Contents

1 INTRODUCTION

One means of enhancing community safety is to assist ex-offenders to reintegrate into mainstream society so as to minimise the chances of their re-offending. This report summarises findings from a project investigating so-called post-release programs, services and interventions in Australia that are intended to assist in ex-prisoner reintegration. This chapter provides background information, briefly detailing how post-release services and related trends in correctional services can act to enhance community safety.

Background

Communities, and the government services responsible for enhancing community safety, are increasingly aware of the benefits that can be wrought from intervening early - proactively rather than reactively - to prevent crime from occurring. Just how early these interventions are undertaken can vary. For instance, some social and developmental approaches to crime prevention aim to manipulate the risk and protective factors in young people's lives and communities that affect the likelihood of later criminality (see National Crime Prevention 1999). Others aim to intervene only with those individuals identified as being at a high risk of offending (see AIC 2003).

Still others aim to intervene to prevent those who have already offended from offending again in the future. This can be a more complex task, because some offenders' criminal careers will end naturally as part of their individual development; some one-time offenders may not offend again even without active intervention; and some will persist in offending even after numerous encounters with the justice system and/or programs designed to address criminal behaviours. It is therefore challenging to identify those most at risk of reoffending, and how they may be best targeted to prevent future crime.

In the language of early intervention, the time following release from imprisonment is a life transition - an event that brings with it stressors that can make individuals particularly vulnerable to re-offending. One means of preventing re-offending therefore, is to assist serious offenders - prisoners - to more effectively adjust to community life after they have been released from incarceration.

Post-release interventions are a category of programs and services that aim to assist in the reintegration of known offenders into mainstream society. The term reintegration1 describes a broader aim than simply a reduction in recidivism though, and implies that offenders become contributing community members, not simply ex-offenders who are no longer criminally active. This approach to community safety and crime prevention is gaining acceptance among Australian correctional authorities (see Borzycki and Baldry 2003; SCRCSSP 2003) because by promoting factors that protect against criminal lifestyles, post-release services can improve public safety (see Seiter and Kadela 2003). That said, an understanding that virtually all prisoners will one day return to community life and that their return must be somehow managed has long been realised. As noted by Former US Attorney General Homer Cummings in 1938:

they (prisoners) come out - back to live in your neighbourhood, to walk beside you on the street. Their children will associate with your children, their families will be part of your community... And that my friends is the challenge of the prison system. We cannot escape it and we simply must face it (Cummings 1938; reprinted 2003).

The Current Project

This project assessed the current state of post-release services, specifically aiming to:

1. detail current trends, issues and themes in post-release services
2. characterise the prison population, to assess if Australian prisoners confront similar challenges to those identified in other jurisdictions, and
3. compile an inventory of services made available to both adult prisoners and young people in detention in Australia.

The report, Interventions for Prisoners Returning to the Community: A Literature Review (Part A of this volume), addresses the outcomes of the first and second aims, with the current report addressing the final aspect - available services.

This report documents the findings of a survey undertaken to investigate the services made available to Australian ex-prisoners and to young people released from detention. Specifically, it:

• outlines some basic characteristics of Australian prisoners, and the factors that have been linked to an increased risk of re-offending, as well as the means by which reintegration can be promoted and recidivism reduced (this Chapter)
• describes the survey that was developed to gather information about post-release programs, services, and interventions made available to Australian prisoners and young people in detention (Chapter 2)
• summarises the major findings from that survey (Chapter 3), and
• provides conclusions and recommendations stemming from those findings, in addition to a thumbnail sketch of the policy linked to post-release programs for adults in Australian jurisdictions (Chapter 4).

As noted above, detailed information relating to Australian prisoners, and to the risks and protective factors identified as relating to post-release recidivism can be found in the report describing the initial component of this research, Interventions for Prisoners Returning to the Community: A Literature Review. However, key issues canvassed in the companion report provide a context for this survey, and are therefore summarised below.

Issues Relating to Post-Release Interventions

Recidivism Amongst Australian Prisoners

Many adult Australian prisoners re-offend and are re-incarcerated after being released from a custodial spell:

• of the 24,171 sentenced and unsentenced prisoners in custody on 30 June 2004, 58% had previously served a term of imprisonment (ABS 2004), and
• 47% of all prisoners released in the financial year 2000/01 had come back into contact with the justice system within two years of release: for 37% of the total released, this contact was re-imprisonment (SCRGSP 2004).

Given the recidivism rates observed, and the number of offenders who experience more than one spell in prison, only a minority of Australian prisoners appear to successfully reintegrate after their release.

The precise number of prisoners who re-enter the community each year is unknown, yet virtually all will return to the community at some point: only 4% of those in custody on 30 June 2004 were sentenced to life imprisonment (ABS 2004). Most prisoners will return to mainstream life, and a majority will probably go on to offend again. This situation is not unique to Australia, and correctional researchers and practitioners in many jurisdictions in the Western world have sought to identify the factors that lie behind ex-prisoner reoffending.

Factors Linked to Re-Offending by Ex-Prisoners

International literature indicates that, on average and relative to the general population, prisoners confront physical and psychological challenges, and socio-economic disadvantages. These include:

• history of abuse, social isolation, and a reliance on welfare services
• high rates of licit and illicit drug use
• high rates of mental and physical illness, especially communicable diseases
• high rates of dual and even triple diagnosis (ie drug use issues, chronic mental health issues, and/or chronic physical illness)
• high rates of suicide and mortality
• poor cognitive functioning and social skills, and
• poor literacy and numeracy.

These factors need not always result in criminal behaviours: indeed, many individuals face one or more these of these challenges and yet never offend. However, research has demonstrated that these factors may increase the likelihood of offending and reoffending in some individuals (eg May 1999; Social Exclusion Unit 2002), and so ameliorating these may minimise the likelihood of reoffending.

Research also indicates that the process of imprisonment can create additional challenges for prisoners. Some of the collateral consequences of imprisonment are:

• institutionalisation, or longer-term psychological and social impairment arising from the prison environment
• reduced ability to participate in and to access the legitimate workforce
• unstable housing
• high levels of debt
• loss of social networks and the disintegration of family units
• poor access to social and other services within the mainstream community, and
• social and economic decline of the communities to which ex-prisoners return.

Again, these factors do not automatically lead to criminal behaviour, but again, they have been empirically associated with increased risks of re-offending (eg Carlisle 1996; Social Exclusion Unit 2002). Intuitively, collateral consequences such as an inability to secure adequate housing or a source of legitimate income create substantial impediments to productive community membership.

Some Characteristics of Australian Prisoners

Australian prisoners do not appear to be fundamentally different to their overseas counterparts in terms of the challenges they confront. Descriptive statistics, derived from a range of existing data sources2, suggest that relative to the general population, Australian prisoners and those detained by police for criminal matters tend to:

• be disproportionately male
• be drawn from young to middle adulthood age categories
• be disproportionately drawn from an Indigenous background
• be unemployed, and when employed, disproportionately employed in casual or part-time positions rather than full-time roles
• rely on government benefits more frequently
• gain senior high school and university qualifications less frequently
• marry less frequently
• have recently used all categories of illicit drugs more often
• have used all categories of illicit drugs more frequently over the course of their lives, and
• have been initiated to various types of drug use at an earlier age.

Individuals detained by police for criminal offences and sentenced prisoners who have previously experienced a spell in prison seem to differ to their counterparts who have never been incarcerated. In summary, relative to drug users who have never been imprisoned, to first-time prisoners, and/or to detainees who have not been recently incarcerated, a higher proportion of repeat prisoners and drug users with prior prison experience appear to:

• utilise public housing
• complete fewer years of school and attain fewer university qualifications
• be unemployed, and when employed, participate in (presumably less stable) part-time work
• derive some income from government benefits
• derive some income from family or friends
• derive some income from illegal sources
• have received mental health care
• engage in property offences, but not in extremely violent offences such as homicide
• use illicit drugs prior to committing offences
• have used illicit drugs at some point throughout their lives, as well as recently, and
• have taken part in mandatory alcohol and drug treatment, but conversely, also have difficulties in accessing alcohol and drug treatment after release.

In short, the average Australian prisoner, especially one who has had repeated contacts with the justice system, appears to be subject to a range of social, economic and psychological disadvantages. International literature has noted that the disadvantages can be obstacles to successful community reintegration after release from custody, but fortunately, international literature has also identified effective ways of addressing these impediments.

Promoting Reintegration and Reduced Re-Offending Amongst Ex-Prisoners

Correctional researchers and practitioners have developed various strategies and techniques to promote reintegration and to minimise recidivism. The following briefly summarises major trends that have been identified in the delivery of services to prisoners.

Addressing criminogenic needs, or providing interventions that aim to address those specific factors that have been shown to be linked to offending and that are also amenable to change. This amenability to change means that they are also sometimes called dynamic risk factors. Criminogenic needs vary with individuals, but can include factors such as drug misuse, poor problem solving-skills, or pro-criminal attitudes (eg The Forensic and Applied Psychology Research Group 2000).

Matching treatment to risk and need, or ensuring that individuals receive treatment and interventions that are appropriate in duration and intensity to their risks and needs. Research has shown that those at highest risk should receive the most intense interventions.

Risk and needs assessment, or using reliable and valid instruments to ascertain offenders' risks and needs. These empirically developed instruments aim to provide consistent and accurate measurements of dynamic risks, whilst also considering unchangeable static risk factors linked to offending, such as criminal history. Identifying and addressing risks and needs are principles that have been identified as underpinning effective correctional programming. Other principles are:

• program integrity (or delivery as program designers intended)
• utilising treatment provider skills (or professional discretion), and
• responsivity, or ensuring programs match clients and use demonstrably effective techniques, such as cognitive behavioural treatments (see Bonta 1997).

Cognitive behavioural treatment refers to a form of intervention that research has demonstrated produces positive effects on recidivism, by effectively addressing criminogenic needs. Elements of this approach to treatment include:

• modelling of appropriate behaviours
• training in behavioural skills
• the use of positive reinforcement, and
• a responsivity to client's individual learning styles, abilities and cultural needs (eg Vennard, Sugg and Hedderman 1997).

Evaluation is the systematic observation and documentation of program and service operation and outcomes. This results in multiple benefits:

• allowing interventions to be fine-tuned for maximum effectiveness
• ensuring consistent intervention delivery across sites and time
• monitoring individuals' progress
• providing tangible evidence of success or failure for the community and funding bodies, and
• potentially isolating the specific factors that lead to reduced reoffending - finding our what works in ex-offender reintegration.

Evaluation facilitates evidence-based practice and policy, and can form the basis for an accreditation system that helps correctional systems ensure that they consistently employ best practice interventions for all the clients for which they are responsible (eg Home Office 1999).

These aspects of interventions refer to the specific manner in which factors related directly to offending can be addressed. However, other aspects of an individual's life circumstances can impact on successful reintegration. For instance, successful reintegration may be linked to family supports, educational opportunities, or the welfare services available in the area where the ex-prisoner returns, and these factors require coordinated service delivery.

Case management is a mode of service delivery where a worker or team of workers act as a single point of coordination for a prisoner, ensuring that the services and treatments necessary to address particular challenges are accessed by the client (via financial brokerage, referral, advocacy and/or the direct delivery of services by that worker or workers). A case manager can provide support and may also act in a supervisory/surveillance role (eg parole) for ex-prisoners in the community (see Murphy Healey 1999).

Throughcare/continuum of care, or ensuring that interventions commenced in prison are mirrored or continued after release, enabling in-prison gains to be practised and reinforced in the community. Preparation for release commences whilst in custody. In this sense, post-release services are merely the latter component of a whole regimen of interventions that ideally commence when an individual first enters the custodial system. The process will be streamlined by a case manager or management team that works with offenders throughout custody and following release.

Partnerships, or the coordinated working of relevant organisations, are necessary to ensure that the agencies that will provide post-release services act in concert to avoid costly service duplication, to facilitate ease of prisoner access, and to ensure that prisoners do not fall through gaps in service provision. Ideally, partnerships are formalised arrangements, with all levels of operation from high-level policy initiatives to day-to-day agency interactions documented and appropriately publicised amongst relevant staff. Partnerships can be maximally effective when one partner is assigned to role of lead agency, and so ensures that collaborative efforts are effectively coordinated and one organisation will take ultimate responsibility for ex-prisoners in the community.

Community Justice refers to a reintegrative correctional ethos that focuses not only on the offender, but also on the victims of crime, and the communities affected by that crime. This approach evolved in the US. The community itself becomes a client of the correctional authority, so correctional workers are placed within the community and act to improve outcomes for the whole community - not only for individual clients (as is currently the case with parole and community corrections officers in many jurisdictions). This means correctional staff provide individual support and surveillance as only one part of their core work, which is to build informal social controls, community capacity, and community safety, using a restorative approach that aims to repair the harms done by offending (eg Clear and Cadora 2002). An important aspect of community and victim-oriented approaches to corrections is the notion of personal accountability/responsibility, where the offender acknowledges their role in their behaviour, their impact on their victims and the wider community, and has an active role in their own reintegration.

---

1 Although this term is sometimes argued to be inappropriate because many prisoners have never been integrated and therefore cannot be returned to that state (eg Ward 2001).

2 Reported and discussed in greater detail in Part A of this volume.