HMIP Reports, Portland

The prison was given an inspection in July/August 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

 Portland is a medium sized category C training and resettlement prison in South Dorset, which at the time of our inspection held 512 prisoners. The jail had a young population of which 14% were under 21, and nearly half were under 30.

When HMI Prisons last inspected Portland in 2019, we found a prison that had lost its way, struggling with high levels of violence, poor living conditions and a lack of purposeful activity. The current governor, who took over in 2020, had begun an impressive transformation. He and his senior team were visible around the jail and comments in our staff survey were positive about the changes they had made. This was reflected in the prison’s excellent self[1]assessment report (SAR), which showed that the senior team had a very good understanding of the prison’s strengths and weakness alongside credible and impressive plans to make improvements.

Leaders had successfully challenged and begun to change the culture at Portland, improving consultation with the staff team and addressing negative behaviour. There had also been a concerted effort to improve recruitment, defying the national trend with almost all officer posts full at Portland.

There had however, been problems with recruiting sufficient mental health staff and this was a particularly serious issue in Portland, where a greater proportion of prisoners than usual told us they have mental health difficulties. This may in part have led to levels of self-harm that had increased since the last inspection and were higher than similar jails.

Although leaders had worked hard to reduce levels of violence which had, in the past had been particularly high, there was more work to be done to continue to bear down on the causes. Specifically, the accrual of debt appeared to be the source of many incidents. Staff had worked hard to ramp up purposeful activity and it was good to see that all but a few prisoners were able to work or attend education. Many, however, were frustrated by the levels of pay which, at £11 per week, was low, particularly as almost all work was part time. The prison served a particularly deprived population of which nearly 39% were care leavers, many of whom did not get money sent in and were reliant on what they could earn in prison. Frustration over low wages had been compounded by recent increases in the prices of canteen goods. For many of these prisoners, Portland was a long way from home, making visits difficult and adding to their sense of isolation. Progress towards opening up workshops and classrooms was hampered by staff shortages, leaving some of the good facilities in the jail were underused.

We were particularly impressed by many of the middle leaders and custody managers, who had been given responsibility for making improvements and who were encouraged to innovate by the senior leadership team.

Portland has come a long way since our last inspection and the staff team should be proud of the progress they have made. Leaders will need to maintain focus on the prison’s primary role as a training and resettlement jail, in which men are working on or learning the skills and habits that they need to be successful when they are released. This means a much larger proportion in full time education or work in a regime that better prepares prisoners for eventual release. In turn, this could lead to less debt, fewer incidents of violence and improved mental health, particularly if the prison can overcome difficulties recruiting enough mental health staff.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
September 2022

 

The inspectors also provided a list of their major concerns:

What needs to improve at HMP/YOI Portland

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 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 level of assaults on other prisoners was too high. Although lower than in 2019, it was increasing, and leaders did not sufficiently understand what was driving violence.
2. Rates of self-harm were too high and increasing. They were among the highest compared with similar prisons. The reasons had not been investigated sufficiently, nor was there a data-informed action plan to reduce self-harm.
3. Not enough was being done to meet the needs of younger prisoners. The young adults strategy was not based on a thorough needs analysis and there was no clear plan of action.
4. Mental health services were seriously understaffed and overstretched. Support was largely confined to providing acute and urgent care and there were no specialist psychological interventions.
5. Leaders did not make sure that there was sufficient resource [to support the English and mathematics needs of prisoners. Too few spaces were available or outreach support for those with the lowest levels. There was no ESOL provision.
6. Leaders and staff did not prepare prisoners effectively for employment on release. Almost all work was part-time, prisoners could not access essential safety qualifications and too few could access ROTL.

Key concerns

7. Key work was not sufficient and still operating only on a priority basis.
8. Prisoners found the cost of basic items from the shop too high. Low incomes, rising shop prices and poor food left many prisoners frustrated. Many told us this made issues around debt worse.
9. The needs of foreign national prisoners were not identified or met. The strategy for foreign national prisoners was mainly limited to immigration detainees.
10. Provision for neurodivergent prisoners was limited.
11. Many prisoners spent too little time unlocked – about five hours a day – which was inadequate for a training prison.
12. Leaders did not ensure that prisoners could access activities or education promptly enough. Too many qualifications and courses were not running owing to staff vacancies. Waiting lists for vocational training were too long.
13. Instructors did not use progress trackers effectively to support prisoners in gaining transferable employment-related skills or personal development. Prisoners were not aware of the progress they had made in these areas.
14. Sentence planning and offending behaviour work did not sufficiently support prisoners to make progress through their sentence.
15. Resettlement planning arrangements were inconsistent and too many prisoners did not receive suitable support for their upcoming release

Return to Portland

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

• Inspection report (1 MB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP/YOI Portland by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (25 July and 1–5 August 2022)
• HMP/YOI Portland (2.91 MB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP/YOI Portland (29 July – 9 August 2019)
• HMP/YOI Portland (946.35 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP/YOI Portland (15–19 May 2017)
• HMP & YOI Portland, Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP & YOI Portland (14 – 24 July 2014)
• HMP/YOI Portland, Unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP/YOI Portland (3 – 5 April 2012)
• HMYOI Portland, Announced inspection of HMYOI Portland (6-10 July 2009)