Report on Full Inspection of HMP & YOI Grampian: 4 - 15 February 2019

This report is part of the programme of inspections of prisons carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS). These inspections contribute to the UK’s response to its international obligations under the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). OPCAT requires that all places of detention are visited regularly by independent bodies known as the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM); which monitor the treatment of and conditions for detention. HMIPS is one of several bodies making up the NPM in the UK.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (HMCIPS) assesses the treatment and care of prisoners across the Scottish Prison Service estate against a predefined set of Standards. These Standards are set out in the document ‘Standards for Inspecting and Monitoring Prisons in Scotland’, published in May 2018 and can be found at https://www.prisonsinspectoratescotland.gov.uk/standards.

The Standards reflect the independence of the inspection of prisons in Scotland and are designed to provide information to prisoners, prison staff and the wider community on the main areas that are examined during the course of an inspection. They also provide assurance to Ministers and the public that inspections are conducted in line with a framework that is consistent and that assessments are made against appropriate criteria. While the basis for these Standards is rooted in International Human Rights treaties, conventions and in Prison Rules, they are the Standards of HMIPS. This report and the separate ‘Evidence Report’ are set out to reflect the performance against these standards and quality indicators.

HMIPS assimilates information resulting in evidence-based findings utilising a number of different techniques. These include:

Obtaining information and documents from the Scottish Prison Service (SPS) and the prison inspected;
shadowing and observing SPS and other specialist staff as they perform their duties within the prison;
interviewing prisoners and staff on a one-to-one basis;
conducting focus groups with prisoners and staff;
observing the range of services delivered within the prison at the point of delivery;
inspecting a wide range of facilities impacting on both prisoners and staff;
attending and observing relevant meetings impacting on both the management of the prison and the future of the prisoners such as Case Conferences; and
reviewing policies, procedures and performance reports produced both locally and by SPS headquarters specialists.

HMIPS is supported in our work by inspectors from Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS), Education Scotland, Scottish Human Rights Commission, the Care Inspectorate, and guest inspectors from the SPS.

The information gathered facilitates the compilation of a complete analysis of the prison against the standards used. This ensures that assessments are fair, balanced and accurate. In relation to each standard and quality indicator, inspectors record their evaluation in two forms:

1. A colour coded assessment marker

	Rating	Definition
	Good performance	Indicates good performance which may constitute good practice.
	Satisfactory performance	Indicates overall satisfactory performance.
	Generally acceptable performance	Indicates generally acceptable performance though some improvements are required.
	Poor performance	Indicates poor performance and will be accompanied by a statement of what requires to be addressed.
	Unacceptable performance	Indicates unacceptable performance that requires immediate attention.
	Not applicable	Quality indicator is not applicable.

2. A written record of the evidence gathered is produced by the inspector allocated each individual standard. It is important to recognise that although standards are assigned to inspectors within the team, all inspectors have the opportunity to comment on findings at a deliberation session prior to final assessments being reached. This emphasises the fairness aspect of the process ensuring an unbiased decision is reached prior to completion of the final report.

This report provides a summary of the inspection findings and an overall rating against each of the nine standards. The full inspection findings and overall rating for each of the quality indicators can be found in the ‘Evidence Report’ at the back.

Key Facts

Location
HMP YOI Grampian is located on the south side of the Aberdeenshire town of Peterhead.

Role
It opened on 3 March 2014 and was the first purpose built community facing prison within Scotland, capable of housing over 500 prisoners, both male and female, adult and young offenders from the [Northern Community Justice Authority Area]

Brief history
On 4 June 2008, it was announced that HMP Aberdeen and HMP Peterhead were to close and one new prison would be built on part of the old Peterhead site, to be known as HMP YOI Grampian.

Accommodation
It comprised three main accommodation blocks Banff Hall for female prisoners, Ellon Hall for male prisoners and Cruden Hall which at the time of inspection held no prisoners, Dyce Hall which is the Separation and Reintegration Unit and two Community Integration Units, one for men and one for women.

Design capacity
The establishment design capacity is 552. However, with the closure of Cruden hall the current maximum design capacity is 474.

Date of last inspection:
30 November to 8 December 2015.

Healthcare provider:
NHS Grampian.

Learning provider:
Fife College

Overview by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (HMCIPS)

Wendy Sinclair-Gieben - Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

HMP YOI Grampian opened in March 2014, as one of the newest of the fifteen prisons in Scotland; an attractive modern and spacious building, benefiting from good levels of natural light and thoughtful colourful design elements throughout. Worthy of note was the layout and design of Banff Hall, which housed female prisoners, and includes the pleasant mother and baby cells.

This was the second full inspection for HMP YOI Grampian, following a previous inspection in 2015. The first inspection in the early life of HMP YOI Grampian provided a useful assessment of the progress that had been made since its opening, and provides an interesting comparison to this inspections findings.

Designed to be a “community facing prison”, to accommodate all offenders from the north of Scotland, an occurrence of serious disorder in 2014 resulted in the removal of the male young offenders and the closure of one of the smaller halls, Cruden. It was disappointing but understandable, given the difficulties of staff recruitment, that some of the highest quality of prison estate in Scotland continues to lie empty.

The inspection team found an establishment that had matured, and despite a small number of significant incidents in 2018, was largely calm and purposeful with emerging signs of stability and progress. Overall, most prisoners told inspectors that they felt safe in HMP YOI Grampian; staff were respectful and courteous in their dealings with prisoners and there was evidence of positive engagement. However, some prisoners reported that they felt intimidated because of verbal abuse from other prisoners and there were mixed views on staff perceptions of safety. Staff shortages clearly influenced their confidence.

The staff cultures of two prisons, HMP Aberdeen and HMP Peterhead, had been integrated, and the consequent staff group were supportive of each other and had a ‘can-do’ culture despite very challenging circumstances. This had taken significant effort on the part of the whole team and reflected consistent strong senior leadership.

However, the serious staff shortage issues preclude moving from a steady state to a developmental agenda. Significant risk issues emerged and were escalated during the inspection in the operational running and stability of Ellon Hall, where the majority of prisoners were held. In reality, almost all areas of the prison were negatively impacted by staffing shortages, even where significant efforts had been made to protect consistency in key roles and ensure management oversight. Predictable regime delivery, activity access, personal officer support for progression, and time out of cell are critical components to good order and discipline. These were at risk with the current staffing issues; the establishment stability should be considered as fragile.

The need to focus on core functions essential to the smooth running of the prison, and the challenges posed by long-term staffing shortages was understandable. However, there may be opportunities for better utilisation of management resource as the prison moves further into the developmental phase of organisational change.

Continued co-operative working with the SPS Headquarters to find new solutions to staffing difficulties, and maintaining funding for partner organisations will be critical for lasting safety and security.

Rule 23 of the United Nations Standard Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules) states that every prisoner who is not employed in outdoor work shall have at least one hour of suitable exercise in the open air daily, if the weather permits. A similar recommendation has been provided by the CPT during their visits to the UK “steps should be taken to ensure that prisoners are guaranteed the basic requirement of at least one hour of outdoor exercise per day.” Non-offence protection prisoners were not routinely afforded this basic right, and in common with offence-protection prisoners, to reach exercise areas, they had to walk through residential areas housing mainstream prisoners and suffered routine verbal abuse. The lack of opportunity posed by staffing shortages to use Cruden Hall to further develop and simplify the regime and population management should remain a priority.

Community and partnership supports were positive, purposeful and linked to pockets of innovative practice across a wide range of disciplines in the establishment. Many of these partnerships complement the core provision, provide an enriched regime and were worthy of commendation and replication. I was particularly impressed with the range of good practice, partnership links, and initiatives to achieve changed outcomes e.g. Street Sport, Community work, DVD on visiting HMP Grampian, bring your local MSP to the visit etc.

The inspection team were concerned that existing well-established and beneficial partner services, dependent on external funding, might be lost or eroded due to resource pressures. For example, the excellent family centre at HMP YOI Grampian adjacent to the entrance of the prison was much valued by both visitors and staff, who frequently use the excellent café facilities. The family centre offered information, support, advice and guidance to families, and their integrated working with community partners was an instance of good practice worthy of sharing. This would be a huge loss if funding was withdrawn.

There were numerous examples of good practice in case management and HMP YOI Grampian are to be commended for their work. Despite staffing shortages in the establishment, specialist case management posts had been protected to ensure continuity. Case management staff demonstrated commitment and expertise and were supported by skilled senior management delivering an overall high quality service. It proved impossible however to resource similar experienced, regular and consistent personal officer support despite staff best intentions.

The strongest area of performance in HMP YOI Grampian related to the preparation of prisoners for their successful return to the community. Multi-agency, partnership working was central to the planning for the release of both short and long-term prisoners. The case management process was effective and engaged a wide range of internal and external partners, with a clear commitment to supporting prisoners both before and after their release.

The Community Integration Unit (CIU) facilities, supported by the throughcare support officers (TSO) were excellent. The TSO team deserve praise for their work in running the CIUs, developing positive relationships with the community, the judiciary and social work partners, whilst sourcing sound work placements. With a purpose built design and committed and motivated staff, the unit presented a significant opportunity for broader life skills practice, inhibited only by the restrictions of national criteria.

Given HMP YOI Grampians obvious proficiency with case management and through care processes, their geographic location and positive relationships with community partners, there are opportunities to pilot a national remand throughcare process for SPS if adequately resourced.

Overall, there was a suitable and sufficient range of education, training and employment (ETE) activities, with examples of good practice and innovative partnerships delivered in an attractive and welcoming area. The library was a well-resourced and busy facility, valued by prisoners for its popular organised activities, and the health point impressed inspectors. Whilst there was a limited choice of ETE for women and protection prisoners, HMIPS were more concerned that there was an unacceptable level of regime opportunities available for prisoners on a non-offence protection regime.

The activities and spiritual needs of prisoners were fully catered for by a proactive chaplaincy team with an inclusive ethos and numerous examples of innovative service delivery.

The importance of supporting positive family relationships was recognised and considerable efforts were made to help prisoners to maintain good contact with a range of innovative practice including video links through the Apex Trust.

Within HMP YOI Grampian, it was noted that many of the challenges experienced by Aberdeenshire Health and Social Care Partnership (AHSCP) were a reflection of national themes experienced within many prisons across Scotland. These included recruitment difficulties, inability to use electronic prescribing and the lack of a national formulary. The staff were however still committed to delivering high quality healthcare, and inspectors found a number of examples of good practice with, in particular, the relationship between the Partnership and Public Health, the best the Health inspectors had seen.

It was encouraging to see that since our last visit in June 2018, the AHSCP had continued to progress with the Grampian Health and Wellbeing Programme Board, established to facilitate joint improvements to services in substance misuse, mental health and healthcare service delivery.

Substance use and the mental health delivery programmes had produced visible improvements and positive service developments. However, inspectors were concerned to see that the healthcare service delivery project had not progressed at the same rate, and elements of primary care and pharmacy services remained poor. Identified significant risks in these areas were escalated during the inspection to both management teams in the NHS and the SPS.

One major concern for HMIPS was that nursing staff were unavailable to conduct a medical assessment of prisoners who were admitted to the establishment after 21:30. Late arrival prisoners did not therefore receive the critical clinical reception screen to assess their withdrawal status, provide essential prescribed medication, assess their risk of self-harm or suicide and determine whether they were fit to be in custody. Inspectors raised these and other issues with pharmacy as an immediate significant concern to both the AHSCP and the SPS.

Separate from the healthcare concerns, the admission processes within the establishment were very robust, with clear checks taking place regarding the legality of each prisoners warrant. Staff demonstrated empathy when engaging with prisoners to ensure that they understood the reasons for them being sent to the establishment and the length of time they were likely to be there.

Next Steps

I am pleased to see the positive developments and initiatives that have been taken forward. With 42 areas of identified good practice, this is a good platform to build on for the future. However, the staffing crisis must remain as the critical focus for the SPS, and the escalated areas of concern in Ellon Hall and healthcare need to be urgently addressed by the SPS and the AHSCP. I look forward to seeing these improvements progressed before our next inspection.

HMIPS will continue to monitor the progress in HMP YOI Grampian through the Independent Prison Monitors, and will return to HMP YOI Grampian late 2019 to review what progress has been made in healthcare and staffing.

Wendy Sinclair-Gieben
Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

Summary of Inspection Findings

Summary of Inspection Findings
	Standard 1 Lawful and transparent custody Satisfactory
	Standard 2 Decency Satisfactory
	Standard 3 Personal safety Generally acceptable
	Standard 4 Effective, courteous and humane exercise of authority Satisfactory
	Standard 5 Respect, autonomy and protection against mistreatment Generally acceptable
	Standard 6 Purposeful activity Satisfactory
	Standard 7 Transitions from custody to life in the community Good
	Standard 8 Organisational effectiveness Satisfactory
	Standard 9 Health and wellbeing Poor

HMIPS Standard 1

Lawful and Transparent Custody

The prison complies with administrative and procedural requirements of the law, ensuring that all prisoners are legally detained and provides each prisoner with information required to adapt to prison life.

The prison ensures that all prisoners are lawfully detained. Each prisoner’s time in custody is accurately calculated; they are properly classified, allocated and accommodated appropriately. Information is provided to all prisoners regarding various aspects of the prison regime, their rights and their entitlements. The release process is carried out appropriately and positively to assist prisoners in their transition back into the community.

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Satisfactory Performance

Satisfactory performance

The admission processes within the establishment were very robust, with clear checks taking place regarding the legality of each prisoners warrant. Staff demonstrated empathy when engaging with prisoners to ensure that they understood the reasons for them being sent to the establishment and the length of time they were likely to be there. One major concern for HMIPS was that no nursing staff were available to conduct a medical assessment of prisoners who were admitted to the establishment after 21:30. This was immediately escalated as an area of high risk. SPS staff placed the prisoner on 15-minute observations overnight until they had seen a nurse.

Once reception staff had completed the admission process, prisoners were located in the relevant residential area dependent on their classification and were given key information about the prison regime including the hall routine, making requests, visits and the complaints process. National induction took place but it was very limited for adult male prisoners who were on protection. A peer mentor assisted with the delivery of it to women, which was good practice, and HMP YOI Grampian should consider introducing it for adult male prisoners also. Reception and national induction staff had a good understanding of translation services and how to use them, but knowledge of this was limited amongst residential staff.

Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the cell sharing risk assessment (CSRA) process and how to record it on PR2. However, there were no records to confirm primary and secondary assurance checks of this process were undertaken.

The pre-release processes conducted by the court desk staff and management were very robust, ensuring that dates on the warrant had been accurately calculated and that no outstanding warrants were in place. The court desk staff also checked in advance what travel arrangements were required for each prisoner being liberated, particularly if someone was returning to one of the islands. Once all of the prisoners being escorted to court had left reception the staff immediately contact the residential halls to ask them to escort prisoners who were being liberated to reception, in order that this process could be conducted timeously. The front of house staff conducted relevant checks; however, concerningly they were done beyond the secure area.

HMIPS Standard 2

Decency

The prison supplies the basic requirements of decent life to the prisoners.

The prison provides to all prisoners the basic physical requirements for a decent life. All buildings, rooms, outdoor spaces and activity areas are of adequate size, well maintained, appropriately furnished, clean and hygienic. Each prisoner has a bed, bedding and suitable clothing, has good access to toilets and washing facilities, is provided with necessary toiletries and cleaning materials and is properly fed. These needs are met in ways that promote each prisoner’s sense of personal and cultural identity and self-respect.

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Satisfactory Performance

Satisfactory performance

HMP YOI Grampian is a modern prison therefore the inspection team expected high standards of decency. The prison had good facilities and overall was generally well maintained. The external areas were neat and tidy, as were all of the main activity areas including the gymnasium and visits areas. At times, the main corridor from the ‘Street’ to Ellon Hall was littered but was regularly cleaned during the inspection week.

The condition of cells varied with graffiti observed in a number of areas, mainly Ellon and Dyce Hall. Banff Hall appeared to be cleaner with no evidence of graffiti. The accessible cells were of a good standard and fit for purpose for wheel chair users.

Generally, standards of clothing were appropriate but there were instances where this clothing was not always available in the required range and sizes; particularly in the First Night in Custody areas. There was a good supply of appropriate inclement weather jackets. Although mattresses and pillows viewed were in good condition, a consistent comment that is also reported during other inspections was that they did not allow a good night’s sleep.

All residential areas had access to in-cell sanitation including a shower. The accessible cells were of a good standard and the mother and baby cells were of a high standard. Toiletries were freely available and for those that wished to do so there was an extensive canteen list to purchase more popular brands. Cleanliness was of a reasonable standard. However, infection control was a concern due to a lack of training courses in the British Institute of Cleaning Science and Biohazards courses, which could result in a risk of cross contamination and should therefore be remedied as soon as possible.

Catering came out very well within this Standard with good quality food, good choices and many opportunities to choose a healthy option. Catering staff held regular meetings with prisoners to discuss food choices and healthy alternatives. The majority of prisoners spoke positively about the meals that were provided. HMP YOI Grampian worked hard at meeting the needs of those with dietary or religious beliefs, which appeared to work well.

The opportunity for parents to bake their children a birthday cake was an excellent way to assist in the parent child relationship.

HMIPS Standard 3

Personal Safety

The prison takes all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of all prisoners.

All appropriate steps are taken to minimise the levels of harm to which prisoners are exposed. Appropriate steps are taken to protect prisoners from harm from others or themselves. Where violence or accidents do occur, the circumstances are thoroughly investigated and appropriate management action taken.

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Generally Acceptable

Generally acceptable performance

Inspectors were impressed by the commitment of the staff team in HMP YOI Grampian to get things right with regard to personal safety. It was clear that staff wanted to ensure that the establishment was safe and orderly and that no one came to harm.

Despite the commitment of the staff team, inspectors found a mixed picture in terms of policy and practice with regard to this Standard.

The establishment had a good multi-agency approach to addressing issues of lower level and more serious incidents of violence, with implementation of their Safer Prison SOP. Although this allowed for discussion of possible incidences of bullying, the lack of an over-arching anti-bullying strategy was a concern. In addition, the excessive use of the auxiliary cell located in the SRU should be reviewed as a priority.

Overall, staff and prisoners said they felt safe but there were some notable exceptions, including non-offence protection prisoners being accommodated on mainstream halls. Concerns were also consistently raised with inspectors about staffing levels in general, but also about the consistency of staff teams leading to concerns over personal safety.

TTM processes were properly enacted and a robust audit process was in place. The delay of mental health input to support the process was a concern and raised with the Healthcare team.

Health and Safety practice within the establishment had some positive elements. However, action needs to be taken to address some areas of concern, such as the completion of accident reporting paperwork and adherence to supplementary policy on issues such as blood borne viruses.

HMIPS Standard 4

Effective, Courteous and Humane Exercise of Authority

The prison performs the duties both to protect the public by detaining prisoners in custody and to respect the individual circumstances of each prisoner by maintaining order effectively, with courtesy and humanity

The prison ensures that the thorough implementation of security and supervisory duties is balanced by courteous and humane treatment of prisoners and visitors to the prison. Procedures relating to perimeter, entry and exit security, and the personal safety, searching, supervision and escorting of prisoners are implemented effectively. The level of security and supervision is not excessive.

Inspection Findings
Overall Rating: Satisfactory performance

Satisfactory performance

There was clear evidence to support some good performance within the establishment, however it was undermined by the lack of supporting documentation. All staff were aware of the security within the establishment and whilst they were trying their best, they were working under extreme staff shortages.

There was clearly a caring approach and emphasis on dignity during all searches, orderly room proceedings, and case conferences that were witnessed during the inspection.

There was clear evidence that the removal of individuals was being carried out in a humane way, and supporting documentation and reviews were present after every incident. However, it was disappointing to note that not all planned removals were recorded.

It was concerning to see hard copies of individuals Special Security Measures (SSM) forms sitting out in the staff consoles in full sight of prisoners walking past. HMP YOI Grampian should find another way of keeping SSM forms safe and secure, away from the population, to protect prisoner confidentiality.

All admissions were treated with courtesy and respect during the transition into and out of the establishment, and there was a continuous improvement team looking at items allowed in use.

All traffic entering and exiting the establishment were robustly searched and staff were polite and respectful on all occasions.

The establishment had excellent links to Police Scotland to ensure a joint approach to dealing with emerging issues such as NPS use.

There was evidence of appropriate use of Rule 41, 95 and SSM, with good supporting documentation.

The route movement was controlled but lengthy, with the average time taking approximately 35 minutes.

It was disappointing to note that intelligence led Mandatory Drug Tests (MDT) were not being carried out. During the previous inspection this was regarded as good practice and was now a single point of failure. HMP YOI Grampian should reconsider this approach and look at the impact of not implementing intelligence led MDT testing.

Staff throughout the establishment were aware of the importance of security. All searching observed was conducted to ensure dignity was maintained throughout. All staff spoken to were aware of the appropriate use of force (UOF) and it was encouraging to see the importance placed on this by the management team, where every UOF was reviewed, which included viewing all available Close Circuit Television (CCTV). All UOF and violent incidents were reviewed at the fortnightly Safer Prisons Forum.

Whilst the use of separation was generally proportionate and lawful there were occasions where both Rule 95 and Rule 41 were used back to back, extending the period a prisoner was removed from association to up to six days. HMP YOI Grampian and the SPS should review this approach to avoid using two separate rules consecutively when dealing with individuals with problematic and changeable behaviour.

Case conferences observed and documentation checked confirmed that the focus was reintegration, and prisoners were encouraged to give their input and to agree on reintegration plans. Where required, specialist support staff were invited to attend.

HMIPS Standard 5

Respect, Autonomy and Protection Against Mistreatment

A climate of mutual respect exists between staff and prisoners. Prisoners are encouraged to take responsibility for themselves and their future. Their rights to statutory protections and complaints processes are respected.

Throughout the prison, staff and prisoners have a mutual understanding and respect for each other and their responsibilities. They engage with each other positively and constructively. Prisoners are kept well informed about matters which affect them and are treated humanely and with understanding. If they have problems or feel threatened they are offered effective support. Prisoners are encouraged to participate in decision making about their own lives. The prison co-operates positively with agencies which exercise statutory powers of complaints, investigation or supervision.

Inspection Findings
Overall rating: Generally Acceptable

Generally acceptable performance

Overall, the findings from inspection in this Standard were generally acceptable but there were some areas of poor performance.

It appeared that staff were aware of the principles underpinning how and when information should be shared between prisoners and their families. Prisoners also indicated that they had positive experience of staff being supportive when difficult information had been shared.

In general, staff prisoner relationships were observed as respectful, but inspectors were concerned about the management of inappropriate behaviour and language, which in turn raised concerns about the management of control and order in Ellon Hall. Of note was the lack of challenge by staff when protection prisoners were being repeatedly verbally abused on route to exercise. This was a high-risk area and concerns were escalated to the senior management; recommendations are made in relation to this.

It was noted that confidentiality was typically respected and practices were generally acceptable. However, there were some issues regarding security of information in relation to staff use of computers. Prisoners were able to walk behind the staff console and view the SSM booklets and PR2 screens. This was escalated at the time of the inspection. However it was apparent that the prison were working to improve confidentiality and it was noteworthy that the business improvement manager (BIM) for example was working with law firms to ensure that legal correspondence was appropriately marked so that it could be processed accordingly.

The regime was unpredictable with frequent changes, delays and cancellations to services because of staffing shortages. On examination of the records, Protection prisoners appeared to be disproportionately affected. This was an area of poor performance and recommendations are made in relation to this.

Overall, the canteen and catering processes appeared to be working well and to the satisfaction to the prisoner population.

Although there were recreational activities available for all, there were variations across the different cohorts, with protection prisoners being disproportionately affected by restrictions or conflicts. We have recommended a review of the regime timetabling so that prisoners do not need to choose between entitlements.

Similarly, although the information available to prisoners was generally acceptable, recommendations are made to improve access for non-English speakers.

Prisoner complaints were operating satisfactorily with good audit processes in place. An ICC was observed chaired by a unit manager. The complaint was dealt with compassionately and sensitively whilst providing the individual with a clear reason for the decision. The process and relevant documentation was shared with the individual and he left with a clear understanding for the decision. Although improvements to the complaint process could be made to support those with lower levels of literacy; this was an area of good practice.

The Independent Prison Monitoring (IPM) scheme was advertised in all of the residential areas and prisoners and staff were aware of the IPM role.

HMIPS Standard 6

Purposeful Activity

All prisoners are encouraged to use their time in prison constructively. Positive family and community relationships are maintained. Prisoners are consulted in planning the activities offered.

The prison assists prisoners to use their time purposefully and constructively and provides a broad range of activities, opportunities and services based on the profile of needs of the prisoner population. Prisoners are supported to maintain positive relationships with family and friends in the community. Prisoners have the opportunity to participate in recreational, sporting, religious and cultural activities. Prisoners’ sentences are managed appropriately to prepare them for returning to their community.

Inspection Findings
Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

Satisfactory performance

In summary this was a solidly performing area whose otherwise good performance was marred by the lack of equity of access to opportunities for offence and non-offence protection prisoners.

There was a suitable and sufficient range of employment activities available to most prisoners, which provided opportunity to develop work-related skills. Major work parties included: catering; gardens; industrial cleaning; laundry; pass duties and recycling. Other work parties, such as hairdressing, mentoring and creative media, provided a few prisoners with further choice.

Worryingly, female prisoners and male prisoners on an offence-related protection regime had a limited choice of work parties and prisoners on a non-offence protection regime had no work party choice.

There was a wide and sufficient range of appropriate educational opportunities for prisoners. There was a good range of levels of activity, from personal support in basic literacy, to larger class groups of mainly SCQF level 3/4/5 work, through to Open University. The provision was based in a bright, modern, well-equipped and appropriate learning centre. Prisoners were happy with the subject choices on offer, and the subjects were consistent with developing self-confidence, communications skills and employability. Prisoners were suitably consulted on the offer, and regularly invited to give feedback through direct discussion and well-organised and regular focus groups.

Almost all prisoners were able to access high quality indoor and outdoor sporting and fitness facilities through a well-understood weekly schedule. However, prisoners on a non-offence protection regime had no scheduled access to the gymnasium.

The gymnasium was well equipped with a suitable range of exercise and training equipment, an indoor games hall and outdoor all-weather football pitch. Prisoners were also able to access a range of cardio equipment in small satellite gyms located in each residential hall. All prisoners completed an induction session with a Physical Training Instructor (PTI) prior to accessing the fitness equipment.

The team of PTIs had positive and respectful relationships with prisoners, and this contributed strongly to the gymnasium having a relaxed atmosphere, which encouraged prisoner participation in health and wellbeing activities. Prisoners were consulted routinely on the type of activities they prefer to engage with. The PTI team also had strong and effective working relationships with external partners, such as a local senior football club and boxing club, which supported sporting initiatives and activities for prisoners. Effective internal partnership working with Fife College and NHS Grampian had resulted in health and wellbeing assessments and useful advice and support sessions for prisoners.

The prison library was managed well through a useful partnership with Live Life Aberdeenshire, the cultural and sports arm of the local authority. The library was well located, roomy, bright and welcoming. Stock was rotated regularly, and the range of resources available included an appropriate level of more specialised materials covering information on prisoner rights, books in various languages, and large print books. The link with the local authority also allows quick access to such things as books with coloured filters to help those with dyslexia. Requests and specialised resources were made available very quickly when asked for, typically within a few days. The library service was made available to all prisoners; including a service for the SRU. There was a very high level of use, and impressively, 87% of the resident population used the library service in January 2019.

There was an acceptable and appropriate range of cultural, peer support and self-help activities offered. However, there were very few leaflets or posters highlighting equalities or cultural activity, limiting the wider awareness. The education unit staff planned a wide range of displays, promotions and events based around traditional celebrations, promotions and a calendar that takes account of wider cultural and diversity key dates. The prisoners were supported well in producing artefacts for the Koestler awards, with 111 entries last year.

There was an effective small team of trained peer mentors within the prison who work well to assist newer prisoners in such things as basic literacy, understanding prison systems and settling in to make the best of prison opportunities. In addition, there were Samaritan trained Listeners who helped to support prisoners who identified as needing this personal support.

Exercise was offered daily in the fresh air for the majority of prisoners and most exercise areas were reasonably new, of appropriate quality, and were clean and tidy, except for those in the Separation and Reintegration unit (SRU). Outdoor clothing supplied was sufficient, of a good quality and clean.

