1

HMP YOI Grampian: Scotland’s First Community-Facing Prison, A One-Year Follow-Up

MQPL+ Key Findings

Bethany Schmidt, Alison Liebling, Aiden Cope, Borah Kant, Martha Morey,

and Caitlin Gormley1

Cambridge University Prisons Research Centre

May 2017

‘This is a fantastic prison with plenty to offer staff and prisoners. This prison can be a

success if everyone works to a common goal.’ (Staff member, survey comment)

‘There were brilliant things here that no longer are, and that makes me sad … When it

first opened there was a vision about making it like outside. Now, from the concept it

started as, it’s all changed.’ (Prisoner, interview)

‘Make use of staff qualifications! We’re multi-skilled and have lots to offer. The prison

slogan is about unlocking potential – that should apply to staff and prisoners.’ (Staff

member, interview)

‘It’s an alright jail. There’s just not enough to do.’ (Prisoner, interview)

‘There’s lots of potential here but the problem is that they promise you loads of things –

activities, work – when you first come in, and then when you get here you just end up

disappointed because it’s not there or it takes too long.’ (Prisoner, interview)

‘Grampian is running on goodwill – the goodwill of staff and prisoners. But we’re run ragged and prisoners feel it … This needs to be recognised before it’s too late.’ (Staff member, interview)

Introduction and context This report presents key findings from a follow-up quality of life study of Scotland’s HMP YOI Grampian, the UK’s first ‘community-facing’ prison, which opened in early 2014. This new-for-old establishment was purpose-built to hold men, women, and young offenders. One year from its opening, members of the Cambridge Prisons Research Centre (PRC) team were invited into Grampian by the Scottish Prison Service to conduct Scotland’s first ‘MQPL+’ exercise. This was the first of a three-year quality of life study at Grampian. The MQPL+ is an intensive application of the Measuring the Quality of Prison Life surveys for prisoners (MQPL) and staff (SQL), which combines the strengths of ethnography-led quantitative research with ongoing qualitative

1 Caitlin Gormley, from the University of Glasgow, was invited by the Cambridge research team to participate in the quality of life study because of her experience in prisons research, and her Scottish prisons expertise, in particular. She conducted fieldwork with the team from October 3-5.

2

components by incorporating focus groups, observations, interviews, and informal discussions with staff and prisoners into the research process as the surveys are conducted. An ‘appreciative’ approach allows the fieldwork to ‘go deep’ in a short amount of time by focusing on ‘what matters most’ to the participants. Several English prisons have invited the PRC team to conduct longitudinal quality of life studies in order to evaluate their ‘moral performance’ and the extent to which this has shifted over time.2

The first Grampian MQPL+ study, carried out in March 2015, was intended to provide a contextual assessment of the ‘bedding in’ of the regime, operating philosophy, relationships, and culture within the prison, or baseline measure. At the time of this visit, Grampian was performing at the lower end of a quality continuum. The prison had several areas of good practice, innovative programming, and some outstanding staff. The facilities were clean, bright, modern, and felt much ‘lighter’ than most prisons. The location of the prison facilitated greater family contact for many prisoners, who were now closer to their home area. This was of significant value to their quality of life, and was one of the most positively rated aspects of their prison experience. However, Grampian was struggling to find its purpose and vision, and effectively translate these into practice. This, in part, was linked to the challenges of opening a new prison, complexities related to staffing, and housing distinct prisoner groups. Regime inconsistencies and disorganisation were the primary concerns for both staff and prisoners. Many believed that the prison was ‘attempting too much too soon’ and that foundations needed to be strengthened before ‘add-ons’ were incorporated.3 In December 2015, Grampian had its first full inspection. The HMIPS report highlighted a number of high-quality areas of practice (like the SRU and re-entry preparation) and described the prison as ‘fully functioning and operating in a stable environment’ (2016: 6). Some concerns were raised, however, specifically around healthcare and limited regime activities for some of the population. Overall, the findings were generally positive and showed that the establishment was on an upward trajectory. An interim visit by the lead researcher in June 20164 found Grampian to be considerably more settled and stable than in 2015. Every staff member spoken with acknowledged that the prison had made ‘leaps and bounds’ since opening. The regime seemed to be running relatively effectively, counts were accurate, and prisoners were moved around the prison efficiently. The Governor was positively viewed and believed to be good for the direction of the prison. Many appreciated that he was ‘a staff’s Governor’ and thought him to be approachable and visible. Most staff praised the monthly meetings. They felt this was a constructive opportunity to be consulted, to express feelings, and have their voices heard. In general, staff-prisoner relationships seemed to be improved with some decent, professional boundaries established. However, particularly in Ellon, stress was high and morale was low due to ‘record levels’ of staff sickness. Levels of sick and the resultant staff shortages were highlighted as the most pressing concern. Staff here were stressed, and many described their current quality of working life as ‘stretched to the max’ and ‘at a breaking point’. In contrast, the staffing group in Banff were largely happy and satisfied with the quality of their working lives. They felt strong and unified as a team, and were proud of their ability to manage incidents internally, without having to raise the alarm to the rest of the prison. Whilst many of the relationships in Grampian (specifically between staff and prisoners) had improved, the tensions and disconnection between discipline staff and senior managers persisted. Officers were seeking

2 For a more comprehensive description of the staff (SQL) and prisoner (MQPL) surveys, refer to the first Grampian MQPL+ report from June 2015. 3 Within three months of opening, Grampian experienced a disturbance on one wing. Whilst this is not unusual in the opening phases of a new prison, this loss of order had been a setback for the prison. 4 Bethany Schmidt spent June 29 and 30 in Grampian. This entailed a meeting with the Senior Management Team, time spent around the residential units speaking with staff and prisoners, and observing life in the halls.

3

appreciation and recognition of the strain they faced in their day-to-day lives and a sympathetic understanding of their working conditions. The PRC research team returned to Grampian eighteen months from the first MQPL+ study to conduct a one-year follow-up with the aim of assessing how far the prison had evolved and the impact changes of directorship had on the perceived quality of life of those living and working within it. This visit was carried out October 3-7, 2016.5 At this time, the prison was noticeably more stable, organised, and staff were able to deliver a consistent regime. Basic tasks (like counts and movements) were being achieved routinely and effectively, and officers carried these out with professional competence. The 2016 survey results showed marked improvement, especially when considering the infancy of the prison and the substantial changes in leadership (a new Governor was appointed in August 2015) and staffing (detached duty were shed in March 2016). MQPL scores for female prisoners, in particular, showed the greatest shift in a positive direction. Some programming and worksheds were better established, which provided important and meaningful opportunities for prisoners (for example, throughcare services and the media centre). These are noteworthy findings and confirmed that the prison was on the ‘right track’ towards sustaining stability. Although Grampian generally felt more settled and ordered in 2016, some issues and concerns remained: discipline staff were feeling unsupported and underappreciated by management; purposeful activity and meaningful opportunities for prisoners were limited; and, there was a lack of interdepartmental continuity or collaboration. These issues will be discussed throughout the report. The primary themes arising from the 2016 study were: a) pockets of staff-driven high quality work in the prison (e.g., resettlement, library, chaplaincy,

some worksheds, SRU); b) some dedicated and optimistic staff attitudes, with many expressing a strong commitment and

loyalty to the prison; c) increased confidence and hope in the new Governor, and his ability to positively lead the prison

forward; d) greater consistency and organisation in regime delivery; e) overall, better developed and boundaried staff-prisoner relationships in the halls, though with

some inadequate or inconsistent policing of prisoners, which was attributed to a lack of experience or underused/underdeveloped ‘jail craft’ particularly with the new/young staff;

f) limited availability of full-time activities, employment, and meaningful/purposeful engagement for prisoners, especially for women, protected prisoners, and long-termers;

g) low staff morale linked to unstable staffing levels, perceived lack of senior management care, support, and recognition, and a desire for stronger leadership;

h) lack of communication and cohesion between staffing groups and departments, which generated tensions, fuelled some of the prison’s disorganisation, and hindered the Grampian vision from being collectively achieved in practice.

