Are you OK with cookies?

We use small files called ‘cookies’ on hmiprisons.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk. Some are essential to make the site work, some help us to understand how we can improve your experience, and some are set by third parties. You can choose to turn off the non-essential cookies. Which cookies are you happy for us to use?

Skip to content

All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated.

To view this licence, visit:
https://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3

or write to:
Information Policy Team,
The National Archives,
Kew,
London TW9 4DU

or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.

This publication is available at:
https://hmiprisons.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk.

© Crown copyright

Inability to get things done is contributing to potentially harmful frustration among prisoners

Published:

Prisoners rely on staff for their basic needs in jail, but too many receive poor responses to simple requests, a new review has found.

Drawing on 5,431 survey responses from inspections of adult men’s and women’s prisons, ‘Easier said than done: resolving prisoner requests’, highlights the many problems prisoners have in resolving simple, everyday tasks. The failure of staff to respond quickly and helpfully can cause some prisoners to become so frustrated that they resort to poor behaviour and violence.  

Despite an expectation that prisoners sort out most of their day-to-day requests informally with officers on the wings, the survey responses revealed that a shortage of available officers and too little time out of cell often limited these opportunities. Even when officers were available, they did not always make the time, or have the experience, to help. Prisoners had to rely instead on more formal, written ‘applications’ systems to get things done.

Although these systems were generally in place, there were multiple issues. Paper forms were not always available, prisoners rarely received a receipt to show they had handed one in, replies were almost never logged, and responses took far too long to arrive. Those with low levels of literacy or English often struggled to complete the forms. Electronic systems were also flawed, with touchpad ‘kiosks’ on the wings not accommodating all types of applications, some departments not contactable via the system, and kiosks in some prisons broken. Even in-cell laptop systems, which generally offered prisoners greater control, needed improvement: word limits restricted the amount of detail prisoners could include in requests, and some prisons curbed how often prisoners could submit applications.

Inspectors found some examples of positive practice during the inspections, such as the use of peer supporters to date-stamp applications, an informal resolution log established by staff, and manager scrutiny of the timeliness of replies. However, too many leaders were not prioritising the need for swift, clear and helpful responses, leading to unnecessary and potentially harmful frustration from prisoners.

While the importance of staff-prisoner relationships is generally recognised, it is much less evident that leaders and staff understand their vital role in resolving prisoner problems, either informally on the wings or through a formal, written process. This understanding would go a long way towards reducing prisoner frustrations and making prisons safer, more productive places.
Charlie Taylor, Chief Inspector of Prisons

Notes to editors

  1. Read the ‘Easier said than done: resolving prisoner requests‘ report, published on 25 March 2025.
  2. HM Inspectorate of Prisons is an independent inspectorate, inspecting places of detention to report on conditions and treatment and promote positive outcomes for those detained and the public.
  3. This thematic draws on evidence from inspections carried out from 1 October 2023 to 30 September 2024. As part of HM Inspectorate of Prisons’ evidence base a representative survey of prisoners is carried out at the start of each inspection. The questionnaire includes structured questions which facilitate quantitative analysis, enabling comparison between groups within the sample, and some open questions.
  4. Analysis was conducted on 5,431 responses from the adult men’s and women’s prisons. A comparative analysis was conducted comparing the responses of prisoners who were in prisons that used a paper-based application system to those from prisons where electronic systems such as kiosks and laptops were in use. Other groups were also compared, and differences tested for statistical significance.
  5. Please email media@hmiprisons.gov.uk if you would like more information.