HMIP Inspection of Aylesbury

The prison was given an inspection in November/December 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:

“We inspected Aylesbury at a time of transition. An institution dating from the mid-19th century and formerly part of the high security estate, the prison had a longstanding function to hold up to 402 long-term and high-risk young adult prisoners. On 1 October, just months before our arrival, and in response to national population pressures, the prison had been re-designated a category C training establishment. We were told that this decision had been quite sudden and had involved only minimal planning and consultation. Prisoners had been arriving from other establishments since October, with category C prisoners now comprising about three-quarters of those held; the remaining 23% were a residual group of young adults who had yet to move on. Issues relating to this transition underpinned or were key contributory factors in almost all of our findings at this inspection.

The Inspectorate has been consistently critical of Aylesbury prison over many years. This inspection was no different. Outcomes for prisoners remained insufficient in three of our four healthy prison tests, and for the provision of purposeful activity it was now poor, although the prison’s new purpose must be taken into account when making direct comparisons with previous inspections. That said, prisoners were still not treated well enough, and their needs were still not being met.

A further contributory factor to this malaise was the great difficulty the prison had in recruiting staff. A shortage of officers and staff in other disciplines was impacting nearly all aspects of prison life. The prison was, for example, short of about 50 officers and in health care the situation was so dire that it had been determined that it was an unacceptable risk to send prisoners over the age of 40 to the prison. The most apparent consequence of these shortages was the paucity of the daily regime. About 40% of prisoners were unemployed and those without activity could spend up to 23 hours a day locked up. Time in the fresh air was limited to 30 minutes a day and our colleagues in Ofsted considered provision of learning to be ‘inadequate’, their lowest assessment. Only in the under-resourced PE department were there some mitigations, with valuable efforts being made to provide gym sessions.

The situation was equally concerning in relation to rehabilitation. There were only limited offender management or progression opportunities, virtually no key work, and hardly any support for resettlement on release, something which was now a priority following the transition. Only in the provision of interventions was the situation more encouraging. In terms of safety, some outcome measures seemed to be on a downward trajectory: for example, recorded incidents of violence were falling. But objectively several of these measures remained very high when compared to other category C prisons. The number of times batons and chemical incapacitants had been deployed was particularly unusual and needed to be understood more fully. A good start might be a strategy to build better staff-prisoner relationships, which were hampered by the very limited regime, inadequate supervision of staff and the near absence of key work.

There was a sense that leaders were working hard to catch up with the changes imposed upon them. The transition and delivery of a new category C prison was clearly the priority, but it was important that leaders approached this task positively and proactively, rather than allowing the considerable challenges to overwhelm them and the transition to become the explanation for all their problems. Fundamentally leaders needed help from HMPPS in securing the staffing resources they needed.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
January 2023″

 

The inspectors provided a brief list of key actions which they believe the prison needs to take

 

What needs to improve at HMP & YOI Aylesbury

During this inspection we identified 15 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. A shortage of staff in all grades and disciplines was limiting outcomes for prisoners. This included access to health care, time out of cell, education, skills and work and rehabilitation services.
  2. There was a considerable shortage of suitably trained and experienced nursing and pharmacy staff. Patients’ routine or changing needs, including the management of long-term conditions, were not being assessed or met in a timely manner. This was creating serious risk.
  3. Many prisoners spent less than one hour out of their cell each day. There was not enough education, training and work for the whole population to be meaningfully employed which was not good enough for a category C training prison.
  4. Leaders and managers did not use data effectively to evaluate the impact of the education, skills and work curriculum and drive improvements.
  5. Aylesbury had been rerolled to a category C training prison with inadequate planning or support. Work to reduce reoffending did not reflect the prison’s new population. Most of it still related to high risk, long-term young adults, who now made up only 23% of the population and would gradually leave altogether.

Key concerns

  1. Levels of violence against staff and among prisoners were too high. The safety team was under-resourced and few incidents of violence were investigated.
  2. The incidence of use of force was too high, as was the use of the highest level of force such as PAVA incapacitant spray, batons and the body belt.
  3. Work to promote equality was weak. Differences in treatment or access to the regime were not investigated or addressed.
  4. Governance arrangements, including those for medicines management, were weak. Incident reporting was poor and risks to patient safety were not fully recorded or addressed.
  5. Prisoners had very limited access to work or study. The planned six to seven hours a week was severely affected by poor attendance as prisoners prioritised other activities such as the gym.
  6. The provision of careers information, advice and guidance (CIAG) was inadequate. Too few prisoners benefited from high-quality, impartial CIAG and, as a result, too few prisoners had a planned learning pathway that prepared them for their future.
  7. Leaders had not prioritised reading in education. Leaders had not developed the curriculum to include reading as a distinct part of the education offer.
  8. Leaders had not ensured that prisoners completed appropriate training for their work roles. Prisoners did not work to industry standards. They did not receive appropriate training and, as a result, had not developed appropriate employment skills. Prisoners did not adhere to safe working practices, including wearing appropriate personal protective equipment in all work and vocational areas.
  9. There was too little support to help prisoners maintain or rebuild ties with their families and friends.
  10. The number of releases was increasing but no dedicated resettlement support was offered

Return to Aylesbury

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