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

5 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THROUGHCARE AND POST-RELEASE SERVICES

The systems of service delivery described in Chapter 3 are generic insofar as various programs to treat, support or address different offender challenges could be incorporated. This chapter describes the ways services have been implemented to address specific offender challenges. It also includes a summary of implementation issues that have been identified and variously addressed by practitioners and researchers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the gaps in our knowledge of throughcare and post-release services.

Interventions to Address Specific Offender Risks, Needs, and Challenges

Within service delivery systems, various in-prison supports and treatment options may exist to assist in reducing re-offending. Types of interventions commonly implemented include those that address basic skill shortfalls (literacy, numeracy), anger management, cognitive skill shortfalls, or sex or violent offending. These types of programs will not be described in detail because they address highly specific outcomes rather than community reintegration per se, and related procedures and evaluations have been well documented elsewhere (eg see The Forensic and Applied Psychology Group 2000; Howells and Day 2002; Howells, Day, Bubner, Jauncey, Williamson, Parker, and Heseltine 2002; Kerka 1995; Porporino, Fabiano and Robinson 1991;Vennard, Sugg and Hedderman 1997).

The following briefly details interventions aimed at assisting reintegration via employment, training, accommodation, reduced drug misuse, or reduced institutionalisation. Interventions to assist special needs subgroups within the imprisoned population are also described. This is not exhaustive, but rather aims to provide a feel for the scope of interventions being implemented to assist prisoners' transitions into the community. Features that can be described as best practice have also been included where available.

Addressing Unemployment

Observers of traditional in-prison employment have remarked that it offers little to advance offenders' post-release prospects because of its lack of congruence with real world employment (low rates of participation, slow pace, low productivity, low wages, low skill level; see Colbourne 2001; Webster, Hedderman, Turnbull and May 2001). Under certain conditions, however, in-prison work could be made more attractive, to allow prisoners to contribute to the legal economy whilst incarcerated, as well as providing genuine employment experience that could be transferred to the mainstream workforce. This would require partnerships between corrections and mainstream businesses, and would necessitate changes to custodial settings and workings. These changes would include (Travis 1999):

facility redesign to consider security plus modern workplace technology
incentives to encourage prisoner productivity and quality
simultaneous training and education for offenders, and
building training partnerships with private industry.

There would also need to be careful regulation to ensure that the captive labour force was not exploited (see Colbourne 2001)

Improved in-prison employment experience and preparation must be followed up with support for offenders' various needs in the community if the likelihood of post-release employment is to be increased. Although the exact employment program components responsible for positive outcomes have not been isolated, there are some features shared by successful post-release employment programs around the world. These include:

appropriate networking with the labour market
adapting recruitment and placement procedures to meet the markets needs
providing incentives to employers (eg tax credits) and adding value to the hiring process (eg providing drug testing)
identifying and communicating job opportunities to offenders in a timely fashion, and providing a range of job information sources
providing vocational training relevant to the job market
providing work release opportunities for suitable (ie risk assessed) offenders
providing job retention, not simply job placement, skills
helping prisoners develop skills to appropriately disclose criminal history, and
long-term follow-up support for offenders.

(see Fletcher, Woodhill and Herrington 1998; Heinrich 2000; Nelson and Trone 2000; Webster, Hedderman, Turnbull and May 2001)

By these criteria, Chicago's SAFER Foundation is a model employment program. It focuses on job readiness and not simply job placement. It delivers pre-release literacy courses and other treatments like anger management and parenting skills, provides transitional accommodation and support, and long-term follow-up by a volunteer 'guardian' for up to one year following job placement (addressing all aspects of post-release life, such as childcare). Behavioural objectives and outcomes have been adopted, and evaluation showed that in 1996, 59 per cent of 1102 ex-prisoners placed in jobs were still employed after 30 days. Staff attribute the success of this privately run service in part to strong partnerships with local corrections and businesses (see Finn 1999; Finn 1998).

In June 2002 Victorian Government commenced a Correctional Services Employment Pilot. This program aims to build job readiness in serving prisoners through education and vocational training. On release the prisoners are assisted to find and maintain a job so they can develop workplace skills and experience that will help ensure long-term employability and provide a basis, for improved career options (Delphine, 2004).

Addressing Educational and Vocational Shortfalls

Although in-prison work has been criticised, a meta-analysis of mostly US studies that examined custodial work programs, education, and vocational training showed lower average recidivism and higher average employment rates for participants relative to non-participants. The best outcomes were found with education when compared to in-prison work (although contributing studies did vary in terms of the quality of evaluations; Wilson, Gallagher and MacKenzie 2000).

Other research has shown that it is not simply any educational experience that promotes positive post-release adjustment. For instance, it took longer for ex-prisoners in one US jurisdiction to return to the justice system when they had attained the equivalent of a high school diploma in prison, when compared to prisoners who had not attained the same qualifications (Brewster and Sharp 2002). This effect was especially pronounced for women, who may not have been otherwise able to attain these qualifications in the mainstream community because of childcare obligations. Those who had completed some form of vocational training whilst imprisoned remained out of the justice system for much less time when compared those gaining educational qualifications. Unfortunately this apparently detrimental effect of vocational training could not be examined closely because detailed information concerning the content of different vocational programs was not contained in the prison records examined.

Findings are therefore mixed regarding the efficacy of current modes of delivering training and education to prisoners, and program evaluation in this domain has been plagued by methodological difficulties (see Steurer and Smith 2003). As remarked upon already though, any vocational training would be best aimed at providing practical and employable skills, and would optimally be part of a training scheme delivered in collaboration with the outside world, to ensure relevance. For example, a UK program delivering in-depth and specialist automotive mechanical training for young offenders was established with training facilities outfitted by a large motor vehicle company. The curriculum was consistent with the training offered by this motor company in the broader community. Long-term data are not yet available, but anecdotal reports on the first completing cohort (eight young offenders) indicate that one graduate had been employed by the company in question (see Webster, Hedderman, Turnbull and May 2001).

Future research is necessary to establish the precise benefits of training and education, and the optimal form of delivering beneficial learning experiences to prisoners. It is also important to identify how the completion of general secondary education specifically benefits offenders once released.

Addressing Accommodation Issues

The important role of stable accommodation in successful community return has long been recognised, yet the practical difficulties associated with securing accommodation (see Chapter 4) have often prevented the delivery of cohesive housing services. A review of trends in the provision of accommodation services to ex-prisoners noted that ex-prisoners are a high needs group that require specific policies to address their housing needs (Meehan 2002; see also Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone and Peeters 2001).

The placement of offenders into stable accommodation upon release requires close cooperation between corrections, public housing services, and private housing providers. In order to ensure that services are timely, offenders should have access to information and assistance relevant to their community of return before release. Specific assistance would optimally include the maintenance of existing accommodation for short-term prisoners where possible, connecting prisoners to housing assistance, or the provision of affordable housing (either directly or via brokerage). Naturally, this would be best achieved by formal interagency agreements. The form that service provision should take - be it in-reach by community staff or outreach by custodial staff - would depend on the nature of local housing services.

The Victorian Government's Transitional Housing Management (THM) - Corrections Housing Pathway is a collaborative pilot initiative providing dedicated public, transitional housing (or assistance in obtaining housing), and appropriate support services to returning prisoners. Services are coordinated by housing placement workers. The workers assess the risk of homelessness and other needs pre-release, and if necessary, aim to maintain housing already held by short-term prisoners. This initiative is part of Victorian Correction's Long Term Management Strategy, for which evaluation is currently underway (see Department of Justice 2002; Meehan 2002; Westacott 2002).

Addressing Alcohol and Other Drug Issues

Various approaches to throughcare for drug offenders are being piloted around the world (eg see Fox 2002). Research to date indicates that in-prison programs addressing drug misuse that are based around a therapeutic community (TC) model19 can be effective (see Field 1998). These effects are optimised when followed with community TC treatment supplemented by employment and/or other skill development (eg the Key-Crest Program, see Inciardi 1996). The benefits of this treatment model have been demonstrated with various recidivism measures, in reduced substance use and relapse, in better health outcomes, and in longer durations for positive outcomes (Field 1998).

Movement from in-prison to community TC is a good example of throughcare. However, as noted earlier, there can be substantial barriers to the provision of continuous care, especially in the delivery of drug services. An investigation of effective drug throughcare found that the mechanisms that can assist in service provision include:

a centralised directories of drug services
the creation of specialist roles for workers to arrange drug support at offender release, and
the provision of aftercare for the range of offender issues, not just drugs (see Burrows, Clarke, Davison, Tarling and Webb 2001).

Addressing Institutionalisation

There are various ways to address the poor living skills that many prisoners possess, (and which can be compounded by the highly dependent prison environment). Cognitive behavioural programming delivered in prison can enhance the ability to reason and problem solve, to anticipate the consequences of actions, and to develop alternate and appropriate ways of coping with stressful situations (Vennard, Sugg and Hedderman 1997). Providing detailed, accessible and individualised information before release about how prisoners can best access the services and supports to assist their situation after release can ease the frustrations and difficulties associated with dealing with multiple agencies in the community (eg Prisoners' Passport, piloted in the UK, see Harrison and Harrison 2000).

