Host Communities: siting and effects of facilities
Case Study: An Analysis of the Host Community Experience of Rolleston Prison
Bronwyn Morgan Brigid Buckenham James Baines
Taylor Baines & Associates Host Communities: Siting and Effects of Facilities
Case Study: An Analysis of the Host Community Experience of Rolleston Prison
Bronwyn Morgan Brigid Buckenham James Baines
Taylor Baines & Associates
Working Paper FS26 Public Good Science Fund Contract TBAX0002
May 2002 Acknowledgements
The research team would like to thank all those who participated in this research, as without their contributions this research would not have been possible. In particular, we are grateful for the time spared, and the knowledge and insights provided by members of the Rolleston community, Christchurch and Rolleston Prison staff, staff at the Department of Corrections head office, and by representatives of the Selwyn District Council.
The research team also expresses its gratitude to the Foundation for Research Science and Technology for its financial support of the research programme. Contents
1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Facility siting and effects research programme ...... 1 1.2 Concepts utilised in the research programme ...... 1 1.3 Research on the social impacts of prisons on their host communities ...... 2 1.4 Prison case studies ...... 3 1.5 Research programme outputs ...... 4 1.6 The research provider - Taylor Baines & Associates ...... 4
2 Methodology ...... 5 2.1 Research methods ...... 5 2.2 Selection and access to participants ...... 7 2.3 Time frame ...... 9 2.4 Analysis ...... 9 2.5 Ethics ...... 10
3 History and description of the facility ...... 11 3.1 Location and inmate catchment for Rolleston Prison ...... 11 3.2 Rolleston Prison facilities and development ...... 12 3.3 The people involved in Rolleston Prison ...... 16 3.4 Links between Rolleston Prison and its host community ...... 18
4 History and description of the host community ...... 19 4.1 The ‘host community’ ...... 19 4.2 Community demographics ...... 19 4.3 Land Use ...... 20
5 The operational effects of Rolleston Prison on the Rolleston community .. 24 5.1 Employment and expenditure in the local economy ...... 24 5.2 Goods and service contributions from the prison to the community ...... 28 5.3 Community involvement with the prison ...... 29 5.4 Relationship with the local Maori community ...... 30 5.5 Nuisance: lighting & noise ...... 31 5.6 Personal safety ...... 33 5.7 Crime ...... 37 5.8 Community services and resources ...... 39 5.9 The local environment ...... 40
6 The long term effects of Rolleston Prison on the Rolleston community .... 41 6.1 Residential settlement and business development ...... 41 6.2 Property values ...... 43
7 Conclusions ...... 45
References ...... 47
Appendix ...... 48 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary survey information ...... 9 Table 2: Inmate accommodation at Rolleston Prison, 2001 ...... 13 Table 3: Length of sentences being served by inmates at Rolleston Prison ...... 17 Table 4: Demographic comparison between Rolleston and other communities without prisons ...... 38 Table 5: Recorded offences for the 1999, 2000, 2001 calender years for Rolleston, Kaiapoi, Motueka, Picton ...... 38
Table A.1: Rolleston Prison’s muster, 1985-2001 ...... 48 Table A.2: Changes in the usually resident population, 1986-2001 ...... 48 Table A.3: Tenure, 1996 ...... 49 Table A.4: Household income, 1996 ...... 49 Table A.5: Ethnicity, 1996 ...... 49 Table A.6: Age, 1996 ...... 49 Table A.7: Employment Status, 1996 ...... 50 Table A.8: Occupation, 1996 ...... 50 Table A.9: Private dwellings, 1986-1996 ...... 50 Table A.10: Escapes from Rolleston Prison, 1985-2001 ...... 51
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Location of prison case studies ...... 3 Figure 2: Survey areas ...... 8 Figure 3: Location of Rolleston Prison ...... 11 Figure 4: Rolleston Prison land exchange with the Selwyn District Council ...... 13 Figure 5: Rolleston Prison’s muster, 1985-2001 ...... 16 Figure 6: Location of Rolleston ...... 19 Figure 7: Land use in Rolleston survey areas ...... 23 Figure 8: Inmate escapes from Rolleston Prison as a percentage of muster, 1985-2001 ...35 Figure 9: Perceived negative impact on business/community/rural development options in the locality ...... 41 Figure 10: Perceived positive impact on business/community/rural development options in the locality ...... 42 ROLLESTON Introduction
1 Introduction
1.1 Facility siting and effects research programme
This report contributes to social research being undertaken by Taylor Baines & Associates on the siting and effects of various facility types on their host communities. This facility research has been contracted by the Foundation for Research Science and Technology, and is being funded out of the Public Good Science Fund.
The need for research into these effects and impacts is highlighted by the varied but often negative responses from host communities to the siting of certain facilities. Examining siting issues and identifying the social impacts experienced by host communities will provide empirical information that is presently in short supply in New Zealand. This information can be used to:
• improve assessments of effects, • encourage greater community participation in the siting process, • support better-informed planning decisions, • encourage the development of effective relationships between facility operators and host communities, and • improve ongoing management of facilities.
This in turn will further develop the effects-based approach to resource management and planning embodied in the Resource Management Act 1991.
1.2 Concepts utilised in the research programme
The concept of ‘effects’ or ‘social impacts’ which is used and explored in Taylor Baines’ facility siting research is not intended to refer only to negative effects or social impacts. Rather, the authors use the concept in an unbiased way, acknowledging that both positive and negative effects on host communities may result from a facility siting and its associated activities. This approach is consistent with the definition of ‘effect’1 in the Resource Management Act 1991.
The term ‘host community’ employed throughout this prison facility research, refers to:
the community resident in the geographic area most clearly associated with the prison. This geographic area may be defined by the prison’s visibility, surrounding roads and access roads, and major topographical features. In addition to these geographic indicators, there may be ‘relationship indicators’ which highlight the prison’s host community. Such
1 Resource Management Act 1991: 3. Meaning of “effect”-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, the term “effect”... includes- (a) Any positive or adverse effect; and (b) Any temporary or permanent effect; and (c) Any past, present, or future effect; and (d) Any cumulative effect which arises over time or in combination with other effects- regardless of the scale, intensity, duration, or frequency of the effect, and also includes- (e) Any effect of high probability; and (f) Any potential effect of low probability which has a high potential impact.
1 ROLLESTON Introduction
relationship indicators may include community meetings with prison management and community warning systems. The prison’s name may also indicate its host community2.
Previous research in this programme focused on waste management facilities such as landfills, transfer stations and waste water treatment plants. The waste management facilities typically involved relatively few people permanently on site. Indeed, some waste water treatment plants are automated to the point where no personnel are present on site for significant periods of time.
The focus on prisons introduces a new dimension to this social research, by virtue of the fact that prisons are occupied by relatively large numbers of people (inmates and staff) on a permanent basis. People are an integral part of the facility; their presence and activities are closely linked to most of the effects that may be experienced off site by members of the host community.
Thus, research on the off-site effects of prisons and the social impacts which prisons have on their host communities is, in practical terms, an assessment of the relationship between prisons and their host communities. Far more so than in the case of waste management facilities, this is a two-way relationship.
1.3 Research on the social impacts of prisons on their host communities
This report covers the third stage of a three-stage research programme which assesses the social impacts of New Zealand prison facilities on their host communities. Prison facilities have been included in Taylor Baines’ facility research as the siting of a prison is often met with resistance and expressions of concern over the impact that it may have on its host community3. Rising inmate numbers and a shortage of inmate accommodation nationally also points to a substantial growth in the number of new prisons in the near future. The aim of this research is therefore to assess the social impacts that existing New Zealand prisons have had on their host communities4. Such an assessment will assist host communities, the Department of Corrections, territorial authorities, and other professionals involved in the siting of future prison facilities, and the management of existing and future prison facilities.
2 Although the term ‘host community’ is not a new concept, it was recognised in this research that the nature and definition of a ‘host community’ may vary with different facility types. An effort has therefore been made to identify any special factors that determine the nature of prison facility host communities. 3 Literature identifies this phenomenon as a NIMBY (not in my backyard) reaction to a LULU (locally unwanted land use)(Schichor 1992; Martin 2000). 4 Because many of New Zealand’s prisons were constructed in the late 1800s and early 1900s it would be difficult to access information that would enable an examination of siting issues and an assessment of the social impacts that their host communities have experienced since their construction. This research therefore focuses on changes and social impacts experienced over the last 15 years.
2 ROLLESTON Introduction
The three stages involved in this prison facility research are:
Stage 1: Sector Review (Morgan & Baines 2001)
• summarises - the Department of Correction’s prisons policy, - New Zealand’s national prison facilities, - the Department of Correction’s prison siting policy, and • reviews - national and international prison social impact literature.
Stage 2: Historical Analysis (Morgan & Baines 2001a)
• examines - selected prison facilities and the changes to these over the last 15 years, and - their corresponding host communities and changes to these over the last 15 years.
Stage 3: Case Studies
• examine - the relationship between selected prisons and their host communities and the actual experiences of selected host communities, including the social effects associated with the siting, presence and operation of the prisons.
1.4 Prison case studies
The case study reported here, is one of four case studies which have been carried out at Rolleston Prison, Rimutaka Prison, Hawkes Bay Prison, and Wanganui Prison.
Figure 1: Location of prison case studies
In order to assess the social impacts of Rolleston Prison on its host community, this case study outlines the nature of Rolleston Prison, the Rolleston community, and the relationship between the prison and the community; and explores Rolleston community members’ experiences of having a prison located and operating in the vicinity of their community.
There are seven sections in this report. Section 2 describes the methodology and approach adopted in this research. Section 3 provides a history and description of the prison facility and Section 4 provides a history and description of the host community. An assessment of the operational effects of Rolleston Prison on its host community is reported in Section 5. An assessment of the long term effects is reported in Section 6, while Section 7 summarises the relationship between Rolleston Prison and its host community.
3 ROLLESTON Introduction
1.5 Research programme outputs
In addition to the Sector Review, Historical Analysis, and Case Study reports, the results of this research will be disseminated in the form of host community feedback presentations, discussion sessions and conference papers.
The Case Study reports are available for the cost of reproduction and postage:
Taylor Baines & Associates PO Box 8620 Riccarton Christchurch
Ph/fax: (03) 343 3884
Abbreviated summary reports and conference papers are available free of charge on the Taylor Baines website:
www.tba.co.nz
1.6 The research provider - Taylor Baines & Associates
Taylor Baines & Associates has been a private provider of research, consulting and training services since 1989. The firm specialises in social research and the application of social assessment methods to a wide variety of issues in community development (for more information on the services and work carried out by Taylor Baines & Associates refer to www.tba.co.nz).
4 ROLLESTON Methodology
2 Methodology
2.1 Research methods
Several research methods were used in this case study based on the theoretical and practical approach to social assessment as described by Taylor, Bryan and Goodrich in Social Assessment: theory, process & techniques (1995). These methods include:
• key informant interviews • structured questionnaires • secondary data analysis • feedback meetings.
This combination of methods was used to enable community and stakeholder participation, cross checking, and to ensure a thorough and accurate collection of profile information and reported effects.
Although these methods were considered the best and most appropriate methods for this research, the authors acknowledge their associated limitations. The use of structured questionnaires, for example, can run the risk of constraining the opportunity for the interviewer to access all relevant information and experiences from the interviewee. As with most research methods, there is also the risk that interviewees will refrain from sharing information and experiences or give dishonest answers5. In order to address these limitations, the questionnaire was designed to be as comprehensive as possible, and also contained sections for ‘comments’, giving interviewees the opportunity to add anything that was not addressed in the questionnaire’s detailed questions. Interviewees were asked for evidence to back up their assertions, and interviewers used the multiple research methods listed above to cross check (corroborate) the results wherever possible.
