HMIP Inspections of Feltham

 The A part of Feltham were given an inspection in February 2022, and the B part in January 2023 The full reports can be read at the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the links below. In their latest report the inspectors said of Feltham A:

Our inspection of Feltham A in 2019 revealed “a dramatic and precipitous collapse in standards”. The prison had become so violent and chaotic that my predecessor decided to invoke the urgent notification (UN) process – the first time it had been used in a children’s prison.

At both of our scrutiny visits in July 2020 and February 2021 we saw signs of improvement, but the transformation we found at our most recent inspection was impressive. Much credit must go to the excellent work of the governor, who remained in post after the UN and had created a strong team around her with a renewed sense of purpose and vision. As a result, the prison was safer, happier and more productive, with a more confident staff team able to meet the often complex needs and address the behaviour of what was, at times, a challenging group of children.

We saw good functional leadership in a number of areas, including education, resettlement, and safety – where we saw some of the biggest improvements.

A notable success lay in the development of Alpine unit, which held children considered unable to mix with the general population due to their behaviour and level of need. A well-trained and motivated team created a supportive and inclusive culture that aimed to get the boys out of their cells and mixing with their peers in a therapeutic environment. As a result, children who in the past would have spent much of their time languishing in segregation were being given bespoke support and, where possible, helped to reintegrate back onto their wing or to make a successful transfer to adult prison.

Our reports frequently comment on the lack of motivation prisoners have toward the incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme, in which sanctions are harsh and desultory rewards are often not forthcoming. At Feltham, the IEP were some of the best I have seen; good behaviour was noted and rewarded while poor behaviour was usually addressed quickly. Every child I spoke to was aware of the opportunities offered in the Dunlin enhanced unit if they earned a place. Here, they got more time out of their cells and a chance to join activities such as the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, army cadets or the barbering workshop. The aim was to make this provision more widely available as the constraints from the pandemic were lifted.

The number of children on ‘keep apart’ lists – aimed to prevent particular children from mixing – had reduced and was lower than we had seen elsewhere. This was impressive, given that the population was largely London based and some were gang affiliated, thereby increasing the risk that conflict in the community would spill over into the prison.

Attendance in education stood at an impressive 96%, having improved noticeably since last time. It was disappointing, however, to see that children were put in lessons that did not differentiate them by ability, resulting in work being either too easy or too difficult.

The last day of our inspection coincided with the governor’s last day in post, and she left for another prison having made very good progress. There remains, however, much to do at Feltham to complete the recovery from COVID-19, recruit and retain sufficient staff, improve the quality of education and continue to bear down on levels of violence which remain too high.

Even when things are going well, because of the nature of the children it serves, Feltham is a fragile place and close attention and support from the Youth Custody Service (YCS) will be essential to make sure that the transition from one leader to the next is a success.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
April 2022

And in their report on Feltham B they said:

Feltham B is a YOI in west London for 18–21-year-olds that shares a site with the neighbouring under-18s facility. It contained 307 prisoners at the time of our inspection, a capacity that was reduced by the closure of three units. In the next year the population is expected to increase, with the maximum age of prisoners rising to 24.

The last inspection, in 2019, was one of the most positive of recent years: we judged safety, respect, and rehabilitation and release planning to be reasonably good. Inspectors were, however, critical of the quality of purposeful activity, which they rated as poor.

The findings in this inspection were dominated by the high levels of violence that were affecting the provision of almost every aspect of the jail. The key statistic from our survey was that 27% of prisoners told us they felt unsafe, compared with 14% last time. Many were afraid to go to education, where the attendance rate was a paltry 60%, and inspectors found 38% of prisoners locked in their cells during our checks and only 25% off the wing in activities.

Although the quality of teaching was good in some areas, prisoners were choosing to remain on the wing and accept a sanction for non-attendance because they were scared to mix with other prisoners. It was disappointing that leaders were not aware of the extent to which the regime had slipped.

