HMP Lowdham Grange, HMIP inspections

The inspectors visited the prison for an inspection in January May 2023 In his report the inspector said in his report:

HMP Lowdham Grange, near Nottingham, is a category B training prison holding up to 800 adult men, many convicted of very serious offences. A privately-run establishment, the prison first opened in 1998 and was operated by Serco for 25 years. Following a competition and market test, the prison was handed over to Sodexo on 16 February 2023. During this inspection the prison was in a state of active transition with the new provider seeking to make progress toward implementation of their contract and delivery model. This was the first time that management of a prison had been handed from one private provider to another.

We found an atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety, with staff and prisoners keen to tell us about their concerns as well as expressing general dissatisfaction about how they were being treated. These findings were reflected in our healthy prison test scores, with outcomes judged not sufficiently good in three tests and poor in our test of purposeful activity, a significant deterioration from our previous inspection in 2018. Leaders were grappling with many issues, including the loss of some key and specialist staff, a lack of understanding of new routines and expectations, and a widespread perception among prisoners and staff of poor communication. Appointed at relatively short notice, and in response to the departure of others, the new director was very experienced and appeared to have a good understanding of the extent of the challenge. He expressed to us his commitment to see the delivery of the new contract to a successful conclusion.

The prison was not safe enough, and the sense of instability was reflected in the availability of drugs and levels of recorded violence, which were lower than in 2018 but had increased in recent months and remained high in comparison with similar prisons. Initiatives to promote positive behaviour, as well as oversight and assurance of the use of force and segregation, were not yet good enough. The poor state of governance was perhaps most starkly reflected in a failure to investigate consistently allegations of misconduct among staff. Our staff survey showed discontent among some staff groups, low morale, and a mistrust of the new leadership. Of greatest concern, however, were the 14 prisoner deaths, including six which were self-inflicted, that had occurred since we last inspected. Three of these had taken place in March, shortly after the transition, prompting speculation among staff and prisoners alike that uncertainty and change were causal factors. The evidence pointed to continuing high levels of self-harm and an indifferent approach to oversight and intervention.

The number of prisoners who told us they felt respected by staff was consistent with findings from the previous inspection and similar prisons, although many staff were inexperienced and seemed to us to be in need of guidance, support and leadership. Prisoners expressed frustration that their basic requests were not dealt with, and staff needed to embrace change and apply themselves more constructively, but peer support, reasonable access to services and good environmental and living conditions helped to mitigate this. Work to promote equality had largely lapsed since the transition, but there was little evidence of unfair treatment of prisoners with protected characteristics. In contrast, outcomes in health care were undermined by significant staff shortages and inadequate oversight.

The prison was failing to fulfil its rehabilitative function. Unlock was often sporadic, with staff and prisoners uncertain about routines. Our own spot checks indicated that more than 40% of prisoners were locked up during the working day, with between three and nine hours out of cell for each individual, depending on their employment status. The frustration this created among prisoners was palpable. Access to work and education was poor, with our Ofsted colleagues judging all aspects of provision as ‘inadequate’, their lowest assessment. Many prisoners posed a high risk of harm, but offender management, public protection and resettlement services all needed to be better and far less peripheral to the life of the prison and the experience of prisoners. The recruitment of two new senior probation officers was a start, but they needed support.

Lowdham Grange was struggling. To some extent this was predictable in the context of transition from one provider to another. Leaders were, however, sighted on the issues and the full delivery of the new contract should address many of the concerns we have identified. They need support and encouragement to make sure this is achieved expeditiously.

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 Lowdham Grange

During this inspection we identified 13 key concerns, (they actually list 14!) 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. The prison was not safe enough. Outcomes were being undermined by violence, the ready availability of illegal drugs and an inexperienced staff group who lacked the confidence to provide effective supervision and management.
  2. The level of self-harm was high and had risen in recent months. Not enough was being done to support prisoners in crisis and those at risk of self-harm.
  3. Longstanding staff shortages in health care resulted in lengthy waits for services and some poor outcomes for patients. This was exacerbated by limited strategic support and a lack of governance over the service.
  4. There were not enough places in education, skills and work for the population. Allocations took too long and were not informed by prisoners’ career goals.
  5. There were not enough opportunities for prisoners to complete offending behaviour work and other programmes aimed at reducing their risks.
  6. Public protection processes were not robust. Too few prisoners had been assessed for their suitability to have contact with children. Managers did not have a comprehensive understanding of all emerging risks and could not therefore manage them effectively. Public protection and pre-release arrangements were not good enough.

Key concerns

  1. There was insufficient oversight and accountability for custody officers, particularly in their use of force. The pervading culture among officers was not focused on responding to prisoner need and the delivery of effective support. Managers did not provide robust oversight to hold officers to account and we were, for example, told about very poor behaviour by some staff working in the segregation unit. Leaders had also failed to investigate serious concerns about the use of force against some prisoners.
  2. Too many prisoners were segregated for long periods without access to a decent and meaningful regime and there were no clear reintegration plans.
  3. Arrangements to meet the needs of prisoners with protected characteristics were weak.
  4. Partnership working between the health care provider and the prison was poor. The clinical judgment of health care staff was sometimes ignored; this included a lack of investigation into several serious safeguarding concerns they had raised.
  5. The education, skills and work curriculum was too narrow and lacked ambition. There was no reading strategy. Most accredited programmes were only available at level 1 and below. In work, prisoners could not acquire accredited qualifications.
  6. Leaders did not make sure that prisoners with additional learning needs had the support they needed. In nearly all cases that identified an additional learning need, further detailed assessments had not taken place.
  7. The number of prisoners being released was increasing, but the prison had no dedicated resettlement staff or provision for housing support.
  8. The applications and complaints systems were not fully effective and consultation with prisoners led to relatively few changes in practice

 Return to Lowdham Grange

To read the full report go to the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the limks below.This section contains the reports for Lowdham Grange from 2004 until present: