Hm Prison Dartmoor

REPORT ON

AN UNANNOUNCED FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION

17 – 21 SEPTEMBER 2001

HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS

PREFACE

The ability to carry out unannounced inspections of any prison, at any time, is one of the most important of the Inspectorate’s powers. This report shows its value. We discovered a prison which was itself imprisoned in its own past - locked into unsuitable but historic buildings and, more importantly, into an outdated culture of over-control and disrespect for prisoners. This preface, and much of the report that follows, focuses on that culture, as we believe that tackling it is fundamental to the future and development of the prison.

It is to the credit of the new governor, the area manager and the Director-General that they share that view, and were beginning to address these problems before our arrival. We hope that this report will help produce the changes that they, and some of the staff we met, wish to see. It is, however, alarming that the long-standing and inappropriate practices we record here had not been effectively tackled before. Dartmoor is a lesson in how negative cultures can take hold, or re-establish themselves, if a prison does not have a positive vision, reinforced by strong management structures, both locally and centrally.

This will not be a comfortable report for Dartmoor and its staff. In the light of what follows, it is important to make clear that there were pockets of good practice - on the vulnerable prisoners’ wings, in offending behaviour and drugs work, and in dealing with suicide and self-harm - which we commend. On all wings, there was evidence of a more positive culture struggling to get out, but lacking leadership and training, or a vision to replace the ‘old Dartmoor’ culture.

However, the overwhelming impression, during our inspection, was of a lack of respect. This was pervasive. Many officers (even those in management roles) made it clear to us, and in audible conversation with each other, that they had no respect for management, either within the prison or the Prison Service. Nor did they feel that management had respected them, or communicated with them. The re-roling of Dartmoor, from Category B to Category C, was seen by many of the staff not as an 3

opportunity to develop a new, positive culture, but rather as a threat to them and the ‘hard’ prison they ran.

But the main victims of the lack of respect were the prisoners. They were described directly to us as the ‘rubbish’ from the rest of the prison system, ‘these people’ or ‘coloureds’; or alternatively as people who were too dangerous to engage with. We saw few attempts to interact with prisoners as individuals on the main wings, and there was little eye contact between staff and prisoners during movement to work or exercise. We ourselves were frequently warned away from areas where prisoners might be moving, or advised against one to one contact with prisoners. It seemed to us that the notion of dangerousness was being used to justify non-interaction with prisoners, and to reinforce the prison’s ‘hard’ image. Ironically, given these views, up to 500 prisoners were allowed to exercise at one time, a number that we ourselves considered to be unsafe and potentially intimidatory for prisoners.

Lack of respect was manifested in other ways. For example, when association was cancelled, as it was frequently, we observed that there was no attempt to explain this or forewarn prisoners, even though some of them would then spend at least two days locked for 23 hours in their cells. There was no integral sanitation on C wing; and indeed staff there defended this by saying that slopping out provided an opportunity for interaction with prisoners. The atmosphere within the prison was one of over-control, which could be perceived as intimidation: inspectors frequently reported back that prisoners had spoken to them hurriedly, saying that they did not want to be observed. The notion of dynamic security certainly did not seem to have reached Dartmoor.

In such an environment, the culture and practices in a prison’s segregation unit become of great concern. Dartmoor has a large segregation unit (46 cells) in a forbidding granite-walled wing, described by the present governor as ‘medieval’. It is welcome that it is to be closed down and replaced with a much smaller, less fortress-like unit; but in the meantime it will continue to hold a significant number of prisoners. They are exercised one at a time in what all staff referred to as ‘pens’: 12 foot square granite- walled enclosures with rusty gates. At the time we were there, if they were distressed or suicidal and needed to see a Listener (a Samaritan-trained prisoner), or needed to

have other private interviews, they were locked in a ‘Listeners’ suite’, which was in fact a cage: a wire enclosure with a Perspex square through which they could communicate their problems. Both the pens and the cage were degrading, and more appropriate for dangerous animals than for potentially suicidal medium to low risk prisoners. When we reported our concerns about the cage, we were told that the Governor had instructed that it be closed some weeks previously. It was dismantled as we debriefed the prison’s senior management team. Use of the pens for exercise should also cease immediately.

We had great concern that the physical environment of the segregation unit might also be reflected in the attitudes towards, and treatment of, those held there. We were told, by prisoners and the Board of Visitors, that the culture of the unit had begun to improve, but that more recently they feared a deterioration. Some of what we saw and were told reinforced that view. We were told that the unit contained the ‘shit’ from Dartmoor and other prisons; and the report records examples of similar or worse language reported to us by others. There was frequent use of control and restraint and special cells. We report an incident that took place during our inspection, where there may have been over-use of force in transferring a prisoner to the special cell. We did not find clear evidence to support this: but other prisoners in the Unit were clearly shaken and frightened the following morning and we ourselves observed that five prisoners in the Unit asked for Listeners during the night.

There certainly did not appear to be proper systems in place to pick up warning signs. For example, the Governor’s instruction to close the cage had been ignored; the Board of Visitors regularly signed prisoners off to the next Board meeting; the log in the Unit did not record which prisoners had been seen, or for how long, during governors’ or Visitors’ visits; the CCTV cameras had a blind spot in part of the special cell to which prisoners under restraint were taken; and it was not clear that medical staff always had an opportunity for confidential access to prisoners. In the light of what is known to have taken place in segregation and closed units in other prisons, these management and monitoring systems need urgently to be addressed, in advance of any re-siting of the unit.

However, the issues of concern in relation to the segregation unit were symptoms of a much wider culture in the prison as a whole. The attitudes that we ourselves observed were reflected in responses to our survey of a random sample of prisoners. In all inspections, we ask whether they have ever been insulted, assaulted, or been victimised for racial or ethnic reasons, either by another prisoner, or by anyone other than a prisoner. In spite of Prison Service fears, response rates for abuse by non-prisoners are normally very low. In Dartmoor, however, on all three counts prisoners responded that they were much more likely to experience such treatment from someone other than a prisoner than from another prisoner. An astonishing 24%, nearly one in four, claimed to have been subjected to insulting remarks by a non-prisoner: the average for other Category B or C establishments where we have asked this question is 9%. 36% of prisoners felt unsafe some or most of the time; and, after the showers, were most likely to feel this ‘around officers’ or ‘everywhere’. 36% of prisoners also said that the thing they would most like to change in the prison was the attitude of staff.

It is, however, necessary to emphasise that no prisoner we spoke to claimed that all officers shared these attitudes: indeed, some said that many did not. In our own observations, we saw some individual officers engaging positively with prisoners. We met many officers who felt under criticism, without any clear idea of how, or why, what they were doing was wrong.

This is unsurprising, given the absence of any other clear purpose for the prison. In theory, it is a training prison. In practice, as we discovered, over half the prisoners at any one time were likely to be on the wings, many of them in their cells. Both the quantity and quality of training had deteriorated sharply, even since we criticised both in our 1997 inspection. Education provision was also inadequate, and the statistics disguised its under-use. Resettlement work and sentence planning caused us equal concern, and will need to improve dramatically as Dartmoor settles into a Category C role, from which prisoners can expect to be released directly.

Given this vacuum, it is scarcely surprising that the only thing that many Dartmoor staff can take pride in is their reputation as a tough prison. It is also clear that this is a role that, until now, the Prison Service has been content for it to fill. Because of its

location, few prisoners want to go there. Other prisons have therefore been able to use it as a threat, and to send their least desirable or most difficult prisoners.

If it is to survive and develop, it is not enough to recategorise the prison, close its segregation unit and upgrade its buildings, welcome though these changes are. Dartmoor needs to find a positive role, supported by a new culture, and this will require a significant investment of training, support and resources. Given its physical security, it is likely to receive the more challenging Category C prisoners. Staff will need to be trained in modern prison techniques, such as dynamic security and pro-social modelling, so that they can use their experience to manage and motivate, rather than control, prisoners. This culture change will require firm and effective management. The governor will need both a strong and supportive senior management team and the engagement and support of Principal and Senior Officer grades to achieve this.

Dartmoor also needs to have a clear regional role as part of the Category C estate. Prisoners should be sent there for a defined purpose – for offending behaviour courses, to gain qualifications, take up work or training opportunities, or participate in other resettlement initiatives – and the prison must be managed and resourced to provide those facilities. This requires a change of culture in the Prison Service, as well as the prison. Dartmoor should not be the Service’s punishment block. It needs to be part of a regional and national strategy for the dignified and decent treatment and resettlement of prisoners.

Anne Owers November 2001 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

CONTENTS

Paragraph Page

PREFACE

INTRODUCTION AND HEALTHY PRISON ES1-ES44

CHAPTER ONE THE PRISON 1.01-1.08

CHAPTER TWO PROGRESS SINCE THE 1997 REPORT

Arrival in Custody Reception 2.03-2.12 Induction 2.13-2.25

Residential Units A Wing 2.26-2.35 B Wing 2.36-2.45 C Wing 2.46-2.56 D Wing 2.57 F & G Wings 2.58-2.71

Duty of Care Segregation Unit (E Wing) 2.72-2.82 Allegations of Abuse 2.83-2.93 Suicide Prevention 2.94-2.113 Race Relations 2.114-2.137 Foreign Nationals 2.138-2.143 Substance Use 2.144-2.167 Maintaining Contact with Family and Friends 2.168-2.183 Grievance Procedures 2.184-2.202

Health Care Standards Used in Assessing the Health Care 2.206 Service Staffing 2.207-2.217 Management of Health Care 2.218-2.219 Needs Assessment and Commissioning of Health 2.220 Care Health Care Centre 2.221 Services to Prisoners 2.222-2.227

Paragraph Page

Mental Health Services 2.228-2.231 Referrals to the National Health Service 2.232

Purposeful Activity Work 2.233-2.238 Education 2.239-2.247 Physical Education 2.248-2.251

Good Order Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme 2.252-2.259 Resettlement 2.260-2.278

Services Prison Shop 2.279-2.283

CHAPTER THREE RECOMMENDATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE

Recommendations 3.01-3.108 Examples of Good Practice 3.109-3.123

APPENDICES: I) Inspection Team II) Summary of Findings from the Prisoner Survey

INTRODUCTION AND HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY

ES1 This unannounced visit proved to be a very disappointing experience for the inspection team, although the content of this report will come as no surprise to senior managers in the Prison Service. Indeed, most of the unacceptable attitudes evinced by some staff and the deeply rooted culture, which indicated a lack of respect for prisoners, had already been identified by the Area Manager, the new Governor and the Director General. They had also been noted in a ‘Decency Audit’ carried out at the instigation of the Area Manager.

ES2 At the time of our inspection, it was clear that Dartmoor was embarking on a period of great change. It was going from being a Category B prison, with a long history of looking after some of the most difficult prisoners in the system, to a lower, Category C status. Also, there was a new Governor, who had taken up post 12 weeks previously. He had started to deal with long-standing and inappropriate practices that should have been tackled years before.

ES3 These factors may partly explain the significant number of disgruntled staff who thought their role in a ‘tough’ prison was somehow being undermined. This was evident within minutes of our arrival in the gate lodge. One Senior Officer loudly stated that ‘management couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery’. A Principal Officer responded sarcastically ‘Well, we are only a Category C prison now’. This exchange took place in an area through which staff, official visitors and visitors to prisoners all passed. This conduct was inappropriate and came from managers who clearly did not care who heard them.

ES4 This attitude on the part of some staff continued throughout the week, with prisoners being variously described to us as the ‘shit’ or ‘rubbish’ of the prison system, or as ‘these people’ or ‘coloureds’.

ES5 Some staff on C wing bemoaned the loss of slopping out, as they considered it an opportunity to interact with prisoners when they carried soil buckets along the landings. Prisoners on C wing still slopped out.

ES6 The exercise yards in the segregation unit were described by all staff as ‘pens’, implying that the prisoners were animals.

ES7 The responses to prisoner questionnaires, carried out while we were there, reinforced our own experience. We asked the question ‘Have you been subjected to insulting remarks by anyone other than a prisoner since you have been here?’. In the prisons we have inspected so far this year (2001), 517 prisoners in Category B and C prisons were asked this question. 9% of them answered ‘Yes’. At Dartmoor, 24% answered ‘Yes’, by far the highest recorded in any prison inspection.

ES8 When asked ‘Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison?’, 36% said ‘Sometimes, often or most of the time’. When asked to indicate where they felt unsafe, the highest response was ‘the showers’, but worryingly this was closely followed by ‘everywhere’ and ‘around officers’. The response on assaults was much lower - only 6% - but this is still more than one in sixteen prisoners, and double the average elsewhere. 36% of respondents to our survey said that the change they would most like to see in the prison was the attitude of staff.

ES9 The prevailing culture was also indicated by generally poor interaction between staff and prisoners, including lack of eye contact during the movement to work or exercise. Many staff insisted that the prisoners were dangerous. The inspection team was regularly told by staff that inspectors could not go down a corridor or part of the prison because ‘it was dangerous’. One officer told an inspector that ‘even the Governor could not go down that corridor during prisoner movements’. We do not recall inspectors being spoken to in this manner on any previous inspection. It suggested to us that staff were either themselves afraid of prisoners, or that they were perpetuating a notion of danger to support the image of toughness that appeared to be part of the established culture.

ES10 This level of over-control had clearly been identified by the Prison Service’s own Decency Audit team and we were able to confirm this at first hand. Yet staff saw nothing wrong with allowing up to 500 prisoners at one time to gather on one exercise yard, with all the potential problems that that involved.

ES11 We were shown the Listener Suite in the Segregation Unit. It consisted of a wire mesh screen in a cell, separating prisoners and Listeners, with a small Perspex panel let into it to make visual contact slightly easier. Effectively it was a cage. We were told that it was also used as an interview room by probation and female staff. One of our Inspectors experienced it at first hand.

ES12 When we drew the ‘cage’ to the Governor’s attention, he was surprised that it was still in use. He had given verbal instructions that it should not be used. We anticipate that action will be taken against staff and managers who disobeyed that order. We were pleased to note that the cage was being dismantled before we left the prison.

ES13 We examined an incident in the Segregation Unit where excessive use of force was alleged. We examined the video, and though we did not find clear evidence to support this, there was sufficient concern for us to recommend changes in practice and procedure within the Unit.

ES14 There were plans to move the Segregation Unit to a new location with a different ethos and a smaller capacity. We applaud this move and urge that it takes place as soon as possible.

ES15 If we have placed great emphasis on the culture of Dartmoor, this is because it affected most areas of the prison. As ever, we found some very good staff, mostly with experience in other prisons, who wanted to move the prison forward. It is an

unfortunate reality that they will feel unfairly included in our condemnation of the attitudes of others. On the other hand, it was difficult to find any outcomes for prisoners that gave Dartmoor credit.

ES16 There was a clear need for a strategic plan, to give a vision and direction to staff for Dartmoor’s future as a Category C prison. There did not appear to be any reliable information for staff about the move to Category C and therefore rumours were rife.

ES17 We suggested to the Governor and Area Manager that Dartmoor needed to have a specified role in the Category C estate, where prisoners are sent for a defined purpose. Resources will be needed to enable Dartmoor to develop positively. If these are not made available, the prison will be used almost exclusively as a dumping ground by other, more innovative Category C prisons. Outcomes for prisoners would then deteriorate even further

Healthy Prison Summary ES18 We base our assessments and judgements on the four tests of a Healthy Prison as described in Expectations, which was published with HM Chief Inspector of Prisons’ Annual Report for 1999-2000. We also issued a confidential questionnaire to 106 prisoners, representing 18% of the population, collecting it from them the next day.

