A qualitative study of the experiences of ex-prisoners who are seeking employment, the experiences of practitioners who work with ex-prisoners who ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
A qualitative study of the experiences of ex-prisoners who are seeking employment, the experiences of practitioners who work with ex-prisoners who are seeking employment and models of practice used January 2018 Lesley Hardcastle, Leanne Dowse, Jane McGillivray, Danielle Newton, Simone Rowe, Jenny Crosbie, Margaret Giles
ARC Linkage Project ID: LP140100329 Acknowledgements The ‘A Future Beyond the Wall’ research team would like to acknowledge the contribution made by staff at Employment Services organisations in all Australian states and their ex-prisoner clients. In addition to participating in interviews, the staff of the partner organisations facilitated the interviews with their ex-prisoner clients and assisted in gathering relevant documentation and data. The ‘A Future Beyond the Wall’ research team would also like to acknowledge the following Partner Investigators for their contributions to our research: Mark Bartlett - Senior Manager, Offender Services & Corrections Programs, ACT Corrective Services Raymond Chavez - President, Australasian Corrections Education Association Incorporated (ACEA) David Christian - Strategic Projects Manager, WISE Employment Dr Anne Marie Martin - Assistant Commissioner, Offender Management & Policy, NSW Corrective Services Dr Janice Ollerton - Research Coordinator, Break Thru People Solutions Sarah Spencer - Senior Manager, Organisational Development, Australian Community Support Organisation (ACSO) Project Investigators Eileen Baldry, David Bright, Jesse Cale, Andrew Day, Leanne Dowse, Margaret Giles, Joseph Graffam, Jane McGillivray For further information: Simone Rowe s.rowe@unsw.edu.au © UNSW Sydney 2018 Suggested citation: Hardcastle, L., Dowse, L., McGillivray, J., Newton, D., Rowe, S., Crosbie, J. (2018). A qualitative study on the experiences of ex-prisoners who are seeking employment, the experiences of practitioners who work with ex- prisoners who are seeking employment and the models of practice used. Sydney: UNSW Sydney. http://doi.org/10.26190/5b4fd5e63e8c6
Contents
Tables 3
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 4
Structure of the report 5
Part A: Background 7
1. Education, Training, Employment programs and re-offending 7
2. Holistic, integrated programs for ex-prisoners 10
2.1 Features of integrated approaches to employment support 13
2.2 The Throughcare approach to ex-prisoner reintegration 13
3. Pre-release education and training programs in Australian
jurisdictions 15
4. Post-release employment programs in Australian jurisdictions 17
5. Theoretical Perspectives 19
Part B: The study 23
1. Method 24
1.1. Recruitment and participants 24
1.2 Data collection 25
1.3 Analysis 26
2 Limitations and strengths of the study 26
Part C: Findings 28
1. Ex-prisoners’ experiences 28
1.1 Pre-prison background 28
1.2 The prison experience 29
1.2.1 The role of prisons in rehabilitation 30
1.2.2 Prison employment programs 33
1.2.3 Work release programs 33
1.2.4 Pre-release planning and support from prison and
community-based services 34
1.3 Post-release support 35
1.3.1 Positive views of employment support 35
1.3.2 Negative views of employment support 36
2. Employment Service Providers’ experiences 39
2.1 Pre-release/in-prison support 39
2.1.1 Pre-release planning 39
2.1.2 In-prison education and training 39
2.1.3 Work release 41
2.2 Post-release support 42
2.2.1 Community-based programs/services 422.2.2 Employment-specific support 43
2.3 Employment services system and management issues 44
3. Barriers to employment of ex-prisoners 49
3.1 Ex-prisoners’ views 49
3.1.1 Disclosure of criminal record and employer attitudes 49
3.1.2 Physical and practical issues 50
3.1.3 Personal factors 51
3.1.4 Employment issues 52
3.1.5 The justice system 52
3.2 Service providers’ views 52
3.2.1 Lack of employability skills 53
3.2.2 Personal and social factors 53
3.2.3 The justice system 56
3.2.4 jobactive and the employment services system 57
3.2.5 Community and employer attitudes 59
4. Improving employment support 61
4.1 Ex-prisoners’ views 61
4.1.1 Pre-release 61
4.1.2 Post-release 61
4.1.3 System level 62
4.2 Service providers’ views 63
4.2.1 Pre-release 63
4.2.2 Post-release 64
4.2.3 System level 65
4.2.4 Characteristics, skills and training of staff 66
Part D: Summary and conclusions 67
Common features of an integrated, throughcare system for ex-
prisoners 72
References 75
Appendices 83
Appendix 1: Information sheet for ex-prisoners 83
Appendix 2: Information sheet for staff 85
Appendix 3: Interview schedule for ex-prisoner clients 87
Appendix 4: Interview schedule for staff 89Tables Table 1: Demographic data for ex-prisoner participants .............................................. 25 Table 2: Number of employment service agencies and staff participants .............. 25 Table 3: Summary of barriers to employment of ex-prisoners as identified by ex-prisoners and by employment service providers...................................................... 68 Table 4: Summary of suggested improvements to employment support for ex-prisoners as identified by ex-prisoners and by employment service providers ..................................................................................................................................... 70 Figure 1: An ecological model of ex-prisoner reintegration (Visher & Travis, 2003) ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Executive Summary Employment of ex-prisoners has been widely accepted as a positive factor in their reintegration and subsequent desistance from reoffending. Correctional policies in all Australian jurisdictions recognise the importance of employment for ex-offenders and incorporate programs to help redress the many barriers to employment for individuals who have been incarcerated. Ex-prisoners commonly have backgrounds that include poverty, dysfunctional families, little and/or interrupted education, low levels of literacy and numeracy, homelessness, limited employability skills and poor employment history. They frequently have serious physical and mental health problems, problematic alcohol and drug use, low self-esteem, and difficulty controlling behaviors such as those related to anger and impulsiveness. Many have conditions attached to their parole which makes looking for and keeping jobs difficult. This report, compiled as part of the A Future Beyond the Wall ARC Linkage Project (ID LP140100329), presents the findings of a qualitative study into the experiences of ex- prisoners in finding and keeping employment, and those of the practitioners in employment services agencies who support their ex-prisoner clients. The study findings strongly reflect the findings of the research literature. Ex-prisoner participants in this qualitative