselves in order to ensure fair treatment.

3.27 The Head of Personnel had recently taken on the role of Diversity Officer to develop understanding of wider diversity issues. Her work would be mainly with staff and the planning of training would incorporate and involve RRMT staff so that their experience and skills were utilised and any duplication of effort avoided.

Conclusion 3.28 There was a positive commitment by managers and most staff to both race relations and the wider diversity agenda. This translated into an environment in which prisoners and their visitors did not feel discriminated against and in which complaints could be made in the knowledge that they would be treated sympathetically and seriously. Lack of commitment to monitoring potential discrimination however undermined the prison's ability to properly identify its shortcomings and to publicise its achievements.

Recommendations 3.29 All departments should provide regular monitoring information to the RRMT

3.30 The prison's database should record foreign nationals as a separate group

3.31 Some information in foreign languages should be available to prisoners, particularly during Reception and Induction.

3.32 The results of work undertaken by the RRMT should be better publicised amongst the prisoner population

3.33 Opportunities should be taken to promote the value of diversity

Examples of good practice 3.34 Prisoners with families living abroad were provided with airmail letters and helped to make operator-assisted calls to improve the quality of contact with their family

3.35 The prison had appointed a Diversity Officer and had an active and committed Race Relations Management Team

Substance Use

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes regarding substance use are: • Safety: All prisoners are as safe as possible from exposure to and the effects of substance use whilst in custody • Respect: Prisoners with substance related needs are identified at Reception and throughout their time in custody • Purposeful activity: All prisoners receive effective drug and alcohol education interventions to meet their needs • Resettlement and reducing re-offending: Prisoners, according to their individually assessed needs, are provided with the necessary support and treatment both in prison and after release to maintain healthy lifestyles and avoid the harmful effects of drug use

3.36 The prison had a written Drug and Alcohol Strategy document that laid out in some detail the initiatives in place to address issues related to substance use. While this provided a good general description of the prison’s overall strategy, it did not include performance measurements or set outcome targets against which progress could be measured. The strategy was ambitious with several areas yet to be fully implemented. It would have benefited from an accompanying action plan to allow the monitoring of development. At the time of our visit, the Drug Strategy Co-ordinator (DSC) was undertaking the annual revision of the Drug and Alcohol Strategy document, which was an opportunity to develop it into more of a working document.

3.37 All prisoners arriving at the prison were screened for drug and alcohol use by health care staff and, where appropriate, provided with a medical intervention. In the three months from January to March 2002, 239 detoxifications had been started, of which 177 had involved the use of opiates. For those who had been using drugs, either legally or illegally, treatment was mainly in the form of symptom control. This 41

ignored most of the mandatory requirements of PSO 3550 set out in the standard ‘Clinical Services for Substance Misusers’. We spoke to prisoners who were highly critical of the way in which their detoxification had been handled, including a number who said that they had chosen not to ask for help as it was not worth it. There were also no arrangements for the continuation of treatment for those on remand or serving short sentences.

3.38 We were concerned that there was no discrete detoxification unit within the prison or any specific regime to meet the physical and psychological needs of those withdrawing from drugs. Given the known links between prisoners detoxifying from drugs and potential suicide or self-harm, this needed to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

3.39 During Induction, all prisoners were informed of the prison’s Counselling, Assessment, Referral and Throughcare service (CARATs). This was a multidisciplinary service managed by the DSC as part of the wider Drug Strategy Team (DST). Where prisoners were referred by staff or self-referred, a worker would make immediate contact to explain the range of services available. They would also provide a leaflet with harm minimisation advice and useful contacts in the community. When a prisoner chose to continue with the service, he was expected to make an application to be seen for a formal assessment.

3.40 The CARATs team was made up of staff recruited from prison officers, Health Care, Probation and the Avon and Wiltshire Mental Health Partnership NHS Trust (AWMHPNHST), who were the external contractors for drug services to the prison. This allowed the CARAT team to offer a variety of relevant services to prisoners as well as assessment. The inclusion of a nurse in the team had allowed them to focus on issues related to communicable diseases, particularly Hepatitis C. In the period from December 2001 to March 2002, 61 tests had been carried out of which 29% had been positive for Hepatitis C. Where appropriate, referral was made to the local NHS Hepatology unit and all prisoners received post-test counselling.

3.41 While the nature of the prison’s population had changed considerably over the previous two years, particularly evident in the lower numbers of remanded prisoners, the workload of the CARATs team remained high. Specifically, there was an increasing demand for one-to-one work and support on throughcare and re-settlement issues. This was not reflected in the Key Performance Target (KPT), which simply required the CARATs team to undertake 350 assessments per annum.

3.42 The prison had opened its Glevem Unit at the end of January 2002. This was a refurbished suite containing a group room, counselling space, offices and other facilities. The Star rehabilitation programme was based here and prisoners attended on a daily basis while being housed on ‘C Wing’. The programme lasted 12 weeks and was based on cognitive behavioural therapy. As a modular programme, new starters of up to 11 men could be accepted each week. It was run by the NHS Trust, who were preparing the documentation necessary for accreditation by the Prison Service. While the programme was still very much in is infancy and not yet in a position to demonstrate its worth, there were some promising indications. Officers on ‘C Wing’ told us that participants’ behaviour was markedly improved and the men themselves were extremely positive about its effect.

3.43 The prison’s Voluntary Drug Testing (VDT) scheme was based on ‘C Wing’, which was operating as a Voluntary Testing Unit (VTU). Prisoners on other wings were also able to sign up and the prison had a Key Performance Target of 95 compacts at any one time. The prison had funding for a full-time post but had chosen to share the duties among staff, allowing for greater flexibility. Positive results for VDT were extremely low, averaging just 3% over the first quarter of 2002 including those that were consistent with medication.

3.44 The CARATs team had a member seconded from the Probation Service who provided probation clients on the scheme with support and referral on discharge. This involved arranging emergency housing, liaison with community support services and referral to rehabilitation. This did not apply to those on remand or those serving short sentences who were likely to be discharged without any support structures being put into place. This had been recognised by the CARATs team and good work had been

taking place to develop links with community-based services. These included establishing referral procedures with a specialist Housing Association and involvement with the local drug service who were setting up a community reintegration scheme.

3.45 The prison consistently struggled to achieve its Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT) targets. This appeared to be due to staff consistently being detailed to other duties that left insufficient time to undertake testing. In the first quarter of 2002, the number of positive results for combined random and targeted testing averaged 14%, mainly for cannabis but with a significant number for opiates. We were concerned that the standard adjudication award for a positive cannabis test appeared to be an additional 14 days imprisonment. Not only was this excessive, given the relative penalties that were applied in the community, but it also gave the wrong message that there was little difference between cannabis and Class A drugs.

3.46 The prison made strenuous efforts to prevent drugs being smuggled in. These included the use of a drugs dog in the visits area, which acted as a deterrent as well as identifying those carrying drugs. This was backed up by the use of CCTV and intelligence to target both prisoners and visitors who were suspected of involvement in trading drugs. Both staff and prisoners told us that the availability of drugs in the prison was limited and there was little organised trafficking taking place.

Conclusion 3.47 HMP Gloucester was clearly committed to providing appropriate and effective responses to problems associated with substance use. While providing its own CARAT service and rehabilitation programme, it also recognised the need to follow these through and develop links and referral pathways with community-based services. It had already made considerable progress in this area and further development needed to be one of the key components of its revised Drug Strategy. Our only major concern was that the detoxification process was inadequate and that potentially vulnerable prisoners were not receiving appropriate medical or psychological support.

Recommendations 3.48 The prison’s Drug and Alcohol Strategy document should be revised to include an action plan with performance indicators and outcome targets against which the success of the strategy could be measured and updated. It would also be appropriate to include Tobacco Cessation as part of the overall strategy on the use of substances

3.49 The recommendations of PSO 3550, ‘Clinical Services for Substance Misusers’, should be fully implemented by the prison’s Health Care Centre and monitored by the Area Drugs Co-ordinator (ADC)

3.50 The prison should develop a discrete detoxification unit and provide a supportive regime for those undergoing withdrawal symptoms

3.51 The high incidence of Hepatitis C amongst prisoners highlights, once again, the need for the Prison Service to set national standards for testing, treatment and health promotion in this area

3.52 The ADC should review the KPT for CARATs in light of the changing needs of the prison’s population

3.53 The prison should review the way in which it works with those that fail MDT tests. In particular, it should look at using more imaginative sanctions rather than ‘added days’ and ensure that it does not inadvertently make the use of Class A drugs a more attractive option than the use of cannabis

Maintaining Contact with Family and Friends

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes on maintaining contact with family and friends are: • Safety: Prisoners and visitors feel safe in their time together and visitors feel safe within the establishment • Respect: The rights of prisoners to maintain contact with family and friends are upheld and practical arrangements are in place to provide for them with special consideration being given to children and partners • Respect: Visitors are welcomed to the establishment, supported within the prison and recognised as free members of society in order that they may contribute positively to the prisoners’ progress • Resettlement and reducing offending: Prisoners are encouraged to build and maintain family and social networks and relationships that contribute to their wellbeing and help reintegrate them into the community

3.54 All domestic visits to Gloucester had to be pre-booked by telephone and, in the case of convicted prisoners, visitors had to have a valid Visiting Order. A number of visitors complained that it was difficult to get through to the prison. There was only one telephone line available on weekday mornings between 9.00am and noon and this did not have a ‘call waiting’ system.

3.55 The prison did not have a Visitors’ Centre and the gate and security staff were left to provide advice and support to visitors. Given the large number and turnover of visitors to the prison, this was totally insufficient and created unnecessary delays in the admission procedures. This had been recognised by the prison and there had already been some discussion about creating a Visitors’ Centre in an identified space in the outer wall.

3.56 Visits took place every afternoon of the week except Mondays, with additional visits on Saturday mornings. Visitors were subjected to a thorough rubdown search and then passed through a metal detector. At most visit times, the passive drug dog 46

was on duty and all visitors were required to allow it to pass them before they entered the visits room. Where the dog indicated that a visitor had been in contact with drugs, they were taken to one side and questioned. Where no drugs were found, the visitor was offered a closed visit and advised on how to prevent this happening again in the future. Where we observed this happening, it was done discreetly and sympathetically.

3.57 The visiting room was large and had 28 seat clusters allowing up to three adult visitors for each prisoner. The physical environment was good and the room was cheerfully decorated. There was also a well-used refreshment bar staffed by volunteers where visitors could purchase drinks and snacks. The room was stuffy and the temperature was too warm. We were told that this was an ongoing problem and considerably worsened in the summer.

3.58 Toilets were available for visitors adjacent to the visit room and were clean and in good condition. There were facilities for the disabled and for baby changing. A crèche area had been constructed in one corner of the room staffed by a prison employee and a volunteer. This was obviously a valued resource for visitors although there was a complaint that its opening was erratic. It was also unclear as to whether staff were adequately trained and supported to undertake childcare.

Conclusion 3.59 Overall the visitors we met were happy with the way they were treated and with how staff supervised the visits system. This was reflected in our prisoner questionnaire, to which only 8% of respondents had replied that they and their visitors had been treated badly or worse. However, the booking system was inadequate and the lack of a Visitors’ Centre reduced the potential of the prison to interact with prisoners’ families and impacted on the admission procedure.

Recommendations 3.60 The prison should review its visit booking system to ensure that visitors

can book without undue difficulty. Consideration should be given to allowing visitors to remand prisoners the opportunity to book their next visit while at the prison, as happens in similar establishments

3.61 The development of a Visitors’ Centre should be made a priority and advice should be sought from the Prison Reform Trust as to quality standards and service provision

3.62 The prison should ensure that the visits room is properly ventilated and kept at a reasonable temperature

3.63 The prison should review the staffing of the crèche to enable it to open at all visit times and to ensure that staff are appropriately qualified

Requests and Complaints

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for requests and complaints are: • Safety: Prisoners are safe from repercussions or recrimination in making any Application or Request or Complaint • Respect: Prisoners know and are given appropriate help to exercise their right of access both to Applications, and Requests and Complaints; they receive a prompt, courteous and fair response from staff • Resettlement and reducing re-offending: Sentence plans are normally implemented without a prisoner needing to use Applications or Request and Complaints

3.64 There was little evidence that prisoners had any difficulty in accessing the Request and Complaint procedure. In our prisoner questionnaire, 51% said that it was easy to get a request and complaint form, 27% did not know how to, presumably as they had no need to obtain one, and only 7% said that it was difficult. In contrast, only 13% of respondents said it was easy to get access to the Board of Visitors while

21% said that they did not know who they were. This was despite there being sealed Board of Visitors application boxes on each wing.

3.65 We inspected the records that were kept of Requests and Complaints and were impressed with the systematic and efficient way with which they were dealt. Applications were normally processed quickly. In the one case we saw where there had been an inordinate delay, an apology had been made to the applicant. Overall, complaints were being dealt with according to Prison Service instructions and were being properly recorded.

3.66 The replies we saw from staff were courteous and fully responsive to the complaints raised by prisoners. We noted that the replies were typed or legibly hand- written, which conveyed a respect for the complainant. We also saw several examples where the prisoner’s submission had been upheld, which gave us a degree of confidence in the process.

Conclusion 3.67 The Request and Complaint procedures were being operated effectively and fairly. Requests and complaints were given proper consideration by the prison. More effort, however, could have been given to informing prisoners of their right to use the procedures, and to contact the Board of Visitors, and this should be included and recorded as part of the formal Induction process.

Recommendations 3.68 The role of the Board of Visitors should be better publicised to prisoners to ensure this is properly understood

3.69 An explanation of the Request and Complaint procedure should be a formal part of the Induction process

CHAPTER FOUR

HEALTH CARE

Expected outcomes Inspectors will make judgements about health care against the following outcomes: • Prisoners receive a full range of primary health care, health promotion and disease prevention services in an environment that is clean, safe and conforms with the standards that operate in the NHS • NHS and prisoner records are available to those responsible for the care of the patient • Prisoners receive health care from appropriately trained staff and support and care in meeting their health needs from all prison staff. Their right to refuse treatment is recognised • Prisoners with physical or mental health problems are identified and assessed promptly, receive appropriate treatment and care and, where appropriate, are referred without delay to appropriate secondary care providers • Prisoners’ access to health promotion in primary care is equivalent to that in the community • Prisoners are encouraged to maintain healthy lifestyles while in prison and on release and are linked to community services including GPs prior to release • Prisoners receive in-patient health care that meets NHS standards in an environment that is clean, safe and meets NHS standards • In-patients receive opportunities for purposeful, therapeutic occupation according to their assessed needs and care plan • Patients requiring specialist health care are identified promptly and referred to visiting specialists or the NHS • Continuity of treatment and care is not impeded by transfer between prison and the NHS or by inappropriate security precautions

Introduction 4.01 HMP Gloucester has a Type 3 Health Care Centre providing 24-hour nursing care with an in-patient capacity of up to 15 beds. Services offered were primary care, in-patient care and visiting specialists. The accommodation was on two floors in an old part of the prison that had been converted into a Health Care Centre six years ago. We were struck by the amount of space available but it was poorly utilised and services were in the wrong place, particularly as patients were living on both floors. As in many other prisons, health care beds were on the Certified Normal Accommodation (CNA), which meant that they could be used for any overflow in the prison.

4.02 Although the Senior Management Team were aware of the work of the national and regional prison health teams, there appeared to be only limited interaction between the prison and its local health economy. We were pleased to hear that the quarterly meetings of the Joint Communicable Disease Management Team had resumed. We were also pleased to learn how effectively a recent outbreak of Hepatitis A had been handled jointly.

Environment 4.03 Cleanliness in the Health Care Centre did not reach an acceptable level despite an earlier area manager’s report highlighting this. Two cleaners, who resided in the main residential part of the prison, were present in health care from approximately 9.00am until 4.30pm. Whilst we recognise the difficulties of trying to maintain an old building, the standard of cleanliness should have been monitored and a more acceptable level attained. The ventilation in most areas was almost non-existent and the ground floor was mainly ventilated by leaving open the door into the waiting area. The numbers of patients smoking and general lack of cleanliness led to a fetid atmosphere that pervaded the whole building.

4.04 The treatment room in the Health Care Centre seemed to be the hub of the building where the doctor carried out consultations and nurses accessed the medical notes. Next to the treatment room was the patients’ waiting area, which was little

more than a gated area with no reading or health promotional material and little seating.

4.05 The pharmacy was housed in a room off the main treatment room. It was very small but, as most medicines were distributed on the wings, the stocks held here were quite low. The pharmacy room was tidy and clean, medicines were stored in lockable metal cabinets and there was a refrigerator.

4.06 The dental surgery was opposite the waiting area. It had been equipped about five years earlier to a reasonable standard with new equipment, work surfaces and cabinetry. The room was very small and only just acceptable for use as a dental surgery. There was very little room for the dental staff to work. The room was poorly ventilated and quite warm on the day of inspection. We were told that the room becomes unbearably hot in the summer.

4.07 The flooring met current standards, although there was some debris and it did not appear to have been cleaned thoroughly for some time. There was no mercury spillage kit or developing facilities for dental radiographs and only one ultrasonic scaler handpiece had been provided. No Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) assessment appeared to have been carried out.

4.08 Patients were brought to health care through a door into the waiting area, which meant that the outer door was always open. The only toilet available to visiting patients was in the same area as the only shower and bath on the ground floor, making privacy impossible.

4.09 In addition to the Health Care Centre, there were two further treatment/pharmacy rooms on the wings and another medical room in Reception. None of these facilities were any cleaner and or any more suitable for their purpose. The Reception medical room was often used when a vulnerable prisoner was received. This left nowhere for the nurse to carry out her assessment. The room itself was an internal one with no natural lighting or ventilation and no facilities for hand washing or urine testing. As a result, prisoners had to attend the Health Care Centre the

following day. We were told that plans were in hand to relocate the Reception area and part of this would include a new medical interview room.

4.10 In-patients were accommodated on two floors. There were quite often four patients in the three-bed dormitories on each floor. This made the dormitory cramped and, with only one toilet, lacking in privacy. There was also a double room and three single rooms on the first floor. Although these rooms had basins and toilet pans flush with the wall, they could only be considered marginally safer as there were ligature points in the room. On the ground floor, there was a safer room with a camera in situ. We were concerned that this room was used frequently due to the lack of nursing staff making more suitable observation and interaction not always possible.

Records 4.11 We looked at a sample of both in-patient and out-patient records, the completion of which was variable. There were no nursing care plans for in-patients, entries were unsigned and Reception assessments not always completed.

4.12 As previously stated, the medical records were kept in the treatment room rather than the general office. Patients’ confidentiality was compromised as other members of staff had to access records when the doctor was still consulting with patients. Dental histories were taken for each patient seen and recorded on the clinical records, copies of which were retained in the dental suite.

4.13 Prescription details were faxed to the community pharmacy daily and, if sent before midday, dispensed and returned to the prison the same afternoon. Full patient medication records were stored on computer at the supplying pharmacy.

4.14 The prescription forms were not being annotated when the supplies were given to the prisoners. This was a concern as it could lead to errors and/or omissions. Those sample prescription forms we reviewed were completed correctly but, as the fax machine could not take the forms, the details had to be written out again before sending to the pharmacy. This too could lead to errors.

Staffing Doctors 4.15 A doctor qualified in general practice and employed by a locum agency provided medical cover four days per week from 9.00am to 5.00pm. Three doctors provided out-of-hours cover on a rota system, which was also a locum arrangement.

Nursing 4.16 The prison had recently appointed a new Principal Officer (HCPO) with both a general nursing and drug misuse qualification who, at the time of our inspection, had only been in post three weeks. In the current profile, there were: • Two Senior Officers (HCSO): one of whom had been acting up for some months and neither of whom were qualified nurses • Three health care officers (HCO): two with second level qualifications in mental handicap and one who was in the process of completing a National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) in Care • Six staff nurses: two working part-time who were not part of the rota

4.17 Of this complement of staff, one member was away on long-term sick leave and one ‘F’ grade post and two ‘E’ grade nursing posts were vacant. Even with all staff in post, the provision was insufficient to maintain a safe level of nursing care directed by a first level nurse over a 24-hour period. This was particularly true at night when there was only one person on duty. They were not only responsible for in- patient care but also for any emergency requiring nursing attention in the rest of the prison.

Specialists 4.18 Two community psychiatrists visited on three afternoons per week, one of whom managed the low secure psychiatric unit that will shortly be completed. They conducted initial assessments and continued their care with follow-up appointments and discussion with staff members. Visiting specialists, such as the Consultant in genito-urinary medicine, the optician and the chiropodist, all attended monthly.

Dental 4.19 Dental care was provided under ‘The National Health Service, General Dental Services Regulations’. It was understood that a practitioner, who attended for one session per week, offered a ‘full range of treatment under these regulations’. The waiting time for new patients extended to about four weeks although emergencies were seen at the next available session. However, there appeared to be some confusion over the management of the waiting list. There were no arrangements in place for the treatment of out-of-hours emergencies or for cover during the practitioner's annual/sick leave.

Pharmaceutical 4.20 The pharmaceutical service was provided by a local community pharmacist. As there was no member of staff at Gloucester dedicated to the service, it was undertaken by members of the medical staff. The pharmacist could be contacted by mobile phone for urgent or out-of-hours dispensing of prescriptions but there was no formal policy or procedure.

Other staff 4.21 With no clerical or administrative staff in health care, nurses and health care officers were spending a lot of time on non-nursing tasks such as filing and making appointments. Equally, with was no Officer Support Grade (OSG), nurses had to fetch patients and take them back to their location following appointments. They also had to spend time cleaning those areas, such as treatment rooms, that prisoners were not allowed to clean.

Delivery of Care 4.22 When time and staffing permitted, full assessments of patients’ immediate needs were carried out and referrals to other services made. We were concerned that patients requiring detoxification on arrival were not always appropriately cared for as the doctor did not see them until the following day. Many of the men received at Gloucester were from the local vicinity and contact was maintained with their family doctor to provide continuity of care.

4.23 Nursing staff tried hard to keep acceptable standards of care but this was compromised by the staffing levels and the need to deliver other tasks as required by the whole prison. Staff spent time with patients in cleaning their rooms and carrying out their daily ablutions but this was limited. Daily ward rounds were not carried out and, as patients spent a lot of time locked up, there was little interaction with nursing staff. Nevertheless, we were pleased to see individual patients treated with respect and care.

4.24 Patients had very little activity during the day. In the morning, they only had time for a shower and to clean their rooms, while association only took place in the afternoon if the staffing level permitted. Meals were served in their rooms by cleaning orderlies at 8.00am, 11.45am and 4.00pm, with a hot drink at about 8.00pm. Patients were locked up after tea, which meant that they were only out of their rooms for two to three hours at best. Disturbed people should have some space and human contact. It was not surprising, therefore, that the Health Care Centre saw the highest incidence of self-harm.

4.25 During association, patients could go to a room with comfortable armchairs, a television and some games. An art therapist attended weekly, giving patients an opportunity to express their ideas and thoughts in a therapeutic way. However, patients did not have access to either education or gym activities. They had a separate exercise yard which, though large, was uninspiring being surrounded by a brick wall topped by corrugated iron.

4.26 We were told that there were few patients with mental illness who required transfer to the NHS. This was quite a different view to that of psychiatrists in similar establishments. We heard that, in the past, patients had been transferred to the local secure services. As yet there were no in reach mental health services despite a Community Psychiatric Nurse visiting in the past. One of the psychiatrists was due to retire in the autumn and therefore arrangements to ensure continuity were needed. Appointments for specialist services were rarely, if ever, cancelled.

4.27 We observed good, efficient clinical teamwork by the dental practitioner and his assistant. Both had recently undergone cardio-pulmonary resuscitation training. However, there was no emergency drug kit available in the surgery and the practitioner was unsure where he would find a positive pressure oxygen supply within the Health Care Centre. Sterilisation was by means of autoclave and the certification of equipment, including radiographic, was current and complete. Clinical waste was placed in receptacles for disposal rather than in yellow bags as required by current guidelines. There appeared to be no formal procedures for weekly maintenance of the compressor.

4.28 Medicines were distributed to prisoners from treatment rooms on the wings at 7.30am, noon and 4.30pm. As the last distribution was at 4.30pm, any sedative-type medication had to be given then. The quality of pharmacy provision was severely compromised by the lack of a Drug and Therapeutics Committee. Coupled with the fact that there was no dedicated medical officer cover, this resulted in a lack of co- ordination between prison staff and the pharmacist. Several emergency bags were present in the pharmacy but these were not checked regularly for content or age. There was an absence of systems or protocols in several key areas such as: • Stock management • Record keeping/prescription handling • In-possession policy • Secondary dispensing • Special sick policy • Prescribing formulary

4.29 Any health promotion was conducted individually as the staffing levels were insufficient to run any clinics. There was a lack of health promotion material in any part of the health care facilities. Prisoners need to receive information on the prevention and control of communicable diseases, including HIV, drug-related diseases, Hepatitis B and C and tuberculosis. In addition, prisoners did not receive patient information leaflets with their medicines nor was it clear how they could.

Conclusion 4.30 The striking features of the provision of health care at Gloucester were the poor environment in which care was delivered, the lack (until recently) of clinical and managerial leadership and the impoverished state of the regime. Within these limitations, health care staff generally looked after patients with respect and care. To achieve health care provision to a comparable standard to similar prisons, the new manager needed external and internal support. This should include the regional prison health team and the local Primary Care Trust management.

Recommendations 4.31 The present arrangement of in-patients on two floors is unsafe and consideration should be given to relocating all in-patients on the upper floor in the Health Care Centre

4.32 The state of cleanliness should be monitored and the selection of cleaners made in conjunction with the health care manager. Cleaning schedules should be reviewed and their implementation monitored. Patients’ rooms should be redecorated

4.33 The Governor, the health care manager, the regional health care task force and the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) should consider a joint nurse recruitment and retention strategy

4.34 The staffing profile at night should always ensure a first level nurse and another member of staff

4.35 Medical and nursing records should be completed in accordance with standards required by professional regulatory bodies

4.36 Medical records should be stored in a secure office and not where patient care is carried out so that patients’ confidentiality is not compromised

4.37 Individual care plans should be introduced to ensure that continuity of care is regularly reviewed and evaluated

4.38 The Governor should consider the allocation of secretarial/administrative and other staff to relieve nursing staff from non-nursing duties

4.39 The Drugs and Therapeutics Committee should be reconstituted as soon as possible and should introduce policies for In Possession, Stock Management, Special Sick and a Prescribing Formulary

4.40 Patients should have access to education and opportunity to attend gym

4.41 The health care manager, the regional health care task force and the local PCT should agree a health promotion strategy to take account of the specific public and individual health needs and set target dates for implementation

4.42 The Governor, the health care manager, the regional health care task force and the local PCT should agree a mental health strategy and the resultant programme for implementation. This should include an audit of mental health needs for primary, secondary and tertiary care

4.43 The Governor, the regional health care task force and the local PCT should produce an action for prison health care as agreed in the local health authority health improvement plan (HimP) and agree a timeframe for implementation. This should include permanent medical cover and integrated nursing services

Specific dental recommendations 4.44 Yellow bags for clinical waste disposal should be provided

4.45 Reviews to take place of: a) management of the dental waiting list

b) management of dental emergencies when the practitioner is unavailable c) Procedures for the routine, thorough cleaning of the surgery floor and weekly compressor maintenance

4.46 A COSSH assessment should be undertaken and recorded

4.47 The following items should be provided: a) An emergency drug kit b) Dental radiographic developing facilities c) A mercury spillage kit and tray d) Additional ultra sonic scaler handpieces

CHAPTER FIVE

ACTIVITIES

Employment

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for prisoner employment are: Safety: Prisoners work in a safe, suitable environment Respect: The range, type and availability of work activity meet the needs of the prison population and prisoners are treated fairly in all aspects of their work, its allocation and pay Purposeful activity: Prisoners are engaged in well-organised employment; work programmes are integrated fully with residential units and other departments Resettlement and reducing offending: Prisoners are occupied in realistic work that prepares them for employment on release and helps to reduce offending

5.01 Managers and staff readily acknowledged that Gloucester offered insufficient work places for its population. According to statistics provided to us, the prison offered a maximum of 162 employment and activity places, serving 49% of the population. Of these, the drug rehabilitation programme (9%) and cleaners or orderlies (23%) accounted for almost a third. This is wholly inadequate.

5.02 Prisoners had to apply for work or education places. The process for allocating places was not clear, leading to several complaints of discrimination or unfair treatment. Each application went through a rigorous security check. We were told that this took some time and therefore effectively excluded all short stay prisoners. Staff told us that some jobs, especially orderlies, were usually allocated to those prisoners who had been identified as suitable. There was no evidence of allocation being influenced by any sentence plan targets. A Labour Board, which had met for the first time some three weeks prior to our visit, had not been deemed a success by those attending.

5.03 Each prisoner was paid 50 pence for every weekday spent in custody, providing a basic 'unemployed' rate of £2.50 per week. Wages for those in work or education were paid in addition to this rate. Prisoners complained to us about the low rate of pay that, they claimed, had remained static over several years. Whilst the pay levels were at the lower end of those found in other prisons, they were not out of line given the nature of the work involved. Total weekly pay ranged from £6.70 for cleaners to £10.90 for gym and Reception orderlies and kitchen workers.

Education

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for education are: • Safety: Prisoners receive education and work skills training in a safe, suitable environment in which they are enabled to participate fully • Respect: Prisoners are offered opportunities in education and work skills training that meet their identified needs and different levels of ability, and promote and respect personal responsibility; education is facilitated and valued by the establishment and reflects a sensitivity to equality of opportunities issues • Purposeful activity: Prisoners have the opportunity to engage in a range of education and work skills training that provides constructive and meaningful activity and potential for self-expression • Resettlement and reducing re-offending: Prisoners are involved in education and work skills training specifically to enhance their employment opportunities

Introduction 5.04 Educational programmes were available on a part-time basis and included: • Literacy and numeracy skills • Information and communications technology • Painting and decorating • Citizenship skills • Cookery • Basic food hygiene 62

• Pottery • Art • Sports training

5.05 While most of the small amount of training at the prison was satisfactory, the leadership and management of the provision were not. The quality of provision was not adequate to meet the needs of those receiving it.

5.06 There was no clear strategy for future development, and both equality of opportunity and the quality assurance of training were poor. Retention and achievement rates and trends could not be established accurately. Some courses offered were yet to be accredited.

5.07 Most of the staff were appropriately qualified and experienced. Good learning materials were used in most areas and learners were well motivated, despite the fact that wages for education and training were very low. Assessment of work and progress was poor.

Leadership and management 5.08 The head of inmate activities (HIA) managed education and training. The contract for the education service, which was held by a further education college, detailed key performance targets for delivery and achievement. However, as it provided for five days and one evening a week, the contract fell short of serving the total population of 330. The local authority provided library services. The HIA was also responsible for vocational sports training and other areas such as wing cleaning and catering.

5.09 The curriculum was organised to allow as many prisoners as possible to access part-time education. Up to 62 prisoners could attend courses at different times during the day and 38 in the evening. Some courses were taught in modules, giving short- term prisoners a chance to attend. The department actively promoted the facilities and attendance at most of the classes was good.

Equal opportunity 5.10 While Gloucester prison had an equal opportunities and race relations policy, there was no complaints procedure specifically linked to the education department. Data was collected on age, nationality and ethnicity but this information was not used to monitor participation or success.

5.11 At the time of inspection, only 165 of the 330 prisoners were in work or education. Staff estimated that 60% of prisoners needed help with literacy and numeracy skills but this was only available to some 15%. Vulnerable prisoners and those in the Health Care Centre had very little access to education or training. At the same time, the painting and decorating workshop and most of the education department was inaccessible to those with restricted mobility.

Quality assurance 5.12 There was no overall framework for the quality assurance of education and training. The department was monitored against the contract although this did not extend to training for wing cleaners and light industry workshops. There had been no visits from external verifiers. Some of the programmes had not been accredited and the education department had not got the Quality Mark for basic skills, despite this being a requirement. No formal feedback was sought from the learners themselves and grades awarded were overstated. A cross-prison quality group, required by the Prisoners Learning and Skills Unit, was not yet in place.

Foundation programmes 5.13 Tutors were suitably qualified and provided a good level of individual support. Group sizes were small and did not exceed eight learners. The recent introduction of individual learning plans meant that individual progress, in terms of qualifications achieved and courses attended, could be tracked. This information was stored on computer.

5.14 All potential learners were required to complete a literacy and numeracy assessment. This was not always supervised closely enough to ensure accurate

results. Details of individual assessment and achievements could be archived, which provided a level of continuity should a prisoner return to the prison in future.

5.15 The department itself was based in a former administration block that was quite cramped with small rooms. Lessons were frequently cancelled if tutors were absent or posts were vacant. Information technology courses were over-subscribed and, of the nine available computers, only eight were operational. Plans to update the equipment had been subject to long delays.

5.16 The teaching sessions were too long, running for two and a half hours without a break. Many learners had re-entered education after long gaps and had low levels of concentration.

Library 5.17 The library contained few books suitable for those with literacy or numeracy difficulties, although it did contain an extensive range of audio books.

Recommendations

5.18 A clear strategy for the development of education and training should be established

5.19 All learners should have equal access to education and training programmes

5.20 Arrangements for quality assurance should be put in place

5.21 The initial assessment of learners should be improved

5.22 The information technology equipment should be updated

5.23 The level and range of accreditation should be improved

5.24 Better use should be made of feedback from learners

5.25 The length of some sessions should be reduced

Physical Education

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for physical education are: • Safety: Prisoners are safe during physical education activities • Respect: The range, type and availability of physical education activities meet the needs of the prison population; prisoners are treated fairly in all aspects of physical education • Respect: Physical education is part of the provision of a healthy lifestyle in promoting personal health, fitness and co-operative and team skills • Purposeful activity: Prisoners are engaged in suitable physical education programmes that are fully integrated with other purposeful activities

5.26 The physical education department was staffed by a Senior Physical Education Officer, three physical education officers and two assistant prisoner orderlies. The physical education programme was full, reasonably varied and available to all prisoners, except those in the Segregation Unit. The facilities consisted of a small sports hall, a weights room and a tarmac area. The latter doubled as the exercise yard for A and B Wings with the result that its use for outdoor sports (usually football) was limited by exercise times. The shower area was clean but the showerheads were not placed high enough for medium or taller users. The water pressure was also dictated by how many showers were in use at any one time. Physical education kit was issued by the department, which also took responsibility for kit laundry.

5.27 The department aimed to provide most prisoners with at least one physical education session each weekday as well as formal courses leading to recognised qualifications in the community. Unless they opted out, all prisoners new to Gloucester were given Induction. Those who did opt out could subsequently apply 66

for physical education Induction at a later date. Access to gym sessions was by application. Prisoners we met during the inspection and respondents to our prisoner questionnaire had little difficulty in getting to the gym and enjoyed regular gym sessions. There were specific sessions allocated to prisoners undergoing drug rehabilitation and those requiring remedial work

5.28 The physical education department adopted a practical approach to its services, tailored to the needs of its prisoner population. Since most prisoners spent a few months at most at Gloucester, the department delivered a mixture of recreational physical education and occupational training. This seemed entirely appropriate. Physical education was available on Monday to Thursday evenings and during the daytime at weekends. There was no obvious link between the physical education department and the Health Care Centre and opportunities to promote the work of the Well Man clinic through individual prescribed physical exercise were being missed.

Conclusion 5.29 The physical education programme was full and reasonably varied. The department adopted a practical approach to its services tailored to the needs of its prisoner population. Prisoners had few problems in getting physical education sessions and many participated in several sessions each week.

Recommendation 5.30 The physical education department and the Health Care Centre should explore opportunities to promote the work of the Well Man clinic through individual prescribed physical exercise

Faith and Religious Activity

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for faith and religious activity are: Safety: Prisoners can safely take part in spiritual activities Respect: Prisoners of all faiths are able to practice their faith in suitable accommodation with sufficient appropriate facilities

Purposeful activity: Prisoners have ready access to a range of appropriate spiritual activities Resettlement and reducing offending: Prisoners and groups of prisoners are able to be involved with their faith ministers from the community

5.31 At the time of the inspection, the faith of almost half the population was recorded as Church of England (51.5%). Almost a third (30.5%) declared they had no preferred faith, followed by 9% who were Roman Catholic and 5.5% who were Muslim.

5.32 The chaplaincy team provided an ecumenical approach that met the needs of prisoners. Results from our prisoner questionnaire showed that 36% of respondents saw a religious minister on the day after arrival and a further 37% saw one within a week. There was currently no full-time chaplain but members of the team, who were all part-time, ensured that at least one member was available every weekday and for services on Saturdays and Sundays. Christian denominations included Church of England, Baptist, Methodist, Salvation Army and Quaker. There were arrangements whereby ministers of other faiths came to the prison as required. Chaplains visited prisoners in the Segregation Unit, on B1 and in the Health Care Centre every day.

5.33 Information provided to all new prisoners included a leaflet about religious activities and information on the times of chapel services. Most prisoners could attend Christian services in the chapel and there were additional services for those on B1 unit. The chapel was located on ‘B Wing’ and there were no problems in getting prisoners to services. It was clean, bright and airy, in contrast to much of the rest of the prison. Bible Study was offered to B1 prisoners on Tuesday afternoon and on Wednesday and Thursday evenings for other prisoners.

5.34 Arrangements for prayer services for prisoners of other faiths were entirely inadequate. A cell converted for use as a multi-faith room doubled as a Listener suite. Available furniture was scarce and unsuitable for either function. The atmosphere was hardly conducive to prayer and contemplation, in marked contrast to the chapel next door.

5.35 The chaplain was responsible for the arrangements for Prison Visitors. We were told that the Governor had suspended the system the week before our inspection on the grounds of security. The Governor intended to reinstate these visits at some point, using the visits room rather than allowing Prison Visitors on to residential wings. Whatever the reasons for the decision, it amounted to depriving prisoners of visits from these volunteers. Implementation of the decision was also illogical since a proportion of Prison Visitors were either chaplains working at the prison or their volunteer assistants.

Conclusion 5.36 The chaplaincy team provided support to prisoners and had easy access to them. The team was well integrated into the work of the prison and team members were mutually supportive. Prisoners could attend services but the environment in which non-Christian faiths could worship was inadequate. The Prison Visitor scheme had recently been suspended, depriving prisoners who relied on them with contact of their choice.

Recommendations 5.37 A proper multi-faith room conducive to prayer should be provided

5.38 The Prison Visitor scheme should be reinstated

Time Out-of-Cell

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for time out-of-cell, including hours unlocked, association and exercise, are: Safety: Prisoners are safe when participating in out-of-cell activities Respect: All prisoners have fair access to out-of-cell activities, opportunities for which meet the needs of the prison population Purposeful activity: Varied and appropriate activities are supported by well-run wing routines and staff involvement

Prisoners’ Hours Unlocked 5.39 Insufficient formal activities and employment meant that most prisoners spent much of the day locked up in their cell. During one afternoon of the inspection, for example, of 88 prisoners on ‘B Wing’ (excluding B1 unit), 55 (62.5%) were unemployed and in their cell, while on ‘A Wing’, 55 out of a roll of 117 were locked up. With reasonable staffing levels during the day of up to one Senior Officer and four officers, there were still long periods when only wing cleaners or servery workers were out on the landings. Prisoners who had not left the wing for work or other official purpose languished behind their cell doors with only the television and their cellmates for company.

Association 5.40 Prisoners received association every third weekday evening, on Saturday evenings and on Sunday afternoons and evenings. Prisoners said that one weekday association period was often cancelled due to staff shortages. Where evening association was scheduled to last from 5.30pm to 7.30pm, in practice this amounted to 5.45pm to 7.00pm. We were told that association had been curtailed in part to enable staff to take time off in lieu of hours worked but not all staff chose to do so. Nevertheless, prisoners had to return to their cells at 7.00pm.

5.41 Recreation facilities were limited to pool tables and a few board games. Prisoners took the opportunity to have showers and to telephone family and friends. The atmosphere during association was relaxed and prisoners and staff spoke freely. Those prisoners who had made applications earlier in the day also went to evening gym sessions or to Bible classes.

Time in the Open Air – Exercise 5.42 Prisoners had daily exercise in the adjacent exercise yard. Those who had applied for physical education were taken from the exercise yard into the gymnasium. Exercise was not cancelled often and only in inclement weather. Prisoners were not issued with weatherproof clothing and they were not allowed back on to the wing until the time exercise was scheduled to end. On one rainy day during the inspection,

prisoners resorted to keeping the rain off by wearing towels on their heads. The bare tarmac yard was an uninspiring place and there was no seating or access to toilets.

Conclusion 5.43 Most prisoners spent much of the day locked up in their cell because of insufficient formal activities and employment. There was no daily association period, which had consequences for hygiene and contact with home. The duration of association had been curtailed to allow staff to recoup excess hours worked but in fact staff hours had hardly reduced. Prisoners were offered daily exercise but it was ‘all or nothing’ and prisoners could not voluntarily curtail time in the open air. They were not provided with outdoor clothing in wet or cold weather.

Recommendations 5.44 Prisoners should be given more purposeful time out-of-cell

5.45 Prisoners should be offered daily association periods

5.46 Prisoners should be issued with warm and weatherproof clothing and shoes when they are outdoors

CHAPTER SIX

GOOD ORDER

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for good order are: • Safety: Prisoners’ safety is protected by clear rules necessary for the maintenance of good order and discipline and enforced by the properly exercised authority of prison staff • Respect: Prisoners understand the rules of the establishment and are treated fairly; they are able to appeal against decisions • Respect: Segregation, the use of force and application of category and status are used for their proper purposes and not as punishments • Respect: Every opportunity is taken to encourage good behaviour even when enforcing boundaries of control • Purposeful activity: Good order is supported through activities for prisoners which are challenging and well-organised

Good Order 6.01 Gloucester was a well-controlled and ordered establishment. Statutory rules were displayed around the prison and prisoners fully understood the behaviour required of them.

6.02 Over the past months, security had taken a higher profile with the work of the department ring-fenced to ensure staff were not removed and deployed elsewhere. This had resulted in a significant increase in the profile of the department. There had been 61 assaults last year, of which 23 occurred during fights, 25 were assaults by prisoners on prisoners, eight were assaults on staff and five were sexual assaults. One of the benefits of the higher profile had been that security information reports (SIRs) had increased from 357 for the whole of last year to 210 to date this year. This information was shared with other departments with the aim of maintaining a safe environment. Results from our prisoner questionnaire showed that 51% of 72

respondents stated that they had never felt unsafe in the prison, 18% said rarely, 12% sometimes, 4% often and 9% most of the time.

Segregation Unit and Adjudications 6.03 The segregation unit was located on B1 landing and separated from the rest of the landing by locked gates. Two prison officers from ‘B Wing’ attended for adjudications and exercise. At other times, the two prison officers on the Vulnerable Prisoner Unit looked after any prisoners in the segregation unit. The segregation unit diary was properly maintained, as was all documentation and the record of punishments. The unit had four cells, which were very clean and neatly presented. Each cell had a bed, washbasin, toilet without privacy screen and a bible. The small passageway outside the cells was immaculately clean. There was a sensible segregation checklist, which ensured prisoners were given relevant information and management checks were not missed. At the time of inspection, there was one prisoner in the unit who was on a dirty protest for no particular reason. This prisoner was treated with care, patience and sensitivity by the staff.

6.04 The adjudications room was bright and airy. The furniture was comfortable and relevant information was displayed. Adjudications were conducted in a professional but friendly manner. The prisoners were kept informed of proceedings throughout and were given the opportunity to question points and to give their view of events. Procedurally, adjudications were well managed. In addition to attending adjudications, we reviewed records of hearings from the past six months. We found proceedings to be properly recorded and punishments to be consistent. We noted that cellular confinement was rarely used and only one prisoner had spent time in the unit last month.

Use of Force 6.05 There was no authorised use of force during this inspection.

6.06 Control and restraint techniques had been used 32 times in the previous year. The forms were completed comprehensively and in detail. They were tracked and filed neatly.

6.07 There were no obvious patterns in reasons for the use of control and restraint and, based on the completed forms, we were satisfied that it was only used when necessary.

Vulnerable Prisoners 6.08 The Vulnerable Prisoner Unit (VPU) was located on B1 landing. The unit held a mixture of poor copers and sex offenders. At the time of inspection, there were 20 prisoners on the unit. Staff told us that the average stay was about eight months. The unit was totally enclosed and received very little natural light, which gave it a depressing atmosphere. It was staffed by a Senior Officer and two prison officers throughout the core day and one prison officer in the evening. There were 15 cells, three of which were single and the rest double. All had integral sanitation without privacy screens, in-cell electricity and televisions.

6.09 The state of cleanliness in the cells varied greatly with the majority being very dirty. There were three showers and two toilets. Prisoners told us that they had very little time in the morning, about 15 to 20 minutes, to shower and toilet. The public areas were generally clean but grubby, a matter which was accepted by the manager and remedial action began during the inspection.

6.10 All prisoners knew why they were on the unit and documentation was carefully filed in their history sheets. Staff had a caring attitude towards the prisoners but this was reactive to personal requests. We examined the history sheets of prisoners and, although entries were made each week, they were perfunctory and gave no insight into the prisoners themselves.

