Winchester Prison - the full report - Part 3

5.1 The prison had identified almost 400 activity places in the main prison and 200 in West Hill. This included 150 education places, most of which were part-time. There were insufficient places to keep prisoners actively occupied in the main prison. Access to education and activities was good but less so for vulnerable prisoners and those staying less than five weeks. In West Hill, activity places were well managed and jobs were allocated appropriately. Allocation arrangements were poorer in the main prison.

5.2 There had been a drive to increase the range of skills and accredited training in West Hill. A wide range of programmes had been introduced following a comprehensive needs analysis. The range of ICT programmes had been increased to provide qualifications from introductory level to level 3. Construction courses had been introduced in carpentry, joinery and brick work. The prison had made positive links with local agencies to gain local contracts, an example of which was the provision of wooden stalls for the Winchester Christmas market. Good work had been done to encourage outside employers to offer work and employment in local leisure centres and the Forestry Commission, although the latter had not been used for five months. The environment in West Hill was well used to provide training opportunities for horticulture and industrial cleaning. Prisoners developed high standards of practical skills in the majority of vocational programmes and in West Hill often worked unsupervised.

5.3 There was less scope for prisoners in the main prison to obtain qualifications. The average length of stay was short and most convicted prisoners were moved to West Hill or other training prisons shortly after sentence. There were 205 prisoners employed, of whom 53 were part-time. Seventy-five full-time positions were wing-based, such as cleaners, painters and servery workers. Qualifications were limited to those that could be gained in education. There were some courses within the physical education department. Although the kitchen occupied 23 prisoners full-time, the high turnover of workers meant that the potential for vocational qualifications was limited. The catering department was trying to put in place a system where all kitchen workers would be drawn from West Hill but this had not yet been agreed.

5.4 Work opportunities for vulnerable prisoners had expanded to include a computer recycling workshop. Many vulnerable prisoners could choose to work but opportunities to take part in the full range of education and training activities were more restricted.

5.5 There was insufficient attention to allocation to jobs. Although the head of learning and skills monitored this closely and vacancies were mostly filled to 80% capacity, the onus was on prisoners to apply for jobs themselves. With the exception of one workshop and wing-based work, most jobs required security clearance. Work had started on B wing to fast-track prisoners into employment but some prisoners said getting work depended on personal contacts. The absence of a labour allocation board and attention from a regimes manager meant that some areas were underused. On one day of the inspection, for example, there were only three prisoners in an area meant to employ eight. Some jobs were restricted to specific wings, with A wing prisoners only able to apply for wing work and one workshop. Our own roll check showed that 55% of prisoners in the main prison were locked up during the core day. This included some who were allocated to activities but for reasons such as staff shortages were not working on that day.

5.6 There were 150 part-time education places. However, many of these were educational activities taking place in the workshops, which meant in practice that there were between 40 and 50 places a day. On one day of the inspection, 27 prisoners in the main prison and 22 in West Hill were taking part in educational activities. There were good opportunities for the development of personal and social skills, but mostly in West Hill.

5.7 Pass rates in literacy and numeracy were good. The standard of work was satisfactory and many prisoners requested work to complete in their cells. Many progressed from entry levels to levels 1 and 2. Attendance at classes was satisfactory. Teaching relied heavily on the use of worksheets and there was little routine use of computing to support learning other than in the completion of work assignments. The number and range of classes for literacy, language and numeracy were sufficient to support prisoners across a range of skill levels and previous learning experience. Provision extended adequately to other areas of the prison, including healthcare. Attendance in the education department by vulnerable prisoners was restricted to one day a week.

5.8 The prison had widened participation in learning by introducing literacy and numeracy support sessions into the workshops and other work areas of the prison such as the kitchens, gardens and construction workshop. The sessions held in the industries workshops were particularly popular but in some cases the classrooms adjacent to the workshops were noisy and made learning difficult. Use was made of the findings of initial assessments and further diagnostic testing was conducted to identify learning support needs.

5.9 Prisoners in education made progress in achieving personal targets such as in developing self-respect and confidence. This was particularly evident in music and art in the healthcare centre. The range of provision for those prisoners staying longer than a month was satisfactory but was insufficient to meet the needs of short-term prisoners. In the previous six months, 27% of prisoners had left within a month. There was good use of prisoners as peer advisers, although lack of coordination of all activities across the prison resulted in some inconsistencies in the service. Different external agencies were used effectively to widen the range and improve personal and social development. There were excellent links with the local university to provide a drama production.

