National Preventive Mechanism Annual Report 2009–10 All inspections are conducted against published criteria known as expectations. There are separate expectations for adult prisoners, children and young people in prison, immigration detention and police custody. Expectations draw on and are referenced against international human rights standards. Expectations are also based on the concept of a healthy prison that was first set out by the World Health Organisation but which has been developed by HMIP and is now widely accepted as a definition of what ought to be achieved in any custodial environment. Findings from prison inspections are brigaded under four tests of a healthy prison – safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement. For immigration detention, findings are brigaded under similar tests but resettlement is replaced by preparation for release. HMIP gathers evidence from a range of sources during inspections, including confidential surveys of randomly selected prisoners or detainees, focus groups and individual interviews with prisoners or detainees, interviews with staff, documentary analysis and observation by inspectors. Following publication of inspection reports, inspected institutions produce an action plan addressing the recommendations made by HMIP. Impact of NPM membership Designation as a member of the UK’s NPM has had a significant impact on the work of HMIP, not least because it has assumed the coordination role for the NPM. Designation has also resulted in increased cooperation between HMIP and other independent inspectorates and visiting bodies, both at national and international levels. It has also led to an expansion of HMIP’s remit – the introduction of joint inspections with HMIC of police custody came about as a direct result of the UK’s ratification of OPCAT. HMIP’s remit may expand even further in future to being involved in inspections of court custody facilities in England and Wales, as well as more extensive inspection of military detention facilities, both in the UK and overseas. Summary of activities In 2009–10, HMIP carried out 70 inspections of prisons and young offender institutions involving a mixture of announced and unannounced, full and follow-up inspections. It also carried out 21 inspections of immigration removal centres, short-term holding facilities and escorting arrangements, and 14 police custody inspections. In addition, HMIP was invited to inspect the Military Corrective Training Centre and prisons in Northern Ireland and Guernsey. As well as inspecting individual institutions, HMIP carries out thematic inspections. These allow findings from across a number of institutions to be presented in one report and for recommendations to be made and good practice highlighted. In 2009–10, HMIP published thematic reports on race relations in prison, alcohol services in prison, the experiences of 15 to 18-year-olds in custody and detainee escorts and removals.14 In its report on alcohol services in prison, for example, HMIP noted that 19% of prisoners surveyed in 2008–09 reported having an alcohol problem when they entered prison. This is almost certainly an underestimate as many of those with alcohol problems 14 All thematic reports, and all inspection reports, are available on HMIP’s website. 24