Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:52 am
Time: 2:52 am
Results for prisons (northern ireland)
7 results foundAuthor: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Report of an Announced Inspection of Magilligan Prison: 29 March - 2 April 2010 Summary: This report presents the findings of a full announced inspection of Magilligan prison at the end of March 2010, at which time the prison held some 450 low and medium risk prisoners. Since our last inspection in 2006, when we criticised – amongst other things – some inadequate and unsuitable facilities, two new living units and a new health care building had opened. These physical changes had been complemented by a number of improvements to other areas of the prison. However, many of these developments needed to be consolidated and better integrated, and the entire regime was being adversely affected by ongoing industrial relations problems. Safety had improved, with few reported incidents of violence and most prisoners reporting that they felt safe. However, some prisoners still said they had been victimised, particularly because of their offence, and there was scope for further work to reduce bullying and support the vulnerable. Care for those at risk of self-harm was good. The segregation unit operated well and staff rarely had to resort to the use of force, although recording practices were poor. Security was now more proportionate, with a more appropriate emphasis on dynamic security, but further improvements were required, including a need to combat drug use more thoughtfully and effectively. The new buildings were a significant improvement but the physical environment remained marred by oppressive fencing and the continued use of the H-blocks which were difficult to supervise and had poor sanitary facilities. There was still no personal officer scheme, but relationships between staff and prisoners were generally positive. Diversity arrangements were underdeveloped and needed to be more comprehensive, although progress had been made in monitoring outcomes by religion and addressing issues that arose. The chaplaincy provided an effective service but still without a dedicated area in the prison for faith activities. In an important and progressive development since our last inspection, both the commissioning and delivery of prison healthcare had become NHS responsibilities. While most services were good, there was insufficient primary mental health provision to meet the evident need. This illustrated the necessity of conducting regular and comprehensive health care needs analyses to ensure that services kept abreast of the health problems in the prison population. At the time of the inspection, industrial action by the Northern Ireland Prison Officers’ Association (POA) was seriously limiting prisoners’ time out of cell and access to purposeful activity. Nevertheless, records suggested provision was usually reasonable, with enough activity places for the population. However, a more strategic approach to learning and skills was needed to ensure a coherent approach to meeting the needs of prisoners and to make sure that capacity and attendance were maximised. Some restrictive agreements with the POA also meant that not all potential education and training places could be used, which was a waste of valuable resources. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2010. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 13, 2010 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/1a/1af49281-b68c-4e0a-9cda-96a531dea3bd.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/1a/1af49281-b68c-4e0a-9cda-96a531dea3bd.pdf Shelf Number: 119788 Keywords: Medical Care, InmatesMental Health, InmatesPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrisons (Northern Ireland) |
Author: 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: Northern Ireland. Committee on the Administration of Justice Title: Prisons and Prisoners in Northern Ireland -- Putting Human Rights at the Heart of Prison Reform Summary: A great deal has been written and said over the past number of years in relation to the Northern Ireland Prison Service (NIPS). Hundreds of recommendations for change have been made, and although many of them have been taken on board, there exists a mass of unimplemented recommendations. The nature of the proposals made by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Criminal Justice Inspection and others, imply that considerable deficiencies remain unaddressed. CAJ believes that the approach to improving the prison system as a whole has been both insufficient and piecemeal, and what is needed is a comprehensive and systemic review. Having considered some 40+ reports and reviews relating to prisons in Northern Ireland written since 2002, what is most startling is the repetition of themes and issues which have significant human rights implications and which remain insufficiently addressed. The report therefore groups together into broad themes the recommendations which have been made over the past number of years by numerous review and inspection reports in order to help identify the overall issues which remain unsatisfactorily addressed, and facilitate a human rights analysis upon which a review could be premised. The same concerns in relation to a number of themes have frequently been raised in 7 or more of the 40 review/inspection reports referred to in this report, thus demonstrating that many recommendations to the prison service are not effectively, efficiently or consistently acted upon. It seems clear that the prison system in Northern Ireland is in a state of crisis – the number of reports and recommendations and the frequency with which recommendations are repeated alone are evidence of this. What has happened repeatedly in the prison system over the years has been that that each ‘crisis’ is treated with a plaster, without ever dealing with the root causes of the problem. The focus and response by the prison service to these issues - which dwells on the numbers of recommendations and the development of paper-exercise policies and action plans, fails to recognise and address the bigger problems underlying the recommendations themselves. The problems identified are not simply operational matters that can be addressed by an action plan; rather what is required is a focus on the issues and problems behind the recommendations. In short, what is needed is widespread cultural and systemic change. Details: Belfast: Committee on the Administration of Justice, 2010. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 27, 2012 at: http://www.caj.org.uk/files/2011/01/17/prisons_report_web2.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.caj.org.uk/files/2011/01/17/prisons_report_web2.pdf Shelf Number: 126475 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsHuman RightsPrison ReformPrisons (Northern Ireland) |
Author: Russell, Susan L. Title: Summary of a Review of Prison Healthcare in Northern Ireland Summary: In April 2008, responsibility for the commissioning and delivery of healthcare services in prisons passed over to the DHSSPS, through the Health and Social Care Commissioning Board (HSCB) and the South East Health and Social Care Trust (SE Trust). This is a summary of a review of prison healthcare in Northern Ireland carried out by Susan Russell in March 2011. It reflects the situation at that time, three years after the transfer of healthcare commissioning and provision to the Health and Social Care Board and the South East Health and Social Care Trust. Prisons need to provide a range of health services, based on community primary care services, similar to that found in local GP surgeries, with additional services that would be available in larger GP practices or health centres in the community, such as community dentistry, pharmacy and optical services. Due to the need to provide a secure environment, many enhanced primary care services also include clinics that in the community would normally be referred by GPs to secondary care services. They may include dermatology, x-ray services, genito-urinal medicine, general medicine, forensic psychiatry and physiotherapy, depending on the health needs of the population. Hydebank Wood prison and young offender centre (for women and young adults) and Maghaberry prison are expected to provide for a population that includes new committals, recalls to prison, fine defaulters, those on remand and sentenced prisoners. Magilligan prison holds sentenced and recalled prisoners. They usually have more stable health needs, but still have significant needs that can be resource intensive and need to be planned for. They should however have been identified before or on transfer and new or existing treatment plans implemented in a planned way. Each of these establishments needs to provide healthcare that meets the needs of its specific population and the groups within it: adult men, young adults and women, as well as those who have a disability and those who are foreign nationals or from black and minority ethnic communities. This will require both an accurate assessment of actual need, and an agreed improvement plan to ensure this is met. The primary care and GP services need to be provided in partnership with the prison in order to minimise any regime limitations that may impact on service delivery. There should be a range of nurse-led clinics to support health promotion and GP services, and regular audits to evidence the level and activity of the services provided. Access to secondary and specialist services should be available when clinically indicated in all establishments, and links to and from community services are essential to ensure continuity of care. The overall finding of the review was that, while there had been some progress, and more was planned, the services provided were basic, and still reminiscent of prison health delivery before the transfer of responsibility for health services. In summary, the reviewer found that both the primary care and mental health pathways were not developed, that medical and nursing staff were not used effectively, and that services were not sufficiently geared to assessed need. Reviews and inspections have chronicled some of these deficiencies, most recently at Hydebank Wood, and show that there is considerable unmet need, in terms of both mental and physical health. In developing services, it may be useful to draw upon the work done in England and Wales by the Kings Fund in the Enhancing the Healing Environment (EHE) programme in prisons. Currently, 40 prisons have participated in the programme, which has covered all populations and ages. Details: Belfast: Prison Review Team, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 30, 2013 at: http://www.prisonreviewni.gov.uk/summary_of_a_review_of_prison_healthcare_in_northern_ireland_-_carried_out_by_s_l_russell__march_2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.prisonreviewni.gov.uk/summary_of_a_review_of_prison_healthcare_in_northern_ireland_-_carried_out_by_s_l_russell__march_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 127451 Keywords: Health CareInmatesPrisons (Northern Ireland) |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Report on an Announced Inspection of Maghaberry Prison 19 - 23 March 2012 Summary: Maghaberry Prison is a complex and challenging establishment. It holds 1,000 men including remand prisoners, fine defaulters, lifers and a small number of separated paramilitary prisoners. A significant number have mental health problems and learning difficulties, while others are vulnerable because of their offences or disputes with other prisoners. Previous inspections have been very critical of the way Maghaberry responded to these challenges. On this occasion significant weaknesses remain, but we found areas of improvement and assess the prison as having progressed by one level in three out of the four healthy prison tests, while respect remained the same. Despite these improvements the prison still has a long way to go. The number of self-harm incidents was not high and arrangements for the support of those at risk of suicide or self-harm had improved, though were inconsistently applied. The Donard Day Centre opened in 2011, and its multi-disciplinary team provided excellent care for some very vulnerable prisoners, and in many ways it was the jewel in Maghaberry’s crown. Record-keeping by staff was poor but professional relationships between staff and prisoners were better and delivered more dynamic security intelligence. While the Care and Support (Segregation) unit regime was reasonable for those who were there for short periods, it was completely inadequate for prisoners who stayed for longer periods. There was a good induction programme for new arrivals, but some were missed. Some important features of prison life, such as the Progressive Regime and Earned Privileges scheme, were overly-punitive. Security could be overbearing and did not sufficiently relate to individual risk assessments. Nevertheless the introduction of ‘free flow’, which enabled most prisoners to move freely within the prison during the core day, was a major improvement and helped to normalise the atmosphere. The Dedicated Search Team, which we had grave concerns about during the last inspection, was no longer the pernicious influence it had once been. Many prisoners told us they had felt unsafe in the prison at some time. There was no effective monitoring of violent incidents to identify when and where they were likely to occur or how they could be prevented. Despite high staffing levels, association and exercise areas were not adequately supervised. We remain concerned that the prison does not provide a sufficiently safe environment for those held there. The introduction of mandatory drug testing was a good initiative and the structural arrangements for delivery of health services had improved. Unfortunately Maghaberry’s health care department was disorganised and beset by staff shortages when we inspected, and this was having an adverse impact on clinical outcomes. We were concerned about the lax management of divertible medication and managers told us this was a significant cause of bullying in the prison. Very poor drug treatment processes were dangerous for prisoners. At the time of the inspection, some separated Republican prisoners in Roe House were engaged in a dirty protest. The resulting conditions posed a threat to the health of prisoners and staff, but hygiene arrangements were being carefully managed and nobody had suffered any ill effects at the time of writing. The rest of Maghaberry was clean but suffered from considerable overcrowding. At the time of the inspection, 538 prisoners (more than half of the population) were sharing small, cramped cells that were designed for only one person. Maghaberry’s own statistics confirmed there were unequal outcomes for Roman Catholic prisoners in several important respects, yet this sensitive issue was not being effectively addressed. There were insufficient activity places available and prisoners spent too long locked in cells. A fully-employed prisoner could spend about nine hours a day out of cell on weekdays, but too many of those working were employed in unchallenging orderly roles, which offered nothing like a normal work environment. It was unsatisfactory that the 50% of prisoners who were unemployed spent up to 20 hours a day in their cells. The new Learning and Skills Centre is an excellent resource so it was frustrating that staffing shortages meant it was considerably under-used. The learning and skills curriculum was too narrow and was not aligned to local labour market needs. Otherwise, there were more hopeful signs – the quality of teaching, training and learning was generally good, as was the provision of basic literacy and numeracy and English for Speakers of Other Languages; there was some innovative use of mentors in education; the library was a good resource and physical education was very good. Resettlement was the most positive aspect of Maghaberry Prison. Despite the range of prisoners held, there were good attempts to address the behaviour of both short and long-term prisoners including some prisoners on remand, and to meet the basic practical needs of those who were about to be released. Public protection arrangements were functioning better than when we last inspected. Some aspects of provision for lifers had improved, although the closure of the Belfast ‘step down’ facility for testing long-term prisoners in a less secure environment was a big loss and should be urgently redressed. Provision of offending behaviour programmes had improved since the new Offender Management Unit took over co-ordination, but not all needs were met. The visitors halls were cramped and noisy and visits did not start on time, although other support for prisoners’ families such as the Quakers Visitor Centre, was very positive. Maghaberry remains a prison which does not yet provide a sufficient level of safety and respectful treatment, with too many prisoners having little purposeful activity to do. Nevertheless, this inspection found signs of real improvement. Some excellent work was being done by individual staff in a context where professional relationships overall were improving, and investment in new facilities had created opportunities for further improvement. At a time of major reform throughout the Northern Ireland Prison Service, these improvements now need to be embedded in the culture and processes at Maghaberry so that the progress that has been made is built on further. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2012. 174p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2013 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/b5/b561aa96-c6b8-417f-9c70-a736713315e8.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/b5/b561aa96-c6b8-417f-9c70-a736713315e8.pdf Shelf Number: 127692 Keywords: Maghaberry PrisonPrison AdministrationPrisonersPrisons (Northern Ireland) |
