Sei sulla pagina 1di 67

From Cage to Citizen: A Literature Review

Table of Contents Introduction Part One: The Changing Face of the Prison 3 6 10 16 19 2

They All Come Back: The Crisis of Re-entry Resettlement/Re-entry and Social Inclusion From Prison Safety to Public Safety The Healthy Prison and Public Protection: Myth or Possible Future What Works? The Promotion of ProSocial Competency Part Two: Offender Programming for Employment

Unemployment and Crime Job Training and Education Characteristics of Successful Offender Reintegration Programs The Role of the Offender Employment Specialist Offender Needs/Barriers to Employment The Situation in the United Kingdom Case Study:HMP Durham: An example of best practice Another Prison Success Story 44 Soft Skills: The Culture of Work Job Retention: The Need for Long-Term Support Part Three: The Social Enterprise Model

25 28 34 36 36 36 43 45 49

What is Social Entrepreneurs? Case Study: The Delancey Street Foundation. Making Hope Conclusion References

52 54 60 61 62

The prison as the major tool for social control (through the deterrent threat of incarceration) is a modern invention. The rationale for the prison was first articulated in works such as Cesare Beccarias On Crimes and Punishments (1764). In classical theory the individual is a rational being who makes choices to maximize ones self-interests. Such choices can be at a cost to other individuals. In order to maintain the social contract, the state must ensure that the costs of such anti-social actions are greater than the probable benefits through sanctions that are sufficiently swift, certain and severe. The threat of such sanctions will act as a general deterrent to most individuals. For those few who do decide to commit crimes, then the resultant punishment will act as an individual deterrent in the future along with the public safety gained by incapacitation through the use of the prison. This penal policy is often confused with retribution but it is in theory quite utilitarian rather than being retributive, indeed it is really a crime prevention policy. Just as war is usually avoided by potential enemies deciding that the states forces are too massive, crime is avoided by the rational individual deciding that the probable costs are too great. Rational choice theory and situational crime prevention are direct intellectual heirs to classical legal theory. The problem today is that the present criminal justice system does not deter the individual from the criminal act though it may be of some limited use as a reaction to the crime. For the past three decades there has been a steady increase in both the rate of crime and also in the rate of incarceration in most countries. At the start, it is probably worthwhile to remind people exactly what a prison is and is not. A period of incarceration in a prison is an act of deliberate evil by the state. It is designed as a tool of deterrence and incapacitation. It is not, in itself, a social good though it may often be a necessary and lesser of evils. It is an evil since its purpose is to cause pain through the loss of liberty. It is said that this pain is ones just deserts since the individual had decided to harm others through criminal acts. The Americans have a phase, If you cant do the time, then dont do the crime. Too often most people still think of prison as being the most appropriate reaction to crime. They think of it is a solution to the social conflict of crime. However over 300 years ago Thomas Hobbes was clear that the conflict between the individual and the wider society was not ended by placing the individual in prison anymore than the prisoner of war ends warfare. Prison is usually not a solution as much as it is just a holding action until the point of release when the conflict continues. If the goal is peace and health then the practices of the criminal justice system must be transformed. The recent interest in the problem of offender re-entry and social inclusion may represent the start of such a transformation.

Part One: The Changing Face of the Prison

The important thing to remember is that the modern prison was designed as a threat that was to be rarely used, when it is used to excess then it is not a solution to the problem of crime, rather it becomes part of the overall problem. Unlike sanctions such as capital punishment, or the banishment to foreign lands, most incarcerated prisoners (90 to 95%) will return to their society. Most prisoners were socially marginalized before the criminal event. Most are individuals with social disabilities. Their problems are usually not improved through the experience of incarceration; rather these problems are often made worse. And these individuals will all come back to the wider society.

They All Come Back: The Crisis of Re-entry

In America the massive use of incarceration over the past few decades is now resulting in the massive re-entry of prisoners. When the rate of incarceration was much lower then it is now we did not spend much time considering the issue of re-entry or what to do with the exprisoner. Today it is a major policy issue in the USA, the UK and the rest of the EU (Travis, 2000a, 2000b, 2001; Lynch and Sabol, 2001; Webster, Hedderman, Turbull and May, 2001). A related policy issue is the impact of such high rates of incarceration on the health of the wider community (Clear, 1996: Western, Kling, and Weiman, 2001). On the positive side of this crisis this does mean that a lot more study is now being made about what services are required for hard to serve individuals. The literature on prisoner reentry and employment is a growth sector. And important lessons are being learned. Though this document focuses on vocational training for prisoners and ex-prisoners, such issues are best understood in terms of re-entry and integration of the ex-prisoner. In a sense we are trying to create the social context in which classical legal and political theory based on the work of Thomas Hobbes, Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill is again meaningful. Jermey Travis has written that we must now face the challenge of prisoner reentry. The inevitable, predictable consequences of the buildup of our prison populations is that a large number of individuals are now returning to their communities, having served their time and standing ready for the process of reintegration. This year, about, 25,000 people will return to New York City from the states prisons; in the early 1970s, the entire state prison population was about half that number. The consequences of this massive flow of individual in and out of prison are profound: The reconnection to family, to work, to community, to peer groups. The large numbers of individuals with disqualifying criminal records and breaks in their work histories that are hard to explain to prospective employer. The risks of relapse and reoffending.

Ironically, we are experiencing this massive increase in returning prisoners at a time when we have diminished our capacity to manage the reentry process well. By capacity, I mean both our resource capacity, our legal capacity and our conceptual capacity. . And 1 hope we are not moving toward a world where all post-release supervision is abolished and everyone is shown the prison door on the last day of their sentence and merely told to go and sin no more. I think the responsible policy debate - and one you can have here - is how we as a society should manage the reintegration of this large number of offenders. How do we engage the communities where these prisoners will be returned? How do we ensure that they have a place to sleep on their first night of release? How do we make sure that if they need drug treatment they get registered right away and do not have to go on a waiting list? How do we take advantage of our full employment economy and bring the private sector into the prisons to hold job fairs as a number of states are doing? (2000b:7, emphasis added) The problems of re-entry and reintegration of ex-prisoners, especially the area of offender employment, are faced by any criminal justice system with a high rate of incarceration. It is certainly a problem that must be faced by the EU as a whole, and especially the new members from Central and Eastern Europe who have much less resources (legal, political, moral or conceptual) than either the USA or the richer members of the EU. The ICPS (International Centre for Prison Studies) in the UK has produced a list of the 50 countries with high rates of incarceration. All the Baltic states are on the list with Latvia at 21st, Estonia at 27th and Lithuania at 30th. The USA at 690 and the Russian Federation at 670 lead the list while no present member of the EU has such high rates of incarceration. This table lists the 50 countries with the highest prison population rates, as known to ICPS at February 2002. The prison population rate is measured per 100,000 of the national population. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. U.S.A. Russian Federation Cayman Islands (U.K.) Belarus Virgin Islands (U.S.) Kazakhstan Turkmenistan Bahamas Belize Bermuda Suriname Ukraine 4 690 670 600 554 551 522 c.489 478 459 447 437 436

13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43.

Kyrgyzstan Dominica Maldive Islands South Africa Guam (U.S.) Botswana Puerto Rico (U.S.) Latvia Netherlands Antilles (Neth.) Singapore Grenada Trinidad and Tobago Thailand St Kitts and Nevis Estonia Azerbaijan Barbados Lithuania Panama Cuba Moldova Antigua and Barbuda St Vincent and the Grenadines Uzbekistan Namibia Mongolia Tunisia United Arab Emirates Taiwan St Lucia Aruba (Neth.)

426 420 414 (sentenced prisoners only) 403 402 396 372 367 364 359 352 351 342 338 337 323 317 303 303 c.297 287 278 270 263 259 256 (sentenced prisoners only) 253 c.250 250 243 237

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50.

Iran Swaziland Costa Rica Romania Lebanon Virgin Islands (U.K.) American Samoa (U.S.)

233 232 229 225 221 215 214

England at 132 is higher than either Germany at 96 or the Netherlands at 93, and much higher than the Nordic countries. Finland Sweden Norway Denmark Rate of Incarceration 59 60 59 59 Number of Prisoners 3,040 6,089 2,666 3,150

It is simply not economical for the Central and Eastern Europe countries such as the Baltic States to continue to maintain such high rates of incarceration while also trying to bring their facilities up to EU standards. Nor is such a high rate of incarceration in accordance with the penal policies of the different EU countries. Though Estonia established a probation service in 1998 this has not lead to any decline in the rate of incarceration. It requires a change in penal policy. Maintaining the high rate of incarceration must lead sooner or later to the crisis of large numbers of ex-prisoners returning to society at the end of their sentences. Reducing the present rate of incarceration must in the short term also lead to a large number of prisoners being released back into society. Either way the Baltic States must face the problem of reintegration and employment for large numbers of ex-prisoners. This makes the policy and program development work being done in the USA and the UK of particular importance to the Baltic countries. It is hoped that this review will help to introduce this literature to a wider Baltic audience.

Resettlement/ Re-entry and Social Inclusion

In the past, both politically and in practice, the needs of the prisoner upon release have not been a high priority. We now know that such services should not be seen as acts of charity, rather the successful reintegration of the prisoner should be seen as a vital crime prevention strategy. And if the high rate of recidivism can be reduced then it will represent a significant cost savings.

The UK uses the term resettlement for the reintegration process. The definition of resettlement agreed upon by the Association of Chief Officers of Probation (ACOP) is as follows: A systematic and evidence-based process by which actions are taken to work with the offender in custody and on release, so that communities are better protected from harm and reoffending is significantly reduced. It encompasses the totality of work with prisoners, their families and significant others in partnership with statutory and voluntary organizations (Morgan and Owers, 2001: 12). In their important Thematic Review, Through the Prison Gate, Ron Morgan, Chief Inspector of Probation, and Anne Owers, Chief Inspector of Prisons, England and Wales, note that Effective resettlement is vital to the prevention of further offending. It is true that the community at large enjoys respite from the criminal behaviour of active offenders while they are in prison, and this consideration is at the forefront of most people's minds when serious offenders are sentenced to long terms of imprisonment. But most offenders are not convicted for the vast majority of offences they commit, and if they are caught, sentenced and sent to prison (it needs to be remembered that imprisonment is a sanction applied to only a small minority of offenders), their incarceration is typically brief. Just over three-quarters of all offenders sentenced to immediate imprisonment are sentenced to two years or less. In practice, taking into account remand and release provisions, more than fourfifths of all offenders sentenced to imprisonment are released within 12 months of sentence. Therefore, the prison population is mostly a very high turnover population, and if these prisoners return to offending on release - and currently half are reconvicted, let alone reoffend, within two years - the respite for the community from their activities is relatively brief. It may be more a matter of offences delayed than prevented. That delay may be longer for the minority of long-term prisoners but, except for a small number of life sentence prisoners who may never be released, it is still only a delay. The point is this. Unless something is done to tackle the causes of offending behaviour, and the social and economic exclusion from which it commonly springs, and to which it contributes, prisons will continue to have revolving doors, and the public will not in the long term be protected (2001: 4, emphasis added). In their Thematic Review, Through the Prison Gate, Morgan and Owers found the following problems with the present situation in the UK. Our findings on resettlement are clear. Firstly, insufficient priority is given by the prison service to resettlement work and outcomes. It is not enough to draw up sentence plans: they will remain only paper exercises unless prison staff are able to engage with and motivate prisoners, and to provide the appropriate interventions. This is what we describe as a case management approach: assessing the risks and needs of each individual and ensuring, through regular contact with a dedicated 7

prison officer, that they are provided for, progressed and regularly reviewed. It requires standards and targets to be set for prisons, as well as prisoners, so that the provision of adequate time and resources is not an optional extra, but a baseline requirement. These targets and priorities will need to vary, for different kinds of prison. It also requires the prison service to pay much more attention to locating prisoners close to home, at least towards the end of sentence, so that links can be retained or built up with family, probation and other services, and accommodation and employment opportunities maximized, We recognize, of course, the difficulty faced by the prison service, given that it has no control over the number of prisoners sent by the courts. Secondly, probation areas need to re-order their priorities. At present, their main focus is on those serving their sentences wholly in the community. Their contact with sentenced prisoners is not based on risk and need assessments and sentence planning and the respective roles of prison and probation staff during the custodial period require clarification. Thirdly, the recent focus of prisons on security, and the probation service on risk of harm, has allowed resettlement needs to be under-prioritised. Security and harm must of course be key priorities for both services. But effective settlement is also essential to public protection and requires risk to be balanced against the need to instill and encourage responsibility. This is a difficult balance that necessitates rigorous assessment and management; but the limited and uneven use of home detention curfews, or of opportunities to work outside prisons, suggest that it is not being struck properly. In addition, the absence of a public protection policy has resulted in inconsistencies of practice with regard to assessment and management of offenders. A clear steer is needed from the management of both services on the priority that is to be given to resettlement in relation to the their other responsibilities of protecting the pubIic from the risk of harm and of reoffending. Fourthly, there needs to be much better liaison between prisons and probation areas, and indeed between prisons and prisons, to prevent work being duplicated or, more commonly, not being carried out or followed through. There is a general lack of trust in the sentence plans or assessments made by others. Those receiving prisoners or ex-prisoners cannot assume that the work which should have been carried out has been and programmes begun in prison (on drugs, offending behaviour or education and training are rarely followed through on the outside. Fifthly, we do not believe that either service makes best use of the resources that are available within the community or in partnership with nongovernmental organisations. Community links are a vital part of, the national and regional strategy we recommend. The report promotes the proper use of the voluntary sector, which at present is too often tolerated, rather than welcomed, and may operate under fragile financial arrangements which expect much to, be

delivered for little return, and which are often the first and the easiest victims of efficiency savings and budget cuts. Finally, and most importantly, both services are at their weakest when dealing with short-term prisoners, particularly those serving sentences of 12 months or less. In prisons, they are likely to serve their sentences in under-resourced, overcrowded, local prisons, and are liable to be moved suddenly away from their home region in order for the prison to accommodate new arrivals and remand prisoners. They are likely to have few opportunities for purposeful work, acquiring educational or work skills, or seeing through offending behaviour programmes. On release, the probation service has no statutory responsibility to deal with them at all, and therefore is unlikely to be able to find the resources to do so (emphasis added, 2001:4-5). These issues are critical for most if not all the prison systems in the EU. The reader will have to decide to what degree these comments are also applicable to the situation in their context especially in the issue of openness to the community and in the use of different non governmental organizations (NGOs). The countries entering the EU in the next enlargement in 2004 will have to deal these issues. A useful model for them may be the Nordic model of minimalism. In this document the term resettlement is replaced by the phrase re-entry and social inclusion despite the historical association of social work and the resettlement movement. The phrase re-entry and social inclusion reflects: a) the reality that the prisoner is moving from the culture of the prison, a total institution, either back to a return to the state of social exclusion or a movement into the new culture of work and social inclusion. This change in cultures is a radical process that takes many months to be successful; and b) a growing awareness that in most cases, the fundamental issue is the context of social exclusion which generates a large number of those risk factors that greatly increase the probability of a criminal event. If there is to be less future crime and anti-social events then the number of individuals living in a state of social exclusion must be reduced. Thus success in reintegration becomes part of overall social health promotion. The link between social exclusion and offending behaviors is central to the analysis in the recent policy document, Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners (2002), which was prepared by the Social Exclusion Unit, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The analysis in this document could be used as a template for similar work in other EU countries. Social Exclusion is defined by Teague and Wilson as By social exclusion we mean not just a static snapshot of inequality but a set of processes, including within the labour market and the welfare system, by which individuals, households, communities or even whole social groups are pushed towards or kept within

the margins of society It encompasses not only material deprivation but more broadly the denial of opportunities to participate fully in social life. It is associated with stigmatisation and stereotyping, though, at first sight paradoxically, some of those who experience exclusion develop survival strategies which are premised upon its continuance. And it highlights the primary responsibility of the wider society for the condition of its marginal members, of the need for all to share equally in the fruits of citizenship (1995:1). The term resettlement catches part of the meaning of the concept of social exclusion as well as the need for social health promotion and the development of a more socially inclusive society in order to have real protection and public safety. In conceptualizing the prison in terms of a safe and healthy community, the role of the prison changes from issues of control, safety and security to issues of public safety. This shift requires a transformation in our understanding of the prison.

From Prison Safety to Public Safety

For several years the prison systems in the Nordic countries have used a model of minimalism which emphasizes normalization of the prison environment, openness to the wider community, and greater inmate responsibility. Such penal practices depend on wider political support as can be seen in the lower rate of incarceration that is a defining characteristic of the Nordic countries. The emphasis in the Nordic model is as much on reintegration as it is about control of the offender. If the goal is to be community safety and crime prevention then the traditional practices of the prison and probation are not enough. The role of the prison must change dramatically. Taxman et al argue that the shift must be from prison safety, security and control to the wider issue of public safety. They write that concerns about rehabilitation and reintegration were seen as being nice ideals but not as central as safety and security. For too long, offender reintegration has been viewed as an ideal goal that corrections officials could aspire to-at least publicly-as long as it didn't interfere with more immediate concerns about prison safety and control. With the movement towards system wide reentry partnerships, the focus of corrections officials has shifted away from prison safety and towards public safety. A public safety goal creates opportunities to address both offender processing and offender change issues that span organizational lines, and, to redefine the role of both governmental and non-governmental agencies in reentry. The underlying premise of the reentry partnership is that each component of the criminal justice system-police, the courts, institutional and community correctionsplays a role not only in immediate offender processing and control (e.g., arrest, conviction, incarceration, release) but also in long-term offender change (e.g., employment, family, mental health, substance abuse, criminality). A parallel premise is that criminal justice agencies cannot do this alone, and must engage family, community-based service providers, the faith community and other sources


of formal and informal support in reintegrating offenders. To reduce risk and increase public safety, the challenge for these collective efforts is twofold: (1) how do we prepare incarcerated and recently released offenders to be productive, contributing members of the community? and; (2) how do we prepare communities to support, sustain, and when necessary, sanction offenders returning under a wide range of release conditions? Drawing from prior relevant research and our own observations of pilot reentry initiatives across the country, this paper presents a working, conceptual model of the offender reentry process, and discusses evidence-based practices in the design and implementation of reentry programs (emphasis added, 2001:1). They present a model of Reentry Partnership Initiative (RPI) in figure 1.

They write that the different versions of this reentry partnership model have in common the shared belief that the stakeholders must be involved in all stages of planning and implementation. Typically, partnerships include representatives from social control agencies (e.g., institutional corrections, probation/parole, law enforcement, the judiciary), social and human service agencies'. (e.g., treatment providers, health care agencies, housing, employment, and education service providers, victim advocates), and nongovernmental community support organizations (e.g., faithbased groups, neighborhood advocacy groups and civic associations). The success of this type of partnership initiative will likely be associated with the ability of individual members to put aside long-standing inter and intra-organizational conflicts and focus instead on the challenge of developing a system-wide offender reintegration plan (Taxman et al, 2001:2, emphasis added)



If one looks at their list of stakeholders it is interesting that even though there is a mention at the end of the role of NGOs and civil society organizations there is no mention of the local community, family and peer network of the offender. The model is a good example of what is often called a seamless system in which community aftercare is part of a continuing process that begins at the point of entry into the institutions, prepares the individual for return to the community, and provides seamless supervision and support during the period of transition. Taxman et al seem to show a limited understanding of the complexity of the issues around offender employment. Their chart only shows the first 3+ months of the re-entry/reintegration process. However some of the other offender re-entry literature, especially the ones on the effective job retention programs, tend to have a much longer timeline of 12-24 months. If one looks at the re-entry process from the cross-cultural perspective (with the individual moving from the culture of exclusion/incarceration to the culture of inclusion/work) then the longer timeline makes a lot of sense. In the following diagram they do show the shift from formal control systems (police, courts and corrections) to the informal control systems (family, peers, guardians/advocates, treatment providers, and community groups). The crime prevention literature makes clear that these informal systems of control are critical.


In the USA the newest expression of this seamless system thinking comes from the National Institute of Corrections with its Transition from Prison to Community Initiative (TPCI) model. It is interesting that the National Justice of Justices RPI model is not mentioned in the NICs TPCI even though both models are dealing with the same issues. This is not unusual in the American literature where so much is prepared by different parts of the system. It may also reflect some of those long-standing inter and intra-organizational conflicts mentioned in the RPI as well as in the UK materials. The TPCI document does makes it clear that this model will place considerable demands on the present system. The National Institute of Corrections' (NIC) Transition from Prison to Community Initiative (TPCI) will help states improve offenders' transition from prison to communities, thereby increasing public safety, reducing recidivism and new victimization, and making better use of scarce resources in correctional facilities and communities. The TPC1 will incorporate proven reforms (e.g., risk management, structured decision-making) as well as 'best practices' for managing high-risk and special needs offenders. It will cover offenders who leave prison on parole as well as those released after they have served their full prison terms. The TPCI will be a sea-change for participating jurisdictions. It will mean a fundamental shift in the mission of correctional agencies, and, consequently, equally fundamental changes in agencies' priorities, operating procedures, staffing and management practices. It will require corrections, releasing, supervision, and human service agencies to form strategic and tactical partnerships to integrate and coordinate basic policies, and to sustain and nurture those partnerships and policies


over time. It will require many agencies to reallocate resources and to seek more effective and targeted ways to use them. Progress toward the model envisioned by the TPCI will be difficult and will require administrative and political commitment over time. Transition reform is not for the short-winded or faint spirited. The overarching goals of the TPCI are for released offenders to remain arrest free over the long haul, and to become competent and self-sufficient members of their communities. That goal should provide a unifying vision to the many correctional, law enforcement and human service agencies that are part of the transition process. It should cause leaders of those agencies to re-think and revise their respective missions in order to support improved transition. For example, the mission of corrections should not just be to run safe, orderly, secure, and affordable prisons, but also to improve public safety by contributing to better offender transition via its assessment, classification, programming and release preparation practices. The objectives of the TPCI are: 1. To promote public safety by reducing the threat of harm to persons and their property by released offenders in the communities to which those offenders return; 2. To increase the success rates of offenders who transition from prison by fostering effective risk management and treatment programming; offender accountability, and community and victim participation.

The TPC1 is based on the following premises: Corrections, law enforcement and human service agencies are stakeholders in the transition process. These stakeholders need to articulate and promote common interests, integrate and coordinate policies, and develop mutual ownership of an improved transition process; Stakeholders should freely share information relating to transition within and among stakeholders' organizations; Transition should be built upon proven reforms and best practices; Transition reforms should be affordable, transferable, and adaptable;


Basic transition reforms should apply to all imprisoned offenders, including those given discretionary release and those who leave at the end of their prison terms; and, The allocation of resources for programming, supervision and services should vary directly with the level of risk that those groups of offenders pose (emphasis in original, Parent and Barnett, 2002: 4-5). The goal issue is well described by Parent and Barnett:

It will mean a fundamental shift in the mission of correctional agencies, and, consequently, equally fundamental changes in agencies' priorities, operating procedures, staffing and management practices.
If offender re-entry and social inclusion programs are to be successful then the social invention of the prison will be re-invented and transformed. The model of the healthy prison may be an answer.

The Healthy Prison and Public Protection: Myth or Possible Future

We can now return to the classical understanding that a period of incarceration in a prison is an act of deliberate evil by the state. It is a tool of deterrence and incapacitation. It is not a social good though it may often be a necessary and lesser of evils. The key questions are: Can it be more than just a necessary evil? Can it also be a health promotion setting? Most prison managers are well aware of the negative potential of incarceration. Penal policy such as the Nordic model of minimalism which emphasizes normalization, openness and inmate responsibility can be see as a harm reduction effort to lessen the inherent negative impact of incarceration. And effective, efficient and humane programming based on the existing evidence about what works can be understood in terms of health promotion. What is valuable about social cognitive programs such as the Reasoning and Rehabilitation is that they promote prosocial competencies that are of value for anyone. Such programs are in accord with a basic principle of medicine: First, Do no harm. As the body of evidence-based penal practices grows then it should be possible to improve the capacity of the prison to promote social competency. As Ross et al note it is less the setting itself, and more its nature and the quality of the programming that it provides that is the core issue. Of course if prisons are to be overused ( by having high rates of incarceration) then its limited resources will tend to be used for security and control since by definition a prison is first and foremost a place of punishment. Harm reduction and health promotion can be practiced in a prison setting but only if sufficient support and resources are made available (Webster et al, 2001).


Though the present RPI model is only suitable for individuals with a longer sentence so that there is sufficient time for comprehensive assessment and planning, the basic idea that it is necessary to integrate all the different parts of the criminal justice system as well as the other community stakeholders in order to provide appropriate services for the victim, the offender and the community is becoming more accepted. The development and utilization of alternatives to incarceration is a policy priority especially for the cases of the short-term prisoners. . An example of this social health promotion model is the community outreach efforts of HMP Durham to ensure the retention of housing and employment whenever possible for its short-term prisoners. These efforts by HMP Durham go much further than a narrow understanding of its mission of incarceration. Indeed the whole CJS system from the starting point of police involvement through the process of court sentencing and then through the correctional system right back into the community could become a seamless process of problem solving and reintegration as much as it remains a system of detection, conviction and sanctioning. A statement of this understanding of the role of corrections came from a Correctional Service Canada official who stated that We are a correctional service, not a prison service. Planning for discharge back to the community starts at the point of entry. Since the vast majority of individuals entering into the prison will return at some point to the wider community, it follows that the proper focus of the prisons efforts should be as much on crime prevention and public safety at this future point in time as its present emphasis on control, safety and security. These two goals of Present Safety in the administration of the sanction along with Future Public Safety and Protection need to be balanced and achieved simultaneously Thus instead of being just a retributive model where one is being punished for ones past actions, there is an increasing emphasis on healing the harm done both by the criminal event as well as the response of the criminal justice system along with the need to prevent the future criminal events. This model of a more healthy justice can be easily linked to restorative justice models (in the prison and in the community) as well as the principles of harm reduction and health promotion derived from public health. It is no accident that the UK has been a leader in the healthy prisons movement or that the prison is seen as one of the critical health promotion settings. Taxman et al do provide a chart showing the critical junctions in the reentry process though it also emphasizes supervision and control over support and reintegration. It is true that probation has always had the dual functions of social work and control. The American literature tends to talk about risk factors in terms of risk management and reducing the danger of re-offending especially with violent or sex offences. Many parolees are returned to the institution not because of a new criminal offence but because of a violation of one of the conditions of the parole. This is short term safety but does little for long term safety when the individual is no longer under the supervision of the probation/parole officer. If one is using a health promotion and crime prevention perspective then this leads to an equal emphasis on reducing the risk factors and promoting protective factors in 17

order to promote integration and social inclusion. The clear emphasis on harm reduction and health promotion through competency development and support is seen as being as important as the traditional emphasis on short-term control since it is felt that only through such future orientated growth that real long term public safety and protection will be achieved. Given that the prison is a criminal sanction designed to maintain social order through its indirect deterrent value as well as through its direct administration of a proportional amount of pain, it is critical that correctional management maintain control to ensure safety and security. It is equally critical that that control be delivered in a manner that is respectful of the individuals human rights and also in accordance with models such as Nordic minimalism, principles of harm reduction, restorative justice and health promotion. These two goals have been seen as being in conflict, in actuality, these goals are complementary to each other. A recent research study Measuring the Quality of Prison Life (Alison Liebling and Helen Arnold, RDS Findings 174, 2002) documented that it is possible to balance the needs for safety and security with the need for respect, humanity, support and positive relationships. It is possible to have a healthy prison. However it is also a political decision. Will we have Cages or Corrections? In the Annual Report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, Anne Owers notes

