Debate contribution: Prison Staff: Support Services
Debate contribution by Mrs Naomi Long on .
- MLA
- Mrs Naomi Long
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 20 May 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Oral Answers to Questions
- Heading
- Prison Staff: Support Services
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4490763
Read the official Assembly record
Text
As you know, the Prison Service collaborates with the Police Rehabilitation and Retraining Trust, following some of the work that I did in 2020-21. That continues to evolve. I already mentioned that 400 staff were trained and supported through PRRT, including through the preventative resilience training that is being delivered to teams such as those working in care and supervision units (CSUs). That training is delivered right up to governors, as well as to new recruits. Last year, around 100 operational staff attended a new health and wellness day at PRRT, which was aimed at providing advice on a range of wellness issues such as resilience, diet, exercise and sleep patterns. Subject to the availability of funding, that programme will be rolled out further across the service. Health and well-being services are available to all NICS staff. Those include the welfare support service, a self-referral facility, confidential counselling through Inspire and a number of other services. However, through our bespoke staff survey, we identified some additional measures. Results from that survey will be available to us by mid-May. It is hoped that, at that stage, we will be able to continue to evolve our cooperation with and support for staff.
200 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.02 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.61).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.61 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.02 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.82 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.18 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:20 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.