Download HMP Wellingborough - Criminal Justice Inspectorates

Report on an announced inspection of
HMP Wellingborough
4–8 August 2008
by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Crown copyright 2009
Printed and published by:
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons
1st Floor, Ashley House
Monck Street
London SW1P 2BQ
England
HMP Wellingborough
2
Contents
1
Introduction
5
Fact page
7
Healthy prison summary
9
Arrival in custody
Courts, escorts and transfers
First days in custody
2
19
19
Environment and relationships
Residential units
Staff-prisoner relationships
Personal officers
3
23
25
26
Duty of care
Bullying and violence reduction
Self-harm and suicide
Diversity
Race equality
Foreign national prisoners
Applications and complaints
Legal rights
Substance use
4
27
30
33
35
37
39
41
41
Health services
43
5
Activities
Learning and skills and work activities
Physical education and health promotion
Faith and religious activity
Time out of cell
6
53
56
57
59
Good order
Security and rules
Discipline
Incentives and earned privileges
7
61
62
65
Services
Catering
Prison shop
67
68
HMP Wellingborough
3
8
Resettlement
Strategic management of resettlement
Offender management and planning
Resettlement pathways
9
71
72
74
Recommendations, housekeeping points and good
practice
83
Appendices
I Inspection team
II Prison population profile
III Summary of prisoner questionnaires and interviews`
HMP Wellingborough
4
99
100
102
Introduction
Wellingborough is a medium-sized category C training prison, opened in the 1960s. It is not a
well-known, or a particularly difficult, prison. But it is one of the weakest that we have recently
inspected, failing to provide the basics of training and resettlement which should be at the core
of its work. There was little evidence, during this inspection, that Wellingborough was part of a
Prison Service committed to managing and rehabilitating offenders.
There were insufficient activities for the 630 or so men in the prison. That is sadly not unusual
in an overcrowded prison system. What was worse was that those places were not fully
occupied or allocated according to need, and that the provision of activities had not been
planned or directed with a view to improving prisoners’ skills and employability. The range and
quality of activities was inadequate, and unemployed prisoners could spend 20 hours a day in
their cells. We found a third of the population locked up during the core day.
Wellingborough discharged 500 men a year into the community, yet it lacked any coherent
resettlement strategy. There were some good initiatives, in offender management,
accommodation advice and support for families, but they were not integrated into any
coordinated strategy aimed at reducing reoffending and assisting reintegration. At one end of
the spectrum, services for life-sentenced prisoners were inadequate; at the other, there was no
timely and comprehensive pre-release work for short-sentenced prisoners.
The prison had experienced considerable problems with the availability of drugs. This was
being tackled, although a high proportion of prisoners nevertheless told us that drugs were
easy to obtain. There was significant evidence of bullying due to drug-related debt, and the
poor sight-lines in the older units. The level of assaults was high, and staff were insufficiently
confident in using the new violence reduction strategy. There were, however, good
management structures, policies and interventions for dealing with violence and self-harm,
which needed to permeate down to residential staff. Self-harm was low, and there had been no
recent self-inflicted deaths.
Staff were not disrespectful in their relationships to prisoners, but neither were they proactive.
On some of the older wings, there was little visible staff presence when prisoners were out of
their cells; indeed, on one wing it did not appear to us, or to some prisoners, that staff were
entirely in control. Staff appeared uncomfortable with a population of younger men, sometimes
with offences of violence, 40% of whom were from black and minority ethnic communities.
Parts of the prison were uncared-for and dirty, leading to vermin infestation. Although there
was an established personal officer scheme, entries in wing history sheets were poor and
there was little evidence that staff encouraged prisoners to engage in education or training.
Healthcare was largely satisfactory, but insufficiently integrated into the rest of the prison.
No prisons are easy to run at present, and Wellingborough suffered from a combination of poor
design, too few activity spaces, difficulties in moving prisoners on, the availability of drugs, and
a younger, more volatile population. But it also suffered from a lack of direction and
management that had allowed key areas of work to drift. There were good initiatives, but they
were happening in isolation. The focused work that was taking place to tackle the problem of
drug supply is an example of the kind of proactive work that is needed in all areas if
Wellingborough is to be an effective training prison.
Anne Owers
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
December 2008
HMP Wellingborough
5
HMP Wellingborough
6
Fact page
Task of establishment
HMP Wellingborough is a category C training prison for adult male sentenced prisoners.
Brief history
Wellingborough opened as a borstal in 1963 and held young offenders until 1990, when it became a
training prison for category C adult men.
Area organisation
East Midlands
Number held
635
Certified normal accommodation
636
Operational capacity
646
Last inspection
3– 5 May 2005
Description of residential units
There were nine residential wings.
HMP Wellingborough
7
HMP Wellingborough
8
Healthy prison summary
Introduction
HP1
HP2
All inspection reports carry a summary of the conditions and treatment of prisoners,
based on the four tests of a healthy prison that were first introduced in this
inspectorate’s thematic review Suicide is Everyone’s Concern, published in 1999.
The criteria are:
Safety
prisoners, even the most vulnerable, are held safely
Respect
prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity
Purposeful activity
prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that
is likely to benefit them
Resettlement
prisoners are prepared for their release into the community
and helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
Under each test, we make an assessment of outcomes for prisoners and therefore of
the establishment's overall performance against the test. In some cases, this
performance will be affected by matters outside the establishment's direct control,
which need to be addressed by the National Offender Management Service.
… performing well against this healthy prison test.
There is no evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in any
significant areas.
… performing reasonably well against this healthy prison test.
There is evidence of adverse outcomes for prisoners in only a small number of areas.
For the majority, there are no significant concerns.
… not performing sufficiently well against this healthy prison test.
There is evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in many
areas or particularly in those areas of greatest importance to the well being of
prisoners. Problems/concerns, if left unattended, are likely to become areas of
serious concern.
… performing poorly against this healthy prison test.
There is evidence that the outcomes for prisoners are seriously affected by current
practice. There is a failure to ensure even adequate treatment of and/or conditions for
prisoners. Immediate remedial action is required.
Safety
HP3
Reception facilities were reasonable, but there were unnecessary delays. Cells for
new arrivals were unprepared and dirty and prisoners on induction were underoccupied. Suicide prevention was adequately managed, and self-harm was low, but
support for Listeners was poor and assessment, care in custody and teamwork
HMP Wellingborough
9
(ACCT) reviews and observations were of mixed quality. Use of force was relatively
low and decreasing, and the use of segregation had begun to fall. Nearly half the
prisoners said that they had felt unsafe, and there was evidence of violence and
bullying, often related to drug debt. Drug availability was high, although the prison
was making considerable efforts to reduce the supply of drugs and the positive
mandatory drug testing (MDT) rate was falling. Violence reduction processes had
improved, but were still underdeveloped. The role of I wing was unclear. Overall, the
prison was performing reasonably well against this healthy prison test.
HP4
The reception area was a reasonable and clean facility. Reception staff were
welcoming but the reception process took too long (sometimes over five hours) and
procedures, including the healthcare screen, built in unnecessary delays. Prisoners
were not always able to have a telephone call on the first night, or to have toiletries to
shower.
HP5
All new arrivals had a private interview with a member of induction staff, which
provided sufficient information for the first 24 hours. A prisoner Insider scheme had
just started. New arrivals could be allocated to any cell on E wing. The condition of
the cellular accommodation was particularly poor; many cells were dirty and had not
been prepared for new arrivals, and no cleaning materials were provided when new
prisoners arrived.
HP6
The recently revised induction programme was comprehensive and provided
appropriate information. It did not always start on the scheduled day and was
interrupted or cancelled regularly owing to non-attendance by staff. Many prisoners
took up to five weeks to complete every module and remained on the unit for up to
eight weeks. When not on induction, they were locked in their cells.
HP7
Suicide and self-harm was managed as part of the prisoner care team, with adequate
resources. The Listeners were good, but over-burdened, and there was no monitoring
of their use or that of the care suites or the Samaritans’ telephone. The safer cell was
inadequate and most of the cell inundation points we tried would not open. Staff
training was up to date and most assessments under ACCT were good. However,
most reviews were not sufficiently multidisciplinary, targets did not always address
need and the quality and predictability of observations was poor.
HP8
Nearly half the prisoners in our survey said that they had felt unsafe, although many
prisoners we spoke to reported feeling safe. There was significant evidence of drug
debt-related bullying and violence.
HP9
There had recently been significant efforts to improve the violence reduction strategy,
managed under the newly created prisoner care meeting, which was well organised.
There were a large number of violence reduction referrals and investigations, and
some evidence that the new arrangements were having a positive effect; although
assaults remained high, serious assaults had reduced considerably, with none so far
in 2008. These measures were not yet well embedded: staff had not completed
training and most staff did not fully understand the strategy. Monitoring logs and
support plans were poor.
HP10
I wing was intended to offer increased levels of support to prisoners who would
otherwise have sought protection in segregation, with a view to eventual reintegration
on mainstream accommodation. It was a reasonably safe alternative to segregation
but its support and reintegration functions had not yet been established and
HMP Wellingborough
10
assessment processes had not started. There was confusion among staff and
prisoners about its role, and a common perception that it was a vulnerable prisoners
unit. The criteria for entry to the unit were not consistently applied, which had led to
there being a complex and potentially difficult mix of prisoners on the unit.
HP11
The security department principally focused on reducing the supply of drugs and
mobile telephones. Grilles were being fitted over cell windows, and there had been
additional resources invested in target testing and target searching. Proactive work
had also been undertaken with the police, and there had been several arrests and
several finds, both of drugs and mobile telephones.
HP12
Adjudications were carried out in an appropriate environment. Hearings we observed
were carried out to a good standard, and a review of completed documentation
showed that charges were generally fully investigated and provided reassurances as
to the fairness of the process. Many charges made against prisoners for relatively
minor offences could have been more appropriately dealt with by other means, such
as the incentives and earned privileges (IEP) system.
HP13
The segregation unit was relatively small and reasonably clean. There was a
segregation unit policy but several aspects of it were not delivered. The number of
prisoners seeking segregation had decreased since the introduction of a policy not to
transfer prisoners out of the segregation unit. There were nine prisoners there during
the inspection, seven of whom had been there for long periods. Staff–prisoner
relationships on the unit were positive, although record-keeping was poor. The regime
was basic and, although staff showed concern for their mental well-being, there was
no planning to move them on. All the official documentation was pre-printed with
identical regime and behaviour targets, which applied to all prisoners in segregation.
Individual management plans were included in each prisoner’s wing history file, but
were either blank or extremely poorly completed.
HP14
The number of use of force incidents was not high and the trend was downwards.
Documentation was completed to a high standard, with clear statements and provided
assurances that force was used appropriately by staff. The two special cells were in
poor condition, with little natural light. Use of these cells was low and governance of
these facilities appropriate, although they were sometimes inappropriately used as
regular segregation unit cells by adding furniture at times when the unit was full.
HP15
The positive MDT rate had reduced from 16% in 2007/08 to 8.2% at the time of the
inspection. The testing regime had improved considerably in recent months, although
suspicion testing levels were still low. From our survey, the number of prisoners with
a declared drug problem on arrival and the number who thought that it was easy or
very easy to get illegal drugs within the prison were both significantly higher than the
comparators. There was no secondary detoxification programme available.
Respect
HP16
The newer wings were generally in an adequate state but living conditions on the
residential units on A to E wings were unsatisfactory, and many areas of the prison
were dirty or litter-strewn. Relationships between staff and prisoners lacked depth and
there was poor supervision of the older residential spurs and insufficient challenging
of poor behaviour. Diversity work was underdeveloped and the perceptions of black
HMP Wellingborough
11
and minority ethnic prisoners about their treatment were poor. Prisoners’ overall
confidence in the various complaints processes was low. Health services were
satisfactory, although there were concerns about the management of medicines and
outside appointments. The catering provision was basic but adequate. Overall, the
prison was not performing sufficiently well against this healthy prison test.
HP17
The general environment was mixed, depending on location within the establishment.
The outside areas around the newer wings were satisfactory but the grounds outside
the older parts of the prison were badly littered with rubbish, which attracted vermin.
Communal areas in the newer units were acceptable, although some of the recesses
on F and G wings were in a poor condition. On the older units, many of the communal
areas felt dingy and unkempt, not helped by the wing layouts, lack of natural light and
poor flooring. Some parts, however, were dirty; for example, many of the serveries
were not cleaned adequately after meals, and there were cockroaches in one servery
area.
HP18
Much of the cellular accommodation on A to E wings was in extremely poor condition,
in terms of maintenance and cleanliness. Prisoners complained about not being able
to access adequate cleaning materials. Cells were better in the newer wings.
HP19
All prisoners could wear their own clothes, although access to prison-issue kit was
sometimes unreliable. Many prisoners washed and dried their kit themselves on the
residential units.
HP20
The new IEP strategy was an improvement on the previous system, although not all
staff were fully aware of the differences between the two systems. The new privileges
list had been put together in consultation with prisoners and was meaningful to them.
The basic regime was not over-used, but prisoners could be kept on basic for
relatively long periods with no support and little done to encourage them to progress.
HP21
Prisoners’ perceptions of relationships with staff were mixed. We did not observe any
inappropriate behaviour by staff, and saw that some had good knowledge of
prisoners, although others were less well informed. On some wings, we observed
some distance between staff and prisoners, and staff were less likely to go onto the
spurs and interact with prisoners on the older units, which were more difficult to
supervise owing to their design. On these wings, some behaviour was often left
unchallenged, such as the playing of loud music and smoking in corridors. On one
wing in particular, it was not clear that staff were fully in control, and the response to
cell call bells was inadequate.
HP22
The personal officer scheme was well established, although basic. Most prisoners
knew who their personal officer was. Personal officers were allocated by cell, which
did not allow for continuity, as prisoners who moved cells on the same wing also
changed personal officers. Some wing history sheets contained reasonable personal
officer entries but others showed minimal engagement. There were also
inconsistencies in the number of entries made, with some files containing no entries
for over a month.
HP23
The main kitchen was a reasonable facility but some prisoners who worked there had
not received any training. Some of the food comments books on the serveries, which
attracted a lot of complaints about the food, were poorly managed. Many food trolleys
were poorly maintained and not clean. There had been some slippage in meal times,
HMP Wellingborough
12
as well as food safety and hygiene standards at the point of delivery. Regular
celebrations of culture were provided through different cultural menus.
HP24
The diversity agenda was underdeveloped and there was no diversity policy. A
disability liaison officer had been appointed but had insufficient time. There was no
designated member of staff responsible for the broader diversity agenda, and no
regime meeting that dealt with prisoner diversity or disability issues. Staff on the
wings mostly knew which prisoners needed assistance in the event of an emergency,
but this was not documented and there were no personal evacuation plans. Some
good work was done with prisoners on an individual basis.
HP25
Around 40% of prisoners were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Race
equality was managed through a well-attended monthly meeting, with prisoners and a
range of outside organisations in attendance. A full-time race equality officer (REO)
and trained deputy were in post, although the deputy had insufficient time. It was not
apparent that all staff and managers had sufficient ownership or understanding of
race equality issues and they had had no recent training. Several trained prisoner
wing representatives had been appointed. They met the REO each month and some
attended the race equality action team (REAT) meetings. There had been recent
improvements to the governance and quality assurance of racist complaints, but
many black and minority ethnic prisoners had little confidence in the complaints
system or in their treatment by staff.
HP26
There were around 100 foreign national prisoners and there was an up to date policy.
There were several foreign national prisoner orderlies but the foreign nationals
coordinator had little time to dedicate to these duties. There was limited consultation
with foreign national prisoners, little translated material was available and low use of
interpretation services, even for confidential matters. The UK Border Agency held
monthly immigration surgeries, but there was no independent immigration advice
available.
HP27
In our survey, prisoners expressed low levels of satisfaction with the applications and
complaints systems. The system of triplicate application forms was not consistently
used on all wings. A computerised application log had been introduced but not all
residential officers were aware of it. Procedures for managing formal complaints did
not ensure quality. Too many were signed off as completed but only contained an
interim response, with no evidence that the complaint had been substantively dealt
with.
HP28
There was no legal services officer and facilities for legal visits were extremely poor,
with the next available slot over a month away.
HP29
The chaplaincy department operated effectively. Facilities were good and the team
was well integrated into prison life.
HP30
Care UK provided health services. The department was cramped and there was a
shortage of computers. A health needs assessment had been completed in August
2007. Clinical governance arrangements were appropriate and record keeping was
reasonable. Primary care was adequate but there were no specialist nurse-led clinics
or nurse triage. Governance of prescription medication was poor. The dental service
was excellent, with practically no waiting list, but dental equipment was unsafe. Too
many outside hospital appointments were cancelled. Mental health services were
reasonable; the team was small but saw all cases referred to them, though not all
HMP Wellingborough
13
those with mental health issues were known to the team and there was little
collaborative working with other departments. There were some specialist counselling
services but no day care or talking therapies.
Purposeful activity
HP31
The amount of activities had not kept pace with the increase in prisoner numbers, and
there was now a significant shortfall, compounded by the fact that available places
were not used to their full extent. We found 200 prisoners, around 30% of the
population, locked in their cells during the core day. Basic education provision was
satisfactory but the overall range and quality of workshops was inadequate for a
training prison. There was a range of missed opportunities for accrediting skills, and
strategic planning and links with other functions were underdeveloped. Despite the
good overall provision in physical education (PE), the prison was performing poorly
against this healthy prison test.
HP32
The overall effectiveness of the learning and skills provision was inadequate and it
was not clear that there was capacity to improve the quality of the provision. There
was no strategic direction to ensure that provision met prisoners’ resettlement
employment needs. Prisoners did not work in commercially realistic environments.
Integration with other functions and communication between departments were poor,
as were links with employers and external organisations. Data analysis was weak.
HP33
There were 252 part-time education places, which included literacy and numeracy
sessions for those in the workshops and attending vocational training programmes.
However, the curriculum was insufficient to meet the needs of prisoners. The pay
policy did not disadvantage those opting to participate in learning and skills.
Attendance was poor in classrooms and workshops, with some workshops recording
50% attendance, but prisoners worked well when they were in sessions. Teaching
and learning were generally satisfactory. Achievement of qualifications was good in
information and communications technology, satisfactory overall in literacy and
numeracy, but poor in English for speakers of other languages and particularly poor in
personal development and social integration programmes.
HP34
There was insufficient work and vocational training for the size of the population. Only
507 activity places in total were available, many part time, and waiting lists for
vocational training workshops were long. Allocations were made on the basis of
availability rather than identified need, although the process was fair. Insufficient
attention was given to education and training in sentence plans. The range of
vocational training in the workshops was limited. There was accreditation in the
workshops, but not in key areas of work, including gardens, laundry, waste
management, kitchens and serveries. Work in some of the workshops was mundane
and repetitive. Opportunities for prisoners on I wing were very limited.
HP35
Average time out of cell was low for a training prison, and had been only around 7.5
hours, though there had been some recent changes to allow enhanced level
prisoners more time out. Over 100 had no employment and could spend 20 hours a
day locked in cell. During the core day, we found just over 200 prisoners, over 30%
of the population, locked in their cells. The situation had improved slightly in recent
weeks for those on the enhanced level of the IEP scheme or actively seeking work,
who were now unlocked for additional periods in the morning and afternoon. Full
HMP Wellingborough
14
association was rarely cancelled and time in the fresh air was scheduled daily, with
additional provision in the summer months.
HP36
Library services were satisfactory and access was reasonable. The library contained
a good stock level, comprising a range of fiction and non-fiction books, as well as
large-print and audio books. The number of books supporting educational and
vocational programmes was also satisfactory, although access to computer facilities
was poor.
HP37
The PE department was reasonably well equipped, with opportunities for prisoners to
gain accredited qualifications. Access to the gym for recreational purposes was good
for most prisoners but access on the induction wing was limited. The programme
contained provision for minority groups, including classes for prisoners over 50. There
was integration with other departments, including exercise referrals, which were
developed and monitored in conjunction with the healthcare department. Prisoners
who had achieved coaching qualifications were able to provide support.
Resettlement
HP38
There were big gaps in the strategic oversight of resettlement and poor coordination
of services. The new offender management unit (OMU) operated effectively but was
unable to ensure that identified interventions could be provided. There was poor
management of life-sentenced prisoners. Although 500 prisoners a year were
discharged into the community, provision across the range of resettlement pathways,
with a couple of notable exceptions, was seriously underdeveloped. Overall, the
prison was performing poorly against this healthy prison test.
HP39
There was no up to date resettlement strategy or needs analysis. Management
responsibility and governance were split and incoherent. There was little routine
performance monitoring, other than that relating to key performance target
compliance, to measure achievements or inform developments in policy or practice.
HP40
All prisoners were case managed under the national offender management model.
Assessments and sentence planning were effective. However, the setting of
challenging yet achievable sentence plan targets, aimed at reducing risk factors, was
hampered by the lack of interventions. Population pressures, rather than identified
needs, drove prisoners’ allocation, and many prisoners were transferred to the
establishment with identified targets that they could not achieve. Only in extremely
rare cases were prisoners subsequently able to transfer to other category C prisons
for this purpose. This was a source of considerable frustration among prisoners.
HP41
There had been significant problems in the management of life-sentenced prisoners,
partly because of frequent changes to key personnel. Many lifers had been
significantly disadvantaged as a result of their reports not being prepared on time.
Remedial action was being taken, but there was no formal action plan with agreed
deadlines for implementing changes or achieving targets.
HP42
Despite the fact that over 500 prisoners were released each year, and that the prison
had developed some innovative community projects, provision under most of the
resettlement pathways was poor. Some good quality work was undertaken by the
small number of resettlement staff, and there was a good accommodation service.
HMP Wellingborough
15
However, pre-release planning and preparation were inadequate and took place too
late in the prisoner’s sentence. There was, effectively, no provision of resettlement
services in the crucial areas of employment, training and education; finance, benefits
and debt; and mental and physical health.
HP43
The main accredited offending behaviour programme delivered was enhanced
thinking skills (ETS). In addition, the cognitive skills booster programme was run by
Northamptonshire Probation Services in the prison and the chaplaincy department
ran a victim awareness course. The provision of interventions had suffered from
significant depletion of the psychology department, which resulted in a backlog in
ETS courses and some slippage in lifer work, although waiting lists were not
excessive.
HP44
Drug and alcohol policies were not informed by a comprehensive needs analysis and
there was no dedicated drug strategy coordinator. The in-house counselling,
assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARAT) service was not sufficiently
resourced. There were no interventions for prisoners with primary alcohol problems.
The prison addressing substance-related offending (P-ASRO) programme struggled
to find sufficient prisoners to meet the start target. Voluntary drug testing (VDT) was
available, independent of location, and a compliance testing programme also
operated for some key workers.
HP45
There were delays in accessing the visits booking line, and visits could not be booked
more than two weeks in advance. There were too few visit spaces, and not many
sessions a week. The visitors’ centre provided a positive first impression for visitors,
with a good range of services and supportive staff, in stark contrast to the visits
experience in the prison itself. The visits room was in the process of being refurbished
but was cramped and scruffy. Arrangements for moving visitors across from the
visitors’ centre were poor, with some visitors not getting into the visits hall until well
after the scheduled start time of their visit. Prisoners had to wear yellow sashes. The
closed visits facility was also poor, with little privacy. Community engagement officers
were active in developing initiatives to encourage improved relationships between
prisoners, their families and friends. They coordinated the work of the visitors’ centre,
and ran regular family days, but only for enhanced level prisoners. There was also a
parentcraft course and one-to-one work with Relate counsellors, and release on
temporary licence had been used on 64 occasions so far in 2008 for maintaining
family contact pre-release.
Main recommendations
HP46
Key reception and first night procedures should be completed in full for all
newly received prisoners before they are allocated a cell.
HP47
The first night accommodation on E wing should be refurbished and
appropriately furnished.
HP48
All communal areas in the prison, including the serveries and outside areas,
should be kept clean and litter free.
HP49
All staff should be trained in the violence reduction strategy and feel confident
about their role in implementing it and in ensuring appropriate standards of
behaviour in all areas of the prison.
HMP Wellingborough
16
HP50
The quality and range of work provision should be improved to provide skills
and training to meet prisoners’ resettlement employment needs.
HP51
There should be enough purposeful activity for all prisoners.
HP52
A resettlement strategy should be developed, based on an up to date needs
assessment of the prison’s population, and there should be clear management
structures and accountability for implementing it.
HP53
There should be support for prisoners across all resettlement pathways, with a
clear management lead for each pathway.
HP54
All prisoners should have a sentence or custody plan which includes
achievable reintegration, training and offending behaviour targets, related to
individual need, and implemented in a timely fashion during their time at the
prison.
HMP Wellingborough
17
HMP Wellingborough
18
Section 1: Arrival in custody
Courts, escorts and transfers
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners travel in safe, decent conditions to and from court and between prisons. During
movement prisoners' individual needs are recognised and given proper attention.
1.1
Arrangements for the transfer of prisoners were satisfactory, although many prisoners
complained about the comfort of their journey and the frequency of stops.
1.2
As the majority of prisoners at the establishment were sentenced, most new arrivals came
from other establishments. Escorts were carried out by Global Solutions Limited, and the
relationship between escort staff and reception staff was positive.
1.3
Our survey results relating to transfers and escorts were predominantly poor, with only 14% of
prisoners, against the 20% comparator, saying that they had travelled in comfort and only 7%,
against the 15% comparator, saying that they had had sufficient comfort breaks. At the time of
the inspection, five prisoners were received from HMP Bedford. The escort van was
reasonably clean, and prisoners had been provided with food and drinks on the short journey.
All of their property and documentation arrived with them. They were all complimentary about
the escort staff.
1.4
Escort vans arriving during the lunchtime period (12.30pm to 1.30pm) had to wait outside
reception until staff returned from lunch.
Recommendation
1.5
Reception should be open to receive and process prisoners during lunchtime.
First days in custody
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners feel safe on their reception into prison and for the first few days. Their individual
needs, both during and after custody, are identified and plans developed to provide help. During
a prisoner’s induction into the prison he/she is made aware of prison routines, how to access
available services and how to cope with imprisonment.
1.6
The reception process was thorough and prisoners were treated well by staff. However, it took
too long and existing procedures, including the healthcare screen, built in unnecessary delays.
The building was suitably designed. Most information provided was only in English. First night
accommodation was in poor condition and not all prisoners had access to telephone calls and
showers on their first night. The induction course was comprehensive but was regularly
cancelled or postponed, and prisoners faced delays in moving on from the unit. Many
prisoners spent long periods of time locked in their cell.
HMP Wellingborough
19
Reception
1.7
The reception area was clean, bright and functional. There were two holding rooms: a large
room with a television and first night information in several different languages, and a second,
smaller, bare room which was used to hold prisoners before being searched. There was a
large area which was used for searching and processing prisoners, and a small area for
making hot drinks. Reception was staffed daily by a dedicated group of trained staff. The
number of prisoners received weekly varied, and new receptions did not arrive every day.
1.8
In our survey, 69% of respondents said that they were treated well or very well in reception.
We witnessed reception staff being respectful towards the prisoners coming into their care and
thorough in their efforts to put them at ease and welcome them to the establishment. All
prisoners were routinely strip searched, despite having undergone a strip search on leaving
the sending establishment and travelling in cellular transport. The five prisoners we met
arriving from Bedford arrived before lunch. During the lunchtime period, two members of staff
carried out the basic strip searching procedures. Prisoners then had to wait until 1.30pm
before being fully processed.
1.9
Showers and telephones were not available in reception, with these facilities theoretically
being available in the induction unit on E wing. All prisoners were seen by staff in the
healthcare department in the adjoining building, where a full needs assessment was carried
out, rather than an assessment of immediate needs. Induction staff also carried out one-to-one
interviews with all new receptions in the reception area, to deal with any pressing issues.
These two procedures resulted in delays in moving prisoners from reception – we witnessed
prisoners being kept in reception for nearly five hours – but nevertheless some prisoners were
not fully processed before being taken to the induction unit. There were no Listeners in
reception, although the prisoner orderly took on a role similar to that of an Insider. Staff said
that they would arrange for a Listener to attend if requested.
1.10
Staff provided sufficient information for prisoners to know what would be happening next, and
for the following 24 hours. The first night leaflet was the only information available in a range of
languages. The cell sharing risk assessment was carried out in reception by reception staff.
One recent assessment we found in a prisoner induction wing history file showed that it had
not been fully completed owing to language difficulties. Big Word interpreting facilities were
rarely used in reception.
First night
1.11
PIN telephone credits were arranged for new arrivals but were not always activated on the
same day, particularly when prisoners arrived late. This resulted in some prisoners not being
able to make a telephone call on their first night. Our survey results were significantly worse
than comparators for this, with only 25% of prisoners, against the 48% comparator, saying that
they could make a free telephone call on their first night.
1.12
During our evening visit, we spoke to some prisoners who had arrived that day. Prisoners
could be allocated to any cell on E wing, and the cells we saw were dirty and in poor condition.
There had been no preparation for the new arrivals, and they were unable to get cleaning
materials or furniture for their cells. As staff had been redeployed from reception to other units,
they had not completed the reception process for all the prisoners received that day. The
prisoners we spoke to had not received any of their property or clothing before being taken to
the induction wing. Consequently, some had no clean clothing or prison-issue toiletries, so
HMP Wellingborough
20
they could not make full use of the shower facilities on E wing. Our survey results showed that
only 23% of prisoners, compared with the 44% comparator, were offered a shower on their first
night.
1.13
The landings on E wing were of the corridor type, with no clear lines of vision for staff,
particularly on the upper floors, which made staff supervision in this potentially vulnerable area
difficult. We observed staff remaining on the lower floor in staff offices, rather than patrolling
the landings. Our survey results showed that only 76% of prisoners, compared with the 85%
comparator, felt safe on their first night. Night staff were aware of where the new arrivals were
on the unit.
Induction
1.14
The induction course was run partly on E wing, in two good-sized classrooms, and partly in
other departments. An induction officer carried out the first session, which gave a detailed
overview of the rest of the course and information about the establishment in general. Any
prisoners who had previously been at Wellingborough were identified early in the process and
their induction programme adjusted accordingly.