Sample demographics and basic results 108 staff members participated in the SQL survey. The staff survey measures staff feelings about their own working lives and treatment, and their attitudes and orientations towards prisoners. 75 per cent of respondents were discipline staff and 20 per cent non-discipline staff. One quarter of all staff surveyed had only worked in HMP YOI Grampian. The other 75 per cent had previously worked

5 As with the first MQPL+, Grampian’s Cruden Hall for young adult males remained empty. At the time of our 2016 visit, the prison was operating at approximately 85 per cent of its potential capacity.

4

in either HMPs Aberdeen or Peterhead, or both. There was a wide range in prison experience: nearly 30 per cent of staff in the sample had worked in prisons for less than three years, while almost 50 per cent had been in the service for ten years or more. For all staff, 15/18 dimensions improved from 2015 to 2016, two of which were to a statistically significant degree in a positive direction: 'attitudes towards the governor' moved from 2.68 to 3.20, and 'dynamic authority' from 3.22 to 3.40. One dimension moved in a significant downward direction: ‘safety, control and security’ (from 3.02 to 2.88). Of note, all of the ‘management’ and ‘prisoner orientation’ dimensions were rated higher in 2016 than in 2015 (see Table 1, p. 20). 97 prisoners participated in the MQPL survey.6 Prisoners were sampled from every area of the prison, including Dyce (SRU) and the Community Integration Unit (CIU). 20 per cent of respondents were under 25 years old. Most were either sentenced (65 per cent) or were on remand/untried (20 per cent). 45 per cent of respondents had been in Grampian for less than six months, whilst 30 per cent had been in the prison for more than one year. Over 90 per cent of the sample described their ethnic identity as ‘white’. 70 per cent of those surveyed had a problem with drugs and/or alcohol before coming into Grampian, with over 50 per cent indicating that they needed help to detox on arrival in the prison. 40 per cent of respondents had a history of self-harming or had attempted suicide in the past. 55 per cent were ‘close to their home area’ (within an hour’s drive) and over 80 per cent were in regular contact with family. Much like the staff results, prisoner scores had moved in a positive direction in relation to the previous MQPL, especially so for women. For all prisoners, 17/21 dimensions improved from 2015 to 2016. All seven of the 'harmony' (relational) dimensions were rated higher, with three of them at a statistically significant level: ‘entry into custody’ (from 2.70 to 2.96), ‘staff-prisoner relationships’ (from 2.93 to 3.16), and ‘decency’ (from 2.82 to 3.02). 11/21 dimensions scored over the neutral threshold of 3.00 in 2016, compared to 7/21 in 2015 (see Figure 1, p. 21).7 When compared to similar establishments (by gender), Grampian males generally scored in the middle range on a quality continuum. Within their comparison group, the men scored ‘entry into custody’ (3.02) and ‘conditions’ (3.86) higher than the other five comparator prisons. They scored lowest in the comparison group for ‘distress’ (3.07). When compared to five other female establishments, the women in Banff scored towards the higher end of the quality continuum for the ‘harmony’ (relational) and ‘professionalism’ dimensions, whilst they scored toward the lower end on the ‘security’ dimensions. Banff was the lowest scoring in the comparison group for ‘prisoner safety’ (3.16), ‘prisoner adaptation’ (3.32), and ‘drugs and exploitation’ (2.46). They scored highest in the group for ‘organisation and consistency’ (3.09) and ‘conditions’ (4.15). Compared to the results of 2015, where Banff scored the lowest for most dimensions than other female establishments, this is remarkable improvement.8 Organisation, communication, and Grampian culture

‘A common problem is different areas not pulling together. There’s just no teamwork or collective vision. Everyone works in a silo.’ (Staff member, interview)

6 This sample size represented approximately 20 per cent of the prisoner population at Grampian at the time of our visit. 7 As will be discussed later, most of these improvements were from Banff. Scores for male prisoners generally moved in a downward direction. They scored 14/21 dimensions lower in 2016 than in 2015 (refer to Table 4, p. 24). 8 As Grampian is the only prison in Scotland to have had an MQPL conducted, all comparator prisons were selected from England and Wales. These establishments were selected on the basis of comparative size, purpose, and population held.

5

‘Grampian culture? I don’t think we have one yet. I think each department has their own culture and vision, and a lot of good teamwork amongst your immediate colleagues, but as a whole, it’s divided. We’re just not unified. Sometimes it’s like we’re working against each other – we should be working towards a common goal.’ (Staff member, interview)

The delivery of an organised and consistent regime had markedly improved at the time of the 2016 MQPL+. Many staff displayed an increased professional competence and confidence, which translated into greater effectiveness and efficiency in carrying out their duties. Officers, in particular, described having a ‘better footing’ and feeling ‘more in control’ of day-to-day routines. Counts were conducted efficiently and accurately, and movement timings around the prison were generally well executed. Prisoners rated ‘organisation and consistency’ significantly higher in 2016 than 2015 (2.33 compared to 2.64), though this dimension still scored poorly when placed on a quality spectrum.9 Over 50 per cent of all prisoners and 60 per cent of discipline staff disagreed with the statement ‘this prison is well organised’ (2.51 and 2.30, respectively). There were several interconnected factors contributing to Grampian’s continued disorganisation: (i) interdepartmental divisions and a general lack of communication throughout the prison impeded continuity of care and the delivery of services; and, (ii) staffing issues related to turnover and sick rates, re-deployment, and level of experience perpetuated inconsistencies in the halls (particularly in Ellon). There were signs of disorganisation at all levels, but most were concentrated in or stemming from the residential side of the prison. Many basic provisions for prisoners were not being met (like insufficient TVs, cups, kettles, clean kit, or toiletries), applications went missing or unanswered, nor was longer-term personal development being achieved (for instance, due to staff turnover or re-deployment, many prisoners had experienced a ‘revolving door’ of personal officers not able or willing to follow-up with tasks or paperwork). The lack of equipment was frustrating for both staff and prisoners, and heightened tensions in the halls. Officers described feeling ‘embarrassed’ and ‘foolish’ when unable to provide prisoners with basic supplies (‘it makes us look incompetent, it’s embarrassing’):

‘It’s us that have to bang someone up without a TV or tell a new lad there are no kettles. Who do you think they’re going to take that out on? Either me or another prisoner … It’s simple but essential things that can lead to violence. We could avoid some of that if they’d [management] just provide us with the resources we need. How hard is it to keep better inventory? … It’s just really frustrating and embarrassing not to be able to provide the absolute basics. Forget rehabilitation – let’s work on getting enough cups and kettles.’ (Staff member, interview)

Prisoners echoed this frustration:

‘I’m behind my door most of the day and the only thing to do is watch TV, but I can’t even do that because there aren’t enough. It fucking winds me up – it feels like a double punishment.’ (Prisoner, interview) ‘There’s a certain irony in this, isn’t there? We’re in this nice new building, yet people are having to fight over plastic cups. It just isn’t right.’ (Prisoner, interview)

Though the regime had generally improved (specifically in a more consistent and predictable schedule), the movement of prisoners to other areas of the prison remained problematic. Staff in healthcare, chaplaincy, and worksheds, for example, expressed some irritation that prisoners were missing appointments, not unlocked in time for movements, or that attendance was low for certain programming due to a lack of communication (or miscommunication) regarding prisoner lists.

9 Though it should be noted that female prisoners in Banff rated ‘organisation and consistency’ considerably higher at 3.09, whilst male prisoners scored this dimension at 2.56.

