Scottish Prisons Assessment and Review of Outcomes for Women (SPAROW): executive summary

Lived experience of women in the CCUs (see Chapter 7 in the full report)

Residents hold wide-ranging views about life in the CCUs. With few exceptions, women were positive about the physical environment and facilities, the relative quietness and the levels of privacy afforded to them, which were seen as very different from their experiences in closed conditions.^[2] Most women felt physically ‘safer’ than in closed conditions. The access to health care, community social work and housing officers were considered extremely valuable. The proximity to family and the improved conditions for family visits, for those who had them, were also viewed very positively. However, without the structure found in closed conditions, many women felt ‘bored’ and available activities were largely considered insufficient, variable and disjointed.

For the most part, women felt ‘respected’ by prison officers and believed that they treated them with sensitivity and candour and provided appropriate support, including recognition of their experiences of trauma. There were (limited) opportunities to feed into planning and decision-making. Power imbalances between officers and women were evident, suggesting the need for attentiveness to the development and maintenance of the ‘right’ relationships. Work on tackling some adversely stereotypical views about women by officers would also help here. Relationships between officers and women appeared to deteriorate somewhat as the CCUs became fuller, which seemed to be compounded by high levels of staff absence. Personal body searching in particular was experienced as traumatising for women. Its necessity and the frequency with which it is carried out was questioned by them.

Moreover, the limited (or lack of) community access was a significant source of disappointment, frustration and disillusionment for women; many felt they had been misled about this issue. A key source of friction was around the different sentencing profiles of women in the CCUs, and the relative benefits and entitlements that different categories of women were perceived to experience. Other tensions revolved around the limitations placed on food purchasing, food preparation and the ‘canteen list’.

In respect of the views expressed by women in the closed establishment, given that such a small number of women were interviewed, our conclusions here are necessarily limited. It is clear though that women are provided with more structure and activities in closed conditions than are available in the CCUs, which the women say that they prefer. Officer/prisoner relationships are considered positive and supportive and there are opportunities for women to exercise agency and autonomy through the development and pursuit of peer-led opportunities, albeit within some tight constraints. Importantly, women have a clearer idea of how their progression status will be managed through the prison, and when - and how - they are likely to gain community access.

It seems clear that more work needs to be done to raise awareness of the CCUs across the women’s estate, to provide clear and accurate explanations about the realities of life in the CCU for both women and for staff.

The two posters in the full report were the product of the arts-based workshops conducted with women in both CCUs. They provide excellent visual summaries of the views and experiences of the women in the CCUs.