Contents

3 THE NATURE OF SERVICES AVAILABLE TO PRISONERS IN AUSTRALIA

The types of interventions, programs, and services made available to returning Australian prisoners and young people leaving detention are summarised in this chapter. Findings are arranged thematically, examining the general characteristics of services, the content of programs offered, the types of clients targeted, specific program features, and aspects of program evaluation.

As noted in the preceding chapter, the findings from this survey are not exhaustive. Rather, they should be seen as broadly descriptive of a cross-section of the types of interventions that are currently available within Australia. For this reason, questionnaire information is summarised along a range of dimensions that aim to illustrate the salient characteristics of Australian post-release interventions.

Despite the predominantly yes/no and simple text-based questionnaire format, a number of respondents provided longer text information, presumably because simple yes/no responses did not capture the complexities of their interventions. In a small minority of cases, a text-based response summarising post-release interventions was provided rather than a completed questionnaire. Response categories were developed to summarise this text-based information. Coding criteria for these categories were then applied to responses on two separate occasions (this duplication process was to improve the reliability of the coding scheme). Collapsing text into categories means that detail will inevitably be lost. In cases where detail may be illustrative of particular points, qualitative information is also reported.

In general, percentage values are reported. The number of cases contributing to that percentage varied depending on the information being examined. In all instances, the actual number of cases is also stated.

General Characteristics of Post-Release Service Provision

After release, prisoners may still be clients of the relevant correctional services under some form of community supervision, but day-to-day responsibility for that client shifts from custodial officers to probation and community correctional staff. Authorities are not obliged to provide services to prisoners and young people released without supervision orders or conditions, but this group may seek assistance from the community arm of corrections, or from a range of non-government service providers. Non-government organisations (NGOs) may also be contracted by correctional services to provide services to clients both during and after custodial terms, and their programs may be privately-funded, charitably-based, or partially financed with public monies.

Reported findings encompass information received from staff within the custodial arm (19 responses) and community function (16 responses) of State adult and juvenile correctional services. Fifteen responses reported on the operations of both community and custodial corrections. As previously noted, 14 responses were received from non-government service providers. Of all completed questionnaires received, 34 respondents noted that their agencies catered exclusively to adult prisoners or ex-prisoners, 23 provided services only for young people who are/have been in detention, and seven catered to both adults and juveniles.

Correctional service providers (ie excluding NGOs) were asked to describe the general characteristics of the post-release services available to their clients. Table 3.1 summarises the broad characteristics of post-release service delivery by correctional authorities.

Table 3.1. Broad characteristics of post-release service delivery by surveyed agencies

	%1	number
n = 50 respondents
Integrated throughcare	56	28
Tailored to individual clients	64	32
Self-contained, stand alone programs	24	12
Delivered on an ad hoc basis	6	3
Delivered at regular intervals	32	16
Developed in conjunction with custodial corrections/community corrections	42	21
Voluntary participation	50	25
Compulsory participation	30	15
Voluntary or compulsory participation, depending on client	8	4
Sanctions for failed participation	30	15
Sanctions possible depending on client	8	4

1 Per cent values do not total 100 because categories are not mutually exclusive.

The Application of Principles of Appropriate Correctional Programming

Over 60 per cent of all government correctional providers described a general principle of tailoring post-release interventions to individual clients. This presumably reflects the principles of effective correctional programming, which state that the best client outcomes arise from a match of intervention to individual client risk and need.

Although a high proportion of government agencies provided services on a voluntary basis, these services were not necessarily available to all potential clients. Eighty per cent of government respondents also noted that potential clients were screened or assessed for their participation in post-release programs. Again, this presumably reflects the principle of matching service to need (eg see Howells and Day 1999) because information gained in the assessment process can guide what services prisoners access. The high rate of screening also highlights the reality that post-release resources are limited, and mechanisms must exist to ensure that they are used to their best advantage.

Prisoners and young people held on remand tended to be excluded from screening: only 6 of the 15 valid responses reporting on government custodial services to remand prisoners noted that remandees were screened for post-release program inclusion. Of these, 4 respondents were reporting on services for juveniles, not adults. Remand inmates constitute around one-fifth of the adult prison population, and can be incarcerated for spells sufficiently lengthy to interfere with family life, housing, and employment (Australian remandees in custody on 30 June 2004 had, on average, spent 5 months in prison; ABS 2004). Some remand prisoners will be released back into the community if charges are not proven, yet despite this, the post-release needs of the majority of remandees appear not to be assessed and are presumably therefore, left unmet.

Screening and assessment for eligible prisoners typically occurs on multiple occasions, not only before post-release program intake. This allows tailored sentence/case/throughcare plans to be regularly updated to reflect clients' changing circumstances. Respondents from government agencies were asked how regularly clients' plans were reviewed. Responses ranged between weekly and every six months, with 32 per cent of the 31 valid responses noting reviews on a monthly basis, and 26 per cent reviewing assessments quarterly. Seven respondents noted that the assessment revision process could be variable (eg on a monthly or needs basis), emphasising that even the timing of assessment can be tailored to individuals.

NGOs were also asked about client screening. Sixty-four per cent stated that clients were screened/assessed for participation in post-release programs. That over one-third did not screen may reflect organisational ethos where services are made available to all those in need. When asked about any special criteria used to include clients in post-release services, three of the six NGOs providing detail mentioned that contact with clients followed referral, indicating that collaboration between agencies might assist clients in accessing needed services.

Collaboration Between Agencies

The survey asked non-government service providers whether or not they received input regarding post-release programs from government custodial and correctional staff. Seventy-two per cent of NGOs noted input or occasional input from custodial correctional staff, with 79 per cent receiving input from community correctional staff. Some non-government agencies operate independently of state correctional services, but the majority surveyed appear to have some interaction. This is reassuring, because it suggests that redundancy in service delivery may be minimised. However, given that this is not an exhaustive inventory of services, it is possible that some non-government services operate entirely outside the network of communicating agencies, thus potentially duplicating services and interventions, and meaning that limited post-release dollars may be inefficiently spent.

Numbers of Programs Offered by Agencies

On average, respondents from all types of agencies listed almost three (2.9) individual post-release programs provided by their organisation. However this varied widely: some respondents reported no individual programs - indicating they have only a general post-release ethos but do not consider any programs or specific interventions post-release per se - whereas thirteen respondents included upwards of five programs. The considerable variation in part reflects the fact that responses were received from entire jurisdictions, areas within jurisdictions, or single sites/agencies (such as custodial settings), thus the range of programs at their disposal varied. This may also be the result of differing interpretations of what is meant by the term post-release service.

Range of Service Types Offered by Non-Government Organisations

Non-government organisations differ to government correctional authorities insofar as their general mission need not necessarily revolve primarily around issues of community safety. Rather, they may be focussed entirely on rehabilitation, on promoting equity, or on some other related goal. For this reason, NGOs may be able to offer a broader range of services to their clients. Table 3.2 lists the types of client services available through surveyed NGOs.

Virtually all NGOs provide advocacy. These non-correctional organisations recognise that many ex-prisoners are poorly equipped to adequately advocate on their own behalf. Similarly, nearly three-quarters of agencies work to ensure families of prisoners are supported, emphasising that the process of imprisonment can profoundly affect prisoners' families. Families can also act as stabilising influences on prisoners' lives after release (eg see Social Exclusion Unit 2002), thus maintaining functional family ties may help protect against some ex-prisoners re-offending. A similar strategy of building protective factors presumably lies behind the high levels of provision of social supports (71%): resettlement may be enhanced if ex-offenders7 are not socially isolated after release.

The scope of NGO services was even wider than initially anticipated, because nine agencies provided text-based responses outlining additional services that were not encompassed by the questionnaire check list (the Other category in Table 3.2). These ranged from emergency relief, systematic referrals, and outreach, to transport for prisoners and their families, and court support. NGOs appear to be an invaluable resource for returning prisoners, providing services that would be too costly for correctional authorities (such as transport for families to visit inmates or emergency relief for times of particular financial stress), or inappropriate for government agencies because of the potential conflicts in the correctional function that they would produce (eg providing support for court hearings and trials).

Table 3.2. Types of services delivered by surveyed non government agencies

	%1	number
n = 14 respondents
Accommodation	64	9
Employment	50	7
Legal services	21	3
Financial advice	36	5
Advocacy	86	12
Anger management	36	5
Counselling	79	11
Alcohol & other drug	71	10
Mentoring & peer support	21	3
Social support	71	10
Family support & contact	71	10
Family relationships & domestic violence	57	8
Other	64	9

1 Per cent values do not total 100 because categories are not mutually exclusive.

What are Post-Release Interventions? Respondents' Definitions

The period immediately following release from custody is not the only time that an ex-offender can participate in services designed to assist in their post-release adjustment. Criteria to guide questionnaire respondents in their decision-making about what programs to include aimed to limit the timeframe considered post-release (see Chapter 2). There was, however, considerable variation in what service providers considered post-release. Table 3.3 summarises the program timeframes associated with interventions that were judged to be post-release by respondents.

Table 3.3. Timeframes encompassed by specific post-release interventions

	%1	number
n = 185 programs
PRE RELEASE COMPONENT
No pre-release component	31	57
Pre-release component: 7 weeks up to release	15	27
Pre-release component: 8 weeks or more before release	19	35
Pre-release component: at intake/reception	2	3
Pre-release component: variable delivery timeframe	16	30
POST RELEASE COMPONENT
No contact after release	17	32
Post-custody component	74	137
BOTH COMPONENTS
Program has both pre-release & post-custody components	41	76

1 Per cent values do not total 100 within pre-release and post-custody components because of missed responses.

Continuity of care? Throughcare for Australian offenders

Table 3.3 shows that around two-fifths of individual programs included both pre- and post-custody components. These programs could be considered examples of throughcare, yet when asked if post-release programs in general involved throughcare, 56 per cent of agencies responded positively (Table 3.1). Thus whilst the majority of agencies support throughcare in general, this is not necessarily a principle underpinning all reported-upon programs.

Throughcare implies that services are continued, or at least mirrored between custody and the community. Noteworthy, whilst custodial and community correctional functions fall under the umbrella of correctional services or justice departments in all jurisdictions, only 42 per cent of surveyed government community and custodial respondents reported consulting with their complementary arm when developing programs (see Table 3.1). Translating in-prison learning, gains and supports into settings in the broader community presumably requires program adaptation, and consultation between correctional functions would seem a prerequisite for this process. Throughcare also requires an understanding of the roles and challenges faced by the various staff who will participate in the process, and it has been noted elsewhere that regular and open communication between custodial and community corrections will facilitate this understanding (Stevens 2002). Emphasis should therefore be placed on ensuring that the formal and informal channels of communications between the various components of State-based corrections are opened and fostered.

Lastly, throughcare ideally commences at reception into custody, allowing a maximum of time to work with clients to address their criminogenic and support needs. Of all programs reported upon, only a tiny minority (2%) began at reception. This may be because surveyed interventions ran for fixed periods of time and so were delivered with reference to a prison release date rather than the date of prison reception.

The Content of Post-Release Interventions

The many different challenges faced by returning offenders necessitate services covering a variety of content areas. Table 3.4 details the general areas covered by reported interventions.

Thirty-four per cent of all programs clustered in the areas long assumed to foster rehabilitation: employment, housing, vocational guidance and training, health and general welfare. However, the majority (62%) of all interventions addressed the whole offender and his or her socio-economic context (transitional programs), attempted to change faulty ways of thinking (cognitive) or problematic substance use (alcohol and other drug; AOD) or behaviours (reoffending, financial management), or acknowledged the social isolation that can accompany community return (social networks, family).

