HMP Glenochil

(HMCIPS) The HMIPS inspection of HMP Glenochil in February 2025 found a combination of both positive and concerning elements against the inspection standards. This is born out in the overall assessments which range from good to poor. One standard was assessed as “Good”, three as “Satisfactory”, four as “Generally Acceptable” and one as “Poor”. We identified 35 examples of good practice, 20 of which were around health services. This is indicative of the care which was being shown to the older and infirm population held at Glenochil. Excellent health and social care support was offered to the many ill, disabled and dying men. One has to question whether prison is the right place for many who present little risk to the public and some of whom had dementia and could make no sense out of being sentenced to custody. Inspectors from Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS) rated Standard 9 - Health and Wellbeing - as “Good”, an improvement since our inspection in 2019 when it was “Satisfactory”. There had been improvements to pharmaceutical and other services and many good practice examples focused on patient care and health outcomes. Strong and supportive leadership within the healthcare team remained committed to providing high quality care for patients. Another demonstration of the focus on patient care in the prison was the new non-emergency ambulance service to facilitate critical medical appointments in the event of GEOAmey (the SPS transport provider) cancelling planned transport. The laundry service was effective, a vital part of maintaining hygiene and health within the population. The use of peer mentors, particularly to deliver local induction and the recovery programme, was excellent. The peer mentor in the recovery programme had dealt with addiction himself and had come from the Open Estate to offer support and inspiration to those engaging with the services available at the prison. Facilities for visits were welcoming and appreciated by prisoners and their families, particularly the ability to book double and triple visits for those travelling longer distances. Glenochil was affected by the overcrowding issue in Scottish prisons that we have reported on in so many of our inspections. Population pressures were forcing prisoners to share cells designed for single occupancy. At the time of this inspection 244 men were sharing cells built for one person, in breach of internationally recognised standards on minimum living space in custodial settings. There is barely any aspect of prison life which is not affected by overpopulation. Particularly disadvantaged at Glenochil were the burgeoning numbers of men on non-offence protection. There was not one aspect of what they might expect the prison to provide in terms of working towards release which was not affected. Their access to faith services, employment and activity, addiction services and therapeutic activities and Links Centre preparation for release were all restricted and far less was available to them than the rest of the population.

on HMP GLENOCHIL 24 to 28 February 2025 The number of people subject to solitary confinement at the prison overspilled the Separation and Rehabilitation Unit. Sixteen prisoners were being held on Rule 95 in the main residential areas with no regime and with more ad hoc reliance on the checks and balances in place for prisoners isolated from others. Despite this there were enough employment opportunities for every convicted prisoner who wished to work, to do so three days a week. The prison’s performance against Standard 2 - Decency - was rated “Poor” because of substantial concerns regarding food and hygiene. Recent reports from Clackmannanshire’s Environmental Health Service criticised poor compliance with food hygiene, storage, preparation and record keeping controls, and confirmed that improvement was required urgently. The prison was not complying with the SPS Food Safety Manual guidance regarding food temperature checks. Menus had not changed for four years. Another issue contributing to the “Poor” rating was the amount of litter surrounding the buildings, which can lead to infestations of vermin as well as giving the impression of neglect. This sense of lack of care was repeated inside the prison on Harviestoun wing, with poor levels of cleanliness, a lack of cleaning equipment and cleaning chemicals being stored insecurely. Processes for controlling and distributing clothing and mattresses were ineffective. In common with consistent findings from other prison inspections, as well as repeated concerns expressed by the Independent Prison Monitors who visit prisons weekly, prisoners lacked confidence in the complaints system. Prisoners felt that it was hard to submit a complaint in the way they are currently required to, through staff, as staff were likely to try to dissuade them that a complaint was needed. Prisoners felt hampered in accessing their property. Simplifying and speeding up access to personal items offers a tangible demonstration that prisoners concerns are being listened to. Generally, prisoners were not sufficiently included in discussions around decisions affecting them. The processes in places for consultation such as the Prisoner Council meetings and food forums were utilised inconsistently. Although the prison had clearly sought to respond to prisoner concerns about an inconsistent regime and offer more predictability, the timetable was still subject to significant slippage, especially in the afternoon when delays in the morning led to late unlock for activities, and prisoners were locked up from 4 pm with no evening activities. Opportunities at weekends were particularly limited. Prisoners still had no access to chaplains at the weekend, despite that being a recommendation in our last report. Library provision was inadequate, and access was poorly managed.

