 |
Victoria's prison system: |
|
Victoria's prison system: |
6.2 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. This position has restricted the ability of the Commissioner's Office 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.
6.3 Two special exercises, one involving a research analysis of trends in prisoner populations in Victoria and the other relating to a review of rates, trends and implications of male imprisonment were underway at the time of the audit but are yet to be finalised. More recently, the Department has moved through structural changes to upgrade the quality of its overall strategic planning. This latter action is positive and should encourage better co-ordination of policy and planning issues relating to prisons.
6.4 Also, the Government has recently announced, through its 1999-2000 budget delivered to Parliament on 4 May 1999, details of a specific financial commitment of $19 million over 2 years for an increase in the capacity of prisons as a means of catering for the growth in prisoner numbers.
6.5 On the question of prisoner placements to prisons, audit understands that remandees and medium security prisoners placed at Port Phillip Prison are co-mingled with maximum security prisoners. Audit considers this practice affects the ability of the Commissioner to guarantee the safety and welfare of all prisoners within that prison and steps should be taken to change this position.
6.6 The creation, at the commencement of a prison term, of an individual management plan (IMP) which reflects any special needs and characteristics of the prisoner constitutes a key element of the prisoner management process. In this regard, prison operators have the important responsibility of ensuring that all information pertaining to a prisoner's individual needs and progress in achieving rehabilitation goals during the prison term is systematically recorded on IMP files.
6.7 This Part of the Report refers to quite sharp criticism of the quality of information recorded on IMP files from 3 sources: an external consultant appointed by the Commissioner, the Victorian Correctional Services Task Force appointed by the Minister and this audit. Part of the problem with IMP files stems from the absence within Victoria of minimum case management standards. Audit has strongly suggested to the Commissioner's Office 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 IMP files so that files consistently represent a well structured record of objectives specified in each prisoner's case plan and the status of progress against those objectives.
6.8 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 measuring the effectiveness of programs. The importance of adequate 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.
6.9 A further challenge to the Commissioner's Office in terms of program delivery is that the emergence of a competitive environment 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.
6.10 Finally, the manner in which review and assessment committees function within prisons requires specific attention. As with the position concerning IMP files and prisoner programs, this important aspect of prisoner management has been directly criticised not only by audit but the Commissioner's consultant and the Ministerial Task Force. The comments by the Task Force suggested that in some prisons the review and assessment committee does not even see the prisoner in person. As this Task Force rightly pointed out, a review and assessment committee or a case management working team reporting to the committee should always see the prisoner.
"To protect the community and to encourage offenders to adopt law-abiding lifestyles by:
6.12 The critical means by which the Government strives to achieve these objectives within the prison system is through the prisoner management function. This function commences from the point of entry of an offender into the system and extends through to the prisoner's completion of his or her sentence and exit from the system. The prisoner management function could be described, therefore, as encompassing the full cycle of a prisoner's term in prison.
6.13 The prisoner management function commences with the reaching of some key decisions by the Sentence Management Unit within the Commissioner's Office on:
6.14 Following the prisoner's arrival at the selected prison, responsibility for prisoner management decisions transfers to the prison operator who is required to:
6.15 The ongoing tasks undertaken at the local prison level in managing prisoner plans and reviewing progress against plans is subject to progressive monitoring by the Commissioner's Office. In other words, the Commissioner's Sentence Management Unit has the key responsibility, beyond its important initial decisions (as described above), for monitoring the overall effectiveness of prisoner management functions progressively undertaken within prisons.
6.16 Chart 6A sets out in diagrammatical form the sequence of the main management tasks associated with the management of a prisoner from the point of arrival to the time of exit from the prison system.
6.17 In summary, the prisoner management function is pivotal to achievement by the Government of its high level policy objectives set for the State's prison system. The quality and soundness of key decisions reached during the various phases of this management function directly influence the nature of rehabilitation opportunities available to individual prisoners and, from a wider perspective, the smooth functioning of operations within prisons.
6.19 It follows, therefore, that strategic assessments of the State's future capacity requirements for prisons, based upon such matters as trends in prisoner population and a likely myriad of related causal factors, need to be soundly structured in order to provide reasonable assurance that significant and permanent capacity shortfalls will not occur.
6.20 While stressing the importance of adequate future planning, it is important to recognise the overall complexity of the task as well as the degree of uncertainty arising from constantly changing circumstances which render quite difficult the formulation of predictions on future capacity requirements in prisons. Some of these changing circumstances would include variations in socio-economic behavioural patterns, legislative amendments and new policy directions of government in the area of criminal justice etc.
6.21 In addition, the outcome of the future planning process always has to be considered by government in the light of limitations on available resources.
6.22 At the time of the audit examination, the following 3 organisational units within the Department of Justice had responsibility for matters relevant to strategic planning for prisons:
6.23 The audit examination of the work of these 3 organisational units found that their respective involvement in strategic planning functions was not, at the time, particularly well co-ordinated with adverse ramifications on the quality of the overall approach to future planning within the Department.
6.24 An important contributing factor to this position was the fact that, although the Commissioner has responsibility for strategic planning and managing prisoner numbers through the Sentence Management Unit, the role of co-ordinating information gathering and analysis by the 3 organisational units within the Department does not rest with the Commissioner. Following a recent restructure of the Department, responsibility for strategic planning in the Justice area has been given to the newly created positions of Director, Justice Policy and Assistant Secretary Portfolio Planning, which should encourage better co-ordination of policy and planning issues relating to prisons.
Some adverse ramifications of inadequate planning
6.25 In response to a request by audit for prisoner information, audit was advised by the then Director of Monitoring and Assessment and the Acting Commissioner that there were problems accessing basic information about the prisoner population without the design of special programs to extract data from the prisoner information management system and a wait of up to 4 weeks for the information to be processed and collated. Consequently, it was evident to audit at the time that it would be difficult for the Commissioner's Office to effectively undertake its planning responsibilities without timely access to prisoner information. This position meant that there was limited attention directed to strategic consideration of the future capacity requirements of the prison system.
6.26 This lack of planning restricts the ability of the Commissioner's Office 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. As a consequence, with circumstances such as those experienced currently in the State where the prison system is operating with capacity pressures, there is a critical shortage of appropriate accommodation for certain specific categories of prisoner including women, protection prisoners, and men with medium security classification.
6.27 It also means that, because of capacity constraints, individual prison operators are not in a position to address the requirements of particular special needs groups by designating specific accommodation for such groups. By way of example, in September 1998, the operator of Port Phillip Prison identified a need to separately accommodate certain types of young offenders and developed a proposal for the Commissioner's Office to consider. Audit was advised by the operator that the proposal had been rejected because the Sentence Management Unit did not want to reduce the number of available mainstream population beds at the prison.
6.28 The importance of this issue is reinforced by the fact that, for 3 or so years, young offenders have comprised approximately 25 per cent of the total prisoner population and this segment of the prisoner population has quite distinct needs from other prisoners. That these specific needs may not be addressed, despite their identification by prison management, illustrates how capacity considerations can adversely impact on the quality and effectiveness of prison services.
