HMP Bullingdon
Report on an independent review of progress at HMP Bullingdon by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons 13–15 April 2026
Section 1: Chief Inspector’s summary (Back to top)
HMP Bullingdon, in Oxfordshire, opened in April 1992 and has six house blocks, with the most recent added in 2008. It is a large reception and resettlement prison and, at the time of this visit, held just over 1,000 adult male prisoners.
This review visit followed up on the concerns we raised at our last inspection of HMP Bullingdon in 2025.
What we found at our last inspection
At our previous inspections of HMP Bullingdon in 2022 and 2025 we made the following judgements about outcomes for prisoners.
Figure 1: HMP Bullingdon healthy prison outcomes in 2022 and 2025
In 2025, in several key areas, outcomes for prisoners had deteriorated, and many of the concerns we had previously raised remained unaddressed. The widespread availability of illicit drugs was driving violence, debt and bullying across the prison. Drones were the primary route of ingress, but physical security measures had failed to keep pace with the evolving threat, and the prison service had not done enough to help tackle the problem.
Staffing shortfalls continued to affect all areas of the prison, and relationships between staff and prisoners were not good enough. This was not helped by the limited regime, which meant that over half the population was locked up during the working day, and Ofsted graded the overall effectiveness of education, skills and work as inadequate. Public protection arrangements were weak, with gaps in risk identification and monitoring. Finally, the health care partnership had failed to address several longstanding issues, and there were no meaningful development plans for improvement.
What we found during this review visit
At this visit to review progress, our findings were disappointing. Illicit drug use remained unacceptably high, and His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS; see Glossary) had not yet begun remedial work to address weaknesses in physical security. Officer shortages continued to limit meaningful interactions with prisoners, and key work remained infrequent. Time out of cell was still poor, and we once again found more than half of the population locked up during the working day.
While our partners from Ofsted found reasonable progress by prison leaders in the development of prisoners’ employability skills and the prison’s reading strategy, delivery by the education provider (Milton Keynes College) was still an issue. The curriculum and the quality of teaching were not good enough, and attendance at education was especially poor.
More encouragingly, a new head of health care had begun to address poor standards in delivery and drive improvements in inpatient care. There was also evidence of progress in the management of public protection arrangements, although more robust assurance processes were still needed to make sure that high-risk prisoners were consistently identified and appropriately monitored.
Despite limited evidence of progress overall, there were indications that Bullingdon is a prison with potential. The recent appointment of an experienced governor and the commitment of the hard working staff group were encouraging. However, urgent and sustained attention from national leaders is needed for the prison to overcome significant and persistent challenges that include staff recruitment and tackling the ongoing threat of illicit drugs.
Charlie Taylor, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, April 2026
Section 2: Key findings (Back to top)
At this IRP visit, we followed up seven concerns from our most recent inspection in August 2025 and Ofsted followed up five themes based on their latest inspection.
HMI Prisons judged that there was reasonable progress in one concern, insufficient progress in four concerns and no meaningful progress in two concerns.
Figure 2: Progress on HMI Prisons concerns from 2025 inspection (n=7)
This bar chart excludes any concerns that were followed up as part of a theme within Ofsted’s concurrent prison monitoring visit.
Ofsted judged that there was reasonable progress in two themes and insufficient progress in three themes.
Figure 3: Progress on Ofsted themes from 2025 inspection (n=5)
Notable positive practice
We define notable positive practice as:
Evidence of our expectations being met to deliver particularly good outcomes for prisoners, and/or particularly original or creative approaches to problem-solving.
Inspectors found one example of notable positive practice during this IRP visit, which other prisons may be able to learn from or replicate. Unless otherwise specified, these examples are not formally evaluated, are a snapshot in time and may not be suitable for other establishments. They show some of the ways our expectations might be met, but are by no means the only way.
| 1. | Support for monitoring remand prisoners subject to imminent release had improved through better information sharing with victim liaison hubs, courts, and the police. (See Public protection) |
Section 3: Progress against our concerns and Ofsted themes (Back to top)
The following provides a brief description of our findings in relation to each concern followed up from the full inspection in 2025.
Use of force
Concern: Use of force was not always a last resort, and some incidents lacked evidence of de-escalation.
The amount of force used by staff against prisoners remained similar to the levels we recorded at our last inspection; force had been used 731 times in the last six months compared with 737 in the six months before our previous visit. However, the use of PAVA incapacitant spray (see Glossary) had reduced by 52% when compared with the last inspection.
In the sample of footage reviewed, we again saw instances where force was not used as a last resort. Opportunities to de-escalate situations were sometimes missed, and in a small number of the incidents the level of force used was disproportionate.
Oversight and scrutiny of the use of force had been strengthened and were robust. Every incident was reviewed by the use of force coordinator whose availability to complete this work was now much more consistent. The backlog of reviews identified at the previous inspection had been reduced, and there were few outstanding staff statements.
A random sample of incidents, as well as those identified as needing further review, were seen at a weekly scrutiny meeting by senior leaders. A learning forum, where lessons identified from scrutiny were shared with staff, had been reintroduced.
However, leaders’ response to the issues identified from this scrutiny did not always fully address the severity of the concern or make sure that issues were prevented from reoccurring.
The use of special accommodation had increased since our last visit; in the records we reviewed more than half of the occurrences were due to water being turned off in cells to prevent flooding after prisoner damage. While records detailing the justification for its use were more comprehensive, two instances were identified where prisoners had been located there inappropriately.
We considered that the prison had made insufficient progress in this area.
Security
Concern: Weaknesses in physical security allowed large quantities of illicit drugs to be delivered by drones. The availability of drugs was driving an increase in violence. The mandatory drug testing positive rate was among the highest for this type of prison.
The random mandatory drug testing positive rate (see Glossary) had slightly reduced to 34% for the past six months, compared with 40% for the six months prior to the last inspection.
Local data showed that this decrease was largely attributable to a reduction in misuse of prescribed medication, but the number of positive tests for illicit substances such as cannabis remained broadly similar.
The weaknesses in physical security that were identified at the last inspection had not been addressed, and no remedial work had started.
Information reports received by the security department were triaged promptly. Due to staffing pressures, less urgent intelligence was not always acted upon, and suspicion drug testing did not consistently take place. Positively, a newly established tripartite drug strategy meeting was providing leaders with a clear understanding of emerging trends in drug demand and supply within the prison.
Local data showed that the number of drone sightings had recently reduced, which leaders attributed to improvements in their response when sightings occurred.
The amount of violence had increased since our last visit; there had been 213 assaults between prisoners in the past six months compared with 198 in the six months prior to the last inspection, which represented a rate of 181 assaults per 1,000 prisoners then compared to 199 now.
Prisoners told us that the mutual support and incentives offered on the incentivised substance-free living unit (ISFL, see Glossary) were valued and helped promote abstinence. Local data showed that very few prisoners tested positive for illicit substances while living on the unit.
We considered that the prison had made no meaningful progress in this area.
Staff prisoner relationships
Concern: Staff–prisoner relationships were not good enough and key work was too limited.
Officer shortages limited continuity and meant that staff and prisoners were unable to foster good relationships. Poor time out of cell also hindered meaningful interactions. (See Time out of cell).
We saw polite interactions, but prisoners told us that staff were too busy or distracted to engage in meaningful conversations about their concerns.
Key work was targeted at a small cohort of around 36 prisoners, primarily those who were segregated or identified as having more complex needs. They received consistent key work sessions but of variable quality. Key work for other prisoners was infrequent and inconsistent. Although we saw examples of good quality records and meaningful discussions, sessions were sometimes three or four months apart. Records and feedback from prisoners and staff indicated that key work conversations were sometimes conducted informally on the landings rather than taking place in structured, private sessions.
Leaders had introduced a small number of team building activities delivered jointly with staff and prisoners to improve relationships. This encouraging initiative, which had identified frustrations with the regime, had been undermined by the amount of time prisoners still spent locked up.
We considered that the prison had made insufficient progress in this area.
Health, well-being and social care
Concern: The health partnership had failed to address several longstanding issues which had an impact on patient safety and the delivery of some services. For example, there was still no supervision at medication hatches, there were no meaningful development plans to drive improvement and local health care leaders did not have sufficient visibility or oversight to challenge poor standards.
The health partnership had begun to address some of the longstanding issues which impacted on delivery, but a coherent and jointly-owned development plan to drive sustained improvement had not yet been established. As a result, there had been no progress in some areas. For example, most breaches in expected standards identified in infection prevention control audits had still not been addressed.
There was a noticeable improvement in the previously strained local partnership working. Management of patients attending external appointments and officer supervision at medication hatches had improved. Health and prison leaders had jointly developed new local operational policies to support staff to administer medicines safely and effectively. However, these were yet to be fully embedded in practice as we still observed the administration of medicines without officer supervision and some crowding of medication hatches.
The newly appointed, experienced head of health care had been in post since December 2025 and had been a catalyst for positive change, with good oversight of all services. The risk register had been comprehensively reviewed, and incident management had improved.
Health leaders’ oversight of poor standards had improved. New processes, increased accountability and senior leader spot checks had been introduced to improve staff compliance in several areas, including medicine management policies and daily checks of emergency equipment. Despite these improvements some inconsistency in standards remained.
Practice Plus Group services still had a vacancy rate of around 30%. Delays in completing prison security vetting for newly recruited staff meant that they were unable to fully realise the benefits of its successful recruitment campaign.
We considered that the prison had made insufficient progress in this area.
Concern: Care provided on the inpatient unit was not good enough. Some patients did not receive baseline health checks and assessments on admission; care plans varied in quality and there was inadequate monitoring of patients’ nutrition and hydration. There were insufficient therapeutic interventions, and some areas of the unit did not meet infection prevention and control standards.
The standard of care delivered to patients on the inpatient unit had generally improved and was now adequate, but further improvements were still required.
Patients we spoke to who were living on the unit had mixed views regarding the care they were receiving, but all said the unit had improved.
All patients had care plan(s) which were appropriately reviewed. Patients now received a hard copy of them, which was good. Baseline observations and risk assessments, for example for falls and nutrition, were now routinely completed, but some care plans lacked sufficient detail, and the monitoring of patients’ food and fluid intake was not always accurate.
A reasonable programme of therapeutic activities, which was on display in the unit, had been introduced. This included daily interventions delivered by the patient liaison team, PE instructor-led activities on the unit and fortnightly music therapy.
New flooring had been installed in some rooms, and some had been redecorated. However, most of the flooring in the unit remained in a poor state, the standard of cleaning in some occupied cells was unacceptable and some areas of the unit still did not meet infection prevention and control standards.
We considered that the prison had made insufficient progress in this area.
Time out of cell
Concern: Time unlocked was too limited and too few prisoners had anything meaningful to occupy them.
During roll checks, 53% of prisoners were locked up during the working day, compared with 57% at our last inspection. There were insufficient activity places for around a third of the population, and 514 prisoners (46%) were unemployed, which significantly limited their time out of cell.
Unemployed prisoners received around two hours 45 minutes each day. Those in part-time work received around four hours, while prisoners in full-time employment received up to seven hours a day, Monday to Thursday.
Time out of cell was worse at weekends and on Fridays when prisoners generally had just two hours and 45 minutes out of cell per day.
Prisoners we spoke to told us they were bored. There was limited recreational equipment, such as pool tables and board games, and the recently introduced exercise equipment on the wings was largely inaccessible to prisoners because of insufficient time out of cell. Furthermore, a lack of chairs on the landings meant there was little to do when unlocked other than stand around.
Opportunities to engage in activities, such as drama and events delivered in partnership with community providers, were positive initiatives, but they only benefited a small number of prisoners at any one time.
We considered that the prison had made no meaningful progress in this area.
Education, skills and work
This part of the report is written by Ofsted inspectors. Ofsted’s thematic approach reflects the monitoring visit methodology used for further education and skills providers. The themes set out the main areas for improvement in the prison’s previous inspection report or progress monitoring visit letter.
Theme 1: What progress had leaders and managers made in ensuring that staff accurately record and use information on prisoners’ progress in developing employability skills to support job search and progression to further training?
Leaders and managers had taken appropriate steps to improve how staff recorded and used information on prisoners’ progress in developing employability skills. Most instructors ensured that prisoners completed employability self-assessments when they started in workshops. This enabled staff to agree more meaningful personal development targets with prisoners. Increasingly, staff recorded these targets on prisoners’ records, which in many cases accompanied prisoners when they moved to other establishments. This ensured increased continuity in prisoners’ development over time, particularly for those with short stays.
Leaders had strengthened their work with external organisations and charities, including the Department for Work and Pensions, and employers linked to vocational training, such as rail track provision. Through regular employment-focused activity and events, leaders ensured that prisoners had access to information, advice and guidance about employment opportunities. As a result, prisoners were better prepared for their next steps, including progression to employment, further training or transfer to other prisons.
Leaders’ actions had not secured fully consistent practice across education, skills and work. In a minority of areas, staff did not consistently record or review targets with sufficient precision, and workbooks were not always used effectively to capture prisoners’ development over time. As a result, leaders did not always have sufficiently reliable information about prisoners’ progress in developing employability skills.
Leaders’ actions were beginning to support a more structured approach to recording and using information. Inconsistencies remained, but most prisoners were starting to benefit from clearer targets and better-informed support to help them develop skills for their next steps.
Ofsted considered that the prison had made reasonable progress against this theme.
Theme 2: What progress had leaders and managers made in ensuring that the education and training curriculum met the needs and career goals of prisoners, particularly those who were unsentenced or on short stays?
Leaders had not ensured that the education curriculum enabled prisoners to build their knowledge and skills in a coherent and sustained way. The curriculum was not sufficiently structured or sequenced to take account of prisoners’ starting points or the time they were likely to remain in education. Staffing shortages and staff absence led to frequent cancellations and disruption to education lessons. As a result, prisoners did not follow a clear sequence of learning. Delays in starting appropriate courses further limited access to the curriculum. Consequently, too many prisoners did not swiftly develop the skills required to progress in learning and work.
Leaders and managers had taken appropriate steps to broaden the curriculum to meet the needs and career goals of prisoners. They had introduced a range of short courses in English, mathematics, English for speakers of other Languages (ESOL) and vocational areas such as customer service and barista. This enabled prisoners to access learning more quickly and develop relevant skills. However, too few prisoners had benefited from these actions.
Leaders had implemented a well-considered personal development curriculum that supported previously disengaged prisoners to participate in learning. As this was at an early stage of implementation, participation had been limited. However, prisoners who had taken part made good progress. Most progressed into education or work and developed confidence, communication and skills relevant to employment.
Leaders had worked effectively with external partners to strengthen the curriculum offer and introduce relevant vocational pathways, including opportunities such as rail track maintenance and cycle repair. They had made effective use of additional funding to reintroduce and develop provision where gaps had emerged due to significant teacher vacancies. As a result, the curriculum had become more closely aligned with employment opportunities and clear progression pathways.
Ofsted considered that the prison had made insufficient progress against this theme.
Theme 3: What progress had leaders and managers made in improving prisoners’ attendance at education, skills and work activities?
Leaders’ and managers’ actions had not secured sufficient improvement in attendance at education, skills and work. Attendance remained low and inconsistent, particularly in education. While attendance in a small number of vocational and specialist areas was higher, this was not sustained and did not reflect the wider provision.
Persistent staffing shortages within the education department continued to disrupt the delivery of education. Vacancies and staff absences led to frequent cancellations and late changes to sessions, which disrupted prisoners’ routines and reduced their motivation to attend. Prison leaders had worked with education managers to prioritise the use of available teachers, particularly on key programmes such as ‘Right to Read’. This had only alleviated the impact in a small number of areas and not improved attendance overall.
Too many prisoners did not attend their allocated activities consistently. Too many absences were due to competing regime activities, including the gym, library and faith provision, while others were unexplained. Leaders had not prioritised education, skills and work sufficiently within the regime to support consistent attendance. Consequently, too many prisoners did not attend frequently enough.
Leaders and managers had taken some steps to improve attendance. They had strengthened their monitoring of attendance and had begun to analyse patterns of absence more closely. Leaders had introduced initiatives to encourage participation, including incentives, awareness sessions for staff and improved promotion of available activities. However, these actions had not secured sufficient improvement in attendance.
Ofsted considered that the prison had made insufficient progress against this theme.
Theme 4: What progress had leaders and managers made in improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment in education, particularly in functional skills and English for speakers of other languages?
Leaders had not secured consistently good teaching, learning and assessment across education. The quality of teaching remained variable, particularly in mathematics and ESOL. Teachers did not consistently provide clear explanations or sufficiently detailed feedback to help prisoners understand their mistakes. In some lessons, learning activities were not well aligned to the intended outcomes, which limited prisoners’ understanding. Targets were not consistently specific or precise enough to help prisoners understand what they needed to do to improve. As a result, too many prisoners did not make the progress expected of them.
Teachers did not consistently use information about prisoners’ starting points to plan learning that met their needs. In ESOL lessons, activities, such as paper-based matching tasks, were not appropriately tailored to meet the needs of prisoners with very low levels of English. As a result, prisoners had too few opportunities to develop their speaking and pronunciation skills, and too many made limited progress.
Leaders’ actions to improve the quality of teaching delivered by instructors had started to impact teaching positively. Instructors in workshop-based courses provided clear guidance and practical demonstrations that supported prisoners to develop their skills. They used questioning effectively to check prisoners’ understanding and ensure they could apply their learning. As a result, these prisoners were engaged in their learning and made appropriate progress. Instructors in tailoring supported prisoners to develop specific sewing skills, such as maintaining accurate alignment when hemming to create high-quality products such as bedding.
Leaders had taken appropriate steps to improve the quality of teaching, including providing feedback and challenge to improve practice. However, these actions had not secured sufficient improvements in the quality of teaching, learning and assessment across all areas.
Ofsted considered that the prison had made insufficient progress against this theme.
Theme 5: What progress had leaders and managers made in ensuring that prisoners received accurate and timely assessment of their reading skills and appropriate support to develop these?
Leaders and managers had taken appropriate steps to improve the assessment of, and support available to develop, prisoners’ reading skills. They had introduced a more structured approach to identifying prisoners’ reading levels on entry to the prison. Most prisoners participated in an initial reading assessment. Leaders used the information available to monitor prisoners and encourage their engagement with reading over time. As a result, prisoners who required support were increasingly identified and were beginning to receive more appropriate help to develop their reading skills.
Leaders had implemented a more coordinated approach to monitoring reading provision. They reviewed information about prisoners’ reading needs and participation in support activities, enabling them to identify gaps and take appropriate action. Leaders also promoted reading across the prison by improving access to the books and encouraging prisoners to read more regularly. As a result, prisoners participated more frequently in reading activities, improved their fluency and comprehension and were better able to apply these skills in their learning and daily routines.
Leaders’ recent improvements were not yet fully embedded. Staff did not always use information from reading assessments effectively to plan support that met prisoners’ needs. In some cases, support for prisoners with the lowest levels of reading was not sufficiently well targeted. In addition, not all staff had the knowledge and skills required to support prisoners to develop their reading effectively. Leaders continued to monitor these areas and took action to improve the provision.
Ofsted considered that the prison had made reasonable progress against this theme.
Public protection
Concern: There were significant weaknesses in the prison’s understanding, management and oversight of public protection arrangements.
