Reintegration: Lessons from the past

Terry Bartholomew and Lesley HardcastleForensic Psychology Program

Deakin University

Outline- Why we got to RNR- Critiques of that model / approach- The reinvention of ‘reintegration’ - Repeating past mistakes?- Data about community readiness for

reintegrative ideas

Risk Need Responsivity – Why?

Pre 1975, Martinson, and RNR, rehab ‘didn’t work’, and that was because:

> Huge range of foci and treatment methods (e.g. family intervention, transactional analysis, modelling, narrative therapy, biomedical assistance, psychotherapy, token economies, social skills training)

> the absence of coherent theoretical bases> the lack of sound research that linked treatment foci (and ethos)

with offending behaviour > the variation in levels of professional training and skill> lack of an agreed definition of what rehabilitation actually means > lack of support for rehabilitative ideals in correctional settings> little attention to evaluation (and pragmatic outcome var’s), and > and insufficient attention being given to questions relating to

treatment timing, intensity, dosage, and eligibility

The shifting sentencing objectives

>So, post Martinson (but for numerous reasons), rehabilitation became a lower priority sentencing goal

>After a concerted effort on the part of authors (to re-establish rehab and psych’s role in that) – we saw the ‘what works’ line of enquiry leading to the Risk, Needs, Responsivity (RNR) model

>Now the dominant model of rehab in western correctional systems

The biggest critique of RNR: Efficacy

> RNR-based programs report reductions in reoffending that range from 10% to 50% (depending on source, offender type, definition of recidivism, length of follow up etc)

> In all Aust jurisdictions, people returning to prison exceed first time detainees

> It must therefore be noted that even the most successful RNR-based interventions (plus prison) leave a great deal of variance in reoffending unaccounted for

> Such results must be further qualified by the fact that some offenders desist without any ‘treatment’ at all, and this sub-group will be elevating these effect sizes

So, more recently…>‘Pre- tmt’ focus – ‘readiness’, better

measurement of risk >‘Within tmt’ focus – efforts to better

elucidate responsivity, to identify more meaningful offender sub-groups etc

>‘Post tmt’ focus – GLM, psycho-social, ecological, transition, reintegration, desistance

The re-emergence of reintegrative ideas

- The focus on post-tmt, post-prison- Theoretical ideas such as labelling theory

and reintegrative shaming are far from new

- Braithwaite’s ideas of a community that shamed but was prepared to (re)integrate

- Within the ‘desistance’ paradigm, ‘reduction of secondary deviance’, emphasis on the ecological, and social

REINTEGRATION

Housing EmploymentTraining / education /

skillsFamily / Social

The policies and programs> MANY correctional programs now exist that claim a

transitional / reintegrative focus (up to 30 in Vic alone)> These often address one or more of the reintegrative

domains and are run by a range of agencies / providers > But some programs that are labelled under this

umbrella clearly are products of rehabilitative discourse and/or are extensions of control (i.e. they extend the RNR-based risk mgt ethos)

> Initiatives that focus on continuity of care, risk management, extended supervision, rehab maintenance etc are unlikely to be ‘reintegrative’ in the true sense

BUT….a familiar situation? (Here is our earlier ‘pre-RNR’ slide again)

> Huge range of foci and methods> the absence of coherent theoretical bases> the lack of sound research that links intervention foci with

offending behaviour > large variation in levels of professional training and skill> lack of an agreed definition of what (reintegration) actually

means > lack of support for (reintegrative) ideals in correctional

settings (or in this case, community settings)> little attention to evaluation (genuine obstacles to eval

actually. An ethos that, by definition, engages a huge range of interacting social factors is going to be difficult to evaluate – and what is the outcome variable?)

> and insufficient attention being given to questions relating to timing, intensity, dosage, and eligibility

So…> We see a renewed focus on reintegrative/ psychosocial

policies and programs > But some are filtered through a rehabilitative lens (are they

true reintegration?)> We appear to be replicating that ‘well meaning, but rather

unfocused’, pre -1980 rehab stage> We need definition and evaluation if we are to ascertain

some ground rules for reint programs – but is the notion of reint, in its pure sense, an obstacle to that?

