HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
for England and Wales
Annual Report 2016–17

HC 208

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England
and Wales
Annual Report 2016–17
Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 5A of the Prison Act 1952 as
amended by Section 57 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.
Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 18 July 2017.

HC 208

© Crown Copyright 2017
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where
otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3
or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email:
psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from
the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at:
www.gov.uk/government/publications and
www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons
Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at:
hmiprisons.enquiries@hmiprisons.gsi.gov.uk
Print ISBN  9781474146494
Web ISBN  9781474146500
ID 14061733 07/17
Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum.
Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

CONTENTS
Who we are and what we do

4

1

Introduction

6

2

The year in brief

14

3

Men in prison

17

By the Chief Inspector of Prisons

Growing concerns on safety

20

Sharp decline in respect outcomes

29

Locked up and not in purposeful activity

38

Resettlement services not meeting the challenge

46

4

Women in prison

52

5

Children in custody

60

6

Immigration detention

70

7

Police custody

78

8

Court custody and escorts

84

10 The Inspectorate in 2016–17

88

11 Appendices

94
1

Inspection reports published 2016–17

95

2

Healthy prison and establishment assessments 2016–17

97

3

Recommendations accepted in 2016–17

99

4

Recommendations achieved in 2016–17

101

5

2016–17 survey responses: diversity analysis

104

6

2016–17 survey: key responses from men and women

112

WHO WE ARE
AND WHAT WE DO
Our purpose

Education and Inspection Act 2006 section 146; and
To ensure independent inspection of places of detention, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 section 9.
report on conditions and treatment, and promote positive
outcomes for those detained and the public.
Most inspections take place in partnership with
other inspectorates, including Ofsted, Estyn,
Our values
HM Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC), Care Quality
	 Independence, impartiality and integrity are the Commission (CQC), HM Inspectorate of Probation and
foundations of our work.
the General Pharmaceutical Council, appropriate to
	 The experience of the detainee is at the heart of the type and location of the establishment.
our inspections.
OPCAT and the National Preventive Mechanism
	 Respect for human rights underpins our
expectations.
All inspections carried out by HM Inspectorate of Prisons
	 We embrace diversity and are committed to
contribute to the UK’s response to its international
pursuing equality of outcomes for all.
obligations under the Optional Protocol to the UN
¡¡ 	We believe in the capacity of both individuals
Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or
and organisations to change and improve, and
Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT). OPCAT
that we have a part to play in initiating and
requires that all places of detention are visited regularly
encouraging change.
by independent bodies – known as the National Preventive
Mechanism (NPM) – which monitor the treatment of and
Our remit
conditions for detainees. HM Inspectorate of Prisons is
We inspect:
one of several bodies making up the NPM in the UK and
coordinates its joint activities.
¡¡ adult men’s and women’s prisons in England
Our approach
and Wales
¡¡ young offender institutions (YOIs) in England
All inspections of prisons, immigration detention
and Wales
facilities, police and court custody suites and
¡¡ secure training centres (STCs) in England
military detention are conducted against published
¡¡ all forms of immigration detention, including
Expectations, which draw on and are referenced
escorts, throughout the UK
against international human rights standards.1
¡¡ police custody in England and Wales
Expectations for inspections of prisons and immigration
¡¡ court custody in England and Wales
detention facilities are based on four tests of a healthy
¡¡ Border Force custody in England and Scotland
¡¡ military detention facilities throughout the UK,
establishment. For prisons, the four tests are:
by invitation
¡¡ prisons in Northern Ireland by invitation
¡¡ Safety – prisoners, particularly the most
¡¡ prisons and other custodial institutions in other
vulnerable, are held safely.
¡¡ Respect – prisoners are treated with respect for
jurisdictions with links to the UK, by invitation.
their human dignity.
Our remit is set out in section 5A of the Prison Act
¡¡ Purposeful activity – prisoners are able, and
1952 as amended by section 57 of the Criminal
expected, to engage in activity that is likely to
Justice Act 1982; Section 152 (5) of the Immigration
benefit them.
¡¡ Resettlement – prisoners are prepared for their
and Asylum Act 1999; Section 46 (1) of the
release into the community and helped to reduce
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;
the likelihood of reoffending.
the Police and Justice Act 2006 section 28; the
1	 All the Inspectorate’s Expectations are available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/our-expectations/

The tests for immigration detention facilities are
similar but also take into account the specific
circumstances applying to detainees and the fact that
they have not been charged with a criminal offence
or detained through normal judicial processes. The
other forms of detention we inspect are also usually
based on variants of these tests, as we describe in the
relevant section of the report.
For inspections of prisons and immigration
detention facilities, we make an assessment of
outcomes for prisoners or detainees against each
test. These range from good to poor as follows:
Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are good against
this healthy prison/establishment test
There is no evidence that outcomes for prisoners/
detainees are being adversely affected in any
significant areas.
Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are reasonably good
against this healthy prison/establishment test
There is evidence of adverse outcomes for prisoners/
detainees in only a small number of areas. For
the majority, there are no significant concerns.
Procedures to safeguard outcomes are in place.
Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are not
sufficiently good against this healthy prison/
establishment test
There is evidence that outcomes for prisoners/
detainees are being adversely affected in many
areas or particularly in those areas of greatest
importance to their wellbeing. Problems/concerns,
if left unattended, are likely to become areas of
serious concern.
Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are poor against
this healthy prison test
There is evidence that the outcomes for prisoners/
detainees are seriously affected by current
practice. There is a failure to ensure even adequate
treatment of and/or conditions for prisoners/
detainees. Immediate remedial action is required.

Inspectors use five key sources of evidence in
making their assessments:
¡¡
¡¡
¡¡
¡¡
¡¡

observation
prisoner/detainee surveys
discussions with prisoners/detainees
discussions with staff and relevant third parties
documentation.

Since 1 April 2013, all inspections of adult prisons and
immigration detention centres have been unannounced
(other than in exceptional circumstances), and have
followed up recommendations made at the previous
inspection. Prisons are inspected at least once every
five years, although we expect to inspect most every
two to three years. Some high-risk establishments may
be inspected more frequently, including those holding
children under 18, which are now inspected annually.
Every immigration removal centre (IRC) receives
a full unannounced inspection at least once every
four years, or every two years if it holds children.
Non-residential short-term holding facilities are
inspected at least once every six years. Residential
short-term holding facilities are inspected at least
once every four years. Within this framework, all
immigration inspections are scheduled on a
risk-assessed basis.
We inspect each police force’s custody suites at
least once every six years, or more often if concerns
have been raised during a previous inspection or by
other intelligence. We carry out inspections of court
custody facilities in three areas each year.
In addition to inspections of individual
establishments, we produce thematic reports
on cross-cutting issues, singly or with other
inspectorates as part of the Criminal Justice Joint
Inspection process. We also use our inspection
findings to make observations and recommendations
relating to proposed legislative and policy changes.

1
SECTION ONE
Introduction

Introduction

by the Chief Inspector of Prisons

6

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION ONE
Introduction

This is my second annual report as HM
Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and
Wales. The report describes the activities
of HM Inspectorate of Prisons and sets
out in broad terms our findings across the
various types of detention on which we
report. I would like to pay tribute to the
support we receive from the leaders and
staff of the establishments we inspect,
many of whom are working under immense
pressure in often difficult and sometimes
dangerous circumstances. Without their
cooperation, frankness and help our task
would be immeasurably more difficult. The
Inspectorate also relies heavily on surveys,
individual discussions and group work
with prisoners and other detainees. I am
grateful to all those who have helped enrich
our knowledge and understanding of their
treatment and the conditions in which they
have been held during this past year.
At the heart of our work is the inspection of
adult prisons, which hold more than 81,000
men and nearly 4,000 women. Last year I
reported that too many of our prisons had
become unacceptably violent and dangerous
places. The situation has not improved – in
fact, it has become worse. There have been
startling increases in all types of violence.
The biggest increase is assaults on staff
which, in the 12 months to December 2016,
rose by 38% to 6,844 incidents. Of these
789 were serious, an increase of 26%. In
total there were more than 26,000 assaults,
an increase of 27%. Of the 29 local prisons
and training prisons we inspected during the
year, we judged 21 of them to be ‘poor’ or
‘not sufficiently good’ in the area of safety.
It is widely recognised that the conditions
in which prisoners are held has an impact
on their sense of well-being. In this context,
it is particularly concerning to see that

the number of self-inflicted deaths has
more than doubled since 2013, and that
in the 12 months to March 2017 113
prisoners took their own lives. Self-inflicted
deaths are investigated by the Prisons
and Probation Ombudsman (PPO), who
also makes recommendations to prevent
recurrences. We found that one-third of the
prisons we inspected had not implemented
PPO recommendations well enough, and
there were often recurring themes of failure
in process and practice. This report points
out that in many of these prisons, there
have been subsequent self-inflicted deaths.
So why is it that so many of our jails
have become so unsafe? Many of the
reasons have been well documented.
The prevalence of drugs inside prisons,
and the seeming inability to keep them
out has clearly been a major factor. Debt,
bullying, and self-segregation by prisoners
looking to escape the violence generated by
the drugs trade are commonplace. This has
all been compounded by staffing levels in
many jails that are simply too low to keep
order and at the same time run a decent
regime that allows prisoners to be let out of
their cells to get to training and education,
and have access to basic facilities.
During the past year, I have seen far too
many prisoners who are being held in
conditions that cannot be described as
decent. In the vast majority of cases this
is not because of poor staff attitudes
or weak leadership. In fact, it is to the
immense credit of staff that in our surveys
of prisoners, 74% say that they are treated
with respect. In light of the overcrowding
in many jails and the excessive time many
prisoners spend locked in their cells,
this speaks well of the dedication and
professionalism of most staff. However,

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

7

SECTION ONE
Introduction

in the area of respect, the fact remains
that in the space of a year the percentage
of adult male prisons we have judged to be
‘good’ or ‘reasonably good’ has slumped
from 78% to 49%. This is a dramatic and
rapid decline.
If prisoners are to benefit from activities,
courses and programmes that can help
them rehabilitate and lead better, more
useful lives in the future, they need to be
able to leave their cells. Our expectation
is that prisoners should be unlocked for
at least 10 hours a day. According to our
prisoner survey, only 14% of prisoners
achieve this, and the figure is as low as 4%
for young adults and 8% in local prisons.
Shockingly, 30% of young adults (aged 18
to 21) being held in adult establishments
told us that they spent less than two
hours a day out of their cells. Shortages of
staff undoubtedly have an impact on how
much time prisoners are unlocked, but
on occasions we have seen unjustifiably
restricted regimes that are clearly
counterproductive.
These figures suggest a serious
deterioration in standards in our prisons,
but they do not describe it. What is it
like for prisoners on a day-to-day basis?
During the course of the year I have often
been appalled by the conditions in which
we hold many prisoners. Far too often I
have seen men sharing a cell in which
they are locked up for as much as 23
hours a day, in which they are required
to eat all their meals, and in which there
is an unscreened lavatory. On several
occasions prisoners have pointed out insect
and vermin infestations to me. In many
prisons I have seen shower and lavatory
facilities that are filthy and dilapidated,
but with no credible or affordable plans for
refurbishment. I have seen many prisoners
who are obviously under the influence of
drugs. I am frequently shown evidence of
repeated self-harm, and in every prison
I find far too many prisoners suffering
from varying degrees of learning disability
or mental impairment. I have personally
8

witnessed violence between prisoners, and
seen both the physical and psychologically
traumatic impact that serious violence has
had on staff. My anecdotal experience is no
substitute for the broader evidence-based
findings, but if I have experienced this
during the course of inspections, what must
be the impact on the prisoners and staff
who endure these things every day of their
lives?
It is obvious that there is no quick or easy
solution to these deep-seated problems.
Some commentators propose a dramatic
reduction in prisoner numbers, or a huge
increase in investment in staff and facilities.
It is not for HM Inspectorate of Prisons to
say which is the right approach. That is a
matter of policy for government. However,
it is undoubtedly the job of the Inspectorate
to point out where the imbalance between
staff and prisoner numbers adversely
affects the treatment of and conditions for
prisoners. An immediate impact in far too
many prisons is that staff shortages make it
impossible to provide a decent, rehabilitative
environment. When a person is sent to
prison, the state accepts responsibility for
their well-being, including their physical and
mental health, safety and education. There
is clear evidence that for too many prisoners
the state is failing in its duty.
Thankfully, we found a better state of
affairs in women’s prisons. We inspected
five establishments during the year, and
in only one prison did we judge a healthy
prison area to be ‘not sufficiently good’ –
this was for purposeful activity. Despite
the complex needs and vulnerabilities of
many women prisoners, we found that
in all the prisons we inspected there
were strong outcomes for safety, respect
and resettlement. However, it is deeply
concerning that the incidence of
self-inflicted death and self-harm among
women has risen dramatically. In 2016 the
self-inflicted deaths of 12 women was the
highest figure since 2004, and this is even
more worrying in light of the significant
decline in the female prison population over

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION ONE
Introduction

that time. In addition, women
self-harm at a rate far higher than that
of their male counterparts. In fact, they
are around five times more likely to do
so, which is perhaps consistent with our
survey findings pointing to much greater
vulnerability among women coming into
prison. The closure of HMP Holloway has
led to other women’s prisons being more
crowded, and also means that more women
are now being held further away from
friends and family. We shall closely monitor
the impact of these developments during
future inspections, and hope that the
introduction of new ‘community prisons’
for women, and the dedicated focus
which should flow from having a single
management structure for women’s prisons
within HM Prisons and Probation Service
(HMPPS, formerly NOMS), will have a
positive impact on outcomes for women.
Perhaps the most concerning findings
during the year emerged from our
inspections of the custodial estate for
children and young people. In the light of
the revelations last year about apparent
mistreatment of children at Medway Secure
Training Centre (STC), we took the decision
that we must maintain the momentum of
our inspections at STCs and young offender
institutions (YOIs). The outcome of those
inspections has been very troubling. Not all
of the relevant inspection reports had been
published within the timeframe covered
by this annual report, but in early 2017
I felt compelled to bring to the attention
of ministers my serious concern about our
findings.
By February this year we had reached the
conclusion that there was not a single
establishment that we inspected in England
and Wales in which it was safe to hold
children and young people. The background
to this dire situation is significant, and I
make no apology for repeating here some
of the relevant statistics. At that time there
were around 609 children held in YOIs
and 155 in STCs. The Youth Justice Board
Annual Statistics for 2015–16 showed

self-harm rates running at 8.9 incidents
per 100 children compared with 4.1 in
2011. Assault rates were 18.9 per 100
children, compared with 9.7 in 2011. Our
own surveys showed that 46% of boys had
felt unsafe at their establishment. The
number of those reporting being victimised
by other boys had risen significantly, and
those who said they had been treated with
respect by staff had fallen. Meanwhile, the
proportion of boys engaged in a job (16%),
vocational training (11%) and offending
behaviour programmes (16%) across
the YOIs was lower in 2015–16 than at
any point since 2010–11. To compound
all of this, our inspections of individual
establishments showed that none of them
at that time reached the standard of ‘good’
or ‘reasonably good’ in the area of safety.
The fact that we had reached a position
where we could not judge any institution
to be sufficiently safe was bad enough, but
the speed of decline has been staggering.
In 2013–14 we found that nine out of
12 institutions were graded as reasonably
good or good for safety. The reasons for
this slump in standards are no doubt
complex, but need to be understood and
addressed as a matter of urgency. It may
well be that the decline in the number
of children and young people held in
custody means those who remain are the
most challenging to manage. I suspect
this is an oversimplification. The quality
and consistency of leadership at these
establishments will obviously have a direct
impact on the quality of what is delivered.
All too often we find that governors,
directors and other senior managers for the
young people’s estate move from one post
to another far too quickly.
The aspirations set out in 2016 in Charlie
Taylor’s review of the youth justice system
are of course welcome, and one can
only hope that in due course they will
provide a template for a system within
which children and young people can
benefit from a constructive and productive
approach to addressing their behaviour. In

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

9

SECTION ONE
Introduction

the meantime, we see establishments in
which there seems to be something of a
vicious circle. Violence leads to a restrictive
regime and security measures which in turn
frustrate those being held there. We have
seen regimes where boys take every meal
alone in their cell, where they are locked
up for excessive amounts of time, where
they do not get enough exercise, education
or training, and where there do not appear
to be any credible plans to break the cycle
of violence. Quite apart from the human
cost of these conditions, there is a large
amount of resource, such as teachers and
classrooms within the estate, that are being
paid for but not used because institutions
cannot get boys to education either on time
or at all.
I set out these concerns in a letter to Dr
Lee, the Minister for Victims, Youth and
Family Justice on 14 February 2017. On
24 February, it was announced that a new
Youth Custody Service, as a distinct arm of
HMPPS, would become responsible for the
operational running of the children and young
people’s estate. Time will tell if their work
can break the cycle of violence besetting
these establishments. The current state of
affairs is dangerous, counterproductive and
will inevitably end in tragedy unless urgent
corrective action is taken.
HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ inspection
of immigration detention is detailed
in this report, and sets out our work at
three immigration removal centres, the
Cedars pre-departure accommodation
for families with children, 18 shortterm holding facilities and one escorted
overseas removal. Safety outcomes were
reasonably good at two of the IRCs, but
there were concerns about the situation
at Morton Hall. There was frustration
among the detainees that was caused, to
a large extent, by the uncertainties facing
many of them as to how long they would
be detained in what were very prisonlike conditions. There was a considerable
amount of antisocial behaviour, some
violence and a self-inflicted death.
10

As is so often the case in immigration
detention, delays in casework sat behind
much of the frustration. It was worrying
too that, as in prisons, new psychoactive
substances (NPS) were beginning to have
an impact within immigration detention.
It was good to see that there had been
some improvements in the Rule 35
process, designed to protect those with
serious health problems or who had been
the victims of torture. However, it was
a pity that by far the best provision in
the immigration detention estate in the
UK at Cedars, for use by families with
children awaiting deportation or an ensured
administrative removal, was closed on the
grounds of low use and high cost. It is to
be hoped that the replacement facility at
Tinsley House will be of similar quality.
During the course of the year our joint
inspection work with HM Inspectorate of
Constabulary (HMIC) developed as we
introduced a revised version of Expectations
for Police Custody. This had a renewed
focus on the vulnerabilities of those coming
into custody, on diversity and safety.
Police custody has been considerably
professionalised in recent years, and the
advent of modern, purpose-built custody
suites has helped enormously. However,
there needs to be a continuing focus
on safety, with too many forces still not
sufficiently aware of potential ligature
points, particularly in older accommodation.
There are also still too many deficiencies in
the governance of the use of force. We hope
to see greater attention to and improvements
in these important areas.
We have continued in our role as the
coordinating body for the National
Preventive Mechanism (NPM). In 2016, for
the first time, the NPM appointed a fully
independent chair, a role previously filled
informally by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons.
I warmly welcome this appointment. The
NPM as a body should be as independent
as possible from its constituent members,
and to that end it would be a positive
development in the future for its funding

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION ONE
Introduction

to be transparently separate from that of
HM Inspectorate of Prisons, and sufficient
to fulfil its increasing and internationally
mandated role.
The Inspectorate has a programme of
thematic inspections, and these are fully
referenced within the report. However, I
will make particular mention of our report
Unintended consequences: Finding a way
forward for prisoners serving sentences of
imprisonment for public protection. This
report was the second we have produced
pointing out the injustice suffered by many
prisoners who, through no fault of their
own, are unable to demonstrate whether the
risk they pose has reduced, and therefore
be in a position to make an application
for release. There are difficulties and
blockages in prisons, probation and the
Parole Board. The conclusion of our
report was that the only person with the
authority and capability to grasp the issue
was the Secretary of State. The architects
of these sentences now admit that their
implementation was flawed. We received
an action plan from NOMS (now HMPPS)
in response to the report, and shall monitor
to see whether the urgency of the issue is
matched by the vigour of the response. Our
last report on this subject was in 2008 and
disappointingly, little has changed in that
time except for an increase in the sense of
injustice and frustration brought about by
these sentences.
The year has been marked by an
unprecedented political and public focus
on the need to improve conditions in our
prisons. In early 2016 the then Prime
Minister announced a programme of prison
reform that was intended to put education
at the heart of the process of rehabilitation,
and improve the conditions in which
prisoners are held. In February 2017, the
Prisons and Courts Bill was introduced into
Parliament. This Bill contained several
important provisions directly relevant to the
work of the Inspectorate. Throughout the
year, we had worked closely with those who
were drafting the Bill, and were pleased

to see that many of the proposals in our
submission to the Justice Select Committee
in September 2016 had been incorporated
into the draft clauses. The Bill was lost
when the General Election was called in
April 2017. Nevertheless, I hope that as
far as possible the aspirations of the Bill,
particularly in terms of sharpening the
response to Inspectorate reports, can be
realised through administrative directions.
I shall be working closely with officials to
this end.
However, some important and long soughtafter provisions contained in the Bill
appear to have been lost for the forseeable
future. For instance, for the first time
there was to be statutory recognition of our
independence. This was to be achieved
through a reference to the Inspectorate
being established in accordance with the
‘objective of OPCAT’, the UN’s Optional
Protocol to the Convention against Torture
and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment, to which the
UK is a signatory. Incorporating this into
legislation would have had the effect of
making Parliament the guardian of our
independence, which would have been a
most welcome development.
The relationship between HM Inspectorate
of Prisons and the Ministry of Justice (MOJ)
as our sponsor department is crucial. At
times in the past there have been tensions,
not always constructive, particularly in
the area of budgetary delegation and
financial controls. During the course of
the past year HM Inspectorate of Prisons
and the MOJ, with the encouragement and
support of the Justice Select Committee,
have worked closely together to develop a
protocol describing how the relationship
should work. This document was signed off
in March 2017. It sets out the essential
elements of our independence, and
references the prerequisite of independence
for our role as a member of the NPM. It
is the first time that there has been an

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

11

SECTION ONE
Introduction

explicit recognition in this form of our
independence, and in due course I hope
this will be strengthened in statutory form.
As an independent inspectorate without
formal powers, we rely upon persuasion,
logic, goodwill and publicity to achieve our
impact. We are an inspectorate whose role
is to find things out and report what we see.
Our inspection criteria are underpinned by
international human rights standards. This
means we are consistent in the standards
we expect to see, and are not influenced by
policy swings, bureaucratic convenience,
resource constraints or political expediency.
We neither have nor seek regulatory powers.
However, I am concerned by the fact
that this year we found – for the first time
– that the number of our recommendations
that had been fully achieved was lower
than the number not achieved.
Figure 1: Percentage of recommendations achieved
per reporting year2
50

we found all of these to be fundamentally
unsafe prisons. To compound the
individual failures to implement safety
recommendations, we also found across
the entirety of our inspections that 42% of
recommendations on safety from previous
inspections had not been achieved.
Perhaps we should not be surprised by the
decline in standards. Safety is the basis
upon which any other constructive activity
in a prison is dependent. Unsafe prisons
will not rehabilitate, reform, educate, train
or provide a therapeutic environment for
the all too many people in them suffering
from mental health issues. It is for this
reason that I welcomed the provisions
in the Prisons and Courts Bill to require
a response to our recommendations,
and in extreme situations to require the
Secretary of State to intervene. Of course,
it shouldn’t need legislation to make
these things happen. I hope that the new
administration sees the obvious good sense
of these proposals and quickly implements
them by means of unequivocal
administrative directions.

Percentage

40

30

20

10

0

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

2015/16

2016/17

Report Year

Achieved

Partially Achieved

Not Achieved

The reasons for this are not always clear,
but the impact is. For instance, we have
seen far too many prisons achieve the
lowest possible grading in the area of
safety. In many cases the response to
previous recommendations has been
unforgivably poor. At HMP Wormwood
Scrubs and HMP Featherstone only two
out of 20 safety recommendations were
achieved; at HMP Swaleside it was four
out of 24. Perhaps it is not surprising that

During the course of the past year I have seen
many prisons and other institutions operating
under extreme pressure. The challenges
thrown up by the prevalence of illegal drugs
and other contraband, increasing violence,
too many prisoners suffering from mental
health issues, an ageing prison population
and a prison estate that in many places is
not fit for any purpose, let alone the decent
detention of human beings, are stretching
hard-working and well-intentioned staff
to their limits. Reform is overdue. It is in
that context that we decided to review the
Expectations upon which we base our work.
They will remain grounded in the enduring
and independent basis of internationally
recognised human rights norms. Our role
will remain that of assessing the outcomes
for prisoners and detainees, and not of
assessing compliance with self-generated
policies, or deciding whether those policies
are achieving their self-defined objectives.

2	 This includes recommendations and main recommendations. Recommendations judged as ‘other’ or ‘no longer relevant’ have
been excluded. Data is for all adult male and female prisons and YOI establishments.
12

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION ONE
Introduction

That is clearly a role for line management, and not
for an independent inspectorate.
Finally, I would like to thank each and every
member of the Inspectorate for their unfailing
commitment to our work. Only with their help
and support could we deliver every aspect of our
inspection programme on time, to the quality that
is expected of us, and with the impartiality and
integrity that has become our hallmark. It is a
vitally important role and they perform a valuable
public service.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

13

2
SECTION TWO
The year in brief

The year in brief

14

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION TWO
The year in brief

Between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017
we published 86 inspection reports.
Adult prisons (England and Wales):
	 36 prisons holding adult men3
	 five prisons holding adult women4

Establishments holding children and
young people:
	 four young offender institutions (YOIs)
holding children under the age of 185
	 four inspections of three secure training
centres (STCs) holding children aged 12
to 18, jointly with Ofsted

Immigration detention:
¡¡
¡¡
¡¡
¡¡

three immigration removal centres
one pre-departure accommodation
18 short-term holding facilities6
one overseas escort.

Police custody:
	 police custody suites in 10 force areas
with HM Inspectorate of Constabulary
(HMIC)

Court custody:

Other publications
In 2016–17, we published the following
additional publications:
¡¡ A review of short-term holding facilities,
2011–16
¡¡ The impact of distance from home on
children in custody
¡¡ Unintended consequences: Finding a way
forward for prisoners serving sentences of
imprisonment for public protection –
a thematic review
¡¡ An inspection of through the gate
resettlement services for short-term prisoners
(jointly with HMI Probation)
¡¡ Monitoring places of detention. Sixth annual
report of the United Kingdom’s National
Preventive Mechanism 2015–16 (on behalf
of the NPM)
¡¡ Children in custody 2015–16. An analysis
of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their
experience in secure training centres and
young offender institutions (commissioned by
the Youth Justice Board)
¡¡ Life in prison: Contact with families
and friends
¡¡ Life in prison: Food

	 three court custody areas covering four
counties and two areas of London

Extra-jurisdiction inspections:
¡¡ three prisons in Northern Ireland7

3	 Including Maghaberry prison and Hydebank Wood Secure College in Northern Ireland, and resulting in 37 assessments,
including separate assessments for the category C unit at Winchester and the category D unit at Hewell.
4	 Including Ash House prison in Northern Ireland.
5	 The inspection at Wetherby and Keppel produced separate assessments for each unit.
6	 The Calais and Coquelles report covered three facilities.
7	 Maghaberry prison received a full inspection and a low impact review in this period.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

15

SECTION TWO
The year in brief

In July 2016, we also published a new
edition, following extensive consultation, of
Expectations for police custody: Criteria for
assessing the treatment of and conditions for
detainees in police custody. During 2016–17
we also began drafting and consulting on
a new version of our Expectations for adult
male prisons, with the aim of applying these
in the 2017–18 reporting period.

