HMIP Inspections, Wakefield

The prison was given a full  inspection in the October/November 2022, and in that report the inspector said:

Wakefield prison in West Yorkshire is one of the highest security prisons in the country. With a capacity for up to 750, it holds some of the more dangerous men in the prison system, including some high-risk category A prisoners. At the time of our inspection, almost all of those held were serving over 10 years and nearly half were serving indeterminate sentences including life. Traditionally, Wakefield has also held a preponderance of men convicted of the most serious sexual offences, and while the proportion of these prisoners had fallen since our last inspection, it remained at about 60% of the current population. The prison also has a close supervision centre (CSC), which holds some of the prison system’s most disruptive men. While we mention the facility in our report, we will report more fully and thematically on these types of units in due course.

This inspection of Wakefield is our first for four years, our last visit being in 2018 when we reported on a successful prison delivering some very good outcomes. Our findings at this inspection were similar, with outcomes assessed as reasonably good in three of our healthy prison tests: safety, respect, and rehabilitation. Only in purposeful activity did we find outcomes that were insufficient. While this represents some deterioration in purposeful activity and respect, in the context of the times and challenges faced by the prison system, this is one of the better inspections we have undertaken at an adult male prison recently.

Wakefield is an old establishment, with most wings resembling the traditional galleried institution familiar to the public mind. Some aspects of the prison’s infrastructure were showing their age, but in general the prison was clean and well-maintained, and nearly all prisoners were housed in individual and well[1]resourced cells. A continuing strength of the prison was the quality of staff[1]prisoner relationships. The staff at Wakefield were competent and confident, despite many being relatively inexperienced. These qualities were being harnessed and applied in key work sessions which had been made a priority by leaders. The delivery of key work was a much more positive example than we have seen recently across the adult male estate, and this was especially encouraging given how vital this process is to the healthy functioning of a prison. Effective key work underpinned many aspects of prison life and prisoner well-being, not least safety, offender management and risk reduction.

Despite the risks it carried, the prison was settled and comparatively safe, and most safety outcome indicators were encouraging. Although not the worst we have seen, the quality of regime, however, was still not good enough. Too many prisoners spent too much time locked up in their cells, a situation compounded by not enough activity places. Work to promote equality was happening but needed more impetus and would have benefited from greater rigour in the use of data. Health care outcomes required improvement; much of the delivery was undermined by a shortage of health care staff.

The settled nature of the prison reflected strong leadership. The governor had set a clear vision for the future, part of which sought to reorientate the prison towards meeting the needs of sex offenders as well as a more integrated population. The priority given to relationships was sensible and reflected  leaders’ good knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of the prison. However, there was space for more strategic thinking and certainly a better use of data when tackling weaknesses in the core functions of the establishment. That said, the prison was well-run, and leaders in particular impressed us with their capability.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
December 2022

 

The inspectors also provided a brief list of the key points arising from their inspection.

 

What needs to improve at HMP Wakefield

 

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. The prison’s infrastructure was in a very poor condition in some important areas and in need of HM Prison and Probation Service investment. This included broken lifts, leaking roofs, old showers, the inadequate electricity supply, the poor state of the inpatient unit and outdated physical security systems.
  2. There were insufficient health care staff, which meant that patients did not receive appropriate and timely care.
  3. There was a significant lack of suitable mental health therapies and interventions, including for those in crisis.
  4. Medicines management was poor and oversight was inadequate. Patients did not receive their medicines on time, and the transport and storage of some medicines was not in line with safe standards.
  5. Time out of cell for too many prisoners was poor. We found half of the population locked up during the working day.
  6. There were not enough activity places to meet the needs of the whole prison population. The limited physical space and availability of suitable buildings within the prison hindered any further plans to provide enough places.

Key concerns

  1. Better strategic thinking and more considered planning was needed across a range of important policies and practices to sustain the good outcomes achieved for prisoners. There were, for example, no data-informed strategies or action plans to make the prison safer or promote equality, and both the reducing reoffending and drug strategies were out of date.
  2. The care and management of potential vulnerabilities and risks for prisoners on their first night in the prison were inadequate.
  3. Prisoners were held in the segregation unit for excessive periods. Although many cases were long-term and complex, reintegration planning was too limited.
  4. Not enough had been done to address perceived disproportionality in treatment, particularly among black and minority ethnic prisoners.
  5. Dental care waiting times of up to nine months for treatment were too long.
  6. In most prison vocational workshops, prisoners had no opportunity to achieve accredited qualifications. The often high levels of knowledge and skills they were gaining and applying through their work was not sufficiently recognised.
  7. Not all of the prisoners had received timely information, advice and guidance to help them make informed choices about their activities. Those with complex learning needs and difficulties did not get a prompt in-depth screening to identify the most beneficial support strategies.
  8. The education curriculum was not sufficiently ambitious. It did not meet the needs of prisoners with higher levels of prior attainment.
  9. Prisoners were often frustrated by their lack of sentence progression. Prison offender manager contact was mostly task driven and there was insufficient access to treatment interventions

Return to Wakefield

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