Splitting prison’s chain of command

The recent unorthodox, unexpected visit by the minister responsible for the prison service to the Corradino Correctional Facility uncovered a practice of warders leaving their posts early to go home.

This has led to the resignation of the director and the establishment of a board of inquiry inter alia to examine the structures and shortcomings of the whole prison system.

It is worth recalling that a board of inquiry with very similar terms of reference had been set up some three or four years ago following a raft of incidents at the prison.

It had expressed serious concern at the poor management, leadership and structures in prison at all levels and in all areas of responsibility. It would appear that little has changed in the last few years.

Although the current board of inquiry has not yet reported, the briefing has indicated that the Home Affairs Minister is contemplating implementing a major overhaul of the entire command and administrative structure of the prison. He is toying with the idea of splitting the command structure in two.

One person would be responsible for the day-to-day operational control of the prison, covering custody, discipline, anti-drug controls and management of all the warders. He would probably be a member of the uniformed services, either as now a member of the police force, or a military officer on secondment from the AFM.

The second commander would be responsible for the implementation of the rehabilitation, resettlement and educational aspects of the correctional facility, areas of the prison regime which are thought to be currently seriously neglected. The possibility of recruiting a foreign expert for this role has not been discounted.

The argument adduced in favour of a dual command structure is that the current role of director is too broad for one man to cover and it has proved impossible to find anybody with the right combination of talents to embrace both halves of the prison’s Statement of Purpose: “... keeping in custody those committed by the courts... and helping them lead law-abiding lives... after release.”

While it is possible to see the reasoning underlying such an approach, it may prove too simplistic to suppose that merely dividing responsibilities in two will lead to a better-run prison.

It is imperative for any organisation where discipline and control over men and women need to be securely exercised to have a unified command structure.

A clear chain of command with one commander answerable for everything that goes on in the prisons is a pre-requisite for success otherwise there is a serious risk of crossed wires, lack of clear accountability and subsequent confusion.

While the short-term reasons for a dual command structure may appear attractive, this should not be the long-term solution.

The reason the Government finds itself in this predicament is not simply because insufficient importance has been given to the restorative side of the prison regime, but also because the appointment of successive police officers as directors, untrained in the specialist fields of rehabilitation and correctional expertise, has left the Corradino Correctional Facility totally bereft in this area and focused almost entirely on its custodial role.

What is needed are properly trained correctional officers capable of directing every aspect of the prison regime, both custodial and reformative. It seems far wiser in current circumstances to appoint one overall director with two deputy commanders directly responsible to him, one tasked with custody and discipline and the other, rehabilitation and reform.