Measuring community views about the reintegration of

offenders: Victorian data

Lesley Hardcastle, Terry Bartholomew, Joe Graffam

The Centre for Offender Reintegration @ Deakin

Outline Background Rehabilitation v reintegration Our study Some trends and implications

Background 30 June 2005–30 June 2009: 17.8% increase in

incarceration rates (males 18.4%, females 9.7%)

27.7% of male prisoners have sentences of < 12 months (42.5% of females)

46.6% sentences of 1 yr – <5 yrs (females 40.5%)

50% all prisoners prior adult imprisonment

33.9% released 2006–7 had returned within 2 yrs (42.5% in 1999-2000)

14.1% discharged from CC orders in 2006–7 had returned within 2 yrs

(ABS 2009)

Net expenditure (Vic 2008-9)

Prisoner$242.65 per day (>$88,500 per

annum)

Community Corrections$18.65 per day

Correlates of recidivsm Reoffending peaks in mid – late adolescence (17-

21 yrs) Gender (mixed results) but females are at less

risk The younger they start, the more likely to be

recidivist Robbery and property crimes markers of

increased risk Lifestyle, drug use, unemployment, low

education, poor accommodation, mental health, family instability

Post release difficulties (including lack of social support and health services)

“They all come back” (Travis, 1995)

“Most of them come backto community and then go back to

prison”

Sentencing objectives

Punishment and incapacitation Deterrence and rehabilitation Reintegration?

Rehabilitation and Reintegration

Psychological Psychosocial

Rehabilitation

Offender focused, offender deficit, criminogenic needs

‘What works’ debate

‘Nothing works’ to ‘what works for whom and why?’

Reintegration as a goal of sentencing

Reintegration per se is not included as a goal of sentencing for adult offenders in any Australian jurisdiction. Rehabilitation is mentioned as a goal of sentencing for adult offenders in 6 of the 8 Australian jurisdictions, (ACT, NSW, NT, Q’ld, SA, Vic)

ReintegrationA process facilitating the transition from offender to law-abiding citizen A reinstatement of what went before? Were they integrated in the first place? Programs that focus on broader issues

than just reoffending? (e.g., transition, self esteem, family support, employment , accommodation, access to health and other services)

Common understandingsExamples: promoting social responsibility and ensuring that the young

offender develops in a socially responsible way

the need to strengthen, preserve and/or maintain family ties

importance of allowing the juvenile offender to continue educational and/or vocational training uninterrupted

the importance of preserving the racial, ethnic and cultural identity of the juvenile offender

the importance of minimising stigma

the need to maintain community ties/involvement.

Rehabilitation /Reintegration rehabilitation as vocational and

educational courses, and employment

rehabilitation assisted by family

rehabilitation achieved through performing unpaid community work

rehabilitation that is facilitated by unsupervised community-based sentences.

Law / policy / theory / programs make reference to the importance of reintegrative ideas, but little attention is given to the gatekeepers of these reintegrative opportunities – the community

Attitude studiesPublic holds inaccurate and negative views of sentencing

Underestimates lengths of sentences Over estimates crime rates Stereotyping (offence, offender)

BUT, when given more information Favours rehabilitation and community-based

sentences for juveniles, first time offenders

(Hough & Roberts, 1998; Hough & Park, 2002; Mirrless-Black, 2001; Paulin, Searle, & Knaggs, 2003; Roberts & Stalans, 1997; Roberts, Stalans, Hough, & Indermaur, 2003)

Public opinion and policyHow the public thinks creates barriers and opportunities regarding what policies might be implemented “An optimistic view about offenders and their treatment will create ideological space for policy initiatives that are more progressive and rehabilitation-oriented.” (Piquero et al., 2010)

Our StudyAims to identify:

Levels of community support for specific aspects of reintegration

Community groups with positive/negative views re reintegration

Offence and offender sub-groups that the community are least / most accepting of

Reintegrative policies the community are most likely to support

The predictors of community views about reintegration.

Factors of interestRespondent factors:

Personal characteristics – age, gender, parent, education, income

Experience – victim, 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

What does the community think are the goals of sentencing?

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

Success of sentencing goals

Make community safer 3.0

Punish offenders 3.0

Help offenders lead productive lives

3.0

Rehabilitate offenders 3.0

Provide a measure of seriousness

2.9

Deter offender 2.7

Deter others 2.6

1= not at all successful –– 7 = very successful

The policy / proximity divide

Not in my backyard (NIMBY, Martin & Myers, 2005)

Doctrine of “less eligibility”

People supported domains in this order:

1. Employment policy (most support – 5 out of 7)

2. Housing policy (4 out of 7)

3. Employment proximity (3 out of 7)

4. Housing proximity (least support 2 / 7)

This order is regardless of what other information they have about the offender, the offence or their correctional history.

Proximity v Policy

Employment Housing0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ProximityPolicy

Abstract v. concrete

Does additional information make a difference? Offence Corrections history Offender personal characteristics?

Offences Across all domains the offending

groups regarded as least eligible for reintegrative opportunities were all three listed ‘types’ of sex offenders

Sex offenders seen as less ‘eligible’ than murderers and drug dealers

Most support for fraud, embezzlement, corporate crime

Corrections historyIn order of most to least support

offence-related rehabilitation education / training programs single crime community sentence prison and community sentence

(parole) prison sentence only multiple crimes

Offender personal characteristics

In order of most to least support remorseful motivated to desist parent aged 17 or under female male minority culturral group aged 41 or over aged 31-40 aged 18-30

Support for housing

Housing (in prin-ciple)

Offence Corrections Offender0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ProximityPolicy

Support for employment

Housing (in principle) Offence Corrections Offender0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

ProximityPolicy

Offence related (housing proximity) 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

No tolerance for child related offences

We should have penal system not a justice system

Perhaps they should live next to judges, MPs, people who defend them in court or police officers

Depends on the circumstances of the crime

I would not be aware that the person had a record

Corrections history (housing proximity) Wouldn’t feel safe don’t believe people really change at

their core

Whether the way the sentence was served has any effect on future behaviour seems to be a matter of luck rather than anything else …

The offence would matter more

Serious offenders will offend again if not punished enough

It depends on the effectiveness of the program

Offenders who are multiple criminals are of more concern that 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

Personal characteristics of offender (housing proximity)

Young offenders are worse to live around because they will keep re-offending. They know nothing much will happen to them in court.

Who knows if they are 'motivated' not to reoffend?

The "class" of crime is more important than the age of the offender.

If an immigrant or refugee – deport them back to wherever they came from – no second chances!

I don't think age is relevant; the concern for me is based on the nature of the crime and the risk of reoffending

Age would be a major consideration. I would be more tolerant of both youthful and older offenders (over 50)

Comments related to policy

Offender reintegration requires government support for employment and housing. How does the public feel about such support if they see it as preferencing those who have committed crimes?

Comments related to policy Why? Nobody has helped me or mine! We work,

we pay out taxes, we are good citizens – criminals wreck the world!

Why should they get help when there are plenty of honest people who can’t get housing?

These people should help themselves

Depends on priority – I don’t believe a criminal should get housing if it means non-criminals miss out on support

These services should be part of the rehabilitation process

“Doctrine of less eligibility”

The public does not want people who have committed crimes to be treated better that the most disadvantaged in society.

Other findings ... Youthful offenders seen as more

eligible Respondents aged 18-30 much more

accepting in general than other age groups

Men more accepting than women Victims of crime less accepting

(particularly re employment factors) Higher levels of education more

supportive of gov’t support

The planTo identify: eligibility cut-offs predictors of these (and the rationales) attitudinal obstacles that services face reintegrative opportunitiesUse the qualitative data to build theory around these processesReplication of study in NSW

“Ex-offenders can re-integrate themselves and communities can re-integrate ex-offenders. But the most the state can do is to help or hinder the process. Reintegration happens “out there”, when the professionals go home“ (Maruna, 2006).

40

Offender factorsLabour m

arket

Global,

nati

onal

even

ts

Views about ‘eligibility’

Respondentcharacteristics

Comm

unity

attitudes & values

Offence factors