5.10 The prison had developed positive working relationships with a number of external organisations, particularly with the new education provider. Improved quality systems and an increase in the range of the curriculum had been implemented. The standard of teaching and learning was slowly improving.

Library 5.11 The prison had a main library adjacent to the residential wings and a secondary library in West Hill. Collections of books were also sited in several other locations, including the care and separation unit (CSU), healthcare and on A and D wings, and replenished by the librarian. A small library had been created in a classroom in the education department to provide for prisoners unable to get to the main library. The libraries were managed by a full-time qualified librarian from Hampshire County Council supported by four orderlies. The libraries provided pleasant and well-managed facilities that were well used.

5.12 The main library was open for two hours in the mornings and two hours in the afternoons but closed at lunchtimes. The library opened only one evening, by request, and closed at weekends. The daily opening times for the library in West Hill were supplemented by additional opening on two evenings and Saturday mornings. Some prisoners, especially those in full-time work, found access difficult. Those in Hearn unit were restricted to a small bookshelf of mainly fiction books and were unable to access the West Hill library regularly. Some prisoners in education depended on visits organised by tutors during lessons to get to the library. There were designated hours for library visits by vulnerable prisoners.

5.13 Use of the library was routinely monitored but a user survey had not been carried out since 2004. There were no computing facilities for prisoners. Apart from books, there was only a small collection of music CDs and talking books. There was a good collection of foreign language books and an adequate stock of easy-reader books and books printed in large format. The range of recreational books was good and there were adequate reference books. The West Hill library also contained technical books for construction industry training. There was no direct computer link to the County Council Library Services, although the librarian responded to prisoners' needs and acquired books on request through the inter-library services. The main library contained a range of legal textbooks and Prison Service Orders.

Recommendations 5.14 Education and activity provision within the main prison should reflect the needs of short-term and vulnerable prisoners.

5.15 A designated manager should be appointed to ensure activity places are used to their maximum capacity, with allocations reviewed and monitored regularly to enable fair access for all prisoner groups.

5.16 The kitchen should employ prisoners who remain long enough to gain vocational qualifications.

Housekeeping Point 5.17 Hearn unit prisoners should be allowed to access the West Hill library during opening hours.

Physical education and health promotion Expected outcomes: Physical education and PE facilities meet the requirements of the specialist education inspectorate's Common Inspection Framework (separately inspected by specialist education inspectors). Prisoners are also encouraged and enabled to take part in recreational PE, in safe and decent surroundings.

5.18 Staff shortages at the time of the inspection meant that mostly only recreational physical education was available. Facilities were good and most prisoners could attend two or more sessions a week. There was no accredited training and little health promotion. There was a detailed improvement plan but no timetable for implementation.

5.19 The physical education (PE) department was staffed by one senior officer and three PE officers (one of whom was unable to run some activities). The normal complement was one senior officer and five PE officers. There were no outdoor facilities, although funding had been secured for refurbishment of West Hill's outdoor area and this was due to start later in the year. There were adequate facilities for cardio-vascular, weights and indoor sports.

5.20 The PE programme included provision for all areas, including a weekly session for prisoners in the CSU and three sessions for prisoners in healthcare. Sessions were also provided for prisoners undergoing detoxification or involved in drug counselling. The department typically provided 900 to 1,000 activity hours a week and involved 600 prisoners. Records of use were well maintained. Induction periods were comprehensive and gave all new arrivals a 'taster' session. Although some PE courses had been offered there were none running at the time of inspection. However, prisoners who had participated in courses said that they had been taught well and were able to demonstrate good practical skills. Staff had clear schemes of work and lesson materials and records of achievement met awarding body requirements.

5.21 All wings had noticeboards promoting a range of courses. No NVQs were offered. Entries were made on prisoners' individual learning plans and prison records on completion of courses. During induction, all prisoners completed a form detailing their medical condition and there was a referral system to healthcare. One PE officer had a community link role to identify working out opportunities.

5.22 All prisoners could attend gym at least once a week and many used the gym more frequently. In our survey, 47% in the main prison, significantly more than the local comparator, and 50% in West Hill, said they used the gym at least twice a week. This was largely due to the closure of C wing and the outreach work carried out by gym staff to ensure that unemployed prisoners were able to access the gym during the core day. Those in employment could attend PE in the evenings and at weekends. Vulnerable prisoners were offered PE during their working day. All prisoners showered at the end of activity. The showers were supervised discreetly by PE staff. There was close monitoring of accidents and injuries.

Recommendations 5.23 The outdoor facility in West Hill should be refurbished as soon as possible.