6.29 Weaknesses in planning also contribute to situations such as those identified by audit at Port Phillip Prison. A unit at the prison accommodates prisoners with intellectual disabilities, but has also been used to accommodate vulnerable prisoners requiring protection, but who are not intellectually disabled.
6.30 This co-mingling of prisoner categories gives rise to complex prisoner management problems because intellectually disabled prisoners require a different regime to other types of prisoners. In addition, even though the other prisoners may be seen as vulnerable in the context of the mainstream prisoner population, they may not be so in the context of the unit's population which could place the intellectually disabled prisoners at some risk themselves. It obviously defeats the purpose of establishing a special unit if eligibility criteria are disregarded to accommodate other types of prisoners.
6.31 In addition, prisoners placed in the unit who are not intellectually disabled have to live in an environment designed to suit intellectually disabled prisoners. Such a practice is less than satisfactory because these prisoners become subject to a regime which is not aligned to their needs. Also, staff in the unit advised audit that some of the intellectually disabled prisoners had complained about having to participate in certain programs because other prisoners in the unit were exempted from participation.
6.32 All prison operators advised audit of the difficulty experienced when raising accommodation problems concerning prisoners with special needs with the Sentence Management Unit. Because the operators are not able to change placement decisions once they have been signed off by the Sentence Management Unit, they find themselves in a position where they have identified a need and devised a strategy to address it, but cannot move any further on the matter unless the Commissioner is in agreement.
6.33 In summary, it is clearly important for the Department to pursue its strategy of upgrading the quality of planning for prisons. Such action is necessary for it to be assured that key decisions reached during the prisoner management process contribute to a maximum degree in achieving the rehabilitation needs of all prisoners, but particularly those prisoners designated as having special needs.
Specific issues dealing with prisoners requiring protection
6.34 Prisoners requiring protection, more commonly described within the system as protection prisoners, are prisoners identified and assessed by both the Commissioner's Office and the prison operator as unable to be managed in the general mainstream prisoner population. In addition, any prisoner with a concern for his or her safety may request protection status or such a request may be made on a prisoner's behalf by a legal representative, a member of Victoria Police or any of the many correctional staff with whom contact is made during a sentence period. These individual requests are assessed by either or both prison management or the Sentence Management Unit.
6.35 At the time of audit examination, the Ararat and Langi Kal Kal prisons were designated as protection prisons while 4 other prisons, Barwon, Fulham, Port Phillip and the Metropolitan Women's Correctional Centre have specific areas set aside to accommodate protection prisoners.
6.36 In August 1997, the Commissioner engaged an external consultant to examine the activities and efficiency of the Office's Sentence Management Unit. The consultant delivered a comprehensive final report to the Commissioner in April 1998.
6.37 On the subject of protection prisoners, the consultant stated that "Of the current prisoner population approximately 23 per cent are managed as protection prisoners. There has been an incremental increase in the size of this population which, if not stabilised, will result in acute vacancy management problems in the medium term". At that time (March 1998), there were 622 beds made available for protection prisoners and the occupancy rate was approximately 96 per cent.
6.38 The consultant concluded that:
6.39 The consultant recommended that:
6.40 The consultant's report also mentioned that the problem with protection prisoner numbers can be attributed to the fact that providers are operating in a very risk averse manner, choosing to err on the side of caution when faced with a request for protection. However, the consultant also identified the following possible reasons for the increase in numbers:
6.41 The importance of adequate planning is reinforced by the fact that 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 (double bunking can be described as the accommodation of 2 prisoners in cells designed to accommodate 1 prisoner only). As pointed out by the Commissioner's consultant, there has been a steady increase in the number of protection prisoners and capacity pressures would soon be experienced. It is also highly questionable whether the accommodation of prisoners on mattresses on the floor and folding beds can be regarded as ideal practice.
6.42 The practice of double bunking is not consistent with the requirements of the contractual agreements in place for the 3 private prisons. In this regard, the Prison Services Agreements for the Metropolitan Women's Correctional Centre and Fulham Correctional Centre require the provision of a prison environment which "... allows each Prisoner to be accommodated in a single room or cell". Also, the Prison Services Agreement for Port Phillip Prison requires the provision of a prison environment which "... allows Prisoners to be predominantly accommodated in single cells".
6.43 The Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia 1996, arising from the Corrective Services Ministers' Conference March 1995, state in section 5.23 that "In new prisons, accommodation should generally be provided in single cells or rooms. Provision should be made however, for multiple cell accommodation for the management of particular prisoners". While the use of double bunking is not directly contrary to the standards, it is clear that the ideal position is to accommodate as many prisoners as possible in single cells.
6.44 In order to provide a more up-to-date picture of the position concerning protection prisoners within the system, Table 6B compares relevant data at March 1998 (as reported by the consultant engaged by the Commissioner) and at April 1999 as advised to audit by the Commissioner's Office.
Position at Position at
March 1998 April 1999 Variance
Protection prisoners as a
percentage of the total 23% 22% -1%
prison population
Number of beds available for
protection prisoners 622 676 +54
Occupancy rate of available 96% 95% -1%
beds
6.45 It can be seen from Table 6B that, while the occupancy rate of protection prisoners based on available beds has stabilised over the last 12 months, this position has been reached after a need to allocate an additional 54 beds for protection prisoners. However, the April 1999 figures provided by the Commissioner's Office do not convey the complete picture as the Office advised audit that an additional number of protection prisoners (not recorded in the above figures) are accommodated at the Melbourne Assessment Prison and Port Phillip Prison in areas of those prisons not specifically designated for prisoners requiring protection. Furthermore, the figures furnished by the Commissioner's Office disclose a serious situation at the Metropolitan Women's Correctional Centre where 37 protection prisoners were accommodated at 26 April 1999 in an area designated to accommodate only 20 prisoners.
6.46 The circumstances presented in the preceding paragraphs relating to the increasing number of protection prisoners and the capacity of the system to adequately accommodate such prisoners provides further evidence of the importance of the Department's current moves to upgrade the standard of its strategic planning practices for the prison system.
Increasing capacity pressures on the prison system
6.47 The discussion in the previous paragraphs has identified instances of particular difficulties relating to the management of prisoners with special needs, including protection prisoners, arising from increasing accommodation pressures on the prison system.
6.48 For some time now, the Department has been aware of a progressive growth in prisoner population and the associated implications for system capacity. In this regard, the latest annual Statistical Profile of the Victorian Prison System covering the 3 year period 1995-96 to 1997-98 prepared by the Commissioner's Office in September 1998 referred to the expanding prisoner population in the following terms "... a 17.2% increase in the size of the prison population between 30 June 1996 and 30 June 1998. The average total prisoner population grew by 10.7% during the same period, reflecting the rapid increase in the size of the prison population to the highest levels in Victorian history. Reflecting the significant increase in the size of the prison population, the prison occupancy rate rose from 87.5% at 30 June 1996 to 93.3% at 30 June 1997 and 97.5 per cent at 30 June 1998".
