Report of the Review Group on the Future Management of Sex Offenders within Scottish Prisons
28 June, 2002 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Report of the Review Group on the Future Management of Sex Offenders within Scottish Prisons
To Jim Wallace, QC, MSP, Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice, and Dr Richard Simpson, MSP, Deputy Minister for Justice
Dear Ministers,
I am pleased to send you the Report of the Review Group on the Future Management of Sex Offenders within Scottish Prisons. We have completed our work within the tight timescale given in order to facilitate your decision making on the Estates Review of the Scottish Prison Service. I trust this has been accomplished without disregard to any important issues.
We are convinced that setting up an effective environment is a challenging task, yet it is one which has been achieved with success at Peterhead. We are confident, also, that it can be replicated elsewhere provided there is strong commitment and support for the project. Indeed, creating an improved facility, compared with the physical conditions which currently pertain at Peterhead, will enhance the chances of the new centre for addressing the offending behaviours of sex offenders achieving even higher standards.
Working with sex offenders is a demanding and complex undertaking. We believe that the suggestions and recommendations contained in this report will assist SPS (or anyone else contemplating the organisation of intervention programmes for sex offenders) in their task.
All members of the group have worked extremely hard to complete the review in such a short time-frame, and I express my gratitude to them. For one of our members from Peterhead Prison the task has presented added pressures; his ability to retain a balanced and objective view has been invaluable. I would also like to thank David McKay our Secretary, and Julie Pickles for her administrative support in facilitating the arrangements of the group.
Yours sincerely,
ALEC SPENCER 28 June, 2002
1 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Membership of the Review Group on the Future Management of Sex Offenders within Scottish Prisons
ALEC SPENCER (CHAIRMAN): Director of Rehabilitation and Care, Scottish Prison Service.
STUART CAMPBELL: Prisoner Programmes Manager, HMP Peterhead.
DR DAVID COGHILL: Senior Lecturer in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry, University of Dundee. Honorary Consultant, NHS Tayside.
DONALD FINDLATER*: Deputy Director, The Lucy Faithfull Foundation and Clinical Manager, Wolvercote Clinic.
PROFESSOR ROISIN HALL: Head of Psychological Services, Scottish Prison Service.
DAVID McKAY (SECRETARY): Care and Opportunity Training Manager, Scottish Prison Service College.
JANE MARTIN: Service Manager, Criminal Justice Services, Fife Council.
PROFESSOR KEVIN POWER: Professor of Clinical Psychology, University of Stirling. Head of Clinical Psychology, NHS Tayside.
RONA SWEENEY: Deputy Governor, HMP Barlinnie.
* HILARY ELDRIDGE: Director, The Lucy Faithfull Foundation; Member of the Accreditation Panel for HM Prison Service and Probation Service, England and Wales; worked in close co-operation with Donald Findlater.
2 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
CONTENTS Page
Chapter 1: Introduction 4
Chapter 2: Scoping the Problem – The Numbers 8
Chapter 3: Assessment and Intervention in SPS 14
Chapter 4: Implications for Programme Provision 20
Chapter 5: The Environment for Programme Delivery 24
Chapter 6: The Likely Risks 28
Chapter 7: Throughcare 32
Chapter 8: Young Offenders and Females 36
Chapter 9: Staff Training and Support 39
Chapter 10: CONCLUSIONS 44
Annexes
Annex I Other Complementary Programmes and Interventions 47
Annex II Factors to be taken into account in designing or 49 creating a new facility for sexual offenders
Annex III The supporting environment for the effective delivery 51 of programmes.
Annex IV The Recommendations from the Cosgrove Expert 58 Panel on Sex Offending
Annex V The Past: A review of Peterhead’s history and the 61 move towards working with sex offenders.
Annex VI The development of work with sex offenders in SPS. 64
Annex VII Experiences from other sex offender treatment 65 environments (extracts from ‘Sourcebook of Treatment Programs for Sexual Offenders’).
Annex VIII The Provision at various prison sites 70
3 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
1. INTRODUCTION
Context
1.1 The Scottish Executive published a Consultation document on the Future of the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) Estate1 on 21 March 2001 as part of a consultation exercise. Contained within a discussion on HMP Peterhead at pages 34-36, (and also similarly in the SPS Estates Review document2) was the following:
Proposal: HMP Peterhead HMP Peterhead has a long history and in recent years has delivered excellent work with sex offenders. It is however not well located to carry this work on and the buildings are at the end of their useful life. The prison should close and the work be transferred to prison(s) elsewhere in central Scotland without loss of effectiveness. …
1.2 On 18th April, Jim Wallace, Deputy First Minister & Minister for Justice stated in the Parliamentary Debate on the Estates Review Consultation:
“I can announce today that Richard Simpson and I have instructed the Director of Rehabilitation and Care, Alec Spencer, to conduct an additional review of the future management of sex offenders” (Col. 10941).
In concluding the Debate, Dr Richard Simpson, Deputy Minister for Justice stated:
“I confirm what my colleague Jim Wallace said at the start of the debate. He and I have instructed the SPS – specifically, Alec Spencer, who set up the programme at Peterhead prison and is now the Director of Rehabilitation and Care – to examine the future of sex offenders in the Prison Service with the assistance of outside advice. The review will not be just internal; it will be external. If there is a decision at the end of the consultation period to move to a central prison, we will carefully consider how that will be done with the least disruption.” (Col. 10995).
Remit
1.3 The task of the group has not been to recommend on whether Peterhead should close or not. Rather, we have been asked to provide advice on whether it is possible to move the STOP programme, what disruption might ensue as a consequence, whether that presents a danger (or an increased danger) to the public, how throughcare would be affected and, how we see the future of the provision of interventions to address the offending behaviour of sex offenders being developed within SPS.
1 The Scottish Executive’s Consultation on the Future of the Scottish Prison Estate: Consultation Paper (21 March 2002). Edinburgh: The Scottish Executive 2 The Scottish Prison Service Estates Review (21 March 2002). Edinburgh: The Scottish Prison Service. Pages 38-41 and Appendix C.
4 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
1.4 In essence we have been required to provide Ministers with advice on practical issues and implications, as they relate to the successful delivery of programmes to address sexual offending behaviour surrounding any proposed transfer of sex offenders from Peterhead, so as to enable Ministers to take account of such matters in reaching decisions on the SPS Estates Review.
The Terms of Reference as agreed with Ministers were:
1.5 To provide Ministers with advice on the practical issues and implications which will have to be taken into account to enable a fully informed decision on the future of Peterhead to be reached. In particular the group should pay regard to:
the best advice on the ‘monoculture’ or mixed population argument;
whether there is any scope for a range of accommodation:
to provide dedicated accommodation for only those currently undertaking programmes or for the population at large, and/or
to provide some other configuration of accommodation to meet the different categories or sentence lengths of sex offenders;
to make an assessment of the likely disruption caused by the moving of prisoners from Peterhead, and whether and how it could be managed without reducing the effectiveness of the programme, taking into account staffing and training issues and transitional arrangements;
to consider the impact that such a proposed transfer would have on the throughcare process and any other public protection matter.
The Group is to report to the Deputy First Minister & Minister for Justice, and the Deputy Minister for Justice, by the end of June 2002.
Methodology
1.6 The group met on four occasions including two full day sessions. In considering the way to proceed the group decided to pose a number of questions examining the past in terms of questions about the context in which the provision for sex offenders had been delivered and how it might be delivered in the future. Additionally, we considered what research evidence there is in this area and how it might contribute to future planning, what the likely benefits and/or drawbacks were to any proposed transfer and the options for delivery of sex offender programmes across Scotland.
1.7 We then went on to consider what the scope of the problem was in terms of the numbers of offenders and likely volumes of throughputs. The demands placed on SPS were likely to influence the shape of what had to be delivered. We considered the
5 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS nature of the interventions currently available and proposed. This is dealt with in Chapters 2 to 4.
1.8 In considering what had to be delivered we also took the opportunity to examine the environment in which such programmes should be delivered and the best environments for holding sex offenders in a way that would encourage engagement by them. In Chapter 5 we also examine the idea of a monoculture, or as we have termed it, a ‘single purpose’ prison. We have suggested what we think is the ideal.
1.9 We were also asked to consider the likely risks or disruptions posed by a transfer. These we have addressed in Chapter 6. The management of sex offenders is not confined to SPS but also involves a number of other agencies. In Chapter 7 we examine the issues concerning throughcare and how the links between SPS and external agencies can be strengthened.
1.10 The Report deals primarily with Adult Male Sex Offenders (AMSOs). However, we recognise that there are important needs to be addressed among Young Offender and Female Offender groups. These matters are considered in Chapter 8. Ensuring adequate provision of appropriately qualified staff and the training that is required is covered in Chapter 9. Finally, we draw together our conclusions in Chapter 10.
1.11 In positioning the work of SPS as part of the Executive’s commitment to community safety we recognise that a range of services require to be in place to meet the needs of sex offenders. These have to be delivered in the community as well as, for some offenders, in a custodial setting. This points to the need for an integrated approach to criminal justice services where the work undertaken in prison is part of that wider multi-agency approach.
Assumptions
1.12 In our deliberations we made certain assumptions that underpinned our work:
1. The management of sex offenders is a problem for society in general and not just for the SPS. The way in which sex offenders are dealt with needs to be seen from the wider perspective of a comprehensive and integrated multi- agency approach.
2. It was a given that there was a need to provide programmes for sexual offenders to address their offending behaviour. Not withstanding the limitations of the available research evidence, public protection demands the provision of interventions for sex offenders to address their offending behaviour.
6 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
3. That the aim was to deliver interventions to all sexual offenders, including those serving shorter sentences, as recommended by Cosgrove (Recommendation 28)3.
4. Although current figures (mostly based on the index offence description) indicated about 470 sex offenders in prisons, we assumed that the real number was about 10% of the prison population, 450 to 500 sex offenders serving sentences of four years and over (long-term prisoners) and about 150 serving sentences of less than four years (short-term prisoners).
3 Reducing the Risk: improving the response to sex offending; The Report by the Expert Panel on Sex Offending, (Chairman: The Honourable Lady Cosgrove), (June 2001). Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.
7 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
2. SCOPING THE PROBLEM – THE NUMBERS
2.1 During last year, 2001, some 5,987 crimes of indecency were reported to the police in Scotland (see table 1 below)4. However, it is well known that only the tip of the iceberg comes to the notice of the authorities. Prevalence studies have indicated that it is likely, depending on the type of definition used, that up to one-third of females and one-fifth of males have been sexually abused or assaulted during their life.
2.2 Of nearly 6,000 reported offences last year about 25% related to prostitution and homosexuality, the other 75% included rape, sexual assaults, lewd and libidinous practices, indecent exposure and incest.
Table 1: Crimes of indecency recorded by the police, Scotland, 1992-20015 Crimes of indecency 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Sexual assault: Rape* 350 339 395 403 447 570 613 591 562 589 Assault with intent to rape 189 204 174 195 152 169 189 167 143 164 Indecent assault 1,065 1,083 1,034 1,040 1,130 1,240 1,352 1,175 1,117 1,154 Lewd and indecent behaviour: Lewd and libidinous practices 1,121 1,390 1,395 1,118 1,365 1,896 1,911 1,466 1,496 1,557 Indecent exposure 1,475 1,331 1,260 1,263 1,100 1,118 1,041 917 850 808 Other: Incest 83 95 88 58 60 97 77 51 46 34 Homosexual acts 164 172 130 104 148 173 155 178 134 133 Sexual intercourse with girls under 16 321 357 346 283 266 286 260 203 166 179 Offences relating to prostitution 1,357 1,045 1,128 1,046 929 1,545 1,750 1,193 1,220 1,328 Other crimes of indecency 25 31 48 37 79 53 63 41 20 41 TOTAL 6,150 6,047 5,998 5,547 5,676 7,147 7,411 5,982 5,754 5,987 * Between 1992 and 1998, Grampian Police included attempted rape in their figures for rape.
2.3 In 2000, 8356 persons were proceeded against where the main or index offence was a crime of indecency(6-table 2a). In 6517 cases the charge was proved(6-tables 4 & 6). Of these, 189 or 29% received custodial sentences(6-table 8a).
Table 2: Length of sentences received in 2000 Total Up to 3 3 months to 6 months 2 years to 4 years Life and months under 6 to under 2 under 4 and over Indeterminate months years years 189 30 15 62 22 60 nil
4 Recorded Crime in Scotland, 2001, (April 2002) Statistical Bulletin, Criminal Justice Series, The Scottish Executive. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. 5 From Table B, Recorded Crime in Scotland, 2001. 6 Criminal Proceedings in Scottish Courts, 2000, (November 2001) Statistical Bulletin, Criminal Justice Series, The Scottish Executive. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. 7 Of the 651 proven, there were 449 persons with a charge proved for sexual offence (main offence) under SHHD Crime Code categories (offences such as prostitution are excluded).
8 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Imprisonment
2.4 The number of prisoners held on their main or index offence for sexual offences on 30th June 2000 was 401. In addition a further 28 people were held on remand charged with sexual offences, a total of 429. The number of sentenced receptions to SPS for sexual offences in 2000 was 1938,9. In addition, a further 7110 persons were received into custody in default of fines payments for sexual offences.
2.5 It is estimated that about 10%, or over 600 prisoners, are sexual offenders. However, the official numbers of sex offenders appears less than this estimation. This is because many of the titles of the main offence (the index offence) do not include a sexual element. For example, the more serious charge of ‘murder’ could also have included a sexual assault such as rape, but only the main offence, that of ‘murder’ is recorded against the prisoner for statistical purposes. Other offences may have a single description of ‘assault’ or ‘breach of the peace’ which masks the fact that it was sexual in nature. In addition, because of the difficulties in asking victims and witnesses to sexual assaults to testify, or in gaining convictions, plea bargaining might reduce, for example, ‘indecent assault’ or ‘assault with intent to ravish’ to ‘assault’. Finally, a not insignificant number of prisoners serving current sentences for a non- sexual offence also have previous convictions for sexual offences. For the purposes of this report it was considered that these individuals be not overlooked as most or all are likely to have outstanding treatment needs and represent a future risk of sexual offending.
2.6 While the number of prisoners serving sentences for sexual crimes as their index offence in recent years has remained fairly constant, at around 400, there is every reason to believe that the total numbers of identified sexual offenders in the prison population are set to rise. Longer sentences, including discretionary life sentences are handed down to sex offenders reflecting public concern; released sexual offenders are placed on the Sex Offender Register and can be identified as sex offenders on return to prison; new assessments procedures and information flow improvements will identify more sexual offenders; and there is also a tendency to restrict the opportunity for early release on parole for such offenders, reflecting the nature of risk and public unease.
2.7 The Sex Offender Register came into force on 1st September 1997. It was not retrospective and only applied to those new cases, or to those offenders already in the criminal justice system for sexual offences on that date. The ‘Register’ is a misnomer. There is no large book on to which is inscribed the names of sex offenders. Offenders are required to register with their local police station. The list of such people is held as part of the data base of the Scottish Criminal Records Office (SCRO). Those persons who are required by the court to register with the police will have their SCRO record ‘flagged’ accordingly.
8 Prison Statistics Scotland, 2000, (November 2001) Statistical Bulletin, Criminal Justice Series, The Scottish Executive. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. 9 The numbers are different from court proceeding disposals due to differences in recording methods. 10 This figure of 71 includes 60 women in the category ‘Other’ (likely to have been for default of fines for offences relating to prostitution).
9 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Table 3: SEX OFFENDER REGISTER IN SCOTLAND11 Police Area Registered Unregistered12 Central Scotland 85 - Dumfries and Galloway 60 - Fife 130 1 Grampian 149 - Lothian and Borders 336 - Northern 90 - Strathclyde 657 3 Tayside 152 1 Others13 103 TOTAL 1,762 5
2.8 In Scotland, the male population is just under 2.5 million. With about 1.97 million males over the age of 16, there are nearly 1 in 1,000 men on the Sex Offender Register14.
Scottish Prison Service
2.9 The management of sex offenders within the Scottish Prison Service has the primary aim of reducing the risk of sexual re-offending. This requires: S Reliable assessments of the risk of sexual offending behaviour. S Effective interventions to modify the thought patterns, attitudes and behaviours associated with sexual offending. S Evidence of reduced and/or outstanding risk for purposes of throughcare and management of the sex offender on release.
2.10 Sex offenders in the custody of the Scottish Prison Service may be defined with reference to the following characteristics: S Those whose current conviction is for a sexual offence, their ‘index’ offence. S Those whose offence has a sexual element which is not reflected in the current conviction. S Those who have previous convictions for sex offending but whose current conviction is for a non-sexual offence. For the purpose of this analysis, sex offenders have been defined in terms of their current conviction as it has not been possible to obtain reliable figures for the last two
11 Figures collated by SCRO on 31 May 2002. 12 ‘Unregistered’ Sex Offenders are those who, at the time of collating statistics, have been sentenced to be on the Sex Offender Register but have three days from the point of sentence to report to a police station in the area they intend to reside. 13 ‘Others’ relate to registered Sex Offenders on the SCRO data-base who have either moved to England and Wales or moved to Scotland from England and Wales and who have not been allocated to an individual police area. 14 By way of comparative information from the USA, in California, under the Megan’s Law arrangements there were 95,401 Registered Sex Offenders on the State’s data base on 7th June 2002. This approximates to 1 in every 130 adult males being a registered sex offender.
10 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS categories. It should be recognised that the numbers given, therefore, are in general an underestimate and exclude a significant number of prisoners who both need and wish to address their sexual offending behaviour. In the case of Peterhead, since virtually all of their population have been sent to them because they are sex offenders, their figures show a higher proportion. However, this masking effect can be seen even in Peterhead, where some 24 prisoners’ warrants contain no mention of a sexual offence. The offenders – including 18 for murder, two for attempted murder and four for assault and/or abduction would otherwise have been categorised as ‘ordinary’ criminals. The number of prisoners held by the Scottish Prison Service on a current sexual offence conviction in June 2002 was 413.
2.11 A snapshot of known15 sex offenders in June 2002 is given in Table 4 below:
Table 4: Sex offenders by Sentence Length16 and Establishment
Establishment 0-6 months 6mths - 2 yrs 2-4 years 4-10 years 10 years + Life Total
Aberdeen 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 Barlinnie 4 18 22 5 0 0 49 Castle Huntly 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornton Vale 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Dumfries 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 Edinburgh 1 9 14 3 0 12 39 Glenochil 0 0 0 36 0 3 39 Greenock 0 2 4 0 0 0 6 Inverness 2 2 1 0 0 0 5 Low Moss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Noranside 0 1 0 1 0 5 7 Perth 1 2 4 1 0 0 8 Peterhead 0 0 0 203 26 53 282 Polmont 0 0 7 8 3 2 20 Shotts 1 0 2 1 0 0 4 Total 9 36 56 260 29 76 466
2.12 The areas of origin of sex offenders in Scottish Prisons in Table 5 below indicate sex offenders are drawn from across Scotland, with more than two-thirds from central Scotland. However, prisoners may be held in different locations for a variety of reasons. For example: S Length of sentence S Specialist populations e.g.
15 For the purposes of this table known sex offenders are those primarily identified through the index offence on the warrant. At Peterhead, this includes all those known through warrant and other information. 16 The sentence length shown is that set by the court. Those sentenced to under 4 years, known as ‘short-term’ are only required to serve 50% of the sentence in custody (i.e. a person sentenced to 1 year will actually serve 6 months in prison). Those ‘long-term’ prisoners sentenced to 4 years and over serve up to two-thirds of their sentence, but may be released early on licence by the Parole Board at any point after having served 50% of their sentence. Long-term prisoners (i.e. serving 4 years and over) are released on statutory supervision.
11 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
C Female sex offenders held at Cornton Vale C Young offenders held at Polmont. S Intervention requirements e.g. C Facilitation of personal change programme C Accommodation for those refusing to participate in interventions
Table 5: Sex Offenders by Area of Origin (taken from postcode) Scot SW Scot SE Establishment Scot NW Scot NE England Total Central Central Aberdeen 2 0 0 0 1 3 Barlinnie 1 1 42 5 0 49 Castle Huntly 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cornton Vale 0 0 2 0 0 2 Dumfries 0 0 2 0 0 2 Edinburgh 11 22 2 2 2 39 Glenochil 2 6 15 16 0 39 Greenock 0 0 5 1 0 6 Inverness 1 3 0 1 0 5 Low Moss 0 0 0 0 0 0 Noranside 0 2 3 0 0 5 Perth 0 6 1 1 1 9 Peterhead 15 47 105 73 8 248 Polmont 2 1 9 6 0 18 Shotts 0 0 4 0 0 4 Total 34 88 190 105 12 429* * Please note that the total is different because the area of origin information for all sex offenders is not known.
2.13 The range of sexual offences for which custodial sentences have been given since 1987 is provided below:
Table 6: Persons given a custodial sentence for a sexual offence (main offence) 1987-200017 Year of sentence SHHD Crime Code 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 TOTAL 220 231 218 218 180 179 204 231 232 224 255 248 245 191 a) Incest 20 22 16 123 10 8 12 9 12 5 8 11 5 4 b) Homosexual acts 7 10 12 8 14 5 11 10 10 7 20 6 6 12 c) Rape 33 46 37 34 22 32 37 27 27 28 28 33 26 24 d)Assault with intent to rape 27 13 32 22 21 19 30 18 21 18 16 21 14 12 e) Indecent assault 31 32 21 35 25 21 25 29 30 26 23 22 37 28 f) Lewd and libidinous practices 75 73 58 70 60 74 68 118 106 113 132 135 132 94 g) Indecent exposure 16 17 21 14 11 7 8 6 4 6 9 6 4 4 h) Defilement of girl under 13 1 2 3 5 1 5 3 - 4 2 1 2 2 1 i) Defilement of girl under 16 8 11 12 9 8 5 3 11 11 14 14 7 16 8 j) Other 2 5 6 9 8 3 7 3 7 5 4 5 3 4
17 Justice Statistics Unit, Scottish Executive.
12 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
2.14 However, interventions more appropriately focus on the attitude and thinking patterns behind these offences, rather than on the nature of the offence itself. This is discussed below in relation to interventions.
13 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
3. ASSESSMENT AND INTERVENTIONS IN SPS
The Assessment Process
3.1 The Sentence Management process carried out in SPS enables a comprehensive assessment of sex offenders and provides evidence of any reduction in the risk of further offending and/or remaining risks which need to be managed in the community. Details of a current conviction may provide only a partial picture of the offending behaviour and the possibility of re-offending. All prisoners serving over four years are assessed as part of their sentence management process and those identified as having committed a sexual offence, or where there is a known sexual element to the crime, will automatically be referred for specialist assessment for suitability for intervention programmes. The Scottish Prison Service is still developing an assessment process for short term sex offenders.
3.2 Areas in which the offenders are currently assessed include: S Admittance or denial of deviant sexual interest and level of offending behaviours. C Sexual fantasy C Denial C Deviant drives S Pro-offending attitudes C Cognitive distortions C Victim distortions C Justifications C Pre-disposing personality factors C Relapse prevention skills The assessment process results in a formulation (see footnote 25, p.21) which includes an indication of levels of risk and deviance.
3.3 Where a need has been identified for a full psychological risk assessment to aid risk management, prisoners will be assessed using the Historical Clinical Risk Management 20 Factor Assessment Schedule (HCR-20) structured clinical judgement approach.18
Interventions to address sexual offending
3.4 To meet the needs identified above and to reduce the risk of further re- offending, the Scottish Prison Service has developed a range of evidence based interventions, described below. It should be noted that there may be a number of problem areas which need to be addressed to reduce the risk of further sex offending, in addition to the sexual offending itself.
3.5 There is a growing body of evidence that cognitive behavioural programmes can have a positive effect on sex offenders’ attitudes and recidivism rates. Friendship
18 Webster, C., Douglas, K., Eaves, D. & Hart, S. (1997) HCR-20. Mental Health, Law and Policy Institute, Simon Fraser University, British Columbia.
14 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS and Thornton (2001)19 argue that the use of reconviction rates in the evaluation of prison based treatment programmes for sexual offenders is unrealistic, in light of the current low base rate of sexual re-convictions for sexual offenders released from custody. They recommend that new outcome measures be piloted to supplement reconviction rates. Hood et al. (2002)20 argue the need to obtain a better knowledge of the relationship between re-offending and re-conviction, and of the circumstances which lead to sexual re-offending and the protective factors which might reduce that propensity. The meta-analysis of predictors of sexual offender recidivism carried out by Hanson and Bussière (1998)21 indicated that sex offence recidivism was best predicted by measures of sexual deviance (e.g. deviant sexual preferences, prior sexual offences and, to a lesser extent, general criminological factors), and concluded a need for research to identify changeable, dynamic risk factors to assist in management and design of interventions.
3.6 It is therefore particularly important to look at the effectiveness of programmes in relation to key areas such as: S Denial/admittance of sexual deviance and offending S Pro-offending attitude S Pre-disposing personality factors S Relapse prevention skills.
3.7 The recent evaluation of the prison Sex Offender Treatment Programme (SOTP)22 showed significant reductions in pro-offending attitudes with rates of success correlated with levels of deviancy and denial. Treatment length, group cohesiveness and programme integrity are also known to increase effectiveness of outcomes.
3.8 Prior to the implementation of the STOP 2000 programme, Peterhead delivered the original STOP programme from 1993 until 2000. During this period 185 new prisoners entered the programme. Nine prisoners also repeated the programme, making the total delivery 194. 140 Completed the programme.
3.9 The primary interventions aimed at addressing sexual offending currently being delivered within the Scottish Prison Service include:
Table 7: SPS Sex Offender Interventions
PROGRAMME Delivery Establishment Intervention STATUS Peterhead Barlinnie Polmont
STOP (CORE) 2000 PROGRAMME Accredited Yes Yes No (STOP 2000) Programme
19 Friendship, C., & Thornton, D. (2001). Sexual reconviction for sexual offenders discharged from prison in England and Wales. British Journal of Criminology, 41,285-292. 20 Hood, R., Shute, S., Feilzer, M. & Wilcox, A. (2002). Sex Offenders Emerging from Long-Term Imprisonment: A study of their long-term reconviction rates and of Parole Board members’ judgements of their risk. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 371-394. 21 Hanson, R.K., and Bussière, M.T. (1998) ‘Predicting Relapse: A Meta-Analysis of Sexual Offender Recidivism Studies.’ Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 66, 2, 348-362. 22 Beech, A., Fisher, D., & Beckett, R.(1998) STEP 3: an evaluation of the prison sex offender treatment programme. Research, Development and Statistics Occasional Paper. London: Home Office.
15 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Intervention (continued) Programme Status Peterhead Barlinnie Polmont
ADAPTED SEX OFFENDER PROGRAMME Preferred Yes No Yes (ASTOP) Programme
SEX OFFENDER AWARENESS Approved Yes No No PROGRAMME (SOAP) Activity* *Application for Approved Activity Status currently in process.
PROGRAMME DESCRIPTIONS Two evidenced based accredited sex offender programmes are currently running outwith HMP Peterhead:
3.10 SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMME (STOP 2000) – 160 hours in length over 9-12 months S Designed to provide the opportunity for adult prisoners and young offenders to address their sexual offending behaviour. S Treatment goals: challenge thinking patterns; develop victim empathy; develop relapse prevention skills. The programme was developed by H.M. Prison Service, England and Wales (HMPS) and introduced to SPS in 2000. The STOP 2000 programme achieved full Accreditation in 2001. The programme is currently available in23: S Barlinnie S Peterhead
3.11 STOP 2000 is designed for low, medium and high-risk sex offenders. Whilst it is intended to act as a stand-alone programme for certain categories, further programme work may be required for those who are at continued high/medium risk and high deviance. With a duration of up to a year, including pre and post programme assessments, length of sentence should be considered when identifying participants for this programme as the risk level of those who commence the programme, but do not complete it, is judged to increase.
3.12 The number of prisoners who have completed this programme to date are shown in the Table 8 below:
Table 8: STOP 2000 Programme - Commencement/Completion Rates Establishment Programme Delivery Period No. Commenced No. Repeat No. Completed Programme Participants Programme Peterhead STOP 2000 2000 – 2002 83 6 62
Barlinnie STOP 2000 2000 – 2002 17 0 11
3.13 Individuals with a lower than average intelligence level, low verbal ability or poor social skills should not be put onto STOP 2000 but should be referred to the Adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programme.
23 Edinburgh prison have staff trained but are currently not engaged in delivering the programme.
16 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
3.14 ADAPTED STOP (ASTOP) – 160 hours in length – over 9-12 months S Designed for individuals with a lower than average intelligence level, low verbal ability or poor social skills the Adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programme provides the opportunity for adult prisoners and young offenders with learning disabilities or borderline learning disabilities to address their sexual offending behaviour. S Treatment goals: increase sexual knowledge, modify offence-justifying thinking, develop the ability to recognise feelings in themselves and others, gain an understanding of victim harm and teach relapse prevention skills. The programme was developed by HMPS and introduced to SPS in 2001. It is currently available in: S Peterhead S Polmont
3.15 ASTOP provides the opportunity for individuals with learning difficulties to address their sexual offending behaviour. The delivery period of this programme can be up to one year including completion of the pre and post-programme assessments. Therefore, length of sentence should be considered when identifying participants for this programme as the risk level of those who commence the programme, but do not complete it, is judged to increase.
3.16 The number of prisoners who have completed this programme to date is shown in Table 9 below:
Table 9: Adapted Sex Offender Programme (ASTOP) – Programme Commencement/Completion Rates Establishment Programme Delivery Period No. Commenced No. Repeat No. Completed Programme Participants Programme Peterhead ASTOP 2001 – 2002 9 0 7
Polmont ASTOP 2001 – 2002 10 0 7
Approved Activity
3.17 RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMME - 20 hours in length, over 14 weeks. This activity in its present form is aimed at prisoners who have difficulties forming and maintaining relationships. Participants need not have taken part in offence specific group work prior to commencing this programme. The aim of the programme is to develop self awareness gain a better understanding of intimate relationships and how to develop and maintain them effectively and constructively. The programme is delivered over 14 sessions.
3.18 There are a range of other Accredited Programmes and Approved Activities available for sex offenders which do not specifically address their sex offending, subject to eligibility criteria for each programme. (see Annex I)
17 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
PLANNED FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
Extended STOP (ESTOP)
3.19 This programme is for medium/high risk and high deviance sex offenders who have completed the STOP 2000 Programme. The treatment goals of the Extended programme are summarised below:
S Change dysfunctional schemas; S Improve emotional management; S Learn to control deviant sexual fantasy; S Improve attachment style and intimacy skills; and S Increase sophistication of relapse prevention plans.
It consists of 67 sessions presented over a period of some eight months and is due to commence at Peterhead in the second half of 2002.
Rolling STOP (RSTOP)
3.20 The Rolling STOP Programme (RSTOP) is designed to meet the treatment needs of all the following imprisoned sex offenders:
S Those assessed as being low risk and low deviancy and hence not needing the more lengthy STOP 2000 Programme; S Those who have attended the STOP 2000 Programme and made some progress but whose progress was not entirely satisfactory e.g. they may still deny or minimise certain parts of their offending; or S Those who have completed the STOP 2000 Programme satisfactorily but who are doing long sentences and who could benefit from a ‘top up’ later in their sentence.
All three types of offenders can and should be treated in one group.
3.21 The Rolling Programme covers roughly the same treatment topics as the STOP 2000 Programme but with less time spent on overcoming denial and obtaining an accurate offence account. It consists of 8 modules with group members entering and leaving the group on a rolling basis, over a period of some four months.
Sex Offender Awareness Programme (SOAP)
3.22 The Sex Offender Awareness Programme (SOAP) is designed for those whose significant levels of denial preclude them from participation in STOP programmes. The aim of this Approved Activity is to:
S Raise awareness of the issues and elements of the issues and elements surrounding sexual offending; S To lower risk of future sexual offending;
18 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
S To challenge attitudes towards men women & children, also attitudes to society in general; S To challenge any levels of denial; S To increase the likelihood of engaging in future offence specific work; and S To increase the likelihood of future self control.
Although some men will move towards full acceptance of responsibility and some will move on to STOP 2000, the aim of the Approved Activity is not to gain a confession. Challenge and attack most often leads to further entrenchment and often, increased risk. Without sufficient rapport some confrontation might result.
19 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
4. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROGRAMME PROVISION
4.1 Recommendation 28 of the Cosgrove Report24 requires SPS to “ensure the availability of sex offender intervention programmes for every convicted sex offender including those given a custodial sentence of 2 years or less”. However, in examining the record of SPS it has a considerable way to go to meet that challenge. Delivery of sufficient programmes is an issue. For example, of the 926 prisoners admitted to Peterhead since programmes began in 1993, only 271 individuals or 29.2% were involved in programmes. Put more starkly, 655 prisoners went through Peterhead and did not receive interventions to address their offending behaviour. Issues of refusal or denial are likely to have reduced potential numbers, but these numbers cannot be quantified, nor can the numbers likely to have been mitigated by staff expertise. What is clear is that the capacity to deliver to those willing was far short of need. On the other hand, Peterhead has delivered programmes since 1993. There must have been many more prisoners, in other prisons, who over the same nine-year period did not engage in any programme of intervention. The current capacity in Peterhead, Barlinnie and Polmont still only meets a small percentage of what is required. In order to deliver to all appropriate offenders, including those who deny their offence or refuse to participate in programmes, there will be some significant resource implications.
