Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:55 am
Time: 11:55 am
Results for detention centers
23 results foundAuthor: Open Society Foundations Title: Pretrial Detention and Health: Unintended Consequences, Deadly Results Summary: Pretrial holding facilities in countries with developing and transitional economies often force detainees to live in filthy, over-crowded conditions, where they lack adequate health services. In the worst cases, detainees die; some centers are so bad that innocent people plead guilty just to be transferred to prisons where the conditions might be better. For many pretrial detainees, being locked away in detention centers where tuberculosis, hepatitis C, and HIV are easily contracted can be a death sentence. This paper, aimed at health professionals, presents a review of literature on health conditions and health services in pretrial detention in developing and transitional countries. It takes as its point of departure that the negative health impacts of excessive pretrial detention are an important reason to pursue pretrial justice reform. Its recommendations include calling on health professionals to support monitoring and research efforts on the issues, as well supporting prison health officials and public engagement. Details: New York: Open Society Foundations, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/ptd-health-20111103/ptd-health-20111103.pdf Year: 2011 Country: International URL: http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/ptd-health-20111103/ptd-health-20111103.pdf Shelf Number: 123311 Keywords: Detention CentersHealth Care, PrisonsPretrial Detention |
Author: Freeman, Semuteh Title: Immigration Incarceration: The Expansion and Failed Reform of Immigration Detention in Essex County, NJ Summary: This report takes a hard look at the outcome of detention expansion and so-called “reform” of immigration detention in Essex County, New Jersey. Although immigration detention has always been justified as non-punitive, and the rhetoric from the Obama Administration has emphasized a reform of the civil immigration detention system, in recent years there has been an expansion of immigration detention even while detention facilities fail to meet the 2008 and 2011 Immigration and Customs Enforcement Performance-Based National Detention Standards (PBNDS). What is currently happening in Essex County is an example of what occurs when expansion of immigration detention fails to coincide with any meaningful review of the system currently in place. Every indicator of the conditions and treatment of immigrant detainees in Essex County shows a detention system that is failing to meet the bare minimum of humane treatment and due process. What’s more, the increase in the number of immigrants detained and the conditions of their detention are contrary to promises for reform and prosecutorial discretion at the national level, as well as assurances of oversight at the local level. After providing a history of the rise of immigration detention in Essex County, this report will delve into the experiences of detainees who are held in the two facilities—the privately owned and operated Delaney Hall and the Essex County Correctional Facility (hereafter “ECCF”). Part I of the report chronicles the expansion of detention in the United States, specifically the expansion of detention in Essex County, NJ, including information about the two immigration detention facilities in Essex County: Delaney Hall and ECCF. Part II will focus on who is being detained in Delaney Hall and ECCF. Part III will present information about the conditions in Delaney Hall and ECCF for immigrant detainees. Part IV concerns access to legal services and due process for immigrant detainees in Essex County. Details: New York: New York University School of Law, Immigrant Rights Clinic, 2012. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 29, 2012 at: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/ImmigrationIncarceration2012.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://afsc.org/sites/afsc.civicactions.net/files/documents/ImmigrationIncarceration2012.pdf Shelf Number: 124755 Keywords: Detention CentersIllegal AliensIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant Detention (New Jersey, US)Immigration |
Author: Queensland. Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Title: Child Guardian Report: Investigation into the Use of Force in Queensland youth detention centres Summary: The Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian (the Commission) has the legislative responsibility to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people in Queensland. In particular, section 23(1)(e)(i) of the Commission’s Act prescribes that the Commission must prioritise the needs and interests of young people detained in youth detention centres in Queensland. In fulfilling this responsibility, the Commission has identified concerns about the use of force by officers of the former Department of Communities (the Department) in both Queensland youth detention facilities, namely Brisbane Youth Detention Centre (BYDC) and Cleveland Youth Detention Centre (CYDC). The identification of use of force as an issue requiring investigation was raised during the ongoing regular review and analysis of a variety of sources that inform the Commission’s monitoring and advocacy functions, including the: Youth detention inspections conducted by the Department under section 263 of the Youth Justice Act 1992 on a quarterly basis Reports of harm and suspected harm in youth detention centres provided by the Department on a monthly basis in accordance with section 37 of the Youth Justice Regulation 2003 Commission Community Visitor reports completed after monthly visits to young people in youth detention centres under Chapter 5 of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000, and Complaints received by the Commission from young people detained in youth detention centres, about the use of force under Chapter 4 of the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000. Details: Brisbane: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, 2012. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 9, 2012 at: http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/pdf/publications/reports/child-guardian-investigation-report/Use-of-Force-Investigation-Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.ccypcg.qld.gov.au/pdf/publications/reports/child-guardian-investigation-report/Use-of-Force-Investigation-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 126907 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile Detention (Queensland, Australia)Juvenile Inmates |
Author: Teplin, Linda A. Title: The Northwestern Juvenile Project: Overview Summary: The Northwestern Juvenile Project (NJP) studies a randomly selected sample of 1,829 youth who were arrested and detained in Cook County, IL, between 1995 and 1998. This bulletin provides an overview of NJP and presents the following information about the project: NJP is a longitudinal study that investigates the mental health needs and long-term outcomes of youth detained in the juvenile justice system. This study addresses a key omission in the delinquency literature. Many studies examine the connection between risk factors and the onset of delinquency. Far fewer investigations follow youth after they are arrested and detained. The mental health needs of youth detained in the juvenile justice system are far greater than those in the general population. The mental health needs of youth in detention are largely untreated. Among detainees with major psychiatric disorders and functional impairment, only 15 percent had been treated in the detention center before release. Details: Wsahington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 2013. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Juvenile Justice Bulletin: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/234522.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/234522.pdf Shelf Number: 127996 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile Offenders (U.S.)Mental HealthMental Health Services |
Author: Western Australia, Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services Title: The Management of Young Women and Girls at Banksia Hill Detention Centre Summary: The riot at the Banksia Hill Juvenile Detention Centre ('Banksia Hill') on 20 January 2013, the ensuing court casesi1and the publication of two independent reportsii2have resulted in considerable debate in government, the media and the non-government sector about youth justice services in Western Australia. It appears to be accepted that the shortcomings that led to the riot were reflective of systemic problems and that organisational and cultural change is needed to improve service delivery, efficiencies and correctional outcomes. The boys held in detention have attracted the most attention. This is not surprising: they represent by far the majority of detainees (over 90 per cent), it was the boys who were responsible for the 20 January riot, and it was the boys who were subsequently transferred to Hakea Prison. However, it is vitally important that the specific needs and challenges of girls in detention are not subsumed by the demands of the boys. This report aims to assess the current 'state of play' with respect to incarcerated girls and to promote further debate and focus. The report is the outcome of an inspection of the girls' unit at Banksia Hill (Yeeda Unit) in April/May 2013. It contains a number of recommendations regarding services and systems and also some more strategic recommendations. While the report stands in its own right, it needs to be read alongside the report of the directed review into the Banksia Hill riot.Pleasingly, the Department of Corrective Services ('DCS') has supported almost all the recommendations. Details: Perth, WA, AUS: Office of the Inspector of Custodial Services, 2014. 