5.24 Staffing levels in the gym should be increased to the required level to meet the needs of the population and to offer some accredited courses.

Faith and religious activity Expected outcomes: All prisoners are able to practise their religion fully and in safety. The chaplaincy plays a full part in prison life and contributes to prisoners' overall, care, support and resettlement.

5.25 The chaplaincy team was diverse. Prisoners had good access to chaplains and religious services and activities. Facilities were generally good but there were no ritual washing facilities for Muslims. Good pastoral care was provided but the chaplaincy was not always routinely involved in safer custody work.

5.26 The most common declared religions were Church of England (28%), Roman Catholic (17%), Muslim (4%) and other Christian religions (4%). Others represented included Buddhist, Sikh, Pagan, Hindu and Jewish. Forty-one per cent declared no religion.

5.27 Prisoners had good access to a range of chaplains. The coordinating chaplain and his assistant were full-time. A Roman Catholic chaplain worked for 22 hours a week and the Muslim chaplain for 10 hours. Another 11 chaplains from diverse religions and faith groups were paid on a sessional basis or were volunteers. A large number of community volunteers also participated in the work of the chaplaincy and led services.

5.28 The chaplaincy team met monthly and worked cooperatively with each other and with prison staff. Minutes of the meetings described developing plans to produce a video for staff on religious sensitivities particularly around cell searching. Several notices to staff and prisoners had been published describing various religious festivals and advising how participating prisoners should be supported. There had been good cooperation with the catering department and regime managers in preparation for Ramadan. Members of the local Muslim community, prison managers and prisoners had joined in the celebration of Eid, and there had been a display on world religions. The facilities list included religious items. Some, such as incense, required approval from the chaplaincy.

5.29 Facilities were generally good, with a chapel in the main prison and in West Hill. A small multi-faith room had previously proved unsuitable for the high number of Muslim prisoners attending Friday prayers but numbers had since fallen. There were no washing facilities nearby. The chapel in the main prison and the multi-faith room were inaccessible to prisoners with mobility difficulties. The chaplain believed that if necessary a prisoner would be allowed to attend the West Hill chapel.

5.30 A duty chaplain met with new arrivals individually within 24 hours during induction. Those arriving on Saturdays were seen in their cells, as were vulnerable prisoners. Prisoners were given a diary and an information leaflet outlining chaplaincy activities, and were told how to contact chaplains.

5.31 There were good opportunities to attend religious services and faith-based activities. Prisoners made an initial application to attend services and the published rule for this to be repeated weekly was not enforced. Prisoners were generally unlocked on time for services and there were no clashes with other regime activities. All prisoners could attend services, although alternative arrangements had sometimes been made when there were security concerns over a prisoner from the CSU. A separate Sunday Christian service was provided for vulnerable prisoners, which was unnecessary, and another for prisoners in West Hill. Prisoners were not separated for the Roman Catholic Mass or Muslim prayers. A Buddhist meeting was held each Tuesday and there was a Christian Fellowship group. Bible Study groups were held on both sites.

5.32 The chaplaincy journal evidenced good pastoral care for prisoners, some provided through volunteers. 'Explore' was a course allowing prisoners to consider their personal relationships, and there was access to specialised counselling including bereavement counselling. Links had been developed with a local charity that had provided clothing for prisoners. There were plans for a new chaplain, funded through the Church Army, to develop further links in the community to contribute to resettlement. The chaplaincy organised a prison visitors scheme.

5.33 The chaplain was a member of the race equality action team (REAT) and the safer custody committee but had not attended regularly. Chaplains were not always invited to assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) reviews for prisoners who they knew were at risk of self-harm.

Recommendations 5.34 Washing facilities for Muslim prisoners should be provided close to the multi-faith room.

5.35 Separate services should not be held for vulnerable prisoners.

5.36 A chaplaincy representative should attend the safer custody committee regularly and play a more active part in assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) procedures.

Time out of cell Expected outcomes: All prisoners are actively encouraged to engage in out of cell activities, and the prison offers a timetable of regular and varied extra-mural activities.

5.37 Time out of cell varied significantly. Prisoners in West Hill were unlocked for most of the day, as were prisoners from the main prison in full-time employment. Unemployed prisoners usually spent long periods locked up. Association and exercise periods did not always adhere to the timetabled core day. Prisoners were given too little domestic time to make telephone calls and take showers. Association and exercise were sometimes cancelled.