Very Short Sentences (under 6 months)
4.2 About 45 to 50 individuals receive sentences of under six months. As we saw in Table 2 above, during 2000, 30 sex offenders were sentenced to terms of imprisonment under three months (i.e. in prison for less than 45 days). Table 4 above shows that nine individuals were in prison serving sentences of less than six months when the ‘snapshot’ was taken in June 2002. The average length of stay in prison for this whole group was under two months.
4.3 For there to be a meaningful assessment process of sexual offenders, the time taken for the whole process, which includes allowing the prisoner to settle after being sentenced and gathering information from external sources, is likely to be in the order of four months. The assessment should lead, in a continuous way, to the provision of interventions (both in prison and continuing in the community). The minimum programme, the Rolling Stop Programme (RSTOP) takes about four months to deliver before effective treatment gains can be evidenced. Taken together, the minimum period required to undertake proper assessment and delivery of appropriate basic intervention is eight months in custody. This equates to serving a minimum sentence of one year and four months net, after any backdating of sentence to take remand periods into account.
24 Reducing the Risk: improving the response to sex offending; The Report by the Expert Panel on Sex Offending, (Chairman: The Honourable Lady Cosgrove), (June 2001). Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.
20 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
4.4 Whilst we agree with the principle behind Recommendation 28, there are very real practical difficulties in providing effective interventions for those serving very short sentences, i.e. in prison for less than eight months following sentencing. There are no proven effective programmes for very short sentences, and delivery would be fraught with difficulties – with offenders failing to internalise the interventions and the possibility, recognised in Cosgrove (paragraph 44), of sending out offenders potentially more dangerous if they have failed to complete a course of programme. Nevertheless, an opportunity exists to begin the assessment process within prison and the formulation25 of risk and future need. This will generate important information to be passed on to those agencies with statutory and non-statutory responsibilities for public protection and aftercare. D There is little which can be done by way of treatment interventions with sex offenders during such short periods. No prison based treatment programme is proposed for this group. Interventions will be restricted to assessment of risk and treatment needs and the development of community based contacts and exchange of appropriate information which will contribute to the work of ongoing assessment.
Short Term Sentences (6 months to 2 years)
4.5 About 65 individuals receive sentences of between six months and under two years each year. 36 were located in various prisons in June 2002. On average they may be in prison for about seven months. As with the comments in 4.3 and 4.4 above, there will be difficulties in providing adequate interventions for those serving under about one year four months (i.e. eight months in prison). Nevertheless, assessments should be undertaken on all, and those serving the longer sentences in this group should be able to access the RSTOP Programme
4.6 Numbers are difficult to estimate since the data does not differentiate within the six months to two years group. We guess this might involve up to about 20 – 24 longer sentence prisoners on a rolling programme (equivalent to about two Groups of approximately eight participants) to undertake the Rolling Sex Offender Programme (RSTOP) to cope with numbers. Such a programme would need to be available all year round. D Assessments to be undertaken for all sex offenders in this sentence range.
25 Assessment: involves the collation of relevant information regarding offending history including (i) long term predisposing factors that have contributed to the potential for offending; (ii) more immediate precipitating factors that heighten the risk for specific offences; and (iii) ongoing factors that continue to be present and heighten the risk for future offending. Formulation: involves a synthesis of all the information collected during assessment in order to describe a coherent picture of the factors that have contributed to previous offending and identification of the factors that need to be addressed to reduce the likelihood of future offending. Assessment and formulation is a detailed process that needs to be conducted in a thorough manner in order to provide reliable data on which to base intervention packages. With regard to the assessment and formulation for entry to STOP and RSTOP programmes, it is likely that this procedure requires to be settled within the prison environment and a lead in time of a number of months before programmes could be initiated. Failure to devote an appropriate length of time to arrive at a detailed assessment and formulation may place offenders in inappropriate programmes that could potentially have an adverse impact.
21 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
D Places for 20 - 24 participants on the Rolling Sex Offender Programme (RSTOP) are required to be delivered. The Programme would need to be available all year round.
Short Term Sentences (2 years to under 4 years)
4.7 There are currently about 56 such offenders identified in prisons, with an annual intake of around 25. There is a requirement to deliver three groups. However, the main STOP 2000 Programme takes about a year to deliver and, coupled with the four months assessment period prior to the intervention, the possible delays till the next programme becomes available and post intervention assessment, a period of 18 months is more realistic. Thus those prisoners serving under three years are likely to be placed on the Rolling Sex Offender Programme (RSTOP) rather than the STOP 2000 Programme. The requirement is estimated at two groups of RSTOP and one group of the STOP 2000 to be run each year to meet the needs of this sentence range. Additional work is likely to be generated in dealing with refusals and deniers, and the use of the Sex Offender Awareness Programme (SOAP) programme would be appropriate. D 2 Groups of RSTOP are required to be delivered D 1 Group of STOP 2000 is required to be delivered D 1 Group of SOAP to be delivered
Long Term Sentences (4 years and over and Life)
4.8 There are currently 365 known ‘long-term’ sex offenders identified within Scottish Prisons. An annual admission rate or turnover of about 60 to 70 is anticipated. A lengthy sentence might also indicate that the offender is likely to pose a higher risk to public safety. This group are likely to require extensive interventions: 6 groups of the STOP 2000 programme. Since there will be a significant number of higher risk sex offenders it is probable that the Extended STOP (ESTOP) will be required for perhaps up to 50% of these offenders. Three such groups are likely to be required each year. Those offenders who refuse to engage or deny their offending26 will initially require motivational work or awareness programmes such as the Sexual Offender Awareness Programme (SOAP). Two such groups may be necessary. In addition, some offenders may have learning difficulties or disabilities which are better met through delivery of the Adapted STOP (ASTOP) programme. If more than one ASTOP group is required, there may be a consequential reduction in the need for the core STOP programme. Long term sex offenders will eventually be released. They will require a booster or ‘top up’ programme or RSTOP before release, with work being undertaken on relapse prevention. Although it is proposed that this be delivered in various sites, including open prisons, the number of groups required will be about six each year. D 5-6 Groups of STOP 2000 are required to be delivered D 3 Groups of ESTOP are required to be delivered D 2 Groups tackling motivation and denial are required, such as SOAP D 1-2 Group(s) of ASTOP
26 There are currently a group of about 40 such long term deniers and ‘refuseniks’ located in Glenochil in a separated section of the prison.
22 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
D 6 Groups of Booster or RTSOP programmes
Special Groups
4.9 Young Offenders require early interventions in order to reduce the likelihood of them engaging in a life-time of sexual offending. Young men are only incarcerated if they have committed serious offences. Therefore, it is a priority for them to undertake programmes. Based on existing numbers of 20 inmates serving over two years at Polmont (and a further one or two at Dumfries), two Groups are required to be delivered annually. One group of the STOP 2000 programme being currently developed by HMPS specially for Young Offenders (YSTOP) and one group of ASTOP is required. Although there are only very few female sexual offenders, perhaps two or three, provision should also be made for them through individualised interventions, perhaps based on the model implemented at HMP Styall. D 1 Group of ASTOP (2 groups meantime) D 1 Group of YSTOP (once development is complete) D 1 individually based programme for female offenders
4.10 The above analysis indicates a requirement to deliver a wide range of offence specific programmes to sex offenders. In total this equates to about 27 groups each year. D The total requirement annually is for about the equivalent of 27 groups to be run. SPS will have to resource itself to meet the total needs of this special group of prisoners.
23 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
5. THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PROGRAMME DELIVERY HOW SHOULD IT BE BEST DELIVERED
5.1 The Group examined the Clinical, Managerial, Social and Environmental factors required for optimising the treatment effects of programme delivery. In particular it examined a range of criteria against three types of prison regime:
a) The ‘mixed’ prison, where sex offenders are generally held among the population as a whole. This includes situations where such prisoners are kept separate in a part of a hall, and their activities, such as work, are undertaken in a protected environment, using facilities separated by time or place.
b) The specialised ‘unit’, being a separate entity within a larger prison.
c) The ‘single purpose’ prison, ‘monoculture’ or ‘whole’ prison approach.
CLINICAL ENVIRONMENT 5.2 The group considered how easy or difficult it would be to successfully deliver programmes in the three types of prison environment identified above against a list of criteria, and also looked at how these environments might impact on different types of sexual offenders (long-term, short-term and very short term). For example, using evidence based interventions was a necessary pre-requisite for the delivery of programmes in all three settings, and the type of prison setting did not impact on that principle. However, since we were unaware of any evidence based interventions for very short term offenders, such individuals who are in prison for under about eight months would not gain much benefit from groupwork interventions. In looking at staff attitudes and pro-social modelling, for example, we felt that the best possibility of this being evidenced in a positive way would come from the ‘single purpose’ prison. The mixed prison was the option least likely to have staff who understood the nature of sexual offending, the work of the programme staff and the requirement not collude with the pro-offending value systems and beliefs of these offenders.
5.3 The criteria considered in ‘testing’ the environments against programme delivery and type of offender were: evidence based interventions programme integrity accredited standards responsivity to needs of individual offender site (location) accreditation staff selection and training monitoring and evaluation prisoner culture preventing pro-offending and criminal networking staff attitudes and pro-social modelling and clinically supportive environment continuity of delivery professional support and counselling for staff comprehensive assessment and appropriate selection of offenders sequencing of interventions, linking to throughcare and transition
24 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
5.4 The group concluded that in terms of the programme outcomes it was likely that the ‘single purpose’ prison and the specialist ‘units’ produced the best ‘treatment’ effects. Significant advantages were identified for both long-term and short-term sentence groups from specialised arrangements. Both the ‘single purpose’ and the specialist ‘units’ appeared to offer the best clinical environment in which to deliver programmes.
5.5 However, it was clear that for very short-term prisoners there would be considerable difficulties in facilitating detailed assessments and selection, identifying and matching responsivity, and monitoring and evaluation of brief interventions. Further, there was no knowledge of any evidence based interventions for very short- term offenders.
MANAGERIAL ISSUES 5.6 The commitment and focus of management is an important factor in the successful delivery or otherwise of programmes. If management commitment is not apparent, group sessions might be cancelled or staff used for other duties when there are shortages. We examined the three types of prison setting and offenders against the following criteria: top down management support, commitment to deliver, protection of programme, vision and values, focus on core business clear lines of authority resources low staff turnover (continuity of programme staff) encouraging the offender to engage, tolerating those who do not wish to – but challenging them, staff work with but do not collude with those in denial maintaining a safe environment for prisoners, visitors and staff holistic approach to valuing and developing prisoner – complementary regime activities managerial view which values ongoing staff training and development as an investment early throughcare contact from social work likely to enforce (external) value of participation in programme work and reduce drop-out rate generalised new learning inhibits sex-offenders capacity to network, share targets, victim details and fantasies .
5.7 Here the results were more significant with greater differences apparent between the three types of environment. It was perceived as being easier to manage and support programme delivery in the ‘single purpose’ prison than the other two settings, and hardest in the ‘mixed’ prison. With other competing demands, it would be difficult to retain management vision and focus on delivering programmes or ensure a safe environment. The ‘single purpose’ prison presented as the best managerial option.
SOCIAL ISSUES 5.8 We considered community links and support and how the three different prison settings might be viewed externally against the following criteria:
25 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
facilitates appropriate management of community links, creates wider social networks for support prior to release favourable neighbourhood or community reaction positive acceptance of job role for staff in their own community accessibility or geographical location for visits and social work throughcare.
5.9 We recognised that Peterhead has particular economic and political dimensions which raises issues not discussed in this report. The ‘save the prison’ campaign demonstrates local support. Clearly, ‘mixed’ prisons imply a larger number of establishments delivering programmes. This arrangement would have some benefit in facilitating access for visits and throughcare as it is likely the offenders would be based much closer to their home area.
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT 5.10 It was important that there was appropriate accommodation and facilities available for prisoners and for staff to undertake the specialised work. Prisoners were entitled to decent conditions (such as not slopping out). The following criteria were considered: accommodation fit for habitation e.g. sanitation and impacts on self-esteem prison facilities fit for purpose, e.g. group rooms and visit rooms are prisoners identified by other prisoners or staff and stigmatised e.g. groups of prisoners going to programmes pointed out? safety of prisoners, visitors and staff is the environment supportive of the work, e.g. pornography not allowed on walls (prisoners or staff), or are there mixed messages?
5.11 Having accommodation fit for habitation was a universal need and not a programmes specific requirement. However, in considering the other criteria it was clear that the best option was a ‘single purpose’ new build or adapted establishment.
5.12 Our analysis led to some generalised views:
MIXED: Programmes might be provided by dedicated staff, but these staff work with colleagues who are not fully aware of what they are trying to achieve, and therefore might not be supportive and may inadvertently collude with prisoners. Sex Offenders might be subject to bullying. Visitors might feel under threat or harassment from other visitors to non-sex offenders. It is likely that this ‘dispersal’ approach would result in a number of programme locations, with advantages to prison visiting.
UNIT: In this model, prisoners generally feel safe. However, staffing might not always be consistent and management at times might have other priorities. Programmes are likely to be provided by dedicated staff, but these staff work with colleagues who are not fully aware of what they are trying to do, and may inadvertently collude with prisoners. Visitors might feel under threat or harassment from other visitors to non-sex offenders.
SINGLE PURPOSE: This is considered the ideal model. Offenders generally feel safe. Staff feel supported by their colleagues and management are focused on the single purpose of delivering interventions to tackle sex offending behaviours. Visitors also feel more secure. All staff are encouraged to become aware of the particular issues concerning sex offenders and feel part of the delivery of the whole regime.
26 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
SIZE 5.13 We considered whether programme delivery and success could be enhanced by being delivered in smaller or larger establishments. Marshall had suggested that “perhaps a better option would be to have two smaller-sized sexual offender only prisons, one at Peterhead and one in the central belt.”27 We also noted that of the four examples of single purpose prisons (Peterhead, Kia Marama, and two recent developments in HMPS) all were of roughly the same size, between 200 and 300. However, there has been no research undertaken to evidence opinions either way. In healthcare settings, for example, larger hospitals are not seen to be less effective in treatment outcomes than smaller ones. If anything, the contrary applies, because larger establishments have a greater call on staff resources and specialisms.
5.14 Applying this to the prison setting a large prison dedicated to working with sex offenders would have a larger pool of programme staff, psychologists and social workers – they would provide mutual support, advice and experience to each other. Such a single purpose prison, with appropriate management support, would be geared up to managing sex offenders and, all the staff, if trained, would be supportive of the culture. A larger size prison more easily facilitates staff training and, with a larger critical mass, becomes a magnet for expertise and other agencies. It becomes a prestigious establishment. We could also see pitfalls in trying to create two ‘single purpose’ establishments. They would no doubt become competitive, and whilst this might be healthy, the consequence mitigates against a collaborative approach and is wasteful of resources. The resources are diluted between the two. Which one is to house the seminar room and resource library? What is the consequence for the one that does not? If there are two such centres, one say in the central belt of Scotland, then it is likely with other things being equal, such as personal safety, that prisoners would prefer to remain in the central belt. This drift would result in ‘forcing’ prisoners to go to Peterhead, and their visitors to travel further.
5.15 Our clear preference was for a large single purpose prison which would house all the Adult Male Sex Offenders (AMSO).
5.16 A more detailed account of the conditions required for a Prison Environment which is supportive of Sex Offender Interventions is given at Annex III.
27 W.L. Marshall. (2001) Proposal for the Provision of Treatment Services to Sexual Offenders in the Scottish Prison Service.
27 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
6. THE LIKELY RISKS
6.1 The group were asked:
“to make an assessment of the likely disruption caused by the moving of prisoners from Peterhead, and whether and how it could be managed without reducing the effectiveness of the programme, taking into account staffing and training issues and transitional arrangements; (and) to consider the impact that such a proposed transfer would have on the throughcare process and any other public protection matter.”
We have attempted to identify relevant risks (whether actual or imagined) to the continued successful delivery of programmes should a decision be made to transfer the STOP programme and associated activities from Peterhead. We have also attempted to evaluate them and, where they pose real threats, suggest strategies to manage or ameliorate them.
IDENTIFIED POTENTIAL ACTUAL RISKS POSED OR RISKS OR DISRUPTION WHAT MIGHT BE DONE TO ADDRESS SHOULD IT BE DECIDED THE POTENTIAL RISKS SHOULD IT TO CLOSE PETERHEAD BE DECIDED TO CLOSE PETERHEAD a) There is a possibility that a) If staff identify themselves as not willing to continue staff will begin to disengage (although it is hoped that staff would be professional and and refuse, or become continue – precisely to work for the protection of the disinterested in, delivering public), numbers will be known. Since the emphasis programmes. This will lessen would continue to be on public safety three things would the delivery of programmes to have to happen: sex offenders at Peterhead. i) those staff who wish to remain at Peterhead/stay with programme delivery would continue with programmes at Peterhead; ii) programmes delivery would be started elsewhere, well in advance of any phased closure, and staff trained up for this work; iii) prisoners would be prioritised for programme work either at Peterhead or elsewhere. b) Lessening of programme b) Cases can be prioritised, especially among long-term delivery at Peterhead might prisoners at Peterhead. Those with nearest dates to impact on the chances of early release or Parole/Lifer Tribunal eligibility can receive release through Parole and programmes ahead of those prisoners who are due to Lifer Tribunals. It might be remain in prison for further periods. Others can be difficult to maintain moved to the new location to begin their programme programmes during the moves, ahead of critical time-frames. or to complete the full year’s work. c) Prisoner anxiety might c) Once the destination of the new prison is known, increase due to uncertainties. anxieties might be alleviated, especially if this was This might result in less focus identified as a ‘single purpose’ prison. Indeed, prisoners on work to address offending might look forward to improved living conditions, and behaviour. closer proximity to home, with opportunities for
28 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
improved resettlement. Staff must stress the importance of offenders continuing to address their offending behaviour, and encourage them to do so, assuring prisoners that their support is on-going. d) Prisoners at the intended d) Prisoners will have to be managed appropriately. receiving prison might attempt Nearly all prisons worldwide have mixed offender to disrupt the regime or populations. In Scotland, prisons such as Barlinnie, damage parts of the prison Edinburgh, Glenochil and Polmont YOI already have ahead of the sex offenders mixed populations. Indeed, there is likely to be a period arriving. of phasing in of sex offenders and transferring out of non-sex offenders. Staff can be sent on detached duty to Peterhead or from Peterhead to another prison as necessary. There is no historical evidence to suggest that such damage will happen. e) Communities might not be e) Communities are not placed in danger by closed keen to accept sex offenders in prisons being located in their area. With modern their midst. technology prisons are secure. The security record of SPS is good and there have been no escapes from within prisons in recent times. Indeed, visitors to prisoners sometimes pose risks – but it is known that visitors to sex offenders are less inclined, for example, to attempt to smuggle illegal drugs into prison. Focus groups can be run for local communities. f) The families of sexual f) The community of Peterhead are no more willing than offenders or sex offenders any other community to accept such offenders themselves might choose to unsupervised in their midst.28 Families are more likely to settle in the area of the prison. want to settle in an area if travelling for visits is long and difficult. Offenders are less likely to settle near a prison if it is already not far from their own home and contacts with support systems outside are in place. g) The community at g) This is correct, but was to be under very closely Peterhead were prepared to defined parameters. The party of selected low risk sex allow sex offenders to work offenders were to be supervised by prison officers outside the prison. This would outside the prison, primarily in maintaining the grounds not happen elsewhere. around the prison. It would not have given them experience of using buses, shopping or ordinary work or study in the community. The purpose of sex offenders being outside is not for grounds maintenance, but should be as part of pre-release training. This can be better facilitated through individualised placements from ‘top- end’ facilities and open prisons.
28 Alex Salmond MP wrote to the Governor of HMP Peterhead on 27 March 1997 to ensure that offenders did not contemplate settling in the area of Peterhead on their release. “As you will be aware, I have met Government Ministers on a number of occasions in recent years to voice concern over the arrangements for the release of sex offenders into the local community. As I have said publicly, I believe the local community should not become any kind of haven for released prisoners and as has been made clear several times the local community share this concern.”
29 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS h) Meeting Key Performance h) KPI’s are an Agency target set by Ministers. It is much Indicators (KPI’s) might be more important to focus on the delivery of the affected interventions than administrative dis-aggregations and time-frames of targets. i) The possible temporary i) SPS should aim to get other sites running first. The reduction in the number of overall intention should be to increase the number of programmes delivered will put programmes being delivered, as indicated in paras. 2.12 the public at more danger. to 2.17 above. This is a substantial challenge to SPS. Providing all those who are due for release have participated in interventions there should be no increased risk to the public. On the other hand, increases to the numbers of programmes delivered should, in long run, bring substantial benefit to harm reduction and public safety. j) Closing Peterhead will result j) This may be the case. SPS has promised that there will in the loss of some experienced be no redundancies and all staff would be offered a staff. transfer to other prisons. A proportion of Peterhead staff are due to retire in the next 3 – 4 years. These would have to be replaced, in any case, and training put in place for their replacements. SPS will have to identify the likely loss of staff and put in place training ahead of any proposed phasing or closure. k) It will be difficult to get k) SPS will have to invest in training. The estimation (in trained people into new places. chapter 4) is that about 27 programmes require to be delivered nationally in prisons. This will require about 75 trained staff involving prison officers, psychologists and social workers. In chapter 9, below, an indication of the current numbers of trained staff is given. It shows, for example, that there are already more trained staff available in the central belt than in Peterhead. Further, Peterhead staff have assisted, in the past, staff from other prisons with training. Opportunities exist for staff from a new location to visit Peterhead and “shadow” existing practices. This will allow experience to be gained of the prevailing culture. SPS can utilise prison officers from within the estate to cover operational posts to facilitate staff to attend such training. l) The perception will be that l) Peterhead is a success story. However, the buildings once something is successful are not fit for purpose. Additionally, SPS require to SPS will close it. This sends a deliver much more work to sexual offenders than negative message to Peterhead currently possible in Peterhead. Peterhead has shown and other staff. what can be achieved. A larger centre of excellence with a regime based on that at Peterhead would achieve even more. This is vindication of the work of Peterhead’s staff. Replication at another site will be less problematic if existing experience and expertise from Peterhead is utilised29.
29 Interestingly, the 2001 SPS Staff Survey indicates little difference in staff attitudes to the work undertaken in Peterhead prison compared with other prisons. For example, 84% of SPS staff liked the
30 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
m) Small prisons are required m) While economies of scale can be demonstrated in for work with sex offenders. larger establishments there is no research evidence to suggest that small institutions deliver higher standards of programmes. Larger establishments allow for better staff interchange, staff support and should enable larger dedicated staff training facilities and resource libraries. Additionally, throughcare is enhanced with social workers, police and others able to maximise the benefits of visits in dealing with more cases/individuals at a time. n) Social workers involvement n) Social workers at Peterhead are currently only with the work at Peterhead will involved in casework and not in programme delivery. be affected by uncertainty. There will be at least a three to four year demand for further work. o) Multi-agency workers may o) Multi-agency workers will continue to work with not put in the same effort to get Peterhead staff in a professional way. If the programme to know staff and build up moves closer to the central belt then throughcare and relationships at Peterhead in public protection issues should be enhanced. It should be the intervening period. easier to link with local offices of the various community based agencies if more centrally located. If a new location is decided upon, the management should ensure that such agencies are involved from the start to foster joint working and good relationships. p) Other, non-programme staff, p) In a ‘single purpose’ prison, the objectives of the would not be supportive of a institution are clear. As part of their day-to-day work newly created environment. staff will be required to contribute to the working of the regime. They will be required to receive awareness training which is supportive of the work undertaken and challenging/non-collusive with pro-offending belief systems of sex offenders. A mixture of staff training, peer influence and exposure to the benefits of a supportive environment will help counter this concern.
kind of work they undertook (83% in Peterhead); 85% of staff took great pride in their job (87% in Peterhead); and 67% of staff felt that most of their work was not mundane (65% in Peterhead).
31 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
7. THROUGHCARE
INTRODUCTION
7.1 This chapter outlines a number of issues, from a social work perspective, which are relevant to the delivery of effective throughcare services to sex offenders.
7.2 Although our focus is on sex offenders, the principles of effective throughcare practice equally apply to other groups of offenders. However, it is recognised that some offenders, including most sex offenders, also require a supervisory approach which focuses on the particular type of crime they have committed.
THROUGHCARE
7.3 The term ‘throughcare’ relates to the provision of a range of social work and associated services to prisoners and their families from the point of sentence or remand, during the period of imprisonment and following release into the community. Such services, whether required by statute or because the prisoner seeks such a service, are mainly aimed at assisting prisoners prepare for release, and helping them resettle in the community within the law.
Throughcare comprises two main elements – work in the prison and work in the community.
7.4 Social work services in prisons form part of the provision of a comprehensive throughcare service, and local authorities are required to undertake a number of statutory and other mandatory core responsibilities and duties within prisons. In addition to mandatory responsibilities, other services such as group work and support programmes, may also be provided by social workers in prisons.
7.5 The main priorities for social work in prisons relate to: Supporting those prisoners most likely to be vulnerable in custody. Focusing intervention on those prisoners most likely to prove a risk to themselves or others in the community. Ensuring that sex offenders and those likely to be subject to statutory supervision on release are priority client groups.
7.6 Social workers in the community are responsible for the supervision of offenders following release from custody, with public safety being the prime concern. However, it is likely that appropriate resettlement into the community will contribute to reducing the risk of reoffending. This requires the prison service and social workers to assist offenders address problems which are likely to place them at risk of offending. Ideally this process should start at the point of imprisonment. Effectiveness in terms of preparation for release is influenced by the availability of community based services and support, and the existence of a co-ordinated approach between prison management and agencies in the community. Continuity of service provision between prison and community services is vital, and social work services in prisons provide a critical link between these services.
32 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
7.7 Effective throughcare services to serving and released prisoners must be well focused, consistent and adapted to the offender and type of offending. In terms of sex offenders, there are a range of statutory responsibilities which must be carried out by social work services prior to, and following, release from custody. These include responsibility for those prisoners released on statutory supervision, those convicted of offences against children and those subject to the requirements of sex offender registration.
7.8 In terms of prison based social work services there are a range of tasks that have to be carried out, in relation to pre-release assessment and planning, which are associated with statutory post-release supervision. Community based social workers are responsible for the supervision of sex offenders in the community and, through this, the provision of personal change programmes. Risk assessment is a crucial function of social workers both in prisons and communities.
7.9 “Managing the Risk”, the report by the Social Work Services Inspectorate, published in 200030, recognises the need for greater collaboration between social work services and the Scottish Prison Service. This relates to the sharing of risk assessments and ensuring that community based social workers responsible for the supervision of offenders, who will be released on mandatory supervision, are well informed about the offenders response to personal change programmes undertaken during their sentence. The report recognises that the current National Standards for throughcare do not facilitate this and suggest that local authorities should nominate a supervising officer at the start of the sentence in all cases where a sex offender is imprisoned for 4 years or more. This is similar to the arrangements for those on extended sentences. Clearly this has considerable resource implications for local authorities. However, it recognises the importance of effective planning and co- ordination between prison and social work staff in the interests of risk management and public protection.
7.10 The availability of community based personal change programmes varies across Scotland and there is no standardised approach adopted by local authorities. Offenders will therefore receive different approaches to both supervision and personal change programmes depending on where they are released to. Currently, not all areas deliver personal change programmes. Many offenders come into contact with a number of local authority criminal justice social work services as well as the prison system, and possibly the voluntary sector, with different programmes being delivered. The lack of consistency between programmes was highlighted in the report of the Expert Panel on sex offending. Although the availability of community based approaches to sex offenders has increased considerably over the last five years there are still apparent significant gaps in the level of service provision. There is a need for a more centralised approach to ensure consistency of availability and delivery of work in the community
7.11 Accreditation is a vital component of the Getting Best Results agenda and plans are well underway in relation to the establishment of an Accreditation Panel for the content and delivery of community supervision programmes. The objective is to
30 Managing the Risk: An Inspection of the Management of Sex Offender Cases in the Community, (2000) Social Work Services Inspectorate for Scotland. The Scottish Executive. Edinburgh.
33 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS provide a structure for improving the quality of criminal justice social work practice in Scotland which is designed to suit the local authority setting in which it is based.
7.12 In order to be considered for accreditation, programmes will have to demonstrate that: S they are based on a clear model of change; S they target participants and dynamic risk factors; S they use methods that have been demonstrated to be effective; S they are designed to ensure that participants are responsive to methods used and that the conditions necessary for this are specified. This relates to assessment, programme delivery, staffing and use of a community focus ; S they contain an element of skills orientation and training S the intensity, sequencing and duration of the programme is related to the persistence and seriousness of the offending; S they are integrated into the overall objectives of supervision; S they have in-built systems which monitor operations and can be adjusted if necessary; and S they are evaluated. It is anticipated that a number of local authorities will prioritise sex offender programmes for accreditation.
AREAS OF CONCERN
7.13 The following is a summary of the key issues which are felt to impact on the provision of social work services to sex offenders who pass through the prison system: S Physical safety. This is viewed as a prerequisite for sex offenders who may not be able to acknowledge and address their offending behaviour unless they feel safe enough to do so. This is clearly not guaranteed in all the prisons where sex offenders are accommodated. S Assessment. Approaches to assessment vary between prisons and the community as does the availability of information to inform risk assessments. This is potentially problematic in terms of public protection. S Information. It is recognised that the provision and management of information is vitally important for public protection. The quality of information sharing between prisons and community as to work undertaken with offenders is an area which could be improved upon. S Programmes. There is a recognition of the need to develop a range of programmes which can cater for short term prisoners, young offenders and those with learning difficulties. Similarly there needs to be more continuity between the provision of programmes within prisons and the community. S Resourcing. Throughcare is still not well resourced, especially voluntary throughcare. Clearly this impacts on service delivery, although anecdotal evidence is that such work with sex offenders is afforded a high priority by local authorities. S Location of Peterhead. The distance involved in travelling to Peterhead is viewed by some local authorities as a barrier to effective throughcare. However, the fact that a large number of sex offenders are located in
34 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Peterhead allows authorities to plan throughcare visits so that a number of offenders will be seen on the same day. Again anecdotal evidence suggests that most authorities do prioritise throughcare contacts with offenders in Peterhead and will also use prison based social workers to maintain contact. The location of Peterhead was not viewed as the main barrier to effective throughcare.
SUMMARY
7.14 Clearly Peterhead Prison is distanced from the central belt of Scotland where most of its population originates. Visits to prisoners therefore have to be scheduled and are time consuming. Although this is a potential barrier to effective throughcare there are other issues which are viewed as more important in terms of public protection. These can be summarised as follows:
S The availability of specialist intervention programmes for a wide range of sex offenders including those serving shorter sentences, young offenders and those with learning difficulties. Fundamental to this is an environment which is conducive to such work, and appropriately trained staff.
S The transfer of good quality information between prison and community and back is vitally important to the management of risk. Services need to have a good understanding of work undertaken and progress made so that risk management plans are based on the best possible information.
S The availability of specialist intervention programmes for sex offenders subject to supervision in the community varies across Scotland. This means that levels and types of service delivery are dependent upon where prisoners are discharged to. Clearly resources have an impact on the availability of such programmes and although the revised ‘grouping’ arrangements for the delivery of Social Work Services in the Criminal Justice System offer opportunities for the development of such programmes they will need to be properly resourced.
S Currently, there is no agreed ‘core programme’ of intervention with sex offenders in the community and this requires further consideration by the Association of Directors of Social Work.
S The resourcing of throughcare services is being afforded greater priority and it is anticipated that this will impact on service delivery.
S Finally, consideration should be given to maximising the experience and expertise of criminal justice staff and those responsible for the delivery of programmes in prison. This could be achieved by multi-agency training and increased joint working, something which SPS has already embarked upon.
35 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
8. PROVISION FOR YOUNG OFFENDERS AND FEMALES
Young Offenders
8.1 Children, adolescents and young adults commit a significant proportion of sexual offences31. For example, up to a third of all sexual offences are committed by children and young people before they reach the age of 18 years. Unless effective treatment is offered to these young offenders the risk of continued offending in adult life is high. Research has consistently demonstrated that the characteristics of both the offences committed by young people, and the levels of psychological disturbance in sexually aggressive young people, are comparable with those of adult abusers. However, there is some evidence to suggest that levels of certain characteristics, such as victim empathy, are less troublesome in this group of younger offenders than in adult abusers. This suggests that there may be an additional “window of opportunity” for intervention.