Test 1 - Prisoners are held in safety ES19 The questionnaire revealed some very disturbing statistics, some already mentioned in this chapter. Further, the rate of positive response to the question: “Have you been hit or kicked by someone other than a prisoner?” was 6%. If extrapolated, this would amount to over 30 prisoners. The national response to this question in similar establishments this year is 3%.

ES20 Control measures by staff were excessive and unnecessary .There had been excessive use of control and restraint techniques and special cells. Ridiculously, photographs of the Race Relations management team were not displayed, “for security reasons”.

ES21 Some prisoners were afraid to go on exercise because the whole prison, except vulnerable prisoners, exercised together.

ES22 Attitudes towards suicide prevention were generally very positive, with good, constructive entries being made by staff in the F2052 SH (observation) documents.

ES23 Leaking rooms in the gymnasium and some workshops created serious health and safety problems.

Test 2 - Prisoners are treated with respect as fellow human beings ES24 The culture among many staff at Dartmoor did not engender respect towards prisoners as human beings.

ES25 Prisoners were regularly described in insulting terms in front of inspectors, which confirmed the findings of our questionnaire..

ES26 The exercise ‘pens’ and the Listener Suite in the Segregation Unit did not offer respect to prisoners.

ES27 Although integral sanitation was present in most wings, including the Segregation Unit, prisoners on C Wing were still slopping out.

ES28 Meals were served at times that were more for the convenience of staff than any other reason.

ES29 Although there were good links with local minority ethnic groups at managerial level, this did not permeate to wing level. On one wing, we saw “Asian diet” listed – whatever that meant.

ES30 Some staff and prisoners told us that Request and Complaint Forms were sometimes ripped up by staff.

ES31 The obvious avoidance of eye contact and interaction between many staff and prisoners was unhealthy.

ES32 Rewards for prisoners on the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme were few, particularly for those on Enhanced level.

Test 3 - Prisoners are expected to improve themselves, and are given the opportunity to engage in purposeful activities ES33 During a standing roll check mid-morning, we discovered 313 prisoners on the wings out of a population of 585. Although not all these were locked up, many were. That situation would worsen in due course, because another workshop was expected to be closed for health and safety reasons.

ES34 Clearly there was a shortage of purposeful activity for prisoners. Opportunities to gain qualifications were also very limited.

ES35 The education programme was not making best use of valuable resources.

ES36 The Sex Offender Treatment Programme would cease to exist, for a variety of reasons, as the Prison became Category C.

ES37 An Enhanced Thinking Skills programme was in place but we considered that there were weaknesses in the tripartite management of throughcare.

ES38 The Physical Education department was carrying out good work, in facilities that had been unsatisfactory for many years.

ES39 Good work was being carried out with Inside Out Trust but that was being undermined by transfers of prisoners before completion of work and late starting times of sessions.

Test 4 - Prisoners are helped to reduce the likelihood of their re-offending and prepare for release

ES40 Many prisoners were far from home and this reduced their opportunities to prepare for release.

ES41 This compounded a general lack of opportunities to help prepare prisoners for release, whether in offending behaviour groups or employment. One example of good practice was seen in the Textile Shop. Through the initiative of the instructor, portfolios of work were kept by prisoners.

ES42 The prison’s resettlement work was uncoordinated and sentence plans were too often paper exercises only

ES43 Telephones were often poorly sited for confidentiality, publicity and quietness. Some did not have hoods.

ES44 Many visitors had travelled long distances. Although we found the visiting room to be light and airy, facilities for visitors were very poor and limited information supplied. We were told that attempts had been made to make the waiting room more welcoming, but this was not borne out by our observations.

ES45 There was a paternalistic attitude among some staff, who told us that children should not be allowed to visit their fathers in prison.

CHAPTER ONE

THE PRISON

1.01 HMP Dartmoor was built in 1809 and originally held French and American Prisoners of War from the War of 1812. Many of the buildings in use today date from the mid-nineteenth century and bear the architectural hallmarks of that era. The outline and style of the galleried halls of cells, which enclosed bleak exercise yards, were softened by gardens and the effects of some more modern extensions. These included corridors to link the various wings, in some tacit acknowledgement of the bleakness of weather that would otherwise have enveloped both staff and prisoners for much of the time.

1.02 The prison was striving to establish a positive role in the modern Prison Service of England and Wales. It was doing so against a backdrop of myth and mystery associated with probably the best-known prison in the public imagination of this country and beyond. The climatic conditions of the moor, which often shrouded this granite fortress in mist or set its stark profile against the winter snows, added to the prison’s almost tangible sense of isolation.

1.03 There are six wings in the prison, each one housing about 100 prisoners. The accommodation is described in detail in Chapter Two. At the time of this inspection, the Establishment was in the process of changing from Category B to Category C status. This fact alone was having a major effect on the staff’s perception of the Establishment, as will be apparent from observations in this report. Our conversations with managers and staff made clear that the popular perception of Dartmoor Prison’s role was to receive and contain prisoners who had “created problems” elsewhere in the prison system. Prisoners were told that this was “the end of the line”. An image of toughness accompanied these perceptions, and such notions were reinforced until recently by Dartmoor’s established position in the Category B estate. 1.04 The prison, on the edge of Princetown village, had no regular public transport and the nearest rail link was at Plymouth, some 16 miles away. Given these isolated 17

circumstances, we draw particular attention to our comments about the paucity of facilities for visitors in Chapter Two of this report.

1.05 Dartmoor has a prison farm, which we did not inspect on this occasion. It extended to some 1,600 acres, mainly of moorland grazing, and supported a milking herd of cattle and a sheep enterprise. We noted that only four prisoners were employed on the farm.

1.06 The adverse weather conditions of the area and the general exposure of the site to the elements presented clear indications of the maintenance tasks facing the Prison Service. Although we did not undertake a detailed inspection of the fabric, we found examples of buildings in urgent need of repair. We refer to these later in this report.

1.07 The health care arrangements are Prison Service Type 3. They were looked at in some detail during our inspection and are reported on under separate heading. Services were provided as part of a cluster arrangement with Exeter and Channings Wood prisons. There was an in-patient area, overseen by a prison Medical Officer and local general practitioners under contract.

1.08 Dartmoor’s Operational Capacity was 651, with a Certified Normal Accommodation of 691 prisoners. Some accommodation was out of use during refurbishment. Although the prison primarily served communities in the south west of England and from South Wales, we found many prisoners from much further afield. This unsatisfactory situation was being exacerbated by the transfer of existing Category B prisoners, often to distant prisons, and their replacement by Category C prisoners from similarly distant parts of the Midlands and north of England. Given all that we have observed about the location, we consider that the Prison Service should ensure that Dartmoor Prison fulfils a regional rather than national function within the Category C estate.

CHAPTER TWO

PROGRESS SINCE THE 1997 REPORT

2.01 Follow-up inspections normally report only on progress against the recommendations made in the previous full inspection for that establishment. Dartmoor’s regrading to Category C and the other changes we observed made it necessary to treat this as a full inspection except for education, training and buildings which were not inspected. This chapter therefore deals with the range of topics that would arise in a full inspection report. Those topics are described in our Expectations document1 and are grouped under these main headings: - Arrival in Custody - Residential Units - Duty of Care - Health Care - Activities - Good Order - Resettlement - Services.

2.02 Within each topic, we show the recommendation(s) from our previous report in italics, followed by our findings this time. The numbering shows where each recommendation arose in the text of the previous report. Where we have other observations, these are grouped together within each topic under “Additional Information”. As is our usual practice, we show in bold our findings against the earlier recommendations and our recommendations from this visit. Examples of good practice appear in italics.

1 Published in 2001, as part of the Annual Report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for 1999-2000. 19

ARRIVAL IN CUSTODY

Reception 2.03 The last inspection report noted, in section 2.03, that “Prisoners were given a telephone card on reception but there was no telephone, and they had to wait until they got to the wing. Given the usual heavy demand to use wing payphones, contact with family that night was very difficult”. It recommended that The situation should be reviewed to enable prisoners to make first night telephone contact with families. Not achieved.

2.04 The right to respect for the private and family life, home and correspondence of prisoners is made clear in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act. It is also mentioned within the Inspectorate’s definition of a healthy prison. We were saddened to find that the Establishment seemed not to appreciate the need for individuals to contact their family upon arrival at the prison. This showed a distinct lack of awareness of human need and a lack of respect for individuals and their families or friends. This is especially important in an establishment so remote from many prisoners’ home areas. It is natural for individuals to wish to inform family of their arrival and whereabouts, and prisoners should be offered an automatic telephone call, free of charge, while in the Reception area.

Additional information: Reception 2.05 The inspection report of 1997 noted that “apart from information posters on the walls, there was no television, video or reading material in the waiting room” (2.03). This remains unchanged.

2.06 The use of a television, with or without video, should be considered within the Reception area. It should not be used just to entertain. It could, for example, inform prisoners of prison routines, support services or activities. This would be especially useful for individuals who experience reading difficulties. The addition of

some reading matter, such as a newspaper or magazine, would also offer some occupation to literate prisoners awaiting admission, helping to reduce boredom and frustration.

2.07 The information displayed was all in the English language. There was no literature available, such as that supplied by Language Line, to allow people without English to benefit. We recommend the inclusion of information and notices written in a range of relevant languages.

2.08 The general layout of the reception area was the same as that described in the inspection report of 1997, comprising three waiting rooms, lavatories and showers. All afforded good sight lines for staff. The area was clean and tidy.

2.09 In order to prepare accordingly, Reception staff contacted the escort services each weekday morning to request the numbers, if any, of vulnerable prisoners due to be admitted. We were told that Reception staff had received training for their task, and we observed prisoners being received in an efficient and co-ordinated manner. Prisoners were greeted and communicated with in a relaxed, cheerful manner, and were offered a hot drink and the use of a lavatory upon arrival. Control was maintained at all times.

2.10 New arrivals were given a ‘brew pack’ upon reception, but a smoker’s pack was not made available. Tobacco is a much used and valued commodity for many prisoners. Its absence could encourage borrowing and lending once prisoners arrived on the induction wing. Provision of a ‘smokers pack’ would reduce the possibilities of prisoners incurring tobacco debts and minimise any associated extortion or intimidation. We recommend the inclusion of a smoker’s pack at the time of reception.

2.11 We noted a printed article displayed in the staffed area of reception, which parodied the Italian language. This article was offensive. Offensive articles should not be displayed within a Prison Service establishment.

2.12 We further recommend the introduction of staff training to improve staff understanding of the needs of prisoners in respect of contact with family and friends.

Induction 2.13 Integral sanitation on C Wing [the Induction Wing] must be provided as a matter of urgency. (9.08) Not achieved.

2.14 Slopping-out persisted, four years later. This was not treating human beings with dignity and respect, and ran counter to the standards embodied in the Inspectorate’s Expectations guidelines. We repeat the recommendation with renewed vigour. Integral sanitation on C Wing should be provided as a matter of urgency.

Additional information: Induction 2.15 Induction took place on C Wing, offering a two-week rolling induction programme. (In the last inspection, in 1997, it was mainly being carried out on A Wing.) Although the published information stated that the programme commenced on Thursdays, we were told that this was to be ‘revamped’, as new admissions were now being received daily. There did not appear to be any specific first night arrangements.

2.16 Association took place on Tuesday and Thursday evenings on C Wing, and prisoners arriving on those days would, in theory, be able to use the telephone. When we asked how telephone contact would be made for those arriving at other times, we were told that an officer would ensure that a call was available ‘if necessary’. We were not convinced of the effectiveness of this arrangement. The importance of family contact has been highlighted elsewhere in this report (see ‘Reception’). Induction Wing staff should ensure that telephone contact is offered on the first night, if a call has not already been made in reception.

2.17 Prisoners received a pack of induction literature consisting of - a prison compact - cell check form - wing rules - a statement about the display of offensive material - induction programme - drug strategy - Board Of Visitors information - C Wing Advice Pack.

2.18 This last item contained information about the Incentive and Earned Privileges scheme, cell layout, wing routine, legal aid and appeals, visiting times and information about the Ombudsman. Much of the language used in the Advice Pack literature was verbose, loaded with jargon and hard to digest. It also contained outdated information and obsolete phrases, such as “when you are unlocked to feed”.

2.19 Information provided by other bodies in the prison, such as the Board of Visitors, contained an excess of detail. We recommend that this be simplified and reduced, bearing in mind its readers and their needs. Little information was offered about individual prisoners’ own personal support requirements or those of his family. No local or national contact numbers, travel information or details of the Assisted Prison Visits Unit were made available.

2.20 A large amount of information on Wing notice boards was displayed in English but this did not ensure that prisoner would receive or understand essential information. The staff we spoke to were unaware of the available access to Language Line translators. We recommend that the Induction Pack literature and contents be thoughtfully redesigned and presented. Prisoners’ needs would then be more effectively met upon arrival and whenever a transfer occurs.

2.21 The compact set out the obligations upon both prisoner and the Establishment. The document included conditions that the Prison was consistently failing to meet. For example, there was no general Personal Officer scheme. Prisoners spoke highly of

support offered by certain officers, but this appeared to apply only to those officers who had the skill and inclination to undertake such activity. This was not a role undertaken as an accepted duty of a wing officer. We recommend that the Establishment: - review its commitment to compacts - upgrade its capacity and ability to meet the obligations listed in the compact - honour the agreed compact in its entirety.

2.22 Contributions to the induction programme were received from various departments within the Prison. We were concerned that the 21 prisoners were placed between the person addressing the Induction Course and the door.. We recommend that induction course tutors be advised on basic security and safety procedures.

2.23 From what we observed of the course, we did not consider the contents to have been presented in an interesting and informative manner. We felt it inappropriate that presentations to a group of prisoners at induction be littered with prison and social work jargon. Individual points or queries from prisoners were not properly responded to and their frustrations about their own experiences largely ignored. This served only to increase the prisoners’ anger at the system. We recommend that written and oral information in the induction course should be properly planned and delivered in plain language.

2.24 Cell doors on the ground floor and first floor landing informed the occupants of their named Personal Officer. This would have been good practice but for the fact that we were informed that this system did not actually apply to those on the landing, despite having an officer named on the door. We recommend the incorporation of a Personal Officer scheme in the Induction Wing.

2.25 Staff on the Induction Wing informed us that any individual disclosing substance misuse, mental health issues or childhood abuse would be referred to CARATS or the psychology or probation departments. There was little training to assist induction staff in supporting prisoners pending a response any specialist referral. Appropriate training in mental health awareness, child protection and adult

survivor issues should be provided as part of Personal Officer support. This would assist staff in better understanding the needs of prisoners and would increase opportunities for engagement in a more effective Personal Officer scheme

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

A Wing 2.26 The wing daily routine should be improved to allow prisoners more time out of cell. (1.20) Not achieved.

