Report on a full unannounced inspection of HMYOI Glen Parva 2 – 6 November 2009 by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Crown copyright 2010 Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 1st Floor, Ashley House Monck Street London SW1P 2BQ England HMYOI Glen Parva 2 Contents Introduction 5 Fact page 7 Healthy prison summary 9 1 Arrival in custody Courts, escorts and transfers 19 First days in custody 20 2 Environment and relationships Residential units 23 Staff-prisoner relationships 26 Personal officers 28 3 Duty of care Bullying and violence reduction 31 Self-harm and suicide 35 Applications and complaints 37 Legal rights 38 Faith and religious activity 39 Substance use 41 4 Diversity 43 5 Health services 51 6 Activities Learning and skills and work activities 59 Physical education and health promotion 63 Time out of cell 64 7 Good order Security and rules 67 Discipline 68 Incentives and earned privileges 70 8 Services Catering 73 Prison shop 74 HMYOI Glen Parva 3 9 Resettlement Strategic management of resettlement 75 Offender management and planning 76 Resettlement pathways 79 10 Recommendations, housekeeping points and good practice 89 Appendices I Inspection team 102 II Prison population profile 103 III Safety and staff-prisoner relationship interviews 106 IV Summary of prisoner questionnaires and interviews 112 HMYOI Glen Parva 4 Introduction Glen Parva is a young offender institution in Leicester, holding around 800 sentenced, unsentenced and remanded young male prisoners aged 18 to 21. In recent inspections, we have charted the establishment’s progress towards providing a generally safe, respectful environment for its volatile population, increasingly focused on resettlement. This full unannounced inspection found that much of this progress had been sustained, although it was of concern that there was insufficient good quality purposeful activity to keep young prisoners properly occupied. Early days in custody were generally well managed, but first night arrangements required improvement to allay the high levels of fear and anxiety among new arrivals. Despite a good strategic approach to tackling violence and bullying, continued and concerted effort was needed to reduce the high current levels. More clarity was also needed as to how to vulnerable prisoners were to be protected and managed. While use of force remained high, managers were scrupulous in ensuring lessons were learned and relatively little use was made of segregation. Suicide and self-harm prevention arrangements were satisfactory. Security was effective and proportionate. Drug use was commendably low, but there had been delays in introducing the integrated drug treatment system (IDTS). Staff-prisoner relationships varied, but were mostly positive and supported by some effective personal officer work. However, the incentives and earned privileges scheme was too negative and needed to do more to support good behaviour. The quality of accommodation was mixed, and some was very dilapidated and overcrowded. Prisoners were vociferous in their complaints about food and, although that which we tasted was adequate, the level of criticism needed to be addressed. Diversity was generally well managed, but better support was needed for foreign nationals. The chaplaincy provided an excellent service. Healthcare was satisfactory, but was suffering from staff vacancies, which impeded the development and improvement of services. Young prisoners spent a reasonable amount of time out of cell, but both the quantity and quality of purposeful activity were insufficient. Too many young men were unemployed and the available work was too often mundane and unaccredited. The management of learning and skills needed to improve in order to ensure that resources were effectively utilised and the curriculum developed further. Nevertheless, teaching was generally satisfactory. Access to the library was good. While PE provision was reasonable, neither we nor prisoners were assured that access was equitable across the establishment. There were some weaknesses in the strategic management of resettlement, but offender management and sentence planning arrangements were generally sound, although more support was needed for those on remand or very short sentences. Provision along the resettlement pathways varied, with some good work to address accommodation and offending behaviour issues, but some gaps in support to address finance, benefit and debt, and scope to do more to support family ties. Substance misuse services were reasonable but staff vacancies limited the range and quality of what could be delivered. We welcomed the much needed provision for young men with alcohol problems. Managers and staff at Glen Parva work hard to maintain the generally safe and respectful environment, with a sound focus on resettlement, that we have reported previously. However, the large population of young prisoners remains difficult to manage, and the environment in places is dilapidated and overcrowded. It is also disappointing that the establishment lacks HMYOI Glen Parva 5 sufficient good quality purposeful activity to keep young prisoners properly occupied and achieving skills that can equip them for a constructive life on release. Nevertheless, it is commendable that Glen Parva continues to confront and address its many challenges in a positive and constructive way. Anne Owers February 2010 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons HMYOI Glen Parva 6 Fact page Task of the establishment Glen Parva is a Young Offender Institution holding sentenced, unsentenced and remanded young male prisoners aged 18-21. Prison Service operational area East Midlands Number held 783 (28 October 2009) Certified normal accommodation (CNA) 652 Operational capacity 808 Date of last full inspection 25 – 27 June 2007 Brief history Glen Parva was constructed in the early 1970s to the then standards for borstal institutions and has always held young offenders. Additional buildings, including a healthcare centre, have been added over the years. Short description of residential units North: Operational capacity CNA Unit 1 Sentenced 80 54 Unit 2 Sentenced 80 54 Unit 5 Sentenced 80 48 South: Unit 8 Sentenced 80 60 Unit 9 Sentenced 80 60 Unit 10 Sentenced 80 60 Unit 11 Short-term sentenced/ 80 58 Convicted but not sentenced Unit 12 Trials and remands 80 58 Unit 14 Remands 80 100 Unit 15 Induction 88 100 Segregation unit (unit 7) Healthcare centre HMYOI Glen Parva 7 HMYOI Glen Parva 8 Healthy prison summary Introduction HP1 All inspection reports carry a summary of the conditions and treatment of prisoners, based on the four tests of a healthy prison that were first introduced in this inspectorate’s thematic review Suicide is everyone’s concern, published in 1999. The criteria are: Safety prisoners, even the most vulnerable, are held safely Respect prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity Purposeful activity prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them Resettlement prisoners are prepared for their release into the community and helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. HP2 Under each test, we make an assessment of outcomes for prisoners and therefore of the establishment's overall performance against the test. In some cases, this performance will be affected by matters outside the establishment's direct control, which need to be addressed by the National Offender Management Service. - performing well against this healthy prison test. There is no evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in any significant areas. - performing reasonably well against this healthy prison test. There is evidence of adverse outcomes for prisoners in only a small number of areas. For the majority, there are no significant concerns. - not performing sufficiently well against this healthy prison test. There is evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in many areas or particularly in those areas of greatest importance to the well being of prisoners. Problems/concerns, if left unattended, are likely to become areas of serious concern. - performing poorly against this healthy prison test. There is evidence that the outcomes for prisoners are seriously affected by current practice. There is a failure to ensure even adequate treatment of and/or conditions for prisoners. Immediate remedial action is required. Safety HP3 Reception procedures were good, but first night arrangements were not sufficiently supportive. Despite efforts to reduce them, there were still relatively high levels of bullying and violence. Some groups of prisoners had relatively poor perceptions about HMYOI Glen Parva 9 safety and there was no clear strategy to protect vulnerable prisoners. Support for prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm was satisfactory. The segregation unit was well managed and there was effective monitoring of use of force. Drug use was not high, but clinical management procedures were under-developed and there had been little progress in introducing the integrated drug treatment system. The prison was performing reasonably well against this healthy prison test. HP4 Most young prisoners did not have long journeys to Glen Parva and many returned from courts within two or three hours of their case being dealt with. However, there were also regular examples of some young men not getting to the prison until five or six hours after their cases had been completed. HP5 Apart from initial holding rooms, the reception was clean, bright and well organised and