DEEP CUSTODY: Segregation Units and Close Supervision Centres in England and Wales Dr Sharon Shalev and Kimmett Edgar Dr Sharon Shalev: Centre for Criminology University of Oxford, Manor Road, OxfordOX1 3UQ, UK. E: [email protected] www.solitaryconfinement.org The Prison Reform Trust works to create a just, humane and effective penal system. We do this by inquiring into the workings of the system; informing prisoners, staff and the wider public; and by influencing Parliament, government, and officials towards reform: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk © Dr Sharon Shalev & Prison Reform Trust Cover image: White Noise and Shadow, HM Prison Lindholme, G4S Silver Award for Oil or Acrylic 2010 - image courtesy of the Koestler Trust ISBN: 978-1-908504-97-5 Printed by Conquest Litho Contents Acknowledgements i Foreword / Preface: Lord Woolf iii Executive Summary v 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Segregation units and close supervision centres 1 1.2 The study 2 Terms of reference Areas of inquiry Study overview and methods 2. Segregation in England and Wales: capacity, costs and staffing 5 2.1 Legal and administrative basis 5 2.2 The segregation estate: capacity, costs, and staffing 7 Capacity Staffing Training Information sharing 2.3 The CSC estate: capacity and costs 12 2.4 Prisoner demographics 13 3. The decision to segregate or to house in a Close Supervision Centre (CSC): classification, allocation, safeguards 15 3.1 The functions of segregation units: why segregate? 15 3.2 Orchestrated segregation 20 3.3 Segregation placement: procedures and measures of initial and continued segregation 23 Initial and continued segregation 3.4 Adjudication hearings 25 3.5 Safeguards: the Segregation Safety Screen, IMBs, and recording requirements 27 Segregation safety screen The role of Independent Monitoring Boards Recording requirements 3.6 Close Supervision Centres: Functions, reasons for placement and procedures 46 Procedures and reasons for placement in the Close Supervision Centre system 4 Segregation and CSCs: conditions, provisions, regime and support 37 4.1 Physical conditions 37 4.2 Regime 39 Exercise and fresh air Showers Food and meals Canteen (shop) 4.3 Provisions 44 Education Smoking 4.4 Conditions and regimes in CSCs 50 4.5 Segregation and CSCs: time, problems, and practical benefits 52 Time in segregation / CSC Problems in segregation/ CSC The practical benefits of segregation / CSC 4.6 Health care 58 4.7 People with learning disabilities or learning difficulties 60 5 Inside segregation and CSCs: culture, relationships and risk 63 5.1 Culture and ethos 63 5.2 Staff prisoner relationships 69 5.3 Security, risk and the use of force 78 Security levels Use of force 5.4 Relationships and risk in CSCs 85 6 Mental health and well-being 91 6.1 Prevalence of mental health needs among segregated people 91 6.2 The negative health effects of segregation 92 6.3 Safeguards to minimise the exposure of very vulnerable prisoners to segregation 95 6.4 Prisoners at risk of self harm 97 6.5 Support for prisoners’ mental health in segregation 101 Medication 6.6 Removal from segregation on mental health grounds and prisoners who should have not been segregated 103 6.7 Individuals who found normal location unbearable 106 6.8 Protective measures and mental health support 107 7 Leaving segregation and CSCs (avenues out) 109 7.1 Segregation review boards 109 7.2 Negotiating return to normal location 113 What was at stake? Tactics (managers) Tactics (officers) Tactics (prisoners) Good practice recommendations 7.3 Reintegration 123 7.4 Leaving the CSC 126 8. Deep Custody Findings and Recommendations 131 8.1 Findings 131 8.2 Good practices we observed 133 Arrival Staff communications Conditions Maintaining order Activities Reintegration Segregation unit culture Safeguarding mental health Close supervision centres 8.3 Recommendations 137 Appendices 140 Acronyms and abbreviations 140 Methods 145 Data gathering Literature Acknowledgements This study benefited from support, expertise and practical help from a wide variety of people and organisations. We want to thank everyone who contributed. We are grateful to the Barrow Cadbury Trust for enabling us to undertake the study. They shared our vision that there was a need for a thorough study of segregation units. We are grateful to the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) for facilitating our data- gathering, providing advice, and enabling us to access prisons. In particular, we thank Karina Hay, Lesley Cuthbertson, Emma Prince, and Bob Waterman who were constant in their support. We also thank the National Research Committee, not just for giving approval for the project, but for their suggestions about how our methods could be improved. We are grateful to two expert groups we consulted: a prisoner group, convened by HMP Grendon, who provided us with insights from their personal experience of segregation, and a resource group, whose feedback helped us to make the story more coherent. Thanks are also due to Patrick Mandikate and Gerladine Akerman for kindly facilitating our meeting at HMP Grendon. Our resource group was expertly chaired by Silvia Casale and its members included: Colin Allen, Jill Berliand, Adrian Grounds, Monica Lloyd, Juliet Lyon, and Max Rutherford. We also consulted Kellie Reeve, Louise Finer, Gordon Riach and Kieron Taylor from HM Inspectorate of Prisons and benefited greatly from their experience and expertise. Jamie Bennett, governor of HMP Grendon, Daniel Craft from HMP Send, Claire Hodson, then Specialist Units Lead for NOMS, Kirsty Tempest, Claire’s successor, also contributed their time and helpful background. We are grateful to a great many prison service staff and prisoners for their immense contribution. The prison governors/directors and managers of segregation units facilitated our access and generously gave us their time. The people who were segregated tolerated our sometimes awkward questions, were conscientious in commenting on segregation, and taught us a great deal about their experiences. As they had been placed in segregation or a CSC, we approached them at a time that was potentially dispiriting and distressing for them, yet they were open and supportive of the study. The officers in the 15 segregation units and four CSCs were unfailingly welcoming, patient, and thoughtful. We were struck by the degree to which managers and staff, in all of the units we visited, were transparent about their work. For example, officers frequently invited us to see them engaging with prisoners, and managers welcomed us to meetings and reviews. Segregation unit support staff, including psychologists, nurses, and mental health professionals, were also helpful. We also thank Ben Crewe whose writing on the concept of “deep confinement” inspired the title of this report. i At the Prison Reform Trust, we are grateful to Juliet Lyon, Director, and Peter Dawson, Deputy Director, for their support and, in particular, for commenting on early drafts of the study. Geoff Dobson, former Deputy Director, brought us together and encouraged us to persist with the project in its initial stages. We thank Paul Addae Anderson, for expertly managing the finances for the project. Francesca Cooney joined the team for three of the prison visits, and added valuable evidence from PRT’s advice and information service. We also gained from targeted reviews of relevant literature, as Neil Cornish painstakingly trawled through prison inspection reports and IMB reports and Justin Elder summarised segregation policies. Jenny Talbot gave us expert advice about learning disabilities. And Tony Callaghan took the draft text and transformed it through the magic of desktop publishing. We take full responsibility for this report, but we know that completing the project depended on contributions from these individuals and we are extremely grateful to each and every one of them. Kimmett Edgar and Sharon Shalev, London, October 2015 ii Foreword In my report on the disturbances at Strangeways prison and elsewhere I was seeking to achieve a prison system imbued with justice and fairness. Security, control and justice in prisons must be set at the right level and achieve the right balance. A balance that would mean that fairness and justice did not stop at the prison door, but instead permeated the whole system. The way prisoners are treated in segregation can frequently be a barometer for their general treatment in an establishment. The prison service principles of decency must surely apply especially to segregation units and close supervision centres. These are that: prisoners should not be punished outside of prison rules; promised standards within the prison are delivered; facilities should be clean and properly equipped; there should be prompt attention to proper concerns; prisoners should be protected from harm; prisoners’ time should be actively filled and prisoners should be fairly and consistently treated by staff. It says much for the commitment of the prison service to those principles that researchers were given full access to these places deep within some of our most challenging prisons. That has made possible this thoughtful, detailed report reflecting many hours of candid conversations with prisoners and staff . It offers the prison service and the Ministry of Justice the opportunity to learn from their experience, build on the good practice which undoubtedly exists and act on legitimate concerns about impoverished regimes and the need to ensure that the decision to segregate, and the experience of segregation, are governed by guiding principles of fairness and justice. The complexity of segregation brings many challenges to already beleaguered prison staff and prisoners who for whatever reason, cannot manage or be managed in, the main body of an establishment. Segregation, though it may sometimes be necessary, must not be prolonged or indefinite. Care must be taken to avoid, as far as is possible, the damage to mental health that exclusion will bring. Equally, care should be taken to avoid the use of segregation as a holding operation for people who should be transferred swiftly and humanely to a secure hospital or psychiatric unit.