Winchester Prison - the full report - Part 4

7.1 The catering department performed well despite cramped working conditions. There were few complaints about the food and good consultation with prisoners. Cultural and religious diets were provided. No vocational qualifications were available for prisoners working in the kitchen. Meals were served too early.

7.2 In our survey, 36% of prisoners, significantly more than the comparator of 24%, said the food was good or very good, although black and minority ethnic prisoners were not as satisfied. Prisoners were regularly consulted and frequent food surveys were carried out, with changes made to the menu as a result. Catering managers attended prisoner consultative meetings and met with race relations representatives.

7.3 Food was prepared in a central kitchen adjoining D wing, where most of the 23 kitchen workers lived. Wing-based serveries had been installed on the wings and had greatly improved the service. Catering staff attended the serveries to ensure that temperature checks were carried out and records were well maintained. There were plans to move some meal preparation to the kitchen in West Hill to improve quality. The central kitchen was clean and well organised but small, with little room for expansion. There had been a recent investment of new equipment.

7.4 Lunch was often served at 11.45am and tea at 4.45pm, and sometimes earlier. Breakfast packs were distributed the day before, with milk distributed the following morning. Lunch and tea were both hot meals. About 60% of meals were made on site. There were usually two vegetarian options at each meal and daily halal options. Fresh fruit was served every day and the range of vegetables offered was good. The food sampled was high quality and based on a three-week menu cycle. Fortnightly themed nights had been well received.

7.5 Prisoners did not eat together in either the main prison or West Hill. The Hearn unit had a dining room but it was not used. Some prisoners in the main prison and West Hill did not have a table in their cell and, despite the more relaxed regime, prisoners in West Hill could not prepare any light meals for themselves.

7.6 Prisoners working in the kitchen could not study for vocational qualifications due to the high turnover of prisoners and changes to the assessment process. Qualifications available were limited to health and hygiene and food handling courses. Some prisoner records were not up to date. Prisoners wanting to work in the kitchen were not given a medical screening. Catering staff had suggested employing prisoners exclusively from West Hill to reduce the high turnover.

Recommendations 7.7 Breakfast should be served on the day it is to be eaten.

7.8 Lunch should be served after noon and the evening meal after 5pm.

7.9 Prisoners in the Hearn unit should be allowed to eat together.

7.10 Prisoners in West Hill should have facilities to prepare some light snacks.

7.11 Prisoners who have to eat in their cells should be provided with adequate tables and chairs.

Prison shop Expected outcomes: Prisoners can purchase a suitable range of goods at reasonable prices to meet their diverse needs, and can do so safely, from an effectively managed shop.

7.12 The shop service was improving after some difficulties but provision for black and minority ethnic prisoners was poor and there were few healthy options.

7.13 The prison shop was managed by a company called Eurest with the service based at West Hill. In our survey, only half as many as in comparable prisons said the canteen sold a wide enough range of goods. No black and minority ethnic prisoners said this was the case. The canteen list contained 187 items but did not include fresh produce such as fruit or specific products for black and minority ethnic prisoners and there was little in the way of healthy eating options. Managers had begun to address some of the difficulties and a range of halal products and additional hair products were being added to the list. The new list still did not include fruit and healthy options.

7.14 Previous high numbers of complaints about canteen had reduced significantly due to increased managerial attention. Complaints were dealt with swiftly, often resulting in immediate action. Newspapers, magazines and periodicals could be bought through the library. Prisoners could order items only through Eurest but the range was limited. Previous problems with delays in delivery were being addressed by ensuring items were in stock before they were ordered and paid for.

7.15 In the main prison, canteen was issued during evening association on a rota basis, which meant the wing concerned was effectively closed for an hour, further reducing already restricted association time.

Recommendations 7.16 Fresh fruit and healthy options should be included on the canteen list.

7.17 The range of catalogues available to buy clothes and other items should be expanded to reflect prisoners' needs.

7.18 Distribution of canteen should not take place at association times.

Section 8: Resettlement Strategic management of resettlement

Expected outcomes: Resettlement underpins the work of the whole establishment, supported by strategic partnerships in the community and informed by assessment of prisoner risk and need.

8.1 The reducing reoffending strategy had been updated but differed little from the previous strategy of 2005 and did not reflect key changes or strategic priorities. There was some needs analysis particularly in the area of drug and alcohol misuse but insufficient strategic direction.

8.2 The reducing reoffending strategy had recently been updated but largely mirrored the original strategy of 2005. The strategy document did not look outwards and described existing work rather than planning and developing new work. Owners for the seven pathways were not identified and an action plan and timescale for implementation was not included. The strategy did not make links to prison or probation initiatives within the area or region to support its delivery. There was no policy committee to drive the agenda, despite this being a Prison Service requirement. An inaugural meeting of the policy committee was planned in May 2007.

8.3 There had been some needs analysis informing the resettlement work, including reports on education and substance misuse. A recently-completed report by the drug action team in conjunction with the prison had provided a strong evidence-base for the need for more alcohol-related interventions but this was in abeyance due to a lack of resources. The needs of all prisoners were recorded at induction and held on a database in the benefits, education, training and accommodation (BETA) unit but this did not appear to be routinely analysed to inform provision of resettlement services.

8.4 The prison offered two accredited programmes linked to substance misuse: the short duration programme (SDP) aimed at remand prisoners and the prisons addressing substance-related offending (P-ASRO) programme for sentenced prisoners. Prisoners who needed to complete other programmes had to transfer to other prisons and this often meant that relationships with children and families were negatively affected. As a result, prisoners were sometimes reluctant to transfer elsewhere.

8.5 During the inspection, a reducing reoffending event focusing on a new housing initiative for ex-prisoners was held with partner agencies at the prison.

Recommendations 8.6 Terms of reference should be agreed for the reducing reoffending policy committee, which should meet regularly to direct the strategic development of resettlement services.

8.7 A reducing reoffending action plan should be developed that clarifies activity required under each pathway each year and identifies someone responsible for each pathway.

8.8 Prisoner needs analysis from the BETA database should take place regularly and should inform the development of resettlement provision.

Offender management and planning Expected outcomes: All prisoners have a sentence or custody plan based upon an individual assessment of risk and need, which is regularly reviewed and implemented throughout and after their time in custody. Prisoners, together with all relevant staff, are involved with drawing up and reviewing plans.

HM Inspectorate of Probation joined HMCIP for this element of the inspection.

8.9 Offender management arrangements had been implemented but in isolation from the probation team. Few prisoners were managed under the offender management model. Joint public protection work was well managed. Offender assessments were largely up to date but few prisoners were aware of their sentence plans and there was no custody planning for remand or short-term prisoners. Indeterminate sentenced prisoners spent too long at the prison. Limited use was made of release on temporary licence (ROTL). Sentence planning for prisoners in West Hill was developing well and involving staff. Little attention was paid to the specific needs of recalled prisoners.

8.10 A separate offender management team had been established in isolation from the large probation team. Only 27 prisoners were formally in scope of offender management, and included those who presented as high or very high risk of harm. Staffing levels appeared to be over-resourced in relation to offender supervisors, although the case administrator role was stretched. There had been some flexibility between these staff to enable various tasks to be completed.

8.11 Responsibilities for the offender assessment system (OASys), observation, classification and allocation (OCA), legal services and public protection were separate from the offender supervisor function and the potential for duplication of task and effort was high. Probation and public protection staff were co-located and shared a common filing system. There was positive evidence of joint work in relation to multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA), ROTL and sentence planning.

8.12 Staff delivering interventions to prisoners contributed to the offender management model, although they were technically separate from the offender management operation. Staff performing this role displayed little understanding of the basic tenets of offender management and reported having had minimal training. They were also unaware of those prisoners who were in scope of offender management and therefore of those offender supervisors and offender managers with whom they should have been sharing critical information.

8.13 Staff involved in offender management were enthusiastic and shared a vision of how the offender management model could work when fully implemented. They were attempting to see prisoners being supervised weekly. Prisoners gave examples of where offender supervisors had been able to help them.

8.14 Offender supervisors reported difficulty in forging positive links with offender managers in the community. Communication links could have been improved by the involvement of probation staff working in the prison. During the inspection, some prison staff attended case administrator training with probation staff in the community. This was a positive development and contributed to enhanced working relationships.

8.15 OASys systems were well integrated into the prison. Few OASys assessments and sentence reviews were outstanding and over 100 reviews had been completed in the previous six months. Staff in the prison were positive about OASys and if they were unable to obtain OASys initial assessments from probation staff in the community, these would be completed by either probation or prison staff depending on the provisional assessment of risk. Eight probation and prison staff had been trained to complete OASys but the quality of the documents was variable. Quality assurance processes were in place and the senior probation officer was sampling 10% of all completed assessments. An OASys quality improvement group was scheduled to meet monthly. The prison had exceeded its shadow key performance target for 2006/07 for the completion of initial OASys assessments and reviews.

8.16 In the main prison, sentence planning was largely driven through OASys for prisoners serving more than 12 months. There was no effective sentence planning for those serving less than 12 months. In West Hill, a sentence planning process had recently been introduced and had contributed to driving forward the resettlement agenda. However, in our survey, significantly fewer prisoners at West Hill compared to other training prisons said they had a sentence plan or had been involved in its development. Only 15% of prisoners in the main prison said they had a sentence plan, which was low compared to other local prisons, and only 4% said they had been involved with it.

8.17 There were 47 lifers, including 24 with indeterminate sentences for public protection (IPP) and seven who had been recalled on their life licence. Lifers complained about how long it took to be allocated to stage one lifer prisons, which was a year on average. Some lifers had been at Winchester for two years. A lifer policy had been produced in 2006 and three lifer meetings had taken place since March 2007. Where possible, potential mandatory and discretionary lifers were identified before sentence and given basic information. The lifer booklet was not being issued because it was out of date.

8.18 Multi-agency lifer risk assessment panels were taking place on newly-sentenced lifer prisoners and were well attended and fully documented. This assisted in the future risk management of the prisoner. A forensic psychologist from HMP Albany assisted in the management of lifer prisoners and attended when required.

8.19 IPP prisoners frequently did not understand the implications of this type of sentence and were not issued with any relevant information. Three prison staff had completed the relevant lifer training, although only the lifer officer presently had any ongoing contact with lifer prisoners.

8.20 A public protection policy and operational manual had been developed but these documents were primarily focused internally on Winchester and lacked strategic awareness. Monthly risk management meetings were held and external representatives attended regularly.

8.21 Public protection staff were integrated into a number of key processes within Winchester. Two prison staff carried out public protection work and were assisted by some temporary resource from offender management in the monitoring of telephone calls and letters. Public protection cases were identified daily following reception. Public protection staff contributed to child safeguarding measures and the prevention of harassment towards victims and witnesses. Public protection or probation staff usually attended MAPPA meetings in the community.

8.22 Limited use had been made of ROTL in the previous year and the majority of licences had been granted to prisoners working in the officers' mess and outside gardens. There was a cautious approach to the management of ROTL and only 19% of applications in the previous six months had been successful. No prisoners had failed to return to the prison when ROTL had been granted.

8.23 In the year to March 2007, 342 applications were made for home detention curfew (HDC) and 197 were granted. Two staff based in the probation department managed the processes and administration for HDC well. They had developed their own information leaflet for prisoners and encouraged them to ring back to the prison with any problems after release. One member of staff contacted vulnerable high-risk cases to remind them of the importance of cooperating. Over 92% of those released on HDC successfully completed that element of their licence.

8.24 Fifty-three prisoners were subject to licence recall. Prisoners reported receiving little advice or information about the recall process and there was often a delay of up to two weeks before they received information relevant to their case. One clerk held responsibility for the recall process and the distribution and collation of all required paperwork. This process appeared efficient but there was a clear gap in providing information to recalled prisoners about their status.

Recommendations 8.25 The deployment of the offender management model should be reviewed to give the probation department a more central role in implementing offender management and allow greater integration of offender management, probation and public protection staff.

8.26 A single shared file should be developed for all prisoners subject to offender management.

8.27 Key workers should be briefed on the offender management model and understand their contribution to the process.

8.28 The lifer booklet should be revised and reissued. Specific reference should be made to the management of indeterminate public protection sentences.

8.29 Life-sentenced prisoners and those subject to indeterminate public protection sentences should be assigned lifer officers who have received appropriate training.

8.30 More use of release on temporary licence should be made to support prisoners' resettlement.

8.31 Prisoners subject to licence recall should receive relevant information on the process and possible outcomes shortly after arrival at Winchester.

Resettlement pathways Expected outcomes: Prisoners' resettlement needs are met under the seven pathways outlined in the Reducing Reoffending National Action Plan. An effective multi-agency response is used to meet the specific needs of each individual offender in order to maximise the likelihood of successful reintegration into the community.

8.32 All prisoners were introduced to the services available within the benefits, employment, training and accommodation (BETA) unit. Most prisoners were local and there were good links with local agencies but 22% were released without accommodation. Although there were some good training courses these were mainly for relatively few prisoners at West Hill. Healthcare had little involvement in resettlement planning. Drug treatment was mostly based on prisoners' needs, but vulnerable prisoners had no access to courses. Treatment for alcohol dependence was limited. Parenting skills and relationships course were restricted to West Hill prisoners and there were no evening visits or children's days and no family support worker.

Reintegration 8.33 All prisoners were introduced to the services available within the BETA unit as part of their induction. Prisoner representatives were also available on each wing and received specialist training for the role. They were enthusiastic and able to offer support and advice to prisoners on wings. Where appropriate, they could also register for NVQs in 'working with others'.

Accommodation 8.34 The housing team was well established and consisted of two specialist housing advisers supported by prison staff and prisoner orderlies. In our survey, 56% of prisoners, against a comparator of 42%, said they knew where to get help with accommodation. Housing advisers received around four applications a day.

8.35 In the main prison and West Hill, BETA representatives saw new arrivals usually within about 24 hours to get information about any benefit or accommodation issues. Systems were in place to identify help with mortgage and rent arrears and there was a local arrangement to help prisoners get private rented accommodation. Facilities for prisoners to access a rent deposit scheme had been used five times. Most prisoners were local and discharged into the Hampshire area, where there were good links with housing providers and local councils. Staff contributed to safer communities projects within neighbouring authorities and were linked to the local supporting people project. Housing advisers from the region also came into the prison.

8.36 Despite this, 22% of prisoners had been released as no fixed abode in the previous quarter. Local housing policy did not prioritise single men being released from prison on short sentences. The prison could refer directly only to one hostel and, although prisoners were placed on the housing register, this did not guarantee accommodation. Prisoners who were homeless as a result had to go into a central register and were allocated on release on a needs basis and dependent availability. We were told that local homelessness issues were much worse in the winter months.

Recommendations 8.37 An analysis should be undertaken of the reasons for prisoners being released without accommodation to go to in order to identify the causes.

8.38 The regional offender manager should liaise with local housing providers to try to ensure appropriate priority for released offenders to reduce the likelihood of their reoffending.

Education, training and employment 8.39 Activities had been designed following a needs analysis and courses reflected skills needs, such as construction programmes, and provided progression to further training and nationally- recognised awards. There were positive links with agencies for job search and some scope for ROTL to gain work experience in the community, although this was underused. The Forestry Commission work placement had not been used for five months. Most services were directed towards the West Hill population. Most services were directed towards the West Hill population with relatively little for the bulk of the population held in the main prison.

8.40 Courses on budgeting and finance and cookery were provided together with programmes on relationships such as family man and parenting. In our survey, 41% of prisoners in the main prison, similar to the local prison comparator, and 59% of those in West Hill, much better than the training prison comparator, said they knew who to contact to get help with employment. A probation support officer was responsible for liaising with local employers and some good links had been made with employers in the construction industry, although this was at an early stage. Most prisoners were set up with Freshstart benefits interviews before release.

8.41 A generic preparation for work course available at the end of sentence covered areas such as manual handling, heart start and health and safety. This was aimed at the convicted population and required a basic level of numeracy and literacy. There was no job club, although there were plans to establish one in West Hill.

Finance, benefit and debt 8.42 Prisoners in our survey reported a higher level of knowledge than the comparator when asked if they knew how to access support for finance and benefit issues and opening a bank account on release. They were also less likely to identify these areas as problematic on their release from prison.

8.43 The induction process identified prisoners who required assistance in closing down benefit claims or claims for housing benefit. Citizens Advice Bureau staff offered a weekly service to the prison focusing primarily on debt management. JobCentre Plus staff had been providing services to prisoners in West Hill but this had recently stopped and staff in the BETA unit facilitated appointments for benefit claims on the next working day following release. A refundable rent deposit scheme also operated for prisoners and £20,000 had been made available from the local authority to support this initiative. BETA staff had recently made some effective links with charities for ex-service personnel and some grants had been awarded. Given the high number of prisoners who had been in the armed services, this was a welcome addition to the potential sources of support and practical advice in developing effective resettlement plans.

8.44 Discharge boards held six weeks before release addressed benefit and employment issues. BETA staff had developed links with the Cooperative Bank to enable prisoners to open bank accounts to save for their release or enable those released with employment to receive salary payments direct to their bank accounts. A money management course was available for prisoners in West Hill.