53p. Source: Internet Resource: Report no. 86: Accessed March 12, 2014 at: http://www.oics.wa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectID=F9248052-0B7C-FDCB-7578862113D36911 Year: 2013 Country: Australia URL: http://www.oics.wa.gov.au/index.cfm?objectID=F9248052-0B7C-FDCB-7578862113D36911 Shelf Number: 131863 Keywords: Detention CentersFemale OffendersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: "They Treat Us Like Animals" : Mistreatment of Drug Users and "Undesirables" in Cambodia's Drug Detention Centers Summary: The Cambodian government claims its eight "drug treatment" centers provide treatment and rehabilitation for people dependent on drugs. In reality, they provide neither. At any one time, these facilities collectively hold around 1,000 men, women, and children: some are dependent upon drugs, others are homeless people, beggars, street children, sex workers, or have actual or perceived disabilities. They do not see a lawyer or a judge before or during detention, receive no formal sentence, and have no way to appeal the decision to detain them. Many are confined as part of "sweep the streets" operations ahead of high-profile international meetings, or visits by foreign dignitaries. "They Treat Us Like Animals," a follow-up to a 2010 Human Rights Watch report on the same issue, is based on interviews with 33 recent detainees of Cambodia's drug treatment centers. It finds that arbitrary detention, forced labor, and physical and sexual abuse continue with impunity. Detainees are punched and kicked by center staff, whipped with rubber water hoses, hit with sticks or branches, shocked with electric batons, and punished with physical exercises intended to cause intense physical pain and humiliation, such as having to crawl along stony ground. Former female detainees described sexual abuse by male guards. Many detainees are forced to work, such as growing vegetables or as part of work gangs on construction sites. Those who refuse are beaten. Despite the international outcry over these centers, Cambodian authorities have not released all detainees, investigated alleged torture and other abuses, or held any perpetrators accountable. Human Rights Watch calls on Cambodia's government to permanently close its drug detention centers. Authorities should also investigate credible reports of torture and other ill-treatment, and appropriately discipline or prosecute those responsible, in accordance with Cambodian and international law. Details: New York: HRW, 2014. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 4, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/cambodia1213_ForUpload_1.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Cambodia URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/cambodia1213_ForUpload_1.pdf Shelf Number: 133964 Keywords: Detention CentersDrug Abuse and AddictionDrug Treatment (Cambodia)Human Rights Abuses |
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: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Behaviour management and restraint of children in custody: A review of the early implementation of MMPR Summary: In March 2013, the House of Commons Justice Committee recommended in its report on youth justice that Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons should report on the implementation of the new system of behaviour management and restraint in young offender institutions (YOIs) and secure training centres (STCs), known as 'minimising and managing physical restraint' (MMPR). This report sets out our findings on the implementation of the new system to date. The introduction of MMPR was the culmination of a long process initiated following the deaths of two boys in 2004. Gareth Myatt died after he became unconscious during a restraint in an STC. 'If you can talk, you can breathe', an officer told him when he complained. It was not true. Adam Rickwood, aged 14, hung himself after a 'pain compliance' technique was applied to him. This was the 'nose distraction technique', a painful jab under the base of the nose. MMPR is intended to change the approach to behaviour management within YOIs and STCs, placing an additional emphasis on the importance of staff using their existing relationships with children to de-escalate volatile incidents, and minimising the number of children who experience restraint. MMPR also includes a comprehensive system of national governance and oversight to not only monitor the use of restraint but also improve and promote safe practice across the estate. The implementation of MMPR is taking place against a backdrop of a substantial fall in the number of children in custody, the decommissioning of beds across both YOIs and STCs and staffing shortages across the YOI estate. This has caused significant delay in the roll out of MMPR, which is now due to be completed in July 2016 - a year behind schedule. The reduction in numbers also means that YOIs and STCs now hold an even more concentrated mix of children (almost all boys) with more challenging behaviour and complex needs than in the past. This combination of delay, resource pressures, a more complex population and concerns about overall performance means that the new MMPR system is not yet being consistently implemented or achieving the intended outcomes. At this stage in the implementation of MMPR we welcome the significant improvements that it has brought to the national oversight of restraint and the greater focus on communication and de-escalation as part of a wider approach to behaviour management. The development of a consistent approach to restraint across all secure settings is itself an important improvement. However, some of what we have found has been too variable and sometimes very poor. Nevertheless, we have seen enough of when it does work to cautiously conclude it is an improvement on previous systems and that the foundations are there to enable further improvement still. The Youth Justice Board should continue with its implementation. While it is sometimes necessary to restrain children we share the view of others that there is no such thing as 'entirely safe' restraint. MMPR attempts to change the culture of behaviour management across the secure estate so that effective relationships and communication are used as a basis to reduce the use of force. Effective relationships are more difficult to establish in YOIs, which are larger than STCs and have lower staffing levels. Staff in YOIs spoke of the difficulty in forming these relationships during short association periods. Staff shortages had led to many staff being cross-deployed within YOIs or sent on detached duty to work at other establishments. In contrast, STC staff felt they had the time to form positive relationships with the children living on their unit. This is supported by the perceptions of children in our annual survey of children in custody - a significantly higher proportion of children in STCs than YOIs reported that staff treated them with respect; 93% in STCs compared with 70% in YOIs. We found that all establishments had implemented behaviour management plans for children with more challenging behaviour. This was progress. However, the criteria for implementing a behaviour management plan were not always clear and we were not satisfied that all children who needed a plan had one. Too many of the plans we saw were of a poor standard, not demonstrating adequate assessment, relevant targets or any review of the child's progress to enable staff to manage the most challenging children expertly. Some staff also commented that if they did not have the time to get to know a particular child, a written plan was of limited use. Children with medical or other conditions that could be affected by MMPR techniques could also have restraint handling plans put in place for them. It was positive that establishments dealing with more complex cases could now seek medical advice through the expert serious injuries and warning signs (SIWS) medical panel. However, we found potentially dangerous examples of staff not adhering to these plans during restraints. In general, staff were unfamiliar with the content of the plans; this was a serious oversight that could have led to significant injuries. In the YOIs and STCs we visited many children were unable to identify any difference between their experience of MMPR and previous behaviour management systems in terms of attempts made to reduce the incidence of restraint or actual restraint practice. While the accounts of children varied, the experience remained, for many, painful and distressing. The evidence from interviews with staff and children, MMPR documentation and our review of CCTV footage indicates that too many of the concerns identified with the previous practice remain. MMPR guidance outlines techniques staff can use to slow down and de-escalate a situation. Children's own experiences of de-escalation before and during restraint varied dramatically; some spoke of staff communicating throughout and making good efforts to calm them down while others reported that little effort was made before or during an incident. Despite staff recording the use of de-escalation in use of force reports, most CCTV footage we reviewed contained evidence of poor de-escalation, and some recordings showed staff intervening too quickly in response to minor incidents. We had particular concerns about the practice relating to restraining children on the floor, the application of head holds and the use of pain-inducing techniques. MMPR does not allow staff to take children to the floor intentionally during a restraint because of the medical risks this poses to the child. In nearly half of all the incidents we reviewed however, including 70% of those in YOIs, children ended up on the floor. We also had concerns about the continued misapplication of the head hold: in addition to the incidents described in this review, the SIWS medical panel has identified the incorrect application of this technique in a significant number of incidents that have resulted in SIWS referrals. We also identified unacceptable examples of children being strip searched under restraint in YOIs. Restraint policy agreed by ministers states that staff should only use pain as a last resort to prevent an immediate risk of serious physical harm, but we found that pain-inducing techniques were used frequently in YOIs, and that in most cases staff were not compliant with this requirement. It is notable that staff in STCs dealing with similar incidents did not use these techniques. We also found underreporting of the use of pain-inducing techniques in YOIs, reducing the effectiveness of local and national safeguards. We found no evidence to justify the deliberate infliction of pain as an approved technique. Within MMPR health care staff play an important role in safeguarding a child during a restraint. It was therefore unacceptable that some establishments did not call health care staff to all incidents. This undermined their role. In some cases, health care staff did not undertake a physical examination of a child after a restraint, instead carrying out this check through a locked door, which was inadequate to ensure the child's welfare. Support for children after a restraint also required improvement; children we interviewed told us that staff did not always speak to them after an incident to ensure they were okay. Structured post-restraint debriefs with children did not always take place, and when they did they varied in quality. They did not serve the purpose of encouraging helpful discussion about the restraint or looking at ways to help the child to improve their behaviour and prevent any further incidents. During this review we found a comprehensive system of national governance and oversight, and the introduction of dedicated MMPR coordinators to drive improvements in local practice was positive. Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons, 2015. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 22, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Behaviour-management-and-restraint-Web-2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2015/11/Behaviour-management-and-restraint-Web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 137652 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Inmates |