2.27 On A wing, and generally throughout the prison, association was in principle available on four weekday evenings (except Wednesdays). In practice, however, it was often cancelled and at very short notice. During our inspection, for example, Tuesday association in D wing (the largest wing) was cancelled after all the preparations had been made. Prisoners expressed to us their anger and frustration at not even being able to fill flasks for the night or make planned phone calls and at being given no explanation or warning. Given the shortage of training and education opportunities (see Purposeful Activity below) for many prisoners this cancellation meant two consecutive days of 23-hour lock-up, without in-cell electricity or the change to make phone calls. It was hardly surprising that many prisoners complained: ‘This is a bang- up jail’ We were also informed that access to programmes and other activities was often delayed or cancelled through alleged staff shortages. We repeat the earlier recommendation, therefore. The Wing daily routine should be improved to allow prisoners more time out of cell and any unavoidable change in routine should be communicated in advance to all prisoners.

Additional information: A Wing 2.28 The previous report noted, at 1.02, that “The [Personal Officer] scheme was not seen as effective by prisoners, and did not provide continuity for them. There needed to be a far more active system which provided time for staff to get to know individual prisoners and for staff to use their influence and knowledge”. We would agree with

this. A Personal Officer scheme, supported by the necessary staff training, should be introduced to focus on the needs of prisoners.

2.29 A Wing contained four landings and housed 121 prisoners at the time of our inspection. It was well maintained, clean and light. Notice boards displayed large amounts of useful information but it was all written in English. Cells were clean and tidy, as were the servery areas. Workers in these were suitably attired.

2.30 A Landing Officer scheme was used as an alternative to the Personal Officer scheme that was in theory available on C Wing. (See also the section on Induction.) We were not convinced of the success of either scheme, but prisoners told us of the support offered to them by some individual officers.

2.31 A Wing was closely supervised, resulting in an orderly environment. We were concerned, however, about the lack of interaction between staff and prisoners. There was no banter between the two groups, and there was a distinct lack of effort on the part of officers to interact with prisoners on a simple, human basis. We recommend that staff receive further training and support in order to develop their communication skills with prisoners and their understanding of offending behaviour.

2.32 Evening association was held on the Wing in a group of three rooms - a television room, a video room and a games room. Notice boards were bare.

2.33 The area contained four hooded telephones. We were informed that it was noisy in this area and that telephone users had little privacy. Prisoners complained that there were not enough telephones available and that a few people spent considerable amounts of time using them. This increased frustrations for those waiting, some of whom failed to make their call in Association time. We recommend that more

telephones be made available, that they be placed in a quieter area of the wing and that some effort is made to ensure greater equality of opportunity to use these telephones.

2.34 The Incentives and Earned Privilege scheme did not provide enough of a differential between Standard and Enhanced. We recommend that this be improved, as indicated in the Good Order section of this report (see paras 2.245 - 2.252).

2.35 No Wing committee existed to offer the prisoners a stake in reviewing systems and facilities such as the IEP scheme or use of the telephone. We recommend that the Establishment set up Wing Committees. We believe that these would provide some ownership of the various systems and processes. Such committees would also involve staff and could provide opportunities for improving staff and prisoner relationships through the establishment of mutual respect.

B Wing 2.36 There were no recommendations on this Wing in our last report. The following is all additional information.

2.37 B Wing housed the Voluntary Testing Unit. It was planned that it would also house the relocated Segregation Unit in the near future. The B5 landing ran a programme for those prisoners who had special needs and who found difficulty in coping with the demands of prison life.. B3 was the landing for prisoners on the Enhanced level of the Incentive and Earned Privileges Scheme (IEPS).

2.38 The Wing was able to accommodate a maximum of 116 prisoners, all in single cells. Six of these cells were described as ‘damp’ by staff and were not used at the time of the inspection. The Wing roll at the time of our visit was 98. Of these, one prisoner was on Basic IEP level and nine Standard level prisoners were on various stages of warnings. There were six F2052SH forms open.

2.39 A suite of office rooms on B4 landing housed sentence planning and the Inside Out drug rehabilitation programme. 27

2.40 We were told that 40 prisoners on the Wing were unemployed. Fourteen prisoners were employed as cleaners on the Wing, one worked as a painter and one as a librarian. Kit change was available every day on a landing rota system. The canteen service was provided via a form issued on Mondays, with orders taken on Tuesdays and goods bagged and handed out on Thursdays,

2.41 B wing was the only one where prisoners had access to telephones throughout the day. Of the four telephones, three had privacy hoods. One cardphone was not used throughout the week we were there. Prisoners believed it had been tampered with, which might result in the next prisoner to use it losing all his credits.

2.42 Entries in the Wing files were variable. Negative comments frequently outweighed positive observations. Most files had entries at least once per month. A system should be set up to monitor the Wing files and encourage more frequent comments, with balanced and objective entries. This was already recognised by the Senior Officer and Principal Officer on the Wing. Prisoners said B Wing atmosphere was on the whole better than elsewhere in the prison.

B Wing Landing 5 2.43 On the fifth landing of B Wing, a female prison officer had set up a project only two months before our visit. The project was intended to deal with those prisoners who found difficulty in coping with prison life. There was a strict protocol for admission, as the project was quite new and could only take up to 15 men. While on the programme, they received low wages and were financially disadvantaged.

2.44 Their regime was geared to having time to talk with a variety of staff, including Health Care, the visiting Community Psychiatric Nurse, the Chaplain and the officers who had volunteered to work there. Within the scheme, each prisoner had a structured programme geared to his individual needs.

2.45 In order to maximise the benefits and ensure the future development of this excellent initiative, the Programme for Prisoners with Special Needs on B5 should

be monitored via multi-disciplinary reviews conducted weekly. This Special Needs project deserves to succeed and should be evaluated, developed and presented as an example of good practice.

C Wing 2.46 There were no recommendations on this Wing in our last report. The following is all additional information.

2.47 C Wing was reasonably clean and tidy. The top two landings had been closed because of their state of disrepair. The remaining cells were of single occupancy, with no cell sanitation or electricity. The wing was staffed to enable cell bells to be answered to give access to lavatories during the night. However in practice delays in response led to the need to slop out in the morning.

2.48 The ground floor landing was used by cleaning orderlies and the second landing was used as the Induction Wing. At the time of our inspection, there were 37 to 40 prisoners housed there. On average, 15 new reception prisoners were received each week.

2.49 We were told by staff that the prisoners and officers missed the process of slopping out and that this was “good communication and contact time”. Staff also told us that these conditions gave new arrivals “a taste of Dartmoor” and that they would understand that “it could only get better if they behaved”. We found it astonishing that this should be advanced as a reason for not carrying out a refurbishment programme. The modernisation of C Wing should proceed without delay. It should include the installation of appropriate sanitation arrangements, in keeping with the standards expected of a decent and respectful Prison Service.

2.50 We observed an evening meal being served, at 4.50 p.m. One of the options was a casserole-type meal with gravy. This was served on to a plate, causing a great deal of liquid to be spilt which created a health and safety hazard. Neither of the officers present showed any concern about this. Prisoners were required to collect a plate of food, a pudding and a piece of fruit, and a piece of cake for later in the evening. 29

It was not surprising that much food was spilt on the floor. Pre-selected menus were being piloted on C Wing. Many of the prisoners complained of poor food and limited choice. Attention should be given to improving the serving of meals, through the provision of appropriate plates, dishes and trays that would enable safer transportation of meals before consumption.

2.51 Staffing levels were one Principal Officer shared with A and B Wings, one Senior Officer and four Officers. At night, there were three staff on duty. That number was required to let prisoners out of their cells to use the toilet. We were told by prisoners that it was quite usual for night bells not to be answered and by staff that it was better for prisoners to restrict their fluid intake rather than use a bucket at night.

2.52 There was no Personal Officer scheme and therefore each prisoner was allocated to a Landing Manager. Central detailing meant that it was possible that different staff were allocated to landings each day, thus removing any sense of continuity for both staff and prisoners. This was not conducive to effective Personal Officer work.

2.53 Association was restricted to watching television, visiting the library and taking showers. There was no association on Wednesdays or on weekends, resulting in prisoners being locked up for long periods. Access to pay telephones was available most of the time during unlocked hours. Some prisoners felt that a minority monopolised the telephones and that it would be better to have a rota. The showers were in a deplorable state, with paint peeling off the walls, nowhere to hang clothes while in the shower and a complete lack of privacy. At weekends, prisoners had to use flasks for drinks, as they had no access to hot water.

2.54 The atmosphere on the Wing was dependent on the staff on duty. Some freely interacting with prisoners, while others hardly acknowledged the presence of prisoners. Some of the staff referred to themselves as “overpaid toilet attendants”. During this inspection, we heard a few positive comments from staff in Dartmoor. In contrast to these, some staff on C Wing felt that they were “set up to fail”, because the funding for

in-cell sanitation had been diverted to other areas of the prison. They were, they said, “the forgotten ones”.

2.55 Before exercise or movement to work, the prisoners from D Wing used C Wing as a thoroughfare. This created opportunities for bullying and fighting.

2.56 The Induction programme lasted two weeks, the second week being organised by Education staff. Prisoners sent to Dartmoor on short-term sentences were not given the option of education but were given jobs in cleaning, farming and yard duties. If prisoners arrived with Enhanced status, they retained this, which was good practice.

D Wing

2.57 This was not separately inspected.

E Wing (segregation unit: see paras 2.72-2.82 below)

F and G Wings 2.58 During the inspection undertaken in 1997, there were four specific recommendations relating to Vulnerable Prisoners who were housed on F and G Wings. We will consider these briefly before making further observations on the current situation.

2.59 All pay phones should have acoustic hoods. (1.36) Not achieved.

2.60 It was a matter of some importance that prisoners should be able to engage in private telephone conversations, to maintain positive links with their home community. The siting of telephones in often-noisy communal areas made it important that they should have acoustic hoods fitted, to enable reasonable use of this basic amenity. Acoustic hoods should be fitted to card telephones without further delay.

2.61 All wing showers should have privacy screens. (1.37).

Achieved. We noted that showers now afforded privacy, overcoming the deficiency noted in 1997.

2.62 The last report called for support for the Sex Offender Treatment Programme, with greater interaction between staff and prisoners. (1.40) Achieved.

2.63 We were very encouraged by the level of enthusiasm, knowledge and skill that the wing staff brought to bear in supporting prisoners in this particular programme. It was therefore something of a disappointment to learn from the Governor that the Programme was to be closed down because of the re-categorisation of the prison. It hardly helped the morale of the prison to close down one of its few successful activities. We were told by the Governor that sex offenders in the Category C estate in the South West of England were already adequately catered for by other prisons. If this is so, then we recommend that sex offenders should not be sent to Dartmoor following the closure of the SOTP in that prison and that they be allocated to the appropriate treatment sites.

2.64 The fourth recommendation from 1997 was that, The induction booklet should be reprinted to incorporate all manuscript amendments. Partly achieved. This had been done for each wing but we draw attention to our overall comments about the Induction Programme.

Additional information: F&G Wings 2.65 From daily observation throughout the week of the inspection, we found a substantial level of staff-prisoner interaction on F and G Wings, by comparison with some other areas of the prison. We were impressed by the Principal Officer, whose management of staff appeared to us to be thoughtful and measured. He presented an air of support and leadership that had a positive impact on the staff team and this was communicated to prisoners.

2.66 The Wing Governor had an office that was accessible to both staff and prisoners. The recently revised management structure appeared to have given new impetus to the running of this demanding wing. In the months immediately preceding the inspection, sex offenders made up between 70% and 80% of the population of the Vulnerable Prisoner Unit. This figure was steadily falling because of outward transfers of Category B prisoners, following the re-categorisation. We saw drafts for Manchester and other prisons in the North of England. These transfers were likely to cause hardship to some prisoners and their families, many of whom were resident in the South of England. Conversely, we saw Category C prisoners inward bound from the North with equal and opposite problems. We therefore consider that the Prison Service should make renewed attempts to rationalise the allocation of prisoners in order to minimise the negative impact on family contact and resettlement processes.

2.67 Arrangements were in hand for the recording and monitoring of prisoners’ telephone calls, with effective links between intelligence sources and wing management. There was a practical balance between care for the prisoner and appropriate protection of the public. Effective systems ensured that Schedule 1 offenders and those subject to Prison Service Order 4400 were identified and that appropriate procedures were followed at the time of transfer or release.

2.68 The main fabric and galleried design of the Wing reflected its age but the state of decoration and cleanliness was a credit to all concerned. There was only one – centrally located – servery for nearly 200 men. The efficiency with which meals were served was the product of good prisoner co-operation and staff organisation. These

domestic indicators further supported our view that staff-prisoner relationships were largely positive in these wings. Cells were single and well maintained. We saw no evidence of offensive displays and both prisoners and staff appeared familiar with the boundaries of decency expected in this regard.

2.69 We noted that up to 30 prisoners in the Vulnerable Prisoner Unit had diagnosed mental health problems. There were clearly some men for whom the everyday demands of prison life were an ordeal, notwithstanding the relatively protective environment of F and G Wings. We were concerned to find some men transferred to Dartmoor and into the Unit with Sentence Planning targets that simply could not be met at Dartmoor. We were left to conclude that if the target was valid then the transfer was not. This underlines our recommendation that the Prison Service should re-examine its transfer and allocation policy to create a progressive and positive network of linked facilities that is responsive to and part of the Sentence Planning process.

2.70 A small Braille Unit was situated on the second landing and employed about six prisoners in a range of translation and production tasks. These men were adept and interested in the work, which had real, tangible and beneficial outcomes for the end users of the Braille books. We were impressed by the skill of prisoners and staff alike and commend the quality of their work in such cramped conditions. We recommend that consideration be given to upgrading the Braille premises and expanding the number of prisoners engaged in this valuable work.

2.71 Finally, the external exercise area for the Vulnerable Prisoner Unit was a pleasing garden area that had been created from what was virtually a derelict, stone- littered yard. The part we saw was evidence of hard work, commitment and creative imagination by those concerned with the transformation of this area – further evidence that in this corner of Dartmoor there were positive forces at work.

DUTY OF CARE

Segregation Unit (E Wing) 2.72 The segregation unit was in a discrete part of the prison, also known as E Wing. By any standards it was a large unit, with 46 cells on two levels with high ceilings on the upper landing. Although in some ways it was rather forbidding in appearance it was at least light and airy. In many ways it looked exactly as it must have last century, modernised by the use of CCTV on the landings and in special cells.

2.73 The unit had been subject to severe criticism from the Director General of the Prison Service and there were plans to close it and relocate a unit, with a different ethos, on B Wing. Physical alterations to the new location were in progress during our inspection. This was intended to replace the culture which had grown up. There had until recently been a flashing blue light when a prisoner was being escorted to the segregation unit, and a “walk of shame” which forced prisoners to walk along a particular route when moving to or around the unit.

2.74 The negative attitudes of some staff were evidenced by prisoner responses to our questionnaire, comments to us by some staff, Board of Visitors members, interviews with prisoners and other sources. A segregation manager referred to prisoners as “crap” and “shit” in discussions with us. One of the Board of Visitors, while unobserved, had heard a prisoner being brought in to a shout of ‘another fucking inadequate for you’; and prisoners reported being called ‘vermin’.

2.75 We were informed that there had been a bad culture in the segregation unit but that changes had been made and that things had improved. However, there were also fears among staff that the old culture was in danger of reasserting itself, and that sweeping changes were needed.

2.76 Although the Governor, Board of Visitors, Medical Officer and chaplains visited the segregation unit on a regular basis, daily in some cases, there was little or nothing to record which prisoners had been seen, or spoken with, or anything else 35

which took place during visits. There was a serious risk that such an apparent lack of monitoring by appropriate authorities could result in long term mistreatment of prisoners as has happened in other prisons.

2.77 There were 26 prisoners held in the unit during our inspection, eight for their own protection, one awaiting the outcome of an investigation, nine in the interests of good order or discipline and eight under punishment.

2.78 We heard that some BOV members gave authorisation for segregation until the next Rule 45 Board meeting (up to 28 days) rather than considering individual cases and the need for continued segregation.

2.79 In 2000 there had been 842 disciplinary adjudications on prisoners and 790 so far in 2001. Force had been used on prisoners 66 times so far in 2001 in comparison with 74 times in 2000. The three special cells had been used on 46 occasions in 2001 ranging from 0 in July and one in June to 11 times in April and 10 in January and March.

2.80 With some degree of disbelief, we discovered a cell in the segregation unit called the 'Listeners’ Suite where prisoners could talk to Listeners. It had been bisected by the construction of an internal steel mesh cage. Prisoners undergoing professional interviews had to cram into this cage, adding to the ritual humiliation they experienced elsewhere in the prison. We were relieved to hear by the end of our inspection of its abolition, particularly as its use was in defiance of verbal instruction from the Governor withdrawing it from operation.

2.81 Exercise arrangements for prisoners on Landing 1 of E Wing were wholly unsuitable. An area called ‘The Pens’ was used as their exercise area. These enclosures were granite-walled 12’ x 12’ yards topped by barbed wire and rusty gates where prisoners exercised one at a time. This should no longer be used for exercise by segregated prisoners. The more appropriate exercise area used for prisoners on Landing 2 should be used for all E Wing prisoners.

2.82 We believe that the many good officers throughout Dartmoor and on E Wing did not condone or approve of the humiliating practices and systems that we have here condemned.

Allegations of Abuse 2.83 We were concerned by the number of allegations of verbal and physical abuse at Dartmoor. We heard about specific and general incidents from prisoners and staff. We noted the high number of allegations made in the form of Requests and Complaints and the unusually high number of Confidential Access applications. We also heard from prisoners who took part in our survey that 25% of those who felt unsafe on their first night in Dartmoor did so because of ‘the attitude of staff’. Other results indicated that, while 11% of respondents reported insulting words and behaviour by other prisoners, the number reporting this conduct from staff more than doubled to 24%.

2.84 We believe from these indications that there was a pattern of verbally abusive behaviour at Dartmoor. Additionally, we were told many times that when in E Wing (Segregation Unit), prisoners could hear screaming, shouts of “Don’t kick me” and verbal insults shouted by staff, such as “Vermin to exercise”.

2.85 The survey of prisoners further confirmed this unacceptable state of affairs. For example, one respondent wrote: “The way some screws speak to you by saying stuff like ‘get the fuck in your cage’. I won’t have them talk to me like that and I use abuse back and then we get nicked and punished”. Another prisoner said: “The staff are very rude and threatening to inmates in general – they talk to us like dogs, threats made all the time, people are afraid to complain. People like myself who try are labelled troublemakers. This prison is very bad.”

2.86 In our Unannounced Inspection published in August 1996, we reported our findings of prisoner humiliation and unnecessary, ritualistic practices. We believe the culture in Dartmoor has not changed in certain areas. Some prison officers continued to abuse prisoners verbally every day. Many officers told us that they found these practices abhorrent and outdated. They recognised the danger that all staff would be seen in this negative light because of the action of the few.

2.87 We followed a particular incident, after other prisoners and officers had expressed concern about it. A mentally ill prisoner who had threatened an officer was being moved within the segregation unit to the special cell. Other prisoners in the Unit were clearly shaken and frightened the following morning and we ourselves observed that five prisoners in the Unit asked for Listeners during the night. We listened carefully to officers’ and prisoners’ reports about the incident and, with the Governor and the Area Manager, viewed the closed-circuit television (CCTV) tapes covering it.

2.88 We believe that there may have been excessive use of Control and Restraint in this incident, and that more officers than necessary had been directly involved. Among them were seven officers wearing Control and Restraint equipment. A Health Care Officer and a Governor had been in attendance.

2.89 We believe this was excessively confrontational. If the officers had feared for their safety, they should have had four of them as standby in case the incident escalated. Instead, seven staff were directly involved and in the cell with the prisoner.

2.90 After all staff had left the cell, the prisoner was left lying naked on the floor. We observed from the CCTV footage that the prisoner had stood up and appeared to take a drink after the incident. The recording did not have sound and there were a number of blind spots not covered by the cameras, which were known to staff.

2.91 We recommend that special cells should have CCTV coverage for the whole cell and not just the smaller area that we were able to observe.

2.92 We also recommend that, in incidents such as this, a camcorder be used in addition to the statically mounted CCTV cameras, to help protect officers from unfounded allegations and to further document the process.

2.93 Consideration should be given to allocating more female officers to Security and E Wing, alongside male colleagues. This has worked well in many

prisons in controlling and de-escalating of incidents when working with volatile or mentally and personality-disordered prisoners.

Suicide Prevention 2.94 The wing list of available listeners should be kept up to date. (2.37) Achieved.

2.95 Night staff should carry anti-ligature scissors on their belts. (2.38) Not achieved. Scissors were held in cupboards on the wings.

2.96 Wing managers should be issued with information about the use of listener suites. (2.39) Achieved.

2.97 Dartmoor had an integrated approach to suicide prevention, based on the responsibility of the whole prison community for the care of those in distress. The prison’s aim was to identify and provide special care for prisoners in distress and so reduce the risk of suicide and self-harm. The overall management responsibility had recently changed. A Suicide Prevention Co-ordinator and a Listener Liaison Officer had been appointed and should attend further training in their respective roles.

Management of Suicide Prevention 2.98 Consideration should be given to using the number of self-harm incidents per wing as an indicator of locations where self-harm may occur. (2.40) Achieved.

2.99 Suicide awareness meetings were held quarterly and were chaired by the Head of Residence. All internal elements of the prison were represented on the committee, as were the Board of Visitors and the Samaritans. Two Listeners attended, representing the main wings and the Vulnerable Prisoner Unit, and reported on the number of occasions they were used. Consideration should be given to renaming the group

“Suicide Prevention Team” and reviewing the policies and procedures in line with the relevant Prison Service publications 2.

2.100 Established procedures for the completion of F2052SH documentation should be followed in all cases. (2.41) Achieved.

2.101 As in all other prisons, the Form F2052SH was used to monitor prisoners who had attempted or who were thought at risk of self-harm. At the time of our visit, there were 15 F2052SHs open. Each was checked daily by the duty Governor and the Co- ordinator. All F2052SHs were reviewed in 72 hours and case conferences held, chaired by either the Principal Officer or Senior Officer. Relevant staff occasionally did not attend, which was not helpful to the future care plan of the prisoner. Case conferences should be multi-disciplinary and appropriate staff should attend.

2.102 A comprehensive training package was about to be introduced on all the Wings. The Head of Residence had successfully introduced a similar training pack in a previous prison. The Training Document for Self-Harm Management should be introduced with appropriate training and evaluated after 12 months.

2.103 There was a safe cell in the Health Care Centre and a gated cell was planned. In all, there were three identified Listener suites, on A Wing, G Wing and E Wing. None of these suites came to a reasonable standard; we have said more about the E Wing suite below. Neither of the suites was fit for the purpose intended. One was quite bare, with only a couple of chairs, while the other was being used as storeroom. These suites should be refurbished as soon as possible, to make them more conducive to the care of a distressed person and to include facilities for making hot drinks.

2.104 During our night visit, staff were engaged in escorting Listeners to the Segregation Unit. We followed and were shocked to see the conditions of the so-called Listener Suite in the Segregation Unit. It was known as ‘The Cage’. It was a small cell

2 Notably, ‘Prevention of suicide and self-harm in the Prison Service,’ the results of an internal review, published in London, 2001. 40

without physical contact between the Listener and prisoner, with verbal contact enabled through small perforations in a heavy-duty plastic plate inserted in the steel mesh wall of the container. We have already commented about this appalling arrangement in this report at para 2.80 and in the executive summary.

2.105 When we made inquiries about this degrading room, we were told that the prisoners were very dangerous and that other people needed to be protected from them. This Listener Suite was also used by other staff members to interview prisoners, despite the prison being re-categorised as C. The use of the caged room as a Listener suite or for any other purpose should be stopped.

2.106 Ligature shears were available in emergency cupboards on all the Wings. These cupboards also contained first aid and spillage kits. The first aid kit on one of the Wings was not sealed and had some items missing. Health care staff should check first aid kits regularly and record when they have done so.

2.107 There was no first aid kit in the Health Care Centre. Although appropriate equipment such as bandaging and plasters might be available, a full and identified first aid kit should be available in the Health Care Centre.

2.108 We were pleased to learn that the night patrols carried their own shears.

Listener scheme 2.109 At the time of our visit, there were only four Listeners. One had that week been removed from these duties by the Samaritan link person. We noted that this particular prisoner received follow-up interviews from a Principal Officer and the Wing Governor after his removal from Listener duties.

2.110 Listeners were treated as ‘Blue Bands’, that is, prisoners with freedom of unescorted movement through parts of the prison. The Listeners told us that they finished at 11.00 p.m. We saw Listeners being used after this time on our night visit. The availability of Listeners at night should be discussed at the Suicide Prevention Team Management meeting.

2.111 Two Samaritans from the local group visited each week to support the Listeners and provide training. These meetings had been held in the Health Care Centre. Consideration should be given to finding another venue for Samaritan meetings that does not disrupt the life of in-patients.

2.112 Four more Listeners were being trained and a further course was planned for next year. At the time of our visit, there was no telephone line direct to the Samaritans, although we were assured that Samaritans would come if required. A direct telephone line to the Samaritans should be installed and a roving handset should be available in one of the newly refurbished Listener suites.

2.113 We saw Listener Boxes available on each of the Wings. They were not used, because prisoners made personal contact if they wanted to see a Listener. The use and validity of the Listener boxes should be evaluated and their further use discussed with the Samaritans, Listeners and the Listener Liaison Officer.

Race Relations 2.114 The Race Relations Liaison Committee [now the Race Relations Management Team] should have prisoner representation. (2.47) Not achieved.

2.115 At the time of our visit, one prisoner representative had been transferred, one was suspended, and one had resigned. The Race Relations Management Team (RRMT) was rightly concerned about the lack of prisoner representation. It had advertised for more representatives but only one had come forward. Staff and prisoners told us that prisoners did not feel safe or respected enough to take on this role. If they did, other prisoners regarded them with suspicion.

2.116 It was evident that much work would have to be done to encourage prisoners to believe that the race relations structure was for their benefit. As a matter of urgency, the Race Relations Liaison Officer and his team should be allocated a set time to meet minority ethnic prisoners and consult them on ways of taking things forward.

2.117 A Race Relations Sub-committee with appropriate terms of reference should be developed, to which all minority ethnic prisoners have open access. Prisoner representatives could then take issues raised at the sub-committee to the RRMT meeting.

Additional information 2.118 The Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 places a general duty on public authorities to promote race equality. The emphasis is on working “to avoid unlawful discrimination before it occurs and to promote equality of opportunity and good relations between persons of different racial groups.”3 Our expectations took account of the two perspectives of tackling discrimination and positively promoting good race relations.

2.119 In Dartmoor, the Deputy Governor chaired the Race Relations Management Team (RRMT) meeting, which met quarterly. He was also the Chair of the Devon Prison Cluster Race Relations Meeting. The Chair of the Devon and Exeter Race Equality Council was also a member of the RRMT. Contacts with community organisations were being pursued The Deputy Race Relations Officer was attending the

3 Source: Home Office “New Laws” race equality leaflet, distributed to HM Prisons. 43

Community Open Day at HMP Leyhill, with a view to holding a similar event at Dartmoor.

2.120 In August 2001, five staff members were identified as being from minority ethnic backgrounds. Of these, only two were known to the Race Relations Management Team. We were told that potential staff from minority ethnic groups had visited Dartmoor with a view to transferring there but none had. They had apparently said that they felt there were insufficient support networks for them and their families in the surrounding area. Prisoners from minority ethnic backgrounds were acutely aware of this lack of diversity among the staff and commented on it.

2.121 At the time of our visit, minority ethnic prisoners represented 9% of Dartmoor’s population. Of the 106 respondents to our questionnaire, one prisoner identified himself as ‘Asian’ and seven (7%) as ‘Black’, with three (3%) identifying themselves as ‘Mixed Race’. Four said they were Foreign Nationals.

2.122 Four prisoners said that they had been victimised by other prisoners because of their race or ethnic background. Comments included, “I have been called a Paki”. Six of the respondents had suffered this victimisation by someone other than a prisoner. One commented, “I spent three hours in the seg [Segregation Unit] and had racist comments from the staff.”

2.123 Prisoners from the north west of England and from Wales also complained of being victimised by prisoners and other people, as did vulnerable prisoners. Both prisoners and staff told us that racist comments or inappropriate language were rarely challenged.

2.124 Consideration should be given to asking all prisoners to complete a brief questionnaire about diversity issues on exit from Dartmoor. This would allow

managers to gain a broader picture, without respondents worrying how their replies would affect their status at the prison. The planned questionnaire to staff should be implemented.

2.125 The Race Relations Liaison Officer (RRLO) – a Senior Officer – and his Deputy had been in post for 12 months. They were supported by a team of Assistant Race Relations Liaison Officers. These represented each Wing, the Segregation Unit, the Gymnasium, Healthcare, the Kitchen, Reception, the Prison Officers Association and the Officer Support Grade staff group.

2.126 A number of race relations posters were displayed throughout the Establishment, but none showed photographs of the Race Relations Liaison Team. We were told this was a security issue, as prisoners would then be able to “put a name to the face”. We did not see how good staff-prisoner relations could be promoted within this climate of suspicion and distrust, let alone good race relations. We wondered how prisoners would be able to contact the RRLO and his team informally if they were not easily identifiable. Photographs of named Race Relations Liaison Team members should be displayed.

2.127 Staff and prisoners told us about the terms ‘ethnic’ and ‘minority ethnics’ being used to refer to people from minority ethnic backgrounds. We read and observed this for ourselves. The Race Relations paperwork should be revised immediately and staff actively encouraged to educate and challenge each other. A prisoner wrote in our survey, “The officers are full of sarcasm and snide childish comments in here. I am white and British but I have seen on countless occasions officers being racist and blatantly so”. We also heard other comments and language – for example, the use of the term ‘coloured’ to refer to Black prisoners – that were inappropriate and that reinforced stereotyping and prejudice.

2.128 There was no race relations input into the Induction Course. Induction offered the opportunity to explain the policy and set out Dartmoor’s own expectations and procedures. A Race Relations session should be included in the Induction Course immediately. No specific race awareness or diversity education for prisoners took

place. We were not convinced that such education was integrated into other activities throughout the Establishment.

2.129 Of the 421 staff, 140 officers had received race relations training. Only half the Senior Officers had received training and no figures were available for other staff. An increase in race relations training should be introduced, in order to enable a change in the culture of Dartmoor. In our survey, 38 prisoners (36%) said that the change they would most like to see was in officers’ attitudes. One prisoner wrote, “To stop people being threatened by the screws (sic), nothing being done in here about screw bullying and racism towards inmates, especially ethnic minorities – I would like this to be acted on not just words”.

2.130 In the period from 1 January 2001 to 29 August 2001, 27 racial incidents had been reported: - The majority of these (15) had been reported by staff, - 6 prisoners had made complaints through the Racial Incident reporting form, - 4 via the Request and Complaints procedure, - 1 through a Confidential Access document, and - One had written to the Commission for Racial Equality.

2.131 Prisoners should be able to request to see the RRLO or report an incident in the way that is safest to them. When the Board of Visitors’ locked boxes are introduced, these could also be advertised as a contact point for the RRLO. Three of the prisoner complaints related to incidents at their previous establishments. We felt that this highlighted a national problem, of prisoners not feeling safe enough to make complaints within in an establishment for fear of reprisals.

2.132 We were not convinced that recommendations and outcomes from the investigations were followed through sufficiently after incidents. The Wing File of a prisoner found guilty of writing racist letters which referred to the prisoner in the next door cell could not be found on the Wing. We were, therefore, unable to ascertain what had been recorded in it or how staff were continuing to manage the situation.

Following such alleged incidents of racism the RRLO and his Team should check the Wing Files to ensure proper recording and continuing staff awareness.

2.133 The Observation Books on the Wings should be monitored at least weekly by the RRLO.

2.134 Race Relations Monitoring Returns were completed. It was planned to introduce range setting to gain a better understanding of the statistics, which were discussed at the RRMT. We were unable to find out whether prisoners from minority ethnic groups had equal access to all purposeful activity and resettlement interventions. Interventions such as the Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare (CARAT) service, Offending Behaviour programmes and voluntary testing should contribute their monitoring information to the RRLO in order to ensure the access to and suitability of these to all prisoners.

2.135 The RRLO should examine F2052 Self Harm documentation, Reports on Injury to Inmates and documents involved in Anti-Bullying alerts or reports. We were told that the RRMT was also responsible for the Anti-Bullying Strategy. Where identified that bullying is racially biased, interventions with the ‘bully’ must include race awareness work. In our survey of prisoners, some 11% had had insulting remarks made about them or their family by prisoners. A significant 24% reported such insults from someone other than a prisoner. One commented that the remarks were “Racist and insulting and I am too embarrassed to tell you what they said.”

2.136 The RRMT should analyse all monitoring information to discern patterns, so that areas for training and change may be identified.

2.137 In order for the promotion of good race relations to be owned by the whole Establishment, each area should be responsible for providing its own statistics and interrogating them. It is crucial that this responsibility does not rest with the RRLO alone. We recognise that some staff may view this as an additional workload. With appropriate assistance from the RRLO and recognition of staff expertise in relation to their own area of work, such barriers may be overcome.

Foreign Nationals 2.138 There were no recommendations on this topic in our last report. The following is all additional information.

2.139 At the time of our inspection, 18 prisoners (3.1% of the Dartmoor prison population) were identified as non-UK nationals. In July 2001, 33 (5.3%) prisoners were so identified and in August 2001, 49 (8.6%). A Foreign Prisoners Liaison Officer had been appointed and was given a set time each week to carry out his duties. We were told this mainly involved contact with Embassies and arranging telephone calls. Clear policies and procedures for Foreign Nationals should be available to prisoners and staff, in relation to mail, telephone calls in lieu of visits, and access to telephones to take account of time differences. These procedures should be monitored to ensure consistency across the Establishment and that no nationality is discriminated against.

2.140 We were told that Language Line was used but there was no record of its use made available to us. The use of Language Line should be properly logged and monitored to determine patterns and to feed into continuing assessment of prisoners’ needs.

2.141 Issues relating to Foreign Nationals should be a standing item on the RRMT meeting. It is essential that Race Relations and Foreign National policies and procedures inform each other.

2.142 The needs of Foreign Nationals should be assessed and attempts made to meet those needs. This should be done by co-ordinating existing resources, establishing links with outside agencies and ‘networking’ with other establishments to share good practice.

2.143 Our published Expectations for race relations were not met. We did not consider that the Dartmoor culture valued and respected diversity or actively promoted good race relations, nor did all prisoners feel safe to make complaints.

Substance Use 2.144 Proper funding across several years should be provided to ensure continuing treatment for drug users. (5.11) Achieved. Through the Prison Service Drug Strategy, establishments had been able to access funding for both treatment and supply reduction initiatives.

2.145 Prisoners tested positive on mandatory drug testing should be routinely offered guidance or help. (5.09) We could not find out if this was achieved.

Additional information: Substance Use 2.146 We were interested to find out how Dartmoor’s Drug Strategy was working with prisoners. We were impressed with the commitment and drive of the Principal Officer who co-ordinated the different elements of the strategy. The external provider, Exeter Drugs Project (EDP), was highly regarded by prisoners. Nine prisoners in our survey mentioned the drug workers and drug courses as things that had changed them in a positive way while they had been at Dartmoor. The Establishment had also provided an excellent working environment, with a suite of offices, group and individual counselling rooms for the Inside Out Drug Treatment Programme and an appropriately furnished room for the acupuncture group.

2.147 The written Drugs Strategy was under review. A needs analysis should be carried out to ensure that the revised strategy has a clear direction, in order to meet the needs of the Category C prisoners being transferred to Dartmoor.

2.148 Seven prisoners (14%) answering our survey said they had a drug problem that they needed help with on arrival at Dartmoor. Two had received support from drug workers. One said that he was “refused a detox programme for a heroin addiction I had when I arrived here from [another prison]. This was out of order, because I needed help badly at the time and have harmed myself when ill before.”

2.149 We did not inspect Health Care’s role within the Drug Strategy. Health Care referred prisoners to CARATs4 from their reception interview, allowing the Medical Officer to ‘fast track’ a prisoner to the Voluntary Testing Unit. Transfer to a new establishment offered an opportunity for change if prisoners were engaged quickly. We were told that interdepartmental working across Healthcare, Probation, Psychology and CARATs worked well.

2.150 The Drug Strategy session on Induction offered a further opportunity for prisoners to self refer to services as well as a chance to receive some harm minimisation education. A respondent to our questionnaire said this session had been helpful because “It told me about the drug-free wing and CARATs”. Although five staff members attended the session we observed, the time was not used most effectively. The Induction session format should be reviewed.

2.151 A Communicable Diseases Session was also held on Induction and prisoners were able to receive Hepatitis B boosters.. A Hepatitis C Clinic run by an external Clinical Nurse Specialist was planned to take place quarterly.

2.152 The CARATs Team consisted of two full-time Exeter Drugs Project workers. They were managed by the EDP Team Leader for the prison cluster, and an administrator. Funding was also provided for a CARATs officer and a Voluntary Testing and Acupuncture Officer to be part of the Team. The hours for these posts were spread across nine officers, although only four were primarily involved with the CARATs counselling work. We were concerned about the recruitment and selection process of these staff and the lack of clear job descriptions. We felt that nine staff were too many to be integrated into a functioning team and that this impeded effective multidisciplinary working. The officers did not receive clinical supervision and we were unsure what mechanisms existed if staff proved to be unsuitable for this work. Nominated staff should be trained in all elements of CARATs work, and should be supervised and appraised in carrying it out.

4 Counselling Assessment Referral Advice and Throughcare services 50

2.153 All staff training must include equal opportunities and anti-discriminatory practice. We were disturbed to find that the officers responsible even for these were not known by name to prisoners on the Voluntary Testing Unit. The role of officers in relation to CARATs and Voluntary Testing and acupuncture should be reviewed, to ensure that a safe and respectful service is offered to prisoners.

2.154 In our survey, 78 prisoners (74%) who responded had used drugs at some time. Of these, 53 prisoners (50%) said their drug use had been a problem for them. 18 (17%) indicated it was a problem for them while at Dartmoor. Of the 53 prisoners, 20 (19%) had received help, 7 from CARATs and 4 from the Voluntary Testing Unit (VTU). Other prisoners mentioned counselling, drug courses, acupuncture, the Inside Out Project and psychology.

2.155 Responding to our questionnaire, two prisoners who were due to be released within six months said they still needed help with their drug problem before release. An Exeter Drugs Project Pre-Release worker was also employed half-time and prisoners within four months of being released could apply to see him for help with pre-release issues.

2.156 Twenty respondents (19%) to the survey said they had an alcohol problem. Of those, seven had received help – four from counselling, two from Alcoholics Anonymous and one from CARATs and psychology. Although there was still no national Prison Service alcohol strategy, an EDP alcohol specialist worker attended the prison half-time. She contributed to the Induction session and offered individual sessions and an Alcohol Awareness Group.

2.157 Auricular acupuncture was available and highly valued within the Drug Strategy. Following a gap in the service, regular sessions were now held. Prisoners self referred had a CARATs assessment and attended an information session before starting the acupuncture programme.

2.158 Six prisoners in our questionnaire mentioned substance use courses as something that they had done at Dartmoor to address their offending behaviour. Five

said that “getting off drink and drugs” made it less likely that they would offend in the future. The Exeter Drugs Project (EDP) Inside Out Drug Treatment Programme ran as a day programme over ten weeks on B Wing VTU. This cognitive-behavioural programme had a strong focus on drug and health education, in conjunction with relapse prevention. A Team Leader and three full-time workers ran the groups and provided individual support and throughcare. The Team was well supported by the Principal Officer.

2.159 Some prisoners were being transferred out before completing the Inside Out programme. Also, groups consistently started late because of delayed movement back from exercise. These matters should be dealt with, as they undermine the effectiveness of the programme.

2.160 Of the thirty-six prisoners who began each of the last three courses, six (16%) had been from minority ethnic groups but none as a solo group member. We were told that diversity issues were addressed within the group and inappropriate language and behaviour challenged. An Open Day to build staff awareness of the Drug Treatment course and improve links across the Establishment was planned.

2.161 B Wing was identified as the Voluntary Drug Testing (VDT) Unit. Prisoners who attended the Inside Out Drug Treatment Programme were also housed there. CARATs staff assessed all prisoners for suitability for the Unit unless the Medical Officer fast tracked them. One prisoner in our survey commented about access to the Unit “You have to wait about 4 months to go on the drug free wing. Help in this place is bad, officers don’t want to help you all they want is to bang you up and go home at night”. All staff working on B Wing should be specifically selected, trained and committed to the ethos of such a unit. This was essential if pro-social modelling by staff in the Inside Out and CARATs interventions was to be maintained. This was not currently the case, although efforts were being made to change the B Wing culture. Prisoners did not necessarily know the identity of their Personal Officer. Entries in the Wing files reflected the poor level of engagement. The VTU managers were aware of this and had requested staff to make a “meaningful entry weekly”. B Wing should have been a model within Dartmoor for good staff-prisoner relationships.

2.162 The same staff carried out both Mandatory and Voluntary Drug Testing. The Voluntary Drug Testing took place in the prisoner’s cell from a trolley. We were told the VDT was too predictable, with no weekend or evening testing taking place. There was a significant number of “failure to provide” responses, which needed analysing for patterns. At the time of our visit, there had not been any testing for ten days and none at all in the month of April. It was clear that the VDT was not functioning effectively either as a strategy or to underpin treatment interventions. F and G Wings were due to begin a Voluntary Testing Programme but the current VDT programme should be consolidated before expansion is contemplated.

2.163 The relationship between Voluntary Drug Testing and Mandatory Drug Testing (MDT) should be clarified to ensure that the integrity and credibility of the Voluntary Testing Programme are maintained.

2.164 Thirteen staff were in date with their MDT training. The random testing target was met. However, no weekend testing had taken place since January 2001 except for one Saturday morning session. Problems with getting staff detailed to the MDT task undermined MDT being used effectively as part of the supply reduction strategy. Security referrals were often out of time by the time they were processed. In August this applied to 36 (60%) of the 60 half-day sessions. During September, up to the date of the inspection, there had been no testing on 27 (69%) of the 39 allotted half-days. Both MDT and VDT were viewed as flexible tasks and high on staff’s ‘drop-off’ list. The routine reassignment of staff away from MDT duties should stop, since this has an adverse effect on both staff morale and the Drug Strategy itself.

2.165 Any meaningful use of the Frequent Testing Programme (FTP) for those testing positive for opiates was undermined. One prisoner had arrived from another establishment on an FTP and had waited five months after arrival at Dartmoor to have a first FTP test. He had accumulated 364 additional days through adjudications for positive Mandatory Drug Tests in different prisons and further additional days awarded at Dartmoor. This was a national problem, with more and more prisoners accumulating the maximum 42 awarded days without it affecting their behaviour. It was apparent

that the Additional Days Awarded policy was not acting as a deterrent. Such punishment, which is future oriented, may have limited impact for some prisoners. A more creative approach to adjudications was obviously needed.

2.166 Of the five bullying incidents reported through our survey, three were drug related. Two of these were about either obtaining or giving away prescribed medication. On the third incident, the prisoner commented that he had been bullied for needles.

2.167 If it is to meet the challenge of providing an effective service to substance users in Dartmoor, the Drug Strategy Team should be supported by senior managers throughout the Prison Service. It needs assistance in overcoming the prevailing Dartmoor culture of non-engagement with prisoners, as well as in determining the needs of their particular prisoner group and getting the resources to meet those needs. As one Officer said to us, “It’s an uphill struggle, as the majority of staff don’t really like us helping prisoners, but we’re winning.”

Maintaining Contact with Family and Friends 2.168 A Visitor’s Centre or alternative accommodation should be provided. (3.53) Not achieved. There was no Visitors Centre. The Establishment offered a bleak, unheated waiting room instead. Paragraph 3.53 in the previous report highlighted the problems with the visitors’ waiting room. It has been improved somewhat by the installation of two, cell-type lavatories but it would be virtually impossible for persons with disabilities or limited mobility to enter these. During our inspection, over three days, there was no toilet paper available in one of the toilets throughout one day. On another day, the lavatories were out of use.

2.169 We repeat our earlier recommendation, that a Visitor’s Centre or alternative accommodation should be provided, with renewed emphasis, particularly given the remote location of the Prison. We also encourage the Establishment to make more positive use of this building by providing helpful information for visitors, and vending machines.

2.170 We were aware of the limits of reconstruction possible in what is, in fact, a listed building. Nonetheless, we believe that it would be a simple matter immediately to introduce improvements in the décor of this room and to make refreshments available.

2.171 The range of information available in the room should also be improved. It contained no information pertinent to the needs of visitors or prisoners. There was no literature about the Assisted Prison Visits Unit or other services. The programmes and regimes available within the Establishment were not advertised. There was no information about the searching procedure, especially in relation to children, and no details of what could be brought to a visit. There was no named individual advertised to whom visitors could express concern or of whom they could ask questions.

2.172 Given the considerable distances that some visitors travelled, this waiting room starkly demonstrated the lack of recognition of visitors’ needs and of their importance to the prisoners themselves.

Additional information: Contact with Family and Friends 2.173 Visiting times had changed since our last inspection. Domestic visits took place between 2.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. from Monday to Friday each week and between 10.00—12.00 a.m. and 2.00—4.00p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays. We were told that one visiting order could be used to cover both a morning and an afternoon visit during the weekend.

2.174 Searching of visitors took place just inside the entrance. All staff and visitors, incoming and outgoing, moved through this area. We recommend that the searching procedures be carried out in a designated area away from the general pedestrian flow through the gate area. This would be less intrusive and more respectful for both visitors and searching staff.

