Women in Prison : a report by the Anti–Discrimination Commission
Queensland
6.2 Prisoner management
6.2.1 Sentence management plans/case management process
The initial intake assessment process determines a prisoner’s
risk and security classification and forms the basis for developing
a sentence management plan with programs to deal with the risk
and needs identified for the individual. The DCS states that:
sentence planning is designed to ensure that
the management of prisoners’ sentences is individualised, planned
in accordance with assessment outcomes, prioritises and targets
intervention based on assessed risks and needs and enables offenders
to achieve individual goals within agreed time frames.
A case management process applies to each prisoner serving a
sentence of more than twelve months, and for those prisoners serving
less than twelve months who are identified as having special needs.
They may, for example, be at risk, intellectually disabled, or
have limited English skills. The DCS states that:
the purpose of the case management process is
to ensure that individual risk/needs identified in sentence plans
are addressed by assigning responsibilities for the implementation
of specific intervention and management strategies.
6.2.2 Offender Risk/Needs Inventory (ORNI)
In Queensland, in addition to classification criteria outlined
in section 12 of the CSA, a further assessment process is undertaken
on prisoners who are being imprisoned for periods longer than
12 months. These prisoners are also assessed via a standardised
tool to assess risks and needs known as the Offender Risk/Needs
Inventory or ORNI. The stated purpose of the ORNI is to:
assign
a level of community risk based on criminogenic factors which
best practice methods have identified as general predictors of
re–offending.
Completion of this assessment determines the risk
level of a prisoner as low, medium, high or extreme. A range of
matters is considered to determine this risk including educational
level, employment history, reliance upon government assistance,
and the prisoner’s housing background.
The ORNI is also used to
identify the interventions and programs to be provided to those
prisoners who are assessed as being medium to high risk. Depending
on their needs assessment, educational, vocational, self–development
and other programs are aimed at reducing a prisoner’s risk of
re–offending in the community. Depending on the level of risk
assessed, access to various programs or training will be offered
to prisoners in an order of priority. For instance, for medium
and high risk prisoners, offender behaviour and literacy programs
are first priority. Vocational and educational training is available
only when all priority programs are completed.
ORNI assessments
do not differentiate between male and female prisoners. Concerns
have been expressed that these assessments are based on the characteristics
of male offenders because the large majority of prisoners are
men. The DCS has stated that the Queensland tool is standardised
but not rigid in its application, and that individual circumstances
and the needs of each offender are taken into account. The DCS
asserts the particular needs of female prisoners will be identified
and programs allocated accordingly.
Given the differences in profiles
between male and female prisoners, and the types of offences they
have committed, it seems questionable that the criminogenic factors
and their weighting would be exactly the same for males and females.
With the benefit of further research into women in prison, it
is now becoming much clearer that the issues surrounding criminality
in men need to be considered differently from those of women.
Factors such as physical, mental and sexual abuse, severity of
the current offence and employment history may need to be considered
differently when dealing with female offenders.
This issue has
been the subject of close scrutiny in other jurisdictions. Both
the accuracy of what this type of tool is intending to measure
and its reliability has been questioned, particularly in relation
to female prisoners.[88]
The DCS is very clear that the process of
security classification of prisoners, and the assessment of their
risks and needs to make rehabilitation recommendations using the
ORNI are completely separate processes. According to the DCS,
the security classification process is not directly related to
the ORNI.[89]
Women’s groups, including Sisters Inside Inc, have criticised
the use of the ORNI, arguing that the process converts disadvantage
into risk, and that women prisoners with a high level of disadvantage
will attract a higher security classification. In particular,
Aboriginal women, culturally and linguistically diverse women
and women with disabilities have a much greater chance of being
assessed at a higher risk level than other prisoners. The ADCQ
has noted already that the process of assigning classifications
to prisoners under section 12 of the CSA is a valid concern.[90]
The
ADCQ accepts the DCS assurance that the ORNI assessment is undertaken
primarily to determine rehabilitation program recommendations
for prisoners assessed as having a high risk of re–offending/community
risk, and that its purpose is not to determine classification
levels of prisoners.
The ORNI is a tool used to identify criminogenic
needs, to assess the risk factors of a person re–offending, with
a view to building a sentence management plan and to target interventions.
Prisoners who receive a high ORNI assessment are likely to receive
a higher level of intense interventions and programs, while those
assessed at the lower level may receive a different level of intervention.
The DCS has explained that the aim is to target programs and resources
to prisoners who most need them.
The ADCQ has been advised that the DCS has worked with experts
from various institutions, including the Universities of Central
Queensland and South Australia to examine the ORNI assessment
tool both in relation to Indigenous prisoners and for use in community
corrections. More recently, the ADCQ has been told that the DCS
has embarked on an evaluation of the ORNI in association with
the University of Queensland. The purpose of this evaluation 'is
to determine whether the ORNI is a valid tool for predicting recidivism
risk as well as its use for the identification of intervention
needs.' The evaluation will also consider such factors as gender
and race in relation to the validity of the tool.[91] The DCS
states the evaluation report will be completed in the first half
of 2006. The ADCQ is encouraged that the DCS is undertaking research
into the validity and effectiveness of its assessment tools, and
will await the results of that research. The ADCQ urges the DCS
to adopt a similar research approach to the tools it uses for
assessing classification levels of all prisoners. In particular,
research needs to be undertaken on the validity of using the same
tools and methodology for male and female prisoners, and those
from minority groups.[92]
The use of the ORNI to assess
a prisoner’s needs and risks goes further than determining the
types of programs and interventions that are desirable for a particular
prisoner. A prisoner’s classification level is always considered
to determine eligibility for parole. A parole board will also
look carefully at the programs and interventions that prisoners
have undertaken and completed as a part of their ORNI assessment.
If a prisoner has received a high ORNI assessment, it is likely
she will be expected to have completed more programs than a prisoner
with a low ORNI assessment. If a parole board observes that a
prisoner has not completed the recommended programs and interventions,
parole may be refused.
This raises two important issues. The first
is the validity of the ORNI assessment for a particular prisoner.
If the assessment is based on invalid criteria resulting in a
high assessment, which demands a high number of programs and interventions,
it may take considerable time for a prisoner to complete. In fact,
the prisoner may not have completed the programs by the time she
is eligible to apply for parole. A prisoner may therefore be unfairly
refused parole owing to inaccurate assessments in both the classification
and the ORNI assessments.
Secondly, the ADCQ was repeatedly told
by prisoners in all women’s prisons visited that they sometimes
had to wait for considerable periods of time for programs to become
available, even though they were mandatory.[93] Such delays would
consequently diminish a prisoner’s likelihood of being granted
parole.
In December 2005 the DCS advised the ADCQ that a new Offender
Programs and Services Reform Agenda due to be completed by June
2006 has been embarked upon 'that once completed will mean the
Department will be better able to deliver programs and services
offenders need, when they need them.'
These issues are of major
concern to the ADCQ and must be the subject of investigation and
independent research to restore confidence among all stakeholders
in the fundamental systems being used by the DCS to manage prisons
and those inside them.
Endnotes
88. Auditor General of Canada, 'Chapter 4: Correctional Services Canada — Reintegration of
Women Offenders' Report of the Auditor General of CanadaI (April 2003); C M Webster and A N Doob, 'Classification
without validity or equity: an empirical examination of the custody rating scale for federally sentenced women
offenders In Canada' Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice (2004) 46(4); K Hannah–Moffat and
M Shaw, Taking Risks: Incorporating gender and culture into the classification and assessment of federally
sentenced women in Canada (March 2001).
89.DCS, Submission to Women in Prison Review (10 September 2004) 10–12.
90. See 6.1.2 above.
91.DCS Submission to Women in Prison Review (14 December 2005)
7.
92.Auditor General of Canada, above n 88.
93. DCS Submission to Women in Prison Review (14 December 2005).
Back
to contents for chapter 6 — Human rights and the corrective service
systems
Table
of Contents for Women in Prison report
