Chapter 2:
Background and statistics
1) This chapter aims to provide an overview of Corrective Services in Tasmania, the offender population, including a statistical overview, and recent worldwide trends in offender management.
Corrective Services
2) People enter the corrections system as the result of processes within the justice system, whether due to sentencing after being found guilty of a crime, or by being remanded to prison awaiting the progress of a case through the courts. Corrective Services is a part of the Department of Justice, and provides community and custodial correctional services across Tasmania, through Community Corrections (CC) and the Tasmania Prison Service (TPS). Corrective Services also provides secretarial and administrative support to the Parole Board, an independent body responsible for determining applications and setting conditions for an offender’s release on parole. Generally speaking, Corrective Services fulfils the dual roles of upholding community safety and providing opportunities for offender rehabilitation.
3) Corrective Services operates within a wide range of legislation, guidelines and treaties. Of particular importance are the following:
a) Sentencing Act 1997;
b) Corrections Act 1997;
c) Family Violence Act 2004;
d) Prison Director’s Standing Orders and Standard Operating Procedures;
e) Standard Guidelines for Corrections in Australia 2004;
f) National Corrections Drug Strategy 2006-2009; and
g) Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Community Corrections
4) Community Corrections is responsible for supervising offenders serving a range of
community-based sentences such as community service, probation and parole orders. CC is also responsible for preparing reports for the courts and Parole Board.
5) Community supervision of offenders is a complex task that currently involves a mix of restrictions on freedom combined with opportunities for rehabilitation and making amends to the community. Research demonstrates that community supervision combined with treatment to address the issues underlying offending behaviour is the most effective method of reducing reoffending and thereby enhancing community safety.4
4 See Background Paper: Best Practice in Offender Rehabilitation at:
http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/correctiveservices/breaking_the_cycle/resource_documents
The Prison Service
6) Prison services are provided through facilities located at Risdon, Hobart, Hayes and Launceston. These facilities provide care and custody, at various levels of security, for prisoners, people on remand (detainees) and some people detained under the Criminal Justice (Mental Impairment) Act 1999. In Hobart and Launceston, prisons also hold arrested people in police custody including youth and under certain circumstances a youth may be
transferred from Ashley Youth Detention Centre to an adult correctional facility.
Sentencing principles
7) The principles underlying sentencing worldwide are punishment, incapacitation (physically preventing the offender from committing further crime), deterrence (of the offender and potential offenders), and rehabilitation. In Tasmania, the Sentencing Act 1997 specifically cites rehabilitation, deterrence and denunciation (to the broader public) as the principles underlying sentencing in Tasmania.
8) While the community rightly expects an offender to be held accountable for their crime, within the corrections system punishment is embodied in the loss of freedom imposed on an offender by the court. It is not appropriate for Correctional Services to impose any further punishment on the offender, that is, corrective services should avoid cruelty and deprivation.
It should be noted that research indicates that punishment alone does not change offending behaviour; imprisonment without any form of rehabilitation increases the risk that an individual will engage in further offending upon release.
9) In contrast, research indicates that the provision of rehabilitation programs can significantly reduce reoffending.5 The principles underlying proven rehabilitative strategies are explored later in this chapter. It is not in the interests of individual offenders or of the community to neglect any opportunity to pursue rehabilitation possibilities. An investment in programs and services for offenders that aim to reduce the risk of reoffending is an investment in
community safety.
Recent reforms
10) A number of reforms and initiatives have been undertaken within Corrective Services in Tasmania over the last ten years, including significant changes in the area of offender
management and a greater focus on the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, in line with world’s best practice. Significant achievements include the Prison Infrastructure Redevelopment Plan (Stages A-C), which involved the commissioning of new medium / maximum security and women’s facilities at Risdon, and the refurbishment of the old Risdon prison facility as a minimum security prison; this coincided with the introduction of an Integrated Offender Management (IOM) framework into the Tasmania Prison Service which focuses on reducing reoffending through case management and reintegration; and an increase in the provision of offender programs and quality assurance mechanisms within CC.
