HMIP Inspections of Hindley

The prison was given an inspection in December 2023 , and  the full report can be read at the Ministry of Justice web site, just follow the links below. In their latest report the inspectors said:

Located near Wigan, and almost equidistant between Liverpool and Manchester, Hindley is a category C training and resettlement prison for up to 600 adult and young adult men, of whom about a third are aged under 25. With approximately 60 new arrivals a month, the prison manages a considerable turnover of prisoners, although others are more established and serving significant sentences. The population includes a substantial number of prisoners on licence recall, as well as many with known links to organised criminal gangs.

This was our first full inspection of the jail since 2017, when we found outcomes to be not sufficiently good in our tests of safety and respect, poor in purposeful activity and reasonably good in rehabilitation and release planning. At this inspection our assessments remained unchanged against all four of our healthy prison tests. That is not to say that the leadership were not doing their best. On the contrary, we found that they were committed and passionate and there was no doubt that they were working hard to improve the prison, aided by important interventions from HM Prison and Probation Service. Our concern was that many of the fundamental weaknesses that we identified over five years ago had not changed: the environment was run down, the regime was poor, and the prevalence of drugs was at the heart of much that undermined safety for prisoners.

Dating from the early 1960s and extended in the late 1980s, the prison was showing its age. We were told that a planned expansion programme, that would add new accommodation and upgrade some prisoner facilities, had been delayed until at least 2027. This created something of a planning blight in terms of potential investment that might mitigate the immediate difficulties the prison faced. Leaders were not, however, helpless and to their great credit and that of the staff group, much was being done to keep the prison clean and to incentivise prisoners to support that endeavour. However, accommodation was cramped and often overcrowded, and many amenities, including the showers and the kitchen, were in a poor condition. Even facilities such as the gate lodge and the staff search area were not fit for purpose.

The prison was, in part, designated as a training prison, and yet far too little purposeful work, education or training was taking place. Our colleagues in Ofsted highlighted some positive aspects of the education and skills offer and judged the overall effectiveness of provision as ‘requires improvement,’ but nearly a third of prisoners were unemployed. During checks we found about half of all prisoners locked up during the working day, while a further 28% were only employed on a part-time basis. Leaders had introduced a new daily routine aimed at improving outcomes and predictability of the regime, but it was not yet embedded and, at the time of our inspection, was causing considerable prisoner frustration.

Overall, the prison was still not safe enough. Combined with the indolence, boredom and frustration created by the inactivity of the regime, a key causal factor was the near tsunami of illegal drugs in the prison. Mandatory drug testing revealed a positive test rate of over 52%, meaning that well over half the population were active drug users while we were inspecting. Many prisoners arriving at Hindley already had a drug problem and organised criminality will have influenced these outcomes. The prison had been trying to combat the problem, but its approach was not working. Other concerning safety outcomes included very high levels of recorded violence and high numbers of self-harm incidents. Leaders could point to several creative and useful initiatives and partnerships aimed at improving outcomes, but the very high turnover of prison officers, the consequential inexperience of many staff and their general lack of capability and confidence in supervising prisoners were constraining progress.

We saw numerous examples of staff diffidence and an inability to confront rule-breaking and delinquency among prisoners. Despite our criticism and the obvious strategic challenges, there was no sense of helplessness at the prison. Some very good offending behaviour and resettlement work was taking place: the PIPE unit, providing psychological interventions, was impressive, as was the preparedness of leaders to try new ideas and work hard to make improvements. Serious investment cannot come soon enough, but in the meantime building staff capability and confronting drugs, as well as diverting prisoners into useful activity that will motivate them, must be the priorities.

Charlie Taylor
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
February 2024

 

The inspectors provided a summary of their major findings

What needs to improve at HMP/YOI Hindley

During this inspection we identified 12 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 poor condition and investmentwas needed from HM Prison and Probation Service to deliverimprovements. Examples included the general environment and verycramped accommodation, the old kitchen, the physical security of theprison, and a need to increase workshop space.
  2. Levels of violence were very high, driven to a great extent bysignificant quantities of illegal drugs and a poor regime.
  3. The availability and use of illicit drugs posed a critical threat to thesecurity of the prison, contributing to prisoner debt, bullying andfear. The positive drug testing rate at Hindley was the highest of allprisons in England and Wales, and work so far to tackle this crisis hadachieved minimal impact.
  4. Prison officers were not maintaining effective relationships withprisoners. There was a high level of inexperience, and too many stafflacked confidence in enforcing basic standards and did not challengelow-level poor behaviour. Not enough key work (see Glossary) wasdelivered, and for some prisoners it was not happening at all.
  5. Prisoners spent far too long locked up. The regime offered too littletime out of cell, especially for the unemployed. Many prisoners,particularly those in full-time employment, did not have sufficient time outof their cells for domestic routines, or to take part in outdoor exercise.
  6. Leaders and managers had failed to ensure there were sufficientwork, skills or education places for the population. This was compounded by a failure to make sure that those places that wereavailable were all allocated

Key concerns

  1. Self-harm was high and was increasing. In the last 12 months, therehad been 494 incidents of self-harm, which placed Hindley in the topthree among comparable prisons.
  2. Many prisoners complained about the quality of the food, and in oursurvey, a quarter said they did not get enough to eat.
  3. Arrangements to deal with prisoner applications and requests wereweak and unaccountable. The timeliness and quality of responses werenot, for example, monitored effectively.
  4. Leaders and managers did not effectively ensure that prison work was of high quality.
  5. There were few enrichment activities with which to engageprisoners.
  6. Prisoners did not have sufficient access to offending behaviourinterventions.

Return to Hindley

To read the full reports, go to the Ministry of Justice site or follow the links below:

  • Inspection report (2 MB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Hindley by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (21 November – 8 December 2023)
  • HMP/YOI Hindley report (PDF) (313 kB), Report on a scrutiny visit to HMP/YOI Hindley by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (8 and 15–16 December 2020)
  • HMP Hindley (628.69 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Hindley (4 –14 December 2017)
  • HMP Hindley (508.96 kB), Report on an unannounced inspection of HMP Hindley (4-15 July 2016)
  • HMYOI Hindley, Unannounced inspection of HMYOI Hindley (3 – 14 March 2014)
  • HMYOI Hindley, Summary of questionnaires and interviews: Children and young people’s self-reported perceptions (13 November 2012)
  • HMYOI Hindley, Unannounced inspection of HMYOI Hindley (19-23 November 2012)
  • HMYOI Hindley, Summary of questionnaires and interviews: Children and young people’s self-reported perceptions (1-2 August 2011)
  • HMYOI Hindley, Unannounced short follow-up inspection of HMYOI Hindley (6-8 September 2011)
  • HMYOI Hindley, Summary of questionnaires and interviews: Children and young people’s self-reported perceptions (24-25 January 2011)
  • HMYOI Hindley
  • Announced inspection of HMYOI Hindley (19-23 October 2009)
  • HMYOI Hindley, Summary of questionnaires and interviews: Children and young people’s self-reported perceptions (21-22 September 2009)
  • HMYOI Hindley, Pre-opening inspection of HMYOI Hindley (3-5 March 2009)