Winchester Prison - the full report - Part 1

INTRODUCTION

HMP Winchester is a medium-sized Victorian local prison, with a small category C training wing. Over recent years, significant progress has been made in introducing positive elements, such as resettlement work. However, like all local prisons, it faces considerable pressures and increased demands. There was some evidence, at this inspection, that this combination was testing the prison's ability to sustain and continue improvements.

Winchester was a reasonably safe prison, and had developed good induction systems for newly-arrived prisoners. However, there was no designated first night centre, and fewer prisoners than normal said they felt safe, or had showers or phone calls, on their first night. Suicide and self-harm was managed well, though Listeners needed more support. Although there was little indication that bullying was a major problem the anti-bullying arrangements were weak, and vulnerable prisoners continued to be identifiable and to feel less safe than others.

It was disappointing to note, at this inspection, that there was evidence that the negative staff culture which had been a feature of Winchester in the past had not yet been obliterated. While we saw some staff interacting well with prisoners, most residential staff did not appear to think it was their job to provide positive support, or to engage with prisoners; and there was evidence of some unprofessional language, in both written and spoken comments. Residential staff were not involved in many of the positive aspects of prison life - such as resettlement work - and it was necessary for managers to ensure that this gulf was bridged.

Some aspects of diversity were also weak: in particular work with foreign nationals and disabled prisoners. The latter were too often held in healthcare because of inadequate facilities elsewhere. Though there were better systems to promote racial equality, many black and minority ethnic prisoners had poorer perceptions of prison life than white prisoners, particularly in relation to catering and shop products. There were still some gaps in healthcare provision, and delays in transferring severely mentally ill patients to NHS care.

There had been commendable work to increase the amount, range and quality of work and training in West Hill, the prison's category C and resettlement annex. All prisoners there had access to activity, often geared to local employment opportunities. In the main prison, however, up to half the prisoners were unemployed, and would spend around 22 hours a day in their cells. No work-based qualifications were available there, and jobs were not allocated according to need or sentence plans. Accredited training in PE had been offered but only recreational PE was available at the time of the inspection, though this was regularly used by prisoners.

Winchester had been an early pioneer in resettlement work: with a dedicated multi-disciplinary team providing reintegration advice and support in the benefits, employment, training and accommodation (BETA) team. This service continued, but it sat uneasily with the new offender management model, operated separately for the minority of prisoners - usually long-sentenced - who were in scope of the new arrangements. Offender management was itself working separately from existing probation structures. This silo working was ineffective. Services needed to be integrated, and better links established both with residential staff within the prison and with probation staff outside. Nor should the needs of the majority of prisoners in the main prison, serving short sentences, be neglected.

Winchester remains a reasonably well-performing local prison, in spite of the pressures in the prison system as a whole. However, there are some warning signs - the lack of sufficient activity spaces in the main prison, the somewhat dislocated resettlement arrangements and, in particular, the fact that residential staff are not fully engaged in the support and rehabilitation of prisoners. These are all matters that prison managers, and the National Offender Management Service, will need to monitor closely.

Anne Owers June 2007 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

Fact page

Task of establishment

Main prison: category B local (male) West Hill: category C adult male training/resettlement prison Brief history HMP Winchester was built in 1846 and is a typical Victorian prison of radial design. An annexe was built in 1963 and housed young offenders. This changed in 1995 when it became West Hill Prison for adult women sentenced prisoners. In 2005, it was re-roled to adult men.

Area organisation South Central Number held 16 April 2007: 541. Of which 139 were remand and 59 were convicted unsentenced. There were 20 in the healthcare inpatient facility.

Certified normal accommodation Main prison: 415 West Hill: 127 This includes 22 in healthcare Operational capacity 542 (main prison: 415 and West Hill: 127) Last inspection Announced: May 2002 Unannounced: December 2004 Description of residential units A wing: induction, first night, detoxification, care and separation unit (CSU) (maximum of 81 prisoners) B wing: convicted and remand prisoners (maximum of 173 prisoners) C wing: closed for refurbishment D wing: vulnerable prisoners located on Rule 45, kitchen workers, convicted (maximum of 139 prisoners) West Hill: category C adult men Healthy prison summary Introduction HP1 All inspection reports carry a summary of the conditions and treatment of prisoners, based on the four tests of a healthy prison that were first introduced in this inspectorate's thematic review Suicide is everyone's concern, published in 1999. The criteria are: Safety prisoners, even the most vulnerable, are held safely Respect prisoners are treated with respect for their human dignity Purposeful activity prisoners are able, and expected, to engage in activity that is likely to benefit them Resettlement prisoners are prepared for their release into the community and helped to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

HP2 Under each test, we make an assessment of outcomes for prisoners and therefore of the establishment's overall performance against the test. In some cases, this performance will be affected by matters outside the establishment's direct control, which need to be addressed by the National Offender Management Service. performing well against this healthy prison test. There is no evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in any significant areas. performing reasonably well against this healthy prison test. There is evidence of adverse outcomes for prisoners in only a small number of areas. For the majority, there are no significant concerns. not performing sufficiently well against this healthy prison test. There is evidence that outcomes for prisoners are being adversely affected in many areas or particularly in those areas of greatest importance to the well being of prisoners. Problems/concerns, if left unattended, are likely to become areas of serious concern. performing poorly against this healthy prison test. There is evidence that the outcomes for prisoners are seriously affected by current practice. There is a failure to ensure even adequate treatment of and/or conditions for prisoners. Immediate remedial action is required.

Safety HP3 The reception building was poorly designed but most prisoners were dealt with quickly. There were some good first night interviews but no designated first night centre to ensure new arrivals received basics such as showers and telephone calls. Induction was generally good. Most prisoners felt reasonably safe but the anti-bullying system was ineffective and assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) procedures were poor. The care and separation unit (CSU) provided good support for prisoners and there was little use of force. Clinical support for detoxifying prisoners was adequate, but their regime was poor and they could mix with new arrivals. The prison was performing reasonably well against this healthy prison test.

HP4 Prisoners found travelling in vans uncomfortable but few experienced long journeys. Many had long days in court and, frequently, some prisoners did not arrive at the prison until after 7pm. Escort arrangements operated effectively to ensure that prisoners arrived at court on time and the video link was well used.

HP5 The reception building was unwelcoming and badly designed for managing the safe movement of prisoners. Little information was displayed and much of it was out of date. There was little to pass the time but prisoners moved quickly and efficiently through the reception process. Prisoners arriving in the evening received a hot meal.

HP6 Most new arrivals were seen by stage one induction staff after reception. Good information was provided and questions were encouraged and answered. Information about prisoners' immediate needs was recorded to be dealt with the next day and our survey indicated that many received help with their problems during their first 24 hours. However, there was no dedicated first night centre and significantly fewer than the comparator in the main prison said they had felt safe on their first night or that they had been able to shower or have a free telephone call.

HP7 Stage two of induction began the day after arrival and was well presented using a locally-produced DVD but some important topics such as race equality and anti-bullying were dealt with only superficially. Resettlement staff interviewed each man in private to add to the assessment begun the day before. There was good engagement between presenters and prisoners but little use was made of peer supporters. Vulnerable prisoners received only a short induction briefing once a week. West Hill prisoners had a full five-day induction.

HP8 In our survey, prisoners in the main prison indicated similar perceptions of safety to other local prisons, and West Hill prisoners felt particularly safe. There was little obvious evidence that bullying was a significant problem but the anti-bullying strategy was not effective and had been in complete abeyance for almost all of 2006. A new strategy had been introduced in time for the inspection but with no training for staff. Only four incidents of alleged bullying had been identified so far in 2007, which seemed unfeasibly low, and not all of the suspected bullies were being monitored. Vulnerable prisoners on D wing were easily identified by different coloured cell cards. They felt less safe than others and the wing was not an appropriate place to hold the mix of prisoners it contained.

HP9 There was little multidisciplinary work in assessment or review of care of those at risk and care plans were poor. Cases were managed inconsistently and recorded observations were poor. Listeners did not feel supported by residential staff, who did not always provide appropriate confidential accommodation. Most officers were issued with ligature cutters and emergency cell bells were answered promptly. Action plans from previous self-inflicted deaths were not periodically reviewed to check that agreed recommendations were still being followed.

HP10 There were no obvious weaknesses in physical security. The security office was well run with good information systems, a monthly intelligence booklet and good links to the wings. There was a good level of security information reports (SIRs) but it was not always possible to check whether proposed action such as target searches took place promptly. Rules were displayed on all wings.

HP11 Staff in the CSU were professional and cared well for prisoners but all prisoners taken there were strip searched without an individual risk assessment. Allocations to the unit appeared appropriate, prisoners understood why they were there and reasonably well-attended reviews were held. Segregated prisoners had daily access to showers, telephones and a decent selection of books, and could use the gym weekly.

HP12 The adjudications we observed were conducted fairly but records of previous hearings indicated occasional poor procedures and lack of investigation. Some punishments were for 100% loss of earnings, which could deny the prisoner the opportunity to make telephone calls to his family or other contacts. Comments in wing conduct reports were often not sufficiently objective.

HP13 Use of force was low for a local prison, with only 37 incidents recorded in the previous six months. Prisoners were rarely held in unfurnished accommodation but the authorisations did not always include a clear explanation for the few occasions it had been used.

HP14 Detoxification regimes were flexible during the week but there was no opiate prescribing at weekends. Prisoners on the detoxification programme had a restricted regime and no psychosocial or organised peer support. Prisoners withdrawing from drugs were held on the same wing as new receptions and remand prisoners. These were most likely to have access to drugs and this made it a difficult environment for successful detoxification.

HP15 Mandatory drug testing (MDT) facilities in the main prison were limited and dirty but those in West Hill were good. The MDT positive rate across the whole prison was 9.8% but this figure was misleading as two-thirds of random tests were taken in West Hill and D wing where drug misuse was known to be low. Voluntary drug testing (VDT) figures indicated that A and B wings had the highest levels of substance misuse yet little suspicion testing was done there and 17 of 19 suspicion tests in the previous four months had been in West Hill.

Respect HP16 Some staff interacted positively with prisoners but the underlying culture of landing staff was unsupportive. The personal officer scheme was undeveloped. The prison was generally clean but shared cells were too cramped. Access to showers and clean kit was poor. Food was good but shop arrangements were unsatisfactory. Race relations were reasonable but work with foreign national prisoners was just beginning and many felt vulnerable. Diversity was not fully promoted. Health services were generally satisfactory but there was insufficient primary mental healthcare and inappropriate admissions to the inpatient unit. The prison was not performing sufficiently well against this healthy prison test.

HP17 In our survey, 70% of prisoners said most staff treated them with respect. However, only 54% of those in the main prison said they had a member of staff they could turn to for support, which was significantly lower than the comparator. Some staff clearly did a good job and interacted well with prisoners but others had a poor attitude and were unwilling to engage with and support prisoners. A revised personal officer scheme had only recently been introduced for the main prison, although it was a little better established in West Hill. Significantly fewer than the comparators in our survey said they had met their personal officer in the first week or found them helpful. Entries in wing files were generally uninformative.

HP18 Cells and communal areas were mostly clean but many cells designed for one were shared and too cramped, with poorly screened toilets. There were no adaptations for those with limited mobility and some key areas of the prison were inaccessible to them. The shower areas with individual cubicles were generally clean but some needed refurbishing. Access to showers was good in West Hill but only 59% of prisoners in the main prison, significantly lower than the comparator, said they were able to shower every day. Insufficient clean kit was issued and there were no laundries in the main prison.

HP19 A new incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme had been introduced in February 2007 but was yet to become established and did not always operate as published. Few prisoners were placed on basic but they were not able to shower daily. Although the population was generally compliant and well behaved, fewer than in comparator prisons were on the enhanced level of the scheme and there were few incentives to motivate standard prisoners to become enhanced.

HP20 Prisoners were generally positive about the food and this was reflected in our survey, although black and minority ethnic prisoners were less positive. A good range of food was offered and the catering manager responded well to suggestions. Fresh fruit was provided most days but it could not be bought from the prison shop. Prisoners found the range of goods offered in the shop narrow and at the time of inspection there were no specific products aimed at black and minority ethnic prisoners although this was about to change. Difficulties with the shop service were being addressed.

HP21 There was no formal diversity policy or strategy to address the needs of minority groups and the disability policy was not well promoted or soundly based on identified need. There was little reference to special needs in wing files and no coverage of diversity issues in induction except in West Hill. Although 75% of staff had received some training, there was little evidence of awareness of wider diversity issues.

HP22 Race relations systems were managed reasonably well. Black and minority ethnic prisoners raised few concerns about overt racism but reported some stereotyping because of a lack of cultural awareness. Our survey indicated some poorer perceptions among black and minority ethnic prisoners that needed examination. Race equality action team (REAT) meetings were well attended and included prisoner representatives but there was no involvement of external community groups. Investigations into racist incident reports were well completed and prisoners reported reasonable confidence in them but there were no specific interventions to tackle identified racist behaviour.

HP23 A foreign national policy had been agreed weeks before the inspection but practice did not reflect it. Two foreign national prisoner representatives had been in post for less than a month but many of the 82 foreign national prisoners knew and had confidence in them. Groups with foreign national prisoners had only just begun and needed to develop to give clear information on policy and provision. In our survey, twice as many foreign national prisoners as British said they felt unsafe. Not all were offered international calls or were aware they could apply for them. Some use was made of prisoner interpreters and a telephone interpreting service. The prison had good links with local immigration staff but experienced delays with the Criminal Casework Directorate (CCD) of the Border and Immigration Agency. Some immigration detainees had been held for extended periods due to inefficient casework by the CCD.

HP24 There was good access to a range of chaplains, services and faith-based activities. Supportive pastoral care was provided and a large group of volunteers participated in the work of the chaplaincy. Facilities were generally good, although the multi-faith room was too small and the chapel in the main prison was inaccessible to wheelchair users and infirm prisoners. There had been effective cooperation with the catering and regime managers in preparation for Ramadan and the celebration of Eid.

HP25 Applications forms were easily accessible and a newly-introduced system required them to be copied and logged. Prisoners appeared reasonably content with the application system but our survey indicated dissatisfaction with the complaints system. The complaints we examined had been dealt with fairly and promptly and most replies were respectful, legible and typed. However, many recalled prisoners were frustrated about the lack of response to questions about their position.

HP26 One trained legal services officer had allocated time of two days a week. No one was able to provide a log of cases and it was not clear how well need was met. Experienced bail information staff saw all first time remands and had had some success securing bail. The legal visits area was unsuitable and did not allow enough privacy.

HP27 Prisoners received adequate initial healthcare screens but there was no secondary screening or well-man assessment. Dental services were improving and there was good chronic disease management for diabetes but not for other conditions. Prisoners could make healthcare appointments easily but had to wait for long periods in poor conditions before and after appointments. Mental health in-reach services were reasonable but there were no therapeutic or rehabilitative day care interventions. Some delays occurred in transferring patients with severe mental illness to NHS care. The inpatient beds were often used for prisoners who did not require inpatient care, including some older and disabled prisoners because of poor provision on the wings. Inpatients were all locked up at 5pm, which was unsatisfactory. Some areas of the health centre were in good condition and well equipped but patient areas were in a poor state. Treatment rooms on the wings of the main prison were also poor. Pharmacy arrangements were good but some medicine administration practices were unsatisfactory. There was only one trained nurse on duty at night for the whole prison.

Purposeful activity HP28 The average figure for time out of cell masked very poor experiences for unemployed prisoners in the main prison where too many prisoners spent too long locked up. The figures often reflected what should have happened rather than what actually happened. The position of West Hill prisoners was much better. There was a reasonable range of activities. There had been some development of accredited training but access was not managed effectively. Access to the library was good and there were also opportunities to use the gym. The prison was performing reasonably well against this healthy prison test.

HP29 In our survey, only 4% of prisoners in the main prison, significantly less than the comparator, said they spent 10 hours or more out of their cells during the week. Employed prisoners, just less than half of the main prison population, were likely to spend at best 8.5 hours a day out of their cells and unemployed prisoners at best 2.5 hours. This was worse on days when association was cancelled because of staff shortages, which happened often. Unemployed prisoners spent much time locked on the wings when they could have been unlocked for showers and other domestic activities. The published core day was not being achieved and there was some over-reporting of time out of cell. All prisoners were supposed to have time in the open air and a period of association each day but this did not always happen. Prisoners in West Hill spent about 15 hours a day out of their cells and most were employed or in part-time education. West Hill had a wide range of evening activities but prisoners were not allowed to use the grounds for association.

HP30 Most accredited training took place in West Hill. Training and education was not geared to match the needs of the majority of prisoners, about a quarter of whom stayed at the prison for less than a month. Opportunities to take part in education were not as good for vulnerable prisoners as for other prisoners. Education offered some good opportunities to develop personal and social skills, and attendance and punctuality at classes was satisfactory. Achievements in literacy and numeracy were good with outreach to workshops and there were classes to meet a range of skill levels and help prisoners progress.

HP31 Excluding education, the prison had 250 identified activity places for the main prison, which were about 80% occupied. The high number of prisoners locked up during the core day suggested that allocation to jobs needed to be more rigorously managed. There was no central management of job allocation. Activity places for vulnerable prisoners had improved with the addition of a computer recycling workshop and 30 vulnerable prisoners had full-time employment. There had been some attention to improving the range of meaningful qualifications for prisoners in West Hill, particularly in the area of construction industry training. However, most jobs in the main prison did not offer qualifications and the population turnover made this difficult. Opportunities for accredited training in areas such as the kitchen were missed by not filling those jobs with longer-term prisoners.

HP32 The main library was well used but there was no weekend and only one evening session. West Hill had two evening sessions and one on Saturday mornings. Recreational reading books were also provided in several other locations such as the CSU. The book stock was adequate and prisoners could consult legal materials and Prison Service Orders but there were no computing facilities.

HP33 Prisoners were positive about using the gym and 48%, significantly higher than the comparator of 36%, said they went to the gym at least twice a week. Staff shortages meant that mainly recreational physical education was provided. Facilities were good, with evening and weekend sessions for those in work and education during the day.

Resettlement HP34 The resettlement policy committee needed to set clearer strategic direction, clarify the role of the whole prison and ensure a more cohesive approach among those involved in resettlement activity. Offender management was just beginning and not yet fully integrated or understood. Public protection arrangements were effective. Offender assessments were up to date but there was very little custody planning for short-term prisoners. Reintegration services were generally good and developing but there was little work with families. Good drug programmes were run and there were effective links with the local drug intervention programme (DIP). The prison was performing reasonably well against this healthy prison test.

HP35 The reducing reoffending policy had been revised in the weeks before the inspection. It concentrated on the seven resettlement pathways but had a local prison focus with little about the role of West Hill. There was no action plan or timescales for improvement. There were no nominated local owners for each of the seven resettlement pathways and not all staff were clear about what was required. Strategic ownership and drive had been weak. There had been no resettlement policy committee meetings and the first meeting was due to take place in May 2007.

HP36 Offender management was inspected with HM Inspectorate of Probation. The model had been developed in isolation from existing probation structures and missed an opportunity to re-profile work to meet better the needs of prisoners. Offender management staff were separately located, which did not help build links with probation and public protection staff or assist the development of a more integrated approach. There was an offender management caseload of 60, with four offender supervisors. The in-scope prisoners interviewed all knew their offender supervisor and most knew their offender manager in the community. Offender supervisors found it difficult to engage local offender managers. Offender assessments were mainly up to date and were quality assured by the senior probation officer. There was little formal custody planning for those serving less than 12 months.

HP37 A local policy and operational instructions had been developed to cover risk management and public protection. Monthly risk management meetings were chaired by the head of offender management and there was good attendance and good links to multi-agency public protection.

HP38 A good range of reintegration services was provided by the benefits, employment, training and accommodation (BETA) team, and prisoner BETA representatives on each wing received specialist training. Some helpful links had been made with ex- service charities. Despite good accommodation services, 22% of prisoners in the previous quarter had been released without accommodation to go to, suggesting a need to address this regionally. Housing and other benefit claims were closed down at induction and financial advice given. A money management course was run in West Hill and prisoners were helped to open bank accounts. Courses were being introduced to help provide prisoners with marketable employment skills, and preparation for release courses were run. Discharge boards were held six weeks before release but a quarter of prisoners were not there for six weeks and there was a reliance on needs being identified during induction or by self-referral. Healthcare staff were not routinely involved.

HP39 Other than drugs programmes there were no accredited programmes to challenge attitudes and behaviour. Prisoners identified as needing programmes were offered the opportunity to take the course elsewhere but many were reluctant to move because of the effect on family ties. West Hill offered a number of courses on parenting, relationships and self-development.

HP40 There were 24 prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP) and 23 mandatory and discretionary lifers, of whom seven were recalls. Multi-agency lifer risk assessment panels were organised after sentence and were well attended and documented. The lifer systems were good but communication with prisoners was poor. Lifers were concerned about the length of time they waited at Winchester before moving to a first stage lifer prison. This took an average of 12 months but some spent two years at Winchester before transfer.

HP41 Prisoners had only limited access to telephones and they could not be used in private. There was no visits centre and visitors had to wait outside as the waiting room did not open until just before visits began, which was too late to process the number of visitors promptly. The search procedure also delayed entry. Visitors said they were generally well treated but all complained about delays in getting through to the booking line. The visits hall had uncomfortable fixed seating and limited refreshments. There was a well-equipped supervised play area but no special children's or family days were run. Visits arrangements in West Hill were more relaxed.

HP42 The drug strategy was well developed and enthusiastically implemented. The counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARAT) service worked satisfactorily but only limited group work was run. An excellent analysis had demonstrated a need for alcohol rehabilitation work but there was no separate alcohol strategy or service provision. Links with the local drug intervention programme (DIP) were good. Two accredited drugs programmes, prisons addressing substance-related offending (P-ASRO) and the short duration programme (SDP), were run but vulnerable prisoners were unable to attend them. There were over 250 voluntary drug testing (VDT) compacts, which were actually a combination of compliance and voluntary testing.

Main recommendations HP43 Formal first night arrangements should be introduced on wings and ensure at minimum that all new prisoners have an opportunity to shower and make a free telephone call on the day of their arrival and have any urgent needs dealt with.

HP44 Managers should develop a strategy to deal with the underlying negative staff culture at Winchester and improve relationships between staff and prisoners, consulting prisoners about what improvements could be made and providing regular feedback to all staff and prisoners.

HP45 Personal officers should introduce themselves to prisoners, get to know their personal circumstances and record contact in wing files to build up an accurate chronological account of a man's time at Winchester and any significant events affecting him.

HP46 Anti-bullying procedures should be improved to ensure that all staff are fully aware of the strategy, all potential bullying incidents are investigated and wing staff fully monitor suspected bullies.

HP47 ACCT procedures should be improved to include more multidisciplinary involvement in assessment and reviews and better case management, care plans and management checks.

HP48 A diversity policy should be agreed that outlines how the needs of all minority groups will be met, including arrangements to monitor the treatment and equality of access of black and minority ethnic, foreign national, disabled and older prisoners.

HP49 Sufficient work, education and training should be available to allow prisoners more time out of cell and to take part in activities that will help them on release.

HP50 The resettlement strategy should be based on an analysis of the needs of the population to ensure that the services match what is required in the prison and are integrated within the prison and linked to community provision.

HP51 All prisoners should have a custody or sentence plan to ensure that their individual resettlement needs are identified and met.

SECTION 1: ARRIVAL IN CUSTODY

Courts, escorts and transfers

Expected outcomes: Prisoners travel in safe, decent conditions to and from court and between prisons. During movement prisoners' individual needs are recognised and given proper attention.

1.1 Prisoners generally had short journeys but most found the vans uncomfortable. Population pressures meant a number arrived at Winchester after 7pm. Prisoners arrived at court on time but some had long days there. The video link was well used.

1.2 Relations between the escort contractor and the prison were described as good, and a senior manager from the escort company regularly attended security meetings.

1.3 Most prisoners had short journeys to Winchester but only 7% of respondents to our survey said the vans were comfortable. Sixty-four per cent said they had been well treated by escort staff and half described their personal safety on the journey as good. Two-thirds knew where they were going when they left court or were transferred but few had been given advance information about what to expect.

1.4 Of the 1,472 new arrivals received between 1 October 2006 and 31 March 2007, 125 had arrived after 7pm and 37 after 8pm. All late arrivals were seen by a stage one induction officer (see section on first days in custody). The relevant documentation was received with each prisoner.

1.5 Spaces in the prison were usually saved for prisoners going to court and expected to return. Prisoners arrived at court on time but some spent long days there and arrived back late. One prisoner had completed his court appearance at 12.36pm but had not arrived back at Winchester until 7.10pm. During the inspection, seven prisoners arrived back from court at 8.15pm. Some prisoners said they had not been able to shower before or after going to court (see section on residential units).

1.6 A video link was well used. It could support only one court appearance at a time but was also used for probation interviews. It had been used once for an inter-prison visit in the previous six months.

1.7 Prisoners usually received 24 hours notice of planned transfers.

Recommendations 1.8 Prisoners should be moved from court quickly after their court appearance.

1.9 Prisoners should be given advance information about what to expect at Winchester.

1.10 Prisoners should be able to shower before and/or after attending court.

First days in custody Expected outcomes: Prisoners feel safe on their reception into prison and for the first few days. Their individual needs, both during and after custody, are identified and plans developed to provide help. During a prisoner's induction into the prison he/she is made aware of prison routines, how to access available services and how to cope with imprisonment.

1.11 The reception was clean but unwelcoming and poorly designed. Staff were efficient but addressed all prisoners by their surnames alone. There was little to occupy prisoners in holding rooms and cell-sharing risk assessments (CSRAs) were not completed in private. New arrivals received good first night information from an induction officer. First night support did not extend to the wings and many prisoners did not receive showers or telephone calls. Most prisoners attended a good induction the day after arrival. West Hill had a separate reception and induction programme.

Main prison Reception 1.12 Escort staff quickly passed on all information and prisoner property to reception staff. Reception staff were efficient and friendly but did not introduce themselves to prisoners and addressed them by their surnames alone. In our survey, 59% of prisoners in the main prison, similar to the comparator, said they had been treated well in reception.

1.13 The reception was clean but unwelcoming. It was poorly designed, with large amounts of office space but only limited space for prisoners. Access was via a flight of stairs, which was difficult for some less mobile prisoners. The two initial communal holding rooms had good sight lines from the main reception area. One was reserved for vulnerable prisoners. Two cramped single rooms were used for prisoners who had to be separated. A further communal room was used after searching. Rooms contained uncomfortable bench seating and little to occupy prisoners, although two had televisions. There were out-of-date notices in some. Prisoners going to court were held in rooms off a corridor linked to reception. These contained no information or anything else to pass the time and were out of sight and hearing of reception staff. There was no closed-circuit television coverage.

1.14 Two reception orderlies, one of whom was a Listener, worked in reception. They were expected to keep the area clean, organise prison clothing and offer refreshments and support to prisoners as necessary but had no formal role to provide information. All new arrivals received a hot meal and a drink in the evening.

1.15 New arrivals were given a strip search and 74% of respondents to our survey, significantly better than the comparator, said this was done in a sensitive and understanding way. Property was booked in and prisoners were given only one set of clothing.

1.16 CSRAs were completed but in the open staff area in hearing of other staff and possibly the orderlies. The shower in reception was rarely used and there was no telephone for prisoners. Prisoners did not stay long in reception and were quickly taken to a suite of rooms between reception and A wing to be interviewed by an induction officer.

First night 1.17 All new arrivals, including vulnerable prisoners, were seen in private by an induction officer to complete stage one induction'. Each prisoner was told what would happen that evening and the next day, and asked if he was new to custody and how he was feeling. In our survey, 51% of prisoners, much higher than the comparator, said they had received information about what was going to happen to them on their day of arrival.

1.18 All prisoners were given a bedding pack including a towel, plastic crockery and cutlery and a toiletry pack. All were offered a smoker's or non-smoker's pack and a copy of the local information booklet. Copies of national prisoner information books were available in 25 languages and a telephone interpreting services was used as necessary.

1.19 The induction officer filled out one section of a form that was fully completed the next morning by resettlement staff. This recorded personal details, sentence status and any literacy or language needs. Prisoners were asked whether their family knew where they were and about any other outstanding issues but using terminology many might not understand. They were not asked about any children or any concerns about them or their partner.

1.20 Induction staff did not introduce themselves or wear name badges but they were friendly and relaxed with prisoners. Prisoners were given clear information about use of cell bells, fire safety, the Listener scheme and reception visits. They were also given a menu order form, letter, envelope and pen. Any questions were answered as fully as possible and prisoners signed a general compact about their behaviour. In one observed interview with a prisoner who could not read or write, the officer explained some of the procedures but did not read out the compact details or offer to read the information booklet. He told the prisoner that a Listener would read the booklet to him if required and gave him information about wing readers' who could read and write letters on his behalf. An induction orderly worked in the area but had little formal involvement with new arrivals.

1.21 Prisoners transferred from another establishment or admitted on their previous prison number could make a short free telephone call from the office. Those new to custody were given £1 telephone credit for the wing telephones. In our survey, only 38% of prisoners, far fewer than the comparator of 53%, said they had been able to make a call on their day of arrival. Some had to wait a few days. However, it was positive that significantly more in the survey said they received help from a member of staff in contacting family in their first 24 hours.

1.22 In theory, new prisoners were accommodated on A wing but in practice they often went wherever there was a space. Some went directly to healthcare or occasionally the care and separation unit (CSU). There were no formal first night procedures on the wings and no standard routines to ensure that new arrivals could make a telephone call or have a shower. Only 15% of prisoners said they had been able to shower on the day of their arrival and some had been in police custody for some time without the opportunity to shower. Significantly fewer than the comparator said they had felt safe on their first night.

Induction 1.23 Most prisoners attended a stage two induction' the morning after their arrival. In our survey, 74% of prisoners, much higher than in other local prisons, said they had gone on an induction course within their first week and they were more positive about what it covered. The induction took place in the benefits, employment, training and accommodation (BETA) unit, where a range of useful information was displayed and leaflets were freely available. An excellent DVD filmed at the prison was used to give information and prisoners could also use touch-screen information points both in the unit and around the prison. Officers were friendly and enthusiastic and the sessions were relaxed but orderly.

1.24 Dedicated induction officers and staff from other departments, including the counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare service, probation and education, provided good information. Most presentations engaged prisoners well but they were not provided with pen and paper to make notes and peer supporters were not used to help those with literacy problems or offer advice. Information on bullying and race equality was covered in only two minutes. Prisoners were told that bullying and racism were unacceptable and how to complain but there was no discussion about forms of bullying or discrimination or wider diversity issues.

1.25 Prisoners were seen individually by the chaplain and bail officer and saw a resettlement officer who completed the form started in stage one induction. The resettlement officer collected information about education, training and employment, and any history of substance misuse and self-harm. Family relationships, accommodation needs and any debt problems were also covered. Where necessary, sentence planning procedures were explained and prisoners were told about the discharge board held six weeks before release.

1.26 Vulnerable prisoners received induction information on D wing. Sessions were held only on Wednesdays and many prisoners therefore waited several days. Their names and status as vulnerable prisoners were included on a list of those awaiting stage two induction displayed in the stage one induction office used to interview prisoners. Induction information was given individually to those in healthcare.

West Hill 1.27 West Hill had its own small reception where prisoners were met by officers and their possessions were booked in. Each new arrival was given information, support and a tour of the facilities by a prisoner meeter and greeter', and received a copy of a well-designed information booklet.

1.28 Reception officers opened a checklist and risk assessment document on each new arrival where receipt of bedding, identification and any literacy or other identified needs were recorded. Officers also recorded how the prisoner was feeling, if his home was secure and if his family knew where he was. One section was completed by the personal officer and included details of next of kin, partner and childcare issues, whether the prisoner wanted his family involved in sentence planning, accommodation details and substance misuse information. The personal officer also discussed available programmes and recorded current and previous offences. Another section was used by a senior officer to confirm that reception and induction procedures had been carried out and record any prisoner comment. The final section was completed on transfer or release.

1.29 Prisoners moving to West Hill attended a five-day rolling programme that included presentations from a range of staff. In our survey, 82% of men in West Hill, much higher than the training prison comparator of 69%, said they had attended an induction programme within their first week.

Recommendations 1.30 Reception and induction officers should introduce themselves to prisoners and address them by their title and surname.

1.31 The reception area should be redesigned and refurbished to better meet the needs of prisoners.

1.32 Closed-circuit television should be installed to enable staff to observe all areas including the rear holding room.

1.33 New arrivals should be given a minimum of two sets of clothing and two towels.

1.34 The cell-sharing risk assessment should be completed in private.

1.35 Induction and resettlement staff should ask specifically about children or other dependants.

1.36 The role of peer supporters should be extended and formalised in reception and induction procedures.

1.37 All prisoners should receive a second stage induction the day after their arrival irrespective of their location.

1.38 The quality and presentation of anti-bullying and race equality information at induction should be improved to reflect the importance of the topics, and wider diversity issues should be included.

1.39 The names and status of vulnerable prisoners should not be displayed in the stage one induction office.

Housekeeping points 1.40 Reading material should be provided in reception holding rooms.

1.41 Prisoners should be offered pens and paper to make notes during induction.

SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENT AND RELATIONSHIPS

Residential units

Expected outcomes: Prisoners live in a safe, clean and decent environment within which they are encouraged to take personal responsibility for themselves and their possessions.

2.1 Cells and communal areas in the main prison were generally clean. Shared cells were cramped and toilets poorly screened. There were no wing laundry facilities and prisoners complained of poor access to clean clothes. No cells were adapted for use by prisoners with disabilities. Many prisoners were unable to shower daily. The situation for West Hill prisoners was notably better.

Main prison 2.2 Cells and communal areas were generally clean but some needed refurbishment and decorating and not all contained noticeboards. In our survey, 75% of prisoners, against a comparator of 64%, said they could get cell cleaning materials weekly. A previous problem with rat infestation was under control. Prisoners could smoke only in their cells.

2.3 Many single cells had been doubled. These were cramped and toilets were only partially screened, which was unhygienic and disrespectful when all prisoners ate in their cells. Not all prisoners had their own table and chair and not all the cupboards were lockable. All prisoners had a television and the offensive displays policy was adhered to. In our survey, most prisoners, and more than in other similar prisons, said it was usually quiet enough at night.

2.4 Areas were effectively supervised by staff. Noticeboards were tidy and displayed information under a range of headings. Association equipment included pool and table tennis tables. Regular prisoner consultation meetings were held.

2.5 None of the accommodation was adapted for use by prisoners with disabilities. This had been highlighted at our last full inspection in 2002 and, while the recommended audit of the physical environment had been undertaken in 2004, the situation remained unchanged. Many areas, including the chapel, education, the library and an exercise yard on D wing, were inaccessible to those with mobility difficulties.

Hygiene 2.6 There were showers with curtains on all wings and prisoners could keep an adequate supply of their own personal hygiene items. The shower cubicles and recesses were generally clean, although the ceilings of the recesses on B wing were damaged by condensation. The ground floor showers on this wing were unused and three of the remaining 12 showers ran only cold water. In our survey, only 59% of prisoners, against a comparator of 74%, said they could shower daily, although this varied across wings, with responses about access to showers noticeably worse on A and B wings compared with D wing. Some staff on B wing told us that domestic time' was given daily to prisoners to enable them to clean cells and shower. In fact, domestic time' was no longer part of the core day.

2.7 Prisoners received clean bedding on arrival and could exchange this weekly. Mattresses were in reasonable condition and prisoners said they could be exchanged when necessary.

Clothing and possessions 2.8 Prisoners received only one set of prison-issue clothing on arrival (see section on first days in custody). There were no laundry facilities and prison clothing was washed in another establishment. In our survey, significantly fewer than the comparator said they received enough clean clothes for the week. Weekly clothes exchanges took place when prisoners could swap items on a one-for-one basis. Many prisoners said they tried to obtain additional prison clothing and were often successful but this was removed from them during cell searches.

2.9 Although contrary to Prison Rules, only unconvicted prisoners on the enhanced regime were allowed to wear their own clothes. In the absence of any laundries, unconvicted prisoners who did wear their own clothes had to wash them by hand or arrange regular exchanges with visitors.

2.10 Training shoes could not be brought or sent in but had to be bought from a catalogue. This was described as a security issue and the prison had no x-ray to check clothing and other items for smuggled goods.

2.11 Although prisoners were negative in our survey about access to stored property from reception, there were no outstanding applications for this during the inspection. Discharge clothing was available in reception but no suitable bags. Depending on how much they had, prisoners were given a bin bag or carrier bag West Hill 2.12 West Hill contained single and double rooms, all of which had privacy locks. Prisoners were effectively unlocked for 24 hours a day, although they were locked behind a gated spur during staff patrol' states. Single rooms were large, in good repair and adequately ventilated. One cell had been adapted for use by a prisoner with disabilities. Some shared rooms were cramped, lacked lockable cupboards and had too little table space so prisoners had to sit on their beds to eat.

2.13 Communal areas were well maintained, although many of the showers had flaking paint and decaying flooring. Comprehensive noticeboards on both units covered key information. The offensive displays policy was adhered to. There had been two prisoner consultation meetings in the previous three months. These were well attended and action points were clearly allocated to individuals. Wing representatives were known to prisoners and minutes of meetings were displayed.

2.14 Lack of space meant that association facilities were limited to two pool tables and a table tennis table, which were frequently damaged.

2.15 Significantly fewer than the comparator for West Hill said it was quiet enough at night. This was challenged regularly by staff. West Hill was calm and quiet during our night visit.

2.16 The Hearn unit consisted of 40 single rooms, all of which had showers and toilets. The unit was very clean and well kept. It had a pool table, table tennis and table football but association areas were spartan and the communal dining space was not used.

Hygiene, clothing and possessions 2.17 Both units on West Hill had a laundry run by a full-time laundry orderly, and prisoners were able to get clean clothes. Only prisoners on Hearn unit were able to wear their own clothes. In our survey for West Hill, all prisoners said they could shower daily and 97% said they could get clean sheets every week. Most prisoners could access their property within 24 hours of making an application.

Recommendations 2.18 Cells should be refurbished and decorated as part of a rolling programme.

2.19 Single cells should not be used for two prisoners.

2.20 All prisoners should have a lockable cupboard.

2.21 Toilets in cells should be fully screened.

2.22 Reasonable adjustments should be made to ensure that prisoners with a disability and those with mobility problems can access all facilities and services.

2.23 Unconvicted prisoners should be allowed to wear their own clothes.

2.24 All prisoners should be able to shower daily.

2.25 Wing laundries should be provided.

2.26 All showers should be maintained in working order and refurbished as necessary.

2.27 All prisoners in West Hill should be allowed to wear their own clothes.

Housekeeping point 2.28 Discharge bags should be provided in reception.

Staff-prisoner relationships

Expected outcomes: Prisoners are treated respectfully by all staff, throughout the duration of their custodial sentence, and are encouraged to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions. Healthy prisons should demonstrate a well-ordered environment in which the requirements of security, control and justice are balanced and in which all members of the prison community are safe and treated with fairness.

2.29 Prisoners said most staff treated them with respect but many also described residential staff as indifferent and unwilling to help. Some staff interacted well with prisoners but some had a negative attitude and were unwilling to engage with and support prisoners. There was good consultation with prisoners through wing representative meetings.

2.30 In our survey, 70% of prisoners said they were treated with respect by most staff. The figure was lower among black and minority ethnic prisoners and there was some variation between the wings. On D wing, where vulnerable prisoners were held, only 62%, compared to 73% in the rest of the prison, said that most staff treated them with respect. Only 54% in the main prison, significantly lower than the comparator, said they had a member of staff they could turn to for help, although the figure jumped to 81% among prisoners in West Hill. In a measuring the quality of prison life' survey (November 2006), scores for relationships with staff fell close to the bottom of the typical range, bordering on unusually low. The survey also noted that most written prisoner comments about staff were negative, with some suggesting that staff were unhelpful and did not listen to their concerns.

2.31 In groups, prisoners said there was no outright hostility from staff and that a minority were helpful and approachable but that wing staff generally were not. One Listener had heard a member of staff telling a colleague that he was doing too much to help other prisoners. More experienced prisoners recognised some old-fashioned attitudes whereby staff did not regard engaging with prisoners as their responsibility, and described Winchester as a backwater where cultural attitudes had not changed as much as other more high profile local prisons. In what were otherwise positive safety interviews, the issues about staff raised most often were lack of trust in them and the way they behaved with prisoners, including aggressive body language. There was relatively little interaction between staff and prisoners. In our survey, only 6%, significantly lower than the comparator, said staff spoke to them most of the time during association. This figure dropped to only 4% among prisoners in West Hill.

2.32 Residential staff did not actively supervise wings and many congregated in offices for much of the time. Although many prisoners spent considerable periods locked up, wing staff made no effort to ameliorate this by unlocking for showers or telephone calls during the day even though there appeared to be enough staff to manage this. Prisoners were almost always addressed by their surnames alone and we heard staff using disrespectful and unprofessional language. This included referring to vulnerable prisoners as muppets' and other prisoners as normals'. Officers did not announce themselves before entering cells.

2.33 Residential managers consulted regularly with prisoners through separate prisoner consultation meetings for the main prison and West Hill.

Recommendation 2.34 Staff on all wings should support prisoners and show respect in how they speak to, address and refer to them.

Personal officers Expected outcomes: Prisoners' relationships with their personal officers are based on mutual respect, high expectations and support.

2.35 The personal officer scheme in the main prison was new but the one in West Hill was a little better established. The model was reasonable but was not yet owned by many staff. Very few prisoners met their personal officers in the first week and few found them helpful. Entries in wing files were generally uninformative.

2.36 The personal officer scheme in West Hill was dated 2006 and that for the main prison 2007. In West Hill, prisoners were allocated a personal officer by rota while in the main prison this was by cell. The role of personal officer outlined in the policy documents was a good one but it was aspirational and a long way from reflecting the actual work taking place. Personal officers had not received specific training.

2.37 In the main prison, personal officers were required to introduce themselves within a week of a prisoner arriving on the wing and make a relevant comment in the prisoner's history sheet. There was little evidence that this happened routinely. In our survey, only 8% of prisoners said they had met their personal officers in the first week and only 16% said they found them helpful. There were regular management checks of wing files but it was unclear what effect these had. One principal officer had noted the need for personal officer entries but none had been made three weeks later. Another file indicated a management check but the principal officer concerned had made no comment on the lack of entries. Some detailed personal officer entries were made regularly but this was the exception. Many files contained few entries, some had considerable gaps and others simply stated personal officer check' weekly indicating either a fundamental misunderstanding of the role or an unwillingness to engage with the scheme. Some entries were unhelpful and unprofessional, such as a persistent moaner' and want, want, want, tends to be a drain on staff'.

2.38 Entries in wing files in West Hill tended to be more regular and occasionally very good. One introductory entry from a personal officer outlined the man's offence, his family background, sentence plan target and future plans but this was the exception.

2.39 Few files showed any evidence of personal knowledge of the prisoner, his background and family or what he was doing during his sentence. There was almost no reference to any special needs in files sampled apart from one good detailed entry explaining a prisoner's problem with reading and the need to encourage him to keep in touch with his family. This was addressed to wing staff but there was no further reference to the issue in subsequent entries by the personal officer or others.

Recommendations 2.40 Personal officers should receive specific training and guidance on their role and what is expected of them.

2.41 Prisoners with specific care needs, such as older prisoners and those with disabilities, should have regularly monitored care plans as part of their wing files.

2.42 Managers undertaking checks on wing files should specifically follow up those with no entries within two weeks.