Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees 2003

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

David Harpham Strategic Analysis Policy Development Group Department of Corrections

November 2004

Published in November 2004 Department of Corrections Private Box 1206 Wellington New Zealand

Introduction

A census of prison inmates has been carried out biennially in November since 1987. The Department of Justice administered the census until 1993, and the Ministry of Justice until 1997. The Department of Corrections took over this responsibility in 1999. The current census provides statistical data on inmates within the prison system as at 20 November 2003. The census contains data on offender age, ethnicity, sentence details, offending history, gang membership, education, income, children and marriage, iwi affiliation, programmes and activities, use of medication, and other topics. The purpose of the census exercise is to provide updated information concerning key characteristics of the New Zealand inmate population. Taken together with previous censuses, trends and patterns in this population may be identified. Information was collected from several sources. For the first time, the census used the Department of Corrections’ Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS) database as the primary data source. To obtain details not normally recorded in IOMS, a supplementary census questionnaire (comprising a small number of questions) was then sent to prison staff to complete in interview with inmates. Prison health services staff also collated numbers of inmates on medication, and programme personnel collated numbers of inmates on programmes. Inmate numbers tend to fluctuate in a predictable manner over the course of each week. The general pattern is mainly a function of prison releases occurring on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays. The prison population tends to decrease slightly over those days, and then gradually builds up again to a peak on Sunday nights. To be consistent with prior censuses the current census was scheduled for a Thursday. Home detention figures relate to the Sunday following the day of the main census. The set of offenders summarised for the Home Detention section was extracted from the Department’s data warehouse (known as Corrections Analysis & Reporting System, or CARS), using a “snapshot” dated 23 November 2003, a date three days after the prison census data collection. Where possible, time series data are presented to enable comparisons between current figures and those of previous prison censuses (often as far back as 1991). Unfortunately some of the time series comparisons are subject to discontinuities due to a change in census methodology from one year to the next. Changes specific to the current census’s methodology are discussed in detail in chapter 17 of this booklet. As with any statistical data collection, the presence of error is to some extent inevitable, for a variety of reasons. While several strategies have been employed in this exercise to minimise errors and provide quality assurance to the data set, given budget and time constraints it must be accepted that some errors will have survived. The methodology used in this census will be reviewed prior to the next census in November 2005, and further changes may be made. Further, there is likely to be further revision of the topic areas included (and excluded) from future censuses.

iii Feedback regarding the current statistical data set, and comment about the changes made to content and format, are welcome.

iv Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Contents

1 Executive Summary 11 1.1 Snapshot Data 11 1.2 Time Series Trends 12 2 Inmate Numbers by Institution 13 2.1 Sentenced and Remanded Inmates 13 2.2 Deportation 14 2.3 Segregation 15 2.4 Inmate Ethnicity by Institution 16 3 Demographics 19 3.1 Age 19 3.2 Ethnicity 19 3.3 Age and Ethnicity 20 3.4 Iwi affiliation 21 4 Current Sentence 23 4.1 Sentence Length 23 4.2 Time left to serve 23 4.3 Major Offence 24 4.4 Major offence of segregated inmates 24 4.5 Violent and sex offenders 25 4.6 Security Classification 25 4.7 Risk of Re-offending 26 5 Offending History 27 5.1 Previous Sentences 27 5.2 Age at first sentence 27 5.3 Previous Major Offence 28 5.4 Previous Major Offence for Violent Offenders 28 5.5 Previous Periods in Custody 29 5.6 Age at First Custodial Sentence 30 6 Gang Membership 31 6.1 Gang Membership 31 6.2 Major Offence 31 7 Education and Incomes 33 7.1 Highest Educational Level Attended 33 7.2 Education Qualifications 33 7.3 Income Sources 33 8 Programmes 35 8.1 Inmate Programmes 35 8.2 Inmate health 37 9 Children and Marriage 39 9.1 Marriage 39 9.2 Living with Children 39 9.3 Care of Children 39 10 Traffic Offenders 41 11 Remanded Inmates 43 11.1 Age and Ethnicity 43 11.2 Major Charge 44 11.3 Sentencing History 45 11.4 Gang Membership 46 11.5 Educational Qualifications 47 11.6 Income Sources 48 11.7 Dependent Children 48

Department of Corrections Census 2003 v 12 Home Detention 51 12.1 Home detention by region 51 12.2 Age and Ethnicity 51 12.3 Major Offence 52 12.4 Offending History 52 13 Time Series Comparison 55 13.1 Inmate Numbers 55 13.2 Age 55 13.3 Ethnicity 56 13.4 Custodial Period Imposed 57 13.5 Major Offence 58 13.6 Security Status 60 13.7 Protective Custody (Segregation) 60 13.8 Previous Sentences 61 13.9 Age at First Sentence 62 13.10 Previous Periods in Custody 63 13.11 Age at First Custodial Sentence 64 13.12 Gangs 64 13.13 Dependent children 65 14 Census Data Sources 67 14.1 Raw data collected 67 14.2 Inmate medication data 68 14.3 Inmate programmes data 68 14.4 Inmate questionnaire 69 15 Derived data and data categorisation 71 15.1 Age 71 15.2 Time Left to Serve 71 15.3 Custodial Period Imposed 71 15.4 Total Time Imposed 71 15.5 Marital status categories 71 15.6 Highest qualification level categories 72 15.7 Highest educational level attended categories 72 15.8 Primary gang 72 15.9 Primary income 72 15.10 Preferred ethnicity and combined ethnicity 72 15.11 Offence categories 75 15.12 Special focus units 76 15.13 Home detention (CPS) regions 76 15.14 Iwi regions 77 15.15 Progammes Groups 78 16 Census Data Quality 79 17 Changes Since Prison Census 2001 81 17.1 Prison and policy changes 81 17.2 Definitions changes 81 17.3 Table Changes. 83 18 References 85

vi Census 2003 Department of Corrections

List of Tables

Table 2-1 Sentenced and remand inmates by institution 13 Table 2-2 Planned deportation of sentenced inmates by institution 14 Table 2-3 Segregation of remanded and sentenced inmates by institution 15 Table 2-4 Primary ethnicity of sentenced inmates by institution 16 Table 2-5 Primary ethnicity of remanded inmates by institution 17 Table 3-1 Age of sentenced inmates 19 Table 3-2 Ethnic group of sentenced inmates 19 Table 3-3 Ethnic group by age for male sentenced inmates 20 Table 3-4 Ethnic group by age for female sentenced inmates 20 Table 3-5 Region of iwi identified by sentenced inmates. 21 Table 4-1 Custodial period imposed for sentenced inmates 23 Table 4-2 Time left to serve until final/statutory release date for sentenced inmates 24 Table 4-3 Major offence of sentenced inmates 24 Table 4-4 Segregated inmates by major offence 25 Table 4-5 Violent offences of sentenced inmates 25 Table 4-6 Security status for sentenced inmates 26 Table 4-7 Risk scores of sentenced inmates 26 Table 5-1 Number of previous sentences for sentenced inmates 27 Table 5-2 Age at first sentence for sentenced inmates 28 Table 5-3 Previous major offence of sentenced inmates 28 Table 5-4 Previous major offence of inmates currently sentenced for violence. 29 Table 5-5 Previous periods in custody for sentenced inmates 29 Table 5-6 Total time imposed in previous custodial sentences for sentenced inmates 30 Table 5-7 Age at first custodial sentence for sentenced inmates 30 Table 6-1 Gang membership of sentenced inmates 31 Table 6-2 Major offence of gang sentenced inmates 31 Table 7-1 Highest educational level attended by sentenced inmates 33 Table 7-2 Educational qualifications obtained by sentenced inmates 33 Table 7-3 Source of income prior to entering prison of sentenced inmates 34 Table 8-1 Sentenced inmates resident in special focus units. 35 Table 8-2 Sentenced inmates currently participating in reintegrative programmes 35 Table 8-3 Inmates (remand and sentenced) and employment. 36 Table 8-4 Sentenced and remand inmates currently receiving medication 37 Table 9-1 Marital status for sentenced inmates 39 Table 9-2 Sentenced inmates with child custodial dependents at imprisonment 39 Table 9-3 Care of sentenced inmates’ children 40 Table 10-1 Traffic offences of sentenced inmates 41 Table 10-2 Age of traffic offender sentenced inmates 41 Table 10-3 Previous sentences by prior major offence type – sentenced traffic offence inmates 42 Table 10-4 Previous custodial sentences by offence type - sentenced traffic offence inmates 42 Table 11-1 Age of remand inmates 43 Table 11-2 Ethnic group of remand inmates 43 Table 11-3 Ethnic group by age for remanded inmates 44 Table 11-4 Major charge of remand inmates 44 Table 11-5 Number of previous sentences for remand inmates 45 Table 11-6 Age at first sentence for remand inmates 45

Department of Corrections Census 2003 vii Table 11-7 Number of previous custodial sentences for remand inmates 46 Table 11-8 Age at first custodial sentence for remand inmates 46 Table 11-9 Gang membership of remand inmates 47 Table 11-10 Highest educational level attended by remand inmates 47 Table 11-11 Educational qualifications obtained by remand inmates 47 Table 11-12 Source of income prior to entering prison of remand inmates 48 Table 11-13 Remand inmates with child custodial dependents at imprisonment. 48 Table 11-14 Care of remand inmates’ children 49 Table 12-1 Home-detainees by area 51 Table 12-2 Age of home-detainees 52 Table 12-3 Ethnic group of home-detainees 52 Table 12-4 Major offence of home-detainees 52 Table 12-5 Number of previous Corrections sentences for home-detainees 53 Table 13-1 Inmate/detainee numbers 55 Table 13-2 Age of sentenced inmates (percent) 56 Table 13-3 Ethnic group of sentenced females (percent) 56 Table 13-4 Ethnic group of sentenced males (percent) 57 Table 13-5 Custodial period imposed for sentenced females (percent) 57 Table 13-6 Custodial period imposed for sentenced males (percent) 58 Table 13-7 Inmates serving life imprisonment or preventive detention 58 Table 13-8 Major offence of sentenced females (percent) 59 Table 13-9 Major offence of sentenced males (percent) 59 Table 13-10 Security classification of sentenced females 60 Table 13-11 Security classification of sentenced males (percent) 60 Table 13-12 Sentenced males in protective custody 61 Table 13-13 Previous sentences for sentenced females (percent) 61 Table 13-14 Previous sentences for sentenced males (percent) 62 Table 13-15 Age at first sentence for sentenced females (percent) 62 Table 13-16 Age at first sentence for sentenced males (percent) 63 Table 13-17 Previous periods in custody for sentenced females (percent) 63 Table 13-18 Previous periods in custody for sentenced males (percent) 63 Table 13-19 Age at first custodial sentence for sentenced females (percent) 64 Table 13-20 Age at first custodial sentence for sentenced males (percent) 64 Table 13-21 Total gang membership of sentenced males (percent) 65 Table 13-22 Gang membership of sentenced males (percent) 65 Table 13-23 Sentenced inmates with dependent children (percent) 66

viii Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Acronyms used in this report

ACRP Auckland Central Remand Prison CARS Corrections Analysis & Reporting System CPS Community Probation Service SCD Sentence Commencement Date. The earliest start date of the offenders current sentences SED Sentence End Date: The last end date of the offender’s current sentence(s) taking into account if sentences are concurrent or consecutive and also adjusting for time already served in remand. SRD Statutory Release Date: the date by which an offender must be released (conditions may apply) in respect of a particular sentence IOMS Integrated Offender Management System – the computer system supporting operational delivery IT Information technology LES Law Enforcement System (formerly the Wanganui computer system) NA Not available (not recorded) PPS Public Prisons Service PRN Personal Record Number PS Psychological Service RoC*RoI Risk of Conviction times Risk of Imprisonment. A statistical indicator of an offender’s probability of reconviction.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 ix

1 Executive Summary

1.1 Snapshot Data Offender numbers Persons Male Female Total

On 20 November 2003 there were 6,240 inmates Sentenced 4833 262 5095 held in New Zealand prisons. Around the same Remanded 1072 73 1145 time (on 23 November 2003), there were 595 Inmate subtotal 5905 335 6240 offenders serving home detention. A summary of Home detention 477 118 595 the counts is shown here. Total 6382 453 6835 The current figures represent a growth in numbers since the 2001 census of 460 inmates (8% up from 5780) and 421 home detainees (up from 174). The notable change in home detainees representing the increased use by Courts of this relatively new sanction. The prison with the largest number of inmates was Waikeria with 890 inmates, of whom 67 percent were Māori. Christchurch Prison had 716 inmates, of whom 58 percent were of European descent. Inmate demographics Of the 6,240 remand and sentenced inmates: • 5 percent were female. • the median age was 31 years. • 7 percent were under 20 years. Compared to the sentenced inmates, the remand inmates were younger. Compared to the sentenced inmates, the home detainees were of an older age and more home detainees were female. Inmate social attributes Of the 5,095 sentenced inmates: • 45 percent had left school before reaching Year 11 (Form 5). • 52 percent were recorded as having no qualifications of any sort. • 12 percent were gang members. • 35 percent of females reported having child custodial dependents at the time of prison reception. • 12 percent of males reported having child custodial dependents at the time of prison reception. • 50 percent nominated Māori as their primary ethnicity. • 27 percent nominated an iwi affiliation. Current sentences For the 5,095 sentenced inmates: • Males had an average custodial period imposed of approximately four years (1,457 days) with an average imposed time remaining of two years and seven months (646 days). This analysis excludes 450 sentences of life and preventative

Department of Corrections Census 2003 11 detention. The median custodial period imposed was two years and ten months (1,044 days) with a median of one year and ten months (685 days) remaining. • Females had an average custodial period imposed of two years and seven months (940 days) with an average imposed time remaining of one year and four months (490 days). This analysis excludes 18 life sentences. The median custodial period imposed was one year and eleven months (717 days) with a median of one year and 3 months (468 days) remaining. • 58 percent were sentenced with a “most serious offence” of violence or sexual violence. • 449 had a most serious offence categorised as a homicide. • 1105 had a most serious offence categorised as a sexual attack. Compared to sentenced inmates, the home detainees were less likely to have violent and sexual offences and more likely to have shorter criminal histories. Offending history Of the 5095 sentenced inmates: • Only 21 percent had no previous sentences. • 42 percent had not had a previous custodial episode. • 16 percent had served more than five previous custodial sentences. • 59 percent had their first sentence aged under 20 years. • 40 percent had their first custodial sentence aged under 20 years. 1.2 Time Series Trends The 2003 census was carried out with methodology elements that differed from those of previous prison censuses (discussed more fully in Section 17). These changes inevitably introduce potential for discontinuity to many of the time series trends, as fluctuations on indicators may reflect changes to data collection methods rather than actual changes to the composition of the inmate population. That said, growth of inmate numbers is perhaps the most accurately tracked variable, and this year’s total reflects a 47 percent growth since 1991 (not counting the home detainees). There has been a greater proportional increase in remand numbers over sentenced, and of course, since its introduction in 1999, a steady increase in home detention numbers. Other noted trends include: • Proportionally fewer inmates serving shorter (less than 12 months) sentences, and more inmates serving longer sentences. • A gradual increase in the proportion of inmates who have more than 10 previous custodial sentences. • A flattening of the inmate age profile, with fewer under thirty years, and more over thirty. • A drop in the proportion of inmates having their first custodial sentence at less than 17 years old.

12 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

2 Inmate Numbers by Institution

2.1 Sentenced and Remanded Inmates On the day of the census (Thursday, 20 November 2003) 6,240 inmates were counted as present in prison. They comprised 335 females and 5,905 males. Of these, 5,095 were sentenced inmates and 1,145 were on remand.

Table 2-1 Sentenced and remand inmates by institution Total Number of Inmates Remand Sentenced inmates Women’s prisons Arohata 18 115 133 Christchurch Womens 12 81 93 Mt Eden Womens 42 11 53 Waikeria 15556 Total Females 73 262 335 Men’s Prisons ACRP 255 32 287 Auckland 1 636 637 Christchurch 128 553 681 Dunedin 21 32 53 Hawkes Bay 50 491 541 Invercargill 16 147 163 Manawatu 48 221 269 Mt Eden Mens 230 186 416 New Plymouth 20 81 101 Ohura 09595 Rimutaka 81 546 627 Rolleston 0 317 317 Tongariro/Rangipo 0 411 411 Waikeria 203 631 834 Wanganui 19 334 353 Wellington 0 120 120 Total Males 1072 4833 5905 Total in custody 1145 5095 6240

Department of Corrections Census 2003 13 2.2 Deportation As shown in Table 2-2, 24 inmates were subject to a deportation order at the end of their sentence. Rimutaka Prison held the largest number of inmates to be deported in one location (5 inmates). Of these 24 sentenced inmates, 2 were female (both European); 14 had committed violent or sex offences. The ethnicity breakdown was 7 Europeans, 7 Asians, 8 Pacific people and 2 Africans.

Table 2-2 Planned deportation of sentenced inmates by institution Planned Prison deportations Rimutaka 5 Tongariro/Rangipo 4 Hawkes Bay 4 Waikeria 2 Arohata 2 Wellington 1 Wanganui 1 Ohura 1 Mt Eden Mens 1 Manawatu 1 Christchurch 1 Auckland 1 Total 24 As recorded in IOMS release records at 1 May 2004 for census inmates. Planned deportations on actual census day may have been less than this.

14 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

2.3 Segregation

Inmates are separated from the general prison population if the inmate requests this (usually because of personal fears for his/her safety), or if a prison manager judges the inmate to pose a risk to himself / herself or to others. Inmates who have sought segregation have contact only with other inmates similarly segregated, while those whose segregation has been imposed may have little or no contact with other inmates. As far as possible, however, segregated inmates are subject to the same rules, routines and privileges as apply generally to inmates.

Inmates may be segregated within a single unit within a prison, or placed in a prison that exclusively houses segregated inmates (e.g., Wellington Prison). At the time of the census 1,171 inmates were categorised as segregated; all but four of these were males.

Table 2-3 Segregation of remanded and sentenced inmates by institution Segregated Total Percent Prison Inmates Inmates Segregated Women’s Prisons Arohata 2 133 1.5% Christchurch Womens 1931.1% Mt Eden Womens 0530.0% Waikeria 1561.8% Female total 4 335 1.2% Men’s Prisons ACRP 84 287 29.3% Auckland 151 637 23.7% Christchurch 88 681 12.9% Dunedin 75313.2% Hawkes Bay 31 541 5.7% Invercargill 55 163 33.7% Manawatu 52 269 19.3% Mt Eden Mens 110 416 26.4% New Plymouth 8 101 7.9% Ohura 1951.1% Rimutaka 59 627 9.4% Rolleston 30 317 9.5% Tongariro/Rangipo 210 411 51.1% Waikeria 120 834 14.4% Wanganui 54 353 15.3% Wellington 107 120 89.2% Male total 1167 5905 19.8% As recorded from IOMS active segregation alerts.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 15 2.4 Inmate Ethnicity by Institution Of the 5,095 sentenced inmates, approximately 49 percent were identified as Māori, 38 percent as European, 11 percent as Pacific and a further 2 percent as either Asian or “other” ethnicity. The ethnicity of 21 male inmates was not available. The ethnicity mix varied greatly from prison to prison. For instance almost 70 percent of the women in Arohata prison were Māori, whereas the figure for Invercargill men’s prison was only 28 percent. On the other hand Europeans represented greater than 70 percent of the population of Rolleston men’s prison. Prisons with the largest numeric Māori population were Waikeria with 565, Hawkes Bay (356), Auckland (315), and Rimutaka (301). Prisons with the largest European population were Christchurch with 396, Rolleston (224), Waikeria (216) and Rimutaka (191). Prisons with the largest Pacific people populations were Auckland with 123, Rimutaka (102), Mount Eden (78) and Hawkes Bay (56).

Table 2-4 Primary ethnicity of sentenced inmates by institution Pacific Māori European Asian Other Unknown Total Peoples Women's prisons Arohata 80 26 8 1 0 0 115 Christchurch Womens 33 45 1 2 0 0 81 Mt Eden Womens 8 3 0 0 0 0 11 Waikeria 27 18 7 2 1 0 55 Total women 148 92 16 5 1 0 262 Percentage women 56.5% 35.1% 6.1% 1.9% 0.4% 0.0% 100% Men's prisons ACRP 11 9 7 5 0 0 32 Auckland 315 177 123 10 7 4 636 Christchurch 183 334 30 5 1 0 553 Dunedin 9 21 2 0 0 0 32 Hawkes Bay 316 103 55 12 3 2 491 Invercargill 37 102 6 1 0 1 147 Manawatu 117 77 24 2 1 0 221 Mt Eden Mens 76 66 35 7 1 1 186 New Plymouth 50 28 3 0 0 0 81 Ohura 39 37 18 1 0 0 95 Rimutaka 256 164 98 20 8 0 546 Rolleston 80 224 8 3 1 1 317 Tongariro/Rangipo 195 152 53 8 3 0 411 Waikeria 424 160 35 10 2 0 631 Wanganui 191 106 25 5 0 7 334 Wellington 36 62 15 4 3 0 120 Total men 2335 1822 537 93 30 16 4833 Percentage men 48.3% 37.7% 11.1% 1.9% 0.6% 0.3% 100% Total sentenced 2483 1914 553 98 31 16 5095 Percentage sentenced 48.7% 37.6% 10.9% 1.9% 0.6% 0.3% 100% The ethnicity of inmates for this table was obtained directly from IOMS, with only the primary ethnicity being analysed. Ethnicity is self-identification of inmate. Where an inmate identifies with multiple ethnicities at interview time they are asked to rank these in order of importance to themselves.

16 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Table 2-5 Primary ethnicity of remanded inmates by institution Pacific Māori European Asian Other Unknown Total Peoples Women's prisons Arohata 12 5 0 0 1 0 18 Christchurch Womens 7 5 0 0 0 0 12 Mt Eden Womens 23 12 3 1 3 0 42 Waikeria 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Total women 43 22 3 1 4 0 73 Percentage women 58.9% 30.1% 4.1% 1.4% 5.5% 0.0% 100% Men's prisons ACRP 123 59 42 14 16 1 255 Auckland 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Christchurch 53 62 4 7 1 1 128 Dunedin 7 12 2 0 0 0 21 Hawkes Bay 40 6 1 2 0 1 50 Invercargill 9 6 0 0 0 1 16 Manawatu 23 25 0 0 0 0 48 Mt Eden Mens 109 51 43 19 8 0 230 New Plymouth 14 6 0 0 0 0 20 Rimutaka 45 27 4 3 1 1 81 Waikeria 141 56 5 1 0 0 203 Wanganui 14 5 0 0 0 0 19 Total men 578 316 101 46 26 5 1072 Percentage men 53.9% 29.5% 9.4% 4.3% 2.4% 0.5% 100% Total remanded 621 338 104 47 30 5 1145 Percentage remanded 54.2% 29.5% 9.1% 4.1% 2.6% 0.4% 100% The ethnicity of inmates for this table was obtained directly from IOMS, with only the primary ethnicity being analysed. Ethnicity here is regarded as a social attribute not racial attribute. Where an inmate identifies with multiple ethnicities at interview time they are asked to rank these in order of importance to themselves.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 17

3 Demographics

3.1 Age Forty three percent of sentenced inmates were less than 30 years old; however, only a small proportion (6.7%) were under 20 years of age.

Table 3-1 Age of sentenced inmates Female Male Total Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 14 – 16 4 1.5% 12 0.2% 16 0.3% 17 – 19 22 8.4% 305 6.3% 327 6.4% 20 – 24 48 18.3% 898 18.6% 946 18.6% 25 – 29 39 14.9% 865 17.9% 904 17.7% 30 – 34 46 17.6% 806 16.7% 852 16.7% 35 – 39 41 15.6% 632 13.1% 673 13.2% 40 – 49 43 16.4% 802 16.6% 845 16.6% 50 – 59 13 5.0% 314 6.5% 327 6.4% 60+ 1 0.4% 134 2.8% 135 2.6% Age not available 5 1.9% 65 1.3% 70 1.4% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

3.2 Ethnicity Inmate ethnicity data was obtained directly from IOMS. This information is collected by Corrections staff in an interview which forms part of an induction process; what is recorded is simply the inmate’s self-identification of ethnicity. An inmate may identify with more than one ethnicity – there are in fact 230 ethnicity options available. Those who choose more than one ethnicity are also asked to rank these in order of “priority”. There were 1,261 sentenced inmates who identified with more than one ethnicity; when available ethnicity options are grouped as European, Māori, Pacific or “Other”, most (91%) sentenced inmates identified with ethnicities within one of these four groupings. For more details of groupings see section 15.10 Preferred ethnicity and combined ethnicity

Table 3-2 Ethnic group of sentenced inmates Female Male Total Ethnic group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent European 82 31.3% 1725 35.7% 1807 35.5% European and Māori 16 6.1% 170 3.5% 186 3.7% Māori 133 50.8% 2196 45.4% 2329 45.7% Māori and Pacific 4 1.5% 82 1.7% 86 1.7% Pacific Peoples 13 5.0% 472 9.8% 485 9.5% Other (incl. Asian) 14 5.3% 188 3.9% 202 4.0% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. The ethnic groups used above are as for previous census reports however it should be noted that this format masks much of the cultural diversity recorded by the inmates. In the categories “European and Māori” and “Māori and Pacific” no importance is attached to the Order of ethnicity used in the group title.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 19 3.3 Age and Ethnicity Male sentenced inmates Table 3-3 shows that the proportion of Māori inmates under 30 years is greater than the proportion of European inmates under 30 years.

Table 3-3 Ethnic group by age for male sentenced inmates Māori European Pacific Asian Other/NA Total Age No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % <15 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.0 15 - 19 176 7.5 99 5.4 36 6.7 3 3.2 1 2.2 314 6.5 20-24 486 20.8 246 13.5 135 25.1 23 24.7 8 17.4 898 18.6 25-29 475 20.3 252 13.8 108 20.1 21 22.6 9 19.6 865 17.9 30-34 397 17.0 316 17.3 70 13.0 15 16.1 8 17.4 806 16.7 35-39 315 13.5 242 13.3 62 11.5 6 6.5 7 15.2 632 13.1 40-49 340 14.6 357 19.6 74 13.8 22 23.7 9 19.6 802 16.6 50-59 87 3.7 193 10.6 32 6.0 1 1.1 1 2.2 314 6.5 60+ 34 1.5 87 4.8 10 1.9 2 2.2 1 2.2 134 2.8 NA 25 1.1 30 1.6 8 1.5 0 0.0 2 4.3 65 1.3 Total 2335 100.0 1822 100.0 537 100.0 93 100.0 46 100.0 4833 100.0 ‘NA’ represents where age or ethnicity was not available.

Female sentenced inmates The age profiles for Māori and Pacific female inmates tend to have a greater proportion of under 30 year olds than for Europeans.

Table 3-4 Ethnic group by age for female sentenced inmates Māori European Pacific Asian Other/NA Total Age No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 14 - 16 4 2.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 1.5 17 - 19 17 11.5 3 3.3 2 12.5 0.0 0.0 22 8.4 20-24 31 20.9 12 13.0 4 25.0 0.0 1 100.0 48 18.3 25-29 18 12.2 15 16.3 4 25.0 2 40.0 0.0 39 14.9 30-34 29 19.6 14 15.2 3 18.8 0.0 0.0 46 17.6 35-39 22 14.9 17 18.5 1 6.3 1 20.0 0.0 41 15.6 40-49 19 12.8 22 23.9 1 6.3 1 20.0 0.0 43 16.4 50-59 5 3.4 7 7.6 0.0 1 20.0 0.0 13 5.0 60+ 0 0.0 0.0 1 6.3 0.0 0.0 1 0.4 NA 3 2.0 2 2.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 1.9 Total 148 100.0 92 100.0 16 100.0 5 100.0 1 100.0 262 100.0 ‘NA’ represents where age or ethnicity was not available.

20 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

3.4 Iwi affiliation Fifty-four percent of sentenced inmates that identified a primary ethnicity of Māori also identified an iwi affiliation (86 women and 1,315 men). Of the 1401 inmates that identified with an iwi, 357 identified with two iwi and 100 identified with more than two iwi. Only the primary iwi affiliation identified by inmates is analysed below. To simplify these iwi affiliations, iwi have been grouped according to regions.

Table 3-5 Region of iwi identified by sentenced inmates. Female Male Total Region of iwi No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent Northland / Auckland 26 30.2% 370 28.1% 396 28.3% Hauraki 0.0% 12 0.9% 12 0.9% Waikato / King Country 5 5.8% 138 10.5% 143 10.2% Te Arawa / Taupo 5 5.8% 133 10.1% 138 9.9% Bay Of Plenty 20 23.3% 197 15.0% 217 15.5% East Coast 11 12.8% 188 14.3% 199 14.2% Hawkes Bay / Wairarapa 11 12.8% 113 8.6% 124 8.9% Taranaki 3 3.5% 52 4.0% 55 3.9% Whanganui 0.0% 23 1.7% 23 1.6% Manawatu/ Horowhenua/ Wellington 1 1.2% 42 3.2% 43 3.1% South Island / Chatham Island 4 4.7% 47 3.6% 51 3.6% Total 86 100% 1315 100% 1401 100% Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Geographical location of iwi is derived from Statistics New Zealand conventions. For a full listing of iwi matched to region, see Section 15.14 Iwi Regions.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 21

4 Current Sentence

4.1 Sentence Length The most common sentence lengths imposed on inmates were between one and two years. Males tended to have longer sentences than females. For male inmates, 26 percent were serving determinate sentences of more than five years, compared to 12.6 percent for females. Sentences of life imprisonment were being served by 6.2 percent of inmates.

Table 4-1 Custodial period imposed for sentenced inmates Female Male Total Custodial period imposed Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Up to 3 months 8 3.1% 34 0.7% 42 0.8% > 3 to 6 months 23 8.8% 185 3.8% 208 4.1% > 6 to 12 months 47 17.9% 536 11.1% 583 11.4% > 1 to 2 years 51 19.5% 915 18.9% 966 19.0% > 2 to 3 years 49 18.7% 676 14.0% 725 14.2% > 3 to 5 years 33 12.6% 776 16.1% 809 15.9% > 5 to 7 years 21 8.0% 451 9.3% 472 9.3% > 7 to 10 years 8 3.1% 523 10.8% 531 10.4% > 10 years 4 1.5% 287 5.9% 291 5.7% Preventive detention 143 3.0% 143 2.8% Life 18 6.9% 299 6.2% 317 6.2% Life&PD 8 0.2% 8 0.2% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. See 15.3 Custodial Period Imposed for definition used here.

4.2 Time left to serve The custody of each inmate has an end-point date (known as the “statutory release date” for those sentenced after 1 July 2002 - the date of the introduction of the Sentencing and Parole Acts - or “final release date” for those sentenced before that date). Inmates eligible for parole may be released before these dates. As can be seen in the table below, the majority (79%) of inmates were due for release within two years of census day. Only three percent had final release dates of over five years beyond the census date. Reflecting the more serious nature of their offending, male inmates had more distant release dates, with proportionately fewer being due for release within 12 months of the census date.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 23 Table 4-2 Time left to serve until final/statutory release date for sentenced inmates Female Male Total Time left to serve Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Up to 3 months 77 29.4% 949 19.6% 1026 20.1% > 3 to 6 months 49 18.7% 650 13.4% 699 13.7% > 6 to 12 months 18 6.9% 565 11.7% 583 11.4% > 1 to 2 years 34 13.0% 708 14.6% 742 14.6% > 2 to 3 years 35 13.4% 615 12.7% 650 12.8% > 3 to 5 years 18 6.9% 502 10.4% 520 10.2% > 5 to 7 years 9 3.4% 187 3.9% 196 3.8% > 7 to 10 years 2 0.8% 117 2.4% 119 2.3% > 10 years 1 0.4% 49 1.0% 50 1.0% Not recorded/Other 19 7.3% 491 10.2% 510 10.0% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Not recorded/Other refers to inmates with life and preventative detention sentences or data not available.

4.3 Major Offence The majority of imprisoned offenders receive their sentence for more than one offence or conviction. Typical also is a disparate mixture of offences such as driving, dishonesty and violence (the average number of separate “sentences” per inmate relating to the current term of imprisonment was six). For the purposes of analysis, including this census, offence type for a sentence is frequently reduced to simply the “most serious offence”1. Using this convention, violent offending was the most common cause of imprisonment. Thirty-six percent of (sentenced) inmates were in prison for offences broadly classified as violent. Almost a quarter of male inmates were imprisoned for a sex offence, compared to only 3.4 percent of female inmates. In proportionate terms, females were more likely to be imprisoned for property and drugs offences than their male counterparts.

Table 4-3 Major offence of sentenced inmates Female Male Total Major offence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Violence 94 35.9% 1759 36.4% 1853 36.4% Property 83 31.7% 1048 21.7% 1131 22.2% Sex 9 3.4% 1096 22.7% 1105 21.7% Drugs 46 17.6% 403 8.3% 449 8.8% Traffic 22 8.4% 398 8.2% 420 8.2% Misc 8 3.1% 129 2.7% 137 2.7% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

4.4 Major offence of segregated inmates Nineteen percent (993) of all sentenced inmates were segregated, with the vast majority of these segregated at their own request. Segregation was most common amongst sex offenders. For details on use of segregation by institution (for sentenced and remand

1 Offence classifications are derived from Police codes and classifications; where there is more than one offence, “most serious offence” ranking is made using Ministry of Justice “seriousness of offence scale”. For more on this see section 15.11 Offence categories.

