Chapter 5 Other issues
5.1 Thinking about community safety from a Prison Perspective: Prison staff do an excellent job in prisons. The management of criminals within a custodial setting is a difficult and mostly thankless task, unseen by the public and largely goes unrecognised. Experience tells them when situations may become fraught, and they are trained to cope with a range of behaviours from major incidents and hostage taking, fights and assaults, to bullying, drug taking and attempted suicide. Theirs is about the management of individuals within the prison institution. They have to work with the prisoners in their charge and Prison Officers in Scotland maintain excellent relationships. In recent years they have also been asked to become caseworkers and facilitators, and have developed skills in delivering programmes, undertaking assessments and working with partner agencies. Their focus is naturally about the control and management of prisoners inside. McLeish in his report correctly summarised the approach:
The 'Prisoner Supervision System' is the process by which different levels of supervision requirement are allocated to each individual prisoner during their time in either closed or open prisons. The supervision levels are High, Medium and Low. After initial allocation of supervision level on admission prisoners are reviewed annually until they attain low supervision status. The process is designed to monitor and support behaviour whilst in prison but is not designed to assess risk of harm to the public. 25
The Prisoner Supervision System ( PSS) is designed for the management of prisoners in closed settings. A 'low supervision' status only means that within the prison context they can be managed or trusted with low levels of supervision. It says nothing about the risk to the public in community settings and this is a separate issue about which SPS staff have not had a traditional focus. I heard from a large number of managers that many staff do not (yet) understand about management of risk in the community and the relevance of (external) community and public safety to their daily work in prisons. Although I also heard that this was changing. From my discussions I felt that senior staff were more aware of these issues and sensitivities and there was evidence that a cultural change was underway.
5.2 Thinking about and being able to assess risks that prisoners might pose outside the prison walls is a skill that staff are developing. As they work in Link Centres with external agencies and sit in on Case Management meetings with Social Workers and Psychologists, as they facilitate programmes and consider risk factors and as they undertake common assessment tool training with colleagues from other agencies - so will their understanding and skills grow. Some of the evidence for this is the already reducing number of absconds and the relatively good success rate on HDC. Yet the old culture still lurks, even in recent paperwork. On the External Enquiry Form ( EEF) there is reference to being:
" assessed for a move to the Open Estate of the SPS. Within the Open estate he/she will, after a period of initial assessment, have access to the community in respect of placements and regular periods of home leave etc."
This form typifies the misunderstanding of SPS over this matter. When Martin walked away from Castle Huntly he was already in the community. Open Prisons may be called prisons - but they are open. Prisoners do not need to wait for placements and home leave to be in the community. When located in an open institution they are already part of that community - they walk between their accommodation and dining facilities, they walk to work and can walk in the grounds. SPS will have to understand that there is no 'force-field' restraining a prisoner in open conditions while he bides his time waiting for further assessments, reports or management plans. Once transferred he is out of secure custody. If staff are uncertain about the risk he poses and want to leave it to the judgment and assessment of open prison staff, then he should not go.
5.3 The prison service is a uniformed and hierarchical organisation. Like most such organisations confidence and certainty in decision making are considered strengths. Yet in dealing with people and managing complex cases there can be room for uncertainty and questioning. In some of the prisons, but not all, I got the impression that for a junior or middle manager to consult on difficult cases might be seen as a weakness, as a lack of competence, or as avoiding decision making. Of course, the opposite is the case. It takes strength to admit that there might be difficulties and complexities where a second opinion would be of value. SPS should encourage a 'culture of consultation' where its staff and managers can openly consult and share anxieties about difficult cases. I found this less so with senior managers, though some too were concerned that this might reflect poorly on them. In some prisons this is encouraged and there is discussion with the Deputy Governor and Governor. This is to be welcomed. There is also a Head of Residential meeting, where Deputy Governors from different prisons usually meet to discuss operational matters. This would provide a useful forum for discussion of some case histories, using borderline cases to illustrate issues. I suggest that SPS should look at ways of encouraging a 'culture of consultation' and also use the Head of Residential meeting for developmental purposes.
5.4 Thinking about Transfer to Open from a Prisoner Perspective: Transfer to Open prison is a big step for a prisoner. There is recognition that he has responded well within the closed and difficult setting of the prison. He has been able to produce a series of drug tests which show him keeping off illegal drugs and he has kept out of serious trouble. He has also participated in a number of interventions designed to meet his needs to reduce criminal behaviour and consequently reduce the risk he poses to the public. There can be a lot riding on managing his stay in Open prison successfully. If he fails he will be returned to a closed prison and likely delay his chance for parole for at least a year. He will lose the opportunity to go home on leave to see his family and the chance to attend work placements or college in the 'real world'. He will have failed, and this can have serious implications for his self-esteem and the way he views future opportunities. It is therefore important that he receives the best support and preparation before being transferred. This is another reason for not going too soon. The decision to transfer can be taken in good time, with all reports received, and there should then be a process to prepare him for the change. I heard that this was still something that needed to be done. HMIP also commented on this in their Inspection of the Open Estate: " There is almost no preparation in closed prisons before prisoners move to the Open Estate" 26. If SPS is serious about wanting to ensure reductions in absconds it will want to make sure that prisoners understand what Open prison is about, reduce levels of stress and anxiety and prepare them appropriately .
Recommendation 9
SPS should produce a 'preparation for Open prison' package which can be delivered to prisoners before their transfer.
5.5 Cornton Vale (female prison) operates Independent Living Units ( ILU) outside its prison which run on similar lines to the Open Estate and can hold up to 24 women. The prisoners in those units benefit from continuity of support while they make the transition from within the prison to the ILU, and they know they will continue to receive support from staff who they have already got to know prior to the move.
5.6 The community based social worker attends prison Integrated Case Management ( ICM) case conferences where their contributions are needed. This can be in person or by video link. I am told this is successful because it is also an SPS Key Performance Indicator. Last year (2007-08) the target, which was jointly agreed with COSLA, was for 85%. In fact the actual outturn was 88% 27. This is an excellent development and will contribute to public safety and help facilitate the offenders return to his home and community. It has been suggested to me that there would be benefit in the community based social worker also attending the ( MDPMG) meeting which decides on transfer to Open conditions. I can certainly see the merit in this proposal, although it would mean an extra day taken up with travel to and from the prison for a brief meeting. Some of the MDPMG meetings can consider a number of cases, so the time spent at the meeting itself might be fairly short. On the other hand, it might be possible to try and merge some of these meetings, as a prisoner could be the subject of and ICM case conference, a Risk Management Group and a MDPMG meeting. There is great value in the community Social Worker being able to contribute to the MDPMG, though this is currently achieved through the production of a Home Background Report. SPS should review the range of meetings to consider progress, risk and assessments and see if it can simplify the process.
5.7 Community based Criminal Justice Social Workers are already busy people. I gather that last year, approximately 500 Home Background Reports were requested for prisoners transferring to Open prison. This makes huge demands on resources. I have recommended (at 4.15 above) that Open prison should be restricted for use only by LTPs, and that it should be limited to a maximum of 1 year prior to PQD (4.11). Removing STPs from this group should reduce the workload and should enable a faster response from Social Work for the smaller number of necessary cases. They already should be familiar with the case because of statutory arrangements. Of course, there will still be other information requirements before a Short Term Prisoner can be released on HDC. The Home Background Report itself can vary and there are differences in content and format in the reports produced by the 32 Local Authorities. I understand that in conjunction with ADSW, SPS is running a pilot project to develop a standardised format. This is timely and to be welcomed.
5.8 In the Foye case, the review report indicated that he met all the necessary criteria as assessed through the prescribed processes. The question that therefore needs to be posed is: were they the right processes and criteria? The Prisoner Supervision System ( PSS) is a useful process for determining the level of supervision required within a closed institution. It was not designed to assess the level of danger or risk a prisoner might pose when outside prison. In fact, it specifically discounted this because the previous system, of Category 'A', 'B', 'C' & 'D' led to confusion between the management of the prisoner inside and the risk factors for outside - which are different. The time has come to recognise that two separate assessments are required. First, the 'inside' supervision level. For those who are rated as 'low', there needs to be a second assessment as to their suitability and risk for access to the community. The various systems in SPS do not sit easily together. Some processes are based on length of sentence; PSS is based on internal management; and offender case management which looks and risks and needs operates separately from progression management and in addition to risk management for high risk offenders. Each process uses different forms and reports, and some use different assessment tools. While there is a high level of expertise, it seems that various meetings duplicate work and discussion. It is not that this was wrong, it has evolved over time - but that the state of knowledge in this area, the skills base and assessment tools have been developing. It is time to have a re-think, a rationalisation and simplification. One of the prisons I visited had undertaken some mapping of the processes to ensure better fit and a clearer process. I am aware that SPS is considering this issue and this is to be welcomed. It is likely that there will be some unification through using a single assessment tool, the LS/ CMI28. Risk assessment is not a simple process and there are two different factors to take into account - the risk of re-offending and the risk of (serious) harm. Although there is always a chance of re-offending, considerations of public safety demand a better understanding about risk of serious harm and how that can be assessed and managed. This is an area where prison staff will need some further training.
5.9 I visited Cornton Vale and discussed the processes for Female prisoners. They follow the procedures as laid down by SPS and their Multi-Disciplinary Progression Management Group is chaired by their Deputy Governor. They raised a question for their own consideration. When a male prisoner is transferred, management at the Open Estate review the Prisoner Progress Assessment report prior to accepting the prisoner. This provides a check (though as we saw from the Martin case, not a complete one). They suggested that this is something which they do not do, and might think about how they would parallel the process. They saw no problem with restricting the time spent before PQD to 1 year. However, they felt that the Independent Living Units ( ILUs), with a capacity of 24 places, served a purpose for some of their Short Term Prisoners ( STPs) with significant needs. They see the problems that some women face as being different. Rather than only have access to HDC, they felt that their ILUs could be used as a halfway house in staging the return to the community of women who need extended support, when some of the issues they face also involve them being victims, such as being victims of domestic abuse. These present as issues of safety. I have to say that this ( e.g. safety) is not the primary purpose of imprisonment, as they should not need the resources of a prison to deal with some of their domestic, family and safety problems and they should not be sent to Cornton Vale, or retained there without specific criminogenic need. However, I accept that there can be some benefit to the support which the ILUs provide since, as I commented in 5.5. above, they are able to provide a continuity of care and staffing, being located just outside the perimeter of the prison.
5.10 In the past, SPS may not have been so conscious about 'outside risk' as evidenced by historically high numbers of absconds. However, recently, particularly since Foye, it has focused much more on risk to the community and the numbers of absconds have been significantly reduced. Except by chance, there never will be a year when absconds are at zero because prison staff are dealing with individual human beings who have emotions, anxieties, frustrations, impulses, and misunderstandings like all of us. And prisoners also have to cope with the additional pressures that exist in prison environments. Nevertheless, SPS must continue to strive to get the balance right. To ensure that proper risk assessments have been made, that public safety is paramount and that when transferred to Open, the long term prisoner will get the support and interventions required to help him in his transition and rehabilitation back to the community.