The following is the Introduction and Summary only of the latest Report on HM prisons if the Cayman islands – Northward and Fairbanks Nick Hardwick June 2015 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. The inspection was executed last January.

The complete report can be downloaded at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/06/Cayman-Islands-prisons-web-2015.pdf

Report on announced inspections of HMP Fairbanks and HMP Northward
(Cayman Islands) by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 8–15 January 2015

Introduction

The Cayman Islands are a self governing British Overseas Territory comprising a number of Islands in the Caribbean. In May 2014, HM Inspectorate of Prisons received its second invitation from the Governor of the Islands (who has responsibility for internal security, including prisons) to inspect custodial facilities on Cayman. We first inspected Cayman in 2012. This second inspection took place in early 2015. We visited two prisons on Grand Cayman: HMP Northward, a male establishment holding about 200 prisoners of varying status, age and category; and HMP Fairbanks, a facility for women which held 14 prisoners during this inspection.

Building on the experience we gained in 2012 we again used our full methodology, but adopted an approach that was sensitive to local culture and the contextual differences that distinguish Cayman from our jurisdiction in the UK. Our intent was to carry out a rigorous and open examination of the treatment and conditions experienced by prisoners; to follow up our inspection undertaken three years ago; and to provide what assistance we could in aiding Island authorities in their own work to improve custodial standards.

When we reported in 2012 we were highly critical as the treatment and conditions experienced by prisoners were very poor. In many respects they still were, but improvement was evident. The prisons now had a new Director who had made a significant difference. There was more accountability and the lethargy and indifference we observed last time was being challenged through new procedures and more energetic leadership.

Both prisons were safer in our judgement, although many prisoners, both men and women, reported in our survey that they had felt unsafe while in custody and had experienced victimisation from both staff and other prisoners. Arrangements for the reception of prisoners at Northward had improved and levels of recorded violence were not high, although policies to confront potential violence were not yet well embedded. Levels of self-harm were similar and thankfully low, but the introduction of a case management approach to supporting those at risk or in crisis was still a welcome improvement.

The security of the perimeter at Northward had been enhanced but the lack of a secure perimeter at Fairbanks was denying women adequate access to the prison’s grounds. The availability of illegal drugs, particularly marijuana, in Northward remained high. The supervision of segregation also remained problematic. Prisoners could be segregated without legitimate authority, effective accountability or proper supervision, and the conditions in the segregation facility were completely unacceptable. The unregulated and arbitrary application of punishments and authority generally remained a risk and was something we observed. The supervision of segregation in Fairbanks was similarly inadequate.

Perhaps our most important criticism concerns the very poor condition of both prisons. Fairbanks resembles a storage facility and was an oppressive environment that provided no stimulation for those held there. Much of Northward was decrepit and squalid. The one exception was the refurbishment of the young persons unit at Northward, but both prisons still needed new investment and refurbishment. The kitchen at Northward was in an appalling state and should be replaced immediately.

Prisoners retained very mixed views about the staff. We found the prisons to be generally relaxed but prisoner frustration at what they saw as staff inaction, indifference and unaccountability were clearly evident. New consultation arrangements, particularly at Northward were an improvement, but again frustration for want of progress followed meetings. Women at Fairbanks all felt respected by the staff.

Arrangements to promote equality were very crude if they existed at all, although there was more attention to the safety of young people in Northward. Joint working with Children and Family Services in the community to promote their well-being was poor. Access to chaplaincy support had improved, as had the complaints system available to prisoners. Perhaps the most visible improvement was in the provision of health services. There was much still to do, not least the refurbishment of the very poor health facility at Northward, but provision was now achieving a broad equivalence with community services. The improvement was also clear evidence of what could be achieved when more effective joint working with community services was achieved.

Prisoners continued to experience good levels of unlock from their cells, but too few engaged in meaningful or purposeful activity that might better equip them for resettlement. There was broadly sufficient work and education to employ everybody but prisoners often chose not to attend. Sessions were often cancelled and quality was poor. Despite poor literacy and numeracy skills among many, these deficits were not being addressed, few qualifications were gained and too little was done to support employability. Resettlement services were similarly poor. Links to the Department for Community Rehabilitation and Children and Family Services were at best tenuous and prisoner sentence planning had effectively ceased. Prisoners felt unsupported and uncertain about their future and work to ensure effective risk management and consequent public protection was limited. However, release on temporary licence was being used more proactively to support work and family ties.

The independent inspection of places of custody – institutions that are normally hidden from public view – is about transparency and good governance. It allows communities to be better informed about what are important public services. The Cayman authorities have demonstrated confidence and courage in engaging in this process. Northward and Fairbanks were still not good prisons. There was much to do to make them better. The prisons need urgent investment, improved joint working with other public services and strong support for the Director. That said improvement was evident and the prisons were more hopeful places. This in part illustrated the benefits of inspection, although the distance still to be travelled reinforced our view, first expressed in 2012, that custodial facilities need to be subject to regular, independent preventive monitoring in order to ensure that human rights are upheld and that meaningful accountability is maintained. We have formulated a number of recommendations that we hope will further encourage this progress.

Nick Hardwick June 2015 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

Summary

Safety

S1 Reception and induction processes were generally sound. Overall levels of violence and self-harm were not high, although prisoners reported high levels of victimisation and many said that they did not feel safe. Casework with prisoners at risk of self-harm had been introduced recently. Physical security at Northward had improved but Fairbanks remained largely deficient. The management of security information had also improved but lacked sufficient rigour fully to address threats to the prisons. Illegal drugs were easily available but drug testing arrangements were inadequate. Segregation processes were inadequate and the accommodation remained appalling. Outcomes for prisoners were not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test at both Northward and Fairbanks.

S2 At the last inspection in 2012 we found that outcomes for prisoners at Northward were poor and at Fairbanks were not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test. We made 21 recommendations in the area of safety. At this follow-up inspection we found that five of the recommendations had been achieved, seven had been partially achieved and nine had not been achieved.

S3 Prisoners were transported to and from the prisons in suitably equipped vehicles, with appropriate separation of men and women, and adults and young people.

S4 Reception processes at Northward were well managed and we saw staff treating new arrivals in a professional but friendly manner. Arrangements for informing newly arrived prisoners at Northward about processes in the prison were delivered effectively through an interview with the induction orderly, written information and a weekly induction presentation. There were similar arrangements at Fairbanks. There was no health assessment as part of reception processes and new arrivals were not seen by the nurse until the day after arrival. This had the potential to miss health risks which could have had consequences on the first night. At both prisons, a basic safety and self-harm check was undertaken during reception.

S5 We did not find evidence of high levels of violence but prisoners still reported feeling unsafe, with almost two-thirds of men and half of the women in our survey saying that they had felt unsafe at the prisons at some time. Men and women alike reported high levels of victimisation from staff and prisoners.

S6 There was a comprehensive and clear safer custody policy but much of it had not been implemented. A safer custody group had been identified but there was no process to monitor and analyse violent incidents and identify appropriate action, and no structured system to manage bullies or support victims. There was no consultation with prisoners to identify, understand and meet their safety concerns.

S7 Levels of self-harm were low. Casework with prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm had been introduced recently, based on assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) case management system used in the UK. This was an important step forward. Assessments of risk and need were reasonable, but not sufficiently detailed in some cases, and care planning was inadequate, although interaction with prisoners being monitored was good.

S8 There had been some improvements in security arrangements. The prison perimeter at Northward had been reinforced and provided a better barrier to escape but at Fairbanks was inadequate. The security intelligence reporting process had been reintroduced but there was a low level of engagement across the prisons and little meaningful analysis of intelligence received. The well-attended security meetings lacked appropriate focus on risks to the prisons.

S9 Survey results and drug finds indicated high levels of drug availability (mainly marijuana). The selection of prisoners for drug testing was not subject to a random process and too little testing was undertaken. The overall positive drug testing rate at Northward was too high. There was no published drug and alcohol strategy to address some of the issues of concern.

S10 There were few disciplinary adjudications. Some adjudication records showed insufficient enquiry, and management oversight was not sufficiently robust. We witnessed an unregulated, arbitrary punishment issued on the young persons unit to an inmate located in a lockdown cell without authority.

S11 The level of use of force was low but we were not assured that all uses were recorded; when it was recorded, the documentation was often incomplete. We were concerned by the use of leg shackles, which was unnecessary and excessive.

S12 Prisoners at Northward could be held in the segregation unit (known locally as ’basic‘) without legitimate authority or senior management oversight. Recording of segregation use was inadequate. Prisoners were held in segregated conditions for long and indeterminate periods without review and there was no effective reintegration process. The environment was unacceptable; cells were in a poor state of repair, some being dirty and graffiti strewn, with almost no natural light and leaking toilets, and not all cells had running water. Governance of the three segregation cells at Fairbanks was similarly inadequate. The cells there, although austere, were in a reasonable condition.

S13 Clinical treatment for substance misuse was available on a symptomatic basis, but rarely needed or used. Psychosocial interventions were in a state of transition, with a reduction in one-to-one support due to staff vacancies. Both group and peer support were available.

Respect

S14 The environment was very poor, with improvements confined to the refurbishment of a young persons facility in Northward. Both prisons needed replacement or refurbishment. Management oversight of the high-risk unit was better but conditions and treatment were oppressive. There was some evidence of improved staff–prisoner relationships but prisoners at both prisons reported the arbitrary and unregulated exercise of authority. Work to promote equality and diversity was very limited. Faith provision was much improved and the chaplaincy was active. Arrangements to deal with prisoner complaints were also improved. With the exception of mental health, health provision for both men and women had improved and mostly ensured a reasonable level of basic care. The prison kitchen required immediate replacement. Outcomes for prisoners were poor at Northward and not sufficiently good at Fairbanks against this healthy prison test.

S15 At the last inspection in 2012 we found that outcomes for prisoners at Northward were poor and at Fairbanks not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test. We made 36 recommendations in the area of respect.2 At this follow-up inspection we found that 13 of the recommendations had been achieved, 11 had been partially achieved, 11 had not been achieved and one was no longer relevant.

S16 Improvement to the environment at both prisons was limited to the refurbishment of the new young persons unit at Northward. The other wings at Northward were rundown and decrepit; most cells were dark and cage-like, and communal areas grubby, bare and devoid of equipment. A wing was particularly squalid. Prisoners lacked any privacy. Prisoners were able to shower daily. Some additional fans had been introduced to the wings but the high temperatures and general lack of ventilation were an ongoing cause for prisoner complaint.

S17 Accommodation at Fairbanks resembled a large storage facility. The dormitory accommodation was sparse but clean and relatively spacious, although the women were afforded little privacy. The main communal space, called the dayroom, was a large wire cage, although contained some soft furnishings. Women had good access to toilets, showers and a laundry.
S18 There were sufficient telephones for prisoners across both sites, and access had improved. S19 The application system had improved, particularly at Northward, where prisoners had greater confidence in the system and most issues were dealt with.

S20 The high-risk unit at Northward provided a highly controlled and restrictive environment. Its purpose was unclear. Prisoners who presented an escape risk or were convicted of serious offences which attracted category A status were allocated to the unit automatically. However, it was sometimes used inappropriately, and without proper authority, as an alternative segregation unit for some prisoners segregated for good order and discipline. The processes for monitoring and assessing prisoners on the unit had improved and prisoners were subject to a high-quality multidisciplinary assessment and review, although the reviews were too infrequent and unpredictable. The environment on the unit was bleak and oppressive, and some prisoners were subject to additional extreme restrictions on their movement, such as the application of shackles and handcuffs, without proper reason or authority. The regime on the unit had not improved and was over-restrictive, with prisoners locked up in single cells for up to 22 hours a day.

S21 At Northward, our survey results in relation to staff–prisoner relationships were inconsistent across the wings but positive overall, although over half of prisoners felt victimised by staff. We saw staff engaging with prisoners and most prisoners seemed to be at ease in their company. However, prisoners repeatedly expressed their frustration at what they saw as the indifference and inaction of staff in meeting their needs, as well as the unaccountable exercise of authority. The quality of staff entries in wing files varied but was much improved. Nearly all the women at Fairbanks felt respected but also reported relatively high levels of victimisation.

S22 The relatively new Northward prisoner consultation committee showed a highly developed level of engagement from prisoners but they were frustrated about a lack of progress on issues raised. The Fairbanks council was less well developed.

S23 There was no formal equality policy. There were no arrangements to consult with or provide support to minority groups and there was no systematic monitoring of the fairness of treatment of such groups across the prisons. There were no adaptations for people with mobility difficulties, nor provision for any form of disability, including learning difficulties,
even though 17% of respondents to our survey identified themselves as having a disability. In our survey, they reported higher levels of victimisation, by staff and prisoners alike, than their able-bodied counterparts.

S24 There was no record of any prisoners having disclosed as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) but prisoners were not at any stage asked about their sexual orientation. Over 20% of the population were foreign nationals. Interpreting provision was adequate.

S25 The safety of young people at Northward had improved with the opening of a dedicated unit, which provided a more pleasant and suitable living environment. The decision to keep young people apart from adults at all times was not based on a risk assessment and limited their opportunity to take part in the main regime and activities, as well as potentially leading to increased isolation. Links with the Children and Family Services in the community were very poor, leaving young people unsure about their plan and progression opportunities.

S26 Our survey showed better access to a chaplain, and to worship, than at the time of the previous inspection. The chaplain was actively engaged with many aspects of prison life, provided counselling in liaison with mental health staff and fostered support in the community for those released from prison. There was a wide variety of corporate Christian worship but it was relatively rare for faiths other than Christianity to be represented, and there was insufficient provision for them.

S27 A new complaints system had been introduced and was working well, and prisoners were generally more positive about the arrangements. Basic facts about complaints were reported monthly to the senior management team, and some analysis was undertaken. The timeliness of responses was monitored and late replies chased.

S28 Most women and more men than at the time of the previous inspection said that access to the nurse and the overall quality of health services had improved. The location of the health centre at Northward was temporary and the whole environment required refurbishment to meet primary care and infection control standards. Arrangements for prisoners with long- term conditions had improved. Information sharing with the local hospital using the clinical information system represented good practice, but there was no agreement to share information with prison substance misuse services. Most prisoners held their medicines in- possession but we saw no documented in-possession risk assessments. Although prison officers had been trained to administer not-in-possession medications, their competence had not been assessed and they were not suitably supervised. Access to dental services was excellent and the quality of care was good.

S29 Health services at Fairbanks had improved and there was a systematic and female-focused approach.

S30 Mental health care was available but relatively unsophisticated. The involuntary treatment of persons with mental health disorders was occurring under a new mental health law but the practice had not been subject to assurance by the Mental Health Commission.

S31 In our survey, more Northward prisoners than at the time of the previous inspection said that the food provided was good or very good. In our Fairbanks group, female prisoners complained of the poor quality of the food they received from Northward. Provision of preferential diets was rudimentary and informal.

S32 The kitchen environment and standards of cleanliness were extremely poor. A large amount of kitchen equipment was broken and out of action. The kitchen required complete and immediate refurbishment.

S33 Access to the prison shop was good but products were limited mainly to snacks and confectionery. Prisoners could no longer purchase tobacco, although, paradoxically, cigarettes could be handed in by relatives. This was inequitable and could potentially lead to debt and bullying problems.

Purposeful activity

S34 The amount of time unlocked was very good, but most prisoners were inactive and not doing anything purposeful. The management of learning and skills and work was inadequate. There were enough activity places to engage all prisoners but many sessions were cancelled or prisoners failed to attend. A suitable range of education, vocational training and work was offered but much of the
work was of poor quality. At neither prison were accredited vocational and educational qualifications available. Library services were poor. Recreational PE provision was reasonably good. Outcomes for prisoners at both Northward and Fairbanks were poor against this healthy prison test.

S35 At the last inspection in 2012 we found that outcomes for prisoners at both prisons were poor against this healthy prison test. We made 13 recommendations in the area of purposeful activity. At this follow-up inspection we found that two of the recommendations had been achieved, three had been partially achieved and eight had not been achieved.

S36 The amount of time unlocked at both prisons was very good, at over 14 hours a day for the majority of prisoners, but we found most prisoners on the wings during the day with nothing meaningful to do. At Northward, prisoners on most wings could access open spaces adjacent to their wings freely during the day. The women at Fairbanks were limited to just one hour in the open air. Less than 40% of men and no women were engaged in purposeful activity during our spot checks.

S37 The learning and skills and work provision was suitably based on meeting both national skills shortages and identified prisoner needs, particularly the low standards of literacy and numeracy. The operational management of learning, skills and work was inadequate, with poorly defined responsibilities and accountabilities. Effective quality assurance and improvement arrangements were not established. The number of purposeful activity places (work, education and vocational training) had increased substantially and there was enough to occupy both prison populations, but many sessions were cancelled and attendance was poor. Allocation to activities had recently improved and was fair and equitable, but places were underused.

S38 The quality of learning and skills and work was inadequate. A large proportion of the Northward prisoners had poor literacy and numeracy skills that were not being addressed. In the small number of education sessions we observed, the quality of individual coaching was adequate. However, session planning did not ensure that specific needs identified by initial assessment were met. Most work places did not develop an adequate range and standard of employability skills to support successful resettlement. There was no process to recognise and record skills developed at work to improve future employability. Learning resources at Northward had improved, as had the lighting and ventilation in the Fairbanks classrooms, with computers now operational.

S39 Neither prison provided accredited vocational or educational qualifications. Only three learners had achieved qualifications in the previous 12 months. Behaviour during the sessions we observed was generally satisfactory.

S40 In our survey, few prisoners said that they could access the library easily. At both prisons, the extensive library stock was not based on prisoners’ needs, and there were insufficient resources to support education and vocational training. There were well developed plans to introduce Toe by Toe (a mentoring scheme to help prisoners learn to read).

S41 The Northward gym was managed effectively. Participation rates had improved and prisoners had reasonable access to recreational PE. At Fairbanks, the gym had been improved but little was done to encourage its use. Across both prisons, links with the health care department were underdeveloped and the promotion of wider healthy living and lifestyles was weak.

Resettlement

S42 The strategic management of resettlement had improved but there was no analysis of the needs of the population to inform provision. Prisoners’ needs were not assessed on arrival, and sentence planning and case management had effectively ceased. Release on temporary licence, parole and the executive release schemes were managed appropriately and categorisation had improved but multi- agency public protection work was limited. Too few prisoners were prepared for release. There was inadequate help with housing, debt and employment. Visits arrangements had not improved but family days and parenting programmes were positive additions. The lack of offending behaviour programmes was a significant gap. Outcomes for prisoners at both Northward and Fairbanks were poor against this healthy prison test.

S43 At the last inspection in 2012 we found that outcomes for prisoners at both prisons were poor against this healthy prison test. We made 14 recommendations in the area of resettlement. At this follow-up inspection we found that three of the recommendations had been achieved, three had been partially achieved and eight had not been achieved.

S44 At both prisons, there was no comprehensive needs analysis and the range of resettlement provision was limited. Strategic oversight had improved but there was still no formal committee to monitor and review progress against the newly developed action plan. Links with the Department for Community Rehabilitation and the Children and Families Services were tenuous, and information exchange was poor, which significantly limited risk assessment work and decision making. The provision of unsupervised release on temporary licence (ROTL) for work and family ties had developed well.

S45 The prisoner case management function had effectively ceased. There was no current risk and needs assessment tool, prisoners’ needs were not assessed on arrival, and formal sentence and reintegration planning had ended. Prisoners we spoke to felt unsupported and uncertain about their future. The timeliness of the executive release scheme, which enabled prisoners to be released at their earliest eligibility date, had improved.

S46 There was a lack of attention given to identifying risk of harm and protecting victims throughout the sentence, although there was some multi-agency working in preparation for ROTL and parole. Sound ROTL processes had been introduced but decision making was hindered, particularly for the more serious offenders, by the lack of a formal risk and needs assessment.

S47 More robust categorisation processes had been introduced. Initial allocation was now undertaken and reviews were up to date and defensible.

S48 The regime, support and progression opportunities for life-sentenced prisoners were limited, although a lifer liaison officer had recently been appointed. The Conditional Release Act (yet to be enacted) was due to introduce the opportunity for parole for life-sentenced prisoners and three prisoners had been released in the previous year at the Island Governor’s discretion.

S49 Formal reintegration planning had ended, other than for those applying for parole. In our survey, too few prisoners felt prepared for release and most prisoners did not know who to go to for resettlement help.

S50 Many prisoners had housing problems on arrival but few knew who to turn to in the prison for help. Advice and support were not available before release and the number of prisoners released homeless was not monitored.

S51 An employability skills course at Northward was offered but attendance was not compulsory and only six prisoners had completed it in 2014. ROTL for work experience had been introduced and the development of links with employers was welcome.

S52 Prisoners with ongoing medical and/or substance misuse needs were referred to appropriate services in the community before release.

S53 No help was provided in either prison with finance and debt problems, despite evidence of significant problems among prisoners. Effort had been made to open bank accounts before release but this was proving very difficult.

