HMP Guys Marsh

Reports

• HMIP3 Nov 2025

  1.1 HMP Guys Marsh is a category C training and resettlement prison for adult men near Shaftesbury in Dorset. Built mainly in the 1970s and 1980s, the prison is a campus-style institution, currently with eight operational accommodation facilities. 1.2 This review visit followed up on the concerns we raised at our last inspection of HMP Guys Marsh in January 2025. What we found at our last inspection 1.3 At our previous inspections of HMP Guys Marsh in 2022 and 2025 we made the following judgements about outcomes for prisoners. Figure 1: HMP Guys Marsh healthy prison outcomes in 2022 and 2025 Note: rehabilitation and release planning became ‘preparation for release’ in October 2023. 1.4 At the last inspection in January 2025, we were extremely concerned about this prison. Outcomes in safety and respect were judged to be poor, while those in purposeful activity and preparation for release remained not sufficiently good. 1.5 There were significant weaknesses in leadership, which were a major obstacle to delivering the improvements required. High levels of staff absence made it impossible for leaders to sustain a full regime. Despite being a training prison, attendance at education, skills and work sessions was poor, and too many prisoners remained unemployed. 1.6 Rates of violence were high and rising, and the widespread availability of illicit drugs continued to undermine safety and stability. The use of force had more than doubled and was the highest among similar prisons, while the rate of self-harm exceeded that of all other category C establishments. Report of an independent review of progress at HMP Guys Marsh 1.7 Living conditions were poor, with low standards of cleanliness and decency. Health care provision was also weak, and leaders had not ensured sufficient resources to maintain patient safety and effective care. What we found during this review visit 1.8 During this review visit, we found encouraging signs of improvement in several areas. Levels of violence had reduced, supported by a more consistent regime that incentivised prisoners, improved staff-prisoner relationships and enhanced living conditions. The safety team had been strengthened, with clearer accountability and stronger coordination between departments. However, despite these advances, illicit drugs continued to present a serious threat to safety and stability. While a revised drug strategy, new testing arrangements and peer-led recovery initiatives had been introduced, positive drug tests and high levels of prisoners under the influence showed that the problem remained widespread. More positively, health care had become better structured, ensuring easier access and consistent care. 1.9 The governor was providing clear direction and working hard to drive improvement. The senior management team was more stable, and leaders were now more visible across the prison. However, many first- line and middle managers still lacked confidence and experience. National coaching had strengthened officers’ skills but had yet to improve managers’ skills. Staffing levels were more stable but remained fragile and continued to constrain delivery. 1.10 Ofsted found reasonable progress in three of the four themes it reviewed. Attendance and participation in education, skills and work had improved considerably, and leaders had eliminated waiting lists for English and mathematics. However, attendance remained too low overall, and the newly introduced reading strategy was not yet having sufficient impact. 1.11 Overall, the prison was in a stronger position than at the time of the inspection, and had made visible progress in safety, decency and

  source

• HMIP6 Jan 2025

  Guys Marsh is a category C training and resettlement prison near Shaftesbury in Dorset. Built mainly in the 1970s and 1980s, the prison is a campus-style institution, currently with eight operational accommodation facilities. At the time of our inspection up to 487 adult men could be held. Just under a third of the prisoners were serving sentences of over four years, with a further 60 serving indeterminate sentences. We have had concerns about this prison for some time, and most recently inspected it in 2022, when we found that outcomes in our healthy prison tests were reasonably good in respect but not sufficiently good in safety, purposeful activity and preparation for release. It was particularly concerning at this inspection to find that the prison had deteriorated further; outcomes in safety and respect were now poor, while in purposeful activity and preparation for release they remained not sufficiently good. The prison was not safe enough. Elements of the reception and induction process were operating adequately but standards in the induction accommodation unit were poor. Data on rates of violence showed the situation worsening, with the prison more violent than most similar establishments. About a third of prisoners told us they felt unsafe. There was little to motivate or engage prisoners constructively or to incentivise them to progress. Initiatives to promote positive behaviour were often fairly new or implemented inconsistently. The segregation unit required better oversight and the use of force was among the highest for comparable prisons. Most force was spontaneous, but there was a perception among prisoners that staff were too ready to apply restraints. There was, however, some early evidence that leaders were taking steps to drive up standards and improve oversight. Sixty-three per cent of prisoners we surveyed told us illicit drugs were easy to get hold of, and evidence suggested they were right. It was, therefore, frustrating that there had been no random or suspicion testing for about five years and the prison lacked any of the enhanced gate security commonly seen in similar prisons. The small security team were working hard to make an impact – notably through the triaging of intelligence and improving partnership working with the police – but, overall, security procedures lacked rigour. At the heart of the prison’s problems were some lacklustre staff-prisoner relationships. Prisoners did not feel respected, and some felt harassed. Leaders were not sufficiently visible around the wings and were not challenging this poor culture which, combined with a failure to maintain decent standards of cleanliness on what were already rundown accommodation blocks, added to a general feeling of malaise. In this context it was no surprise that the rate of self- harm among prisoners was very high and had increased over the preceding 12 months, although we did see some work to try to mitigate this. Despite Guys Marsh’s function as a training prison, we found around 30% of prisoners locked in their cells during the working day. Time out of cell was generally better for those with a job or located on one of the enhanced status wings. Attendance at activities was, however, not good enough and the regime on offer was limited. Our colleagues in Ofsted judged provision as ‘requires improvement,’ their second lowest assessment. Work to prepare men for release had some potential but required renewed energy and focus; not least in improving levels of engagement and persuading men that the prison was helping them. A fully functioning key work scheme would have helped to achieve this. Overall, this is a concerning report. Most elements of the prison’s operation required improvement and there was a need for investment and renewal. Staff were inexperienced and, even though shortfalls had been addressed, too many

  source

• NPM-uk-imb-safety1 Jan 2024

  Violence decreased and self-harm fell early in the reporting year but repeat incidents by some individuals kept numbers high. The strengthened safer custody team began meeting prisoners before safer communities meetings to share trends and gather feedback. 4.1 Reception and induction Over the reporting period, the reception area underwent a series of significant improvements aimed at enhancing efficiency, safety and the overall experience for both staff and prisoners. There were 28 instances of buses arriving late during the reporting period, which affected the otherwise smooth flow of service provided by reception staff and the attendant agencies within the prison. The introduction of escort checklists appeared to reduce the paperwork required for escorts, while parcel application forms were condensed to include a decency parcel option (which contains essential clothing or hygiene items). Unauthorised articles were clearly highlighted, which helped to improve transparency and compliance. Prisoners were notified when items were added to their stored property on delivery, increasing accountability. A new reception information sheet was introduced to collect next of kin details and flag any language barriers, ensuring that the safer custody team were fully informed about new arrivals. Additionally, the Listeners’ (prisoners trained by the Samaritans to provide peer support) contact numbers were added to prisoners’ ID cards, giving them easier access to support without needing [...]

  source

• NPM-uk-imb-respect1 Jan 2024

  5.1 Accommodation, clothing, food At the start of the reporting year, the prison’s accommodation consisted of six main residential wings: Anglia, Cambria, Dorset, Mercia, Gwent and Saxon. Two additional wings, Jubilee and Rainbow, housed prisoners on the highest (enhanced) level of the incentives scheme, which rewards good behaviour. The Board noted some improvements to the physical environment compared with the previous year, particularly following inspection findings earlier in the year. Outdoor areas were better maintained and no longer covered in litter. This was partly due to the installation of new windows, which prevented rubbish being thrown out, and to a daily effort to clear litter. Conditions inside the residential wings also showed some improvement. Shower rooms were fitted with extractor fans, although many were not fully effective and problems with damp and mould continued. Wings were repainted, and the central store for the issue of items of personal hygiene (shampoo, soap, toilet paper) was replaced with individual supply cupboards on each wing, allowing quicker access to basic items. However, these cupboards were not always properly restocked. A positive change was the introduction of curtains in all cells, which improved privacy and removed the need for prisoners to improvise with blankets or towels. The induction unit was also improved, and first-night cells were presented to a good standard, in the Board’s view. Cleaning standards appeared to be [...]

  source

• NPM-uk-imb-purposeful-activity1 Jan 2024

  On 1 October 2025, the contract for education, library and vocational training transferred from Weston College to Milton Keynes College. At the same time, the prison’s education budget experienced a cut in real terms of 40%, bringing significant changes for both staff and prisoners. A new Prison Education Services (PES) contract introduced by the Ministry of Justice also came into effect. Under this system, all teaching is measured strictly by the number of hours delivered, and providers face financial penalties if sessions are not completed. Staff also had to adapt to a new IT system and new ways of working. Despite these challenges, the Board believes staff managed the transition well. Due to the effective funding cut, three education staff posts were lost. The remaining staff worked creatively to continue delivering education to prisoners. However, the prison also continued to employ a Learning Support Manager and a Head of Education, Skills and Work alongside and above the contracted teaching staff, and given the relative paucity of education opportunities, the Board felt that greater investment in classroom teachers would have offered better value to the prisoners. By the end of the year, 10 accredited and three non-accredited courses were available - fewer than earlier in the year under the previous provider. A new ‘roll-on, roll-off’ system was also introduced, meaning that prisoners who completed a course were replaced immediately by new learners, while others were [...]

  source

• HMIP4 Jul 2022

  HMP Guys Marsh is a category C training prison located in rural Dorset. Mainly built in the 1960’s the campus-style prison has a mix of accommodation and held just under 460 men at the time of our visit. We have criticised Guys Marsh heavily in the recent past, and on this inspection outcomes for prisoners were still not good enough in safety and purposeful activity, and had deteriorated in resettlement since we last inspected. Despite these disappointing assessments, there was enough evidence to indicate that improvement was taking place which in time ought to lead to better outcomes. The governor had a strong and commendable focus on getting the prisoners back into work and education after the restrictions of the pandemic, and managers and staff were supportive of this priority. A plan had been made in advance and was launched quickly when restrictions lifted. At the time of the inspection nearly 60% of prisoners were in work or education and spent at least nine hours out of their cells, which is much better than we normally see. Some three quarters of prisoners were already allocated to work and there were clear and credible plans to keep driving up these numbers in the coming months. This prioritisation of regime aligned with the central purpose of the establishment and was to be commended, although gaps remained, such as in education, which Ofsted judged as ‘requires improvement.’ Our evidence spoke to a safer prison than at our last visit but continuing high levels of violence and a very significant drug problem, especially when compared with other category C prisons, could not be ignored. There was a lot of work with individual prisoners, and cross-departmental working was a real strength, but investigation and data analysis concerning violence were major gaps. Use of force had increased since the last inspection and more also needed to be done properly to support those in self-harm crisis. Reducing the supply of drugs, mainly coming in over the prison’s long, rural perimeter, remained an underlying priority despite the commitment by the prison in seeking to stem the problem. A residential refurbishment programme linked to fire improvements had recently been completed, and the ageing and slightly crumbling residential units were now in an acceptable condition and reasonably clean. The general external environment, however, was neglected and somewhat depressing. Staff prisoner relationships were a strength, and consultation was good, although this did not always result in much action, while the management of applications and complaints were surprisingly lacklustre. There were signs that the promotion of equality was being reinvigorated, although again this newfound energy had yet to translate into better outcomes. There was some decent work to support family ties, including good development of family days in what was termed ‘wellbeing visits’, but more was needed. Offender management was well led, and staff worked hard, but a lack of case administration staff was undermining delivery. Prisoners did not have enough contact with their offender manager, and there were frustrations about lack of progression and difficulty in moving eligible prisoners to category D jails. As elsewhere, probation unification in mid-2021 meant the resettlement team was now virtually non-existent, but prison managers had made real efforts to plug the resulting gaps in release planning. Overall, we judged the prison to be making slow but steady progress. Good

  source