Niacro

NIACRO’S RESPONSE TO THE NIPS CONSULTATION ON

 PROGRESSIVE REGIMES & EARNED PRIVILEGES SCHEME (PREPS)

CORPORATE FRAMEWORK

 SEPTEMBER 2006

1. Introduction

1.1 NIACRO, the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, is a voluntary organisation, working for 35 years to reduce crime and its impact on people and communities.  NIACRO provides services under the headings of: working in communities; working with children and young people who offend; working with offenders and ex-prisoners; working with prisoners, their families and children; influencing policy and practice; and applying resources effectively.

1.2 NIACRO has links with, receives funding from, and/or works in partnership with all the main criminal justice agencies in Northern Ireland.

1.3 NIACRO is pleased to contribute to comments as requested by the NI Prison Service in respect of the consultation document “Progressive Regimes & Earned Privileges Scheme (PREPS)”

1.4 NIACRO has considerable experience providing Services to people in custody – through our Advice Service, the Gateway Programme - and currently is working in partnership with the NI Prison Service and others in the ReachOut programme which works to progress employability for ex-prisoners.  NIACRO also provides a range of services for families and the children of prisoners through our Visitors Centres, Family Links and associated services.

2. Objectives and Aims of PREPS

2.1 NIACRO welcomes the use of PREPS as a mechanism for rewarding participation and not for punishing bad behaviour but achieving this need to be monitored closely.

2.2 NIACRO acknowledges the commitment to equitable application of the scheme for remand as well as sentenced prisoners, but would question the exclusion of those housed in separated conditions.

It is argued that this group are catered for by their own, recently published separated regime.  In NIACRO’s view separation is about safety and all prisoners should have opportunities to engage in constructive activity developmental programmes to assist effective resettlement.

2.3 The proposals are based on preparing resettlement plans on all prisoners, remands and sentenced – regardless of length of sentence – thus extending current practice and this is welcomed. A time frame on when this is likely to be achieved would be helpful.

2.4 We are aware of the shortage of ‘places’ available for constructive activity and agree that prisoners should not be penalised if they haven’t been given the opportunity to engage in the agreed activity.  However we are also aware that prisoners who are ‘working’ can feel demotivated and resentful at being paid the same as others who are not, and these arrangements need to be carefully explained.

2.5 It is our view that there should be some piloting of initiatives (eg timetable restructuring) designed to increase the number of part-time constructive activity placements available across all three prison establishments on a daily basis.

2.6 The principle of voluntary engagement with the activities agreed on the resettlement plan brings into focus the importance of ensuring the preparation of accurate and timely assessments which inform the plan. The processes which feed into Resettlement Planning need therefore to be consistently applied.

2.7 Passing the responsibility for the Corporate Framework to Resettlement Branch (Operations Directorate) firmly connects PREPS to the Resettlement Planning Process in establishments.

2.8 We also welcome the commitment to ensuring that prisoners, staff, etc

understand the scheme and feel that this should be extended to include families

of prisoners/next of kin, who have a significant role in terms of resettlement.

2.9 The EQIA is referenced but it would have been helpful to have had sight of it as an appendix to the consultation.

2.10 The monitoring and auditing of the scheme should assess consistency of application across the three establishments.

3.     Regimes

3.1 NIACRO agrees that all prisoners should enter the regime at Standard level and that it is important that the Basic regime is not used as a form of segregation or punishment.  Enhanced regime offers the opportunity to apply for a "working out" arrangement. This should include the range of schemes available such as the "Working from home or outside work scheme" at Hydebank Wood.

3.2 We welcome the significance given to Resettlement Planning as central to the decision making process for all prisoners. NIACRO has contributed directly to the development of the Resettlement needs assessment and welcomes the commitment of the Prison service to streamlining the various processes which affect decisions made in respect of individual prisoners.

3.3 It is important that the prisoner, having co-operated with assessments to identify needs, is then afforded some opportunity to sustain motivation to address them. We would argue that to ensure that "compacts" are integrated with the prisoner's resettlement plan as well as other regime initiatives; this requires a high standard of communication between various prison departments and between a range of disciplines, underpinned by a commitment from all concerned.

3.4 The framework acknowledges the particular needs of different prisoner groups in regard to PREPS, but again we would express concern at the exclusion of those on Separated regime from the range of constructive activity.

4.   Key Earnable Privileges

4.1 It is not unreasonable that enhanced privileges can be withdrawn on the basis of non-engagement with an activity identified on a resettlement plan. However given that plans are agreed within weeks of committal and that waiting times can be long, it would be hoped that any reasonable arguments for the prisoner's subsequent non-engagement can be taken into account.

4.2 Reference is made to the prisoner's 'PREPS' report. How does this link to the 'Review' of the Resettlement Plan as well as other decisions about home/ resettlement leave etc?

4.3 We would argue that in respect of access to reading materials, this should not be restricted for those on Basic regime and indeed a desire for reading materials should be viewed positively.

5.  Reporting

5.1 It is reasonable to identify factors which must be taken into account when making decisions about privileges. However, where it is clear that the prisoner has, for example, a negative or unacceptable attitude towards others such as family members, there should be an opportunity for this to be explored by the relevant discipline in the prison.

5.2 In regard to Case Management, reference is made to the PREPS file, to Resettlement and to 'work allocation'.   If processes are to make sense to the individual prisoner, then it is necessary to have the Resettlement Plan/file as the central point into which other information is fed. From what is suggested, this central file, which should have currency with all disciplines, should then be referenced before any decision affecting the prisoner is taken. Otherwise there is a risk that "Resettlement" activity will operate in parallel to other processes rather than being the focus of what the Prison Service is trying to achieve. NIACRO would also agree that encouraging landing staff to feed into the overall plan for the prisoner should contribute to this process.

6.  Promotions and Demotions

6.1 It is appropriate, not only for prisoners, but also for staff, to outline clearly the rules for achieving and losing entitlement to particular regimes.  However these rules need to be applied in the context of all relevant information and there should be some degree of flexibility available. For example there may be a particular reason why a prisoner has received two adverse reports from staff over what is a substantial period of time (12 weeks).

6.2 Reference is made to a 'demotion' board.  In terms of 'case management' it would be helpful if the 'review' of the individual's overall plan could be addressed, rather than convening a 'board' for the sole purpose of demotion.

6.3 Adjudications require a separate outcome.

7.  Appeals

7.1 NIACRO would argue that there is merit in considering the availability of an advocacy service for prisoners to ensure the openness and transparency of the PREPS framework.  The framework offers safeguards to prisoners and guidance to staff, but effective monitoring can only really rely on what is recorded on file(s) - particularly after a prisoner is released.

The efforts on the part of the NI Prison Service to operate a regime which will motivate and reward effort and progress would in our view be enhanced by independent advocacy.

8.  Monitoring and Auditing

8.1   Again 'PREPS review decisions' are identified as a process separate from the 'review of the resettlement plan' and yet it is supposed to be fundamentally linked to the prisoner's participation in the agreed activities of the resettlement plan. It is of some concern that a great deal of 'energy' and 'resources' will be directed towards the monitoring of 'PREPS' decisions as a separate activity rather than looking at whether or not individual prisoners have participated in their plan and if the activities they agreed to were made available to them.

It would be misleading, particularly in terms of effective resettlement practice, if the figures for those on "enhanced regime" masked the figures for those willing to participate in developmental activities but who did not actually have the opportunity to do so.

9.  Drug Testing

9.1 NIACRO welcomes the arrangement for an individual care plan for those on Standard regime who have failed drug testing over a period of 28 days, rather than immediate downgrading.

September 2006

_____________________________________________________________