2.175 Broadcasts over the Tannoy system that was used to call visitors to the main entrance were not clear. We were told that, when this system was not in operation, staff simply shouted from the main gate. We witnessed the Tannoy problem for

ourselves. One inspector incurred the disapproval of an officer for distracting waiting visitors by talking to them during an announcement, causing them to miss it. In fact, neither the visitors nor the Inspector could make sense of the announcement.

2.176 In contrast to the waiting room, the Visits Hall within the prison was clean, bright and welcoming. A nappy changing room was available in the Visits Hall, with a plentiful supply of disposable nappies. Babies’ feeding bottles could be heated in the Hall. Informative notices were on the notice boards but only in English. The informative notices within the waiting room should be reproduced in a range of appropriate languages.

2.177 A crèche was available and staffed by local voluntary workers. They would telephone the Establishment in advance to find out if children were booked in to visit. A wide range of toys and games was available and a monthly children’s drawing competition was a popular and innovative feature. Examples of that month’s competition were on display.

2.178 Refreshments were available from dispensing machines, as noted in paragraph 3.57 in the 1997 report. The complaints about the refreshments reported at that time still abounded, although the dispensers were well stocked during our inspection. We recommended in 1997 that the provision of refreshments in visits be reviewed, and we repeat this.

2.179 Given that many visitors travelled great distances, we recommend that opportunities for longer visiting be considered, perhaps in conjunction with changes to the Incentives and Privilege Scheme. We noted that such opportunity might be limited by the amount of seating currently available. The last report suggested that the unused kitchen area should usefully be converted to provide additional seating, and we repeat this proposal.

2.180 We did not see either of the two closed visits cubicles in use during our inspection. We observed prisoners being searched after a visit; this was carried out in a professional and sensitive manner.

2.181 Individuals subject to PSO4400 regulations5 were seated alongside other prisoners in the Visiting Hall. Staff were aware of their status.

2.182 Staff seemed unsure about the implementation of policy on children having physical contact with their fathers. We recommend that the policy on children and fathers being in physical contact be clarified, made known to all staff and prisoners, and acted upon in accordance with national policy.

2.183 Visitors informed us that they were treated with courtesy and were well received by staff in the search area, and the Visits Hall. We saw staff assisting visitors, and the atmosphere in the Visits Hall was cordial and relaxed.

Grievance Procedures 2.184 The initial handling of grievance procedures should be reviewed. (2.33) Not achieved.

2.185 The lack of a Personal Officer scheme meant that the Senior Officers were dealing with some issues that were inappropriate for them; this should be reviewed. (2.32) Not achieved.

2.186 At the time of our full Inspection in November 1997, the Personal Officer scheme existed in name only. We found this still the case. A meaningful Personal Officer scheme should be in place, with officers whom prisoners know, rather than simply having the name of an allocated officer placed on the prisoner’s door. Additional Information: Grievance Procedures

2.187 We believe that easy access to grievance procedures is important in every prison. It is particularly important at Dartmoor, which is inaccessible for many friends

5 These seek to protect children visiting prisoners who have offended against children or young persons 57

and families of prisoners and where there is a perception that prisoners and staff are isolated from the outside world.

2.188 At the time of our inspection, many residential officers were being moved from wing to wing or to other duties. This meant that many officers did not know the prisoners on their landing. This in turn meant that there was often no consistency or continuity when initially handling grievance procedures or even simple requests for advice. Had there been, more formal processes might have been unnecessary.

2.189 We found that prisoners knew how to exercise their right of access to Applications and Requests and Complaints. However, we also found that this information was gleaned from other prisoners or from experience at other prisons. There were clear notices on the board in C (Induction) Wing but they were several pages long. Prisoners told us that these notices were very difficult to follow and understand for those who could not read well. We recommend that a simple, and easy to read, summary of Applications and Requests and Complaints procedures be put into every Induction Pack. More emphasis and explanation of the complaints processes should be given during the Induction programme.

2.190 There was no information on Requests and Complaints, and other grievance procedures, for those for whom English is a second or other language. This should be easily available, together with appropriate provision for those with literacy problems.

2.191 We found in our last Inspection that prisoners were still under pressure to put the reason for requesting a Request and Complaint form. This was illustrated in this inspection by the fact that many of the Request and Complaint forms had been issued, and already recorded, with a subject matter before the actual complaint or request had been made. While a balance needs to be maintained between handling as many matters as possible at wing level, we believe that prisoners should not automatically be required to state the reason that they are asking for a Request and Complaint form.

2.192 We heard that many prisoners were anxious about making Applications, Requests and Complaints. They did not feel safe from recrimination and quoted instances where they believed they had been victimised as a result of particular Request and Complaint forms. It seemed to us that there was a perception among prisoners that too often they were transferred to another prison as soon as they had put in a Request and Complaint form.

2.193 We heard from too many prisoners that completed Request and Complaint forms were torn up in front of them. Both prisoners and officers told us that this had often happened when the complaint had been about an alleged verbal or physical assault.

2.194 We did not find that Requests and Complaints were handled with discretion within the prison. Many prisoners told us that they were verbally abused at wing level after they had put in a Request and Complaint. Too often, the very person about whom the complaint had been made was the person asked to answer or investigate the

complaint. All complaints should be fully investigated and in a discreet manner. This should be done by appropriately appointed staff, and should not include any person named in that complaint.

2.195 The Request and Complaint records and copies of complaints were held in a place to which officers had easy access. They could look up details of complaints made, and we observed a case where they did. Copies of Request and Complaint forms should be held in a locked cabinet, in a secure place, with the key held by an accountable first line manager. We felt this was particularly important in a prison where there had been many allegations made against staff.

2.196 The right to Confidential Access was acknowledged in some cases, but if a Governor or other person decided that a Request and Complaint was not suitable for confidential access, the Request and Complaint simply went back into open circulation. This was a particular point of contention for prisoners, who told us that they felt betrayed by the confidential access system. Confidential Access should mean exactly what it says.

2.197 The situation was different with the Area Manager. We found that Confidential Access to the Area Manager meant exactly that. Great care was taken to ensure that the reply as well as the initial Confidential Access letter remained in sealed envelopes with no indication of content.

2.198 Replies within the Establishment were usually fast and courteous. By contrast, replies from outside the prison were not speedy. As in many other establishments, we found that too many Requests and Complaints were awaiting action from outside. Many of these had been issued more than two months previously. One Request and Complaint was 21 months beyond the 6 weeks allowed for reply and another was 18 months old. The backlog of external responses to Requests and Complaints should be investigated and the system modified to improve service to prisoners.

2.199 The Board of Visitors was available for applications, but we heard from prisoners that staff always asked them about the details of their requests to see the

Board. Prisoners did not believe that their request always got through. Consideration should be given to placing a locked Board of Visitors Applications Box on every wing, the key being available only to Board of Visitors members.

2.200 Lifer Management Unit, Headquarters and other departments outside the Establishment continued to take longer than the agreed timescales for processes. We do not believe that these delays demonstrate respect for prisoners. They have a right and a need to have unhampered access to grievance and other procedures.

2.201 There was excellent documentation by the Request and Complaint Clerk of all Requests and Complaints. This made it easy to monitor progress. Replies from people within the Establishment were clear, typewritten and easy to read. The replies also gave clear details about how to contact the Ombudsman if the prisoners wanted to take the matter further.

2.202 We believe that the transparency, fairness and efficiency of an establishment’s Applications, Requests and Complaints procedures are a clear indication of its overall health. We did not believe that every effort was made by staff to help prisoners to exercise their rights in respect of the Applications or Requests and Complaints systems.

HEALTH CARE 2.203 The Health Care Services at Dartmoor at the time of our inspection were Type 36. They provided medical cover from 8.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. and then an on-call service until the following morning, with 24-hour nursing cover and 11 in-patient beds.

2.204 During the week of our inspection, discussions were taking place between the clinical director of the Devon Prisons Medical Cluster and the Prison Service Area Manager. (The Cluster comprises Dartmoor, Exeter and Channings Wood prisons.) The intent was to downgrade the service to Type 2, now that the Prison had become a

6 Health Care Centres are of four types: Type 1 provides daytime cover, generally by part-time staff; Type 2 provides daytime cover, generally by full-time staff; Type 3 provides in-patient facilities, with 24-hour nurse cover; and Type 4 is as Type 3 but also serves as a national or regional assessment centre. 61

Category C establishment. There was a view that the in-patient beds were no longer required. This seemed to be based on the assumption that this category of prisoner did not require 24-hour care. In addition, there was a perception among Health Care staff that the Cluster arrangement was biased in favour of Exeter prison. According to this, the impending discussions about the closure of the inpatient unit were to enable the transfer of the money saved to Exeter prison.

2.205 During our inspection a decision was made to maintain a Type 3 healthcare centre.

Standards Used in Assessing the Health Care Service 2.206 During our inspections of health care in prisons, we make assessments of the scope and quality of the care provided. We do so against the standards set by the Prison Service in The Prison Rules, Standing Order 13 and the nine Health Care Standards (HCS). The HCS’s stated objective is: “To give prisoners access to the same quality and range of health care services as the general public receives from the National Health Service”. The standards are “first and foremost addressed to governing governors, who have overall responsibility for the delivery of health care services to prisoners and for the implementation of the Standards”. The HCS were agreed by the Prisons’ Board in 1994 and should have been implemented in all prisons by mid-1997. For areas not covered by the HCS, we make assessments against the standards that obtain in the National Health Service (NHS).

Staffing

Medical 2.207 The medical staff consisted of a full-time Medical Officer, certified in general practice, who spent regular afternoons in a local general practice to keep up to date. A general practitioner (GP) from the same practice attended the prison every afternoon, providing primary care every day. All primary care was delivered by doctors qualified in general practice and who spent time in NHS practice. The local GP practice and the Medical Officer provided out of hours cover on a rota.

Nursing 2.208 Health Care Services were staffed by a combination of Nurses and Health Care Officers. Some of the Health Care Officers had nursing qualifications. In total, there were 15 members of staff, 1 of whom was on detached duty at HMP Exeter. The Health Care Manager was a Health Care Principal Officer. He managed two acting Senior Officers and two Prison Officers, all trained as Health Care Officers. The Principal Officer had been recently promoted from the discipline staff. In addition, there were five Registered Mental Nurses and four Registered General Nurses. Female nurses wore a dark blue tunic displaying their names, which distinguished them from officers. Male nurses did not wear any nursing uniform, making it difficult to differentiate them from Health Care Officers. They should wear a nursing uniform, which would make identification easier and which would be less confusing for patients.

2.209 We were pleased to hear that there were few problems with nurse recruitment. We were also told that the nursing staffing budget was held at the Cluster level of management. The Cluster clinical director was the only person who could sanction cover by agency nurses. The nursing staffing budget should be devolved to the Health Care Manager.

2.210 The uncertainty of the future role of health care had led to two nurses being employed on short-term contracts. Now the decision has been made about the future role of the Health Care Services, a patient and nursing needs analysis should be completed to ensure there are sufficient nurses to develop nursing-led services.

2.211 All the nurses were the same grade; none received clinical supervision. We were pleased to hear that a Community Psychiatric Nurse from the local trust was visiting some prisoners who had been subjected to institutional abuse as children. These men were witnesses in national proceedings and required supporting. In addition to seeing patients, he was developing levels of supervision for the Registered Mental Nurses. This was good practice and should be formalised.

2.212 The Prison Health Task Force should consider how the Cluster arrangements could provide formal clinical supervision for other nurses as soon as possible.

Secretarial and administration 2.213 The radiographer worked part time in that duty and provided clerical support to the Health Care Department for the rest of the week. Building work was being completed to move the administrator and all the records from the general office, which had become a collecting point for all the staff and visitors. This made for a very noisy environment. On completion of building work, the Health Care Department general office should only be used for clinical discussions and shift handovers.

2.214 Storage space for old medical records was inadequate and alternative suitable secure facilities should be identified.

Staff training and continued professional education 2.215 All qualified nurses have a responsibility to keep a professional portfolio of their attendance at education and training events. They must also complete an agreed number of days to maintain their registration with the UKCC7.

2.216 When new nursing staff commenced working, they shadowed another member of staff for two weeks rather than undertaking a structured induction programme. The nurses had individual training plans but there was very little finance for training other than those funds held locally. These did not appear to be adequate for the purpose.

2.217 The Devon Cluster management team should agree a training budget for each prison. It should permit the development of the skills and competencies required to deliver a high quality health care service, one based on the priority areas identified in the health needs assessment.

Management of Health Care

7 United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting 64

2.218 The Medical Officer, as head of health care, met regularly with the Governor and contributed to the prison’s strategic and business plans. The newly appointed Health Care Manager had been recruited from the discipline staff and was a qualified paramedic. He did not have complete management and budgetary responsibility; we were told that this was held by the Cluster management team.

2.219 A work programme should be devised for the Health Care Manager which includes the development of a patient-centred regime, a staff recruitment and retention programme and a training policy to underpin future service developments.

Needs Assessment and Commissioning of Health Care 2.220 Prison governors and health authorities are now required to work together to assess the need for health care and health promotion among prisoners. They should also ensure that the prison is included in the health authority’s Health Improvement Programme. Senior staff had management responsibility and support for all three prisons in the Cluster. They were members of a joint working group with all the Peninsula Health Authorities to develop part of the Health Improvement Programme. Following site meetings and holding focus groups, three areas of work identified were health promotion, primary care and mental health.

Health Care Centre 2.221 The HCC had 11 in-patient beds and a range of offices, and treatment and consultation rooms. The first impression was of its being overwhelmed by the lift and cage arrangement in the main thoroughfare. A large group room was available for group work and patient association activities. This room was sometimes booked for other purposes, such as Listener group meetings. This happened while we were inspecting and we noted that this resulted in the in-patients being locked up. It is unacceptable to allocate other functions to day facilities for in-patients. Alternative venues should be identified for group meetings not involving patients.

Services to Prisoners

2.222 Morning sick parades were rotated on the Wings each day except Wednesday, wasting much nursing and medical time. Patients with an emergency were seen also in the afternoon, at the GP session in the Health Care Centre. Treatments were delivered on the Wings twice daily, with an average of 70 treatments per session. The prisoner day did not allow for much time per patient in these sessions. There was no structured detoxification programme. We were told that health care staff knew that drugs were on the wings, as it coincided with an increase in requests for Gaviscon, a liquid antacid, and paracetamol.

2.223 The Health Care Manager expected that, with the introduction of centralised treatments, nursing time would be freed. Nurses would then be able to concentrate on specific areas, such as triage, team nursing of in-patients and nurse-led health promotion clinic. These would cover such subjects as diabetes, asthma and epilepsy.

2.224 While in the Health Care Centre, patients could take part in few activities other than association. They were locked in their rooms for long periods, being allowed out of them for four hours a day on four days each week. We were told that between 90% and 95% of all admissions were related to mental health distress. The current arrangements did little for these patients’ wellbeing. A suitable regime for patients should be developed that takes account of therapeutic interventions.

2.225 Patients did not have individual care plans and the quality of documentation was poor.

2.226 The Health Care Manager should conduct an internal analysis of patient needs to identify the appropriate nursing structure to deliver primary care, out- patient support and team nursing of in-patients.

2.227 In-patients should each have a Care Plan reflecting their health needs and the intervention being used.

Mental Health Services

2.228 It has been well documented that most convicted male prisoners have diagnosed mental disorders and may well require specialist attention from time to time. The geographically isolated location of the prison made family contact and visits difficult to maintain, which for some prisoners led to mental distress. The recently completed Prison Health Needs Assessment8 estimated that 80 people might meet the criteria for secondary care.

2.229 There were no regular Mental Health Clinics and a visiting psychiatrist attended only fortnightly. Despite there being five Registered Mental Nurses on the nursing establishment, it was not possible to initiate any nurse-led clinics or more than a little outreach work on the Wings. We were pleased to learn that a nurse attended the Segregation Unit daily but, from our observation, it was difficult to know what benefit there was other than to give medication. The nurse dealing with the administration of medication was accompanied by two officers, which inhibited any therapeutic intervention. At one point, we saw a mentally ill man who possibly required medication and therapy being escorted to the Segregation Unit. Although we accept that mentally ill patients can become violent, it was unclear why this man was not moved to the In-patient Unit.

2.230 The Cluster clinical director should hold discussions with local NHS providers, with a view to providing a comprehensive mental health service.

2.231 The mental health needs of prisoners should be assessed, with a view to establishing a mental health team.

Referrals to the National Health Service 2.232 Almost all referrals were made to Plymouth and we were pleased to hear that very few out-patient appointments were cancelled because of escort staff problems. This is to be commended. A variety of NHS consultants visited on request, which kept waiting times low.

8 Towards a Health Improvement Programme for the Devon Prisons, The Devon Prisons Project, Department of Public Health, North & East Devon Health Authority, 1999 67

PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY

Work 2.233 Further support and resources should be found to provide the required number of purposeful activity spaces. (3.08) Not achieved.

2.234 In 1997, we reported a shortfall of 148 employment spaces, against a population of 652. At that time, three trade training courses had been forced to close and the education provision had been halved. Furthermore, there had been insufficient prisoners of the appropriate security category to be able to work on the Prison Farm.

2.235 We were told on arrival this time that there continued to be a shortfall. Therefore, we were surprised to discover that the weekly regime monitoring forms showed only 40 to 50 prisoners ‘unoccupied’ each week.

2.236 We decided to carry out a standstill roll check to discover where prisoners were. The mid-morning check revealed that 313 out of 565 prisoners were on the wings, most of whom would not have been involved in purposeful activity. On A Wing alone, there were 72 prisoners on the wing, out of a roll of 120. Although these figures came as a surprise to some managers, wing staff told us that it was not unusual.

2.237 Clearly the situation had deteriorated drastically since 1997 but managerial information was, to some extent, hiding the real picture. Having the regime monitoring forms indicate that there was no major problem was far from helpful in trying to attract additional workplaces. Some concern was expressed to us about the quality and relevance of prisoner employment. These concerns are of particular importance given the responsibilities of a training prison.

2.238 We repeat the recommendation that additional purposeful activity spaces be provided, including opportunities for prisoners to obtain qualifications. The

weekly regime monitoring forms should show the true figures of prisoners unoccupied.

Education 2.239 The Education contract had changed since the previous inspection. Strode College was providing the service and had done so for the previous two years or so.

2.240 In recognition of this, the 10 recommendations made in 1997 were not inspected. Instead, we spoke with the Education Co-ordinator, who told us the following.

2.241 There had been a reduction in the education budget of £7,000 in the previous year, although he believed that the current year’s budget had been ring-fenced at £294,000. It was proposed that the move to a Category C regime would increase the length of the working day for the education contractor, at an estimated cost of £80,000. It was not clear whether or not this funding would be provided.

2.242 Staffing levels had fallen, from three full-time staff and 15 part-time teachers in 1997 to two full-time staff and 10 part-time teachers currently in post.

2.243 We were also informed that no regime meetings were held to enable representatives from contributing departments to discuss pertinent matters.

2.244 We were informed by a cross-section of staff that prisoners who were engaged only in part-time education, of perhaps only one or two sessions per week, would not be entered as “unoccupied” in the regime monitoring returns. This gave a misleading picture, particularly given the overall lack of sufficient purposeful activity for prisoners, and did not support any bid for improved resources. Reliable regime monitoring returns should be submitted.

2.245 On a more positive note, we learned that there had been some improvement in classroom accommodation. The induction course for prisoners was held weekly and included an assessment test and individual interviews. 69

2.246 According to the results of the assessment tests, the Education Department estimated that 65% of the prison population required basic education. ‘Fast track’ classes were provided for those who were assessed at being at Level One or above, to try to achieve the key performance targets of 120 in literacy and 100 in numeracy. It was not clear how these targets were set or whether they were based on the individual needs of prisoners in Dartmoor.

2.247 We were disappointed to discover, yet again, that there was no evening education programme available for prisoners in what is, after all, a training prison.

Physical Education 2.248 A new gymnasium should be built. (9.02) Not achieved.

2.249 The circumstances and conditions described in the Physical Education report written in 1997 remained virtually unaltered. The facilities were barely adequate: the changing and shower areas were too restricted and in need of refurbishment and the main gymnasium roof leaked in numerous places, so much so that it could not be used in inclement weather.

2.250 We recommended last time and repeat that the gymnasium building should be replaced. We were told that the leaking roof had first been reported in 1984 but that little or nothing had been done in the intervening years to rectify the situation.

2.251 It was apparent that the Physical Education department had been rejuvenated in the recent past, particularly with the appointment of the new Manager, but there was a danger that the enthusiasm would wane if decent facilities were not provided.

GOOD ORDER

Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme

2.252 Wing Managers should ensure that records of prisoners on basic level are properly completed and that there is written justification for continuing basic level. (1.09) Partly achieved. We found inconsistencies between different areas of the prison wings and sometimes between individual officers on the same wing.

2.253 The incentives and earned privileges scheme should be reviewed and correct documentation maintained at wing level. (1.22) Not achieved.

2.254 The Wing Manager for A, B, C, and D Wings had put forward an excellent paper, in September 1999, following consultation with prisoners and staff. This had recommended many sensible ways of differentiating between the three levels of regime. It was disappointing to note that this paper appeared not to have been acknowledged by the senior management team and that none of the excellent initiatives been adopted.

Additional information: IEPS 2.255 When determining the effectiveness and legitimacy of Incentives and Earned Privileges, we assess whether they encourage responsible behaviour in prisoners or are instead used primarily as punishments. We believe that at Dartmoor, Incentives and Earned Privileges were primarily used as punishment. We found no clear difference between the Enhanced and Standard status, whereas the Basic regime was very different from Standard regime.

2.256 At the time of our Inspection, the breakdown of regimes on each Wing was as follows: - A Wing: 3 prisoners on Basic, 74 on Standard and 22 on Enhanced. - B Wing: no prisoners on Basic, 36 on Standard and on 31 on Enhanced. - C Wing: no prisoners on Basic, 21 on Standard and 8 on Enhanced. - D Wing: no prisoners on Basic, 85 on Standard and 9 on Enhanced. - E Wing: 1 prisoner on Basic, 14 on Standard and 5 on Enhanced. On this Wing, we were told different things by different officers. According to these accounts:

- everyone was on Basic, - prisoners could retain Enhanced status, and, at the same time, - prisoners could not be on Enhanced. - F Wing: no prisoners on Basic, 30 on Standard and 7 on Enhanced. - G Wing: 1 prisoner on Basic, 69 on Standard and 33 on Enhanced.

2.257 We found evidence of good practice where prisoners were warned in writing before finally being put on Basic level. In some cases, however, there was evidence that prisoners were threatened with Basic level status and put on this immediately without written warning.

2.258 We talked to officers who told us how difficult they found it to encourage good behaviour and responsibility with so little to differentiate between Enhanced and Standard levels of the scheme. We talked to prisoners who told us that they could think of no real incentive to go on to Enhanced level. They consistently said that the Privileged Visiting Orders conferred no real advantage, since visiting this remote location was so difficult for their families anyway. The granting of extra telephone calls was also not seen as an advantage, as so many of the telephones were in noisy locations and lacked privacy, which inhibited valuable conversation.

2.259 We repeat our recommendation that the Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme should be reviewed and correct documentation maintained at Wing level.

Resettlement 2.260 A number of separate elements from the last report fall under this generic heading and we report accordingly.

2.261 The Throughcare Policy Group should meet monthly. (2.09) Achieved. Although this did not seem to have achieved the intended objective. The group did not appear to be creating a co-ordinated and integrated system across the Establishment. It was not driving policy and appeared from minutes to be a group that was taking more notes than initiatives.

2.262 A Personal Officer Scheme should be introduced to support the work of throughcare. (2.26) Not achieved.

2.263 Despite our call in 1997 for a Personal Officer scheme to support Sentence Planning (9.25), there was still no effective scheme in place across the whole Establishment. Neither was there any widespread grasp of the importance of this role in a prison in which there were many visible signs of staff antipathy towards prisoners. A great deal of effort was put into attempts to convince us of the dangerousness of Dartmoor prisoners generally and therefore of the need to understand “the way we do it here”. “It’s different when you have to deal with other people’s shit”, said an officer in defence of his position. This was energy that we believe could have been put to more productive use. As a starting point, we again recommend that a Personal Officer scheme be introduced.

2.264 Further training for Induction Officers should be undertaken as soon as practicable. (2.27) Partly achieved.

2.265 Some Induction Officers had been given additional training, but again the overall objective was not being reached. We have had to make important recommendations about the content and delivery of the Induction Programme as result of this follow-up inspection (see section on Induction)

2.266 Responsibility for lifer sentence planning should be given to the Director of Regime Delivery. (2.30) Achieved.

2.267 As a result of the previous inspection, there was a call for Sentence Planning to be made the responsibility of the then Director of Regime Delivery. Responsibilities and titles had been overtaken by events at the time of this visit. As a result of a recent management restructuring, there was an identified senior manager with responsibility

for Life Sentence Plans, but the results of the overall Sentence Planning process in Dartmoor left much scope for improvement. We comment on this below.

Additional information: Resettlement 2.268 There was evidence of a serious lack of internal and external co-ordination. We had discussions with a number of significant personnel in this important area. We were, though, unable to engage with the Head of Programmes and Resettlement, since he was away from the Prison for much of the inspection week. Nevertheless, we found it incongruous that this senior manager should deal with Sentence Management and Offending Behaviour Programmes and yet have no line management responsibility for the seconded Probation Department. The department was headed by a Senior Probation Officer who was accountable to the Head of Activities! This was symptomatic of the disjointed image we had of the overall approach to resettlement in Dartmoor.

2.269 We noted that, in July 2001, the Senior Probation Officer had produced a proposal for a Resettlement Department. Reading the document revealed that its implementation would demand a level of dynamic and clear leadership in this field that was not immediately obvious to us. We therefore recommend that an appraisal of management needs and competencies in the Probation Department be carried out, as a corollary to the proposals for a more co-ordinated Resettlement Unit. This should be done in conjunction with the Devon Area of the National Probation Service.

2.270 The Probation Contract reveals a cost of around £400,000 for seconded staff. It appeared to us that this was a costly but valuable resource – the benefits of which were not maximised. Too much Probation time was spent in dealing with ‘welfare’ issues that could have been more effectively handled by a competent Personal Officer. Best value would be obtained by: - more fully utilising the skills of Probation officers in assessing risk and dangerousness, - creating more scope for their casework and programmes knowledge to impact on the offending behaviour of prisoners, and - reducing the demands of mundane and routine applications.

2.271 We examined a cross section of randomly selected Sentence Plans. These made for disappointing reading. We found many unhelpful comments from outside supervisors. For example, on 15 January 2001 a Probation Officer wrote this in response to a request for co-operation from a seconded colleague: “I regret I am unable to attend the Sentence Planning Board in April. (The prisoner) has been known to (Town) Probation Office for some years… he has a long history of drug abuse… (The prisoner) knows that we have no facilities to help him with accommodation but when the time comes for him to apply for parole, all these issues will need to be looked at closely”

2.272 Eight months later, the same officer wrote: “Sorry I am not able to attend the Board in September. (The Prisoner) is in the process of applying for parole… no final decisions have been made about his accommodation”.

2.273 Staff in the prison found this level of response frustrating and the effect on prisoners was disheartening, to say the least. The file revealed that the prisoner in question had made commendable progress with help from drug workers in Dartmoor and support from mental health specialists. There was no visible linkage to ensure continuity of support after custody.

2.274 Another case paper revealed this in response to a request for information from the home Probation Area: “The Probation officer involved in this case is currently on sick leave. We have no further information at this point. She last saw him in October 2000”. This was unsigned, and dated August 2001.

2.275 The same prisoner had this report from his so-called Personal Officer: “I don’t know him – only as an infrequent landing officer”

2.276 There were numerous examples of Sentence Planning targets being vague and without time boundaries. There was an unmistakable impression amongst many prisoners that the Sentence Planning process was a paper exercise that had little real bearing on their present or their future existence. There were notable exceptions but

our conversations with prisoners generally reinforced the impression that some Probation Areas find difficulty in meeting the reasonable expectations of men in this prison.

2.277 Discussion with the Clerk revealed that our findings were not unusual. We found no examples of excellence in the fifteen files examined. There is a shared responsibility to be met in this vital field of throughcare and resettlement. The disappointing standards that we found must be tackled by all the parties involved – both inside the prison and elsewhere. To this end, we recommend that there should be a thematic examination of Sentence Planning case files, as part of a qualitative reappraisal of the Resettlement function of the Prison.

2.278 In contrast to the rather dismal reading above, we were pleased to attend a Life Sentence Review Board that was well attended by internal departments. It included a home area Probation Officer who was clearly in touch with events and well regarded by the prisoner and by prison staff. This Board was well conducted and some difficult areas were dealt with sensitively. We felt the prisoner had a fair and proper opportunity to discuss matters with the Board and that he had received support from staff in preparing for the meeting. The prisoner confirmed his satisfaction with the outcome when we saw him privately later in the week.

SERVICES

Prison Shop 2.279 We believe that items available through the prison shop should cater for the reasonable needs of all prisoners, including ethnic minorities and foreign nationals. We found no evidence of ethnic-specific products; prisoners were not aware of any way in which they could order them. Products that meet prisoners’ ethnic needs should be easily available in the Prison Shop.

2.280 We could find no evidence of hobbies materials being available. These should be available.

2.281 We were repeatedly told by prisoners that prices at Dartmoor were far higher, for most products, than at other prisons. We found that this was the case. The price list did not identify quantities in most cases and so prisoners did not know what sizes and quantities they were ordering. We recommend that prices and quantities be clearly stated on Prison Shop lists.

2.282 We continue to be concerned by the continuous and general rise in prices in the prison shop, at a time when prisoner’s wages in Dartmoor have not increased. The emerging gap between increased prices in prison shops and static prison wages should be reviewed.

2.283 There was no evidence of fresh fruit being available and prisoners told us that they did not know of any way to order it. Prisoners should be able to order fresh fruit and told clearly how to do so.

