PART B: INTERVENTIONS FOR PRISONERS RETURNING TO THE COMMUNITY: A SURVEY OF AUSTRALIAN SERVICES
Executive Summary
An increasing recognition that community safety can be enhanced by successfully reintegrating ex-prisoners into mainstream community life is driving a change in the way correctional authorities in Western jurisdictions manage offenders. Research has shown that prisoners can confront multiple social and economic disadvantages, and that these disadvantages are linked to offending and reoffending. Traditional correctional practices do not stop all first-time prisoners from reoffending, and this may be because traditional approaches do not address those disadvantages, and in some instances, may compound them.
By acting to ameliorate these disadvantages, the cycle of offending may be broken. Innovative approaches to addressing disadvantage identified internationally include case management following on from reliable risk assessment; matching intervention to prisoner risk; and providing interventions tailored to needs. It is important that prisoners' unique risks and needs are addressed whilst they are in custody but also afterwards - via post-release services - because by ensuring a continuum of care (also called throughcare), individuals are better able to respond in a non-criminal way when confronted with the challenges in community life that were previously related to their offending. Effective inter-agency partnerships are critical to the provision of throughcare.
The nature and extent of post-release interventions made available to Australian adults and young people leaving custody is not known, therefore a survey was undertaken to compile an inventory of the same. A questionnaire was distributed to correctional authorities and non-government organisations known to assist prisoners, gathering information about the agencies themselves and the post-release services they provide. A total of 64 responses, detailing 185 programs were received: whilst this represents a broad cross-section of post-release interventions, the survey was not able to exhaustively capture all programs and services for returning Australian prisoners. Not all responses included comprehensive information in response to all items, thus further limiting the degree with which reported information is representative of all programs and interventions in Australia.
Those interventions that were captured with the survey were not uniform in terms of program content, or the ways in which services were delivered. Around one-third of all programs focused on traditional areas of prisoner welfare (such as employment, housing, vocational guidance and training), with the remainder addressing broader aspects of clients' socio-economic context, such as faulty ways of thinking, substance misuse, or social networks. Some programs could be classified as transitional, as they aimed to address clients' issues more holistically (ie the different areas of a client's need dealt with simultaneously). A range of service delivery techniques were used in programs, with four in ten using one-on-one counselling, therapy or discussion, and over one-quarter ensuring follow-up support. Some other service delivery tools included group therapy or discussion, mentoring, classroom training, referral, and advocacy.
Certain shared characteristics of service delivery were identified among those reported upon interventions. Many of these characteristics suggest that Australian programs are engaging in good practices that have been identified internationally. For instance, there was evidence that many programs adhere to principles of effective correctional programming, which include:
- addressing criminogenic needs when attempting to minimise re-offending
- placing offenders in programs on the basis of assessed need
- tailoring programs to match risk of re-offending and need
- providing treatments of sufficient duration to influence behaviours
- addressing clients' multiple needs using a variety of techniques including cognitive-behavioural treatments, and
- evaluating success at both a client and program level.
As noted, there appears to be a trend towards (or more accurately, a return to) a philosophy of addressing the multiple challenges that ex-prisoners can face in their attempt to reintegrate. In recognition of the complexity of this task, service providers seem to have an array of interventions at their disposal, and a majority appear to be employing some form of case management.
A throughcare ethos dominates in terms of the stated policy of Australian adult correctional authorities, although this is not necessarily the manner in which all programs are delivered. Nonetheless, there is strong evidence that amongst surveyed interventions, a lynchpin of throughcare delivery - collaborative partnerships between government and non-government providers - is employed. This is important, because by engaging multiple partners in the reintegration process, safeguards exist to ensure that needy ex-prisoners do not fall into service provision gaps. More pragmatically, it means that limited funds are employed to their best advantage, because service duplication is minimised.
The majority of surveyed interventions were also subject to evaluation, ensuring an evidence base for future resourcing claims, and adding to our knowledge about the most effective ways of facilitating reintegration. Unfortunately, very little actual evaluative material was readily available, thus it is impossible to draw any strong conclusions about what is promising in terms of post-release services and throughcare in an Australian context.
Less positively, there is little evidence for the existence of services that cater specifically to subgroups of prisoners that we know can be disadvantaged in terms of complex and high needs (such as remand inmates, Indigenous prisoners, women prisoners, and prisoners with mental health issues). Of course, this may be attributed to the fact that not all interventions in Australia were surveyed. Regardless, the fact that so few were captured by the current survey highlights there is probably only a minimum of dedicated programs and services addressing the needs of especially disadvantaged prisoner subpopulations.
There is a range of post-release interventions for adults and young people returning to the broader Australian community. However, survey information suggests that there are still areas related to the delivery of throughcare and post-release support that need developing; specifically, the establishment of:
- a comprehensive register of post-release interventions, incorporating information about relevant government, non-government and private sector organisations
- formal throughcare partnerships
- clear funding arrangements to maximise gains and allow providers to develop long-term plans
- policy addressing the needs of high stakes prisoners such as sex offenders, as well as those of high needs prisoner subgroups
- community education to facilitate improved community input and offender accountability, and
- research and evaluation agendas to improve our understanding of what works in assisting Australian offenders to reintegrate into mainstream society.