How Should We Reintegrate Prisoners?

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 1

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. Exoffenders 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 exprisoner in identifying and building on their strengths. 2

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 2010 1 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 5 th Restorative Justice Aotearoa Conference, and the 3 rd Restorative Practices International Annual Conference, 23-27 November 2011, Amora Hotel, Wellington, New Zealand 3

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 how those needs relate to each other 4

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 5

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 6

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 riskbased 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 7

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.) 8

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 Culture Some 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) 9

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 evidencebased frameworks, drawing upon the accumulated wisdom from three distinct literatures: 10

identity transformation research at the micro level, life course research at the mesolevel, 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). 11

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 prisoner rehabilitation 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 12

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 13

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 14

In a recent paper, Workman examined the issue of Māori Prisoner Reintegration, and the potential impact of the government s Whānau Ora Strategy, on the reintegration of Māori prisoners. (Workman: 2011a) He made the point that the rehabilitation and reintegration model favoured by Corrections is needs based, and functions on the basis that offenders are different from the rest of society. The standard response to offenders is to focus on their problems. Logically therefore, if offenders have a particular set of identifiable disorders and challenges, remedying those problems should reduce criminality. This assumes that these problems are directly and causally related to the offender s criminal behaviour in the past and in the future. While research has demonstrated that certain pre-existing problems, such as drug addiction, are associated with criminal behaviour, curing the addiction will not necessarily result in a crime free lifestyle. The way into criminality isn t necessarily the way out in reverse. The Māori perception is that the department is increasingly concerned with managing risk, and case management has become a primary tool not for effective rehabilitation but for risk management. For generations, Māori have been treated as subjects of dependency, and successive governments have implemented programmes and policies which are paternalistic, and deny Māori the opportunity to take control of their lives. One of the reasons for current resistance to the Department of Corrections, and the poor Māori recidivism rate, is that it exists in a culture which wants to do things to people, whether or not they are willing subjects. Stemming from the compliance culture which permeates the organisation, offenders are, through the sentence management process, subjected to well meaning decisions about what they need to do in their lives to put things right. It is often deeply resented by Maori. (see Farrall, 2002). The reduction of offending by Māori is unlikely to occur through modifications to the Offender Management System. The locus for the reduction of offending by Māori is within whānau and the community. Whānau continues to be a key cultural institution for Māori and is therefore a key (and potentially highly effective) site of intervention and/or 15

development. The recent emphasis on whānau in social policy acknowledges that changes in the wellbeing of individual Māori can be brought about by focusing on the collective of whānau; something Māori have always known. Government policies over many years, have introduced policies which have undermined and destroyed whānau as a social construct. It is only in recent times, that whānau has been recognised as a positive social construct which should be nurtured and supported, rather than as an impediment to economic and social progress. The promotion of strengths based programmes with a focus on social identity change, whānau-supported reintegration, and a values based model of transformation is the approach preferred by Maori. The Whānau Ora strategy has the potential to influence the current approach to Māori prisoner reintegration Whānau Ora and the Prison The communities in which these offending whānaulive, are the appropriate locus for change and it is in those communities that an ideology which regards victims and offenders as demographically and morally distinct, absolutely fails. The NZ Crime and Safety Survey tells us that 50% of all victimizations are experienced by only 6% of New Zealanders and that the social and demographic indicators that identify those who are most likely to be victimized are identical to the markers for those likely to be offenders. The life stories and cultural contexts that weave victims and offenders together (often within the same person) make any attempt to separate the two an exercise in simplification. For the above reasons, focusing on the individual needs of Māori prisoners in the reintegration process, is likely to fail, as evidenced by the higher recidivism rates for Māori prisoners. For the reason, a prisoner reintegration strategy for Māori should focus on reintegrative services which: (a) Are based on kaupapa Māori values 16

(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 problemsolving 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. 17

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 18

Department of Corrections, New Zealand (2012a) Facts Sheet Reducing Offending by 25% - Partnering with Iwi and Community Groups Department of Corrections, New Zealand (2012b) Fact s Sheet Reducing Offending by 25% - Interventions delivered by Probation Staff Farrall S. (2002). Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context and Desistance from Crime. Cullompton: Willan Publishing. Farrall, S. (2004) Social Capital and Offender Reintegration: Making Probation Desistance Focused, in Maruna, S. and Immarigeon, R. (eds) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration (pp. 57-82). Willan Publishing, Cullompton, Devon. Farrant, F. and J. Levenson (2002) Barred Citizens: Volunteering and Active Citizenship by Prisoners. London: Prison Reform Trust. Fox, Kathryn J. (2010) Second Chances: A Comparison of Civic Engagement in Offender Reentry Programs, Criminal Justice Review 2010 35: 335 Fox, Kathryn J. (2012): Redeeming Communities: Restorative Offender Reentry in a Risk- Centric Society, Victims & Offenders, 7:1, 97-120 Garrett, Helen (2011) Circles of Support and Accountability: A pilot review. Te Whare Manaakitanga Special Treatment Unit, Rehabilitation and Reintegration Services, Department of Corrections, Rimutaka Prison, Wellington, New Zealand. Gecas, V. and M.L. Schwalbe (1983) Beyond the Looking-Glass Self: Social Structure and Efficacy-Based Self-Esteem, Social Psychology Quarterly 46:77 88. Gendreau, P, Little, T. and Goggin, V. (1996) A meta-analysis of the predictors of adult offender recidivism: What works? Criminology, 34 575-607 Hannem, S., & Petrunik, M. (2007). Circles of support and accountability: A community justice initiative for the reintegration of high risk sex offenders. Contemporary Justice Review, 10, 153-171. Harman W.G. & Hann, R.G. (1986). Predicting General Release Risk for Penitentiary Inmates. User report, Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada, no 1986-32 Herron, B. J. (2004). Citizens circles: A road map to successful community involvement promoting responsible citizenship. Columbus: Ohio Department of rehabilitation and Correction. Retrieved April 21, 2009, from http://www.restorativejustice.org/articlesdb/articles/7180/ Johnstone, G. (2001) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Cullompton: Willan. 19

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. 20

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 Cooperation. 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 5 th Restorative Justice Aotearoa Conference, and the 3 rd 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. 21