4b SAFER PRISONS: CELL SHARING RISK ASSESSMENT

Transcription

1 4b SAFER PRISONS: CELL SHARING RISK ASSESSMENT Cell Sharinq Risk Assessment Policy update 4.42 Paragraphs of PW2 described the background to the introduction of PSI 26/2002 and the introduction of the cell sharing risk assessment process throughout the Prison Service. Paragraph 6.37 described a revised PSI, which was being drafted, and the elements of the revised policy of cell sharing risk assessment. The draft PSI has now reached an advanced stage and it is unlikely to change significantly before final approval (document 20) The cell sharing risk assessment process has been evaluated by Research Development Statistics (RDS) under the direction of a working group including policy, research and operational staff (document 21). In addition, a small group of Governors and other key staff has undertaken a special review motivated by the alleged murder of a prisoner in a shared cell in Manchester. The draft PSI incorporates changes to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the current risk assessment and the subsequent risk minimisation process. The main changes are as follows (see paragraph 3 of the draft PSI): The inclusion of a risk minimisation plan and management arrangements. The introduction of a facility to record any risk assessment/review triggered by circumstances other than re-location. Responsibility for overseeing the risk management process is delegated to a member of (safer custody) staff. The creation of a register of prisoners designated high risk, which must be held centrally in each establishment In general terms the most significant aspect of these changes is that where the behaviour of any prisoner gives rise to concern, this will trigger a requirement to review that prisoner's CSRA. 47

2 4.45 Responsibility for Cell Sharing Risk Assessment is addressed in the draft PSI and resides within the Safer Custody Violence Reduction portfolio. A register of prisoners designated as significant or increased risk must be held centrally in each establishment to provide an audit trail of open and closed cases. In addition, the risk assessment process has been incorporated into the new NOMIS system, where it will be an integrated part of the offender management process. These issues are covered in more detail in the sections addressing topics 1 and 5. The quality and efficiency of information is expected to improve and access to information should be easier. Information 4.46 Initial risk assessment takes place in reception, before a prisoner spends their first night in custody, except in open/training prisons. Staff in reception use the cell sharing risk assessment tool to assess risk of harm to others, based on the information that accompanies the prisoner and a prisoner interview. The reception healthcare staff then make a further risk assessment based on evidence of the prisoner's mental state. The information necessary to complete the assessment should be available when prisoners first arrive at the establishment. Paragraph 6 of the draft PSI states that the PER, warrant, probation reports, OASys (ASSET in the case of juveniles) assessments and previous convictions must be consulted if available. Any open F2052SH or ACCT form should also be considered Known history of violence is seen as the single strongest indicator of violence and intention to commit violence the most immediate variable. The cellsharing risk assessment form prompts staff to seek this information from the documentation that accompanies the prisoner, or from the prisoner through observation or conversation. In some prisons staff have access to the Police National Computer system, which can supply data on previous convictions If prison staff are concerned about the quality of information on the PER they should raise the matter with the officer responsible for monitoring escort services in their establishment who can take up the issue with the relevant police force or escort contractor. 48

3 4.49 The PER and other documents are crucial documentary material. Whilst the PER and the warrant have to arrive with the prisoner, as the escort contractor cannot convey a prisoner without these, other documents are not always available and in some cases the prisoner will be the sole source of some of the information required by the Cell Sharing Risk Assessment on the first night. Establishments are expected to address this problem by putting in place procedures which allow for a review of such cases when, for example, pre-conviction data arrives. The guidance provided in the booklet for Reception Managers and the User Handbook states that when some paperwork is not available the following action should be taken by the officer completing the cell-sharing risk assessment: Communicate any obvious concerns and reasons for concerns in the additional information box Make the best assessment possible on the basis of what and how the prisoner presents by asking the prisoner questions and putting an '1' (for inmate) in the box marked source. Rate as medium if not certain Pass on decisions to a senior officer who will set a review, for example, for when pre-convictions data arrives 4.50 The Police National Computer Link, where available, must be used to access pre-conviction data as soon as possible after reception. If staff are on duty and trained to access the PNC for previous convictions, arrangements should be made to provide pre-conviction data to reception/induction staff on the first night. No data is available on how common it is for the prisoner to be accompanied by sufficient information and how common it is for him to be accompanied by insufficient information. Training and Guidance 4.51 Reference is made to cell-sharing risk assessment in POELT training on violence reduction and guidance is given to officers who carry out cell sharing risk assessments on how it is to be carried out within their establishments. Guidance is printed on the back of the CSRA form and guidance packages 49

