REPORT ON A FULL ANNOUNCED INSPECTION OF HM PRISON HOLLOWAY 8 – 12 JULY 2002 BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS 2 INTRODUCTION We inspected Holloway shortly after there had been major staff and management changes. Following an inquiry which had revealed significant problems of bullying among staff, some staff had been moved. A new Governor had been appointed and had put in place a virtually new management team. The prison had also been promised significant numbers of additional staff. The inspection therefore took place at a time of considerable transition, and in many important areas we were inevitably presented with promises of change, rather than actual and visible improvements. Nevertheless, important parts of the prison’s negative culture had been tackled firmly, an essential basis for further progress. However, this report chronicles some severe deficits in the prison as it was in July this year; and it was disappointing that so many of them mirrored what we had found on our last inspection, two years before. We raise two separate concerns: one in relation to the regime in general for women in the prison and one specifically in relation to the girls and young women held there. Throughout the prison, we found serious deficiencies in the regime for women prisoners. Some related to the real and continuing shortage of staff; but in some instances, this was compounded by a lack of flexibility and imagination. For example, it is unacceptable that women, even those who were pregnant or had recently given birth, were frequently unable to shower more than twice a week; and many women had difficulty in obtaining towels and toiletries. Women were also able to have association only twice a week, and therefore had great difficulty in making telephone calls to their families and children. Staff shortages were primarily responsible for deficits in the otherwise excellent education, activity and PE provision. Classes were frequently cancelled, and some activities had ceased to function with any regularity, due to the inability to provide staff to get prisoners to activities. Visits, too, frequently started late, and were difficult to book; 3 and it was particularly disappointing that the children’s visiting days had been stopped, as staff were not available or profiled for this work. There continued to be pockets of excellent work: drug detoxification, the outstanding psychology department, and the work with foreign national prisoners were all models for the rest of the women’s estate. However, many other areas of the prison’s life needed developing: first night procedures, work with lifers, sentence planning, healthcare and resettlement were all important areas that needed direction and improvement if the prison was to meet the needs of its prisoners. We had specific and serious concerns about the small number of under18 year olds held in Holloway. Girls, and particularly sentenced girls, are not supposed to be held in Holloway, and indeed should not be. But they were there. However, as the Youth Justice Board did not purchase places for them, it appeared that no-one had taken responsibility for ensuring that their conditions met the fundamental requirements for holding children in prison. No assessments of vulnerability and risk were being carried out, the regime was wholly inadequate, staff lacked essential documentation, and no training plan meetings were taking place. Staff were doing their best, but without support and facilities and in the face of the considerable difficulties of the prison as a whole. I considered the situation to be so critical that I immediately alerted the Director-General and the Chairman of the Youth Justice Board to request them to take urgent action. The situation of young adults (18-21) also caused us concern. Once sentenced, they must be held separately from adult women; but inexplicably this is not mandatory while they are held on remand. We found unsentenced young women being held with older women, and that the prison had no effective risk assessments in place to check whether it was safe to do so. This Inspectorate’s reports have repeatedly drawn attention to the deficiencies in the care of girls in prison in general, and to the situation of young women in Holloway in particular. It is both inexcusable and depressing that these continue, and that it takes an inspection to galvanise those responsible into action. However, this is symptomatic of a system that has yet to grapple with the needs of damaged and vulnerable girls, and which continues to place them in environments that cannot meet their needs. In our view, girls 4 should not be held in Holloway. It is a difficult and complex establishment, which needs to focus on its primary task of providing a safe, positive and well-staffed environment for the diverse and demanding adult population that it will continue to hold. We do not believe that, in the foreseeable future and despite the best efforts of staff, it can also provide an appropriate environment for children, without compromising their care or the needs of the remainder of the prison’s population. The scale of the challenge faced by Holloway’s new management team is clear from this report. We were impressed by the fact that the team was approaching its task with energy and commitment, determined not to be over-awed by Holloway’s reputation. There was a sense that the culture of the prison was on the move, and a feeling of optimism among some staff and the very committed Board of Visitors. We believed, however, that managers would need considerable support and reinforcement as the scale of the task became apparent. We recommended to managers that there should be a staged action plan. There was an immediate need to achieve some small but tangible improvements in the care and conditions of women and girls, such as more frequent showers and access to telephones, in order for them to have confidence that further change would follow. Other areas for improvement then needed to be prioritised and implemented in stages, hand in hand with the Prison Service’s commitment to provide additional staff, support and resources. If the process that had been set in motion can be sustained in this way, there is a real chance for Holloway to break out of its vicious circle; but if that process stalls or slips, it will be very difficult to convince prisoners and staff that change is possible, and achievable. Anne Owers December 2002 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 5 6 7 CONTENTS Paragraph Page INTRODUCTION 3 FACT PAGE 11 HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY HPS1-HPS47 13 CHAPTER ONE ARRIVAL IN CUSTODY Courts and transfers 1.01-1.09 23 Reception 1.10-1.50 25 First night 1.51-1.75 30 Induction 1.76-1.90 35 Legal rights 1.91-1.98 37 CHAPTER TWO RESIDENTIAL UNITS Introduction 2.01-2.12 39 Mothers and their babies 2.13-2.38 42 CHAPTER THREE DUTY OF CARE Anti-bullying strategy 3.01-3.09 47 Preventing self-harm and suicide 3.10-3.21 49 Race Relations Foreign Nationals 3.22-3.31 52 Detainees 3.32-3.33 55 Race relations 3.34-3.60 56 Substance use 3.61-3.83 60 Maintaining contact with family and friends Visits 3.84-3.111 65 Telephones 3.112-3.114 70 Mail 3.115-3.142 71 Applications, requests and complaints 3.143-3.161 74 8 Paragraph Page CHAPTER FOUR JUVENILES AND YOUNG ADULTS Introduction 4.01-4.09 78 Reception and first night 4.10-4.17 80 Accommodation 4.18-4.25 82 Regime and facilities 4.26-4.36 83 Child protection 4.37 85 Training planning 4.38-4.63 85 CHAPTER FIVE HEALTH CARE Introduction 5.01-5.07 90 Environment 5.08-5.20 92 Records 5.21-5.26 94 Staffing 5.27-5.44 95 Delivery of care 5.45-5.97 99 CHAPTER SIX ACTIVITIES Education 6.01-6.17 110 Library 6.18-6.27 113 Physical education 6.28-6.29 115 Faith and religious activity 6.30-6.37 116 CHAPTER SEVEN GOOD ORDER Introduction 7.01-7.05 118 Use of force 7.06-7.14 119 Segregation unit 7.15-7.28 121 Incentives and earned privileges (IEP) 7.29-7.36 123 Adjudications 7.37-7.41 125 Public protection and the child protection 7.42-7.49 126 unit (CPU) Life-sentenced prisoners 7.50-7.60 127 Categorisation 7.61 130 CHAPTER EIGHT RESETTLEMENT Introduction 8.01-8.04 131 Key workers (personal officers) 8.05-8.07 132 Sentence planning 8.08-8.17 133 Probation 8.18-8.28 135 9 Paragraph Page Release on temporary licence 8.29-8.36 137 Home detention curfew 8.37-8.44 139 CHAPTER NINE SERVICES Catering 9.01-9.13 141 Prison shop 9.14-9.22 144 CHAPTER TEN RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOOD PRACTICE Recommendations Main recommendations 10.01-10.07 146 Director General 10.08-10.13 147 Operational Director of Women’s Estate 10.14 148 Youth Justice Board 10.15-10.16 148 Governor 10.17- 148 10.181 Good Practice 10.182- 169 10.199 APPENDICES I Inspection Team II Summary of prisoner questionnaires and interviews III Dental services inspection report IV Pharmaceutical services inspection report V ALI inspection report 10 11 FACT PAGE Role of the establishment Local prison for women Area organisation Directorate of Women’s Prisons Average population 486 Certified normal accommodation 510 Operational capacity Normally 532 (492 during rewiring) Last inspection December 2000 Brief history Originally a mid-19th century prison for men and women, Holloway became an all-female prison early in the 20th century.