Prisoners can also gradually learn to cope with enhanced responsibility in daily life in formalised transitional facilities. There is no single model for transitional centres, although they typically intake suitably assessed offenders, nearing the completion of their sentence. These residential settings allow prisoners to gradually reinitiate everyday contact with the broader community (jobs, family, etc, Nelson and Trone 2001). They allow for continued participation in formal programs, and provide a level of structure and support that reduces the chances of offenders being overwhelmed by the pressures of independent living. Importantly, community safety is enhanced because offenders are reacquainted with the community whilst under close residential supervision. A variant of this approach is work release or day release, in which offenders leave secure facilities for specified periods to participate in work or other reintegrative activities (see Ward 2001).

Addressing Special Needs Prisoners

Short-term prisoners and remandees

The compressed timeframe for addressing the transitional risks and needs of short-term offenders presents special challenges. Resource limitations within correctional services mean that very short-term prisoners may not be assessed or even accessed by custodial or community staff during their incarceration. This once again highlights that post-release services should optimally begin at first contact with the justice system.

The STOP START program, developed in a women's prison in the UK, attempted to overcome the difficulties of delivering programs within shortened timeframes. This service provided individualised programs, based on risks and needs assessment. Importantly though, various programs were delivered in a modular form, enabling delivery in either a group or in a one-on-one format, as necessitated by an individual's progress through custody. These in-prison programs were linked to one or more relevant community resources, thus enabling community follow-up for all modules commenced in prison (see Hollin 2002).20

In its re-tender of the Bridging the Gap program, the Victorian Government has included a target group of prisoners identified as repeatedly serving sentences of six months or less, who have drug and alcohol issues and who are likely to re-offend without timely, case-managed intervention (Delphine, 2004, personal communication).

Women prisoners

Elements that should ideally be present in services for returning women prisoners include (see Richie 2001; see also Covington 2002):

case management, providing individualised assistance for complex multiple needs, from a single place (wraparound care)
strengthening community capacity, to ensure services are locally available and culturally relevant to women in that community
personal empowerment, to allow women to develop insight about the structural influences on their lives
mentoring for returned prisoners, ideally by women who can understand ex-offenders' situations because of shared histories, and
structured, predictable, and well-resourced activities that allow consistency and opportunities for collective community action.

Specifically, Sorbello, Eccleston, Edward and Jones (2002) posed an enhancement model of rehabilitation for female prisoners, that recognises the obstacles that prevent women prisoners from living balanced lives. Services within this model would be delivered as part of a custody-community continuum, with refresher courses in the community, enabling unresolved psychotherapeutic issues (such as self-esteem or anxiety) and practical needs (eg housing) to be revisited until addressed. Importantly, programs would follow from a risk and need assessment that accounts for gender differences in psychopathology, history, and life situation. Program content would also reflect gender differences.

A survey of administrators and clients in women's custodial facilities in the USA identified an extensive list of elements important to successful programming (see Morash, Bynum and Koons 1998). Some of these included:

women staff members to serve as role models
open communication, but confidentiality, within programs
addressing domestic violence, empowerment and self-sufficiency, and
non-aggressive management style and understanding and supportive security staff.

The Parramatta Transitional Centre in NSW integrates a number of these elements into its operations. Lynch (2000b) reported that this residential, pre-release facility employs case management, with frequent staff-client contacts that aim to empower women to take control of their lives. Case managers encourage the development of basic skills and formal education. Women are provided with the opportunity for limited management of their own finances, and of their own daily lives, as well as residential contact with their children. Service delivery requires close working with other agencies in the local community. Ninety-nine women had been resident at the centre by the year 2000. One woman had been returned to custody after release on parole, and seven residents had been returned to the mainstream prison system during their residence.21

Indigenous prisoners

Mainstream programs and services do not necessarily meet the needs of Indigenous offenders. The pre- and post-release services provided for Indigenous prisoners should (see ATSI Social Justice Commissioner 2002):

recognise that the Indigenous community can and does extend into prison
include programs run by Indigenous people
involve individualised case management, and
include programs that are culturally and spiritually appropriate.

Education in Indigenous cultural values can play an important role in developing community responsibility, in improving self-esteem, and in reducing recidivism.22 This cultural education should not be left until parole or probation (Dillon 1999).

