Australian Government Attorneys General's Department - Crime Prevention and Community Safety

4 WHY ARE POST-RELEASE SERVICES NECESSARY?
THE CHALLENGE OF PRISONER RE-ENTRY

Post-release services and throughcare can assist in reducing re-offending and so enhance community safety. Reductions in recidivism are achieved via rehabilitation and risk management to assist offenders to reintegrate into the mainstream community. This rehabilitation and assistance is required because on average, prisoners suffer from a range of personal and social disadvantages. This chapter summarises findings regarding the challenges that confront prisoners and their communities, as well as providing preliminary data describing the characteristics of Australian prisoners.

Challenges Confronting Prisoners

Long-Term Challenges

The average prisoner in the first world can be characterised by certain social, economic and physical challenges, and there is a remarkable consistency to the challenges identified in research conducted in a variety of Western jurisdictions (see Box 4.1). Prisoners tend to experience these challenges to a greater degree than members of the general population. Obviously not all prisoners experience every challenge, although prisoners can often be characterised by multiple challenges. Precise figures have not been included below because they vary between jurisdictions.

Many of these challenges can be seen as long-term, because they may have been with the prisoner for many years or can reflect events that occurred in the past but whose impacts can still be felt in the present. They are also long-term because attempts to nullify these challenges must have a long-term focus. It is acknowledged that there are multiple pathways from early life to later life events. At points of life transition, certain individuals may be vulnerable to inappropriate responses, such as offending, because of the stressors associated with these transitions (National Crime Prevention 1999). Resilience in the face of stressful life transitions arises from positive factors in past and in current life circumstances. If an offender is to respond to life challenges in a socially acceptable and non-criminal way, he or she must develop resilience, which means addressing these long-term challenges and promoting resilience.

Box 4.1 Challenges Confronting Prisoners in Western Nations

Historical factors

History of social isolation (ie, raised out of the family unit, and/or dislocation from relationships in later life, such as an absence of long-term relationships and support).
History of criminal involvement by the family.
History of poor employment or unemployment.
History of welfare reliance.
History of sexual, physical, and/or emotional abuse.

Health

Abuse of licit and illicit substances.
High rates of mental illness.
Poor physical health, including blood borne and other communicable diseases, in addition to poor general health and lifestyle.
High rates of suicide.
High rates of mortality, especially violent death.
Co-morbidity of conditions, including dual diagnosis (mental illness plus drug abuse) and triple diagnosis (mental illness, substance abuse, plus blood borne or communicable disease, such as HIV).
Unknown (although assumed to be high) rates of physical disability.
Unknown (although assumed to be high) rates of learning disabilities.

Life skills

Poor education, literacy and numeracy.
Poor cognitive functioning.
Poor everyday life skills, including time management.
Poor financial management.

For further information: Austin, Irwin & Hardyman (2002); Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone & Peeters (2002); Fox (2002); Hammett, Roberts & Kennedy (2001); McGinty (2002); NACRO (2000); NSW LC Standing Committee on Law & Justice (2000); Ogilvie (2001); Sattar (2001); Social Exclusion Unit (2002); Travis, Solomon & Waul (2000).

Issues at the Point of Release

The period of transition from custody back to community life can be particularly stressful. Offenders often lack the protective factors that contribute to resilience, yet the moment of release can present a range of stressors that must be dealt with in addition to long-term disadvantages. The impact of these stressors will of course vary with jurisdiction because of differing welfare and treatment systems, different legislative requirements, and the different procedures set in place to ameliorate them.

The removal from society into prison does not require an offender to produce official identification, but in order to access housing, benefits and other entitlements, returning prisoners must be able to provide suitable documentation. Prisoners can be released without adequate identification, which can result in delays in accessing welfare benefits and other services (eg Social Exclusion Unit 2002). Delays can also arise because of out-of-hours release (eg Travis, Solomon and Waul 2000). It is not uncommon for prisoners to be released with little or no savings, and delays in accessing benefits can be compounded by the need to negotiate with multiple agencies to access the range of everyday necessities, such as housing (eg NACRO 2000). Even if armed with adequate identification, an offender may be unprepared to acknowledge their need for assistance (eg Taxman, Byrne, Holsinger, and Anspach, 2003), may simply be unaware of any immediate support options at their disposal, or may be untutored in the best means of accessing them. Finally, prisoners can exit custody with already accumulated debt, and because they are unable to access emergency support or secure a source of income, may be unable to pay any justice system mandated restitution (Petersilia 2000).

Delays and problems in accessing the physical means of support can be mirrored in delays in accessing supports for social and psychological needs. Research internationally (eg Sattar 2001) indicates that suicide and mortality rates are higher among individuals under community orders than in the general population, and than among the population of incarcerated prisoners. A similar pattern was observed in the mortality rates of prisoners and of offenders under community orders in Victoria (Biles, Harding and Walker 1999). The population of all offenders (including those released without supervision) also experiences much higher rates of mortality. The rate of unnatural death (ie homicide, suicide, or accident) among all adult ex-prisoners released in Victoria between 1990 and 1999 was 10 times that of the general population in Victoria (Graham 2003). An examination of young people in Victoria12 released from their first custodial term between the years 1988 and 1999 showed similar trends - male offenders were nine times more likely, and females over 40 times more likely, to die than young men and women in the general Victorian population (Coffey, Veit, Wolfe, Cini and Patton 2003).

Of course, observed high rates of suicide and mortality are not only a function of lack of support, because certain factors that are associated with a high risk of suicide in the general population (mental illness, substance abuse, homelessness, etc) are common among offenders (Biles et al 1999). Additionally, prisoners will often 'party'; at release, especially if they return to their pre-release environment (Carnaby 1998). This can be particularly dangerous for drug-using offenders, because they may have substantially altered their drug use behaviours in prison, subsequently lowered their tolerance, and so increased their risk of overdose (Turnbull and McSweeney 1999). Research into post-release mortality indicates that this may be the case for many prisoners: around half of the unnatural post-release deaths among prisoners released from Victorian prisons in the 1990s were related to heroin, with the majority of these resulting from heroin used in combination with some other drug. Further, 15 per cent of all unnatural deaths occurred within the month following release (see Graham 2003).

Finally, theorists and practitioners have recognised that for some prisoners, anxiety and uncertainty accompany release from incarceration, and this can be manifested physically and psychologically. This 'gate fever' can in part reflect the effects of institutionalisation (which is discussed in greater detail below), but can also be a response to the very real structural and systemic difficulties that confront prisoners upon their return to the community (Davies and Cook 2000).

Collateral Effects of Imprisonment

As already discussed, contacts with the criminal justice system can provide an opportunity to intervene with offenders to benefit the broader community as well as the individual. The level of control that can be exerted over imprisoned offenders is virtually unparalleled, and so can allow for the delivery of services that offenders may never otherwise be able to access - adequate healthcare in the USA is one such example (Travis, Solomon and Waul 2000).

Western society usually rejects unspecified punishments because they run counter to notions of equity and justice. However imprisonment can result in a range of unarticulated and unintended negative consequences for offenders in addition to the overt punishment of removal from mainstream society (Siegfried 2001). These systemic effects can pose challenges both for individual offenders and for the communities to which they return. The effects of incarceration have been called the collateral consequences of imprisonment. They are collateral because they are independent of any crime prevention effects of imprisonment (see Tonry and Petersilia 1999). The following summarises literature examining the negative consequences of custodial sentences at both an individual and a social level.

Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment Upon Individuals

Direct effects of the experience of prison

At the most practical level, imprisonment may mean an offender must rebuild their lives post-release from little or no material base. Personal belongings may be lost because of an inability to store possessions whilst in custody (Carnaby 1998). Similar difficulties can apply to the maintenance of housing for both offenders and their families, although issues related to accommodation are discussed in greater detail below.

The deprivation of liberty, the close proximity of violent and other anti-social individuals, and the lack of purpose, may also influence mental health. Whilst there is little research evidence for long-term negative mental health outcomes from imprisonment per se, there has not been serious longitudinal research undertaken into its effects on mental wellbeing (Tonry and Petersilia 1999).

However, practitioners have recommended that support and counselling must address not only successful integration, but must also consider and address the effects of the sentence itself (eg Lynch 2000a).

Specifically, the experience of incarceration may have subtle, long-term effects on some prisoners - an institutionalisation - and the number so affected is likely to increase in harsher, more extreme or psychologically taxing prison environments (see Haney 2002). Imprisonment imposes a rigid routine on an offender that removes the potential for individual decision-making in many aspects of daily life. As noted above, prisoners typically possess poor everyday life skills. In removing opportunities to exercise even these limited skills, imprisonment can lead to institutionalisation, in which a prisoner becomes decreasingly able to live independently, and may lose a sense of personal responsibility. Other manifestations of institutionalisation include hypervigilance, aggression, emotional over-control, and loss of self-worth (Haney 2002). Institutionalisation can be compounded by the lack of purposeful activity many prisoners experience when in custody (see Social Exclusion Unit 2002). Some offenders expect that their totally dependent role will continue after release, and are therefore disappointed when community correctional staff cannot provide all the means of reintegration. This disappointment can in turn impede the development of productive, post-release worker-offender relationships (see Nelson and Trone 2000).

Prison can create and reinforce negative attitudes to the criminal justice system and more broadly, to the mainstream community. It may also strengthen criminogenic social networks (Western, Kling and Weiman 2001). As frequently commented upon, prison too can serve to socialise less experienced offenders into criminal lifestyles (Smith, Goggin and Gendreau 2002; Tonry and Petersilia 1999).

The prison experience may adversely affect physical health. Prison populations suffer from poor average health, and tend to contain higher proportions of individuals with blood borne and other communicable diseases than the general population (eg in the USA, see Nicodemus and Paris 2001). Inmates may be vulnerable to contracting communicable diseases because of the close living conditions and because of risky drug taking and sexual practices (Petersilia 2000). Further, the poor average literacy level within the prison population can be an obstacle to the delivery of programs designed to prevent disease transmission and to educate in healthy practices (Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care 2000).

The effects of imprisonment can also be felt at a community level. For example, in the USA, convictions for certain offences result in a loss of the right to vote. This becomes especially problematic when entire communities - either because of higher rates of imprisonment among certain communities or because of ex-prisoner settlement patterns& - are politically disenfranchised (eg Petersilia 2000). This and other community consequences will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter.

Effects on employment

Research suggests that legal employment can minimise the risk of re-offending. For instance, when asked about the likelihood of committing future crime, UK prisoners nearing release who had secured paying post-release jobs rated themselves significantly less likely to re-offend than those offenders nearing release without jobs in the community (Niven and Olagundoye 2002). However, the relationship between employment and re-offending is not completely clear-cut (Webster, Hedderman, Turnbull and May 2001). Offenders are drawn from lower socio-economic groups that also tend to be disproportionately unemployed relative to those with greater levels of socio-economic advantage. Other research suggests that gains of reduced re-offending may be linked to the quality of post-prison jobs, rather than to simply being employed in any role (Uggen 1999).

Regardless of the nature of the relationship between labour force participation and offending, incarceration has negative effects on future employment chances. Prisoners tend to have patchy and erratic histories of employment within the legal economy, which can in part be linked to average poor education levels, poor life skills, low self-esteem, unstable lifestyles, and drug abuse. Upon release, these factors may be exacerbated by a lack of stable accommodation, a criminal history that now contains a custodial term, a prolonged absence from the job market, and associated job skill loss (Webster, Hedderman, Turnbull and May 2001). Additionally, offenders may not have the social skills to effectively disclose criminal histories, or even to assess at what point in the employment process disclosure may be relevant. They must also contend with employer discrimination (see Metcalf, Anderson and Rolfe 2001). Survey research conducted in a large US city hints that discrimination by employers may itself be in response to the poor social skills offenders possess, but also in part from fears about negative customer and client responses to ex-prisoners (Giguere and Dundes 2002).

Other longer-term effects of prison on the career have also been observed. For instance, offenders in the USA have been seen to suffer a 'wage penalty of incarceration', where they tend to earn less (than non-offenders) for the same post-release work. Longer custodial terms also tend to be associated with decreased probabilities of working within the legitimate economy (see Travis, Solomon and Waul 2001). This latter effect may be due to the development of a set of social and other skills that are appropriate for prison life, but unsuitable for legitimate employment (Western, Kling and Weiman 2001). The effects of imprisonment on later labour force participation are not clearly understood, but as noted above, custodial terms diminish earnings over the lifetime, with the wage penalty more pronounced for older ex-prisoners (Western et al. 2001). The prison experience also results in a stigmatisation, and this has been codified in some US jurisdictions, prohibiting ex-offenders from participating in certain professions (Davis 2003; Heinrich 2000).

Prisons in most Western jurisdictions offer some opportunities for inmates to work and gain occupational and educational experience. However, the work skills acquired inside may have little relevance to real world positions. Even if given opportunities to train in commercially viable job skills, some prisoners choose to engage in low-skilled, in-prison work because it can pay more highly than participating in in-prison education (Cameron 2001). Macro economic factors can then interact with poor work skills, so that lowly skilled jobs that might utilise in-prison work experience become increasingly unavailable to prisoners - job shortages mean that positions tend to be filled by individuals leaving welfare rather than ex-prisoners (Lynch and Sabol 2001). If ex-prisoners are able to use their prison-acquired work skills to gain a job in the mainstream community, they may be particularly vulnerable to unscrupulous employers who take advantage (eg extremely low wages) of ex-prisoners and their limited workplace options (Social Exclusion Unit 2002).

Effects on accommodation

Stable accommodation has been linked to better post-release outcomes for ex-prisoners (eg see Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone and Peeters 2003; Carlisle 1996). Further, a lack of stable accommodation is one factor that impedes ex-prisoners from gaining employment, yet accessing housing post-release can be as difficult as obtaining employment. Offenders may be unable to maintain housing whilst imprisoned, and therefore need to find new accommodation at release. However, prisoners may be unaware of their precise release date and may not meet with a parole officer prior to release (Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone and Peeters 2002; Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone and Peeters, 2001). This means they may not have sufficient time to arrange for housing, or may be unable to commit to accommodation pre-release even if suitable properties are located.

Although difficult to ascertain, research studies indicate that ex-prisoners are especially vulnerable to homelessness (eg Baldry et al 2002). Although they may be likely to have insecure housing before imprisonment ([UK] Rough Sleepers Unit 2000), prisoners in some jurisdictions are not eligible for priority public housing after release because preferential treatment for offenders is perceived as penalising in-need community members who have not offended (eg NSW LC Standing Committee on Law and Justice 2000). In the USA, access to public housing can be denied to offenders who have been convicted of certain classes of offences (see Travis, Solomon and Waul 2001). Furthermore, in most jurisdictions in the English-speaking world, owners of private housing are free to let to whomever they choose. Even if overt discrimination is legislated against, prisoners may simply not have the means of securing private rental properties (ie identification, references, security bond/rent in advance), thus public, community, or emergency housing are the only accommodation options. If these, too, are inaccessible because of policies excluding ex-prisoners or prisoner sub-groups, or because of limited housing stock, temporary hostel-type accommodation or even homelessness can result.

Links to family and social supports

The benefits of supportive family and social networks in reducing recidivism have been documented13 (eg Social Exclusion Unit 2002; The National Economic and Social Forum 2003), however the experience of prison can weaken ties to positive social supports, and in some instances, actively discourage them. Prisoners can be housed far from home, making it difficult for family and friends to visit, and even when they are able to reach institutions, visitors can be subject to complicated entry and search procedures (NSW LC Standing Committee on Law and Justice 2000). A survey of visitors conducted in an Australian jurisdiction found that specific factors associated with visiting that discouraged more frequent visits included:

difficulties associated with transport
visiting hours, and
conditions within the visiting area (McHutchison 2000).

A survey of prison visitors in another Australian jurisdiction found a lack of consistent and timely information to visitors. Without that information, visitors may not adhere to rules, and long hauls to prisons may be wasted because of a poor understanding of visitation procedures (Begg 2002). Custodial institutions are not generally family-friendly environments, offering little by way of privacy or comfort (Austin, Irwin and Hardyman 2002), or adequate facilities for children (McHutchison 2000), and so can further discourage family visitation.

The families of prisoners face additional challenges, such as the loss of a breadwinner, or the placement of children in care. The situation is even more complex when considering women prisoners with dependent children. Women prisoners in certain Australian jurisdictions are able to maintain custody of children whilst imprisoned, but this option is highly dependent on the age of the child and the length of the sentence (see Carnaby 1998). The situation in the USA is particularly difficult. In instances where children are placed with surrogate parents of the offender's choosing (such as a grandparent), no additional benefits are available to that surrogate. Offenders are rarely placed to assist financially, thus compounding the economic hardship experienced by offenders' families (Hagan and Petty Coleman 2001). Offenders&' families are also typically left out of the decision-making process, although clearly both prisoner and family would benefit from family input regarding offender placement both during and after release. This is particularly relevant if the offender has been a destabilising or violent force within the family.

Lastly, the most enduring effect of imprisonment on family life may be its impact on future offending by prisoners' children. Offending and conviction have been shown to be intergenerational insofar as children of convicted offenders are more at risk of being delinquent themselves (Farrington 1995). The mechanism by which this occurs however - such as shared environment or imitating offending - is not entirely clear (Rowe and Farrington 1997), although it has been suggested that it might be linked to institutionalisation, which prevents ex-prisoner parents from instilling protective factors in their children (Haney 2002).

Effects of cycling through the criminal justice system

Observers of the US criminal justice system have highlighted that changes in parole and sentencing systems have resulted in increased numbers of offenders returned to prison on technical violations (Lynch and Sabol 2001; Petersilia 2000) or for new offences (US General Accounting Office 2001).

Prison systems in the United Kingdom and Australia have also been witness to 'revolving door' offenders, who repeatedly offend, and therefore enter, leave, and re-enter incarceration (eg HM Inspectorate of Prisons 2001). Their criminal offences may not necessarily increase in seriousness over time, but because judicial responses must consider criminal history, prisoners are 'pushed up the penal ladder' (NSW LC Standing Committee on Law and Justice 2000).

The churning of prisoners in and out of prison presumably compounds the stressors confronted at release and the collateral effects discussed above. Because of their many custodial contacts with the justice system, these offenders may have scant opportunity to integrate with mainstream society. They are also repeatedly confronted by the challenges of release and, given the characteristics of the prison population, probably ill equipped to contend with these. For instance, although the way in which prison and release interact to influence the high ex-prisoner mortality rate are not well understood, research nonetheless shows that that the greater the number of spells of imprisonment among offenders released in the 1990s, the higher the rate of unnatural post-release death (in Victoria, see Graham 2003).

Obstacles to delivery of services to prisoners

Research has demonstrated that in-prison treatment for prisoners with substance abuse problems is best maintained and transferred to a community setting when it is followed by support and treatment in that community (eg Farabee, Prendergast, Cartier, Wexler, Knight and Anglin 1999). However, attempts to instigate throughcare from custody to community can expose deficiencies within the penal and health systems that set up barriers to effective service delivery (Turnbull and McSweeney 1999).

Obstacles to the delivery of drug services can include staff, capital, and funding shortages, the precedence of other priorities such as institutional security, and inconsistent philosophical approaches between in-prison and community service providers. For example, prisoners may be subject to a medical model of drug treatment when in custody, but be expected to adhere to a post-release community program based on moral expectations, and that has little tolerance for relapse (Fox 2002).

Obstacles have also been observed with respect to the delivery of non-drug services to prisoners. For example, a lack of clear accountability between prisons and education systems can influence the quality of in-prison education, and result in curricula insufficiently targeted to the learning needs of offenders, and so incapable of producing optimal learning gains. Similarly, physical health gains can be lost if places in community treatment are not available upon release. In general, pre-release preparation for release can be left incomplete if prisoners are transferred between facilities with different programs and services (Social Exclusion Unit 2002).

Service delivery to the prisoner population can prompt community concerns and negative publicity, and correctional authorities are aware of this. For example, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons (1986) noted that correctional treatment programs must contend with the 'variable and often unpredictable response of the outside world towards prisoners and the schemes designed to divert them from crime' (p. 63). Offenders may also perceive services and treatment as essentially negative: mandatory programming can be interpreted as just another form of punishment, because non-compliance with program requirements can lead to further penalties (Taxman 1998).

The negative effects of imprisonment are not limited to individuals. The cycling of offenders through the custodial justice system has also been linked to a set of negative consequences for the communities to which offenders return.

Community Collateral Consequences

In some US jurisdictions, offenders tend to be drawn from certain geographical communities. For example, three-quarters of New York State Prison inmates came from only seven New York City neighbourhoods (Western, Kling and Weiman 2000). Convicted Australian criminals also appear to be disproportionately drawn from certain areas, and these areas tend to be disadvantaged - there were three times as many court convictions in the 30 most socially disadvantaged localities in NSW than would be expected given the population of these areas14 (Vinson 1999).

In some instances, the removal of chaotic and highly criminal offenders may benefit communities through incapacitation, but the longer-term effects of this removal are not clear (Travis and Petersilia 2001). More importantly, when these prisoners are released, it is likely they will return to their communities, leading to what have been called 'agglomeration effects' (Western et al 2000), or the spatial concentration of returned prisoners.

Theorists have noted that crime and disadvantage are cyclical, where disadvantaged communities are more open to crime, and increased crime can make an area less attractive, and so further disadvantaged in terms of decreased economic and social investment (see Clear and Cadora 2002). Given that prisoners are typically from socially and economically disadvantaged areas, and given the stigma and disadvantage that accompany returning prisoners, the communities to which offenders return can be expected to become less socially and economically able. Further, because returned offenders' challenges cannot be met within these ill-equipped communities, returned individuals will probably re-offend. The cycle of crime and community disadvantage is therefore felt at both a community and individual level.

Box 4.2 summarises the collateral consequences of imprisonment identified in communities the USA. These effects do not occur in isolation, but rather interact with each other to make cause and effect difficult to disentangle. More research is needed to comprehensively assess the short- and long-term effects of cycling prisoners through communities. Research is also needed to evaluate the success of place-based crime reduction and re-entry strategies (such as community justice discussed in Chapter 3) that have evolved to respond precisely to these issues of cyclical community disadvantage and crime.

Box 4.2 The Interactive Collateral Consequences of Imprisonment and Re-entry on Communities in the USA

Material wellbeing and employment

Lack of funds within the community.
Debt and an inability to pay required restitution.
Loss of job prospects as area becomes increasingly disadvantaged.
Loss of workers by employers, through incarceration.
Infectious diseases, acquired in prison and brought back to the community.

Family life

Family dislocation and separation, especially as female offenders are increasingly imprisoned.
Family violence.
Loss of breadwinner at incarceration and the acquisition of financial dependent at release.
Poor supervision of children.

Social capital

Concentration of individuals who are unable to vote, and community disenfranchisement from mainstream political life.
Community disorganisation.
Transferral of stigma from individuals to community (area becomes 'bad').
Loss of positive role models.
Loss of hope.
Loss of sense of community efficacy in collective action.
Loss of social networks that provide employment and other opportunities.
Increased criminal justice surveillance, because of high numbers of ex-offenders in the community.
Decreased access to the broader, less disadvantaged community
"Tipping point", reached as consequence of above, where community can no longer exert any positive influences over its members.

Community safety

Entrenchment of criminogenic social networks.
Increased criminal activity - offenders may resume activities with new vitality or may flourish in an environment of anonymity and decline.
Decreased public safety.

For further information: Clear, Rose & Ryder (2001); Hagan & Dinovitzer (1999); Hagan & Petty Coleman (2001); Petersilia (2000); Petersilia (2001); Tonry & Petersilia (1999).

The need for ongoing research is even greater in Australia, as it has not yet been firmly established if Australian prisoners are subject to the same agglomeration effects. A recent study of prisoners in NSW and Victoria suggests that, at least among the surveyed sample of offenders, returning prisoners tend to come from and return to socio-economically challenged localities (Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone and Peeters 2003). Thus some Australian communities may be experiencing collateral consequences of imprisonment. These geographical areas must be clearly identified and their unique needs addressed if we are to halt the cycle of re-offending and community decline.

The Challenges Confronting Australian Prisoners

There is a dearth of research into the post-release experiences of offenders in Australia. That which has been undertaken has tended to focus on specific subgroups, such as women (eg Carnaby 1998), or on specific post-release issues, like accommodation (eg Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone, and Peeters 2003). Given the diverse issues that affect members of prison subpopulations and the multi-jurisdictional nature of Australian corrections, a more narrow research focus allows investigations to be undertaken thoroughly, in a timely and cost-effective fashion. Other research has utilised national prison data, and has found associations between repeated terms of imprisonment and socio-economic disadvantages: as the number of terms served increases, higher proportions of prisoners tend to:

be unemployed
have lower levels of education
have never married, and
have Indigenous status (see Rawnsley 2003).

Detailed analysis at a national level is required to ascertain the characteristics, demographics, and challenges of the typical prisoner because as already noted, even the precise number of returning prisoners is unknown. In order to implement relevant policy and allocate appropriate funding to address issues of re-offending post-release, corrections and other associated agencies must first assess the scope of the post-release challenge.

Virtually all prisoners will return to the community. For example, only 4% of all sentenced Australian prisoners held as at 30 June 2004 were serving life sentences (ABS 2004a). Consequently, the following basic analysis describes all prisoners in Australia. Where available, information concerning features of the general Australian population is included to provide some indication of how prisoners differ to the broader Australian community. Summary information focuses specifically on those prisoners who have already attempted community reintegration - those who have been imprisoned in the past. Data examined include:

a sample of male prisoners with prior term(s) of imprisonments in their pasts
all prisoners with prior term(s) of imprisonment at any time in their lives
police detainees imprisoned in the year prior to interview, and
injecting drug users with a prior term of imprisonment at any time in their past.

The previously imprisoned injecting drug users examined represent a special subset of ex-prisoners: unlike those sampled in the other data sources, they have not been surveyed because they have come to the attention of the criminal justice system, but rather because of their injecting drug use. In this sense, their attempts at reintegration have been more successful than those with prior prison experience captured by the other data sets. As will be seen though, their reintegration should be not considered total, because some still report engaging in criminal behaviour and in potentially injurious illicit drug use.

Some Notes on the Sources of Prisoner Information

Appendix A contains the tables summarising information concerning Australian prisoners, as well as detailed information regarding the sources of this information.

Various data sources were interrogated to gain a broad-brush picture of Australian prisoners. The individual data sources, in general, relate to the year 2001, although reference years vary with respect to some measures and table footnotes indicate when this is the case.

Rather than describing only prisoners returning to the community, this examines some of the characteristics of all Australian prisoners. There are logistical difficulties associated with isolating and compiling data on Australian prisoners nearing release. For example, release dates are not always known well in advance, because release may be contingent factors such as the granting of parole. Various recording rules and jurisdictional difference in release procedures make it difficult to compare release data between jurisdictions. Additionally, the data sources examined were originally compiled for a range of reasons, none of which was to explicitly characterise the returning prison population.

Information from the various data sources is not directly comparable, and is intended to be, at best, broadly indicative of the characteristics of the prisoner population. As noted, none of the data sources were compiled explicitly to assess the spectrum of social, demographic and health characteristics, and behaviours, of ex-prisoners. Data are also limited in a number of other ways:

only the National Prison Census examines the population of all adult prisoners, but even this cannot capture all Australian prisoners because it is only a snapshot of those in custody at a single point in time
other data sources sample from a range of different populations, using differing sampling techniques and producing disparate sample sizes from varying geographical areas
only some data sources contain information relating to juveniles and this has been included where available because juvenile offending and rehabilitation are of critical importance
similar measures were compiled in some of the data sources, but variables rarely had identical definitions, thus limiting their comparability, and
information concerning all variables was rarely available from all data sources, thus there are many instances of missing data. Missing data are denoted in each table by a dash.

Statistical tests have not been conducted because:

of the non-comparability of data sources
unit record information was not available for each source, and
of the vastly differing numbers within sub-groups derived from the data sources (eg first-time prisoners versus those who had served prior custodial terms).

Demographics

The demographic characteristics of prisoners appear to vary markedly to those of the general Australian population (see Table A1, Appendix A). Particularly:

a much smaller proportion of females were detained by police, were in prison, or had previously been in prison (between one-fifth and one-twentieth, as opposed to around one-half in the wider community)
Indigenous Australians were over-represented amongst injecting drug users (IDU), police detainees, current male prisoners, and in the snapshot of all prisoners, with over-representation most pronounced among sub-groups who had been previously imprisoned
a lower percentage of Australian prisoners were born overseas, although a smaller proportion of prisoners with prior imprisonment experience were overseas-born than first-time inmates, and
high proportions of detainees, IDU, and prisoners tend to be aged in their early to early-middle adult years - nearly 50 per cent of all Australians are aged under 35 years, whereas among the other data sets examined, this figure ranged from over 60 to over 80 per cent. With the exception of IDU, higher proportions of younger individuals tended to be concentrated in the previously imprisoned groups compared to their counterparts with no prior imprisonment experience.

Those prisoners that had previously attempted reintegration and failed - those that had been in prison before - seem, in general, more likely be male, more likely to be Indigenous, and more likely to be younger than first-time prisoners. This latter characteristic seems somewhat counter-intuitive because older prisoners could be expected to have more extensive criminal careers, which would presumably result in more custodial experience. There is a range of possible explanations (although none can be tested given the current data). For example, this may be a generational effect, where younger offenders' criminal careers are more accelerated than in the past, resulting in custodial experiences earlier in life. Alternatively, younger offenders cycle in and out of custody, but maturity curtails this pattern of offending and re-offending so that older adults in the prison system have quite different profiles to their younger counterparts.

Regardless of the reasons underpinning apparent age trends, data imply that specialist interventions to break the cycle of re-offending are needed to address the specific needs of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander individuals, particularly young Indigenous men.

Housing

Unfortunately, information relating to current housing or accommodation arrangements prior to imprisonment was extremely limited (see Table A2, Appendix A). That limited information hints at higher levels of unstable housing (no fixed address, hostel, refuges or shelters) and lower levels of accommodation in private dwellings among prior prisoners when compared with first-time prisoners or never imprisoned IDU. These data are generally in keeping with other Australian research that indicates Australian prisoners face serious accommodation challenges before prison and upon release (eg Baldry et al 2003).

No data were available regarding home ownership among sampled sub-groups, although relative to the general population, police detainees (especially those who have been in prison in the past year) seemed to make more use of public housing. This has important implications, because if detainees go on to be incarcerated for prolonged periods of time, they may be unable to maintain this relatively stable housing, thus compounding the likelihood of having to pursue inadequate and unstable accommodation upon release.

Education

The various data sources suggest that although detainees and prisoners were generally as likely as the broader population to have attended school, they seemed far less likely to have completed senior high school or to have attained university qualifications (see Table A3, Appendix A). Again, this was more pronounced among those with prior prison experience than those without.

Overseas research indicates that prisoners generally have low average levels of education, which is accompanied by low levels of literacy and numeracy. Information regarding basic skills was not available for Australian prisoners, although it is probable that they too may have less than average literacy and numeracy skills. Educational attainment appears to be an area of challenge for Australian prisoners, but also for Australian corrections, for if educational opportunities are to be made available to prisoners, preparation in terms of basic skills may be required before these more advanced opportunities can be seized.

The relatively high proportion of prisoners with vocational qualifications may reflect the fact that prisoners and IDU are drawn from a segment of the broader population that is likely to attain a vocational rather than an academically-oriented education. If indeed the case, the content of in-prison education should allow for the learning preferences of this group. Importantly though, if education is explicitly intended to promote post-release employability, vocational curriculum content will need to be balanced with the demand for certain skills in the market place.

