white paper video surveillance in prisons€¦ · video surveillance should be used to monitor and...

© 2019 iCetana Pty Ltd. This document is subject to copyright.

Written and Produced by iCetana Pty Ltd

E. [email protected] | W. www.iCetana.com

Video Surveillance in Prisons

WHITE PAPER

Contents01 Introduction

02 Key prison issues

03 Case study 1: Death in custody

04 Case study 2: Video surveillance in prison

© iCetana Pty Ltd 2019 WHITE PAPER | VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IN PRISONS WHITE PAPER | VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IN PRISONS

Prisons are a dynamic and challenging environment with very special video surveillance needs that must support the mission of the prison. Video surveillance must help safeguard prisoners, Correctional Officers and staff and the security of the facility.

This document includes two case studies that discuss how video surveillance can be effectively used in prisons. The first case study relates to a prisoner death in an Australian prison. A coronial inquest determined that this death was due to inadequate video surveillance.

The second case study documents outcomes of a trial in 2019 involving iCetana and key technology partner, Chubb Security, in an Australian prison.

01. Introduction

© iCetana Pty Ltd 2019 WHITE PAPER | VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IN PRISONS

Correctional sector executives have to manage significant responsibilities or duty of care for the following stakeholder groups:

STAKEHOLDER RESPONSIBILITIES

Prisoners (both convicted and on remand)

• Safety and personal protection• Health• Procedural fairness

Correctional facility staff(uniformed and non-uniformed)

• Work safety• Working conditions• Compliance with industrial awards and procedural fairness

requirements• Consultation on any significant workplace changes• Medical, psychological and social well-being of prisoners

Public sector• Compliance with policies• Maintenance of official records• Financial control and budgets

Community

• Integrity of the correctional sector • Community safety• Health and safety of prisoners• Treatment of prisoners in accordance with community

standards

Since prisons have responsibility for all aspects of a prisoner’s life and well-being, any issues such as injury or deaths in custody have major consequences for all stakeholders. In particular, any issues result in investigations of prison staff including coronial inquests or disciplinary panel hearing. Case study 1 in this document outlines the impact of inadequate monitoring of video surveillance which resulted in a death in custody.

02. Key prison issues


© iCetana Pty Ltd 2019

Video surveillance is widely used in prisons. However, the following issues impact on the effectiveness of surveillance:

ISSUE IMPACT

Lack of monitoring due to budget constraints / lack of staff

• Critical events are missed• Lack of response results in prisoners ignoring cameras

Correctional Officer has too many cameras to monitor

• Critical events are missed• Operator feels overloaded and is unable to perform duties• Work grievances may be raised

Correctional Officer has many other duties (such as monitoring at risk prisoners, perimeters, common areas)

• Critical events are missed• Operator feels overloaded and is unable to perform duties• Work grievances may be raised

Cameras in controlled areas are triggered by routine events (birds etc.)

• Cameras end up being ignored• Critical events may end up being missed• Attention is diverted away from important events

Too much video to review historical footage

• Productivity impact as staff must be taken off other work to search through footage (time consuming and costly)

Cameras may be obscured or tampered with

• Loss of record of area of surveillance • Precursor indictation of potential event

WHITE PAPER | VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IN PRISONS

Video surveillance should be used to monitor and control the following critical events in prisons:

ISSUE IMPACT

Fights• Any altercations between prisoners or prisoners and Correctional

Officers. This may include play fights that end up escalating into a serious conflict.

Vandalism • Damage to property.

Contraband concealment • Hiding items, including placing them for other prisoners to pick up later.

Passing of items between prisoners • Transfer of illegal items from one person to another.

Contraband• Drugs, weapons or phones, or any other forbidden items that are

brought into the prison through a secure perimeter. This includes through visitors.

Perimeter breaches • When a person or object (e.g. drone) goes through a secure perimeter (such as over a wall or fence) in any direction.

Camera tampering or camera obscured • Loss of footage. Potential precursor to event.

Objects of interest entering facility

• Contractors arriving with ladders or equipment may leave items behind.

• Loose hanging straps or ropes, maybe used for escape or self harm.

Fires • Either accidental or deliberate fires in any area of the prison, or events that release smoke or visible gases.

Medical incidents• When a medical emergency occurs (such as someone collapsing

or being injured). Medical incidents are one component of deaths in custody.

Suicide / self-harm• Prisoners either in the general population or under special

observation may either harm or kill themselves. This is another component of deaths in custody.

Deaths in custody are a very serious matter. Case study 1 discusses the causes and outcomes of a suicide of a prisoner under special observation. This resulted in a coronial inquest.

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, AIC Statistical Report 13 – National Deaths in Custody Program: Deaths in custody in Australia 2016-2017, there were 74 deaths in prison custody in 2016-2017. Out of these, there were 19 self-inflicted deaths and 2 deaths by accident, with the rest due to natural causes. All of these deaths are issues for the prison system.

Case study 2 identified less significant events that still require follow-up and attention.


“In Australia there were

74 deaths in prison

custody in 2016-2017”



03. Case study 1Death in custodyThis case study is about a tragic self-inflicted death of a prisoner in custody in South Australia which was as a direct result of poor video surveillance. As well as the impact on the deceased prisoner’s family, there were also grave career consequences for prison executives.

During the coronial inquest, the State Coroner found that poorly managed video surveillance was a contributing factor in the death. The remainder of the information in this case study, apart from the conclusions, is sourced from the inquest findings. The prisoner had made threats of self-harm and was therefore housed in a special observation cell with minimal fixtures (to prevent hanging) monitored by a camera.

