The State Of Our Prisons
The damaging cumulative impact of lockdown
Independent Monitoring Boards are an important part of the independent oversight of prisons. IMB members are a regular presence in those closed environments, monitoring the treatment and conditions of prisoners, regularly reporting what they find to those running the prison, and dealing with queries and concerns from individual prisoners. They are unpaid, but have statutory powers to go everywhere, talk to prisoners and see all documents. Their findings and activities are captured in their published annual reports.
Yesterday the IMB published its national report for 2019/20, summarising the individual establishment IMG reports published between July 2019 and March 2020. The main body of the report describes boards’ findings up to the end of 2019, before the lockdown that followed the Covid-19 pandemic. The report does also however address local boards’ findings in the first threee months of lockdown.
Though the situation in prisons has changed dramatically since March, the issues that are raised in the main report are just as important and relevant during the recovery period as they were before the pandemic. The lessons from the ‘old normal’, as well as those learnt during the emergency, should help shape the future.
Last year’s national annual report described a prison system in ‘slow and sometimes fragile recovery’, dealing with the aftermath of a crisis resulting from the ‘combined impact of serious staffing shortages and an influx of new psychoactive substances, compounded by inadequate maintenance arrangements’. It also recorded some promising initiatives under the reform programme.
This report tracks that recovery and the progress of those initiatives.
Successes
There were some positive developments:
- A number of prisons had established better arrangements with maintenance contractors, with the backlog of outstanding jobs being reduced, though this was not universal
- Prisons not specifically designated as resettlement prisons were able to get more support from the local community rehabilitation company (CRC)
- Staff numbers, and therefore regimes, had improved, though there were still concerns about the inexperience and retention of staff
- The Ten Prisons Project had led to an increased focus on ways of preventing drugs getting into prisons
- A number of prisons saw an improvement in healthcare provision, though mental health services continued to be under considerable pressure
Overall
Overall, the main report shows evidence of stabilisation and indeed some progress. This was most marked in prisons that came under the spotlight of critical public or ministerial attention, where a combination of increased resources, decreased population and new management led to measurable improvements. Yet it also shows that the prison system as a whole remained very tightly stretched, with many establishments struggling to maintain or embed improvements, even before the regime shutdown during the Covid emergency.
There are also two major underlying issues that we raised last year, where little if any improvement can be detected. They cannot be tackled by the Prison Service alone: they require cross-departmental and cross-agency cooperation.
- There are far too many prisoners with mental health disorders, and the more severe the mental illness, the more extreme the conditions under which they are held; often for lengthy periods in segregation. While there has been an improvement in mental health services in many prisons, it does not match the scale and complexity of need.
- Too many prisoners are released without stable accommodation to go to, and they are often the classic ‘revolving door’ prisoners; the new homelessness legislation has not significantly improved the situation.
Inter-departmental cooperation on health, housing and benefits has improved considerably during the Covid emergency; it should be a model for future working, not just a temporary crisis response.
COVID response
The prison service was praised for having avoided the predicted high mortality and infection rates. Boards also noted the actions taken by the service and its staff to mitigate the impact of severe lockdown, in maintaining indirect contact with families, trying to protect the most vulnerable and providing some in-cell activities. In spite of the very limited impact of the early release scheme, prisons remained relatively calm and safe places.
Nevertheless, boards also noted the damaging cumulative impact of lockdown on prisoners’ mental and physical health and wellbeing and their chances of progression and rehabilitation. There were concerns about the use of sanctions, such as the roll-out of the use of PAVA spray without previously agreed safeguards, and about hidden levels of distress and mental ill-health. There were particular concerns about the impact on children and young people, the withdrawal of rehabilitative work, and evidence of growing frustration and increases in self-harm, particularly in some women’s prisons.
Concerns
There were also, however, some disappointing findings in relation to the improvements expected last year:
- Many boards reported that the key worker system, rolled out with high hopes, had deteriorated after its initial introduction; and it has still not been introduced in the women’s estate in spite of the obvious need
- Though some boards reported a renewed focus on equality and diversity, there was little evidence that this was driving change or was central to delivery
- There continued to be significant concerns about safety, with rises in both self-harm and violence in many prisons, often driven by drugs and debt
- While prisoners were unlocked for longer, there remained serious concerns about the quality and quantity of purposeful activity in many prisons
- Some boards were able to report active moves to reduce the use, and length, of segregation, but overall there remained significant concerns about the number and kind of prisoners who spent prolonged periods in segregation
- There was no demonstrable improvement in the arrangements for transferring or securing prisoners’ property, in spite of promises of change: almost every annual report deplored the consequences for prisoners
- There remained concerns about the safety and stability of prisons holding young people under 18, and as yet little progress towards the proposed secure schools alternative.