study provided information about their employment and education experiences prior to their incarceration, during their imprisonment and after their release. They reported negative experiences of education, limited employment skills and difficulties in transferring skills gained in prison to employment after release. Other barriers described by participants were negative attitudes of employers, difficulties with the processes of applying for jobs, lack of stable accommodation, physical and mental health issues, substance use and pro-criminal social environments. Participants also highlighted a lack of continuity in support related to both the employment service system and agency personnel. The employment agency staff corroborated many of the difficulties identified by the ex- prisoners. In addition, they described the lack of employability skills of their ex-prisoner clients and other challenges they faced in adjusting to life in the community after incarceration and the routinised culture of prison. They provided detailed information about the current employment services system and its jobactive program and suggested that the competitive nature of jobactive hindered the achievement of positive employment outcomes for their ex-prisoner clients. Both ex-prisoners and employment services staff suggested ways of improving the employment prospects of ex-prisoners. A clear finding was that paying attention to single areas of disadvantage will have limited impact because there are many disadvantageous factors in their lives and in society that interact and compound. Both groups identified the need for an integrated, holistic support system, which could operate with throughcare principles. Such a system would recognise the transitional nature of reintegration and would target the changing needs of ex-prisoners as they move from pre-release to post release A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 1 Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providers
and thereafter to employment, reintegration and desistance from offending. The features that
emerged are consistent with an ecological approach to social support in that they
acknowledge the stages in transition and the ways in which social and policy environments
impact in different ways and at different times on transitional pathways. That both participant
groups in this study identified similar features strengthens the argument for basing future
policy and development on evidence-based practice.
Features of an integrated, throughcare system for ex-prisoners to
support their employment and reintegration
Pre-release
• Comprehensive assessment of needs at intake, including job readiness, to inform
customised pre-release planning.
• Individual planning begins at intake and is based on comprehensive assessment.
Planning includes: VET programs, social and ‘soft’ work skills programs, work
release where practicable, day release to connect with services and post-release
services.
• Prison education/training programs are culturally sensitive, available to many and
include practical, work-related skills that are applicable to the current job market.
• Prison employment programs are related to jobs outside and documented credit is
provided to the prisoner on completion.
• Job searching begins before release and links with employers and employment
services are established.
Post-release
• There is integration of prison and community services with structured communication,
follow-through of individual plans and continuity of staff.
• Community-based organisations are resourced to deliver relevant programs and
services.
• There is a ‘one stop shop’ approach to employment support, encompassing, for
example, job search, interview skills, transport and work clothes/tools.
• Attention is paid to quality and suitability of employment placement to minimise the
likelihood of failure when the client/job match is poor.
• Post-placement support is available to assist with any adjustment issues arising and
to help with job retention.
• Financial support is available for undertaking further education and training.
• Additional assistance is provided for ex-prisoners who have no pro-social support
(including for housing, finance, transport and work clothes).
2 A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providers• Information about release conditions (parole) and impact on work requirements is
communicated to employers.
• There are strategies for promoting of the value of “giving a person another chance” to
help change community attitudes.
• Employers who are willing to employ people with a criminal record are identified.
Service delivery
• There is continuity of staff.
• Staff in prisons and in the community are culturally competent, experienced and have
the skills to develop motivation, self-esteem and a commitment to change.
• Staff are provided with training in cultural competence, gender awareness and
sensitivity.
• Staff in employment services have knowledge of the parole requirements of clients
and factor these into job placement and support.
• Staff have professional development opportunities and a clear career structure.
Employment Services System
• Funding is adequate and sustainable and allows flexibility in supporting a range of
needs in a throughcare approach to employment support.
• Resources allow time to deliver effective services to high need clients.
• Competition between providers is minimised and other ways of providing incentives
for achieving outcomes are explored. For example, service providers are rewarded
according to qualitative criteria (e.g. successful outcomes for high need clients) and
not merely quantitative criteria such as number and speed of placements.
• There are employer incentives for employing an ex-prisoner.
• The classification system for clients is responsive to the specific needs of ex-
prisoners and pays attention to:
o parole requirements
o need for continued active support
o accurate assessment of job readiness
o identification of intellectual and cognitive disabilities.
A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 3
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providersIntroduction
Some Australian correctional services departments are restructuring as they respond to
changes in political and social contexts. Politically, state and territory jurisdictions are under
economic pressures from increasing prison populations and are seeking greater efficiencies
and more stringent monitoring of performance to meet accountability demands. Despite
some states, such as NSW, having record budget surpluses, economic imperatives appear
to be a key driving factor as governments try to do more with less. Many policy makers are
influenced by a handful of media commentators who fuel informed public debate about
resources being provided to prisoners, whom they see as undeserving and as having
forfeited their rights to support.
At the same time, research is reiterating the importance of education and employment in
preventing offending and reducing crime and recidivism. Having sustainable employment
post release increases the possibility that an ex-prisoner will not reoffend. Employment
provides income, structure and routine, opportunity for expanding social networks, and
enhanced self-esteem and psychological health. Studies have shown that the extent and
frequency of offending diminish when prisoners gain employment, and ex-prisoners with
stable and quality employment are less likely to reoffend (e.g. Correctional Service of
Canada, 2010; Hopkins, 2012; Skardhamar & Telle, 2009). In investigating the link between
employment and recidivism, Christofferson (2014) highlights other benefits of being
employed, such as motivation to change, which affects crime rates and impact on the
community. Even small decreases in recidivism can significantly reduce overall crime rates
and spending on prisons (Christofferson, 2014; Wilson, 2015).
Given the general agreement in the literature that post-release employment has a
preventative effect on reoffending, research has concentrated on identifying the factors that
improve employment prospects for ex-prisoners. The literature on prisoner employment
services and prisoner employment outcomes identifies prison populations as being
associated with characteristics that reduce their employment opportunities and prospects.
The barriers to employment for ex-prisoners are multifaceted and include personal factors
such as physical and mental health problems, drug and alcohol problems and cognitive
disabilities (Metcalf, Anderson, & Rolfe, 2001); structural factors such as insecure housing
that reduces the chances of post-release employment (Baldry, E., McDonnell, Maplestone, &
Peeters, 2002; CDJSC, 2010; Lloyd, Stafford, & Gabriel, 2013; Skardhamar & Telle, 2012);
and low levels of literacy and numeracy and of education in general that are related to poor
employment history and lengthy periods of unemployment (Cherney & Fitzgerald, 2014;
Nally, Lockwood, Ho, & Knutson, 2012). A lack of employability skills, including reliability and
social skills, and the skills necessary for seeking employment in the first place, such as
computer literacy and familiarity using the internet to seek and apply for jobs (e.g. Alos,
Esteban, Jodar, & Miguelez, 2014). Other identified barriers are related to social and policy
contexts such as low employment levels in particular jurisdictions (Travis, Keegan, &
Cadora, 2003), length of imprisonment (Ramakers, Apel, Nieuwbeerta, Dirkzwager, &
Wilsem, 2014), and community and employer prejudice and the stigma of a criminal record
(Davis, L. et al., 2014; Travis et al., 2003; Victorian Ombudsman, 2015; Working Links,
4 A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providers2010). Employers play a vital role in the reintegration of ex-prisoners because employment outcomes ultimately depend upon employers’ hiring decisions (Krienert, 2005; Pager & Western, 2009). Identifying the effects of different programs on employment outcomes is difficult and finding evidence for a reduction in reoffending as a direct consequence of in-prison vocational education and training (VET) is even harder to establish. Quantitative research into the comparative effects of corrections programs on employment and recidivism is fraught with difficulties. These include differences in measures of recidivism, types of programs and contexts for delivery, and eligibility of prisoners to participate in programs (e.g. Tripodi, Kim, & Bender, 2010). Take program type as one example of the research challenge. Prisoners commonly participate in a number of programs, for example general education, vocational education and those related to behaviour change. Identifying what works for whom and in what circumstances is problematic. Qualitative research in this area has different challenges, which are also well documented (Petersilia, 2003). These include the contexts for research, the difficulty of achieving representative samples, researcher bias and the subjectivity of findings. In Australia, there are several observable trends in the provision of in-prison and post- release employment programs. For example, all jurisdictions provide in-prison programs with general education, VET and employment components. Many have work release programs that enable prisoners to experience employment in the community prior to release. Each jurisdiction makes efforts to engage potential employers and secure job placements for prisoners post release in partnerships with employment service providers. Research approaches on these initiatives use quantitative methodologies at varying degrees of sophistication to estimate the recidivism and/or employment outcome differences between intervention and non-intervention groups. However, not all commissioned evaluations are subsequently publicly available. Moreover, the available literature shows considerable heterogeneity in the conduct of evaluations (e.g. the variety of measures of recidivism and employment outcomes, offender eligibility requirements, prisoner profiles and program content and delivery). One of the aims of this study is to identify some of the factors, both pre- and post release, that in the view of ex-prisoners and service providers, have had positive effects on ex-prisoners and their reoffending and employment prospects. These findings will be added to the other studies in the larger ARC project to provide an in-depth understanding of Australian prisoner and ex-prisoner education and employment. Structure of the report The report has four parts: Part A: presents the background to the study, including an overview of vocational education and training and employment support for prisoners and ex-prisoners in Australia, a summary review of relevant literature, theoretical perspectives and the study description and method. A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 5 Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and employment services
Part B: outlines the parameters of this study and its place in the ARC Linkage Project — A
Future Beyond the Wall: Improving post-release employment outcomes for people leaving
prison.
Part C: presents the findings based on interviews with ex-prisoner and service provider
participants.
Part D: summarises the key findings from the study and draws conclusions about the
principles that should inform development of good practice in the field.