The above recommendations were made in reference to Indigenous women prisoners23, but issues of cultural appropriateness are relevant to offenders of either gender. Programs that directly address issues of violence are also of critical importance, especially with respect to Indigenous women. These programs must address the complex nature of the experience of violence by Indigenous people, where individuals might be both victims and perpetrators (ATSI Social Justice Commissioner 2002). Strategies for delivering programs addressing violence to Indigenous offenders should aim to (see Howells, Day, Byrne and Byrne 1999):

address the non-criminogenic needs that occur in high levels among Indigenous offenders
be responsive to the cultural and language needs of offenders
consider the benefits of Indigenous facilitators and segregated Indigenous program groups (eg greater specialisation, safe environment for disclosure), as well as the potential problems (eg difficulties arising from facilitators being from the same community as offenders or victims), and,
acknowledge the critical need for ongoing treatment and support during the period of community reintegration, with the involvement of key family members.

Prisoners with mental or physical health issues, or intellectual disabilities

The community adjustment issues confronting returning offenders with mental illness are substantial, because their poor functioning layers upon the stigmatisation and disadvantages encountered by most prisoners, and this is exacerbated by factors such as poor adherence to stabilising medication regimes. The delivery of services to mentally ill offenders returning to the community requires a therapeutic culture, in which there are shared goals and values across all the staff that offenders encounter (see Childs and Brinded 2002). These shared goals should revolve around increasing personal effectiveness, of which reduced offending is only one component (the rehabilitation of mentally ill offenders traditionally centred on either reducing offending or alleviating the illness).

The case management model of service delivery evolved within the mental health system, and this can be particularly effective with mentally disordered or developmentally challenged prisoners (Murphy Healey 1999). Given that many prisoners are subject to dual (mental illness and drug abuse) and even triple diagnoses (mental illness, drug abuse, plus serious physical illness requiring medical intervention), a case management approach is best able to ensure that appropriate services are secured (see Hammett, Roberts and Kennedy 2001).

Certain additional processes must be undertaken to help deliver effective services in the case management of mentally ill offenders within the justice system. For instance, longer-term management should employ individualised case managers and treatment plans, and may involve pharmacotherapy. Transition and community-based sentence components should mandate community-based mental health care as a condition of parole, and so will require additional specialist parole resources to ensure suitable care. This will also necessitate close liaison with welfare agencies. Alternative sanctions are also necessary, because parole violations among this population can arise directly from mental illness, such as delusions or cognitive impairment (see Lurigio 2001). There are additional challenges to service delivery when a mentally ill offender is in custody for only a short period because diagnosis, treatment and connection to appropriate agencies must occur in a very short time. Specialist protocols addressing the needs of short-term prisoners with mental illness are therefore necessary (see Osher, Steadman and Barr's 2003 APIC model of service delivery for dual diagnosis offenders in US gaols24, which emphasises that no mentally ill inmate should ever be held for longer than necessary simply because of a lack of specialist services).

Expert input, possibly in the form of a specialist capacity within community corrections, is also required for offenders with intellectual disabilities. This input would:

facilitate the systematic assessment and identification of intellectually disabled offenders
develop the specialised programs needed to deal with their offending behaviours, and
provide advice on the modification of generic disability services, and on the delivery of justice services.

Disability services would be best delivered in close consultation with the justice system. This more holistic approach would require coordination between relevant agencies and quality case management by workers experienced with both offenders and with disability services (see Simpson, Martin and Green 2001).

Lastly, inmates in the USA with ongoing specialist medical needs (such as offenders living with HIV) are typically referred on to appropriate community health providers, but there are rarely mechanisms in place to ensure that appointments are kept. The Centers for Disease Control (2001) in the USA recommended that sustained advocacy is necessary to ensure that continuous health services are provided from custody to community, including ensuring that the relevant welfare mechanisms to support community health treatment are in place before release.

Juvenile offenders

Many jurisdictions are implementing initiatives aimed explicitly at reducing recidivism through the provision of throughcare to young offenders in detention. In the USA, this is a response to custodial overcrowding, as well as a recognition that a small proportion of juvenile offenders are beset by a range of socio-economic problems and will become entrenched in criminal careers (Altschuler and Armstrong 1994). There is sufficient evidence to indicate that community treatment reduces juvenile recidivism rates, although unequivocal support has not yet been forthcoming, and the role, if any, of community surveillance in recidivism outcomes among juveniles has not yet been clarified by research (MacKenzie 1999).

In general, tailored case management approaches, addressing multiple risk areas, appear to be the most effective at reducing offending among both young people at risk and young people who have already offended. Ideally, these programs should be comprehensive, targeting family, education, and the local community, and considering social competence, skill development and mentoring (see AIC and ACT Chief Minister's Department 2003). Various programmatic responses have adopted strengths-based, throughcare approaches that aim to build capacity within youths and communities. For example, in a model described as demonstrating reintegrative confinement (Altschuler and Armstrong 1999), five principles are outlined that should inform service delivery to high-risk juveniles in custodial care (Altschuler and Armstrong 1994):

preparation for progressively increased responsibility and freedom
facilitation of interaction between the youth and the community
targeting support systems (eg schools and family) and working with the offender to foster the qualities needed for adjustment
developing new resources and supports where needed, and
monitoring and testing the youth's and the community's ability to deal with each other.

These principles underpin the Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP; see Altschuler and Armstrong 1994), which was developed under the auspices of the US Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. This program is intended to be flexible, responding to local conditions, but central features regardless of location include:

a focus on reintegration during incarceration
structured and gradual transition to aftercare (from pre-release, to transition, and on to long-term reintegration)
focus on high-risk youth, therefore assessment (employing valid tools), and clearly defined classification and selection criteria
individualised case planning, incorporating the family and community of the youth, with continuity of case planning and management between institution and community
institutional and community case management by dedicated specialist staff
a mix of surveillance and services (therefore worker caseloads should be smaller than is traditionally the case), with services addressing anger management, family counselling, etc
incentives (rewards) and graduated consequences to reinforce behaviours in both the institution and when on parole, and
the creation of links with community and social resources, including the brokerage of services and capitalising on informal social controls.

This program has been variously implemented in the USA, and data on its effectiveness are as yet incomplete. However process evaluations suggest that this model when implemented does differ to more traditional modes of parole supervision (see Altschuler and Armstrong 1999; Wiebush, McNulty, and Le 2000). For a comprehensive list of relevant publications and juvenile post-release programs in the US, refer Cohen and Gies (2002).

Dangerous prisoners

Providing continuous care to dangerous offenders is important to ensure that community safety is not compromised. Dangerous offenders are not always released under supervision, making legal sanctions and physical security - the traditional means of containing this group - less powerful. Alternative ways to manage dangerous offenders in the community include relational security, which utilises personal relationships to change attitudes and behaviours. This approach has been implemented in the (as yet unevaluated) Langley House Trust program in the UK, a residential post-release setting for voluntary clients. Akin to a therapeutic community, staff and clients share values, respect clear boundaries, and share objectives. Physical security is employed when these voluntary clients first arrive, but there is a process for tapering physical security into relational security as the offender nears exit from the setting. Detailed exit plans are formulated for offenders, to assist in their leaving for the wider community, and sufficient resources are employed to ensure goals are achieved (see Adams 2001).

Post-release preparation is best commenced at the start of a custodial term. A program undertaken in the Colorado State Penitentiary Supermax25 (the Progressive Reintegration Opportunity Unit; see Reid, Ploughe, Wright and Lehman 2000) aims to promote the transition of the most dangerous offenders through the custodial system and in to general population custody. This program follows principles outlined with respect to transition from prison to community (assessment, case management, programming to address thinking, mental health, vocational skills, etc) but because of the nature of the client population, progress though the program is slower and tolerance for lapses lower. It is unique because it provides the opportunity for even the most hardened of offenders to one day reintegrate into the broader community, by allowing gradual movement away from the extreme social marginalisation of a supermax facility.

Challenges to the Implementation of Throughcare and Post-Release Services

In Chapter 4, some of the obstacles to service delivery under traditional correctional systems were outlined. Some of these obstacles can be addressed by rethinking the manner in which offenders are managed, and implementing correctional policies to reduce re-offending through offender rehabilitation and reintegration. As noted in Chapter 3, post-release and throughcare service delivery models require new ways of administering corrections, such as case management, continuous care, and partnerships. These new ways of working can present numerous challenges to correctional authorities, some of which have been discussed already. The following summarises challenges, and potential solutions to those challenges, that have been identified in jurisdictions where new ways of working have been implemented. These challenges can be loosely classified as those arising from inter-agency working, those related to human resource management, and those that are linked to working with a prisoner population.

Inter-Agency Working

Case management that ensures continuous treatment and care requires corrections, other government agencies, and non-government organisations to work together. Specific impediments to effective care between custody and community include:

inconsistency between the programs offered in custody and in the community
a lack of places and long waiting lists for community services
a tendency - and sometimes a codified policy - among community providers to not service ex-prisoners, especially sex or violent offenders
differing priorities between custodial and community correctional staff (eg institutional security versus rehabilitation)
the need to operate across geographical boundaries when custodial settings are distant to the communities to which prisoners return, and
confidentiality requirements impeding information transfer between agencies.

More broadly, obstacles to the formation of effective partnerships have been observed, such as

no single agency accepting responsibility for offenders, allowing prisoners and ex-prisoners to fall into service gaps
coordinating the different agendas, practices, and jargon of participating agencies
the duplication of resources, and
poor system design, leading to poor implementation, poor communication between parties, and ultimately, to poor compliance by clients.

Suggested practices to help overcome obstacles to the delivery of throughcare include:

placement of offenders in custodial settings close to their community of return
contracting community services into prisons
establishing dedicated community programs for offenders
encouraging community providers to access prisoners and establish contact and rapport before release (possibly via teleconference)
establishing a reservation system, where prisoners can be placed on eligibility lists for community programs, and
establishing formal partnerships.

However, as noted above, implementing partnerships presents new problems. Partnerships would therefore benefit from:

the selection of suitable staff from each agency to form partnerships: that is, those with suitable authority to take decisions and implement policy
explicit recognition of shared goals, and the education of partners who may not have previously worked with correctional clients
raising awareness of participating agencies' histories, including any obvious conflicts, and ensuring all intentions are made explicit to all partners
establishing a lead agency to coordinate services and accept final responsibility for clients
producing formal interagency agreements that outline aims, specific roles for each agency, protocols for addressing issues such as confidentiality, and program evaluation needs
support for partnerships by leaders within all agencies
partnership at all organisational levels, from senior management (seen in coherent policy), to operational staff (evident in clear and formalised procedures)
installing interagency case management teams, and ensuring all team members are involved in key decision-making about clients
allowing offender information to be centralised, in an electronic form that is accessible by all relevant parties, and
keeping all stakeholders (including informal partners, such as victim support groups) informed.

Human Resource Management

Some of the issues confronting staff in the implementation of new models of service delivery (such as balancing surveillance and support functions) were discussed in Chapter 3. In addition to these, correctional authorities and the staff putting new policies into action must contend with:

integrating new services with existing practices without creating confusion regarding the agencies operational philosophy (what has been called 'mission distortion'; after Corbett 1998, cited in Gavazzo, Yarchek, Rhine and Partridge 2003)
insufficient capital and administrative resources to support new ways of working
changed caseloads for case managers (or 'mission creep', where new tasks arising from innovation are simply added to existing duties; after Corbett 1998, cited in Gavazzo et al. 2003.
staff resistance to new approaches and perceived increases in workload
staff turnover, and
recruiting qualified case management staff from correctional systems that may previously have focused on only surveillance/supervisory functions.

Some solutions to the staffing issues that have been identified include:

staff training to articulate the benefits of the new policy direction and to clarify new responsibilities
cross-training for custodial and community correctional staff to improve communication and facilitate shared goals
continuous staff input into the implementation of new ways of working, to ensure that emerging issues are addressed
clear delineation of staff responsibilities at all stages
adequate resources to ensure correct implementation, and
if necessary, recruiting externally to fill the new roles that arise with new ways of working (such as strengths-based case managers).

Working with a Prisoner Population

For some prisoners, prior experiences with the criminal justice system have imposed onerous obligations (such as intensive supervision in the USA), or offered little in the way of assisting in reintegration. Authorities implementing new ways of managing offenders released into the community must overcome the negative expectations some offenders have because of past involvements with the traditional justice system. There are also specific problems relating to the implementation of post-release services that have been identified in various jurisdictions. These include:

a failure to adequately inform prisoners of community services, or a failure to clearly articulate offenders' post-release obligations, reducing their rate of compliance and therefore there chances of success
overloading returning prisoners with a range of obligations and community contacts
limited access to all relevant programs for motivated offenders because of limited program availability in the community (due to the high cost of implementation at all possible community sites), and
poor offender participation in, and high dropout rates from, community programs for the above reasons, or because of prisoners' previous negative experiences with the justice system.

New ways of working to assist prisoners in the reintegration process could be:

creating a contract with offenders pre-release to inform them of their obligations and their community contacts after their return and ensuring offenders understand their contractual obligations
encouraging offenders to take responsibility for change and for coping with the problems they will experience post-release, which is linked to the provision of pre-release programs designed to address motivation and self-management
providing incentives for community participation, and/or appropriate sanctions for non-compliance if programming is mandatory, and
ensuring that interventions intended to maintain already learnt skills can be delivered at multiple community sites:
- in a group or individual format
- within a single program focusing on the everyday problems offenders confront, and
- with continuous client intake, so there are no difficulties or delays in accessing services after release.

