Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:49 am
Time: 1:49 am
Results for prison management
9 results foundAuthor: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Northern Ireland Prison Service Corporate Governance Arrangement: An Inspection of Corporate Governance Arrangements within the Northern Ireland Prison Service Summary: The vast majority of prisoners in Northern Ireland will be released. What happens inside a prison has a real impact on what happens outside a prison. The extent to which behaviours are challenged, prisoners are given purposeful activity, assisted with resettlement into the community and the nature of officer/prisoner engagement, all make a major contribution to reducing reoffending and helping to increase public protection against criminal activity in the future. The estimated cost of re-offending in the United Kingdom is around £11 billion, in Northern Ireland it is in the region of £80 million. The Prison Service is not a bit player in the criminal justice system, it is an essential component of the success of the system overall. The Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS) is shaped by the legacy of the past. Its culture, ethos, working practices and management processes reflect in many ways a different era, and a different agenda for what we want our prisons to do. It has remained largely untouched by the reforms of the criminal justice system. The NIPS is a relatively well resourced public service in Northern Ireland. Certainly its operating budgets are higher than comparable institutions elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Management within the Prison Service recognise the need for change and have made efforts in the past number of years to deliver a more cost-efficient and effective organisation. The Prison Service has embarked on a series of changes to try and develop a new approach to prison management – with a clear emphasis on promoting a secure and humane environment that challenges offending behaviours. The Prison Service can rightly point to a series of initiatives (for example, development of the prison estate) that provide evidence of a new approach. The recent inspection of Magilligan Prison shows that local management can make a difference and change the ways in which the regime operates. Throughout the inspection work undertaken by CJI we have continually made reference to the many committed staff we have seen as part of the different inspection reports and have noted the important contribution they make to the positive work of the NIPS. At the same time the level of scrutiny of the Prison Service has been intense. CJI and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons (HMIP) inspection reports – the 2010 Magilligan inspection report excepted – have shown a series of deep problems around delivering better outcomes for prisoners in terms of time out of cell, access to work, education and other purposeful activity, and a need for a more constructive form of engagement between prisoners and prison officers. Other reports have shown a major disconnect between the strategic intent of the Prison Service and its capacity to deliver real change on the ground. There is real dissonance therefore between the stated intent of the Prison Service – the initiatives that it highlights – and operational activity as it exists on the ground. This picture is confirmed by other work that has been completed on the Prison Service including that undertaken by the Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (PONI) and the Pearson Review Team. The purpose of this inspection was to examine why this should be the case and to highlight those aspects of Prison Service operations that have an impact on delivering the Prison Service of the future. As the Prison Service itself recognises, the devolution of policing and justice has altered the landscape and the future financial environment will create its own dynamic that will fundamentally require change in all aspects of Prison Service operations. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2010. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 16, 2010 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/3d/3ddfc1cc-64b9-43da-ad86-88950db136ee.PDF Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/3d/3ddfc1cc-64b9-43da-ad86-88950db136ee.PDF Shelf Number: 120528 Keywords: CorrectionsPrison AdministrationPrison ManagementPrisons (Northern Ireland) |
Author: Peet, William Title: Regina Provincial Correctional Centre: Escape, August 24th 2008 Summary: On August 24th 2008 six inmates escaped from Unit 3A within the Regina Correctional Center. The Six inmates, all who were remanded on very serious charges engineered their escape over a period of approximately four months. This report presents the findings of an investigation of the events surrounding the escape, as well as prison management policies at the Regina Correctional Center. Details: Regina: Saskatchewan Ministry of Corrections, Public Safety and Policing, 2008. 137p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 28, 2011 at: http://www.cpsp.gov.sk.ca/EITReport.pdf Year: 2008 Country: Canada URL: http://www.cpsp.gov.sk.ca/EITReport.pdf Shelf Number: 122931 Keywords: Prison AdministrationPrison Escapes (Canada)Prison Management |
Author: Great Britain. HM Inspectorate of Probation and HM Inspectorate of Prisons Title: Second Aggregate Report on Offender Management in Prisons Summary: This report is the second to be published from our joint Prison Offender Management Inspection programme, in which we have examined how well work with prisoners is being carried out during their time in custody. The assumption underlying the criminal justice system is that imprisonment should not only punish those who have offended by containing them, and thereby provide some form of deterrence to others whilst at the same time protecting the wider community, but also reform them. In order to achieve this, work with individual prisoners needs to address effectively their attitudes, behaviour and lifestyle. We were disappointed to find that, with some notable exceptions, this is not happening to any meaningful extent. Our inspections found that many prisons paid good attention to the ‘resettlement’ needs of the prisoner, i.e. their personal and social circumstances including education, employment, health etc. Such work plays an important part in reducing the likelihood of reoffending on release, but needs to be underpinned by work which encourages and sustains changes in attitudes and behaviour. There are still insufficient places across the prison estate on accredited programmes which deal with thoughts and attitudes. As a result some prisoners, notably sex offenders, are not always able to access the treatment programmes they need to change their behaviour before they are released. We saw many committed staff in Offender Management Units in prisons who clearly wanted to work effectively with individual prisoners and were frustrated when deployed to other duties because of operational demands. There was insufficient guidance about their role and some felt inadequately trained. Professional supervision by line managers is not generally a part of the prison culture and oversight of work with individual cases, even the most serious, was limited. Although we found some examples of good public protection work, we were concerned that, overall, the work on both public protection and child protection issues was not of a sufficient standard. Too often the separation of offender management and public protection functions within the prison meant that information critical to public protection did not inform offender management decisions. Given the lack of priority afforded to offender management work it was not surprising to find that prison staff outside the Offender Management Unit had little appreciation of its work. The electronic case record P-NOMIS has the capacity to address some of our concerns by capturing and communicating information about an individual prisoner, including their progress towards achieving sentence plan objectives. However, despite the investment in the roll-out of the system, it was not being used effectively to support offender management. Sentence plans were generally inadequate. Too often they were based on the interventions that were available rather than on what were required. This has had the effect of masking the true level of need across the prison estate. Objectives were rarely outcome focused, so it was not surprising that progress and change were insufficiently recorded. These failings raise problems for offender managers in the community, as well as staff in prisons, as they are responsible for preparing risk assessments to inform progress through the prison system and ultimately release. A period of incarceration offers an opportunity to tackle a prisoner’s entrenched behaviour and attitudes, and moreover to observe and capture on a day-to-day basis whether the necessary changes are taking place prior to release. Failing to capitalise on that opportunity is a waste of an expensive resource. Details: London: Criminal Justice Joint Inspection, 2012. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/inspectorate-reports/hmiprobation/adult-inspection-reports/omi2/omi2-aggregate-report.pdf Shelf Number: 125740 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationCorrectional ProgramsInmatesPrison ManagementPrisoner RehabilitationPrisoners (U.K.) |
Author: Liebling, Alison Title: An Exploration of Staff-Prisoner Relationships at HMP Whitemoor: 12 Years On Summary: This original research represents a significant milestone in our understanding of the role of an effective prison officer and the crucial ways in which prison staff contribute to positive relationships with offenders. While it represents a snapshot shot of one high security prison at one particular point in time, its findings present National Offender Management Service with an opportunity to reflect on the impact of changes within the high security estate, and beyond, of demographics, sentence management, power dynamics, faith issues and the particular challenges posed by extremism and concerns around radicalisation. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2012. 201p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 25, 2012 at: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/staff-prisoner-relations-whitemoor.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/staff-prisoner-relations-whitemoor.pdf Shelf Number: 125763 Keywords: Corrections OfficersPrison AdministrationPrison ManagementPrison StaffPrisoners (U.K.)PrisonsRadicalization |
Author: U.S. Government Accountability Office Title: Bureau of Prisons: Management of New Prison Activations Can Be Improved Summary: The federal inmate population has increased over the last two decades, and as of July 2014, BOP was responsible for the custody and care of more than 216,000 inmates. To handle the projected growth of between 2,500 and 3,000 or more inmates per year from 2015 through 2020, BOP has spent about $1.3 billion constructing five new institutions and acquiring one in Thomson, Illinois. BOP is activating these institutions by staffing and equipping them and populating them with inmates. GAO was requested to review BOP's activation process of newly constructed and acquired institutions. GAO reviewed, among other things, (1) the extent to which BOP is activating institutions within estimated time-frames and has an activation policy or schedules that meet best practices, and (2) why DOJ purchased Thomson and how the purchase affected system wide costs. GAO reviewed BOP budget documents from fiscal years 2008 to 2015 and assessed schedules against GAO's Schedule Assessment Guide. GAO conducted site visits to the six institutions, interviewed BOP officials, and reviewed staffing data from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. What GAO Recommends GAO recommends that DOJ use its annual budget justification to communicate to Congress factors that might delay prison activation, and that BOP analyze institution-level staffing data and develop and implement a comprehensive activation policy and a schedule that reflects best practices. DOJ concurred with all of GAO's recommendations. Details: Washington, DC: GAO, 2014. 65p. Source: Internet Resource: GAO-14-709: Accessed September 25, 2014 at: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665417.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665417.pdf Shelf Number: 133416 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationFederal Prisons (U.S.)Prison ManagementPrisoners |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General. Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: Management of the Special Programs Unit at the Federal Bureau of Prisons Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York Summary: The Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) announced today the release of a report examining the management of the Special Programs Unit (SPU) at the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, New York (MDC Brooklyn). The DOJ OIG's review sought to determine whether MDC Brooklyn's management controls, policies, and practices could have contributed to alleged disruptions to safety and security in 2011 and 2012 by inmate Ronell Wilson, who was convicted of capital murder and who had a months-long sexual relationship with a correctional officer that resulted in the birth of their child. Our review identified concerns related to BOP's placement of Wilson in the SPU, which primarily houses vulnerable inmates with mental health issues, without implementing safeguards or providing guidance to correctional staff on how to manage him. We also identified areas where MDC Brooklyn's ability to communicate information across shifts and housing units should be improved, although we did not find that these deficiencies directly led to Wilson's alleged disruptions. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 25, 2015 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/e1508.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2015/e1508.pdf Shelf Number: 136880 Keywords: Prison AdministrationPrison ManagementPrisoner MisconductPrisoners |
Author: Koslover, Rebecca Title: A Market Survey on Contraband Detection Technologies Summary: Contraband is a significant problem for correctional facilities across the United States (Kopochinski, 2012). Loosely defined as anything inmates are prohibited from possessing, contraband poses a threat to the safety of individuals both inside and outside the correctional system. While weapons, tools, and narcotics are the most obvious risks within the community, items such as money, electronic devices, food, and tobacco products all pose both a prevalent threat and unique detection challenge. Due to the system wide contraband problem, the National Institutes of Justice (NIJ) requested the execution of a market survey regarding commercial contraband detection technologies currently available. This document is the collective summary of that market survey. Organized into three primary sections (person-borne, vehicle-borne, and environmental), each contraband detection system's information is grouped and summarized to aid correctional officials in planning the potential acquisition and implementation of these technologies. Additionally, this document provides a summary of the background research and methods used for performing this survey. This survey does not evaluate or rank these products; there are no opinions presented concerning the quality or effectiveness of these products. Instead, the intent of this document is to provide correctional officials with a broad overview of the current contraband detection technologies available for their use. The data presented in this document was collected via multiple research and collection avenues. In addition to general Internet searches, the public was broadly solicited with a request for information (RFI) published as a Federal Register Notice (FRN). Furthermore, in order to maximize exposure, vendors identified via Internet searches were directly contacted and invited to respond to the FRN. For vendors that did not respond to the FRN, we obtained as much information as we could from their websites. Over 100 products are summarized in this survey. This document represents an overview of the technologies available at the time of the market survey (i.e., 2016). When considering the acquisition of contraband detection equipment, additional up-to-date information should be requested from the specific vendors of interest. Details: Final report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2017. 402p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 6, 2017 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250685.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/250685.pdf Shelf Number: 145936 Keywords: Correctional AdministrationDetection TechnologyPrison ContrabandPrison ManagementPrison Security |
Author: New South Wales. Inspector of Custodial Services Title: The Management of Radicalised Inmates in NSW Summary: Correctional authorities are responsible for managing national security and violent extremist inmates in a way that protects staff, other inmates, and the broader community from violent acts. They must also work to prevent radicalisation to violence of other inmates, and promote opportunities for disengagement from violent extremism. Although internationally management of radicalised prisoners is not a new issue, this remains a fast developing area of policy and practice. To assess the extent of the issue of radicalisation to violence in NSW prisons and the current practices being employed by CSNSW to manage the risks posed by national security inmates and violent extremists in custody, a number of correctional centres were inspected: the Metropolitan Remand and Reception Centre, Silverwater (MRRC), where the majority of new admissions into custody are received and undergo initial screening; the Mid North Coast Correctional Centre (MNCCC), where the alleged 7 April 2016 assault occurred; the Lithgow and Goulburn Correctional Centres; and the High Risk Management Correctional Centre, Goulburn (HRMCC), where the majority of national security inmates are accommodated under a strict security regime. CSNSW has been managing inmates charged with or convicted of national security offences since 2003. Although the total number in custody in NSW remains low it has been rising. At the time of referral, there were 29 adults charged with or convicted of national security offences in the NSW prison system; there are now over 35. Although this represents a small number of offenders within a prison population of approximately 13,000, it is a population that requires a strategic approach and specialist resources. Of the small number of violent extremist inmates in custody in NSW, CSNSW has determined few have become radicalised to violence while in custody; it appears that most violent extremist inmates enter custody with such views. Despite there being no evidence of widespread radicalisation to violence in prison in NSW, the risk remains and vigilance is required. Recent terrorist attacks in the United Kingdom, Europe and Australia have been committed by people who have spent time in custody. There are a number of key prison-management policies and protocols that have been identified as useful for the management of violent extremist offenders and the prevention of violent extremism in prisons. These include: - overall prison conditions; - effective assessment and classification systems; - physical, procedural and dynamic security; - professional prison-staff training; - fair, humane and non-discriminatory treatment; - disengagement interventions involving experts; and - reintegration support. CSNSW has clear objectives to countering terrorism which includes preventing offenders in custody from planning, organising, directing or funding terrorism; preventing radicalisation in prison; and enhancing information sharing with other agencies. CSNSW has developed eleven strategies to achieve these objectives, which are endorsed by the Inspector and are consistent with the best practice prison management policies and protocols. The inspection team found that a strategic approach to security and rehabilitation is needed to manage violent extremism and prevent radicalisation. In response to this, CSNSW is developing a new Counter Terrorism and Countering Violent Extremism Strategy to lead, advise and coordinate CSNSW activities related to countering violent extremism and preventing radicalisation in prison. Details: Sydney: Inspector of Custodial Services, 2018. 91p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 5, 2018 at: http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/The%20management%20of%20radicalised%20inmates%20in%20NSW.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: http://www.custodialinspector.justice.nsw.gov.au/Documents/The%20management%20of%20radicalised%20inmates%20in%20NSW.pdf Shelf Number: 150765 Keywords: Extremists Inmate Management Inmates Prison ManagementRadical Groups Radicalization Terrorists Violent Extremism |