Mental and physical health 8.45 Although members of healthcare attended a substantial number of meetings in the prison, there was little active participation by primary care staff in resettlement activity unless a specific request was made. Health staff did not find out in advance when prisoners were due for release. They saw prisoners in reception on the day of release and provided up to 28 days of medication. Prisoners released to the local area were given a list of GPs if they were not registered. This was a missed opportunity to ensure that prisoners' outstanding health and health promotion needs or queries were addressed in good time before release. A stock of condoms provided by the PCT had run out. It was reported that the PCT had stated that condoms were to be given out only to men under 35 years, which was unreasonable.

8.46 The mental health team liaised with external mental health services when they knew in advance about someone's release and invited care coordinators to attend review meetings. However, they had experienced difficulties liaising within the prison. Finding suitable housing for some people with mental health problems, for example, was sometimes more protracted than for other prisoners but this was not allowed for in other resettlement arrangements.

Recommendations 8.47 Prisoners due for release should have their health and social care and health promotion needs reviewed sufficiently early for these to be addressed and so that staff can make contact with the appropriate agencies in the community.

8.48 All prisoners due for release should be given information and assistance to access health and social care services in the community.

8.49 Health and discipline staff should work together on release and resettlement plans for prisoners.

Drugs and alcohol 8.50 The drug strategy committee met bi-monthly with good attendance. The group was supported by a drug strategy document that covered all aspects of substance misuse, included a needs analysis drawing on information from mandatory drug testing (MDT), voluntary drug testing (VDT) and the counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare (CARAT) service, and annual development targets. The drug strategy coordinator was well regarded and had made considerable efforts to take the strategy forward in the previous 12 months.

8.51 A comprehensive alcohol needs analysis recently completed in conjunction with support from the local drug and alcohol action team (DAAT) identified that the population at Winchester prison had 10 times as many hazardous/dependent alcohol users than the general population, in many cases associated with violent offences. Despite this, no alcohol-specific services were available. Prisoners could receive an alcohol detoxification (see section on substance misuse) and there was a weekly Alcoholics Anonymous session but there was no therapeutic provision. Although 23% of all CARAT clients identified alcohol as their drug of choice, second only to heroin (24%), officially the team was unable to offer specific alcohol treatment. Recent attempts to obtain funding for alcohol-specific worker(s) had been unsuccessful.

8.52 The multidisciplinary CARAT team was headed by a team leader with three main grade staff and a trainee supplied by the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners trust (RAPt). Two further workers and a senior practitioner were being recruited. Two CARAT prison officers were also attached to the team. All prisoners were seen by CARAT staff during induction both as a group and on a one-to-one basis. The team had an annual target of 1,150 drug intervention record assessments a year, which they had achieved in the previous year. CARAT files showed that cases were fairly well managed, although the range of treatment options was quite limited. Although RAPt had developed a number of group work programmes validated under Prison Service Order 4350 (effective regimes), only the one-day drug awareness programme was run.

he relapse prevention programme had previously been delivered in West Hill and there were plans to reintroduce it.

8.53 Due to the nature of Winchester's population, much of the work undertaken by the team related to linking clients to community-based provision and facilitating such links. Although pre-release work was engaged in and noted in files, this varied significantly from case to case and no consistent programme or pre-release checklist had been developed.

8.54 Good community links had been developed with local drug intervention programme (DIP) teams, especially those in the vicinity. Almost 70% of all CARAT clients came from the Hampshire area (including the unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton). A recent initiative of developing a DIP service surgery one afternoon a week for community-based workers to visit prisoners was positive but needed further support from the community teams. In a further local initiative in conjunction with Hampshire DAAT, a DIP liaison worker for the county was based at the prison for 2.5 days a week, acting as the point of first contact for prisoners from the local area. The project had been in place only since the beginning of the year and little data was available to assess effectiveness but early indications were that it had increased post-release service take-up.

8.55 Winchester ran two rehabilitation programmes: prisons addressing substance-related offending (P-ASRO) and the short duration programme (SDP). The CARAT service undertook pre- and post-programme support and in most cases either of the two programmes constituted the primary treatment available for prisoners. Both programmes were well integrated in the prison. Both programmes had a multidisciplinary team of facilitators and effective local management teams. The majority of prisoners accessing P-ASRO were in West Hill but it was accessible to others, except that vulnerable prisoners on D wing could not access either programme and had contact only with the CARAT service. The likely demand was unclear as these prisoners had not been assessed.

8.56 There was no voluntary testing unit but any prisoner could access a voluntary testing programme. A target of 250 compacts a month was usually met with ease. Since the closure of C wing, there was no waiting list, although we were told that before February it was not uncommon for there to be a waiting list of around 50. The programme was divided into voluntary and compliance testing, each with a separate compact. The 127 prisoners in West Hill were all subject to compliance testing, along with those undertaking key employment, including cleaners and kitchen staff. Monthly figures were compiled but were not broken down by wing and it was not possible to establish the positive testing rates for each wing. However, overall, 85% of all positive tests in the previous six months were for prisoners on A, B and formerly C wings. All prisoners on voluntary testing were subject to a strip search.

8.57 Facilities for VDT were available in both the main prison and West Hill. The latter's, however, had windows straight on to a corridor used by education, offering limited privacy.

Recommendations 8.58 The CARAT team should reintroduce and extend the range of group work available.

8.59 The CARAT team should introduce pre-release checklists to ensure pre-release information and harm reduction messages are delivered consistently.

8.60 The prison should develop a specific alcohol strategy to complement the drug strategy and develop a range of appropriate treatment to reflect the need identified in the alcohol needs analysis.

8.61 Prisoners subject to voluntary testing should be subject to second-level searching only where there is supporting intelligence.

8.62 The windows in the voluntary drug testing facilities in West Hill should be screened off to ensure privacy.

Housekeeping point 8.63 Voluntary drug testing figures should be compiled on a wing basis to facilitate better analysis and evaluation.

Children and families of offenders 8.64 There was little evidence that prisoners were encouraged to remain in contact with their children, partners and families. Comment in prisoner wing files did not indicate that staff were aware of prisoners' families or home lives. The resettlement strategy described only a narrow, local focus for this pathway.

8.65 Families were involved in celebrating success with some prisoners, such as those involved in the SDP and P-ASRO programmes, and with some prisoners in West Hill who had completed various courses. They were not generally involved in sentence planning. Through the Story Book Dads project available to all prisoners, fathers could record a story to send to their children.

8.66 Information about the assisted prison visits scheme was included on visiting orders but only limited information was displayed in the visits waiting room. More information was displayed in the visits room itself but was rarely read by either prisoners or visitors.

8.67 The chaplains regularly talked to prisoners' families but there was no helpline advertised to visitors giving a named manager they could speak to with any concerns or questions. The chapel was used to hold additional visits between prisoners and families as necessary.

8.68 Only prisoners in West Hill could attend courses and programmes aimed at improving parenting skills and relationships. There were no evening visits and no children's or family days. Prisoners could not play with their children in the play area during visits and could not take their children's drawing back to their cells (see section on contact with the outside world).

8.69 Senior managers told us that prisoners who did not get visitors could exchange their unused visiting orders for extra letters but this was not advertised and we did not meet any prisoners who knew about it. There was no scheme to provide prisoners who were carers with additional free letters or telephone credit, and access to wing telephones was limited (see section on contact with the outside world). There was no provision for prisoners to receive incoming telephone calls from children or to deal with arrangements for them.

8.70 There was no family support worker to help prisoners maintain contact with their children and families, and to advise on child protection issues. ROTL was not routinely used to allow prisoners to fulfil parental responsibilities. No prisoners had recently been granted any childcare resettlement leave.

Recommendations 8.71 Resettlement information should be displayed for visitors.

8.72 Prisoners on all wings should be able to access accredited programmes aimed at improving parenting skills and relationships.

8.73 Evening visits and regular children and family days should be provided.

8.74 Prisoners who do not receive visits should be able to exchange unused visiting orders for extra letters or telephone credit and this should be promoted to prisoners.

8.75 Prisoners identified as carers should receive additional free letters and telephone credit.

8.76 A qualified family worker should be employed to help prisoners maintain contact with their families.

8.77 Release on temporary licence should be used to allow suitable prisoners to spend time with their families in the months before their release.

8.78 Visitors should be able to share their concerns with a named advertised individual.

Attitudes, thinking and behaviour 8.79 With the exception of the courses related to substance misuse, there were no accredited programmes. Opportunities within the main prison were limited, although the physical education department did provide some good opportunities to integrate work such as addressing substance misuse within its programme and provided an activity programme that addressed lifestyle issues and promoted healthy behaviour 8.80 In West Hill, there was a good range of provision. The education department provided a range of courses to meet social and educational needs. Art and music classes took place in the evening, as did a relationship course run by two local counsellors.

8.81 The prison's links with the local university drama department provided opportunities for prisoners with no experience of drama to work closely with students and theatre professionals. This was highly beneficial in terms of building confidence and developing new skills. An annual production was staged and some prisoners went on to work in this area on release.