Report on HMP Addiewell 29 June - 10 July 2015

HMP Addiewell

by HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland

29 June-10 July 2015

ISBN 978 1 78544 797 6

PPDAS 59487

This document is also available in pdf format (781 KB)

Contents

Introduction and Background

About this report

Key facts

Overview by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

Standards, commentary and quality indicators

Standard 1 Lawful and transparent use of custody

Standard 2 Decency

Standard 3 Personal safety

Standard 4 Health and wellbeing

Standard 5 Effective, courteous and humane exercise of authority

Standard 6 Respect, autonomy and protection against mistreatment

Standard 7 Purposeful activity

Standard 8 Transitions from custody to life in the community

Standard 9 Equality, dignity and respect

Standard 10 Organisational effectiveness

Annex A - Prison population profile on 29 June 2015

Annex B - Inspection team

Annex C - Acronyms used in this report

Footnotes

Introduction and Background

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland (HMCIPS) assesses the treatment and care of prisoners across the Scottish prison estate against a pre‑defined set of standards. These Standards are set out in the document 'Standards for Inspecting and Monitoring Prisons in Scotland', published March 2015 which can be found at https://www.prisonsinspectoratescotland.gov.uk/.

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.

The Standards 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 Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland (HMIPS).

This report is set out to reflect the performance against these standards and has 10 main sections:

Standard 1 Lawful and transparent custody

Standard 2 Decency

Standard 3 Personal safety

Standard 4 Health and wellbeing

Standard 5 Effective, courteous and humane exercise of authority

Standard 6 Respect, autonomy and protection against mistreatment

Standard 7 Purposeful activity

Standard 8 Transitions from custody to life in the community

Standard 9 Equality, dignity and respect

Standard 10 Organisational effectiveness

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

• obtaining information and documents from the Sodexo and the prison inspected;
• shadowing and observing prison staff 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.

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

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. This consists of a statement against each of the indicators contained within the standard inspected. 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.

Key Facts

Location

HMP Addiewell is situated in the village of Addiewell, near West Calder in West Lothian.

Role

Addiewell serves the courts in Lanarkshire, holding prisoners remanded in custody as well as convicted adult male prisoners.

Addiewell was designed as a "learning" prison, where offenders are able to improve their employability prospects, address their offending behaviour and the circumstances which led to their imprisonment.

Accommodation

Addiewell has two large purpose-built house blocks, within which there are 12 separate wings containing single and double cells, as well as accessible cells for prisoners with mobility issues. The wings are utilised to separate remand, convicted, new admission, long-term and protection prisoners. The prison also has a separation and reintegration unit .

Design Capacity/Population held at time of Inspection

The establishment can, if required hold up to 796 prisoners, however the current contracted operational capacity is 700. On the first day of the inspection, 29 June 2015, it was holding 696 prisoners.

Date of last inspection - Follow-up inspection, June 2012

Healthcare provider - NHS Lothian

Learning provider - In-house provider

Overview by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

Introduction

HMP Addiewell is a privately operated prison situated in West Lothian and holds up to 700 male prisoners. It opened in December 2008 and is run by Sodexo Justice Services on a 25 year contract with the Scottish Prison Service.

As a new prison, it is well designed and built, and allows for plenty of natural light throughout the establishment. The living accommodation is maintained to a high standard, with integral toilets and showers in each cell. Overall, prisoners reported to us that they felt safe. We saw evidence of positive and respectful relationships between staff and prisoners.

Inspection Findings

In relation to the ten standards used to assess the outcomes for prisoners, one was assessed as good, four as satisfactory and five as generally acceptable.

There was a constructive approach to the care of all prisoners on admission to HMP Addiewell. Vulnerable prisoners were well looked after. Any incidents of violence within the prison were responded to appropriately and there were good systems in place for managing and responding to intelligence reports. However, there were concerns about levels of staffing within the prison and the staff deployment arrangements.

A particular strength was a consistently high level of documented procedures and clear audit trails for processes across the prison. The requirements for security were thorough and effectively implemented, whilst at the same time staff operated with courtesy and humanity. We observed regular use of the dog unit to enhance searching as a preventive measure. There was a professional approach to the requirements of health and safety legislation, with high standards of risk assessment and training plans in place. There was a clear strategy in place for the prison's future, with a clear communication plan for all staff.

The provision of healthcare was of a generally acceptable standard, with well trained and supported staff. There were good examples of health promotion and education, with satisfactory health screening for all prisoners on admission. However, there were areas identified for improvement. Staffing shortages within healthcare were significant and were having an adverse impact on service delivery. Service provision for prisoners with addiction problems (both drugs and alcohol) was poor, with waiting times of over ten weeks.

HMP Addiewell operates an electronic kiosk system, which prisoners access to order their meals, book activities and keep track of their finances, without the need to refer to prison staff. It is an effective way of keeping prisoners up-to-date with events that are happening in the prison. The kiosk system was popular with prisoners and encouraged them to engage constructively in decisions about their life in prison.

Despite the modern design of the prison, the range of employment and training opportunities available for prisoners was too narrow and the number of places was too low. Classroom attendance was often below 50% capacity. Whilst the prisoners were offered opportunities for purposeful activities, the take up of these opportunities was disappointing. The well-stocked library was popular and well attended.

The case management of long-term prisoners' sentences was effective, but this was not the case for short-term prisoners. There was not an effective Personal Officer scheme in operation. Additionally, there were delays in accessing offender related programmes and the production of post programme reports was tardy.

The visiting arrangements were well organised and prisoners were encouraged and supported to maintain contact with their family and friends. There is a dedicated visitor centre run by Families Outside. Families visiting the prison appreciated the support they received from this service and spoke well of the prison staff who dealt with them during their visits. Family fun days and other events were organised on a regular basis.

The spiritual and pastoral needs of prisoners were well catered for with an active and supportive faith team. The chaplains had built up trust and good relationships with prisoners and staff, and had developed strong links with the mental health team.

In preparation for release, all prisoners were interviewed to identify any help they required or problems they were facing. The Librite process supported the preparation of prisoners for their liberation. There were good links with third sector organisations and local authorities, particularly in West Lothian and Lanarkshire. Less support was available for prisoners returning to other areas of Scotland. The prison engaged well with a range of partners in the community.

Next Steps

This report identifies a number of areas of good practice at HMP Addiewell, which I hope will be taken up by other prisons in Scotland. I look forward to seeing the action plan produced by HMP Addiewell in response to the findings in this report.

HM Inspectorate of Prisons for Scotland will continue to monitor the implementation of the action plan in HMP Addiewell.

David Strang

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for Scotland

Summary of Inspection Findings

Standard 1 Lawful and transparent custody

Satisfactory performance

Standard 2 Decency

Satisfactory performance

Standard 3 Personal safety

Generally acceptable performance

Standard 4 Health and wellbeing

Generally acceptable performance

Standard 5 Effective, courteous and humane exercise of authority

Good Performance

Standard 6 Respect, autonomy and protection against mistreatment

Satisfactory performance

Standard 7 Purposeful activity

Generally acceptable performance

Standard 8 Transitions from custody to life in the community

Generally acceptable performance

Standard 9 Equality, dignity and respect

Generally acceptable performance

Standard 10 Organisational effectiveness

Satisfactory performance

Good Performance

There were 12 good performance Quality Indicators 2.1, 2.2, 2.7, 3.2, 5.2, 5.3, 5.14, 5.16, 6.17, 6.18, 7.2 and 10.1

Standards, commentary and quality indicators

Standard 1: Lawful and transparent use of custody

The prison complies with administrative and procedural requirements of the law and takes appropriate action in response to the findings and recommendations of official bodies that exercise supervisory jurisdiction over it.

Commentary

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. The prison cooperates fully with agencies which have powers to investigate matters in prison.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Satisfactory performance

The administrative procedures for admitting prisoners were thorough and reliable: prisoners were classified appropriately; suitable initial assessments were carried out; prisoners were allocated to accommodation which met their needs; and prisoners were given clear information about their release date shortly after they were admitted.

Apart from a very small number of individuals located within the protection unit who shared accommodation, all prisoners occupied single cells.

As a private prison, the Director of Addiewell does not have the same range of powers as a Governor in a publicly-run prison. Nevertheless, during our inspection they discharged their statutory duties within the scope of their responsibilities.

The SPS controller, who is based on site, was monitoring closely the implementation of the contract.

Quality indicators

1.1 Statutory procedures for identification and registration of prisoners are fully complied with.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All statutory procedures were fully complied with. In reception, we observed a robust system for the identification and registration of prisoners, with appropriate checks in place to ensure the data entered was accurate. There was a four-stage process in place regarding significant information - three stages were for warrants and critical dates with a further check carried out by the duty manager in respect of liberations. Addiewell receive prisoners direct from court, as well as prisoners transferred from other prisons. The systems and processes in place were equally suitable for both and should provide the requisite assurance.

1.2 All prisoners are classified and this is recorded on the prisoner's electronic record.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

On admission, all prisoners were classified as 'high' and this was recorded appropriately on their electronic record contained on PR2 (the electronic prisoner records system - version 2). Appropriate follow-up and checking processes were in place thus ensuring prisoners were classified accurately, either at the point of admission or transfer from another establishment.

1.3 All prisoners are allocated to a prison or to a location within a prison dependent on their classification, gender, vulnerability, security risk or personal medical condition.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

During our observations in reception, prisoners were allocated accordingly. Reception staff carried out initial interviews in a sensitive and professional manner ensuring all the necessary information was gathered from the prisoner. This information was appropriately used to determine the most suitable location for the prisoner.

1.4 A cell sharing risk assessment is carried out prior to a prisoner's allocation to cellular accommodation.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All prisoners are located in single cell accommodation at Addiewell, unless otherwise specified in the contractual agreement with the Scottish Prison Service (SPS). The new directive, in relation to cell sharing risk assessment for single occupancy, no longer requires this process to be completed, and it was therefore non-applicable in this inspection. In week two of the inspection, it came to the attention of inspectors that there were two prisoners sharing a cell in Forth A, who were on 'Protection' due to the nature of their offence who were further separated from other protection prisoners. Staff informed us that this was not an isolated occurrence. On checking staff had taken reasonable steps to ensure that the individuals sharing this cell presented no significant risk to each other.

1.5 Release and conditional release eligibility dates are calculated correctly and communicated to the prisoner without delay.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Release and conditional release eligibility dates were calculated when prisoners arrived from court. We were told that dates are given to the prisoner within 24 hours - they were emailed to the senior officer in the respective area, who printed off the email to give to the prisoner. We spoke to several prisoners who confirmed the system worked well.

With prisoners transferred from other establishments, there was an expectation that critical dates would have been calculated already. This was reinforced when reception staff told us that they discussed eligibility dates with prisoners and that subsequent checks would be carried out. This process should be reviewed as an opportunity to identify earlier errors is being missed.

1.6 The statutory duties and powers granted to the governor or director are performed as required by law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Addiewell is a privately run prison and as such has entered into a contractual agreement with the SPS. The Director does not have the same range of powers as a Governor in a publicly run prison. For example, the adjudication process would be carried out by SPS-appointed controllers. However, we checked a range of legislation under this indicator, including the Food Standards Act 1999 and Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

In the areas where the Director has direct responsibility the systems and processes that existed provide an adequate assurance that these duties were being appropriately executed.

1.7 Appropriate action has been taken in response to findings or recommendations of monitoring, inspectorial, audit or judicial authorities that have reported on the performance of the prison since the last full inspection.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

An action plan and tracking system exists to monitor progress applicable to this indicator. A performance management unit has been established to monitor and manage the improvement processes with secondary assurance provided by the SPS controller within the prison.

Standard 2: Decency

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

Commentary

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

Addiewell is a modern, purpose-built establishment and the standard of living accommodation was good: cells were suitably equipped and furnished; the prison was clean with very little graffiti; the bedding was adequate; and there was an efficient laundry, which prisoners had good access to.

Prisoners could choose to wear their own clothing and the standard of prison issue kit was reasonable.

The quality and quantity of the food served was acceptable and reasonable steps were taken to cater for minority requirements.

Quality indicators

2.1 The prison buildings, accommodation and facilities are fit for purpose and maintained to an appropriate standard.

Rating: Good performance

The living accommodation at Addiewell is split into 12 wings, based in two halls. The wings catered for separate groups of prisoners: those on induction, on remand,

short-term prisoners and long-term prisoners, although there was some mixing. One of the wings was used specifically to hold prisoners who are on protection.

Each wing was a similar design and included a laundry, a pantry, a kit and storeroom and a group room. Every wing had a number of double cells, which in the event of population pressure elsewhere in the estate, can be used to deal with overcrowding. Apart from a very small number of prisoners held on protection, prisoners did not share accommodation.

All cells had integrated toilets and showers and there were tables and chairs in the wings, where prisoners could dine communally.

The residential accommodation at HMP Addiewell was modern, well designed and of a consistently good standard. Cells were suitably equipped and comfortable. The fabric of the prison was well maintained with no broken furniture or graffiti.

2.2 Good levels of cleanliness and hygiene are observed throughout the prison ensuring procedures for the prevention and control of infection are followed.

Rating: Good performance

There was a strong emphasis on maintaining high standards of hygiene throughout the prison, both internally and externally. As a consequence, the living and communal areas were clean and tidy, as were the external areas.

Passmen cleaners were properly trained and adequately equipped. They used a colour-coded system, which all prisoners were informed about in the induction booklet. The work parties were well organised and those we observed were active and efficient.

2.3 Cleaning materials are available to all prisoners to allow them to maintain their personal living area to a clean and hygienic standard.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Most prisoners seemed to appreciate the good living conditions and many took pride in keeping their cells clean. Mops, buckets and cleaning fluid were available in cupboards in all the residential areas. However, a number of prisoners complained that sometimes it was difficult to access this equipment.

Prisoners should always be able to obtain appropriate cleaning materials to allow them to maintain a clean and hygienic living environment.

2.4 All prisoners have a bed which is fit for purpose and in good condition.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Cells were equipped with single, metal-framed beds and the double cells had bunk beds. All beds were suitable for use.

We received a small number of complaints from prisoners who found the mattresses uncomfortable. There was a system in place to replace old mattresses on a rotational basis and we noted that all the mattresses on one of the wings had recently been replaced. Prisoners were also able to make an individual request for a new mattress.

2.5 All prisoners are given sufficient bedding or are allowed to supply their own. Bedding is in good condition, clean and can be laundered regularly.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Each wing has a laundry equipped with a washing machine, a dryer and ironing facilities, where bedding can be laundered regularly. There is a dedicated laundry passman, who was usually very busy.

Sometimes at the weekend there were problems ordering bed linen and we observed that this could result in shortages.

Sufficient bedding should always be available on the wings.

2.6 A range of toiletries and personal hygiene materials are available to all prisoners to allow them to maintain their sense of personal identity and self-respect.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All prisoners were offered free toiletries and personal items when they arrived. This included toothpaste, a toothbrush, shampoo, soap and a razor. Prisoners were able to replenish these items at any time, free of charge, on request. Prisoners who wished to select their own items could purchase these from a range of suitable products in the canteen.

2.7 All prisoners have access to washing and toileting facilities that is either freely available to them or readily available on request.

Rating: Good performance

Apart from cells in the separation and reintegration unit, all cells were equipped with modern toilet and shower facilities. When we spoke to prisoners, they often remarked that this was the best prison accommodation they had experienced.

2.8 All prisoners have supplied to them or are able to obtain for themselves a range of clothing suitable for the activities they undertake. The clothes available to them are in good condition, fit for purpose and allow them to maintain a sense of personal identity and self‑respect. Clothing can be regularly laundered.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners were able to wear their own clothing, but many chose to use prison issue kit. A store of 'recycled' clothing donated by staff was kept in reception for destitute prisoners.

The prison kit was of an adequate standard and fit and allowed most prisoners to look reasonably tidy. Prisoners had access to a suitably equipped laundry, at least once a week.

2.9 The meals served to prisoners are nutritionally sufficient, well‑balanced, varied, served at the appropriate temperature and well presented.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Food was prepared in a central kitchen. There has been a longstanding problem of food not being hot enough by the time it arrives on the wing. At the beginning of the inspection the old food trolleys were upgraded with new vacuum-sealed containers and early signs indicated that this new equipment had improved this situation.

In our discussion groups with prisoners, there were relatively few complaints about the food, but during the course of the inspection some prisoners expressed negative views about the catering arrangements. The meals we sampled were wholesome and the quantity was sufficient. On balance, most prisoners seemed fairly content with the standard of the food.

2.10 The meals served to each prisoner conform to their dietary needs, cultural or religious norms.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The menu was balanced and reasonably varied and adequately met the needs of most prisoners. Given budget constraints and the scale of production, it would be challenging to satisfy everyone. There were suitable arrangements for prisoners requiring special diets. For instance, the Imam was always consulted about how catering arrangements should be carried out during Muslim festivals and his suggestions were followed.

Standard 3: Personal safety

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

Commentary

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 performance

Overall, violence within the prison was managed effectively. Information was shared well in order to reduce risk and the positive relationships between staff and prisoners also helped to maintain safety. There was a very professional approach towards health and safety where standards were particularly high.

Vulnerable prisoners were well looked after. There were suitable arrangements in place to ensure that prisoners from minority groups who might be at risk, or individuals who might present a risk to others, were dealt with properly. The system for dealing with bullying had recently been changed but both staff and prisoners were aware about how this now operated, and we came across some examples which showed the new arrangements were working effectively.

The alarm systems within the prison were tested regularly and generally functioned effectively. Contingency planning was usually acceptable, although there was a need for some form of independent review of this.

We were, however, not assured that the procedures for managing emergency incidents were good enough. Prior to the inspection, staffing levels had been low and this could have been making a prompt and effective response difficult. Some of the staff we spoke to also appeared to lack confidence in the way first response arrangements were organised.

Quality indicators

3.1 All reasonable steps are taken to minimise situations that are known to increase the risk of aggressive or violent behaviour. Where such situations are unavoidable, appropriate levels of supervision are maintained.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

A unit manager has been tasked with the violence reduction strategy, not to be confused with the anti-violence strategy. There was appropriate use of both the tactical tasking and coordination groups in order to better understand the risks posed and identify means to mitigate the risk of violent behaviour.

3.2 The requirements of Health and Safety legislation are observed throughout the prison.

Rating: Good performance

HMP Addiewell employs a safety and risk manager. They had excellent links with the training department and external governing bodies such as the British Safety Council. Training plans and records showed that these close links have resulted in excellent returns. Addiewell has won numerous awards for its performance in relation to health and safety. The safety and risk manager explained the various registers and methods for carrying out accident investigations and how they were tracked.

It was apparent to inspectors that performance against this indicator was of a particularly high standard and worthy of mention.

3.3 All activities take place according to safe systems based on realistic risk assessments.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Safe systems of work have been appropriately identified and activities are carried out following a comprehensive set of risk assessments. We fully tested the route movement in relation to these processes and these were found to be appropriate, staff and managers questioned understand how these work.

3.4 The behaviour of staff contributes to the lowering of the risks of aggression and violence.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

All unit managers are responsible for the anti-violence strategy. Tactical tasking and coordination group meetings were used, as were intelligence briefings, in order to directly contribute to reducing both violence and aggressive behaviour.

However, worryingly closed visits were used as a deterrent in respect of violence. This is not an approach that is used in other establishments and would not be one that the Inspectorate would support, unless there were exceptional circumstances.

Interpersonal relationships between staff, at a number of levels, and prisoners was viewed as positive.

3.5 Care is taken during the period immediately following the admission of a prisoner to ensure their safety.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

From our observations of the admissions process, it was evident that staff at a number of levels and from various locations, contributed to prisoners' safety effectively. We observed the exchange of information between reception staff and residential staff and checked that this process had been followed correctly. Sometime later, we spoke to one of the prisoners whose admission we had observed. He was subject to Act 2 Care^[1] arrangements and was complimentary about how he had been dealt with.

3.6 The prison implements thorough and compassionate practices to identify and care for those at risk of suicide or self‑harm.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

We observed Act 2 Care arrangements, including documentation and case conferencing, which was well managed and appropriate. See also indicator 3.5.

3.7 The prison takes particular care of prisoners whose appearance, behaviour, background or circumstances leave them at heightened risk of harm or abuse from others.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There are five prisoner and five staff diversity and inclusion representatives throughout the prison. This is backed by a robust system for managing and investigating any such allegations made by prisoners from a minority background. Samples of cases involving both prisoner and staff were reviewed and were found to have been handled appropriately.

3.8 The allocation, management and supervision of prisoners known to present a risk takes into account the nature of the risk they present.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison uses a content management system (CMS) where any prisoners who present a risk because of their behaviour at Addiewell, can be flagged. If these prisoners then return to custody, this record immediately alerts staff to the previous behaviours which gave cause for concern, and they can be managed accordingly. We were given a number of examples of volatile prisoners. Special security measures were very rarely used. Inspectors were satisfied that any prisoner presenting a risk would be picked up via the tactical tasking and coordination group/intelligence process.

3.9 Where bullying or harassment of prisoners is suspected or known to have taken place, steps are taken to isolate those responsible from their current or potential victims and to work with them to modify their behaviour.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The anti-bullying strategy had been replaced by a 'Harm to self and others' strategy. We were given a good example where a prisoner had threatened serious violence against a visually impaired prisoner. We were able to see the intelligence submitted which had been used in conjunction with an 'InSight interview'^[2], in order to challenge this unacceptable behaviour.

3.10 Those who have been the victims of bullying or harassment are offered support and assistance.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

We were given a number of examples of how victims might be supported. Those who required support were able to attend an 'InSight interview' (see also 3.9 above), and we found evidence that this could lead to positive outcomes.

3.11 Allegations or incidents of mistreatment, intimidation, hate, bullying, harassment or violence are investigated by a person of sufficient independence and lead to appropriate management action.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There was a robust system in place for allocating and managing investigations. A number of examples were provided and verified. We spoke to senior managers who were able to testify to both their knowledge and experience of investigations and subsequent outcomes. Inspectors were satisfied with both the independent and impartial aspect required when checking this indicator.

3.12 Systems are in place throughout the prison to ensure that a proportionate and rapid response can be made to any emergency threat to safety or life that might occur.

Rating: Poor performance

There was a first response protocol in place but the member of the management team that was asked about it was unsure what it consisted of. A number of prison managers and staff viewed the process as insufficient due to what they described as a constant shortage of staff.

This situation prompted inspectors to analyse staffing in the three-month period prior to inspection. There were only two days out of that period where staffing levels were at complemented levels. Figures on other days ranged from minus one to minus fourteen, with the average figure of minus seven prevailing. This is a weakness and supported what inspectors were hearing from almost all quarters. It was also noted that staff from the residential areas formed part of the first response. This meant that if one of the two members of staff responded, the other member of staff was left with approximately 60 prisoners unlocked and isolated in that wing. A number of staff members reported that the response protocol wasn't well managed and did not have the confidence of staff. Senior managers also voiced concerns around this issue.

Everything possible should be done to ensure that complemented staffing levels are achieved every day.

3.13 There are emergency means of communication and alarms throughout the prison; they are tested regularly and are working satisfactorily.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison operated both a general alarm system and a personal alarm system. The testing arrangements for the general alarm system were by area, on a monthly basis. Personal alarms were tested on a weekly basis as per the local operating procedure. A report was produced by the night shift and sent to the estates who responded timeously to any faults and who then carried out secondary checks on a six-monthly basis. Any issues were reported directly to the duty manager.

3.14 There is an appropriate set of plans for managing emergencies and unpredictable events and staff are adequately trained and exercised in the roles they adopt in implementing the plans.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

There were three sets of contingency plans which were found to be of an acceptable standard. Local incident management training had taken place. However, this was both designed and subsequently reviewed by the same member of the senior management team. This is a weakness.

Standard 4: Health and wellbeing

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

Commentary

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: Generally acceptable performance

Staffing shortages within healthcare were significant and were having an adverse impact on service delivery: access to healthcare services was often reduced because there were not sufficient staff to make sure prisoners got to clinics; and prisoners who needed to attend external appointments were sometimes delayed because of transport difficulties.

Healthcare staff were properly trained, supported and registered and they understood their ethical and legal responsibilities working within the prison setting.

However, healthcare staff did not practice emergency procedures and this was a concerning weakness.

Shortly after admission, all prisoners received an initial healthcare assessment and this led to appropriate treatment when necessary. Preventative healthcare practices were generally acceptable and health education for both prisoners and staff was promoted well, although service provision for prisoners with addiction problems, particularly alcohol problems, was poor. Prisoners who required continuing healthcare support following their release were given suitable help to prepare for this.

Care planning was underdeveloped and where care plans were produced they did not always contain sufficient detail. We saw some good work being carried out with an older prisoner who had high care needs, but a strategic approach is required to deal with the ageing population as a whole.

Healthcare staff must use privacy screens when examining prisoners in the hub clinic rooms to ensure dignity and privacy are preserved.

NHS Lothian and Sodexo must ensure that the provision of healthcare is not adversely impacted by prison staffing issues

Quality indicators

4.1 There is an appropriate level of healthcare staffing in a range of specialisms relevant to the healthcare needs of the prisoner population.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The core healthcare team comprised:

• 1 healthcare manager
• 1 senior charge nurse - addictions/mental health
• 1 senior charge nurse - primary healthcare team
• 4 registered mental health nurses
• 2 junior charge nurses - primary healthcare team
• 12.5 staff nurses - primary healthcare team
• 7 healthcare support workers
• 1 addictions team leader
• 4 staff nurses - addiction (one full-time)
• 1 nursing assistant
• 1 consultant psychiatrist (three sessions)
• 1 consultant psychiatrist (addictions)
• 1 addictions case worker
• 2 pharmacy technicians
• 3 administration assistants
• 5 general practitioners (GPs).

Staff retention and long-term sickness absence was an on-going problem. At the time of inspection, this was significant in the primary healthcare team, despite two recently appointed registered nurses.

Within the addictions team, one staff member was on long-term sickness absence. This was having an adverse impact on the delivery of services - with long waiting lists and limited interventions.

At the time of the inspection, one prisoner was receiving personal care and support from healthcare staff. This required three healthcare staff, and although we saw that this prisoner was receiving adequate care, we noted that this left no additional capacity should another prisoner require additional care. We noted that the healthcare manager had worked well with relevant agencies to support this prisoner's onward progression. This is an area of good practice.

NHS Lothian and Sodexo should consider developing a social care model for the ageing prisoner population at HMP Addiewell.

4.2 Prisoners have direct confidential access to a healthcare professional.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Prisoners could request an appointment with healthcare staff by filling out a form. The forms were available in the halls, and once completed were posted into a locked box, opened daily by health centre staff. A triage system was used and health clinics were scheduled each day.

The delivery of triage and the sick clinic was largely dependent on Sodexo having sufficient staff to provide escorts.

Health centre statistics showed that 14 clinics had been cancelled in May 2015 due to insufficient Sodexo staff to provide escorts. Although in June 2015, the number of cancellations had reduced significantly (with just four clinics cancelled) this had caused a build-up of waiting times for prisoners to access healthcare.

Sodexo must ensure that sufficient resources are available for NHS Lothian to deliver healthcare services.

4.3 Appropriate confidentiality of healthcare consultations and records is maintained in the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The health centre uses private rooms for prisoner consultations. We observed face-to-face consultations between healthcare staff and prisoners held in private conditions.

Healthcare records were stored appropriately in a locked room with restricted access and electronic information was accessed by authorised staff using passwords.

We noted that the hub clinic rooms had clear glass. This meant that maintaining privacy for physical examinations was difficult.

4.4 Healthcare provided in the prison meets accepted professional standards.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

A system was in place to ensure healthcare staff and allied health professionals had appropriate current registrations.

Staff participated in annual appraisals and planned personal objectives through the NHS appraisal system and we saw that staff received training opportunities appropriate to their role and nursing re-validation awareness training was under way. The Nursing and Midwifery Council's Code: Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives (2015) was on display and was discussed at staff meetings.

Standard operating procedures included safer management of controlled drugs. Patient group directives were in place to allow staff to administer certain medications.

We observed a medication round and saw that this was carried out in a safe and professional manner.

4.5 Where the healthcare professional identifies a need, prisoners are able to access specialist healthcare services either inside the prison or in the community.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Within the prison, a wide range of healthcare professionals were available. Waiting times to access the healthcare staff were as follows:

• dentist: seven weeks
• GP: five to seven working days
• healthcare assistant clinic: two to three working days
• optician: 50 prisoners currently on waiting list
• chiropodist: 19 prisoners currently on waiting list
• sexual health/blood borne viruses (BBV) clinic: 15 prisoners currently on waiting list
• addictions: 10 weeks
• physiotherapy: two weeks.

At the time of inspection, both the mental health team and the addictions team were undergoing review and development; two clinical psychologists had recently been employed on a job-share basis and were undergoing prison induction and a senior charge nurse had been recruited for the addictions and mental health teams. The addictions team was dealing solely with prisoners with drug dependencies and did not provide interventions to prisoners with alcohol dependencies. A senior charge nurse was looking at, and planning to develop the addictions service to be responsive to the needs of prisoners.

NHS Lothian needs to establish an addictions team that provides appropriate interventions to prisoners with alcohol and drug-related dependencies.

Prisoners were accessing external community-based healthcare appointments. Addiewell were notified of the appointments so they could arrange the prisoners' transport. However, at the time of the inspection, there were significant issues with G4S undertaking anything other than court escorts. Addiewell staff were providing escort staff for prisoners attending various hospital appointments. The effect of this was that prisoners requiring to attend the local accident and emergency department as a result of an accident or medical emergency were experiencing unacceptable delays in accessing the care they needed. This situation needs urgent attention.

4.6 Prisoners identified as having been victims of physical, mental or sexual abuse are supported and offered appropriate treatment. The relevant agencies are notified.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners who had been injured were seen as a matter of priority by the healthcare team during clinic hours. Outside clinic hours, the GPs operated on-call. If the injury was assessed as serious, then arrangements would be made to transfer the prisoner to the local accident and emergency department.

Prisoners were also able to access the sexual health clinic. They were given the opportunity to discuss problems or express concerns about all aspects of their sexual health and safety.

The intelligence unit was notified of any concerns about prisoner safety. Staff told us that they would escalate concerns to management. Clear procedures were in place for notification including, where appropriate, to Police Scotland.

Open Secret is a voluntary organisation who provide support and counselling to victims of abuse. Prisoners could refer themselves to this service if they felt it was appropriate. At the time of the inspection, there was no counsellor in post, although one had recently been appointed.

4.7 Care is taken during the period immediately following the admission of a prisoner to ensure their health and wellbeing.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All prisoners admitted to HMP Addiewell received an initial health screen by a primary care nurse. All prisoners were then seen the following day by a GP who carried out a general health assessment, to identify any medical issues that may require further investigations or treatment, and to prescribe medication.

Prisoners identified as having an on-going medical condition such as asthma, epilepsy or cardiac conditions were booked into the nurse-led clinics. This ensured regular review of their condition.

4.8 Care plans are implemented for prisoners whose physical or psychological health or capability leave them at risk of harm from others.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Care plans were put in place for prisoners who had a clinical care need. However, the plans were lacking in detail and did not provide sufficient information to ensure consistency in care.

At the time of the inspection, the addictions team did not use care plans. This is a weakness. We were told the senior charge nurse planned to implement them. HMIPS will monitor this.

InSight plans were in place for prisoners with complex needs such as self-harming behaviour. This was led by prison officers with input from healthcare staff.

Regular care reviews were carried out within the teams. We saw that prisoners who required regular monitoring were called routinely to the clinic.

4.9 Healthcare staff offer a range of clinics relevant to the prisoner population.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

There were a range of clinics available to meet the needs of the prisoner population.

Five GPs provided daily clinics, Monday to Saturday.

A nurse-led triage clinic was held daily, on Monday to Friday mornings. Prisoners saw the nurse in the first instance and follow-up appointments were made with the most appropriate healthcare professionals.

The mental health team delivered assessment and review clinics. Due to staffing deficiencies, no clinical psychological therapies had been implemented. However, the team was now fully staffed and was developing a work plan. This would include a review of the clinic system and the range of clinical psychological interventions the team would offer.

Nurse-led clinics included diabetes and diabetic retinopathy screening. Due to staffing deficiencies within the primary healthcare team, these clinics were not carried out on a regular basis. Keep Well service operates every Friday to support prisoners with long term health needs. There were plans to set up epilepsy, asthma and coronary heart disease clinics once staff had appropriate training and sufficient staff resources were in place.

NHS Lothian should continue with plans to establish clinics to support and monitor prisoners with long-term health conditions.

The sexual health clinic did not take place in June 2015. The team was aiming to make sure that this clinic took place every month. Reasons for not running the clinic included a lack of an available room and the unavailability of Sodexo staff to escort prisoners to these clinics.

The addictions team held regular sessions where they saw new prisoners with drug dependency issues and prisoners due for release. At the time of the inspection, staff reported they had no capacity to review prisoners on an on-going basis.

The dentist provided four sessions each week. Other healthcare professionals provided scheduled clinics, such as optician services and podiatry. The physiotherapist had relocated from the health centre to a room next to the gym. This had proved to be a very positive move, as uptake of the service had improved and waiting lists had reduced.

4.10 Preventive healthcare practices are implemented effectively in relation to transmissible diseases.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Healthcare practices were in place to manage transmissible diseases. These included access to blood borne virus (BBV) testing and a treatment programme for Hepatitis C.

We saw both healthcare and prison staff use appropriate personal protective equipment (such as aprons and gloves) when carrying out care procedures and blood spill kits were available on the halls.

The immunisation programme included influenza, Hepatitis A and B.

Protocols were in place to manage outbreaks.

The sexual health clinic provided information about safer sex and condoms were provided on request. Prisoners also received information on safer practices in relation to drug use.

4.11 Preventive healthcare practices are implemented effectively in relation to the maintenance of hygiene and infection control standards.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The infection prevention and control guidance had recently been agreed by Sodexo and NHS Lothian and the primary healthcare team had just commenced an audit of the revised systems to provide assurance that they were effective, and to identify areas for improvement. The revised Healthcare Improvement Scotland Healthcare Associated Infection Standards (2015) were also being reviewed to ensure that appropriate infection prevention and control standards were being met.

We saw good management of sharps and clinical waste and dental equipment was sent to NHS Lothian's decontamination unit. Personal protective equipment was available and we saw healthcare and prison staff using it appropriately.

Cleaning schedules were in place for the clinical areas. However, these were not always completed for the areas being cleaned by Sodexo staff. This is a weakness.

4.12 Preventive healthcare practices are implemented effectively in relation to the assessment, care and treatment of those at risk of self-harm or suicide.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As mentioned in 4.7, all prisoners transferred and newly admitted to HMP Addiewell had an initial health screen carried out by a primary care nurse. This included questions about the prisoner's mental health, including self-harming behaviour and suicidal thoughts. Prisoners were referred to the mental health team for further assessment and psychiatrist input, if appropriate.

On admission, nursing staff completed Act 2 Care documentation for all prisoners (see also indicator 3.5). In line with policy, procedures were put in place for prisoners identified as at risk of self-harm or suicide. Multidisciplinary case conferences would then be convened with an agreed action plan implemented.

We observed a case conference where mental health team staff, prison staff, members of the faith team and the prisoner attended. There was full discussion of the prisoner's mental health, behaviours, challenges and agreed interventions.

4.13 Preventive healthcare practices are implemented effectively in relation to the care and treatment of those exhibiting self‑harming and addictive behaviours.

Rating: Poor performance

The health assessment received on arrival included screening for substance misuse and alcohol-related issues. This included an initial urine toxicology test and alcohol screen. For those prisoners identified as being in withdrawal, a detoxification regime was implemented. However, once a prisoner underwent detoxification they were not offered a follow-up programme by healthcare staff. This is a weakness.

At the time of the inspection, due to staff being on long-term sickness absence, the provision of addiction services was not adequate to meet the needs of the prisoner population: waiting time to see the addictions team was more than 10 weeks and they were unable to provide effective, on-going support and review for prisoners. This is a weakness.

The team were not delivering interventions for prisoners who had an alcohol dependency and their focus was on new prisoners using illicit drugs or on substitute prescribing, and prisoners soon to be released. Staff told us that regular reviews with prisoners did not take place. Apart from at the initial screening, toxicology tests were not routinely carried out in line with best practice guidance to ensure prisoners were compliant with their regime. This is a weakness.

It was noted that at the time of the inspection, the addictions team was undergoing a review. A new senior charge nurse, who had been in post since March 2015, was re-designing the service. One additional addictions worker post was pending approval which would help to further strengthen the team. HMIPS will monitor this.

Smoking cessation classes were available two days per week and Sodexo was running four Smart Recovery^[3] groups for which prisoners had received training as facilitators. NHS Lothian also had a Smart Recovery trained worker.

4.14 Health education activities for both prisoners and staff are implemented throughout the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Healthcare staff provided health promotion and education while prisoners were attending physiotherapy, dental and other appointments. Healthcare staff were also involved in a range of health education activities for both prisoners and staff.

Information on a range of topics (for example, smoking cessation and BBV) was displayed on the wall of the health centre waiting room. World hepatitis day and world no tobacco day were promoted on posters and on the kiosk system (an electronic system that prisoners use to order their meals, order goods from the canteen, book visits and manage their money).

There was a coordinated commitment to health education across all departments at HMP Addiewell, with Sodexo and healthcare staff being part of an action group for health and wellbeing.

The Keep Well service, (a Scottish Government initiative to improve the health of those in deprived communities) attended the prison on Fridays to give advice on a range of issues, such as weight management and advice to kitchen staff on how to prepare food for special diets.

A six-week course was running in the trade centre on how to stay healthy, which included topics such as shopping, cooking and housework.

In the Librite centre,^[4] a peer supported scheme was providing training on the safe use of naloxone (a drug used to counteract effects from an opiate overdose).

4.15 Healthcare professionals working in the prison are able to demonstrate an understanding of the particular ethical and procedural responsibilities that attach to practice in a prison and to evidence that they apply these in their work.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Healthcare staff were aware of ethical issues and procedural demands relating to healthcare delivery and security. The healthcare manager met with the prison management team every week to discuss operational issues, address potential concerns, and to review incidents and improve practice.

4.16 Every prisoner on admission is given a health assessment, supplemented, where available, by the health record maintained by their community record. Care plans are instituted and implemented timeously.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As described in indicator 4.7, 4.12 and 4.13 all prisoners transferred and newly admitted to HMP Addiewell had a basic health screen carried out by a primary care nurse. This included general observations such as blood pressure, pulse and respirations.

All prisoners were then seen by the GP the following day to identify medical issues that may require further investigations or treatment, and prescribed medication. Referrals were made to other teams, and healthcare and allied health professionals as appropriate.

Care plans were put in place by teams where a clinical need was indicated.

4.17 Healthcare records are held for all prisoners. There are effective procedures to ensure that healthcare records accompany all prisoners who are transferred in or out of the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Effective systems and processes were in place to manage the transfer of healthcare records. Previous records were held for all prisoners on paper and current records were maintained in electronic format.

We saw that prisoners' healthcare records accompanied them when transferring between establishments and they were used to inform the reception assessment process.

Records were transported between establishments in sealed bags which staff confirmed worked effectively.

Records for prisoners who were released were returned to their area prison.

4.18 Healthcare professionals exercise all the statutory duties placed on them to advise the governor or director of any situations in which conditions of detention or decisions about any prisoner could result in physical or psychological harm.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Addiewell had systems and processes in place to ensure healthcare staff made appropriate notifications in cases where there could possibly be physical or psychological harm to prisoners. These included: notification of when a prisoner was not fit to work; or when a prisoner required access to treatment in the community; or in relation to restraint and confinement concerns.

Healthcare staff were clear in their duty to pass on any intelligence that might compromise the health and wellbeing of the prisoner or the safe running of the prison.

4.19 Healthcare professionals fully undertake their responsibilities as described in the law and in professional guidance to assess, record and report any medical evidence of mistreatment of prisoners and to offer prisoners treatment needed as a consequence.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Healthcare staff had a clear understanding of their duty of care. They escalated any concerns through the intelligence reporting system. There was regular communication between the healthcare and Sodexo management teams ensuring that concerns were discussed.

Prisoners who complained of mistreatment at the health centre would be medically assessed and supported. Information affecting the welfare of prisoners would be passed on to the appropriate Sodexo manager. They would then initiate an investigation and police involvement.

Prisoners would be offered counselling and appropriate protective measures if required.

4.20 Effective measures that ensure the timeous attendance of appropriate healthcare staff in the event of medical emergencies are in place and are practised as necessary.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

All primary healthcare staff carried radios and were alerted by prison staff if code blue or code red occurred.

Emergency packs were located at the health centre and at the hubs. These included emergency drugs, a defibrillator, oxygen and suction. Staff carried out checks on the emergency packs every week and following use.

It was noted that healthcare staff did not carry out practice codes to make sure all staff were aware of the emergency procedures. This is a weakness.

4.21 Appropriate steps are taken prior to release to assess a prisoner's needs for on‑going care and to assist them in securing continuity of care from community health services.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The Librite centre (a support and advice service, targeting prisoners who are due for release - see footnote 4 and indicators 8.4 and 8.7) was open on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It had representation from housing, the job centre, alcohol counselling and healthcare staff. Prisoners seen at the centre were given advice on how to register for a GP and were given appointments with support workers. Prisoners were advised on medication and how to obtain their prescriptions. Prescriptions for addictions medication were sent to the community addiction support worker four weeks before the prisoner was released. Prisoners might also be advised about lifestyle changes on release and coping strategies to avoid addictions.

Standard 5: 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.

Commentary

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: Good performance

The admission and discharge procedures at HMP Addiewell were methodical and prisoners were treated well throughout them (with prisoners even being offered a hot meal in reception when they arrived). The administrative processes associated with admission and discharge were also managed efficiently. Appropriate checks were carried out on all staff and visitors entering the establishment; the level of searching on prisoners and visitors was proportionate and was carried out in a sensitive and courteous way. All property coming into the prison was suitably accounted for and the systems for managing prisoners' property were reliable and safe.

Perimeter checks were thorough and were completed regularly and there were regular and reliable systems for checking locks and prisoner numbers.

Decisions relating to the progression of prisoners, release on home detention curfew and release on temporary licence, were based on all known risk factors and prisoners were often actively involved in discussions about these opportunities.

Prisoners told us that they felt safe at Addiewell. There was a straightforward process for dealing with prisoners who were violent and staff adopted a consistent approach in dealing with this type of behaviour. The disciplinary system was administered fairly, although some prisoners felt it was unfair to use closed visits as a general sanction (see also, indicator 7.3).

Drug testing of prisoners was carried out efficiently but the facilities being used for this purpose were poor. Records relating to the use of force were detailed,

up-to-date and closely monitored by a senior manager.

Prisoners separated on their own from other prisoners were subject to standard checks and balances and we found these satisfactory. Individuals located in the separation and reintegration unit had access to an adequate regime and were encouraged to return to circulation.

Quality indicators

5.1 Prison staff discharge all supervisory and security duties courteously and in doing so respect the individual circumstances of prisoners and visitors to the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

We observed prison staff carry out rub-down searches of prisoners courteously and professionally. We observed visitors being searched by staff to a good standard. Staff members were pleasant, as was the dog handler, who was visible when visitors were entering the prison. Visitors might also be ion scanned^[5] on entering the prison. Staff and visitor relationships were observed to be good as was evidenced by the fact that Addiewell has only received 10 complaints from visitors in the past 12 months.

All security audits were kept up-to-date and stored in the security manager's office. These were readily available for inspection. The head of operations provided secondary assurance for these audits.

HMP Addiewell had local operating procedures in place for searching, and again these were up-to-date and readily available for inspection.

5.2 The procedures for monitoring the prison perimeter are suitable and working effectively.

Rating: Good performance

HMP Addiewell has six dogs and three prison staff responsible for carrying out the perimeter checks. We found that on most days, two internal and two external perimeter checks were carried out (the standard is that at least one internal and one external perimeter check should be carried out daily). We observed an external perimeter check and noted that staff were motivated and knowledgeable about their role in the security process.

The perimeter check book was filled in after every check and any issues were reported to security managers and the head of operations. When a perimeter check was carried out, this was also noted in the occurrence book at the gate, as a secondary assurance process.

The staff at the dog unit also carried out microwave zone checks, at least twice a week, as per the local operating procedure.

On inspection, the electronic control room (ECR) staff showed us the policy for checking cameras and a book which showed every staff member who had been in the ECR and viewed cameras.

5.3 The systems and procedures for the admission and release of prisoners are implemented effectively and courteously.

Rating: Good performance

HMP Addiewell had a clear system in place for admission and liberation of prisoners. All prisoners arriving had their warrant checked and then went through a process of submitting details, being searched and being placed on the BOSS (body orifice security scan) chair. Then, the ACT 2 Care documentation was filled out and prisoners were seen by a nurse. During the inspection, this process was working well; the approach was methodical and well managed by the reception first line manager.

All prisoners were offered a hot meal within the reception area. This is an area of good practice.

The liberation process was equally straightforward and methodical. On the morning of liberation, prisoners released on licence were met in reception by one of the security managers to go through the prisoners' release paperwork and ensure all licences were signed correctly. For prisoners going out on home detention curfew (HDC), the SPS controller completed the paperwork process in reception, again on the morning of release.

HMP Addiewell complete a discharge certificate prior to all liberations. This is a checklist to ensure all tasks have been completed prior to the prisoner leaving the establishment. Once all paperwork and property was in order, the prisoner was escorted to the visitor reception area where they are released via the Librite exit, rather than the vehicle gates. This is another positive step in the liberation process as the Librite centre is where prisoners due for release will have received pre-release support and advice from various organisations and third sector agencies, (see footnote 4 and indicators 4.21, 8.4 and 8.7).

All prisoners leaving were given a holdall type bag for their property, rather than leaving the establishment with belongings in a clear plastic bag. This is an area of good practice.

During our inspection, all staff involved in these processes were courteous and helpful to prisoners entering and leaving the establishment.

5.4 The systems and procedures for access and egress of all other people are implemented effectively and courteously.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All visitors to Addiewell went through a biometrics process - their finger print was used for identification and a photograph has been taken prior to their first visit. Visitors passed through the metal detector and their jackets and bags were put through the x-ray machine. They then had a rub down search before being allowed in. There were adequate storage lockers in the entrance area and staff were on hand to provide information on the entry procedures.

Staff had to go through the same process as visitors and were also subject to scrutiny from the dog unit on site.

All vehicles entering the establishment were logged and searched in the gate. There was a vehicle search checklist that the gate staff had to complete for assurance purposes. There was a storage facility in the gate for items such as mobile phones or any other electronic devices.

5.5 The systems and procedures for controlling the entry and departure of goods to and from the prison are working effectively.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There was a clear local procedure in place for controlling goods into and out of the prison. All vehicles were held in the gate while they were searched. Drivers were required to have identification and have a rub down search. They were put on the biometric system (see 5.4 above) for future visits to the prison. All vehicles entering or leaving were logged in the gate book and logged on the Addiewell CMS. Drivers had to place all their electronic devices in the lockers provided.

When we observed these processes, staff were aware of the vehicle searching policy and their own duties within this policy. Vehicle searches were of a suitable standard, as was the completed paperwork within the gate.

All parcels were inspected by the dog unit and then put through the x-ray machine. Suspicious parcels were noted and the security unit were informed. The dog unit also sifted mail on a daily basis.

5.6 The risks presented to the community by any prisoner are assessed and appropriate security measures are adopted.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Addiewell held fairly regular risk management team (RMT) meetings. During our inspection, one RMT meeting was held to discuss progression cases. This was a lengthy meeting, at least in part because Addiewell allows all prisoners to attend and present their own case for progression, which is a positive development. However, some of the information appeared to be somewhat disjointed, due in the main to the officers who were presenting progression paperwork not actually working within the residential areas or directly with the prisoners involved. All risks were, however, discussed prior to any decisions being made.

All HDC decisions were made by the SPS controller, rather than an Addiewell senior manager, as per the contract with SPS. The process was to a suitable standard and prisoners were able to appeal against an HDC refusal. During inspection, Addiewell had 39 prisoners on HDC which compares favourably with many SPS prisons. All information was considered prior to making a decision on whether to release a prisoner on HDC.

HMP Addiewell had an exceptional escorted days absence (EEDA) process similar to all other SPS establishments. When the prisoner had handed in the application, the form was completed, taking into account any intelligence available, prior to final sign-off by the head of operations.

If any prisoner was required to be taken out on an emergency escort, the duty senior manager made this decision, following an establishment protocol to minimise any risk to the public during the escort.

The reception manager checked all personal escort records prior to the escort, to ensure all details were accurate, risks had been noted and information had been given to the escort staff.

5.7 The risks presented to others in the prison by any prisoner are assessed and appropriate supervision is enforced.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Addiewell follows the agreed national process for completing prisoner supervision system (PSS) reviews. The paperwork was completed by hall staff and signed off by the unit manager. Prisoners were given the opportunity to enter self-representations if they wished before signing the form to acknowledge receipt of their supervision category.

Managers completed a violent incident review (VIR) after all violent incidents and these were reviewed at the VIR review meeting chaired by the head of operations. There was a local operating policy in place to deal with violence, which all managers were aware of. After the VIR meeting all outcomes were recorded on a central tracker, which was available for inspection. Addiewell also had an InSight plan (an individual management plan to deal with violent prisoners), which was completed for violent/separation and reintegration unit prisoners. On inspection these were completed well and showed a clear and consistent approach to managing this type of offender.

All prisoners sharing a cell were subject to a cell sharing risk assessment before being located in a double cell, to reduce the risk of violence between prisoners sharing a cell.

Prisoners we spoke to, stated that they felt safe in Addiewell and were not afraid of violence from other prisoners, which suggested that the prison's approach to dealing with violence was working well.

5.8 The risks presented by any prisoner to themselves are assessed and appropriate supervision is applied.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

When prisoners arrived at Addiewell, they were given an ACT 2 Care assessment in reception, as well as seeing a nurse. Any prisoner identified as 'at risk' was then placed on observations and the residential first line manager and duty manager were informed.

Once located in the residential area, the hall staff were responsible for completing the ACT 2 Care documentation and ensuring the appropriate observations were adhered to. During our inspection, staff showed a working knowledge of the ACT process to the required standard. Addiewell ensured that all staff attended the national ACT 2 Care training. Training records were available for inspection, which showed above 90% of staff were within competency.

When completing PSS documentation, staff took into account previous self-harm incidences.

5.9 The systems and procedures for monitoring and supervising movements and activities of prisoners inside the prison are implemented effectively.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As prisoners left and returned to the wings for work, all prisoners went through the metal detector and a percentage were rub down searched. The route was supervised by a first line manager, available staff from reception, Selkirk Hall staff and any available runners. We spoke to staff who felt that this was not sufficient staffing, but during inspection it felt safe, if a little more relaxed than in other establishments.

All electronic doors on the main block were operated by ECR staff who identified anyone entering or leaving the halls.

All prisoners were required to carry an ID card at all times, and staff could ask to see these at any time.

Protection prisoners and prisoners with enemies were moved separately from the core group of prisoners to reduce any risk of violence during movement.

There were sufficient staff in the activities areas, because during inspection, most of the activity areas were short of capacity.

5.10 The systems and procedures to maintain the security of prisoners when they are outside the prison are implemented effectively.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The reception manager checked all prisoner escort records before any prisoners left the establishment on an escort. Any identified risks were noted and passed to escort staff.

The process for prisoners receiving an EEDA was well managed. All EEDA request forms were filled in by intelligence staff before being signed off by the head of operations. See also indicator 5.6.

5.11 The prison disciplinary system is used appropriately and in accordance with the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The orderly room at HMP Addiewell was chaired by the SPS controller and followed the same process as in other SPS prisons. Punishments awarded were in accordance with prison rules. We found that report paperwork was of the required standard and that the first line manager had completed the appropriate checks prior to the report being served.

All prisoners removed from residential halls and housed in the separation and reintegration unit (SRU) were subject to the same Rule 95 process as in other SPS prisons. The duty senior manager checked and signed all Rule 95 applications. The initial Rule 95 (1) paperwork was also confirmed by the SPS controller on site. SRU Rule 95 case conferences were attended by a senior manager and prisoners had the opportunity to attend case conferences, as well as to write their own self-representations when being placed on Rule 95 conditions.

Prisoners we spoke to felt that the orderly room was as they would expect. As previously noted a concern was raised that prisoners could be placed on closed visits for incidents that did not occur in the visits area. Prisoners felt that this should not happen because it was not an orderly room punishment. During inspection, we found that closed visits were mostly given for involvement in violence, which is a concern.

There was a weekly closed visit board so most were removed within a week (see also, indicator 7.3).

5.12 The law concerning the searching of prisoners and their property is implemented thoroughly.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Addiewell had a local operating policy on searching. Cell searches were controlled from the security manager's office and during inspection the search records were up-to-date. The hall staff were sent a daily email via the first line manager telling them which cells to search. This ensured the system was random and reduced the risk of prisoners finding out who would be searched prior to the searches taking place. Hall staff had access to prisoners' property cards via the CMS computer system so they could refer to them during cell searches.

All admissions to the prison were searched on arrival, as was their property before being stored in reception.

Prisoners could also go to reception on dedicated days to view their property and change articles in use. Should a prisoner feel that his property is missing, Addiewell has a property claim process and all property claims are dealt with at unit manager level.

5.13 The law concerning the testing of prisoners for alcohol and controlled drugs is implemented thoroughly.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Drug testing was part of the establishment's addiction strategy and there was a local operating standard in place. The task mainly falls to officers from the casework team, as there are no dedicated drug testing staff. The officers carried out most of the testing during the week and sent an email to reception staff to request testing at the weekend, staff permitting.

On inspection, most of the testing done was to support risk assessments, RMT meetings, and HDC. There were, however, a few suspicion tests carried out. Statistics and drug testing records were readily available for inspection.

The drug testing took place in the reception searching area as there was no dedicated unit within the establishment. This area was not sterile or private and as such, is a weakness for the prison. While prisoners were being tested, members of staff and other prisoners were moving around in the reception area and could see the prisoner, albeit from behind, as they provided a sample.

We observed two staff carrying out drug testing, using the multi-panel dip tests. They were very professional and carried out the testing process to the appropriate standards. Again, due to the lack of a proper area, the staff completed the paperwork on a shelf above the sink area as there was no designated area for this, but it was completed to the proper standard.

A dedicated drug testing area would undoubtedly improve the drug testing process within HMP Addiewell.

5.14 Searches of buildings and grounds and other security checks are carried out thoroughly.

Rating: Good performance

The searching of the buildings and grounds was co-ordinated from the security manager's office.

Hall staff carried out the cell security checks daily and logged them onto PR2. The security administrator completed an audit sheet once all daily searches were completed for audit assurance reasons and this sheet was then sent to the senior management team. Nightshift staff searched communal areas within the halls and activity areas. These again were coordinated from the security manager's office and search records were up-to-date and available for inspection.

The dog unit is utilised on a daily basis to search external areas, the locations searched are primarily based on current intelligence but augmented by a routine plan where all internal zones are searched at least quarterly.

5.15 The systems and procedures for tracking the movements of prisoners and reconciling prisoner numbers are implemented accurately.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoner numbers were confirmed twice a day on PR2. There was also a teatime check done but not confirmed on PR2.

The duty manager completed a report confirming the lock up numbers at the end of the backshift. On inspection, these reports were completed and signed as per local operating procedures.

All halls and work parties confirmed their numbers after route movements to ensure accurate numbers were recorded in each area.

The establishment population numbers are controlled by the Selkirk first line manager to ensure that Addiewell remains within its agreed numbers for contractual reasons.

5.16 The integrity of locking systems is audited effectively and with appropriate frequency.

Rating: Good performance

Hall staff checked all cell locks during their daily accommodation security checks. Any damaged locks were then reported to the first line manager.

The establishment has an audit system, undertaken by the nightshift manager, they also carry out regular key checks during the nightshift. These audits ensure that all keys are checked monthly and the completed audit is sent to the head of operations.

Additionally the head of operations keeps a key ledger of all damaged keys which have been sent for repair. There is a secondary assurance process system which is computer based and a hard copy of all keys checked is retained.

The night shift manager was also responsible for checking all sealed packs^[6] at least once a month and completed an audit sheet for this.

On inspection, all audits of keys and locks were found to be up-to-date.

5.17 Powers to confine prisoners to their cell, to segregate them or limit their opportunities to associate with others are exercised appropriately, with humanity and in accordance with the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

At the time of our inspection there were 12 prisoners located within the SRU. We inspected all Rule 95 paperwork which was completed to the required standard and within compliance timescales.

The SRU staff and first line manager demonstrated a good understanding of the Rule 95 process. Prisoners who were placed on Rule 95 (1) conditions pending orderly room appearances, were done so within the prison rules and the reasons given were defendable to challenge. The duty manager signed these off and a copy was issued to the prisoner involved.

5.18 The management of prisoners segregated from others is effected in accordance with the law and with regard for their continuing need for a stimulating programme of activities and social contact and for treatment aimed at enabling their return to normal conditions of detention as soon as can be achieved safely.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

We found that all prisoners located within the SRU had a clear management plan, known as an InSight plan. These were well structured and individually based.

Rule 95 case conference minutes were available for inspection and showed that these were well attended by senior management and prisoners were invited and mostly attended. The minutes showed a clear rationale for prisoners who were kept in separation and documented their management plans for an eventual return to a mainstream environment.

The clinical manager attended all Rule 41 case conferences to discuss any on-going health concerns.

There was a clear process in place for prisoners who refused to return to circulation. As well as appearing in the orderly room every 14 days, they were asked on a daily basis to return to circulation. This was updated on a daily contact sheet which was available for assurance purposes.

We inspected risk and conditions entries on PR2 which were up-to-date for all prisoners housed in the SRU. All prisoners housed in the SRU had their visits in the main visits area, unless on closed visits. They also had access to books, TV and music facilities.

5.19 Powers to impose enhanced security measures on a prisoner are exercised appropriately and in accordance with the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

At the time of inspection, no prisoners were held on special security measures (SSM). There was a clear process in place should this need arise. All SSM paperwork is available from the security manager's office, as is an SSM process document for guidance. The security manager clearly had a good knowledge of the process and was able to show all documentation relating to SSM. If a prisoner in Addiewell is placed on SSM, an observation book is initiated to note daily narratives about the prisoner and the prisoner involved is given the opportunity to complete self-representations.

The director or deputy director of HMP Addiewell gives authority to use SSM and signs off on all extensions after the first 48-hour review period. The duty manager is responsible for updating PR2 when required, and the security administrator checks all updates for assurance reasons.

5.20 Force is used only when necessary and strictly in accordance with the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All removals within Addiewell, where staff had to put 'hands on' a prisoner have had a removal form completed. On inspection, these were completed to the required standard. Control and restraint removal statistics were kept on a spreadsheet and were sent to the senior management team every month.

Staff were aware of the process for completing witness statements for incidents and removals they were involved in. In these cases, the senior manager completes an incident overview which is sent to the senior management team.

Once a removal has taken place, the prisoner's cell would be double locked to ensure his property is not damaged or removed. If the prisoner is to remain in the SRU, a cell clearance then takes place and the property is stored in reception.

All removal paperwork in audited by the head of operations to ensure compliance with proper procedures. There was a clear disciplinary process in place to investigate staff who have appeared to use excessive or prolonged use of force during a C and R removal.

5.21 Physical restraints are only used when necessary and strictly in accordance with the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

During compliant removals, plastic cuffs are used regularly in Addiewell. The use of these was noted on all removal paperwork and statistics on their use was available.

The body belt has only been used once in HMP Addiewell since it opened, and the authority to use it would need to be gained through the SPS controller on site.

5.22 Prisoners' personal property and cash are recorded and, where appropriate, stored.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Visitors were able to hand in property or cash before entering the visits area. Receipts were given and the property was then taken to the reception property store. All cash was given to the cashier for entering into a prisoner's personal cash account. Property arriving by post was checked by the dog unit before being taken to reception to be added to property cards.

If staff were required to carry out a cell clearance they did so with the prisoner's property card. They then completed a cell clearance form clearly noting the property that was on the card and the property that was not. Any property not on the card would be stored separately until ownership was confirmed. The reception staff displayed a good knowledge of the system and on inspection, property cards accurately showed what was on the prisoner's property rack. The reception storage area was well laid out and had sufficient storage in racks and boxes to accommodate the number of prisoners housed in Addiewell.

Prisoners had set days to request a visit to reception to check and exchange property from their rack. This process was aided by the fact that residential staff had access to a prisoners' property cards on the CMS system, which allowed them to show a prisoner what they had stored in reception.

Standard 6: 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.

Commentary

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: Satisfactory performance

Relationships between staff and prisoners were generally harmonious and respectful.

There was a predictable regime and the atmosphere within the prison was normally calm and orderly. The rights of most prisoners to privacy and confidentiality were well respected, but this was not the case for individuals on 'double protection'. This approach placed significant restrictions on these prisoners, resulting in the situation where those located on the protection wing did not have access to the same range of opportunities as mainstream prisoners.

The use of the term 'double protection' is inappropriate and should cease.

Given the large proportion of prisoners who chose not to participate in opportunities available within the regime, the incentives scheme appeared to be having limited impact.

The arrangements for allocating jobs within the prison were fair.

Prisoners found the kiosk system very useful in keeping them up-to-date with what was happening in the prison and it provided them with a degree of independence, allowing them to order their meals and keep track of their finances. The consultation arrangements were sound and prisoners had a variety of different forums where they could make sure their views were heard, but prisoners had little confidence in the internal complaints system and the replies prisoners received were often not particularly helpful.

Prisoners were given clear information about how to seek independent advice through external agencies and there was unfettered access to legal advice.

More needed to be done to promote the interests of foreign national prisoners who may need or would benefit from access to external support or advice.

The director should examine why prisoners have so little confidence in the complaints system and use the feedback to improve the existing arrangements.

Quality indicators

6.1 Relationships between staff and prisoners are respectful. The use of disrespectful language or behaviour is not tolerated.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Relationships between staff and prisoners were reasonably good. Many of the frontline staff had limited prison experience, staffing levels were relatively low, and officers often seemed stretched. This frustrated prisoners who said that things did not always get done. Despite this, prisoners were often sympathetic about how busy officers were and the prison functioned successfully on what appeared to be a consensual basis. We received a number of anecdotal accounts about situations where prisoners had helped staff to deal with conflict situations involving other prisoners.

We saw generally good conduct from prisoners and we saw little evidence of prisoners being disrespectful towards each other or towards staff.

6.2 Staff respect prisoners' needs for privacy and personal life.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The modern design of the prison with en-suite accommodation, lots of open space and natural light, helps reduce the adverse impact of communal living and helps provide an environment where prisoners can retain some privacy. We generally observed staff adopting a respectful and sensitive approach towards prisoners. Use of first names was common and we saw officers knocking on cell doors before entering.

We were, however, concerned about the treatment of the small number of prisoners on 'double protection'. These prisoners were located 'on protection' in Forth A, and were separated additionally from the rest of the prisoners there. During the course of the inspection we spoke to two prisoners in these circumstances. They were required to share accommodation and were locked up together for most of the day without access to a decent regime.

It was clear that the living conditions for these prisoners on the so called 'double protection' did not meet the necessary standard. The need for privacy and a personal life should be respected for all prisoners.

6.3 Staff respect prisoners' rights to confidentiality in their dealings with them.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

We received no specific complaints from prisoners about breaches of confidentiality. Prisoners were not identified by name on their cell doors and the biometrics system helped to reduce the need for names to be referred to or shouted out loud.

We spoke to staff who said that, if the need arose, they would use the group rooms located within each of the wings to discuss private matters with prisoners and we saw them being used in this way.

6.4 Staff achieve an environment within the prison that is orderly and predictable. Their use of authority in achieving this is seen by prisoners as legitimate.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The atmosphere within the prison was calm and relaxed during the course of the inspection. Daily routines normally followed the schedule for the published core day. Staff and prisoners generally appeared to have a good rapport with each other and we did not witness directly any serious conflict situations.

In our discussion groups, some prisoners felt that staff did not always exercise sufficient authority. However, from the interactions we observed, staff maintained appropriate boundaries and interactions were appropriate.

6.5 Staff challenge prisoners' unacceptable behaviour or attitudes whenever they become aware of it. They do this in a way that is assertive and courteous.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The relationships we observed between staff and prisoners were professional. There was little evidence of staff challenging prisoners, as most prisoners behaved in an acceptable way. However, on one occasion we did observe a prisoner verbally abuse a nurse, which was not addressed in an appropriate way by the discipline staff present.

6.6 Any limitations imposed on prisoners' freedoms or access to facilities are justified and the reasons for them are courteously communicated to the prisoners.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The 'enemies list' provided risk assessed information to help determine which prisoners should not mix. It was used effectively to ensure that prisoners were kept apart where necessary and potential 'flash points' were minimised.

The regime for protection prisoners, located on Forth A, was more restricted than for mainstream prisoners, as they did not have access to all the mainstream activities. Prisoners on protection complained to us that they did not receive any induction, they had less opportunity to attend the gym and did not feel it was safe for them to attend church services. A small number of prisoners who were kept apart from other prisoners in the protection wing, were subject to what is known as 'double protection'. Living conditions for these prisoners were extremely limited, as they were locked up for most of the day and did not mix with any other prisoners.

Prisoners located on the protection wing, including those subject to 'double protection' should not experience unnecessary restrictions.

6.7 The operation of the system of privileges promotes a climate of activity and purpose, prisoners' responsibility for their own affairs and good face to face relationships with staff.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The incentives and earned privileges scheme is designed to motivate prisoners to participate positively with the prison routine. There are two different levels within the scheme: 'standard' and 'enhanced'. All prisoners are eligible to reach enhanced, apart from those that are untried and those serving less than two months.

At the beginning of the inspection, 420 prisoners were on the standard level of the scheme and 277 were on enhanced. Those on the enhanced level were entitled to receive higher wages and more visits.

As we have indicated elsewhere a large proportion of the population did not participate fully in the regime and the privilege system seemed to provide limited incentive to progress.

The system of privileges should be applied more effectively to provide greater incentive for prisoners to make constructive use of their time in custody.

6.8 The system by which prisoners may apply and be selected for paid work reflects as fully as possible systems of job application and selection within the community.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All jobs were advertised through the kiosk system, as well as on wing noticeboards. A board chaired by the employability and skills manager was held every week, where contributions made by relevant departments within the establishment were considered. Prisoners did not complain to us about the allocation of jobs and they seemed content that the process was fair.

Inspectors were given an example of a prisoner who had been allocated a job, despite some suspicion expressed by security staff over his conduct, because on balance it was believed he merited it. This gave us some confidence that decisions were not being made in a mechanistic way.

6.9 Prisoners are consulted about the range of recreational activities available to them.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners were informed about what activities were available during the induction programme. They were able to keep themselves informed about when activities were taking place by using the kiosk system.

Prisoners were given sufficient opportunity to express their views about the recreational activities available, through the wing-based consultation forums.

6.10 Prisoners are consulted about the range of products available through the prison canteen.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners were given sufficient opportunity to express their views about the range of products available in the canteen, through the regular consultation forums. The subject of 'canteen' was a standing agenda item and minutes of meetings showed evidence of constructive conversations taking place about this.

6.11 The systems for reserving places on recreational and cultural activities are equitable between prisoners and allow them to exercise personal choice.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Most prisoners were able to keep themselves up-to-date and informed about what recreational and cultural activities were taking place by using the kiosk system. Additional information was sometimes placed on display in the residential areas. Prisoners who wanted to participate in these activities simply put their name on a list or requested that a member of staff did this for them. These arrangements worked well for most prisoners.

An area of concern was that the small number of 'double protection' prisoners, who were locked up for most of the day, did not know what activities were available and did not get the opportunity to participate safely in any of them.

All prisoners should have the opportunity to participate in a range of suitable recreational and cultural activities.

6.12 The systems for regulating prisoners' access to money held in their prison account and their own property allow them to exercise personal choice within the constraints of the law.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Addiewell follows a similar process to the SPS, in relation to how prisoners' money and access to personal property are administered.

Prisoners were informed about these systems during induction and there were detailed instructions about how property can be exchanged in the induction booklet. Each prisoner was able to keep track of the balance in his financial account by using the kiosk system. These arrangements appeared to work well and prisoners did not complain about them.

6.13 The limits on the actions staff can take in implementing security procedures are observed.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

We were concerned about the lack of governance surrounding the supervision of prisoners who were placed on, what was known locally, as 'double protection'. This was used for individuals, already located in the protection wing, where it was considered they would not be safe mixing with other prisoners. In practice, prisoners subject to 'double protection' experienced a similar regime to individuals who were placed in the SRU, but without any of the associated checks and balances.

No prisoners should be subject to unfair restrictions and the practice of 'double protection' should cease.

6.14 The rules in relation to medical supervision of activities and persons in circumstances of increased risk of harm or mistreatment are observed.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Clear rules and procedures were in place to make sure prisoners received appropriate medical supervision when at risk from harm. These included a review of prisoners' health and welfare when removed from association; in the event that restraint was applied; or if the prisoner was deemed unfit to attend work or programmes.

Prisoners who were at increased risk of harm or mistreatment were discussed at multidisciplinary healthcare team meetings. Plans of action were then agreed.

Medications were managed safely and prisoners were supervised when risk was identified.

6.15 Procedures and decisions conform to established standards of natural and administrative justice.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Orderly room procedures at HMP Addiewell were managed by the SPS controller on site. The controller was observed to follow the correct process as per prison rules, asked all questions contained on the adjudication paperwork and included an explanation of the appeal procedure after giving the punishment award. All orderly room paperwork inspected was up to a suitable standard. An adjudication sheet was completed within the orderly room, after all reports have been dealt with and this sheet was sent to the controller's assistant who carried out an assurance check. The information collated from orderly rooms is sent quarterly to SPS headquarters for statistical purposes.

6.16 Prisoners' international human rights as asserted in law are respected.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Most aspects of prisoners' human rights were respected within the prison. However, as we have indicated under indicators 6.2, 6.6, 6.11 and 6.13, we have concerns about the governance of 'double protection', as well as aspects of the complaints process (see 6.21) and the use of closed visits (see 5.11 and 7.3).

6.17 Prisoners are kept well informed about prison procedures and how to access services available to them.

Rating: Good performance

Prisoners were kept well informed about how the prison works through various means: the induction process, the prisoner information TV channel, and importantly the kiosk system, which provided up-to-date information on most aspects of prison life and was easy to use.

6.18 Prisoners are kept well informed about events taking place in the prison.

Rating: Good performance

The kiosk system is a reliable method of ensuring that prisoners understand what is happening in the prison. Prisoners we spoke to said they liked using the kiosk and found it very useful.

6.19 The prison reliably passes critical information between prisoners and their families.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Members of the chaplaincy team took responsibility for passing on very sensitive family-related information to prisoners. It was encouraging to note that staff felt empowered to use their discretion to allow additional phone calls if they knew that a prisoner was experiencing a significant personal or domestic problem.

6.20 Prisoners' access to information necessary to safeguard themselves against mistreatment or arbitrary decisions is observed.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

During the induction process, prisoners were given clear information about how the complaints system worked and the function of the visiting committee. The role of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman was advertised in communal areas.

All prisoners were provided with an induction booklet, which contains information about the support provided by Listeners^[7] and the Samaritans, along with their contact details.

These arrangements were adequate for most prisoners. However, some foreign national prisoners we spoke to, where English was not their first language, did not understand how to seek independent help.

All prisoners should be provided with information, which they can understand, about how to safeguard themselves from mistreatment or arbitrary decisions.

6.21 The prison complaints resolution system works well.

Rating: Poor performance

Approximately 40 complaints were being generated each month. The main issues raised concerned progression, healthcare and visits. Throughout the course of the inspection, prisoners consistently reported having little confidence in the complaints system.

Complaint forms were not freely available in all residential areas. In some wings, prisoners were asked what the nature of their complaint was, before being issued with a form. Although this was intended to be a helpful way of trying to resolve complaints at an early stage, we observed a prisoner reacting badly to this.

Prisoners were making heavy and inappropriate use of the confidential complaints system and almost all the confidential complaints which we sampled did not meet the criteria. Replies to complaints were not sufficiently helpful, they did not always address the issue raised directly and often diverted the complainer elsewhere. Apologies were not always given when they should have been.

The twice-weekly complaints review meetings involving frontline managers were a useful way of trying to achieve consistent responses.

As stated in the overview for this standard, the director should examine why prisoners have so little confidence in the complaints system and use the feedback to improve the existing arrangements.

6.22 The NHS complaints resolution system works well in the prison.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Systems and processes were in place for prisoners to submit feedback, concerns or complaints. Forms were available on the halls and prisoners could deposit these confidentially into a secure box. This was emptied each day by healthcare staff. Straightforward complaints were managed within three working days and if the complaint was complex and required investigation, an acknowledgement letter was issued followed by a written response to the complainant within 20 working days. If a prisoner was unhappy with the outcome of their complaint, they could then contact the patient advice and support service (PASS).

All complaints were sent to the complaints team at NHS Lothian for review. At the time of the inspection, 82 feedback/complaints forms had been received in May 2015. Of these, 50 were directly addressed by healthcare staff at the prison and 32 were sent to the complaints team to take forward. The most frequent reason for complaining was about medication. Prisoners we spoke to were satisfied with the complaints system.

6.23 The system for allowing prisoners to book interviews with independent representatives of civil society works well.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The arrangements for booking legal and professional visits were well advertised and understood by prisoners.

The establishment did have a properly constituted Visiting Committee, however, there was no other formal provision in place to cater for visitors from civil society but we were informed that if a prisoner made a request to receive a visit from a bona fide representative of civil society, the request would be dealt with on its merits.

Prisoners should be made aware of their right to take visits from representatives of civil society, such as voluntary groups that visit prisoners and how they can go about this.

6.24 The prison gives every assistance to agencies which exercise statutory powers of complaints, investigation or supervision.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

We were advised that all visiting agencies such as the Police, SPS and the Parole Board were afforded courtesy and cooperation when dealing with the prison. Suitable visiting facilities were available and where necessary appropriate background information was supplied.

6.25 Prisoners are afforded unimpeded and confidential access to legal advice, the courts and agencies which exercise statutory powers of complaints, investigation or supervision.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The arrangements for legal visits were efficient and well organised. Prisoners told us they found it easy to book visits. The interview facilities were good, with 14 suitably designed rooms providing sufficient space and privacy.

A well-equipped tribunal room was available for visiting agencies and was used mainly for parole hearings.

We were informed that limited use was made of the extensive video conference facilities.

6.26 Citizens of states other than the UK are afforded confidential access to their states' representatives. Refugees and stateless persons are afforded privileged access to a consular office of their choice and to organisations or agencies that protect their interests.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

A representative from the Pakistani government keeps in regular contact with Pakistani national prisoners and, as well as sending in religious material, visits prisoners once a year.

Prisoners from a foreign national background were identified on admission and then interviewed by the diversity and inclusion manager. Staff stated that they are then given the opportunity to contact their Embassy or Consulate, but this was seldom taken up.

One prisoner from a foreign national background told us that, following his admission, he had tried for six months to establish contact with a representative from his home government, but eventually gave up as he was unsuccessful.

Prisoners should be made aware of their right to contact members of national and international parliaments and how they can go about this.

6.27 Prisoners are afforded confidential access to members of national and international parliaments who represent them.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Inspectors found no evidence that prisoners would be prevented from contacting any member of a national or international parliament, but with the exception of support for Pakistani nationals, active help was limited.

Staff told us that if assistance was requested, they would take reasonable steps to address this. However, prisoners, including diversity representatives, were not aware about how they might pursue this type of enquiry and there was no formal process in place to allow this.

As outlined in quality 6.26, prisoners should be made aware of their right to contact members of national and international parliaments and how they can go about this.

Standard 7: 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. Prisoners' sentences are managed appropriately to prepare them for returning to their community. The prison 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.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Generally acceptable performance

The visiting arrangements were well organised and prisoners were encouraged and supported to maintain contact with their family and friends. As well as the standard visit sessions, prisoners had the opportunity to participate in additional activities such as bonding visits and a homework club. The e-mail a prisoner scheme was well established, but only limited use was made of video conferencing in order to maintain family contact.

Progression through the prison system is managed effectively for long-term prisoners. Unfortunately this is not the case for short-term prisoners.

The measures in place to deal with HDC were mostly sound, but some of the documentation produced for parole purposes was below standard.

No evidence was found that there was an effective personal officer scheme operating within HMP Addiewell.

The range of employment and training available for prisoners was too narrow and the number of places too low. Classroom attendance was often at less than 50% and there was a wide variation in the quality of teaching and learning. Programme staff were not sufficiently involved in assessing individuals who were suitable for group work programmes and not all risk and protective factors were being considered as part of the programme assessment. Current procedures didn't easily allow aggregated data to be produced, making it difficult to plan and profile relevant provision.

However, the spiritual and pastoral needs of prisoners were well catered for: there was a wide range of reading material in the library and prisoners were able to participate in a reasonably wide range of artistic, musical and cultural events and activities. They were also encouraged to make contributions to the prison magazine.

Although all prisoners had the opportunity to take an hour's exercise outside each day, take up of this was low. More needed to be done to encourage prisoners to participate in this activity.

There was access to a suitable range of physical activities and use of the gym was high.

Quality indicators

7.1 The prison maximises the opportunities for prisoners to meet with their families and friends.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The visits room can accommodate up to 50 visits at a time. There was a system of continuous visits in a roll on, roll off fashion. Visits took place on weekday afternoons and evenings and weekend afternoons.

Prisoners booked their own visits through the kiosk system and were responsible for informing their family when the visit had been booked. Prisoners were informed of the visit booking process at induction and there were notices in the visitor waiting area to inform visitors of times.

During the visit sessions, prisoners operated a snack bar where visitors could purchase snacks and drinks. The snack bar did not sell hot food which visitors we spoke to, commented on negatively.

We saw evidence of a number of initiatives at Addiewell, aside from the standard visits, which were in place to enhance and maintain family contact. These are discussed under quality 7.5.

Prisoner families were invited into the prison for integrated case management (ICM) meetings and Act 2 Care case conferences but the uptake of these opportunities was low.

7.2 The arrangements made for admitting family members and friends into the prison are welcoming and offer appropriate support.

Rating: Good performance

Prisoners' families and friends were required to book in at the visitors' entrance before each visit. Once admitted they can go to a desk to hand in property or money before going into the visits area.

Families Outside^[8] have support workers in the waiting area to offer information and advice to visitors, as well as providing a children's play area. There were a range of leaflets giving information, such as the assisted prison visit scheme.

Staff in the search area were very helpful, with advice about using the lockers and what items could be taken up into the visits room. The searching process was well explained and even though the dog unit was highly visible, it did not appear overbearing or intrusive.

Feedback from visitors was mainly positive although one visitor stated that on the first visit the admission process took quite a long time, but on subsequent visits it was very quick and easy due to the biometric system. Visitors were also quick to praise the front-of-house staff for being polite and helpful.

7.3 Any restrictions placed on the conditions under which prisoners may meet with their families or friends take account of the importance placed on the maintenance of good family and social relationships throughout their sentence.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

HMP Addiewell has five closed visit spaces and 15 agents' rooms.

There was a process for placing prisoners on closed visits and a review board was held every Wednesday. If a prisoner was placed on closed visits they were reviewed on the first Wednesday after this date, whereby a decision was made about whether they will be kept on closed visits. If they were, a review date would be built in. The head of operations chaired the review boards and prisoners could appeal a decision by submitting a self-representation in writing to the board.

At the time of inspection, 15 prisoners at Addiewell were on closed visits, which seemed high compared to other similar sized prisons. This may have been partly due to the fact that Addiewell places prisoners on closed visits for reasons that do not always involve visits, such as violent incidents in the halls or for theft from work parties. Prisoners we spoke to felt that Addiewell used closed visits for punitive reasons.

If visitors were banned or placed on closed visits, they were informed in writing by letter. Again, they could appeal this decision in writing if they wished.

7.4 The atmosphere in the visit room is friendly and, while effective measures are adopted to ensure the security of the prison and safety of those taking visits, supervision is unobtrusive.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All prisoners were rubbed down prior to leaving the halls for visits. We observed these being carried out in line with guidelines. All prisoners were required to wear a prison issue top but could wear their own denims and footwear.

Due to the size of the visits room, with 50 spaces, there were no issues with overcrowding. The seating was comfortable and made of bright-coloured fabric. The atmosphere was relaxed and staff were visible, but certainly not in high numbers, at the time of inspection. Officers walked around the room occasionally, instead of standing in one area. They were also willing to interact with visitors when needed.

There was a snack bar in the visits room for visitors to buy snacks and juice during the visit.

The dog unit was visible at the front of house when visitors were being admitted, in

the waiting and search areas, as well as in the visits room itself.

There were plenty of CCTV cameras covering the visits room. There is a facility to monitor these cameras located to the rear of the visits room, which, depending on staffing levels, was not always staffed. When it was not staffed, the ECR would be charged with observing the cameras.

As the visits system was roll on, roll off there didn't appear to be any issues with moving large groups of prisoners or visitors at any one time - if required, staff were able to take individual prisoners for searches at the end of their visit. Prisoners we spoke to stated that, at times they had to wait quite a while to get escorted to or from the visits room, due to a shortage of staff. This was not evident during inspection as there were enough staff to carry out these tasks.

7.5 Opportunities are found in the prison for prisoners to interact with family members in a variety of parental and other family member roles.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

In addition to standard visits, HMP Addiewell had a number of other initiatives to enhance family and parental contact. Bonding visits took place on Saturday mornings for prisoners with children and a homework club ran on Wednesdays for prisoners to build relationships with their school-age children.

There were currently two musically minded initiatives being organised through the visits team: the 'In tune' project where prisoners can take part in musical classes, playing percussion instruments, such as tambourines, with younger children; and 'Dads Rock' was being planned for the school holidays where prisoners and their child would be able to actually learn to play instruments, such as the guitar. At the time of inspection, the selection criteria for prisoners was not available for these two initiatives.

HMP Addiewell also runs a family fun-day at least once a year. This usually has a topical theme, such as the Olympics, and allows prisoners to interact and play with their children in a fun atmosphere.

As mentioned in indicator 7.2, there was lots of information available for prisoners' families provided by Families Outside. They have an office in the waiting area and are on hand on a daily basis to offer support as needed.

7.6 Where it is not possible for families to use the normal arrangements for visits, the prison is proactive in taking alternative steps to assist prisoners in sustaining family relationships.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prisoners could use the telephone and mail systems to keep in contact with family and friends. Prisoners used the kiosk system to top up their pin phone accounts and there were enough pin phones within the halls. Mail was collected and distributed daily within the residential areas.

The email a prisoner scheme was used, where family members can email the prison with a message for a prisoner. The emails were printed off centrally, placed in an envelope and delivered to the wings via internal mail. On one occasion, HMP Addiewell allowed a prisoner with no family in the UK, to use Skype to contact his family. This only happened once but evidenced good support to the prisoner concerned. The establishment does have video conferencing, but again does not appear to use this regularly for family contact reasons. Addiewell were also willing to liaise with other establishments to support prisoners going to other prisons on accumulated visits. This enables prisoners to see family members, who cannot travel to Addiewell, but can travel to a prison nearer their home.

7.7 The arrangements to facilitate a free flow of communication between prisoners and their families help the prisoners to sustain family ties.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As mentioned previously, prisoners could use pin phones, mail facilities, and receive hard copies of emails. (At present, the prisoner is not able to reply by email, but they can reply in writing.)

Evidence was provided of family fun-days and events, mainly taking place at holiday times, such as Easter, Christmas or Halloween. A gala day is planned for this summer for families to come in and take part in games and face painting.

Induction visits for people visiting, provided information about all the ways to keep in contact with prisoners and any questions regarding family contact could be answered. There was no formal family contact officer like in most other SPS establishments, but the Families Outside staff were on hand to offer any support or information required. These staff are a good resource to the prison and during our inspection they were very knowledgeable and motivated in supporting prisoners' families, during and after prisoners' sentences.

There were leaflets available for foreign language speaking prisoners and these were found in reception and could be obtained from hall and induction staff.

7.8 Prisoners and where appropriate their families, participate in their case management. Prisoners are consulted about case management decisions reached.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

For long-term prisoners and statutory cases, the long-standing and structured ICM process was applied.

Family attendance at ICM case conferences is low, however, this is a situation experienced in other establishments. Local management information from May 2015, showed that 26 family members were due to attend case conferences but only six had attended.

We interviewed one family member following a case conference who said that she had received the request to attend by letter, a few weeks prior to the meeting. She indicated that the letter had referred to information about the ICM process but it did not seem to have been enclosed. Therefore, she was uncertain about the process prior to attending, and indicated that it would have been helpful to be provided with some information about the case management process, as well as expected behaviour and protocols within the prison.

For non-statutory prisoners and those subject to short-term case management processes, we received mixed responses from prisoners regarding this process. Initially when asked, a number of prisoners were unaware that, as a short-term prisoner, they had access to case management. However, when this was explored they recognised the role of case workers in the creation of their timetables. Many of the prisoners we spoke to reported delays of weeks, before they met with a case worker and then being told that they were unable to engage in desired work parties due to lack of space or opportunities in their areas of interest.

The short-term casework processes were not necessarily operating as effectively as they could be. Closer monitoring of short-term prisoners would be advantageous, particularly in managing their time, managing their progression and preparing them for release.

Staff members reported that short-term prisoners were only considered for progression if they requested this themselves. This is clearly problematic if prisoners are unaware that they can access this support.

7.9 Prisoners are encouraged to maintain and develop a range of social relationships that will help in their successful return to their communities on release.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The prison offered some opportunities for prisoners to develop social relationships providing the potential to help a successful return to the community. However, these appeared to be available to a relatively small number of prisoners and depended on the home address of prisoners.

In order to support family relationships the prison had a dedicated visitor centre run by Families Outside.

The prison runs parenting groups to help sustain on-going relationships with prisoners and their children. Circle^[9] provided support to prisoners with children, which was viewed positively by prisoners who valued learning more about child development and meaningful play.

7.10 The prison operates an individualised approach to effective prisoner case management.

Rating: Poor performance

All prisoners admitted to HMP Addiewell have a core screen within 72 hours, completed by the Douglas House casework manager and recorded on the prisoners' community integration plan (CIP) on PR2. Prisoners (both untried and convicted) are admitted to Douglas Unit and can remain there for up to 10 days in order to complete their induction. There has been a recent initiative where prisoners deliver parts of the induction and for a week prior to our inspection, a 'first night clinic' was introduced where peer supporters met new prisoners (each night) to offer support.

Case management for STP prisoners is managed by the Librite team who review the CIP within the appropriate timescales. This is a voluntary process, however the statistics over the last three months encouragingly show that approximately 86% attendance at the pre-release interview.

At time of inspection approximately 200 prisoners were managed by two Casework Managers. They chair ICM case conferences and carry out risk and needs assessments and meet with the Prison Based Social Worker (PBSW) prior to the initial ICM to identify appropriate interventions. No generic assessment is undertaken.

During the inspection an ICM case conference was attended which was chaired by an inexperienced prison manager, however the PBSW ensured all relevant risk markers were covered. A number of prisoners spoken to stated they have to put an application in to see their case worker and can wait up to six weeks. One prisoner the inspector spoke with indicated that they chose to disengage in the regime preferring to remain in his cell for the majority of his sentence, with apparently little or no encouragement to do otherwise.

No evidence was found that an effective Personal Officer Scheme is in operation. A Personal Officer Aide Memoire was recently introduced but this is simply more guidance on what information they should include in the narratives they submit. There was no Personal Officers at the ICM case conference or RMT we observed. Staff report that the Personal Officer scheme is in name only, this would be supported by the poor Response in Custody reports.

There was some confusion over the application of the generic programme assessment, as currently the casework manager and social work staff were meeting to discuss the risk and needs assessment, however there did not appear to be any involvement of the prisoner in this process. This is an area of concern.

The existence of these situations give cause for concern that the appropriate level of importance or resources are given to sentence management within Addiewell.

7.11 The systems and procedures operated by the prison to identify or select prisoners for release or periods of leave outside the prison are implemented fairly and effectively.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

HMP Addiewell does not have a top end or community integration unit so currently there are no unescorted periods of leave granted from this establishment.

Prisoners were able to apply for an Exceptional Escorted Days Absence (EEDA) for a variety of reasons. Over the last six months there had been approximately seven EEDAs per month. The process was embedded and there was evidence to support that these were considered appropriately and in line with prison rules.

Risk management team (RMT) meetings were held on the third Tuesday of each month, with the RMT administrator monitoring databases and critical dates and arranging additional RMT meetings if needed. RMT meetings were well attended and were chaired by the director or deputy director. They were managed in line with the RMT guidance manual. However, there did not appear to be a system for tracking all prisoners who were eligible for progression, particularly short-term prisoners serving 12 months and above. Therefore, it could be considered that not all prisoners were being offered the opportunity to progress in line with the current policy.

7.12 Sentence management procedures are implemented as prescribed and take account of critical dates for progression, release on parole or licence.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The Home detention curfew (HDC) process was followed competently and of the files we checked, appropriate decisions had been made, considering all risk factors, response in custody and the community assessment. The SPS controller signed all HDC licences, although if a prisoner was refused HDC, the appeal was considered by the other SPS controller. This process should be reviewed to ensure that the same individual does not undertake both processes for the same prisoner.

Progression for short-term prisoners needed improving. The short-term prisoner casework managers did not actively encourage prisoners to progress but waited until prisoners made their own application. There was no tracker system in place to monitor this or provide assurance that the qualifying prisoners were being considered.

Long-term prisoners were being monitored by their casework managers. We reviewed a number of prisoners' files, who were being considered for progression. There had been delays in gaining access to the substance related offending behaviour programme and there were also some delays in the provision of post programme reports.

High turnover of staff, staff vacancies, staff rotation and maternity cover has impacted on service delivery and consistency of approach, in all areas. We were told that there were 10 casework managers in post but this number included team leaders, and three also assisting in the education department. This was affecting the workload of the casework managers in post.

Prisoners who were managed under Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) procedures were transferred within 12 weeks to either HMP Barlinnie or Glenochil.

7.13 The risk management measures that have to be observed in respect of prisoners serving Orders for Lifelong Restriction and those subject to Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements are implemented.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

As noted in 7.12 above, MAPPA cases were transferred within 12 weeks of being admitted to HMP Addiewell.

One Order for Lifelong Restriction prisoner had received 1 to 1 psychological input but informed the inspector that he had been told that he would not be able to continue to receive this support in HMP Addiewell. This was raised with psychology who were unsure of the specifics of the case, however they undertook to establish the status of his case.

7.14 There is an appropriate and sufficient range of employment and training opportunities available to prisoners.

Rating: Poor performance

The prison offered a limited range and insufficient number of employment and training opportunities for prisoners. Employment was offered in work parties for bin cleaning, kitchen tasks, general cleaning and painting. However, work parties had low prisoner numbers. Work parties were often merged, or sometimes cancelled, due to the regular absenteeism of prisoners, and in some cases staff. This limited the quality and amount of purposeful activity and training undertaken by prisoners.

The number of employment positions in the prison provided opportunities for only one-third of the prison population. The range of positions available was limited, with over 75% allocated to passmen working mainly in the residential halls, or kitchen work. The prison stipulated that all passmen should complete the cleaning professionals' skills suite training programme, accredited by the British Institute of Cleaning Science, but only half of the passmen employed had gained this qualification. This is a weakness.

Only one-fifth of the prison population was currently employed, as there were 82 job vacancies and a prisoner waiting list of 173. Of the 82 job vacancies, 57 were for Activity Ambassador roles, which prisoners were choosing not to apply for.

The training area was very restricted, with total capacity for around 40 prisoners per session. Training opportunities were limited to short, introductory courses in carpentry, bricklaying and painting and decorating. On successful completion, prisoners achieved an introductory national progression award (NPA) in construction. Beyond this, extension activities were limited to a few joinery craft products for local community use. Protection prisoners could not access all of these activities and awards. There were no opportunities for prisoners to progress to advanced awards beyond SCQF (Scottish credit and qualifications framework) level 5, which is particularly relevant for those prisoners serving longer sentences.

7.15 There is an appropriate and sufficient range of employment and training opportunities available to prisoners.

Rating: Poor performance

The prison offered an appropriate range of educational opportunities in the Academy but attendance at classes was low (in June 2015, less than 50% of that scheduled on prisoners' timetables). Prisoners could participate in introductory and core skills learning activities including literacy, numeracy and computing (SCQF levels 2-6) and there were a few prisoners studying distance learning programmes. Other subjects included art, music, parenting skills and personal development. Practical learning activities included horticulture, independent living and pre-release employability skills. Almost all Academy activities were certificated and around 250 awards per month were achieved by prisoners. However, the curriculum was not sufficiently broad to allow prisoners to progress beyond initial levels with many returning prisoners completing the same programmes more than once. There was limited engagement of long-term prisoners because they had exhausted the educational opportunities already or they were not relevant to their life in prison.

Some prisoners were allocated classwork to study in their cells known as 'in cell learning'. However, many of these prisoners did not have the motivation or personal learning skills to be involved in this type of learning and were not receiving sufficient support from Academy staff and so they were not well-served by this learning option. The Academy did not have sufficiently robust or systematic processes to identify and support prisoners with additional learning support needs, such as dyslexia. Staff instead, relied on prisoners disclosing their needs if they required additional support and there were no detailed records of issues raised or agreed support interventions for individual prisoners.

7.16 There is an appropriate and sufficient range of therapeutic, treatment and cognitive development opportunities available to prisoners.

Rating: Poor performance

At the time of the inspection all enhanced prisoners were considered for offending behaviour programmes through the ICM process. The case manager and social worker were key to this process following the completion of the LSCMI (level of service/case management inventory) and the ICM, which meant that programme staff were omitted from the process of identifying appropriate individuals for group work programmes. This, appeared to cause tension between the programme and case management teams.

In the past HMP Addiewell applied the Generic Programme Assessment process; previously this was identified as an area of good practice. Since the time of the last inspection this process has been terminated and staff working in the programme's team were unsure why. This is a weakness.

Staff raised concerns about the way they were currently required to carry out assessments for group work interventions. They told us it was difficult to plan programmes. In particular they were having difficulty maintaining sufficient numbers for the substance related offending behaviour programmes (SROBP) due to a lack of referrals from case managers. Links with sentence management were weak and this led to difficulties ensuring effective sequencing. This is a weakness.

There were also problems associated with the delivery of the closed programmes, CARE (controlling anger and regulating emotions) and Constructs (a relationships programme).

We reviewed programme files and they were generally in good order. Completed and filed SROBP worksheets demonstrated compliance with the manual. Information about the prisoners was being tracked over the course of their time on programmes on an electronic record. The offending behaviour programmes being offered were consistent with those offered in other establishments. However, it appeared that staff at HMP Addiewell were having trouble accessing the most up-to-date materials for these offending behaviour programmes - they are held on a central SPS intranet page which they had made repeated unsuccessful attempts to gain access to. This situation needs to be resolved.

HMP Addiewell offered a range of other short interventions to prisoners who opted in. They included:

• assertiveness and problem solving
• alcohol awareness
• stress management
• self-esteem
• Smart Recovery.

The psychology team is central to programme delivery at HMP Addiewell. It is made up of three assistant psychologists and one chartered psychologist (who are not employed by Sodexo but provide services under contract). Relationships between the programme and psychology teams were positive. There were a few issues in relation to the psychology provision - delays in reports being signed off on some occasions and difficulties arranging supervision. The psychology team did not currently keep a record of specific cases as any psychology-specific work completed in the prison was filed within the prisoners' programme files which would appear to have some concerning limitations.

The psychology team provide cover to the establishment but this is not a full time service.

7.17 There is an appropriate and sufficient range of social and relational skills training activities available to prisoners.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

HMP Addiewell was running the SMART recovery programme and the Sycamore Tree programme: SMART recovery is a self-empowering intervention helping prisoners to manage and recover from addictive behaviours; Sycamore Tree teaches the principles of restorative justice giving individuals the opportunity to explore the impact of their offending.

The case management and programme delivery teams offered a range of interventions, promoted through the ICM process and advertised on leaflets. These interventions were not necessarily provided to prisoners with an identified need as prisoners could opt in to particular courses they felt they would benefit from. Short-term prisoners had to self-refer and reported delays and difficulties in accessing an appointment with case workers.

The establishment was also developing its training activities for parents (see indicator 7.5) but some prisoners still felt reluctant to ask their families to attend due to the general nature of the prison environment.

7.18 All purposeful activities provided are of good quality and encourage the engagement of prisoners. Prisoners are consulted in planning the activities offered.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Most prisoners enjoyed their classes and engaged well in purposeful learning activities. Classrooms were of a good quality overall, but would benefit from additional stimulating material, including more prisoners' work on display. Individual classrooms were appropriately equipped with computers, art materials and musical items to support learning activities. Relationships between prisoners and staff were positive and respectful. In most classes, prisoners were engaging in productive learning, developing useful skills and gaining underpinning knowledge. Prisoners were encouraged by staff to offer opinions and views on their learning.

However, the quality of purposeful activities and vocational workshops was inconsistent. In particular, there was a wide variation in the quality of teaching, some of which was poor where teaching staff were absent and classes were being covered. For example, one member of teaching staff had been absent for over a month with no coherent cover provided and as a result, prisoners had become disengaged because the staff providing cover did not have all the necessary skills and knowledge to support them appropriately. There were long delays (of around 12 weeks) in some subjects, for prisoners receiving feedback on their learning progress.

Staff absence was also causing classes to be merged or cancelled, and many prisoners complained that there were prolonged delays, running into months, to access the training they wanted.

All vocational workshops had very limited space for the number of prisoners attending, particularly the brickwork area, and this diminished the learning experience. Personal protective equipment, although provided, was not routinely worn by prisoners in all workshops, and the exhaust ventilation system in the carpentry workshop was not operational.

7.19 The scheduling of activities and individual prisoner's access to them is organised so that each prisoner takes part in the activities agreed for them.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Prisoners were encouraged to use the kiosk system in the residential halls to schedule purposeful activity. However, programme start dates, an insufficient range of programmes available, and classes being full with waiting lists, was limiting prisoners' options. Most prisoners did not receive the timetable they requested, sometimes attending classes of no interest to them to fill their timetable or gain enhanced status.

After induction, case managers meet with prisoners to confirm their individual activity schedule. Until this meeting, prisoners cannot engage in any purposeful activity, except morning exercise. Similarly, if a prisoner requests a timetable change, a meeting with their case manager is required before any new arrangements can be finalised. There was no accurate data on the period of time a prisoner has to wait for a meeting with their case manager once one has been requested but it seems that there were long delays, of around eight weeks, to arrange them, although the prison target is within four weeks. This situation should be addressed as soon as possible.

Currently 103 prisoners were choosing to either fully opt-out (70 prisoners) or partially opt-out (33 prisoners) of purposeful activity. This was around 15% of the prison population. The prison is undertaking a review of provision for long-term prisoners, based on feedback gathered, to address their concerns.

Purposeful activity forums, with prisoner representation from each residential area, have been introduced, along with surveys issued through the kiosk, to inform future planning of purposeful activities and to gather feedback on the quality of activities being delivered. There was currently no mechanism to advise prisoners of any improvements carried out or planned.

7.20 All prisoners have the opportunity to take exercise for at least an hour in the open air every day. Provision is made for this to be realistically available in all seasons and conditions of the weather.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

All prisoners had access to an hour's daily exercise in the fresh air, and the main session is scheduled to take place at 8.30am. Take up of exercise was not high and some prisoners complained that it was programmed too early but there was a separate afternoon session for workers. Exercise was seldom cancelled due to bad weather and outdoor clothing was available.

Staff should do more to encourage prisoners to take part in daily exercise sessions.

7.21 Prisoners are assisted in their religious observances.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners' religions were generally respected, including the collective right to attend religious services. Prisoners had good access to chaplains and worship. Chaplains had built up trust and good relationships with prisoners and staff. Any religious issues were raised through the chaplaincy and addressed. Prisoners could celebrate major religious festivals, which were actively promoted.

7.22 Prisoners are afforded access to a library, which is well stocked with materials that take account of the cultural and religious backgrounds and prisoner population

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The Solas centre provided a welcoming environment for prisoners. A wide range of books was available, many in different languages and some in audio format. An ordering system was in operation for books not available in the library. Prisoners were encouraged to keep a reading diary and motivated to progress their reading skills with six- and-eight book challenges. The library computers were used well by prisoners for driving theory tests, to learn new languages, to access legal information, write letters, complete their coursework or play games. Microsoft Office packages and drawing software were also available on the library computers. There was a good variety of DVDs available on loan.

The social spaces in the library provided prisoners with an opportunity to socialise, read newspapers, including foreign papers, complete crosswords, word searches and jigsaws, and play games such as chess. A broad range of magazines was available and these were popular with prisoners.

The access to the library in the evenings was limited to two residential areas per evening, every fortnight, and protection prisoners had limited access to the library, scheduled for Monday evenings, yet another example of the inappropriate restrictions placed upon prisoners requiring protection. Some books and DVDs were available in the residential areas and the librarian visited the cells of those prisoners who did not wish to attend the library during formal sessions and in particular, the cells of protection prisoners.

7.23 Prisoners are afforded access to participate in sporting or fitness activities relevant to a wide range of interests and abilities.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

All prisoners had access to a good range of physical activities and most made good use of the exercise and training equipment within the fitness centre. All prisoners completed an induction session with a member of staff before accessing the fitness equipment.

There was an indoor games hall for racket sports, carpet bowls, yoga, workout classes and prisoners could access an outdoor, all-weather, seven-a-side football pitch. Prisoners could use the fitness centre facilities in the evening and at the weekend. Some of the residential halls, including the one used for segregation prisoners, had a small satellite gym that prisoners could use. However, some of this equipment was broken and there were delays in effecting repairs.

Prisoners over 40 were offered an additional gym session, to allow them to work out and socialise with prisoners of a similar age. This helped to better meet the needs of the whole prison population.

The fitness centre offered opportunities for a few prisoners to gain experience and accredited awards in football coaching, badminton and sports leadership. However, prisoners were not offered more general health and fitness classes, such as Heart-start or awareness on the use of anabolic steroids.

Prison staff were beginning to work with local partners such as Street Soccer Scotland and a new football coaching course was due to begin shortly, run by Livingston Football Club, to assist prisoners to be football coaches when they left prison.

7.24 Prisoners are afforded access to participate in recreational, self-help or peer-support activities relevant to a wide range of interests and abilities.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

An activity ambassador scheme was in place to offer helpful peer support to other prisoners in the residential halls and during learning activities. Those prisoners in the scheme offered support and motivation to prisoners who were reluctant to participate and encouraged them to join in during lessons.

One ambassador assisted a staff member during the induction process to deliver the Big Plus assessment tool which assesses new prisoners' levels of literacy. Other peer support included: help with practical or theory work, such as advising peers on artistic techniques or mathematical formulae; showing peers how to use the gym equipment during gym activities and helping to motivate them to complete their planned exercises; acting as peer tutors, supporting the vocational tutors as appropriate - for example, in the brickwork class, a prisoner was assisting the vocational trainer with the delivery of the class, providing practical assistance to prisoners new to the course. They were then given the opportunity to undertake the vocational trainer qualification and passed.

However, after a full year of operation, only 19 of the 57 activity ambassador posts were filled.

7.25 Prisoners have access to a variety of cultural activities and events and are encouraged to participate in them.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Some prisoners participated in the variety of cultural activities and events on offer in the prison. Within the learning centre, prisoners had the opportunity to participate in art and music classes, which they enjoyed. The music class was particularly popular and prisoners enjoyed the opportunity to learn new skills.

Prison writing and art competitions provided opportunities for prisoners to express themselves, stimulated discussion and some prisoners made contributions to the prison magazine or newsletter, Addie Vision. Annual awards ceremonies were used well to engage prisoners and their families through the presentation of certificates and prizes. Some prisoners participated in these ceremonies by reading poems or playing music. A few prisoners entered their artwork into the annual Koestler awards (a national organisation who award and exhibit art by offenders). However, there were no external visits arranged for national or local authors or artists to provide prisoners with inspiration for cultural development and advancement opportunities.

Prisoners had access to a large multi-faith room and groups of prisoners participated in a number of cultural events throughout the year, such as holocaust memorial day, prisoner awareness week and Book Week Scotland. A Burns supper was held in January, with around 40 prisoners and staff attending the event. Occasional music workshops and concerts by visiting musicians were helpful interactive activities which were enjoyed by prisoners and helped to broaden their horizons.

Standard 8: 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: Generally acceptable performance

All prisoners were interviewed approximately seven weeks before they were released, in order to identify any help required or problems they may face upon liberation. Where necessary, relevant advice and guidance was offered. Generally, all programme work which prisoners commence while in custody, has been completed prior to release. There were delays in completing final assessment reports on some of the group work courses and this could cause difficulties following release.

The third sector and local authority staff based in the prison collaborated well with their prison colleagues to plan support for prisoners once released, notably for accommodation and alcohol counselling. However, sometimes this was dependent on which area the prisoner came from, as not all prisoners were guaranteed this type of support, so for a small but significant number of prisoners, there was no specialist community based throughcare support available.

Most prisoners had accommodation to go to on the day of release and those who did not have an identified address, could get advice from the prison-based housing officer. Despite this, we received concerning reports that suitable temporary accommodation was not always available and as a result not all prisoners had somewhere to live when released.

Some useful work was being carried out to help prisoners obtain work or training but this was being hampered by staff shortages. The prison needs to do more to strengthen links with community partners in order to address this problem. Discharge arrangements were handled sensitively with prisoners being released through reception where they could be met more easily by family members.

The arrangements to ensure that prisoners being released on statutory supervision were dealt with properly were mostly sound, although in some cases there was a lack of input from healthcare staff.

Quality indicators

8.1 The prison encourages government agencies, private and third sector organisations who offer services relevant to the community integration needs of each prisoner to jointly agree an appropriate plan.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Prison staff were engaging private and third sector organisations to support the prisoners at Addiewell. There was a commitment to ensuring that organisations were working together to agree on appropriate plans that centred on the needs of individuals. The ICM system was well embedded and being used with long-term prisoners, beginning at the core screening process, generally within 72 hours of arriving at prison. However, ICM should be used with all convicted prisoners to measure their progress while in custody, and we felt there was significant room for improvement in its use with short-term prisoners.

The prison carried out its responsibility to long-term prisoners competently. Case managers were specifically allocated to facilitate multi-agency conferences at planned intervals during prisoners' sentences: prisoners were involved in their case conferences and where appropriate family members were invited to attend; video conferencing was made available to encourage maximum attendance and frequently used by some authorities during routine ICM meetings. Professionals seemed committed to attending ICM meetings, although healthcare staff were finding it more difficult to find time to attend and other professionals were dependent on the prisoners self-reporting to inform discussions. A few staff were concerned about meetings for order for lifelong restriction (OLR) prisoners being cancelled or having key staff missing. This is clearly a cause for concern and requires to be addressed, especially given the heightened risks associated with prisoners subject to OLR's

Short-term prisoners were able to access general support services at the Librite centre (see information in footnote 4 and indicators 4.21, 8.4 and 8.7), particularly prior to release. It provided a place where prisoners could physically go and meet with service providers who could assist and support them with their reintegration back into the community. For example, there was a full-time housing coordination officer helping prisoners who required assistance with housing issues prior to their release and two full-time staff employed by the Edinburgh and Lothian Alcohol Counselling Service seeing prisoners on a voluntary basis at any point throughout their sentence. Prisoners who had accessed the Librite centre spoke positively of its value.

We found a number of services were area specific depending on where a prisoner was being released, which left a small but significant number of prisoners (21%) without support. Although case managers said they would make direct contact where necessary on behalf of a prisoner who did not live within the main three local authority areas covered by the prison, it meant that these prisoners would potentially not get access to services relevant to their community integration needs. This is a weakness. This situation requires to be addressed as an individual prisoner should not be disadvantaged, as a result of where the SPS has decided to locate them.

We reviewed a number of community integration plans during the inspection and while there was evidence that these were completed at the point of admission and at pre-release stage there was no evidence to suggest these were reviewed at any other point during the prisoners' detention and prisoners seemed unaware of their existence. This meant that the onus was on the prisoner to be proactive in knowing and asking for support or services, rather than these being explored in a planned way, and meant that agencies were working in isolation with limited opportunity for partnership working or joint planning. However, despite this, prisoners were generally positive about the support provided on prior to release.

Improvements are needed to make sure all prisoners have equal access to relevant advice and assistance when they need it.

8.2 Where there is a statutory duty on any agency to supervise a prisoner after release, all reasonable steps are taken to ensure this happens.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There were systems in place to make sure relevant agencies were receiving all necessary information, including risk assessments, timeously. Social work staff were confident they were completing the appropriate risk assessments, including the relevant sections of the LSCMI in time for long-term prisoners' release into the community and this was confirmed by other staff.

ICM case managers made sure due processes were completed and were diligent in trying to make sure relevant professionals attended pre-release case conferences.

Social workers and case managers responsible for coordinating the ICM meetings spoke positively of their good working relationships and the positive impact that working together had on the prisoners. Concerns were raised about the lack of health representation at ICM meetings and lack of information-sharing to inform discussions at conferences.

8.3 Where prisoners have been engaged in development or treatment programmes during their sentence, the prison takes appropriate action to enable them to continue or reinforce the programme on their return to the community.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

For long-term prisoners, there was good access to formal programmes such as Constructs (a relationships programme) and CARE (controlling anger and regulating emotions). Generally, all courses were completed prior to release. As previously mentioned, group work for prisoners was accessed using the LSCMI assessment tool completed by the social worker. However, prison-based staff acknowledged that there could be substantial time delays from the completion of the group to the production of the post programme reports generated by the psychologist. The prison had tried to make efforts to address this difficulty but it remained an issue for the prisoners and had the potential to have a negative impact on their release and return to the community.

For short-term prisoners, there was a range of shorter courses available to prisoners, delivered by custody officers and other Sodexo employees. Short-term prisoners could apply on a voluntary basis to complete vocational courses during their time in prison, for example, an employability group providing support in compiling CVs, completing job searches and preparing for interviews. There were also courses in independent living skills, cooking skills, health and hygiene and money management groups particularly for prisoners due for release. Unfortunately, because of recent staff changes/shortages these types of courses were less available.

Prisoners on remand (20% of the prison population) had less choice of groups and activities although had good access to the gym, library and learning Academy. They could also, depending on their length of stay in prison, apply for work in the kitchen or take up courses such as bricklaying or food and hygiene courses. Prisoners we met spoke positively of the value of completing these courses.

The prison acknowledged the challenges it faces trying to complete post programme reports within 12 weeks of the course finishing. The backlog of reports and slippage in the production of these needs to be addressed urgently. This is a weakness.

8.4 As prisoners near release all reasonable steps are taken to ensure appointments and interviews are in place with relevant agencies.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Staff representing third sector and local authorities who provided a service in the Librite centre (see footnote 4 and indicator 4.21) were enthusiastic and committed. Prisoners were supported in planning ahead and making necessary appointments prior to release. For example, the full-time housing officer liaised with colleagues in the community to try to make sure housing issues were dealt with timeously; the counsellor from ELCA (the Edinburgh and Lothian Council on Alcohol) made sure prisoners were linked into community counselling services where they would be able to continue to get support after release; two staff from the New Routes Partnership linked up with targeted prisoners (more vulnerable prisoners, under 25 years old, who tended to have 10 or more offences with at least one custodial sentence) to support in areas such as housing, addiction, relationships and money.

Prison staff based at the Librite centre were also working hard to meaningfully engage with prisoners prior to release. This process began seven weeks prior to liberation, with prisoners being offered an appointment with case managers, being referred to Job Centre Plus (1,585 had been seen from June 2014 to June 2015) and to housing representatives (750 had been seen over same annual period). Then, three weeks prior to release, an employability officer should become involved with prisoners to allocate a full timetable of activities to support transition from prison to community. However unfortunately, due to staff vacancies this service had become less accessible. A further appointment system triggered the names of prisoners due for release within 48-72 hours who were then seen by the team leader to provide a further opportunity for prisoners and prison staff to review any last-minute support needs.

All partner agencies spoke positively of their working relationship with prison staff and valued the recently introduced weekly forum meetings to discuss individual prisoners and promote a more holistic approach to prisoner support.

Some prisoners were not being supported by the local agencies because of where they were being released to. Case managers said that they would make sure that some support was being offered, but the service these prisoners received was less robust, less accessible and more reliant on the availability and knowledge of their individual case worker. The prison needed to improve the equality and consistency of service provision and support those prisoners not supported by West Lothian or the Lanarkshire authorities.

8.5 As prisoners near release all reasonable steps are taken to ensure

that accommodation will be available.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

On the day they were released, long-term prisoners knew who would be supervising them in the community and knew that some form of accommodation would have been arranged. A few prisoners left Addiewell to move to the open estate. The housing needs of long-term prisoners were dealt with via the ICM process and no long-term prisoner was released without somewhere to stay. However, we were informed that the quality of housing provision varied between authorities, with some having 'scatter flats' or hostels while others had no specific provision.

We were informed that most short-term prisoners had accommodation to go to on the day of their release. Those short-term prisoners who had no home or secure base to return to on release could get advice and guidance from the housing officer based in the prison. Although employed by West Lothian and Lanarkshire, the officer would on occasion, also offer advice to other prisoners on an ad hoc basis and in emergencies.

Most staff and prisoners we interviewed raised concerns about the quality of housing offered to prisoners who were categorised as having no fixed abode on their release. We were given examples where, despite prisoners arriving homeless at the relevant housing department, they could be turned away at the end of the day with no accommodation having been provided. This could clearly have a negative impact on the prisoner and their potentially successful resettlement, and it left staff supporting them on the day of discharge, extremely frustrated. Unfortunately, without collation of data it was unclear the extent of the problem.

The prison, local authorities and SPS should work more diligently in partnership, to make sure that there is suitable temporary accommodation available, so that no prisoner is left without somewhere to stay on the day of their release. All homeless accommodation offered to prisoners on release should be fit for purpose and support prisoners to feel safe.

8.6 As prisoners near release all reasonable steps are taken to help them find work or enrol for training or education.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Once they left prison, long-term prisoners were supported by the community criminal justice team and by a supervised officer allocated to do this work. The pre-release ICM was used to inform training, education and employment options.

Short-term prisoners were supported pre-release, by prison staff and external agencies based in the Librite centre, to try to find work or education provision. While there were no throughcare officers based at the prison, New Routes and Community Bridges Project staff made stringent efforts to help prisoners find work or enrol in training or education. The latter two organisations were able to provide continuity of contact post-release.

Enthusiastic and committed prison staff told us of their intention to establish more meaningful links with community partners once capacity issues within their teams had improved. For example, they intended to re-establish the employability courses on a more robust footing. A few staff members acknowledged that staffing had always been an issue, but said that the present number of sickness absences and vacancies was now impacting on their ability to support prisoners near release.

The prison had previously made links with a national rail company (via the prison run by Sodexo in Manchester) where two prisoners had been eventually offered employment. Prior to this happening, 12 prisoners had been supported to apply, with internal interview selection processes put in place, followed by intensive support prior to a formal interview. Other employment events within prison had included inviting two major national companies into the prison. This had led to training for a few prisoners by one of these companies prior to release and employment for a few, after release. Prison staff had also had initial discussions with Scottish Canals and Network Rail had brought in actual rail track so that prisoners could be taught to rebuild and repair them. These short courses provided opportunities for prisoners to gain basic level qualifications that could then be used on release. Unfortunately, the cost of completing the railway training (£1500 per prisoner) significantly limited the numbers who could participate.

There had been a Big Plus project worker based in the prison whose remit was to encourage adults to improve their reading, writing and number skills. However this post was vacant during the inspection visit. Also, Apex Scotland, a specialist organisation working with offenders, ex-offenders and those at risk of re-offending, had lost the funding to provide opportunities to prisoners at Addiewell.

Addiewell was described as a learning prison with Sodexo employing their own teaching and tutor staff. We were therefore disappointed to not find any strong links or working relationships established with community education colleagues. Prison staff acknowledged that they needed to do more to develop better training and education opportunities for all prisoners.

The prison should proactively establish stronger working relationships with community partners to better support those prisoners who are interested in accessing further training and education opportunities on release.

8.7 As prisoners near release all reasonable steps are taken to help them manage their financial affairs.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As discussed in 8.4, prisoners were targeted seven weeks before release so that the prison could offer support with a range practicalities via the Librite centre. A range of financial advice was on hand, including:

• help completing a benefits check
• help opening a Post Office account
• prisoners who previously lived in West Lothian could get financial advice from the West Lothian Advice Shop representative who attended the Librite centre one morning a week
• help from the Community Bridges Project and New Routes staff to manage financial affairs.

In addition, case managers said they would support prisoners with any financial issues they had who could not access more specialist or area specific services, and prison officers ran a few short-term courses providing some basic information on budgeting. Prisoners were also able to access a benefits adviser via the social work duty system.

For long-term prisoners, any future financial issues were dealt with via the ICM process and discussed during the pre-release case conference.

The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) had previously provided a service to all prisoners but because of funding issues this was no longer the case.

Given the continuing need to provide specialist independent advice in this area, the prison should re-establish working relationships with their local CAB. This would provide a more holistic approach, improving consistency of access to information and a wide range of advice, including financial advice, to all prisoners.

8.8 The prison reliably discharges its statutory duties to assist the resettlement of prisoners on release.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The prison was generally committed to improving prisoners' skills, abilities and confidence while in prison, in order to better assist their resettlement on release. Wherever possible, the prison tried to make sure that opportunities were made available to long- and short-term prisoners while in prison. Staff were proud of the way they had tried to improve the prisoners' experience on the actual day of release by enabling the prisoner to leave the prison via reception rather than using the usual prisoner exit route. This considered approach meant that families and other professionals were able to wait in reception rather than at the main gates. As they left, prisoners were also given a discreet rucksack for their personal items, rather than a plastic bag.

The lack of dedicated Sodexo throughcare staff meant that the prison was not able to provide any direct resettlement assistance to individual prisoners after release, but was instead reliant on partner agencies and those based in the Librite centre to provide this.

8.9 Where the prison offers any services to prisoners after their release, those services are well planned and effectively supervised.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Whilst Addiewell provides no formal post release support, we were told that the prison had been allocated access to two part-time officers employed by SPS, to split their remit between HMP Edinburgh and HMP Addiewell, to provide this service. Meanwhile, in a small number of cases, where a prisoner was particularly vulnerable, prison staff tried to offer 'catch up' phone calls after release.

The resettlement of prisoners would be greatly improved if some form of throughcare support was available to prisoners and their families after release. A systematic approach using prisoners' plans to support resettlement should be embedded into routine practice.

Standard 9

Equality, Dignity and Respect

The prison employs fair processes whilst ensuring it meets the distinct needs of all prisoner groups irrespective of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation.

The prison ensures that all prisoners experience equality of opportunity and outcomes whilst ensuring that the law that applies to any specific group of prisoners is implemented in ways that recognise and respect particular needs.

Inspection findings

Overall rating: Generally acceptable performance

Most of the key elements to provide an effective approach towards equality and diversity are in place. Policies cover relevant aspects of human rights, there is a specialist committee which is supported by the Director and prisoners representatives are actively involved in the processes. All staff receive training in human rights but the course content should be broadened to include international standards. There is also a need to involve external experts in this area of work.

The level of complaints recorded by individuals from different minority groups is low and this may be an indication that the procedures are difficult to access.

We are concerned about what appears to be a lack of governance surrounding the use of " double protection".

Overall we found there was a strong willingness to " do the right thing" in relation to Diversity and Equality. Staff feel supported by managers in this area of work and we found a number of examples of good practice. More needs to be done to develop specialist training and ensure that prisoners from minority backgrounds have good enough access to the complaints system.

Quality Indicators

9.1 The prison's Equality and Diversity Strategy meets the legal requirements of all groups of prisoners including those with protected characteristics.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Human rights is part of the strategy in HMP Addiewell. A Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Forum is in operation and has appropriate support from the Director who chairs the Forum. D&I policies and documents reflect examples of good practice such as D&I advisor and forum and a creative identification of prisoners' representatives (t-shirts). Representatives feel empowered and able to act on behalf of other prisoners. However, representatives of prisoners interviewed explained that issues are not always dealt with in a timely manner.

The induction training course on human rights is broad, including human rights impact assessments and a human rights based approach. However, it would benefit from referring to international standards, in particular the European Prison Rules. It would also be beneficial to include the human rights of staff in the Module Hand-out ('Importance of Human Rights for HMP Addiewell') as human rights framework also safeguards the essential rights of the staff working in the prison.

The D&I Forum membership should be expanded to external experts in order to provide greater clarity and guidance on this issue.

According to the records available only two D&I complaints were registered for the 2014-15 period. From our discussion with foreign nationals it was clear that the procedure is not very accessible to them. Accessibility is also important in the case of prisoners with disabilities and those who are illiterate or semi-literate.

The form and content of complaints procedures can be an important indicator of the level of respect accorded to the prisoners. Complaints should be addressed effectively, easily, and without risk of reprisals, to entities both within the establishment and outside it.

We found a category of prisoners under a so called 'double protection'. It is important to ensure that such a restrictive measure complies with the principles of legality.

9.2 Staff understand and play an active role in implementing the prison's Equality and Diversity Strategy.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The D&I Advisor and staff demonstrated a good understanding of their role in implementing the D&I strategy and promoting human rights. The D&I Advisor attends SPS Equality and Diversity national meetings. Interactions between staff and prisoners were generally friendly. Prisoners reported that they felt staff respected their human rights and vice versa. While there were some examples of specific staff who prisoners wanted to complain about, these were exceptions, which underlined the general positive view of staff.

We experienced mixed views from staff in relation to training. While there was a general sense that management was supportive of training, many staff said that they had only undertaken core training. There seems to be a high staff turnover which impacts on the continuity of provision for prisoners. Staff interviewed suggested that they would like the opportunity to undertake language courses which are relevant for the prison context. They feel this could improve the good relations with foreign nationals in the prison. Unfortunately on-going D&I training is provided only to managers and senior staff.

The revised United Nations Revised Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Mandela Rules) Rules 75/ 76 (both in part) provides that:

• all prison staff shall possess an adequate standard of education and shall be given the ability and means to carry out their duties in a professional manner.
• The prison administration shall ensure the continuous provision of in-service training courses with a view to maintaining and improving the knowledge and professional capacity of its personnel, after entering on duty and during their career. Including:
• Rights and duties of prison staff in the exercise of their functions, including respecting the human dignity of all prisoners and the prohibition of certain conduct, in particular torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

In light of the above, we are unsure about the percentage of staff participating in human rights training. On-going human rights (D&I) training should be delivered to all relevant staff and a complaint procedures module should be included in the Human Rights training.

9.3 Prisoners of all ages are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Poor performance

There are a number of older prisoners at HMP Addiewell.

The overall structural conditions of HMP Addiewell are good; light, power supply, water supply, waste management and cleaning (see indicator 9.4). Adequate bathing and shower installations are provided. Therefore the physical environment seems to meet the needs of older prisoners. While there was some evidence of a participative approach in determining how the particular need of older prisoners should being met, we also found a number of issues during our interviews which we would like to highlight:

1. Access to medical staff seems lengthy, particularly in relation to dental care. Prisoners reported significant delays or no provision of dental care especially for those on remand.

2. Physical and outdoor activity is limited for those in the SRU. For example outdoor activity is minimal and the yard area is small considering some prisoners can spend long periods of time in segregation. While we acknowledge the limitations posed by the physical environment, we would encourage that more is done to ensure that appropriate recreation is provided and is accessible.

3. Food is ordered via an e-kiosk and provided to older and less mobile prisoners in their Hall rather than requiring them to go to the canteen. Prisoners reported that quality and quantity of food, particularly breakfast was poor.

During a visit to the SRU we noted that a prisoner has been in segregation since August 2014. While the health conditions of the prisoners are reviewed on a constant basis we are concerned about the adequacy of a prison cell for this type of prisoner. He will generally spend extended periods during the day within their cell with little meaningful human contact or recreational activities. The natural light and ventilation are not up to international standards as recommended by the CPT the glass in the windows were covered with a plastic white lining which impeded not only natural light in but any opportunity of the prisoner to see the outside world.

9.4 Prisoners with disabilities are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

There is good access to accessible showers and toilets for disabled prisoners.

The health care regime seems to be appropriate for prisoners at risk. The staff supervising prisoners in the SRU demonstrated a high degree of knowledge and expertise in terms of dealing with health challenges. The system was being followed in a careful and considerate way to ensure care and safety.

While we understand that separation may sometimes need to be used as a protective measure, it is important that an appropriate plan for reintegration in mainstream conditions are available as well as adequate opportunities for progress in preparation for release.

There is good provision for the mental health services but prisoners experience some delays. In addition, it is important that recreational and cultural activities are provided for these prisoners.

9.5 Prisoners who have undergone or are in the process of transforming from one gender to another are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

We could not access disaggregated information on protected characteristics.

The Diversity and Inclusion policy references sexual orientation as well as the complaint policy (LI10).

In general there was a good sense that prisoners felt comfortable with discussing their needs with prison staff, but there was also some suggestion that LGBT issues were not discussed, and therefore a prisoner who wished to discuss issues of gender identity may not feel able to do so. This perception needs to be challenged in order that prisoners can feel safe and supported in discussing their needs through a private and confidential process.

9.6 Prisoners who are married or who have entered into civil partnership unions are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Prisoners were very positive about the visiting regime in the prison, as compared to other prisons. No distinction is made in relation to marital status.

See Foreign national prisoners in indicator 9.8

9.7 Women prisoners are treated with dignity, and their individual needs are met including those associated with pregnancy and maternity.

Rating: Not applicable

There are no women prisoners held in HMP Addiewell.

9.8 Prisoners of all racial groups and nationalities are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Poor performance

The vast majority of prisoners held within Addiewell at the time of inspection were White British with a small number of prisoners from other racial groups or nationalities. There were 15 foreign nationals in the prison during the inspection. We saw no evidence of particular tensions between different ethnic or nationality groups.

Foreign national prisoners reported a number of issues during our interviews which we would like to highlight:

Translation services are not utilised by staff, which generates frustration amongst this category of prisoners. This constitutes a significant concern and a barrier to communication for foreign prisoners. There are a number of foreign national prisoners who do not have English as a first language. Some of these prisoners have a very low level of understanding of English and seem to be particularly disempowered.

Prisoners had a good degree of confidence about their personal safety and very little experience of prisoner violence or of discrimination.

There was a general lack of information and support on offer in foreign languages. However, a 'Foreign National Information Leaflet' is available in a number of foreign languages and refers to translation services and contain the addressed of five embassies.

There was insufficient written material about the prison available for foreign nationals in a range of languages other than English. There is no information in other languages related to food such as assurances over ingredients or visit arrangements.

Access to medical services, complaint procedures, and other services rely on the ability to communicate. It has become common to use another prisoner to translate which has a serious impact on the right to respect for private life and in relation to safety. It also has an impact on rehabilitation and recreation.

Staff reported that communication barriers presented challenges to their work. While many referred to the availability of interpretation services, it seems that formal translation services are seldom used. The use of the services and the number of requests made should be monitored.

It is important to remember that family visits, access to education, vocational training and work and leisure activities all have to be seen from this perspective. Such activities are not a favour but a right for all detainees. The situation of foreign detainees requires sustained attention.

Challenges in relation to communication with their families overseas, particularly in cases of detainees who have lost a member of a family. We do however note that in 2014 Skype video conference was facilitated to one prisoner.

We note that efforts have been made to ensure that the food menus are responsive to the cultural and religious needs of prisoners (see indicator 9.8).

Prisoners reported that library was well stocked.

9.9 Prisoners of all religious groups are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

As noted in indicator 7.21 there is generally a respect for prisoners to exercise their religion, including the collective right to attend religious services. Prisoners had a good access to chaplains and worship. Chaplains have built up good relationships of trust with prisoners and staff. Any religious issues were raised through the chaplaincy and addressed. Prisoners could celebrate major religious festivals, which were actively promoted.

Food appropriate to the dietary requirements of all faiths represented in the prison is provided (see indicator 9.3).

Some prisoners complained that the dogs used for security purposes interfered with the need to be clean as part of prayer. It is important that prisoners are allowed to clean themselves before prayer. Equally, religious items such as texts or prayer mats should be treated with special care during searches. The only religious issue raised would be if prisoners were not given the opportunity to clean themselves prior to prayer.

International standards recommend that searches and body searches should be conducted with respect, decency and tact.

Principle 3 of the Basic Principles for the Treatment of Detainees recommends that

"It is, however, desirable, to respect the religious beliefs and cultural precepts of the group to which prisoners belong, whenever local conditions so require."

We were unsure if education programmes were available for all prisoners who wish to learn about other religions. This can be a useful tool in breaking down barriers and developing a better understanding of religious and cultural differences and similarities.

Staff have growing confidence in ensuring that they are treating prisoners from all religious groups with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs, however on-going training is necessary.

9.10 Prisoners of all genders are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

Only male prisoners are held in HMP Addiewell. While a number of prison, medical and care staff are female, there were no gender related issues raised to us.

See indicator 9.5.

9.11 Prisoners of any sexual orientation are treated with dignity, respect and according to their individual needs.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

We could not access disaggregated information on protected characteristics. We are unsure if the prison collects this information. There was a reasonable understanding at all levels of prison staff around the policy and procedure.

There was some sensitivity around LGBT issues, with very few staff or prisoners making reference to sexual orientation.

People in prisons under the above characteristics could be in situations of particular vulnerability. The UN special rapporteur on torture has encapsulated the particular situation of sexual minorities in detention:

Standard 10: 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 performance

Strategic management was efficient. There was a clear vision for the prison's future and this was communicated effectively. The prison's performance against its contract was closely monitored by the SPS controller.

There was a strong commitment towards staff training and completion of core training was high. Additional support to help staff with personal development was provided, but it was not clear if these resources were always allocated consistently.

There was a recognition scheme in place and staff understood how it worked, but some staff believed that it was not operating fairly.

Staff were clear about their own responsibilities and treated each other with respect, but we found considerable evidence of people working in silos. There were significant staffing shortfalls, both because of illness and vacancies.

Working relationships between the prison and the SPS were sound, as were the links between Addiewell, and prisons run by Sodexo elsewhere. The prison had generally positive working relationships with partner criminal justice organisations, with scope to forge closer links with some social work services.

Quality indicators

10.1 The prison successfully implements plans to improve performance against these standards. The management team gives clear leadership by communicating the prison's priorities and what is expected of all staff.

Rating: Good performance

There was a clear strategy in place, comprehensively documented within a document called Vision to Reality. Corporately, Sodexo has implemented a Focus on Five, Focusing on You strategy which requires the prison to pay particular attention to the areas of communication, recognition, performance development reviews, learning and development and clear direction. As a result, at a local level, focus on five action teams (FOFAT) have been established with lead responsibility for each area being allocated to a member of the senior management team. We found evidence that regular meetings were taking place for each of the FOFAT groups and additionally, we looked at action plans contained information in relation to key activities that were being progressed in an effort to improve the prison's performance.

Various different methods of communication had been adopted within the prison in an attempt to ensure that all staff understood the prison's direction of travel and how they could contribute effectively towards improved performance. Staff we spoke to during the course of the inspection were able to talk knowledgeably about how they could gain information and/or contribute, and cited examples of weekly team huddles, regular team meetings and full staff meetings taking place, as well as regular corporate communications being issued by Sodexo.

10.2 The management team makes regular and effective use of information in improving the prison's performance against these standards.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

HMP Addiewell is a privately run prison and as such, the SPS monitors the prison's performance against the contract that was put in place when the prison opened in December 2008. Regular performance checks were conducted by SPS controllers based at the prison, and SPS and other key parties also attend formal quarterly business reviews. The outcomes from all performance checks and review meetings were formally recorded, and progress in areas identified for improvement are monitored regularly.

Senior management attend monthly business performance meetings and those with lead responsibility for each of the FOFAT groups also hold meetings to progress new initiatives and monitor progress against areas identified for improvement. The Vision to Reality document and various other action plans examined during the inspection were found to contain comprehensive and up-to-date information which clearly tracks progress in relation to performance within the prison.

10.3 Staff are clear about the contribution they are expected to make to the priorities of the prison and each is trained to fulfil the requirements of their role. Succession and development training plans are in place.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

During organised staff focus groups, and at other times during the inspection, staff told inspectors that they understood the priorities of the prison and they were able to talk knowledgeably about the various key priorities that were in place and actively being progressed. Additionally, the employee engagement survey 2014 showed that, of those who competed it, 72% of staff (13% higher than the 2012 survey results) understood the business objectives.

There was a training plan to ensure that all staff remained competent in 'essential to role' training. Records showed that in all but two areas, over 90% of staff were competent (as at 30 June 2015). Staff were also able to undertake additional training to help support their personal development. However, we found that although training of this sort could be discussed and identified as part of the formal appraisal system, there was lack of consistency in terms of how and when such training is granted. We also found that although the prison had a budget in place for training and development, it was not clear how this budget was allocated and whether a consistent and fair approach was being taken. We were subsequently informed that the training budget is allocated via the monthly Training Committee with managers submitting their requests for the staff and resources allocated accordingly.

Although we did not examine any succession plans during the inspection, there were clear examples provided to demonstrate showing staff development and promotions to more senior positions within the prison.

10.4 Good performance at work is recognised by the prison in ways that are valued by staff. Effective steps are taken to remedy inappropriate behaviour or poor performance.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The prison has a reward and recognition strategy in place and additionally, a FOFAT group has been established in an effort to reward and recognise staff at the prison. Staff we spoke to were able to describe some of the ways in which they could be rewarded - Star of the month, employee of the month awards and on the spot cheques where staff were given a cheque to thank them for their efforts and automatically entered into a monthly prize draw - but they did not all speak positively about the awards, with some stating they were embarrassed by the on the spot cheques, and others believing that there was a lack of fairness applied when giving out awards.

Additionally, only 32% of staff who completed the employee engagement survey 2014, believed they received appropriate recognition for their accomplishments and contributions.

We were advised that poor performance was a managed through Sodexo's employee appraisal system and staff confirmed this to be the case.

10.5 Staff at all levels understand the value of work undertaken by others.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

Although all staff we spoke to with were clear about their own roles and how they contributed towards the prison's priorities, there was limited understanding of the work undertaken by others. We observed staff to be respectful towards each other, but found that different departments or areas of the prison were often working in isolation.

Staff from all areas, without exception, felt that the prison was suffering from staffing shortfalls and they were understanding of, and sympathetic to their colleagues in respect of this. Records examined by inspectors revealed that there had been periods of time in recent months where the prison had experienced high levels of staff illness and vacancies at officer level, but, at the time of the inspection, staffing shortfalls had improved, with reduced numbers of staff off work due to illness.

10.6 Each functional staff group understands and respects the work undertaken by each of the other functions.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

As mentioned in indicator 10.5, inspectors found that areas within the prison operated in silos. For example, the residential unit managers, while clear about the priorities of their own hall, were not clear on how the other halls worked. However, this was being addressed with the recent appointment of a senior manager (head of residential) to provide overarching focus.

Additionally, communication between duty managers and residential unit managers appeared to be fragmented even with the existence of fortnightly, cross functional meetings.

10.7 The prison is effective in fostering supportive working relationships with other parts of the prison system.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison was actively engaged with the SPS on a regular basis and at various different levels. Overall, feedback from both members of the senior management team and the SPS contracts team was very positive and regular business reviews provided the opportunity for dialogue to take place about concerns/issues. Additionally, inspectors were given numerous examples where relevant/important information had been shared between the SPS and HMP Addiewell.

Regular and effective relationships were found to be in place between the prison and other prisons managed by Sodexo, across England and Wales. Additionally, the prison was well represented at a number of national Sodexo meetings and the Director of HMP Addiewell chairs the national FOFAT steering group.

10.8 The prison works effectively in partnership with agencies which share responsibility for managing and supporting prisoners.

Rating: Generally acceptable performance

The prison, overall, has a positive relationship with agencies who share responsibility for managing and supporting prisoners. However, communication and partnership with social work could be improved which would have a positive effect on overall performance. For example, social work staff work well with the prison's case managers to identify appropriate programme work/interventions for individual prisoners, but psychology and programmes officers were not always consulted or kept informed. The prison is required to address this issue to allow it to plan more effectively, particularly when it comes to the provision of programmes which do not always meet overall need.

We found a mixed picture when considering how different functions understood each other's work. For example, the relationship between the prison and the NHS was observed to be extremely positive, but the relationships between the prison and psychology and social work was less positive and more work was required in terms of sharing information.

10.9 The prison works effectively in partnership with organisations that provide services either during their sentence or on release.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

The prison evidenced effective working relationships with a number of organisations such as the NHS, Families Outside, West Lothian Drugs and Alcohol Services, the Wise Group, Community Bridges and South Lanarkshire Council. Inspectors found that regular community partnership meetings took place within the prison and outcomes from these meetings were formally recorded.

The prison was also engaged effectively with the Community Justice Authorities for the areas of Lanarkshire and Lothian and Borders and both chief officers spoke positively of the working relationships they had with staff from the prison.

10.10 The prison is effective in communicating its work to the public and in maintaining constructive relationships with local and national media.

Rating: Satisfactory performance

In recent times, the prison has often found itself the subject of media attention. Relationships with the local and national media, however, appear to be positive.

Annex A

Prison population profile on 29 June 2015

Figures supplied by the Scottish Prison Service

Status	Number of prisoners	%
Untried male adults	97	14
Untried female adults	0	-
Untried male young offenders	0	-
Untried female young offenders	0	-
Sentenced male adults	569	82
Sentenced female adults	0	-
Sentenced male young offenders	0	-
Sentenced female young offenders	0	-
Recalled life prisoners	7	1
Convicted prisoners awaiting sentencing	23	3
Prisoners awaiting deportation	0	-
Under 16s	0	-
Civil prisoners	0	-
Home detention curfew (HDC)	40	-
Total number of prisoners	696 (excluding HDC)	100

Annex B

Inspection team

David Strang, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

Caroline Johnston, Deputy Chief Inspector of Prisons

Malcolm Smith, Inspector of Prisons

Ian Macfadyen, Inspector of Prisons

Martha Shortreed, Care Inspectorate

Ian Beach, Education Scotland

Dr John Bowdich, Education Scotland

Richard Coupe, Guest Inspector

Annette Dryburgh, Guest Inspector

Adele Madden, Guest Inspector

Karen Malloch, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Irene Robertson, Healthcare Improvement Scotland

Diego Quiroz, Scottish Human Rights Commission

Annex C

Acronyms

ACT 2 Care Scottish Prison Service suicide prevention strategy

CAB Citizen's advice bureau

CCTV Close circuit television

CIP Community integration plans

CMS Content management system

ECR Electronic control room

EEDA Exceptional escorted days absence

ELCA The Edinburgh and Lothian Council on Alcohol

HDC Home detention curfew

HMP Her Majesty's Prison

ICM Integrated case management

LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender

LLO Lifer liaison officer

LSCMI Level of service/case management inventory

PBSW Prison based social worker

PR2 The SPS prisoner records system - version 2

PSS Prisoner supervision system

RMT Risk management team

SCQF Scottish Credit and Qualification Framework

SPS Scottish Prison Service

SQA Scottish Qualifications Authority

SROBP Substance related offending behaviour programme

SRU Separation and reintegration unit

SSM Special security measures

SVQ Scottish vocational qualification

VIR Violent incident review

Footnotes

1 ACT 2 Care is the SPS' system for identifying prisoners at risk of self-harm or suicide. It aims to address the risk of suicide and suicidal behaviour and promote a caring environment where those in distress can ask for help.

2 The concept for the model is to promote positive behaviours amongst the prison population by reducing the future likelihood of violence and subversive behaviour, supporting Victims and Vulnerable prisoners.

3 SMART Recovery is 4-Point Program® that helps people recover from all types of addictive behaviours, including: alcoholism, drug abuse, substance abuse, drug addiction, alcohol abuse, gambling addiction, cocaine addiction, and addiction to other substances and activities.

4 The Librite centre was established in Addiewell in 2013. It is an advice and support intervention targeting prisoners who are due for release within the next 48-72 hours, to enable a successful transition back into the community. See also, indicators 4.21, 8.4 and 8.7.

5 Ion Scanning is the use of a mass spectrometer that samples swabs taken from individuals or surfaces and can detect the presence of a range of substances, dependant on the dopant's and calibration used

6 Sealed packs are used to ensure that there is controlled and monitored access to certain 'sensitive' keys such as a cell key is held within a sealed pack by a staff member during periods of patrol.

7 Listeners are fellow inmates who provide confidential emotional support to other prisoners.

8 Families Outside is a national charity in Scotland who work to support families affected by imprisonment

9 Circle is a Scottish charity who work with disadvantaged children and their families to improve their lives.