Fact Page 11-12 Healthy Prison Summary Hp.01-Hp.46 13-22
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORT ON A FULL ANNOUNCED INSPECTION OF HM PRISON LEWES 10-14 MARCH 2003 BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS Crown copyright 2003 ISBN ???????? Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Chief Inspectorate of Prisons 1st Floor, Ashley House Monck Street London SW1P 2BQ England 2 INTRODUCTION This is not only a report on a good local prison; it is also a report on a prison which has become significantly better, due to effective management and a committed staff group. This improvement was endorsed by many prisoners we spoke to, and by the Board of Visitors. Lewes faces many difficulties. It is an old and poorly-maintained prison. It receives a high proportion of mentally disordered prisoners, many of them with a history of substance abuse, and this has been linked to the high rate of self-inflicted deaths (5 in the preceding year). It seeks to work as an effective local prison, preparing prisoners for release locally, but is frustrated in this by the fact that those prisoners are routinely moved further away from home after short periods, because of the pressure of prison overcrowding. Prison overcrowding has also forced the prison to hold some prisoners in cramped and unfit conditions, particularly on one wing. It is therefore a tribute to the prison’s staff and managers that in many of the areas covered in this report, Lewes scores significantly higher than most local prisons. From the results of our prisoner survey, Lewes was considerably better than other local prisons in relation to reception and first night arrangements, perceptions of safety and respect, and access to telephones: often as much as 20-30% above the average. By comparison with other local prisons, hardly any prisoners complained about the way that staff spoke to them, and no prisoner alleged assaults by staff. More prisoners had personal officers than in most local prisons, and three-quarters of those who did found them helpful. We found that this positive atmosphere was reflected throughout the prison. Staff felt valued by managers; and this was reflected in their relationship with prisoners. It was often staff who drew our attention to the unsatisfactory conditions in which prisoners were held: particularly on the vulnerable prisoner wing, where cells were far too small to hold two prisoners in any decency, particularly for disabled and elderly prisoners. 3 Lewes was also a prison that was aware of gaps and weaknesses and sought to remedy them; and which valued co-operation with local community organisations. The new healthcare management structure was designed to improve provision considerably, particularly in the critical area of mental health, and the Governor was personally driving co-operation with the local NHS economy. A safer custody co-ordinator had been appointed, to strengthen and bring together the safer custody agenda, and involve local community groups, in light of the recent suicides. The prison had recently appointed a diversity manager, from outside the Prison Service, with experience of race complaints investigation, to co-ordinate race relations and foreign nationals work. There are two areas, however, where the prison needs to strengthen its work further. The first is in the provision of work skills and education. There were not enough work spaces, they were not appropriately allocated and the great majority of the work available was menial, repetitive and unskilled. Education provision also needed to be increased and broadened. The second area, as in many local prisons, was resettlement, where the prison needed to develop a coherent strategy, based upon assessed need, and including active assistance with housing and employment. These are two large and important areas, and the prison may need to strengthen its management structure in these areas to drive both forward. There is, however, a key issue that the Prison Service needs to address. As in many of the prisons we inspect, vulnerable prisoners were essentially being parked in Lewes, with no provision for active work to address their offending behaviour; and a culture of denial was beginning to emerge. By contrast, those whom Lewes could have helped, and wanted to - its locally-resident short-term population - were being moved out to establishments at some distance from their homes and families. This makes no sense. It was scarcely surprising that the main source of adjudications was prisoners’ refusal to be transferred to a distant prison which could do less for them. 4 We would strongly recommend to local management that Lewes’s strengths – its positive engagement with prisoners and growing links with the community – are built on properly, by allowing it to use F wing to retain and