HMIP Reports, HMP Nottingham

The prison was given an inspection in May/June 2022 In their latest report the inspectors said:

Nottingham is a very difficult prison to run and many challenges remain, but this inspection was encouraging, particularly given the Inspectorate’s criticism of the prison in the past. In 2018 we issued an Urgent Notification, a rare event but indicative of the situation in the prison at the time. Since then, we have seen evidence of greater grip and some progress, although this is not yet reflected in our healthy prison scores. Indeed, at this inspection outcomes in rehabilitation and release planning had got worse.

The prison retained the feel and character of an old Victorian local, despite much of the jail being re-built in the early part of this century. Comprising seven fairly modern wings, it held up to 900 adult men and served mainly the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire area as a reception and resettlement prison. Cells were of a better standard than in similar prisons, but cleanliness varied, furniture was in short supply, the food was poor, and the system for the redress of legitimate grievances was inadequate. This was in keeping with a repeated theme throughout our visit: whenever we found positive evidence it was invariably balanced by some frustrating and often avoidable omissions and shortcomings.

Work to promote equality had been sustained to some extent throughout the pandemic and was receiving a boost in the interest, energy, and leadership of the recently appointed governor. In general, about two-thirds of prisoners told us in our survey that they felt respected by staff, a finding consistent with similar prisons. However, other evidence pointed to a lack of prisoner confidence in the capability of staff and their ability to get things done. This is a criticism we have made before at the jail.

Nottingham was receiving prisoners with high levels of need. Around 90% of respondents to our survey indicated they had problems when they arrived and induction and work to promote behaviour needed to be more effective. However, many important indicators of safety, such as the amount of violence, had stabilised and were not getting worse. There had been one self-inflicted death since we last inspected, and self-harm was falling, although it remained comparatively high. Again, despite some encouraging signs, some of the practice we observed in the prevention of self-harm remained weak.

Work to open up the regime following the pandemic was tentative. Just under half of prisoners were unemployed, spending 22 hours a day locked in their cells. There were insufficient workspaces for the population, and allocation arrangements and attendance for the spaces available were poor. Our colleagues in Ofsted judged the learning and skills opportunities available as ‘requiring improvement’. The important rehabilitative task of promoting family ties was limited, as were other aspects of release planning. There was, however, evidence of improvement in the service offered to prisoners who required offender management.

We inspected at a time of transition in the leadership of the prison. A new governor had recently arrived, and he seemed to be building on the stability and steady improvement created by the previous incumbent. Oversight arrangements were getting better, and the priorities identified for the prison appeared to make sense. We leave the prison with a series of concerns which we hope will assist this improvement.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
July 2022

 

The inspectors also listed their key concerns

What needs to improve at HMP Nottingham

During this inspection we identified 14 key concerns, of which four 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. Reported incidents of self-harm remained too high a level and many prisoners at risk of self-harm felt uncared for. Case management (through the ACCT process) and oversight of prisoners on constant supervision required improvement. The daily regime and interaction with staff was too limited, inhibiting meaningful engagement and interaction.
2. Prisoners were justifiably frustrated at the time that it took for legitimate requests to be resolved. The applications and complaints systems were not fully effective.
3. Leaders and managers did not ensure that prisoners had timely access to education, skills and work activities relevant to their needs, or that access was properly sequenced. The allocations process was inefficient.
4. Release planning was not well resourced or organised. Prisoners could not access reliable support in gaining sustainable accommodation or help with their finances before release.

Key concerns

5. Induction did not adequately prepare prisoners for prison life. Not all prisoners received an induction and many received very little help with problems upon first arrival at the prison.
6. The use of challenge, support and intervention plans (CSIPs) for victims and perpetrators of violence was not effective and was having only very limited impact. The scheme was poorly communicated and the purpose of each prisoner’s plan was unclear.
7. Use of force was very high. Oversight lacked impact and leaders did not routinely review footage to make sure that all use of force was justified and proportionate. Leaders did not have a plan to reduce the high levels of use of force.
8. Prisoners complained about culturally ignorant attitudes among some staff. Not enough was being done to understand and address these poor perceptions of prisoners from a black or minority ethnic background.
9. Meals were served far too early; portions were sometimes small, and the food was unappetising.
10. Leaders and managers had not improved the quality of the education provision, in particular English, to make sure that the teaching that prisoners received was of a good standard. Planning for education lessons was too generic.
11. Too many prisoners did not develop the appropriate behaviours and attitudes to work, such as arriving and starting work promptly and adhering to safe working practices.
12. Prisoners did not receive enough careers information, advice and guidance to improve their progression into education, training or employment on release. Too few prisoners progressed into sustained employment on release.
13. The promotion of good family ties, supporting effective resettlement, required improvement. There was, for example, no family casework, restrictions on social visits were unnecessary and not enough had been done to encourage the use of secure video calls.
14. Public protection arrangements were weak. Most pin phone monitoring did not take place and not all prisoners who potentially posed a continuing risk to children had their suitability for ongoing contact assessed

 

Return to Nottingham

To read the full reports follow the links below to the Ministry of Justice website

• Inspection report (968 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Nottingham by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (24–25 May and 6–10 June 2022)
• HMP Nottingham (1.75 MB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Nottingham (6–17 January 2020)
• HMP & YOI Nottingham (3.13 MB), Report on an announced inspection of HMP & YOI Nottingham (11–12 December 2017 & 8–11 January 2018)
• HMP Nottingham (PDF, 827.37 kB), Report on an announced inspection of HMP Nottingham (1-5 February 2016)
• HMP Nottingham, Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Nottingham (8-19 September 2014)
• HMP Nottingham,. Unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP Nottingham (25-27 February 2013)
• HMP Nottingham, Announced inspection of HMP Nottingham (15 – 19 February 2010)
• HMP Nottingham, Unannouced short follow-up inspection of HMP Nottingham (15-18 October 2007)