Table 3.4. Content areas of specific post-release interventions

MAIN PROGRAM CONTENT	%1	number
n = 185 programs
Employment Job preparation, search &/or placement	9	17
Housing Accommodation search, placement, provision &/or referral, including emergency housing	7	12
Financial management Counselling &/or advice	3	5
Vocational assistance & training Basic skills, vocational & other skills & qualifications; placement, training delivery &/or referral	5	9
Alcohol & other drug use Counselling, education, harm reduction &/or relapse prevention	14	26
Mental & physical health Mental & physical health services, excluding alcohol & other drug	2	4
Social networks Mentoring, peer &/or other personal support	3	5
Family relations Visitations, parenting skills, &/or domestic violence	7	12
Cognitive skills Social skills, adaptive thinking, insights into behaviour &/or anger management	12	23
Reducing reoffending Sex offending, other specific offences, &/or general offending	5	10
Multiple welfare needs Service provision, brokerage or referral e.g., employment, housing, personal identification, education & training	11	21
Transitional & promoting reintegration Service provision, brokerage or referral e.g. welfare needs plus social networks, personal development, independent living, &/or cognitive skills	18	33
Other e.g. general counselling	4	8

1 Per cent values may not total 100 because of rounding.

Traditional approaches to prisoner rehabilitation focussed primarily on welfare needs, however recent thinking has acknowledged that the factors underpinning reoffending (criminogenic needs, like AOD misuse) can also impact upon reintegration. Figure 3.1, plots the approximate length of time programs had been in operation, against their main program content, in an attempt to gauge if this change in thinking is reflected in the time that surveyed interventions had been operating.

Figure 3.1. Average years specific post-release interventions have been in operation, by program content a

a - Includes only interventions for which program duration information had been supplied n=121

This rudimentary analysis of program content over time suggests a relatively recent movement towards addressing offenders holistically within their environments rather than treating them simply as the recipients of traditional welfare supports. As can be seen, programs addressing physical welfare have been in operation the longest, whereas cognitive skills, reducing reoffending, and programs addressing AOD issues are generally 'younger'. Interestingly, employment and vocational programs are also quite 'young', despite the long accepted believe that work and rehabilitation go hand in hand. This may be because of macro-economic changes in recent years. Employment opportunities for those with poor employment histories and low levels of skill are decreasing, and more formal work preparation and job search may be necessary than in the past: securing employment may have been a high priority in earlier years, but this may have been achieved without the participation in formal programs that is necessitated today.

Programs classified as reintegrative or transitional - addressing the whole person - and those acknowledging social aspects of re-entry, appeared in the past decade, and so are slightly 'older'. The notion of simultaneously addressing multiple welfare needs seems to be expanding though, to also include measures which address the multiple psychological, physical and social needs of the returning offender. This is not a new approach to offender management: parole services in Australia in the less recent past once adopted a more context-dependent approach to ex-prisoner adjustment (see Borzycki & Baldry 2003). It appears that after a period in which the whole client was not the focus of services, thinking might be returning - now with the benefit of accumulated empirical support - to strategies that address all the factors that may impact upon adjustment to life in the broader community.

Programs aims were also detailed in questionnaire responses. One hundred and seventy text-based responses were received. In order to examine aims in a quantitative fashion, text responses were collapsed into categories. Table 3.5 summarises the aims of examined programs, and illustrates that no single type of broad aim was common to all programs.

Table 3.5. Broad aims of specific post-release interventions

	%1	number
n = 170 programs
REINTEGRATIVE AIMS
Reintegration	7	12
Ease transition process	12	22
Promote accountability & responsibility	3	6
Promote independent living	2	4
REDUCED OFFENDING
Reduce reoffending &/or relapse prevention	27	49
Increase order compliance	1	2
Rehabilitation	6	11
Harm reduction/minimisation	8	15
WELFARE
Provide housing	10	18
Provide employment	12	22
Provide educational qualifications	8	15
Address general welfare	17	32
Provide appropriate referrals	9	17
Assist in gaining economic independence	1	2
Other e.g., provide recreation	2	3
PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT
Instil cognitive &/or coping skills	20	37
Instil basic &/or vocational skills	4	8
Assist in culturally appropriate living	2	4
Instil personal worth	3	5
Assist in goal setting	4	7
Assist in realising potential	3	5
Instil social skills	4	8
Improve personal relationships	6	11
Provide personal support	13	24
Build clients' community networks	8	15
AGENCY GAINS
Provide community consultation	3	6
Build interagency partnerships	2	4
Improve community safety &/or decrease prison entries	3	6

1 Per cent values do not total 100 because programs may have multiple aims.

Less than 15 per cent of programs explicitly stated a reintegrative aim (reintegration itself, for example), whereas nearly 30 per cent aimed to reduce offending or prevent relapse with interventions. Reduced offending is clearly a part of successful reintegration. Indeed, virtually all of the program aims can be seen as contributing to ex-offender reintegration. That only a minority of programs explicitly stated broad goals linked to reintegration may indicate that reduced reoffending is a more attainable goal than 'whole of person' reintegration. It may also reflect the reality that a single treatment program is probably unable to address the complex issues that confront returning offenders.

The most common aim after reduced reoffending was that of equipping offenders with cognitive and coping skills, with one-fifth of examined programs falling into this category. This again emphasises the pervasive influence of the principles of effective correctional programming, which advocate using a therapeutic technique that has been shown to work, namely cognitive-behavioural therapy.

A small percentage (less than 5%) of programs included aims for the agency itself or for the broader community, such as building partnerships and building community safety. All of the organisations delivering interventions with aims in addition to client gains were government agencies. Chapter 1 provides a brief background to the US philosophy of community justice: the fact that some Australian programs seek to cater to both clients and the communities of their return suggests that a community justice approach - even if not articulated as such - may be informing some Australian correctional practice.

