Hm Prison Leicester
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
REPORT ON A FULL ANNOUNCED INSPECTION OF HM PRISON LEICESTER 7-11 JULY 2003 BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS Crown copyright 2003 ISBN 184473 112 X Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 1st Floor, Ashley House 2 Monck Street London SW1P 2BQ England 2 INTRODUCTION Leicester is one of the smallest local prisons in the prison system, able to hold only 385 prisoners. It had also earlier been identified as a failing prison, subject to performance testing. At the time of the inspection, it was three months into a five- year action plan, designed to implement the improvements necessary to prevent it being contracted out. The inspection showed that this had already resulted in improvements, both in culture and performance. However, Leicester was a prison still best described as being at the beginning of a journey, with a route-map that had been worked out, but where it would require considerable effort to reach key milestones. Some of those milestones are set out in this report. Leicester had many of the strengths and weaknesses of small local prisons. It was a reasonably safe place, where staff and prisoners got along quite well, with many prisoners being known to staff. But it was not a prison which had previously put much effort into engaging with, or challenging, those prisoners. Nor did it have very robust systems to ensure that prisoners did not fall through those informal networks and contacts. That was evident in some of the findings of the inspection. Prison staff had, rightly, been told not to deal in a mechanistic way with those at risk of self-harm, simply by observing them at regular intervals. The aim was to encourage engagement, rather than observation. However, on some wings we found that neither was happening: released from the obligation to observe and record regularly, staff were either doing nothing, or not recording what they had done. Cell call bells, that can sound an alarm if a prisoner is in distress, were not promptly answered. Reception staff were friendly; but the physical environment was inexcusably dirty, and nearly one in three prisoners said that they were unable to shower on their first night. Race relations and anti-bullying strategies were out of date and lacked direction. 3 It will always be difficult for a local prison, essentially operating with a single wing, to manage its multiple populations safely and positively, particularly under the present population pressures. Prisoners spent too long on the first night - sometimes in practice the first week - centre, with little to do, waiting for a cell to become available that they could safely share with another prisoner. Within the prison, vulnerable prisoners, held on the main wings, could face abuse as they moved around. One milestone that had been reached was to tackle and reduce the supply of drugs: the next stage would be to reduce demand, by ensuring that the prison’s drug team could treat prisoners, rather than simply assess them. Healthcare, similarly, had shown improvements, particularly with the arrival of mental health in-reach nurses: the next task was to convince prisoners that the service had improved, and to support and develop the work of the nursing staff. Legal aid and bail, on the other hand, was one of the best services we have seen, with nine trained staff and two probation service officers who had secured accommodation (and therefore bail) for around 60 prisoners in 6 months. The prison had recently introduced a computerised system, PAMS, to manage the movement of prisoners to activity. It had been developed in a training prison and was facing some teething problems in adapting to a transient population; but it was succeeding in allocating most prisoners to work. The next step would be to ensure that there was sufficient, and appropriate, work and training for them to do. Over 10% of prisoners had no employment; and, of the remainder, 50 were wing cleaners or orderlies. Work that was available was repetitive and unskilled, though a generic preparation for work course had just started. There were no education courses above level 2, and no vocational PE work. Resettlement work also had a long way to travel, though some of the essentials were there. It was good that prisoners’ needs were identified soon after reception, and there were several agencies that could help with jobs, housing and finances, but this was not systematically followed up or co-ordinated. Some key elements of resettlement - public protection, sentence planning, personal officers - were weak. 4 Most of the areas we have identified will be covered, at some point, by the prison’s five year plan. Managers face two challenges. The first is to ensure that the impetus continues, in the face of population pressure. The second is to ensure that the action plan is a guide, and not a straitjacket: that it can be adapted to meet the most pressing needs of prisoners and the changing pressures on prisons. Anne Owers September 2003 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 5 6 CONTENTS Paragraph Page INTRODUCTION 3 FACT PAGE 11 HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY HP.01-HP.48 13 1 ARRIVAL IN CUSTODY 25 Courts and transfers 1.01-1.05 Reception 1.06-1.20 First night 1.21-1.30 Induction 1.31-1.36 Legal rights 1.37-1.45 2 RESIDENTIAL UNITS 37 Accommodation and facilities 2.01-2.11 Clothing and hygiene 2.12-2.18 3 DUTY OF CARE 41 Anti-bullying 3.01-3.10 Preventing self-harm and suicide 3.11-3.18 Race relations and foreign national prisoners 3.19-3.28 Substance use 3.29-3.65 Maintaining contact with family and friends 3.66-3.82 Applications, requests and complaints 3.83-3.89 4 HEALTHCARE 61 Introduction 4.01-4.03 Environment 4.04-4.11 Records 4.12-4.15 Staffing 4.16-4.21 Delivery of care 4.22-4.51 7 Conclusion and recommendations 4.52-4.64 5 ACTIVITIES 73 Introduction 5.01-5.03 Education 5.04-5.15 Work and work skills training 5.16-5.22 Library 5.23-5.28 Physical education 5.29-5.34 Faith and religious activity 5.35-5.41 Time out of cell 5.42-5.47 6 GOOD ORDER 85 Security and rules of the establishment 6.01-6.08 Prisoner disciplinary procedures 6.09-6.18 Use of force 6.19-6.25 Segregation unit 6.26-6.37 Vulnerable prisoners 6.38-6.48 Public protection 6.49-6.51 Incentives and earned privileges 6.52-6.65 Categorisation 6.66-6.74 7 RESETTLEMENT 101 Management of resettlement 7.01-7.06 Re-integration planning 7.07-7.17 Sentence planning 7.18-7.23 Offending behaviour work 7.24-7.30 Key workers (personal officers) 7.31-7.35 8 SERVICES 111 Catering 8.01-8.11 Prison shop 8.12-8.20 8 9 RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOOD PRACTICE Recommendations 9.01-9.105 117 Examples of good practice 9.106-9.112 APPENDICES I Inspection team i II Prisoner population profile ii III Summary of prisoner questionnaires v 9 10 FACT PAGE Role of the establishment HMP Leicester is a local category B prison. Area organisation East Midlands South. Number held 7 July 2003: 356. Certified normal allocation 206. Operational capacity 385. Last inspection Unannounced: 7-9 February 2001. Brief history Leicester's role has changed over the past 20 years from a category A local prison, housing a special security wing, to a category B local prison. As prison conditions improved nationally, the prison population reduced from an average of 440 to the present operational capacity of 385. A new healthcare centre was built in 1995, and one floor, which was later closed, has re-opened as the vulnerable prisoner community. Leicester was identified for performance testing in December 2001, and a five-year service level agreement commenced in April 2003. 11 Description of residential units The main residential unit is a large, four-storey, early Victorian building that houses the bulk of the prison population. Two landings hold prisoners on standard and basic regime and one landing those prisoners on detoxification programmes, as well as the first night centre. The remaining landing houses the segregation unit, vulnerable prisoner unit, and enhanced status prisoners. 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 Since the last inspection, in 2001, Leicester had been identified as a prison for performance testing. This had resulted in a service level agreement and a five-year action plan for improvement. It was clear to staff and managers that failure to meet the improvement objectives could result in Leicester being contracted-out to the private sector. The action plan became effective from the beginning of April 2003 and, therefore, at the time of this inspection, many changes were beginning to take place. HP.03 As a local prison, Leicester was required to serve the courts of Leicestershire and Rutland. Due to overcrowding pressures within the prison estate, it had recently been taking overcrowding drafts from other parts of the country. Safety HP.04 There was a sense of safety within the prison.