Scottish Prisons Assessment and Review of Outcomes for Women (SPAROW): full report

8.  SPS officers working in the CCUs

In this chapter, we provide information on the backgrounds and experience of SPS officers working in the CCUs, and their views on their preparedness for working in a CCU, including any training they have undergone to support them for the work. In particular, we focus upon the ability and motivation of staff to practise gender-specific and trauma-informed principles in their work. We also highlight the ways in which officers adapt to work in the CCUs, as opposed to other closed establishments, and the challenges that they identified within the CCU environment. The final section of this chapter draws in the views of officers working in a female closed establishment with women who potentially may move to a CCU.

As outlined in Chapter 5, in each CCU there are a combination of residential and operational officers, along with up to six line managers. Each CCU has a staff contingent of between 30 and 36. However, staff work a shift pattern in line with a set roster so are not all in the CCU at the same time.

Given the centrality of the gender-specific and trauma-informed approach to the strategy underlying the work of the CCUs, a key component of the research was to explore the extent to which the principles of these approaches were understood and embedded in the CCUs. For officers, this was explored through interviews and observations. Interviews incorporated questions exploring gender-sensitivity (adoption of a gendered lens; gendered needs, values, risks, capacities and aspirations being taken into account in services and interactions). Interviews also explored how the key elements of trauma-informed practice (safety, trustworthiness, choice, collaboration and empowerment) shape staff behaviour and the services delivered. For example, throughout the interviews officers were prompted to provide examples of what they consider to be gender-specific and trauma-informed approaches. They were also promted to discuss how individual needs were being addressed, and asked to draw on their own experiences within the CCUs, alongside their experiences of working in other establishments.

Backgrounds and experience of CCU staff

As outlined in Chapter 5, there was variability in the level of experience of officers working in the CCUs. Whilst most had experience of working for the prison service before transferring into a CCU, some were new recruits with little or no previous experience of working in a prison. Most of those with previous experience had only ever worked in male prisons. In Phase 1 of the research most CCU officers were male, although the proportion of female officers grew over the course of the research.

Most officers chose to work in the CCU and had applied to do so. All underwent a competitive recruitment process and were specifically selected. For the most part, the interview process for the newly created roles in the CCUs was considered by officers to be ‘rigorous’ and ‘testing’. According to one officer with lengthy experience, the interview process was more demanding than for any other role he had previously applied for in the prison service. Some officers however did not find the recruitment process at all challenging, with one describing it as ‘just a bit of a chat’. Senior SPS strategic managers, in interviews, said that value-based interviewing was used to ensure that the ‘right people’ were recruited for the job.

Although it was recognised by SPS that imprisoned women would prefer women officers, CCU managers said that there was always an intention to deploy male officers to the CCUs. This was on the basis that SPS considered there to be benefits in having males working with women prisoners, for example to show that non-transactional and positive relationships with men are possible.

Staff motivations for wishing to work in a CCU were varied; some saw this as a great opportunity to work in a ‘radically different’ prison environment where they could deploy their skills and experience from long years of service. Others spoke of being interested in the novel concept of the CCUs and the opportunity that they gave for working in an environment of full throughcare for women. For example, one officer was motivated by what he had heard about CCUs from a colleague who described the less formal environment of the CCUs and ‘wanted to give it a try’ (Lilias fieldnotes). Others were more pragmatic and said they were motivated by the physical location of the CCUs and their proximity to their homes, which meant a shortened commuting time. Almost all officers, except for those very new in service, went straight to the CCUs from other prison establishments without a break in their service.

The small number of CCU staff who had previously worked with women in prison were puzzled as to why the CCUs drew in officers with no prior experience of working in the women’s estate. As even the limited number of interviews with officers in the closed prison indicated, there is a wealth of experience there, with three of the four officers interviewed having worked with women in prison for several years. As one female operational officer in HMP Lilias who was interviewed in Phase 1 of the research said:

“I really enjoy my job. And I try and always do it to the best of my ability and I think having experience working with women prisoners in the past has really helped me in this role because… it doesn’t help the fact that probably ninety-eight per cent of staff that work in here have never worked with women before. So… and that’s strange, you would think, why would they bring that amount of people in that have never worked with women?… Women are very… women in custody are very complex. And very, very different from men. And it does take years to learn about their traits, how… you know, how they are and how you should really be working with them, it’s not something that you learn overnight. And don’t get me wrong, I know everyone needs to start somewhere but, like, one day’s women in custody training at the college just doesn’t cut it.” (LS 001 operational).

Officers with long service records were also puzzled about the high proportion of new recruits and relatively inexperienced staff coming into the CCUs, with limited knowledge of risk processes and the associated paperwork. This is considered to be important and core work.

Preparedness for working in a CCU

Gender-specific and trauma-informed work requires organisational support and leadership buy-in, promoting an environment that is supportive of the care and compassion required to deliver and sustain the therapeutic nature of the practice. It also, crucially, requires officers who are informed, properly trained and knowledgeable about the principles of gender-specific and trauma-informed approaches. They need to be equipped to deliver these on the ground, as well as understanding how these principles fit within the wider overarching strategy.

Officers differed not only in terms of how their backgrounds equipped them for working in a CCU, but also in their level of preparation for working in small, women-only units. For the most part, longer-serving officers had been aware of the proposals regarding the development of the CCUs for many years. Other officers had limited knowledge of the aims of the CCUs and their purposes in advance of moving, and so the experience, for some, was something of ‘a shock’. The CCUs are much smaller than other prisons, with a much smaller number of women. The physical environment is also unlike any other prisons most officers had previously worked in. There is deliberately a ‘much more subdued atmosphere’ with lower noise levels and the use of different terminology (e.g. use of women’s first names rather than numbers or nicknames, referring to women as ‘residents’ rather than prisoners). This is done to intentionally create a new kind of environment.

Some of the FLMs interviewed had direct experience in the development of the SPS Strategy for Women, and there were other officers who appeared to have a working knowledge of the Strategy, for example:

“I think we were given a general… when we were at the College and things, or it will come up here when we do different classes or different issues come up. So, I’ve got a good understanding of things that they’re adapting for the Women Strategy team and make a difference here. Or I know who I could go to, to ask if I needed to know any more…” (LS2 004 operational).

However, the majority of officers, when asked about it, were very vague about what the strategy says, or even having heard of it. Even where officers had an awareness of the existence of the SPS Strategy for Women, it was not referred to spontaneously, nor did many appear to have much knowledge of its actual contents. For example: “I have [been given information about the strategy], but off the top of my mind, I couldn’t tell you anything about it.” (BS 002 operational).

Some officers described how there had been, in their view, a lack of consultation and involvement with SPS senior management about the development or operationalisation of the strategy. This felt like a missed opportunity, given that greater engagement and discussion with officers could have strengthened their knowledge and awareness, and possibly their buy-in and implementation of the strategic goals. The following quotes highlight this:

“So, when we first came [to CCUs] the Women’s Strategy team were still here. So, we knew basically what their aim was. I don’t think it’s really had much of an impact and I don’t think they told us a lot of stuff, like, when they eventually left and moved onto Stirling to set up Stirling there was loads of things that we were asking questions about. And the answer was really, oh that’s the Women’s Strategy team and it’s nothing really to do with us. So, I don’t really feel, like, we got a lot of what they were expecting to us. It was quite vague.” (BS2 001 residential).

“We probably were [given information about the SPS Strategy for Women], but I don’t think we had too much to do with... I think it was more that was all dealt with at a higher level, as far as I am aware.” (BS 001 operational).

There was some confusion and concern voiced over the SPS Strategy for Women, in terms of how it could be (or was being) operationalised, due to the aims seeming ambitious, wide-reaching and far-removed from day-to-day realities. Uncertainty was also voiced over how progress towards meeting the strategic goals was being measured, in order that SPS would know what was going well, and what might need amending. Finally, a couple of officers raised questions over the current status of the Strategy; whether it had changed or been adapted over time, especially as its end date (2025) was approaching. Those interviewed did not know what the strategic direction would be beyond this date.

“I suppose everything we do here strives towards meeting the strategy and the aims of the strategy, but, again, I think it’s… we probably aren’t crystal clear as to what the strategy is at the moment. Has it changed? Has it been adapted? And exactly how we are meeting or not meeting the goals of that because we’re so involved and engrossed in the day to day running here. I think the strategy seems quite far removed.” (BS2 008 FLM).

An officer interviewed towards the end of the research fieldwork, in December 2024, said:

“I just get a sense that SPS... this could be cutting edge, this could be so completely different, but it is... I could see it being just such a spectacular place to work. It is, but it could be so different if prison service allowed it to run or had some sort of plan beyond their strategy. I don’t see any evidence of what happens next… Again, beyond that we don’t have a women’s strategy beyond 2025. I am looking for direction from SPS about what happens next.” (LS3 001 Manager).

Many officers felt that they had not received adequate information about the CCU in advance of working there and said that they would have appreciated more detail on their operation and the expectations placed on those working there. There was a clear dissonance between their expectations of the CCUs and the reality of working in post. This related to the idea that the CCUs were going to be ‘more like an open prison’ with women able to ‘come and go’ (BS 002 operational). Therefore officers found the reality where women had very limited community access to be quite different from their expectations.

Some officers said that they had expected to be working with women at different progression stages, as is the case. For others however, predominantly interviewed in the earlier stages of the research, there was an expectation they would be working predominantly with ‘low risk women presenting with mental health and addictions issues’. There was the expectation that these women were to be supported back into the community through the CCUs. To encounter women who did not fit this profile and with limited community access was at odds with their expectations:

“So, I was hoping that it was going to be more likely we’d be taking the women out to like link up with the Jobcentre and go to places of interest, such as, like, going to the museums or potentially going out to, kind of, charities and getting them linked up with, obviously, like clothing and stuff like that, which we are doing now. But it’s now in a closed rather than us going out and stuff like that, to them.” (LS2 003 residential).

Officers also described how the reality of working in the CCU was different to expectations, going as far as saying that they felt they had been ‘fed false expectations’, describing demoralised staff who had been promised a lot that had not (yet) been delivered.

Perceptions and past experiences inevitably shape the approach that officers bring to the CCUs. For most male officers interviewed, moving to work in a women-only facility was a major change and required significant adaptation to what they had done previously. This adaptation was also felt by female officers who had previously only worked in the male estate: ‘So, it’s a learning curve for us as well working with women if you’ve not worked with them before’ (BS2 001 residential).

Understanding of the gender-specific and trauma-informed approach

Delving deeper into the key principles contained within the SPS Strategy for Women, interviews included asking officers about their knowledge and awareness of its underlying approach – gender-specificity and trauma-informed care. Officers were asked about their understanding of these principles, and what these meant to them. There were some reasonable working definitions provided, for example:

“Trauma-informed approach is basically getting to know the individual and find out if there’s anything that… in the past that has inflicted trauma on to them. So for example, if I'm going to take Jo Bloggs for a mandatory drug test and that woman has experienced trauma in the past from being sexually abused or raped or that, then I need to think, is it appropriate for me to ask her to take her clothing off? So it’s very self-centred, depends on what trauma… or if any trauma that person’s faced in the past. And we need to be careful how we work around that.” (LS 001 FLM).

However, articulating these principles seemed difficult for some officers, who were either vague or unsure:

“I’m just going to do, like, a stab in the dark kind of thing. It’s definitely catering to women’s needs in particular their characteristics, as opposed to maybe men. That’s my stab in the dark.” (BS2 004 operational).

“But other than that [body searches]… it’s difficult to find gender-specifics in here, because it’s… I’m trying to think, my mind’s gone blank.” (BS 002 operational).

