Contents

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter, correctional policy directions regarding post-release services are briefly examined in conjunction with the main findings to emerge from questionnaire responses. Recommendations regarding the implementation of, and any future research into, Australian post-release and throughcare programs are also made.

Policy Directions in Australian Corrections

Amongst the broad Australian correctional goals of community protection, reparation, program provision, and sentencing and release advice,'(the) Transitional management of prisoners upon release into the community is a major policy focus' (SCRCSSP 2003, p. 7.10). A brief examination of public-domain documents produced by correctional services in Australian jurisdictions was conducted to highlight policy regarding transitional management (see Appendix C for a listing of the relevant documents). Table 4.1 provides a thumbnail sketch of planned and mooted policy directions in prisoner management: the total refers to the number of Australian adult correctional authorities who explicitly referred to the associated policy directions.

1 Refers to the mention of a policy or practice specifically addressing this area during and after release rather than simply making reference, for example, to generic risks and needs or community reintegration, or to only pre-release services in these areas.

All jurisdictions explicitly state a commitment to providing services that facilitate transition (or reintegration or re-entry), using a throughcare model of service delivery, which relies on offender case management (or an integrated offender management system). All explicitly acknowledge that government inter-agency working and partnerships with NGOs are important means of achieving this goal. Interestingly, not all jurisdictions highlighted 'restorative' policy moves to increase offender accountability and responsibility, and to provide a clear role for victims of crime in the rehabilitation and reintegration process.

Policy regarding the content of reintegrative and transitional supports varied, with all authorities endorsing the more traditional areas of employment and training opportunities that bridge custody and community. There was less uniform explicit emphasis on transitional services addressing social supports, mental health issues, and alcohol and other drug use.

The principles of effective correctional programming have permeated correctional thinking, with all State-based authorities advocating assessment to inform a range of decisions, including institutional classification and preparedness for release. Assessment also informs placement in cognitive-behavioural interventions and/or those programs designed to address criminogenic needs in all States and Territories. Also in keeping with the general principles, most jurisdictions explicitly advocate for research into, and evaluation of, correctional interventions.

The progress of policy implementation is not uniform across Australia. In some jurisdictions pilots and programs were already underway at the time the consulted documents were written. In others, transitional policy was essentially 'aspirational': only at an initial formulation stage, with recommendations yet to be accepted or the detail of implementation still to be finalised. Completely up-to-date publicly available policy documents were not easily accessible, thus actual progress is likely to be further advanced in the States and Territories than is indicated in the above table. Regardless of this, the identified policy trends were reflected in the interventions described by survey respondents and reported in Chapter 3. The following briefly reiterates the main findings from the post-release survey.

Main Findings

Evidence of employing principles of effective programming

The principles of effective correctional programming were evidenced in the programs examined. Specifically, survey responses indicated that some Australian post-release programs:

• examine criminogenic needs to ensure that interventions address offending behaviours
• use assessment to guide client placement in programs
• Tailor programs to clients, matching interventions to assessed risk and need
• provide treatments of sufficient duration to influence behaviours
• address multiple needs, using a variety of techniques but especially cognitive behavioural techniques, and
• employ evaluation to gauge program success at an individual client and a program level.

Trend towards addressing the whole person

Although many programs explicitly address criminogenic factors, many also aimed to assist offenders in a more holistic fashion, considering all aspects of the post-release context that may influence the success of reintegration attempts. When program content was analysed, these more whole of person interventions were well represented. These programs consider the important the role of family and social networks pre- and post-release, as well as meeting psychosocial needs, and ensuring physical welfare is adequately addressed.

The aim of these multifaceted programs is presumably rehabilitation, reintegration, or at least reduced reoffending. Interestingly, the articulated aims of examined interventions were often more modest, ranging from instilling appropriate cognitive skills to the provision of recreational opportunities. Only a minority of programs actually aimed to facilitate reintegration.

Lastly, because of the emphasis on effective correctional programming and matching intervention to risk, it is critical that motivation to participate in programs is one aspect of the whole person that is not ignored. A number of interventions target on the basis of formally or informally assessed risk, but some exclude because of lack of motivation. There is insufficient evidence to assess if enforced participation in treatment reaps the same benefits as taking part on a voluntary basis, thus it would seem important to ensure holistic services take steps to improve the motivation of unmotivated, at-risk clients.

Dominance of a case management approach

Case management is an effective service delivery vehicle if complex multiple needs are to be met. Case management coordinates multiple services, supports and programs and so can address whole of person integration. Less than half of all programs implied a case management approach and the brokerage or referral of services, yet a majority of agencies implied that multiple and various interventions were at their disposal when needed. Respondents were not asked directly about case management or batteries of available programs, thus these inconsistencies may be a function of the type of information actually supplied.

Any future investigation of case managed throughcare and post-release support in Australia would be advised to gather information regarding the way in which agencies conceive and implement case management.

Delivering a continuum of care

A number of programs aimed to bridge the period of transition between custody and the community, although only around half of government correctional agencies explicitly endorsed a post-release regimen built on throughcare. A throughcare ethos informs general programming (as is suggested by the thumbnail sketch of policy), but this is not necessarily evident in all practice. Of course it is not appropriate that all programs be continued after release: for instance, arranging for post-release access to welfare benefits need not be followed-up if adequate arrangements are made prior to prisoner re-entry. However, in many cases, lack of ready income is not the only challenge that a returning prisoner may face, thus whilst the welfare component of support can be terminated at release, other aspects of that same client may need ongoing support.

The survey used here examined various levels of service delivery - from overarching models such as case management, to individual programs addressing very narrow aspects of a person, such as alcohol misuse. Future research would benefit from thoroughly assessing the precise way in which all levels of service delivery interact to provide a safety net of prisoner throughcare.

