Response to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee inquiry on ‘Prison culture: Governance, leadership, and staffing’ From His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons

• We welcome the opportunity to submit a response to this inquiry. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMI Prisons) is an independent inspectorate whose duties are primarily set out in section 5A of the Prison Act. We provide independent scrutiny of the conditions for and treatment of prisoners and other detainees, and report on our findings.

• HMI Prisons’ inspections are carried out against published inspection criteria known as Expectations.[1] We set our own inspection criteria to ensure transparency and independence. These contain our four healthy prison tests (safety, respect, purposeful activity, and preparation for release) plus a set of criteria for judging the effectiveness of leadership.
• Leadership is a critical factor in driving improvement and ensuring better outcomes for prisoners. However, unlike for our four healthy prison tests, leadership is a quality we inspect on our visits, but do not score.
• Our expectations for leadership do not seek to assess the personal characteristics or qualities of individuals. Instead, we are interested in how leadership behaviours impact on outcomes for prisoners.
  
  Leadership Expectations
  
  Direction: Leaders work collaboratively with staff, stakeholders, and prisoners to set and communicate strategic priorities that will improve outcomes for prisoners.
   
  Engagement: Leaders create a culture in which staff and other stakeholders willingly engage in activities to improve outcomes for prisoners.
   
  Enabling: Leaders provide the necessary resources to enable good outcomes for prisoners.
   
  Continuous improvement: Leaders focus on delivering priorities that support good outcomes for prisoners. They closely monitor progress against these priorities.
  
• Our assessment of the quality of leadership draws on evidence from sources including self-assessment reports (SARs), the staff survey, prisoner survey, data requests, and observations during the inspection itself. Our leadership judgements will generally be overarching and based on the whole inspection or across a whole area (e.g. safety). Exceptionally, leadership judgements may be derived from single, serious failures which have not been corrected by senior managers.
• HMI Prisons introduced the SAR to give leadership teams in prisons an opportunity to provide information that helps inspectors to make judgements.[2] The SAR has five key sections: vision, leadership, healthy prison tests, main priorities for the next year and progress against priority and key concerns. We find that the best SARs are a candid, accurate and realistic assessment of how a jail is performing. They are produced collaboratively with staff, prisoners, and partner organisations, but owned by the governor, who assumes ultimate responsibility. They are succinct, with a clear analysis of key issues and, in the best cases, are regularly reviewed and inform business planning.
  
  [1] Expectations Version 6 – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [2] SAR-updated-December-2024.docx

• Within our expectations, the term ‘leader’ refers to anyone with leadership or management responsibility in the prison system, including but not limited to prison governors. The inspectorate recognises the critical role of leaders at all levels, for example first line managers who often ‘carry’ the culture of a jail. It is the responsibility of leaders at all levels to set and enforce boundaries and expectations about behaviour. We often find that too much time goes into responding to the chaos created by poor behaviour rather than creating a culture that rewards good behaviour, which can play into staff perceptions about their own safety and welfare and be a factor in poor staff retention in some jails.
• Visible first line management is crucial in prisons. The loss of line management duties for the SO rank has been detrimental to leadership capability at the lower levels. Custodial Managers have an often-unmanageable span of control which increases their administrative tasks and reduces their ability to provide the necessary daily guidance and support to officers on their units.
• We often find a disconnect between what governors express as priorities and values, and what we find on residential wings. Custodial managers and senior officers have an important role in translating the priorities set by senior leaders into something that is understood and can be delivered practically on the shop floor.

• Prison governors nonetheless play a crucial role in determining outcomes for prisoners and we meet many outstanding governors whilst on inspection. Many however tell us that they are not able to spend their time directly effecting change in the way they would like. Instead of being out and about on the wings getting to know their prison and the people living and working within it, many express frustrations at the amount of their time which is taken up by matters such as HR, facilities management, and complex returns to the centre.
• Many of the governors that we spoke to as part of our Improving Behaviour in Prison thematic were particularly frustrated by finance rules and a general lack of control over their budgets which they felt prevented them from making improvements. Leaders in the privately operated prisons we visited tended to have more flexibility in how they spent their budget, and better systems to bid for money from within their company.[1]
• Despite the importance of the governor grade, the prison service often struggles to identify and enable the next generation of leaders through training, mentoring and continuous professional development. If high-performing prison staff are to stay in the service, career development and investment in them is crucial.
• We frequently find that governors, deputies, and senior teams have changed since our last inspection visit. These changes can be very disruptive, often slowing the pace of improvement and unsettling staff. For example, since 2022 HMP Durham had suffered from frequent leadership changes at every level, the most disruptive being three governors in quick succession. We were therefore pleased to find that a new governor and deputy had brought some much-needed stability to the jail when we returned in Spring 2024.[2]
• Elsewhere, critical leadership posts remain unfilled, or filled temporarily. At HMP Garth, there had not been a substantive deputy governor for some time[3] and at HMP Swaleside both the governor and deputy governor were in post temporarily, with both being new to these significant leadership roles.[4] At HMP Wandsworth we found that most leaders were temporarily promoted.[5] This short-term approach to leadership is concerning and fails to recognise the many and complex skills that are essential for those governing prisons.
• The skillset required of governors is considerable. To give just a few examples, governors must be able to collaborate with key partners such as healthcare, education, probation and the third sector. At HMP Oakwood, leaders, including the director, held the PEF provider to account effectively for the quality of provision and there were robust quality assurance arrangements in place. These efforts directly helped to contribute to very positive purposeful activity outcomes.[6]
• Another skill we are particularly keen to continue to see develop is the use of data by leaders to ensure fairness, monitor improvement and, if necessary, take remedial action. Whilst some leaders are very strong in this area, more support and development opportunities would be beneficial.
  
