A 'genuine' shift to rehabilitation, reintegration at Fox Hill prison
tribune242 Insight
By NOELLE NICOLLS
Tribune Staff Reporter
nnicolls@tribunemedia.net:
Much has been made about the reform agenda at Her Majesty's Prison and claims by Superintendent Dr Elliston Rahming that his team has successfully taken "a genuine philosophical shift from revenge and punishment to rehabilitation and reintegration."
So it was baffling to me when weeks after Dr Rahming's grand publication of his five-year prison reform report card, the Prison Staffers Association (PSA) went public with their opposition to his reappointment. His contract expires in about five months.
In the process, they aired a long list of complaints about the management of the prison, with Dr Rahming's "leadership" being their chief complaint, according to PSA president Gregory Archer.
What exactly is the "leadership" problem is unclear to me. However, various executives of the PSA are adamant that such a problem exists. They claim Dr Rahming's leadership "has demoralised senior officers, and the rank and file". The PSA treasurer claims Dr Rahming is straight up "ineffective" in prison reform, despite his boasted success.
With such a categorical claim, the PSA has a tall order to prove its accusations, but irrespective of their validity, the fact of such a discrepancy is enough to make you wonder.
I gather there is a perception amongst some in the prison that Dr Rahming is "self-centred," and perhaps consumed with "what he has accomplished." This has to be weighed against the real possibility that there are potential leadership candidates setting the stage to vie for Dr Rahming's post. And the claim by others that public statements by the PSA only represent the views of a small percentage of its members.
"The prison is bigger than one person. No one man can accomplish anything in an organisation without the help of the staff," said an officer.
The public launch of the prison reform progress report, covering the five-year period of Dr Rahming's leadership, would have certainly fuelled the perception held by those officers.
From my first interaction with Dr Rahming, I was struck by his ability to command attention. Many government officials do not have such a talent. As a former journalist himself, strategic communication is a skill he has mastered. With a doctorate title in front of his name, and the backing of two successive and opposing governments, a lack of confidence or self-esteem is probably not something he suffers from. Not to mention his ability to fill a 26-page book with a list of prison accomplishments achieved under his watch.
When the issue of his appointment in 2005 arose, there was a lot of bickering about the salary he would be paid. A union boss at the time said the "special contract" appointment of Dr Rahming could create certain pay anomalies "that (would) have a detrimental affect on the morale of civil servants."
Dr Rahming's response reveals something about how he feels about himself. "No one would question my pay if I were a foreign criminologist earning $100,000 a year with a BA degree from a second rate university, with a government paid condo out west and my kids' school fees paid for in St Andrew's. Not a soul would question it.
"Here I am with 20 years experience in research, education, and administration and a PhD degree from a university that US News and World Report ranks in the top 10 among 700 colleges and universities in the United States, and I am being subjected to public utterings about my salary. Has anyone stopped to think what I'd be earning had I chosen to remain in the United States?"
It doesn't seem farfetched that some people perceive him to be "self-absorbed." But does that make him a poor leader, or manager? Should that undermine his achievements as the leader of the pack? Some may draw that conclusion, but I don't think it necessarily follows.
The PSA itself agrees that Dr Rahming "has brought a lot to the table and implemented beneficial changes"; and they would support him being an adviser to the government. But on the matter of "leadership" they part ways.
If the prison progress report is anything to judge by then prison reform has been immensely successful. The report lists the creation of the following as some of the prison's achievements: Central Intake Facility with standardized inmate classification system; security processing centre complete with baggage and hand-held scanners; state of the art Health Diagnostic Unit, Faith-Based and Character Development Programme; annual jobs fair; proper laundry facilities; Inmate Enterprises, Inmate Activities and Pre-Release Services Unit; Officer Dependents Fund; renovated Female Correctional Centre; renovated Canine Unit, and the list goes on.
The 26-page document lists achievements in infrastructure development, staff enrichment and advancement, inmate services and activities, community outreach services, budget performance and regional leadership.
It is reasonable to assume, even if only by virtue of the progress report that much has happened in five years. If Dr Rahming opts to request a renewal of contract, the government should investigate the value of these accomplishments.
They should test the claim asserted by attorney Paul Moss, founding member of Relief for Inmates and Prison Officers of our Prison (RIPOP) that Dr Rahming's appointment was "the single greatest appointment done by Prime Minister Perry Christie." This view must have been shared to some degree by the Free National Movement, when they reappointed him in 2007.
The PSA is arguing that Dr Rahming had five years to prove his worth, and having seen what he has to offer they want change.
There are family members of inmates who might agree. Minutes after leaving the prison compound, where I covered the ceremonial release of the report card, I ran into family members who had no shortage of "choice words" to describe the prison authorities.
The problem is, I don't think the angst was specific to Dr Rahming. When I inquired about him specifically they claimed to have little knowledge of who he was, or his so-called reform agenda.
They knew only that their children were being "starved of water," forced to live in inhumane conditions, and that the authorities -- in their minds -- had no respect or regard for their cries.
I participated in an extensive tour of the prison with other media personnel after the report launch, and after the tour I did not really feel more qualified to confirm or discredit much of the accusations hurled at the prison.
According to Dr Rahming, the tour originally planned was a virtual tour. However, the projector malfunctioned and the virtual tour was cancelled. The physical tour was facilitated on the insistence of the media, which had always assumed there would have been a real tour.
Dr Rahming was certain to remind us that the physical tour was not originally planned, so there was no time to "fix up" the prison for the media. The cynics out there, of which there are many, would say that was a ruse. I took him at his word, but then I'm not a cynic.
At the time of the tour, the remand facility, known to be filled to capacity, was closed down to visitors because prisoners were being prepared for court. Having only walked past the facility, I can hardly verify any of the claims that are frequently asserted by inmates and family members.
While walking through the cell blocks of Central Intake, on the other hand, certain things were immediately noticeable, fore example inmates were sleeping on beds made of wooden planks in the place of mattresses.
The explanation given by the officers was that the inmates at Central Intake "tear them up." Replacement mattresses were said to be "on order." I could only take the Superintendent at his word.
The cells were very dark inside; they were cooled by large rusted fans inside the hallway, and ventilation from windows lining the exterior walls. This was the standard setup in all of the prisons we visited, including Maximum Security.
I have heard family members complain that there is no ventilation inside the prison and it is "too hot in there." I sympathise with them, even though I did not feel any hotter inside the prison than I do on an average day in my home. Because the fans are stationed on the walls and in the hallways outside the cells, some oscillating, others not, I can say the air probably is not equally distributed to all of the cells, but that is about it.
Was it unreasonably hot inside the cells, where there were two, sometimes three inmates, in a space not much larger than two office cubicles? I cannot say.
There were no repulsive smells or striking odours inside the prison, except maybe the rawness of a locker room that lingers even after it is cleaned.
We walked through several blocks, including death row, and saw a few cells fitted with the controversial composting toilets.
According to the PSA, the real story of the toilets is this: "The ventilation system for them was installed wrong, it gives off a horrible odour throughout the prison. So now we are faced with not only the odour, but the inmates have to deal with bugs and flies being bred in these toilets, and we all know flies breed diseases."
That I did not observe any flies or bugs emanating from the toilets does not negate the claims of the PSA. It makes me speculate that they may have embellished their claims, but it could very well be that the most problematic toilets were not the ones we happened to walk past.
Aside from the feeling of an aged facility, by virtue of the flaking paint on some walls and the rusted fans, the facility was clean.
We viewed the infamous Block F, sort of. Block-F has a reputation inside and outside the prison for housing homosexuals, mentally unstable inmates and violent convicts. Despite the accusations, Dr Rahming has denied such a block exists.
"They call F-Block, the block for fools. It has homosexuals, people who have AIDs and tuberculosis, mentally unstable people, people who can't live around other people, because they always cursing and carrying on," said a recently released inmate.
"All they want is cigarettes. They take their stool buckets and throw it through the doors at the officers or at inmates. The officers have to carry cigarettes with them or else they can't travel through F-Block," he said.
During the prison tour I asked to be taken to Block F. The immediate response from Assistant Superintendent Wilfred Ferguson, chief of Maximum Security, was to suggest I might not want to go there, because I might have something thrown at me.
I would like to believe that ASP Ferguson felt I was a responsible journalist, so he would be inclined to tell the truth, but maybe this was a slip of the tongue, because he was reprimanded by Dr Rahming no sooner than the words came out of his mouth.
Dr Rahming insisted he should not say things like that. There was a debate about what was appropriate to say, and an insistence that I could walk though there, to which ASP Ferguson also agreed.
So did I walk through the infamous Block-F? No. Due to "time constraints," we were only allowed to stand behind the grilled door at the end of the hallway. The hallway looked like any other, there were no shouts and groans of mad people, but my vantage point was limited.
There was nothing alarming to me about the condition of the prison. Unfortunately, this view is only based on cursory glances and sneak peaks.
It certainly looked like a place I would not want to live. It had a still and lifeless feel, even though there were people everywhere. I was sometimes reluctant to stare inside the cells, it invoked dark images, reminiscent of slave blocks at an auction house, where I imagine black men made impotent would be held.
The reality is, unless I was to spend 23 hours a day like the inmates do in their caged boxes, I might never know what prison life is really like. And even then, when I might dare to speak, I would be discredited as a spiteful criminal.
When I spoke to an insider, he said the real story behind prison reform is that "infrastructure development has taken place, but nothing systematic and consistent as it relates to rehabilitation (has occurred)."
He said there is a fight in the prison between those wanting resources to be channeled into custodial care, or security related matters, and those wanting resources for programmes and services, such as rehabilitation. He claims the PSA supports the move towards a focus on rehabilitation and reintegration, but they believe Dr Rahming is not equipping them with the skills to actually manifest real change.
If the country wants true reform, he agrees, officers need to be "rehabilitated" themselves before they can implement programmes and best practices that truly reflect a transition from punishment to corrections. He said the officers currently staffed at the prison "are really under trained as it relates to rehabilitation and corrections." Furthermore, the government would have to hire "at least 50 to 100 more officers," as the prison is "understaffed."
"There will always be a fight between security and programmes," said the insider. That fight is bigger than Dr Rahming and the prison staffers, he said. And resources are finite. "His budget is not sufficient, but he is trying," said the source of Dr Rahming.
This got me thinking about the prison progress report. It states, there has been "a genuine philosophical shift from revenge and punishment to rehabilitation and reintegration."
I hate to nit-pick, but I think Dr Rahming is someone who uses words purposefully. The report said there has been a "philosophical shift."
My source claims that prominent members of the PSA are staffed in areas that deal with rehabilitation, like pre release, case management, and education.
He said of the 98 officers who were sent on training over the past five years, very few were trained in areas related to rehabilitation. In my analysis of the progress report, only 12 per cent of the training opportunities were related to rehabilitation. That represented less than 10 per cent of the 98 officers that were trained. An example of this category is the Cuban tour of prison industries and trade schools.
Most of the training (36 per cent) was geared towards general exposure and networking courses, such as a Women in Corrections Conference, a Study Tour or an Officer Exchange Programme.
Next to that was administrative courses, such as a computer upgrade conference, or a prison health services conference, which constituted 32 per cent. Custodial care courses, such as prison riot control course accounted for 20 per cent of the courses.
So perhaps the report is right, there has only been a "philosophical shift", and the real deal is yet to be seen. But one might say, at least the prison is on the right road, if that's where it genuinely wants to go.
From the standpoint of rhetoric, it would seem that inmate services and activities, ultimately aimed at reducing the rate of recidivism, has been the priority area of the reform agenda. But it is still unclear if this mirrors the way that resources have been managed at the prison.
Aside from rhetoric, the proof is in the pudding. Where did the money go and what were the results? The progress report states that the recidivism rate among admissions has been lowered to 19 per cent, but it fails to mention what figure it was lowered from.
If the vast majority of the prison's budget was spent over the past five years on infrastructure, and the vast majority of the changes were administrative and not programmatic, then one might question whether sufficient resources were allocated to rehabilitation and reintegration efforts.
Clearly the prison is a hard nut to crack, and for any management team it must be a tall order to keep staffers happy, prisoners comfortable, inmates' family members appeased and government officials satisfied.
In my best judgment, I think time will show that Dr Rahming played an instrumental role in prison reform, and that there are accomplishments to brag about over the past five years. At the same time, I highly doubt there has been full disclosure with the public about the realities of prison life.
Prison officials are quick to discount the cries of prisoners, but I give former inmates more credit than they would be prepared to. And even though the looming prison leadership race makes me suspect of the PSA, it would be foolhardy to discount their claims without a critical analysis.
It is evident that prison politics is heating up, and in my opinion the impending release of the draft Department of Corrections Bill will only spice things up further.
September 27, 2010
tribune242 Insight
