Phil McCarthy, General Manager Integration
14 May 2006

Offender Management in Corrections

• The Department aims to promote the Government’s objective of safer communities through the twin goals of;
  • Protecting the Public
  • Reducing re-offending
• This relates to three of the four commonly expressed purposes of incarceration:
  • Punishment, which is a legitimate community expectation. But at almost $60k/year per prisoner, it is an expensive punishment and we need to actively promote effective community alternatives
  • Incapacitation: keeping actively dangerous offenders away from potential victims
  • Rehabilitation: The ability of prisons to contribute to offender rehabilitaton has been contentious over the years. In New Zealand, the Roper Inquiry(1) suggested that “habilitation” could not effectively be undertaken within a prison environment and should restrict itself to “humane containment”. It recommended the introduction of community “habilitation centres”. However, in the face of growing and now extensive research indicating that prison programmes can be effective if certain conditions are met, the Department remains committed to the concept.
• Research generally indicates that prison sentences are ineffective in achieving a fourth commonly expressed intent; that of deterring offending, whether by others or by the sentenced offender.
•  The focus on offenders’ needs is in the interests of safer communities. The average prison term was six months and may now be less. Prisoners do re-join the community. If we don’t support offenders, we work against the communities we serve.

Contrary to some recently expressed comment, Corrections has had a strong strategic focus on reducing re-offending, through rehabilitative and related interventions.

• This is not the place for a detailed rehearsal of the Department’s offender management framework but I would like to take the opportunity to clarify some misconceptions. In particular the notion that the department’s offender interventions are limited solely to the delivery of cognitive-behavioural programmes, delivered without reference to the wider social, cultural or practical elements of the offender’s world.
• It is true that the Department pays close attention to the current state of the “what works” literature and that the design and delivery of our core “criminogenic” programmes reflect our understanding that research-driven best practice requires that such programmes are delivered:
  • To those at greatest risk of re-offending
  • To address identified “criminogenic” needs, ie those factors that lead to offending behaviour
  • With regard to the offenders willingness or ability to “respond’ to the intervention.
• But our approach to “Integrated Offender Management” also has, holistically:
  • From day one, identified IOM’s “scope’ as directed at “the whole person”
  • Recognised four dimensions of offender management (safe & humane containment; rehabilitation; reintegration; education and employment)(2)
  • Actively focused on identifying and responding to education needs, health and behavioural issues, and to identify the most suitable work opportunities
  • Recognised that some offenders will need assistance, some in more depth that others with core, practical re-settlement issues including finding accommodation and employment, and dealing with parenting, budgeting and other living skills issues.
  • Incorporated explicitly Maori cultural interventions, including Tikanga programmes, Maori Focus Units, Maori Therapeutic Programmes, Bicultural Therapy.
  • Found room for a faith-based Unit, in partnership with PFNZ
  • Stressed the importance of the probation and prison-based “Case Officer” role in the context of “Active Management” of offenders in response to individual needs and issues
  • Worked with a range of partner agencies to provide a range of complementary initiatives. These include initiatives as varied as PARS fieldworkers, & PFNZ’s Sycamore Tree and Operation Jericho programmes
• This is not to say that everything is perfect, a point I will now turn to, but to emphasise that we have been endeavouring to take on board an ‘integrated’ approach to restoring offenders to their communities. So what are the current challenges?

Corrections Current Challenges

• Much of the recent rash of publicity surrounding the Department of Corrections is best described as a “beat-up”. However, it is true there are some real pressures and challenges facing the Department and our partner agencies and that many of these impact on both our rehabilitation and reintegration success. Briefly:
  • We have seen extraordinary growth in prisoner numbers. Indeed, that increase is a large part of the reason we are here today. I note that:
    • Only a few years back, I was giving presentations including Ministry projections of prisoner numbers reaching 7,500 in 2010. We got there in 2005.
    • There were 1,000 more prisoners in July 2004 than had been predicted in October 2003.
  • The Government has commissioned the “Effective Interventions” exercise to identify ways to reduce the prison population. That is expected to report in June. Along with many people here, we are looking to that initiative to remove some of these pressures.
  • In the meantime, and coupled with recruitment and staff turnover issues, that increase has led to decreases in the percentage of prisoners participating in employment and in constructive activities generally. Contrary to comments yesterday, it is also this constraint, rather than any “budget cuts” that have led to a reduction in hours of unlock in many prisons.
  • There has been an extraordinary shift towards short-serving prisoners. At least 85% of current receptions will serve less than a year. Receptions of prisoners whose sentence was less than six months (and who will therefore spend three months or less in prison) increased from
    • 2504 (35% of all sentenced receptions in 2002/03), to
    • 3247 (38% in 2003/04), to
    • 4058 (44% in 2004/05)
  • Recent published success rates for some of our core programmes have been lower than is acceptable. This has lead to cancellation of the Straight Thinking programme and to a re-focusing and intensification of some others.
  • Prison drug and alcohol treatment numbers have been down, largely due to the temporary closure of one of the three treatment units.
  • Some mistakes were made in IOM implementation – over-design of some tools and processes, lack of focus on managers, assumptions about staff ability to understand new end to end process – but for the first time we have a strong and departmentally-consistent foundation to build on.

The IOM Approach to Reintegration

• The Reintegrative Framework introduced with IOM into Corrections in 1999 consisted of the following elements:
  • The explicit recognition of seven “reintegrative needs”, identified and addressed throughout an offender’s sentence;
    • Accommodation
    • Employment
    • Finance
    • Relationships
    • Community Support
    • Health
    • Victim-related Issues
  • The nature and significance of the system’s response varied according to the number and complexity of those needs.
  • Responses varied from simple self-help, assisted by Case Officers, through more focused support from reintegration workers, participation in a range of reintegrative programmes, placement in prison self-care units, and so forth.
  • Prior to the end of a sentence, information on relevant services is provided and support networks are established. Critical to this process is the establishment of linkages with other relevant government agencies and community providers.
  • The responses in respect of each offender are, for parolees, consolidated into a release plan, with the involvement of both probation and prisons personnel.
  • An integrated framework, in particular for parolees managed by CPS, ensures that reintegration issues are managed in a broader context
• Longstanding reintegration initiatives include:
  • RIS programmes (Living Skills, Parenting)
  • Specialist reintegration workers in some specialist prison units
  • Provision of flexible reintegration support by PARS
  • Self Care Units
  • And of course the key role played by probation officers

But there are challenges also in regard to reintegration:

• There is increasing difficulty in placing high-risk offenders back into the community, particularly child-sex offenders. Typically 200-250 such offenders are incarcerated, and released into the community, each year. A small percentage is high risk and high need and is consuming significant CPS resources. The introduction of extended supervision is a significant addition to the tools available to manage these highest risk offenders.
• Community attitudes to offender re-settlement have shifted significantly with a pronounced increase in the NIMBY syndrome
• There is a greater presumption that information on the release and placement of high-risk offenders will be available to communities and to agencies such as Police, CYF and MSD.
• There is an increased media focus on individual cases, in many cases exacerbating already difficult placements
• In many areas, it is becoming increasingly difficult to source accommodation; local authority housing stocks have in many places disappeared. It is not uncommon to resort to short term options and motel owners are beginning to demand full-time and expensive supervision if units are let to some offenders.
• It is probably fair to acknowledge that, although prisoner reintegration was built into the IOM framework from the start, our primary focus in the early days was the design and implementation of core rehabilitation assessment tools and programmes. That is something we are now rebalancing.

What does the reintegration research tell us?