6

Indicatively, the research exercise was impacted by the disorganisation of the prison. Despite the efforts of our liaison in the prison, hall staff were unable to assemble the prisoners we had sampled: only two of our seven focus groups were gathered or undertaken successfully. Several of our prisoner groups were a surprise to staff in Ellon 1 and 2, who seemingly had no warning about the research team’s presence (e.g. our sampling lists were not circulated, no prisoners were notified, nor was the common room prepared). Officers here were quick to remark on this: ‘there is no communication between staff and management’ and ‘this is the level of communication we have to deal with.’ However, this was not the case in Banff or Ellon 3, where a poster announcing the MQPL visit was on display and staff had prisoners waiting for the focus groups. This feeling was reflected in the staff survey as well, where only 20 per cent of discipline staff agreed that ‘my experience of communication between staff and management is good in this prison’ (2.73).

These kinds of basic operational procedures are crucial to a stable and decent environment. For prisoners, inconsistencies between residential life and access to programming translated into feelings of being ‘stuck’, ‘stagnant’, and ‘powerless’ in the prison without adequate opportunities to personally develop or progress through their sentences. Over 60 per cent of prisoners agreed with the statement ‘I feel stuck in this system’ (2.33). Prisoners felt unable to negotiate the prison’s systems, largely because of the unpredictability and lack of follow-through. An inability to ‘get things done’ – both in their day-to-day lives and within a broader custodial sense – heightened frustrations and anxiety. Many prisoners expressed feelings of resignation: ‘I’ve given up – it’s easier to just keep your head down and burn time’; ‘I don’t try to do anything anymore – it’s pointless’. This was mirrored in the general feel of apathy and lethargy throughout the prison, shared by prisoners and staff. In many respects, the prison (particularly in Ellon) felt like, as one staff member described it, ‘a custodial warehouse’, with very little sense of purpose beyond containing prisoners in the present.

Many staff felt that Grampian was a ‘divided prison’ and ‘without a unified vision’. This split was primarily between residential life in Ellon and programming in other areas of the prison. Most non-discipline staff believed they were working towards a common goal underpinned with the values and organisational objectives of creating a rehabilitative culture, whilst discipline staff were ‘too preoccupied with security’:

‘So many officers have a “hang ‘em and flog ‘em” mentality. It’s very old school and works against the rehabilitative agenda.’ (Staff member, interview) ‘When they see gaps [in the roster] they revert to security and lock-up. They don’t seem to understand that getting prisoners to activities, you know, getting them engaged, is beneficial for everyone.’ (Staff member, interview) ‘There has been a marked improvement in HMP Grampian, but I don't feel residential areas have progressed. Still have the same issues i.e. [non-uniform staff] ignored when visiting halls, poor communication from staff. However, some personal officers are excellent and have stepped up. Unfortunately, others “coast” along dragging the reputation of hall staff down.’ (Staff member, survey comment) ‘There are tensions between us and them [non-discipline and discipline staff]. We don’t feel supported by them – it’s like they’re resistant towards us and what we’re trying to achieve. It’s absurd, really. Aren’t we all supposed to be working towards rehabilitation? … But they cancel our activities due to staff shortages, or don’t unlock prisoners or get them moved here … Our posters go missing or get taken down in the halls. I just don’t get it.’ (Staff member, interview)

7

‘There is a disconnect between residential life and programming – it confuses prisoners. In these spaces we focus on assets and building skills and confidence. But once they get back to the halls, they’re treated like a risk with little individual value … It feels like all the good work we do here gets undone once they’re back in the halls.’ (Staff member, interview)

The division between staffing groups was also apparent in the survey data. In 2015, the survey results for non-discipline and discipline staff were nearly indistinguishable, with only three statistically significant differences. In 2016, however, non-discipline staff rated 18/18 dimensions higher than discipline staff, with ten at a statistically significant level (see Figure 2, p. 22). Discipline staff scores remained consistent from 2015 to 2016: 8/18 dimensions scored higher in 2016, 4/18 scored the same, and 6/18 moved in a downward direction. Comments from the staff survey further described some of the tensions between staff groups:

‘When there are mistakes, management is too quick to blame staff without considering circumstances. This includes office managers who pick up on errors and belittle staff because they have no operational experience. There is too much one-upmanship within and between staff groups – too many colleagues are happy to stick the knife into others because they are unhappy, so they take it out on their colleagues. Management then disregard it saying it is “tit for tat”, which then causes tensions in the staff group and this spills into nights out, etc. and returns to the workplace … I love my job in the sense that I can help people and make a difference, but staff attitudes are ridiculous and the amount of bullying and disrespect is frightening, and no one does anything about it.’ (Staff member, survey comment)

‘A fantastic establishment to work in, with numerous opportunities to develop your ideas. There are barriers in the way of real progression though, like some officers not willing to change attitudes which are unhealthy (e.g. negative attitude towards prisoners with drug/alcohol issues, or mental health needs).’ (Staff member, survey comment)

Although non-discipline staff generally displayed greater job satisfaction and positive attitudes towards their work than discipline staff, both groups were keen to have their voice heard in decision-making processes, and felt their experience provided an invaluable resource. Many believed that more collaborative processes ‘could better unite the prison’ and ‘get all staff working towards one vision’. The introduction of tea briefings and monthly team meetings was a promising first step in this direction, for which staff expressed appreciation, though there was some doubt or scepticism about the ‘authenticity’ of these forums (for example, meetings were held infrequently or cancelled). Despite these efforts, staff continued to feel neglected and ‘left out’ of such opportunities to discuss and meaningfully contribute. 60 per cent of discipline and non-discipline staff agreed with the statement ‘I rarely feel involved in the decision-making processes in this prison’ (2.36 and 2.57, respectively). Many believed that they had helpful and constructive suggestions to address or alleviate some of the persistent issues within the prison (for example, how best to re-deploy staff to maximise continuity). For all staff, ‘attitudes towards the Governor’ significantly improved from 2015 to 2016 (2.68 to 3.20), though ‘attitudes towards the SMT’ remained consistent and relatively low (2.76 to 2.82). Staff had great faith in the change of leadership and his ability to move the prison forward, but continued to seek strong, visible leadership from the management group as a whole, as well as a realistic organisational vision they could believe in and work towards. Officers, in particular, had little trust in the senior management team, nor did they feel supported by management in their day-to-day

8

working lives: less than 20 per cent agreed with the item ‘I trust the senior managers in this prison’ (2.54). Whilst the senior management team seemed to be fairly cohesive, some of its members appeared to be rather distant and disconnected from frontline practices, and unaware of the complexities of staff culture and feeling. Managers did not appear to be effectively holding staff accountable, resulting in some non-corporate, traditional practices, such as staff delaying the unlock of prisoners while they drank tea or congregated around central desks rather than engaging with prisoners. The significant number of staff acting up coupled with the turnover of front line managers, many of whom were not confident enough to manage effectively, further aggravated this. The lack of managerial oversight or engagement allowed some residential staff to get away with doing the bare minimum, with few repercussions. The disorganisation and factions within the prison also allowed some staff to ‘hide in the chaos’. Like in the 2015 study, ‘some staff get away with coasting in this prison’ was the lowest rated item for discipline staff (1.74, down from 1.85 in 2015), with nearly 90 per cent of survey respondents agreeing with this statement. ‘Unification’, ‘continuity’, and ‘a collective vision’ were strongly desired by all staffing groups in Grampian. Many expressed an interest in understanding the work of other areas in the prison, and to improve team cohesion across the establishment. A unified tone and practice will need to be set by the management group in order to achieve this, alongside a willingness from staff to engage and actively participate in working towards a shared vision with a rehabilitative purpose. Safety, stress, and staff morale

‘All we want is a wee bit of recognition – even just an e-mail saying thank you – thank you for covering, or thank you for managing that incident well … We don’t need a trophy or anything.’ (Staff member, interview)

‘We’re really short staffed. Every landing here is running with at least one staff member missing. It doesn’t seem like much, but it makes it harder for the rest of us. Since March, everyday we’re at least 1 staff member down on every level. It’s about bums on seats and it’s down to the goodwill of people doing OT. Having a white shirt at the desk, that’s all, but we’re all on a knife’s edge.’ (Staff member, survey comment) ‘It feels like the prison is burning down, but nobody wants to call the fire brigade.’ (Staff member, survey comment)