6 A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providersPart A: Background 1. Education, Training, Employment programs and re- offending The majority of released prisoners reoffend at some point in their post-release lives and therefore recidivism is the most common measure of correctional program effectiveness (e.g. Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014; Duwe, 2015). Evidence for a reduction in recidivism rates as a result of correctional programs is inconsistent as the following discussion will show. However, even small improvements in recidivism rates can be both socially and economically significant (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Aos, Phipps, Barnoski, & Lieb, 2001), and so the interest in finding ‘what works’ in reducing reoffending continues to drive research. Given the knowledge about the positive impacts of employment on recidivism, most prison systems in countries comparable to Australia have programs intended to improve the employability of prisoners, and most jurisdictions offer post-release employment services. Unlike the lists of barriers to employment that are routinely included in the literature, characteristics that increase employment tend to be discussed discretely in relation to specific studies through which they are revealed. Many of these studies consider employment programs in conjunction with other correctional programs, which makes it difficult to isolate findings or attribute outcomes to the effects of a specific program. In addition, it is difficult to identify the effects of different programs as prisoners commonly participate in several programs during their prison term(s) and for different lengths of time. There are challenges in the collection of consistent and standardied data on programs and this makes it difficult to isolate any in-between effects of programs on employment outcomes or on reoffending. There is a wide variation in how eligibility for such programs is defined and which, if any, groups of prisoners are excluded and why. In the absence of paired matching of inmates in intervention and comparison groups, or random allocation of inmates to intervention and control groups, or post-hoc corrections for profile differences between participants in intervention and non-intervention groups, it is difficult to make rigorous inferences about correlations between program participation and/or completion and employment outcomes. Nevertheless, the general lack of rigorous evaluation of vocational education and employment programs is important given the resources required for these programs and the commitment of policy makers to increase employment of ex-prisoners and reduce recidivism. Much of the existing evidence comes from the United States (US) where evaluation studies have provided mixed results. A meta-analysis conducted in the US by Visher et al. (2005) found no statistically significant evidence for reduced reoffending as a result of participation in vocational education and employment programs. A more recent meta-analysis, also in the US, by Davis et al. (2014), found some evidence of lower recidivism rates for participants in correction education programs and stronger evidence for cost effectiveness of vocational education programs compared with re-incarceration. However, Davis et al. acknowledged the difficulties in drawing strong conclusions given the few controlled studies and variation in programs, participants, contexts and methodologies. In Australia, Newton et al. (2016) conducted a systematic review of evaluation studies, and included only those studies that A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 7 Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and employment services
used experimental or quasi-experimental designs. They were able to include only seven
studies that met their criteria for controlled research design, and these were all from the US.
Although they found little statistically significant evidence for positive effects of program
participation on recidivism, they found characteristics of effective practice which point to the
need for further, rigorous research. For this reason, these studies are briefly described
below.
The National Supported Work Demonstration Project was a large-scale experiment program
in nine US cities in the 1970s. Although a previous analysis had found no effect on offending
(Piliavin & Gartner, 1981), Uggen (2000) re-examined the original data, splitting the sample
by age, and found reduced offending by those aged 27 and older. Similarly, age was found
to have an effect in the evaluation of the Employment Services for Ex-offenders (ESEO)
program, with older participants less likely to reoffend than younger offenders (Bierens &
Carvalho, 2010).
An evaluation of an employment intervention for drug court clients by Leukefeld et al. (2007)
found significant associations between the kind of intervention and employment patterns in
the previous year. These patterns included time spent and income earned from a legitimate
job. This program has implications for program design in that the interventions were aimed at
different levels of employment support (getting, keeping and upgrading employment) and
included substance abuse counselling.
The Centre for Employment Opportunities (CEO) was a comprehensive employment
program for ex-prisoners offering a range of services including employment, parenting and
post job support services. Evaluations by Bloom et al. (2007), Redcross et al. (2009; 2012)
and Zweig et al. (2011) found positive effects on reoffending at both one year and two years
post release, with effects weakening after three years. An important feature of the program
was subsidized employment. The highest effects were found for ex-prisoners who enrolled
sooner rather than later after release, and those who were high risk and highly
disadvantaged, at least after two and three years. As with the CEO, the Transitional Jobs
Reentry Demonstration (TJRD) included subsidized employment in the early stages of the
program. Participants were also offered retention bonus payments for getting and keeping
unsubsidized jobs. Follow-up studies at one year (Redcross, Cindy et al., 2010) and at two
years (Jacobs, 2012) showed that although participants showed increased engagement in
employment in the early stage, the benefits faded after they left the transitional jobs.
