Report on an announced inspection of HMP/YOI Isis, 12-16 September 2011 by HMCIP.
(This report is now in our document download section, you will need to register/login first to go there)
Report compiled November 2011, published Thursday 19th January 2012
Inspectors were concerned to find that:
– the weak relationships meant officers fell back on formal disciplinary action or resorted to force too quickly;
– too many staff appeared to lack the confidence or motivation to deliver their responsibilities effectively;
– many prisoners did not feel confident that the prison would keep them safe;
– the cell call bell system was dysfunctional, meaning emergencies may not always be promptly attended to;
– the personal officer scheme was poor, work on diversity was very limited and complaints of racism were not always effectively investigated;
– prisoners had to wait up to six months to get their possessions from the store;
Report on an announced inspection of HMP/YOI Isis, 12-16 September 2011 by HMCIP.
Report compiled November 2011, published Thursday 19th January 2012
Inspectors were concerned to find that:
– the weak relationships meant officers fell back on formal disciplinary action or resorted to force too quickly;
– too many staff appeared to lack the confidence or motivation to deliver their responsibilities effectively;
– many prisoners did not feel confident that the prison would keep them safe;
– the cell call bell system was dysfunctional, meaning emergencies may not always be promptly attended to;
– the personal officer scheme was poor, work on diversity was very limited and complaints of racism were not always effectively investigated;
– prisoners had to wait up to six months to get their possessions from the store;
– despite some good quality education, training and work provision, there was no strategy to ensure the prison delivered its training role, and prisoners appeared to be able to opt out of activities without being challenged;
– half of all the prisoners were locked in their cells during the working part of the day; and
– the biometric roll check system frequently failed, meaning all prisoner movement halted, sometimes for hours, until a manual check could be done, so work, education and training were severely disrupted.
Introduction from the report
Isis opened in July 2010 and is unique in a number of ways. It is the only category C training prison for young men aged 18 to 25. It is the first new public prison to be opened for 20 years. This was our first inspection.
The prison had made progress since it was first opened but there was still a long way to go. On top of the inherent difficulty of opening a new prison, Isis had faced enormous problems in recruiting staff and had had to deal with an influx of prisoners who had been displaced as a result of the disturbances in August 2011.
At the heart of the challenges faced by the prison were poor staff-prisoner relationships. A combination of relatively inexperienced new recruits who lacked confidence, and detached duty staff drafted in from other prisons – too many of whom had low expectations and a dismissive attitude towards prisoners – meant that managers struggled to imbed the positive culture and relationships they were keen to develop. At times the inspection team was overwhelmed by prisoners who wanted to complain about their treatment by staff and officers’ unwillingness or inability to help with simple, everyday problems. The weak relationships meant that officers fell back on formal disciplinary action or resorted to force too quickly. Overall, too many staff appeared to lack the confidence or motivation to deliver their responsibilities effectively.
In these circumstances, it was perhaps not surprising that many prisoners did not feel confident the prison would keep them safe. There were a large number of violent incidents but these were all low level. In fact, the prison had good processes in place for tackling bullies, but offered poor support for those who were being victimised. We found frightened prisoners refusing to move from the induction unit on G wing; little was being done to address their concerns and they spent most of the day locked in their cells. Safety was also compromised by perfunctory first night procedures that did not assure us that risks would be identified and addressed. Furthermore, were there to be an emergency, the dysfunctional cell call bell system gave us no confidence that officers would promptly attend. However, day to day support for the relatively low number of prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm was good.
Other important aspects of prison life needed rapid improvement. The personal officer scheme was poor. Work on diversity was very limited. We were not satisfied that complaints of racist attitudes or behaviour were effectively investigated and we found evidence that work opportunities were not allocated fairly. The needs of prisoners with disabilities were not met and many foreign national prisoners told us they felt frightened and isolated. We agreed with prisoners that the quality of food was poor and quantities were often insufficient. Prisoners had to wait up to six months to get their possessions from the store; this formed the largest source of complaints in a generally good complaints system. A new health team with a large number of vacancies was not yet fully effective. Attendance at clinics was low and little action was taken to address this. Resources to meet prisoners with mental health needs were inadequate.
The most disappointing consequence of the poor staff engagement with prisoners was its impact on prisoners’ education, training and work. Isis is a new, purpose-built, training prison for young men, opened at a time when the government has made keeping prisoners productively busy and occupied a key part of its prisons agenda. That being the case, maximising prisoners’ involvement in education, training and work should be a key objective for every member of staff. This was not so. Despite some good quality provision, there was no overarching strategy to ensure the prison delivered its central training role. There were insufficient activity places but of those available, only 60% were occupied and punctuality was poor. Prisoners appeared to be able to opt out of allocated activities without being challenged. The prison claimed that prisoners spent an average of six and a half hours out of their cells a day, but we found that working prisoners could achieve five and a half hours and some prisoners as little as two hours. We found half of all the prisoners locked in their cells during the working part of the day. Exercise was limited to 30 minutes a day and the gym was underused.
Some of this was outside the control of staff. The prison was bedevilled by a biometric roll check system. For the system to work, 100% of prisoners, 100% of the time had to leave an electronic thumbprint when they went from one area of the prison to another and the system had to record this every time. If one thumb print failed to register, the roll check did not tally and all prisoner movement halted – sometimes for hours – until a manual check could be done. This happened once or twice a day on each day of the inspection with the result that education, training, work and other activities were severely disrupted.
There were two areas where the performance of the prison was much more impressive. For a category C prison in London, drugs use was low. Prisoners told us drugs were not readily available in the prison and this was born out by low mandatory drug testing rates. The drug treatment service was well established and there was much better provision to address alcohol abuse than we normally see. In this important area, Isis performed very well indeed.
Resettlement was a strength of the prison. There were good offender management processes in place and public protection procedures were robust. There were very effective services to ensure prisoners had stable accommodation when they left and a high proportion also found a job, training or education place. Prisoners were very positive about the CARAT service that provided drug and alcohol support. The location of the prison helped prisoners to maintain contact with their families and link up to relevant community services when they left, but visit arrangements needed improvement.
Despite the progress it has made, it would be wrong to underestimate the formidable challenges Isis has still to overcome. Achieving a stable, permanent staff group with a common culture and objectives is the essential step in doing so and it will need – and is entitled to expect – every support from the Prison Service nationally. The progress the prison has already made in delivering effective resettlement services, supporting prisoners at risk of self-harm and restricting the supply of drugs are commendable achievements. The prison now needs to ensure it makes equal progress in delivering its central training function and providing a safe and decent environment for all the young men it holds.
Nick Hardwick
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
