Stakeholder Engagement for Sense-Checking Potential Recommendations
MICHAEL SPURR: CEO NOMS, 5th March 2015, 102 Petty France, London
Rosie Hanna also attended.
______
Performance management
In response to the Panel’s suggestion that there was a ‘gulf’ between what Prison Service Instructions (PSIs) say and practice, Michael Spurr said that he did not accept this was the case. Whilst he recognised that across a large people based organisation policies were not always implemented perfectly in every prison on all occasions, the suggestion that that there was a gulf between operational policy and practice on the ground was too strong. On occasions an instruction or guidance and good practice may not be followed completely but the main requirements of PS Instructions are adhered to. Whilst recognising that there have been criticisms of the implementation of ACCT in some cases, Mr Spurr emphasised that ACCT does provide a clear framework with care for the individual at its heart and said that a review of the ACCT process is under way to ensure it remains ‘fit for purpose’.
Performance management structures are strong and the National Audit Office has identified this and said so.[1] There is a clear chain of management through the Director of Public Sector Prisons, the Deputy Director of Custody (DDC) in each Region to each of the Governing Governors and governors and managers in each prison. DDCs visit prisons regularly and check that safer custody is being delivered to the statutory and policy requirements.
There are clear performance measures (40) in place to ensure all establishments address key priority areas of safety, security and reducing reoffending.
Prisons are subject to external and internal inspection. All prisons are inspected by HMIP. Internal audits look at the whole management line and will draw up an Action Plan to put right any deficiency in operational areas. Measuring the Quality of Prison Life (MQPL) analysis and financial scrutiny also provide oversight.
Overall, NOMS has retained strong performance during a period of huge change. It was important to remember the context. In an operationalprison environment,there will inevitably be incidents, given the nature and vulnerability of the population. It is important to reflect how well people respond.
Mr Spurr reminded the panel that they are looking specifically at the tragic cases where an individual has taken their own life. In reviewing the circumstance of such cases it would be unusual if something could not have been done differently or potentially better,but most issues and concerns relate to judgments about how an individual case was assessed and/or managed. Given the complexity of the individuals involved such judgments are invariably difficult to make. Every death matters, but as well as considering the circumstances of those who have tragically died,it is also important to consider that prisons have significant success in keeping people alive, given the highly vulnerable population they manage and high propensity for self-harm. There is a danger that, if there were to be more instructions and more administration in the ACCT process, the flexibility that allows staff to address individual need and respond appropriately to the person would be compromised.
In response to questioning about the effects of a 37% reduction in costs at NOMS HQ, NOMS told that panel that in 2007 (before the cuts), when there were more staff and fewer prisoners, there were more deaths in custody than in 2013. Staff above establishment level had been reduced by 42%. Mr Spurr accepted that, before the reductions required by the spending review, there had been stronger external support for prisons, butpointed out thatthe operational structure had been protected to maintain clear line management accountability. Audit teams have been retained, but DDC teams were reduced which meant less support to establishments from the Regions.
NOMS strengthenedthe regional Safer Custody support in 2014 when there was an increase in self-inflicted deaths. Although this was initially a temporary measure it has been retained.
Whilst the aim of benchmarking was to ensure different processes to reduce cost,not all establishments had reduced operational staff numbers as a result. Some prisons,such as Feltham, which had been operating below the agreed benchmark, actually gained staff. Changes have introducedOfficer Supervisors andCustodial Managers, who can get involved in the more complex ACCT cases. In largelocal prisons Officer Supervisors are retained on the wings for their management input.
Health Mental Health and ACCT/VACCT
Mr Spurr said that NOMS recognised the value in a tool that did more than manage self-harm and the risk of self-inflicted death and also protects and supports the vulnerable prisoners. In response to the idea of a VACCT, document Mr Spurr said that a system that brought in more resource particularly to provide parity with the community, where mental health and vulnerability are the responsibility of health care, would make complete sense. It is a challenge to identify vulnerability and it is everyone’s responsibility to do so, but more help and engagement from healthcare would be welcomed.
Depending on how you define vulnerability, there may be 80% of the prison population who are vulnerable and at any one time there will be 2,000 ACCTs open and people do go on and off an ACCT periodically reflecting their level of risk and vulnerability at different times through a sentence.
There will always have to be a process for managing a crisis.
In response to the suggestion that VACCT will provide longitudinal management that may prevent future crises, Mr Spurr said that the NOMS’ ambition, and they have some success in this, is to support and manage the individual through a whole process that incorporates the regime, interventions, desistance, hope, support to change and reducing reoffending.
NOMS would like engagement with health to be as good as possible and health staff are required to see all prisoners at Reception.
Mr Spurr said that hewould not wish to see the change in responsibility for health to be reversed; it was right that it was for the NHS to lead on health provision. However, reducing the number of leads for each service area (including health, education and resettlement) could be helpful. For example, it would be helpful for there to be a single point of contact on health for the Governor, a lead who would co-ordinate all the health and mental healthcare and be the spokesperson for all the providers working at the prison. HMCIP have identified that Governors should have more control over their prison and the importance of the Governor running the prison is clear.
NHS commissioning and delivery has improved health care for prisoners,although given the level of needmore mental health and drug treatment would be welcomed.
Benchmarking and Staffing Levels
Mr Spurrsaid that the 24% budget reduction was very hard to deliver but that the benchmarking approach will enable a good service to be delivered when full staffing complement is in place in every prison. He pointed out that benchmark staffing numbers were subject to routine review,and that around 700 posts had been added to initial benchmark proposals across the estate.
Mr Spurr said that he did not believe there wasscope for taking staff numbers below the benchmarking level, as staffing levels will not be reduced below the levels required to maintain safety.
The difficulties around staff recruitment arise from a number of issues. Switching recruitment off is much easier and quicker than switching it back on again, and the speed with which change was implemented has left a number of legacy issues that NOMS are working through, including higher sickness levels. The Pay Review Body sets pay for staff and Local pay allowances are available in London, but there are particular local recruitment issues in different parts of the country which will probably requirea more nuanced approach to local pay.
Mr Spurr said that NOMSneeds a period tofully embed the changes which have been put in place over the last 18 months.
Going forward he said NOMS wants to invest fully in the new cohort of Custodial Managers andstated thatthe POELT training will be extended to 10 weeks and have a greater emphasis on interpersonal skills and desistance. NOMS is recruiting ahead to allow for staff losses.
Staff Training
Mr Spurr said that NOMS would like to do more staff training and development for staff, but with limited resources this needs to be balanced with work requirements across NOMS. NOMS delivers an average of 6 training days per year for staff which includes POELT training, C&R, and statutory training for fire safety and other H&S requirements. This is above the Civil Service target of 5 days but is an average and is targeted to meet operational need. Delivering training is a pressure but benchmarking numbers include a 20% allowance for ‘non effectives’ which includes training.
Training also depends on local need to support local requirements. Mental health awareness should be a part of the core staff training, and Mr Spurr said he would like to see more. However, he pointed out that there is a danger that if you train everyone to a low level you don’t use the time and resource to create specialists and finding a sensible balance is what’s required. Training needs to be targeted and over the last two years training has been reduced to essential statutory requirements. This is a short term situation in response to operational pressures and is not intended to be permanent. There will be more support to prisons to train staff.
Each prison has a Service Level Agreement which is approved and authorised by the DDC and this will include a training plan. The Commissioning Group in NOMS HQ reviews these.
Interventions and Regime
Mr Spurr said that theService will always need to retain a focus on security, safety and reducing reoffending, and interventions have been rightly focussed on reducing reoffending. The new reducing violence project and interventions to support safety will lead to reducing reoffending as an outcome. Interventions should be delivered appropriately. For example, there is a public expectation that sex offenders will undertake the Sex Offender Treatment Programme,but this is not always what is most suitable and effective. The estate is responding to offender need and there are prisons for Foreign National Offenders, Sex Offenders and Resettlement. However specialist prisons can be a problematic dynamic to manage and have a knock on effect, particularly when preparing for release.
In response to the suggestion that anger management may be an effective intervention for 18 – 24 year olds and lead to a reduction in adjudications, Mr Spurr accepted this, but pointed out the need for a balanced approach in use of limited resources. There is a challenge for NOMS where resources are being used to follow recommendations by professionals which are not deliverable or right for the individual, as this has a knock on effect on what you can deliver for others.
Panel members expressed their concern about the availability of prison regime for 18 – 24 year olds and the effect this has on their vulnerability, and also about how there appears to be a correlation between low staffing numbers and access to regimes. Mr Spurr said that NOMS wants to provide full and proper regimes. Where they are not provided this is not what NOMS wants and he recognises this willbe more difficult for the individual.
Mr Spurr said that the negative HMCIP reports are obviously a concern. He said that around 70% of the estate is operating reasonably well. Where staffing resources don’t allow for a consistent regime, extra support is being provided. He said that he accepted that it would be positive for18 – 24 year olds to have more to do and to have enough time out of cell.
On being pressed about the use of resources to provide interventions, and a body that would advise on the effectiveness and cost benefits of various interventions, Mr Spurrsaid that there is already a body which does this ( the Correctional Services Accreditation Panel), which reviews the rehabilitative impact of interventions and provides formal accreditation. Mr Spurrsaid the Personality Disorder Programme and pathway that NOMSand NHS England are supporting addresses the whole person, and is a good example of joint work with NHS partners to manage risk and reduce reoffending.
In response to a question about the Council of Europe figure of a minimum eight hours out of cell for prisoners each dayfor each prisoner, and whether this was achievable with the current resources, Mr Spurr said that whilst on average this level of time out of cell is deliverable across the estate, it is not possible to guarantee this for every individual in every prison. He pointed out thatsome prisons, such as locals, don’t have enough workshops to provide work to this extent.
Safer Cells
Mr Spurr was asked about his views on safer cells. Heexplained that following the original evaluation of safer cellsin 2007,it was agreed that all new accommodation built to safer cell design would become standard in all new builds and for all refurbishments in category B prisons. Mr Spurr said that it is important to differentiate between the long term estate plan to improve the design of all levels of accommodation by incorporating safer cell design as standard and the designation of particular cells for ‘safer’ accommodation for vulnerable prisoners at the point of crisis. It is for individual prisons to designate which cells in the establishment are to be designed as safer cells for use in a ‘crisis’ and for Governors locally to keep them at the required standard with no adaptations. A central record of ‘in use’ safer cells for crisis purposes is not maintained because it is for individual establishments to determine their needs locally and to manage this in line with clear local strategy. Mr Spurrstressed that it was important for accommodation to balance safer design with humane and decent conditions. For most prisoners,for example, to have a shower in the cell or a screened lavatory was a significant benefit which enhanced their well-being and reduced risk. Window bars are being replaced and problems with ventilation are being worked on and improved, but there should not be an over reliance on safer cells.
Bullying
Mr Spurr feels that the term bullying underplaysthe prisoner power dynamic which operates in a prison environment. What bullying means in prison is generally threats or active violence, coercion and extortion; even verbal abuse itself constitutes violence. That is why ‘bullying’ is dealt with as part of the Prison Service Violence Reduction strategy. In the adult world, it is about power and control and the dynamic between prisoners. With younger prisoners behaviour is often gang related and there is a level of violence whenconflict arises between young people. New Psychotic Substances (NPS also called ‘Legal Highs’)make this issue more difficult. They have driven a different violence dynamic and the Violence Reduction project is going to take a fresh approach to this.
Gangs
Mr Spurr accepted that more could be done to share information on what NOMS are doing about gangs. There is a response that needs to be applied across a wider range of establishments, although the need varies depending on the area. At Feltham and Isis the approach is to disrupt and work with individuals to find out why they are in a gang. Usually the gang membership is externally based and brought into the prison. The Young Report work on disproportion is recognised. NOMS provides multi-faith chaplaincy that reflects the prisoner population.
Duty of Candour
When asked about the possibility of a Duty of Candour, Mr Spurr said that he did not think this was necessary as existing arrangements already required this. He pointed out that prison staff are required to abide by the Civil Service Code and by the law (Prison Officers have powers of constable). Failure to act honestly can and does lead to criminal investigation (malfeasance in public office) and staff have been subject to both investigation and prosecution. All deaths in custody are subject to independent and police investigation and coroner’s inquest, where staff give evidence on oath. Currently NOMS is accountable to Ministers and Parliament and is scrutinised by the Public Accounts Committee and the Justice Select Committee. Mr Spurracknowledged that although – as in any organisation – not all staff do what they should do all of the time, thereare both professional conduct requirements and criminal investigation processes in place to deal with any breaches robustly.
Instructions to Barristers
Mr Spurr stated that NOMS instruct their barristers to assist the court and to support the process. The Coroner is there to oversee and manage how the inquest is conducted. The inquest process is more adversarial than NOMS would like and they would like to see a well-managed inquisitorial process. There is no case to win. NOMS do not instruct their barristers at inquests to defend NOMS interests rather than to assist the process of getting to the truth, they do not give instructions to be aggressive.