There had been some progress in monitoring key aspects of public protection, and a spreadsheet was now in place to track prisoners subject to public protection measures.
However, weaknesses remained due to the absence of robust assurance processes to ensure that high-risk prisoners were consistently identified and appropriately monitored. Alerts were sometimes missed, and a backlog in case allocation meant that some prisoners entered and left the prison before their risks had been appropriately screened.
The interdepartmental risk management meeting and the public protection steering group met monthly and were well attended, and relevant information was shared. The terms of reference showed that prisoners discussed at these meetings were appropriate, and there was good engagement and input from prison offender managers (POMs).
Escalation of issues from POMs to community offender managers had improved.
Support for monitoring remand prisoners subject to imminent release had improved through better information sharing with victim liaison hubs, courts, and the police. This helped ensure that oversight of prisoners was not unnecessarily delayed following release.
Systems for monitoring phone and mail use had also been strengthened, with improved oversight. Training had been delivered to staff. However, records did not consistently demonstrate that appropriate action was taken following the identification of breaches of public protection measures.
We considered that the prison had made reasonable progress in this area.
Section 4: Summary of judgements (Back to top)
A list of the HMI Prisons concerns and Ofsted themes followed up at this visit and the judgements made.
HMI Prisons concerns
Use of force was not always a last resort, and some incidents lacked evidence of de-escalation.
Insufficient progress
Weaknesses in physical security allowed large quantities of illicit drugs to be delivered by drones. The availability of drugs was driving an increase in violence. The mandatory drug testing positive rate was among the highest for this type of prison.
No meaningful progress
Staff–prisoner relationships were not good enough and key work was too limited.
Insufficient progress
There were insufficient therapeutic interventions, and some areas of the unit did not meet infection prevention and control standards.
Insufficient progress
Care provided on the inpatient unit was not good enough. Some patients did not receive baseline health checks and assessments on admission; care plans varied in quality and there was inadequate monitoring of patients’ nutrition and hydration.
Insufficient progress
Time unlocked was too limited and too few prisoners had anything meaningful to occupy them.
No meaningful progress
Ofsted themes
Staff did not record the progress that prisoners made in developing their employability skills in order to support job search or further training.
Reasonable progress
The education and training curriculum did not meet the career goals of prisoners or the needs of the large proportion of unsentenced and short-stay prisoners.
Insufficient progress
Attendance at education, skills and work activities was too low.
Insufficient progress
The quality of teaching in education, particularly in functional skills and English for speakers of other languages, was not good enough.
Insufficient progress
Too many prisoners did not have an accurate assessment of their reading skills or receive appropriate support to develop these further.
Reasonable progress
More about this report (Back to top)
This report contains a summary from the Chief Inspector and a brief record of our findings in relation to each concern we have followed up. You may find it helpful to refer to the report of the full inspection for further detail on the original findings (available in Our reports).
Independent reviews of progress (IRPs) are designed to improve accountability to ministers about the progress prisons make in addressing HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ concerns in between inspections. IRPs take place at the discretion of the Chief Inspector when a full inspection suggests the prison would benefit from additional scrutiny and focus on a limited number of the concerns raised at the inspection. IRPs do not therefore result in assessments against our healthy prison tests.
The aims of IRPs are to:
- assess progress against selected priority and key concerns
- support improvement
- identify any emerging difficulties or lack of progress at an early stage
- assess the sufficiency of the leadership and management response to our concerns at the full inspection.
Find out more about priority and key concerns
Inspection team
This independent review of progress was carried out by:
Charlie Taylor, Chief Inspector
Sara Pennington, Team leader
Esra Sari, Inspector
David Foot, Inspector
Simon Newman, Health and social care inspector
Janie Buchanan, Care Quality Commission inspector
Carolyn Brownsea, Ofsted inspector
Steve Lambert, Ofsted Inspector
Further resources (Back to top)
Find out more about the terms and abbreviations used in this report in our glossary.