6.11 The regime on the unit was impoverished. Such work as there was involved filling plastic bags with washers, screws and so on for a national hardware company. There were no interventions to challenge behaviour, no work being done to encourage the poor copers to reintegrate back into the prison and no evidence of planning for reintegration when prisoners were received on to the unit. Education, as detailed

elsewhere in this report, was virtually non-existent. It was accepted by both staff and prisoners that, once on the unit, prisoners would remain there until release or transfer.

6.12 Association was the same as elsewhere in the prison (see section on time out- of-cell). However, prisoners told us that the unit was the first place to be closed down when there were staff shortages. Given the enclosed area, time out-of-cell was not quality time. There was a pool table, television with video and one telephone for prisoners’ use.

Conclusion 6.13 The prison was well ordered and safe for both prisoners and staff. The segregation unit was well managed and prisoners cared for. Adjudications were completed properly and with due care to prisoners’ needs. Force, when used, was carefully and properly documented with sufficient detail to believe that it was necessary. The VPU unit was a sad place for prisoners to live in with poor conditions and very little to do. It gave the impression of neglect and, while no one was treated badly, nothing was being done to help or challenge behaviour and secure return to normal location.

Recommendations 6.14 Consideration should be given to relocating the VPU to another part of the prison

6.15 Prisoners in the VPU should be allowed sufficient time to clean themselves and their cells properly each day

6.16 The regime in the VPU should be reviewed to give prisoners more time out-of-cell during the core day

6.17 Activities should be planned to challenge behaviour in order to encourage the poor copers to return to normal location

6.18 Any cancellation of association because of staff shortages should be

shared equally throughout the prison

6.19 The cost of in-cell television should be reviewed to take account of the work available and the prisoner’s ability to earn money

Examples of good practice

6.20 The segregation unit was clean and well managed; we witnessed staff dealing sensitively with a very difficult prisoner

Incentives and Earned Privileges

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for incentives and earned privileges are: • Respect: Prisoners understand the rules of the establishment and are treated fairly; they are able to appeal against decisions • Respect: Every opportunity is taken to encourage good behaviour even when enforcing boundaries of control

6.21 All new prisoners were expected to start on the standard level of the prison’s Incentive and Earned Privileges (IEP) scheme with the exception of those transferred from other prisons who were already on enhanced status. The origins of the scheme in the previous young offenders’ wing could be detected in the ‘points’ system by which points were awarded in areas such as civility, respect for establishment rules and involvement in constructive activities. The prison was planning to review the scheme in the near future to make it more appropriate for an adult population.

6.22 The IEP scheme was fully explained to all new prisoners as part of the Induction process and a record kept as part of their Inmate Personal Record (IPR). Two staff reviewed each prisoner on a weekly basis and awarded points. This was scrupulously recorded and the record was available for the prisoner to see on request.

6.23 Where an individual’s behaviour had deteriorated unacceptably, he was initially sent a warning letter. If there was no improvement, he was liable to be demoted down the privilege scheme. The prisoner could appeal to the wing Principal Officer. We were told that the warning letter was normally sufficient to reverse the slide in behaviour and, at the time of our inspection, there was nobody on the basic level of IEP. There were two cells reserved for prisoners on basic level on ‘B Wing’; the main difference to other cells being that there was no in-cell television.

6.24 It was difficult to differentiate between the standard and enhanced levels of the scheme. While convicted prisoners were allowed more visits and the wearing of their own tops, there was little extra offered to those on remand. The prison recognised the need to make the scheme more progressive and for a clearer difference between levels.

Recommendation 6.25 The IEP scheme should be reviewed and research undertaken into schemes operating in similar establishments to inform its development

Categorisation

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for categorisation are: • Safety: Prisoners are held in accommodation which is appropriate for their own and others’ safety • Respect: Prisoners are located in an establishment that is as close to home as possible and able to meet their identified needs • Respect: Criteria for determining security categorisation and allocation procedures are clear, open and fair and rules governing transfer arrangements are fairly and consistently applied without discrimination • Purposeful activity: Security conditions do not unnecessarily restrict prisoners’ access to purposeful activity

6.26 At the time of our inspection, Gloucester held 208 sentenced prisoners of whom 153 had received their security categorisation: • 97% were Category C prisoners • Three prisoners were Category B • Two prisoners were Category D

6.27 We were told that the backlog of cases awaiting categorisation was due partly to lack of staff time and partly to key information such as previous convictions not being available. Given that most prisoners at Gloucester were serving comparatively short sentences, we were concerned to find that the local courts did not routinely provide such information and that no system existed for promptly chasing it up. Once made, categorisation decisions were recorded on the prison database and notified by telephone to wing staff. No written explanation was given to the prisoner.

6.28 In common with most other prisons, especially local prisons, Gloucester was struggling with the demands of population management including having to arrange overcrowding drafts at short notice. Up to 24 prisoners could be 'held' by the prison and protected from moves. This included prisoners on the drug rehabilitation programme or gym course, trained Listeners and Reception orderlies. Due to the lack of activities, programmes and other structured interventions, there were few other factors that might prevent any prisoner being moved from Gloucester on an apparently arbitrary basis. We were concerned that some allocation decisions seemed to be taking place in isolation and without consultation with staff who knew the prisoner and his circumstances. On one day of our inspection, a prisoner was identified as part of an overcrowding draft. He was told that he would be leaving Gloucester and would not be able to attend his Home Leave board that afternoon. We were told that he remained at Gloucester following the intervention of wing staff.

Conclusion 6.29 Categorisation appeared to be a process that had limited impact on most prisoners or the operation of the prison. Allocation had been overtaken by the pressures and needs of population management and many prisoners were left feeling helpless to influence the outcome of allocation. Without a sound sentence planning

structure or a formal consultation with staff who knew the prisoner, allocation was in danger of being an isolated, bureaucratic exercise.

Recommendations 6.30 The prison should have a copy of previous convictions and other key information about a sentenced prisoner to begin the process of assessment and sentence planning. Mechanisms should be in place to ensure this information is obtained promptly and chased if not provided by agreed deadlines

6.31 Categorisation and allocation decisions should be explained to the prisoner in writing. Any prisoners with literacy, language or communication problems should have their decision clearly explained

6.32 Allocation decisions should follow consultation with staff who know the individual prisoner

6.33 Overcrowding drafts should take account of an individual's needs and a prisoner's priority within the system

CHAPTER SEVEN

RESETTLEMENT

Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for resettlement are: • Safety: Prisoners are able to trust staff to deal with details of their offending and personal circumstances responsibly • Respect: Sentence planning, offending behaviour and substance misuse programmes and re-integration planning are effective and meet prisoners’ assessed needs • Respect: The approach of all staff encourages responsible behaviour and supports prisoners working on their offending, substance misuse and other problems and preparing for release • Purposeful activity: Access and allocation to purposeful activity is linked to prisoners’ assessed needs and their planned targets • Resettlement and reducing offending: Prisoners address their offending behaviour and related problems and prepare for release whilst in custody

Management of Resettlement 7.01 The Head of Resettlement (Senior Probation Officer) had been in post for six months and reported directly to the Governor. The prison had no Resettlement Policy and the Resettlement Policy Committee (RPC) had no established criteria for membership or terms of reference. Attendance at meetings was therefore inconsistent and unpredictable. Despite a firm statement by the Governor of his commitment to resettlement and a lot of innovative developmental work by the Head of Resettlement in linking with community agencies, the prison as yet lacked any clear vision or strategy that was shared or understood by the majority of staff.

7.02 With the development of the drug services and programmes, prisoners with substance misuse problems were increasingly guaranteed the attention and 80

interventions they required. The same could not be said of the majority of prisoners being received at Gloucester and the following commentary in respect of resettlement services relates primarily to those who were not identified as having a drug misuse problem. With no up-to-date needs assessment of the prisoner population and their resettlement needs, managers were in no position to confirm or counter the historical and anecdotal views held by staff and prisoners.

7.03 The administrative systems in place for tracking and managing functions such as sentence planning, public protection and Home Detention Curfew (HDC) were up- to-date and relatively efficient. Shortly after their arrival, sentenced prisoners were issued with a computerised ‘release dates notification slip’ and an application form to reclaim time spent in police custody. Sentence planning and HDC procedures were set in motion automatically. These were closely monitored with information provided to the Head of Resettlement. However, we found no evidence of any action having been taken in an attempt to improve or develop practice in response to this monitoring information.

Re-integration Planning 7.04 No formal assessment was made of individual risk, offending behaviour or resettlement needs as part of the Reception or Induction processes. Remand prisoners did not have access to a bail information service (see section on arrival in custody) and few services existed to provide prisoners with help during sentence or in preparation for release. Those services that did exist were accessed mainly by prisoner application or staff referral and not as a result of any structured assessment or targeting according to risk or need. The lack of intervention or support was of particular concern as a quarter of all sentenced prisoners at Gloucester were serving less than 12 months and had no statutory entitlement to supervision or help on release.

7.05 During our inspection, we interviewed 15 (65%) of the prisoners who were due to be released within the following two weeks. They had been at Gloucester for between 31 days and seven and a half months. Six had never been in Gloucester before and seven had been there on three or more previous occasions. We asked them

about their time in Gloucester and preparation for their release. The following is a summary of their responses: 93% said nobody had spoken to them about their offending behaviour 67% reported they had done nothing while at Gloucester that would make them less likely to offend in the future 33% did not have an address to go to on release 80% did not have a job to go to on release 80% said they had done nothing at Gloucester that would improve their chances of getting a job 80% said no one had spoken to them about their release

7.06 Efforts were being made to fill the obvious gaps in provision. An employment officer post had been created in January 2002 with the aim that all prisoners would be seen prior to release. Recruitment to a joint bail information/resettlement post was taking place at the time of our visit. Consideration was being given as to how best to utilise the 1.5 probation officer posts and the additional 0.6 probation officer allocation to the CARATs team. The Head of Resettlement had also been charged with developing a Visitors’ Centre to reduce the frustration caused by visits and to provide advice and support to families. In the absence of a coherent strategy for resettlement, there was no way of knowing whether such developments were necessarily the most appropriate or effective.

7.07 Many staff described the prison as 'cautious' in its consideration of early release, either on HDC or release on temporary licence (ROTL). Of the prisoners who had been considered, 9% were granted HDC. While this is mid-range compared with other prisons in the south west region, it is below the 14% average for male local prisons nationally. We were concerned at the lack of prisoner involvement in the HDC process; prisoners were informed of the outcome of HDC boards but were not routinely provided with information or an opportunity to discuss the requirements or implications of the licence. During the financial year 2001/2, of four prisoners who applied for ROTL, two were granted: one on compassionate grounds and one for resettlement purposes; these figures were low.

Sentence Planning 7.08 Much staff time and effort went into the completion of sentence plans. However, once completed, the resulting document was filed in the prisoner's central file and was not used as a working tool by the prison, either to progress targets or to inform other key decisions about the prisoner. Sentence plans on prisoners serving less than four years (Automatic Conditional Release/ACR) were completed by residential wing staff who were supposed to have received training in sentence planning. This would not necessarily be the designated Personal Officer. The small number of plans we read had been thoroughly and meticulously filled out. However, only the prisoner and the officer had been involved and there was seldom a formal contribution from other staff with knowledge of the prisoner. The quality of the targets set was generally poor, perhaps reflecting the limited use that would be made of the plan or the paucity of resources available. The prisoner did not receive a copy of the sentence plan. Monitoring for the period from October 2001 to January 2002 indicated that, of the 33 sentence plans completed across all three residential wings, 48% had taken longer than 36 days to complete and 24% had taken more than 50 days.

7.09 A member of the Probation team, again involving only the prisoner, completed the sentence plans for prisoners serving over four years (Discretionary Conditional Release/DCR). The prison did not hold formal sentence planning boards. The criticism of the ACR plans applies equally to the DCR plans, which presumed the prisoner would be moving onto a training prison. We read one plan in which the prisoner had identified a need to improve his literacy. The proposed target was that he could self-refer when he arrived at his next prison.

Offending Behaviour Work 7.10 No general offending behaviour programme or intervention was provided at Gloucester. In addition to the high turnover, short term and probably low risk prisoner group, Gloucester held a small number of prisoners who presented a high risk of harm to themselves or to others. These prisoners could be at Gloucester for some time either on remand or awaiting transfer to another prison. Programmes of work were needed to assess and motivate these prisoners to participate in appropriate programmes rather

than, for example, colluding with their behaviour and attitudes by letting them go unchallenged.

Key Workers (Personal Officers)

Expected outcomes The expected outcome for key workers are: • Safety: Key workers provide a first line level of care promoting safety in the prison environment • Respect: Prisoners experience relationships with their key workers that are based on mutual respect, high expectations and affirmation • Respect: Prisoners know that their key worker will support them fully in their involvement in the prison system and throughout the progress of their sentence, based on sound knowledge of the prisoner, including any special needs • Purposeful activity: Key workers encourage the best use of their prisoners’ time out-of-cell • Resettlement and reducing offending: Key workers ensure that prisoners start and maintain the process of resettlement from the beginning of the sentence and in each new location

7.11 We were told there was a Personal Officer Scheme at Gloucester although we found little evidence for it and the notes of the Resettlement Policy Committee in January 2002 referred to the need to 'relaunch' the Personal Officer Scheme. Responses to our pre-inspection survey showed that 49% said they did not know if they had a Personal Officer. Of the 31% of prisoners who said they had a Personal Officer, 68% had met them within the first week at Gloucester and 24% claimed not to have met them. Staff told us that Personal Officers were allocated to a number of cells or, in the case of ‘C Wing’, landing officers acted as Personal Officers for the prisoners on their landing. In general, prisoners and staff told us that those prisoners needing help went to whichever member of staff they believed would provide it.

Conclusion 7.12 In terms of resettlement, Gloucester failed to engage with most of the prisoners in its care. With the exception of prisoners needing help with drug problems, there was no routine assessment of individual risks or needs at Reception, no structured interventions or services to address offending behaviour or resettlement needs and no contact with prisoners prior to release. Efforts were being made to fill these gaps but this was being done in a rather fragmented manner. Sentence plans were not used as working tools by the prison. There was no effective Personal Officer Scheme although most staff were willing and able to respond to prisoner needs. If resettlement is to become embedded in the regime and philosophy of Gloucester, a clear strategy needs to be developed. This must involve all staff in delivering resettlement, rather than attempting to 'graft' aspects of resettlement work onto the existing regime and thereby perpetuating its current status of a secondary and peripheral task.

Recommendations 7.13 The prison should develop a resettlement policy and strategy based on an up-to-date needs assessment of the prisoner population

7.14 The Resettlement Policy Committee needs to agree its terms of reference and confirm its membership

7.15 The RPC should monitor the performance of the prison in respect of key elements of the resettlement policy, use this information to modify practice and take action where necessary to address under-performance

7.16 An assessment of prisoners' risk and needs should be carried out promptly on arrival at Gloucester and used to inform custody plans for unsentenced prisoners and sentence plans for sentenced prisoners

7.17 HDC and ROTL should be considered routinely as part of a plan for structured resettlement

7.18 Prisoners should be provided with adequate, timely information about HDC, ROTL and parole, as appropriate to their circumstances, and given an opportunity to discuss the requirements and implications

7.19 The arrangements for the completion and management of sentence plans should be made more effective and involve residential staff

7.20 There should be an effective Personal Officer Scheme

CHAPTER EIGHT

SERVICES

Catering Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for catering are: • Safety: Prisoners’ food is prepared and served safely in accordance with Environmental Health regulations and religious requirements • Respect: Prisoners receive a fair portion of healthy, balanced, nutritious and varied meals to meet their physical, gender, health, religious, ethnic and medical needs • Respect: Prisoners have a choice and are encouraged to eat healthily to help them create and maintain healthy lifestyles

8.01 At the time of our visit the catering team had been in their newly renovated kitchen for just over a week. This meant that there were inevitable teething problems in setting up systems and ‘bedding in’ the new kitchen equipment. However, the overall quality of the food we saw being delivered was of a good standard and variety. Our prisoner questionnaire had 73% of respondents reporting the food to be either good or indifferent, with 24% saying it was bad. This, however, related to a period when the food was being prepared in the temporary kitchen and it was inappropriate to use this as a benchmark.

