To determine whether efforts towards reintegration are succeeding, correctional authorities must decide how they will define the success of post-release interventions. The most commonly employed outcome measure for correctional interventions is recidivism, which can be defined in a variety of ways, including:
reoffending, regardless of whether this has been detected by police •
rearrest •
reconviction •
reimprisonment (as used in the section ‘Imprisonment and reimprisonment’) •
time to failure. •
Some argue that recidivism is not the best measure of how effective an intervention has been because it can do little to illustrate specific program failings or merits. Measures such as employment, reduced drug use, or decreased assessed risk may be more appropriate (e.g. see Boone & Fulton 1996). There are also higher-level conceptual issues that need to
be addressed when assessing the worth of reintegration policy initiatives or using research to inform reintegration policy development. Important issues for clarification include:
defining the nature of interventions to be considered; what specifically is meant by •
a re-entry or reintegration initiative?
deciding what needs to be understood when evaluating interventions; is the focus on •
uncovering specific psychological principles underpinning rehabilitation, or on the types of programs that generally reduce reoffending at an aggregate level?
ensuring any research is both scientifically credible and is accessible to practitioners •
(Petersilia 2004).
Throughcare
The continued increase of prison populations in Australia, New Zealand and internationally has led to increasing emphasis on throughcare. Although variously defined in the literature, throughcare can be seen as the process of delivering continuous care, or ‘the delivery of services in an integrated and seamless manner throughout a prisoner’s sentence and on release to the community’ (WA DCS n.d.).
Throughcare initiatives are necessary to ensure access by prisoners to appropriate support services to prevent cyclical offending (Burrows et al. 2000). Policies relating to throughcare seek to reduce reoffending by assisting prisoners to access rehabilitative and educative programs, assistance with transition to communities and post-release support. The broad scope of such processes make communication and cooperation between correctional and community agencies critical. Adjusting to life ‘outside’ is most effectively dealt with prior to release to ensure that ex-prisoners do not fall into gaps among agencies (Borzycki 2005). It should not be assumed that responsibility for released prisoners lies solely with corrections departments and is typically focused on those released under some form of community corrections supervision (Ogilvie 2001). It is necessary for a cooperative and integrated approach to address the post-release needs of prisoners. However, it is important that within this cooperative approach primary responsibility for coordination of throughcare and aftercare delivery should be clearly vested in an appropriate body.
An important part of the throughcare process is a risk and needs assessment. Proper risk and needs assessment ensures that prisoners’ needs can be effectively understood, and steps taken to address those needs through prison programming. It helps to ensure that continuity is maintained after release to reduce risk. In practice, throughcare will also involve sentence planning such as identifying appropriate programs to address the rehabilitative needs of prisoners.
The use of integrated offender management strategies has become increasingly popular, with correctional departments recognising not only the benefit in terms of risk assessment, but also the opportunities to improve efficiency, utilise resources more effectively and prevent data duplication (Queensland DCS 2006). New Zealand’s strategy for offender management includes the development of tools and scales to assess prisoners – such as a criminogenic needs inventory, employment and education, health, and reintegration needs assessment (NZ DOC 2004). Especially of note is the Maori Culture Related Needs tool, developed specifically to address Indigenous culture concerns for Maori prisoners. Although similar tools and management systems are being developed in Australia, they are not yet as developed and have not focused specifically on addressing Indigenous-specific needs (Borzycki 2005).
Throughcare policies ought to address prisoner needs from their first contact with prison, incorporating rehabilitative processes, and focusing on reintegration needs. The rhetoric of throughcare is that it extends into the community. However, this continuity is lacking in the coordination of post-release services (Howells et al. 2004; Jones et al. 2002). While a substantial number of community service providers offer assistance to released prisoners, levels of access and referral need to be improved.
Effective application of a throughcare approach means that interventions started in prison are continued after release. This enables in-prison gains to be practised and reinforced in the community. It is a critical component of better service delivery and recognises that reintegration is going to require close working among multiple agencies, not just custodial and community correctional services. Care extending into the community needs to be coordinated; for ex-prisoners returning to less populated areas, the opportunities to receive support with adequate resources appear to be limited. Given the importance of community in Indigenous culture, the involvement of the ex-prisoner’s community in pre-release planning should be encouraged, either through elders or family members.
A throughcare approach also recognises that interwoven, long-term problems often require long-term solutions. The likelihood that interventions will produce positive outcomes can be increased by initiating services and programs earlier in the custodial term. This is even more important with short-term prisoners or those on remand because the window of opportunity in which to establish a program of throughcare is severely reduced. Ideally then, assessment for and allocation to services and support will occur at reception into prison, although some suggest that services instigated at very first contact with the justice system may be even more appropriate. Throughcare is sometimes seen as involving a three-stage process: custody (the institutional phase), transition (placement in some sort of secure transitional facility or other preparation for release) and community release (Fretz 2005). This idea of staged transition or graduated release to the community explicitly acknowledges that some prisoners’ return to the mainstream community is highly challenging and requires preparation and practice.
Other key concepts linked to the implementation of throughcare include: