There are many different models of prison governance globally, including fully centralised systems and decentralised governance in jurisdictions which have both federal and state/provincial prison structures, as well as systems which have part of their management such as healthcare or education under a different agency or integrated with other ministries. A recent bill in Colombia, for example, proposes to integrate the work of the national prison system with the Ministry of Education and Labour for implementation of rehabilitation programmes. There are also systems where individual prison governors have more control over key aspects of prison management and service delivery, including local budgets and contracts, staff recruitment and local partnerships.
Governance structures and leadership often relate to the size and geography of the country, as well as political and governmental systems. Political changes in a country can contribute to frequent changes to the governance and funding of prisons with both positive and negative impacts. In Kyrgyzstan, the probation service, previously under the control of the State Penitentiary Service, was transferred to the Ministry of Justice in 2019 and has received significant financial and logistical support from international organisations subsequently. On the other hand, in Afghanistan, the prison system now operating under the Taliban regime is no longer benefitting from the financial and technical support previously provided by international donors.
Historically, in countries undergoing wider governance reform, the justice sector, including court systems, have been slower than other institutions at improving systems of good governance.
In terms of prison systems, their inherent closed nature, is one reason for this. Other reasons include corruption, lack of independence among the judiciary, as seen for example in Moldova where necessary reforms to the justice sector are long coming. In other countries there has been a link between delays in justice sector reform and the lack of reliable criminal justice data, a key requirement of good governance.
In 2022, PRI issued a framework on putting good governance into action in prisons, making it clear that participation by both male and female detainees is a key cornerstone. It has been noted that participation of people in prison and building local partnerships can play a key role in reducing reoffending. PRI also noted that prison administrations can and should be measured against the same good governance standards as other public sector agencies, including the principles of transparency and accountability. Some systems are increasing their focus like in New York State in the US where in 2021 the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision reviewed all policies, procedures and practice in response to a broader government transparency initiative, with a pledge for greater transparency and accountability within the prison system.
Where private companies are contracted to run specific prison facilities, questions continue to be raised about the governance of such prisons.
Also in Argentina an action plan for 2019 to 2022 committed to further strengthening public oversight of the prison system by establishing a ‘National Penitentiary Diagnosis’, an annual study designed in collaboration with civil society organisations and academics to evaluate the prison system’s capacity and conditions from a human rights perspective, incorporating qualitative criteria and experiences from people in prison. Argentina had previously created a public database of audit recommendations and compliance information from the Federal Prison Service. In India, where the administration and management of prisons is devolved to State Governments, reforms continue to be overseen and guided by the Ministry of Home Affairs but have been criticised for their slow pace. Where States are found to not be following central policies and guidelines, the Ministry can intervene with further advisories and instructions. For example, in January 2023, the Ministry issued a circular to all States and Union Territories around issues such as non-compliance with the Model Prison Manual and the need for improved staff recruitment. Initiatives to decentralise control of prisons continue in some countries, especially where pilot projects have identified the positive potential of devolving more powers to prison directors. In Nigeria, discussions around broader prison reform continue to include proposals to decentralise management of the correctional services. A 2020 evaluation of a trial project in England and Wales to allow greater autonomy for prison directors to devolve power to staff in six prisons found a range of barriers in successfully implementing reform at local level, but efforts to deliver personalised, local services embedded within their communities were seen as positive.
Where private companies are contracted to run specific prison facilities, questions continue to be raised about the governance of such prisons. In the US, a recent report outlined a pattern of failed oversight and compliance within Florida’s private prison system. At federal level, the US President’s executive order aiming to reduce the use of private prisons led to the announcement in December 2022 that the Bureau of Prisons had ended all contracts with privately managed prisons. Elsewhere, in Australia (where an estimated 20% of the prison population are in privately run facilities) concerns have been raised that a lack of transparency make it impossible to test the claim that privatisation is more effective, and concerns continue to be raised that private prisons are operating to lower standards.