5.38 In our survey, only 4% of prisoners in the main prison said they spent more than 10 hours out of their cells on a weekday. Forty-eight per cent said they had association five times or more a week. In West Hill, the respective figures were 30% and 77%. West Hill prisoners were only locked onto gated spurs after 8pm. In the main prison, managers reported an average time unlocked of between eight and nine hours but this masked significant variations.

5.39 Around 50% of prisoners in the main prison were involved in activity. On some days, employed prisoners could spend up to 8.5 hours unlocked. For unemployed prisoners, this was no more than a maximum of 2.5 hours a day. Both figures were dependent on outside exercise taking place and all association times being adhered to. The core day was well publicised and built in daily exercise, evening association and wing 'interaction' periods. The recent closure of C wing and the larger exercise area meant that B wing had only 30 minutes of outside exercise. Waterproof clothing was not provided and outside exercise did not take place in poorer weather. Cancelled exercise was not replaced by indoor association.

5.40 Evening association was provided every night on each wing but not for all prisoners who usually had evening association on alternate nights. This usually lasted an hour but prisoners said there was not enough time to shower, make telephone calls and carry out domestic tasks. Canteen also took place on the wings at 6pm on a rota basis, which meant further pressure on a small window of association. Evening association was often cancelled due to staff sickness and emergency escorts out of the establishment. This happened on average twice a week, although a rota ensured that all wings were affected proportionally.

5.41 There was some over-reporting of time out of cell. For example, it was reported that prisoners had 30 minutes out of cell for meals when often the actual time taken was a total of 15 minutes, and that they had time for cell cleaning, when this did not always take place. Prisoners were also frequently returned from work early and locked up but this was not always logged. Senior managers had tried to make regime monitoring accurate and comprehensive but data collection on the residential wings reflected what was scheduled to take place rather than what actually happened. We carried out two roll checks, in both of which 55% of prisoners were locked in their cells. Some were able to join gym sessions targeted at unemployed prisoners but many were locked up for most of the core day and often the evening as well. Residential staff did not unlock prisoners for domestic periods and saw involvement in activities as largely the role of regime providers such as gym or education.

5.42 Most prisoners in West Hill were involved in some form of daily activity and participated in association on most evenings. There was some over-reporting of activity and association was sometimes lost to staff sickness, as had been the case four times in the previous month. This was rotated between West Hill and Hearn unit and prisoners were locked onto the gated spurs. Prisoners were not allowed in the grounds during association and the small exercise yard had been earmarked as an all-weather sports area, which would further impact on the space available.

Recommendations 5.43 Prisoners should be unlocked for domestic activities during the day.

5.44 Regime monitoring should accurately reflect time unlocked.

5.45 Prisoners should be provided with suitable outdoor clothing for exercise when the weather is less good.

5.46 Prisoners in West Hill should be allowed to exercise in the grounds.

Section 6: Good order Security and rules

Expected outcomes: Security and good order are maintained through positive staff-prisoner relationships based on mutual respect as well as attention to physical and procedural matters. Rules and routines are well-publicised, proportionate, fair and encourage responsible behaviour. Categorisation and allocation procedures are based on an assessment of a prisoner's risks and needs; and are clearly explained, fairly applied and routinely reviewed.

6.1 Security was well managed, with good systems and communication within the prison. Security reports were dealt with quickly but it was not clear what actions were taken as a result. Rules were fairly applied and well publicised. Categorisation procedures in West Hill were efficient but were less well organised in the main prison.

6.2 Physical security was good and closed-circuit television cameras covered all the grounds and visits.

6.3 Three staff shared a cramped, busy but well-managed security office. On average, there were 130 to 150 security information reports (SIRs) a month, with drugs the biggest area of concern. Members of staff were sent confirmation that their SIR had been received. The majority were dealt with within 72 hours, although some had remained unanswered for six days over a recent bank holiday, which was unacceptable. There were appropriate links from SIRs to target searches, mandatory drug tests (MDTs), anti-bullying and race relations. Some actions were agreed at the daily operational meeting while the rest went through an SIR action form but it was difficult to evidence that proposed actions had actually taken place, particularly with target searches.

6.4 The security office had developed good information systems and a monthly intelligence booklet was published on the prison's shared computer drive. The intelligence analyst met with wing security liaison officers monthly and shared information. Security meetings took place monthly chaired by the deputy governor and were well attended by a broad range of disciplines. The police liaison officer and prisoner escort provider also attended.

6.5 There were clear criteria to ban visitors, although visitors who allegedly verbally abused staff were banned until they had written an apology. The operations principal officer reviewed all closed visits monthly and they were minuted in the monthly security meeting. Prisoners who had patterns of intelligence suggesting involvement with drugs in the prison were placed on closed visits and reviewed monthly.

6.6 Rules were clearly displayed around the units and were not over-restrictive. Prisoners were given copies, and signed copies were kept in wing history files.

Categorisation 6.7 Security categorisation took place in the main prison and West Hill. In the main prison, reviews were close to being up to date, with only three outstanding for the previous month. There had been a significant backlog before C wing closed. A senior officer and officer were profiled daily to the observation, classification and allocation (OCA) department. This was based in the offender management unit (OMU) where offender assessments were easily accessible. It was untidy and gave the impression that systems were not as thorough as they should have been. The database used had the foundations of a good system but information was deleted when finished with, making back records difficult to evidence.

6.8 The system in West Hill was thorough and clear. There was an excellent database with all reviews up to date and a comprehensive monitoring system.

6.9 Re-categorisation boards for the main prison and West Hill were held often but irregularly. Consultation with wing officers and activity staff was evident in the re-categorisation process. Prisoners were notified of the outcome and sentence plans targets were taken into account. Appeals were considered.

6.10 There was good daily contact with the population management section, with regular moves to HMPs Camp Hill and Ford. National population pressures meant that home circumstances and individual needs were rarely taken into account and it was particularly difficult to transfer Rule 45 prisoners.

Recommendations 6.11 Security information report investigations should be completed on time and actions cross-referenced to ensure that they are completed.

6.12 Visitors banned because of alleged inappropriate behaviour towards staff should be written to, reminded of acceptable standards of behaviour and informed of the likely outcome if they cannot meet these requirements but should not be required to write an apology.

6.13 Closed visits should not be imposed for a pattern of intelligence involving drugs in the prison unless there is clear information linked to visits.

Discipline Expected outcomes: Disciplinary procedures are applied fairly and for good reason. Prisoners understand why they are being disciplined and can appeal against any sanctions imposed on them.

6.14 Levels of adjudications, use of force and use of special accommodation were low. Not all charges were fully investigated and there were some anomalies in paperwork. Staff in the care and separation unit (CSU) were confident and clear in their roles and cared for prisoners appropriately.

Discipline procedures 6.15 Adjudications were held in the staff office, which was suitable and comfortable. The adjudications we observed were considered and fair, prisoners could question the evidence, and mitigating factors were taken into account when deciding on punishments. However, details of previous adjudications showed that not all charges were properly investigated.

6.16 Punishment tariffs had recently been reviewed but some involved 100% stoppage of earnings, which might deny prisoners the opportunity to contact their families. Some wing conduct reports were inappropriate, not sufficiently objective and occasionally derogatory.

6.17 Compared to 85 adjudications in August 2006, there had been only 34 in January 2007, 33 in February and 38 in March. Regular adjudication meetings were held.

Use of force 6.18 Force had been used only 37 times in the previous six months. Some documents were missing from the paperwork, including a completed injury to prisoner (F213) form and signed authorisation. A local incident form completed by the orderly officer summarised the incident but this was not always included with the completed paperwork. A use of force meeting took place quarterly, chaired by the head of operations, who also signed off all the use of force forms.

6.19 Neither of the two special cells had been used in the previous six months and they had been used only six times in the six months before that. The paperwork did not clearly explain the use of special accommodation and on two occasions the observation logs were missing. A body belt had not been used for a number of years.

6.20 De-escalation of incidents was swift and well managed. In many cases, records showed that officers had paid attention to de-escalating and taking restraints off safely. This was particularly the case with CSU staff, who were clear on the need to treat prisoners with care and dignity.

6.21 A video camera was kept in security but there was no log of its use. Healthcare attended all planned interventions and the CSU in all incidents. CSU staff were not used for planned removals. All prisoners were subjected to a full strip search without risk assessment when moved to the CSU whether under restraint or not. Prisoners were never deprived of normal clothing.

Segregation 6.22 The CSU consisted of seven cells and two special accommodation cells. It was well decorated with very little graffiti. The shower room was clean and the exercise yard had recently had a mural painted on one wall. There was a decent selection of books. Prisoners had daily access to showers, telephone calls and exercise. They could attend the gym every Tuesday and there was a small provision for in-cell education and work. Chaplains, a senior manager and healthcare staff visited every day and the Independent Monitoring Board at least weekly.

6.23 All the prisoners we spoke to understood why they were in the CSU. Written reasons could have been more informative. Regular reviews took place and the appropriate people were invited but the timings were not predictable and it was difficult for some to attend. The Independent Monitoring Board in particular was concerned about this.

6.24 A staff selection policy operated and those selected had been authorised by the Governor. However, because they were part of a wider group of A wing staff, unauthorised staff often worked in the CSU.

6.25 The daily log of events was up to date and comprehensive. CSU staff were dedicated and professional, showing impressive levels of care and respect towards prisoners. Staff understood their role and helped create a positive environment. Daily entries were made in istory files but these were not particularly insightful. Wing staff and personal officers did not visit the CSU to maintain contact with prisoners.

Recommendations 6.26 Quality checks on adjudications should be more robust. All evidence should be examined and outcomes investigated.

6.27 Punishments of 100% loss of earnings should not be issued.

6.28 Use of force and special accommodation paperwork should be closely monitored at the use of force quarterly meeting. The orderly officer incident report should accompany all paperwork.

6.29 Individual risk assessments should take place on all prisoners located to the care and separation unit (CSU) to determine whether a full strip search should take place.

6.30 The video camera should be used for planned use of force and a log kept of its use.

6.31 Written reasons explaining to prisoners why they are being held in the CSU should be comprehensive and detailed.

6.32 Fortnightly reviews in the CSU should have predictable times and days to enable a multidisciplinary attendance.

6.33 The CSU should have a larger group of selected staff to ensure it always has authorised staff on duty.

6.34 Daily history sheet entries should be more insightful about prisoners and have multidisciplinary input.

Incentives and earned privileges Expected outcomes: Incentives and earned privilege schemes are well-publicised, designed to improve behaviour and are applied fairly, transparently and consistently within and between establishments, with regular reviews.

6.35 A new incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme had recently been introduced but was not embedded in practice. There were few worthwhile differentials to influence behaviour and most prisoners had little interest in the scheme. Monitoring and recording of the scheme's operation was poor.

6.36 A new IEP scheme had been introduced in February 2007 but it had been little publicised and was not yet established practice throughout the prison. An IEP notice displayed on D wing outlined the previous, 2004 scheme. Most prisoners and staff were unaware of the changes, including that the qualifying time for applications for enhanced status had reduced from three months to two.

.37 There was little evidence that managers monitored the scheme's operation across all wings. Only B wing maintained a record of the outcome of review boards. This made it difficult to establish how fairly the scheme was being applied. There was no record of any appeals against IEP board decisions. Operation of the scheme was not in line with the policy. For example, weekly review boards were not held, demotions were not always based on a pattern of poor behaviour, there was little evidence that prisoners attended reviews and reasons for non-attendance were not recorded. An early review of the scheme was planned for June 2007.

6.38 Few wing history sheets included any reference to the IEP scheme, although all included a compact signed during induction. Prisoners applied for enhanced status but there were no comments in history sheets to suggest that wing officers promoted this as a worthwhile incentive for prisoners. Managers recognised that there were few meaningful differentials between standard and enhanced levels to influence behaviour. Additional privileges included a greater spending allowance, an additional visit, use of a PlayStation and a duvet set (see also section on clothing and possessions). These had little impact on prisoners with little money and few visitors. Only enhanced prisoners were considered for most orderly jobs and, while this might have been an incentive for some, most prisoners were not engaged with the scheme.

6.39 Around 17% of prisoners in the main prison were enhanced and 83% were standard. The respective figures for West Hill were 62% and 38%. No prisoner was on basic. We were told that prisoners were rarely placed on basic but no records were kept. The history sheet of one prisoner demoted to basic in recent months clearly showed that he had been denied a daily shower while on that level. Prisoners in segregation maintained their IEP level. In our survey, fewer prisoners than the comparator said they had been treated fairly under the IEP scheme. Among black and minority ethnic prisoners, the figure dropped to 23% against a comparator of 48% but this perception was not supported by ethnic monitoring.

6.40 Some staff confirmed a prisoner's IEP level with their previous prison but this was not always done. The induction booklet made no reference to prisoners retaining their previous status on transfer and indicated instead that all would be placed on standard. One prisoner had waited several months before he was able to produce evidence of his previous enhanced status.

Recommendations 6.41 The incentives and earned privileges scheme should be promoted consistently on all wings.

6.42 There should be meaningful differentials between the different levels of the incentives and earned privileges scheme.

6.43 There should be improved recording and monitoring of the operation of the incentives and earned privileges scheme across all wings, to evidence that the scheme is operated fairly and consistently in line with the published policy.