  [1] Improving behaviour in prisons: A thematic review – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [2] HMP Durham – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [3] HMP Garth – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [4] HMP Swaleside – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [5] HMP Wandsworth – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [6] HMP Oakwood – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

• At HMI Prisons we believe in the capacity of both individuals and organisations to change and improve, and that we have a part to play in initiating and encouraging change.
• Our inspection reports can help leaders learn both from what they are doing well and areas for improvement. Our reports clearly identify priority and key concerns that need to be addressed. Following inspection, establishments are then required to submit an action plan that sets out planned or forthcoming action, with clear timeframes.
• If we identify particularly significant concerns, we may issue an Urgent Notification (UN). Here, the Chief Inspector will write to the Secretary of State for Justice within seven calendar days of the end of the inspection. Having received a UN, the Secretary of State has 28 calendar days to publicly respond to the concerns raised and explain how outcomes for those detained in the institution will be improved in both the immediate and longer term.
• In addition to our programme of inspections, we also undertake Independent Reviews of Progress. These are our way of assessing progress sooner than a full inspection, helping to support improvement in prisons and YOIs, and to identify barriers to progress. Although in some jails progress is limited and not happening quickly enough, we report on progress in many establishments.
• Our IRP of HMP Bedford found several positive changes within the prison since it received an Urgent Notification in 2023, largely driven by the appointment of a new governor.[1] Similarly our IRP of HMP Five Wells found that the appointment of a fourth director was providing clear direction and strong oversight.[2]
• Inspectors regularly report notable positive practice (NPP), which is highlighted near the start of every inspection report. More could be done by the service to identify, disseminate and learn from positive practice, including that identified by the inspectorate. It is particularly disappointing when we return to jails where we had previously identified NPP, only to find that it no longer exists.
  
  [1] HMP Bedford – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [2] HMP Five Wells – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

• Our Criminal Justice Joint Inspection efficiency spotlight report about the impact of recruitment and retention on the criminal justice system highlighted the staffing challenges prisons were under.[1] Though some jails continue to struggle with staffing, often with negative implications for the regime, the prison service has recruited considerably in recent years.
• The main frustration that HMI Prisons hears in relation to recruitment is about the lack of governor (or a member of their senior team) involvement in the recruitment of prison officers. There is a sense that recruitment to date has primarily focused on quantity, rather than aptitude for what is a highly skilled, difficult and at times dangerous role. The latest MoJ figures suggest that there are issues with those recruited – the current leaving rate amongst Band 3-5 prison officers is 12.8%.[2]
  
  Training and retention
  
• The inexperience of officers is often noted in our reports, especially in jails subject to UNs. At HMP Rochester, despite the jail having recruited its full complement of Band 3 officers, around half had been in post for less than a year and almost three-quarters for under two years. Some officers told us that they had not felt well supported in their new role, and we found very limited managerial presence providing supervision on wings at key times. Rates of staff attrition and sickness absence were high.[3] At HMP Wandsworth, our top priority concern was that inexperience across every grade of operational staff made it difficult to bring about much-needed change or sustain any progress.[4]
• This issue is not isolated to UN prisons. Matters such as attendance, sickness and capability have been noted at a range of prisons recently, including HMP Garth, HMP Long Lartin, HMP/YOI Swinfen Hall, HMP Wymott and HMP Brixton. At Brixton, 45% of officers had less than two years’ service and staff told us they wanted additional support from managers.[5]
• Given the inexperience of many officers currently in the service, additional support is crucial. Staff survey findings from inspections published between 2023-24 suggest there is significant room for improvement. Analysis that may be of interest to the Committee[6]:
  
  Support for staff well-being: Of those surveyed, about 45% of frontline operational staff thought their prison was supporting staff well-being ‘poorly’ or ‘very poorly’, with a further 23% saying ‘neither well nor poorly’.
  
  Staff morale: Across all staff, approximately 39% of those surveyed described their morale at work as ‘low’ or ‘very low’. This rose to around 54% for frontline operational staff.
  
  Manager/mentor meetings: Among the frontline operational staff surveyed, around 36% said they met with someone to discuss how they were progressing in their role either about once a month or approximately once every three months. Concerningly, 30% said they had met with someone once a year or less and 24% – almost a quarter of those surveyed – said they had not had the opportunity to meet with anyone at all.
  