There had been dramatic increases in violence when pandemic restrictions were lifted last year. Since then, staff had worked hard to reduce levels, but they remained much higher than in similar prisons. Relationships between officers and prisoners were generally good and poor behaviour on the wings was effectively challenged. Too often, however, officers had to deal with planned assaults between groups of prisoners that had led to some serious injuries.

The prison had fallen into the habit of maintaining extensive keep-apart lists aimed at preventing prisoners in conflict with each other from mixing. Although these arrangements can be necessary in extreme cases where, for example, a relative of one prisoner has been the victim of a serious crime from another, our experience is that prisons with the most keep-aparts are often the most violent. New arrivals were placed in a group with other prisoners who arrived on the same day. This led to group affiliation that itself became a cause of violence as different groups came into conflict, even though some of these prisoners had been mixing safely at their previous prison. By doing this, the prison was compounding gang-like behaviour and creating another layer of potential conflict on top of what prisoners were bringing in from the outside.

Delays in police investigations and decisions to charge meant that some of the most serious violence was not being dealt with in a timely way and was impacting on the possibility of parole for some prisoners. Improved liaison between the police and the prison would help leaders to reduce violence.

Staff shortages in the London probation services and in the prison were hampering preparation for release with limited accredited programmes and risk management meetings not taking place early enough.

Since her arrival last year, the governor had been active and visible around the jail; she had a developed a clear self-assessment that broadly reflected the findings of this inspection and had set three clear priorities to reduce violence and improve staff capability. She also benefited from having some strong, experienced senior leaders who were working to build up the capability of staff across the jail.

Although the reduction in scores on this inspection are disappointing, staff at Feltham have much to be proud of, with some impressive work highlighted in this report. Bearing down on the high levels of violence will need to be the key priority that will lead to improvements elsewhere in the jail, particularly in getting prisoners into the education and training that will help them to avoid reoffending on release.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
January 2023

 

The inspectors also provided a note of their key concerns

What needs to improve at HMP Feltham B

During this inspection we identified 12 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. Levels of violence were too high and prisoners had poor perceptions of their safety. Leaders, staff and prisoners were over[1]reliant on keeping prisoners apart rather than addressing underlying causes of violence. Investigations into incidents were often delayed and sometimes of poor quality.
  2. Too few prisoners had access to education, skills and work, based on their needs. Leaders did not ensure that enough prisoners were allocated to the available activity spaces.
  3. The attendance and punctuality of prisoners to activities were poor. Leaders should ensure that the number of prisoners attending activities increases.
  4. Leaders and managers had limited oversight of the regime on residential units. There were regular delays in the core day. There was too little association and exercise which was inconsistent across wings.

Key concerns

  1. The use of segregation was high, conditions on the unit were poor and the regime was limited.
  2. Prisoners who were on ACCT (assessment, care in custody and teamwork) plans did not feel cared for by staff. Care maps did not always reflect concerns raised by prisoners and family engagement was not used adequately to support prisoners.
  3. Prisoners did not receive medication in a clinically appropriate environment and best practice guidelines for patient safety, confidentiality and decency were not met.
  4. Leaders did not investigate data that indicated differences in treatment or access to the regime for prisoners with protected characteristics.
  5. Prisoners did not have access to enough accredited courses in industries that would help them gain employment once released. Leaders and managers should ensure that prisoners at work receive appropriate training for their roles and gain accredited qualifications where appropriate.
  6. The number of prisoners who achieved qualifications was too low. Leaders and managers should improve the quality of teaching in order to raise the levels of achievement in the prison.
  7. Staffing pressures in the OMU and resettlement teams were also present in many of the community probation teams that Feltham worked with, which affected prisoner progression and release planning. This contributed to a backlog of prisoner OASys assessments, delays in some home detention curfew releases and often limited contact with prisoners.
  8. Release planning was not carried out consistently and too many prisoners did not have timely preparation and support before their release.

Return to Feltham