Victoria's prison system: Community protection and prisoner welfare

1.1.2 In the period since 1992, the Department of Justice has been responsible for overseeing a difficult transitional period as the prison industry moved to reflect a multi-service provider environment. It had the initial task of managing the bidding and selection process for the appointment of successful contractors and then establishing the framework for the development of appropriate contractual arrangements which would enable the introduction of 3 new private prisons within tight time frames.

Well managed bidding and selection process

1.1.3 It is pleasing for audit to report that the bidding and selection process was undertaken in a manner consistent with the Government's Infrastructure Investment Policy for Victoria, and significant attention was directed to probity issues during the process. In addition, a sound documentary trail was available to support decisions reached at each major stage. Need to strengthen independence of Commissioner

1.1.4 Legislative changes passed by the Parliament in 1994 to provide for the involvement of private sector prison operators in the industry clearly articulated the important monitoring responsibilities of the newly-established Correctional Services Commissioner. Within this Report, audit has evaluated the performance of the Commissioner's Office in monitoring prison operations against 7 principal criteria which were formulated in consultation with that Office and prison operators.

1.1.5 The audit examination of the operational environment of the Commissioner's Office identified several elements of this environment which adversely impact on the independence and overall effectiveness of the Office in discharging its key monitoring functions. Audit has concluded that the evolving prison industry, encompassing a mix of State-managed and privately-operated prisons, now requires a regulatory framework which features a truly independent Correctional Services Commissioner.

1.1.6 Two options have been cited by audit in this Report as worthy of consideration for enhancing the independence and operational effectiveness of the Commissioner. Both of these options place the Commissioner at arms-length to the Department. In audit opinion, implementation of either option would enable the Commissioner to operate more effectively as an independent industry monitor. Other avenues for change which might focus on improving the structural position of the Commissioner within the organisational setting of the Department, but not take advantage of an arms-length relationship, are also available for consideration by the Government.

1.1.7 The nature and absolute importance of the Commissioner's role, particularly if it is operating in an independent manner, makes it imperative that the Government is always assured that the Commissioner's Office is effectively resourced to meet its vital statutory responsibilities for the impartial monitoring of industry performance. On the basis of matters raised in this Report, there is great scope to upgrade the resource capability of the Office relating to its monitoring role. A sufficiently resourced and effective industry monitor would be a vital source of independent confirmation to the Government that management of the industry is carried out in a manner conducive to ensuring the safety of the community and the welfare of prisoners.

Real competition is yet to occur

1.1.8 It was the Government's initial intention to present legislation to the Parliament during the 1998 Spring Session which would provide for the corporatisation of CORE, the organisational unit within the Department of Justice responsible for the operation of the State's public prisons. Audit understands that the planned action has been subsequently postponed for consideration by the Government at a later date. It is considered that any action ultimately taken to corporatise CORE would complement the Government's high level aim, as presented in the 1994 second reading speech to the amendment Bill providing for private sector operators, of establishing real competition in the delivery of prison services. Such real competition is yet to occur. In any event, it is critical that CORE is subject to the same monitoring regime and performance expectations and rewards as the private operators and there is a level playing field for assessing the performance of all industry participants.

Service delivery outcomes do not encourage service excellence

1.1.9 The service delivery outcomes set out in contractual agreements, which are used to determine the level of annual performance remuneration paid to private prison operators, are not considered by audit to encourage service excellence. In particular, the outcomes were established on the basis of average, or in some cases less than average, results achieved in the outdated prisons which had been identified for replacement. The outcomes are also primarily quantitative in nature and do not address key areas of qualitative performance such as the results of prisoner rehabilitation programs and the quality of staff training. These shortcomings, coupled with provisions which enable performance remuneration to be paid even where the service delivery outcomes have been only partly met, are not conducive to achieving the improvements in the quality of services which were expected to flow from the establishment of new prisons.

1.1.10 It seems very important at this stage of the industry's evolution that priority be given to expanding the range of service delivery outcomes to encompass qualitative performance measures and establishing a reward system which encourages a high level of service delivery in all key operational areas. The Department will have the opportunity to address this matter at the progressive expiration of the period of each contractual agreement with the private operators and the service agreement with CORE.

1.1.11 Several government agencies such as the Ombudsman, the Department of Human Services and Victoria Police have a responsibility or role within the prison industry. The activities undertaken by these agencies serve to complement the accountability processes embodied in the contractual agreements with prison operators and to give the community confidence in the overall management of the industry. Their existence also demonstrates to the community that, although the Commissioner fulfils the key role in overseeing the activities of the prison system, there are additional avenues in place for individuals to provide input or receive assurance on the safe custody and welfare of prisoners.

Absolute importance of effective prisoner management functions

1.1.12 Part 6 of this Report addresses the prisoner management function which goes to the heart of the Government's principal correctional objectives of protecting the community and encouraging offenders to adopt law-abiding lifestyles. The proper placement of a prisoner during a prison term, effective case management of individual prisoners, and participation by prisoners in relevant and useful programs represent key avenues for providing opportunities for prisoner rehabilitation and facilitating reparation to the community.

1.1.13 A major audit finding arising from examination of the prisoner management function is that the Department needs to adopt more effective long-term planning strategies for the prison system. In the past, strategic planning for prisons has not been well co-ordinated and limited attention has been directed to strategic consideration of the future capacity requirements of the prison system.

1.1.14 This position has restricted the ability of the Department to effectively manage the prisoner management process because the absence of projected numbers of prisoners with particular profiles prevents accurate determination of the nature and level of required accommodation to suit the needs of such profiles. With circumstances such as those experienced currently in the State, where the prison system is operating with capacity pressures, there has been a critical shortage of appropriate accommodation for certain specific categories of prisoners including women and prisoners in need of protection. More recently, the Department has moved through structural changes to upgrade the quality of its overall strategic planning. This action is positive and should encourage better co-ordination of policy and planning issues relating to prisons.

1.1.15 Audit has identified a number of serious deficiencies in the prisoner management process which require remedial action by the Department. Some of the weaknesses cited by audit stem from the absence within Victoria of minimum standards for the case management of individual prisoners. Audit has strongly suggested to the Department that such standards be formulated as a matter of priority. An outworking of such standards should be specification of the manner in which information is to be recorded on individual management plan files so that files consistently represent a well structured record of objectives developed for each prisoner's case plan and the status of progress against those objectives.

1.1.16 On the question of prisoner programs, audit considers that the Commissioner's Office needs to urgently review the nature and quality of programs provided in each prison and to determine whether existing evaluation strategies, both internal and external to prisons, are conducive to adequately measuring the effectiveness of programs. The importance of sufficient attention to program delivery is accentuated by the fact that, if programs are well structured in design and content and adequately address the identified needs of individual prisoners, there is a greater likelihood that some prisoners will successfully rehabilitate and avoid re-entering the system. The resultant benefits to both the community and prisoners are obvious.

1.1.17 A further challenge to the Commissioner's Office in terms of program delivery is that the move towards a competitive environment for the industry has contributed to the isolation of program staff within individual prisons. There is now a reduced opportunity for the sharing of expertise and ideas between prisons and limited integration of programs across the public and private prison operators. The Commissioner's Office has the task of overcoming this problem and engendering to the extent possible among program managers across the system a sense of unity in direction and purpose in case management for prisoners.

Security, catering and health services in prisons

1.1.18 The audit included examination of operational areas of key significance that are not heavily monitored by the Commissioner. In this regard, specialists engaged by audit assessed the appropriateness of security, catering and health care services in 3 private and 3 public prisons.

1.1.19 At the time of audit examination, each prison generally met the audit criteria for the delivery of appropriate security, catering and health care services. However, audit found some issues of a systemic nature together with specific issues relating to the operation of individual prisons that, if addressed, would lead to more effective delivery of prison services and greater alignment with the Government's correctional objectives. Key suggestions for improvement in the 3 operational areas are presented in Part 8 of this Report.

Greater disclosure to Parliament needed in annual reports

1.1.20 The limited range of information dealing with the industry communicated to the Parliament to date in the Department's annual report falls far short of the level necessary to effectively meet its accountability obligations relating to operation of the prison system. It also compares quite unfavourably with the degree of public reporting on prison operations by other Australian jurisdictions. The fact that the operation of the prison system involves annual outlays of taxpayers' funds in excess of $160 million reinforces the importance of appropriate corrective action.

1.1.21 As such, the Department should move to incorporate in future annual reports more extensive information (some suggestions are identified by audit in Part 5) as a key means of discharging the Government's accountability to the Parliament and community for the operation of such a significant State industry.

Overall management direction in the Department is positive

1.1.22 Finally, while a number of important areas requiring attention are identified in this Report, audit considers that the overall management direction for prisons within the Department under the current Secretary is positive. The Department is well placed to implement change in some key strategic areas and further enhance its overall framework for the management and supervision of this major area of government responsibility.

• RESPONSE provided by Secretary, Department of Justice

  Introduction

  The Department of Justice welcomes the report of the performance audit of the Victorian prison system. The report is timely. The Victorian prison system is now emerging from the most substantial and far reaching correctional system reforms ever implemented in the State. These reforms have brought major change to the correctional system. They are progressively overcoming the problems that were inherent in the former monopolistic provision of correctional services in a system that had high operating costs, declining and inadequate infrastructure, poor productivity and less demanding levels of accountability.

  The new multi provider correctional system in Victoria has brought with it new levels of accountability, defined performance standards, benchmarked productivity levels, and innovative infrastructure that make the Victorian correctional system a national leader.

  These reforms have brought with them new challenges for the Department of Justice in terms of standard setting, sentence management, performance monitoring, as well as achieving a cohesive correctional system fully cognisant of the State's duty of care responsibility for prisoners. It is apparent that these reforms, together with the opportunities and challenges that they present, are still not well understood in the community. It is also apparent that the concept of private sector provision of prison services is a difficult concept for some in the community to accept.

  Nonetheless, close inspection will reveal that the reinvigorated Victorian prison system is breaking new ground in correctional management and the full benefits of this will become more evident over time. It is in this context that the Department believes that this performance audit report is timely and brings to focus some of the remaining challenges that now need to be addressed to fully capitalise on the benefits of this key Government reform program.

  Role of the Correctional Services Commissioner

  The Department does not accept audit's conclusion that the Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner should be an independent body along similar lines to that of the Regulator-General, Ombudsman or Auditor-General.

  The role of the Correctional Services Commissioner encompasses a number of functions that are critical to its role in providing systemwide leadership, cohesion and accountability of correctional service providers in Victoria. These functions fall under the following key headings:

  • Strategic planning and policy development;
  • Service standards setting;
  • Sentence management, encompassing the assessment, classification and placement of each prisoner; and
  • Performance monitoring.  

  The audit report identifies several models to establish the Office as an independent body to undertake performance monitoring. Yet the report also accepts as complementary the functions of the Commissioner outlined above. Audit contends that the performance monitoring role would be carried out more effectively if the Office operated as an independent body reporting directly to Parliament or the Minister. Almost as an afterthought, audit suggests the other functions of the Office could equally be carried out more effectively if the Office was an independent entity. Audit argues that independence is necessary to ensure the Commissioner's monitoring role "is free from any influence or direction". Audit identifies no concrete examples of undue influence except to state that the Department did not previously support a request for additional monitoring staff. Whether within the Department or as a separate entity, the Commissioner's Office would need to work within agreed budgets and business plans. At all times, the Commissioner has complete discretion over the allocation of her staff between competing priorities.

  There is an apparent confusion by audit over the prison management model that operates within Victoria. Government has committed itself to a multi-provider correctional system. The Government has also made a commitment to retain a viable public prison capability. Negotiations on contract variations are undertaken by the Department on behalf of the Minister. The Commissioner's role in this process is to plan and advise the Minister on prison requirements, to set standards for prison operations and to monitor performance. More critically, however, the Commissioner must ensure the prison system operates cohesively and effectively on a day-to-day basis. It is not a "hands free" role. The Commissioner is responsible for all prisoner placements and consequential prisoner movements. The Commissioner oversees the movement of prisoners from Police cells to prison and from prison to court. The Commissioner needs to satisfy herself that all necessary investigations are conducted in relation to all major incidents. The Commissioner's Office is in constant contact with all prisons on a range of matters, many related to ensuring the Government is meeting its responsibilities in terms of its duty of care for prisoners.

  It is incumbent on the Commissioner to ensure the Victorian prison system operates as a total system irrespective of whether services are delivered by either public or private providers. There needs to be a consistency of purpose for prisoners as they move between prisons. Similarly, there needs to be a consistency in vision for providers within the Victorian prison system. The Government believes this is most effectively achieved by a Commissioner for Correctional Services who is able to freely access executive level support in the Department of Justice on critical matters such as government to government relations, linkages to the Courts and Police, and budget submissions to Government as well as the preparation of legislation. The Commissioner has direct access to the Minister whenever she deems it necessary. The Victorian model is one that has been investigated by other States. Interestingly, in Queensland recently, after an independent review, the Government opted to disband the Queensland Corrective Services Commission and its management board and move the correctional function back within a Departmental structure.

  Timeliness of information supporting conclusion

  The audit was conducted over a considerable period and examined extensive documentation, much of which reflected the status of events at a particular time and often reflecting a narrow window of insight during a period of considerable change. The presentation of this information in the report generates the perception that the status of events at a previous date continues to be the current situation. Providers have observed that many of audit's conclusions may have been valid six - twelve months ago but do not necessarily accurately represent the present situation.

  Accountability

  Audit concludes that the Department needs to provide a greater level of information in annual reports to Parliament and by other means that more fully meet its responsibilities to publicly account for the operation of the prison system.

  This issue has received considerable debate in recent times, yet it is arguable that more information has been made available about the operation of prisons in Victoria than had ever previously been the case. The reform of prisons in Victoria has, for the first time, been made publicly available, through the project briefs and prison service agreements for each of the three private prisons. Complete details of the nature of the services to be provided, performance benchmarks and service delivery outcomes have also been made available. A detailed statistical report on the Victorian correctional system has recently been released as well as material provided in the Department's annual reports.

  Nevertheless, it is recognised that stakeholder interests in the Victorian prison reform program is such that greater community confidence will need to be generated in the operation and performance of the system. To this end the Department will address how the benefits of reform programs can be more effectively communicated to enhance the community's confidence in the operation and performance of the prison system.

  Strategic planning

  The audit conclusion on the need to strengthen strategic planning of correctional services is noted. The report does not give due recognition to the fact that the reform program of the Victorian Prison Service has been strategically planned to refocus an expensive and under performing industry and to enhance the infrastructure of the industry.

  Nevertheless, the Department acknowledges the importance of effective strategic planning. A Portfolio Planning Branch was established on 1 March 1999 to co-ordinate planning and policy initiatives across the Justice Portfolio, while within the Commissioner's Office a Business Planning and Strategic Development Unit has recently been established in recognition of the need to devote more resources to this function.

  It needs to be emphasised, however, that accurate prison population projections and forecasts are notoriously difficult. Although audit posits that formulation of predictions on future capacity requirements in prisons is "quite difficult", the report does not identify any jurisdiction where accurate forecasts have been achieved.

  The Commissioner's Office is unaware of any State or Territory in Australia which has, or would claim to have, accurate long-term predictions of future prison capacity requirements. Ultimately, a correctional system has to respond to, and manage, the total demand for prison places generated from the broader criminal justice system. Total demand is affected by a wide and dynamic range of factors which impact upon offending, police intervention and sentencing.