1.15
An Insider scheme had been set up two weeks before the inspection and was still developing.
Four Insiders had been selected and were enthusiastic, but their work had not yet been
formally embedded into the induction process; it was up to the Insiders to find the new
receptions and introduce themselves to them. Their work lacked strategic oversight; for
example, they dealt with issuing application forms and gave out 30 different forms to new
receptions instead of the generic one (see section on applications and complaints).
1.16
The recently revised induction course was a one-week rolling programme, which was
supposed to start on the next working day following a prisoner’s arrival. This did not always
happen, as there were often cancellations and postponements of the programme owing to
non-attendance by staff, which led to a backlog of prisoners. Some prisoners waited three
days (excluding weekends) to start the programme. The programme contained sessions from
the offender management unit (OMU), gym, education department, counselling, assessment,
referral, advice and throughcare (CARAT) team and other agencies. Prisoners we spoke to
who had completed the course said that it could take up to five weeks to cover all the
elements. However, they said that it was comprehensive and provided them with useful
information.
1.17
Prisoners could remain on the induction unit for up to eight weeks while waiting for work and a
space on another unit. When not occupied with work or the induction programme, prisoners
were locked in their cells. During a roll check one morning, 42 prisoners were locked in their
cells on the unit.
Recommendations
1.18
The amount of time that prisoners spend in reception should be reduced.
1.19
All prisoners should receive their property and be able to have a shower and make a
telephone call on their first night.
1.20
Information provided to prisoners in reception should be in a variety of formats and
languages.
HMP Wellingborough
21
1.21
All prisoners should be offered clean clothes and basic toiletries on their first night.
1.22
All cells should be cleaned and prepared for occupation by new arrivals.
1.23
The induction programme should be delivered according to the published timetable and
should commence on the next working day following reception.
1.24
Prisoners should be fully occupied during induction, and moved off the induction unit
as soon as the programme has finished.
HMP Wellingborough
22
Section 2: Environment and relationships
Residential units
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners live in a safe, clean and decent environment within which they are encouraged to take
personal responsibility for themselves and their possessions.
2.1
Many parts of the grounds were badly littered and there was an infestation of vermin. The
original wings were dingy, and cells generally were poorly maintained and dirty. The newer
wings were in better condition, although the showers on F and G wings had been allowed to
deteriorate into an unacceptable condition. Prisoners were able to wear their own clothes,
although access to prison-issue kit was sometimes unreliable. Prisoners’ mail was dealt with in
a timely and efficient way. On some wings, the ratio of telephones to was insufficient.
2.2
The outside areas around the newer wings were in a reasonable condition, but the grounds
outside the older parts of the prison (A to E wings) were badly littered. Although some efforts
were made to clear this during the inspection, some of the litter, including food waste, had
been there for a considerable time and was not cleared away sufficiently quickly. The
establishment had a problem with rats in the grounds around the older parts of the prison.
2.3
Inside the residential units, the picture was mixed. Communal areas in the newer units were
reasonable. However, despite an extensive painting programme that was underway, many of
the communal areas on the older units were dingy and unkempt, not helped by the fact that
there was a lack of natural light on some of the residential spurs, which felt extremely
enclosed. Floors were in poor condition; on one spur, the flooring had completely lifted away,
leaving just the concrete base. In other areas, flooring was damaged and poorly maintained
and cleaned. Some communal areas were simply dirty; for example, many of the serveries
were not cleaned adequately after meals. On one morning during the inspection, we counted
that five of the nine serveries had not been satisfactorily cleaned and had been left with food
waste overnight. One servery area was infested with cockroaches.
2.4
Much of the cellular accommodation on A to E wings was in extremely poor condition, in terms
of maintenance, but particularly in terms of cleanliness. Typically, we found broken and
missing furniture, such as tables and chairs; walls covered in graffiti; wing notice boards
missing, with just the fixings left on the walls; badly scaled toilets; posters and cupboards fixed
to external walls; ill-fitting and broken windows; and floors in poor condition.
2.5
Many cells were dirty and it was a common complaint from prisoners that they were unable to
access sufficient or suitable cleaning materials. Cells were in better condition on F, G, H and I
wings, which were newer.
2.6
During the inspection, we saw many examples of staff responding appropriately quickly to
emergency cell call bells. However, we also observed some examples of staff cancelling the
audible alarm but not responding straight away to the cell itself. In one example, four prisoners
who had been locked up in a single cell during the lunchtime period had tried to attract staff’s
attention for 20 minutes through the cell call bell before they were responded to.
HMP Wellingborough
23
2.7
Prisoners were not allowed kettles in their cells, but were instead issued with flasks. In some
cases, flasks were not available and prisoners were only provided with insulated mugs.
2.8
A prisoner consultation committee met regularly (see section on bullying and violence
reduction). Minutes showed that action points were taken seriously and followed up.
2.9
All prisoners could wear their own clothes and could have items sent in. However, staff and
prisoners both confirmed that access to prison-issue kit was sometimes unreliable.
2.10
Prisoners could shower every day. Some shower recesses were adequately cleaned, although
others, most notably on F and G wings, were in an unacceptable condition. A programme of
refurbishment of F and G wing recesses was underway at the time of the inspection. Some
wings had small laundry facilities, whereas prisoners on other wings had to rely on the main
prison laundry. Many prisoners had little confidence in the main laundry, and it was a
commonly held perception that clothing went missing from there. Consequently, many
prisoners washed and dried their kit themselves in their cells.
2.11
No restrictions were placed on the number of letters that prisoners could send or receive. Both
incoming and outgoing mail was cleared daily from Monday to Friday, and incoming mail was
also processed on Saturday mornings. Once dealt with by correspondence staff, incoming mail
was taken to wings for staff to distribute, and outgoing mail was collected daily by the post
office.
2.12
With the exception of legal and registered post, all mail was opened but only legitimate
censorship was carried out. There had previously been problems with legal post being opened
by wing staff, but a system had recently been introduced whereby residential managers were
required to sign that they had received such post unopened for passing to prisoners. During
the inspection, we observed that legal mail was not opened by staff.
2.13
The number of telephones on C, D, E, H and I wings did not meet our expectation of one for
every 20 prisoners. However, prisoners in our survey were more positive than at comparator
prisoners about access to telephones, with 16%, against the 22% comparator, stating that they
had problems getting access to telephones. Prisoners’ telephones had privacy hoods, and
notices were displayed stating that calls could be monitored.
Recommendations
2.14
Damaged flooring should be replaced.
2.15
A major cell refurbishment programme should be undertaken on A to E wings.
2.16
Broken and missing furniture should be replaced in cells, including notice boards.
2.17
Cells should be free from graffiti and regularly repainted.
2.18
Prisoners should have access to adequate supplies of cleaning materials.
2.19
Toilets should be descaled.
2.20
Cupboards and posters should be removed from external cell walls.
2.21
Cell call bells should always be answered within five minutes.
HMP Wellingborough
24
2.22
All communal shower recesses should be maintained in a reasonable condition.
2.23
Prisoners should be issued with kettles.
2.24
At least one telephone should be available on residential wings for each 20 prisoners.
Staff–prisoner relationships
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners are treated respectfully by all staff, throughout the duration of their custodial
sentence, and are encouraged to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Healthy
prisons should demonstrate a well-ordered environment in which the requirements of security,
control and justice are balanced and in which all members of the prison community are safe and
treated with fairness.
2.25
Staff–prisoner relationships were mixed. We did not observe inappropriate behaviour but
relationships lacked depth. Supervision of prisoners was poor on some wings, and some
inappropriate prisoner behaviour was not challenged.
2.26
Prisoners’ perceptions of relationships with staff were mixed. During the inspection, we did not
observe any inappropriate attitudes towards prisoners, and particularly good interactions were
observed in the reception area and segregation unit. Some staff had good knowledge of
prisoners and their individual circumstances but others were less interested. Staff were not
always aware that prisoners on their wing were on violence reduction strategy dossiers. Staff
generally did not consider that part of their role was actively to support and motivate prisoners,
both in terms of personal circumstances and their engagement in regime activities and
sentence plans. They told us that they would only have an informal conversation with prisoners
in exceptional circumstances.
2.27
On the old-style wings in particular, we observed that staff were less likely to go on to the
landings and spurs and interact with prisoners. On one of the wings, it was not clear that staff
were in control, and there was some resistance from prisoners to the presence of others on the
spurs. Prisoners tended to congregate at the entrance to the spur, and staff remained in the
central stairwell and offices. Inappropriate behaviour, such as the playing of loud music and
smoking in corridors, was left unchallenged.
2.28
There was some reference to prisoners using ‘Mr...’ or preferred names but generally prisoners
were referred to by surnames. Names outside cells were mainly surnames and some prisoner
files also only had their surname on them.
Recommendations
2.29
Wing staff should be aware of any prisoners on their wing who are subject to particular
monitoring, including violence reduction strategy; basic; or assessment, care in
custody and teamwork (ACCT).
2.30
Wing staff should routinely patrol landings and engage with prisoners, both to
challenge inappropriate behaviour and to provide support and motivation.
HMP Wellingborough
25
2.31
Prisoners should be referred to using the title ‘Mr...’ or by a preferred name. This should
be reflected on prisoners’ files and outside cells.
Personal officers
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners’ relationships with their personal officers are based on mutual respect, high
expectations and support.
2.32
There was a well-established personal officer scheme, which was cell based. Most prisoners
knew their personal officer, although fewer than the comparator said that they were helpful.
Wing history file entries were generally poor.
2.33
Most prisoners we spoke to knew who their personal officer was and thought that they were
approachable, although in our survey significantly fewer (54%) thought that their personal
officer was helpful than at comparator prisons (65%). Personal officers were allocated by cell,
and prisoners who moved cells on the same wing also changed officers, which did not permit
continuity of care.
2.34
While there were some good personal officer entries on wing history sheets, the majority
showed minimal engagement with prisoners. There were also inconsistencies in the number of
entries made, with some files detailing regular contact, but others containing no entries for over
a month; most only made one comment every two weeks.
2.35
There was some confusion among staff about the respective roles of offender supervisor and
personal officer.
Recommendations
2.36
Prisoners who move cell on a wing should retain the same personal officer, to retain
continuity of care.
2.37
Wing history sheets should contain at least weekly entries from personal officers which
demonstrate an engagement with the prisoner and familiarity with his circumstances.
2.38
Staff should have a clear idea of the respective responsibilities of the personal officer
and offender supervisor, and these roles should complement each other.
HMP Wellingborough
26
Section 3: Duty of care
Bullying and violence reduction
Expected outcomes:
Everyone feels safe from bullying and victimisation (which includes verbal and racial abuse,
theft, threats of violence and assault). Active and fair systems to prevent and respond to
violence and intimidation are known to staff, prisoners and visitors, and inform all aspects of the
regime.
3.1
Violence reduction was managed together with suicide prevention under the prisoner care
team. Strategy and management arrangements were good, but the engagement and
understanding of residential staff was limited. Despite some good initiatives, violence
reduction dossiers were poor and interventions limited, with poor communication with mental
healthcare. A high proportion of prisoners in our survey said they had felt unsafe, and bullying
and violence remained a significant problem, in particular relating to drug debts. The role of I
wing, and its population mix, was unclear and it was not yet an effective operation.
3.2
Since November 2007, suicide and self-harm and bullying and violence reduction had been
managed together under the prisoner care team. This arrangement ensured that both areas
received senior management strategic input. Both strategies were driven forward by the
monthly prisoner care meeting, which was well attended. Prisoners were involved in this
meeting, including Listener representatives. Action points were followed up and trends in data
and survey results discussed. The violence reduction strategy (VRS) document was up to date
and comprehensive, although it did not include findings from surveys, audits or prisoner
consultation feedback.
3.3
Prisoner care issues were an agenda item at the monthly prisoner consultation committee.
This was well attended, usually including prisoner representation from most wings and staff
representation from the chaplaincy, kitchen, healthcare department and Independent
Monitoring Board, and was chaired by the head of prisoner care.
3.4
Our survey indicated that prisoners’ perceptions of safety were poor and levels of bullying high.
Forty-eight per cent of prisoners, compared with 27% in comparator prisons, said that they had
felt unsafe in the prison, and 33%, compared with the 21% comparator, said that they had
been threatened or intimidated by another prisoner or group of prisoners. This was not
supported by the prison’s own exit survey, where only 4% of prisoners completing the survey
had said that they had felt unsafe. Most prisoners we spoke to during the inspection said that
they felt reasonably safe.
3.5
There was significant evidence of drug debt-related bullying and violence. VRS investigations
were most often about drug debts, and Listeners reported that drug debt was one of the
problems that prisoners most frequently spoke to them about. Prisoners we spoke to often did
not perceive drug-related violence as bullying because it was ‘their own fault’, but they did
acknowledge that many prisoners had drug debt and related problems. The prison’s security
intelligence indicated that drug-related problems were one of the key concerns at the time of
the inspection, and this was also reflected in the violence reduction prisoner and staff surveys
and impact assessment carried out by the prison between December 2007 and June 2008.
HMP Wellingborough
27
3.6
The number of assaults was high, at 45 in the year to date, although no comparator data with
the previous year were available. However, there had been no serious assaults in recent
months. The level of unexplained injuries was also high.
3.7
The prison contained a large number of young men, many of whom had committed serious
drug- or violence-related offences. The management of bullying and violence was not helped
by the design of the older wings, which were harder to supervise. On C wing, in particular, we
found inadequate staff control and response to cell call bells (see section on residential units).
The prison’s own documentation highlighted that assaults and unexplained injuries had been
much higher on C wing than elsewhere in the prison during recent months. Security
intelligence had been used to identify and transfer some prisoners, which had reduced
incidents on C wing. Some prisoners on the older wings said that they believed that prisoners,
rather than staff, ran the wings. Staff told us that some of their colleagues had been threatened
by prisoners on A and C wings. The violence reduction staff survey found that 10% of staff did
not feel safe at the establishment.
3.8
During our night visit, we found insufficient staff cover for the wings; a member of staff had
reported sick, which left one operational support grade to cover B wing, D wing and the
segregation unit.
3.9
It was clear that significant efforts had gone into improving the VRS in the previous nine
months, following a poor standards audit score in 2007. However, initiatives had not yet been
embedded. New staff and senior officers had been trained in VRS, but existing staff training
was yet to begin and most staff we spoke to did not have a detailed knowledge of the strategy.
The violence reduction staff survey also highlighted that most staff were not familiar with the
VRS and most were negative about it.
3.10
There was a three-stage management system to manage perpetrators of bullying, but data
monitoring did not record prisoners being put on the highest level (three). However, managers
were able to point to six recent individual cases in which prisoners had reached level three and
been transferred as a result. When a prisoner reached stage two or three of the anti-bullying
strategy, alert forms were sent to relevant departments, including the police liaison officer and
offender management unit (OMU).
3.11
A large number (an average of 66 a month) of VRS investigations were completed, which
indicated that issues were coming to staff’s attention. This also included the investigation of
unexplained injuries. An average of 15 investigations (23%) resulted in the opening of a
dossier each month and, of these, approximately six were victim dossiers and nine were
perpetrator dossiers.
3.12
However, the VRS dossiers we looked at were of poor quality. Most contained no details about
why the prisoner was being monitored. Most entries offered minimal information about the
prisoner, such as ‘located in seg, nothing to report’, and we noted several inappropriate
entries, such as ‘he is a very ignorant man’, and management checks did not appear to
challenge such comments. Two live dossiers we looked at had no entries at all; in both cases,
the dossier had been open for 19 hours. Of the closed dossiers we reviewed, it was not
unusual for there to be no entries for a week.
3.13
Wing managers made informal attempts to resolve conflicts by bringing prisoners together to
discuss disputes; this was described as ‘mediation’. However, managers handling this had no
training in mediation, and no log was kept of these interventions.
HMP Wellingborough
28
3.14
Communication between mental health services staff and the VRS team was poor. We found
two instances where prisoners had had significant mental health problems, making them
vulnerable and also a risk to others; in neither instance had this been flagged up to the
prisoner care team.
3.15
Most notice boards throughout the prison, including the visitors’ centre, displayed information
about suicide and self-harm and anti-bullying and violence reduction initiatives, including
information about what to do if a fellow prisoner or a visitor had concerns about a prisoner. In
addition, the care line telephone number was printed on the back of visiting orders. Useful
booklets containing practical advice on both areas were given to new arrivals during induction.
3.16
Ten prisoner care liaison officers had recently been allocated across the wings. Their role was
to ensure good communication – for example, by copying minutes and putting them on the
notice boards. They were also meant to advise staff on how prisoner care processes
(assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) and the anti-bullying strategy) operated.
However, there was no job specification for this role and no facility time, although there were
plans to implement both.
3.17
I wing had re-roled in March 2008 in an attempt to manage the high number of prisoners
seeking own protection and onward transfer, and managers reported that this had already
reduced the number of prisoners seeking relocation to the segregation unit. Approximately
50% of prisoners were on I wing because they had been identified as needing support, and the
other 50% were prisoners on the enhanced level of the incentives and earned privileges (IEP)
scheme, willing to give support. The role and operation of the unit was not clear. Staff and
prisoners elsewhere in the prison saw I wing as a vulnerable prisoners wing or poor copers
unit.
3.18
There was confusion among staff and prisoners about whether supported prisoners could be
on the enhanced level of the IEP scheme (see section on incentives and earned privileges) or
transferred out, and no clarity about the role of the non-supported prisoners. Some of the
supported prisoners, identified as victims, had also been perpetrators, whose own victims were
on the unit. As a result, some prisoners felt unsafe there.
3.19
The policy described a six-stage assessment process, but this did not occur. Personal officers
wrote notes in history sheets, but there was no formal assessment, review or ongoing case
management. There was, in practice, little support for ‘supported prisoners’ and the onus was
on them to flag up issues to staff. Some prisoners said that they were too afraid to do this, for
fear of being seen as a ‘grass’. There were no interventions to support I wing prisoners,
although work opportunities were available. Although the ‘no transfer out’ policy had
encouraged prisoners to take more responsibility for their behaviour, the lack of any effective
planning or intervention meant that some prisoners were marooned on I wing, unable to go
back to any main wings for their own safety and unable to progress out of the establishment as
they were not eligible for a progressive move.
Recommendations
3.20
The violence reduction strategy (VRS) should include findings from surveys, audits and
staff and prisoner consultation.
3.21
During night shifts, at least one member of staff should cover each residential area, to
allow cell call bells/emergencies to be promptly responded to.
HMP Wellingborough
29
3.22
A record should be kept of prisoners being managed under stage three of the VRS.
3.23
The quality of VRS dossiers should be improved, making clear why the prisoner is
being monitored, with detailed and frequent entries that demonstrate an engagement
with the prisoner. Management checks should ensure quality and challenge any
inappropriate comments.
3.24
Wing managers engaging in mediation should have training to carry out this role.
3.25
Prisoner care liaison officers should have a job specification and facility time.
3.26
Mental health staff should flag up to the prisoner care team any potential vulnerability
issues or risk issues relating to prisoners they are engaged with.
3.27
The role of I wing should be reviewed and clarified, to ensure that supported prisoners
are assessed and assisted to progress, and to establish a role for non-supported
prisoners. This revised policy should then be implemented.
Housekeeping point
3.28
A year-on-year comparison on performance data, such as assaults each month, should be
carried out.
Good practice
3.29
Exit surveys were given to all prisoners leaving the establishment.
3.30
Prisoners were able to play an active part in the prisoner care meeting and contribute to the
discussion of data and trends.
Self-harm and suicide
Expected outcomes:
Prisons work to reduce the risks of self-harm and suicide through a whole-prison approach.
Prisoners at risk of self-harm or suicide are identified at an early stage, and a care and support
plan is drawn up, implemented and monitored. Prisoners who have been identified as vulnerable
are encouraged to participate in all purposeful activity. All staff are aware of and alert to
vulnerability issues, are appropriately trained and have access to proper equipment and
support.
3.31
Suicide and self-harm was effectively managed and resourced under the prisoner care team.
Numbers of self-harm incidents were low and there had not been a self-inflicted death since
2003. There was a good Listener scheme, but Listeners were not always accessible. Care
suites were inadequately monitored and equipped. ACCT assessments were good, but
subsequent reviews and observations were inadequate, as were self-harm incident
investigations... Some areas of basic practice had slipped, such as the carrying of anti-ligature
knives and testing of inundation points.
HMP Wellingborough
30
3.32
The management of suicide and self-harm worked well and was continuing to develop,
although the suicide and self-harm strategy document was generic and not sufficiently tailored
to the establishment. There was an adequately resourced staff team, ultimately managed by
the deputy governor but managed day to day by a governor grade who had been almost
entirely dedicated to prisoner care for the previous nine months. A principal officer oversaw the
suicide and self-harm strategy, a full-time senior officer was the prisoner care coordinator, and
an officer acted as his deputy and had approximately 16 hours of facility time each week.
There were three Listener coordinators (the senior officer plus two officers), 10 prisoner care
liaison officers and an administration officer.
3.33
The number of self-harm incidents was low, with 33 in the previous seven months. An average
of eight ACCTs was opened each month. The last self-inflicted death in custody had occurred
five years earlier, in July 2003.
3.34
There was a good Listener scheme, with 12 trained Listeners, although this had reduced from
17 at the time of our pre-inspection, approximately six weeks earlier. There was no monitoring
of use of Listeners (day or night), but it appeared that they were heavily used and that 12 was
unlikely to be a sufficient number. In our survey, only 9% of prisoners said that they had had
access to a Listener in the first 24 hours, compared with 35% in comparator prisons, and only
47%, compared with 67%, said that they were able to speak to a Listener at any time if they
wanted to. There were plans to train additional Listeners.
3.35
Listeners worked across the wings on a rota basis, except in the segregation unit, where
prisoners were told that they could not see a Listener. Managers were unaware of this.
Listeners were generally well supported by staff. Follow-up visits were permitted, and access
in these instances was generally unproblematic. Representatives from the Listeners talked to
new arrivals as part of the induction process.
3.36
There appeared to be a good relationship with the local Samaritans, and representatives
visited the prison on Tuesdays and Saturdays. Each wing had a Samaritans mobile telephone,
which was free to use, although its use was not monitored. Prisoners could also call the
Samaritans without charge using the wing telephones.
3.37
There were care suites on I, H and E wings. These comprised two cells with an adjoining door,
both occupied by Listeners. The E wing care suite was a particularly poor environment for
prisoners in crisis to spend the night, as it was cramped and in a poor state of repair. Only the
six Listeners occupying care suites provided night-time support. Use of care suites was not
monitored, but from discussions with the Listeners, it appeared that they were used by
between six and 10 prisoners each week. Care was not always taken of Listeners’ well-being.
The Listener rota was frequently ignored for operational reasons, and prisoners were instead
often taken to the nearest care suite. In other cases, prisoners were not taken back to their
cells during the night after being in the care suite. As a result, it was not uncommon for
Listeners in a care suite to listen for between 30 and 40 hours a week. One Listener we spoke
to was exhausted; he told us that he had been putting in 30–40 hours each week (in addition to
his job) for over four years. With no monitoring of the use of Listeners and care suites, these
issues were not being picked up or managed. In addition, night staff did not routinely check on
Listeners who worked during the night.
3.38
There was one safer cell, located on I wing, which was being used as a storeroom at the time
of the inspection. This was also the designated cell for constant observations, although had not
been used for this purpose to date. The cell was not adequate for constant observations. It had
no gate, no perspex window and opened directly onto an open landing area, where anyone
walking past would be able to look in. The protocol for constant observations referred to the
HMP Wellingborough
31
cell being located in the healthcare department, and had clearly been taken from another
prison and not adapted for Wellingborough. It was also inconsistent with the guidance given in
the suicide and self-harm strategy.
3.39
Some key areas of basic practice were poor. For example, many staff did not carry antiligature knives owing to faulty pouches, and we found that most inundation points would not
open. Operational support grades covering night shifts carried a sealed key pouch, but they
told us that they would not use these keys to enter a cell. This created some confusion about
their role in the event of an emergency.
3.40
Most staff (91%) were trained in the ACCT process, and most of the 16 ACCT assessors
completed good quality assessments. However, the quality of observation records in ACCT
documents was variable. Some observations were made at predictable intervals and related
more to observations of the prisoner than to describing any interaction that had taken place
with him. Most ACCT reviews only had one or two staff present, there was often no continuity
of staff between reviews, targets were not always sufficient to address needs, and specific staff
were rarely identified to assist with targets.
3.41
Managers told us that, in principle, prisoners could have a family member or friend present at
an ACCT review, but in practice this had not happened and prisoners were not aware that it
could. However, we observed an informal arrangement, whereby family or friends concerned
about a prisoner could call the care line and be given the direct line of the head of prisoner
care. The care line had been operating for the previous nine months. Prisoners could use it
free of charge but it was also available, and well advertised, to staff and visitors. It was an
answer machine service, and the head of prisoner care or duty governor responded to
messages promptly. The line had received an average of four calls a month. Chaplains
frequently visited all prisoners on an open ACCT document.
3.42
Investigations were carried out following self-harm incidents. They identified lessons learned
but were not always of good quality. Some did not identify the reasons why the prisoner had
self-harmed, therefore limiting the value of any lessons that could be drawn from the analysis
of the incident.
3.43
There was a trained family liaison officer with experience of liaising with families about deaths
in custody and incidences of serious or prolific self-harming. However, no log was kept of when
the family liaison officer had been deployed.
Recommendations
3.44
The suicide and self-harm document should be specific to Wellingborough, highlighting
any particular issues or concerns for prisoners there, and how the prison intends to
address them.
3.45
There should be sufficient Listeners to meet need.
3.46
Segregated prisoners should have access to Listeners.
3.47
The E wing care suite facility should be refurbished and provide an environment that is
supportive to prisoners in crisis.
3.48
Listener rotas should be adhered to, except in extreme circumstances.
HMP Wellingborough
32
3.49
There should be routine logging, monitoring and analysis of the use of Listeners,
Samaritans telephones, the care suites and the family liaison officer.
3.50
Prisoners using the care suite during the night should be able to return to their cell
when the session has come to an end.
3.51
A cell should be identified that is suitable for constant observations, and a protocol
should be developed for its use.
3.52
All residential staff should carry anti-ligature knives.
3.53
All inundation points should open easily.
3.54
There should be clear and well-understood arrangements about access to cells in an
emergency at night.
3.55
Assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) reviews should be multidisciplinary,
demonstrate continuity of staff between reviews, have targets that address need, and
identify specific staff to assist with targets.
3.56
Observations in ACCT documentation should not be predictable, and should show
engagement with the prisoner.
3.57
Prisoners should be aware that a friend or family member can take part in their ACCT
review.
Good practice
3.58
Family or friends concerned about a prisoner could call the care line and be given the direct
line of the head of prisoner care.
Diversity
Expected outcomes: All prisoners should have equality of access to all prison facilities. All
prisons should be aware of the specific needs of minority groups and implement distinct
policies, which aim to represent their views, meet their needs and offer peer support.
3.59
The diversity agenda was underdeveloped. Some assistance was available for those prisoners
with disclosed disabilities, although services were reactive and only of benefit to those with the
most severe or visible needs. The disability liaison officer (DLO) did not have sufficient time to
develop work in this area. Little was in place to address the wider diverse needs of the
population. Access to all areas for those with mobility problems was problematic. A survey was
planned to inform improvement.
3.60
There was no clear senior management accountability for prisoner diversity issues. Much of
what was outlined in the establishment’s disability policy had not been implemented, and the
wider diversity agenda was not dealt with in the document. The quarterly meeting mentioned in
the disability policy had not been run for a considerable time.
HMP Wellingborough
33
3.61
The DLO had been in post for a short time but had not received a handover. The post-holder
was also the manager of the busiest four residential wings at the prison; as a consequence,
the time spent on DLO work was minimal. There was no designated liaison officer responsible
for the broader diversity agenda.
3.62
Prisoners were asked by health services staff during the reception process whether they had a
disability, and a list of those disclosing such issues was kept. At the time of the inspection,
there were 18 names on this list. However, in response to our survey, 11% of prisoners said
that they had a disability, which suggests a much larger number. The DLO had carried out
some positive work in making reasonable adjustments for a small number of prisoners with
more severe disabilities, but did not routinely see all prisoners disclosing disabilities. Some
assistance was also available from the education department for those with specific learning
difficulties such as dyslexia, and from the gym for older prisoners.
3.63
In early 2008, a questionnaire had been sent to prisoners who had disclosed a disability,
asking them what assistance, if any, they needed; however, the DLO told us that nothing had
been done with this information. No monitoring of disabled or older prisoners took place to
ensure that they were not treated unfairly, and nothing was done to address the needs of those
who were openly gay. There were gym sessions for the over 50s (see section on physical
education and health promotion). There were no prisoner diversity representatives to provide
peer support, and no prisoner carer or buddy scheme was in operation.
3.64
Staff on the wings knew which prisoners in their care needed assistance in the event of an
emergency but personal evacuation plans had not been developed. The physical environment
of the prison was difficult for those with mobility problems. Two dedicated adapted cells were
available on each of I and H wings for prisoners using wheelchairs, but these wings were not
well sited for easy access to other areas of the prison. There were plans for a survey of the
prison, to establish what work could be done to improve access for such prisoners.
Recommendations
3.65
A prisoner diversity survey should be conducted and the results used to develop an up
to date prisoner diversity policy. This should reflect what the prison can offer to
disabled, older and gay prisoners.
3.66
A regular diversity regime meeting, chaired by a senior manager, should be run to take
forward this agenda. Monitoring of trends in accessing services should be ongoing and
relevant information discussed at the meeting.
3.67
The disability liaison officer should have sufficient time to carry out the role, and also to
lead in coordinating and developing services for older and gay prisoners, including
making links with social care services.
3.68
Prisoner diversity representatives should be identified and peer support Buddies for
those prisoners with particular needs provided.
3.69
A peer support scheme should be developed for prisoners who need personal
assistance and support in daily life.
3.70
Personal evacuation plans should be developed for prisoners needing assistance in the
event of an emergency, and these should be readily available to residential staff.