24 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

inmates) see section 2.3 Segregation. As is apparent in the following table, very few female inmates seek, or require, segregation.

Table 4-4 Segregated inmates by major offence Female Male Total Offence type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Sex 1 25.0% 422 42.7% 423 42.6% Violence 3 75.0% 270 27.3% 273 27.5% Property 0.0% 195 19.7% 195 19.6% Drugs 0.0% 39 3.9% 39 3.9% Misc 0.0% 35 3.5% 35 3.5% Traffic 0.0% 28 2.8% 28 2.8% Total segregated 4 100.0% 989 100.0% 993 100.0% Percentage may not add to 100 due to rounding.

4.5 Violent and sex offenders Within the broad category of “offending against the person”, male and female inmates generally had committed different sub-types of offences. Sex offences were proportionately more common amongst males (38%) than for females (9%), whereas women had a higher rate of homicide (29% vs 15%).

Table 4-5 Violent offences of sentenced inmates Female Male Total Violent offence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Sex 9 8.7% 1096 38.4% 1105 37.4% Robbery 24 23.3% 565 19.8% 589 19.9% Grievous Assaults 27 26.2% 534 18.7% 561 19.0% Homicide 30 29.1% 419 14.7% 449 15.2% Serious Assaults 6 5.8% 119 4.2% 125 4.2% Intimidation/Threats 6 5.8% 61 2.1% 67 2.3% Kidnapping And Abduction 0.0% 60 2.1% 60 2.0% Minor Assaults 1 1.0% 1 0.0% 2 0.1% Total 103 100.0% 2855 100.0% 2958 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

4.6 Security Classification Males tended to have a higher security status than females. For male sentenced inmates, 51.5 percent were in medium security, 44.6 percent were held in minimum security, with only 1.9 percent held in maximum security. For female sentenced inmates, 26 percent were medium security and 71 percent were minimum security.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 25 Table 4-6 Security status for sentenced inmates Female Male Total Security status Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Maximum 0.0% 90 1.9% 90 1.8% High Medium 23 8.8% 697 14.4% 720 14.1% Low Medium 45 17.2% 1794 37.1% 1839 36.1% Minimum 186 71.0% 2154 44.6% 2340 45.9% Unclassified 8 3.1% 98 2.0% 106 2.1% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

4.7 Risk of Re-offending All sentenced inmates are assessed in terms of their risk of re-conviction and re- imprisonment, using a statistical indicator known as “RoC*RoI” (Risk of re- Conviction/Risk of re-Imprisonment). Risk assessment is used by the Department to ensure that rehabilitative services are directed at those most likely to re-offend. The risk score assigned to an individual is a decimal between 0.0 and 0.99. A score of 0.5 suggests that the individual has a 50 percent probability of being re-imprisoned within five years (alternatively, if 100 individual offenders with this score were followed up over five years, approximately 50 would be expected to be re-imprisoned within this time). Key variables used in determining an individual’s risk rating include the offender’s current age, age at first conviction, number and seriousness of convictions, and time elapsed between convictions. Research conducted by the Department confirms RoC*RoI as an accurate measure of an individual’s probability of further offending1. The table below indicates the percentage of sentenced inmates in each decile band. The male census population tended towards higher risk levels, something commonly found when inmates are compared to non-imprisoned offenders (i.e., those serving community sentences). Census females tended to display lower-risk scores than males, consistent with the finding of considerably lower recidivism rates amongst female offenders generally.

Table 4-7 Risk scores of sentenced inmates Female Male Total Risk Groups Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than 0.1 42 16.0% 285 5.9% 327 6.4% 0.1 – 0.19 25 9.5% 239 4.9% 264 5.2% 0.2 – 0.29 25 9.5% 231 4.8% 256 5.0% 0.3 – 0.39 30 11.5% 257 5.3% 287 5.6% 0.4 – 0.49 27 10.3% 304 6.3% 331 6.5% 0.5 – 0.59 23 8.8% 392 8.1% 415 8.1% 0.6 – 0.69 17 6.5% 472 9.8% 489 9.6% 0.7 – 0.79 14 5.3% 571 11.8% 585 11.5% 0.8 – 0.89 13 5.0% 603 12.5% 616 12.1% 0.9 – 0.99 1 0.4% 268 5.5% 269 5.3% No score available 45 17.2% 1211 25.1% 1256 24.7% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

1 L Bakker, D Riley, J O’Malley, Risk of Reconviction, 1999, Department of Corrections, Wellington.

26 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

5 Offending History

5.1 Previous Sentences The number of previous sentences served by offenders gives an indication of the extent of offending “careers”. In reporting counts of previous sentences received by offenders, it is important to clarify that this term is not equivalent to previous offences, charges or convictions. Counted here is the number of Court-imposed sentences administered by the Department of Corrections (i.e., either community sentences or imprisonment, but not including fines, discharge following conviction, or other lesser sentences). Sentences associated with the inmate's current custodial period are excluded. Further important information about the definition of “sentences” used here is covered in Section 17.2. On average, female inmates had fewer previous sentences than their male counterparts. Over a third (34%) of female sentenced inmates had no previous sentences, but 44 percent had more than ten previous sentences. For male sentenced inmates, 21 percent had no previous sentences, and over half (55%) had more than ten previous sentences. Interestingly, 3.8 percent of sentenced inmates, and 6.6 percent of remand inmates (see Section 11.3 for remanded inmate data) had more than 100 previous sentences.

Table 5-1 Number of previous sentences for sentenced inmates Number of previous Female Male Total sentences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 89 34.0% 1001 20.7% 1090 21.4% 1 – 10 57 21.8% 1140 23.6% 1197 23.5% 11 – 20 20 7.6% 699 14.5% 719 14.1% 21 – 30 23 8.8% 537 11.1% 560 11.0% 31 – 40 16 6.1% 383 7.9% 399 7.8% 41 – 50 15 5.7% 282 5.8% 297 5.8% 51 – 60 6 2.3% 207 4.3% 213 4.2% 61 – 70 9 3.4% 168 3.5% 177 3.5% 71 – 80 4 1.5% 86 1.8% 90 1.8% 81 – 90 7 2.7% 88 1.8% 95 1.9% 91 – 100 1 0.4% 62 1.3% 63 1.2% 100 – 200 12 4.6% 153 3.2% 165 3.2% 200 + 3 1.1% 27 0.6% 30 0.6% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

5.2 Age at first sentence Almost half of all inmates received a Corrections-administered sentence for the first time between the ages of 17 and 19. For men, 60 percent had their first sentence by the age of nineteen. Eighty-three percent of male inmates and 74 percent of female inmates had their first sentence by the age of 29 years.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 27 Table 5-2 Age at first sentence for sentenced inmates Female Male Total Age at first sentence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent <14 10.0% 1 0.0% 14 - 16 17 6.5% 513 10.6% 530 10.4% 17 - 19 88 33.6% 2395 49.6% 2483 48.7% 20 - 24 56 21.4% 799 16.5% 855 16.8% 25 - 29 32 12.2% 289 6.0% 321 6.3% 30 - 34 22 8.4% 226 4.7% 248 4.9% 35 - 39 18 6.9% 152 3.1% 170 3.3% 40 - 49 16 6.1% 211 4.4% 227 4.5% 50 - 59 7 2.7% 117 2.4% 124 2.4% 60 + 67 1.4% 67 1.3% Not available 6 2.3% 63 1.3% 69 1.4% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

5.3 Previous Major Offence The major categories of previous offending1 revealed a similar profile for men and women. The most common previous offences for which sentences were imposed were property-related. Violent offending was the next most common previous offence type. Proportionately more females than males had no previous sentences.

Table 5-3 Previous major offence of sentenced inmates Previous major Female Male Total offence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Property 83 31.7% 1386 28.7% 1469 28.8% Violence 22 8.4% 788 16.3% 810 15.9% Traffic 32 12.2% 703 14.5% 735 14.4% Misc 20 7.6% 480 9.9% 500 9.8% Drugs 15 5.7% 237 4.9% 252 4.9% Sex 165 3.4% 165 3.2% No previous 90 34.4% 1074 22.2% 1164 22.8% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

5.4 Previous Major Offence for Violent Offenders Table 5-4 focuses on inmates whose major offence (for the current sentence) was violence-related (excluding sex offences). For those previously convicted, more often than not the previous offence for these offenders was non-violent. Table 5-4 shows that of the 1,853 inmates whose current major offence is for violence, 16 female and 415 male sentenced inmates had served a previous sentence where the major offence was also violent.

28 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Table 5-4 Previous major offence of inmates currently sentenced for violence. Female Male Total Major previous convictions Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Property 23 24.5% 467 26.5% 490 26.4% Violence 16 17.0% 415 23.6% 431 23.3% Traffic 4 4.3% 205 11.7% 209 11.3% Misc 10 10.6% 169 9.6% 179 9.7% Drugs 2 2.1% 74 4.2% 76 4.1% Sex 0.0% 25 1.4% 25 1.3% No previous 39 41.5% 404 23.0% 443 23.9% Total currently in for violence 94 100.0% 1759 100.0% 1853 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

5.5 Previous Periods in Custody A much larger proportion of female (62%) than male (40%) inmates had no previous terms in custody. The smaller proportion of female inmates (23%) who had served two or more previous terms in prison (compared to males, 45%) also reflects the tendency for women inmates to re-offend less frequently and/or seriously.

Table 5-5 Previous periods in custody for sentenced inmates Number of previous Female Male Total custodial sentences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 161 61.5% 1947 40.3% 2108 41.4% 1 41 15.6% 708 14.6% 749 14.7% 2 17 6.5% 500 10.3% 517 10.1% 3-5 28 10.7% 882 18.2% 910 17.9% 6-10 10 3.8% 584 12.1% 594 11.7% 11-20 5 1.9% 194 4.0% 199 3.9% 21-50 0.0% 18 0.4% 18 0.4% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Table 5-6 shows that 41 percent of inmates had not previously spent time in prison. However for those with previous custodial periods, around 35 percent have had cumulative custodial periods imposed totalling more than two years. Note that this is different to actual time served, which is typically within the range of one-third to two- thirds of the custodial period imposed. See 15.3 Custodial Period Imposed for more on this.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 29 Table 5-6 Total time imposed in previous custodial sentences for sentenced inmates Total time imposed in previous Female Male Total custodial sentences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent < 1 year 44 16.8% 666 13.8% 710 13.9% 1 22 8.4% 449 9.3% 471 9.2% 2 14 5.3% 352 7.3% 366 7.2% 3 3 1.1% 246 5.1% 249 4.9% 4 5 1.9% 233 4.8% 238 4.7% 5 5 1.9% 180 3.7% 185 3.6% 6 2 0.8% 152 3.1% 154 3.0% 7 4 1.5% 114 2.4% 118 2.3% 8 70 1.4% 70 1.4% 9 70 1.4% 70 1.4% >10 years/ life/ preventative detention 2 0.8% 354 7.3% 356 7.0% No previous custody 161 61.5% 1947 40.3% 2134 41.4% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

5.6 Age at First Custodial Sentence Approximately 40 percent of the sentenced inmates first served a custodial sentence as a teenager. This rate was higher for males (41%) than females (22.5%). Only 12 percent of male inmates, and 13 percent of females, experienced their first custodial sentence when aged 40 or older.

Table 5-7 Age at first custodial sentence for sentenced inmates Female Male Total Age at first custodial sentence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 13 - 16 11 4.2% 284 5.9% 295 5.8% 17 - 19 48 18.3% 1687 34.9% 1735 34.1% 20 - 24 59 22.5% 1106 22.9% 1165 22.9% 25 - 29 41 15.6% 531 11.0% 572 11.2% 30 - 34 31 11.8% 331 6.8% 362 7.1% 35 - 39 31 11.8% 248 5.1% 279 5.5% 40 - 49 23 8.8% 352 7.3% 375 7.4% 50 - 59 12 4.6% 160 3.3% 172 3.4% 60 + 0.0% 74 1.5% 74 1.5% Not recorded 6 2.3% 60 1.2% 66 1.3% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding

30 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

6 Gang Membership

6.1 Gang Membership Gang membership information is established during inmate reception interviews and stored in the IOMS database. Membership of a gang was identified for 587 or 11.5 percent of the sentenced inmates, including 21 women. Over two thirds of those individuals belonged to either the Mongrel Mob or Black Power gangs.

Table 6-1 Gang membership of sentenced inmates Female Male Total Gang Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Mongrel Mob 12 57.1% 194 34.3% 206 35.1% Black Power 5 23.8% 188 33.2% 193 32.9% Nomads 0.0% 25 4.4% 25 4.3% Highway 61 1 4.8% 16 2.8% 17 2.9% Tribesman 0.0% 16 2.8% 16 2.7% Crypts 0.0% 16 2.8% 16 2.7% White Power 0.0% 14 2.5% 14 2.4% Skin Heads 0.0% 14 2.5% 14 2.4% Road Knights 0.0% 13 2.3% 13 2.2% All Other Gangs 3 14.3% 70 12.4% 73 12.4% Total 21 100.0% 566 100.0% 587 100.0%

6.2 Major Offence Sixty-two percent of sentenced gang members were imprisoned for violence or sexual violence1. This was a slightly higher rate than for those without gang connections (58%).

Table 6-2 Major offence of gang sentenced inmates Gang members Other inmates Total Major offence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Violence 289 49.2% 1564 34.7% 1853 36.4% Property 130 22.1% 1001 22.2% 1131 22.2% Sexual Violence 76 12.9% 1029 22.8% 1105 21.7% Drugs 50 8.5% 399 8.9% 449 8.8% Traffic 29 4.9% 391 8.7% 420 8.2% Misc 13 2.2% 124 2.8% 137 2.7% Total 587 100.0% 4508 100.0% 5095 100.0%

Department of Corrections Census 2003 31

7 Education and Incomes

7.1 Highest Educational Level Attended Just over 5 percent of sentenced inmates are recorded as not having attended secondary school at all. In total 45 percent of sentenced inmates had left school before reaching Year 11 (Form 5).

Table 7-1 Highest educational level attended by sentenced inmates Female Male Total Highest educational level attended Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent < Year 9 (Primary school) 17 6.5% 256 5.3% 273 5.4% Year 9 (Form 3) 33 12.6% 874 18.1% 907 17.8% Year 10 (Form 4) 62 23.7% 1067 22.1% 1129 22.2% Year 11 (Form 5) 88 33.6% 1338 27.7% 1426 28.0% Year 12 (Form 6) 38 14.5% 381 7.9% 419 8.2% Year 13 (Form 7) 7 2.7% 123 2.5% 130 2.6% Tertiary 5 1.9% 68 1.4% 73 1.4% Not educated in New Zealand 5 1.9% 61 1.3% 66 1.3% Not recorded 7 2.7% 665 13.8% 672 13.2% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

7.2 Education Qualifications For reasons that are unclear, almost one third of the IOMS records of sentenced inmates at the time of the census contained no data on the level of educational achievement. Available information however did suggest that the majority of inmates have no educational qualifications, with just 16 percent recorded as having a qualification such as School Certificate or higher.

Table 7-2 Educational qualifications obtained by sentenced inmates Female Male Total Post-school qualifications/courses Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent No qualifications 122 46.6% 2514 52.0% 2636 51.7% NZ school certificate 42 16.0% 449 9.3% 491 9.6% NZ Higher school /Uni. Entrance 15 5.7% 172 3.6% 187 3.7% Other NZ/Overseas school 6 2.3% 60 1.2% 66 1.3% Vocational 3 1.1% 49 1.0% 52 1.0% Bachelors/Higher degree 2 0.8% 15 0.3% 17 0.3% Not recorded 72 27.5% 1574 32.6% 1646 32.3% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

7.3 Income Sources Prior to entering prison, a greater proportion of sentenced females than males were receiving a benefit (males 28%, females 47%) while a greater proportion of males than females were in paid employment (males 45%, females 35%).

Department of Corrections Census 2003 33 Table 7-3 Source of income prior to entering prison of sentenced inmates Female Male Total Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Paid work 91 34.7% 2178 45.1% 2269 44.5% Unemployment benefit/community wage 48 18.3% 974 20.2% 1022 20.1% Sickness or invalids benefit 27 10.3% 324 6.7% 351 6.9% Domestic purposes benefit 48 18.3% 72 1.5% 120 2.4% “Proceeds of crime” 8 3.1% 151 3.1% 159 3.1% Other/unknown 40 15.3% 1134 23.5% 1174 23.0% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

34 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

8 Programmes

8.1 Inmate Programmes As part of the Department’s objective of reducing re-offending, a range of programmes is made available to inmates, designed to modify antisocial attitudes and behaviour, and to prepare inmates for reintegration to the community. Inmates typically participate in these programmes towards the end of the inmate’s sentence In addition to the core programmes, structured activities are available including employment training in specific prison industries, unit-based employment, education and organised recreation. Further, inmates may reside in special focus units, where the residents’ daily activities are structured around the achievement of specific rehabilitative objectives. The table below lists the special focus units and their occupancy on census day.