5 See Background Paper: Best Practice in Offender Rehabilitation at
http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/correctiveservices/breaking_the_cycle/resource_documents
Statistics on Tasmanian Corrective Services: a snapshot
6The Report on Government Services (RoGS) published annually by the Australian Productivity Commission is the primary source of nationally comparable information on the efficiency and effectiveness of corrective services, focussing particularly on prisons. Key Tasmanian statistics from recent releases of the Report on Government Services (RoGS) include the following:
In 2007-08:
• The cost per prisoner per day in Tasmania was just under $250, higher than the national average of $207.
• The cost per Community Corrections offender per day was $10.50, lower than the national average of $13.10.
• Tasmania’s real recurrent expenditure on corrective services was $112 per person (i.e.
per Tasmanian), slightly below the national average of $115 per person.
• Tasmania reported an increase in the rate of prisoner employment to 70.1% from 57.4% in 2006-07. Nevertheless, this is below the national rate for prisoner employment, which was 77.8%.
In recent years:
• No deaths due to unnatural causes have occurred in Tasmanian prisons since 2001-02 (RoGS, various years).
• Rates of assaults by prisoners on staff and other prisoners have decreased since the opening of the new prison complex and are among the lowest in Australia.
• Tasmania’s percentage of eligible prisoners participating in education has been either first or second in the country for the past six financial years (RoGS 2004-2009). The figure in RoGS 2010 will be lower due to temporary difficulties in providing traineeships. However, this is expected to be addressed for the following year.
Recidivism is very difficult to measure because of the many factors that influence re-offending and re-conviction. In Australia, around 25-30% of offenders completing a community-based sentence and 35-40% percent of sentenced prisoners released from prison will return to corrective services under a new conviction within two years. The Tasmanian recidivism figures have been decreasing for several years and are currently below the national average. However, it is unclear whether this difference is statistically significant due to the small numbers involved.
Note that, due to Tasmania’s small population, small variations in actual numbers can translate into large variations in statistics and therefore can be potentially misleading.
6 Source: Reports on Government Services 2003-2009. http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/
Offender numbers, demographics and demand Overall offender numbers
11) In the 2008-09 financial year, the average daily number of persons supervised by the corrections system was approximately 1800. As shown in Figure 1, approximately two- thirds (65 per cent) of the offender population were under Community Corrections orders and 29 per cent were in prison. A further 6 per cent were managed in the community under the Court Mandated Diversion of Drug Offenders Program (CMD), which is not formally part of Tasmanian Corrective Services, but plays a related role. Many of the people participating in the CMD program would otherwise be in prison, either under sentence or on remand.
Figure 2.1: Offender population 2008-097
Offender Population (2008-09)
Community Corrections:
1177 (65%) Court-
Mandated Diversion:
104 (6%) Tasmania
Prison Service:
522 (29%)
12) Community Corrections is responsible for offenders sentenced to probation, parole and community service orders. Figure 2 shows the average number of orders of different types supervised. It should be noted that some offenders have more than one type of order.
While the Prison Service is responsible for both sentenced offenders and remandees, Community Corrections deals solely with convicted offenders.
13) Persons under 18 years old are the responsibility of Youth Justice Services within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Under an agreement with DHHS and Tasmania Police, persons in Youth Justice or police custody may be held temporarily in the Hobart or Launceston Reception Prisons.
7 Report on Government Services 2009. http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/
Figure 2.2: Community corrections orders 2008-098
Community Corrections Orders (2008-09)
112
670
571
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Parole Probation Community Service
Average number of offenders supervised
Trends in offender numbers
14) In the last ten years the number of offenders dealt with by the Tasmanian Corrections system has increased significantly. Between 1997-98 and 2004-05 the average daily prisoner population increased by 94%, from 269 to 521. This placed significant stress on TPS
resources and led to the development of the Prison Infrastructure Redevelopment Plan (PIRP). The growth in average daily prisoner population has slowed in recent years, reaching 539 in 2007-08, and decreasing to 522 in 2008-09.
15) As shown in Figure 3, this situation is not unique to Tasmania, but reflects a national trend.
All Australian states and territories have seen a dramatic increase (50-100%) in
imprisonment rates in the last 25 years. Compared to other states, Tasmania’s increase started later and occurred over a shorter time period, making its impact more noticeable, particularly given the small size of the jurisdiction.
16) Currently the combined accommodation capacity of the TPS is 645. Prisoners are placed according to gender and security rating. Additional pressure on accommodation is sometimes felt due to the need to separate inmates for the protection of those at risk of victimisation (e.g. due to sexual orientation, age, disabilities, nature or notoriety of crime, or past interactions between inmates). There has also been an ongoing trend to a higher security rating profile for both male and female inmates.
17) Changes in Community Corrections offender numbers have been less dramatic. Between 1998-99 and 2002-03, the increase in prisoner numbers corresponded with a decrease in offenders on community-based orders. However, since 2002-03 offender numbers have trended upwards, and are currently at a 10-year high. Also, the numbers of reports
requested particularly from the courts has increased significantly, placing additional demands upon corrections’ resources. In contrast to the Prison Service, Community Corrections’
capacity to provide services is primarily limited not by physical resources but by staffing.
8 Report on Government Services 2009. Note that some Community Corrections offenders have multiple orders, so the total number of offenders (1177) is fewer than the total order types.
Figure 2.3: Imprisonment rates9
Imprisonment rates
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 Financial Year
Imprisonment rate per 100,000 adults
Australia Tasmania
Female offenders
18) While overall offender numbers have increased as reported above, the number of female offenders has increased at a still greater rate. The national imprisonment rate for women has increased by over 60% in the last 10 years. In Tasmania, the average number of women in prison in Tasmania increased 5-fold between 1997-98 and 2007-08, from 7 to 37. This equates to a 2.3-fold increase in the proportion of prisoners who are female, from 2.6% to 6.9% of the total prisoner population. There has also been an increase in the proportion of Community Corrections offenders who are female, from 16.7% in 1999-00 to 20.7% in 2007- 08.
Indigenous offenders
19) Indigenous people are over-represented in the Tasmanian corrections system, as they are in corrections systems nationwide. While 3.6% of the Tasmanian population identify as
Indigenous, Indigenous people currently comprise about 12-13% of the offender population (approximately 70 prisoners and 130 offenders). Indigenous Tasmanians are 3-4 times more likely to be involved in the corrections system than non-Indigenous Tasmanians. In contrast to the rest of Australia, Tasmania’s Indigenous imprisonment rate has been largely stable in recent years.
Region of origin of offenders
20) Tasmania has the most regional and dispersed population of any state in Australia, with almost 60 per cent of the population living outside the capital city. While the distances involved are not as great as in other states, issues of regional service provision are important in Tasmania. As shown in Figure 4, about 60% of offenders live in the Southern region of Tasmania, and about 20% each in the North and North-West regions.
9 Source: Reports on Government Services 1999-2009. http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/
Figure 2.4: Offender population by region10
Offender population by region (approximate)
North-West 20%
South 60%
North 20%
21) Community Corrections have offices in Burnie, Devonport, Launceston, Bridgewater, Rosny and central Hobart, provide additional service delivery in New Norfolk, Huonville,
Queenstown, Smithton and Ulverstone and travel to provide outreach services in the rest of the state. The TPS accommodates some remandees and a small number of sentenced prisoners in the Launceston Reception Prison, but all other prisoners serve their sentences at facilities located in the south of the state.
Factors affecting offender numbers and prediction of future demand
22) Prisoners and offenders become involved in the corrections system as the result of procedures within the justice system. Corrective services do not have control over the processes by which offenders are assigned to them, and must respond to demand as it occurs.
23) Because of the complexities involved in crime detection, conviction and sentencing, it is difficult to predict future demand in corrective services. Underlying demographic factors are much less influential than policy changes and social trends. Factors which may influence the demand for corrective services include:
a) underlying crime rates;
b) rate of detection of crimes;
c) arrest rates;
d) remand rates;
e) police action/charge rates;
f) court findings/conviction rates;
g) sentence type (fine, community-based order or prison sentence); and h) sentence length.
10 Source: Department of Justice data.
24) Changes to any of these factors may affect prisoner and offender numbers. For example, the great increase in prisoner numbers in the last 10 years appears to be associated with changes in remand and sentencing patterns, rather than changes in crime rates or the underlying population. As these issues are outside the control of corrective services, it is important that the corrections system is flexible enough to respond to changes resulting from future changes in policy and practice.
Offender background and needs
25) In general, the offender population tends to come from a highly disadvantaged background.
