HMP SWANSEA: “Grudging acceptance of change or passive resistance will not suffice” to address complacency and inexcusable safer custody failures, says Chief Inspector

swanseaBackground:

In the three years since the last inspection of HMP Swansea in October 2014, when a total of 58 recommendations were made, just 8 had been implemented by the time of this inspection. An Implementation rate of just 14%.

Safety: 17 recommendations made, 2 implemented.

Respect: 20 recommendations made, 5 implemented.

Purposeful Activity: 11 recommendations made, 1 implemented.

Resettlement: 10 recommendations made, 0 implemented.

HMP Swansea had a ‘complacent and inexcusable’ approach to the safety of vulnerable prisoners, failing to respond effectively to high levels of self-harm and suicides of new prisoners, HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) found.

Peter Clarke, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, said that inspectors in 2014 had warned that the prison needed “to be energised, rejuvenated and refocused on delivering better outcomes.” The inspection in August 2017 was very disappointing. “It is clear that the complacency we warned about after the last inspection had been allowed to take hold.”

Inspectors were concerned by evidence about eight self-inflicted deaths of prisoners in their early days in Swansea. They found the prison had not fully acted on recommendations by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), which investigates deaths in prisons.

The HMIP report noted: “There had been four self-inflicted deaths since our last inspection, all of which occurred within the first seven days of arrival at Swansea. At our last inspection in 2014, there had also been four self-inflicted deaths; all of those men had similarly taken their own lives during their early days at Swansea. Subsequent recommendations by the PPO had not been fully addressed or monitored.”

Mr Clarke commented that the PPO recommendations were “significant and highly relevant” and failure to implement them “was inexcusable – particularly as, in the previous six months, there had been 134 incidents of self-harm – three times the rate that was recorded at the last inspection.”

Inspectors found that the risk assessment of new arrivals was weak and had not significantly improved since the 2014 inspection. Mr Clarke said: “Basic procedures designed to improve safety, such as assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) documentation, were poor. In the context of the high levels of self-harm, suicide and prisoners presenting with mental health problems, this was inexplicable. Much more needed to be done to analyse and understand what sat behind the suicides and self-harm in the prison.”

A third of prisoners said they had problems with feeling depressed or suicidal on arrival at Swansea. 53% said they had problems with drugs and 32% has problems with alcohol on arrival, higher proportions than in comparable prisons. However, “far fewer” prisoners than at similar jails said they had received help with drug or alcohol problems. Inspectors noted: “Mental health provision did not meet the high level of need, although the care that was provided was good.” The suicide constant watch cell was “unwelcoming, dirty and unfurnished.” In the early 1980s, Swansea had started the Listener scheme – prisoners trained by the Samaritans to support vulnerable fellow prisoners – and this developed into a nationwide service. In Swansea in 2017, enthusiastic and committed Listeners felt underused and undervalued.

Violence had risen in Swansea since 2014 and drugs were a significant problem. Far too little attention was paid to ensuring that the 458 men could obtain the “very basics for everyday living”, such as socks, boxer shorts and sheets. Reflecting findings in other jails – captured in HMIP’s 2017 Living Conditions report – inspectors noted that Victorian, inner-city HMP Swansea was overcrowded and “prisoners usually had to eat their meals next to their toilets, which did not always have seats or lids.”

A further area of significant concern was that ‘purposeful activity’ was particularly disappointing, having fallen to the lowest possible HMIP assessment of ‘poor’. Mr Clarke said: “For a prison of this type to have a regime where half the prisoners are locked up during the working day, with unemployed prisoners locked up for around 22 hours each day, was unacceptable.” Inspection of resettlement work showed that half of those released did not have ‘sustainable accommodation’. The report also noted that there were no programmes for the many men who had problems with domestic violence.

Mr Clarke said:

“The current governor had a number of coherent plans for improvement and had made some progress. He was enthusiastic about the future and he has the opportunity to move the prison forward and to once again make it a decent, safe and productive establishment. However, to do so he will need the active support of his leadership team and staff at all levels within the prison and in Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS). Grudging acceptance of change or passive resistance will not suffice.”

Mark Leech, editor of The Prisons Handbook for England and Wales, said the report shows the frustration of prison staff.

Mr Leech said: “Its easy to keep asking how on earth things could ever been allowed to get to such a level, with establishment after establishment teetering on the brink of collapse, and staff that are seemingly disinterested in what they do.

“The answer is that, on the contrary, what we are seeing across the country are committed men and women running our prisons who are now at their wits end.

“Unsupported from above, they are told to run their over-crowded prisons on thirty-bob, and with what everyone concedes are insufficient staff to do the job not just properly but almost at all.”

Michael Spurr, Chief Executive of Her Majesty’s Prison & Probation Service, said:

“The Governor and his team have taken immediate action since the inspection to strengthen safety arrangements in the prison and reduce self-harm. This includes work to improve the level of care and support given to new prisoners in the first night centre. A new senior operational manager has also been recruited to focus on safety and enhanced suicide and self-harm prevention training is being given to staff to increase interventions and support available to vulnerable prisoners. I’m pleased that the Inspector has recognised the progress that has already been made. A robust action plan is in place to address the recommendations in this report.”