Author: Wainwright, Lucy Title: What incentives work in prison? A Prisoner Policy Network Consultation Summary: Lord Woolf's inquiry into the causes of the 1990 Strangeways riot had at its heart a commitment to consult directly with prisoners, as well as prison staff and policymakers. The resulting report set the agenda for prison reform for a generation. It highlighted problems in the prison system of overcrowding, squalid and inhumane conditions, a lack of hope and dignity, dysfunctional relationships between staff and prisoners, and an absence of justice. Nearly three decades on, the prison system has again found itself under intense pressure and public scrutiny, coping with vastly increased prisoner numbers, decreased staffing levels, chronic under investment, and violence and self-harm at record highs. Asking prisoners directly once more what they think and what should be done must make sense. That is what the Prisoner Policy Network (PPN) is about - creating a framework for prisoners, and the individuals and organisations most concerned for their well-being, to make their voices heard in the places where the policies that most affect them are made. This inaugural report describes many of the same concerns highlighted by Lord Woolf so many years ago. It paints a picture of a system which is failing in some of its most basic duties. But it also contains a wealth of ideas for what a more effective approach to securing a safe and purposeful and motivating way of life in prison might be. The PPN asked prisoners to respond to the question 'What incentives work in prison?'. The existing Incentives and Earned Privileges scheme was borne out of Lord Woolf's report; and the timing of our consultation aligned with a national policy review of IEP. Responses from over 1250 prisoners were received in a three month period, collected via letters, phone calls, emails, face to face visits to prisons across the country, and through 24 supporting partner organisations. We did not expect or seek a homogenous response. Prisoners' situations and views differ, and this report reflects that variety. It also deliberately reflects the views that we were given, not what PRT might think. But it does seek to identify themes and conclusions which emerged most commonly. It finds that prisoners often rejected the whole premise of the question. This was because their experience was that the system was failing to deliver a foundation of reasonable basic expectations of decent, respectful treatment. Talking about incentives made little sense when your quality of life was actually dominated by the struggle to get clean clothes or access to fresh air. The existing IEP system was generally held in low regard. Prisoners did not trust it to deliver what it promised. It was seen as a system of punishment, not reward. And it was criticised for a lack of consistency both between and within prisons, and for unfair administration day to day. Ideas for reform included some specific privileges, but we did not get a "shopping list" of treats that prisoners would like. More realistic wages that would give prisoners freedom to spend on the things that mattered most to the individual was a frequent suggestion, as was the provision of higher quality visits to reduce the impact of imprisonment on families. The fundamental issues raised by prisoners included a desire to see any new scheme moving from a punitive to a positive ethos. A willingness to acknowledge progress and effort should predominate. Prisoners wanted a culture of mutual respect, and particularly valued privileges which showed a preparedness to place trust in individuals. Incentives that directly impacted their future, and in particular the prospect of bringing forward release or allowing temporary release, were key, as were incentives that built personal self-worth and hope for a better life both in and out of prison. The report concludes with four messages for the policy makers charged with devising a new IEP scheme: - Any incentives scheme will not work without getting basic issues right first. Defining what these basics are needs attention as well as delivering them. - Incentives need to be meaningful to prisoners for any scheme to secure their support. Meaningful incentives outlined in this report include increased use of ROTL, higher rates of pay, better quality visits and, crucially, a chance to reduce time in custody. - Relationships between staff and prisoners define whether any scheme will work or fail. Mutual respect, positive encouragement and collaboration must underpin the approach, and a willingness to place trust in a prisoner characterises the most meaningful incentives. - Prisoners in turn want to trust the system, but the system needs to be trustworthy. Consistency, transparency and accountability are essential, and are widely lacking. Details: London: Prison Reform Trust, 2019. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 26, 2019 at: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PPN%20Incentives%20Report.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/Portals/0/Documents/PPN%20Incentives%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 155565 Keywords: Correctional Programs Inmate Behavior Prison ManagementPrison Reform Prisoner Misconduct Prisoners |