A small number of officers believed that taking a gender-specific approach should mean that principles of fairness and equality should, or did shape the men’s and women’s prison estates, rather than, perhaps, being a response to specific needs:

“I think that’s what it is, exactly, is my understanding, it's a fairness and equality thing. It doesn't happen at the [open prison for men], so it can't happen here, because if the men get wind of the women doing it, they’ll want it.” (BS 003 Manager).

Further to this, some CCU staff felt that taking a gender-specific approach resulted in inequalities between the men’s and women’s prison estates, with men being disadvantaged in comparison to women. This was particularly in relation to the men not having an establishment and service of the same type and quality as the CCUs which they viewed as ‘unfair.’ They were keen to point out that men also experience trauma and are deserving of an environment that addresses this. However, at several times in interviews, the point was made that men in the open prison estate have more freedoms in some areas of prison life than women, which was seen as the trade-off for the women living in the better physical environment of the CCUs.

“They’re all very keen to have something like this for men. Like, you know, men deserve it too. You know, men have trauma and that – they’re right, they absolutely are right, and I think men should have something similar.” (BS2 006 operational).

“It's gender-specific, you know, this is a first. It doesn't mean the men will never get this; it just means they haven't got it yet. But the reason women have got this is because the men have got that [male open prison]. But what the men haven't got, that the women have got, is a fence.” (BS 003 Manager).

Comprehending officer understanding and perceptions of the SPS Strategy for Women and its approaches is in turn a key part of understanding the extent to which the principles of gender-specificity and trauma-informed practice are embedded in the CCUs. Officers expressing uncertainty and vagueness, or even misunderstanding of and opposition to the principles may of course affect how far these can be meaningfully operationalised.

Officers’ views on training

In order for the SPS to meet their vision and goals for the CCUs, it is crucial that the training delivered to officers who are deployed within them is comprehensive and ensures that they feel equipped to do the job expected of them.

As outlined in Chapter 5, officers receive training on working with women that incorporates trauma-informed and gender-specific approaches delivered by the SPS Scottish Prison Service College (SPSC). They are also expected to undergo trauma-informed training sessions developed by National Health Service (NHS) Education Scotland.

With a few exceptions, CCU officers were unable to provide detailed information about any specific training that they had received in order to prepare them for working in the CCUs. Those that could, described it as a ‘waste of time’; their recall of training was at best hazy. They found it difficult to describe key components of training and relate these to the skills and understandings they needed to equip them to work with women in the CCUs. For example:

“No, I can't remember a lot of that. I mean, they did say... you know, obviously you did... women’s needs are different to men’s needs in a prison and as to why, you know, obviously certain times obviously ladies on their cycles and things... certain things are allowed and... so it... but it wasn’t really on a great deal... you know, you'd speak about... women seem to get less visitors because normally they're the ones at home looking after children.” (BS3 002 residential).

Two officers, who both had a significant length of service, could not recall much detail about the trauma-informed training, but believed they had gained appropriate skills on the job:

“I mean, it was… that was, kind of, pumped out a lot, trauma-informed, trauma-informed, trauma-informed… But I don’t really know if it ever got to the crux of what trauma-informed meant… Again, I'm not trying to blow my own trumpet by any means but I was just lucky enough to have had that experience. Whereas I think, like, some of the staff maybe not have had that experience and I'm not slating anybody ‘cause they’ve all done brilliantly, everybody done really well in here. But I think it must be very difficult if you haven't had the experiences like I've had and a couple of other senior officers have had.” (LS2 002 residential).

“So, we got like a kind of, trauma-based, kind of, like, training to do. And we got some, like, videos and all that, that we had to watch and stuff like that. So, yeah, that was interesting. But I’d kind of already had quite a good understanding of trauma-based work from, like, my programmes work and stuff like that… We did definitely talk about trauma-informed practices and we were, I’m pretty sure we were given, like case studies to have a wee look at and stuff like that. But no. That’s really all.” (LS2 003 residential).

Most staff however – both residential and operational – felt that not much had been provided in the way of initial training in gender-specific and trauma-informed ways of working. Most did not think that the training they received equipped them particularly well for working in the CCUs; many said it was not worthwhile. This included the view that the training had been ‘quite theoretical and quite generic’, and that conducting the work in practice was more complex, such as dealing with individual triggers and manifestations of trauma. Others described the training as: “it’s PowerPoint to death”. (LS2 002 residential).

Some officers described the training as too condensed: “There was loads of stuff. Don’t get… there was loads of that stuff going on but it’s all just thrown at you within two weeks, do you know what I mean, so I don’t think that’s a great way of doing it.” (BS3 003:1 residential).

“So, we do go into it a bit, I mean, there is so much to pack in this six weeks at college that they can’t delve into see, you are, kind of, like left at the end of a full day’s like learning on trauma, you are like, so many questions and you, kind of, like have to do your own research into it. I've actually sat doing modules when I've been sitting, time to spare, I have sat doing modules on, like, trauma and stress and things like that, to try and learn myself on how to, kind of, go a bit more into it. Because I think, you know, you have to, you can do the job, but I think if you really want to know more, you’ve, kind of, got to go for it and put your own learning into it.” (BS 002 operational).

At the time of the fieldwork, there did not appear to be much refresher/ongoing training. One officer described how there had been no follow-up to the initial training, and that, despite having to fill in a needs assessment (training needs etc.) upon starting work at the CCU, nothing appeared to have been done with this.

“I guess, kind of, one of the main barriers would be the lack of ongoing training. I feel like that’s something everyone would benefit from. One of the biggest issues here is complacency, a lot of staff have become extremely complacent, a lot of women in our care have become extremely complacent. So, that’s, kind of, like, a warning shot to everyone, a lot of people became complacent, so, like, ongoing training would be so beneficial.” (BS2 003 operational).

All of this echoes Vaswani and Paul’s (2019) findings that many prison staff lacked the necessary training confidence and capacities to address trauma-related issues, such as grief or post-traumatic stress.

Significantly most officers could not recall elements of gender-specificity in the training apart from searching procedures and control and restraint training. This is shown in the following example from a relatively new recruit to the prison service, who had recently completed initial training delivered by the SPS College:

“I don’t think so. The only thing that they kind of base gender on really is searching, is the only thing they really focus on, obviously for when gender comes into question, because obviously it is women to women, male to male. So, that is the only kind of really thing. Even like when we were doing like the [control and restraint] training, we spent a full week, and that’s obviously quite hands on… fear control and restraint training. So, when we spent a full week doing that you, kind of, automatically think it is the man’s job.” (BS2 002 operational).

This officer did however recall receiving training about trauma:

“I don’t know if it was gender-specific, but there was a bit of trauma training that we did and things… I wouldn't say that is even specific to women, is it, because men suffer from trauma as well? That was quite a lot of... that was used quite heavily, trauma-informed approach and things.” (BS 001 operational).

This view, that men and women equally experience trauma, was widely held by officers; they related this to their experience of working in male establishments.

On the whole, officers said that the trauma-informed training could have been more comprehensive in order to equip staff to be better prepared and more confident in working with women in the CCUs. There was a consensus that ‘learning on the job’, whereby newer recruits learn from working side by side with more experienced officers, was the key way in which officers gained knowledge and insight into working in prison. The CCUs were no exception. Yet, staff absences and high levels of short-staffing meant that practical learning was not always available or feasible. Officers also said they would have appreciated some targeted training on women’s substance misuse, suicide awareness and on dealing with women with poor mental health. Others highlighted the importance of being able to write reports about women’s progress and in relation to their case management. Whilst all officers complete a refresher course entitled Talk to Me every three years, and there are options to sign up to refresher training courses, officers do not have support or options to pursue training in this area.

Those with experience of working in other prison establishments felt that the key skills required for working with women were listening and negotiation skills, which cannot necessarily be taught:

“A lot of kind of negotiation, which is something you definitely need when working with women. Obviously working with males, they’re very different creatures to females, there’s a lot of similarities and there’s a lot of issues that come up that are pretty much the same. A lot of confrontation, luckily, we don’t get a lot of that here, but yeah, that’s, kind of, like, the main skills.” (BS2 003 operational).

Officers were, however, very positive about the learning they received in the CCUs from the clinical psychologists: “We’re very lucky we’ve got the psychologist in here as well and the psychologist is brilliant. See the difference… see even her at the training, that would have been amazing because she’s so knowledgeable, informative. She speaks to you at the right level and she gets things over.” (LS2 002 residential).

Understanding of the purposes of the CCUs

Officer understandings of the aims and purposes of the CCU are fairly aligned reflecting a shared consensus around supporting women’s progression, providing opportunities for development and for building confidence, as the following quotes suggest:

“It’s about… you know, it’s about offering women the opportunity to come here to make links with the community so that we hopefully would be in a position where they’re not returning to us… I think that’s easy to say. I think, you know, progress for women is… or men, is… you know, it’s completely different for everybody. If it means that somebody’s not coming back into custody or is in the community for a little bit longer before they’re returned to custody, I see that as a success… Likewise, here, this is about providing opportunities. This is about providing a host of supports and a host of I suppose opportunities to not come back to prison. To break that cycle.” (LS 002 Manager).

Some officers viewed women’s progression as a linear process, as the following quote reveals:

“It is obviously open plan, it is a recovery centre, my sense is to get them ready for the outside world, to go from that rehabilitation, from the locked up to freedom. So, it is that kind of middle step where we obviously help, we slowly give them more and more freedom, work placement, there are then day releases to go and see family, and then they work their way up to get their home leave.” (BS 002 operational).

Others described how the CCUs were about ‘lessening the impact of prison’ on the women (Lilias fieldnotes), by giving more tailored support for reintegration into the community, putting plans in place, setting up and continuing partnerships, and finding tailored work parties. In other words, providing ‘full throughcare’.

However there were different opinions about the value of the CCUs for particular types of prisoner, with officers frequently reflecting on the changes with regard to the sentencing profiles of women entering the CCUs since the facilities opened:

“I didn’t realise there was going to be short-termers here… I just thought it was going to be top-end and open, as opposed to short-termers, but I did think yeah, there would be women at different stages, so some on community access, some not on community access… But it boggles your mind a bit that we’ve got open, closed and top end all in one place.” (BS2 003 operational).

Some thought that living in the CCUs was not beneficial for STPs who had only a very short period left to serve. For example, a male operational officer highlighted the challenge of making ‘a real difference’ to women’s lives when they were there for just a couple of months:

“The main purpose for me is to get women who want to progress, who have maybe struggled with a few things, to come here for us to work with them for a while. I think them coming here for a month or two is difficult to make any real difference in that time… if you have got them for a year I think we could do some good work with them. Get them placements, get them their housing all sorted, get their money sorted, get everything in place so that they feel comfortable and confident when they get out.” (BS 001 operational).

Officers recognised that time (and effort) was needed to build trusting relationships with women, particularly with those who had a previous history of trauma. There was a general view that by the time residential staff had established a relationship with STPs ‘it was time for them to move on’ which they found discouraging (BS2 004 operational).

“[STPs] know they’re getting home. Whereas your lifers and LTPs are depending on parole and things like that. They’ve got a lot more reason to engage in a purposeful way.” (BS2 007: 1 residential).

Other officers, particularly those interviewed in the middle and latter stages of the research, were more disparaging in their assessment of the value that the CCUs had for STPs:

“If you’ve only got someone here for a few weeks like you’re just boarding them. You can’t work with somebody like that.” (BS2 007: 1 residential).

Some officers, however, felt that for STPs who may have not had the skills to live independently or had yet to gain some life skills (e.g. cooking, budgeting) then the CCU could offer some benefit. However, the length of time was a significant factor regarding what was achievable. There was a view that LTPs and those at the ‘top-end’ of their sentences benefitted more from skills training because they had more of an incentive to do so:

“I think it’s beneficial, whereas I think long termers get a lot more out of it, because they’ve not been out, so they might not know how certain things work now out there, and how to do this and how to do that, but then you get short-termers in that are not great and they still need to learn a lot, so it helps everybody to be honest.” (LS2 005 residential).

Commenting on the changes in the profiles of women residents, one officer said: ‘this is now just open conditions for top-end women’ (LS 004 FLM), and another: ‘I feel like, it’s a numbers game. Being honest here it’s a numbers game.” (BS2 004 operational). The changing profile of the CCUs may have been driven by changes in the women’s population, but many officers interviewed, particularly in Phase 2 of fieldwork, felt there was indeed ‘a numbers game’, referring to ‘political imperatives’ to fill the CCU facilities. That said, officers could see the benefits for all women being transferred to a CCU, in terms of accessing support, and having their needs met.

Challenges faced by staff

In addition to adjusting to new ways of working, key challenges reported by staff concerned the effect of numerous and frequent staff absences which meant extra or longer shifts. There was also what was referred to as the ‘adverse knock-on effect’ that staff absence had on the efficacy of working in the CCUs. SPS is experiencing high levels of staff shortage across the whole estate; this is largely due to staff absences from illness but also due to under-recruitment. Both CCUs were below optimum numbers of staff and those going into work felt this keenly. It created difficulties for developing shift rosters and placed pressures on existing staff.

The shift pattern as described earlier could also create problems both for officers and women. Inconsistences in practice and rules, and even a feeling that the CCU varied in terms of its ethos were consequences of different shift groups, including FLMs, working in relative isolation from each other, with little crossover. One key challenge raised by several officers was around funding/budget for activities within the CCU. They described how this appeared to be limited, meaning that officers would supply food for movie nights, books, DVDs, even gym equipment out of their own pockets. They were also frustrated by the funding of activities programmes. Sometimes successful activities that were really enjoyed by the women were unable to continue. There were also problems getting some programmes started due to the partnership agreements (see Chapter 9 for further discussion on funding concerns of delivery partners).

Budget issues were also mentioned in relation to the women’s weekly budget, and where they could buy their groceries from (limited to one supermarket, and to the SPS canteen sheet). This echoed complaints by women about being restricted to one supermarket delivery where food was often close to the sell-by date and the alternatives provided when certain stock was unavailable were not suitable. Women were unable to shop themselves; they could not visit shops and were denied online access to order food from supermarkets. Rather online food shopping orders were made by an SPS staff member on behalf of the women. Officers thought that this created dependence.

Several officers viewed the arrangements in the CCUs as ‘too risk averse’. They believed that they had developed nuanced understandings of the women in their care and as such would, if they could, have taken different decisions than those imposed on women’s lives. Examples given were of decisions to deny home leave and parole decisions. Several voiced frustrations over their lack of involvement in supporting women to reintegrate to the community. This alludes to the frustration that several officers (in both CCUs) described in relation to some risk-based decisions. These decisions prevented or delayed women accessing the community, which they understood to be a primary purpose of transfer to a CCU.

The wider view was also expressed that the SPS were themselves holding back progress on their own strategy. This was believed to be happening through risk aversion or a reluctance to embrace the different way of working, and that the SPS ‘won’t be forefront of criminal justice as not allowed to be’ (Bella, field notes).

“But we are, as an organisation, risk averse, we manage risk, it is what we do. We need to keep the public safe, that’s why we exist, I get that. But we’re innovative, we’re forward thinking, we’re taking the lead, we’re world-changing, we’re reinventing the wheel as far as custodial services are concerned. But we’re not really, because we’re risk averse. That risk averse-ness stops us. We were told when we came in, both these places, women will be able to cook for their visitors when they come in, and they can have their kids in, and they can cook them their dinner. They're not allowed to because legal services say, what happens if somebody gets not well as a consequence of the women cooking, right, and then they get unwell. Same as, my missus cooks me a dinner, I cook her a dinner, aye, one of us might take not well, I'm not going to go and sue her, or vice versa.” (BS 003 Manager).

Poor communication with senior management and inconsistencies in messaging

On the whole, officers reported that they felt well supported by local CCU managers who took time to listen to them, offer advice and were generally encouraging and reassuring. However, the distance described earlier between frontline officers working in the CCUs, and SPS senior management/policy officials around involvement in the SPS Strategy for Women was not only evident in the early days of the CCUs, but appeared to be ongoing. Most staff considered the support that they received to be less from ‘higher-ups’ who were considered ‘far removed’ from the daily operation and challenges and were infrequent visitors to the CCUs. There were several examples provided of officer requests for information from SPS senior management which were ignored or not fully addressed. As such, officers indicated they felt unsupported by senior management.

For those who had been in the CCU since its opening, ongoing communication about any changes to the running of or vision for the CCUs would keep them feeling involved. For those who joined the CCU later, ensuring a good understanding of this would be critical. Yet some officers felt that this was lacking. For example:

“No, I don’t think we’ve been given anything specific, or at least not that I’ve been fully aware of. There’s obviously stuff, like, that goes up on SharePoint that you could access to look at what the kind of, vision was. But I don’t think there’s been anything that’s been updated or, I don’t feel as if we’re regularly involved in any, kind of, meetings where… Because I think that could be potentially quite beneficial to understand. Because obviously we changed governors, and it would have been quite good for the governor to come in and talk to us and talk about how she wanted this place run and her vision. And how we slotted into that and what she would want.” (LS2 003 residential).

Officers described poor communication between staff on the ground, and more senior staff, resulting either in inconsistent decision making, or decisions removed from the reality of life in the CCUs. There was a strong view that senior management lacked cohesion and that, to do their jobs properly,officers required a better understanding from senior management of what was expected from them, and what should be prioritised. As described earlier, some officers felt unsupported by ‘higher ups’ who, it was suggested, ‘just sit there unless there is an inspection’ and officer requests went unanswered. Frustration was exacerbated by the issue of inconsistent messages from management which, officers indicated, they found disconcerting, provoking uncertainty and a lack of confidence amongst staff:

“Things change daily, depending on the managers and you’ll get one rule that’s set in stone and you’ll tell the girls, then it’s changed a couple of days later… you don’t know where you stand and as an officer, I don’t feel confident sometimes if they ask me, well what is it?, and I’m, like, I don’t know. You’re guess is as good as mine at this point. And I think that affects maybe how the girls are as well, because they don’t know what rules are set in stone and then they maybe do something that they don’t realise is now a rule again and that will obviously aggravate anybody. So, it aggravates them, then it makes the girls fall out over things and then it can become hostile and it shouldn’t happen. Like, if there’s rules there’s rules, keep them that way so everybody knows and nobody is stepping over the line.” (BS2 004 operational).