CHAPTER THREE

RECOMMENDATIONS AND EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Director General 3.01 The Prison Service should ensure that Dartmoor Prison fulfils a regional rather than national function within the Category C estate. (1.08)

3.02 Integral sanitation on C Wing should be provided as a matter of urgency. (2.14)

3.03 Sex offenders should not be sent to Dartmoor following the closure of the SOTP in that prison and that they be allocated to the appropriate treatment sites. (2.63)

3.04 The Prison Service should make renewed attempts to rationalise the allocation of prisoners in order to minimise the negative impact on family contact and resettlement processes. (2.66)

3.05 The Prison Service should re-examine its transfer and allocation policy to create a progressive and positive network of linked facilities that is responsive to and part of the Sentence Planning process. (2.69)

3.06 The Prison Health Care Task Force should consider how the Cluster arrangements could provide formal clinical supervision for other nurses as soon as possible. (2.212)

3.07 The gymnasium building should be replaced. (2.250) 78

To the Area Manager 3.08 The backlog of external responses to Requests and Complaints should be investigated and the system modified to improve service to prisoners. (2.198)

3.09 The Devon Cluster management team should agree a training budget for each prison. It should permit the development of the skills and competencies required to deliver a high quality health care service, one based on the priority areas identified in the health needs assessment. (2.217)

3.10 The Cluster clinical director should hold discussions with local NHS providers, with a view to providing a comprehensive mental health service. (2.230)

To the Governor 3.11 On first arrival at Dartmoor prisoners should be offered an automatic telephone call, free of charge, while in the Reception area. (2.04)

3.12 The use of a television, with or without video, should be considered within the Reception area. It should not be used just to entertain. The addition of some reading matter, such as a newspaper or magazine, would also offer some occupation to literate prisoners awaiting admission, helping to reduce boredom and frustration. (2.06)

3.13 Information and notices should be written in a range of relevant languages. (2.07)

3.14 A smoker's pack should be available to be given to new arrivals at the time of reception. (2.10)

3.15 Offensive articles should not be displayed within a Prison Service establishment. (2.11)

3.16 Staff training should be introduced to improve staff understanding of the needs of prisoners in respect of contact with family and friends. (2.12)

3.17 Induction Wing staff should ensure that telephone contact is offered on the first night, if a call has not already been made in reception. (2.16)

3.18 Information provided by other bodies in the prison, such as the Board of Visitors, contained an excess of detail. This should be simplified and reduced, bearing in mind its readers and their needs. (2.19)

3.19 The Induction Pack literature and contents should be thoughtfully redesigned and presented. (2.20)

3.20 The Establishment should: - review its commitment to compacts - upgrade its capacity and ability to meet the obligations listed in the compact - honour the agreed compact in its entirety. (2.21)

3.21 Induction course tutors should be advised on basic security and safety procedures. (2.22)

3.22 Those contributing to the induction process should better plan their contributions, and use simple language in the delivery and literature used. (2.23)

3.23 A Personal Officer scheme should be incorporated in the Induction Wing. (2.24)

3.24 Appropriate training in mental health awareness, child protection and adult survivor issues should be provided as part of Personal Officer support. (2.25)

3.25 The Wing daily routine should be improved to allow prisoners more time out of cell and any unavoidable change in routine should be communicated in advance to all prisoners. (2.27)

3.26 A Personal Officer scheme, supported by the necessary staff training, should be introduced to focus on the needs of prisoners. (2.28)

3.27 Staff should receive further training and support in order to develop their communication skills with prisoners and their understanding of offending behaviour. (2.31)

3.28 More telephones should be made available, they should be placed in a quieter area of the wing and some effort should be made to ensure greater equality of opportunity to use these telephones. (2.33)

3.29 Wing Committees should be set up. (2.35)

3.30 A system should be set up to monitor the Wing files and encourage more frequent comments, with balanced and objective entries. (2.42)

3.31 The Programme for Prisoners with Special Needs on B5 should be monitored via multi-disciplinary reviews conducted weekly. This Special Needs project should be evaluated, developed and presented as an example of good practice. (2.45)

3.32 Attention should be given to improving the serving of meals, through the provision of appropriate plates, dishes and trays that would enable safer transportation of meals before consumption. (2.50)

3.33 Acoustic hoods should be fitted to card telephones without further delay. (2.60)

3.34 Consideration should be given to upgrading the Braille premises and expanding the number of prisoners engaged in this valuable work. (2.70)

3.35 A set of steel mesh cages called ‘The Pens’ should no longer be used for exercise by segregated prisoners. The more appropriate exercise area used for prisoners on Landing 2 should be used for all E Wing prisoners. (2.81)

3.36 Special cells should have CCTV coverage for the whole cell and not just the smaller area that we were able to observe. (2.91)

3.37 A camcorder should be used in addition to the statically mounted CCTV cameras, to help protect officers from unfounded allegations and to further document the process. (2.92)

3.38 Consideration should be given to allocating female officers to Security and E Wing, alongside male colleagues. (2.93)

3.39 The Suicide Prevention Co-ordinator and Listener Liaison Officer should attend further training in their respective roles. (2.97)

3.40 Consideration should be given to renaming the group ‘Suicide Prevention Team’ and reviewing the policies and procedures in line with the relevant Prison Service publications. (2.99)

3.41 Case conferences should be multi-disciplinary and appropriate staff should attend. (2.101)

3.42 The Training Document for Self-Harm Management should be introduced with appropriate training and evaluated after 12 months. (2.102)

3.43 The suites [in the Health Care Centre] should be refurbished as soon as possible, to make them more conducive to the care of a distressed person and to include facilities for making hot drinks. (2.103)

3.44 The use of the caged room as a Listener suite or for any other purpose should be stopped. (2.105)

3.45 Health care staff should check first aid kits regularly and record when they have done so. (2.106)

3.46 A full and identified first aid kit should be available in the Health Care Centre. (2.107)

3.47 The availability of Listeners at night should be discussed at the Suicide Prevention Team Management meeting. (2.110)

3.48 Consideration should be given to finding another venue for Samaritan meetings that does not disrupt the life of in-patients. (2.111)

3.49 The use and validity of the Listener boxes should be evaluated and their further use discussed with the Samaritans, Listeners and the Listener Liaison Officer. (2.113)

3.50 As a matter of urgency, the Race Relations Liaison Officer and his team should be allocated a set time to meet minority ethnic prisoners and consult them on ways of taking things forward. (2.116)

3.51 A Race Relations Sub-committee with appropriate terms of reference should be developed, to which all minority ethnic prisoners have open access. (2.117)

3.52 Consideration should be given to asking all prisoners to complete a brief questionnaire about diversity issues on exit from Dartmoor. The planned questionnaire to staff should be implemented. (2.124)

3.53 Photographs of named Race Relations Liaison Team members should be displayed. (2.126)

3.54 The Race Relations paperwork should be revised immediately and staff actively encouraged to educate and challenge each other. (2.127)

3.55 A Race Relations session should be included in the Induction Course immediately. (2.128)

3.56 An increase in race relations training should be introduced, in order to enable a change in the culture of Dartmoor. (2.129)

3.57 The RRLO and his Team should check the Wing Files to ensure proper recording and continuing staff awareness. (2.132)

3.58 The Observation Books on the Wings should be monitored at least weekly by the RRLO. (2.133)

3.59 Interventions such as the Counselling, Assessment, Referral, Advice and Throughcare (CARAT) service, Offending Behaviour programmes and voluntary testing should contribute their monitoring information to the RRLO in order to ensure the access to and suitability of these to all prisoners. (2.134)

3.60 The RRLO should examine F2052 Self Harm documentation, Reports on Injury to Inmates and documents involved in Anti-Bullying alerts or reports. Where identified that bullying is racially biased, interventions with the 'bully' must include race awareness work. (2.135)

3.61 The RRMT should analyse all monitoring information to discern patterns, so that areas for training and change may be identified. (2.136)

3.62 In order for the promotion of good race relations to be owned by the whole Establishment, each area should be responsible for providing its own statistics and interrogating them. (2.137)

3.63 Clear policies and procedures for Foreign Nationals should be available to prisoners and staff. (2.139)

3.64 The use of Language Line should be properly logged and monitored to determine patterns and to feed into continuing assessment of prisoners' needs. (2.140)

3.65 Issues relating to Foreign Nationals should be a standing item on the RRMT meeting. (2.141)

3.66 The needs of Foreign Nationals should be assessed and attempts made to meet those needs. This should be done by co-ordinating existing resources, establishing links with outside agencies and 'networking' with other establishments to share good practice. (2.142)

3.67 A needs analysis should be carried out to ensure that the revised strategy has a clear direction, in order to meet the needs of the Category C prisoners being transferred to Dartmoor. (2.147)

3.68 The Induction session format should be reviewed. (2.150)

3.69 Nominated staff should be trained in all elements of CARATs work, and should be supervised and appraised in carrying it out. (2.152)

3.70 All staff training should include equal opportunities and anti-discriminatory practice. (2.153)

3.71 The role of officers in relation to CARATs and Voluntary Testing and acupuncture should be reviewed, to ensure that a safe and respectful service is offered to prisoners. (2.153)

3.72 All staff working on B Wing should be specifically selected, trained and committed to the ethos of such a unit. (2.161)

3.73 The current VDT programme should be consolidated before expansion is contemplated. (2.162)

3.74 The routine reassignment of staff away from MDT duties should stop, since this has an adverse effect on both staff morale and the Drug Strategy itself. (2.164)

3.75 A Visitor's Centre or alternative accommodation should be provided, particularly given the remote location of the prison. The establishment should also make more positive use of this building by providing helpful information for visitors, and vending machines. (2.169)

3.76 Searching procedures should be carried out in a designated area away from the general pedestrian flow through the gate area. (2.174)

3.77 The informative notices within the waiting room should be reproduced in a range of appropriate languages. (2.176)

3.78 The provision of refreshments in visits should be reviewed. (2.178)

3.79 Opportunities for longer visiting should be considered, perhaps in conjunction with changes to the Incentives and Earned Privilege Scheme. (2.179) 3.80 The unused kitchen area should be converted to provide additional visiting arrangements. (2.179)

3.81 The policy on children and fathers being in physical contact should be clarified, made known to all staff and prisoners, and acted upon in accordance with national policy. (2.182)

3.82 A meaningful Personal Officer scheme should be in place, with officers whom prisoners know, rather than simply having the name of an allocated officer placed on the prisoner's door. (2.186)

3.83 A simple, and easy to read, summary of Applications and Requests and Complaints procedures should be put into every Induction Pack. More emphasis and explanation of the complaints processes should be given during the Induction programme. (2.189)

3.84 There was no information on Requests and Complaints, and other grievance procedures, for those for whom English is a second or other language. This should be easily available, together with appropriate provision for those with literacy problems. (2.190)

3.85 Prisoners should not automatically be required to state the reason that they are asking for a Request and Complaint form. (2.191)

3.86 All complaints should be fully investigated and in a discreet manner. This should be done by appropriately appointed staff, and should not include any person named in that complaint. (2.194)

3.87 Copies of Request and Complaint forms should be held in a locked cabinet, in a secure place, with the key held by an accountable first line manager. (2.195)

3.88 Confidential Access should mean exactly what it says. (2.196)

3.89 Consideration should be given to placing a locked Board of Visitors Applications Box on every wing, the key being available only to Board of Visitors members. (2.199)

3.90 Male nurses should wear a nursing uniform, which would make identification easier and which would be less confusing for patients. (2.208)

3.91 The nursing staffing budget should be devolved to the Health Care Manager. (2.209)

3.92 When the decision is made about the future role of the Health Care Services, a patient and nursing needs analysis should be completed to ensure there are sufficient nurses to develop nursing-led services. (2.210)

3.93 On completion of building work, the Health Care Department general office should only be used for clinical discussions and shift handovers. (2.213)

3.94 Storage space for old medical records was inadequate and alternative suitable secure facilities should be identified. (2.214)

3.95 A work programme should be devised for the Health Care Manager which includes the development of a patient-centred regime, a staff recruitment and retention programme and a training policy to underpin future service developments. (2.219)

3.96 Alternative venues should be identified for group meetings not involving patients. (2.221)

3.97 A suitable regime for patients should be developed that takes account of therapeutic interventions. (2.224)

3.98 The Health Care Manager should conduct an internal analysis of patient needs to identify the appropriate nursing structure to deliver primary care, out-patient support and team nursing of in-patients. (2.226)

3.99 The mental health needs of prisoners should be assessed, with a view to establishing a mental health team. (2.231)

3.100 Additional purposeful activity spaces should be provided, including opportunities for prisoners to obtain qualifications. The weekly regime monitoring forms should show the true figures of prisoners unoccupied. (2.238)

3.101 Reliable regime monitoring returns should be submitted. (2.244)

3.102 The Incentives and Earned Privileges Scheme should be reviewed and correct documentation maintained at Wing level. (2.259)

3.103 An appraisal of management needs and competencies in the Probation Department should be carried out, as a corollary to the proposals for a more co- ordinated Resettlement Unit. This should be done in conjunction with the Devon Area of the National Probation Service. (2.269)

3.104 There should be a thematic examination of Sentence Planning case files, as part of a qualitative reappraisal of the Resettlement function of the Prison. (2.277)

3.105 Products that meet prisoners' ethnic needs should be easily available in the Prison Shop. (2.279)

3.106 Prices and quantities should be clearly stated on Prison Shop lists. (2.281)

3.107 The emerging gap between increased prices in prison shops and static prison wages should be reviewed. (2.282)

3.108 Prisoners should be able to order fresh fruit and told clearly how to do so. (2.283)

EXAMPLES OF GOOD PRACTICE

3.109 If prisoners arrived with Enhanced status, they retained this, which was good practice. (2.56)

3.110 The external provider, Exeter Drugs Project (EDP), was highly regarded by prisoners. Nine prisoners in our survey mentioned the drug workers and drug courses as things that had changed them in a positive way while they had been at Dartmoor. The Establishment had also provided an excellent working 89

environment, with a suite of offices, group and individual counselling rooms for the Inside Out Drug Treatment Programme and an appropriately furnished room for the acupuncture group. (2.146)

3.111 Health care referred prisoners to CARATs from their reception interview, allowing the Medical Officer to 'fast track' a prisoner to the Voluntary Testing Unit. (2.149)

3.112 An Exeter Drugs Project Pre-Release worker was also employed half-time and prisoners within four months of being released could apply to see him for help with pre-release issues. (2.155)

3.113 Although there was still no national Prison Service alcohol strategy, an EDP alcohol specialist worker attended the prison half-time. (2.156)

3.114 Auricular acupuncture was available and highly valued within the Drug Strategy. (2.157)

3.115 Prisoners self referred had a CARATs assessment and attended an information session before starting the acupuncture programme. (2.157)

3.116 A nappy changing room was available in the Visits Hall, with a plentiful supply of disposable nappies. (2.176)

3.117 A monthly children's drawing competition was a popular and innovative feature. Examples of that month's competition were on display. (2.177)

3.118 We found that Confidential Access to the Area Manager meant exactly that. Great care was taken to ensure that the reply as well as the initial Confidential Access letter remained in sealed envelopes with no indication of content. (2.197)

3.119 There was excellent documentation by the Request and Complaint Clerk of all Requests and Complaints. This made it easy to monitor progress. Replies from people within the Establishment were clear, typewritten and easy to read. The replies also gave clear details about how to contact the Ombudsman if the prisoners wanted to take the matter further. (2.201)

3.120 All primary care was delivered by doctors qualified in general practice and who spent time in NHS practice. (2.207)

3.121 A Community Psychiatric Nurse was developing levels of supervision for the Registered Mental Nurses. This was good practice and should be formalised. (2.211)

3.122 Very few out-patient appointments were cancelled because of escort staff problems. (2.232)

3.123 We found evidence of good practice where prisoners were warned in writing before finally being put on Basic level. (2.257)