Our reports and publications are published
online at:
http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/
hmiprisons
Report publication and other news is notified
via our Twitter account. Go to:
https://twitter.com/HMIPrisonsnews
or @HMIPrisonsnews

We made submissions to a range of
consultations and inquiries, and also
commented on a number of draft Prison
Service Instructions and Orders and draft
Detention Services Orders, including:
	 Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on
support for ex-offenders (21 April 2016)
	 Women and the Criminal Justice System
inquiry (2 May 2016)
	 National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence (NICE) review of the physical
health of people in prison (24 June 2016)
	 National Offender Management Service
review of incentives and earned privileges
scheme (13 July 2016)
	 Lammy review of black and minority
ethnic representation in the criminal
justice system (25 July 2016)
	 Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs
inquiry into older drug users
(30 August 2016)
	 Health in Justice and Other Vulnerable
Adults review of women in the criminal
justice system in London: a health strategy
(19 September 2016)
	 Justice Committee inquiry into prison
reform (20 September 2016)
	 Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths in
Custody inquiry into deaths of women in
custody (6 January 2017)
	 Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry
into mental health and deaths in prison
(3 February 2017)

16

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION TWO
The year in brief

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

17

3
SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Men in prison

18

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION
THREE
SECTION
THREE
Men
in prison
Men
in prison

All the findings from prison inspections in
this section are based on the fourth edition
of our Expectations: Criteria for assessing
the treatment of prisoners and conditions
in prisons, published in January 2012.
During our full inspections in 2016–17,
we made 378 healthy prison assessments
covering 35 prisons and young offender
institutions holding adult and young
adult men (figure 3).

We have compared the outcomes for the
prisons we reported on in 2016–17 with
the outcomes we reported the last time we
inspected the same establishments (figure
4). Overall, outcomes broadly remained
unchanged or declined in each healthy
prison area.

Figure 3: Published outcomes for all prisons and young offender institutions
(YOIs) holding adult and young adult men (37)
6

Safety
Respect

8

2

14

9

16

Purposeful activity

7

19

12

13

Good

5

Reasonably good

Resettlement

16

4

15

Not sufficiently good

2

Poor

Number of HPAs improved/ unchanged/ declined

Figure 4: Outcome changes from previous inspection (prisons and YOIs holding adult and young adult men – 37)
20
19

19

17
15

15

14

15

12
10

10
8

5

8

6

5

Declined
Unchanged
Improved

0

Safety

Respect

Purposeful

Resettlement

8	 This figure includes separate assessments for the category C unit at Winchester and the category D unit at Hewell, which
were both located separately from the main prisons.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

19

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Growing concerns on safety
Suicide and self-harm

	 Safety had declined in 15 prisons inspected with just
five prisons showing improvement.
	 We continued to find gaps in the identification of risk
for new prisoners at a time when they were at their
most vulnerable.
	 Levels of self-harm and the number of deaths in
custody continued to rise at an alarming rate. Lack of
activity, mental illness, illicit substances and growing
debt all contributed to prisoner self-harm.
	 Violence continued to escalate at an unacceptable
rate, and significantly more prisoners than before told
us that they felt unsafe.
	
 We identified major concerns about the governance
and oversight of use of force and segregation.
	 There were good to impressive services for prisoners
with substance misuse needs.

There were 324 deaths in male prisons
in England and Wales in 2016–17, an
increase of 44 from the previous year.
These included:
¡¡ 103 self-inflicted deaths (a rise of 10%
from the 94 recorded in 2015–16)
¡¡ 194 deaths from natural causes (up
from 162 in 2015–16)
¡¡ three apparent homicides (down from
six in 2015–16)
¡¡ 24 other deaths, 21 of which were yet
to be classified.
Levels of self-harm had also risen, from
32,313 reported incidents in 2015 to
40,161 in 2016 – an increase of 24%.

Figure 5: Safety outcomes in establishments holding adult and young adult men
Good

Reasonably
good

Not
sufficiently
good

Poor

Local prisons

0

3

7

4

Training prisons

2

3

5

5

Open prisons

4

0

0

0

High security
prisons

0

2

0

0

Young adult prisons

0

0

2

0

Total

6

8

14

9

Outcome of previous recommendations
In the adult male prisons reported on in 2016–17,
43% of our previous recommendations in the area of
safety had been achieved, 15% partially achieved and
42% not achieved.9

Prisoner self-harming and the number of
deaths in custody continued to rise at an
alarming rate. In our survey, on average
21% of men said they had problems with
feeling depressed or suicidal when they
arrived in prison. Many prisons had no
coherent strategy to reduce self-harm or
suicide, and often we did not find sufficient
evidence that enough was being done to
prevent such crisis for individual prisoners.
In almost three-quarters of our reports
on men’s prisons we were critical of the
establishment’s response to one or more
of the key factors that can contribute
to prisoner self-harm or even suicide.
We made main recommendations about
this in eight establishments. These findings
are clearly unacceptable.
Despite our repeated recommendations,
we still found major weaknesses in
assessment, care in custody and teamwork
(ACCT) processes in many prisons.

9	 Note that figures have been rounded and may not total 100%. This applies throughout the report.

20

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

ACCT case management procedures
were poorly implemented in many
cases. For example, care plans did
not reflect all the issues identified
in assessments, attendance at case
reviews was poor, case management was
inconsistent, and few care plans were
updated following reviews. In addition,
we found little mental health staff input
for prisoners with mental health needs,
with the exception of those held in the
segregation unit. Lewes
Isolation, lack of purposeful activity, mental
health problems, use of new psychoactive
substances (NPS),10 bullying and debt
were all highlighted as issues that led to
prisoners hurting themselves or attempting
suicide. Despite pockets of good practice
in suicide and self-harm prevention,
prisoners in around a third of inspected
establishments were negative about the
overall care and support they received
during their most vulnerable times. Staff
shortages, increased violence and antisocial
behaviour, widespread use of NPS and
severely restricted regimes characterised
many of the prisons we visited.
Some prisoners we spoke to said they did
not feel cared for or supported by staff
while they were in crisis. Some said they
felt observed rather than engaged with
and we found some in cells with nothing
to keep them occupied. Nottingham
Despite our repeated recommendations,
we continued to find men on ACCTs in
segregation units with no exceptional
reasons to justify this. Segregation is
inappropriate for those at risk of suicide
or self-harm, and prisoners rarely receive
the care and support they need in such
restrictive and punitive environments. Our

inspections reported on in 2016–17 found
that at least five men took their own lives
while in segregation units, of whom four
were subject to ACCT case management.
Deaths in custody have a major impact on
family, friends, other prisoners and staff,
yet too few of the recommendations from
the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
(PPO), which investigates all deaths in
custody, were given sufficient attention.
Around a third of the prisons inspected
– including Leeds, Nottingham, Bedford,
Winchester, Cardiff and Hewell – were
not implementing or reinforcing PPO
recommendations well enough, and they
had all experienced further self-inflicted
deaths since previous inspections.
There had been seven self-inflicted
deaths since our previous inspection.
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman
had identified failings in the prison’s early
days assessment, care and emergency
procedures… some of the concerns were
still evident. Leeds
In contrast, other establishments did
manage the risks around self-harm and
suicide well.
Recommendations from the Prisons
and Probation Ombudsman were taken
seriously and most had been fully
implemented. The number of self-harm
incidents was lower than at similar
prisons and prisoners at risk of self-harm
told us they were well supported. Staff
had a good knowledge of their individual
circumstances and ACCT processes were
mostly good. Stafford

10	 Drugs that are developed or chosen to mimic the effects of illegal drugs such as cannabis, heroin or amphetamines and may
have unpredictable and life-threatening effects.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

21

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Early days – daunting times for prisoners
at their most vulnerable
In 2016 there were 26 self-inflicted deaths
in prisons within the first month of the
prisoner’s reception. These accounted for
22% of all such deaths.
A prisoner’s early days in prison can be an
extremely daunting experience, and yet we
found few improvements in this area.
Journeys to prisons were often lengthy
and continued to be in very cramped
conditions. Although prisoners arriving at
local prisons travelled shorter distances,
they had often spent several hours in stark
court cells with little to do. Such delays
frequently resulted in prisoners arriving in
large numbers, which affected their first
night care and compromised their safety.
Some establishments, such as Full Sutton,
Wormwood Scrubs and Leeds, had made
positive attempts to mitigate such problems
through increased use of video links for
prisoners’ court appearances.
New arrivals were often held in sparse, dirty
holding cells with little information about
what was available to them during their
sentence. The routine use of strip-searching
continued in many establishments, and
individual risk assessments were infrequent.
However, there were a few exceptions.
Searching arrangements were appropriate
with strip searching only for prisoners
coming direct from the court and/or about
whom there was relevant intelligence.
Glen Parva

Some prisons did take steps to alleviate
prisoner anxiety in their early days. Exeter
made good use of a voluntary organisation,
Choices Consultancy Service, with
volunteers interviewing all new arrivals,
assisting with family contact and providing

practical information. In contrast, new
arrivals at Hindley spent their first night
in unacceptable conditions, and unable to
take a shower or make a telephone call.
Understanding how the prison works and
learning how to navigate through various
options, rules and procedures is important
to new prisoners. Despite this, the quality
of induction programmes was too variable.
At Hewell, the process was chaotic; staff
dealing with the induction and first night
processes appeared overwhelmed by the
complexity of needs among their prisoners.
However, Norwich and Whatton had made
efforts to address the experience and
well-being of new arrivals.
The prison had undertaken a ‘bus to
bed’ exercise in 2015 to understand and
improve the experience for new arrivals,
from their arrival in the escort van to
location in their cell. The resulting action
plan had improved outcomes for prisoners
throughout the process. Whatton

Bullying and violence
Figure 6: HMPPS data on assaults11
Assault
incidents
12 months ending
December 2016

Serious Assaults on
Serious
assaults
staff assaults on
staff

26,002

3,519

6,844

789

Quarter to end
March 2016

6,073

815

1,526

176

Quarter to end
June 2016

6,564

881

1,733

211

Quarter to end
September 2016

6,838

960

1,834

222

Quarter to end
December 2016

6,547

863

1,751

180

Levels of violence had continued to rise
at the vast majority of the adult male
establishments we inspected – in one or two,
this rise was extraordinary. At Featherstone,

11	 These figures have been drawn from the HMPPS Incident Reporting System. Care is taken when processing and analysing
returns but the detail is subject to the inaccuracies inherent in any large scale recording system. Data on assaults for 2016 is
available in the latest published Safety in Custody statistics at https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/safety-in-custodystatistics

22

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

23

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

levels of violence had increased considerably
since the last inspection and were far
higher than elsewhere; violence against
staff had increased the most. At the same
time, in most of our surveys significantly
more prisoners than previously told us that
they felt unsafe – at Leeds, the percentage
who said they felt unsafe at the time of the
inspection had tripled, from 10% to 31%.
This worrying and continuing upward trend
in violence was reflected in our judgements.
We were sufficiently concerned to make main
recommendations about violence at 21 of the
35 adult male prisons inspected.
Much of the violence could be attributed
to drugs and associated debt, but in some
prisons, such as Hindley and Feltham B, it
was borne out of the frustration caused by
restricted and unpredictable regimes.
Despite the good work of the safeguarding
team, the establishment as a whole had
failed to identify and address factors such
as an extremely poor regime, boredom
and the lack of access to basic needs
that had contributed to the high level of
violence. Hindley
In too many prisons, a lack of visible
leadership had led to a poor understanding
of the reasons for the increase in violence,
and failure to set appropriate standards
of behaviour for prisoners and staff.
Prisoners were not usually consulted about
the problem of violence, the quality of
investigations into incidents often varied,
and there was little data analysis to identify
patterns and inform action plans. However,
some prisons were making a concerted
effort to reverse these trends.

24

The number of violent incidents, the
seriousness of violence and the level
of tension in the establishment had all
reduced markedly… More resources
and attention by a multidisciplinary
management team had been devoted to
violence reduction. Elmley
This was not the case everywhere, and at many
places the monitoring and management of the
perpetrators of violence were invariably weak.
At Onley, the custodial violence management
model, a new NOMS pilot project, was not
properly resourced. Across the estate, we
found very few interventions to encourage
positive behaviour in violent prisoners –
instead, prisons relied heavily on punitive
measures through the incentives and earned
privileges (IEP) scheme and adjudication
process. There was usually very little or no
support for victims of violence.
In this context, we found prisoners at several
prisons, including Wymott, Swaleside and
Featherstone, self-isolating in fear for their
safety. There was insufficient management
oversight of this issue and too often a failure
to identify these vulnerable prisoners. As a
result, many of them endured an impoverished
regime with little support or planning to help
them reintegrate.
However, some prisons, such as Buckley
Hall and Elmley, showed what could be
achieved in reducing violence through
mobilising multidisciplinary teams and
targeting resources effectively. Norwich had
also developed a simple but focused overall
strategy – 26 to Fix – which included aims to
improve safety outcomes.

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Incentives and earned privileges scheme
Despite its inappropriate use at too many
establishments, some prisons did use the
IEP scheme as part of a strategic plan to
reduce violence and address poor behaviour.
The scheme was sometimes used alongside
mediation and restorative justice programmes
to good effect.
The establishment was attempting to
increase the value of IEP through an
‘active citizenship’12 approach, drawing
on research outcomes to motivate
prisoners to make sustained positive
contributions to the common good of the
prison community. The ‘active citizenship’
approach was used to broaden pathways
to the enhanced level while remaining
within the parameters of national policy.
Stafford
However, in too many establishments staff
and prisoners were often unclear about how
the scheme operated, and it was applied
inconsistently with little focus on the
underlying causes of poor behaviour. In our
survey, only 42% of prisoners felt they had
been treated fairly under the IEP scheme, and
only 40% said that it had encouraged them to
change their behaviour.
Most prisons viewed IEP as a vehicle to
punish bad behaviour rather than motivate
good behaviour, and in some establishments
the punishments were harsh. Prisoners were
also sometimes routinely placed on the basic
level of the IEP scheme for a single violent or
antisocial act, rather than for a pattern of poor
behaviour. As a result, there was often a high
number of prisoners on the basic level.

The number of prisoners on the basic
level of the IEP scheme had trebled since
the last inspection, while the number of
enhanced prisoners had halved… there
was not enough focus on the underlying
causes of poor behaviour. Risley

The regime for prisoners on basic was variable.
While this was managed reasonably at Full
Sutton and Elmley, in other places, such
as Swinfen Hall, prisoners on basic had
only limited time out of cell to demonstrate
improvements in behaviour.

Use of force and segregation
In around two-thirds of prisons reported on, we
found high levels of force used on prisoners
and significant gaps in its governance. In
half the prisons inspected, we had concerns
about the quality of documentation used
to justify the use of force. Video footage
and documentation did not always provide
adequate evidence that the use of force was
necessary or proportionate to the risk posed.
Use of force paperwork had deteriorated
from a low base at the last inspection and
required immediate action to provide any
form of assurance that force was justified.
Examples of use of force we viewed on
CCTV did not always appear justified or
proportionate. Swaleside
The use of segregation can lead to the
deterioration of an individual’s mental and
physical wellbeing and so should be kept to
a minimum, with appropriate safeguards.
Segregated prisoners should have access to a
purposeful regime and be encouraged to return
to normal location at the earliest opportunity.
This was not the case in some establishments.

12	 As set out in a report, Time Well Spent by Edgar, Jacobson and Biggar, Prison Reform Trust 2011.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

25

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

The segregation unit caused us some
concern… there was insufficient day-today operational oversight. Relationships
between staff and prisoners were
distant… For many segregated prisoners,
care planning was inadequate and too
many remained segregated for long
periods. The regime was impoverished for
long-stay prisoners, with little in place to
help prevent psychological deterioration
caused by prolonged segregation.
Full Sutton

Growing drug use threatens safety
NPS remained a significant issue in most
adult male prisons. As identified in our last
two annual reports, NPS continued to be
linked to violence, debt, organised crime
and medical emergencies. Too many prisons
still lacked an adequate strategy to tackle
drug supply, although more were providing
NPS harm reduction information to new
arrivals on induction, which was positive.
More traditional drugs, including illicit
medicines, continued to be a problem.
Staff and prisoners told us the prison
was becoming more and more unsafe
due to intoxicated NPS users, and the
violence associated with NPS-related
debt and bullying. Although the security
department had taken a reasonable
approach in countering concerns about
NPS in the jail, and the substance misuse
service had worked hard to publicise
the dangers of NPS use, there was no
prison-wide or appropriately integrated
approach to the many aspects of supply
and demand reduction. Moorland

26

New testing for new drugs
While the use of NPS had become
prevalent among prisoners, prisons had
been hampered in their efforts to tackle this
due to an inability to include NPS in drugtesting programmes. After the Psychoactive
Substances Bill came into force on 26 May
2016, testing for NPS, including ‘Spice’,
was included in the mandatory drug-testing
panel; this was initially as a pilot in 34
establishments and then applied universally
from late September 2016. It is too early
to report on the effectiveness of these
measures.
The proportion of new prisoners with a drug
and/or alcohol problem remained very high,
most noticeably among those reporting a
mental health problem.
Prisoners with substance misuse needs
had access to a good range of psychosocial
services in most establishments, with
impressive provision in some, although a
lack of officers restricted prisoner access at
Swaleside and Bedford.
There was a good range of interventions
that addressed substance awareness and
harm reduction, including NPS, through
information materials, one-to-one sessions
and groupwork. An ‘expert by experience’
forum gave prisoners the opportunity
to hear from others who had previously
experienced negative effects and
consequences resulting from using NPS.
… as part of the strategic approach to
tackling NPS, all incidents of suspected
intoxication were video recorded and
attended by primary health and/or drug
team nurses. Glen Parva

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Substance misuse services were generally
of high quality and easily accessible, and
designated drug support units assisted
prisoners at different stages of recovery.
Most prisons provided safe clinical services
but, in a minority, new arrivals had
delayed access to prescribing which, with
inadequate monitoring in the early days, put
them at risk. At a few prisons, high levels
of drug availability and a poor regime made
it difficult for prisoners to work towards
abstinence.
Poor management of the prescribing of
tradeable medication and poor officer
supervision of medication administration
queues in a significant minority of prisons
continued to give too many opportunities for
bullying and the diversion of medication.
We observed effective planning for and
introduction of the smoking ban in several
prisons, including Cardiff, Exeter and Parc,
but were concerned to see some prisoners
indulging in dangerous practices, such as
misusing nicotine replacement patches,
which put them at risk.
Prisoners were not allowed to smoke
anywhere in the prison, which had been
smoke free for the previous few months.
This was a major achievement, given the
throughput of prisoners and their short
lengths of stay. Challenges in the pilot
phase had been generally well managed,
with good co-ordination with NHS
smoking cessation clinics. E-cigarettes
were available via the prison shop.
However, some prisoners were scraping
the film from nicotine patches and mixing
them with tea leaves to smoke. Some
prisoners who had stopped smoking
started again on release. Exeter

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

27

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

28

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Sharp decline in respect outcomes
¡¡ Outcomes for respect were the worst
for many years.
¡¡ Many prisoners continued to live in
very poor and overcrowded cells and
buildings.
¡¡ Most prisoners reported respectful
treatment by staff, even though staff
were now more stretched.
¡¡ Equality and diversity work was often
weak, with insufficient support for
prisoners from minority groups.
¡¡ Health services were affected by
shortages of prison staff and restrictive
prison regimes, although most prisons
delivered reasonably good health care
for prisoners.

Our healthy prison assessments for respect
had declined sharply this year with the lowest
number of prisons for several years achieving
a good or reasonably good healthy prison
score – only 49% against the 78% we reported
last year. The picture in local prisons was of
particular concern, with only three of the 14
locals inspected achieving one of these scores.

Outcome of previous
recommendations
In the adult male prisons reported
on in 2016–17, 35% of our previous
recommendations in the area of respect
had been achieved, 14% partially
achieved and 51% not achieved.

Daily life
It is commendable that, given the pressures
prisons have been under, most prisoners in
our survey continued to report respectful
treatment by staff (74%) and that they had
a member of staff who would help them
if needed (69%). However, significantly
reduced staffing in most prisons had left
staff extremely stretched. As a result, many
prisoners felt unsupported and frustrated at
not being able to get day-to-day concerns
addressed.
We found some prisons, such as Full
Sutton and Frankland, providing a prison
environment that was clean and well
maintained. Here, prisoners occupied
single cells and could keep themselves
and their cells clean. Stafford, despite
dating back to the late 18th century, had
residential units that were in excellent
condition and communal areas that were
impressively clean. However, these prisons
were not typical.
Many prisoners spent almost all day, and
ate their unappetising meals, doubled
up in a dirty, damaged cell with an
unscreened toilet… The prison had a
significant rat problem; we saw them
every day and night we visited the prison
and a large rat’s nest was very obvious in
the grounds. Wormwood Scrubs
Overcrowding continued to create problems,
and was a significant issue in most prisons.

Figure 7: Respect outcomes in establishments holding adult and young adult men
Good Reasonably
good

Not sufficiently
good

Poor

Local prisons

0

3

11

0

Training prisons

0

8

7

0

High security prisons

0

2

0

0

Open prisons

2

2

0

0

Young adult prisons

0

1

1

0

Total

2

16

19

0

… 236 prisoners were held two to a cell
designed for one and 144 prisoners were
held three to a cell designed for two.
Elmley

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

29

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

These conditions had implications for
prisoner safety, as well as their dignity,
especially when combined with staff
shortages. In some establishments,
prisoners had great difficulties in receiving
the basic necessities for daily life.
Access to prison issue items in residential
units was poor. Wing stores were depleted
and did not have an adequate range of
suitable clothing, spare bed linen or towels.
… prisoners and staff said that bed linen
regularly went missing… There was a
shortage of pillows and kettles in most
residential units. Swaleside
New arrivals often experienced delays in being
able to make their first order from the prison
shop, leading many to get into debt and be at
risk of bullying by other prisoners.
While 54% of prisoners in our survey said it
was easy to make a complaint, only 28% felt
that their complaints were dealt with fairly.
As we have found previously, far too many
complaints reflected prisoner frustration at
not being able to resolve issues informally.
However, at Wymott two representatives
from the prisoner council met with staff
every month to quality assure and review
complaints, which was good practice.

Food in prison
In July 2016, we published a findings
paper on food in prison.13 We reported
that, while many establishments were
making commendable efforts with the
resources available, the daily budget for
food of around £2 per person limited what
they could do. Prisoners’ opportunities to
eat communally were often very limited;
most prisoners were required to eat in
often cramped cells, sometimes near
inadequately screened toilets. In some
establishments, lunch could be served as
early as 11.10am and the evening meal at
4.15pm. Serving dinner this early, coupled
with meagre breakfast packs handed out
the night before, meant that some prisoners
had a gap as long as 20 hours before their
next substantial meal.

Equality and diversity work
Prisons contain diverse populations, often
including prisoners who might be subject to
discrimination because of their ethnicity, age,
disability, sexuality or other criteria (covered as
‘protected characteristics’ in equality law). The
management of equality and diversity work
often varied. At some prisons, we found an
improved picture, while at others this work had
deteriorated or was weak. However, despite
weak management, some prisons achieved
good outcomes for prisoners with protected
characteristics.
Despite weaknesses in the strategic
management of equality work, staff in
the community inclusion team were
enthusiastic and innovative, and helped
to achieve good outcomes for prisoners in
most protected groups. Parc

13	 Life in prison: Food, http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/inspections/life-in-prison-food/

30

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

31

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

In many prisons, stretched resources had
resulted in less focus on equality and
diversity work. Consultation with prisoners
from the protected characteristics groups
was mostly poor. Prisoner representatives
were not always in place, and many who were
received no training and had a low profile
in the prison. However, at Elmley diversity
representatives were able to study for a City
and Guilds award in equality and diversity.
Discrimination incident report forms (DIRF)
were not always readily available for prisoners
who wished to make complaints, and at
some prisons investigations were inadequate
and took too long. In contrast, other prisons
managed such complaints well.
Investigations carried out by custodial
managers were thorough and we saw
examples of staff being asked to do further
training or be subject to monitoring. Norwich
In March 2017, 26.8% of male prisoners
(where ethnicity was known) were from a
black and minority ethnic group, largely
unchanged from 26.6% in March 2016.14
In our survey, such prisoners were more
negative than white prisoners about most
aspects of their experience of custody (see
Appendix 5). Poor perceptions of safety
were a particular concern. Too often,
prisons did not act on monitoring data that
revealed worse outcomes for prisoners from
a black and minority ethnic background.
… for our third consecutive inspection,
we found that black and minority ethnic
prisoners, who made up more than a third
of the population, faced potentially unfair
treatment across a number of areas. They
were less likely to be released on ROTL
[temporary licence] and be located on the
favoured A block, and more likely to face
adjudications. None of these issues had
been addressed. Ford

The Lammy review
In July 2016, we responded to the
independent review chaired by David
Lammy MP of the treatment of and
outcomes for black, Asian and minority
ethnic individuals in the criminal justice
system. We raised concerns highlighted by
our inspections, including:
¡¡ insufficient use of equality monitoring
data
¡¡ poorer perceptions for prisoners from a
black and minority ethnic background
¡¡ lack of consultation with these
prisoners.

In our survey, 5% of adult males indicated
that they were from a Gypsy, Romany
or Traveller background. Prisons did not
always identify everyone from this group,
although there were examples of good
support from the chaplaincy, outside
agencies and internal forums.
In our survey, 4% of prisoners described
themselves as Gypsy, Romany or Traveller.
This group was supported sufficiently well
by a chaplain who met with them monthly
and gave individual assistance to help
maintain family ties. Frankland
However, at other prisons, for example
Swinfen Hall, there was no meaningful
consultation with this group and they told
us that they needed more support with
contacting their families.
As at 30 September 2016, 8,632 foreign
national men were held in prison in
England and Wales (11% of all male
prisoners).15 Provision for foreign nationals
was mixed. There were rarely dedicated
officers to assist these prisoners, and it
was difficult for many foreign nationals
to access immigration-specific legal
advice. Many wing staff were reluctant

14	 Source: unpublished figures from HMPPS.
15	 Offender management statistics quarterly: April to June 2016 (27 October 2016) - 9,563 foreign men were held in custody and
HMPPS-run immigration removal centres on 30 September 2016 (table 1.7), but 931 of these were held under immigration
powers at the two HMPPS-run IRCs, Morton Hall and The Verne (table 1.8).
32

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

to use telephone interpreting services to
communicate with prisoners who did not
speak English.
[Foreign nationals] complained about
the poor use of professional telephone
interpreting services, leaving some of them
feeling isolated, and we saw prisoners
being used as interpreters in confidential
interviews, such as those in reception.
Winchester
As in previous years, too many foreign
nationals were detained in prisons under
immigration powers – 442 on 3 October
201616 – with some prisoners informed
too late that they would be detained when
they had completed their sentence. Some
detainees were held for long periods in
prison. For example, we found men at
Nottingham and Cardiff who had been
detained for six months, and one detainee
had been held for nine months in Exeter.
The proportion of male prisoners declaring
a disability in our survey had reached over
a quarter (27%), which was likely to be
linked to an increasingly ageing prison
population. Prisoners with disabilities
continued to be more negative than those
without disabilities in almost all our survey
questions, especially those about safety
and respect. Physical provision for those
with the most severe disabilities was
generally poor, with few adapted cells and
little wheelchair access.
We found several prisoners with mobility
problems living in unadapted cells. Health
care staff assessed these prisoners, but
there was no multidisciplinary care planning
and links with wing officers and the equality
team were poor. Cardiff

Sixteen per cent of prisoners surveyed
in male prisons were aged over 50. They
were generally more positive than younger
prisoners about most areas of prison
life. But their experience varied between
prisons – we continued to find some retired
prisoners locked in their cells during the
core day, but other prisons offered specific
activities.
There was good provision for the over60s, with activities daily. These were well
attended, with PE and health services staff
taking a full part. Full Sutton
At Lewes, a quarter of prisoners were over
50 but arrangements to support them were
inadequate.
Paid carers on F wing looked after around a
dozen frail, older prisoners. They provided
some good support but received insufficient
oversight and had little formal guidance,
which meant they were inappropriately
responsible for carrying out some personal
hygiene and care tasks. Lewes
In contrast, Frankland had a ‘buddy’ scheme
with good oversight and training for the
prisoners who were carers for others.

Prisoners over 80
In recent years, we have commented on
the increasing number of older and elderly
prisoners. The Ministry of Justice has now
published statistics on the number of
prisoners over 80 held in 2016.17 These
show that (for men and women combined)
prisons held 234 people over 80 – 219
in their 80s, 14 in their 90s and one over
100. The vast majority, 204, were held for
sex offences.

16	 Immigration statistics, July to September 2016 (Home Office), detention section.
17	 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/594871/prison-population-by-age-offence-group31-december-2016.pdf

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

33

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Four per cent of prisoners indicated in
our survey that they were gay or bisexual.
Typically, we found that fewer were known
to their prison, and there were still strong
cultural issues in male prisons impeding
men from openly disclosing their sexuality.
However, some prisons had good support and
consultation processes.
… there had been a great improvement in
the provision for gay and bisexual prisoners.
A gay, bisexual and transgender forum met
regularly and fed into the equality meetings,
and gay and bisexual prisoners spoke highly
of the support available to them. Full Sutton
More commonly though men were fearful of
disclosing their sexuality, with no support in
place or consultation forums.

Transgender prisoners
A Ministry of Justice review following
the self-inflicted deaths of transgender
women held in male prisons resulted
in Prison Service instruction 17/2016,
which came into force in January 2017.
We welcome the move to acknowledge
the wishes of trans prisoners in decisionmaking about which prison they are held
in, and also the emphasis that decisions
on placement should be made at court
before remand or sentence to prison.

Young adults
At the end of March 2017, the number
of young adult men aged 18 to 20 in
prison was 4,333 and the majority of male
establishments we inspected held some of
these young adults.18 Most prisons made little
distinction in the treatment of this age group.

Just under one-third of the population
were young adults… In our survey, young
adult prisoners had mixed perceptions of
prison life. Their regime on E and F wings
was even more restrictive than the rest
of the prison, which further limited their
time out of cell and access to showers and
telephones. Hindley
However, we did find an example of a more
constructive approach.
Provision for young adults had improved...
They were now held predominantly on
one wing where staff had been trained to
deal with this age group. The prison had
recognised the need to develop dedicated
activities and strategy to improve provision
for this group generally. Parc

Faith provision
Faith provision remained a strength of many
establishments. Prisoners could generally
access chaplains of their faith, although
there were sometimes problems recruiting
chaplains for some denominations.
Many prisoners reported having no faith.
In response to this, Cardiff had employed
a Humanist celebrant to cater to the needs
of this large group of men.
Chaplains provided a wide range of pastoral
support, including for bereaved prisoners,
attending ACCT reviews and some throughthe-gate work.

Prison health services
We continued to produce joint reports
with the Care Quality Commission (CQC),
and inspect services with the General
Pharmaceutical Council. Closer working
links with Health Inspection Wales improved
information sharing on safeguarding
and management of health complaints
from prisoners.

18	 Prisoner data by age group are available in the offender management statistics quarterly release for March 2017:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/safety-in-custody-statistics

34

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Reviews of health in prison
During the year, we made contributions
to the NICE (National Institute for Health
and Care Excellence) review on the
physical health of people in prisons and
the Joint Committee on Human Rights
inquiry into mental health and deaths in
prison – which was a welcome opportunity
to support effective evidence-based care
for this very vulnerable group.
Following these reviews, NICE issued
guidance in November 2016, and the
Joint Committee published its report in
March 2017.
During 2016–17, we found that the efficient
delivery of health services in prisons was
repeatedly impeded by the unavailability of
prison officers and restrictive regimes. These
had serious detrimental effects in over half the
services we inspected. Outcomes for patients
were affected in several ways:
¡¡ prisoners could not always get to
health appointments, and the high
non-attendance rates then increased
waiting times for health services
¡¡ patients waited in health departments
for up to two hours before and after
their health appointments due to a lack
of prison staff to escort them
¡¡ inpatients were locked in their cells all
day rather than taking part in therapeutic
activities to aid their recovery
¡¡ because of restrictions in the regime,
patients were issued with their nighttime medication, including sleeping
tablets, as early as 4.30pm, reducing
its effectiveness
¡¡ external hospital appointments were
cancelled due to the lack of prison
staff escorts.

Despite the introduction of a new
appointments system, non-attendance rates
were unacceptably high for some clinics; for
example 42% for GPs and 76% for longterm condition clinics… The system for
arranging health care appointments at local
hospitals was efficient. However attendance
was hit-and-miss as escort slots were
cancelled at a rate of six per week… often
on the day of the appointment. Swaleside
The last medicine administration was 4pm
on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays, which
was too early for night-time medication.
We saw unsupervised medication queues
in the health centre and on A wing, which
increased the potential for diversion of
medicines. Buckley Hall
Many prisons struggled to recruit sufficient
clinical staff of the right calibre to deliver
a safe and effective health service – this
affected the management of lifelong
conditions, such as diabetes and epilepsy,
in more than a quarter of adult male prisons
reported on this year. Staffing shortages also
affected the regular health staff, who in more
than a quarter of prisons had insufficient
access to training and clinical supervision.
Too few operational staff had access to
defibrillators and/or were first aid trained in
over half the male adult prisons we inspected;
this was very concerning given the high
number of health emergencies in prisons.
However, despite these challenges the
majority of prisons delivered a reasonably
good standard of health care most of the
time. Health care provision was more likely
to be based on assessments that identified
the current health needs of the population
than in prisons we inspected three years ago.
Following the introduction of the Care Act in
April 2015, most prisons worked effectively
with their local authorities and care providers
to deliver social care, some very well.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

35

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Prisoners with dementia
HM Inspectorate of Prisons facilitated a
discussion between the Secretary of State
for Prisons and experts in the field on the
care of older prisoners with dementia. As
a result, the Secretary of State invited the
NHS Health and Justice Clinical Reference
Group to develop a new approach.
Support for prisoners with palliative and endof-life needs was good in most prisons we
inspected, and exemplary in Norwich, Whatton
and Stafford.
Pharmacy services were reasonably good or
good in most prisons, although over a quarter
had significant weaknesses – for example,
patients could not speak to a pharmacist
about their medicines or there was insufficient
supervision of pharmacy processes. Some
prisons had moved to using pharmacy
technicians rather than nurses to administer
medicines, which was very effective in freeing
up nurses to provide patient care.
Dental services were good in the vast majority
of prisons, but in a minority patients waited far
too long to see a dentist.

Mental health
Prisoners are more likely than the general
population to have emotional and mental
health problems. Despite this, 40% of prisons
had inadequate or no training for prison
officers to know when to refer a prisoner
for help.
Mental health services were good in most
prisons although many lacked services,
including counselling, for patients with mild to
moderate problems like depression or anxiety.
However, more than half of prisons were
actively identifying and supporting prisoners
with learning disabilities, which was a marked
improvement on previous years.
We did see exemplary mental health support
at some prisons, including trained prisoner
mental health peer supporters at Swaleside
and wide-ranging seven-day-a week provision
at Durham.
The inability of the NHS to receive patients
from prisons into hospital mental health care
within the government’s transfer target (14
days) continued in nearly three-quarters of the
prisons we reported on. Many patients were
left untreated and sometimes deteriorating –
often for several months – in the wrong place.
Most of the 13 patients transferred under
the Mental Health Act since January 2016
had experienced excessive waits for transfer.
The average time was 14 weeks, principally
because of external issues, including bed
availability. Durham

36

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Inspections in Northern Ireland
We inspect prisons in Northern Ireland by invitation from Criminal
Justice Inspection Northern Ireland. This year, we carried out three
inspections with our partner inspectorates.
In May 2016, we visited Hydebank Wood Secure College, which holds
young men aged between 18 and 21, and reported that:
Overall this is an encouraging inspection where outcomes for young men
have improved in three of four healthy prison tests.
We also inspected the neighbouring Ash House, Northern Ireland’s only
female prison. We were again generally positive about the progress since
our last visit:
We commend the Northern Ireland Prison Service and the local managers
for the bravery and the single minded determination in fostering
a culture of improvement and creating a prison with much greater
rehabilitation ethos.
In 2015, we published a damning report on Maghaberry Prison,
Northern Ireland’s high security and largest prison, and made nine
key recommendations for improvement. In September 2016, we were
part of a joint inspection team that carried out a low-impact review at
Maghaberry of progress against these recommendations. The review
found that there was continuing progress, but not across the board, and
that the pace was slow. We will conduct further low-impact reviews at the
prison to support improvement and ensure the momentum continues.

Focus on Wales
Although criminal justice and prisons are not devolved responsibilities
in Wales, we maintained a close relationship with the Welsh Government
and a range of partners – including Her Majesty’s Inspectorate for
Education and Training in Wales (Estyn) and Health Inspectorate Wales
(HIW). In November 2016, the Chief Inspector of Prisons visited Wales
to meet the Welsh Government cabinet secretary with responsibility for
crime and justice policy, the director of NOMS (now HMPPS) in Wales
and various Welsh Government policy leads.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

37

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Locked up and not in
purposeful activity
¡¡ Activity outcomes for prisoners had
improved, but were still only good
or reasonably good in around half of
prisons.
¡¡ Prisoners, particularly young adults,
still spent too much time locked in
their cells, and staff shortages often
substantially reduced their planned
time unlocked.
¡¡ Governors and staff did not give
sufficient priority to education and
training as a means of reducing
reoffending and enhancing prisoner
rehabilitation.
¡¡ Around one-third of prisons had too few
activity places for the population – and
even these were often unfilled.
¡¡ The quality of teaching and learning
and achievements of prisoners had
improved, but English and mathematics
provision continued to be weak.

Outcome of previous recommendations
In the adult male prisons reported
on in 2016–17, 44% of our previous
recommendations in the area of activity
had been achieved, 24% partially
achieved and 32% not achieved.
Purposeful activity outcomes in adult male
prisons had improved slightly, and this year
we assessed 51% of prisons as good or
reasonably good, compared with 44% in
2015–16. Once again, the poor outcomes
in the two young adult establishments we
inspected were of particular concern.

38

Figure 8: Purposeful activity outcomes in establishments holding adult and
young adult men
Good Reasonably
good

Not sufficiently
good

Poor

Local prisons

0

5

8

1

Training prisons

3

5

5

2

High security prisons

2

0

0

0

Open prisons

2

2

0

0

Young adult prisons

0

0

0

2

Total

7

12

13

5

Still too little time unlocked
We expect prisoners to be unlocked for
at least 10 hours a day so that they can
attend education or work, engage with
health or substance misuse services or plan
for resettlement, as well as wash, collect
meals, clean their cell and keep in contact
with their families. However, in our survey
only 14% of prisoners said that they were
unlocked for this length of time.
When prisoners spend long periods locked
in their cells they become frustrated with
staff and each other, they are bored and have
more time to use illicit substances, and many
can suffer deteriorating physical and mental
health. We made a main recommendation
on the need to increase time out of cell in a
third of the prisons we visited.
The time that prisoners get unlocked has
also become less predictable – mostly
as a result of staffing shortages and a
rising number of incidents. Many prisons
operated temporary restricted regimes to
cope with staffing shortages, with prisoners
locked up for the night at 6pm or earlier
– making it difficult for them to telephone
their families and friends.

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

39

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

As a result of chronic staff shortages, a
restricted and too limited regime had been
put in place for two years. This had reduced
the maximum amount of time unlocked...
Evening association periods were no longer
provided and the previous practice of
unlocking workers for a short period in the
evening to access showers and telephones
had ceased. Onley
However, there were exceptions where we
noted the positive benefits of improving
prisoners’ time unlocked.
The most significant factor in the improved
stability of the prison was that time out of
cell had become much more predictable.
It was still too limited but it was delivered
consistently so prisoners could plan phone
calls or domestic tasks with confidence.
Elmley
Time spent unlocked was particularly poor
for young adults in prison – in our survey,
30% said they spent less than two hours a
day out of their cell, and only 7% were out
of their cell for more than 10 hours a day.

Figure 9: How long do you spend out of your cell on a weekday?
Spend more than
10 hours out of cell
(weekday) (%)

Spend less than
two hours out of cell
(weekday) (%)

8

31

Training prisons

15

16

High security prisons

13

11

Local prisons

Young adult prisons

4

37

Open prisons

54

2

Average

14

22

The situation in local prisons was very poor
and in some, including Cardiff, Winchester
and Wormwood Scrubs, a significant number
of prisoners spent more than 22 hours in
their cell every day. We regularly found more
than a quarter of prisoners locked up during
the working day, and at Wormwood Scrubs
this was 55%.
… some prisoners could be locked up for
over 27 hours, only being let out briefly to
collect their meals. Our roll checks during
the working day showed that 46% of
prisoners were locked behind their doors.
Cardiff
Even in training prisons, where the situation
was better, between 11% and 16% of
prisoners said they were locked up for more
than 22 hours. While there were examples
of better practice – Buckley Hall, Whatton
and Stafford provided 10 hours unlocked for
most prisoners on weekdays – we also found
some impoverished regimes.

40

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

The regime at Hindley was one of the
worst, and possibly the very worst, that
inspectors had ever seen in this type of
prison. The length of time for which young
adults and adults alike were locked up
was, in our considered view, unnecessary,
unjustifiable and counterproductive.
Almost every aspect of prison life for the
prisoners was adversely affected by the
regime… On one day during the inspection
a mere 14% of eligible prisoners were
able to attend education. As a result they
were being denied opportunities to embark
on a path of rehabilitation and eventual
resettlement. Hindley

Not enough activity places

Figure 10: Rates of association, use of gym and exercise in establishments
holding adult and young adult men
Go on association
more than five
times each week
(%)

Prisoners value the opportunity for physical
education (PE), which can help with
physical and mental well-being, as well as
provide the opportunity to gain relevant
vocational qualifications. Most prisons had
good facilities. However, in our survey only
27% of men said they went to the gym
three or more times a week, which was
slightly lower than in previous years. Once
again, young adults had the least access
to PE, with only 13% held in young adult
prisons reporting they could go to the gym
three or more times a week. We routinely
found that staff shortages, including the
redeployment of PE staff to other duties,
restricted prisoner access to PE.

Use the gym three
Go outside for
or more times a exercise three or
week (%) more times a week
(%)

Local prisons

50

22

42

Training prisons

51

29

51

High security
prisons

85

40

31

Young adult
prisons

21

13

49

Open prisons

76

40

79

Average

52

27

48

A minority of prisoners said they could go
outside for exercise three or more times
a week. We expect prisoners to have the
opportunity for one hour a day in the open
air, but most still only had 30 minutes.
Conflicting timetables also meant prisoners
had to choose whether to go outside or
spend this limited time taking showers or
telephoning home.
Exercise periods were not long enough and
took place during association, which meant
that prisoners had to choose between
having time in the open air and carrying
out other important daily activities, such
as making telephone calls to their family or
having a shower. Winchester

In 14 of the 35 adult male prisons
inspected, there were not enough learning
and skills and work activity places for
all prisoners to take part in education or
vocational training throughout the week.
This problem was as prevalent in training
prisons and young adult establishments as
it was in locals.
Some prisons had sufficient activity places,
which were used well.
There were enough activity places for
prisoners to engage in full or part time
activities throughout the week… Most men
were allocated promptly to an activity that
met their needs and interests closely. Hewell
However, once again we have reported on
the widespread and unacceptable failure
for prisons to fill the places that were
available. This year, around half of all
prisons inspected failed to use all their
activity places, needlessly leaving prisoners
without work, education or training.
The process of moving prisoners to learning
and skills and work activities from wings
was often ineffective and poorly managed,
and prisoners often failed to turn up to
their allocated activity or arrived late. Poor
attendance and punctuality of prisoners

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

41

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

often went unchallenged by prison staff,
which failed to promote a good work ethic
and could disrupt teaching and learning.
… not all prisoners were allocated in a
timely way, and activity places were left
unfilled… Almost 600 prisoners were
unemployed and often those allocated to
an activity arrived late or failed to attend
because they had not been unlocked on
time or not been unlocked at all. Wormwood
Scrubs
The role of education and training as
a means of reducing reoffending and
rehabilitating offenders was recognised in
the better performing prisons.
There was good support and leadership
for learning and skills from senior prison
managers, who gave a clear priority and
focus to the importance of this area for the
rehabilitation of prisoners. Parc
However, governors often did not give
sufficient priority to education and training,
and allowed other activities to interrupt the
working day.
Prison managers failed to promote a culture
and ethos that acknowledged participation
in purposeful activity as a key priority. For
example, around 40% of prisoners were
not engaged in meaningful activity at any
one time and too many prisoners failed to
return to work following dental, legal or other
appointments. Prisoners were also able to
attend the gym during the working day which
caused unnecessary disruption to learning
and failed to promote a work ethic.
Channings Wood

Shortages of both prison officer and
learning and skills staff also resulted in
unpunctuality, cancellations and closures.

Welcome for prison education report
HM Inspectorate of Prisons welcomed
Dame Sally Coates’ report on prison
education (published in May 2016)19
and the government’s increased focus on
education in prisons and its important
role in reducing reoffending – particularly
as our inspection reports continue to
raise serious concerns about the current
provision of education in prisons. We are
committed to considering how we can best
support the report’s recommendations. In
particular, our proposed new Expectations
for education, skills and work are based
on the graded judgements in Ofsted’s
Common Inspection Framework, which
will help bring the inspection of education
and work in prison into line with that in
the community. Our proposal is not to
give a score for purposeful activity that is
higher than the overall education, skills
and work score (except in exceptional
circumstances).

Delivering learning and skills and work
We inspect learning and skills and work in
prisons in partnership with Ofsted (Office for
Standards in Education, Children’s Services
and Skills) in England and Estyn in Wales.
Both Ofsted and Estyn make assessments of
learning and skills and work provision.
This year, around half of prisons were
judged less than good in their overall
effectiveness, which was a considerable
reduction from the just under two-thirds
assessed in the previous year.

19	 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524013/education-review-report.pdf

42

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Figure 11: Ofsted assessments in establishments holding adult and young adult men in England
Overall
Achievements of Quality of learning
effectiveness of prisoners engaged
and skills and
learning and skills
in learning and
work provision
and work
skills and work
Outstanding

Personal
Leadership and
development and
management of
behaviour learning and skills
and work

1

1

3

2

1

Good

17

20

19

14

18

Requires
improvement

14

13

12

17

13

3

1

1

2

3

35

35

35

35

35

Inadequate
Total

Figure 12: Estyn assessments in establishments holding adult and young adult men in Wales
Achievements of Quality of learning
Leadership and
Overall
and skills and
management of
effectiveness of prisoners engaged
in learning and
work provision learning and skills
learning and skills
and work
skills and work
and work
Excellent

1

1

0

0

Good

1

1

2

2

Adequate

0

0

0

0

Unsatisfactory

0

0

0

0

Total

2

2

2

2

The best leadership and management of
learning and skills activities were in prisons
that worked effectively with key partners to
establish a well-planned curriculum that
met the needs of prisoners and was linked to
identified employment needs. Where there
were robust processes to evaluate the provision
of learning, skills and work, senior managers
were able to identify areas for improvement
and set effective action plans.
With clear leadership from the governor,
managers ensured that learning and skills
and work activities were appropriate and had
begun to establish a working prison ethos
through effective partnerships with local,
regional and national employers. Lindholme

The prison’s leaders and managers…
failed to hold the learning and skills and
work providers to account, indicating low
aspirations for prisoner outcomes and the
quality of provision… In the context of
regime restrictions, staff reductions and
absences, and other operational challenges,
leaders and managers… had neglected
to implement an effective strategy for the
development of activities… [they] did not
use data sufficiently well to inform their
decisions about developing and improving
purposeful activity. Swinfen Hall

In prisons where leadership and management
were less than good, quality improvement
measures were poor, quality improvement
plans were slow to be implemented and
governors did not prioritise learning and skills
or promote their benefits.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

43

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

The overall quality of teaching and learning
had improved and was rated as good
or better in around 60% of the prisons
inspected. The quality was often better in
the activities provided by the education
provider than those by the prison. The
overall quality of the education and
training funded by the Skills Funding
Agency through its Offender Learning and
Skills Services was good or better in 70%
of prisons inspected – an encouraging
improvement on the just over half found
the previous year. Coaching on vocational
courses was mainly good.
Prisoners were unanimous in their high
praise for the professionalism, dedication
and skills of their teachers and instructors.
Qualified and enthusiastic vocational
training tutors provided high-quality
coaching in the vocational training areas
and work… Teachers and instructors
applied assessment practice effectively…
to plan learning and help prisoners achieve
their learning goals. Leyhill
Where the standard of teaching and
learning was weaker, target setting for
prisoners and feedback on their work was
often too superficial and failed to guide
prisoners on what they needed to do to
progress and improve. This meant that
prisoners frequently worked at levels below
their capabilities and were not challenged
enough to progress.
Not enough teachers set high expectations
or planned activities to prisoners’ starting
points and past achievements. Consequently
too many prisoners did not fulfil their
potential. Most of the more able prisoners
were not sufficiently challenged, often
working at too low a level. Bedford

44

Prisoners’ personal development and
behaviour were good or better in around half
of all prisons. Teachers and tutors generally
managed inappropriate behaviour well, and
there was mutual respect between prisoners
and teachers and tutors in most prisons.
There had been a slight improvement in
the teaching and learning of English and
mathematics. However, in too many prisons
these areas remained weak, reflected
in the poor achievement of accredited
qualifications.
With the exception of English and
mathematics, the overall achievement
by prisoners had improved this year, with
around 60% graded as good or better. Skills
development in vocational training and
achievement of accredited qualifications
remained good in most prisons. Peer
mentors were generally used well to support
learning and provided valuable support to
fellow prisoners.
Peer mentors were keen and motivated
to learn, rapidly developed impressive
mentoring skills, and most produced
high-quality written work in their
evidence portfolios. Mentors worked
productively with tutors and trainers
and provided good support for prisoners
during induction and learning sessions.
Mentors on the barbering programme
provided constructive peer assessments for
prisoners and helped them progress at a
good pace... Isis
Most prison libraries were welcoming,
well stocked and supported personal and
vocational development. However, in our
survey only 35% of men said that they
could visit the library at least once a week.
Restricted opening times, staffing shortages
and unscheduled closures contributed to
poor access. Many libraries promoted literacy
well and supported prisoners in maintaining
contact with their families, through initiatives
such as Storybook Dads (where they could
record a story for their children).

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Staff promoted literacy well using a range
of initiatives in conjunction with external
agencies, for example, family learning
workshops run with the local authority,
weekly cognitive stimulation therapy
groups for older prisoners and story book
challenges. Library staff analysed data
well to target groups of prisoners not using
the facilities and organised initiatives to
encourage underrepresented groups to
participate. Norwich

Poor preparation for work
Our inspections found that prisoners
did not always have a good work ethic,
reinforced by poor attendance and
punctuality and not enough to do. In too
many prisons, work remained mundane
and repetitive. In the better prisons,
where work was structured well, prisoners
developed good work skills. However,
too frequently the skills that prisoners
developed went unrecognised and so
could not be demonstrated to prospective
employers.
… too many prisoners were employed
on the wings as cleaners and painters
where the work was often purposeless,
unproductive and largely unsupervised,
with the result that many wings and
exercise yards were dirty and strewn with
litter. Moorland

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

45

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Resettlement services not
meeting the challenge
¡¡ The community rehabilitation
companies (CRCs)20 were becoming
more embedded but too many
prisoners continued to receive a poor
resettlement service.
¡¡ Many prisoners had no current
offender assessment (OASys) or one
that was out of date, which affected
their ability to progress and reduce
their risk of harm.
¡¡ Many offender supervisors were still
being redeployed, and had insufficient
training and support.
¡¡ Public protection arrangements were
often reasonable but there were
still delays in identifying prisoners’
risk management levels before their
release.
¡¡ Despite some shortcomings, we noted
some improvement in work to help
prisoners maintain contact with their
families.

Outcome of previous recommendations
In the adult male prisons reported
on in 2016–17, 37% of our previous
recommendations in the area of
resettlement had been achieved,
19% partially achieved and 43% not
achieved.
Of 37 assessments of adult male
establishments reported on during the last
year, 46% had outcomes for prisoners that
were either not sufficiently good or poor.

Figure 13: Resettlement outcomes in establishments holding adult and young
adult males
Good

Reasonably
good

Not
sufficiently
good

Local prisons

1

6

6

1

Training prisons

2

3

9

1

High security prisons

0

2

0

0

Open prisons

1

3

0

0

Young adult prisons

0

2

0

0

Total

4

16

15

2

Integration of provision and support
The new model to organise and deliver
resettlement services through CRCs had
been introduced in May 2015, but many
prisoners continued to receive a poor
resettlement service. The CRCs were
becoming more embedded in prison work
but there were persistent shortcomings
in the implementation of the new
arrangements, which had not generally led
to effective joint work for the benefit of
prisoners. Integration between departments
and liaison between prisons and community
responsible officers (formerly known as
offender managers) remained weak.
The prison’s offender management policy
was over five years old, and… had not
been updated since the introduction of the
‘through-the-gate’ model of community
rehabilitation companies (CRCs) in May
2015. As a consequence, neither document
linked effectively to the other or clearly
outlined the through-the-gate model to
follow. We found considerable variation in
practice, especially in the work of offender
management unit (OMU) staff. Isis

20	 Since May 2015 rehabilitation services, both in custody and after release, have been organised through CRCs which are
responsible for work with medium- and low-risk offenders. The national probation service has maintained responsibility for highand very high-risk offenders.

