THE INSPECTOR CALLS… November 2015. survey IPP prisoners s %

Prisoners Survey
11% IPP/Life Prisoners 2% Number of foreign nationals 1% Prisoners on Recall 73% Treated well in Reception 27% Had legal letters opened 61% Food is bad or very bad 17% Don’t know who IMB are 76% Treated with respect by staff 14% Number who have felt unsafe 23% Victimised by staff 53% Difficult to see dentist 33% Easy to get drugs 20% Not engaged in any purposeful activities 5% Less than 4 hours out of cell 15% No Sentence Plan.


HMP Standford Hill was previously man- aged as part of a cluster of Isle of Sheppey prisons but while some services continue to be shared, the prison is now independent and has its own governor. The number of prisoners with indeterminate sentences for public protection had increased significant- ly since the last inspection and nearly all these men were now well beyond their tariff expiry date.
Inspectors say they found a ‘much-improved prison’: previously resettlement work was ‘fragmented and inconsistent’ but now they said it was the core of nearly everything that happened at the prison.
Prisoners felt safe and levels of violence were low. The prison resolved most problems informally without recourse to disciplinary measures. Support for vulnerable prisoners and those who self-harm is good and problems with drugs and alcohol are ‘well managed’.
The living environment was, say Inspectors, ‘clean and decent’ although the condition of the Healthcare building is poor. Prisoner/ staff relationships had improved and the newly re-launched Personal Officer Scheme was having a positive impact although, Inspectors commented that ‘some wing- based staff remained too passive and distant in their interactions with prisoners, which wasted a valuable opportunity to provide further support for the resettlement aims of individuals and the prison as a whole.’
In summing up Nick Hardwick, Chief Inspector of Prisons, said; ‘Standford Hill had made significant progress since our last inspection against all of our healthy prison tests, most notably in putting resettlement work at the heart of the prison. The prison was very well led, and we had confidence that it would continue to progress.’
HMP Bullingdon
Male adult category C training and resettlement prison
Local Resettlement Prison
Managed by HMPS
CNA: 869 / Population: 1,102
Announced Full Inspection: 15-26 June 2015
Published: 29 October 2015 / Last inspection: July 2012
SAFETY: Sufficiently good RESPECT: Reasonably good
PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITY: Not sufficiently good RESETTLEMENT: Poor
Prisoners Survey
24.4% Remand 24.2% Aged under 17 9.3% Been in local authority care 42% Under 14 when last at school 11% Lost property on arrival 67% Treated well in Reception 22% Boys on Basic IEP 61% Food is bad or very bad 73% Had an adjudication 44% Been physically restrained 62% Treated with respect by staff 41% Number who have felt unsafe 26% Victimised by staff 14% Easy to get drugs 16% Not engaged in any purposeful activities 26% Don’t receive visits
The prison had been through a difficult period before this inspection. However, the establishment had begun to turn the corner, although it was still getting to grips with its new resettlement function and progress was held back by significant staff shortages in a number of critical roles.
Inspectors were concerned that:

•  data on levels of violence was unreliable and could not be used effectively to plan how to reduce violent incidents;
•  outcomes for prisoners with protected characteristics, such as disability, were not monitored adequately and the prison did not know if they were being treated equitably;
• very large offender assessment system (OASys) backlogs hindered prisoners’ progression and compromised the management of their risk;
• although the prison felt calm, more prisoners than at the last inspection said they did not feel safe;
•  the rise in the availability and use of Spice was a serious threat, leading to debt and bullying and there was no effective prison- wide strategy to reduce the supply of drugs;
• there had been five self-inflicted deaths since 2012 and although prisoners at risk of self-harm said they felt well cared for, not enough was being done to reduce the risk of further deaths and to implement the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s recommendations;
• despite having enough places to meet the needs of the population, attendance at education and training was just 50% and inspectors found more than a third of prisoners locked in their cells during the working day;
• the prison was on a restricted regime as a result of staff shortages; and
• there was no strategy that set out how the prison would tackle the rehabilitation of its complex population, and offender management processes were undermined by acute staff shortages.In summing up the report Nick Hardwick said; ‘… at the time of the inspection overall outcomes were not good enough and the prison carried some significant risks.’
•  http://insidetime.org/the-inspector-calls-november-2015/