This is just one of the 118 prison establishment entries that we have on The Prison Oracle.
Each one is updated immediately new information such as an Inspection or IMB Report is available, and you can access all the others establishment entries, along with 44,000 pages of other prison-related information, for less than the cost of a cup of coffee a week – Learn More
This section is designed to give you a quick overview of the events, reports, concerns and news items concerning this establishment – only The Prison Oracle gives you this; simple just as it should be!
- 14th May: Highly critical HMCIP Inspection Report published – Learn More
- 12th June: IMB Annual Report published – Learn More
- 16th July: Action Plan agreed to correct the identified failings – Learn More
- 16th January: HM Prisons Inspectorate published a new Independent Review of Progress (IRP) Inspection Report of an IRP carried out in December 2019 – when they found a ‘renewed sense of purpose and promising improvement – Learn More
Task of the establishment:
Category B male local/resettlement prison, which also holds category C and D prisoners.
Certified normal accommodation and operational capacity:
Prisoners held January 2020: 587
Baseline certified normal capacity: 617
In-use certified normal capacity: 617
Operational capacity: 692
Brief history, Role and Residential information
HMP Lewes, which opened in 1853, is a male, category B local prison serving the courts of East and West Sussex. It accommodates sentenced, unsentenced and remand category B and category C prisoners aged 21 and above as well as young prisoners (aged 18 – 20). It also takes category D men returned from open conditions.
Four years ago, in 2016, HMP Lewes was put into ‘special measures’ – meaning it was the subject of greater control from Prison Service Headquarters – as it was seen as a failing prison. In May 2019 HMP Lewes was the subject of a scathing report by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in which he said that despite the Special Measures the prison had continued to decline.
In January 2020 in an Independent Review of Progress Report the Chief Inspector found the prison much improved ‘with a renewed sense of purpose and promising improvements’.
The certified normal accommodation (CNA) for HMP Lewes is 617 prisoners; that is the ideal maximum population of the prison. The operational capacity is the ‘population which could be accommodated without risk of disruption through overcrowding’. For HMP Lewes the operational capacity is 692. At the beginning of January 2020 HMP Lewes held 587 prisoners.
Most of the prison buildings are Victorian in origin, with the main buildings completed in 1853. A newer block of two wings, Sussex (L and M wings), was opened in 2008. There are nine residential wings (capacities approximate as cells in use can vary):
A wing: a general wing for drug recovery, housing of around 134
B wing: the Segregation Unit. 16 cells including 2 high risk and 2 special accommodation cells
C Wing: a general wing housing around 150
F Wing: mainly a vulnerable prisoner wing, housing around 173 men
G Wing: the First Night Centre with a capacity of 23
K Wing: a drug/alcohol dependency stabilisation wing housing around 22
L Wing: a wing for sentenced Category C and D prisoners (single cells housing around 80)
M Wing: a general wing (single cells housing around 94)
Health Care Centre (HCC): an acute inpatient facility with 12 cells
There is also a large, well-equipped gym and second sports hall for prisoner use.
The main providers of services to the prison are:
GEO Amey (transport to and from the courts and local prisons)
Government Facility Services Limited (GFSL)
DHL (ordering and delivering prisoners’ purchases)
Bidfood kitchen supplies
East Sussex County Council Library Services
NOVUS (education and learning)
Kent, Surrey and Sussex Community Rehabilitation Company (KSS CRC)
In the area of healthcare there are at least 8 different suppliers:
– Sussex Partnership Foundation Trust (SPFT) (in patients, outpatients, clinics, screenings, dental nurse, pharmacy, in-reach mental health) contracted via National Health Service England (NHSE)
– Optician sole trader subcontracted via SPFT
– Med-Co Secure Healthcare Services Ltd contracted via NHSE providing general practitioner clinics
– Dentist sub-contracted sole trader via NHSE
You can book a social visit online at: https://www.gov.uk/prison-visits
To use this online service to book a social visit to a prisoner in England or Wales, you will need:
- Prisoner’s number
- Prisoner’s date of birth.
- Dates of birth for all visitors coming with you.
The prisoner must add you to their visitor list before you can book a visit.
You’ll get an email confirming your visit and it takes 1 to 3 days.
Visits – Contact the prison directly if you need to arrange any of the following:
- Legal visits, for example a solicitor discussing the prisoner’s case
- Official Prison Visits (visits by people approved by the Governor/Director to visit prisoners who have no other visits)
- Reception visits, for example the first visit to the prisoner within 72 hours of being admitted
- Double visits, for example visiting for 2 hours instead of 1
- Family Day visits – special family events that the prison organises
A prison’s Facilities List is an important document.
What personal items a prisoner may be allowed to have with them in their cell in a particular prison, the amount they can have of each item, and the mechanism by which they must obtain those items is governed by the prison’s ‘Facilities List’ – each prison’s Facilities List is unique to each prison.
Whether a prisoner can have a particular item on a prison’s Facilities List depends on their status as a remand or convicted prisoner, their level on the Incentive Earned Privileges Scheme, and Volumetric Control limits. Full details of the Incentive Earned Privileges Scheme and Volumetric Control Limits are in the ‘Reception to Release’ Advice Portal, available to Standard Members and above.
HMIP Latest Inspection Report
Date of last inspection: 14, 21–25 January 2019
Date of publication: 14 May 2019
Notable features from this inspection:
- 26% of prisoners were unsentenced.
- 201 prisoners presented a high or very high risk of harm.
- The prison held 85 prisoners who were on the sex offenders register.
- 54% of prisoners were category C.
HMCIP Executive Summary
HMP Lewes is a medium-sized category B local prison. At the time of this inspection it held around 580 male prisoners, both sentenced and on remand. The prison was last inspected in January 2016. On that occasion we found it to be reasonably good in the areas of respect and resettlement, and not sufficiently good in the areas of safety and purposeful activity. Unfortunately, the findings of this inspection were deeply troubling and indicative of systemic failure within the prison service. HM Inspectorate of Prisons found that in three areas – respect, purposeful activity and rehabilitation and release planning – there had been a decline in performance to such an extent that they all attracted a lower assessment than at the last inspection. In the fourth area, the key one of safety, although performance was not so poor as to drag the assessment to the lowest possible level, it was undoubtedly heading in that direction, unless in the near future there was to be decisive intervention to halt the decline in standards. A good start would be if the findings of this inspection were to be taken more seriously than has been the case in the past. We found that in the three years since the last inspection, a mere 10 out of the 54 recommendations we made on that occasion had been fully achieved. Our experience as an inspectorate is that prisons which pay so little attention to inspection findings will inevitably fail to improve.
What makes the decline at Lewes even more difficult to understand is the fact that two years ago HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) put the prison into what it described as ‘special measures’. I have examined the ‘Improving Lewes (Special Measures) Action Plan’ agreed with senior HMPPS management in August 2018. However, of the 45 action points in the plan, 39 had not been completed and the majority were described as requiring ‘major development’. There were over 50 references to reviewing activity in the plan, but a noticeable dearth of hard targets. The results of this inspection clearly showed that, far from delivering better outcomes, two years of ‘special measures’ had coincided with a serious decline in performance. In short, unless in the future HMP Lewes benefits from strong leadership and a realistic action plan focused on delivering clear, measurable outcomes, it is highly likely that the use of the Urgent Notification procedure will have to be considered at some point.
In terms of safety, there was a great deal of urgent work to be done. Since the last inspection there had been five self-inflicted deaths, and incidents of self-harm had tripled. Meanwhile, there had been an inadequate response to recommendations made by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) in response to those deaths. While levels of violence were broadly similar to those we saw at the last inspection, assaults against staff had risen and a quarter of prisoners felt unsafe at the time of the inspection. There was a backlog of investigations into acts of violence, a situation that clearly inhibited the ability of the prison to take a more informed and proactive approach to violence reduction.
The availability of illicit drugs undoubtedly sat behind much of the violence. Fifty-nine per cent of prisoners told us it was easy to get hold of drugs in the prison, and 14% had acquired a drug habit after entering the jail. Despite this, the devices to detect contraband and drugs had not been working since April 2018, and I was told this was because of ‘procurement’ difficulties. If ‘special measures’ was intended to help the prison overcome this type of bureaucratic obstacle, it had failed.
Despite the many weaknesses we found in the performance of the prison, it is notable that 78% of prisoners told us that staff treated them with respect. This was an unusually high figure for this type of prison, and added weight to the notion that the problems at Lewes were not insoluble, but did require significant management intervention. For instance, this report sets out very real weaknesses in the leadership and management of health care in the prison, and also in the provision of sufficient activity for the prisoners. Our colleagues from Ofsted were clear in their view that there was no clear strategy for the delivery of learning and skills, and indeed allocation to activities appeared to be a matter of luck. During the inspection I saw workshops and classrooms where attendance was very poor, and it was clear that there was insufficient attention being paid to getting prisoners into activities. As a result, while time out of cell was good for those attending activities, it was not so good for those not attending, and we found 40% of prisoners locked in their cells during the working day.
A similar picture emerged in the area of rehabilitation and release planning, where a lack of leadership meant that there was weak strategic management, and the reducing reoffending strategy was out of date. Notably, only one of nine recommendations made in this area at the last inspection had been fully achieved.
Overall, this was a very disappointing inspection. I would recommend readers to look carefully at the detail contained in this report, as it brings into question the utility of ‘special measures’ if a prison can decline so badly when supposedly benefitting from them for a full two years. It also validates the Inspectorate’s new Independent Reviews of Progress, which are specifically designed to give ministers a report of progress against previous inspection reports at struggling prisons such as Lewes. A new governor had taken up post shortly before this inspection, and she will need support from her own management team and from more senior levels in HMPPS if the decline at HMP Lewes is to be arrested and reversed.
Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Summary – HMIP
Arrival and first night procedures were generally good, but induction was weak. The prison was relatively calm and levels of violence were similar to those at the previous inspection. However, many incidents were serious and the management of violence reduction work was not sufficiently rigorous or strategic. Use of force was high; management scrutiny of incidents had improved, and documents and recordings showed that force was generally proportionate. The segregation unit was managed reasonably well but cells were in a poor state. There had been some improvements to security, but aspects of procedural security were not sufficiently robust. Efforts to reduce the supply of drugs were undermined by lack of use of technology. Self-harm was high and there had been five self-inflicted deaths since the previous inspection. Management processes for at-risk prisoners remained weak, and not enough Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) recommendations had been achieved. Outcomes for prisoners were not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test.