46

Poor

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Offender management
Too few prisoners had up-to-date assessments
or sentence plans to help them plan
constructively and progress towards a
successful release. Since January 2016,
NOMS (now HMPPS) has implemented an
interim policy to help prisons catch up on
OASys backlogs by focusing resources on
high priority offenders. This was being used
extensively. However, it meant that many
other prisoners did not have a full assessment
or sentence plan. The role of CRC support
for such prisoners was therefore even more
crucial than for prisoners with a full OASys
assessment.
Despite the interim policy, many prisons
still had considerable backlogs of OASys
assessments and some prisoners had out-ofdate sentence plans. At Risley, 287 prisoners
out of a population of 1,101 had no OASys,
and 115 were out of date. This was not always
the fault of the prisons, which often did not
have the resources to complete the number
of assessments required. The problem of
incomplete assessments was routinely passed
from local prisons to training prisons.
… half of all prisoners had arrived from local
prisons without an assessment and sentence
plan, and at the time of the inspection a
third of all eligible prisoners still did not
have them. Channings Wood
Even when prisoners did have up-to-date
assessments and sentence plans, they often
did not address the issues that underpinned
their offending behaviour but instead
focused on much broader issues, such as
attendance at work and adherence to wing
rules. In our surveys of male prisons, only
53% of sentenced prisoners said they had
a sentence plan and only 56% of those
with a plan said they were involved in its
development.

Although prison-based offender supervisors
were expected to liaise with communitybased responsible officers, this varied
considerably.
… we found several examples where
prisoner behaviour in custody was indicative
of risk (incidents of violence and other
inappropriate behaviour), which were missed
in assessments and not used to inform the
community responsible officer. Hindley
Prisoners did not receive enough support
and guidance from offender supervisors
to help them with rehabilitation and
resettlement. In some cases, this was
because of the redeployment of officer
offender supervisors.
In the previous six months, over half of the
uniformed offender supervisor time had
been lost. The consequences of this were
huge: the remaining staff were heavily
burdened and demoralised; contact with
prisoners was largely reactive and absent
in too many cases; and prisoners found
the lack of response from their offender
supervisor very frustrating. Channings Wood
Although this was a common theme, there
were exceptions.
Offender supervisors were not crossdeployed unexpectedly, so they could focus
on delivering good offender management…
Contact was regular, appropriately focused
on progression and risk management, and
supported by drop-in sessions four days a
week. Ford

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

47

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

We continued to find that specialist prison
officer offender supervisors did not receive
sufficient training – in most cases, this was
limited to the completion of the OASys
assessment. This problem was compounded
by a lack of management oversight and quality
assurance, which was particularly concerning
where these officers were responsible for
high-risk cases. In contrast, probation staff
managing high- and very high-risk cases
received regular supervision from a senior
probation officer and their work was generally
of higher quality.
Although training prisons generally provided
access for prisoners to accredited offending
behaviour programmes, we remained
concerned about the lack of work at some
prisons to address offending behaviour.
Although [the] range and number of
[offending behaviour] programmes
appeared broadly appropriate for the
population, the lack of OASys or reviews
of sentence plan targets meant that many
prisoners were not referred for such work. In
our sample of cases, we found insufficient
offending behaviour work in nearly half and
insufficient victim awareness work in more
than half of the cases. Hindley

Problems for prisoners on indeterminate sentences
In November 2016, we published a thematic report,
Unintended consequences: Finding a way forward for
prisoners serving sentences of imprisonment for public
protection, outlining the unique problems experienced
by prisoners sentenced to an indeterminate sentence for
public protection (IPP).21
Although the IPP sentence was abolished in December
2012, there was no retrospective change for those
already sentenced under the legislation. At 31 March
2016, nearly half of prisoners sentenced to an IPP were
still in custody, and 81% (3,330) were held beyond their
tariff expiry date (the minimum time set by the court). In
one case, Mr C had been given an IPP sentence with a
tariff of 22 months, which had expired in 2008. He had
very little sentence planning during his first few years in
custody and on one occasion he was transferred ‘for the
purpose of completing programmes, which after arrival
he was assessed as unsuitable for’. Mr C felt that ‘had he
been able to access the relevant programmes within his
tariff period, his time in custody would have been much
shorter’.
The report identified three main issues:
	 holding prisoners so far beyond their tariff date was
not in the interests of public protection, and raised
issues of fairness and justice
	 their continued imprisonment was at a substantial and
hard-to-justify public cost
	 the legitimate needs of IPP prisoners put pressures on
limited risk management resources, such as offending
behaviour programmes, and on the parole process.
It was also a great concern that, at a time of rising rates
of suicide throughout the prison system, our survey data
showed that IPP prisoners were more likely to report
‘problems and feeling suicidal and depressed on arrival
in prison, having emotional, wellbeing and mental health
problems and having a drug or alcohol problem’.
We concluded that ‘IPP sentences have not worked
as intended and the current situation in which many
prisoners find themselves is clearly unjust’, while noting
an openness in government to find new and innovative
solutions to the problems our report highlighted.

21	 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Unintended-consequences-Web-2016.pdf

48

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

49

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Public protection
Most prisons had reasonably good
arrangements for identifying and managing
prisoners identified as a risk to the public.
Procedures to identify high-risk
prisoners were thorough and relied on a
good range of information sources. The
inter-departmental risk management team
(IRMT) meeting oversaw high risk of harm
prisoners and their management both
within the prison and towards their release
into the community… The meetings were
usually well attended and chaired by the
senior probation officer. Norwich
However, identification of risk levels for
prisoners subject to multi-agency public
protection arrangements (MAPPA) was
a recurrent problem. While at Bedford
the current levels were confirmed before
release and information exchange between
the offender management unit (OMU) and
in-house probation staff was good, that
was not always the case elsewhere. Despite
efforts from prisons, risk management
levels were often not consistently clarified
or communicated back to them in good
time for release.
There were 25 MAPPA-eligible cases due
for release in the three months after the
inspection, and most had been assessed as
presenting a high or very high risk of harm
to others. Despite attempts by the OMU,
half of these cases did not have a clear
MAPPA management level confirmed by the
National Probation Service... Featherstone

Reintegration planning
Most prisons now had well-established CRC
teams, and many worked well.

There were generally good links with
offender supervisors, especially probation
staff, and in many cases appropriate links
where necessary to community responsible
officers (formally offender managers) from
either CRCs or the National Probation
Service. Isis
However, there were exceptions and
practical resettlement support remained
inconsistent at best.
The demand for resettlement services
was high, with an average of 90 prisoners
released a month. Delays and difficulties
in implementing the CRC arrangements
had led to problems in delivering some
resettlement services, which were weak.
Bedford
Most establishments had systems to
complete the prisoner’s initial basic custody
screening and resettlement plans. However,
the national model did not allow for these
to be reviewed until three months before
release, even if a prisoner transferred to
another establishment in the meantime.
Prisoners usually had updated resettlement
plans completed within their last 12 weeks
of custody, and sooner if they had less than
12 weeks to serve. However, completion
of plans often did not lead to well-planned
resettlement.
The Shelter worker and the offender supervisor
rarely worked together for release planning,
and there was a lack of clarity about the roles
and responsibilities of OMU and Shelter/
resettlement work. Thorn Cross
While we found some good communication
at Isis, especially on issues for which
the prison was directly responsible, the
outcome of referrals to other departments
(such as housing, employment, training and
education) or where work was undertaken

50

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION THREE
Men in prison

by other services (such as drugs, alcohol
and mental health) were not consistently
recorded or shared with staff in the
community, undermining the principles of
continuity and effectiveness.
At most prisons, there was little or no
reliable recording of outcome data, such
as the number of prisoners released to
sustainable accommodation or entering
employment, training or education.

‘Through-the-gate’ resettlement services for short-term
prisoners
Between April and June 2016, we worked with HM
Inspectorate of Probation on a joint thematic inspection to
examine the effectiveness of through-the-gate resettlement
services.22 We examined the cases of 61 prisoners in custody
and after their release into the community, and a further 25
prisoners who had been in custody but which were reviewed
by us only after release. All prisoners had served short
sentences of less than 12 months.
This thematic report describes a number of failings.
Assessments of need were often based wholly on what
prisoners told workers without any verification or rounded
assessment:
In too many cases, resettlement planning consisted of no
more than referrals to other agencies, recorded as completed
once an email had been sent.
Furthermore, this inspection found that of the prisoners
reviewed:
… not enough assistance was given to prisoners to resolve
debts. Too many prisoners were released without any
accommodation. None of the prisoners had been helped into
employment by through-the-gate services and we did not
see examples of handover to specialist education or training
resources in the community.
Because of the lack of integration and provision:
… many responsible officers conveyed a lack of hope and
an almost fatalistic acceptance of the likelihood of failure.
This did not bode well for the released prisoner or the wider
community.

Contact with families and friends
In August 2016, we published a findings
paper on prisoner contact with families
and friends.23 The paper drew on several
previous studies, including two earlier HMI
Prisons thematic reports, and a review of
inspections during 2015–16. We noted
very good and innovative work at some
establishments, and acknowledged that
most prisons offered support during visits
and programmes to engage both prisoners
and their families. However, we concluded
that arrangements to help prisoners
maintain and strengthen those crucial
contacts were too variable.
We identified a number of these
shortcomings in several inspections this
year, including a lack of parenting and
relationships courses, delays in the start
of visits, and concerns that prisoners on
different IEP levels had differential access
to family contact. However, we found a
general improvement, including at Cardiff,
Durham, Hewell and Wymott.
The range of interventions… to help
prisoners maintain or re-establish
contact with their children and families
was good and had increased since the
last inspection. Seven themed family
days had taken place in the last year
and, in the previous six months, 51
children and 33 families had attended.
Access to family days was not restricted
to enhanced prisoners… A weekly
fathers’ and children’s visit took place…
where prisoners could spend time
with their younger children in play
and educational activities. A weekly
homework club provided a structured
intervention for older children who were
encouraged to bring in schoolwork to
complete with their father. Durham

22	 An Inspection of Through the Gate Resettlement Services for Short-Term Prisoners, http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/
cjji/inspections/throughthegate2016/
23	 Life in prison: Contact with families and friends, http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/
sites/4/2016/08/Contact-with-families-and-friends-findings-paper-2016.pdf
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

51

4
SECTION THREE
Men in prison

Women in prison

52

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION FOUR
Women in prison

This section reviews five inspections of
women’s prisons – at Bronzefield, Drake
Hall, East Sutton Park, Eastwood Park and
Foston Hall. The findings reported are based
on Expectations: Criteria for assessing the
treatment of and conditions for women in
prisons, published in June 2014.
¡¡ Women’s prisons still continued to
perform better than most prisons for
men, but women were held further from
home and women’s prisons were more
crowded than previously.
¡¡ The population held had become
more complex and work to address the
complicated needs of women prisoners
continued to improve.
¡¡ Relationships between staff and
prisoners were generally strong
but staff were more stretched than
previously.
¡¡ Women had greater contact with their
offender supervisors than we see in
men’s prisons.
¡¡ Children and families work was very
strong.
¡¡ The new resettlement services were not
yet fully embedded.
¡¡ Work with women who had been
abused, trafficked, experienced
domestic violence or involved in sex
work remained underdeveloped.

Outcomes for women in the five prisons
inspected were strong, with all judged good or
reasonably good in the areas of safety, respect
and resettlement. However, Foston Hall did not
deliver adequate purposeful activity (figure 14).
We have compared the outcomes for the prisons
we reported on in 2016–17 with those we
reported the last time we inspected the same
establishments (figure 15).

Outcome of previous recommendations
In the women’s prisons reported on in
2016–17:
¡¡ 53% of our previous recommendations
in the area of safety had been
achieved, 16% partially achieved and
31% not achieved
¡¡ 39% of our previous recommendations
in the area of respect had been
achieved, 28% partially achieved and
33% not achieved
¡¡ 46% of our previous recommendations
in the area of activity had been
achieved, 29% partially achieved and
25% not achieved
¡¡ 52% of our previous recommendations
in the area of resettlement had been
achieved, 21% partially achieved and
27% not achieved.

Figure 14: Outcomes in inspections of women’s prisons reported on in 2016-17
Safety

Respect

Purposeful activity Preparation for release

Bronzefield

Reasonably good

Good

Reasonably good

Good

Drake Hall

Good

Reasonably good

Good

Good

East Sutton Park

Good

Good

Good

Good

Eastwood Park

Reasonably good

Reasonably good

Reasonably good

Reasonably good

Foston Hall

Reasonably good

Reasonably good

Not sufficiently good

Reasonably good

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

53

SECTION FOUR
Women in prison

Figure 15: Outcome changes from previous inspection (women’s prisons - 5)

Number of HPAs improved/ unchanged/ declined

4

4

4

4

3

2

1

0

2

2

1

1

1

0
Safety

0
Respect

Purposeful activity

Strategic context
The government is due to produce a strategy
during 2017 setting out plans for five
new community women’s prisons focusing
specifically on resettlement. This could
address the current problem that women’s
prisons have in focusing sufficiently on
resettlement provision, while also trying
to maintain their local function. We would
also welcome any additional opportunities
for women to spend time in an open prison
nearer to their home – currently, many
women choose to stay in closed conditions,
even when suitable for an open prison, if the
options available are further away.
It was positive that women’s prisons were
now managed strategically as a single
cluster, rather than alongside male prisons
in the same geographical area. NOMS (now
HMPPS) had appointed a deputy director of
custody specifically for the women’s estate,
which provided opportunities to ensure that
these prisons reflected the specific needs of
women prisoners.
Despite the threat of closure, Askham
Grange and East Sutton Park (inspected this
year) remained open. Although no women’s
prisons were included in the government’s
prison reform programme,24 Eastwood Park
has been identified as one of 10 ‘Pathfinder’
prisons for the new offender management
operation model – these prisons are

1

0

Declined
Unchanged
Improved

Resettlement

expected to bring additional staffing and
key workers to support rehabilitation work.
The government has also committed to
reviewing the training of prison officers and
any specialist development and training
for those working with specific groups,
including women.
We continued to attend the Ministerial
Advisory Board on Female Offenders as an
observer. In the last year, the board has
focused more on outcomes for women in the
community.

The closure of Holloway
The closure of Holloway in London has
had a significant impact on the women’s
estate and resulted in more crowding in the
remaining women’s prisons. We inspected
Bronzefield, just outside London, before
Holloway had closed, but the four prisons
we inspected later in the year were all
feeling the effect of higher numbers of
women from a wider geographical area.
The most extreme example was Eastwood
Park in Gloucestershire, where the already
large catchment area had expanded to
include Oxfordshire – in addition to areas
from Cornwall to Wolverhampton, across
Wales and along the south coast. Downview
opened in May 2016 and was not yet
running at full capacity.

24	 Prisons and Courts Bill, http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2016-17/prisons and courts/documents.html

54

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION FOUR
Women in prison

Figure 16: Numbers held in women’s prisons compared with the previous inspection
Numbers held at
previous inspection

Numbers held
at current inspection

% change

Bronzefield

446

506

+13

Foston Hall

289

343

+19

Drake Hall

283

335

+18

East Sutton Park

100

98

-2

Eastwood Park

327

397

+21

1,445

1,679

+16

Total

We compared the population figures from
establishments at the time of inspection to
those at their previous inspection (figure
16). Although women’s prisons had not
lost as many staff as the male estate, the
number of women held in these prisons had
risen.

Greater vulnerability and
increasing needs
In January 2017, we submitted evidence to
the Independent Advisory Panel on Deaths
in Custody’s inquiry into deaths of women
in custody; this was based on our survey
data from all the women’s prisons visited
over the year compared with the last time
we inspected them. Although the findings
are not representative of the whole women’s
prisons estate, they are concerning.
While it is difficult to establish causal
relationships, there were increased levels
of reported vulnerability, mental health
problems, substance misuse problems
and safety concerns, all of which might
potentially contribute to self-inflicted deaths
in custody. Our survey data indicated that
women arriving in custody were more
vulnerable than previously. Significantly more
women than previously (39% compared with
32%) said they had arrived at prison feeling
depressed or suicidal.
The comparison showed that in the last
year 41% of women self-reported mental
health difficulties compared with 29%
at the previous inspection. More women
than previously said they had problems

with housing, contacting their employer or
contacting their family when they arrived.
The proportion of women who said they had
ever felt unsafe had risen to 52% from 39%.

Safety
Against this background of increasing
vulnerability, it is important that women
feel and are kept safe. We rated East Sutton
Park and Drake Hall as good for safety and
the other three prisons as reasonably good.
In our survey, women responded better than
men overall on their experience of escort
staff and reception. However, many women
continued to be transported in escort vans
with men, which is unacceptable. A higher
proportion of women than men said they
had problems when they first arrived at
prison (83% against 70%), and women
were less likely to say they felt safe on their
first night in prison (66% against 72%).
(See Appendix 6.)
The national centralised case management
system for women with complex needs
(equivalent to the male category A status)
continued to work well.
The prison accommodated a highly complex,
challenging and varied population. Over half
of those surveyed and more than at our last
inspection said they had felt unsafe at some
time during their stay and many said they
had been victimised. However, most women
said they felt safe at the time of the survey,
levels of violence were not excessive and
most incidents were minor. Staff knew the
women well. Bronzefield

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

55

SECTION FOUR
Women in prison

Although women with high levels of need
were usually well cared for in prison, we
sometimes met women so vulnerable that
we considered prison as inappropriate
for them. Most prisons held weekly
multidisciplinary meetings that supported
their work with the most vulnerable
women. The roll-out of training for women’s
prison staff in creating ‘trauma-informed’
environments – based on the perspective
of women who had experienced trauma –
supported well-being and helped to keep
women safe.
However, violence had increased in women’s
prisons, with numbers of assaults on women
and staff increasing. We sometimes found
insufficient challenge of low-level bullying
and negative behaviour. Such incidents can
cause women distress and can be addressed
through formal and informal mediation. Our
survey showed an increase in the proportion
of women arriving in prison with drug and/
or alcohol problems. While women’s prisons
do not have the same problems with new
psychoactive substances (NPS)25 as in the
male estate, in Drake Hall we found that
some women were misusing buscopan
(an antispasmodic that reduces muscle
movement). In general, safeguarding
arrangements had improved in most
women’s prisons, which had good links with
local authorities.

Respect
In our survey, women responded more
positively than men on many areas of
respect. Relationships between staff
and prisoners remained a strength in
most women’s prisons, and the quality
of relationships often helped to mitigate
aspects of vulnerability and need of the
women held. At Drake Hall, training for a
quality mark had a positive impact on the
quality of relationships and staff’s ability
to understand and respond to problematic
behaviour.

The prison had recently received the
Enabling Environment award from the
Royal College of Psychiatrists. This is a
quality mark for organisations that can
show they promote good relationships
and wellbeing; commendably it was
the first prison in England and Wales to
receive the award. Drake Hall
Work on equality and diversity was generally
good and we found examples of good practice.
The strong leadership, independent
scrutiny and genuine involvement of peer
diversity representatives and equalities
orderlies created and sustained women’s
confidence in the prison’s commitment to
equality and diversity. Bronzefield

Health care
Health services were reasonable, but they
were struggling to recruit and retain staff.
All the women’s prisons visited had
up-to-date health needs assessments,
which enabled health services to address
their requirements. Most women had good
access to health care, except at Eastwood
Park and Foston Hall. Antenatal support at
Bronzefield was impressive.
Waiting times for routine nurse
appointments were sometimes too long and
waits for routine GP appointments were
regularly more than two weeks… women
waited up to nine weeks for an appointment
with the optician. Foston Hall
There were significant problems with
pharmacy services and medicines
management at Bronzefield, Foston Hall
and Drake Hall, including timely access to
medicines and medication security.

25	 Drugs that are developed or chosen to mimic the effects of illegal drugs such as cannabis, heroin or amphetamines and
may have unpredictable and life-threatening effects.
56

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION FOUR
Women in prison

The proportion of women in prison reporting
mental health problems is much higher
than in the community – in our survey, 65%
of women, compared with 42% of men,
said they had mental health issues. The
mental health service provision was good at
Eastwood Park and East Sutton Park, but
did not fully meet needs at Foston Hall and
Bronzefield. The lack of counselling services
at Drake Hall was a significant deficit. As
in previous years (and in men’s prisons),
too many women requiring assessment or
treatment in hospital mental health units
waited too long to be transferred – up to 12
weeks at Foston Hall and Bronzefield.

Purposeful activity
We expect prisoners to have 10 hours a
day out of cell. On average, 21% of women
achieved this, a higher proportion than in the
male estate. At Drake Hall and East Sutton
Park (which have relatively open regimes),
women were unlocked all day.
In our survey, women were generally more
positive than men about opportunities for
purposeful activity, and more likely to report
that they had a prison job, were undertaking
vocational or skills training or were in
education.

In contrast, a longstanding lack of activity
places at Foston Hall was compounded
by inefficient allocation processes. Almost
one-third of women were unemployed and
had less than four hours out of cell each
weekday. Women on the remand wing
did not have daily access to the open air.
Whereas all other healthy prison test scores
in women’s prisons were at least reasonably
good, purposeful activity outcomes at Foston
Hall were not sufficiently good.

Resettlement
Across the women’s estate we saw some very
positive work to support women back to the
community and address the risks that they
posed, and often with far more complex
issues than their male counterparts. Some of
these problems were extreme.
In our survey, 56% of women said they
had problems with drugs when they first
arrived at the prison and 37% said they
had problems with alcohol, both higher
than at similar prisons. In addition, 31%
of women said they had housing problems
and 48%, more women than at similar
prisons, said they had mental health
problems. Eastwood Park

Drake Hall, East Sutton Park and Eastwood
Park were rated good by Ofsted. They had
enough suitable activity places and promoted
personal development.

Such problems were compounded by the
inevitable fact that many women were held
a long way from their families and support
networks.

Women developed self-confidence and
excellent employability skills that prepared
them well for work in the prison and
on release. Particularly impressive was
the willingness of most women to keep
themselves purposefully occupied during
their time in custody and to improve
actively their prospects of successful
reintegration into society after their release.
Drake Hall

The population had recently increased
following the closure of HMP Holloway…
At the time of the inspection, only 91
women were from within 50 miles of their
home area… Nearly two-thirds of them
(115 women) had not been released in
the area local to the prison. Drake Hall
Despite such challenges we saw some
extremely positive approaches to work
with women.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

57

SECTION FOUR
Women in prison

Progression and rehabilitation were central
to the prison and many women told us their
lives had been transformed since arriving at
East Sutton Park. All staff, across all areas
of the prison, understood their responsibility
to support the women with resettlement,
and the work had strong leadership.
East Sutton Park
Similarly, at Drake Hall we found ‘offender
management arrangements were largely
effective’, and that the culture and team
work were ‘impressive’
In most cases, the work of offender
management was effective and useful in
helping women progress. In some cases,
however, staff shortages and redeployment
had a significant impact on offender
supervisor contact with women and the
completion of assessments.
Thirty per cent of OASys [offender
management system] documents for
prisoners managed by prison officers were
overdue, some by many months, which
potentially compromised work to reduce
risks. Foston Hall
For most women in custody, release on
temporary licence (ROTL) was extremely
important, and was widely used to support
family ties and promote reintegration.
The wide catchment areas covered by most
prisons meant that resettlement work by
the community rehabilitation company
teams in prisons was often complex
and challenging. Despite this, most
arrangements were reasonable and there
were good attempts to access support for
women both before and after release. In
our joint thematic report on through-thegate services for short stay prisoners,26 we
found that outcomes were generally better
for women than for men. Nevertheless, at
Bronzefield many women were confused

about the arrangements, and despite
some good work at Eastwood Park, many
women did not know who to speak to
about post-release support, including for
accommodation and benefits.

Children and families
Children and families work is generally
good in women’s prisons, but the increasing
distance that women are held from home
has been a problem. At Eastwood Park,
over a quarter of women had not received a
visit since being at the prison. However, the
‘Visiting Mum’ project helped women from
South Wales maintain their family links in
a supportive and supervised environment.
At East Sutton Park, the prison provided
transport from the local stations to help
visitors get to its rural location more easily.

Victimisation abuse and trafficking
Many women in custody have been victims
of domestic abuse, trafficking and/or have
worked in the sex industry; offering support
and services in these areas is essential.
All prisons took this work seriously and
approached women sensitively.
The prison adopted a supportive and
sensitive approach to abuse. This included
a well-thought-out process for asking
women during induction about their
experiences, allocating solely female staff
as caseworkers and providing access to a
good range of resources in the prison and
in the community. A caseworker planned
services to meet the needs of victimised
and vulnerable women and an impressive
range was provided. Bronzefield
Prisons provided a range of programmes,
including the ‘Power to Change’
programme at Drake Hall, counselling
support at Foston Hall and one at
Eastwood Park to support victims of sexual
violence. While such work was positive, the
provision found this year was not adequate
to meet needs, with some prisons merely
signposting women to community services.

26	 An Inspection of Through the Gate Resettlement Services for Short-Term Prisoners, http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/
cjji/inspections/throughthegate2016/
58

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION FOUR
Women in prison

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

59

5
SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

Children in custody

60

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

This section draws on three inspections of
young offender institutions (YOIs) holding
boys aged 15 to 18 and, jointly with Ofsted
(Estyn in Wales) and the Care Quality
Commission, four inspections of secure
training centres (STCs) holding children
(boys and girls) aged 12 to 18. All the
findings from inspections in this section
are based on Expectations for children
and young people, published in June 2012,
and the framework for inspecting STCs,
published in February 2014.

Young offender institutions
¡¡ Of the four units inspected, only
the two smallest were judged to be
reasonably safe.
¡¡ There had been increasing violence, and
measures to address this had reduced
time out of cell, so many boys served
most of their sentence locked up.

Figure 17: Published outcomes in YOIs inspected in 2016–1727
Safety
Cookham Wood

Not sufficiently
good

Respect

Purposeful Resettlement
activity

Good Reasonably good

Reasonably
good

Keppel Unit

Reasonably good Reasonably
good

Poor

Reasonably
good

Parc

Reasonably good Reasonably Reasonably good
good

Reasonably
good

Wetherby

Not sufficiently Reasonably
good
good

Poor

Reasonably
good

Outcome of previous recommendations
In the YOIs reported on in 2016–17:
¡¡ 28% of our previous recommendations
in the area of safety had been achieved,
21% partially achieved and 51% not
achieved
¡¡ 29% of our previous recommendations
in the area of respect had been
achieved, 18% partially achieved and
53% not achieved
¡¡ 43% of our previous recommendations
in the area of activity had been
achieved, 7% partially achieved and
50% not achieved
¡¡ 27% of our previous recommendations
in the area of resettlement had been
achieved, 14% partially achieved and
59% not achieved.

27	 The inspection at Wetherby and Keppel produced separate assessments for each.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

61

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

Figure 18: Outcome changes from previous inspection (YOIs – 4)

Number of HPAs improved/ unchanged/ declined

5

Declined
Unchanged

4

Improved

Boys were negative about key aspects of
their early days. In our survey, only 62% of
respondents felt they were treated well in
reception, 79% said they had problems when
they arrived and only 76% felt safe on their
first night in custody.