8.2 Unfortunately, most sexually aggressive young people remain undetected or unreported. The disposal of those that are identified, confronted with their behaviour and charged with committing a sexual offence depends on their age. Most of those under the age of 16 are referred to the Reporter and the Children’s Hearing System and subsequently dealt with under provisions of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995, although there is provision for them to be referred to the Procurator Fiscal and dealt with by the court system. Specialist assessment and treatment provision for this group is variable across Scotland32. For those deemed to require secure accommodation a treatment programme has been set up at St Mary’s Kenmure. Those aged 16 and over are dealt with by the adult court system, and those older adolescents and young adults up to the age of 21 years found guilty and sentenced to a custodial sentence are generally placed within one of the YOI’s. Of these, Polmont runs the Adapted Sex Offender Treatment Programme (ASTOP), a modified version of the Sex Offender Treatment Programme (STOP 2000) which has been designed to provide an opportunity for those with lower attention spans or learning disabilities to address their sexual offending behaviour.
8.3 Whilst the problems faced by sexually aggressive young people are similar to those of adult offenders, and whilst the assessment and treatment programmes also follow the same basic principles, they require considerable modification to take into account the developmental immaturity of the younger group. Cognitive, social and moral development remains incomplete at the age of transition from the child- orientated children’s hearing system to the adult orientated court system. Indeed many of the higher cognitive processes continue to develop through to the late twenties. It is therefore important that staff within the SPS who are delivering programmes aimed at addressing sexual offending behaviour to older adolescents and young adults have extensive experience and training in working with young people.
31 Epps noted that the 23 adolescent sex offenders in his study were responsible for 691 recorded crimes (sexual and non-sexual). Epps., K. (1998) Developing a Therapeutic Environment for Boys in Secure Settings who have Sexually Offended. Journal of Sexual Aggression, (1997/8), 3(2), 71-86. 32 Managing the Risk: An Inspection of the Management of Sex Offender Cases in the Community, (2000) Social Work Services Inspectorate for Scotland. The Scottish Executive. Edinburgh.
36 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
They also need access to, and training in, the delivery of high quality, age appropriate programmes aimed not only at reducing the risk of re-offending but also increasing cognitive and problem solving skills, managing anger control problems and reducing substance misuse problems. A proportion of these young people will also have suffered as victims of sexual abuse and, whilst additional therapeutic work addressing the psychological consequences of this abuse both psychological and psychiatric may be required, this on its own is unlikely to be effective in reducing recidivism.
8.4 As the problems faced by such young offenders within prison mirror those faced by the older offenders e.g. bullying and victimisation by other prisoners, the arguments put forward in favour of a monoculture or ‘single purpose’ institution or separate unit within the SPS for the treatment of adult abusers hold equally as strongly for sexually aggressive young offenders. However, due to their different requirements and needs it is not appropriate for young offenders to be integrated in the same environment as adult sexual offenders. It is therefore important for the SPS to consider whether the current policy of housing this group of young offenders within the heterogeneous population at Polmont YOI is appropriate, or whether it would be more effective to commission a separate unit for this group of prisoners. Polmont already holds 20 such inmates all serving sentences of two years or over. Such a unit would be most appropriately placed alongside and associated with an existing YOI, so that the prisoners could access appropriate facilities which would promote normal development and act synergistically with the treatment programme to reduce the risk of re-offending. In some cases, issues relating to the poorly integrated personal development of these young men might make it less appropriate for them to join in with group work. In these cases individualised interventions could be more effective and should be available where this is an appropriate need.
8.5 It would not be appropriate to commission such a unit as a part of an adult sex offender unit as this would not offer the same opportunities to promote normal development. However, were the SPS to consider developing a specialist adult sex offender programme within a prison close to a YOI housing a specialist unit, this would provide the additional benefit that staff within the young offenders institution could participate more easily from shared training opportunities with staff in the adult institution, and that staff in both institutions could be mutually supportive of each other. D Adolescent sexual offenders require early interventions and support. Within prisons these are best delivered from a specialist unit in the Young Offender system D Staff require experience and training for working with this special group.
Females
8.6 Whilst the number of imprisoned female sex offenders is very small and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, their needs are complex, with some being similar to, and others different from, their male counterparts. Their future risk to the public remains considerable and therefore appropriate, credible assessment and treatment programmes need to be developed and implemented within SPS.
37 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
8.7. Because of the small numbers it is difficult to establish groups of women sex offenders. Also their needs are often complex and more deeply rooted due to severe early trauma33. Individualised interventions can prove effective in such cases. SPS could usefully build on the work undertaken by HMPS at HMP Styall, introduced in 2001.
33 A brief description of the issues surrounding female offenders and their treatment is given on pages 23 - 29 in: Spencer, A.P. (1999) Working with sex offenders in prisons and through release into the community: a handbook. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
38 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
9. STAFF TRAINING AND SUPPORT
9.1 In order to maximise any treatment gains whilst engaging in offence related work, specialist training must be provided for all staff. There are different levels of training, which should be delivered to staff that work within this environment. For Core workers who are delivering offence specific programmes, training is more intensive and covers a larger spectrum. Staff who are engaged in the personal officers’ role also require intensive training, but not as specific as the core workers and there should be generalised training for all other staff within the prison who do not have direct involvement in managing prisoners.
9.2 All potential STOP facilitators undergo an assessment designed to measure their suitability for delivering sex offender programmes. There are separate assessment centres for each of the different STOP programmes. Those who are successful at the assessment centre stage then go on to undertake the training for their respective programme.
Training
9.3 There is a comprehensive training process. It begins with a week’s general groupwork skills training. Then, for those who pass the assessment centre for the sex offender programme training, there is training in the theory and programme content itself, the staff awareness package, role play and refresher training. Those in supervisory or management roles attend further training and workshops.
9.4 The training for each programme is two weeks long. Participants are assessed throughout the training and recommendations made. There are three possible recommendations: S Recommended to facilitate S Recommended to retrain S Not recommended as a facilitator
9.5 As noted, the training packages for the core, adapted and extended programmes are different. Facilitators must be trained in the programme prior to delivery of that specific programme. Facilitators must have experience of delivering the core or adapted programmes prior to attending the extended programme training. Training for each programme is clearly prescribed in a manual and is delivered in accordance with this manual.
9.6 There are other areas of training which should be seen as precursors relevant to personal officers and those engaging in offence related work. The following are broad areas which would certainly shape a potential facilitator into examining broader aspects of working with sexual offenders: 1. Attitudes, Values & Beliefs S Gender issues such as Women, Men, Children in society S Sex and Sexuality 2. Sex Offender Issues
39 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
S Cognitive Distortions S Offending behaviour patterns S Theories of Offending S Victim Empathy S Avoiding Collusive Practices 3. Interviewing Techniques S Use of open/closed questions, Socratic questions, style and pace of the interview. 4. Group working Skills S Group Dynamics, challenging individuals in a group setting, managing group processes, facilitating a session. 5. Victim/ Survivor Organisations S To understand the impact that offending has on an individual, to get a victim/survivors perspective. 6. Police Investigations of a Sexual Offence S To understand the perspective of the legal system in investigating a sexual offence. 7. Procurator Fiscals S To understand how an offence is processed through the fiscals office in preparation for a court case. 8. Court Case of a Sexual Offence S To gain an understanding of the process involved in a court case for a victim of a sexual offence. To examine the perspective of both the defence and the prosecution. 9. Social Work Community Placement S To gain an understanding of case load of the social work department and issues related to through care. 10. Programme Content S All personal officers should have a basic awareness of the content of programmes on offer particularly that of offence related work.
9.7 Ongoing training and development should be seen as a priority as research in this field is updated regularly. This will allow staff the opportunity to update their existing skills base and should include attending training events at NOTA, sharing best practice with other external agencies and with other SPS sites.
9.8 There is an opportunity for personal officers to become involved in some aspects of the training programme designed for the Core workers. This will provide a good grounding to create interest in others becoming involved in offence related work at a later stage in the process. It will also help to create a culture of promoting the benefits of working together to address offending behaviour.
Staff Awareness 9.9 General staff awareness training sessions should be made available to all other staff within the prison so they are aware of their role, which is to support the programme work and not to derail the process. Table 10 below shows the levels of awareness training in the establishments delivering STOP.
40 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Table 10: Number of Staff who have Received Awareness Training Establishment Number of Staff Trained Barlinnie 0 Polmont 24 in STOP 2000/Adapted Peterhead 498 staff trained in SOA 286 in Collusion 144 in STOP 2000/Adapted
S Staff receive the same training package for each STOP 2000 programme in all sites. S Level of experience in delivery may be an important factor in developing skills. S An environment supportive of sex offender work may also facilitate skill acquisition and development.
Issues relating to staff training and support
9.10 The training of staff and the provision of effective support at all levels are crucial for the delivery of offence-specific work. Training for those staff delivering the programme is a lengthy process incorporating a variety of training experiences. However, this is not the only training required as all staff require to be supported by attending awareness training. Staff awareness session for all staff working in this complex area will also reduce collusive activities from occurring with offenders, and increase the ability to challenge the pro-offending beliefs held by offenders during any ongoing contact. Training for all staff will also ensure that the efficacy of the programme is maintained and the environment is one where offenders feel safe and supported, that they are not subjected to ‘put downs’ and that staff do not collude with offenders pro-offending attitudes. Therefore it is vitally important that training to work with offenders is seen as a core skill, and is a core duty staff are expected to undertake. Specific staff awareness sessions are crucial to the on going support of the programme, the facilitators and the offenders. All staff must be aware that the programme is central to the work of the prison and support it.
9.11 Working with men who commit sexual offences presents a range of issues for individuals involved with their management. The work will lead staff to examine their own attitudes values and beliefs in a variety of personal areas. Therefore ongoing support is a crucial element to the complexities of this work.
9.12 Since 1995 the group work staff at Peterhead Prison have recognised the need for staff training to be built into the training curriculum, and that all staff needed to attend general sex offender awareness training (in order to promote the notion that all staff play a role in the rehabilitation of offenders). They have been involved in networking their skills and experience to other SPS Prisons who are working with sex offenders. Prisons such as Friarton (Perth), Glenochil, Greenock and Noranside have all requested specific awareness training to be delivered to their staff. These awareness sessions have been well received by the prisons and ongoing training will continue in the future. Additionally, staff from other prisons have visited Peterhead in order to see the work that goes on and also to get a sense of the environment. The expectation is that they will then replicate some of the practices seen at Peterhead in their respective establishments.
41 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
9.13 The practice of networking to share skills and experience has also been extended to external organisations such as the National Organisation for the Treatment of Abusers (NOTA) and the Scottish Police Training College.
9.14 Of the number of individuals currently employed by, or working within, the Scottish Prison Service, those trained in STOP 2000 at June 2002 are shown in Table 11:
Table 11: STOP 2000 Programme Establishment Individuals Trained Psychologists Officers & Managers Social Workers Peterhead 4 9 1 Barlinnie 4 5 2 Polmont 3 3 2 Edinburgh 3 4 1 Perth 3 0 0 Greenock 2 0 0 Glenochil 2 0 0 Shotts 1 0 0 Noranside 1 0 0 Cornton Vale 1 0 0 Aberdeen 1 0 0 TOTAL 25 21 6
From Table 11 above it can be seen that the number and location of officers, social workers and psychologists trained in STOP 2000 shows that skills are currently also available outwith Peterhead. However, of the 52 trained staff a significant number are not yet utilised in programme delivery
9.15 SPS staff trained to deliver Adapted STOP programme (ASTOP) at June 2002 are shown in the following Table:
Table 12: Adapted Sex Offender Programme (ASTOP) Individuals Trained Establishment Psychologists Officers & Manager Social Workers Peterhead 3 3 0 Polmont 2 3 2 Edinburgh 3 0 0 Barlinnie 2 0 0 Perth 1 0 0 Noranside 1 0 0 TOTAL 10 6 2
42 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Table 12 above indicates that there are also significant numbers of staff trained in Adapted STOP outwith Peterhead.
9.16 SPS staff trained to deliver the Extended STOP programme (ESTOP) at June 2002 are shown in the following Table:
Table 13: Staff trained to deliver ESTOP (June 2002) Extended Sex Offender Treatment Programme Individuals Trained Therapist Level Establishment Psychologists Officers Primary Secondary Peterhead 2 2 2 2 Noranside 1 0 0 1
9.17 SPS staff trained to deliver the Rolling Sex Offender Programme (RSTOP) at June 2002 are shown in the following Table:
Table 14: Staff trained to deliver RSTOP (June 2002) Rolling Sex Offender Treatment Programme Individuals Trained Therapist Level Establishment Psychologists Officers Primary Secondary Edinburgh 1 0 0 1 Noranside 1 0 0 1
43 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
10. CONCLUSIONS
1. To meet the needs of the numbers and throughput of sex offenders in prison considerably more work requires to be undertaken to assist sex offenders to address their offending behaviour. It is likely that something like 27 groups a year (or equivalence), a four-fold increase, will have to be delivered to meet demand (4.5 to 4.10).
2. SPS will need to train further staff to ensure adequacy of provision. It is likely that some 75 fully dedicated programme staff (comprising prison officers, psychologists and social workers) will be required to meet the needs of the service, a three-fold increase on current provision.34
3. In our view, it takes about eight months for the delivery of effective assessment and interventions. This translates into a net minimum sentence, after any backdating, of one year and four months. We accept that there might be good reasons for short periods of imprisonment – public messages about punishment, protection of the public and meeting victim aspirations. But for such short sentences (less than eight months in custody) it may be more effective in treatment terms, and thus ultimately for public protection, if similar assessment and interventions can be undertaken in the community. Probation and Supervision Orders requiring the offender to undertake treatment can give greater continuity. These orders are for periods from one to three years and, unlike equivalent prison sentences, are not subject to 50% remission. These community based interventions will place demands on local resources (4.2 to 4.4).
4. Having examined the range of options, we have concluded that the best environment for the delivery of programmes to address sexual offending is that to be found in a ‘single purpose’ prison for Adult Male Sex Offenders. As well as optimising resources and treatment efficacy, it has a culture which is supportive for staff, prisoners and visitors (5.15).
5. In considering how many such units should exist we have concluded that the size of the institution does not have a bearing on the success of the interventions delivered. However, larger establishments can concentrate specialisms on the difficult subject of programmes to tackle sexual offending. It would also act as a ‘magnet’, pulling in expertise, training and research. Our ideal establishment would include a resource library and training and seminar facilities for multi-agency working (5.14).
6. Accommodation should be fit for purpose/habitation, i.e. that prisoner accommodation will meet acceptable standards. In our view, for this particular group, it would not be appropriate to consider doubling-up prisoners in cells.
34 This figure is lower than the expected increase in demand for groups since there are a number of staff already trained but not utilised throughout the SPS estate.
44 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
7. The establishment should be fit for purpose. There should be adequate rooms for group work, interviews and case conferences. There should be two types of visit areas, one of which is child-free. There should be greater interaction with visitors by staff (prison officers and social workers). Involvement in case management and intelligence gathering should be ongoing. Staff training, training and seminar facilities and a resource library should be provided (5.10 to 5.11 and Annex II).
8. Effective throughcare is a necessary and important component of the interventions and support provided to imprisoned sex offenders. Thus, the optimal location is one which is as close to home areas of offenders as can be organised within the requirement to provide a ‘single purpose’ prison. This will facilitate improved throughcare and visiting for prisoners. The single purpose prison would ensure least anxiety for visitors.
9. Young Offenders and Females present particular problems. A specialist unit should be managed within the main Young Offenders Institution at Polmont. It is better for the development of adolescents and young adults that they share the same environment as other young people, and benefit from other specialised education and training facilities available. Because there are only two or three female sexual offenders held in Cornton Vale, an individualised programme, designed for women, such as run at HMP Styall, might be most appropriate. Staff engaged in the delivery of programmes at these two locations should retain close contacts with those at the ‘single purpose’ establishment – to enable continued professional development and support (8.1 to 8.7).
10. There are attendant risks to moving a programme from one prison location to another. These are detailed in Chapter 6. However, with planning and an organised approach to the arrangements required for selecting and training staff, and sequencing of interventions, it should be possible to transfer the delivery of such programmes to a new location without too much disruption.
11. The creation of a new ‘single purpose’ prison and the development of a new centre of excellence will take time and commitment. High calibre senior management will need to be single minded to achieve the same standards as currently available at Peterhead. However, the experience of the work and staff at Peterhead and the lessons learned can be used to aid that process. A larger single centre of excellence with proper facilities should expect to surpass that which has been already achieved. The creation of such a resource for sex offenders will give an unrivalled opportunity for SPS to create a world class centre in all senses (including proper accommodation and fit for purpose facilities).
12. In order to meet all appropriate intervention needs of sex offenders, SPS will need to train more prison officers, psychologists and prison based social workers. There may be a requirement to recruit further specialist staff. Inevitably, this will take time and involve resource shifts and additional bids for resources. We have noted that provision of community based programmes
45 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
is varied. Some additional resource will be required to ensure availability of community based interventions in all areas.
13. SPS should consider developing closer links with appropriate university departments, to promote the professional development of its staff in this area, not only for prison officers, but also linking in with forensic psychology and social work practice. This will further enhance the work of the centre of excellence and support research.
14. We have proposed an increase in the delivery of programmes to match need. However, with larger volumes it should be easier to undertake research to establish the efficacy of programmes. The tax-payer, who funds such interventions, will wish to be satisfied that the work with sexual offenders will ultimately result in greater public safety. Research and evaluation should be given a high priority and built in to any arrangements for a new centre.
15. Although programmes can be transferred, in order to facilitate such a transfer we recognise that it will take organisational effort and time. In our view, it will take a minimum of three years, during which time some programmes will have to be maintained at Peterhead. Also during this period, delivery in tandem with the work at Peterhead will have to take place at the new centre.
16. We suggest two options for consideration. One uses Glenochil, with the former Young Offender part re-built to provide accommodation for short term offenders and appropriate supporting facilities. The other is the suggested use of a new build prison. Both would have purpose built facilities which would ensure the particular needs of staff, prisoners and visitors were addressed (Annex II).
17. We recommend a single large institution for all Adult Male Sex Offenders be established in the Scottish Prison Service. Two specialist satellite sites should also be established: a unit for Young Sexual Offenders at Polmont and facilities for working with Female Sexual Offenders at Cornton Vale.
46 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
ANNEX I
OTHER COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMMES
1. SPS has a range of interventions to address offending behaviour available to all eligible prisoners and so facilitate the reduction of the risk of re-offending. Those most relevant to sex offenders include:
2. Cognitive Skills – 76 HOURS IN LENGTH, OVER 3 MONTHS
S Designed to address the needs of any offender who has difficulties with impulsivity, thinking skills and difficulties which may affect their social functioning. Cognitive skills addresses many of the problems that arise from these difficulties. S Eight modules are taught: Assertive Communication; Problem-solving; Social Skills; Creative Thinking; Values Enhancement; Negotiation Skills; Management of Emotions; and Critical Reasoning.
3. The Programme was introduced by T3 Associates to SPS in 1995. It achieved full Accreditation in 1998. It is currently running in: S Aberdeen S Barlinnie S Cornton Vale S Dumfries S Edinburgh S Glenochil S Greenock S Inverness (currently suspended delivery) S Low Moss S Perth S Peterhead S Polmont S Shotts
4. Anger Management – 30 HOURS IN LENGTH GROUPWORK PLUS HOMEWORK EXERCISES, OVER 3 MONTHS
S Designed to address the needs of any prisoner who has problems in temper control and violence. S The Programme addresses three basic issues: why and when to control anger; how to reduce anger cognitively and how to modify and improve behavioural coping skills.
5. The programme was developed by SPS Psychologists and introduced to SPS in 1997. It achieved full Accreditation in 1999. It is currently running in: S Barlinnie
47 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
S Cornton Vale S Edinburgh S Dumfries S Glenochil S Greenock S Perth S Peterhead S Polmont S Shotts
6. A Guide to Sensible Drinking – 22.5 HOURS IN LENGTH
S This Approved Activity is designed for any prisoner who presents or is identified as having problems due to the misuse of alcohol.
The aim is to address the needs of prisoners who have identified needs / risks in relation to their alcohol use. Our aim is to ensure that they are fully equipped to make the connection between their alcohol use and their behaviour. The programme will also allow offenders to gain personal awareness / education on alcohol related issues, which will allow them to make informed choices on how to make and maintain changes to their own alcohol use, thus promoting a more healthy lifestyle.
The programme consists of 9 x 2.5 hour sessions.
7. The programme was developed by SPS Psychologists and Prison staff at HMP Greenock and introduced to SPS in 2000. It achieved Approved Activity status in 2002. It is currently running in: S Greenock and is currently being rolled out in a number of other prisons following staff training.
48 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
ANNEX II
FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN DESIGNING OR CREATING A NEW FACILITY FOR SEXUAL OFFENDERS
1. The group considered what special or different facilities might be required if we were designing a purpose built prison, ‘fit for purpose’ for working with sexual offenders – as opposed to designing an ‘ordinary’ prison.
2. We identified a number of features:
a) Groupwork Rooms: There was a requirement for more purpose- built/designed groupwork rooms35. This reflected the requirement identified above for up to some 24 groups to be run annually at this single site, in addition to the more general suite of complementary programmes and Approved Activities. In our view, running a group twice weekly for a 2.5 hour session would allow each group room to be used by four groups. This generates a requirement for an additional six groupwork rooms. b) Interview Rooms: It is expected that detailed assessments of risk and needs, treatment requirements and throughcare will generate a demand for a large number of Interview Rooms. c) Case Conference Rooms: Case conferencing – both for sentence management purposes and throughcare and public protection reasons will generate a requirement for a number of rooms suitable in size and furnishings to hold case conferences. d) Visits: We envisage three types of visit areas because of the nature of sex offenders and their offending behaviours. First, a visit area which is to be ‘child free’. This would be the norm at the start of a sentence, until assessments are complete and the nature of the risk is known. It would also be used by all sex offenders who pose a continuing risk to children and/or those who have not yet engaged in intervention programmes to deal with issues related to offences against children. Second, there should be a ‘child friendly’ visit area where sex offenders can meet with their families and their children36. Facilities will also have to be provided for adequate supervision37. Third, it would be advantageous to have a small visit room for supervised/accompanied visits. e) Training: There should be adequate staff training facilities, including training rooms, a resource library (with a budget to provide materials to enable continued professional development of staff) and administrative support. The establishment should have adequate facilities to enable joint training with external agencies and a conference or seminar facility. f) Intelligence: We recognise that sexual offenders pose particular risks, including sharing of target information, grooming of future victims,
35 Purpose built groupwork rooms might include video monitoring equipment, audio links and two-way mirrors to an adjacent support room. 36 Care has to be exercised to ensure that such children have a real reason for visiting, i.e. that they are actually the son or daughter of the offender. Also, such proposed visits for identified children will have to be cleared with Social Work, Police, and/or child protection agencies in advance. 37 This might include two-way mirrors in addition to the usual surveillance systems.
49 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
information on paedophile networks, information about other offences and offenders, etc. Consideration should be given as to how appropriate and relevant intelligence gathering could be built into the organisation of the prison. It would also involve inter-agency collaboration. g) Cellular Accommodation: We do not think it appropriate, for a number of reasons, that sexual offenders should ‘double-up’ and share cells. They should be accommodated in single occupancy cells.
3. In devising appropriate regimes consideration might also be given to:
S Creating greater interaction with visitors. S In addition to the provision for social integration issues such as addictions and employment to be addressed, a more holistic approach which allows newly acquired learning to be practised in the prison environment. S Creating alternative lifestyles, replacing pro-offending thinking and activities with constructive activities, which occupy the mind and re-enforce the benefits of adopting pro-social belief systems. S We wondered whether it might prove beneficial to house life-sentence sexual offenders in their own hall or wing within the prison.
4. We believe the above suggestions could be adopted in two ways:
a) By using the site (suggested in the Estates Review) at Glenochil. The adult establishment provides appropriate accommodation for up to 496 adult offenders. The Young Offenders Institution is due to be demolished once the new Polmont Houseblock is completed, we understand in early 2003. Our suggestion is to use the site of the old Glenochil YOI to accommodate shorter term sexual offenders, up to about 100 to 150. In addition the rest of the old YOI site should be re-constructed to provide the necessary facilities we have listed in 2 a), b), c), d) and e) above. b) The second option is to provide for sexual offenders in a new, purpose built facility under the PPP option. We understand that commitments have already been given in relation to retaining this work for public sector SPS staff. A purpose built prison, however, through contract under the PPP process, might tie future usage during the contract period, or due to the nature of the specific facilities incorporated, be too limiting.
50 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
ANNEX III
THE PRISON ENVIRONMENT AND SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT
The ‘monoculture’ or ‘single purpose’ institution argument
1. Effective sex offender therapy takes place in an environment that is conducive to change. Whilst it is essential that sexual abuse be deplored and attitudes that support such abuse are challenged, there needs to be an ethos of respect and care for the individual offender. This allows the offender to become vulnerable enough to face the fact of the real harm his abuse has caused.
2. Essential components of sex offender treatment programmes including improved self esteem and relationship skills and developing victim empathy – successful outcomes will be severely compromised if these components are not effectively delivered within the programme itself and subsequently reinforced, through practice and constructive feedback, within the living environment of the institution. This has evident implications for programme staff themselves, but also critically for managers within prison and for all other staff within the prison who may have contact with the offender. As noted by Epps38:
“all staff must bear some responsibility for helping the young person to reflect on, and change, his appropriate behaviour and attitudes….However an environment that is effective in challenging and changing inappropriate sexual behaviour and attitudes of boys, which have often persisted for years, does not happen by accident. Rather it happens by design. Developing cohesive teams of skilled staff engaged in purposeful, goal-directed activity requires organisation, planning and constant monitoring and evaluation” (p. 79).
3. In considering the implications of these comments for SPS and the provision of personal change programmes for sex offenders, discussion was had with those involved with the design and management of sex offender treatment programmes in HMPS and others involved in research into the effectiveness of such programmes – specifically with David Thornton, previous Head of the Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit of HMPS; Ruth Mann, current Head of Sex Offender Treatment Programmes of the Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit; Tony Beech, co-author of “An Evaluation of the Prison Sex Offender Treatment Programme”, Home Office 1998, often referred to as STEP 3; and the Programme Manager of Sex offender Treatment Programmes at HMP Usk, Whatton and Risley.
4. Whilst HMPS delivers one or more of it’s ‘family’ of programmes for sex offenders in 25 different prisons, it has never formally compared the relative components of effectiveness between different types of sites e.g comparing the features that contribute to effectiveness in HMP Risley, where sex offenders are fully integrated with other prisoners, against features in HMP Usk, a 220 bed ‘sex offender only’ prison. Whilst there is some anecdotal evidence that offending behaviour programmes generally work better where participants are co-located and can support
38 Epps., K. (1998) Developing a Therapeutic Environment for Boys in Secure Settings who have Sexually Offended. Journal of Sexual Aggression, (1997/8), 3(2), 71-86.
51 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS and reinforce each others learning, there is little published research specific to this point.
5. HMP Whatton and Usk are dedicated sex offender prisons (with a small number of non-sex offender vulnerable prisoners in each) running the HMPS Core, Adapted, Booster and Extended Programmes. In each the prison regime is based around the programmed work and each believes it has developed a therapeutic environment that enhances treatment efficacy. Programme Managers comment that visitors notice the difference of this relaxed but purposeful and vigilant regime; that drugs, self-harming and other unstable behaviours are at a minimum and that drop-out rates for programmes are small in comparison with other SOTP prisons. These prisons appear to take the lead in setting up systems for liaison with other child protection and public protection agencies e.g. Police, Customs and Excise, Social Services Departments. HMP Whatton accommodates 280 prisoners.
6. In contrast, HMP Risley is a prison for 800 with some 200-sex offenders ‘integrated’ into the normal population. While notions of integration are perceived as advantageous, there remains an ongoing concern about bullying; it is recognised that non-specialist staff may undermine or erode treatment gains; and little attempt is made to consider or enforce other environmental factors e.g. availability and use of ‘top shelf’ pornography. It is noteworthy that the prison is currently looking to now separate the sex offender population in HMP Risley to enhance programme delivery and effectiveness and to ease a range of prisoner management issues.
7. Ruth Mann of the Offending Behaviour Programmes Unit (OBPU), HMPS, is clear in her support for “monocultures” i.e. dedicated, sex offender only prisoners or dedicated, separate sex offender units in mixed population prisons. She refers to anecdotal evidence that such units/prisons are better at engaging offenders in treatment; men feel safer and less threatened than in mixed regimes; denial and treatment refusal are lower; prisoners are able to be more open. There is no evidence of greater collusion between offenders in such units/prisons than in other prison environments.
Some practical difficulties in mixed or integrated custodial environments
8. In addition to a consistency in descriptions of programme content, sex offender clinical and research literature acknowledges the greater difficulties involved in implementing and delivering programmes in custodial settings; the challenges facing staff involved in programme delivery; and the environmental factors that enhance or detract from programme efficacy.
9. Whilst much of the STEP 3 report (Beech et al 1998)39 bears repetition, a few of the most salient points informed the thinking of the Working Group.
10. In recognising the disappointing ‘overall treatment effect’ of the SOTP Core Programme with high deviancy sex offenders, the report notes that:
39 Beech, A., Fisher, D., & Beckett, R.(1998) STEP 3: an evaluation of the prison sex offender treatment programme. Research, Development and Statistics Occasional Paper. London: Home Office.
52 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
“this was because most of the high deviancy sample was still relatively socially incompetent by the end of treatment i.e. they continued to exhibit low self-esteem, high levels of under assertiveness and emotional loneliness” (p. 91). Such social incompetence is known to contribute to an increased risk of re-offence. Within treatment groups offenders are assisted in development of new thinking and skills with some limited opportunities for rehearsal in role-play situations, but treatment gains are optimised through practice outside of treatment, within the prison living environment. Clearly then, the prison needs to provide such practice opportunities along with an aware and supportive non-programme staff team interested enough to provide the necessary constructive feedback and encouragement to the offender.
11. The impact of other priorities within prisons with mixed populations, including those with separate sex offender units, was the focus of a number of observations within STEP 3 report.
12. In regard to the prisoner integration policy operated at HMP Risley, for example, tutors reported that this policy had “increased the amount of stress on sex offenders…. Treatment groups are invariably affected by the general atmosphere within the prison….sex offenders are often targeted by other prisoners….which in turn can impair their performance in the treatment programme” (p. 28). In addition “it was noted that, under this [integration] policy there was more pressure for sexual offenders to not admit to their sexual offences” (p. 29).
13. Whilst some of the deleterious impact of this policy was reported to have eased after the STEP teams visits, it is of note that in 2002 management of the prison is considering separating the sex offender population from other prisoners.
14. In HMP Wayland, with a specialist unit or “prison within a prison” by far the biggest problem reported by staff related to central rostering. The availability of tutors for the programmes was sporadic…the general attitude of prison management was that as long as someone was available to carry out the session there was no problem and that the need to use only trained tutors was not fully appreciated” (p. 33).
15. In contrast to these experiences staff at HMP Whatton, a specialist sex offender only prison “were appreciative of the system of assigning prison officers to the group work programmes and relieving them of other duties. Officers worked four days a week and were available to inmates in the evenings, which proved a much-used resource”. In addition “all staff felt there was adequate time for preparation, debriefing and documentation” (p. 36). But even at Whatton this seemingly effective treatment environment and provision of effective staff support was hard-won. During the development of the specialist role of the prison in sex offender programme delivery there had been experiences of ‘non-programme staff causing problems or trying to sabotage the group’. But over time and after considerable efforts (that were ongoing with regard to raising awareness in other staff) “generally the Core programme had been accepted and was viewed as a desirable thing to be involved with” (p. 37).
53 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
16. In addition to programme vulnerability to other competing demands within the prison as noted above, it must also be recognised that demands across the prison estate can have massive impact on programmed work on offenders and on programme staff. In recent months due to pressures of numbers in particular, small, separate sex offender units in HMP High Down and Brixton have been closed and the prisoners relocated. This, despite the existence of highly experienced programme staff delivering credible and effective programme work.
17. One recommendation of note relating to prisoner location is that “normal location encourages rapists to maintain denial and avoid treatment. It is recommended that all rapists (except those with high psychopathy scores) are placed on Vulnerable Prisoner Units or their equivalent” (p. 92).
18. In the light of the above, it is easy to see how programme efficacy, reliability of delivery, adequate staff support and a supportive, therapeutic environment appear best delivered in specialist prisons that can ensure that these important matters are not overshadowed by the myriad of competing demands and priorities that a prison often has to juggle.
Creating the ‘single purpose’ institution
19. What, then are the factors which have to gel together to create an effective ‘single purpose prison’?
20. In considering the issue of a prison, it’s anticipated closure, and the challenges represented in reliably providing on going treatment for all relevant sex offenders, it is crucial to acknowledge that the context in which the programmes take place is at least as important as the content of these programmes.
21. As noted by Porporino40 in “What Works News” issue7 41: “Effective programme implementation is excruciatingly difficult and multifaceted…The more complex the setting or circumstances, the more time is required…with synchronous balancing of…heavy and attentive senior level support with…the extraordinary commitment and determination of a few staff (who generate) both offender and management enthusiasm for the new programme.”
22. As if this were not enough, effective programme delivery requires: “Staff who can relate and resonate both with the programme (i.e. its philosophy and principles) and with the offenders (ie with the alertness needed to impinge on their thinking).”
23. Porporino warns against potential failure resulting from programmes that are “shortcut, modified for convenience or delivered perfuctorily”. In addition: “Offenders have to be given the opportunities to test and try out their new cognitive and coping skills as they interact with both staff and other offenders in the correctional environment.”
40 Member of the Joint Prison/Probation Accreditation Panel, HMPS England and Wales. 41 National Probation Service. ‘What Works News’, No. 7, May 2002.
54 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
24. The sex offender intervention programme is not an easy one to introduce in a prison. It has to be central to the work of the establishment and form part of the culture and its core business. Spencer (1999)42 lists the following principles43 which should be observed:
(a) All staff must be aware that the programme is central to the work of the prison and support it. It is a demanding job and is an emotional drain on staff who work in groups. Groupwork staff need support not cynicism from their colleagues, and sustained support must come from the top of the organisation down through all levels of management. (b) Prison management has to organise manpower and resources to facilitate, not hinder, the intervention programmes. If group meetings are to be regular, old traditions have to go and the work of the core group staff comes before other rostering or ‘emergency’ needs. (c) The prisoners’ attendance at groups has to have priority over other work. (d) In order to implement a successful programme staff have to receive training in the nature of offending and the purpose of the groups, and they must support the work. All staff have to be aware of the nature of the programme and undergo ‘awareness’ or ‘attitude’ training intended to raise their consciousness and harness their support for those directly involved in the group work. They learn about sexual offenders and their victims and explore the relationship between offending and the attitudes, values and beliefs of offenders, so that they become supportive of the work their colleagues are doing and do not inadvertently collude with sexual offenders and their belief systems. (e) The general regime of the prison has to be consistent with the sex offender work. Staff have to be trained and encouraged to act as personal officers and prisoners must be encouraged to become involved with sentence management which provides a method of developing self awareness over a range of personal issues. Staff should also undertake counselling and welfare work, where necessary, with support from the staff of prison based social work units or psychologists. (f) Good staff/prisoner relationships are essential. In particular, the prison staff involved with the core work of delivering the intervention programme must have established trust with the prisoners. The discussions of the group will need to remain confidential to the group, and this places pressures on both the staff and prisoners who might otherwise turn elsewhere to discuss some of the issues raised. Boundaries must be established between group sessions and informal discussions which can take place at any time or location. (g) The environment must be made conducive to such work and must: be comfortable and supportive, have dedicated facilities and should be a pornography-free. (h) In general the regime should be one in which staff work with offenders in a ‘non put-down’ environment which is supportive but not collusive. This
42 Spencer, A.P. (1999) Working with sex offenders in prisons and through release into the community: a handbook. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. p. 55-59. 43 Some of these are also reflected in the SPS Accreditation Standards for the delivery of Sex Offender interventions.
55 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
milieu is difficult to achieve without an approach which values offenders as individuals. The need to develop an approach that will enhance the self- esteem of the offenders cannot be overstated. Marshall (1995)44 states, ‘We have found that increasing the offenders’ sense of self-worth is critical to changing all other features of them’ (p. 3). (i) For groups to have the best chance of succeeding, their members have to be able to feel safe. In working with sex-offenders, who are considered ‘fair game’ by other types of offenders for bullying, threats, assaults, extortion and so on, it is vital to create a safe and non-threatening environment. In reality, this is only likely to be possible when such offenders are segregated from mainstream non-sex offender prisoners. (j) Other parts of the regime should work to contribute to the programme. The education unit can provide a range of supporting classes and groups, improving communication skills, examining gender issues and teaching basic competencies. (k) Specialists and prison staff should deliver a range of other (not necessarily sexual-offence specific) groups, on subjects such as anger management and substance and alcohol abuse, and promote other groups which develop cognitive skills that will assist offenders in examining their own attitudes and offence patterns. (l) Prisoners on offence-specific programmes may require additional, non- offence-specific support from time to time: this should be offered by staff, psychologists or social workers but should not replace, or provide an excuse to avoid, the challenges of group therapy work. Other staff who also deal with these prisoners should ensure that they clarify the role of the core worker and distinguish it from the very different but also supportive role of the residential or personal officer. They can deal with a whole host of personal and situational issues but should be careful not to stray into the offence- specific work or attempt to continue the work of the core groups.
25. Many offenders have spoken about the fear, even terror, that they face when contemplating group intervention programmes. For them offence-specific work does more than open up a can of worms: it forces them to come to terms with their worst fears and nightmares and with their darker side. In fact, it is reality that sexual offenders fear. That is why they deny. Prisons have to be able to create the right atmosphere in which these offenders feel able to tackle such difficult issues.
26. In this way, and by continuing the training of core workers and other staff, and also by providing a range of support in regime activities through a supportive culture within the establishment and a degree of networking, it should be possible to develop a sustainable programme.
27. Marshall (1992)45 puts it succinctly: [Group work] is best conducted in an institution with sound peripheral security that exclusively houses sex offenders. In this way a therapeutic environment can be
44 Marshall, W.L. (1995) Report on Current Status and Future Development of Sex Offender Program at Peterhead and Suggestions for a Scottish National Policy. Ontario: Queen’s University 45 Marshall, W.L. (1992) Report to the Scottish Prison Service on the Implementation of a Treatment Programme for Sex Offenders. Ontario: Queen’s University
56 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
created where the offenders can effectively carry on the treatment-initiated changes and can discuss treatment issues openly with other offenders and staff without fear of retaliation from nonsex offenders. If sex offenders are integrated with other offenders, treatment benefits are typically slow in coming and are frequently eroded by the hostility from other offenders. Also, staff typically find it difficult to manage sex offenders who are in treatment when they must mingle with, or be located close to, other nonsex offenders. On-line staff have a very important role to play in therapy and their job in this regard should be made as easy as possible. (pp.21-22).
28. Another advantage of the ‘single purpose’ institution is that resources can be focused in one place. The centre of excellence would also be a centre for training and a resource library could be established there. This establishment should ensure it has facilities for staff training and holding service-wide training and study materials. It should also aim to involve partner agencies in training and development activities.
29. Cohesiveness, that is, a measure of the degree of ownership and commitment participants/members had for the group, and the levels of concern and support they showed to each other, was cited as “the best predictor of treatment success” (STEP3 p. 75). Single purpose prisons are ideally suited to fostering such cohesiveness, given that staff in such institutions universally value and understand the nature of the work being done within the groups and promote a therapeutic climate. It is essential that all staff within the environment believe that they have a role to play in changing offending behaviour. The consequence of creating this culture is that all staff feel they have an important role to play in the change process.
57 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
ANNEX IV
46 RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COSGROVE REPORT
Listed by Recommendation Numbers
16. All agencies involved in work with sex offenders should adopt the structured clinical approach to risk assessment and should use recognised structured tools as part of this approach. Each agency should undertake a regular audit of the use of such tools by its staff.
22. All local authority criminal justice social work services should make available specialist intervention programmes for those sex offenders who are subject to supervision in the community and are deemed suitable. All criminal justice social work services should review the skill mix of staff involved in the management of sex offenders and make formal arrangements with adjacent authorities to ensure that specific sex offender programmes are available as close as possible to the offender’s domicile. A directory of personal change programmes for sex offenders should be collated, regularly updated and made available to all relevant agencies.
23. Local authorities and the Scottish Executive should produce an agreed 'core' intervention manual for use with sex offenders in the community based on cognitive behavioural principles. STOP 2000 could form the basis for the manual but would require modification for community use and for different types of sex offender.
24. Local authorities should establish arrangements for joint training in programme delivery with the aim of ensuring that, within each local criminal justice social work service, there is sufficient expertise to deliver the core components of personal change programmes based on a cognitive behavioural approach. The identified group should be responsible for developing: (i) minimum training standards for workers involved in the delivery of personal change programmes for sex offenders (ii) a strategy for ensuring adequate supervision and support for programme facilitators and (iii) a strategy for continuing professional development to ensure skills are retained and enhanced on a regular basis.
28. The Scottish Prison Service should ensure the availability of sex offender intervention programmes for every convicted sex offender including those given a custodial sentence of 2 years or less. The Scottish Prison Service should also set out a timetable for achieving this and key performance indicators should be put in place to monitor progress towards achieving this target.
29. The Scottish Prison Service should build on its existing training strategy for staff involved in the delivery of personal change programmes for sex offenders by
46 Reducing the Risk: improving the response to sex offending; The Report by the Expert Panel on Sex Offending, (Chairman: The Honourable Lady Cosgrove), (June 2001). Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.
58 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS developing a strategy for continuing professional development. The Scottish Prison Service should also develop enhanced training to support those delivering programmes to sex offenders who deny their offending or who refuse to accept any responsibility for their behaviour.
30. The Scottish Prison Service should identify an individual (or group of individuals) to take responsibility for co-ordinating all the intervention programmes which are available to sex offenders. This should take place both at a central strategic level and within individual prisons. The role should include the following responsibilities: (i) Identifying which interventions are required and which should take priority; (ii) Monitoring waiting lists; (iii) Monitoring completion and drop out rates; and, (iv) Monitoring the overall effectiveness of the programmes through the use of standard psychometric tests.
31. The Scottish Prison Service should develop a strategy for the management of offenders who deny their sex offending and/or refuse to participate in personal change programmes.
32. The Scottish Prison Service should establish a working group to consider how best to monitor personal change and, with external agencies, how best to disseminate that information.
33. Sentencers and the Parole Board should be provided with regularly updated information about the programmes available for sex offenders in a custodial setting.
34. The Scottish Executive should review current provision in relation to assessment and intervention programmes and provision for children and young people who have committed a sexual offence or who are displaying sexually aggressive behaviour.
39. There should be a national programme of training for staff in young offenders institutions and Secure Units who deliver personal change programmes. The programme should build on the proposed universal developments in schools and community education.
60. The Scottish Prison Service, local authorities, hospitals and the Scottish Court Service should build on their existing liaison arrangements to establish effective systems for the transfer of information. Targets for the speed of transfer of information should be set. The effectiveness of transfer arrangements and targets should be monitored.
61. The social enquiry report and any psychological and psychiatric reports should be made available to the Scottish Prison Service when a prisoner enters custody. The warrant travelling with the prisoner should clearly set out which reports were provided. This should be checked by the Scottish Prison Service and missing reports obtained promptly. The Scottish Court Service should ensure that the trial judge's report is passed on as soon as possible thereafter and the Scottish Prison Service should monitor receipt of these, pursuing outstanding reports as necessary.
59 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
63. The Scottish Prison Service and local authorities should develop a national protocol determining the pertinent information which must be exchanged at the point of release from custody into the community.
67. The management of social work and other files should be improved through: S a checklist of key information sources attached to the front of each file; S better section headings so that routine correspondence does not restrict access to important documents; and, S reduction of redundancy and repetition.
68. The following terms should be developed and used by all agencies in order to ensure greater common understanding: registered; non-registered; un-registered; potential/ suspected sex offenders; vulnerable adult; sexually aggressive young people.
70. There should be joint training of agencies to facilitate the development of shared understanding and effective communication. Such training should be in the form of modules with clearly defined topics relevant and useful to individual agencies.
60 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
ANNEX V
THE PAST HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OF PETERHEAD PRISON
1. Peterhead Prison is situated approximately 34 miles north of Aberdeen and lies on a promontory near Salthouse Head, at the southern end of Peterhead Bay. Although opened in August 1888, its history can be traced back to 1881 when a Committee on the Employment of Convicts reported that ‘the most likely prospect for benefiting the shipping and fishing interest of the country at large and at the same time profitably employing convicts, is the construction of a harbour of refuge at Peterhead in Aberdeenshire’47. The 1886 Peterhead Harbour of Refuge Act gave the prison commissioners the necessary authorisation to build the prison.
2. When completed in 1888, the prison was designated a General Convict Prison. The arrival of the first twenty prisoners caused great excitement in the town, and for days crowds occupied the railway station, avid for the sight of the convicts. They travelled in a prison van, the only one in use in Scotland for railway purposes.48 Once work got started, the convicts were taken by a special train from within the prison to a nearby quarry, where they broke up the granite, and this was transported to the prison and used to make huge concrete blocks which were then transferred by crane on to the bed of the North Sea. On their journey, and in the quarry, they were guarded by warders armed with rifles. A cutlass and scabbard was worn by every warder at Peterhead from its opening until 1939. Rifles were carried until 1959 when all weapons were discontinued and batons substituted.
3. The original accommodation, completed by about 1889 was for 208, but during the first years of the 20th Century numbers fluctuated around an average of 350, reaching a peak of 455 in 1911. Further buildings were added in 1909 to increase accommodation and other works were also completed in the 1960’s. Work on the whole project, building the breakwater for the Harbour of Refuge, was finally completed in 1954. In 1959 some 20 acres were added to the original area of the prison and developed as the industrial area, to provide work following the completion of the Harbour of Refuge and breakwater project.
4. The role of Peterhead became that of an ordinary prison, taking only those prisoners serving over 18 months and for whom allocation to a training prison was considered inappropriate.
5. After the harbour project was completed in the early 1950’s the prison held difficult and recalcitrant prisoners, and there followed a period of trouble, violence from prisoners during the 1970’s and 1980’s, culminating in two major riots and hostage taking in the latter 1980’s. Intermittently there were calls for its closure and prisoners claimed that the regime was violent and brutalising. Conditions, which
47 Cameron, J (1983) Prisons and Punishment in Scotland from the Middle Ages to the Present. Edinburgh: Cannongate. (p. 154) 48 ibid, p 154
61 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS were poor, had not changed much in the century the prison had existed. Russell Dobash, then a researcher at Stirling University commented in 1979: I was shocked by the austere environment. I have been in every other Scottish prison and the conditions in Peterhead are exceptional in the negative sense, far beyond what one would have expected. There is an urgent need for a change at Peterhead, in fact it should be considered whether it should still operate as a prison in this day and age … I don’t know if it can be improved without knocking the place down.49
6. Contributory factors to the difficulties with prisoners were the poor cellular accommodation conditions at Peterhead, (indeed some cells, known as ‘iron lungs’, were very small and designed merely to hold a hammock for bedding), and its remoteness with consequential difficulties for families visiting. In the late 1980’s the range of complaints about Peterhead included50: S facilities for visits were poor; S education facilities were limited; S hygiene was considered deplorable (‘only two washhand basins and two showers for nearly forty men’); S prisoners did not receive regular and frequent changes of clothing, particularly underwear and bedding; S prisoners ‘slopped out’; and S heating, ventilation and lighting in cells was considered poor.
7. Although the prison housed difficult prisoners, there were a number of recalcitrant prisoners who also required protection – either because they had fallen foul of one group of prisoners or another, or because of their crime – such as sex offenders. The annexe of B Hall, which was separated from B Hall by a partition, was used to house up to 21 such prisoners.
8. After the violence of the late 1980’s, many of those not involved or the lesser trouble-makers were gradually dispersed to other prisons (such as Shotts, Perth and Glenochil). Most of the remaining prisoners were held on a ‘lock-down’ basis, being kept in their own cells and managed by staff wearing body armour. To facilitate the transferring of prisoners, spaces had to be created and vulnerable prisoners were moved to Peterhead. As the balance changed, the vulnerable prisoners were able to move around the prison (since their likely assailants were locked up) and they undertook the domestic tasks of cleaning and cooking. There had been a protection party in the tailors workshop, and work for this group was gradually expanded until ultimately all workshops were staffed by such prisoners.
9. Prisoner numbers were as follows Year Average Maximum numbers number 1982 197 211 1983 196 203 1984 185 199
49 Daily Record, 22nd August 1979. 50 The Roof Comes Off: The Report of the Independent Committee of Inquiry into the protests at Peterhead Prison (1987). Edinburgh: Gateway Exchange.
62 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
1985 188 198 1986 182 192 1987 152 172 1988/89 123 131
1989/90 123 131
1990/91 115 128
1991/92 135 145
1992/93 187 197
In 1987 there were approximately 250 staff.
THE EVOLUTION OF STOP
10. As mentioned above, Peterhead housed a protection unit for vulnerable prisoners. This was contained in an annexe of B Hall comprising 21 cells. However, under new arrangements the protection prisoners were moved to ‘C’ Hall and 40 additional prisoners who had been on protection in other prisons were transferred to this hall. It was also decided that short term prisoners from Aberdeen Prison would be held in the prison to carry out domestic duties.
11. The difficult prisoners were held in four locations. Those most actively disruptive and posing the greatest threat to staff safety were held on the ground flat of B hall, restricted under the conditions of The Prisons (Scotland) Rule 36. A further group of prisoners was held on the two bottom flats of D Hall, being allowed to associate in pairs. The two remaining groups were held on the bottom flats of A hall and in E Hall.
12. Running in parallel to these very restrictive and confrontational regimes, was the normal prison routine now made available to the vulnerable prisoners.
13. As the decade of the 1990’s emerged, concern grew among staff and community about the future of Peterhead Prison. In November 1991 senior staff had appealed for an end to the uncertainty that had surrounded the future of Peterhead Prison since the ‘troubles’. A decision was taken to concentrate sex offenders in Peterhead Prison, and this was formally announced by the Chief Executive of the Scottish Prison Service in January 1992.
14. In June 1992, the Chief Inspector of Prisons delivered some criticism of the regimes experienced by the Difficult Prisoner group, but offered praise for the regime now available to the vulnerable prisoners, indicating it was superior to that found anywhere else in the system. He did, however, comment that the management of special groups such as sex-offenders had hardly advanced beyond the embryonic stage in Scotland in terms of penal policy. He gave his support to the development of the work envisaged for Peterhead in handling sex-offenders.
15. 1992 saw the launch of classes and discussion groups for staff, with a wide variety of experts giving presentations. Among them were Doris Aitken, a manager of
63 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS social work services within the criminal justice system, Mr Ray Wyre and Hilary Elridge of the Gracewell Institute and Professor Bill Marshall from Canada, a specialist in sex-offender management.
64 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
ANNEX VI
DEVELOPMENT OF WORK WITH SEX OFFENDERS IN SPS
Date Source Activity 1985 Prisons in Scotland The annual conference for all social workers was held over two Report days at Polmont in October. The theme of the conference was p. 8 working with disturbed offenders and those serving sentences for sex offences and incest. 1991 – Prisons in Scotland Social Work Service: 1992 Report “A number of innovative projects designed to address particular p. 27 problems presented by prisoners were initiated during the year. To which attracted particular media attention where the group work programme at Shotts, for men who have sexually abused children and…….” 1991 – Scottish Prison Service HMP Peterhead: 1992 Annual Report Strategic objectives for 1991 to 1992 were: “To build on staffs experience in counselling and group work in areas such as drug abuse, alcohol abuse and sexual offending behaviour.” 1992 – Scottish Prison Service HMP Edinburgh 1993 Annual Report Strategic objectives for 1992 – 1993 were: “To examine the regime for vulnerable prisoners, taking account of their particular needs, and to develop a programme particularly aimed at sex offenders;” 1992 – Scottish Prison Service HMP Peterhead 1993 Annual Report Continuing strategic objectives re: “To develop treatment programmes which challenge offending behaviour for sex offenders and difficult prisoners”. 1992 “Measuring levels of HMP Barlinnie – Creating Control Programme psychopathy and S Devised in 1992 cognitive distortions in S Approximately six months in duration and runs two days a paedophilic each week 51 population” S The group is cognitive behavioural based programme, with relapse prevention techniques. S The character of the group reportedly emphasised the use of motivational style interviewing technique. The therapeutic purpose behind motivational style interviewing is an attempt to create discomfort for the offender, resulting in cognitive dissonance. S The programme, is group based in three stages: Introductory,; Patterns of Offending; Follow On using relapse prevention techniques. 1992 – Scottish Prison Service HMP Shotts 1993 Annual Report Continuing strategic objectives are: “To develop regime opportunities for vulnerable prisoners, which will also include the development of treatment programmes for sex offenders within E Hall.” 1997 Clyde Quay Project – S Clyde Quay Barlinnie Group work programme (description Barlinnie Workers below). Training Day
51 J. Dillane, Research Exercise, submitted for part of psychology M.Phil.
65 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
ANNEX VII
EXPERIENCES FROM OTHER SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT ENVIRONMENTS ABSTRACTED FROM W.L. MARSHALL, Y.M. FERNANDEZ, S.M. HUDSON AND T. WARD ‘SOURCEBOOK OF TREATMENT PROGRAMS FOR SEXUAL 52 OFFENDERS’ .
1. THE TWIN RIVERS SEX OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMME53
Arthur Gordon and Gerald Hover
Prison Settings Prison-based sexual offender programs typically face many challenges beyond those of designing and delivering high-quality treatment. Programs often work with the highest-risk offenders, who are often resistant to change. We are beginning to understand that dealing with the brutal acts committed by sexual offenders can have profound negative effects on therapists. This stress can be exacerbated by the prison environment, which may not be well equipped for or supportive of treatment activities. In fact, other prison staff may be hostile toward treatment staff and their efforts and may attempt to sabotage their efforts.
Program Support One common source of stress for a prison-based program can come from the host prison itself. Many programs report to managers who are several steps removed from the superintendent, making it difficult to compete for scarce resources or the resolution of ongoing problems. It is often the case that prison staff, like the public generally, think negatively of sexual offenders and view treatment as being “soft on crime,” a waste of resources, and clearly not related to the true purpose of prisons-that is, secure confinement. In some settings, staff may try to sabotage treatment actively or passively. At the same time, non-treatment (e.g. custody) staff are trained to observe behaviour and can monitor the offender’s behaviour and attitudes when the social demands of the therapist’s presence are not operating.
We have encouraged treatment staff to approach correctional officers on their posts to get information about our offenders. Program staff who have initiated this contact have generally been received very positively and have had access to a wealth of information. Our ongoing challenge is to encourage treatment staff to make time for these consultations. The results of our various efforts have stopped short of the program being universally respected and valued. However, we have reached a
52 W.L. Marshall, Y.M. Fernandez, S.M. Hudson and T. Ward (eds.) (1998). Sourcebook of Treatment Programs for Sexual Offenders. New York: Plenum Press. 53 ibid. Chapter 1, p. 3-16.
66 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS working accommodation with most prison staff who, if they are not our strongest allies, have done little to interfere with the program’s operation.
Conclusions Operating effective sexual offender treatment programs in prisons remains a challenging and rewarding task. The need to resolve problems arising from changing prison and government policies, legal challenges, staff morale and performance issues, and public confidence and support seems constant. In addition, research is increasingly showing that therapists who treat sexual offenders suffer considerably more stress than is found with other clinical populations. At times, it seems that dealing with often resistant offenders may be the easiest part of the job. It is therefore essential that programs take proactive steps to create a positive work and treatment environment for staff and inmates, while attending to issues accountability and community support. Given the relatively short history of systematic approaches to treating this difficult problem, we can reasonably expect to become increasingly effective over time. A strong belief that our efforts are contributing to public safety and the satisfaction of being able to demonstrate positive change in offenders and the program make many of the daily frustrations more tolerable.
2. KIA MARAMA: A TREATMENT PROGRAM FOR CHILD MOLESTERS IN NEW ZEALAND54
Stephen M. Hudson, David S. Wales, and Tony Ward
The Kia Marama special treatment unit was established in late 1989, in response to a confluence of a number of factors. By 1986, the high rates of reoffending among child molesters released from New Zealand prisons (approximately 25%) had been identified by local research. Second, the Psychology Service of the New Zealand Department of Justice (now Department of Corrections) had developed an explicit mission statement involving a commitment to reducing future offending. There was also a developing sense of optimism with respect to the ability of cognitive- behavioural-oriented interventions to reduce the reoffending rate of sexual offenders. The early proposal for the unit was modelled on the Atascadero Sex Offender Treatment and Evaluation Program; however, Marshall devised the original program and trained the first group of staff.
The Kia Marama unit consists of rectangular row of 60 self-contained rooms that face an open, grassed compound, all of which is surrounded by a 5-m perimeter fence. A ratio of approximately 1 : 10 is kept between custodial staff (prison officers) and inmates. Together with their custodial duties, prison officers seek to maintain an environment that is maximally conductive to therapeutic gains. Officers are assigned to each therapy group and are encouraged to provide support and monitoring of the therapeutic progress of group members.
54 ibid. Chapter 2, p. 17-28
67 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
Only men convicted of child sexual offences are contained within this unit. The benefits of separate institutions for sexual offenders are seen as being reduced harassment from other offenders and the possibility of creating a more therapeutic environment. The residents have freedom of movement within the compound to encourage both social and therapeutic interchanges. We also hope that contact between those about to start the program and those further along will also foster a broad therapeutically oriented milieu.
The opening of the Kia Marama unit provided the New Zealand media with a source of expertise regarding sexual aggression. Unit staff have welcomed this and have been helpful in answering many of the questions raised. Two documentaries, similar in nature to “60 Minutes,” have provided positive coverage of the unit and its program. We have said often that there is no cure for these types of difficulties, only continued management, and that the only rational expectation is that not all men will be successful. So far, the media has behaved as if they believe these statements.
3. PETERHEAD PRISON PROGRAM55
Alec Spencer
Creating a Supportive Environment Innovative programs are never east to introduce into traditional prisons, which have established routines and structures. Even more so with sexual offender programs, which cut across some of the established cultures and inmate hierarchies. Therefore, in order for it to be successful it has to become central to the work of the prison and form part of the culture and core business.
Without an approach that valued our inmates as individuals and that treated them as people of worth, our attempts to undertake therapeutic or cognitive group work with individuals whose self-esteem was low and who felt a threat to their personal safety would not likely lead to much progress. The need to develop an approach that enhanced the self-esteem of the offenders cannot be overstated. Marshall (1995) states, “We have found that increasing the offenders’ sense of self-worth is critical to changing all other features of them” (p.3). In particular, inmates had to be able to feel safe from both physical threats and taunts.
Need for Training and Support of Staff Training of staff and providing effective support at all levels has been crucial to the delivery of our offense-specific program and, we believe, is essential if the program is to have any meaningful chance of success. For the core workers the training is a lengthy process, with the initial phase alone taking several months, and includes a variety of training experiences. Staff have to understand that they are entering an area that will present difficulties for them. The work they do inevitably leads them to
55 ibid. Chapter 3, p. 29-46
68 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS examine their own attitudes and beliefs in a variety of areas. They may even question their own sexuality and motives. Also, they typically find it difficult to “leave behind” their work when they go home. The images that are conveyed by offenders remain with them, often affecting the way they view their partners and children and sometimes causing them to draw back from quite normal situations, like bathing their children and sitting the kids on their laps, for fear of some resonance with what has been said in the group. It is important that staff understand these pressures and how things may affect them; they need to be able to network with other staff and get appropriate support when necessary.
Integration of Program with other Prisons and Agencies Since it is not easy to organize complete integration in a prison system where many of the other inmates, and perhaps some staff, are hostile to sexual offenders, specialized units have to be developed for those vulnerable offenders both at induction and later on in their sentence.
4. THE EVOLUTION OF A MULTISITE SEXUAL OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAM56
Ruth E. Mann and David Thornton
Unique Aspects of SOPT
Use of Lay Personnel Perhaps even more important, because prison officers are the people with whom prisoners interact most in their daily lives, their potential to act as positive nonoffending role models is particularly useful. In practice, it is clearly that case that nonspecialists make excellent treatment providers and that taking on this work has greatly enhanced the prison officers’ role for those involved. For example, in a survey of SOTP tutors (Turner, 1992), 96% reported that involvement in the program had greatly improved their job satisfaction. More than any other factor, the enthusiasm and commitment of the lay therapists delivering SOTP has probably ensured its effective implication.
Conclusion We believe that the major lessons we have learned from the experience of introducing national offender treatment programs are:-
1. It is possible to introduce a sexual offender treatment program on a large scale and to maintain consistency and quality of delivery over a large number of sites. 2. Lay personnel can be used effectively to carry out therapeutic work with sexual offenders provided they are carefully selected, trained and supervised. 3. For such a program to survive, both management and treatment issues need to be attended to with equal care.
56 ibid. Chapter 4, p. 47-58
69 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
4. Sexual offender treatment affects those who carry it out. The size of our program and the number of staff involved have made it clear that adverse effects are widespread and not linked to professional background or previous pathology. 5. Sexual offender treatment must be an evolutionary process. That is, as treatment providers we should continually monitor and research our practice, in order that we can identify and learn from our inadequacies or mistakes. Sustaining our commitment to evolution is, we believe, our greatest asset.
70 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
ANNEX VIII
DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE AT A NUMBER OF PRISON SITES
HMP BARLINNIE
Barlinnie Prison, sited in the east end of Glasgow, close to the M8 motorway, receives all male prisoners from the courts in the west of Scotland. With a current capacity of 860 (or 1017 when all halls are in use) it is the largest prison in Scotland, and retains adult remand prisoners and prisoners serving less than four years for the duration of their sentence. Barlinnie also manages prisoners serving sentences of four years or more in the initial phases of their sentence until places become available for them in the long term prisoner system.
Sex Offender Population Barlinnie currently holds 57 sexual offenders. Of these, 45 are short term sex offenders located in the sex offender unit within the upper level of Letham Hall on restricted association. The remaining 12 are on remand within B Hall under segregation.
Regime Provision S Access to STOP 2000, support groups and an offence awareness project. S Access to education and coping classes. S Working in the joinery shop. S Access to gymnasium.
HMP EDINBURGH
Large local prison for Lothians, Borders, and South Fife. Edinburgh holds long term prisoners on conviction until space is available at their allocated establishment and has a national top-end facility for LTPs nearing the end of their sentence. Capacity is 643.
Sex Offender Population Edinburgh can hold up to about 60 sexual offenders, both short term prisoners and longer term sex offenders awaiting transfer to Peterhead. A mixture of untried, short and long term sex offenders are located within B hall – a vulnerable prisoner Hall which currently holds about 120.
Regime Provision S Working in the engineer and label production shop and as pantry parties for other halls. S Access to gymnasium. S No offence related programme work or education.
71 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
HMP & YOI GLENOCHIL
With a capacity of 496 Glenochil, sited near Tullibody in central Scotland, since June 1987 has held long-term adult male prisoners in security categories 'B' and 'C'. Ajoining the prison is a Young Offenders Institution, a separate facility which can accommodate up to 174. Prisoners are not committed to HMP & YOI Glenochil direct from the courts but are admitted, following conviction, from other prisons, principally Barlinnie and Edinburgh for the adult establishment and from Polmont for the YOI.
Sex Offender Population 42 – all of whom do not wish to participate in the STOP 2000 programme at HMP Peterhead. Strictly segregated on one level within a mixed population in A hall.
Regime Provision S Sentence management. S Access to gymnasium. S No offence related programme work, though motivational work being developed. S Monthly meeting held with each individual to assess motivation to return to HMP Peterhead
HMP GREENOCK
With a capacity of 254 Greenock serves designated courts in the West of Scotland by holding male prisoners (both adult and under 21s) on remand, and short-term convicted prisoners. It provides a national facility for selected prisoners serving 12 years or over, affording them the opportunity for progression towards release. It also accommodates a small number of prisoners for a range of management and operational reasons.
Sex Offender Population About 12 sex offenders are Located within Crisswell House and Darroch Hall.
Regime Provision S Integrated with general population prisoners for education and offence related programmes. S Working in the production shops.
HMP PETERHEAD
Peterhead Prison, sited 34 miles north of Aberdeen, can accommodate up to 295 prisoners including high risk prisoners. It is a national resource for convicted, long term sex offenders offering a range of programmes designed to challenge offending behaviour in order to reduce the risk of reoffending on return to the community.
Sex Offender Population
72 REPORT OF THE REVIEW GROUP ON THE FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF SEX OFFENDERS WITHIN SCOTTISH PRISONS
About 284 sex offenders. Full association in a prison exclusively housing long term sex offenders
Regime Provision S Sentence Management. S Access to a raft of offence related interventions and STOP 2000, Adapted STOP and, in September 2002 Extended STOP. S Comprehensive education provision on site. S Working in full range of production shops, craft shop, vocational training in joinery and horticulture, and support services such as catering and laundry. S Access to gymnasium.
HM YOI POLMONT
Sited near Falkirk in central Scotland, Polmont is Scotland's largest Young Offenders institution. Its primary function is to provide secure custody for all male young offenders between the ages of 16 and 21 years who receive a custodial sentence from the courts. Young offenders are also assessed as to their suitability for transfer to Glenochil or Dumfries. Generally those serving sentences of less than six years are retained at Polmont. Capacity is 422
Sex Offender Population About 20 sex offenders. Located within Cramond Hall – a vulnerable prisoner unit currently holding 59
Regime Provision S Working in the textile shop and general pass duties within Cramond. S Access to Adapted STOP (7 currently engaged). S Access to Cognitive Skills, Anger Management and Drug Awareness classes (where sufficient numbers exist). S Access to gymnasium.
73