“I think it’s people’s opinions, interpretations of, kind of, how it should be. And again, we’re a different environment. We’re trying something new. We’re trying to be trauma-informed. So, for example, when physical visits are on in the Hub, some managers will say, you go in there and you be floating about. Some of them will say, no, that’s not trauma-informed. Monitor it from the CCTV, or just pop in and out. So, even little things like that. Or the way that transfers are processed when they’re coming in front of house. Again, it varies every time they come in… There will be an SOP [standard operating procedure] for it, but again, depending on the day and depending who is on shift will depend on how it’s… So, even with the prison monitor people in and, the likes of the body searching. Like, they don’t like the fact that we body search the women, but we have to because it’s in the rules, the prison rules… that we have to body search, so… Again, it doesn’t fall in line with what they’re saying here as trauma-informed.” (BS2 007:2 FLM).

Feeling unsupported meant that officers felt they had always to ‘watch their backs’. An example provided here was the issue of a lack of a secure residential room in the CCUs. Officers described how when the units were first set up, and at the time of fieldwork, the dedicated secure rooms were not signed off and so could not be used for their intended purpose. As a result of a design fault, the ‘secure rooms’ contained potential ligature points, and there was also water ingress, so the room could not be considered a safe space for women. As this meant that there was no where to put the women if removed from association, they had to be sent back to closed conditions. Despite some work later being finished on the secure rooms, we were told how there is a reluctance to sign them off, due to concern that if something goes wrong, their ‘name will be on it’.

The issue was also raised of the ‘linked prisoner area’, which is to ensure that people who are not allowed by law to be in contact with one another, can be held separately. This was described as not being possible in the CCUs, with there needing to be flexibility to the approach over this, but officers received mixed messaging on this.

In a discussion about UDR, one officer gave the following example of mixed messaging from managers:

“So, one manager looking at [UDR] could say, yeah, you’re fine, you can go to the shop. Go and nip to Home Bargains, go and do this, go and do that, whereas the manager who signs off the second [UDR] has a different opinion of it. And that’s just where the inconsistencies come in and cause stress and cause… cause drama for people, which I totally understand… And they think that it’s coming from us as well, because we’re directly the ones that are left to speak to the women.” (BS2 007:1 residential).

This theme of inconsistency in what was conveyed to officers by SPS senior management (and in turn passed on to the women by officers) extended to lack of clarity around rules and policies.

Inconsistent messaging often centred around what was allowed and what was not allowed in the Hub when family visits took place, as well as last minute changes to rosters and shift patterns. This further resulted in officer frustration and a lowering of morale due to uncertainties about what to tell the women and/or their visitors which, in turn eroded officers’ sense of professionalism. Regular ‘mornng meetings’ are the key mechanism for staff feedback in the CCUs; with surveys as the means for staff to provide feedback which they may not want to disclose in person or have attributed to them. However, there was a general perception that officers were good at supporting each other and helping each other out if needed.

Besides inconsistency, the most prominent challenge referenced by staff related to understaffing, with new officers being inexperienced and posts not being filled. Some officers believed this was motivated by cost-savings and others emphasised that there was no way to progress in post, which led to colleagues going elsewhere after having worked less than a year in the CCU.

Working with delivery partners

Officers said that there was an emphasis on the fact that it was part of the CCU officer’s role to build relationships with delivery partners. While some saw and enjoyed this being part of their remit, others felt it was not their responsibility. Some also described how they had to stake their own reputation for building these relationships. They were accordingly disappointed when the process of getting delivery partners into the CCU was so protracted and complicated that potential delivery partners gave up (see Chapter 9). Some officers described how they felt they were burning bridges with organisations who had been keen and enthusiastic. Officers referred to the barriers faced by SPS delivery partners: ‘SPS put a lot of blockers on it’. They also said ‘there is no guidance on how to fill out the Partnership Pack’ – the completion of which is part of the process to be able to deliver services in Scottish prisons. Whilst it was later clarified to us that there is guidance available on how to fill in the Partnership Packs, it is clear that officers are not aware of it and considered the Packs to be ‘horrendous’ and ‘not user friendly’. The associated paperwork was described as ‘unfair’, ‘confusing’ and’ frustrating.’ The time that it took to allow delivery partners into the CCUs was seen as a considerable obstacle. As those in direct contact with prospective delivery partners, officers believed that all of these issues ‘made staff look stupid.’

Additionally, the fact that organisations had to self-fund their visits to the CCUs and the complexity of the application process to be a delivery partner were considered obstacles and the key reasons why there were insufficient activities available. Across the interviews from all fieldwork rounds, there was a concern relayed by officers about the level of activities on offer to the women and doubts expressed about whether there were enough activities. Additional challenges were noted including lack of operational computers, no access to the internet and not having the proper equipment in place within the CCUs for the women to fully engage in the activities offered by the delivery partners.

Differences between CCUs and other closed establishments

Officers were very clear about the differences between the CCUs and the other establishments in which they had worked and how this meant that they had to adapt their working practices. In their descriptions, there was an emphasis on the lack of physical security features of the CCUs, informality versus formality, and structure versus lack of structure. Like the women, it took officers some time to adjust to the new environment and culture of working. Several spoke about having to ‘change mindsets’ to work in the CCUs. For example:

“It’s just… it’s so different. It’s hard to put into words because for as much as we think some of these women in here are institutionalised, somebody like me for example is institutionalised as well, so you come to this type of environment… [in closed establishments] you’ve got all that routine and structure around you… But here it’s completely different. So it took me a while to adapt to this role after closed establishments.” (LS 001 FLM).

Officers with long experience working in closed male prisons spoke about the need to ‘spin plates’ in those establishments and the stressful nature of having to deal with constant incidents as hall officers. They spoke of how it is a different type of pressure that they experience in the CCUs:

“It’s incident, incident, incident all the time… lots of pressure on you for incidents, medical emergencies… Here, although you are responsible for much more... the pressure feels less. You are not under the same stress levels but likewise… the stuff we are dealing with is arguably more important… It isn’t less stressful but we are not under time pressures… but the pressures are different.” (LS 003 Manager).

Working in a CCU required not only a new way of thinking in relation to working with women but also required adapting to an environment with much less emphasis placed on security and maintaining order, and fewer prisoners. Officers spoke of having to recalibrate their approach to working in the less formal and less structured environment of the CCUs. Just like for the women, moving to a CCU was a sudden immersion for staff and a cultural shock. As one said:

“Yes, so in a closed prison, you know what your boundaries are, whereas you come here and it’s like, right, okay, we’ve got knives up on the wall, you know, is that alright, you know?” (LS 002 FLM).

Some officers described how compared to a closed prison, the CCU was about ‘relationships rather than numbers’, stating that as a result, their jobs were very different. Part of the approach to working in a CCU was ‘looking at people as people’, not as potential risks or dangers, and building a rapport. One key difference identified was that in the CCU, staff members were involved in all elements of the work, whereas in the closed prison there were separate and distinct tasks/roles.

For some officers, the lack of structure and the degree of flexibility afforded by the CCUs was considered problematic for both officers and for women, reflecting some of the concerns and uncertainties of the women (see Chapter 8):

“And the women need [structure] as well. They need to see that. So I was just saying to you there that I was institutionalised because I’ve worked in the [prison] service so long and I need structure. They a hundred per cent need that, ‘cause at least I can then go home at night. They’re around that all the time and with no structure brings uncertainty and it’s just… it’s not a nice feeling.” (LS 001 FLM).

Given that most officers had only worked in men’s prisons, the shift from working in closed conditions to CCUs was bound up in views of gender differences. On the theme of differences in prison cultures, several officers raised the issue of professional boundaries, and how these can be eroded in the CCUs, particularly for female officers. For example:

“I think, in the male estate it’s much more clear cut that you’re an officer, they’re a prisoner, and very rarely the two meet… whereas especially in [CCU] just now, there’s a much more, like, friendship working relationship, which, again, brings in professional boundaries. It can be quite difficult to maintain the custody and order in terms of we are still officers, but we’re asking them to be a lot more open and honest with us…” (BS2 006 operational).

Another officer spoke of ‘having to give a bit of yourself’ when engaging with women:

“But the thing I’ve noticed about females is, they approach you, so you’ll be approached all the time, they tell you so much information, they want to chat… They want to just talk about their past, about their future, predominantly their past, they really like to talk about their past. I think they just want, like, another opinion on it, almost, so… It was a bit difficult at first, because I’m so used to the males. If you’re one on one, they’d open up a bit and you’d get a bit with them, but I was just so used to males just being disrespectful and that… disrespectful to me and then that it was it, it was, kind of, like a… it was hard, kind of, to adjust and almost, like, bring my walls down a wee bit, because I was so used to, when you work with males, obviously you wouldn’t really give any personal information, and you’d be so coy in what you were saying… But with the females, I had to, kind of, let my guard down a bit, because I found at times, not being standoffish, but I was just more listening, active listening, I suppose I were putting, kind of, my side across. But with females, you’ve, kind of, got to relate a bit, and if they’re telling you all this information, all this trauma, and they’re giving a lot of themselves to you, you can’t just nod and go, yeah, yeah. You’ve got to give a bit of yourself.” (BS2 003 operational).

Officers’ views in a closed establishment

Part of the research specification for the evaluation was to include the views of officers working in a female closed establishment with women who potentially may move to a CCU. Four officers were interviewed in the closed establishment. Three of the four had significant experience in SPS prisons and several years experience of working with women. The other officer had three years’ experience and had been working with women for under a year. Two officers had been promoted into the role which necessitated a move to this establishment. They had some idea about the CCUs but none had visited one:

“I don’t know much... We, obviously, have the basics on them, the pictures, the leaflets, that we go through national induction with, and the information that we share with the prisoners within our establishment... So, we've got the slides, and we’ll go through that. So, that’s basically what we know, and what they tell us, as well. It would be good to see what it looks like… Aye. I think when it came on, I think everybody was quite interested how it was going to work, how it was going to look.” (GS 002 residential).

As with the women, officers also spoke of the negative press that the CCUs were getting from women who had either been liberated or returned to closed conditions:

“I think at the beginning, but then some of the girls who had been in have turned round, and it's not getting the best reports. And that’s being honest. When we're speaking at national induction – oh, you don't want to go there, it's boring, there's no regime, there's nothing. Nothing to do for the women. And you've got to remember what they're used to.” (GS 002 residential).

He went on to say:

“There's not a daily routine. And I think, if you're behind walls, and there's nothing happening… there's no structure there, there's no regime, then, because they rely on their regime to get through day to day in here. And that’s what they're looking at, they're looking at, what do I do at night, and what do I do at ten, and what do I do after lunch, what do I do after tea, you know what I mean, so they’ve got all that in place. But they don't seem to have it there, so I think that, sort of, lets it down a bit.” (GS 002 residential).

In line with the research in the CCUs, interviews with women and officers in the closed establishment sought to determine their understanding of gender-specific and trauma-informed approaches and their operationalisation in their mainstream prison. As with those working in the CCUs, officers considered that women needed to be treated differently than men and also displayed the same kind of sentiments about the differences between working with women as opposed to men. For example:

“Men are much more straightforward. The way that they're managed is very different within the prison system. So, they're not as emotionally led, as what women are... With women, you're mentally exhausted at the end of the day, with men, you're physically exhausted at the end of the day. They're needy in two different ways.” (GS 001 residential).

There was a view, echoed by the CCU officers, that women get a ‘better deal’ than men in prisons. For example:

“They get a lot more resources put towards them. They get a lot more free rein, they get a lot more time out of cell. They get a lot more attention, than what the male estate does. Sometimes, the men's estate gets almost neglected in comparison... You would expect a male to be able to stay behind his door twenty three hours a day. If a female is behind their door twenty three hours a day, there's something up, there's some crisis, that the women hard done to. They are, there's different expectations from males and females within a prison population.” (GS 001 residential).

Reflecting on their training, and how it prepared them for working with women officers held similar views:

“We did trauma-informed practice, we did women in custody, we did all sorts, again, all theory based. And my honest opinion to that is that, it's great in theory, in reality unless you've got the resources to actually put it into practice… It doesn't… yeah, it doesn't live up to the actual reality of the job. It's two different things. It's very difficult to transfer that theory into reality, when you have such a lack of resources.” (GS 001 residential).

When asked to provide an example of the use of a trauma-informed approach in this establishment, this officer described several challenges which relate particularly to the closed prison environment. The examples given reveal how the design and environment of a CCU may be more well suited to implementation of this approach:

“I think about, the kind of, trauma-informed practice, and not closing doors… Or, you can't bang doors because that will maybe trigger someone. And that’s great in theory, but in reality, you're working in a hall where you've maybe got 50, 60, sometimes, sitting in that hall. And you've got one girl who's got all these triggers, but you've got a full hall, so you're trying to move someone, or relocate someone to a different area. Where the girl next door is maybe going through drug psychosis, or alcohol withdrawals, or maybe she's schizophrenic, or has some kind of personality disorder. And is kicking off, and using a lot of the resources that we need in place, a lot of the staff resources. And then have to be focused on this individual, the girl next door, as much as you could try and minimise… it's always going to occur. So, that then escalates because she's in, not meaning it bad, she's very much still getting the same attention, and she's still getting a lot more than – going back to the male estate – she's getting a lot more than what someone in the male estate would get. But that still then escalates, and escalates, until there becomes a breaking point here, and then you're, kind of, chasing your tail throughout. So, as much as it's all well and good in practice, it will deviate in practice.” (GR 001 residential).

Officers were very clear about the importance of developing strong professional relationships with the women, and on what these might look like. They were, however, of the view that women’s relationships are likely to be more easily developed with female officers and that it is difficult to for male officers to engage with women on deeper levels:

“Don't get me wrong, we get females coming over asking for [male officer], and asking for me, saying, can I speak to [male officer] today – aye, no bother. Chuck them in a booth, and I'll speak to them for two minutes, oh about that, aye, I'll try and sort that out for you. That is different, but once it's an emotional stress, or they want to speak about their trauma, and all that stuff, that’s when it's hard for a male in my position to talk to a female.” (GS 002 residential).

Officers thought there ‘should be more thought’ by SPS given to deploying officers to work with women in the women’s estate:

“I think it should be more structured. Because if I'm working with a female for a year, they're going to come to me rather than go to somebody who they’ve only worked with three or four months. Like males, but it's harder to build a relationship, a working relationship, with females, when you're not working within that hall, you know what I mean? And it's that, they come with a lot more emotional stress, and it's, are we trained on it – no, we’re not, none of us are.” (GS 002 residential).

Given that such a small number of women and officers were interviewed in the closed establishment, our conclusions here are necessarily limited and we can only offer a partial view. 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. Staff/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.

Officers in the closed prison are not so dissimilar to those working in the CCUs, sharing similar views about the need to ‘work differently’ and the challenges presented by working closely with women. However, for the most part, this was put down to working in a context of restricted resources. The same gendered views about women as being ‘emotional’ and ‘needy’, and that female officers are far better equipped to work with female prisoners were present in officers’ accounts and, as such, seem entrenched.

The use of trauma-informed and gender-specific approaches are visible in closed establishments, though possibly not implemented in such a direct, sentient and purposeful way as in the CCUs. Not withstanding the challenges to implenting these approaches that may be posed by the closed environment, officers seemed to consider the attention to prisoner’s needs to be a key expectation of their role. This was not necessarily seen as part of a dedicated gender-specific and trauma informed approach.

Summary

Officers working in the CCUs had varied lengths of experience and different career trajectories. For the most part, they had very limited experience of working with women in the prison estate. There was a feeling of unpreparedness for working in the CCUs, which was intensified by the changes that they perceived in the profile of women moved to the CCUs. The training that staff were provided with was not seen as particularly useful, nor had it equipped them for working in the CCUs. Improving officer training around working with women will likely help the SPS prisons to retain staff and enable them to feel more confident and assured in their work. Raising more awareness of the CCUs across the women’s estate, including closed establishments, to provide clear and accurate explanations about the realities of life in the CCU for both women and for staff can only help with setting and managing expectations.

Yet, running through the officer accounts of the work that they do, and aspire to do, in the CCUs, is a sense of concern for the women and a desire to ‘do things differently.’ This can be considered an important outcome for staff, although there are some concerning views about how working with women should be done. In line with other research about staff working with women in prison (Vince & Edison 2023; HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons 2024), gender performativity in male (and female) establishments appears to have shaped officer views, attitudes and expectations of women in prison. This is leading to some stereotypical views and presumptions about them and differences between women and men. This was evident in the language used to describe the women.

Officers raised several challenges that hindered their work. Key amongst these were what they considered inconsistent messages about the application of rules, and what was and was not allowed in the CCUs. Officers saw this as a source of tension and frustration both for themselves and for the women. Other challenges related to a lack of flexibility, for example around the wearing of prison uniforms. Whilst, for the most part, strong support was provided to officers from managers at a local level in the CCUs, there was a widespread feeling of being unsupported and not listened to by SPS senior management.