Reintegration: Lessons from the past Terry Bartholomew and Lesley Hardcastle Forensic Psychology...
-
Upload
herbert-edwards -
Category
Documents
-
view
225 -
download
0
Transcript of Reintegration: Lessons from the past Terry Bartholomew and Lesley Hardcastle Forensic Psychology...
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)