Employment and income

The rate of unemployment among IDU, detainees and prisoners appeared markedly higher than that seen in the Australian population over 15 years of age, with the proportion even higher among those who had previously been imprisoned (Table A4, Appendix A). Among mainstream Australians, the ratio of full to part-time work was almost 3:1, but this was not the case with detainees and male prisoners. For instance, among the previously imprisoned IDU, 9 per cent reported part-time employment, but only 4 per cent reported full-time work. It is not clear if the low rates of employment reflect low levels of voluntary workforce participation, or involuntary unemployment, but when employed, prisoners tend to be engaged in less stable part-time and casual work. Taken together, these data suggest that prisoners have limited recent experience with stable, legitimate employment. This presumably will influence the chance of gaining stable legitimate employment in the future, thus removing one informal social control thought to impact on successful reintegration.

Employment opportunities for prisoners may be limited by an inability to access adequate housing, low levels of education, and poor literacy. Overseas research also indicates that ex-prisoners are victim to discrimination by employers. Despite Australian Government and some State-based anti-discrimination legislation (see [NSW] Anti-Discrimination Board 1999), it is reasonable to assume that subtle discriminatory attitudes may nonetheless influence Australian employers. Effective reintegration may therefore be enhanced by community education, to highlight the nature - or lack - of any relationships between past offending and future behaviours.

Given the level of unemployment, it is not surprising that high proportions of sampled police detainees and male prisoners reported income from some form of government benefit, with higher proportions again amongst previous prisoners. Whilst few of those sampled in any group reported income from sex work, higher numbers of prisoners and detainees with prior prison records derived income from illegal sources than those without previous prison experience. The direction of this relationship - what is cause and what is effect - is impossible to establish with these data, but it is possible that these limited employment opportunities may lead offenders into deriving income from other sources, including illegal activities,15 so perpetuating a cycle of offending and re-offending.

Correctional interventions designed to promote post-release employability will need to account for aspects of the prisoner that are linked to unemployment (eg housing), as well as initiatives that can combat tacit discrimination among potential employers.

Family

Although divorced at the same rate as the general population, prisoners have lower rates of marriage (including de facto relationships) and prisoner groups contain higher proportions of individuals who have never been married (Table A4, Appendix A). Smaller proportions of detainees appeared to live in households with dependent children, although the relative youth of police detainees may account for both this, and the apparently low levels of long-term relationships among this group relative to the mainstream population.

International research into prisoner groups show that they are especially vulnerable to social isolation and exclusion after release. Whilst no data are available regarding the non-familial social networks that Australian prisoners have access to pre- and post-release, examined information hints that social exclusion may too be an issue for returning prisoners. Post-release care will need to consider social aspects of reintegration in addition to those practical welfare considerations of housing, education and employment. As suggested by figures indicating high levels of self-reported violence towards family members, part of this social reintegration should necessarily also involve strategies to enhance positive family relationships.

Mental health and risky health behaviours

Only the scantiest information regarding health and health behaviours among Australian prisoners and detainees was found in the examined data sources (see Table A6, Appendix A). What was found nonetheless suggests risky health behaviours among those who have been previously imprisoned, especially with respect to drug administration: use of shared needles, a higher proportion of overdoses, and a suggestion that injections tend to take place outside private homes, which could indicate that those sampled may be more likely to inject in unsanitary, unsafe or inappropriately monitored surroundings.

Unsafe practices increase the risk of infection with blood borne viruses, and overseas research shows that prisoner groups tend to have disproportionately high levels of communicable diseases. Similar national prisoner health data are not available in Australia, but given the high levels of illicit drug use (discussed below) and the apparent tendency to engage in risky health behaviours, the prevalence of communicable diseases is expected to be much higher than that among the general population. Data collated within Australian jurisdictions strongly indicate that this is likely to be the case (eg see [NSW] Public Health Division 2002).

International research also shows high levels of dual diagnosis among prisoners (ie mental illness co-occurring with substance misuse). Obviously currently examined data are unable to directly address the issue of the rate of dual diagnosis among Australian prisoners. However, the apparently larger proportion of ex-prisoner detainees who had spent time in a psychiatric unit (when compared to those not recently incarcerated), coupled with drug use trends, suggest that Australian prisoners may too confront multiple challenges related to mental wellbeing. A significant challenge in terms of prisoner reintegration is therefore likely to be the development of programs that can simultaneously address alcohol and other drug use, mental wellbeing, and chronic physical ill-health.

Criminal behaviours and experiences with the criminal justice system

Earlier research into the criminal careers of repeat prisoners shows little specialisation according to crime type, with the exception of a group of recidivist robbers and a group of offenders repeatedly incarcerated for break and enter (Rawnsley 2003). In the current analyses, smaller proportions of male first-time prisoners reported engaging in most types of crime when compared to current prisoners who had been previously incarcerated (see Table A7). However, the largest apparent differences were seen in categories of property offences (motor vehicle theft, break and enter, stealing, and trade in stolen goods), suggesting that repeat prisoners tended to have relatively extensive property offending backgrounds rather than excessively violent criminal careers relative to first-timers: the smallest differences were found in categories of killing and sex offences, with the pattern reversed (ie slightly higher proportions seen for new prisoners). Further, whilst a larger percentage of all male prisoners reported that their current sentence related to violent offences rather than property crimes, a seemingly higher proportion of repeat male prisoners' reported property crime when compared to first-time inmates. The reverse was seen for violent offences. A similar pattern was seen among all prisoners enumerated in the census, so that a higher proportion of first-time inmates were incarcerated in relation to violent offences when compared to those with prior prison experience, but a higher proportion of prior prisoners' offences were property-related (see Table A8, Appendix A).16

Because of their severity, violent offences should result in generally longer sentences than property crime, thus cycling in and out of prison should presumably be slowed for the most violent offenders when compared with the shorter spells experienced by property offenders. Data suggest that the average length of the total current sentence and the time until parole consideration were also shorter for repeat inmates when compared to prisoners without prior prison experience.

Current data appear generally in keeping with overseas research that indicates a 'churning' of recidivist prisoners through the correctional system.17 Given that sentence length could be expected to increase with each new encounter with the justice system, that fact that repeat male prisoners' average sentences were nonetheless shorter than their new prisoner counterparts suggests the these offences may be less severe. The average 'recycled' prisoner may serve multiple short stints for less severe, property-based offences. There are two implications of this:

addressing the needs and challenges of these offenders may be difficult given their short and sporadic contacts with custody, yet
they may be more amenable to pro-social change given that offences are less severe and do not seem to involve profoundly antisocial and violent behaviours.

Lastly, sizeable percentages of detainees and prisoners used drugs or alcohol prior to offending. Most noteworthy is the seeming difference between detainees with and without prior imprisonment, so that a larger percentage of those in prison in the past year had sought and used drugs prior to offending, but a higher proportion without prison experience had used alcohol. The complex relationships between drug and alcohol use and criminal behaviour are hard to disentangle, however information on self-reported drug use (below) hints that this pattern could be linked to generally higher rates of non-alcohol drug use among past prisoners.

Alcohol and other drug use and treatment

Samples examined appeared to exhibit very different patterns of recent and current drug used and drug use history when compared to mainstream Australia (see Tables A9 and A10, Appendix A). Relative to the general population:

higher proportions of male prisoners, detainees and IDU reported having used all categories of illicit drugs at some point in their lives, with the exception of cannabis
higher proportions of male prisoners, detainees and IDU seemed to have recently used all categories of illicit drugs
detainees and current male prisoners apparently first used various types of illicit drugs at an earlier average age
the age of first drug injection among surveyed IDU appeared to be younger, and
a smaller percentage of detainees and IDU reported recently using alcohol.

Higher proportions of both recent and lifetime levels of illicit drug use were reported among those who had been previously imprisoned when compared to those who had not, and there is the suggestion that past prisoners also used various categories of illicit drugs at an earlier age. Relative to those without prior imprisonment, past prisoners also reported apparently higher levels of dependency on all categories of illicit drugs except for hallucinogens and ecstasy/designer drugs. This difference was most pronounced for heroin, which was the preferred drug of around one-fifth of repeat male prisoners (cannabis was preferred by a slightly higher proportion - around one-quarter of this sample). Interestingly, alcohol was the drug of choice most frequently endorsed by first-time male prisoners, with only around 10 per cent endorsing heroin.

In summary, prisoners, detainees and IDU show high past and current levels of drug use, with those who have previously experienced prison reporting the highest levels of use and dependency (especially with regard to heroin), and a suggestion that their drug use may have started slightly earlier in life. Any serious attempt to reintegrate Australian prisoners must address the drug issues that these individuals confront, acknowledging that drug use may or may not be linked to offending behaviour, and may potentially be linked to a range of other life stressors, such as social isolation, financial difficulties, homelessness, or psychological distress or illness.

Any alcohol and other drug treatment must also account for prior treatments that have not proven successful. Table A11 (Appendix A) suggests that at least one-third and as many as three-fifths of detainees, prisoners and IDU have been in some form of drug treatment in the past. Above indications of high levels of recent and/or ongoing drug consumption signal that treatment was not successful in eliminating all forms of illicit drug use. If abstinence is the goal of reintegrative programs, the method and content of drug interventions may need to be reconsidered for those who have not succeeded in past treatment. If controlled drug use is the goal, programs will need to ensure that use is modified to effectively minimise risk and maximise opportunities to constructively participate in community life.

Overseas research shows that treatment success need not be linked to whether or not treatment is wholly voluntary (see Chapter 3). Current data show that at least one-quarter of detainees and one-eighth of past prisoners who had previously participated in treatment had taken part in mandated treatment. Proportions were higher among those with past prison experience. The success of this mandated treatment cannot be ascertained, but detailed examination of data show that 19 per cent of all detainees who had been in mandatory treatment in the past, and 31 per cent of male prisoners who had previously undergone compulsory treatment, were also in treatment at the time of interview.

Lastly, participation in voluntary treatment (either in the past or at the time of interview) appeared to be higher among detainees who had not been imprisoned in the past year when compared to their recently imprisoned counterparts. This may be linked to a lack of voluntary treatment places, especially for ex-prisoners: data suggest that the proportion of surveyed returning prisoners who were unable to access treatment was double that of detainees who had not been imprisoned in the past year. This highlights the importance of throughcare that ensures services commenced in prison can be continued, or at least reinforced or supported once a prisoner re-enters their community.

Given the similarity between Australian offenders and their counterparts in other Western nations on dimensions such as education and employment, it is not unreasonable to expect similar collateral effects of imprisonment. For instance, in the USA, communities of return are often considerable distances from services and supports (Travis, Solomon and Waul 2000). This would also be expected in Australia, especially within rural and remote communities, but also within those disadvantaged areas on the outskirts of major metropolitan centres.

Other investigations have noted that Australian prisoners are subject to the same social forces that negatively impact upon successful integration after custody as their international counterparts. For example, the NSW LC Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2000) remarked on obstacles to integration, including:

insufficient program places for prisoners
lack of adequate identification at the point of release
difficulties in obtaining adequate welfare support post-release, and
obstacles to the maintenance of welfare payments for the families of offenders.

Of course these issues are not unique to any single Australian jurisdiction. They are additional generic obstacles faced by Australian prisoners in all jurisdictions that will need to be addressed if recidivism rates are to be lowered.

The Special Needs of Subgroups of Prisoners

There are subgroups within the general population of returning offenders that have special needs and so confront specific challenges (in addition to those outlined above) when attempting to integrate with the broader community.

Offenders imprisoned for short terms

UK research has shown high rates of reconviction among the large subgroup of prisoners who serve short terms of 12 months or less (see NACRO 2000). Although incarcerated for short periods of time, these periods of removal from the community may be sufficient to damage workplace and family relations, and necessitate a change of address. It is recognised that short-term prisoners and those held on remand are in need of assistance when returning to the community (HM Inspectorate of Prisons 2001), yet the obstacles confronting the average prisoner are compounded within this population because of their short contact with the criminal justice system. Principles of effective correctional programming (discussed in Chapter 3) dictate that treatment must occur for a long enough period to effect a change in offenders, yet these offenders may be under the responsibility of the criminal justice system for only brief spells. Research in the UK shows that those with short sentences or held on remand can have complex unmet needs, including poor mental health, financial and housing difficulties and AOD issues (eg Hardie, Bhui, Brown, Watson and Parrott 1998), but have little opportunity to access or participate in in-prison programs. Typically there has been no statutory requirement for correctional authorities to assist with their transition back in to the community (Lewis, Vennard, Maguire, Raynor, Vanstone, Raybould and Rix 2003; National Audit Office 2002).