At the last inspection in 2015-16 we found that outcomes for prisoners in Lewes were not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test. We made 17 recommendations in the area of safety. (This included recommendations about substance use treatment, which in our updated Expectations (Version 5, 2017) now appear under the healthy prison area of respect.) At this inspection we found that four of the recommendations had been achieved, four had been partially achieved and 9 had not been achieved.
Prisoners were positive about treatment by escort staff, and escort vehicles were clean and well maintained. Reception processes were generally efficient, although some new arrivals spent too much time waiting there before going to the first night unit. First night interviews were now conducted in a confidential setting and the assessment of risk was reasonable. Many first night cells were in poor condition. Induction was superficial and not sufficiently informative, and not provided for all prisoners.
Levels of violence were similar to those at our previous inspection, but nearly a fifth of assaults were serious and the number of assaults against staff had nearly doubled. The prison did not yet have an effective strategic response to violence. The safer custody team was under-resourced. The management of perpetrators of violence and bullying was usually limited to placing prisoners on the basic level of the incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme. There was no ongoing support for victims of violence. Over a quarter of violent incident investigations were outstanding. Investigations had improved recently and were now of reasonable quality. The few self-isolating prisoners were known to the prison, and they reported some good support from wing staff. The IEP scheme was applied fairly, but there were not enough differentials between the levels of the scheme and they offered few incentives for good behaviour. Managerial oversight of adjudication hearings was insufficient. Adjudication documentation was reasonable overall but a few cases lacked enquiry and explanation. About a quarter of adjudications were dismissed or not proceeded with, often because of avoidable delays, and the number of outstanding police referrals was high.
Use of force had more than doubled since our previous inspection and was higher than similar prisons. The quality of use of force reports was adequate but the documentation, including injury to prisoner forms, was often incomplete. Use of force incidents, including video footage were now scrutinised at a useful weekly meeting, which identified lessons and provided actions. There was extensive staff use of body-worn cameras, although not all planned interventions had been routinely recorded. Video footage generally demonstrated effective briefings, good attempts at de-escalation and appropriate use of control and restraint. Baton draws were now regularly reviewed. In one case, the drawing of batons was not justified. Use of special accommodation was high and for lengthy periods, but it was generally justified.
Use of segregation was higher than at similar prisons. Segregation documentation was reasonable but behavioural targets were too generic. Segregation unit staff relationships with prisoners were professional, and prisoners were generally positive about their treatment in the unit. Communal areas were clean, but cells were grubby, with soiled toilets and no lids, and some contained gang graffiti. The two exercise yards were austere and claustrophobic. A high number of prisoners on assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) case management for risk of suicide or self-harm continued to be held in the segregation unit. The exceptional reasons given to justify this were adequate, but not always regularly reviewed to reflect the prisoner’s changing circumstances.
Security arrangements were generally proportionate and did not unnecessarily restrict prisoners’ access to the regime. Active measures were taken to combat key threats, including installing overhead netting. The security committee was well attended, but agreed security objectives were not communicated widely. Over 3,000 intelligence reports had been submitted in the previous six months. The processing and management of reports had been improving but too many were still outstanding and resulting actions were not tracked. The mandatory drug testing (MDT) rate, including tests for new psychoactive substances (NPS), (NPS generally refers to synthetic cannabinoids, a growing number of man-made mind-altering chemicals that are either sprayed on dried, shredded plant material or paper so they can be smoked or sold as liquids to be vaporized and inhaled in e-cigarettes and other devices.) was relatively high at 22%. In our survey, half of prisoners said it was easy to get illegal drugs in the prison. Very few suspicion MDT tests were completed. X-ray machines had been out of action since April 2018, and the equipment to detect drugs on incoming post was not yet in use. There was some evidence of effective local corruption prevention processes, but they were not sufficiently promoted to staff.
There had been five self-inflicted deaths since the previous inspection. The death in custody action plan arising from the recommendations of the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman was comprehensive, but most actions had not been implemented. Levels of self-harm were high, with over 300 incidents in the previous six months. There had been small improvements to ACCT processes, but they remained poor overall and lacked sufficient health care input. There was no clear strategy to reduce self-harm based on a robust analysis of data. Although self-harm data were presented at safer custody meetings, there was little documented discussion or actions arising. Serious safeguarding risks to prisoners had not always been recognised and acted on promptly. The Listeners, prisoners trained by the Samaritans to provide confidential emotional support to fellow prisoners, were well supported and prisoners had reasonably good access to them.
Staff-prisoner relationships were reasonably good, but staff were too passive in their management of prisoners. The newer parts of the prison were generally clean, but the older units were not, and some cells were in a poor state, including graffiti and ingrained dirt. Prisoner consultation was reasonable. The applications system was not effective. Responses to complaints addressed the issues raised but were often late. Equality and diversity work had been improving but was still weak. Faith provision was very good. There were substantial weaknesses in health provision, especially mental health and nurse- led primary care. Substance misuse services were good. Outcomes for prisoners were not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test.
At the last inspection in 2015-16 we found that outcomes for prisoners in Lewes were reasonably good against this healthy prison test. We made 20 recommendations in the area of respect. At this inspection we found that four of the recommendations had been achieved, five had been partially achieved and 11 had not been achieved.
Over three-quarters of prisoners in our survey said that most staff treated them with respect. We did not observe poor conduct by staff, but they were often too passive in managing prisoners. Poor behaviour went unchallenged, including drug use on the wings, and not enough staff encouraged attendance at work or education. The keyworker scheme (allocating named staff to individual prisoners for regular contact) was being rolled out. The scheme had a quality assurance system but feedback on quality was not shared with keyworkers themselves.
