Urgent Notifications and IRPs

• our scores for the healthy prison assessments
• whether the establishment has had repeated poor assessments
• the type of prison it is and the risks presented
• the vulnerability of those detained
• whether the establishment has failed to address areas of concern
• our confidence in its ability to change and improve.

Having received an Urgent Notification, the Secretary of State has 28 calendar days to publicly respond to the concerns raised in our published letter. This response will explain how outcomes for those detained in the institution will be improved in both the immediate and longer term. This process is outlined in section 7 of our protocol with the Ministry of Justice.

IRPs are not inspections and we do not make any new judgements against our healthy prison tests. They:

• provide an independent, evidence-based assessment of how the prison is progressing
• look at outcomes for prisoners in the areas of main concern
• offer feedback and guidance to help the prison improve
• identify emerging difficulties in addressing the areas of concern
• assess the quality of the leadership and management response to the key concerns.

We announce IRPs in advance and they take place eight to 12 months after the original inspection. They last 2.5 days and involve a small team of inspectors. We aim to publish reports within 25 working days of the end of the visit.

IRPs are announced at least three months in advance and take place eight to 12 months after a full inspection. When we announce an IRP, we identify which concerns we intend to follow up (usually no more than 15). Depending on the concerns to be followed up, IRP visits may be conducted jointly with Ofsted (England), Estyn (Wales), the Care Quality Commission and the General Pharmaceutical Council. This joint work ensures expert knowledge is deployed and avoids multiple inspection visits.

During our three-day visit, we collect a range of evidence about the progress in implementing each selected concern. Sources of evidence include observation, discussions with prisoners, staff and relevant third parties, documentation and data.

Each concern followed up by HMI Prisons during an IRP is given one of four progress judgements:

• No meaningful progress. Leaders had not yet formulated, resourced or begun to implement a realistic improvement plan to address this concern.
• Insufficient progress. Leaders had begun to implement a realistic improvement strategy (for example, with better and embedded systems and processes), but prisoner outcomes were improving too slowly or had not improved at all.
• Reasonable progress. Leaders were implementing a realistic improvement strategy, with evidence of sustainable progress and some early improvement in outcomes for prisoners.
• Good progress. Leaders had already implemented a realistic improvement strategy to address this concern and had delivered a clear improvement in outcomes for prisoners.

When Ofsted attends an IRP its methodology replicates the monitoring visits conducted in further education and skills provision. Each theme followed up by Ofsted is given one of three progress judgements.

• Insufficient progress. Progress has been either slow or insubstantial or both, and the demonstrable impact on learners has been negligible.
• Reasonable progress. Action taken by the provider is already having a beneficial impact on learners and improvements are sustainable and are based on the provider’s thorough quality assurance procedures.
• Significant progress. Progress has been rapid and is already having considerable beneficial impact on learners.

Ofsted’s approach to undertaking monitoring visits and the inspection methodology involved are set out in the Further education and skills inspection handbook, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/education-inspection-framework