Author: Northern Ireland Criminal Justice Inspection Title: The Safety of Prisoners held by the Northern Ireland Prison Service - 22 October 2014 Summary: The safety of prisoners is not just about preventing deaths in custody. It is a significant issue in the prison setting and vulnerable individuals need to be protected and supported in a therapeutic environment. Effective strategies are required to address the inter-linked areas of suicide and self-harm, the availability of illicit and prescription drugs, bullying, and the access to healthcare. This inspection found that the NIPS and the SEHSCT needed to work closely together to strengthen the strategic approach to, and the operational management of, these areas to improve safety and outcomes for prisoners. Northern Ireland's prisons house a complex mix of prisoners. The health profile of prisoners, the high levels of mental ill-health, personality disorder, drug and alcohol addiction, the proportion of prisoners on medication, and in numerous cases a combination of these factors, all create a concentration of need within the prison establishments. This requires a high degree of communication, co-ordination and joint action between the NIPS and the SEHSCT to deliver the appropriate levels of prisoner care, safety and healthcare provision. Inspectors would wish to comment on the work of prison officers and healthcare staff who, on a daily basis, deal with some very difficult and damaged individuals. Many caring interactions were witnessed with the most vulnerable prisoners, and Inspectors are aware of a number of occasions where prison and healthcare staff acted quickly and decisively to save the lives of prisoners in critical and potentially life-threatening situations. The procedures to protect and support prisoners at risk of suicide or self-harm are governed through the Supporting Prisoners at Risk (SPAR) process and an associated safer custody meeting structure. The report highlights concerns about the management and implementation of safer custody at therapeutic arrangements for the most vulnerable prisoners are managed by the NIPS and the SEHSCT. Bullying is a significant issue in the prison environment. It can be due to a number of factors including drugs and may be offence-related. Bullying and anti-social behaviour can take a variety of forms, much can be subtle and most is unreported. Many prisoners lack confidence in the investigation process. It is the view of Inspectors that the strategy needs to be reviewed to more effectively challenge bullying, to implement a robust process to investigate allegations and reported incidents, to address under-reporting, and increase confidence in the system. The quantity and availability of drugs within prisons is concerning. Drugs are a high value currency in prisons. They have been responsible for a number of deaths in custody and other serious incidents, and are a cause of a significant proportion of the bullying which takes place. This is true both for illicit and prescription drugs. The NIPS is in the unenviable position of being powerless to totally prevent illicit drugs entering prisons until the development of search technology which allows the safe and effective detection of drugs which have been swallowed or secreted within a body cavity. A recent initiative with the police at Maghaberry Prison has had success detecting smuggled drugs. This inspection report highlights that more needs to be done to address this issue, and recommends that the NIPS, in conjunction with the SEHSCT, should review the strategy to more effectively address areas of supply reduction, demand reduction and throughcare. The report makes comment about the prescribing and management of medicines. It found that these areas needed to be reviewed to take account of the risk-assessment process for prisoners' in-possession medications; the control of medications to prevent diversion; the supervised-swallow arrangements for benzodiazepine stabilisation or withdrawal; and the recording and use of the SEHSCT's management information. The complexity and health needs of the prison population demand a co-ordinated response from the two principal organisations responsible for prisoner safety and care. The inspection found that the newly-introduced formal governance structures between the NIPS and the SEHSCT were effective at the more senior levels, but communication and joint-working at landing-level needed to be developed to increase effectiveness and improve outcomes for prisoners. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2014. 57p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 27, 2014 at: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/67/677ac123-4a48-43c3-8170-c2c73d2282a4.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/67/677ac123-4a48-43c3-8170-c2c73d2282a4.pdf Shelf Number: 133819 Keywords: Prison ConditionsPrisonersPrisons (Northern Ireland) |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Report on an unannounced inspection of Magilligan Prison 27 May-5 June 2014 Summary: Magilligan Prison is a medium security prison with a semi-open annex, 'Foyleview'. It holds 571 adult men from across Northern Ireland serving sentences ranging between less than one year to life, most of whom have been transferred from Maghaberry Prison and are being prepared for release. This unannounced inspection was led by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons in England and Wales on behalf of, and with the support of Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, and with the support of the Regulation and Quality Improvement Authority and the Education and Training Inspectorate. Our last inspection in March/April 2010 found the prison was performing reasonably well against all our healthy prison tests and was the strongest performing of all the Northern Ireland prisons. Magilligan still has significant strengths that compare favourably with other prisons in Northern Ireland - but this inspection found that the prison had slipped back in some important areas and action was now required to prevent a further decline. For most prisoners Magilligan was reasonably safe. Relationships between staff and prisoners were much better than we normally see in Northern Ireland, and these underpinned good dynamic security. Reception and first night procedures were good, the number of violent and self-harm incidents were low and there had been no self-inflicted deaths in the prison for many years. There was 'free-flow' movement around the prison without causing difficulty. Support for those with a substance abuse problem was good. However, there was a degree of complacency about safety which was not underpinned by solid processes that focused on outcomes for prisoners. In addition, the prison culture was risk averse and this sometimes manifested itself in an unwillingness to challenge poor behaviour. Vulnerable prisoners felt much less safe than the population as a whole, and a lack of CCTV coverage on the house blocks created insecurity. Levels of drug use were high and there were no disciplinary consequences for a positive test result. The prison had tried to tackle trading in prescribed medicines by introducing 'supervised swallow', but we were told prisoners frequently went to the washrooms to regurgitate the drug for onward sale when they returned to the units and this was not challenged by staff. We did not find evidence that this led to large scale violence and bullying - it may be that supply was so easy that it was not a source of conflict - although some prisoners told us they or their families had been subject to intimidation in relation to drugs. The prison's strategy for reducing violence was poor and insufficiently informed by analysis of data. Links with drug reduction and security strategies were weak. The regime was too often curtailed by 'suspensions in movement around the prison to manage incidents which were isolated on wings and did not require a wider response. Use of segregation was high although stays were short; governance of this was poor and we saw little evidence of any efforts to address the behaviour of the prisoners concerned. In practice this meant prisoners spending a few days lying on their bunks, in dirty cells, with nothing to do - and with no discernible effect. Use of force was low but we were also concerned that governance of this was weak and there was insufficient assurance that its use was always necessary and proportionate. Measures to prevent self-harm were not proportionate to risk and focused on the procedure rather than the prisoner. Humiliating anti-ligature clothing that consisted of baggy green tear-proof shorts and a top was used frequently. The older 'H-Block' accommodation which had no in-cell sanitation was very poor and needed to be replaced but the newer accommodation was much better. For most prisoners, good standards of cleanliness, a decent although rather bleak external environment, good time out of cell, combined with good relationships between staff and prisoners mitigated many of the weaknesses in the prison. Catholic prisoners reported more negatively than Protestant prisoners and there was some evidence to reflect worse outcomes. The prison needed to do more to understand and address this. Support for other prisoners whose needs were different from the majority also needed to be improved. Health services were good. Although prisoners had plenty of time out of the cells, there was insufficient constructive activity and little incentive for them to take advantage of the opportunities that were available. Quantity and quality of activities were very poor. Forty per cent of prisoners were unemployed, much of the work that did exist was mundane and the range of training and education was limited, unrelated to the labour market, and offered only low level qualifications. Prisoners who were working hard in some of the better workshops complained, with justification, that because the wage structure was heavily linked to the behaviour management scheme, a well behaved prisoner received practically the same 'wage' whether they worked or not. Prisoners at Magilligan were poorly prepared for work after they left the prison. In sharp contrast, real progress had been made in resettlement with some excellent and joined-up offender management driven by both the prison and probation staff. Good use was made of home leave to support re-integration and family contacts, and some decent practical resettlement support was offered. Children and families, work and the range of interventions available were particularly strong. More focus was needed to realise the potential of the semi-open Foyleview unit which, in conjunction with a linked unit in Belfast, had the potential to be a very important and innovative resettlement resource. However, that potential was not yet realised. Progress in this area should provide managers with a template of what could be achieved in improving purposeful activity, given sufficient attention and resources. Overall, this is a much more mixed picture than the last inspection. It is important that the strengths of the prison - very good relationships, reasonable levels of safety and good resettlement work - are not undermined by a risk averse culture, insufficient purposeful activity and an unwillingness to challenge poor behaviour. The prison's work on resettlement shows what can be done and provides a standard to which the prison as a whole should aspire. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2015. 109p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/ni-prison-service/nips-publications/nips-cjini-inspection-reports/cjini-report-on-an-unannounced-inspection-of-magilligan-prison-27-may-to-5-june-2014.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/ni-prison-service/nips-publications/nips-cjini-inspection-reports/cjini-report-on-an-unannounced-inspection-of-magilligan-prison-27-may-to-5-june-2014.pdf Shelf Number: 135234 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsPrison AdministrationPrison ConditionsPrisonersPrisons (Northern Ireland) |