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

10. To what extent is SPAROW’s Theory of Change for CCUs being implemented as planned and are its anticipated outcomes occurring as anticipated?

This penultimate chapter makes use of the full suite of research data gathered across the separate phases of the study. Using the initial SPAROW Theory of Change (ToC) set out in Chapter 4, it outlines the key challenges to implementation as evidenced by our research data. These are used to set out a revised ToC.

Testing the key strands of the initial ToC

In this section we take each of the ‘activities’ set out in the initial ToC and summarise the evidence that exists to support/challenge the anticipated short/medium term outputs and outcomes. These activities are:

• establishment of CCUs with appropriate and informed staff recruitment;
• training for staff in gender- and trauma-informed care;
• identification of target women and implementation of informed choice in move to CCUs;
• delivery of care informed by gender- and trauma-informed principles, and;
• working with delivery partners to facilitate development of wellbeing, empowerment, life skills and successful reintegration.

The key barriers to successful implementation are presented in Figure 4: A Revised ToC.

Establishment of CCUs with appropriate and informed staff recruitment

The first part of this activity within the ToC is the easiest to measure and confirm that short-term outcomes have been met. The aspiration in the original strategy to open five CCUs had soon shifted to two and there were delays in construction, partly as a result of COVID-19 and because of longer than anticipated processes to make CCUs fit within local communities. However, from a strategic point of view, the built environments of the two established CCUs were viewed to meet the vision of ‘light, garden, colour, connections between buildings’ and ‘to look and feel like home’. The built environment and aesthetics were positively viewed across all research stakeholder groups.

The recruitment of the right staff proved challenging for several operational reasons despite strategic recognition of the fundamental importance of having the best people in place. Strategic-level stakeholders reflected that initial recruitment and training had taken place too early (due to delays in establishment of the CCUs), resulting in recruited staff moving on to different roles.

By the time that fieldwork was taking place, some officers did not remember the details of training. Some felt the shift from closed conditions to be a significant change for which they didn’t feel prepared (although they remembered recruitment as being rigorous). Officers who had been recruited had significantly varying lengths of service (from under three weeks to over three decades). Some had little experience of procedures such as risk assessment and monitoring, and remained uncertain about these, and the majority had no experience of working with women in prison. Those who did have this experience viewed it as a requisite for working in a CCU.

Training for staff in gender and trauma-informed care

This element of the ToC is not well supported by the evidence collected from officers. They either did not remember the content of training received or they recalled it to have been poorly focused on gender-specific training (beyond methods of control) and on trauma-informed care (which was felt to be generic and not sufficiently focused on managing specific triggers). Training was felt to have been too condensed with insufficient follow-up or missing important reflection and practice-based learning. A challenge was found in balancing some of the tenets of trauma-based care (including breaking down power imbalances) with the rules and systems of prison life, even within CCUs. There was also a concern that staff were insufficiently experienced to understand the implications and practice of trauma-based care.

Identification of target women and implementation of informed choice in move to CCUs

As discussed earlier, a set of criteria and a process were established to identify women who would be suitable for transfer to CCUs with different levels of scrutiny dependent on sentence tariff. There is oversight by the Governor of HMP Stirling, who has discretion in decisions. The process includes different access to communities depending on category of sentence and progression status. In this respect this component of this activity is demonstrably in place.

However, concerns were expressed about the identification and admission process, the resulting CCU population and about the implementation of informed choice for women. The process of identification and decisions on progress to community access was not clear to women (or to many officers). There was a commonly expressed view that ‘corners were being cut’ in the assessment of suitability – for example, by conducting interviews with women by phone rather than in person. Examples were given of women being approved for CCUs despite breaching one or other exemption – such as a serious mental health diagnosis.

A major source of tension within the CCUs, as perceived by officers and women, was the fact that women have different progression categories and different levels of community access (including work placements). Relatedly, both officers and women considered that those on LTP and top-end tariffs view it as unfair that STPs have not spent sufficient time in closed conditions and are not as invested in making the CCUs work. A further concern raised by officers was that women are being moved who have not met the requirement of three months in closed conditions. This was felt to be driven by an imperative to show that the CCUs are operating at capacity. Decisions on community access for LTPs were felt to be inconsistent and unnecessarily time-consuming because of the need for involvement of HMP Stirling.

Officers and women shared the view that the extent to which informed choices were made by women to move to the CCUs was compromised. This was caused by a lack of information about their purpose, limited information provided on the reasons why individual women were selected, a lack of familiarisation visits and limited time to consider the move. For some women the move happened within a matter of days and the rapidity of the move could feel overwhelming, particularly for LTPs.

A further element of transparency around the identification of women relates to the process and criteria for the return of women to closed conditions. This is discussed further below but women expressed a lack of understanding of what would constitute a reason for return. An example was given whereby a lack of clarity by officers resulted in a woman’s conditions being breached and a return effected.

Delivery of care informed by gender-and trauma-informed principles

This is in many ways the most difficult strand of the CCUs to evaluate because of the highly subjective and abstract nature of certain aspects of the principles and the heterogenous nature of women and officers. Here we highlight both the positive experiences delivered to women in CCUs but also how barriers to gender- and trauma-informed care were manifest. In the round these suggest that more needs to be done over a longer time frame to better embed these principles in care.

The physical environment and the opportunity for greater privacy alongside staff who treated them with respect and humanity were highly appreciated. Nonetheless there are a series of paradoxes at play which make trauma-informed and gender sensitive practices difficult to square with prison rules and institutionalisation. For example, a constant fear of having community access revoked or of being returned to closed conditions meant that women withheld issues of concern from their POs to avoid an Adverse Circumstances Report being compiled. This acts contrary to the development of autonomy and independence.

The physical layout and relative freedom of movement within communal spaces increased autonomy and privacy to a degree. However, for some women this was discombobulating and made privacy more difficult than the more binary contrast between locked cell and communal activity within closed conditions.

The relationship which women have with their POs is core to trauma-informed practice. By and large women were very positive about being treated with respect. However, for those who have experienced significant trauma, this can be treated with wariness and there is the risk of dependency which operates against autonomy and independence.

There was wide recognition from staff that women prisoners have gendered pathways, experiences and needs but frequently this led to rather stereotyped and essentialising differences around emotions and neediness.

The number of areas where women identify inconsistencies in treatment and opportunities or a lack of knowledge about why things are as they are also act as barriers to empowerment. A key example of this is in relation to the ordering of food, its preparation, and the ability to share it with families. Food can be transgressive in the CCUs and can be a rationale for returning women to closed conditions due to a lack of clarity and inconsistencies in what can and cannot be done with it.

Working with delivery partners to facilitate development of wellbeing, empowerment, life skills and successful reintegration

As discussed in Chapter 3, we were unable to include the views of women who had been released nor their family members and so successful reintegration to communities and families could not be assessed. Further, despite best efforts we were able to secure research participation from only a relatively small number of delivery partners (although these did cover both CCUs and a variety of delivery partner types including the extent of their experience in working with SPS). The small number makes assessment of this range of activities more difficult to conclusively assess. However, those that were surveyed/took part in focus groups had relatively similar perspectives on working with the CCUs.

Delivery partners who participated in the evaluation included statutory services with a regular and ongoing presence within the CCUs (and wider prison estate) and third sector providers. They had a wide remit and offered a range of services that included health, wellbeing and support, arts and creative engagement. Delivery partners were very positive about the built environment of the CCUs but some would have liked the opportunity to see women in smaller private spaces rather than in groupwork settings especially when prior histories are not known. Private spaces would help with the delivery of trauma-informed care. The bureaucracy of accessing CCUs was felt to be prohibitive, and some potential partners had not persisted for this reason. Whilst some partners noted positive communications with the CCU, others noted the opposite and experienced challenges in accessing women and timetable clashes. Some partners noted the lack of funding for their activities and contrasted this with funding from other public sector organisations. In addition, the limited community access across the CCU population and of throughcare were identified as barriers to reintegration. There was a view that a focus on risk was impeding community access and causing anxiety for women, compromising their wellbeing. Further barriers included an overreliance on the concept of equalities – ensuring that what was available to women or allowed in terms of rules and regulations should match that for men. A gendered analysis of risk was thought not to be always understood and enacted. It was noted that joint staff training and a key contact would be useful in breaking down barriers and in helping facilitate the aspirations around improved wellbeing, life-skills and longer-term community reintegration.

Women identified that in CCUs they had better access to social workers and to housing officers although access to formal education programmes was felt to be better in closed conditions. As identified before, access to home leave and other privileges and work placements were thought to be inconsistent. Women’s experiences of activities offered in the CCU were mainly positive, but it is unclear the extent to which they felt empowered by them. They were positive about the efforts made by delivery partners but there was a sense that some activities were rather randomly selected rather than being part of a wider programme of life skill or empowerment and not always consulted on.

Figure 4. SPAROW – A Revised Theory of Change

Assumptions:

• Gender- and trauma-informed approaches, combined with a commitment to empowerment, can shape relationships between women, staff, and delivery partners, and improve the care provided.

Context:

• SPS New Model of Custody for Women, 2019.

Activities:

• Establishment of Community Custody Units (CCUs) with appropriate and informed staff recruitment.
• Training for staff in gender- and trauma-informed care.
• Identification of target women and implementation of informed choice to move to CCUs.
• Delivery of care for women based on gender- and trauma-informed principles (including SPS Strategy 6 core values).
• Collaboration with delivery partners to support wellbeing, empowerment, life skills, and successful reintegration.

Barriers

• Engagement of local communities in establishing CCUs.
• Lack of evidence that gender- and trauma-informed practice is consistently applied by staff; insufficient follow-up and practice-based reflective training.
• Perceived inconsistency in application of criteria and processes for identifying candidates and returning to closed conditions; discrepancies between informed choice processes and women’s experiences of these.
• Adherence to SPS rules and regulations, long-term institutionalisation, and unclear communication and processes hinder autonomy and independence despite generally good staff-women relationships.
• Limited community access and through-care; lack of private space, poor communication and access to women impede gender- and trauma-informed delivery.

Short/medium-term outputs/outcomes:

• Facilities operational and full complement of informed staff recruited and in place.
• All staff trained and aware of the practice implications of gender- and trauma-informed care.
• Clear and transparent processes for identifying women to move to CCUs and women fully informed in decision-making to move.
• Women aware of and perceive the reality of gender- and trauma-informed care and SPS Strategy 6 core values; women feel supported in establishing/maintaining family links and preparing for successful integration in the community.
• Range and scale of delivery meets aspirations for supporting women’s health and wellbeing, empowerment, life skills, and reintegration. Delivery partners aware of the practice implications of gender- and trauma-informed care and feel supported by CCUs to deliver care in this way.

Longer-term outcomes:

• Women feel empowered, better informed, better supported by staff and better able to connect to the communities and social networks within which they will integrate.