on HMP GLENOCHIL 24 to 28 February 2025 In terms of the care for prisoners needing extra support, there was inconsistent recording in the documentation required under the current procedure for acting to protect prisoners found to be at risk of suicide and self-harm (Talk to Me), and there was a lack of awareness amongst staff about the Think Twice anti-bullying policy and procedures. Of greatest concern, because of its likelihood to lead to serious harm and death, as well as the toll on staff, was the number of prisoners being handled under Management of Offenders at Risk due to any Substance (MORS) procedures. In the December before the inspection took place, 19 prisoners were taken to hospital under emergency procedures. The level of illicit substance trafficking and taking is dangerous for both prisoners and staff. The prison had suffered from significant staff shortages during the winter, and the regime experienced by prisoners had been inconsistent and unpredictable. There was an extremely poor record on completion of staff appraisals, leaving questions about the prison’s ability to offer effective staff training and development as well as identifying and managing poor performance. Given what we have said about staffing shortages and the impact on the regime, it may seem redundant to highlight the lack of time for Personal Officers to fulfil that role adequately. Yet a positive personal relationship with a dedicated member of staff can help those in situations of vulnerability to navigate the most difficult parts of their time in custody. At its most effective it also supports prisoners in reaching the targets needed to progress throughout their sentence, to address criminogenic needs and return to their communities less likely to reoffend. For staff to deliver this complex role there is a need for further mentoring and development as well as feedback about how well they are doing. Access to offending behaviour programmes remains a huge barrier, as across the whole prison estate, but a confident and competent Personal Officer can support prisoners in demonstrating good outcomes in the ways which are available to them and record these. The new senior management team had focused on having sufficient staff to run a predictable, if not full, regime for prisoners and, at the time of our inspection, the prison seemed to be running on a more reliable basis. The team was open about the challenges facing the prison and how they were being tackled. The level of improvement was hard won and easily lost, as recovery was still at a very early stage. There is considerable work ahead to develop a fuller and more acceptable regime for all prisoner groups and address the other issues identified during this inspection.

on HMP GLENOCHIL 24 to 28 February 2025 Inspectors described 77 desired outcomes, and we encourage the prison and SPS HQ to focus on ensuring the following ten key desired outcomes are met: For HMP Glenochil:
■ Key desired outcome 1: Prisoners in situations of vulnerability receive appropriate care across the board. Staff are confident and supported in managing those at risk of suicide and self-harm and subject to bullying, and those pressured to use illicit items coming into the prison. Prisoners dealing with these issues feel well supported by staff.
■ Key desired outcome 2: Prisoners receive reliable and equitable access to a full day of activities during the week and at weekends. At least 80% of the employment places are taken up daily.
■ Key desired outcome 3: The excellent use of peer mentors is extended to regular participation by prisoners in discussions about issues which concern them with regular feedback provided to all prisoners on decisions reached by management.
■ Key desired outcome 4: On the next pre-inspection survey, prisoners judge the quality and acceptability of food more highly than on this inspection and standards for the safe handling, preparation and serving of food are met.
■ Key desired outcome 5: Prisoners and staff benefit from clear systems which deliver good basic hygiene and cleanliness throughout the prison. Staff and prisoners are trained and confident in how to maintain hygiene with appropriate equipment and kit provided.
■ Key desired outcome 6: Every member of staff benefits from good management support, including regular discussions about role, performance, training and development through the appraisal process. For SPS HQ:
■ Key desired outcome 7: Prisoners have swift access to the activities and programmes they need to address their assessed risk to the public.
■ Key desired outcome 8: Prisoners have confidence in the complaint system and can evidence complaints being acknowledged, responses in line with SPS targets and resolution of legitimate requests.
■ Key desired outcome 9: One prisoner only is held in cells designed for one person.
■ Key desired outcome 10: Those held under Rule 95 are in suitable accommodation with a staff group dedicated to ensuring all statutory rights are met and that the conditions in which they are held do not amount to solitary confinement. Staff continually work with them towards a return to mainstream location.

on HMP GLENOCHIL 24 to 28 February 2025