07 paper on prisoner rentegration_2

8/18/2019 07 Paper on Prisoner Rentegration_2

1/21

1

How Should We Reintegrate Prisoners?

Kim Workman

Executive Director

Rethinking Crime and Punishment

A society can control effectively only those who perceive themselves to be

members of it’’ (as quoted in Young, 1971, p. 52)

Introduction

The government’s recently announced Reducing Crime and Reoffending Action Plan,

commits to partnering with community agencies in the provision of prisoner reintegration

services.

“Using results-driven contracts, we will purchase a wider range of services that

support prisoners and offenders to live offence free lives. Organisations like PARS,

Prison Fellowship, Salvation Army and Choices Hawkes Bay provide a range of

reintegration services. They will be supported to go much further in working with

offenders in the community to reduce re-offending. (Department of

Corrections:2012a)”

This policy represents a major shift away from a Corrections centred reintegration policy, to

one which puts primary responsibility on community and iwi groups. In the last three to

four decades, as justice agencies and systems have expanded, they have taken on increasing

responsibility for addressing problems once dealt with by families, neighbours, teachers,

clergy and others at the neighborhood level by these less formal means. Efforts to

centralize, professionalize and expand generally the reach of criminal justice and social

services seem, over time, to have sent destructive messages to community groups and

neighborhoods. While widening the system net , social service and juvenile justice agencies

have often weakened historically stronger community nets and inadvertently undercut the

role and responsibility of citizens, neighborhood institutions and community groups in


2/21

2

socialization and informal sanctioning (Braithwaite, 1994; McKnight, 1995) As Clear and

Karp (1999) observe:

When agents of the state become the key problem solvers, they might be filling a void in

community; but just as in interpersonal relationships, so in community functioning, once

a function is being performed by one party it becomes unnecessary for another to take it

on ... parents expect police or schools to control their children; neighbors expect police

to prevent late night noise from people on their street; and citizens expect the courts to

resolve disputes ... informal control systems may atrophy like dormant muscles, and

citizens may come to see the formal system as existing to mediate all conflicts.

In this context, a revitalization of viable neighbourhood responses to crime will not be

easy, as communities today may be resistant to taking on increased responsibility after

being told for years to “leave it to the experts'”. Indeed, citizens and community groups

who do not learn and regularly practice the art and techniques of norm affirmation,

apology, forgiveness and mutual aid may become so deskilled that they are incapable of

doing so.

The success of community prisoner reintegration therefore, will depend on the extent to

which the community is empowered to exercise this new role. McNeill (2006) puts it this

way:

“The State … cannot be said to be in the business of ‘re-integrating individuals’.

Professionals cannot reintegrate anyone no matter how much training they have. Ex-

offenders can reintegrate themselves and communities can reintegrate ex-offenders.

But the most that the State can do is help or hinder this process. Re-integration

happens ‘out there’, when the professionals go home. (McNeill, 2006)”

Of equal importance is the development of a reintegration policy which integrates

community values and aspirations. Over the last decade Corrections in New Zealand and

other jurisdictions have tended toward the development of a Corrections-centred prisoner

reintegration framework which focuses on the principles of risk, needs and responsivity. At

the same time, those engaged with community-centred prisoner reintegration, have

favoured prisoner reintegration approaches which are more inclusive, and engage the ex-

prisoner in identifying and building on their strengths.


3/21

3

While there are distinct differences between the two, they are not mutually exclusive. This

paper discusses the recent history of prisoner reintegration policy in New Zealand, and

considers what the essential ingredients of an effective community based prisoner

reintegration model might look like.

Reintegrative Policy in New Zealand 2000 – 20101

Initial Corrections policy about the reintegration of prisoners was originally informed by

the work done by de Joux (1999), commissioned by the Integrated Offender Management

(IOM) Project Team of the Department of Corrections, which aimed to

(a) Develop of a comprehensive list of integrative needs of offenders who have

completed either a sentence of imprisonment or a community based sentence or

order;

(b) Identify, based on the above, current practice in the delivery of post-order

support across international jurisdictions

The Department of Corrections in designing the IOM Reintegrative Services Framework

makes a distinction between rehabilitation and reintegration.

Rehabilitation relates to activities directed towards offenders themselves, activities

which seek to train, educate, influence and/or transform offenders in order that they

become generally better equipped to manage their lives positively. The goal of these

activities is to reduce the risk of reoffending by directly targeting the offender’s

motivation, attitudes, awareness and general personal, social and occupational

functioning.

1 For a full description of this period, read Workman, Kim, ‘Prisoner Reintegration in New Zealand – The Past

and a Possible Future’ A paper presented to the 5th

Restorative Justice Aotearoa Conference, and the 3rd

Restorative Practices International Annual Conference, 23-27 November 2011, Amora Hotel, Wellington, NewZealand


4/21

4

Reintegration on the other hand relates to activities whose emphasis is directly

upon identified social or environmental problems facing that offender on release.

These are problems that are likely to constitute obstacles to a non-offending lifestyle

following release. Whereas the goal is similarly that of reducing reoffending, the

focus of reintegration in this context is towards the specific problem (rather than the

general skills of the offender), and the goal of reintegrative activities is the resolution

or management of the identified issue.

The ‘approved’ reintegrative objectives were:

1. Acquire suitable accommodation

2.

Obtain employment

3. Manage finance

4. Manage relationship issues

5. Develop positive community support;

6. Prevent victim-related problems;

7. Achieve post-release health care continuity.

In May 2004, the Minister of Corrections, the Hon Paul Swain, held a Ministerial Forum on

Offender Reintegration, issuing a challenge for New Zealand to be a “world leader in

reintegration”. (Department of Corrections: 2004) The framework it presented at that

forum, was based on the following key ideas:

a) Reintegration is the ‘cornerstone’ of the Department’s approach to integrated

offender management;

b) The principles of Risk, Need and Responsivity will tell the Department how to work

with offenders, based on their risk of re-offending, their level of need, and

Responsivity factors.

i. Risk – by being able to identify those who are most at risk of further

offending, and provide services to mitigate against that risk, the Department

can have a significant impact

ii. Need – Services should be targeted at specific needs and in dealing with

reintegrative needs it may have to target a multiple range of needs and howthose needs relate to each other


5/21

5

iii. Responsivity – there is no point in attempting to either deliver a service to

someone who doesn’t want it or delivering it inappropriately without taking

into account their response

The Department’s focus relied on earlier Canadian research which supported the gradual

and structured released of offenders as the safest strategy for the protection of society

against new offences by released offenders. (see Waller, 1974; Harman & Hann, 1986;

Gendreau, Little & Goggin, 1996)

Regional Reintegration Coordination

By the end of 2004, a range of new initiatives were proposed – including supported

accommodation, and additional funding for ‘important’ community providers. The main

thrust however, was toward the extension of reintegration services, through the

establishment of prison-based Regional Reintegration Coordinators. Their role was to

coordinate and promote reintegrative services that assist ex-prisoners to re-enter their

communities and the labour market. A cooperative venture between the Department of

Corrections and Work and Income was expanded in August 2005, so that by the end of

2005, Work and Income Case Managers and Work Brokers were based in prisons to help

prisoners find work in time for their release.

By May 2008, the Department of Corrections had formed a new Rehabilitation Group under a

General Manager. It held a consultation workshop with key government and community

stakeholders, to discuss the formation of new approaches to prison reintegration (Department

of Corrections: 2008). Despite significant input from community organisations about other

approaches, the department persisted with the risk, needs responsivity framework, and a needs

based approach. (de Joux, 1999, McCarthy, 2006)

A departmental review undertaken in 2009 showed that the difficulties experienced with

the IOMS (Integrated Offender Management System) model, and the failure of individual


6/21

6

case management led to a lack of coordination throughout the prisoner’s sentence, and

poor reintegration planning.(Department of Corrections, 2009:18) The central coordination

of offenders through their custodial sentence plan failed.

The report recommended that the Department establishes Specialist Case Managers within

prisons – moving the central coordination role from Corrections Officers to specialist

custodial-based staff. In order to support this, the Sentence Planning and Reintegration

Teams would be amalgamated, creating Through Care Teams within the Prison Service.

These new teams would be responsible for both planning and case management (e.g.,

authoring sentence plans, managing offenders to their sentence plans whilst in custody and

contributing to the Parole Assessment Report) and would be the point of contact for Prison

Release Teams.(p.23)

The report acknowledged that the task of reintegration required a whole of government and

community response, and recommended an outsourcing or partnership approach, building

on current partnership arrangements (i.e. the NZPARS contract) to “better align services

with our priority needs and future directions” (p.14).

By 2010, the Department of Corrections had published a set of operating principles for the

development of a coordinated, department-centred prisoner through-care approach

(Department of Corrections, 2010).

The Emerging Policy Direction

In 2011, a Corrections policy framework emerged which placed the department at the

centre of reintegrative activity, rather than as a component of a framework which involves

community organisations and volunteers in the support and sanction of offenders within the

community i.e. a “continuum of care” approach. However, there were increasing signs

that the Corrections position had shifted toward the development of (a) a more active role

by iwi and community, and (b) a more active role by its principal service provider, Prisoners

Aid and Rehabilitation Trust, (including volunteer training, and the provision of mentors).2

2 Personal conversation with Sue Woods, Chairperson, Prisoners Aid and Rehabilitation Trust


7/21

7

In summary, the Department of Corrections opted for a model of prison reintegration which

was based on risks and needs. These characteristics are an extension of the principles that

underpin prison based rehabilitation. While this model may be appropriate for a

government department primarily concerned with the avoidance of risk, the

implementation of that model within a community setting is problematic. With its focus on

determining ‘what works’ from an evidence-based perspective, the model lacks the

opportunity for innovation and a coherent underpinning theory of prisoner reintegration. It

is based on a ‘deficit’ model of reintegration, described by Maruna and LeBel (2002) as ‘risk-

based’ and ‘need-based’. Risk-based strategies focus on increasing the surveillance of

former prisoners with new technologies , e.g. electronic monitoring, urine testing, while

need-based strategies focus on providing assistance to former offenders in overcoming

addiction or learning basic skills, with an emphasis on those ‘needs’ associated with the risk

of reoffending. In some models, ‘needs’ have become synonymous with risk factors, with

the result that, in effect, ‘meeting needs’ becomes little more than provision of checks and

forms of social control.

What has become clear, is that offenders are not interested in having their ‘criminogenic

needs’ met by the state in these ways (see Farrall, 2002). There is a growing criticism about

the negative impact on prisoners of risk assessment and the psychological discourse that

accompanies it. In a recent article, Crewe (2012:516), describes the process as the new

‘pain of imprisonment’ commenting,

“Many prisoners explain that, to successfully advance through the system, they have

to create a kind of penal avatar. Often, they feel that cognitive-behavioural courses

are telling them to be a different kind of person – at worst, a robotic prototype of

responsible citizenship that could not survive the realities of life in the environments

from which they are drawn. Frequently too, they complain that reports take their

comments and behaviour out of context, and that the report-writing process shows

little compassion, humanity or nuance”


8/21

8

Should the “RNR” Framework Apply to Prisoner Reintegration?

The literature is ambivalent about the RNR model in terms of its impact not only on

offenders, but also its impact on communities.

Impact on Offenders

The department’s ‘Risk, Need , Responsivity’ model of rehabilitation and reintegration is in

many ways no different from traditional approaches to medical, psychiatric or substance

abuse treatment. It is symptom-focused and deficit-based. It operates on four flawed

assumptions:

(a) Offenders are essentially different from all other human groups;

(b) Reducing problems will reduce criminal behaviour

(c) If services are made available, offenders will use them, and

(d) Services usually accomplish what they are designed to do

Recent research cited by the European correctional evidence-based practices, comes from a

meta-analysis of those factors that contribute to offender rehabilitation (McNeil et al,

2005). In short, the research shows that:

(a) 40% of all change in offender rehabilitation can be attributed to the

intangible and complex personal resources, including their strengths, that

people bring with them.

(b)

30% of the change is related to the therapeutic relationship between the

offender and those who are there to help in the change process;

(c) 15% of the change can be attributed solely to the offender’s belief that

change can happen – the expectancy factor;

(d) 15% of the change can be attributed to the intervention (i.e. addressing

criminogenic needs.)


9/21

9

The difficulty is that in designing and implementing correctional and reintegration

programmes, we disregard individuals’ strength, resources and desires (the 40%), don’t hire

people who have excellent relational skills (the 30%), don’t believe that hope matters (the

15%) and rely on the remaining 15 % to solve the problem. According to McNeil, the ‘risk,

needs, responsivity’ model throws away 85% of the resources that could be mobilised to

support formerly imprisoned persons in their efforts to become productive citizens.

Impact on Communities

Academics and practitioners alike caution against using the risk, needs, responsibility model

as a framework for prisoner reintegration. The obsession with risk reduction contributes to

the fear of offenders, and unwillingness on the part of the public to accept them readily into

communities.(Fox, 2012) A consequence of risk fixation is a construction of subjects in the

world as potential victims or perpetrators (Simon, 2007). This tends to undermine effective

reintegration in that it encourages communities to think about crime and risk in ways which

undermine the relationship between the offender and the community.

Impact on Organisational CultureSome critics believe that if government agencies have a risk orientation, they tend to

interfere in the development of effective reintegration policy, and hinder creative solutions

that community agencies may wish to implement (Shahidullah, 2008; Simon, 2007).

Strength based approaches, when applied to prisoner reintegration, require community

volunteers and workers to suspend illegitimate fears about risk and instead focus on a

shared humanity.

Difficulties will inevitably arise when a government funder with a risk-based orientation is

tasked with overseeing prisoner reintegration service providers running strengths-based

programmes. In a society preoccupied with public safety concerns, and paranoid about

unpredictable behaviour, programmes which rely and accentuate values of trust and

optimism are vulnerable to closure. (Burnett and Maruna: 2006)


10/21

10

Is there a Middle Ground?

In recent years there has been resistance to the development of approaches outside the

RNR model. It is not clear whether the earlier departmental view that reintegration was

primarily about social support, and not about the reduction of reoffending, still holds. In the

2009 “What Works Now” publication the department’s view was that “reintegrative services

(social support to released prisoners) can improve outcomes for offenders who have

participated in other forms of rehabilitation, but these on their own do not appear to be

effective.”(Department of Corrections, 2009b:55). There is no evidential basis for this view.

It is important the Department of Corrections does not allow itself to be aligned to any one

position, given that it is now committed to moving from a Corrections –centred

reintegration process, to one that places primary responsibility with the community.

The challenge to both parties is to develop a model that acknowledges the strengths of both

approaches, rather than promote polarisation between ‘stick and carrot’ policies on one

hand, and strength based policies on the other – they do have the potential to combine and

interact. Even then, acceptance of a fully-fledged strengths based approach will require a

major paradigm shift. (Burnett and Maruna: 2006).

Criminal justice practitioners need to be aware that an ideological battle continues between

those who staunchly defend the RNR model, and those who argue for a strengths based

approach, and augmented approaches such as the ‘Good Lives’ model. (Ward & Maruna,

2007) Workman describes in full detail the impact this debate has had on the New Zealand

Corrections environment. (Workman: 2011b) Some of these issues are highly complex and

technical, and outside the comprehension of a lay person (refer to Polaschek: 2012).

Establishing an Intervention Logic for Prisoner Reintegration

One of the strengths of the RNR model is its substantial theoretical grounding. Bazemore

and Stitchcombe argue that community responses need to be situated within evidence-

based frameworks, drawing upon the accumulated wisdom from three distinct literatures:


11/21

11

‘‘identity transformation research’’ at the micro level, ‘‘life course research’’ at the meso-

level, and ‘‘community level research’’ at the more macro-level (Bazemore & Stinchcomb,

2004, p. 3).

In short, reintegration programs need to provide ways for returning offenders to create new

identities for themselves by inter-mingling with pro-social individuals and performing

valuable services. In addition, successful reentry programs would account for the changing

nature of criminal commitments and social bonds, drawing upon their mutability to

establish informal social controls (Sampson & Laub, 1995). Finally, communities would also

build capacity to change the retributive culture to a more inclusive and restorative one

through its practices.

Principles in Prisoner Reintegration

The following principles have been identified, as contributing to the prisoner reintegration

process. (Fox 2010)

Balancing support and accountability

Bazemore and Stinchcomb (2004) recommend that offender reentry programs model

themselves upon concepts similar to the best (restorative) practices of community justice,

which balance support with accountability.

Re-establishing a Sense of Community

Restorative justice’s strengths include re establishing the sense of community and victim

safety, while maintaining or enhancing the offender’s attachment to the community. One

way to do this is to repair the harm through community service (Karp & Clear, 2002).

According to Clear and Karp (1999, p. 56), an ideal community justice model would

‘‘emphasize the obligations of citizens to one another.’’ Offender reentry programs enact

this ideal insofar as they try to re engage a serious offender after a prison term and alter the

stigmatized identity on both sides—including the offender’s sense of self and the

community’s perspective on the offender (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004).


12/21

12

Reducing Offender Stigma

In attaching or reattaching the offender to the community, one positive outcome can be

reducing the stigma that comes from a deviant or criminal label (Maruna, 2001; see also

Clear & Karp, 1999). The challenges are somewhat magnified, as communities may feel

more at stake with a returning serious offender, and the offender will likely need more

intensive support services and support to succeed after a long prison stint.

Forging New Identities

Bazemore and Stinchcomb (2004) emphasize several avenues for reintegrating offenders

into communities. Essentially, they argue that individual offenders must have an

opportunity to forge new identities, that they need support systems to attach to, and that

communities must rally to engage offenders. They advocate the social psychological

dimension of engagement in ‘‘new, pro-social roles’’ that can change a community’s image

of an offender (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004, p. 3). This happens at the micro level of civic

engagement. Clearly, though, helping to create new identities happens in a context of

community opportunities that allow positive reinforcement.

Marshalling Social Capital

Communities must marshal their ‘‘social capital’’ to provide these occasions ‘‘to develop

shared norms and values, and build relationships of trust and reciprocity’’ (Bazemore &

Stinchcomb, 2004, p. 3; see also Putnam, 2000).

The Resurgence of Restorative Justice

There is a recent and renewed interest in restorative justice, following a steady decline in

government support from 2003 until 2010 (Workman:2008). New approaches to prisonerrehabilitation and reintegration can introduce powerful rivals to more punitive orthodoxies.

As Zedner comments:

Where rehabilitation renders the offender the subject of a psycho-social intervention,

restorative justices sets the offender as the author of his own readmission to civil

society. Entirely in accordance with the emphasis on personal responsibility and

individual rationality so central to neo-liberal philosophy, restorative justice may


13/21

13

plausibly be seen as an attempt to revive rehabilitation for a new political era

(Zedner, 2002).

After seven years in the wilderness, the evidence for its effectiveness is compelling a

renewed interest in further development and expansion. A complementary movement has

occurred through linking restorative justice to prisoner reintegration, characterised by

themes of repair, reconciliation and community partnership. (see Coyle, 2001; Newell,

2001; Farrant and Levenson, 2002).

Developments that embrace the principles of restorative justice include Circles of Support

and Accountability (COSA), and Kaupapa Māori Research and Whānau Ora.

COSA Model

Circles of Support and Accountability (COSA) is an innovative approach for reintegrating

child sexual offenders safely back into the community. This approach originated in Canada in

the mid-1990s and has been showing success there and in England. The COSA model was

adapted from Canada, (Hannem & Petrunik, 2007; Wilson, McWhinnie, Picheca, Pinzo, &

Cortoni,2007; see also Herron, 2004).

One of the strengths of this approach is that it more evenly balances the needs of individual

communities and those of the sex offender – something that is essential for successful

reintegration and therefore wider public safety.

The community of release is represented by a group of about 4-6 volunteers (the Circle)

who are willing to take personal responsibility for supporting the offender (Core Member) in

successfully reintegrating back into the community and also for holding them accountable

for their actions. Volunteers receive extensive training and are fully informed of the

offenders history, patterns of offending and the thoughts and behaviours that are likely to

signal regression. The Circles begin working with the offender before they are released and

are headed by a Circle Coordinator who is connected to (and sometimes works for) other


14/21

14

relevant agencies and professionals (e.g. probations, the police and clinicians) and can call

upon their support and advice as required.

In the Vermont model (Fox, 2010:348) volunteers commit to at least one year. They meet

as a group (COSA team) with the core member (offender) once a week—sometimes for

coffee or lunch, sometimes to do things like bicycle together, or to assist the offender with

money management, teach bus routes, get a library card, grocery shop, and other basic

living skills. They become friends and are a main source of the offender’s social encounters.

These practices serve to normalize the offender within the community and testify to

ordinary citizens’ investment in offenders’ humanity.

The COSA model is developing in New Zealand, and is the subject of Corrections research.

(Garret: 2011) This presents an opportunity to engage with the department about adapting

the model to include offenders other than sex offenders, in a similar process, at the same

time integrating restorative practise into the mix.

Kaupapa Māori Approaches to Prisoner Reintegration

The Department of Corrections has designed, developed and implemented a wide range of

programmes and services from a Māori world view. These programmes and services

reconnect Māori offenders to Māori culture as a lever to promote and motivate positive

changes. There are varying degrees of Māori cultural content in most rehabilitation

programmes and services offered by the Department.

The impact of these approaches varies. Evidence emerging from effectiveness evaluations

shows that the Te Ao Māori approach strengthens the cultural identity of Māori offenders,

improves their attitudes and behaviours and motivates them to participate in rehabilitation.

Evidence from these evaluations have also highlighted areas requiring further attention. For

example, low referral rates and unclear links into sentence plans.3(Department of

Corrections, 2009b:41)

3


15/21


16/21


17/21

17

(b) Fully engage whānau, the wider Māori community, Māori service providers and

staff;

(c) Are strength based;

(d) Engage prisoners with their whānau and community;

(e) Align with the government’s whānau ora strategy;

(f) Engage with government outcomes within the wider justice sector and beyond;

(g) Promote the practice of restorative justice;

(h) Are guided by the principles of restorative reintegration

Conclusion

Restorative practice and strengths based principles create the space for a kind of

community learning process. Crime and barriers to offender reintegration can from this

perspective be viewed not only as tragic features of modern life but also as an opportunity

for transformative change.(Clear & Karp, 1999) Although there would appear to be clear

limits on the capacity of restorative and community justice programmes to make a

significant dent in crime rates, citizen involvement in conflict resolution and problem-

solving may have direct impact on community efficacy. Such enhancements in efficacy

may in turn mobilize support for a vision and practice of community engagement in the

justice process that could have important implications for crime prevention and control.

To do so, restorative processes must be focused on achieving tangible collective outcomes

and must connect with, revitalize and strengthen community-based processes of informal

social control and support.


18/21

18

References

Bazemore, G. (1999) ‘After Shaming, Whither Reintegration: Restorative Justice and

Relational Rehabilitation’, in G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave (eds) Restorative Juvenile

Justice: Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime, pp.155 –94. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Bazemore, G., & Stinchcomb, J. (2004). A civic engagement model of reentry: Involving

community through service and restorative justice. Federal Probation, 68, 1-14.

Braithwaite G J. (1994) 'Thinking harder about democratizing social control', in C. Alder and

Joy Wundersitz (eds) Family Group Conferencing in Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward of

Misplaced Optimism?. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.

Burnett R. & Shadd Maruna, (2006) The kindness of prisoners: Strengths-based

resettlement in theory and in action Criminology & Criminal Justice, Vol: 6(1): 83 –106

Clear, T. R., & Karp, D. (1999). The community justice ideal. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Coyle, A. (2001) ‘Restorative Justice in the Prison Setting’, paper presented at the

Conference of the International Prison Chaplains Associations, London, ICPS, May.

Crewe. Ben (2011) ‘Depth, weight, tightness: Revisiting the pains of imprisonment’

Punishment & Society 2011 13: 509

De Joux, Virginia de, (1999) Post-Order Support: Offenders Needs and Models of Response

– A research report prepared for Sue Williams, Team Leader, Post-Order Support,Integrated Offender Management, Department of Corrections, Wellington.

Department of Corrections (2004)“Presentation at the community forum on offender

reintegration”, 13 May 2004

Department of Corrections (2008). A Backgrounder to the Department of Corrections,

Rehabilitation Consultation Workshop, 12-13 June 2008, Rehabilitation Group, Department

of Corrections May 2008.

Department of Corrections, New Zealand (2009a) Cost effectively aligning roles and

responsibilities throughout the release process. Development Team, Rehabilitation

Group Department of Corrections.

Department of Corrections (2009b) What Works Now? A review and update of research

evidence relevant to offender rehabilitation practices within the Department of

Corrections, Strategy, Policy and Planning, December 2009

Department of Corrections, New Zealand (2009c) Reducing Reoffending – Rehabilitation

and Reintegration: Operating Principles and Approach; The Way Forward: Performance

Improvement Programme. December 2009


19/21


20/21

20

Karp, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (Eds.). (2002). What is community justice? Case studies of

restorative justice and community supervision. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Maruna, S. and T.P. LeBel (2002) ‘Revisiting Ex-prisoner Re-entry: A Buzzword in Search of a

Narrative’, in S. Rex and M. Tonry (eds) Reform and Punishment , pp. 158 –80. Cullompton:

Willan.

Maruna, S., T.P. LeBel, N. Mitchell and M. Naples (2004) ‘Pygmalion in the Reintegration

Process: Desistance from Crime through the Looking Glass’, Psychology, Crime and Law

10(3): 271 –81.

Mayhew P., and Reilly J. (2007) The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey 2006. Ministry of

Justice, Wellington, New Zealand. P.46.

McCarthy, Phil (2006) Reintegrating Prisoners Back into Community on Release –

presentation to Corrective Services Ministers’ Conference, 3 May 2006, Adelaide, South

Australia.

McKnight, J. (1995) The Careless Society: Community and its Counterfeits. New York, NY:

Basic Books

McNeill, F. (2006) A Desistance Paradigm for Offender Management. Criminology and

Criminal Justice, 6, 39-62.

McNeill, F., Batchelor, S., Burnett, R., and Knox, J., (2005) 21st Century Social Work.

Reducing Reoffending: Key Practise Skills. Glasgow: Socila Work Inspection Agency.5

Newell, T. (2001) Restorative Practice in Preparing Prisoners for Resettlement, Integration

and Return to Their Communities.

Polaschek, Devon L. L. ‘ An appraisal of the risk – need – responsivity (RNR) model of offender

rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment’ Legal and Criminological

Psychology (2012), 17, 1 –17

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.

New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1995). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points

through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Shahidullah, S. M. (2008). Crime policy in America: Laws, institutions, and programs.

Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Simon, J. (2007). Governing through crime. New York: Oxford University Press.


21/21

Waller, I. (1974) Men released from prison”. Centre of criminology. University of Toronto

Press;

Ward T. & Maruna S. (2007). Rehabilitation: Beyond the Risk Paradigm. New York:

Routledge.

Wilson, R., McWhinnie, A., Picheca, J. E., Pinzo, M., & Cortoni, F. (2007). Circles of support

and accountability: Engaging community volunteers in the management of high-risk sexual

offenders. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 1-15.

Workman, Kim, (2008). The Future of Restorative Justice: Control, Co-option and Co-

operation. A paper presented to the Restorative Justice Annual Conference, (Restorative

Justice “Enhancing Practise – Restoring Balance’. Hamilton, New Zealand. 11 September

2008

Workman, Kim (2011a) Māori Offenders, Whānau and Prisoner Reintegration.Wellington: Robson Hanan Trust.

Workman, Kim, (2011b) ‘Prisoner Reintegration in New Zealand – The Past and a Possible

Future’ A paper presented to the 5th

Restorative Justice Aotearoa Conference, and the 3rd

Restorative Practices International Annual Conference, 23-27 November 2011, Amora Hotel,

Wellington, New Zealand

Young, J. (1971). The drugtakers: The social meaning of drug use. London: Paladin.

Zedner, Lucia (2002) “Dangers of Dystopia in Penal Theory,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 22, No. 2 (2002), 341-366 at 356.

07 paper on prisoner rentegration_2

Documents