How Should We Reintegrate Prisoners? - Rethinking Crime and ...

In summary, the Department of Corrections opted for a model of prison reintegration whichwas based on risks and needs. These characteristics are an extension of the principles thatunderpin prison based rehabilitation. While this model may be appropriate for agovernment department primarily concerned with the avoidance of risk, theimplementation of that model within a community setting is problematic. With its focus ondetermining ‘what works’ from an evidence-based perspective, the model lacks theopportunity for innovation and a coherent underpinning theory of prisoner reintegration. Itis based on a ‘deficit’ model of reintegration, described by Maruna and LeBel (2002) as ‘riskbased’and ‘need-based’. Risk-based strategies focus on increasing the surveillance offormer prisoners with new technologies , e.g. electronic monitoring, urine testing, whileneed-based strategies focus on providing assistance to former offenders in overcomingaddiction or learning basic skills, with an emphasis on those ‘needs’ associated with the riskof reoffending. In some models, ‘needs’ have become synonymous with risk factors, withthe result that, in effect, ‘meeting needs’ becomes little more than provision of checks andforms of social control.What has become clear, is that offenders are not interested in having their ‘criminogenicneeds’ met by the state in these ways (see Farrall, 2002). There is a growing criticism aboutthe negative impact on prisoners of risk assessment and the psychological discourse thataccompanies it. In a recent article, Crewe (2012:516), describes the process as the new‘pain of imprisonment’ commenting,“Many prisoners explain that, to successfully advance through the system, they haveto create a kind of penal avatar. Often, they feel that cognitive-behavioural coursesare telling them to be a different kind of person – at worst, a robotic prototype ofresponsible citizenship that could not survive the realities of life in the environmentsfrom which they are drawn. Frequently too, they complain that reports take theircomments and behaviour out of context, and that the report-writing process showslittle compassion, humanity or nuance”7

Should the “RNR” Framework Apply to Prisoner Reintegration?The literature is ambivalent about the RNR model in terms of its impact not only onoffenders, but also its impact on communities.Impact on OffendersThe department’s ‘Risk, Need , Responsivity’ model of rehabilitation and reintegration is inmany ways no different from traditional approaches to medical, psychiatric or substanceabuse treatment. It is symptom-focused and deficit-based. It operates on four flawedassumptions:(a) Offenders are essentially different from all other human groups;(b) Reducing problems will reduce criminal behaviour(c) If services are made available, offenders will use them, and(d) Services usually accomplish what they are designed to doRecent research cited by the European correctional evidence-based practices, comes from ameta-analysis of those factors that contribute to offender rehabilitation (McNeil et al,2005). In short, the research shows that:(a) 40% of all change in offender rehabilitation can be attributed to theintangible and complex personal resources, including their strengths, thatpeople bring with them.(b) 30% of the change is related to the therapeutic relationship between theoffender and those who are there to help in the change process;(c) 15% of the change can be attributed solely to the offender’s belief thatchange can happen – the expectancy factor;(d) 15% of the change can be attributed to the intervention (i.e. addressingcriminogenic needs.)8

Is there a Middle Ground?In recent years there has been resistance to the development of approaches outside theRNR model. It is not clear whether the earlier departmental view that reintegration wasprimarily about social support, and not about the reduction of reoffending, still holds. In the2009 “What Works Now” publication the department’s view was that “reintegrative services(social support to released prisoners) can improve outcomes for offenders who haveparticipated in other forms of rehabilitation, but these on their own do not appear to beeffective.”(Department of Corrections, 2009b:55). There is no evidential basis for this view.It is important the Department of Corrections does not allow itself to be aligned to any oneposition, given that it is now committed to moving from a Corrections –centredreintegration process, to one that places primary responsibility with the community.The challenge to both parties is to develop a model that acknowledges the strengths of bothapproaches, rather than promote polarisation between ‘stick and carrot’ policies on onehand, and strength based policies on the other – they do have the potential to combine andinteract. Even then, acceptance of a fully-fledged strengths based approach will require amajor paradigm shift. (Burnett and Maruna: 2006).Criminal justice practitioners need to be aware that an ideological battle continues betweenthose who staunchly defend the RNR model, and those who argue for a strengths basedapproach, and augmented approaches such as the ‘Good Lives’ model. (Ward & Maruna,2007) Workman describes in full detail the impact this debate has had on the New ZealandCorrections environment. (Workman: 2011b) Some of these issues are highly complex andtechnical, and outside the comprehension of a lay person (refer to Polaschek: 2012).Establishing an Intervention Logic for Prisoner ReintegrationOne of the strengths of the RNR model is its substantial theoretical grounding. Bazemoreand Stitchcombe argue that community responses need to be situated within evidencebasedframeworks, drawing upon the accumulated wisdom from three distinct literatures:10

‘‘identity transformation research’’ at the micro level, ‘‘life course research’’ at the mesolevel,and ‘‘community level research’’ at the more macro-level (Bazemore & Stinchcomb,2004, p. 3).In short, reintegration programs need to provide ways for returning offenders to create newidentities for themselves by inter-mingling with pro-social individuals and performingvaluable services. In addition, successful reentry programs would account for the changingnature of criminal commitments and social bonds, drawing upon their mutability toestablish informal social controls (Sampson & Laub, 1995). Finally, communities would alsobuild capacity to change the retributive culture to a more inclusive and restorative onethrough its practices.Principles in Prisoner ReintegrationThe following principles have been identified, as contributing to the prisoner reintegrationprocess. (Fox 2010)Balancing support and accountabilityBazemore and Stinchcomb (2004) recommend that offender reentry programs modelthemselves upon concepts similar to the best (restorative) practices of community justice,which balance support with accountability.Re-establishing a Sense of CommunityRestorative justice’s strengths include re establishing the sense of community and victimsafety, while maintaining or enhancing the offender’s attachment to the community. Oneway to do this is to repair the harm through community service (Karp & Clear, 2002).According to Clear and Karp (1999, p. 56), an ideal community justice model would‘‘emphasize the obligations of citizens to one another.’’ Offender reentry programs enactthis ideal insofar as they try to re engage a serious offender after a prison term and alter thestigmatized identity on both sides—including the offender’s sense of self and thecommunity’s perspective on the offender (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004).11

Reducing Offender StigmaIn attaching or reattaching the offender to the community, one positive outcome can bereducing the stigma that comes from a deviant or criminal label (Maruna, 2001; see alsoClear & Karp, 1999). The challenges are somewhat magnified, as communities may feelmore at stake with a returning serious offender, and the offender will likely need moreintensive support services and support to succeed after a long prison stint.Forging New IdentitiesBazemore and Stinchcomb (2004) emphasize several avenues for reintegrating offendersinto communities. Essentially, they argue that individual offenders must have anopportunity to forge new identities, that they need support systems to attach to, and thatcommunities must rally to engage offenders. They advocate the social psychologicaldimension of engagement in ‘‘new, pro-social roles’’ that can change a community’s imageof an offender (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004, p. 3). This happens at the micro level of civicengagement. Clearly, though, helping to create new identities happens in a context ofcommunity opportunities that allow positive reinforcement.Marshalling Social CapitalCommunities must marshal their ‘‘social capital’’ to provide these occasions ‘‘to developshared norms and values, and build relationships of trust and reciprocity’’ (Bazemore &Stinchcomb, 2004, p. 3; see also Putnam, 2000).The Resurgence of Restorative JusticeThere is a recent and renewed interest in restorative justice, following a steady decline ingovernment support from 2003 until 2010 (Workman:2008). New approaches to prisonerrehabilitation and reintegration can introduce powerful rivals to more punitive orthodoxies.As Zedner comments:Where rehabilitation renders the offender the subject of a psycho-social intervention,restorative justices sets the offender as the author of his own readmission to civilsociety. Entirely in accordance with the emphasis on personal responsibility andindividual rationality so central to neo-liberal philosophy, restorative justice may12

plausibly be seen as an attempt to revive rehabilitation for a new political era(Zedner, 2002).After seven years in the wilderness, the evidence for its effectiveness is compelling arenewed interest in further development and expansion. A complementary movement hasoccurred through linking restorative justice to prisoner reintegration, characterised bythemes of repair, reconciliation and community partnership. (see Coyle, 2001; Newell,2001; Farrant and Levenson, 2002).Developments that embrace the principles of restorative justice include Circles of Supportand Accountability (COSA), and Kaupapa Māori Research and Whānau Ora.COSA ModelCircles of Support and Accountability (COSA) is an innovative approach for reintegratingchild sexual offenders safely back into the community. This approach originated in Canada inthe mid-1990s and has been showing success there and in England. The COSA model wasadapted from Canada, (Hannem & Petrunik, 2007; Wilson, McWhinnie, Picheca, Pinzo, &Cortoni,2007; see also Herron, 2004).One of the strengths of this approach is that it more evenly balances the needs of individualcommunities and those of the sex offender – something that is essential for successfulreintegration and therefore wider public safety.The community of release is represented by a group of about 4-6 volunteers (the Circle)who are willing to take personal responsibility for supporting the offender (Core Member) insuccessfully reintegrating back into the community and also for holding them accountablefor their actions. Volunteers receive extensive training and are fully informed of theoffenders history, patterns of offending and the thoughts and behaviours that are likely tosignal regression. The Circles begin working with the offender before they are released andare headed by a Circle Coordinator who is connected to (and sometimes works for) other13

elevant agencies and professionals (e.g. probations, the police and clinicians) and can callupon their support and advice as required.In the Vermont model (Fox, 2010:348) volunteers commit to at least one year. They meetas a group (COSA team) with the core member (offender) once a week—sometimes forcoffee or lunch, sometimes to do things like bicycle together, or to assist the offender withmoney management, teach bus routes, get a library card, grocery shop, and other basicliving skills. They become friends and are a main source of the offender’s social encounters.These practices serve to normalize the offender within the community and testify toordinary citizens’ investment in offenders’ humanity.The COSA model is developing in New Zealand, and is the subject of Corrections research.(Garret: 2011) This presents an opportunity to engage with the department about adaptingthe model to include offenders other than sex offenders, in a similar process, at the sametime integrating restorative practise into the mix.Kaupapa MāoriApproaches to Prisoner ReintegrationThe Department of Corrections has designed, developed and implemented a wide range ofprogrammes and services from a Māori world view. These programmes and servicesreconnect Māori offenders to Māori culture as a lever to promote and motivate positivechanges. There are varying degrees of Māori cultural content in most rehabilitationprogrammes and services offered by the Department.The impact of these approaches varies. Evidence emerging from effectiveness evaluationsshows that the Te Ao Māori approach strengthens the cultural identity of Māori offenders,improves their attitudes and behaviours and motivates them to participate in rehabilitation.Evidence from these evaluations have also highlighted areas requiring further attention. Forexample, low referral rates and unclear links into sentence plans. 3 (Department ofCorrections, 2009b:41)314

In a recent paper, Workman examined the issue of Māori Prisoner Reintegration, and thepotential impact of the government’s Whānau Ora Strategy, on the reintegration of Māoriprisoners. (Workman: 2011a) He made the point that the rehabilitation and reintegrationmodel favoured by Corrections is needs based, and functions on the basis that offenders aredifferent from the rest of society.The standard response to offenders is to focus on their problems. Logically therefore, ifoffenders have a particular set of identifiable disorders and challenges, remedying thoseproblems should reduce criminality. This assumes that these problems are directly andcausally related to the offender’s criminal behaviour – in the past and in the future. Whileresearch has demonstrated that certain pre-existing problems, such as drug addiction, areassociated with criminal behaviour, curing the addiction will not necessarily result in a crime– free lifestyle. The way into criminality isn’t necessarily the way out in reverse.The Māori perception is that the department is increasingly concerned with managing risk,and case management has become a primary tool not for effective rehabilitation but for riskmanagement.For generations, Māori have been treated as subjects of dependency, and successivegovernments have implemented programmes and policies which are paternalistic, and denyMāori the opportunity to take control of their lives. One of the reasons for currentresistance to the Department of Corrections, and the poor Māori recidivism rate, is that itexists in a culture which wants to do things to people, whether or not they are willingsubjects. Stemming from the compliance culture which permeates the organisation,offenders are, through the sentence management process, subjected to well meaningdecisions about what they need to do in their lives to ‘put things right’. It is often deeplyresented by Maori. (see Farrall, 2002).The reduction of offending by Māori is unlikely to occur through modifications to theOffender Management System. The locus for the reduction of offending by Māori is withinwhānau and the community. Whānau continues to be a key cultural institution for Māoriand is therefore a key (and potentially highly effective) site of intervention and/or15

development. The recent emphasis on whānau in social policy acknowledges that changes inthe wellbeing of individual Māori can be brought about by focusing on the collective ofwhānau; something Māori have always known. Government policies over many years, haveintroduced policies which have undermined and destroyed whānau as a social construct. Itis only in recent times, that whānau has been recognised as a positive social construct whichshould be nurtured and supported, rather than as an impediment to economic and socialprogress.The promotion of strengths based programmes with a focus on social identity change,whānau-supported reintegration, and a values based model of transformation is theapproach preferred by Maori. The Whānau Ora strategy has the potential to influence thecurrent approach to Māori prisoner reintegrationWhānau Ora and the PrisonThe communities in which these offending whānaulive, are the appropriate locus for change– and it is in those communities that an ideology which regards victims and offenders asdemographically and morally distinct, absolutely fails. The NZ Crime and Safety Survey tellsus that 50% of all victimizations are experienced by only 6% of New Zealanders and that thesocial and demographic indicators that identify those who are most likely to be victimizedare identical to the markers for those likely to be offenders. The life stories and culturalcontexts that weave victims and offenders together (often within the same person) makeany attempt to separate the two an exercise in simplification.For the above reasons, focusing on the individual needs of Māori prisoners in thereintegration process, is likely to fail, as evidenced by the higher recidivism rates for Māoriprisoners.For the reason, a prisoner reintegration strategy for Māori should focus on reintegrativeservices which:(a) Are based on kaupapa Māori values16

(b) Fully engage whānau, the wider Māori community, Māori service providers andstaff;(c) Are strength based;(d) Engage prisoners with their whānau and community;(e) Align with the government’s whānau ora strategy;(f) Engage with government outcomes within the wider justice sector and beyond;(g) Promote the practice of restorative justice;(h) Are guided by the principles of restorative reintegrationConclusionRestorative practice and strengths based principles create the space for a kind ofcommunity learning process. Crime and barriers to offender reintegration can from thisperspective be viewed not only as tragic features of modern life but also as an opportunityfor transformative change.(Clear & Karp, 1999) Although there would appear to be clearlimits on the capacity of restorative and community justice programmes to make asignificant dent in crime rates, citizen involvement in conflict resolution and problemsolvingmay have direct impact on community efficacy. Such enhancements in efficacymay in turn mobilize support for a vision and practice of community engagement in thejustice process that could have important implications for crime prevention and control.To do so, restorative processes must be focused on achieving tangible collective outcomesand must connect with, revitalize and strengthen community-based processes of informalsocial control and support.17

ReferencesBazemore, G. (1999) ‘After Shaming, Whither Reintegration: Restorative Justice andRelational Rehabilitation’, in G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave (eds) Restorative JuvenileJustice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime, pp.155–94. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.Bazemore, G., & Stinchcomb, J. (2004). A civic engagement model of reentry: Involvingcommunity through service and restorative justice. Federal Probation, 68, 1-14.Braithwaite G J. (1994) 'Thinking harder about democratizing social control', in C. Alder andJoy Wundersitz (eds) Family Group Conferencing in Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward ofMisplaced Optimism?. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.Burnett R. & Shadd Maruna, (2006) The kindness of prisoners: Strengths-basedresettlement in theory and in action Criminology & Criminal Justice, Vol: 6(1): 83–106Clear, T. R., & Karp, D. (1999). The community justice ideal. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Coyle, A. (2001) ‘Restorative Justice in the Prison Setting’, paper presented at theConference of the International Prison Chaplains Associations, London, ICPS, May.Crewe. Ben (2011) ‘Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment’Punishment & Society 2011 13: 509De Joux, Virginia de, (1999) Post-Order Support: Offenders Needs and Models of Response– A research report prepared for Sue Williams, Team Leader, Post-Order Support,Integrated Offender Management, Department of Corrections, Wellington.Department of Corrections (2004)“Presentation at the community forum on offenderreintegration”, 13 May 2004Department of Corrections (2008). A Backgrounder to the Department of Corrections,Rehabilitation Consultation Workshop, 12-13 June 2008, Rehabilitation Group, Departmentof Corrections May 2008.Department of Corrections, New Zealand (2009a) Cost effectively aligning roles andresponsibilities throughout the release process. Development Team, RehabilitationGroup Department of Corrections.Department of Corrections (2009b) What Works Now? A review and update of researchevidence relevant to offender rehabilitation practices within the Department ofCorrections, Strategy, Policy and Planning, December 2009Department of Corrections, New Zealand (2009c) Reducing Reoffending – Rehabilitationand Reintegration: Operating Principles and Approach; The Way Forward: PerformanceImprovement Programme. December 200918

Department of Corrections, New Zealand (2012a) Facts Sheet – Reducing Offending by 25%- Partnering with Iwi and Community GroupsDepartment of Corrections, New Zealand (2012b) Fact s Sheet – Reducing Offending by 25%- Interventions delivered by Probation StaffFarrall S. (2002). Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context andDesistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Farrall, S. (2004) “Social Capital and Offender Reintegration: Making Probation DesistanceFocused”, in Maruna, S. and Immarigeon, R. (eds) After Crime and Punishment: Pathwaysto Offender Reintegration (pp. 57-82). Willan Publishing, Cullompton, Devon.Farrant, F. and J. Levenson (2002) Barred Citizens: Volunteering and Active Citizenship byPrisoners. London: Prison Reform Trust.Fox, Kathryn J. (2010) Second Chances: A Comparison of Civic Engagement in OffenderReentry Programs, Criminal Justice Review 2010 35: 335Fox, Kathryn J. (2012): Redeeming Communities: Restorative Offender Reentry in a Risk-Centric Society, Victims & Offenders, 7:1, 97-120Garrett, Helen (2011) Circles of Support and Accountability: A pilot review. Te WhareManaakitanga Special Treatment Unit, Rehabilitation and Reintegration Services,Department of Corrections, Rimutaka Prison, Wellington, New Zealand.Gecas, V. and M.L. Schwalbe (1983) ‘Beyond the Looking-Glass Self: Social Structure andEfficacy-Based Self-Esteem’, Social Psychology Quarterly 46:77–88.Gendreau, P, Little, T. and Goggin, V. (1996) A meta-analysis of the predictors of adultoffender recidivism: What works? Criminology, 34 575-607Hannem, S., & Petrunik, M. (2007). Circles of support and accountability: A communityjustice initiative for the reintegration of high risk sex offenders. Contemporary JusticeReview, 10, 153-171.Harman W.G. & Hann, R.G. (1986). Predicting General Release Risk for PenitentiaryInmates. User report, Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, no 1986-32Herron, B. J. (2004). Citizens circles: A road map to successful community involvementpromoting responsible citizenship. Columbus: Ohio Department of rehabilitation andCorrection. Retrieved April 21, 2009, fromhttp://www.restorativejustice.org/articlesdb/articles/7180/Johnstone, G. (2001) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Cullompton: Willan.19

Karp, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (Eds.). (2002). What is community justice? Case studies ofrestorative justice and community supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Maruna, S. and T.P. LeBel (2002) ‘Revisiting Ex-prisoner Re-entry: A Buzzword in Search of aNarrative’, in S. Rex and M. Tonry (eds) Reform and Punishment, pp. 158–80. Cullompton:Willan.Maruna, S., T.P. LeBel, N. Mitchell and M. Naples (2004) ‘Pygmalion in the ReintegrationProcess: Desistance from Crime through the Looking Glass’, Psychology, Crime and Law10(3): 271–81.Mayhew P., and Reilly J. (2007) The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006. Ministry ofJustice, Wellington, New Zealand. P.46.McCarthy, Phil (2006) Reintegrating Prisoners Back into Community on Release –presentation to Corrective Services Ministers’ Conference, 3 May 2006, Adelaide, SouthAustralia.McKnight, J. (1995) The Careless Society: Community and its Counterfeits. New York, NY:Basic BooksMcNeill, F. (2006) A Desistance Paradigm for Offender Management. Criminology andCriminal Justice, 6, 39-62.McNeill, F., Batchelor, S., Burnett, R., and Knox, J., (2005) 21st Century Social Work.Reducing Reoffending: Key Practise Skills. Glasgow: Socila Work Inspection Agency.5Newell, T. (2001) Restorative Practice in Preparing Prisoners for Resettlement, Integrationand Return to Their Communities.Polaschek, Devon L. L. ‘An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offenderrehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment’ Legal and CriminologicalPsychology (2012), 17, 1–17Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.New York: Simon and Schuster.Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning pointsthrough life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Shahidullah, S. M. (2008). Crime policy in America: Laws, institutions, and programs.Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime. New York: Oxford University Press.20

Waller, I. (1974) Men released from prison”. Centre of criminology. University of TorontoPress;Ward T. & Maruna S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the Risk Paradigm. New York:Routledge.Wilson, R., McWhinnie, A., Picheca, J. E., Pinzo, M., & Cortoni, F. (2007). Circles of supportand accountability: Engaging community volunteers in the management of high-risk sexualoffenders. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 1-15.Workman, Kim, (2008). The Future of Restorative Justice: Control, Co-option and Cooperation.A paper presented to the Restorative Justice Annual Conference, (RestorativeJustice “Enhancing Practise – Restoring Balance’. Hamilton, New Zealand. 11 September2008Workman, Kim (2011a) Māori Offenders, Whānau and Prisoner Reintegration.Wellington: Robson Hanan Trust.Workman, Kim, (2011b) ‘Prisoner Reintegration in New Zealand – The Past and a PossibleFuture’ A paper presented to the 5 th Restorative Justice Aotearoa Conference, and the 3 rdRestorative Practices International Annual Conference, 23-27 November 2011, Amora Hotel,Wellington, New ZealandYoung, J. (1971). The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use. London: Paladin.Zedner, Lucia (2002) “Dangers of Dystopia in Penal Theory,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies22, No. 2 (2002), 341-366 at 356.21