The final programs included in the review of controlled studies by Newton et al. (2016) were
an employment-focused re-entry program in Southern California, and the Milwaukee Safe
Streets Prisoner Release Initiative. The former was a program that offered a well-known US
employment support model (STRIVE, https://www.striveinternational.org/home#our-solution)
for 4 weeks followed by employment placement support. Farabee, Zhang and Wright (2014)
found no significant effects of the program on employment, re-offending and residential
stability. The Milwaukee Safe Streets Prisoner Release Initiative provided a range of
interventions such as skills assessment, skills training, and a cognitive-reality program that
addressed dynamic risk factors for criminal activity. These were provided six months prior to
release. The evaluation by Cook et al. (2015) found that participants were more likely to be
8 A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providersemployed one year post release, and were less likely than the control group to be re- arrested during the first year. While these were encouraging outcomes for the program group compared to the control group, the effects were not statistically significant. As the review by Newton et al. (2016) demonstrates, there are few controlled studies of the impact of employment programs on ex-prisoners’ employment and recidivism outcomes. The few there are come from the US, where considerable differences exist in both legislation and program options when compared to Australia. As a result, and despite the proliferation of vocational education and employment training, there is limited evidence to establish program effectiveness in an Australian context. Controlled studies aside, other evaluation methodologies have been used to produce findings of interest. While these cannot be subjected to a rigorous meta-analysis because of the methodological issues described above, there are some common findings. These are acknowledged for their impact on policy and practice here and elsewhere. It appears that undertaking any form of correctional education can have positive effects on ex-prisoners’ employment outcomes (e.g., Chavez & Dawe, 2007; Davis, L. M., Bozick, Steele, Saunders, & Miles, 2015; Giles & Whale, 2013; Nally et al., 2012; Visher, Debus- Sherrill, & Yahner, 2011; Visher, Smolter, & O'Connell, 2010). Training in prison that includes job seeking and interview skills has been identified as having positive effects on employability (Christofferson, 2014). Ex-prisoners commonly have had little or no experience of employment prior to incarceration and this has been identified as a barrier to employment (e.g., Baldry & Maplestone, 2003; Heinrich, 2000; Metcalf et al., 2001). Those who have experienced employment appear to be more likely to find employment on release (Hopkins, 2012; Skardhamar & Telle, 2009). Having employment at time of release and participating in transitional employment programs have been found to have a positive impact on employment, at least in the short to medium term (Duran, Plotkin, Potter, & Rosen, 2013; Jacobs, 2012; Redcross, Cindy et al., 2010; Western, 2008). Having release to work programs, with prisoners undertaking paid positions in the community and earning market wages they can save towards their release, has also been identified as having a positive effect on gaining stable employment post release (Christofferson, 2014). Older prisoners are more likely to have had experience with employment, and as noted earlier, there is evidence that older ex-prisoners benefit more from employment programs (Bierens & Carvalho, 2010; Duran et al., 2013; Uggen, 2000). Quality and legitimacy of employment has been identified as a factor reducing recidivism. Uggen and Wakefield (2008), in a review of longitudinal studies, found that the quality of employment may be more important for crime prevention than employment alone given the availability of illegal activity to those at high risk of crime. Other researchers agree that there is some evidence that people with jobs are less likely to recidivate, especially if they earn above minimum wage and have job stability over time (e.g. Lageson & Uggen, 2013). Connections with community is important in transition to employment and reintegration. Having family support (Alos et al., 2014; United Nations, 2012) and linking ex-prisoners to mentors and to employers (Decker, Spohn, Ortiz, & Hedberg, 2013; United Nations, 2012) A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 9 Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and employment services
have been found to improve chances of reintegration. Partnerships with local employers
have been identified as contributing to positive employment outcomes. Vennard and
Hedderman (2009), in their review of UK employment programs, found evidence from
practitioners of the advantages of focusing on local job opportunities and skills shortages,
and collaborating with potential employers. Programs based on formal partnerships with
community employment services have found to be effective in Canada (Correctional
Services Canada, 2016). In Singapore, the Prison Service has developed relationships with
industry for pre-release and post-release work. This program, the Singapore Corporation for
Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE 2013), uses a throughcare approach and collaboration
between government organisations and community partners. It has demonstrated promising
outcomes (Tang, 2010). An enquiry by WA Community Development and Justice Standing
Committee (CDJSC, 2010) found evidence that well integrated strategies in employment
programs reduce recidivism and increase the likelihood of employment.
A lack of secure and stable accommodation and subsequent homelessness can exacerbate
other issues connected to reoffending such as poor social networking and unmet health and
mental health needs. Having stable and secure accommodation post release has a positive
effect on both employment and recidivism (Baldry, E. et al., 2002; Baldry, Eileen, McDonnell,
Maplestone, & Peeters, 2006; Victorian Ombudsman, 2015; Western, 2008).
The timing and length of employment support programs have been the subject of a number
of studies, with positive findings for early intervention in prison that continues post release
throughout the first year, and with a focus on not just finding work but maintaining it (e.g.
Alos et al., 2014; Cherney & Fitzgerald, 2014; Duwe, 2015). The Make it Work program
(Graffam, Shinkfield, & Lavelle, 2005) was an Australian program with staged release and
intensive case management, including employment support for those with transition
difficulties. Such programs recognise the vulnerabilities that occur for ex-prisoners at
different stages in their transition to community (e.g. Bloom, 2012; Bloom et al., 2007;
Bushway & Apel, 2012b; Visher et al., 2011).
2. Holistic, integrated programs for ex-prisoners
Given the multiple and complex support needs of most prisoners being released (Baldry,
Eileen, McCausland, Dowse, & McEntyre, 2015), it may well be the synergistic effects of a
number of programs and policy settings that result in good outcomes. Just one program
without a range of long-term social and policy support post release is unlikely to result in
long-term social integration.
Recent studies on prison employment services identify the need for a holistic approach to
addressing prisoners’ problems and needs in an integrated way (e.g. Annison, 2015;
Hopkins, 2012; Miller, 2007; Sullivan, McDonald, & Thomson, 2015; Working Links, 2010).
The need for a whole of government system that coordinates supervision, treatment and a
range of support services is being recognised by policy makers (Duran et al., 2013; Ministry
for Justice, 2014; Victorian Ombudsman, 2015). This increasing research and policy interest
in integrated approaches to support for ex-prisoners acknowledges that the challenges
facing ex-prisoners are complex and require a multidisciplinary approach. Communities need
10 A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providersto be involved in partnerships that provide a wide range of opportunities for prisoners to return to the community. Examples in the US include the Michigan Prisoner Re-entry Initiative (MPRI), an integrated, collaborative delivery of programs, services, support and supervision, the Take5 program in Georgia, and the Ready4Work program in Michigan. Also in the US, New York’s Department of Corrections has recently announced a system to provide re-entry services for all people leaving custody. In announcing the policy of providing re-entry services for everyone in New York City (NYC) jails by the end of 2017, Mayor de Blasio could show evidence (based on trials) of an 18 per cent reduction in jail population and improvements in inmate behaviour while incarcerated following his initial introduction of his re-entry reforms. This “jails to jobs” approach includes expanded risk and need assessment on entry to jail and five hours per day of individualised programming during sentence. On exit, ex-prisoners are paired with peer navigators (ex-prisoners who have stabilized) and provided with paid short-term transitional employment. Training on working with people with a criminal record is provided to employers, and NYC has introduced the Fair Chance Act—legislation that prohibits discrimination based on criminal record (see NYC, 2017). The SB 618 Reentry program in San Diego applied evidence-based practice in assessment; multidisciplinary case management, from prison through community reentry; motivational techniques and social support. Key learnings from evaluations were the importance of thorough needs assessment at entry, communication between services, stable housing on release and cognitive behavioural therapy (Mulmat & Burke, 2013). New Zealand released a four-year strategic plan in 2011, which aimed to reduce reoffending by 25% by 2017, targeting Maori offenders, women, offenders under 20, and those serving short sentences or on remand. The plan encompasses an integrated, throughcare approach with programs assisting with post-release employment, education and training with support for accommodation, family and community links, health and wellbeing. The New Zealand Department of Corrections claimed that by December 2014, reoffending rates had decreased by 10% (see Victorian Ombudsman, 2015). The report by the Victorian Ombudsman acknowledged the benefits of an integrated, holistic approach to prisoner rehabilitation, education and training, including continuing support in the transition from prison to community. Integration of services implies coordination and cooperation between stakeholders (Chavez & Dawe, 2007). Another model of integrated community support is the community justice centre (or hub), which was implemented for women in the UK as an outcome of The Corston Report (Corston, 2007). These centres demonstrate a holistic, integrated, person-centred and community-based approach and have been favorably evaluated in the UK (Annison, 2015 et al). In Australia, the Education and Vocational Training Unit in Western Australia has developed an initiative through Auswest Specialist Education and Training Services, which integrates prisoner education, training and employment programs by offering full apprenticeship qualifications in prisons and developing relationships with stakeholders in education and employment. This program offers literacy and numeracy remediation and post-release A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 11 Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and employment services
employment support (Callan & Gardner, 2005; CDJSC, 2010). The Queensland government
has trialed a Jail to Jobs program which is about to be evaluated prior to implementation in
other prisons.
In the ACT, the Extended Throughcare program provides integrated support to eligible
prisoners both pre- and post release. Support for ex-prisoners is coordinated by case
workers and includes practical support for daily living as well as social support. The initial
program resulted in a reduction of 23 per cent in recidivism overall, and received funding for
a further four years in 2017. While not specifically focused on employment support but with
employment being a focus in the next phase, the program is demonstrating the importance
of multidisciplinary, integrated support (Griffiths, Zmudzki, & Bates, 2017).
The Commonwealth of Australia report Prison to Work (2016) investigated the transition from
prison to work of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. While the focus of the review was on
Indigenous Australians, the conclusions have relevance to all prisoners and ex-prisoners. In
general, the report found the need for: improvement in needs assessment at intake; services
and programs that are culturally competent; improved processes in prison for setting up
pathways to employment from prison; improved support for female prisoners; better
information sharing between prisons and other agencies; and timely, coordinated and quality
engagement with prisoners from employment and welfare services. 1
There are examples of integrated approaches to employment support for individuals with
special needs. The Individual Placement and Support (IPS) is a model for people with
severe mental illness, which is used internationally. This approach to vocational
rehabilitation has been supported by empirical research (e.g. Bond, Drake, & Becker, 2012).
There are numerous IPS Centres of Excellence in the UK and the US and recently, the IPS
model has also been implemented in Australia (see Orygen, 2016). The IPS model is based
on six principles: competitive employment is the goal, rapid job search, integration of
rehabilitation and mental health, attention to consumer preferences, continuous and
comprehensive assessment, and time-unlimited support.
Integrated programs can facilitate involvement of a range of disciplines and practitioners.
The knowledge and experience of practitioners is an important contributor to successful
post-release outcomes. It is difficult for employment support programs to take sufficient
account of dynamic risk factors such as motivation to change and behavioural impulsivity.
Risk factors vary across subgroups, such as young offenders, or those with children, and for
moderate to high risk offenders, it may be important to combine work-related interventions
with psychological interventions (Christofferson, 2014). However, it is difficult to tell whether
those less likely to reoffend are more likely to get a job, or whether those most motivated
only manage to desist from reoffending if they get a job (Skardhamar & Telle, 2012).
1The Commonwealth of Australia has recently invited tenders for a Time to Work Employment
Service 2018–2021 based on the findings of the Prison to Work Report (Commonwealth of Australia,
2016).
12 A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providers2.1 Features of integrated approaches to employment support
A number of features of holistic, integrated employment support have been identified in the
literature (see Henderson & Henderson, 2010; Lockhart, Ullmann, Chant, & Exchange, 2008;
Ministry of Justice, 2013). They highlight the importance of using skilled, trained practitioners
and a holistic, well sequenced, integrated approach to delivery of services and interventions.
