Annual Prison Performance Ratings 2022/23
Published 27 July 2023
© Crown copyright 2023
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected].
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/prison-performance-ratings-2022-to-2023/annual-prison-performance-ratings-202223
Main points
| 2022/23 had the lowest proportion of prisons rated as outstanding since 2016/17 | 13 (10.9%) prisons were given a rating of outstanding. This is the lowest number of prisons receiving this rating since 2016/17. 19 (16.0%) prisons received this rating in 2019/20. |
| There was a slight increase in the proportion of prisons rated as serious concern compared to 2019/20 | 9 (7.6%) prisons were given a rating of serious concern. This is an increase of 2 prisons from 2019/20 when 7 (5.9%) prisons attained this rating. |
| Open, Category B and Category C Resettlement prisons were strong overall performers | Open, Category B and Category C Resettlement prisons are the only functional groups that had no prisons attain a rating of serious concern. Each of these functional groups had 1 prison attain a rating of outstanding. |
| Two adult prisons which have received an Urgent Notification since the process was introduced in 2017 were rated as serious concern | Exeter, which received a UN in November 2022 was rated as concern. A further two prisons that have previously received a UN were rated as concern. Nottingham, the first prison to receive a UN in January 2018, was rated as good. |
This publication covers reporting for the period between the 1 April 2022 and the 31 March 2023. A new prison framework was introduced in 2022/23 to assess prison performance. Different frameworks having been in use since 2016/17 in different years. Aggregated comparisons have been made in this bulletin as a guide to show how national distribution of ratings has changed over the years.
1. Products and Publications related to the Annual Prison Performance Ratings 2022/23
The following products are published as part of this release:
-
A statistical bulletin, containing commentary on key findings
-
Annual Prison Performance Ratings Guide 2022/23, providing further information on how the data are collected and processed to derive prison performance ratings
-
A set of supplementary tables, providing underlying data and the rating for each measure by prison.
The Annual Prison Performance Ratings Guide 2022/23 and supplementary tables are available to download from here
The following publications contain related statistics:
2. Prison Performance Tool Dashboard (PPTD)
The 2022/23 prison performance framework used 17 outcome-focussed measures to formally assess prisons. HMPPS manage the performance framework, which is structured against four main priority areas. These are:
- Security and stability
- Training, skills and work
- Drug and alcohol addiction
- Family, accommodation and readjustment to society
The PPTD was used to report the 2022/23 framework and provide prison league tables. This assessed performance in each prison with comparisons made to other prisons of the same functional group. The PPTD uses a data-driven assessment of performance in each prison to derive overall prison performance scores and ratings.
Targets were not used in 2022/23. Instead, a prison’s overall score was calculated based on the relative performance within the functional group.
Further information about the performance framework and PPTD, performance measures that make up each priority area and the descriptions of the functional groups can be found in the Annual Prison Performance Ratings Guide 2022/23 accompanying this bulletin. Details of which prisons belong to which functional group can be found in the supplementary tables that accompany this bulletin. Both of these documents can be downloaded here
Annual performance for each prison in the PPTD has been assigned one of four ratings. These ratings are shown below in Table 1:
Table 1: Rating definitions for 2022/23
| Rating | Definition |
|---|---|
| 4 | Outstanding performance |
| 3 | Good performance |
| 2 | Performance of concern |
| 1 | Performance of serious concern |
3. Annual Prison Performance Ratings
2022/23 had the lowest proportion of prisons rated as outstanding since 2016/17
13 (10.9%) prisons were given a rating of outstanding. This is the lowest number of prisons receiving this rating since 2016/17. 19 (16.0%) prisons received this rating in 2019/20.
There was a slight increase in the proportion of prisons rated as serious concern compared to 2019/20
9 (7.6%) prisons were given a rating of serious concern. This is an increase of 2 prisons from 2019/20 when 7 (5.9%) prisons attained this rating.
As part of the annual prison performance process, a moderation process was undertaken in June 2023 to determine the final performance ratings for each prison. Further information about the moderation process can be found in the accompanying Annual Prison Performance Ratings Guide 2022/23.
The performance ratings of 9 prisons were adjusted through the moderation process. These prisons are noted in the tables in the supplementary tables data sheet.
For 2022/23, 13 (10.9%) prisons were rated as having outstanding performance which is the smallest number since 2016/17. However, between 2016/17 and 2019/20 the proportion steadily increased from 7.6% to 16.0%. Reporting was suspended in 2020/21 and amended in 2021/22 due to COVID meaning comparisons to these years cannot be made. In 2022/23 62 (52.1%) prisons were rated as having good performance, this is a slight decrease from 65 (54.6%) prisons in 2019/20. 35 (29.4%) prisons were rated as concern which is an increase from 28 prisons in 2019/20. 9 (7.6%) prisons were rated as serious concern which is an increase of 2 prisons from 2019/20.
75 prisons (63.0%) were rated as either good or outstanding. All functional groups had prisons that were rated as good performance or better. 44 prisons (37.0%) were rated as either performance of concern or performance of serious concern.
The tables accompanying this bulletin provide a breakdown of performance and rating for each measure in each prison. Figure 1 below shows a summary of the Annual Prison Performance Ratings for 2022/23 and Figure 2 shows how these ratings have changed over time.
Figure 1: Summary of Annual Prison Performance Ratings for 2022/23 (Source: Table 1)
| Prison Rating | Number of prisons | Percentage of prisons |
|---|---|---|
| 4: Outstanding Performance | 13 | 10.9% |
| 3: Good Performance | 62 | 52.1% |
| 2: Performance is of concern | 35 | 29.4% |
| 1: Performance is of serious concern | 9 | 7.6% |
Figure 2: Annual Prison Performance Ratings 2016/17 to 2022/23 (Source: Table 3)
Figure 3: Annual Prison Performance Ratings 2022/23 (Source: Table 1)
| Prison | Rating | Prison | Rating | Prison | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Altcourse | 3 | Gartree | 3 | Oakwood | 3 |
| Ashfield | 3 | Grendon | 4 | Onley | 2 |
| Askham Grange | 4 | Guys Marsh | 2 | Parc | 3 |
| Aylesbury | 3 | Hatfield | 4 | Pentonville | 2 |
| Bedford | 1 | Haverigg | 3 | Peterborough Female | 3 |
| Belmarsh | 3 | Hewell | 3 | Peterborough Male | 3 |
| Berwyn | 3 | High Down | 2 | Portland | 2 |
| Birmingham | 2 | Highpoint | 3 | Prescoed | 3 |
| Brinsford | 3 | Hindley | 2 | Preston | 3 |
| Bristol | 1 | Hollesley Bay | 3 | Ranby | 3 |
| Brixton | 3 | Holme House | 3 | Risley | 3 |
| Bronzefield | 2 | Hull | 4 | Rochester | 2 |
| Buckley Hall | 3 | Humber | 3 | Rye Hill | 3 |
| Bullingdon | 2 | Huntercombe | 3 | Send | 3 |
| Bure | 3 | Isis | 1 | Spring Hill | 2 |
| Cardiff | 4 | Isle of Wight | 3 | Stafford | 3 |
| Channings Wood | 3 | Kirkham | 3 | Standford Hill | 3 |
| Chelmsford | 2 | Kirklevington Grange | 3 | Stocken | 3 |
| Coldingley | 3 | Lancaster Farms | 4 | Stoke Heath | 3 |
| Dartmoor | 3 | Leeds | 3 | Styal | 1 |
| Deerbolt | 1 | Leicester | 3 | Sudbury | 2 |
| Doncaster | 3 | Lewes | 2 | Swaleside | 2 |
| Dovegate | 3 | Leyhill | 2 | Swansea | 4 |
| Downview | 3 | Lincoln | 4 | Swinfen Hall | 2 |
| Drake Hall | 3 | Lindholme | 2 | Thameside | 2 |
| Durham | 3 | Littlehey | 3 | Thorn Cross | 3 |
| East Sutton Park | 4 | Liverpool | 3 | Usk | 4 |
| Eastwood Park | 2 | Long Lartin | 1 | Verne | 3 |
| Elmley | 3 | Low Newton | 3 | Wakefield | 4 |