6.49 In March 1999, the Director of the Sentence Management Unit advised audit that "85 per cent is the ideal occupancy rate at which any prison should operate in an ideal world. This is conventional correctional wisdom and as such is generally agreed across corrections".
6.50 It can be seen that the prisoner population at 30 June 1998 was well over the ideal position and had reached a critical stage in that almost all available beds within the system were occupied.
6.51 Information held within the Commissioner's Office showed instances of overcrowding at 27 July 1998 within particular units of various prisons based on the units' approved capacity at that date. Table 6C presents relevant details.
Number of
Approved Actual prisoners held
Prison unit capacity occupancy in excess of
capacity
Loddon (Avoca) 64 77 13
Loddon (Campaspe) 70 71 1
Barwon (Banksia Waratah) 24 27 3
Barwon (Banksia Heath) 24 28 4
Fulham (Medium) 306 370 64
Port Phillip Prison 65 78 13
(Sirius)
Port Phillip Prison (Sirius 20 23 3
East)
Port Phillip Prison 56 57 1
(Waaksembyd)
MWCC (Amber.1A) 14 23 9
MWCC (Cyan.1) 10 11 1
MWCC (Cyan.2) 10 12 2
MWCC (Cyan.3) 10 12 2
MWCC (Cyan.4) 5 6 1
Beechworth (Ovens) 41 47 6
MAP (Spring) 6 9 3
Tarrengower (Chamomile) 2 4 2
6.52 When considering the above information, it should be recognised that the extent of overcrowding at the time related to particular units within prisons and did not necessarily indicate an overall over-capacity position at all of the respective prisons at 27 July 1998. On this point, audit examination of the relevant data indicated that, of the prisons mentioned in Table 6C, each had experienced capacity problems to varying degrees.
Emergence of more serious capacity pressures in recent times
6.53 In recent times, significant attention within the media has focused on issues associated with overcrowding within prisons and a consequential overloading of prisoners in police cells. In this regard, average prisoner numbers within the system increased from 2 806 in February 1999 to 2 900 in April 1999 at which point the prison occupancy rate based on permanent capacity was 98.9 per cent.
6.54 In effect, the system in April 1999 was at full capacity and has required the utilisation of temporary stretcher beds or mattress places within particular prisons. At 15 April 1999, temporary accommodation involving a total of 121 stretcher beds or mattress places have had to be used across 6 prisons to address acute accommodation problems in those prisons.
6.55 An indication of the significant increase in prisoner numbers within the State over the period from July 1995 to April 1999 is presented in Chart 6D.
6.56 Based on the information shown in Chart 6D, average prisoner numbers within the State's prison system increased by around 19.2 per cent from 2 432 to 2 900 prisoners over almost the last 4 years. Should this rate of increase continue, the State's prisoner population would reach around 3 500 by 2004. In relation to prisoner numbers as at April 1999, the Commissioner advised audit that this month each year represented a seasonal peak in terms of the total prisoner population within the system.
6.57 A temporary solution to capacity problems at the Metropolitan Womens Correctional Centre was announced by the Government in March 1999. This solution which was expected to be provided over a period of 2 months involves purpose-built portable accommodation at the prison.
6.58 A further action taken by the Government, also during March 1999, was the filling of 100 places available in total at Beechworth and Barwon Prisons as a means of working through an overload of prisoners in police cells.
6.59 An important issue associated with the expansion of capacity is the responsibility of the Department to ensure that prison operators are in a position to meet any increased level of demand on services. In other words, the Department has to be satisfied that the safe custody and welfare of all prisoners is not compromised as a result of capacity expansions.
6.60 In summary, it was very evident to audit that the Department needed to adopt more effective long-term strategies for addressing the capacity problems within the prison system.
6.61 The Department also should give high priority to the development of a model to assist in projecting prisoner numbers and characteristics and the formulation of plans to guide decision-making on future capacity issues. Without adequate identification and planning mechanisms to monitor prisoner numbers and trends in prisoner placements and characteristics, the Commissioner's Office will not be in a strong position to ensure that decisions reached in the implementation of the prisoner management process contribute in an optimum way to achievement of the Government's high level correctional objectives.
Government strategies to improve quality of planning and longer-term management of capacity issues
6.62 In the light of the issues identified in the preceding paragraphs on shortcomings in the approach to strategic planning and on the increasing capacity pressures within the prison system which were clearly evident at 30 June 1998, audit sought from the Department details of strategies it had formulated around that time to address these matters.
6.63 Also, with the emergence of the serious capacity issues in more recent times, audit requested information on the nature of the action taken by the Department to alleviate immediate overcrowding developments and on its strategic approach to addressing the circumstances from a medium to long-term perspective.
System demand study - female imprisonment trends
6.64 In relation to the earlier period, audit was advised that during 1998 a system demand study in respect of female imprisonment trends was undertaken by the Department's Corrections Strategic Policy Branch to assist the Department in its mid to long-term planning of correctional services in Victoria.
6.65 The study led to the conclusion that there have been significant increases in the number of females in custody over the last decade, with a more rapid increase over the previous 3 years.
6.66 Specifically, the report arising from the review, which was issued in October 1998, found that "... there has been a significant increase of 23% in individuals [women] entering the prison system each year over the 10 year period from 326 in 1988 to 402 in 1998". It also highlighted that, while the number of women entering prison had increased, sentence lengths have continued to decrease. The report stated "... in 1993, 54% of female prisoners were imprisoned for less than 12 months. By 1998 this had increased to 73 per cent. There is consequently a higher throughput of females serving shorter sentences".
6.67 Audit is not aware of any action taken by the Department on the matters dealing with female imprisonment trends addressed in this system demand study.
Analysis of trends in prisoner populations
6.68 As mentioned in an earlier paragraph, the Criminal Justice Statistics and Research Unit within the Department was undertaking at the time of the audit examination a research analysis of trends in prisoner populations in Victoria.
6.69 Audit was advised that this exercise is not yet finalised.
Review of rates, trends and implications of male imprisonment in Victoria
6.70 As also mentioned in an earlier paragraph, the Department's Corrections Strategic Policy Unit was carrying out during the course of the audit a review of rates, trends and implications of male imprisonment in Victoria. At the time, audit was advised that the results of this review were expected to be available sometime in February 1999.
6.71 Again with this review, audit was advised that the results were not yet available.
Other recent strategic reactions by the Government
6.72 In terms of the emergence of the serious capacity issues in the prison system which have attracted public attention in more recent times, audit sought from the Department information on strategic measures, in place or planned, to alleviate immediate capacity problems and address the circumstances from a medium to long-term perspective.
6.73 Information on strategic actions relating to capacity issues has recently been forwarded to audit by the Department.
6.74 The Government has recently announced, through its 1999-2000 budget, some specific measures relating to prison capacity and the management of prisons. In this regard, the Budget Statement 1999-2000 referred to these measures in the following terms:
"Over the past 3 years there has been a significant increase in the overall prisoner population within Victoria such that prisoner numbers have reached or exceeded prison accommodation capacity. The challenge for Victoria is not only to meet the current demand but also to respond to the underlying causes of the problem and develop a long term strategy.
