02 Jun 2026
Our Leading Forward series has released a new podcast episode, 'Using Dedicated Locations To Tackle The Drug Market In Prisons.'
In the latest edition of the Forward thinking Podcast, Forward Trust CEO Mike Trace discusses all things ISFL - or Incentivised Substance Free Living Units. These are currently the main method by which the Prison Service aims to tackle drug demand in prisons. Mike charts the history of similar initiatives, and calls on HMPPS to be much more ambitious in offering treatment and recovery to prisoners.
Listen on SoundCloud:
Listen on Spotify
Disclaimer: This is an edited transcript of the episode, prepared for accessibility and readability. The meaning and content are unchanged.
Mike Trace, Chief Executive, Forward Trust
Hello, everybody. Mike Trace here. This is the latest edition of my podcast or vlog, whatever you call it. We call it Leading Forward. I do this as Chief Executive of the Forward Trust.
I record some thoughts on a subject relevant to the Forward Trust areas of work and put that out through social media for people who are interested to listen. We do have webinars and discussions with staff on the topics raised. This one, I think, will go out towards the end of May, early June.
I’ve decided to cover the issue of ISFLs. Now, most of you probably won’t know what ISFL is. It stands for Incentivised Substance Free Living, and it’s a term given to dedicated locations in prisons that try to help people around drug and alcohol problems, help them to stay away from the drug market while they’re in prison, but also get help for drug and alcohol problems.
ISFLs have become one of the main responses that the Prison Service has put forward to reduce drug use and drug demand in prisons. You may have heard the Prison Service say that it’s got around 85 of these across the 120 prisons in England and Wales. More on that later. But basically, that’s what ISFLs are—and that’s what this episode is going to cover.
Now, just a bit of background on my view on these things. There’s an age-old challenge for prison governors, prison security managers, and anyone involved in prison management: how do you encourage and incentivise good behaviour among prisoners? Dedicated locations have always been part of that discussion, though not always widely implemented.
There’s long been discussion about whether certain wings or areas—enhanced wings, drug recovery wings, education wings—help in managing prisoners. My view is they do. I’m a strong supporter of using dedicated locations creatively to incentivise good behaviour.
However, in recent years we’ve been at a low ebb in using these approaches. This “weapon” in the prison governor’s toolkit has been underused over the last 20 years. I think we should bring them back in a big way.
While I’ll focus on ISFLs, many of the arguments also apply to other kinds of dedicated locations addressing different behavioural challenges.
I’ve been a supporter of this approach since the late 80s and early 90s, when I was a prison drug worker. Back then there were only a few of us, working across prisons in London and the Home Counties, helping people access treatment or services on release.
In the early 90s, an organisation called RAPt started delivering 12-step drug recovery programmes in prisons, often on dedicated wings. I was sceptical at first—as we focused heavily on harm reduction and keeping people alive during the HIV crisis—but I became a convert. These programmes showed that well-designed dedicated environments with strong psychosocial support could achieve remarkable outcomes.
I was so convinced that in 1995 I went to work for them. Through the late 90s and 2000s, organisations like RAPt and Phoenix Futures developed therapeutic communities and recovery wings in prisons.
That period—the 90s into the 2000s—was something of a golden age. Funding grew, programmes expanded, and we learned how to run them effectively. Typically, these programmes had robust staffing—around four full-time therapeutic staff plus dedicated prison officers who supported the model.
Today, we’re lucky if we have two staff on these programmes. Since around 2012, funding cuts have meant many programmes either closed or run with insufficient resources. That’s been deeply frustrating because these programmes delivered strong outcomes both in recovery and in reducing reoffending.
We also don’t consistently see the necessary management commitment. Many so-called recovery wings or ISFLs lack the key ingredients: proper staffing, intensive programmes, clear pathways, meaningful incentives, and consistent enforcement of rules.
The result is a patchwork of provision—many wings are labelled as recovery environments, but in reality lack the core components needed to be effective.
For example, Brixton’s D Wing—once a strong recovery environment—has been closed. Similarly, in the newer prison at Millsike, despite early ambitions, the dedicated recovery wing hasn’t developed as intended, largely due to challenges in managing who is placed on the wing and maintaining a recovery culture.
Overall, the last 15–20 years have been disappointing. We know what works, but we haven’t been enabled to deliver it consistently.
A bright spot is Wales. Although still under-resourced, prisons there have committed to dedicated recovery wings with specific contracts, and the results are encouraging. Prisoners choose to move onto these wings, behave better, and engage in recovery, leading to reduced reoffending.
From decades of experience and research, I firmly believe these dedicated environments work. They are one of the few interventions that can sustainably change behaviour both in custody and after release.
So where are we now?
In recent years, NHS England and the Prison Service have renewed interest in ISFLs and recovery wings. While it’s slightly frustrating for those of us who’ve seen this before, it’s positive that momentum is returning.
There was some initial duplication—ISFLs led by the Ministry of Justice and drug recovery wings led by NHS England—but ISFLs have since expanded significantly. However, although there are now many such locations, quality varies greatly.
One key lesson is clear: you cannot simply designate a wing as substance-free—you must provide proper treatment and support. Without it, the model fails.
Unfortunately, most ISFLs still lack adequate resources. Providers often have to “duck and dive” to deliver the best possible support with limited funding.
While leadership recognises the importance of improving quality, achieving this on the ground is extremely challenging. Without sufficient staffing, funding, and strong management backing, these initiatives can’t reach their potential.
If prisons allow drug users or dealers onto these wings, or if there is insufficient treatment provision, it undermines everything.
At Forward Trust, we’re working hard to improve standards—sharing best practice and supporting staff—but progress is limited by the lack of dedicated funding and consistent national drive.
In my view, every prison should have one of these dedicated recovery environments.
We have the knowledge, the evidence, and the commitment of staff. What’s missing is the investment and leadership priority needed to make it work at scale.
So I continue to lobby ministers and civil servants: if you’re serious about tackling drugs in prisons, this is one of your best tools. It doesn’t require massive investment—just proper commitment, funding, and implementation.
Right now, we have good intentions and good people, but not the system-wide push needed.
Until then, we’ll keep doing what we can—making the most of the ISFLs we run, and continuing to push for better.
Thank you to everyone working on this, and thank you for listening. I look forward to continuing the discussion.