| Erlestoke | 3 | Lowdham Grange | 2 | Wandsworth | 1 |
| Exeter | 2 | Maidstone | 2 | Warren Hill | 3 |
| Featherstone | 3 | Manchester | 3 | Wayland | 3 |
| Feltham B | 2 | Moorland | 4 | Wealstun | 3 |
| Five Wells | 2 | Morton Hall | 3 | Whatton | 3 |
| Ford | 2 | Mount | 2 | Whitemoor | 1 |
| Forest Bank | 2 | New Hall | 2 | Winchester | 2 |
| Foston Hall | 1 | North Sea Camp | 2 | Woodhill | 2 |
| Frankland | 3 | Northumberland | 3 | Wormwood Scrubs | 2 |
| Full Sutton | 4 | Norwich | 2 | Wymott | 2 |
| Garth | 3 | Nottingham | 3 |
4. Prison Function Ratings and Performance Drivers
Open, Category B and Category C Resettlement prisons were strong performers
Open, Category B and Category C Resettlement are the only functional groups that had no prisons rated as serious concern. Each of these functional groups had 1 prison attain a rating of outstanding.
Two adult prisons which have received an Urgent Notification since the process was introduced in 2017 were rated as serious concern
Exeter, which received a UN in November 2022 was rated as concern. A further two prisons that have previously received a UN were rated as concern. Nottingham, the first prison to receive a UN in January 2018, was rated as good.
Figure 4: Annual Prison Performance Ratings 2022/23 by Prison Function (Source: Table 1)
Key drivers of performance
The performance measures in the PPTD are weighted according to HMPPS priorities. For 2022/23, there was an emphasis on Employment at 6 weeks following custodial release and drug and alcohol treatment measures.
Areas of Strong Performance
Open, Category B and Category C Resettlement are the only functional groups that had no prisons attain a rating of serious concern. 10 (20.4%) Category C prisons (inclusive of Category C Resettlement, Category C Trainer and Category C Trainer/Resettlement) are in the top 25% of prisons nationally for Employment at 6 weeks following custodial release. All open prisons are in the top 25% of prisons nationally for this measure. Employment at six weeks following custodial release was weighted at 20% for the Open prisons providing the largest contribution to the overall score.
All but one Open prison attained over 90% in Housed on first night of custodial release. 23 (76.7%) Reception prisons are in the top 25% of prisons nationally for this measure.
In relation to Security and Stability, 94 (80.0%) prisons attained a rating of 3 or 4 for the Security Audit. All prisons in the Category B functional group achieved a rating of 3 or higher in this measure with 3 (60.0%) High Security prisons and 6 (60.0%) Category B prisons attaining a rating of 4. All Category C Resettlement prisons attained a rating of 3.
Areas of Poor Performance
For Security and Stability, Female prisons had the 9 highest outturn figures for self-harm incidents. However, the two Open Female prisons had rates of assaults on staff incidents and prisoner on prisoner assault incidents of zero. 15 (50.0%) Reception prisons perform in the top 25% of prisons nationally for the rate of prisoner on prisoner assaults.
For Training, skills and work, 8 (80.0%) Category B prisons feature in the poorest performing 25% of prisons nationally for Employment at 6 weeks following custodial release, however these prisons had low numbers of eligible releases. When considering Family, accommodation and readjustment to society, 23 (76.7%) Reception prisons performed in the bottom 25% of prisons nationally for Housed on first night of custodial release. However, Reception prisons have the lowest weighting for this measure compared to other functional groups.
Figure 5 below shows the Annual Prison performance Ratings for 2022/23 for those prisons where an Urgent Notification (UN) has been invoked by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP).
Figure 5: Annual Prison Performance Ratings 2022/23 for Prisons where an Urgent Notification has been invoked by HMIP
| Prison | Functional group | UN Issued | Rating 2022/23 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nottingham | Reception | January 2018 | 3 |
| Birmingham | Reception | August 2018 | 2 |
| Bedford | Reception | September 2018 | 1 |
| Bristol | Reception | June 2019 | 1 |
| Chelmsford | Reception | August 2021 | 2 |
| Exeter | Reception | November 2022[footnote 1] | 2 |
HMIP have invoked an Urgent Notification (UN) at six adult prisons since the process was introduced all of which are Reception prisons. Exeter received a UN in May 2018 and a further UN in November 2022. Exeter is rated as of concern in 2022/23.
The first prison to receive a UN, Nottingham in January 2018, was rated as good in 2022/23. Birmingham received a UN in August 2018 and is now rated as concern. Bedford and Bristol which received UNs in September 2018 and June 2019 respectively are both rated serious concern. Chelmsford which received a UN in August 2021 is now rated as concern.
5. Further Information
Statistical Code of Practice
This publication has followed the principles and practices from the Code of Practice:
Trustworthiness
The ratings and data in this publication have been produced with the most recent data available, which has been validated through the Prisons Data Assurance in the Data and Analysis Directorate in the Ministry of Justice. Prisons have had the opportunity to scrutinise and challenge data they deemed to be inaccurate throughout the performance year, through quarterly releases of the Prison Performance Tool Dashboard, and monthly updates to the Performance Hub – an internal HMPPS Management Information system. This process ensured accurate information is reflected in the calculations to derive the Annual Prison Performance Ratings.
Quality
Appropriate data sources were used for each measure, identified through engagement with prison staff and colleagues in HMPPS Head Quarters. The prison performance framework was agreed at the start of the performance year. The framework and technical notes accompanying each performance measure, was shared with prisons on the Performance Hub and discussed at prison forums. Problems with measures are worked through with prisons to see how they can be overcome.
Prisons were informed at the start of the reporting period that their annual rating and underlying data were to be published following completion of the year.
The data in this publication have been quality assured alongside the Official-Statistics HMPPS Annual Digest 2022/23 and National Statistics Safety in Custody Quarterly: Update to March 2023 for consistency.
Value
The data in this publication provide an overview of prison performance within the year. Making this information accessible provides ministers and users with an overview of prisons performance, while helping to reduce the administrative burden of answering Parliamentary Questions, Freedom of Information requests and ad hoc queries. This information also allows MoJ and HMPPS to monitor and performance manage prisons and provide all users with transparent data that underpins overall prison performance.
Data are published in Open Document format to ensure compatibility across different systems. Information is also available on the Justice Data website that enables users to access all data used to assess prison performance.
Official Statistics
General information about the official statistics system of the UK is available from: https://uksa.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/about-the-authority/uk-statistical-system/
Ministry of Justice publishes data relating to offender management in England and Wales. Equivalent statistics for Scotland and Northern Ireland can be found at:
https://www.gov.scot/publications/?cat=filter&publicationTypes=statistics
https://www.justice-ni.gov.uk/topics/statistics-and-research/statistics-and-research-publications
Contact
Press enquiries should be directed to the Ministry of Justice press office:
Tel: 0203 334 3536
Other enquiries about these statistics should be directed to:
Ed Rowland
Head of Prison Performance
Prison, Probation and Reoffending Data and Statistics Ministry of Justice, 10 South Colonnade, Canary Wharf, E14 4PH
E-mail: [email protected]
Next Update: 25/07/2024
© Crown copyright
Produced by the Ministry of Justice
Alternative formats are available on request.
-
Exeter also received a UN in May 2018 ↩