Key informant interviews:
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants in the prison and key informants in the community6. The purpose of these interviews was to gather profile information on the prison and the community, and to scope potential effects and issues. As often as possible these interviews were conducted face to face, the remainder were carried out over the telephone. Each interview lasted fifteen minutes to one hour.
Prison staff interviewed included:
• Operations Manager of Sentenced Inmates • Property Services Manager • Finance representative
5 This may be because an interviewee attempts to predict what is a ‘socially acceptable’ answer to the interviewer or because of a desire to protect their own interests, for example in this case, local property values. 6 Note: that some key informants were not based in the Rolleston community, for example the Community Probation Services representative. Although not based in the community, these key informants have dealings with, or knowledge of the community and/or the issues which the research explores.
5 ROLLESTON Methodology
• Prison Cultural Advisor • Prison Chaplain • Corrlands representative • Tailor Shop Manager • Horticulture Manager • Nursery Manager • Prison Officer
Key informants in the community included:
• Rolleston Community Board member • Rolleston Residents Association representative • Rolleston Community Centre manager • Rolleston Police officer • Rolleston Primary School secretary • Rolleston Primary School teacher • Rolleston businessman and developer • ‘Rolly Inn’ proprietor • Burnham Primary School principal • Burnham Military Camp commandant • Burnham Military Camp supermarket manager • Selwyn District Council’s Technical Information Officer • Community Probation Services representative • Prisoner Aid and Rehabilitation Services (PARS) representative • PILLARS representative • Prisoner Fellowship representative
Structured questionnaires:
In total, 97 neighbouring residents and businesses were surveyed for this case study, using two levels of survey.
Full structured questionnaires were administered to 46 residents and 10 businesses. These were completed by the interviewer and took between fifteen minutes to one hour to complete. The questionnaire explored neighbours’ experiences of day to day operational effects of the prison and their perceptions of how the presence of the prison has impacted on themselves and the longer term development of the host community. The questionnaire was structured so that participants had the opportunity in the first instance to report unprompted, any positive, negative, or other effects that they had experienced as a result of the prison’s presence and operation. A ‘prompted’ section that followed contained detailed questions relating to a number of potential effects identified in stage one and two of this research and in consultation with the Department of Corrections. These potential effects included effects resulting from: lighting, visibility, traffic, noise, industrial discharges, inmate escapes, prison visitors, inmate families, inmates working offsite and prison purchases. Information relating to the participants relationship to the prison and some personal information was also collected.
A rapid interview was administered to 41 residents. A rapid interview contains only a selected number of questions from the original full questionnaire, and is used to extend the area of survey
6 ROLLESTON Methodology coverage and determine the spatial extent of effects and impacts. For example, residents living some distance from the prison may be unable to see the prison or unlikely to be able to hear any noise from the prison. The interviewers determine at which point rapid interviews are needed by noting at what point certain effects are consistently unreported. The rapid interview used in this research contained several prompted questions relating to lighting, inmate escapes, inmate families, inmates working offsite and stigma.
Secondary data analysis:
An analysis of secondary data was also carried out. Census data for example, was used to establish a demographic profile of the Rolleston community (Section 4.2).
Feedback meetings:
Separate feedback meetings were held with: • community members7, and • prison management.
These feedback meetings summarised the case study’s findings, and provided participants with an opportunity for comment and feedback. Participants endorsed the preliminary findings. A few minor comments have been incorporated into this report.
2.2 Selection and access to participants
As discussed earlier, four of New Zealand’s prisons were selected for the case study phase of this research. These four prisons, including Rolleston Prison, were selected after a review of stage two of the research (Historical Analysis) and after consultation with the Department of Corrections. Rolleston Prison was selected because of its minimum security status, its regular expansions, and because of the significant development that has occurred in the Rolleston community. As Taylor Baines & Associates is based in Christchurch, it also enabled the research team to refine the research approach and methods as Rolleston was the first of the four case studies to be initiated.
Initial access to the four prisons selected was facilitated by the Department of Correction’s head office. Key contacts at each of these prisons then provided the research team with access to relevant prison staff who were to participate in key informant interviews.
The selection of key informants in the community was based on the expectation that they would possess a broad knowledge of the community and possible effects and issues due to the nature of their position in the community. Access to these key informants was at times initiated through the prison, but generally the research team contacted potential key informants by telephone.
7 All residents and businesses who had completed a questionnaire and indicated an interest in feedback (41 of the 56 neighbours) were sent a letter of invitation to the community meeting. Two residents, one a key informant interviewee (a teacher from a local school) and one a interviewee from the Two Chain/ Walkers Road area attended the community meeting. Feedback summaries were also sent to two businesses (who did not attend the meeting) for review.
7 ROLLESTON Methodology
Those residents and businesses who participated in the structured survey were selected according to their proximity to the prison. This was because the prime focus for the research team was to assess what effects have been experienced and whether or not there is a systematic pattern associated with this experience. Two interviewers in the research team went door to door to access participants.
In order to assist with the analysis in this research, the residents and businesses interviewed have been categorised according to their proximity to the prison. These categories reflect distinct areas within the Rolleston community, or areas for which it would be expected that ‘groups’ of residents might experience similar effects. The greatest emphasis has been placed on properties in the Two Chain/Walkers Road area due to their close proximity to the prison. The following map and table identify and describe these areas and summarise the interview characteristics.
Figure 2: Survey areas
Source: Topomap
8 ROLLESTON Methodology
Table 1: Summary survey information Area Area description Number of Distance to prison Length of interviews boundary8 occupation Two Chain/ Both sides of Two Chain Road north of 34 total residents: #1 year 3 Walkers Road the Aylesbury Road intersection and both 32 residents 65 m - 2.5 km 2-5 years 10 sides of Walkers Road north of the Two 2 businesses 5-9 years 14 Chain Road intersection business: $10 years 7 1 km - 1.5 km Kerrs Road Both sides of Kerrs Road 5 total residents: #1 year 0 5 residents 1.5 km - 3.75 km 2-5 years 1 5-9 years 1 $10 years 3 Jones Road The north side of Jones Road south of the 9 total resident: 2.5 km #1 year 1 Hoskyns Road intersection 1 residents 2-5 years 4 8 businesses business: 5-9 years 1 2.25 km - 3 km $10 years 3 Armack Drive Both sides of Armack Drive 9 total residents: #1 year 3 9 residents 1.25 km - 1.5 km 2-5 years 4 5-9 years 0 $10 years 2 East of Main North side of Burnham Road; both sides 40 total residents: #1 year 5 South Road of Burnham School Road north of the 40 residents 1 km - 2.5 km 2-5 years 15 Burnham Road intersection; south side of 5-9 years 4 Dunns Road; both sides of Brookside $10 years 14 Road; north side of East Maddisons Road 2 missing data
2.3 Time frame
Key informant interviews with prison staff and community members were carried out in October and November 2001 and January 2002.
Due to an announcement that a youth justice facility would be sited adjacent to Rolleston Prison, and subsequent community concern, only a small number of interviews with neighbours were carried out in October 2001. In order to prevent confusion in the community and protect the validity of the survey results, the remaining surveys were carried out in January 2002.
A community feedback meeting was held at Rolleston Primary School on the 15th May 2002.
A feedback meeting with prison management was held at Christchurch Prison on the 23rd May 2002.
2.4 Analysis
This research aims to identify what effects (social impacts) have been experienced by the Rolleston community as a result of the presence and operation of Rolleston Prison. During the development stage of this case study a number of potential effects were identified from:
8 These are approximate distances measured in a direct line from the neighbours properties to the nearest boundary of the prison land.
9 ROLLESTON Methodology
• stage one and two of the research, • the proposed Northland Prison’s impact assessment reports, and • discussions with the Department of Corrections.
Other potential effects have also been identified during key informant interviews with prison staff and Rolleston community members.
The analysis in this case study is based on determining whether or not these potential effects are ‘actual effects’, and on identifying any other effects not anticipated but evident through observation, key informant interviews, structured questionnaires, or secondary data analysis. The analysis is descriptive and sometimes quantitative, but not statistical in nature.
It is important to differentiate between ‘actual effects’ and ‘perceived effects’. For example, it is likely that residents’ comments about the effect on property values are only perceived effects. Investigation and corroboration from other sources would be needed to determine whether it is an actual effect.
However, having noted the difference between perceived and actual effects, this is not to say that perceived effects are without value or significance. The existence of a perceived effect, especially if it is perceived by a number of residents may be in itself the cause of an effect. For example, if a resident believes that an effect is occurring, then this belief may in turn cause stress or anxiety or cause the resident to alter their behaviour or lifestyle choices in some way. A resident may for example avoid a certain area if they believe there is a risk to their personal safety. Also if a perceived effect is prominent enough, it may affect residents from outside the host community who for example may elect not to purchase in the vicinity of the facility.
It is therefore important to report both perceived and actual effects, but to take care in determining whether an effect is perceived or actual, and in noting whether these effects are supported by any other empirical data.
It should also be noted, that although the focus of this research is on the effects experienced by the host community as a result of the presence and operation of a prison, it became very clear during this research that significant effects can also be experienced by individuals and communities outside the host community as defined in this research (see Section 1.2). Attempts have also been made therefore to incorporate a description of these effects.
2.5 Ethics
This research has been developed and carried out in accordance with the ethical requirements of the New Zealand Association for Impact Assessment and the Sociological Association of Aotearoa New Zealand.
In keeping with these ethical requirements, participation in the research was voluntary, and informed consent was sought (verbal). An information sheet was provided to residents and businesses who participated in the survey. This information sheet explained the research, assured anonymity, and noted the right of participants to withdraw their participation or any information provided at any time prior to the publication of this report.
10 ROLLESTON The Facility
3 History and description of the facility
3.1 Location and inmate catchment for Rolleston Prison
Prison description and location:
Rolleston Prison was opened in 19629, and is one of three prisons in the Canterbury region10. It is a medium11 sized men’s prison accommodating minimum and low medium security inmates, and is located on the Canterbury Plains, approximately 15 kilometres south of Christchurch and three kilometres south of the township of Rolleston (see Figure 3).
There are two entrances to the prison off Walkers Road, which runs westwards from the Main South Road (State Highway 1). Approximately ten years ago the only entrance was off Runners Road where the original 40 bed accommodation unit and prison staff village were located (see Figure 4 for location of Walkers Road and Runners Road).
Figure 3: Location of Rolleston Prison
Source: Topomap
9 Rolleston Prison has existed in some form or another for many years. This date most closely represents the establishment of Rolleston Prison as it is today. 10 The three Canterbury Regional Prisons are: Christchurch Prison, Christchurch Womens Prison, and Rolleston Prison. 11 Note that Taylor Baines classified prisons as either small (under 199 unmates), medium (200-499 inmates), or large (500-899 inmates) in the Historical Analysis (stage two of this research).
11 ROLLESTON The Facility
Inmate catchment:
Prisons in New Zealand are located in particular regions designated by the Department of Corrections. Until recently12, Rolleston Prison was one of three prisons in the ‘Canterbury Region’. The Canterbury Region has since merged with other regions in the South Island to form a ‘South Island Region’ (containing five prisons). Although this means that inmates may come from all over the South Island, because of the Regional Prisons Policy, inmates will generally come from within the prison’s court catchment area which is the South Island north of Timaru.
Despite the Regional Prisons Policy, there will often be a proportion of inmates in a prison who are not from the prison’s catchment area or region. Approximately 15% of the inmates in Rolleston Prison come from outside its catchment area. There are several factors which contribute to the level of inmates at Rolleston Prison who are from outside its catchment area. These include:
• Rolleston Prison has a special sex offenders unit (Kia Marama). With the only other sex offenders unit located at Auckland Prison, Rolleston Prison has to cater for sex offenders (who are eligible) from outside its catchment area who are not accommodated at the Auckland sex offenders unit. The extent to which this has occurred has dropped off since the opening of the Auckland sex offenders unit in 1993.
• As Rolleston Prison is the only prison in the South Island with a special drug and alcohol unit, it has to cater for inmates with drug and alcohol problems (who are eligible) in the South Island region.
• Rolleston Prison is only a minimum security prison. Very few inmates are sent directly to Rolleston Prison at the start of their sentence. The majority serve most of their sentence at Christchurch Prison. Once they have reached minimum or low medium security level status they are then transferred to Rolleston Prison to serve out their remaining sentence. The number of inmates from outside its catchment area will therefore depend on the number of inmates at Christchurch Prison who are from outside Rolleston Prison’s catchment area. The potential pool of inmates from outside Rolleston Prison’s catchment area has increased with the creation of the South Island region.
3.2 Rolleston Prison facilities and development
Prison land:
Rolleston Prison is sited on 63 hectares of Department of Correction’s land designated for prison use. The land’s underlying zone is rural.
The only alteration to this land has been an exchange of land in 1994/1995 with the neighbouring quarry owned by the Selwyn District Council (see Figure 4). This exchange was initiated by the prison, and enabled the prison to acquire land to assist with the operation of its sewage ponds while maintaining a tree buffer for security and visibility purposes.
12 Around 2000.
12 ROLLESTON The Facility
Figure 4: Rolleston Prison land exchange with the Selwyn District Council
Prison structures and facilities:
There are five separate units at Rolleston Prison which accommodate minimum and at times low medium security inmates. Together, these units provide 320 beds. Four of these units are currently in use, providing a capacity of 260 beds13. Of these five units, four have been established in the last ten years. Note that a forty bed unit located on the southern side of the prison property near Runners Road was demolished in 2000. Prior to the construction of the Tawa unit in 1985, this was the only accommodation unit at Rolleston Prison.
Table 2: Inmate accommodation at Rolleston Prison, 2001 Units Date established Number of beds Security Level Special features Tawa 1985 60 Minimum - Kia Marama & Rata14 1988 & 1993 60 & 20 Minimum Sex offenders unit (Kia Marama) & unit for elderly inmates (Rata) Kowhai 1992 60 Minimum Drug and alcohol unit Totara 1995 60 Minimum - Rimu 1998 60 Minimum -
Kia Marama was established in 1988 as a special unit for child sex offenders. It can accommodate 60 inmates and provides an intensive four-five month therapy programme which addresses their sex offending. Inmates usually go into the unit in the last 12-15 months of their sentence, and can come
13 Currently, Tawa (the oldest unit) does not accommodate any inmates. 14 Rata is a special 20 bed unit which accommodates older inmates. Although it was established within the confines of the Kia Marama unit, it operates separately and is not part of the sex offenders unit.
13 ROLLESTON The Facility from all over the South Island15. There are no special links to the community or programme providers in the community as the units’ programme is run by the Department of Correction’s psychological services.
Although Kowhai was established in 1992, it was not used as a drug and alcohol unit until 1999. The unit can accommodate up to 60 inmates and provides an intensive four-five month drug and alcohol treatment programme. Inmates may come from all over the South Island16 in the last 12 months of their sentence to participate in the programme. They do however need to be identified in their sentence plan as having a drug and/or alcohol problem, and be drug free on entering the unit. There are no special links to the community or programme providers in the community as the unit recruits staff with the specialist skills needed to run the programme.
Alongside the unit on Runners Road which was demolished in 2000, there used to be a prison staff village on site. This village, which was accessed off Runners Road, contained 23 prison houses and housed approximately 100 staff and their families. The village grounds included a community hall and children’s playground. In 1998, the prison staff village closed. It’s closure was a gradual process, initiated by a government decision in 1985 to divest itself of Crown housing. This policy was introduced by the Department of Justice in 1992 and written into staff contracts in December 1992. Only vacant houses had been sold up until December 1997. At this point a compulsory sale programme was introduced, with the last sales taking place in 1998. Up until 1998, the introduction of market rentals was an added incentive for staff to move out and purchase or rent elsewhere. All of the staff village houses were sold privately and moved off site. The village hall was retained by Rolleston Prison and moved elsewhere on site to be used for inmate programmes.
Other structures currently on site include17: • programmes building • administration block • staff house • store rooms • garden glasshouses and implement sheds • garage
Utilities:
Rolleston Prison has its own sewage treatment plant (including irrigation paddocks) on site. It also has its own water supply on site. Apart from a sewage treatment plant upgrade around 1990 (pond and paddocks enlarged), few changes have been made to these utilities. Currently, these utilities are operating at near capacity.
Prison security:
Although there is only a light boundary deer fence, each of the five individual prison units are wire fenced with internal security beams18. Security lighting is located on each of these units’ fences.
15 As the only other sex offenders unit in New Zealand is in Auckland. 16 The only other such units are in the North Island. 17 October 2001. 18 Although Tawa, the oldest unit, does not have the same level of fencing as the four newest units.
14 ROLLESTON The Facility
As there is no gate or gate house it is possible for members of the public to enter the prison grounds by car or on foot.
Prison industries:
There are a number of on-site industries in which inmates may be employed, including: a tailor shop (established pre-1985), vegetable gardens (established pre-1985), and a nursery (established in 1990). In the past there has also been a dry cleaning shop (1980-2000), a garage (1975-2000), and a carpentry shop (1975-2000). Note that there are some off-site employment opportunities in which inmates may take part, including seasonal squash picking (in the summer of 2000), fruit picking (since 1998), forestry (since 2000), and manure collection (since 1992).
The tailor shop operates within the prison’s Kia Marama unit and has done so for the past 23 years. At present it is one of the biggest prison tailor shops in New Zealand. Fourteen to sixteen inmates work seven hour days five days a week, manufacturing on average 400 garments a week. These include uniforms for inmates throughout New Zealand prisons ranging from underwear through to regulation shirts and jeans, curtains for cells, punch bags for the gym, and straight jackets for Christchurch Women’s Prison. A contract has just been awarded to make overcoats for prison officers. At times the tailor shop also provides its services for different community organisations.
The vegetable gardens were established in the early 1980s, and at present comprise approximately six hectares of market garden. Until 1992, these gardens were half the size and focussed on supplying the prison kitchens. Currently, the gardens not only supply prison kitchens but the wholesale market in Christchurch (since 1997), a vegetable processor in Christchurch (since 1998), and an organic19 wholesaler in Napier (since 2000). If excess vegetables are available, different community organisations may receive vegetables. Since 1993, Rolleston Prison has also had an orchard on site which supplies Canterbury prisons with apples and pears. The vegetable garden and orchard are worked by up to thirty six inmates for six hours a day, five days a week.
The nursery was established ten years ago. There is a main tunnel house on site as well as individual tunnel houses and shade houses in each unit. The individual units manage their own nursery work, while a nursery advisor manages the main tunnel house with the help of six inmates. These inmates work six hour days, five days a week, growing natives and amenity plants. Plants are supplied to prison staff, one commercial outlet, and offered at cost to eighty kindergartens and twenty schools within the Canterbury area. In 2001, approaches have also been made to the Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury regarding the supply of nursery plants.
3.3 The people involved in Rolleston Prison
The nature of a prison dictates that a number of different people will have some sort of involvement with its operation. For the purposes of this section, the following groups are discussed:
• inmates • prison staff • inmate visitors • other prison visitors
19 The prison vegetable gardens are part way through a three year organic certification process.
15 ROLLESTON The Facility
Inmates:
Rolleston Prison has the capacity to accommodate 320 inmates20. In recent years however, the prison’s oldest remaining unit, Tawa, has not often been used. On occasions it has been opened up for muster blowouts or other temporary accommodation needs. With this unit generally being left vacant, the capacity is reduced to 260. The current inmate muster is around 26021. Overall the muster at Rolleston Prison has increased significantly over the last 15 years (see Figure 5).
Figure 5: Rolleston Prison’s muster, 1985-2001
In December 200122, inmates at Rolleston Prison were serving the following sentence lengths:
Table 3: Length of sentences being served by inmates at Rolleston Prison Sentence Length Number of Inmates Less than 1 year 17 1 year to 6.99 years 154 Over 7 years 69 TOTAL 240
Prison staff:
Currently23, staff numbers at Rolleston Prison stand at 93. These include 77 custodial staff, two administrative support staff, three health staff, nine programmes staff, and two human resource staff. Of these 93 staff, 92 are employed full time, 23 are female and 70 are male. There are nine Maori, 82 Pakeha, and two Pacific Islander staff members.
20 Minimum and low medium security inmates. 21 As at October 2001. 22 As at 6th December 2001. 23 As at October 2001.
16 ROLLESTON The Facility
Generally, there has been an increase in prison staff over the last ten years as additional units have been constructed and the muster has increased. This trend has reversed in recent years as the Tawa unit has closed, and management and administration staff have relocated to Christchurch Prison as part of the regionalisation of Canterbury Prisons.
Inmate visitors:
Visitors may visit sentenced inmates on Saturday between 9:00am and 11:00am or 1:30pm and 4:00pm. Segregated inmates may be visited on Wednesdays by appointment. Typically there are approximately 120 visitors in total on a Saturday, and up to ten on a Wednesday. Until recently, sentenced inmates could be visited on Saturday or Sunday. Visitor numbers have been fairly static (increases related to increase in muster), and unaffected by new security procedures (security checks and approvals) introduced just over a year ago.
Several times a year, relatives may also visit on appointed ‘family days’. On these days, a certain number of family members may visit an inmate (in a particular unit) for the day. Usually food (and at times entertainment as well) is provided.
Other prison visitors:
Other prison visitors include: • volunteers (for example: church groups who provide services and bible study sessions) • inmate services (for example: lawyers, PARS) • prison goods and service providers (for example: goods delivery, maintenance services, health services) • police (for example: incident response, court transfers)
These visitors may visit on a weekly and at times daily basis.
3.4 Links between Rolleston Prison and its host community
There are no formal links such as a liaison person, liaison committee, or regular meetings between Rolleston Prison and the Rolleston community. There is an annual meeting organised by Christchurch Prison which provides local residents the opportunity to find out about prison developments, ask questions, or air concerns. As this meeting is advertised in a regional paper and is addressed to residents in the locality of Canterbury Prison’s, Rolleston residents could attend if they wished.
There is also some form of community warning system which is supposed to ensure that neighbours are warned when an inmate has escaped. Currently, this system appears to be inconsistent in its operation, both in terms of neighbours who are on the list, and neighbours who are rung when an escape occurs.
Other links between Rolleston Prison and the Rolleston community include:
17 ROLLESTON The Facility
• Prison open days
Open days at the prison are usually held when any significant new development such as the opening of a new accommodation unit occurs. These are advertised and open to the public.
It may be that the links between Rolleston Prison and its host community have changed with the regionalisation of Canterbury Prisons in recent years. This regionalisation has seen most of Rolleston Prison’s management and administration staff relocate to Christchurch Prison (near Templeton, Christchurch). Most management and administrative matters and decisions are therefore made from the Christchurch Prison site rather than the Rolleston Prison site.
18 ROLLESTON Host Community
4 History and description of the host community
4.1 The ‘host community’
For the purposes of this case study, the host community of Rolleston Prison was taken to comprise a mix of rural areas around the Prison as well as Burnham Military Camp and village and Rolleston township (see Figure 2).
This host community referred to as the Rolleston community in this research is located on the Canterbury Plains approximately 15 kilometres south of Christchurch in South Island of New Zealand (see Figure 6).
Figure 6: Location of Rolleston
Source: Topomap
4.2 Community demographics
Census data has been used to further profile the host community of Rolleston Prison. A brief summary is contained in this section, while detailed tables are contained in the appendix. Note that although Burnham has been included within the host community of Rolleston Prison as identified in this report, census data for the Burnham Military Camp has not been included in this analysis as it tends to distort the demographic profile of the Rolleston community. This is due mainly to its very high level of defence rental properties (96.3% rental properties, 3.7% not specified), and high number of Maori (31%). The detailed demographic analysis is based on the 1996 Census which was
19 ROLLESTON Host Community the most recent available at the time the field research was carried out. However, trends in population and dwellings are given for the period 1986-2001.
Census data on population levels show significant growth in Rolleston between 1986 and 2001 both compared to Christchurch City and New Zealand as a whole. In particular, significant growth is evident in the 1996-2001 period where there was an 80% increase in population from 2307 to 4170 (See Appendix Table A.2).
Rolleston has very high levels of home ownership compared with both Christchurch City and New Zealand as a whole. The type of home ownership differs also. Rolleston has slightly lower levels of freehold properties, but nearly twice the number of mortgaged properties (see Appendix Table A.3).
There are lower proportions of households in Rolleston with a household income $20,000 of less, and more with a household income between $50,001 and $100,000 than in Christchurch City and New Zealand as a whole (see Appendix Table A.4).
The representation of different ethnic groups in Rolleston is similar to that in Christchurch City. Compared with New Zealand as a whole, Rolleston has slightly more European residents and slightly fewer Maori (see Appendix Table A.5).
There is a lower proportion of residents over the age of 60 in Rolleston compared with Christchurch City and New Zealand as a whole (see Appendix Table A.6).
Unemployment levels in Rolleston are lower than those in Christchurch City and New Zealand as a whole (see Appendix Table A.7).
There are significantly higher proportions of residents in Rolleston who classified themselves as ‘trade workers’, ‘machine operators’, or workers in ‘elementary occupations’ compared with Christchurch City and New Zealand as a whole. There are also slightly higher proportions of ‘agriculture and fishery workers’ and ‘professionals and technicians’(see Appendix Table A.8).
The census data examined here appears to corroborate the impression of Rolleston gained by researchers during the case study fieldwork. In summary, Rolleston is a growing township which is characterised by low unemployment, high home ownership, and higher incomes.
4.3 Land Use
Rolleston is a well established community on the outskirts of Christchurch. The town is characterised by a large proportion of residents who commute to work elsewhere (the majority of whom probably work in Christchurch). It is also characterised by its lack of rental properties.
As discussed above, the Rolleston community has experienced considerable residential growth over the last five years. Census data shows that the number of private dwellings in Rolleston doubled between 1996 and 2001 (see Appendix Table A.9). This new development has been accompanied by a vision that Rolleston will become a “satellite city of Christchurch”.
20 ROLLESTON Host Community
Land use in the Rolleston survey areas:
The Two Chain/Walkers Road area is the closest area to Rolleston Prison in which surveys were conducted. It is zoned rural. The rural nature of this area is evident in its wide open spaces and farm land. There is a large block of defence land and therefore no housing on the south side of Two Chain Road west of the prison. The majority of this land is open space, some of which is used for grazing by a local farmer. The remainder, at the west end of this block, contains a golf course and various sports fields associated with the Burnham Military Camp (see Figure 8). Although this is a rural area there are a substantial number of houses located along Two Chain Road and Walkers Road. This is a well established area with mostly older houses. In recent years new ‘lifestyle blocks’ and houses have been established, generally on the east side of Walkers Road and both sides of Two Chain Road north of the Walkers Road intersection. There are also several businesses located along Two Chain Road and Walkers Road. These include:
• Selwyn District Council Quarry
The Selwyn District Council Quarry is located on a four hectare block off Two Chain Road and borders Rolleston Prison (see Figure 8). It was established in 1879 and is currently operated under a private contract. Its quarrying and processing of gravel usually occurs between 7am and 7pm any day between Monday and Saturday.
• Pig farm
There is an 80 hectare pig farm (established in 1971) located on Two Chain Road. It farms pigs for the meat market (these are not killed on site), and currently has around 10,000 pigs and sows. The farm also has a 500 hectare block of land between Kerrs Road, Sandy Knolls Road and Wards Road north of the prison on which it disposes effluent. At present it employs 12 people. Since its establishment in 1971, the farm has experienced huge expansion.
• Chicken farm
There is a chicken processing plant (established in the early 1980s) located on Two Chain Road. The plant which has changed form several times since its establishment (chicken rearing took place on site in the 1970s) is currently sited on seven hectares of land. The size of the plant has doubled in the last five years, and new buildings have been erected in the last two years. The plant serves the local and national market.
• Other businesses
There are also a number of residents in the area who operate ‘hobby farms’ or businesses on their properties. These include: dog breeding, stud farms, pig farms and a vineyard.
Further west of this survey area is the Burnham Military Camp and large blocks of pine plantation. The Camp covers a large area containing army camp facilities, housing, a confidence course, a supermarket, petrol station, all fenced with high security features. Burnham School has seven teachers and a roll of 155 Year One to Year Eight students and is on Chaytor Avenue.
21 ROLLESTON Host Community
The Kerrs Road area contains a number of older houses along the south side and part of the north side of Kerrs Road (although not as many as Two Chain Road). A pine plantation is located on the north side of Kerrs Road. Also on this block of land on the north side of Kerrs Road (bounded by Sandy Knolls Road and Wards Road) is a large area used by the pig farm on Two Chain Road to dispose of its effluent. Only part of Kerrs Road is tarsealed.
The Armac Drive area north of the prison comprises a residential cul-de-sac off Wards Road. The houses in this area are newer than most of those in the Two Chain/Walkers Road and Kerrs Road areas, with development in this area starting around seven years ago.
The Jones Road area north east of the prison is Rolleston’s ‘industrial area’ (see Figure 8). This area is zoned Business 2 in the Proposed District Plan24. An application was made in 2001 to extend this area. Prior to this application there had been little change to the area. There are a small number of older houses in the area. Businesses/industries in this area include:
• coal suppliers • panel beaters • equipment hire • veterinary services • sawmill • vehicle maintenance services
The East of the Main South Road area includes the Rolleston township and surrounding rural residential areas to the south. Prior to the recent development in Rolleston, this area consisted of a number of scattered older houses along Burnham Road, Burnham School Road, Dunns Crossing Road, Brookside Road25 and a consolidated area of older housing in the Rolleston township26. Within this existing Rolleston township there is a hotel/pub, a fire station, a naturalist camp, a school (Rolleston Primary School) and a dairy. Up until ten years ago there was also a post shop. A small area south east of the existing township was zoned Commercial R and Service R in the Transitional District Plan. The Rolleston Primary School is a decile eight school with 10 full time teachers, two part time teachers, 12 classrooms and a roll of 280 students (185 families).
Over the last seven years significant development has taken place in Rolleston, most of which has occurred in the last three years. This development is ongoing with large areas of residential settlement currently under construction. The township and surrounding areas are zoned Living 1, Living 2, and Living 2A in the Proposed District Plan. Living 2 zones on the outskirts of the consolidated Rolleston township (Living 1) have larger sections, while Living 2A requires houses to have better roofs because of their proximity to the “airport noise footprint” or airport flight path. The section of land zoned Commercial R and Service R in the Transitional District Plan has enlarged slightly and is now zoned Business 1 (in the Proposed District Plan). In addition to the residential development experienced in Rolleston, a community centre (library, gym, meeting rooms, council service centre), a permanent police station with two full time police officers, a medical centre27, a
24 Notified in 2001. It was zoned Industrial 3 in the Transitional District Plan. 25 Zoned Rural Residential 1 in the Transitional District Plan. 26 Zoned Residential 2 in the Transitional District Plan. 27 Prior to this centre being established the Rolleston community had no permanent doctor, but several doctors who would commute from Christchurch/Lincoln for surgeries.
22 ROLLESTON Host Community supermarket shopping centre, a play centre, a Montessori school, a ‘before and after school’ programme, a full-time daycare, and a safer community council have been established.
The residential development in Rolleston has therefore facilitated the development of a more ‘self contained’ community which has greater access to commercial and community services. Another example of such development is the improved bus services between Christchurch and Rolleston. Since 2001 a ‘red bus’ route has been established. Prior to this, Rolleston had a limited bus service transporting mainly workers twice a day.
Figure 7: Land use in Rolleston survey areas
Source: Topomap
23 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
5 The operational effects of Rolleston Prison on the Rolleston community
5.1 Employment and expenditure in the local economy
The literature review carried out in stage one of this research discussed the potential for positive and negative effects on community employment and local economy as a result of the presence and operation of a prison facility.
In particular, potential effects investigated in this case study include: 1) the creation of employment opportunities (and the opportunity for prison staff to live close to where they work) 2) the opportunity for local businesses to supply goods and services to the prison 3) inmate family and prison visitor expenditures in the community 4) unfair competition from inmate labour with local businesses.
Source of the potential effect:
A positive effect may be experienced through the creation of employment and stimulus to the local economy. The creation of employment may be direct through the prison’s demand for staff or indirect through employment in businesses which provide goods and services to the prison. It is this employment (and consequential investment and spending in the community) and possible spending by visitors and inmate families which is said to stimulate the local economy.
A negative effect may be experienced however if private businesses in the community have to compete with the use of free or cheap inmate labour in prison industries.
Analysis:
An indication of the likely positive effects has been sought by establishing whether or not prison staff reside in Rolleston, and by determining the extent to which goods and services required by the prison are sourced from within Rolleston. The 97 structured interviews administered to residents and businesses also enquired as to prison employment, dealings with the prison, inmate families, and prison purchases28. Key informant interviews with prison staff, PARS, Community Probation Services, the police, and local businesses were also used to get an indication of possible visitor and inmate family spending in the community.
An indication of the likely negative effects on employment and the local economy has been sought by exploring the nature and extent of inmate labour in commercial work. The full structured questionnaire administered to 46 residents and 10 businesses also enquired as to community resentment over possible competition from inmate labour29.
28 Note that not all of the 97 interviewees were asked questions relating to these issues. 29 The rapids did not specifically address this issue.
24 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
A full economic assessment has not been undertaken in this assessment of effects on employment and the local economy in Rolleston30.
Actual effects:
Staff employment
As was noted in Section 3.3, Rolleston Prison currently31 employs 93 staff, 92 of whom are employed full time. The effect of this employment on Rolleston is however dependent on the number of staff who live in the Rolleston community. The payroll office at Christchurch Prison was unable to indicate how many staff at Rolleston Prison live in Rolleston. Nevertheless, during key informant interviews with prison staff and community members and interviews with neighbours, it became apparent that some Rolleston Prison staff do live within the Rolleston community. Indications are that there may be around ten prison staff (and their families) residing in the Rolleston area.
The local veterinary clinic, a warrant of fitness station, and an equipment hire company all noted that there were prison staff who lived in Rolleston. Several key informants and interviewees noted that some prison staff had moved into the Rolleston community as new subdivisions and housing has been established in the township during recent years. Rolleston School also confirmed the presence of prison staff and their families in Rolleston, noting that currently there are approximately a dozen children of prison staff families who attend the school.
Of the 46 residents who completed full interviews, none worked at the prison or had anyone in their household who worked at the prison.
Several businesses interviewed mentioned income generated as a result of the prison’s presence. For example, the veterinary clinic, an equipment hire company, and a warrant of fitness station noted that prison staff who live in the locality use their goods and services.
Any benefits associated with this employment in Rolleston may have increased with the increase in staff at Rolleston Prison over the last ten years. The four main units which have been constructed at Rolleston Prison since 1988 in order to cope with the increase in inmate numbers, each need their own staff. Between 1991 and 1998 staff numbers increased from 82 to 125. Since then staff numbers have decreased with the closure of one unit. Staff numbers have also been affected by the ‘amalgamation’ of the three Canterbury Prisons, which has resulted in the shift of most management and administration staff at Rolleston Prison to Christchurch Prison. Nevertheless, overall there has been an increase in staff numbers over time.
