HMIP Inspection of Preston

The prison was inspected in March 2023. The full reports can be read at the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the links below. In their latest report the inspectors said

 HMP Preston is an ageing men’s reception prison serving courts in Lancashire, that held 680 prisoners at the time of our inspection. It is not bedevilled by the same staffing pressures from which many English prisons suffer and was only 12% off its full complement of officers, although leaders were expecting to lose staff on detached duty to other prisons in the near future.

The governor, who had been in post for nearly a year, had introduced a fresh vision and a determination to address some negative outcomes for prisoners. The poor behaviour by staff members we saw in use of force footage, and which was reported to us by prisoners, was a clear demonstration of a negative staff culture that continued among some officers.

Aided by a new deputy, the governor was working to develop the capability and experience of the leadership team. He had moved his and other leaders’ offices so that they were next to the main part of the jail and staff frequently told me how much they appreciated seeing him on the wings.

Overall, the prison was reasonably safe, with violence at similar levels to the average rates for reception and resettlement prisons, and more serious incidents were rare. The ingress of illegal drugs, which were often the cause of violence, bullying and debt, continued to be a major challenge and leaders were working hard to reduce the supply. There were creative solutions in place to improve the behaviour of some violent prisoners, but others were not being given sufficient support or helped to change.

Unusually, inspectors were positive about the quality of ACCT documents (case management for prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm), where quality assurance by leaders meant that the standard was consistently good, although there was scope for improvements in the quality of some support plans.

Living conditions for many prisoners continued to be poor; too many shared small cells designed for one with inadequately screened lavatories. The wings were kept reasonably clean but not enough to deter the prison’s large rat population. Efforts had been made to refurbish some showers and communal toilets, but significantly more investment was needed to bring conditions up to a decent standard across the site.

The head of health care was doing an outstanding job and standards had improved markedly since our last inspection, with a strong and proactive staff team working to improve outcomes for a population that had many difficulties with mental health and substance misuse. The governor had worked to develop the partnership with the health care provider and this had led to innovations such as a nurse being linked to the segregation unit to provide support for both prisoners and staff, and remand prisoners being allowed to join the excellent substance misuse unit.

Another good partnership with the education provider meant that a good proportion of prisoners were allocated to education, work or training, with suitable opportunities in place for what was a largely transient population. This meant that most prisoners were spending more time out of cell than we often seen in similar prisons, although there was still more to do to increase unlock time at weekends and for unemployed prisoners, where levels remained poor.

The biggest disappointment in this inspection was the reduced access to family visits. The prison had recently introduced a new booking system that was supposed to address some long-term difficulties, but they had not been resolved and a lack of monitoring meant that leaders had not noticed the problems that many prisoners described to me when I walked round the jail. Elsewhere, the offender management unit was doing some good reactive work when prisoners were due to move, but otherwise they had little or no interaction with their offender managers, which was compounded by the very limited amount of key work that was taking place. This failed to reduce the risk of harm they presented, particularly those convicted of sexual offences who would be released into the community from HMP Preston.

Overall, this was a positive inspection and inspectors left with a sense that there was some real momentum within the prison. I hope the findings in this report will give the governor and his team assurance that they have the right priorities, but that they also serve as a benchmark for further improvement. A little more clarity about milestones, targets and monitoring arrangements against each priority will help to drive progress. Provided there is continuity of leadership, I am confident that Preston will continue this positive journey.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
May 2023

 

The inspectors proved a short list of their major findings

 

What needs to improve at HMP Preston

 

During this inspection we identified 12 key concerns, of which five 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. Far too few prisoners said the prison induction covered everything they needed to know, and it was unnecessarily delayed. This was a concern given the number of prisoners new to custody and their high levels of need.
2. Drugs were too easy to get hold of, and their use was directly linked to debt and violence.
3. Prisoners said a small number of officers behaved in a heavy[1]handed and disrespectful manner. We saw evidence of force being used inappropriately against prisoners, along with foul and abusive language.
4. Support to help prisoners stay in contact with their family and friends was limited, and an ongoing problem with the visits booking system had not been resolved.
5. Vacancies in the offender management unit and the pre-release team persisted meaning prisoners, including those convicted of sexual offences, had too little contact with their offender manager which undermined work to address their risks and needs before release.

Key concerns

6. It was difficult for prisoners to get basic queries and problems resolved promptly because key work contact was very limited, and the application system was not working well.
7. Despite some improvements, living conditions were not sufficiently good in many parts of the prison.
8. Patients needing specialist care waited too long to be transferred to hospital under the Mental Health Act.
9. Unemployed prisoners had too little time out of cell, there was no evening association time for anyone and the regime at weekends was poor.
10. Attendance at activities was too low.
11. Instructors in prison industries did not receive sufficiently structured feedback to help them improve quickly enough.
12. Remanded and unsentenced prisoners could not receive help with their accommodation problems, such as maintaining their tenancy or dealing with rent arears

Return to Preston

To read the full report from the inspectors, follow the links below to the Ministry of Justice web site:

• Inspection report (1 MB),  Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Preston by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (7–23 March 2023)
• HMP Preston – report (PDF) (478.75 kB), Report on a scrutiny visit to HMP Preston by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, August 2020
• HMP Preston (563.56 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Preston (6-17 March 2017)
• HMP Preston, Unannounced inspection of HMP Preston (31 March – 11 April 2014)
• HMP Preston, Unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP Preston (10 – 12 April 2012)
• HMP Preston, Announced inspection of HMP Preston (10-14 August 2009)
• HMP Preston, Unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP Preston (23-25 January 2008)