8.02 The new kitchen was adequate for its purpose and had been fitted out with the appropriate equipment. An ICESPY system had been fitted that allowed the electronic monitoring of the temperatures of storage areas and the main hotplate. This was still experiencing some teething difficulties but would be invaluable once fully operative.

8.03 There were adequate storage areas and enough room to keep foodstuffs separate as necessary. This should have allowed for the separation of food used for

vegetarian, halal and other special diets. However, at the time of our visit there was still mixed storage and a lack of proper labelling.

8.04 The main hotplate was situated adjacent to the kitchen and the bulk of prisoners’ meals were collected from here. This was directly supervised by the kitchen staff and met all the required health and hygiene standards. However, the changing and shower room for prisoners working in the kitchen opened directly onto the hotplate area and was also being used as a rest and smoking room. We witnessed a number of breaches of hygiene standards due to this proximity that needed to be addressed urgently.

8.05 Meals were still being prepared on a ‘canteen basis’ and consequently choice was relatively restricted. This also made it difficult to promote and provide for dietary choices and encourage more healthy options. The Catering Manager was keen to move to a pre-select multi-option ordering system as soon as possible and to conform to the requirements of PSO 5000 which determined prison catering standards. However, unlike many establishments, Gloucester should be commended for still providing a proper breakfast in the mornings instead of giving prisoners a ‘breakfast pack’ the previous evening.

8.06 There was no ‘comments’ book to allow prisoners to make suggestions or complaints about the catering operation and other means of consulting prisoners, such as a catering committee or regular surveys, had not been established. This needed to be reviewed by the Catering Manager to ensure that prisoners had a voice in determining the menu and to give their opinion on the quality of the product.

Conclusion 8.07 At the time of our visit the catering operation was going through a major challenge in terms of development and change. This included the appointment of a new Catering Manager, the move into a newly refurbished kitchen and the necessity to conform to PSO 5000, which laid out the standards for catering in prisons. However, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that there was a determination to develop a quality and consumer-focussed service.

Recommendations 8.08 Food used for halal, vegetarian and other special diets should be stored and prepared in clearly identified and discrete areas

8.09 A facility, clearly separate from food preparation and serving areas, needs to be provided as a rest room for those working in the kitchen

8.10 The prison should ensure that the Catering Manager has the opportunity to research the menu systems operating in similar establishments before deciding on the most suitable option for Gloucester

Prison Shop Expected outcomes The expected outcomes for the prison shop are: Safety: Arrangements to enable prisoners to purchase goods minimise opportunities for bullying Safety: Items held in the Prison Shop and store are stored and served according to the requirements of food safety, hygiene, religion and security Respect: Prisoners have a suitable range of affordable goods available for purchase at reasonable prices to meet their ethnic, cultural and gender needs

8.11 In our prisoner questionnaire, a slight majority of respondents (51%) felt that the Prison Canteen did not sell a wide enough variety of goods. The canteen order form that was current at the time of our visit supported this view. The range of goods offered was extremely poor and offered little choice to prisoners. The prison needed to consult with prisoners to better determine the range of goods they should be selling.

8.12 The poor choice and range of goods was particularly evident in the failure to address the needs of minority ethnic groups. There was a lack of stock items specifically aimed at them, which meant that they had to make a special application if they wanted any goods that were not on the published list.

8.13 The prices being charged for goods were in some cases excessive and in general far higher than those being charged in local supermarkets. Given the small amount of money many prisoners had available to purchase staple goods, the morality of charging such high prices was extremely questionable.

8.14 Prisoners were required to order their goods by Tuesday morning and they were then delivered to the wings, bagged and sealed, on the following Thursday. There was no provision, however, for those who arrived at the prison in the meantime. This meant, in effect, that a prisoner arriving at the prison on a Tuesday afternoon would not be able to purchase items from the Canteen for nine days. As the Canteen stores were kept on site and the prisoners’ finances were being dealt with by the prison, we could see no excuse for this delay.

Recommendations 8.15 The prison should consult prisoners as to the goods to be stocked

8.16 Prices charged to prisoners should be compatible with those charged in the community

8.17 Prisoners should not face an excessive delay in obtaining goods

CHAPTER NINE

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOOD PRACTICE

Main Recommendations

9.01 The requirements of PSO3550 concerning clinical services for substance users should be fully implemented (HP26)

9.02 All public areas should be cleaned thoroughly every day and all cells should be cleaned daily (HP27)

9.03 Prisoners should be given more time out-of-cell (HP28)

9.04 There should be considerably more activity spaces available for all prisoners (HP29)

9.05 The VPU regime should be reviewed to encourage prisoners to work towards return to normal location (HP30)

9.06 The prison should develop a resettlement policy and strategy based on an up-to-date needs assessment of the population (HP31)

9.07 There should be an effective Personal Officer Scheme (HP32)

9.08 The Governor, the regional health care task force and the local PCT should produce an action for prison health care as agreed in the local health authority health improvement plan (HimP) and agree a timeframe for implementation. This should include permanent medical cover and integrated nursing services (HP33)

To the Director-General

Arrival in Custody 9.09 Prisoner transport vehicles should be frequently and regularly cleaned inside (1.18)

Duty of Care 9.10 The high incidence of Hepatitis C amongst prisoners highlights, once again, the need for the Prison Service to set national standards for testing, treatment and health promotion in this area (3.51)

Good Order 9.11 The cost of in-cell television should be reviewed to take account of the work available and the prisoner’s ability to earn money (6.19)

To the Area Manager

Arrival in Custody 9.12 Spaces for Gloucester prisoners likely to return from court should be kept for them (1.20)

9.13 Resources should be allocated to establishing an active bail information and legal service provision to prisoners at Gloucester (1.34)

Duty of Care 9.14 The recommendations of PSO 3550, ‘Clinical Services for Substance Misusers’ should be fully implemented by the prison’s Health Care Unit and monitored by the Area Drugs Co-ordinator (ADC) (3.49)

9.15 The ADC should review the KPT for CARATs in light of the changing needs of the prison’s population (3.52)

To the Governor

Arrival in Custody 9.16 Escort services should provide full background information on prisoners, particularly if they are to be received on interim warrants (1.19)

9.17 Reception should be regularly and thoroughly cleaned (1.21)

9.18 Prisoners in Reception should be strip-searched in more privacy (1.22)

9.19 All prisoners should be offered a shower in Reception (1.23)

9.20 All prisoners should be offered a free telephone call in Reception (1.24)

9.21 A phone card should be included in each smoker’s and non-smoker’s ‘starter’ pack (1.25)

9.22 There should be arrangements whereby all prisoners spending their first night in prison spend quality time with a wing or First Night Officer before being locked up for the night (1.26)

9.23 Allocation of prisoners to cells should take account of the safety of prisoners (1.27)

9.24 All new prisoners should be given writing implements (1.28)

9.25 Individual Induction interviews should take place in private (1.29)

9.26 All prisoners should receive proper Induction (1.30)

Residential Units 9.27 All public areas on the wing should be thoroughly cleaned every day and staff should ensure this is properly accomplished (2.19)

9.28 In-cell toilets should be screened off (2.20)

9.29 All cells should have cupboards or equivalent where prisoners can store their possessions (2.21)

9.30 Prisoners should be issued with properly sized clothing (2.22)

9.31 All prisoners should be issued with sufficient underwear (2.23)

9.32 Prisoners should be able to purchase personal hygiene items such as soap, toothpaste, shampoo and shaving cream soon after their arrival at the prison (2.24)

9.33 Wing routines should allow all prisoners time for daily showers (2.25)

9.34 All cells should have clear mirrors (2.26)

9.35 All cells should be cleaned daily and adequate cleaning materials provided to prisoners (2.27)

Duty of Care 9.36 The anti-bullying strategy should be reviewed to meet all the requirements of Prison Service Order 1702 (3.07)

9.37 Meaningful support systems should be put in place for those identified as victims (3.08)

9.38 For those identified as bullies, interventions and targets to challenge and change their behaviour should be put in place (3.09)

9.39 The results of the anti-bullying questionnaire should be analysed and a remedial action plan drawn up (3.10)

9.40 Senior managers should take an active interest in ensuring anti-bullying is given a high profile by placing it as an agenda item on senior management team meetings until they are satisfied it is fully integrated into the life of the prison (3.11)

9.41 A Listener should attend meetings of the Suicide Prevention Management Team (3.19)

9.42 More Listeners should be recruited and priority given to locating them on ‘B Wing’, B1 and in the Health Care Centre (3.20)

9.43 The Listener suite should be suitably furnished (3.21)

9.44 Night staff should carry ligature scissors (3.22)

9.45 All departments should provide regular monitoring information to the RRMT (3.29)

9.46 The prison's database should record foreign nationals as a separate group (3.30)

9.47 Some information in foreign languages should be available to prisoners, particularly during Reception and Induction, to enable staff to assess the prisoner's language needs (3.31)

9.48 The results of work undertaken by the RRMT should be better publicised amongst the prisoner population (3.32)

9.49 Opportunities should be taken to promote the value of diversity (3.33)

9.50 The prison’s Drug and Alcohol Strategy document should be revised to include an action plan with performance indicators and outcome targets against which the success of the strategy could be measured and updated. It would also be appropriate to include Tobacco Cessation as part of the overall strategy on the use of substances (3.48)

9.51 The prison should develop a discrete detoxification unit and provide a supportive regime for those undergoing withdrawal symptoms (3.50)

9.52 The prison should review the way in which it works with those that fail MDT tests. In particular, it should look at using more imaginative sanctions rather than ‘added days’ and ensure that it does not inadvertently make the use of Class A drugs a more attractive option than the use of cannabis (3.53)

9.53 The prison should review its visit booking system to ensure that visitors can book without undue difficulty. Consideration should be given to allowing visitors to remand prisoners the opportunity to book their next visit while at the prison, as happens in similar establishments (3.60)

9.54 The development of a Visitors’ Centre should be made a priority and advice should be sought from the Prison Reform Trust as to quality standards and service provision (3.61)

9.55 The prison should ensure that the visit room is properly ventilated and kept at a reasonable temperature (3.62)

9.56 The prison should review the staffing of the crèche to enable it to open at all visit times and to ensure that staff are appropriately qualified (3.63)

9.57 The role of the Board of Visitors should be better publicised to prisoners to ensure this is properly understood (3.68)

9.58 An explanation of the Request and Complaint procedure should be a formal part of the Induction process (3.69)

Health Care 9.59 The present arrangement of in-patients on two floors is unsafe and consideration should be given to relocating all in-patients on the upper floor in the Health Care Centre (4.31)

9.60 The state of cleanliness should be monitored and the selection of cleaners made in conjunction with the health care manager. Cleaning schedules should be reviewed and their implementation monitored. Patients’ rooms should be redecorated (4.32)

9.61 The Governor, the health care manager, the regional health care task force and the local Primary Care Trust (PCT) should consider a joint nurse recruitment and retention strategy (4.33)

9.62 The staffing profile at night should always ensure a first level nurse and another member of staff (4.34)

9.63 Medical and nursing records should be completed in accordance with standards required by professional regulatory bodies (4.35)

9.64 Medical records should be stored in a secure office and not where patient care is carried out so that patients’ confidentiality is not compromised (4.36)

9.65 Individual care plans should be introduced to ensure that continuity of care is regularly reviewed and evaluated (4.37)

9.66 The Governor should consider the allocation of secretarial/administrative and other staff to relieve nursing staff from non-nursing duties (4.38)

9.67 The Drugs and Therapeutics Committee should be reconstituted as soon as possible and should introduce policies for In Possession, Stock Management, Special Sick and a Prescribing Formulary (4.39)

9.68 Patients should have access to education and the opportunity to attend the gym (4.40)

9.69 The health care manager, the regional health care task force and the local PCT should agree a health promotion strategy to take account of the specific public and individual health needs and set target dates for implementation (4.41)

9.70 The Governor, the health care manager, the regional health care task force and the local PCT should agree a mental health strategy and the resultant programme for implementation. This should include an audit of mental health needs for primary, secondary and tertiary care (4.42)

9.71 The Governor, the regional health care task force and the local PCT should produce an action for prison health care as agreed in the local health authority health improvement plan (HimP) and agree a timeframe for implementation. This should include permanent medical cover and integrated nursing services (4.43)

Specific dental recommendations 9.72 Yellow bags for clinical waste disposal should be provided (4.44)

9.73 Reviews to take place of: a) The management of the dental waiting list b) The management of dental emergencies when the practitioner is unavailable c) Procedures for the routine, thorough cleaning of the surgery floor and weekly compressor maintenance (4.45)

9.74 A COSSH assessment should be undertaken and recorded (4.46)

9.75 The following items should be provided: a) An emergency drug kit b) Dental radiographic developing facilities c) A mercury spillage kit and tray d) Additional ultra sonic scaler handpieces (4.47)

Activities 9.76 A clear strategy for the development of education and training should be established (5.18)

9.77 All learners should have equal access to education and training programmes (5.19)

9.78 Arrangements for quality assurance should be put in place (5.20)

9.79 The initial assessment of learners should be improved (5.21)

9.80 The information technology equipment should be updated (5.22)

9.81 The level and range of accreditation should be improved (5.23)

9.82 Better use should be made of feedback from learners (5.24)

9.83 The length of some sessions should be reduced (5.25)

9.84 The physical education department and the Health Care Centre should explore opportunities to promote the work of the Well Man clinic through individual prescribed physical exercise (5.30)

9.85 A proper multi-faith room conducive to prayer should be provided (5.37)

9.86 The Prison Visitor scheme should be reinstated (5.38)

9.87 Prisoners should be given more time out-of-cell (5.44)

9.88 Prisoners should be offered daily association periods (5.45)

9.89 Prisoners should be issued with warm and weatherproof clothing and shoes when they are outdoors (5.46)

Good Order 9.90 Consideration should be given to relocating the VPU to another part of the prison (6.14)

9.91 Prisoners in the VPU should be allowed sufficient time to clean themselves and their cells properly each day (6.15)

9.92 The regime in the VPU should be reviewed to give prisoners more time out-of- cell during the core day (6.16)

9.93 Activities should be planned to challenge behaviour in order to encourage the poor copers to return to normal location (6.17)

9.94 Any cancellation of association because of staff shortages should be shared equally throughout the prison (6.18)

9.95 The IEP scheme should be reviewed and research undertaken into schemes operating in similar establishments to inform its development (6.25)

9.96 The prison needs a copy of previous convictions and other key information about a sentenced prisoner to begin the process of assessment and sentence planning. Mechanisms should be in place to ensure this information is obtained promptly and chased if not provided by agreed deadlines (6.30)

100

9.97 Categorisation and allocation decisions should be explained to the prisoner in writing. Any prisoners with literacy, language or communication problems should have their decision clearly explained (6.31)

9.98 Allocation decisions should follow consultation with staff who know the individual prisoner (6.32)

9.99 Overcrowding drafts should take account of an individual's needs and a prisoner's priority within the system (6.33)

Resettlement 9.100 The prison should develop a resettlement policy and strategy based on an up- to-date needs assessment of the prisoner population (7.13)

9.101 The Resettlement Policy Committee needs to agree its terms of reference and confirm its membership (7.14)

9.102 The RPC should monitor the performance of the prison in respect of key elements of the resettlement policy, use this information to modify practice and take action where necessary to address under-performance (7.15)

9.103 An assessment of prisoners' risk and needs should be carried out promptly on arrival at Gloucester and used to inform custody plans for unsentenced prisoners and sentence plans for sentenced prisoners (7.16)

9.104 HDC and ROTL should be considered routinely as part of a plan for structured resettlement (7.17)

9.105 Prisoners should be provided with adequate, timely information about HDC, ROTL and parole, as appropriate to their circumstances, and given an opportunity to discuss the requirements and implications (7.18)

101

9.106 The arrangements for the completion and management of sentence plans should be made more effective (7.19)

9.107 There should be an effective Personal Officer Scheme (7.20)

Services 9.108 Food used for halal, vegetarian and other special diets should be stored and prepared in clearly identified and discrete areas (8.08)

9.109 A facility, clearly separate from food preparation and serving areas, needs to be provided as a rest room for those working in the kitchen (8.09)

9.110 The prison should ensure that the Catering Manager has the opportunity to research the menu systems operating in similar establishments before deciding on the most suitable option for Gloucester (8.10)

9.111 The prison should consult prisoners as to the goods to be stocked (8.15)

9.112 Prices charged to prisoners should be compatible with those charged in the community (8.16)

9.113 Prisoners should not face an excessive delay in obtaining goods (8.17)

102

EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE

Duty of Care 9.114 Prisoners with families living abroad were provided with airmail letters and helped to make operator-assisted calls to improve the quality of contact with their family (3.34)

9.115 The prison had appointed a Diversity Officer and had an active and committed Race Relations Management Team (3.35)

Good order 9.116 The segregation unit was clean and well managed; we witnessed staff dealing sensitively with a very difficult prisoner (6.20)

103

APPENDIX I

HMP GLOUCESTER INSPECTION TEAM

Mr Gary Deighton Team Leader Mrs Gail Hunt Inspector Mr Pat Mosley Inspector Mrs Ruth Whitehead Inspector

Specialist Inspectors

Dr Tish Laing-Morton Healthcare Mr Chris Collier Pharmacy Kevin Moseley Dentist Mrs Jane Mackay Healthcare Ms Sara Leask Researcher Mrs Lorna Fitzjohn Adult Learning Inspectorate Ms Ellen Smith Adult Learning Inspectorate Mr David Barber Adult Learning Inspectorate Ms Sue Metcalfe Adult Learning Inspectorate Ms Brenda Kirsh Guest Observer

104

APPENDIX II

POPULATION PROFILE AT HMP GLOUCESTER

Population Breakdown By:

(i) Sentence No. of Men %

Unsentenced 118 38 Less than 6 months 35 11 6 months-less than 12 months 45 14.5 12 months - less than 2 years 38 12 2 years - less than 4 years 51 16.5 4 years - less than 6 years 12 4 6 years - less than 8 years 5 1.5 8 years - less than 10 years 4 1.5 10 years and over (less than life) 2 0.5 Life 2 0.5

Total 310 100

(ii) Status No. of Men %

Sentenced 195 63 Convicted/unsentenced 49 16 Remand 66 21

Total 310 100

105

(iii) Main Offence No. of Men %

Murder 2 0.5 Violence against the person 30 9.5 Sexual offences 11 3.5 Burglary 52 16.5 Robbery 19 6 Theft & handling 50 16 Deception 2 0.5 Drugs offences 28 9 Driving offences24 8 Fraud/forgery 1 0.3 Other offences:0 0 Arson & criminal damage 9 3 Breach of orders/licences 1 0.3 Perversion of justice 1 0.3 Possession of offensive weapon 7 2.1 Other 18 6 Holding warrant55 18.5 Not known 0 0

Total 310 100

(iv) Age No. of Men %

21 years to 24 years 92 29.5 25 years to 29 years 94 30.5 30 years to 34 years 61 20 35 years to 39 years 23 7.5

106

40 years to 44 years 22 7 45 years to 49 years 10 3 50 years to...etc 8 2.5 (Please state maximum age)

Total 310 100

(v) Home Area No. of Men %

Gloucestershire 70 23 Herefordshire 21 7 Worcestershire 69 22 West Midlands 14 4.5 Northern Ireland2 0.5 London 1 0.3 South Glamorgan 4 1.5 Gwent 3 1 Lancashire 1 0.3 Bedfordshire 1 0.3 West Sussex1 0.3 Cambridge 1 0.3 Avon 3 1 Shropshire 1 0.3 Northants 1 0.3 Devon 1 0.3 NFA 116 37.1

Total 310 100

107

(vi) Ethnic Group No. of Men %

Asian - Bangladeshi 1 0.3 Asian - Other 4 1.5 Asian - Pakistani 5 1.7 Black - African 3 1 Black - Caribbean 6 2 Black - Other 10 3 Other 2 0.5 White 279 90

Total 310 100

(vii) Religion No. of Men %

Agnostic 3 1 Buddhist 3 1 Church of England 158 51.5 Church of Scotland 1 0.3 Jew 1 0.3 Methodist 1 0.3 Muslim/Moslem 17 5.5 No Religion95 30.5 Rastafarian 1 0.3 Roman Catholic 27 9 Seventh Day Adventist 1 0.3

Total 310 100

108

APPENDIX III

SUMMARY OF PRISONER QUESTIONNAIRES

At the time of the preliminary visit, the population at HMP Gloucester was 309. Eighty prisoners were selected to receive a questionnaire by randomly selecting one in five of the prisoners on the main wings and all the prisoners from Healthcare and the Segregation Unit. In total 67 completed questionnaires were returned, with seven prisoners refusing to complete a questionnaire and six not returning their questionnaires.

In total, 22% of the prisoner population was successfully sampled.

Percentages have been rounded up or down and may not add up to 100%.

General Information

• What is your age?

Under 21 years* 1% (n=1) 21-24 years 36% (n=24) 25-29 years 19% (n=13) 30-34 years 18% (n=12) 35-39 years 10% (n=7) 40-49 years 10% (n=7) 50-59 years 1% (n=1) 60- 69 years 1% (n=1) 70 years and over 1% (n=1) *Note: This respondent stated he was 17 years old.

• Which wing and/or house block are you on?

A wing (Main wing) 33% (n=22) 19% of the wing was sampled B wing (Main wing) 16% (n=11) 13% of the wing was sampled C wing (Drug free wing) 24% (n=16) 21% of the wing was sampled B1 Wing (Segregation Unit) 19% (n=13) 81% of the wing was sampled Healthcare 6% (n=4) 44% of the wing was sampled Missing information 1% (n=1)

• Are you a foreign national?

Yes 4% (n=3) No 91% (n=61) Missing information 4% (n=3)

• What is your status?

Remand 16% (n=11) Convicted/unsentenced 15% (n=10) Sentenced* 69% (n=46) *Note: This includes two respondents who said they had breached license conditions.

109

• If you are sentenced, what is the length of your sentence? (n=46)

Less than six months 7% (n=3) Six months to less than one year 30% (n=14) One to less than two years 20% (n=9) Two to less than four years 26% (n=12) Four to ten years 13% (n=6) Greater than ten years 2% (n=1) Life 2% (n=1)

• How long have you been in this prison?

Less than two weeks 6% (n=4) Less than one month 7% (n=5) One to less than two months 27% (n=18) Two to less than four months 28% (n=19) Four to less than six months 3% (n=2) Six months to less than one year 12% (n=8) One to less than two years 3% (n=2) Two years or more 3% (n=2) Missing information 10% (n=7)

• Ethnicity

Black or Black British Chinese 1% Asian or Asian 3% Missing British 1% 3%

White 92%

Of the 61 respondents who defined their ethnicity as White, 56 said they were British, three Irish and one did not specify. One respondent said he was both British and Irish.

Of the two respondents who defined their ethnicity as Black or Black British, one said he was Caribbean, and one said he was from an ‘other’ black background.

Both respondents who defined their ethnicity as Asian or Asian British said they were Pakistani.

• Is English your first language?

Yes 96% (n=64) No 3% (n=2) Missing information 1% (n=1)

Of the two respondents who said that English was not their first language, one said Italian was his first language and the other said Irish.

110

• Is this your first time in prison?

Yes 27% (n=18) No 72% (n=48) Missing information 1% (n=1)

• If no, (n=48), how many times have you been in prison on different sentences?

One or two 21% (n=10) Three to six 35% (n=17) More than six 23% (n=11) Missing information 21% (n=10)

For the 38 respondents who specified the number of times they had been in prison, the average was six. The most number of times a respondent had been in prison was 27.

• Have you been in Gloucester before? (n=48)

Yes 75% (n=36) No 23% (n=11) Missing information 2% (n=1)

• Do you have any children under the age of 18?

Yes 55% (n=37) No 40% (n=27) Missing information 4% (n=3)

• If yes, (n=37), who is looking after them whilst you are in here?

The children’s mother 86% (n=32) Your mother 5% (n=2) In care 5% (n=2) Missing information 3% (n=1)

Your first few days here..

• When you first arrived at reception were you asked by staff whether this was your first time in prison?

Yes 58% (n=39) No 12% (n=8) No, staff recognised me from before 21% (n=14) Don’t remember 4% (n=3) Missing information 4% (n=3)

111

• On the day of reception were you given the opportunity to make a telephone call?

Yes 27% (n=18) No 63% (n=42) Don’t remember 6% (n=4) Missing information 4% (n=3)

• Were you given any written or spoken information about what was going to happen to you on your first night or first day?

Yes 51% (n=34) No 31% (n=21) Don’t remember 12% (n=8) Missing information 6% (n=4)

• Did you feel confident that you knew what was going to happen to you on your first night or first day?

Yes 69% (n=46) No 25% (n=17) Missing information 6% (n=4)

Of those who felt confident, the most commonly mentioned factors were: (n=46)

• I had been in prison before 52% (n=24) • I was told everything I needed to know 7% (n=3) • I knew staff from before 4% (n=2)

• Missing information 22% (n=10)

Of those who did not feel confident, the most commonly mentioned problems were: (n=18)

• I was not given any/enough information 33% (n=6) • I did not know what was going to happen to me 17% (n=3)

• Missing information 12% (n=2) Other problems mentioned included: not being on the induction wing, being in shock, being in fear of own safety, being concerned about family and not being in a routine.

• How many hours were you in reception before being moved to your wing?

Less than one hour 33% (n=22) One to two hours 42% (n=28) Two to three hours 16% (n=11) More than three hours 1% (n=1) Can’t remember 3% (n=2) Missing information 4% (n=3)

112

• Overall, how were you treated in reception?

Very Badly Missing 1% 4% Badly Very well 3% 18%

Well Neither 33% 41%

• Did you feel safe on your first night here?

Yes 72% (n=48) No 24% (n=16) Missing 4% (n=3)

Of those who felt safe, the factors mentioned were: (n=48)

• Been in prison before 21% (n=10) • Knew people in here 17% (n=8) • Got on well with cell mate 6% (n=3) • Was being watched/on protection 6% (n=3) • Can look after myself 4% (n=2) • Locked up in cell on my own 2% (n=1) • Everyone was friendly 2% (n=1) • Missing information 42% (n=20)

Comments included:

The officers put me in a cell with someone from my own age group. We got on really well

I knew most of the officers and the prisoners from before

I was being watched on and off all night

Of those who did not feel safe, the most commonly mentioned factors were: (n=16)

• I didn’t know what to expect 20% (n=3) • I have had trouble in this prison before 20% (n=3) • I was put in a double cell 13% (n=2) • Drug/alcohol problems 13% (n=2)

• Missing information 23% (n=3)

Other comments included:

I was put on normal location and people in here are after my blood

113

I did not know how the prison was run and felt worried about my family

Because of the surroundings and being placed in a twin cell

• How soon after arrival did you see the chaplain/priest/Imam on a one-to-one basis?

Day of arrival 1% (n=1) Next day 36% (n=24) Within the first week 37% (n=25) More than seven days 7% (n=5) Not seen him/her 13% (n=9) Missing information 4% (n=3)

• Have you been on an induction course at this prison?

Yes 57% (n=38) No 39% (n=26) Missing information 4% (n=3)

Of the 38 respondents who had been on an induction course, 12 (32%) had received it within the first two days, 13 (34%) within the first week and eight (21%) had waited for more than a week for induction. Five respondents (13%) did not say how long they had waited for induction. Of those who had attended the course, 18 (47%) felt it was helpful, 12 (32%) felt it was not helpful and eight (21%) did not know or did not say whether the induction was helpful or not.

Positive comments made about the induction course included:

The course let me know the score

The course gave me a view, and some ideas on how the jail was run

It gave me ideas as to where to find help if needed

Negative comments made about the induction course included:

The video we were shown was not the truth about the prison

It was only about daily activities in prison

There was not enough information for me about my human rights

• Did you have any immediate problems, which needed dealing with when you first arrived?

Yes 57% (n=38) No 40% (n=27) Missing information 3% (n=2)

The main problems mentioned were: (n=38) (Some respondents mentioned more than one problem so the percentages do not add up to 100.)

• Drugs problems 34% (n=13) • Health/medication problems 37% (n=14) • Contacting family 21% (n=8) • Housing 11% (n=4) • Money worries 8% (n=3) 114

• Contacting solicitor 3% (n=1) • Feeling depressed 3% (n=1)

Of the 38 respondents with immediate problems, 17 (45%) mentioned these had been sorted out and seven (18%) mentioned they had partly been dealt with.

Of the 24 respondents whose problems had been at least partially solved, nine had received medical help, six had received help with their drug problem, two had been able to phone their family, one had seen the prison chaplain and one had had money sent in. The other five respondents did not comment on how they had been helped.

Life within Gloucester...

• How easy or difficult is it for you to attend religious services?

Easy 49% (n=33) Neither 13% (n=9) Difficult 9% (n=6) Don’t know 4% (n=3) Do not want to attend 21% (n=14) Missing information 3% (n=2)

Comments from those who found it difficult to attend religious services included:

I am a Mormon but there is no Mormon priest here

I am a Muslim – they don't let us have showers before praying and have an awkward attitude. Also they hold Sept 11 against us, and come in when we are praying.

In the segregation block we only get to go twice a week

• Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough variety of products?

Yes 45% (n=30) No 51% (n=34) Missing information 4% (n=3)

For those who felt the shop/canteen did not sell enough products, the most commonly mentioned items were: (n=34) (Some respondents identified more than one item so the percentages do not add up to 100.)

• A wider variety of products 26% (n=9) • More variety of food and drinks 26% (n=9) • Wider selection of toiletries 26% (n=9) • More sweets/confectionery 12% (n=4) • Fresh fruit 9% (n=3)

Other products mentioned included: games, one pound phone-cards, greetings cards, more food suitable for diabetics, slippers, crayons and plain paper.

115

Comments included:

It is a rip off. There should be a bigger variety and cheaper products, as this canteen is very expensive compared to other prisons

The choices should be changed every now and then, e.g. the chocolate is always the same

• How would you describe the food in this prison?

Good 27% (n=18) Not good or bad 46% (n=31) Bad 24% (n=16) Missing information 3% (n=2)

• The commonly mentioned reasons, relating to the quality of the food were: (Some respondents mentioned more than one reason, so the percentages do not add up to 100)

Good (n=18) Neither (n=31) Bad (n=16) Choice of menu 67% (n=12) 29% (n=9) 31% (n=5) Size of portions 33% (n=6) 32% (n=10) 38% (n=6) The quality 22% (n=4) 42% (n=13) 69% (n=11) Suitability to diet 22% (n=4) 16% (n=5) 13% (n=2) The way the food is served 17% (n=3) 10% (n=3) 31% (n=5)

Positive comments included:

I have been to five different prisons and I feel that this is the best jail for food

I feel my food is not bad but could be improved in presentation

I am a Muslim and eat Halal food which I sometimes cook myself

Negative comments included:

More of a variety is needed - we eat mashed potatoes twice a day and there are not enough vegetables or fruit

The food is cold, with too much starch. Lumpy dessert with either too much or too little sugar

Lack of vegetarian choices

There were two comments from respondents on the segregation unit, who commented on their food being tampered with on a regular basis. One commented:

We sometimes find stuff in the food, which has been put there by prisoners’ i.e. floor fluid, hairs. The food is not cooked properly and it just gets thrown on the trays like we’re animals

116

• Overall, what do you think about the quality of the healthcare here?

Very good 4% (n=3) Good 30% (n=20) Neither good or bad 31% (n=21) Bad 13% (n=9) Very bad 13% (n=9) Don’t know/have not been 3% (n=2) Missing information 4% (n=3)

One respondent commented:

You can put down to see a doctor on a Monday, and perhaps a week later, you might see the doctor, which doesn’t happen in other jails. You have to make an appointment to be ill here. It takes too long to see the doctor and certain nurses think they are doctors, which is totally wrong

• Is it easy to get to see the following if you need to?

The doctor The nurse The dentist The optician Yes 47% (n=27) 57% (n=32) 12% (n=6) 13% (n=5) No 44% (n=25) 20% (n=11) 69% (n=34) 58% (n=23) Missing information 7% (n=5) 19% (n=13) 13% (n=9) 18% (n=12) Don't know* 15% (n=10) 16% (n=11) 27% (n=18) 40% (n=27) *Those who said ‘don’t know’ were excluded when calculating the percentage for yes and no. Missing data is presented as a percentage of the whole sample.

• Overall, what do you think of the quality of the healthcare from the following?

The doctor The nurse The dentist The optician Good 39% (n=22) 41% (n=23) 21% (n=8) 4% (n=1) Neither 26% (n=15) 30% (n=17) 16% (n=6) 19% (n=5) Bad 32% (n=18) 14% (n=8) 39% (n=15) 37% (n=10) Missing information 3% (n=2) 12% (n=8) 13% (n=9) 16% (n=11) Don't know* 15% (n=10) 16% (n=11) 43% (n=29) 60% (n=40) *Those who said ‘don’t know’ were excluded when calculating the percentage for yes and no. Missing data is presented as a percentage of the whole sample.

• Are you taking any prescribed medication?

Yes 49% (n=33) No 48% (n=32) Missing information 3% (n=2)

• If you are on prescribed medication (n=33), have you had any problems receiving it?

Yes 56% (n=19) No 42% (n=14)

The most commonly mentioned problems were: (n=19)

• Medication late/not on time 26% (n=5)

• Problems/delays getting medication on arrival 21% (n=4) 117

• Medication stopped 11% (n=2)

• Put on wrong medication 11% (n=2)

• Missing information 11% (n=2)

Other problems mentioned were: problems with staff, healthcare being too busy, missing outside appointments and getting a variety of medications.

• In terms of your alcohol use, which of the following best describes you before you came to prison:

I drank occasionally or never 37% (n=25) I drank socially and it wasn’t a problem 45% (n=30) My alcohol use was a problem when I came here 12% (n=8) Missing information 6% (n=4)

Of the eight respondents who felt their alcohol use was a problem when they came to Gloucester, three said they had received help. Two respondents had received medication/detoxification and one had been on the rehabilitation wing.

• Which of the following statements do you think was true for you when you arrived here?

I had never used drugs 16% (n=11) I had used drugs socially but it was not a problem 31% (n=21) I had a drug problem in the past but not when I came here 27% (n=18) My drug use is a problem or has been while I’ve been here 24% (n=16) Missing information 1% (n=1)

Of the 34 respondents who felt their drug use had been a problem in the past or whilst they had been at Gloucester, 15 (44%) said they had received help. Seven respondents had received medication/detoxification, six had been on the rehabilitation wing, two had seen CARAT workers and two had been on a drugs course. (Some respondents mentioned more than one source of help so the numbers do not add up to 15.)

• Do you smoke cigarettes/tobacco?

Never 13% (n=9) Sometimes 3% (n=2) Daily 73% (n=49) Missing information 10% (n=7)

Of the nine respondents who had never smoked, three said they were able to get access to non-smoking facilities.

Of the 51 respondents who smoked sometimes or daily, seven said they had been given an opportunity to stop smoking whilst at Gloucester. Three respondents said that this was in the form of acupuncture and four did not comment.

118

• Have you spent a night in the segregation unit since you have been here?

Yes 13% (n=9) No 79% (n=53) Don’t know 3% (n=2) Missing information 4% (n=3)

• If yes (n=9), was this for an adjudication?

Yes 78% (n=7) No 11% (n=1) Missing information 11% (n=1)

The nine respondents who had spent a night in the segregation unit said this was for a range of reasons. Reasons included abusing an officer, throwing hot water, throwing a snooker cue, having another prisoner’s phone card and trying to escape.

• If you have been held in the segregation unit (n=9) how were you treated by the staff?

Well 11% (n=1) Neither 56% (n=5) Badly 33% (n=3)

The comment made by the respondent who felt he was treated well was:

They knew I wasn't guilty

The comments made by those who felt they were neither treated well nor badly were:

It depends on who you are and what staff are on duty

Officers in here speak nastily to the prisoners all the time

It’s not like a real block here but I don't think it’s right for your food to be brought to you by a nonce

Some staff get on really well but some are just wankers. I've got problems with my head and I've asked for help but I'm not getting it

The comments made by those who felt they were treated badly were:

They said I had done it when I hadn't

What is the point, they always get away with it

The officers’ set their own rules

119

• How easy or difficult is it to get access to the Board of Visitors?

Easy 13% (n=9) Neither 13% (n=9) Difficult 6% (n=4) Haven't needed to see anyone 37% (n=25) Don't know who they are 21% (n=14) Missing information 9% (n=6)

• How easy or difficult is it to get a request and complaint form?

Don’t Know 27% Easy Missing 51% 6%

Difficult Neither 7% 9%

• Have you put in any complaint forms whilst you have been here?

Yes 21% (n=14) No 69% (n=46) Don’t know how to 4% (n=3) Missing information 6% (n=4)

Of the 46 respondents who said they had not made a complaint, 22 (48%) said this was as they had no need to and 15 (33%) did not give a reason.

Other comments made included:

I’m talked out of it

I feel it would be ripped up

They don't deal with it properly, believe it or not

You will be a grass The most commonly mentioned reasons for complaining were: (n=14)

• Problems with healthcare 29% (n=4) • Problems with trying to get a job 14% (n=2) • Problems with mail 14% (n=2) • Problems with canteen 14% (n=2)

120

• Do you have a personal officer?

Yes 31% (n=21) No 15% (n=10) Don’t know 49% (n=33) Missing information 4% (n=3)

• If you do have a personal officer (n=21), when did you first meet him/her?

First day 24% (n=5) Second day 10% (n=2) In the first week 24% (n=5) More than a week - Still have not met her/him 24% (n=5) Missing information 19% (n=4)

• How often would s/he come to find you to see how you are getting on? (n=21)

Everyday 19% (n=4) Once a week 19% (n=4) Once a month 10% (n=2) Never been asked 24% (n=5) Missing information 29% (n=6)

• Do you feel your personal officer is there when you need them? (n=21)

Yes 48% (n=10) No 29% (n=6) Missing information 24% (n=5)

Comments from those respondents who felt their personal officer was not there when needed included:

They don't care

They are not on duty

• How helpful is your personal officer? (n=21)

Helpful 29% (n=6) Neither helpful or unhelpful 38% (n=8) Unhelpful 14% (n=3) Missing information 19% (n=4)

• If you are sentenced, do you have a sentence plan? (n=46)

Yes 24% (n=11) No 39% (n=18) Don't know 22% (n=10) Missing information 15% (n=7)

121

• If you do have a sentence plan (n=11) do you know what your targets are?

Yes 91% (n=10) No 9% (n=1)

• If you do know what your targets are (n=10) do you agree with them?

Yes 90% (n=9) No 10% (n=1)

• Can these targets be met in this prison? (n=11)

Yes 64% (n=7) No 18% (n=2) Don’t know 9% (n=1)

Personal Safety..

• Have you had any insulting remarks made about you, your family or friends since you have been here? a) By prisoners:

Frequency Wing Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing A (n=22) 5 (23%) - 4 1 - B (n=11) - - - - - B1 (n=13) 5 (38%) - 3 1 1 C (n=16) 4 (25%) 1 2 1 - Healthcare (n=4) - - - - - Missing (n=1) 1 (100%) - 1 - - Total (n=67) 15 (22%) 1 (7%) 10 (67%) 3 (20%) 1 (7%)

Overall, 22 % of respondents reported having had insulting remarks made about them, their friends or their family, by other prisoners. The wing that reported the highest level of insulting remarks was wing B1, the segregation unit.

Comments by those who had received insulting remarks from prisoners included:

Remarks about rehabilitation. Nothing is done

Anti-rule 45 comments

Nothing. I just walk away. The mentality is low

They say I'm a rent boy

Because I'm on B1 people think I'm a sex offender but I'm down there for my own safety 122

b) By any member of staff:

Frequency Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing Total (n=67) 6 (9%) 1 3 2 -

Overall, 9% of respondents reported having had insulting remarks made about them, their friends or their family, by a member of staff.

Comments from those who had received insulting remarks by staff members included:

I get the piss taken out of me. I'm looking at a long time [for what I have done] and they think that it’s funny when it wasn't my fault

Remarks made in relation to Rule 45 in front of other prisoners

• Have you been hit, kicked or assaulted since you have been here? a) By prisoners:

Frequency Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing Total (n=67) 5 (7%) 2 2 - 1

Overall, 7% of respondents reported having been hit, kicked or assaulted by another prisoner.

Those respondents who had been victimised in this way by other prisoners, commented:

I went to recess and got jumped on the back on B wing.

They never did anything about it

I got into a scrape b) By any member of staff:

Frequency Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing Total (n=67) 2 (3%) 1 1 - -

Overall, 3% of respondents reported having been hit, kicked or assaulted by another prisoner.

One respondent who had been hit, kicked or assaulted by a member of staff commented:

I get pushed into my cell, they bang the door in your face, they walk off when you are talking to them

123

• Have you ever been made to hand something over by other prisoners since being here?

Frequency Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing Total (n=67) 2 (3%) 2 - - -

Overall, 3% of respondents reported having been made to hand something over to another prisoner.

The two respondents who felt they had been made to hand something over by other prisoners commented:

I borrowed some tobacco so I had to give all my canteen

They demanded it so I had to give it. I told the officer but they weren’t interested

• Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic background since you have been here? a) By prisoners:

Frequency Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing Total (n=67) 4 (6%) - 2 1 1

Overall 6% of respondents reported having been victimised because of their race or ethnic background by another prisoner.

Prisoners victimised by other prisoners in this way commented:

I get racial comments though my door

September 11th crap

Welsh and English banter

I’m Irish b) By a member of staff:

Frequency Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing Total (n=67) 4 (6%) - 1 1 2

Overall 6% of respondents reported having been victimised because of their race or ethnic background by a member of staff.

Prisoners victimised in this way by staff commented:

I feel I get victimised because of the colour of my skin

Because I'm a traveller or gypsy

124

No one likes to admit to being racist – I did get some treatment

• Have you been victimised for any other reason since you have been here? a) By prisoners:

Frequency Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing Total (n=67) 4 (6%) - 3 - 1

Overall, 6% of respondents reported having been victimised for another reason by another prisoner.

Prisoners victimised for another reason by other prisoners commented:

I believe because of the colour of my skin and my reputation prisoners use this so they don’t have to get moved from B wing to A wing

Because of my sentence

Kids acting bad - point to prove

A man wanted to get a radio sent in b) By a member of staff:

Frequency Yes Once Occasionally Regularly Missing Total (n=67) 3 (4%) 1 1 - 1

Overall, 4% of respondents reported having been victimised for another reason by a member of staff.

Prisoners victimised by members of staff commented:

I was pushed into my cell and I always thought lifers flipped for no reason

Comments in the yard, last one was 'not selling drugs now’

Because of the nature of my offence

• Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison?

Most of the time 9% Missing 6% Often 4% Never 51% Sometimes 12% Rarely 18%

125

Forty-three percent of the respondents claimed to have felt unsafe rarely, sometimes, often or most of the time.

The following were areas where the prisoners mentioned that they felt unsafe:

• On the wing 14% (n=6)

• In the showers 14% (n=6)

• On exercise 5% (n=2)

• In cell 5% (n=2)

• Missing information 26% (n=11)

Other comments included: feeling unsafe in the servery queue waiting for meals, at the pool tables and telephones, sometimes on call outs as a listener, the visiting area, at the gym and everywhere. One prisoner mentioned suffering manic depression and one was fearful of what he might do to himself due to his experiences.

In the following chart, those who felt unsafe, sometimes, often or most of the time, were examined (n=17) to determine on which wing they were based:

Missing A wing Heathcare 4% 29% 12%

C wing 6% B wing B1 wing 12% 35%

• In the last week have staff approached you to check on your wellbeing?

Yes 30% (n=20) No 61% (n=41) Missing information 9% (n=6)

• If yes, (n=20), how often in the last week?

Once 25% (n=5) More than once 60% (n=12) Missing information 15% (n=3)

• On average how quickly do staff respond to a cell call bell?

Within five minutes 58% (n=39) Over five minutes 13% (n=9) 126

Not at all 3% (n=2) Don’t know 10% (n=7) Missing information 15% (n=10)

Four respondents made additional comments regarding the staff response to a cell call bell:

[They come] when they can be bothered or they will send a prisoner to see what we want

It depends on the time of day

[They come] when they feel like it

We have been told not to use them unless it is really urgent

Purposeful activity...

• Did you or do you feel you need help with any basic skills, e.g., reading, writing and maths?

Yes 19% (n=13) No 75% (n=50) Missing information 6% (n=4)

The skills mentioned by respondents who needed help were: (n=13) (Some respondents mentioned more than one skill so the percentages do not add up to 100)

• Writing 46% (n=6) • Maths 31% (n=4) • All basic skills 31% (n=4) • Reading 23% (n=3) • Spelling 23% (n=3) • English 8% (n=1)

Overall, of the 13 respondents who felt they needed help six had been involved in education, three said they received no help and two did not comment.

Two respondents commented:

An officer once helped me with the sums on my canteen form

My cell mate helps me write letters

• Are you or have you been involved in any education or training here?

Yes 39% (n=26) No 57% (n=38) Missing information 4% (n=3)

Of the 38 respondents who did not or had not attended education, eight (21%) had applied to go to education. Three of these people felt that they needed help with basic skills.

The most commonly mentioned education and/or training courses were: (n=26)

127

• Maths 27% (n=7) • English 27% (n=7) • Painting and Decorating 19% (n=5) • Pottery 15% n=4) • Cookery 15% (n=4) • Computers 15% (n=4) • Basic skills 12% (n=3) • Gym courses 12% (n=3) • Art 12% (n=3) • NVQs 8% (n=2) • Citizenship skills 8% (n=2)

Other courses mentioned were BAWLA and CSLA, whilst training as part of work in the kitchens, workshop and hairdressing were also referred to.

• How do you rate the quality of the education? (n=26)

Very Good 27% (n=7) Good 50% (n=13) Bad 12% (n=3) Very bad - Don’t know - Missing information 12% (n=3)

When asked what they had gained from education, eight prisoners reported that they had learnt nothing or had just started.

Comments from some of the prisoners who felt they had gained something from the education/training they received included:

Enthusiasm for further education

Certificates mean a lot to me

Qualifications

I learnt how to do pottery and cooking

It blew the cobwebs off my brain

• Are there any problems getting access to the library?

Yes 30% (n=20) No 66% (n=44) Missing information 4% (n=3)

Those who felt they had experienced problems were examined further in terms of their wing location. In particular, 45% of the respondents on B wing, 41% of A wing and 25% of C wing claimed to have problems getting to the library.

Comments from those who mentioned having problems gaining access to the library included: (n=20)

If you go to the gym, you miss the library. We only get it once a week

128

Once a week you get about 15 minutes to get your books, if you are lucky

It’s always busy. I have been once since I’ve been here in 50 days

Officers’ haven’t got time to take you

• Do you or did you have a job whilst at this prison?

Yes 39% (n=26) No 57% (n=38) Missing information 4% (n=3)

Of the 38 respondents who had never had a job, 13 (34%) had applied for one. One prisoner mentioned that he was not allowed a job because he was a security risk.

The jobs respondents were involved in were: (n=26) (One respondent had two jobs so the percentages do not add up to 100)

• Cleaner 23% (n=6) • Kitchen worker 19% (n=5) • Orderly 15% (n=4) • Workshop 5 12% (n=3) • Painting and decorating 8% (n=2) • Rehabilitation 8% (n=2) • C.I.T 8% (n=2) • Servery worker 4% (n=1) • Works co-ordinator 4% (n=1) • Missing information 4% (n=1)

• Does this job provide you with skills and experience which will be useful to you in finding a job on release? (n=26)

Yes 42% (n=11) No 42% (n=11) Don’t know 15% (n=4)

In total 13 respondents (19%) had both a job and were involved in education/training. Twenty-four respondents (36%) were not involved in education/training or work.

• On average how many times do you actually go to the gym each week (Monday-Sunday)?

37% (n=25)

One to two 27% (n=18) Three to five 15% (n=10) More than five 13% (n=9) Don’t know 1% (n=1) Missing information 6% (n=4)

129

The reasons given for not going to the gym were: (n=25)

• Own choice/don’t want to go 36% (n=9) • Health/age 16% (n=4) • R45 too early (8am) 8% (n=2) • At education 4% (n=1) • Waiting for induction 4% (n=1)

• Missing information 32% (n=8)

• On average how many times do you have the opportunity to go on association each week (Monday - Sunday)?

None 8% (n=3) One to two 5% (n=43) Three to five 8% (n=10) More than five 67% (n=3) Don’t know 4% (n=4) Missing information 8% (n=4)

The only comments from those respondents who did not have association in an average week were:

There is nothing to do except use the phone

When I get back from washing trays I get a shower then have to be locked up

• On average how many times do you have the opportunity to take a shower each week (Monday - Sunday)?

None 1% (n=1) One to two 10% (n=7) Three to five 16% (n=11) More than five 55% (n=37) Don’t know 6% (n=4) Missing information 10% (n=7)

The respondent who said he didn’t have the opportunity to shower commented:

There is only one shower and I never get time to

• On average, how many times do you have the opportunity to go outside for exercise each week (Monday-Sunday)?

None 18% (n=12) One to two 16% (n=11) Three to five 12% (n=8) More than five 46% (n=31) Missing information 7% (n=5)

130

The respondents who did not have the opportunity of outside exercise commented that this was because: (n=12)

• Don’t want to 25% (n=3) • Boring walking around in circles 25% (n=3) • At education/work 25% (n=3) • Health reasons 8% (n=1) • No exercise on rehabilitation 8% (n=1) • It is dangerous 8% (n=1)

• On average how many hours a day do you spend out of your cell?

Weekday Weekend day Less than one hour 12% (n=8) 10% (n=7) One to two hours 24% (n=16) 34% (n=23) Two to four hours 4% (n=3) 10% (n=7) Four to six hours 21% (n=14) 4% (n=3) Six to eight hours 9% (n=6) 4% (n=3) More than eight hours 16% (n=11) 10% (n=7) Don’t know 7% (n=5) 12% (n=8) Missing information 6% (n=4) 13% (n=9)

Keeping in touch with family and friends..

• Are there any problems getting access to the telephones?

Yes 28% (n=19) No 66% (n=44) Missing information 6% (n=4)

Those respondents who said they had problems getting access to the telephones said this was due to there not being enough telephones and only being allowed to use telephones during association time.

• Are there any problems with sending letters?

Yes 10% (n=7) No 82% (n=55) Missing information 7% (n=5)

Of the seven respondents who said they had problems with sending letters, five said there were delays in the system, one said his letters and/or VOs don’t always get sent and one had lost the address of the person he wanted to write to.

• Are there any problems with receiving letters?

Yes 21% (n=14) No 63% (n=42) Don’t know 7% (n=5) 131

Missing information 9% (n=6)

The main complaint from those respondents who had experienced problems receiving letters, were the delays in the system.

• How far are you from your home area?

Less than 50 miles 57% (n=38) Between 50-100 miles 27% (n=18) Over 100 miles 6% (n=4) From overseas 3% (n=2) Missing information 7% (n=5)

• How easy or difficult is it for your family or friends to get to this prison to visit you?

Very easy 18% (n=12) Easy 34% (n=23) Neither 22% (n=15) Difficult 7% (n=5) Very difficult 10% (n=7) Missing information 7% (n=5)

• Have you had a visit since you have been in this prison?

Yes 73% (n=49) No 21% (n=14) Missing information 6% (n=4)

• If you have had a visit, (n=49), how many visits do you get in a month?

Less than one a month 8% (n=4) One 6% (n=3) Two 14% (n=7) Three 18% (n=9) More than three 47% (n=23) Don’t know 2% (n=1) Missing information 4% (n=2)

• Do you arrive on time for your visit? (n=49)

Yes 86% (n=42) No 6% (n=3) Missing information 8% (n=4)

• How do you feel you and your family/friends are treated by visit’s staff (n=49)

Very well 12% (n=6) Well 39% (n=19) Neither 37% (n=18) Badly 6% (n=3) Very badly 2% (n=1) Missing information 4% (n=2) 132

Those who felt they were treated badly commented: (n=4)

It’s like a Nazi camp

You have got to sit very far away from your visitors. They should put it back to the old tables

I have kids and they visit me but there are no staff to watch the kids in the play area

Preparation for release..

• If you are sentenced or convicted/unsentenced, has anyone helped you to address your offending behaviour? (n=56)

Yes 14% (n=8) No 71% (n=40) Missing information 14% (n=8)

Of the eight respondents who said they had been helped, five referred to help getting off drugs particularly from rehabilitation. Other people mentioned were personal officers, psychology and probation.

• Have you done anything or has anything happened to you while you have been here that you think will make you less likely to offend in the future? (n=56)

Yes 36% (n=20) No 48% (n=27) Missing 16% (n=9)

The factors mentioned by those who had done something that would make them less likely to offend were: (n=20) (Some respondents mentioned more than one factor so the percentages do not add up to 100)

• Getting off/staying off drugs 45% (n=9) • Growing up/sorting myself out 25% (n=5) • Not wanting to come back 15% (n=3) • Missing family 15% (n=3) • Talking to cell mate 5% (n=1) • Education/qualifications 5% (n=1)

• Are you going to be released in the next six months?

Yes 39% (n=26) No 30% (n=20) Don’t know 7% (n=5) Missing information 24% (n=16)

133

The following questions were only asked of those who were due to be released in the next six months. (n=26)

• When are you going to be released?

In the next month 19% (n=5) One to less than three months 46% (n=12) Three to less than six months 23% (n=6) Missing information 12% (n=3)

• Do you have somewhere to live when you are released?

Yes 50% (n=13) No 35% (n=9) Don’t know 12% (n=3) Missing information 4% (n=1)

None of the twelve respondents who either didn’t have anywhere to live on release or didn’t know where they were going to live had been spoken to about this issue.

• Did you have a job before you came into prison?

Yes 19% (n=5) No 77% (n=20) Missing information 4% (n=1)

• Do you expect to have a job to go to on release?

Yes 15% (n=4) No 77% (n=20) Don’t know 4% (n=1) Missing information 4% (n=1)

None of the 21 respondents who didn’t have a job to go to or didn’t know whether they had a job had been spoken to about this issue.

• Have you done anything during your time at this prison that you think will increase your chances of getting a job on release?

Yes 27% (n=7) No 69% (n=18) Missing information 4% (n=1)

Of the seven respondents who said they had done something that would increase their chances of gaining a job, three referred to educational courses at Gloucester. The other four respondents referred to future aspirations and help they had received outside Gloucester prison.

• Do you expect to draw any benefits when you are released?

Yes 77% (n=20) No 12% (n=3) Don’t know 8% (n=2)

134

Missing information 4% (n=1)

• If yes or don’t know, (n=22), has someone spoken to you about benefits?

Yes 18% (n=4) No 73% (n=16) Missing information 9% (n=2)

• Do you expect to go to college on release?

Yes 8% (n=2) No 81% (n=21) Don’t know 8% (n=2) Missing information 4% (n=1)

Of the 23 respondents who did not expect to go to college on release or didn’t know whether they would go to college, none had been spoken to about this issue.

• Is there any thing that you would still like help with before you are released?

Yes 35% (n=9) No 46% (n=12) Don’t know 8% (n=2) Missing information 12% (n=3)

The nine respondents who felt that they needed help mentioned the following areas: (Some of the respondents mentioned more than one problem so the percentages do not add up to 100.)

• Housing (n=3) • Drugs (n=3) • Health (n=3)

Other areas that respondents said they needed help with were: adapting to outside life, finding a job, paying fines, seeing a solicitor, benefits advice and help sorting out debts.

Overall impressions..

• Have you been involved in anything whilst at this prison which has changed you in a positive way?

Missing Yes 10% 27%

135

No 63%

The commonly mentioned things which had changed respondents in a positive way were: (n=18)

• Getting off drugs/rehabilitation 28% (n=5) • Education 17% (n=3) • Being in prison/time to think 11% (n=2) • Growing up 11% (n=2) • Missing information 11% (n=2)

Other factors mentioned were: going to the gym, being a listener, learning to be a citizen, offending behaviour course and sorting out health/housing problems.

• What would you say are the three most positive things for you here at Gloucester?

The most commonly mentioned positive things were: (Respondents mentioned more than one positive so the percentages do not add up to 100.)

• Staying off drugs/rehabilitation 19% (n=13) • Keeping fit/going to the gym 12% (n=8) • Seeing family/visits 12% (n=8) • Having a job 9% (n=6) • Education 9% (n=6) • Having friends here 6% (n=4) • Good relationships with staff 6% (n=4) • Time to think 4% (n=3) • Food 4% (n=3) • Getting out 3% (n=2) • My good attitude 3% (n=2)

• Nothing 16% (n=11) • Missing information 34% (n=23)

Other positives mentioned were: getting days back, having someone to help, the telephone, receiving letters, keeping out of trouble, being a listener, being on enhanced, sleep, healthcare, having somewhere to live, the library, television, cleanliness and respect.

• What would you most like to see changed here?

The most commonly mentioned changes were: (Some respondents mentioned more than one change so the percentages do not add up to 100.)

• More time out of cell 24% (n=16) • More rehabilitation/help with drugs 10% (n=7) • Improvements to food 9% (n=6) • Improvements to healthcare 7% (n=5) • Improvements to staff attitude 7% (n=5) • More jobs/training 7% (n=5) • More counselling/one to one 3% (n=2) • More education 3% (n=2) • Kettles in cells 3% (n=2) • More equipment in the gym 3% (n=2) • Quicker transfers 3% (n=2) • More access to showers 3% (n=2) • More choice on the canteen 3% (n=2) • Higher wages 3% (n=2)

136

• Nothing 3% (n=2) • Everything 4% (n=3) • Missing information 25% (n=17)

Other changes mentioned were: more cleaning materials for the toilets, to be allowed more money on canteen, more relaxed atmosphere, drug takers separated, more visits, computers in cells, more control over loud music, more exercise, more access to toilets, more single cells, more access to the library, less silly rules, more access to probation, improved IEP, getting rid of racism, more offending behaviour courses, more access to solicitors and improved clothing/bedding.

• Do you have any other comments about this prison that you would like us to take into account?

This prison is not run for the benefit of the inmates. It is run for the benefit of the staff

This is the best prison I have ever been in

The screws are reluctant to engage in conversation, maybe a lack of time

I think there should be dining tables on the landing for us to eat our food because I don’t think we should eat in our cell where we have got to sleep, wash and use the toilet in the same room

It should be knocked down this jail. It drives me mad. I've been in better A cat prisons. If it was made of wood I would burn it down myself. I have been to ten different jails and this one is worse than all of them put together

There are good and bad things about every prison I have been to, this prison is ok, but I think we spend too much time banged up. As for rehabilitation my view and experience is that prison makes you worse than before. How can I rehabilitate behind my door?

Most staff are very helpful

It's shit and dusty and 23 hour bang up and the chairs hurt your backside, a cushion would be nice or a real chair. We aren't dogs for f**ks sake

Knock it down and build a bigger one as this one is too over crowded

Since coming to Gloucester prison I find if your face fits you get everything if not you get nothing

In my case prison will serve a purpose because I want my time here to count for something. I don't believe it will be the same for those serving a similar short sentence with no motivation to draw the benefits available

I am a good lad, I keep myself to myself. Why am I always treated like a bad lad – I can't get any good jobs and I am treated like a c**t

137

I would like to see some changes regarding the food and phone calls. The food is messed about with for B1 as they class us as nonces. They put TCP in the gravy and they spit in it so no-one has it anymore. They spit flem in the custard and rice pudding. They shouldn't allow other prisoners to cook food. I will be seeing the health and safety about it

Help with civil cases help to get access with children whilst in prison, visits from solicitors or prison solicitor

They are very sly and they can get away with it

138

APPENDIX IV

139