Inmate Classification

A recent walk-away escape by a CIE work-party member has given us cause to focus once again on inmate classification and associated supervisory requirements. Much of the report that has been generated by the investigation that invariably follows such escapes centres on the employer’s contention that “strict supervision” of medium security inmates is an absolute requirement.

As this particular investigation is still ongoing, I’m not at liberty to go into specific detail. I will, however, make it very clear that I have significant concerns with the line that CIE appears to be taking in respect of this issue. It would appear that CIE’s current contention is that medium security inmates must be under the surveillance of Instructors at all times!

Now you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to work out that it is going to be extremely difficult for employees to fulfil their obligations in terms of training, assessment, production targets, quality and reliability when your saddled with one or more medium security inmates that require constant supervision. You clearly won’t have the opportunity to carry out one-on-one training, mentoring or assessment of other inmates in your work party, because if you do and a medium security inmate does a runner, then you’re firmly in the gun.

It appears to me that such a scenario will result in all instructors who currently have medium security inmates in their work parties having to chose between three clear options:
1. Insist that CIE provides extra custodial support, so that you can fulfil all the requirements of your job whilst ensuring that strict supervision is maintained.
2. Refuse to take medium security inmates on the basis of the contention that you cannot fulfil your training, assessment and production responsibilities and guarantee strict supervision.
3. Take the medium security inmates, but make it clear that in order to maintain strict supervision at all times, you cannot guarantee to fill all of the other requirements of an instructor’s role.

I know that this approach may seem a little hard line, but unless or until this issue is resolved to the satisfaction of CANZ, I have a responsibility to inform you of the potential danger of having responsibility for medium security inmates and trying to fulfil the many other requirements of a difficult job.

Personally, I would have though that the complex assessment process that inmates go through today would be robust enough to ensure that all that are selected for CIE work parties would require the same level of supervision. After all, if they are not assessed as being trustworthy enough to participate meaningfully without the requirement for extra supervision, they shouldn’t be there in the first place!

We are currently working with CIE in an effort to reach a mutually acceptable solution to what is a very real problem. In the meantime, I strongly advise you to take heed of the issues that I have raised. CIE appear to be suggesting that failure to strictly supervise medium security inmates at all times constitutes serious misconduct. Accordingly, if you are not able to guarantee constant close supervision of such inmates and fulfil all of your other responsibilities, then you need to say so!

As always, we will keep you updated of progress and we look forward to reaching a common sense conclusion to this matter.

Regards,

Brian Davies
National Organiser