The prison did not however meet the requirement of universal access for all prisoners. During the inspection, those on non-offence protection indicated that they were not offered exercise in the fresh air; this was observed during the inspection. Offence protection prisoners had a separate exercise time designated. However, they raised complaints that they had to walk through residential areas housing other prisoners, and suffered from abuse, which made them reluctant to participate.

The chaplaincy team has an appropriate multi-faith membership and demonstrated both an inclusive ethos and a pastoral focus. Excellent relationships were consistently reported between members of the chaplaincy team, other members of prison staff and prisoners. The weekly chaplaincy programme was full of a range of services and events. All prisoners were visited individually soon after admission and their specific religious needs and access to articles of faith recognised and addressed. A church service observed was upbeat and women attending described an uplifting experience with fellowship and coffee after the service being much appreciated. The chaplaincy team expressed a desire to see the wider prison developing more trauma informed practice. In this context, it is a concern that no alternative bereavement support service other than the chaplaincy team are available on site.

HMP YOI Grampian visits area was situated on the first floor with disabled access. The visit facility was large, bright and welcoming. A large play area was available with toys of good quality that were clean and well maintained. Relationships with staff, families and partners were positive, but staff shortages amongst visit staff had impacted to an extent on the availability of familiar faces. Family members booked visits and visit allocation was not restricted as long as spaces were available. Visit sessions were mixed including women, men and protection populations, this appeared to work well with a relaxed atmosphere. The children’s visit session was child-centred and an example of good practice. The children’s visits were very well supported, a number of partner agencies attended, hot food was available and specific activities had been arranged to encourage prisoners to participate with their children. Specific family events were organised throughout the year and were well received. Facilities for professional visitors were good, and a virtual court facility was available and had been used recently.

HMP YOI Grampian had a family centre adjacent to the entrance of the prison that was much valued by both visitors and staff who frequently used the excellent facilities. The establishment has a spacious parking area and was well signposted; there were however no rail facilities and families generally have to travel a considerable distance by car or bus. Action for Children run the centre with a mix of employed staff and volunteers and HMP YOI Grampian had sited a Family Contact Officer on the premises out of uniform. There were innovative examples of working across custody and community boundaries. The way in which the Family Centre provided information advice and guidance was an example of best practice.

HMP YOI Grampian had developed a comprehensive families plan and strategy with a multi-disciplinary steering group. This was monitoring implementation of the national SPS family strategy. It was disappointing to learn that HMP YOI Grampian had few parenting skills opportunities and that those which had been in place were likely to be lost due to funding cuts.

Procedures to admit visitors to the establishment were observed. Staff were polite and respectful and search procedures were sensitively and appropriately managed. Waiting areas were bright and clean with appropriate information on display.

A specific problem facing visitors to HMP YOI Grampian was its location, with families often having to travel a considerable distance. The establishment had recognised this and operated both the ‘e mail a prisoner’ scheme and ‘video visits’ supported by APEX at a central Aberdeen location during the day. The establishment had made active representations to service providers and helpful alterations to bus service timetables were, as a result, reported to commence soon.

Facilities were in place to accommodate morning visits for those under specific visit restrictions or for families with specific needs. Particular care was taken to individualise service responses and a number of examples were provided of situations where staff made special efforts to assist. HMP YOI Grampian offers and accommodates prisoners for accumulated visits in accordance with national policy.

Few prisoners were on closed visits at any specific time and there were robust monthly review processes in place. The only slight concern noted was that prisoners placed on closed visits and their families were notified that this was for a three-month period, although each case was in fact reviewed monthly.

HMP YOI Grampian provides a range of therapeutic treatment and cognitive development opportunities. Nationally recognised courses are available and the establishment complied with national processes for programme assessment, allocation and notification to prisoners. The SPS psychology and programmes officer teams were co-located with social work and had positive working relationships with other staff including the clinical psychologist from the NHS. Staff shortages had caused problems in both the psychology and programmes officer teams. Evidence was provided of effective contribution to risk assessment and case management practice with high-risk cases being small in number and manageable. Care was taken to ensure that complex cases were allocated to personal officers with appropriate experience, though the need for wider support and development of the personal officer group was raised as needing to be prioritised.

Concern was expressed that the planned national reallocation of psychology resource would impact on the level of support that could be offered to local initiatives. Concern was also raised about the implementation of the national SPS programmes waiting list, which was causing significant disruption to prisoners who had to transfer south to participate. A designated life skills area existed but its use was prioritised for the most vulnerable individuals. There did not appear to be comprehensive life skills or pre-release opportunities available for the bulk of the Grampian population to maximise the development of social and relational skills.

HMP YOI Grampian operate well-organised, high quality, case management processes. The Case Management Board (CMB) had a comprehensive list of attendees both internal and external to the prison from statutory and third sector organisations. The process was very well-organised and chaired by a member of prison staff demonstrating obvious commitment to their role. As cases were discussed the importance of community mental health support and NHS connectivity was consistently evident. The establishment Early Release and Lifer Liaison (ERLO/LLO) First Line Manager was performing well. Effective ‘pull through’ systems had been developed which ensured that individual prisoners were not missed for progression despite lack of consistent personal officer support.

The Throughcare Support Officer (TSO) team perform well and take responsibility for additional innovative areas of practice including support for Community Integration Unit (CIU) work placements and sessions at court, developing positive relationships with both the Judiciary and social work partners. Given HMP YOI Grampian’s obvious proficiency with case management and throughcare processes, their geographic location and positive relationships with community partners, there are opportunities to pilot a national remand throughcare process for SPS if adequately resourced. Concerns were expressed that existing well-established and beneficial partner services might be lost or eroded due to resource pressures. Particular concerns were expressed about the number of prisoners whose throughcare was being disrupted because of transfer to HMP Barlinnie to cope with local population pressures.

The skill and experience of the Deputy Governor as chair of the RMT was acknowledged by a number of participating staff. National changes to the RMT process were described as positive and assisting in both strengthening assessment and in maintaining consistent high quality of reporting. Despite staffing shortages in the establishment, specialist case management posts had been protected to ensure continuity wherever possible, it had proved impossible however to maintain regular and consistent personal officer attendance. The senior team was well connected to community MAPPA representatives, and a comprehensive tracking process for risk and progression cases was evidenced by the responsible First Line Manager.

National changes to Home Detention Curfew (HDC) had led to a dramatic fall in the numbers eligible to apply for consideration. High quality CIU facilities were available for both male and female populations, but spaces were underused because insufficient prisoners met the national criteria.

HMIPS Standard 7

Transitions from Custody to Life in the Community

Prisoners are prepared for their successful return to the community.

The prison is active in supporting prisoners for returning successfully to their community at the conclusion of their sentence. The prison works with agencies in the community to ensure that resettlement plans are prepared, including specific plans for employment, training, education, healthcare, housing and financial management.

Inspection Findings
Overall rating: Good

Not applicable

There were extensive structures in place, which supported partner agencies working to deliver jointly agreed release plans. Prison managers were meeting with strategic planning groups at community justice authority and local authority level. However, future planning was not communicated well enough with partner agencies and agencies were unsure of future involvement as contracts ended.

The Links Centre provided a good location, which helped joint working and was accessible to prisoners. It was a concern that staff shortages amongst prison officers was preventing prisoners from accessing appointments when staff were diverted elsewhere from operational necessity. Agencies in the Links Centre worked well together and inspectors observed good relationships.

There were no advocacy services on offer and foreign language translation was limited at point of admission and throughout the sentence.

There was a good CMB and progression system, with good systems in place that helped to overcome staffing inexperience. There had been no recent training of Personal Officers, with knowledge of the role demonstrably uneven amongst staff. A reinvigorated personal officer scheme is needed to address these shortcomings.

Performance improved substantially during pre-release planning. The throughcare support officers (TSO) role was very well developed and made a key contribution before and after release. The family centre provided good support to families, with strong joint work by third sector agencies in supporting families and prisoners, both practically and emotionally. The Keeping it Together initiative involving partner organisations and SHMU used video and other media to provide advice support and information to families of those involved in the criminal justice process is good practice.

TSOs were carrying out some very good and unusual activity around the Community Integration Units (CIUs) prisoners and work placements, sustaining effective continuity. They continue to provide good support post release but community effectiveness was limited by poor IT. If provided it could offset some of the pressure of recent staffing shortages. The court attendance system and the prompt intervention allowed key information from TSOs to be shared in the court at an early stage to allow a more informed decision by the judiciary. This early intervention and well-established joint working is an area of good practice in HMP YOI Grampian.

Some difficulties were encountered in supporting and ensuring access to development programmes. Staffing pressures limited the number of programmes run and access to programmes by prisoners was governed by national prioritisation policies. The national waiting list is not resolving the progression issues and is considered disruptive.

HMIPS Standard 8

Organisational Effectiveness

The prison’s priorities are consistent with the achievement of these Standards and are clearly communicated to all staff. There is a shared commitment by all people working in the prison to co-operate constructively to deliver these priorities.

Staff understand how their work contributes directly to the achievement of the prison’s priorities. The prison management team shows leadership in deploying its resources effectively to achieve improved performance. It ensures that staff have the skills necessary to perform their roles well. All staff work well with others in the prison and with agencies which provide services to prisoners. The prison works collaboratively and professionally with other prisons and other criminal justice organisations.

Inspection Findings
Overall rating: Satisfactory

Satisfactory performance

With one or two exceptions, the prison performs satisfactorily against this Standard. It was clear that the challenges stemming from the staffing situation had been significant and relentless since the tail end of 2017, so the deployment of resources had rightly focussed on maintaining core operational functions. This had impacted adversely in a number of ways, not least the inability to make progress with implementing a new Equality and Diversity action plan, which must now be given greater priority.

The SMT showed leadership in trying to find new ways to address their recruitment challenges and now need the support of SPS in implementing more durable solutions, rather than continuing to rely on detached duty cover.

In the longer term, there is also scope for HMP YOI Grampian and SPS to make greater use of new technology to improve prisoner access to information and services, support prisoner contact with families and reduce paperwork for prison staff.

In general, staff understood how their work contributed to the prison’s priorities and were clear on their own roles, and there was a good culture of mutual support across the prison. Indeed during the inspection process it was emphasised how much that mutual support meant to staff. Whilst efforts had been made by management to recognise good performance and value the contribution made by staff in often difficult circumstances, there was scope to further embed such a culture at all levels of the establishment.

The desire of SMT to provide a ‘soft landing’ for new recruits after their induction programme at the SPS College was an excellent concept, although it appeared from discussions with staff that the staffing challenges facing the prison meant that had not always been achieved in practice. There was a clear commitment at all levels of the organisation for developmental training, but the recruitment challenges had often meant staff having to learn from line managers or other staff who were themselves inexperienced. The difficulty in securing staff time for training or to act as instructors had created difficulties in meeting targets for completion of mandatory training, but the process was well monitored. It was pleasing to see recognition of the importance of the FLM role, but more could be done to support this group in particular and those acting up.

There was evidence that poor performance and disciplinary issues were being appropriately handled and absence management was now being addressed more systematically.

There was very clear evidence of the prison fostering strong supportive professional relationships with a wide range of partner organisations and of good communication and effective partnership working. This was a real strength for the prison and there was much to commend here, particularly the partnership with those supporting the excellent family visitor centre, the various throughcare initiatives, the radio and media production work, library, education, employment related and other purposeful activity.

There were inevitably concerns, however, about the longer term sustainability of some of these initiatives, particularly where third sector partners were dependent on securing funding from external sources. A greater focus should therefore now be given to the longer term strategic planning of services, role of partner organisations and how to address funding uncertainties or prepare for future change.

Finally, it was noted that whilst action had been taken on the different recommendations made in the last HMIPS report on HMP YOI Grampian three years ago, it had not always been sufficient to address the underlying issues raised. Moreover, different colour coding systems were in place for monitoring different action plans within the prison. A single Red Amber Green (RAG) scoring system should be applied consistently for monitoring all action plans. More attention should also be given when closing specific action points on whether the underlying issue raised by the relevant scrutiny body had been fully addressed or further action was needed.

HMIPS Standard 9

Health and Wellbeing

The prison takes all reasonable steps to ensure the health and wellbeing of all prisoners.

All prisoners receive care and treatment which takes account of all relevant NHS standards, guidelines and evidence-based treatments. Healthcare professionals play an effective role in preventing harm associated with prison life and in promoting the health and wellbeing of all prisoners.

Inspection Findings
Overall rating: Poor performance

Poor performance

General

It was encouraging to see that since our last visit in June 2018, the Partnership had continued to progress with the Grampian Health & Wellbeing Programme Board, which was established to manage proposed improvements to services and facilitate change. The Programme Board had responsibility for project managing three agreed work streams to improve patient care:

Substance use
Mental health, and
Healthcare service delivery.

During the inspection, inspectors saw examples where substance use and mental health delivery programmes had produced visible improvements and positive service developments. However, inspectors were concerned to see that the Healthcare service delivery project had not progressed in the same way. This was reflective in the areas of concerns raised within the report, such as the development of primary care and pharmacy services within the prison.

The staff spoken with were committed to delivering high quality healthcare and driving improvement. Inspectors also found a number of examples of good practice during the inspection.

Inspectors noted that the ongoing challenge of recruiting and retaining staff were not on the operational or the board risk register. While inspectors are aware that this was a challenge for NHS Grampian in general, the risks associated of not having a full complement of staff to effectively deliver services within the prison environment must be included on both risk registers. There were concerns that the continued reliance on bank/agency staff could result in a dilution of the skill-mix of permanent staff. Business continuity plans should be drawn up for times when staffing levels are either at the minimum or fall below the minimum.

Primary care

Individuals who arrived at the prison during the day were formally assessed using a standardised health screening tool, to assess their immediate health needs and their risk of self-harm or suicide. However, it was worrying to find that it was not uncommon for individuals who arrived from the islands at night to not be assessed until the following morning. This does not comply with the SPS TTM strategy and was escalated during the inspection.

Information on how to access services, including the confidential self-referral system was given to prisoners on arrival and during their stay in prison. Appointment waiting times were within recommended guidelines but were not routinely displayed for prisoners. Patients’ attendance and access to healthcare appointments and interventions continued to be an issue, even though prisoners were asked to complete a form explaining their non-attendance. A new appointment card system was due to be introduced.

Prisoners could access Healthpoint, a one-stop health information point located within the prison library, but due to limited staffing, access was not always possible. A range of clinics were held in the health centre many of which relied on the availability of trained staff, such as BBV testing.

Mental Health

Prisoners identified as requiring support with their mental health had access to a wide range of treatments and interventions. Those referred to the clinical psychology service and psychiatrist were seen promptly, and all prisoners, including those with complex care needs, were seen to be involved in decisions about their immediate and ongoing care. However, variation in the way staff approached the triage process meant that the basis for decisions was not consistent and almost all referrals were directed to the mental health team, even though it was not at its full complement.

On arrival, prisoners risk of self-harm or suicide was assessed and those identified as being at risk were placed onto TTM accordingly. However, as previously mentioned prisoners admitted to the prison at night were not assessed by a healthcare professional in line with the SPS TTM strategy. Inspectors raised this as a significant concern to the Partnership and the SPS.

The mental health team had a well-established working relationship with community mental health services. Arrangements were in place to notify community services in advance that a patient was expected to return into the community so that the appropriate support could be put in place in time for their release.

Substance misuse

Anyone requiring support with substance misuse was identified at their initial health screening on arrival to the prison. Those already on ORT or who requested ORT were assessed and commenced treatment in a timely manner.

The substance misuse team took a whole person approach and held weekly multi-disciplinary meetings to discuss patients care and progress. Individuals referred to the team received a comprehensive assessment of their needs and had access to a range of psychological interventions, such as cognitive behavioural skills for relapse prevention and to maintain their recovery.

Staff were trained in, and had access to training, in a wide range of psychological interventions such as NES core behavioural training and motivational interviewing. Plans were also in place to introduce monthly coaching in a range of psychological skills to support ongoing delivery of psychology care.

As with the mental health team, the substance misuse team had developed strong relationship with a wide range of external and third sector agencies, including CREW (harm reduction and outreach charity) and the alcohol and drugs agency who provided 1-1 sessions, group work and programmes to support prisoners prior to liberation. A standardised discharge tool was used to notify the receiving community services of an individual’s release and to make sure individuals were linked into appropriate support services on liberation.

There was little evidence of collaborative working between the mental health and the addictions team to identify the appropriate support and treatment for individuals. This was an area that both teams expressed plans to address.

Long-term conditions

Not all individuals with a long-term physical health condition were identified on arrival at the prison, and those that had been were not always followed up in line with current best practice, or, had appropriate care plans and accurate and detailed assessment documentation. This was brought to the attention of the Partnership and progress will be monitored.

Similarly, staff were not informing individuals of their test results, documenting the results or following these up with medical staff when they were outside of normal parameters. This was escalated to the health centre manager for action.

Medical and Pharmacy Service

Despite not having a dedicated pharmacy team, the prison pharmacy service had developed a strong working relationship with the Lloyd’s pharmacist and staff. However, the way the pharmacy service was being delivered within the prison gave rise to significant concerns around patient safety.

Multi-disciplinary medical/pharmacy management meetings did not take place; staff responsible for ordering and managing the day-to-day pharmacy services did not possess specific pharmacy experience; limited kardex monitoring and medicine optimisation took place, and routine and spot checks of in-possession medication were not carried out.

The pharmacy did not hold a current Home Office CD licence and medication was administered to fit in with the prison regime rather than at clinically appropriate times. Both of these issues were escalated as significant concerns.

Maternity Services

The prison had established good links with NHS Grampian maternity services, and the women attended appointments at the maternity hospital in addition to seeing the midwife inside the prison. Each women was allocated a named prison social worker and a community based social worker who worked together to support the women maintain contact with their baby or young child during their stay in prison.

The women were located in the dedicated mother and baby cell, had access to a wide a range of equipment, and were offered a comprehensive package of care. A dedicated mother and baby officer was available to ensure the support and advice offered to the women reflected their individual needs.

Culture and Leadership

Complaints, comments and feedback forms were readily available to prisoners within the halls. Overall responsibility for managing and responding to complaints, as well as leading any investigations, sat with the health centre manager, who had introduced a named nurse model which had led to improved response times; early resolution of complaints and a reduction in number of complaints.

The recruitment and retention of staff continued to be a challenge for the healthcare team and is an issue that mirrors NHS Grampian as a whole. Many posts lay vacant necessitating the ongoing use of bank/agency staff, and there was concern that the healthcare team was often operating at below acceptable staff levels to delivery safe care. A general lack of leadership among the nursing team was identified, with less senior staff expected to make clinical decisions without support from senior colleagues. This should be addressed once the team leads and clinical nurse manager have completed leadership and management training.

Staff competencies were not regularly assessed and clinical supervision was not offered to all nursing staff groups. Line management had recently been re-introduced and the health centre manager and the clinical nurse manager held weekly capacity and workforce meetings with the nursing team.

Annex A: Summary Of Recommendations

For the Governor

Recommendation 1: HMP YOI Grampian reception staff should ensure that the information booklets are in the language indicated on the front cover.

Recommendation 2: HMP YOI Grampian management should ensure that all residential staff are aware of the translation services available to prisoners and how to access them.

Recommendation 3: HMP YOI Grampian management should ensure that a process is in place to evidence primary and secondary assurance of the CSRA process.

Recommendation 4: HMP YOI Grampian management should consider expanding the use of peer mentors to assist with the induction process for adult male prisoners.

Recommendation 5: HMP YOI Grampian management should ensure that all protection prisoners have full access to national induction.

Recommendation 6: The SOP governing the liberation process should be followed at all times, whereby a clear handover takes place between reception and front of house staff within the agents visits area.

Recommendation 7: HMP YOI Grampian should consider moving the air conditioning unit inside or provide more protection in its current location.

Recommendation 8: HMP YOI Grampian should increase their escort cover to a suitable level to allow the estates team to reduce the number of agile requests with a red status.

Recommendation 9: To allow a feeling of self-worth and dignity, HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that prisoners are given every opportunity to keep their cells clean, and cell-cleaning periods should not be missed.

Recommendation 10: HMP YOI Grampian should make every effort to reduce new admissions being allocated to cells where there is graffiti, particularly where it is offensive and inappropriate.

Recommendation 11: In line with job descriptions, HMP YOI Grampian should deliver adequate BICS and biohazard training. No person should undertake tasks where they have not undergone the appropriate training.

Recommendation 12: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that cleaning audits take place to ensure that standards of cleanliness are met.

Recommendation 13: All laundry stores should have an appropriate quantity of bedding.

Recommendation 14: The washing machines and tumble dryers in Banff Hall should be utilised.

Recommendation 15: The process for returning laundry to the correct location should be reviewed and refined.

Recommendation 16: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure there is a sufficient amount of toiletries and hygiene products available in all stores to meet the needs of prisoners in that area, and in particular first night in custody prisoners should be given their full entitlement.

Recommendation 17: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that only those wearing appropriate clothing are permitted within the kitchen area.

Recommendation 18: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that sufficient quantity and quality of clothing is available to all prisoners throughout the prison.

Recommendation 19: HMP YOI Grampian should take action to improve the fabric and the cleanliness of the safer cells in Ellon Hall, and a window covering should be sourced for the safer cell in Banff Hall.

Recommendation 20: As a matter of urgency, HMP YOI Grampian should review the regimes and location for offence and non-offence protection prisoners in Ellon Hall, and their location.

Recommendation 21: The use of the auxiliary cell in the SRU should be reviewed and action taken to significantly reduce its use, with a view to ceasing it all together.

Recommendation 22: The paperwork used to record the use of the auxiliary cell should be consistent with entries on R2 and HMP YOI Grampian should review their processes around this.

Recommendation 23: HMP YOI Grampian should look to adopt a more proactive approach to addressing challenging behaviour in the SRU, as opposed to repeated use of the auxiliary cell.

Recommendation 24: HMP YOI Grampian should take immediate action to ensure the Think Twice Strategy is fully implemented across the establishment.

Recommendation 25: Immediate action should be taken to ensure consistent and effective support is available to people who are experiencing bullying and harassment.

Recommendation 26: HMP YOI Grampian should take action to address the gaps in health and safety practices and ensure relevant staff are trained to meet the requirements of their posts.

Recommendation 27: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that all planned control and restraint removals are recorded.

Recommendation 28: HMP YOI Grampian should find another way of keeping SSM forms safe and secure and away from the population to protect prisoner confidentiality.

Escalated Recommendation 29: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that regular and consistent searching is carried out throughout the establishment, and that it is properly documented and escalated as appropriate.

Recommendation 30: Items in use proformas should record the date of applying for the items and the timescales should be reviewed and trigger points identified if this flags up lengthy delays.

Recommendation 31: HMP YOI Grampian should re-introduce suspicion testing on the male population.

Recommendation 32: HMP YOI Grampian may wish to consider allowing low supervision prisoners to move up and down the route unescorted to free up staff time.

Recommendation 33: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that all staff are aware of the policies or SOPs and how to implement them in relation to the sharing of information.

Recommendations 34: HMP YOI Grampian must ensure that inappropriate behaviour is consistently challenged and positive behaviours are consistently reinforced to ensure a safe environment.

Recommendation 35: HMP YOI Grampian must take necessary steps to protect protection prisoners from abuse.

Recommendation 36: HMP YOI Grampian must ensure computer screens and personal information cannot be viewed by prisoners.

Recommendation 37: HMP YOI Grampian must ensure prisoners in Ellon Hall have the opportunity to secure their cells when not in them.

Recommendations 38: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that staff are familiar with all documents including SOP’s relative to their working environment, in particular to managing staff shortages.

Recommendations 39: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that prisoners are aware of the available regime and have equity of access to it.

Recommendations 40: Prisoners should be consulted about changes to the regime and it should be effectively communicated.

Recommendations 41: As with QI 5.4 improve communications regarding available regime.

Recommendations 42: As with QI 5.4 ensure equity of access in relation to the available regime.

Recommendation 43: Improve access to information for non-English speakers to safeguard themselves against mistreatment.

Recommendation 44: Improve access to the regime so that prisoners are not required to choose between entitlements.

Recommendations 45: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that staff have the required information to allow them to inform those in their care of the SPSO process.

Recommendations 46: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that those that have lower levels of literacy are supported to complete the required paperwork, without reliance on other prisoners, unless it is a peer supporter.

Recommendation 47: The education unit should promote their service further using noticeboards and personal contact to ensure greater take up of provision.

Recommendation 48: HMP YOI Grampian should revise their regime plans to ensure that all prisoners are offered access to time in the fresh air.

Recommendation 49: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure all exercise areas are clean and consider how these could be developed to contribute further to positive health and wellbeing.

Recommendation 50: HMP YOI Grampian should remove barriers to access by revising routes to exercise to ensure that these are safe and challenging abuse of any kind promptly and appropriately.

Recommendation 51: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure the specification and implementation of security check procedures for the exercise process are robust.

Recommendation 52: The existing chaplaincy plan should be refreshed taking account of learning on trauma informed practice for both staff and prisoners and how this might be extended across the wider establishment.

Recommendation 53: Arrangements should be made to facilitate attendance at services by those on non-offence protection to promote inclusion.

Recommendation 54: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure relief cover arrangements are in place for the visits booking line on occasions when the administration staff are not available.

Recommendation 55: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that information about visits is refreshed and accessible; including for prisoners whose first language is not English.

Recommendation 56: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that any information recorded about families has appropriate consent arrangements in place and is GDPR compliant.

Recommendation 57: HMP YOI Grampian should track those prisoners who are socially isolated and consider implementing alternative forms of support.

Recommendation 58: HMP YOI Grampian should reintroduce video links for families in the Shetland Islands, and make more use of video link in general to facilitate contact with families.

Recommendation 59: Prisoners and families should not be routinely notified that their closed visit period is for an initial three-month duration.

Recommendation 60: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure consistent contact between prisoners and identified personal officers, who report feeling confident in carrying out their duties to a high standard with access to appropriate support and development opportunities.

Recommendation 61: HMP YOI Grampian should review the availability of life skills and pre-release opportunities to make these accessible to a wider population.

Recommendation 62: HMP YOI Grampian should arrange for appropriate technology equipment to support effective remote working for the TSO group.

Recommendation 63: The SPS should review the use of Cruden Hall as part of the progressive footprint for throughcare.

Recommendation 64: Future planning should be better communicated to partner agencies to support further development.

Recommendation 65: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that prisoner’s attend appointments in the link centre on time.

Recommendation 66: HMP YOI Grampian should reintroduce advocacy services to assist prisoners to exercise their rights.

Recommendation 67: HMP YOI Grampian should ensure that those staff involved in personal officer roles have the appropriate training and time to carry out the role.

Recommendation 68: There is a need for a more defined personal officer scheme, with protected time, to improve the delivery of the personal officer function.

Recommendation 69: Development of a full Equality and Diversity Action plan must now be prioritised and those tasked with its development given sufficient time and support to complete the exercise speedily.

Recommendation 70: Training in Equality and Diversity impact assessments should be prioritised and a systematic programme of assessments carried out across the prison.

Recommendation 71: A single RAG scoring system should be applied consistently for the monitoring of all action plans.

Recommendation 72: When action points are assessed for closure, more attention should be given to whether the underlying issue raised by the scrutiny body had been fully addressed or whether further action was still required.

Recommendation 73: HMP YOI Grampian should undertake more strategic planning around the type of services needed in future, the role of partner organisations in providing those services and how any funding gaps might be addressed.

For the SPS

Recommendation 74: The SPS should improve the standard of mattresses and pillows to allow prisoners to get a better night’s sleep, and allow them to be more prepared physically and mentally for the next day’s activity.

Recommendation 75: SPS should consider amending the TTM paperwork so that there is a clear and easily accessible record of required checks being completed.

Recommendation 76: SPS should ensure that the interpretation of children’s visits criteria is as inclusive as possible and consistently implemented across establishment sites.

Recommendation 77: SPS should consider introducing phones for each cell to facilitate easier contact between prisoners and families.

Recommendation 78: Scottish Government and the SPS should urgently seek funding routes to maintain and further develop parenting courses for serving prisoners at HMP YOI Grampian.

Recommendation 79: SPS should keep the national processes for psychology resourcing and access to programmes under review, ensuring that the experience of users and staff are recognised and any unintended barriers to participation in addressing offending minimised.

Recommendation 80: The SPS should consider the resourcing of a pilot throughcare process for remand prisoners at HMP YOI Grampian.

Recommendation 81: The SPS should review the national waiting list for programmes as it does not appear to be resolving the progression issues and was disruptive in HMP YOI Grampian.

Recommendation 82: The SPS should take the necessary steps to provide TSOs with the necessary IT to allow them to operate more effectively in the community while mobile working.

Recommendation 83: SPS HQ to work creatively with HMP YOI Grampian to urgently identify and implement solutions to their recruitment challenges, as existing detached duty arrangements are not effective or sustainable in the longer term.

Recommendation 84: SPS HQ and HMP YOI Grampian should jointly explore the potential to make greater use of new technology to improve access to services and support contact with families as well as easing administrative burdens on staff.

Recommendation 85: SPS should consider if some college courses could be delivered locally.

Recommendation 86: SPS and HMP YOI Grampian management should ensure that prisoners are taken to their appointments timeously.

Recommendation 87: HMP YOI Grampian management should ensure that they do everything possible to ensure that prisoners are taken to their appointments timeously.

For the Scottish Government

Recommendation 88: Scottish Government and the SPS should urgently seek funding routes to maintain and further develop parenting courses for serving prisoners at HMP YOI Grampian.

For NHS Grampian

Recommendation 89: The NHS should take action to address the delay in mental health support for people who are subject to TTM.

Recommendation 90: NHS Grampian should consider how mental health services both in the prison and the community could be better linked with case management and release processes.

Recommendation 91: The Partnership and SPS should work together to ensure that there is a robust process in place to ensure that those prisoners arriving late into the prison receive a formal health screening assessment.

Recommendation 92: SPS and HMP YOI Grampian management should ensure that prisoners are taken to their appointments timeously.

Recommendation 93: The Partnership and SPS must work together to ensure that they are accurately collecting data on the number of missed appointments, reasons for them, and the impact it has on the delivery of healthcare.

Recommendation 94: The partnership must ensure that sufficient trained and competent staff are available to undertake core duties in the health centre, including venepuncture and blood-borne virus testing.

Recommendation 95: The Partnership must ensure that health promotion information displayed for prisoners around the prison includes information on how to access condoms, Naloxone training and the risks of taking drugs.

Recommendation 96: The Partnership should develop local protocols covering joint working and information sharing.

Recommendation 97: The Partnership should review the mental health referral process ensuring that there is transparency on how long patients will need to wait for assessments.

Recommendation 98: The Partnership must ensure that patients with long-term physical healthcare needs are reliably identified, the appropriate care packages are put in place which are discussed and agreed with the patient and documented in the their record.

Recommendation 99: The Partnership must ensure that patients who have test results outside accepted parameters are referred to an appropriate member of the healthcare team to ensure any corrective actions are taken. This information must be recorded in the patient record.

Recommendation 100: The partnership must review how the Pharmacy service in HMP YOI Grampian is delivered to ensure that the service is managed and delivered safely and effectively.

Recommendation 101: The Partnership must ensure that medication is administered as prescribed to minimise the risk of harm to patients. This includes ensuring that doses are not taken too close together or outwith the time of day at which they are prescribed.

Recommendation 102: The Partnership must ensure that all staff involved in the administration of controlled medicines check the patient identity, drug, dose and amount to be administered to minimise any errors.

Recommendation 103: The Partnership must ensure that all care plan documentation for pregnant women focussed on outcomes and incorporates the woman’s personal strengths and wishes.

Recommendation 104: The Partnership must develop policy to manage patients who require palliative or end of life care.

Recommendation 105: The Partnership must ensure that all staff managing complaints receive appropriate training to ensure that complaints are correctly managed.

Recommendation 106: The Partnership must ensure that hand hygiene audits are regularly undertaken by an appropriately trained member of staff, and that actions are taken to address any non-compliances noted.

Recommendation 107: The Partnership must ensure that the development and provision of infection prevention and control guidance and tools are prioritised within the prison to minimise risks to patients and staff.

Recommendation 108: The Partnership must ensure that all staff are competent to undertake their roles, and that there is a regular assessment of staff competencies to maintain patient and staff safety.

Recommendation 109: The Partnership must ensure that clinical supervision is offered to all clinical staff and that these staff are encouraged to take up this supervision. This will ensure that staff are supported in their reflections of actions they have taken, and have the opportunity to discuss their decision-making, especially in more stressful or complicated situations.

Recommendation 110: The Partnership must ensure that training for healthcare managers within HMP YOI Grampian is prioritised. This will ensure healthcare managers are given the skills to effectively manage healthcare services in the prison, promote confidence and resilience in the management team, and provide assurance to the board and staff that healthcare management within the prison is robust.

Recommendation 111: The Partnership must assess and manage the risks associated with the use of a significant number of bank/agency staff whilst maintaining staff and patient safety.

Recommendation 112: The Partnership and SPS must work together to ensure that they are accurately collecting data on the number of missed appointments and the impact of this on delivery of healthcare.

Annex B: Summary Of Good Practice

Good practice 1: The court desk pre-release process was an area of good practice.

Good practice 2: HMP YOI Grampian prisoner reception had their own washing machine to wash any clothes for new admissions. After the clothes are washed they are placed on the persons clothing rack.

Good practice 3: The response to admissions receiving a choice of meal within 24 hours was excellent, as was the access to multi-lingual menus that had clear guidance on options and nutritional value.

Good practice 4: The approach to catering for religious dietary requirements was good practice. The boxes supplied to cater for Ramadan were excellent. It allowed for a clear separation of foodstuffs and kept it at the appropriate temperature.

Good practice 5: HMP YOI Grampian give prisoners whose children are celebrating their birthday whilst visiting them an opportunity to bake a birthday cake in the kitchen. Prisoners apply to the kitchen and are taken in to bake their children’s cake, which is then delivered to the visit area for the child.

Good practice 6: In Banff Hall consideration had been given to keeping people on TTM involved in a daily regime.

Good practice 7: The establishment had adopted a multi-disciplinary approach involving the analysis and understanding of subversive, aggressive or violent behaviour that included colleagues from psychology, and a Safer Prison Strategy. This approach contrasts positively with one that concentrates solely on violence reduction.

Good practice 8: Inspectors observed a multi-agency substance misuse meeting that was independently chaired by Public Health. The discussion centred around the inclusion of HMP YOI Grampian as part of the community served by public health and how to ensure appropriate services were in place for people, both within the establishment and on release.

Good practice 9: Staff had also worked effectively in partnership with a local foodbank to support prisoners preparing for release with cooking masterclasses and recipes to produce dishes that could be created from a typical foodbank box.

Good practice 10: The PTI team had strong and effective working relationships with external partners, such as a local senior football club and a local boxing club, which supported sporting initiatives and activities for prisoners.

Good practice 11: The link with the local authority allowed quick access to such things as books with coloured filters to help those with dyslexia. Requests and specialised resources were made available very quickly when asked for, typically within a few days.

Good practice 12: The library had a well-planned and designed HealthPoint area.

Good practice 13: The education unit staff planned a wide range of displays, promotions and events based around traditional celebrations, promotions and a calendar that takes account of wider cultural and diversity key dates.

Good practice 14: There was an effective small team of trained peer mentors within the prison who work well to assist newer prisoners in such things as basic literacy, understanding prison systems and settling in to make the best of prison opportunities.

Good practice 15: The excellent relationships and practices at HMP YOI Grampian are worthy of sharing. Specifically the provision of chaplaincy visits to individual prisoners following admission, informal fellowship time after services and the development of a quiet space for mindful reflection are to be commended.

Good practice 16: The operation of children’s visits at HMP YOI Grampian represents good practice and is worthy of sharing.

Good practice 17: The family centre at HMP YOI Grampian’s information advice and guidance service to families and their integrated working with community partners is good practice worthy of sharing.

Good practice 18: The use of ‘video visits’, supported by APEX, at a central Aberdeen location during the day.

Good practice 19: The individualised care offered to visitors including a specific example of equipment and accommodation support offered to a visiting new mother with twins is an example of good practice and worthy of recognition.

Good Practice 20: The HMP YOI Grampian Case Management Board process for short-term prisoners is worthy of sharing.

Good Practice 21: The processes used by HMP YOI Grampian to gather information on the throughcare experience of prisoners who are readmitted, and analyse data to engage in professional dialogue with partners are worthy of sharing.

Good Practice 22: The engagement of Throughcare Support Officers with the Aberdeen court process and the Judiciary is worthy of sharing.

Good practice 23: Holding multi-disciplinary pre-meet discussions within the women’s hall immediately prior to the CMB meetings ensured that pre-release planning was consistent and thorough.

Good practice 24: The Keeping it Together initiative was a very good development.

Good practice 25: A housing officer was committed to the prison for two days a week that made effective continuity for planning for prisoners’ release.

Good practice 27: A positive development in Aberdeen City was the rapid rehousing project that identified permanent housing available from the date of release.

Good practice 28: Cooking skills sessions for prisoners using menus derived from typical low cost shopping or foodbank provisions prior to release.

Good practice 29: The TSOs had positive and effective joint working relationships with community justice social workers based in the Aberdeen Sheriff Court.

Good practice 30: HMIPS commend the development of an online video so families visiting the prison for the first time are aware of how to get there and what to expect during a visit.

Good practice 31: At the time of the inspection, a new process was being introduced by the healthcare team whereby patients were given appointment cards with details of their first and follow up appointments.

Good practice 32: It was clear to inspectors that the occupational therapist was a core member of the healthcare team and integral in supporting the assessment, planning and provision of health and care needs of individual prisoners.

Good practice 33: Family members and friends were informed about and provided with Naloxone training in the family hub.

Good practice 34: Patients who were not receiving ORT therapy in the community but who requested this in the prison were assessed quickly so that ORT could be commenced promptly.

Good practice 35: The substance misuse team took a wider integrated approach to support patients and held a multi-disciplinary group weekly meeting to discuss patients care and progress. This group included a medical officer, psychologist, substance misuse team, SPS and social work.

Good practice 36: Quarterly substance misuse strategy meetings took place and were led by the public health consultant who had a special interest in substance misuse. They also led the NHS Grampian drug-related death monthly meetings.

Good practice 37: Plans were in place to offer monthly coaching sessions to the substance misuse nursing team to support the ongoing development of psychological skills for the delivery of psychological care.

Good practice 38: A standardised discharge tool was used to share relevant information to the receiving services when the prisoner was released. A discharge pack was also given to the patient.

Good practice 39: The healthcare team comprised of an occupational therapist who was able to quickly assess whether patients required aids or adaptations to their cell.

Good practice 40: The health centre manager had introduced a named nurse model meaning each prisoner was allocated a named nurse on admission to the prison. In the event of a prisoner making a complaint, the named nurse would discuss the complaint with the individual within five working days of the complaint being submitted, in order to seek early resolution. Although the named nurse model was a fairly new development, inspectors observed, and were told that it had not only improved response times, but had also led to a reduction in the number of complaints and an increase in early resolution.

Good practice 41: The clinical psychologist provided clinical supervision to the mental health nurses and substance misuse nurses on a monthly basis.

Good practice 42: There was strong evidence of collaborative working with third sector organisations in relation to substance misuse services.

Annex C: Summary Of Ratings

Standard/QI	Standard rating/QI rating
Standard 1 – Lawful and Transparent Custody	Satisfactory
QI 1.1	Satisfactory
QI 1.2	Generally acceptable
QI 1.3	Satisfactory
QI 1.4	Good
QI 1.5	Satisfactory
QI 1.6	Generally acceptable
QI 1.7	Good
QI 1.8	Generally acceptable
QI 1.9	Satisfactory
Standard 2 - Decency	Satisfactory
QI 2.1	Satisfactory
QI 2.2	Poor
QI 2.3	Generally acceptable
QI 2.4	Generally acceptable
QI 2.5	Generally acceptable
QI 2.6	Good
Standard 3 – Personal Safety	Generally acceptable
QI 3.1	Satisfactory
QI 3.2	Poor
QI 3.3	Poor
QI 3.4	Poor
QI 3.5	Poor
QI 3.6	Generally acceptable
QI 3.7	Generally acceptable
Standard 4 – Effective, Courteous and Humane Use of Authority	Satisfactory
QI 4.1	Generally acceptable
QI 4.2	Satisfactory
QI 4.3	Satisfactory
QI 4.4	Generally acceptable
QI 4.5	Poor
QI 4.6	Generally acceptable
QI 4.7	Satisfactory
QI 4.8	Poor
QI 4.9	Satisfactory
QI 4.10	Good
Standard 5 – Respect, Autonomy and Protection Against Mistreatment	Generally acceptable
QI 5.1	Generally acceptable
QI 5.2	Poor
QI 5.3	Generally acceptable
QI 5.4	Unacceptable
QI 5.5	Generally acceptable
QI 5.6	Generally acceptable
QI 5.7	Satisfactory
QI 5.8	Satisfactory
Standard 6 – Purposeful Activity	Satisfactory
QI 6.1	Generally acceptable
QI 6.2	Satisfactory
QI 6.3	Satisfactory
QI 6.4	Good
QI 6.5	Good
QI 6.6	Satisfactory
QI 6.7	Unacceptable
QI 6.8	Good
QI 6.9	Good
QI 6.10	Good
QI 6.11	Good
QI 6.12	Satisfactory
QI 6.13	Generally acceptable
QI 6.14	Good
QI 6.15	Satisfactory
Standard 7 – Transitions from Custody into the Community	Good
QI 7.1	Generally acceptable
QI 7.2	Good
QI 7.3	Satisfactory
QI 7.4	Good
QI 7.5	Good
Standard 8 – Organisational Effectiveness	Satisfactory
QI 8.1	Poor
QI 8.2	Generally acceptable
QI 8.3	Satisfactory
QI 8.4	Satisfactory
QI 8.5	Satisfactory
QI 8.6	Satisfactory
QI 8.7	Satisfactory
QI 8.8	Satisfactory
Standard 9 – Health and Wellbeing	Poor
QI 9.1	Poor
QI 9.2	Satisfactory
QI 9.3	Satisfactory
QI 9.4	Satisfactory
QI 9.5	Generally acceptable
QI 9.6	Unacceptable
QI 9.7	Satisfactory
QI 9.8	Unacceptable
QI 9.9	Satisfactory
QI 9.10	Satisfactory
QI 9.11	Generally acceptable
QI 9.12	Poor
QI 9.13	Good
QI 9.14	Satisfactory
QI 9.15	Unacceptable
QI 9.16	Generally acceptable
QI 9.17	Generally acceptable

Annex D: HMP YOI Grampian – Prison Population Profile as at 23 January 2019

Status	Number of prisoners	%
Untried Male Adults	101	22%
Untried Female Adults	9	2%
Untried Male Young Offenders	0	0%
Untried Female Young Offenders	1	0%
Sentenced Male Adults	305	65%
Sentenced Female Adults	35	8%
Sentenced Male Young Offenders	0	0%
Sentence Female Young Offenders	0	0%
Recalled Life Prisoners	2	0%
Convicted Prisoners Awaiting Sentencing	1	0%
Prisoners Awaiting Deportation	5	1%
Under 16s	0	0%
Civil Prisoners (Fines)	0	0%
Home Detention Curfew (HDC)	9	2%

Sentence	Number of prisoners	%
Untried/Remand	111	25%
0 – 1 month	0	0%
1 – 2 months	2	0.33%
2 – 3 months	0	0%
3 – 4 months	3	1%
4 – 5 months	2	0.33%
5 – 6 months	0	0%
6 months to less than 12 months	38	8%
12 months to less than 2 years	78	17%
2 years to less than 4 years	82	18%
4 years to less than 10 years	90	20%
10 years and over (not life)	17	4%
Life	29	6%
Order for Lifelong Restriction (OLR)	2	0.33%

Age	Number of prisoners	%
Minimum age:	20
Under 21 years	1	0.02%
21 years to 29 years	129	28%
30 years to 39 years	192	42%
40 years to 49 years	83	18%
50 years to 59 years	30	7%
60 years to 69 years	11	3%
70 years plus	8	2%
Maximum age:	81
Total number of prisoners	454

Annex E: Inspection Team

Wendy Sinclair-Gieben, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

Stephen Sandham, Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons

Sue Brookes, Lead Inspector

Calum McCarthy, Inspector of Prisons

Kerry Love, Business Manager

Stephen Finnie, Scottish Prison Service

Robert McAinsh, Scottish Prison Service

Adele Stevenson, Scottish Prison Service

Dr John Laird, Education Scotland

Dr John Bowditch, Education Scotland

Andrew Fogarty, Education Scotland

Ian Binnie, Care Inspectorate

Catherine Haley, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Kenneth Crosbie, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Dawn Wigley, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Helen Samborek, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Catherine Logan, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Laura Wilson, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

John Campbell, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Cathy Asante, Scottish Human Rights Commission

Sean Griffin, Scottish Human Rights Commission

Annex F: Acronyms

BBV	Blood Born Virus
BICS	British Institute of Cleaning Science
BIM	Business Improvement Manager
CBSW	Community Based Social Work
CIU	Community Integration Unit
CMB	Case Management Board
CSRA	Cell Sharing Risk Assessment
DASA	Dynamic Assessment of Situational Aggression
DWP	Department of Work and Pension
E&D	Equality and Diversity
ERLO/LLO	Early Release and Lifer Liaison
FCO	Family Co-ordination Officer
FLM	First Line Manager
FNIC	First Night in Custody
GDPR	General Data Protection Regulation
GIRFEC	Getting it Right for Every Child
HDC	Home Detention Curfew
ICC	Independent Complaints Committee
ICM	Integrated Case Management
IPM	Independent Prison Monitor
MAPPA	Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements
MDT	Mandatory Drug Testing
MSP	Member of the Scottish Parliament
OLR	Order of Lifelong Restriction
ORT	Opiate Replacement Therapy
PBSW	Prison Based Social Work
PCF	Prisoner Complaint Form
PER	Personal Escort Record
PPMS	Personal Performance Management System
PPT	Personal Protection Training
PR2	Prisoner Record System – Version 2
PRL	Prisoner Resource Library
PTI	Physical Training Instructor
RAG	Red, Amber, Green
RMT	Risk Management Team
SCQF	Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework
SHMU	Station House Media Unit
SMT	Senior Management Team
SOP	Standard Operating Procedure
SPSC	Scottish Prison Service College
SPSO	Scottish Public Services Ombusman
SRU	Separation and Reintegration Unit
SSM	Special Security Measures
SVQ	Scottish Vocational Qualification
TSO	Throughcare Support Officer
TTM	Talk to Me Strategy
UOF	Use of Force

HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland is a member of the UK’s National Preventive Mechanism, a group of organisations which independently monitor all places of detention to meet the requirements of international human rights law.

SCT06193394641.pdf

This site uses cookies to store information on your computer.

Report on Full Inspection of HMP & YOI Grampian: 4 - 15 February 2019

Full Inspection Report on HMP YOI Grampian: Full Inspection – 4-15 February 2019

Contents

Introduction and Background

Key Facts

Overview by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (HMCIPS)

Summary of Inspection Findings

Annex A: Summary Of Recommendations

Annex B: Summary Of Good Practice

Annex C: Summary Of Ratings

Annex D: HMP YOI Grampian – Prison Population Profile as at 23 January 2019

Annex E: Inspection Team

Annex F: Acronyms