"In response to this challenge an innovative and comprehensive strategy has been developed by the Department and supported with budget funding. An additional $6.7 million will be provided in 1999-2000 to fund:
- expansion of prison capacity;
- piloting of diversion programs to provide further alternatives to prison; and
- substantial enhancement of the programs provided to offenders, particularly drug treatment and rehabilitation.
"New streams of management and programs will be introduced catering for the changing mix in the prison population. Smaller units with intensive programs are being designed to break the cycle of re-offending. Pre-release programs that attempt to focus on establishing link with the community will also be facilitated."
6.75 The Treasurer's Speech on the 1999-2000 budget indicated that the financial commitment to cater for the growth in prisoner numbers was a further $19 million over 2 years.
6.76 The budget papers do not provide any information on the nature (for example new or portable buildings) and number of additional prison beds across the prison system. However, the Minister has recently announced that the prison capacity will be increased by more than 300 beds with an injection of $49.5 million over the next 3 years.
6.77 As mentioned in an earlier paragraph, if the prisoner population continues to rise at the current rate, prisoner numbers are likely to increase by around 600 over the next 5 years. This situation reinforces the importance of effective outcomes from the Treasurer's budget announcement concerning the allocation of additional funding for piloting of diversion programs to provide further alternatives to prison.
6.79 This comprehensive assessment by the Sentence Management Unit encompasses consideration of, but is not limited to, the following prisoner-related factors:
6.80 In addition to the above tasks undertaken on entry of a prisoner into the system, the Sentence Management Unit has responsibility for the ongoing monitoring of the prisoner management process (including decisions on subsequent placements) throughout the term of the prisoner.
6.81 The latest draft of the Sentence Management Policy Manual (dated November 1998) provided to audit shows that the Sentence Management Unit had a staff of 18, with 4 positions funded from sources other than the Commissioner's Office. The Unit's key functions and procedures dealing with the supervision of matters relating to prisoner management within the system are documented in this draft manual. As at 26 March 1999, the manual was still in draft form and yet to be approved by the Commissioner.
6.82 The Unit processes approximately 4 000 initial assessments each year on arrival of prisoners in addition to a multiplicity of ongoing assessments associated with prisoner management during the term of prisoners.
6.83 A further function of the Unit involves co-ordination of emergency movement of prisoners following any serious incidents in prisons. For example, after the March 1998 disturbance at Port Phillip Prison, 48 cells were deemed unusable by the Commissioner's Office and 30 prisoners had to be urgently moved to Barwon Prison which in turn led to further movement of prisoners (an additional 70) across the system.
6.84 In order to adequately support achievement of the Government's correctional objectives, the prisoner management function should incorporate an assessment process which accurately identifies prisoners' needs in order that the placement of prisoners and their subsequent management can, as far as practicable, reflect such needs.
6.85 It is clearly not reasonable to expect that all needs of all prisoners can be met at all times. In this regard, the policy manual indicates that sentence management activities form part of a process of "... identifying and matching the security and management risk and program needs of individual prisoners to available resources. It is a process of balancing security risk, management concerns, needs of prisoners, the need of the public for protection and the efficient and effective operation of the prison system".
6.86 Audit examination of this aspect of the Unit's operations found that prisoner needs were strongly considered during the assessment process and in reaching initial placement decisions. However, audit also found that the following factors are present within the system and can adversely influence the Unit's placement decisions:
Impact of using informal security classifications
6.87 In addition to the above matter concerning protection prisoners, audit considered that there were specific problems arising from the Unit's use of a long established practice under which remanded and newly sentenced prisoners are classified as maximum security, irrespective of the outcome of the initial assessment of their backgrounds. The practice provides for many prisoners, after sentencing, to automatically serve the first one-third of their sentence as a maximum security classified prisoner.
6.88 This approach is followed for 2 principal reasons that prisoners at this stage are largely not known to the system and to ensure they do not progress too quickly to the medium and minimum security classification stages. In the case of remandees, the adoption of this practice means that all prisoners are mixed together irrespective of their backgrounds.
6.89 The application of this policy has a specific impact in terms of prisoners placed at Port Phillip Prison. That prison does not segregate its remanded and sentenced prisoners, nor its maximum security and medium security prisoners. This practice affects the ability of the Commissioner to guarantee the safety and welfare of prisoners within the prison. Additionally, the needs of prisoners may not be met given that minimum and medium security prisoners are accommodated in a maximum security environment with restrictions that may not be commensurate with the security ratings assigned to them.
6.90 Such a practice is not consistent with the Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia which state that "... where practicable remand prisoners must not be put in contact with convicted prisoners against their will ..." or the Commissioner's Standards for Men's Prisons in Victoria which identify that "... remand prisoners who are not also serving a sentence of imprisonment must be kept separate from sentenced prisoners (where possible)".
6.91 With an approach of this nature, there is limited opportunity for a prisoner to be initially classified at a lower level, irrespective of the nature of the committed offence or personal characteristics of the prisoner. The reason for this situation, according to advice provided to audit by the Director of the Sentence Management Unit, is that there are more places available in the system at the maximum security level than at the medium security level, so the emphasis is on keeping the maximum security beds full and taking the pressure off the medium security beds, which are not enough in number to cope with the system's demand.
6.92 Furthermore, the Department advised audit that the State's prison system experiences a recidivism rate of 70 per cent, i.e. 70 per cent of prisoners entering the system have previously been convicted of a crime. The established classification practice therefore essentially ignores existing knowledge of the prisoner.
6.93 The Unit's Sentence Management Framework establishes the policy setting for classification of prisoners and states that "... each prisoner will be classified to a prison consistent with his or her security rating, taking into consideration any special needs and/or prisoner management concerns".
6.94 It is evident, therefore, that the use of this informal approach to security classifications has led to a departure from the formally documented procedures as a consequence of factors which can be linked to the capacity pressures of the prison system.
6.95 In making the above comment, it is important to recognise the existence of system capacity influences on decision-making and that at times it becomes necessary to depart from prescribed procedures. Audit has suggested to the Department that, when experiencing such circumstances, there would be merit in ensuring that, as a minimum, assigned security classifications be based to the degree possible on the assessment of the prisoner's background. If, because of capacity factors, the initial placement is not directly in line with this classification, there should be sufficient flexibility within the system to enable re-placing of the prisoner if there is a subsequent alleviation of capacity pressures.
6.96 In any event, it was evident to audit at the time that the Department needed to reassess the appropriateness of its classification and placement strategies in order for it to be fully satisfied that the assessment and placement of each new prisoner into the system reflect the true nature of the risk to the system posed by that prisoner.
Appropriateness of prisoner placements
6.97 To assist in forming a view on the appropriateness of placement decisions made by the Sentence Management Unit during the term of prisoners, audit sought the following information from the Unit on the number of:
6.98 The Sentence Management Unit advised audit that it does not collect this information. Audit considers there would be merit in the periodic compilation of such data as one means of assisting the Commissioner's Office in forming a view on the soundness or otherwise of decisions reached in the placement of prisoners.
6.99 The Unit's Sentence Management Framework states that "... each prison is ascribed a security level, which reflects the type of accommodation, physical security and type of management regime. Locations may only accommodate prisoners of an equivalent or lower security rating".
6.100 On the other hand, the Commissioner's standards for the prison industry specify that all prisoners within the system must be "... placed within a prison according to their legal status and security ratings and prisoners must be placed within prison at the lowest security rating for which they qualify".
6.101 The question of a conflict between the framework and the standards has been raised by audit with the Commissioner. Under the framework, a prison designated to accommodate maximum security prisoners can receive medium or minimum security prisoners. In contrast, the Commissioner's standards for the industry preclude placement of prisoners to prisons with a security rating higher than that assigned to the prisoner, e.g. the placement of a medium security prisoner in a maximum security prison. In audit opinion, action should be taken to address this conflict.
6.102 During the course of the audit 2 instances were identified where the underlying circumstances suggested that optimum placements of prisoners had not occurred. These instances are summarised below:
Memoranda from the General Manager, South Eastern Region Prisons to CORE's Director of Prison Services in response to the 2 escapes of 24 April 1998 and 12 May 1998 conveyed the view that in both cases the prisoners who escaped had been inappropriately placed at the minimum security prison. In relation to the escape of 24 April 1998, the Manager's memorandum stated that the prisoner had been implicated only 4.5 months prior to his transfer to Won Wron in an attempted escape and that it was "... very evident that he was inappropriately placed at a minimum security prison ...". In the case of the escape of 12 May 1998 the General Manager stated in another memorandum that "Sentence Management have noted in successive interviews that the prisoner would require close supervision and monitoring at all times ... notwithstanding this [the prisoner] was seen to be suitable for an open camp placement where such close supervision could not be provided".
6.103 As identified by audit in Part 5 of this Report, 51 of the 54 escapes from the Victorian prison system during the 3½ year period July 1995 to December 1998 were from minimum security prisons. The audit comments in that Part indicated there is scope for the Commissioner's Office to examine the question of why there is such a high rate of escapes from minimum security prisons.
Importance of recent initiatives taken by the Commissioner's Office to provide greater assurance on the soundness of placement decisions
6.104 The importance of greater accountability and transparency in sentence management decision-making was recognised in the April 1998 report by the consultant (mentioned in earlier paragraphs) engaged by the Commissioner to examine the operations of the Sentence Management Unit. The report stated that "... sentence management and decision making and assessment processes need to be more accountable and transparent to ensure the OCSC [the Commissioner's Office] responsibilities for duty of care to prisoners and impartial treatment of providers are able to be met and that stakeholders can have confidence in the integrity of the decision making processes".
6.105 The specific findings of the consultant in this subject area were:
6.106 In effect, corrective action by the Sentence Management Unit to improve documentary evidence to support classification and placement decisions and to provide for more structured monitoring of such decisions was necessary in order that it could demonstrate its decision-making reflected the principles of impartiality, openness, consistency, accountability, individual focus and fairness.
6.107 In addition, the identified lack of adequate monitoring processes creates doubt as to whether all prisoners are appropriately placed within the prison system and could prejudice achievement of the Government's principal policy objectives for prisons. It could also lead to a lack of confidence by prison operators in the rigour and integrity of the placement process.
6.108 It was pleasing therefore to find, at the time of the audit examination, that the Sentence Management Unit had embarked on 2 initiatives to address this important element of its responsibilities, namely:
6.109 The Criterion Based Decision Making Tool is a documented point scoring system for assigning security classifications and identifying the resultant optimum placement of prisoners. The Tool gives weightings to such factors as current offence severity, length of remaining sentence, a prisoner's escape and attempted escape history, institutional disciplinary history and prior convictions (most serious offences).
6.110 In discussions with audit, the Unit's Director advised that use of this initiative should improve the accountability and transparency of decision-making. The Director indicated that a working party, incorporating representatives of each prison operator, was established in September 1998 to refine the new approach and trial its application, with an intention of implementing a fully developed tool by the end of February 1999. It is understood that trialing is still in place.
6.111 The Director also informed audit that the specific reasons for assigning a particular security classification and for placing a prisoner to a particular prison were, under revised procedures, now required to be documented on file. This action will facilitate implementation of the Unit's second initiative, the establishment of random internal monitoring of classification and placement decisions.
6.112 While audit supports the implementation of these internal initiatives, there would be benefit in the Commissioner arranging for some form of external scrutiny, on a selective basis, of classification and placement decisions reached by the Sentence Management Unit. Such an approach would complement the internal monitoring strategies and help to reinforce the external accountability obligations to the industry, the Parliament and the community associated with these decisions.
6.113 An external monitoring option, suggested by audit to the Commissioner, involved the creation of a special review panel, comprising 1 or 2 specially qualified external parties and a representative of the Commissioner's Office and of each prison operator, to periodically review selected classification and placement decisions. A further option could be to appoint a process probity auditor to monitor compliance with prescribed procedures in the reaching of classification and placement decisions.
6.115 As mentioned in Part 5 of this Report, the Office's prisoner information database, the Prisoner Information Management System known as PIMS (introduced in 1984), is the principal information facility within the prison system. PIMS receives data input by both the Commissioner's Office and prison operators relating to those critical factors which must be considered during the course of a prisoner's sentence such as, progression through education and rehabilitation programs and changes in prisoner classification and placements etc.
Action in train to enhance the technological status and capability of the prisoner information management system
6.116 The previously mentioned April 1998 report of the consultant engaged by the Commissioner drew attention to the need for action to improve the technological capability of PIMS.
6.117 A major finding of the consultant was that "... the technology available to the staff [in the form of PIMS] is not adequate to enable them to carry out their roles in a sufficiently efficient and comprehensive manner. Real gains for both the OCSC and the provider can only be made through addressing the limitations of the information technology system [PIMS] and access to additional computer technology".
6.118 In earlier paragraphs, audit commented on difficulties experienced by the Commissioner's Sentence Management Unit with PIMS in:
6.119 Following receipt of the consultant's April 1998 report the Commissioner's Office determined to engage a second consultant to identify "... management information needs of the OCSC and other key stakeholders and how they may be satisfied with the existing IT and data systems. Against a framework of (a) short term needs and (b) medium to long term needs, the existing systems are to be reviewed to determine whether the systems should be enhanced beyond the medium term or replaced with other technology options".
6.120 The consultant's report presented to the Commissioner in September 1998 concluded that "... the systems were never designed to be an all encompassing management information system for the corrections environment. PIMS and OASIS [this later system is used for community-based corrections services] were developed around the statutory and operational responsibilities of the day and were not designed to support the requirements of a multiple provider environment".
6.121 The consultant presented a number of options to the Commissioner's Office for upgrading the usefulness of its management information processes, including the feasibility of automating all or part of the prisoner individual management plans.
6.122 This area was also commented upon by the Victorian Correctional Services Task Force which recommended that the "Department of Justice should develop as a matter of urgency an electronic system for the maintenance and transfer of prisoner records and modify the Individual Management Plan system accordingly".
6.123 It was not clear from the information provided by the Department to audit whether significant progress has been made in enhancing, through the use of modern information technology, the prisoner management information system. In audit opinion, the Department should ensure that leading edge technology is applied to its information systems relating to prisons as soon as possible.
Nature and importance of individual management plans for prisoners
6.124 The initial paragraphs within this Part of the Report outlined the steps within the prisoner management process and identified that the Sentence Management Unit establishes an individual management plan (IMP) file for each new prisoner following its initial assessment and assignment of a security classification to the prisoner. When a prisoner is transferred to a prison selected by the Sentence Management Unit, the relevant IMP file is passed to the particular prison operator for designation of a case manager to manage the prisoner's individual plan. In essence, the IMP file is the key operational tool supporting the management of individual prisoners as they proceed through their prison term.
6.125 Within the IMP process, prison operators have the important responsibility of ensuring that information pertaining to a prisoner's individual needs, circumstances (including movements between prisons) and progress during the sentence period is adequately recorded and kept up-to-date within the prisoner's IMP file. The service delivery outcomes for each prison operator under the contractual agreements require that all IMP files must be kept up-to-date at all times, an area which is subject to periodic monitoring by the Commissioner's Office.
6.126 Each prison complements the groundwork laid by the Sentence Management Unit in the initial assessment phase through its management of individual prisoners. In effect, each IMP file represents the vehicle through which all relevant information relating to a prisoner is accessible to prison operators, members of local Review and Assessment Committees formed within prisons and staff of the Commissioner's Office.
6.127 The April 1998 report of the consultant engaged by the Commissioner stated, in relation to IMP files, that:
6.128 Following identification of these many shortcomings, the consultant recommended that a working party comprising representatives of the Commissioner's Office and prison operators be formed to review the structure and content requirement of IMP files and propose a revised file management framework.
6.129 The consultant also recommended that the identified weaknesses with IMP files be addressed as priority issues in order to increase the capacity of the Sentence Management Unit to adequately discharge its responsibilities in this area.
6.130 Subsequent to the consultant's report, in July 1998, the Commissioner established a sentence management working party, comprising representatives of the Commissioner's Office and prison operators. The objectives of this working party were to consider the following specific recommendations presented by the consultant concerning the sentence management area:
6.131 The Department has not provided any information to audit on the extent of progress which has been achieved by this working party since its establishment in July 1998.
6.132 A further indication of concerns in relation to the quality of individual management plans for prisoners can be gleaned from the November 1998 report of the Victorian Correctional Services Task Force. This Task Force was appointed by the Minister on 31 August 1998 to review suicides and self-harm in Victorian prisons.
6.133 On the subject of IMPs, the Task Force quoted advice from the then Acting Commissioner as follows "... there is no discipline across the system in the implementation of individual management plans (IMPs) for prisoners. He indicated the Sentence Management Unit (SMU) is hamstrung by an outmoded psychiatric alert system which retains prisoners at Melbourne Assessment Prison and results in there being only 80 usable beds. Yet no decisive action has been taken to rectify theses shortcomings".
Issues arising from audit examination of IMP files
6.134 From the time when an IMP file is established for a new prisoner by the Sentence Management Unit, it is structured according to a standard format for use in relation to that prisoner across the system. In addition, the Commissioner's Office has established Minimum Standards for Transfer for IMP files which establish the extent of information which must be recorded on IMP files when a prisoner (and the relevant file) is transferred from one prison to another within the system. These standards are designed to ensure that the movement of critical information relating to a prisoner's progress against the IMP is managed on a consistent basis and in a manner which does not adversely impact on the achievement of the prisoner's rehabilitation goals.
6.135 Notwithstanding the importance of such standards, the Commissioner's Office had not, at the time of the audit examination, issued guidance to prison operators in the form of minimum case management standards.
6.136 The Victorian Correctional Services Task Force also mentioned the fact that Victoria does not have a specific case management policy or case management standard. The Task Force commented in its report to the Minister that "Rather, case management is a general facet of prisoner management which providers are expected to undertake within their institutions. Accordingly providers approach case management from various perspectives."
6.137 The absence of specific case management standards was reflected in the results of the examination of IMP files undertaken by audit. In this regard, audit examined a randomly-selected sample of IMP files at the 3 private prisons and at Barwon, Dhurringile and Loddon prisons within CORE. This examination identified:
6.138 With regard to the first point mentioned above, the following 4 examples illustrate the significance of some of the information found to be missing from particular IMP files:
6.139 While pointing out the above shortcomings, it is appropriate for audit to recognise some positive initiatives taken at particular prisons to improve the overall quality of IMP files. For example, Fulham Prison has introduced a checklist to be completed by the manager of each section of the prison as a control measure for ensuring that the IMP adequately addresses all identified rehabilitation needs of a prisoner. Also, at Dhurringile and Fulham Prisons, it was pleasing to find that most files showed evidence of regular review by program or senior custodial staff.
6.140 In addition, CORE is involved with Swinburne University in a collaborative action research project which is aimed at developing a case management system to be used as the major process by which prisoners are managed. The Victorian Correctional Services Task Force indicates that this research project is exploring 2 areas which it described as "First, in contrast to case management in the health field, case management in correctional settings does not necessarily meet the assumptions of willing participation by those being managed. Second, security tasks must be balanced with prisoner assessment, monitoring, service brokerage and advocacy which raises boundary management dilemmas for correctional officers and confusion in the minds of some prisoners."
6.141 Audit strongly suggested to the Commissioner's Office, following completion of its examination of this area, that priority be given to the development and adoption of case management standards for use within the prison system. Such standards should ideally encompass:
6.142 The formulation of case management standards would help to provide assurance that all management functions associated with this most critical element of prison operations are carried out on a consistent basis and in accordance with established quality and timeliness yardsticks.
6.144 In addition to the work of designated case managers relating to individual management plans, the management of prisoners at each prison involves 2 main elements:
6.145 In terms of the role of the Commissioner's Office, the Sentence Management Framework provides for monitoring by the Sentence Management Unit of decisions reached by the Review and Assessment Committees.
Prisoner development programs in prisons
6.146 Because prisoner programs are the primary means by which prisoners are able to address their rehabilitation goals, it is obviously critical that quality prisoner programs providing opportunities for prisoner development are in place and there are mechanisms within the system to ensure that programs are adequately evaluated by prison operators as well as by the Commissioner's Office.
6.147 Under the contractual agreements, all prison operators are required to deliver a range of programs which address a variety of prisoner needs. The Victorian Correctional Policy and Management Standards, formulated by the Commissioner, requires the prison operator to ensure that "... prisoners have access to skills development and therapeutic programs that are based on research and proven methods and that address issues relevant to the life experiences and histories of offending of prisoners". The agreements also obligate operators to provide "... a range of facilities, Programs, educational and training courses relevant to the needs of Prisoners including those with special needs such as non-English speaking Prisoners and Prisoners with disabilities ...".
Scope for upgrading effectiveness of programs at local prison level
6.148 The audit examination of programs managed at the local prison level showed that a range of prisoner development programs are delivered focusing on anger management, alternatives to violence, recreation and other personal development needs. Audit considered that the processes relating to program development, delivery and evaluation at the local level in prisons were generally unsophisticated with little change in the profile of local prison programs over the past 10 years, notwithstanding the participation of private operators in the system.
6.149 With the exception of Fulham Correctional Centre and the Metropolitan Women's Correctional Centre, audit did not find any evidence to indicate that the content of programs was directly linked to prisoner needs which had been identified through initial assessments of prisoners on arrival in prisons, individual management plans, prisoner surveys and minutes of meetings held by Review and Assessment Committees.
6.150 Further, the internal evaluation of local prison programs mainly involves quantitative factors such as numbers of prisoners attending program activities or the number of program hours. The more significant qualitative outcomes expected from programs such as improved literacy and numeracy of prisoners have yet to be specifically addressed. In addition, the lack of meaningful evaluation of programs delivered at each prison means there is no information available on the effectiveness of programs in terms of their impact in assisting prisoners to address their offending behaviour.
6.151 In terms of external evaluation, the Commissioner's Office has limited its focus to centrally determined programs such as the Drugs in Prison program which has been assigned a high priority by the Government. It has not conducted any detailed analysis of the outcomes generated by programs at the local prison level.
6.152 Audit also considers that the emergence of a competitive environment has contributed to the isolation of program staff within individual prisons as there is now little opportunity for the sharing of expertise and ideas between prisons. Meetings of program managers or other specialists such as psychologists do not occur and program managers are often marginalised from day-to-day prison management issues because of the specialised nature of their work.
6.153 An important consequence of this situation is that there is limited integration of programs across the public and private prison operators. In addition, there is little sense of a single system but more of a loosely connected group of operators working in isolation from each other.
6.154 The Victorian Correctional Services Task Force also commented on the fragmentation of the prison system. It stated in its report to the Minister that "One of the most consistent concerns raised with the Task Force has been the degree to which the system has become fragmented as a result of multiple correctional and health providers. It is evident that tensions are arising from different provider approaches. It is apparent that integration of public and private prison operators has not fully occurred".
6.155 The Task Force also commented in relation to this subject that "Opinions offered to the Task Force suggest that providers are somewhat unwilling to share information about their services for fear that a competitive edge will be lost. From this perspective the correctional system is unable to capitalise on the total intelligence potential of the system, thereby adversely affecting case management for prisoners".
6.156 As emphasised in an earlier paragraph, the prisoner management function constitutes a critical means by which the Government strives to achieve its high level objectives for the prison system. In turn, prisoner programs represent key avenues for providing opportunities for prisoner rehabilitation and facilitating reparation to the community, which are 2 of the Government's principal expected outcomes from the system.
6.157 It then becomes logical to assume that, if programs are well structured in design and content and effectively meet the needs of individual prisoners, there is a greater likelihood that some prisoners will successfully rehabilitate and avoid re-entering the system.
6.158 It follows, therefore, that the Commissioner's Office needs to urgently review the nature and quality of prisoner programs provided in each prison and to determine whether existing evaluation strategies, both internal and external to the prisons, are conducive to measuring the effectiveness of programs.
Review and Assessment Committees
6.159 The Commissioner's Office has developed a draft Sentence Management Policy Manual which requires the establishment of a review and assessment committee by prison operators. A committee is responsible for the "... monitoring of a prisoner's progress and involvement of the prisoner in decisions that affect that progress whilst in prison". It also requires that the review and assessment committees must comprise no less than 2 members drawn from prison staff. Some of the specific responsibilities of committees include "... but [are] not restricted to:
6.160 In addition to those matters requiring periodic scrutiny by a Review and Assessment Committee, a prisoner may at any time request a meeting of his or her prison's Committee to address any issues which he or she wishes to raise for the Committee's consideration.
6.161 Committees are empowered to furnish recommendations to the Commissioner's Sentence Management Unit on any prisoner management issues requiring attention but falling outside the boundaries of a Committee's responsibilities.
Quality of documentation to support decisions reached by Committees
6.162 In earlier paragraphs, audit has commented on the poor quality of key information recorded within IMP files and that often such information is either missing or difficult to identify and use for prisoner management purposes. With this position, audit considers that Review and Assessment Committees cannot effectively monitor the progress of prisoners against management plans.
6.163 While, as pointed out above, Review and Assessment Committees have both decision-making and recommending powers, audit found that it was very difficult to establish if Committee decisions and recommendations had been made on the basis of a systematic analysis and review of a prisoner's circumstances. It was also evident from a sample examination of minutes of Committee meetings that decisions made by the Committees at various prisons were not always recorded on the relevant prisoner's IMP file.
Lack of monitoring by the Sentence Management Unit of decisions reached by Committees
6.164 Given that decisions of the Review and Assessment Committees impact directly on prisoners, audit believes that such decisions should at least be randomly monitored by the Sentence Management Unit. Audit understands that, due to resourcing constraints and limitations of the prisoner information management system, the Unit has restricted its examination of tasks undertaken by Committees to recommendations submitted by Committees for ratification by the Unit.
6.165 In the absence of at least selective examinations across the system of the activities of Review and Assessment Committees, the Commissioner's Office has not been in a position to be assured that decisions reached by Committees are soundly-based and contribute in a positive manner to effective rehabilitation of prisoners.
Comments on operation of Committees in April 1998 consultancy report
6.166 The April 1998 report by the consultant engaged by the Commissioner drew attention to inefficiencies in the Review and Assessment Committee process and recommended that:
Comments on Committees in November 1998 Ministerial Task Force report
6.167 The November 1998 report of the Victorian Correctional Services Task Force (which reviewed suicides and self-harm in prisons) included comment on review and assessment committees and the role of the sentence management unit in this process.
6.168 The Task Force commented that "Currently RACs are focussed on administering local prison matters such as changes in work assignment and processing prisoner applications for reclassification. RACs do not monitor case progress. Indeed the Task Force has been advised that at some prisons the RAC does not even see the prisoner in person. The Task Force is of the view that the RAC, or a case management working committee reporting to the RAC, should always see the prisoner".
6.169 The Task Force further commented "Furthermore the SMU should be responsible for chairing all RACs, ensuring that they are properly constituted with multi-disciplinary staff relevant to a prisoner's case management plan and for monitoring the implementation and subsequent discharge of the case management plan where the prisoner is released or transferred".
Urgent need for corrective action
6.170 It was clearly evident, at the time of the audit examination, that urgent corrective action by the Commissioner's Office was necessary to upgrade the effectiveness of the role of review and assessment committees and the Office's related monitoring work in the prisoner management function.
6.171 The need for remedial action for this critically important element of prisoner management has been reinforced by the additional criticism made in the Ministerial Task Force report.
- RESPONSE provided by Secretary, Department of Justice
Sentence Management
The Sentence Management function is recognised by the Commissioner as a critical systemwide function. It is a highly skilled and professional function undertaken in an environment in which the competing complexities of the system and the individual must be met. While the Commissioner welcomes the attention given to this function by audit, it is disappointing that the report fails to recognise that a fundamental responsibility of the Sentence Management Unit is to achieve an appropriate balance between individual and systems needs.
The Department believes that several of audit's proposals run counter to contemporary correctional practice, are regressive in nature and do not reflect best practice.
For example, the argument that security ratings should be the primary determinant of placement and that prisoners who present differing levels of risk should not be held in the same facility at any time is not reflective of contemporary practice. The Commissioner has actively sought to develop multi-purpose prisons operating flexible regimes which enable effective management of a range of prisoner types and security ratings to be held in a single facility, based on experience which demonstrates that multi-purpose prisons increase the capacity to meet the prisoners' needs and are more cost-effective for the community.
For similar reasons, it is not consistent with accepted correctional practice to assert, as audit has done in paragraph 6.30, that prisoners who are seen as vulnerable, but are not intellectually disabled as such, should not be held with prisoners who are intellectually disabled. There will be occasions where such a placement will be the best available option for such prisoners.
The placement of prisoners is necessarily limited by the range of available facilities. There will never be sufficient placement options to cater to the precise needs of every prisoner, for the simple reason that every prisoner is different. There will always be borderline cases requiring a difficult decision between two or more placement options. In cases such as the example given above of vulnerable prisoners of low intellectual ability, the option which minimises prisoner vulnerability is to be favoured.
The Commissioner acknowledges the need for continual review and refinement of sentence management processes. In doing so it is recognised that sentence management decision making processes must be, and are, independent of providers, while at the same time actively consulting and working co-operatively with both public and private providers to enable the Unit to take a 'whole of system' approach.
This co-operation extends from day to day interaction concerning individual prisoners to industry wide forums involving all providers, at which systemwide sentence management issues are addressed, including future capacity issues.
The Commissioner has sought to implement best practice in the Office's sentence management processes as a result of these continual processes of review and adjustment to accommodate new and changed circumstances. It is unfortunate that the report does not adequately reflect the current reality of high levels of positive work with providers and development of best practice initiatives.
Initiatives during audit's investigations have included the presentation of a sentence management Issues Paper to a Corrections Industry Forum comprising public and private sector management. This paper ranged widely from assessment process issues to broader systems configuration matters and saw active and collaborative interaction between the different providers and the Commissioner in debating issues and evaluating new approaches.
A multi-provider working party has developed an electronic case management plan prototype. Implementation of this initiative will address many of the issues raised by audit concerning transparency of decision making, transfer of information between providers and enhancement of prisoner case plan implementation and review.
Regular complex case reviews are undertaken with experienced practitioners, as are intermittent reviews of sentence management practitioner decisions, with the results of these reflective practices informing the Commissioner's continual improvement approach to all aspects of the Office's operations.
In summary, the Commissioner has made significant improvements to sentence management practices since the introduction of the multi-provider environment, its processes being enriched by the alternative viewpoints and differing experiences of all providers.
Strategic planning
Audit's assertion that planning undertaken by the Department is insufficient to predict future capacity requirements does not give adequate recognition to the large volume of work that was undertaken by the Department in its submission to the Budget and Expenditure Review Committee of Cabinet in respect of the year 1999 - 2000. This submission was based on projections of future growth in the prisoner population, together with an analysis of the characteristics of the recent growth, that is the offending behaviour characteristics of prisoners.
These prisoner projections will govern development of the planned expansion of the correctional system. Further, the degree of planning has been sufficient to secure significant Government support for diversionary programs and a range of other program-based initiatives, with the central aim of stemming the growth of prisoner numbers.
It is worthy of note that this growth in prisoner numbers is an Australia-wide phenomenon, in which Victoria is experiencing a relatively minor population increase. In Queensland alone, for example, 60% of prisoners are currently being accommodated in a double bunking situation and the authorities in that State are presently embarking on an expansion program for 1,800 new prison beds.
A key priority for the Commissioner is to provide a specific focus on business planning and strategic development for the correctional services system in Victoria. This strengthening of capacity within the Office will, inter alia, address: improved service demand analysis and modelling; better and more flexible configuration and utilisation of prison capacity; and an ongoing program of innovation. Key current initiatives include:
- improved collation and analysis of service demand data and indicators, and demand modelling. This will improve identification and analysis of actual demand and trends, projections of demand and its components into the short-to-medium term, and modelling of projections by the inclusion of qualitative information. This will be built upon existing Victorian systems and approaches but will be informed by interstate developments and experience and national initiatives, including current moves for the development of a co-ordinated Commonwealth, States and Territories approach to criminal justice system modelling;
- co-ordinated analysis of the business processes of the broader correctional system and a logistical analysis of prison capacity management to meet general demands and specific prisoner group needs. This will support both the current expansion of prison system capacity and its more flexible configuration and improved utilisation in the future. This analysis will be undertaken with the clear recognition that prison capacity should meet specific requirements of the prisoner population (eg, protection, acute psychiatric) in addition to general capacity requirements. However, as with changes in general demands upon capacity, these special requirements will vary significantly over time, and the configuration of prisons must be flexible to respond to these changes; and
- identification, piloting and evaluation of innovative custodial options and diversion initiatives, with implementation on a broader scale for those options and initiatives which prove to be effective. These options and initiatives will generally target the needs and problems of specific offender groups, including emerging problem groups, while implementing the sentences of the courts and ensuring the protection of the community.
Escapes from prison
The Commissioner acknowledges audit's concern about the recent increase in escapes from minimum security prisons. This is not an issue which is unique to Victoria. While Victoria's escape rate from open custody was significantly higher than the national level for 1997-98 (6.10 per 100 prisoner years compared with 3.22 at the national level), it was still well below the rate for Western Australia (7.50). In the preceding four years, Victoria's rate was consistently and significantly below the national level. Nevertheless, the Commissioner in no way wishes to underplay the seriousness of escapes from prison, irrespective of a prison's security rating.
Use of information technology
The Criminal Justice Enhancement Program (CJEP) was established by the Department in early 1999 to implement key recommendations arising from the Pathfinder Stage 2 Report, and funding of $14.5m has been provided for implementation of this program over the next three years. The Commissioner's Office will be a key participant in this process.
The vision of the CJEP is to improve key business processes across the criminal justice system, including Corrections, in a way that will enhance interaction between agencies and the effectiveness of the system as a whole. Central to this vision is the notion of a 'shared criminal justice environment' in which agencies co-operate in exchanging key information for which they have a common use.
CJEP will include functions to facilitate the capture and retrieval of information about accused persons relevant to their management and care, from when a charge is laid to the completion of any order relating to the prisoner/offender.
