REPORT ON AN UNANNOUNCED INSPECTION OF HMP COLDINGLEY 19 – 21 APRIL 2004 BY HM CHIEF INSPECTOR OF PRISONS Crown copyright 2004 ISBN 184473-364-5 Printed and published by: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons 1st Floor, Ashley House 2 Monck Street London SW1P 2BQ England 2 INTRODUCTION At one time, Coldingley had a flagship reputation as the Prison Service’s premier ‘industrial prison’: a category B establishment committed to providing real work and training for its prisoners. It was then re-designated to C category status. Thirteen years on, as this inspection shows, it is well short of flagship status in the key areas of education, training and resettlement: indeed, in some of those areas it is not meeting the basic requirements of Prison Service standards. We pointed this out at our last inspection, four years ago; and it is disappointing to record that, since then, only three of our 17 recommendations for improvements to work and education had been implemented. However, it was encouraging that a new governor had already begun to put in place plans for improvement. Coldingley was essentially a safe prison, with good staff–prisoner relationships and low levels of self-harm. With a more short-term and more challenging population, however, it will be necessary to ensure that robust procedures are in place to identify and prevent bullying and suicide. Healthcare had improved significantly, with virtually all our recommendations achieved; and was about to move to more suitable refurbished accommodation. Race issues were beginning to be tackled, with the appointment of a full-time diversity manager; though more support was needed for the 26% of prisoners who were foreign nationals. A major deficit was the absence of integral sanitation, and the electronic unlock system which we have criticised in all those prisons which still have this ineffective and unacceptable alternative. As elsewhere, prisoners were reduced to slopping out as a result of being unable to access toilets in reasonable time. Steps should be taken to provide either in-cell toilets or a more effective system. But it was the absence of sufficient, and sufficiently useful, employment and training that was the most glaring gap. Eighty prisoners (over a fifth of the population) were 3 not in work or education during the inspection. Many opportunities to accredit vocational training and learning were being missed. Staffing shortages meant that only recreational PE could be provided. Prisoners did, however, have around 12 hours out of cell each day, even if they were unemployed; and association was predictable, if only available four nights a week. Resettlement provision was poor. There were delays in sentence plans, and lifer work was underdeveloped. Little had been done to implement Prison Service resettlement policies, with no resettlement strategy or co-ordinated attempts to meet prisoners’ needs. It was clear that Coldingley had been drifting for some time. The new governor was clearly committed to reversing that drift and moving the prison forward: identifying resettlement as a key priority. This is a more difficult task than it was when the prison received a carefully selected intake: like all category C prisons, it now receives younger, more challenging and more short-term prisoners. However, much more can be done to provide positive opportunities and recapture some of Coldingley’s past strengths. We hope that this report assists with this task and look forward to recording real progress on our next inspection. Anne Owers HM Chief Inspector of Prisons June 2004 4 CONTENTS Paragraph Page INTRODUCTION 3 PRE-AMBLE 7 FACT PAGE 9 HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY HP.01-HP.39 11 1 PROGRESS SINCE THE LAST REPORT 1.01-1.201 21 2 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 2.01-2.73 63 APPENDICES I Inspection team i II Prisoner population ii 5 6 PRE-AMBLE The Prisons Inspectorate conducts interim inspections to visit and check establishments between full inspections. They are usually unannounced. They cannot serve the functions of a full inspection, but we believe that they are important in highlighting issues of concern, or examples of good practice in the treatment of prisoners. They are not intended to cover every aspect of the prison. Michael Loughlin, Gabrielle Lee, Joss Crosbie, Paul Fenning, Brett Robinson, Bridget McEvilly and Neil Edwards (inspectors) carried out an unannounced short inspection of HMP Coldingley from 29 to 31 March 2004 to review progress on recommendations made after the last full inspection in 2001. The team also monitored the treatment of prisoners using the model of the healthy prison introduced in a thematic review of 1999. During their visit they met prisoners and staff and had discussions with the governor. They discussed their conclusions with the governor before they left. 7 8 FACT PAGE Task of the establishment: HMP Coldingley is a closed category C training prison. Brief history: Coldingley was opened in 1969 as a category B industrial prison, and was re- designated as a category C prison in 1991. Area organisation: Surrey and Sussex area. Number held: 386. Cost per place per annum: £24,671. Cost per prisoner place: £23,648. Certified normal accommodation: 370. Operational capacity: 390. Last full inspection: 12–16 June 2000. Description of residential units: A, B, C, D and F wings. 