Every year at our annual conference, a group of people end up at the conference bar imagining how good it would be if there was a national network that links up everyone for the rest of the year. A small group of people have been working on this for the past 3 years, but to make it work, we need your support now.
We know that the present ‘corrections’ systems in Australia are not working; not with respect to prison preparing people for successful re-entry and integration within their communities, and not with respect to communities being sufficiently prepared to support people released from prison.
Earlier this year, we invited people with direct experience and knowledge of the criminal justice systems in Australia to tell us:
How could prison function differently to prepare people for successful release?’
What conditions are needed within communities to effectively support people post-release?’
our World cafe questions in Perth, Brisbane, geelong, melbourne, sydney and by survey
Our project, though small scale, has identified a large number of elements that may well assist in repurposing prison or resourcing and readying communities for the return of people from prison to their communities.
Repurposing prison will involve reconceptualising prison, major culture change, altering staffing profile, increasing development and treatment programs, and practice changes to create a primary focus on preparation for post-release crime-free, productive and meaningful lives for those people released.
Resourcing and readying communities will likely involve directing resources to local communities, particularly those with a history of contributing substantially to the prison population, as well as creation of local integrated systems of support, formalising responsibility for local reintegration ‘infrastructure’ possibly through local councils, all within a broader program of support for communities identified as highly disadvantaged.
#1 Linkages between prisons and community: This was the most prominent theme identified related to how prison could function differently to better prepare people for release. The emphasis on the need to create/build the connection between ‘in’ and ‘out’ is consistent with the idea of a repurposing of ‘prison’.
#2 Reforming prison culture: Specific issues raised within this theme included: modelling prison culture to reflect the general community and encourage life skills ; providing specialist training for prison officers/guards in case management/social work; differentiating between low risk vs high offender needs and associated treatment and services and replacing the punitive approach and attitudes of prison staff with respect and inclusion principles
#3 Employing a trauma-based approach to therapeutic care: Our participants emphasised the need to treat pre-existing and prison-caused trauma as an important element of preparing people for successful release. Specific issues included: providing alcohol/other drug treatment and support and mental health treatment and support while imprisoned; using former prisoners as peer mentors in support roles; supporting psychological readiness for release and integration into the community; providing a greater number of mental health professionals and case managers to support a therapeutic approach; as well as training staff in trauma awareness and recognising pre-existing trauma and prison-trauma.
#1 De-stigmatisation and inclusion: This was the most prominent theme relating to resourcing and readying the community for release and reintegration of people from prison. Specific issues identified included: reducing sensationalist media (advocate against fear mongering and generating ‘good news’ stories); educating government and community (about the contexts of offending, challenges associated with desistance and reintegration, and the benefits of reintegration); reforming criminal record disclosure laws and providing incentives to employers hiring people who had been in prison.
#2 Throughcare training and services This was the second most prominent theme, demonstrating recognition that a large majority of people leaving prison have complex and multiple support needs and do need continuity of care for some time post-release. Specific issues raised included: provision of basic life and social skills development; family therapy and support; employment support; availability of training and education; appropriate housing (short-term, transitional, affordable, longer term); individualised and experienced case management; alcohol and other drug treatment and support; mental health treatment and support; service coordination and collaboration; and acknowledgement of the complexities associated with Indigenous status.
# 3 Whole of support system changes: Recognition of the need for system change suggests that participants understand that individuals alone, governments alone, communities alone cannot be expected to resolve what is a socially and financially costly problem. Specific issues included: the need to address the broad conditions of disadvantage within specific communities; funding local councils and making them responsible for reintegration; formalising ‘exit care’ as a standard part of a release package; introducing less onerous reporting in parole conditions; creating ‘identity pathways’ to facilitate necessary identity change from offender to citizen; breaking down support system ‘silos’ and establish local hubs; increasing terms and amounts of funding of community services; and introducing and supporting a reconciliation agenda that enlists culture leaders and elders into the process.
Next year, the conference theme ‘Changing Seasons, Changing Lives’ will focus on regeneration, the process of renewal, restoration, and growth. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples of Western Australia recognise that the distinct seasons have distinct purposes.