> Legal support: Reintegration is not a listed goal of sentencing, but the ideas can be found in the legal authority

> BUT, unlike any other sentencing goals, reintegration depends on community support – what do we know about that?

> Funny you should ask…

The studies we’re doing

Identify socially constructed continuums and eligibility cut-offs

Identify the predictors of these (and the rationales for same)

Theory build around these processes (qual data to help here)

Identify genuine reintegrative opportunities

Factors of interestRespondent factors:

Personal characteristics – age, gender, parent, education, income

Experience – victimisation, know an offender Knowledge (of criminal justice system)

Views about employment of offenders Proximity (working with) Policy (gov’t support for)

Views about housing of offenders Proximity (working with) Policy (gov’t support for)

Effects of offence, correctional history, characteristics of offender

Method

Questionnaire mailed to 15,000 randomly selected Victorian households

Voluntary, anonymous, reply paid return Sample size 2,629 (return rate almost

20%) Sample representative of Vic pop’n —

age, sex, income Significant interest in follow-up study

Goals of sentencing

Make community safer 69%Punish offenders 56%Deter other 52%Deter offender 43%Provide a measure of seriousness 40%Rehabilitate offenders 34%Help offenders lead productive lives

28%

Percentage chosen as priority 1 – NB they could rate goals equally

Goals of sentencingAverage ranking of importance

(out of 7)Make community safer 2.3Punish offenders 2.4Deter others 3.1Deter offender 3.2Provide a measure of seriousness 3.5Rehabilitate offenders 3.7Help offenders lead productive lives

4.3

The policy / proximity divide

-“Not in my backyard” (NIMBY, Martin & Myers, 2005)-The doctrine of “less eligibility” – those who have committed crimes should not have any more access to resources than the most disadvantaged (but law abiding) sectors of the community

- Community readiness model

People support reintegrative domains in this order:

1. Employment policy (most support – 5 out of 7)

2. Housing policy (4 out of 7)

3. Employment ‘proximity’ (work with) (3 out of 7)

4. Housing proximity (live near) (least support 2 / 7)

This order is static regardless of what additional other info they have about the offender, the offence or their history

Proximity v Policy

Abstract v concreteDoes additional information make a difference? OffenceCorrectional historyOffender personal characteristics?

Support for housing

Support for employment

Offences Across all domains, the offending groups

regarded as least eligible for reintegrative opportunities were all three listed ‘types’ of sex offenders

Sex offenders were seen as less ‘eligible’ than murderers and drug dealers

Most support for reintegrative approaches with fraud, embezzlement, corporate crime related off’s

The role of correctional history

In order of most to least support completed offence related rehabilitation completed education / training programs committed only a single crime community sentence served time in prison and community served a prison sentence only committed multiple crimes

Offender personal characteristics In order of most to least support remorseful motivated to desist parent aged 17 or under (versus all ‘adult’

ages) female minority cultural group aged 18-30 (by far the least

‘supported’ age group

Some quotes … Would not trust them ever

I would feel threatened and unsafe

White collar criminals do not pose a threat to me, nor does a person 'caught' with grass

We have a judicial system to deal with criminals. It’s not my business

We should have a penal system not a justice system

Perhaps they should live next to judges, MPs, people who defend them in court etc?

More quotes … Wouldn’t feel safe, don’t believe people really change at

their core

Serious offenders will offend again if not punished enough

Offenders who are multiple criminals are of more concern than a single offender. Kind of sentence is of little relevance.

Only if they can prove to me they have changed for the better

I think that the longer the prison sentence, the more dangerous the person

Everybody should be allowed one mistake

What next?To identify: eligibility cut-offs predictors of these (and the rationales) attitudinal obstacles that services face reintegrative opportunities

To further quantify ‘readiness’ and to identify the fertile ground

Use the qualitative data to build theory around these processes

Extension into NSW (in 2011)