The recidivism rates among short-term prisoners in Australia are not known. However, as outlined in Chapter 1, half of convicted Australian prisoners in custody in 2002 were expected to serve sentences of two years or less. Data contained in the National Prison Census for 2001 and analysed for this current project (see Table A12; Appendix A) indicate that of inmates in custody on the census date who had previously experienced prison, 20 per cent were held on remand. Viewed slightly differently, 56 per cent of these remandees had been in prison on a prior occasion. Nearly one-fifth of previously imprisoned offenders in June 2001 expected to serve sentences of between six and 12 months, around one-eighth between three and six months, and 6 per cent had expected sentences of less than three months. Around 70 per cent of each of these subgroups of sentenced prisoners had been imprisoned before.

Given the high numbers of repeat Australian prisoners who spend relatively short spells in prison, programs specifically addressing their risks and needs seem especially important if a reduced cycling of offenders through the custodial system is to be achieved.

Women prisoners

Women constitute a small percentage of imprisoned offenders, but trends throughout the Western world, including Australia, indicate that this proportion is increasing (eg see Chapter 1, Cameron 2001). The fact that women tend to incur shorter sentences than men (Davies and Cook 1998) means that the challenges associated with short-term prisoners are applicable, but there are also additional, gender-related issues to consider. Whilst most prisoners face obstacles in securing adequate employment, women are particularly challenged. They have limited workplace experience, low educational attainment, and are more likely to be responsible for dependent children than women in the general population (UK research; Hamlyn and Lewis 2000). Responsibility for children can further limit the pool of available housing and means that employment considerations must also include access to childcare.

Women are often primary caregivers within families, and so women prisoners often experience the negative consequences of enforced separation from their children. A qualitative study of costs of imprisonment for women in the USA found that the distress of separation could be exacerbated if children are placed under state care. If a mother has more than one child, they may be placed in separate locations, making family reunification difficult (Dodge and Pogrebin 2001). Reunification post-release can also be impeded by the requirement for mothers to demonstrate 'rehabilitation', because the complex challenges facing women offenders can make this difficult. For instance, women cannot regain custody of their children until they find a house, which cannot occur until employed, which is unlikely if they are not drug-free, and so on (Richie 2001).

Women prisoners have been loosely characterised as dependent - be it on drugs, on others, or on welfare - and dependency issues must be addressed if re-offending is to be curtailed (Morris and Wilkinson 2000). The dependency is often made visible in the abusive domestic relationships that many women are unable to escape either before or after release (Carnaby 1998). Others have observed that Australian women exist in a cycle of drug addiction and violence (eg Easteal 2001). This cycle can be perpetuated by experiences within the mainstream community, as well as in-prison experiences, because women's prisons tend to ignore the specific needs of female offenders (Easteal 2001). Gender differences in terms of abuse histories, dependencies, anger display and management, and psychopathology (see Sorbello, Eccleston, Edward and Jones 2002) mean that rehabilitative programs developed for white, adult, male offenders may be inappropriate for this subpopulation.

Indigenous prisoners

Indigenous Australians are disproportionately represented in the Australian correctional system (refer above, Chapter 1), yet in the past, programmatic solutions to problems have tended to be developed in reference to the European male majority of the prison population. For instance, mainstream risk assessment tools (such as the LSI-R18) may not be appropriate for use among Indigenous populations: on average, this group tends to record higher levels of the factors that contribute to estimates of re-offending risk (eg criminal history, younger age, unemployment, alcohol abuse; see Jones, Masters, Griffiths and Moulday 2002). Additional challenges are faced by Indigenous Australians as a consequence of the colonisation experience, such as loss of positive identity and connection to culture (Jones et al 2002).

These specific challenges are layered upon the already outlined, long-term and structural issues faced by all prisoners, with the challenges possibly greatest for Indigenous women (see also Baldry et al 2003). For instance, because women's custodial centres are fewer in number, the distance from family and friends can be even greater than for male inmates. This can make it difficult for family, and especially children, to visit, particularly if the family needs to travel from a remote location. Upon release, remoteness means poor access to the services necessary for reintegration. The loss of women from their communities can often pose a disproportionate loss to that (possibly already disadvantaged) community because of the important cultural, economic and family role Indigenous women play (see Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander [ATSI] Social Justice Commissioner 2002).

Prisoners with mental illnesses

This subgroup also faces a set of unique additional challenges in their attempts to integrate into the community after release. The rate of mental illness among prisoners is estimated to be high (eg in NSW, see [NSW] Public Health Division 2002), but estimates cannot capture those who, because of past experiences, will not self-identify. Even if mental illness is diagnosed, adequate facilities to treat conditions appropriately may not be available. For instance, magistrates have been known to sentence mentally ill offenders simply to ensure access to some specialist services (NSW LC Standing Committee on Law and Justice 2000).

Prisoners with intellectual disabilities

These prisoners are often severely disadvantaged in terms of interacting with justice officials, such as police. However, the needs of these offenders are often unmet because of difficulties associated with identifying these individuals. A recent report examining intellectually disabled offenders in NSW identified that they:

have high levels of recidivism
may have social networks unable to assist in dealing with their offending
tend to have socially disadvantaged backgrounds including poor education and high rates of unemployment
have high levels of homelessness, and
are not well serviced in terms of physical and mental health.

Even if able to access support once in the justice system, it unlikely that services will have the specialist staff skills and targeted programs necessary to deal with their complex and special needs (see Simpson, Martin and Green 2001).

Juvenile offenders

Young people who offend constitute a somewhat special subgroup because public opinion is often more accepting of attempts to rehabilitate young people. However, the rehabilitative task can be more challenging because adolescence is a time of major cognitive, social, biological, and emotional change. This means the personality is less stable than in later life (see Borum 2003), and so treatments and programs delivered by juvenile correctional authorities must be appropriate for this group.

12 That is, aged less than 21 years.

13 It is important to note that not all family relationships can or will positively effect reintegration; benefits presumably will only arise if family influences support reintegrative goals.

14 With disadvantage indexed by a composite disadvantage score incorporating factors such as employment, education, and income.

15 It is also possible that detainees, prisoners and ex-prisoners choose to operate outside the legitimate economy. The above trends could merely reflect this choice rather than any actual relationship between unemployment and other sources of income.

16 Negligible differences were noted on similar variables for police detainees and IDU, and contrary to above, most showed slightly higher percentages among past prisoners. This may be in part a function of the fact that detainees' charges are not proven, and the timeframe for prior IDU imprisonment is unknown and may or may not be linked to reported arrests.

17 See Table A8: previously imprisoned detainees have an average of three adult custodial spells compared to one for those not in prison in the past year.

18 Andrews, D. & Bonta J. 1995, The Level of Supervision Inventory - Revised (LSI-R), Multi-Health Systems, North Tonawanda, NY.