HMIP Reports, HMP Isle of Wight

The prison was given an inspection in September/October 2022, and the full report can be read at the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the links below. In their latest report the inspectors said:

The Isle of Wight prison has existed in its current form since 2009, when historic Parkhurst was amalgamated with the adjacent Albany, an institution dating from the late 1960s. A third jail, Camphill, originally part of the cluster, subsequently closed and has now been decommissioned.

Designated a category B training prison and part of the long-term high security estate, the two sites contain a varied mix of accommodation types, which adds a certain complexity to the institution. That said, the prison’s primary purpose is quite clear. It holds nearly 1,000 men who, with the exception of a small number of local islander remand or sentenced prisoners, have been convicted of serious sexual offences. The vast majority are assessed as presenting a high risk of harm to the public, although most are now category C, presenting a lower security risk than the majority category B population we encountered when we last inspected in 2019.

Since that last inspection, our assessments indicate that the prison had experienced a significant deterioration in some important outcomes. It was still not safe enough; outcomes in respect had worsened, and in our healthy prison tests of purposeful activity and rehabilitation and release planning, we now judged outcomes to be poor, a considerable indictment for a training prison. While we found a jail that was generally calm and settled, data about violence was mixed, there had been seven self-inflicted deaths since we last inspected and the level of self-harm, despite some useful interventions, was very high. Our observations of relationships between staff and prisoners were mixed. Some staff were attentive, but others displayed a concerning indifference which needed to be challenged.

Underpinning many of our criticisms was the lack of care and investment in the general environment of the prison. The institution had lost its way in its core mission of reducing reoffending. Prisoners had very little time out of cell, routines were unpredictable and access to work, education, and activity was intermittent. Support for rehabilitation was under resourced, and there was a lack of direction and rigour to ensure that what little did take place was effective. Offending behaviour interventions and resettlement initiatives were similarly lacking. All of this combined to create a sense of indolence and frustration among many in the prison.

Acute staff shortages, both of prison officers and more specialist disciplines, was undermining much of the prison’s work and attempts at improvement. Leaders were not unaware or indifferent to this; they were proactive and creative in recruitment and the leadership support they were providing to those staff deployed to the wings. Their general assessment of the strengths of the institution and the priorities to be addressed was mostly accurate, particularly in terms of operational management, but the lack of priority or effective vision for the rehabilitative function of the prison was a considerable missed opportunity. In their use of data, for example, leaders focused on how the prison compared to other category B training prisons, and while this was understandable, it gave insufficient weight to how the establishment compared with similar lower category prisons or those with a specialist sex offender treatment function. There was a sense that protecting the prison’s status as a category B long-term establishment had become an informal priority and it was no surprise to us that it lacked the purpose and rehabilitative ethos often found in other prisons tasked with managing the risks and eventual resettlement of men convicted of sexual offences.

Leaders seemed open and responsive to our assessment during the inspection. There was clearly an urgent need to support the prison in providing the specialist resources it required, and for careful thought about the purpose of this prison. In our report we highlight a number of priorities and concerns which we hope will assist this process.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
November 2022

 

The inspectors also provided a list of the key points which arose from the inspection

 

What needs to improve at HMP Isle of Wight

During this inspection we identified 15 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 (see Glossary) 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 therapeutic and rehabilitative purpose of the prison was not sufficiently prioritised. Leaders had not developed the environment or regime in a way that sought to ensure needs and risks of the sex offender population were addressed. This was compounded by a failure to respond to the new reality of a much larger population of category C prisoners. Specialist staff shortages further worsened this situation.
  2. Over a third of officers were not available for work in the units, which limited the delivery of the day-to-day regime and led to prisoners spending too long locked in cells.
  3. The level of recorded self-harm was very high and there had been seven self-inflicted deaths since our last inspection.
  4. Prisoners had very limited access to work or study. Planned access was severely undermined by poor attendance, poor punctuality and prisoners returning to their cells early.
  5. There were significant gaps in release planning for prisoners many of whom posed a high risk of serious harm to the public.
  6. The health provider had identified risks to service delivery and patient outcomes, but improvements had not taken place quickly enough.

 

Key concerns

  1. Data were not used well enough to improve outcomes. Managers did not explore outcomes at other prisons holding a similar population, including those convicted of sexual offences and category C prisoners. They did not evaluate the impact of the education and skills curriculum to drive improvement.
  2. Many of the residential units were shabby, bleak and in need of significant repair. 9. Black and minority ethnic and Muslim prisoners and those with mental health problems were far more negative than their counterparts about some key aspects of their care, for example, their relationships with staff and the safety outcomes they experienced.
  3. Mental health and learning disability services did not provide adequate or timely evidence-based care or treatment.
  4. There was insufficient oversight of, and control over, medicines creating risks to staff and patients.
  5. Leaders had not prioritised reading or literacy.
  6. Leaders did not make sure that prisoners could access education promptly enough to make progress towards their career aspirations.
  7. Prison offender managers did not have enough contact with prisoners or access to interventions to help them address their offending behaviour.
  8. There was too little support to help prisoners maintain or rebuild ties with their families and friends and no reliable resettlement help for those being released

Return to Isle of Wight

To read the full reports, go to the Ministry of Justice site or follow the links below: