Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
The Victorian Government has vested the State Services Authority with functions designed to foster the development of an efficient, integrated and responsive public sector which is highly ethical, accountable and professional in the ways it delivers services to the Victorian community. The key functions of the Authority are to: • identify opportunities to improve the delivery and integration of government services and report on service delivery outcomes and standards; • promote high standards of integrity and conduct in the public sector; • strengthen the professionalism and adaptability of the public sector; and • promote high standards of governance, accountability and performance for public entities. The Authority seeks to achieve its charter by working closely and collaboratively with public sector departments and agencies.
contact us at the State Services Authority Email: [email protected] Phone: (03) 9651 1321 Fax: (03) 9651 0747 Postal Address: 3 Treasury Place Melbourne 3002 www.ssa.vic.gov.au
© Copyright State Government of Victoria State Services Authority 2012
contents executive summary 1 acronyms 5
1 introduction 7 1.1 terms of reference 7 1.2 review methodology and scope 7 1.3 relationship with other reviews 8
2 background 9 2.1 Department of Justice 9 2.2 Corrections Victoria 9 2.3 community corrections 10 2.4 prisons in Victoria 11 2.5 prisoner placement and categories of prisoners 12 2.6 key legislation 12 2.7 key standards and policies 13
3 corrections system structure 14 3.1 structure and design principles 14 3.2 regional service delivery model 14 3.3 assessment of the structure of Victoria’s corrections system 18
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system iii
4 challenges for prison performance 20 4.1 prison system complexity pressures 20 4.2 prison system capacity pressures 21 4.3 corrections system performance 24
5 placement and management of high-risk prisoners 27 5.1 placement and management overview 27 5.2 sentence management 28 5.3 high-risk prisoner placement and management 30 5.4 conclusion 40
6 business support and information technology systems 42 6.1 process documentation 42 6.2 information technology 45
7 next steps 49 7.1 review recommendations 49 appendices appendix a references 54 appendix b list of consultations 58 appendix c Department of Justice organisational structure 60 appendix d overview of Victoria’s criminal justice system 61 appendix e Victorian prisons and correctional facilities at July 2012 62 appendix f roles and responsibilities of regional directors, prison general managers and the Corrections Commissioner 63 appendix g guiding principles for sentence management 65 appendix h categories of prisoners with additional levels of oversight 66 appendix i previous decision-making process for Victoria’s high- risk prisoners (major offenders) 70 appendix j glossary 71
iv Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
executive summary
On 11 May 2012, the Premier directed the State Services Authority (SSA) to conduct a special review of the management and operation of Victoria’s corrections system. The terms of reference required the SSA to review:
The structure and management systems of Victoria’s corrections system (including Corrections Victoria and the Department of Justice) in light of systemic issues identified in the Ombudsman’s report on the death of Carl Williams, in particular the decision-making processes regarding the placement and management of high-risk prisoners.
The Review was led by Greg Williams, with assistance from SSA officers. The Review involved consultations with officers in the Department of Justice, its business unit Corrections Victoria, Victoria Police and the Department of Premier and Cabinet. The Review included site visits to Barwon and Port Phillip prisons and analysis of a wide range of the Department of Justice’s internal materials and working documents.
In general, Victoria’s corrections system is performing well. It meets its key performance targets. Rates of prison assault and offender recidivism are consistent with, or lower than, national averages. However, the corrections system is confronting significant challenges including:
• complexity pressures – deriving from diverse prisoner profile needs and a growth in numbers of high-risk prisoners involved in organised crime and gang-related activity; and
• capacity pressures – with bed utilisation rates at 95 per cent and expectations of a growing prisoner population serving longer sentences.
Complexity within the prison system derives from a diverse prisoner population with needs arising from mental illness, cognitive impairment or other factors that may make a prisoner vulnerable in the mainstream prisoner population. Growth in the number of custodial witnesses and in the number of high-risk prisoners involved in organised crime (e.g. gangland figures, outlaw motorcycle gangs, other crime gangs and international drug syndicates) and terrorism offences has also added to the challenge of prisoner placement and management.
Like other Australian jurisdictions, Victoria’s prison system is facing capacity pressures. Victoria’s bed utilisation rate is at the upper end of the 90-95 per cent target range. In April 2012, the men’s prison bed utilisation rate reached 96.6 per cent, exceeding this target. Capacity pressures are felt most keenly in high security and management environments.
The complexity and capacity pressures confronting the prison system compound each other. High-risk prisoners need to be separated from those whom they might harm as well as from those who might cause them harm. These associations are dynamic – allies can rapidly become adversaries, triggered by events either within or outside the prison. It is all the more challenging to determine appropriate prisoner placement and mixing arrangements where system capacity is limited. Corrections officials advised that the placement of a high-risk prisoner may require the movement of several prisoners to address compatibility issues.
Under the Corrections Act 1986, the Secretary to the Department of Justice is responsible for the safe custody and welfare of all prisoners. This duty becomes both complex and demanding with prisoners who, for a range of reasons, are at higher risk than the general prisoner population. In cases where a prisoner may be cooperating with law enforcement agencies, particularly in relation to organised crime, this task takes on an added level of complexity. In this context, Corrections Victoria requires a strong relationship and intelligence sharing with law enforcement agencies. However, it is foreseeable that on some occasions, the demands of an active investigation by law enforcement agencies could mean that Corrections Victoria cannot always rely on having complete live intelligence when making placement
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 1
and management decisions. As such, Corrections Victoria needs to strengthen its internal intelligence capacity to inform its own assessment of risks to prisoner and staff safety and system security.
Corrections Victoria is increasingly formalising the systems used to make placement and management decisions for the State’s high-risk prisoners. The management of these prisoners is becoming increasingly risk averse and decision-making has been elevated to more senior officers. In particular, newly established information sharing and advisory committees – the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee (comprising Corrections Victoria, Victoria Police and other law enforcement agencies) and the High Risk Management Advisory Panel (which includes Corrections Victoria and Victoria Police) – are reshaping the way in which decision-making about high-risk prisoners is informed and executed. These new committees appear to be system improvements, but it will take time to refine their operations and assess their effectiveness.
Senior corrections and sentence management officials appear to be committed, experienced and generally well equipped to make sound prisoner placement and management decisions. However, their practices and processes are not always accurately recorded in Corrections Victoria’s supporting documentation or information technology systems. For example, there are overlaps, gaps and inconsistencies in multiple documents outlining elements of the sentence management function. In addition, the Prisoner Information Management System relies on manual staff work-arounds to accurately record who makes classification and placement decisions and on what basis they arrive at these decisions. As a consequence, the decision-maker is not always accurately recorded. In a high- risk operating environment such as a prison, decision-making needs to be supported by policies, procedures and systems that are clear, well documented and user-friendly.
In summary, the Department of Justice should direct ongoing attention to the following areas to support clear, accountable and well-informed decision-making about the placement and management of high-risk prisoners:
• monitoring and testing the effectiveness of newly established processes, such as the High Risk Management Advisory Panel and the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee;
• ensuring key business processes and systems are clearly documented and up-to-date;
• strengthening the intelligence system;1
• strengthening the relationship with law enforcement agencies to exchange intelligence about custodial witnesses; and
• planning for prison capacity.2
1 This was the subject of a 2008 review by Mr Neil Comrie AO APM, the recommendations of which are currently being monitored by Mr Mick Palmer AO APM. 2 This is the subject of a 2012-13 performance audit by the Auditor General.
2 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
review recommendations
The Review report makes 13 recommendations. Five of these recommendations (recommendations 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8) will require Corrections Victoria to work with law enforcement agencies, such as Victoria Police. The remaining eight recommendations are matters that can be addressed directly internally within the Department of Justice and Corrections Victoria.
Recommendation 1
That the Secretary to the Department of Justice limits delegation of powers to set rules and procedures for sentence management panels and review and assessment committees to the Corrections Commissioner.
Recommendation 2
That Corrections Victoria updates the sentence management operating procedures to specify when and how the reception of a prisoner must be brought to the attention of the Director, Sentence Management Branch.
Recommendation 3
That Corrections Victoria negotiates arrangements with Victoria Police for formal notification when high-risk persons in police custody are expected to enter the prison system.
Recommendation 4
That Corrections Victoria takes steps to routinely access and retain information presented to the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee by law enforcement agencies, for incorporation into intelligence systems and decision-making.
Recommendation 5
That the Department of Justice makes substantive appointments to those senior positions in the corrections system which are currently vacant or filled on an acting basis.
Recommendation 6
That Corrections Victoria continues to build on current efforts to strengthen the relationship with Victoria Police through structured governance arrangements and open dialogue.
Recommendation 7
That Corrections Victoria reviews the functioning of the High Risk Management Advisory Panel and Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee after 12 months of operation to assess whether they are meeting their stated objectives, and to identify and address any emerging issues affecting high-risk prisoner placement and management.
Recommendation 8
That Corrections Victoria negotiates documented arrangements with Victoria Police to receive notification of any prisoners who are custodial witnesses, and any prisoners who are on the police witness protection program.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 3
Recommendation 9
That Corrections Victoria continues to pursue a more rigorous model for delivering an appropriately sophisticated intelligence system.
Recommendation 10
That Corrections Victoria re-issues the operating policies and procedures that guide prisoner classification and placement in a form that provides a single, comprehensive and consolidated operating manual for the sentence management functions.
Recommendation 11
That Corrections Victoria implements a process to ensure that the Sentence Management Manual is clear, attributes responsibility for each function, is up-to-date and reflects intended practices.
Recommendation 12
That the Corrections Commissioner requires sentence management decision-makers to document when and why ‘recommended actions’ relating to high security escorts are not adopted.
Recommendation 13
That the Department of Justice, as a matter of priority, replaces out-dated information technology systems, such as the Prisoner Information Management System and PROTEL, with systems that support all aspects of the sentence management process, including timely access to relevant information and intelligence.
4 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
acronyms
Term Definition HRMAP High Risk Management Advisory Panel ICWC Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee OCSR Office of Correctional Services Review PIMS Prisoner Information Management System SSA State Services Authority
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 5
6 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
1 introduction
1.1 terms of reference
On 11 May 2012, the Premier directed the State Services Authority (SSA) to conduct a special review of the management and operation of Victoria’s corrections system (the Review), pursuant to section 56 of the Public Administration Act 2004. Box 1 shows the terms of reference for the Review. box 1: Terms of Reference
The Victorian Government is committed to maintaining the safety and security of the Victorian corrections system. The Premier has requested that Mr Greg Williams lead a special review by the State Services Authority of the following matters:
1. The structure and management systems of Victoria’s corrections system (including Corrections Victoria and the Department of Justice) in light of systemic issues identified in the Ombudsman’s report on the death of Carl Williams, in particular the decision making processes regarding the placement and management of high-risk prisoners.
The review should take into account the legislative and organisational relationship between the relevant agencies involved in the management and operation of Victoria’s correction system.
This review should be cognisant of the considerations of the review into the implementation of reports relating to the management and operation of Victoria’s corrections system [to be led by Mr Mick Palmer, AO APM for the State Services Authority].
This review is to report to the Premier of Victoria within three months.
1.2 review methodology and scope
Mr Greg Williams led the Review, supported by a SSA Review team. The Review’s methodology included:
• review of a wide range of internal materials and working documents of the Department of Justice (a reference list is at appendix A);
• consultation interviews with senior officials in the Department of Justice and Corrections Victoria, as well as with other public sector stakeholders (a consultation list is at appendix B);
• site visits to Barwon and Port Phillip Prisons; and
• a sentence management workshop with Corrections Victoria officials.
Given the timeframe available, the Review focused on the management and placement of high-risk prisoners – specifically the processes within Victoria's corrections system used to identify, assess and mitigate risks to prisoner safety and system security. The Review did not call for submissions or conduct a comprehensive site-based assessment of all aspects of prisoner management throughout maximum, medium and minimum security prisons.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 7
1.3 relationship with other reviews
1.3.1 State Services Authority review led by Mr Mick Palmer AO APM
The Premier has requested a separate special review to be led by Mr Mick Palmer AO APM, to monitor, audit and benchmark the implementation of recommendations made by the Ombudsman’s report: The death of Mr Carl Williams at HM Barwon Prison – investigation into Corrections Victoria. That review will report to the Premier in December 2012. As such, this Review report does not detail key aspects of current changes underway within Victoria’s corrections system, such as the development of a new intelligence model. These will be considered by the review being led by Mr Palmer.
1.3.2 Victorian Auditor-General’s Office – Prison Capacity Planning Performance Audit
The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office has commenced a performance audit in relation to capacity planning in the Victorian prison system. This audit will focus on how effectively prison planning anticipates future overall capacity, and the needs of specific groups within the prisoner population. The report is expected to be tabled in Parliament in December 2012.3
1.3.3 reviews and investigations in relation to the death of Mr Carl Williams
In addition to the Ombudsman’s investigation into The death of Mr Carl Williams at HM Barwon Prison – investigation into Corrections Victoria, there have been a number of other reviews and investigations arising from the death of Mr Carl Williams. These include:
• a police homicide investigation, which has resulted in a murder conviction;
• an Office of Police Integrity Investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the death of Carl Williams at Barwon Prison on 19 April 2010;
• an inquiry by the Victorian Coroner, which has yet to report;
• a review by the Office of Correctional Services Review in the Department of Justice; and
• an internal debrief and review by Corrections Victoria.
Given the extensive review activity in this area, the SSA has not sought to re-examine these events. Rather, this Review is forward-looking and draws on the findings of other agencies.
3 Victorian Auditor-General’s Office 2012, Annual Plan 2012-13, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Melbourne.
8 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
2 background
2.1 Department of Justice
The Department of Justice is responsible for a broad portfolio that includes police, courts, corrections, emergency services, racing, liquor licensing, victims' services, and regulation of gaming. It is structured around nine divisions, as shown in the organisation chart at appendix C.
Ministerial portfolios supported by the Department of Justice are:
• Attorney-General;
• Police and Emergency Services;
• Bushfire Response;
• Corrections;
• Crime Prevention;
• Gaming;
• Racing;
• Consumer Affairs; and
• the establishment of an anti-corruption commission.
The total operating budget for the Department of Justice in 2012-13 is $4.54 billion.4
2.2 Corrections Victoria
Corrections Victoria is a business unit of the Department of Justice and is responsible for the operation and management of Victoria’s correctional services system, and for implementing the correctional dispositions of the courts and orders of the Adult Parole Board. In conjunction with the Department of Justice regional directors, Corrections Victoria provides operational oversight and policy support to over 50 Community Corrections locations, 13 prisons (including two privately operated prisons) and one transition centre. In 2012-13, the output cost target for Prisoner Supervision and Support is $691.1 million, and the output cost target for Community Based Offender Supervision is $123.2 million. 5
The Secretary to the Department of Justice appoints the Corrections Commissioner. The Commissioner is responsible for assessing the performance of correctional services to achieve the safe custody of prisoners and offenders in the system.6
4 Department of Treasury and Finance 2012, Budget Paper No. 5: 2012-13 Statement of Finances, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne. 5 Department of Treasury and Finance 2012, Budget Paper No. 3: 2012-13 Service Delivery, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne. 6 Corrections Act 1986, s.8A.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 9
The roles and functions of Corrections Victoria include:
• strategy, policy, planning, research, and program and service development;
• sentence management, central records and secretariat services to the Adult Parole Board; and
• oversight of prisons and community corrections.7
Corrections Victoria currently comprises four divisions. These are:
• Offender Management;
• Operations;
• Strategic Policy and Planning; and
• Business Services.
As indicated by figure 1, an additional senior position of Director, Security and Intelligence has been created but not yet filled. figure 1: Senior structure of Corrections Victoria at 30 July 20128
An overview showing the corrections system’s place in the wider criminal justice system is at appendix D.
2.3 community corrections
Community Correctional Services supervises adult offenders who are sentenced by the courts to community-based orders or who are conditionally released from prison on parole by the Adult Parole Board. Community Corrections Officers manage offenders and monitor their compliance with the conditions of their community-based or parole orders. These conditions may include education programs, community work, or assessment and treatment programs. The focus of the community
7 http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/about+us/our+organisation/business+area+profiles/justice+-+corrections+victoria, viewed 23 May 2012. 8 Corrections Victoria head office structure, information supplied by Department of Justice.
10 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
correctional services program is on rehabilitation, while also ensuring that offenders make suitable reparation to the community. 9
2.4 prisons in Victoria
There are 13 prisons and one transition centre in Victoria. The Department of Justice operates 11 of the prisons including two facilities for female prisoners, and the transition centre. Two privately- operated prisons provide custodial services under contract. men’s prisons
Men’s prisons in Victoria comprise:
10 • Metropolitan Remand Centre – accommodates unsentenced prisoners.
• Melbourne Assessment Prison – where all male prisoners are received into the prison system. It also accommodates prisoners for specialist purposes such as psychiatric assessment.
• Port Phillip Prison – a private prison incorporating an inpatient medical centre, psycho-social unit, youth unit, cognitive impairment unit, and capacity for daily prisoner intake to facilitate court appearances and medical appointments.
• Barwon Prison – a maximum security prison.
• Fulham (private), Loddon, Marngoneet, and Hopkins prisons – medium security prisons.
• Beechworth, Langi Kal Kal, and Dhurringile prisons – minimum security prisons. women’s prisons
There are two prisons for female prisoners in Victoria:
• Dame Phyllis Frost Centre – accommodates female prisoners of all security ratings and prisoner categories including reception, remand, sentenced, management and protection.
• Tarrengower – minimum security prison.
Further detail on Victoria’s prisons is at appendix E.
9 http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/sentencing/community+corrections/, viewed 3 July 2012. 10 Under the Standard Guidelines for Prisons in Australia 2004 and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, unsentenced prisoners are required to be kept separate from sentenced prisoners, except where reasonably necessary. While the majority of unsentenced prisoners are housed at the Metropolitan Remand Centre (which has a capacity of 673), the overflow of unsentenced prisoners is accommodated at Port Phillip Prison, Melbourne Assessment Prison or in police cells. As at April 2012, there were 901 unsentenced male prisoners (data supplied by Corrections Victoria).
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 11
2.5 prisoner placement and categories of prisoners
A brief description of prisoner and accommodation placement categories used within the Victorian corrections system is set out below.
• sentenced prisoners: persons who have been convicted and received a term of imprisonment from a court.
• unsentenced prisoners: persons who have been placed in custody while awaiting the outcome of their court hearing. They may be unconvicted (remanded) or convicted but awaiting sentence (remanded for sentencing).
• mainstream: accommodation for prisoners who do not require protection or management regimes.
• management unit: unit accommodating prisoners pending investigation into prison incidents, serving short term sanctions as a result of poor behaviour, or who pose a threat to the good order and security of the prison and require separation from general prisoner accommodation.
• protection: accommodation for prisoners in a protected environment when it is determined that their safety cannot be guaranteed in a mainstream prison placement.
• high security unit: unit accommodating prisoners who pose a significant threat to the physical safety of other prisoners, staff or themselves, or who are at high risk of escape.
• maximum security and medium security prisons: prisons where the regime requires prisoners to be confined by a secure perimeter physical barrier. These are also known as secure prisons.
• minimum security prisons: prisons accommodating prisoners who do not require confinement by a secure perimeter physical barrier. These are also known as open prisons.11
2.6 key legislation
In managing prisoners and offenders, the Department of Justice and Corrections Victoria are required to operate in accordance with legislation including:
• Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006
• Corrections Act 1986
• Corrections Regulations 2009
• International Transfer of Prisoners (Victoria) Act 1998
• Parole Orders (Transfer) Act 1983
• Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1983
• Sentencing Act 1991
• Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009.
11 Information supplied by Corrections Victoria.
12 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Under the Corrections Act, legal custody of all prisoners is vested in the Secretary, Department of Justice.12 The Secretary is responsible for monitoring the performance of all correctional services to achieve the safe custody and welfare of prisoners and offenders.13 The Secretary may delegate functions, powers, duties and responsibilities under the Act.14
2.7 key standards and policies
In addition to the legislative requirements noted above, Corrections Victoria’s policies and procedures also need to comply with international and national standards and guidelines for the placement and management of prisoners. These include:
• United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners 1977; and
• Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia 2004, agreed by all Australian jurisdictions.
The Corrections Victoria policy framework to guide decision-making at the operational level is discussed in section 6.1.
12 Corrections Act 1986 Part 1A – legal custody, ss.6-6F. 13 Corrections Act 1986 s.7. 14 Corrections Act 1986 s.8.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 13
3 corrections system structure
In 2009, the Department of Justice introduced a regional service delivery model to improve departmental operations across three metropolitan and five non-metropolitan regions of Victoria. While there may be opportunities for further improvement to this approach, senior officials consulted by the Review indicated that the model currently provides a good balance between a focus on service delivery in the regions and system-wide strategic decision-making by central office staff across a range of service areas, including corrections.
3.1 structure and design principles
There is no single, ‘best’ structure for any organisation. However, the following principles provide a useful frame of reference when considering issues of structure.15
• Clear lines of accountability: Reporting lines and accountability for decision-making should be clearly assigned.
• Clarity of roles and responsibilities: Staff at all levels should have a clear understanding of what is expected of them in relation to professional conduct and performance of duties. They should also be clear about the extent of their discretion in decision-making and when to escalate issues to, for example, senior management or executive levels.
• No duplication of functions: Duplication of effort can cause confusion in terms of the role of divisions, panels, committees and individuals within an organisation. There is a heightened risk that responsibility is not taken for a role or function. It can generally be avoided by clear specification of roles and responsibilities.
• Appropriate span of control: It is generally established that managers and directors are most effective with between three and eight direct reports. Too few reports can indicate a ‘top-heavy’ structure, with excessive numbers of managers or levels of management. Too many direct reports, especially where direct reports have a diversity of functions, risks a lack of supervision and oversight.
3.2 regional service delivery model
The regional model was designed to improve departmental operations in the regions, and emphasises service integration, planning, community engagement and integrated responses to regional issues. It also provides more visible senior leadership in the regions.16 Box 2 provides a summary of the governance principles underpinning the regional model.
15 State Services Authority 2011, Inquiry into the command, management and functions of the senior structure of Victoria Police, State Services Authority, Melbourne. 16 Information supplied by the Department of Justice.
14 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
box 2: Key principles for the regional model17
• Clear separation of roles and responsibilities between central office and regions – separation of policy, program design, monitoring, evaluation (steering) from service delivery (rowing).
• Executive Directors remain accountable to Secretary and Ministers.
• Regional directors are responsible through the Executive Director, Regional and Executive Services to the Secretary for effective:
• delivery of services, issues and incident management, regional stakeholder management, staffing and resources management including financial, assets and facilities, and performance monitoring;
• regional planning; and
• community engagement and development.
• All regional staff will have a single line of accountability to the Regional Director.
• Coordination, consultation and liaison arrangements exist between regional service delivery staff and central office program directors, managers and staff.
• Coordination and liaison arrangements also exist between regional business services staff and relevant central office corporate and business services staff.
• Coordination and liaison arrangements exist between regional directors and senior registrars at the regional Magistrates’ Court.
• Coordination and liaison arrangements exist between regional directors.
Under the regional model, two Executive Directors are responsible for key components of Victoria’s corrections system:
• the Executive Director, Corrections, Health and Crime Prevention – is responsible for Corrections Victoria, has line management responsibility for the Corrections Commissioner, and has line management responsibility for the Director of Justice Health, who manages health service programs across the justice system;
• the Executive Director, Regional and Executive Services – is responsible for regional service delivery and has line management responsibility for regional directors.
In addition, the Executive Director, Community Operations and Strategy is responsible for the Office of Correctional Services Review (OCSR), which acts as a separate review body for the corrections system.
Figure 2 shows the structure of the corrections system, including the key roles and responsibilities. These roles are outlined in more detail below.
17 Information supplied by the Department of Justice.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 15
figure 2: Structure of Victoria’s corrections system, 30 July 2012
16 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
The Corrections Commissioner is an employee of the Department of Justice, is the head of Corrections Victoria and has responsibility for the system-wide management of the corrections system. Corrections Victoria also has responsibility for strategic and operational policy, standards, monitoring, program development and the management of private prison contracts. It retains operational responsibility for key aspects of service delivery, such as services that are delivered on a state-wide basis across both public and private prisons. Examples include prisoner sentence management, sex offender management and security and intelligence services.18 The Corrections Commissioner reports to the Executive Director, Corrections, Health and Crime Prevention.
The Executive Director, Regional and Executive Services is responsible for facilitating, enabling and overseeing the delivery of regional justice services, including community corrections and prisons. Eight regional directors report to the Executive Director, Regional and Executive Services and have line management responsibilities for 10 prison general managers.
The regional directors are responsible for leading service delivery in accordance with requirements established by the Department of Justice’s central office programs, including corrections programs. The regional directors contribute to central policy and program development, take responsibility for the regional budget and represent the department in regional community engagement activities.
Regional directors provide monthly and quarterly reports on operational activity. This includes service delivery against specified targets, such as major outputs and deliverables outlined in the Budget Papers. These reports help Corrections Victoria identify trends and emerging issues within the corrections system.
Prison general managers are accountable to regional directors for:
• operating in accordance with Department of Justice policies (i.e. department-wide policies) and performance against budget; and
• managing prisons and prisoners, on behalf of the Corrections Commissioner, in accordance with requirements and instructions issued by the Commissioner and Deputy Commissioners.
In addition, the OCSR acts as an advisory body to the Secretary, Department of Justice on the performance of the corrections system. It assists the Secretary to fulfil the obligation under section 7(1) of the Corrections Act, to monitor the provision of all correctional services to achieve the safe custody and welfare of prisoners and offenders. The Executive Director, Community Operations and Strategy has responsibility for the OCSR, providing a degree of independence from Corrections Victoria.
The OCSR discharges its mandate by:
• conducting investigations and enquiries into serious incidents and allegations in the corrections system;
• conducting reviews of operations and services, including unannounced inspections;
• monitoring the performance of prisons, community correctional services and prisoner transport;
• reviewing prisoner and offender deaths and providing reports to the Coroner; and
• coordinating the Independent Prison Visitor Scheme of independent volunteers who visit prisons, speak to prisoners and staff and report on their observations from a community perspective.19
18 Information supplied by the Department of Justice. 19 Department of Justice 2011, Annual Report 2010-11, Department of Justice, Melbourne p. 184.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 17
The OCSR’S review function is internal to the Department of Justice and separate from external review by bodies such as the Ombudsman and the Auditor-General.
Further information in relation to the respective roles and responsibilities of regional directors, prison general managers and the Corrections Commissioner (or the Commissioner’s delegates) is provided at appendix F.
While Corrections Victoria, the Regional and Executive Services division and the OCSR all have significant roles in the corrections system, prison management also has an important role in local prisoner management. For example, review and assessment committees play a critical role in reviewing and making recommendations or decisions relating to prisoners’ security ratings, placement within units and participation in programs (see Chapter 5).
3.2.1 coordination, collaboration and communication arrangements
As part of its regional model, the Department of Justice has developed a schedule of formal management, coordination and communication meetings in which regional directors take part. At the executive level, these include:
• meetings of all regional directors and the Executive Director, Regional and Executive Services (fortnightly);
• one-on-one meetings between regional directors and Executive Director, Regional and Executive Services (monthly); and
• meetings between regional directors and Deputy Corrections Commissioners.20
3.3 assessment of the structure of Victoria’s corrections system
The Review’s assessment of the structure of the corrections system centres on the extent to which there are clear lines of accountability for high-risk prisoner classification, placement and management. The Review’s scope did not extend to incident management, emergency management or after-hours systems. Specific, short-term, local decision making arrangements apply to these systems, subject to the Corrections Act, Corrections Regulations and other requirements.
Victoria’s corrections system has a complex structure, with an allocation of responsibilities mainly across two departmental divisions (with the OCSR placed in a third for independence) and a mix of central and regional control of elements. In addition, Victoria’s corrections system is unique in Australia in that the Corrections Commissioner reports to the Department Secretary via an Executive Director. In other jurisdictions, the Corrections Commissioner or equivalent is either the head of a department or a direct report to the head of a department.
The current allocation of responsibilities across divisions and the mix of regional and central control of the system appears to work. Central and regional staff appear to be operating effectively within the current structural arrangements. Senior officials consulted by the Review indicated that operational managers are well supported and that the structure is not unduly restrictive. Officials stated that they have a clear understanding of the respective roles and accountabilities of central and regional staff.
20 Information supplied by the Department of Justice.
18 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
It was acknowledged within the corrections system that prison general managers have benefited from the support provided by regional directors and understand their obligations to deliver prison services in line with centrally-determined standards, requirements and instructions. It was also acknowledged that the success of a regional model as implemented by the Department of Justice depends on effective communication and collaboration between regions and central office. This supports shared understanding of objectives, priorities and service deliverables.
Table 1 outlines Review findings against design principles specified in section 3.1. table 1: Structural findings
Structural design principle Corrections system structure Clear lines of accountability Central and regional officials consulted by the Review appear to understand to whom they are accountable and who is accountable to them. However, decision-making responsibilities and accountabilities could be better documented (see section 6). Clarity of roles and responsibilities Officials consulted by the Review appear to understand the respective roles and responsibilities of key staff in the corrections system. No duplication of functions Key functions did not appear to overlap, however functions such as sentence management could be more effectively documented (see section 6). Appropriate span of control Senior staff appear to have a reasonable number of direct reports.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 19
4 challenges for prison performance
Victoria’s prison system is facing an increasingly complex prisoner population and has been operating near to capacity for some time.
4.1 prison system complexity pressures
Corrections officials advised the Review that the prisoner population is dynamic and subject to change. As prisoners’ allegiances change, Corrections Victoria and prison staff need to constantly monitor associates and enemies of prisoners to ensure that certain individuals or factions are kept apart. In turn, this constrains the options for prisoner placement. The constraints on placement options are most keenly felt in relation to high-risk prisoners, which makes decisions about their management and placement more complex than in the past.
In recent years, the number of high-risk prisoners has increased due to the gangland killings and subsequent arrests in the early 2000s. The high-risk prisoner population includes:
• members of international drug syndicates;
• persons charged with and convicted of terrorism offences;
• members of outlaw motorcycle gangs (this is already common in other states);
• those involved in gang-related activity within prison; and
• members of rival crime gangs and families.21
4.1.1 growth in the number of protection prisoners
Review consultations highlighted increasing numbers of prisoners requiring protection. Although the proportion of protection prisoners has remained relatively constant over time, the significant increase in the prisoner population has seen a commensurate increase in the daily average number of protection prisoners from 1,017 in 2006-07 to 1,298 in 2011-12, an increase of 27.6 per cent. This can be attributed largely to a 35 per cent increase in prisoners requiring protection as a result of sexual offences. During this time, the number of prisoners recorded as requiring protection due to their status as a confirmed witness for the Crown also increased by 21 per cent.22
As the safety of protection prisoners cannot be guaranteed in a mainstream prison environment, they must be accommodated in separate protection units if their safe custody and welfare is to be assured. The growth in the number of protection prisoners places extra capacity pressure on these protection units. This presents ongoing challenges for the Secretary, Department of Justice, the Secretary’s delegates and senior officials in the corrections system to meet their statutory obligations to ensure the safe custody and welfare of prisoners.
21 Information supplied by Corrections Victoria. 22 Data supplied by Department of Justice.
20 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
4.2 prison system capacity pressures
The imprisonment rate in Victoria is lower than that of any other mainland Australian state. However, over the last ten years (2001-2011), adult imprisonment rates have:
• increased from 90.4 to 108.5 per 100,000 adults;
• increased 20.1 per cent for men (from 170.9 to 206.1 per 100,000 men); and
• increased 11.6 per cent for women (from 12.9 to 14.4 per 100,000 women).
On 20 April 2012, Corrections Victoria recorded its highest prison muster at 4,969 prisoners, constituting a 41.7 per cent increase over 10 years.23
The 2012-13 Victorian State Budget Papers anticipate average daily prisoner numbers will increase by between 150 and 420 prisoners this year. The Budget Papers attribute this increased demand to population growth, sentencing reform and additional police.24 figure 3: Imprisonment rate per 100,000 adults, at 30 June 2001 to 201125
250
200
150 Males 100 Females Number of prisoners of Number 50
0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
23 Data supplied by Department of Justice. 24 Department of Treasury and Finance, 2012-13, Budget Paper No. 3: Service Delivery, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne, p. 197. 25 Data supplied by Department of Justice. Rates are as at 30 June each year.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 21
figure 4: Increases in prisoner numbers, 2000-01 to 2010-1126
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000 Males 2500 Females 2000 All prisoners Number of prisoners 1500
1000
500
0 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
4.2.1 prison utilisation rates
The increasing prisoner population is accompanied by a rise in prison utilisation rates. The Victorian prison system aims to operate at a utilisation rate of 90 to 95 per cent, with between 230 and 460 vacancies at any one time. This flexibility is required to ensure that the system can cater for operational emergencies, cell maintenance and the movement of prisoners between general accommodation units and other units such as those for management or observation.27 Corrections officials advised the Review that while utilisation rates approaching 100 per cent may indicate efficient resource management, rates of 95 per cent or more are an indicator of significant capacity pressure within the system. In April 2012, the bed utilisation rate was:
• 95.7 per cent for all prisons; and
• 96.6 per cent for men’s prisons.28
While new units have been added to the system to deal with the increase in prisoner numbers, the majority of prisons in Victoria accommodate more prisoners than they were originally designed to accommodate (known as ‘design capacity’). Corrections officials advised that, in many cases, prison capacity has been increased on a temporary basis by ‘double bunking’, or placing additional beds in existing cells.
System capacity pressures are shared by some other states and territories. The national average prison design capacity utilisation rate is 100.6 per cent and utilisation rates are highest in Western Australia, Northern Territory and New South Wales.29
26 Data supplied by Department of Justice. 27 Information supplied by Department of Justice. 28 Data supplied by Department of Justice. 29 Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012, Report on Government Services, Productivity Commission, Federal Government. p.8.30.
22 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
figure 5: Victorian prison utilisation rates at 30 June 2007 to 201130
100%
80%
60% All prisons 40% Utilisation rate
20%
0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Consultations undertaken by the Review revealed that the current capacity pressures are widely acknowledged both within and outside the corrections system. High utilisation rates have implications for the placement and management of prisoners. Corrections officials advise that capacity pressures are felt particularly acutely in high security and management units.
Consultation with corrections staff indicated that placement decisions are increasingly being influenced by the short-term availability of vacant beds in contrast to optimal placement from a longer term sentence planning perspective. This highlights the need for the Department of Justice to effectively forecast and plan for system expansion. The extent to which the department is equipped to undertake prison capacity planning is the subject of a 2012-13 performance audit by the Auditor General.31
4.2.2 initiatives underway to reduce capacity pressures
Initiatives are underway to address capacity pressures within the Victorian prison system. In 2011-12, the Victorian Government funded an additional 108 prison beds in the men’s prison system. In July 2012, 54 new beds were added to the Langi Kal Kal minimum security prison and an additional 54 beds were opened at the minimum security Dhurringile Prison.32 In the 2012-13 Budget, further asset funding of $670.4 million over five years to 2015-16 was provided. This will fund an additional 395 prison beds and the development of a new 500-bed medium security prison. It will also fund 100 contingency beds to manage short-term demand pressures on the men’s system.33
A public private partnership is scheduled to deliver an additional 350 beds at the Hopkins Correctional Centre at Ararat. However, the financial collapse of the builder has delayed the implementation of this
30 Data supplied by Department of Justice. Note: Prior to 2002, capacity was measured as a percentage of prison design capacity only and did not include temporary prison beds. As part of the 2001-2 Budget process, this measure was revised to include both permanent and temporary beds, and a target of 94.07 per cent established for 2001-2]. 31 Victorian Auditor-General’s Office 2012, Annual Plan 2012-13, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Melbourne. 32 Minister for Corrections, The Hon Andrew McIntosh MP, Media Release, ‘Minister Opens Langi Kal Kal Expansion, Thursday 5 July 2012, Information supplied by Department of Justice. 33 Information supplied by Department of Justice
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 23
project.34 This, together with the lead time to construct and commission a new prison, means that short-term capacity issues are likely to remain.
4.3 corrections system performance
In general, the Victorian corrections system performs its functions well and consistently. The system meets key performance targets and compares favourably to national averages on a range of prisoner and operational measures.
The apparent unnatural death rate for Victoria’s prisoners has been largely consistent with national averages over the last five years, at 0.06 per 100 prisoners for Victoria versus 0.05 nationally. Rates of assaults in custody are generally consistent with national averages (see figure 6).
In Victoria, reoffending rates are lower than national averages (see figure 7) and rates of prisoner participation in employment are markedly higher than the national average (see figure 8). Rates of participation in education have been steady and largely consistent with the national average. figure 6: Rate of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults per 100 prisoners, 2006-07 to 2010-1135
10 9
8 7 6 Assaults: National 5 Assaults: Victoria 4 Serious assaults: Victoria 3 Serious assaults: National Assaults per 100 prisonersAssaults per
2 1 0 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
figure 7: Rate of return to prison within two years, 2006-07 to 2010-1136
34 ABC news, 15 June 2012, ‘Ararat prison consortium goes into liquidation’, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-14/ararat-prison/4069860, viewed 17 July 2012. 35 Data from Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012, Report on Government Services, Productivity Commission, Federal Government. 36 Data from Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012, Report on Government Services, Productivity Commission, Federal Government.
24 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
45%
40%
35% National 30% Victoria Rate of return
25%
20% 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
figure 8: Rate of eligible prisoner participation in employment and education, 2006-07 to 2010-1137
100% 90% 80%
70% 60% Employment: Victoria 50% Employment: National 40% Education: Victoria
Participation rate 30% Education: National 20% 10% 0% 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
The Victorian corrections system is relatively efficient. While the average daily cost per prisoner is 14 per cent higher than the national average, the real net operating cost per head across the entire corrections system is approximately 30 per cent lower than the national average (see figures 9 and 10). Corrections Victoria attributes this to differences in the structure of the corrections system across jurisdictions. In Victoria, there is a higher use of comparatively low-cost non-custodial diversionary and community-based dispositions compared to other jurisdictions. Thus Victoria’s prisoner population is skewed towards medium and maximum security prisoners, who attract higher operating costs.
37 Data from Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012, Report on Government Services, Productivity Commission, Federal Government.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 25
figure 9: Real net operating expenditure per prisoner per day, 2006-07 to 2010-1138
$600
$500 2006-07 $400 2007-08
$300 2008-09 2009-10 Expenditure $200 2010-11 $100
$0 Vic NSW Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust
figure 10: Real net operating expenditure on prisons and community corrections per head of population per year, 2006-07 to 2010-1139
$500 $450 $400 $350 2006-07
$300 2007-08 $250 2008-09 $200 2009-10 Expenditure $150 2010-11 $100 $50 $0 Vic NSW Qld WA SA Tas ACT NT Aust
38 Data from Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012, Report on Government Services, Productivity Commission, Federal Government. Note: Real net operating expenditure is calculated from net operating expenditure, which excludes payroll tax and is net of operating revenues from ordinary activities. Data for previous years have been adjusted by the gross domestic product deflator. 39 Data from Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012, Report on Government Services, Productivity Commission, Federal Government. This includes both prisons and community corrections services. Data on operating expenditure for prisons only is not available through the Report on Government Service Provision.
26 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
5 placement and management of high-risk prisoners
The overarching responsibility for the corrections system in placing and managing prisoners is their safe custody and welfare. To achieve this, the placement and management of high-risk prisoners is becoming:
• increasingly formalised – strengthening decision-making accountability and transparency;
• increasingly risk averse – presenting lower risks to prisoner safety, but higher risks arising from prolonged periods of social isolation; and
• elevated to higher levels of decision-making – appropriately elevating higher-risk decisions to more senior decision-makers.
This section of the Review report outlines the placement and management process for all prisoners as well as additional arrangements that apply to high-risk prisoners.
5.1 placement and management overview
The Review defines ‘placement’ as determining the prison and prison unit in which a prisoner is accommodated. It defines ‘management’ as the regime or conditions applicable to the placement, including:
• the number of ‘out-of-cell’ hours and the activities available during that time (including whether the prisoner is permitted to leave the confines of the unit) and the number of other prisoners (if any) with whom they may mix;
• the number and types of items that a prisoner may have in his or her cell;
• the range of opportunities for education, programs, or work;
• the level of interaction with personal contacts, such as the number of telephone calls or personal visits they may have; and
• security arrangements such as the number of ‘counts’ and searches.
The Corrections Act provides that every prisoner has the right to be classified as soon as possible after being sentenced, with this classification reviewed annually.40 The Corrections Regulations specify that a prisoner’s classification includes decisions about:
• security rating – comprising high, maximum, medium or minimum security;
• placement; and
41 • sentence plan.
40 Corrections Act 1986, s 47(1)(l). 41 Corrections Regulations 2009 regulations 22(1)(a) and 22(2).
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 27
5.2 sentence management
Sentence management is an ongoing process of identifying prisoners’ needs and matching them to correctional resources with the objective of placing and managing prisoners appropriately. This requires balancing:
• the correctional system’s needs for security, efficiency and effectiveness in its operations;
• prisoners’ needs to have their sentences managed in a way that is appropriate to their situation and rehabilitation prospects; and
42 • the need to protect community safety at all times.
Box 3 shows the objectives of the sentence management process. box 3: Sentence management process objectives43
The objectives of the sentence management process are to:
• assess offenders in order to maximise opportunities for offenders to change their behaviour thus reducing the risk of re-offending;
• develop a broad sentence plan for each prisoner;
• ensure each prisoner is assessed in a consistent and objective manner which minimises public risk;
• determine each prisoner’s program needs and identify appropriate structured opportunities to address those needs;
• actively engage each prisoner in the case planning process; and
• ensure that the sentence management guiding principles are implemented in all sentence management processes.
The guiding principles for sentence management, as specified in the Sentence Management Manual, are set out at appendix G.
Corrections Victoria’s sentence management system operates at two levels:
1. central – the Sentence Management Branch is responsible for state-wide prisoner placement. The Branch convenes:
- sentence management panels – decision-making panels which meet with prisoners and determine / review prisoner classification, placement and sentence plans; and
- major offenders sentence management panels – advisory panels which meet with prisoners and make recommendations for high-risk prisoner classification, placement and sentence plans.44
42 Corrections Victoria 2007 Sentence Management Manual, Foreword. 43 Corrections Victoria 2007 Sentence Management Manual p 1.5. 44 Major offenders sentence management panels also make classification and placement decisions for prisoners other than major offenders who have been accommodated in high security or management units for more than 30 days.
28 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
2. local – prisons are responsible for convening:
- review and assessment committees – which meet with prisoners to manage and monitor their progress within the prison, and to provide information and recommendations to sentence management panels in relation to security ratings and placement.
Sentence management processes are described in the Sentence Management Manual (see Chapter 6).
5.2.1 sentence management delegations
The Secretary can delegate sentence management functions and powers specified in the Corrections Regulations. In considering delegations, the Review applied four principles:
• delegations are only assigned where reasonably necessary and there is an expectation that the delegation will be exercised in the normal course of duties;
• operational line managers ordinarily have at least the same functions and powers as their staff;
• delegates are appropriately equipped and skilled to exercise the delegation; and
• functions and powers to set routine policy and procedural rules are limited to a minimum number of senior individuals.
Powers to set rules for sentence management panels and review and assessment committees under sub-regulations of Regulation 23 and Regulation 24 have been delegated to 23 positions within the Department of Justice, including:
• the Corrections Commissioner;
• the Deputy Commissioner, Offender Management;
• the Director, Sentence Management Branch;
• regional directors (of whom there are currently eight); and
• general managers of prisons or transitional centres (of whom there are currently 12).
While the Review supports the appropriate delegation of some sentence management functions and powers to senior staff, the delegation of rule-setting powers is too broad. It has the potential to introduce conflict or inconsistency in the rules governing sentence management panels and review and assessment committees. To date, only the Corrections Commissioner has exercised rule-setting powers under delegation.
Senior Corrections Victoria officials advise that there is a need for a degree of flexibility in the appointments to and rules for review and assessment committees, to take into account variations between prisons. The Review notes that the ‘Classification Rules and Procedures’ issued by the Commissioner already provide for the review and assessment committee chairperson to determine committee procedures, and for information to be received from persons who are not committee members. It does not, therefore, appear necessary for a delegation to be issued by the Secretary in order to achieve the flexibility required. As such, the Review recommends removal of this delegated function from all parties other than the Commissioner.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 29
Recommendation 1
That the Secretary to the Department of Justice limits delegation of functions to set rules and procedures for sentence management panels and review and assessment committees to the Corrections Commissioner.
5.3 high-risk prisoner placement and management
Victoria’s corrections system recognises that some categories of prisoners present higher levels of risk and that additional processes are required to manage these risks. This section of the Review report presents an overview of both new and long-standing systems for managing and placing high-risk prisoners.
5.3.1 who are ‘high-risk prisoners’?
Within the Victorian corrections system – as in other jurisdictions – there is no absolute definition of a ‘high-risk prisoner’. Rather, the decision to categorise a prisoner as ‘high-risk’ is based on a judgement of the degree of risks faced on a number of continua.
There are multiple dimensions to risk in the prison system. For example, there are risks to:
• the community – the literature on assessment of risk in the criminal justice system focuses on re- offending risks, mainly violent and sexual recidivism;45
• prisoner safety – which can be posed to a prisoner or by a prisoner;
• staff safety; and
• the security and integrity of the corrections system.
The corrections system must take into account the risks posed to prisoners and by prisoners in making placement and management decisions. These include risks arising from security concerns; risk of violence to prisoners or staff; risk of suicide or self-harm; risks posed by the nature of a prisoner’s offence; risks posed by cooperation with police or authorities; and risks posed by allegiances and conflicts within and outside the prison system. In addition, risk can also attach to classes or categories of prisoners. This may include very young or elderly prisoners, prisoners with cognitive impairments or prisoners convicted of certain crimes (e.g. sexual offences against children).
Corrections Victoria applies additional levels of oversight for some categories of prisoners who present higher risks or whose profile is such that an increased level of visibility of their circumstances is warranted. These categories are outlined in appendix H.
45 See, for example, McSherry, B and Keyzer, P (eds) 2011 Dangerous People: Policy, Prediction, and Practice (New York).
30 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
For the purpose of this Review, a ‘high-risk prisoner’ is defined as any prisoner who is:
• a major offender; and/or
• a custodial witness; and/or
• unconvicted and accommodated in a high security or management unit in excess of 60 days. table 2: High-risk prisoners in Victoria46
Category Definition Who decides to include or remove a prisoner from the category Major • Dangerous or High Risk, including: Director, Sentence Management Offender • prisoners who pose a significant risk to staff and/or Branch (inclusion) other prisoners (e.g. through violent and/or predatory Commissioner (inclusion and behaviour); removal) • prisoners with undue or undesirable influence within the criminal hierarchy (e.g. Gangland members); • prisoners who have a demonstrated history of escape from a maximum security facility, or whose escape from custody would raise the highest levels of concern within the community; • prisoners who represent a danger to the State (e.g. terrorists); • High Public Profile, such as those prisoners and offenders whose offences are viewed as particularly abhorrent by the community, or who attract significant and ongoing media attention. Custodial Any person in prison custody who has provided or will be Interdepartmental Custodial Witness providing witness testimony for the Crown and: Witness Committee47 • the witness testimony is assisting in the prosecution of serious and organised crime; and • such evidence is likely to place the custodial witness in danger of serious injury or death from other prisoners. Unconvicted Any unconvicted or unsentenced prisoner (either remanded or Automatic by virtue of legal status in Long Term remanded pending sentencing) who has been accommodated in and placement Management a High Security or Management unit in excess of 60 days.48
On 2 July 2012, Victoria’s corrections system was responsible for 81 prisoners who met the Review’s definition of high-risk. This represented 1.66 per cent of the total prisoner population.
46 Corrections Victoria 2007, Sentence Management Manual, Section 4. 47 The Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee is chaired by Corrections Victoria and includes representation from Victoria Police, the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Crime Commission. 48 The inclusion of this category reflects particular concerns that have been expressed by the courts in relation to the conditions under which unconvicted persons are detained, and the potential for such conditions to impact on decisions in relation to bail, the conduct of trials, or sentencing decisions.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 31
5.3.2 identifying high-risk prisoners in the Victorian corrections system
The Director, Sentence Management Branch, is responsible for identifying prisoners for inclusion on the major offenders list. Once a prisoner is added to the major offenders list, the prisoner becomes subject to additional oversight (see section 5.3.3 below).
The effective management of risk depends first and foremost on the risk being identified. While some of the risk categories currently in use (shown in appendix H) derive from specific offender characteristics, such as length of sentence, criteria for the majority of risk factors do not lend themselves to such precise identification or definition. For example, major offenders include those who pose a ‘significant’ risk to staff and/or other prisoners, while custodial witnesses are those whose witness testimony is assisting in the prosecution of ‘serious and organised’ crime and ‘likely’ to place the custodial witness in danger of ‘serious’ injury or death.
These concepts provide subjective guidance but ultimately rely on the judgement of experienced senior staff to determine whether a risk is ‘significant’ or ‘serious’ enough to require an elevated level of oversight of any decisions.
High-risk prisoners are identified by the Director and staff of the Sentence Management Branch upon reception into the prison system. Information about such prisoners can come from a variety of sources, including:
• daily review by sentence management staff of lists of persons in police cells;
• prison staff working in courts;49
• community corrections staff;
• Victoria Police, Australian Federal Police and other law enforcement agencies;
• Adult Parole Board; or
• media (e.g. through published reports of court proceedings).
The Review was also advised that Corrections Victoria Intelligence Unit staff are able to use the Prisoner Information Management System (PIMS) to flag prisoners who may pose a risk if returned to prison. In addition, some risks are also flagged on the E-Justice system through a ‘Risks and Recommended Actions’ module. Information systems including PIMS and E-Justice are discussed in Chapter 6.
While Sentence Management Branch staff are confident that the reception into prison of a high-risk prisoner will come to their attention, the process relies on a small number of senior staff having adequate and complete information about offenders entering the corrections system. These senior staff are highly experienced, hold a significant depth and breadth of knowledge about the corrections system and individual prisoners, and have extensive informal professional networks and relationships through which they gather information. While this is a strength of the system, it also presents a risk that prisoners could be omitted from the major offenders list if, for example, key staff are on leave.
49 Custodial staff from the Melbourne Assessment Prison are responsible for prisoner security at the Melbourne County Court and the Supreme Court, and manage prisoners held during the day in the County Court cells. Custodial staff are present in court with any prisoner who is appearing.
32 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
There is potential to improve notification of certain prisoners – such as prisoners with known connections to organised crime – to the Director, Sentence Management Branch. The Director is then responsible for determining whether a prisoner is to be managed as a major offender.
Recommendation 2 That Corrections Victoria updates the sentence management operating procedures to specify when and how the reception of a prisoner must be brought to the attention of the Director, Sentence Management Branch.
Recommendation 3 That Corrections Victoria negotiates arrangements with Victoria Police for formal notification when high-risk persons in police custody are expected to enter the prison system.
5.3.3 recent developments in the oversight of high-risk prisoner placement and management
Within the corrections context, the State exercises significant powers in determining how and when people are deprived of their liberty. This requires high levels of transparency, accountability and consistency in decision-making. In principle, higher categories of risk should be matched by higher levels of information and intelligence, more thorough and accountable documentation, and decision- making by more senior officers.
In Victoria, the management of high-risk prisoners is becoming increasingly formalised, risk averse, and elevated to higher levels of senior decision-making. Since May 2012 key decisions affecting placement and management for Victoria’s highest-risk prisoners has been elevated to the Corrections Commissioner, rather than the Sentence Management Branch. In light of the death of Mr Carl Williams, Corrections Victoria has recognised the need to strengthen information sharing with police to inform its assessment of prisoner risk. It has also recognised the need to establish a more rigorous approach to managing and placing high-risk prisoners as well as documenting processes and decisions.
To this end, the recent establishment of two new committees to consider high-risk prisoners indicates that Corrections Victoria is beginning to apply these principles. These committees are:
• the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee (ICWC) – an information sharing body between Corrections Victoria and law enforcement agencies;50 and
• the High Risk Management Advisory Panel (HRMAP) – an internal advisory body, which provides detailed advice to the Corrections Commissioner who makes placement and management decisions for the State’s highest-risk prisoners.
In principle, the decision to establish these two committees appears sound, although their role and effectiveness will need to be evaluated and strengthened as required over time. Figure 11 summarises the current decision-making processes for the placement and management of high-risk prisoners in Victoria.51
50 Established in December 2011, the ICWC comprises representatives from Corrections Victoria, Victoria Police, Australian Federal Police, and the Australian Crime Commission. Further detail is contained in section 5.3.4. 51 Figure 12 can be contrasted with the previous decision-making process at appendix I.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 33
figure 11: Decision-making for Victoria’s high-risk prisoners 52
Tier 1: Classification, placement and management decision-making for: • major offenders who are accommodated in the state’s high security or management units; • custodial witnesses53; • unsentenced prisoners who are held in high security or management units for more than 60 days; and • other prisoners as identified by the Corrections Commissioner or Director, Sentence Management.
Tier 2: Classification, placement and management decision-making for: • major offenders who are not accommodated in the State’s high security or management units; and • other prisoners as identified by the Corrections Commissioner or Director, Sentence Management.
52 This diagram represents core decisions in relation to classification, placement, mixing arrangements, and permit applications. Local prison management retains responsibility for local decisions. 53 See section 5.3.4 for an outline of the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee and managing custodial witnesses.
34 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
the High Risk Management Advisory Panel
The HRMAP supports and advises the Corrections Commissioner so that the Commissioner can make classification, placement and management decisions for Victoria’s highest-risk prisoners. It was established in 2012, replacing the former Major Offenders Review Panel. Its establishment accompanied the elevation of decision-making about the State’s highest-risk prisoners from the Director, Sentence Management Branch to the Commissioner. The purpose, scope and role of the HRMAP are set out in table 3. table 3: Functions of the High Risk Management Advisory Panel54
High Risk Management Advisory Panel Purpose To provide oversight for prisoners and offenders who pose a significant risk to the Victorian correctional system, by establishing a formal governance structure for considering relevant matters.
Membership • Deputy Commissioner, Offender Management (Chair) • Deputy Commissioner, Operations • Senior representative from Victoria Police • Independent Member/s Scope To make recommendations relating to the classification and management of: • major offenders who are accommodated in high security or management units, other than those serving loss of privileges or pending investigation; • prisoners who are custodial witnesses; • unconvicted prisoners accommodated in high security or management units in excess of 60 days; and • other cases referred by the Commissioner or the Director, Sentence Management Branch. Role To provide recommendations to the Commissioner in relation to: • classification (placement, security ratings and sentence plans); • prisoners directly mixing in high security or management units, where there may be new associations or there has been a change that may affect association; • participation in the Custodial Community Permit Program other than for routine purposes; • the removal of a prisoner’s or offender’s major offender status; and • other matters referred by the Commissioner or Director, Sentence Management Branch.
As at July 2012, the HRMAP had met three times. Corrections Victoria advised the Review that the first quarterly report for the Secretary will be prepared once the Commissioner has considered matters and recommendations arising from the July 2012 meeting. The Review notes that the Victoria Police member has only recently been confirmed and has yet to attend a meeting. In addition, Corrections Victoria is yet to confirm the appointment of the independent member/s.
The decision to establish the HRMAP appears sound, although it will take time to assess its effectiveness. The HRMAP appropriately provides for:
• decision-making that is more rigorously informed, subject to scrutiny and formally documented; and
• decision-making at a more senior level (by the Corrections Commissioner) for the State’s highest- risk prisoners.
54 Corrections Victoria 2007 Sentence Management Manual pp 4.12-4.14.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 35
However, the HRMAP process may also introduce new challenges for placing and managing high-risk prisoners. While the formal process of monthly meetings provides a visible and credible process for prisoners, it may slow the speed of decision-making. Until prisoners become accustomed to the process, there may be frustration about the time required for decisions.
While senior prison officials noted the potential risk of frustration arising from slower and more deliberative decision-making with the introduction of HRMAP, they recognised the need for the new process to address high-risk prisoner placement and management. The complexity of managing this cohort of prisoners and the depth of intelligence and judgement required to weigh risks, necessarily slow the decision-making process.
Prison and sentence management staff should monitor any emerging frustrations and any risks this may pose to prison safety and security, and take action to mitigate these risks. other developments in the placement and management of high-risk prisoners
The Review also noted that there appears to be an increasingly risk averse approach to high-risk prisoner ‘run outs’ in high security management units. Run outs refer to prisoners’ out of cell hours in these units. Run outs may be:
• single run outs – where the prisoner does not have contact with other prisoners; or
• dual or multiple run outs – where prisoners have contact with one or more other prisoners.
On 2 July 2012, there were 104 prisoners who were in the State’s management and high security units for reasons other than serving a period of loss of privileges, or pending investigation. Of these, 75 prisoners (or 72 per cent) were on single run outs.
Senior corrections officials advised the Review that since the April 2010 death of Mr Carl Williams in Barwon Prison’s high security Acacia Unit, Corrections Victoria may have adopted a more risk averse approach to prisoner run outs. This is not underpinned by an explicit shift in policy. Rather, it represents an informal shift in the exercise of judgement and decision-making. Most prisoners in high security units are isolated from other prisoners. The literature is critical of the harmful psychological consequences of social isolation, noting that this can lead to a return or exacerbation of pre-existing mental illness. Prolonged periods of social isolation impact adversely on prisoners’ ability to initiate or control their own behaviour, leading to poorer rehabilitative prospects upon transition or release to the community. 55
Balancing the safety and potential wellbeing of high-risk prisoners within a correctional environment is a significant challenge for Corrections Victoria. Complete physical safety is enhanced by minimised contact or no contact with other prisoners, but increasing degrees of social isolation can increase the risks to psychological health. Corrections Victoria needs to ensure that in each individual case they remain aware of this balance, are attentive to minimising the physical risks, document the reasons for decisions and monitor the opportunities for social interaction of prisoners.
5.3.4 management and placement of high-risk custodial witnesses
Senior corrections officials consulted during the Review raised the challenge of maintaining the safe custody and welfare of high-risk prisoners who are custodial witnesses. They advised that in the past, prisoners adhered to an implicit code of refusing to co-operate with law enforcement agencies. Under the code, prisoners did not provide evidence against other prisoners or associates. However, in recent
55 Haney, C ‘Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement’ Crime & Delinquency Vol 49 No 1, January 2003, 124-156.
36 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
years some prisoners have broken the code in return for personal benefits (e.g. support for reduced sentences or fewer charges).
The shift in the willingness of some prisoners to become custodial witnesses, particularly into matters such as organised crime, presents both benefits and risks to the criminal justice system. It is in the community’s interest for the justice system to detect, investigate, prosecute and convict those involved in organised crime. However, the risk of retribution within the prisoner population against prisoners who cooperate with law enforcement agencies is a significant management challenge for the corrections system.
Limited options are available in the corrections system to protect the safety of high-risk custodial witnesses. Accommodating a prisoner within a ‘protection’ unit may not be sufficiently safe. Accommodating a prisoner on a single run out within a high security management unit would provide a higher degree of safety, but would impose prolonged periods of social isolation and potentially compromise the prisoner’s mental health, their willingness to cooperate with authorities, and/or impact on the legal process including the right to a fair trial.56
Corrections Victoria requires highly effective information sharing arrangements with Victoria Police and other law enforcement agencies, and a sophisticated intelligence system to make placement and management decisions for high-risk custodial witnesses. This is particularly important as prisoner networks change, with shifting allegiances and associations. Shortcomings in the intelligence system were identified in both the Ombudsman’s report57 and the Comrie report.58 This Review has not sought to re-investigate these shortcomings. Rather, the implementation of recommendations of these two reports is subject to independent monitoring by Mr Mick Palmer AO APM, who is scheduled to report on his findings in December 2012.
Developing more sophisticated information and intelligence sharing arrangements concerning prisoners requires Corrections Victoria to appreciate that it has separate, but related, objectives to Victoria Police:
• Corrections Victoria is responsible for the safe custody and welfare of prisoners; and
• Victoria Police is responsible for investigating crime, which may include seeking information or evidence from custodial witnesses, and for managing the witness protection program.
Since compromising the safety of a custodial witness is in neither agency’s interests, these two objectives converge rather than diverge. Senior officials from Victoria Police advised the Review that prisoner safety must be the primary principle for both organisations. Nevertheless, it is foreseeable that on some occasions the demands of an active police investigation may mean that Corrections Victoria cannot always rely on having complete live intelligence when making and reviewing placement and management decisions.
This Review concurs with the Ombudsman’s finding that Corrections Victoria must conduct its own risk assessment when making decisions about custodial witness placement and management. It is therefore critical that Corrections Victoria has the appropriate technical and staffing capability to collect, collate and analyse information from all sources, including that provided through information sharing with police.
56 In 2008, Justice Bongiorno ruled that changes were required to the conditions under which twelve defendants were being held, in order to provide a fair trial. Corrections Victoria was required to alter the defendants’ placement, conditions of incarceration and travel to court. (See R v Benbrika and Ors (Ruling No 20) [2008] VSC 80 (20 March 2008)). 57 Ombudsman Victoria 2012, The death of Mr Carl Williams at HM Barwon Prison – investigation into Corrections Victoria. 58 Comrie N 2008, A Review of Operations of the Corrections Victoria Intelligence Function and Structure (confidential).
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 37
Corrections Victoria needs to continue building on current efforts to strengthen its relationship with Victoria Police. These include:
• reciprocal embedding of staff – since December 2011, two police officers have been placed within the Corrections Victoria Intelligence Unit and one Corrections Victoria supervisor has been placed at Victoria Police. These officers act as liaison and facilitation points between agencies (rather than as joint analysts). Both Corrections Victoria staff and Victoria Police members reflected in positive terms on the reciprocal embedding of staff, commenting on increased understanding of respective interests and responsibilities. Sentence management staff in particular commented on an enhanced ability to seek and receive relevant information that contributes to effective decision-making in relation to prisoner risk and placement. Staff also noted that the turnaround time for response to information requests had been significantly reduced. The Review was also advised that there has been an unanticipated increase in requests for information between both agencies.
59 • police representation on key committees – including HRMAP and ICWC; and
• a memorandum of understanding – which provides guidelines for the coordination of a range of activities between Corrections Victoria and Victoria Police. This commits both agencies to nominate liaison officers for the purpose of information sharing under the memorandum of understanding, and to implement information sharing arrangements by having members of Victoria Police working alongside members of the Corrections Victoria Intelligence Unit. 60 the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee
The ICWC is primarily an information sharing forum between Corrections Victoria and law enforcement agencies. The committee does not have a decision-making role for the classification, placement and management of prisoners, as other legislative arrangements already exist (such as Corrections Victoria’s responsibility for determining prisoner placements). The ICWC aims to ensure, however, that the Corrections Commissioner’s decisions about custodial witnesses are based on full consideration of the information and intelligence available.
59 Note: as at 1 August 2012, a police representative has yet to attend an HRMAP meeting. 60 The Review was advised that the Corrections Victoria Intelligence Unit is in the process of drafting memoranda of understanding in relation to information sharing with other agencies. These include the Australian Crime Commission, Australian Federal Police, Centrelink, Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Office of the Chief Examiner and Office of Police Integrity.
38 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
table 4: Functions of the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee61
Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee Purpose To ensure a safe prison environment for prisoners who are custodial witnesses, by enabling cooperation and information sharing between law enforcement agencies and Corrections Victoria. Membership Corrections Victoria • Director, Sentence Management Branch (Chair) • Director, Security & Intelligence, Corrections Victoria Victoria Police Australian Federal Police Australian Crime Commission Scope To consider information relating to prisoners who are considered high-risk and: • have provided or will be providing witness testimony for the Crown; • the witness testimony is assisting in the prosecution of serious and organised crime; and • such evidence is likely to place the custodial witness in danger of serious injury or death from other prisoners.
Role To contribute to the effective management and placement of custodial witnesses by: • sharing threat and risk assessment intelligence and information; • monitoring contact, and identifying any attempted unauthorised contact; • monitoring circumstances such as the progress of legal matters; criminal networks and allegiances, and any changes; • providing advice in relation to any application for a Corrections Administration Permit; and • ensuring appropriate planning and risk management for pending court appearances.
As at July 2012, the ICWC had met four times. It has identified and considered detailed information about high-risk prisoners who were potential, current or previous custodial witnesses. The ICWC may also consider Crown witnesses who are under the supervision of Corrections Victoria but who are not currently in custody, such as prisoners who have been paroled.
The rationale to establish the ICWC is sound, and it is a positive step forward in managing some of Victoria’s highest-risk prisoners. However, there is further scope for this committee to improve the degree of information sharing between relevant organisations. For example, Corrections Victoria has not explicitly sought agreement with Victoria Police for notification when a prisoner becomes subject to the police witness protection program, a factor that corrections officials consider relevant to prisoner placement and management decisions.
In addition, Corrections Victoria does not retain ongoing access to all information presented to the ICWC by law enforcement agencies. Current arrangements rely on Corrections officials present at ICWC meetings remembering key details and verbally reporting these to the HRMAP, which in turn advises the Commissioner, who makes placement and management decisions. This presents risks for ongoing decision-making for the placement and management of custodial witnesses. Victoria Police collates the information provided by law enforcement agencies and has advised that Corrections Victoria could request this information.
61 Corrections Victoria 2007 Sentence Management Manual p 4.11.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 39
Recommendation 4
That Corrections Victoria takes steps to routinely access and retain information presented to the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee by law enforcement agencies, for incorporation into intelligence systems and decision-making.
5.4 conclusion
The placement and management of high-risk prisoners is a challenging aspect of managing the corrections system. The emerging willingness of some prisoners to become high profile custodial witnesses adds to this challenge, as Corrections Victoria must manage the additional risk associated with this without necessarily having complete intelligence to inform placement and management decisions.
Decisions around the management and placement of high-risk prisoners depend on sophisticated intelligence systems and appropriate processes to make and document decisions. While Corrections Victoria has implemented a number of changes to strengthen decision-making about high-risk prisoner placement and management, there may be opportunities to further improve these. While committees such as the ICWC and HRMAP appear to be useful and appropriate initiatives, it will take time to evaluate their effectiveness.
The management and placement of high-risk prisoners also depends on strong professional relationships and a high degree of trust between Corrections Victoria and Victoria Police, particularly in relation to custodial witnesses. In principle, the ICWC and HRMAP will assist in building trust and strengthening information sharing between these agencies, although it is too early to determine the practical impact of the committees.
Substantively filling senior roles in Corrections Victoria, currently filled in an acting capacity, would also support strengthened trust and professional relationships with police. At the time of writing this report, acting arrangements included the following:
• an Acting Corrections Commissioner (since 31 May 2012);
• an Acting Deputy Commissioner, Offender Management (since 31 May 2012); and
• an unfilled vacancy for a Director, Security and Intelligence Services (new position scheduled to be advertised for a second time).
The Review envisages that senior officials at this level should have strong professional relationships with senior command at Victoria Police, including heads of taskforces or police with an interest in custodial witnesses. Filling these positions on a substantive basis should be a high priority for the corrections system.
40 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Recommendation 5
That the Department of Justice makes substantive appointments to those senior positions in the corrections system which are currently vacant or filled on an acting basis.
Recommendation 6
That Corrections Victoria continues to build on current efforts to strengthen the relationship with Victoria Police through structured governance arrangements and open dialogue.
Recommendation 7
That Corrections Victoria reviews the functioning of the High Risk Management Advisory Panel and Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee after 12 months of operation to assess whether they are meeting their stated objectives, and to identify and address any emerging issues affecting high-risk prisoner placement and management.
Recommendation 8
That Corrections Victoria negotiates documented arrangements with Victoria Police to receive notification of any prisoners who are custodial witnesses, and any prisoners who are on the police witness protection program.
Recommendation 9
That Corrections Victoria continues to pursue a more rigorous model for delivering an appropriately sophisticated intelligence system.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 41
6 business support and information technology systems
To be transparent and accountable, decision-making needs to be underpinned by clearly documented systems and processes. A transparent approach establishes a clear line of sight from policies and procedures to consistent and rigorous practices.
As has been highlighted in previous chapters, the dynamic nature of the correctional services system means that prisoner placement decisions in Victoria rely, to a large degree, on the sound judgement of experienced staff. In such an environment, it is even more crucial that the governance framework and accountabilities are clear, that decision-makers have access to relevant, complete and timely information, and that both decisions and the basis for decisions are recorded accurately.
Two key business systems support the decision-making processes regarding the placement and management of prisoners, including high-risk prisoners:
1. written documentation describing processes and decisions – primarily the Sentence Management Manual, and individual prisoners’ files; and
2. information technology systems - including PIMS, E-Justice and PROTEL.
6.1 process documentation
The delivery of correctional services in Victoria is guided by legislative, policy, operational and contractual requirements.
Broadly, all policies and procedures need to be compliant with international and national agreements and Victorian legislation, including the Corrections Act and the Corrections Regulations (see section 2.6 and 2.7). Victoria’s corrections system operates in accordance with standards, requirements, instructions and procedures, as shown in figure 13.
The Corrections Commissioner issues the Correctional Management Standards for Men’s Prisons and the Correctional Management Standards for Women’s Prisons. The standards form the basis for operating procedures in both public and private prisons and are incorporated into the contracts for the management of the two private prisons. From time to time, the Commissioner also issues Commissioner’s Requirements, when specificity is required to ensure consistency of correctional practice across the whole prison system.
The Correctional Management Standards and Commissioner’s Requirements are operationalised in the public prison system by the issuing of ‘Deputy Commissioner’s Instructions’. These are, in turn, operationalised at individual prison locations in local operating procedures. Private prison operators are also required to operationalise the standards and Commissioner’s Requirements in their operating procedures.
42 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
figure 12: Corrections Victoria standards, requirements, instructions and local operating procedures
6.1.1 Sentence Management Manual
For ease of use by practitioners, processes need to be clearly documented in an accessible and consolidated format.
The Sentence Management Manual is Corrections Victoria’s primary guidance and operating document for the sentence management function. All prisons – both public and private – are required to comply with the procedures set out in the Sentence Management Manual. The Manual was issued as a Commissioner’s Requirement in December 2007, although a section relating to high-risk prisoners was partially updated and re-issued in May 2012.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 43
At the time of writing, the Review observed a number of shortcomings in the Sentence Management Manual. For example, the manual:
• makes no reference to the authority under which it is issued;
• refers to obsolete structures (e.g. Major Offenders Review Panel);
• attributes responsibility to positions within Corrections Victoria that have been replaced under the current organisational structure (e.g. it states the Deputy Commissioner, Prisons, has authority to place prisoners on the High Security Escort List. This position has been replaced by the Deputy Commissioner, Operations);
• does not consistently or clearly attribute who is responsible for some functions (e.g. the manual specifies that ‘relevant personnel’ are to make assessments of the need for a prisoner’s retention or removal from the High Security Escort List); and
• has not been routinely updated as procedures have changed (e.g. it states a sentence plan placement tool is being designed and will be implemented in the first half of 2008).
Elements of sentence management practice are also specified in other Corrections Victoria business systems including standards, other Commissioner’s Requirements, Deputy Commissioner’s Instructions and Local Operating Procedures. For example, guidelines in relation to review and assessment committees are set out in Section 2 of the Sentence Management Manual. The Correctional Management Standards also include requirements for the functioning of review and assessment committees, as do the Classification Rules and Procedures issued by the Commissioner pursuant to the delegation under Regulation 24. While some of the information is complementary, there are also some inconsistencies in the information in these respective documents.
The shortcomings of the current Sentence Management Manual were not, by and large, perceived as a significant operational issue by sentence management staff, who base their practices on their own experience and the input of their colleagues. However, the Review considers it should be a matter of priority that the key document underpinning prisoner classification, placement and management should be clear, up-to-date and matched to system practice. Attention to detail is particularly important in an operational system responsible for the safety and security of people. The absence of a consolidated procedural document creates difficulties for staff who do not have a single reference point to guide their operations, and has the potential to introduce inconsistencies in practice. It also creates a gap in the availability of training materials for sentence management and prison staff.
Given these concerns, Corrections Victoria would benefit from redeveloping the Sentence Management Manual such that it:
• clearly articulates the authority under which it is issued;
• specifies the audience for the manual;
• clearly identifies who is responsible for functions specified within the manual, including who has the authority to approve or vary decisions;
• consolidates operating policies and procedural requirements relating to sentence management; and
• is accessible to all relevant staff.
Corrections Victoria advised the Review that the Sentence Management Manual is currently undergoing significant revision and will be reissued shortly.
44 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Recommendation 10
That Corrections Victoria re-issues the operating policies and procedures that guide prisoner classification and placement in a form that provides a single, comprehensive and consolidated operating manual for the sentence management functions.
Recommendation 11
That Corrections Victoria implements a process to ensure that the Sentence Management Manual is clear, attributes responsibility for each function, is up-to-date and reflects intended practices.
6.2 information technology
The decision-making process needs to be supported by an effective and efficient means of information storage and retrieval:
The importance of the user interface increases particularly in safety-critical or mission-critical systems where the user has time limitations within which to make correct, accurate, and timely decisions. User interfaces for these type of systems should be well-designed, easy to understand and easy to use in order to be accepted by expert users and to support the users’ decision making under pressure.62
6.2.1 PIMS and E-Justice
PIMS is Corrections Victoria’s primary database for the management of prisoner information. Commissioned in 1985 on a ‘Likewyse’ platform, data is accessed through modules such as warrants, sentence calculation, prisoner movements, incidents, prisoner profile information, and sentence management. PIMS is also used generically to refer to PIMS and the suite of associated modules such as prisoner monies, prisoner visits, contractors and volunteers. This system also provides lists and reports on a prison-wide or system-wide basis in relation to matters such as prisoner numbers and vacancies.
In 2000, the Department of Justice purchased a new system – ‘E-Justice’ – which was intended to provide an integrated information platform for use by police, courts, community corrections and prisons, as envisaged by the Criminal Justice Enhancement Project. Community correctional services transitioned to E-Justice in 2004. Since then, numerous releases have refined this aspect of the system, and other modules have been added. Some information, such as prisoner profiles, ‘risks and recommended actions’, and Adult Parole Board decisions, is entered in E-Justice and messaged to PIMS, making the information available to view in both applications. Other information, such as criminal histories, is available only in E-Justice.
The ‘custody’ aspects of PIMS, including sentence management functionality, were to have been replaced by ‘E-Justice’ by 2005. Given that PIMS is a legacy system, Corrections Victoria advises that maintenance of the system has only been performed when it is necessary to ensure operational stability. Enhancements and system improvements have been limited to critical aspects only.
62 Coskun, E and Grabowski, M (2004) “Impacts of user interface complexity on user acceptance in safety-critical systems” Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, New York, p.3433.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 45
Latest estimates from the Department of Justice indicate that even with an enhanced level of resources, the new Custody module is unlikely to be delivered into E-Justice in less than five years. Compounding this issue are concerns in relation to the long term viability of E-Justice itself given that the platform on which it is built is unlikely to continue to be supported for future development.
6.2.2 Sentence Management Modules on PIMS
Sentence management staff rely on PIMS as the primary database for information recording, storage and retrieval.63 They also refer to E-Justice, PROTEL and CourtLink, as well as hard copy information stored on prisoners’ paper files. The PIMS sentence management modules provide for the recording of all review and assessment committee and sentence management panel deliberations, including the reason an individual case was discussed, any decisions or recommendations, comments about the nature of the discussion, and the meeting chairperson.
The PIMS system has not kept pace with changes in the operating and legislative environment in the prison system. As such, there are shortcomings in relation to the ability of PIMS to adequately and accurately support sentence management operations. For example:
• PIMS does not clearly identify sentence management panel decision-makers – All persons present in the room or consulted at the time of the sentence management panel meeting are recorded on PIMS as panel members. This obscures decision-making. It is quite possible that those present in the room believe they are members of the panel, even though the Commissioner has specified that only persons holding specific positions have the authority to be a panel chairperson or member.
• PIMS does not allow recording of sentence management decisions made by an individual under legal delegation – PIMS records these decisions as a panel decision (requiring entry of two names) and staff need to remember to enter free text to override this anomaly.
Sentence management staff have developed work-arounds, such as internal protocols (via a common set of headings typed into the ‘comments’ section of the meeting template) to seek consistency of practice in recording panel discussions and decisions. While this is an appropriate mitigation strategy, it remains the case that information in relation to decisions and decision-makers can be obscured by system limitations.
Similarly, the absence of an appropriate user interface means that sentence management staff must refer to multiple screens in different sections of PIMS to obtain a comprehensive view across all of the information held in relation to an individual, in order to make an assessment as to the current relevance of each item.
Further compounding this issue, there is often information held in paper-based form on a prisoner’s Individual Management Plan file. This may include case notes, media clippings or certifications of course completion. The files are held at the prison where prisoners are accommodated. The central sentence management panels do not routinely access Individual Management Plan files, but base their decision-making on information that is available on PIMS, provided by the review and assessment committees, or collated by the sentence management staff member responsible for liaising with the prison concerned.
63 PIMS modules include: • prisoner information such as prisoner profile and physical description; • warrant details, sentence/remand history and sentence calculation; and • prisoner management and placement information including urine analysis results, visits, movements, incidents, Sentence Management Meeting results.
46 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
In the absence of experience and/or a highly structured approach, this increases the potential that important information will be overlooked. While the review did not seek evidence of this having occurred, it is nonetheless an exposure that should be rectified.
6.2.3 documenting decisions not to take action
There is scope to strengthen sentence management decision-making transparency. Explicit decisions are generally recorded in information systems (such as PIMS), although these can be hard to find. However, the Review identified a number of prisoner cases where there was a lack of documented evidence supporting a decision not to take action or not to change a prisoner’s classification, placement or management arrangements.
For example, on 2 July 2012 there were 13 prisoners who had an ‘E1 risk rating’, denoting an ‘immediate serious threat of escape’, but who were not listed as requiring a high security escort. It is not for the Review to comment on whether there are errors in assigning risk ratings in specific instances or determining whether a prisoner requires a high security escort. These are matters for Corrections Victoria. However, the Review is concerned that some prisoner’s files do not explicitly state whether high security escort status was considered and if so, why it was deemed unnecessary for these prisoners.
Recommendation 12
That the Corrections Commissioner requires sentence management decision-makers to document when and why ‘recommended actions’ relating to high security escort are not adopted.
6.2.4 PROTEL
In addition to the information recorded on PIMS, decision-making processes – particularly in relation to high-risk prisoners – also rely on the availability of a breadth and depth of information and intelligence.
Information and intelligence is currently recorded in the PROTEL database, a system introduced in the early 1990s. The system provides a state-wide capacity for the recording, retrieval and exchange of information that may have relevance to intelligence officers, prison operators and sentence management staff. Reports and information can be recorded in relation to individual prisoners, visitors, staff members and other persons of interest. However, there are tight restrictions on access to the PROTEL system, and data entry and access are restricted to authorised staff.
Corrections Victoria is proposing to implement a more sophisticated and secure information communications technology model that will provide:
• the capacity for all staff to input information reports to a database;
• a method for prioritising and validating information; and
• greater analytical capacity.
Corrections Victoria is proposing to replace PROTEL with an alternative intelligence database similar to those used by other jurisdictions. Corrections Victoria’s progress to replace PROTEL will be monitored until the end of 2012 by the Review led by Mr Mick Palmer AO APM.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 47
Recommendation 13
That the Department of Justice, as a matter of priority, replaces out-dated information technology systems, such as PIMS and PROTEL, with systems that support all aspects of the sentence management process, including timely access to relevant information and intelligence.
48 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
7 next steps
Victoria’s corrections system is performing well, yet it is dealing with an increasingly complex mix of prisoners and capacity pressures. This presents challenges for the placement and management of high-risk prisoners.
Senior staff responsible for prisoner placement and management are highly skilled, knowledgeable and experienced. However, there are opportunities to improve the documentation of policies and processes that guide classification and placement decisions. There are also opportunities to improve the information technology systems used by Corrections Victoria to ensure that decisions are clearly and accurately recorded in a manner that is consistent and easily retrievable. In particular, Corrections Victoria needs to:
• consolidate the operating policies and procedures relating to prisoner classification and placement into a single, comprehensive manual that is clear, attributes responsibilities and is up-to-date; and
• ensure that the information technology systems used to record decisions are as clear and easy to use as possible.
Corrections Victoria has implemented a number of changes to the decision-making process for high- risk prisoner placement and management, appropriately making the system more formal and elevating decision-making to more senior levels of the department. This includes the introduction of the HRMAP. Unofficially, the placement and management of high-risk prisoners in management units has also become more risk averse, with more prisoners restricted to single run outs. Corrections Victoria will need to monitor the changes to high-risk prisoner placement and management and test the impact of these process changes over time.
There are also opportunities to build stronger links with law enforcement agencies, particularly Victoria Police. While recent initiatives such as embedding staff and the establishment of the ICWC appear to be improving information sharing and mutual understanding, these need to be monitored and strengthened on an ongoing basis.
7.1 review recommendations
The Review report has made 13 recommendations. Five of these recommendations (recommendations 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8) require Corrections Victoria to work with law enforcement agencies, such as Victoria Police. The remaining eight recommendations are matters that can be addressed within the Department of Justice and Corrections Victoria.
Recommendation 1
That the Secretary to the Department of Justice limits delegation of powers to set rules and procedures for sentence management panels and review and assessment committees to the Corrections Commissioner.
Recommendation 2
That Corrections Victoria updates the sentence management operating procedures to specify when and how the reception of a prisoner must be brought to the attention of the Director, Sentence Management Branch.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 49
Recommendation 3
That Corrections Victoria negotiates arrangements with Victoria Police for formal notification when high-risk persons in police custody are expected to enter the prison system.
Recommendation 4
That Corrections Victoria takes steps to routinely access and retain information presented to the Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee by law enforcement agencies, for incorporation into intelligence systems and decision-making.
Recommendation 5
That the Department of Justice makes substantive appointments to those senior positions in the corrections system which are currently vacant or filled on an acting basis.
Recommendation 6
That Corrections Victoria continues to build on current efforts to strengthen the relationship with Victoria Police through structured governance arrangements and open dialogue.
Recommendation 7
That Corrections Victoria reviews the functioning of the High Risk Management Advisory Panel and Interdepartmental Custodial Witness Committee after 12 months of operation to assess whether they are meeting their stated objectives, and to identify and address any emerging issues affecting high-risk prisoner placement and management.
Recommendation 8
That Corrections Victoria negotiates documented arrangements with Victoria Police to receive notification of any prisoners who are custodial witnesses, and any prisoners who are on the police witness protection program.
Recommendation 9
That Corrections Victoria continues to pursue a more rigorous model for delivering an appropriately sophisticated intelligence system.
Recommendation 10
That Corrections Victoria re-issues the operating policies and procedures that guide prisoner classification and placement in a form that provides a single, comprehensive and consolidated operating manual for the sentence management functions.
Recommendation 11
That Corrections Victoria implements a process to ensure that the Sentence Management Manual is clear, attributes responsibility for each function, is up-to-date and reflects intended practices.
50 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Recommendation 12
That the Corrections Commissioner requires sentence management decision-makers to document when and why ‘recommended actions’ relating to high security escorts are not adopted.
Recommendation 13
That the Department of Justice, as a matter of priority, replaces out-dated information technology systems, such as the Prisoner Information Management System and PROTEL, with systems that support all aspects of the sentence management process, including timely access to relevant information and intelligence.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 51
appendices
52 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 53
appendix a references
The review sought and received a large volume of documents and information from the Department of Justice and other stakeholders. Confidential and protected documents are not listed in the following reference list. a.1 Government publications
Department of Justice 2006, Annual Report 2005-06, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2007, Annual Report 2006-07, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2008, Annual Report 2007-08, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2009, Annual Report 2008-09, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2010, Annual Report 2009-10, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2011, Annual Report 2010-11, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2004, Statistical Profile of the Victorian Prison System 1999-2000 to 2003-04, Department of Justice, Melbourne.
Department of Justice 2005, Statistical Profile of the Victorian Prison System 2000-2001 to 2004-05, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2006, Statistical Profile of the Victorian Prison System 2001-2002 to 2005-06, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2007, Statistical Profile of the Victorian Prison System 2002-2003 to 2006-07, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2008, Statistical Profile of the Victorian Prison System 2003-2004 to 2007-08, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2009, Statistical Profile of the Victorian Prison System 2004-2005 to 2008-09, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Justice 2010, Statistical Profile of the Victorian Prison System 2005-2006 to 2009-10, Department of Justice, Melbourne
Department of Treasury and Finance 2000, Victorian Budget Papers 2000-1, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2001, Victorian Budget Papers 2001-2, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2002, Victorian Budget Papers 2002-3, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2003, Victorian Budget Papers 2003-4, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2004, Victorian Budget Papers 2004-5, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2005, Victorian Budget Papers 2005-6, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
54 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Department of Treasury and Finance 2006, Victorian Budget Papers 2006-7, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2007, Victorian Budget Papers 2007-8, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2008, Victorian Budget Papers 2008-9, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2009, Victorian Budget Papers 2009-10, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2010, Victorian Budget Papers 2010-11, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2011, Victorian Budget Papers 2011-12, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Department of Treasury and Finance 2012, Victorian Budget Papers 2012-13, Department of Treasury and Finance, Melbourne.
Sentencing Advisory Council 2007, Sentencing Snapshot No: 22, The criminal justice system 2004-05, Sentencing Advisory Council, Melbourne
State Services Authority 2012, The State of the Public Sector in Victoria 2010-11, State Services Authority, Melbourne.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2007, Report on Government Services 2007, Productivity Commission, Federal Government.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2008, Report on Government Services 2008, Productivity Commission, Federal Government.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2009, Report on Government Services 2009, Productivity Commission, Federal Government.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2010, Report on Government Services 2010, Productivity Commission, Federal Government.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2011, Report on Government Services 2011, Productivity Commission, Federal Government.
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision 2012, Report on Government Services 2012, Productivity Commission, Federal Government.
Victorian Auditor-General’s Office 2012, Annual Plan 2012-13, Victorian Auditor-General’s Office, Melbourne a.2 reports of reviews and investigations
Ombudsman Victoria 2012, The Death of Mr Carl Williams at HM Barwon Prison-Investigation into Corrections Victoria, Ombudsman Victoria, Melbourne.
State Services Authority 2011, Inquiry into the command, management and functions of the senior structure of Victoria Police, State Services Authority, Melbourne
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 55
a.3 news and media releases
ABC news, 15 June 2012, ‘Ararat prison consortium goes into liquidation’, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-14/ararat-prison/4069860, viewed 17 July 2012.
Attorney-General, The Hon Robert Clarke MP, Media Release, ‘Tougher sentences on the way for attacks on police and emergency workers’, Thursday 26 April 2012.
Minister for Corrections, The Hon Andrew McIntosh MP, Media Release, ‘Minister Opens Langi Kal Kal Expansion’, Thursday 5 July 2012.
Minister for Corrections, The Hon Andrew McIntosh MP, Media Release, ‘Prison expansion to create thousands of new jobs’, Sunday 12 February 2012. a.4 research
Coskun, E and Grabowski, M 2004, ‘Impacts of user interface complexity on user acceptance in safety-critical systems’, Proceedings of the Tenth Americas Conference on Information Systems, New York, New York.
Freiberg, A & Ross, S 1999, Sentencing reform and penal change: the Victorian experience. Federation Press, Sydney.
Haney, C ‘Mental health issues in long-term solitary and ‘supermax’ confinement’ Crime & Delinquency Vol 49, No 1, January 2003, pp.124-156
McSherry, B and Keyzer, P (eds) 2011, Dangerous People: Policy, Prediction, and Practice, Routledge, New York
Shanahan, M, Bailey, A, & Puckett, J 2012, Demystifying Organisation Design in the Public Sector, The Boston Consulting Group, Boston. a.5 standards and guidelines
Australian Institute of Criminology 2004, Standard guidelines for corrections in Australia, revised 2004, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.
Department of Justice 2007, Corrections Victoria Sentence Management Manual, Department of Justice, Melbourne.
56 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
a.6 legislation
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006
Corrections Act 1986
Corrections Regulations 2009
Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997
Disability Act 2006
Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act 1983
Public Administration Act 2004
Sentencing Act 1991
Serious Sex Offenders (Detention and Supervision) Act 2009
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 57
appendix b list of consultations
Organisation Name Position Department of Helen Silver Secretary Premier and Cabinet Jonathan Spear Director, Legal Branch Jonathan Stewart Principal Legal Adviser, Legal Branch Simon Kent Director, Social Policy Branch Department of Penny Armytage Secretary (until 20 July 2012) Justice Dr Claire Noone Acting Secretary Julia Griffith Executive Director, Corrections, Health and Crime Prevention Neil Robertson Executive Director, Police and Emergency Management Penny Croser Director, Police Resources and Governance Michael Carroll Regional Director, North West Region Carolyn Gale Executive Director, Community Operations and Strategy Liana Buchanan Director, Office of Correctional Services Review Nial Finegan Executive Director, Regional and Executive Services Corrections Victoria Robert Hastings Commissioner (until 31 May 2012) Jan Shuard Acting Commissioner Rod Wise Deputy Commissioner, Operations Leanne Barnes Director, Strategic Policy and Planning Andrew Reaper Acting Deputy Commissioner, Offender Management Brendan Money Director, Sentence Management Branch Non-executive staff, Sentence Management Branch Non-executive staff, Security and Emergency Services Group HM Barwon Prison Lenard Norman General Manager Other management and custodial staff Port Phillip Prison Dennis Roach Director, Custodial Services, Australia and New Zealand (G4S) Other management and custodial staff Victoria Police Ken Lay Chief Commissioner Trevor Carter Commander Doug Fryer Detective Superintendent, Tasking and Coordination Operations Adult Parole Board of Justice Simon Chair Victoria Whelan David Provan General Manager
58 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Organisation Name Position Forensicare Tom Dalton Chief Executive Officer Ombudsman Victoria John Taylor Deputy Ombudsman Victorian Auditor- Peter Frost Acting Auditor-General General’s Office Hannah Hage Acting Sector Director (Justice), Performance Audit
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 59
appendix c Department of Justice organisational structure
60 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
appendix d overview of Victoria’s criminal justice system64
64 Adapted from Sentencing Advisory Council 2007, Sentencing Snapshot No: 22, The criminal justice system 2004-05, Sentencing Advisory Council, Melbourne.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 61
appendix e Victorian prisons and correctional facilities at July 2012
Classification65 Name Description Men’s prisons Maximum security Barwon Prison 459 bed maximum security prison Melbourne Assessment Prison 285 bed maximum security reception and assessment facility Metropolitan Remand Centre 673 bed maximum security facility for unsentenced male prisoners Port Phillip Prison Privately operated 804 bed medium to maximum security prison for male prisoners Medium security Hopkins Correctional Centre 388 bed medium security facility Marngoneet Correctional Centre 394 bed medium security facility Loddon Prison 409 bed medium security facility for male prisoners Fulham Correctional Centre Privately operated 845 bed minimum to medium security facility Minimum security Beechworth Correctional Centre 160 bed minimum security prison Dhurringile Prison 268 bed minimum security prison Langi Kal Kal Prison 199 bed minimum security facility Judy Lazarus Transition Centre 25 bed transition centre for low-risk male prisoners nearing release Women’s prisons Maximum security Dame Phyllis Frost Centre 317 bed medium to maximum security facility Minimum security Tarrengower Prison 72 bed minimum security prison for female prisoners
65 Sources: Department of Justice, http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/about+us/regional+locations/
62 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
appendix f roles and responsibilities of regional directors, prison general managers and the Corrections Commissioner66
Regional director Prison general managers Corrections Commissioner Regional directors are responsible for Prisons general managers are Corrections Victoria is responsible for leading, managing and overseeing a responsible for the management and the operation of the corrections system range of justice services in their operation of prisons in accordance as a whole to ensure the safe, secure region, including oversight of prison with service delivery outcomes and and humane containment of prisoners. operations. key performance indicators, including: Corrections Victoria undertakes state- • containment and supervision of wide functions including: prisoners • sentence management, including • rehabilitation services major offenders; • operation of prison industries • sex offender management; system- • provision of health and wide intelligence services through education services the Corrections Victoria Intelligence • provision of all prisoner services Unit; and including accommodation, food • emergency response through the and clothing. Security and Emergency Services Group. Corrections Victoria also manages large scale, complex commercial contracts (e.g. private prisons, prisoner transport services). Budget and strategy Develop regional business plans and Manage prison operations within Undertake strategic planning and asset strategies. budget and consistent with broader service planning, including forecasting Responsible for managing resources strategic directions. and development of budget bids. including budget and business Establish and monitor Service Delivery direction within the region consistent Outcomes and targets. with broader Departmental strategic Undertake capital and infrastructure directions and budget. planning. Develop budget bids.
66 Derived from information supplied by Department of Justice.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 63
Regional director Prison general managers Corrections Commissioner Reporting Compile and provide monthly and Provide regular updates on service Undertake system-wide performance quarterly performance reports. delivery performance within the reporting and information management. prison. Provide regular reports on achievement of Service Delivery Outcomes and Key Performance Indicators. Maintain local operating procedures. Stakeholder liaison and community engagement Build partnerships with other Build working relationships with other In conjunction with regional directors, agencies including Victoria Police agencies in the region including undertake media management on state- and the courts, other government Victoria Police, other government wide or serious issues. agencies, not for profit organisations agencies, service providers and local Manage critical stakeholders. and business. suppliers. In conjunction with Corrections Victoria, undertake media management on state-wide or serious issues. Policy advice and legislative development Contribute regional perspectives to Provide an operational perspective in Provide high-level authoritative advice to the development of policy initiatives the development of policy and the Minister and DOJ executive on and legislative amendments. legislation. correctional matters. Develop, maintain and ensure Develop, maintain and provide oversight compliance with local operating for correctional services policy, procedures. standards and procedures. Staff management Provide leadership within the region Provide line management, support, Through a Service Level Agreement with and promote the development of supervision and development of the People and Culture Unit in the leadership within prisons. prison staff. Department of Justice, undertake bulk In conjunction with Corrections recruitment campaigns, training and Victoria, undertake leadership accreditation for Corrections staff. development and workforce mobility In conjunction with the regions, initiatives. undertake leadership development and workforce mobility initiatives. In conjunction with the People and Culture Unit, manage system-wide industrial relations issues.
64 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
appendix g guiding principles for sentence management67
Offender Corrections Victoria will operate in accordance with the offender management practice principles: management • maintain system integrity; • manage risk and target intervention needs; • increase self-responsibility; and • provide a constructive environment. Security Corrections Victoria is responsible for the safety and welfare of prisoners. In this context, safety and welfare includes the protection of the community from serious identified risk by minimising risk of escape. The sentence management process must also be sufficiently responsive to balance the needs of the individual, the needs of the community for safety and the needs of the system. Management Corrections Victoria promotes good order and effective management of prisons and the safety of prisoners and others in the prison. Prisoners who constitute a significant management risk must and will be placed at a prison which can contain, manage and/or address the issues relating to the prisoner’s behaviour. Needs Prison providers are required to provide for a broad range of prisoners’ needs. These include offence and offending behaviour related needs, health, welfare, psychological, religious, industry, educational and vocational training needs. The sentence management process must be responsive to these needs and take them into account in the assessment and decision-making processes. Graduated Effective correctional management through the sentence management process requires that prisoners release are held in the lowest level of security appropriate at any time. Prisoners initially classified as high security are expected to work their way from higher to lower security levels to enable release from the least restrictive environment possible. Impartiality Sentence management processes are implemented in an impartial manner in which the balance of the best interests of the prisoner, the needs of the system and community safety is served by sentence management decisions. Each assessment is based on all relevant information. Openness The criteria upon which placement decisions are made are clear and well publicised. Consistency Individual prisoners are assessed and classified in a fair and equitable manner in which the consistency and integrity of the decision-making processes can be demonstrated. Accountability Decisions are comprehensively documented. Prisoners and prison staff are able to determine the decision-making processes and considerations from the documentation and to seek clarification of specific decisions from the decision maker. Individual Prisoners are individually assessed in an interactive, motivational and engaging process in which the focus prisoner’s views about his/her needs and appropriate strategies for meeting those needs are actively sought and acknowledged. Prisoners are to be empowered and motivated to recognise and seek change to their own offending behaviours.
67 Corrections Victoria 2007 Sentence Management Manual pp 1.5-1.5.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 65
appendix h categories of prisoners with additional levels of oversight
CVIU – Corrections Victoria Intelligence Unit MCAC – Ministerial Community Advisory Committee SM Manual – Sentence Management Manual GM – General Manager MOSMP – Major Offenders Sentence Management Panel SMB – Sentence Management Branch HRMAP – High Risk Management Advisory Panel MOU – Major Offenders Unit SM Ops – Sentence Management Operations HSE – High Security Escort R&A – Review & Assessment Committee SM Panel – Sentence Management Panel HSU – High Security Unit SESG – Security & Emergency Services Group CCPP – Custodial Community Permit Program Inclusion & Further decisions Criteria Reviews Security rating Permits initial placement re placement PRISONER Any person who is in prison custody (i.e. in the custody of the Secretary, Department of SM Ops Prison R&A SM Panel Maximum, medium or No specific Justice). minimum security rating requirements Primary determinants of a prisoner’s placement in the prison system include: determined by SM • Gender Panel. R&A can change by one level. • Legal status (unconvicted or convicted68); • Need for a ‘mainstream’ (general) or ‘protection’ placement.
68 Convicted persons include those who have been sentenced, and those who have been convicted and are remanded for sentencing. A convicted prisoner who also has further charges pending is regarded as convicted.
66 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
CVIU – Corrections Victoria Intelligence Unit MCAC – Ministerial Community Advisory Committee SM Manual – Sentence Management Manual GM – General Manager MOSMP – Major Offenders Sentence Management Panel SMB – Sentence Management Branch HRMAP – High Risk Management Advisory Panel MOU – Major Offenders Unit SM Ops – Sentence Management Operations HSE – High Security Escort R&A – Review & Assessment Committee SM Panel – Sentence Management Panel HSU – High Security Unit SESG – Security & Emergency Services Group CCPP – Custodial Community Permit Program Inclusion & Further decisions Criteria Reviews Security rating Permits initial placement re placement SPECIAL Any prisoner who: Manager, SM Ops Quarterly Manager, SM Ops Maximum, medium or Participation in CATEGORY 1. is serving a sentence for the offence of murder; (automatic if in one review by (Responsibility for all minimum security rating CCPP only after 2. has been sentenced to a minimum effective sentence of 10 years or more, or has of these categories) prison R&A. placement and determined only by SM consultation with Panel. MCAC. been/will be in continuous custody for 10 years or more; or Commissioner. security rating Annual review decisions remains with Emergency 3. is sentenced to an indefinite term of imprisonment; by SM Panel, SMB.) Not considered for permits to be 4. Special Category prisoner returned to custody on cancellation of parole; chaired by minimum security (C1) discussed with 5. has been found ‘unfit to plead’ or ‘not guilty’ on the grounds of mental Manager, SM rating until final 3 years Manager SM Ops impairment, and is detained in a prison on a Custodial Supervision Order subject to Ops. of sentence unless at time of application. the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 exceptional circumstances exist. 6. others nominated by the Commissioner as requiring special monitoring while Only eligible for C2 progressing through the prison system because: rating in final 12 months • the case may be of special community interest; or of sentence. • requires special attention due to his/her need for intensive program support or high levels of supervision. HIGH 1. notoriety due to the nature or extent of offending; Director, SMB and Quarterly Manager, SM Ops. Maximum, medium or Participation in PROFILE 2. prior security breaches; Manager, SM Ops. review by minimum security rating CCPP only after prison R&A. Annual Review determined only by SM consultation with 3. management concerns; chaired by Director, Panel. MCAC. Offender Management 4. the Commissioner believes that any facet of the prisoner’s movement through the Emergency Review by SMU Services. system may cause the community a high degree of concern. as required. permits to be discussed with Manager SM Ops at time of application.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 67
CVIU – Corrections Victoria Intelligence Unit MCAC – Ministerial Community Advisory Committee SM Manual – Sentence Management Manual GM – General Manager MOSMP – Major Offenders Sentence Management Panel SMB – Sentence Management Branch HRMAP – High Risk Management Advisory Panel MOU – Major Offenders Unit SM Ops – Sentence Management Operations HSE – High Security Escort R&A – Review & Assessment Committee SM Panel – Sentence Management Panel HSU – High Security Unit SESG – Security & Emergency Services Group CCPP – Custodial Community Permit Program Inclusion & Further decisions Criteria Reviews Security rating Permits initial placement re placement MAJOR High profile and perceived high risk prisoners about whom CV and, in turn, the community, Director, SMB. If in HSU / If in HSU / Rating determined by Participation in OFFENDERS has significant concern: Mgmt unit: Management unit: Commissioner (HRMAP) CCPP authorised 1. Dangerous or high risk Monthly review Commissioner, on or Director SMB by Commissioner. Prisoners who pose a significant risk to staff and/or other prisoners (e.g. through by MOSMP. recommendation from (others). violent and/or predatory behaviour). HRMAP. Prisoners with undue or undesirable influence within the criminal hierarchy Other locations: Other locations: Can be placed Participation in (e.g. Gangland members). Max. security: Director, SMB. anywhere in the prison CCPP only after Prisoners who have a demonstrated history of escape from a maximum security Quarterly system, but more likely consultation with facility, or whose escape from custody would raise the highest levels of concern within review by to be at maximum MCAC. the community. MOSMP security prisons. Emergency Prisoners who represent a danger to the State (e.g. terrorists). Med/min permits to be 2. High public profile security: discussed with Director SMB at Prisoners or offenders whose offences are viewed as particularly abhorrent by the Annual review time of community, or which attracted significant and ongoing media attention. by MOSMP. application, and noted by MCAC at next meeting. All: Annual review: Director SMB.
68 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
CVIU – Corrections Victoria Intelligence Unit MCAC – Ministerial Community Advisory Committee SM Manual – Sentence Management Manual GM – General Manager MOSMP – Major Offenders Sentence Management Panel SMB – Sentence Management Branch HRMAP – High Risk Management Advisory Panel MOU – Major Offenders Unit SM Ops – Sentence Management Operations HSE – High Security Escort R&A – Review & Assessment Committee SM Panel – Sentence Management Panel HSU – High Security Unit SESG – Security & Emergency Services Group CCPP – Custodial Community Permit Program Inclusion & Further decisions Criteria Reviews Security rating Permits initial placement re placement HIGH Security Director, SMB or Prisoners on the HSE SECURITY • Previous history of escape (or attempted escape, conspiracy to escape or assisting in Deputy list are accorded the ESCORT an escape or attempted escape) from a secure facility and/or escort. Commissioner, after highest level of restraint, consultation with accoutrements and • Evidence of fleeing from authorities where there is reason to believe that the person GM SESG and staffing when being remains similarly motivated to evade authorities. Manager CVIU. moved from their • Security related concerns in particular where a prisoner is assessed as having access classified location. to financial resources and/or well resourced associates to assist in effecting an escape Decision to include plan. or remove rests with Deputy • Additional factors in relation to security concerns including the length of sentence (or Commissioner. the length that may be sustained from court matters), and the nature of remand matters including further charges faced by sentenced prisoners. • Any possible incentives that may result in the prisoner attempting to escape. Behaviour • Evidence of significantly disruptive and/or injurious behaviour towards others which indicates that a highly supervised escort is appropriate. Community Concern • Where the prisoner has attracted sufficient notoriety to cause significant community concern if escorted beyond the prison perimeter without a highly secure and visible escort. • Where there would be significant political, media or community attention if the prisoner was involved in an incident, while being escorted externally without a highly secure escort. Protection • Where it is assessed that a prisoner has sufficient protection needs whilst being escorted.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 69
appendix i previous decision- making process for Victoria’s high-risk prisoners (major offenders)
Figure 14 (below) depicts the decision-making process for Victoria’s major offenders prior to the establishment of the High Risk Management Advisory Panel in 2012. Unlike current arrangements, the process did not differentiate between major offenders who were accommodated in high security or management units, and those accommodated in other types of prison categories; nor did it include custodial witnesses unless they were also categorised as major offenders.
The other key difference from current practice is that the majority of decisions were made by the Major Offenders Sentence Management Panel, although sentence management staff advise that such decisions were invariably underpinned by significant preliminary discussion and consultation with stakeholders including the Director, Sentence Management. figure 11: Previous decision-making process for major offenders
70 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
appendix j glossary69
Term Definition Corrections Permit issued under S.57A of the Corrections Act 1986 which allows a prisoner to be absent from Administration prison. Permits can be issued to allow prisoners to attend medical appointments, to visit friends or Permit relatives with serious illnesses, to attend funerals, or for the purposes of the administration of justice. Classification Decisions in relation to a prisoner’s security rating, placement and sentence plan (Corrections Regulation 22). Custodial Permits issued under s.57 of the Corrections Act 1986 to allow a prisoner to leave a prison for a Community specified period under particular circumstances. Included are corrections administration permits, Permit rehabilitation and transition permits, and fine default permits.
Custodial witness Any person in prison custody who has provided or will be providing witness testimony for the Crown; and • the witness testimony is assisting in the prosecution of serious and organised crime; and • such evidence is likely to place the custodial witness in danger of serious injury or death from other prisoners.
High-risk prisoner Defined for the purposes of this review as any prisoner who is: • a major offender; • a custodial witness; and/or • unconvicted and accommodated in a high security or management unit in excess of 60 days. High security The practice of moving prisoners from their classified location using the highest level of restraint, escort accoutrements and staffing. High security escorts are used when a prisoner has a previous history of escape or attempted escape, or there is evidence of significantly disruptive and/or injurious behaviour towards others. They are also used when there is significant community concern surrounding the prisoner, necessitating the use of highly visible and secure transport, or where the prisoner’s safety may be at significant risk from other parties. High security unit A prison unit accommodating prisoners who pose a threat to the physical safety of other prisoners, staff or themselves or who are at high risk of escape. Mainstream General prison accommodation for prisoners who do not require protection or management regimes. Major offenders Prisoners perceived as dangerous or high-risk, including: • prisoners who pose a significant risk to staff and/or other prisoners (e.g. through violent and/or predatory behaviour); • prisoners with undue or undesirable influence within the criminal hierarchy (e.g. gangland members); • prisoners who have a demonstrated history of escape from a maximum security facility, or whose escape from custody would raise the highest levels of concern within the community; and • prisoners who represent a danger to the State (e.g. terrorists).
69 Information provided by Department of Justice.
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 71
Term Definition Major offenders Advisory panels which meet with high-risk prisoners and make recommendations for prisoner sentence classification, placement and management. management panel Management The regime or conditions applicable to a prisoner’s placement, including number of ‘out of cell’ hours and activities; the prisoners with whom the prisoner may mix; items a prisoner may have in their cell; education, program and work opportunities; extent of personal contact and visits; and security arrangements. Management unit A prison unit accommodating prisoners pending investigation into prison incidents, serving short term sanctions as a result of poor behaviour, or who pose a threat to the good order and security of the prison and require separation from general prisoner accommodation. Management units may also provide a ‘step down’ placement for prisoners exiting high security prior to transferring to a mainstream prison placement. Maximum and Prisons where the regime requires prisoners to be confined by a secure perimeter physical barrier. medium security Also known as secure prisons. prisons Minimum security Prisons accommodating prisoners who do not require confinement by a secure perimeter physical prison barrier. Also known as open prisons. Prisoner Corrections Victoria’s database for prisoner details. Information Management System (PIMS) Placement A determination regarding the prison and prison unit in which a prisoner is accommodated. Protection Accommodation for prisoners in a protected environment when it is determined that their safety cannot be guaranteed in a mainstream prison environment. PROTEL Corrections Victoria’s prisoner intelligence database. Prison general The officer in charge of a prison. The general manager has the powers, functions and responsibilities manager of a Governor under the Corrections Act 1986. Prison utilisation The prisoner population expressed as a percentage of the prison’s operational capacity at the same rate date, or as a daily average over the same time period. Reception The point at which a prisoner first enters the prison system in relation to a specific episode of custody. Remand Court order to hold an unsentenced offender in custody prior to and/or during trial. ‘Remanded for sentencing’ refers to a court order to detain in prison custody a prisoner who has been found guilty and is awaiting sentencing.
Review and A committee convened at a prison to manage and monitor the progress of prisoners within the prison, assessment including monitoring the implementation of sentence plans and local plans. Review and assessment committee committees supervise prisoners’ participation in programs, and provide information and make recommendations to sentence management panels in relation to security ratings and placement. Run out The time that a prisoner spends out of his (or her) cell while accommodated in a management or high security unit. Such time may be spent in an exercise yard or dayroom. A prisoner may ‘run out’ with another prisoner, or alone.
72 Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system
Term Definition Security patient A person detained under the Mental Health Act 1986 in an approved mental health service under a hospital security order or a restricted hospital transfer order; or a person detained in a mental health service while serving a sentence of imprisonment. Security rating A determination made in relation to a prisoners’ classification as high, maximum, medium or minimum security. Prisoners are then classified into a prison consistent with this security rating. Sentence The ongoing process by which a prisoner’s classification, placement and sentence plan are management established and reviewed. Sentence Decision-making panel established under Corrections Regulation 23. Centrally convened panels management meet with prisoners to determine/review prisoner classification, placement and sentence plans. panel Sentence plan The broad approach to be taken to the management of a prisoner. Sentence plans are intended to ensure that a prisoner is managed in a consistent and coordinated manner throughout their sentence. A sentence plan relates to areas such as: history of offending behaviour, drug and alcohol treatment and rehabilitation, medical and psychological issues, personal development, employment and maintenance of family ties. Sentenced Those persons who have received a term of imprisonment from a court. This includes offenders who prisoners have been given an indeterminate sentence or custodial order, or those who have received a life sentence. Also included are prisoners who are serving a sentence for non-payment of a fine (‘fine default’), prisoners who are sentenced but awaiting the outcome of an appeal, sentenced prisoners who also have active remand warrants against them (‘dual status’), and prisoners who are unfit to plead or not guilty on the grounds of insanity. Unsentenced Persons who have been placed in custody while awaiting the outcome of their court hearing. They prisoners may be unconvicted (remanded) or convicted but awaiting sentence (remanded for sentencing).
Review of the management and operation of Victoria's corrections system 73 Contact us at the State Services Authority Email: [email protected] Phone: (03) 9651 1321 Fax: (03) 9651 0747 Postal Address: 3 Treasury Place Melbourne 3002 www.ssa.vic.gov.au