  It should be noted that, while Victoria has experienced pressure from a recent rapid growth in prisoner numbers, comparable prisoner and offender numbers have continued to remain at lower levels than any other State in Australia, while Victoria has achieved the lowest comparative crime rate in Australia. Consequently, the current pressure on prison capacity, and its consequences, has been more severe in most other States than in Victoria.

  Complexity of Correctional Services

  Many of the issues raised by audit are common to correctional administrations throughout Australia, and the broader world. The management of prisoners is complex and challenging and the changes that are occurring in the profile of prisoners demand constant changes in the structure of prisons and the nature of programs that are provided.

  The key objectives of punishment, reparation and rehabilitation for which the system strives, are fundamental. However, achieving these objectives presents a considerable challenge to all parties because of the diverse characteristics of Victoria's prisoner profile. The complexity and seriousness of the problems with which many prisoners present to the prison system should not be underestimated. These problems encompass long-standing issues related to education, lifestyle, social skills and health which often have a compounding effect on the behaviour of offenders. Correctional systems are continually learning how to best deal with these situations and how to find ways to make a prisoner's containment in prison meaningful and provide useful building blocks for the rest of the prisoner's life.

  Evaluation of the effectiveness of programs offered to prisoners has been equally challenging to correctional systems around the world and, while considerable energy has been put into the development of relevant approaches, progress has been slow.

The bidding and selection process was undertaken in a manner consistent with the Government's Infrastructure Investment Policy for Victoria and a sound documentary trail was available to audit to support decisions reached at each major stage of the process.
Paras 4.10 to 4.61

Significant attention was directed to the management of probity issues during the process.
Paras 4.62 to 4.71

MONITORING THE PROVISION OF PRISON SERVICES

The Corrections Act 1986 assigns specific responsibility to the Correctional Services Commissioner for monitoring provision of prison services and confirming that management of the prison system is undertaken in a manner consistent with achieving safe custody and welfare of prisoners.
Paras 5.34 to 5.38

Due mainly to a need to direct scarce resources to the monitoring of private prisons, the Commissioner's Office has undertaken very limited monitoring of the State's 10 public prisons in recent years.
Paras 5.39 to 5.43 and 5.47 to 5.49

Although over the 3½ year period to 31 December 1998, a total of 54 escapes had occurred in public prisons, of which 51 were from minimum security prisons, the Commissioner's Office has not undertaken any investigative action in relation to these escapes.
Paras 5.44 to 5.46

Several elements of the operational environment of the Commissioner's Office adversely impact on the overall independence of the Office.
Paras 5.51 to 5.52

The State's evolving prison industry now requires a strong and credible regulatory framework which features a truly independent Correctional Services Commissioner.
Paras 5.53 to 5.58

All prison operators have an ongoing responsibility to submit a range of information to the Commissioner's Office dealing with key elements of their prison management.
Paras 5.59 to 5.63

From April to December 1998, the Commissioner's Office found it necessary to allocate a greater than anticipated level of monitoring resources to Port Phillip Prison because of continuing reservations as to the quality of data submitted to it by the prison operator.
Paras 5.69 to 5.77

The validation functions undertaken by the Commissioner should remain a key feature of the overall monitoring framework to ensure that prison operators continue to attach a high priority to the provision of complete and accurate data.
Para. 5.79

The limited monitoring resources available to date to the Commissioner's Office make it imperative that the Office's annual monitoring plans reflect realistic goals based on resource capabilities and a systematic approach to the prioritisation of tasks.
Paras 5.80 to 5.87

Key qualitative aspects of prison operators' performance such as the quality of staff training and outcomes from prisoner rehabilitation programs are not routinely examined as part of the Commissioner's monitoring functions.
Paras 5.88 to 5.95

Despite the identification of significant areas of poor performance at Port Phillip Prison during the first 5 months of operations, the Commissioner's Office attributed the position to "teething problems".
Paras 5.96 to 5.101

The circumstances at Port Phillip Prison reached a point when, on the days of 11 and 12 March 1998, the Prison experienced the extremely serious situation of a major disturbance.
Paras 5.102 to 5.105

A Ministerial Task Force established to investigate the major disturbance reported to the Minister in May 1998 and was highly critical of the operator's management of Port Phillip Prison.
Paras 5.106 to 5.109

The Government chose not to take the extreme position of exercising its termination right but opted to work with the operator at Port Phillip Prison in an attempt to achieve effective resolution of all of the matters raised by the Task Force.
Paras 5.110 to 5.112

The circumstances experienced at Port Phillip Prison reinforce the significant risk which can accrue to government from extensive reliance on a monitoring approach which has a heavy emphasis on confirming compliance with performance targets of a quantitative nature.
Para. 5.117

On the basis of the latest reports issued by the Commissioner, progressive improvement in performance at Port Phillip Prison has occurred up to February 1999 but the prison operator is still to satisfy the Commissioner that it is meeting all required service delivery outcomes.
Paras 5.118 to 5.122

The level of monitoring resources available to the Commissioner requires urgent attention by the Department of Justice.
Paras 5.123 to 5.139

Several agencies such as the Ombudsman, Victoria Police through its Prison Squad and the Department of Human Services have important roles within the prison industry and complement the accountability processes embodied in the contractual agreements with prison operators.
Paras 5.140 to 5.181

The Department should incorporate more extensive information in future annual reports as a key means of discharging the Government's accountability to the Parliament for the operation of such a significant State industry.
Paras 5.182 to 5.187

PRISONER MANAGEMENT

The prisoner management function is pivotal to achievement by the Government of its high level policy objectives set for the State's prison system.
Paras 6.11 to 6.17

Recent structural changes within the Department of Justice should lead to better co-ordination of policy and planning issues relating to prisons.
Paras 6.18 to 6.24

Past weaknesses in planning and the emergence of capacity pressures on the system have adversely impacted on the quality of accommodation available to prisoners designated as having special needs such as young offenders and the intellectually disabled.
Paras 6.25 to 6.33

The Commissioner's Office has found it necessary to resort to double bunking and the placing of mattresses on cell floors to accommodate additional prisoner numbers, especially in protection units.
Paras 6.41 to 6.43

Prisoner numbers have increased by over 19 per cent over the last 4 years to the point that by April 1999 the overall prison occupancy rate had reached 98.9 per cent and a total of 121 temporary stretcher beds or mattress places had to be used across 6 prisons to alleviate capacity shortages.
Paras 6.47 to 6.61

As part of its 1999-2000 budget, the Government has recently announced strategic measures to address capacity problems within the prison system.
Paras 6.72 to 6.77

The non-segregation of remanded and sentenced prisoners at Port Phillip Prison impacts on the ability of the Commissioner to guarantee the safety and welfare of prisoners within that prison.
Paras 6.87 to 6.91

The Commissioner's Office has taken recent initiatives to provide greater assurance on the soundness of its decisions on the placement of prisoners.
Paras 6.104 to 6.111

Use by the Commissioner of some form of periodic external scrutiny to independently examine selected classification and placement decisions, for example, through creation of a special review panel, is worthy of consideration.
Paras 6.112 to 6.113

The Department should ensure that leading edge technology is applied to its information systems relating to prisons as soon as possible.
Paras 6.116 to 6.123

The creation, at the commencement of a prison term, of an individual management plan which reflects any special needs and characteristics of the prisoner constitutes a key element of the prisoner management process.
Paras 6.124 to 6.126

Following widespread criticism of the quality of information recorded on individual management plan files, the Commissioner should give priority to the development and adoption of case management standards for use within the prison system.
Paras 6.127 to 6.142

The Commissioner's Office needs to urgently review the nature and quality of prisoner programs provided in each prison.
Paras 6.148 to 6.158

The manner in which Review and Assessment Committees function within prisons as a critical element of prisoner management requires specific attention by the Commissioner.
Paras 6.159 to 6.171

CONTRACTUAL FRAMEWORK

Agreements with private contractors have enabled the Government to achieve one of its prison reform objectives of transferring significant financial risks to the private sector. Certain operating risks have also been transferred by placing the onus on contractors to deliver services which meet the Government's standards.
Paras 7.25 to 7.26

Agreements with contractors provide the Government with wide access and monitoring rights and a number of options where the services delivered are not in line with specified standards. A major challenge for the Government is to more effectively utilise these options to ensure any poor performance is promptly addressed.
Paras 7.31 and 7.68 to 7.79

Service delivery outcomes used as a basis for paying contractors an annual performance-linked fee do not encourage the provision of high quality services as they are based on outcomes achieved in outdated prisons which had been identified for replacement. They are also primarily quantitative in nature.
Paras 7.34 to 7.36

The Government's reform objective of achieving "real competition in the delivery of correctional services" has not yet been fully realised as public prison operators are not subject to some of the operating conditions which apply to private contractors.
Paras 7.45 to 7.48

Financial penalties to the contractor responsible for Port Phillip Prison have been minimal even though serious deficiencies at the prison were not fully addressed for over a year and involved significant monitoring costs to the Government.
Paras 7.68 to 7.79

Agreements between the Government and 3 private contractors have realised a number of non-financial benefits to the community and prisoners including the replacement of outdated prisons with state-of-the art facilities. There is still some uncertainty whether the cost savings expected to flow from the prison reforms will be realised.
Paras 7.80 to 7.91

At 28 February 1999, incidents at the following prisons have exceeded the acceptable limits specified in the Prison Services Agreements:
self-mutilations and attempted suicides, and assaults on prisoners by other prisoners at Metropolitan Women's Correctional Centre by 91 and 20 per cent, respectively;
Para 8.22 and 8.102

assaults on prisoners by other prisoners, assaults on prison staff, and positive drug testing of prisoners at Barwon Prison by 32, 66 and 44 per cent, respectively; and
Para 8.22 and 8.107

assaults on prisoners by other prisoners at Loddon Prison by 27 per cent.
Para 8.22 and 8.112

In relation to the 18 factors considered essential for adequate prison security, the audit found that most were in place in the 6 prisons examined.
Paras 8.33 to 8.37

In contrast to the 3 private prisons which do not undertake regular risk assessments of prison security, CORE conducts detailed reviews of operational security matters.
Paras 8.38 to 8.39

The commercial tensions associated with the evolving multi-service provider industry have led to a fragmented system which discourages innovative solutions to be shared between prison operators.
Paras 8.45 to 8.46

Compatible hand scanning systems which minimise the potential for suspect or barred persons gaining access to any prison are not in place.
Paras 8.47 to 8.48

The conditions experienced in visits centres in terms of the high numbers of visitors and prisoners congregating during a visit and the requirement to strip search prisoners after their visitors leave, restricts the ability of staff to maintain a span of control across the centres.
Paras 8.49 to 8.50

Prisoners who commit a "minor" drug offence for the first time in prison such as for cannabis use, should receive a lesser penalty than that received by a hard drug user.
Paras 8.56 to 8.64

Prison catering

Testing of para film cultures taken from kitchen benches and food storage areas at the 6 prisons indicated levels of bacteria which warranted further investigation.
Paras 8.175 to 8.179

Prison operators at Port Phillip and Dhurringile Prisons should monitor kitchen staff's compliance with appropriate personal hygiene practices, including wearing clean uniforms and aprons and use of gloves and hair nets, to ensure the safe preparation of food.
Paras 8.192 to 8.193

Health care services

Health care services received by prisoners were at least equivalent to those available to the general community.
Paras 8.217 to 8.218

Only 71 per cent of prisoners considered at risk to themselves at Barwon Prison were assessed by a psychiatric professional in the 8 months to 28 February 1999.
Paras 8.219 and 8.229

Contrary to current authoritative research, at-risk prisoners are isolated in observation cells which are stripped of all amenities.
Paras 8.236 to 8.238