Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:57 am
Time: 1:57 am
Results for correctional administration
106 results foundAuthor: Schwartz, Jeffrey A. Title: A Guide to Preparing for and Responding to Jail Emergencies: Self-Audit Checklists, Resource Materials, Case Studies. Summary: A Guide to Preparing for and Responding to Jail Emergencies: Self-Audit Checklists, Resource Materials, Case Studies Cover This guide "will be broadly useful to U.S. jails in planning for crises, emergencies, and natural disasters and in developing the appropriate response capacities to cope with these events where they cannot be prevented" (p. vi). Six sections are contained in this publication: introduction; conducting an audit; Emergency Preparedness Self-Audit Checklist for Smaller Jails; Emergency Preparedness Self-Audit Checklist for Larger Jails; resource materials-leadership issues during crises, prevention of jail emergencies, and emergency teams; and case studies for the Maury County Jail fire, disturbance and escape at the Rensselaer County Jail (a new direct supervision jail in Troy, NY), Hurricane Andrew and the Florida Department of Corrections, and riots at Camp Hill (PA) State Correctional Institution. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2009. 180p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 17, 2018 at: https://nicic.gov/guide-preparing-and-responding-jail-emergencies-self-audit-checklists-resource-materials-case Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: https://nicic.gov/guide-preparing-and-responding-jail-emergencies-self-audit-checklists-resource-materials-case Shelf Number: 117140 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationEmergency PlanningJail AdministrationJail SupervisionJails |
Author: Mehta, Swati Title: Maharashtra's Abandoned Prisons: A Study of Sub-Jails. Summary: Sub-jails in India form a majority of prisons (60 per cent) and yet one of their distinguishing features is their limited capacity to hold prisoners (13.5 per cent) compared with other jails. The 115 sub-jails in Maharasthra (of a total of 153 prisons), for example, have an authorised capacity of 1,739 in contrast to the remaining 38 prisons with a capacity to house 19,162 prisoners. There is little information available in the public domain about sub-jails and their functioning. Perhaps because they house fewer prisoners, and that too for a short period compared to the central and district jails, neither the media nor civil society organisations have paid attention to these institutions. CHRI and Voluntary Action for Rehabilitation and Development (VARHAD) studied the sub-jails in Maharashtra to assess their condition and the rights of those who are housed in them. Maharashtra not only has the highest number of jails (153)in the country, but also records the highest number of sub-jails (114). For the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) - the only department that publishes national statistics on prisons - the high number of sub-jails in the state reveals “a well organised prison set-up even at the lower formation.” This report aims to provide a broad overview of the sub-jail system in the state and examine whether the NCRB is correct in inferring that the jail system at the “lower formation” is “well organised”. The sub-jails in the state are not administered by the prison department, but by the revenue department. This study examines the impact of placing the management of prisons in the hands of a department (revenue) that is not trained to administer them. It sheds light on the functioning of sub-jails in Maharashtra by focusing on the: rules and regulations applicable to their functioning; kinds of statistics that are available on these jails; administration of sub-jails in the state; oversight mechanisms like the Prison Visiting System; and general conditions in these jails, including food, clothing, basic amenities, sanitation, hygiene, medical facilities and security arrangements. Details: New Delhi: Commonwealth Human Rights Inititaive, 2010. 62p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: India URL: Shelf Number: 119506 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsJails (India)Prisoners |
Author: Canada. Public Safety Canada Title: The Investigation, Prosecution and Correctional Management of High-Risk Offenders: A National Guide Summary: This guide has been prepared to provide police, prosecution, correctional and other criminal justice officials with an overview of the Canadian Criminal Code provisions designed to respond to sexual predators and other high-risk offenders. The interventions discussed are: Dangerous offender designations that can result in the worst offenders being indeterminately detained or placed under long-term supervision where a conviction for a breach could result in indeterminate detention; Long-term offender designations where high-risk offenders are sentenced to two or more years imprisonment plus up to ten (10) years of supervision that begins after both the prison sentence and any period of parole have been served; and Peace bonds that allow the courts to impose conditions on an individual’s movement and activities if there is reason to believe that the person will commit violent crimes if not restrained. Details: Ottawa: Her Majesty the Queenin Right of Canada, 2010. 197p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 14, 2011 at: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/ipcmg-gepgc-eng.pdf Year: 2010 Country: Canada URL: http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/_fl/ipcmg-gepgc-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 120753 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationDangerous OffendersInmatesOffenders (Canada)Prisoners |
Author: Oklahoma. Department of Corrections Title: Homicides in Prison Summary: Homicides of prison inmates have decreased dramatically in the last three decades and have consistently been lower per 100,000 population than the general population in recent years. Research into factors associated with inmate homicides has focused on the variables to be considered and/or examination of one or more of those variables. The research indicates that inmate homicides tend to be contextual and not the result of consistently identifiable and preventable influences. The recommended perspective on inmate homicide prevention depends on “the ability of prison administrators to exercise official authority effectively.” Details: Oklahoma City, OK: Oklahoma Department of Corrections, 2009. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: DOC White Paper: Accessed April 27, 2011 at: http://www.doc.state.ok.us/adminservices/ea/Homicides%20White%20Paper.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.ok.us/adminservices/ea/Homicides%20White%20Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 121512 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationHomicidesPrison Homicide (Oklahoma)Prison Violence |
Author: Camp, Scott D. Title: Evaluation of the Taft Demonstration Project: Performance of a Private-Sector Prison and the BOP Summary: In 1996, the United States Congress directed the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to operate the federal prison at Taft, California as a demonstration of prison privatization (see Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 3610, Making Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1997, Public Law 104-208). This report describes selected measures of prison performance for the Taft Correctional Institution (TCI), operated by Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, especially in comparison to three BOP prisons built upon the same architectural design at about the same time and holding similar types of inmates. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2005. 127p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/orelappin2005.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/orelappin2005.pdf Shelf Number: 122438 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Nelson, Julianne Title: Competition in Corrections: Comparing Public and Private Sector Operations Summary: On July 21, 1997, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) announced that Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (now The GEO Group) had won the competition for a 10-year contract to manage a new federal correctional facility. Located in Taft, California, the new facility — known as Taft Correctional Institution (TCI) — had been designed and built by the federal government to house low-and minimum-security inmates. In 2005, the CNA Corporation (CNAC) was asked to participate in the task of evaluating the first five years of this contract. The following report compares the cost of the TCI contract with the cost of operating the facility “in-house” during this period. A separate report prepared by the BOP analyzes the quality of contractor performance at Taft. A report prepared by Abt Associates reviews both the cost and quality of the contract services at this institution. CNAC analysis indicates that the observed cost of the TCI contract was virtually identical to the estimated cost of in-house operation by government employees — based on practices observed at similar BOP facilities. Using a cost model based on Circular A-76 guidelines and information available at the beginning of the TCI contract, we found that our initial estimate of the expected in-house cost of operating the facility was lower than the expected cost of the management contract. Using this model with actual (rather than expected) wage rates, inflation rates, and inmate population levels, we found that: • Observed contract costs were generally higher than our initial estimates of what the BOP would have spent to operate TCI itself (i.e., the costs avoided through private sector management of the facility). • Observed contract per diem costs exceeded expected contract costs, largely due to award fee payments and reimbursements for wage increases mandated by Service Contract Act revisions. Using observed expenditures reported at TCI and three similar BOP facilities, we found that: • Observed per diem costs with contractor management were not substantially different from observed facility-level per diem costs at BOP comparison sites. • Observed per diem costs with contractor management were slightly lower than observed per diem avoidable costs at BOP facilities during the first two years of fullscale operations. • In the last two years of the period under review, observed per diem contract costs were similar to observed per diem avoidable costs at comparable federal facilities once allowances were made for changes in the mix of security levels in the inmate population. In short, the cost of routine contract operations was very similar at TCI and the three comparable government facilities. It was also generally higher than our initial estimates of what it would have cost the BOP to run TCI once it was fully activated. Details: Alexandria, VA: CNA Corporation, 2005. 148p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 22, 2011 at: http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/cnanelson.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.bop.gov/news/research_projects/published_reports/pub_vs_priv/cnanelson.pdf Shelf Number: 122439 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCost-Benefit AnalysisPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Rengifo, Andres F. Title: Context and Impact of Organizational Changes in State Corrections Agencies: A Study of Local Discourses and Practices in Kansas and Michigan Summary: Over the past five years, the states of Kansas and Michigan engaged in a comprehensive re-examination of their correctional systems, aiming for a better allocation of resources and more effective interventions to reintegrate offenders into the community. In Kansas, this process was largely known as the Kansas Offender Risk Reduction and Reentry Program (KOR3P); in Michigan, a similar set of reforms was developed as the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI). While research has documented the nature of such large-scale institutional reorganizations in corrections (Austin & Fabelo, 2004; Jacobson, 2005), little is known about the specific contexts in which corrections reforms are planned and executed (for exceptions see Zimring, Hawkins & Kamin, 2001; Clarkson & Morgan, 1995). In some jurisdictions, initiatives have been primarily motivated by state-wide efforts to reduce public spending. In other jurisdictions, reforms have emerged from within corrections through more substantive collaborations between corrections managers, staff, and key external partners—governors’ offices, legislatures, and agencies of technical assistance. The knowledge of "what works" in the process of planning, implementing, and executing of these system-wide reforms — as well as their challenges and pitfalls — has traditionally been limited to those directly involved in specific initiatives. From a broader perspective, it remains unclear to what extent the form and content of reform efforts are sensitive to the local social and institutional contexts in which corrections managers and staff operate. Such context may alter the structure of reforms, depending on levels of commitment and interest of key decision-makers. Local contexts can also alter the content of reforms via challenges in the implementation and execution of strategic programs. More generally, the sustainability and integrity of reforms depends on the relative availability of a wide range of internal and external resources – including leadership, technology, financial resources, and political and social support – that vary significantly across jurisdictions. This project documents the dynamics and context of organizational change within the Departments of Corrections (DOCs) of Kansas and Michigan, focusing on how these internal and external factors shaped the recent reforms. We conceptualize these two jurisdictions as laboratories of corrections policy innovation in which measures to control prison populations and enhance service delivery were implemented despite challenging institutional and social environments. As such, our study seeks to provide an empirical foundation for the development of more general propositions regarding the relationship between effective processes of organizational change within corrections and the social context in which these changes are implemented. Documenting the source, content, rationale, and context of these changes is important for disseminating policy innovations and expanding the existing framework for understanding corrections reform. The present report is divided into four chapters. Chapter 1 provides a brief history of corrections policy in Kansas and Michigan since the early 1980s. Chapter 2 examines the immediate context, and process of design and planning of the KOR3P and the MPRI in the early 2000s. Chapter 3 documents the process of implementation of these and other reforms guided by Evidence-Based Practices (EBP), including the realignment of internal processes as well as the overhauling of inter-institutional relations and community outreach. Chapter 4 then briefly examines the continuing internal and external challenges confronting KOR3P and MPRI. It discusses the impact of changing resource levels, staff resistance and fatigue, and evolving goals of other stakeholders on the sustainability of reforms. The last section of the report provides several recommendations for sustaining reform efforts in both Kansas and Michigan and other states. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2010. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025241.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025241.pdf Shelf Number: 122898 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional Institutions (U.S.)Corrections ReformPrison AdministrationPrisoner Reentry |
Author: Title: Reforming Pakistan's Prison System Summary: A corrupt and dysfunctional prison system has contributed to – and is a manifestation of – the breakdown of the rule of law in Pakistan. Heavily overpopulated, understaffed and poorly managed, the prisons have become a fertile breeding ground for criminality and militancy, with prisoners more likely to return to crime than to abandon it. The system must be examined in the context of a deteriorating criminal justice sector that fails to prevent or prosecute crime, and protects the powerful while victimising the underprivileged. Yet, while domestic and international actors alike are devoting more resources to improve policing and prosecution, prisons continue to be largely neglected. The Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP)-led government at the centre and the four provincial governments, as well as the country’s international partners, should make penal reform a central component of a criminal justice reform agenda. Pakistan lacks a systematic program for the capacity building of prison staff, while existing regulations on postings, transfers and promotions are frequently breached because of nepotism and political interference. Given weak accountability mechanisms for warders and prison superintendents, torture and other brutal treatment are rampant and rarely checked. Moreover, with out-dated laws and procedures, bad practices and poor oversight, the criminal justice system is characterised by long detentions without trial. As a result, prisons remain massively overcrowded, with nearly 33,000 more prisoners than the authorised capacity. The large majority of the total prison population – around 50,000 out of 78,000 – are remand prisoners awaiting or on trial. With more than two dozen capital offences, including many discriminatory provisions that carry a mandatory death penalty, the death-row population is the largest in the world, though the current government has placed an informal moratorium on executions. Circumventing the justice system, the military has detained thousands of people, ostensibly suspected of terrorism but including thousands of political dissidents and others opposed to the military’s policies, especially in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). Its methods include torture, collective justice and extrajudicial killings. By swelling public resentment, such practices are more likely to create terrorists than counter them. Instead of establishing parallel, unaccountable and illegal structures, countering militancy requires the reform of a dysfunctional criminal justice system. The separation of low-level offenders and suspects, particularly impressionable youth, from the criminal hardcore is particularly urgent. In violation of the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance (JJSO), children continue to be arrested for petty offences and illegally detained for days and even months; in the absence of adequate facilities, their exposure to hardened criminals, including jihadis, makes them more likely to embrace crime, including militancy, after they are released than before they were imprisoned. Yet, with jails overflowing, it is nearly impossible to isolate hardened criminals, including militants, from remand prisoners, juveniles and low-level or first-time offenders. Provincial governments are trying to reduce overcrowding by constructing more prisons and barracks. This strategy is not sustainable. The problem is not simply one of inadequate infrastructure. The prison population will continue to increase so long as bail rights are rarely granted, and accused persons are seldom brought to court on their trial dates. Recent legislation under the current government that makes it easier to obtain bail is a step in the right direction, but only if consistently applied by the courts. There is, however, an acute shortage of probation and parole officers and no systematic programs to rehabilitate released prisoners. In addition to improving police and judicial functioning, the national and provincial governments should invest in establishing an effective probation regime; creating alternatives to imprisonment for petty crimes, such as fines, community service, community confinement and mental health and drug treatment; and providing free legal aid to those who cannot afford it, including by fully resourcing public defenders’ offices. Strong action should also be taken against police and prison officials for often failing to get prisoners to court on their trial dates, or often only doing so after bribes have been paid. Like the police and courts, the prison system is a major contact point between citizen and state, reflecting the public’s access to justice. Major reforms are necessary to restore public confidence in the government’s ability to enforce the rule of law while protecting the rights of all citizens. Having ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT) in June 2010, the government should allocate the necessary human and financial resources and meet its obligations under these international treaties, so as to ensure that torture and other ill-treatment of detainees are stopped and that officials and institutions responsible for such practises are held accountable. If Pakistan’s prison system remains brutal, opaque and unaccountable, it will continue to aggravate rather than help resolve the country’s major internal security challenges. RECOMMENDATIONS To the Federal Government of Pakistan and Provincial Governments: 1. Repeal the Actions (in Aid of Civil Power) Regulation 2011 for the Federally Administered Tribal Areas and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas, and replace the Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR) 1901, with an updated Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act, in accordance with Article 8 of the constitution and internationally accepted human rights standards. 2. Commit to the abolition of torture and other ill-treatment of detainees in all places of detention, and with the necessary financial and human resources take tangible steps to implement international conventions that Pakistan has ratified, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT). 3. Address overcrowding in prisons by: a) enforcing existing bail laws, and urging the high judiciary to hold trial court judges accountable for failing to grant bail according to the law; b) passing a new law requiring judges to allow bail unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the prisoner would abscond or commit further offences; and c) reforming the sentencing structure for non-violent petty crimes and first-time offenders to include alternatives to imprisonment, such as fines, probation, community service and psychological and drug treatment. 4. Implement the federal Public Defender and Legal Aid Office Act and pass and implement provincial equivalents without delay; and fund and support NGOs providing free legal aid to prisoners until such offices are established. 5. Improve the quality of prison staff by: a) making the inspectorate of prisons an autonomous organisation instead of an attached department of the provincial home ministry; b) raising salaries, and linking salaries and privileges to those of the police; c) ensuring recruitment on merit and streamlining promotion mechanisms to allow the most deserving to be rewarded with career advancement opportunities; d) building a training institution in each of the four provinces; and e) improving the quality of instruction provided to prison staff through the introduction of modern curricula, based on international standards. 6. Crack down on criminality and improve prison security by: a) taking action against prison officials for failing to enforce security-related regulations; b) preventing access to mobile phones; taking steps to reduce substance abuse and other criminal activity within prisons; and taking action against prison staff responsible for providing prohibited material to inmates; c) training prison staff to more effectively quell riots and repel attacks by prisoners and providing the staff with adequate equipment; and d) installing jamming devices and CCTVs in all major prisons. 7. Improve conditions for prisoners and ensure that they are consistent with legal requirements by: a) constituting criminal justice coordination committees at the national, provincial and district levels, as mandated by Police Order (2002), and authorising them to regularly visit prisons to examine conditions, determine prison administrators’ adherence to law and raise prison-related issues with responsible government officials and policymakers; b) constituting public safety commissions at the national, provincial and district levels, as mandated by Police Order (2002), and extending their authority to hold prison officials accountable for failure to uphold prisoners’ rights and to maintain required standards in prison administration; c) ending the practice of putting condemned prisoners in death row cells while their appeals are still pending, shifting them instead to general barracks; d) investing in better medical care for inmates by allocating more resources and engaging with philanthropists and NGOs to provide better facilities; e) building separate detention facilities for women prisoners and ending the practice of housing them in separate barracks within male prisons; f) eliminating the practice of keeping juveniles in regular prisons, including by establishing functional borstal institutions in each province; and g) amending the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), 1997, to require juveniles charged under it to be tried in juvenile courts. 8. Take steps toward the reintegration and rehabilitation of released prisoners by: a) investing in education services and vocational training for inmates, particularly youth and women, to inculcate skills needed to re-enter the workforce; b) improving the functioning of probation and reclamation departments by developing specialised training and curriculums for probation officers and prison staff in the National Academy for Prisons Administration (NAPA), the Punjab Prisons Staff Training Institute and other training institutes; c) directing each provincial home ministry to assess the number of probation and parole officers required by existing and expected caseloads and to increase their numbers accordingly, while providing them with proper offices and adequate facilities, including transport; and d) engaging with probationers’ family members and encouraging community involvement in their rehabilitation and reintegration. 9. End military-devised “de-radicalisation” programs, developing instead a holistic policy aimed at preventing jihadi recruitment, including separating juveniles and other minor and first-time offenders from the adult prison population; making bail the norm rather than the exception; and establishing an effective probation and rehabilitation regime along the lines suggested above. To the International Community, in particular the U.S.: 10. Support the government’s reform agenda, allocating a substantial portion of civilian law enforcement assistance to prison reform, with a focus on: a) improving training programs for prison staff based on revised curriculums that bring existing prison procedures in line with international standards; b) supporting the computerisation of prison and probation records; c) working with training institutes to improve training for probation personnel and with reclamation officials/departments to rehabilitate and reintegrate released prisoners into society and the workforce; and d) supporting NGOs that provide legal aid, education, and vocational training to prisoners, particularly juveniles. 11. Urge the Pakistan military to provide international and domestic humanitarian agencies, including the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), complete access to the estimated thousands of detainees, including juveniles, under its custody, including that of its intelligence agencies, in Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA. 12. Condition military assistance on the Pakistani military immediately ending practices that violate international conventions and basic international legal standards, including illegal detention, collective justice, torture, and extrajudicial killings; and scrutinise the military’s actions when reporting on Pakistan’s compliance with the ICCPR, UNCAT and other treaties. Details: Islamabad, Brussels: International Crisis Group, 2011. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Asia Report No. 212: Accessed October 18, 2011 at: Year: 2011 Country: Pakistan URL: Shelf Number: 123053 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison OvercrowdingPrison ReformPrisonersPrisons (Pakistan) |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Banking on Bondage: Private Prisons and Mass Incarceration Summary: The imprisonment of human beings at record levels is both a moral failure and an economic one — especially at a time when more and more Americans are struggling to make ends meet and when state governments confront enormous fiscal crises. This report finds, however, that mass incarceration provides a gigantic windfall for one special interest group — the private prison industry — even as current incarceration levels harm the country as a whole. While the nation’s unprecedented rate of imprisonment deprives individuals of freedom, wrests loved ones from their families, and drains the resources of governments, communities, and taxpayers, the private prison industry reaps lucrative rewards. As the public good suffers from mass incarceration, private prison companies obtain more and more government dollars, and private prison executives at the leading companies rake in enormous compensation packages, in some cases totaling millions of dollars. Details: New York: ACLU, 2011. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 5, 2011 at: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bankingonbondage_20111102.pdf Shelf Number: 123238 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrisonersPrivate Prisons (U.S.)Privatization |
Author: Clawson, Elyse Title: Putting the Pieces Together: Practical Strategies for Implementing Evidence-Based Practices Summary: This manual describes a generalized process for adopting and implementing principles that underlie evidence-based practice. The evidence-based policies and practices discussed in this manual are derived from high-quality research and have been embraced by criminologists, other social scientists and respected practitioners. The research and the theoretical underpinnings of EBP are described in a companion document, Implementing Evidence-Based Policy and Practice in Community Corrections. This manual is intended to offer a practical guide to their application. The principles and the activities for implementation described in this manual are not intended to squelch creative thinking, enthusiasm or innovation. Your innovations will inspire the hypotheses that lead to further research, more effective implementation strategies and perhaps even additional principles. EBP is an evolving body of knowledge and practice. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2010. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: http://nicic.gov/Library/024394 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://nicic.gov/Library/024394 Shelf Number: 123317 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationEvidence-Based Practices |
Author: Bastick, Megan Title: The Role of Penal Reform in Security Sector Reform Summary: Penal reform activities have been carried on in Europe and the United States since at least the late eighteenth century. Security sector reform (SSR), a much newer concept, is a governance-driven approach that looks to strengthen the roles of both state and non-state actors to deliver security to individuals and communities. As such, attention to the penal system is important in any comprehensive SSR process. However, much SSR programming overlooks penal elements, and lessons learnt through long experience in penal reform have not been applied to other SSR activities. There is limited discourse between the penal reform community ofpractice and the wider SSR community. This paper seeks to initiate a dialogue concerning the relationship between penal reform and wider security sector reform and governance. It is based on desk research and a number of interviews with penal reform practitioners. Details: Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF), 2010. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: CDAF Occasional Papers No. 18: Accessed November 15, 2011 at: http://www.dcaf.ch/DCAF-Migration/KMS/Publications/The-Role-of-Penal-Reform-in-Security-Sector-Reform Year: 2010 Country: International URL: http://www.dcaf.ch/DCAF-Migration/KMS/Publications/The-Role-of-Penal-Reform-in-Security-Sector-Reform Shelf Number: 123352 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison ReformPrisons |
Author: Davies, Elizabeth Title: Impact & Influence: The Role of Local Jurisdictions in Managing Prison Population Size Summary: Budgetary pressures, court mandates on crowding, and social justice concerns have prompted many states throughout the country to develop laws and administrative policies intended to control the size of the prison population. While long-term strategies often look to offender rehabilitation and reductions in new criminal activity to achieve this goal, the most common short-term strategies focus on requiring, encouraging, and permitting decision makers to use local options in lieu of prison at the time of sentencing, inmate release and transfer, and supervision violation response. By modifying decision making at the system points that influence prison population size, legislatures and other state-level policy makers hope to avert projected growth in prison populations, control corrections spending, and potentially reinvest in strategies that have been shown to improve public safety. Although many strategies to control the size of the prison population are developed in consultation with local stakeholders, a number of states create policy that relies on local jurisdictions to assume responsibility for the offender population without fully considering how this shift might impact the resources and capacity of jails, supervision offices, and community service and treatment providers. Further, they often do not account for how the policies and practices of those local agencies, which are largely responsible for the day-to-day operation of the criminal justice system, can influence the success of state prison population control efforts. Incarceration is not a problem limited to state government, nor can its solutions be conceived and executed solely by state governments. In designing strategies to manage the size of the prison population, states must consider the effect that these changes will have on local jurisdictions and the important role of local policy and support in the success of their efforts. The purpose of this white paper is to explore the role of local jurisdictions in state prison population management strategies by examining the three policy levers in the criminal justice system that can most directly and immediately influence the number of people in prison. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: White Paper: Accessed January 26, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412437-Role-of-Local-Jurisdictions.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412437-Role-of-Local-Jurisdictions.pdf Shelf Number: 123760 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice PoliciesPrison AdministrationPrisons |
Author: Vera Institute of Justice. Center on Sentencing and Corrections Title: Los Angeles County Jail Overcrowding Reduction Project: Final Report Summary: Los Angeles County (County) operates the world’s largest jail system. The County’s criminal justice system is extraordinarily complex, involving 88 municipalities, 47 law enforcement agencies, more than 30 criminal courthouses, and eight jail facilities. In mid-2011, the nature and scope of the problems facing the L.A. County criminal justice system and its jails have grown in ways few could have foreseen two years ago: First, County revenues in Los Angeles—as in most counties in the country—have shrunk dramatically. Although the jail population has dropped to approximately 15,000, attributable largely to early release policies that the Sheriff implemented because of budget reductions, the ability of the County government to invest in new efforts to combat jail crowding is now limited. Second, and perhaps more alarming, the State of California has passed legislation to move some of what are now state-prison-bound offenders to local jails and some parolees to County supervision. With these recent developments, jail overcrowding in Los Angeles has become a looming crisis with dramatic implications for the safety of its residents. While the County has already made serious efforts to streamline its processes (for example, using electronic subpoenas, video arraignments, and an early disposition program) and create programs responsive to problematic subpopulations (such as day reporting for probationers at risk of violation and the Women’s Reentry Court), these new challenges call for a more far-reaching effort that fully engages all parts of the system. In summary, Vera offers the following observations: 1. The County’s jails are a resource: limited, useful, and expensive. While the CCJCC’s Jail Overcrowding Subcommittee is charged with finding ways to reduce the population, there seems to be no overall agreement on the priorities for the use of the jail. Law enforcement wants a place to bring those who might be a danger to themselves or others; the Court wants to ensure that defendants are secure and can readily be brought to court when needed; prosecutors want to make sure defendants will not flee or intimidate witnesses; and probation officers want a place to put non-compliant probationers. While these are legitimate interests, they are not of equal merit in the use of a limited resource. • Los Angeles County must find a way to create consensus among stakeholders on the most critical uses of the jail and find alternatives for the others. 2. It is no one entity’s fault that the jail is too crowded. The agencies that use it are independent, many led by elected officials, and each one is trying to fulfill its own mandate. Sometimes the interests and priorities of the agencies and their mandates seem to be competing, and often contradicting. • The County must encourage and reward the efforts of the criminal justice system stakeholders to work cooperatively around the issue of jail use. Vera’s analysis has identified many points at which changes, big and small, could produce a measureable impact on the daily population of the jail. The analysis affirms that there is no one part of the system that owns the problem or the solution. Every agency—from law enforcement through the Probation Department—is touched by these findings and recommendations. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2011. 289p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2012 at: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3381/LA%2520County%2520Jail%2520Overcrowding%2520Reduction%2520Report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/download?file=3381/LA%2520County%2520Jail%2520Overcrowding%2520Reduction%2520Report.pdf Shelf Number: 123786 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCounty Jails (Los Angeles)Jail Overcrowding |
Author: O'Brien, Rachel Title: The Learning Prison Summary: In recent years there has been significant progress in the area of offender learning and skills, including an increased emphasis on employment and technology use. There have been significant changes aimed at building a more consistent approach to young offenders, including the creation of the Joint Youth Justice Unit in 2007. The aim of the Network was not to undermine these important steps; our objective was to explore ways in which this quiet evolution could be celebrated and built upon in the context of prison overcrowding. The Learning Prison aims to reflect the views and experiences of the people involved including the discussions we held with prisoners. Details: London: The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce, 2010. 101p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2012 at http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/278925/RSA_The-Learning-Prison-report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/278925/RSA_The-Learning-Prison-report.pdf Shelf Number: 124007 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationMentoringPrison AdministrationPrison Programs (U.K.) |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania Title: Reproductive Health Locked Up - An Examination of Pennsylvania Jail Policies Summary: The number of women incarcerated in the United States is rapidly growing at the rate of 11.2% annually – twice the rate of incarceration for men. About 3,800 women are housed in Pennsylvania’s county correctional facilities. Similar to other states, approximately three-quarters are of reproductive age (ages 18–44). Most women in county jails are incarcerated for nonviolent crimes, are undereducated, come from minority groups, and fall below the poverty line. Incarcerated women experience disproportionately higher levels of abuse and have worse health status than their non-incarcerated counterparts. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long-standing commitments to the rights of women, the incarcerated, and reproductive freedom. These three interests led to our involvement in the successful Pennsylvania effort to ban shackling and other restraints for incarcerated women during the latter stages of pregnancy. However sweet the victory, eliminating restraints during pregnancy represents a mere sliver of the reproductive health concerns facing Pennsylvania’s incarcerated women. We decided to look at the issue more broadly with the goal of identifying other aspects of reproductive health care that could be improved through advocacy, legislation, or legal challenges. This report was compiled after reviewing the policies of the 57 county jails in Pennsylvania that house women. We focused on county jails rather than state prisons because the needs of women in these facilities have never been systematically explored. By identifying trends across the state and in individual counties, we aim to help advocates improve women’s reproductive health care behind bars. Using Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law, the state version of the federal Freedom of Information Act, the ACLU of Pennsylvania obtained county jail policies about reproductive health care for women, medical contracts, sick call procedures, and more. Requests were sent to every county correctional facility with a 100% response rate. Six county facilities do not house women, so the report covers the policies of 57 Pennsylvania county facilities that do house women. The policies were reviewed for information about routine gynecological care, contraception, pregnancy testing, abortion access, prenatal care, labor and delivery, postpartum care, mental health care following miscarriage and pregnancy termination, and testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. Our findings have a major limitation. They only report on the written policies of county facilities. Actual practices may vary significantly from written policies. In addition, having a written policy does not guarantee that the policy is followed. A county facility may have a detailed written policy about prenatal services that is not followed, while another county may lack a written policy, but women there actually receive high quality prenatal care. Ideally, counties will have good policies that are followed, leading to good practices. Overall, the policies at Pennsylvania jails are not meeting the reproductive health needs of incarcerated women. Policies were more detailed and prevalent where a state law or regulation requires care—such as health screenings, prenatal and postpartum care, and STD/HIV testing and treatment. Absent a law, policies were more likely to be non-existent or inadequate—like those for pregnancy testing, contraception, labor and delivery and, not surprisingly, abortion. The roots of this lie in the evolution of a jail population from one that was primarily male to one that houses an increasing number of women, along with punitive attitudes toward those in jail and a system of county jails that has little oversight. As the population of women in jail continues to grow, counties will increasingly be vulnerable to lawsuits brought by prisoners whose medical treatment or lack of treatment has caused them harm or violated their constitutional rights. The public will be harmed as women leaving jail re-enter the community with unaddressed health needs. And finally, we as a society are harmed when we squander the opportunity to help the most vulnerable among us. Details: Philadelphia, PA: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, 2012. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/RHLUrpt.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/RHLUrpt.pdf Shelf Number: 124187 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationHealth Care, ReproductiveJailsWomen Prisoners (Pennsylvania) |
Author: Yordanova, Maria Title: Penitentiary Policy and System in the Republic of Bulgaria Summary: The analysis of the legal framework of the prison system, of the state and specific problems of that system, as well as the empirical studies conducted, demonstrate the need of further development of the penitentiary reform as part of the reform of penal legislation and of criminal justice. This implies continued alignment of national legislation with European standards, accompanied by comprehensive practical modernization and humanization of the penitentiary system. The recommendations outline some important guidelines in this respect. In principle, such reforms require considerable costs which, however, can be optimized by introducing a balanced complex of measures, including abolition of the penal sanction of imprisonment for less serious offences and expanding the scope of application of non-custodial measures, shortening the term of custodial sentences, a broader reasoned application of the mechanisms of suspended sentencing, release on parole etc. On the other hand, the costs of “investments” in the reform must match the “benefits” they are supposed to generate. The most important indicators of the benefits of the reforms and of the effectiveness of the penitentiary system are reduction of crime at large and of recidivism in particular, successful reintegration of prisoners after service of the sentence, as well as enhancement of public security. Special attention must be paid to intervention for drug-using or drug-dependent prisoners. Drug distribution and drug use are a serious problem not only for criminal justice and the penitentiary system but a serious social problem in its own right. There is a pressing need of an integral and consistent State policy in this area, including, among other things, a complex of measures vis-`а-vis drugdependent prisoners, applicable both while such persons serve their sentence and after their release. Inspections, monitoring and independent civic oversight, as well as the publicity of their results, are and will continue to be an important guarantee of control over the further progress of the penitentiary reform and over the all-round functioning of the penitentiary system. Details: Sofia, Bulgaria: Center for the Study of Democracy, 2011. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 27, 2012 at: http://www.csd.bg/fileSrc.php?id=20419 Year: 2011 Country: Bulgaria URL: http://www.csd.bg/fileSrc.php?id=20419 Shelf Number: 124292 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsPrison AdministrationPrison ReformPrisons (Bulgaria) |
Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: No Way Out: A briefing paper on foreign national women in prison in England and Wales Summary: Foreign national women, many of whom are known to have been trafficked or coerced into offending, represent around one in seven of all the women held in custody in England and Wales. Yet comparatively little information has been produced about these women, their particular circumstances and needs, the offences for which they have been imprisoned and about ways to respond to them justly and effectively. This Prison Reform Trust briefing, drawing on the experience and work of the charity FPWP Hibiscus, the Female Prisoners Welfare Project, and kindly supported by the Barrow Cadbury Trust, sets out to redress the balance and to offer findings and recommendations which could be used to inform a much-needed national strategy for the management of foreign national women in the justice system. An overarching recommendation of Baroness Corston’s report published in 2007 was the need to reduce the number of women in custody, stating that “custodial sentences for women must be reserved for serious and violent offenders who pose a threat to the public”. She included foreign national women in her report, seeing them as: A significant minority group who have distinct needs and for whom a distinct strategy is necessary. However, when the government response and then the National Service Framework for Improving Services to Women Offenders were published the following year, there were no references to this group. Four years further on little progress has been made. "In spite of their evident needs”, The HM Chief Inspector of Prison’s Annual Report for 2008-9 pointed out that: Support for foreign national women, a significant proportion of women prisoners, is still not well developed in many prisons. If anything, due to the government’s focus on ensuring that “foreign criminals” do not have rights to remain in the country, the expansion of the Immigration Removal Centre (IRC) estate and a focus on fast track removals, the plight of this group has worsened. One of the key elements of the UK Borders Act 2007, which came into force in January 2009, was automatic deportation of non-British citizens who have been sentenced to a period of imprisonment for 12 months and over. The intolerance of any non-UK national who breaks the law remaining in the country is further emphasised in the most recently published UKBA five year strategy which talks of: Considering with partners, including the Crown Prosecution Service, the most effective use of out of court disposals such as cautions together with immigration powers, to remove low level foreign national offenders as an alternative to prosecution. This comes at a time when an increasing percentage of foreign women, who come to the attention of the criminal justice and immigration systems and who end up in custody, have been living in the UK long enough for their children to consider this country as home. Drawing on Hibiscus’ records of its work with foreign national women, this report attempts to gain a better understanding of the current situation for these women, see this in the context of changes over the last few years and outline what needs to be done. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2012. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/NoWayOut.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/NoWayOut.pdf Shelf Number: 124309 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFemale InmatesInmates, Foreign Born (U.K.)Prison Reform |
Author: Lin, Jeffrey Title: The Scope of Correctional Control in California Summary: How many people are under correctional control in California? That is, on any given day, how many adults (18 and older) are held in adult county jails and state prisons, or supervised in the community on adult probation or parole? How many young people (ages 12-25) are held in county juvenile detention and state juvenile placement facilities, or supervised in the community on juvenile probation and parole? According to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), in 2004, California had the largest adult parolee population in the United States, the second largest probationer population after Texas (Glaze and Palla 2005), and the third largest prisoner population after the federal system and Texas (Harrison and Beck 2005a).1,2 However, California is also the most populous state in the country. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that in 2004, there were 35.8 million California residents, with 26 million Californians ages 18 or older, and 7.2 million Californians between the ages of 12 and 25 (the ages of jurisdiction for the state juvenile justice system). Given differences in state populations, a more appropriate question to ask is: How do California’s rates of correctional control compare to national averages? This research bulletin presents one-day standing counts of Californians under correctional control on December 31, 2004,3 and where possible, compares rates of control to those found in other states. The bulletin considers adult correctional control (consisting of adult prison, adult parole, jail and adult probation populations) and juvenile correctional control (consisting of state Division of Juvenile Justice institution and parole, county juvenile detention and juvenile probation populations) separately, and also notes gender, racial and ethnic differences in correctional control rates. The purpose of this bulletin is to provide a descriptive overview of the California population over which some form of control is exercised by a state or local criminal justice agency, and situate this information in a national context. It serves as an extension to data reported annually by the Bureau of Justice Statistics on the prevalence of forms of correctional control, providing additional detail for California. Policymakers will be interested in this bulletin as background in crafting criminal justice policies. It will also be useful to researchers seeking to inform their work around issues of crime, justice and punishment. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Correction, UC Irvine, 2006. 8p. Source: Bulletin Vol. 2, Issue 1: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2012 at http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/pdf/Bulletin706Da.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/pdf/Bulletin706Da.pdf Shelf Number: 125199 Keywords: Adult Corrections (California)Correctional AdministrationCriminal Justice PolicyImprisonmentJuvenile Corrections (California) |
Author: Cebula, Nancy Title: Achieving Performance Excellence: The Influence of Leadership on Organizational Performance Summary: Leadership is a very important component of higher performing organizations. This book presents a breadth and depth of information about leading others and describes what leaders need to excel at and what up-and-coming leaders need to know as they prepare themselves for leadership positions. Taking a balanced approach to leadership allows correctional leaders to influence different people and diverse stakeholder groups in differing situations. Good leaders know when they need to manage rather than lead and how these two activities differ. “Leadership That is Transforming” discusses a key concept for correctional leaders. The intersection of transformational leadership and command-and-control organizational structure is discussed in depth, using the Army’s reliance on transformational leadership concepts as presented in one of their field manuals and through military doctrine. Correctional leaders who master the navigation of these seemingly contradictory concepts are those who are able to lead their organizations to higher performance, develop staff who are able to perform effectively in the complex correctional environment, and encourage innovation while managing risk. Two case studies are presented to show how leaders use collaboration to create buy-in and commitment to change; how important leadership is when changing the fundamental structure of an agency, moving from micromanaging to empowering staff; and how this changes outcomes, especially for the supervised population. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2012. 100p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed June 28, 2012 at: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025338.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://static.nicic.gov/Library/025338.pdf Shelf Number: 125373 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional ManagementManagement Skills |
Author: Blomberg, Thomas G. Title: Correctional Operations Trend Analysis System (COTAS): An Independent Validation Summary: This report provides research findings and recommendations from the Florida State University (FSU) Center for Criminology and Public Policy’s validation of the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) Correctional Operations Trend Analysis System (COTAS). COTAS is designed to serve as a tool for DOC staff to aid in the prevention of violent events at institutional facilities. Using DOC’s large collection of historical and real-time data regarding characteristics about individual inmates, violent and non-violent incidents, and environmental characteristics of institutions, COTAS provides correctional administrators with trend analysis and risk assessment of inmates’ involvement in violent events. COTAS provides the regional and facility administrators with two types of statistics, namely descriptive and predictive. Descriptive statistics from COTAS provide a summary of violent and non-violent events that occurred within DOC regions or administrative areas within the prior 30 days. This data can be “drilled down” to examine the prevalence of events at the facility, dorm, and inmate levels. Additionally, COTAS can provide a 12-month trend analysis of facilities’ monthly count of specific violent and non-violent events. Predictive statistics from COTAS provide the predicted probability of individual inmates’ involvement in violent events. Predictions are generated by an algorithm, which uses historical data to examine the relationship between inmate and facility characteristics and inmates’ involvement in violent events. Both descriptive and predictive statistics are reported to the user in a web-based dashboard interface. Based on pre-defined thresholds, the interface (dashboard) displays the degree of concern that a particular administrator should have regarding the likelihood of violent events occurring during the next thirty days. A detailed description of the COTAS system is provided in Chapter 2 of this report. Details: Tallahassee: Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 2011. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2012 at: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/COTAS%20Validation%20Report%20-%20FINAL%20July%2010%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/COTAS%20Validation%20Report%20-%20FINAL%20July%2010%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 125688 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationInmate DisciplinePrison AdministrationPrison ViolencePrisonersPrisons (Florida) |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Second Aggregate Report on Offender Management in Prisons Summary: This report is the second to be published from our joint Prison Offender Management Inspection programme, in which we have examined how well work with prisoners is being carried out during their time in custody. The assumption underlying the criminal justice system is that imprisonment should not only punish those who have offended by containing them, and thereby provide some form of deterrence to others whilst at the same time protecting the wider community, but also reform them. In order to achieve this, work with individual prisoners needs to address effectively their attitudes, behaviour and lifestyle. We were disappointed to find that, with some notable exceptions, this is not happening to any meaningful extent. Our inspections found that many prisons paid good attention to the ‘resettlement’ needs of the prisoner, i.e. their personal and social circumstances including education, employment, health etc. Such work plays an important part in reducing the likelihood of reoffending on release, but needs to be underpinned by work which encourages and sustains changes in attitudes and behaviour. There are still insufficient places across the prison estate on accredited programmes which deal with thoughts and attitudes. As a result some prisoners, notably sex offenders, are not always able to access the treatment programmes they need to change their behaviour before they are released. We saw many committed staff in Offender Management Units in prisons who clearly wanted to work effectively with individual prisoners and were frustrated when deployed to other duties because of operational demands. There was insufficient guidance about their role and some felt inadequately trained. Professional supervision by line managers is not generally a part of the prison culture and oversight of work with individual cases, even the most serious, was limited. Although we found some examples of good public protection work, we were concerned that, overall, the work on both public protection and child protection issues was not of a sufficient standard. Too often the separation of offender management and public protection functions within the prison meant that information critical to public protection did not inform offender management decisions. Given the lack of priority afforded to offender management work it was not surprising to find that prison staff outside the Offender Management Unit had little appreciation of its work. The electronic case record P-NOMIS has the capacity to address some of our concerns by capturing and communicating information about an individual prisoner, including their progress towards achieving sentence plan objectives. However, despite the investment in the roll-out of the system, it was not being used effectively to support offender management. Sentence plans were generally inadequate. Too often they were based on the interventions that were available rather than on what were required. This has had the effect of masking the true level of need across the prison estate. Objectives were rarely outcome focused, so it was not surprising that progress and change were insufficiently recorded. These failings raise problems for offender managers in the community, as well as staff in prisons, as they are responsible for preparing risk assessments to inform progress through the prison system and ultimately release. A period of incarceration offers an opportunity to tackle a prisoner’s entrenched behaviour and attitudes, and moreover to observe and capture on a day-to-day basis whether the necessary changes are taking place prior to release. Failing to capitalise on that opportunity is a waste of an expensive resource. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-report.pdf Shelf Number: 125740 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional ProgramsInmatesPrison ManagementPrisoner RehabilitationPrisoners (U.K.) |
Author: Cooke, David J. Title: Violence in Barbados Prisons: past, Present, and Future Summary: On March 30 2005, according to local media reports, a fight broke out among a small group of prisoners in HMP Glendairy, Barbados. The fight, reportedly a retaliatory response by a group of younger prisoners on the perpetrator of a sexual assault on one of their number, was the catalyst for widespread prisoner disruption. Over the next three days, this single violent incident escalated to the point where a significant proportion of the prisoner population ─ which stood at the time at just over 1000 ─ took control of the prison and systematically engaged in a campaign of widespread destruction and arson. The consequence of this three-day riot was that the prison was damaged to such an extent that it was no longer habitable and Barbados lost its only prison. It is tempting to look for an explanation for such events in the actions of individual prisoners, and while there is no doubt that the events were sparked by individual action, our interviews with prisoners and staff would lead us to conclude that the reasons are more complex than that. Many prisoners chose to become part of the disruption because a sense of injustice pervaded the prison, a sense of injustice about the operation of the justice system in Barbados and the functioning of the regime in Glendairy. The main body of this report will explore these situational factors in more detail; this short section will set out our observations. Details: Ottawa: International Corrections and Prisons Association, 2007. 3 vols. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 17, 2012 at: http://www.icpa.ca/tools/download/477/Violence_in_Barbados:_Past,_Present_and_Future Year: 2007 Country: Barbados URL: http://www.icpa.ca/tools/download/477/Violence_in_Barbados:_Past,_Present_and_Future Shelf Number: 126061 Keywords: Collective ViolenceCorrectional AdministrationInmatesPrison Violence (Barbados)PrisonersVictimization in Prisons |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Realigning Justice Resources A Review of Population and Spending Shifts in Prison and Community Corrections Summary: Ongoing state budget deficits have placed the centerpiece of U.S. penal policy—incarceration—under intense scrutiny. Although crime rates have been on the decline since 1992, prison populations and spending continue to grow, spurring state policymakers to question whether resources can be better used to enhance public safety. State officials are beginning to rethink long-held tough-on-crime policies and turn their attention to decades of research showing that many offenders are dealt with more effectively in the community. To control rising costs, many states have adopted policies that aim to lower prison populations by moving people who are incarcerated to less-expensive supervision in the community, though there is recognition that for such a shift to be successful further investment in community supervision is often required. In these states, policymakers and corrections administrators hope not only to reduce correctional costs but also improve public safety outcomes. In this study, the Vera Institute of Justice, in partnership with the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project, set out to determine whether—in light of recent state-level policy changes and the economic recession—there have been observable shifts from prisons to community corrections between 2006 and 2010 by examining changes in 1) prison populations, 2) prison spending, 3) community corrections populations, and 4) community corrections spending. Staff from Vera’s Center on Sentencing and Corrections surveyed state corrections agencies, reviewed recent sentencing and corrections legislation, and conducted interviews with criminal justice officials knowledgeable about their states’ corrections policies and budgets. Although approaches to corrections and responses to budget shortfalls varied widely across responding states, for most states the overall trend between 2006 and 2010, in both prison and community corrections, was one of growth. However, when the findings from just the last two years of the study period are considered, a different story emerges. Between 2009 and 2010, Vera observed a stark downward shift in expenditures across many states and systems of prison and community corrections despite variations in population change—a consequence, perhaps, of shrinking state budgets and the contraction in correctional spending as a whole. Vera’s study demonstrated that there is not always a discernible relationship between population and spending shifts from one part of the system to another. Policy changes that aim to cut spending on prisons do not necessarily have the expected impact on community corrections populations or spending. Larger fiscal realities, other legislative changes, and factors outside of policymakers’ control can upset predictions of a policy’s impact. However, several states—such as, Michigan, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Wisconsin, and Virginia—have successfully implemented policies that curb both prison populations and spending. These states demonstrate that cost-savings can be realized through sentencing reform that addresses the number of people entering prison or placed on community supervision and the dedication of appropriate resources to support research-driven community supervision practices and programs. It remains to be seen, however, whether more states will achieve this type of outcome from similar policy efforts, given current fiscal pressures and external factors. Continuing efforts by states to reduce their prison populations and expenditures, strengthen their community corrections systems, and improve public safety suggest that further research may be needed. Details: New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice, 2012. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2012 at http://www.vera.org/files/Full%20Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/files/Full%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 126405 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy |
Author: Victoria. Auditor General Title: Prison Capacity Planning Summary: Corrections Victoria (CV) is a service agency within the Department of Justice (DOJ) that is responsible for directing, managing and operating Victoria’s corrections system. As in other correctional jurisdictions, DOJ has set operating parameters for CV to manage the prisoner population to within 90 to 95 per cent utilisation of the prison system’s operational capacity. This is currently equivalent to 5 318 prison beds. These parameters are necessary to maximise the efficiency of the system while allowing CV flexibility to adequately manage the rehabilitation, human rights and welfare of prisoners. CV is required to plan for and forecast the impact of any future growth, and take appropriate steps so that the system is capable of accommodating and providing services to future prisoner populations. In doing so, CV must factor in the long lead time required to construct new prisons and expand existing facilities. Planning for future prison capacity has been made more complex by the large growth in prisoner numbers, which increased by 38 per cent or 1 344 prisoners between 30 June 2002 and 30 June 2012. There were 5 024 prisoners in the prison system as at 30 September 2012. While long-term planning is important, this large growth in prisoner numbers and the periodic spikes in these numbers require the implementation of short-term measures—such as use of temporary beds—to quickly respond to capacity constraints. This audit focused on the prison infrastructure and support services—it has not examined the human resource implications arising from additional prisoner numbers. Details: Melbourne: Victorian Government Printer, 2012. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 10, 2012 at: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20121128-Prisons/20121128-Prisons.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/publications/20121128-Prisons/20121128-Prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 127202 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison CapacityPrison OvercrowdingPrisons (Australia) |
Author: Abrams, David S. Title: The Imprisoner's Dilemma: A Cost Benefit Approach to Incarceration Summary: Depriving an individual of life or liberty is one of the most intrusive powers that governments wield. Decisions about imprisonment capture the public imagination. The stories are told daily in newspapers and on TV, dramatized in literature and on film, and debated by scholars. The United States has created an ever-increasing amount of material for discussion as the state incarceration rate quadrupled between 1980 and 2000. While the decision to incarcerate an individual is given focused attention by a judge, prosecutor, and (occasionally) a jury, the overall incarceration rate is not. In this article, I apply a cost-benefit approach to incarceration with the goal of informing public policy. An excessive rate of incarceration not only deprives individuals of freedom, but also costs the taxpayers large amounts of money. Too little imprisonment harms society in a different way – through costs to victims and even non-victims who must increase precautions to avoid crime. Striking the right balance of costs and benefits is what good law and public policy strive for. Changes to the inmate population may be made in several different ways. One insight that I stress in this article is that the precise form of a proposed incarceration policy change is crucial to properly evaluating the impact of the change. Therefore, I analyze several potential policy changes and their implications for sentencing and imprisonment. The calculations are informed by recent empirical work on the various ways in which imprisonment impacts overall welfare. I find that the benefits of limited one-time prisoner releases, as well as the reclassification of some crimes exceed the costs. Details: Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Law School, 2012. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2012 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109703 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2109703 Shelf Number: 127227 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectionsCost Benefit AnalysisCosts of Criminal JusticeImprisonment |
Author: Kyckelhahn, Tracey Title: State Corrections Expenditures, FY 1982-2010 Summary: Presents data on state corrections expenditures from fiscal years 1982 to 2010. This bulletin examines trends in state corrections spending for building and operating institutions and for other corrections functions. The report also details institutional operating expenditures per inmate over the study period. It compares trends in state corrections expenditures with state spending for public welfare, education, health and hospitals, and highways. Data are drawn from the Census Bureau's State Government Finance Survey, which collects information on state expenditures and revenues, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Prisoner Statistics, which collects information on state prison populations. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012. 14p. Source: BJS Bulletin: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/scefy8210.pdf Shelf Number: 127264 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeExpenditures in Criminal Justice |
Author: Martin, Brian D. Title: Findings and Recommendations from a Statewide Outcome Evaluation of Ohio Jails Summary: Scholars and practitioners have very little systemic knowledge regarding evidence-based practices in jails in Ohio or nationally. Historical information about past inspections and jail characteristics maintained by the Bureau of Adult Detention has been impeded by narrowly focused content, limited time frames, and unreliable data collection techniques. As a consequence, the current research project draws on multiple methodologies and sources of information as part of an extensive evaluation of the sources of jail best practices. Data collection activities conducted throughout the project were large in scale and wide-ranging, including focus groups from 6 different stakeholder groups, a correctional officer task survey of 1,005 respondents about training-related needs and deficiencies, statewide facility-level data collection at 86 full service jails, an inmate survey with 979 respondents, a jail administrator survey with 12 respondents, semi-structured interviews of key jail operational personnel at a sample of 12 full service jails, and intensive observational site visits at a sample of 12 full service jails. The results highlight several key themes and important facility-level characteristics that differentiate between levels of functioning and effectiveness in jails. In particular, we identify a set of recommendations and identified best practices stemming from actual operational procedures and administrative capacity while also assessing the effectiveness of current inspection activities and jail standards in Ohio. Details: Columbus, OH: Bureau of Research and Evaluation Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, 2012. 107p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 7, 2013 at: http://www.ocjs.ohio.gov/FinalJailReport.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ocjs.ohio.gov/FinalJailReport.pdf Shelf Number: 127528 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsJails (Ohio)Mental Health Services |
Author: Lofstrom, Magnus Title: Capacity Challenges in California's Jails Summary: In an effort widely known as "realignment,” California has given its counties enormous new responsibilities for corrections—including authority over many new types of felony offenders and parolees. Rather than go to state prison, these offenders now go to county jail or receive an alternative sanction. In the first few months of realignment, California’s jail population increased noticeably—but many jails were already facing capacity concerns. We find that some offenders who would have been incarcerated prior to realignment are now either not locked up or are not spending as much time in jail. Going forward, counties will need to consider a wide variety of approaches for handling their capacity concerns and their expanded offender populations. Details: San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California, 2012. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 1, 2013 at: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_912MLR.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_912MLR.pdf Shelf Number: 126580 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsJails (California) |
Author: Coyle, Andrew Title: A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management. Handbook for Prison Staff. Second Edition Summary: The second edition of the ICPS handbook A Human Rights Approach to Prison Management was launched by Baroness Glenys Kinnock, Minister of State with responsibility for Human Rights at a reception in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 27 October. The first edition of the handbook was published in 2002 It has been translated into 16 languages and is widely used in prison reform work around the world. This handbook underlines the importance of managing prisons within an ethical context which respects the humanity of everyone involved in a prison: prisoners, prison staff and visitors. This ethical context needs to be universal in its appeal and this universality is provided by the international human rights instruments. There is also a pragmatic justification for this approach to prison management: it works. This style of management is the most effective and safest way of managing prisons. What this approach underlines is that the concept of human rights is not merely another subject to be added to the training curriculum. Rather, it suffuses, and is an integral part of, good prison management. Details: London: International Centre for Prison Studies, King's College London, Source: Internet Resource: Year: 0 Country: International URL: Shelf Number: 128592 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison StaffPrisons |
Author: Metcalf, Hope Title: Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies Summary: This report provides an overview of state and federal policies related to long-term isolation of inmates, a practice common in the United States and one that has drawn attention in recent years from many sectors. All jurisdictions in the United States provide for some form of separation of inmates from the general population. Prison administrators see the ability to separate inmates as central to protecting the safety of both inmates and staff. Yet many correctional systems are reviewing their use of segregated confinement; as controversy surrounds this form of control, its duration, and its effects. The debates about these practices are reflected in the terms used, with different audiences taking exceptions to each. Much of the recent public discussion calls the practice “solitary confinement” or “isolation.” In contrast, correctional facility policies use terms such as “segregation,” “restricted housing,” or “special management,” and some corrections leaders prefer the term “separation.” All agree that the practice entails separating inmates from the general population and restricting their participation in everyday activities; such as recreation, shared meals, and religious, educational, and other programs. The degree of contact permitted — with staff, other inmates, or volunteers — varies. Some jurisdictions provide single cells and others double; in some settings, inmates find ways to communicate with each other. The length of time spent in isolation can vary from a few days to many years. This report provides a window into these practices. This overview describes rules promulgated by prison officials to structure decisions on the placement of persons in “administrative segregation,” which is one form of separation of inmates from the general population. Working with the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), the Arthur Liman Program at Yale Law School launched an effort to review the written policies related to administrative segregation promulgated by correctional systems in the United States. With ASCA’s assistance, we obtained policies from 47 jurisdictions, including 46 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This overview provides a national portrait of policies governing administrative segregation for individuals in prisons, outlines the commonalities and variations among jurisdictions, facilitates comparisons across jurisdictions, and enables consideration of how and when administrative segregation is and should be used. Because this review is of written policies, it raises many questions for research – about whether the policies are implemented as written, achieve the goals for which they are crafted, and at what costs. Information is needed on the demographic data on the populations held in various forms of segregated custody, the reasons for placement of individuals in and the duration of such confinement, the views of inmates, of staff on site, and of central office personnel; and the long-term effects of administrative segregation on prison management and on individuals. Without such insights, one cannot assess the experiences of segregation from the perspectives of those who run, those who work in, and those who live in these institutions. Details: New Haven, CT: Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School, 2013. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 6, 2013 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286861 Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2286861 Shelf Number: 129265 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationCorrectional ManagementPrisonersSolitary Confinement |
Author: Ireland. Inspector of Prisons Title: An Assessment of the Irish Prison System Summary: In my various reports to date I have identified areas of concern. I have explained how certain practices do not meet International best practice. I have given guidance on how International best practice should be implemented. I have commented on the consequences of failure to implement such practice and I have suggested reforms in certain areas. I have published standards against which prisons should be benchmarked. I have engaged with the Minister for Justice and Equality (hereinafter referred to as the “Minister”), his officials, the Irish Prison Service and local management of prisons in an effort to ensure that our obligations as a Country to our prisoners are understood, that operating procedures are standardised throughout all prisons and that the advice that I have given in my various reports detailing best practice is being acted upon. 1.2 The areas of concern referred to in paragraph 1.1 are overcrowding, slopping out, mental and general health issues, the lack of dedicated committal areas in our prisons, the use of Safety Observation and Close Supervision Cells, investigations of deaths in custody and prisoner complaints. I dedicate a separate chapter to each of these issues. 1.3 In Chapters 2 to 9, I give an assessment on where the Irish Prison System stands at the moment regarding the areas of concern raised by me over the years and referred to in paragraph 1.2. 1.4 I am satisfied that great strides have been made by the Irish Prison Service within the last number of years to address the serious concerns raised by me. These strides would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of the Minister and his officials. 1.5 I have stated in paragraph 1.4 that great strides have been made. However, the physical characteristics of a prison or of a particular part of a prison or the formulation of standard operating procedures will not necessarily guarantee adherence to accepted best practice. The Irish Prison Service and the local management of prisons must be proactive to ensure that there is no slippage in this regard. 1.6 I now have additional resources in my office (See Chapter 6 of my Annual Report 2012). Therefore, if slippages do occur, I will be in a position to monitor same and report as appropriate. Details: Nenagh, Ireland: Office of the Inspector of Prisons 2013. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 9, 2013 at: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/An%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Irish%20Prison%20System.pdf/Files/An%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Irish%20Prison%20System.pdf Year: 2013 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/An%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Irish%20Prison%20System.pdf/Files/An%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Irish%20Prison%20System.pdf Shelf Number: 129284 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsPrisons (Ireland) |
Author: Becker, Karl Title: Colorado Prison Utilization Study Summary: This report summarizes CNA’s analysis of the state of Colorado’s short and long term needs for prison capacity. The study addresses the amount of capacity required and the types of beds needed, taking into consideration operational efficiency and programmatic needs. CNA’s review of prison utilization in the Colorado state prison system indicates that based on professional standards for managing correctional system capacity, the Colorado Department of Corrections (CDOC) has a current operational capacity of 17,533 beds. This level is 2,183 beds below the CDOC’s stated operational capacity of 19,716 beds. With a total system prison population of 17,491 as of the end of May, CNA’s analysis indicates that the current aggregate operational capacity of the prison system is roughly in balance with the current inmate population level. Most of the difference between CDOC’s and CNA’s respective approaches to defining operational capacity stems from the treatment of special purpose units and unbudgeted private contract beds. The CDOC definition of operational capacity includes special purpose beds dedicated to functions such as infirmary care and management control (punitive segregation). CNA’s position, consistent with the practices of most state correctional systems, is that because these beds must be reserved for inmates in need of health care in the case of infirmaries and for inmate discipline in the case of management control beds; they are not available for general population housing. As such, they should not be included in operational capacity plans. CNA includes only budgeted contract facility beds in operational capacity. For the current year, this includes 3,300 beds at the Correctional Corporation of America (CCA) facilities (Bent County, Crowley County, and Kit Carson) and 604 beds at Cheyenne Mountain Reentry Center, for a total of 3,903 private contract beds. CDOC includes total private facility capacity in its definition of operational capacity, including unbudgeted beds. The total capacity of these facilities is 5,524, which is 1,621 beds above the level funded in the CDOC budget. CNA’s position is that a prison bed that cannot be paid for is not available to house inmates, and therefore should not be included in operational capacity. CNA’s calculation of operational capacity begins with documentation of all prison beds potentially available in all CDOC facilities. From this base we then deduct those beds that are not available on an ongoing and regular basis for the housing of general population inmates. Details: Alexandria, VA: CNA Analysis & Solutions, 2013. 171p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 19, 2013 at: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/ColoradoPrison.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/research/ColoradoPrison.pdf Shelf Number: 129467 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison CapacityPrison PopulationPrisons (Colorado, U.S.) |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division Title: Investigation of the State Correctional Institution at Cresson and Notice of Expanded Investigation Summary: The Civil Rights Division has completed its investigation into the conditions of confinement at Pem1sylvania State Correctional Institution at Cresson ("Cresson"), conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights ofInstitutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 1997. CRIP A authorizes the Department of Justice to seek equitable relief where prison condition~ violate the constitutional rights of prisoners in state correctional facilities. Consistent with the statutory requirements of CRIP A, we write to inform you of our findings. After carefully reviewing the evidence, we conclude that the maill1er in which Cresson uses isolation on prisoners with serious mental illness violates the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. We also conclude that Cresson uses isolation in a way that violates the rights of prisoners with serious mental illness, as well as prisoners with intellectual disabilities, under Title II ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2013. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2013 at: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/cresson_findings_5-31-13.pdf Shelf Number: 129566 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationMental Health ServicesMentally Ill OffendersPrisoners (Pennsylvania, U.S.)Solitary Confinement |
Author: Kirby, Holly Title: Locked Up & Shipped Away: Interstate Prisoner Transfers and the Private Prison Industry Summary: As part of the ongoing efforts to create truly just public safety policy, this report examines state governments' practice of transferring incarcerated people out of their home states to for-profit private prisons across the United States. Section I of this report provides a brief history of the private prison industry, including how private prison corporations have raked in enormous profits from mass incarceration in the United States. In Section II we discuss the lack of uniform laws regulating the leasing of prison beds from private prison corporations, both in and out-of-state. The paucity of laws, coupled with the latitude granted to the private prison industry, enables the mass interstate transfer of incarcerated people. Section III provides an overview of today's interstate prisoner transfer landscape, including details on which states currently have prisoners in out-of-state private prisons. We provide information on state spending and Corrections Corporation of America revenues for out-of-state private prison contracts. In Section IV we describe how the transfer of prisoners out of their home states undermines family connections and prisoner rehabilitation. In Section V we discuss oversight and liability issues for state agencies and private prison companies related to the interstate transfer of prisoners. Finally, Section VI provides our recommendations. We urge states to prioritize the return of incarcerated people currently housed out-of-state by taking steps to reduce their prison populations and passing legislation that bans the exportation of incarcerated people from their home states, particularly to for-profit private prisons. Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2013. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 13, 2013 at Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/uploads/locked_up_shipped_away.pdf Shelf Number: 131762 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrisoners, Interstate TransferPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Crout & Sida Criminal Justice Consultants Title: Orange County Jail Assessment Project Summary: On June 10, 2008, the Orange County Board of Supervisors appointed Sheriff Sandra Hutchens to lead the Orange County Sheriff's Department after the resignation of former Sheriff Michael Carona. The Orange County Sheriff's Department had been buffeted in recent years by allegations of mismanagement and with special notoriety attached to the homicide death of inmate, John Derek Chamberlain who was being held in the jail. Upon her appointment, Sheriff Hutchens, made an inquiry for the purpose of hiring an expert consultant to develop and complete a comprehensive assessment of the Orange County jails. Crout & Sida Criminal Justice Consultants (CSCJC) was subsequently selected by the Sheriff's Department and the County Board of Supervisors to conduct a study of the five separate jail facilities operated by the Sheriff's Department, along with an assessment of the court holding facilities, and jail programs. In accordance with the contract for consulting services, the final report was required to be completed within a 120 days in order to provide a timely and credible assessment of the jail system and enabling the Sheriff to quickly address operational issues, to effect course corrections in the jail, wherever necessary. In order to harvest objective and credible information, CSCJC developed a template containing evaluation criteria with which to conduct the audits, trained our team of consultants on the criteria, began onsite inspections and evaluations of the jail system in July 2008 and concluded them in November 2008. To enable immediate attention to deficiencies identified during the audits, CSCJC provided periodic executive reports to the Sheriff, executive staff and jail managers. Additionally, Interim Reports to the Sheriff's Department describing our findings for each facility/bureau and unit that was assessed was provided to the Custody Operations Command that contains detailed observations gleaned from the evaluation instruments developed for this project. Throughout the project, the CSCJC consulting team has made 115 recommendations and provided implementation-planning tools to OCSD jail managers for further action based upon the information provided in the reports. This OCJAP Final Report represents a compilation of data and observations made for each of the custody entities examined and is the comprehensive view of the findings and recommendations of the OCJAP. Details: Santa Ana, CA: Government of Orange County, 2008. 182p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 31, 2014 at: http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy5/newsletters/pdf/OCJAP_Final_Report-11-14-08.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://bos.ocgov.com/legacy5/newsletters/pdf/OCJAP_Final_Report-11-14-08.pdf Shelf Number: 131821 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional ProgramsJails |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Guide to Meeting Basic Needs Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable and it is the jail administrators responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Relatively few resources make it challenging to provide assistance and detailed direction to administrators on how best to operate such a complex organization. National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has introduced an initiative designed to: teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to manage inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied 7 Defining and conveying expectations is one in a series of documents or tools for jails practitioners to use as they implement this management strategy A Guide to Meeting Basic Needs offers practical information and guidance on implementing element three meeting inmates basic needs. One important aspect of managing inmate behavior is to understand what motivates human behavior. Experience has shown that if a jail does not meet the basic human needs of inmates, the inmates will find a way to satisfy their needs in ways that may be unfavorable to the orderly operation of the jail. Understanding what motivates human behavior provides jail administrators with a very useful tool for managing inmates since it helps explain both good inmate behavior and bad. This document not only provides guidance to jail practitioners as they implement this element, but it also provides self-assessment checklists to determine how well the jail is doing in the delivery of basic needs and suggestions for area of improvement. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2014. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027704.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027704.pdf Shelf Number: 132577 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationInmate DisciplineInmatesJail AdministrationJailsPrison AdministrationPrison ViolencePrisoners |
Author: Zajac, Gary Title: An Examination of Pennsylvania's Rural County Prison Systems Summary: This study explores issues surrounding the operation of the 44 rural county jails in Pennsylvania. County jails house two primary categories of inmates - presentenced detainees and sentenced inmates. Presentenced detainees are inmates who have not made bail or have not yet been sentenced (and may or may not yet have been convicted of an offense). Some of these presentenced detainees may be bailed at any moment, and, thus, are in custody for widely varying lengths of time. At any given time, over half of a county jail's population may be presentenced detainees. Sentenced inmates are those who have been convicted and are serving their sentence in a county facility. Sentenced inmates in county jails nationwide typically have sentences of less than one year, but in Pennsylvania they can serve up to two years or more. County jails in general face a unique set of challenges, including large numbers of inmates who spend only a very short time in custody, difficulty in classifying and assessing a short-term inmate population, challenges in providing treatment services to inmates who may be in custody for only a short period, and financial issues related inmate medical costs and strained county budgets. County jails are often quite small, in some cases housing just over 20 inmates, making it difficult to maintain specialized staff positions to deliver needed services to inmates. In Pennsylvania, county jails in recent years have begun to serve as a relief valve for the increasingly strained state prison system. The state system has transferred hundreds of inmates to county jails since 2009, as many of these jails have excess capacity. The current study examines trends in rural county jail populations and demographics, jail capacity, capital projects and development (undertaken and planned), budgets, and staffing over the period 2004 through 2011. This study also documents types of treatment programs and services being offered at the jails and compares them to what is known about effective offender rehabilitation practices. Finally, this study also explores fiscal and other challenges facing the 44 rural county jails. Details: Harrisburg, PA: Pennsylvania State University, 2012. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 17, 2014 at: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/documents/JailsFinalReportJusticeCenterversion.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://justicecenter.psu.edu/research/documents/JailsFinalReportJusticeCenterversion.pdf Shelf Number: 131699 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCounty JailsInmatesOffender RehabilitationPrisonersPrisonsRural AreasTreatment Programs |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Northampton County Jail Case Study Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable, and it is jail administrators' responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Effectively managing inmate behavior creates a safer environment for the inmates and staff and allows the jail to provide a valuable service to the public. Community safety is enhanced by strong jail management and facilities should aspire to create environments where compliance, respect, and cooperation are fostered. In an attempt to create a system of strong management, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) introduced an initiative that was designed to teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to control inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates' basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied Inmate Behavior Management: Northampton County Jail Case Study provides an example of how one facility planned and implemented the IBM management system and transitioned to a philosophy that refused to accept negative behavior as a natural result of the process of confinement. The experiences and results detailed in this report can be considered a valuable resource for any jail administrator who wants to make similar changes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Corrections, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027702.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027702.pdf Shelf Number: 133014 Keywords: Correctional Administration Inmate Discipline Inmates Jail Administration JailsPrison Administration Prison Violence Prisoners |
Author: Hoke, Scott Title: Inmate Behavior Management: Brazos County Jail Case Study Summary: Violence, vandalism, and other unwanted inmate behaviors prevail in many jails nationwide, and they frustrate jail practitioners who must ensure the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the public. Jail environments are one of the few environments in our communities where this type of behavior is expected and accepted. The environment created by these behaviors should not be considered acceptable, and it is jail administrators' responsibility to operate their facilities in a way that prevents these behaviors from occurring. Effectively managing inmate behavior creates a safer environment for inmates and staff and allows the jail to provide a valuable service to the public. Community safety is enhanced by strong jail management, and facilities should aspire to create environments where compliance, respect, and cooperation are fostered. In an attempt to create a system of strong management, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) introduced an initiative that was designed to teach administrators, managers, and corrections officers the most effective methods to control inmate behavior and optimize operational efficiency. NIC calls the initiative Inmate Behavior Management or IBM. The comprehensive management system has six identifiable elements that work together to control inmate behavior and create an efficient and effective organization (Hutchinson, Keller, and Reid 2009): 1 Assessing risks and needs 2 Assigning inmates to housing 3 Meeting inmates' basic needs 4 Defining and conveying expectations for inmates 5 Supervising inmates 6 Keeping inmates productively occupied Inmate Behavior Management: Brazos County Jail Case Study provides an example of how one facility planned and implemented the IBM management system and transitioned to a philosophy that refused to accept negative behavior as a natural result of the process of confinement. The experiences and results detailed in this report can be considered a valuable resource for any jail administrator who wants to make similar changes. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2014. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027703.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://s3.amazonaws.com/static.nicic.gov/Library/027703.pdf Shelf Number: 133021 Keywords: Correctional Administration Inmate Discipline Inmates Jail Administration JailsPrison Administration Prison Violence Prisoners |
Author: Kim, KiDeuk Title: Aging Behind Bars: Trends and Implications of Graying Prisoners in the Federal Prison System Summary: This new Urban Institute study provides an in-depth examination of the growth patterns in the largest correctional system in the United States - the US Bureau of Prisons. The number of prisoners age 50 or older experienced a 330 percent increase from 1994 to 2011. The authors find that the proportion of these older prisoners is expected to have an even steeper growth curve in the near future and they may consume a disproportionately large amount of the federal prison budget. Recommendations for policy and research include expanding data-driven knowledge on older prisoners and developing cost-effective management plans for them. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2014. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 10, 2014 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413222-Aging-Behind-Bars.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413222-Aging-Behind-Bars.pdf Shelf Number: 133253 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationElderly Inmates (U.S.)Elderly OffendersFederal Prisons |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Management of New Prison Activations Can Be Improved Summary: The federal inmate population has increased over the last two decades, and as of July 2014, BOP was responsible for the custody and care of more than 216,000 inmates. To handle the projected growth of between 2,500 and 3,000 or more inmates per year from 2015 through 2020, BOP has spent about $1.3 billion constructing five new institutions and acquiring one in Thomson, Illinois. BOP is activating these institutions by staffing and equipping them and populating them with inmates. GAO was requested to review BOP's activation process of newly constructed and acquired institutions. GAO reviewed, among other things, (1) the extent to which BOP is activating institutions within estimated time-frames and has an activation policy or schedules that meet best practices, and (2) why DOJ purchased Thomson and how the purchase affected system wide costs. GAO reviewed BOP budget documents from fiscal years 2008 to 2015 and assessed schedules against GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide. GAO conducted site visits to the six institutions, interviewed BOP officials, and reviewed staffing data from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOJ use its annual budget justification to communicate to Congress factors that might delay prison activation, and that BOP analyze institution-level staffing data and develop and implement a comprehensive activation policy and a schedule that reflects best practices. DOJ concurred with all of GAO's recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-14-709: Accessed September 25, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665417.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665417.pdf Shelf Number: 133416 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFederal Prisons (U.S.)Prison ManagementPrisoners |
Author: California. Office of the Inspector General Title: Central California Women's Facility: Warden Mary Lattimore One-Year Audit Summary: Office of the Inspector General (OIG) found that Warden Mary Lattimore has satisfactorily performed her job as warden at Central California Women's Facility (CCWF). However, our surveys and interviews of prison employees revealed some problems that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and warden should address. Many interviewees and survey respondents voiced concerns that management does not work together as a team and is often fragmented. While many factors can influence the ways that staff and management view themselves, it is clear that Warden Lattimore must further her efforts to build a cohesive team through better communication with her managers. Our review also noted that although CCWF employees rated the prison's safety and security overall as average, CCWF has had riots in the main yard and more use-of-force incidents than in many male institutions. According to the warden and custody staff we interviewed, women's prisons are less violent than comparable men's prisons; moreover, at women's prisons, incidents and fights usually do not result in serious injury to inmates or employees. Yet employees at CCWF frequently use force to maintain security. One alternative identified by the use-of-force committee to decrease the need for force was additional education and training for staff working with mentally disordered inmates so that tensions may be defused without resorting to force. Details: Sacramento, CA: Office of the Inspector General, 2010. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 2, 2014 at: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/ARCHIVE/BOA/Audits/Warden%20Mary%20Lattimore%20One-Year%20Audit%20Central%20California%20Womens%20Facility.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.oig.ca.gov/media/reports/ARCHIVE/BOA/Audits/Warden%20Mary%20Lattimore%20One-Year%20Audit%20Central%20California%20Womens%20Facility.pdf Shelf Number: 133542 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison WardensPrisons (California) |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Information on Efforts and Potential Options to Save Costs Summary: BOP is responsible for the custody and care of 216,000 federal inmates-an almost 9-fold increase since 1980. At the same time, BOP appropriations increased more than 20-fold. DOJ states that the costs of the growing population are BOP's greatest challenge. BOP's population size is driven by several factors, such as law enforcement policies and sentencing laws. GAO was asked to review BOP's opportunities to save costs. This report (1) describes BOP's major costs and actions to achieve savings, (2) assesses the extent to which BOP has mechanisms to identify additional efficiencies, and (3) describes potential changes within and outside of BOP's authority that might reduce costs. GAO analyzed BOP financial data for fiscal years 2009 through 2013, reviewed but did not test its internal control system and processes for achieving efficiencies, and interviewed BOP officials. On the basis of sentencing reform options identified by experts and actions by the Attorney General, GAO developed a list of policy options that could reduce BOP's population. GAO gathered views on their potential effects from entities and 4 states selected for their criminal justice expertise. The views are not generalizable, but provide insights. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that BOP establish a mechanism to consistently monitor if bureau-wide corrective actions address repeated deficiencies and findings. DOJ concurred. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 139p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-14-821: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666254.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/666254.pdf Shelf Number: 133618 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeFederal Prisons (U.S.)InmatesPrisoners |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Title: CRIPA Investigation of the New York City Department of Correction Jails on Rikers Island Summary: Attorney General Eric Holder and United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York Preet Bharara announced today the completion of the Justice Department's multi-year civil investigation pursuant to the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act ("CRIPA") into the conditions of confinement of adolescent male inmates on Rikers Island. The investigation, which focused on use of force by staff, inmate-on-inmate violence, and use of punitive segregation during the period 2011-2013, concluded that there is a pattern and practice of conduct at Rikers Island that violates the rights of adolescents protected by the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The investigation found that adolescent inmates are not adequately protected from physical harm due to the rampant use of unnecessary and excessive force by New York City Department of Correction ("DOC") staff and violence inflicted by other inmates. In addition, the investigation found that DOC relies too heavily on punitive segregation as a disciplinary measure, placing adolescent inmates in what amounts to solitary confinement at an alarming rate and for excessive periods of time. Many of the adolescent inmates are particularly vulnerable because they suffer from mental illness. Details: New York: United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, 2014. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 30, 2014 at: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/August14/RikersReportPR/SDNY%20Rikers%20Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/usao/nys/pressreleases/August14/RikersReportPR/SDNY%20Rikers%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 133871 Keywords: AdolescentsCorrectional AdministrationInmate ViolenceJail AdministrationJails (New York City)Prison ViolencePrisoner AbusePrisonersRikers IslandSegregation |
Author: Isaacs, Caroline Title: Death Yards: Continuing Problems with Arizona's Correctional Health Care Summary: On March 6, 2012, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) charging that prisoners in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections receive such grossly inadequate medical, mental health and dental care that they are in grave danger of suffering serious and preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement and premature death. This class action lawsuit has the potential to force the state of Arizona to improve its prison medical care. But legal battles are long and costly. The state is fighting tooth and nail, including an upcoming challenge to the suit's class action status. The final resolution will likely take years. But what has changed in the day-to-day provision of medical care to prisoners in Arizona? Have conditions improved in light of the charges brought by the suit? Has the transition in management of the medical care from one for-profit corporate contractor (Wexford) to another (Corizon) addressed any of the previous health care lapses? Sadly, the answer appears to be no. Correspondence from prisoners; analysis of medical records, autopsy reports, and investigations; and interviews with anonymous prison staff and outside experts indicate that, if anything, things have gotten worse. Details: Tucson: American Friends Service Committee -- Tucson, 2013. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 20, 2014 at: http://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/death-yards-continuing-problems-with-arizonas-correctional-health-care-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://afscarizona.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/death-yards-continuing-problems-with-arizonas-correctional-health-care-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 134161 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectionsHealth CareMedical CarePrisonersPrisons (Arizona)Privatization |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Montana Title: Locked in the Past: Montana's Jails in Crisis Summary: Despite heralding itself as a champion of freedom and human liberty, the United States has the second highest incarceration rate in the world, taking second only to the African nation of Seychelles. Of the incarcerated, statistics suggest that as many as 38% are being held in county detention centers and many of those inmates are held pre-trial. These pre-trial prisoners-an estimated 21.6% of all incarcerated Americans-are detained before guilt is proven in a court of law, weakening the proud American axiom that our citizens are "innocent until proven guilty." Problematically, many county detention centers lack adequate funding and struggle to effectively manage the incarcerated. The impacts these often-deplorable conditions can have on individuals and society as a whole are extremely far reaching. Neglect in county detention centers, coupled with a prevalence of mental illness, leads to a high rate of recidivism, which turns the justice system into a revolving door that is a blight on county, state, and federal budgets. Incarceration rates have started to decrease for the first time in decades, albeit at a glacial pace. The reduction of the incarceration rate is largely fueled by the financial realities and burdens of housing an historic number of prisoners at local, state, and federal levels. County detention centers play a unique role in this process in that they often house people on the front-end of the criminal justice system, such as pretrial detention, and can thus be addressed with different measures than state or federal prisons. County detention centers can improve through coercion, such as litigation, or through collaboration between entities with shared goals. The American Civil Liberties Union of Montana (ACLU) is eager to work with counties to improve detention center conditions, streamline local criminal justice policies, and help make counties more effective at screening, prosecuting, and housing the accused and convicted at local levels. The ACLU of Montana has worked collaboratively with counties throughout the state. For example, the ACLU helped Custer County officials come to grips with their deplorable and antiquated facility by passing a successful bond measure to renovate its facilities. The ACLU is currently working with Lewis & Clark County to assess options for pretrial release and other options for reducing their chronically over crowded facility. The ACLU of Montana is working statewide on substantive criminal justice reform that will allow the courts to respond to the unique needs of the accused on a path to rehabilitation, rather than warehousing them in county detention centers. The purpose of this report is to provide a comprehensive overview that identifies conditions of confinement in county detention centers throughout Montana and provide recommendations regarding how we might improve those conditions. The study utilized a three-prong methodology, including touring jails, interviewing administrators and prisoners, and sending a mixed-method questionnaire to all jail inmates in the state. We identified several overarching trends, including: - Overuse of solitary confinement for individuals with mental illness - Inadequate numbers of detention staff - Lack of access to fresh air - Lack of access to natural light and exercise - Inadequate medical and mental health care - Overcrowding - Lack of basic necessities such as underwear, socks, and bras - Unconstitutional prohibitions on visitation from minors and non-family members - Lack of access to law libraries - Inadequate or unworkable grievance procedures - Sub-par physical plant issues Details: Helena, MT: ACLU of Montana, 2015. 74p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2015 at: http://aclumontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-ACLU-Jail-Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://aclumontana.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/2015-ACLU-Jail-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 134754 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsDetention CentersJail OvercrowdingJails (Montana)Pretrial Detention |
Author: McGinnis, Kenneth Title: Federal Bureau of Prisons: Special Housing Unit Review and Assessment Summary: This report provides an independent, comprehensive review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' operation of restrictive housing and identifies potential operational and policy improvements. Specifically, it provides a comprehensive, detailed evaluation of the Bureau's use of restrictive housing, including the following key areas: national trends and best practices in the management of restrictive housing units; profile of the Bureau's segregation population; Bureau policies and procedures governing the management of restrictive housing; unit operations and conditions of confinement; mental health assessment and treatment within restrictive housing units; application of inmate due-process rights; reentry programming; and the impact of the use of restrictive housing on system safety and security. The report also evaluates the impact of the restrictive housing program on the federal prison system and places the Bureau's use of segregation in context with professional standards and best practices found in other correctional systems. The findings and recommendations contained in this report are based on the information and data collected while conducting site visits to the Bureau's restrictive housing units and facilities from November 2013 through May 2014. Any operational changes or new written policies implemented by the Bureau after completion of the site visits regarding their use of restrictive housing are not reflected in this report. Some such changes were in process or were scheduled for implementation after the completion of the site visits. Details: Arlington, VA: CNA Analysis & Solutions, 2014. 262p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2015 at: http://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/CNA-SHUReportFinal_123014_2.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.bop.gov/resources/news/pdfs/CNA-SHUReportFinal_123014_2.pdf Shelf Number: 134770 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFederal InmatesFederal Prisons Restrictive Housing Solitary ConfinementU.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons |
Author: Keehn, Emily Title: Evaluation of South Africa's Judicial Inspectorate for Correctional Services: Assessing its independence, effectiveness and community engagement Summary: The Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services (JICS) is a vital watchdog body that oversees South Africa's correctional system, mandated to inspect and report on the treatment of inmates. The correctional system faces many challenges such as overcrowding, high levels of HIV and Tuberculosis (TB), violence, and short staffing. The mass corruption and administrative struggles of the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) that were documented in the 2006 report by the Jali Commission of Inquiry highlighted that the situation was so dire that the Department was arguably no longer governable. Abuse and rights violations remain in South Africa's prisons even though DCS has improved its performance in some respects, for example, by providing access to anti-retrovirals and condoms. The McCallum case, in which Bradley McCallum and a group of inmates in St. Albans prison were physically and sexually assaulted in a manner amounting to torture, and the riots and deaths in Groenpunt and St. Alban's prisons in early 2013, are examples of serious mismanagement and abuses that continue. In order for JICS to be an effective oversight body, it requires institutional independence, and cooperation and support from other public entities, particularly from DCS. JICS currently faces challenges in both these areas. This paper analyses these and other challenges, and explores ways in which the independence and success of JICS can be strengthened, drawing lessons from similar watchdog bodies in South Africa and various other countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, Mauritius and Zambia. Certain features of these institutions might serve as examples for how JICS could potentially be restructured to strengthen its ability to carry out its mandate. Lastly, JICS has also been a critical bridge between an often non-transparent correctional system and community organisations, other stakeholders, and the general public. Considering DCS' positioning of inmate rehabilitation as a community responsibility, there is a distinct role for civil society and community organisations to play in supporting JICS. Hence this paper outlines ways in which stakeholders can lend capacity. Details: Cape Town, South Africa: Sonke Gender Justice Network, 2013. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2015 at: http://www.genderjustice.org.za/publication/evaluation-of-south-africas-judicial-inspectorate-for-correctional-services/ Year: 2013 Country: South Africa URL: http://www.genderjustice.org.za/publication/evaluation-of-south-africas-judicial-inspectorate-for-correctional-services/ Shelf Number: 134995 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional ProgramsCorrections (South Africa)Prison ConditionsPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Hastings, Allison Title: Keeping Vulnerable Populations Safe Under PREA: Alternative Strategies to the Use of Segregation in Prisons and Jails Summary: Incarcerated people at risk for sexual victimization need to be housed safely without losing access to programming, mental and medical health services, and group activities. The National Standards to Prevent, Detect, and Respond to Prison Rape emphasize that isolation be used to protect at-risk populations only when no other alternatives are available and all other options have been explored. To help agencies achieve compliance with these standards, Vera's Center on Sentencing and Corrections, in conjunction with the National PREA Resource Center, has developed guidelines to provide prison and jail administrators and staff with promising strategies for safely housing inmates at risk of sexual abuse without isolating them. This guide includes approaches for managing the housing of populations at particularly high risk for sexual abuse in confinement: women; youthful inmates in adult facilities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex (LGBTI) individuals; and people who are gender nonconforming. Details: New York: National PREA Resource Center, Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/housing-vulnerable-populations-prea-guide-april.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/housing-vulnerable-populations-prea-guide-april.pdf Shelf Number: 135217 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationPrison RapePrisoners (U.S.)Sexual Victimization |
Author: Allen, Rob Title: Global Prison Trends: 2015 Summary: This report is designed to describe key global trends in the use and practice of imprisonment and to identify some of the pressing challenges facing states that wish to organise their penitentiary system in accordance with international norms and standards. Topics include: - Prison populations and rates of imprisonment - Prison management - Prison regimes - New technologies - Criminal justice, social policy and sustainable development The report also includes a Special Focus pull-out section on the impact of the 'war on drugs' and its implications for prison management. Significant international developments, recent research projects and precedent-setting court decisions are highlighted throughout. Global Prison Trends is intended to be an annual publication. Tracking trends and challenges in criminal justice systems will be vital to designing and assessing measures intended to strengthen the rule of law as a means to advancing sustainable development. Details: London: Penal Reform International, 2015. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2015 at: http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PRI-Prisons-global-trends-report-LR.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/PRI-Prisons-global-trends-report-LR.pdf Shelf Number: 135332 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsPrisonersPrisons Rates of Imprisonment |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons Contract No. DJB1PC007 Awarded to Reeves County, Texas to Operate theReeves County Detention Center I/II Pecos, Texas Summary: In January 2007, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) awarded Contract No. DJB1PC007 to Reeves County, Texas (Reeves County) to operate the Reeves County Detention Center compounds R1 and R2 (RCDC I/II). The purpose of this service contract is to house up to 2,407 low-security, non-U.S. citizen adult males. The contract has a 4-year base period with three 2-year option periods, an estimated value of $493 million, and is the Department's second largest contract in terms of total dollars obligated since fiscal year 2014, according to the Federal Procurement Data System. In early 2015, the BOP exercised the contract's third and final option period to extend performance through January 2017. Reeves County subcontracted management of RCDC I/II to The GEO Group, Inc. (the GEO Group), a Florida-based corporation. Reeves County also subcontracted with Correct Care Solutions, LLC (CCS), a Tennessee-based company, to provide comprehensive healthcare services to RCDC I/II inmates.1 The BOP conducts monitoring and oversight of RCDC I/II operations and is responsible for examining all areas of the contract including health services, education, recreation, food service, correctional services, correctional programs, safety, inmate services, and any other area in which inmates voice concerns during interactions with BOP staff. In January 2009, there was an inmate riot at RCDC I/II.2 The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to assess BOP and RCDC I/II compliance with contract terms and conditions in the areas of billings and payments, staffing requirements, and contract oversight and monitoring. We found that Reeves County and CCS failed to comply with provisions of the Service Contract Act of 1965 (Service Contract Act). As a result, we identified almost $3 million that we either questioned as unallowable or unsupported, or believe should be put to better use.3 Specifically, we found that Reeves County improperly requested and the BOP improperly paid $1.95 million in fringe benefits it was not entitled to receive, including $175,436 in payroll taxes and workers' compensation insurance that were incorrectly calculated. Additionally, CCS requested and the BOP paid $74,765 in fringe benefits that were not properly supported with payroll documentation. Also, we identified and CCS acknowledged fringe benefit underpayments covering 12 current and former CCS employees totaling $22,628. Upon learning about our finding and quantifying these errors, CCS sent reimbursement checks to the 12 current and former CCS employees for the fringe benefit underpayments. Some of the aforementioned unallowable reimbursements have a compounding effect over time because they are incorporated into each monthly invoice until the contract ends. We therefore found that, in addition to remedying the unallowable reimbursements it has already made, the BOP should reduce the contract's monthly price by $41,088 to ensure the contractor will not improperly charge BOP an additional $945,024 should the contract continue through its final month in January 2017. We concluded that these errors were not identified previously because the BOP and the contractors did not have an accurate understanding of certain fundamental requirements of the Service Contract Act. We further found that, between February 2007 and December 2014, RCDC I/II was rated "deficient" or "unsatisfactory" in 6 of 12 award fee evaluation periods.4 BOP's award fee rating reports reflected that RCDC I/II consistently struggled to meet or exceed baseline contractual standards, received an unacceptable number of deficiencies and notices of concern; was unresponsive to BOP inquiries; struggled with staffing issues in health services and correctional services; and frequently submitted inaccurate routine paperwork, including erroneous disciplinary hearing records and monthly invoices. In addition, the BOP reports repeatedly described RCDC I/II's quality control program as minimally or marginally effective. BOP reports indicate that performance improved over time, particularly in 2013 when the contractor received a "good" rating and its first award fee, and in 2014 when the contractor received a "very good" rating and its second award fee. Regarding staffing, we found that during this contract's solicitation process, the BOP requested contractors to submit two offers, one of which eliminated minimum staffing requirements, such as maintaining staffing levels up to 90 percent for correctional services, 85 percent for health services, and 85 percent for all other departments of the BOP approved staffing plan. BOP officials told us they removed these staffing requirements to achieve cost savings and grant the contractor flexibility and discretion to manage the staffing of the facility. As a result, from the start of the contract to March 2009 there were no minimum staffing requirements for the facility. During that time, we found that the number of Correctional Officers was significantly below the 90 percent threshold that was later reincorporated into the contract after the inmate riot in January 2009. Using Staffing Report and Wage Determination information, we found that from April 2007 to March 2009, Reeves County would have spent an additional $4.67 million in order to fill enough Correctional Officer positions to meet the Staffing Plan thresholds that were later reincorporated in the contract after the January 2009 riot. According to an After-Action Report prepared by BOP officials following the January 2009 riot, the BOP noted that while low staffing levels alone were not the direct cause of the disturbances, they directly affected Security and Health Services functions. Following the inmate riot, the BOP reinstated the minimum staffing requirements into the contract, resulting in significantly increased staff at RCDC I/II, including Correctional Officer staffing that has typically been above the 90 percent threshold since the contract change.We found that RCDC I/II has also had significant issues staffing its health services unit. In December 2010, the BOP added to all contracts with privately managed correctional facilities a requirement that the contractor staff its health services unit so that staffing levels equaled or exceeded 85 percent of the contract requirement. However, from December 2010 through December 2013, a period spanning 37 months, RCDC I/II failed to meet the 85 percent threshold in 34 of the 37 months. After we expressed our concerns with these staffing issues, CCS began a concerted effort to adequately staff RCDC I/II and has exceeded the 85 percent threshold from September 2014 through February 2015. Because RCDC I/II consistently failed to achieve the 85 percent staffing requirement from December 2010 through December 2013, its vacant health services positions became subject to invoice deductions. Specifically, the Federal Acquisition Regulation authorizes the BOP to address non-compliant staffing by reducing the contract price to reflect the "reduced value of the services performed." However, the BOP calculated the reduced value of the services performed based on the minimum pay rates required by Department of Labor (DOL) issued wage determinations instead of the higher market value salaries that CCS had been paying its health services personnel, resulting in smaller invoice deductions. For one personnel category, licensed vocational nurses, we estimated that CCS would have had to pay $314,856 more in total compensation from 2011-2013, had the BOP continued to use actual rates as the basis for deductions instead of the lesser DOL rate. Given RCDC I/II's past issues with staffing its health services unit and the differences between the aforementioned deduction methods, we believe that BOP's use of the DOL rate as a deduction basis creates a potential financial incentive for CCS to accept less costly monthly vacancy deductions rather than filling costlier positions at market rates. Our audit also assessed RCDC I/II's quality control program. We found that this program, which had been minimally or marginally effective, improved over time and BOP onsite staff generally provided comprehensive monitoring and oversight. However, we identified areas for continued improvement. Specifically, RCDC I/II needs to retain original quality control-related documentation as required by the contract, fully document monitoring activities, and complete corrective action plans for significant deficiencies. Finally, we found that RCDC I/II officials had converted a general population housing unit into a "modified monitoring unit" referred to as the "J-Unit." The purpose of the J-Unit was to isolate from the rest of the compound's population inmates found to be coercing other inmates to join demonstrations, and whose behavior was creating institutional security problems capable of jeopardizing the safety of RCDC I/II staff and inmates. J-Unit inmates have more restricted movement and less access to institutional services than general population inmates. The OIG's review of the J-Unit determined that RCDC I/II lacked specific policies and procedures that addressed important aspects of the J-Unit's operations, such as (1) guidance on what evidence is necessary to place an inmate into the J-Unit; (2) procedures to ensure inmates receive due process with respect to placement in J-Unit, including the ability to challenge their placement in the J-Unit and the steps necessary to re-designate inmates to an unrestricted general population unit; (3) monitoring or oversight mechanisms to ensure the J-Unit is used as intended; and (4) safeguards to ensure inmate rights are consistent, to the maximum extent possible in light of security concerns, with inmates in other general population housing. This report makes 18 recommendations to assist BOP in improving contractor and subcontractor operations and BOP monitoring and oversight at RCDC I/II under Contract No. DJB1PC007, and in addressing the almost $3 million identified as questioned costs and funds that should be put to better use. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, 2015. 85p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Division 15-15: Accessed April 30, 2015 at: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2015/a1515.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2015/a1515.pdf Shelf Number: 135430 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFederal PrisonsPrison AdministrationPrison Conditions (Texas) |
Author: Kirby, Holly Title: Locked Up & Shipped Away: Paying the Price for Vermont's Response to Prison Overcrowding Summary: This report is a Vermont-focused, supplemental brief to the November 2013 report, Locked Up and Shipped Away: Interstate Prisoner Transfers and the Private Prison Industry, states - Vermont, Idaho, Hawaii, and California - collectively send more than 10,000 prisoners to out-of-state private prisons. Grassroots Leadership now coordinates the national Locked Up and Shipped Away Campaign to shed light on the experiences of those directly affected and demand that state leaders put an end to this inhumane practice, reduce the number of people behind bars, and cut ties with the private, for-profit prison industry. Grassroots Leadership has partnered with Vermonters for Criminal Justice Reform - whose mission is to work for a more restorative and effective criminal justice response - to fight for the return of nearly 500 Vermonters currently housed in out-of-state private prisons. This report presents the facts about Vermont's practice of shipping prisoners far from home, and most importantly, gives voice to the Vermont prisoners and their families and loved ones enduring the consequences Details: Charlotte, NC: Grassroots Leadership, 2014. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 30, 2015 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/locked_up_shipped_away_vt_web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/locked_up_shipped_away_vt_web.pdf Shelf Number: 135437 Keywords: Correctional Administration Prison Overcrowding (Vermont)Prisoners, Interstate TransferPrivate Prisons Privatization |
Author: United Nations Title: Handbook on Women and Imprisonment. 2nd edition, with reference to the United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (The Bangkok Rules) Summary: The present Handbook forms part of a series of tools developed by The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to support countries in implementing the rule of law and the development of criminal justice reform. It is designed to be used by all actors involved in the criminal justice system, including policymakers, legislators, prison managers, prison staff, members of non-governmental organizations and other individuals interested or active in the field of criminal justice and prison reform. It can be used in a variety of contexts, both as a reference document and as a training tool. What the Handbook covers The main focus of the Handbook is female prisoners and guidance on the components of a gender-sensitive approach to prison management, taking into account the typical background of female prisoners and their special needs as women in prison (chapters 1 and 2). Three special categories of female prisoners have been included in chapter 2 of the Handbook: pretrial detainees, foreign national women and girls in prison (sections 13.1, 13.2 and 13.3). These three groups were selected because their vulnerability and special needs are particularly pronounced due to the cumulative effects of their status and gender. However, it is important to note that, according to Convention on the Rights of the Child-a legally binding instrument that most States have ratified or acceded to-States should only deprive a child of his or her liberty as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time (Art. 37 (b) CRC). In addition, girls and boys deprived of their liberty should be dealt with by a specialized juvenile justice system that promotes alternative measures to formal judicial institutionalization of girls should be avoided to the maximum possible extent, and separate strategies and policies in accordance with international standards need to be designed for the treatment and rehabilitation of this category of prisoners. The distinctive needs of minorities and indigenous peoples in terms of their access to gender and culture specific programmes and services are covered in chapter 2, as relevant. For more detailed guidance on the needs of women prisoners from ethnic and racial minority groups and indigenous peoples, as well as other groups, such as older women prisoners, women with disabilities and women under sentence of death, the reader should refer to the UNODC Handbook on Prisoners with Special Needs, which covers the needs of such prisoners, men and women. Reference will need to be made to both handbooks, when dealing with the situation of such categories of female prisoners. In view of the significant rise in the rate of women's imprisonment in many countries worldwide, the Handbook also provides an overview of measures that could be taken to reduce the female prison population (chapter 3). It puts forward some recommendations, taking into consideration the most common offences which lead to women's imprisonment and the harmful effects of imprisonment on the social reintegration of a large majority of female offenders. It must be emphasized that this section of the Handbook does not provide a comprehensive examination of the reasons for the growing rate of women's imprisonment in different regions and countries, nor detailed guidelines on how this challenge may be addressed in different contexts. Neither does it provide a thorough overview of the impact of women's imprisonment on their children, though this is a key concern that is repeatedly highlighted in the Handbook. It covers some of the issues that stand out in relation to women's increasing imprisonment, and a number of measures that can reduce their rate of incarceration, when it does not serve the purposes of justice or social reintegration. By highlighting and drawing attention to some key issues, this chapter aims to generate further research and the development of policies and strategies to reduce the female prison population in different countries and regions worldwide. In this context, readers may also wish to consult the UNODC Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment, the UNODC Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes and the UNODC Handbook on Strategies to Reduce Overcrowding in Prisons, for further practical guidance. Recognizing the shortage of information on the background and characteristics of women offenders in many countries, chapter 4 addresses the need for research, planning, evaluation, public awareness-raising and training. This area is considered essential to improve the knowledge base about women offenders, to develop strategies and policies to best meet the needs of women offenders and their children, and to The United Nations General Assembly resolution on human rights in the administration of justice, adopted on 22 December 2003 called for increased attention to be devoted to the issue of women in prison, including the children of women in prison, with a view to identifying the key problems and ways in which they can be addressed. The United Nations General Assembly resolution 61/143 on the intensification of efforts to eliminate all forms of violence against women, adopted on 19 December 2006, stressed that 'violence against women' means any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including ... arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life", and urged States, among others, "[t]o review and, where appropriate, revise, amend or abolish all laws, regulations, policies, practices and customs that discriminate against women or have a discriminatory impact on women, and ensure that provisions of multiple legal systems, where they exist, comply with international human rights obligations, commitments and principles, including the principle of non-discrimination"; "[t]o take positive measures to address structural causes of violence against women and to strengthen prevention efforts that address discriminatory practices and social norms, including with regard to women who need special attention ... such as ... women in institutions or in detention...", among others; and to provide training and capacity-building on gender equality and women's rights for law enforcement personnel and the judiciary, among others. This Handbook aims to assist legislators, policymakers, prison managers, staff and non-governmental organizations to implement the provisions of the Bangkok Rules as well as the resolutions and recommendations of the United Nations to address the gender-specific needs of women prisoners. It also aims to increase the awareness about the profile of female offenders and to suggest ways in which to reduce their unnecessary imprisonment by rationalizing legislation and criminal justice policies, and by providing a wide range of alternatives to prison at all stages of the criminal justice process. Details: New York: UNODC, 2014. 162p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2015 at: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/women_and_imprisonment_-_2nd_edition.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/women_and_imprisonment_-_2nd_edition.pdf Shelf Number: 135445 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFemale InmatesFemale OffendersFemale PrisonersGender-Specific ResponsesPrison Administration |
Author: Shames, Alison Title: Solitary Confinement: Common Misconceptions and Emerging Safe Alternatives Summary: Segregated housing, commonly known as solitary confinement, is increasingly being recognized in the United States as a human rights issue. While the precise number of people held in segregated housing on any given day is not known with any certainty, estimates run to more than 80,000 in state and federal prisons - which is surely an under-count as these do not include people held in solitary confinement in jails, military facilities, immigration detention centers, or juvenile justice facilities. Evidence mounts that the practice produces many unwanted and harmful outcomes - for the mental and physical health of those placed in isolation, for the public safety of the communities to which most will return, and for the corrections budgets of jurisdictions that rely on it for facility safety. Yet solitary confinement remains a mainstay of prison management and control in the U.S. largely because many policymakers, corrections officials, and members of the general public still subscribe to some or all of the common misconceptions and misguided justifications addressed in this report. This publication is the first in a series on solitary confinement, its use and misuse, and ways to safely reduce it in our nation's correctional facilities made possible in part by the Robert W. Wilson Charitable Trust. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2015 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/solitary-confinement-misconceptions-safe-alternatives-report_1.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/solitary-confinement-misconceptions-safe-alternatives-report_1.pdf Shelf Number: 135556 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrisonersSegregationSolitary Confinement |
Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Prisons: planning and policies. Ninth Report of Session 2014-15 Summary: This is our first major inquiry on prisons planning and policies in this Parliament, and it has provided an opportunity to consider the impact of the Government's programme of reforms and efficiency savings across the prison estate. In particular we have examined two measures that have been employed by the Ministry of Justice to reduce the operational costs of the system: benchmarking; and structural reforms replacing inefficient prisons with new prisons and extra house blocks in existing prisons, the "new" programme. These policies have been implemented alongside the creation of working prisons and resettlement prisons, designed to improve the effectiveness of the prison estate in increasing employability and reducing re-offending, as well as the tightening of operational policies on earned privileges and temporary release in order to improve their public credibility. They have also come at a time when the total prison population has returned to very high levels. We express concern that that despite the Government's efforts to supply sufficient prison places to meet demand, the proportion of prisons that are overcrowded is growing, and the proportion of prisoners held in crowded conditions remains at almost a quarter, with consequent effects on the ability to maintain constructive regimes. We welcome the reduction which has taken place in the cost of a prison place, although we note that it remains high, and is unlikely to fall significantly while the pressures on estate capacity remain at current levels. We say that the new-for-old programme is a good one in principle, providing opportunity to improve the physical infrastructure of the estate, remove structural inefficiencies, and employ new technologies. But we point out that the policy of replacing older establishments with newer ones is being implemented in a way which results in the creation of large, multi-purpose prisons, while questions arising from available evidence on the relationship between the size and effectiveness of institutions do not appear to have been addressed by the Government, and we argue that reconfiguration of the estate provides an opportunity to build smaller, more specialised, establishments, for young offenders and female offenders, in line with recommendations we have made in previous reports. The benchmarking process seeks to ensure that public prisons are run in the most efficient way possible, while maintaining safety, decency, security and order. The rationale of benchmarking as a means of reducing public expenditure was widely supported, and we conclude that it is in principle an effective way of reducing expenditure more rapidly than would be possible through prison-by-prison competition. Evidence from HM Inspectorate of Prisons, the Government's own performance data, Independent Monitoring Boards, and the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman all indicate a deterioration in standards of safety and performance across the prison estate over the last two years, with fewer opportunities for prisoners to undertake purposeful work or educational activities. The decrease in safety is particularly troubling, with an increase in assaults and self-inflicted deaths. We considered it improbable that there is no link between estate reconfiguration, benchmarking, and changes in operational policy, including the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, and the shift in safety across the prison estate. In particular, we conclude that the fall in staffing levels stemming from redundancies and increased turnover, which at their most acute have resulted in severely restricted regimes, are bound to have reduced the consistency of relationships between officers and prisoners, and in turn affected safety. In previous Reports we have commended the Government's creation of a nationwide network of resettlement prisons. It should not, however, confuse the priorities of multiple purpose establishments, and dilute the priority accorded to resettlement needs elsewhere in the estate. Prison industries are becoming more common but it remains the case that most prisons do not have the facilities for workshops on a scale that would enable the majority of prisoners to do work which will equip them for employment on release. If support for offenders in moving from custody into the community is to work to best effect, staffing shortages and clearing the backlog of risk assessments must be resolved urgently. Both issues are likely to hamper considerably the efforts of the new providers of Community Rehabilitation Companies as they seek to implement their through-the-gate Prison governors in public sector prisons and some private sector prisons are no longer responsible for the sum total of everything that happens within their prison walls. There is a risk that the proliferation of partner organisations providing services to prisons could distract prison management teams from their core role. They are also constrained in their operational decisions when decisions are taken from the centre on such matters as the Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme, the "lights out" policy and release on temporary licence. This potential effect is all the more important when resources are such that reduced staffing levels are impinging on the safety of prisoners and staff for which Governors have ultimate responsibility. We also note that prisoners themselves have an important role to play in creating effective regimes, including through prison councils. The success of the Government's policy also depends crucially on the ability of NOMS to predict demand for places with sufficient accuracy, and to provide places accordingly. The aim of the new-for-old programme is for old and inefficient facilities to be closed as modern cheaper establishments open, yet the latest projections indicate that the prison population is predicted to continue to grow. There is a risk that as the building of new prisons inevitably takes place several years in advance of those places becoming available, by the time they are in operation it will not be possible to yield savings from further prison closures as there are insufficient places to meet demand. We conclude that the size of the prison budget, the fact that it completely dominates expenditure on crime, the importance of reducing crime, and other problems identified in this report all indicate that we need to re-evaluate how we use custody and alternatives to custody in a cost-effective way which best promotes the safety of the public and reduces future crime. Details: London: The Stationery Office Limited, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 2, 2015 at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/309/309.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmjust/309/309.pdf Shelf Number: 135846 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison ReformPrisons |
Author: Canada. Office of the Correctional Investigator Title: Unauthorized Force: An Investigation into the Dangerous Use of Firearms at Kent Institution Summary: 1. Pursuant to Section 170 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Office of the Correctional Investigator (OCI) conducted an investigation into the use of firearms during a lockdown and series of searches at Kent Institution between January 8 and January18, 2010. The firearms were deployed by members of an extralegal Tactical Team (TAC), the only unit of its kind operating within the federal correctional system, in response to a suspected ballistic threat ('zip gun')1 that was alleged to have been smuggled into the maximum security facility. 2. For 10 days, the institution was locked down as riotequipped personnel assumed a 'lethal overwatch' function as the Region's Emergency Response Team (ERT) conducted cell extractions in which compliant and handcuffed inmates were removed from their cells at gunpoint. Following cell extraction procedures, inmates were then led down the ranges as charged and loaded weapons were pointed at them. They were taken to a common area where they were strip searched, often with little concern for dignity, modesty or privacy. During the lockdown, inmates were confined to their cells for days on end, some deprived of medication and the most basic necessities of hygiene and routinely denied fresh air exercise, even though meeting this legal requirement would not have increased the threat level. 3. As the lockdown continued and the search failed to turn up the alleged threat, the ERT and TAC response adopted an increasingly provocative and intimidating posture. Legal and policy provisions regarding use of force interventions were routinely violated as members of the Tactical Team operated in the absence of any management presence or effective oversight for the duration of the crisis. In daily reports of their activities, team leaders denied that weapons were drawn or pointed directly at inmates, despite videotape evidence to the contrary. 4. To date, the 10 day lockdown of Kent Institution generated 379 known (or 'reportable') uses of force interventions. Hundreds more suspected use of force incidents have not yet been reviewed - documents are missing, the incidents deemed 'nonreportable' (and therefore not counted officially) or never recorded, downloaded or preserved in the first place, all contrary to use of force procedures and guidelines.2 5. The potential lethal nature of the threat, the duration and magnitude of the lockdown and the ensuing searches should have warranted the designation of a crisis or emergency situation by normal policy standards. The potential for a serious (and lethal) escalation of violence between inmates and armed staff was present at nearly every turn. While informed and aware of developments at Kent Institution, including the deployment of the Tactical Team, the National Headquarters (NHQ) of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) did not actively challenge the response of local (institutional) or Regional authorities. To date, no formal disciplinary action has been taken against management or any of the ERT or Tactical Team members, although the twelve year 'pilot' project that sustained the armed unit has been abandoned. The lack of management oversight raised in this investigation gives rise to serious questions regarding CSC's accountability and governance structures. 6. These events should concern Canadians as the issues and questions raised in this report are disturbing. They cannot simply be explained as a 'deviation from policy,' contrary to the perspective of the CSC. Rather, what happened at Kent Institution amounts to an abuse of correctional power and authority, systemic breakdowns in management accountability and oversight, gaps in use of force review and reporting procedures, deterioration in dynamic security practices and principles, and violations of human rights law and policy. These are significant deficiencies that increasingly call into question the effectiveness of CSC's internal use of force review process. 7. In examining the documentary and video record of the events under investigation, the OCI concludes that the level of force used to conduct the two searches of Kent Institution in January 2010 was unwarranted, beyond what was authorized, and dangerous. 8. In concluding this investigation, the OCI calls for an independent and expert review of CSC's legal, policy and administrative frameworks governing use of force interventions in federal penitentiaries. This external review should identify gaps and deficiencies in the current use of force policy and review process, and include recommended measures to strengthen accountability, monitoring, oversight and corrective functions at the regional and national levels of CSC administration. The independent review should be delivered to the Minister of Public Safety, together with an action plan setting out remedies, within six months. The action plan should be made public. Details: Ottawa: Office of the Correctional Investigator, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 4, 2015 at: http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/pdf/oth-aut/KentReport-eng.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Canada URL: http://www.oci-bec.gc.ca/cnt/rpt/pdf/oth-aut/KentReport-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 135880 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison Violence |
Author: Ortiz, Natalie Rose Title: County Jails at a Crossroads: An Examination of the Jail Population and Pretrial Release Summary: County governments provide essential services to create healthy, safe, vibrant and economically resilient communities. Maintaining safe and secure communities is one of the most important functions of county governments. Most counties are involved in almost every aspect of law enforcement and crime prevention, including policing, judicial and legal services and corrections. Counties own 87 percent of all jails in the United States through which they provide supervision, detention and other correctional services to more than 700,000 persons in an effort to protect public safety and reduce recidivism. Effective jail management along with fair justice system policies and practices results in strategic management of the jail population and prudent county spending on the corrections system. One way to effectively manage the jail population is to improve the pretrial release process. Pretrial policies and practices involve defendants awaiting resolution to their case. Using the results of a 2015 NACo survey of county jails, an examination of the pretrial population in jail and policies impacting pretrial release in county jails finds: THE MAJORITY OF THE CONFINED COUNTY JAIL POPULATION IS PRETRIAL AND LOW RISK. Two-thirds of the confined population in county jails is pretrial and the proportion reaches three-quarters in almost half of county jails. This trend is more pronounced in jails located in small counties - with less than 50,000 residents - and medium-sized counties - with populations between 50,000 and 250,000 residents. Forty (40) percent of responding county jails use a validated risk assessment at booking. Most often, these jails identify a majority of their confined jail population as low risk. Because these tools are used at booking, when defendants are admitted to jail after arrest, jails are identifying most of their pretrial population as low risk. COUNTY JAILS ARE CAUGHT BETWEEN COURTS' DECISION-MAKING AND INCREASES IN THE JAIL POPULATION AND JAIL COSTS. Pretrial release decision-making is a product of the court. Understanding the impact of courts' decision-making, especially during pretrial, on the jail population is important for counties with rapidly rising jail populations and costs. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, the jail population increased by 20 percent between 2000 and 2012 with the pretrial population comprising a rising share, while county corrections costs soared by 74 percent. Forty-four (44) percent of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey report that managing jail costs is one of their top challenges. Reducing the jail population - especially the number of people with mental illnesses - is a priority for almost three quarters of responding jails. More than 65 percent of county jails report that their county boards are willing to collaborate on reducing the jail population and jail costs. Counties can act as conveners, bringing together the court and jail to discuss and implement strategies that may effectively address the pretrial population in jail. SOME COUNTY JAILS SUPERVISE PRETRIAL DETAINEES OUTSIDE OF CONFINEMENT. A third of responding county jails to the 2015 NACo survey release pretrial detainees from custody and supervise them in the community through different types of community based programs, depending on the needs of the detainees. These programs may be focused specifically on pretrial supervision - where the type of supervision used varies on a case-by-case basis - or deal with both pretrial and convicted populations through health treatment, electronic monitoring, home arrest and work release. Most county jails have more than one type of program. Pretrial supervision programs focus overwhelmingly on the pretrial population (95 percent of their population), followed by physical health care and behavioral health treatment programs in which close to half of the supervised population is pretrial. Overall, few pretrial detainees are placed in these programs. Only 28 percent of the detainees released by respondent jails in 2014 were pretrial. The county jail programs that supervise pretrial persons are just one part of the larger county pretrial system that includes formal pretrial services agencies that provide information on defendants to judges for the pretrial release decision; policies that force release pretrial detainees when the jail population reaches a certain capacity; and bond review practices. County jails are at a crossroads, confronting increasing pressure on their physical capacity and rising jail costs, while lacking the decision-making for pretrial release. The courts decide who is released pretrial, affecting the size of county jail population and, consequently, jail costs. Reducing the jail population and costs is a priority for jail administrators and county boards. Some counties fund programs that would release pretrial detainees from confinement and supervise them in the community, but the pretrial population accounts for a small share of who is released and supervised in the community. Through coordination and collaboration across the county justice system, counties are in a strong position to lead the way in pretrial release, developing strategies and leveraging resources that assist in managing the county jail population and safeguarding public safety. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Counties, 2015. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.naco.org/resources/county-jails-crossroads Shelf Number: 136139 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsJail AdministrationJail PopulationJailsOffender SupervisionPretrial DetentionPretrial Release |
Author: Association of State Correctional Administrators Title: Assessment of Use of Force Policy and Practices within the Florida Department of Corrections Summary: The Florida Department of Corrections today highlighted the completion of a full report by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) on the results of their independent audit of the Department's use of force policies and procedures. ASCA reported that at all levels of the agency, it is readily apparent that a thorough review of the use of force policy is welcomed and there exists impressive commitment to improve the policy and practice of using force legally and appropriately. Secretary Julie Jones said, "I would like to thank the Association of State Correctional Administrators for completing this audit on behalf of the Florida Department of Corrections. The information provided in this review reflects the Department's ongoing efforts to increase accountability and safety within our institutions and our goal of becoming a national leader in correctional policy. I look forward to implementing the recommendations provided in this review and further improving and strengthening the operations of this department." The audit took place at Columbia, Dade, Martin, Santa Rosa, Suwannee and Union Correctional Institutions. This use of force audit was requested by DOC in 2014 and is separate from the audit ordered by the Governor in Executive Order 15-134 in July. Auditors selected each facility based on criteria such as the number and nature of use of force incidents, inmate population size, geographical location and predominant custody level. During the review, a team of auditors focused on the following five key areas: use of force policy, facility use of force procedures, facility culture, staffing and security operations. Details: Tallahassee: Florida Department of Corrections, 2015. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2015/ASCA%20Use%20of%20Force%20Audit%20(2015).pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/secretary/press/2015/ASCA%20Use%20of%20Force%20Audit%20(2015).pdf Shelf Number: 136862 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrections OfficersInmate DisciplinePrison AdministrationPrison GuardsPrisoner Misconduct |
Author: McArthur, Gary Title: Prison 'as' punishment or prison 'for' punishment: examining the views of prison officers toward prison Summary: In recent years, prison numbers have grown despite falling levels of crime. Considering the increasing use of custodial sentences, which in many ways can be attributed to the rise of penal populism, research has largely ignored the views of those best placed to offer opinion on the role which imprisonment plays: those who deal with offenders and prison life on a daily basis. Prison officers are responsible for the implementation of penal policy and have the authority to undermine or enhance the goals of the establishment where they work, yet in answering the philosophical questions underlying imprisonment; their views have rarely been sought. This study utilised a mixed-method survey to examine the views of 398 prison officers working in Scottish Prison Service establishments. The purpose of this was to identify and explore the attitudes which prison officers hold in relation to imprisonment. Specifically, respondents were questioned on what should be the main purpose of prison, whether it should be a place where offenders are sent 'as' punishment or 'for' punishment, the effectiveness of prison, and who should influence its policies. Findings revealed prison officers viewed rehabilitation as the most important purpose of imprisonment, with retribution the least important. The majority of officers believed that offenders should be sent to prison 'as' punishment for their crime; though many felt that prison should constitute a place where offenders are sent both 'as' punishment and 'for' further punishment. Prison officers were largely undecided over the effectiveness of prison; however felt that their role was critical in reducing reoffending. Furthermore, respondents felt their views were often undervalued and believed prison officers should have more authority in the determining of penal policy, whereas political and public influence should be limited. Analysis reveals the views of prison officers to be largely supportive of the organisation they represent. Findings also provide the basis for a possible divergence of thought between the punitive message politicians promote, and what the Scottish Prison Service aims to achieve. Details: Portsmouth, UK: University of Portsmouth, Institute of Criminal Justice Studies, 2014. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Thesis: Accessed October 15, 2015 at: http://www.sps.gov.uk/ Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sps.gov.uk/ Shelf Number: 136991 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrections OfficersPrison OfficersPrisons (Scotland) |
Author: Reid Howie Associates Title: HMP Low Moss Research Programme into Innovative Practice 2012-2014. (Vol 2). Relationships, Culture and Ethos Summary: There have been a number of significant changes in the SPS in recent years at strategic, policy and practice level, and in wider criminal justice policy. The new HMP Low Moss has been involved in implementing and testing innovative practice and the revised SPS operating philosophy since it opened in March 2012. A range of new practices have been introduced into the prison which are designed to stimulate, promote and sustain cultural change and to support prisoner rehabilitation within the new penal environment. A programme of research has been undertaken to explore these innovative practices in Low Moss and their impact, in the context of wider changes. This research was part of that programme, and the overall objectives of this study were to examine the quality of relationships within the regime and the nature of the prevailing culture and ethos in Low Moss. The study took an "Appreciative Inquiry" (AI) approach to identifying the key issues for those living and working in Low Moss, with a focus on identifying "best experiences" throughout/ Key Findings There were generally very positive views of the relationships, culture and ethos in Low Moss from stakeholder groups of all types. The research identified a prevalent view that Low Moss was different (and preferable) to other prisons in Scotland. Key factors included the focus in the prison on: - Relationships based on mutual respect, support and appropriate values. - Positive relationships with families. - Provision of opportunities and holistic support to prisoners, to enable change. - The overall environment, including safety and comfort. - A positive, "can-do" ethos and culture. The research found that the Low Moss regime, operating philosophy and culture were seen to have become an integral part of the prison in its first 18 months, with the approach having "bedded in". The approach was seen to have a positive impact upon stakeholders in terms of, for example: day to day well-being and satisfaction; personal development; addressing specific issues; promoting positive change among prisoners; and contributing to the likelihood of their future desistance from offending. There was found to be a shared strategic approach and "vision" at senior management level, with a high level of commitment, as well as good team-working and mutual support and a general focus on enabling and encouraging new ideas. Most staff viewed working in Low Moss favourably, with strong teamworking and generally positive views of relationships with a range of stakeholders. Staff recognised the difference in their work with prisoners implied by the Low Moss approach, and many valued the challenge. The prison was seen to have high expectations of staff, and staff were generally proud of their involvement in "making a difference". There were seen to be good opportunities for learning and development for ambitious staff. Most of the prisoners identified Low Moss as being different to other prisons they had experienced, and expressed positive views of the difference. Aspects of the Low Moss approach identified as particularly important to them included: better treatment by staff; the "family-friendly approach"; positive opportunities and support; the relaxed atmosphere; and the safe, clean, well-equipped and modern environment. Relationships between prisoners themselves were also seen to be generally good, particularly in the PIP section (for those in custody for the first time), and the provision of support by other prisoners was common. Prisoners generally felt that they were listened to, and that the staff would explain reasons for decisions more readily than in other prisons. Other stakeholders and service providers were also very positive overall about the prison, and their own experiences and involvement. There was seen to be a good level of partnership and "joined up" working, with input from other stakeholders being seen as integral to the holistic approach within the prison. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Prison Service, 2014. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 19, 2015 at: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3520.aspx Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Publication-3520.aspx Shelf Number: 137004 Keywords: Children of PrisonersCorrectional AdministrationCorrections OfficersFamilies of InmatesPrison AdministrationPrisons |
Author: Scottish Prison Service Title: Unlocking Potential, Transforming Lives Summary: This report is a robust and intelligent appraisal of where we are now and where we need to get to in future. It is long overdue. The authors persuasively make the case for SPS becoming an ambitious organisation that has at its core skilled and professionalised people who are highly trained and continually developed. Through our people I am convinced that we will achieve and honour the ambitions to which the report convincingly encourages us to aspire: Unlocking Potential, Transforming Lives. Our exciting future is set out in the pages of this report and, as I anticipated in the 2012 annual SACRO lecture, it heralds what I believe will be a golden age for the Scottish Prison Service. The Scottish Prison Service has a strong record of service delivery, achievement and sound operational management. We need to build on these past successes and on our heritage, whilst having the courage to reflect and then decide what needs to change to meet future expectations. We need to demonstrate our effective contribution towards National Outcomes and the Strategy for Justice in Scotland. To be truly effective in this we cannot work alone. It is only by working together with other providers that we will make Scotland safer and stronger. We must focus on what we know works in reducing reoffending and provide sound evidence of our progress. We need to transform our approach to offender management and our efforts to improve wellbeing. In particular, we need to reduce reoffending amongst those 9,000 - 10,000 short-term offenders leaving our care each year. Our future Vision will focus on each individual in our care throughout their time in custody and beyond. By taking an individualised asset-based approach we will continue to address risks and needs but also build on an individual's strengths and potential. By doing this, we will empower those in our care to unlock their potential and transform their lives. This is a demanding agenda that should engage, challenge and motivate staff and offenders alike. It means we must develop our staff to be even better at what they do now and to take on the new things that they will need to do tomorrow as we operate in new and different ways, changing how we work both within and beyond the prison walls. Some of you may still be questioning why we need to change. Now, not only as an organisation but as a nation, we have high and legitimate aspirations for our generation and for those who follow. If we are going to achieve these, we have to address the seemingly intractable issue of recidivism, a burden that is a millstone around our economy's neck. To be clear, this is not a soft-touch liberal agenda; it makes hard-nosed economic sense to do so. Audit Scotland reported that the cost of crime in our country is about $3 billion every year. How many schools, hospitals, roads or houses does that represent? Moreover, for the victims of crime there can be no more powerful justification for tackling reoffending and supporting reintegration than doing so in their name to try, as best we can, to ensure that there are far fewer victims of crime in future. The recommendations set out in the report change our aspirations as a national service. Much can be done immediately, as many of the recommendations are both practical and feasible. Some are so fundamental that we need to take time to consider them, seeking agreement on how we move forward. We will also need to consider affordability and cost in prioritising the order in which we take things forward. The Organisational Review Report provides the basis of our future Road Map for change, change which will be both incremental and transformational. This change will enable our organisation to help to create a justice system in Scotland that is a model of excellence. I have accepted in principle the broad direction of the recommendations in the Report. This is a unique opportunity to deliver a singular Vision that we can all work together to achieve. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Prison Service, 2013. 254p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2015 at: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Corporate9.aspx Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sps.gov.uk/Corporate/Publications/Corporate9.aspx Shelf Number: 137349 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsPrison AdministrationPrison ReformPrisons |
Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile. Autumn 2015 Summary: "Prison is a place where people are sent as a punishment, not for further punishments...Human beings whose lives have been reckoned so far in costs-to society, to the criminal justice system, to victims and to themselves-can become assets- citizens who can contribute and demonstrate the human capacity for redemption." Not the introduction to the latest Prison Reform Trust annual report, but the words of the incoming Secretary of State for Justice, Michael Gove, in July 2015, and a welcome reassertion of principles which should underpin any civilised penal system. So far so good. But he has inherited both a system that is deteriorating on internal and external measures, and a requirement to carve anything from 25% to 40% out of its budget over the next five years. The prison service will be clinging to the hope that the worst is over, that after three years of drastic cuts prisons will slowly settle into diminished routines and staffing levels-a new impoverished normality. The evidence of this briefing gives little cause for optimism. Violence and disorder have risen sharply. Suicides continue to rise, and the reductions achieved through so much effort in the previous decade have been reversed. Levels of purposeful activity were judged unacceptable in three-quarters of prisons inspected. Some individual prisons buck the trend. The Mount, Peterborough, Kirklevington Grange and others have received warm praise from inspections in 2015. Even HMP Oakwood, heavily criticised after its opening in 2013, was judged to have turned a corner. But the worst reports conjured up images of almost Dickensian squalor. Longstanding structural flaws remain. More than a quarter of prisoners live in overcrowded prisons. One in four of the country's prisoners comes from an ethnic minority-compared to one in 10 of the general population. 82% of women are in prison for non-violent offences. 20% to 30% of prisoners have a learning disability or difficulty that interferes with their ability just to understand the criminal justice system. A staggering 12,000 prisoners do not even know when they will be released. During a period when crime has fallen sharply, average sentence length has increased by a third. We continue to use prisons in implausibly remote locations. The population of prisoners over 60 has tripled, while we build prisons designed (and priced) to contain the most determined escapee. There are new threats. The introduction of a year's mandatory post release supervision for short sentences guarantees a higher turnover in the most overcrowded prisons as inadequately prepared ex-prisoners fail to keep to their licence conditions. In prisons struggling with staffing reductions and reduced regimes, the advent of new psychoactive substances could hardly have come at a worse time. Above all, the government's determination to reduce the national fiscal deficit will hit unprotected departments-including the Ministry of Justice- with disproportionate force. That extraordinary challenge, however, represents an opportunity to rethink our approach both to the use of imprisonment and to the experience it should represent. The answer to the dilemma lies in one of the few success stories of recent years. The number of children (under-18s) in custody has fallen by over two-thirds in the last seven years. Yet at the same time, the crime committed by children has also plummeted, with proven offences down by 72% from their peak in 2005-06. The number of young adults (18-20 year olds) sent to prison has also started to decline, as the conveyor belt from child offender to young adult prisoner has slowed. If we translate that determination to make imprisoning children genuinely a last resort into the adult sphere, and reverse the sentence inflation which accounts for two-thirds of the population growth of the last two decades, the possibility of making dramatic savings is real. A prison population at the level it was the last time there was a Conservative majority government would save its current successor around $1bn a year. Increasing sentence lengths has been a comfort blanket for every government of the last 20 years. To make matters worse, prison is still seen as a free good so far as local communities are concerned- the trade off between money spent on prison officers rather than nurses or teachers remains invisible to the local taxpayer. The uncomfortable truth is that most of that expensive additional prison time is both unnecessary and wasted. The litany of frustration, depression and idleness described in this publication's statistics has its physical expression in underused facilities and long, pointless, hours behind cell doors. Reinvesting a fraction of the saving from closing prisons to create a custodial experience that is both purposeful and properly intense would be a practical legacy worthy of the new Secretary of State's visionary rhetoric. Details: London: PRT, 2015. 76p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 28, 2015 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Factfile%20Autumn%202015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Factfile%20Autumn%202015.pdf Shelf Number: 137362 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Concert Group Logistics (CGL) Title: Study of Operations of the Florida Department of Corrections Summary: The Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA), a joint entity of the Florida Legislature (Legislature), solicited competitive bids in order to award a contract with an independent consultant for a Study of Operations of the Florida Department of Corrections (FDC). The goal of the solicitation process was to fulfill the requirements of Chapter 2015-232, Laws of Florida (also known as Senate Bill 2500-A) passed during a special 2015 session of the Legislature. The bill states: "From the funds in Specific Appropriations 2667 and 2668, $300,000 in nonrecurring general revenue funds is appropriated for the Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability to contract with an independent consultant to study the operations of the Department of Corrections with regard to the incarceration of inmates. The contractor shall identify both positive and negative aspects of the department's operations and shall prepare a report of its findings, including recommendations for improvements. The report shall be submitted to the Governor, the President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House of Representatives no later than December 1, 2015." The solicitation sought a consultant to conduct an immediate, thorough, and detailed study of the operations of the FDC with reference to applicable best management practices in the corrections industry. Consistent with the time requirements contained in Senate Bill 2500-A, the final report for this study was required to be submitted no later than November 30, 2015. Details: Tallahassee, FL: Florida Legislature, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, 2015. 178p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2016 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/15-FDC.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/15-FDC.pdf Shelf Number: 137806 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional ProgramsCorrections OfficersPrison GuardsPrisonsRisk and Needs Assessment |
Author: Florida. Legislature. Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability Title: Review of Department of Corrections and Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission Processes for Correctional Officer Misconduct Summary: Department of Corrections (DOC) correctional officers must obtain certification and maintain good moral character. In instances of alleged misconduct, both DOC and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission can be involved in disciplinary actions. The Department of Corrections investigates and disciplines correctional officers for misconduct. When officers have violated certification requirements, the department refers the case to the commission. Commission staff reviewed over 5,300 DOC correctional officer misconduct cases since 2004. Staff referred 54% of these cases for a probable cause hearing; of these, 90% were presented to the commission for disciplinary action. Approximately two-thirds (67%) of the correctional officers disciplined by the commission lost their certification. Although there are three times as many law enforcement officers as DOC correctional officers, the commission hears more correctional officer cases. Over time the commission has added new violations and revised existing penalties and the Legislature has modified the commission's jurisdiction and membership. The Legislature may wish to consider revising the commission's membership again by adding new commission members or changing some positions. As directed by the Legislature, this report describes correctional officer misconduct and discipline in Florida, including an analysis of the number and types of disciplinary actions, the policies related to disciplinary measures against correctional officers, and correctional officer disciplinary practices in other states. Details: Tallahassee, FL: OPPAGA, 2015 (Revised 2016), 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 15-08: Accessed March 9, 2016 at: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1508rpt.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/MonitorDocs/Reports/pdf/1508rpt.pdf Shelf Number: 138138 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrections OfficersPrison Guards |
Author: Union of Canadian Correctional Officers Title: A critical review of the practice of double bunking within corrections. The implications on staff, inmates, correctional facilities and the public Summary: There is an increasing prevalence of double bunking within the Correctional Service of Canada. This paper seeks to investigate the impact double bunking has on the health and safety of staff, inmates and the public, as well as the impact it will inevitably have on the physical condition of institutions. Through a review of available research from academic and correctional professionals, this paper addresses and refutes the prevailing notion that further double bunking and overcrowding will have little impact in and on the field of corrections. Details: St. Leonard's, ONT: UCCO, 2015. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2016 at: http://ucco-sacc-csn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Double-Bunking-Research-Paper-08-03-201111.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://ucco-sacc-csn.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Double-Bunking-Research-Paper-08-03-201111.pdf Shelf Number: 138140 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationDouble BunkingPrison ConditionsPrison Overcrowding |
Author: Frost, Natasha A. Title: Administrative Segregation in U.S. Prisons Summary: As the use of administrative segregation has spread precipitously, particularly since the mid-1980s, so have concerns around its effects and utility (Arrigo & Bullock, 2008; Haney & Lynch, 1997; King, 1999; P. S. Smith, 2006). Some claim administrative segregation is a necessary tool for correctional population management, helping to keep those who run, work in and live in prisons safe (O'Keefe, 2008), while others argue it is used excessively and, when it involves isolation through solitary confinement, has damaging effects on inmates (Cloud et al., 2015; Haney, 2003, 2008; Haney & Lynch, 1997). Administrative segregation, the preferred term among correctional administrators, refers to both a classification and a type of unit. There are at least three distinct types of segregation: administrative segregation, disciplinary segregation, and protective custody (Cloud et al., 2015; Shames, Wilcox & Subramanian, 2015). Any of these types of segregation might involve a regimen of solitary (or near solitary) confinement. Importantly, it is the increased use of solitary confinement, not segregation per se, that troubles those with concerns about contemporary correctional practice, and it is solitary confinement that has received the most attention in the research literature. This paper, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), United States Department of Justice (DOJ), is focused on the use, the effects and the future research of solitary confinement. Within the limited empirical knowledge base in this area, researchers have not always agreed on the areas of research that warrant review and evaluation, or they have been unable to draw conclusions from studies employing various methodologies. Further, for many researchers studying solitary confinement the practice raises not only empirical questions, but also moral and ethical concerns. In a literature base replete with highly charged emotions, interpreting the evidence base, and separating evidence from strongly held beliefs have become difficult. This paper attempts to describe the research in enough detail that the reader can reach his or her own conclusions around the current state of administrative segregation. Key findings are highlighted below. Details: U.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, 2016. 42p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 12, 2016 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249749.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/249749.pdf Shelf Number: 138204 Keywords: Administrative Segregation Correctional AdministrationPrisoner Misconduct Solitary Confinement |
Author: Graziani, Cate Title: Incorrect Care: A Prison Profiteer Turns Care into Confinement Summary: This report details the strategic expansion by private prison corporations to fill profit gaps from efforts to reduce mass incarceration through an emerging Treatment Industrial Complex. As criminal justice reform sweeps the nation, an alarming trend has emerged that could mean private prison profiteers control a person's fate for life, not just the term of a prison sentence. The same private prison profiteers who built billion dollar empires as partners in tough on crime policies are adapting to reforms by rebranding themselves - as humane treatment providers. The criminal justice system has created ample opportunities for their expansion, including mental health hospitals and civil commitment centers, correctional healthcare, and community corrections. This report will look specifically at one segment of their expansion: mental health hospitals and civil commitment centers, facilities that represent the potential for lifetime confinement and long-term guaranteed profit. In fact, the same for-profit company is making aggressive moves to take over both types of facilities. Correct Care Solutions, formerly known as GEO Care, a spin-off of GEO Group, has deep roots in the private prison industry. Although the company has shifted and changed numerous times over the last few years, CCS currently runs seven 'treatment' facilities in Florida, Texas and South Carolina, including five mental health facilities and two civil commitment centers. This report's in-depth analysis of GEO Group, GEO Care and now Correct Care Solutions' involvement in operating mental health hospitals and civil commitment centers exposes serious concerns. Details: Austin, TX: Grassroots Leadership, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 16, 2016 at: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/incorrect_care_grassrootsleadership_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://grassrootsleadership.org/sites/default/files/reports/incorrect_care_grassrootsleadership_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 138252 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: John Howard Association of Illinois Title: Overcrowded, Underresourced, and Ill-Conceived: Logan Correctional Center, 2013/14 Summary: Logan Correctional Center (Logan) is located in Lincoln, Illinois, about a two hour and forty-five minute drive south of Chicago and a 30-minute drive north of Springfield. Logan was repurposed in March 2013 as a multiple security level female facility, which also operates the female intake Reception and Classification center (R&C) for the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC). Key Observations - In 2013, the Quinn administration closed several correctional facilities in the face of severe prison overcrowding, consolidating the majority of its female prison population in Logan, a male medium security prison, without adequate resources to do so or a viable plan to reduce the prison population. - While the Quinn administration argued repurposing Logan would reduce costs and create a more efficient and rehabilitative environment for the state's female prison population, it has exacerbated overcrowded conditions, damaged IDOC's capacity to address the needs of female inmates, and failed to generate meaningful cost savings. - Class action federal litigation has challenged the constitutional adequacy of mental health treatment within IDOC. Recent suicides at Logan expose the need to address the lack of mental health resources for the state's female prison population. - Without significant reductions in Illinois' female prisoner population, the best that IDOC's staff and administration can do with Logan is to try to sustain a precarious, ineffective, and expensive status quo. Details: Chicago: John Howard Association of Illinois, 2014. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 21, 2016 at: http://thejha.org/sites/default/files/Logan%20Correctional%20Center%20Report%202013-2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://thejha.org/sites/default/files/Logan%20Correctional%20Center%20Report%202013-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 138341 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFemale InmatesFemale PrisonersOvercrowded Prisons |
Author: Manitoba Office of the Auditor General Title: Managing the Province's Adult Offenders Summary: The Department of Justice manages approximately 10,000 adult offenders. About 24% are in provincial correctional centres; the other 76% are supervised in the community. We examined how adequately the Department managed adult correctional centre capacity, adult offenders in the community, adult rehabilitation programs, and related public performance reporting. We found that the Department's management of its adult correctional centre capacity was inadequate for its long-term needs. Although it had increased capacity by 52% since 2008, overcrowding in centres was on-going; offender population forecasts were not always reliable; there was no comprehensive long-term capital plan to address either the forecast bed shortfall or the deterioration in aging correctional centre infrastructure; and initiatives to help reduce bed demand required greater attention. There were also problems in managing adult offenders in the community. While the Department had a number of policies in this area, we found that offenders were not always adequately supervised; their rehabilitation plans needed improvement; supervisors were not regularly reviewing staff's work to ensure it complied with standards; and management had reduced offender supervision standards in 3 regions to resolve workload issues. In addition, there were gaps in planning and monitoring adult rehabilitation programs, and limited public information provided on how well the Department was managing its adult offenders. Taken together, these issues affected the Department's contribution to public safety and reduced the likelihood of successful offender rehabilitation. Details: Winnipeg, MB: Office of the Auditor General, 2014. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2016 at: http://www.oag.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chapter-6-Managing-the-Provinces-Adult-Offenders-Web.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Canada URL: http://www.oag.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Chapter-6-Managing-the-Provinces-Adult-Offenders-Web.pdf Shelf Number: 138359 Keywords: Adult OffendersCommunity CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationInmatesOffender SupervisionPrisonersPrisonsRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Porporino, Frank J. Title: Managing the Elderly in Corrections Summary: There are few benefits to growing old. As we age, we inevitably deteriorate both physically and mentally, perhaps gradually if we are fortunate, but nonetheless steadily. Social psychological studies tell us that happiest elderly people are those who can remain active, with close connections with family and friends and other social supports, and who can still feel they are contributing in some meaningful fashion. We clearly live in an "ageist" society and none of us particularly looks forward to getting old, but old age can be negotiated more or less effectively when there is quality healthcare we can access, some level of financial stability we can enjoy, and supportive social networks we can be part of. Aging in prisons is another experience all together. Most elderly offenders will have lost touch with their families and friends, who are either dead, too old to visit, or have simply moved on with their lives. Health concerns are a daily preoccupation and fear of death, alone in a small cell, the fodder for nightmares. Opportunity to enjoy the small things in life, that become very important things as we grow older, is lost in prison; looking forward to our favorite meal, that special cup of tea, the calla lilies in our garden, or playing peek-a-boo with our grandchild. Aging in prison instead becomes an unceasing grind where one is forced to endure a boring, austere, routinized, noisy and foul smelling enclosed environment. There is no "choice" to learn to age gracefully in prison. You simply get old, quickly and mostly invisibly. The issue of managing the elderly in prisons has emerged as one of the most significant and unplanned for crises in corrections. Though it may be of most concern in developed nations, where life expectancy has steadily and significantly increased, the problem is growing quickly in developing nations where long prison sentences are becoming a matter of course. For many jurisdictions worldwide, it is an issue that has simply caught them by surprise as the aging of their prisoner population has begun to be noticed. It is clearly a situation that obliges action in accordance with numerous declarations of respect for human rights endorsed by most nations of the world. The elderly in prison, like all prisoners, have the right to be treated with respect for their humanity and inherent human dignity; to not be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; to receive appropriate medical and mental healthcare; to have reasonable accommodation for their disabilities; and to be provided activities and programs to support their rehabilitation. This paper will attempt to: Outline the scope of the problem of the elderly offender in corrections; Discuss what might be causing this problem; and finally, Assess what some of the most significant consequences might be for the delivery of correctional services to this population, and what possible responses (policies, programs or services) might be helpful. Details: Unpublished paper, 2014. 29p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 24, 2016 at: http://archive.icpa.ca/tools/download/1981/Managing_The_Elderly_in_Corrections.pdf Year: 2014 Country: International URL: http://archive.icpa.ca/tools/download/1981/Managing_The_Elderly_in_Corrections.pdf Shelf Number: 138404 Keywords: Aged OffendersCorrectional AdministrationElderly InmatesElderly Prisoners |
Author: Abarbanel, Sara Title: Realigning the Revolving Door: An Analysis of California Counties' AB109 2011-2012 Implementation plans Summary: On April 5, 2011, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 109, the "2011 Realignment Legislation Addressing Public Safety" ("Realignment), which dramatically shifted responsibility from the state to the counties for tens of thousands of offenders. The state was in an unprecedented financial crisis, and recent budget deficits had forced legislators to make tough decisions that included cutting spending not only in the criminal justice system, but in education and other social services as well. Not only that, but just a few weeks before the bill's signing, the United States Supreme Court had upheld a lower court's judgment ordering California to reduce its prison population by approximately 40,000 persons within two years. California, and its prison system, had to make big changes. Details: Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Law School Criminal Justice Center, 2013. 129p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed arch 24, 2016 at: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Realigning%20the%20Revolving%20Door%20with%20updates%20for%2058%20counties%20080113.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/183091/doc/slspublic/Realigning%20the%20Revolving%20Door%20with%20updates%20for%2058%20counties%20080113.pdf Shelf Number: 131263 Keywords: California RealignmentCorrectional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice PolicyPrisons |
Author: Kimme and Associates, Inc. Title: Pinellas County, Florida Criminal Justice System Study Summary: This study was motivated by strong, steady increases in the jail population that have created major overcrowding conditions at the jail, with many inmates sleeping in temporary beds on the floor. The county's goal has always been to operate safe, secure and standards compliant facilities. County policymakers understand that overcrowding undermines those objectives and jeopardizes the safety and security of inmates, staff, and the public. It recalls past law suits centered around overcrowding that left Pinellas County under court supervision for nearly two decades. This study was also motivated by the high costs to the taxpayers of building and operating jail facilities, facts about which County Board members are keenly aware. The county is committed to minimizing such expenses to the greatest degree possible while still meeting standards and providing for community safety. The importance of the cost question was underscored when possible future expenditures were reported in August 2006 during a presentation of Part 1 of a facility master plan update. The updated master plan forecast the need for an additional 4,448 beds by 2030 to add to the 2,786 beds available at that time, or 7,234 total. That increase of 159% in jail capacity, along with needed infrastructure improvements, was projected to cost the county $560,000,000 in a three phase construction process. The initial master plan phase alone was estimated to cost $225,000,000 and required the addition of approximately 500 new staff at opening. In brief, the goals of the study can be summarized as follows: 1. To find opportunities within the Pinellas County criminal justice system to make changes consistent with local philosophies and public safety that have the affect of reducing the size and/or growth in jail population and thus the scope of facility needs and operations. 2. To find ways to improve the operations and processes of the Pinellas County criminal justice system and the needs of a diverse client population. The analysis of the criminal justice system found in this study culminates in a series of recommendations that the consultants, and the client, believe will reduce the long-term jail bed capacity needs of the county, thus avoiding the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars in future years. The total amount of savings will be more fully determined in Part 2 of the facility master plan study. Details: Clearwater, FL: Pinellas County, 2008. 169p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 28, 2016 at: https://www.pinellascounty.org/bcc_work/2012_02_28/FinalSystemReportPINEL.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: https://www.pinellascounty.org/bcc_work/2012_02_28/FinalSystemReportPINEL.pdf Shelf Number: 138445 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of Corrections Jail Management Jails Prison Overcrowding |
Author: Sanhueza, Guillermo E. Title: Exploring Correlates of Prison Violence in Chilean Prisons: Examining nationwide, administrative data Summary: In modern times, imprisonment has been established as punishment and not for punishment, which means that the only right that is suspended has to do with freedom of movement. Nevertheless, serving a sentence in Chilean prisons has become a form of continuous punishment that extends far beyond the mere deprivation of liberty. Indeed, Chilean prisons have been criticized for their levels of overcrowding, lack of access to rehabilitative programs, and for their levels of mistreatment towards inmates. In addition, violence has become a common, daily reality in many facilities throughout the country. Its occurrence is problematic not only because it threats security and order inside prisons, but also because it undermines any attempt to successfully develop rehabilitative initiatives inside prison walls. Despite that prison violence has been studied in developed nations, much remains unanswered for developing countries. Thus, this dissertation will try to fill part of this gap by analyzing the correlates of violent events in Chilean prisons as well as by examining which theory of prison violence (among deprivation, administrative-control and importation) seemed to better explain the study's results. In order to do that, this study employed a combination of both administrative data from the Chilean Bureau of Prisons (Gendarmeria de Chile) and some results of the First National Survey on Inmates' Perception of Quality of Life, conducted in 2013 (Sanhueza, in press). Anchored in the literature review and on empirical findings on prison violence, this study included six representative indicators coming for the three theories tested, while controlling for total inmate population size. Then, descriptive analyses and a series of multivariate, negative binomial regression models were run. Main results indicated that the two importation variables (average inmates' age and the proportion of inmates highly-engaged in criminal activities) and the control variable remained significant in the full model. Finally, this study highlights some of their possibilities and limitations, as well as suggests some further research questions and policy implications. Details: Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2014. 123p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed March 28, 2016 at: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/110463/gesanhue_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2014 Country: Chile URL: https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/110463/gesanhue_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 138448 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison RiotsPrison ViolencePrisoner MisconductPrisons |
Author: Pacholke, Dan Title: More Than Emptying Beds: A Systems Approach to Segregation Reform Summary: Restrictive housing, sometimes referred to as solitary confinement, administrative segregation, or simply segregation, typically consists of placement of an individual in a solitary cell for up to 23 hours a day, with only an hour out of the cell to shower or for solo recreation. It is essentially a prison within a prison, where individuals who presumably cannot safely be housed in the general population are placed for some period of time. Although there are occasions when restrictive housing may be the best tool we have to ensure the safety of inmates, staff, and the public, our experience shows that, with a systems approach, it is possible to reduce the numbers of people going into restrictive housing, create rehabilitative alternatives, ensure an accountable and consistent process for placement and release decisions, improve conditions for those who are placed in restrictive housing and for those who work there, and facilitate successful exit from those placements. Deciding who is kept in these units and for how long has traditionally been at the discretion of each prison facility's administration or disciplinary hearing officers within the parameters established in that system's policies. Practices vary from system to system and from facility to facility. Consistent evidence suggests that segregation can be detrimental to the physical, psychological, and behavioral health of those placed in these conditions. Increasingly, courts, policymakers, media, and advocacy groups are questioning these practices as violations of constitutional and human rights. As a result, federal and state governments are requiring correctional systems to examine their segregation policies, practices, and protocols and calling for its reduced use, or even elimination in certain cases. Correctional systems are challenged in this call to action as, to date, there has been little guidance on how to implement segregation reform while also maintaining safe prisons. Segregation has been and will continue to be a tool that is necessary to manage legitimate safety concerns. Reforms in the use of this practice will only be successful if the safety of inmates and staff is maintained or improved in the process. To impact the health and well-being of people under correctional control, reducing the use of segregation on its own by only "emptying beds" is of limited value. To make an impactful change, a systems approach to this complex issue is essential. This policy brief shares lessons from the systems approach to reform undertaken by the Washington Department of Corrections (WADOC) that began more than a decade ago and continues to the present day. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2016. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 16, 2016 at: https://www.bja.gov/publications/MorethanEmptyingBeds.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.bja.gov/publications/MorethanEmptyingBeds.pdf Shelf Number: 139046 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationPrisonsRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Title: Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Monitoring of Contract Prisons Summary: The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which is the component of the Department of Justice (Department) responsible for incarcerating all federal defendants sentenced to prison, was operating at 20 percent over its rated capacity as of December 2015. To help alleviate overcrowding and respond to congressional mandates, in 1997 the BOP had begun contracting with privately operated institutions (often referred to as "contract prisons"), at first on a smaller scale and later more extensively, to confine federal inmates who are primarily low security, criminal alien adult males with 90 months or less remaining to serve on their sentences. As of December 2015, contract prisons housed roughly 22,660 of these federal inmates, or about 12 percent of the BOP's total inmate population. These contract prisons were operated by three private corporations: Corrections Corporation of America; GEO Group, Inc.; and Management and Training Corporation. The BOP's annual expenditures on contract prisons increased from approximately $562 million in fiscal year (FY) 2011 to $639 million in FY 2014. In recent years, disturbances in several federal contract prisons resulted in extensive property damage, bodily injury, and the death of a Correctional Officer. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) initiated this review to examine how the BOP monitors these facilities. We also assessed whether contractor performance meets certain inmate safety and security requirements and analyzed how contract prisons and similar BOP institutions compare with regard to inmate safety and security data. We found that, in most key areas, contract prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than comparable BOP institutions and that the BOP needs to improve how it monitors contract prisons in several areas. Throughout this report, we note several important corrective actions the BOP has taken, in response to findings and recommendations in our April 2015 audit of the Reeves County contract prison, to improve its monitoring of contract prisons, including in the areas of health and correctional services. The BOP's administration, monitoring, and oversight of contract prisons is conducted through three branches at BOP headquarters and on site. According to the BOP, at each contract prison, two BOP onsite monitors and a BOP Contracting Officer, in cooperation with other BOP subject matter experts, oversee each contractor's compliance with 29 vital functions within 8 operational areas, including correctional programs, correctional services, and health services. The BOP monitors contractor performance through various methods and tools that include monitoring checklists, monitoring logs, written evaluations, performance meetings, and regular audits. Results in Brief We found that in a majority of the categories we examined, contract prisons incurred more safety and security incidents per capita than comparable BOP institutions. We analyzed data from the 14 contract prisons that were operational during the period of our review and from a select group of 14 BOP institutions with comparable inmate populations to evaluate how the contract prisons performed relative to the selected BOP institutions. Our analysis included data from FYs 2011 through 2014 in eight key categories: (1) contraband, (2) reports of incidents, (3) lockdowns, (4) inmate discipline, (5) telephone monitoring, (6) selected grievances, (7) urinalysis drug testing, and (8) sexual misconduct.3 With the exception of fewer incidents of positive drug tests and sexual misconduct, the contract prisons had more incidents per capita than the BOP institutions in all of the other categories of data we examined. For example, the contract prisons confiscated eight times as many contraband cell phones annually on average as the BOP institutions. Contract prisons also had higher rates of assaults, both by inmates on other inmates and by inmates on staff. We note that we were unable to evaluate all of the factors that contributed to the underlying data, including the effect of inmate demographics and facility locations, as the BOP noted in response to a working draft of this report. However, consistent with our recommendation, we believe that the BOP needs to examine the reasons behind our findings more thoroughly and identify corrective actions, if necessary. The three contract prisons we visited were all cited by the BOP for one or more safety and security deficiencies, including administrative infractions such as improper storage of use-of-force video footage, as well as more serious or systemic deficiencies such as failure to initiate discipline in over 50 percent of incidents reviewed by onsite monitors over a 6-month period. The contractors corrected the safety and security deficiencies that the BOP had identified. As a result, the BOP determined that each prison was sufficiently compliant with the safety and security aspects of its contract to continue with the contract during the period covered by our review. However, we concluded that the BOP still must improve its oversight of contract prisons to ensure that federal inmates' rights and needs are not placed at risk when they are housed in contract prisons. Our site visits also revealed that two of the three contract prisons we visited were improperly housing new inmates in Special Housing Units (SHU), which are normally used for disciplinary or administrative segregation, until beds became available in general population housing. These new inmates had not engaged in any of the behaviors cited in American Correctional Association standards and BOP policies that would justify being placed in such administrative or disciplinary segregation. When the OIG discovered this practice during the course of our fieldwork, we brought it to the attention of the BOP Director, who immediately directed that these inmates be removed from the SHUs and returned to the general population. The BOP Director also mandated that the contracts for all contract prisons be modified to prohibit SHU placement for inmates unless there is a policy-based reason to house them there. Since that time, the BOP informed us that the practice of housing new inmates in the SHU is no longer occurring in the contract prisons and that the BOP has not identified any further non-compliance to date regarding this issue. Finally, we found that the BOP needs to improve the way it monitors contract prisons. We focused our analysis on the BOP's Large Secure Adult Contract Oversight Checklist (checklist) because, as described by BOP operating procedures, it is an important element of the BOP's Quality Assurance Plan, as well as a mechanism BOP onsite monitors use to document contract compliance on a daily basis. We believe onsite monitors are best positioned to provide the BOP's quickest and most direct responses to contract compliance issues as they arise. We found that the checklist does not address certain important BOP policy and contract requirements in the areas of health and correctional services. As a result, the BOP cannot as effectively ensure that contract prisons comply with contract requirements and BOP policies in these areas and that inmates in contract prisons receive appropriate health and correctional services. For health services, the checklist does not include observation steps to verify that inmates receive certain basic medical services. For example, the observation steps do not include checks on whether inmates received initial examinations, immunizations, and tuberculosis tests, as BOP policy requires. We also found that monitoring of healthcare for contract compliance lacks coordination from BOP staff responsible for health services oversight. For correctional services, the checklist does not include observation steps to ensure searches of certain areas of the prison, such as inmate housing units or recreation, work, and medical areas, or for validating actual Correctional Officer staffing levels and the daily Correctional Officer duty rosters. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016. 86p. Source: Internet Resource: Evaluation and Inspections Division 1 6-06: Accessed August 29, 2016 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/e1606.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/e1606.pdf Shelf Number: 140070 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFederal Bureau of PrisonsPrison ConditionsPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Hastings, Allison Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the Oregon Department of Corrections Summary: In recent years, a diverse range of international and national bodies, advocates, policymakers, the U.S. Department of Justice, and corrections practitioners have called for prisons and jails to reform their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell the size of a parking space, the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments, or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities safer, these voices agree that change and innovation are essential endeavors. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the Oregon Department of Corrections to help the agency reduce its use of segregation. That assistance included conducting an assessment of Oregon’s use of segregation and identifying opportunities for reform and innovation. This report presents the findings and recommendations from Vera’s assessment, offering Oregon strategies for safely reducing its use of segregation.1 Key Findings Six of the 14 prisons run by the Oregon Department of Corrections hold the vast majority of Oregon’s population in segregation.2 On April 1, 2015 (the snapshot date used by Vera to describe the makeup of the population on a given day), the total population in Oregon’s prisons was 14,934. 1,114 of these people were housed in some form of segregation on that date, which represents 7.5 percent of the total prison population. Vera’s key findings not only touch on Oregon’s use of different types of segregation—such as disciplinary and administrative segregation—but also examine racial, ethnic, and gender disparities as well as the use of segregation for people with mental health needs. Disciplinary segregation is overused, overly long, and characterized by isolating conditions. Vera found that disciplinary segregation, which is imposed as a sanction for rule violations, accounts for the majority of Oregon’s use of segregation: 63 percent (702 people) of people in segregation on April 1, 2015 were living in disciplinary segregation, and 90 percent of adults overall who had contact with some type of segregated housing entered through these units. Vera also found that people often cycle through disciplinary segregation for nonviolent rule violations; in fact, the top rule violation resulting in a disciplinary segregation sanction was disobedience of an order. Further, people can stay in disciplinary segregation for long periods of time—up to six months—and conditions in these units are marked by extreme isolation, idleness, and sensory deprivation. Stays in administrative segregation can be long, isolating, and unproductive for adults in custody. Oregon also has multiple units and processes for housing people in administrative segregation, a type of housing used for people whose notoriety, actions, or threats jeopardize institutional safety. These units vary in terms of average length of stay, reasons for placement, and availability of programming, with most people being housed in intensive management units. One of the goals of intensive management units is to provide cognitive behavioral programming to these men and women, so they can successfully transition back to general population or community settings. However, at the time of Vera’s assessment, the only programs available to people in these units were packet-based programs, which individuals were expected to complete alone in their cells. Vera also found that people who had contact with these units tended to spend over a year total in some form of segregation. People of color and people with mental health needs are over-represented in segregation. Echoing trends identified by researchers regarding America’s use of incarceration overall, African-American and Latino adults are over-represented in Oregon’s segregation units. People of color comprise 26 percent of the total prison population, but 34.3 percent of its segregated population. Similarly, people with mental health needs are over-represented in disciplinary segregation, and women with significant mental health needs are overrepresented in all types of segregated housing. On Vera’s snapshot date of April 1, 2015, 53 percent of the total female population was designated as having significant mental health needs, while 84 percent of the women in segregated housing had that designation. Key Recommendations The Oregon Department of Corrections is a progressive agency that has a well-documented commitment to reform and dedication to staff safety and wellness. Vera acknowledges its many innovations and reform efforts, but also sees room for improvement and offers recommendations in this report that, if implemented, would further Oregon’s reputation as a leader in corrections. Some of the key recommendations include: § Reducing the number of disciplinary infractions eligible for segregation sanctions and reducing the maximum length of stay in disciplinary segregation; § Strengthening informal mechanisms and alternative responses for responding to lowlevel infractions without using segregation; § Enhancing supports, structured activities, and programming in the general prison population, to help keep people from going into disciplinary segregation; § Improving conditions of confinement in all segregated housing units; § Implementing instructor-led, out-of-cell programming in intensive management units; § Creating structured reentry processes for adults in custody transitioning out of long-term segregation, so no one is ever released directly to the community from segregation; § Prohibiting placing adults in custody with serious mental illness, severe developmental disability, or neurodegenerative diseases in any form of extremely isolating segregation; § Creating a committee to study and address disproportionate minority contact with segregated housing; and § Increasing training for all staff on mental health issues, crisis response, communication, and responding to gender differences and gender identity. As the Oregon Department of Corrections moves forward with implementation of reform efforts, Vera has every confidence that the agency will learn from its peers in the field, capitalize on its own strengths, and use these recommendations as a springboard for improving the lives of the men and women who live and work in Oregon’s prisons. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 77p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/VERA.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/doc/OC/docs/pdf/VERA.pdf Shelf Number: 140326 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Cloud, David Title: The Safe Alternatives to Segregation Initiative: Findings and Recommendations for the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Summary: In recent years, a wide range of advocates, policymakers, national and international bodies, and corrections practitioners have called for prisons and jails to reexamine their use of segregation, also known as solitary confinement or restrictive housing. Whether citing the potentially devastating psychological and physiological impacts of spending 23 hours per day alone in a cell as small as a parking space, the cost of operating such highly restrictive environments, or the lack of conclusive evidence that segregation makes correctional facilities safer, these voices agree that reform is essential. In 2015, with funding from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) partnered with the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NDCS) to help the department reduce its use of segregation. Vera’s assistance included conducting a yearlong assessment of how Nebraska uses segregation and identifying opportunities for change and innovation. While the assessment was still ongoing, NDCS began instituting dramatic reforms. In particular, the department developed and released a comprehensive new rule on restrictive housing in July 2016, in response to the requirements of a 2015 Nebraska law (LB 598). The rule aims to ensure that segregation is used only as a management tool of last resort, in the least restrictive manner possible, and for the least amount of time consistent with the safety and security of staff, inmates, and the facility. NDCS also recently ended the use of segregation as a disciplinary sanction for rule violations. This report presents the findings of Vera’s assessment, which come from a period prior to the enactment of these reforms but provide a useful baseline against which NDCS can measure the impact of recent and future changes. Informed by this assessment, and by a review of the new restrictive housing rule, this report provides recommendations of additional strategies for safely reducing the department's use of segregation. It is Vera's hope that these recommendations will provide helpful guidance for NDCS to successfully build upon the promising steps it has already taken. Key Findings NDCS faces numerous, interrelated challenges that have contributed to the overuse of segregation, including severe overcrowding, a shortage of corrections and mental health staff, and insufficient educational, vocational, and therapeutic programming and mental health treatment for incarcerated people. In recent years, these challenges have attracted significant attention, and NDCS and the Nebraska legislature have been working hard to address them through a series of legislative and regulatory changes, including the new restrictive housing rule. Vera assessed the department's use of segregation before many of these recent reforms and found that during a two-year period ending June 30, 2015, the average daily population in any type of restrictive housing was 13.9 percent of the total NDCS population. To dig deeper, Vera’s assessment examined the various types of segregation in use at the time and looked at differences between genders, age groups, and racial and ethnic groups. Disciplinary Segregation was overused, often for low-level violations, and was characterized by isolating conditions. Vera found that incarcerated people were often sanctioned to Disciplinary Segregation (DS) for minor rule violations. Individuals found guilty of lower-level rule violations (i.e., Class 2 and 3 violations) accounted for 91 percent of all DS sanctions given over the study period. Some of the violations that resulted in the most DS sanctions included “disobeying an order” (Class 2), "swearing, cursing, or use of abusive language or gestures" (Class 3), and "disruption" (Class 3). Nearly half of people incarcerated in NDCS facilities had experienced at least one day in either Disciplinary or Immediate Segregation. People in these types of segregation experienced conditions of extreme isolation, idleness, and sensory deprivation. Administrative forms of segregation were characterized by long stays and restrictive conditions. Fewer incarcerated people experienced other forms of restrictive housing, including Protective Custody (PC), Administrative Confinement (AC), and Intensive Management (IM). However, those who did often spent long periods of time there. The average length of stay in AC was almost six months, in IM it was almost nine months, and in PC it was about ten months. People in AC or IM experienced conditions of extreme isolation, with little access to recreation, programming, or congregate activities. Living conditions in different Protective Custody units varied somewhat, but were generally overly restrictive and also lacked adequate access to constructive programming, recreation, and congregate activity. However, at the time of Vera's assessment, NDCS had begun reforming PC to make conditions more like general population. Certain groups were over-represented in restrictive housing. Men were exposed to all types of segregation at higher rates than women and tended to stay in these conditions for longer durations. On an average day during the study period, almost 15 percent of men were in restrictive housing, compared to an average of 4.8 percent of women. Echoing the fact that racial and ethnic minorities are generally ove-represented throughout the criminal justice system in the U.S., racial and ethnic minorities were disproportionately exposed to restrictive housing in Nebraska. For example, over 50 percent of Black, Hispanic, and Native American individuals in NDCS custody had at least one day of contact with DS, IS, AC, or IM, compared to 39 percent of white people. Additionally, younger males were overrepresented in segregation. On average about 13 percent of males under age 25 in NDCS custody were in the most restrictive types of segregation (not including PC) on any given day, compared to around 6 percent of men 25 and older. Key Recommendations Vera recognizes the many reforms NDCS has begun implementing and offers recommendations that would further the department's efforts to safely reduce the use of segregation. The full report details numerous specific recommendations for NDCS, including: § Support staff as they adjust to a disciplinary process that no longer includes Disciplinary Segregation as a sanction, and ensure that they have adequate alternative tools to respond to misbehavior and incentivize positive behavior; § Identify potential unintended consequences that may arise from the elimination of Disciplinary Segregation—such as the overuse of Immediate Segregation in its place— and implement strong safeguards to protect against them; § Enact firm policies that prohibit placing youth, pregnant women, and people with serious mental illness in any form of restrictive housing that limits meaningful access to social interaction, exercise, environmental stimulation, and therapeutic programming; § Further strengthen procedural safeguards for placement in Longer-term Restrictive Housing (a segregation category established by the new rule), to ensure that it is truly used as a last resort, only when necessary, and for as short a time as possible; § Improve the conditions of confinement in restrictive housing units to reduce the negative effects of segregation, including by increasing out-of-cell time and recreation, minimizing isolation and idleness, and providing opportunities for rehabilitative programming; § Create a step-down program to encourage and facilitate successful transitions from restrictive housing to general population; § Expand the capacity of mental health care services and ensure a therapeutic environment within Secure Mental Health Units; § Continue to explore strategies to address staff vacancies, turnover, and burnout; and § Expand vocational, educational, and therapeutic programming and activities for the entire population, including those in restrictive housing. As the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services continues to move forward with its implementation of current and future reform efforts, Vera has every confidence that the department will capitalize on its own strengths, learn from its peers in the field, and use the recommendations in this report as a springboard for continuing to reduce its use of segregation and improving the lives of the men and women who live and work in Nebraska’s prisons. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2016. 145p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 7, 2016 at: http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/Vera%20Institute%20Final%20Report%20to%20NDCS%2011-01-16%20v2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.corrections.nebraska.gov/pdf/Vera%20Institute%20Final%20Report%20to%20NDCS%2011-01-16%20v2.pdf Shelf Number: 147934 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationInmate DisciplineIsolationRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Contract with CoreCivic, Inc. to Operate the Adams County Correctional Center in Natchez, Mississippi Summary: In April 2009, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) awarded a contract to Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which is now known as CoreCivic, Inc., to house up to 2,567 low-security, non-U.S. citizen adult male inmates in the Adams County Correctional Center (Adams County). The BOP exercised the contract's second of three 2-year option periods in 2015, extending it through July 2017 and increasing its value to about $468 million. As of June 2016, it was the third largest Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) contract in terms of dollars obligated since fiscal year (FY) 2009. The DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit, covering the period April 1, 2012, through March 31, 2015, to: (1) assess CoreCivic's contract performance; (2) determine whether CoreCivic complied with the terms, conditions, laws, and regulations applicable to the contract; and (3) assess the BOP's formation and administration of the contract. We found that CoreCivic's execution of the contract's requirements did not fully accomplish the BOP's program. goals in several respects. In May 2012, an inmate riot at the facility resulted in a correctional officer's death and injuries to approximately 20 staff and inmates. The riot, according to a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) affidavit, was a consequence of what inmates perceived to be inadequate medical care, substandard food, and disrespectful staff members. A BOP after-action report found deficiencies in staffing levels, staff experience, communication between staff and inmates, and CoreCivic's intelligence systems. The report specifically cited the lack of Spanish-speaking staff and staff inexperience. Four years after the riot, we were deeply concerned to find that the facility was plagued by the same significant deficiencies in correctional and health services and Spanish-speaking staffing. In 19 of the 38 months following the riot, we found CoreCivic staffed correctional services at an even lower level than at the time of the riot in terms of actual post coverage. Yet CoreCivic's monthly reports to the BOP, which were based on simple headcounts, showed that correctional staffing levels had improved in 36 of those 38 months. With regard to Spanish-speaking staff, while the BOP's post-riot after-action plan recommended adding to the contract minimum requirements for bilingual staff, we found that the BOP did not modify the contract to include this requirement until June 2015, subsequent to the start of our audit. Moreover, the contract modification does not define the level of speaking proficiency required and has no deadline or target date for compliance. As of July 2015, the facility's inmate population consisted of approximately 2,300 aliens, predominately Mexican-nationals, yet only 4 of 367 staff spoke fluent Spanish. By February 2016, CoreCivic officials told us the number of fluent Spanish-speaking staff actually dropped to three people, and CoreCivic's January 2016 job announcements for correctional officers stated no preference for bilingual applicants. In addition, the BOP told us that it does not validate the contractor's staff for Spanish-speaking skills, and has not established any validation criteria for doing so. We also found lower qualification levels and significantly higher staffing turnover rates for Adams County correctional officers and believe these factors contributed to the facility's lack of experienced staff, which the BOP identified in its after-action report as a systemic problem in the area of safety and security at the facility. We reviewed CoreCivic's hiring practices and determined the facility employs correctional officers with qualifications that would have been insufficient for employment at BOP-managed institutions. For example, the BOP requires entry-level correctional officers to have either a 4-year college degree or equivalent work experience, while CoreCivic does not require education beyond high school. Additionally, we found significantly higher turnover rates at the facility than those at comparable BOP institutions and believe it likely results from the substantially lower pay and benefits provided by CoreCivic. We found CoreCivic pays significantly lower wages and offers less time off than the BOP, and provides fewer career advancement opportunities. For example, the BOP pays entry-level correctional officers $18.69 per hour, 48 percent higher than the $12.60 per hour paid by CoreCivic. The State of Mississippi also offers its correctional officers more generous wages and paid time off than CoreCivic. Furthermore, the BOP offers new correctional officers noncompetitive promotion potential to $26.91 an hour, while CoreCivic pays correctional officers, throughout their careers, only the required prevailing wage rates set forth by the Department of Labor's Service Contract Act wage determinations. The BOP's contract with CoreCivic does not address either correctional officer qualification requirements or staff pay and benefits. We believe the BOP should evaluate the extent to which employee qualification levels and turnover rates impact safety and security concerns, and whether its contractual terms should be modified to address those concerns. In addition, while the BOP's solicitation that resulted in the Adams County contract required companies to develop a staffing plan that would illustrate the "total number of full-time equivalents (FTE) for each position title," based on our discussions with BOP and CoreCivic officials, it became apparent that the contract was vague about how staffing levels should be calculated. A 2011 contract modification provided that staffing levels should not fall below a monthly average of 90 percent for Correctional Services and 85 percent for Health Services of the BOP-approved staffing plan. Both the BOP and CoreCivic told us they interpreted the contract to allow the calculation of staffing levels to be based on headcounts rather than FTE, and leave the determination of day-to-day staff assignments to the discretion of CoreCivic. As a result, we found the staffing levels CoreCivic reported to the BOP reflected neither actual staffing at the facility nor staffing insufficiencies. Specifically, CoreCivic reported to the BOP simple headcounts of staff recorded on payroll records, regardless of the hours each employee actually worked. When we re-calculated correctional services staffing levels based on FTEs using time and attendance records, we found that, throughout the 4-year period we reviewed, staffing levels were lower than the levels represented by CoreCivic's headcounts and were frequently lower than the BOP's minimum staffing threshold. We found similar issues regarding CoreCivic's reporting of health services staffing. Because the BOP was unaware of these staffing insufficiencies, it was unable to assess the adequacy of staffing levels at the facility. When we reported these issues and our concerns about them to BOP officials, they told us CoreCivic's reporting was consistent with the contract. We found that had the contract clearly specified that staffing levels should be measured using FTEs, between July 2011 and July 2015 the BOP could have taken $1,927,307 in invoice deductions as a result of inadequate correctional and health services staffing levels. We believe this nearly $2 million that the BOP expended could have been avoided with more precise contract language and was wasteful. We also found that, beginning in December 2012, CoreCivic excluded from its required staffing reports the status of five critical health services positions identified in the approved staffing plan, namely two dentists, two physicians, and one advanced registered nurse practitioner. As a result, the BOP, which was not notified of and did not identify the change, was unable to assess the effect of any vacancies on service provision or invoice amounts. We believe that this gap in oversight had a negative effect on CoreCivic's ability to provide quality health care at the Adams County facility. In fact, we found that between December 2012 and September 2015, the Adams County facility was staffed with only a single physician for 434 days (43 percent of the time) and a single dentist for 689 days (69 percent of the time), resulting in inmate-to-provider ratios that were about double those specified in BOP program statements. Finally, we found several aspects of the BOP's control and oversight of the contract performance to be inadequate. The BOP structured this contract as a performance-based acquisition, for which the Federal Acquisition Regulation requires a performance work statement, measurable performance standards, and a method of assessing contractor performance against those standards. However, the BOP did not implement appropriate performance standards to measure and evaluate CoreCivic's performance. For example, the BOP's oversight of staffing levels is limited because the contract requirements do not sufficiently specify how CoreCivic should measure and report facility staffing levels. We also found CoreCivic inconsistently used industry-standard dietary guidelines to evaluate the nutritional adequacy of food service offerings at the facility, an issue that may have been avoided had the contract specified which standards CoreCivic should have followed. Additionally, the BOP's oversight of billings was inadequate in several ways, resulting in the BOP failing to identify instances where CoreCivic did not apply mandatory invoice deductions. In August 2016, the Deputy Attorney General directed the BOP to begin reducing, and ultimately end, its use of privately operated prisons. Because this order was issued after the close of our audit period, any analysis of its basis or effect were outside of this audit's scope. This report makes 9 recommendations to assist the BOP in improving operations under the Adams County contract and in addressing $42,300 we have identified as questioned costs. Details: Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2016 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1708.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/a1708.pdf Shelf Number: 145091 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFederal Bureau of PrisonsFederal PrisonsPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Texas. Legislature. House Committee on Corrections Title: Interim Report to the 85th Texas Legislature Summary: INTERIM STUDY CHARGES 1. Examine fees and revocations for those on probation and parole; examine effectiveness of fees imposed as a condition of probation and parole; study technical revocations in adult probation to identify drivers of revocations, disparities across the state, and strategies for reducing technical revocations while ensuring program effectiveness and public safety. (Joint charge with the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence) 2. Study recidivism, its major causes, and existing programs designed to reduce recidivism, including a review of current programs utilized by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) and the Windham School District for incarcerated persons. Examine re-entry programs and opportunities for offenders upon release. Identify successful programs in other jurisdictions and consider how they might be implemented in Texas. 3. Study incarceration rates for non-violent drug offenses and the cost to the state associated with those offenses. Identify alternatives to incarceration, including community supervision, that could be used to reduce incarceration rates of non-violent drug offenders. 4. Study inmate release policies of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, including the release of inmates directly from administrative segregation. Identify best practices and policies for the transitioning of these various inmate populations from the prison to appropriate supervision in the community. Identify any needed legislative changes necessary to accomplish these goals. 5. Conduct legislative oversight and monitoring of the agencies and programs under the committee’s jurisdiction and the implementation of relevant legislation passed by the 84th Legislature. In conducting this oversight, the committee should: a. consider any reforms to state agencies to make them more responsive to Texas taxpayers and citizens; b. identify issues regarding the agency or its governance that may be appropriate to investigate, improve, remedy, or eliminate; c. determine whether an agency is operating in a transparent and efficient manner; and d. identify opportunities to streamline programs and services while maintaining the mission of the agency and its programs. Details: Austin: Texas Legislature, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 27, 2016 at: http://www.house.state.tx.us/_media/pdf/committees/reports/84interim/Corrections-Committee-Interim-Report-2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.house.state.tx.us/_media/pdf/committees/reports/84interim/Corrections-Committee-Interim-Report-2016.pdf Shelf Number: 144922 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional ProgramsCorrectionsPrisons |
Author: United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) Title: Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and the Prevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons Summary: This Handbook is one of a series of tools developed by UNODC to support Member States in the implementation of the rule of law and the development of criminal justice reform. It is designed to be used by prison managers and prison staff, in particular, but will also be relevant for other actors involved in the criminal justice system, such as policymakers, legislators and members of non-governmental organizations. It can be used in a variety of contexts, both as a reference document and as the basis for staff training. While some elements of the Handbook may not be achievable immediately in some jurisdictions, particularly in post-conflict situations, the Handbook provides national authorities with guidelines for the development of policies and protocols that meet international standards and good practice. This Handbook constitutes the first technical guidance tool to addresses the manifestation of radicalization to violence and violent extremism in prison settings at the level of the United Nations. It provides practical guidance on: • The management of violent extremist prisoners (prisoners who have embraced violent extremism) • Preventing the progression to violent extremism in prisons (prisoners who may be vulnerable to radicalization to violence) • Interventions aimed at disengaging violent extremist prisoners from violence and at facilitating their social reintegration upon release. Within these parts, the Handbook covers key prison management policies and mechanisms, such as the need for: overall prison conditions to be in line with international minimum standards; effective assessment and classification systems; physical, procedural and dynamic security; professional prison staff training; fair, humane and non-discriminatory treatment; preventing corruption; various categories of disengagement interventions involving experts from different disciplines; and social reintegration and post-release support. Overall, the Handbook advocates an approach aimed at strengthening these key components of prison management. Not only is such an approach explicitly called for in the international good practice documents, it also provides value by creating sustainable benefits for the entire prison system. The following considerations summarize the key principles underlying all recommendations made in the Handbook: • Adherence to fundamental rights, international standards, and good prison practice: It is crucial that any efforts in prison to address violent extremism must not lead to undermining human rights to which all persons, including violent extremist prisoners, are entitled. Under international human rights law, no exceptions or restrictions are permissible to the prohibition of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Equally relevant is the protection of the right to hold an opinion and to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice,1 although certain manifestations may be subject to limitations, if strictly necessary and provided by law (e.g. for the protection of public order or the respect of others’ rights). At the same time, Member States should prohibit by law any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. • Relevance of overall prison conditions and prison management: Guidance on the management of violent extremist prisoners and the prevention of radicalization to violence in prisons must ensure that any proposed intervention is closely embedded in broader prison reform efforts. Stand-alone disengagement interventions, which are implemented in isolation of the broader prison context are unlikely to yield positive results, in particular if the latter fails to adhere to international standards and norms. Vulnerability to radicalization to violence is exacerbated in prisons that are overcrowded, understaffed, fail to provide basic services to prisoners, or are otherwise managed in a disorderly manner. • The importance of definitions and differentiation: This Handbook reiterates that prisoner radicalization, far from being a new phenomenon, is a very old issue which is not in itself a threat to the prison administration or society if not connected to violence. Not all radicalization is negative or a precursor to violent extremism. Only a very small number of radicals actually become violent extremists. Definitions and differentiation are important, therefore, when dealing with the sensitive topic of (violent) extremism and radicalization (to violence), in particular in order to differentiate between thought and action. • Specific challenges posed by violent extremist prisoners: The above notwithstanding, prison managers should not forget that while both violent extremists and other criminals may employ violence to attain specific goals, most violent extremists are motivated by ideological, religious, or political gain, and believe that they are fighting for a cause. This can have a significant impact on the way violent extremist prisoners should be managed, as this Handbook will set out. The focus of this Handbook is on adult male and female violent extremist prisoners. The specific issue of children alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having committed violent extremist offences will be dealt with in a separate UNODC publication, recognizing the different legal regime applicable to children deprived of their liberty. Collective disengagement from violent extremism is also not covered in this Handbook, as its focus is on the individual prisoner and interventions aimed at individual disengagement from violence. Groups may also abandon their use of violent methods, but the reasons for them doing so are not necessarily the same as when an individual disengages from violence. Details: New York: UNODC, 2016. 160p. Source: Internet Resource: Criminal Justice Handbook Series; Accessed March 2, 2017 at: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Handbook_on_VEPs.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: https://www.unodc.org/pdf/criminal_justice/Handbook_on_VEPs.pdf Shelf Number: 141300 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationExtremist GroupsExtremist PrisonersExtremistsPrison ViolenceRadical GroupsRadicalization |
Author: Queensland. Department of Premier and Cabinet Title: Queensland Parole System Review: Final Report Summary: The Honourable Annastacia Palaszczuk MP, Premier and Minister for the Arts and the Honourable Bill Byrne MP, Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrective Services established a review into the parole system in Queensland. Mr Walter Sofronoff QC was appointed to lead the review. The review sought input from victims' organisations, organisations working with offenders, academic researchers and experts, interested members of the public and persons working in the criminal justice system. A report including findings and recommendations was provided to the Premier and Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services and Minister for Corrective Services on 1 December 2016. Details: Brisbane: Queensland Government, 2016. 362p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed march 6, 2017 at: https://parolereview.premiers.qld.gov.au/assets/queensland-parole-system-review-final-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://parolereview.premiers.qld.gov.au/assets/queensland-parole-system-review-final-report.pdf Shelf Number: 141348 Keywords: Community-Based CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationParoleRecidivismReoffending |
Author: Smoyer, Amy B. Title: Food systems in correctional settings A literature review and case study Summary: Food is a central component of life in correctional institutions and plays a critical role in the physical and mental health of incarcerated people and the construction of prisoners' identities and relationships. An understanding of the role of food in correctional settings and effective management of food systems may improve outcomes for incarcerated people and help correctional administrators to maximize the health and safety of individuals in these institutions. This report summarizes existing research about food systems in correctional settings and provides examples of food programmes in prison and remand facilities, including a case study of food-related innovation in the Danish correctional system. Specific conclusions are offered for policy-makers, administrators of correctional institutions and prison food services professionals, and ideas for future research are proposed. Details: Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 21, 2017 at: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/292965/Food-systems-correctional-settings-literature-review-case-study.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Europe URL: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/292965/Food-systems-correctional-settings-literature-review-case-study.pdf Shelf Number: 145069 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFood ServicesPrisons |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division Title: Audit of the United States Marshals Service Contrast No. DJJODT7C0002 with CoreCivic, Inc., to Operate the Leavenworth Detention Center Leavenworth, Kansas Summary: In January 2007, the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) awarded, on behalf of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), contract no. DJJODT7C0002 to Corrections Corporation of America, now known as CoreCivic, Inc. (CoreCivic), to provide comprehensive detention services at the Leavenworth Detention Center (LDC) in Leavenworth, Kansas. This contract is a sole-source acquisition that includes a 5-year base period with three 5-year option periods and has a total estimated value of $697 million. Actual contract costs through January 2017 were $252 million. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this audit to assess USMS's and CoreCivic's administration of, and compliance with, contract terms and conditions in the areas of: (1) contract management, oversight, and monitoring; (2) staffing requirements; and (3) billings and payments. The audit time frame focused on, but was not limited to, October 2010 through May 2015. As an initial matter, we determined that the OFDT's justification for issuing a sole source contract did not include all of the language and supporting documentation required by the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Additionally, the USMS was unable to provide evidence, as required by the FAR, that the OFDT obtained competition to the maximum extent practicable and ensured the best overall value to the government. Specifically, the OFDT restricted contract performance to the city of Leavenworth, thus potentially limiting the pool of offerors, but it could not provide the required evidence that it had a sufficient justification for this restriction. We also concluded that the USMS failed to provide sufficient oversight of the LDC and that this failure resulted in several significant issues with LDC operations going unaddressed for extended periods of time. In our judgment, the USMS was inherently reactive: instead of actively monitoring LDC operations to identify discrepancies and thwart potential incidents, the USMS often became aware of incidents after they occurred. Of particular concern, the USMS Contracting Officer's Representative (COR), who was responsible for monitoring CoreCivic's performance at the LDC on a day-to-day basis, was located offsite, had no previous contract oversight experience, and received no formal guidance and negligible detention-related training. The COR maintained an infrequent onsite presence at the LDC, did not document the inspection activities performed, and did not develop an inspection program or monitoring procedures. Furthermore, in our judgment, the USMS's lack of effective continuous monitoring at the LDC presents risks that may extend throughout all its other contract detention facilities. Upon learning of these potentially systemic weaknesses in the USMS's contract oversight, the OIG issued a Management Advisory Memorandum to the USMS so it could take immediate action to address them. In response, USMS officials stated that their goal was to improve contract monitoring by establishing an onsite detention contract monitoring program at all private detention facilities. This program would be staffed by full-time professional Contract Administrators under the supervision of the USMS's Prisoner Operations Division. The OIG Memorandum and the USMS's responses to it are detailed in the body of this report and attached as appendices. Insufficient oversight by the USMS allowed several problems at the LDC to persist over a significant period of time. Among the issues affecting the safety and security of the LDC that we identified was its periodic under-staffing. We found that from October 2012 through September 2014, the LDC's staffing was generally consistent with the facility-wide staffing plan thresholds. However, from October 2014 through September 2015, the LDC's staffing levels deteriorated and the facility-wide average vacancy rate more than doubled to 11 percent. This was primarily driven by correctional officer vacancies, which reached as high as 23 percent. These correctional officer vacancies led to several problems in 2015, including the LDC's long-term use of mandatory overtime, which LDC personnel said led to lower morale, security concerns, and fewer correctional officers available to escort medical staff and detainees to and from the health services unit. LDC's vacancies led to the closure of security posts and reassignment of personnel, sometimes to the detriment of detainee services. Many of the closures occurred at posts that had been designated by CoreCivic as "mandatory," meaning they were required to be filled on each shift in order to run the facility in a safe and secure manner. The problem of post closures was especially acute from February 1 through March 31, 2015. During this period, the LDC closed at least one security post in all 118 shifts and closed an average of 7 posts per shift. LDC's vacancies also led to Unit Management personnel being assigned to security posts instead of performing their normal job duties, which included assisting detainees with casework and transitional services, developing individual detainee program plans, and delivering services and programs to detainees, among other duties. Rather than take steps to address understaffing, both USMS and CoreCivic took actions that exacerbated the problem. For example, CoreCivic did not utilize all available staffing options to remedy the under-staffing problem, such as by requesting temporary staff from other CoreCivic facilities. In fact, during a period when the LDC was understaffed, CoreCivic temporarily transferred LDC personnel to other CoreCivic facilities, which in one instance led to a significant reduction in the size of the LDC's already shorthanded Special Operations Response Team, weakening its ability to operate effectively and fulfill its mission in the event of a significant incident. We also found that the USMS allowed CoreCivic to contract with a local government to house non-federal detainees at the LDC - at a rate below that being paid by the USMS - without considering the staffing implications of the arrangement. We also learned during our audit that, unbeknownst to the USMS, LDC officials had uninstalled beds prior to an American Correctional Association (ACA) inspection in 2011 in order to conceal from ACA that the LDC was triple bunking detainees. Following the OIG's discovery of this issue, CoreCivic conducted an internal investigation, which revealed that similar conduct may have occurred prior to the 2005 and 2008 ACA audits and that a former CoreCivic divisional Managing Director was aware of these efforts. CoreCivic told the OIG that in response to this finding, its Ethics & Compliance office instituted an ethics liaison program and completed training at LDC on employees' duty to report misconduct, options for reporting misconduct, and CoreCivic's non-retaliation policy for employees who report misconduct. We were informed by ACA that it had decided not to take any action against CoreCivic, in part because the senior officials involved were no longer with CoreCivic. Our audit further determined that the USMS has issued conflicting guidance on the allowability of triple bunking by its contractors, and that it should clearly specify in its new and existing contracts the rules and procedures governing this practice. Additionally, we found that the USMS did not detect several weaknesses in CoreCivic's contractually-required quality control program at the LDC, which our review determined had significant shortcomings. For example, the LDC Quality Assurance Manager received minimal instruction and guidance on how to conduct facility reviews; there was insufficient evidence proving that the LDC inspection review steps were conducted; the LDC's plans of action did not properly address deficiencies and did not provide viable long term correction; and the LDC had insufficient evidence proving that plans of action were implemented. Despite the LDC's staffing deficiencies and the other instances of non-compliance with contract requirements, we determined that the USMS had not used available contractual mechanisms to hold CoreCivic accountable. According to the contract and USMS policy, the USMS may issue contract price reductions for contractors' significant or repeat deficiencies, failure to fill essential staff positions, and having an unacceptable number of vacancies. Yet we found that, from March 2006 through January 2017, the USMS had not proposed or issued any contract price reductions for any of its 15 contract detention facilities, including the LDC. We further found that the COR for the LDC contract had never seen the USMS's price reduction guidance, and USMS officials were unable to provide us with evidence that such guidance was sent to any of the current USMS District CORs responsible for the other 14 USMS contract detention facilities. Additionally, the USMS was not entering contractor past performance evaluations into the government-wide electronic evaluation reporting system, as required by the FAR, or conducting Performance Evaluation Meetings as required by the contract. Finally, the OIG determined that one of CoreCivic's employee fringe benefits called the "sick account" contained excess funds that could be interpreted as "cash equivalents" that should have been paid to employees on a regular basis. Because CoreCivic's benefits administrator withheld these funds for months or years before disbursement to employees, it is questionable whether the sick account is compliant with applicable labor standards for federal service contracts. We believe the USMS should work with the Department of Labor, and as necessary CoreCivic, to address the issue. CoreCivic also improperly requested - and the USMS improperly paid - $103,271 in salaries and benefits for commissary positions not funded through the LDC contract. These unallowable payments have a compounding effect over time because they are incorporated into each monthly invoice until the contract ends. In March 2017, the USMS issued a contract modification to CoreCivic to recover the unallowable price adjustments and to modify the Monthly Operating Price to reflect the proper monthly price. This report makes 24 recommendations to assist the USMS in improving contractor operations and enhancing the USMS's monitoring and oversight at the LDC. Details: Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General, 2017. 129p. Source: Internet Resource: Audit Division 17-22: Accessed January 28, 2017 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/a1722.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2017/a1722.pdf Shelf Number: 145186 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Huntsman, Max Title: Overview and Policy Analysis of Tethering in Los Angeles County Jails Summary: On July 9, 2015, Sheriff Jim McDonnell was notified of a disturbing prisoner complaint suggesting that a prisoner had been restrained for approximately thirty two hours without any food, only one cup of water, and no opportunity to use a restroom. Sheriff McDonnell took action against the individuals responsible and relieved ten jail personnel of duty. The personnel included two lieutenants, one sergeant, one senior deputy, four deputies and two custody assistants. In addition, a number of other personnel were reassigned to other duties pending further investigation. This event, however, is not an isolated incident. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is aware of at least three other incidents involving similar conduct. In each, prisoners have been secured with a restraint device (i.e. waist chains, handcuffs, hobble etc.) to a fixed object for a prolonged period of time in a manner that subjected them to a substantial risk of mental and/or physical harm. All four of the incidents appear to involve possible violations of the Department's own policies, procedures and state laws. In fact, one of the incidents has since resulted in criminal misdemeanor filings by the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Of particular significance is that the incidents were known to or directed by supervisory personnel. This report provides an overview of each of the four incidents including the Department's response to each incident through Corrective Action Plans and new directives. The OIG has not conducted an independent investigation of these incidents. The facts of each incident cited in this report are based on documents provided to the OIG by the Sheriff's Department, media reports, as well as the OIG's limited review of video surveillance of some, but not all, of the incidents. As a result of these incidents, the OIG has worked closely with the Department to propose new policies and procedures regarding the tethering (hereinafter "fixed restraint") of prisoners. The goal of this collaboration has been to provide deputies reasonable tools to control prisoners while building in safeguards to ensure proper supervision that will limit potential abuse. Details: Los Angeles: Office of Inspector General County of Los Angeles, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 1, 2017 at: https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/Overview%20and%20Policy%20Analysis%20of%20Tethering%20in%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20Jails.pdf?ver=2017-02-21-071752-200 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.lacounty.gov/Portals/OIG/Reports/Overview%20and%20Policy%20Analysis%20of%20Tethering%20in%20Los%20Angeles%20County%20Jails.pdf?ver=2017-02-21-071752-200 Shelf Number: 145211 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationInmate RestraintJail InmatesJailsPrisoner RestraintTethering |
Author: Koslover, Rebecca Title: A Market Survey on Contraband Detection Technologies Summary: Contraband is a significant problem for correctional facilities across the United States (Kopochinski, 2012). Loosely defined as anything inmates are prohibited from possessing, contraband poses a threat to the safety of individuals both inside and outside the correctional system. While weapons, tools, and narcotics are the most obvious risks within the community, items such as money, electronic devices, food, and tobacco products all pose both a prevalent threat and unique detection challenge. Due to the system wide contraband problem, the National Institutes of Justice (NIJ) requested the execution of a market survey regarding commercial contraband detection technologies currently available. This document is the collective summary of that market survey. Organized into three primary sections (person-borne, vehicle-borne, and environmental), each contraband detection system's information is grouped and summarized to aid correctional officials in planning the potential acquisition and implementation of these technologies. Additionally, this document provides a summary of the background research and methods used for performing this survey. This survey does not evaluate or rank these products; there are no opinions presented concerning the quality or effectiveness of these products. Instead, the intent of this document is to provide correctional officials with a broad overview of the current contraband detection technologies available for their use. The data presented in this document was collected via multiple research and collection avenues. In addition to general Internet searches, the public was broadly solicited with a request for information (RFI) published as a Federal Register Notice (FRN). Furthermore, in order to maximize exposure, vendors identified via Internet searches were directly contacted and invited to respond to the FRN. For vendors that did not respond to the FRN, we obtained as much information as we could from their websites. Over 100 products are summarized in this survey. This document represents an overview of the technologies available at the time of the market survey (i.e., 2016). When considering the acquisition of contraband detection equipment, additional up-to-date information should be requested from the specific vendors of interest. Details: Final report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2017. 402p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250685.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250685.pdf Shelf Number: 145936 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationDetection TechnologyPrison ContrabandPrison ManagementPrison Security |
Author: Great Britain. House of Commons. Justice Committee Title: Prison Reform: Governor empowerment and prison performance Summary: Within our overarching inquiry into the Government's prison reform programme we held a short 'sub-inquiry' into the plans for governor empowerment and prison performance, which are a central part of the overall programme. The Government intends to give prison governors greater autonomy and flexibility to shape the services provided in their prisons, emphasising the role of prisons in rehabilitation. Most of our witnesses supported these intentions, but many expressed concerns about the lack of clarity on the practical implications of the reforms. Some also questioned whether the reforms would address the current crisis in prisons. In this report, we have tried to clarify how the plans for governor empowerment and prison performance might operate and what risks will need to be mitigated. From April onwards, the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) will be responsible for prisons commissioning and policy, while the new HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) will be responsible for the operational management of prisons. We heard that policy and operations are not easily separated in the prison context and that this separation could result in governors as well as the Secretary of State receiving conflicting advice from the MoJ and HMPPS. Governors will operate to, and be accountable through, three-year performance agreements they sign with the Secretary of State. These agreements will be based around four new performance standards, which are tied to the four purposes of prison included in the Prisons and Courts Bill: public protection; safety and order; reform; and preparing for life after prison. It is not clear to us what will happen in cases of poor performance, and how accountability will be attributed. The Ministry will publish official statistics on prison performance against these standards, possibly instead of the league tables it had initially announced. We consider that the Ministry should use these data to understand more fully the factors underpinning poor and high performance, to inform practice across the estate. Governor empowerment We are generally supportive of the principle of greater governor empowerment, but we have not seen any evidence that it will necessarily lead to better outcomes for prisoners, and we note that the six initial reform prisons will only be evaluated after the reforms take effect across the prison estate. We raise a number of potential issues associated with governor empowerment including: - the potential for greater governor autonomy and accompanying deregulation to result in an increase in prisoner complaints if not balanced with the need for minimum standards that apply consistently across prisons; - the availability of support and development opportunities for governors in time before the reforms begin to take effect; and - the need to coordinate contributions made by various agencies involved in providing services related to rehabilitation, including prisons and probation, at a local level, and to apportion accountability for post-release outcomes between prison governors and probation services. There also remains considerable uncertainty around how the Government's plans will apply to the privately managed prison estate, and how the new offender management model, with one keyworker overseeing the casework of six prisoners, will work in practice. Performance The shift to a common performance framework for private and public sector prisons, and towards more meaningful outcome measures for prisons that can incentivise desired behaviours in governors and staff, was broadly welcomed by witnesses, although some questioned the extent to which new measures differed significantly from existing ones. In the light of the challenges arising from the performance metrics for Transforming Rehabilitation, which had limited testing prior to implementation, we seek information on the manner in which prison performance measures have been tested and the results of these tests. Some of our witnesses suggested other measures should be used, and we consider that there is merit in testing measures related to staffing and prisoners' personal development. Commissioning Giving governors greater involvement in commissioning services in their prisons could lead to better outcomes for prisoners and innovation, but only when commissioning is based on evidence and evaluated rigorously, and when procurement processes, as well as performance agreements, are designed to facilitate innovation. However, it could also lead to a lack of alignment of services across the estate, and an increase in the overall cost of service provision, as economies of scale in the provision of goods and services could be lost. We recognise the need for central oversight to ensure service provision is coordinated across the prison estate and meets minimum quality standards, and recommend the Government decides on the appropriate level at which to commission services and goods on a case by case basis. Details: London: House of Commons, 2017. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: Twelfth Report of Session 2016-17: HC 1123: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmjust/1123/1123.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmjust/1123/1123.pdf Shelf Number: 146262 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison ReformPrisons |
Author: Association of State Correctional Administrators Title: Independent Assessment of The High Desert State Prison Summary: This report provides a summary of an independent assessment conducted by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) at High Desert State Prison (HDSP) in Susanville, California. The assessment was conducted during a site visit by an eight-person team trained in the use of the Institutional Culture Assessment Protocol (ICAP), a standardized process and instrumentation designed specifically for use in assessing a prison's culture. The report details the assessment team's activities while on site from July 15, 2016 through July 28, 2016. The primary goal of the assessment was to gain a thorough understanding of the unique culture of HDSP and how that culture impacts prison operations and the environment for both staff and inmates. The assessment followed two integrated inquiry tracks: (1) an assessment of both the formal and informal cultures at HDSP through a process of interviews, focus groups, direct observation and assessment of facility operations, management, policy and procedure using the ICAP protocol; and (2) an operational assessment of practices and procedures through observation, document review, and discussions with staff. The findings from both inquiry tracks are presented in this report. In March of 2016, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Secretary Scott Kernan requested that ASCA conduct an independent assessment of HDSP. The request was based in part on conflicting reports Secretary Kernan had received from his agency and stakeholder groups. Reports from several Wardens' Peer Audit Team reviews were consistently positive with only minor issues being noted. Likewise, COMPSTAT data collected from HDSP did not reflect any areas of concern and was consistent with other CDCR Level 4 prisons. In contrast with the information contained in those CDCR generated documents were reports produced by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and the Prison Law Office (PLO) alleging numerous instances of egregious behavior by staff towards the inmate population. Details: Sacramento: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2016. 115p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 24, 2017 at: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/Independent-HDSP-Report-9-23-16.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports/docs/External-Reports/Independent-HDSP-Report-9-23-16.pdf Shelf Number: 146359 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsPrison AdministrationPrisons |
Author: Ferdik, Frank Valentino Title: Correctional Officer Safety and Wellness Literature Synthesis Summary: Correctional officers (COs) play a pivotal role within the wider prison system as they are tasked with numerous responsibilities designed to ensure that their respective facilities are operating efficiently. As the front-line bureaucrats of the prison institution (Lipsky, 2010), COs are charged with supervising the activities of inmates, enforcing rules and regulations, affording offenders access to social services, and perhaps most importantly, maintaining order (Crawley, 2004; Kauffmann, 1989). They are also tasked with responding to administrative demands; searching cells for drugs, weapons, and other contraband; and intervening to resolve potentially violent disputes among inmates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2013). COs play such a fundamental role in the functioning of any prison system that Archambeault and Archambeault (1982) remarked that officers "represent the single most important resource available to any correctional agency" (p. 72). Recent scholarship has suggested that COs work under dangerous conditions that can threaten their general safety and wellness. Following several legislative reforms that started in the 1970s and included "get tough on crime" policies such as mandatory minimum sentences and habitual offender laws (Mackenzie, 2001), correctional institutions experienced dramatic changes in the composition of the inmate population. Not only did the total number of incarcerated offenders skyrocket from roughly 300,000 to more than 1.5 million between 1975 and 2013, but the percentage of offenders imprisoned for violent crimes increased from about 40 percent in 1985 to more than 60 percent by 2013 (Walmsley, 2013). Although incarceration rates have declined in recent years, the modern-day CO is still required to interact with and supervise individuals in a dangerous environment (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250484.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/250484.pdf Shelf Number: 146762 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrections OfficersPrison Guards |
Author: Muntingh, Lukas Title: An Analytical Study of South African Prison Reform after 1994 Summary: The history of prison reform after 1994 was shaped by the relationship between governance and human rights standards; the requirements for both are set out in the Constitution and elaborated on in the Correctional Services Act. Good governance and human rights converge in five dimensions of a constitutional democracy: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, the rule of law; and resource utilisation. The new constitutional order established a set of governance and rights requirements for the prison system demanding fundamental reform. It de-legitimised the existing prison system and thus placed it in a crisis. This required its reinvention to establish a system compatible with constitutional demands. The thesis investigates whether constitutionalism provided the necessary transformative basis for prison reform in South Africa after 1994. The Department of Correctional Services (DCS) senior management failed to anticipate this in the period 1990 to 1994. In the five years after 1994 senior management equally failed to initiate a fundamental reform process. This lack of vision, as well as a number of external factors relating to the state of the public service in the period 1994 to 2000, gave rise to a second crisis: the collapse of order and discipline in the DCS. By the late 1990s the state had lost control of the DCS and its internal workings can be described as a mess - a highly interactive set of problems in causal relationships. In many regards the problems beleaguering the prison system were created in the period 1994 - 1999. The leadership at the time did not recognize that the prison system was in crisis or that the crisis presented an opportunity for fundamental reform. The new democratic order demanded constitutional and political imagination, but this failed to materialise. Consequently, the role and function of imprisonment within the criminal justice system has remained fundamentally unchanged and there has not been a critical re-examination of its purpose, save that the criminal justice system has become more punitive. Several investigations (1998-2006) into the DCS found widespread corruption and rights violations. Organised labour understood transformation primarily as the racial transformation of the staff corps and embarked on an organised campaign to seize control of management and key positions. This introduced a culture of lawlessness, enabling widespread corruption. w leadership by 2001 and facing pressure from the national government, the DCS responded to the situation by focusing on corruption and on regaining control of the Department. A number of gains have been made since then, especially after 2004. Regaining control of the Department focused on addressing systemic weaknesses, enforcing the disciplinary code and defining a new employer-employee relationship. This has been a slow process with notable setbacks, but it continues to form part of the Department's strategic direction. It is concluded that the DCS has engaged with and developed a deeper understanding of its constitutional obligations insofar as they pertain to governance requirements in the Constitution. However, compliance with human rights standards had not received the same attention and areas of substantial non-compliance remain in violation of the Constitution and subordinate legislation. Overcrowding, violations of personal safety, poor services and/or lack of access to services persist. Despite the detailed rights standards set out in the Correctional Services Act, there is little to indicate that legislative compliance is an overt focus for the DCS. While meeting the minimum standards of humane detention, as required by the Constitution, should have been the strategic focus of the DCS in relation to the prison population, the 2004 White Paper defines "offender rehabilitation" as the core business of the DCS. In many regards the DCS has assigned more prominence and weight to the White Paper than to its obligations under the Correctional Services Act. In an attempt to legitimise the prison system, the DCS defined for itself a goal that is required neither by the Constitution nor the Correctional Services Act. Compliance with the minimum standards of humane detention must be regarded as a prerequisite for successful interventions to reduce future criminality. After seven years, delivery results on the rehabilitation objective have been minimal and not objectively measurable. The noble and over-ambitious focus on rehabilitation at policy level distracted the DCS from its primary constitutional obligation, namely to ensure safe and humane custody under conditions of human dignity Throughout the period (1994 to 2012) the DCS has been suspicious if not dismissive of advice, guidance and at times orders (including court orders) offered or given by external stakeholders. Its relationship with civil society organisations remain strained and there is no formal structure for interaction. Since 2004 Parliament has reasserted its authority over the DCS, not hesitating to criticise poor decisions and sub-standard performance. Civil society organisations have increasingly used Parliament as a platform for raising concerns about prison reform. Litigation by civil society and prisoners has also been used on a growing scale to ensure legislative compliance. It is concluded that prison reform efforts needs to refocus on he rights requirements set out in the Correctional Services Act and approach this task in an inclusive, transparent and accountable manner. Details: Cape Town, South Africa: University of the Western Cape, 2012. 523p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 28, 2017 at: http://etd.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/handle/11394/2952 Year: 2012 Country: South Africa URL: http://etd.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/handle/11394/2952 Shelf Number: 146914 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional Institutions Prison Administration Prison Reform Prisons |
Author: Knight, Peter Title: Prison Service Pay Review Body. Sixteenth Report on England and Wales, 2017. Summary: Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is responsible for adult and young offender management services for England and Wales within the framework set by the government. It is an Executive Agency of the Ministry of Justice. The agency currently manages Her Majesty's Prison Service and the National Probation Service. In addition, it oversees privately run prisons and Community Rehabilitation Companies. Its role is to commission and provide offender management services in the community and in custody, ensuring best value for money from public resources. It works to protect the public and reduce reoffending by delivering the punishments and orders of the courts, and supporting rehabilitation by helping offenders to reform their lives. On 31 March 2017, the prisoner population across both the public and private sector estates was 85,513, 0.2 per cent higher than a year earlier. HMPPS paybill costs relating to the remit group in 2015-16 were approximately $1 billion (including social security and other pension costs). At the end of March 2017, there were 23,865 full-time equivalent staff in our remit down from 24,034 a year earlier (a decrease of 0.7 per cent). Our recommendations for 2017 are: Recommendation 1: We recommend that from 1 April 2017 the Fair and Sustainable National Bands 2 to 5 base pay points and all their closed grade equivalents be raised by 400 as set out in Appendix D. This award would be consolidated and pensionable for all staff on these scales. Recommendation 2: We recommend that from 1 April 2017 the Fair and Sustainable National Band 2 be changed to be a two point pay scale with the maximum set at $400 above the 1 April 2016 base pay level and the new minimum set at a level where staff will receive a fve per cent increment when moving to the maximum, as set out in Appendix D. Recommendation 3: We recommend that all staff in Fair and Sustainable Bands 2 to 5 who are in post on 31 March 2017 progress by one pay point effective from 1 April 2017, unless they have been placed on formal poor performance management procedures. Recommendation 4: We recommend that staff in Fair and Sustainable Band 5 who are in post on 31 March 2017 and achieve a performance marking of 'Outstanding' receive an additional one per cent non-consolidated, non-pensionable pay award based on their 31 March 2017 base pay. Recommendation 5: We recommend that the National maxima and minima of Fair and Sustainable Bands 7 to 11 be raised by one per cent from 1 April 2017, as set out in Appendix D. This change to the ranges should have no automatic effect on an individual's pay. Recommendation 6: We recommend that the closed operational manager scales (including the full range of non-Fair and Sustainable scales or spot rates equivalent to Bands 7 to 11) and the cash amount of RHA which applies are raised by one per cent from 1 April 2017, as set out in Appendix D. This will deliver an increase to consolidated, pensionable pay of one per cent. Recommendation 7: We recommend that staff in Fair and Sustainable Bands 7 to 11 who are in post on 31 March 2017 and achieve a performance marking of 'Outstanding' receive consolidated pay progression of six per cent effective from 1 April 2017, capped at the new 2017 Band maximum. In addition, we recommend that staff in Bands 7 to 11 who are within six per cent of the maximum, or at the maximum, should receive the balance of the six per cent as a non-consolidated, non-pensionable payment, capped at two per cent of base pay. Recommendation 8: We recommend that staff in Fair and Sustainable Bands 7 to 11 who are in post on 31 March 2017 and achieve a performance marking of 'Good' receive consolidated pay progression of four per cent effective from 1 April 2017, capped at the new 2017 Band maximum. Any staff who would be paid less than the minimum of their pay range after progression has taken place should be moved to the new 2017 Band minimum. Details: London: Office of Manpower Economics, 2017. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2017 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644118/CCS207_CCS0817863080-1_Prison_Service_Pay_Review_Web_Accessible.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/644118/CCS207_CCS0817863080-1_Prison_Service_Pay_Review_Web_Accessible.pdf Shelf Number: 147237 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional SalariesCorrections OfficersCosts of CorrectionsPrison GuardsPrisons |
Author: Queensland Corrective Services Title: Violence against prison staff: A literature review Summary: Research has generally categorized factors related to inmate violence against staff into two categories: "importational" and "deprivation." "Importational" factors pertain to the high risk for violence that an inmate brings into the prison. These factors include a history of violence, youthfulness (age 25 or younger), and drug use. "Deprivation" factors relate to stressful, aggravating, and opportunity factors of prison life that foster inmate violent behavior. According to Jiang and Fisher-Giorlando (2002), prisoner-on-prisoner violence is more likely to be explained by situational and importational approaches; and prisoner-on-staff violence is more likely to be explained by deprivation and situational approaches. In prisoner-on-staff violence, one of the most obvious factors is what Bowler (1983) describes as the "vast power difference between the "keepers" and the "kept." There is some evidence that academic and vocational education programs reduce violence against staff. Lahm's (2009) study of both individual and contextual predictors of violence against staff found a link between staff-to-prisoner ratio and violence against staff. A lower ratio of staff-to-prisoner apparently invites attacks on lone officers supervising inmates. According to Kratcoski (1988), inexperienced staff is at a higher risk for violence from inmates. Staff with 1 year or less work experience was found to be significantly more likely to be targeted for violence. Some prevention strategies for prisoner-to-staff violence include having a mix of inmate age groups in any one prison, so as to dilute the youth factor in violence; reducing crowding; increasing staff training and experience; supporting staff authority; security crackdowns; and increasing prisoner access to programs and industries. Details: Melbourne: Queensland Corrective Services, 2012. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Brief No. 18: Available at Rutgers Criminal Justice Library Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 130229 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional Officers Inmate Misconduct Prison Guards Prison Violence |
Author: Police Foundation Title: Final Report: Independent Review of Security Issues at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center Summary: On February 1, 2017, the State of Delaware was confronted by the news of an ongoing incident in which inmates housed in the C-Building at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center (JTVCC), seized the building and took hostages. The seizure of the building resulted in the death of one correctional sergeant; injuries sustained by two other correctional officers; one non-custodial staff member being taken to the hospital for precautionary reasons; and, allegations of inmate injuries. On February 14, 2017, Governor John Carney issued an Executive Order establishing an Independent Review Team to investigate and report on "any conditions at the James T. Vaughn Center that contributed to the hostage situation on February 1, 2017." In response to the Executive Order, the Independent Review Team conducted interviews with correctional, educational, mental health and medical staff, including correctional supervisors, JTVCC administrators, and Delaware Department of Correction (DOC) executive administrators past and present. The Team also reviewed numerous letters from inmates and family members, spoke with community and inmates' rights groups, and interviewed other agency representatives. The Independent Review Team also visited the JTVCC, including the C-Building, observed grievance proceedings, and spoke with inmates individually and in focus groups. The Team also conducted in depth research through review and analysis of policy, training and other departmental documentation; open source media searches; and identification and gap analysis of national corrections and behavioral health best and promising practices. Collectively, the Independent Review Team conducted a comprehensive and thorough review and analysis of the facts and circumstances leading up to the incident that began on February 1, 2017. On June 1, 2017, the Independent Review Team issued a Preliminary Report concerning the causes and conditions leading up to the incident that began on February 1, 2017. Since June 1, 2017, the Independent Review Team conducted further interviews and assessments. This Final Report expands upon the Preliminary Report. It addresses actions taken by the JTVCC, the DOC, and the State of Delaware since February 2017, and contains specific recommendations to prevent, or at least minimize, the likelihood of another similar event. The tragic incident that began on February 1, 2017 in the C-Building of the JTVCC could have occurred elsewhere in the facility. Factors unique to that particular building, however, resulted in the incident occurring there. For some period of time, conditions at the JTVCC had deteriorated to the point that there was unrest among inmates, and distrust between inmates and correctional officers, as well as between correctional officers and JTVCC administrators. Factors giving rise to this unrest included adverse working conditions for the correctional officers, who continue to feel unappreciated by the administration, inconsistently implemented rules and regulations, an inmate grievance procedure deemed unfair, a distrusted medical/mental health system, and a real lack of morale permeating the line officers. The conditions set forth in this report created an environment in which an occurrence like the incident that began on February 1, 2017 would have likely occurred at some point somewhere within the JTVCC. However, the mix of inmates flowing down from maximum to medium security and inmates flowing up from medium towards maximum security in the C-Building and the circumstances giving rise to that mix, as more specifically set forth in the body of the report, hastened the inevitable. Most unfortunately, the Independent Review Team believes that had the request for the removal of certain inmates from the C-Building - made on January 20, 2017 by the very correctional officer who was killed during the incident that began on February 1, 2017 - been taken more seriously and carried out, the incident and the resulting death may not have occurred. As tragic as the unnecessary loss of life is, the incident that began on February 1, 2017 spearheaded long overdue changes in the DOC that will hopefully result in better working conditions for the correctional officers and professional staff as well as living conditions for inmates. Work remains to be done and recommendations are made herein. Lastly, the Independent Review Team commends Governor Carney for his immediate action in requesting this review and already addressing some of the most pressing problems facing the DOC. Details: Dover, DE: Governor's Office, State of Delaware, 2017. 159p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2017 at: http://governor.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/08/JTVCC-Independent-Review-Team-FINAL-Report-1.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://governor.delaware.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/08/JTVCC-Independent-Review-Team-FINAL-Report-1.pdf Shelf Number: 147467 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationHostagesPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrison RiotsPrison Violence |
Author: Andrew, Jane Title: Prison Privatisation in Australia: The State of the Nation Summary: Australia now imprisons more people than at any point in its history. As of June 2015, 36,134 people were incarcerated across eight states, and the national imprisonment rate stood at 196 prisoners per 100,000 people. The total annual net cost of Australia's prison system stands at $3.4 billion. As a result of the growth in prisoner numbers and a variety of pressures on the sector, state governments continue to look for new ways to deliver prison services that are thought to be both socially and fiscally responsible, including various forms of privatisation. Prison privatisations have been justified on a number of grounds. The first examination of prison privatisation in Australia, made through the Kennedy report of 1988, asserted that 'In some particular areas the private sector can do it cheaper and better' (Kennedy, 1988: 88). Subsequently, in 2009 the New South Wales General Purpose Standing Committee 'Inquiry into the Privatization of Prisons and Prison Related Services' concluded that' the private management of prisons will also likely produce greater cost savings and efficiencies than if they were to remain in the public system' (GPSC-NSW, 2009: 51). Similarly, in 2013 the Queensland Commission of Audit (QCA) claimed that ' greater efficiencies can be achieved by private operation of correctional facilities'. Equally, the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA), in a 2015 report on Western Australian prisons, remarked that ' private prisons are held to higher standards of accountability and transparency than public prisons'. Accordingly, privatisation has been mooted as a way of providing prison services with greater performance, lower cost, better efficiency and stronger accountability but in reality, little is known about the consequences of privatisation and whether or not they deliver these benefits to the community. Private prisons now incarcerate 18.5% of the prison population of Australia (Productivity Commission, 2014: Table 8A.1), and clearly play a large part in the functioning of the custodial system in Australia. In fact, Australia has the highest rate of private incarceration per capita of any country in the world (Mason, 2013: 2). Out of a total of 101 prisons in Australia, private contractors operate nine facilities in five different states: two prisons in Queensland, two in New South Wales, one in South Australia, two in Victoria and two in Western Australia. Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory do not have private prisons and are therefore outside the scope of this report. Parklea (NSW), Arthur Gorrie (QLD) and Mount Gambier (SA) prisons all deal with remand prisoners. Port Phillip (VIC) and Parklea (NSW) both take maximum security prisoners. The remaining facilities house medium- and low-security prisoners, and do not take part in remand activity. As of 2015, there are only three private contractors responsible for managing custodial services in Australia. These are GEO Group (GEO), G4S and Serco. Private prisons are now responsible for over 6,000 Australian prisoners (Productivity Commission, 2014: Table 8A.1), and absorb a considerable amount of taxpayer money nationally. Despite this, research into private prisons in Australia is extremely limited. Indeed, there has been no single publication or study in the last ten years that has covered all of Australia's private prisons in detail. The present report aims to deliver such a review and in doing so demonstrates that not only do privately managed prisons across Australia vary greatly in terms of their accountability, costs, performance and efficiency, but also that it is very difficult to assess these criteria because of a general lack of transparency. This comprehensive report of the sector seeks to address this information gap and, as a result, intends to better inform future public debate on prison privatisation. The purpose of this report is to provide a description of Australian private prisons as they have evolved across the country. Our overview of private prisons in Queensland, New South Wales, South Australia, Victoria and Western Australia will give an understanding of the 'State of the Nation' with regard to prison privatisation and its impact. As stated, our study considers private prisons in Australia against four key categories: accountability, costs, performance and efficiency. Details: Sydney: University of Sydney Business School, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 11, 2017 at: https://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/269972/Prison_Privatisation_in_Australia-_The_State_of_the_Nation_June_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: https://sydney.edu.au/business/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/269972/Prison_Privatisation_in_Australia-_The_State_of_the_Nation_June_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 147660 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Morton-Bourgon, Kelly Title: Evaluation Report: Institutional Security Summary: Institutional security is relevant and responsive to the daily operations of correctional institutions and to the safety and security of all Canadians. Institutional security activities, as legislated by the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (1992), align with the federal government's new legislations such as the Safe Streets and Communities Act (2012). Institutional security activities also support the federal government and Correctional Service Canada's strategic priorities. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board's Policy on Evaluation (TBS, 2009) and the Evaluation Division's Five-Year Plan. The scope of the evaluation was determined through a number of activities aimed at identifying evaluation priorities. As such, the evaluation focused on three key components: 1) Human Resource Management and Staff Safety; 2) Preventive Security and Intelligence; and 3) Institutional Security Operations. The evaluation incorporated both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods. Component 1 - Human Resource Management and Staff Safety Human resource management and staff safety is essential to operating a safe and secure correctional institution. The evaluation examined issues identified by institutional staff as they perform their security related duties. The topics that emerged from the analyses included: recruiting appropriate candidates; staff experience and development; staffing and deployment levels; and staff safety concerns. Recommendations focussed on tracking and monitoring new recruits; on-the-job coaching for new Correctional Officers (CO) and Primary Workers (PW); and enhancing communication and information sharing as part of the Employee Protection Protocol (EPP). Management Action Plans (MAP) addressing the issues were presented and approved. The MAPs will ensure tracking and monitoring of new recruits; the development of a standardized framework for on-the-job coaching for new COs and PWs; and the appropriate and timely provision of information and services throughout the EPP process to persons threatened. Component 2 - Preventive Security and Intelligence Intelligence information contributes to institutional safety and security by preventing security incidents, eliminating illegal activities and supporting the offender case management process. The evidence centered on the gathering, development and communication of intelligence information. It was recommended that tools be provided to Security Intelligence Officers to engage and debrief staff, and that there be monitoring and reporting on the production and sharing of intelligence. A MAP addressing the issues was presented and approved. The MAP focused on streamlining and restructuring the Intelligence Program. Component 3 - Institutional Security Operations The evaluation investigated daily operational security activities and how they contribute to a safe and secure institutional environment. The finding developed from the examination of evidence was that dynamic security is apparent and it is making a contribution to the safety and security of the institutions. Financial data were examined along with incident, staff and offender data. The rate of institutional security-related spending remained relatively stable from 2008/2009 to 2013/2014 despite an increase in the number of CX staff and offenders in CSC institutions. The analyses also showed a decrease in serious security incidents and escapes, an increase in drug-related seizures and an increase in negative urinalysis results. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, 2015. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2017 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/092/005007-2015-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/publications/092/005007-2015-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 147830 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsCorrections OfficersPrisons |
Author: Correctional Service Canada Title: 2016 International Survey of Correctional Services: Corrections in Transformation Summary: In 2015, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) conducted an international survey with the objective of gaining a better understanding of the challenges other nations encounter in their correctional organizations and the best practices being applied to address them. Responses from 24 organizations revealed themes related to infrastructure, resources, technology, and offender health and mental health as significant challenges. These identified challenges provided indications of where international correctional organizations are facing difficulties; however, further details would have provided greater insight into these difficulties and the responses organizations have made to address them. Thus, the 2016 survey was designed to increase our knowledge of the issues and transformation plans being used to address these challenges as well as the best practices learned through actions undertaken to deal with them. Purpose CSC conducted an international consultation with several correctional organizations around the world to gain a better understanding of not only the challenges various nations encounter in their correctional organizations, but also the strategies implemented to address these challenges. The international consultation was completed in collaboration with CSC's Intergovernmental Relations Division (IGR) and representatives from the International Corrections and Prisons Association (ICPA). Overview The following is a summary of the responses received for the International Survey of Correctional Services. The survey was developed by staff at CSC's Research Branch and Strategic Policy and Planning. It was available in English and French and could be completed online or on paper. The structure of the survey included both multiple choice and open-ended questions. Core problematic areas in correctional practices were identified and questions specific to each area were developed. The survey was organized into four key parts: Part I: Physical Infrastructure; Part II: Technology; Part III: Offender Health; Part IV: Offender Rehabilitation The target sample was approximately 170 correctional organizations affiliated with ICPA and IGR. Respondents were able to respond to the survey between July 28th and September 14th, 2016. Although 19 correctional organizations responded, results are based on 18 correctional organizations representing agencies in 12 as one submission was removed from the analyses due to data quality issues (see Appendix A for a list of participating countries). Regarding the characteristics of participating organizations, the majority of organizations were at the Federal/National level of government (53%), followed closely by organizations at the State/Regional (41%) and Local/Municipal (6%) levels. The offender population supervised by organizations was evenly split between only those with custodial sentences (47%) and those with both custodial and non-custodial sentences (53%). Notably, no organizations indicated that they only supervise those with non-custodial sentences. The results of this report are organized according to each key area assessed. The qualitative results examine the challenges and associated transformation plans for each sub-area are examined. Subsequently, the qualitative themes associated with the issues leading to transformation, the ongoing transformation projects that have occurred in the past year, as well as any best practices garnered throughout the transformation process are discussed. A summary of findings is provided at the end of the document. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: 2016 No. SR-16-04 Accessed November 13, 2017 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/092/005008-3009-en.pdf Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/research/092/005008-3009-en.pdf Shelf Number: 148140 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional InstitutionsCorrectional ReformPrison ReformPrisons |
Author: Irish Penal Reform Trust Title: Progress in the Penal System (PIPS): A framework for penal reform (2017) Summary: Progress in the Penal System (PIPS) sets out a clear vision for the future of Ireland's penal system, with an ambition for Ireland to lead as a model of international best practice. The overall purpose of PIPS is to monitor and assess progress across a broad range of issues in Ireland's penal system over three years. To achieve this, IPRT has developed a series of 35 standards and indicators against which progress will be tracked over three years, with a series of short-term actions recommended for implementation each year. These recommended actions are intended to help facilitate continued progress in Ireland's penal system and, more specifically, the prison system in Ireland. While criminal justice stakeholders are assigned responsibility for implementation of these shortterm actions throughout the report, it must be strongly acknowledged that overall responsibility remains with the State in terms of oversight and provision of adequate resourcing to relevant bodies. The PIPS project is also intended as a means to inform a wide array of stakeholders, including: criminal justice stakeholders, politicians, media, the general public and international audiences interested in learning about the current state of the Irish penal system in comparison with other jurisdictions. Finally, the overall aim of the PIPS project is to encourage constructive dialogue between a range of relevant stakeholders, which IPRT hopes will be strengthened as the project progresses. Details: Dublin: IPRT, 2017. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 17, 2018 at: http://www.iprt.ie/files/Progress_in_the_Penal_System.compressed_.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Ireland URL: http://www.iprt.ie/files/Progress_in_the_Penal_System.compressed_.pdf Shelf Number: 148788 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional Institutions Prison Reform Prisons |
Author: Prison Reform Trust Title: Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile: Autumn 2017 Summary: This year's Bromley Briefings open with a brand new section which we have called "The long view". The Prison Reform Trust has built its reputation over more than three decades on presenting accurate evidence about prisons and the people in them. In a world where ministers feel compelled to respond to issues with ever greater immediacy, "The long view" offers an antidote to the latest Twitter storm or early morning grilling in the media. We have chosen to concentrate in this briefing on the issue of overcrowding. What the evidence shows is that the core of the current government's approach-to spend more building more prison spaces-is identical to the actions of all its predecessors since the early 1990s. There is every possible indication that it will meet the same fate. So PRT has commissioned two pieces of expert independent analysis relevant to any serious strategic policy to solve the problem of overcrowding. First, we asked a former Director of Finance for the prison service, Julian Le Vay, to analyse the published data on the Ministry of Justice's spending review settlement with the Treasury and its plans for future investment in new prisons. He concluded that the capital cost of a policy based on building more prisons since 1980 has been L3.7bn, and generated an additional annual running cost of L1.5bn-enough to have built 25,000 new homes, and to be employing 50,000 more nurses or teachers. But he also concludes that the ministry's current ambitions are inadequately funded to the tune of L162m in 2018/19, rising to $463m in 2022/23. On current population projections, there is no prospect of any impact on overcrowding before 2022, and a further new programme of building will be needed from 2026. Secondly, we asked Dr Savas Hadjipavlou, of Justice Episteme, to run a scenario on the sophisticated model he has created. This uses what we know about the typical life histories of people who end up in the criminal justice system, together with what we know about how that system operates, to assess the impact of demographic or other changes on key criminal justice outcomes-including the likely size of the prison population. The scenario removed the statutory changes that have inflated sentencing since 2003, and suggests that we would now have a prison population of 70,000 had those changes not been made- in other words, a population several thousand below the system's current uncrowded capacity Details: London: PRT, 2017. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 9, 2018 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202017%20factfile.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/Bromley%20Briefings/Autumn%202017%20factfile.pdf Shelf Number: 149078 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrison OvercrowdingPrisonersPrisons |
Author: Rushchenko, Julia Title: Prison Management of Terrorism-Related Offenders: Is Separation Effective? Summary: - In the European Union, many states do not have any terrorist prisoners in their jails, and most of the countries house only a handful of terrorism-related offenders. When such prisoners appear in the correctional system, they can have a powerful effect on other inmates. The presence of violent extremist offenders in the criminal justice system generates unique challenges for most states worldwide, and this issue has prompted an ongoing debate concerning the rehabilitation and reintegration strategies, and on the successes and failures of the prison policies. - According to Europol, in recent years there has been an increase in terrorism-related arrests in the UK, France and Spain. The largest proportion of arrests in the EU in 2013- 2015 was linked to Islamist terrorism, compared to smaller numbers of arrests for separatist, left-wing and right-wing terrorism. The phenomenon of returning foreign fighters is yet another concern for criminal justice systems worldwide, including the processes of prosecution and incarceration. In October 2017, the BBC reported that 121 British foreign fighters have been convicted, but little information is available about how exactly inmates with foreign military training are managed in the UK prison system. - British prisons have a long history of coping with terrorists and political and religious extremists. Most recently, the increase in legislative scope and security responses in the wake of 7/7 led to a significant increase in conviction rates for terrorist offences. As of June 2015, there were 182 offenders convicted of, or on remand for, offences linked to terrorism and extremism in prisons in England and Wales, including people who hold neo-Nazi views and Islamist extremists. Current trends of returning foreign fighters suggest that the number of people to be prosecuted is likely to increase. - Most of those who appear to be radicalised in prisons begin their incarceration with not particularly strong religious affiliation. Radicalisation in prisons has been mentioned repeatedly by academics and practitioners as one of the most pressing security concerns, particularly in the context of Islamist ideology. While both prison and probation are supposed to be strong partners in deradicalisation and resettlement, instead of promoting disengagement from violence, these systems frequently facilitate extremism because of the push and pull factors discussed in this report. - Unlike traditional criminals whose illicit activities are often disrupted in prisons, violent extremists might be comfortable with their convictions because of opportunities to preach in correctional institutions. According to an inquiry carried out by Ian Acheson in 2016, Islamist ideology in prisons could be threatening in various ways, including Muslim gang culture, charismatic prisoners acting as self-styled "emirs" and exerting a radicalising influence on Muslim inmates, aggressive encouragement of conversions to Islam, availability of educational materials promoting Islamist extremism, exploitation of staff's fear of being labelled racist, and so on. - Following the above-mentioned inquiry, the government announced its plans to crack down on the spread of Islamist ideology in prisons by creating three "separation centres" (HMP Frankland near Durham, HMP Full Sutton near York and HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes) which are expected to hold the most subversive offenders, including Michael Adebolajo and Anjem Choudary. As of January 2018, HMP Frankland near Durham has been created, and it is the first time the UK government has practised the policy of separating terrorism-related offenders. - At the same time, most of the mass media coverage of the UK experiment with regard to tackling radicalisation in prisons has been negative and focused on drawing parallels between UK separation centres and Guantanamo Bay, labelling the centres "jihadi jails". One of the main points of criticism revolves around the idea that segregation is counterproductive as it could potentially give an elevated status to the most dangerous extremists and intensify the issue of Islamism in prisons. - Currently, a more balanced and nuanced evaluation of the containment policy is absent from UK discourse. Although there is a risk that a new intervention will generate additional safety concerns, this report argues that separating the most dangerous terrorism-related offenders is the only viable solution for mitigating the threat of prison radicalisation. However, it is crucial to develop a comprehensive policy framework that takes into account the recent dynamics of radicalisation threats, including demographic changes such as gender and age. Details: London: Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism, Henry Jackson Society, 2018. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 26, 2018 at: http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HJS-Prison-Management-Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/HJS-Prison-Management-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149566 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationIsolationMuslimsRadicalizationRestrictive HousingTerrorist-Related OffendersTerroristsViolent Extremists |
Author: Victorian Auditor-General Title: Safety and Cost Effectiveness of Private Prisons Summary: Private prisons accommodate around one third of the state's male prison population. The safe, secure and cost effective operation of these prisons is essential for the effective functioning of Victoria's corrections system and for community safety. Like the broader prison system, private prisons face significant challenges. The male prison population has increased by approximately 50 per cent over the last seven years, primarily driven by an increase in remand prisoners. This audit examines whether two of Victoria's private prisons-Port Phillip Prison and Fulham Correctional Centre-are safe and cost effective. We looked at: private prisons' management of critical safety and security risks private prisons' performance against key service delivery measures, costs and risk transfer expectations under the original contracts the process for the recent contract extensions and whether they delivered value for money. This is the first audit in which we used our 'follow-the-dollar' powers, directly engaging the private prison operators and requesting information from them. We made six recommendations for DJR, and two for the Department of Treasury and Finance related to its role in the private prison contract extension process Details: Melbourne: Victorian Auditor-General's Office, 2018. 133p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2018 at: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-03/20180328-Private-Prisons.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.audit.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018-03/20180328-Private-Prisons.pdf Shelf Number: 149742 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCost EffectivenessCosts of CorrectionsPrison AdministrationPrisonsPrivate PrisonsPrivatizations |
Author: Morgan, Anthony Title: How much does prison really cost? Comparing the costs of imprisonment with community corrections Summary: The costs associated with managing offenders in prison and in the community can be significant. Estimated costs are usually derived from the Report on government services, which reports both the operating expenditure and capital costs for prisons and community corrections. However, research has shown that sentencing a person to a period of incarceration can have much wider implications for the individual, their family, government and the broader community. These implications may be positive or negative, and may therefore generate both costs and savings. Understanding the wider costs associated with different sentence options can be helpful in informing effective correctional policy and practice. Yet relatively few studies have attempted to estimate the wider costs or savings associated with pathways through imprisonment or community corrections. The purpose of this research was to calculate the total net cost of pathways through imprisonment and community corrections in Victoria, taking into account a range of direct and indirect costs and savings associated with a matched cohort of prisoners and offenders. This study was undertaken in two stages. The first stage estimated the costs and savings accrued during sentences that began in 2009-10 (the reference episode). The second stage estimated the wider costs and savings for both this reference episode and subsequent pathways through imprisonment and community corrections over a five year period. The methodology used to develop these estimates and the results are presented in this report. Details: Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 2018. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: AIC Research Report 05: Accessed April 30, 2018 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/142801/apo-nid142801-725506.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/142801/apo-nid142801-725506.pdf Shelf Number: 149964 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCorrectional AdministrationCosts of CorrectionsCriminal Justice ExpendituresPrison Administration |
Author: Chenault, Scott Title: An Ethnographic Examination of Correctional Officer Culture in a Midwestern sTate Summary: Over the years volumes of research have been conducted in the field of corrections. However, relatively little of this research focuses on correctional officers, and virtually none focuses on correctional officer culture. I address this gap in the research by conducting an ethnography of correctional officers in a Midwestern state. My use of ethnographic methods allowed me to observe correctional officer culture first hand. Specifically I examine the dominant values and beliefs of correctional officer culture, the process of acculturation new recruits experience, and the impact that acculturation has on individuals who become correctional officers. Details: Omaha: University of Nebraska, 2010. 241p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed June 7, 2018 at: https://corrections.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/files/46/chenault_2010_2.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: https://corrections.nebraska.gov/sites/default/files/files/46/chenault_2010_2.pdf Shelf Number: 150505 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrections OfficersJob SatisfactionJob StressPrison Guards |
Author: McGuire, James Title: Understanding Prison Violence: A Rapid Evidence Assessment Summary: The occurrence of violent assault in prison is a challenging problem. This Analytical Summary reports the findings of a rapid evidence assessment (REA) into the causes of physically violent assaults by male adult prisoners. The REA reviewed 97 research studies published since 1st January 2000. Key findings - Most of the published research is focused on imported characteristics - the personal characteristics of men who are violent in prison - and attempts to predict who they will be. Imported characteristics associated with prison violence include youth, history of earlier violence in prison or with violent convictions, membership of gangs, low self-control, anger, temper, mental health problems, and antisocial attitudes and personality. - The prison environment also plays a considerable role in how prisoners behave. Physically poor conditions, highly controlling regimes, or by contrast circumstances in which rules are unevenly applied or not adhered to or where prisoners do not experience staff decisions as fair or legitimate, can each heighten tensions and induce stresses potentially giving rise to conflict and assault. - Perhaps surprisingly, evidence that crowding in and of itself was a direct cause of violence was fairly weak. Research suggested that the effects of crowding are mediated through staff-prisoner interactions and that the crucial factor in maintaining order is the availability and the skills of unit staff. - Some features of prison activity make violence less likely. Places within a prison where prisoners are engaged in purposeful activities they consider valuable, such as workshops and education, are less prone to be sites of aggression. Violence is more likely to occur in places that offer less purpose, have fewer formal ground-rules, and lower staff oversight, such as cells. - A policy designed to reduce violence could be oriented towards situational control aspects of day-to-day prison management. That would require staff training in the use of styles and patterns of interaction that wield authority alongside instilling respect. Details: London: HM Prison and Probation Service: 2018. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/737956/understanding-prison-violence.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/737956/understanding-prison-violence.pdf Shelf Number: 151429 Keywords: Correctional Administration Offender ManagementPrison Administration Prison Conditions Prison Health Prison Violence Prisons |
Author: Association of State Correctional Administrators Title: Reforming Restrictive Housing: The 2018 ASCA-Liman Nationwide Survey of Time-in-Cell Summary: This Report is the fourth in a series of research projects co-authored by the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) and the Arthur Liman Center at Yale Law School. These monographs provide nationwide data on "restrictive housing," defined in this Report as separating prisoners from the general population and holding them in their cells for an average of 22 hours or more per day for 15 continuous days or more. This practice is often termed "solitary confinement." Reforming Restrictive Housing documents the changes underway as prison administrators aim to limit the use of segregation and find alternatives to the isolation of restrictive housing. In 2013, the first report of the series, Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration, analyzed the restrictive housing policies of 47 jurisdictions. The 2013 Report found that the criteria for placement in isolation were broad. Getting into segregation was relatively easy, but few policies addressed release. In contrast, in 2018, directors around the country reported narrowing the bases for placement in restrictive housing, increasing oversight, and limiting time spent in isolation. In some places, behaviors that once put people into restrictive housing - from "horse play" to possession of small amounts of marijuana - no longer do. And for those people in restrictive housing, efforts are reportedly underway in some jurisdictions to create more out-of-cell time and more group-based activities. Since 2013, ASCA and the Liman Center have conducted national surveys of the number of people in restrictive housing. The 2015 report, Time-in-Cell, estimated that 80,000 to 100,000 prisoners were in segregation across the country. The 2016 report, Aiming to Reduce Time-in-Cell, identified almost 68,000 people held in isolation. For the 2017-2018 data collection, ASCA-Liman sent surveys to the 50 states, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP), the District of Columbia, and four jail systems in large metropolitan areas. The 43 prison systems that provided data on prisoners in restrictive housing held 80.6% of the U.S. prison population. They reported that 49,197 individuals - 4.5% of the people in their custody - were in restrictive housing. Across all the reporting jurisdictions, the median percentage of the population held in restrictive housing was 4.2%; the average was 4.6%. The percentage of prisoners in restrictive housing ranged from 0.05% to 19%. Extrapolating from these numbers to the systems not reporting, we estimate that some 61,000 individuals were in isolation in prisons in the fall of 2017. Thirty jurisdictions reported when they began to track how long people had been in restrictive housing. Some jurisdictions began tracking this information as recently as 2017. Within the responding jurisdictions, most people were held in segregation for a year or less. Twenty-five jurisdictions counted more than 3,500 individuals who were held for more than three years. Almost 2,000 of those individuals had been there for more than six years. The 2017-2018 survey also gathered information about gender, race and ethnicity, and age. Men were much more likely than women to be in solitary confinement. Black prisoners comprised a greater percentage of the restrictive housing population than they did the total custodial population. The reverse was true for White prisoners. Likewise, in the jurisdictions reporting on ethnicity, Hispanic male prisoners represented a greater percentage of the restrictive housing population than they did the total custodial population. Prisoners between the ages of 18 and 36 were more likely to be segregated than were older individuals. Reforming Restrictive Housing also documents the many and varying definitions of "serious mental illness." Using each jurisdiction's own definition, we learned that more than 4,000 people with serious mental illness are in restrictive housing. Other sub-populations counted were pregnant prisoners and transgender individuals. Responses indicated a total of 613 pregnant prisoners, none of whom were in restrictive housing. Prison systems reported incarcerating roughly 2,500 transgender individuals, of whom about 150 were reported to be in segregation. In addition to the prison systems responding, the jail systems in Los Angeles County and Philadelphia provided restrictive housing data. In these two systems, the restrictive housing population ranged from 3.6% to 6.2 % of the total jail population. Both jurisdictions described revising their restrictive housing policies, including by limiting its use for people with serious mental illness. One of the jail systems explained that, given the turnover in some jail populations, the administrators faced challenges in avoiding direct release from restrictive housing into the community. The 2018 Report tracks the impact of the 2016 American Correctional Association's (ACA) Restrictive Housing Performance Based Standards. Thirty-six prison systems reported reviewing their policies since the release of the ACA Standards. More than half had implemented one or more reforms to align with the ACA. Those Standards reflect the national consensus to limit the use of restrictive housing for pregnant women, juveniles, and seriously mentally ill individuals, as well as not to use a person's gender identity as the sole basis for segregation. In this Report and the related 2018 ASCA-Liman monograph, Efforts in Four Jurisdictions to Make Changes, the directors of the prison systems in Colorado, Idaho, Ohio, and North Dakota detail how they were limiting and, in Colorado, abolishing holding people in cells 22 hours or more for 15 days or more. These individual accounts reflect the broader trend of policy changes. This Report puts the data collected from the 2017-2018 survey in the context of national and international actions regulating the use of restrictive housing. Correctional systems around the country are engaging in targeted efforts to reform their practices of isolating prisoners. Examples of such efforts are contained in the Vera Institute of Justice's 2018 monograph, Rethinking Restrictive Housing. In other instances, reforms have come from state legislatures. Some statutes now place limits on the length of time individuals can be held in segregation, require reviews of placement decisions, and ban the use of isolation for juveniles and other sub-populations. Litigation has also resulted in decisions that highlight the harms of restrictive housing and, in some cases, prohibit its use. Parallel efforts and mandates can be found outside the United States - from implementation of the Nelson Mandela Rules to litigation and reform through policy changes. The ASCA-Liman surveys provide a longitudinal database to enable evidence-based analysis of the practice of holding people in isolation. This Report compares the responses of the 40 prison systems that answered the ASCA-Liman surveys in both 2015 and 2017. In those 40 systems, we learned about 56,000 people in restrictive housing in 2015. The number of prisoners reported to be in restrictive housing decreased by almost 9,500 to 47,000 people in 2017. The percentage of individuals in isolation decreased from 5.0% to 4.4%. The changes are not uniform. In more than two dozen states, the numbers of people in restrictive housing decreased. In 11 states, the numbers went up. What accounts for the changing numbers is unclear. Variables include new policies and practices, litigation, legislation, fluctuations in the overall prison population, and staffing patterns. For example, in 20 of the 29 jurisdictions in which restrictive housing numbers declined, so too did the total prison population. In two of the 11 jurisdictions that had an increase in restrictive housing numbers, the total prison population increased as well. The amount of time spent in restrictive housing is of increasing concern. Not all correctional systems track length of confinement. Nineteen jurisdictions reported that they began tracking in 2013 or thereafter. In 31 jurisdictions responding to questions about length of time in both 2015 and 2017, the number of individuals in restrictive housing for three months or less increased. The number of people in isolation for longer than three months decreased. The decreases were greatest for time periods longer than six months. Correctional administrations' efforts to reduce the numbers of people in restrictive housing are part of a larger picture in which legislatures, courts, and other institutions are seeking to limit holding people in cells 22 hours or more for 15 days or more. These endeavors reflect the national and international consensus that restrictive housing imposes grave harms on individuals confined, on staff, and on the communities to which prisoners return. Once solitary confinement was seen as a solution to a problem. Now prison officials around the United States are finding ways to solve the problem of restrictive housing Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University, School of Law, 2018. 197p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 12, 2018 at: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4999225/ASCA-Liman-2018-Restrictive-Housing-Revised-Sept.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4999225/ASCA-Liman-2018-Restrictive-Housing-Revised-Sept.pdf Shelf Number: 152906 Keywords: Administrative SegregationCorrectional AdministrationIsolationMentally Ill OffendersRestrictive HousingSolitary Confinement |
Author: Powis, Beverly Title: Exploring the Nature of Muslim Groups and Related Gang Activity in Three High Security Prisons: Findings from Qualitative Research Summary: Understanding the nature and drivers of prison groups and gangs and the impact they can both have on the prison environment is important for the management of establishments, safety of staff and prisoners and also for offender rehabilitation. The few UK studies exploring prison gangs suggest there is some gang presence but perhaps not to the same extent as that found in the US, where prison gangs are highly structured and organised with considerable control over the prison. Research in an English high security prison showed that Muslim gangs, formed for criminal purposes, can present both a management challenge due to criminal behaviour and also sometimes through the risk of radicalisation. However, prisoners who form into friendship groups for support, companionship and through shared interests should not be confused with gangs formed for criminal purposes. It is therefore important to understand the differences between prison group and gangs and distinguish between them. This study aims to further our knowledge in this area by defining and describing prisoner groups, exploring the presence and nature of prison gangs and the impact they have on prison life within three High Security prisons in England. A qualitative approach was used with interviews being conducted with 83 randomly selected adult male prisoners located on the main wings and 73 staff from a range of disciplines across the three establishments. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis that was both inductive and deductive. The findings should be viewed with a degree of cautions as the views presented may not be representative of all prisoners or staff. The study found the main prisoner group to be a large, diverse group of prisoners who connected through a shared Muslim faith. Respondents were questioned on the presence of other prisoner groups but none were considered to be as dominant or significant when compared to the Muslim group. Membership offered many supportive benefits including friendship, support and religious familiarity. A small number of prisoners within the group were perceived by those interviewed to be operating as a gang under the guise of religion and were reported to cause a significant management issue at each establishment. The gang had clearly defined membership roles including leaders, recruiters, enforcers, followers and foot-soldiers. Violence, bullying and intimidation were prevalent with the gang, using religion as an excuse to victimise others. The gang was perceived to be responsible for the circulation of the majority of the contraband goods in the establishments. Motivations for joining the gang were varied but centred on criminality, safety, fear, protection and power. Comparisons were made with historic prison gangs and respondents acknowledged that gang problems, especially in the high security prisons, were something staff had always had to manage and would continue to require careful supervision. The study highlighted the complex nature of groups and gangs in high security prisons in England. This report discusses how the findings can be used to inform management approaches, such as ensuring systems are in place to identify and support prisoners who are particularly vulnerable, improve staff training and education, and the use of culturally matched mentors and external experts. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2019. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series 2019: Accessed June 6, 2019 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/806660/exploring-nature-muslim-groups-related-gang-activity.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/806660/exploring-nature-muslim-groups-related-gang-activity.pdf Shelf Number: 156232 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationMuslims Prison Gangs Prison Violence Prisoner Misconduct Prisons |
Author: Arizona. Department of Corrections Title: Arizona State Prison-Kingman Riots Assessment Summary: On July 1, 2015, at approximately 6:10 p.m., a riot occurred at the Cerbat Unit of the Arizona State Prison in Kingman operated by private contractor Management & Training Corporation (MTC). The Incident Command System (ICS) was activated due to the aggravated assault of an inmate, the subsequent aggravated assault of five staff members, and the rioting that followed these assaults. The MTC Designated Armed Response Team (DART) and Tactical Support Unit (TSU) responded to the riot, joined by the ADC Winslow Tactical Support Unit, the Mohave County Sheriff's Office (MCSO), Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS), and local ambulance providers. The inmates broke windows and destroyed surveillance cameras, and severely damaged numerous staff offices and officer stations. On July 2, 2015, and again on July 4, 2015, a riot occurred at the Hualapai Unit of the Arizona State Prison in Kingman operated by private contractor Management & Training Corporation (MTC). The riot spread throughout multiple buildings and rendered four of the five housing units uninhabitable. This subsequent riot triggered the immediate deployment of six of the remaining nine ADC Tactical Support Units from Lewis, Perryville, Tucson, Safford, Florence, Eyman, Douglas, Yuma, and Phoenix. On July 3, 2015, Arizona Department of Corrections Director Charles L. Ryan declared an emergency pursuant to A.R.S. S 41-1609(E)(2) and notified Governor Douglas A. Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich of the need to relocate inmates to other facilities. ADC subsequently relocated 1202 inmates to other prisons and numerous county jails: 40 inmates from the Cerbat Unit and 1162 inmates from the Hualapai Unit. An ADC Assessment Team assembled by Director Ryan, and pursuant to the direction of Governor Ducey, conducted a comprehensive investigation of the riots, ultimately completing approximately 300 interviews with MTC employees and approximately 400 inmates, and reviewing thousands of pages of MTC documents. The scope of the investigation included a thorough analysis of (1) the riots, including the precipitating events and the aftermath, (2) MTC's operational response to the riots, (3) MTC's leadership and staff, (4) MTC's inmate management, supervision, and communication practices, (5) MTC's training practices for leadership and staff, (6) MTC's interactions with ADC's Monitoring Team, and (7) MTC's performance deficiencies compared to five years earlier following the escape of three inmates from the same facility. Details: Phoenix: Author, 2015. v.p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 13, 2019 at: https://corrections.az.gov/reports-documents/reports/kingman-riots-assessment Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://corrections.az.gov/reports-documents/reports/kingman-riots-assessment Shelf Number: 156413 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationHostagesPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrison Riots |
Author: Albrecht, Hans-Jorg Title: Prison Overcrowding: Finding Effect Solutions. Strategies and Best Practices Against Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities Summary: This volume presents a report of the workshop on strategies and best practices against overcrowding in correctional facilities of the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in Salvador Brazil in April 2010. The paper provides an international comparison of problems of prison overcrowding. Particular focus is on the definition of overcrowding, its extent in Europe, the US, South America, Africa, Asia, and post-conflict and conflict-affected countries, its causes and effects. It addresses problems of assessing occupancy rates resulting from the lack of robust data on the number of prisoners detained and available, which are further intensified by dissenting conceptions about parameters of adequate prison space. In addition, concepts for policies and strategies aiming at diminishing prison rates are developed and discussed. Details: Freiburg i. Br.: edition iuscrim, 2012. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: (Reprint., Vol. 43) forschung aktuell | research in brief: Accessed June 14, 2019 at: https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2499903_3/component/file_3014332/content Year: 2012 Country: International URL: https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_2499903_3/component/file_3014332/content Shelf Number: 156418 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationMass Incarceration Prison Overcrowding Prisoners |