negatively affect prison order and discipline, thus contributing to the opposite behaviour to that which the unit officially seeks to achieve. Intervention and Support Units (ISUs) in women’s prisons 3.4 All three women’s prisons had an ISU. Women in an ISU were not spared the harsh treatment of the Management and Separates Units. The rules and regulations for women in the units, for example a requirement to undergo a strip search on arrival at the unit or a requirement to wear a tear-proof gown, were rigid and caused friction in what was supposed to be a calm, therapeutic environment. Despite the new name and the significant injection of funding to the ISUs since my original review in 2017, I was unable to detect significant changes in the daily routines and regime of the units previously known as ARUs. Many of the issues raised in 2017 continued to be raised by monitoring and inspection bodies. Although mental health staff were now part of the ISU team, their input did not appear to take centre stage and the final word remained with custodial staff who lacked appropriate mental health training. “I wouldn’t say there was friction, but there is discussion” (custodial officer). Notably, at ARWCF, attendance of ISU team members at the all-important monthly High Risk Alert Team (HRAT) meeting, where each of the women should be discussed at length by a multidisciplinary team (including representatives from Auckland Forensic Services, custodial staff, the ISU team, and a representative from the health team) was patchy, with gaps of several months where no one from neither the ISU team nor Health attended the meetings. The Inspectorate similarly noted in their 2020 report that “There was limited engagement between the Intervention and Support team and health staff, who did not attend the multidisciplinary meetings held each morning to discuss the status and management approach for each wähine in the ISU.”40 The Inspectorate also noted staff vacancies in the mental health team, leading to long waiting lists to receive mental health care. Staff, more generally, did not receive any specialist training which meant, in my opinion, that they were ill-equipped to deal with challenging situations. Staff groups were of mixed genders, which was positive, but it was inappropriate for male members of staff to be in the residential areas. 40 38 Report of an Announced Visit to Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility by the Office of the Inspectorate, June 2020, at par. 139. Released under the Freedom of Information Act 1982. Online: https:// inspectorate.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/42538/ARWCF_inspection_report_FINAL.pdf