Provision of goods and services to the prison
Employment may also be created indirectly through the provision of goods and services to the prison. This research has identified (through key informant interviews with Christchurch Prison staff and community members and through questionnaires administered to local businesses) six businesses in Rolleston which supply goods and services to Rolleston Prison. These businesses supply:
30 Due to time and resource constraints. 31 As at October 2001.
25 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
• Inmate supplies
Inmates have the opportunity to purchase supplies once a week. Expenditure by all inmates can amount to thousands of dollars per week.
• Food
Some food is provided on a weekly basis for inmate meals. This contract has been in place for at least the last seven years.
• Petrol
Fuel has been supplied to the prison for many years.
• Postal services
Postal services are provided to Rolleston Prison.
• Veterinary services
Veterinary services are provided for several cats kept at Rolleston Prison. These services have been provided for at least the last three years.
• Vehicle maintenance services
Several vehicle maintenance services are provided by local businesses for at least the last three years.
Note that two coal suppliers interviewed on Jones Road stated that at various times in the past they had supplied coal to Rolleston Prison. This supply ceased with the closure of the Tawa Unit, the only unit to use coal.
Spending by visitors and inmate families
The extent of visitor and inmate family spending in Rolleston will depend on the extent of their presence in the community.
As noted earlier in Section 3.3, there can be up to 120 visitors to Rolleston Prison on any given Saturday. For those visitors who drive out to Rolleston Prison there is the potential for visitor spending. As the township is off the main road and contains only a small commercial centre, it is likely that the main opportunity for visitor spending is at the petrol station or the pub/hotel which are both located on the Main South Road. It was confirmed that visitors to the prison do spend at the pub on Saturdays. It was noted however that this trade has dropped off over the last year. This may be due to the introduction of new security procedures for inmate visitors in the last year. For those visitors who take the bus out to Rolleston, it is unlikely that any inmate spending occurs due to the absence of any businesses, or shops near bus stops close to the prison. Several residents in the Two Chain/Walkers Road area notice visitors waiting to catch a bus.
26 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
A study by Waldegrave investigated the incidence of inmate family settlement in the host communities of Rimutaka and Wanganui Prisons in the North Island, concluding that few relocated to the prison host communities (1999). This would seem to apply to Rolleston, although probably more so. Of the 97 neighbours interviewed in Rolleston, none knew of any examples of inmate families who had taken up residence in the Rolleston community. It would seem that the lack of rental properties and employment opportunities in Rolleston would act as a deterrent for inmate families. Organisations that deal with inmate families also point out that many inmate families do not have the means to relocate.
Competition from inmate labour
The possibility of a negative effect on local business due to competition from inmate labour was investigated during interviews with prison staff and in structured questionnaires with neighbours. Although the vegetable gardens and nursery at Rolleston Prison are involved with a small number of commercial contracts, none of these are with businesses in the Rolleston community or appear to affect businesses in the Rolleston community. Prison management has noted that in seeking or considering private contracts, the prison is sensitive to concerns relating to unfair competition and is careful to ensure that they are not competing with existing business nearby, but instead filling a gap in the market.
Of the 35 residents and businesses who were asked whether or not they had ever encountered resentment in the community that inmate labour is taking jobs away from other people, 34 answered that they had not. The one resident who had encountered resentment, noted that local contractors were not happy about recent prison policy changes which had introduced the possibility of charging community members or organisations for the use of inmate labour.
In considering the effect of inmate labour, it is worth noting that some inmates at times have the opportunity to participate in ‘release to work’. Release to work allows certain inmates in the final months of their sentences to leave the prison daily to go to work in the community. The inmate is paid for his labour and required to pay board to the prison for his upkeep. Although there are recollections of inmates at Rolleston Prison on release to work in the past, some of whom worked within Rolleston, numbers have dropped significantly in recent years for policy reasons including security and competition issues. There are currently no inmates on release to work in the Rolleston community. At least two businesses interviewed in the course of this research mentioned that they had considered using inmate labour on a release to work scheme but as yet had not decided to do so. One business felt that it was fairer to give jobs to community members rather than inmates.
Summary evaluation:
Although a comprehensive economic assessment was not carried out in this research, an indication of likely economic effects has been investigated. It appears there is some economic benefit, albeit at a relatively low level, to the Rolleston community as a result of the presence and operation of Rolleston Prison. A number of prison staff live in Rolleston, a number of local businesses provide goods and services, and there is some visitor spending.
27 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
5.2 Goods and service contributions from the prison to the community
Stage two of this prison research (Historical Analysis) indicated that communities may benefit from prison and inmate goods and service contributions.
Source of the potential effect:
The source of this effect is the offering of free or discounted goods or inmate labour to the prison’s host community and its members.
Analysis:
In order to determine the extent of Rolleston Prison’s goods and service contributions to the Rolleston community, interviews were conducted with prison staff, local schools and the Burnham Military Camp. The structured interviews with neighbours also asked interviewees about inmates working offsite.
Actual effects:
Some of the goods and services provided by Rolleston Prison to the Rolleston community include:
• Maintenance and repair work at Rolleston School
Work parties and inmate labour are used occasionally by Rolleston School to repair and maintain school grounds and equipment.
• Tailoring
The prison’s tailor shop has offered its services to local schools and the local fire brigade in Rolleston. The shop has been repairing the fire brigades clothes and bags for over 15 years. It is worth noting that other such work is undertaken outside the Rolleston community. For example: the production of yellow ribbons for PILLARS32, overalls for the coastguard, and t-shirts for Camp Quality33.
• Provision of nursery plants at cost
Nursery plants are offered at cost to local schools in the Rolleston community. Plants are offered to around eighty kindergartens and twenty schools in areas outside the Rolleston community.
• Manure collection
Three supervised inmates from Rolleston Prison collect manure from over 40 properties within a 10 kilometre radius of the prison. This service has been offered since 1992 and continues all year round. It is a popular service which has grown significantly over the years through word of mouth.
32 The tailor shop first produced these bows in 2000. They were hung on trees around Christchurch by PILLARS to remind people about the children of inmates. 33 A regular annual camp held in Canterbury for children with cancer.
28 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
Of the 75 neighbours who were asked if they had ever been involved in a community organisation or event which had used free inmate labour, 68 said they had not, while the remaining seven said they had. These organisations or events included: the Rolleston School, the Lions (Christmas trees), gorse clearing at the local pony club, and scrub clearing.
Note that there a number of other goods and services which are provided to communities outside the Rolleston area. For example, the donation of excess vegetables to charitable organisations. One resident also noted that while working in a rest home outside of Rolleston, inmates in Rolleston Prison refurbished the furniture belonging to its elderly patients.
It appears that the level of community service carried out by inmates in Rolleston Prison has reduced in recent years. The school, for example, reported that inmate labour does not appear to be as accessible now due to the implementation of new prison policies which focus on commercial contracting rather than community service.
Summary evaluation:
A number of goods and services are provided free or discounted by the prison to the Rolleston community. Although there has been a general trend to re-focus on the commercialisation of inmate labour, some of the services offered such as manure collection have grown as demand from the community has increased.
5.3 Community involvement with the prison
The second stage of this prison research (Historical Analysis) indicated that individuals and groups involved with prisons may experience personal and organisational development and fulfilment.
Source of the potential effect:
The nature of a prison dictates that aside from local residents gaining work as prison staff, and the opportunity for local businesses to supply the prison with goods and services, there will be other needs (which may not be catered for officially) and ways in which a community will become involved in the operation of a prison facility. Often this involvement is volunteer based work which provides support for and caters for inmates’ personal needs.
Analysis:
The analysis of this effect is based on interviews with prison staff (including the prison chaplain), Prisoner Fellowship, and on structured interviews with residents which enquired as to dealings with the prison.
Actual effects:
The main organisation which is involved with Rolleston Prison providing and supporting inmates on a voluntary basis is Prisoner Fellowship. Prisoner Fellowship is an organisation which was set up in the United States and spread to 58 countries including New Zealand about 12 years ago. Prisoner Fellowship in Canterbury provides weekly church services, bible studies, and counselling sessions, and post-release care to inmates in Rolleston Prison. Assistance is at times also given to inmate
29 ROLLESTON Operational Effects families. In providing these services, a significant number of people from the organisation may visit the prison every week. Up to eight people take bible studies around the prison each week, while up to 40 people can be involved in the church services given every Sunday. There are at least 3 residents from the Rolleston area who are involved with Prisoner Fellowship and visiting inmates.
Summary evaluation:
At the present time, there is minimal community involvement with Rolleston Prison.
5.4 Relationship with the local Maori community
In December 200134, there were 51 inmates accommodated at Rolleston Prison who identified themselves as New Zealand Maori. At the time this amounted to over 21% of the total Rolleston Prison population.
While there is a formal link between Rolleston Prison and Ngai Tahu Maori in the form of an Advisory Group or Kahui Atawhai, there is not a strong and active relationship with any particular Maori community or marae. Several factors were advanced by the key informants interviewed35 for this research as to why this is so.
The main factors put forward for the relatively low-key nature of the links with Canterbury Maori concerned prison location, the nature of prison programmes available at Rolleston Prison, and the lack of financial resources devoted to supporting this relationship. It is instructive to compare the situation for Rolleston with that of the other prisons studied in this research36.
Rolleston Prison is some 25 to 30 kilometres away from the nearest active marae - Tuamutu near Lake Waihora, and Rehua in Christchurch. The Prison is within the domain of the Tuamutu runanga, but this is a very small marae with limited numbers and resources.
There is no Maori Focus Unit at Rolleston Prison. Where such units exist, experience has shown that they promote very strong relationships between inmates and local Maori. These relationships are based on a range of activities and programmes within the Maori Focus Unit.
Whether or not there is a Maori Focus Unit, it requires financial resources to sustain the programmes provided by outside providers. The level of financial resourcing that has been made available for Maori-focussed programmes at Rolleston was described as small and intermittent. The key informants also described differences in philosophy between prison management and Maori advisors in relation to the character of inmate programmes.
34 As at 6th December 2001. 35 Interviews were conducted with the prison’s Maori Liaison Officer and the Chair of the Kahui Atawhai. 36 Case studies have also been carried out for Hawkes Bay Prison, Rimutaka Prison and Wanganui Prison. Rolleston Prison is the only case where no Maori Focus Unit had been established.
30 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
5.5 Nuisance: lighting & noise
The second stage of this prison research (Historical Analysis), and assessment reports commissioned in preparation for the siting of the new Northland prison, indicated that lighting and noise emanating from a prison have the potential to create a nuisance for prison neighbours.
Source of the potential effect:
The source of this effect is prison security lighting and noise associated with the everyday operation of the prison. Rolleston Prison currently uses four of its five units to accommodate inmates. Each of these units has its own lighting structures. Rolleston Prison is a medium sized prison with over 250 inmates, over 90 staff, daily traffic, and several industries capable of generating noise.
Analysis:
In order to determine whether or not lighting and noise causes a nuisance to prison neighbours in Rolleston, interviews were conducted with prison staff and a representative of the Selwyn District Council. Structured interviews which investigated the effect of lighting and noise were also conducted with prison neighbours.
Actual effects:
Security lighting
Thirty nine of the 97 neighbours interviewed could see prison security lighting from their properties (six unprompted, 33 prompted). These neighbours were from the Two Chain/Walkers Road area (19), the Jones Road area (1), the Armack Drive area (6) and the East of the Main South Road area (13). There were no residents in the Kerrs Road area who could see lighting from their properties. Of all the areas surveyed, this area contained properties furthest away from the prison. Although one business did report being able to see prison security lighting (in the Jones Road area), it is unlikely to be an issue for the businesses interviewed as their hours of operation would generally not coincide with the hours of security lighting operation.
As all but one of the five main units at Rolleston Prison have been built over the last 11 years, and it is on the units that security lighting is erected, it is fair to say that prison security lighting has increased significantly over the last 11 years in conjunction with the construction of these new units. Twelve of the 25 neighbours who reported being able to see the security lighting said that there had been no change to the intensity of this lighting over time. However, more than half of these had lived on their properties for less than five years and are therefore unlikely to have been in residence during the time when the most significant additions to lighting were being made. Even those who had been in residence for over five years had not been in residence for more than eight years and would therefore not have witnessed the most significant increase between 1990 and 1993. The remaining 13 reported a change to the visibility of lighting over the years. Around half reported an increase, while the other half reported a decrease. The main reasons given for these changes were prison expansion (increase in visibility of lighting), and tree growth (decrease in visibility of lighting).
Of the 39 residents who reported being able to see the prison security lighting, seven reported being impacted by this. These residents were all from the Two Chain/Walkers Road area and therefore
31 ROLLESTON Operational Effects closest to the prison. Positive impacts (reported by three neighbours) included an increased sense of security and the benefit of being able to see while working on their properties at night. Negative impacts (reported by four neighbours) included an increased sense of insecurity as the lights acted as a reminder, visual unpleasantness (is an “eyesore”), driver distraction, and interference with the ‘country lifestyle’.
The Selwyn District Council could not recall receiving any complaints from neighbours regarding Rolleston Prison security lighting.
Aside from the 39 residents who reported being able to see the prison security lighting from their properties, an additional four out of the 97 mentioned that they could see the lights when they were driving near the prison at night. Only one of the four reported any resulting impact, commenting that the lights provided some sense of security and practical assistance as there are no street lights out in the country near the prison.
Noise
Of the 97 neighbours surveyed, 28 reported being able to hear noise from the prison (eight unprompted, 20 prompted). By far the majority of those who reported being able to hear the noise from the prison were from the Two Chain/Walkers Road area, the area closest to the prison. Two of the residents were from the East of the Main South Road area, one was from the Kerrs Road area, and the remaining 25 were from the Two Chain/Walkers Road area.
When asked what noise they hear, 25 of the residents mentioned voices, one mentioned music, and three mentioned a siren. When asked what is the likely source of these noises, the voices were attributed to loud speaker announcements, inmates playing sport, and haka practice. The music was attributed to entertainment on family days. The siren was attributed to both the prison and police vehicles. Twenty five residents noted that the noise could be heard from outside, while an additional eight also mentioned being able to hear noises from inside their houses. The frequency at which noise is heard varies. For those residents in close proximity to the prison in Two Chain Road and Walkers Road noise can be heard between several times a month to several times a week. Eight of the 28 residents (from the Two Chain/Walkers Road area) who could hear noise from the prison reported a change to the level of noise that has been heard over the years. Five of these residents reported an increase in noise, which was attributed to prison expansion. Of the 28 residents who reported hearing noise, 20 experienced no impact as a result. The impacts that were reported included anxiety, annoyance, and disturbance.
The Selwyn District Council could not recall any complaints made by community members regarding noise from Rolleston Prison. Management at Christchurch Prison however did note that one neighbour in particular had complained several times about noise from the prison related to noise from loudspeaker announcements.
It is important to note that there other sources of noise in the area. For example: noise can be heard from the Burnham Military Camp, aeroplanes (Rolleston is in the Christchurch Airport’s flight path), and traffic (there are several businesses in the area which generate significant levels of traffic).
32 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
Summary evaluation:
Over 40% of neighbours could see prison lighting, while approximately 29% could hear noise from the prison. However, very few reported resulting impacts. Impacts from lighting effects are almost evenly divided between positive and negative while the negative from noise do not appear to be very exceptional in the neighbourhood.
5.6 Personal safety
Literature has indicated that there is a fear that host community members will be subjected to an increased risk to their personal safety (as a result of a prison’s presence). Personal safety may also be at risk from traffic.
Source of the potential effect:
The primary source of this fear is the potential for inmate escapes and any consequent risk of assault, damage or loss. Rolleston Prison has the capacity to accommodate 320 inmates, although currently this has been reduced to 260 as the Tawa unit remains empty.
Concerns relating to increased traffic were also investigated. Any large operational facility creates a demand for traffic. Rolleston Prison has 93 employees and around 260 inmates who need to be transported to and from prison on arrival and departure, and for a variety of temporary releases. Many of these inmates also receive visitors each week. The prison has numerous goods and service providers. There have been several extensions to the prison over the last 11 years which have necessitated the use of construction vehicles onsite for several months at a time. Thus the prison creates a large amount of traffic, and therefore issues relating to traffic and personal safety.
Analysis:
In order to ascertain the effect of Rolleston Prison on a person’s safety, interviews were conducted with a number of key informants, including the Rolleston Police, prison staff, and a resident group coordinator.
Structured interviews (using structured questionnaires) conducted with 97 members of the host community also asked if they had experienced any personal impacts from the presence and operation of the prison. If respondents did not identify fear from an escape as a potential effect the interviewer prompted them.
The questionnaire also asked neighbours about traffic safety.
Actual effects:
Inmate escapes
All 97 neighbours were asked questions relating to inmate escapes. These questions differed depending on whether or not a full or rapid questionnaire was used.
33 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
Around 80% of all those surveyed (N=97) claimed not to worry about inmate escapes. The perception that Rolleston Prison is a minimum security prison was given as the reason why some residents claimed not to worry about inmate escapes. Others, especially those living south of the prison, did not believe that inmates would escape in their direction.
The 20% (N=19/97) who did worry about inmate escapes were from four of the five survey areas (Two Chain/Walkers Road area, Jones Road area, Armac Drive area, and East of the Main South Road area), although the majority were from the Two Chain/Walkers Road area. Over half of those who worried about inmate escapes, qualified their response by noting that it was not a constant fear, but a fear that was most apparent when they had knowledge of an actual escape. Several residents noted that fear of inmate escapes was heightened because of tree growth on their properties which made them more isolated and potentially more susceptible to encountering an escaped inmate who may hide on their properties. Other residents on the other hand noted that their fears were lessened by the belief that if an inmate escaped they would leave the Rolleston area as soon as possible and head north to Christchurch.
There are other factors which may influence the degree to which neighbours experience fear for personal safety. Certain effects associated with the presence and operation of the prison can act as reminders of the prison’s presence and hence the risk of inmate escapes. Such effects include the visibility of prison security lighting at night, noise from the prison, and prison related traffic. As discussed in Section 5.5, for two of the 39 residents who could see prison security lighting from their properties, the prison security lighting acted as a reminder of its presence. However for three other neighbours, visibility of prison security lighting increased their sense of security. As one neighbour pointed out, she “would rather see the lights than see it all black”. Two of the 24 neighbours who discussed traffic issues, stated that prison related traffic acted as a reminder and increased their anxiety.
For seven of the 37 neighbours who discussed inmate escape issues, the presence of a Sex Offenders Unit was a special concern. Five of these seven stated that they were particularly concerned because they had children. As a result of this concern, one resident would not let her children use a bus stop outside the prison.
Of the 19 neighbours who reported being worried about the prospect of inmate escapes, 14 reported no resulting impact. For the remaining five neighbours, a variety of impacts were mentioned. These included: increased mental anxiety, increased security measures (alarms, security cameras), increased level of security consciousness, an increased reluctance to leave teenagers home alone, and sleeplessness. One resident reported significant impacts such as an unwillingness to go for walks alone at night, be alone at night in her house, let her children walk on surrounding roads if inmates are out, or walk in her back paddock if inmates can see her.
Five neighbours (East of the Main South Road area, Jones Road area, Kerrs Road area) reported encounters with escaped inmates. One other neighbour reported seeing escaped inmates on the road on several occasions (Two Chain/Walkers Road area). Three of the neighbours who had encountered escaped inmates did not come face to face with the escapees but knew that the escapees had been on their property and that some had attempted to steal property. None of the neighbours surveyed had ever had an escaped inmate arrive at their home.
34 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
Department of Correction’s records show that there have been 47 escapes from Rolleston Prison since 198537. Taken as a percentage of muster, the number of inmates escaping has actually reduced over the years.
Figure 8: Inmate escapes from Rolleston Prison as a percentage of muster, 1985- 2001
None of the 97 neighbours surveyed could recall when the last escape from Rolleston Prison occurred or how many have escaped over the last five years.
As a result of inmate escapes, three neighbours surveyed had encountered road blocks, two had noticed police cars in the locality searching for escapees, and one had police on their property looking for escapees. None reported having any property stolen by escaped inmates.
Many of the neighbours in the Two Chain/Walkers Road area would like to be on a phone warning system, in order to be notified when an inmate escapes. A few of those interviewed reported that they were already on a list. However, not all of them had been rung when escapes had occurred. It appears that different neighbours had been approached at different times, often because of the initiative of new management.
Another possible avenue for inmate escape, and hence a source of fear for residents, is inmates working off site in work parties. Some of the instances of Rolleston inmates working offsite include: in the gardens and setback around the prison, in various farms around Rolleston (collecting manure), and at Rolleston School. Twenty five of the 56 neighbours who completed full questionnaires reported seeing inmates working off site. They were noticed around the prison setback and gardens, on Two Chain Road, on Walkers Road, in/near the pine plantation on Walkers/Kerrs Road, on/near the railway track, on the Main South Road, and at Rolleston School. Seventeen of the 97 neighbours
37 Note that 14 of these escapes were not from the prison. Eleven were non-returns from temporary release, while three were from escorts. There were also eleven walkaways. Some of these walkaways may have been from community service gangs working offsite.
35 ROLLESTON Operational Effects surveyed reported being worried about inmates working off site. For three of these seventeen neighbours, the proximity of the work parties to their properties affected the level of fear they experienced. For one of these three, who the inmates were (or what crime they had committed) was also an issue.
Some of the neighbours who stated that they did not worry about inmates working off site, claimed it was because the inmates were only minimum security inmates, the inmates were supervised, or because the neighbours never saw them or were in their cars when they did see them. Prison staff noted that for over nine years supervised inmates have collected manure from 40 farms in the locality and that there had only ever been one complaint. This complaint was made by an elderly woman who was approached by an inmate on her farm asking for a glass of water. After prison staff explained that this inmate had broken the rules and that it would never happen again, the woman agreed to allow the inmates to return in the future.
Traffic related risks
Of the 56 neighbours who completed a full questionnaire, 24 commented on the effect of prison related traffic. These neighbours were from the Jones Road and Two Chain/Walkers Road areas. Traffic was noticed on Jones Road (one neighbour), Two Chain Road (12 neighbours), and Walkers Road (10 neighbours). However, the majority of neighbours felt that ‘very little’ to ‘less than half’ of all the traffic on these roads was prison related traffic. Indeed, one business on Two Chain Road noted that they probably created more traffic than the prison as they had 80 staff and five delivery trucks that were coming and going all day everyday. On enquiry, it was also noted that the quarry could generate significant traffic. Depending on the demand (usually five-ten times a year for two-ten days at a time), four-six trucks and trailers could visit the quarry four-twelve times a day. Several residents also noted the presence of traffic from the Burnham Military Camp.
Prison related traffic that was noticed, included: prison staff, prison vans, inmate visitors, goods and service providers, and police. Seven of the neighbours reported a change to the level and/or location of prison related traffic. Although two mentioned a reduction in traffic, five noted an increase. Several noted that the centralisation of the prison kitchens and the delivery of meals to Rolleston several times a day had contributed to this increase.
Thirteen of the neighbours who discussed traffic issues were concerned about the volume, behaviour and speed of prison related traffic, and hence their personal safety. Several neighbours felt that these impacts may have been heightened by the tarsealing of Two Chain Road two to three years ago. It was felt that the level of prison traffic and other growth in the area may have been the reason for this tarsealing and that as a result there had been an increase in traffic on Two Chain Road. The positive side to this development however is benefit to residents of having a tarsealed road, and as one resident claimed, a reduction in traffic noise.
Visitors
Several residents mentioned that they had been approached by visitors asking them for directions, while several mentioned that they had observed visitors sitting in their cars waiting for visiting times.
While these incidents were another source of fear for personal safety for several residents (due to the “type of people who visited the prison”), for others these incidents were not a problem.
36 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
Summary evaluation:
Approximately 20% of the neighbours surveyed said that they were concerned about inmates escaping. Many of these neighbours were quick to point out however, that this fear was not constant, but something that was in the back of their minds and most prominent when an inmate had actually escaped. For several residents there were certain ‘reminders’ which heightened their concern, while for some the presence of the Sex Offenders Unit caused special concern. Just over 26% of those who were concerned about inmates escaping felt that they had been impacted to some degree. These neighbours had experienced increased anxiety, installed extra security measures, and at times restricted or altered their activities to avoid seeing or coming in close proximity to inmates.
Neighbours of the prison felt that very little to less than half of the traffic on surrounding roads was prison traffic. Nevertheless, there were several residents who were concerned about traffic volume, traffic speed, and driver behaviour.
5.7 Crime
Literature has indicated that potential and current host communities fear that as a result of a prison’s presence and operation in a community there will be an increase in crime. Existing research into whether or not this fear is realised has had mixed results.
Source of the potential effect?
The source of this potential effect is the belief that inmate families, visitors and an increased ‘criminal element’ will commit crime in the community.
Analysis:
In order to investigate this potential effect, interviews were carried out with the police and PARS. Crime rates in Rolleston have also been compared to three other demographically similar areas in New Zealand which do not have prisons in them.
The structured questionnaires also addressed issues relating to inmate families and visitors.
Actual effects:
There was no evidence during our fieldwork that visitors or inmate families commit crime in Rolleston.
In order to further assess the effect of Rolleston Prison on crime in Rolleston, crime rates in Rolleston have been compared with three other communities in New Zealand which do not have prisons in them. To validate this comparison, attempts were made to select communities that were as similar as possible demographically to Rolleston (see Table 4).
37 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
Table 4: Demographic comparison between Rolleston and other communities without prisons38 Selwyn (Rolleston) Kaiapoi Motueka Picton Population 8151 10152 12954 5466 Rental properties 21% 15% 22% 20% Unemployed 3% 5% 5% 6% Maori 9% 9% 9% 16% Age structure 0-14 yrs 0-14 yrs 0-14 yrs 0-14 yrs 25% SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR
15-60 yrs 15-60 yrs 15-60 yrs 15-60 yrs 69% slightly lower slightly lower slightly lower
61+ yrs 61+ yrs 61+ yrs 61+ yrs 7% slightly higher slightly higher higher Household Under $20,000 Under $20,000 Under $20,000 Under $20,000 Income structure 10% higher slightly higher higher
$20,000-$50,000 $20,000-$50,000 $20,000-$50,000 $20,000-$50,000 37% SIMILAR SIMILAR SIMILAR
$50,001-$100,000 $50,001-$100,000 $50,001-$100,000 $50,001-$100,000 29% slightly lower slightly lower slightly lower
$100,000+ $100,000+ $100,000+ $100,000+ 7% slightly lower slightly lower slightly lower Source: 1996 Census data (Supermap).
Table 5: Recorded offences for the 1999, 2000, 2001 calender years for Rolleston, Kaiapoi, Motueka, Picton39 Calender Year Selwyn (Rolleston) Kaiapoi Motueka Picton 1999 292 750 1164 700 2000 344 871 1048 762 2001 334 836 1064 619 Source: 2002 NZ Police.
Crime rates in Selwyn appear to be lower than those in Kaiapoi, Motueka, and Picton. This reinforced if compared per capita40. In Selwyn there was one recorded offence in 2001 for every twenty four people, in Kaiapoi and Motueka there was one recorded offence for every 12 people, while in Picton there was one recorded offence for every eight people.
38 Note that these demographics are from the area units and mesh block units which most closely represent the areas covered by the police districts for which the crime rates in Table 6 were collected. 39 Note that the crime rates represented in this table are crime rates for police districts. These districts often cover large areas. The police district for Rolleston (Selwyn) for example, covers an area beyond the Rolleston community as described in this report. However, surrounding areas are similar in character and not too populated, and should still provide some indication of the effect of the prison on crime rates. 40 Using 1996 population figures.
38 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
Increases and decreases in Selwyn between 1999, 2000, and 2001 are similar to those in Kaiapoi, Motueka, and Picton.
Summary evaluation:
Discussions with key informants and a review of crime rates seems to indicate that the prison has not had a significant adverse impact on crime in Rolleston.
5.8 Community services and resources
Literature examined in stage one of this prison research (Sector Review) stated that there is the potential for the presence and operation of a prison to put a strain on community services and resources. Conversely, it is argued that there is the possibility that the increased demand for community services and resources brought about by the operation of a prison will lead to an improvement in the availability and delivery of these services and resources.
Source of the potential effect:
It is argued that this strain on, or improvement to community services and resources may be caused by an influx of prison staff and inmate families.
Analysis:
This argument was explored during the course of interviews with prison staff, local schools and the police.
Actual effects:
As was discussed in Section 5.1, it has not been possible to determine the exact number of prison staff, or inmate families who live in Rolleston. However, it was estimated that about ten prison staff and their families live locally. There was no evidence that inmate families have relocated to Rolleston. It would therefore be fair to conclude that in a town of Rolleston’s size, prison staff and inmate families have a small presence. It would also be fair to conclude that their presence is unlikely to put a strain on community resources and services.
Rolleston School had no problems with the presence of prison staff children at the school. In fact their presence has probably contributed in a small way to the continuing viability of the school. In recent years with the huge residential growth in Rolleston, the school roll has increased and additional teachers and classrooms have been acquired.
The most significant issue for police is inmate escapes. At times there are also issues to do with drug drop offs.
Summary evaluation:
There have not been enough prison staff or inmate families moving into Rolleston to put a strain on, or encourage the improvement of community resources and services. Rolleston’s community resources and services have improved but due to a general increase in population and focus on residential subdivision development.
39 ROLLESTON Operational Effects
5.9 The local environment
Effects assessments commissioned by the Department of Corrections and research carried out in stage two of this research (Historical Analysis) indicate there is the potential for negative and positive effects on the environment as a result of a prison’s operation.
Source of the potential effect:
A negative effect on the environment may result from the use of boilers and sewage treatment plants, the existence of various prison industries, and the necessity of prison traffic.
However, a positive effect on the local environment may result from contributions made by inmates performing community service.
Analysis:
A detailed EIA of Rolleston Prison’s activities has not been carried out in this social assessment. However, interviews were conducted with prison staff, and local and regional authority staff. Structured interviews with neighbouring residents also addressed this issue. Of the 97 neighbours interviewed, 56 were asked if they had ever noticed any industrial discharges from the prison (full questionnaires).
Actual effects:
Rolleston Prison has its own sewage treatment plant and water supply. It also has boilers in each unit, and tailoring, garden and nursery industries on site. Currently, it has resource consents to discharge treated effluent from its sewage treatment plant to land, to discharge stormwater, and to take groundwater. On enquiry, monitoring officers could not recall any major compliance issues or complaints from community members. To date, the main issues relating to these consents concern effluent leakage from the sewage treatment plant pond, and stormwater system maintenance. Currently, the problem of effluent leakage is being considered as part of a review of the prison’s consent to discharge effluent. Among the options being considered is the possibility that the prison will link up with Rolleston township’s waste water system in the future.
None of the neighbours interviewed reported any issues relating to these consent activities.
Although inmates work on verges around the prison maintaining gardens and road sides, a number of residents on Two Chain Road and Walkers Road mentioned litter being dropped by visitors who sit in their cars on the road side to eat lunch while waiting for visiting times.
Summary evaluation:
Despite some issues with resource consents, there is no evidence of any significant environmental impacts as a result of the presence and operation of Rolleston Prison.
40 ROLLESTON Long Term Effects on Community
6 The long term effects of Rolleston Prison on the Rolleston community
6.1 Residential settlement and business development
The long term effects of Rolleston Prison on the Rolleston community have been investigated through interviews with neighbours of the prison, interviews with key informants in the community, and secondary data analysis.
The perceived impact of the prison on the long term development of Rolleston has been explored in the structured interviews with residents and businesses. Of the 29 residents who were asked to comment on whether or not they believed the presence of the prison has had a negative impact on business/community/rural development options in the locality, 18 said ‘no’, six said ‘yes’, while five said that they were ‘not sure’. Of the eight businesses who were asked, seven said ‘no’, while one said ‘yes’. The combined responses of these residents and businesses is represented below in Figure 9. Those who said yes or not sure were all from within the Two Chain/Walkers Road area.
Figure 9: Perceived negative impact on business/community/rural development options in the locality
Of the 34 residents who were asked to comment on whether or not they believed the presence of the prison has had a positive impact on business/community/rural development options in the locality, 17 said no, seven said yes, while 10 said that they were not sure. Responses were mixed between the areas surveyed. Of the ten businesses asked to comment, four said ‘no’, four said ‘yes’, while two said ‘not sure’. The combined responses of these residents and businesses are represented below in Figure 10.
41 ROLLESTON Long Term Effects on Community
Figure 10: Perceived positive impact on business/community/rural development options in the locality
In summary, the majority of neighbours believed that the prison has not had a negative impact on business/community/rural development options in the locality. However, neighbours were more divided as to whether or not the prison had a positive impact in the locality. Although just under half thought that it had not, 25% thought that it had, while approximately 27% were unsure.
Local attitudes to the image created by the presence of the prison were tested recently as a result of a Land Transport Safety Authority anti-drink-drive campaign. The 2002 campaign aimed to deter young people from drinking and driving by suggesting that this behaviour was likely to lead to a prison sentence. In doing so, the information materials referred to Rolleston rather than Rolleston Prison41. This association was upsetting to some local residents who believe that it is very important to distinguish between the two, now that the town is growing rapidly and taking on a new character. Several local residents interviewed by the The Press (2002) expressed the view that if the information had stated ‘Rolleston Prison’ rather than ‘Rolleston’, this would not have created the wrong impression. The newspaper coverage of the story further exacerbated the image issue by putting it on the front page under a banner headline ‘Rolleston, penal capital of NZ’.
From other observations, it would appear that the presence and operation of Rolleston Prison has not had a negative impact on the long term development of the Rolleston community. Rolleston has experienced considerable residential growth over the last five to seven years (see Section 4, Appendix Table A.2, Appendix Table A.9). This development has been accompanied by a vision that Rolleston will become a “satellite city of Christchurch”. While there has been significant residential development in the Rolleston township, some lifestyle blocks have also been developed on Walkers Road and Two Chain Road near the prison. Alongside the significant residential development in
41 The postcard, one of a series of six cards distributed in bars, cafes and restaurants throughout New Zealand, aimed at a target audience of 17-22-year-old males, showed a collection of prison scenes including a prison cell and toilet, and carried the message “Greetings from Rolleston, Canterbury, NZ”.
42 ROLLESTON Long Term Effects on Community
Rolleston, there has been some business development, including a new supermarket and associated shopping centre.
Those concerned with NIMBY42 issues, sometimes point to the risk that the siting of one unusual facility in a locality can make it easier for other similar facilities to be co-located. This appears to have been the case with the recent decision confirming the siting of a new Youth Justice facility immediately adjacent to Rolleston Prison on land owned by the Defence Force.
Although it is clear that Rolleston has experienced significant growth, the research also investigated whether the presence and operation of the prison had affected the ‘make-up’ of the community. As discussed earlier in this report, it would appear that inmate families do not relocate to Rolleston. Attempts have also been made to determine whether or not it is common for inmates from outside the region to settle in Rolleston upon release. A study carried out by Waldegrave in 1999 on the incidence of inmate settlement (after release) in the host communities of Rimutaka and Wanganui/ Kaitoke Prisons in the North Island concluded that few inmates relocated to their host communities on release. This would also seem to be true in Rolleston, although probably more so. Community Probation Services have no records of ex-inmates from Rolleston Prison settling in the Rolleston community. During the course of our field work we came across one key informant who knew of an ex-inmate in the community and one ex-inmate who answered a questionnaire. However, there are several factors which suggest that the number of inmates who settle in Rolleston on release is still very low. These factors include: the lack of rental housing, the lack of local employment opportunities, and the probability that very few if any inmates originated from the Rolleston community.
6.2 Property values
Although an assessment of the effect of Rolleston Prison on property values has not been undertaken in this social assessment, several interviews have been conducted with local real estate agents.
Real estate agents indicated that property sales have not been adversely affected as a result of the presence and operation of Rolleston Prison. Indeed, the significant residential development which has, and is occurring in and around the Rolleston township would also seem to indicate this. Buyers are reportedly attracted to Rolleston’s proximity to Christchurch and its semi-rural character. These sentiments were also expressed by many of the rural residents interviewed in the vicinity of the prison during the course of this research who indicated these or similar reasons for purchasing in the area.
Real estate agents note that properties have not only sold in the Rolleston township but around the prison also. This is despite the significant visibility of the prison for some neighbouring properties. The visibility of facilities and buildings at Rolleston Prison is reduced by planting along Walkers Road and Two Chain Road. However, parts of the prison remain visible from some positions on the Main South Road, Walkers Road and Two Chain Road. Eleven of the 97 neighbours interviewed could see prison planting or buildings from their properties. For five of these 11 neighbours the level of visibility has not changed during their occupancy. For all of the remaining six neighbours visibility has reduced over the years due to planting around the prison and on their own properties. No impacts were reported by the eleven neighbours.
42 NIMBY as in Not In My Back Yard
43 ROLLESTON Long Term Effects on Community
Note however that a block of land opposite the prison entrance on Walkers Road has recently been sold for commercial uses. The real estate agent reports that it was decided that this site was not suitable for residential development.
Real estate agents interviewed during this research also thought that property values had not been adversely affected by the presence and operation of Rolleston Prison, especially in the new subdivisions. Although there was consensus among the real estate agents interviewed that property values had not been adversely affected, several immediate residential neighbours of the prison pointed out to the researchers that their properties had been cheap to purchase.
In order to explore the possibility that the presence of the prison placed a stigma on Rolleston which in turn affected its development and property values, neighbours were asked if they knew there was a prison in Rolleston before moving there. Nearly all of the residents interviewed knew where the prison was located when they moved in. Neighbours were also asked if they had ever heard Rolleston referred to as a ‘prison town’ or any other negative link made between the prison and Rolleston. Seventy nine percent of those asked this question answered that they had never heard any sort of negative link being made between the prison and the community.
These responses, in addition to observations made by real estate agents and the obvious development that has occurred in Rolleston, would seem to suggest that the presence of the prison has not had a significant adverse impact on property sales and values.
44 ROLLESTON Conclusions
7 Conclusions
This research set out to establish what effects have been experienced by the Rolleston community as a result of the presence and operation of Rolleston Prison, and what relationship exists between the prison and the community.
An effect of having a prison in the Rolleston community has been the establishment of a mutual relationship, albeit a very low key relationship, based on a small number of links it has with the local community. This relationship is evident in:
• the small number of prison staff who live locally, • the small number of local firms providing goods and services to the prison, • several local community members who provide support to prison inmates, • some voluntary contributions from inmates to provide goods and services to the local community, • attempts by the prison to warn near neighbours when an escape occurs.
The scale of Rolleston Prison’s relationship with the Rolleston community is a reflection of the size of the community and number of commercial and community goods and service providers within it. More recently, it probably also reflects the fact that Rolleston Prison is managed from another site - Christchurch Mens Prison in Templeton. Although these links are on a small scale, they are most probably still of value in a community of Rolleston’s size.
This relationship has changed over the last ten years as Rolleston Prison’s capacity to accommodate inmates has increased. From the community side, these links are supported by the neighbours’ desire to have communication with prison management (especially in regards to inmate escapes), and by the views expressed that inmates should be giving back and contributing to society, for example through community service. From the prison perspective, the nature of, and approach by management is an important factor in this relationship. As noted earlier, with the regionalisation of the Canterbury Prisons, most Rolleston Prison management and administration staff have now relocated to Christchurch Prison in Templeton. This transfer of staff and decision making activities dislocates the prison from its neighbours, both in distance and accessibility. This may affect the relationship between the prison and its neighbours, and influence the neighbours’ experience of effects. Several neighbours noted that they were unsure of who to ring to discuss issues and concerns.
For individual residents there was some uncertainty as to whether or not they want to know more about the prison, evident in their frequent reference to the notion of “out of sight, out of mind”.
Off-site effects were of greatest concern to those neighbours who lived in close proximity to the prison. Of those neighbours in close proximity, there were at least four on Two Chain Road and Walkers Road who lived within 100 metres of the prison.
Of all the off-site effects reported, concern for personal safety for near neighbours stands out. Approximately 20% of all those surveyed worried about inmate escapes, although many emphasised that this fear was not constant but heightened with the knowledge of an inmate escape. It should be
45 ROLLESTON Conclusions noted that this level of response is considerably lower than was the case for several other prison host communities studied in this research.
Despite this concern, there seemed to be a general acceptance of the prison as it is in its present state. The fact that it is a minimum security prison with a smaller capacity for inmates was an important factor influencing their experience of effects. If the prison were to expand or take higher security inmates, then their experience of effects may change.
There were no indications during this research that Rolleston Prison has had any significant impacts on the long term development of the Rolleston community. In fact Rolleston has experienced significant residential growth which has facilitated the development of a more ‘self contained’ community which has greater access to commercial and community services. It appears that factors contributing to the prison’s lack of impact include: its separation and isolation from the township, its size, and its security level.
46 ROLLESTON References
References
Department of Corrections. 2000, Muster Statistics 1985-2000, Department of Corrections, Wellington.
Department of Corrections. 2001, Offenders in Custody – Security Classification Breakdown, Department of Corrections, Wellington.
Department of Corrections. 2002, Muster Statistics, Department of Corrections, Wellington.
Martin, R. 2000, ‘Community perceptions about prison construction: why not in my backyard’, Prison Journal, vol. 80, no. 3, pp. 265-294.
Morgan, B. & Baines J. 2001, A Sector Review of New Zealand’s Prison Facilities, Taylor Baines & Associates, Christchurch.
Morgan, B. & Baines, J. 2001a, An Historical Analysis of New Zealand’s Prison Facilities, Taylor Baines & Associates, Christchurch.
2000, ‘Rolleston, penal capital of NZ’ in The Press.
Schichor, D. 1992, ‘Myths and Realities in Prison Siting’, Crime and Delinquency, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 70-87.
Taylor, Hobson Bryan, and Goodrich. 1995, Social Assessment: theory, process & techniques, 2nd edn, Taylor Baines & Associates, Christchurch.
Waldegrave, T. 1999, Inmate Family Relocation Study, Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
47 ROLLESTON Appendix
Appendix
Table A.1: Rolleston Prison’s muster, 1985-2001 Source: Department of Corrections 2000, Department of Corrections 2001 & Department of Corrections 2002 Year (July average Rolleston based on weekly Prison’s averages) Muster 1985 58 1986 54 1987 91 1988 112 1989 115 1990 171 1991 182 1992 191 1993 251 1994 248 1995 235 1996 254 1997 320 1998 318 1999 320 2000 253 2001 263
Table A.2: Changes in the usually resident population, 1986-2001 Census Year Rolleston Christchurch New Zealand No. of % Change No. of % Change No. of % Change Persons Persons Persons 1986 1623 - 282216 - 3263283 - 1991 1923 18.5 289077 2.4 3373926 3.4 1996 2307 20 309030 6.9 3618303 7.2 2001 4170 80.8 316224 2.3 3737277 3.3 Note: ‘Rolleston’ does not include Burnham Military Camp Area Unit
48 ROLLESTON Appendix
Table A.3: Tenure, 1996 Tenure Rolleston Christchurch New Zealand (%) (%) (%) Freehold 24.1 32.1 31 Mortgaged 60.5 36.3 35.2 Rented 8.8 25.4 24.6 Provided Free 2.6 2 3.7 Not specified 3.5 2.8 4 Note: May not add up to 100% as rounded to one decimal place.
Table A.4: Household income, 1996 Household Income Rolleston Christchurch New Zealand (%) (%) (%) $20,000 & under 12.9 24.7 22.8 $20,001-$50,000 34.9 34.6 32.9 $50,001-$100,000 32.3 20.8 21 $100,001 & over 4.7 4.5 6.2 Not specified 15.1 15.3 17 Note: May not add up to 100% as rounded to one decimal place.
Table A.5: Ethnicity, 1996 Ethnicity Rolleston Christchurch New Zealand (%) (%) (%) European 82.7 83.7 71.7 NZ Maori 8.2 6.9 14.5 Pacific Islander 1.3 1.9 4.8 Asian 1.7 4.1 4.4 Other 0.3 0.4 0.4 Not specified 5.8 2.9 4.2 Note: May not add up to 100% as rounded to one decimal place.
Table A.6: Age, 1996 Age Rolleston Christchurch New Zealand (%) (%) (%) 0-14yrs 23.1 19.4 23 15-60yrs 71 64 62.3 61yrs+ 6 16.6 14.7 Note: May not add up to 100% as rounded to one decimal place.
49 ROLLESTON Appendix
Table A.7: Employment Status, 1996 Employment status Rolleston Christchurch New Zealand (%) (%) (%) wage/salary 73.7 74.2 68.6 self employed 8.5 8.1 10.5 employer 5.3 5.8 6.9 unpaid worker in family 4.3 1.5 3.1 unemployed 4 7.6 7.1 not specified 4.3 2.9 3.2 Note: may not add up to 100% because of rounding to one decimal place.
Table A.8: Occupation, 1996 Occupation Rolleston Christchurch New Zealand (%) (%) (%) administrators/managers 8 11.8 11.6 Professionals & technicians 16.8 12.5 11.7 Clerks 13.7 14.5 13.3 Service/Sale workers 16 16 13.9 Agriculture & fishery workers 11.6 2.4 9.4 trades workers/machine operators/elementary occupations 31 10.1 9.1 Not specified 2.8 4.3 5 Note: May not add up to 100% as rounded to one decimal place.
Table A.9: Private dwellings, 1986-1996 Census Year Rolleston Christchurch New Zealand No. of % Change No. of % Change No. of % Change Dwellings Dwellings Dwellings 1986 453 - 101241 - 1088601 - 1991 549 10.4 107223 5.9 1177665 8.2 1996 675 23 116166 8.3 1276332 8.4 2001 1344 99.1 122754 5.7 1359336 6.5 Note: ‘Rolleston’ does not include Burnham Military Camp Area Unit
50 ROLLESTON Appendix
Table A.10: Escapes from Rolleston Prison, 1985-2001 Source: Department of Correction’s head office Year Breakouts (breach Walkaways (by low Non-returns from Other (eg: escape TOTAL of security) security inmates) temporary release from escorts) 1985 1 0 1 0 2 1986 1 0 1 0 2 1987 2 0 1 0 3 1988 4 0 1 0 5 1989 0 0 0 0 0 1990 0 0 2 0 2 1991 1 0 0 0 1 1992 5 3 1 0 9 1993 3 0 1 1 5 1994 0 0 0 0 0 1995 0 0 0 1 1 1996 0 1 1 1 3 1997 2 2 1 0 5 1998 3 2 1 0 6 1999 0 2 0 0 2 2000 0 1 0 0 1 2001 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 22 11 11 3 47
51