Evidence of interagency working

Despite a shared hierarchy and a commitment to throughcare, not all government-sponsored programs were developed jointly between the custodial and the community arms of corrections. Additionally, not all NGOs communicated with government authorities. Nonetheless, there is support in these findings for the notion of interagency working, because numerous programs involved multiple service providers drawn from the government and non-government sector. Further research is necessary to address the degree of formality that governs these between agency relationships, and to assess the optimal form that the joined-up operations should take to ensure that the chances of reintegration are maximised, whilst minimising the risk of reoffending.

Meeting the needs of diverse clients

Whilst the most up to date thinking regarding offender rehabilitation and reintegration can be found in the surveyed services, there are subgroups of prisoners whose post-release needs may be inadequately met. These include:

• remand inmates
• inmates from a minority ethnic or cultural background, especially Indigenous Australians
• women
• prisoners whose pose a risk to community safety and whose offences are especially antisocial, such as sex offenders
• imprisoned individuals with mental health issues, and
• clients displaying low levels of motivation or failing to admit their need for treatment.

More positively, a number of programs explicitly targeted the families of offenders, recognising the important role that social networks play in prisoner reintegration.

Use of evaluation

Evaluation was integrated into the implementation of about two-thirds of all programs, with it more typically a feature of programs whose content addressed areas other than welfare provision. Very little evaluative material was examined for this project, but of that received, no evaluation had employed random allocation to treatment and control conditions (the so-called 'gold standard'). Rather, process and outcome evaluation relied on quasi-experimental design, or on more qualitative surveys of stakeholders. Administrative data was employed to provide quantitative information. The extremely small number of reports examined meant that no strong conclusions can be drawn regarding what works in an Australian context.

Conclusions

The Provision of Post-Release Services and Throughcare

Despite evidence that the post-release challenges and needs of some Australian prisoners are being addressed in various ways, recidivism rates indicate that not all prisoners are being successfully reintegrated, or are even having their criminogenic needs effectively addressed. The growing interest from authorities in post-release services and throughcare bodes well for the likelihood of lessened offending and increased reintegration, but there are still aspects of throughcare delivery that are not well developed. Areas of throughcare that need further examination or elaboration include:

1. The compilation of a comprehensive register of post-release and throughcare services delivered by all organisations in Australia, including State-based custodial, State and Australian Government non-custodial, and non-government faith-based and not-for-profit agencies. The potential roles for private industry in the promotion of post-release adjustment must also be explored, especially regarding aspects of resettlement such as adequate housing and long-term employment opportunities.
2. The establishment of formal throughcare partnerships between all relevant government and non-government agencies, flowing on from ongoing and genuine collaboration in terms program design and implementation between the community and custodial arms of corrective services.
3. The development of funding practices that:
   • ensure dollars are spent in the most efficient manner to produce the best possible gains for individual clients and therefore the best community gains, and
   • allow service providers to confidently implement long-term plans to address the long-term needs of returning prisoners and young people on the basis of guaranteed, dedicated post-release funding.
4. The evolution of policy that allows the reintegrative needs of prisoners with high and complex needs to be addressed. Although these groups are often quite small in number relative to the mainstream prison population (ie relative to English-speaking males of European heritage), they are disproportionately disadvantaged, and yet may be actively excluded from mainstream post-release interventions.
5. The evolution of policy that allows the reintegrative needs of high stakes prisoners, such as sex offenders, to be addressed. Public resistance to any special treatment for these prisoners is understandably high, but ignores the reality that many of these individuals will return to mainstream society one day, and all will benefit if these offenders' anti-social behaviour is stopped.
6. The education of the broader community about the active role community members can play in the reintegration of offenders. This process may be easier if a restorative, victim- or community-centred approach to offender management is adopted, because this emphasises the critical importance of offenders being accountable and accepting responsibility for their past criminal actions and their future resettlement into community life.

The reintegrative needs of ex-prisoners are complex and appear to stem from socio-economic disadvantage that can both pre-date and flow on from imprisonment. If adopting this perspective to the causes of crime, the task of reducing reoffending becomes one of promoting post-release adjustment by ameliorating disadvantages. Given the diverse disadvantages experienced, coordinated actions are required from the whole of the community, which in turn must stem from a whole of government approach (rather than actions initiated and driven only by government correctional agencies who already must address the more immediate needs of an increasing prison population). Importantly, any broad whole of government responses would be most productive if designed to complement already existing national strategies addressing the needs of the socially excluded (for instance, the National Homelessness Strategy, CACH 2003).

Future Research into Post-Release Services and Throughcare

The above areas for development require a strong evidence base that shows what works and what is ineffective in prisoner throughcare and post-release interventions. In order for the knowledge base to be expanded though, all the current means of promoting reintegration, as well as new and innovative approaches, need to be assessed, with the results of those assessments shared amongst all interested parties.

Evaluations need to be in-built into pilot and program implementation. This means that the evaluation process should be planned prior to a program commencing, and the intervention should have adequate resources to ensure any evaluation is conducted in a manner that adds to the knowledge base (ie produces reliable and meaningful information). Evaluation is a costly and unproductive exercise if the information gained is not referred to or used to inform future practice.

Systematic investigations of post-release and throughcare services conducted in overseas jurisdictions are contributing to an expanding knowledge base. However, the degree with which this information applies to Australian situations and the diverse needs of Australian prisoners is unknown. It is crucial that Australian service providers and researchers consistently examine the outcomes of Australian initiatives to develop a local understanding of what works in promoting reintegration. Lastly, in order to plan and fund post-release interventions, precise knowledge regarding the number of and the extent of the needs of clients must be obtained.