Author: Hart, Di Title: Tell them not to forget about us. A guide to practice with looked after children in custody Summary: This guide is aimed primarily at Children's Services Authorities1 to support their work with looked after children and care leavers who are imprisoned within Young Offender Institutions (YOIs). It will also be relevant for Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) and staff in YOIs. Although the research did not include Secure Training Centres (STCs), the messages about effective planning are equally applicable. It is written in recognition of the fact that a significant proportion of children in custody have been in the 'care' system at some point and are still entitled to social work support. This guide aims to support practice by providing: - key messages from 12 case studies of looked after children in prison - a model to assist social workers, YOTs and prison/STC staff to work together - briefing notes on aspects of child care and youth justice policy, research and practice - practical exercises and checklists - examples of good practice and protocols - a list of references and sources of information - templates for information-sharing, assessment and planning that are compatible with the Integrated Children's System. Details: London: National Children's Bureau, 2006. 90p. Source: Accessed February 29, 2016 at: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/441684/tell_them_not_to_forget_about_us_web.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/441684/tell_them_not_to_forget_about_us_web.pdf Shelf Number: 137989 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Great Britain. HM Chief Inspector of Prisons Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Heathrow Immigration Removal Centre - Harmondsworth site Summary: Harmondsworth immigration removal centre (IRC) is Europe's largest immigration detention facility, holding up to 661 male detainees. It is located a few hundred metres from Heathrow Airport and is run for the Home Office by Care and Custody, a division of the Mitie Group. Since the start of a new contract in September 2014, both Harmondsworth and the adjacent Colnbrook IRC have been under the same management. The centres are now known collectively as Heathrow IRC but are not yet integrated to the extent that they can be inspected as a single entity. Harmondsworth was last inspected in August 2013, when it was run by the GEO Group. At that time, we were concerned to find that uncertainty about the future of the contract had undermined progress and created an atmosphere of drift which was having a tangible negative impact on the treatment of and conditions for detainees. Many of the concerns that we identified in 2013 have not been rectified and in some respects matters have deteriorated. The lack of investment in the last stages of the previous contract was evidenced in particular by the appalling state of some of the residential units. While the decline had been arrested by the time of this inspection, the centre had not yet recovered and we identified substantial concerns in a number of areas. The vulnerability of the detainee population appeared to have increased since the last inspection. In our survey, 80% of men said that they had had problems on arrival and nearly half said they had felt depressed or suicidal. However, despite an improved reception environment, early days risk assessment processes were not good enough and the complex mix of detainees on the first night unit made it impossible for staff to provide a calm and supportive environment for people undergoing one of the most stressful periods of their lives. More detainees than at the last inspection also reported feeling unsafe or victimised, but safer custody structures to help managers to interrogate and address such concerns were underdeveloped. While use of force was not high and subject to good governance, some detainees were segregated for too long, and we were not assured that this serious measure was always justified or properly authorised. Many men were held for short periods but well over half were detained in the centre for over a month and some for very long periods. Eighteen detainees had been held for over a year and one man had been detained on separate occasions adding up to a total of five years. The quality of Rule 35 reports was variable but nearly a fifth of these reports had identified illnesses, suicidal intentions and/or experiences of torture that contributed to the Home Office concluding that detention could not be justified. This unusually large number reflects the vulnerabilities identified in our survey. The centre has a mix of older and newer, prison-like accommodation. Some of the newer accommodation was dirty and run down but the condition of some parts of the older units was among the worst in the detention estate; many toilets and showers were in a seriously insanitary condition and many rooms were overcrowded and poorly ventilated. An extensive programme of refurbishment was underway, the impact of which we will report on in future inspections. The centre should never have been allowed to reach this state. We saw little positive engagement between staff and detainees, and staff had too little understanding of the backgrounds and needs of the people in their care. There has been little discernible change in this finding over the course of the previous three inspections, suggesting a need to address the issue through concerted long-term work. Equality and diversity work was improving but outcomes were still poor overall. Detainees had very little faith in the complaints procedure. Health care was recovering from a low base but substantial concerns remained - for example, over medicines management. The chaplaincy provided valued support for detainees and the cultural kitchen was a positive development. Given the importance of constructive activity to detainees' mental health and well-being, it was surprising that activity places were underused. Despite some improvements in access to activities, movements were still too restricted which affected detainees' ability to reach the available resources. There was less work available and poor use was made of some recreational facilities. Only a third of detainees said they could fill their time at the centre. By contrast, the centre had substantially improved preparation for release and removal, and had engaged particularly well with some third-sector agencies. Welfare work had improved and Hibiscus Initiatives offered practical assistance in preparing detainees for discharge. Visits provision was generally good and many detainees received support from the local visitors group, Detention Action. Overall, while this report describes some good work, it highlights substantial concerns in most of our tests of a healthy custodial establishment. While the state of drift that we described in our last report has been arrested and the direction of travel is now positive, it is unacceptable that conditions were allowed to decline so much towards the end of the last contract. The Home Office and its contractors have a responsibility to ensure that this is not allowed to happen again. Following the inspection, we were informed by the Home office that lessons had been learned and that a new set of principles were established to prevent a recurrence of this situation. We will assess the success of these measurements in due course. Details: London: HM Chief Inspector of Prisons, 2016. 98p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 4, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/02/Harmondsworth-web-2015.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/02/Harmondsworth-web-2015.pdf Shelf Number: 138041 Keywords: Detention CentersIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrants |
Author: Marin County Civil Grand Jury Title: Marin County Juvenile Hall: A Time for a Change Summary: Marin County has experienced a significant decline in juvenile detention in recent years. Despite this decline, the cost of operating Marin County's 40-bed Juvenile Hall (JH) has not decreased and continues to be approximately $4,000,000 annually. Because the number of offenders has dwindled, the County's net cost per detainee per day has risen astronomically. To illustrate, the Average Daily Cost (ADC) to house and care for each detained JH youth rose during the past three years (2011-2014) from $464 to $901.64 because the Average Daily Population (ADP) declined from 18.9 to 9.2 detained youths. As a result, the Marin County Grand Jury recommends that Marin County and the Marin County Probation Department (MCPD) negotiate a contract for juvenile detention services with a neighboring county at a reduced cost and reallocate the savings towards expansion of Alternatives to Detention (ATDs), which are in the best interests of Marin youth. The Grand Jury also recommends that Marin County and MCPD consider other uses for this facility. The Grand Jury learned that Marin's decline in juvenile detention is consistent with a major nationwide paradigm shift away from incarceration. Research indicates that detention does not serve youth well, and community-based ATDs, particularly non-residential programming options, deliver equal or better results for a fraction of the cost. Further, the use of risk assessment tools has eliminated the need to confine the majority of Marin's juvenile offenders. Decriminalization of marijuana possession has also significantly reduced arrests and detention. Detentions of juvenile offenders in Marin County's JH decreased from 1,674 in 1995 to 253 in 2014, and its Average Daily Population (ADP) declined 69% in the past decade, from 30 in 2005 to 9.2 in 2014. The median length of stay for youth in the JH is brief, just 8.4 days in 2014. With California's Title 15 mandated staffing requirements to assure safety, security, education, rehabilitation and healthcare in juvenile facilities, most JH operating costs are fixed. MCPD informed the Grand Jury that JH is required to maintain a staff approximating 21 full-time, part-time and on-call personnel irrespective of a variable average daily census. Thus, as detentions decline, costs per detainee increase, while overall costs remain the same. Although California requires every county to have a juvenile hall, it permits two or more counties to operate a joint juvenile hall. According to the California Board of State and Community Corrections, Marin County can satisfy its juvenile detention obligation by contracting with another county for placement of its detainees. The Grand Jury learned from numerous counties that such contracts currently range from $85 to $190 per youth per day. This contracted daily rate may or may not include inter-county transportation costs and certain health care costs, as applicable. Details: San Rafael, CA:Marin County Civil Grand Jury, 2015. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 18, 2016 at: http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2014/juvenile-hall.pdf?la=en Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.marincounty.org/~/media/files/departments/gj/reports-responses/2014/juvenile-hall.pdf?la=en Shelf Number: 138330 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeDetention CentersJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Amnesty International Title: "If You See It, You Will Cry": Life and Death in Giwa Barracks Summary: Eleven children under the age of six, including four babies, are among 149 people who have died this year following their detention in horrendous conditions in the notorious Giwa barracks detention center in Maiduguri, Nigeria, Amnesty International reveals today. Evidence gathered through interviews with former detainees and eyewitnesses, supported by video and photos, shows many detainees may have died from disease, hunger, dehydration, and gunshots wounds. The briefing,'If you see it, you will cry': Life and death in Giwa barracks, also contains satellite imagery which corroborates witness testimonies. Details: London: AI, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 19, 2016 at: https://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/if_you_see_it_you_will_cry.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Nigeria URL: https://www.amnesty.nl/sites/default/files/public/if_you_see_it_you_will_cry.pdf Shelf Number: 139100 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile Detention |
Author: Bruce, Katie Title: Evaluation Report: Community Exchange project between detainees at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre and young people at West London YMCA Summary: The report explores the project's impacts on participants' well-being and resilience, awareness and understanding, and musical skills. Based on observations, questionnaires, interviews and focus groups, it contains a wealth of detail about the creative process and the experience of participants. The report also looks at the project as an example of inclusive practice, examining what made it succeed and what could be done to improve outcomes further. It puts forward a number of recommendations for Music In Detention and the wider sector, broken down into three categories: concept, planning and delivery. This report follows a community exchange that took place during the months of March and April 2015 between detainees at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre, Heathrow and young people at West London YMCA in Hayes. The musicians facilitating this project were: - Yiannis Zaronis, an experienced MID musician originally from Greece. Yiannis is a multi-instrumentalist who specialises in a variety of instruments, including guitar, mandolin, bouzouki and darbuka. - Yiannis was joined for four out of the six sessions by Oliver Seager, a new artist to MID on his first community exchange project. Oliver is a singer songwriter, rapper and producer releasing his own material under his stage name, Kotchin. - For the other two sessions Yiannis was joined by MID musicians Tea Hodzic and Shammi Pithia. This report seeks to profile Music in Detention's approach to working in detention centres and with vulnerable young people; assess the works' musical and social outcomes; and evaluate how this work supports inclusivity in the borough of Hillingdon, including recommendations relevant to the wider arts sector. Details: Bedford, UK: Music in Detention and Sound Connections , 2015. 46p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 1, 2016 at: http://www.artsevidence.org.uk/media/uploads/mid-sc-evaluation-report-final.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.artsevidence.org.uk/media/uploads/mid-sc-evaluation-report-final.pdf Shelf Number: 139906 Keywords: Arts in PrisonsArts ProgramsAt-Risk YouthDetention CentersImmigrant DetentionMusic ProgramsRehabilitation Programs |
Author: Northern Territory. Children's Commissioner Title: Own Initiative Investigation Report Services Provided by the Department of Correctional Services at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre Summary: JURISDICTION This investigation was conducted in accordance with Section 10(1)(a)(ii) of the Children's Commissioner Act 2013 (the Act) which allows the Commissioner, on his own initiative, to investigate a matter which may form the grounds for a complaint. The grounds for a complaint are defined under Section 21(1)(a)&(b) of the Act which states that the Children's Commissioner can investigate complaints relating to services provided or that might reasonably be expected to be provided, for vulnerable children. . The services investigated must be provided by either 'a public authority', or another person, or body acting for or under an arrangement with a public authority that has taken or is taking action in relation to the child as a vulnerable child. FORMALITIES There are a number of relevant legislative regimes that apply to the young persons referred to in this report. For the sake of convenience, and despite the terminology differing in each piece of legislation, including 'youth' , 'child' , 'vulnerable child' and 'youth detainee' or ' youth prisoner' , this report will use the phrase young person. BACKGROUND TO INVESTIGATION The decision to conduct this self-initiated investigation was made by the former Children’s Commissioner, Dr Howard Bath, and was based on events that occurred at the Don Dale Youth Detention Centre ('Don Dale') in the Behaviour Management Unit ('BMU') between 4 and 21 August 2014. On 12 August 2014, concerns were raised by a professional stakeholder on behalf of five young persons who were in detention. The complaint related to the alleged indefinite nature of the confinement in the BMU, and the unhygienic living conditions of the environment. It was the complainant's opinion that the conditions were 'inhumane' as young persons were being held in solitary confinement in cramped and darkened cells, for up to 23 hours a day. There were also concerns about the long term impact this could have on the five young persons' psychological and physical well-being. Details: Darwin: The Commissioner, 2015. 61p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2016 at: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.childrenscommissioner.nt.gov.au/publications/Childrens%20Commissioner%20DDYDC%20-%20Report%20to%20Minister%20170915.pdf Shelf Number: 147318 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesSolitary Confinement |
Author: Great Britain. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Children in Custody 2015-16: An analysis of 12–18-year-olds’ perceptions of their experiences in secure training centres and young offender institutions Summary: This independent report by HM Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP), commissioned by the Youth Justice Board (YJB), presents the findings from 767 questionnaires completed by children detained at every secure training centre (STC) (N=3) and young offender institution (YOI) (N=5; plus a separate specialist unit at one site) between 1 April 2015 and 12 April 2016. All surveys were conducted to support unannounced inspections of each establishment. The surveys enable comparisons to be made with the results from 2014–15 and between children with different characteristics or experiences. Surveys have been conducted in YOIs since 2001–02 and in some cases, where the same question has been asked consistently, we can identify trends over the full length of that period. The number of children in custody fell by 53% between 2010–11 and 2015–16, made up largely by falls observed in the number of children held in YOIs (down 59%). Over the longer term, the secure children's estate population has fallen by 66% since 2005–06. In relation to STCs, our survey findings during 2015–16 show that: • the proportion who identified as being from a black or other minority ethnic background was 41%; • the proportion who identified as Muslim was 15%; • the proportion who said they were from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background was 12%; • nearly a quarter of children (23%) reported feeling unsafe at some point since their arrival at the STC and 10% felt unsafe at the time of the inspection – those children who reported having ever felt unsafe also reported poorer experiences than those who had not; • almost a third of children (31%) reported being victimised by being shouted at through windows; • compared with last year, children were significantly less likely to say that it was explained to them why they were being searched on their arrival at the STC (74% compared with 86%); that the search had been carried out respectfully (85% compared with 95%); or that they had spoken to someone about how they were feeling on their first night in the centre (66% compared with 79%). In relation to YOIs, our survey findings during 2015–16 show that: • forty-seven per cent of the boys were from a black or minority ethnic background, the highest rate recorded during our time inspecting the secure estate; • those with experience of the local authority care system (37%), Muslim boys (22%), boys reporting a disability (19%) and those identifying as being from a Gypsy, Romany or Traveller background (7%) continued to be disproportionately over-represented across the YOI estate when compared with the population as a whole; • when asked if they had ever felt unsafe at their establishment, 46% of boys said they had, again the highest figure we have recorded through our surveys; • in the last 12 months there was a significant increase in the proportion of boys who reported being victimised by other detainees (35% compared with 26% in 2014–15) or members of staff (32% compared with 25% in 2014–15);• children who had ever felt unsafe were more likely than other children to report that they: considered shouting through windows to be a problem at their establishment; arrived there with gang problems; did not feel that they were treated with respect by staff; could not talk to someone when they needed to (like a chaplain, peer mentor, member of the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB), or an advocate); and had more problems upon arrival at their YOI, suggesting that strategies to help children feel safer should focus on addressing these issues; • there was a significant fall in the proportion of boys who felt YOI staff treated them with respect (only 63% compared with 70% in 2014–15); • the proportion of boys with a job in their establishment had fallen significantly in the last 12 months (16% compared with 28% in 2014–15); • the proportion of boys engaged in a job (16%), vocational training (11%) and offending behaviour programmes (16%) across the YOI estate was lower in 2015–16 than at any point since 2010–11. Comparing YOI and STC survey responses for 2015–16 showed that children held in STCs were significantly more likely to report that they felt treated with respect by staff, that complaints were sorted fairly and that the food was 'good' or 'very good'. They were also less likely to report that they had been restrained or that they had felt unsafe at the cen Details: London: HM Inspectorate of Prisons; Youth Justice Board, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 18, 2016 at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Children-in-Custody-2015-16_WEB.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprisons/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2016/11/Children-in-Custody-2015-16_WEB.pdf Shelf Number: 147949 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionJuvenile InmatesJuvenile Offenders |
Author: Hradilova-Selin, Klara Title: Reducing isolation in detention: Situation and proposals Summary: Each year, between 9,000 and 10,000 persons in Sweden are held in detention. The average detention period is two months and, in 2015, almost 500 persons were in detention for at least six months. Slightly more than two-thirds of the persons in detention are subject to restrictions which isolate them from both the outside world and from other persons in detention. Of the persons who were in detention in 2015, 140 were children between 15 and 17 years of age. They are customarily detained for a shorter period than adults and, on the average, for one month. On the other hand, it is more common for this group than for adults to be subject to restrictions – specifically, in a full 81% of the cases. Since the 1990s, Sweden has been the object of criticism from both the UN and the Council of Europe because such a significant number of persons in detention are in isolation by virtue of a decision regarding restrictions. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has also criticised Sweden's isolation of children who are placed in detention and custody, and has exhorted Sweden to immediately cease isolation for all children and to amend its legislation to prohibit the isolation of children. In this light, the Government appointed several committees during 2015 in respect of detention and the conditions in Swedish detention centres. The Detention and Restrictions Committee (Häktes- och restriktionsutredningen) was appointed for the purpose of submitting proposals aimed at reducing the use of detention and restrictions. The committee submitted its report in August of 2016. In addition, Brå was instructed to study detention and conditions in detention centres, which is the subject of this report. Details: Stockholm: Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå), 2017. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: English summary of Brå report 2017:6: Accessed February 17, 2017 at: https://www.bra.se/download/18.4a33c027159a89523b15ded3/1486540817077/2017_6_Reducing_isolation_in_detention.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Sweden URL: https://www.bra.se/download/18.4a33c027159a89523b15ded3/1486540817077/2017_6_Reducing_isolation_in_detention.pdf Shelf Number: 141067 Keywords: Detention CentersIsolation Restrictive Housing Solitary Confinement |
Author: Sauls, Heidi Title: Young Boys Behind Bars: An ethnographic study of violence and care in South Africa Summary: This thesis is the result of an ethnographic study which had as its topic young boys who were awaiting trial for criminal activities behind bars in a secure care facility in South Africa. The chapters introduce some of the boys to the reader through case studies providing information about, who they are where they come from, why they were institutionalised and glimpses of what they endured in their daily lives outside the institution. The core of the thesis describes the social composition of a secure care facility and the daily activities and interactions that take place within its walls. We follow the boys in the trajectories they took inside and outside the criminal justice system, obtaining glimpses of the families, communities and staff with whom they come into contact. Overall, the study was guided by three main research questions. How are sociocultural and legal-political perceptions of violent children reflected in the infrastructural arrangements and regulations of places of safety (secure care facilities)? How are boys' daily lives in places of safety enacted? And how do institutionalised boys perceive themselves inside and outside the institution? The methodology of the study was steered by the structures of confinement of the secure care facility in which it was conducted. This type of institution functions simultaneously as a setting geared towards the safekeeping, caring and betterment of inmates and as a place of incarceration for keeping society at large safe from them. The emphasis of the study was on providing the reader with an in-depth understanding of these boys and the micro-world of the institution in which they find themselves. Central to the project were boys' own accounts of their lives, experiences, perceptions, aspirations and the reasons why they followed various strategies in navigating their social relations with staff and peers. Adopting this ethnographic perspective allowed for a thick description of day-to-day interactions in the institution. We start off with a description of the heavily bounded institution and how the mere process of gaining access to the boys and the institution was governed by strict rules and mediated by gatekeepers. Physically, the institution looked closed, imprisoning insiders and controlling access by outsiders; socially, its anatomy seemed fixed and hierarchical. However, the more data one acquires, the greater the number of cracks appeared in this image of inflexibility. The thesis then describes what happens when a new boy is admitted to the institution, the daily negotiations he is involved in during the early period of his incarceration, and the intricate social dynamics between the new and seasoned boys. Here, I highlighted the emotional turmoil that new boys frequently experience when having to transition from their communities and enter the facility. The process of being admitted and settling into the institution is intricate and volatile. The potential risks these new admissions are exposed to include verbal, physical and sexual abuse by their peers. What is commonly perceived as bullying, unnecessary violence and intimidation by others is a complex negotiation process for currency of power and the forging of hierarchical relationships between the incarcerated boys; of which new and seasoned boys are vulnerable. In the facility, it also became clear how power is fluid and ever-changing. Boys are found to constantly reflect upon their own positions in the hierarchy and institution and actively negotiate their status by acting upon other boys and staff. However, in the end power inequalities between boys and staff restrict their negotiating power. It is then revealed that once a boy is incarcerated, he is not permanently labelled a criminal. Rather, we see how perceiving and labelling (making and unmaking) incarcerated children as criminals or non-criminals is a fluid and negotiable process. It is the daily interactions among boys and staff in the institution that determines a boy's criminal status. These interactions are heavily influenced by subjective, moral appraisals by staff of a boy's behaviour. Daily interactions that determine boys' identities are also heavily dependent on the conditions (such as resources and competences) and contexts in which these interactions take place. Overall, the production and reproduction of labels related to a boy being a criminal or not influences and determines the management and experiences of the child in and outside the institution. It also influences the manner in which the boys respond to others and their environment. Such labelling of boys does not only influence how they are dealt with inside the institution but also the future decisions that either result in longer imprisonment or discharge from the institution. Yet, what appeared to be a distinct difference between the staff members who were assumed to possess power with clearly assigned roles compared to the boys, who were perceived as children, in need of adult care and supervision, in practice, it was evident that staff members use their power and interact with the boys very differently. This was clearly highlighted in the example of two staff members, reared in different ethnic groups, and their interaction with the boys. It was also interesting to witness how the different staff members' interaction developed and affected the boys. Here, I was able to explore the multiple dimensions that are at stake in the institutional interactions between staff and inmates on the ground, allowing for a fluidity of roles not covered by the classical picture of a clear distinction between staff members and inmates. How the staff members have been socialised in their own communities, what they expect of boys' behaviour, and what boys expect of them, do play a role in the interactions I observed. Factors such as the level of education, personal background and personality traits also influenced the interaction between the staff members and boys. I have shown how these differences are acted out in specific contexts within the daily life of the institution and how it leads to widely differing restrictions and opportunities for boys to act and express themselves, sometimes varying over the day, when shifts of caretakers replace one another. In contrast to the image of a total institution where rigid rules determine the relations between staff and inmates, this study displays the fluidity of the roles and positions of the boys and staff and how the various individuals enact and play out a particular image in particular interactions. Likewise, the study illustrates that there is a variety of ways that boys respond to their assigned position, of powerless children, in need of care. Occasionally, as we have seen, there is a relatively strong blurring of presupposed institutional identities. A striking example is the role-reversal in terms of caring. In the pre-institutional lives of the boys, in many ways, they exerted violence from a certain position of power, and many of them do not give up that position entirely within the institution. It is possible that it might also be the caring role the boys performed in their pre-institutional life (for instance, for their mother and other close family members) that influenced their role-playing in terms of care for certain staff members and for their peers. Caring for others, especially women, is related to the boys' perceptions of masculinity and their social roles as men, and taking up caring roles in the institution is what from their perspective, males are supposed to do. In short, staff and boys act and interact in the institution based on social dispositions, cultural backgrounds, educational levels and personality structures that they also displayed in their lives outside the institution. How strict or permeable the boundaries between social life inside and outside the institution, and between the roles and positions officially assigned to staff and boys, prove to be are context specific Details: Amsterdam: Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research , 2015. 135p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 10, 2017 at: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2482251/157427_Sauls_thesis_with_cover.pdf Year: 2015 Country: South Africa URL: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/2482251/157427_Sauls_thesis_with_cover.pdf Shelf Number: 144763 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile InmatesJuvenile OffendersPrison Violenc |
Author: Small, Mary Title: A Toxic Relationship: Private Prisons and U.S. Immigration Detention Summary: A new report, A Toxic Relationship: Private Prisons and U.S. Immigration Detention, by Detention Watch Network (DWN) builds on the overwhelming evidence that the privatization of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention exacerbates due process violations, egregious conditions and transparency concerns that are endemic to the immigration detention system. In addition, the report amplifies the experiences of 42 individuals who were or are held in privately-run detention centers. The report comes as the Homeland Security Advisory Council subcommittee presents its findings later today from an investigation into the use of private prisons for ICE detention. Regardless of the subcommittee's findings, A Toxic Relationship shows that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) secretary, Jeh Johnson already has the evidence he needs to severe ties with private prison companies, a crucial step that the Department of Justice announced it is taking earlier this year. Over 73 percent of immigrants held in ICE custody are incarcerated in facilities operated by private companies. The two largest and most notorious companies, The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) and Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), which is currently attempting a re-brand, have well documented track records of abuse, mismanagement and neglect. Both companies are heavily lobbying the federal government in the hopes of increasing their bottom line as detention numbers climb to over 40,000 people behind bars. In 2015, CCA and GEO received $765 million for immigration detention - more than double the $307 million they received in 2008. The report details four fundamental problems with the use of privately-run detention centers, as our research indicates that private contractors: Seek to maximize profits by cutting costs -- and subsequently critical services -- at the expense of people's health, safety and overall well-being; Are not accountable, and often do not bear any consequences when they fail to meet the terms of their contracts; Exert undue influence over government officials, and push to maintain and expand the immigration detention system; Are not transparent, and in fact, fight hard to obscure the details of their contracts and operations from the American public. The issues of cost-cutting and indifference towards immigrant lives was reaffirmed just this week as news broke of two more deaths at privately-run detention centers over Thanksgiving weekend, bringing this year's total to 12. Raquel Calderon de Hildago died at the CCA operated Eloy Detention Center in Arizona on November 27th and Esmerio Campos died at the GEO operated South Texas Detention Complex (Pearsall) in Texas on November 25th. Recent investigations into deaths in immigration detention have found that inadequate medical care at detention centers has contributed to numerous deaths, and shine a particular spotlight on Eloy - the deadliest detention center in the country. The lack of transparency is clearly demonstrated by DWN and the Center for Constitutional Rights' ongoing Freedom of Information Lawsuit with the federal government. In July, a federal judge ruled that under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the government must release details of its contracts with private prison companies. The government chose not to appeal, but the private prison companies intervened to stop the release and filed an appeal of their own. This latest tactic by GEO and CCA to obscure the details of their contracts and operations from the American public demonstrates the dangerous degree to which they feel entitled to influence the government and block public's right to know what their government is doing. Details: Washington, DC: Detention Watch Network, 2016. 19p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 26, 2017 at: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/A%20Toxic%20Relationship_DWN.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org/sites/default/files/reports/A%20Toxic%20Relationship_DWN.pdf Shelf Number: 145811 Keywords: Detention CentersImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementPrivate PrisonsPrivatization |
Author: Ackermann, Marilize Title: Survey of Detention Visiting Mechanisms in Africa Summary: People held in places of detention are at risk of suffering violations of human rights because they are usually detained out of sight and their well-being is not prioritised by states. Domestic and international laws prescribe the procedures through which and conditions under which people may be held in detention. The function of detention oversight institutions is to ensure that state institutions comply with these human rights laws and are held accountable for any non-compliance. In most democracies which embrace the separation of powers, Parliament exercises oversight over the implementation of laws. Ministers and Cabinet are collectively answerable to Parliament for the implementation of and adherence to laws, primarily through the mechanisms of public reports made available to Parliament and the answering of Parliamentary questions, which may lead to the removal from office of ministers or state officials. Because of the particular risks posed by places of detention, traditional Parliamentary oversight has been supplemented by additional institutions exercising detention oversight employing a variety of oversight mechanisms. Some of these have arisen from international law while others are established by domestic laws. Two supra-national international oversight institutions have arisen though the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) and the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture (OPCAT): - UNCAT creates the Committee against Torture (CAT), which monitors implementation of UNCAT through four mechanisms: the submission of regular reports by state parties; the considering of individual complaints or communications from individuals claiming that their rights under the Convention have been violated the undertaking of inquiries; and the considering of inter-state complaints. - OPCAT creates the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture (SPT), which has a mandate to visit places where persons are deprived of their liberty in the states which are party to OPCAT. In addition, OPCAT requires that states that are party to OPCAT designate or establish an independent "national preventive mechanism" (NPM) for the prevention of torture at domestic level. NPMs need not consist of a single institution, but must have the mandate to inspect places of detention, monitor the treatment of and conditions for detainees and make recommendations regarding the prevention of ill-treatment. NPMs must also publish an annual report. African states which are party to OPCAT have designated existing National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) as their (NPM). The term "National Human Rights Institution" refers to independent state-funded institutions which promote and monitor the effective implementation of international human rights standards at national level and which comply with the Paris Principles. The Paris Principles do not explicitly require NHRIs to have a mandate to visit places of detention; however designation of an NHRI as a state's NPM would require the NHRI to have such a mandate. Regionally, a supra-national oversight institution in the form of the Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa has arisen. It has the mandate to visit places of detention. The Committee for the Prevention of Torture in Africa, another regional body, is not strictly an oversight institution but seeks to support the development of national institutions. At national level, there exist detention oversight institutions specifically mandated to oversee places of detention, such as South Africa's Judicial Inspectorate of Correctional Services. There also exist rights institutions which have broad mandates, such NHRIs and Public Protectors (or Ombudspersons), whose mandates nevertheless may include responsibility for exerting oversight over places of detention. Broader mandates still, such as those of Parliament and the judiciary, may also include obligations to exert oversight over detention. All of these institutions may employ a range of mechanisms in carrying out detention oversight. Monitoring of places of detention through visits is one of the most important methods employed by oversight institutions or institutions which have oversight functions. Other methods may include compulsory reporting systems (for example, on deaths or punishments in custody), and complaints receiving systems. Associated oversight powers accorded to oversight institutions may include the power to make public reports and to: conduct investigations, make recommendations, impose disciplinary proceedings, and refer cases of abuse for prosecution. The extent to which oversight institutions are independent of the state and of the institutions over which they seek to exert oversight varies, as do the mechanisms of oversight and accountability with which they are empowered. This report seeks to describe selected oversight institutions and the oversight mechanisms they have adopted in Africa, in order to better understand detention oversight in Africa. This report also seeks to survey what monitoring and oversight have uncovered regarding conditions of detention in Africa. Details: South Africa: Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, Community Law Centre, 2013. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/survey-of-detention-visiting-mechanisms-in-africa Year: 2013 Country: Africa URL: http://acjr.org.za/resource-centre/survey-of-detention-visiting-mechanisms-in-africa Shelf Number: 146695 Keywords: Detention CentersHuman Rights AbusesPretrial DetentionPreventive DetentionPrison Visitation |
Author: Rodriguez, Alicia Title: Unwelcome Visitors: Challenges faced by people visiting immigration detention Summary: Every day, ordinary Australians visit people detained in Australia's onshore immigration detention facilities. This is an important and often under-appreciated role. These visitors provide emotional support to people in detention, advocate on their behalf and fill in the gaps that exist in provision of services and information in immigration detention facilities. It is not easy to visit people in immigration detention, to hear their stories and to speak up for those who are the victims of Australia's current punitive approach to people seeking asylum. Visiting immigration detention facilities takes time, energy and commitment, and often has a significant impact on the wellbeing of visitors. Yet, all too often, we hear some politicians and media outlets falsely blaming these visitors and advocates for encouraging people to harm themselves or to disobey rules. Over the past year, the Refugee Council of Australia (RCOA) has increasingly heard from these visitors that security conditions in immigration detention facilities are being intensified and it is now more difficult to visit people in immigration detention. Correspondingly, people in immigration detention are becoming increasingly isolated from the wider community, with negative impacts on their mental and physical wellbeing. These concerns led us to conduct a national study to explore these issues further. This report is the result of our extensive research and consultations with detention visitors and people previously held in detention. It explores the challenges faced by people when trying to access detention facilities, including: constantly changing rules and their inconsistent application difficulties in arranging a visit, including searches and drug tests lack of adequate space in visitor rooms in some facilities arbitrary rules and intensified security conditions that make visits less friendly, and specific challenges faced by religious visitors. This report identifies the impacts of those difficulties on both visitors and people detained and puts forward a number of recommendations to address those challenges. This report showcases the spirit of volunteerism in Australia, presenting the accounts of many volunteers who continue visiting detention facilities despite difficulties, so they can bring people hope and get their voices and concerns heard. People who visit immigration detention often provide the only public information about what is happening in our immigration detention facilities. This is because Australia does not have an official national body that publicly and regularly reports on visits to immigration detention facilities. The Refugee Council of Australia welcomes the Australian Government's commitment to ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) by the end of 201 We hope that this will result in greater scrutiny of immigration detention and ultimately better treatment of those in detention. Details: Sydney: Refugee Council of Australia, 2017. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 2/17: Accessed August 4, 2017 at: http://apo.org.au/system/files/100721/apo-nid100721-409001.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: http://apo.org.au/system/files/100721/apo-nid100721-409001.pdf Shelf Number: 146696 Keywords: Asylum SeekersDetention CentersImmigrant DetentionImmigration EnforcementPrison VisitorsRefugees |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Code Red: The Fatal Consequences of Dangerously Substandard Medical Care in Immigration Detention Summary: On the morning that Jose Azurdia died, an officer at the Adelanto Detention Facility in California told a nurse Mr. Azurdia was ill and vomiting. The nurse told him "she did not want to see Azurdia because she did not want to get sick." This began a series of unconscionable delays in getting Mr. Azurdia care for what turned out to be a fatal heart attack. Thongchay Saengsiri suffered from the symptoms of congestive heart failure for most of the 15 months he was detained at the LaSalle Detention Facility in Lousiana, including fainting, swelling, anemia, coughing, and shortness of breath. Instead of properly diagnosing and treating these classic symptoms, a nurse recommended he increase his fluid intake, which likely increased his risk of heart failure. Rafael Barcenas Padilla died from bronchopneumonia after a delay in transferring him to the hospital from the Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico, where nurses recorded his dangerous low oxygen levels over the course of three days that should have prompted immediate hospitalization. More people died in immigration detention in fiscal year 2017 than any year since 2009, and the most recent detailed information we have about immigration detention deaths shows that they are still linked to dangerously inadequate medical care. This report, a joint effort of four organizations that have long worked to advance the rights of detained immigrants, analyzes publicly-released government investigations known as Detainee Death Reviews of 15 deaths in immigration detention from December 2015 to April 2017, which represent all but one of the deaths reported during that period. At least two independent physicians with expertise in correctional health separately reviewed each file for us and concluded that substandard medical care contributed or led to eight of the 15 deaths, including the deaths of Mr. Azurdia, Mr. Saengsiri, and Mr. Barcenas. In all but one of the 15 deaths we analyzed for this report, our experts found evidence of subpar and dangerous practices including unreasonable delays, poor practitioner and nursing care, and botched emergency response. In line with cases we have previously documented, one of the 15 cases involved the suicide of a person with a psychosocial disability who was inappropriately placed in isolation. As we have noted in previous analyses of Detainee Death Reviews, the reviews do not constitute a representative sample of detainee healthcare outcomes but the fact that the same types of healthcare and oversight failures are present in so many of them point to larger, systemic deficits in immmigration detention facility health care. The lapses occur in both publicly and privately run facilities, and are not being addressed by existing oversight and monitoring systems. As detailed below, we believe these deficits warrant immediate attention and action by Congress, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and state and local governments that have authority over the facilities. The past 25 years have seen an unrelenting expansion of ICE's network of immigration jails in the United States. In 1994, on any given day approximately 6,800 people were held in immigration custody in civil detention awaiting action on their deportation cases. That number steadily increased over the years, hovering between 28,000 and 34,000 for most of the past decade. After a spike over the past two years beginning under the Obama administration, detention numbers are now at highs previously unimaginable. In fiscal year 2017, ICE held a daily average of nearly 40,500 people. The Trump administration has asked Congress to allocate US$2.8 billion for Fiscal Year 2019 to lock up a daily average of 52,000 immigrants in immigration detention facilities, a record number representing nearly 30 percent expansion over the previous year. Despite President Trump's repeated statements painting immigrants as dangerous, the vast majority of the detained population-71 percent as of the first month of fiscal year 2018-were mandatorily detained with no individualized consideration of whether they posed a risk or should be detained. ICE itself classified 51 percent of the detained population in that month, the last for which we have data, as posing "no threat." Along with new growth in immigration detention, the Trump administration has requested less money for Department of Homeland Security (DHS) oversight of detention to assure that conditions of confinement are safe, indicating that it plans to abandon basic standards developed over the past decade intended to protect the health, safety, and human rights of those held in immigration detention centers. These proposals would place more human beings than ever before into an abusive and wasteful system that already suffers from substandard medical care. Since March 2010, ICE has reported a total of 74 deaths in immigration detention, completing and at least partially releasing death reviews in 52 of them (death reviews were either not completed or have not been released in the remaining 22 cases). Medical experts-including the independent physicians who analyzed 33 of the reviews and government-contracted subject matter experts who recorded their conclusions directly in other detainee death reviews-have determined that medical care lapses contributed or led to 23 deaths in 19 different detention facilities since March 2010. However, most of the Detainee Death Reviews we have examined since 2010 include evidence of dangerous and subpar medical care practices. ICE, the agency with authority over the United States' sprawling system of immigration detention centers, has proven unable or unwilling to provide adequately for the health and safety of those it detains. Oversight and accountability mechanisms have too often failed, and the current administration's proposal to weaken existing standards will further endanger lives. This is the third report in which our organizations have found that significant numbers of the deaths in detention are linked to inadequate medical care in detention. In light of these consistent findings and the continuing rapid expansion of immigration detention, Congress should immediately act to curtail the abuses by: pressing ICE to decrease rather than expand detention; demanding robust health, safety, and human rights standards for all types of immigration detention facilities; and monitoring and engaging in strong oversight through frequent information requests, hearings, and investigations. States and localities have a role to play as well by declining to contract with detention facilities in their jurisdictions, and creating state and local monitoring programs to expose abuse in detention and provide accountability. Details: New YorK: HRW, 2018. 79p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2018 at: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/us0618_web2.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/us0618_web2.pdf Shelf Number: 150601 Keywords: Deaths in Custody Detention Centers Detention CentersHealth Care Human Rights Abuses Illegal Immigrants Immigrant Detention Immigrants Immigration Enforcement Immigration Policy Medical Care |
