HMP Birmingham HMIP Inspections

The prison was given an inspection in February 2023 In his report the inspector said:

The inspection of HMP Birmingham in the summer of 2018 led to an Urgent Notification to the Secretary of State, in which the then Chief Inspector of Prisons described: ‘a prison that was rife with drugs and violence, a staff team that had retreated to wing offices for their own safety and prisoners held in conditions of utter squalor.’

I am delighted to report that our latest inspection of this large, inner-city reception jail found that it was much safer and more decent. Much of the credit for this transformation must go to the governor, who took over in 2018 and had applied a relentless effort to improve standards. He had focused on reducing the ingress of drugs, including dealing with some serious staff corruption issues. With the supply of drugs far lower than in 2018 there has been a fall in violence by more than 60%.

He had also sought to improve the competence and capability of his staff and restore authority and order to the jail. The leadership team, which was well[1]motivated and supportive of the governor’s priorities, had helped to improve stability. Officers who had worked at the prison for many years told me it had never been as good and that they were now able to enjoy their work, while feeling safe and supported.

Wings felt calm, well ordered and clean. Significant spending by the prison service had led to improvements in the fabric and infrastructure of the prison. Where before cells had been covered in graffiti, with broken observation panels and windows, they were now well maintained and in much better condition. Similarly, showers had been refurbished and an extensive cleaning programme meant there were no longer piles of rubbish around the prison.

The governor was well aware that there remained some staff members who continued to undermine progress. Both in our survey and in conversations with prisoners, we were disappointed to hear the behaviour of some officers was not acceptable. The prison was understaffed and had struggled to recruit enough officers; this affected delivery in some key areas that will need to be addressed for the prison to make further progress. Retention of staff also continued to be difficult, but leaders were putting effort into improving the welfare of frontline officers. When wings currently undergoing refurbishment reopen later in the year, the population will rise considerably and there will be a major challenge to make sure that the prison is sufficiently staffed to accommodate new prisoners.

Despite these improvements, inspectors were very concerned about the amount of time that prisoners were spending in their cells. Most were unemployed and there were not enough spaces in education, training or work, which meant that many were spending up to 22.5 hours a day locked behind their doors. This was not acceptable. Making sure that prisoners spend longer unlocked in purposeful activity must be a priority for the jail.

We were also concerned that some aspects of release planning were overly complicated and disjointed. An under-resourced offender management unit meant that some risky prisoners had not been assessed early enough or with sufficient attention to make sure that their transition to the community was as safe as possible. The prison suffered badly from some of the effects of the unification of probation services, particularly in relation to the increasingly large remand population for whom there was little support.

The work that had gone into the transformation of this prison should not be underestimated and the governor and his team should be proud of their achievements. I am confident that with this current leadership team in place the prison will continue to progress. The challenge will be to reduce further the levels of violence and maintain cleanliness while getting prisoners out of their cells for much longer periods of time. This will lead to improvements in the fragile mental health of many of the prisoners, reduce the incentive to take drugs and give prisoners a better sense of progression. It will also help to alleviate the frustration of prisoners, who had to make the choice between exercise, showering and other activities.

The substantial improvements at Birmingham show what can be achieved when there is strong leadership, clear priorities and support from the prison service in improving infrastructure. I wish the prison well on the next phase of its journey.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
March 2023

The inspectors also provided a list of their concerns

What needs to improve at HMP Birmingham

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. Many prisoners only had 90 minutes a day out of their cells, which was far too little.
  2. In our survey, too many prisoners, particularly those who had been segregated or those with a mental health problem, had negative perceptions of safety and some reported being victimised by staff.
  3. Leaders had not established sufficient activity spaces for education, training or work, and attendance was not good enough.
  4. The range of workshops on offer was too narrow and leaders had not improved sufficiently the quality of training in work and workshops.
  5. Risk management planning for the release of high-risk prisoners was weak.
  6. Resettlement services were poorly staffed, and the provision of support was disjointed. It was not clear who assessed needs in the lead up to release, which meant that some prisoners did not get the help they required.

Key concerns

  1. Prisoners’ perceptions of the help they received during their early days were not sufficiently good and the induction programme lacked structure.
  2. Body-worn video cameras were not being used routinely, which limited leaders’ oversight of the use of force.
  3. Very few prisoners received meaningful key work support.
  4. Professional telephone interpretation services were rarely used to interact with prisoners who had limited or no English.
  5. Clinical and medication rooms did not meet patient safety or infection prevention and control standards.
  6. There was a considerable shortage of suitably trained and experienced nursing staff.
  7. Despite being raised at the last inspection, weaknesses in the management of medication persisted. 1
  8. Staff providing initial advice and guidance did not spend enough time discussing prisoners’ aspirations or the opportunities available to them in the prison. Too few had a personal learning plan.
  9. Too many calls by prisoners using their emergency cell bells were not answered quickly enough. In some cases it took up to an hour, which was far too long.

 

To see the full reports on the Ministry of Justice web site follow the links below, this section contains the reports for Birmingham from 2000 until present:

Return to HMP Birmingham