Many cells contained graffiti, often abusive, and recent efforts to paint cells were long overdue. Most cells had basic furniture but no lockable cabinets. No cells had curtains. Toilets were reasonably well screened but none had suitable lids, and most showers were in a poor state. Cleanliness was generally poor on the older wings but reasonable on the three newer wings. Outside areas were reasonably clean but we saw rats and a large amount of bird droppings on outside buildings. While most prisoners had their own cells, 67 cells designed for single occupancy were shared by two. Laundry arrangements were adequate but access to basic toiletries was sporadic.
Food was of reasonable quality but meals were served too early. Prison shop arrangements were reasonable and met the need of prisoners. Prisoners employed in the kitchen had not received basic food handling training. Large amounts of waste food were left on serveries. Prisoner consultative meetings took place monthly and were generally well attended.
Points discussed were meaningful and tangible actions were taken. Most prisoners we spoke to were complimentary about prisoner information desks. However, the applications system was not working effectively and lacked monitoring. Staff responses to prisoner complaints generally answered the concerns raised, but too many were late and some were not legible. The library held a reasonable range of legal texts and Prison Service instructions. Legal visits provision was good. Despite some improvements in the management of equality work, it remained weak. There were quarterly management meetings, but action planning was poor. There was some analysis of equality monitoring data, but not enough was done to understand and act on concerns raised by the data. There had been some celebrations of cultural events. There were few discrimination incident reports. The quality of completed responses was reasonable but not all had had a response. There were no regular forums for prisoners in protected groups. There was very limited support for foreign nationals, and staff did not use professional interpreters when they should have. Older prisoners and those with physical disabilities were reasonably well cared for on F wing, but there was unmet need on other wings. Transgender prisoners were reasonably content with their treatment. There were substantial gaps in identifying needs for other groups, including Travellers, gay/bisexual prisoners and younger prisoners. Faith and pastoral care provision by the chaplaincy was very good. Prisoners could access corporate worship and education for all the main religions. The chaplaincy provided good opportunities for prisoners to become involved in victim awareness work.
Many prisoners were very negative about the health services, with two-thirds of prisoners in our survey responding that the overall quality was quite or very bad. Services had deteriorated since our previous inspection, most notably mental health services and the provision of nurse-led primary care. In our survey, over half of prisoners said they had mental health problems. Waiting lists were lengthy and the under-resourced integrated mental health team could not meet the level of need. The range of primary care services was limited and the oversight of prisoners with long-term conditions was poor. The application process for health appointments was very poorly managed. We found 143 outstanding applications, presenting significant risks to prisoner care. Managers did not have accurate data on waiting times.
The inpatient unit continued to provide good quality care for some of the most seriously ill patients. However, it still lacked a therapeutic regime and some of the cells were in poor condition. There were five prisoners receiving funded social care packages, and they received good quality care. The Forward Trust provided good clinical and psychosocial services for prisoners requiring substance use treatment. Prison officers did not always manage medication queues effectively, which continued to compromise confidentiality and increased the opportunity for medication diversion. Dental care was good but some aspects of governance needed immediate attention, particularly the maintenance of fixed equipment.
Time out of cell had improved but over 40% of prisoners were still locked up during the working day. The library and gym provision were good. Leadership and management of learning, skills and work were inadequate, with little substantive progress since the previous inspection. There were insufficient activity places and attendance at them was poor. Prisoners who did attend behaved and engaged well. The quality of teaching and learning was not consistently good. Achievements in most vocational training were high, but poor in English and maths. Outcomes for prisoners were poor against this healthy prison test.
At the last inspection in 2015-16 we found that outcomes for prisoners in Lewes were not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test. We made seven recommendations in the area of purposeful activity. At this inspection we found that none of the recommendations had been achieved, three had been partially achieved and four had not been achieved.
Time out of cell for prisoners who were working or engaged in activities was reasonably good, but those who were not working could be locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. Weekend time out of cell was reasonable. In each of our working day roll checks we found over 40% of prisoners locked behind their doors. There was a well- equipped gym and access was good for prisoners from all units. Some remedial sessions were run, and a few prisoners had benefited from a good sports leadership and management course. The library was accessible to all for two hours a week on rotation, although some prisoners were not unlocked to attend. It was well stocked, and ran an impressive range of events, which included visiting speakers, well-being sessions and a debating club.
Prison and Novus managers’ assessment of learning and skills provision was broadly accurate, but they had been too slow in making improvements. The prison only had enough activity places for about two-thirds of the population. Too many prisoners were unemployed and had little to do. Much of the work was low level and repetitive. Allocation to work and training did not take sufficient account of prisoners’ needs or predicted stay, and did not ensure the full and efficient use of the places available. Prison managers understood the challenges facing them but did not have a clear strategy for learning and skills.
The education and training provided by Novus required improvement. Observations of teaching and learning had not been extended to all provision in the prison. The curriculum was narrow, but reasonable for the majority who did not stay for very long.
Teaching, learning and assessment in education and vocational training were not good enough. Teachers’ planning did not take sufficient account of individual needs, in particular for the more able. The majority of marking and assessment did not help prisoners to understand what they did well and what they needed to do to improve. Learning peer mentors were well trained and provided effective support and guidance. Attendance rates were persistently low and over a third of those allocated to education failed to attend. In lessons, training and work, prisoners were well behaved and respectful to their teachers, supervisors and peers. In production workshops, prisoners were productive and disciplined. However, not enough attention was given to developing skills and behaviours for future progression or work. Too few prisoners addressed their lack of qualifications in English and maths, and success rates in these qualifications were low. The majority of prisoners who completed their courses achieved their qualifications. The prison had not ensured that prisoners had access to impartial, high- quality careers information and guidance following the end of the National Careers Service contract.
The children’s charity Spurgeons provided good and developing support to prisoners’ families. The visits environment had improved. The strategic management of rehabilitation work was weak. Although there was some good work, especially by probation officers, the offender management unit (OMU) was under-resourced and too reactive. Too many offender assessment system (OASys) assessments were incomplete or late. Public protection procedures were generally robust. Categorisation and home detention curfew (HDC) processes were reasonably effective. Release plans were not always done where needed. Too many prisoners were released without stable accommodation, despite good efforts by the community rehabilitation company (CRC). (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 has maintained responsibility for high- and very high-risk offenders.) Outcomes for prisoners were not sufficiently good against this healthy prison test.
At the last inspection in 2015-16 we found that outcomes for prisoners in Lewes were reasonably good against this healthy prison test. We made 10 recommendations in the area of resettlement. (This included recommendations about reintegration planning for drugs and alcohol and reintegration issues for education, skills and work, which in our updated Expectations (Version 5, 2017) now appear under the healthy prison areas of respect and purposeful activity respectively.) At this inspection we found that two of the recommendations had been achieved, four had been partially achieved and four had not been achieved.
Visits provision was generally good, although there were no sessions in the morning at weekends when we were told that demand was greatest. Spurgeons ran a welcoming visitors’ centre and provided a range of helpful family support, which was being further developed. There were regular family days and a playworker in the visits hall, and a parenting programme was being piloted. The governor ran a bimonthly meeting with visitors, which had resulted in some improvements for families. The visits hall was now a cleaner and brighter environment, with a children’s play area for younger children. There was no provision for older children and no toilets for prisoners or their visitors. Prisoners had experienced unacceptable delays of several days, and sometimes weeks, in sending and receiving their mail.
The prison continued to hold a complex mixture of remand and sentenced prisoners, including a sizeable number of sex offenders. The reducing reoffending committee had met only four times in 2018, and OMU managers had attended only two of these meetings. The reducing reoffending strategy was out of date. The criminogenic factors of the population had not been analysed recently. Offender supervisors were now rarely cross-deployed but the OMU was under- resourced. Caseloads were large, with some probation officers managing over 90 cases. Too many OASys assessments were incomplete or late, and the quality was variable. OMU staff contact with prisoners was insufficient and reactive. Offender supervisors and probation officers did not record contact with prisoners on the P-NOMIS Prison Service IT system, which undermined coordinated offender management. The quality of probation officers’ initial work was often good but there was a lack of effective follow up.
About 200 prisoners presented a high or very high risk of harm. Work to protect the public was sound. Restrictions on contact between prisoners and the public were robustly identified and monitoring arrangements were good. The quality of multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) assessment reports was exceptionally good, but not all relevant prisoners were assigned a MAPPA level before their release. The inter-departmental risk management committee was largely effective. Recategorisation arrangements were adequate, with about 30% of boards leading to a lower categorisation. HDC assessments and releases were timely. Many prisoners were transferred without excessive delay, but the lack of a programme needs assessor slowed the transfer of sex offenders to access suitable programmes. The prison offered two offending behaviour programmes, the Resolve intervention for violent offenders and the Thinking Skills Programme. Staffing shortfalls had meant that only four instead of the scheduled six programmes had run since April 2018. The CRC helped prisoners with basic finance and debt problems, and 40 prisoners had made bank account applications in the previous year. Experienced advisers from the Southdown charity attended the prison every weekday to support prisoners with their housing needs, including support to keep tenancies and address homelessness. Despite their good efforts, 18% of prisoners had been discharged homeless in the previous six months. The Sussex Pathways charity provided a helpful through-the-gate mentoring service and a course on life skills and mindfulness. In theory, the CRC should have completed a resettlement plan with all prisoners 12 weeks before their release. In practice, this did not always happen and we had found cases of unmet need. Prisoners had poor awareness of the CRC’s work and too many did not attend their appointments. There was a lack of coordinated working between the CRC and the OMU. Where plans were completed, there was some useful work to plan for prisoners’ release.
Concerns and recommendations
Concern: Nearly a fifth of all assaults were serious and the number of assaults against staff had nearly doubled. The prison did not yet have an effective strategic response to violence. The safer custody team was under-resourced and there was insufficient follow up of concerns identified at safer custody meetings. The management of perpetrators of violence and support for victims were weak. Too many violent incident investigations were incomplete, and there was no violence reduction action plan.
Recommendation: The prison should develop a comprehensive violence reduction action plan, which is driven forward by a sufficiently resourced safer custody team and regularly monitored to establish its effectiveness.
Concern: Levels of self-harm were high and there had been five self-inflicted deaths since the previous inspection. Despite this, there was no clear strategy, based on a robust analysis of data, to reduce self-harm. The quality of case management documentation remained poor and lacked sufficient health care input.
Recommendation: The prison should implement a strategy to reduce self-harm, which is based on a robust analysis of self-harm data and delivers consistently good care for prisoners at risk of self- harm through multidisciplinary assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) case management.
Concern: Health governance structures did not effectively address risks and concerns such as the under-resourced mental health services, long waiting lists and the very poorly managed health care applications process; we found large numbers of applications that had received no action, entailing significant risks to prisoner well-being.
Recommendation: Health governance structures should be robust enough to identify and effectively address key risks and concerns, and should ensure that prisoners have prompt access to all health services.
Concern: The prison had insufficient activity places to meet the needs of the population and attendance at allocated activities was poor. Around 40% of prisoners were locked up during the working day.
Recommendation: The prison should provide opportunities for all prisoners to engage with education, skills and work-related activities, and ensure that they do so.
Concern: The strategic management of rehabilitation work was weak. Prison departments did not work closely to reduce the risk of reoffending. Offender management unit staff did not record all contact they had with prisoners on P-NOMIS case notes, which undermined coordinated working. The criminogenic factors in the population had not been addressed. A large number of sex offenders were held yet there was no detailed strategy to reduce their risks.
Recommendation: There should be a prison- wide approach to offender management, based on a robust needs analysis. It should include effective joint working and information exchange, a common approach to record- keeping, and a detailed strategy for managing the large number of sex offenders.
The Prison Service and Prisons Inspectorate have agreed an Action Plan to correct the failings identified in the recent inspection of this establishment. The Full Action Plan is only available to our Enhanced and Corporate Members.
You can quickly upgrade your membership to Enhanced or Corporate by clicking the links above or you can compare all our memberships by clicking Upgrade Now below:
Independent Review of Progress Report
Date of last inspection: 2–4 December 2019
Date of publication: 16 January 2020
- At this IRP visit, we followed up 12 of the 53 recommendations made at our most recent inspection and made judgements about the degree of progress achieved to date. Ofsted followed up three themes.
- We judged that there was good progress in three recommendations, reasonable progress in six recommendations, and insufficient progress in three recommendations. There was no meaningful progress in any of the recommendations. A summary of the judgements is as follows.
4 This pie chart excludes any recommendations that were followed up as part of a theme within Ofsted’s concurrent prison monitoring visit.
Figure 2: Judgements against HMI Prisons recommendations from 2019 inspection
|The prison should develop a comprehensive violence reduction action plan, which is driven forward by a sufficiently resourced safer custody team and regularly monitored to establish its effectiveness. (S39)||Reasonable progress|
|The prison should implement a strategy to reduce self-harm, which is based on a robust analysis of self-harm data and delivers consistently good care for prisoners at risk of self-harm through multidisciplinary assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCT) case management. (S40)||Reasonable progress|
|Health governance structures should be robust enough to identify and effectively address key risks and concerns and should ensure that prisoners have prompt access to all health services. (S41)||Reasonable progress|
|There should be a prison-wide approach to offender management, based on a robust needs analysis. It should include effective joint working and information exchange, a common approach to record-keeping, and a detailed strategy for managing the large number of sex offenders. (S43)||Reasonable progress|
|Rigorous governance of use of force should ensure that documentation is completed promptly and thoroughly, and that all planned incidents are recorded. (1.27)||Good progress|
|Measures to identify and control drug supply, including suspicion testing and use of technology, should be implemented systematically. (1.43)||Reasonable progress|
|Managers should ensure that staff actively support prisoners and challenge poor behaviour. (2.3)||Insufficient progress|
|Cells, wings and outside areas should be kept clean. (2.10)||Reasonable progress|
|All health care staff should receive regular clinical and managerial supervision and be up to date with mandatory training. (2.52)||Good progress|
|Prisoners with long-term health conditions should receive regular reviews by trained staff, informed by an evidence-based care plan. (2.70)||Insufficient progress|
|Prisoners referred to the service should be reviewed and assessed promptly and offered a suitable range of mental health interventions within agreed timescales. (2.86)||Good progress|
|All eligible prisoners should have an up-to-date OASys assessment. Offender management should proactively engage prisoners and focus on progression and the reduction of risk of harm. (4.15)||Insufficient progress|
- Ofsted judged that there was reasonable progress in one theme and insufficient progress in two themes. The was significant progress in none of the themes.
Figure 4: Judgements against Ofsted themes5 from 2019 inspection
|What progress have leaders and managers made with their strategies to improve the provision of education, skills and work, ensuring that all prisoners are adequately allocated to activities, enabling them to participate in training and qualifications that increase their chances of employability on release?||Insufficient|
|What progress have leaders and managers made in improving the quality of teaching, learning and assessment for all groups of learners, ensuring that teachers plan learning to enable prisoners to make good progress, using good learning resources and developing prisoners’ English and mathematics skills?||Reasonable|
|What progress have leaders and managers made in securing good quality work provision that enables prisoners to develop a work ethic and in ensuring that a high number of prisoners complete their qualifications and achieve well?||Insufficient|
5 Ofsted’s themes incorporate the key concerns at the previous inspection in respect of education, skills and work.
Section 1. Chief Inspector's Summary
1.1 At our inspection of HMP Lewes in 2019 we made the following judgements about outcomes for prisoners.
1.2 HMP Lewes in East Sussex is a medium-sized category B local prison. Its main function is to serve the local courts by holding unsentenced and newly sentenced prisoners. The average length of stay is short at about nine weeks. In addition to this core function, the prison holds recalled prisoners and those with a variety of sentence lengths, including lifers and those convicted of sexual offences. Like many other local prisons, it dates from the Victorian era and much of its infrastructure is old and cramped.
1.3 When we inspected the prison in January 2019, it had been in ‘special measures’ for two years, but outcomes for prisoners were declining rather than improving. A great deal of urgent work was needed to improve safety. The number of assaults against staff was high, a fifth of all assaults were serious and a quarter of prisoners said they felt unsafe. Despite this, the prison lacked an effective strategy for reducing violence. Force was used frequently, but its oversight was poor, and far too much paperwork justifying its use was missing. Illicit drugs were a big security problem, yet the prison had not done enough to identify or control their supply. Self-harm was common and five prisoners had taken their own lives between our 2016 and 2019 inspections. Again, the prison lacked an adequate strategic response to this problem. Many prisoners reported that staff treated them with respect, but a number of officers lacked authority and were too passive in their interactions with prisoners. Cleanliness on wings was generally poor and there were rats and large amounts of bird droppings in outside areas. We found very real weaknesses in the leadership and management of health services. These deficiencies meant our colleagues in the Care Quality Commission issued requirement notices relating to three breaches of the commission’s regulations. Mental health services, nurse-led primary care and care for prisoners with long- term conditions were poor. Ofsted judged the overall effectiveness of education, skills and work provision as inadequate, its lowest score. Teaching and prisoners’ learning were not good enough. Too many prisoners were unemployed, with only enough activity places for two-thirds of the population. Prison managers were aware of these problems but did not have a clear strategy for improving learning and skills. Not enough was done to reduce the risks of prisoners reoffending after release. More than 100 assessments of prisoners’ risks were out of date or had not been completed. Prison departments did not work closely to reduce prisoners’ risks and had not adequately analysed the population’s needs. As in many other areas of the prison, there was no overarching strategy for driving improvement in this area.
1.4 During this independent review of progress, we found a prison with a renewed sense of purpose and direction. The prison had been taken out of special measures and had discarded the associated bureaucracy and ineffective action plan. The governor and her senior managers understood our concerns and recommendations, and had formulated a more realistic and focused plan for improvement. We were pleased to find that the prison had made good or reasonably good progress in two-thirds of the areas that we reviewed during this visit.
1.5 The prison had consulted staff and prisoners about what was causing violence in the prison. This consultation had informed a revised safety strategy and action plan. The safer custody team was now better resourced. However, these positive developments had yet to translate into reduced levels of violence. There were in fact now more assaults against staff than at the time of the inspection.
1.6 Managers now had much better oversight of the use of force than at the inspection. Nearly all planned incidents were video-recorded and the amount of outstanding paperwork justifying the use of force had been greatly reduced.
1.7 The number of prisoners testing positive in random drug tests had fallen. Prison staff were making much better use of technology and search dogs to disrupt the supply of drugs. However, staff were still not carrying out enough targeted drug tests following the receipt of intelligence.
1.8 The number of self-harm incidents in the previous six months had declined by over a third compared to a similar period before the inspection. One prisoner had taken their own life following our inspection. Managers had used an analysis of self-harm data to inform a new comprehensive strategy but had yet to publish it. Despite regular quality assurance, assessment, care in custody and team work documentation for those at risk of suicide or self-harm required improvement.
1.9 Managers assertively challenged prisoners’ antisocial behaviour, but officers’ approaches were not always consistent. Despite this, officers were generally supportive of prisoners in their care.
1.10 Managers now paid more attention to cleanliness and hygiene, and overall standards had improved. The problem with rats had been tackled. Offensive displays were no longer visible and graffiti had been reduced. Despite these improvements, some showers were run down and dirty, while many communal areas remained untidy.
1.11 Health governance structures had improved, and health care staff now received clinical and managerial supervision. Care for prisoners with long-term health conditions had also improved but was undermined by the large number of prisoners who did not attend their appointments. The mental health service was better than at the inspection, and more interventions were available.
1.12 There were still insufficient activity places for the population and some prisoners remained unemployed for more than two months. Officers did not routinely challenge prisoners who chose not to attend an activity. The overall quality of teaching, learning and assessment had improved. Prisoners could now study short modules in English and mathematics, which were better suited to the prison with its high turnover of prisoners. However, not enough prisoners benefited from work-related qualifications.
1.13 The prison had published an offender management strategy and established a committee to improve joint working and information sharing between departments involved in prisoners’ rehabilitation. The prison held fewer registered sex offenders than before and had implemented a sensible strategy for managing the population and ensuring prisoners progressed to a more suitable prison.
1.14 The number of prisoners without an offender assessment system (OASys) report had been reduced, but the prison could not tell us how many OASys assessments needed to be reviewed. While some offender management unit staff had frequent, good quality contact with prisoners on their caseload, others did not. Proactive interactions with prisoners were hampered by staff shortages and a lack of suitable interview rooms.
1.15 Overall, this was a promising review. The governor and her senior managers were taking the prison in the right direction. They were realistic about the scale of the challenges they faced and understood that further progress would require sustained effort and vigour. Their challenge now is to build on the progress they have made since the inspection and to translate this work into positive outcomes for prisoners. Nevertheless, they should be congratulated on what they have achieved so far.