The monitoring system had eight monitors in a control room, which each screen showing four feeds. The clarity was poor and each camera was only shown for five minutes every half hour, on a rotating basis. For the other twenty-five minutes, the monitor displayed other views, such as the front driveway of the prison. This system replaced having an officer sitting outside of the cell.


CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

WRONGLY DIVERTED OPERATOR ATTENTION

LOW VIDEO QUALITY

ROTATING CAMERA FEEDS

POORLY MANAGED VIDEO

SURVEILLANCE

© iCetana Pty Ltd 2019 © iCetana Pty Ltd 2019

The monitors also showed camera feeds that were connected to perimeter alarms, which were triggered by rabbits, birds and foxes. This diverted operator attention to these views.

Also, if a perimeter alarm occurred during the five-minute observation window, there would be no vision of the observation cell during that period. When the five-minute period commenced, there was nothing to indicate that observation cell vision had started. However, the camera was continuously recording the cell, even though no-one was watching it.

In this particular case, the events leading up to the self-inflicted death were captured on camera and recorded. The inquest findings indicated that the particular prison was under budget pressure due to the cost of observations. The reason for introducing camera surveillance was financial. The original proposal was to have an officer dedicated to monitoring the camera feeds from the observation cells, but unfortunately a flawed model was implemented (five minutes in thirty monitoring, without a dedicated officer or monitor, and interrupts from other alarms in a busy control room).

In conclusion, the State Coroner found:

Responsibility for this tragic event rests entirely with the implementation of the five in thirty process and those that were responsible for it. What observations can we draw from this inquest? The following is a list of observations andrecommendations:

OBSERVATION RECOMMENDATION

1

It is critical to properly setup video surveillance, particularly where used in a situation where death or injury may occur.

Use care when developing video surveillance policies and comply with best practices for the correctional sector. Ensure that any critical events are immediately visible to control room operators.

2In a busy control room with a high workload, critical events are easily missed.

Consider impact on workload of any video surveillance and implement appropriate work practices to manage this. Highlight any critical events to draw attention to them.

3

Financial and budget issues are always important and may override other more critical considerations (even when not justifiable when carefully analysed).

Look for solutions that simultaneously address cost pressures (by saving human labour) and that support best practices for the correctional sector.

4

Alerts do focus attention of operators (however, in this case perimeter alarms consumed finite operator focus, divertingattention from critical events)

Consider “black screen” technology that only highlights critical events to focus operator attention on these.


CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

“The inquest findings indicated that the particular prison was under budget pressure due to the cost of observations.”


The Tasmanian Prison Services, Department of Justice, iCetana and Chubb Security completed a Proof of Concept (PoC) using the iCetana solution at the Ron Barwick Minimum Security Prison (RBMSP).

RBMSP has 85 cameras in total. For the purpose of this PoC, we installed iCetana on 32 cameras. The PoC ran for a total of 6 weeks. The first 14 days was used to learn the normal events and activities on these cameras within RBMSP. This established a baseline of normal activity for each camera so that iCetana could learn the normal daily and weekly patterns.

During the next 21 days the iCetana solution identified all abnormal events and activities from the surveillance camera feeds. iCetana automatically saved this footage for later review. Although unusual events were displayed on the LiveWall, this was not used during the trial. On the completion of the PoC, Chubb Security and iCetana reviewed the abnormal activities and events that were captured over the first 4 days on the trial cameras. A number of events of interest were identified. These highlight the value and capability of the solution.

The following table summarises video clips of some notable events captured from the PoC.

TYPE OF ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION

Assault or play fighting • Minor scuffle / play fighting in open area• Fighting near upper balcony

Hiding object of interest • Places an object in a hidden location on top of a fire reel• Moves a TV and hides a small object behind it

Prohibited item • Rope in the custody of a prisoner

Damage to property • Uses pool cue to damage recreation room

Throwing of objects • At night time, prisoner out of his cell throws small objects against an upper level cell window to attract attention

04. Case study 2Video Surveillance in prisons

© iCetana Pty Ltd 2019 WHITE PAPER | VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IN PRISONS WHITE PAPER | VIDEO SURVEILLANCE IN PRISONS

© iCetana Pty Ltd 2019 © iCetana Pty Ltd 2019

Visitor suspicious behaviour • Visitor potentially passing contraband to a prisoner through physical contact

Smoke detection • Smoke in the prison bakery

Contractor taking a ladder into and out of prison

• Contractor taking a ladder into the prison• Contractor replacing ladder into his ute

Suspicious activity

• Cloth bag passed through bars at night• Prison officer climbing onto plastic crates in truck drop off

area• Prisoner catches item dropped to him from the upper level

in his shirt• Person moving outside of his cell at night time• Person receiving mobile phone to make a call from prison

Investigate item left and removed

• A small item is left on a table• A small item is retrieved from the table

Bag pick up from another cell • Picking up a bag from another cell at night

Crowd gathering • Dispersal of prisoners after a meeting

Prison cell break in• Climbing from the balcony into an upper level cell window• Two prisoners boosting a third smaller person through an

upper level cell window

The staff of the Ron Barwick Minimum Security Prison have assessed and actioned all of these events in accordance with their standard operating procedures.

In summary, the PoC identified a number of unusual events in the four days of iCetana filtered footage. These events would not have been picked up through normal video surveillance as there are not enough staff resources to continually review all cameras in the prison. These events are not necessarily indicative of major breaches of prison protocols, but are of interest and appropriate for further assessment. The events demonstrate the value of the iCetana solution in prisons.


white paper video surveillance in prisons€¦ · video surveillance should be used to monitor and...

Documents