According to the United Nations Prison Support Recommendations Revised Policy (2009), the core aim of any credible prison system is the protection of society from criminals . This is normally done by designing programmes that target convicted inmates in correctional centres. This is one to make sure they return to society as reformed persons after serving their sentences. This is best achieved by putting programmes in place, in their sentence plan, which directly address the offending behaviours that brought them to imprisonment. If this is achieved, the ex-convicts will not return to society to add on existing criminals who have not been apprehended. People-centeredness and respect for human dignity in the operations of correctional centres have taken centre stage in correctional policies of the twentieth century (Makarawu, 2011).
3.6.1. Correctional Centre Rehabilitation as Public Policy
Prison rehabilitation policies are widely regarded as public policy. This is anchored in the nature and characteristics of public policy, as defined by different scholars. Anderson (2013), for example, defines public policy as whatever governments choose to do and what not to do. Further, it is perceived that public policy may be viewed as the government decision of what they want to do for their people. Public means people. Stakeholders in public policies are stakeholders that depend on the society to achieve their objectives. The society also depends on these stakeholders to achieve its objectives. Therefore, there is a mutual link. This generally and explicitly qualifies the rehabilitation policies to be viewed as public policy to address criminal behaviour.
74
According to Muzondo (2012), a policy is a course of action, a procedure, a route, a strategy or a guiding principle. This is a plan of action taken by a person, a group or an organisation within the context of the very persons’ or groups’ strengths to address a problem. This is a more organised way of achieving a given pre-set objective or goal. Public policy is defined as a proposed course of action of a person group or government within a given environment, providing obstacles and opportunities which the policy was proposed to utilise and overcome an effort to reach a goal or realise an objective or purpose (Anderson, 2013). The offender rehabilitation policies are government’s course of action to address the problem of re-offending in the society. They are also societal efforts to punish offending activities by citizens as well as protect the society from these criminal elements. There is a mutual link by various stakeholders to serve the interest of society and supporting each other to achieve a purpose. However, there are factors that influence the formulation of these policies. There are factors that affect their implementation, hence the need to evaluate the policy impact and effectiveness in achieving the intended goals (Anderson, 2013).
It is in the interest of the government and society to evaluate the effectiveness of offender rehabilitation policies against the intended objectives so that a way forward is established. The issues that concern public policy are generally the same issues that concern the successful implementation of offender rehabilitation policies in correctional centres. The general issues that concern the various stages of offender rehabilitation policies are, but not limited to, economic, political, professional, technological and the social environment in a country (Muzondo, 2012). These are to be considered in the evaluation of the successful implementation of the policy and the achievement of the set goals in this study.
Offender rehabilitation is a tool in which government and other stakeholders use to address issues and challenges pertaining to recidivism and the prison mission delivery in the country. Various economic and social problems are linked to the prison and communities through the way prisoners are treated during imprisonment. This also determines how the communities are faring in helping offenders to reform (Cullen et al., 2011).
In any society, the people, the government and the civil society work together to enact laws, formulate policies, and allocate various resources for correctional centres to deliver their mandates. Given this fact at all levels, representatives of the various stakeholders always work hand-in-glove to make sure the desired results are achieved. According to Fili (2013), individuals and groups often attempt to shape corrections and rehabilitation policy through
75
education, advocacy, or mobilisation of interest groups. Stakeholders in the criminal justice system have generally agreed and recognised that correctional centres rehabilitation policy, though supported by civil society, its process is always affected by competing interest groups to influence policy-makers in their favour. Correctional centres do not always get priority in developmental issues unless there are advocacy and lobbying from the rule of law and human rights activists (Fili, 2013).
A major aspect of rehabilitation policy is supporting legislation and laws. In a general sense, the law includes specific legislation and more broadly defined provisions of constitutional or international law. This influences how policy-makers, implementers and beneficiaries view the issues of offender rehabilitation. The way offenders are treated and the type of assistance they get is influenced by legislation research and funding the policies receive. Thus, it is in the best interest of the stakeholders in the criminal justice system to influence policy debate over proposed legislation and funding.
Advocacy can be used to influence correctional rehabilitation policy through education, lobbying, or political pressure by the civic organisations and Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs). Advocacy groups often attempt to educate the general public as well as public policy makers about the nature of problems, what legislation is needed to address problems, and the funding required providing services or conducting research (Kilpatric, 2009). Although advocacy is viewed as unseemly by some in the professional and research community, it is clear that public policy priorities are influenced by advocacy. Sound research data can be used to educate the public as well as policy makers, thereby improving the public policy process (Kilpatric, 2009).
3.6.2. The Process of Coming up with Offender Rehabilitation Policy
According to Kilpatrick (2009:90) “when new public policies are created, there are generally three key things involved in the process: the problem, the player, and the policy. The problem is the issue that needs to be addressed, the player is the individual or group that is influential in forming a plan to address the problem in question, and the policy is the finalised course of action decided upon by the government.” It is against this background that the offender rehabilitation policies are formulated and directed to benefit the society. Muzondo (2012) suggests that typically, the general public does not have much influence in the policy formulation process in the African context. However, there are various means to make the government aware of an issue through the various sectors of society, the different social groups,
76
and formal organisations and opinion leaders who may be used to push the issue in the media then brought forward during government meetings and the process for creating new policies begins.
The relationship between the government and its citizens, the systems of governance, and the socio-economic conditions influence the process and need for that particular policy. This confirms the reasons for the process of coming up with the policy, as explained by Muzondo (2012, p. 36) that “the rational model for the public policy-making process can, typically, be divided into three steps: agenda-setting, option-formulation, and implementation”. It should be noted that within the agenda-setting stage, the agencies and government officials meet to discuss the problem at hand. In the second stage, option-formulation and alternative solutions are considered, and final decisions are made regarding the best policy. Furthermore, the decided policy is implemented during the final stage; in most cases, once public policies are in place, they are extensively open to interpretation by non-governmental players, including those in the private sector (Anderson, 2013). Implied within this model is the fact that the needs of the society are a priority for the players involved in the policy-making process; also, it is believed that the government will follow through on all decisions made by the final policy. The level at which the policies are made varies within governments.
The government, though compelled by other forces, has to consider the interests of its citizens. The fact that in prison systems, the government, itself, is responsible for protecting the offending citizen makes the whole process complex. Varying interest of people who are key to societal development should be put into consideration. Offender rehabilitation, like any other public policy, is for the common good of the citizens; it is prone to what Anderson (2013, p. 32) termed “policy problems; the problems need an oversight mechanism in place to be quickly addressed but unfortunately, those who frame the issue to be addressed by policy often exert an enormous amount of influence over the entire process through their personalities, personal interests, political affiliations, and so on. The bias is extenuated by the players involved. The final outcome of the process, as well as its implementation, is, therefore, not as effective as that which could result from a purely rational process”.
3.6.3. Factors Affecting the Implementation of Rehabilitation Policies
There are several policy issues that affect implementation in many ways. Some may be positive, and some may be negative. According to Muzondo (2012), these include, among other things, economic issues and the people, their various groups and interests, the opinions of
77
various publics and research findings. Also to be considered are the various political landscapes and technological developments. The implementation of offender rehabilitation policies is a very complex and generally multifaceted process. It requires and involves the honest and sincere interplay and participation of many parties. The parties who are involved include and vary according to jurisdictions (Muzondo, 2012).
According to Hulley et al. (2012), the first requirement for effective policy implementation is that those who are to implement a decision must know what they are supposed to do. Policy decisions and implementation orders must be transmitted to the appropriate personnel before they can be followed. Naturally, these need to be accurate, and they must be accurately perceived. They must be clear and consistent. This assertion is supported by Liebling et al. (2011) who agree that policy inconsistency can lead to discretion. The policies must be communicated with integrity and right standing. The problem of resources may lead to inconsistency. Right quantities and qualities should be available for successful policy implementation. Adequate and well-informed staff is a vital factor for successful policy implementation (Fili, 2013).