By HM Chief Inspector of Prisons

 Close supervision centres (CSCs) are small, specialist units located within six of the high security prisons. With capacity for 66 adult men, 44 were being held in the centres at the time of this thematic inspection. An additional nine were being held in ‘designated cells,’ located in some segregation units within the long-term and high security estate (LTHSE). They were located there following their removal from association due to their active and presenting risks in a CSC, or following their transfer to another prison to attend court or access visits with their family and friends. Most men selected for a CSC were serving indeterminate sentences, many were category A, and the selection criteria, which in our view were applied proportionately and based on evidence, indicated very clearly that all had committed serious, often repeated, acts of violence against others while in prison. As such, the CSC system is effectively the deepest form of custody that exists in the country, managing some of the most dangerous men in the system. During this inspection we adopted a slightly different approach, which, although informed by our healthy prison structure, applied tests that better reflected the priorities and processes of the CSC system: management of the centres, progression, safety, and respect. We judged outcomes to be good, our highest assessment, in three tests and reasonably good in the test of progression. These assessments reflect the success and effectiveness of the CSC system, as well as some improvement to the safety of the units since we last conducted an inspection in 2017. In general, we found that units were remarkably stable with infrequent incidents of violence, no self-inflicted deaths and low levels of self-harm. The quality of relationships between staff and prisoners were good, with staff evidencing commendable resilience in their dealings with prisoners. Most units were clean and well equipped, except for the Wakefield unit which needed investment and development. Daily routines were applied reliably but the amount of time men were able to spend out of their cells varied. There was not enough to do on the units and a lack of work and education was unhelpful given this was a target in some progression plans. There were also variations in practice between the units, including prisoner access to services and privileges, that were not explained or justified logically. The quality of multidisciplinary working, and the individualised support and planning offered to each man was, however, impressive. Progress, no matter how small, was acknowledged and those selected for the units were given every opportunity to address their risks and move on from the CSC, including into other types of dedicated intervention in the prison system or to the health sector. The quality of leadership, at both national and local level, was coherent and effective. Leaders and staff knew what they were doing and should be congratulated on their achievements.

London:  HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2024. 43p.