The Open Access Publisher and Free Library
13-punishment.jpg

PUNISHMENT

PUNISHMENT-PRISON-HISTORY-CORPORAL-PUNISHMENT-PAROLE-ALTERNATIVES. MORE in the Toch Library Collection

Posts tagged Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs)
How Property Loss Impacts Prisoners: A Thematic Monitoring Report

By: Independent Monitoring Boards

Property – having your own possessions that are important to you – is vital to those who are living in the constraints of a prison environment, deprived of their liberty, with little connection to the outside world.

The national scale of loss and damage to prisoners’ property shown by IMBs monitoring in adult prisons and YOIs, and the detrimental impact this has on these men, women and children’s quality of life, is unacceptable.

Property loss and damages severely harmed prisoners’ mental health and wellbeing, causing huge amounts of distress. It also undermined their safety, dignity and humanity, physical health, and prospects for progression and release.

Many of these losses have been unforgivable: a disabled prisoner living without his prosthetic limb for over a year; critical evidence for a prisoner’s sentencing missing; the irreplaceable letters from prisoners’ loved ones who have died while they’ve been inside misplaced.

The causes of lost property have been well-documented. Over many, many years almost all IMBs in adult prisons and YOIs have repeatedly told ministers and the Prison Service that they need to get a grip and have made recommendations about how to do so. In the latest tranche of annual reports alone, nearly 60 IMBs asked 75 property related questions to governors and directors, the service and ministers.

In September 2022, the Prison Service implemented a new policy framework with the aim of addressing the main problems continually identified by IMBs nationally in recent years and improving prisoner outcomes. During its development, and even now, IMBs receive assurances that the framework is doing just that. Two years later, however, the wider findings of the IMB suggest there is little to no evidence the framework has made any difference.

As the causes of property loss have been so well evidenced by local IMBs over the years, this thematic monitoring report focuses much less on the process and system failures (although there are many) and far more on the poor outcomes for prisoners. It also highlights good practice in prisons and YOIs that has helped to prevent or resolve property loss. Although these effective local initiatives aren’t a substitute for national solutions, these examples show that it can be done, and this is not an inevitable, intractable problem.

It is my hope as National Chair that this is the last time IMBs will have to set out these recurring issues and the scale of this problem, and that the new government will finally overhaul property processes and systems and invest in much-needed immediate and long-term resolutions, including a national digital tracking system. This will also be a significant investment in staff time, prison safety, improving prisoners’ lives, their mental health and wellbeing, and their perceptions of staff, fair treatment and the system overall.

Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) monitor and report on the conditions and treatment of those detained in every prison in England and Wales, as well as every immigration detention facility across the UK.

This report provides an overview of outcomes for men and women in adult prisons and children and young people in young offender institutions (YOIs), whose property has been lost or damaged.

It is based on analysis of:

  • 71 survey responses from 64 IMBs monitoring in adult prisons and YOIs completed in early 2024 (see Annex 1).

  • 106 Boards’ latest published annual reports, published until 31 July 2024.

  • Property applications (a written or verbal representation to Boards)

  • consisting of:

    • Data on the number of property applications received in the above annual reports.

    • 1732 property-related applications received via the 0800 free phone line between April 2020 and July 2023.

London: The Independent Monitoring Boards, 2024. 21p

Segregation of Men with Mental Health Needs: A Thematic Monitoring Report

By Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs)

Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs) monitor and report on the conditions and treatment of those detained in every prison in England and Wales. They have specific powers and responsibilities in order to effectively monitor the conditions and treatment of those in CSUs. Boards are notified when a prisoner is segregated, can speak to prisoners in CSUs in private, are invited to attend segregation review boards (SRBs), and can access and review all records.

This report provides an overview of outcomes for men in closed adult prisons with mental health needs who are being held in CSUs. It is based on:

  • A survey completed by IMBs at over 30 closed adult men’s prisons in England for four weeks during late Autumn 2022

  • A follow-up survey six months later in Spring 2023 was completed by IMBs who had previously identified segregated prisoners waiting for transfers to more appropriate secure settings.

  • Findings from IMBs’ most recent annual reports.

  • Several IMBs’ recent correspondence to ministers, senior HMPPS officials, and healthcare bodies raising serious concerns over the care of prisoners with mental health needs in CSUs.

Key findings

  • In recent years, almost all IMBs monitoring in prisons holding adult men have repeatedly raised concerns over CSUs not being a suitable or appropriate place for prisoners with mental health needs.

  • Prisoners with mental health needs were often held for prolonged and long-term periods in CSUs. IMBs found that this was mostly due to:

    • Men struggling to cope or refusing to reintegrate back onto the residential wings (referred to as ‘normal location’)

    • Lack of capacity in prison healthcare units or prisons with specialist functions

    • Delays in referral, assessment, and transfer to a secure hospital

    • There being no alternative, often because of a lack of diagnosis or men not having met the threshold for admission to a secure hospital.

  • Although most IMBs understood why CSUs were deemed the most appropriate place for these men to be held out of the limited locations available in prisons, there were still widespread concerns that CSUs were the only alternative for those who were acutely unwell and in need of specialist care.

  • For men who were already struggling with their mental health, their well-being and behavior often deteriorated further while being segregated for prolonged periods.

  • Prisoners with mental health needs were often moved between different CSUs, healthcare units, or were returned to wings for short periods which made it harder to track the cumulative time some prisoners spent segregated.

IMBs, 2024. 18p.