4 (document 22) are made available for Reception managers, Location officers and Healthcare managers. The guidance packs were constructed so that they are usable for learning with practice scenarios. Pocket books are available to facilitate understanding of the instructions. Local training is not monitored by the Safer Custody Group. Information on how training is carried out on the ground in establishments on Cell Sharing Risk Assessment is included in the Local Training Section of this statement. Effec_veness 4.52 The Prison Service recognises that there are limits to the cell sharing risk assessment process as a predictor of risk. Predicting risk, as in a clinical setting, would require more time and more specialist staff than are provided for by the current system within the Prison Service. The basic purpose of the cell sharing risk assessment system undertaken in a prison reception is to (see paragraph 4 of draft PSI): Draw together and pool information about risk from operational and health care staff Make best use of documentary evidence Support staff judgements about allocation to cells Provide for senior managers to decide and record additional operational precautionary measures where cell sharing is unavoidable for a high risk prisoner Provide a readily accessible record about risk of harm to others as a prisoner moves between wings/prisons Record decisions about managing and reviewing risk to enable early identification of racist, homophobic or violent prisoners and ensure that other Prison Service procedures to protect potential victims are followed To this extent the assessment identifies those prisoners who are likely to pose risks to a cellmate. However, it does not replace staff judgement or provide an actuarial risk score. In considering how to address the limitations of the CRSA procedure, Safer Custody Group has taken the view that a modified form on its own is unlikely to improve the quality of assessment. At 50

5 one stage, as explained in PW2 at paragraph 6.38, the Group did devise an alternative form, but as the prototype was modified through consultation, it began to resemble the existing form and did not justify the disruption that introducing a new form would incur. Rather than modify the form, the approach has been to build in additional processes to improve ongoing riskmanagement, as this is where weaknesses have been identified. The Manchester (2003) and Leeds (2004) homicides demonstrated this The introduction of VRS provides a better focus for planning and implementing management of risk to others. Improvement in the inward flow of information will improve the quality of assessment possible and, in order to achieve this, SCG has concentrated on making sure that NOMIS operates as well as possible when it takes over from the paper version of CSRA. One of the objectives of NOMIS is that 'The consistent end-to-end information that NOMIS makes possible will enable the Prison and Probation Services to link with the police and the court system to create a powerful criminal intelligence tool providing more security, less risk, better programme management, improved processes'. Completion of documentation 4.55 The Governor is responsible for ensuring that the CSRA forms are used and completed properly. SAU monitor the completion of forms as part of Performance Standard 53 on violence reduction (formerly safer establishment standard). SAU have indicated that one reason that the baselines they audit do not always score full marks is that the forms are not always fully completed, although it would not be possible to identify how often this is the case without extensive work. The post-audit action planning process should ensure that non-compliance with the baselines is reduced quickly However, the current audit process does not address the quality of completions. The only hard data currently available is included in the RDS evaluation carried out between July 2002 and February 2003 which is referred to in PW2 (para.6.35). Interviews with staff carried out as part of the study indicated that there was inconsistency in the way the form was completed by officers and health care staff applying not only between prisons 51

6 but within the same prison. Staff were concerned by the lack of time available to complete the form and the quality of the information available to do so. The majority of interviewees had received no training to complete the form and were uncertain about when the form should be completed and where it should be held, particularly in respect of transferred prisoners (see pages 3-4 of the RDS Report). Following the RDS evaluation, consideration was given to introducing a shorter Cell Sharing Risk Assessment Form which took out the 'medium' rating and the prisoner questions (in the light of the unreliability of assessments based on this). Before these changes were implemented, a further review took place following a homicide at Manchester it was not felt that these changes were appropriate. The RDS evaluation took place very soon after the introduction of CSRA and there is now anecdotal evidence that staff are now more familiar with the process. Implementation 4.57 When prisoners are received into custody, the information accompanying them is checked on Reception and then again the next working day by administration staff. If there is any indication that an offender presents a particular risk, steps should be taken to guard against that risk. This may include restricting the prisoner's access to telephones in order to protect the public. Where the information indicates there is a risk to staff or other prisoners this information should be communicated to the staff and available in the offender's history sheet When the CSRA form has been completed it is duplicated. One copy is placed on the prisoner's personal file with his history sheets and the other on his core record Paragraph 6 of the draft PSI states that the CSRA form should be reviewed by the Induction Board. It also states (paragraph 9) that a risk minimisation plan should be in place to manage significant or increased risks identified. This should be agreed within 7 days and signed by the Duty Governor. A copy of the plan should be kept on the prisoner's wing file and it should be consulted if the prisoner is relocated. 52

7 4.60 In over-crowded prisons where the number of prisoners identified as requiring single cells exceeds the number of single cells available, prisons are given guidance (in the User Handbook) in thinking about alternatives to a single cell as a means of managing the risk. The suggested high risk prisoners is as follows: 'best practice' for managing The cell sharing risk assessment rating must be communicated to staff on receiving/induction wing. Copy of XF001 placed on wing file. Wing file flagged: "Before allocation to a cell/room XF001 must be read!" Special observation routines followed during night hours and prisoner observed in cell every 30/60 minutes Observation to be recorded. If induction board confirms high-risk assessment at Section 5 of XF001 then outgoing mail is scrutinised for any indicators of frustration or anger against cellmate. High risk marking noted on LIDs and review procedure commenced. After one month, wing staff should review assessment and complete Section 6 of XF001. If high-risk assessment continues, observations procedures remain in place and subsequent reviews scheduled by wing staff in 1/2/3 months for further assessments This guidance Handbook. is printed on the reverse of the CSRA form and in the User 4.61 Local Implementation of this guidance is the responsibility of the Governor; the management of risk is determined locally, as it is dependent on the nature of risk presented and the resources available to manage the risk. The revised PSI requires risk minimisation plans for those prisoners who present a significant or increased risk, and an agreed review schedule. Also a member of the local safer custody staff within the establishment is designated to oversee the risk management process. 53

8 Transit prisoners 4.62 All prisoners are subject to the same risk assessment, including transit prisoners who may only spend one or two nights in a particular prison. Documentation travels with the prisoner and the cell sharing risk assessment and any risk management plans accompany the prisoner if he is transferred to another establishment. Prisons are instructed to send up-to date assessments with the prisoner on transit. At present new numbers are reassessed on Reception, however when NOMIS is operational, historic data will be retained and easily accessible as the prisoner history will appear in the case note section of the data. Transfers and new numbers 4.63 All prisoners including transit prisoners, transfers and new numbers are dealt with in the same way - see the discussion of transit prisoners above. Review 4.64 As stated above, the most significant change introduced in the draft PSI is that where the behaviour of any prisoner gives rise to concern, this will trigger a requirement to review that prisoner's CSRA (see paragraphs 20 and 21 of the draft PSI). The review form must be used for re-assessment of any prisoner if there is a significant event that triggers concern. A first review should take place after one month for prisoners identified as a risk and every 3 months thereafter. In addition, a review should be carried out whenever the prisoner is transferred to another establishment or there is a significant event in the prisoner's history such as an assault on another prisoner or member of staff. In respect of the current position on review, SAU have indicated that they are unable to give specific information to confirm the level of review carried out but in the best establishments the assessment will be reviewed when prisoners have a cell move Security Information Reports (SIRs) are used for conveying security information. All security information relating to the prisoner, however received, must be recorded on an SIR of a design approved by Security 54

9 Group. Information from SIRs should be collated and fed into socio-grams for prisoners identified as a risk. These provide a more comprehensive picture of who is involved in anti-social, threatening or bullying behaviour. The type of information recorded may include: unusual associations on exercise; conversations with prisoners, or overheard between prisoners; unusual occurrences on an escort; hoarding of goods from the prison shop or clothing; a prisoner's actions which are out of character; and any other information which may affect order and control in the prison Further risk assessment, risk management and individual sentence planning is informed by OASys, and MAPPA. Procedures under the National Security Framework such as use of SIRs and routine cell searches are used to alert risk and prevent incidents. Monitoring 4.67 The effective use of cell-sharing risk assessment is monitored by area managers, standards audit and by self audit. Appropriate completion and use of the CRSA tool is audited by SAU who will check that cell-sharing risk assessment is undertaken and that a risk minimisation plan is in place for those prisoners who are assessed as at risk of harming others. SAU is currently unable to give any indication of the level of management checking that is done at a local level Currently no record of the outcomes of CSRA is kept but the new draft PSI will require establishments to keep a database. The Area Manager will monitor this. At present, if an establishment were seen to be out of kilter with the norm, this would come to the attention of the area manager through operational capacity management. The area manager (or his or her representative) would examine the cell-sharing risk assessment process as well as other factors that might affect capacity. The draft PSI will require a member of the local safer custody staff at the establishment to be designated to oversee the risk management process in each establishment. A register of prisoners designated as significant or increased risk must be held centrally in each establishment to provide an audit trail of open and closed cases. These will be monitored by area managers on their regular visits so that any 55

10 anomalies or issues can be identified and addressed. Paragraph 10 of the draft PSI also sets out the mandatory action which must be taken by Governors to monitor the implementation of Cell Sharing Risk Assessment. Disadvantages 4.69 In some cases, officers may have a tendency to be over-cautious in identifying prisoners for single cell accommodation, particularly following an incident. However most establishments are considered to be managed in a balanced way. There is specific guidance on the management of those prisoners who present a risk to themselves 11 of the draft PSI). and others (see paragraphs 6 and 4.70 Although some prisoners may attempt to take advantage of the system by expressing racist views, guidance is given in the PSI to address this (see paragraphs 12 and 13 of the draft PSI). The cell sharing risk assessment should not be offered as a means for racist prisoners to demand scarce single cell accommodation. The management of racist prisoners should be a decision that is made by prisons on a local level and, under some circumstances, prisoners may share with others provided they are not from the target group for the racism. But it is also important that their racism should be addressed and any prisoners who appear to threaten any group of prisoners are told plainly that racist or harassing behaviour is in breach of Prison Rules and will be treated as a serious disciplinary offence. Their behaviour should also be monitored over time. It would not be appropriate to accede to every prisoner's wish for single cell accommodation. This could be perceived as validating the views of prisoners with anti-social opinions Where it appears that insufficient caution has been taken, the SCG view is that this is often as a result of the process getting lost, because when it was introduced, there was no ownership or framework for it to fit into. Now that the violence reduction strategy is starting to bite, the ongoing nature of risk management, including cell sharing risk assessment, has more relevance and the result should be more effective use of the CSRA tool. 56