  In terms of quality of the support staff reported receiving from their line manager, around 57% of frontline operational staff agreed the quality was either ‘very good’ or ‘good’. Operational managers were more positive, with around 83% deeming the quality to be either ‘very good’ or ‘good’.
  
  Senior leader approachability and acknowledgement: Across all staff groups, about 54% thought governors/directors and senior managers in the establishment were ‘always’ or ‘often’ approachable. Only around 27% of the frontline operational staff surveyed agreed that senior managers in their establishment acknowledge and celebrate good work.
  
• If the prison service is to retain high-quality staff, more care, support, and learning opportunities are needed. Locally, we find some leaders prioritising this work, with positive outcomes. At HMP Belmarsh the governor had put strong support in place for new staff. As a result, staff retention levels at that jail were among the best in London and in our survey, 75% of respondents reported that the support they received from their line manager was good or very good.[7] At HMP Woodhill leaders had increased staff support through weekly supervision or ‘team time’ for most house units, regular training and wellbeing events.[8] These simple, practical actions can make a significant difference.
• We are often especially positive about the experience of officers on specialist wings or units, and the impact this has outcomes for prisoners. At HMP Hull the PIPE and well-being units were staffed by capable and well-trained officers who had a very good knowledge of the prisoners in their care.[9] Meanwhile at HMP Grendon Band 4 specialist prison officers were specially selected, had comprehensive training for their role and were well supported with regular clinical supervision and group sensitivity meetings to address the emotional demands of working in a therapeutic environment.[10] This level of support should be more accessible to all staff, not just those working in therapeutic jails or specialist units.
  
  [1] Efficiency spotlight report: The impact of recruitment and retention on the criminal justice system – Criminal Justice Joint Inspection
  [2] HM Prison and Probation Service workforce quarterly: September 2024 – GOV.UK
  [3] HMP Rochester – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [4] HMP Wandsworth – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [5] HMP Brixton – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [6] HMIP Staff Surveys
  [7] HMP Belmarsh – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [8] HMP Woodhill – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [9] HMP Hull – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [10] HMP Grendon – HM Inspectorate of Prisons

Perceptions of the Governor

• Governor visibility is highly valued by prisoners we have spoken to. When governors are visible and engaged, particularly through spending time on the wings and directly engaging with prisoners, it helps reinforce positive behaviour, builds trust, and provides opportunities for communication, minimising a “them and us” mentality.
• At HMP Oakwood, the governor was on first-name terms with many prisoners, which indicated a level of personal engagement and respect. He observed issues firsthand, understood the needs of prisoners, and addressed concerns in a way that more distant leadership cannot.[1] Joint staff-prisoner events are often also well received by prisoners, helping to break down barriers and enable more productive relationships back on the wing.
• Unfortunately, we come across prisoners who do not know who the governor is and who mistake the inspection team for prison leaders. A lack of visible leadership can also mean that inadequate treatment and conditions are overlooked, for example concerning cell conditions at HMP Brixton.[2] In our survey we ask prisoners ‘if you wanted to, can you talk to managers, governors or directors in this prison?’. Only 33% in men’s prisons agreed that they could.[3]
  
  What makes a ‘good’ prison officer?
  
• The quality of relationships between prisoners and staff profoundly impacts the overall experience of prisoners. Positive relationships can help to create a safer and motivating environment, where prisoners feel respected and supported.
• Prisoners tell us that they want staff who are caring, supportive and understanding. They want officers who understand who they are, ask a bit about their lives, know what they like and dislike and encourage their hopes for the future. They also need and expect staff to keep them safe. They want staff to uphold high standards of behaviour and challenge those who break the rules. Officers who are fair and consistent in their application of rules, systems, and procedures are the officers that are especially valued and respected.
• It is therefore a concern that too often we report on staff-prisoner relationships that are transactional and perfunctory. More focus is needed to strengthen these relationships, as well as to increase staff knowledge and experience, as we know that many prisoners are very frustrated with inexperienced staff who are unfamiliar with the prison, the wing, and the prisoners in their care.[4]
  
  What contributes to the culture of a prison?
  
• In our ‘Improving behaviour in prisons’ thematic, we identified five key elements leaders used to achieve a positive prison culture.[5]
• We found the most positive prison cultures were where governors had a clear vision and objectives, which were well communicated to staff and prisoners. Clear boundaries and an expectation of high standards of behaviour from prisoners and staff were critical, alongside a focus on high-quality rewards and incentives. Prisons such as HMP Rye Hill that were fundamentally safe and which provided ample opportunities for prisoners to participate in the prison community and to progress with their sentence plans were particularly positive.
  
  [1] HMP Oakwood – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [2] HMP Brixton – HM Inspectorate of Prisons
  [3] 2023-24-MENS-COMPARATOR-WORKBOOK-QA.xlsx
  [4] HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales Annual Report 2023-24
  [5] Improving Behaviour in Prisons – HM Inspectorate of Prisons