(19 August 2020), the prisons inspectorate published a new report aggregating their findings from the short scrutiny visits (SSVs) to 35 prisons that inspectors have been conducting during lockdown.
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2020/08/SSV-aggregate-report-web-2020.pdf
Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, said that prisons and immigration removal centres responded decisively to keep prisoners, children and detainees safe from COVID-19.
However, Mr Clarke warned that continued severe regime restrictions in prisons – at times amounting effectively to solitary confinement – have created “a real risk of psychological decline among prisoners, which needs to be addressed urgently.”
Mr Clarke said:
“The restrictions imposed in March 2020 undoubtedly helped to prevent the spread of the virus. While many of these limitations were extreme, there was a high level of acceptance and cooperation among prisoners, supported by generally good communication about the reasons for such actions by most prison managers. For some weeks, there was a sense of prisoners, children and staff ‘being in this together.”
However, as the Inspectorate’s SSV programme progressed, inspectors identified “increasing levels of stress and frustration among many prisoners and evidence that prisoner well-being was being increasingly affected by the continuation of restrictions.
Governors of individual establishments in the public sector were unable to make local adjustments to their regimes without permission from HM Prison and Probation (HMPPS) Gold Command, which delayed relaxation of restrictions which had already served their purpose in individual locations. This meant that 16 weeks after the restrictions were imposed, most of them were still in place.
Children in public sector custody lost face-to-face education and for some exceptionally vulnerable individuals in women’s prisons, who usually benefitted from a range of specialist support services provided by external providers, the absence of these services was extremely damaging.
“For these prisoners, the long hours of lock up were compounded by the sudden withdrawal of services on which they depended, and self-harm among prisoners in prisons holding women has remained consistently high throughout the lockdown period.”
Mr Clarke noted the hard work over five months by prison staff to provide decent conditions for those in their care,
“and for the most part they have been successful. Our SSV reports highlighted much notable positive practice.”
However, he added,
“in some prisons, at certain times, conditions fell below an acceptable minimum, particularly in relation to time out of cell, time in the open air and showers. For example, some quarantined, isolated or shielded prisoners did not have access to time in the open air for a week or more and did not have a daily shower.”
If there were to be a resurgence of the virus, Mr Clarke said,
“other means of controlling its spread that would not carry such a high risk of causing long-term harm to those in custody, and which would not risk them being held in conditions that meet widely agreed definitions of solitary confinement, should be explored.”
Overall, Mr Clarke concludes that the centralised bureaucratic culture of HMPPS has hampered more creative and effective local approaches:
“In prisons, there is now a real risk of psychological decline among prisoners, which needs to be addressed urgently, so that prisoners, children and detainees do not suffer long-term damage to their mental health and well-being, and prisons can fulfil their rehabilitative goals. At the time of writing, HMPPS are in the process of implementing their recovery plan for prisons, which involves individual establishments applying for permission to move to a new regime stage and then implementing (when authorised to do so) Exceptional Delivery Models (EDMs). This is all set out in the National Framework for Prison Regimes and Services. This document also makes clear that ‘progress will be slow and incremental, and restrictions may need to be re-imposed in the event of local outbreaks’. In light of the findings in this report, simply re-imposing the restrictions that were necessarily applied in the early stages of the outbreak would be too narrow an approach. We have seen many prison leaders who are convinced that they could have delivered more purposeful and more humane regimes without compromising safety, and who are frustrated by the restrictive approach they have been forced to take. Every establishment is different. Local initiative, innovation and flexibility which recognises those differences should surely be encouraged, and not stifled.”
Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the header image in this post. You can see Andy’s work here.
All prison posts are kindly sponsored by Prison Consultants Limited who offer a
complete service from arrest to release for anyone facing prison and their
family. Prison Consultants have no editorial influence on the contents of this
site.
http://www.russellwebster.com/resource-packs/helping-offenders-families/solutions@russellwebster.com
.