The dominant narrative amongst staff from across the prison related to staffing levels. Over 85 per cent of survey respondents identified this as a primary area of concern and/or one of the most negative aspects of their working lives. For all staff, ‘stress’ had increased (from 2.90 in 2015 to 2.75 in 201610) and morale had declined. Less than 5 per cent of discipline staff surveyed agreed with the statement ‘staff morale is good in this prison’ (which moved from 2.59 to 2.26). High stress and low morale were unanimously attributed to staff shortages and strained relationships with management. Gaps in the roster made it difficult to book leave or take rest days, and many officers felt overworked and exhausted from covering shifts or working overtime. It was believed that those on long-term sick were not appropriately monitored, nor was management proactive in developing and implementing back-to-work transition plans. There was a general feeling that high levels of sickness and poor retention rates were directly linked to the elevated stress, frustration, and burnout many were experiencing. Officers described feeling ‘maxed out’, ‘numb’, ‘close to the brink’, and ‘ready to walk out’:

10 For both the staff and prisoner surveys, negative statements are recoded positively so that a higher mean score always reflects a more positive response. Thus, a decrease in the ‘stress’ score does not mean a reduction in stress, it indicates an increase in stress.

9

‘I’m at a breaking point. My blood pressure peaks when I walk through those [prison] doors … I’m stressed constantly. These guys [prisoners] feel it – I lose my cool and snap at them. My life at home suffers … It’s getting harder and harder to come to work.’ (Staff member, interview) ‘You can see guys breaking down. One of our guys was really struggling and we could see it happening. But he’s a good officer, so he kept coming in, kept covering shifts. But he was a broken man – he was just gone. That’s not good for anyone.’ (Staff member, interview) ‘Due to shifts not being covered I’m going home tired with low morale. Going to work is ten times worse.’ (Staff member, survey comment) ‘I’ve been in twenty plus years and this is it. I can’t take much more ... My mental health is suffering from the stress and anxiety of working in this chaos. This is the worst I’ve ever felt in my career. And I used to love my job – loved coming to work, having a laugh, having a good day with my colleagues. But now, I just have to pay the mortgage … I think about walking out almost every single day.’ (Staff member, interview)

‘Staff shortages’ was not a straightforward issue, however. Whilst there were apparent gaps in the roster and many staff were having to cover shifts or being re-deployed, the halls never felt understaffed or unmanageable. This narrative was, in part, a reaction to feeling insecure, unsupported, and underappreciated by management. Exposing gaps in the roster was, in many respects, a tangible way to demonstrate the perceived lack of recognition they were given and to highlight management's insensitivity to the demands placed on frontline staff. This is not to suggest that roster gaps were insignificant or unproblematic though. Many staff were working long shifts for days on end without rest, and the unpredictability in scheduling was further exacerbating stress and frustrations, as staff were ‘constantly on edge’ when their rest days or holidays were approaching for fear that they would be called in to cover. Discipline staff were increasingly angry that they had to ‘chase to get overtime or hours back’, and were regularly working through breaks. There was some recognition that management were ‘exploiting’ newer or younger staff. One senior officer noted that ‘younger, inexperienced staff get done over’, as they were often asked to do overtime or cover a shift ‘strategically’ at short notice (usually at the end of a shift or on the weekend). This was echoed by other officers:

‘Management intimidate younger staff because they know they won’t say no.’ (Staff member, interview) ‘They [newer, younger staff] always get asked to come in on off days and they won’t say no, so they do OT on TOIL but never get the time back. One lad lost 10 days’ leave because they wouldn’t carry it over. They only carry over 10 days but he had 20 owed back to him so he lost 10 days.’ (Staff member, interview)

Gaps in the roster were also contributing to some of the disorganisation and inconsistencies in regime delivery. Operational staff were frequently deployed to cover these gaps, but often lacked the experience or confidence to adequately manage their designated section or effectively respond to prisoner enquiries. Whilst the research team observed some of them in their sections, they lacked confidence in presence (standing back and appearing less ‘switched on’) and in using their authority (many were reluctant to challenge poor or inappropriate behaviour). This made it more difficult for them to get prisoners locked up in a timely manner, for example, and created inconsistencies in

10

policing. This fuelled tensions and increased stress amongst the regular, core staff group who then felt they had to do ‘double duty’:

‘It’s not their fault they’re inexperienced, but it makes our job that much more difficult. Not only do I have to watch my section, I have to keep an eye on theirs too.’ (Staff member, interview)

There was a general feeling amongst residential officers that there was not a reciprocation of ‘goodwill’ from management: ‘we give and give and give, but when we need something, we can’t get it’. Many officers gave examples of repeatedly agreeing to work overtime, but then being refused time off to deal with personal matters or family issues. These sentiments contributed to the wider discontent of staff feeling underappreciated, unsupported, and overworked by management:

‘Staffing and sick levels are issues that fail to be recognised. Residential staff are strong and resilient and the ones that are still at work are constantly scrutinised for decisions they make. However, the prison would not run without those staff.’ (Staff member, survey comment)

Staff perceptions of safety and security were complex. At the time of the 2015 study, the legacy of the 2014 disturbance was still present in the minds of staff and was frequently mentioned. The loss of order and control had ‘rattled’ and ‘unnerved’ officers, making many of them feel unsafe and vulnerable. Although the preoccupation with that incident had largely faded at the time of the 2016 study, and staff generally felt ‘more in control’, feelings of insecurity persisted. For discipline staff, ‘safety, control and security’ moved in a significant downward direction from 2015 to 2016 (from 3.01 to 2.75): over 50 per cent disagreed with these statements, both of which scored lower in 2016 than in 2015: ‘this is a well-controlled prison’ (2.71 to 2.58) and ‘assaults by prisoners on staff are rare in this prison’ (3.30 to 2.64). When discussing these issues, it was apparent that most staff did feel safe day-to-day and acknowledged that Grampian was a ‘fairly calm’ prison. The increased insecurity amongst officers appeared to be directly related to their relationship with management, rather than actual or immediate danger in the halls. Staff felt there was a lack of support from management when dealing with problem prisoners, and many described it as a ‘blame culture’. One of the lowest scored items by discipline staff was ‘there are times where Governors in here fail to support staff in dealing with prisoners’ (2.11). Many officers expressed feeling ‘undermined’, ‘doubted’, or ‘treated with suspicion’ after managing incidents with prisoners. Several gave examples of ‘incident debriefings’ where management would question every action or decision, often with a ‘tone of distrust’. As one officer remarked:

‘They talked down to me – like this prisoner being violent was my fault. I did everything by the book, yet had to justify every single thing, and they still treated me as though I was in the wrong ... It sends the wrong message, you know? They want us to effectively and safely manage incidents, but when we do, it’s like we’re punished for it. There’s no trust there … It’s demoralising.’ (Staff member, interview)

This ‘lack of trust’ intensified feelings of anxiety, insecurity, and fear amongst officers when making decisions or in handling situations. As a result, some turned a blind eye to prisoner infractions or had given up on writing incident reports:

‘What’s the point? They’ll [managers] just overturn it anyway, or the prisoner will just get a warning. It’s not worth my time when no one is going to back me up. And prisoners know that – they know it’ll get tossed or there won’t be any real consequences.’ (Staff member, interview)