3

2

2

2

2

1

0

Children were still being held regularly
at court for four or five hours after their
cases had been dealt with. Parc

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

0
Safety

0
Respect

Purposeful activity

Resettlement

Taylor review of youth justice and the current facilities
Throughout this year we have continued to engage
with the review of the youth justice system carried out
by Charlie Taylor, following our initial response to the
review’s emerging findings.28 This review makes several
positive recommendations, including the creation of a new
custodial estate with smaller education-focused ‘secure
schools’. However, we have significant concerns about the
lack of progress to improve outcomes in existing YOIs and
STCs, where most children will continue to be held. We
consider that the overriding priority of the Youth Justice
Board (YJB), HMPPS and ministers should be to make
children’s custody safe to enable their participation in
education, training and offending behaviour work, and the
Chief Inspector has raised these concerns with ministers.
We hope that the creation of the Youth Custody Service,
the appointment of an executive director and the YJB
review of secure monitoring will go some way towards this.

Early days in custody
Despite our recommendations to HMPPS, the escort
contractor and the YJB, boys continued to experience long
delays at court and unnecessarily long journeys to YOIs, often
sharing dirty vehicles with adult prisoners. These avoidable
delays inhibited their ability to settle in, and added risk to the
first few days in custody.

… other wings were noisy with boys
shouting out unchallenged, which could
be worrying for those new to custody.
Cookham Wood
The induction arrangements were not good
enough, and boys spent too long locked
in their cells during their first few days in
custody.

Behaviour management, violence and
antisocial behaviour
Behaviour management continued to be
ineffective, despite some positive initiatives,
and violence and intimidating behaviour
remained a feature of life in YOIs. There
was no coordinated national approach to
address this growing issue. We look forward
to assessing the impact of the changes to
youth custody, announced in February 2017,
in 2017–18.
Levels of violence had risen at Keppel,
Parc and Wetherby, and we raised concerns
about underreporting at Cookham Wood. As
a result, too many children felt unsafe. In
our survey, 41% of children told us they had
felt unsafe and 14% felt unsafe at the time
of the inspection, 29% had experienced
victimisation by other boys, and 32%
reported victimisation by staff. Only one in
five boys thought that staff would take it
seriously if they reported victimisation.

28	 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/02/Response-to-Review-of-the-Youth-Justice-Systeminterim-report-of-emerging-findings.pdf

62

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

We continued to report the lack of support
for the significant number of boys who were
too scared to leave their cells.
… there were no longer victim support
plans, and PACT [positive attitudes
created together, a management action
plan] did not provide for the needs of
victims. In the context of frequent staff
redeployment and an ineffective personal
officer scheme, an informal approach was
not adequate and there was no safety net
for boys whose needs were not brought
explicitly to the attention of staff.
Wetherby and Keppel
We did find some potentially positive
developments, including the new progression
unit at Cookham Wood, which attempted
to deal with boys with particularly complex
needs who regularly committed acts of
violence. When we inspected the unit was
in its early days, and while appropriate in
principle, it lacked direction and strategy, the
regime was poor and case management was
underdeveloped.
With the exception of Parc, establishments
continued to rely on physically separating
boys, rather than mediating or addressing
conflict in other ways, with the consequence
that too many spent too long locked alone in
their cells.

Use of force
Use of force was high at all YOIs and had
risen at Keppel, Parc and Cookham Wood.
Most incidents continued to be spontaneous
responses to violence, and we saw many
instances of staff putting themselves at risk
to protect children in their care. However,
we also saw evidence of poor de-escalation
by staff, as well as examples of staff using
pain-inducing techniques and strip-searching
children under restraint.
Despite some improvements, oversight of use
of force required improvement at Cookham
Wood, and was poor at Wetherby and Keppel.

Oversight of use of force was weak; MMPR
[minimising and managing physical restraint]
coordinators who were responsible for
implementing training, reviewing incidents
and chasing documentation were frequently
redeployed to other roles. Some incidents
were not reviewed for weeks after they had
occurred. Not enough staff were trained…
Staff still did not complete use of force
paperwork in a timely fashion and nearly
300 documents were missing at the time of
the inspection… The level and extent of use
of force remained unclear. Wetherby and Keppel

Suicide and self-harm prevention
There had been no self-inflicted deaths
in YOIs during 2016–17, and none since
January 2012. All inspections found that
boys on assessment, care in custody and
teamwork (ACCT) case management were
generally positive about their care.
However, at Wetherby boys in crisis were
living in cells bare of furnishings and
personal belongings, despite being under
constant supervision. These sterile conditions
gave too much priority to mitigating risk
rather than providing a humane environment
that promoted well-being.

Segregation
In our survey, 38% of boys said they had
spent a night in a care and separation
(segregation) unit. Segregation was rare for
boys at Keppel and the lack of a dedicated
segregation unit meant use of segregation at
Parc was commendably low. But segregation
had increased at Cookham Wood and was
unchanged at Wetherby; both units were
inadequate.
None of the boys had sufficient activities to
occupy them in their cells and radios were
only issued to them during the inspection.
We were concerned about the impact of this
lack of activity on the few children who spent
long periods in the segregation unit.
Wetherby and Keppel

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

63

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

Living conditions and relationships
Living conditions varied across the
estate. Boys at Cookham Wood lived in
well-equipped modern single cells with
in-cell showers and telephones. But
at Wetherby, some boys were living in
cramped cells with inadequately screened
toilets. They were also short of basic items,
including curtains and kettles.
Relationships between boys and staff varied,
but in our survey, only 61% of children
said that most staff treated them with
respect. There was evidence of deteriorating
relationships at both Parc and Wetherby,
where the number of children reporting
victimisation by staff had also increased.
Children’s perceptions of staff had
deteriorated since the previous inspection.
In our survey, only 55% of children said
that most staff treated them with respect
and over a third said they would have
no one to turn to if they had a problem.
42% of children reported victimisation by
staff compared with 20% at the previous
inspection, and 18% said they had been
victimised after making a complaint. Parc

had been treated fairly by the rewards scheme.
Only 36% of Muslim boys said they usually
had association every day, compared with 60%
of non-Muslim boys.
Children with disabilities continued to be more
likely to feel unsafe, and children looked after
by a local authority were less likely receive a
weekly visit.
Work to identify, understand and address
these differences was reasonably good at
Cookham Wood, but it had deteriorated at
Parc and Wetherby and Keppel. At Wetherby
and Keppel, the equality officer was regularly
redeployed and did not have enough time to
fulfil his duties. The prison had also stopped
monitoring outcomes for boys with protected
characteristics, which was concerning.
The equality manager was unaware of
data from the equality monitoring tool for
the unit and the main site which showed
disproportionate treatment of 15- to 18year olds in the adjudication process and
incentives and earned privileges scheme.
Limited data were presented to the unit
safeguarding meeting on the ethnic
background of children and on the use of
separation, use of force and self-harm by
ethnicity. There were no monitoring data
for other protected characteristics. Parc

In contrast, at Cookham Wood we
saw improvements; most staff were
knowledgeable about the boys in their care,
and displayed exemplary commitment and
patience in frequently challenging situations.
We commended the professionalism of staff
from all areas of the establishment. However,
it was concerning that more than one in five
children said they would have no one to turn
to if they had a problem.

Support for gay or bisexual children remained
a significant gap at all sites, and more needed
to be done to assure this group that they
would be kept safe. At Parc, staff told us that
homophobic attitudes were the most difficult
diversity issue they faced.

Diversity

Health

Boys with different protected characteristics
had significantly different perceptions in key
areas of our survey. Those from a black and
minority ethnic background were more likely
than white boys to report being physically
restrained or having received an adjudication,
and only 27%, compared with 44%, felt they

Newly arrived boys generally received
prompt comprehensive health assessments.
Access to and the quality of health services
at most establishments remained mainly
good, although difficulties continued at
Cookham Wood, with boys waiting far too
long to see the dentist.

64

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

We were concerned at Wetherby that health
staff did not routinely attend use of force
incidents, although they were to be trained
in awareness of the MMPR techniques and
when to raise concerns.

With the exception of Parc, access to
exercise remained inadequate with boys
entitled to only 30 minutes a day – and,
in practice, many did not have even this.
Exercise yards were stark.

At Cookham Wood, the introduction
of medic alert bracelets for boys with
potentially life-threatening conditions to
help prison staff ensure their safety was an
impressive innovation.

Taking part in activities

Mental health services remained mostly
good, although some boys at Wetherby and
Cookham Wood continued to experience
significant delays in transfer to external
mental health services.

Time out of cell
The implementation of a national core
day designed to facilitate education for
30 hours a week in English YOIs had not
gone well. Staffing shortages and high
levels of violence meant there were interim
arrangements during our inspections of
Cookham Wood and Wetherby and Keppel,
where children had inadequate time out
of cell or exercise. During our roll checks,
we found around a third of children locked
in their cells on each inspection. At
Keppel, the figure was 31%, a significant
deterioration from our previous inspection
when we had found no boys locked up.
Time out of cell at Cookham Wood had
improved from a low base; in our survey, 34%
of boys said that they could go on association
every day, compared with 14% in 2015.
In stark contrast, Parc was the only YOI to
meet our expectation of providing 10 hours
a day out of cell. Crucially, all children could
access evening association and eat all their
meals communally.

Boys in custody have often had negative
experiences of education in the community.
In our survey, 86% said they had been
excluded from school before they came
into detention, 73% reported truanting at
some time, and 39% said they were 14 or
younger when they last attended school.
Custody provides an opportunity for many
of these children to make up for lost time
and achieve skills and qualifications to help
them become successful adults. It was
disappointing that the overall effectiveness
of learning and skills and work at Wetherby
and Keppel was judged to be inadequate
and that the quality of teaching and
provision at Parc was only adequate. Only
Cookham Wood was judged to be good,
with a broad and balanced curriculum
offering 21 options in vocational training
or classroom learning. However, even here,
progress was frustrated by disruptions
to the regime that meant that boys too
frequently arrived late for sessions.
At Wetherby and Keppel the situation was
worse:
Not all boys attended their planned
activities. The frequent shutdowns
caused by lack of prison staff prevented
boys accessing education and overall
attendance at education was low at around
66%. The prison was not able to deliver
the required 30 hours of education a week
and many boys with short sentences, or on
remand, failed to complete their courses
before they were released or transferred.
Wetherby and Keppel
For those who did attend education, the
quality of teaching and learning was mainly
good, and boys generally behaved well and
made progress.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

65

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

Figure 19: Ofsted assessments in YOIs holding children 2016–17
Overall
effectiveness of
learning and skills
and work

Outcomes Quality of learning
for children and
and skills and
young people
work activities

Personal
Effectiveness of
development and
leadership and
behaviour management skills

Outstanding

0

0

0

0

0

Good

1

1

3

3

1

Requires
improvement

0

0

0

0

2

Inadequate

2

2

0

0

0

Total

3

3

3

3

3

Figure 19a: Estyn assessments in YOIs holding children 2016–17
Overall effectiveness of
learning and skills
and work

Achievements of
Quality of learning
prisoners engaged in
and skills and work
learning and skills
provision, including
and work the quality of teaching,
training, learning and
assessment

Leadership and
management of
learning and skills
and work

Excellent

0

0

0

0

Good

0

0

0

0

Adequate

1

1

1

1

Unsatisfactory

0

0

0

0

Total

1

1

1

1

Provision for resettlement
Resettlement provision continued to
offer a better picture, with reasonably
good outcomes at all establishments.
We found well-organised, committed teams
of caseworkers and good use of release
on temporary licence (ROTL) to support
resettlement for boys at Wetherby and
Keppel and Cookham Wood. However, too
many sentence or remand plans contained
generic rather than individually designed
targets. In our survey, nearly half of boys
were unaware of their plan.
We found some good work to support
children to maintain ties with family and
friends, including the introduction of Skype
at Parc and a family therapy service at
Wetherby.

66

Caseworkers, education providers and
youth offending teams put significant
effort into preparing boys for release, but
too frequently this was undermined by a
lack of accommodation provision. This
was particularly a problem for looked-after
children – at each inspection we found
examples of children not knowing where
they would live until the day of release,
children being released into unsuitable
bed and breakfast accommodation and,
inexcusably, children released to no address
at all from Parc and Wetherby. Delays in
the provision of accommodation prevented
children making other plans, disrupted
through-the-gate support for those with
health and substance misuse needs, and
prevented enrolment in education on
release. This lack of accommodation needs
action at national level by the Ministry of
Justice, Department for Education and
Department for Communities and Local
Government.

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

A long way from home
The reduction in the number of children
in custody and the secure settings in
which they are held means that some
children are now held further from home
than previously. Our thematic report on
this issue29 found that distance did not
result in differential treatment of children
held far from home, and did not affect
the involvement of youth offending teams
in sentence and remand management.
However, children and staff told us
that distance made it harder for family
and carers to visit and maintain their
relationships. We found that each 25mile interval that a child was held from
their home area was associated with one
less visit from a relative or friend. This
is concerning given the importance of
families to successful rehabilitation and
turning children away from crime.

29	 The impact of distance from home on children in custody, https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/
inspections/the-impact-of-distance-from-home-on-children-in-custody/
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

67

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

Secure training centres
¡¡ There had been a decline in the
conditions in which children were held
in STCs, but some examples of good
provision.
¡¡ All of the STCs were judged to be
insufficiently safe, with poor behaviour
management, high levels of violence
and overuse of force to manage
children.
¡¡ Staffing shortages and uncertainty
about the future of STCs had a
detrimental impact.
Secure training centres (STCs) are either
mixed or single sex sites, and hold young
people aged 13 to 18 who are deemed
more vulnerable and less likely to do well in
a larger institution. All have clear needs to
be addressed while in custody and require
consistent support to do this.
In this reporting period, Ofsted, with HM
Inspectorate of Prisons and the Care Quality
Commission, published four STC reports –
two on Rainsbrook and one each on Medway
and Oakhill. It was a period of change across
the STC estate. Overall we found a decline
in the conditions in which children were
detained.
Medway was assessed as inadequate
overall and Oakhill and Rainsbrook required
improvement. At all three STCs, staffing
shortages had a detrimental impact on the
performance of almost all aspects of the

centres. These shortages were compounded
by uncertainty about the future of each
STC, which affected both children and staff.
Management of two centres had changed to
providers new to the STC estate, bringing new
challenges that leaders and managers in the
centres were not effective in responding to.
All STCs saw a reduction for some periods
in the number of young people they could
accommodate safely, due to staffing and
the difficulties of maintaining a welltrained and experienced workforce. This
put more pressure on the limited places
available in secure children’s homes. We
were also concerned that the restriction on
spaces meant that some vulnerable boys
who might have previously been placed in
a STC went into a YOI.
The management of behaviour required
attention in all STCs. Application of rules
was inconsistent, as was the use of rewards
and sanctions. Levels of violence were high
– both assaults on staff and on other young
people. At Medway, we found evidence of
under-recording of violent incidents.
Use of force was also high. At Oakhill, the
number of incidents had doubled since the
last inspection to more than 70 a month –
among the highest we have seen. Oversight
of the use of force was reasonably good at
Oakhill but was poor at Medway. Rainsbrook
had some unacceptable practice in use of
force and restraint, and governance needed
improvement. Staff at both Medway and

Figure 20: Outcomes in inspections of secure training centres 2016–17
Secure training
centre
Rainsbrook
(March 2016)
Medway
(June 2016)

Overall
effectiveness

Safety

Requires
Requires
improvement improvement

Care Achievement Resettlement

Requires
Requires
improvement improvement

Inadequate

Inadequate

Inadequate

Rainsbrook
(October 2016)

Requires
Requires
improvement Improvement

Inadequate

Requires
improvement

Oakhill
(January 2017)

Requires
Requires
improvement improvement

Inadequate

Requires
improvement

68

Inadequate

Behaviour

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

Health

Leader
effectiveness

n/a

n/a

Requires
improvement

Good

Good

Inadequate

Requires
Requires
improvement improvement

Good

Inadequate

Good

Requires
Requires
improvement improvement

Requires
Requires
Requires
improvement improvement improvement

SECTION FIVE
Children in custody

Oakhill had used pain-inducing techniques
on children, and at Medway the use of these
inappropriate techniques was exacerbated by
their misapplication by inexperienced staff.
Child protection and safeguarding procedures
were undergoing review at all three centres.
The physical conditions of the STCs had
deteriorated to the extent that at Medway we
judged there were potential health and safety
implications for staff and children. Children
mostly reported feeling respected by staff,
but relationships were hampered by frequent
changes of residential staff. At all three
centres, key worker schemes – which should
have provided each child with a named
member of staff to support them – were
ineffective.
There was some good work at all the centres.
The education provision was good at Oakhill,
as was health care at Rainsbrook and
Medway and resettlement support at Medway.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

69

6

SECTION SIX
Immigration detention

Immigration detention

70

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION SIX
Immigration detention

This section draws on inspection reports for
three immigration removal centres (IRCs),
the Cedars pre-departure accommodation
used to hold families with children, 18
short-term holding facilities (STHFs), and
one escorted overseas removal. All the
findings are based on the third edition of
our Expectations: Criteria for assessing the
conditions for and treatment of immigration
detainees, published in September 2012.
¡¡ In the three inspected IRCs and the
Cedars pre-departure accommodation,
most outcomes against our healthy
establishment tests were at least
reasonably good.
¡¡ Some aspects of safety had
deteriorated and there was a rise in
deaths in detention.
¡¡ A significant number of detainees were
held for prolonged periods.
¡¡ There were improvements in the Rule
35 process, which is intended to
protect detainees with serious health
problems and those who have been
tortured or trafficked, but more was
needed.
¡¡ New psychoactive substances were an
emerging issue.
¡¡ IRC staff were generally respectful to
detainees, and there was some good
preparation for release work.
¡¡ Conditions in the STHFs were generally
appropriate for short periods of
detention.
¡¡ The overseas charter removal we
inspected was reasonably well
conducted.

Outcome of previous recommendations30
In the IRCs reported on in 2016–17:
¡¡ 38% of our previous recommendations
in the area of safety had been achieved,
19% partially achieved and 43% not
achieved
¡¡ 43% of our previous recommendations
in the area of respect had been
achieved, 30% partially achieved and
27% not achieved
¡¡ 37% of our previous recommendations
in the area of activity had been
achieved, 26% partially achieved and
37% not achieved
¡¡ 29% of our previous recommendations
in the area of preparation for release
had been achieved, 26% partially
achieved and 44% not achieved.
In the year ending December 2016, 28,908
people entered immigration detention, a
decrease of 11% on the previous year, which
might have been partly due to the closure of
Dover IRC in October 2015 and temporary
closure of Tinsley House IRC from July
2016. At any time, more than 3,500 people
are in immigration detention in the UK. They
are held mainly in one of the nine IRCs,
the three STHFs or in prisons, which, on
3 October 2016, held 442 people detained
under immigration powers.31 There are also
31 non-residential STHFs, which are near
ports of entry into the UK or at Home Office
reporting centres. Some are part-time or
overflow facilities not in regular use.32

30	 Excludes four recommendations that required no follow up.
31	 Home Office Immigration Statistics July to September 2016 give the figures for immigration removal centres but do not
include those held under immigration powers in non-residential short-term holding facilities or police stations (https://
www.gov.uk/government/ publications/immigration-statistics-july-to-september-2016/detention, accessed 30.1.17). While
the Home Office does not routinely collect this data, on the basis of Home Office management information, a UK National
Preventive Mechanism detention mapping project – Detention Population Data Mapping Project, https://s3-eu-west-2.
amazonaws.com/npm-prod-storage-19n0nag2nk8xk/uploads/2017/01/NPM-Detention-Population-Data-Mapping-ProjectFINAL.pdf – estimated that 50,000 individuals were held for short periods in non-residential STHFs in the year to 31
March 2016, or around 138 people a day. There are some caveats to these figures.
32	 The Home Office has advised that the Folkestone overflow facility at Frontier House is unlikely to be used again but
remains a potential site of detention.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

71

SECTION SIX
Immigration detention

Figure 21: Outcomes in inspections of IRCs and pre-departure accommodation 2016–17
IRC and contractor

Safety

Respect

Brook House (G4S)

Reasonably good

Reasonably good

Reasonably good

Reasonably good

Good

Good

Good

Good

Reasonably good

Not sufficiently good

Reasonably good

Good

Not sufficiently good

Reasonably good

Good

Good

Cedars pre-departure
accommodation (G4S)
Colnbrook (Mitie)
Morton Hall (HMPPS)

Some concerns about safety
Two of the three inspected IRCs were
reasonably safe at the time of inspection,
but the availability of illegal drugs,
especially new psychoactive substances, was
a developing problem that had not yet been
adequately addressed.
The supply and misuse of drugs was
the most significant threat to security,
and there was evidence of the organised
criminal supply of drugs. However,
the centre did not have a drug supply
[reduction] strategy. Brook House
However, all three IRCs now provided
satisfactory clinical support for detainees
with substance misuse needs, and
psychosocial support was available.
At Brook House and Colnbrook, incidents
of violence and self-harm were not high,
and Brook House had managed a complex
population reasonably well. Despite some
ongoing problems and serious individual
incidents, both these centres were
reasonably calm. However, at Morton Hall
the situation was not as good.

Violence reduction work at Morton Hall
was reactive and not based on a holistic
understanding of the causes and possible
responses to violence.
At all IRCs, detainees reported feelings of
depression or despair. In our surveys, 43%,
48% and 49% of detainees at Brook House,
Colnbrook and Morton Hall respectively
said they had problems with depression or
suicidal feelings on their arrival.
There had been a three-fold increase in
incidents of self-harm since the previous
inspection. During the previous year, four
detainees had narrowly escaped fatal or
serious injuries as a result of self-harm.
The causes of self-harm had not been
sufficiently analysed and there was no
strategy to reduce it. Morton Hall
The implementation of the assessment,
care in detention and teamwork (ACDT)
case management system for detainees in
crisis was not effective enough to provide
consistently good support at any centre.

There was a tense atmosphere on most
residential units and many detainees,
especially those detained for the longest
periods, were extremely frustrated. Many
cited the uncertainty created by their
immigration cases and the prison-like
environment. Antisocial behaviour was not
uncommon. Morton Hall

72

Purposeful activity Preparation for release

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION SIX
Immigration detention

Detention-related deaths
There had been a significant rise in
detention-related deaths and fewer were
due to natural causes. The Home Office
reported six deaths from April 2016 to
March 2017, compared with three during
the previous reporting year. Looked at
over a longer period, there had been eight
deaths in the 18 months to 1 June 2017,
compared with nine in the previous four
years combined (1 January 2012 to 31
December 2015).
Two of the more recent deaths were
self-inflicted, one was a suspected
homicide,33 three were drug-related and
two followed sudden illnesses. With one
exception34 these deaths occurred in
detention or within a day of formal release.
In some cases, the detainee was released
as a direct result of an incident in detention
that led to death, such as the assault that
led to the suspected homicide. Of the nine
deaths in the previous four years, all but
two were due to natural causes.35

Vulnerability
In response to the Shaw review on the welfare
of vulnerable detainees,36 the Home Office
had introduced a new policy to manage
adults at risk in immigration detention. The
policy was not yet widely understood, and
there was a lack of communication between
centre staff who had contact with at-risk
detainees and the caseworkers, based in
offices around the country, who decide if
detention should be maintained. At both
Brook House and Morton Hall, we obtained
lists of detainees identified by the Home
Office as being at risk of harm under the new
policy, but neither the Home Office teams at
the centres or custodial managers had these
lists. They could not, therefore, systematically
identify and support all at risk adults, nor

monitor the impact of detention on them
over time. We also found people with severe
mental illnesses in detention, where their
complex needs could not be adequately met.
A positive finding was improved application
of Rule 35 protections.37 At Colnbrook,
over a quarter of Rule 35 reports had led
to release, while at both Brook House and
Morton Hall a third had done so in the
previous six months. However, weaknesses
remained in a process that should reflect
the highest standards in every case, given
the seriousness of the concerns that lead to
Rule 35 letters. For example, at Colnbrook,
the detention of a torture survivor was
maintained without the Home Office making
clear what had led to this decision. Men also
waited too long for assessments at Colnbrook
and Morton Hall, which extended time in
detention for some vulnerable people.

Length of detention
The length of detention remained a major
concern. Detainees had been held for an
average of about three months at the time
of our inspections of Brook House and
Morton Hall, and we found many cases of
prolonged detention at every centre. The
longest period of cumulative detention we
found was at Colnbrook, where a man had
been held in immigration detention for more
than four and a half years. There remains a
pressing need for a maximum time limit on
immigration detention, especially in light of
shortcomings in legal assistance. Detainees
could receive half an hour of legal advice at
all centres but there were some long waiting
times (nine days at Brook House), and many
did not have ongoing legal representation.
Very few organisations now provide
publically funded independent legal advice
to detainees which is free at the point of
delivery. Bail for Immigration Detainees was
the only organisation present in each of the
inspected IRCs.

33	 Before 2016, there had been only one instance of homicide, a manslaughter at Harmondsworth IRC in 2003.
34	 A drug-related death that occurred four days after release.
35	 Some of these classifications are awaiting a final inquest verdict. All figures have been provided by the Home Office and the
Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, which investigates fatal incidents.
36	 Shaw, S. (2016) Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons: A report to the Home Office, CM9186. London:
Home Office.
37	 Rule 35 requires notification to Home Office Immigration and Enforcement if a detainee’s health is likely to be injuriously
affected by detention, including if they may have been the victim of torture.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

73

SECTION SIX
Immigration detention

Bail for Immigration Detainees (BID)
attended the centre every fortnight
and held self-help workshops in bail
applications. They took on bail cases for
longer-term detainees. Brook House

Prison-like conditions and poor
cleanliness
Detainees were held in prison-like conditions
at all immigration removal centres. The
residential units at Brook House and
Colnbrook were indistinguishable from
prison units. The lack of ventilation in the
sealed air-conditioned units at Colnbrook
and Brook House was a recurring problem.
The fact that detainees could not open a
window in their cells and were still locked
in for extended periods clearly affected their
sense of well-being.
The residential units remained stark and
impersonal in design… Many cells lacked
curtains and many in-cell toilets were not
curtained off. Many cells had ingrained
dirt… The lack of ventilation was the most
common complaint, and many cells were
too stuffy overnight. Brook House

What worked well at IRCs
We saw good interactions between staff
and detainees at all three centres, with
many officers trying to help detainees.
Detainees’ religious beliefs were respected
and chaplaincy services at Brook House
were excellent. Written complaints were
generally handled appropriately. At Brook
House, managers made good efforts to
contact detainees who had left the UK with
responses to their complaints.
Health care was generally good, although
staffing shortages and a lack of consulting
rooms restricted provision at Colnbrook.
At Brook House, the occupational therapist
offered a range of group emotional
well-being activities.

74

There was a reasonable range of activities at
the three centres, including in the evenings,
but the women at Colnbrook had less access
to them than the men. Library services were
generally good, and detainees could use
reasonably well-equipped gyms.
There were generally good welfare services to
prepare detainees for removal or release. At
Colnbrook, an impressive range of voluntary
organisations supported detainees, and
detainees thought highly of the work of the
welfare team.
In one case the team went out of its way
to support a detainee with disabilities
on release, including booking a hotel
at the centre’s expense and driving the
detainee to his ‘temporary admission’
accommodation the next day. Colnbrook
At Morton Hall, Children’s Links, a national
charity providing services for children, young
people and families, provided excellent
support to help detainees maintain contact
with their families:
… a Children’s Links welfare officer had
been delivering a new ‘Resettlement,
removal and reintegration’ service
for detainees who had been issued
with removal directions, granted bail/
immediate release or had a pressing
family issue. Morton Hall

Family detention
The Cedars pre-departure accommodation,
a specialist facility for the detention of
families with children, has consistently
provided the best outcomes for detainees
in the immigration detention estate. The
most recent inspection was no exception.
Once again we found a safe, decent,
child-centred facility run by motivated
and committed staff. Partnership working
between the Home Office, the children’s
charity Barnardo’s and the detention
contractor G4S was strong. However, Cedars

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION SIX
Immigration detention

was closed during the year as a result of
high maintenance costs and relatively low
use. Barnardo’s has decided that it does
not wish to provide services at a planned
alternative facility in the grounds of Tinsley
House adult IRC, as it does not believe it
will provide an appropriate environment
for children. A ground-breaking facility has
been lost, and replicating the standards that
it set will be a challenge.

Short-term holding facilities
Outcome of previous recommendations
In the STHFs reported on in 2016–17:
¡¡ 	36% of our previous recommendations
in the area of safety had been
achieved, 10% partially achieved and
53% not achieved
¡¡ 35% of our previous recommendations
in the area of respect had been
achieved, 10% partially achieved and
55% not achieved
¡¡ 7% of our previous recommendations
in the area of activity had been
achieved, 20% partially achieved and
73% not achieved
¡¡ 24% of our previous recommendations
in the area of preparation for release
had been achieved, 3% partially
achieved and 74% not achieved.
This year we reported on 20 short-term
holding facilities: two residential
(Larne House and Pennine House) and
18 non-residential.38 Overall findings
were reasonably positive, but there
had been insufficient progress on our
recommendations for further improvements.
As in previous years, STHFs provided
generally good treatment for the majority
who were held for short periods, but we once
again found too many detainees held for up
to and over 24 hours in unsuitable facilities
with nowhere to sleep or shower, and no
access to the fresh air or the internet.

The holding room was clean, but cramped
and dingy, with no natural light. It was
also cold and staff could not control the
temperature… It was not suitable for
lengthy detentions. Manchester Airport
It was positive that Birmingham Airport now
had a shower for detainees.
Unrelated men and women were still often
held in the same holding room, as in
Manchester Airport, Solihull and Glasgow
Airport. At both the residential facilities,
men’s and women’s accommodation were
insufficiently separated.
Arrangements for safeguarding children were
generally sound, but at Edinburgh Airport,
a 13-year-old girl and her mother had been
held for over 31 hours, which was too long.
Although there were specially trained Border
Force safeguarding and trafficking teams at
the airports, these staff were not available on
every shift. Border Force staff at ports and
airports had good awareness of the National
Referral Mechanism (to identify, protect and
support victims of trafficking).
Most detainee custody officers (DCOs) were
courteous towards detainees.
Three detainees were held in the facility at
the time of the inspection. DCOs introduced
themselves using their first names. They
were polite and interacted respectfully with
detainees. The interpersonal skills of some
Immigration Enforcement officers were poor
in comparison. Dallas Court, Salford
Use of force was rare, but at Lunar
House, an incident involving Home Office
enforcement officers resulted in ‘potentially
excessive and dangerous use of force’.
Despite the concerns of the DCOs present,
this was not properly communicated to
Home Office managers, who only reviewed
the incident after we referred it to them.

38	 We published 18 reports; the Calais and Coquelles report covered three facilities.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

75

SECTION SIX
Immigration detention

At Dover seaport and the Eurotunnel area
at Longport the number of migrants arriving
clandestinely had decreased significantly
since 2015, when we were very concerned
at the unacceptably poor conditions at
Longport. This facility was no longer used to
hold detainees.
We inspected jointly with French
inspectors39 four facilities in northern
France that contribute to the UK’s
immigration controls. The facilities
remained largely unchanged since our
previous visits. In 2012 the Home Office
accepted our recommendation that the
facility at Coquelles freight ‘be closed
or completely refurbished and made fit
for purpose’, yet it remained in use and
unchanged during our inspection in July
2016. However, a new facility opened in
November that year, and the former facility
is no longer in use. At Dunkerque, we were
pleased to find that the Border Force had
trained staff to become certified DCOs.

A five-year review
Our thematic report, A review of short-term
holding facility inspections 2011–2015,40
summarised key themes from the 40
STHF reports published in the five years
to March 2016. The review found that
most detainees were held safely and in
conditions that were appropriate for short
periods of detention. However, some
facilities were not fit for purpose and some
key concerns identified in the last review
had not been resolved. These included:
the co-location of unrelated men, women
and families; excessively long detention
of both adults and children in facilities
designed to hold people for only a few
hours; poor use of telephone interpreting;
and lack of access to the open air.
Safeguarding adults policies and links
with the local authority were also generally
lacking, and detention staff usually had
insufficient knowledge of trafficking risks
and procedures. Following the review, we
are now focusing more strongly on these
key concerns.

39	 Contrôleur Général des Lieux de Privation de Liberté.
40	 http://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/07/Review-of-STHF-2011-2015-web.pdf
76

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

Overseas escorts
We published one overseas escort report this
year, which was a relatively straightforward
charter removal to Albania. The men
removed were all compliant, and most were
content to return. Departures from the IRCs
had improved, and detainees were not
unnecessarily segregated before their journey,
as on previous removals. Tascor staff were
active in tracking down the property of some
detainees brought from prisons without it,
which was good practice. No force was used
on this operation and disembarkation was
uneventful. However, some escorting staff
fell asleep on the aircraft while supposedly
monitoring and caring for detainees. This was
potentially unsafe and a concern we have
previously raised. There was inadequate use of
interpreters.
When staff tried to communicate with
those who spoke little or no English they
relied entirely on other detainees or on
gestures to make themselves understood.
Detainees under escort: Albania

7
SECTION SEVEN
Police custody

Police custody

78

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION SEVEN
Police custody

All the findings from inspections in this
section are based on Expectations for
police custody: Criteria for assessing the
treatment of and conditions for detainees
in police custody, published jointly with HM
Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC).41 This
section draws on 10 inspections of police
custody suites in 10 counties and London
boroughs – Avon and Somerset, Dorset,
Greater Manchester (GMP), Hampshire,
Lancashire, Metropolitan Police Service
(MPS) Detention South, South Wales, Sussex,
West Yorkshire and Wiltshire.
All inspections of police custody in England
and Wales are conducted jointly with HMIC
and are unannounced. We visit custody
suites during the day and night, including
early morning visits to observe transfers to
court and shift handovers, and night-time
and weekend visits to observe the treatment
of the range of detainees held in custody.
All police custody inspections also include
a documentary analysis of custody records
and cases.
¡¡ Police forces had a clear focus on
diverting people from custody, but
management information was not
collected or used well enough.
¡¡ Some strategies to manage detainee
risk were overcautious, yet many forces
overlooked potential ligature points.
¡¡ We continued to find weaknesses in the
governance and oversight of the police
use of force.
¡¡ Some children continued to be detained
in custody for too long when other
options should have been considered.
¡¡ Detainees with alcohol or drug
dependency had inadequate access to
substance misuse services.
¡¡ Several forces had schemes to reduce
the number of mentally ill people
brought into custody.

New police inspection framework
In April 2016, we introduced a new
methodology for the inspection of
police custody suites, placing stronger
focus on case analysis, and revised our
independent standards for inspecting,
producing a new edition of our
Expectations for police custody. These
changes strengthened our evidence
base and enabled us to put increased
emphasis on important areas for
detainees, such as safety, vulnerability
and diversity. The changes mean that
we are not able to make like-for-like
comparisons in the outcome of previous
recommendations to forces, but we
will assess their progress on our new
suggested ‘areas for improvement’ in
future annual reports.

Leadership
Custody suites represent a small but
important and high-risk area of police
business. Generally, we found clear
management and governance structures
for custody, but the emphasis on improving
outcomes for detainees was not always strong
enough. Although not always achieved in
practice, we found a clear focus on diverting
people from custody, particularly the most
vulnerable. A range of alternatives to custody
were normally available and, in some forces,
used very well.
The constabulary had invested in voluntary
attendance facilities, which diverted some
individuals from the custody suites. In
the previous three years, there had been a
55% increase in the number of voluntary
attendees. Avon and Somerset

41	 Findings from six of the inspections (Avon and Somerset, Hampshire, Lancashire, South Wales, Sussex and West Yorkshire)
were based on the third version of Expectations for Police Service Custody, published in 2016; findings from four (Dorset,
Greater Manchester, Metropolitan Police Detention South and Wiltshire) were based on the second version of Expectations
for Police Custody, published in 2012.
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

79

SECTION SEVEN
Police custody

Forces made reasonable efforts to engage
with partner agencies, particularly over the
detention of children and people subject
to section 136 of the Mental Health Act.42
However, these efforts often did not result in
better outcomes for detainees (see pages 81
and 82).
In over half the forces, management
information was not collected or used well
enough. Apart from Dorset, where there was
good collection and use of data, all the other
forces had gaps in the information available
on custody.
The force had poor access to data in
relation to custody issues… The force also
had difficulty providing data to evidence
improvements to support the effective
management of custody operations. For
example, there was no data to show how
many detainees had been strip-searched in
custody… [or]… how long all immigration
detainees had been held in police custody
before being transferred to immigration
services. GMP

Risk assessment and detainee safety
Initial assessments of detainees were
focused, with sufficient emphasis on any
vulnerabilities. Care plans generally set
appropriate levels of observation, which were
mostly adhered to, and there was appropriate
attention to rousing practice for detainees
believed to be intoxicated.
However, some strategies used to manage risk
were overcautious. With the exception of MPS
South, all forces routinely removed clothing
with cords and footwear from detainees, even
those assessed as low risk. Anti-rip clothing
(reinforced clothing that makes it more
difficult, but not impossible, to tear and use
as a ligature) was used sparingly and for good
reason in Wiltshire and GMP. However, in other

forces, including Lancashire, West Yorkshire,
Avon and Somerset, and South Wales, it was
used inappropriately for detainees who had
not complied with the initial risk assessment
or as a first response to suicide and self-harm
concerns – when higher levels of observation
would have been more appropriate and given
the detainee more dignity and care.
Risk assessments conducted by both
sergeants and detention officers were
comprehensive and properly focused.
The routine removal of cords from
detainee clothing and footwear was a
disproportionate and unsophisticated
response to managing risk, and could
be an aggravating factor… it was
inappropriate that detainees could be left
naked for significant periods in order to
reduce self-harm. Hampshire
Although staff checked the suites every
day, they did not always recognise or
identify ligature points and we found many
examples of which they were unaware in MPS
Detention South, Wiltshire, GMP, Lancashire,
Avon and Somerset, Hampshire and Sussex.
Ligature points in cells and communal
areas should be removed or the potential
risk mitigated. We reported our concerns to
the forces immediately, and they took these
seriously and planned to address or offset
the risks.
In most cases, detainees leaving custody
had a pre-release risk assessment to
ensure that they could get home safely,
although associated practices varied
considerably. Arrangements for securing a
safe release were sound in MPS Detention
South, Wiltshire, GMP, West Yorkshire
and Hampshire, but were not always good
enough in Dorset, Lancashire, South Wales,
Avon and Somerset, and Sussex.

42	 This enables a police officer to remove someone from a public place, and take them to a place of safety –
for example, a police station.

80

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION SEVEN
Police custody

Pre-release risk assessments (PRRA) we
saw were good; they involved the detainee
and focused on ensuring their safe
release from custody. Custody sergeants
appropriately reviewed the initial risk
assessments, addressed any ongoing
concerns, offered detainees leaflets
and highlighted organisations providing
suitable services. They also made
arrangements to take some vulnerable
detainees home. MPS Detention South

Use of force
Although we have made repeated
recommendations about the use of
force in custody, we continued to find
significant weaknesses in all but one
of the inspected forces. Our concerns
included: insufficient oversight; inadequate
collation and analysis of data; force that
was not always proportionate to the threat
posed, including the use of Taser and
incapacitant spray in the controlled custody
environment; handcuffs not removed
quickly enough from compliant detainees;
inadequate completion of use of force
forms to justify why force was necessary;
and the disproportionate use of force
against self-harming detainees.
Apart from Dorset, where the governance of
the use of force was excellent, we made main
recommendations on several aspects of the
use of force in all other forces inspected. To
reinforce our serious concerns about the use
of force and attempts to drive improvement,
we advised chief constables of all forces of
our expectation that the governance of the
use of force should be improved.

Children in police custody
We expect that every effort should be
made to divert children from custody or
hold them in custody for the minimum
time possible. In Hampshire and Sussex,
custody sergeants tried to divert children
from entering the criminal justice system by
referring those who admitted their offence
to youth offending teams to determine the
most appropriate community resolution.
But in most forces, we found examples
where children were detained unnecessarily,
when alternative options could have been
considered. This was a particular concern
where no local authority accommodation was
being provided for children who had been
charged and refused bail, and where the
delay in attendance of appropriate adults
prolonged detention. Care and support given
to children detained in police custody varied
and was not always good enough. Girls
under 18 were not always assigned a named
officer as required.
The force was not sufficiently effective
within its strategic partnerships to ensure
good outcomes for children. A particular
area of concern was the lack of local
authority accommodation provision for
children who had been charged and refused
bail, resulting in children being detained in
police custody unnecessarily. South Wales

Health care
Each force commissioned its own health
services, which created some variation
in delivery and service. Some forces,
such as Dorset and Lancashire, worked
collaboratively with NHS England to
improve services.
Most detainees had access to good
health services while in police custody,
although in a few forces, such as Wiltshire,
Lancashire and MPS Detention South,
difficulties recruiting health professionals
had sometimes extended response times.
Apart from Avon and Somerset and West
Yorkshire, the clinical environment in suites
did not always meet the required infection
control standards.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

81

SECTION SEVEN
Police custody

Although a large proportion of detainees
presented with alcohol or drug dependency,
access to substance misuse services while in
custody was inadequate in some or all suites
in several forces, mainly due to funding cuts.
A large proportion of detainees who
entered custody had substance misuse
issues. The service for detainees with
substance misuse had deteriorated
considerably since the previous
inspection. Drug and alcohol workers
visited custody suites infrequently and
there were often long delays in following
up detainees who wished to be referred to
services. Wiltshire
However, services in MPS Detention
South, South Wales, Dorset and Avon and
Somerset were very good. In South Wales
Naloxone, an opiate reversal agent, was
available on release to reduce death from
opiate overdose, which was good practice.
All the forces reported high numbers of
detainees with mental health problems.
Embedded mental health services were
available in at least some of the suites
inspected and had improved outcomes.
The level of mental health provision was
variable, but was excellent in Dorset and
Lancashire. However, in most forces,
waiting times for assessment and transfer
under the Mental Health Act were excessive
due to external factors.

A mental health triage car operated in
each division between 2pm and midnight.
Although there were some staffing
difficulties that affected the scheme, it
was generally leading to a reduction in the
number of detainees with mental health
problems brought into custody. Lancashire
Most forces were addressing the use of
police custody as a place of safety for those
detained under section 136, although
in Wiltshire, Avon and Somerset, West
Yorkshire, Sussex and Hampshire the
number remained too high.
… despite the efforts by police to
tackle inappropriate detention under
section 136, people with mental health
vulnerabilities were still being brought
into custody (for example, arrested for
breach of the peace) in response to
self-harm or suicidal intent… In one case,
an individual considered by the mental
health crisis team to be a suicide risk had
been referred directly to the police for
intervention… these decisions were often
made in response to gaps in community
health services. Avon and Somerset

Several forces had introduced triage in the
control room or on the street to divert people
with mental health needs to the right support.
These schemes were reducing the number of
mentally ill people brought into custody.

82

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION SEVEN
Police custody

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

83

8
SECTION EIGHT
Court custody

Court custody and escorts

84

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION EIGHT
Court custody

All the findings from inspections in this
section are based on Expectations:
Criteria for assessing the treatment of and
conditions for detainees in court custody,
published in June 2012. This section
draws on inspections of court custody
in three court areas: Bedfordshire and
Hertfordshire, London North and East, and
Staffordshire and West Mercia, covering
eight Crown courts, 16 magistrates’ courts,
two combined courts and an immigration
and asylum chamber, a justice centre and
a tribunal hearing centre.
¡¡ Too many detainees were held in court
unnecessarily and for too long.
¡¡ There was a lack of effective systems
to identify and manage risks posed
to detainees in court custody and on
release.
¡¡ While some courts had good
conditions, too many had poor
environments.

Leadership, strategy and planning of
court custody
HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS)
had overall responsibility for court custody,
and the management of custody facilities
in courts was shared between HMCTS,
NOMS Prisoner Escort and Custody Services
(PECS) and the contracted provider. These
arrangements were complicated further as
the cleaning and maintenance arrangements
were generally held by a Ministry of Justice
contract, for which none of the three parties
was directly responsible.

HMCTS and Serco Wincanton described
their strategic relationships as positive
but this did not always ensure positive
outcomes for detainees held in court
custody. All the agencies involved in
strategic meetings were aware of the
shortcomings of the estate. HMCTS,
however, did too little to drive forward
improvements and there was not enough
focus on the treatment, care and welfare
of detainees while they were in custody.
Some court delivery managers saw the issue
of custody as solely the responsibility of
Serco Wincanton, which was unacceptable.
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire
Formal meetings and communication
between the agencies responsible for court
custody remained reasonable but did not
always result in good enough outcomes
for detainees. Processes to escalate
concerns about repairs, staff shortages and
unnecessarily lengthy detention were not
always used effectively, with continuing
problems in these areas.

Individual rights
Our greatest concern across the three court
areas was the prolonged and unnecessary
detention of too many detainees.
A number of factors contributed to too
many detainees being held in court
custody for unnecessarily long periods.
These included delays in the attendance
of duty solicitors and court-appointed
interpreters, unacceptable delays in
obtaining warrants, detainees brought from
prison early in the morning to Crown courts
when their cases were not listed until the
afternoon, and lengthy delays before courts
received the authority to release detainees
who had been held in prison.
London North and East

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

85

SECTION EIGHT
Court custody

Treatment and conditions
Relationships between court custody staff and
detainees were generally positive. Staff were
usually respectful and dealt with detainees
sensitively. However, most staff were not
trained well enough to meet the diverse and
individual needs of detainees, particularly
those with protected characteristics. This was
highlighted by the experience of children, who
were simply treated in the same way as adults.
One of our most significant concerns was
the lack of effective systems to identify
and manage risks posed to detainees in
court custody and on release. There was
no systematic risk assessment that brought
together all relevant information and
outlined how detainees would be managed
during their stay in court custody. Detainees
continued to be located in cells together
before they had a cell sharing risk assessment,
which compromised their safety. Levels
of observations, particularly for detainees
identified as the most vulnerable, were not
always adhered to. Staff who visited cells often
did not carry anti-ligature knives, potentially
delaying responses to life-threatening
situations. Arrangements for releasing
detainees safely were inadequate in all three
court areas.
We had many serious concerns about
adherence to set levels of observation. In
the busier magistrates’ courts, there was
no systematic approach to completing
checks at the required frequency.
We were particularly concerned
that checks on the most vulnerable
detainees requiring higher levels of
observation were not always undertaken.
Furthermore, records did not always
reflect the actual visits the detainee
received. London North and East

86

Person escort records (PERs), which
accompanied detainees from prisons
and police stations, continued to be
of a poor standard. They often lacked
sufficient information to provide effective
risk assessments and help staff look
after detainees properly. For example, in
Staffordshire and West Mercia we saw one
PER that recorded that a detainee was a
‘suicide risk’ without providing specific
details.
Conditions across all the inspected courts
were variable. Some were good, including
most in Staffordshire and West Mercia,
Hatfield and Stevenage magistrates’ courts
in Hertfordshire, and Wood Green Crown
court in London. However, too many had
poor environments. Cells were often cold,
dirty and covered in graffiti, some of which
was offensive. Many cells had ligature points
that were not always identified, which meant
that risks were not addressed or mitigated.
Cleaning and maintenance arrangements
were inadequate in Bedfordshire and
Hertfordshire, and London North and East.
Lay observers continued to provide useful
independent oversight of the treatment and
conditions for detainees across the three
court areas.
Despite dealing with some very challenging
individuals, incidents where force was used
in court custody were few. We continued to
be concerned by the level of handcuffing
used in the controlled custody environment,
and made main recommendations about this
in each court area inspected.
Deaths in court custody are rare. There was,
however, a death at Thames magistrates’
court in 2015, and it was concerning that not
enough attention had been given to ensuring
full compliance with recommendations made
by the coroner to prevent future deaths.

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION EIGHT
Court custody and escorts

Health care
With the exception of the London North
and East courts, demand for health care
professionals continued to be low. Court
staff broadly described health care provision
as helpful but response times of up to
four hours made some staff reluctant to
use the service. All court custody staff
received comprehensive initial training in
first aid, but refresher training every three
years was insufficient to maintain a level of
competence.
Detainees transferring from police custody
continued to arrive at court without sufficient
medication to last them through their time
there. This was unacceptable and potentially
dangerous for detainees suffering from
alcohol withdrawal. The courts in London
North and East had good access to mental
health and substance misuse services, but
these were limited in the other two areas
inspected.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

87

10
SECTION EIGHT
Court custody

The Inspectorate
in 2016–17

88

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION
SECTION
EIGHT TEN
The Inspectorate
Court custody
in 2016–17

Income and expenditure – 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
Income

£
3,507,000

MOJ (prisons and court cells)
Home Office (immigration detention)

352,220

Home Office (HMIC/police custody)

300,000

Youth Justice Board (children's custody)

119,864

Other income
(HMI Probation, Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Secure Training Centres,
Ministry of Defence, Border Force, Criminal Justice Inspectorate Northern
Ireland, NPM Members)

176,645
4,455,729

TOTAL
Expenditure

£

%

Staff costs

3,841,090

85

Travel and subsistence

457,830

10

Printing and stationery

30,775

1

Information technology and telecommunications

54,590

Translators

5,898

Meetings and refreshments

2,896

Training and development

33,422

Other costs
(including recruitment costs, conferences and professional memberships)

76,107

TOTAL

4,502,605

4

100

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

89

SECTION TEN
The Inspectorate in 2016–17

Expenditure 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017

Printing and stationery

1%

Other

4%
Travel and subsistence

Staff costs

10%

85%

Inspectorate staffing – 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
Our staff and fee-paid associates come from a range of professional backgrounds. While
many have experience of working in prisons, others have expertise in social work, probation,
law, youth justice, health care and drug treatment, social research and policy. The majority
of staff are permanent, but we also take inspectors on loan from HM Prisons and Probation
Service (HMPPS) and other organisations. Currently, six staff are loaned from HMPPS, and
their experience and familiarity with current practice are invaluable.

Staff and associate engagement
Every year we gather feedback from our staff and associates. In 2017, we once again
participated in the Civil Service People Survey, commissioned by the Cabinet Office and
carried out by ORC International. The survey was completed by 73% of HM Inspectorate
of Prisons staff and associates, and survey results indicated a score of 82% on the staff
engagement index. This was a very strong result; some 18 percentage points higher than
even ‘high performing units’ across the Civil Service. This year, we have developed a People
Strategy which addresses some of the feedback from the Civil Service People Survey.

90

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION TEN
The Inspectorate in 2016–17

Staff and associates 1 April 2016 to 31 March 17
Peter Clarke
Martin Lomas
Barbara Buchanan

Chief Inspector
Deputy Chief Inspector
Senior Personal Secretary to the
Chief Inspector

A Team (adult males)

Alison Perry
Sandra Fieldhouse
Paul Rowlands
Jonathan Tickner

A Team Leader
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector

O Team (women)

Sean Sullivan
Francesca Cooney
Jeanette Hall
Keith McInnis

O Team Leader
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector

Y Team (children and
young adults)

Deborah Butler
Ian Dickens
Angela Johnson
Yvonne McGuckian
Angus Mulready-Jones

Y Team Leader
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector

I Team (immigration
detention)

Hindpal Singh Bhui
Beverley Alden
Colin Carroll
Tamara Pattinson

I Team Leader
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector

P team (police custody)

Maneer Afsar
Ian Macfadyen
Fionnuala Gordon
Kellie Reeve

P Team Leader
Acting P Team Leader
Inspector
Inspector

Health Services team

Paul Tarbuck
Majella Pearce

Head of Health Services Inspection
Deputy Head of Health Services
Inspection

Fee-paid associates

Hannah Bradbury
Anne Clifford
Karen Dillon
Steve Eley
Sigrid Engelen
Deri Hughes-Roberts
Maureen Jamieson
Martin Kettle
Brenda Kirsch
Adrienne Penfield
Yasmin Prabhudas
Jayne Price
Nicola Rabjohns
Gordon Riach
Paul Roberts
Andy Rooke
Fran Russell
Fiona Shearlaw
Liz Walsh

Inspection Support Officer
Editor
Inspector
Health Inspector
Drugs and Alcohol Inspector
Inspector
Health Inspector
Inspector
Editor
Editor
Editor
Researcher
Health Inspector
Inspector
Drugs and Alcohol Inspector
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector
Inspector

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

91

SECTION TEN
The Inspectorate in 2016–17

Research,
Development
and Thematics

Secretariat

Staff and associates
who left this
reporting year

Catherine Shaw
Helen Ranns
Michelle Bellham

Head of Research,
Development and Thematics
Senior Researcher
Researcher

Anna Fenton

Researcher

Laura Green

Researcher

Natalie-Anne Hall

Researcher

Alissa Redmond

Researcher

Joe Simmonds

Researcher

Patricia Taflan

Researcher

Ellis Cowling

Research trainee

Emma Seymour

Research trainee

Anna O’Rourke
Lesley Young
Jane Parsons
Louise Finer
Tamsin Williamson
Clair Andrew

Head of Secretariat
Head of Finance, HR and
Inspection Support
Chief Communications Officer
Senior Policy Officer
Publications Manager (part-time)
Publications Assistant

Stephen Seago

Inspection Support Manager

Caroline Fitzgerald

Inspection Support Officer

Tinessa Khurana

Inspection Support Officer

Fay Deadman
Paul Fenning
Anne Harrower

Fee-paid associate
Inspector, O Team
Personal Secretary to the Deputy
Chief Inspector
Inspection Support Officer
Policy Officer
Senior Researcher
Inspection Support Officer
Inspector, P Team
Research trainee
Personal Secretary to the Deputy
Chief Inspector
Research trainee

Mark McClenaghan
Lucy McKay
Tim McSweeney
Francette Montgry
Vinnett Pearcy
Sophie Skinner
Jacqueline Ward
Heidi Webb

92

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

SECTION TEN
The Inspectorate in 2016–17

Stakeholder feedback

Communications

We conduct an annual online survey of
stakeholders. A link to the questionnaire is
distributed to our mailing list of contacts
by email. In order to reach a wider range of
stakeholders we also publicise the survey via
staff and professional bulletins, place a link
on our website and alert our Twitter followers.
During November 2016 we received 221
completed responses to the survey. For
the purposes of analysis, stakeholders
were grouped into five broad categories:
practitioners, managers, lay visitors,
stakeholders with experience of the criminal
justice system and others.

