HMP Doncaster

Section 2. Respect
Recommendation
2.18 The diversity and equality action plan should be implemented, diversity should
be promoted, and disparities emerging from equality monitoring data
systematically addressed.
Protected characteristics
2.19 Eighteen per cent of the population were from a black or minority ethnic background. Their
responses to our survey questions were largely comparable to white prisoners, although
there were significant exceptions; for example, more said they were victimised by staff (40%
against 28%). Our survey indicated that there were about 40 Gypsy and Traveller prisoners
but the prison had only identified 16. These prisoners did not meet as a group or receive
specific support.
2.20 Support for foreign nationals prisoners (6% of the population) was good and better than we
usually see. The equality and diversity coordinator assessed the individual needs of all foreign
national new arrivals. The prison had surveyed foreign nationals’ needs and created an action
plan to meet them, some of which had been implemented. Foreign nationals could send a
free weekly email letter and those without visitors received an additional £10 telephone
credit a month. Immigration enforcement officers attended the prison fortnightly to
interview foreign nationals of interest to them. The equality and diversity coordinator
referred foreign nationals to a local firm of solicitors, distributed Bail for Immigration
Detainee factsheets in English and other languages, and facilitated bail applications. At the
time of our inspection, there were nine immigration detainees held after the end of their
custodial sentence, and it was not clear why some could not be moved to an immigration
removal centre. Immigration enforcement officers informed some detainees of their further
detention only on the day their sentence ended. The foreign national policy and information
booklet were out of date.
2.21 The prison had identified 145 prisoners with disabilities, yet our survey suggested about 300
such prisoners. The needs of some but not all disabled prisoners were met. In our survey,
disabled prisoner were more negative about safety issues than those without a disability. The
prison was developing a social care unit in the annexe, which held 23 prisoners in need of
care because of their disability or age, but it was sometimes only staffed by one officer and
could not accommodate all disabled prisoners. Some were held in cells without adaptations
on the regular residential units. Disabled prisoners had emergency evacuation plans and basic
care plans. Social services recommendations were not always implemented. For example,
one prisoner had not received a hospital bed that he required. A wheelchair user told us that
he had not showered in over two years because there had been no reasonable adjustments
to enable him to access a shower. Prisoners were employed as helpers to assist disabled
prisoners with their day-to-day living, and clearly understood the boundaries and limits of
their role.
2.22 Young adults comprised 15% of the population and were mostly held on two house blocks.
In our survey, they were more negative than prisoners over 21 in their responses to more
than half the questions. For example, only 43%, compared with 81%, said that staff treated
them with respect, and no young adults, against 24% of those over 21, said that staff normally
spoke to them during association. The prison’s own data showed that young adults were
over-represented in proven adjudications, good order or discipline, the basic level of the IEP
scheme, use of force and full control and restraint techniques. Despite this, the prison had
no strategy to meet their needs.
34 HMP Doncaster