• There is, sadly, relatively little research to guide policy-makers in the design of reintegration/resettlement interventions and strategies. However, from the research that does exist, and from our own experience, what are the primary pointers to changes and emphases required if we are to improve the system’s reintegrative performance?
• Fundamentally, recidivism studies(3) have found that the percentage of safe returns to the community is higher for supervised offenders than those released with no supervision.
• Secondly, research(4) indicates, unsurprisingly, that the unmet reintegrative needs most likely to lead to recidivism are:
  • Lack of suitable employment
  • Lack of suitable accommodation
  • A negative family background, or negative relationship with or pro-criminal influence from, family or significant others
  • Financial difficulties.
• A recent UK review of ‘re-settlement’ developments in relation to reducing re-offending(5) suggests:
  • A significant contributor to the problems faced by prisoners on release is “reluctance on the part of some agencies to meet their needs (including in some cases, deliberate policies to exclude them from local authority housing)”. Certainly, UK Education, Health and Housing agencies typically regarded ex-prisoners as of low priority (p22)
  • Emphasis on both “practical services’ and “the mental processes involved in serious attempts to desist from crime” are important (p20).
  • Individuals who have developed good coping strategies to guide their reactions to common situations, who now held a belief that they had begun to take control of their lives, are more likely to desist from offending
  • “Desistance is a difficult and often lengthy process, not an ‘event’, reversals and relapses are common” and generating and sustaining motivation is vital to the maintenance of processes of change.
• Individuals who may ‘need’ certain interventions or programmes are not necessarily going to ‘want’ them
• So, what are the implications of all this for those involved in what we would call prisoner reintegration? The British article suggests the following (p 25):
  • Early planning and preparation for release and the establishment of a close relationship with the offender prior to release
  • Continuity of between pre- and post-release intervention and support, including reinforcement of specific learning
  • It is important to understand and respond to individualised needs and situations. One size does not fit all
  • As far as possible, the process of change should be “offender-led” or at a minimum a joint project with the probation officer/service provider
  • The importance of “empathetic support” to sustain motivation.
  • ‘Relapses’ into prior patterns of behaviour are bound to occur and these should not be taken to mean that the ‘desistance’ process has failed.
  • Solely practical responses (welfare, social service provision) will be less effective in reducing reoffending rates than those that also focus on “offender responsibility” (ie a focus also on habits of belief, thinking and motivation).
  • The importance of “wrap-around” support in the context of a relationship of trust which means that advice, counsel and practical assistance is not only available, but accessed in practice by offenders. This will assist also in avoiding the risk that individuals’ assessed needs may be “divided up… and addressed in isolation’. The UK review indicates that ‘continuity of contact with project workers (especially volunteer mentors) was significantly associated with lower reconviction rates.

The Corrections Review

• A 2003/04 review of reintegration initiatives in New Zealand found our approach to reintegration was generally sound, consistent with that of other jurisdictions and, in focusing on risks, needs and responsivity, was consistent with best practice. However, it also found considerable room for improvement. In particular:
  • Services are neither consistent across the country, nor disbursed according to need.
  • Services are not adequately integrated between the Department, other Government agencies and community providers.
• The following priorities for further enhancement or development were identified:
  • Co-ordination of reintegrative services
  • Addressing the post-release employment opportunities for offenders
  • Ensuring ex-prisoners access and maintain accommodation
  • Providing offenders with guidance on relationships and support maintain critical relationships while imprisoned.

Prisoner Reintegration – New Initiatives

• In response to this review, and to the high priority afforded to prisoner reintegration by the current and previous Ministers of Corrections, the following initiatives have been launched:
  • The introduction of five Regional Reintegration Team Leaders and 16 Reintegration Caseworkers to the Prison Service
  • The establishment of Work & Income teams within all prisons to assist prisoners to find work on release
  • Piloting of a Supported Accommodation Scheme by PARS in Auckland
  • Continuation of support for Operation Jericho, the PFNZ mentoring programme operating out of Rimutaka Prison
  • The planned development of close working relationships with “Kaitiaki”, our Maori partners associated with each of the four new facilities, not only in the operation of the prison but also in re-connecting prisoners on release with their whanau.
  • The establishment of my new role as General Manager, Integration with a core responsibility to better integrate the delivery of services to offenders, including re-integration, across the department, other Government agencies and community providers.
  • Aspects of the “Prisoner Employment Strategy”, released by the Minister last Thursday, will also assist; notably the targeting of an additional 20% of prisoners in work and training, and the commitment to expand our commitment to Release-to-Work.

Let me expand on some of these initiatives.