Table 8-1 Sentenced inmates resident in special focus units. Female Male Total Special focus unit Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alcohol and drug treatment units 17 6.5% 104 2.1% 121 2.4% Sex offender treatment units 121 2.5% 121 2.4% Violence treatment unit 28 0.6% 28 0.5% Māori focus units 273 5.6% 273 5.4% Faith-based unit 59 1.2% 59 1.2% Youth units 115 2.4% 115 2.3% Self-care units 29 11.1% 55 1.1% 84 1.6% Standard units 216 82.4% 4128 84.5% 4294 84.3% Total sentenced inmates 262 100.0% 4883 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. In addition to the sentenced inmates listed above a further 21 remanded youth were housed in the youth units.

While the special focus units use a more holistic approach to addressing rehabiliatative issues, the Department also runs other targeted programmes for inmates. The table below lists some of these. It should be noted that a large number of inmates participate in rehabilitative programmes, but these are scheduled to occur at certain phases of the inmate’s sentence. National Certificate in Employment Skills (NCES) numbers in the table below reflect the fact that, in two prison regions, the contract between Corrections and its education services provider had recently been terminated, and contracts with new providers had yet to be finalised.

Table 8-2 Sentenced inmates currently participating in reintegrative programmes

Number Programme participating: Straight Thinking 123 Tikanga Māori 89 100 hour “criminogenic” programmes 57 Living skills course 7 National Certificate in Employment Skills (NCES) courses 658 Totals not given, as inmates may be involved in more than one activity concurrently

Department of Corrections Census 2003 35 Employment skills training is also an important aspect of the rehabilitative approach within prisons. On the basis of an assessed need for such training, inmates are placed either in specific prison-based industries (operated by the Corrections Inmate Employment group, or CIE), or in unit-based employment (cleaning, laundry, servery, etc). A small number of selected inmates are allowed to work in the community if they are within a short time of their release. In general, inmates housed in maximum security facilities and those on remand are least likely to have employment. Others may be prevented due to health issues, segregation, or similar management considerations. Inmate placements on or near census day are described below.

Table 8-3 Inmates (remand and sentenced) and employment.

Employment activity Number Percent Corrections Inmate Employment (CIE) placement 1598 25.6 Unit-based employment 2254 36.1 “Release to Work” 13 0.01 Not currently employed 2375 38.1 Total 6240 100.0

36 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

8.2 Inmate health Prison health services provided data on medication programmes for inmates on census day. Approximately 39 percent of female and 25 percent of male inmates (sentenced and remands) were receiving non-psychiatric medication. A further 15 percent of female and 7 percent of male inmates were receiving some form of psychiatric medication.

Table 8-4 Sentenced and remand inmates currently receiving medication Non psychiatric Psychiatric medication prescribed medication Prison Total Percent of Percent of inmates Number total inmates Number total inmates Women’s Prisons Arohata 133 65 48.9% 12 9.0% Christchurch 93 22 23.7% 26 28.0% Mt Eden 53 22 41.5% 5 9.4% Waikeria (See men's prison) Total women 279 109 39.1% 43 15.4% Men’s Prisons ACRP 287 84 29.3% 23 8.0% Auckland 637 243 38.1% 70 10.1% Christchurch 681 152 22.3% 46 6.8% Dunedin 53 15 28.3% 0 0.0% Hawkes Bay 541 67 12.4% 20 3.7% Invercargill 163 77 47.2% 31 19.0% Manawatu 269 71 26.4% 30 11.2% Mt Eden 416 278 66.8% ! psy plus non-psy New Plymouth 101 21 20.8% 2 2.0% Ohura 95 8 8.4% 4 4.2% Rimutaka 627 86 13.7% 38 6.1% Rolleston 317 34 10.7% 10 3.2% Tongariro/Rangipo 411 56 13.6% 36 8.8% Waikeria (men + women) 834+ 56 58 6.5% 21 2.5% Wanganui 353 145 41.1% 35 9.9% Wellington 120 101 84.2% 35 29.2% Total men 5961 1496 25.1% 401 6.7% Total inmates 6240 1605 25.7% 444 7.1% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. The data available for Mt Eden did not distinguish between psychiatric and non-psychiatric medication. The data available for Waikeria did not distinguish between men and women.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 37

9 Children and Marriage

9.1 Marriage Most sentenced inmates were single (females 53%, males 56%). Almost one-quarter were either married or in de facto relationships (24%).

Table 9-1 Marital status for sentenced inmates

Marital status Female Male Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Never married 140 53.4% 2732 56.5% 2872 56.4% De facto spouse (opposite-sex) 43 16.4% 675 14.0% 718 14.1% Married 26 9.9% 462 9.6% 488 9.6% Separated 22 8.4% 296 6.1% 318 6.2% Divorced 14 5.3% 140 2.9% 154 3.0% Widowed 1 0.4% 34 0.7% 35 0.7% De facto spouse (same-sex) 5 1.9% 17 0.4% 22 0.4% Not specified 11 4.2% 477 9.9% 488 9.6% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

9.2 Living with Children Figures in relation to inmates’ children was drawn largely from IOMS data entered during inmate induction interviews, with additional information gathered on census day (for more information on data collection issues, see Section 17 below). Of interest was the number of inmates who were caring for dependent children prior to entering prison. Thirty five percent of female and twelve percent of male sentenced inmates were recorded as having child custodial dependents at the time of their imprisonment.

Table 9-2 Sentenced inmates with child custodial dependents at imprisonment Female Male Total Child custodial dependents Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 169 64.5% 3765 77.9% 3934 77.2% 1 36 13.7% 232 4.8% 268 5.3% 2 24 9.2% 145 3.0% 169 3.3% 3 17 6.5% 95 2.0% 112 2.2% 4 9 3.4% 45 0.9% 54 1.1% 5 3 1.1% 32 0.7% 35 0.7% 6 + 3 1.1% 26 0.5% 29 0.6% Not recorded 1 0.4% 493 10.2% 494 9.7% Total 262 100.0% 4833 100.0% 5095 100.0% Note that the data relates to the number of inmates and not to children. For example, there were 112 sentenced inmates who each had three child custodial dependents at the time of imprisonment.

9.3 Care of Children The manual questionnaire asked inmates with any children (i.e., including both those who had, and did not have, custodial care of the child prior to imprisonment) to identify where / in whose care their dependent children were while the inmate was in prison. The table below summarises the responses.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 39 Table 9-3 Care of sentenced inmates’ children Female Male Total Caregiver Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Partner / ex-partner 36 21.3% 1781 78.6% 1817 74.6% Immediate family 66 39.1% 189 8.3% 255 10.5% Wider family/whanau/in-laws 30 17.8% 90 4.0% 120 4.9% Foster care (CYF, etc) 13 7.7% 39 1.7% 52 2.1% “Don't know” 2 1.2% 40 1.8% 42 1.7% Other 22 13.0% 128 5.6% 150 6.2% Total responses 169 100.0% 2267 100.0% 2436 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. This table shows the count of inmates whose children were under the care of the caregiver specified. It does not give a count of children. Genders shown refer to inmates’ gender.

40 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

10 Traffic Offenders

A traffic-related offence was the most serious offence for 420 inmates (8 percent of sentenced inmates). Of these, the most common type of traffic offence was driving while disqualified, which accounted for more than half of the traffic offenders.

Table 10-1 Traffic offences of sentenced inmates Female Male Total Major offence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Driving dangerously/ carelessly 1 4.5% 20 5.0% 21 5.0% Driving while disqualified 9 40.9% 207 52.0% 216 51.4% Driving with excess Alcohol 12 54.5% 171 43.0% 183 43.6% Total 22 100.0% 398 100.0% 420 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Traffic offenders tended to be fairly evenly spread across the 25 to 49 years age range. Uneven variation in the percentages for women reflect the low numbers.

Table 10-2 Age of traffic offender sentenced inmates Female Male Total Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 15 – 19 1 4.5% 16 4.0% 17 4.0% 20 – 24 2 9.1% 38 9.5% 40 9.5% 25 – 29 0.0% 67 16.8% 67 16.0% 30 – 34 6 27.3% 66 16.6% 72 17.1% 35 – 39 3 13.6% 66 16.6% 69 16.4% 40 - 44 7 31.8% 70 17.6% 77 18.3% 45 - 49 1 4.5% 39 9.8% 40 9.5% 50 – 59 2 9.1% 27 6.8% 29 6.9% 60+ 3 0.8% 3 0.7% No recorded 6 1.5% 6 1.4% Total 22 100.0% 398 100.0% 420 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Ninety six percent (402 out of 420) of the sentenced inmates whose major offence was traffic-related had previously served at least one Corrections-administered sentence. Such sentencing histories were often extensive though not necessarily dominated specifically by traffic offending. The following tables show the extent of sentencing history and whether the immediately prior major offence was traffic-related. Eighty-eight percent (371 out of 420) of sentenced traffic offenders had a prior major offence for traffic offending. Seventy four percent (312 out of 420) of the sentenced traffic offenders had served at least one previous custodial sentence.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 41 Table 10-3 Previous sentences by prior major offence type – sentenced traffic offence inmates Prior major offence was Prior major offence was Number of previous Total non-traffic traffic sentences Inmates Percent Inmates Percent Inmates No prior sentences 18 1 – 10 18 58.1% 78 21.0% 96 11 – 20 2 6.5% 62 16.7% 64 21 – 30 2 6.5% 69 18.6% 71 31 – 40 3 9.7% 46 12.4% 49 41 – 50 0.0% 34 9.2% 34 51 – 60 2 6.5% 22 5.9% 24 61 – 70 2 6.5% 20 5.4% 22 71 – 80 0.0% 9 2.4% 9 81 – 90 0.0% 7 1.9% 7 91 – 100 0.0% 9 2.4% 9 100 + 2 6.5% 15 4.0% 17 Total 31 100.0% 371 100.0% 420 Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Table 10-4 Previous custodial sentences by offence type - sentenced traffic offence inmates Prior major offence was Prior major offence was Number of previous Total non-traffic traffic custodial sentences Inmates Percent Inmates Percent Inmates No prior sentences (18) 18 No prior custody but has prior sentences. 15 48.4% 75 20.2% 90 1 8 25.8% 56 15.1% 64 2 1 3.2% 54 14.6% 55 3 – 5 2 6.5% 96 25.9% 98 6 – 10 3 9.7% 69 18.6% 72 11 – 20 2 6.5% 20 5.4% 22 More than 20 0.0% 1 0.3% 1 Total 31 100.0% 371 100.0% 420 Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

42 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

11 Remanded Inmates

11.1 Age and Ethnicity The 1145 remand inmates (made up of 73 females and 1072 males) represented just 18 percent of the total of 6,240 inmates (excluding home detainees). Compared to the sentenced inmate population (see Tables 3-1), the remand population tends to be younger: the age profile of remand inmates reveals 33 percent were aged 17 to 24 years at the time of the census, and only 16 percent over 40 years old.

Table 11-1 Age of remand inmates Female Male Total Age Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 14 – 16 0 0.0% 2 0.2% 2 0.2% 17 – 19 5 6.8% 129 12.0% 134 11.7% 20 – 24 20 27.4% 226 21.1% 246 21.5% 25 – 29 9 12.3% 219 20.4% 228 19.9% 30 – 34 17 23.3% 180 16.8% 197 17.2% 35 – 39 11 15.1% 142 13.2% 153 13.4% 40 – 49 9 12.3% 128 11.9% 137 12.0% 50 – 59 2 2.7% 29 2.7% 31 2.7% 60+ 0 0.0% 11 1.0% 11 1.0% Not recorded 0 0.0% 6 0.6% 6 0.5% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Of the remanded inmates, 374 indicated identification with more than one ethnicity, with a small number (4) identifying as many as four ethnicities. Ethnicities were grouped and individuals categorised as shown in the table below: 51 percent of the total remand inmates identified themselves solely as Māori.

Table 11-2 Ethnic group of remand inmates Female Male Total Ethnic group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent European 20 27.4% 291 27.1% 311 27.2% European and Māori 4 5.5% 46 4.3% 50 4.4% Māori 41 56.2% 540 50.4% 581 50.7% Māori and Pacific 1 1.4% 22 2.1% 23 2.0% Pacific Peoples 2 2.7% 85 7.9% 87 7.6% Other (incl. Asian) 5 6.8% 88 8.2% 93 8.1% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. The ethnic groups used above are as for previous census reports however it should be noted that this format masks much of the cultural diversity recorded by the inmates. In the categories “European and Māori” and “Māori and Pacific” no importance is attached to the order of ethnicity used in the group title.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 43 The table below shows the ethnicity by age breakdown for remanded inmates (both female and male inmates).

Table 11-3 Ethnic group by age for remanded inmates Māori European Pacific Asian Other/NA Total Age No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % 14 – 16 2 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 0.2 17 – 19 81 13.0 29 8.6 16 15.4 4 8.5 4 11.4 134 11.7 20-24 132 21.3 70 20.7 18 17.3 17 36.2 9 25.7 246 21.5 25-29 128 20.6 56 16.6 29 27.9 7 14.9 8 22.9 228 19.9 30-34 103 16.6 64 18.9 20 19.2 7 14.9 3 8.6 197 17.2 35-39 79 12.7 52 15.4 12 11.5 5 10.6 5 14.3 153 13.4 40-49 74 11.9 47 13.9 6 5.8 5 10.6 5 14.3 137 12.0 50-59 13 2.1 15 4.4 1 1.0 1 2.1 1 2.9 31 2.7 60+ 5 0.8 4 1.2 2 1.9 0.0 0.0 11 1.0 NA 4 0.6 1 0.3 0.0 1 2.1 0.0 6 0.5 Total 621 100.0 338 100.0 104 100.0 47 100.0 35 100.0 1145 100.0 ‘NA’ represents where age or ethnicity was not available.

11.2 Major Charge Of all remand inmates, 34 percent were remanded for violence, with a further 5.3 percent remanded for charges involving sexual offences.

Table 11-4 Major charge of remand inmates Female Male Total Major offence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Violence 20 27.4% 369 34.4% 389 34.0% Property 14 19.2% 315 29.4% 329 28.7% Sex 0 0.0% 61 5.7% 61 5.3% Drugs 14 19.2% 71 6.6% 85 7.4% Traffic 6 8.2% 57 5.3% 63 5.5% Misc 17 23.3% 183 17.1% 200 17.5% Not Available 2 2.7% 16 1.5% 18 1.6% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

44 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

11.3 Sentencing History Only 15 percent of male remanded inmates had no previous Corrections-administered sentence. Overall 47 percent of remanded inmates had more than 20 previous sentences.

Table 11-5 Number of previous sentences for remand inmates

Number of previous Female Male Total sentences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 18 24.7% 158 14.7% 176 15.4% 1 - 10 22 30.1% 230 21.5% 252 22.0% 11 - 20 9 12.3% 166 15.5% 175 15.3% 21 - 30 4 5.5% 112 10.4% 116 10.1% 31 - 40 2 2.7% 98 9.1% 100 8.7% 41 - 50 3 4.1% 63 5.9% 66 5.8% 51 - 60 4 5.5% 53 4.9% 57 5.0% 61 - 70 3 4.1% 55 5.1% 58 5.1% 71 - 80 0 0.0% 28 2.6% 28 2.4% 81 - 90 1 1.4% 26 2.4% 27 2.4% 91 - 100 1 1.4% 14 1.3% 15 1.3% 101 + 6 8.2% 69 6.4% 75 6.6% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Eighty five percent of remand inmates had prior sentences. Over sixty two percent of remand inmates were first sentenced before the age of 20.

Table 11-6 Age at first sentence for remand inmates Female Male Total Age at first sentence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 14 – 16 6 8.2% 129 12.0% 135 11.8% 17 – 19 25 34.2% 554 51.7% 579 50.6% 20 – 24 13 17.8% 138 12.9% 151 13.2% 25 – 29 5 6.8% 55 5.1% 60 5.2% 30 – 34 4 5.5% 20 1.9% 24 2.1% 35 – 39 1 1.4% 7 0.7% 8 0.7% 40 – 49 1 1.4% 7 0.7% 8 0.7% 50 – 59 0 0.0% 2 0.2% 2 0.2% No previous sentence 18 24.7% 158 14.9% 176 15.4% Age not available 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 2 0.0% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 45 Sixty four percent of remand inmates had received at least one prior custodial sentence. Almost half (48%) had experienced two or more previous custodial sentences.

Table 11-7 Number of previous custodial sentences for remand inmates Number of previous custodial Female Male Total sentences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 35 47.9% 373 34.8% 408 35.6% 1 15 20.5% 172 16.0% 187 16.3% 2 9 12.3% 115 10.7% 124 10.8% 3 – 5 6 8.2% 179 16.7% 185 16.2% 6 – 10 7 9.6% 170 15.9% 177 15.5% 11 – 20 1 1.4% 55 5.1% 56 4.9% 21 – 50 0 0.0% 8 0.7% 8 0.7% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Over 37 percent of remand inmates had already had a first custodial sentence started before the age of 20.

Table 11-8 Age at first custodial sentence for remand inmates Female Male Total Age at first custodial sentence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 13 – 16 2 2.7% 72 6.7% 74 6.5% 17 – 19 9 12.3% 343 32.0% 352 30.7% 20 – 24 10 13.7% 179 16.7% 189 16.5% 25 – 29 7 9.6% 57 5.3% 64 5.6% 30 – 34 7 9.6% 21 2.0% 28 2.4% 35 – 39 2 2.7% 15 1.4% 17 1.5% 40 – 49 1 1.4% 10 0.9% 11 1.0% 50 – 59 0 0.0% 3 0.3% 3 0.3% No previous custodial 35 47.9% 370 34.7% 405 35.5% Age not available 0 0.0% 2 0.0% 2 0.0% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

11.4 Gang Membership There were 156 remand inmates whose records indicated that they were members of gangs. This equates to 14 percent of the remand population, compared to 11.5 percent of the sentenced population. As for sentenced inmates, most of the remand gang members belonged to either the Mongrel Mob or Black Power.

46 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Table 11-9 Gang membership of remand inmates Gang membership Number Mongrel Mob 58 Black Power 41 Tribesman 9 Highway 61 8 Mangu Kaha 6 Nomads 5 White Power 3 Road Knights 3 Skin Heads 3 Crypts 1 All Other Gangs 19 Total 156

11.5 Educational Qualifications Of the remand inmates for whom information was available, 52 percent had left school prior to Year 11 (Form 5). Five percent of remand inmates are recorded as not having attended secondary school at all.

Table 11-10 Highest educational level attended by remand inmates Female Male Total Highest educational level attended Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent < Year 9 5 6.8% 51 4.8% 56 4.9% Year 9 (Form 3) 12 16.4% 184 17.2% 196 17.1% Year 10 (Form 4) 16 21.9% 196 18.3% 212 18.5% Year 11 (Form 5) 22 30.1% 257 24.0% 279 24.4% Year 12 (Form 6) 5 6.8% 79 7.4% 84 7.3% Year 13 (Form 7) 1 1.4% 30 2.8% 31 2.7% Tertiary 1 1.4% 8 0.7% 9 0.8% Not educated in New Zealand 3 4.1% 8 0.7% 11 1.0% Not recorded 8 11.0% 259 24.2% 267 23.3% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Less than 16 percent of remand inmates were recorded as having a qualification.

Table 11-11 Educational qualifications obtained by remand inmates Female Male Total Post-school qualifications/courses Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent No qualifications 39 53.4% 535 49.9% 574 50.1% NZ school certificate 7 9.6% 103 9.6% 110 9.6% NZ Higher school /Uni. Entrance 1 1.4% 39 3.6% 40 3.5% Other NZ/Overseas school 4 5.5% 12 1.1% 16 1.4% Vocational 1 1.4% 8 0.7% 9 0.8% Bachelors/Higher degree 0.0% 2 0.2% 2 0.2% Not recorded 21 28.8% 373 34.8% 394 34.4% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 47 11.6 Income Sources For remand inmates prior to entering prison, a greater proportion of females than males were receiving a benefit (males 27%, females 59%) while a greater proportion of males than females were in paid employment (males 35%, females 8%).

Table 11-12 Source of income prior to entering prison of remand inmates Female Male Total Source of income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Paid work 6 8.2% 379 35.4% 385 33.6% Unemployment benefit/community wage 18 24.7% 221 20.6% 239 20.9% Domestic Purposes Benefit/ G.R.I. Benefit 13 17.8% 10 0.9% 23 2.0% Sickness or invalids benefit 12 16.4% 61 5.7% 73 6.4% “Proceeds of crime” 2 2.7% 42 3.9% 44 3.8% Other/Unknown 22 30.1% 359 33.5% 381 33.3% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

11.7 Dependent Children Thirteen percent of remand inmates had been recorded as having child custodial dependents at the time of imprisonment (See section 9.2 for notes on issues regarding this data).

Table 11-13 Remand inmates with child custodial dependents at imprisonment. Female Male Total Child custodial dependents Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 48 65.8% 869 81.1% 917 80.1% 1 9 12.3% 46 4.3% 55 4.8% 2 6 8.2% 36 3.4% 42 3.7% 3 4 5.5% 20 1.9% 24 2.1% 4 2 2.7% 7 0.7% 9 0.8% 5 1 1.4% 8 0.7% 9 0.8% 6 + 2 2.7% 4 0.4% 6 0.5% Not recorded 1 1.4% 82 7.6% 83 7.2% Total 73 100.0% 1072 100.0% 1145 100.0% Note that the data relates to the number of inmates and not to children. For example, there were 42 remand inmates who each had two child custodial dependents at the time of imprisonment.

48 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

The manual census questionnaire asked inmates who had children to identify where their children were while the inmate was in prison. The table below summaries the responses for remand inmates.

Table 11-14 Care of remand inmates’ children Female Male Total Caregiver Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Partner or ex-partner 4 9.3% 383 80.8% 387 74.9% Immediate family 18 41.9% 36 7.6% 54 10.4% Other 11 25.6% 18 3.8% 29 5.6% Wider family/whanau or in-laws 5 11.6% 20 4.2% 25 4.8% Foster care (CYF etc) 5 11.6% 10 2.1% 15 2.9% Don't know 0 0.0% 7 1.5% 7 1.4% Total responses 43 100.0% 474 100.0% 517 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. This table shows the count of inmates whose children were under the care of the caregiver specified. It does not give a count of children. Genders shown refer to inmates’ gender.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 49

12 Home Detention

The home detention order was introduced in 1999 and is administered by the Community Probation Service (CPS). Eligible offenders serve part or all of their prison sentence at an approved residential address under strict electronic monitoring. The data analysed below was extracted from the IOMS database and relates to 23 November 2003 (Note that this is three days later than the prison census date). On that date 595 offenders were completing sentences of home detention, twenty percent of whom were female, a proportion considerably higher than applies to the sentenced inmate population.

12.1 Home detention by region The sentence of home detention is currently applied to varying degrees across the country by Courts, as reflected in the figures below.

Table 12-1 Home-detainees by area Female Male Total CPS Area Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Auckland 9 7.60% 44 9.20% 53 8.90% Christchurch 18 15.30% 95 19.90% 113 19.00% Dunedin/Invercargill 5 4.20% 34 7.10% 39 6.60% Hamilton 7 5.90% 27 5.70% 34 5.70% Hawkes Bay / Gisborne 11 9.30% 35 7.30% 46 7.70% Manukau 12 10.20% 42 8.80% 54 9.10% Nelson / Marlborough/West Coast 2 1.70% 19 4.00% 21 3.50% Taitokerau (Northland) 10 8.50% 27 5.70% 37 6.20% Taranaki / Whanganui & Tararua 7 5.90% 30 6.30% 37 6.20% Waiariki (Bay of Plenty) 24 20.30% 60 12.60% 84 14.10% Waitemata 6 5.10% 30 6.30% 36 6.10% Wellington 7 5.90% 34 7.10% 41 6.90% Total 118 100.0% 477 100.0% 595 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

12.2 Age and Ethnicity Compared to sentenced inmates, the home detention population is weighted toward an older age group, a factor generally associated with a lower risk of re-offending. Also evident is a lower proportion of Māori subject to this type of sentence; this may however reflect the higher frequency of this sentence option’s use by Courts in areas, such as Christchurch, which have a lower proportion of Māori in the general population.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 51 Table 12-2 Age of home-detainees Female Male Total Age group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 16 - 19 6 5.1% 54 11.3% 60 10.1% 20 - 24 15 12.7% 70 14.7% 85 14.3% 25 - 29 16 13.6% 73 15.3% 89 15.0% 30 - 34 20 17.0% 74 15.5% 94 15.8% 35 - 39 21 17.8% 67 14.1% 88 14.8% 40 - 49 30 25.4% 70 14.7% 100 16.8% 50 - 59 3 2.5% 30 6.3% 33 5.6% 60+ 1 0.9% 8 1.7% 9 1.5% Age not recorded 6 5.1% 31 6.5% 37 6.2% Total 118 100.0% 477 100.0% 595 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Information on the ethnicity of inmates was obtained directly from the IOMS database and was based on interviews conducted during the inmate induction process (see Section 17 for further information). The table below provides an indication of the diversity of ethnicity for Home Detainees.

Table 12-3 Ethnic group of home-detainees Female Male Total Ethnic group Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent European 39 33.1% 238 49.9% 277 46.6% European and Māori 4 3.4% 19 4.0% 23 3.9% Māori 51 43.2% 153 32.1% 204 34.3% Māori and Pacific 0 0.0% 6 1.3% 6 1.0% Pacific peoples 11 9.3% 39 8.2% 50 8.4% Other or not identified 13 11.0% 22 4.6% 35 5.9% Total 118 100.0% 477 100.0% 595 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

12.3 Major Offence Compared to the sentenced inmate population, the major offence of Home Detainees was far less likely to be a sex or violent offence.

Table 12-4 Major offence of home-detainees Female Male Total Major offence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Property 52 44.1% 110 23.1% 162 27.2% Drugs 27 22.9% 112 23.5% 139 23.4% Violence 11 9.3% 124 26.0% 135 22.7% Traffic 16 13.6% 89 18.7% 105 17.7% Sex 0 0.0% 23 4.8% 23 3.9% Misc 12 10.2% 19 4.00% 31 5.2% Total 118 100.0% 477 100.0% 595 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

12.4 Offending History Almost 40 percent of Home Detainees had not had a previous sentence, which contrasts with just 21 percent of the sentenced inmate population with no previous sentences.

52 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Table 12-5 Number of previous Corrections sentences for home-detainees

Number of previous Female Male Total Corrections sentences Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 59 50.0% 174 36.5% 233 39.2% 1 – 10 36 30.5% 136 28.5% 172 28.9% 11 – 20 11 9.3% 75 15.7% 86 14.5% 21 – 30 1 0.9% 28 5.9% 29 4.9% 31 – 40 3 2.5% 21 4.4% 24 4.0% 41 - 50 2 1.7% 12 2.5% 14 2.4% 51 - 60 1 0.9% 10 2.1% 11 1.9% 61+ 5 4.2% 21 4.4% 26 4.4% Total 118 100.00% 477 100.0% 595 100.0% Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 53

13 Time Series Comparison

Information derived from the biennial prison census is available dating back to 1987. However, because of considerations of space the time-series tables in this chapter are restricted to those that provide data from censuses starting from 1991. This gives a picture of changes in the composition of the prison population across twelve years. It is acknowledged that some of the apparent fluctuations in data may not reflect actual changes in the prison population but rather changes in census data collection methods and/or definition issues.

13.1 Inmate Numbers Perhaps the most significant change evident in any of the tables in this chapter is total inmate numbers. These have increased from 4,232 at the time of the 1991 census, to 6,240 in 20031. Prison population is a function of two processes: the number of new receptions each year, and the average sentence length. As is shown in Section 13.4, average sentence length has increased steadily over the period discussed. The increase in inmate numbers has been consistent across both the sentenced and remand populations, as well as both males and females. However, while the overall trend has been upward, decreases in numbers have also occurred (e.g., in 1993). Historically such decreases have tended to be associated with the introduction of new sentencing or parole policies.

Table 13-1 Inmate/detainee numbers Sentenced Sentenced Remand Remand Home Year Total females males females males detention 1991 139 3682 9 402 4232 1993 118 3645 14 486 4263 1995 151 3981 14 343 4489 1997 207 4728 13 516 5464 1999 206 4759 24 633 25 5647 2001 202 4716 32 830 174 5954 2003 262 4833 73 1072 595 6835

13.2 Age A trend towards an older prison population continues. In 1991, 14 percent of the sentenced inmates were 40 years or older, but in 2003 that proportion was 27 percent. Around 40 percent of the sentenced inmates were under 25 years old in 1991, compared with 25 percent in 2003.

1 Excludes the 595 home detainees

Department of Corrections Census 2003 55 Table 13-2 Age of sentenced inmates (percent) Age 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 %% %%% % % 15-19 11.0 7.9 9.7 9.9 8.9 6.4 6.7 20-24 28.9 26.6 22.9 23.0 22.2 19.9 18.6 25-29 22.2 21.6 22.2 20.3 19.9 18.6 17.7 30-34 15.4 15.0 15.6 15.8 16.2 18.0 16.7 35-39 8.9 10.4 10.2 10.8 11.9 13.5 13.2 40-49 9.2 11.4 12.5 12.2 13.4 15.1 16.6 50+ 4.4 7.0 7.1 8.0 7.5 8.5 10.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

13.3 Ethnicity An issue relating to ethnicity that frequently arises with time-series analysis is that ethnicity definitions and systems of classification can change over time. For example, earlier approaches to definition might have involved a Government official determining ethnicity on the basis of appearance, while it is common today to allow self-identification (as is the case within Corrections). Such a change may mean that the proportion of any population counted as “Māori” or “Pacific” may not be directly comparable to figures from earlier times. Nevertheless, in every year since 1991, the largest single sub-group of sentenced inmates have been Māori. Where increases have occurred in the proportion of Māori and Pacific people, these are usually associated with a corresponding decrease in the proportion of European inmates. A higher degree of ethnicity variation within the female inmate population (as seen in Table 13-3) is in part a reflection of low numbers.

Table 13-3 Ethnic group of sentenced females (percent) Ethnic group 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % %%%% % European 38.8 36.9 38.6 37.0 31.5 29.2 31.3 European and Māori 1.7 1.8 6.4 13.3 18.0 6.2 6.1 Māori 47.1 51.4 49.3 42.0 38.0 45.3 50.8 Māori and Pacific n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 3.1 1.5 Pacific peoples 5.8 5.4 3.6 3.3 9.5 10.6 5.0 Other (incl. Asian) 6.6 4.5 2.1 4.4 0.5 5.6 5.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

56 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Table 13-4 Ethnic group of sentenced males (percent) Ethnic group 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % %%% % % European 40.7 38.3 38.9 38.2 35.9 31.6 35.7 Māori and European 2.4 2.9 3.5 5.1 5.7 7.2 3.5 Māori 43.3 42.7 45.0 43.8 44.4 44.6 45.4 Māori and Pacific 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.7 Pacific peoples 9.4 9.9 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.7 9.8 Other (incl. Asian) 3.9 5.6 1.4 1.7 2.5 4.5 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

13.4 Custodial Period Imposed The "Custodial Period Imposed" is determined from the court-imposed sentences, taking into account which sentences are concurrent and which are to be cumulative. The method of calculation has changed in recent years: in 2001 and 2003 all custodial periods imposed were reduced by the remand time already served; before 2001 this was not the case. See section 15.3 for more on this. As discussed above, a trend towards longer sentences has been evident over recent years. Typically this change is associated with changes to sentencing policy and practice.

Table 13-5 Custodial period imposed for sentenced females (percent) Sentence length imposed 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % % % % % % Up to 3 months 5.3 10.3 6.6 3.4 4.6 3.6 3.1 > 3 to 6 months 13.0 16.2 13.2 10.1 10.8 6.7 8.8 > 6 months to 1 year 26.7 17.9 17.2 20.8 20.6 11.9 17.9 > 1 to 2 years 19.1 17.9 27.2 18.8 20.1 26.3 19.5 > 2 to 3 years 16.0 8.5 11.9 13.5 16.5 11.9 18.7 > 3 to 5 years 9.2 12.0 7.3 17.9 10.8 19.1 12.6 > 5 to 7 years 1.5 3.4 3.3 4.3 7.2 7.7 8.0 > 7 to 10 years 0.8 1.7 2.0 1.4 2.6 2.6 3.1 > 10 years 0.0 0.9 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 1.5 Life 8.4 11.1 9.9 8.2 5.2 8.2 6.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 57 Table 13-6 Custodial period imposed for sentenced males (percent) Custodial Period Imposed 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % %%%% % Up to 3 months 6.0 4.6 4.1 3.7 2.9 1.7 0.7 > 3 to 6 months 8.3 6.5 5.5 4.2 5.6 4.2 3.8 > 6 months to 1 year 16.9 14.3 13.2 12.3 12.5 9.8 11.1 > 1 to 2 years 19.2 16.4 17.2 15.7 18.3 17.6 18.9 > 2 to 3 years 12.3 12.2 11.0 12.5 12.6 14.4 14.0 > 3 to 5 years 16.1 17.0 16.1 16.5 12.2 17.4 16.1 > 5 to 7 years 8.6 11.7 12.8 11.3 11.3 9.9 9.3 > 7 to 10 years 5.3 8.2 9.7 10.7 11.3 10.8 10.8 > 10 years 1.3 2.2 2.9 5.0 4.9 4.9 5.9 Life 5.0 5.7 5.6 6.1 6.3 6.4 6.4 Preventive detention 1.1 1.4 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.8 3.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

The number of inmates serving sentences of life imprisonment or preventive detention has increased significantly over the last decade. In 1991, 183 males and 11 females were serving sentences of life imprisonment, compared with 325 males and 18 females in 2003. In 1991, 40 males were serving sentences of preventive detention, compared with 143 in 2003.

Table 13-7 Inmates serving life imprisonment or preventive detention Females Males Year Life Life Preventive detention 1991 11 183 40 1993 13 206 52 1995 15 222 74 1997 17 288 92 1999 10 281 93 2001 16 297 128 2003 18 325 143 No female inmates were serving sentences of preventive detention.

13.5 Major Offence The method of choosing the major offence and thus categorising offenders has changed over the years. The method used by the Department (and later, Ministry) of Justice from 1987 to 1997 was based on a hierarchy of selection criteria until one type of offence remained for each inmate. Firstly, offences with the longest sentence imposed were selected, then those with the largest seriousness score, then those with the smallest offence code (as the more serious offences have the smallest offence code numbers). The following history of the major offence definition is given in a Department of Justice publication. “A seriousness of offence scale was originally developed by the Policy and Research Division of the Department of Justice in 1991 (see Spier, Luketina, & Kettles (1991)). The most recent update of the scale occurred in 2000 by the Ministry of Justice. The updated scale gives imprisonable offences a score according to how serious judges have deemed each offence in terms of the use of custodial sentences over a specific time period. These scores enable offences to be ranked in terms of their relative

58 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

seriousness, and can be used to examine whether offending that leads to conviction has become more serious over time (i.e. whether there has been an increase in the number of more serious offences relative to less serious offences over time). “The updated scale is based on court sentencing data for the period 1995 to 1999. The seriousness score assigned to each offence is the average number of days of imprisonment imposed on every offender convicted of that offence between 1995 and 1999, where the average is taken over both imprisoned and non-imprisoned offenders. Suppose, for example, that between 1995 and 1999 there were 100 cases of offenders convicted of a particular offence. Of these cases, 50 resulted in a custodial sentence, and the average length of the custodial sentences imposed on these offenders was 30 days. The seriousness score for this offence is (30 x 50/100), or 15. “Offences that became obsolete prior to 1995 were given the same score as any new similar offences, or a score was calculated based on sentencing data before 1995. Imprisonable offences for which there were convictions but no custodial sentences over the period 1995 to 1999, were given a seriousness rating slightly lower than the least of the offences already assigned a seriousness score (i.e. a score of 0.2). Non- imprisonable offences were assigned a seriousness score of zero.”1

Despite the changing methods of categorisation, little change is evident in the composition of prison population over the past decade. Violent offenders continue to constitute the largest category of sentenced inmates, especially for males.

Table 13-8 Major offence of sentenced females (percent) Major offence 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % %%% % % Violence / sex 31.3 45.3 37.1 34.3 40.2 46.4 39.3 Property 44.3 33.3 39.7 41.1 29.9 27.3 31.7 Drug 16.0 13.7 12.6 14.0 15.2 12.9 17.6 Traffic 7.6 2.6 7.3 6.8 10.8 9.3 8.4 Other 0.8 5.2 3.3 3.9 3.9 4.1 3.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Major offence groupings are based on Police code classifications.

Table 13-9 Major offence of sentenced males (percent) Major offence 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % % % % % % Violence / sex 53.8 63.2 62.4 58.8 61.9 61.8 59.1 Property 25.4 20.6 21.3 21.7 21.2 21.6 21.7 Drug 7.3 6.0 5.8 7.0 7.5 7.8 8.3 Traffic 10.1 8.5 8.9 10.1 7.2 5.7 8.2 Miscellaneous 3.5 1.7 1.7 2.5 2.2 3.0 2.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Violence includes all sex offences. Major offence groupings are based on Police code classifications.

1 Spier, P., Luketina, F., & Kettles, S. (1991) Changes in the Seriousness of Offending and in the Pattern of Sentencing: 1979 to 1988, Department of Justice, Wellington.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 59 13.6 Security Status The breakdown of the prison population by security classification similarly shows variation but no clear trend over the past 12 years, with female inmates classified as minimum-security forming the largest sub-group, and maximum-security inmates forming only a tiny minority. Note that the classifications of ”low-medium“ and “high-medium” security were first introduced in 1999. The figures in Table 13-10 below should be read recognising that the relatively small number of female inmates means greater variability can occur over time.

Table 13-10 Security classification of sentenced females Classification 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % % % % % % Unclassified 12.2 2.6 10.1 7.8 6.0 5.2 3.1 Minimum 63.4 77.6 80.5 78.5 64.5 54.1 71.0 Low Medium 19.5 30.4 17.2 High Medium 8.5 9.8 8.8 Medium 24.0 19.8 9.4 13.2 (28.0) (40.2) (26.0) Maximum 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.5 0.5 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Subtotals for medium security shown in parenthesis.

Medium-security classifications are more common amongst male inmates, although maximum-security classifications currently apply to as few as 2 percent of the male population.

Table 13-11 Security classification of sentenced males (percent) Classification 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % % % % % % Unclassified 2.5 5.1 3.4 2.1 3.6 2.7 2.0 Minimum 54.2 50.5 55.7 60.0 51.2 44.3 44.6 Low Medium 27.6 30.7 37.1 High Medium 14.7 18.6 14.4 Medium 39.1 39.9 38.7 36.6 (42.3) (49.3) (51.5) Maximum 4.3 4.5 2.1 1.3 2.9 3.7 1.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Subtotals for medium security shown in parenthesis.

13.7 Protective Custody (Segregation) The number of males in protective custody (i.e., segregated) has climbed steadily over the last decade, from 428 to 989, ranging between 12 to 20 percent of male sentenced inmates since 1991. Few female inmates require, or seek, segregation from their fellow inmates: at the time of the 2003 census only four female inmates were being managed under this condition.

60 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Table 13-12 Sentenced males in protective custody Year Number Percent of all male inmates 1991 428 12 1993 557 16 1995 791 20 1997 513 12 1999 775 16 2001 698 15 2003 989 19

13.8 Previous Sentences See Section 17.2 for a discussion of how the term “sentence” is defined for census purposes. When counting “previous” sentences, all sentences relating to the current custodial period are excluded. For females, 34 percent of the currently sentenced inmates had not previously been sentenced. This was up from 25 percent in 1999.

Table 13-13 Previous sentences for sentenced females (percent) Previous (aggregate) 1999 2001 2003 sentences (aggregate)% (aggregate)% % 0 25.0 35.1 34.0 1 – 10 56.5 39.7 21.8 11 – 20 15.0 16.8 7.6 21 – 30 : : 8.8 31 – 40 3.5 8.4 6.1 41 – 50 : : 5.7 51 – 60 : : 2.3 61 – 70 : : 3.4 71 – 80 : : 1.5 0.0 0.0 81 – 90 2.7 : : 0.4 91 – 100 : : 100 – 200 : : 4.6 200 + : : 1.1 Total 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Note the discontinuity, before 2003 counts of previous Department of Corrections “Aggregate sentences” were recorded. From 2003 onwards counts of sentences are recorded resulting inmate profiles moving toward higher counts.

The proportion of male sentenced inmates who had not previously been sentenced increased from 17 percent in 1999 to 22 percent in 2003.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 61 Table 13-14 Previous sentences for sentenced males (percent) Previous (aggregate) 1999 2001 2003 sentences (aggregate)% (aggregate)% % 0 17.2 20.1 20.7 1 – 10 51.6 49.5 23.6 11 – 20 20.8 21.2 14.5 21 – 30 11.1 31 – 40 10.1 9.1 7.9 41 – 50 5.8 51 – 60 4.3 61 – 70 3.5 71 – 80 1.8 81 – 90 0.1 0.0 1.8 91 - 100 1.3 100 – 200 3.2 200+ 0.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Note the discontinuity: before 2003, counts of Department of Corrections “Aggregate sentences” were recorded. From 2003 onwards counts of Corrections managed sentences are counted resulting in inmate profiles moving toward higher counts.

13.9 Age at First Sentence Prior to 1999 age at first conviction was recorded in the Census. From 1999 onwards the age at first Corrections managed sentence has been recorded. For female sentenced inmates there is a consistent tendency for at least half of all offenders to receive their first sentence when they are aged between 17 and 22 years.

Table 13-15 Age at first sentence for sentenced females (percent) Age 1999 2001 2003 % % % Under 17 5.5 2.8 6.6 17-19 41.0 50.0 34.4 20-24 22.0 18.2 21.9 25-29 13.5 9.1 12.5 30-34 6.5 4.5 8.6 35-39 3.0 9.7 7.0 40-49 6.5 3.4 6.3 50+ 2.0 2.3 2.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

For male sentenced inmates the age at which the first sentence was received is more sharply concentrated between 17 to 19 years of age.

62 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Table 13-16 Age at first sentence for sentenced males (percent) Age 1999 2001 2003 %% % Under 17 13.2 12.5 10.8 17-19 51.5 49.6 50.2 20-24 15.3 16.2 16.8 25-29 6.4 7.0 6.1 30-34 3.6 3.7 4.7 35-39 2.5 3.5 3.2 40-49 3.6 3.7 4.4 50+ 3.9 3.6 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

13.10 Previous Periods in Custody In general, female inmates have a lower risk of re-imprisonment than do their male counterparts. Because of the small numbers of female inmates it is difficult to discern trends in the proportion of female inmates with previous periods in custody, although the proportion of female inmates who have more than 10 previous periods in custody seems to be increasing (from 0% in 1991 to 1% in 1995 and 2% in 2003).

Table 13-17 Previous periods in custody for sentenced females (percent) Previous periods in 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 custody % % %%% % % 0 61.1 71.8 58.3 70.5 58.4 60.4 61.5 1 16.0 6.0 13.9 15.5 19.4 13.4 15.6 2 8.4 7.7 10.6 5.8 7.6 7.9 6.5 3-5 11.4 10.3 12.6 4.8 9.6 10.9 10.7 6-9 3.0 4.3 3.4 2.9 3.6 5.0 3.4 10 or more 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.5 1.0 2.5 2.3 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

A fairly consistent finding is the 60 percent of male sentenced inmates who have had previous period(s) in custody, a proportion that has remained relatively steady over the trend period.

Table 13-18 Previous periods in custody for sentenced males (percent) Previous periods in 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 custody % % %%% % % 0 39.5 42.7 40.9 43.5 38.9 39.9 40.3 1 18.1 17.9 16.9 17.3 14.5 15.2 14.6 2 11.6 11.4 11.2 11.4 9.8 10.9 10.3 3-5 20.1 17.1 19.7 17.4 18.2 17.9 18.2 6-9 9.1 8.7 8.8 7.4 12.0 11.8 10.7 10 or more 1.6 2.1 2.7 3.0 6.5 4.3 5.8 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 63 13.11 Age at First Custodial Sentence Between 57 - 67 percent of female sentenced inmates experienced their first custodial sentence when aged from 17 to 29 years. Again, the small numbers of female inmates means no significant or obvious trends in the age at first custodial sentence profile for female sentenced inmates are evident since 1991.

Table 13-19 Age at first custodial sentence for sentenced females (percent) Age 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % %%%% % Under 17 8.6 6.1 6.6 3.9 4.1 2.0 4.3 17-19 18.1 25.3 21.2 23.2 21.3 24.2 18.8 20-24 29.1 18.3 23.2 23.2 25.4 26.1 23.0 25-29 18.1 14.8 18.5 16.4 18.8 17.6 16.0 30-34 15.7 13.0 12.6 14.5 13.7 8.5 12.1 35-39 7.1 7.0 7.3 6.8 6.6 11.1 12.1 40-49 2.4 13.0 8.6 6.3 8.1 7.2 9.0 50+ 0.8 2.6 2.0 5.8 2.0 3.3 4.7 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

The proportion of male sentenced inmates who received their first custodial sentence when aged less than 17 years decreased from 20 percent in 1991 to 6 percent in 2003. It is likely that policy changes affecting the management of youth offenders is involved here. The proportion of males receiving their first custodial sentence aged between 17 and 19 years was 35 percent in 2003, the same proportion as that recorded a decade earlier. The proportion of male sentenced inmates who received their first custodial sentence when they were aged 40 years or older increased from 6 percent in 1991 to 12 percent in 2003.

Table 13-20 Age at first custodial sentence for sentenced males (percent) Age 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % %%%% % Under 17 19.7 17.7 13.5 12.7 7.5 6.0 6.0 17-19 35.0 32.5 34.1 34.8 37.1 36.4 35.3 20-24 21.0 21.5 22.5 22.1 23.9 26.0 23.2 25-29 9.0 9.7 9.9 9.6 11.0 11.7 11.1 30-34 5.8 4.9 5.7 6.7 6.3 6.7 6.9 35-39 3.3 4.1 4.4 4.2 4.4 4.8 5.2 40-49 4.0 5.8 5.8 5.8 4.9 5.0 7.4 50+ 2.3 3.7 4.0 4.2 4.9 3.4 4.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.00 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding.

13.12 Gangs For this census, a change has occurred in the method of collection of gang data. In previous years, gang membership data was collected on census day. A questionnaire completed by prison officers required the officer to state whether the inmate was a known gang member or affiliate. The current census uses data extracted from the IOMS database, much of which was obtained and entered at each inmate’s reception interview.

64 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

In addition, the earlier questionnaire required the officer to determine whether the inmate was a “patch” (or full) member or an “associate” (some-one who is closely affiliated, perhaps in the process of gaining full membership). This distinction is not present in the reception interview / IOMS, as a result this census reports only gang “members”. On this basis, the proportion of male sentenced inmates who were identified as members of gangs has decreased, from 20 percent in 1991 to 11 percent in 2003.

Table 13-21 Total gang membership of sentenced males (percent) Affiliation 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % % % % % % “Patched” member 9.8 8.8 8.0 7.1 8.0 4.2 - Associate 10.6 6.9 7.8 8.9 8.3 8.4 - Subtotal (members) (20.4) (15.7) (15.8) (16.1) (16.3) (12.6) 11.1 No affiliation 79.6 84.3 84.2 83.9 83.7 87.4 88.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Note the discontinuity where the total members are now recorded rather than “Patch” and “Associate” members.

Table 13-22 Gang membership of sentenced males (percent) Patch ||| membership 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % %%% % % None 90.2 91.3 92.0 92.9 92.0 95.8 88.9 Black Power 3.6 3.2 3.5 2.6 2.6 1.5 3.7 Mongrel Mob 4.0 3.2 2.7 2.3 2.8 1.7 3.8 Other gangs 2.2 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.6 1.1 3.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Percentages may not add to 100 because of rounding. Note the discontinuity where the total members are now recorded rather than just “Patch” members.

13.13 Dependent children Changes to the current census data collection methodology also affect data for dependent children, as IOMS data has again been substituted for the earlier questionnaire. It is recognised that information obtained during inmate reception interview may in some cases no longer be accurate by the time of the census. In terms of the data reported below, it is also acknowledged that receiving interview questions specifically regarding children may differ from previous census questions. For each census since 1991, the percentage of female sentenced inmates with dependent children was higher than for males. The decline in the number of males with dependent children is perhaps surprising in light of the figures suggesting an aging prison population.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 65 Table 13-23 Sentenced inmates with dependent children (percent) With dependent children 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 % % % % % % % Females 62 62 53 58 56 44 47 Males 35 38 35 44 47 34 26 Excludes inmates where information about dependent children was not available. Note the discontinuity in data collection methodology between 2001 and 2003. The 2003 data relates to inmates identified at their reception interview as having either child custodial or financial dependents.

66 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

14 Census Data Sources

14.1 Raw data collected This section summarises the methods employed to collect and collate raw data for the census. In planning for the 2003 census, it was noted that previous census manual data collection systems created a significant imposition on prison staff, and were subject to a reasonably high non-response rate. The decision was taken therefore that, wherever possible, electronically recorded information on offenders would be used, and that only where required data was not held in IOMS would data be collected manually. Therefore, the current census, unlike its predecessors, has largely been developed on the basis of data extracted electronically from the Department’s Integrated Offender Management System (IOMS). IOMS data is entered by staff in the normal day-to-day management of inmates, with the bulk being entered at time of reception. It should also be noted that previous censuses used paper-based questionnaires in which the specific wording of individual questions may have differed to the form used for IOMS data capture. This creates some difficulties in comparability for time series data. In addition, the Corrections Analysis and Reporting System (CARS) data warehouse was used for provision of home detention data. Some data (particularly in relation to inmate programmes and activities) was obtained manually from other prison records. The remainder was obtained via prison staff conducting brief inmate interviews. A full listing of electronic and manual variables collected is shown below. Collected from the IOMS database: Inmate management data: Inmate ID; Prison name; Sentenced or remand status; Segregation status; Deportation status; Security status; RoCRoI Inmate Physical Data: Gender; Date of birth. Inmate Criminal History: Earliest SCD; Earliest Custodial SCD; Current SCD; Current SED; Current major offence; Prior major offence; Previous sentences count; Previous custodials count. (SCD = sentence commencement date; SED = sentence end date) Inmate Social History: All ethnicities; Primary ethnicity; All Iwi; Primary Iwi; All gangs; Highest education level attended; Highest education qualifications; Child custodial dependents count; Child financial dependents count; Marital status. Data from other sources: Bulk data supplied by Corrections Health Services: Medication numbers; Psychiatric medication numbers. Bulk data supplied by Public Prisons Service: Targeted programmes, Special focus unit locations; Bulk data supplied by Corrections Inmate Employment: Employment programmes; Inmate data collected by Prison officers: Income sources; Sole child carer; Child carer now.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 67

14.2 Inmate medication data Medication information was collated from the responses to the following email request.

Subject: Census question for Health Services

We need to know the total number receiving psychiatric medication and other medication (ie. two distinct counts for each facility) as of today. I would appreciate it very much if you could forward this to the Health Services Managers in your region.

Facility Name: Number of inmates Total receiving psychiatric medication Total receiving other medication

14.3 Inmate programmes data Inmate programmes data was collated from a number of sources as described below. • Special focus unit counts were sourced from the IOMS database inmate location details. • Targeted programme counts on Census day were collated from the Public Prisons service quarterly rehabilitation/interventions programs regional spreadsheets. • Inmate employment figures were supplied by Corrections Inmate Employment service.

68 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

14.4 Inmate questionnaire A form (see below) was generated for each prison unit. Each form was pre-populated with inmate identities for the unit to which it was sent. To allow time for prison officers to complete the forms, a preliminary copy was supplied, based on the muster of the Sunday preceding census day. Prison officers were able to complete the preliminary census form prior to census day, and then make deletions (where inmates had been released) as appropriate on actual census day. A shorter list reflecting new arrivals since the Sunday was supplied and completed on actual census day.

Census 2003 –Nov. 20 Non IOMS data collection

Instructions AROHATA PRISON

Note these questions are for information not directly available from IOMS. Firstly, thank you for your assistance in gathering this data. These questions are largely based on information gathered in the IEEA or LNA tools. While not available for all inmates, the maximum number of responses will greatly assist in getting an accurate overall picture. If there is any confusion, please feel free to contact Policy Development on 68019.

Disability – please respond as per question in Section 4 of LNA (Yes or No)

Age Left School – First question asked on IEEA

Sources of income just prior to entering prison – put code below in the box (all that apply) 1. Paid work 2. Unemployment benefit/ community wage 3. Domestic purposes benefit / G.R.I benefit 4. Sickness or invalid’s benefit 5. Crime 6. Other 7. None 8. No response

Sole caregiver – were they the sole carer for their dependent children just prior to entering prison? (Yes or No)

Care provider – this is as per Section 1 of the LNA where they identify where their dependent children are while they are in prison 1. No children 2. Partner or ex-partner 3. Immediate family (mother, father, sister, brother) 4. Wider family / whanau or in-laws 5. Foster care (CYFS etc) 6. Other 7. Don’t know

Region: WELLINGTON AROHATA PRISON Unit: CARTWRIGHT

NAME PRN/DLN Disability Age left Income source Sole Care school caregiver provider 1 INMATE NAME Xxxxxxxx Y / N Y / N 2 PREFILED FROM IOMS PREFILED Y / N Y / N 3 DATABASE XXXXXX Y / N Y / N 4 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX Y / N Y / N 5 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX Y / N Y / N

Department of Corrections Census 2003 69

15 Derived data and data categorisation

This section summarises the creation of derived data and the way the raw data has been classified or categorised for the purposes of the census. 15.1 Age Age at first sentence = Date Of Birth " Earliest Sentence Commencement Date Age at first custodial = Date Of Birth " Earliest Custodial Sentence Commencement Date Age at census = Date Of Birth " 20-Nov-2003 15.2 Time Left to Serve The custody of each inmate has an end-point date (known as the “statutory release date” for those sentenced after 1 July 2002 - the date of the introduction of the Sentencing and Parole Acts - or “final release date” for those sentenced before that date). Inmates eligible for parole may be released before these dates. Time left to serve = 20-Nov-2003 " Statutory release date / Final release date 15.3 Custodial Period Imposed The custodial period imposed for each “aggregate sentence” is the difference between it’s SCD and SED. Note that the sentence end date is not the same as actual release date, which is normally earlier due to parole considerations. Also note that no custodial time in remand will be captured by this number, however it does indicate the custodial period imposed from sentencing day as handed down by the Courts on that day. SCD: The earliest start date of the offender’s current sentences SED: The last end date of the offender’s current sentences, adjusted to take into account consecutive and concurrent sentencing and time spent in remand. Note that some sentences are indeterminate such as life and preventative sentences and do not have a valid SED that could be used in the calculation. These sentences have not been included in the custodial period imposed calculations.

15.4 Total Time Imposed Sum of the inmates’ custodial periods imposed. This measure does not include time in remand nor does it take account of early release and parole.

15.5 Marital status categories For the purposes of providing a better overview the raw IOMS marital status data was reduced using the following mapping. IOMS Data point Census category Never married Never married De facto spouse - opposite sex partner De facto spouse - opposite sex Null Not specified Not specified Not specified Legal spouse (not separated) - first marriage Married Legal spouse (not separated) - not further defined Married Legal spouse (not separated) - subsequent marriage Married Separated Separated Divorced Divorced Widowed Widowed De facto spouse - same sex partner De facto spouse - same sex

Department of Corrections Census 2003 71 15.6 Highest qualification level categories For the purposes of providing a better overview the raw IOMS qualification data was reduced using the following mapping. IOMS Data point Census category No secondary school qualification No school qualifications NZ school certificate in one or more subjects NZ School Certificate subjects NZ sixth form certificate in one or more subjects NZ Higher school subjects/Uni. Entrance NZ university entrance before 1986 in one or more subjects NZ Higher school subjects/Uni. Entrance NZ higher school certificate or higher leaving certificate NZ Higher school subjects/Uni. Entrance NZ university bursary, entrance or scholarship NZ Higher school subjects/Uni. Entrance Other NZ secondary school qualification, not further defined Other school and overseas qualifications Overseas secondary school qualification, not further defined Other school and overseas qualifications Overseas equivalent to school certificate Other school and overseas qualifications Overseas equivalent to higher school qualification Other school and overseas qualifications Other overseas qualification Other school and overseas qualifications Basic vocational qualification Vocational qualifications Skilled vocational qualification Vocational qualifications Intermediate vocational qualification Vocational qualifications Advanced vocational qualification Vocational qualifications Bachelors degree Bachelors degree Higher degree Higher degree Unidentifiable Unknown Not specified Unknown

15.7 Highest educational level attended categories For the purposes of providing a better overview and recognition of changing school terminology the raw IOMS education level data was reduced with the following mapping. IOMS Data point Census category Standard 1 < Year 9 Standard 2 < Year 9 Standard 3 < Year 9 Standard 4 < Year 9 Form 1 < Year 9 Form 2 < Year 9 Form 3 Year 9 (Form 3) Form 4 Year 10 (Form 4) Form 5 Year 11 (Form 5) Form 6 Year 12 (Form 6) Form 7 Year 13 (Form 7) Tertiary Tertiary Not in New Zealand Not in New Zealand Unknown Not recorded Null Not recorded

15.8 Primary gang A few inmates with multiple gang memberships were listed on the IOMS database, which has no provision for identifying a “primary” gang. Where this was the case the most recent database entry was used. 15.9 Primary income While only a few individuals (126) had listed multiple income sources in the manual interview, the data collection process did not provide for the inmates to identify a primary income. For the purposes of the census the first income source listed by the interviewing officer was taken as the primary income. 15.10 Preferred ethnicity and combined ethnicity Inmates may identify with multiple ethnicities, which produces some issues in how to summarise the data. The census presents data for inmate preferred ethnicity as well as combined ethnicity.

72 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

For the purpose of providing trend data in line with previous censuses and summarising ethnicity, mappings of ethnicity were made according to the table below. In the case of combined ethnicity inmates were then further categorised by placing individuals into the main combined ethnicity groups of: European; European and Māori; Māori; Māori and Pacific; Pacific peoples and Other Census category IOMS Data Point Raw Count European New Zealand European/Pakeha 1962 European European (Not Further Defined) 929 European Australian 34 European English 33 European Dutch/Netherlands 14 European South African 11 European Scottish (Scots) 10 European American (Us) 8 European Irish 6 European Greek (Incl. Greek Cypriot) 5 European Polish 5 European German 4 European Czech 3 European Spanish 3 European Canadian 3 European Russian 3 European Belgian 2 European British (Not Elsewhere Classified) 2 European Ukrainian 2 European Swedish 2 European Bulgarian 2 European British (Not Further Defined) 2 European Welsh 1 European Swiss 1 European Portuguese 1 European Other European (Not Further Defined) 1 European Italian 1 European Danish 1 European Croat/Croatian 1 European Austrian 1 Māori New Zealand Māori 3279 Other Chinese (Not Further Defined) 57 Other Indian (Not Further Defined) 39 Other Asian (Not Further Defined) 28 Other African (Not Further Defined) 22 Other Other (Not Further Defined) 16 Other Vietnamese 13 Other Iranian/Persian 12 Other Fijian Indian/Indo-Fijian 7 Other Israeli/Jewish/Hebrew 6 Other Malay/Malayan 5 Other Iraqi 5 Other Vietnamese Chinese 5 Other Middle Eastern (Not Further Defined) 4 Other Algerian 4 Other Korean 3 Other Khmer/Kampuchean/Cambodian 3 Other Thai/Tai/Siamese 3 Other Japanese 3 Other Other (Not Elsewhere Classified) 3 Other Sri Lankan (Not Elsewhere Classified) 3 Other Nigerian 3 Other Chinese (Not Elsewhere Classified) 3 Other Puerto Rican 2 Other Punjabi 2 Other Afghani 2 Other Singaporean Chinese 2 Other Hong Kong Chinese 2 Other Pakistani 2 Other Indian (Not Elsewhere Classified) 2 Other Lao/Laotian 2 Other Latin American/Hispanic (Not Further Defined) 2 Other Filipino 2 Other Sikh 1 Other Peruvian 1 Other Southeast Asian (Not Further Defined) 1

Department of Corrections Census 2003 73 Other Sri Lankan (Not Further Defined) 1 Other Taiwanese Chinese 1 Other Malaysian Chinese 1 Other Palestinian 1 Other Other African (Not Elsewhere Classified) 1 Other Latin American/Hispanic (Not Elsewhere Classified) 1 Other Jordanian 1 Other Jamaican 1 Other Mauritian 1 Other Egyptian 1 Other Colombian 1 Other Bolivian 1 Other Bangladeshi 1 Other Assyrian 1 Other Arab 1 Other Not Specified 27 Other Unidentifiable 1 Pacific Peoples Samoan 303 Pacific Peoples Pacific Island (Not Further Defined) 196 Pacific Peoples Cook Island Māori (Not Further Defined) 172 Pacific Peoples Tongan 129 Pacific Peoples Niuean 41 Pacific Peoples Fijian (Except Fiji Indian/Indo-Fijian) 28 Pacific Peoples Rarotongan 27 Pacific Peoples Tokelauan 6 Pacific Peoples Tuvalu Islander/Ellice Islander 2 Pacific Peoples Other Pacific Island (Not Elsewhere Classified) 1 Pacific Peoples Other Pacific Island Groups 1 Pacific Peoples Papuan/New Guinean/Irian Jayan 1 Pacific Peoples Rotuman/Rotuman Islander 1 Pacific Peoples Aitutaki Islander 1 Pacific Peoples Bismark Archipelagoan 1 Counts do not add to total inmates as each inmate may be counted in several ethnicities.

74 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

15.11 Offence categories An important characteristic featured in the census is “major offence”. Offence categories are derived using Police codes and categories. In an attempt to align with previous census categories the Police category of “Sexual” offending has been split into “Sexual violence” and “Misc” as detailed below. For inmates with more than one offence, the most serious is chosen according to the Ministry of Justice’s “seriousness of offence” scale. For an outline on the history of offence categorisation methods see the time series section 13.5 Major Offence. Out of approximately 5,000 Police offence codes less than 400 are represented in the list of inmate “major offences”. For the purposes of summarisation, this census has categorised the inmate “major offences” according to the first two characters of the Police offence code and used the mapping as shown below. First two characters Category Sub category Inmates having major offence within of offence code category 11 Violence Homicide 449 12 Violence Kidnapping and abduction 60 13 Violence Robbery 589 14 Violence Grievous assaults 561 15 Violence Serious assaults 125 16 Violence Minor assaults 2 17 Violence Intimidation/threats 67 21 Sexual violence Sexual attacks 122 22 Misc Sexual affronts 4 23 Misc Abnormal sex relations 3 24 Misc Immoral behaviour 1 26 Sexual violence Sexual attacks 983 27 Misc Abnormal sex 5 28 Misc Immoral behaviour 27 31 Drugs Drugs (not cannabis) 238 32 Drugs Drugs(cannabis only) 208 37 Misc Family offences 1 38 Misc Family offences continued 15 41 Property Burglary 735 42 Property Car conversion etc 80 43 Property Theft 54 44 Property Receiving 39 45 Property Fraud 132 49 Property Fraud 1 51 Property Destruction of property 62 52 Property Endangering 2 59 Drugs Drug supply 3 61 Property Trespass 3 63 Property Animals 1 68 Property Arms act offences 22 71 Misc Against justice 42 73 Misc Immigration 2 77 Misc Justice (special) 3 79 Misc Justice (special) 15 93 Misc Justice (special) 1 96 Misc Justice (special) 1 97 Misc Justice (special) 2 98 Misc Justice (special) 5 99 Misc Justice (special) 5 A1 Traffic Driving with excess Alcohol 9 A3 Traffic Driving with excess Alcohol 54 A5 Traffic Driving with excess Alcohol 120 D1 Traffic Driving dangerously/carelessly 3 D2 Traffic Driving dangerously/carelessly 14 D5 Traffic Driving dangerously/carelessly 4 L2 Traffic Driving while disqualified 216

Department of Corrections Census 2003 75 15.12 Special focus units In order to count the inmates housed in special focus units the following table of IOMS inmate unit designations was used. Region Facility IOMS Unit name Special Focus Unit Type Auckland Auckland Prison W/Te Piriti Sex offender treatment Unit Midland Hawkes Bay Prison Unit 5 Māori focus unit Midland Hawkes Bay Prison Unit 5-Self Care Self care unit Midland Hawkes Bay Prison You-W1 Youth unit Midland Hawkes Bay Prison You-W2 Youth unit Midland Hawkes Bay Prison You-W3 Youth unit Midland Wanganui Prison Self Care Self care unit Midland Wanganui Prison Whanui Māori focus unit South Island Christchurch Prison Leimon Villas Self care unit South Island Christchurch Prison Youth Unit Youth unit South Island Christchurch Womens Self Care Unit 1 Self care unit South Island Christchurch Womens Self Care Unit 2 Self care unit South Island Christchurch Womens Self Care Unit 3 Self care unit South Island Christchurch Womens Self Care Unit 4 Self care unit South Island Rolleston Prison Kia Marama Unit Sex offender treatment unit South Island Rolleston Prison Kowhai Unit Alcohol and drug treatment unit Waikato/Central Tongariro/Rangipo Tehikoinga Māori focus unit Waikato/Central Waikeria Prison Karaka Alcohol and drug treatment unit Waikato/Central Waikeria Prison Te Ao Marama Māori focus unit Waikato/Central Waikeria Prison Youth Unit Youth unit Wellington Arohata Prison Self Care Self care unit Wellington Arohata Prison Te Araroa (Dtu) Alcohol and drug treatment unit Wellington Rimutaka Prison Kauri Youth unit Wellington Rimutaka Prison Rimu Youth unit Wellington Rimutaka Prison Unit 5 Māori focus unit Wellington Rimutaka Prison Unit 7 Faith based unit Wellington Rimutaka Prison Unit 9 Violence treatment unit

15.13 Home detention (CPS) regions In order to summarise the region in which they reside, home detainees have been grouped according to the region of the Community Probation Service Centre that manages them. The table below lists the CPS offices and the regions to which they are assigned. Region CPS service centre Taitokerau Whangarei; Kaitaia; Kaikohe Waitemata Henderson; Takapuna Auckland Auckland District Court; Mt Eden; New Lynn; Panmure; Onehunga; Mangere Manukau Manukau District Court; Otara; Manurewa; Papakura; Franklin; Otahuhu Hamilton Hamilton; Huntly; Te Kuiti; Taumarunui; Te Awamutu; Hauraki Waiariki Tauranga; Whakatane; Opotiki; Kawerau; Te Puke; Rotorua; Tokoroa; Taupo Taranaki / Whanganui / Tararua Palmerston North; Levin; Wanganui; Hawera; New Plymouth Hawkes Bay / Gisborne Napier; Hastings; Gisborne; Wairoa Wellington Porirua; Paraparaumu; Lower Hutt; Upper Hutt; Wellington; Wellington District Court; Masterton Nelson / Marlborough / West Coast Blenheim; Nelson; Greymouth Christchurch Christchurch (Central, South, District Court); Aranui; Rangiora; Papanui; Pages Rd; Riccarton Dunedin / Invercargill Dunedin; Oamaru; Balclutha; Timaru; Invercargill; Gore; Alexandra; Queenstown.

