The prison was given an inspection in April/May 2022, 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:
“Spring Hill was making a good recovery from the pandemic restrictions that had made the operation of this open prison in Buckinghamshire difficult for the last two years. When I visited briefly in March 2021 during our scrutiny visit of neighbouring HMP Grendon, the prisoners I spoke to were bored and frustrated with being stuck on site, unable to be released on temporary licence (ROTL) either to go to work or to see their families. It was a pleasure to return just over a year later to find a much more productive and happier place.
Everyone at the prison was given work or allocated to education on arrival, although many of the jobs were somewhat contrived and a lot of prisoners were underemployed, with two or three appearing to be doing the work of one. They were at least getting into the good habits of working that they will need on release, such as getting up in the morning.
Once prisoners had navigated the extensive bureaucratic process and many delays caused by outside agencies, they were able to go off site to work. During the inspection week, an average of 64 prisoners were working or studying outside the prison and another six were attending medical appointments, out on overnight release, or seeing their families. When the regime reaches its final, settled state, more than half of prisoners should be out at work every day, especially in a part of the country that has that has job vacancies in many areas.
The accommodation in the prison was awful, showing a woeful lack of investment from the prison service. Prisoners slept in pre-fabricated house blocks built in the 1960s and designed to last for 20 years. Half a century later, they were beyond repair: holes in the walls; erratic plumbing; floors that were coming up and windows that did not open. There were signs everywhere of the remedial repairs that had been needed over many years to extend the life of buildings that should have been replaced years ago.
Three larger accommodation blocks had been condemned because they no longer met fire safety standards, and as a result, the jail was operating well below its usual capacity of 335, holding only 241 men at the time of the inspection. The prison service had provided 40 temporary sleeping pods that were popular with prisoners, but these in time will begin to wear. Meanwhile, the plan to provide another 80 sleeping pods had been delayed by more than a year because of unfathomable contractual issues between the prison service and the contractors.
Ultimately, the prison service must find the money to rebuild all the accommodation on site to provide sustainable, decent facilities for these prisoners. In category C prisons across the country, prisoners who have met the criteria are stuck waiting to move to category D prisons because there are not enough spaces.
The governor and her team had done well to restore a sense of purpose at this well-run prison, but their work continued to be hampered by inadequate infrastructure. Our 2014 inspection report of Spring Hill noted “… very good arrangements to enable many prisoners to use their skills on projects in the prison… Construction projects included the new gym facilities, the ‘eco’ building (built using sustainable materials and energy saving methods), and renovation of the old gym”. With a bit of imagination from the prison service, there is surely no reason why new accommodation could not be built by prisoners at the jail, who would leave with skills that would get them into well-paid work on release.
Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
June 2022″
In their report the inspectors identified 11 key concerns and in their report said:
What needs to improve at HMP Spring Hill
During this inspection we identified 11 key concerns, of which three 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
- The quality of accommodation for prisoners was poor. There had been insufficient investment in repairing or maintaining the huts over an extended period.
- Prisoners did not receive a sufficiently detailed plan outlining what education, skills or work they needed to do to make progress during their time at the prison or to prepare them for their release. Leaders did not make sure that the curriculum pathways were effectively communicated. This meant prisoners, particularly those who were off site all day, did not receive appropriate information, advice or guidance to make informed choices about their education, skills and work activities. Staff had not made sure that prisoners were better prepared for their transition out of the prison.
- Many prisoners waited far too long for opportunities to test or reduce their risks through release on temporary licence. This was due to very long waiting times for information from community agencies, particularly probation services in London, to inform a risk assessment, in addition to a lack of suitable accommodation for prisoners returning from offsite activities and insufficient approved premises for overnight stays.
- Many prisoners working on site were underemployed and unmotivated. This was exacerbated by limits on the numbers able to access ROTL and the low rates of pay for prison work.
Key concerns
- Prisoners lacked confidence in the complaints process. Only 51% said it was easy to make a complaint, and only 52% said that complaints were dealt with fairly. Thirty-five per cent said they had been prevented from complaining, which was significantly more than in other open prisons (15%).
- Consultation with prisoners from protected groups had not been re-established after the pandemic, and work to promote equality was only just beginning.
- There were weaknesses in the social care pathway, which caused significant delays and affected prisoners’ well-being. Prisoners transferring from other prisons with social care needs were not identified early enough. There were delays at each stage of the process – from referral and assessment to receiving equipment following assessment.
- Leaders and managers had not provided sufficient places for those with low levels of English and mathematics. They did not make sure there were sufficient English and mathematics places for those prisoners who needed them the most.
- There was too much variation in the quality of teaching across education, skills and work. Leaders and managers did not make sure that teaching was consistently good or that support was provided to tutors to help them improve.
- There was little support to help prisoners build healthy relationships and family ties. Domestic violence and dysfunctional relationships were a factor in the offending patterns of many prisoners, so it was unfortunate that nothing was available other than the Storybook Dads project (which helps prisoners to record a story for their children to listen to at home).
- Prisoners did not receive sufficient practical resettlement support. This was chiefly because a team of five resettlement workers had been reduced to one person
To read the full reports, go to the Ministry of Justice site or follow the links below:
- Inspection report (690 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Spring Hill by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (18 April – 6 May 2022)
- HMP Spring Hill (761.90 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Spring Hill (4–15 December 2017)
- HMP Springhill, Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Springhill (6 – 15 May 2014)
- HMP Springhill, Unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP Spring Hill (5 – 7 March 2012)
- HMP Springhill, Announced inspection of HMP Spring Hill (11-14 August 2008)