Author: Parliamentary Ombudsman, The, Norway Title: Visit Report: The Klokkergarden Collective 6-8 June 2017 Summary: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's National Preventive Mechanism (NPM) visited the Klokkergarden Collective "Klokkergardenkollektivet" on 6-8 June 2017. The Klokkergarden collective is one of several long-term institutions under the foundation "Stiftelsen Klokkergarden". The foundation was established in 1980 with the objective to rehabilitate young people with substance abuse and behavioural problems. The Klokkergarden Collective is in Asnes municipality in Hedmark county and can accommodate 15 persons between the ages of 13 and 18. The institution is approved for placement without the young person's consent. The physical surroundings at the collective appeared to be good, and there seems to be a broad range of activities on offer for the young people, both at and outside the institution. The Parliamentary Ombudsman also had the impression that the young people were given good opportunities to help to decide which activities they wanted to participate in. The institution also had good procedures in place for safeguarding the health of the young people upon arrival and during their stay. The collective had made few administrative decisions on the use of force in the past year. However, the institution made many decisions to limit freedom of movement and the use of electronic means of communication in 2016. It seemed that such decisions were made routinely when the young people arrived at the institution. It was also found during the visit that the record-keeping practice had potential for improvement. A review revealed shortcomings in the records, including the fact that any alternative measures that had been considered/tried before the use of force were rarely recorded. It was also found that the institution had a practice of grounding the young people in their rooms if they overslept. This is a clear violation of young people's right to autonomy and privacy and increases the risk of them feeling isolated. Those who overslept in the morning and failed to appear downstairs by 8.45 had to stay in their rooms for the rest of the day. This included having to eat their meals in their rooms. Nor were they allowed to participate in social activities organised outside the house. No administrative decision was made regarding this restriction even if the grounding involved a clear restriction on the young people's freedom of movement inside and outside the institution. The Klokkergarden Collective had a practice of taking the young people on what they referred to as 'motivational trips' as part of their treatment. According to the institution plan, the purpose of such trips is to enable the young people to concentrate on working on conflicts or problems that have developed quickly or over time, without being disturbed. The institution stated that the motivational trip meant that 'a young person leaves the institution together with two adults for a limited period in order to keep an overview of and focus on special tasks.' The institution plan lists four main reasons for organising a motivational trip: reintegration after an escape; special care of a young person after substance abuse; intensifying treatment; and a need for extra care and attention. However, it was found during the visit that violating one of the institution's main rules was also an important reason why the young people were sent on motivational trips. Both staff and the young people stated that one of the reasons for a motivational trip could be if someone had 'secrets' with other young people. It was found that the motivational trips were mainly carried out following a decision by the staff. Thirty-five motivational trips were organised in 2016, and as of 27 April, nine such trips had been carried out in 2017. A document review showed that the trips lasted from a few days up to 14 days. In the Parliamentary Ombudsman's assessment, there was a clear risk that the motivational trips at the Klokkergarden Collective were seen as punishment. It was difficult to see any correspondence between many of the circumstances that could lead to a motivational trip and the guidelines to the Rights Regulations concerning 'destructive behaviour' or 'necessary on the basis of the responsibility to provide the individual with care and considerations for everyone's safety and happiness'. When the staff had decided to take a young person on a motivational trip, the young person was normally pulled aside by staff members in the hallway near the exit of the main building. If the young person did not wish to go on the trip and did not go out to the car voluntarily, the staff and the young person remained in the hallway until the latter consented to the trip. In such situations, the staff would block the doors in the hallway by standing in front of them to prevent the young person from going anywhere but straight out to the car. The young person was not allowed to return to the rest of the group or to their own room, and nor were they allowed to pack their things. The young people were not always told about the reason for the motivational trip. Nor were they told how long the motivational trip would last. The management said that the young people couldn't be informed about the duration of the trip, because the young person him/herself and the work carried out during the trip determined how long the trip would last. In the cases where the young person had not been told about the reason for the motivational trip or where this was not apparent, the length of the trip could be determined by the young person's ability to describe the circumstances that made the adults decide to organise a motivational trip. Several of the young people experienced this as the staff waiting for them to 'confess something' and that if they confessed to the rights things, they would be allowed to go back to the institution. In many cases, the motivational trips also included a period as 'phaseless', and always a plenary meeting at which the young person had to state the reason why he/she was sent on the trip and answer questions from both adults and the other young people. The degree of force and the lack of any real opportunity for the young people to participate meant that it was difficult to see how a motivational trip could make a positive contribution to any lasting change. The young people were placed in a coercive situation where their only way out was to comply with the adults' demands for how they should behave and what they should say. In total, the pressure that was exercised in the hallway before a trip without it being possible for the young person to withdraw to their room, the lack of openness as regards the reason for the trip and its length, the 'phaseless' period and the uncertainty about how long this would last, and the plenary meeting requirement constituted a worrying lack of openness and respect from the institution vis-avis the young people. The fact that, in the past year, there had been an instance where a young person had been subjected to physical pressure to complete a motivational trip, underpins concerns about the risk of inhuman treatment that young people are subjected to through the Klokkergarden Collective's use of involuntary motivational trips. Details: Oslo, Norway: 2017. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 12, 2019 at: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Visit-report-2017-The-Klokkerg%C3%A5rden-Collective.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Norway URL: https://www.sivilombudsmannen.no/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Visit-report-2017-The-Klokkerg%C3%A5rden-Collective.pdf Shelf Number: 154081 Keywords: Detention CentersJuvenile CorrectionsJuvenile DetentionMotivational TripNational Preventive MechanismSubstance AbuseTreatment Programs |
Author: Pro Asyl Title: Walls of Shame: Accounts from the Inside: The Detention Centres of Evros Summary: What we have observed in Evros area is a multilevel deterrence system implemented by the Greek police and Frontex. The detention of refugees and migrants in Evros is synonimous with brutality, despair and dehumanisation. In this case, calling an emergency of mass-immigration has given the Greek government and the EU an excuse for violating human dignity. Greece has been repeatedly criticised for its human rights violations, specifically for the appalling detention conditions for immigrants in the border region Evros. Following this harsh criticism, the Greek government declared its commitment to improve the asylum and reception system and therefore announced a national Action Plan 2010. However, so far there have been almost no improvements. Human rights violations continue. Details: Berlin: Pro Asyl, 2012. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 8, 2019 at: https://www.proasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PRO_ASYL_Report_Walls_of_Shame_Accounts_From_The_Inside_Detention_Centers_of_Evros_April_2012-1.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Greece URL: https://www.proasyl.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/PRO_ASYL_Report_Walls_of_Shame_Accounts_From_The_Inside_Detention_Centers_of_Evros_April_2012-1.pdf Shelf Number: 154885 Keywords: Detention CentersHuman Rights AbusesImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsMigrantsRefugees |