Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:09 am
Time: 1:09 am
Results for detention facilities
19 results foundAuthor: Tumlin, Karen Title: A Broken System: Confidential Reports Reveal Failures of U.S. Immigrant Detention Centers Summary: This report presents a system-wide look at the federal governments' compliance with its own standards regulating immigrant detention facilities. Results reveal substantial and pervasive violations of the government's minimum standards for conditions at such facilities. Details: Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, ACLU of Southern California, and Holland & Knight, 2009. 154p. Source: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/A-Broken-System-2009-07.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 116205 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, Title: Stuck in Jail: Immigration Detention in Hungary (2010) Summary: The Hungarian Helsinki Committee (HHC) is non-governmental organisation, which monitors the enforcement of human rights enshrined in international human rights instruments; provides legal defence to victims of human rights abuses by state authorities and informs the public about rights violations. The HHC strives to ensure that domestic legislation guarantees the consistent implementation of human rights norms. The HHC promotes legal education and training in fields relevant to its activities, both in Hungary and abroad. The Hungarian Helsinki Committee has a long-standing experience in monitoring detention facilities in Hungary. It regularly monitors police jails which was made possible by an agreement concluded in 1997 with the National Police Headquarters. The agreement entitles the HHC monitors to: visit any detention facility operated by the Police without preliminary notice; examine the conditions of detention and talk to detainees to this end; request and be provided with official data by the detention staff; report about its findings to the Police, and after consultation with the latter, to the public. This report presents a comprehensive report on Hungarian immigration detention practices based on the findings of monitoring visits to “temporary” immigration jails throughout Hungary in 2010. Details: Budapest, Hungary: Hungarian Helsinki Committee, 2011. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2011 at: http://helsinki.hu/dokumentum/HHC%20immigration%20detention_ENG_final.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Hungary URL: http://helsinki.hu/dokumentum/HHC%20immigration%20detention_ENG_final.pdf Shelf Number: 121504 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesImmigrant DetentionImmigrants (Hungary) |
Author: Hamilton, Carolyn Title: Administration Detention of Children: A Global Report Summary: In 2009, the United Nations Children‘s Fund estimated that there were around 1.1 million children deprived of their liberty by criminal courts worldwide. While judicial detention of children by courts is relatively well documented, little is known about the practice of administrative detention of children. Few publications address the issue and States do not regularly collect or collate statistical data on administrative detention. As a result, information on the extent to which children are exposed to different forms of administrative detention is sparse and discussions of the impact that such detention has on children rare. Administrative detention occurs when, as a result of a decision of an executive or administrative body, a child is placed in any public or private setting from which he or she cannot leave at will. Administrative detention occurs in some form in all States, although the bodies that have power to order such detention vary from State to State. Bodies and individuals that have the power to administratively detain may include police officers, military panels, immigration officials, health officials, doctors or local government child welfare bodies. While decisions taken to administratively detain a child may vary in terms of context, rationale and legal framework, the common element is that the decision to detain is taken not by a judge or a court, but by a body or a professional, who is not independent from the executive branch of government. The purpose of this study is to examine: What is meant by administrative detention. The extent to which administrative detention is used worldwide. The contexts and circumstances in which children are placed in administrative detention, and the profile of children held in administrative detention. The legal frameworks and procedures used by States to place children in administrative detention. The key provisions in international human rights law, including Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which limit the use of administrative detention. The impact of administrative detention on children, including the conditions of detention and child rights implications. Details: New York: United Nations Children's Fund, Child Protection Section, 2011. 343p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 15, 2011 at: http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Administrative_detention_discussion_paper_April2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/Administrative_detention_discussion_paper_April2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122068 Keywords: Administrative Detention, JuvenilesDetention FacilitiesHuman RightsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hunter, Janine Title: An Analysis of Independent Custody Visiting in Scotland Summary: The Scottish Institute for Policing Research was commissioned by the Independent Custody Visiting Association (ICVA) in March 2010 to complete an evaluation of independent custody visiting in Scotland. Independent custody visiting (ICV) involves appointed members of the public (custody visitors) making unannounced visits to police detention facilities in order to establish that detainees are treated humanely and that the detention environment is adequate. ICV also provides an opportunity to scrutinise police practice and procedures in custody facilities and therefore provides a mechanism of accountability and reassurance to the public. The aims of this report are to: 1. Review the infrastructure for supporting independent custody visiting in Scotland at a national and local level 2. Provide an audit of the current operation of independent custody visiting in Scotland and identify any significant changes over time or differences of approach between police force areas 3. Carry out a case study analysis of the operation of independent custody visiting in one police force area 4. Provide a summary of main findings and recommendations for future development. Details: Dundee, UK: Scottish Institute for Policing Research, University of Dundee, 2010. 64p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed July 20, 2011 at: http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Research_Summaries/Custody_Visiting_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sipr.ac.uk/downloads/Research_Summaries/Custody_Visiting_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 122128 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesDetention of PersonsPolice BehaviorPolice Detention Facilities (Scotland)Prisoners |
Author: Teji, Selena Title: Counties' modern secure facilities have enough institutional capacity for juvenile justice realignment Summary: In January 2012, California’s Governor Brown released a proposed budget for fiscal year 2012-2013 including a plan to eliminate the state’s Division of Juvenile Facilities (DJF).1 The current proposal would prohibit new commitments to DJF after January 1, 2013, and allow the current DJF population to serve their remaining custody time before full closure of the facilities. Several law-enforcement associations and individual counties have expressed concern that counties do not have appropriate and secure juvenile placement options at the local level to serve the high-risk juvenile offender population that DJF currently serves. This report examines the availability of county-based modern and secure juvenile justice facilities in order to assess whether counties have the institutional capacity to implement the Governor’s proposal. Details: San Francisco, CA: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, 2012. 7p. Source: Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice Policy Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2012 at http://www.cjcj.org/files/County_Modern_Facilities_2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/County_Modern_Facilities_2012.pdf Shelf Number: 124108 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile Detention (California)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Amnesty International Title: Amnesty International Australia Detention Facilities Visit 2012, Findings and recommendations Summary: The initial findings of Amnesty International’s recent detention centre visits, reiterate the organisation’s long held position that the indefinite and prolonged detention of asylum seekers in Australia is a failed policy that contravenes human rights standards. The most serious and damaging conditions faced by asylum seekers in immigration detention are the length of time and the indefinite nature of their imprisonment. Among the asylum seekers who had been in detention for extended periods, self harm and attempted suicides were talked about as a fact of life. The use of sleeping pills and other medication was also widespread. The Christmas Island Northwest Point Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) is overwhelmingly and unacceptably prison-like. The facility is too harsh to house people who have not committed a crime. Adding to the restrictive environment is the new behaviour management regime in the White compound. The Curtin IDC in Western Australia should be immediately closed for immigration detention purposes. The remote and isolated location of the centre, as well as the extremely hot and dusty physical conditions, exacerbates the existing problems with detaining asylum seekers. Findings documented from Perth IDC, Northern IDC, Wickham Point IDC, Phosphate Hill APOD and Darwin Airport Lodge APODs 1, 2 and 3, are all illustrative of a failed system. Given the human rights abuses inherent in indefnite detention, and the excessive costs of transporting basic infrastructure, supplies and staff to such extremely inaccessible locations, Amnesty International remains appalled that this policy has continued for so long. Details: Australia: Amnesty International, 2012. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/news/Amnesty-International-Australia-DetentionFacilitiesVisit-2012-FINAL.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.amnesty.org.au/images/uploads/news/Amnesty-International-Australia-DetentionFacilitiesVisit-2012-FINAL.pdf Shelf Number: 124310 Keywords: AsylumDetention FacilitiesEvaluative StudiesImmigrants |
Author: Solvang, Ole Title: Torture Archipelago: Arbitrary Arrests, Torture and Enforced Disappearances in Syria’s Underground Prisons since March 2011 Summary: Since the beginning of anti-government protests in March 2011, Syrian authorities have subjected tens of thousands of people to arbitrary arrests, unlawful detentions, enforced disappearances, ill-treatment and torture using an extensive network of detention facilities, an archipelago of torture centers, scattered throughout Syria. Based on more than 200 interviews with former detainees, including women and children, and defectors from the Syrian military, intelligence and security agencies, Torture Archipelago: Arbitrary Arrests, Torture and Enforced Disappearances in Syria’s Underground Prisons since March 2011 focuses on 28 of these detention facilities. For each facility, most of them with cells and torture chambers and one or several underground floors, we provide the location, identify the agencies responsible for operating them, document the type of ill-treatment and torture used, and name, to the extent possible, the individuals running them. The facilities included in this report are those for which multiple witnesses have indicated the same location and provided detailed descriptions about the use of torture. The actual number of such facilities is likely much higher. The systematic patterns of ill-treatment and torture documented in this report clearly point to a state policy of torture and ill-treatment and therefore constitute a crime against humanity. The United Nations Security Council should refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court, adopt targeted sanctions on officials credibly implicated in abuses, and demand that Syria grant recognized international detention monitors access to all detention facilties, including those mentioned in this report. Details: London: Human Rights Watch, 2012. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 7, 2012 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria0712webwcover.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Syria URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/syria0712webwcover.pdf Shelf Number: 125502 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesHuman RightsPrisonersPrisonsTorture (Syria) |
Author: National People's Action Title: Jails Fargo: Banking on Immigrant Detention, Wells Fargo's Ties to the Private Prison Industry Summary: Private prison operators are profiting from the deepening immigration crisis in the United States. Companies like CCA and GEO Group have seen steady growth due to the countryʼs policy of locking up immigrants in privately-managed detention facilities. These companies have spent millions to shape this policy, win contracts, and ensure that the rules are fixed in their favor – all at the expense of some of the countryʼs most vulnerable people. These companies would not be positioned to profit from the countryʼs immigration crisis without the help of prominent Wall Street banks. The industry is capital-intensive and requires enormous amounts of financing from banks that sit at the countryʼs financial and economic crossroads. One bank, in particular, has distinguished itself from the competition as an investor in and lender to the industry: Wells Fargo. This report details the financial ties between Wells Fargo and the top private prison operators in the country: Corrections Corp of America (CCA), GEO Group, and Management and Training Corp (MTC). The information compiled in the report shows that as a lender and investor, Wells Fargo has provided critical support for the private prison industry. This report is the first in a series. A future report will detail other aspects and consequences of Wells Fargoʼs support for the private prison industry, and will raise further questions about the bankʼs role in the private prison industry and the vicious cycle of imprisonment and detention, profit, and political influence it facilitates. Details: Chicago, IL: National People's Action, 2012. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 21, 2012 at http://www.npa-us.org/files/wells_fargo_-_banking_on_immigrant_detention_0.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.npa-us.org/files/wells_fargo_-_banking_on_immigrant_detention_0.pdf Shelf Number: 127247 Keywords: Banking IndustryDetention FacilitiesImmigrant DetentionImmigrationPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Police Custody: The detention of persons in police custody in Northern Ireland Summary: A new report by Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (CJI) and the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority (RQIA) has examined the standards and conditions of police custody arrangements in Northern Ireland. The inspection reviewed current practice within the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) against its legal requirements under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (PACE) and expectations designed to meet the UN OPCAT principles and human rights standards. Police custody suites are an area of significant risk for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, both at a corporate and individual level. Managing and caring for detained persons, many of whom will be drunk, drugged, aggressive, in crisis, out of control and in need of protection, often from themselves, is the constant challenge for those working within the custody environment. Details: Belfast: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection, 2016. 93p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2016 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/33/338df4a1-68d6-4bb8-9403-9888bed9ebd9.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/33/338df4a1-68d6-4bb8-9403-9888bed9ebd9.pdf Shelf Number: 138166 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesOffendersPolice Stations |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Court Custody: Urgent Improvement Required Summary: Anyone can end up in court custody: the guilty and the innocent; those who are a threat to the safety of others and those who are a danger to themselves; healthy adults, children and those with the range of mental health and substance misuse problems familiar from police and prison custody. This thematic review of my inspectorate's first eight inspections of court custody in England draws together findings from our inspections of 97 courthouses with custody facilities between August 2012 and August 2014. In short, we found some of the worst custody conditions we have inspected. The treatment of detainees and the conditions in custody suites were very low priorities for the different organisations involved, which failed to adequately coordinate their custody roles. We could find almost no one at local or national level who accepted overall accountability for this state of affairs or saw it as their responsibility to address our recommendations. The treatment and conditions we found were the consequence. We found filthy, squalid cells covered in old graffiti. The needs of women, children or other detainees with particular needs were often not understood or addressed. Routine security measures were often disproportionate or inconsistent. Complaint processes in most courts, in practice, were non-existent. Health care was inadequate. Of most concern and despite, in many cases, the best efforts of custody staff, we found a dangerous disregard for the risks detainees might pose to themselves or others. Court custody is an accident waiting to happen. The pockets of good practice inspectors found, and the fact that most court custody staff tried hard to treat people in court custody decently, shows it is not inevitable that poor conditions and degrading, unsafe practices will prevail. This report identifies some examples of good practice and draws together the key recommendations necessary to make the urgent improvement required. Our inspections of courts custody are part of the UK's obligations arising from its status as a party to the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT), which requires state parties to establish a system of independent, preventive inspection of all places of detention. We began our inspections of court custody in 2012 and developed expectations (inspection criteria) and an inspection methodology that reflect the inspection methods we use in other places of detention. Our expectations of court custody are modest. We expect there to be a clear strategy for and leadership of the custody function; that detainees are held for the shortest time possible; and that their rights are respected. While they are in custody we expect them to be safe and treated decently according to their individual needs. We expect any health needs they have to be dealt with effectively. We found that no single organisation exercised any effective leadership for court custody provision at local or national level. Management of court custody operations is spread between several organisations which do not always communicate effectively with each other. No organisation has a good overall picture of the situation and in my view this explains why, in many clusters, physical conditions were poor, with deep cleaning and decorating clearly neglected for years. The valuable insights of Lay Observers - whose independent scrutiny of court custody is of pivotal importance - are often overlooked. The contract management process, while in many ways robust, has rarely led to significant improvements in outcomes for detainees because contract monitoring is focused largely on timeliness and security. These are imperative, but detainee care needs equivalent attention. Timely delivery of detainees to court is important, but it is concerning that so little priority is given to ensuring detainees do not spend inordinately long periods in court cells after their appearance is over. Meanwhile deficits in aspects of detainee care, such as risk assessment, where poor care could result in serious harm, are allowed to remain almost entirely unaddressed. Established practices that are applied unquestioningly tend to cause the greatest disadvantage to the most vulnerable detainees. These include the longer journeys experienced by young people, the practice of transferring women on the same vehicles as men, and the handcuffing of disabled detainees in public. Little importance is placed on detainees being given information about their rights in court custody. In practice there are no workable complaint processes. Of most concern is the lack of any meaningful risk assessment when detainees arrive in court custody or are released. Custody staff often received very vague information about risks in person escort record forms, and were often reluctant to talk with detainees to help clarify concerns. A few custody staff did attempt to ask detainees how they were feeling, or about what had happened when they had harmed themselves before, but it was often clear that they lacked training in risk assessment. This meant that serious risks - including risks that detainees might harm themselves or others, lapse from sleep into coma, or become ill while in custody - were not managed. Cell sharing risk assessments, necessary at busy times when detainees had to share cells, were rarely properly conducted. Some senior custody officers were 'too busy' to do them and did not consider delegating the task to another custody officer. Important changes, such as the introduction of new cell sharing risk assessments, were often communicated to custody staff without a thorough briefing that would help to ensure their purpose was understood. The implementation of such changes was poorly monitored. On release, pre-release risk planning was unusual with, on most occasions, only a travel warrant given to vulnerable detainees. Most did not benefit from custody staff exercising any ongoing duty of care. This is in sharp contrast to our findings in police custody inspections, despite there being similar issues on release. Unlike courts, most police services recognise they have a duty of care that extends beyond the confines of the custody suite. Often, HM Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) managers were unaware of how bad conditions in the cells were, or claimed that detainees only spent a couple of hours in them. In reality, we found that many detainees spent eight or 10 hours in a tiny cell with no natural light, and sometimes no heating, that might be filthy or covered in graffiti, on a hard wooden or plastic bench with nothing to do. We found some conditions that were a threat to the health of people working in or detained at the suite. Provision for people who were pregnant, elderly or disabled was almost always inadequate. Custody staff had little awareness of the needs of children: it was rare for any allowance to be made for their age and concerns and children were sometimes detained for long periods without adequate supervision and reassurance. Physical health care was poor, with treatment and medication often delayed in the belief it would be provided later in prison or police custody. The first aid equipment was often insufficient for the type of emergencies likely to occur. Mental health, often linked to what was available in the court itself, was better. These finding are not acceptable. In each section of this report we set out key recommendations from each of the eight individual court inspections we have undertaken and we continue to expect these to be addressed. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 45p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Court-custody-urgent-improvement-required-corrected.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Court-custody-urgent-improvement-required-corrected.pdf Shelf Number: 138478 Keywords: Court CustodyDetention FacilitiesPrisoner EscortPrisoners, TreatmentPrisons |
Author: Holden, Gary Title: Medway Improvement Board, Final Report of the Board's Advice to Secretary of State for Justice Summary: i. The independent Medway Improvement Board was appointed on 26th January 2016 by the Secretary of State for Justice. The Board was appointed as a response to a BBC Panorama programme on 11th January which highlighted the allegations of physical and emotional abuse of young people by staff at Medway STC. ii. The Board was asked to investigate the current safeguarding arrangements at Medway STC and report to the Secretary of State on the confidence of its members in the capability of YJB and other organisations to meet appropriate safeguarding standards at Medway in the future and on performance and monitoring arrangements. The Board was also asked to feed into the Improvement Plan that G4S were asked to put in place. iii. In the time that the Board was appointed, they spoke to 34 stakeholders in person, either as a Board or on a one-to-one basis. Stakeholders included key individuals from G4S and YJB, inspectors from HMIP and Ofsted, the Children's Commissioner, and senior staff at Medway Council. The Board also spoke to staff and children at the STC and conducted a roundtable event with stakeholders from lobby groups and charities. iv. From very early on in the investigations, the Board found problems that members found alarming. The most immediate concerns were raised in the interim advice presented to the Secretary of State on 2nd March. v. The Board found that there was a lack of clarity on the purpose of an STC and that leadership within the STC has driven a culture that appears to be based on control and contract compliance rather than rehabilitation and safeguarding vulnerable young people. The Board continues to have significant concerns that this culture and the emphasis on contract compliance may be leading to reports of falsification of records etc. that were seen in the Panorama broadcast. vi. There are blurred lines of accountability and an ambiguous management structure. A clearer child-based vision needs to be driven by strong leadership. The purpose of STCs needs to be more clearly articulated with a focus on prompting a nurturing and safe environment. The Board is recommending that an independent Governing Body be appointed to provide overall oversight and scrutiny arrangements for safeguarding in all STCs. vii. Current safeguarding measures are insufficient and outdated. There is too much emphasis on control and contract compliance and not enough on the best interests and mental wellbeing of the trainees. YJB has not done enough to change this and current policies and practices need to be reviewed. viii. The Board is not convinced that the various organisations that currently play a role in scrutinising and responding to safeguarding at Medway STC are coordinated in their approach. This increases the risk of safeguarding issues falling through a gap. These findings further support the need for an independent governing body. ix. There is a history of similar concerns being raised repeatedly in letters from whistle-blowers and former staff. The Board feels that policies which form part of the STC contract need to be reviewed to ensure that they support the overall safety of young people rather than focus on contractual penalties. Whistle-blowers and children inside of the STC need to have an effective support framework in which they feel safe to raise concerns and complaints. x. The Board noted that there is a qualitative difference between how behaviour management and Restrictive Physical Interventions (RPI) are used in the secure children's estate and in other sectors, despite the fact that in some cases staff are dealing with very similar behaviours. There is a lack of understanding of the causes and drivers of behaviour problems and too much focus on controlling behaviour rather than dealing with underlying vulnerabilities. The Board feels there needs to be a wider review of behaviour management policy and practice in STCs, across the wider youth justice system and across other sectors, with a view to developing a coherent and consistent policy on risk, restraint and behaviour management across government. xi. The Board continues to have concerns about how YJB manages their contract and monitors safeguarding at the STC. It welcomes some of the changes that have been made as a result of earlier advice in the course of the term of this Improvement Board and acknowledges that YJB are reviewing their approach to monitoring in the STC. The Board feels there is a need for formal separation of the often conflicting YJB monitoring functions of ensuring contractual compliance and monitoring safeguarding. xii. The Board feels that while the revised Improvement Plan, received from G4S on 15th March, takes on board earlier feedback from the Board, it does not go far enough. In particular it does not take into account the Board's concerns about handover and continuity if, following the announcement of their intention to sell the contract, responsibility for managing the STC and for implementing the Improvement Plan moves from G4S. Regardless of who man manages Medway STC, changes in culture, leadership and staff approaches are needed; for these reasons the Improvement Plan needs to incorporate effective mechanism for continuity of improvement, assessment of impact of improvements, and a timetable for handover. Details: s.l.: Medway Improvement Board, 2016. 71p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 23, 2016 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523167/medway-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/523167/medway-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139128 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice System |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation Title: Full Joint Inspection of Youth Offending Work in Staffordshire Summary: Reducing reoffending Overall work to reduce reoffending was satisfactory. Good quality reports were produced for the courts and initial assessments were of a high standard. A new planning format had been adopted and further work was required to make sure that plans captured the issues identified in the assessment as well as reflecting the views of children and young people. Strategies for dealing with children and young people with low levels of motivation to change needed further development. Protecting the public Overall work to protect the public and actual or potential victims was good. Reports and initial assessments contained a thorough analysis of the risk of serious harm posed by children and young people. Multi-agency arrangements were good and there was a strong partnership approach to work to protect the public. Victims were well served by the YOS. Protecting children and young people Overall work to protect children and young people and reduce their vulnerability was good. Assessments were thorough and the YOS had appropriate multi-agency arrangements in place to manage vulnerability. Work to manage and reduce vulnerability was generally good, however, the reduction in health secondees to the service may reduce the ability of the service to respond to vulnerable children and young people in the future. Making sure the sentence is served Overall work to make sure the sentence was served was good. The YOS and its partners worked well to achieve positive outcomes for children and young people. Compliance was managed effectively. Barriers to engagement were identified and responded to, and children and young people together with their parents/carers were engaged meaningfully in the order. Governance and partnerships Overall, the effectiveness of governance and partnership arrangements was satisfactory. Operational management of the service was effective, there was a well trained, competent workforce and there were examples of strong partnership working. The YOS Management Board had met regularly but there had been a number of significant gaps in representation, notably health and education. Reoffending rates had risen and the Board's response was unclear. Interventions to reduce reoffending Overall the management and delivery of interventions to reduce reoffending was good. Staff had access to a wide range of resources. Outcomes achieved as a result of interventions had not yet been fully identified and evaluated. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Probation, 2016. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 7, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/Staffordshire-FJI-report.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/06/Staffordshire-FJI-report.pdf Shelf Number: 139299 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersRecidivismReoffendingYouthful Offenders |
Author: Bhui, Hindpal Singh Title: Can Inspection Produce Meaningful Change in Immigration Detention? Summary: Although prison inspection in the United Kingdom has a long history, inspection of immigration detention was properly established only in 2004. Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), a government-appointed independent human rights-based monitoring institution, holds this responsibility. In this GDP Working Paper, a lead HMIP inspector discusses the nature and impact of the Inspectorate's work, examining both the theory and practice of inspection. The paper places the discussion in the broader context of prison reform and debates on migration and border controls. The author argues that in liberal-democratic societies there are two broad approaches to promoting human rights reforms and challenging abuses: working from the inside to achieve progress with the risk that principles may be compromised and good intentions confounded; or promoting change from the outside, which is more uncompromising but less influential, at least in the short-term. This is a dilemma that confronts human rights based inspection of immigration detention in the UK. The main focus of HMIP is on improving the treatment of detainees and conditions in detention, not challenging the system of detention, even if immigration detention policy arguably lacks legitimacy in a way that criminal imprisonment does not. The author explores the "effectiveness" of detention inspection and whether inspection can be said to have promoted meaningful change. Details: Geneva, SWIT: Global Detention Project, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper No. 12: Accessed July 25, 2016 at: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bhui_gdp_working_paper_may_2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.globaldetentionproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/bhui_gdp_working_paper_may_2016.pdf Shelf Number: 139833 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesHuman Rights AbusesIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrationMigrants |
Author: Amnesty International Title: "It Breaks the Human":Torture, Disease and Death in Syria's Prisons Summary: The experiences faced by detainees in Syria's detention system are often lethal. An estimated 17,723 people were killed in custody across Syria between 2011 and 2015, with the real number likely to be even higher. Of the 65 former detainees interviewed by Amnesty International for this report, most had witnessed at least one death in custody. All had been tortured and/or otherwise ill-treated. This report charts the journey of detainees through what the UN Commission of Inquiry, among others, considers to be Syria's most lethal detention facilities, including Saydnaya Military Prison and the detention centres operated by Syria's four intelligence services - Air Force Intelligence, Military Intelligence, Political Security and General Intelligence. Based on the evidence presented in this report, as well as prior research by Amnesty International and the documentation of credible national and international monitoring groups, Amnesty International considers that the torture and other ill-treatment of detainees carried out by the Syrian government since 2011 has been perpetrated as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, pursuant to a state policy, and therefore amounts to a crime against humanity. This report calls on the international community to pressure the Syrian authorities to abide by their international obligations and end the use of torture and other ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and enforced disappearances, and prevent further deaths in custody. Details: London: AI, 2016. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2016 at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/4508/2016/en/ Year: 2016 Country: Syria URL: https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde24/4508/2016/en/ Shelf Number: 140117 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesPrison ConditionsPrisonersPrisonsTorture |
Author: Mangan, Fiona B. Title: Prisons and Detention in Libya Summary: This report examines the prison system in Libya. With the permission of the Libyan Ministry of Justice and Judicial Police, United States Institute of Peace (USIP) research teams conducted two assessments of the Libyan prison system, visiting detention facilities throughout the country in 2012 and again in 2015-16 to evaluate organizational function, security, infrastructure, and prisoner well-being. This report combines and compares the findings of the two assessments, discussing the broader context of detention issues in Libya, with analysis centering on prisons under the authority of the Ministry of Justice and operated by the Judicial Police. The 2012 assessment team consisted of Fiona Mangan, a USIP senior program officer, and Dr. Mark Shaw, an expert consultant. The 2015-16 assessment team consisted of Rebecca Murray, a researcher and journalist; Rami Musa, a journalist; and Fiona Mangan. Mohamed Abouharous provided invaluable translation and logistical support during both visits. The assessments, part of a multiyear portfolio of rule of law programming and analysis conducted after the 2011 revolution, were supported by the International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Bureau of the U.S. Department of State. Details: Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 30, 2016 at: https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PW119-Prisons-and-Detention-in-Libya.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Libya URL: https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/PW119-Prisons-and-Detention-in-Libya.pdf Shelf Number: 140530 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsDetention FacilitiesPrisons |
Author: Wassenaar, Mattheus Title: Public vs. Nonprofit Incarceration: The Case of the Netherlands Summary: Outsourcing of detention is a complex public task, due to quality risks from incomplete contracts, the public responsibility for sentencing and execution, and related social opinions. In the Netherlands, the debate about the outsourcing of prison services to the private profit sector has recently restarted. At the same time, in the Netherlands there is extensive experience of outsourcing prison services - in particular for juvenile detention and internal forensic psychiatric care - to nonprofit organizations. In the Dutch experience, we have not found differences between public and nonprofit execution, with respect to the type of contract with the prisons, costs and quality. The Dutch experience shows that outsourcing to nonprofit entrepreneurs in civil society can be an alternative to outsourcing to the private market. Details: Tinbergen: Tinbergen Institute Amsterdam, 2017. 31p. Source: Internet Resource: Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper 2017-023/VIII: Accessed May 10, 2017 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2920440 Year: 2017 Country: Netherlands URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2920440 Shelf Number: 145389 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: van der Helm, Gjalt Herman Peerke Title: First do no Harm: Living Group Climate in Secure Juvenile Correctional Institutions Summary: Over the past four years five studies in a Dutch correctional institution were conducted, which started by constructing and validating an instrument measuring group living climate, as little is known about group climate properties in youth prison. As incarcerated youth spent most of their time in this environment, apart from attending school or therapy, living group climate is thought to exert a substantial influence on adolescent inmates. Results of these five studies confirmed this assumption and showed that a positive (therapeutic) living group climate could stimulate development in incarcerated adolescents. In these five studies, living group quality proved to be associated with treatment motivation, locus of control, coping, empathy, stabilization of personality and self-reported aggression. A repressive living group climate was associated with negative developmental characteristics and aggression, whereas an open living group climate was associated with positive social development. The results of these five studies form the basis of an innovative longitudinal research project, which is currently being undertaken in 23 institutions for secure residential youth care in the Netherlands with the aim of improving group living climate and developmental outcomes for adolescents with severe behavioral problems and criminal conduct. Details: Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit, 136p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: https://research.vu.nl/ws/portalfiles/portal/2909204 Year: 2011 Country: Netherlands URL: Shelf Number: 146709 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile Corrections Juvenile Detention |
Author: Inter-American Commission on Human Rights Title: Towards the Closure of Guantanamo Summary: This report addresses the human rights situation of detainees held at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a facility that has become a symbol of abuse around the world. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights ("IACHR") was the first international instance to call upon the United States to take urgent steps to respect the basic rights of the detainees. Just two months after the arrival of the first prisoners in January of 2002, the IACHR called upon the State to ensure that their legal status would be determined by a competent authority, so as to clarify the applicable legal regime and corresponding rights. 2. Since then, the IACHR has closely followed the situation through different mechanisms and has repeatedly called for the immediate closure of the detention facility. As a further and hopefully final step in the monitoring of the situation, the IACHR issues this report in which it provides an assessment of the current situation from a human rights perspective as the basis to issue recommendations designed to assist the State in taking the steps necessary to close the facility. 3. The report, following a rights-based approach, focuses on three main areas of concern. First, it addresses the major issues surrounding the detainees' right to personal integrity, from the authorized use of torture in the early years of the Guantanamo detentions to more current issues such as prison conditions at Camp 7 and the U.S. Government's response to the hunger strikes. The IACHR reiterates its finding that the continuing and indefinite detention of individuals in Guantanamo, without the right to due process, is arbitrary and constitutes a clear violation of international law; reasons of public security cannot serve as a pretext for the indefinite detention of individuals without charge or trial. 4. The report then examines the detainees' access to justice and whether the judicial remedies available are adequate and effective. It analyses important questions that were left unresolved by the landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush, such as the scope of the executive's authority to detain individuals under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as well as various substantive and procedural questions. The Commission outlines concerns with respect to the operation of presumptions and burdens of proof and their impact on access to effective remedies. 5. This chapter also assesses how military commissions operate in practice and the important challenges faced by detainees when exercising their right to legal representation. It further addresses the exclusive application of a separate regime to foreign Muslim men, an issue that presents an apparent targeting of individuals in relation to nationality, ethnicity and religion. In addition, this chapter analyses the functioning of the Periodic Review Board process established in 2011 as well as the lack of judicial review of claims relating to conditions of detention at Guantanamo. 6. Finally, the report looks at the various legal and political aspects involved in taking steps toward the closure of the detention facility and acknowledges some recent steps taken by the Executive. This chapter assesses the current situation of the three categories of detainees currently held at Guantanamo: detainees cleared for transfer; detainees facing criminal charges before military commissions; and detainees designated for continued detention. The IACHR analyzes the situation of the detainees from Yemen separately, an issue which is of key importance in the closure of the facility. It further elaborates on how transfers should be carried out in order to comply with international legal obligations and the principle of nonrefoulement. This chapter then analyzes the current state of proceedings before military commissions, a system that has proven to be slow, inefficient and out of line with due process guarantees. 7. The report concludes with some data that speaks for itself. According to official information, only 8% of Guantanamo detainees were characterized as "fighters" for Al-Qaeda or the Taliban; 93% were not captured by U.S. forces; and most were turned over to U.S. custody at a time in which the United States offered bounties for the capture of suspected terrorists. Only 1% of all prisoners ever held at Guantanamo have so far been convicted by a military commission; in two of those eight cases the material support conviction was overturned on appeal by federal courts. As of January 2015, the handful of ongoing prosecutions before military commissions remained stagnant at the pre-trial stage, having been in that stage for several years. 8. Based on its close analysis of the human rights situation of detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, in this report the IACHR issues a series of recommendations in order to encourage the United States to properly fulfill its international human rights commitments in taking the steps necessary to close Guantanamo. The InterAmerican Commission also reiterates its call upon OAS Member States to consider receiving Guantanamo detainees in an effort to achieve the goal of closing the prison and to reaffirm the longstanding tradition of asylum and protection of refugees in the region. The recommendations are grouped following the same rights-based approach used in the analysis of the report. 9. With regard to the conditions of detention, the Inter-American Commission recommends that the United States ensure that detainees are held in accordance with international human rights standards; that conditions of detention are subject to accessible and effective judicial review; that detainees are provided with adequate medical, psychiatric and psychological care; and that their right to freedom of conscience and religion is respected. The Commission further recommends that the U.S. declassify all evidence of torture and ill-treatment; comply with the recommendations issued by the Committee Against Torture regarding the investigation of detainee abuse, redress for victims, and the end of the force-feeding of detainees; and establish an independent monitoring body to investigate the conditions of detention at Guantanamo Bay. Details: Washington, DC: IACHR, 2015. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2018 at: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/towards-closure-guantanamo.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Cuba URL: http://www.oas.org/en/iachr/reports/pdfs/towards-closure-guantanamo.pdf Shelf Number: 149535 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesGuantanamoHuman Rights Abuses |
Author: Franken, A. Title: Specialization in National Specialist Facilities: a literature review. Summary: The Netherlands Youth Institute carried out this research commissioned by the Research and Documentation Centre, WODC, Ministry of Justice and Security. The topic of this research arises from the report "Custody of Young Offenders (Implementation) Survey" (Verkenning Invulling Vrijheidsbeneming Justitiele Jeugd, VIV JJ), which was presented to the House of Representatives in November 2015 (Van Alphen, Drost & Jongebreur, 2015, Parliamentary Papers, Meeting Year 2015-2016, no. 24587-626). Central to this report is the young person, with his or her support needs and needs for care and security. The report focuses on the continuation of care, involvement of the young person's own network and local cooperation between the Custodial Institutions Agency (DJI), local care partners and municipalities. One of the building blocks of the report is a National Specialist Facility (LSV), in which young people with a specific profile receive specialist care and security. The question remains, however, which specializations are needed within the National Specialist Facilities and how these specializations could be clustered. Details: Utrecht: Nederlands Jeugdinstituut (NJi) , Universiteit van Amsterdam - Afdeling Forensische Orthopedagogiek, WODC, 2018. 5p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 5, 2018 at: https://www.wodc.nl/binaries/2895_summary_tcm28-310965.pdf (Full text only available in Dutch) Year: 2018 Country: Netherlands URL: https://www.wodc.nl/binaries/2895_summary_tcm28-310965.pdf Shelf Number: 149693 Keywords: Detention FacilitiesJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DelinquentsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders |