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

9. Experience and views of CCU delivery partners

Delivery partners (DPs) provide an important link between the CCUs and the community. Their involvement with SPS more broadly is intended to facilitate engagement between prisoners and the community both during and at the end of their sentence. The views of delivery partners were sought to explore their aspirations and experiences of providing services to women in the CCUs.

The chart below shows the range of delivery partner organisations who responded to the online surveys and reveals the range of services offered.

Organisations were at different stages of involvement with the CCUs: some were delivering regular courses or sessions, some were awaiting approval from SPS and others were in the process of completing their SPS Partnership Packs. Some found the process of gaining approval for entry to the CCUs frustrating and/or challenging, and not all persisted. This was especially true for smaller organisations, or individuals who would have liked to provide a voluntary service to the CCUs but found the bureaucracy particularly prohibitive. As one survey respondent noted in the free text space of the first online survey:

“We have had very mixed success in our liaison with the CCUs, with Bella so far being more responsive than Lilias. This is an ongoing challenge.”

Some survey participants indicated that they were in the process of establishing a service in one or both CCUs. Other service providers had established either a regular service that operated across several prisons or were providing a time-specific programme to one or other of the CCUs (as well as across other prisons). One organisation had regularly delivered a programme to several prisons, but this was currently suspended “due to a lack of funding”.

DP representatives who participated in the focus groups included statutory service providers with direct and integral roles in the CCUs and wider penal estate providing input to wellbeing and criminal justice focused roles. There were also other organisations located in the voluntary sector with a specific community-based service provision (i.e. specialist support, mental health and recovery services) or more generally in the arts or creative activities.

Access to the CCUs

Access to establishments varied. While delivery partners who had well established links across the prison estate were positive about communication processes within CCUs, others noted various issues with timetable clashes and challenges accessing the women.

One noted that their organisation had previously worked for several years with prisons across SPS but had withdrawn their service – “it was a lot of system barriers that kind of ground us down eventually.” (DP FG3).

The opening of Lilias offered a ‘new resurgence’, new energy and an innovative approach which resulted in the organisation re-establishing themselves as a delivery partner. However, they did not receive any funding from SPS – “But everybody else, the health and social care partnership and criminal justice pay, you know, a decent contribution towards the running costs, same in the homeless sector, but not with the Scottish Prison Service.” (DP FG3).

Participants were very positive about the CCU environment. In the free text space of the online survey, it was remarked that the ‘relaxed space’ of the CCUs was considered to encourage participation – it ‘freed up the atmosphere’. Most participants agreed that the CCU atmosphere was completely different to closed conditions, that the units felt like a new approach and that women were ‘a lot more relaxed at the CCUs’:

“Well, I think what Lilias and Bella probably stand for is a kind of modern, fresh, innovative approach that… just the atmosphere is so, so unbelievably different to, you know, Barlinnie or what was Cornton Vale or Polmont, you know, the atmosphere, it’s like… it feels like a community centre. What just gives us a little reminder that it’s not is that prison officer moving around in uniform.” (DP FG 3).

Challenges in delivering a gender-responsive and trauma-informed service

Delivery partners were generally aware of the SPS Women’s Strategy. According to Survey 1 responses, 56 per cent of delivery partner respondents were fully aware of the women’s strategy, 38 per cent were somewhat aware and 6 per cent were not aware. In focus groups and interviews, all participants indicated their awareness of the SPS emphasis on both gender-responsive prisons and trauma-informed approaches. However, there were differing views on the extent to which these concepts were understood and implemented in practice.

While more intensive support was considered possible when the CCUs had lower numbers of prisoners, it was noted that this became more challenging when the units neared capacity. Resourcing also affected delivery partners’ ability to provide support to women in the CCUs. For some service providers, support/intervention in community settings was provided on a one-to-one level before participants joined a group with others at similar stages of progress. This was not possible for third-sector DPs when working in prisons. Relatedly, several participants noted that while they felt the environment of the CCUs was intended to be ‘therapeutic’, they were unclear if individual therapeutic interventions were being offered to the women. It appeared that delivery partners were generally organising their intervention around groupwork which worked well for many, but not all:

“For us, you know, that is trauma-informed, that a group would be made up of people who are at the same sort of stage, level, and there’s not too many dominant people. That’s how we would do it here [in the community]. Obviously for Lilias we can’t do that. We’re having just random women dropping in and out of sessions depending on who is there. We don’t always know the background.” (DP FG1).

It was noted that the SPS Women’s Strategy 2021-2025 acknowledges that women’s needs are different to those of men. However, delivery partners noted that SPS (as an organisation) applies the same rules, processes and procedures, regardless of gender, claiming this was an ‘equalities issue’:

“I think, locally, within Lilias, we are seeing real progress in terms of the culture shift. But as a wider organisation, you're, kind of, then hit with, really rigid structures, and processes and procedures, that don't really meet the needs of the women, from where we see it at times.” (DP FG2).

One participant noted that there is an absence of any nuanced understanding of ‘risk’ (as gendered) and women with adverse circumstances/experiences are often viewed in terms of risk rather than need. One DP noted that CCUs are trying to “do everything right” in terms of culture, but noted that there remain anomalies – i.e. why do prison officers still wear uniforms? Why, if all women have a key to the facility, are rooms still locked? This was generally viewed as the result of the application of the wider SPS rules (designed for closed prisons), to the CCUs which were intended to operate under a different ethos.