They also stress the importance of taking account of the heterogeneity of ex-prisoners when
determining best practice in working with this group. The multi-faceted approach recognises
that reintegration is a long-term process and an ex-prisoner’s other support needs such as
those related to substance abuse and lack of stable accommodation must be addressed
along with employment. Integrated approaches include the following characteristics:
• Prisoners’ needs are assessed using validated assessment tools at the beginning of
the sentence.
• Individualised plans are based on needs assessment guide provision of VET and
employment programs and services both in and post prison.
• There is continuity and progression, from early in the sentence to after release.
• Job searching and links with employment and employment services begin before
release.
• VET programs include functional, educational, and vocational competencies directly
applicable to the current job market.
• Employability skills include ‘soft skills’ such as communication skills, timekeeping,
personal hygiene and team work.
• There is active engagement of potential employers in the identification, planning, and
delivery of employment opportunities and development of market-appropriate prison
industries and training initiatives.
• Service delivery is collaborative and builds on strong local partnership arrangements.
• There is a focus on job retention not just initial job placement.
• There is a focus on the quality and suitability of employment placement.
• Incentive systems are used to ensure as high a level of voluntary program
participation as possible.
• There is a focus on building motivation, job readiness and a commitment to change.
2.2 The throughcare approach to ex-prisoner reintegration
Throughcare is frequently linked in the literature to holistic and integrated support for ex-
prisoners. Its focus goes beyond employment and includes a range of transitional services
A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 13
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and employment servicessuch as mental health, drug and alcohol, housing, financial and family support as well as an
enabling policy context. The key feature, as the name suggests, is continuity of support from
time of entry to prison to release and transition to reintegration. Continuity of employment-
related support is particularly important given the impact of employment on other transitional
needs (United Nations, 2012).
The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) uses a throughcare approach to the reintegration of ex-
prisoners. Its three-stage program — In-care, Halfway Care and Aftercare — operates in
cooperation with government and community organisations. The In-care stage includes
individualised plans, workplace literacy and numeracy education, and skills training in
employment-related areas. The Halfway Care stage enables some prisoners to complete
their sentences in the community. Halfway housing is provided to facilitate this for people
without family support and or stable accommodation who are required to work during the day
and be at their hostel for evening curfew. A Work Release Scheme enables other prisoners
to be employed during the day with the aid of electronic tagging and return to low-security
prison in the evenings. The SPS claims that prisoners undergoing community-based
rehabilitation have significantly lower recidivism rates than the overall rates. The Community
Aftercare Program (CAP) is a voluntary program providing six months of post-release
support in areas such as employment, finance, accommodation, coping skills and family and
social support (Tang, 2010).
Both integrated and throughcare approaches acknowledge the importance of job readiness
in successful employment outcomes. Duran et al. (2013) conducted a major review in the US
of the literature and related research on re-entry and employment with a focus on job
readiness. They concluded that job readiness can be facilitated by providing:
• VET programs tailored to the individual and where possible delivering training in a
work context rather than traditional educational formats
• transitional job placements that are long enough to provide needed skills, but not so
long that participants stop benefiting from the placement
• non-transitional subsidised employment – wages paid for trial period while employers
and/or program provide training and support services
• job development and coaching services to connect individuals with unsubsidized
employment opportunities
• post-job placement support to assist with any issues arising and help with
opportunities for advancement to higher paying jobs or education opportunities
• financial incentives for retaining a job or moving into higher quality jobs to encourage
job retention.
14 A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providers3. Pre-release education and training programs in Australian jurisdictions All Australian jurisdictions offer education and training opportunities to eligible prisoners with the aim of preparing them for employment post release. 2 The information in this section has been drawn from publicly available sources including annual reports 3. It shows common trends as well as the impact of different social contexts. Differences between jurisdictions are influenced by historical context and changing government policies. All jurisdictions implement work release programs that allow some minimum security prisoners day leave to undertake approved paid work or education in the community, although apart from the Northern Territory, the number of participants in these programs is generally very small. All jurisdictions have agreements with one or more external employment service / job placement agency to support prisoner post-release employment. In five of the eight jurisdictions (NSW, WA, SA, Tas. and NT), education and employment- based training are in most cases delivered by a combination of external and correctional services Registered Training Organisations (RTOs), while in the three other jurisdictions (Qld, Vic. and ACT), education and vocational training are the responsibility of a private provider under contract 4. TAFE institutes dominate the external provider market; however, education and training are also delivered by organisations other than TAFE such as Adult Community Colleges or employer organisations. Certificated Training Packages and ‘Tickets’ include most of the following: White card (general construction induction), Workplace Hygiene (food handling), Ticket Construction Induction, Ticket Forklift Driving, WHS General (work health safety), Ticket Dogging (for dogman work), First Aid, Transport and Distribution (warehousing), Horticulture, Forestry, Electrical, Engineering, Welding, Hospitality, Laundry and Cleaning Services, Textiles (clothing production), Business Studies, Small Motor Maintenance and Information Technology. Hospitality-related training includes barista and table service and is particularly important for female prisoners, as is hairdressing. Female prisoners often have family commitments on release which can make other types of employment difficult. Prisoner participation in education and VET programs is voluntary except for some employment-related courses mandated for Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) reasons, such as the ‘white card’, forklift driving, or safe food handling. All jurisdictions deliver literacy and numeracy courses and VET courses at pre-certificate and certificate 1–3 levels. In some jurisdictions (NSW, WA, ACT and NT), VET courses are available at certificate 4 levels. Vocational training courses are often linked to specific prison industries. NSW and WA run traineeship programs, and five jurisdictions (Qld, Vic., ACT, NT and WA) employ employment 2Other programs relating to behaviour and offence type are also offered in prisons. This study is concerned with employment and VET programs. 3 See audit completed as part of the Future Beyond the Wall: Improving post-release employment outcomes for people leaving prison research project. ARC Linkage Project ID: LP140100329. 4 For example, the RTO Campbell Page is a private RTO under contract. A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 15 Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and employment services
liaison officers 5. Queensland has an integrated VET Program in which prisoners receive on-
the-job training in prison industries to develop job and work skills and gain formal, accredited
training under the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF). This program provides
vocational training in building and construction, hospitality, transport and distribution, and
engineering, and a literacy and numeracy curriculum that is contextualised to support
vocational training.
All jurisdictions implement work release programs that allow some minimum security
prisoners day leave to undertake approved paid work or education in the community. Work
release programs are clearly aligned with post-release employment and integrate education
and training with this employment. For example, NSW work release employment programs
include the Gundi housing construction program for Aboriginal inmates (delivered in a rural
correctional centre) and the Heavy Vehicle Driving Licence (HVDL) program.
In the Northern Territory, a work release program Sentenced to a Job (STAJ) 6, was
introduced in late 2012, operating in all centres and work camps for prisoners with an open
security rating. Prisoners participating in the voluntary employment phase of the program
are paid according to their level of skill and responsibility. Participants who progress to paid
employment in one of a wide range of local businesses are paid award wages. Contributions
toward board and lodging and Victims of Crime and Fines Recovery are deducted from their
weekly wages.
While not strictly work release, in Tasmania, service providers can utilise “Section 42 of the
Corrections Act 1997” to enable eligible prisoners to access day release towards the end of
their sentence. This form of day release is specifically designed to enable prisoners to
connect with potential employers and family. Prisoners who have a sentence of more than
two years are eligible for this day release opportunity.
In Western Australia, education, training, and in-prison and post-release employment are
managed by the WA Department of Justice with a coordinated statewide approach. There are
industry-based and other education and training programs in all prisons, and these are
primarily linked to the qualification needs identified in terms of labour market skills
shortages 7. Western Australia has driving education programs for eligible prisoners at
minimum security facilities. This enables prisoners to exit with a driver’s licence or learner’s
permit. There is a partnership between the Department of Justice and the Department of
Transport for a driving program for regional and remote Indigenous ex-prisoners.
Correctional services departments in South Australia and in Victoria run pre-release centres.
The Adelaide Pre-release Centre (APC) is funded by the state government and managed by
not-for-profit agencies. It is a low security prison for those prisoners who are in the last 12 to
5 Called the Employment Coordinator in WA, and in ACT the Detainee Employment Officer
6 See Wodak, J. & Day, A. (2017). Sentenced to a Job: A Case Study. This report is part of the
present project.
7 Labour market skill shortages are provided by the WA Department of Training and Workforce
Development’s annually produced State Priority Occupation List (SPOL.) These are supplemented
by local information provided by Employment Coordinators and Transition Managers who both report
to the Manager of PEP and Director of EETS.
16 A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison
Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and service providers18 months of their sentence. As part of their transition to the community, these prisoners can participate in family leave, work release and community work programs; spaces in this program are, however, very limited. A program for on-site training linked to employment placement support is, at the time of this report, under consideration. 4. Post-release employment programs in Australian jurisdictions Post-release employment programs are developed and delivered by a range of government and non-government organisations and are subject to the financial and human resources of these organisations and their access to government funding. Evaluation of these programs is inconsistent. The following descriptions are based on publicly available information. Many jurisdictions are in the midst of developing and implementing employment and post-release programs. To date, our research team has no publicly available evaluation or evidence of positive outcomes. In NSW, prisoners on release, who participated in prison employment and training, are issued with a Statement of Employment and Training that includes the ex-prisoner’s history of prison employment and training. CSI Industries also provides a Work Readiness Program to develop employability competencies in the following areas: Workplace Skills, Communication Skills, Self-Management Skills, Team Work, Initiative & Enterprise. Prisoners who complete the Work Readiness Program are provided with a reference that includes the ex-prisoner’s history of prison employment and workplace performance, as well as a list of employability competencies. There are post-release employment placements that are facilitated at individual centres through informal arrangements and partnerships with local community businesses and organisations. In January 2017, NSW introduced a new model for the delivery of education and vocational training in correctional centres. Correctional Services NSW (CSNSW) will continue to deliver education and vocational training at the Intensive Learning Centres located at Lithgow, South Coast, North Coast and Wellington Correctional Centres. All other education and vocational training services are provided by external education service providers. In Victoria, the recently discontinued Industry Skills Centre Program (integrated education, vocational training and post release employment) had run at eight adult prisons in regional Victoria. The program was designed to provide on-the-job training and develop employment skills with additional pre-and post-release support and employment placement options. A service provider was contracted to provide the in-prison and post-release support and job placement components. The program was evaluated in 2014 by the Edith Cowan University (by Giles, Cooper and Jarvis,) but at the time of writing, the evaluation report has yet to be made public. Work release options are not available in Victoria; however, post-release employment is supported by external employment services organisations (e.g. employer, NGO and Not-For-Profit). Queensland has developed several programs aimed at assisting prisoners to find and keep jobs after release. One program, Pathways2Employment, provides pre-release support to enable prisoners to become job ready. In stage 1, coordinators conduct a skills audit, A Future Beyond the Wall: Improving Post-release Employment Outcomes for People Leaving Prison 17 Qualitative study of experiences of ex-prisoners and employment services
You can also read