resettle local men, rather than merely contain vulnerable prisoners. Anne Owers April 2003 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 5 6 CONTENTS Paragraph Page INTRODUCTION 3-5 FACT PAGE 11-12 HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY HP.01-HP.46 13-22 1 ARRIVAL IN CUSTODY 23-38 Courts and transfers 1.01-1.12 Reception, first night and induction 1.13-1.71 Legal rights 1.72-1.91 2 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 39-45 Accommodation and facilities 2.01-2.25 Clothing and possessions 2.26-2.34 Hygiene 2.34-2.42 3 DUTY OF CARE 47-68 Anti-bullying 3.01-3.18 Preventing self-harm and suicide 3.19-3.35 Race relations and foreign national prisoners 3.36-3.57 Substance use 3.58-3.94 Maintaining contact with family and friends 3.95-3.109 Applications, requests and complaints 3.110-3.117 4 HEALTHCARE 69-79 Introduction 4.01-4.03 Environment 4.04-4.12 Records 4.13-4.14 Staffing 4.15-4.25 Delivery of care 4.26-4.49 Recommendations 4.50-4.62 7 Paragraph Page 5 ACTIVITIES 81-94 Employment 5.01-5.12 Education and work skills training 5.13-5.34 Physical education 5.35-5.45 Faith and religious activity 5.46-5.62 Time out of cell 5.63-5.73 6 GOOD ORDER 95-106 Rules of the establishment and security 6.01-6.05 Prisoner disciplinary procedures 6.06-6.08 Use of force 6.09-6.12 Segregation unit 6.13-6.21 Vulnerable prisoners 6.22-6.27 Conclusion 6.28-6.31 Recommendations 6.32-6.36 Good practice 6.37-6.42 Incentives and earned privileges 6.43-6.49 Categorisation 6.50-6.57 7 RESETTLEMENT 107-113 Management of resettlement 7.01-7.02 Re-integration planning 7.03-7.11 Sentence planning 7.12-7.15 Offending behaviour work 7.16-7.17 Personal officers 7.18-7.21 Conclusion 7.22-7.23 Recommendations 7.24-7.27 Good practice 7.28 8 SERVICES 115-118 Catering 8.01-8.14 Prison shop 8.15-8.21 8 Paragraph Page 9. RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOOD PRACTICE 119-130 Main recommendations 9.01-9.05 To the Director General 9.06-9.08 To the Area Manager 9.09 To the Governor 9.10-9.90 Examples of good practice 9.91-9.103 APPENDICES I Inspection team II Prisoner population profile III Summary of prisoner questionnaires IV Adult Learning Inspectorate report 9 10 FACT PAGE Role of the establishment HMP Lewes is a category B local prison. Brief history Lewes was built in 1853 and designed on the radial system; it still maintains Victorian buildings as house blocks. Area organisation Kent, Surrey and Sussex Number held 5 March 2003: 497 Cost per place per annum £20,014 Cost per prisoner place £20,579 year to date; target £20,164 Certified normal accommodation 485 Operational capacity 523 Last inspection Full inspection: September 1997 Short unannounced inspection: March 2000 11 Description of residential units Lewes currently had five residential units; a further wing, B wing, was being used as a temporary healthcare centre while the healthcare building was closed for refurbishment. A, C and F wings were the three large, main wings: A held primarily remand and trial adults, with some young adults awaiting remand or trial; C held convicted prisoners, awaiting allocation and serving short-term sentences prior to discharge; F was used as a vulnerable prisoner unit. A and C wings were refurbished three years ago and provided a good level of accommodation; F wing was in need of refurbishment and the establishment was awaiting the outcome of a bid for funding to carry this out. K and G wings were separate units in the basement areas of A and C wings respectively: K was the first night centre and G was the induction unit. 12 HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY Introduction HP.01 The concept of the healthy prison was introduced in our thematic review, Suicide Is Everyone’s Concern, 1999. The four criteria for a healthy prison are: Safety – all prisoners are held in safety. Respect – prisoners are treated with respect as individuals. Purposeful activity – prisoners are fully and purposefully occupied. Resettlement – prisoners are prepared for their release and resettlement into the community with the aim of reducing the likelihood of their re-offending. HP.02 Lewes had, historically, received a large number of prisoners who had substance-related problems, many of whom also suffered from mental health problems. During 2002 there had been five deaths of prisoners, all of which had been self-inflicted. HP.03 The Governor, who had been in post for two years, had set priorities for the prison, which involved establishing effective first night arrangements to support prisoners, re-organising and strengthening the healthcare provision, and implementing safer custody arrangements. Safety HP.04 Despite a relatively high incidence of assaults and self-harm, both of which related to the troubled nature of the population, the prison was fundamentally safe.