Generally speaking, the majority of adult offenders are young males who have exhibited antisocial behaviour from a very young age. They are likely to come from families of lower socio-economic status and to have been exposed to family violence, physical and/or sexual abuse, parental substance abuse and criminality during their formative years. Many exhibit hyperactive traits which undermine their emotional regulation, impulse control and problem- solving skills. They are likely to have learning disabilities and to have experienced early academic failure and difficulty securing and/or maintaining employment. They are also likely to have long-standing substance abuse and/or mental health problems.
26) Furthermore, numerous studies have demonstrated that female offenders, especially
incarcerated female offenders, have typically experienced higher rates of physical, sexual and psychological abuse than male offenders. They also display more mental health problems including personality disorders, psychosis, mood disorders, and deliberate self-harm.
27) By the time someone comes into contact with the adult justice system they are likely to have accrued a lifetime of disadvantage. For instance, prisoners are several times more likely to suffer psychosis and major depression, and are about ten times more likely to have antisocial personality disorder, and to have been abused and subject to state care than the general population. Nevertheless, it is important to bear in mind that antisocial values, beliefs and attitudes are far more predictive of antisocial and illegal behaviour than high levels of psychological distress and low socio-economic status, and they therefore need to be the immediate targets of intervention.
Recent trends in offender management
Theoretical underpinning for a rehabilitative approach
28) While imprisonment prevents an offender from committing crimes for the duration of their sentence, the vast majority of offenders are eventually released from custody; that is, the incapacitation embodied in their sentence is only temporary. Furthermore, research
indicates that imprisonment without any form of rehabilitation actually increases the risk that an individual will engage in further offending upon release.11
11 See Background Paper: Best Practice in Offender Rehabilitation at
http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/correctiveservices/breaking_the_cycle/resource_documents , and Andrews, D.A & Bonta, J. (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th ed.). LexisNexis.
29) In contrast, research indicates that the provision of rehabilitation programs can significantly r re-offending. The principles underlying proven rehabilitative strategies are explored further below.
educe
Models of offender rehabilitation
“Nothing works” and the politics of offender rehabilitation
30) Methods of offender rehabilitation have varied over the years according to the political climate of the time. In 1974, an article by Martinson concluded that “nothing worked” in efforts to rehabilitate offenders. As the result of this, the political pendulum swung away from psychological / psychiatric interventions in favour of longer sentences and “hard time”.
This conclusion provoked indignation from practitioners and led to a flurry of counter- research. Martinson’s data was later reanalysed and he recanted his claim. However, it was a long time before governments were once again willing to invest in offender rehabilitation.
“What works” and the Risk-Needs-Responsivity (RNR) model
31) Current best practice in offender rehabilitation is derived from the “what works” literature base. A synthesis of existing research was published by Andrews and Bonta in 1990, and led to the creation of the risk-need-responsivity model (RNR) of offender management, which is underpinned by the following principles12:
a) Intervention should be proportional to the risk of re-offending (i.e. high risk offenders require the most intensive intervention);
b) Interventions should address “criminogenic needs” (factors that contribute to offending behaviour); and
c) Interventions should match an offender’s responsivity (capacity and willingness to participate in and benefit from intervention).
32) A criminogenic risk factor is something that has been demonstrated to be associated with offending behaviour. To date social scientists have consistently identified eight primary criminogenic risk factors, referred to as the “central eight”. These include:
a) a history of offending;
b) antisocial personality pattern (e.g. impulsive, novelty-seeking, aggressive);
c) antisocial attitudes, values, beliefs, rationalisations and identity;
d) antisocial associates;
e) substance abuse;
f) unsatisfactory family and/or martial situation (dysfunctional or supportive of crime);
g) poor performance at and/or lack of education/employment; and
h) lack of involvement and satisfaction in recreational / leisure activities that are “pro- social” (i.e. positive towards others and in tune with social norms).
12 Andrews, D.A & Bonta, J. (2006). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (4th ed.). LexisNexis.;
Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006-07). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation.
Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/risk_need_200706-eng.aspx on 20 August 2009.
33) Analysis of these risk factors can help to identify the specific criminogenic needs of the individual offender. These can then be targeted in an intervention plan.
34) Responsivity refers to internal and external factors that influence an offender’s capacity to participate in and benefit from intervention. Internal factors include an offender’s cognitive abilities, learning style, strengths, personality, gender, culture and readiness to change.
35) The RNR model advocates the use of comprehensive and validated assessment instruments to guide assessment and intervention. Offenders’ risk, needs and responsivity issues can be assessed using interview tools such as the Level of Service-Case Management Inventory (LS-CMI) developed by Andrews and Bonta, which is currently used by the Tasmania Prison Service, Community Corrections and Court Mandated Diversion Program. This tool assists staff to develop individualised intervention plans to assist offenders to address their
criminogenic and non-criminogenic needs via the development of an individual sentence or management plan that directs service delivery throughout an offender’s engagement with correctional services.
Recent developments I: the Good Lives Model
36) Prior to the introduction of the RNR model, offender rehabilitation efforts focused on addressing offenders’ psychological and psychiatric needs at the expense of their
criminogenic needs, in the mistaken belief that this would improve their adaptive functioning and thereby reduce reoffending. The RNR model has reversed this emphasis.
37) However, in recent years the Good Lives Model (GLM) developed by Ward and colleagues has emphasised the need to address broader human needs in order to create behavioural change. It proposes that offenders will desist from crime if given the opportunities and experiences necessary to develop the skills and knowledge to meet their needs in socially acceptable ways. In addition to determining an offender’s risk/need/responsivity profile, the GLM advocates the need to determine the function offending fulfils in an offender’s life (i.e.
what needs an offender is attempting to meet via offending) and develop an individual management plan in collaboration with the offender that takes into account their goals and priorities as well as the skills, knowledge and resources they would need to meet their needs in socially acceptable ways.
Recent developments II: Therapeutic jurisprudence
38) Therapeutic jurisprudence is a theory that recognises the power of the judicial system to shape society, and advocates the use of the law, legal processes and legal actors to promote the wellbeing of individuals and communities. While it is more commonly discussed with reference to court processes it can be applied to the criminal justice system as a whole.
39) In the context of offender rehabilitation, therapeutic jurisprudence recognises the psychological impact of justice processes and suggests that their potential to bring about change in an offender’s life be deliberately harnessed. This is put into practice through initiatives such as problem-solving courts, which ultimately aim to address the underlying drivers of offending behaviour. These often involve repeated contact with a judicial officer such as a Magistrate to monitor an offender’s progress towards addressing their
criminogenic needs and apply sanctions if appropriate.
40) As an example of this approach, various jurisdictions in Australia have introduced Drug Courts. While these take varying forms, the common principle observed is that the offender is held accountable for their actions by a dedicated judicial officer providing ongoing
supervision through the course of their sentence.
Recent developments III: Restorative justice
41) The dominant justice system in Australia and most other countries is an adversarial system in which positions are argued and decisions made by legal professionals (lawyers, judges). The offender takes a largely passive role and the victim is often absent. Consequently, many people find the justice system distant and difficult to understand.
42) Restorative Justice (RJ) is an alternative approach that has emerged in recent decades and h been implemented to varying degrees in a number of countries, particularly Canada and New Zealand. Restorative justice “is a process that advocates that the people most effective at finding a solution to a problem are the people who are most directly impacted by the problem”
as
13. The Centre for Restorative Justice in South Australia notes:
Opportunities are created for those involved in a conflict to work together to
understand, clarify, resolve the incident and work together towards repairing the harm caused.
Restorative Justice is a different approach to the management of crime and justice and other wrongdoings that can occur in any situation, including schools, neighbourhoods, businesses, prisons, etc.
RJ has a primary focus on people, and the damage that is caused to relationships as a result of a wrongdoing. It further pays attention to healing the damage in a range of ways, not all of which are focused on punishment. A foundation principle is that of RJ balancing the needs of the community, victims and offenders after an offence has occurred. 14
43) Elements of restorative justice include victim-offender mediation, community justice forums, and sentencing circles. Restorative justice places emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of both the offender and the community, with both playing a role in repairing the harm done by the commission of a crime.
Contemporary prison inmate management
44) Contemporary inmate management is based on the recognition that imprisonment alone is ineffective in changing behaviour and can have a negative effect on inmates leading to greater recidivism and ultimately increased social, emotional and economic costs to the community.
Three concepts central to contemporary inmate management regimes are:
a) the structured day;
b) unit management ; and c) case management.
13 http://www.restorativejustice.com.au/about_what_is.php
14 http://www.restorativejustice.com.au/about_what_is.php
45) Collectively, these three concepts form an integrated and structured approach to inmate management and potential rehabilitation.
46) The aim of the structured day is to maximise inmates’ involvement in purposeful activity and assist them to develop a pro-social lifestyle that can be transferred into the community upon release. Inmates are given access to a range of constructive activities including employment, education, behaviour change programs, recreational and reintegration activities at specified times throughout the day. They receive remuneration for work undertaken in prison industries and maintenance activities as well as for participation in self-development programs.
47) Unit management reflects a decentralised approach to prison management and it plays an integral role in “dynamic” security (i.e. the continuous monitoring of prison security via staff / offender interaction in order to create a safer prison environment). It is centred on a small, self-contained inmate living and staff office area that operates semi-autonomously within the confines of a larger correctional facility. Correctional staff are assigned to specific units for extended periods of time and allocated a case load of inmates to manage during that time. It is their role to oversee all matters relating to that group of inmates, including discipline, rehabilitation, and security. Unit management allows correctional staff to develop an intimate knowledge of individual inmates and is the vehicle through which case management operates. However, it is primarily a means of managing inmates, not a form of rehabilitation.
48) Case management, which is common to community and custodial corrections settings, provides the mechanism through which behavioural change is planned and achieved. It is underpinned by thorough screening, classification, orientation, assessment, sentence planning, intensive intervention (therapeutic and other), and post-sentence preparation and managed after-care.
Case management
49) Whether in a prison setting or in the community, case managers play a pivotal role in offender rehabilitation. Not only are case managers responsible for co-ordinating the implementation of an offender’s sentence or individual management plan, they are uniquely placed to influence an offender’s motivation to engage in rehabilitative programs and services and assist them to internalise knowledge and skills acquired through their participation.
50) Two methods through which case mangers can exert a positive influence on offender attitudes and behaviour are motivational interviewing and pro-social modelling. Motivational interviewing is a set of techniques aimed at exploring and resolving offenders’ ambivalence about change. It involves ensuring that offenders: (1) understand their criminogenic risks and needs, and what this means in terms of their likelihood of re-offending , (2) weigh up the pros and cons of change, and (3) evaluate their rehabilitation options. Pro-social modelling involves demonstrating socially acceptable behaviour through one’s own example.
51) Thus, staff who deal with offenders can further enhance treatment effectiveness by using respectful communication strategies, reinforcing appropriate and pro-social behaviours displayed by offenders, assisting them to develop problem-solving skills and overcome
barriers to positive desired outcomes, and secure the resources such as job training that will help with their reintegration into the community.
Programs & services for offenders
52) Programs and services for offenders may include therapeutic programs, education,
employment, and recreational activities, and so forth. Some of these may be offence-specific (i.e. targeted at criminogenic needs and encouraging behavioural change relevant to the individual’s offence history); others are targeted at needs which are not specifically criminogenic.
53) A re-evaluation of 291 program evaluations undertaken in a variety of English speaking countries in the past 40 years was conducted by the Washington State Institute for Social Policy in 2006. They found that not all programs and services aimed at reducing reoffending are effective. Community based “treatment” programs produced the greatest reductions in reoffending. Programs without a treatment component such as victim-offender mediation, boot camp, intensive supervision and electronic monitoring had no effect on reoffending.
Programs that address the irrational thoughts and beliefs that contributed to offending behaviour are effective, as are offence-specific programs for substance abusers and sex offenders. Employment, education and training programs also prove effective in reducing re- offending.
Treatment Programs
54) Research has consistently demonstrated that structured behavioural or cognitive-behavioural treatment programs designed to address offending behaviour are the most effective. Such treatment programs aim to reduce maladaptive behaviours, eliminate distorted beliefs, remove problematic desires and modify offence-related thoughts and feelings.
55) Research has also indicated that group as opposed to individual therapy is more effective in reducing reoffending. In addition, community-based programs have greater benefits than prison-based programs, primarily because participants are able to apply their newly acquired skills and knowledge to the day-to-day activities and dilemmas they face in the community.
56) Effective treatment programs are active, engaging and participatory. They provide offenders with rewards for appropriate behaviour, develop support groups to assist offenders to
maintain treatment gains and implement relapse prevention plans, and are intensive in nature.
They are delivered by appropriately qualified, trained and supervised staff who can develop a therapeutic alliance with offenders, while maintaining a “firm but fair” interaction style. In addition to delivering program content, program staff impact offender behaviour by
modelling pro-social behaviour.
57) An often overlooked principle of best practice in offender rehabilitation is program integrity. It is essential that processes are built into the system as a whole to ensure that rehabilitative programs and services are being delivered as planned and designed and are achieving their intended purpose. This requires ongoing supervision of program delivery staff and the collection and monitoring of outcome data
Other activities: education, employment and recreation
58) Educational activities such as literacy & numeracy education, vocational education and training and life skills courses can maintain or enhance knowledge and skills that will
contribute to offenders’ employability and reintegration, thus targeting criminogenic needs.
59) In the prison environment, principles of best practice in education include:
a) individual assessment of educational needs and the development of educational plans to address criminogenic need;
b) educational methods built on principles of adult learning;
c) the use of registered teachers, peer tutors, accredited competency-based curricula;
d) flexible delivery methods;
e) adapted to individual learning styles/preferences;
f) collaboration between community and prison based educational providers; and g) enabling offenders to obtain nationally recognised qualifications that they can use or
complete upon release.
60) Employment is a strong protective factor against further offending. Working while in prison can also incorporate vocational education and training, giving inmates the opportunity to gain recognised qualifications which can lead to employment on release.
61) For incarcerated offenders, education, employment and recreational activities contribute to dynamic security by occupying inmates’ time in a productive way.
Reintegration of ex-prisoners
62) Returning to the community after a prison sentence is a particularly difficult process. Many inmates have lost accommodation, jobs, contact with friends and family, custody of children, pets, and so forth. For inmates who have been on lengthy sentences, the changes from the environment they knew before their incarceration may be bewildering and difficult to navigate. Through-care (continuity of support as offenders exit corrective services or transition between parts of the corrections system) is of critical importance in easing this transition and reducing the risk of re-offending.
63) Accommodation is a pressing need, as is income, whether through employment or income support. Finding accommodation and employment can be further affected by having a criminal history. It is not surprising that the months immediately after release are a very high-risk time for reoffending. For offenders on parole, or transitioning from prison to a Probation Order, their Probation Officer can provide supervision and support during this time. However, not all prisoners are eligible for, apply for or are granted parole.
64) Efforts in offender rehabilitation often focus on offending behaviour with little attention given to an offender’s social or personal circumstances. It is possible to further reduce the risk of reoffending by providing more holistic intervention strategies and reintegration services post-release. This may require not only systemic change but practical assistance for offenders as they navigate their way through and out of the system. Effective offender rehabilitation and reintegration calls for social inclusion strategies based on joined up service delivery systems across a number of government departments.
Providing services to offenders in Tasmania: challenges and opportunities
65) Sentencing an offender to imprisonment or a community-based order provides an
opportunity for intervention in their lives. Prison can be seen as an opportunity to provide focused services to a high-needs population. Community-based orders also give the
opportunity for intervention. In keeping with recommended practice, TPS and Community Corrections’ interventions deliberately prioritise criminogenic factors, that is those factors associated with offending, identified by risk / needs assessments.
66) Various factors affect the ability of corrective services to provide services to offenders.
Many services require a certain length of time, so the length of an offender’s sentence is crucial for determining their eligibility. For group programs, efficient delivery requires a number of eligible and suitable offenders to be brought together, so offender location is important. A wider range of services are available at the Risdon site than at the Reception Prisons or Hayes. Similarly, the delivery of programs in the community is affected by offender numbers in the various regions and by issues such as access to services and transport.
67) As discussed above, remandees are a significant proportion (typically 20-25%) of the prison population. Many are only held for a few days, but there are others who are on remand for several months. Providing services for remandees is complicated by their legal status and the unknown length of their stay.
Recent Initiatives in Tasmanian corrective services
68) Over the last ten years, numerous reforms and initiatives have been undertaken within Tasmanian Corrective Services. Significant changes in the area of offender management include:
a) The Prison Infrastructure Redevelopment Plan (Stages A-C), which involved
commissioning of new medium / maximum security and women’s facilities at Risdon, and the refurbishment of the old Risdon prison facility as a minimum security prison;
b) Introduction of the Integrated Offender Management (IOM) model to the Tasmania Prison Service, focusing on reducing reoffending through case management and reintegration;
c) Implementation of a revised prisoner placement process; a new 'personal contract' system; new suicide and self-harm (SASH) protocols; a revised disciplinary process; and a new system of therapeutic (psychological) services;
d) Introduction of new technologies to support prisoner rehabilitation and education (e.g.
Risdon LINC);
e) Negotiation of MOUs and Service Level Agreements with a wide range of government and non-government partners and service providers;
f) Implementation of new risk assessment and quality assurance processes in Community Corrections;
g) the introduction of programs in Community Corrections; and
h) a comprehensive review of the structure and operations of Community Corrections, currently in implementation.
Case management of offenders in Tasmania
69) Community Corrections uses a case management approach. In recent years, this approach has also been implemented in the TPS, with individual Correctional Officers being assigned a caseload of inmates to manage. This represents a significant change to the correctional officer role compared to the traditional “cuffs and keys” approach.
Programs and services for offenders in Tasmania
70) A variety of group programs are provided by the Integrated Offender Management unit of the TPS, including programs designed to help offenders address violent behaviour and drug and alcohol problems, and sexual offending. Community Corrections also offers programs targeting offending behaviour. These include the Sober Driver, Family Violence Offender Intervention, and Offending Is Not The Only Choice programs.
71) Other services for offenders are provided by other government and non-government service providers. For example, within the prison education and vocational training is provided by both in-house and external providers (e.g. Tasmania Polytechnic and various Registered Training Organisations).
72) It is important to acknowledge the significant support the TPS has had from the Education Department in recent years. Especially noteworthy is the partnership between the TPS and Education Department which established “Risdon LINC”. Risdon LINC is an educational capability with the TPS which supports inmates to undertake education activities, and
provides sophisticated computer resources to assist. The State Library has established a full branch of the Library at Risdon, which enables inmates to access the full range of the Library catalogue, limited only by the appropriateness of some materials in the prison environment.
73) A wide variety of programs for offenders, both in prison and in the community, are provided by non-government organisations (NGOs) such as Anglicare, the Salvation Army, the Sexual Assault Support Service, etc. The contribution of NGOs to offender services is crucial.
74) While prison inmates constitute a literally “captive audience”, it is not currently practice to force inmates to participate in programs. If an inmate is unwilling to participate in a program for which they would otherwise be suitable, IOM staff may focus on the offender’s
motivation in an effort to change their mind. Forcing unwilling inmates to participate in programs can disrupt group work and is seen as an ineffective use of resources.
75) In the case of Community Corrections, Probation Officers are legally empowered to issue legally binding instructions to community-based offenders to attend services such as drug and alcohol programs, education, counselling and so on.
Priority outcome areas
76) As noted in Chapter 1, consultation with stakeholders identified six priority outcome areas for consideration in the development of a strategic plan for corrective services in Tasmania.
The six outcome areas are:
a) Sentencing options
Stakeholders indicated a strong desire to see an expansion of sentencing options in the state with particular emphasis on therapeutic jurisprudence, alternatives to
imprisonment such as home detention, and diversion programs.
b) Community engagement
Stakeholders identified a need for greater community involvement in the corrections system. The introduction of restorative justice approaches such as community justice panels and victim-offender mediation was seen as a mechanism to achieve this.
c) Offender rehabilitation and reintegration and community safety
Stakeholders indicated a strong desire to see an investment in programs and services for offenders that aimed to reduce their risk of reoffending and enhanced their capacity for community reintegration, as this was seen to be in the best interest of offenders and the community.
d) Integrated and accessible service delivery
Stakeholders indicated that significant improvements in the management and treatment of offenders could be achieved by a more integrated and accessible service delivery system that viewed the sector as a whole rather than separate government and non- government agencies.
e) Workforce development and support
Stakeholders indicated that significant improvements could be achieved in the operation of Corrective Services and outcomes for offenders and the community by investing in workforce development and support across the sector.
f) Integrity and governance
Stakeholders highlighted the need for good governance in order to provide accountability and transparency. They also suggested the development of change management, data collection and research and evaluation to support effective policy development and implementation.
77) The following six chapters discuss each of these outcomes in detail.
