Limited monitoring of standards yields superficial understanding of chaplaincy
While formal reporting requirements are clearly stated in each contract, in practice it was often informal, incomplete, or inconsistent, and overall ineffective in meeting contractual requirements. Consequently, services have not been adequately evaluated for efficiency or effectiveness for the life of either contract. Partial and inaccurate reporting has not been informed by the experiences of people in custody or staff using the contracted services. There is also a misunderstanding of reporting lines, with the practical expectation to follow prison management direction on site causing confusion and tension among involved parties. Inconsistent training availability and completion, as well as reduced professional development avenues, has meant chaplains were often left feeling isolated and with limited support in contemporary understanding of diverse faiths or spirituality. Feedback we gathered from young people in custody and adult prisoners highlighted a need for greater theological understanding and religious and spiritual diversity within chaplaincy, as required under both contracts. A review of alternative prison chaplaincy models adopted in other jurisdictions provided examples of religious and pastoral services delivered with independent oversight and structured equity, which was found to be lacking within the current model.
Access to non-Christian services is inequitable
Access to religious items, chosen faith representatives, and desired religious services was the largest issue raised throughout this review, with findings highlighting inequity for non-Christian prisoners and practitioners.
People in custody were satisfied with the Christian religious services provided by the Council of Churches WA (CCWA) chaplains, though they were frustrated by infrastructure and resourcing issues resulting in disrupted services. Chaplains were described as approachable, helpful, respectful, accessible, and empathetic. Pastoral care was highly valued by staff and prisoners, in addition to the support provided to Psychological Health Services, Prison Support Officers, Aboriginal Visitors Scheme, and Cultural Services. However, the boundaries between pastoral care and counselling services appear to have blurred across the custodial estate. At sites where medical and psychological services were under-resourced or absent, the role of chaplaincy had expanded.
There was an apparent misunderstanding of an equitable religious and faith service among both the contract holder and contract monitoring teams. At the time of this review, CCWA had not subcontracted any individuals from non-Christian faiths. Many prisoners wanting access to non-Christian faith services were unsatisfied, and feedback highlighted recurring requests for increased diversity within chaplaincy, variation of religious services and information about non-Christian religions. Aboriginal prisoners reported a desire for Christian services, but that these be delivered by Aboriginal chaplains and/or Elders from Country. The experience of non-contracted religious practitioners was largely one of confusion, inaccessibility, and underappreciation. Chaplains relied on external faith practitioners to provide non-Christian, and non-English resources yet had been directed not to assist non-contracted practitioners applying for security clearances or arranging either ad hoc visits or ongoing services. While this direction was aligned with departmental policy, it had resulted in significant challenges for those outside of CCWA attempting to access facilities to provide prisoner-requested services. Removing the requirement for chaplains to arrange and manage requested religious services isolates them from non-contracted religious practitioners and hampers building networks and partnerships necessary for an equitable religious service. Unlike departmental sites, chaplains at Acacia were responsible for sourcing, arranging, and supporting external practitioners. The result was the best representation of equitable access to inter-faith services across the custodial estate. But there was scope for improvement.
Resourcing is assumed adequate though is not aligned with current policy
Both contracts make provisions for the adequate resourcing of chaplaincy to meet the needs of the prison population. These are sufficient in terms of financial allocation. However, access is not necessarily equitable. Chaplains advised us they had sufficient and appropriate access to equipment to do their allocated work. However, some sites did not have access to a dedicated space for religious or spiritual services, while some provided spaces were overtly Christian. Beyond falling short of meeting all contractual obligations, a lack of accessible or appropriate space was impeding the right of people in custody to freely practice their chosen religion. Prisoners had a strong desire for consistent and varied religious services to be held away from others. Contractual requirements and departmental policy regarding procuring, clearing, and disseminating religious and spiritual resources were not aligned, leading to inconsistent practices which directly disadvantaged prisoners of non-Christian faiths.