Findings of Research
concerning SITING OF PRISONS in the United States, Canada and Australia and how these Findings apply to the
Ministry of Justice's Proposal for a PRISON ON THE LOCKRIDGE LAND at Pyrton
Swan Valley Nyungah Community 1998
(c)
1. Community Support, and the Re-integration of Inmates
All studies show that there must be community acceptance and support of a prison in the community for it to be a success in its operations and in re-integration of offenders (eg Lauen, 1984;Eynon, 1989; Carlson, 1991; Shichor, 1992). The research indicates that a non-supportive host community leads to poor morale of prison officers and high turnover of staff which in turn affects inmates and their visitors (Carlson, 1991) and in general has a detrimental effect. "Positive relations between the prison and community promote the quality of life of staff, inmates being reintegrated, and of community members" (Krause, 1992). Further, "ongoing supportive ties between prison and community will enhance reduction of stress on staff and inmates so that an ecology conducive to carrying out an effective agenda of correctional programming can be established and establishment of effective offender re-integration programs" (Krause, 1992). In reviewing the literature, Shichor notes "generally it is agreed that without substantial community support it can be very difficult and even counter-productive to site a prison For example, the California Department of Corrections manual (of 1985) prescribing procedures for public involvement in the selection of prison sites states that 'a concerted effort to involve the local community is critical to the successful siting of new prisons'" (Shichor, 1992). One authority notes that "Preemption will work only if the entire siting process is perceived as a legitimate mechanism by a large segment of the public", and "because of the considerable range of means to prevent siting of unwanted facilities, preemptive measures asserting exclusive state power are not likely to enjoy much long-term success" (State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, 1988, 1997), what Krause (1992) quoting Chambers (1989) called the "decide, announce, defend" approach, based on a win-lose logic (Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987). Local people are "viewed as essentially obstacles to be surmounted rather than as an inherent part of (the) activity (i.e. as a field to engage and enter as a participant)" (Krause, 1992). Abrams (cited by Krause, 1992) highlights the importance of the initial interaction between the prison and the community in determining the quality of the later relationship. Sechrest reports "There are many examples of the failure of closed (i.e. closed to community participation) siting efforts." (Sechrest, 1992).
Comment:
All public meetings in the area have rejected unanimously the prison proposal on the land at Pyrton.
Ministry of Justice should be thinking about what practices in relation to the community brings about the good of offenders and the goal of re-integration into the community.
The Ministry of Justice has already misled, illtreated, abused and insulted the local community on this proposal at Eden Hill/Lockridge. The rational thing is to start again elsewhere in the proper way as is outlined in all the research findings.
The Ministry of Justice has admitted the initial consultation process was flawed and inadequate.
2. Community Participation and Choice in Siting of Prison
The community needs to have full participation in the process (Abrams and Lyons, 1987) and be involved in power-sharing, negotiation and choice of prison sites (Eynon, 1989, Shichor, 1992) for there to be support and acceptance. Where there is weak external control and strong local ties "the correctional program will be strongly integrated into the culture and structure of the community" (Duffee and McGarrell, 1990). A high level of outside control leads to "some community hostility towards the re-integration of offenders" (Sechrest, 1991). It is reported that California has had most success in siting prisons "where communities initiated the request for a prison and where there was strong community support" (Shichor, 1992). "A reputation for competence, trustworthiness, and credibility on the part of facility developer are important to public confidence and the ease of siting" (Abrams and Lyons, 1987). In Florida and elsewhere, State and local authorities and communities have evolved criteria to be applied in choice of a site for a prison. Shichor notes: "There is recognition that successful sitings need to enlist widescale community support that can only be secured by open siting procedures and by continuous efforts to maintain good community relations between the prison authorities and the residents. These efforts have to be maintained after the prison is in operation because tense relations with the community will make the day to day operation of the prison harder" (Shichor, 1992).
Comment
The contention by the Minister for Justice that a prison would be objected to by any community wherever it is sited (West Australian, 21.10.98) cannot be sustained by the facts (Krause, 1993). Available research indicates that communities not only fully assist in the presence of a prison when they have been able to fully participate in the process of siting, including the choice of a site, but also to the extent that in the United States local communities compete to have the siting of prisons and to go through the siting process in their areas (Carlson, 1992).
Q. Is the Ministry of Justice prepared to re-think and to seek community acceptance of, and cooperation with a prison proposal by involving and negotiating with the local community in the choice of a prison site and achieve a co-operative win-win process and solution (see Krause, 1992) to satisfy everybody? Or does the Ministry of Justice want to try to over-ride the local community?
3.A. Effects of a Prison on the Entire Community
The community's attitude to the siting of a prison is made up of a delicate balancing between what the community sees as positive benefits to the community, and what the community sees as negative and damaging to the community (Carlson, 1991).
The community takes into account less obvious and less tangible effects of a prison on the community:
the detrimental effect of the prison on the community's sense of identity (Krause, 1992)
lifestyle considerations (Sechrest, 1991)
self-esteem, quality of life in social psychological terms (Krause, 1992)
"the community's strong sense of commitment, a feeling of localism " (Shichor, 1992)
social cohesion (Shichor, 1992)
satisfaction with the residential environment, the recognition of a safe and non-threatening physical environment (Shichor, 1992)
the feeling that nearby residents are 'good people' or at least fulfilling social needs (Shichor, 1992)
a deep emotional feeling of wellbeing (Shichor, 1992)
investment, particularly of a social nature, in territory (Shichor, 1992)
and on the complex social relationships of the area (not just house prices or crime rates etc).
These effects are not 'irrational fears' (McGee, 1981, Shichor,1992 who comments on "officials and experts who regard many of the public's concerns as irrational"). They are the social and psychological structures of the community affected and they are able to be properly and objectively evaluated and considered along with other so-called 'objective' factors (Carlson, 1991).
A prison is likely to bring to a community intergroup antagonism and relations of dominance and subordination (e.g.as is seen between prison officers and prisoners). This is against the normal social interaction patterns of a community which the community resists, i.e. the social relations inside a prison are nowadays not acceptable outside the prison in ordinary society (Krause, 1992). "There are few persons who do not in some way value both economic and psychic comfort, access to jobs and development along with emotional well-being and personal and family safety" (Carlson, 1991). Krause, in reviewing research evidence notes families, neighbourhoods and communities find aversive any change towards antagonistic relationship structures in the community. It is experienced as community disruption. He says "community disruption is threatening to self-identities because there are increased opportunities for provocation from others" (Krause, 1992).
Local leaders and speakers are seen to reflect the various communities' concerns like a barometer: " community mediators (that is, local leaders) may be particularly sensitive predictors of community reaction to a locally unwanted land use (LULU) siting. Thus a LULU will tend to be rejected to the extent that the relationship between community mediators and representatives of the siting agency is one in which the mediators experience status degradation perceived to be associated with having a subordinate identity in a future hierarchical intergroup status arrangement in the community" (Krause, 1992).
Status also affects the community as a whole. Shichor comments: "LULU's, more often than not are located in low prestige communities. Few toxic waste, landfill or correctional facilities can be found in high class neighbourhoods or communities Generally a community becomes less desirable after a LULU has been sited, or what is more likely, LULU's are sited in low-status and low-prestige communities to begin with. This may be one of the reasons for the absence of a decrease in property values in some communities as a result of having a prison built Communities have a 'symbolic quality' beyond their economic features. LULU's may determine or at least have a strong negative influence on the 'symbolic quality' of a community" (Shichor, 1992).
Krause identifies the effect relative power has on community interactions. If power is exerted over the community it affects interactions: "Power, conceived in terms of access to economic and political resources, is a crucial determinant of the direction of the interactions and thus of the form of the resulting relationships. Those systems with greatest resource access exert the greatest influence in scripting the rules" (Krause, 1992).
Comment
The Ministry of Justice has not shown that a prison at Pyrton would not damage the local communities of Lockridge, Bassendean, Success Hill, Eden Hill, the Swan Shire area, the Swan Valley Nyungah Community or the Nyungah people as a whole.
The Ministry of Justice has not shown there will not be, and is not at the moment community disruption and people experiencing aversive situations and community provocation through the Ministry of Justice's approach to this issue. Further there will be physical community disruption by the inevitable escapes and house searches and searches of the Nyungah community.
The Ministry of Justice has not considered the complex social relationships involved:
- affront to the wider community of Lockridge that has just managed to upgrade their social and environmental conditions;
- the setting back of the bridge building that has been going on for the a number of years between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in all the local communities and local Councils;
- stopping the development of a creative community plan for a culture and environment centre for young people and for the community as a whole. Local people see this plan as a realistic attempt to address the causes of crime, something far more visionary than the Ministry of Justice's plan;
The Ministry of Justice by common consent has made attempts at status degradation of community leaders (mediators) especially the Mayor of Bassendean and the spokesperson for the Swan Valley Nyungah Community. It is interesting the Ministry of Justice by acting as they have with the local community has given independent verification of these research findings (see Krause, 1992 above).
Social interactions are the building blocks of relationships. If an institution is foisted on a community against its will, the relationship between the prison and the community will already have a demoralising effect on the community irrespective of what research says about house prices or crime rates (see Krause 1992).
B. Effects specific to Nyungah communities and people
Amongst the community's understanding of negative and damaging effects of a prison must be included the effects on indigenous people. It is historical fact that "institutionalisation was central to Aborigine's experience of colonialism" (Rowse, 1993). Rowley, who was the noted director of the Social Science Research Council of Australia's 'Aborigines Project', wrote in 1978 that "about half the Aborigines alive now i.e. 1978, have inherited generations of accumulated tradition as inmates themselves or from parents who were inmates (Rowley, 1978). Rowley observed that institutions "smash the indigenous social structure and create institutional paupers" (Rowley, 1972). Rowse observed "the logic of the settlers' ruthless dispossession and its accompanying racist contempt for the indigenous people had created a pervasive legacy of inequality a pervasive and deeply embedded future of Australian society" (Rowse, 1993).
The Report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody "documents the extent of control by Governments over the lives of Aboriginal people This enforced dislocation and family breakdown is recognised as a primary cause of the wider breakdown in Aboriginal society which contributes to the high rate of Aboriginal arrest and imprisonment There is strong support by Governments for measures to strengthen Aboriginal family and community links The provision of land is seen as an essential basis for building and maintaining a strong Aboriginal culture and society The Report points out that because of the historical experience of Aboriginal people and their continuing disadvantage, relationships with non-Aboriginal people are often characterised by distrust, enmity and disputation fundamental principles underpin the process of reconciliation a commitment to social justice for Aboriginal people and an ongoing national commitment to cooperation to address disadvantage All Governments share these commitments" (Australian Government, 1992).
Comment
The Ministry of Justice has not shown that a prison at Pyrton would not damage the Nyungah people as a whole or the Swan Valley Nyungah Community in particular.
The Ministry of Justice has not considered the complex social relationships involved:
- the threat to the existence of a struggling Aboriginal community that - after waiting almost 20 years - has finally had the opportunity to do things for themselves to upgrade their community and start to address the damage done to them by forcible removal of their homes, land, culture, children;
- desecrating of a sacred area of central importance to the Nyungah People and their Religious Belief;
To consider siting a prison institution on traditional and religious Lockridge land at Pyrton in the late 1990's where Aboriginal people, in spite of past policies of institutionalisation have maintained a continuous presence and continuous association including the time it was a hospital for disabled children, is perpetuating the inequalities of the past. It is bizarre in the extreme and appears punitive and cynical.
Q. Would the Ministry of Justice go ahead if it was shown that siting a prison at Pyrton - a Sacred area - could cause death, or that provocation could lead to further imprisonment of young Nyungah people for instance? (People will continue their traditions using the area).
Q In relation to a prison on the Lockridge land at Pyrton and the WA Government's commitment to social justice and co-operation (above) as reported by the Royal Commission, is the Ministry of Justice going to correct this contradiction between words and actions and stop pushing for the Pyrton site?
Q. Will the proper Social Impact study be undertaken before any decisions are made?
Q. Does the Ministry of Justice share the view of the United States President's Crime Commission Taskforce on Corrections that "crime (is a )symptom of failure and disorganisation of the community as well as of individual offenders these failures are seen as depriving offenders of contact with the institutions that are basically responsible for assuring development of law-abiding conduct family, schools, employment, recreational opportunities " (Sechrest, 1991)? That is, the community good must come first.
Q. Will the Ministry of Justice acknowledge and accept the community's judgement on the balance of all the effects of a prison and go on to work with the community to select an alternative and acceptable site?
The Equitable Process of Community Participation
Community participation in the process of prison siting with prison authorities needs to be genuine and not token or manipulative. The process needs to be "objective, rational and egalitarian" (Kemp, 1985) and not to "legitimise the actions and interests of dominant groups" (Kemp, 1985). It is important there is not "systemic distortion of the communication process that takes place at public inquiries" (Kemp, 1985). Kemp goes on: "A genuine consensus should be sought through a process of discursive will formation concerning all issues of importance for society and conducted according to the rules of a communicative practical form of rational decision making" (Kemp, 1985) i.e.that all participants - community people, Government people, indigenous people, environmentalists etc- :
must have the same chance to speak and be understood
must all be honest and genuine in their communications
must be equally able to put forward or argue against a point, must all equally be able to pose questions and to answer questions, must be able equally to make commitments or accept commitments, must be able to give reasons and ask for reasons, that is, nothing one-sided
and must be equally able to explain their position and to criticise others' position so that no one view is exempt from consideration or criticism (Kemp, 1985; Habermas, 1979) -
- so that a "rationally grounded consensus can emerge from practical discourse Only to the extent that a decision is reached owing to the force of the better argument can it be argued that communication has taken place free from domination history and linguistic analysis show that public hearings may not be as open, impartial, and rational as they are claimed to be, and the legitimacy of political processes may be questioned if systematically distorted communication enables the domination of particular interests over more generalisable interests" (Kemp, 1985).
A remarkable landmark in community participation and an objective, rational and egalitarian inquiry was the Berger Inquiry in Canada, in the north-west - the Yukon. It was the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Inquiry. It is a shining example of how community participation can be achieved. The community in effect decided what should be inquired upon, and the Inquiry became the community's vision of how they saw their community and wanted it to be, and the pipeline itself became somewhat sidelined, or not the only issue. It was ensured that all participants - environmental, indigenous, Government, oil companies - had equal resources and an equal voice in the Inquiry (Government of Canada, 1970 - 1977).
The Commonwealth of Australia's Environmental Impact Assessment process (Australian Government: Environment Australia 1994 - 1996) provides formal public participation measures - but without power-sharing and without an option for mediation. However, the West Australian Environment Protection Act can have any land use proposal referred for assessment and includes public participation - but again without the issue of power being addressed or of participation in the decision-making.
Comment
In the Berger Inquiry in Canada the community had a real voice. The same principles apply whether it be a huge project like the pipeline or a smaller local issue. It is obviously beneficial for the cohesion and strengthening of local communities, and leads to a better quality of life and ultimately, less crime.
In Western Australia, the participants still only 'submit', 'make submissions' to a more powerful authority, that is, the Environment Protection Authority, who in turn only make recommendations to the Government Minister. Ultimately power is still firmly in Government hands and out of the participants' hands. The research indicates that this does not build strong communities or the community structures needed to prevent crime.
5. Reintegration the Aim - Discipline and Punishment the Reality?
It is assumed in all the research papers examined that one of the goals of a Prison's Department in siting a prison is the re-integration of prison inmates into the community not merely cost-cutting or using a site just because it is available or because of overcrowding (see Krause, 1992, especially page 28). He says "If effective means of achieving offender re-integration are not identified and implemented a revolving door of recidivism and re-incarceration may exaggerate the crisis" (of incarceration rates). For instance, in California if reintegration is not attended to one out of every two inmates returns in 2 years.
Although re-integration may be the aim, in the meantime a prison is also for punishment, confinement, loss of freedom, protection of society. Studies of women's prisons indicate that "some of the most coercive and repressive aspects of confinement" may be found inside women's prisons (Foucault, 1977, Hannah-Moffat, 1995). Hannah-Moffat, researching in Canada comments on "the naivete` of a vision of a woman-centred prison that denies the sometimes extreme realities of prison life" (Hannah-Moffat, 1995).
Comment
The local communities of Lockridge, Eden Hill, Bassendean, Success Hill etc are all interested in prevention of offences and prevention of imprisonment by enhancing and enriching community life rather than having a degraded community life into which inmates would be re-integrated. (See Concept Plan: Eden Hill Culture and Environment Centre, 1998)
Further, attention by Parliament and Government needs to be given to the proposals by the Coalition of Women's Groups to alternatives to custodial sentencing.
Ministry of Justice has no logic in focussing on the Pyrton site alone because the goal of re-integration of prisoners could be satisfied on many other sites. No good arguments have been put together by Ministry of Justice for the needs of offenders being satisfied better at Pyrton than at other sites (eg Nyandi).
Publicly available research and proper community participation into siting of a prison and re-integration of prisoners into communities in WA needs to be done first before site selection. The research must be available for scrutiny. Selecting the Lockridge Land at Pyrton on cost and availability and overcrowding grounds is arbitrary. Near the centre of the city could be considered for achieving the goal of re-integrating of prisoners or near the specific towns in which their families live. This needs to be done by the local communities together with Ministry for Justice.
Q. What are the goals that are specified in the Prisons Act or laws that the Ministry of Justice operates under that determines siting a prison?
Q. Does the Government usually consult and take advice from local authorities and local communities on the siting of a prison?
Will the Ministry for Justice look seriously themselves at the findings of overseas research beyond this summary to guide the process and their practice?
Conclusion
The Ministry of Justice's plan for a minimum security prison may be acceptable if it is with community participation, but the site chosen is not.
On reading the research evidence, a reasonable decision could not be made to site a prison on the Lockridge/Eden Hill Land at Pyrton.
Research findings indicate that the way forward is a new way: a prison siting that will not cause damage to the affected communities and that will maximise prisoner re-integration, prison siting with full participation and choice of the community, by a process of open, equal and fair communication between Government and the community, and towards prevention of offending and incarceration.
If the Minister for Justice and his Ministry took this way on the issue of a Women's Prison, they would be in the forefront of practice of Government and of prison practice and become a model for other States and countries.
Swan Valley Nyungah Community c/o PO Guildford Western Australia 2.11.98
The assistance and support of all the people who helped in preparing this research report is acknowledged and is appreciated by us.
References
Australian Government.(1992). Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Overview of the Response by Governments to the Royal Commission. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
Australian Government: Environment Australia. (1994 & 1966). Review of Commonwealth Environmental Impact Assessment Process.
Abrams, K.S. & Lyons, W. (1987). Impact of Correctional Facilities on Land Values and Public Safety. (National Institute of Corrections Report No. R-84-P-02) North Miami, Florida: Atlantic University/ Florida International University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems.
Canadian Government.(1970-1977). MacKenzie Valley Pipeline Enquiry. National Archives of Canada.
Carlson, K.A. (1991). A Case Study of Prison/Community Relations: Outcomes of Culture and Structure. Nashville, TN:Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.
Chambers, M. (1989). Learning to Live with LULU's. Environmental and Urban Issues 16.
Carlson, K.A. (1992). Doing Good and Looking Bad. A Case Study of Prison/Community Relations. Crime and Delinquency. Vol 38, No 1, Jan. Sage Publications.
Duffee D.E. & McGarrell E.F. (1990). Community Corrections, A Community Field Approach. Cincinnati, OH, Anderson Publishing Co.
Eynon,T.G. (1989). Building Community Support. Corrections Today. April
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: the Birth of the Prison. New York, Vintage.
Habermas, J. (1976) Legitimation Crisis. London, Heinemann
Habermas, J (1979) Communication and the Evolution of Society. London, Heinemann.
Hannah-Moffat, K. (1995). Feminine Fortresses: Woman-Centered Prisons? The Prison Journal, Vol 75, No 2, June. Sage Publications.
Kemp, R. (1985). Planning, Public Hearings, and the Politics of Discourse. pp.177-201 in Critical Theory and Public Life Ed. Forrester, J. The MIT Press, Cambridge, England.
Krause, J.D. (1992). The Effects of Prison Siting Practices on Community Status Arrangements: A Framework Applied to the Siting of California State Prisons.
pp. 27-54 in Crime and Delinquency Vol 38 No 1 Sage Periodicals Press, Newbury Park
Krause, J.D. (1993). Community Opposition to Correctional Facility Siting: Beyond the NIMBY Explanation. Humbolt Journal of Social Relations.
Lauen, R.J. (1988). Community Managed Corrections. Laurel, MD: American Correctional Association
McGee, R.A. (1981). Prisons and Politics. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books
Rowley, C. (1970 -1971). Aboriginal Policy and Practice. Australian National University Press, Canberra.
Rowley, C. (1978). A Matter of Justice. Australian National University Press, Canberra.
Sechrest, D.K. (1991). Understanding the Corrections and Community Response to Prison Siting. pp.1-16 in Humbolt Journal of Social Relations Vol.17 Nos 1 & 2.
Sechrest, D.K. (1992). Locating Prisons: Open versus Closed Approaches to Siting. Crime and Delinquency, Vol 38, No 1, Jan. Sage Publications.
Shichor, D. (1992). Myths and Realities in Prison Siting. Crime and Delinquency, Vol 38, No 1, Jan. Sage Publications.
State of Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (1988, 1997). The State of Oregon's Involvement in the Siting of Regional Public Facilities: The Issues of 'Supersiting in Oregon'. A Report to the Joint Legislative Committee on Land Use from the Department of Land Conservation and Development. Hr. Rec. Ex. 5.3e, April.
Susskind and Cruikshank, (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York. Basic Books.