Prisons within prisons
Yesterday (23 July 2024), HM Inspectorate of Prisons published a very positive report on Close Supervision Centres (CSCs). CSCs have been in operation since 1998. Their purpose is to remove the most dangerous or disruptive prisoners from the wings and manage them within small and highly supervised units, effectively prisons within prisons.
This serves several important purposes. Firstly, by moving the prisoner into a more controlled environment it effectively removes the threat they pose to other prisoners and staff. Secondly, it gives staff the opportunity to assess the individual’s risks and work with them to try to reduce that risk with tailored interventions including work with forensic psychiatrists. Ultimately, the aim is that these very dangerous men can eventually be managed safely on the wings.
Background
CSC units are managed by a central team within the HMPPS long-term and high security estate (LTHSE) directorate. The centres operate under the authority of the Secretary of State, with powers delegated to HMPPS and exercised through the LTHSE director. Published criteria set out the threshold for selection and can include a single serious incident of violence or ongoing and escalating serious violence. Prisoners selected for CSCs have generally not responded to attempts to manage their behaviour using normal sanctions or incentives.
The centres are located in six LTHSE prisons in England. These are referred to as ‘host’ prisons, with the governor of each establishment responsible for the day-to-day running of the centre, including staff deployment.
Each centre accommodates a small number of men. Their smaller size, higher levels of staffing and multidisciplinary working combine to provide a highly supervised environment. Robust care and management steps set out in individualised plans provide opportunities for each prisoner to develop more settled and acceptable patterns of behaviour. The delivery of care and management is delegated to two members of the central team, the operational lead and the clinical lead.
Alongside the establishment of CSCs, a series of designated cells were identified in the segregation units of several high security prisons, where prisoners could be held under Prison Rule 46 for a temporary period following any operational challenges. This includes the control of men after they have caused further significant violence on staff or prisoners, but they can also be used to facilitate requirements such as court appearances or accumulated visits.
The details of the CSCs and designated cells are shown below.
Findings
Overall inspectors found that units were remarkably stable with infrequent incidents of violence, no self-inflicted deaths and low levels of self-harm. The quality of relationships between staff and prisoners were good, with staff evidencing commendable resilience in their dealings with prisoners. Most units were clean and well equipped, except for the Wakefield unit which needed investment and development.
Daily routines were applied reliably but the amount of time men were able to spend out of their cells varied. There was not enough to do on the units and a lack of work and education was unhelpful given this was a target in some progression plans. There were also variations in practice between the units, including prisoner access to services and privileges, that were not explained or justified logically.
The quality of multidisciplinary working, and the individualised support and planning offered to each man was, however, impressive. Progress, no matter how small, was acknowledged and those selected for the units were given every opportunity to address their risks and move on from the CSC, including into other types of dedicated intervention in the prison system or to the health sector.
The quality of leadership, at both national and local level, was coherent and effective. Leaders and staff knew what they were doing and inspectors said they should be congratulated on their achievements.
Inspectors also identified two priority concerns:
- There was little provision for education or training. Some prisoners were unable to meet targets set in their care and management plans that related to education and training.
- The physical environment and lack of adapted facilities at many of the centres did not meet the needs of prisoners with limited mobility. There was only one adapted cell across the six sites.
Thanks to Andy Aitchison for kind permission to use the header image in this post. You can see Andy’s work here