HMP Wellingborough
34
3.71
A time-bound action plan should be developed from the results of a prisoner access
survey, and all reasonable adjustments made.
Race equality
Expected outcomes:
All prisoners experience equality of opportunity in all aspects of prison life, are treated equally
and are safe. Racial diversity is embraced, valued, promoted and respected.
3.72
There were well attended monthly meetings of the race equality action team (REAT), but the
relevant action plan was out of date. Three-quarters of staff had attended general diversity
training, but no recent training had taken place and there was no specific support for
residential staff to understand better the specific racial, ethnic and cultural issues of the 40% of
the population who were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. A race equality officer
(REO) and deputy were in post, but the deputy had insufficient time, and neither felt
adequately supported. Black and minority ethnic prisoners were less positive than white
prisoners about a range of issues, and relationships with staff. Prisoner representatives had
recently been appointed to help to address such concerns. The systems for managing racist
incidents and complaints were not trusted, although it had recently been revised. A system for
opening personal protection plans for victims of racist bullying had not been implemented, and
there were no interventions for racist bullies. Some impact assessments were outstanding.
There were regular diversity events.
Race equality
3.73
Race equality was managed through a well attended monthly REAT meeting, chaired by the
Governor. Prisoner race equality and outside community representatives also attended, and
we saw evidence that relevant issues and management information were discussed, although
it was not always clear from the minutes that action points had been followed up. The prison
race equality action plan (REAP) was out of date, and did not reflect the current set of priorities
for the REAT.
3.74
Seventy-three-per cent of staff had attended general diversity training within the previous three
years, and new staff were provided with information about relevant policies and practices.
However, no diversity training had been run since December 2007. Around 40% of the
prisoner population being from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, but only 15 members of
staff were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. Many black and minority ethnic
prisoners told us that there was a general perception that the mainly white staff group had little
understanding of their racial, ethnic and cultural needs.
3.75
A trained full-time REO and part-time deputy were in post. The REO was relatively new in the
role and had worked hard over the previous three months to develop more robust systems for
managing race equality, including a weekly report to the senior management team. She had
also arranged for an audit of race equality by the race equality action group, which had
identified areas of strength and weakness, and many of these had been acted on, or plans
were in place to do so. However, the deputy REO had only minimal facility time to provide
much needed regular support, and no administrative support was available. As a
consequence, the REO and deputy were not able to be as visible on the wings as they would
have liked.
HMP Wellingborough
35
3.76
Both the REO and her deputy felt that they had insufficient practical support from senior
managers in providing the resources to take forward the race equality agenda, and not enough
ownership by residential wing staff, many of whom lacked understanding of the black and
minority ethnic prisoners in their care. Black and minority ethnic and Muslim prisoners in our
survey were significantly more negative than white prisoners about a range of issues, notably
feelings of safety and experience of victimisation by staff.
3.77
Fifteen black and ethnic minority prisoner wing representatives had recently been identified
and they had started to meet formally with the REO each month. They had attended a one-day
race equality training event, which they told us had been helpful and thought provoking.
Several were also positive about the opportunity to attend the monthly REAT meeting, with all
15 being invited to the July 2008 meeting. There were prominent race equality notice boards in
all residential areas, containing pictures of key staff involved, policies, relevant information and
ethnic monitoring data, which prisoner representatives had been trained to interpret. Plans
were advanced to provide black and minority ethnic prisoner representatives with T-shirts to
raise their profile further and make them more visible to other prisoners.
Managing racist incidents
3.78
There were clearly marked racist complaints boxes and stocks of forms prominently available
in all prisoner and some staff areas. The boxes were opened daily by the REO or her deputy.
The REO had inherited a chaotic system for managing racist incident report forms (RIRFs), but
had developed more robust procedures; 56 had been submitted since May 2008. However, the
absence of an adequate system before this made it impossible to identity any trends.
3.79
In early 2008, a few RIRFs had been audited by one of the external community representatives
on the REAT, who made recommendations about improving the timeliness and quality of
responses, and case-working. These recommendations had been accepted and the REO had
introduced new systems to ensure that most RIRFs were responded to within 28 days, and she
also carried out a quality check before investigations were passed to the Governor for closure.
Inspectors examined some completed RIRFs, and the quality and timeliness of investigations
and responses were acceptable.
3.80
Some black and minority ethnic prisoners told us that they still had little confidence in the racist
complaints system. Anonymised details of racist incident investigations were now discussed at
the REAT meeting, with participation from the prisoners in attendance.
3.81
There were no interventions to challenge racist behaviour, and despite a ‘personal protection
plan’ being developed for victims of racist bullying, this had not been used. Nevertheless, there
were good links between the REO and the prisoner care department.
Race equality duty
3.82
Until just before the inspection, the position with regard to impact assessments was unclear,
but it had now become evident that some were still outstanding and others were with the area
office for checking. An action plan had been developed to take this work forward, although
these priorities had not yet been incorporated into the REAP.
3.83
There was a programme of regular diversity events with well advanced plans, and active
prisoner/staff groups planning for the forthcoming Black History Month and Ramadan. During
the inspection, a series of activities had been started to celebrate the multinational and cultural
aspects of the Olympic Games.
HMP Wellingborough
36
3.84
The OMU had a system for identifying any prisoners with racially motivated offending
behaviour or who had demonstrated racist behaviour in custody. This information was made
available to all staff. Information about the race equality policies at the establishment, and the
practices expected, were provided to all external contractors offering services to the prison, or
working on site.
Recommendations
3.85
The prison race equality action plan (REAP) should be regularly updated to reflect the
current priorities of the race equality action team (REAT) and progress made in
achieving key targets.
3.86
More regular diversity training should be delivered, including a requirement for all
residential wing staff to attend cultural awareness training relevant to the black and
minority ethnic prisoner population.
3.87
The race equality officer (REO) should be provided with administrative support.
3.88
The deputy REO should have sufficient facility time to support the work of the REO, and
for both to be more visible to staff and prisoners on the wings.
3.89
Interventions should be developed to address racially motivated behaviour.
3.90
The personal protection plans already developed for the victims of racist bullying and
incidents should be used.
3.91
The REAT should explore the poor perceptions of black and minority ethnic prisoners
and take appropriate action.
3.92
Impact assessment work should be up to date, reflected in the establishment REAP and
reviewed at the REAT meeting.
Foreign national prisoners
Expected outcomes:
Foreign national prisoners should have the same access to all prison facilities as other
prisoners. All prisons are aware of the specific needs that foreign national prisoners have and
implement a distinct strategy, which aims to represent their views and offer peer support.
3.93
Fourteen per cent of the prisoner population were foreign nationals, from nearly 50
nationalities. A policy had been developed but without feedback from prisoners. The foreign
nationals coordinator had limited time to develop proactive work. There were prisoner orderlies
and a designated wing liaison officer, but the latter had no guidance or training. There were no
systems for consulting foreign national prisoners. Only limited translated material was
available, although software was being bought. There was little use of professional interpreting
services. There were systems to identify foreign national prisoners on arrival, and to liaise with
the UK Border Agency (UKBA), but no independent advice was available.
3.94
Issues relevant to the 14% of the prisoner population who were foreign nationals were dealt
with at the REAT meeting, which was attended by the prisoner foreign national orderly. There
HMP Wellingborough
37
was an up to date foreign nationals policy, although this had not been developed in
consultation with prisoners, and various aspects were not delivered.
3.95
The foreign nationals coordinator was the residential manager for induction, which provided
him with ready access to newly arrived prisoners but meant that he had only limited time to
dedicate to these duties. His priority was to meet all newly arrived foreign national prisoners to
discuss what support they required, but beyond this he had little scope for regular ongoing
contact, relying instead on foreign national prisoner orderlies. There were two such paid posts,
one covering duties relevant to the prisoner induction programme and the other based on the
main residential units. At the time of the inspection, one of the orderlies had been transferred,
leaving only the latter post filled. Some wing officers had been designated as foreign nationals
liaison staff, but were still waiting for relevant guidance and training.
3.96
There were no formal or informal systems for consulting with foreign national prisoners or,
aside from through the prisoner orderlies, providing them with the opportunity to highlight their
particular needs.
3.97
Only limited translated materials were available or displayed around the prison, but translation
software had recently been purchased. Use of the Big Word interpreting service was relatively
low, despite nearly 50 nationalities being represented in the prisoner population, and we could
find no evidence of professional interpreters being used on site. Other prisoners were mainly
used to provide interpretation when needed, and we saw examples of this approach being
adopted when dealing with confidential matters. A list of prisoners who spoke other languages
was kept but was out of date and, despite attempts to identify staff who spoke languages other
than English, none had been forthcoming.
3.98
All prisoners not receiving a visit for a month could apply for a free five-minute telephone call,
but we were told by some foreign national prisoners that the prospect of losing this incentive
discouraged them from having a visit if they had contacts in the UK.
3.99
There was a system for discipline office staff to identify newly arrived foreign national
prisoners, and a clerk was in post to deal with relevant paperwork and liaise with immigration
services. Relationships with UKBA had recently improved and regular monthly immigration
surgeries were run. During these surgeries, prisoners of interest to the immigration services
were seen, but prisoners could also request to see staff. There were no links with communitybased independent immigration advice services.
3.100 At the time of the inspection, six detainees were being held under administrative powers, and
one had been at the prison for nearly a year. He had been seen by prison staff and had
expressed his wish to stay at the establishment until his case had been resolved. The foreign
nationals clerk was in weekly email correspondence with UKBA about these prisoners.
Recommendations
3.101 The foreign nationals policy should be developed in response to a consultation exercise
with foreign national prisoners and the monthly REAT meeting should ensure that all
aspects are delivered.
3.102 The foreign nationals coordinator should have sufficient time to carry out the duties
required.
HMP Wellingborough
38
3.103 Designated staff foreign national wing liaison officers should be trained and given time
to carry out the work involved.
3.104 Material translated into languages relevant to the prisoner population should be made
readily available, including at reception and during induction.
3.105 More frequent use should be made of professional interpreting services, especially
when dealing with confidential matters.
3.106 There should be regularly updated lists of staff and prisoners who can speak languages
other than English.
3.107 Efforts should be made to engage with community-based independent immigration
advisory services.
3.108 Foreign nationals with family abroad should retain a free five-minute telephone call,
even when they receive a visit from a UK visitor.
3.109 Regular formal and informal consultation should be undertaken with foreign national
prisoners.
Applications and complaints
Expected outcomes:
Effective application and complaint procedures are in place, are easy to access, easy to use and
provide timely responses. Prisoners feel safe from repercussions when using these procedures
and are aware of an appeal procedure.
3.110 Prisoners on the induction wing had good access to information about the applications and
complaints processes but this was not replicated elsewhere. Inconsistent use and the
continued availability of alternative forms undermined a potentially effective system for
managing applications. There were suitable procedures for managing formal complaints but
they did not ensure good quality, and insufficient use was made of monitoring data. Prisoner
satisfaction with the applications and complaints systems was lower than at similar prisons.
3.111 In our survey, 42% of prisoners, which was significantly better than the 37% comparator, said
that they had received information on their first day about how to make routine requests. A
prisoner Insider had supplies of application forms to give to prisoners on the induction wing as
needed. A good range of information about the applications and complaints processes and
external bodies such as the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman was displayed on the
induction wing, including some in several languages. However, this was not replicated in other
residential areas, where the provision of information was limited and in some cases hard to
find.
3.112 A good system of triplicate application forms had been introduced, which should have allowed
staff to track the progress of individual applications and confirm that the prisoner had received
a reply. However, this system was not thoroughly or consistently applied on all wings,
undermining its effectiveness. Also, a large number of application forms, each specific to a
particular area or function within the prison, continued to be used in preference to the triplicate
generic form. The introduction of a computerised application log gave all staff access to details
HMP Wellingborough
39
such as when the application had been received and what action had been taken in response.
While this was a good initiative, it had been in place for only a few weeks and none of the staff
we spoke to below the rank of senior officer were aware of its existence.
3.113 Complaint forms were readily available on all wings and the system was well used. Around 250
complaints were submitted each month, and 58% of prisoners surveyed had made a
complaint. The night orderly officer collected complaint forms from the dedicated boxes, and
when we tested this system the complaints clerk received our complaint form the following
morning. The procedures for logging and processing complaints were efficient and most
prisoners received a response within the set timescale. Complaints were monitored by subject,
wing location and ethnicity. Elements of this information were shared with various departments
but there was little evidence of thorough analysis of these data or of action taken to address
emerging trends.
3.114 The established quality assurance system was not robustly monitored and, overall, we found
the quality of responses to complaints to be inadequate. In our sample of over 200 completed
complaints, several had replies that were difficult to read or did not identify who had written
them; many did not fully address the issue raised by the prisoner and few gave helpful
guidance on what alternative or additional action the complainant might wish to take. Too
many had been signed off as completed even though they contained only an interim response,
usually promising further investigation. There was no system for recording the eventual
outcomes of these cases.
3.115 Our survey showed low levels of prisoner satisfaction with the applications and complaints
processes. Prisoners at the establishment were significantly less likely than prisoners at other
training prisons to feel that applications and complaints had been dealt with fairly. Access to
the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) was a particular issue, with just 16%, against a
comparator of 42%, saying that it was easy or very easy to see IMB members.
Recommendations
3.116 The quality and range of information about applications and complaints available to
prisoners on the induction wing should be extended to all residential wings.
3.117 The application process should be reviewed to optimise the effectiveness of the
triplicate form system and improve accountability.
3.118 Managers should analyse complaints each month by criteria such as ethnicity,
disability, wing and prisoner type and, if necessary, take remedial action when patterns
or trends emerge.
3.119 Responses to prisoners’ applications and complaints should be legible, respectful,
address the issues raised and give advice as to possible further action where
appropriate.
3.120 Incomplete or deferred responses to complaints should be tracked and the timing and
nature of the final outcome recorded.
3.121 Reasons for prisoners’ perceptions of difficulty in accessing the Independent
Monitoring Board should be investigated and any necessary action or reassurance
provided.
HMP Wellingborough
40
Legal rights
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners are told about their legal rights during induction, and can freely exercise these rights
while in prison.
3.122 Legal services for prisoners were underdeveloped and no legal services officer was in post.
Prisoners received information about sentences, early release and recall from allocated
offender supervisors and the discipline office, and licence conditions were explained prerelease. Legal visit facilities were poor and the number of visits available was not sufficient to
meet the need.
3.123 No legal services officer was in post. The previous job holder now worked as an offender
supervisor, and while he was able to assist prisoners with urgent legal matters, staff told us
that his capacity to do so was limited. Prisoners were not told during the induction programme
who they could contact for legal services information.
3.124 Legal visits only took place on Monday and Tuesday mornings, and during the inspection the
next available slot was over a month away. Facilities for these visits were extremely poor,
consisting of a shabby temporary building. Capacity was limited to four legal visits for each
session, and the room in which they took place allowed for little or no privacy. In our survey,
prisoners were significantly less positive than at comparator prisons about the ease with which
they could communicate with their solicitor and attend legal visits.
Recommendations
3.125 A legal services officer should be appointed with sufficient facility time to provide such
support to prisoners.
3.126 Legal visits facilities should be improved and private rooms provided.
3.127 The number of legal visits available should be increased to meet the needs of the
prisoner population.
Substance use
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners with substance-related needs, including alcohol, are identified at reception and
receive effective treatment and support throughout their stay in custody. All prisoners are safe
from exposure to and the effects of substance use while in prison.
3.128 The establishment’s mandatory drug testing (MDT) positive rate was reducing but the
availability of drugs, especially heroin, was high. There was only limited suspicion testing.
Prisoners could only access basic symptom relief medication, as there was no secondary
detoxification programme.
HMP Wellingborough
41
3.129 Even though prisoners with drug-related problems had previously completed detoxification at a
local prison, 35% reported having a drug problem on arrival at the establishment, against a
12% comparator. Following a healthcare screen at reception, these prisoners were referred to
the counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARAT) service.
3.130 The establishment was due to implement the clinical aspects of the integrated drug treatment
system (IDTS) in six months time, and clinical staff were undertaking the appropriate training.
However, in the meantime, prisoners could not access a secondary detoxification programme.
3.131 Since January 2008, 14 prisoners had received basic symptomatic relief to help with opiate
withdrawal, but this was not seen to be effective. In our survey, 16% said that they had
developed a drug problem while at the establishment. Prisoners and staff both thought that
there was a significant unmet need in terms of secondary detoxification.
3.132 Joint work between the healthcare department and CARAT services had developed well. Staff
met regularly, cross-referred clients and discussed individual care plans. Clients with complex
needs could access the mental health in-reach team, and good communication between
service providers facilitated coordination of care.
3.133 In our survey, 42% of prisoners, against a 30% comparator, thought that it was easy or very
easy to get illegal drugs within the establishment. Ten per cent reported drug-related
victimisation by other prisoners, compared with 2% at similar establishments. Testing results
and finds pointed towards heroin as the main drug of use, but anabolic steroids and injecting
equipment had also been detected.
3.134 The previous year’s MDT positive rate had averaged 16%. Since April 2008, this had dropped
to 8.2%, against a target of 15%, but this figure excluded samples that had been diluted.
3.135 MDT was conducted by a coordinator and six officers from the security department’s search
group. While random testing targets were met, suspicion testing levels were low. Only 10% of
drug-related security information reports resulted in tests, and none had been conducted
during July 2008. A frequent testing scheme was in operation, with 11 prisoners on this
programme at the beginning of August 2008.
3.136 Most drugs were thrown over the perimeter fence or passed on during visits. The prison had
allocated additional resources for searches, and the police undertook external checks of the
perimeter area. Security measures included dog handlers, two active and two passive drug
dogs, closed-circuit television in visits, PIN telephone monitoring and a full-time police liaison
officer. The security department was represented at drug strategy meetings.
Recommendations
3.137 The prison, in partnership with the primary care trust, should develop secondary
detoxification provision.
3.138 Current n policies and procedures for preventing drugs entering the prison should be
maintained and developed.
3.139 The establishment should ensure that the mandatory drug testing (MDT) programme is
adequately resourced to undertake the required level of suspicion testing.
HMP Wellingborough
42
Section 4: Health services
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners should be cared for by a health service that assesses and meets their health needs
while in prison and which promotes continuity of health and social care on release. The standard
of health service provided is equivalent to that which prisoners could expect to receive in the
community.
4.1
The most recent health needs assessment had taken place in August 2007. The subsequent
healthcare action plan had several outstanding targets. Prisoners commented reasonably
favourably about health services. There were clinical governance arrangements, although
some policies were generic rather than specific to the establishment. The environment was
poor, with a lack of space and a shortage of computers. The appointments system was not
confidential, and there was no nurse triage. Work with life-long conditions and older prisoners
needed development, but there was good health promotion, including an exercise referral
scheme. The dentist provided a good service, with practically no waiting list, but dental
equipment urgently needed replacing. Medicines management was poor, both in terms of
storage and administration. There were major problems with prisoners attending outside
hospital appointments. There were some specialist counselling services available but no
general talking therapies or day care provision. There was little interactive work with other staff
and none of the discipline staff had received mental health awareness training.
General
4.2
The primary care trust (PCT) had commissioned Care UK to provide primary care services.
The contract, in place since April 2007, was not based on a health needs assessment and did
not take into account some of the specific requirements of providing health services in a
custodial setting. The partnership board, chaired by the Governor, met quarterly but there was
also a monthly service delivery and planning group. Minutes of the latter meeting stated that
the role of the members was to forge a link between the partnership board and PCT
requirements, and provide performance monitoring information to the partnership board. The
most recent health needs assessment had been commissioned by Care UK in August 2007.
The subsequent healthcare action plan had several outstanding targets.
4.3
Health services were provided between 8am and 8pm Monday to Thursday, 8am until 6.30pm
on Friday and 8.30am until 5.30pm at the weekend.
4.4
The healthcare department was small, situated next to reception in a separate building at one
end of the prison. Although there was wheelchair access to the building, it was a long way from
any of the residential units. There was a large pleasant waiting room, with an eye-catching
display of health promotion materials, a general practitioner (GP) surgery, a treatment room, a
room where medications were stored and administered, and two small offices, one of which
was used by the mental health in-reach team. The administrator and head of health services
shared an office, which was also used to store hard copies of all clinical records and as a
general office. However, we saw prisoners being interviewed in this room. A recent infection
control audit by the PCT infection control nurse had identified some areas for improvement, not
all of which had been addressed. There was also a treatment room near C wing in the main
prison, which was used for the administration of ‘see to take’ medications. This room was basic
in design and did not contain a computer, so staff using it did not have access to any clinical
HMP Wellingborough
43
information about the patients they were seeing. There was only one small hand sink in the
room.
4.5
On arrival at the establishment, prisoners were given a comprehensive booklet about the
health services offered but it was only available in English. Prisoners used the prison
complaints system to make complaints about health services. Such complaints were answered
by the head of health services or lead nurse. If a prisoner wished to appeal, the system was
less well defined. The contract said that prisoners should have access to the PCT’s patient
advice and liaison service (PALS), but staff we spoke to thought that the PCT expected
complaints to be escalated through Care UK if they were unresolved.
Clinical governance
4.6
Care UK had a local clinical governance plan and held bi-monthly governance meetings. Not
all the actions identified in the plan had been achieved in the times specified.
4.7
The head of health services was a non-clinical manager, supported by a clinical lead nurse.
There were also 3.5 whole-time equivalent registered general nurses and a healthcare
assistant, who worked 30 hours a week. There was no lead for older people. The nurses had a
variety of experience, competencies and skills between them, such as accident and
emergency, sexual health and practice nurse experience. Staff were sometimes naïve about
security implications of working in a custodial environment. There was a full-time pharmacy
assistant, two administrative staff and a GP, who provided five sessions a week. There was
also a dental team.
4.8
Staff had good access to training and professional development, although the clinical
supervision required by Care UK’s own policy was not in place. All staff had received
resuscitation training within the previous 12 months. Staff met each lunchtime for an informal
meeting to ensure that relevant information was exchanged. All staff on duty attended these
meetings but no minutes were available.
4.9
The prison only had two automated external defibrillators, one in the healthcare department
and the other in the outer room of the treatment room on the main corridor, so, technically, it
was available to discipline staff out of hours. In reality, none of the discipline staff had been
trained to use a defibrillator. Given the size and layout of the prison and the age and condition
of some of the prisoners, this was a risk. Two nurses’ bags were kept with the defibrillators.
There was no list of the contents of these bags and they did not appear to constitute
resuscitation ‘grab bags’; we found out-of-date medications in both.
4.10
There were no formal arrangements with local health and social care agencies for the loan of
occupational therapy equipment, which staff told us would be purchased privately if required.
4.11
Hard copies of clinical records were kept in filing cabinets in the general office, but all clinical
interventions were recorded on an electronic clinical information system – SystmOne. This was
used to good effect; patients’ ethnicity was recorded and various reports were set up to
monitor patient care. While non-clinical staff employed by Care UK had a clause in their
contract about the need to keep medical information confidential, the department did not have
any information-sharing protocols. When a prisoner left the establishment, his records were
sent for storage elsewhere in the prison.
4.12
Health services staff attended the prisoner consultation groups, where healthcare issues were
regularly discussed.
HMP Wellingborough
44
4.13
There were various policies, some of which were generic to Care UK rather than specific to the
needs of prisoners at the establishment, while others originated from the PCT. There was a
communicable diseases policy.
Primary care
4.14
When prisoners arrived at the establishment, they were seen by a nurse for a full health
screen, the results of which were recorded on SystmOne. They were also given an information
booklet (see paragraph 4.5). Staff we spoke to were unaware of the availability of telephone
interpreting services and admitted to soliciting the help of other prisoners if a patient did not
speak English. The health screen was comprehensive and provided information which was
later used to call prisoners back to the department for vaccinations and other health services.
4.15
Prisoners used an application form to apply to see members of the health services team. On
some of the wings this was a specific healthcare request form, whereas on others it was the
triplicate general application form (see section on applications and complaints). In all cases,
the forms were put into the general applications box, so they were not confidential. When we
tested the system from two wings, one of our applications took two days to arrive in the
healthcare department. When we asked prisoners about the applications system, they told us
that they were aware that if their problem was urgent they could speak to wing staff and they
would be seen by health services staff on the same day. In our survey, 63% of respondents
stated that it was easy or very easy to see a nurse, and 36% responded favourably to the
same question about the doctor. Seventy-three per cent said that the quality of health services
received from nursing staff was either good or very good, against a comparator of 67%.
4.16
The wait for a routine appointment to see the GP was at least a week. Prisoners could request
to see a nurse, but there were no triage algorithms in use. There were two appointments in
each GP clinic for urgent cases. Although each prisoner had a 10-minute allocated
appointment, the system was flawed because they were called over to the department during
the main movement times, so some waited for over an hour in the department before being
seen.
4.17
The GP was on call during office hours when he was not on site, and at other times cover was
provided by the community out-of-hours GP service. There was a system for all out-of-hours
calls to be reported to health services staff by fax. However, during the week of the inspection,
when a paramedic crew was called to attend a prisoner, the notifying fax was received and
transcribed onto his clinical file, but the GP was not alerted.
4.18
There was a general nurse clinic each day, which prisoners could apply, or be called by
nursing staff, to attend. There was also a vaccination clinic and a well-man clinic. There were
no patient group directions, so each prescription for hepatitis B vaccinations was signed by the
GP, although he did not see the patient and only had access to their SystmOne clinical
records. There were no specific life-long conditions clinics, although lists of patients with such
conditions were kept on the clinical information system. We reviewed a selection of patients
with life-long conditions to see if their ongoing care was in line with national guidance; for
diabetic patients this appeared to be the case, but asthmatics, those with other respiratory
conditions and those with coronary heart disease had not received the same comprehensive
reviews. We could not find hard copies of Department of Health national service frameworks.
Staff collected quality outcomes framework data for the PCT and produced monthly reports.
HMP Wellingborough
45
4.19
An optician attended every two weeks, a chiropodist attended monthly and a genito-urinary
medicine consultant provided a session once a month. None of the waiting lists was
particularly long.
4.20
Staff reported that a large number of prisoners failed to attend for appointments; these
numbers were displayed monthly on posters in the waiting room. Prisoners and staff suspected
that part of the problem was that the movement lists did not state the nature of the healthcare
appointment; while this could be considered to be maintaining confidentiality, in reality it meant
that prisoners failed to attend because they did not know why they were being called.
4.21
Smoking cessation courses were run by the PCT. There were 49 people on the waiting list and
46 had been on the course in the previous four months. A new course started during the
inspection. Staff we spoke to reported that eight out of 12 from the previous cohort had still quit
four weeks after the end of the course, and that quit rates from participants at the
establishment were often better than courses run in the local community.
4.22
Prisoners were informed in the health services handbook that barrier protection was available
from nursing staff. Chlamydia screening was also available.
4.23
Nursing staff and gym staff had developed an excellent exercise referral programme, which
aimed to mirror similar programmes organised by health services in the community. Prisoners
were identified either during their health screen in reception or at any stage during their time at
the establishment. They were assessed by suitably qualified gym staff and given a tailor-made
exercise regime, as well as lifestyle and nutrition advice. They were able to attend the gym four
mornings a week (see section on physical education and health promotion). We met a prisoner
in the gym who had had a stroke and was making excellent progress and another who was
blind, who was being assisted by a prisoner who had undergone a recognised gym training
qualification. Without this programme, neither of these prisoners would have been able to use
the gym facilities. Others we spoke to were complimentary about the services offered. The
scheme had proved so successful that there was a small waiting list. Prisoners were
reassessed after six weeks on the programme and referred on to the main gym or back to
health services as required. The disability liaison officer was not linked into the scheme.
4.24
Health services staff had run a health promotion open day in the month before the inspection.
They reported that it had been successful and we saw several appointments for services such
as well-man checks, dental services and vaccinations made as a direct result of attendance at
the open day.
Pharmacy
4.25
Wellingborough was supplied by the pharmacy at HMP Glen Parva under a Service Level
Agreement with Northamptonshire PCT. The pharmacy was sited next to reception in the
healthcare suite, behind a gated door. It was of adequate size and was reasonably clean.
Stock was generally well managed and kept in locked metal cabinets, with named-patient,
stock, internal and external medications stored separately. The pharmacy appeared well
organised but the treatment room had poor hand washing facilities.
4.26
The room in which medications were stored in the segregation unit was unsuitable, with no
work surface on which to prepare doses, and it was also used to store control and restraint
equipment. There were no hand washing facilities in the room and no means of supplying
water for drinking. Named-patient medication here was not always kept in the box in which it
had been supplied; we found a box containing both naproxen and paracetamol.
HMP Wellingborough
46
4.27
Refrigerator temperatures had been recorded daily in the days leading up to the inspection;
actions taken to account for high readings had been recorded.
4.28
Expiry date checks were made regularly in the healthcare department treatment room, but the
green bag in the treatment room contained numerous out-of-date items, as did the stock
cupboards there and in the GP’s office.
4.29
Controlled drugs registers were compliant with the law. However, controlled dugs should only
be in the possession of a doctor, pharmacist or a person who holds an appropriate licence
from the Home Office, or if the controlled drugs have been lawfully prescribed for that person.
The administration arrangements for controlled drugs were poor.
4.30
The prison used a variety of records for prescriptions. HR013 forms were used for ‘not-inpossession’ medication, although the front sheets of these were never filled in. Diagnoses
were missing from some prescriptions and if a patient did not attend to receive medication, this
was not always recorded. Prescriptions for in-possession medication were produced by the
SystmOne computer system. Inhaler prescriptions were on a separate page, as were
prescriptions for nicotine replacement therapy, analgesia patches and hepatitis B vaccinations.
‘Special sick’ supplies were recorded in a separate book and transferred onto SystmOne as
soon as possible after the end of treatment. Thus, one prisoner could have several prescription
charts, which were not all stored together or easily accessible by staff administering
medications. We found evidence that patients had been given unsuitable medication because
the nurse did not have access to the whole patient profile at the time of administration.
4.31
Treatment times were twice daily for not-in-possession medication. Night sedation was given
at 6pm on Monday to Thursday and at 4.30pm on Friday to Sunday. Medications that should
have been administered three or four times a day were prescribed twice daily to meet the
regime of the treatment times. Medication provided on ‘special sick’ was limited.
4.32
There was a risk-based in-possession policy but it had yet to be implemented, although the
pharmacy technician had completed a few assessments. All in-possession medication was
handed out by the technician, who gave advice on the best use of the medicine. She also ran
compliance sessions with individual patients. Prisoners were not able to see a pharmacist.
Buprenorphine patches, which could be used for seven days continuously, were prescribed for
long-term pain relief. While this may have been appropriate for some patients, usage was high
and appeared to be an attempt to cut down on the number of opiate-based tablets that were
administered.
4.33
The medicines and therapeutics committee (M&TC) was attended by PCT staff, the technician,
the clinical lead for the prison and the pharmacy provider. It appeared that the committee
sometimes met at times when not all relevant parties were present to enable decisions to be
taken at the meeting. Policies appeared to be either out of date or not specific to the
establishment.
Dentistry
4.34
The visiting dentist, hygienist and two dental nurses were employed by Care UK under a
private contract. The dentist worked at the establishment three days a week, attended by at
least one of the two dental nurses, who both had relevant qualifications. A dental hygienist
attended for one half-day a week. Alternative dentists were employed when the usual dentist
was away.
HMP Wellingborough
47
4.35
The dental surgery was sited within the healthcare area of the prison. The surgery was
spacious and decoration was adequate. The dental unit and chair were at least 10 years old,
and had broken down several times over the previous few months. In addition, the amalgam
separator had leaked, causing contaminated body fluids to seep out onto the floor.
Replacement parts for the unit had become difficult to obtain owing to obsolescence. Plans to
replace the dental equipment were under discussion, and the head of health services told us
that a new dental suite was being considered. The regulatory inspection of the X-ray machine
was six months overdue. Cabinetry was chipped, with doors falling off, and the sinks were
stained. Cross-infection control was satisfactory, and clinical, amalgam and radiographic waste
and sharps were stored in appropriate containers. The surgery was clean, apart from the floor,
which was badly marked. Cleaning was carried out by a prison orderly. Sufficient instruments
were available for the usual daily workload, and these were adequately stored. Appropriate
use was made of disposable items.
4.36
Copies of much of the relevant documentation were available, but neither the dentist nor the
head of health services was aware of the full list of documents that should be available for
inspection. Local rules for radiography were out of date and the dentist did not have an up-todate radiography quality assurance file.
4.37
Emergency oxygen and drugs were kept in the dental suite but there was no Ambu-bag. The
dental team was unaware of the emergency call system used in the healthcare department
and no training had been carried out.
4.38
Record keeping was good, using SystmOne and a paper record of dental charting. Records
were not locked away. As the contract was not with the NHS, no records of treatment were
submitted to the Dental Services Division. No consent form was used. Medical history forms
were completed by the patient and updated orally.
4.39
On admission, prisoners were offered a dental inspection as part of the induction programme,
when the dentist visited the induction wing. The full range of NHS dental care was available
and full courses of treatment, including endodontics and crown and bridge work, were carried
out. Periodontal care was provided by the hygienist. Appointments were booked by the dental
nurse, following triage by the dentist of information received on application forms. Patients in
need of emergency treatment would usually receive it on the same day. Emergencies between
surgery days were dealt with by health services staff. However, the dentist was available for
consultation at all times outside of his normal working hours at the prison and sometimes came
in if required. There were two waiting lists, for urgent and non-urgent follow-on treatment. Each
had a waiting time of two weeks, with nine names on the urgent list and 12 on the routine list.
However, the hygienist’s waiting list held 70 names, the longest wait being 95 days. The failure
to attend rate was about 20%, and non-attendances were always followed up. Patients
frequently reported that they had not been notified of the appointment.
4.40
Oral health promotion took place only on a one-to-one basis in the surgery, with no ongoing
general provision. However, a successful input had been made into the recent health open
day. Appropriate leaflets were available. An ‘additional canteen list’ was available to prisoners,
containing an extensive list of appropriate oral health products.
Secondary care
4.41
The health services administrator organised outside hospital appointments. There was a limit
of two external escorts from the establishment a day for any reason, so hospital appointment
dates were often rearranged to meet this quota, before arrangements were made for the
HMP Wellingborough
48
escort. However, there were not always sufficient discipline staff to undertake the escort, so
appointments were sometimes cancelled at short notice. In the previous three months, 42% of
all planned hospital escorts had been cancelled. Appointments had also been cancelled
because the patient had arrived too late and had missed his appointment slot. Discipline staff
we spoke to said that appointments made before 9.30am and after 3.30pm were particularly
difficult to facilitate. While we did not identify anyone who had failed to attend a first
consultation within 18 weeks of referral (NHS target), we found cases where the same patient
had had at least two appointments cancelled and rebooked. Care UK had commissioned a
process report to identify the problems in this area, but not all the recommendations had been
implemented and the situation remained a major problem.
Mental health
4.42
There was a small mental health team, employed by Northamptonshire Mental Health Trust.
One band 6 and three band 5 registered mental health nurses were based at the prison and
were managed by a band 7 prison mental health manager, who also managed the team based
at HMP Onley. Only two members of the team were available during the inspection. A clinical
psychiatric consultant provided one session a week. The team received referrals from a variety
of sources, including self-referrals. Many of their referrals were identified during the reception
screen by the primary care team. Urgent referrals were seen as soon as practicable. The
nurses saw the patient on the wing and carried out an initial assessment, which was then
transcribed onto SystmOne. The results of the assessment were then used to signpost
patients for further care, such as to the GP, counselling, assessment, referral, advice and
throughcare (CARAT) team, specialised counselling (bereavement or sexual abuse
counselling) or to courses organised by the education department.
4.43
There were no day care services for those less able to cope with life on the wings and no
general counselling services (talking therapies) available. Each nurse had a caseload of
approximately 16 prisoners. The team attended assessment, care in custody and teamwork
(ACCT) reviews of the prisoners in their care. However, not all prisoners with mental health
issues were known to the team, and there was no interactive working with other prison staff,
such as the anti-bullying coordinator. In addition, none of the discipline staff had received any
specific mental health awareness training.
Recommendations
4.44
The contract between the primary care trust (PCT) and the health service provider
should be specific to the establishment and based on a comprehensive and up to date
health needs assessment.
4.45
The healthcare department should be sufficiently large to contain enough clinical rooms
and office accommodation for the size of the population.
4.46
All clinical areas should be suitable for their role and meet infection control guidance,
and staff using them should have access to the electronic clinical information system.
4.47
The health services information booklet should be available in a variety of languages.
4.48
The healthcare complaints procedure should be clarified, both for prisoners and for
staff.
HMP Wellingborough
49
4.49
All actions identified in the clinical governance plan should be reviewed and realistic
timescales set and adhered to.
4.50
All clinical staff should have security awareness training.
4.51
All staff should have access to clinical supervision.
4.52
There should be a lead nurse or manager, with sufficient seniority and knowledge, who
has responsibility for the overall care of older prisoners.
4.53
A full audit of resuscitation equipment should be undertaken by a professional with the
relevant skills and competencies to undertake the task. Any recommendations made as
a result of the audit, such as the need for specific equipment in ‘grab bags’ or the siting
of automated external defibrillators, should be implemented without delay.
4.54
There should be formal arrangements with local health and social care agencies for the
loan of occupational therapy equipment, and specialist nursing advice should be
provided to ensure that prisoners are able to access appropriate mobility and health
aids.
4.55
Protocols should be in place with appropriate agencies, both internal and external to
the prison, to ensure efficient sharing of relevant health and social care information.
4.56
All policies should be specific to the establishment, and not generic.
4.57
Following an initial reception screen, a more comprehensive health assessment should
be carried out no later than 72 hours after a prisoner’s arrival, but not at the same time
as the initial screen, so as not to hinder other reception processes.
4.58
Healthcare application forms should be submitted in a confidential manner.
4.59
Triage algorithms should be developed to ensure consistency of advice and treatment
to all prisoners.
4.60
It should be made clear to prisoners why they are being asked to attend the healthcare
department, to reduce the number of missed appointments.
4.61
A review of access to and use of controlled drugs should be undertaken.
4.62
Care should be taken to make full and complete records of the administration of
medicines, including diagnoses. This should include records of all occasions when the
patient has refused medication or failed to attend, and issues relating to drug
compliance should be followed up where appropriate.
4.63
Prisoners should only have one prescription chart or, when more than one is required,
they should be kept together.
4.64
The medicines and therapeutics committee (MT&C) should review and update all
pharmacy standard operating procedures.
4.65
The MT&C should ensure that all prescribing is evidence based, and medications are
prescribed to be given at times of greatest therapeutic effect, rather than at times to suit
the prison regime.
HMP Wellingborough
50
4.66
There should be a formal system of documented risk assessment for all patients, to
ensure consistency when determining suitability for in-possession medication and
whether daily, weekly or monthly supply is appropriate.
4.67
The MT&C should develop and introduce patient group directions, in particular for
vaccinations.
4.68
The MT&C should collect aggregated prescribing data to inform effective medicines
management, particularly with regard to the prescribing of opiate-based analgesia.
4.69
The dental surgery should be completely re-equipped, including cabinetry and new
flooring. A washer-disinfector should be fitted in the sterilising area.
4.70
The arrangements for external escorts should be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team,
to ensure that outside hospital appointments are not rearranged or cancelled
unnecessarily.
4.71
Discipline staff should have appropriate training to recognise and take appropriate
action when a prisoner has mental health problems, and work effectively with health
services staff to ensure that the prisoner receives appropriate care.
4.72
Day care services should be available for prisoners who need additional therapeutic
support for emotional, behavioural and mental health problems.
4.73
Primary mental health services should include talking and other appropriate therapies
and guided self-help for people with mild-to-moderate mental health problems.
Housekeeping points
4.74
When a GP or paramedic is called in to the establishment out of hours, the resident GP should
be informed at the earliest possible opportunity.
4.75
Medication should only be kept in the packaging supplied by the pharmacy.
4.76
Maximum and minimum temperatures should be recorded daily for the drug refrigerators within
the treatment rooms and pharmacy, to ensure that heat-sensitive items are stored within the
2–8°C range. Corrective action should be taken where necessary and should be monitored by
pharmacy staff.
4.77
Regular out-of-date checks should be done on all medicines and testing strips, wherever
located.
4.78
An Ambu-bag should be provided; the dental team should be aware of emergency procedures
within the healthcare department, and these should be exercised.
4.79
Copies of all documentation required in a general dental practice should be available in the
prison and be in date.
Good practice
4.80
The exercise referral programme aimed to emulate similar programmes in the community, and
provided prisoners with a tailor-made exercise regime, as well as lifestyle and nutrition advice.
HMP Wellingborough
51
HMP Wellingborough
52
Section 5: Activities
Learning and skills and work activities
Expected outcomes:
Learning and skills provision meets the requirements of the specialist education inspectorate’s
Common Inspection Framework (separately inspected by specialist education inspectors).
Prisoners are encouraged and enabled to learn both during and after sentence, as part of
sentence planning; and have access to good library facilities. Sufficient purposeful activity is
available for the total prisoner population.
5.1
Leadership, management and overall effectiveness of learning and skills were inadequate.
There were insufficient purposeful activity spaces and no strategic direction to meet prisoners’
resettlement employment needs. Teaching and learning were at least satisfactory, with some
good aspects. Achievement of qualifications was good in some areas and poor in others.
Education, most of which was offered on a part-time basis, included literacy and numeracy
sessions for those in the workshops and attending vocational training programmes. However,
the curriculum was insufficient to meet the population’s needs. Attendance and punctuality
were poor in classrooms and workshops, and allocation did not reflect need. Library facilities
were satisfactory.
5.2
The leadership and management of learning and skills inappropriately focused on education,
to the exclusion of wider provision. Communication between departments was poor and
provision did not adequately meet prisoners’ resettlement employment needs. Data collected
by the education department were not used to manage or set targets to improve the provision
or to inform action planning for improvement. Wing staff did little to promote the benefits of
learning and skills.
5.3
Education and vocational training was provided by Manchester City College, and distance
learning was supported by the Prisoners Education Trust. The range of provision was
inadequate for a training prison, especially the provision for short-term prisoners. There were
insufficient activity places available for the prison population, with 507 places, many part-time,
available for 635 prisoners. The range of vocational training in the workshops was limited and
the work in some of them was mundane and repetitive, although there was accreditation.
There was no accreditation in key areas of work, including gardens, laundry, waste
management, kitchens and serveries.
5.4
Approximately 80% of learning and skills provision was part time and 20% was full time. The
prison’s data showed that 130 prisoners were officially unemployed. Many prisoners taking up
the 252 part-time education places also attended the 96 part-time work places, including wing
cleaning and servery work. Courses included information and communications technology,
literacy, numeracy, English for speakers of other languages, key skills, personal and social
development, art and pottery.
5.5
A narrow range of vocationally accredited provision was available and some prisoners had the
opportunity to develop a good knowledge of health and safety issues through the completion of
the Construction Skills Certification Scheme. On release, this allowed them to be considered
for construction site employment and further training. Some prisoners took higher level courses
through distance learning or the Open University.
HMP Wellingborough
53
5.6
All prisoners were given an initial assessment of their learning needs using a screening
assessment at induction. Those who progressed to education were given a diagnostic
assessment to help to identify their learning needs, although the process and content of
diagnostic assessment was left to individual teaching staff to organise. This process lacked
coordination, and information was rarely passed formally from induction to other staff, such as
vocational training staff. Some of those in work or on vocational training courses with literacy,
numeracy and language support needs received assistance in the workplace. Dyslexia
assessment and support was offered where appropriate. Most education and training staff had
received dyslexia awareness training.
5.7
Some prisoners participated in a community engagement programme, which helped them to
find employment on release. However, links with employers and external organisations were
inadequate and prisoners did not work in commercially realistic environments. Labour market
intelligence concerning the areas to which prisoners were returning was not used appropriately
to inform and help plan provision. Prisoners nearing the end of their sentence were offered
little advice and information that might to help them find employment or education and training
on their release.
5.8
Achievement and standards of work were satisfactory and pass rates were good on some
courses. However, in personal and social development programmes in 2007/08, only three out
of 227 achieved accreditation, and accreditation was also poor in English for speakers of other
languages classes. Most learners developed good personal and practical skills, and standards
of work were particularly good in carpentry and joinery. Literacy and numeracy were adequate,
and reading skills were particularly good.
5.9
Much of the teaching and learning in education was well planned and the relationships
between learners and teachers were respectful. Some sessions were managed well and
included a variety of methods and activities which successfully engaged learners. However,
sessions were too long and some teachers struggled to maintain learners’ concentration
throughout. In some lessons, there was an over-reliance on paper-based resources and
worksheets.
5.10
Attendance and punctuality at activity places were poor. The use of sessional tutors to cover
workshops had helped to reduce the number of workshop sessions cancelled owing to staff
absence, although some sessions were still cancelled. Workshop spaces were under-utilised
and only 50% of prisoners who had signed up for these actually attended. Regime
interruptions frequently disturbed the teaching sessions, and prisoner movement in the middle
of learning sessions disturbed the continuity of teaching.
5.11
All prisoners received an adequate health and safety induction but the management of health
and safety was poor. In some workshops, tutors did not effectively identify hazards and
implement timely remedial action. Classroom sessions did not include an adequate break or
access to refreshments.
5.12
Prisoners were given clear guidance at induction about how to apply for learning and skills and
work, although waiting lists for vocational training workshops were long. A labour allocation
board met each week but allocations were made on availability rather than offender need.
However, prisoners felt that allocations were fair.
5.13
Accommodation in the new education block was conducive to learning and included a
satisfactory range of teaching materials and computer facilities. There was good access to
most areas for those with mobility problems. Although workshops were adequate, space for
private study or learning away from practical activities was often limited or cramped, and
HMP Wellingborough
54
prisoners had insufficient access to computers and related learning materials to support their
studies. Training facilities within the industrial cleaning classroom were inadequate.
5.14
Equality of opportunities and diversity were promoted well through posters, information leaflets
and classroom teaching. However, access to aspects of education, training and work was
limited for some groups of prisoners. For example, there was insufficient provision for those in
the prison for short stays, and supported prisoners on I wing could only access work in the
laundry.
Library
5.15
The prison library was managed by Northampton County Council. There was a stock of over
6,000 items in the main library, and the selection process was responsive to prisoners’ needs,
with an outreach service in the segregation unit.
5.16
There were two part-time librarians and a vacancy existed for a library assistant. An orderly
supported the work in the library on three afternoons and four evenings a week. The library
was open daily for morning, afternoon and evening sessions from Monday to Thursday, as well
as Friday morning. There were no weekend sessions.
5.17
The librarians consulted education and training staff and library users annually to plan
provision, and there was appropriate and regular use of interlibrary loan services. All prisoners
were given an induction to the library, and approximately 70% of prisoners were library
members. There was insufficient use of the library outside of evening openings and it was not
often used for research and independent learning. Space within the library for individual and
group study was reasonable, although access to appropriate computer facilities was poor. The
librarian had no access to the prison intranet. A prison information point was housed in the
library but not installed for use.
5.18
Stock was displayed effectively. There was an adequate range of large-print books, audio
books easy readers, books in foreign languages and legal books, including appropriate
reference books on immigration law. However, the selection of CDs was inadequate, both in
size and in variety, for the prisoner population. Prison Service Orders were available. Stock to
meet the needs of library users with a visual impairment was changed regularly, and prisoners
could access a few foreign and English language daily newspapers.
Recommendations
5.19
Data should be used to monitor and enhance provision.
5.20
The range of provision should be increased to meet the needs of employers and reflect
commercial pressures.
5.21
Links with employers and external organisations should be improved.
5.22
Wing staff should be aware of the benefits of education and training and actively
promote them.
5.23
The range of vocational training in the workshops should be increased.
5.24
Opportunities for short-sentenced prisoners and prisoners supported on I wing should
be increased.
HMP Wellingborough
55
5.25
There should be accreditation of skills acquired in all areas of work, including gardens,
laundry, waste management, kitchens and serveries.
5.26
Attendance and punctuality at work, education and in the workshops should be
improved.
5.27
There should be no regime interruptions to learning sessions.
5.28
The timely sharing of initial assessment findings among staff should be improved.
5.29
Health and safety requirements in all areas of work, vocational training and education
should be rigorously enforced.
5.30
There should be effective information, advice and guidance for all prisoners during and
close to the end of their sentence.
5.31
The use of the library and study facilities during the day should be improved.
5.32
Better library-based computer facilities should be provided.
Housekeeping points
5.33
The librarian should have access to the prison intranet.
5.34
The prison information point should be fully installed and promoted.
5.35
The number and range of CDs should be increased.
Physical education and health promotion
Expected outcomes:
Physical education (PE) and PE facilities meet the requirements of the specialist education
inspectorate’s Common Inspection Framework (separately inspected by specialist education
inspectors). Prisoners are also encouraged and enabled to take part in recreational PE, in safe
and decent surroundings.
5.36
PE provision was good and operated from a well-equipped sports and recreation centre.
Access was good for most prisoners, and there were opportunities for prisoners to gain
accredited qualifications. The timetable covered recreational PE, training courses and sessions
for prisoners with special needs. There were no outdoor facilities.
5.37
The PE department was fully staffed by a team of seven PE instructors and one senior officer.
The department operated from a sports and recreation centre with a large sports hall,
classroom, cardiovascular room and weights room. The lack of an outside sports area
restricted the range of activities that could be offered and the development of community links.
5.38
A recreational programme offered sessions throughout the working day and on Monday to
Thursday evenings. Since the previous inspection, the number of recreational sessions that
prisoners could attend during the core day had been reduced from three to one. However, this
still impacted on their learning, as they were removed from education and workshops to attend
HMP Wellingborough
56
the gym. Approximately 63% of the population accessed recreational PE at least twice a week.
However, access for prisoners on the induction wing was restricted. An application system was
in operation, with waiting lists for over-subscribed classes or sessions. Prisoners who needed
additional support had separate daytime sessions and could attend mixed recreational
sessions.
5.39
There were some opportunities for prisoners to gain industry-recognised accredited
qualifications, with many achieving these. There was literacy, numeracy and information
technology support for these prisoners, and the PE staff had all taken a qualification to help
them to teach adults. However, self-assessment showed that there was insufficient use of
individual learning plans and that there were no links with sentence planning.
5.40
PE staff motivated and encouraged prisoners with different fitness levels and interests to
participate in recreational PE. Prisoners’ views had been sought, and additional activities and
sessions for prisoners over the age of 50 had been introduced. In the previous three months,
an exercise referral scheme had been introduced, with links to the healthcare department, to
help to assess and support prisoners (see section on health services). Prisoners who had
achieved an industry standard qualification provided individual coaching to those on the
scheme.
5.41
There were established links with two special needs groups from the community, although the
skills that prisoners gained in providing individual support to children in the group were not
accredited.
5.42
There were links with other departments to support the establishment’s drug strategy and
offending behaviour programmes. Sessions were available for prisoners on offending
behaviour programmes, and team-building exercises were offered.
Recommendations
5.43
Access to physical education (PE) for those on the induction wing should be improved.
5.44
The use of individual learning plans should be improved and they should be linked to
sentence plans.
5.45
The number of regime interruptions caused by visits to the gym should be reduced.
5.46
Accreditation should be introduced for the skills that prisoners develop through
working with children with special needs.
Faith and religious activity
Expected outcomes:
All prisoners are able to practise their religion fully and in safety. The chaplaincy plays a full part
in prison life and contributes to prisoners' overall, care, support and resettlement.
5.47
Faith services were well developed, with a widely publicised programme and no formal
impediment to attending corporate worship, although some difficulties had been experienced at
weekends. Chaplains were active and visible around the establishment, and were involved in
general prison life, although they had little input to sentence planning. Efforts had been made
HMP Wellingborough
57
to ensure that Friday prayers were not adversely affected by regime fluctuations. Facilities
were good, and external relationships well developed. Black and minority ethnic and Muslim
prisoners were positive about their religious beliefs being respected.
5.48
The chaplaincy had a well-publicised programme of services and other activities, and there
were no institutional impediments to prisoners attending corporate worship. However,
chaplains told us that attendance at the weekends could be problematic, with some prisoners
on their lists being prevented from attending Christian services for no apparent reason.
Prisoners could request to see a chaplain in private and adequate opportunities and facilities
were available to this end.
5.49
The chaplaincy team reflected the denominations in the prisoner population. There was a
vacancy for a part-time employed Roman Catholic chaplain, but this was in the process of
being filled. In the meantime, sessional workers were utilised. Seventeen per cent of the
prisoner population were Muslims and funding had been made available for the Muslim
chaplain to be made a full-time member of staff. Efforts had been made to ensure that Friday
prayers were given priority and could take place at the appropriate time of day.
5.50
The chaplaincy team ran a victim awareness course (see section on resettlement pathways)
and a range of other faith-based classes, and also offered counselling by trained staff.
Members of the team were also active in supporting culturally diverse events for prisoners, and
services marking religious festivals.
5.51
The team was well integrated into the daily running of the prison, attending several regime
meetings, and saw all prisoners on open assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT)
documents. Duty chaplaincy duties were spread among employed members of the team, and
they routinely saw all prisoners within 24 hours of their arrival and those in segregation daily.
However, they had little input to sentence planning processes.
5.52
Facilities were good, including a Muslim prayer room with on-site washing facilities, a multi
faith room and a bright and welcoming chapel.
5.53
Following complaints from prisoners, the coordinating chaplain had circulated instructions to
staff about the searching of prisoners and visitors in a religiously and culturally sensitive
manner, and how artefacts with religious significance should be dealt with. This had apparently
addressed the issues raised.
5.54
Relationships with external faith groups were well developed, and we were told by the
chaplaincy team that around 40 volunteers from these groups attended the prison for various
reasons.
5.55
Black and minority ethnic and Muslim prisoners in our survey were significantly more positive
than white and non-Muslim prisoners at the establishment, and also than prisoners at
comparator prisons, about feeling that their religious beliefs were respected.
Recommendations
5.56
Prison managers should ensure that there is no impediment to prisoners attending
Christian corporate worship at the weekends.
HMP Wellingborough
58
5.57
Chaplaincy staff should be routinely asked to contribute to sentence plans and other
matters of progression, such as lifer reviews, home detention curfew and release on
temporary licence.
Time out of cell
Expected outcomes:
All prisoners are actively encouraged to engage in out of cell activities, and the prison offers a
timetable of regular and varied extra-mural activities.
5.58
Time out of cell was low, averaging around 7.5 hours a day. Prisoners without, or not required
at, an activity place were locked in their cells, sometimes for up to 20 hours a day. Full
association was scheduled daily in the evenings between Monday and Thursday and was
rarely cancelled. Time in the fresh air was also scheduled daily.
5.59
Time out of cell overall was low for a training prison, averaging around 7.5 hours a day. There
were not enough purposeful activity places to occupy all prisoners (see section on learning and
skills and work activity). When we carried out a check at mid-morning on one day during the
inspection, we found just over 200 prisoners locked in their cells, which was over 30% of the
population. Prisoners without, or not required at, an activity place were locked in their cells,
where they could spend up to 20 hours a day. These findings were confirmed in our survey,
where 60% of respondents said that they spent six hours or less outside their cell each day.
5.60
The situation had improved slightly in recent weeks for those on the enhanced level of the
incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme or actively seeking work. Some of these
prisoners were now unlocked for additional periods in the morning and afternoon.
5.61
On some wings, all prisoners, including wing workers, were locked in their cells after the main
movement to work until the roll had been called correctly.
5.62
Full association was scheduled daily in the evenings between Monday and Thursday, and
prisoners confirmed that this was rarely cancelled. Time in the fresh air was also scheduled
daily, with additional evening provision in the summer months.
Recommendations
5.63
Prisoners who are working on a wing should not be locked in their cells after the main
movement to work period.
5.64
All prisoners should have at least 10 hours a day out of their cells.
HMP Wellingborough
59
HMP Wellingborough
60
Section 6: Good order
Security and rules
Expected outcomes:
Security and good order are maintained through positive staff-prisoner relationships based on
mutual respect as well as attention to physical and procedural matters. Rules and routines are
well-publicised, proportionate, fair and encourage responsible behaviour. Categorisation and
allocation procedures are based on an assessment of a prisoner's risks and needs; and are
clearly explained, fairly applied and routinely reviewed.
6.1
The security department was primarily focused on reducing the supply of drugs and mobile
telephones, and there was good use of intelligence. Additional resources in recent months had
started to show positive results. Categorisation systems were appropriate, but there were
some delays, and moves to other category C prisons for progressive reasons were extremely
infrequent. Rules were explained during induction and were publicised around the
establishment.
6.2
The security committee was reasonably well resourced, incorporating a principal officer, a pool
of senior officers, a team of officers, an executive officer and an intelligence collator. The
security committee met monthly and was well attended. The meeting appropriately
concentrated on the key security issues faced by the establishment. In the previous 12 months
in particular, the work of the department had been focused principally on reducing the supply
of drugs and mobile telephones. Some measures had been taken towards this goal, including
fitting grilles over cell windows, which was ongoing at the time of the inspection. Additional
staffing resources had also been invested in the security department, aimed predominantly at
target testing and target searching.
6.3
There were regular intelligence flows from the 70–80 security information reports submitted
each week. Proactive work and sharing of intelligence had also been undertaken with the
police. There were signs that these measures had started to have an impact; there had been
several arrests of visitors and others attempting to traffic drugs and mobile telephones through
visits and over the perimeter walls. There had also been a significant number of finds, both of
drugs and of mobile telephones.
6.4
The mandatory drug testing (MDT) positive rate, although subject to fluctuation, was lower
than for the previous year, and some suspected dealers had been transferred out of the
establishment. At the time of the inspection, 38 prisoners were on closed visits and eight
visitors were banned, with a further nine subject to closed visits. There was some confusion
over the exact circumstances that would lead to a prisoner being placed on closed visits.
6.5
Rules were explained during induction and were publicised around the establishment.
Categorisation
6.6
The arrangements for reviewing prisoners’ categorisation levels were coordinated through the
offender management unit (OMU). If prisoners met the minimum basic eligibility criteria, a
review process commenced approximately one month before their review date was due. This
HMP Wellingborough
61
involved the compilation of several reports from different departments, including personal
officers, security, and learning and skills.
6.7
Once all the reports had been received, prisoners’ cases were considered by a categorisation
review board. These were held weekly, and staff from all relevant departments attended.
Prisoners also attended the board, to enable them to present any relevant information that they
felt should be taken into consideration. Prisoners applying for release on temporary licence
(ROTL) had their application considered in the same way. If their ROTL application was
successful, they were also recategorised to D at the same time.
6.8
The basic process worked well. Approximately 10 prisoners a month were recategorised to D
and subsequently progressed to open conditions. We received some complaints, however,
from prisoners about delays in the process. Moves to other category C prisons for progressive
reasons were extremely infrequent. There was no formal system for chasing up outstanding
reports. When we enquired, we discovered that some personal officer reports had not been
completed several months after they had first been commissioned, and that this had led to
delays in the application being considered by the review board.
Recommendations
6.9
A protocol should be introduced for placing prisoners on closed visits.
6.10
All reports for recategorisation and release on temporary licence (ROTL) applications
should be completed promptly. A formal system should be introduced for chasing up
overdue reports, in order to minimise delays.
Discipline
Expected outcomes:
Disciplinary procedures are applied fairly and for good reason. Prisoners understand why they
are being disciplined and can appeal against any sanctions imposed on them.
6.11
Adjudications were held in a suitable environment and prisoners were given sufficient time to
prepare themselves. The level of enquiry was good and punishments consistent with the
published tariff. Use of force was low, properly documented and legitimately used as a last
resort. There was evidence that the special cells had been inappropriately used as regular
segregation unit cells when the unit was full. The segregation unit was relatively small. It
housed several long-term residents, who were only able to access a basic regime and who
could not be moved on because of a new policy restricting transfers out to other prisons from
the unit. Segregation unit staff were dedicated and understood the needs of the prisoners in
their care. The segregation unit policy was not fully implemented.
Adjudications
6.12
There had been 264 adjudications in the three months before the inspection. Of these, 58 were
for matters relating to in-possession property and 45 were for disobeying a lawful order, mainly
refusing to relocate to another wing or return to a wing. Many of the property matters related to
the possession of hooch, mobile telephones and excess property. Many charges for relatively
HMP Wellingborough
62
minor offences could have been dealt with by other means, such as through the incentives and
earned privileges (IEP) process.
6.13
The dedicated adjudication room was located in the segregation unit and provided a quiet and
appropriate environment. Adjudication documentation, including details of the charge and the
adjudication procedure, was given to prisoners by residential staff either on the night before
the adjudication or early on the day itself.
6.14
In the adjudications we observed, prisoners were aware of what was happening and had had
sufficient time to prepare themselves. Review of the documentation for the previous six months
showed that adjudicators generally carried out thorough investigations, and that where
concerns such as vulnerability were raised, appropriate referrals were made. There was an
appropriate tariff in place and this was reviewed regularly.
Use of force
6.15
Fifty-five incidents had required the use of force during the six months before the inspection,
showing a month-on-month reduction following the implementation of the segregation unit
policy. Of these incidents, 19 were for non-compliance – mainly refusal to relocate to a wing or
return to a wing. Detailed analysis and close monitoring took place through the monthly
prisoner care and senior prison management meetings.
6.16
Documentation relating to the use of force was comprehensive and well written, and there was
a good recording system. A review of the use of force forms showed that force was used as a
last resort and was used legitimately. Planned interventions were not video-recorded.
6.17
Use of the two special cells was low, with five incidents in the previous six months. The longest
that anyone had spent in one of these cells was overnight, where the prisoner involved
remained abusive and non-cooperative until the early hours of the morning. On the other
occasions, the prisoners had been removed within three hours.
6.18
The special cells were in a poor condition, with little natural light, and although they had
integral sanitation, we were told by segregation unit staff that the toilets were not working
properly. These cells had recently been used inappropriately, on several occasions, for up to a
week, as regular segregation unit cells when the unit was full, by placing furniture in them.
Segregation unit
6.19
The segregation unit was relatively small, given the expansion in the overall population at the
establishment. It was located in one of the older buildings, and was kept reasonably clean.
Accommodation included one new disabled cell, the two special cells and 10 other cells which
were in the process of being updated or redecorated. Communal areas were reasonably clean.
There was a segregation unit policy, and this contained the staff selection process. Many
aspects of the policy were not used in practice at the time of the inspection.
6.20
There was a dedicated group of staff, who understood the needs of the prisoners in their care.
Staff–prisoner relationships on the unit were positive and particular care was paid to the
mental health needs of the prisoners. However, staff did not always fully record the outcomes
of review boards and daily interaction with prisoners. Most had received no specialist training
for the role.
HMP Wellingborough
63
6.21
The number of prisoners seeking segregation had reduced significantly since March 2008,
owing to the introduction of a new policy restricting prisoners from being transferred out from
the unit. At the time of the inspection, there were nine prisoners on the unit. Two had been
located there in the three days before the start of the inspection. The rest were long-term
residents, who had been there between 30 and over 130 days. All prisoners were routinely
strip searched on entry to the unit.
6.22
All documentation relating to segregation under good order or discipline had been pre-printed,
with an identical regime and two behaviour targets. There was little written evidence of any
other targets being set or individual circumstances being accounted for in assessing a suitable
regime for each prisoner – despite the fact that the segregation policy document specified that
all prisoners in the unit would be risk assessed for access to work or the gym.
6.23
The policy to prevent prisoners being transferred out of the prison from the segregation unit
had not been developed sufficiently well to cater for those staying on the unit for prolonged
periods, and an impasse had been reached with some of them. There were no care plans for
long-term prisoners. Individual management plans were included in each prisoner’s history file.
However, they were often just left blank, or otherwise were extremely poorly completed.
Prisoners were reviewed after the initial 72 hours of segregation and thereafter as deemed
necessary by the review board. It was common practice for long-term residents to be routinely
segregated for a further 14 days if they attended their reviews and their circumstances had not
changed. Those who did not attend their reviews were routinely segregated for a further seven
days.
6.24
Prisoners who had been located on the unit for more than 30 days were only able to access a
basic regime, and no additional activities. Prisoners in segregation spent a significant amount
of time locked in their cells. Prisoners could request books from the main library, as well as
borrow from a small stock on the unit. Showers, exercise and access to telephones were
provided daily. Prisoners were visited daily by a governor, chaplain and health services staff.
Additionally, the policy stated that residential staff from the prisoner’s home wing would visit
daily, but in practice this did not happen.
Recommendations
6.25
All planned instances of use of force should be video-recorded.
6.26
Special cells should not be used as regular segregation unit cells.
6.27
The segregation unit policy should be fully implemented.
6.28
Staff should receive specialist training for working on the unit.
6.29
Documentation relating to the segregation of prisoners, and in particular access to
regime activities and behaviour targets, should be completed on an individual riskassessed basis. The use of pre-printed documentation should cease.
6.30
A protocol to manage prisoners staying on the unit for more than 30 days should be
developed and implemented. It should include individual care and management plans to
assist relocation.
HMP Wellingborough
64
Incentives and earned privileges
Expected outcomes:
Incentives and earned privileges schemes are well-publicised, designed to improve behaviour
and are applied fairly, transparently and consistently within and between establishments, with
regular reviews.
6.31
The incentives and earned privileges (IEP) strategy was fair and provided accountability.
Privileges were meaningful and most prisoners engaged with the scheme. The management of
prisoners on the basic level of the scheme was less clear and offered little support or
encouragement to progress. Policy and practice were not consistent relating to progression to
enhanced status on I wing.
6.32
A new IEP strategy had been published in January 2008. It was fair, provided clear
accountability and appeared to work well, and prisoners were mostly engaged with the
process. At the time of the inspection, documentation indicated that there were 216 prisoners
on enhanced, 396 on standard and six on the basic level of the scheme. However, we found
that central monitoring of IEP levels contained a significant number of errors – for example, in
the figures quoted, 17 prisoners were missing.
6.33
New arrivals could keep their enhanced status but this could take up to a week to arrange. We
found no evidence of prisoners having a disciplinary punishment as well as being placed on
basic, and pay was equal for the same jobs, regardless of IEP level. The new privileges list
had been compiled using prisoner consultation. It was reviewed monthly, at the prisoner
consultation meeting, and updated every three months.
6.34
Not all staff were aware that a behaviour checklist scoring system of moving through the IEP
levels had replaced the three behavioural warning mechanisms. Prisoners now had to score
90 or above for three consecutive months to reach enhanced. Prisoners were moved up
automatically but were able to contribute to reviews when they were being moved down a level
or when they were on basic, and all prisoners were reviewed annually. There was an appeals
system and prisoners we spoke to, including those on basic, were aware of it. Apart from the
first floor on I wing, which was for enhanced level prisoners only, prisoners on all levels were
dispersed fairly evenly across the prison. Prisoners were able to keep copies of notifications of
unacceptable and exceptional behaviour.
6.35
The basic regime was not over-used, but the management of prisoners on basic was
underdeveloped. The primary document used was a new wing history sheet, and it was not
easy for new staff coming on duty to see why the prisoner was on basic, how long for, the
outcome of reviews, when the next review was due, what regime they were on and so on.
Prisoners could be kept on basic for relatively long periods (over four weeks), without any
support, and there was little emphasis on target setting to encourage prisoners to progress.
Prisoners on basic had their visits reduced to two a month. This was not sufficient to maintain
family contacts and it was unfair that visitors, including children, were punished for prisoners’
poor behaviour. The IEP policy set out that visits for prisoners on basic should only last one
hour; we were told by the manager responsible for IEP that, in practice, they received the
standard two hours but this was contrary to the policy.
6.36
The IEP strategy and practice for prisoners on I wing were not consistent. The I wing policy
stated that supported prisoners (those there for their own protection) could move up to the
HMP Wellingborough
65
enhanced level. However, we met a prisoner on I wing who was on standard level, despite
meeting the criteria of having over three months of behavioural checklist scores of 90 or
higher, and staff were clear that he could not be moved up to enhanced. Managers told us that
such prisoners could move to the enhanced level, although clearly this did not happen in
practice.
6.37
We saw evidence of management reviews of the implementation of the IEP scheme, and
detailed written feedback was given to senior and principal officers. The most recent review
found that management checks were not always completed and that behavioural reports were
often overdue, but managers were addressing this.
Recommendations
6.38
All staff working with prisoners should be made aware of the revised incentives and
earned privileges (IEP) scheme and their role in it.
6.39
Paperwork relating to prisoners on basic should be easily accessible to staff coming on
duty, should make it clear why the prisoner is on basic, when the last review was and
the outcome, when the next review is due, what regime he is on and what targets have
been set to encourage an improvement in behaviour.
6.40
Prisoners on basic for more than a few days should receive additional support to help
them progress.
6.41
Prisoners on basic should still receive a minimum of four visits a month and their visits
should last as long as those of other prisoners.
6.42
Supported prisoners on I wing should be eligible for enhanced status.
Housekeeping points
6.43
New receptions arriving with enhanced status should have this clarified within one working
day.
6.44
Management information on IEP levels should be accurate.
HMP Wellingborough
66
Section 7: Services
Catering
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners are offered varied meals to meet their individual requirements and food is prepared
and served according to religious, cultural and prevailing food safety and hygiene regulations.
7.1
The kitchen facilities were in a new building and were adequate for the size of the prison,
although some equipment was in a poor state of repair. Food quality and portion size at the
time of the inspection were adequate and consultation with prisoners was reasonable.
Published meal times were not adhered to. Hygiene and food safety standards were poor at
the point of delivery.
7.2
The catering facilities were located in a new building, built specifically for the purpose. The
kitchen areas were generally clean, although several items of equipment were in a poor state
of repair. This had adversely impacted on the food choices that could be offered. The facilities
for staff and prisoners working in the kitchen areas were adequate. Up to 30 prisoners,
including two Muslims and one vegan, worked in this area. Some of these prisoners had not
received any training appropriate to the work they were undertaking.
7.3
Prisoners were provided with three meals a day. Breakfast packs were distributed at lunchtime
the previous day. Lunch consisted of soup, sandwiches and a hot choice, and the evening
meal had five choices. We observed that the published meal times were not adhered to, with
lunch and the evening meal routinely served about 15 minutes early, at 11.45am and 4.45pm
respectively.
7.4
Although dining areas were provided on some wings, they were not used. Survey results were
poor, with 13% of prisoners, compared with the 33% comparator, rating the food as good or
very good. We received a significant number of complaints from prisoners regarding the food.
These related mainly to portion size.
7.5
The menu was on a four-week cycle. Special diets were well catered for and good
preparations were underway for Ramadan. One meal each week was from a different culture,
and regular celebrations were provided through different cultural menus. Halal food was stored
with vegetarian/vegan food owing to limited storage space. Our own observations during the
inspection were that portion sizes and the quality of meals were basic but adequate, with
limited healthy options on all menus. Fruit was provided once a day but some we saw was
bruised and rotting.
7.6
Prisoner surveys had been carried out and suggestions implemented where possible. The
catering manager attended prisoners’ consultation meetings and food comments books were
available on all wings, and attracted many complaints. The responses in these books were
varied, with some complaints receiving a detailed reply and others left unanswered.
7.7
Many of the food trolleys were in a poor state of repair and were dirty. There was an ongoing
disagreement between catering staff and wing servery orderlies as to who was responsible for
cleaning them. Food safety and hygiene standards at the point of delivery were poor. We
found food left out overnight on five of the wings during an early morning inspection of the
HMP Wellingborough
67
serveries, and cockroaches and beetles were seen in one servery area. Protective clothing for
prisoners was not always used and some was dirty and in a poor state. Food temperatures
were not always recorded, as some staff and servery prisoners had not been trained in these
procedures.
Recommendations
7.8
Broken equipment and trolleys should be repaired.
7.9
All prisoners and staff involved in food preparation and serving should receive the
appropriate training.
7.10
Halal food should be stored separately.
7.11
Breakfast should be served on the day it is eaten.
7.12
Published meal times should be adhered to.
7.13
Catering staff should provide written responses to entries in food comments books.
7.14
Servery workers should be provided with clean protective clothing as required.
7.15
Waste food should be removed from servery areas immediately following the serving of
meals and food trolleys should be properly cleaned after each meal.
Good practice
7.16
One meal each week was from a different culture, and regular celebrations were provided
through different cultural menus.
Prison shop
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners can purchase a suitable range of goods at reasonable prices to meet their diverse
needs, and can do so safely, from an effectively managed shop.
7.17
An Aramark workshop served Wellingborough and three neighbouring prisons. Conditions in
the workshop restricted its operation and impacted on the service delivered. The shop list of
over 500 items was reviewed regularly, although it was not clear how many prisoners were
included in the consultation process. Catalogue orders were managed by the prison and there
were generally no significant delays in prisoners receiving their orders.
7.18
Contracted to Aramark, the prison shop was based in a workshop which also supplied three
other prisons in the area. Up to 25 prisoners were employed in this small workshop, which in
several respects provided them with an inadequate working environment and restricted the
shop’s overall operation. There was a high turnover of prisoners working in the shop, which
impacted negatively on the quality of the service provided, and a lack of space meant that
completed orders could not undergo a thorough checking process, which would have helped to
reduce errors.
HMP Wellingborough
68
7.19
A good range of over 500 items was available from the shop, and changes to the shop list
were made every three months. Consultation on these changes occurred through the prisoner
interest group, although it was not clear how many prisoners were included in the consultation
process. According to our survey, prisoner satisfaction was low: 39% said that the shop sold a
wide enough range of goods to meet their needs, which was significantly worse than the
comparator of 48%. Only 31% of black and minority ethnic and 24% of Muslim prisoners
responded positively to this survey question, compared with 44% and 46% of white and nonMuslim prisoners respectively. We received several complaints about the cost of items,
particularly in comparison with the average prisoner’s weekly wage.
7.20
Arrangements for newly arrived prisoners to access the shop were good. They were offered
reception packs and telephone credits, and no prisoner waited more than a week to receive his
first shop order. Shop orders were delivered to the wings on Friday afternoon and residential
staff distributed the bagged orders to prisoners in their cells. Some prisoners complained that
they could not see all of their printed order, and on one bag we inspected the receipt had been
folded, making it impossible to confirm whether the bag contained all the ordered items.
7.21
Catalogue orders were managed directly by the prison. Orders were submitted through a clerk
in the discipline office. Although a collective order was usually submitted weekly, to avoid an
administration charge, prisoners ordering from less popular companies were liable to pay for
any postage and packing. Once received, these orders were dealt with in reception. Apart from
some delays of a few days pending the safety tests of electrical equipment, we were not made
aware of any significant delays in prisoners collecting their items.
Recommendations
7.22
Prison managers and Aramark staff should work together to reduce the turnover of
prisoner workers in the shop and to improve the quality of the service they deliver.
7.23
Consultation with prisoners about the range of items available in the shop should be
improved and include specific input from black and minority ethnic groups.
7.24
Prisoners should be able to check their shop order properly at the point of receipt, and
to report any mistakes promptly.
HMP Wellingborough
69
HMP Wellingborough
70
Section 8: Resettlement
Strategic management of resettlement
Expected outcomes:
Resettlement underpins the work of the whole establishment, supported by strategic
partnerships in the community and informed by assessment of prisoner risk and need.
8.1
Strategic management was weak and many staff felt that resettlement had not been given
sufficient attention. Despite the commitment of the two relevant senior managers, a lack of
strategic vision, the unhelpful existing structures and deficiencies in provision made it difficult
to provide a coherent approach. Insufficient use was made of available data to aid planning
and performance improvement. Prisoners were poorly served in terms of preparation for
release.
8.2
No resettlement needs analysis had been carried out, and the resettlement strategy document,
dated April 2007, was out of date and did not reflect current arrangements. Apart from the
monitoring required to measure compliance with key performance targets, little use was made
of available resettlement data to measure achievements or inform developments in policy or
practice. Changes to the senior management team structure at the beginning of 2008 had
divided responsibility for resettlement between a head of offender management and a head of
regimes and services, and thereby split responsibility for interventions and most of the
resettlement pathways. The two managers recognised the need for close and collaborative
working but this was hampered by the lack of a clear strategic vision and strategy.
8.3
Although there were several meetings, involving different groups of staff with an involvement or
interest in resettlement issues, there was no overarching resettlement policy committee or
equivalent to oversee and coordinate all aspects of resettlement work. Since April 2008, the
head of regimes and services had used the quality improvement group to carry out some
scoping work in relation to the resettlement pathways; this was welcomed and valued by the
staff involved. However, learning and skills and resettlement both lacked significant
management attention.
8.4
Many of the resettlement staff we spoke to perceived that the senior management team did not
view resettlement as a priority, and many staff were frustrated by the comparative lack of
resettlement provision. The absence of appropriate education, training and employment
support was one example (see section on resettlement pathways). Although the ending of the
Prison Service Plus contract had been known well in advance, there had been no strategic
planning to obtain a replacement service, leaving a gap in provision.
8.5
Generally, even though the prison had shown itself capable of developing some high profile,
innovative community projects, provision under most of the resettlement pathways was poorly
developed. Over 500 prisoners were released into the community each year. Our survey
showed that just 9% of prisoners felt that any member of staff had helped them to prepare for
release, with 44% being within the last six months of their sentence.
HMP Wellingborough
71
Recommendations
8.6
Senior managers should provide the strategic overview and direction necessary to
ensure that the resettlement strategy is implemented, monitored and reviewed in the
most effective way.
8.7
Resettlement staff and other service providers should be able to share information,
discuss progress and contribute to developments in policy and practice.
8.8
All prisoners being released into the community should have a comprehensive and
structured process of pre-release planning and preparation, based on the seven
resettlement pathways.
Offender management and planning
Expected outcomes:
All prisoners have a sentence or custody plan based upon an individual assessment of risk and
need, which is regularly reviewed and implemented throughout and after their time in custody.
Prisoners, together with all relevant staff, are involved with drawing up and reviewing plans.
8.9
The offender management unit (OMU) was well established and incorporated an appropriate
range of tasks. All prisoners were managed under the offender management model, although
this did not guarantee that all were helped or enabled to achieve their sentence plan targets.
Prisoners knew who their offender supervisor was and most felt involved in the sentence
planning process. Public protection measures were given appropriate attention. There were
significant problems in the management of life-sentenced prisoners, with some having been
disadvantaged as a result of their reports not being prepared on time, and most having lost
confidence in managers and staff.
8.10
At the time of the inspection, 99% of prisoners at the establishment were serving sentences of
more than 12 months, making them subject to formal sentence planning procedures. Over half
were serving sentences of between four and 10 years, and 13% of the population were serving
indeterminate sentences. The decision had been made to manage all prisoners under the
national offender management model, although only 34% were in scope. Nevertheless, these
prisoners were given priority.
8.11
The multidisciplinary OMU had been set up since the previous inspection and managed home
detention curfew, release on temporary licence (ROTL), category D reviews and public
protection procedures, in addition to its core tasks of assessment and sentence planning.
Categorisation staff, the lifer team and the psychology team were located in the same suite of
offices as the OMU, which helped effective communication and shared working. Offender
management arrangements were well developed and allocated offender supervisors routinely
discussed issues with prisoners around sentences, early release and recall. The discipline
office dealt with recall paperwork, ensuring that prisoners were provided with packs as soon as
they were received by the prison from the prisoner recall section. There were arrangements to
ensure that licence conditions were explained to prisoners in reception before release.
8.12
Each of the five OMU teams was responsible for managing its own workload. Although
individual caseloads were relatively high (50–60), offender supervisors said that this was
HMP Wellingborough
72
manageable. The team’s case administrator played a vital role in organising and managing the
caseload and this helped offender supervisors to keep up to date with assessments and also
to deliver interventions with selected prisoners.
8.13
The OMU provided an input to the prisoner induction programme, and prisoners were notified
promptly of their named offender supervisor. The offender assessment system (OASys) was
the primary means of assessing prisoners’ risks and needs. The nature and level of contact
between the prisoner and supervisor differed according to the prisoner’s level of risk. Low-risk
prisoners were given a copy of their sentence plan targets and were only seen on request.
Only in high-risk cases was the offender supervisor required to track a prisoner’s progress and
ensure that sentence plan targets were achieved. This placed an over-reliance on the
motivation and skills of other prisoners to manage their own time in custody and made it easier
for those who wished to exclude themselves. The OMU held weekly surgeries on each of the
wings, and prisoners we spoke to were clear about how the OMU and the sentence planning
process worked.
8.14
Sentence planning processes were well established. In our survey, 64% of prisoners said that
they had a sentence plan, which was significantly better than the 59% comparator, and 61% of
prisoners felt that they had been involved in the development of their plan. However, only 19%
of prisoners felt that any member of staff had helped them to address their offending
behaviour, which was significantly lower than the 30% comparator. OMU staff told us that the
lack of interventions available in the prison often made it difficult to set challenging yet
achievable sentence plan targets, especially for those prisoners who did not need or were not
suitable for accredited group work programmes. In addition, population pressures, rather than
identified sentence planning needs, determined prisoners’ allocations, and we found examples
of prisoners who had been transferred to the establishment to complete identified OASys
targets which were unachievable because the required courses and interventions were not
available. Completed OASys assessments were accessible on the prison intranet, and we saw
examples of a range of staff referring to them. Sentence planning boards were held for all
except low-risk prisoners, and there were few problems securing a contribution from offender
managers (by attendance or telephone conferencing).
8.15
In July 2008, there had been 119 registrations under public protection measures, although
there was significant overlap, with several prisoners appearing in more than one category.
Thirty-six prisoners were subject to the higher levels of monitoring and intervention under
multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA). Public protection procedures were
sound, with weekly risk assessment meetings to confirm the identification of newly received
prisoners and a monthly multidisciplinary interdepartmental risk management meeting, at
which prisoners of concern were discussed. Liaison with outside agencies was good and
assisted by a beneficial working relationship with the prison’s police liaison officer. There was a
full-time public protection coordinator (executive officer grade) and a part-time administrative
assistant, and one of the probation officers working in the OMU had specialist knowledge and
was experienced in this area. Information about registered prisoners was managed with full
regard to issues of confidentiality, and all prisoners subject to telephone or mail monitoring
were reviewed every three months.
8.16
Since the previous inspection, the number of life-sentenced prisoners held at the
establishment had more than doubled, and now totalled 58. All these prisoners were located
on H wing but there was little to differentiate the regime and facilities on this unit from the rest
of residential units. At least two lifer family days were held each year, the most recent being
just before the inspection, and these were well attended. However, there had been major
problems in the management of life-sentenced prisoners over an extended period of time,
some of which related to numerous changes of personnel within the lifer management team
HMP Wellingborough
73
and others of which reflected poor practice. Managers accepted that a few life-sentenced
prisoners had been disadvantaged as a result of their reports not being prepared on time, and
that there had been delays in arranging escorted town visits. Life-sentenced prisoners
expressed frustration at the lack of consistency and continuity in the way they had been
managed. They also said that meetings designed to promote communication between
managers and lifers had not been held regularly, and that no action had been taken in
response to the issues they had raised. Remedial action had started but there was no formal
action plan with agreed deadlines for implementing changes or achieving targets. Lifesentenced prisoners had lost trust in managers and staff, and were sceptical of the assurances
given to them about future arrangements.
Recommendations
8.17
All prisoners should have a named person (offender supervisor or personal officer) who
is responsible for motivating the prisoner and working with him to ensure that sentence
plan targets are implemented.
8.18
A detailed action plan should be drawn up in consultation with life-sentenced prisoners
to ensure that recent errors are rectified and that all aspects of the lifer management
process are delivered on time and to an acceptable standard.
Resettlement pathways
Expected outcomes:
Prisoners' resettlement needs are met under the seven pathways outlined in the Reducing
Reoffending National Action Plan. An effective multi-agency response is used to meet the
specific needs of each individual offender in order to maximise the likelihood of successful
reintegration into the community.
Reintegration planning
8.19
The range of reintegration services was inadequate for a category C training prison across
most of the resettlement pathways. Access to services was reasonable but was too focused on
the final weeks before release. Little use was made of prisoner peer advisers in any area of
resettlement.
Accommodation
8.20
Our survey showed that 20% of prisoners had a housing problem on reception and that 51%
thought that they would have problems on release. Both results were significantly worse than
the comparators for other training prisons (14% and 43% respectively). However, 58% knew
whom to contact in the prison for help with finding accommodation, which was significantly
better than the 51% comparator. In our prisoner groups, the accommodation service was the
only resettlement service that many prisoners could name. Information notices in residential
areas were not kept up to date and we found some that gave inaccurate information about a
few of the resettlement services.
HMP Wellingborough
74
8.21
Nacro had provided accommodation advice services since 2006 and there were two full-time
workers at the time of the inspection. A Nacro worker attended the induction programme each
week to give information about the service and identify prisoners with immediate housing
needs. Prisoners who did not attend this session for any reason had to be followed up, which
placed extra demands on an already stretched service and built in delays for the prisoner
receiving help. An average of seven prisoners a month arrived at the establishment with
outstanding rent or mortgage arrears, and they were seen within the first week, after which
priority was given to prisoners known to have no release address and to prolific offenders.
8.22
All information obtained during these initial contacts was logged on a database, including the
details of those prisoners who had declined help. Thereafter, unless a prisoner made an
application to see a Nacro worker or was referred by another department such as the OMU, he
would not be contacted again until six to eight weeks before his earliest release date. At the
time of the inspection, 248 prisoners were registered as requiring help from Nacro. In the
period April to June 2008, 94% of prisoners had been released into accommodation and just
five had been released without a fixed address. Under new regional initiatives, councils in the
East Midlands area were prepared to conduct telephone interviews with potentially homeless
prisoners before, rather than after, their release and Wellingborough council ran group
sessions for its residents. Despite these positive outcomes, the Nacro workers were frustrated
at being able to provide only a basic service. We were told by Nacro staff that a proposal to
develop a peer adviser scheme had been rejected, and although the Nacro workers were able
to deliver several interventions, such as a ‘being a good tenant’ course, this had not been
exploited by the prison.
Education, training and employment
8.23
The prison did not have a coherent strategy for education, training and employment, either
within the prison or on release, and had not carried out an assessment of the needs of the
prisoner population (see also section on learning and skills and work activities).
8.24
All prisoners were given an initial advice and guidance interview as part of their induction to
education and training. The labour allocation board considered prisoners’ requests for
education and work placements along with their record in the prison and placed them within
the available provision, rather than according to need. Guidance workers reviewed the
progress of those prisoners who joined education and training programmes at appropriate
intervals, and 168 prisoners had requested help with education, training and employment.
However, as guidance workers were funded through the offender learning and skills service,
they concentrated their work in these areas.
8.25
Jobcentre Plus staff provided a service in the prison but had withdrawn temporarily at the time
of the inspection. The prison did not provide a resettlement course for those prisoners reaching
the end of their sentence, and had not developed opportunities for prisoners to work in the
local community. There were only three prisoners on restricted ROTL arrangements for the
purpose of finding employment.
Mental and physical health
8.26
Health services were not integrated into the resettlement pathway work. Prisoners being
released from the establishment only saw health services staff 24 hours before release, at
which point staff checked to see if the prisoner needed any medications to take with him.
Prisoners received a copy of their clinical records, printed from the electronic clinical system, to
take to their general practitioner, but were not given information or assistance to access health
HMP Wellingborough
75
and social services once released. Only prisoners subject to an enhanced care programme
approach were referred on to community services by the mental health team.
8.27
While we saw written evidence of the care that had been given to a terminally ill prisoner, there
was no palliative care policy in place.
Finance, benefit and debt
8.28
Against the comparator of 16%, 28% of prisoners said that they had money worries when they
arrived at the establishment. While 47% thought that they would have problems with finances
on release, only 33% knew whom to contact for help.
8.29
The induction programme did not include a specific assessment of prisoners’ financial
situation, although this did form part of the OASys assessment. The education department ran
a money management course and Jobcentre Plus workers had visited the prison on three
mornings a week, mainly to provide advice on Fresh Start interviews to prisoners approaching
release. There was no other specialist assistance for debt or money management and no
provision for prisoners to open bank accounts before release.
8.30
The single resettlement officer interviewed all prisoners six to seven weeks before release and,
in liaison with Northampton Jobcentre Plus, arranged Jobcentre Plus appointments and helped
with community care grant applications where necessary. She also put together an
individualised information pack, which the prisoner received on the day before his release. This
could include copies of relevant documentation, duplicate forms, useful contact addresses and
practical information, such as bus and train times. Many staff referred to this contact with the
resettlement officer as the discharge board, but although it was an important and valuable
contribution, it was no substitute for a comprehensive, multidisciplinary discharge process that
coordinated all aspects of the prisoner’s release plan and ensured that any necessary
community links or support mechanisms were in place.
Recommendations
8.31
Prisoners should have access to specialist resettlement advice and guidance, as
necessary, throughout their sentence.
8.32
Suitably selected, trained and supported peer advice workers should be available to
assist other prisoners and complement the work of prison and agency staff in areas
such as accommodation, finance and benefit advice.
8.33
Health services should liaise with the resettlement department and should ensure that
health and social care needs are assessed and relevant contacts made with agencies
that can assist on release.
8.34
There should be a palliative and end-of-life care policy developed in partnership with
local care services.
8.35
Prisoners should be encouraged and assisted to open bank accounts before release.
HMP Wellingborough
76
Drugs and alcohol
8.36
The drug strategy committee met monthly and was chaired by the deputy governor in his role
as drug strategy coordinator, although he had insufficient time to carry out this role, and there
was no dedicated drug strategy manager. There was no drug awareness training for discipline
staff. The policy document was up to date and contained clear objectives, and an alcohol
strategy had also been developed, but neither was informed by a population needs analysis.
The prison had not forged strategic links with community planning bodies. The counselling,
assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARAT) team offered a good service but were
sometimes diverted to other duties. Prisoners requiring structured intervention could access
the prison addressing substance-related offending (P-ASRO) programme. There was
coordinated work between the CARAT team and the healthcare department. Service provision
for prisoners with primary alcohol problems was insufficient.
8.37
The establishment’s drug strategy committee met monthly and was chaired by the deputy
governor in his role as drug strategy coordinator. However, he had insufficient time to devote
to strategy development and implementation, and there was no dedicated drug strategy
manager. Relevant departments were represented at the drug strategy committee meeting,
and the CARAT manager also attended local drug intervention programme (DIP) meetings.
The prison had not forged strategic links with community planning bodies, such as the drug
and alcohol action team.
8.38
The policy document was up to date and contained clear objectives, as well as joint working
protocols. A separate alcohol strategy had been developed, but neither of these strategies was
informed by a population needs analysis. There was no drug awareness training for discipline
staff.
8.39
The CARAT team consisted of a manager, two drug workers who were directly employed and
1.5 officers. However, CARAT officers were sometimes diverted to other duties (during one
month, 26 hours were lost). CARAT staffing levels had not been reviewed in light of the
establishment’s growing population, and resources were stretched.
8.40
The team had exceeded the triage assessment key performance target of 130 in the previous
year. Workers offered weekly induction input and had introduced a duty system for initial
assessments and urgent cases, as well as an evening wing-based session to make the service
more accessible. In our survey, 80% of prisoners knew whom to contact about drug problems,
and out of the 68% who had received help, 65% had found it useful.
8.41
Prisoners could access structured one-to-one work, supplemented with in-cell work packs, but
except for auricular acupuncture sessions, no group work modules were provided. The current
active caseload stood at only 110, and another 250 files had been suspended. Prisoners
complained that it took too long to see a CARAT worker; one had been waiting for two months
to be allocated. They also said that contact was too infrequent.
8.42
Service provision for prisoners with primary alcohol problems was insufficient. They could only
access one-off CARAT sessions and in-cell work packs, and attend weekly Alcoholics
Anonymous groups.
8.43
Prisoners with complex needs under the care of the CARAT team could be referred to the
healthcare department to access specialist counselling, as well as mental health in-reach
HMP Wellingborough
77
support, and there was coordinated work. Copies of care plans were forwarded to inform
sentence planning but it was hard for workers to find the time to attend multidisciplinary
meetings.
8.44
The CARAT service liaised with two other initiatives. Fifteen clients were in contact with the
Rose project, which offered a range of support services to local persistent and prolific
offenders towards the end of their sentence and post-release. The Youth and Community
project continued to encourage ex-drug users’ involvement in education and prevention work.
8.45
Good throughcare links had been established with the local DIP and the community drug
project, whose aftercare workers regularly attended the prison. Pre-release work was
undertaken on a one-to-one basis, and this included arranging naltrexone prescriptions in the
community.
8.46
Prisoners requiring structured intervention could access the P-ASRO programme, which had
been introduced three years ago. The multidisciplinary team consisted of a treatment manager
and three facilitators, with another post vacant. The head of residence acted as the
programme manager but lacked time for this role, and the local management team had not met
regularly as a result. Due to a lack of referrals, only 88 prisoners had started the course in the
previous year, against a target of 96, but the completion target of 66 had been exceeded. So
far in 2008, the programme had attracted the required level of participants. Staff awareness of
P-ASRO was poor. There were plans to run a course on I wing, since prisoners residing on this
unit were reluctant to join a group which took place on the main corridor.
8.47
A dedicated P-ASRO gym session was available but prisoners could no longer access a
mentor scheme for post-programme support. P-ASRO participants had all signed drug testing
compacts and were tested regularly. No one had yet been excluded for testing positive.
8.48
All prisoners could access voluntary drug testing (VDT), independent of location, and most
were housed on the VDT unit, which had 180 spaces. This unit also housed the CARAT
service. There was no additional support available, and the remit of the unit was unclear.
8.49
The VDT scheme was not linked to incentives and earned privileges (IEP), and a separate
compact had been developed for compliance testing, which 155 prisoners had signed up to.
Testing was undertaken by officers from the VDT unit with the required frequency, both on the
unit and off wing.
Recommendations
8.50
A drug strategy manager should be appointed to implement and monitor the strategy,
and to develop strategic links with community planning bodies.
8.51
A comprehensive needs analysis should be carried out to inform the drug and alcohol
strategy and future service provision.
8.52
Prison staff should receive substance misuse awareness training.
8.53
The establishment should ensure that counselling, assessment, referral, advice and
throughcare (CARAT) officers are not diverted to other duties.
8.54
CARAT provision should be extended to reflect demand by prisoners for substance
abuse services.
HMP Wellingborough
78
8.55
The CARAT service should offer group work modules to supplement the work
undertaken on a one-to-one basis.
8.56
There should be sufficient services and interventions for prisoners with alcohol
problems.
Children and families of offenders
8.57
There were some good initiatives to help support family relationships, and two community
engagement officers coordinated work with children and families. There were considerable
problems with booking visits, too few visit spaces, and delays to the start of visits. The visits
centre provided a good environment, but the visits room was cramped and dirty. Family visits
were available only for enhanced level prisoners. ROTL was used to maintain family contacts.
8.58
Two community engagement officers were employed by the prison to coordinate work with
prisoners’ children and families, although they were not routinely consulted about how visits
could be improved and the children and families agenda developed.
8.59
Prisoners were provided with a number of visiting orders each month, depending on which
level of the IEP scheme they were on, and these could be exchanged for social visits. They
were required to send them to family and friends, who could then telephone the prison to book
a visit. However, we received several complaints about delays getting through on the visits
booking line. When we tested this line, we were able to confirm that it was difficult to get
through. The only other option for booking a visit was for prisoners to apply using a general
application, but this method was not well used, despite it being publicised by a governor’s
notice to prisoners.
8.60
Visits took place from 2–4pm each Wednesday to Friday, and on Saturdays and Sundays from
9.45–11.15am and 2–4pm. However, only a maximum of 24 spaces were available for each
visits session, which, given the prisoner population, was low. Visits could only be booked two
weeks in advance, which meant that the available slots were quickly booked up. This also
meant that some time-bound privileged visiting orders could expire before they were used.
During the inspection, the first available visit was 10 days away. No special arrangements
were made to ensure that newly arrived prisoners could receive a visit during their first week at
the prison.
8.61
Information was sent to visitors about how to get to the prison, arrangements on arrival and
timings. The prison was not well served by public transport and there were no special
arrangements to assist visitors without their own transport. Car parking arrangements were
poor, particularly for those with mobility problems. Walking to the prison could take 10 minutes
for anyone not fully mobile, and staff routinely used the nearer parking spaces designated for
visitors with disabilities.
8.62
On arrival at the prison, visitors reported to the visitors’ centre, which provided a welcoming
environment. Information about the prison and resettlement services was provided. The centre
was run by a local volunteer group and the community engagement officers employed by the
prison. It was well equipped, with a children’s play area and reasonably priced hot and cold
refreshments available. The centre was open before and after each visits session for use by
visitors, who were able to provide feedback in a visitors’ book. However, no public telephone
was available. There were plans to improve the service.
HMP Wellingborough
79
8.63
Visitors were called across to the main prison in groups of five, but we received complaints,
both from prisoners and from visitors, that this process often did not begin until shortly before
the advertised start time of visits, and we observed this to be the case. This meant that the
majority of visits lasted less than the advertised time, with some being delayed by 35 minutes.
8.64
Searching of visitors was conducted appropriately, and a private room was available if needed.
However, the general visits experience was extremely poor. The visits room was cramped and
scruffy, with uncomfortable functional furniture and a regimented layout. Prisoners were
required to wear yellow sashes and were not able to use the toilet for the duration of the visit.
However, the facilities were undergoing refurbishment and extension. Trained staff ran a
children’s play area, and reasonably priced refreshments and drinks were available.
8.65
Thirty-eight prisoners were on closed visits, mainly for possession of mobile telephone or drugrelated issues, and this was reviewed monthly at the security meeting. Facilities for these
prisoners were poor, with little privacy possible.
8.66
A parent craft course was available for prisoners and there was a pilot programme of one-toone work with Relate counsellors for six prisoners and their partners. Plans were also
advanced to offer a ‘time for families’ programme, which concentrated on maintaining and
developing relationships when a family member was in prison. Prisoners’ families were
routinely able to attend offending behaviour programme reviews.
8.67
Family days were organised by the community engagement officers every five to six weeks.
During these visits, prisoners were not required to wear a yellow sash, and all involved could
move freely around the visits room, with additional activities provided for children. Fifteen visits
were available during these sessions, which meant that the hall was less crowded than during
normal visits, although only prisoners on the enhanced level of the IEP scheme could apply for
them.
8.68
A helpline was available which families and friends could use to leave messages. A member of
the prisoner care department checked this answering machine daily and would respond; this
had resulted in some extensive ongoing contact with prisoners’ families. The chaplaincy team
was also involved in liaising with prisoners’ families. Some good community links had been
developed and a scheme was run to bring young people into the establishment to see what
prison life was like. The prison visitors’ scheme, which had been suspended by the security
department, was about to recommence.
8.69
ROTL had been used on 64 occasions so far in 2008 for maintaining family contact prerelease.
Recommendations
8.70
The community engagement officers should be fully involved in all decisions and
discussions relevant to developing services for visitors and the children and families of
offenders.
8.71
All prisoners, regardless of their incentives and earned privileges (IEP) status, should
be eligible to apply for a family visit.
8.72
Visitors should be able to book their next visit during the current one.
8.73
Visitors and prisoners should be able to book visits up to four weeks in advance.
HMP Wellingborough
80
8.74
Newly arrived prisoners should be able to have a visit during their first week at the
establishment.
8.75
Transport from the local town centre should be provided for visitors.
8.76
Visitors’ car parking should be closer to the prison, and special arrangements made for
blue badge holders.
8.77
A public telephone should be available in either the visitors’ centre or the prison itself.
8.78
Visits should commence at the advertised time.
8.79
Prisoners should not be required to wear a yellow sash or any other special clothing
during a visit.
8.80
Prisoners should be able to use the toilet during a visit.
8.81
An adequate and welcoming environment for both open and closed visits should be
provided.
Attitudes, thinking and behaviour
8.82
The establishment offered four group work interventions: P-ASRO, enhanced thinking skills
(ETS), the cognitive skills booster and a victim awareness course. In the absence of a needs
analysis, it was not possible to determine whether these interventions were appropriate for the
population. Prisoners were reasonably satisfied with offending behaviour programmes,
although some interventions had suffered as a result of a depletion of the psychology team.
8.83
Four main group work interventions were offered: P-ASRO (see sections on drugs and
alcohol); ETS; the cognitive skills booster, run by staff from Northamptonshire Probation
Services according to demand; and a victim awareness course, which, although not
accredited, had received approval in accordance with the Prison Service Order on effective
regime interventions. In the absence of a needs analysis, it was not possible to determine
whether these interventions were appropriate for the population, although, anecdotally, staff
and prisoners highlighted gaps in addressing anger management and alcohol use.
8.84
Referral to these groups could be through sentence planning or by direct or self-referral.
Waiting lists were not excessive and prisoners had a realistic chance of completing a course
before their release. The victim awareness course was run by the chaplaincy and offered a
maximum of 96 places each year. ETS was delivered by a multidisciplinary team and had a
target of 90 completions each year. The prison had been without a head of psychology for
several months and this post was unlikely to be filled for another few months. Several other
vacancies in the psychology team were beginning to impact on the delivery of the ETS course,
which was two programmes behind schedule. One-to-one work with lifers and high-risk
prisoners had also suffered.
8.85
Our survey showed that prisoner satisfaction with offending behaviour programmes was
relatively positive: 72% had been involved in a programme while in prison and 17% were
currently on a programme. In our survey, against the 52% comparator, 72% of respondents
thought that the programme would help them on release.
HMP Wellingborough
81
Recommendation
8.86
Alternative interventions should be provided for prisoners who do not meet the criteria,
or are assessed as unsuitable, for the available offending behaviour programmes.
8.87
There should be sufficient psychology staff to deliver the number and range of
programmes needed by prisoners.
HMP Wellingborough
82
Section 9: Recommendations, housekeeping
points and good practice
The following is a listing of recommendations and examples of good practice included in this
report. The reference numbers at the end of each refer to the paragraph location in the main
report.
Main recommendations
To the Governor
9.1
Key reception and first night procedures should be completed in full for all newly received
prisoners before they are allocated a cell. (HP46)
9.2
The first night accommodation on E wing should be refurbished and appropriately furnished.
(HP47)
9.3
All communal areas in the prison, including the serveries and outside areas, should be kept
clean and litter free. (HP48)
9.4
All staff should be trained in the violence reduction strategy and feel confident about their role
in implementing it and in ensuring appropriate standards of behaviour in all areas of the prison.
(HP49)
9.5
The quality and range of work provision should be improved to provide skills and training to
meet prisoners’ resettlement employment needs. (HP50)
9.6
There should be enough purposeful activity for all prisoners. (HP51)
9.7
A resettlement strategy should be developed, based on an up to date needs assessment of the
prison’s population, and there should be clear management structures and accountability for
implementing it. (HP52)
9.8
There should be support for prisoners across all resettlement pathways, with a clear
management lead for each pathway. (HP53)
9.9
All prisoners should have a sentence or custody plan which includes achievable reintegration,
training and offending behaviour targets, related to individual need, and implemented in a
timely fashion during their time at the prison. (HP54)
To the Governor and the primary care trust
Recommendation
9.10
The prison, in partnership with the primary care trust, should develop secondary detoxification
provision (3.137)
To the Governor and Aramark
Recommendation
9.11
Prison managers and Aramark staff should work together to reduce the turnover of prisoner
workers in the shop and to improve the quality of the service they deliver. (7.22)
HMP Wellingborough
83
To the medicines and therapeutics committee
Recommendations
9.12
The medicines and therapeutics committee (MT&C) should review and update all pharmacy
standard operating procedures. (4.64)
9.13
The MT&C should ensure that all prescribing is evidence based, and medications are
prescribed to be given at times of greatest therapeutic effect, rather than at times to suit the
prison regime. (4.65)
9.14
The MT&C should develop and introduce patient group directions, in particular for
vaccinations. (4.67)
9.15
The MT&C should collect aggregated prescribing data to inform effective medicines
management, particularly with regard to the prescribing of opiate-based analgesia. (4.68)
To the Governor
Recommendations
Courts, escorts and transfers
9.16
Reception should be open to receive and process prisoners during lunchtime. (1.5)
First days in custody
9.17
The amount of time that prisoners spend in reception should be reduced. (1.18)
9.18
All prisoners should receive their property and be able to have a shower and make a telephone
call on their first night. (1.19)
9.19
Information provided to prisoners in reception should be in a variety of formats and languages.
(1.20)
9.20
All prisoners should be offered clean clothes and basic toiletries on their first night. (1.21)
9.21
All cells should be cleaned and prepared for occupation by new arrivals. (1.22)
9.22
The induction programme should be delivered according to the published timetable and should
commence on the next working day following reception. (1.23)
9.23
Prisoners should be fully occupied during induction, and moved off the induction unit as soon
as the programme has finished. (1.24)
Residential units
9.24
Damaged flooring should be replaced. (2.14)
9.25
A major cell refurbishment programme should be undertaken on A to E wings. (2.15)
9.26
Broken and missing furniture should be replaced in cells, including notice boards. (2.16)
9.27
Cells should be free from graffiti and regularly repainted. (2.17)
HMP Wellingborough
84
9.28
Prisoners should have access to adequate supplies of cleaning materials. (2.18)
9.29
Toilets should be descaled. (2.19)
9.30
Cupboards and posters should be removed from external cell walls. (2.20)
9.31
Cell call bells should always be answered within five minutes. (2.21)
9.32
All communal shower recesses should be maintained in a reasonable condition. (2.22)
9.33
Prisoners should be issued with kettles. (2.23)
9.34
At least one telephone should be available on residential wings for each 20 prisoners. (2.24)
Staff–prisoner relationships
9.35
Wing staff should be aware of any prisoners on their wing who are subject to particular
monitoring, including violence reduction strategy; basic; or assessment, care in custody and
teamwork (ACCT). (2.29)
9.36
Wing staff should routinely patrol landings and engage with prisoners, both to challenge
inappropriate behaviour and to provide support and motivation. (2.30)
9.37
Prisoners should be referred to using the title ‘Mr...’ or by a preferred name. This should be
reflected on prisoners’ files and outside cells. (2.31)
Personal officers
9.38
Prisoners who move cell on a wing should retain the same personal officer, to retain continuity
of care. (2.36)
9.39
Wing history sheets should contain at least weekly entries from personal officers which
demonstrate an engagement with the prisoner and familiarity with his circumstances. (2.37)
9.40
Staff should have a clear idea of the respective responsibilities of the personal officer and
offender supervisor, and these roles should complement each other. (2.38)
Bullying and violence reduction
9.41
The violence reduction strategy (VRS) should include findings from surveys, audits and staff
and prisoner consultation. (3.20)
9.42
During night shifts, at least one member of staff should cover each residential area, to allow
cell call bells/emergencies to be promptly responded to. (3.21)
9.43
A record should be kept of prisoners being managed under stage three of the VRS. (3.22)
9.44
The quality of VRS dossiers should be improved, making clear why the prisoner is being
monitored, with detailed and frequent entries that demonstrate an engagement with the
prisoner. Management checks should ensure quality and challenge any inappropriate
comments. (3.23)
HMP Wellingborough
85
9.45
Wing managers engaging in mediation should have training to carry out this role. (3.24)
9.46
Prisoner care liaison officers should have a job specification and facility time. (3.25)
9.47
Mental health staff should flag up to the prisoner care team any potential vulnerability issues or
risk issues relating to prisoners they are engaged with. (3.26)
9.48
The role of I wing should be reviewed and clarified, to ensure that supported prisoners are
assessed and assisted to progress, and to establish a role for non-supported prisoners. This
revised policy should then be implemented. (3.27)
Self-harm and suicide
9.49
The suicide and self-harm document should be specific to Wellingborough, highlighting any
particular issues or concerns for prisoners there, and how the prison intends to address them
(3.44).
9.50
There should be sufficient Listeners to meet need. (3.45)
9.51
Segregated prisoners should have access to Listeners. (3.46)
9.52
The E wing care suite facility should be refurbished and provide an environment that is
supportive to prisoners in crisis. (3.47)
9.53
Listener rotas should be adhered to, except in extreme circumstances. (3.48)
9.54
There should be routine logging, monitoring and analysis of the use of Listeners, Samaritans
telephones, the care suites and the family liaison officer. (3.49)
9.55
Prisoners using the care suite during the night should be able to return to their cell when the
session has come to an end. (3.50)
9.56
A cell should be identified that is suitable for constant observations, and a protocol should be
developed for its use. (3.51)
9.57
All residential staff should carry anti-ligature knives. (3.52)
9.58
All inundation points should open easily. (3.53)
9.59
There should be clear and well-understood arrangements about access to cells in an
emergency at night. (3.54)
9.60
Assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) reviews should be multidisciplinary,
demonstrate continuity of staff between reviews, have targets that address need, and identify
specific staff to assist with targets. (3.55)
9.61
Observations in ACCT documentation should not be predictable, and should show
engagement with the prisoner. (3.56)
9.62
Prisoners should be aware that a friend or family member can take part in their ACCT review.
(3.57)
HMP Wellingborough
86
Diversity
9.63
A prisoner diversity survey should be conducted and the results used to develop an up to date
prisoner diversity policy. This should reflect what the prison can offer to disabled, older and
gay prisoners, including making links with social care services. (3.65)
9.64
A regular diversity regime meeting, chaired by a senior manager, should be run to take forward
this agenda. Monitoring of trends in accessing services should be ongoing and relevant
information discussed at the meeting. (3.66)
9.65
The disability liaison officer should have sufficient time to carry out the role, and also to lead in
coordinating and developing services for older and gay prisoners. (3.67)
9.66
Prisoner diversity representatives should be identified and peer support Buddies for those
prisoners with particular needs provided. (3.68)
9.67
A peer support scheme should be developed for prisoners who need personal assistance and
support in daily life. (3.69)
9.68
Personal evacuation plans should be developed for prisoners needing assistance in the event
of an emergency, and these should be readily available to residential staff. (3.70)
9.69
A time-bound action plan should be developed from the results of a prisoner access survey,
and all reasonable adjustments made. (3.71)
Race equality
9.70
The prison race equality action plan (REAP) should be regularly updated to reflect the current
priorities of the race equality action team (REAT) and progress made in achieving key targets.
(3.85)
9.71
More regular diversity training should be delivered, including a requirement for all residential
wing staff to attend cultural awareness training relevant to the black and minority ethnic
prisoner population. (3.86)
9.72
The race equality officer (REO) should be provided with administrative support. (3.87)
9.73
The deputy REO should have sufficient facility time to support the work of the REO, and for
both to be more visible to staff and prisoners on the wings. (3.88)
9.74
Interventions should be developed to address racially motivated behaviour. (3.89)
9.75
The personal protection plans already developed for the victims of racist bullying and incidents
should be used. (3.90)
9.76
The REAT should explore the poor perceptions of black and minority ethnic prisoners and take
appropriate action. (3.91)
9.77
Impact assessment work should be up to date, reflected in the establishment REAP and
reviewed at the REAT meeting. (3.92)
HMP Wellingborough
87
Foreign national prisoners
9.78
The foreign nationals policy should be developed in response to a consultation exercise with
foreign national prisoners and the monthly REAT meeting should ensure that all aspects are
delivered. (3.101)
9.79
The foreign nationals coordinator should have sufficient time to carry out the duties required.
(3.102)
9.80
Designated staff foreign national wing liaison officers should be trained and given time to carry
out the work involved. (3.103)
9.81
Material translated into languages relevant to the prisoner population should be made readily
available, including at reception and during induction. (3.104)
9.82
More frequent use should be made of professional interpreting services, especially when
dealing with confidential matters. (3.105)
9.83
There should be regularly updated lists of staff and prisoners who can speak languages other
than English (3.106)
9.84
Efforts should be made to engage with community-based independent immigration advisory
services. (3.107)
9.85
Foreign nationals with family abroad should retain a free five-minute telephone call, even when
they receive a visit from a UK visitor. (3.108)
9.86
Regular formal and informal consultation should be undertaken with foreign national prisoners.
(3.109)
Applications and complaints
9.87
The quality and range of information about applications and complaints available to prisoners
on the induction wing should be extended to all residential wings. (3.116)
9.88
The application process should be reviewed to optimise the effectiveness of the triplicate form
system and improve accountability. (3.117)
9.89
Managers should analyse complaints each month by criteria such as ethnicity, disability, wing
and prisoner type and, if necessary, take remedial action when patterns or trends emerge.
(3.118)
9.90
Responses to prisoners’ applications and complaints should be legible, respectful, address the
issues raised and give advice as to possible further action where appropriate. (3.119)
9.91
Incomplete or deferred responses to complaints should be tracked and the timing and nature
of the final outcome recorded. (3.120)
9.92
Reasons for prisoners’ perceptions of difficulty in accessing the Independent Monitoring Board
should be investigated and any necessary action or reassurance provided. (3.121)
HMP Wellingborough
88
Legal rights
9.93
A legal services officer should be appointed with sufficient facility time to provide such support
to prisoners. (3.125)
9.94
Legal visits facilities should be improved and private rooms provided. (3.126)
9.95
The number of legal visits available should be increased to meet the needs of the prisoner
population. (3.127)
Substance use
9.96
Current policies and procedures for preventing drugs entering the prison should be maintained
and developed. (3.138)
9.97
The establishment should ensure that the mandatory drug testing (MDT) programme is
adequately resourced to undertake the required level of suspicion testing. (3.139)
Health services
9.98
The contract between the primary care trust (PCT) and the health service provider should be
specific to the establishment and based on a comprehensive and up to date health needs
assessment. (4.44)
9.99
The healthcare department should be sufficiently large to contain enough clinical rooms and
office accommodation for the size of the population. (4.45)
9.100 All clinical areas should be suitable for their role and meet infection control guidance, and staff
using them should have access to the electronic clinical information system. (4.46)
9.101 The health services information booklet should be available in a variety of languages. (4.47)
9.102 The healthcare complaints procedure should be clarified, both for prisoners and for staff. (4.48)
9.103 All actions identified in the clinical governance plan should be reviewed and realistic
timescales set and adhered to. (4.49)
9.104 All clinical staff should have security awareness training. (4.50)
9.105 All staff should have access to clinical supervision. (4.51)
9.106 There should be a lead nurse or manager, with sufficient seniority and knowledge, who has
responsibility for the overall care of older prisoners. (4.52)
9.107 A full audit of resuscitation equipment should be undertaken by a professional with the relevant
skills and competencies to undertake the task. Any recommendations made as a result of the
audit, such as the need for specific equipment in ‘grab bags’ or the siting of automated external
defibrillators, should be implemented without delay. (4.53)
HMP Wellingborough
89
9.108 There should be formal arrangements with local health and social care agencies for the loan of
occupational therapy equipment, and specialist nursing advice should be provided to ensure
that prisoners are able to access appropriate mobility and health aids. (4.54)
9.109 Protocols should be in place with appropriate agencies, both internal and external to the
prison, to ensure efficient sharing of relevant health and social care information. (4.55)
9.110 All policies should be specific to the establishment, and not generic. (4.56)
9.111 Following an initial reception screen, a more comprehensive health assessment should be
carried out no later than 72 hours after a prisoner’s arrival, but not at the same time as the
initial screen, so as not to hinder other reception processes. (4.57)
9.112 Healthcare application forms should be submitted in a confidential manner. (4.58)
9.113 Triage algorithms should be developed to ensure consistency of advice and treatment to all
prisoners. (4.59)
9.114 It should be made clear to prisoners why they are being asked to attend the healthcare
department, to reduce the number of missed appointments. (4.60)
9.115 A review of access to and use of controlled drugs should be undertaken. (4.61)
9.116 Care should be taken to make full and complete records of the administration of medicines,
including diagnoses. This should include records of all occasions when the patient has refused
medication or failed to attend, and issues relating to drug compliance should be followed up
where appropriate. (4.62)
9.117 Prisoners should only have one prescription chart, or, when more than one is required, they
should be kept together. (4.63)
9.118 There should be a formal system of documented risk assessment for all patients, to ensure
consistency when determining suitability for in-possession medication and whether daily,
weekly or monthly supply is appropriate. (4.66)
9.119 The dental surgery should be completely re-equipped, including cabinetry and new flooring. A
washer-disinfector should be fitted in the sterilising area. (4.69)
9.120 The arrangements for external escorts should be reviewed by a multidisciplinary team, to
ensure that outside hospital appointments are not rearranged or cancelled unnecessarily.
(4.70)
9.121 Discipline staff should have appropriate training to recognise and take appropriate action when
a prisoner has mental health problems, and work effectively with health services staff to ensure
that the prisoner receives appropriate care. (4.71)
9.122 Day care services should be available for prisoners who need additional therapeutic support
for emotional, behavioural and mental health problems. (4.72)
9.123 Primary mental health services should include talking and other appropriate therapies and
guided self-help for people with mild-to-moderate mental health problems. (4.73)
HMP Wellingborough
90
Learning and skills and work activities
9.124 Data should be used to monitor and enhance provision. (5.19)
9.125 The range of provision should be increased to meet the needs of employers and reflect
commercial pressures. (5.20)
9.126 Links with employers and external organisations should be improved. (5.21)
9.127 Wing staff should be aware of the benefits of education and training and actively promote
them. (5.22)
9.128 The range of vocational training in the workshops should be increased. (5.23)
9.129 Opportunities for short-sentenced prisoners and prisoners supported on I wing should be
increased. (5.24)
9.130 There should be accreditation of skills acquired in all areas of work, including gardens, laundry,
waste management, kitchens and serveries. (5.25)
9.131 Attendance and punctuality at work, education and in the workshops should be improved.
(5.26)
9.132 There should be no regime interruptions to learning sessions. (5.27)
9.133 The timely sharing of initial assessment findings among staff should be improved. (5..28)
9.134 Health and safety requirements in all areas of work, vocational training and education should
be rigorously enforced. (5.29)
9.135 There should be effective information, advice and guidance for all prisoners during and close
to the end of their sentence. (5.30)
9.136 The use of the library and study facilities during the day should be improved. (5.31)
9.137 Better library-based computer facilities should be provided. (5.32)
Physical education and health promotion
9.138 Access to physical education (PE) for those on the induction wing should be improved. (5.43)
9.139 The use of individual learning plans should be improved and they should be linked to sentence
plans. (5.44)
9.140 The number of regime interruptions caused by visits to the gym should be reduced. (5.45)
9.141 Accreditation should be introduced for the skills that prisoners develop through working with
children with special needs. (5.46)
HMP Wellingborough
91
Faith and religious activity
9.142 Prison managers should ensure that there is no impediment to prisoners attending Christian
corporate worship at the weekends. (5.56)
9.143 Chaplaincy staff should be routinely asked to contribute to sentence plans and other matters of
progression, such as lifer reviews, home detention curfew and release on temporary licence.
(5.57)
Time out of cell
9.144 Prisoners who are working on a wing should not be locked in their cells after the main
movement to work period. (5.63)
9.145 All prisoners should have at least 10 hours a day out of their cells. (5.64)
Security and rules
9.146 A protocol should be introduced for placing prisoners on closed visits. (6.9)
9.147 All reports for recategorisation and release on temporary licence (ROTL) applications should
be completed promptly. A formal system should be introduced for chasing up overdue reports,
in order to minimise delays. (6.10)
Discipline
9.148 All planned instances of use of force should be video-recorded. (6.25)
9.149 Special cells should not be used as regular segregation unit cells. (6.26)
9.150 The segregation unit policy should be fully implemented. (6.27)
9.151 Staff should receive specialist training for working on the unit. (6.28)
9.152 Documentation relating to the segregation of prisoners, and in particular access to regime
activities and behaviour targets, should be completed on an individual risk-assessed basis.
The use of pre-printed documentation should cease. (6.29)
9.153 A protocol to manage prisoners staying on the unit for more than 30 days should be developed
and implemented. It should include individual care and management plans to assist relocation.
(6.30)
Incentives and earned privileges
9.154 All staff working with prisoners should be made aware of the revised incentives and earned
privileges (IEP) scheme and their role in it. (6.38)
9.155 Paperwork relating to prisoners on basic should be easily accessible to staff coming on duty,
should make it clear why the prisoner is on basic, when the last review was and the outcome,
HMP Wellingborough
92
when their next review is due, what regime he is on and what targets have been set to
encourage an improvement in behaviour. (6.39)
9.156 Prisoners on basic for more than a few days should receive additional support to help them
progress. (6.40)
9.157 Prisoners on basic should still receive a minimum of four visits a month and their visits should
last as long as those of other prisoners. (6.41)
9.158 Supported prisoners on I wing should be eligible for enhanced status. (6.42)
Catering
9.159 Broken equipment and trolleys should be repaired. (7.8)
9.160 All prisoners and staff involved in food preparation and serving should receive the appropriate
training. (7.9)
9.161 Halal food should be stored separately. (7.10)
9.162 Breakfast should be served on the day it is eaten. (7.11)
9.163 Published meal times should be adhered to. (7.12)
9.164 Catering staff should provide written responses to entries in food comments books. (7.13)
9.165 Servery workers should be provided with clean protective clothing as required. (7.14)
9.166 Waste food should be removed from servery areas immediately following the serving of meals
and food trolleys should be properly cleaned after each meal. (7.15)
Prison shop
9.167 Consultation with prisoners about the range of items available in the shop should be improved
and include specific input from black and minority ethnic groups. (7.23)
9.168 Prisoners should be able to check their shop order properly at the point of receipt, and to
report any mistakes promptly. (7.24)
Strategic management of resettlement
9.169 Senior managers should provide the strategic overview and direction necessary to ensure that
the resettlement strategy is implemented, monitored and reviewed in the most effective way.
(8.6)
9.170 Resettlement staff and other service providers should be able to share information, discuss
progress and contribute to developments in policy and practice. (8.7)
9.171 All prisoners being released into the community should have a comprehensive and structured
process of pre-release planning and preparation, based on the seven resettlement pathways.
(8.8)
HMP Wellingborough
93
Offender management and planning
9.172 All prisoners should have a named person (offender supervisor or personal officer) who is
responsible for motivating the prisoner and working with him to ensure that sentence plan
targets are implemented. (8.17)
9.173 A detailed action plan should be drawn up in consultation with life-sentenced prisoners to
ensure that recent errors are rectified and that all aspects of the lifer management process are
delivered on time and to an acceptable standard. (8.18)
Resettlement pathways
9.174 Prisoners should have access to specialist resettlement advice and guidance, as necessary,
throughout their sentence. (8.31)
9.175 Suitably selected, trained and supported peer advice workers should be available to assist
other prisoners and complement the work of prison and agency staff in areas such as
accommodation, finance and benefit advice. (8.32)
9.176 Health services should liaise with the resettlement department and should ensure that health
and social care needs are assessed and relevant contacts made with agencies that can assist
on release. (8.33)
9.177 There should be a palliative and end-of-life care policy developed in partnership with local care
services. (8.34)
9.178 Prisoners should be encouraged and assisted to open bank accounts before release. (8.35)
9.179 A drug strategy manager should be appointed to implement and monitor the strategy, and to
develop strategic links with community planning bodies. (8.50)
9.180 A comprehensive needs analysis should be carried out to inform the drug and alcohol strategy
and future service provision. (8.51)
9.181 Prison staff should receive substance misuse awareness training. (8.52)
9.182 The establishment should ensure that counselling, assessment, referral, advice and
throughcare (CARAT) officers are not diverted to other duties. (8.53)
9.183 CARAT provision should be extended to reflect demand by prisoners for substance abuse
services. (8.54)
9.184 The CARAT service should offer group work modules to supplement the work undertaken on a
one-to-one basis. (8.55)
9.185 There should be sufficient services and interventions for prisoners with alcohol problems.
(8.56)
9.186 The community engagement officers should be fully involved in all decisions and discussions
relevant to developing services for visitors and the children and families of offenders. (8.70)
HMP Wellingborough
94
9.187 All prisoners, regardless of their incentives and earned privileges (IEP) status, should be
eligible to apply for a family visit. (8.71)
9.188 Visitors should be able to book their next visit during the current one. (8.72)
9.189 Visitors and prisoners should be able to book visits up to four weeks in advance. (8.73)
9.190 Newly arrived prisoners should be able to have a visit during their first week at the
establishment. (8.74)
9.191 Transport from the local town centre should be provided for visitors. (8.75)
9.192 Visitors’ car parking should be closer to the prison, and special arrangements made for blue
badge holders. (8.76)
9.193 A public telephone should be available in either the visitors’ centre, or the prison itself. (8.77)
9.194 Visits should commence at the advertised time. (8.78)
9.195 Prisoners should not be required to wear a yellow sash or any other special clothing during a
visit. (8.79)
9.196 Prisoners should be able to use the toilet during a visit. (8.80)
9.197 An adequate and welcoming environment for both open and closed visits should be provided.
(8.81)
9.198 Alternative interventions should be provided for prisoners who do not meet the criteria, or are
assessed as unsuitable, for the available offending behaviour programmes. (8.86)
9.199 There should be sufficient psychology staff to deliver the number and range of programmes
needed by prisoners. (8.87)
Housekeeping points
Bullying and violence reduction
9.200 A year-on-year comparison on performance data, such as assaults each month, should be
carried out. (3.28)
Health services
9.201 When a GP or paramedic is called in to the establishment out of hours, the resident GP should
be informed at the earliest possible opportunity. (4.74)
9.202 Medication should only be kept in the packaging supplied by the pharmacy. (4.75)
9.203 Maximum and minimum temperatures should be recorded daily for the drug refrigerators within
the treatment rooms and pharmacy, to ensure that heat-sensitive items are stored within the
HMP Wellingborough
95
2–8°C range. Corrective action should be taken where necessary and should be monitored by
pharmacy staff. (4.76)
9.204 Regular out-of-date checks should be done on all medicines and testing strips, wherever
located. (4.77)
9.205 An Ambu-bag should be provided; the dental team should be aware of emergency procedures
within the healthcare department, and these should be exercised. (4.78)
9.206 Copies of all documentation required in a general dental practice should be available in the
prison and be in date. (4.79)
Learning and skills and work activities
9.207 The librarian should have access to the prison intranet. (5.33)
9.208 The prison information point should be fully installed and promoted. (5.34)
9.209 The number and range of CDs should be increased. (5.35)
Incentives and earned privileges
9.210 New receptions arriving with enhanced status should have this clarified within one working
day. (6.43)
9.211 Management information on IEP levels should be accurate. (6.44)
Examples of good practice
Bullying and violence reduction
9.212 Exit surveys were given to all prisoners leaving the establishment. (3.29)
9.213 Prisoners were able to play an active part in the prisoner care meeting and contribute to the
discussion of data and trends. (3.30)
Self-harm and suicide
9.214 Family or friends concerned about a prisoner could call the care line and be given the direct
line of the head of prisoner care. (3.58)
Health services
9.215 The exercise referral programme aimed to emulate similar programmes in the community, and
provided prisoners with a tailor-made exercise regime, as well as lifestyle and nutrition advice.
(4.80)
HMP Wellingborough
96
Catering
9.216 One meal each week was from a different culture, and regular celebrations were provided
through different cultural menus. (7.16)
HMP Wellingborough
97
HMP Wellingborough
98
Appendix I: Inspection team
Anne Owers
Jonathan French
Gail Hunt
Karen Dillon
Susan Fenwick
Sean Sullivan
Chief Inspector
Team leader
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector
Elizabeth Tysoe
Sigrid Engelen
Sue Melvin
Stephanie Twidale
Healthcare inspector
Substance use inspector
Pharmacy inspector
Dental inspector
Laura Nettleingham
Ellie Davis-Hoare
Researcher
Researcher
HMP Wellingborough
99
Appendix II: Prison population profile
(i) Status
Number of prisoners
%
Sentenced
Civil prisoners
Detainees (single power status)
Detainees (dual power status)
Total
544
0
5
86
635
86
0
1
14
100
(ii) Sentence
Less than 6 months
6 months to less than 12 months
12 months to less than 2 years
2 years to less than 4 years
4 years to less than 10 years
10 years and over (not life)
Life
Total
Number of prisoners
3
5
41
175
296
34
81
635
%
0
1
6
28
47
5
13
100
(iii) Length of stay
Less than 1 month
1 month to 3 months
3 months to 6 months
6 months to 1 year
1 year to 2 years
2 years to 4 years
4 years or more
Total
Number of prisoners
3
59
53
135
212
111
62
635
%
0
9
8
21
33
17
10
100
(iv) Main offence
Violence against the person
Sexual offences
Burglary
Robbery
Theft and handling
Fraud and forgery
Drugs offences
Other offences
Civil offences
Offence not recorded/ Holding warrant
Total
Number of prisoners
152
22
83
91
20
9
142
106
0
0
635
%
24
3
13
14
3
1
24
17
0
0
100
(v) Age
21 years to 29 years
30 years to 39 years
40 years to 49 years
50 years to 59 years
60 years to 69 years
70 plus years
Please state maximum age
Total
Number of prisoners
311
202
86
28
7
1
73
635
%
49
32
14
4
1
0
(vi) Home address
Within 50 miles of the prison
Between 50 and 100 miles of the prison
Over 100 miles from the prison
Overseas
NFA
Total
Number of prisoners
191
226
127
4
87
635
%
30
36
20
1
14
100
HMP Wellingborough
100
100
(vii) Nationality
British
Foreign nationals
Total
Number of prisoners
543
92
635
%
86
14
100
(viii) Ethnicity
White
British
Irish
Other White
Number of prisoners
%
348
6
30
55
1
5
Mixed
White and Black Caribbean
White and Black African
White and Asian
Other mixed
12
4
0
6
2
1
0
1
Asian or Asian British:
Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Other Asian
13
17
7
18
2
1
0
1
Black or Black British
Caribbean
African
Other Black
97
34
30
15
5
5
Chinese or other ethnic group
Chinese
Other ethnic group
Total
4
9
635
1
1
100
(ix) Religion
Baptist
Church of England
Roman Catholic
Other Christian denominations
Muslim
Sikh
Hindu
Buddhist
Jewish
Other
No religion
Total
Number of prisoners
2
164
107
27
105
4
6
12
6
8
194
635
%
0
26
17
4
17
1
1
2
1
1
31
100
HMP Wellingborough
101
Appendix III: Summary of prisoner questionnaires
and interviews
Prisoner survey methodology
A voluntary, confidential and anonymous survey of a representative proportion of the prisoner
population was carried out for this inspection. The results of this survey formed part of the
evidence base for the inspection.
Choosing the sample size
The baseline for the sample size was calculated using a robust statistical formula provided by
a government department statistician. Essentially, the formula indicates the sample size that is
required and the extent to which the findings from a sample of that size reflect the experiences
of the whole population.
At the time of the survey on 23 June 2008, the prisoner population at HMP Wellingborough
was 644. The baseline sample size was 128. Overall, this represented 20% of the prisoner
population.
Selecting the sample
Respondents were randomly selected from a local inmate database system (LIDS) prisoner
population printout using a stratified systematic sampling method. This basically means that
every second person is selected from a LIDS list, which is printed in location order, if 50% of
the population is to be sampled.
Completion of the questionnaire was voluntary. Refusals were noted and no attempts were
made to replace them. Five respondents refused to complete a questionnaire.
Interviews were carried out with any respondents with literacy difficulties. In total, two
respondents were interviewed.
Methodology
Every attempt was made to distribute the questionnaires to each respondent on an individual
basis. This gave researchers an opportunity to explain the independence of the Inspectorate
and the purpose of the questionnaire, as well as to answer questions.
All completed questionnaires were confidential – only members of the Inspectorate saw them.
In order to ensure confidentiality, respondents were asked to do one of the following:
• have their questionnaire ready to hand back to a member of the research team at a
specified time;
• seal the questionnaire in the envelope provided and hand it to a member of staff, if
they were agreeable; or
• seal the questionnaire in the envelope provided and leave it in their room for
collection.
Respondents were not asked to put their names on their questionnaire.
HMP Wellingborough
102
Response rates
In total, 112 respondents completed and returned their questionnaires. This represented 17%
of the prison population. The response rate was 88%. In addition to the five respondents who
refused to complete a questionnaire, eight questionnaires were not returned and three were
returned blank.
Comparisons
The following details the results from the survey. Data from each establishment were weighted,
in order to mimic a consistent percentage sampled in each establishment.
Some questions have been filtered according to the response to a previous question. Filtered
questions are clearly indented and preceded by an explanation as to which respondents are
included in the filtered questions. Otherwise, percentages provided refer to the entire sample.
All missing responses are excluded from the analysis.
The following analyses have been conducted:
•
•
•
•
The current survey responses in 2008 against comparator figures for all prisoners
surveyed in trainer prisons. This comparator is based on all responses from prisoner
surveys carried out in 26 category C trainer prisons since April 2003.
A comparison within the 2008 survey between the responses of white prisoners and
those from a black and minority ethnic group.
A comparison within the 2008 survey between those who are British nationals and
those who are foreign nationals.
A comparison within the 2008 survey between Muslim and non-Muslim prisoners
In all the above documents, statistical significance is used to indicate whether there is a real
difference between the figures – that is, the difference is not due to chance alone. Results that
are significantly better are indicated by green shading, results that are significantly worse are
indicated by blue shading and where there is no significant difference, there is no shading.
Orange shading has been used to show a significant difference in prisoners’ background
details.
Summary
In addition, a summary of the survey results is attached. This shows a breakdown of
responses for each question, as well as examples of comments made by prisoners.
Percentages have been rounded and therefore may not add up to 100%.
No questions have been filtered within the summary, so all percentages refer to responses
from the entire sample. The percentages to certain responses within the summary – for
example, ‘Not sentenced’ options across questions – may differ slightly. This is due to different
response rates across questions, meaning that the percentages have been calculated out of
different totals (all missing data are excluded). The actual numbers will match up as the data
are cleaned to be consistent.
Percentages shown in the summary may differ by 1% or 2 % from those shown in the
comparison data, as the comparator data have been weighted for comparison purposes.
HMP Wellingborough
103
Summary of prisoner survey results
Section 1: About You
In order for us to ensure that everyone is treated equally within this prison, we ask that you
fill in the following information about yourself. This will allow us to look at the answers
provided by different groups of people in order to detect discrimination and to investigate
whether there are equal opportunities for all across all areas of prison life. Your responses
to these questions will remain both anonymous and confidential.
Q1.1
What wing or houseblock are you currently living on?
Q1.2
How old are you?
Under 21 .............................................................................................................................................. 1%
21 - 29 ................................................................................................................................................... 46%
30 - 39 ................................................................................................................................................... 33%
40 - 49 ................................................................................................................................................... 16%
50 - 59 ................................................................................................................................................... 3%
60 - 69 ................................................................................................................................................... 1%
70 and over......................................................................................................................................... 0%
Q1.3
Are you sentenced?
Yes ..........................................................................................................................................................
Yes - on recall ....................................................................................................................................
No - awaiting trial ..............................................................................................................................
No - awaiting sentence ..................................................................................................................
No - awaiting deportation ..............................................................................................................
91%
9%
0%
0%
0%
Q1.4
How long is your sentence?
Not sentenced ................................................................................................................................. 0%
Less than 6 months ........................................................................................................................ 3%
6 months to less than 1 year ...................................................................................................... 4%
1 year to less than 2 years .......................................................................................................... 13%
2 years to less than 4 years ....................................................................................................... 30%
4 years to less than 10 years ..................................................................................................... 34%
10 years or more .............................................................................................................................. 6%
IPP (Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection) ....................................................... 2%
Life .......................................................................................................................................................... 9%
Q1.5
Approximately, how long do you have left to serve (if you are serving life or IPP,
please use the date of your next board)?
Not sentenced ................................................................................................................................. 0%
6 months or less ............................................................................................................................... 44%
More than 6 months ....................................................................................................................... 56%
Q1.6
How long have you been in this prison?
Less than 1 month .......................................................................................................................... 6%
1 to less than 3 months ................................................................................................................ 13%
3 months to less than 6 months ............................................................................................... 17%
6 months to less than 12 months ............................................................................................. 25%
12 months to less than 2 years ................................................................................................. 20%
2 years to less 4 years .................................................................................................................. 10%
4 years or more ................................................................................................................................ 8%
Q1.7
Are you a foreign national? (i.e. do not hold UK citizenship)
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 17%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 83%
Q1.8
Is English your first language?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 85%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 15%
Q1.9
What is your ethnic origin?
White - British ........................................... 50% Asian or Asian British Bangladeshi ...............................................
White - Irish ............................................... 3% Asian or Asian British - Other............
White - Other ............................................ 6% Mixed Race - White and Black
Caribbean ...................................................
Black or Black British - Caribbean .. 15% Mixed Race - White and Black
African ..........................................................
Black or Black British - African ......... 8% Mixed Race - White and Asian .........
Black or Black British - Other ............ 3% Mixed Race - Other................................
Asian or Asian British - Indian .......... 1% Chinese .......................................................
Asian or Asian British - Pakistani .... 4% Other ethnic group .................................
Q1.10
Q1.11
Q1.12
Q1.13
What is your religion?
None .............................................................
Church of England .................................
Catholic .......................................................
Protestant ...................................................
Other Christian denomination ...........
Buddhist ......................................................
28%
25%
21%
1%
5%
1%
3%
1%
4%
0%
0%
0%
3%
1%
Hindu ............................................................ 0%
Jewish .......................................................... 0%
Muslim .......................................................... 19%
Sikh ................................................................ 0%
Other ............................................................. 1%
How would you describe your sexual orientation?
Heterosexual/ Straight....................................................................................................................
Homosexual/Gay ..............................................................................................................................
Bisexual .................................................................................................................................................
Other .......................................................................................................................................................
99%
0%
1%
0%
Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 11%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 89%
How many times have you been in prison before?
0
1
2 to 5
30%
14%
38%
More than 5
18%
Q1.14 Including this prison, how many prisons have you been in during this
sentence/remand time?
1
2 to 5
More than 5
5%
79%
17%
Q1.15
Do you have any children under the age of 18?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 60%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 40%
Section 2: Courts, transfers and escorts
Q2.1
We want to know about the most recent journey you have made either to or from
court or between prisons? How was ...
Very
good
The cleanliness of the van
Your personal safety during the
journey
The comfort of the van
The attention paid to your health
needs
The frequency of toilet breaks
Q2.2
Q2.3
Q2.4
Don't
remember
Good Neither
Bad
Very
Bad
4%
3%
48%
53%
11%
16%
19%
13%
10%
8%
6%
5%
2%
2%
3%
4%
11%
25%
15%
23%
33%
22%
35%
15%
3%
5%
1%
6%
2%
5%
13%
21%
38%
4%
17%
How long did you spend in the van?
Less than 1 Over 1 hour to Over 2 hours to
hour
2 hours
4 hours
11%
40%
38%
More than 4 hours
Don't remember
9%
2%
How did you feel you were treated by the escort staff?
Very well
Well
Neither
Badly
Very badly
9%
52%
27%
6%
4%
Don't remember
2%
Please answer the following questions about when you first arrived here:
Yes
No
Did you know where you were going when you left court or
when transferred from another prison?
Before you arrived here did you receive any written
information about what would happen to you?
When you first arrived here did your property arrive at the
same time as you?
N/A
Don't
remember
82%
16%
2%
11%
83%
6%
82%
17%
1%
Section 3: Reception, first night and induction
Q3.1
In the first 24 hours, did staff ask you if you needed help or support with the
following? (Please tick all that apply to you)
Loss of property....................................... 14% Feeling depressed or suicidal ........... 51%
Housing problems .................................. 25% Health problems ...................................... 83%
20%
Contacting employers........................... 10% Needing protection from other
prisoners .....................................................
Contacting family .................................... 45% Accessing phone numbers ................. 46%
Ensuring dependants were being 7% Other ............................................................. 4%
looked after ................................................
Money worries .......................................... 16%
Q3.2
Did you have any of the following problems when you first arrived here? (Please
tick all that apply)
Didn't have any problems ............... 26% Money worries .......................................... 28%
Loss of property....................................... 22% Feeling depressed or suicidal ........... 16%
Housing problems .................................. 20% Health problems ...................................... 27%
6%
Contacting employers........................... 2% Needing protection from other
prisoners .....................................................
Contacting family .................................... 25% Accessing phone numbers ................. 19%
Ensuring dependants were looked 11% Other ............................................................. 2%
after ...............................................................
Q3.3
Q3.4
Please answer the following questions about reception:
Yes
Were you seen by a member of health
94%
services?
When you were searched, was this carried out
81%
in a respectful way?
No
5%
13%
Overall, how well did you feel you were treated in reception?
Very well
Well
Neither
Badly
Very badly
14%
54%
23%
5%
5%
Don't remember
1%
6%
Don't remember
0%
Q3.5
On your day of arrival, were you offered information on the following? (Please tick
all that apply)
Information about what was going to happen to you...................................................... 54%
Information about what support was available for people feeling depressed 40%
or suicidal ............................................................................................................................................
Information about how to make routine requests ............................................................. 42%
Information about your entitlement to visits ........................................................................ 46%
Information about health services .......................................................................................... 59%
Information about the chaplaincy ............................................................................................. 51%
Not offered anything ................................................................................................................... 27%
Q3.6
On your day of arrival, were you offered any of the following? (Please tick all that
apply)
A smokers/non-smokers pack ................................................................................................... 89%
The opportunity to have a shower ........................................................................................... 23%
The opportunity to make a free telephone call .................................................................. 25%
Something to eat .............................................................................................................................. 82%
Did not receive anything .......................................................................................................... 1%
Q3.7
Did you meet any of the following people within the first 24 hours of your arrival at
this prison? (Please tick all that apply)
Chaplain or religious leader ........................................................................................................ 34%
Someone from health services ................................................................................................. 83%
A listener/Samaritans .................................................................................................................... 9%
Did not meet any of these people ....................................................................................... 14%
Q3.8
Did you have access to the prison shop/canteen within the first 24 hours of your
arrival at this prison?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 26%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 74%
Q3.9
Did you feel safe on your first night here?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 76%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 21%
Don't remember ................................................................................................................................ 4%
Q3.10
How soon after your arrival did you go on an induction course?
Have not been on an induction course ........................................................................... 8%
Within the first week ....................................................................................................................... 50%
More than a week ............................................................................................................................ 40%
Don't remember ................................................................................................................................ 2%
Q3.11
Did the induction course cover everything you needed to know about the prison?
Have not been on an induction course ........................................................................... 8%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 56%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 31%
Don't remember ................................................................................................................................ 4%
Section 4: Legal rights and respectful custody
Q4.1
How easy is to?
Communicate with your
solicitor or legal
representative?
Attend legal visits?
Obtain bail information?
Very
easy
13%
Easy
Neither
Difficult
19%
Very
difficult
14%
29%
12%
7%
3%
28%
11%
12%
12%
N/A
13%
10%
9%
21%
11%
21%
54%
Q4.2
Have staff here ever opened letters from your solicitor or your legal representative
when you were not with them?
Not had any letters ....................................................................................................................... 11%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 54%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 35%
Q4.3
Please answer the following questions about the wing/unit you are currently living
on:
Yes
No Don't N/A
know
Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for 39% 40%
2% 18%
the week?
Are you normally able to have a shower every day?
95%
5%
0%
0%
Do you normally receive clean sheets every week?
66% 25%
1%
8%
Do you normally get cell cleaning materials every week?
73% 26%
0%
1%
Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes? 38% 46% 12%
4%
Is it normally quiet enough for you to be able to relax or
65% 32%
1%
2%
sleep in your cell at night time?
Can you normally get your stored property, if you need to? 31% 40% 25%
4%
Q4.4
What is the food like here?
Very good
Good
1%
12%
Neither
17%
Bad
30%
Very bad
41%
Q4.5
Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs?
Have not bought anything yet ............................................................................................... 4%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 39%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 56%
Q4.6
Is it easy or difficult to get either
Very easy
Easy
Neither
Difficult
A complaint form
An application form
47%
47%
7%
9%
5%
4%
Q4.7
36%
38%
Very
difficult
2%
1%
Don't
know
3%
1%
Have you made an application?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 89%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 11%
Q4.8
Please answer the following questions concerning applications (If you have not
made an application please tick the 'not made one' option)
Not made
Yes
No
one
Do you feel applications are dealt with fairly?
11%
39%
50%
Do you feel applications are dealt with promptly? (within
11%
32%
56%
seven days)
Q4.9
Have you made a complaint?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 58%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 42%
Q4.10
Please answer the following questions concerning complaints (If you have not
made a complaint please tick the 'not made one' option)
Not made
Yes
No
one
Do you feel complaints are dealt with fairly?
41%
14%
46%
Do you feel complaints are dealt with promptly? (within
42%
22%
36%
seven days)
Were you given information about how to make an
31%
28%
41%
appeal?
Q4.11
Have you ever been made to or encouraged to withdraw a complaint since you
have been in this prison?
Not made a complaint ................................................................................................................ 41%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 21%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 39%
Q4.12
How easy or difficult is it for you to see the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB)?
Don't know who Very easy
Easy
Neither
Difficult
Very difficult
they are
32%
Q4.13
1%
15%
28%
6%
Please answer the following questions about your religious beliefs?
Yes
No
Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected?
Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in
private if you want to?
Q4.14 Can you speak to a listener at any time, if you want to?
Yes
No
47%
5%
Q4.15
18%
50%
54%
Don' t
know/ N/A
16%
9%
34%
37%
Don't know
49%
Please answer the following questions about staff in this prison?
Yes
Is there a member of staff you can turn to for help if you
72%
have a problem?
Do most staff treat you with respect?
76%
No
28%
24%
Section 5: Safety
Q5.1
Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison?
Yes ............................................................... 48%
No.................................................................. 52%
Q5.2
Do you feel unsafe in this prison at the moment?
Yes ............................................................... 28%
No.................................................................. 72%
Q5.3
In which areas of this prison do you/have you ever felt unsafe? (Please tick all that
apply)
Never felt unsafe .................................. 54% At meal times ............................................ 9%
Everywhere................................................ 16% At health services ................................... 6%
Segregation unit ...................................... 6% Visit's area .................................................. 5%
Association areas ................................... 20% In wing showers ....................................... 17%
Reception area ........................................ 2% In gym showers........................................ 9%
At the gym .................................................. 12% In corridors/stairwells ............................ 16%
In an exercise yard ................................ 19% On your landing/wing ............................ 15%
At work ......................................................... 5% In your cell .................................................. 8%
During Movement ................................... 21% At religious services............................... 2%
At education .............................................. 3%
Q5.4
Have you been victimised by another prisoner or group of prisoners here?
Yes ............................................................... 25%
No.................................................................. 75% If No, go to question 5.6
Q5.5
If yes, what did the incident(s) involve/what was it about? (Please tick all that
apply)
15% Because you were new here ............. 4%
Insulting remarks (about you or
your family or friends) ...........................
Physical abuse (being hit, kicked 9% Because of your sexuality................... 0%
or assaulted) .............................................
Sexual abuse ............................................ 0% Because you have a disability .......... 0%
3% Because of your religion/religious 4%
Because of your race or ethnic
origin .............................................................
beliefs ...........................................................
8%
Because of drugs.................................... 9% Being from a different part of the
country than others ................................
8% Because of your offence/ crime ....... 0%
Having your canteen/property
taken .............................................................
Q5.6
Have you been victimised by a member of staff or group of staff here?
Yes ............................................................... 24%
No.................................................................. 76% If No, go to question 5.8
Q5.7
If yes, what did the incident(s) involve/what was it about? (Please tick all that
apply)
8% Because of your sexuality................... 1%
Insulting remarks (about you or
your family or friends) ...........................
Physical abuse (being hit, kicked 2% Because you have a disability .......... 2%
or assaulted) .............................................
Sexual abuse ............................................ 2% Because of your religion/religious 4%
beliefs ...........................................................
8% Being from a different part of the
5%
Because of your race or ethnic
origin .............................................................
country than others ................................
Because of drugs.................................... 5% Because of your offence/ crime ....... 3%
Because you were new here............. 4%
Q5.8
If you have been victimised by prisoners or staff, did you report it?
Not been victimised ..................................................................................................................... 66%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 14%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 19%
Q5.9
Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by another prisoner/group of
prisoners in here?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 33%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 67%
Q5.10
Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by a member of staff/group of staff in
here?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 20%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 80%
Q5.11
Is it easy or difficult to get illegal drugs in this prison?
Very easy
Easy
Neither
Difficult
Very difficult
32%
10%
7%
1%
8%
Don't know
41%
Section 6: Health services
Q6.1
How easy or difficult is it to see the following people:
Don't
Very easy
Easy
Neither
know
The doctor
12%
6%
30%
13%
The nurse
15%
11%
52%
7%
The dentist
9%
4%
16%
9%
The optician
29%
4%
16%
13%
Difficult
29%
12%
30%
22%
Very
difficult
10%
3%
31%
17%
Q6.2
Are you able to see a pharmacist?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 47%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 53%
Q6.3
What do you think of the quality of the health service from the following people:
Not been Very good
Good
Neither
Bad
Very bad
The doctor
17%
7%
21%
16%
20%
20%
The nurse
14%
22%
40%
12%
7%
5%
The dentist
29%
16%
15%
15%
12%
13%
The optician
44%
7%
15%
18%
9%
8%
Q6.4
What do you think of the overall quality of the health services here?
Not been
Very good
Good
Neither
Bad
9%
10%
25%
22%
19%
Very bad
14%
Q6.5
Are you currently taking medication?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 43%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 57%
Q6.6
If you are taking medication, are you allowed to keep possession of your
medication in your own cell?
Not taking medication ................................................................................................................ 57%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 35%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 8%
Q6.7
Do you feel you have any emotional well being/ mental health issues?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 32%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 68%
Q6.8
Are your emotional well-being/ mental health issues being addressed by any of
the following? (Please tick all that apply)
Do not have any emotional well being/ mental health issues ........................... 77%
Doctor .................................................................................................................................................... 9%
Nurse ..................................................................................................................................................... 8%
Psychiatrist ......................................................................................................................................... 5%
Mental Health In Reach team .................................................................................................... 10%
Counsellor ........................................................................................................................................... 3%
Other ...................................................................................................................................................... 5%
Q6.9
Did you have a problem with either of the following when you came into this
prison?
Yes
No
Drugs
35%
65%
Alcohol
15%
85%
Q6.10
Have you developed a problem with either of the following since you have been in
this prison?
Yes
No
Drugs
16%
84%
Alcohol
1%
99%
Q6.11
Do you know who to contact in this prison to get help with your drug or alcohol
problem?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 36%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 9%
Did not / do not have a drug or alcohol problem....................................................... 56%
Q6.12
Have you received any intervention or help (including, CARATs, Health Services
etc.) for your drug/alcohol problem, whilst in this prison?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 30%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 14%
Did not / do not have a drug or alcohol problem....................................................... 56%
Q6.13
Was the intervention or help you received, whilst in this prison, helpful?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 19%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 10%
Did not have a problem/Have not received help ........................................................ 70%
Q6.14
Do you think you will have a problem with either of the following when you leave
this prison?
Yes
No
Don't
know
Drugs
12%
73%
14%
Alcohol
9%
83%
9%
Q6.15
Do you know who in this prison can help you contact external drug or alcohol
agencies on release?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 22%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 11%
N/A .......................................................................................................................................................... 67%
Section 7: Purposeful Activity
Q7.1
Are you currently involved in any of the following activities? (Please tick all that
apply)
Prison job............................................................................................................................................. 56%
Vocational or skills training ......................................................................................................... 25%
Education (including basic skills) ............................................................................................. 61%
Offending behaviour programmes ........................................................................................... 17%
Q7.2
If you have been involved in any of the following, whilst in prison, do you think it
will help you on release?
Not been
Yes
No
Don't know
involved
Prison job
22%
32%
38%
9%
Vocational or skills training
33%
41%
20%
6%
Education (including basic skills)
21%
56%
17%
6%
Offending behaviour programmes
28%
52%
14%
6%
Q7.3
How often do you go to the library?
Don't want to go............................................................................................................................. 14%
Never ..................................................................................................................................................... 16%
Less than once a week ................................................................................................................. 23%
About once a week ......................................................................................................................... 40%
More than once a week ................................................................................................................ 3%
Don't know .......................................................................................................................................... 4%
Q7.4
On average how many times do you go to the gym each week?
Don't want to
0
1
2
3 to 5
More than 5
go
18%
Q7.5
18%
6%
7%
46%
4%
Don't know
2%
On average how many times do you go outside for exercise each week?
Don't want to go
Don't know
0
1 to 2
3 to 5
More than 5
12%
16%
28%
21%
20%
3%
Q7.6
On average how many hours do you spend out of your cell on a weekday? (Please
include hours at education, at work etc)
Less than 2 hours ............................................................................................................................ 21%
2 to less than 4 hours .................................................................................................................... 27%
4 to less than 6 hours .................................................................................................................... 12%
6 to less than 8 hours .................................................................................................................... 15%
8 to less than 10 hours.................................................................................................................. 13%
10 hours or more ............................................................................................................................. 9%
Don't know .......................................................................................................................................... 2%
Q7.7
On average, how many times do you have association each week?
Don't want to go
0
1 to 2
3 to 5
More than 5
1%
3%
5%
15%
75%
Q7.8
Don't know
2%
How often do staff normally speak to you during association time?
Do not go on association ......................................................................................................... 5%
Never ..................................................................................................................................................... 20%
Rarely .................................................................................................................................................... 19%
Some of the time .............................................................................................................................. 38%
Most of the time ................................................................................................................................ 16%
All of the time ..................................................................................................................................... 3%
Section 8: Resettlement
Q8.1
When did you first meet your personal officer?
Still have not met him/her ........................................................................................................ 31%
In the first week ................................................................................................................................ 22%
More than a week ............................................................................................................................ 33%
Don't remember ................................................................................................................................ 14%
Q8.2
How helpful do you think your personal officer is?
Do not have a Very helpful
Helpful
Neither
personal officer
30%
9%
28%
12%
Not very helpful
8%
Not at all
helpful
12%
Q8.3
Do you have a sentence plan/OASys?
Not sentenced ................................................................................................................................. 0%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 64%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 36%
Q8.4
How involved were you in the development of your sentence plan?
Do not have a sentence plan/OASys ................................................................................ 36%
Very involved ..................................................................................................................................... 14%
Involved ................................................................................................................................................ 25%
Neither .................................................................................................................................................. 3%
Not very involved ............................................................................................................................. 9%
Not at all involved ............................................................................................................................ 13%
Q8.5
Can you achieve all or some of your sentence plan targets in this prison?
Do not have a sentence plan/OASys ................................................................................ 37%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 38%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 26%
Q8.6
Are there plans for you to achieve all/some of your sentence plan targets in
another prison?
Do not have a sentence plan/OASys ................................................................................ 37%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 19%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 44%
Q8.7
Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to address your offending
behaviour whilst at this prison?
Not sentenced ................................................................................................................................. 0%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 19%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 81%
Q8.8
Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to prepare for your release?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 9%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 91%
Q8.9
Have you had any problems with sending or receiving mail?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 37%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 54%
Don't know .......................................................................................................................................... 8%
Q8.10
Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones?
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 16%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 82%
Don't know .......................................................................................................................................... 2%
Q8.11
Did you have a visit in the first week that you were here?
Not been here a week yet ......................................................................................................... 1%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 21%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 71%
Don't remember ................................................................................................................................ 7%
Q8.12
Does this prison give you the opportunity to have the visits you are entitled to?
(e.g. number and length of visit)
Don't know what my entitlement is .................................................................................... 13%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 65%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 23%
Q8.13
How many visits did you receive in the last week?
Not been in a
0
1 to 2
3 to 4
5 or more
2%
0%
week
1%
Q8.14
68%
29%
Have you been helped to maintain contact with your family/friends whilst in this
prison?
39%
Yes .........................................................................................................................................................
61%
No ...........................................................................................................................................................
Q8.15
Do you know who to contact to get help with the following within this prison:
(please tick all that apply)
Maintaining good relationships ........ 26% Claiming benefits on release ............. 51%
28%
Avoiding bad relationships ................. 16% Arranging a place at
college/continuing education on
release .........................................................
26%
Finding a job on release ...................... 70% Continuity of health services on
release .........................................................
58% Opening a bank account ..................... 19%
Finding accommodation on
release .........................................................
33%
Help with your finances in
preparation for release .........................
Q8.16
Do you think you will have a problem with any of the following on release from
prison? (please tick all that apply)
Maintaining good relationships ........ 30% Claiming benefits on release ............. 37%
29%
Avoiding bad relationships ................. 24% Arranging a place at
college/continuing education on
release .........................................................
29%
Finding a job on release ...................... 71% Continuity of health services on
release .........................................................
51% Opening a bank account ..................... 46%
Finding accommodation on
release .........................................................
47%
Help with your finances in
preparation for release .........................
Q8.17
Have you done anything, or has anything happened to you here that you think will
make you less likely to offend in the future?
Not sentenced ................................................................................................................................. 0%
Yes ......................................................................................................................................................... 56%
No............................................................................................................................................................ 44%
Thank you for completing this survey
Prisoner Survey Responses HMP Wellingborough2008
Prisoner Survey Responses (Missing data has been excluded for each question) Please note: Where there are apparently large differences, which are not indicated as
statistically significant, this is likely to be due to chance.
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
Number of completed questionnaires returned
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners' background details
HMP Wellingborough
(excluding lifers)
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
HMP Wellingborough
Key to tables
112
3716
101
3716
1%
1%
1%
1%
SECTION 1: General Information
2 Are you under 21 years of age?
3a Are you sentenced?
100% 100%
100% 100%
3b Are you on recall?
9%
8%
9%
8%
4a Is your sentence less than 12 months?
6%
7%
7%
7%
4b Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)?
2%
1%
2%
1%
5 Do you have six months or less to serve?
44%
37%
48%
37%
6 Have you been in this prison less than a month?
6%
7 Are you a foreign national?
17%
14%
19%
14%
8 Is English your first language?
85%
89%
85%
89%
Are you from a minority ethnic group? (including all those who did not tick White British, White Irish
9
or White other categories)
41%
27%
43%
27%
10 Are you Muslim?
19%
12%
19%
12%
11 Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual?
1%
5%
0%
5%
12 Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
11%
15%
9%
15%
13 Is this your first time in prison?
30%
35%
28%
35%
14 Have you been in more than 5 prisons this time?
17%
15 Do you have any children under the age of 18?
60%
55%
65%
55%
1a Was the cleanliness of the van good/very good?
51%
51%
54%
51%
1b Was your personal safety during the journey good/very good?
56%
61%
56%
61%
1c Was the comfort of the van good/very good?
14%
20%
15%
20%
1d Was the attention paid to your health needs good/very good?
29%
33%
31%
33%
1e Was the frequency of toilet breaks good/very good?
7%
15%
7%
15%
2 Did you spend more than four hours in the van?
9%
9%
8%
9%
3 Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff?
61%
69%
62%
69%
4a Did you know where you were going when you left court or when transferred from another prison?
82%
82%
83%
82%
4b Before you arrived here did you receive any written information about what would happen to you?
11%
17%
11%
17%
4c When you first arrived here did your property arrive at the same time as you?
82%
87%
83%
87%
7%
12%
SECTION 2: Transfers and Escorts
For the most recent journey you have made either to or from court or between prisons:
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners' background details
HMP Wellingborough
(excluding lifers)
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
HMP Wellingborough
Key to tables
SECTION 3: Reception, first night and induction
1 In the first 24 hours, did staff ask you if you needed help/support with the following:
1a Problems with loss of property?
15%
14%
1b Housing problems?
25%
26%
1c Problems contacting employers?
10%
10%
1d Problems contacting family?
45%
47%
1e Problems ensuring dependants were looked after?
7%
7%
1f Money problems?
16%
18%
1g Problems of feeling depressed/suicidal?
51%
51%
1h Health problems?
83%
82%
1i Problems in needing protection from other prisoners?
21%
21%
1j Problems accessing phone numbers?
46%
47%
2 When you first arrived:
2a Did you have any problems?
74%
56%
75%
56%
2b Did you have any problems with loss of property?
23%
12%
22%
12%
2c Did you have any housing problems?
20%
14%
22%
14%
2d Did you have any problems contacting employers?
2%
3%
3%
3%
2e Did you have any problems contacting family?
25%
19%
25%
19%
2f Did you have any problems ensuring dependants were being looked after?
11%
5%
12%
5%
2g Did you have any money worries?
28%
16%
31%
16%
2h Did you have any problems with feeling depressed or suicidal?
16%
13%
16%
13%
2i Did you have any health problems?
27%
16%
28%
16%
2j Did you have any problems with needing protection from other prisoners?
6%
4%
6%
4%
2k Did you have problems accessing phone numbers?
19%
3a Were you seen by a member of health services in reception?
94%
88%
93%
88%
3b When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way?
81%
72%
80%
72%
69%
71%
67%
71%
5a Information about what was going to happen to you?
54%
51%
57%
51%
5b Information about what support was available for people feeling depressed or suicidal?
40%
44%
40%
44%
5c Information about how to make routine requests?
42%
37%
43%
37%
5d Information about your entitlement to visits?
46%
45%
48%
45%
5e Information about health services?
59%
61%
5f Information about the chaplaincy?
51%
53%
4 Were you treated well/very well in reception?
19%
5 On your day of arrival, were offered any of the following information:
Key to tables
HMP Wellingborough
Cat C training prisons
comparator
HMP Wellingborough
(excluding lifers)
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
6a A smokers/non-smokers pack?
89%
78%
89%
78%
6b The opportunity to have a shower?
23%
44%
22%
44%
6c The opportunity to make a free telephone call?
25%
48%
23%
48%
6d Something to eat?
82%
77%
81%
77%
7a The chaplain or a religious leader?
34%
52%
34%
52%
7b Someone from health services?
83%
72%
82%
72%
7c A listener/Samaritans?
9%
35%
10%
35%
8 Did you have access to the prison shop/canteen within the first 24 hours?
26%
27%
29%
27%
9 Did you feel safe on your first night here?
76%
85%
75%
85%
10 Have you been on an induction course?
92%
94%
93%
94%
62%
64%
65%
64%
1a Communicate with your solicitor or legal representative?
42%
49%
41%
49%
1b Attend legal visits?
35%
56%
34%
56%
1c Obtain bail information?
14%
20%
16%
20%
54%
40%
53%
40%
3a Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week?
39%
63%
44%
63%
3b Are you normally able to have a shower every day?
96%
92%
95%
92%
3c Do you normally receive clean sheets every week?
66%
84%
72%
84%
3d Do you normally get cell cleaning materials every week?
73%
75%
73%
75%
3e Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes?
38%
42%
38%
42%
3f Is it normally quiet enough for you to be able to relax or sleep in your cell at night time?
65%
70%
64%
70%
3g Can you normally get your stored property, if you need to?
31%
32%
31%
32%
4 Is the food in this prison good/very good?
13%
33%
14%
33%
5 Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs?
39%
48%
39%
48%
6a Is it easy/very easy to get a complaints form?
83%
86%
85%
86%
6b Is it easy/very easy to get an application form?
85%
90%
89%
90%
89%
83%
89%
83%
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners' background details
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
SECTION 3: Reception, first night and induction continued
6 On your day of arrival, were you offered any of the following:
7 Within the first 24 hours did you meet any of the following people:
For those who have been on an induction course:
11
Did the course cover everything you needed to know about the prison?
SECTION 4: Legal Rights and Respectful Custody
1
In terms of your legal rights, is it easy/very easy to:
Have staff ever opened letters from your solicitor or legal representative when you were not with
2
them?
3 For the wing/unit you are currently on:
7 Have you made an application?
Key to tables
HMP Wellingborough
Cat C training prisons
comparator
HMP Wellingborough
(excluding lifers)
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
8a
Do you feel applications are dealt with fairly?
44%
59%
46%
59%
8b
Do you feel applications are dealt with promptly? (within 7 days)
36%
53%
37%
53%
58%
58%
57%
58%
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners' background details
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
SECTION 4: Legal Rights and Respectful Custody continued
For those who have made an application:
9 Have you made a complaint?
For those who have made a complaint:
10a
Do you feel complaints are dealt with fairly?
23%
36%
24%
36%
10b
Do you feel complaints are dealt with promptly? (within 7 days)
38%
39%
36%
39%
Have you ever been made to or encouraged to withdraw a complaint since you have
been in this prison?
35%
24%
34%
24%
10c Were you given information about how to make an appeal?
28%
34%
29%
34%
12 Is it easy/very easy to see the Independent Monitoring Board?
16%
42%
15%
42%
13a Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected?
50%
55%
52%
55%
13b Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to?
54%
59%
54%
59%
14 Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time, if you want to?
47%
67%
48%
67%
15a Is there a member of staff, in this prison, that you can turn to for help if you have a problem?
72%
72%
73%
72%
15b Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect?
76%
75%
75%
75%
1 Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison?
48%
27%
50%
27%
2 Do you feel unsafe in this prison at the moment?
28%
15%
29%
15%
4 Have you been victimised by another prisoner?
25%
19%
25%
19%
5a Made insulting remarks made about you, your family or friends?
15%
10%
15%
10%
5b Hit, kicked or assaulted you?
10%
5%
9%
5%
5c Sexually abused you?
0%
1%
0%
1%
5d Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin?
3%
4%
2%
4%
5e Victimised you because of drugs?
10%
2%
10%
2%
5f Taken your canteen/property?
8%
3%
8%
3%
5g Victimised you because you were new here?
4%
4%
4%
4%
5h Victimised you because of your sexuality?
0%
1%
0%
1%
5i Victimised you because you have a disability?
0%
2%
0%
2%
5j Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs?
4%
3%
3%
3%
5k Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country?
9%
4%
8%
4%
5l Victimised you because of your offence/crime?
0%
11
SECTION 5: Safety
5 Since you have been here, has another prisoner:
0%
Key to tables
HMP Wellingborough
Cat C training prisons
comparator
HMP Wellingborough
(excluding lifers)
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
24%
20%
23%
20%
7a Made insulting remarks made about you, your family or friends?
9%
10%
8%
10%
7b Hit, kicked or assaulted you?
2%
2%
2%
2%
7c Sexually abused you?
2%
1%
2%
1%
7d Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin?
9%
4%
6%
4%
7e Victimised you because of drugs?
5%
3%
5%
3%
7f Victimised you because you were new here?
4%
4%
3%
4%
7g Victimised you because of your sexuality?
1%
1%
1%
1%
7h Victimised you because you have a disability?
2%
2%
2%
2%
7i Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs?
4%
3%
3%
3%
7j Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country?
5%
4%
5%
4%
7k Victimised you because of your offence/crime?
3%
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners' background details
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
SECTION 5: Safety continued
6 Have you been victimised by a member of staff?
7 Since you have been here, has a member of staff:
3%
For those who have been victimised by staff or other prisoners:
8
Did you report any victimisation that you have experienced?
43%
38%
41%
38%
9 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by another prisoner/ group of prisoners in here?
33%
21%
32%
21%
10 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by a member of staff in here?
20%
17%
19%
17%
11 Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison?
42%
30%
41%
30%
SECTION 6: Healthcare
1a Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor?
36%
39%
1b Is it easy/very easy to see the nurse?
63%
62%
1c Is it easy/very easy to see the dentist?
20%
22%
1d Is it easy/very easy to see the optician?
20%
22%
47%
47%
2 Are you able to see a pharmacist?
For those who have been to the following services, do you think the quality of the health service from
the following is good/very good:
3a
The doctor?
34%
54%
35%
54%
3b
The nurse?
73%
67%
72%
67%
3c
The dentist?
45%
47%
44%
47%
3d
The optician?
39%
50%
38%
50%
The overall quality of health services?
39%
49%
42%
49%
4
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners' background details
HMP Wellingborough
(excluding lifers)
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
HMP Wellingborough
Key to tables
43%
41%
43%
41%
81%
92%
79%
92%
Healthcare continued
5 Are you currently taking medication?
For those currently taking medication:
6
Are you allowed to keep possession of your medication in your own cell?
7 Do you feel you have any emotional well being/mental health issues?
33%
30%
For those with emotional well being/mental health issues, are these being addressed by any of the
following:
8a
A doctor?
38%
47%
8b
A nurse?
33%
41%
8c
A psychiatrist?
24%
24%
8d
The Mental Health In-Reach Team?
43%
47%
8e
A counsellor?
14%
12%
9a Did you have a drug problem when you came into this prison?
35%
12%
39%
12%
9b Did you have an alcohol problem when you came into this prison?
15%
5%
17%
5%
10a Have you developed a drug problem since you have been in this prison?
16%
15%
10b Have you developed an alcohol problem since you have been in this prison?
1%
1%
For those with drug or alcohol problems:
11
Do you know who to contact in this prison for help?
80%
79%
12
Have you received any help or intervention whilst in this prison?
68%
70%
65%
67%
For those who have received help or intervention with their drug or alcohol problem:
13
Was this intervention or help useful?
14a Do you think you will have a problem with drugs when you leave this prison? (Yes/don't know)
27%
23%
27%
23%
14b Do you think you will have a problem with alcohol when you leave this prison? (Yes/don't know)
17%
16%
18%
16%
66%
51%
67%
51%
For those who may have a drug or alcohol problem on release, do you know who in this prison:
15
Can help you contact external drug or alcohol agencies on release?
SECTION 7: Purposeful Activity
1
Are you currently involved in any of the following activities:
1a A prison job?
56%
54%
1b Vocational or skills training?
25%
27%
1c Education (including basic skills)?
61%
64%
1d Offending Behaviour Programmes?
17%
19%
Key to tables
HMP Wellingborough
Cat C training prisons
comparator
HMP Wellingborough
(excluding lifers)
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
79%
85%
75%
85%
40%
43%
37%
43%
67%
73%
65%
73%
61%
55%
59%
55%
79%
80%
79%
80%
71%
62%
70%
62%
72%
69%
68%
69%
72%
52%
71%
52%
3 Do you go to the library at least once a week?
43%
48%
42%
48%
4 On average, do you go to the gym at least twice a week?
57%
56%
58%
56%
5 On average, do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week?
41%
49%
42%
49%
6 On average, do you spend ten or more hours out of your cell on a weekday?
9%
19%
8%
19%
7 On average, do you go on association more than five times each week?
75%
74%
75%
74%
8 Do staff normally speak to you most of the time/all of the time during association?
19%
19%
19%
19%
69%
71%
65%
71%
54%
65%
52%
65%
64%
59%
60%
59%
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners' background details
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
Purposeful Activity continued
2ai Have you had a job whilst in prison?
For those who have had a prison job whilst in prison:
2aii
Do you feel the job will help you on release?
2bi Have you been involved in vocational or skills training whilst in prison?
For those who have had vocational or skills training whilst in prison:
2bii
Do you feel the vocational or skills training will help you on release?
2ci Have you been involved in education whilst in prison?
For those who have been involved in education whilst in prison:
2cii
Do you feel the education will help you on release?
2di Have you been involved in offending behaviour programmes whilst in prison?
For those who have been involved in offending behaviour programmes whilst in prison:
2dii
Do you feel the offending behaviour programme(s) will help you on release?
SECTION 8: Resettlement
1 Do you have a personal officer?
For those with a personal officer:
2
Do you think your personal officer is helpful/very helpful?
For those who are sentenced:
3
Do you have a sentence plan?
For those with a sentence plan?
4
Were you involved/very involved in the development of your plan?
61%
66%
61%
66%
5
Can you achieve some/all of you sentence plan targets in this prison?
59%
69%
59%
69%
6
Are there plans for you to achieve some/all your targets in another prison?
30%
35%
30%
35%
19%
30%
16%
30%
8 Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to prepare for release?
9%
18%
9%
18%
9 Have you had any problems with sending or receiving mail?
37%
37%
36%
37%
10 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones?
16%
22%
17%
22%
11 Did you have a visit in the first week that you were here?
21%
25%
22%
25%
Does this prison give you the opportunity to have the visits you are entitled to? (e.g. number and
12
length of visit)
65%
69%
65%
69%
For those who are sentenced:
Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you address your offending behaviour
7
whilst at this prison?
Key to tables
HMP Wellingborough
Cat C training prisons
comparator
HMP Wellingborough
(excluding lifers)
Cat C training prisons
comparator
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
13 Did you receive one or more visits in the last week?
31%
29%
31%
29%
14 Have you been helped to maintain contact with family/friends whilst in this prison?
40%
40%
15a Maintaining good relationships?
26%
27%
15b Avoiding bad relationships?
16%
17%
15c Finding a job on release?
70%
51%
68%
51%
15d Finding accommodation on release?
58%
51%
59%
51%
15e With money/finances on release?
33%
39%
34%
39%
15f Claiming benefits on release?
51%
50%
51%
50%
15g Arranging a place at college/continuing education on release?
28%
40%
27%
40%
15h Accessing health services on release?
26%
45%
27%
45%
15i Opening a bank account on release?
19%
36%
20%
36%
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners' background details
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
Resettlement continued
15 Do you know who to contact within this prison to get help with the following:
16 Do you think you will have a problem with any of the following on release from prison?
16a Maintaining good relationships?
30%
32%
16b Avoiding bad relationships?
24%
26%
16c Finding a job?
72%
45%
69%
45%
16d Finding accommodation?
51%
43%
53%
43%
16e Money/finances?
47%
50%
52%
50%
16f Claiming benefits?
37%
33%
37%
33%
16g Arranging a place at college/continuing education?
29%
31%
32%
31%
16h Accessing health services?
29%
22%
28%
22%
16i Opening a bank account?
46%
40%
49%
40%
56%
57%
54%
57%
For those who are sentenced:
Have you done anything, or has anything happened to you here to make you less likely to
17
offend in future?
Diversity Analysis
Key Question Responses (Ethnicity, Nationality and Religion) HMP Wellingborough 2008
Prisoner Survey Responses (Missing data has been excluded for each question) Please note: Where there are apparently large differences, which
are not indicated as statistically significant, this is likely to be due to chance.
Key to tables
BME prisoners
White prisoners
Foreign National prisoners
British National Prisoners
Muslim Prisoners
Non-Muslim Prisoners
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
45
65
19
92
21
88
100%
100%
100%
100%
29%
15%
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners'
background details
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
Number of completed questionnaires returned
1.3
Are you sentenced?
100%
100%
1.7
Are you a foreign national?
24%
11%
1.8
Is English your first language?
77%
90%
1.9
Are you from a minority ethnic group? Including all those who did not tick White
British, White Irish or White other categories.
50%
92%
52%
93%
61%
37%
85%
31%
1.10 Are you Muslim?
39%
5%
32%
17%
1.13 Is this your first time in prison?
40%
22%
74%
21%
48%
26%
2.3
Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff?
59%
62%
58%
62%
70%
58%
2.4a
Did you know where you were going when you left court or when transferred
from another prison?
84%
80%
79%
82%
90%
80%
3.2a Did you have any problems when you first arrived?
84%
69%
60%
77%
91%
72%
3.3a Were you seen by a member of healthcare staff in reception?
98%
91%
100%
92%
95%
93%
3.3b When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way?
88%
76%
84%
80%
80%
81%
3.4
Were you treated well/very well in reception?
76%
63%
84%
65%
62%
69%
3.9
Did you feel safe on your first night here?
70%
78%
68%
77%
62%
78%
3.10 Have you been on an induction course?
91%
94%
100%
91%
86%
94%
4.1a Is it easy/very easy to communicate with your solicitor or legal representative?
30%
48%
47%
40%
38%
42%
4.3a Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week?
42%
37%
42%
39%
38%
40%
4.3b Are you normally able to have a shower every day?
98%
94%
95%
96%
100%
94%
Diversity Analysis
Key to tables
BME prisoners
White prisoners
Foreign National prisoners
British National Prisoners
Muslim Prisoners
Non-Muslim Prisoners
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
4.3e Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes?
33%
41%
47%
36%
48%
37%
4.4
Is the food in this prison good/very good?
9%
16%
16%
12%
10%
14%
4.5
Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs?
31%
46%
32%
41%
24%
44%
4.6a Is it easy/very easy to get a complaints form?
76%
88%
68%
86%
76%
84%
4.6b Is it easy/very easy to get an application form?
75%
91%
78%
86%
75%
87%
4.9
64%
55%
47%
60%
62%
56%
4.13a Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected?
58%
44%
58%
48%
80%
44%
4.13b Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to?
72%
42%
56%
54%
84%
48%
68%
74%
79%
70%
57%
76%
70%
79%
89%
73%
71%
77%
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners'
background details
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
4.15a
Have you made a complaint?
Is there a member of staff you can turn to for help if you have a problem in this
prison?
4.15b Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect?
5.1
Have you ever felt unsafe in this prison?
57%
44%
37%
51%
62%
45%
5.2
Do you feel unsafe in this prison at the moment?
32%
27%
16%
31%
40%
25%
5.4
Have you been victimised by another prisoner?
23%
26%
11%
28%
24%
25%
5.5d
Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic origin since you have
been here? (By prisoners)
7%
0%
0%
3%
10%
1%
5.5j
Have you been victimised because of your religion/religious beliefs? (By
prisoners)
9%
0%
0%
5%
10%
3%
5.6
Have you been victimised by a member of staff?
34%
16%
6%
26%
30%
22%
5.7d
Have you been victimised because of your race or ethnic origin since you have
been here? (By staff)
19%
2%
0%
10%
20%
6%
10%
0%
0%
5%
10%
3%
Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by another prisoner/ group of
prisoners in here?
34%
33%
17%
37%
30%
35%
5.10 Have you ever felt threatened or intimidated by a member of staff in here?
26%
16%
6%
23%
26%
19%
5.7i Have you been victimised because of your religion/religious beliefs? (By staff)
5.9
Diversity Analysis
Key to tables
BME prisoners
White prisoners
Foreign National prisoners
British National Prisoners
Muslim Prisoners
Non-Muslim Prisoners
Any percent highlighted in green is significantly better
5.11 Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison?
29%
51%
28%
44%
32%
44%
6.1a Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor?
34%
39%
39%
36%
30%
39%
6.1b Is it easy/ very easy to see the nurse?
58%
66%
67%
63%
59%
65%
6.7
26%
37%
24%
33%
45%
29%
7.1a Are you currently working in the prison?
55%
59%
44%
60%
54%
58%
7.1b Are you currently undertaking vocational or skills training?
33%
20%
39%
21%
47%
19%
7.1c Are you currently in education (including basic skills)?
82%
44%
84%
54%
80%
58%
7.1d Are you currently taking part in an Offending Behaviour Programme?
18%
17%
22%
16%
33%
14%
7.3
Do you go to the library at least once a week?
53%
36%
47%
43%
45%
44%
7.4
On average, do you go to the gym at least twice a week?
73%
46%
68%
55%
55%
57%
7.6
On average, do you spend ten or more hours out of your cell on a weekday?
(This includes hours at education, at work etc)
14%
6%
16%
8%
5%
11%
7.7
On average, do you go on association more than five times each week?
83%
70%
74%
76%
75%
75%
7.8
Do staff normally speak to you at least most of the time during association time?
14%
(most/all of the time)
21%
32%
16%
25%
18%
8.1
Do you have a personal officer?
67%
71%
72%
69%
80%
67%
8.9
Have you had any problems sending or receiving mail?
39%
38%
16%
43%
38%
37%
8.10 Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones?
16%
15%
16%
15%
24%
13%
55%
72%
72%
64%
62%
67%
Any percent highlighted in blue is significantly worse
Any percent highlighted in orange shows a significant difference in prisoners'
background details
Percentages which are not highlighted show there is no significant difference
8.12
Do you feel you have any emotional well being/mental health issues?
Does this prison give you the opportunity to have the visits you are entitled to?
(e.g. number and length of visit)