Most stakeholders continued to use
our website (launched in 2014, and
on a shared platform with other justice
inspectorates and independent from the
government website, gov.uk) to access
inspection and thematic reports. The
number of people visiting our website each
month increased from 9,695 in April 2016
to 10,009 in March 2017.

Feedback was generally very positive about
a range of our communications. Over 70%
of stakeholders had seen HMI Prisons
represented in the national media. Ninety-one
per cent of stakeholders said that it was easy
or very easy to find what they were looking
for on our website. Our reports were similarly
positively received, with favourable scores
of over 70% in relation to each of length,
structure, language, quantity of information,
ease of navigation and treatment of diversity
issues. However a majority of stakeholders
agreed that our reports could do more to
highlight positive findings or good practice.

Our Twitter feed continued to attract new
followers each month, rising from around
5,061 in April 2016 to 7,262 at the end
of March 2017. The feed allowed us to
highlight the publication of new reports,
advertise jobs within the Inspectorate and
tell people which establishments our teams
were inspecting each week. The findings
of our reports continued to be reported in
national, international, local and regional
media, in print, online and through
broadcast media. This ensured appropriate
communication with key stakeholders,
supporting our overall aim of improving
outcomes for those in custody.

Feedback on our strategic themes indicated
that overall 71% of stakeholders agreed or
strongly agreed that we are independent,
62% that we are influential, 66% that we are
accountable, 78% that we are capable and
50% that we are collaborative.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

93

11

Appendices

Appendix one

Inspection reports published 2016–17

95

Appendix two

Healthy prison and establishment assessments 2016–17

97

Appendix three

Recommendations accepted in 2016–17

99

Appendix four

Recommendations achieved in 2016–17

101

Appendix five

2016–17 prisoner survey responses diversity analysis

104

Appendix six

2016–17 survey: key responses from men and women

112

94

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

APPENDIX ONE

Inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 201743
ESTABLISHMENT

DATE PUBLISHED

Metropolitan Police Service Detention South custody suites	

5 April 2016

Birmingham Airport STHF

7 April 2016

Sandford House STHF	

7 April 2016

Wormwood Scrubs*

12 April 2016

Bronzefield

13 April 2016

Elmley*	

19 April 2016

Lewes

26 April 2016

Leeds

27 April 2016

Glen Parva*

4 May 2016

Full Sutton

5 May 2016

Rainsbrook STC

6 May 2016

Nottingham*

17 May 2016

Manchester Airport STHF

26 May 2016

Pennine House STHF

26 May 2016

Wiltshire police custody suites

1 June 2016

Parc	

8 June 2016

Parc (juvenile unit)*	

8 June 2016

Moorland

10 June 2016

Forest Bank	

14 June 2016

Stafford	

21 June 2016

Drumkeen House STHF	

28 June 2016

Larne House STHF

28 June 2016

Frankland

29 June 2016

Maghaberry

1 July 2017

Lindholme

7 July 2016

Staffordshire and West Mercia court custody

15 July 2016

Wetherby and Keppel

20 July 2016

Capital Building Liverpool STHF

22 July 2016

Dallas Court Salford STHF

22 July 2016

Sheffield Vulcan House STHF

22 July 2016

Swaleside

26 July 2016

Greater Manchester police custody suites

27 July 2016

Colnbrook

28 July 2016

Medway STC

8 August 2016

Cedars	

11 August 2016

Chelmsford

16 August 2016

Edinburgh Airport STHF	

1 September 2016

Glasgow International Airport STHF

1 September 2016

Festival Court Glasgow STHF

1 September 2016

Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire court custody

13 September 2016

Dorset police custody suites

14 September 2016

Bedford

27 September 2016

Gatwick Airport North Terminal STHF

5 October 2016

Gatwick Airport South Terminal STHF

5 October 2016

43	 All inspections of adult prisons and immigration detention centres are unannounced, except for those marked *,
which were announced due to exceptional circumstances.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

95

APPENDIX ONE

Inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued)
ESTABLISHMENT

DATE PUBLISHED

Lunar House Croydon STHF

5 October 2016

Isis

6 October 2016

Ford

18 October 2016

Foston Hall

21 October 2016

Hydebank Wood

27 October 2016

Ash House

27 October 2016

Lancashire police custody suites

4 November 2016

Risley

8 November 2016

Winchester*

16 November 2016

Drake Hall

22 November 2016

Maghaberry review

23 November 2016

South Wales police custody suites

25 November 2016

Hindley

29 November 2016

Onley

2 December 2016

Buckley Hall

6 December 2016

West Yorkshire police custody suites

7 December 2016

Dover Seaport, Frontier House and Longport Freight Shed STHFs

9 December 2016

Coquelles & Calais STHF

9 December 2016

Dunkerque STHF

9 December 2016

Rainsbrook STC

12 December 2016

Cardiff

13 December 2016

Albania escort

16 December 2016

Avon and Somerset police custody suites

21 December 2016

East Sutton Park

22 December 2016

Whatton

4 January 2017

Thorn Cross

5 January 2017

Hewell*

10 January 2017

Cookham Wood

17 January 2017

North and East London court custody

24 January 2017

Leyhill

25 January 2017

Exeter

1 February 2017

Channings Wood

7 February 2017

Norwich

9 February 2017

Wymott

14 February 2017

Featherstone

28 February 2017

Hampshire police custody suites

1 March 2017

Durham

7 March 2017

Oakhill STC

7 March 2017

Eastwood Park

9 March 2017

Brook House

10 March 2017

Swinfen Hall

14 March 2017

Morton Hall

21 March 2017

Sussex police custody suites

28 March 2017

96

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

APPENDIX TWO

Healthy prison and establishment assessments 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
HEALTHY PRISON / ESTABLISHMENT ASSESSMENTS
TYPE OF
INSPECTION

ESTABLISHMENT

SAFETY

RESPECT

PURPOSEFUL
ACTIVITY

RESETTLEMENT

LOCAL PRISONS
Bedford

Unannounced

2

2

2

2

Cardiff

Unannounced

2

2

3

3

Chelmsford

Unannounced

2

2

2

2

Durham

Unannounced

2

2

2

2

Elmley

Announced

3

2

2

2

Exeter

Unannounced

2

2

2

2

Forest Bank

Unannounced

3

3

3

4

Hewell

Announced

1

2

3

3

Leeds

Unannounced

1

2

3

3

Lewes

Unannounced

2

3

2

3

Norwich

Unannounced

3

3

3

3

Nottingham

Announced

1

2

2

2

Winchester (Main)

Announced

2

2

2

3

Wormwood Scrubs

Announced

1

2

1

1

Frankland

Unannounced

3

3

4

3

Full Sutton

Unannounced

3

3

4

3

Buckley Hall

Unannounced

3

2

4

3

Channings Wood

Unannounced

2

2

2

2

HIGH SECURITY PRISONS

TRAINING PRISONS

Featherstone

Unannounced

1

2

2

2

Hindley

Unannounced

1

2

1

2

Isis

Unannounced

2

2

1

2

Lindholme

Unannounced

1

3

3

1

Moorland

Unannounced

2

2

3

2

Onley

Unannounced

1

3

2

2

Risley

Unannounced

2

3

2

2

Stafford

Unannounced

4

3

3

2

Swaleside

Unannounced

1

2

2

2

Whatton

Unannounced

4

3

4

4

Winchester (Westhill)

Announced

3

3

3

3

Wymott

Unannounced

3

3

3

3

Parc

Unannounced

2

3

4

4

Ford

Unannounced

4

3

3

3

Hewell

Announced

4

3

3

3

Leyhill

Unannounced

4

4

4

3

Thorn Cross

Unannounced

4

4

4

4

OPEN PRISONS

KEY TO TABLE
Numeric:

1 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are poor
2 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are not sufficiently good
3 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are reasonably good
4 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are good

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

97

APPENDIX TWO

Healthy prison and establishment assessments 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
(Continued)
HEALTHY PRISON / ESTABLISHMENT ASSESSMENTS
TYPE OF
PRISON/ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION

SAFETY

RESPECT

PURPOSEFUL
ACTIVITY

RESETTLEMENT

WOMEN’S PRISONS
Bronzefield

Unannounced

3

4

3

4

Drake Hall

Unannounced

4

3

4

4

East Sutton Park

Unannounced

4

4

4

4

Eastwood Park

Unannounced

3

3

3

3

Foston Hall

Unannounced

3

3

2

3

Glen Parva

Announced

2

3

1

3

Swinfen Hall

Unannounced

2

2

1

3

YOUNG ADULT PRISONS

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE ESTABLISHMENTS
Cookham Wood

Unannounced

2

4

3

3

Keppel Unit

Unannounced

3

3

1

3

Parc CYP

Unannounced

3

3

3

3

Wetherby

Unannounced

2

3

1

3

Ash House (NI)

Unannounced

3

2

3

3

Hydebank Wood Secure
College (NI)

Unannounced

2

3

3

3

Maghaberry

Announced

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Maghaberry Review

Announced

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

EXTRA-JURISDICTION

IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRES
Brook House

Unannounced

3

3

3

3

Cedars

Unannounced

4

4

4

4

Colnbrook

Unannounced

3

2

3

4

Morton Hall

Unannounced

2

3

4

4

KEY TO TABLE
Numeric:

98

1 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are poor
2 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are not sufficiently good
3 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are reasonably good
4 – Outcomes for prisoners/detainees are good

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

APPENDIX THREE

Recommendations accepted in action plans received 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
ESTABLISHMENT

LOCAL PRISONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

ACCEPTED

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED

REJECTED

(includes recommendations
accepted in principle / accepted
subject to resources)

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

Wormwood Scrubs

7

78

85

6

67

73

1

5

6

0

6

6

Elmley

4

51

55

4

46

50

0

4

4

0

1

1

Lewes

4

50

54

4

45

49

0

2

2

0

3

3

Leeds

3

48

51

3

40

43

0

1

1

0

7

7

Nottingham

6

42

48

3

28

31

3

9

12

0

5

5

Forest Bank

3

53

56

3

41

44

0

8

8

0

4

4

Chelmsford

6

58

64

6

51

57

0

5

5

0

2

2

Bedford

5

63

68

5

54

59

0

7

7

0

2

2

Winchester
(Main and Westhill)

5

49

54

4

38

42

0

8

8

1

3

4

Cardiff

4

49

53

3

37

40

1

8

9

0

4

4

Hewell
(closed and open)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Exeter

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Norwich
(closed and open)

2

42

44

1

28

29

1

14

15

0

0

0

Durham

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

49

583

632

42
(86%)

475
(81%)

517
(82%)

6
(12%)

71
(12%)

77
(12%)

1
(2%)

37
(6%)

38
(6%)

Total

CATEGORY B TRAINING PRISONS
Parc (adults)

3

34

37

3

28

31

0

3

3

0

3

3

Swaleside

5

46

51

5

40

45

0

4

4

0

2

2

Total

8

80

88

8
(100%)

68
(85%)

76
(86%)

0
(0%)

7
(9%)

7
(8%)

0
(0%)

5
(6%)

5
(6%)

CATEGORY C TRAINING PRISONS
Moorland

5

70

75

5

58

63

0

7

7

0

5

5

Stafford

4

44

48

4

41

45

0

1

1

0

2

2

Lindholme

5

44

49

3

35

38

2

6

8

0

3

3

Isis

7

63

70

7

53

60

0

5

5

0

5

5

Risley

4

51

55

4

46

50

0

3

3

0

2

2

Hindley

6

55

61

5

49

54

1

5

6

0

1

1

Onley

6

64

70

4

49

53

2

14

16

0

1

1

Buckley Hall

5

44

49

5

31

36

0

8

8

0

5

5

Whatton

2

27

29

1

23

24

1

4

5

0

0

0

Channings Wood

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Wymott

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Featherstone

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44

462

506

38
(86%)

385
(83%)

423
(84%)

6
(14%)

53
(11%)

59
(12%)

0
(0%)

24
(5%)

24
(5%)

Total

KEY TO TABLE
Hyphen (-) –	 Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of
the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting period.
(31 March 2017).
MR –	
Main recommendations
R –	Recommendations

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

99

APPENDIX THREE

Recommendations accepted in action plans received 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued)
ESTABLISHMENT

HIGH SECURITY
PRISONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

ACCEPTED

PARTIALLY ACCEPTED

REJECTED

(includes recommendations
accepted in principle / accepted
subject to resources)

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

Full Sutton

3

34

37

3

25

28

0

9

9

0

0

0

Frankland

4

27

31

4

22

26

0

4

4

0

1

1

Total

7

61

68

7
(100%)

47
(77%)

54
(79%)

0
(0%)

13
(21%)

13
(19%)

0
(0%)

1
(1%)

1
(1%)

Ford

4

39

43

3

33

36

0

4

4

1

2

3

Thorn Cross

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Leyhill

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

4

39

43

3
(75%)

33
(85%)

36
(84%)

0
(0%)

4
(10%)

4
(9%)

1
(25%)

2
(5%)

3
(7%)

OPEN PRISONS

YOUNG ADULT ESTABLISHMENTS
Glen Parva

3

53

56

2

46

48

1

4

5

0

3

3

Swinfen Hall

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

3

53

56

2
(67%)

46
(87%)

48
(86%)

1
(33%)

4
(8%)

5
(9%)

0
(0%)

3
(6%)

3
(5%)

Bronzefield

2

35

37

1

21

22

1

12

13

0

2

2

Foston Hall

3

51

54

3

48

51

0

2

2

0

1

1

Drake Hall

1

41

42

1

35

36

0

6

6

0

0

0

East Sutton Park

1

22

23

1

18

19

0

4

4

0

0

0

WOMEN’S PRISONS

Eastwood Park

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Total

7

149

156

6
(86%)

122
(82%)

128
(82%)

1
(14%)

24
(16%)

25
(16%)

0
(0%)

3
(2%)

3
(2%)

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S ESTABLISHMENTS
Parc (Juvenile)

0

40

40

0

28

28

0

8

8

0

4

4

Wetherby and
Keppel Unit

3

77

80

1

59

60

2

13

15

0

5

5

Cookham Wood

3

51

54

3

37

40

0

10

10

0

4

4

Total

6

168

174

4
(67%)

124
(74%)

128
(74%)

2
(33%)

31
(18%)

33
(19%)

0
(0%)

13
(8%)

13
(7%)

128

1,595

1,723

110
(86%)

1,300
(82%)

1,410
(82%)

16
(13%)

207
(13%)

223
(13%)

2
(2%)

88
(6%)

90
(5%)

PRISON TOTAL

KEY TO TABLE
Hyphen (-) –	 Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of
the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting period (31 March 2017).
1	 This figure excludes one recommendation not responded to in the action plan from HMYOI Wetherby.
MR –	
Main recommendations
R –	Recommendations

100

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

APPENDIX FOUR

Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017
ESTABLISHMENT

LOCAL PRISONS

RECOMMENDATIONS

ACHIEVED

(excluding recommendations no
longer relevant, housekeeping points
and good practice)

PARTIALLY ACHIEVED

NOT ACHIEVED

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

Wormwood Scrubs

6

78

84

0

17

17

0

16

16

6

45

51

Elmley

5

73

78

1

27

28

3

20

23

1

26

27

Lewes

3

56

59

1

17

18

0

9

9

2

30

32

Leeds

3

40

43

1

12

13

2

6

8

0

22

22

Nottingham

7

61

68

2

22

24

4

18

22

1

21

22

Forest Bank

3

41

44

1

21

22

2

4

6

0

16

16

Chelmsford

4

68

72

1

30

31

1

5

6

2

33

35

Bedford

4

68

72

1

11

12

1

3

4

2

54

56

Winchester
(main and West)

7

75

82

3

40

43

0

7

7

4

28

32

Cardiff

7

49

56

4

16

20

1

10

11

2

23

25

Hewell
(closed and open)

4

72

76

2

25

27

0

13

13

2

34

36

Exeter

4

47

51

0

16

16

2

3

5

2

28

30

Norwich
(closed and open)

4

80

84

3

45

48

1

11

12

0

24

24

Durham

4

67

71

0

22

22

1

14

15

3

31

34

65

875

940

20
(31%)

321
(37%)

341
(36%)

18
(28%)

139
(16%)

157
(17%)

27
(42%)

415
(47%)

442
(47%)

Total

CATEGORY B TRAINING PRISONS
Parc (adults)

1

40

41

1

24

25

0

8

8

0

8

8

Swaleside

6

71

77

0

19

19

1

10

11

5

42

47

Total

7

111

118

1
(14%)

43
(39%)

44
(37%)

1
(14%)

18
(16%)

19
(16%)

5
(71%)

50
(45%)

55
(47%)

CATEGORY C TRAINING PRISONS
Moorland

5

60

65

2

27

29

0

12

12

3

21

24

Stafford

8

101

109

5

47

52

0

18

18

3

36

39

Lindholme

3

65

68

0

27

27

1

12

13

2

26

28

Isis

4

76

80

0

15

15

1

6

7

3

55

58

Risley

6

62

68

1

21

22

1

15

16

4

26

30

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Onley

2

49

51

0

18

18

2

9

11

0

22

22

Buckley Hall

5

55

60

0

27

27

3

8

11

2

20

22

Whatton

3

31

34

1

19

20

1

8

9

1

4

5

Channings Wood

2

51

53

0

24

24

0

3

3

2

24

26

Wymott

5

59

64

2

27

29

2

12

14

1

20

21

Featherstone

4

63

67

0

16

16

0

9

9

4

38

42

Total

47

672

719

11
(23%)

268
(40%)

279
(39%)

11
(23%)

112
(17%)

123
(17%)

25
(53%)

292
(43%)

317
(44%)

HIGH SECURITY
PRISONS

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

Full Sutton

3

47

50

0

24

24

1

4

5

2

19

21

Frankland

3

55

58

2

30

32

0

11

11

1

14

15

Total

6

102

108

2
(33%)

54
(53%)

56
(52%)

1
(17%)

15
(15%)

16
(15%)

3
(50%)

33
(32%)

36
(33%)

Hindley

N.B. HMP Hindley rerolled; therefore the recommendations were not followed up and have been excluded from this data. 	
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

101

APPENDIX FOUR

Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued)
ESTABLISHMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS

ACHIEVED

(excluding recommendations no
longer relevant, housekeeping
points and good practice)

PARTIALLY ACHIEVED

NOT ACHIEVED

OPEN PRISONS
Ford

3

48

51

0

27

27

0

3

3

3

18

21

Thorn Cross

2

44

66

1

28

29

1

8

9

0

8

8

Leyhill

2

44

66

0

22

22

1

7

8

1

15

16

Total

7

136

143

1
(14%)

77
(57%)

78
(55%)

2
(29%)

18
(13%)

20
(14%)

4
(57%)

41
(30%)

45
(31%)

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

MR

R

Total

YOUNG ADULT
ESTABLISHMENTS

MR

R

Total

Glen Parva

5

69

74

2

31

33

3

20

23

0

18

18

Swinfen Hall

4

55

59

0

12

12

0

9

9

4

34

38

Total

9

124

133

2
(22%)

43
(35%)

45
(34%)

3
(33%)

29
(23%)

32
(24%)

4
(44%)

52
(42%)

56
(42%)

Bronzefield

3

67

70

1

38

39

2

14

16

0

15

15

Foston Hall

3

70

73

0

24

24

1

19

20

2

27

29

Drake Hall

1

49

50

1

28

29

0

9

9

0

12

12

East Sutton Park

4

30

34

1

16

17

1

5

6

2

9

11

Eastwood Park

3

44

47

1

16

17

1

14

15

1

14

15

14

260

274

4
(29%)

122
(47%)

126
(46%)

5
(36%)

61
(23%)

66
(24%)

5
(36%)

77
(30%)

82
(30%)

WOMEN’S PRISONS

Total

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PEOPLE’S ESTABLISHMENTS
Parc (Juvenile)

0

30

30

0

7

7

0

5

5

0

18

18

Wetherby

3

64

67

0

15

15

2

9

11

1

40

41

Keppel Unit

0

42

42

0

16

16

0

4

4

0

22

22

Cookham Wood

4

75

79

1

29

30

1

14

15

2

32

34

Total

7

211

218

1
(14%)

67
(32%)

68
(31%)

3
(43%)

32
(15%)

35
(16%)

3
(43%)

112
(53%)

115
(53%)

162

2,491

2,653

42
(26%)

995
(40%)

1,037
(39%)

44
(27%)

424
(17%)

468
(18%)

76
(47%)

1,072
(43%)

1,148
(43%)

PRISON TOTAL

IMMIGRATION REMOVAL CENTRES
Colnbrook

3

50

53

1

18

19

2

11

13

0

20

20

Cedars

1

27

28

1

12

13

0

4

4

0

10

10

Brook House

3

72

75

1

27

28

1

18

19

1

25

26

Morton Hall

2

46

48

0

16

16

0

14

14

2

16

18

Total

9

195

204

3
(33%)

73
(37%)

76
(37%)

3
(33%)

47
(24%)

50
(25%)

3
(33%)

71
(36%)

74
(36%)

N.B. A small number of recommendations were no longer relevant or unable to inspect, therefore total judgements do not
equal total recommendations.
KEY TO TABLE
Hyphen (-) –	 Indicates that outstanding action plans were not returned within the specified deadline following publication of
the inspection report, or were not due until after the end of the annual reporting period (31 March 2016).
1	 This figure excludes one recommendation not responded to in the action plan from HMYOI Wetherby.
MR –	
Main recommendations
R –	Recommendations

102

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

APPENDIX FOUR

Recommendations achieved in inspection reports published 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 (Continued)
ESTABLISHMENT

RECOMMENDATIONS

ACHIEVED

(excluding recommendations no
longer relevant, housekeeping
points and good practice)

SHORT-TERM HOLDING
FACILITIES

MR

R

Total

MR

R

PARTIALLY ACHIEVED

Total

MR

R

NOT ACHIEVED

Total

MR

R

Total

Birmingham Airport

0

32

32

0

13

13

0

4

4

0

15

15

Sandford House

0

6

6

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

4

4

Manchester Airport

0

18

18

0

3

3

0

0

0

0

15

15

Pennine House

0

15

15

0

2

2

0

3

3

0

9

9

Drumkeen House

0

6

6

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

4

4

Larne House

0

17

17

0

10

10

0

2

2

0

5

5

Liverpool Capital Building

0

10

10

0

6

6

0

0

0

0

4

4

Salford Dallas Court

0

20

20

0

7

7

0

0

0

0

11

11

Sheffield Vulcan House

0

18

18

0

5

5

0

2

2

0

10

10

Edinburgh Airport

0

21

21

0

4

4

0

1

1

0

12

12

Glasgow Airport

0

18

18

0

7

7

0

1

1

0

8

8

Festival Court

0

14

14

0

6

6

0

0

0

0

8

8

Gatwick North

0

19

19

0

9

9

0

1

1

0

9

9

Gatwick South

0

18

18

0

4

4

0

3

3

0

11

11

Lunar House

0

26

26

0

10

10

0

2

2

0

13

13

Dover Seaport

0

21

21

0

2

2

0

9

9

0

8

8

Calais & Coquelles

0

60

60

0

18

18

0

3

3

0

36

36

Dunkerque

0

18

18

0

4

4

0

2

2

0

12

12

Total

0

357

357

0

114
(32%)

114
(32%)

0

33
(9%)

33
(9%)

0

194
(54%)

194
(54%)

Wiltshire Police

0

37

37

0

21

21

0

9

9

0

6

6

Greater Manchester
Police

5

26

31

2

7

9

2

5

7

0

13

13

POLICE CUSTODY

Dorset Police

6

45

51

6

31

37

0

5

5

0

5

5

Lancashire Police

4

21

25

1

4

5

2

5

7

1

12

13

South Wales Police

3

23

26

0

8

8

2

5

7

0

9

9

Avon & Somerset Police

2

31

33

0

12

12

2

13

15

0

4

4

A Hampshire
small number
of recommendations4were no23
longer relevant
or unable
to inspect,
therefore
total
Police
27
3
8
11
0
judgements do not equal total recommendations’.

10

10

1

4

5

Sussex
police
–	
Main recommendations2
MR

17

19

0

8

8

0

2

2

2

7

9

4

19

23

1

5

6

2

8

10

0

6

6

30

242

272

13
(43%)

104
(43%)

117
(43%)

10
(33%)

62
(26%)

72
(26%)

4
(13%)

66
(27%)

70
(26%)

Albania

0

12

12

0

6

6

0

2

2

0

3

3

Total

0

12

12

0

6
(50%)

6
(50%)

0

2
(17%)

2
(17%)

0

3
(25%)

3
(25%)

Maghaberry

9

0

9

0

0

0

9

0

9

0

0

0

Hydebank Wood

5

69

74

0

25

25

5

24

29

0

19

19

Ash House

6

76

82

0

28

28

4

29

33

2

19

21

Total

20

145

165

0

53
(37%)

53
(32%)

18
(90%)

53
(37%)

71
(43%)

2
(10%)

38
(26%)

40
(24%)

OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS
TOTAL

59

951

1,010

16
(27%)

350
(37%)

366
(36%)

31
(53%)

197
(21%)

228
(23%)

9
(15%)

372
(39%)

381
(38%)

R West
–	Recommendations
Yorkshire Police

Total
OVERSEAS ESCORTS

NORTHERN IRISH PRISONS

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

103

1.3
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.13
1.14
1.15

Non-Muslim prisoners

1.2

SECTION 1: General information 	
Are you under 21 years of age?
Are you sentenced?
Are you on recall?
Is your sentence less than 12 months?
Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)?
Are you a foreign national?
Do you understand spoken English?
Do you understand written English?
Are you from a minority ethnic group? (Including all those who did not tick white
British, white Irish or white other categories.)
Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller?
Are you Muslim?
Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual?
Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
Are you a veteran (ex-armed services)?
Is this your first time in prison?
Do you have any children under the age of 18?

Muslim prisoners

Number of completed questionnaires returned

White prisoners

Prisoner survey responses (adult men):
diversity analysis – ethnicity/religion

Black and minority
ethnic prisoners

APPENDIX FIVE

1,513

4,866

805

5,509

%

%

%

%

8
84
6
10
5
20
98
97

6
86
10
13
7
7
99
98

8
85
7
7
5
19
98
97

6
85
9
13
6
9
98
98

87

14

2
47
2
16
3
43
50

5
2
5
30
7
37
49

1

5

2
17
3
45
49

4
28
7
38
49

40
70
66
56
74

31
78
72
64
84

40
67
64
54
74

32
77
71
63
83

43
73
60

47
83
69

43
69
58

46
82
68

72
24
16
5
32
4
19
16
13
16
8
28

70
16
16
3
26
2
18
23
16
29
8
23

72
26
15
4
32
4
19
17
13
17
9
30

70
17
16
4
27
2
18
22
16
27
7
24

SECTION 2: Transfers and escorts
On your most recent journey here:
2.1
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8

Did you spend more than 2 hours in the van?
Did you feel safe?
Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff?
Before you arrived here were you told that you were coming here?
When you first arrived here did your property arrive at the same time as you?
SECTION 3: Reception, first night and induction

3.1
3.2
3.3

Were you in reception for less than 2 hours?
When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way?
Were you treated well/very well in reception?
When you first arrived:

3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4

Did you have any problems?
Did you have any problems with loss of property?
Did you have any housing problems?
Did you have any problems contacting employers?
Did you have any problems contacting family?
Did you have any problems ensuring dependants were being looked after?
Did you have any money worries?
Did you have any problems with feeling depressed or suicidal?
Did you have any physical health problems?
Did you have any mental health problems?
Did you have any problems with needing protection from other prisoners?
Did you have problems accessing phone numbers?

KEY TO TABLE
Significantly better
Significantly worse
A significant difference in prisoners’ background details
No significant difference

Missing data have been excluded for each question. Please note:
where there are apparently large differences, which are not indicated
as statistically significant, this is likely to be due to chance.
1.	 Key questions from the survey include all questions with the
exception of filtered questions. The following breakdowns are
within sample comparisons so sample sizes are smaller; to include
filtered questions would further reduce the number of responses.
2.	 The amalgamated functional types include: local prisons, training
prisons, young offender institutions holding over 18s and open
establishments published in the reporting period.
3.	 In order to appropriately adjust p-values in light of multiple testing,
p<.01 was considered statistically significant for all comparisons
undertaken.

104

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

White prisoners

Muslim prisoners

Non-Muslim prisoners

Prisoner survey responses (adult men):
diversity analysis – ethnicity/religion

Black and minority
ethnic prisoners

APPENDIX FIVE

%

%

%

%

67
31
47
63
49
53

70
28
45
62
51
54

71
29
47
61
46
51

69
29
45
62
51
54

50
64
23
22

49
67
35
24

52
60
23
21

49
67
33
24

42
30
36
34
44
42
66
84
81

46
39
40
36
47
43
74
82
79

39
27
33
31
40
39
62
81
80

46
38
40
36
47
43
74
83
79

33
41
9

40
47
14

33
42
11

39
46
13

43

40

46

40

35

38

34

38

52
76
52
45
25
60
18
25
38
41
58
58
59

58
84
66
55
26
60
21
26
50
58
45
53
42

53
76
52
45
24
56
17
25
38
41
64
65
71

57
83
64
53
26
60
21
25
49
56
46
53
43

When you first arrived here, were you offered any of the following:
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6

Tobacco?
A shower?
A free telephone call?
Something to eat?
PIN phone credit?
Toiletries/basic items?
When you first arrived here did you have access to the following people:

3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7

The chaplain or a religious leader?
Someone from health services?
A Listener/Samaritans?
Prison shop/canteen?
When you first arrived here were you offered information about any of the following:

3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.12

What was going to happen to you?
Support available for people feeling depressed or suicidal?
How to make routine requests?
Your entitlement to visits?
Health services?
The chaplaincy?
Did you feel safe on your first night here?
Have you been on an induction course?
Did you receive an education (skills for life) assessment?
SECTION 4: Legal rights and respectful custody
In terms of your legal rights, is it easy/very easy to:

4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.3

Communicate with your solicitor or legal representative?
Attend legal visits?
Get bail information?
Have staff ever opened letters from your solicitor or legal representative when you
were not with them?
Can you get legal books in the library?
For the wing/unit you are currently on:

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10

Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week?
Are you normally able to have a shower every day?
Do you normally receive clean sheets every week?
Do you normally get cell cleaning materials every week?
Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes?
Is it normally quiet enough for you to be able to relax or sleep in your cell at night time?
Can you normally get your stored property, if you need to?
Is the food in this prison good/very good?
Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs?
Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time, if you want to?
Are your religious beliefs respected?
Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to?
Is it easy/very easy to attend religious services?
SECTION 5: Applications and complaints

5.1

Is it easy to make an application?

68

78

66

77

5.3

Is it easy to make a complaint?

48

55

48

55

5.5

Have you ever been prevented from making a complaint when you wanted to?

26

21

29

21

5.6

Is it easy/very easy to see the Independent Monitoring Board?

19

23

19

22

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

105

White prisoners

Muslim prisoners

Non-Muslim
prisoners

Prisoner survey responses (adult men):
diversity analysis – ethnicity/religion (Continued)

Black and minority
ethnic prisoners

APPENDIX FIVE

%

%

%

%

35
38
12

44
41
11

31
39
16

43
40
11

69

76

64

76

64

71

61

71

21

29

20

28

14
47

20
49

14
47

19
48

SECTION 6: Incentives and earned privileges scheme
6.1
6.2
6.3

Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme?
Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour?
In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you (C&R)?
SECTION 7: Relationships with staff

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5

Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect?
Is there a member of staff, in this prison, that you can turn to for help if you have a
problem?
Has a member of staff checked on you personally in the last week to see how you
are getting on?
Do staff normally speak to you most of the time/all of the time during association?
Do you have a personal officer?
SECTION 8: Safety

8.1

Have you ever felt unsafe here?

50

47

55

47

8.2

Do you feel unsafe now?
Have you been victimised by other prisoners here?

25
30

21
32

31
33

20
31

12
11
2
15
8
3
3
3
11
8
7
6
1
2
3
3
6
5
8
36

14
11
2
20
10
5
6
5
3
3
3
4
1
2
3
5
6
7
5
29

15
13
3
16
8
4
4
5
12
11
9
6
1
2
3
3
7
7
9
43

13
10
2
19
9
5
6
5
3
3
3
5
1
2
3
4
6
7
5
29

8.4

Since you have been here, have other prisoners:
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.6

Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends?
Hit, kicked or assaulted you?
Sexually abused you?
Threatened or intimidated you?
Taken your canteen/property?
Victimised you because of medication?
Victimised you because of debt?
Victimised you because of drugs?
Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin?
Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs?
Victimised you because of your nationality?
Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country?
Victimised you because you are from a traveller community?
Victimised you because of your sexual orientation?
Victimised you because of your age?
Victimised you because you have a disability?
Victimised you because you were new here?
Victimised you because of your offence/crime?
Victimised you because of gang-related issues?
Have you been victimised by staff here?
Since you have been here, have staff:

8.7

Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends?

14

13

17

12

8.7

Hit, kicked or assaulted you?

7

6

9

5

8.7

Sexually abused you?

2

1

2

1

8.7

Threatened or intimidated you?

16

14

20

13

8.7

Victimised you because of medication?

3

6

5

5

8.7

Victimised you because of debt?

1

1

2

1

8.7

Victimised you because of drugs?

1

3

2

2

8.7

Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin?

13

2

15

3

8.7

Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs?

10

2

18

2

8.7

Victimised you because of your nationality?

7

2

9

2

8.7

Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country?

4

3

5

3

8.7

Victimised you because you are from a traveller community?

1

1

1

1

106

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7

Victimised you because of your sexual orientation?
Victimised you because of your age?
Victimised you because you have a disability?
Victimised you because you were new here?
Victimised you because of your offence/crime?
Victimised you because of gang-related issues?

Non-Muslim prisoners

8.7

Muslim prisoners

8.7

White prisoners

Prisoner survey responses (adult men):
diversity analysis – ethnicity/religion (Continued)

Black and minority
ethnic prisoners

APPENDIX FIVE

%

%

%

%

1
3
3
6
5
4

1
2
4
3
5
2

1
4
4
7
6
4

1
2
3
4
5
2

21
42
10
41
29

24
44
13
57
46

20
43
9
41
31

24
44
12
55
43

SECTION 9: Health services
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.4
9.6

Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor?
Is it easy/very easy to see the nurse?
Is it easy/very easy to see the dentist?
Are you currently taking medication?
Do you have any emotional well-being or mental health problems?
SECTION 10: Drugs and alcohol

10.1

Did you have a problem with drugs when you came into this prison?

21

32

23

31

10.2

Did you have a problem with alcohol when you came into this prison?

12

21

12

20

10.3

Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison?

40

49

42

48

10.4

Is it easy/very easy to get alcohol in this prison?

20

24

23

23

10.5

Have you developed a problem with drugs since you have been in this prison?

9

13

12

12

Have you developed a problem with diverted medication since you have been in this prison?

6

9

10

8

45

10.6

SECTION 11: Activities
Is it very easy/easy to get into the following activities:
11.1

A prison job?

32

46

29

11.1

Vocational or skills training?

29

38

27

37

11.1
11.1

Education (including basic skills)?
Offending Behaviour Programmes?

45
17

51
21

41
14

51
21

11.2

A prison job?

49

59

49

57

11.2

Vocational or skills training?

13

10

12

11

11.2

Education (including basic skills)?

27

19

26

20

11.2

Offending Behaviour Programmes?

8

10

7

10

11.4

Do you go to the library at least once a week?

37

34

34

35

11.5

Does the library have a wide enough range of materials to meet your needs?

33

43

29

43

11.6

Do you go to the gym three or more times a week?

31

25

27

27

11.7

Do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week?

50

47

51

48

11.8

Do you go on association more than five times each week?

46

55

47

53

11.9

Do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday?

11

14

11

14

12.1

Have staff supported you and helped you to maintain contact with family/friends
while in this prison?

27

32

27

31

12.2

Have you had any problems with sending or receiving mail?

47

44

47

44

12.3

Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones?
Is it easy/very easy for your friends and family to get here?

30
30

27
30

32
28

28
30

54
7
13

58
6
14

56
8
13

57
6
14

Are you currently involved in any of the following activities:

SECTION 12: Friends and family

12.4

SECTION 13: Preparation for release
13.3
13.10
13.11

Do you have a named offender supervisor in this prison?
Do you have a needs-based custody plan?
Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to prepare for release?

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

107

Prisoners aged 50 and over

Prisoners under the age
of 50

Number of completed questionnaires returned

Do not consider themselves to
have a disability

Prisoner survey responses (adult men):
diversity analysis – disability/age

Consider themselves to
have a disability

APPENDIX FIVE

1,660

4,725

1,039

5,416

%

%

%

%

84

SECTION 1: General information 	
1.2

Are you under 21 years of age?

6

7

1.3

Are you sentenced?

82

86

92

1.3

Are you on recall?

10

9

7

9

1.4

Is your sentence less than 12 months?

14

12

6

14

1.4

Are you here under an indeterminate sentence for public protection (IPP prisoner)?

7

6

9

6

1.5

Are you a foreign national?

10

10

8

10

1.6

Do you understand spoken English?

99

98

99

98

1.7

Do you understand written English?

97

98

98

97

1.8

Are you from a minority ethnic group? (Including all those who did not tick white
British, white Irish or white other categories.)

14

27

12

26

1.9

Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller?

7

4

3

5

1.10

Are you Muslim?

8

15

4

14

1.11

Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual?

7

3

1.12

Do you consider yourself to have a disability?

1.13

Are you a veteran (ex-armed services)?

10

5

17

4

1.14

Is this your first time in prison?

32

41

50

37

Do you have any children under the age of 18?

47

49

21

54

1.15

7

4

42

24

SECTION 2: Transfers and escorts
On your most recent journey here:
2.1

Did you spend more than 2 hours in the van?

31

34

37

32

2.5

Did you feel safe?

69

79

77

76

2.6

Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff?

69

70

79

68

2.7

Before you arrived here were you told that you were coming here?

61

63

62

62

2.8

When you first arrived here did your property arrive at the same time as you?

80

82

83

81

SECTION 3: Reception, first night and induction
3.1

Were you in reception for less than 2 hours?

43

47

54

44

3.2

When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way?

77

81

85

79

Were you treated well/very well in reception?

65

67

80

64

3.3

When you first arrived:
3.4

Did you have any problems?

89

64

67

71

3.4

Did you have any problems with loss of property?

19

17

16

18

3.4

Did you have any housing problems?

24

13

13

17

3.4

Did you have any problems contacting employers?

3

4

3

4

3.4

Did you have any problems contacting family?

31

27

22

29

3.4

Did you have any problems ensuring dependants were being looked after?

2

2

1

2

3.4

Did you have any money worries?

23

16

16

19

3.4

Did you have any problems with feeling depressed or suicidal?

37

16

19

22

3.4

Did you have any physical health problems?

33

9

28

13

3.4

Did you have any mental health problems?

54

15

18

27

3.4

Did you have any problems with needing protection from other prisoners?

13

6

8

8

3.4

Did you have problems accessing phone numbers?

28

23

22

25

When you first arrived here, were you offered any of the following:
3.6

Tobacco?

70

70

50

73

3.6

A shower?

29

29

22

30

3.6

A free telephone call?

43

46

32

48

3.6

Something to eat?

62

62

57

63

3.6

PIN phone credit?

51

50

38

53

3.6

Toiletries/basic items?

52

54

52

53

108

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

3.7
3.7

3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.12

4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2

Have staff ever opened letters from your solicitor or legal representative when you
were not with them?

4.3

Can you get legal books in the library?
For the wing/unit you are currently on:
Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week?
Are you normally able to have a shower every day?
Do you normally receive clean sheets every week?
Do you normally get cell cleaning materials every week?
Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes?
Is it normally quiet enough for you to be able to relax or sleep in your cell at night time?
Can you normally get your stored property, if you need to?
Is the food in this prison good/very good?
Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs?
Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time, if you want to?
Are your religious beliefs respected?
Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to?
Is it easy/very easy to attend religious services?
SECTION 5: Applications and complaints
Is it easy to make an application?
Is it easy to make a complaint?
Have you ever been prevented from making a complaint when you wanted to?
Is it easy/very easy to see the Independent Monitoring Board?

4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10

5.1
5.3
5.5
5.6

KEY TO TABLE
Significantly better
Significantly worse
A significant difference in
prisoners’ background details
No significant difference

Prisoners under the age
of 50

3.7

Prisoners aged 50 and over

3.7

When you first arrived here did you have access to the following people:
The chaplain or a religious leader?
Someone from health services?
A Listener/Samaritans?
Prison shop/ canteen?
When you first arrived here were you offered information about any of the following:
What was going to happen to you?
Support was available for people feeling depressed or suicidal?
How to make routine requests?
Your entitlement to visits?
Health services?
The chaplaincy?
Did you feel safe on your first night here?
Have you been on an induction course?
Did you receive an education (skills for life) assessment?
SECTION 4: Legal rights and respectful custody
In terms of your legal rights, is it easy/very easy to:
Communicate with your solicitor or legal representative?
Attend legal visits?
Get bail information?

Do not consider themselves
to have a disability

Prisoner survey responses (adult men):
diversity analysis – disability/age (Continued)

Consider themselves to
have a disability

APPENDIX FIVE

%

%

%

%

48
66
31
23

49
66
32
24

43
67
31
22

50
66
32
24

42
36
36
33
45
41
62
78
77

46
37
40
36
47
43
75
84
80

46
36
42
36
50
42
75
84
80

45
36
38
35
45
42
71
82
79

37
44
13

38
46
13

46
46
9

36
45
13

45

40

32

43

37

37

44

36

52
79
64
51
25
53
18
25
47
57
50
57
45

58
83
62
53
26
62
21
25
47
53
48
53
47

80
89
81
65
36
69
26
40
58
69
59
60
51

52
81
59
50
24
58
19
23
45
52
46
53
46

71
54
28
22

77
53
20
22

82
56
14
29

74
53
23
20

Missing data have been excluded for each question. Please note: where
there are apparently large differences, which are not indicated as statistically
significant, this is likely to be due to chance.
1.	 Key questions from the survey include all questions with the exception
of filtered questions. The following breakdowns are within sample
comparisons so sample sizes are smaller; to include filtered questions
would further reduce the number of responses.
2.	 The amalgamated functional type includes: local prisons, training prisons,
young offender institutions holding over 18s and open establishments
published in the reporting period.
3.	 In order to appropriately adjust p-values in light of multiple testing, p<.01
was considered statistically significant for all comparisons undertaken.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

109

Do not consider themselves
to have a disability

Prisoners aged 50 and
over

Prisoners under the age
of 50

Prisoner survey responses (adult men):
diversity analysis – disability/age (Continued)

Consider themselves to
have a disability

APPENDIX FIVE

%

%

%

%

SECTION 6: Incentives and earned privileges scheme
6.1

Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme?

38

43

53

40

6.2

Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour?

37

42

40

40

6.3

In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you (C&R)?

15

10

3

13

SECTION 7: Relationships with staff
7.1

Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect?

73

75

89

71

7.2

Is there a member of staff, in this prison, that you can turn to for help if you have a
problem?

69

70

79

67

7.3

Has a member of staff checked on you personally in the last week to see how you were
getting on?

33

25

34

25

7.4

Do staff normally speak to you most of the time/all of the time during association?

17

19

26

17

7.5

Do you have a personal officer?

46

49

62

45

SECTION 8: Safety
8.1

Have you ever felt unsafe here?

61

44

38

50

8.2

Do you feel unsafe now?

32

18

15

23

8.4

Have you been victimised by other prisoners here?

44

27

27

32

Since you have been here, have other prisoners:
8.5

Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends?

21

11

10

14

8.5

Hit, kicked or assaulted you?

17

9

6

12

8.5

Sexually abused you?

3

1

1

2

8.5

Threatened or intimidated you?

28

15

16

19

8.5

Taken your canteen/property?

15

7

6

10

8.5

Victimised you because of medication?

11

3

5

5

8.5

Victimised you because of debt?

9

4

1

6

8.5

Victimised you because of drugs?

8

4

1

6

8.5

Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin?

6

4

3

5

8.5

Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs?

7

4

3

5

8.5

Victimised you because of your nationality?

5

3

3

4

8.5

Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country?

8

4

4

5

8.5

Victimised you because you are from a traveller community?

2

1

1

1

8.5

Victimised you because of your sexual orientation?

3

2

3

2

8.5

Victimised you because of your age?

5

2

7

2

8.5

Victimised you because you have a disability?

14

1

7

4

8.5

Victimised you because you were new here?

9

5

4

7

8.5

Victimised you because of your offence/crime?

10

6

9

7

8.5

Victimised you because of gang-related issues?

8

5

2

6

8.6

Have you been victimised by staff here?

40

28

19

33

17

12

6

14

Since you have been here, have staff:
8.7

Made insulting remarks about you, your family or friends?

8.7

Hit, kicked or assaulted you?

9

5

2

7

8.7

Sexually abused you?

2

1

1

1

8.7

Threatened or intimidated you?

20

12

10

15

8.7

Victimised you because of medication?

10

3

4

5

8.7

Victimised you because of debt?

3

1

1

2

8.7

Victimised you because of drugs?

4

2

1

3

8.7

Victimised you because of your race or ethnic origin?

4

5

2

5

8.7

Victimised you because of your religion/religious beliefs?

4

4

1

5

8.7

Victimised you because of your nationality?

4

3

2

4

110

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

Consider themselves to
have a disability

Do not consider themselves
to have a disability

Prisoners aged 50 and
over

Prisoners under the age
of 50

APPENDIX FIVE

%

%

%

%

Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country?

4

3

2

3

Victimised you because you are from a traveller community?

2

1

0

1

8.7

Victimised you because of your sexual orientation?

2

1

1

1

8.7

Victimised you because of your age?

3

2

3

2

8.7

Victimised you because you have a disability?

11

1

4

3

8.7

Victimised you because you were new here?

5

4

2

5

8.7

Victimised you because of your offence/crime?

6

4

5

5

8.7

Victimised you because of gang-related issues?

3

2

0

3

Prisoner survey responses (adult men):
diversity analysis – disability/age (Continued)

8.7
8.7

SECTION 9: Health services
9.1

Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor?

22

24

31

22

9.1

Is it easy/very easy to see the nurse?

44

44

54

42

9.1

Is it easy/very easy to see the dentist?

12

12

18

11

9.4

Are you currently taking medication?

79

44

77

49

9.6

Do you have any emotional well-being or mental health problems?

74

30

31

44

SECTION 10: Drugs and alcohol
10.1

Did you have a problem with drugs when you came into this prison?

39

26

11

33

10.2

Did you have a problem with alcohol when you came into this prison?

27

16

13

20

10.3

Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison?

51

46

36

49

10.4

Is it easy/very easy to get alcohol in this prison?

26

22

15

24

10.5

Have you developed a problem with drugs since you have been in this prison?

16

10

2

14

10.6

Have you developed a problem with diverted medication since you have been in
this prison?

12

7

3

9

SECTION 11: Activities
Is it very easy/easy to get involved in the following activities:
11.1

A prison job?

38

45

50

41

11.1

Vocational or skills training?

31

37

38

35

11.1

Education (including basic skills)?

45

51

54

48

11.1

Offending Behaviour Programmes?

19

20

22

20

Are you currently involved in any of the following activities:
11.2

A prison job?

48

60

59

56

11.2

Vocational or skills training?

10

12

10

12

11.2

Education (including basic skills)?

20

21

23

20

11.2

Offending Behaviour Programmes?

10

9

10

9

11.4

Do you go to the library at least once a week?

32

36

44

33

11.5

Does the library have a wide enough range of materials to meet your needs?

40

41

52

38

11.6

Do you go to the gym three or more times a week?

16

31

13

29

11.7

Do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week?

41

51

47

48

11.8

Do you go on association more than five times each week?

49

54

59

51

11.9

Do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday?

11

15

19

13

SECTION 12: Friends and family
12.1

Have staff supported you and helped you to maintain contact with family/friends
while in this prison?

31

31

40

29

12.2

Have you had any problems with sending or receiving mail?

47

44

33

47

12.3

Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones?

33

27

20

30

Is it easy/ very easy for your friends and family to get here?

24

32

27

30

51

59

67

55

7

6

6

6

12

14

14

14

12.4

SECTION 13: Preparation for release
13.3

Do you have a named offender supervisor in this prison?

13.10

Do you have a needs-based custody plan?

13.11

Do you feel that any member of staff has helped you to prepare for release?

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

111

APPENDIX SIX

Men

Number of completed questionnaires returned

Women

Prisoner survey responses: key questions responses – women/men

702

6,500

%

%

Are you under 21 years of age?
Are you sentenced?
Are you a foreign national?
Do you understand spoken English?
Do you understand written English?

3
87
9
98
97

7
85
10
98
97

Are you from a minority ethnic group? (Including all those who did not tick white British, white Irish or
white other categories.)

21

24

3.4

Do you consider yourself to be Gypsy/Romany/Traveller?
Are you Muslim?
Are you homosexual/gay or bisexual?
Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
Is this your first time in prison?
Do you have any children under the age of 18?
Were you treated well/very well by the escort staff?
Before you arrived here were you told that you were coming here?
When you were searched in reception, was this carried out in a respectful way?
Were you treated well/very well in reception?
Did you have any problems when you first arrived?

7
6
25
36
55
54
79
71
90
77
83

5
13
4
27
39
49
70
62
80
66
70

3.7

Did you have access to someone from health care when you first arrived here?

66

66

3.9

Did you feel safe on your first night here?
Have you been on an induction course?
Is it easy/very easy to communicate with your solicitor or legal representative?
Are you normally offered enough clean, suitable clothes for the week?
Are you normally able to have a shower every day?
Is your cell call bell normally answered within five minutes?
Is the food in this prison good/very good?
Does the shop/canteen sell a wide enough range of goods to meet your needs?
Are you able to speak to a Listener at any time, if you want to?
Do you feel your religious beliefs are respected?
Are you able to speak to a religious leader of your faith in private if you want to?
Is it easy to make an application?
Is it easy to make a complaint?
Do you feel you have been treated fairly in your experience of the IEP scheme?
Do the different levels of the IEP scheme encourage you to change your behaviour?
In the last six months have any members of staff physically restrained you (C&R)?
Do most staff, in this prison, treat you with respect?
Is there a member of staff you can turn to for help if you have a problem in this prison?
Do staff normally speak to you at least most of the time during association time (most/all of the time)?
Do you have a personal officer?
Have you ever felt unsafe here?
Do you feel unsafe now?
Have you been victimised by other prisoners?

66
88
34
67
94
43
37
54
66
59
68
79
60
55
49
5
77
79
20
57
52
18
44

72
83
38
56
82
26
25
47
54
48
54
75
54
42
40
11
74
69
19
48
48
22
32

10
2
30
8
6
3
2
29

11
2
18
5
5
5
2
31

1.2
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
1.11
1.12
1.14
1.15
2.6
2.7
3.2
3.3

3.10
4.1
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
5.1
5.3
6.1
6.2
6.3
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8.1
8.2
8.3

Since you have been here, have other prisoners:
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.5
8.6

112

Hit, kicked or assaulted you?
Sexually abused you?
Threatened or intimidated you?
Victimised you because of medication?
Victimised you because of drugs?
Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country?
Victimised you because of your sexual orientation?
Have you been victimised by a member of staff?

Annual Report 2016– 17 HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales

APPENDIX SIX

Women

Men

Prisoner survey responses: key questions responses – women/men

%

%

9.1

Hit, kicked or assaulted you?
Sexually abused you?
Threatened or intimidated you?
Victimised you because of medication?
Victimised you because of drugs?
Victimised you because you were from a different part of the country?
Victimised you because of your sexual orientation?
Is it easy/very easy to see the doctor?
Is it easy/very easy to see the nurse?

1
1
12
6
2
1
2
19
43

6
1
14
5
2
3
1
23
44

9.4

Are you currently taking medication?

76

53

9.6

11.4

Do you feel you have any emotional well being/mental health issues?
Is it easy/very easy to get illegal drugs in this prison?
Is it easy/very easy to get alcohol in this prison?
Are you currently working in the prison?
Are you currently undertaking vocational or skills training?
Are you currently in education (including basic skills)?
Are you currently taking part in an offending behaviour programme?
Do you go to the library at least once a week?

65
31
7
68
14
26
10
41

42
47
23
56
11
21
9
35

11.6

Do you go to the gym three or more times a week?

25

27

11.7

Do you go outside for exercise three or more times a week?
On average, do you go on association more than five times each week?
Do you spend 10 or more hours out of your cell on a weekday? (This includes hours at education, at work etc.)
Have you had any problems sending or receiving mail?
Have you had any problems getting access to the telephones?
Is it easy/very easy for your friends and family to get here?

49
54
21
42
25
27

48
52
14
45
28
30

Since you have been here, have staff:
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
8.7
9.1

10.3
10.4
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2

11.8
11.9
12.2
12.3
12.4

KEY TO TABLE
Significantly better
Significantly worse
A significant difference in
prisoners’ background details
No significant difference

Missing data have been excluded for each question. Please note: where
there are apparently large differences, which are not indicated as statistically
significant, this is likely to be due to chance.
1.	 Key questions from the survey include all questions with the exception
of filtered questions. The following breakdowns are within sample
comparisons so sample sizes are smaller; to include filtered questions
would further reduce the number of responses.
2.	 The amalgamated functional type includes: local prisons, training prisons,
young offender institutions holding over 18s and open establishments
published in the reporting period.
3.	 In order to appropriately adjust p-values in light of multiple testing, p<.01
was considered statistically significant for all comparisons undertaken.

HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2016– 17

113

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons
Victory House
6th floor
30-34 Kingsway
London
WC2B 6EX
Telephone: 020 3681 2770
Press enquiries: 020 3681 2775
General enquiries: hmiprisons.enquiries@hmiprisons.gsi.gov.uk
Chief Inspector of Prisons
Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM

The GCS Design Centre

This Annual Report was produced by DESIGN102
Contact us at: design102@justice.gsi.gov.uk