HMIP Reports on Littlehey

HMP Littlehey was last inspected in September 2023. In their report the inspectors said:

Littlehey is a large category C training prison near Huntingdon in Cambridgeshire. Holding more than 1,200 prisoners across a large campus, the prison’s principal purpose is to hold adult men convicted of a sexual offence. As such, the prison manages a significant amount of risk, with nearly a quarter of those held serving an indeterminate sentence, including many serving life. Eleven per cent of those held are aged over 70, and a considerable number are experiencing their first time in custody.

This was our first inspection since 2019, and although we found some deterioration in outcomes in respect and purposeful activity, outcomes in rehabilitation and release planning had improved, while outcomes in safety remained good, our highest assessment. Overall, this was a very encouraging inspection. The general atmosphere of the prison was settled, safe, and purposeful, predicated on good staff-prisoner relationships, and staff and prisoners spoke confidently about their work and experiences in the jail.

Prisoners had a good reception into the prison and attended a satisfactory peer-led induction. The rate of violence was low, and most prisoners told us that they felt safe. Other safety indicators such as use of force, use of segregation and the rate of self-harm were similarly low. It was concerning that since our last inspection four prisoners had taken their own lives, but the prison was responding to these tragedies and achieving recommendations, although there was more to do with respect to health. Although the application of security measures was proportionate, elements of the infrastructure – notably security cameras and lighting – needed to be repaired and upgraded.

The prison comprised several house blocks and wings which were set in impressive, well-kept grounds. The quality of the built environment and accommodation did, however, vary greatly. Some facilities were excellent, but others required significant investment and refurbishment. The backlog of work was considerable, and some bigger projects, such as repairs to the heating system, remained outstanding, as at our last inspection.

Consultation arrangements with prisoners were reasonably good, but systems to support redress required improvement. Weaknesses were, however, partly mitigated by the use of peer support workers. This extended to work to promote equality, and although progress would have been enhanced by a more sophisticated use of data, perceptions and outcomes among prisoners with various protected characteristics appeared reasonably consistent.

A committed staff group made sure there was basic health provision, but staff shortages and weak governance, as well as limited resources in important specialist services such as palliative care, limited the service on offer.

The amount of time out of cell was much better than we often see, with a quarter of prisoners unlocked for at least nine hours each day. However, limits on the number of work and education places available meant that a sizeable minority had a much worse experience. Overall, our colleagues in Ofsted found the that the provision of learning and skills was mixed and assessed it as ‘requiring improvement.’ To the prison’s credit, a growing number of enrichment activities were being made available and gym access was greatly valued by the prisoners. Its reducing reoffending strategy had improved, with most prisoner risks properly assessed and individuals supported, although prisoners’ expectations about the pace of potential progress required more careful management. For those about to be released, public protection and resettlement arrangements were reasonably good.

Littlehey benefited greatly from being fully staffed, with low rates of staff absence or attrition. In general, prisoners were also reasonably compliant and cooperative. Notwithstanding these advantages, there was an energy and competence about the establishment that almost certainly came from the visibility and commitment of the governor. Leaders were collaborative, innovative, and ambitious. Staff were supported and encouraged and were maintaining a caring and capable ethos in the prison. Leaders should be congratulated for what they had achieved.

 

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
October 2023

  

The inspectors provide a short list of the main findings

What needs to improve at HMP Littlehey

During this inspection. we identified nine key concerns, of which four 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. Health care services lacked the resources to meet the needs of the population.
  2. The governance and oversight of medicines management was weak. Medicines were found to be out of date, room temperatures were not being recorded and arrangements for the disposal of unused medicines and controlled drug administration were unsafe.
  3. There were far too many longstanding unaddressed maintenance issues. Numerous closed-circuit television cameras were, for example, not working effectively and lights in the prison grounds were also in a state of disrepair, both of which were a threat to the security of the prison. A further example was the condition of showers, which were in need of refurbishment.
  4. There were not enough activity spaces, which limited the ability of prisoners to gain the knowledge and skills they needed to help them on release.

Key concerns

  1. The promotion of equality and diversity was limited by a failure to use data effectively and by a lack of consultation.
  2. There was insufficient provision of English, mathematics and English for speakers of other languages to meet the needs of the population.
  3. The prison needed a reading strategy to support literacy based on a meaningful assessment of need among the prisoner population
  4. Contact between offender managers and prisoners was mostly task-driven and did not consistently support sentence progression and risk management. Key work was also limited.
  5. The late allocation of community offender managers delayed the handover of responsibility for the prisoner to the community and had a negative impact on arrangements for their release. Escalation by the prison of issues such as confirmation of MAPPA levels was notprompt or consistent.

Return to Littlehey 

The full reports can be read at the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the links below: