HMYOI Brinsford, HMIP Inspections

The prison was given a full inspection in June 2023. In their report the inspectors said

When we inspected Brinsford in August 2021 we raised concerns about the amount of time that the 517 young men at the prison were spending out of their cells. On this inspection we found a slightly improved picture with more prisoners in at least part-time work, but our score of ‘poor’ for purposeful activity reflects a jail that still has a long way to go.

The prison was held back by a culture among a significant minority of staff and middle managers that Brinsford prisoners were so risky that it was better to keep them locked behind their doors, where too many continued to spend their days sleeping and watching television. This attitude remained a huge block to the ambition of the governor, and she will need to take on these influential vested interests if the jail is to make further progress.

An example of this inertia was the use of force: at our last inspection, we criticised poor governance and in particular the apparent reluctance of staff to turn on body-worn cameras. Since then, the prison had acquired enough new cameras for every staff member, but leaders had not done enough to make sure they were activated. Too often the only footage we were able to view was taken when the prisoner was being returned to his cell, rather than at the beginning of the incident. In other jails, where leaders have been more resolute, we have found that the use of body-worn cameras has become embedded.

Teachers told me that they were frustrated that only a small and unpredictable number of students turned up to education, not because they did not want to come, but because getting them to the education block was not seen as a priority by some staff. Not enough work had been done to improve on some of findings from 2021, and none of the recommendations in this area had been fulfilled. It had taken too long to create a prison-wide reading strategy, assessment was weak and peer mentor support was very limited. Prisoners told me that sometimes, when they did get to education, they discovered it had been cancelled. This negative attitude also meant that men were often not taken to important health care appointments.

We continued to be concerned about levels of violence, which remained too high and led to regime restrictions. This, in turn, also fed boredom, a sense of helplessness and a lack of motivation among prisoners – factors which were themselves drivers of violence. We were pleased to see that the governor and her senior team had brought in some new ways of motivating good behaviour such as increased gym time, association, and sporting events, although rewards that had been earned were not consistently delivered.

There was huge potential among the young men in the prison, but not enough had been made of the large grounds and in developing other facilities to make sure that they were expending their energy in more positive ways. Although we criticised the fabric of the prison at our last inspection, it continued to be substandard, apart from the refurbishment of some wings and showers. Unscreened lavatories were stained, there was toothpaste over many of the walls, and the redecoration initiative involving a party of prisoners seemed to have spattered almost as much paint on the floor as on the walls.

The induction wing needed some serious managerial grip. One young adult I spoke to, who had arrived into prison for the first time two days before, found himself in a cell that had someone else’s tissues and a desiccated apple lying on the floor, a pair of trainers left by another prisoner and no duvet cover; sadly this was not untypical. This was not acceptable, nor was the lack of a proper induction for many new prisoners.

The offender management unit continued to be a strength of the prison with a team of well-led, motivated staff providing a good and consistent service to prisoners. There continued to be concerns with public protection arrangements, which meant there was the potential for some prisoners to be released without proper consideration or planning around their risk level in the community.

In the 22 months since our last inspection, Brinsford had not made the progress we would expect, although there were some pockets of good work, such as the appointment of two external members to the leadership team to help understand the prisoner experience, family engagement for prisoners in crisis and initiatives such as the Acorn centre and segregation learning suite to encourage positive behaviour.

Now there is a more stable senior management team in place, and the governor is well-established in her role, there is the opportunity to use this latest report to drive forward progress. The challenge is for the senior leadership team to consolidate the small improvement we identify in this report, provide consistent and clear direction for staff and apply real rigour elsewhere to make sure that Brinsford becomes a safe and decent prison.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
July 2023

The inspectors also provided a note of their major concerns

What needs to improve at HMP/YOI Brinsford

During this inspection we identified 13 key concerns, of which six should be treated as priorities. Priority concerns are those that are most important to improving outcomes for prisoners. They require immediate attention by leaders and managers.

Leaders should make sure that all concerns identified here are addressed and that progress is tracked through a plan which sets out how and when the concerns will be resolved. The plan should be provided to HMI Prisons.

Priority concerns

  1. Leaders had not done enough to address the negative attitude of a significant minority of staff and some managers, which was hampering progress in many parts of the jail.
  2. Levels of violence were too high.
  3. Governance, oversight and practice of the use of force continued to be very poor.
  4. Leaders had not set a high enough standard for living conditions. Communal areas had been neglected, and prisoners lived in austere conditions and struggled to get access to basic supplies. This was particularly unwelcoming for new arrivals who were met with messy and indecent cells.
  5. Leaders were not providing enough full-time activity spaces for prisoners, and too many were stuck in their cells with nothing to do.
  6. Prisoners’ attendance rates at education, skills and work were too low, and had not improved over time. Too few prisoners had positive attitudes towards education and work.

Key concerns

  1. Prisoners’ experience during their early days required improvement.
  2. Patients lacked consistent access to clinical services, which meant they were not being assessed in a timely manner.
  3. Patients did not receive their medication in line with national standards or in such a way that the optimum therapeutic effect was achieved.
  4. Patients experienced long delays before they were transferred to a mental health hospital, preventing them from having prompt access to specialist care.
  5. Too few prisoners developed the mathematical and English knowledge that they needed for their future careers. The prison’s reading strategy had had little impact on the many prisoners with low levels of reading ability.
  6. Teachers did not plan the content of their curriculums well enough. In too many cases they did not consider the knowledge, skills or attitudes that prisoners most needed.
  7. Public protection arrangements to prepare for the release of prisoners who presented a risk to others were not sufficient

To read the full report follow the links to the Ministry of Justice web site below

Return to Brinsford