HMIP Inspection of Lewes

The prison was last inspected May 2022, and the full reports can be read at the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the links below. In the latest report the inspectors said:

This was a disappointing inspection of a prison that had made some good progress at our 2019 independent review of progress (IRP). There is no doubt that pandemic restrictions have hampered the ambitious governor in her work to improve the jail, but nevertheless the recovery was too slow.

The allocation of work or education was not functioning properly, and so there were no meaningful activities for most prisoners, who were spending 22 hours locked up during the week while workshops and classrooms remained empty. Despite the high level of unemployed prisoners, standards of cleanliness on the wings had deteriorated – rigorous routine cleaning was not taking place. Similarly, many cells had extensive graffiti on the walls that was still visible despite being painted over.

Prisoners were struggling to access some basic needs. For example, new arrivals to the jail were only given one set of clothes, which meant that they had no replacements when items were sent to be washed. They also frequently complained of difficulties with getting phone numbers added to their approved list, so it took a long time for them to make contact with their families. I spoke to one young man, in prison for the first time, who said he had not been able to let anyone know where he was.

The oversight of those at risk of suicide or self-harm was poor with paperwork incomplete or inadequate. It was concerning that many prisoners who were on an assessment, care in custody, and teamwork plan (ACCT) said they did not feel cared for, especially in a jail that contains many vulnerable men who have only recently come into custody.

When we last inspected in 2019, we found that the partnership between health care and the prison was not working effectively. It was, therefore, disappointing at this inspection to find that some of the problems had still not been satisfactorily resolved and that the service to prisoners was not yet good enough. The governor’s personal involvement in finding solutions gave us some confidence that these issues could be addressed.

The prison suffered from difficulties with recruiting sufficient high-quality staff in what is a relatively wealthy part of the country. This problem was particularly acute for operational support grades (OSG) and administrative staff; these roles were essential to a properly functioning prison. Security vetting processes were taking so long that prospective recruits were taking jobs elsewhere. The prison had developed a strategy to support new recruits, and the backlog of training was being addressed as pandemic restrictions were lifted. Many staff members were, however, still leaving after short periods of service.

We were pleased to see an improvement in offender management and resettlement services. There were some good functional leaders in place which led to a welcome increase in our score for rehabilitation and release planning, but scores for safety, respect and purposeful activity from our healthy prison tests were not good enough.

Lewes is a difficult prison to staff and run with old buildings that are expensive to maintain, but there needs to be a greater focus on getting some of the basics right. There is the opportunity to build momentum with what could be an effective leadership team to get this prison back on track and make it a better place for prisoners to stay and staff to work. Much will rest on the governor and the deputy who have shown great commitment to the prison through a difficult couple of years to drive forward the necessary improvements.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
May 2022

 

Additionally, the inspectors provided a note on what they consider needs improvement at Lewes:

 

What needs to improve at HMP Lewes

During this inspection, we identified 15 key concerns, of which six should be treated as priorities. Priority concerns are those that are most important to improving outcomes for prisoners. They require immediate attention by leaders and managers.

Leaders should make sure that all concerns identified here are addressed and that progress is tracked through a plan which sets out how and when the concerns will be resolved. The plan should be provided to HMI Prisons.

Priority concerns

  1. Staff shortfalls in many areas had slowed progress in achieving better outcomes for prisoners.
  2. The most vulnerable prisoners were not sufficiently well cared for. The quality of ACCT documentation was poor, including weaknesses in the case management of prisoners on constant supervision. Serious incidents of self-harm were not investigated routinely to understand the causes.
  3. Areas of the prison were unacceptably dirty. Cleaning standards and routines were inconsistent, some communal spaces were grubby. Many cells contained graffiti and toilets were filthy.
  4. Patient care was deficient because of ineffective partnership arrangements, leading to poor communication with prisoners, reduced nurse staffing levels and inconsistent prisoner escort arrangements.
  5. Time out of cell for prisoners was inadequate. Although COVID-19 restrictions were lifted during the inspection, there were no plans to increase time out of cell for the many unemployed prisoners. 6. Allocation to activity was inefficient, and leaders did not use classroom and workshop places well enough. Prisoners were allocated to wing roles that they did not have the skills or qualifications for. There were also long waiting lists for most subjects, although there were spaces available in classes. As a result, approximately half of the prison population was unemployed, and too few prisoners successfully completed accredited qualifications.

Key concerns

  1. Violence at the prison was still too high and there was limited understanding of the causes and how to respond to them. The strategy and action plan for dealing with violence were not informed by thorough analysis of available data, or of available intelligence.
  2. Insufficient attention was paid to risks for new arrivals. Some prisoners were moved to the first night centre before having their safety risks fully assessed, this failed to identify if they were suitable for sharing a cell.
  3. Prisoners had insufficient clothing and bedding. They were not given enough kit on arrival or on the wings.
  4. Primary care lacked effective clinical leadership and was too dependent on agency staff, leading to gaps in patient care. Prisoners expressed frustration with health care services as clinics were cancelled routinely and communication was poor. Long-term condition management was fragmented and services were largely reactive.
  5. Prisoners with serious mental health problems waited too long before being transferred to hospital.
  6. Leaders had not made progress with improving education, skills and work since the previous inspection. Although leaders and managers held regular meetings where they discussed education, skills and work, they did not place enough focus on improving the quality of the curriculum. The actions that leaders set focused too closely on the completion of processes, rather than on measuring the impact of their actions.
  7. Prisoners in several work areas had not completed basic training or qualifications that were important for their roles. For example, those working in the kitchen or on the serveries did not routinely complete basic training or qualifications to provide them with knowledge of how to handle food safely. Those prisoners that took food safety qualifications did not pass in high enough numbers.
  8. The provision of careers information, advice and guidance (CIAG) was too limited. Too many prisoners had not received any CIAG for their next steps or future career goals. Leaders had not developed sufficient links with external employers who could support prisoners both in prison and after release.
  9. Monitoring arrangements for those with public protection concerns were not fully effective. Prisoners’ telephone calls were not listened to when they should have been and some mail may have been monitored for longer than was necessary

Return to Lewes 

To read the full reports follow the links below

  • Inspection report (773 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Lewes by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (3–4 and 9–13 May 2022)
  • HMP Lewes (859.57 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Lewes (14, 21-25 January 2019)
  • HMP Lewes (PDF, 1.33 MB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Lewes (14-15 December 2015; 4-8 January 2016)
  • HMP/YOI Lewes, Unannounced inspection of HMP/YOI Lewes (5-16 November 2012)
  • HMP Lewes, Unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMP Lewes (4–6 May 2010)
  • HMP Lewes, Announced inspection of HMP Lewes (20-24 August 2007)