Reintegration Caseworkers

• The Department has received funding from Government to implement a number of these specialist positions who will be dedicated to work with targeted prisoners (young prisoners, women prisoners, high risk / high need mainstream prisoners) to address their reintegrative needs in time for their release.
• There will be 16 Reintegration Caseworkers around the country, based in prisons. They will work with prisoners, their whanau/family, other government and community agencies (i.e. PARS), Corrections Officers and Probation Officers to ensure prisoners’ reintegration goals are met. Implementation of Reintegration Caseworkers will occur over the next couple of months.

Regional Reintegration Teams

• Regional Reintegration Teams are also being established in Public Prisons Service Regions. These teams are made up of: Reintegration Caseworkers, Whanau Liaison Workers and Social Workers; and will be led by Regional Reintegration Team Leaders. Each member of the team provides a specific contribution in assisting targeted prisoners with their reintegration and social needs. The team provides, for the first time, a concentrated reintegration resource within Corrections to assist not only prisoners, but also other Departmental staff with their ongoing reintegration responsibilities; and to provide a much needed coordination and facilitation point for other agencies (both community and government based) who also administer reintegration services to prisoners.
• By establishing Regional Reintegration Teams, the Department is providing a much needed focus point for reintegration and the ability to deliver quality and timely services to prisoners who are in most need. This should ensure that planning, at least for the target groups, occurs much earlier than at present and that better support is made available.

Work and Income Prisoner Reintegration Teams

• Since October 2005, every prison has had the services of a dedicated Work and Income Prisoner Reintegration Team providing much needed employment and income assistance to prisoners in a timely way that meets their release. They will also be closely linked into the new reintegration teams.

Supported Accommodation Service

• Historically, half-way houses, Habilitation centres or other parole hostels have been available to prisoners on release. The Department is not seeking to move back in this direction. Even our current three, largely successful “Community Residential Centres” are not incident free. Unless very tightly managed, such establishments can create risks for their communities, do not necessarily model pro-social, anti-criminal values and, in the current climate, are likely to be rejected by their communities.
• The Department is therefore focused on supporting access to “normal” housing and domestic arrangements. We have begun an accommodation initiative in Auckland to support released prisoners who have no accommodation options on release and also have a number of other reintegration needs such as employment and managing relationships. This initiative is called the Supported Accommodation Service and is delivered to offenders through a contracted service provider (Auckland PARS).
• The service provider leases single-occupancy properties from HNZC or private providers and then sub-leases the properties to offenders. The offenders can stay in the accommodation for a maximum of three months and then move onto more permanent accommodation with the assistance of the service provider. The service provider operates a case management approach to assist offenders with meeting their other reintegrative needs. The offender can choose to receive ongoing support from the service provider for a further three months after leaving the managed accommodation if they wish.
• Currently there are five properties in the service, with the aim to secure eight properties in total. It is hoped that 2006/07 funding will permit expansion to Wellington and Christchurch.

Operation Jericho

• Operation Jericho is a Wellington based service, provided by Prison fellowship and jointly funded by the Department and the Ministry of Social Development. The service provides support and mentoring to released offenders by trained volunteers to assist with the transition from prison to the community and focuses on addressing reintegrative needs such as employment.
• From the Department’s perspective, the programme has a number of advantages:
  • Funding provides for the training and support of a network of volunteer “mentors”. Because much of the effort is voluntary, it is cost-effective.
  • It can provide intensive “wrap-around” support, with mentors routinely accessible to ex-prisoners, and able to provide direct or indirect support across a wide range of potential needs.
  • Being faith-based, the mentors themselves have access to their own support network
  • It is potentially replicable outside of a faith context wherever (a) quality mentor training, and (b) support for mentors, is available.
  • Two commonly understood criminogenic needs (avoiding anti-social associates, and eliminating idle time) and currently not well addressed. Initiatives like OJ may well be valuable in this context.

Conclusion

There is a new urgency surrounding reintegration support. The new initiatives I have mentioned represent an additional investment by Government approaching $2m. They should assist in significantly improving the coverage, quality and intensity of reintegration support and will provide opportunities for supportive additional developments – an example is the proposed establishment of a unit at Rimutaka prison to focus on reintegration issues and support.

They will continue to change and evolve, and hopefully grow as we learn through experience.

As the research makes clear, though, we will be most effective when we can deliver practical support in a wider context that both addresses offending attitudes and behaviour and provides appropriate emotional relationship based holistic support.

However, there remain significant challenges. I would like, in conclusion to touch on a few:

• The significant challenge of accommodation. There are some process issues for the department but it can be extremely difficult to source accommodation for ex-offenders. In particular, how do we address the increasingly difficult problem of the re-settlement of child-sex offenders?
• Probation officers are spending increasing amounts of time dealing with accommodation issues. That is time that is not otherwise to work with the offender on offending and other issues.
• There is plenty of reintegration work for everyone. There may need to be some shifts in effort and delivery but the last thing we need is patch protection around historical delivery practices. Conversely, as more people are contributing, we need to avoid un-necessary duplication.
• The new RCs and RTLs must lead to a dramatic improvement in networking and “joined-up-delivery” of services.
• The high numbers of short-serving prisoners present a real challenge to the system. We are working to understand the needs of this group and further enhancements may be required.
• Prison case-officers; Corrections officers in their role as manager of the prisoner’s sentence plan, need to be more consistently pro-active in identifying and referring reintegration issues and concerns.
• We cannot help people who do not want to help themselves. How much effort should be expended on people who strongly indicate they choose to continue their criminal lifestyle?
• These resources will assist to dramatically improve our organisation of pre-release processes. They will be able to provide some additional support afterwards, particularly where plans for a high-risk offender fall over. But is there yet enough support in the community?
• The fact that Corrections can only succeed in partnership with the community. There may be opportunities to purchase additional community services. Certainly, prisons needs to significantly expand their use of volunteers, not only to provide direct re-integrative support but also to build relationships through a range of other constructive activity from sports teams to remedial reading and hobby work. “Wrap-around” support needs a lot of arms.
• For this to happen, prisons need to lose the reputation we have in some places as being difficult to access and to work with. Prisons Regional Managers have been charged with the responsibility to make this happen, and I will be looking to the RTLs and RCs to deal swiftly with any obstacles to the efficient and effective delivery of services by our reintegration partners.
• We need to keep a perspective. Even the most successful of correctional interventions will reduce re-imprisonment rates by around a third (in the NZ context from a two year rate of around 36% to around 25%).

However, if we can achieve that rate from all participating in the revamped reintegration approach, we will be doing very well indeed. There are very promising signs. The new initiatives are significant. We all need to acknowledge the sterling work currently done by workers and volunteers from PARS, Prison Fellowship, PILLARS and others, as well as by the Department’s own employees. There has been significant improvement, notably through the pilot in this region, in multi-agency co-operation. May it go from strength to strength?

---

1 A Ministerial Committee of inquiry was established in 1987 by the Minister of Justice to inform potential legislative change in relation to the operationm of the penal system, and in particular prisons operation and management. The Committee reported in April 1989. It’s use of the term “habilitation” reflected the view thatmost offenders needed to be introduced, rather than be restored, to a non-criminal lifestyle.

2 The Department of Corrections distinguishes ‘rehabilitation’ (activities that seek to train educate and influence offenders to adopt a crime-free lifestyle) from ‘reintegration’ (activities targeted at addressing identified social or environmental problems that constitute obstacles to a non-offending lifestyle”.

3 Waller, I. (1974) Men released from prison”. Centre of criminology. University of Toronto Press;
Harman W.G. & Hann, R.G. (1986). Predicting General Release Risk for Penitentiary Inmates. User report, Ministry of the Solicitor general of Canada, no 1986-32

4 Gendreau, P, Little, T. and Goggin, V. (1996) A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works? Criminology, 34 575-607

5 Maguire, M & Raynor, P: “How the resettlement of prisoners promotes desistance from crime: Or does it?”; Criminology and Criminal Justice 2006 vol 6.

Back to Top ^

Previous Next Show Contents