Peter Clarke CVO OBE QPM
HM Chief Inspector of Prisons
Independent Monitoring Board
The law requires every prison to be monitored by an independent Board appointed by the Justice Secretary; these are known as Independent Monitoring Boards (IMBs). The IMB must satisfy itself as to the humane and just treatment of those held in custody within its prison and the range and adequacy of the programmes preparing them for release; it must report annually to the Justice Secretary on how well the prison has met the standards and requirements placed on it.
Latest IMB Annual Report
February 2018 to January 2019
Published June 2019
Introduction to this report
This report represents the findings of the Independent Monitoring Board (the Board) at HMP Lewes for the period February 2018 to January 2019. IMB evidence comes from observations made on visits, scrutiny of records and data, informal contact with prisoners and staff and prisoner applications.
The Board is concerned about the safety of prisoners in HMP Lewes, evidenced by a large increase in prisoner-on-prisoner violence during the reporting year and the levels of self- harm. The high availability of drugs also affects the stability of the prison and the safety of prisoners.
The Board considers the residential accommodation at HMP Lewes is often not decent. The Board considers that the regime offered to prisoners, while more predictable than in recent reporting years, does not allow men to be unlocked enough.
The Board is concerned about the number of men, sometimes on open assessment, care in custody and teamwork (ACCTs) who have been kept in the Segregation Unit for long periods of time and the increase in the prison’s use of special accommodation, including four times that the Board is aware of that it was used without authorisation.
The Board has found that for much of the reporting year the delivery of healthcare services has suffered from staff shortages and poor process and communications which have significantly impacted the care provided for prisoners. Waiting times for routine GP appointments and for the dentist have been in no way comparable to that which would be expected in the community.
The Board welcomes the improvements over the last year brought about by the prison’s partnership with the charity Spurgeons, who have created a visitors’ centre where no facilities previously existed. The Board also welcomes the introduction and training of key workers under the offender management in custody model (OMiC), however it is concerned that actual delivery of sessions has been limited.
Are prisoners treated fairly?
The Board sees many examples of staff treating prisoners fairly and acknowledges the efforts made to achieve this. However, the Board considers that prisoners have not always had fair access to healthcare services during the reporting year and that disabled prisoners do not always have fair access to their accommodation.
Further, a backlog in preparing OASys reports, resulting in many men not having sentence plans, is unfair to them as it limits their rehabilitation prospects.
Prisoners making complaints have at times faced considerable delays in receiving responses to their complaints.
The Board considers that an insufficient induction process is not fair to men who are new to prison or HMP Lewes.
Are prisoners treated humanely?
As above, the Board sees many examples of staff treating prisoners with humanity, kindness and great patience. However, the Board considers that the accommodation provided at HMP Lewes often fails to be decent and that, although improved, there are still major failings in the regime offered: men who do not go to work or education are likely to be locked up for more than 22 hours a day. The Board does not consider this humane treatment.
Are prisoners prepared well for their release?
The Board considers that more could be done to prepare men for their release. The lack of activity places for prisoners, coupled with low attendance levels for those that do exist, means that prisoners are not always prepared as for release as well as they could be. Further, the frequent closure of the induction and pre-release centre (IP-RC) reduces the opportunities for prisoners to make resettlement plans.
Main Areas for Development
TO THE MINISTER
- The Board, once again, is concerned at the number of prisoners seen over the year who are seriously mentally unwell and kept in conditions, be it accommodation standards or the regime, which are entirely unsuitable for their care or rehabilitation. The same applies to many of the prisoners with learning or other disabilities. Will the Minster review this?
- When will the Minister provide the resources required for significant improvements to the standard of accommodation at HMP Lewes, such that it can be considered decent?
TO THE PRISON SERVICE
- As with previous years, the Board urges the Prison Service to introduce measures to better look after prisoners’ property, particularly during the transfer from one prison to another. The loss of property is very distressing to prisoners.
- The Board urges the Prison Service to better coordinate its healthcare contracts in order to bring about a more coordinated and managed service with better outcomes for prisoners.
- The Board would also like to know when resources will be put into improving safety for men at the prison, in particular to reduce the ingress and misuse of drugs.
- When will the Prison Service provide strip clothing and bedding that is fit for purpose and cannot be used as ligatures?
TO THE GOVERNOR
- The Board encourages the Governor to redouble efforts to improve the accommodation conditions for prisoners, including ensuring timely replacement of furniture and that cleanliness is made a higher priority.
- The Board urges the Governor to review the regime offered to allow greater hours of unlock for men.
- The Board looks forward to the anticipated new incentives and earned privileges (IEP) scheme being introduced and urges the Governor to monitor and investigate any disproportionate treatment of black and minority ethnic (BAME) prisoners.
Improvements seen over the past year
- The new visitors’ centre, which is provided by the charity Spurgeons, where visitors are welcomed, given refreshments, advice and support, where there were previously no facilities is a great improvement, as is the gym refurbishment and the removal of mould and improvements to the physical look of the Visits Hall.
- Making HMP Lewes smoke-free is an improvement in the living environment of many men and the working environment of staff.
- The introduction of evening association periods for the larger wings allowed more time out of cell for many men and potentially more opportunities for family contact.
Fatal Incident Reports
Details of people who have died in this prison, with copies of the Investigation Report into their deaths, and the Action Plan designed to prevent further similar deaths – all listed by the name of the deceased that is not available anywhere else.