S54 In our survey, most female prisoners said that they felt supported in maintaining contact with family and friends but male prisoners were less positive. Other than some improvements to the layout of the visit rooms at each prison, arrangements for visits remained restrictive. However, some wider improvements had been made, parenting programmes had been delivered to a small number of men and women, and family fun days had been developed.

S55 The offending-related needs of the population were not assessed, so it was difficult to identify which offending behaviour programmes were required. Resources dedicated to programme delivery had reduced, and at the time of the inspection there were no offending behaviour courses available, other than three drug programmes.

Main concerns and recommendations

S56 Concern: The findings in this report raise some significant human rights concerns. The Optional Protocol for the Convention Against Torture (OPCAT) does not apply in the Cayman Islands, which means that areas of detention on the islands are not subject to regular independent monitoring.

Recommendation: The United Kingdom should extend OPCAT to the Cayman
Islands. (Repeated recommendation HP50)

S57 Concern: Prisoners did not feel safe. Nearly two-thirds of men and half of the women said that they had felt unsafe at some time. They reported high levels of victimisation from other prisoners and staff. No attempt was made to identify, analyse or measure the levels of violence or extent of victimisation and bullying in order to reduce levels of violence and improve safety.

Recommendation: The prison should fully implement a violence reduction strategy. Incidents of violence, bullying and intimidatory behaviour should be recorded, collated and analysed to identify trends and hot spots. Action should be taken to reduce violence and bullying. Victims should be supported and perpetrators monitored and challenged. Prisoners should be regularly consulted on their perceptions of safety and managers should actively promote a climate and culture in which violence and victimisation are not tolerated. (Repeated recommendation HP51)

S58 Concern: Prisoners on the segregation (basic) unit on A wing at Northward were segregated and held in wretched conditions, with minimal regime. The process to place prisoners in segregation was unregulated, with no senior manager approval or oversight, and no comprehensive recording, monitoring or case management to plan for reintegration.

Recommendation: The current use of segregation (basic) should be replaced by a regulated, risk-assessed and controlled system of segregation. Cells should be suitably equipped and access to a suitable regime provided. Prisoners should be individually case managed and, where possible, plans made and implemented for reintegration into the main population. (Repeated recommendation HP53)

S59 Concern: The kitchen and health care facilities were not fit for purpose. Wings and cells at Northward were barely fit for human habitation. Facilities were poorly ventilated and often filthy, dark and oppressive. There was no privacy and most cells were overcrowded. The general fabric of the environment was very poor, with water ingress and vermin infestation. Facilities at Fairbanks were only marginally better.

Recommendation: Many of the current facilities at both Northward and Fairbanks should be demolished and the rest should undergo complete renovation. New prisoner accommodation should be developed that provides safe and secure accommodation commensurate with internationally accepted minimum standards. (Repeated recommendation HP54)

S60 Concern: There was no transparency or consistency in the way that staff responded to prisoner need or behaviour. The legitimacy of procedures and decisions was constantly undermined by the unregulated and often illegitimate exercise of staff discretion, and managers failed in their responsibility to supervise.

Recommendation: The prison should develop clear, transparent operating procedures concerning daily routines and arrangements directly relevant to the daily lives of prisoners. Meaningful management checks should be introduced to ensure that, on a daily basis, all members of staff, at all levels, are accountable for their actions and deliver their remit consistently and fairly. (Repeated recommendation HP55)

S61 Concern: There were sufficient work, training and education places. However, too many prisoners chose not to attend activity sessions or the sessions were cancelled owing to staff shortages, and most prisoners were unoccupied during the day.

Recommendation: The number of cancelled activities should be reduced and prisoners should be should be required to attend.

S62 Concern: The prisoner case management function had effectively ceased since the previous inspection. Prisoners did not have their needs assessed on arrival and did not receive a sentence plan to address their offending behaviour.

Recommendation: All prisoners should have their needs assessed on arrival and have a sentence plan to address these needs and their offending behaviour.

S63 Concern: Very little was done to help prisoners prepare for release and, despite evident need, they were not assisted with debt issues or with finding accommodation or employment on release.

Recommendation: Prisoners should be helped to prepare for release and reduce their likelihood of reoffending. In particular, a reintegration plan including help with debts and finding accommodation and employment should be provided.