9 Each of the main wings had three landings and a ground floor with an association room, a launderette, a storeroom, showers and five PIN telephones. All cells were designed for single occupancy except on F wing. All wings contained cells accommodating two prisoners. Cells did not have integral sanitation and access to toilets at night was by an automatic unlock system. 10 HEALTHY PRISON SUMMARY Introduction HP.01 Inspection reports include a summary of an establishment’s performance against the model of the healthy prison as described in the thematic review, Suicide is Everyone’s Concern. In a short unannounced inspection such as this, an in-depth assessment cannot be made across the full range of the Inspectorate’s published Expectations, which set out our criteria for assessing the treatment of and conditions for prisoners, and opportunities for checking outcomes with prisoners are limited. We examined some areas in more detail than others. Based on documentary evidence, our observations and discussions with staff, prisoners and others, the following is our assessment, based on the four tests of a healthy prison: safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. HP.02 There had been relatively few changes at Coldingley since our last inspection and progress in the implementation of some recommendations, particularly in the area of work and training, had been disappointingly slow. While the prison remained generally safe and respectful, and offered a reasonable amount of purposeful activity, little had been done in recent years to promote resettlement opportunities for prisoners. Previously, very selective criteria had been used to assess those prisoners suitable for Coldingley but this was no longer the case; the introduction of younger less compliant prisoners than in the past was bringing new challenges. HP.03 Although Coldingley had made relatively little progress since our last inspection, at the time of this inspection a new governor had been in place for only a short period. It was evident that under his leadership Coldingley had begun to embark upon a period of substantial change and there were plans to implement a range of new systems from 1 May. The introduction of better arrangements for resettlement had been identified as a top priority. 11 Safety HP.04 Coldingley was a fundamentally safe place. Reception and induction arrangements appeared satisfactory. There was little evidence that bullying was a problem and there were low levels of self-harm. F2052SH reviews were well conducted. HP.05 Reception procedures were satisfactory. We noted that on paper there was a good induction programme for new prisoners, although during the period of this short inspection we did not have the opportunity to observe the induction programme in operation. A good range of information was displayed to help prisoners settle at Coldingley. HP.06 There were apparently very few incidents of identified bullying; 24 had been reported in 2003 and 10 in the first four months of 2004. Incidents of bullying were investigated but the operation of the strategy needed to be more closely monitored. For example, it was not possible to establish how often the different stages of the strategy had been used. We were not able to ascertain that bullying behaviour was being challenged or what interventions were being used when bullying was identified. Most prisoners appeared to have been removed from the strategy after a short period of monitoring. There was good staff representation on the anti-bullying committee. While there appeared to have been some improvements in anti-bullying procedures since the last inspection, there had been no staff training in this area since January 2003, when nine staff had received some training. HP.07 Levels of self-harm were low with 14 F2052SHs opened during 2003. Five had been opened in the first three months of 2004. Even though the numbers involved were low, as with bullying, benefits would be gained from improved monitoring. It was not possible to establish from the register whether F2052SH booklets were opened as a result of particular acts of self-harm or because of proactive staff care. The changing population could result in more prisoners at risk of self-harm needing to be cared for. The night sanitation arrangements made caring for prisoners in need of regular watches difficult. The care suite for Listeners was located in the observation and separation unit and, as stated in our previous report, this was not an appropriate environment within which to care for those at risk.