Community access and throughcare

A key issue to emerge from the delivery partners was the expectations around community access and anticipation that the CCUs would operate in line with the open prison estate in terms of community engagement. The process of transfer between closed prisons and CCUs was also somewhat unclear to several of the DP participants. They also indicated this process was not always clear to the women themselves. Of note, was the lack of information shared with family members when a woman had been identified for the CCUs. Some DPs noted that they were unclear if Family Strategy Meetings were taking place on a regular basis in either of the CCUs. Whilst such meetings do take place on a weekly basis within the CCUs, it is clear that DPs are unaware of this.

Community access for the women appeared to be variable and differed from how DPs and women had anticipated. It was perceived by some that individual CCU managers could influence this, with one DP noting that a new manager who tried to ‘push for this’, led to more women being able to go out of the unit for various things, as a result:

“I think it’s definitely got a lot better, I’d say in the last six months or so, it’s a lot better, there’s so much more. At any one time, there’s at least a couple of women out and about doing things in the community or at appointments or work or stuff.” (DP FG3).

Throughcare was considered by two participants (in relation to new funding arrangements) who noted that it was difficult to anticipate what DPs might be able to provide if new commissioning arrangements required changes to their working practices. Another participant referred to the importance of throughcare officers, noting that they no longer accompany people to services on release. This was seen as a challenge for sustaining continuity with services in the community:

“I think throughcare’s really critical. So, you do hope that they (the prisoner) form a strong bond, an alliance with certain organisations where there is a possibility to come and do things, but it’s just being really mindful of the magnitude of what it takes, perhaps an element of bravery or motivation to actually go to a group outside when you’ve completed your sentence.” (DP FG3).

Another participant added:

“The throughcare officers were absolutely amazing, it was a brilliant service… that was a shocking decision [not to continue with this], but yeah, it’s definitely been a big loss, and we’ve found, you know, a lot more that we’ve had to try and cover within the prison before the release as well, because we don’t have that person within the prison to bring in and make that seamless transition anymore. It’s been tough.” (DP FG3).

However, ongoing challenges of access to the community were identified. One participant indicated:

“I don’t recall having any conversation then about, well, what will the ladies actually be doing? And, I guess, I assumed that with a name like a Community Custody Unit, I assumed they would be out in the community a lot more than they actually were”. (DP FG3).

While it was noted that there was increasing third sector input to the CCU – which provides good connections and continuity for release – other opportunities were not available to the women (i.e. prisoners were not able to shop in a nearby Tesco store). Overall, however, there was a general view that access to the community from the CCUs had improved considerably, in the last six months.

Suggestions from delivery partners

Participants were asked about the kind of support or resources that would assist them in delivering trauma-informed and gender-specific work in women’s prisons – and in meeting the aims of the Women’s Strategy. Suggestions included having a key member of staff that could provide a central contact for delivery partners, joint training with SPS staff and more training round specific issues. Access to small private spaces, and improved flexibility with timings were noted, along with better access to establishments and improved funding – where limited funding acted as a barrier for some service-providers. Other suggestions included easier or better access to the community for prisoners. It was felt this would allow them to engage with services in the community while in the CCUs and thus to establish improved opportunities for longer-term engagement after release.

“Raising awareness of the work we do and why is an ongoing challenge. Support for women in prison can be a crowded landscape; perhaps a role that focuses on community engagement/awareness of local services would be helpful, especially for CCUs, as women there are supposed to be linking with community-based services anyway?” (DP FG3).

It was also noted that delivery partners appreciated the engagement of women prisoners and prison staff with their service, but that it would be useful to have an opportunity to meet with senior SPS management. This would be useful to discuss and reflect upon what was working well and how services could develop in co-operation with the unit.

The applicability of Prison Rules and their enforcement in the CCUs was identified as an area worth further consideration with SPS management, as the focus on risk could undermine the intention and efficacy of service delivery with the women.

Summary

This chapter highlights that DPs generally found the CCU environments and aesthetics to be impressive. However for some, lack of resources (funding) and private space could inhibit their opportunity to work with individual women. Lack of equipment in the CCUs was also noted (for example no hairdressing facilities or library) – which was more noticeable when women were not generally able to access these services in the community. They found the CCUs to be welcoming and the atmosphere generally conducive to the work that they wanted to do. However, the Prison Rules impacted significantly on what was achievable and the lack of community access for most women was seen as an impediment. In this regard, the SPS focus on risk appeared to be at odds with the stated ethos of the CCUs.

The process for gaining access to the CCUs was considered onerous and lengthy. Once access was gained, individual DPs had differing views as to whether women had been made aware of the service delivered by their organisation and whether, or not, it was appropriately advertised to women by CCU staff. There was a perception that officers seemed committed to supporting women, however it was considered that CCU staffing issues (i.e. retention, absences, turnover) impacted service provision. 

That DPs fund their services was seen as prohibitive for smaller third sector organisation and individuals. It seemed to some, that at times services going into the CCUs were uncoordinated with some degree of overlap on what was offered. This suggests the need for a strategic overview of services and activities in the CCUs, with some DPs indicating that the opportunity to discuss what they could offer and how it might be delivered in the CCUs, with senior SPS management would be welcome.