76 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

15.14 Iwi regions In order to summarise iwi into regional groups the following mappings were applied. It is possible for inmates to identify with multiple iwi, however only the inmates' primary iwi has been analysed here. Iwi As Entered In IOMS Inmates Northland/Auckland Iwi Ngapuhi 391 Ngapuhi Ki Whaingaroa-Ngati Kahu Ki Whaingaroa 3 Ngati Kahu 10 Ngati Kuri 26 Ngati Whatua 11 Northland/Auckland Iwi Not Further Defined 53 Te Aupouri 6 Te Rarawa 5 Te Roroa 1 Hauraki Iwi Hauraki Iwi Not Further Defined 2 Ngati Maru (Marutuahu) 5 Ngati Paoa 3 Ngati Porou Ki Harataunga Ki Mataora 2 Ngati Tara Tokanui 1 Waikato/King Country Iwi Ngati Haua (Waikato) 4 Ngati Maniapoto 64 Ngati Raukawa (Waikato) 9 Waikato 33 Waikato/King Country Iwi Not Further Defined 68 Te Arawa/Taupo Iwi Ngati Pikiao 6 Ngati Rangiteaorere 1 Ngati Rangitihi 1 Ngati Rangiwewehi 2 Ngati Tahu (Te Arawa) 2 Ngati Whakaue 6 Tapuika 2 Tarawhai 2 Te Arawa/Taupo Iwi Not Further Defined 69 Tuwharetoa 72 Uenuku-Kopako 1 Waitaha (Te Arawa) 1 Bay Of Plenty Iwi Bay Of Plenty Iwi Not Further Defined 13 Ngai Tai 7 Ngaiterangi 16 Ngati Awa 36 Ngati Pukenga 1 Ngatiranginui 16 Tuhoe 128 Whakatohea 19 Whanau-A-Apanui 17 East Coast Iwi East Coast Iwi Not Further Defined 36 Ngati Porou 201 Rongowhakaata 4 Te Aitanga-A-Mahaki 2 Hawkes Bay/Wairarapa Iwi Hawkes Bay/Wairarapa Iwi Not Further Defined 23 Kahungunu, Area Unspecified 76 Ngati Kahungunu Ki Heretaunga 12 Ngati Kahungunu Ki Tamakinui A Rua 2 Ngati Kahungunu Ki Tamatea 4 Ngati Kahungunu Ki Te Wairoa 15 Ngati Kahungunu Ki Wairarapa 9 Rangitane (Hawkes Bay/Wairarapa) 1 Rongomaiwahine 4 Taranaki Iwi Nga Rauru 5 Nga Ruahine 5 Ngati Maru (Taranaki) 1 Ngati Mutunga (Taranaki) 1 Ngati Ruanui 14

Department of Corrections Census 2003 77 Ngati Tama (Taranaki) 1 Pakakohe 1 Tangahoe 1 Taranaki 2 Taranaki Iwi Not Further Defined 19 Te Atiawa (Taranaki) 15 Whanganui Iwi Ngati Apa 5 Ngati Haua (Taumarunui) 5 Te Ati Hau Nui-A-Paparangi 9 Whanganui Iwi Not Further Defined 10 Manawatu/Horowhenua/Wellington Iwi Manawatu/Horowhenua/Wellington Iwi Not Further Defined 17 Muaupoko 3 Ngati Raukawa (Horowhenua/Manawatu) 16 Ngati Toa (Wellington) 9 Rangitane (Manawatu) 3 Te Atiawa (Wellington) 5 South Island/Chatham Island Iwi Ngai Tahu 42 Ngati Toa (South Island) 1 South Island/Chatham Island Iwi Not Further Defined 13 Te Atiawa (South Island) 2 Waitaha (South Island) 3 Iwi Named But Area Unspecified Ngati Apa, Region Unspecified 1 Ngati Haua, Area Unspecified 1 Ngati Mutunga, Area Unspecified 1 Ngati Toa, Area Unspecified 1 Miscellaneous Do Not Know Name Of Iwi 16 Unidentifiable 67 Not Applicable 61 Not Specified 7 Iwi Not Named But Waka/Iwi Cofederation Known Tainui 28 Te Arawa 12

15.15 Progammes Groups In order to summarise programmes the actual programme names as supplied by various regions in quarterly spreadsheets have been grouped together as follows. Programme name supplied Programme group reported in census 100 Hour MPRO (Mixed) 100 Hour programmes 100 Hour Substance Abuse 100 Hour programmes MPRO 100 Hour programmes Stopping Violence 100 Hour programmes Living Skills Living skills Straight Thinking Straight Thinking Tikanga Māori - Mahi Tahi Tikanga Māori Tikanga Māori - Mau Rakau Tikanga Māori Tikanga Māori- Mau Raukau Wananga Tikanga Māori

78 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

16 Census Data Quality

During the creation of this document the following methods have been used to ensure and assess the quality of the data presented. 1) Peer review of the collection, extraction and analysis processes. 2) Repeat entry for samples of manually entered data. 3) Analysis to check internal consistency of data. 4) “Sanity checks” against other work and previous census documents 5) Sanity checks by department specialists against existing knowledge and reports. The quality of the data presented here falls into several main categories. Excellent prison and inmate management data The key census data is passed to the Department from Courts and is the basis on which the prison muster is created. The same definitive source of data is used in the census that is used for managing inmates. This high quality data includes the following: inmate identities, the facilities in which they reside, the offences that have resulted in their current sentences, and the sentence data itself. Good imported historical data Of almost the same high quality is the historic criminal record data. While this data is sourced from the IOMS database, its transmission entailed various import processes, and the distilling of information from older records. This data potentially contains some errors; it is not used for formal inmate management purposes, but is retained for other purposes. This generally high-quality data includes historic sentencing detail from which information such as sentence counts and earliest custodial sentence age are derived. Good routine demographic data Key demographic data such as gender, age, ethnicity, etc are collected routinely, some of which is information volunteered by offenders themselves. The IOMS system does not enforce the collection of this data but where it is recorded (almost 100%) it is regarded as sound. (Although it is always possible for inmates to be deliberately misleading as evidenced by the number of aliases recorded in the database). Other data, such as risk scores, while generally accepted as accurate, are susceptible to system instability, and individual errors have been observed. Representative data Some data collected by the Department is peripheral to the inmate’s management, and as such staff may omit to cover it in reception or induction interviews, and inmates may not always report it accurately; follow-up checking is not done nor indeed is it always realistic. An inmate who states that his income prior to imprisonment was derived from wages is taken at his word. Given that inconsistencies have been uncovered in data of this type, it should be regarded as indicative only, representing the approximate proportions of inmates in various sub-groups, rather than exact numbers. The following data should be regarded as representative rather than precise: Marriage status; Child dependents and child care; Gang membership; Income sources; Educational qualifications.

Department of Corrections Census 2003 79

17 Changes Since Prison Census 2001

17.1 Prison and policy changes In the time period between the 15-Nov-2001 Census snapshot and this 20-Nov-2003 snapshot the following environmental changes have taken place. • Central North Island prison was renamed to Tongariro/Rangipo prison • A new female unit of 60 beds opened at Waikeria prison. • A 60-bed faith-based unit opened at Rimutaka Prison in October 2003 • The Sentencing Act 2002 became effective from 1 July 2002 • The Parole Act 2002 became effective from 1 July 2002 • Victims' Rights Act 2002 became effective from December 2002

17.2 Definitions changes Comparing this census with the 2001 Census the following changes in definitions have occurred. Ethnicity: 2001: Ethnicity was defined using “ethnic trumping” i.e. in cases where an inmate identified multiple ethnicities, the assigned ethnicity reflected the following precedence: Māori, Pacific, European, Asian, Other (e.g., an inmate who identified Māori and European ethnicity would be classified as Māori). 2003: Ethnicity was recorded as the primary ethnicity indicated by the inmate. Note: the “Combined Ethnicity” data will have been relatively unaffected by this change. Convictions vs. sentences vs. custodial episode: The manner in which previous convictions and sentences is counted has changed. To illustrate the complexity in this area, an individual offender may attend Court for sentencing on, say 100 individual charges. He may be convicted on all charges, but some of the convictions will be amalgamated and result in a single sentence. However, there may be multiple individual sentences, all of imprisonment, and some of differing lengths. Further, some sentences may be made concurrent with others, while some may be cumulative upon others. Given that in reality the offender can serve only one custodial period at a time, an “aggregate” sentence is determined from all of the combined sentences, with a single start date, parole eligibility date, and statutory release date. Recent censuses have counted aggregate sentences in determining number of previous sentences for each inmate. However, given the changing definitions of the aggregation processes of sentences, this current census has adopted the custom of counting the individual sentences passed down by the Courts. A new time series has been started on this basis. The data used in this report also does not include sentences handed down by the Courts but which the Department of Corrections is not required to manage. For example,

Department of Corrections Census 2003 81 convictions leading to a sentence such as a fine, or discharge after conviction (i.e., the kinds of sentences applied to minor offences) are not included in this analysis. Summary: 2001: Counts of “Aggregate Sentences” (a Department of Corrections management construct) were incorrectly labelled “Convictions”. 2003: Counts of “Sentences” are now presented, the term convictions is no longer used. Sentences are as specified by the courts, and do not include minor sentences such as conviction and discharge, fines, etc. Education levels and qualifications: 2001: Two separate questions asked, one for “highest school qualification achieved”, and a second for “other qualification”, the latter question for multiple selections. 2003: Single question asked for highest educational qualification achieved; the inmate chooses a single item from a list that included school, vocational and other post- secondary options, thus collapsing the two elements in 2001. An additional question on “educational level” was asked with the inmate able to choose a single item from schooling levels but excluding vocational training as a level. Child dependents: 2001: “In the 4 weeks before you came into Corrections care, how many dependent children under 18 years old were living with you?” 2003: IOMS has input fields “Child Custodial Dependents” and “Child Financial Dependents”. These fields are completed at prison reception. Only the Child Custodial Dependents are summarised in the Children and Marriage chapter, however the combined effect of Custodial and Financial dependents is used in the trend data to try to align it with previous census interpretations. Gang memberships: 2001: From their own knowledge on census day prison officers were asked to identify inmates as a gang association member and/or gang patch member. 2003: At the inmate’s receiving interview prison officers may add a gang membership record(s), selecting a gang and status for the record(s). Risk Scores (RoC*RoI): Note that risk scores are a calculated value and the method of calculation is subject to ongoing refinement and development. Between 2001 and 2003 an increased number of inmate records contained a calculated risk score. However, as a result of changes in both availability and calculation of risk scores, comparisons between 2001 and 2003 risk score profiles are problematic. Total time in previous custodial sentences: 2001: This was described as “Time spent in prison, defined by days actually served”. However it would appear that the calculation used was in fact the days elapsed between sentence commencement date (SCD) and sentence expiry date (SED): i.e., the nominal sentence imposed. 2003: Calculated from SCD and SED, and described as “Custodial Period Imposed”. Note that sentence and parole laws mean that, in general time served is between one third and two thirds of the total Custodial Period Imposed.

82 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

Age at first custodial sentence for sentenced inmates: 2001: Data for only a subset of sentenced inmates were included in the analysis (i.e., sentenced inmates with one or more previous custodial sentence(s). 2003: Data was as described (i.e., includes all sentenced inmates, with age at first custodial sentence as for current sentence if no previous terms).

17.3 Table Changes. This census is part of a series that, taken together, can indicate larger trends not apparent in individual censuses. Ideally the data collected and analysed comes from identical questions with identical interpretations and methods of summary from one year to the next. However every census sees some change in the material collected and analysed. A summary of the differences between this (2003) census and the previous census (2001) is given below. Change 2001 Census table number and description Notes (using 2003 Census table number and description) Discontinued 3-6 Number of iwi named for sentenced inmates This table indicated that a small number of individuals identified with more than one iwi. Discontinued 9-4 Age of youngest child living with sentenced This question was not asked in the manual questionnaire inmates and not available from other sources. Discontinued 11-8 Previous sentence type for remanded inmates This table merely demonstrated that, of those remand inmates that had previously been in prison most had been in prison. Discontinued 11-16 Care of children for remand inmates Insufficient data available Discontinued 13-2 Inmates transferred from prison to a psychiatric Inmates are either serving a custodial sentence or not: hospital (Time series) there is no official "on transfer" status. An improved specification will be developed to allow for meaningful reporting of inmates under the care of psychiatric services. Discontinued 13-14 Sentenced inmates enrolled in programmes The data described in this table has had its collection (Time series) method and definitions change so often that it is inappropriate to treat it as numerical trend data. The delivery number and type of programmes is under ongoing refinement. Discontinued 13-12 Supervision of sentenced inmates (Time series) The data described in this table was not collected using the manual questionnaire this censuses. Further, current practice does not lend itself to defining an inmate as being under “psychiatric supervision”. Replaced 11-10 Remand inmates currently receiving medication Table 8-4 Sentenced and remand inmates currently receiving medication Replaced 11-9 “Patch” (gang) membership - remand inmates Replaced with table 11-8 Gang membership of remand inmates; IOMS does not differentiate between “patched” and associate members. Replaced 8-1 Enrolments by sentenced inmates in programmes Replaced with tables: and activities Table 8-1 Sentenced inmates resident in 8-2 Rehabilitative programmes attended by sentenced special focus units. inmates. Table 8-2 Sentenced inmates currently 8-3 Attendance by sentenced inmates in activities participating in reintegrative programmes Table 8-3 Inmates (remand and sentenced) and employment. The above information was available whereas the survey questions on programmes were not included in the census. Replaced 9-1 Sentenced inmates living with children under 18 Table 9-2 Sentenced inmates with child years. custodial dependents at Replaced 11-15 Children dependent on remand inmates. Table 11-13 Remand inmates with child custodial dependents at imprisonment. Combined 6-1 Gang Patch membership of sentences inmates Combined into one table: 6-2 Gang Affiliation of sentenced inmates 6-1 Gang membership of sentenced inmates. The IOMS database does not differentiate between “patched” and associate members. Combined 13-23 Gang affiliation of sentenced males Table 13-21 Total gang membership of sentenced 13-24 Patch membership of sentenced males males (percent) Table 13-22 Gang membership of sentenced males (percent) Both the above tables have a discontinuity due to IOMS data not differentiating patch members from others. Combined 7-3 Source of income prior to entering prison of Combined into table 7-3 Source of income prior to

Department of Corrections Census 2003 83 sentenced inmates. entering prison of sentenced inmates. 7-4 Type of benefit prior to entering prison of The IOMS database stores benefit type as a type of sentenced inmates. income. Combined 11-13 Income sources for remand inmates. Table 11-12 Source of income prior to entering 11-14 Type of benefit for remand inmates. prison of remand inmates The IOMS database stores benefit type as a type of income. Combined 9-2 Sentenced inmates and child care Replaced with table: 9-3 Care of sentenced inmates’ children under 18 Table 9-3 Care of sentenced inmates’ children years Combined 11-16 Care of children for remand inmates Replaced with table: 11-17 Remanded inmates and child care Table 11-14 Care of remand inmates’ children Combined Iwi detail tables in appendix Previously three tables all listing all iwi but with slightly different data. These have been combined into a single table.

84 Census 2003 Department of Corrections

18 References

Braybrook B, and O’Neill R (1988), A Census of Prison Inmates, 1987, Department of Justice, Wellington

Braybrook B (1990), Census of Prison Inmates, 1989, Department of Justice, Wellington.

Braybrook B, and Southey P (1992), Census of Prison Inmates, 1991, Department of Justice, Wellington

Southey P, Spier P, and Edgar N (1995), Census of Prison Inmates, 1993, Department of Justice, Wellington

Lash B (1996), Census of Prison Inmates, 1995, Ministry of Justice, Wellington

Lash B (1998), Census of Prison Inmates, 1997, Ministry of Justice, Wellington

Rich M (2000), Census of Prison Inmates, 1999, Department of Corrections, Wellington

Pullon B (2003), Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees, 2001, Department of Corrections, Wellington

Bakker L, Riley D, O’Malley J (1999), Risk of Reconviction, Department of Corrections, Wellington

Spier P, Luketina F, Kettles S (1991) Changes in the Seriousness of Offending and in the Pattern of Sentencing: 1979 to 1988, Department of Justice, Wellington

Department of Corrections Census 2003 85