What appeared to be working well at the prisons visited Set out below are examples of good practice that were observed during inspections in the reporting year: • The Mental Health In-Reach clinician at Christchurch Men’s Prison provided an invaluable service. Provision of mental health support for prisoners is being expanded in the region. • Receiving Office staff and processes at Christchurch Men’s Prison were particularly responsive to the individual needs of first-time prisoners. • Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison arranged a job exposition to showcase the range of employment and training opportunities available to sentenced prisoners, and the connections between activities in the Prison and employment opportunities on release. An event to address domestic violence delivered with the assistance of respected community leaders was also provided to prisoners. • Selected youth are participating in a Duke of Edinburgh’s Hillary Award Scheme at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison. Airport holding areas and immigration detention facilities Inspectors conducted visits to Christchurch and Auckland International Airports (holding areas) as well as Mangere Refugee Resettlement Centre which also has an immigration detention function. Inspectors were impressed with accommodation standards at the Centre and associated auxiliary areas, as well as the professionalism of staff. Airport holding areas were well-maintained and well-managed, and did not give Inspectors any cause for concern. Health and disability places of detention Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act There are two types of facility that meet the definition of a place of detention for Care Recipients under the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act (IDCCR). Regional Intellectual Disability Secure Services (RIDSS)28 and Regional Intellectual Disability Supported Accommodation Services (RIDSAS). RIDSAS services for secure care recipients are delivered in residential homes in 18 the community. There are a number of homes in a region that may be designated secure and meet the definition at any given time. This year Inspectors visited 19 residential homes in five regions for secure care recipients being detained under the IDCCR.29 Generally, they observed that staff interacted effectively and positively with clients across all homes, and that efforts were being made to involve clients more in decisions about their own care and treatment. Staff training and supervision, particularly on how to deal with difficult and challenging behaviour, was not well documented and staff retention was a concern for most service providers. On occasion, Inspectors encountered civil clients in secure homes and consequently subject to the same restrictions as secure care recipients. There was limited evidence at some homes on how clients could make a complaint, including contacting the District Inspector, and not all clients had free access to a telephone. A number of homes were run down and in need of modernisation. Some bedroom doors potentially compromised clients’ privacy and dignity. Observation glass in the doors allowed people outside in the hall/corridor, including other clients, to look into a person’s bedroom. Inspectors observed an increase in the number of cases where the disability sector appears to be unable Human Rights Commission