How can we draw on these lessons in our work with people leaving prison?
Our network advisors meet regularly to provide our the network with specialist and strategic advice on issues relating to justice involved young people in Victoria, including advice on priorities, goals, direction and possible activities of the network. This includes supporting the identification and sharing of emerging trends and issues in youth justice. This group also […]
Our newly appointed network representative for Western Australia is Ian Neil.
Ian is the Manager of Pivot Support Services which has been providing transitional services to people in prison at Albany Regional Prison and Pardelup Prison Farm since 2004. Pivot is a representative of the WA alliance of reintegration providers which consists of the eight providers across the state.
Ian is looking forward to working with everyone to develop our national voice.
Are you interested in taking on a volunteer role for your state or territory as the After Prison network local representative? We’re looking for people to volunteer as representatives for NSW, SA, WA, Queensland and the NT.
Professor Lorana Bartels is representing the ACT while Grant Herring from JusTas has accepted the role of representing Tasmania.
Here’s what the role involves:
Represent your state or territory in quarterly national network teleconferences and update State/territory network with outcomes of the meetings.
Act or delegate a person to act as the state/territory contact person on the network website here.
Retain a list of current email contacts of local members.
Is this something that you might have interest/capacity in taking on or know of someone who might consider sharing or taking on the role with you?
This idea of re-thinking criminal justice appears to be catching on and may yet revive some of the reformist zeal in the federation. Some state governments are showing promising signs that they will take steps to reverse recent trends. Next month the Queensland Productivity Commission will deliver its final report to the government from its 12-month inquiry into imprisonment and recidivism, following a draft report that suggested 18 improvements to the current system. In Victoria, the Corrections Minister has signalled a review of the Corrections Act to address increasing imprisonment and recidivism.
There is much more to be done, but the economic numbers alone suggest that the case for substantial reform is compelling across the federation.
Today’s post is an briefing from Jarrod Ball from CEDA on the current economic costs of imprisonment in Australia:
The costs of imprisonment can be thought of in terms of the direct cost to government budget and the indirect costs to the economy.
The annual costs of prisons in Australia reached over $4.6 billion in 2017-18, equating to $302 per prisoner per day.
While it has received scant attention in the analysis of state budgets, there has been a significant increase in the operating costs of prisons in recent years as rates of imprisonment increase.
In the five years to 2017-18, the operating costs of prisons increased in real terms at an annual rate of 6.7 per cent. This is greater than the rates of growth in expenditure on General Practitioners (3.7 per cent) and early childhood education (5.1 per cent) over the same period.i This rate of growth is also significantly greater than expenditure growth in other parts of the justice system including police and courts.ii
If current trends continue, significant new investment will be required. The Queensland Productivity Commission estimates that in Queensland alone, $5.2 to $6.5 billion in new investment will be required for prison capacity to meet demand in 2025.iii
The growing budgetary costs resulting from
increased imprisonment deserve greater scrutiny at a time when state and
territory budgets are being squeezed by increasing demand for services like
health, while tax bases come under pressure from subdued economic growth.
In this environment, it is increasingly
important that state and territory governments are achieving better outcomes
from their scarce resources. Despite increased rates of imprisonment and
associated expenditure, reincarceration rates are high – at least half of all
prisoners in 2017- 18 had been imprisoned as adults previously.iv
Therefore increased imprisonment and the resulting expenditure has not produced
better rehabilitation outcomes.
While the indirect costs of imprisonment are
less easily quantified, the lost potential for the economy is substantial.
In 2015, a survey by the Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare (AIHW) found that over a third of prisoners were in
employment in the 30 days before imprisonment, with another third either
seeking employment or studying.v Research undertaken in Victoria
found that average lost productivity for each prisoner there was over $16,000.vi
The impacts on the economy from imprisonment
extend further, with costs incurred through deteriorating physical and mental
health of prisoners, and reduced welfare for their families including
increasing resort to crisis and income support. The Queensland Productivity
Commission has recently estimated that indirect costs for each prisoner in
Queensland are at least $40,000 a year.vii