The Department does not have a clear understanding of the extent of drug and alcohol use in prisons
The system used to estimate drug and alcohol use in WA’s prisons presents an incomplete and inaccurate picture. The Department relies on the DPT program to establish the level of drug and alcohol use but we found:
- it only ran the DPT program 3 to 4 times a year, and the program did not test for all drugs that are known to be a problem in prisons. Reports did not analyse how frequently drugs not included in the DPT program were found and the effect of this on the DPT estimate. The Department’s DPT estimate provides a narrow view of drug use, which does not reflect the full extent of the problem
- the DPT estimate was inaccurate because it was not adjusted for prisons that did not participate. Prisons did not complete all scheduled tests, with 94.2% completing all tests in June 2014 and only 74.7% completing in December 2016. At the same time, more prisons did not conduct any tests. Reports did not analyse the effect of prison non-participation on the accuracy of the DPT estimate. This reduced the accuracy and reliability of the DPT estimate
- the Department did not identify mistakes as they were made in the DPT program, or ensure that all prisons participated. This lack of central oversight reduced the DPT’s reliability as an estimate of drug use across prisons.
Processes need better coordination, and their effectiveness assessed
The Department does not have an up-to-date strategic approach, and centrally run systems are not well coordinated.
- The Department’s strategic approach expired in 2014 and since then prisons have not had a central approach against which to align their efforts.
- Central data systems contain errors and the description of data fields has not been documented in a data dictionary. We reviewed extracts of TOMS and found incomplete or missing records, and inconsistent entry of data. Information in TOMS is critical to the Department’s overall operations, including its ability to develop effective strategies to minimise drugs and alcohol.
- Nine of the 17 adult prisons do not have direct access to the central intelligence database. There are processes in place to pass information from central intelligence to these prisons, but there are no checks in place to ensure this happens in a timely fashion. Prison security teams may not be made aware of risks, particularly with transferred prisoners.
The Department does not review its approaches to see if they are effective. For example, we found:
- no standard operating procedures or formal training for intelligence staff. The Department cannot evaluate the effectiveness of intelligence methods across prisons and ensure that its staff have the skills needed to provide the analysis prisons rely on
- the Department only monitors the number of prisoners enrolled in the Pathways treatment program. The program’s effectiveness has not been assessed since 2013 and its content has not been reviewed since 2010. The Department does not know if the program reduces the demand for drugs and alcohol
- prisoners who have been sanctioned for drug offences, or who have received incentives, are not routinely retested, or monitored. As a result, prisons do not know if these approaches improve prisoners’ behaviour.
Read more … Central coordination is lacking, and outcomes are not measured
Poor practices and lack of security devices reduce efforts
Prisons use a range of controls to reduce the supply of drugs, alcohol, and prescription medicines. However, insufficient searching, security devices, and medicine controls reduce their effectiveness. We found:
- non-targeted searching is ineffective. The current policy requires a very small percentage of staff and visitors to be searched. This percentage is not always met, and some prisons use highly visible selection methods which can be easily avoided. This reduces the effectiveness of non-targeted searching as a control mechanism
- prisons do not always follow gatehouse searching and inspection processes. We reviewed a sample of gatehouse traffic at 3 prisons and found 29% of parcels were not inspected and personal rub down searches were not in line with policy. Practices were worse when staff were required to search other staff. Poor searching weakens efforts to reduce the supply of drugs and alcohol
- not all prisons have access to security devices. For example, parcel x-ray machines are present at less than half of the 17 prisons, and ion scanners for detecting drug residue at only 6 prisons. While drug detection dogs are used across the metropolitan area, 5 of the 8 regional prisons do not have regular access. Generally, regional prisons also had less access to electronic barriers, and therefore need to rely on less effective and more time consuming manual searches
- prisons did not always follow controls to limit prisoners from sharing their prescribed medicines. We reviewed medication dispensing at 3 prisons and found 83% of post medication checks were not thorough. If these processes are not followed prisoners may not receive the medication they need, medicines could be traded, and prisoners may be intimidated or bullied into sharing medication.
More needs to be done to reduce drug and alcohol demand and the harmful effects
The Department tries to reduce the demand for drugs and alcohol through the provision of therapeutic programs. Since 2010, the number of programs available to treat addiction based offending has narrowed from 4 to 1. The single therapeutic program, Pathways, is required to address the diverse needs of prisoners. A single program may not meet the cultural, educational, and gender specific needs of all prisoners, leading to poorer outcomes.
The Department cannot provide enough places in Pathways to meet demand. During the audit period 1,382 prisoners recommended for Pathways were released. However, 310 (22%) were released before a place was available in the program. These are missed opportunities to intervene in prisoners’ addictions before they are released from prison.
Not delivering treatment programs has also contributed to parole being denied. We reviewed parole notes of prisoners who had not received their treatment by the time they were eligible for parole, despite being eligible and willing to participate. We found in 88.5% of cases, a failure to complete a treatment program was included as a contributing reason for denying parole. Denial of parole leads to additional prison time and increased costs to the State.
Remand and short sentence prisoners do not have access to the Pathways program. Instead, they can voluntarily access short, non-therapeutic programs. However, the Department does not track participation in these programs. The Department is missing opportunities to intervene in prisoner addictions which can lead to further offences.
Prisoners are not assessed for treatment within the required time period which delays their access to treatment programs, and impacted parole decisions. We found that 88% of prisoners were not assessed within the Department’s 28-day target. On average, prisoners did not receive assessments for 70 days, with 28% taking more than 100 days.
The Department also provides a 2-part, compulsory harm reduction education program. However, prisoners do not all receive the program. We found that the initial portion was delivered to only 35% of prisoners, and the second portion to 5.6%. This is a missed opportunity to educate prisoners about safer practices that can lead to better health outcomes.