 Types of Prisoners Targeted by Specific Programs

As noted above with respect to post-release programs in general, remandees are not actively targeted by all agencies. A detailed examination of all of the dimensions on which prisoners were targeted for specific interventions is summarised in Table 3.6. The categories listed were extracted from the text-based information provided for 177 programs.

Only around one-tenth of programs targeted all prisoners, with client need (36%) and age (35%) being the most common targeting criteria. Reported age brackets clustered at the lower end of the spectrum (61% of those targeting on the basis of age targeted individuals less than 30 years old). This serves to underline the priority given to the rehabilitation and reintegration of young people early in their criminal careers. It also illustrates the interaction between public opinion and correctional policy. Mainstream society tends to view young offenders as more amenable to change, as needing specialist services, and tends to be less punitive in reactions to juvenile crime. This means the community generally advocates active interventions to rehabilitate this sub-group of offenders, even when mainstream opinion seems to advocate a toughening of punishments for older offenders (see Roberts, Stalans, Indermaur and Hough 2003).

Like young people, individuals from minority cultural or ethnic backgrounds8 and women have different needs to adult males with a mainstream cultural upbringing, and so may require programs catering to their special circumstances. However, only 14 per cent of programs explicitly targeted offenders on the basis of their gender, and only 5 per cent focussed on individuals' ethnicity and/or cultural heritage. Despite the special needs of these prison sub-populations, very few of the programs examined appeared to take unique needs into account.

Table 3.6. Dimensions on which prisoners are targeted for specific post-release interventions

	%1	number
n = 177 programs
Age	35	62
Gender	14	25
Ethnicity or cultural heritage	5	9
Risk of reoffending (either formally assessed, or inferred from past behaviour)	23	41
Need for intervention	36	64
Capacity to participate in program	2	4
Community of return or location of custodial site	6	11
Time left until release	24	43
Type of offence committed	5	8
Length of sentence	14	24
Legal order dictates participation	23	40
Remand status	3	5
Referral from other agency or self-referral	10	17
Possesses prerequisite program participation	3	6
Family or friends of prisoner	10	17
Prisoner volunteered	6	10
All prisoners	10	17

1 Per cent values do not total 100 because programs may employ multiple criteria when targeting clients.

As noted above, a little over one-third targeted clients in need. Almost one-quarter targeted offenders at risk, with approximately 16 per cent of the programs targeting clients both with particular risks and in need. Principles of effective correctional programming dictate that interventions are appropriate to clients' risks and needs: in particular, those at higher risk should be subject to more intensive interventions. Of those programs that targeted on the basis of risk, 12 explicitly focussed on clients who posed a medium to high risk.

Only one program ran counter to the principle and referred to targeting lower risk offenders, specifically, to low risk sex offenders. This illustrates the delicate balance that must be struck by service providers between offender rehabilitation and reintegration, and community protection. Sex offenders, like other prisoners, should be encouraged to reintegrate, but the nature of their offending means that more conventional systems of easing transition, such as day release, are not easily used and can pose community safety issues. Assisting these offenders to rehabilitate and reintegrate is therefore particularly challenging for correctional services.

A balance also must be struck between offenders' motivation to take part in interventions, and the very real resource limitations governing program operation: despite potential clients being willing to participate in programs, not all will be able to take part. For instance, only 5 per cent of interventions targeted all offenders who had volunteered to take part, whereas 23 per cent targeted clients who had been legally mandated to participate. Other ways of limiting the numbers in programs included catering specifically to those with a certain time left to serve (24%), and delivering programs to those serving sentences of a specified length (14%).

Ten per cent of programs explicitly aimed to assist family and friends of offenders of all ages, once more highlighting an increasing appreciation that the context of community return can effect community reintegration for adults and juveniles.

The flipside of targeting clients is excluding certain types of offenders, and 44 per cent of surveyed programs explicitly excluded some types of offenders. Table 3.7 lists the various criteria that were derived from text-based descriptions of reasons for exclusion.

Table 3.7. Exclusion criteria for specific post-release interventions

	%1	number
n = 82 programs
Low motivation or failure to admit need	17	14
Incapable of participation e.g., illiterate, NESB, mental illness, misconduct	51	42
Outside targeted age group	11	9
Gender	4	3
Geographic location outside area serviced	1	1
Inappropriate level of risk or need	23	19
Past offences e.g., sex offenders	23	19
Outside targeted sentence length or not on legal order	15	12
Not in targeted client group	20	16
Has other forms of support	5	4
On remand	2	2
Other e.g., awaiting deportation, unemployed in prison	10	8

1 Per cent values do not total 100 because programs may employ multiple exclusion criteria.

The role of offender motivation

Perhaps most noteworthy is the finding that almost 20 per cent of all interventions that excluded some potential clients, excluded offenders who were not motivated to participate. Intuitively, this seems an appropriate use of resources, but it runs counter to evidence concerning the effectiveness of correctional programs. Research into AOD treatments suggests that the initial factors impelling offenders to take part (eg boredom versus mandated participation) need not necessarily impact upon the success of outcomes (eg see Field 1998). A related aspect of service delivery is whether or not offenders were legally compelled to participate in specific interventions. Twenty-four of the 153 programs with valid responses concerning enforced offender participation noted that programs were mandatory for clients, 99 were wholly voluntary, and the remainder took clients who were voluntary but also catered to those legally obliged to participate. The long-term effects of enforced drug treatment have not yet been assessed (see Farabee, Prendergast, Cartier, Wexler, Knight and Anglin 1999), nor have the longer-term effects of mandated participation in interventions that address non-drug risks and needs. Thus it is unclear what impact motivation level will have on long-term success, and which mode of program attendance - voluntary or mandatory - may be most effective in terms of promoting reintegration.

Paradoxically, those clients who are least motivated may also be those most in need of assistance, and so (research tells us) are also probably those who would benefit most from interventions. Nearly one-quarter of all programs excluded potential clients with an inappropriate level of risk, and around one-fifth excluded those who did fall in the targeted group (which the preceding analysis highlights is often based on risk level). A closer examination of responses showed that six programs excluded on the basis of poor motivation, but conversely targeted by risk: service delivery on the basis of risk may therefore be at odds with exclusion on the basis of motivational levels.

Ideally integrated throughcare regimes will contain components designed to promote motivation before attempting to address larger issues (eg see Birgden and McLachlan 2002). It is not clear from the current information if those offenders excluded for motivational reasons were required to have already undergone some form of motivation building: it is possible that some respondents felt that motivational programs fell outside the criteria for post-release interventions and so did not incorporate them in the supplied information.9 Despite the lack of information regarding surveyed interventions, it is nonetheless critical to acknowledge that offender motivation is changeable, and therefore the means of promoting change, and for assessing readiness for change, should be amongst the tools at throughcare service providers' disposal.

Offenders Incapable of Participating in Standard Programs

The smooth and productive day-to-day implementation of interventions requires a match between program content, client learning style and cultural background, and program delivery. For this reason, a high proportion of programs (51%) excluded offenders who were incapable of taking part. Inability to take part sometimes arose because prisoners had violated institutional rules and were being penalised, however the majority of these 'incapacity' exclusions related to prisoners who:

• were illiterate
• had limited English language skills
• had mental health or AOD issues that were not sufficiently controlled, or
• were unable to interact in a group environment.

This approach to resource allocation is intuitively appealing, but as with offenders showing poor motivation, those who are challenged in terms of issues like literacy or mental illness may be most at risk once released and so most in need of reintegrative support. As reported already, special needs prisoner sub-populations, such as women and offenders from minority cultural or ethnic backgrounds, were under-catered for among this collection of interventions. Table 3.4 shows that only 2 per cent of reported programs addressed issues of mental health and physical health, with three of these four programs focussing on mental wellbeing. This combined with the finding that offenders with mental health issues are actively excluded from participation suggest that mentally ill offenders may also be an under-catered for prisoner subgroup, at least among the programs captured in this research.

Reintegrating the 'Unpalatable' Offender

Correctional authorities must balance community safety with individual reintegration. This can be difficult when a client's offence is one that is considered to be particularly heinous. Almost one-quarter (23%) of programs that excluded prisoners did so on the basis of past offending, with the overwhelming majority of these (95%) making direct reference to excluding sex offenders. Although these potentially dangerous individuals must be closely managed to ensure public safety, and despite public resistance to providing perceived advantages to offenders seen as morally reprehensible, excluding sex offenders from post-release programs does not prevent them from one day being released back into the mainstream community. If they have not been able to access the range of supports necessary for reintegration, the community ultimately will suffer if that individual re-offends. Correctional authorities offer dedicated programs to rehabilitate sex offenders, but managing sexual offending behaviour is probably not the only issue confronting these individuals after custody. The challenge for corrections therefore appears to be one of addressing the whole person when their offence - often justifiably - appears to overshadow the individual.

Including only 'low stakes' offenders - those who are less likely to cause a public outcry - has been considered a technique for building community support for new correctional approaches. The rationale is that by initially implementing innovative programs with a low stakes group, benefits can be demonstrated in a relatively non-controversial way and programs can then be expanded later to include higher stake prisoners. However Taxman, Byrne and Young (2002) caution that under current correctional regimes in the US, very few piloted interventions actually go on to be incorporated into mainstream programming, and (as already noted) research to date demonstrates that the best reductions in reoffending occur when higher risk prisoners are targeted. Australian post-release service providers will need to carefully consider how they will approach the issue of assessing new initiatives to assist in the reintegration of high-risk and high stakes offenders to ensure that the community is safe in both the short- and the longer-term.

Prisoners Released Without Conditions or Parole

In addition to items about client targeting and exclusion, government agencies providing community correctional services were asked if their interventions were made available to offenders released from custody without supervision orders. Fourteen of the 21 valid responses noted that clients without supervision orders could voluntarily access interventions. Whether or not clients could access the full range of programs could not be ascertained. However, of the 36 interventions that these agencies delivered which also contained information about exclusion criteria, 61 per cent (or 22) employed criteria to exclude potential clients. Thus whilst there appear to be some government-delivered services for prisoners and young adults leaving detention who are not under mandatory supervision order, unsupervised releasees may be excluded from accessing available services on other grounds.

Addressing the Needs of All Prisoners?

Limited correctional dollars and limited resources within NGOs mean that access to interventions clearly must also be limited, hence criteria for targeting and exclusion, and assessment for risk and need. What then does this mean for prisoners leaving custody? Will the average prisoner receive needed service and supports, or will only a high-risk minority gain the assistance needed to reintegrate? Service providers were asked about the number of clients in their care, as well as the numbers completing their specific programs and interventions.

Survey responses suggest that this information was extremely difficult to compile. Only 38 agencies were able to provide even approximate information concerning client numbers, and when count information that was qualified in some way was removed, only 27 valid responses remained. Similarly, information regarding numbers completing specific interventions was received for only 82 programs, with this figure reduced to 60 once qualified counts were removed. Given the inadequacy of the data, plus the fact that surveyed interventions do not capture all Australian programs and services, it is impossible to ascertain the degree with which all prisoners' post-release needs are evaluated and addressed in some way.

Other Australian research (Baldry et al 2003) estimates that upwards of 40,000 adults leave custody each year. No similar national estimates exist for young people leaving custody. In order to gain an understanding of how well prisoners' and young peoples' reintegrative needs are being met, a critical first step appears to be ascertaining precise numbers leaving custody, and then gaining access to services.

Characteristics of Interventions

Case Management and the Brokerage of Services

Inferences were made on the basis of supplied information as to whether or not agencies offered a range of services to returning prisoners (as opposed to simply one or two uniform programs delivered to all clients). Three-quarters of the examined agencies implied or directly stated that a number and variety - a battery - of programs, services or interventions were potentially available to clients. Eighty-eight per cent of correctional agencies supplying community supervision, 63 per cent of custodial correctional services, 80 per cent of combined custodial/community correctional respondents, and 71 per cent of NGOs appeared to have a battery of interventions at their disposal.

When coupled with the findings that over 60 per cent of all agencies explicitly noted that their programs were tailored to individuals (Table 3.1), and that specific clients were targeted under particular programs (Table 3.6), one can assume that a case management approach to post-release service delivery was favoured among the majority of surveyed agencies. Agencies appear to be attempting to simultaneously address the multiple challenges met by prisoners re-entering the community (the principles of effective correctional programming state that effective programs should be multimodal: that they should act to address multiple offender-specific needs, and should use a range of techniques in doing so).

Case management requires a case plan, and this plan is typically derived from an assessment of a client's risks and needs. All agencies were asked when prisoners and ex-prisoners were assessed for participation in the post-release interventions, and results showed that:

• half of the 46 agencies that provided information screened at an unspecified or variable time pre-release
• twelve assessed prisoners between six and one month before their release
• one assessed after release, and
• ten screened at reception or intake.

Optimally, throughcare will commence early in the custodial spell and continue after release, but this is a highly resource intensive mode of service delivery. Thus it is not surprising that eight of the ten agencies that screened at intake catered to juvenile clients. As already noted, this prisoner subgroup can be perceived as being more deserving of correctional programming, is smaller in number, and may be more amenable to rehabilitative change than adult prisoners, and so possibly warrants the investment of this most intensive form of throughcare.

The detail of individual interventions was examined to assess if specific programs involved case management and the brokerage of/referral to services.10 Of the 184 interventions that provided adequate information to make this assessment, 39 per cent suggested a case management approach, and 36 per cent implied brokerage or referral. These relatively low proportions may in part reflect the fact that a number of individual interventions were simply components of overarching case managed approaches to addressing returning offenders' risks and needs (presumably the low proportions are also attributable to fact that these variables were inferred rather than directly assessed).

Effective case management requires close working relationships between agencies. Of the 167 interventions in which relevant information was supplied, 68 per cent of programs involved a range of agencies, acting either as partners, contractors, or outsourced service providers. Thus whilst only a small proportion of programs explicitly aimed to build interagency partnerships (see Table 3.5), many appeared to be delivering services on the basis of coordinated interagency activities.

A full list of all agencies that were involved in the delivery of surveyed post-release interventions, programs and services can be found in Appendix B (the list incorporates agencies that completed questionnaires, as well as those that were listed as involved in service delivery by agencies completing questionnaires).

Components of Specific Interventions

Tailored case management is a mode of service delivery gaining prominence, and is seems critical if service providers aim to address all of a client's issues and challenges to facilitate their reintegration and rehabilitation. However, if a program's aims are more modest - for example, providing access to an employment agency or instilling social skills - a variety of service delivery techniques can be employed.

Table 3.8 summarises the various components that were listed for 161 specific interventions. As with some program dimensions already discussed, categories were extracted from text-based responses.

More than four in every ten specific interventions (43%) involved one-on-one counselling, therapy or discussion. This probably reflects the dominance of a cognitive-behavioural treatment model. It is also likely to be linked to the notion of delivering tailored services to clients: in order to tailor services, a formal or informal assessment of individual challenges must be made, and this is presumably best done in a one-on-one setting. Seventeen of these programs using one-on-one interactions also employed group discussion, suggesting that group work may follow-on from one-on-one assessment. Overall, around one-quarter (26%) of all programs delivered programs in a group forum.

Table 3.8. Components of specific post-release interventions

	%1	number
n = 161 programs
One-on-one counselling, therapy or discussion	43	69
Family therapy or discussion	4	6
Group therapy or discussion	26	42
Self-monitoring	2	4
Written materials or provision of verbal information	14	22
Classroom or practical training	19	30
Outreach	6	10
Assessment	15	24
Referral	27	43
Advocacy	6	10
Follow-up support	29	47
Job or educational search or placement	17	28
Vocational guidance or training	14	22
Direct provision of services	14	22
Program, sentence or exit planning	6	10
Mentoring	8	13
Other e.g., family visits, residential treatment, recreation	9	15

1 Per cent values do not total 100 because programs may consist of multiple components.

In keeping with the above finding that nearly 40 per cent of programs involved brokerage and/or referral, only 14 per cent of programs explicitly referred to providing services directly to clients. An example of this would be providing transitional accommodation to released prisoners rather than simply referring the client to an accommodation service. The majority of programs with direct service provision involved vocational or employment focussed interventions (55%). A sizeable minority (36%) were transitional programs though, suggesting that the service that is provided is in fact case management, referral or brokerage in some form. Unless agencies employ a multidisciplinary team capable of providing an adequate standard of specific needed services and treatments, the engagement of qualified external service providers is presumably the most economical use of resources when addressing the holistic needs of prisoners.

One-third of all programs used traditional educational techniques, employing classroom or practical training, or providing written or verbal information. Given that some transitional challenges confronting prisoners relate to matters as seemingly simple as accessing Centrelink payments, providing helpful information (14% of programs) is probably the most effective way of ensuring that prisoners can negotiate certain aspects of community life once released. Of course this information is only as useful as its level of accessibility. Prisoners tend to have low levels of literacy and education, therefore it is critical that any written materials are constructed to be readily accessible for this group.

Follow-up support once the formal components of a program have been completed is critical to the concept of throughcare. This is so important because it enables gains from programs to be reinforced, and means ex-prisoners will not face challenges in the community alone. Nearly 30 per cent of all programs provided follow-up support, with 40 per cent of these transitional in content, meaning that for clients of these programs, informal support was provided when confronting their reintegrative challenges.

The Duration of Specific Programs

Individual programs varied in the number of face-to-face hours clients engaged with workers, therapists or counsellors. Indeed, for 38 per cent of the 126 specific interventions that had accompanying duration information, the time spent with individual clients varied within the program. In a number of these cases, variable face-to-face hours were 'dependent on need', 'as required', or 'varied with components', indicating once again that some of the surveyed interventions were highly tailored to individual needs.

Of those 78 programs of fixed duration, 40 per cent ran for over a 50-hour period, showing adherence to yet another principle of effective correctional programming: interventions must be of sufficient dosage (which includes duration) to effect a change in the client. Inappropriate thinking and problem solving skills are often developed over a lifetime, therefore it is not surprising that seven (or 23%) of the programs of the longest duration focussed on changing cognitions. Around one-quarter of the longest interventions were transitional in focus (ie addressing multiple welfare and social needs), with the multiple foci presumably requiring adequate time to do so effectively.

Programs also varied in terms of the length of time taken to complete them; in the number of weeks or months over which the hours were spread. Tailoring also played a role, because 21 per cent of the 138 programs with relevant information noted variable program lengths, with this again usually linked to variable client needs. The largest proportion of programs (35%) however, ran over a period of two to six months. This timeframe presumably allows a variety of issues to be adequately addressed yet also reflects the reality that limited resources mean support cannot continue indefinitely.

Programs and Pilots: the Funding of Specific Interventions

Resources for post-release services can be limited both in terms of the amount of funding available for their implementation, and the timeframe for that implementation. Respondents were asked about the funding for specific interventions, and information is summarised in Table 3.9.

Around one-third of programs did not include information concerning funding expiration, suggesting that respondents either did not have this information, or were reluctant to supply the same. The majority of the 39 time-limited programs were set to lose funding within the next two years. Half of all programs delivered by NGOs for which funding information was supplied (ie 18 of 36) were in receipt of that funding for only a limited period of time. The equivalent figure among government agencies was 24 per cent.

Table 3.9. Funding timeframes for specific post-release interventions

	%1	number
n = 185 programs
Funding expiry information not supplied	34	63
Not applicable because no funding expiry date set	44	81
Not applicable, pilot only	2	2
Funding expiry date set	21	39
	Expiry date 2003	7
	Expiry date 2004	18
	Expiry date 2005	11
	Expiry date 2006	2
	Expiry date 2007	1

1 Per cent values do not total 100 because of rounding.

Forty-four per cent of the specific interventions that provided relevant information did not have a set funding expiry date. The fact that no date was set for a large minority of surveyed interventions could be indicative of at least two quite different policy positions regarding funding:

• that the program is regarded as part of the day to day correctional enterprise, and so is factored into recurrent expenditure as a dedicated cost, or
• that funding is drawn from the general pool of recurrent expenditure, but that these funds could be withdrawn if spending priorities change.

It is unclear which may be the case, but if interventions to support prisoners post-release are to become part of the standard repertoire of correctional tools, they will need to be legitimised by factoring them in, as a dedicated cost, to be recurrently funded. Of course, this financial commitment should not be made without evidence that these interventions do in fact do what they purport to do, and this is where program evaluation plays an important role.

Evaluations of Interventions

The worth of evaluation should not be underestimated. Whilst well-conducted process and outcome evaluation can involve sizeable up-front investments, longer-term benefits include:

• reliable data regarding program efficacy
• reliable data to refine program implementation
• evidence to support resourcing claims to funding bodies
• evidence to demonstrate program merit to the wider population, and
• contributions to the knowledge base of what works in corrections.

However, the benefits of evaluation may not have been sufficient to outweigh the costs among the surveyed interventions. Information regarding evaluation status was supplied for only 137 specific interventions, and whilst 60 per cent of these had completed evaluations or evaluations underway, evaluations were not integral to over one-third of programs.

An examination of program content area and evaluation information was conducted to ascertain if only certain types of interventions tended to be evaluated. Although results (summarised in Table 3.10) should be treated with extreme caution because of the small number of cases in some intervention types, they suggest that smaller proportions of programs that focused on traditional welfare needs (eg housing, 33%; employment, 24%; or multiple welfare needs, 33%) were evaluated when compared to those addressing multiple transitional needs (58%), or aspects of the person other than basic welfare: cognitive skills (65%), social networks (80%), and family relations; (58%). As shown in Figure 2.1, non-welfare interventions tended to be more 'modern' than those catering to physical welfare, thus this difference in the rate of evaluation may reflect the fact that - in keeping with principles of effective correctional programming - newer innovations tend to have evaluation in-built to the implementation process.

Table 3.10. Evaluation status and content area of specific interventions

Percentage with:
n = 185 programs
Content Area	no eval	eval1	status unkn	no info2	pilot pgm only	number
Employment	41	24	6	29	-	17
Housing	33	33	8	25	-	12
Financial management	40	20	-	40	-	5
Vocational assistance & training	33	44	-	22	-	9
Alcohol & other drug use	31	35	-	35	-	26
Mental & physical health	25	25	-	50	-	4
Social networks	20	80	-	-	-	5
Family relations	25	58	-	17	-	12
Cognitive skills	17	65	-	13	4	23
Reducing reoffending	20	20	-	60	-	10
Multiple welfare needs	33	33	-	10	24	21
Transitional & promoting reintegration	15	58	-	27	-	33
Other	-	63	-	38	-	8

1 Includes complete evaluations and those not yet completed at the time of responding.
2 Interventions for which no information regarding evaluation status was included in response.
Note: Per cent values may not total 100 because of rounding.

Very few respondents - even when program evaluations had been completed - were able to supply detailed written information relating to the evaluation process. Twenty-six noted that evaluation reports could potentially be supplied, however only seven reports or report extracts were actually consulted for this research.11 Of these, two related only to the pilot programs that preceded the interventions referred to in the questionnaire (rather than the current implementation of program), and two reported on broader initiatives, of which reported programs were only a part. One was a copy of information supplied as part of the annual reporting requirements.

Evaluation Methods and Findings

Adhering to the 'gold standard' of criminal justice program evaluation

If adhering to the 'gold standard' - to the experimental method - program evaluations will involve the random allocation of clients to treatment versus non-treatment (or control) conditions. Randomly allocating participants helps eliminate the possibility that some systematic feature of participants other than the treatment is responsible for the observed findings, thereby allowing stronger conclusions to be drawn (see Farrington 2003). If, for example, clients were allocated to a treatment or to a control condition on the basis of the motivation they displayed, it is impossible to later disentangle whether any differences in outcomes were due to the intervention per se, or simply to different levels of motivation. Findings regarding outcomes can inform about overall intervention efficacy, but if evaluations are intended to inform about program implementation, then they should also assess the way in which interventions were made operational, in process evaluation.

Evaluation that adheres to the gold standard is a costly proposition and can be ethically challenging, therefore it is not surprising that none of the examined evaluations associated with surveyed interventions were able to employ random allocation. Rather, quantitative evaluation methods used in those few interventions for which information was available involved either:

• quasi-experimentation, using non-equivalent comparison groups (where already-formed treatment groups were compared to groups made up of those who did not take part in treatment), or
• the examination of groups of clients who took part in programs without any comparison to other non-participating clients, examining participants on multiple occasions before, during and/or after their participation in interventions (another form of quasi-experimentation, time series analysis), or gathering information at only one point in time.

Nearly all examined evaluations relied on administrative data, which contained information about variables such as recidivism (defined in various ways), the number and duration of worker-client contacts, or successful order completion. All made use of verbal or written information supplied by key stakeholders and informants in the delivery of services. These stakeholders included (but not always):

• program participants
• family members of participants
• program staff
• program administrators, and
• vizctims.

Stakeholder data collected included attitudes and opinions, as well as output from standardised questionnaires and pre-existing assessment tools. To some extent, all studies gathered and reported information on both final outcomes and the process of implementation.

Potential reasons for low rates of evaluation and supply of evaluation information

As already noted, evaluation is a resource intensive exercise, and levels of program funding and/or staff expertise may have simply been insufficient to permit this process. Alternatively, long-standing programs may not have needed to demonstrate their worth as they were already an accepted part of service delivery to prisoners and ex-prisoners.

Overseas researchers have noted that evaluation can be made more difficult when programs have multiple goals and multiple components (see Lawrence, Mears, Dubin and Travis 2002). This is because it becomes difficult to disentangle causal factors, and to adequately control the influence of all aspects of the treatment environment over specific outcomes. Multiple aims and components may have posed methodological difficulties for some service providers. Surveyed programs, on average, had approximately two aims (as categorised in Table 3. 5), but the number of aims varied with intervention content area, so that the average transitional program had 3.4 separate aims, whereas the average financial management program had a single aim. Similarly, the average program consisted of 2.6 components (as per the categories outlined in Table 3.8), but again this varied, so that transitional programs had an average of 3.7 components, with financial management interventions having an average of only 1.2 components. As noted above, multimodal treatments have been shown to lead to the best outcomes. However, multimodal approaches, unless components and aims are clearly defined and readily operationalised into measurable items may be an obstacle to obtaining informative evaluations.

Conclusions from evaluations

All outcome information in evaluation reports noted that programs generally achieved some level of success, as per the unique aims of those specific interventions, but the very small number of reports precluded any formal analyses. Nonetheless, some findings and recommendations regarding process - the implementation of interventions - from the various reports are worth mentioning. These include:

• the need for strong community partnerships to effectively deliver a range of programs in the community
• the need for strong relationships between community workers and custodial institutions, and
• relationships between clients and workers need to established well before release to ensure a strong relationship that can survive the transition process.

The numbers of program participants was not always reported, making it difficult to assess the rate of participant dropout from programs. This measure can be a good indicator of the general efficacy of the process of implementation. Assessing the characteristics of those who were unable to see the program through to its close can additionally inform about specific aspects of the program that may need to be refined or rethought. Two evaluation reports noted dropout rates of between 30 and 40 per cent, but without detailed data relating to aspects of these individuals, it is difficult to apply any interpretation to these figures.

A systematic review of the evaluations of 32 North American transitional initiatives concluded:

This analysis of prisoner reentry programs has identified several categories of programs in which there is evidence of success. Correctional administrators should take note of these programs; implement or expand the use of vocational training and/or work release programs, drug rehabilitation programs, education programs, halfway house programs, and pre-release programs that have proven success; and expand the use of sex- and violent-offender programs that show promise. (Seiter and Kadela 2003; p 380).

Unfortunately, information regarding outcomes derived from the current research cannot be collapsed in any meaningful way given the extremely small number of reports examined, and the disparity in measures, clients, and program content and aims. It is therefore impossible to extract any general principles of effective post-release interventions in Australia. However, the fact that Australian service providers are delivering programs and interventions with similar content and form to those that appear to be easing transition and reducing recidivism amongst prisoners in other Western jurisdictions bodes well for maximising the reintegrative success of Australian prisoners reentering the community.

---

7 Some observers use the term 'offenders' exclusively to describe individuals sentenced to community sanctions. In this current context, 'offenders' is used more broadly, to refer to all those who have committed criminal offences.

8 Including, although not exclusively so, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Australians.

9 Only a very small number of surveyed programs actually reported subcomponents intended to build motivation.

10 Questions explicitly referring to case management and brokerage/referral were not included because it was felt that these terms may not be uniformly interpreted by all respondents. Instead, program detail was used to deduce these service delivery characteristics, although in some cases respondents explicitly referred to employing case management, referral and/or financial brokerage.

11 Five reports were forwarded by respondents, but two reports relating to the pilots of mentioned programs were downloaded from relevant web sites.