• Albany Regional Prison is WA’s third maximum-security prison
• The prisoner population at Albany doubled in an 18-month period
• Remandees were 25.5 per cent of the population
• There were many foreign nationals and indigenous prisoners
• There has been more stability in leadership, and better communication with staff

• The reception centre is unfit for Albany’s population
• None of Albany’s four units meet modern standards
• Food quality and quantity is good, but a greater variety would be appreciated
• Kitchen operating effectively but its size is restrictive
• Both clothing and laundry was good but could be improved
• Not all bunks were safe
• Locally made mattresses and doonas were good quality
• Maintaining contact with families can be difficult at Albany because of distance
• Visitors were managed decently and the visits’ centre had improved
• Excellent subsidies for long-distance calls, but calls to mobiles are expensive
• Skype is well used but is not available on weekends
• Video link expanded for extra remandees
• The canteen at Albany continued to offer a good service to prisoners

• The orientation process was ineffective
• Frequent lockdowns were affecting otherwise good staff-prisoner relations
• Peer support was operating but needed a lift
• The Aboriginal Visitors Scheme (AVS) has recently been re-established
• Albany has an active chaplaincy
• Prison Counselling Services were stretched too thinly
• Despite an increase in staffing, managing mental health services remained challenging
• The absence of a crisis care unit remained both a weakness and a risk
• Conditions for protection prisoners have declined
• Women held at Albany are acutely isolated
• Remand prisoners were less likely to have work and many were displaced
• Lack of single cells compromised the long term prison program

• The health centre is still unfit for purpose
• The health centre was not a harmonious working environment
• Health services were in a state of flux
• Dental services were inadequate
• The health centre delivered an exceptional Hepatitis C treatment model
• Prisoners’ satisfaction with health services had declined significantly

• Prisoner recreation workers offset rationing of oval access
• Recreational art still unreasonably restricted
• Prisoner forum frustrated, not yet positively engaged
• Only a minority of prisoners were involved in meaningful employment
• The education centre was highly productive, but should continue to build
• System-wide population pressures led to additional assessment workload for Albany
• Case management was up-to-date, but the system continued to offer limited value
• Program availability was not meeting need in some areas
• Transitional services were methodical and comprehensive

• The security team and staff worked well to manage security threats
• Increased searching has produced good results, but may be unsustainable
• Gatehouse processes had improved
• Albany’s drug strategy lacks substantial demand reduction and harm minimisation strategies
• Earned supervision was a not as much of an incentive as it used to be
• The prison has extended its multipurpose capacity to help manage prisoners on different regimes
• Prosecutions were running well
• Staff feel confident to respond to emergencies
• Officers in the ASU are trained to resolve incidents safely

• Management team are working prospectively and responsively
• Staffing levels higher, but an overtime cap was now in place
• Essential training for staff was well-managed
• Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) functioning quite well
• Infrastructure for service areas were not scaled to prisoner numbers
• Some accommodation and service infrastructure was not fit for purpose

Page last updated: August 14, 2018
118: Inspection of Albany Regional Prison