The Strategies

Effective Sentence Management – “What Works”

Principles of Effective Rehabilitation
There is absolutely no doubt that the last two decades have seen a vindication of rehabilitation as a legitimate goal of modern correctional jurisdictions.

There are now over thirty meta-analytic reviews of treatment evaluations which encompass over two and a half thousand individual treatment outcome studies which consistently support that, under certain conditions, rehabilitation can be effective.

Much of this work has been drawn together in a seminal volume by Don Andrews and James Bonta, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (2002) in which the three basic cornerstones of effective practice are described.

These are the risk principle, the needs principle, and the responsivity principle.

The Risk Principle holds that treatment is most effective when directed at those at highest risk of re-offending. Directing intensive treatment resources at those of lower risk is likely to be ineffective at best, or even increase the probability of further recidivism.

The Needs Principle holds that there are certain treatment needs which are associated with further re-offending risk; and it is these areas, termed criminogenic needs, which should be the focus for intervention. These include such things as violence propensity, skills deficits, and substance abuse, as distinct from areas of personal distress, such as anxiety or poor self-esteem which are unrelated to further re-offending.

Finally, The Responsivity Principle holds that the delivery of treatment should match the learning styles and cultural orientation of those receiving the treatment. The mode of service delivery should be consistent with, for example, the intellectual ability and literacy levels of the treated group.

Integration
Therefore over the last five years, the New Zealand Department of Corrections has placed considerable emphasis on developing an approach to offender management that both reflects these principles and integrates them into overall offender management. We have sought to integrate in two ways:

First, as a Service of the Department of Corrections, PPS is committed to supporting departmental strategies to ensure horizontal integration across the department’s delivery agencies. The means we seek to create an approach that, from the offender’s perspective, is as seamless and consistent (in terminology, philosophy, programme specification) as possible. This incorporates integration of:

• Support of judicial sentencing processes
• Assessment, whether pre- or post-sentence
• Interventions, including post-custodial relapse prevention support
• Release and Parole management
• Identification and management of highest risk offenders, and
• Psychological treatment and assessment

Secondly, Offender Management within PPS seeks to integrate assessment of, and responses to, all dimensions of an offender’s risks and needs, namely:

• The need to understand, and to ensure full compliance with, the sentence or sentences handed down by the court.
• The security and management risks presented by the offender and therefore his/her security classification and institutional placement.
• Any suicidal tendency or other indication the inmate may be at risk in the prison environment.
• Health needs, increasingly including screening for communicable diseases
• “Criminogenic needs” - an understanding of the factors that have led and may continue to lead, to criminal offending.
• “Reintegrative needs” the practical issues including accommodation, budgeting, parenting and other life skills that may adversely impact on successful integration on release into the community.
• Educational requirements - with a particular focus on significant literacy and numeracy deficits.
• Employment needs - including vocational training deficits.
• Cultural issues - in the New Zealand context this focuses on a Maori inmate’s relationship to their culture.

Offender Management – Assessment Instruments
A number of standardised assessment instruments have been developed:

• The Risk of Conviction/Risk of Imprisonment (ROC/ROI) tool. Anchored in research of thousands of New Zealand criminal histories this tool provides an accurate measurement of an offender’s risk of conviction and re-imprisonment based on assessment of static factors (age of first offending, length of time between offences, seriousness of previous offending etc).
• The Criminogenic Needs Inventory (CNI) replaced the “Level of Service Inventory – Revised” in the New Zealand system as the tool used to assess criminogenic needs.
• For 18 to 19 years old inmates, the Prison Youth Vulnerability Scale (PYVS) is used to assess the level of risk created by placing older adult male youth in the mainstream adult prison population. (All male inmates under the age of 18 are automatically placed in separate prison youth units).
• Maori Culture Related Needs (MaCRNs) were developed as part of the CNI to identify offending-related needs created by deficits or deficiencies in an offenders understanding of, or relationship to, their Maori culture.
• A range of other assessments, comprising the:
  • Inmate Employment and Education Assessment (IEEA)
  • Re-integrative Needs Assessment (RNA)
  • Living Needs Assessment (LNA), including religious/spiritual, family, cultural, language, dietary and other requirements.
  • A quantitatively based assessment of Security Classification , which also allows a reasonable degree of over-ride based on judgements by Corrections managers.
  • Immediate Needs Assessment
  • Health and At Risk Assessments

Offender Management - Sentence Management Process
The assessing officer develops a Sentence plan for each offender. Assessors are generally Corrections Officers who are selected and provided with intensive (six weeks) training in the Department’s assessment instruments, application of standard …. and sentence planning process.

All prison inmates are assigned a sentence management category to assist with their institutional planning and management. The categories are based on factors such as length of sentence, risk of re-offending (RoC*RoI score), and assessed level of motivation. The categories are derived from empirical evidence on best practice management and rehabilitation. The sentence management categories are independent of the security classification system.

Motivation and Intervention category: Motivation and Intervention category inmates are at a higher risk of recidivism (RoC*RoI above .4). They differ only in their assessed motivation to address their criminogenic needs. For Motivation category inmates the focus is on improving their motivation for change – they are therefore targeted for responsivity programmes such as Straight Thinking and Tikanga. If their motivation to change sufficiently improves then Motivation category inmates will be reclassified as Intervention category. Intervention category inmates may also undertake the above responsivity programmes if sufficient time exists, however they are prioritised for more intensive rehabilitative programmes such as the 100-hour criminogenic programmes, special focus units, and special treatment units.

Maintenance category: Maintenance category inmates have been assessed as representing a low risk of re-offending (RoC*RoI below .4). The management objective for these inmates is to minimise any contamination from higher risk offenders and to avoid any adverse effects of imprisonment. This group is not specifically targeted for rehabilitative interventions while in prison because they represent a low risk of recidivism. All inmates with current convictions for sex offences or murder are over-ridden out of the Maintenance category into either the Motivation or Intervention category.

Short serving category: Short serving category inmates are all those serving less than 13 weeks. These inmates are prioritised for interventions directed at improving reintegration and basic living skills.

Functional support category: Functional support category inmates are those who have been assessed as representing major behavioural issues and are judged as requiring medium to long-term intensive support to manage their risks. Functional support inmates have an intensive level of management from a multi-disciplinary team, including medical and psychiatric input. The objective for this category of inmate is to reduce the incidence of behavioural disruption and return them to the mainstream prison population.

All inmates, regardless of category, are eligible for education, employment, living skills and reintegration programmes.

Inmates are then scheduled for interventions in accordance with sentence plan objectives with attendance at rehabilitative programmes driven by targeting and timing rules:

Priority targeting rules

• Priority targeting rules for interventions are used to determine the optimal use of limited resource.
• They are based on research (both recidivism studies and cost/benefit analysis) which indicates that the greatest benefit (in terms of reduced crime) is gained by specifically targeting young, motivated, higher risk offenders with interventions.
• Priority for interventions is as follows;
  1. Intensive rehabilitation programmes for all child sex and serious violent offenders (because of the high actual and perceived social cost of the offences)
  2. Intensive rehabilitation programmes for motivated, young (under 25 years of age), high risk (RoC*RoI >.8)
  3. Intensive rehabilitation programmes for motivated, young (under 25 years of age), moderate risk (RoC*RoI .3-.8)
  4. Intensive rehabilitation programmes for motivated, aged 25-35, risk above .3
  5. A motivational enhancement programme for unmotivated, young (under 25 years of age), high-risk offenders.
• Priority targeting rules only apply when programme demand exceeds programme supply.

Timing rules

• Timing rules were developed to enhance the structure and uniformity of an inmate’s sentence, with the objective being to maximise the rehabilitative potential of the interventions offered.
• The timing of interventions is complicated by greater discretion around granting of parole, and hence, sentence length.
• Timing of interventions (both programmes and non-programmatic interventions) is largely determined by risk level (which in turn influences likely release date / sentence length).
• Employment and education occur as soon as possible after admission to prison.
• Motivational programmes occur before rehabilitative and re-integrative programmes (middle third of sentence).
• Rehabilitative and re-integrative interventions are completed as close as possible to the inmate’s release date. These interventions therefore occur in the middle to final third of a sentence for high-risk inmates. They may occur early during a sentence for lower risk inmates (as they are more likely to be released earlier).

Central to the ongoing management of the offender consistent with their sentence plan is the role of the case officer. Every corrections officer operating on a unit roster is assigned a caseload of between 4 and 6 inmates. The role of the case officer is to:

• Proactively manage the offender on a day-to-day basis in accordance with the objectives of their sentence plan.
• Work directly with the offender to assist and supplement other more intensive rehabilitative interventions.
• Periodically review the offender’s progress against their sentence plan.

Overview of Available Interventions

Recent or current changes include:

• The introduction of Tikanga Maori programmes into women’s facilities
• Development of a generic criminogenic programme to be delivered to women inmates, based on observed difficulties in delivering the criminogenic programmes based on specific needs to the relatively small population held in women’s prisons.
• Commissioning of a Faith-Based unit.
• Increased emphasis on re-integrative activities.

Effectiveness for Maori

Indigenous Maori make up approximately 14% of the New Zealand population but approximately half of New Zealand’s prison inmates. They are therefore roughly three times over-represented. The development and delivery of initiatives to effectively reduce re-offending by Maori remains a key strategic imperative for the Department of Corrections and PPS. Current initiatives include:

• Five Maori Focus Units which operate as far as possible in accordance with “Tikanga Maori, provide opportunities for inmates to gain a deeper understanding and knowledge of Maori cultural values and Te Reo Maori the Maori language), and provide an environment in which Maori-specific interventions are delivered.
• Tikanga Maori Programmes designed to inculcate Maori cultural values
• Maori Therapeutic Programmes , currently being redeveloped to ensure an effective blend of Tikanga (cultural) and therapeutic principles to provide a “Maori version” of core criminogenic programming
• Bi-cultural Therapy , delivered by the Department’s Psychological Service in partnership with counsellors and healers expert in Tikanga Maori
• Design and development of the four new corrections faculties in close partnership with “Kaitiaki “ - Maori communities on whose historical land the facilities are constructed.
• The Kaiwhakamana Strategy, which sees elders or “Kaumatua” from Maori tribes (“Iwi”) granted “specified visitor” status to facilitate regular contact and support their relevant community.
• Special Maori Cultural Assessment, which is delivered to inmates with more complex cultural needs, by a specialist Maori provider. Similarly, Cultural Supervision is provided to sentence planners in support of their cultural assessment responsibilities.

A number of similar initiatives are in development to meet the needs of the 10% of Pacific Island inmates incarcerated in NZ prisons.