11

Almost 75 per cent of discipline staff agreed that ‘the adjudication system (orderly room proceedings) in this prison does not teach prisoners anything’ (1.99). ‘Punishment and discipline’ and ‘positive attitudes to prisoners’ were the lowest scoring dimensions for discipline staff (2.55 and 2.59, respectively). Quality of life studies in other prisons indicate that there is a strong relationship between staff perceptions of their treatment by management and the ways in which staff orient themselves towards their work and their treatment of prisoners: as staff disaffection grows, and the perceived lack of support, care, and trust from management deteriorates, punitive attitudes and negative orientations increase. This was a consistent finding from 2015 and 2016, specifically amongst discipline staff. Despite Grampian’s (and SPS’s) innovative, humane, and progressive objectives to facilitate change and desistance, staff expressed somewhat punitive attitudes towards prisoners (an orientation often found in traditional, ‘old school’, and ‘heavy’ prisons – an ‘us and them’ attitude). Scores on ‘punitiveness’ (feelings of cynicism and resentment towards prisoners) and ‘traditional culture’ (a negative orientation towards prisoners and managers) remained poor amongst discipline staff. ‘Punitiveness’ was scored at 2.71 in 2015 and 2016, and ‘traditional culture’ moved slightly from 2.57 to 2.59 (see Tables 2 and 3, p. 23). As discussed in the 2015 report, these scores indicate that staff were feeling insecure and unsupported, which translated into a ‘defensive’ (rather than ‘relational’) orientation towards safety, and more negative orientations towards managers, prisoners, and their work. Cynical or punitive sentiments were expressed throughout the prison (‘once a con, always a con’; ‘they should be under lock and key – this place isn’t a punishment to them’). Much like in 2015, many survey respondents in 2016 indicated a desire for more prisoner discipline. A common theme that emerged from items listed as the most negative aspects of work life in Grampian were linked to a ‘lack of discipline’ for prisoners and the level of perceived power they hold:

‘Prisoners get away with everything. There is no punishment here.’

‘Lack of control and punishments when prisoners do wrong.’

‘Prisoners are the worst part of my job.’

‘Prisoners are given too many chances.’

‘Punishments are too soft – prisoners are believed regardless.’

‘Prisoner welfare is prioritised before staff welfare.’

‘We need stricter conditions for prisoners – it’s too easy for them. Prison isn’t supposed to be easy.’

‘Prisoners seem to be calling the shots.’

‘Prisoners kick off and get whatever they want. We get no backing from management and they’re not adequately punished. Just becomes a game to them with no consequences.’

‘Instead of just listening to prisoners and doing what they want, SMT should listen to staff … Management and SMT should back up staff instead of prisoners.’

‘Management support prisoners more than staff.’ Whilst discipline staff expressed a desire for greater support and appreciation from management, there was some lack of awareness or ownership of the deficiencies in their practices. Many officers failed to give the impression that they were dynamic or enthusiastic about doing the routine aspects of their work, which showed in their body language, demeanour, and professionalism in the halls (e.g. sitting idly behind the desk or in offices, slow to respond to prisoners or non-uniformed staff, doodling, gossiping with colleagues, etc.). Trust and accountability between staff and management will need to be (re-)established and grown, but this will require cooperation, buy-in, and follow-through from all staffing groups in the prison.

12

Staff-prisoner relationships, wellbeing and personal development

‘We’re pretty good at warehousing and containment, but not rehabilitation.’ (Staff member, interview)

‘Work parties are just a numbers game – bums on seats to show “engagement”, but it’s not meaningful.’ (Staff member, survey comment) ‘Staff are inexperienced and inconsistent – we just want structure.’ (Prisoner, interview)

Overall, staff-prisoner relationships in the halls had improved from 2015 to 2016. This, in part, was correlated to longer-serving staff feeling more in control and gaining confidence from experience. We observed some outstanding practice in the use of ‘intelligent discretion’ (like bringing a prisoner out of his cell to talk when he was feeling distressed), professional integrity and decency (for example, during a ‘sensitive’ cell extraction), and dynamic use of authority (particularly in Ellon 3, where officers were active in their sections and positively engaging with prisoners). Relationships saw the greatest improvement in Banff. Female prisoners rated all ‘harmony’ (or relational) and ‘professionalism’ dimensions higher in 2016 than in 2015, and all to a statistically significant degree (see Table 4, p. 24). The women appreciated having a stable staff group, which enabled some trust to grow and rapport to be built. The low ratio of staff to prisoners facilitated more ‘face time’, and made it easier to get things done or followed up with. For the men in Ellon, however, the relationships between staff and prisoners varied and were generally viewed more negatively. Prisoners described officers here as: ‘mixed’, ‘hit or miss’, ‘inconsistent’, ‘antagonistic’, ‘brilliant’, ‘some are very good, others are very poor’, ‘helpful’, ‘inexperienced’, ‘bullies’, ‘useless’, and ‘way out of their depth’. The perceived lack of experience and underdeveloped or underused ‘jail craft’ from many officers inhibited prisoners’ wellbeing, ability to get things done, and their ability to progress. Linked to this were concerns over safety and security, as prisoners felt some staff supervision in the halls was lacking or inconsistent, as was the challenging of poor behaviour. ‘Policing and security’ scores remained low for men (3.07) and women (3.16, though greatly improved from 2.72 in 2015), as did ‘drugs and exploitation’ (2.84 for male prisoners, and 2.46 for females). As noted throughout the report, officers across the establishment had a habit of congregating around the central desk, which meant that sections were often underpoliced. We observed some low-level non-compliance among prisoners that went unchallenged (for example, smoking in common areas, semi-nakedness, and swearing at officers or other prisoners), as well as more serious incidents of bullying and harassment that went unseen due to a lack of officer presence. Prisoners wanted staff to better use their authority by consistently enforcing the rules and by providing supportive limit-setting. This can only be achieved if officers are present and active in their sections. Grampian will need to continue building and promoting ‘right’ staff-prisoner relationships that are interactive, and prisoner-oriented, whilst maintaining clear boundaries. Dynamic, relational models of authority incorporate the use of interpersonal engagement, ‘intelligent trust’, and responsible discretion. This form of authority promotes compliance and engagement, rather than obedience through punishments, coercion, or force. Elsewhere, we have modelled prisons on a diagram with two axes: ‘heavy-light’, and ‘absent-present’, and have argued that most public sector prisons can be characterised as ‘heavy-present’ (see Figure 3, p. 25). In such establishments, staff tend to over-use their authority somewhat, based on cynical and punitive attitudes towards prisoners, in ways that feel oppressive to prisoners and which mean that they are treated with an absence of care. At the same time, the ‘presence’ of staff – in terms of numbers/availability, and the confident use of authority (or ‘jail craft’) – ensures a reasonably ‘well-oiled’ and predictable regime, and provides prisoners with feelings of psychological

13

safety and security. Meanwhile, staff knowledge and experience mean that prisoners’ needs (their questions about the regime, and about sentence progression) are generally well met. However, Grampian appeared to combine a form of ‘heaviness’, in terms of negative or cynical staff attitudes, manifested in indifference to prisoner wellbeing (rather than violence, on the whole), with a form of ‘absence’ in terms of authority and engagement. Relationships were passively benign, but were often distant or apathetic. 40 per cent of prisoners surveyed agreed that ‘this prison is poor at treating prisoners with respect’ (2.91). Staff were largely absent, both in practice (a lack of interactive engagement, and not being ‘tuned in’ to prisoners) and physical presence (staying in and around the central desk, rather than active in their section).

This ‘hands-off’ orientation was welcomed by some prisoners. Many of these prisoners, however, appreciated this level of inattention and autonomy precisely because they were involved in illicit behaviour or activities. One prisoner explained that ‘it’s easy here; you don’t have to do a lot’, which allowed him (and his drug trade) to remain ‘under the radar’ from staff. Others viewed it positively as well because they felt they had greater independence and autonomy compared to other prison regimes, which were seen as ‘restrictive’ or ‘heavy handed’. However, there were some prisoners who were struggling to cope with the lack of structure and boredom. They managed this by isolating in their cells, taking drugs, or developing other maladaptive behaviours (like excessively sleeping or self-harming). Over 50 per cent of prisoners agreed that ‘there is not enough structure in this prison’ (2.65) and 50 per cent disagreed with the statement ‘the regime in this prison is constructive’ (2.41). A new statement was added to the 2016 prisoner survey in order to better assess how SPS’s vision was translating into the ‘lived experience’ of those in custody: 30 per cent of prisoners agreed that ‘this prison is good at delivering SPS’s mission to help prisoners “fulfil their potential and become responsible citizens”’ (2.73). There were particular concerns in Ellon 2, primarily relating to officer behaviour, treatment, and professionalism. Some of this was attributed to the seeming higher concentration of new, young, and inexperienced staff here. When comparing the prisoner results by hall and level, no ‘harmony’ or ‘professionalism’ dimensions scored above the neutral threshold of 3.00 for Ellon 2. Scores for ‘bureaucratic legitimacy’ (2.24), ‘fairness’ (2.26), ‘organisation and consistency’ (2.26), and ‘personal development’ (2.47) were especially low. Prisoners here, more so than any other area of the prison, expressed concern over the lack of perceived care and respect displayed by officers. The age and experience of Ellon 2 staff were often raised as problematic by prisoners who felt that new/young staff were ‘here for a laugh’, that they were more judgmental (‘they treat you like a heavy criminal, like a beast … think you’re always scheming’), and could be overly disciplinarian because they were ‘trying to make a name for themselves’. Older or more experienced staff, on the other hand, were often praised for their use of discretion, ‘jail craft’, ‘telling it straight’, and ‘treating you like an individual human’. Staff language towards prisoners, at times, bordered on offensive, inappropriate, or intentionally antagonistic (like provoking a prisoner with obvious mental health issues, or teasing a prisoner about his weight). However, prisoners here were also quick to point out that ‘some staff in Ellon 2 go out their way to help you’. Most stated that they would wait until those particular officers were on shift if they needed to ask for something, otherwise it was ‘ask, ask, ask’. A number of prisoners and staff suggested that officer experience levels be more balanced throughout Ellon:

‘It should be like a one-to-one ratio – for each new officer, there should be an older, more experienced officer right there … There are too many new staff on Ellon 2 and they’re not getting the mentoring they need. It’s like the blind leading the blind.’ (Staff member, interview) ‘There’s been days when I’m the most experienced one on duty, and I’ve got less than two years in.’ (Staff member, interview)

14

‘The screws up on Ellon 3 are okay. They know how to do their jobs – they’ve got the experience. But them down here [on Ellon 2] are fresh out of school. They’ve got no life or work experience … You can see it on their face when they get challenged – they’re scared and just back off ... They need to see more experienced staff do the work.’ (Prisoner, interview)

50 per cent of prisoners surveyed disagreed with the statement: ‘Staff in this prison have enough experience and expertise to deal with the issues that matter to me’ (2.68). Although a more consistent regime was being delivered and prisoners appreciated the predictability this provided them in daily routines, there was some dissatisfaction with staff attentiveness and the ability to get their needs met beyond just a regular schedule. Nearly 80 per cent of prisoners agreed that ‘to get things done in this prison, you have to ask and ask and ask’ (1.93), which was the lowest rated item on the survey. Prisoners expressed feeling ‘fobbed off’ and ‘ignored’, and that staff were ‘lazy and unwilling to do anything more than the basics’. As observed in the 2015 study, the design of the units, to some extent, inhibits easy or natural staff-prisoner interactions. Prisoners in Ellon 1 and 2, in particular, expressed considerable annoyance and frustration with watching staff members congregate around the central desk rather than having a presence in the section. Many described it as ‘degrading’ and ‘uncivilised’ to have to yell through the grills to get an officer’s attention. Though the research team did observe staff in and out of the sections with more regularity than in 2015, the desk continued to act as a magnet. It seemed that even the best-intentioned officers in their section would see their colleagues huddled, and would inevitably be drawn back. The exception was in Ellon 3, where staff were regularly present in their sections and responded attentively to prisoners’ needs. Prisoners highlighted the ‘approachability’ of officers as an issue across the prison, with some finding it ‘intimidating to approach a desk full of staff’. In Banff, prisoners described similar feelings: ‘You’re scared to talk to staff. They sit at the desk and talk about prisoners with each other and everyone can hear. Nothing is private.’ Overwhelmingly, the primary concern amongst prisoners in Grampian was the ‘boredom’, ‘idleness’, and lack of meaningful work opportunities or purposeful activities. 70 per cent of prisoners agreed that ‘on the whole, I am doing time rather than using time’ (2.24). The prison, in general, felt listless, lacking energy and purpose, and as one prisoner described it: ‘Grampian just is. No one does much. No one expects much. We all – staff too – just kind of exist and move though the day like zombies.’ Another prisoner echoed a similar sentiment about the sense of apathy throughout the prison: ‘Nobody expects much. I’ve given up expecting anything. Officers don’t expect much either … It’s like everybody just does the bare minimum to get through another day.’ The lack of meaningful or engaging activities was the most common complaint from prisoners:

‘They need to get proper worksheds in this jail. There is none. Recycling? What’s that?’ (Prisoner, interview)

‘There’s nothing training wise. There’s no brickies, no electrics – you’d think in this area they’d at least have engineering.’ (Prisoner, interview) ‘Work parties are really limited, especially for women and long-termers. There’s just not much to do.’ (Staff member, interview)

For male prisoners, all of the ‘wellbeing and development’ dimensions moved in a downward direction from 2015 to 2016, with ‘distress’ showing the greatest and statistically significant decline (from 3.53 to 3.07). For female prisoners, these dimensions improved, with the most significant

15

increases for ‘personal development’ (from 2.00 to 3.20) and ‘personal autonomy’ (from 2.31 to 3.05). Though rated higher in 2016, ‘wellbeing’ and ‘distress’ still scored poorly for those in Banff (2.70 and 2.64 in 2016, respectively). The women valued the concentrated efforts by the prison and staff to provide social evening activities and ‘distractions to fill the time’ (like bingo and movie nights, having word and number puzzles available, and cooking), though continued to feel as though employment placements or training were limited. Prisoners were keenly aware of the progressive organisational vision and aspirations for Grampian. Many were quick to point out the mismatch between ‘the Grampian vision’ and their lived reality in the halls:

‘On paper, Grampian looks amazing. But in practice, it’s not there. This is what we do all day – we sit around, we play cards … There’s just not enough work or activities. Is this rehabilitation? How is this is going to help us on the out?’ (Prisoner, interview) ‘Boredom. That’s my life here … My experience here has nothing to do with rehabilitation or unlocking potential. They’ve locked up my potential.’ (Prisoner, interview) ‘They keep talking about this asset-based approach, but all I ever get from staff is that I’m a risk.’ (Prisoner, interview)

This mismatch translated into a set of expectations many had for Grampian, which, it was felt, were largely not being met. Several prisoners indicated that they would rate Grampian more negatively than notoriously ‘poor’ or ‘harsh’ prisons, because of the expectations they had and the ‘promises’ that were made to them about this new and different prison. One prisoner explained:

‘I’ve been all around prisons and this is one of the worst. At Barlinnie, you know what you’re going to get and you don’t expect anything else – it’s shite, and you know it’s going to be shite. But here, it was supposed to be different. The conditions are great – it’s clean and new. Our pads are good. But all of the stuff that is supposed to help us stay out of prison just doesn’t exist … Work placements are – well, what are they? This guy pushes a mop around the section all day. Is that meaningful work? Is that going to help him when he gets out? … I think a lot of lads opted to come here because they thought it was going to be different. It was like trying something new, something that was going to give us a chance to change. But it’s just not. So now we’re stuck here doing nothing to address our issues.’ (Prisoner, interview)

Prisoners who did have an employment placement and enjoyed their work praised their experience in the prison: ‘I’ve never had a job outside, but I have one in here. I love it. Kids thrive on routine, so we should too.’ Some found purpose and meaning from other activities within Grampian. Those involved with the media centre, for example, appreciated the ‘creative space’, skills building, and ‘stimulating’ environment it provided. The most striking MQPL results came from Banff. Female prisoners rated all 21 dimensions higher in 2016 than in 2015, with 17/21 at a statistically significant level. In 2016, 15/21 dimensions received a score of 3.00 (the neutral threshold) or above, compared to 4/21 in 2015. These are noteworthy findings and suggest that the focussed efforts targeting Banff staff, culture, and engagement were producing positive outcomes. Association time and free flow had increased since the 2015 study, which was identified as a key feature toward bettering wellbeing. The women were grateful to have regular ‘social time’ with prisoners outside of their section, and many felt this was assisting them in coping better, alleviating some distress, and reducing self-isolation.

