HMP Doncaster

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Summary Purposeful activity S20 S21 Time out of cell was poorly recorded and managed. Although there were enough activity spaces for the population, attendance was low, especially in education, and some good facilities were poorly used. There was some purposeful workshop provision, and the quality of education and vocational training was good, as were prisoner achievements. Library and PE provision were good but access was too limited. Outcomes for prisoners were not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test. At the last inspection in 2014 we found that outcomes for prisoners in Doncaster were reasonably good against this healthy prison test. We made 11 recommendations in the area of purposeful activity. At this follow-up inspection we found that four of the recommendations had been achieved, three had been partially achieved, and four had not been achieved. S22 S23 S24 S25 S26 S27 Prisoners' time out of cell was erratic and poorly managed. Many prisoners refused to engage in their scheduled activities and were not challenged sufficiently by staff or encouraged to attend them. Roll checks during the middle of the working day showed about half the population locked in their cells. There was insufficient strategic oversight of learning and skills and work activity. Managers did not have sufficiently accurate data to review and evaluate provision, and prioritise improvement actions. The self-assessment for education provision was realistic and linked well to the quality improvement process, but not to any improvement actions for wider prison training and work activities. There was good partnership working between the prison and other activity providers, and the range of provision was appropriate for the needs of the population. There were enough places for prisoners to undertake at least part-time activities, but these were underused and attendance was poor, especially in education. Prisoners received a good activities induction and the allocations process was fair and equitable. There were practical opportunities for prisoners to develop work skills. Prison work was purposeful, although much was mundane. Teaching, learning and assessment were mostly good in education and vocational training. The quality of tutor feedback in mathematics and English functional skills classes was variable. Education classrooms and vocational training areas were well equipped. The majority of teachers and vocational trainers supported prisoners well and assisted them to solve problems, manage their behaviour and overcome barriers to learning. Peer mentors were used well. Prisoners who attended education, vocational training or work behaved well, had positive attitudes and were courteous to each other and to staff. Prisoners reflected well on their learning and undertook increasingly complex tasks. Standards of work in education, vocational training and work were good, and prisoners made progress. Achievement rates in education and vocational training were high, although those in English functional skills at entry level were still too low. There was now a single library that had good stock, met the needs of most prisoners and had effective links with the education department. However, access to the library for prisoners not in education was poor. 14 HMP Doncaster
Summary S28 PE facilities were good, and the range of activities included recreational PE, but sessions were frequently cancelled as a result of staff shortages. The department had good links to health care, and prisoners could follow a wide range of accredited PE courses. Resettlement S29 S30 There was insufficient integration of resettlement services, but resettlement outcomes were reasonably good. Most prisoners had good caseworker contact, and assessments and sentence plans were completed well. Public protection work was not sufficiently rigorous. Reintegration work was generally appropriate. Visits provision was good, although sessions were not well managed. Work to promote family ties was very good, although they excluded vulnerable prisoners. Outcomes for prisoners were reasonably good against this healthy prison test. At the last inspection in 2014 we found that outcomes for prisoners in Doncaster were reasonably good against this healthy prison test. We made 11 recommendations in the area of resettlement. At this follow-up inspection we found that eight recommendations had been achieved, one had been partially achieved and two had not been achieved. S31 S32 S33 S34 The offender management policy was broadly appropriate, but there was insufficient integration of all aspects of resettlement services. There was confusion over the respective roles of Catch22, which provided offender management, and Nacro, which was a provider for the community rehabilitation company (CRC) 4 Sodexo, and both services often operated in isolation. The reducing reoffending strategy group focused on information-sharing rather than strategic direction of services. However, in our survey, more prisoners than the comparator said they had done something at Doncaster to reduce the likelihood of offending in the future. The work of dedicated caseworkers in the offender management department was generally good. Basic custody screening took place consistently but quality assurance and information-sharing were underdeveloped, including for public protection concerns. Prisoners were mostly complimentary about their level of contact with caseworkers, and the quality of OASys (offender assessment system) assessments and sentence plans was better than we often see, especially at local prisons. Processes and systems were well understood by caseworkers, but they received insufficient training on how to address reoffending risk factors through one-toone work with prisoners. The management of prisoners subject to public protection telephone and mail monitoring was comprehensive. Some prisoners identified as subject to multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) were not appropriately recorded on the P-Nomis prison IT system and were therefore missed. Not all MAPPA risk management levels were identified sufficiently early to ensure effective pre-release planning for the prisoners concerned, and the inter-departmental risk management meetings did not review many prisoners early or regularly enough before their release. Nacro workers saw all prisoners about three months before their release to plan resettlement. However, this positive work often happened in isolation from that of other resettlement pathway providers. Nacro provided or facilitated support on both accommodation and finance, benefit and debt needs. There were weekly group sessions on 4 Since May 2015, rehabilitation services, both in custody and after release, have been organised through CRCs, which are responsible for work with medium- and low-risk offenders. The National Probation Service (NPS) has maintained responsibility for high- and very high-risk offenders. HMP Doncaster 15
Page 1 and 2: Report on an unannounced inspection
Page 3 and 4: Contents Contents Introduction 5 Fa
Page 5 and 6: Introduction Introduction HMP Donca
Page 7 and 8: Fact page Fact page Task of the est
Page 9 and 10: About this inspection and report Ab
Page 11 and 12: Summary Summary Safety S1 S2 Prison
Page 13: Summary S12 S13 S14 S15 S16 S17 S18
Page 17 and 18: Summary S41 Concern: There was a co
Page 19 and 20: Section 1. Safety Section 1. Safety
Page 21 and 22: Section 1. Safety included 81 assau
Page 23 and 24: Section 1. Safety Safeguarding (pro
Page 25 and 26: Section 1. Safety 1.40 The drug str
Page 27 and 28: Section 1. Safety 1.51 There had be
Page 29 and 30: Section 1. Safety Recommendations 1
Page 31 and 32: Section 2. Respect Section 2. Respe
Page 33 and 34: Section 2. Respect Equality and div
Page 35 and 36: Section 2. Respect 2.23 Seven per c
Page 37 and 38: Section 2. Respect Legal rights Exp
Page 39 and 40: Section 2. Respect 2.48 Health serv
Page 41 and 42: Section 2. Respect samples that we
Page 43 and 44: Section 2. Respect Catering Expecte
Page 45 and 46: Section 3. Purposeful activity Sect
Page 47 and 48: Section 3. Purposeful activity Reco
Page 49 and 50: Section 3. Purposeful activity Educ
Page 51 and 52: Section 4. Resettlement Section 4.
Page 53 and 54: Section 4. Resettlement Recommendat
Page 55 and 56: Section 4. Resettlement 4.27 For pr
Page 57 and 58: Section 4. Resettlement Recommendat
Page 59 and 60: Section 5. Summary of recommendatio
Page 65 and 66:
Section 6 - Appendix I: Inspection
Page 67 and 68:
Section 6 - Appendix II: Progress o
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Appendix III: Prison population pro
Page 77 and 78:
Section 6 - Appendix III: Prison po
Page 79 and 80:
Section 6 - Appendix IV: Summary of
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Main comparator and comparator to l
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Diversity analysis Key question res
Page 105 and 106:
Diversity analysis Key to tables An
Page 107 and 108:
Diversity analysis Key to tables An
Page 109 and 110:
Prisoner survey responses HMP Donca
Page 111 and 112:
Key to tables Any percentage highli
Page 113 and 114:
Key to tables Any percentage highli
show all

HMP Doncaster

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?