The focus of our audit 

 

 

 

Currently NSW has over 9,000 people in prison and this figure is growing.   It costs about $174 a day to keep a prisoner behind bars, and the government is planning more prisons.

 

 

 

Prisons help us to feel safe by removing offenders from our streets.  But are they rehabilitating prisoners?  Do they help address factors associated with crime, such as antisocial thinking, drug abuse, poor work skills, and limited education? And do they stop prisoners from offending again? The Department of Corrective Services has this challenging task.

 

 

 

We wanted to find out whether the department:

§        knows if it successfully rehabilitates prisoners

§        matches prisoners to programs that best meet their needs

§        has an effective reintegration strategy in place.

 

 

 

Audit opinion

 

 

 

In recent years the department has significantly changed its approach to rehabilitating prisoners.  It has introduced programs to address offending behaviour based on evidence of what works.  It has also formed partnerships with other agencies to help reintegrate prisoners into the community.  We believe the department is on the right path and should continue building on these initiatives.

 

 

 

Despite these efforts, almost one in two prisoners return to prison or community supervision within two years of release, which is similar to other states.   Most of these return to prison.  While the return to prison rate has increased by 25 per cent during the last ten years, it has fallen slightly since 1999-2000.

 

 

 

In our opinion there is a risk that the department releases prisoners who have not addressed their rehabilitation needs.  The department appears to address immediate health and welfare concerns.  But it does not formally assess the education and work needs of all prisoners.  It is currently rolling out a risk assessment tool to measure their risk of reoffending and identify key rehabilitation needs.

 

 

 

Prisoners do not always access or complete rehabilitation programs.  The reasons are many and varied including they refuse to participate, are on a waiting list, or are only in prison a few months.  The demand for intensive violence and sex-offender programs exceeds available places.  And while they can access work, health services and education, there are no offence-based programs for prisoners with sentences of six months or less.  Yet they account for more than half the prisoners released each year.

 

 

 

Reintegration is a key factor in reducing reoffending and requires a multi-agency response.  Yet staff report significant problems accessing services for former prisoners, particularly high risk areas such as housing, work and drug use.  The department is developing a formal reintegration strategy to clarify what it wants to achieve in this area.  While it funds various community agencies and supervises offenders on parole, it does not provide community support to prisoners released after fixed sentences. 

 

 

 

We accept that many of the factors that affect reoffending are outside the department’s immediate control.  Crime is more than a justice issue, it is a social one too.  These complex issues will only be resolved with a whole-of-government approach.

 

 

 

The department recognises these challenges and has projects underway to address many of these issues.  Successful prisoner rehabilitation will make our communities safer and help reduce the cost of crime.

 

 

 

Recommendations

 

 

 

We recommend that the department:

 

 

Defining and measuring success

§        set rehabilitation goals or targets (page 16)

§        measure outcomes which aid rehabilitation such as its contribution to improving job skills and housing, and reducing drug use (page 16)

§        publicly report information on its performance including key measures and targets, and the results of programs and activities aimed at rehabilitating prisoners (page 19)

§        summarise how well prisoners achieve their case plan goals at the end of their sentence (page 20)

§        develop a reintegration strategy that clearly outlines the results it wants to achieve and how it will measure this (page 33)

 

 

Identifying risks   and needs

§        expedite the use of a standard risk assessment tool to help identify prisoner needs (page 24)

§        improve access to community information and legal records by prison staff so they can better assess prisoner needs and risks (page 26)

§        introduce whole-of-sentence planning to clearly identify prisoner needs, and how and when to address them (page 27)

 

 

Access to programs and services

§        continue to improve prisoner access to offence-based programs (page 29)

§        routinely monitor and report on the proportion of sentenced inmates in prison for the first, second, and third time and so forth (page 29)

§        with other justice and welfare agencies, develop strategies to reduce reoffending by prisoners with short sentences (page 29)

 

 

Working with other agencies to improve reintegration

§        continue to explore options for supporting prisoners released without parole who are at high risk of reoffending (page 34)

§        with other government and community agencies, continue to workshop possible collaborative solutions for improving access to community services (page 35).

 

 

Key audit findings

 

 

Chapter 1

What is rehabilitation?

The public expects that the department will try to rehabilitate prisoners.  This means changing an offender’s behaviour by addressing particular social, psychological, welfare or other factors.

 

 

 

The department bases its approach to reducing reoffending on international evidence of ‘what works’.  This evidence shows that it is possible to reduce reoffending by delivering the right programs in the right way to the right people.

 

 

 

The department also helps prisoners to prepare for programs and to better cope with life.  This includes help with health, welfare, education and job skills.

 

 

Chapter 2

Are prisoners rehabilitated?

This is a difficult question to answer.  While the department monitors prisoners’ individual achievements, it has limited information on overall rehabilitation outcomes other than reoffending.  We were unable to find out the extent to which prisoners as a group improved their health, employability, and education skills.

 

 

 

Currently one in two prisoners return to corrective services within two years of release, which is similar to other states.  Most of these return to prison.  The return to prison rate has risen by nine percentage points over the last ten years.  It is now about 44 per cent, having fallen from a peak of 46 per cent in 1999-2000.

 

 

 

Out-of-cell hours and participation rates for work and education have been declining although some improved slightly in 2004-05.  These are indicators of program accessibility and delivery.

 

 

 

The department needs good information on rehabilitation outcomes to find out whether it is delivering services in the most effective way and target areas that bring about the best outcome.

 

 

Chapter 3

Are prisoners matched to programs?

There is a risk that the department releases prisoners who have not addressed their rehabilitation needs.  To reduce this risk the department has been improving program access, how it assesses prisoners, and selects and delivers offence-based programs.

 

 

 

Despite these initiatives, the department still has some way to go to address this issue.  It interviews all prisoners on entry to identify immediate health and welfare concerns and flag possible rehabilitation needs.  But it does not formally assess the education and work needs of all prisoners.  As a result we could not work out whether the department identified all rehabilitation needs. It is currently rolling out a risk assessment tool to measure their risk of reoffending and identify these key risk areas.

 

 

 

Prisoners do not always access or complete rehabilitation programs.  They might refuse to participate, be on a waiting list, or be in prison for only a few months.  Demand for offence-based programs far exceeds supply.  And while they can access work, health and education programs, prisoners with sentences of six months or less cannot access offence-based programs designed to reduce reoffending.  Yet they account for more than half the prisoners released each year.

 

 

Chapter 4

Is there an effective reintegration strategy?

The department is introducing new processes to help prisoners prepare for their release.  It has also developed partnerships with other justice and welfare agencies to help reintegrate former prisoners into the community.

 

 

 

Despite this, staff still have significant problems accessing community services for former prisoners.    And we were unable to find out whether reintegration is successful, particularly in key risk areas such as housing, work and drug use.  This is because the department has yet to finalise a reintegration strategy which clearly sets out the results it wants to achieve.  While the department funds various community agencies and supervises offenders on parole, there are no support arrangements in the community for offenders released after fixed sentences.

 

 

 

Without effective support arrangements in place for prisoners on release, there is an increased risk that they will reoffend.

 

 

 

Response from the Department of Corrective Services

 

 

 

Thank you for providing me with a copy of the performance audit report on Prisoner Rehabilitation and for inviting comment on the report. I welcome the report as a valuable contribution to the informed discussion about prisoner rehabilitation which is a critical area in the administration of corrections.

 

 

 

I am pleased that the audit report recognises the complexity of the task of rehabilitating prisoners. The audit quite correctly notes that many factors that affect reoffending are beyond the control of the Department of Corrective Services and points to the need for government and community agencies to work together to tackle the challenges posed by a difficult and needy population. The audit also acknowledges that the Department has recognised these challenges and has put in place strategies and developed partnerships that will ultimately make the community safer.

 

 

 

The Department has made extensive efforts to improve approaches to treatment and reintegration. It is therefore pleasing that an independent performance audit has recognised this and concluded that the Department has made significant and positive changes along the right path with programs and services that will contribute to a reduction in the risk of reoffending.

 

 

 

The Department’s strategies have been informed by the growing body of international evidence on ‘what works’ to reduce reoffending. Having regard to this literature, the Department has opted to focus resources on those offenders who pose a moderate to high risk of re-offending and also to address only those needs that can be directly related to reoffending or that are required to keep offenders safe in custody. This means that by design we do not attempt to meet all needs of every offender. The literature also shows that low intensity programs of limited duration are ineffective for targeting moderate to high risk offenders. For this reason the Department does not place all offenders in treatment programs, neither do we offer abridged treatment programs for high risk violent and sexual offenders who are in custody on short sentences. This would constitute an ineffective use of resources. The audit report does not appear to have appreciated the full implications of this literature and its impact on our strategic approach. This is also reflected in the emphasis that the report places on longer term health, employment and housing outcomes and the desirability of the Department developing performance measures for these.

 

 

 

The audit report suggests that we offer no ‘offence-based’ programs for offenders sentenced to less than six months. This could be misleading. In fact short term offenders can participate in a range of appropriate programs including drug relapse prevention, anger management, personal effectiveness, gambling, education, employment and life skills programs.

 

 

 

The report also suggests that the Department does not formally assess the education and work needs of all prisoners.  The Department has opted instead for a more hierarchical approach to assessment whereby detailed assessments are only completed when indicated by screening and where it has been demonstrated that the offender can benefit from the available interventions and services.  An inmate education profile is completed for targeted offenders which in turn identifies those offenders who require more comprehensive assessments. These are mapped to nationally recognised competencies in literacy, numeracy and oracy. The success of this approach is reflected in the participation rates of NSW prisoners in the equivalent of secondary education which is significantly higher than any other state.

 

 

 

The report includes repeated misplaced emphases on the return to prison rate as an inferred measure of our success at reducing reoffending. This is an incomplete measure as it does not include repeat offenders who receive sanctions other than custodial sentences. In NSW, the Government, community and Judiciary have a low tolerance for repeat offenders which ensures that if successfully apprehended and prosecuted a custodial sentence is likely to be imposed. An outcome of this is that the return to prison rate is higher in NSW than most other states. Variations in the return to prison rate over time are a response to a complex interplay of factors and cannot be attributed to the Department’s actions alone. Increases in policing, changes in sentencing legislation, improved monitoring and supervision of offenders on parole and interactions between offenders and the community will all influence the return to prison rate.

 

 

 

A more meaningful measure is that of ‘return to corrective services’. This includes repeat offenders who are given community based orders as well as those given custodial sentences.  In the 2006 Report on Government Services the rate of  ‘return to corrective services’ was similar across all Australian states, suggesting that the rate of reoffending was similar across all states. However the rate of return to custody in NSW was higher, suggesting that the difference is in the disposition of sentences in NSW rather than the level of repeat offending. The Report on Government Services in fact reported this measure as an indicator for the Justice Sector, not for correctional agencies alone, reflecting that the issues are broader than correctional practice.    Notwithstanding this, the rate of return to corrective services for prisoners released from custody in NSW is high and the Department is committed to making a significant and measurable contribution to reducing the risk of reoffending.

 

 

 

The recommendations for action by the Department of Corrective Services will be closely examined by my officers. My preliminary assessment suggests that the recommendations are sensible and to a great extent confirm the direction already being taken by the Department.

 

 

 

In particular I am committed to achieving integration between the custodial and community activities of my organisation. I have already taken steps to ensure that the communication of information, the distribution of resources and the organisational structure are realigned to improve community safety and deliver the best outcomes for offenders whether they be in the community or custody. The Department has also already taken steps to increase retention in programs and to expand provision in education, violent offender treatment and programs targeting antisocial thinking that may address some of the perceived deficits identified in the report.

 

 

 

It is my intention to publish a detailed analysis of the report and any actions that arise in response to its recommendations on the Department’s internet site at www.dcs.nsw.gov.au.

 

 

 

I would particularly like to thank the audit team for their consultative approach and for taking on board the Departments perspectives in finalising the report.

 

 

 

(signed)

 

 

 

Mr Ron Woodham

Commissioner

 

 

 

Dated: 17 May 2006