16

The Separation and Reintegration Unit (SRU) was an area of staff-driven, high-quality work focused on relational interactions and decency. Though staff were not working to a specific ‘model’ of practice, they did possess a mostly unified orientation centred around ‘talk’, ‘building relationships’, and a willingness to ‘try’ and ‘take chances’ with prisoners in their care. There was a ‘rehabilitative tone’ being set by some of the managers in the unit, and officers praised this. Many acknowledged that more could be achieved in the SRU than in the residential units, largely due to low staff-prisoner ratios and having ‘the time to talk and sort out individual needs’. The research team observed respectful and attentive engagement during meal times, exercise movements, orderly room proceedings, and in the delivery of kit. Staff knew their prisoners and took an interest in their personal circumstances, which enabled them to use better, or more intelligent discretion when making decisions, building trust, and creating opportunities for reintegration. There was a positive staff culture here, with most of the team working well together and feeling proud of what they were accomplishing. As one SRU officer remarked: ‘We need to do things differently and challenge people in new ways. That is what rehabilitation is all about.’ Prisoners and staff provided several suggestions for how the prison could extend the range of engagement opportunities. For example, better and more meaningful use of the PIAC group and/or peer support workers are low-resource ways to promote regime cooperation and participation. ‘Co-production’ appeared to be a priority in the prison, but little was seen of this in action. Councils or committees where staff and prisoners work together to problem-solve and cooperatively implement improvement initiatives are one way to creatively strengthen staff-prisoner relationships, whilst addressing concerns or ‘problem areas’ within the establishment. Other prison studies have evidenced a number of positive outcomes from such initiatives, like improved prisoner wellbeing, increased institutional order with lower violence rates, and greater job satisfaction amongst staff. Other suggestions focused on more imaginative and inclusive use of the CIU, or alternative forms of ‘transitional’ living. This unit was praised by those living and working here, though was more generally viewed as ‘underutilised’ and ‘hidden’ from the rest of the prison. Staff and prisoners alike believed that more could be done to ‘up its profile’ by admitting more eligible prisoners, or to alter admission criteria. Lifer prisoners expressed some discontent that they were not eligible for the CIU due to a strong desire for a progression plan akin to ‘training for freedom’ (‘I may be a lifer, but I still want hope and a feeling that I’m working towards something’). Several prisoners proposed that Cruden should be turned into a ‘step down’, transitional unit for those advancing through their sentence. Relatedly, women in Banff thought more use could be made of the mother and baby facilities, like as a means to learn life skills and enable more independent living. As one prisoner commented:

‘They should use the mum and baby unit as a transition because it has all the facilities like cooking, and washing my own clothes. I’m scared about all that stuff.’ (Prisoner, interview).

Like many prisons in the UK, healthcare in Grampian was viewed as inadequate. NHS staffing issues (retention and turnover) in the northeast were recognised as a ‘problem beyond the prison’, which many were sympathetic to. However, the shortage of nursing staff negatively impacted life in the prison and increased frustrations amongst staff and prisoners. The primary concerns were (i) access to mental health services, and (ii) medication distribution. Prisoners and staff from across the establishment commented on this:

‘Meds are really inconsistent and that impacts your whole day – sometimes I don’t get my morning meds until the afternoon … I have a lot of anxiety and going so long without my meds makes it so much worse.’ (Prisoner, interview)

17

‘The regime revolves around meds. We can’t move the guys until meds are done – sometimes that means their rec time is cut short, or they can’t get moved to work. It fucks everything up.’ (Staff member, interview) ‘Sometimes they’ve had to skip our meds [in Banff] because it takes so long in Ellon.’ (Prisoner, interview) ‘What healthcare? There is no healthcare.’ (Prisoner, interview) ‘Meds rule the regime – you often have to choose between getting your meds or going to work or the gym.’ (Prisoner, survey comment) ‘You’re not a patient, you’re a criminal.’ (Prisoner, interview)

A number of prisoners expressed feeling ‘degraded’ or ‘belittled’ because they were not able to keep and manage their own medications. As one prisoner explained:

‘It would be better to have in-cell meds, for some of them anyway. It’s disrespectful – they just don’t trust you with your meds. If you were outside you’d have to manage them yourself. You have no chance to lead a normal life. Your responsibility is taken away from you, and it’s undermining. They always say ‘but they were understaffed’ – they should at least tell us that then we would understand.’ (Prisoner, interview)

Substance misuse management was also highlighted as a concern: nearly 50 per cent of prisoners disagreed with the statement ‘this prison is good at improving the wellbeing of those who have drug problems’ (2.66). Prisoners who arrived at Grampian with drug addictions had mixed experiences. Although some prisoners appreciated the help they had received, many felt as though they had received insufficient detox, particularly those with addictions to prescription drugs (e.g. opiates). Several prisoners suggested having peer support workers assist in drug recovery and sobriety plans (‘sober buddies’) in order to provide support and guidance to other prisoners trying to stay clean. For prisoners involved in education, much praise was given to staff and their ‘compassion and kindness’. Though space was limited in education, thus limiting the number of prisoners it could accommodate, those who were engaged spoke highly of staff, their dedication, and the opportunities they enabled. One prisoner described how staff had helped him with issues outside of their remit, and did so ‘with patience and care – they really made me feel like I had some value’. Staff here seemed to be genuinely invested in helping prisoners, had a strong team dynamic, and were clearly working towards a rehabilitative agenda. The ‘community-facing’ aspect of Grampian was much better embedded at the time of the 2016

study, and its vision-into-practice was impressive. The autonomy being granted to staff in order to

further develop this process was excellent and empowering. The prison’s commitment to building

and growing these resettlement services should be applauded. Unfortunately, throughcare was

disconnected from the rest of the prison, and mostly invisible to hall staff. Discipline staff were

generally unaware of anything outside of residential life. For example, many officers viewed the CIU

positively, though without real knowledge of how it operated in practice. Likewise, hall staff thought

the prison was ‘excelling at community-facing stuff’, but were unaware of what services were

available or how prisoners may access them. Many officers expressed an interest in getting updates

about prisoners after release. ‘Success boards’ have been used (and well received) in other prisons

to showcase people who have successfully moved on elsewhere, progressed down, or had been

18

liberated and were living well in the community. Prison staff, especially officers, are rarely exposed

to ‘success stories’. Sharing these stories has the potential to connect various parts of the prison,

raise awareness of the good work being achieved, and help staff to recognise the importance of their

work and relationships with prisoners. As one officer remarked:

‘We want to know if we made a difference – the guys tell us what a good throughcare team we have, but we don’t know about it as officers, but we should. We know these guys better than anyone else – we spend every day with them.’ (Staff member, interview)

Although staff morale was low, stress was high, and some staff expressed negative feelings

towards prisoners and their work, the survey results indicated that there was still considerable

loyalty to the prison (the item, ‘I feel a sense of loyalty to this prison’ scored 3.47 for all staff)

and a desire to do more: over 90 per cent of staff agreed that ‘officers should be involved in

rehabilitation programmes’ (4.15). This is noteworthy, and demonstrates a willingness from

staff to be activated and energised in their work and professional purpose. Over 80 per cent of

staff agreed with the statement ‘I feel proud of the job I do in this prison’ (3.94) and over 90

per cent indicated that they were ‘willing to work hard to meet goals and targets’ (4.19).

Nurturing and growing these (perhaps latent) attitudes, while providing staff with a model of

good practice, will be an important part of any attempt to create and grow a positive

Grampian culture.

Conclusion At the time of this follow-up study, Grampian was considerably more stable, organised, and staff were able to deliver a more consistent regime. The ‘foundations’ were better established than in 2015, which enabled some programming to flourish and increased staff confidence and competence. From the time of opening, the prison had experienced several significant, and difficult, transitions (like the removal of young male adults from Cruden, a change in leadership, and the shedding of detached duty staff). Despite these challenges and changes, the establishment was managing to operate a relatively safe and decent environment. The 2016 survey results showed marked improvement. These are notable findings and confirmed that the prison was on the ‘right track’ towards sustaining stability. However, some serious issues and concerns persisted. Grampian was a divided prison. There were deep tensions between residential staff and management, and a general lack of cohesion between staffing groups throughout the prison. Some officers continued to exhibit characteristics of poor performing ‘traditional’ public sector prisons – largely because of their orientations towards prisoners and their preoccupation with discipline. This was most apparent in attitudes towards and lack of engagement with prisoners, some laziness, a limited vision of their role, and direct resistance to senior managers. These divisions and ‘competing’ agendas prevented the Grampian vision from being collectively achieved in practice. The primary concern amongst prisoners was the lack of purposeful activity and meaningful opportunities to progress or personally develop. Many were exhibiting maladaptive behaviours to cope with the boredom and idleness. Prisoners wanted staff to better use their authority by consistently and fairly enforcing the rules, and by providing supportive limit-setting. Prisoners across the establishment were seeking a constructive regime, more engagement and support from hall staff, and viable channels in which to unlock their potential. There were many signs of promise and stabilisation. Some staff were positive and optimistic, and many were devoted to their jobs. Harnessing and further fostering this spirit would help to continue guiding the prison in an upward direction. A careful balance of leadership, motivation, and support

19

will be necessary to take it in this direction. There appeared to be a willingness and interest amongst staff groups to better unite and work together. A concerted and cooperative effort by staff and management will be critical in growing a healthy and rehabilitative culture within Grampian.

20

Table 1: All staff dimension means – 2015 compared to 201611

N = 184 N = 108

All Staff

2015

All Staff

2016

Management dimensions

Attitudes towards the Governor 2.68 3.20 ***

Attitudes towards the SMT 2.76 2.82

Treatment by senior management 3.04 3.16

Treatment by line management 3.45 3.52

Relationships with line management 3.59 3.70

Job Satisfaction dimensions

Relationship with the organisation 3.17 3.19

Commitment 3.44 3.50

Recognition and personal efficacy 2.96 3.10

Involvement and motivation 3.71 3.74

Stress 2.90 2.75

Relationships with peers 3.80 3.79

Authority dimensions

Safety, control and security 3.02 2.88 ϯ

Punishment and discipline 2.68 2.73

Dynamic authority 3.22 3.40 *

Prisoner Orientation dimensions

Professional support for prisoners 3.71 3.82

Positive attitudes to prisoners 2.73 2.74

Trust, compassion and commitment towards prisoners

3.75 3.82

Relationships with prisoners 3.60 3.71

Quality of life score (1-10) mean 6.27 6.15

11 Throughout the document the following statistical notion is used: ϯ <0.1; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; *** < 0.001. Scores above the neutral threshold of 3.00 are highlighted in yellow, and scores below 2.00 are highlighted in blue.

21

Figure 1: Prisoner dimension means – 2015 compared to 2016

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2 neutral mark Grampian prisoners 2015 (N = 82) Grampian prisoners 2016 (N = 97)

22

Figure 2: Discipline and Non-Discipline staff dimension means compared – 201612

12 Staffing groups have been categorised as follows: Discipline staff: Residential Officer, Operations Officer, Activities Officer, and First Line Manager; Non-discipline staff: Health Care staff, Psychology staff, Social Work staff, and Other; Managers: Unit Manager and Senior Manager.

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

3.2

3.4

3.6

3.8

4

4.2

neutral mark Discipline staff Non-Discipline staff

23

Tables 2 and 3: Discipline staff – Traditional Culture and Punitiveness dimension means compared

Traditional Culture – 2015 compared to 2016

2015 2016

Discipline staff n = 119

Discipline staff n = 81

Traditional Culture A negative orientation towards prisoners and managers

2.71 2.71

I trust the senior managers in this prison. 2.48 2.54

I feel a sense of loyalty to the Governor of this prison. 2.56 3.00 **

I feel a sense of loyalty to the Prison Service. 3.47 3.46

I feel safe in my working environment. 3.42 3.15 *

I trust the prisoners in this prison. 2.11 1.95

The level of power prisoners have in this prison is too high. 2.24 2.11

Punitiveness – 2015 compared to 2016

2015 2016

Discipline staff n = 119

Discipline staff n = 81

Punitiveness Feelings of cynicism and resentment towards prisoners

2.57 2.59

This prison is too comfortable for prisoners. 2.36 2.42

Prisoners spend too much time out of cell in this prison. 2.92 2.91

The adjudication system (orderly room proceedings) in this prison does not teach prisoners anything.

2.03 1.99

Prisoners should be under strict discipline. 2.61 2.44

There are times where Governors in here fail to support staff in dealing with prisoners.

1.98 2.11

Most prisoners are decent people. 2.86 2.90

If a prisoner lies to me, I don’t make an effort to help them. 3.27 3.38

24

Table 4: Prisoner dimension means by gender – 2015 compared to 201613

Males Females

2015 2016 2015 2016

n = 59 n = 81 n = 20 n = 15

Harmony dimensions

Entry into Custody 2.89 3.02 2.15 2.62 ϯ

Respect/courtesy 3.34 3.16 2.55 3.53 ***

Staff-prisoner relationships 3.10 3.10 2.38 3.50 ***

Humanity 3.15 3.00 2.60 3.43 **

Decency 3.01 2.99 2.23 3.16 **

Care for the vulnerable 3.13 2.94 2.16 3.20 ***

Help and assistance 2.95 2.84 2.11 3.39 ***

Professionalism dimensions

Staff professionalism 2.99 3.00 2.22 3.45 ***

Bureaucratic legitimacy 2.65 2.42 ϯ 2.00 2.83 **

Fairness 2.75 2.66 1.89 2.96 ***

Organisation and consistency 2.44 2.56 1.95 3.09 ***

Security dimensions

Policing and security 3.07 3.07 2.72 3.16 *

Prisoner safety 3.34 3.34 3.03 3.16

Prisoner adaptation 3.49 3.37 3.16 3.21

Drugs and exploitation 2.74 2.84 2.03 2.46 ϯ

Conditions and Family Contact dimensions

Conditions 4.05 3.86 ϯ 3.17 4.15 **

Family contact 3.42 3.27 3.18 3.22

Wellbeing and Development dimensions

Personal development 2.84 2.69 2.00 3.20 ***

Personal autonomy 2.95 2.94 2.31 3.05 **

Wellbeing 2.84 2.76 1.99 2.70 *

Distress 3.53 3.07 ** 2.45 2.64

Quality of life score (1-10) mean 5.30 5.92 3.95 6.62 **

13 Throughout the document the following notion is used: ϯ <0.1; * < 0.05; ** < 0.01; *** < 0.001. Scores above the neutral threshold of 3.00 are highlighted in yellow, and scores below 2.00 are highlighted in blue.

25

Figure 3: Heavy-Light / Absent-Present diagram

HEAVY

LIGHT

PRESENT ABSENT

Oppressive

Insecure

traditional - professional

professional - powerless

naïve - permissive

traditional - cynical

Garth 2008 (public)

Bullingdon 2008 (public)

Whitemoor late 90s (public)

Whitemoor 2009-10

Rochester 2016 (public)

Long Lartin late 80s (public)

Altcourse 2009 (private)

Lowdham Grange 2009 (private)

Doncaster 2016 (private)

Dovegate/Rye Hill 2008 (private)

Albany late 80s (public)

US supermax

Durham 2015 (public) Grampian 2016 (SPS public)

Wakefield 2017 (public)