HMIP Report, HMP Peterborough (Male)

The prison was given an inspection in January 2024, and the full report can be read by following the links below. In their report the inspectors said:

HM Prison Peterborough, operated by Sodexo, is a reception and resettlement prison serving Eastern England. A modern facility, the prison opened in 2005 and is capable of holding 944 adult men, although just 906 were on the roll during this inspection. Peterborough also has an entirely separate women’s facility adjacent but within the prison wall. We inspected that part of the prison in November 2023.

At recent inspections, we have reported positively on the outcomes at Peterborough, highlighting the prison as one of the better reception and resettlement prisons in the country. We last inspected in 2018, and although we expressed significant concerns about aspects of safety, in our healthy prison tests of respect, purposeful activity and rehabilitation and release planning, we found outcomes that were reasonably good or better. At this inspection,

however, our findings suggest quite significant changes and deterioration, with outcomes in respect and preparation for release now not sufficiently good, while the regime had become poor. The exception was safety, where we saw some improvement, to the extent that outcomes under this test were now reasonably good.

Due to its role as a reception prison, a large number of new prisoners arrived each week, but they were treated well, supported by peer workers, and received a reasonable induction. The promotion of positive behaviour was adequate, with most safety outcome measures suggesting Peterborough was fairly typical when compared with similar prisons. This should not negate the fact, however, that a quarter of prisoners in our survey indicated that they felt unsafe at the time of the inspection, a perception even worse among Muslim prisoners. It was clear to us that more needed to be done to further incentivise and promote positive engagement, while taking robust action to deter poor behaviour.

Use of segregation was fairly high, although prisoners did not spend long there. The use of force had reduced slightly, possibly because of better oversight.Drugs were a concern, with a third of prisoners telling us it was easy to access illicit substances and mandatory random testing indicating that well over a quarter of the population were active drug users within the prison at the time of the inspection. In addition to this, there had been two self-inflicted deaths in the past five years, but self-harm was lower than the average in comparable prisons. Our findings suggested there was scope for more rigorous oversight of safeguarding procedures and a more caring approach from staff towards those in crisis.

In general, staff-prisoner relationships were respectful, although many staff were inexperienced and lacked confidence with, for example, the enforcement of rules. The promotion of fair treatment had been neglected in recent years, but the appointment of a new diversity manager was very encouraging. The prison was overcrowded by about a third and while it was clean some cells needed to be redecorated. The food was unpopular with many prisoners and prisoner consultation was ineffective. Arrangements for the management of applications and complaints were better. Chronic recruitment and retention difficulties among clinicians was undermining health care provision and leading to several poor outcomes which we detail in this report.

Time out of cell had deteriorated quite markedly; this was reflected in unpredictable and inconsistent daily routines and the 42% of prisoners we found locked in their cells during the working day. Well under half of prisoners were engaged in purposeful activity and even fewer in education or workshop activity off wing. Our colleagues in Ofsted judged the overall effectiveness of provision as inadequate, their lowest assessment. With the exception of support for contact with children and families, we found many shortcomings in the prison’s work to help prepare prisoners for release. Gaps in leadership had led to an uncoordinated approach; support for the many remanded or recalled prisoners was limited and the overall quality of offender management casework we reviewed was not good enough. More rigour was needed in the oversight of public protection arrangements and the outcomes we recorded for prisoners on release evidenced clear failings in the support they received as they returned to the community.

Peterborough men’s prison is not as good as it has been in the past, which is a great disappointment. To arrest the deterioration, regaining stability in leadership must be a priority. Leaders had been taken from Peterborough to tackle operational challenges elsewhere in the estate and this seems to have had a detrimental effect. Greater priority needs to be given to this prison and more support provided for the interim director. Other priorities include the need for greater attention to the quality of oversight and systems of accountability; better and more consistent supervision of staff to improve their capability; and much improved partnership working so that service providers can be held to account.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
March 2024

 

What needs to improve at HMP Peterborough (Men)

During this inspection we identified eight  (11?)key concerns, of which four (6?) 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. About a third of officers were typically unavailable for duty. The regime was consequently often cancelled or curtailed, leading to too many prisoners being locked up during the core working day.
  2. Illicit substances were far too easy to access, undermining safety, well-being and rehabilitation. In our survey, a third of prisoners said it was easy to get hold of drugs and a quarter of all random drug test results had been positive in the last year.
  3. Not all prisoners had a second health needs assessment within a week of arriving at the prison. This meant additional risks and treatment needs were not being identified or addressed.
  4. The management of those arriving at the prison with drug and alcohol problems was not robust. Prisoners arriving late in the evening experienced delays in accessing their medication. Overnight clinical observations and monitoring were inconsistent.
  5. There was insufficient education, skills and work to meet the needs of the population. This limited prisoners’ preparation for employment on release and too many others were engaged in work which had no formal training, was too easy and did not develop employability skills.
  6. Resettlement support was too limited. A large proportion of prisoners were excluded from getting any help. The regular housing adviser, for example, had not been on site for over a year and almost a third of prisoners had been released homeless.

Key concerns

  1. Work to reduce violence was limited and there were few incentives to reward good behaviour.
  2. Patient safety was being undermined by staff shortages and weaknesses in health care systems. For example, record keeping was poor, not all clinical incidents were being reported and there was a backlog of complaints.
  3. The quality of teaching and learning was not good enough.
  4. There were no structured enrichment or personal development activities apart from education and training courses.
  5. Planning for the release of high-risk prisoners required improvement and better coordination. Not all were reviewed before release and there was too little joint planning between prison and community offender managers.

Return to Peterborough 

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