For detailed discussions of the issues concerning the implementation of new ways of working in corrections, see Altschuler and Armstrong (1999); Burrows, Clarke, Davison, Tarling and Webb (2001); Farabee, Prendergast, Cartier, Wexler, Knight and Anglin (1999); Ferguson (2002); Field (1998); HM Inspectorate of Prisons (2001); Kuehl (2002); Lewis, Vennard, Maguire, Raynor, Vanstone, Raybould and Rix 2003; Murphy Healey (1999); The National Economic and Social Forum 2003; Nissen (2001); Paparozzi (2003b); Petersilia (1999); Rhine (2002); Taxman (1998); Valentine (2001); Wiebush, McNulty and Le (2000); and Yazar (2003).

Research and Evaluation Needs

An evidence-based approach to offender throughcare requires ongoing evaluation as an integral part of program delivery because, as noted by one observer:

The absence of clear and convincing program evaluation data establishes the foundation for ideologically driven, as opposed to the more preferred evidence-based policies, programs and practices. (Paparozzi 2003b; p. 47)

Naturally, an evidence base also requires basic research to advance knowledge and theory about effective interventions (see MacKenzie 2000). Importantly, both specific evaluation and general research should be documented and those findings shared, regardless of whether those findings are positive or negative. For some practitioners, evaluation brings with it the risk that hitherto convenient yet unquestioned practices will be shown to be ineffective (Latessa, Cullen and Gendreau 2000). Correctional research can also be used exclusively to provide 'proof' supporting certain long-held beliefs about programs and practice. An ethos valuing feedback is more productive than one seeking only proof: research and evaluation feedback can be used to keep stakeholders (including the community at large) informed about all current policy and operations, to uncover poor practice, and to highlight and explore alternative ways of operating (Boone and Fulton 1996).

The Investigative 'Gold Standard'

Just as there are principles of effective programming, there are methodological principles that should inform effective research and evaluation. The gold standard of criminological (and therefore, correctional) research involves the random allocation of clients to treatment or control conditions (ie non-treatment, or standard treatment), in an experimental approach. This allows an assessment of whether it was the intervention, or simply some other unique feature of the treatment group, that led to observed outcomes. This has been referred to as internal validity. Furthermore, evaluators should be sure that:

they employ measures that reflect the concepts they purport to assess (ie construct validity)
outcomes are repeated and shown to be similar across different measures of the same concept, different settings, and different client groups before they are generalised to a range of settings, subgroups, etc (external validity), and
evaluation outcomes are disseminated in an informative and accurate format, to ensure that all key features are discussed. This is known as descriptive validity, and will guarantee adequate information for future meta-analyses and other systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions (see Farrington 2003 for further information).

The logistical difficulties associated with attaining the gold standard of evaluation have meant that past investigations have not always been as methodologically rigorous as would be hoped. This is why there are few unequivocal statements about what is known to work with all prisoners in all circumstances. Methodological problems that have proven particularly challenging for correctional research are (see Lawrence, Mears, Dubin and Travis 2002):

selection bias, where only well-motivated offenders are selected for treatment, making it difficult to ascertain if effects are because of the treatment, or because of the types of offenders who participated. Selection bias also makes it difficult to assess the effects of treatment among prisoners who may be at more risk of recidivism but who have lower motivation, and to assess how motivation can influence long-term offender outcomes. This is especially true of employment programs, and
difficulties in disentangling the specific factors behind outcomes, especially in programs with multiple goals. A related problem is a failure to specify precise aspects of programs in evaluation studies, making it impossible to clarify how specific components combine to lead to outcomes.

Other researchers have questioned the appropriateness of the gold standard given that this type of research simply may not be realistically possible in real correctional settings. Random allocation may not be possible when there are only limited numbers of potential clients. An experimental approach may also produce evaluations that ask the wrong questions, failing to address the complex set of mechanisms that trigger behaviour and behavioural change (Tilley 2001). There is ongoing debate concerning the necessity of experimental evaluation26, but there is consensus regarding the important role research has in informing policy, practice and theory.

Process and Outcome Evaluation

There is also consensus regarding the need to evaluate correctional intervention process, in addition to intervention outcome. As discussed earlier in this report, outcome measures can include indices of recidivism or of other aspects of reintegration, such as employment, drug use, etc. These outcome measures allow the effectiveness of programs and services to be explored, at both the level of an individual and of the intervention. However, these measures of outcome cannot illuminate as to why certain outcomes arose, or how processes can be modified to ensure better outcomes (Boone and Fulton 1996). Process evaluation involves observing how well interventions are implemented whilst they are in progress, and so is also necessary to ensure that the principle of program integrity is observed (eg Byrne, Lurigio and Baird 1989).

Important Questions to be Investigated

Lynch and Sabol (2001) remarked that the issues surrounding prisoner re-entry could be reduced to a few key questions:

can the disruption caused by offender removal and re-entry in communities be decreased without increasing public risk?
if this is possible, how do we reduce levels of removal and re-entry?

These questions do address the major aspects of post-release resettlement: community safety, collateral consequences, and minimising the unintended effects of re-entry. There are, however, detailed questions that need to be answered in order to address these broad issues, including:

Can parole work to reduce re-offending? In order to justify any rehabilitative component of community supervision, gains relative to non-supervision or surveillance alone must be identified (Petersilia 2001; Petersilia 2000).
What is the relationship between technical parole violations and actual recidivism? A related question asks if the costs of reimprisonment for technical violation can be justified in terms of crime reduction (see Travis and Lawrence 2002).
More broadly, what are the costs and benefits of various criminal justice responses to recidivism? This would involve an assessment of outcomes for incapacitation, relative to throughcare, relative to community corrections, or relative to alternate sentencing options. This is especially relevant for policies aimed at stopping drug abuse (Harrison 2001).
What is best practice in the delivery of throughcare and post-release services? and
What program factors act together to decrease recidivism, and what coherent theory may account for this pattern of influences (after Cullen and Gendreau 2000)?

Lastly, in addressing these questions, it is important that research and evaluation considers the gamut of stakeholders that can be affected by and are involved in the correctional process (eg offenders’ families, victims, etc; see Tonry and Petersilia 1999).

Specific Research Issues for Australia

As noted at the outset, the state of knowledge regarding the post-release experience and the delivery of services to returning Australian prisoners is minimal because of a paucity of local research. There are phenomena and issues identified internationally that may be relevant to Australia, but are yet to be explored. For instance:

What are the composition, the demographics, and the precise number of returning Australian prisoners?
Are Australian prisoners subject to the same set of post-release challenges as have been identified in North America and the United Kingdom?
Are there agglomeration effects, where Australian prisoners tend to settle in certain communities following release?
If so, where are these communities, and are they victim to the same collateral consequences that have been observed elsewhere?
Are the costs and benefits of various criminal justice responses to recidivism equivalent to those costs and benefits observed overseas?
Are the theoretical accounts of risk and success derived from the study of prisoners overseas appropriate to an Australian setting? and
What is best practice in throughcare and post-release service delivery among Australian offenders?

There is an additional set of issues in need of investigation that would seem linked to our geography, our multicultural population, and our State-based system of justice administration. These questions seem uniquely Australian, and include:

What are the individual and community collateral consequences facing Indigenous Australians?
Are these consequences the same for Indigenous Australians returning to metropolitan communities, to large provincial centres, and to rural and remote locations?
What is the optimal mode of service delivery to remote locations?
Are the post-release issues to be addressed by each of the jurisdictions identical? and
What is best practice throughcare for other subgroups of the general Australian prison population, such as women, juveniles, offenders with mental health or drug issues, etc?

Increased interest in the provision of throughcare and post-release services is a welcome policy development in Australian corrections. However the effective use of scarce correctional resources will not be possible unless basic research into the precise situation of Australian corrections and Australian prisoners is known. This will require a thorough characterisation of the returning population and the current mechanisms of service delivery. This itself demands the development of procedures, protocols and databases to ensure accurate and ongoing recording of prisoner and programmatic information.

19 TC involves changing the drug-using offender's attitudes and values by peer influence. In these drug-free, residential settings, program staff and clients in their daily interactions promote functional and drug-free living. Ideally, participation lasts between 18 and 24 months (see NIDA 2002).

20 Evaluative information regarding this project could not be located.

21 Cameron (2001) noted that about 45% of women prisoners in Australia had been imprisoned previously (with the figure as high as 70% for Aboriginal and Torres Strain Island women).

22 International research, although clearly not directly comparable, has produced related findings. A qualitative examination of the factors that assisted in the rehabilitation of Aboriginal offenders in Canada highlighted the critical role of Indigenous culture and spirituality (Heckbert & Turkington 2001)

23 Indigenous women are doubly disadvantaged in terms of program delivery, typically receiving variants of Indigenous male, or of mainstream female, services (ATSI Social Justice Commissioner 2002).

24 Inmates in US jails can be unsentenced (and so equate with Australian prisoners on remand) or may be subject to extremely short sentences.

25 Supermax facilities in the USA are employed with the most violent and unmanageable of offenders. These custodial units are segregated from the mainstream prison community, have strict discipline, low staff-inmate and inmate-inmate interaction, and minimal or no access to programs.

26 For example, Farrington 2003 argued that an experimental approach can and does address complex triggers and interrelationships by investigating moderators and mediators of observed experimental outcomes.