A copy of the full report, published on 4 January 2018, can be found on the HM Inspectorate of Prisons website at: http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons

Smoking ban to come into effect in prisons

prisoner-smokingSmoking will be banned in all prisons in Wales and four in south-west England from next year, the government has said.

It is the first stage of a plan to make all jails in England and Wales smoke-free.

And from next month, smoking will be barred in the interior of all “open” prisons in England and Wales.

Earlier this year, the Prison Governors Association said a smoking ban risked making jails more unstable.

Its new president, Andrea Albutt, said tobacco could become an illicit currency.

A smoke-free policy will be implemented in all prisons in Wales – Cardiff, Parc, Swansea and Usk/Prescoed – from January 2016, and at four English prisons – Exeter, Channings Wood, Dartmoor and Erlestoke – from March 2016.

Swansea prison “ignoring death in custody advice” say inspectors

Swansea Prison
Swansea Prison

Swansea jail settled but the prison was complacent about serious incidents of self harm and in a prison with four self inflicted deaths since the last inspection the prison was ignoring advice about fatal incidents from the Prisons Ombudsman

Inspectors said:

HMP Swansea is a local prison serving the courts of South Wales and holding up to 455 adult and young adult male prisoners. With an inner city location and on a compact site, the prison is a typical traditional Victorian establishment, although there are two newer wings. We last undertook a full inspection in 2010, when we found a prison that had achieved reasonably good outcomes.
A brief follow up visit in late 2012 found that progress in the implementation of our recommendations was mixed. At this latest inspection outcomes for prisoners were also mixed. Swansea prison had a number of significant advantages. It had a full complement of staff who were all fairly settled and experienced. The prison was also of a manageable size with a defined role.
Its situation ensured significant connection with the community and prisoners, who were mostly local, were pleased to be held close to home. The prison was a reasonably safe place. Prisoners were treated reasonably well on arrival although induction of new arrivals needed to be better. Violent incidents were few and in our survey prisoners reported positively about their perceptions of their own safety. Our own observations suggested a settled institution, although there was evidence to suggest work to tackle bullying and supporting victims needed greater rigour.
Sadly there had been four self-inflicted deaths since our last full inspection, although only one of these had occurred in the last two years. The number of self-harm incidents was low, but some incidents were serious and there was evidence of some complacency in the prison’s approach to this important issue. We were not assured that enquiries into incidents were thorough and the prison was not acting on recommendations made by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman following his investigation into these deaths. The case management documentation of those in crisis was poor but prisoners in crisis told us they felt cared for.
The prison faced a number of security challenges, in particular confronting the issue of illicit drugs which could easily be thrown over the prison wall. Mandatory drug testing showed that the prison was just within its target but there was evidence of significant spikes in activity throughout the year. More prisoners than at comparator establishments thought it was easy to get drugs into the prison.
The prison was compact, and maintaining environmental standards was difficult, but the external and communal areas were reasonably well kept. However, accommodation was varied: much of it was overcrowded or in a poor state of repair. Insufficient furniture, access to showers, the provision of kit and other basic amenities all needed improvement. The quality of relationships between staff and prisoners remained good but there was evidence that prisoners felt less respected than previously.
Arrangements to ensure that the quality of relationships between staff and prisoners were used purposefully – for example, the personal officer scheme – were ineffective. Work to support, monitor and promote equality and diversity was poor. Prisoners from minority groups were not systematically identified, the investigation of incidents was inadequate, and provision for most minority groups was minimal. The amount of time out of cell that prisoners experienced was reasonable and better than we often see at this type of prison, but there were not enough education or training opportunities and many prisoners were not fully occupied.
Overall, the provision of learning and skills had deteriorated. The prison had analysed need and had in place a useful development plan but progress towards delivery was slow. Assessment of learner needs was not comprehensive and work provision was limited. The development of employability skills was lacking and prisoners were not sufficiently prepared for the labour market. Punctuality and attendance also needed to improve. The achievement of qualifications was adequate, but most qualifications were at lower levels with few opportunities for progression.
Resettlement services lacked leadership and direction, which was a concern, as the prison was transitioning to become a resettlement prison. Plans were not sufficiently linked to the prison’s own analysis of need, and structures to support and monitor delivery were inadequate. Many offender assessments, if they were completed at all, lacked depth, and many risk of harm screening and assessments were insufficient. Sentence planning was too generic and contact between prisoners and their supervisors were poor. Work across the resettlement pathways was generally much better, with most prisoners receiving an assessment prior to release and a significant number of prisoners indicating that they believed someone had helped them to prepare for their release. Work to support prisoners and families, delivered in partnership with the Prison Advice and Care Trust (PACT) was very good.
Overall Swansea has many positive features but there are obvious areas for improvement. The prison is settled and has a traditional feel and culture. This could be a strength but care needs to be taken to ensure the prison is not allowed to drift into complacency. Expectations on the part of both staff and prisoners do not appear very high. There is a platform for improvement at Swansea but this is a mixed report. Many of our positive judgements were only marginally so, and the prison needs to be energised, rejuvenated and refocused on delivering better outcomes.

Report is here