A healthy prison is one where prisoners are safe, are treated with respect, have sufficient access to purposeful activity, and are prepared for resettlement.
She notes that though the Prison Service has accepted resettlement as a priority in theory, it still needs to be so in reality. Resettlement is still essentially an add-on, to be carried out if prisons have, or can find, additional resources, a voluntary or statutory sector partner, or particularly committed staff and manager Thus There are choices to be made. Prisons that are properly resourced and supported, and that are used only where necessary, can deliver positive work that provides long-term public protection by reducing reoffending. Or they can be Operation Container: warehousing prisoners and firefighting to limit the damage done to them or the prison system .. And the Social Exclusion Units message must continue to be heard: what prisons can do is crucially dependent on what happens before and afterwards. Without effective interventions to divert people, particularly young people, from custody, and without a commitment to continue support and treatment and assist in providing jobs and housing, prisons will remain causality stations, patching people up to return them to the battlefield they left (2002:5-6).


Owers relates the problems in the UK system directly to the issue of overcrowding. The UK has a rate of incarceration that is one of the highest in the EU. But when it is compared to the reality of the situation in the Baltic States with incarceration rates that are 2 to 3 times higher than the UK situation, and these are systems with much less resources; then her analysis, when it is applied to the Baltic States, is even more depressing. In the context of the Baltics, the ideal of a Healthy Prison seems to be quite unrealistic along with effective resettlement and social inclusion. But it is in just such situations that there is such a pressing need for the positive examples from the other EU penal systems and even the USA. We must respond to the present excessive misuse of the prisons with the reality that a prison can be more than just a cage, it can be a health promotion setting in which there is the promotion of prosocial competency.

What Works? The Promotion of ProSocial Competency

The emphasis on evidence-based practices or what works is a distinctive characteristic of the American, Canadian and British literature. It does represent a significant change in the correctional literature. From the early 1970s onward, there were almost three decades in which the penology literature usually said that nothing works. Given this perspective the only role for the prison was either retribution for past actions or else incapacitation for the prevention of future crime. Such thinking has lead to the massive increase in the prison population in the USA and to a lesser degree in the UK. This rather hopeless perspective was first challenged by the work of Canadian psychologists, especially Robert Ross and Don Andrews. Today there is a strong revival in the belief in the potential for prisons to be more than just cages. Parent and Barnett write that the Transition Process consists of seven elements: 1.assessment and classification, 2.transitional accountability plans, 3.release decision making, supervision and services, 5.responding to violations of conditions of release, 6.termination of supervision and discharge of jurisdiction, and 7.aftercare. Everything flows from assessment and classification which is seen as a continuous- or at least, periodic and reiterative- process. Parent and Barnett note that the The TPCI Model is organized around identifying factors that put offenders at increased risk of recidivism, and engaging those offenders in treatment, programming, or supervision strategies that modify those factors, thereby lowering their odds of committing crimes after release. Risk assessment is the core of the TPCI model. If jurisdictions assess offenders' risk poorly, effective transition reform will be impossible.


Effective assessment and classification practices can greatly improve correctional management by influencing decisions about how long inmates will be confined, where they will be held, which programs and services they will receive, and specific conditions under which they will be released. Good assessment and classification practices can make corrections more efficient by reducing costly periods of confinement for lower risk offenders, and by ensuring that limited treatment and programming resources are allocated to offenders who most need them. They go on to discuss how the TCPI incorporates the following principles: The Risk Principle states that risk of criminal behavior can be predicted based on the presence of specific factors and that the offenders' risk of criminal behavior increases directly with the number and severity of risk factors that are present. 'Static' factors do not change via provision of treatment or services, and are used primarily to make initial decisions about custody levels and tentative release dates. Static risk factors include such things as: age at first conviction, number of prior convictions, prior behavior during confinement, severity of prior criminal convictions, history of childhood abuse and neglect, a history of substance abuse, and history of education, employment, family and social failures. The Need Principle holds that when 'dynamic' risk factors, or criminogenic needs, are effectively treated, offenders' probability of recidivism declines. Treatment decisions should be based on individual offender's dynamic risk factors discerned through objective assessment processes. Offenders should be re-assessed periodically on dynamic risk factors to inform decisions about changes in custody, placement, service or supervision. Dynamic risk factors include: anti-social attitudes, values and beliefs, anti-social peers and associations, substance abuse, educational deficiencies, vocational deficiencies, mental health life skills and social skill deficiencies, and characterological defects (anger, aggression, egocentrism, impulsivity, etc. The OES (Offender Employment Specialist) training program is available as a webcast on the NIC website site. The presentation emphasizes the need to consider these criminogenic factors, especially the individuals peer network.


Finally, the Responsivity Principle requires that the delivery of treatment programs based on identified dynamic risk factors should be consistent with: learning ability and style, motivation to change, personality type, and level of interpersonal and communication skills (emphasis added, 2002: 12-13). In a similar vein, Webster et al in the UK note that the what works literature refers to Targeting dynamic risk factors Risk classification Responsivity Treatment modality Program integrity Community based programs as being generally more effective

But neither work correctly mentions that these core principles come out of the work done by the Canadian psychologist, D.A. Andrews. Andrews identifies the following risk factors The Major Factors: 1 ) Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states (i.e., personal cognitive supports for crime); 2) Procriminal associates and isolation from anticriminal others (i.e., interpersonal supports for crime); 3) Temperamental and personality factors conducive to criminal activity including psychopathy, weak socialization, impulsivity, restless aggressive energy, egocentrism, below-average verbal intelligence, a taste for risk, and weak problem-solving/self -regulation skills; 4) History of antisocial behavior evident from a young age, in a variety of settings and involving a number and variety of different acts; 5) Familial factors that include criminality and a variety of psychological problems in the family of origin and, in particular, low levels of affection, caring and cohesiveness; poor parental supervision and discipline practices; and outright neglect and abuse; 6) Low levels of personal educational, vocational or financial achievement and, in particular, unstable employment; The Minor Factors. 7) Lower-class origins as assessed by adverse neighborhood conditions and/or parental education/vocational/economic achievement; 21

8) Personal distress, whether assessed by way of the sociological constructs of anomie, strain and alienation or by way of the clinical constructs of low self-esteem, anxiety, depression, worry or officially labeled "mental disorder"; 9) A host of biological/neuropsychological indicators that have yet to be integrated in a convincing manner by way of either theory or the construction of practical risk/need assessment instruments. Some of these risk factors are static while others are dynamic. The dynamic risk factors which are also known as criminogenic needs should be the target of all interventions including offender employment programs. Andrews and Bonta write that The more dynamic risk factors are relevant to prevention and rehabilitation in that they suggest promising intermediate objectives of programming, which when achieved should be followed by reductions in criminal behavior. This is the criminogenic need principle of effective prevention and treatment (Andrews and Bonta, 1994:232. emphasis added). This leads Andrews to a list of promising and less promising intermediate targets of human service programming. Promising Targets for Change Changing antisocial attitudes Changing antisocial feelings Reducing antisocial peer associations Promoting familial affection/communication Promoting familial monitoring and supervision Promoting child protection (preventing neglect/abuse) Promoting identification/association with anticriminal role models Increasing self-control, self-management and problem-solving skills Replacing the skills of lying, stealing and aggression with more prosocial alternatives Reducing chemical dependencies Shifting the density of the personal, interpersonal and other rewards and costs for criminal and noncriminal activities in familial, academic, vocational, recreational and other behavioral settings, so that the noncriminal alternatives are favored Providing the chronically psychiatrically troubled with low-pressure, sheltered living arrangements Ensuring that the client is able to recognize risky situations, and has a concrete and well rehearsed plan for dealing with those situations Confronting the personal and circumstantial barriers to service (client motivation; background stressors with which clients may be preoccupied)


Changing other attributes of clients and their circumstances that, through individualized assessments of risk and need, have been linked reasonably with criminal conduct Less Promising Targets Increasing self-esteem (without simultaneous reductions in antisocial thinking, feeling and peer associations) Focusing on vague emotional/personal complaints that have not been linked with criminal conduct Increasing the cohesiveness of antisocial peer groups Improving neighborhood-wide living conditions without touching the criminogenic needs of higher-risk individuals and families Showing respect for antisocial thinking on the grounds that the values of one culture are as equally valid as the values of another culture Increasing conventional ambition in the areas of school and work without concrete assistance in realizing these ambitions Attempting to turn the client into a "better person," when the standards for being a "better person" do not link with recidivism. (Andrews and Bonta, 1994:232). Ross et al (1995) are in general agreement with Andrews. They found only six characteristics to be related to program efficacy: 1. sound conceptual model 2. multifaceted programming 3. targeting of "criminogenic factors" 4. responsivity principle 5. role-playing and modelling 6. social cognitive skills training Andrews developed the LSI as a risk assessment tool. The idea of risk management has become central to corrections. However Robert Ross et al do have some concerns about the misuse of the risk principle and community-based programming. Thus about the risk principle they write that Our results raise doubts about the risk principle. We found that success had been achieved with both low and high risk offenders even when not matched according to the risk principle. It does of course, seem reasonable to believe that there is more to be gained by focusing resources on programs which are effective in reducing recidivism with high-risk clients However, it should not be assumed that programs should be withheld from low-risk clients. Our results indicate that their reoffending can also be significantly reduced by effective programs. Nonetheless we must be cognizant of the fact that one of the best ways to turn very low-risk offenders into medium or highrisk offenders may be to involve them in programs, particularly when their involvement labels them in such a way as to 23

create expectancies that they are "at risk", or when their involvement puts them in close association with high-risk offenders. There is also good reason to believe that the risk principle creates false optimism by implying that we can be effective with very high-risk offenders. Clearly, there are offenders that we cannot successfully treat. And about the issue of community-based programming they note that Many have argued that beneficial treatment effects are more likely to occur in a community setting than in an institution (Andrews et al., 1990; Izzo & Ross, 1990). The results of the present study did not confirm this. We found that there are effective and ineffective programs in the community and effective and ineffective programs in institutions. The location of the setting was not as important as has been thought; the nature of the setting may be the crucial factor. This suggestion is based on our finding that programs were more likely to be effective if they were implemented either in the community or in a special setting within an institution. In contrast to a widely held view, programs can be effective in prisons, at least if they somehow escape from or diminish the prison ambience. These special settings constitute "alternative communities" within the institution. Successful prison programs are either delivered in separate buildings away from the general offender population or are conducted in an educational or therapeutic community which isolates the offenders from the anti-social prison subculture (e.g. Ayers, Duguid, Montague, & Wolowidnyk, 1980; Platt, Perry, & Metzger, 1980; Wexler, Falkin, & Lipton, 1990). Eighty-five percent of successful programs were conducted in such settings or in the community in comparison to 54% of unsuccessful programs (emphasis added; Antonowicz, Izzo, and Ross,1995: 51-52). Social cognitive programs such as Ross Reasoning and Rehabilitation (1985) should be provided to those prisoners who need to develop their pro-social competencies. The successful offender employment programs are those that develop the appropriate prosocial skills (or soft skills) for the context in which the individual must work. If the prison does start to develop the necessary pro-social competencies then it will assist in the rehabilitation and successful reintegration of the offender.


Part Two: Offender Programming for Employment Unemployment and Crime

Larry Motiuk , Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) wrote that Unstable employment is a major offender risk and need factor. Offenders with unstable employment patterns are at much greater risk of re-offending than offenders with a stable employment history. Therefore, identifying offender employment status at time of arrest, analyzing offender employment needs on admission to prison and monitoring offender employment patterns while under community supervision can provide programming targets that could potentially lead to substantial reductions in offender recidivism (The evidence supports the ) value of targeting offender employment as a major risk and need factor throughout the correctional process, and demonstrates that this practice can lead to more effective and efficient offender case management (Forum, Vo.8,No,1, 1996). Employment is one of the CSC 's 15 risk factors. It is also a risk factor in Andrews Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI).He notes that two-thirds of the federal population of offenders were unemployed at the time of their arrest. In the CSC research, as the level of risk increases, as measured by the federal Statistical Information on Recidivism 1 scale, then the number of unemployed at the point of arrest increases with the overall level of risk. Thus of the very poor or high risk group, 89.4% were unemployed as opposed to only 46.3% in the very good or lowest risk group.

In another more recent review, Paul Gendreau et al did a meta-analysis of the employment domain. They write that Of all of the predictors of offender recidivism, the employment domain is probably the most prosaic. Indeed, it has generated little debate compared with other 25

predictors, such as social class of origin, personal distress and personality In general, it has been assumed that the employment domain is a moderately good predictor of recidivism. This conclusion has been confirmed by meta-analyses of the literature about juvenile and adult offenders. Surveys have also revealed that employment, vocational training and financial needs are the strongest deficits among adult offenders (Case need domain: Employment, Forum, Vo.10, No.3, 1998:1) Though there is a clear correlation, it is not just a simple causal one. It is not a simple matter of poverty and unemployment causing crime. Most poor individuals are honest and hard working while many rich individuals commit major economic crimes. It is probably more that individuals with anti-social values and attitudes tend to be unemployed, and communities with low social capital or collective efficacy tend to have more unemployed as well as more crime. In the most massive and comprehensive review done to date, Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesnt, Whats Promising (Sherman et al, 1997) there is a section on Labor Markets and Crime Risk Factors (Bushway and Reuter). They write Employment and crime have a complex relationship. For an individual, they can be substitutes or complements. For example, some people choose crime rather than legitimate work because of an expectation that they can make more money from crime and/or because they find it more rewarding in other ways (Katz, 1989; Bourgois, 1995). On the other hand, the workplace can offer opportunities for certain kinds of crimes that are more difficult to commit elsewhere, such as theft of inventory or selling of gambling services. The relationship between employment and crime at the community level the relationship is equally ambiguous. Crime in a community is the outcome of the intersection between the propensity to commit a crime and the opportunity to commit a crime. For example, in a given community over time, high employment may be associated with reduced presence of residents and greater wealth, thus increasing criminal opportunities. On the other hand~ low employment also provides better legitimate work opportunities for potential offenders, thus reducing their propensity to commit crime. Looking across communities, one can see the same potentially countervailing influences; poor communities offer weak job prospects but also (except for drug markets) financially unrewarding criminal opportunities. At this level, crime rates may depend not on the level of employment but on a much more fundamental set of social and individual characteristics. Pure theory is not likely then to provide guidance about the strength or direction of the relationship between employment and crime. However it is at least plausible that a strong negative relationship exists. At the descriptive level, those who commit crimes tend to be out of the labor force or unemployed. The communities in which crime, particularly violent crime, is so heavily concentrated show persistently high jobless rates. Increasing employment and 26

the potential for employment for individuals and communities currently at high risk of persistent joblessness may have a substantial preventive effect on crime. Thus a comprehensive assessment of crime prevention programs should include those aimed at increasing employment (Bushway and Reuter, Chapter 6:1). They write that on the level of the community American research does show that roughly half of all reported studies show a positive and statistically significant relationship between employment and crime ... the fraction of positive results increases to almost 75 percent of all studies when property crimes are analyzed separately from violent crimes. Then there is the individual level data Analyses of individual level data have attracted more attention as these data have become available. Studies of the 1945 Philadelphia birth cohort have shown that unemployment is associated with crime (e.g., Wolfgang, Figlio, Sellin, 1972), a finding that is reported in numerous other studies. However the causality is uncertain. Sampson and Laub (1993) argue that employment per se or by itself does not reduce crime or increase social control; it is only stability, commitment and responsibility that may be associated with getting a job that has crime reducing consequences. Gottfiredson and Hirschi (1990) argue that the relationship is essentially spurious, reflection of a common third factor which they call the level of individual social control. Economic choice theory is further supported by evidence showing that human capital influences earnings, and earnings influence recidivism by ex-offenders (Needels, 1996). Social control theory seems to have relevance, too, within the context of economic choice. Farrington et al. (1986) tie crime more directly to employment by examining the timing of crime and employment over almost 3 years for a sample of teenage males in England. They show that property crimes are committed more frequently during periods of joblessness. However, this relationship held only for those who were predisposed to crime (as reflected by self-reports on earlier criminal activity, and moral values); otherwise spells of joblessness did not induce more criminal offending. This brief review establishes that researchers have measured a relationship between crime and employment, and that a number of mechanisms, operating both at the individual and community level, may explain the relationship. The key remaining question is whether or not programs aimed at increasing employment for atrisk populations can attain that goal and reduce crime. If our goal is successful re-entry and social inclusion then offender employment and retention is necessary but not sufficient. It is important that offender employment programs look at all the factors identified in the social exclusion literature (such as the recent UK document Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners). Given that qualification it is clear that offenders tend to be unemployed and could benefit from job training and education. 27

Job Training and Education

Bushway and Reuter complete their review with theses comments on job training and education programs. The earliest labor market-oriented crime prevention programs followed just this logic -- providing legitimate employment or employment skills to at-risk individuals would reduce their criminal participation. Numerous programs were developed to provide basic education, vocational training and work experience for youth in high crime and high unemployment communities. The federal government spends large sums ($2.5 billion in 1994 4) on skills-developing programs aimed at increasing the employment prospects of individuals who are at high risk of being persistently unemployed. Most of these interventions target youth, particularly adolescents, on the reasonable assumption that early interventions have higher payoff if successful. The other large set of interventions targets those already involved with the criminal justice system, since they are also known to have low human capital (emphasis added, Bushway and Reuter, Chapter 6:4-5). Their review of programs aimed at high-risk youth and offenders showed that there are many more unknowns than there is solid evidence. The literature was summarized thus: What works? 1) Short-term vocational training programs for older male ex-offenders no longer involved in the justice system. What does not work? 1) Summer job or subsidized work programs for at-risk youth. 2) Short-term, non-residential training programs for at-risk youth. 3) Pre-trial diversions for adult offenders which make employment training a condition. What is promising? 1) Intensive, residential training programs for at-risk youth (Job Corps). 2) Prison-based vocational education programs for adults. 3) Housing dispersion programs. 4) Enterprise Zones. What do not we not know enough about? 1) 2) 3) 4) CJS-based programs for juvenile offenders. Post-release transitional assistance for offenders. Reverse commuting. Wage subsidies.


5) Bonding programs. 6) Community development as done through the Community. Development Block Grant Program. 7) School-to-Work programs funded by the School-to-Work Opportunities Act (Bushway and Reuter, Chapter 6:26). It would seem that Andrews general concerns about just Improving neighborhood-wide living conditions without touching the criminogenic needs of higher-risk individuals and families Showing respect for antisocial thinking on the grounds that the values of one culture are as equally valid as the values of another culture Increasing conventional ambition in the areas of school and work without concrete assistance in realizing these ambitions are valid concerns in the area of employment. There is a need to target those Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive-emotional states (i.e., personal cognitive supports for crime); around employment and the culture of work. It is not just a matter of a lack of skills or limited opportunity. It is also a matter of the individual and communitys attitudes, values, and beliefs about work. are quite valid. Bushway and Reuter make the same critical point we believe (what) must be the theoretical bedrock of any successful program aimed at increasing labor market participation in order to decrease crime: A program must connect a community or individuals to the world of legitimate work so that residents will have the proper incentives to acquire the necessary human capital needed for success in that world. Without that connection, any work program is unlikely to succeed in a substantial way. They are suggesting that rather than thinking in terms of the individual offender, it is important to think of the individual in the social context (community) in which the person must function. This fact emphasizes the need to work with the offender in both the transition into the community as well as with the offender in the community so that there is generalization and maintenance of any changes that occur in the prison. This research also supports the NIJ and NIC work on transitional programming.

Characteristics of Successful Offender Reintegration Programs

In 1974, the community psychologist, Verne McArthur, described the characteristics of a successful reentry program in his classic work, Coming Out Cold. These characteristics are 1.Programs must begin with the assumption that most releasees are genuinely intent on changing their lives.


2.The immediate reentry period, the first three to five weeks after release, appears critical to the nature of post release adjustments, and programs must focus their most intensive help during this period. 3.However, it will be even more fundamental to eventual success for programs to begin working with clients several weeks to several months in advance of release. Reentry, both as a psychological and institutional process, begins prior to release, and much of the groundwork necessary for post release. 4.Programs must recognize that the primary source of reentry difficulties is the releasee's life situation rather his own personal limitations, attitudes, or emotional difficulties. 5.The major focus of these efforts must be on providing meaningful opportunities. The greatest need is for supported alternatives to previous life styles rather than supervision or adjustment-oriented counseling. 6.Another major need is for an individual adult helping relationship that provides continuity and active support throughout reentry. The releasee needs someone whom he feels is committed to his own interests and believes in him. 7.Programs need to recognize the extent to, which change in one life sphere influences the others. Most important, though jobs and education are the cornerstones of successful reintegration, programs cannot neglect other needs interrelated with these. Releasees tend to confront the sacrifices of change before evolving a supporting life style that makes these sacrifices worthwhile. 8.Help with family relationships is especially critical. The present research indicates that for the offender, families are both the single most important resource available during reentry and a major source of conflict and stress. 9.Developing postrelease vocational and educational placements that are experienced as leading to meaningful future opportunities may be critical to a program's ability to engage the offender. 10. Finally, reentry programs should significantly involve agencies and people from the releasee's community. It is they who will confront the consequences of the offenders return and who will have to provide many of the resoruces, opportunities, and supports necessary for satisfactory reentry. As a community psychologist McArthur conceptualizes the problem in terms of the individual functioning within a life situation in a specific social context. It is interesting to note that McArthur usually uses the phase releasee to describe the individual coming out of the prison setting. In contrast Bushway and Reuter wrote:


We identify the targets (of employment programs) as offender rather than ex-offenders because in fact what is known is that they have committed a crime. The ex-offender status is a goal rather than a description (Chapter 6, 1997:31). This would seem to highlight the importance of McArthurs first point. The RPI literature uses both offender and also releasee. Another term used in this document is persons with social disabilities. This terms attempts to make a distinction between the person and the problem which is the lack of a sufficient number of social competencies and protective factors along with too many risk factors. The Reentry Partnership Initiatives has a list of Evidence Based Principles for Successful Reentry. The list includes: Informal social controls (such as family, peer, and community influences) have a more direct effect on offender behavior than formal social controls (see, e.g., Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; Byrne, 1990). Duration of the intervention is critical to offender outcomes. Behavior change is a long process that requires a minimum of 12 to 24 months. The period of incarceration and reintegration provides a sufficient period to bring about change Dosage of the intervention is critical to change. Intensity and frequency are important to assist the offender in making critical decisions that affect the likelihood of success. Intervention units should be matched to offenders' risks and needs, and their readiness for change. Often, intensive interventions are more effective when they are preceded by treatment focused on building offender motivation and advancing their readiness for change (Taxman, 1999; Simpson and Knight, 1999). Intensive services should be followed by support services provided during stabilization and maintenance periods to reinforce treatment messages (NIDA, 2000 and Surgeon General, 2000). Comprehensive, integrated, and flexible services are critical to address the myriad needs and risk factors that affect long-term success. Offenders typically present diverse deficits and strengths, and programs are effective when they can meet the multiple needs of individuals. Valid assessment tools should be used to prioritize needs, and services must be integrated so there are not competing demands and expectations placed on offenders Continuity in behavior-change interventions is critical (Taxman, 1998; Simpson, Wexler, Inciardi, 1999). Interventions, either in prison or in the community, should build upon each other. Pitfalls to avoid are incompatible clinical approaches or inconsistent messages to offenders. Communication of offender responsibility and expectations is necessary. A behavioral contract that articulates the structured reentry and community reintegration process is an effective tool for conveying these expectations and consequences for non-compliance (Taxman, Soule, Gelb, 1999; Silverman, Higgins, Brooner, Montoya, Cone, Schuster, & Preston, 1996). Support mechanisms are critical to long-term success. Support mechanisms can involve the family, community, and informal agencies (e.g., religious organizations,


Alcoholics Anonymous, spouse support groups, etc.). The support mechanism links the offender and the community and provides the ultimate attachments (NIDA, 2000). Offender accountability and responsibility is key. A system of sanctions and incentives must ensure that the offender understands expectations and rules, and the offender should take part in the process of developing these accountability standards. The offender must be held accountable for actions taken both in prison and the community; the partnership should support constructive, pro-social decisions. A more recent study of offenders in Seattle, Washington shows that McArthurs Coming Out Cold is still a very good description of the re-entry process for most offenders. Jacqueline Helfgott (1977) writes in Federal Probation that the Results from the ex-offender interviews show that, as a group, the ex-offenders have little support from family and friends upon release and that needs include housing, employment, substance abuse counseling, education, clothing, food, transportation, medical care, auto and health insurance, access to voice mail, and a positive circle of friends. The needs cited as most important were employment, housing, and substance abuse counseling. Virtually all of the interviewees said housing was the most difficult need to meet, primarily because of lack of financial resources, limited credit and rental history, and discrimination as a result of ex-offender status. Other needs mentioned as difficult to meet were employment, transportation, sobriety, and medical care. The ex-offenders shared similar goals for the future. Common short-term goals were to obtain meaningful employment, to get into school, to stay out of trouble, to establish or re-establish relationships, to maintain sobriety, and to save money. Common long-term goals were to own a home, to establish a career, to be self-employed and to own a business, to obtain an educational degree, to be able to help their children financially through college, and to "have a normal life." Most of the ex-offenders were, or planned to be, under the supervision of the DOC upon release. When asked if they had any fears about living in society without reoffending, most expressed concern not about lack of personal motivation to change, but about the tightrope they would have to walk with their community corrections officers. As a group, the ex-offenders expressed frustration with what they thought to be unreasonable supervision conditions and the inability of community corrections officers to understand the "street life." According to one ex-offender, the officers "just want you to tell a good lie ... they have no understanding of what it's like ... take them out and they wouldn't be able to survive on the streets. " Thus, a common theme in how they thought about and dealt with community corrections supervision was that supervision conditions set them up for failure, that the officers are concerned only about their having an "address" on paper, and that no one sincerely wants to understand their situation or to help them. Given this basic conception of community corrections supervision, few of the exoffenders interviewed thought of their community corrections officers as a resource in the reintegration process.


The consensus of the ex-offenders was that post-release assistance was not going to help them with those crucial days immediately following release when they would be thrust back into the subcultures that had helped to send them to jail or prison in the first place. One ex-offender said, 'Hey, everybody has the will to survive, I'm not going to do without," and proceeded to explain how he has supported himself for years as a "twist artist," selling fake drugs at $50 a pop so that he wouldn't have to go hungry or sleep under a bridge. He explained that on the day he is released, if New Connections is closed, he would not go without and that he would do what he could to make some quick cash. This individual highlighted the need for a "mentor" and a positive circle of friends to help him onto the "other side of the street and into the "middle class mind set." He explained that once in his life he had been friends with a "middle class person" and that this simple association helped him to stay straight for a time because he had the opportunity to be "shown how" to be a "middle class person." The immediate immersion in a criminal subculture upon release was a prominent concern for most of the interviewees. When those still incarcerated were asked how they envision their first week on the outside to be, or how prior reintegration attempts had been, they described living on the streets or in shelters surrounded by drugs, depression, and violence. They believed that change was possible if only they could have a "safe place to stay" and "some clean and sober friends." From the finding of the survey Jacqueline Helfgott argues that: These findings suggest that there are several steps that can be taken in Seattle to better meet the needs of ex-offenders and the community. First, fear among community members must be addressed through consciousness-raising activities that educate the public about offenders, the correlates of recidivism, and the need for shared community responsibility in the reintegration process. Second, ex-offenders can be assisted in achieving an ecological fit within the community through application of Johnson's (1996) model of inmate adjustment to the ex-offenders adjustment in the community setting. Johnson proposes that inmates' needs can be met through "ecological mapping, "inmate orientation, a human servicesoriented correctional officer role, and contracting The findings of the present study suggest that the resources needed by ex-offenders do exist within the community but that these resources need to be "mapped" so that ex-offenders know where to look for what they need. One way to map these resources would be to compile a listing of resources specifically for ex-offenders, perhaps including a city map, and other information that would be of importance in the reintegration process. Both the exoffenders and the transition agencies expressed the need for centralization of services and an orientation to the resources available. Over 25 years ago McArthur wrote Coming Out Cold (1974) from the perspective of a community psychologist. The emphasis in his work was on the individual functioning in a specific social context rather than just an emphasis on the individual deficits or pathology of the ex-offender. There is now a systems wide move, both in terms of crime prevention and also in rehabilitation and the reentry process, to start to emphasis context over the criminal. If the number of risk factors is reduced as the number of protective factors is increased then the probability of successful reentry 33

increases. There is a body of existing knowledge about what works, whether or not this knowledge base will be used is a political decision.

The Role of the Offender Employment Specialist

The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) has started training in the role of the Offender Employment Specialist as a response to the massive increase in Americans being released back into the community. Part of the Offender Employment Specialist role is to act as a case manager. The OES model talks about a case management network, A case management network is a community-wide network of service providers who coordinate the provision of services to clients within the community under either formal or informal agreements, The goal is to meet the special needs of clients who receive case management services The Case Management Developmental Cycle 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Identify potential organizations and agencies to include in the network Personally contact/invite agencies to meet and discuss common goals. Market the program by communicating with others. Expand the network by developing additional partnerships. Evaluate the networking effect. Partnerships review meeting. The Case Management Concepts Case management is comprehensive and client-oriented. Case management and client are partners. Case manager and client respect each other. Each client has one case manager. Case management relates client actions to outcomes. Case management involves creative problem-solving. Case management relies on network of services/supports. Case management requires partnership at systems level.

Thus the OES must a) at the level of the individual, assess and prepare the client and then place the client in a job and ensure retention; while b) at the systems level work to develop the network so that the necessary resources exist and are delivered to the client. This is shown in the chart on the job of the Offender Employment Specialist.


The OSE lists these characteristics of an effective pre-employment and job readiness skills program The program should provide information on how to enter the world of work. The program, should provide the opportunity to develop the skills and attitudes that employers want. The program should address specific barriers to offender employment. The program should utilize community resources to help offenders seek employment. 35

The program should focus on both obtaining and maintaining employment. These criteria along with the ones mentioned by McArthur, provide a good framework for the evaluation of an offender employment program. Basically the question is whether or not the program deals with the individual and situational barriers to employment?

Offender Needs/Barriers to Employment

In the OES training module the following potential barriers have been identified: Criminal record Women offender Functional illiteracy No diploma or GED Lack of job skills Health Physical disability Developmental disability Learning disability English-language deficient Minority Lack of a drivers license Alcohol abuse Drug abuse Lack of credentials Lack of motivation Sporadic job history Child care No work experience Lack of work ethic Mental health issues

Some of this would seem to be just individual issues while others are clearly social and public policy issues.

The Situation in the United Kingdom

In Europe there has been increasing use of the concept of social exclusion. The UK defines social exclusion thus: Shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown


In 2002. the Social Exclusion Unit in the UK released a 221 page report, Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, that details both the failure of the criminal justice system as well as the magnitude of the needs of those individuals who fill the UK prisons. Some of their findings included: Prison sentences are not succeeding in turning the majority of offenders away from crime. Of those prisoners released in 1997, 58 per cent were convicted of another crime within two years. 36 per cent were back inside on another prison sentence. The system struggles particularly to reform younger offenders. 18-20-year-old male prisoners were reconvicted at a rate of 72 per cent over the same period; 47 per cent received another prison sentence. An ex-prisoner's path back to prison is extremely costly for the criminal justice system. A reoffending ex-prisoner is likely to be responsible for crime costing the criminal justice system an average of 65,000. Prolific offenders will cost even more. When re-offending leads to a further prison sentence, the costs soar. The average cost of a prison sentence imposed at a crown court is roughly 30,500, made up of court and other legal costs. The costs of actually keeping prisoners within prison vary significantly, but average 37,500 per year. Though these figures are UK data, similar costs exist for all EU countries. As the Baltic States integrate with the EU the costs of the criminal justice system will increase especially as the prison facilities are brought into line with EU Penal Rules and Standards. Even the USA is finding the costs of massive incarceration impossible to bear without cutting back on other areas such as education. There is now considerable evidence of the factors that influence re-offending. Building on criminological and social research, the Social Exclusion Unit (SEU) has identified nine key factors: education; employment; drug and alcohol misuse; mental and physical health; attitudes and self-control; institutionalisation and life-skills; housing; financial support and debt; and family networks. The evidence shows that these factors can have a huge impact on the likelihood of a prisoner reoffending. For example, being in employment reduces the risk of re-offending by between a third and a half; having stable accommodation reduces the risk by a fifth. Many prisoners have experienced a lifetime of social exclusion. Compared with the general population, prisoners are thirteen times as likely to have been in care as a child, thirteen times as likely to be unemployed, ten times as likely to have been a regular truant, two and a half times as likely to have had a family member convicted of a criminal offence, six times as likely to have been a young father, and fifteen times as likely to be HIV positive.


Many prisoners' basic skills are very poor. 80 per cent have the writing skills, 65 per cent the numeracy skills and 50 per cent the reading skills at or below the level of an 11 -year-old child. 60 to 70 per cent of prisoners were using drugs before imprisonment. Over 70 per cent suffer from at least two mental disorders. And 20 per cent of male and 37 per cent of female sentenced prisoners have attempted suicide in the past. The position is often even worse for 18-20-year-olds, whose basic skills, unemployment rate and school exclusion background are all over a third worse than those of older prisoners. Despite high levels of need, many prisoners have effectively been excluded from access to services in the past. It is estimated that around half of prisoners had no GP before they came into custody; prisoners are over twenty times more likely than the general population to have been excluded from school; and one prison drugs project found that although 70 per cent of those entering the prison had a drug misuse problem, 80 per cent of these had never had any contact with drug treatment services. There is a considerable risk that a prison sentence might actually make the factors associated with re-offending worse. For example, a third lose their house while in prison, two-thirds lose their job, over a fifth face increased financial problems and over two-fifths lose contact with their family. There are also real dangers of mental and physical health deteriorating further, of life and thinking skills being eroded, and of prisoners being introduced to drugs. By aggravating the factors associated with re-offending, prison sentences can prove counterproductive as a contribution to crime reduction and public safety. (emphasis in original, SEU, 2002:5-7)

By aggravating the factors associated with re-offending, prison sentences can prove counter- productive as a contribution to crime reduction and public safety.
The needs, identified in the research literature, have developed over many years. It is unrealistic to expect the prison to be the sole solution to these needs. Even with increased resources the prison system cannot do the job of reintegration without the partnership of all the other health and human services, and community groups. Just as the formal controls of the state are not sufficient for crime prevention but also require informal social controls, rehabilitation and reintegration requires a commitment by the wider society and an acceptance that the role of the prison is limited. Almost thirty years ago. A. Verne McArthur said that The critical question is why this correctional neglect of reentry exists. It is a particularly important question to consider in formulating action recommendations ... it is not difficult to generate a reentry program blueprint based on the current understanding of reentry problems. The problem exists when one begins to question whether new programs ideas are what is needed to produce more effective correctional approaches to reentry and reintegration. Such recommendations would make and reinforce that assumption that the basic systems problem, the reason underlying correctional neglect, is ignorance of the needs and problems of reentry, and of effective helping strategies.


The critical question that seems to remain largely unaddressed is whether the problems of change are not more political issues of societal priorities in the distribution of resources and commitment to different classes of people ( emphasis added, 1974: 108109). For McArthur it is a question of social justice far more than a question of lack of knowledge. We have a large group of individuals with social disabilities due to a process of social exclusion. It is less a matter of rehabilitation and reintegration than it is a matter of meaningful habilitation and integration in the first place. The prison system is no alternative to the lack of a real social contract. This in no way denies the value of the prison as a tool for social control. Nor does it deny the value of the increased emphasis on offender reentry and reintegration. A new UK study, Building bridges to employment for prisoners (HORS #226), provides an excellent overview of what can be done. However the same study also highlights the lack of resources now available to the prison and probation service to provide such services for the offender in the transition period. In Building bridges to employment for prisoners (HORS #226),Webster et al, carried out a major survey of the UK system and visited eight sites selected as best practice. They identified some generally applicable key learning points: prisons can deliver high quality programmes and interventions aimed at increasing the employment chances of inmates on release most of the establishments we visited had set up well thought-out schemes which staff were trying to run in ways which were consistent with 'what works' principles a number of the individual schemes we saw had worked through questions concerning levels and types of assistance required, the advantages and disadvantages of programmes being delivered by external agencies or discipline staff, how to offer help to inmates with literacy problems, how to involve external agencies (e.g. the Employment Service) in work delivered inside, how to engage with agencies offering post-release support before an inmate leaves prison; and how to encourage employers to give jobs to current inmates or ex-prisoners. These schemes offer many good practice lessons however, in a number of the establishments we visited, those interviewed made it clear that interventions were set up and continued to run because of the commitment and dedication of programme staff. Despite their best efforts, the consistency with which interventions are delivered is frequently compromised in some establishments by difficulties in ensuring that inmates are escorted to them bearing in mind that the eight sites (that were visited) were handpicked to represent best practice, it is worrying that the co-ordination between different employment, training and education (ETE) interventions seemed to be the exception rather than the rule 39

when it is properly carried out, sentence planning is a valuable and effective means of ensuring that ETE interventions are targeted appropriately; However, for many prisoners serving short to medium length sentences, sentence planning is cursory. Provided adequate risk assessment procedures are in place, there is more potential for prisoners to work and attend interviews in the community before release. However, at least some prisons seem reluctant to facilitate this. (HORS #226. 2001:iii-iv) They ended the summary with these comments: Finally, the evidence base from which the oft-quoted 'what works' principle is derived, that community-based work is normally more effective than that carried out in prisons, is not strong. It is based on North American meta-analyses where 'community-base' includes work outside a criminal justice setting. Certainly, our visits to programmes, and the few good studies of prison-based employment interventions we have identified in the literature, suggest that these can be worthwhile. However, to maximise the impact of such programmes requires prison service managers and governors to recognise that currently many prisons are an inhospitable and sometimes actively hostile environment, for such work. To foster effective employment interventions requires that it is accorded a much higher priority (HORS #226. 2001:viii). The key point is the same one made by Ross. It is not the setting (the prison) but the nature of the setting, and the quality of its programmes that is essential. As McArthur asked, do we have the political will to mandate and to resource the prisons so that effective employment interventions are delivered to the offenders? This study is of great value to European readers since it is both up to date and also includes European references that are not mentioned in the American literature. It complements the massive amount of material being produced in the USA. Chapter 2 in the study is an excellent review of the literature. Webster et al provide these lessons about effective interventions. Good quality research into the impact of employment initiatives in prison and in the community is scarce. Studies which shed light on the efficacy of programmes for women, ethnic minority offenders and young offenders are particularly thin on the ground. None of the most rigorous studies was carried out in the UK. However, the Welfare to Work evaluation methodology looks promising. The current evidence base is simply too poor to yield firm conclusions about the value of different employment interventions with offenders. One important shortcoming is that few have controlled for selection effects, particularly motivational differences, so it is difficult to know how far those who complete a programme, and appeared to benefit from it, would have obtained work or stopped offending without assistance. Another key problem is that even


when a programme is successful, it is usually not possible to say which element, or combination of interventions, has made the difference. This is partly down to poor documentation, but it also reflects the fact that employment programmes rarely follow 'what works' principles. In particular, they do not adhere to a particular design and there is too much variation in what different offenders receive. Also, help is rarely targeted at those at higher risk of offending, although there is some evidence to suggest that, as with other interventions, these are the ones who benefit most. lack of targeting is also wasteful. Given the wide range of other social and personal problems offenders face, employment interventions alone are unlikely to succeed. It is much harder to deal with employment and training needs for an offender who is homeless or who has an untreated substance misuse problem. Integrated programmes are required which address personal development, accommodation and substance misuse needs as well as training and employment issues. Mentoring, is gaining rapid popularity in the UK for supporting socially excluded people. Early indications are that it may be helpful when it is well organised and mentors are introduced to prisoners during their sentence rather than post-release. Finally, the literature suggests that two types of employment related work are unhelpful. Raising job expectations through training without any serious prospect of a job on release may be actively damaging rather than just ineffective. This makes tailoring interventions to the local job market and/or employer involvement in programmes key success factors. Also, employment in prison workshops does not appear to increase the chances of employment on release (emphasis added, HORS #226. 2001:18). The UK prison survey data in this study is most interesting.


It would be useful for the three Baltic States to carry out a similar survey. Data provided by the Estonian prison system seems to show the same emphasis on basic literacy etc. and the same lack of employment targeted interventions. Basic skills training was the most common form of help given and at least three-quarters of the prisons surveyed said that they offered help with CV preparation, interview techniques and general confidence building, devising individual employment plans and becoming selfemployed. Two-thirds also provided advice on disclosing criminal convictions and assisted inmates to contact their home employment service. The least common forms of assistance were psychometric testing, follow-up support on release, work release, work experience and day release for job interviews. No differences in provision were apparent between male and female establishments or when YOIs were compared with adult prisons. Help with basic skills, literacy and numeracy were the most common forms of help provided in training, local, resettlement and high security prisons; and work experience, day release and follow-up support were the least common. However, about half of the resettlement prisons which replied to the survey offered work release, work experience or day release to go to interviews. This was true of less than a third of local or training prisons and only one high security prison said it would allow work release (emphasis added, HORS#226, 2001:21-23)


There is nothing wrong in the training of basic skills, literacy and numeracy. The 3Rs are still important. However given the offenders needs, it is not enough. There is a need for much more assessment, job preparation, job development, job placement and job retention if the goal is offender employment. The OES model is applicable to prisons in the EU and in the Baltic States. There is a need for a shift from a focus on prison safety to community safety where issues of safe and security are really balanced in practice with issues of rehabilitation and reintegration.

Case Study: HMP Durham: A Best Practice Example

It is possible to change the prisons perspective. The HORS #226 includes information on eight examples of best practice. One of these best practice examples is a high security prison, HMP Durham, which also has a large population of short-time prisoners. The prison realized that these individuals were caught in a revolving door - short sentences, discharge, new offences, and another short sentence. The prison has established a Job Club that is focused on training the prisoners in the skills that they need to get a real job in the real world. Webster et al report that All the inmates we interviewed were almost unreservedly positive about the course. They felt all the material presented was relevant and helpful. They appreciated the fact that the course was practical and helped them to arrange real-life interviews. All inmates felt that the quality of teaching was very high. This prison is doing some of the critical work that needs to be done if the offender is to find real employment. Webster et al provide the following assessment of the job club. Outcomes The job club kept a running score of outcomes based on feedback from released prisoners. They had recently started contacting released prisoners, sending out their first aid certificates with a reply-paid envelope requesting details of how they were getting on. Since the club first started in 1996, 464 individuals had completed the programme of whom: 158 had found employment 37 had entered college or enrolled on training courses 8 had been involved with the Prince's Trust to start their own business 1 had enrolled in university Assessment Strengths: the intervention appears to be targeted at the right prisoners and delivered at the appropriate part of their sentence it is thought through and appropriate and delivered by enthusiastic and committed staff


it is focused on getting actual jobs, an approach which engages the motivation of most prisoners based on the limited information available, many prisoners appear to secure interviews and jobs on release Weaknesses: only limited vocational guidance takes place - most prisoners choose to seek work in fields where they have previous experience the telephone and interview techniques are valuable but it is difficult for prisoners to develop their skills without further practice. this factor, combined with a lack of computer resources, for most prisoners means that although they may make use of the techniques they have learnt in the first few weeks after release, many will revert to previous job-seeking approaches in the medium/long term the lack of management support and the disproportionate amount of time that is spent on securing quite low levels of resources detracts from the quality of the intervention (HORS #226, 2001: 41) HMP Durham is now a partner in the EXIT Project along with the Center for Social Rehabilitation in Tallinn, Estonia and the other partners in Slovenia, the Netherlands, and Germany. It is hoped that HMP Durham may help the Estonian prison system to develop its offender employment programs.

Another Prison Success Story

In the report, Building Bridges to employment for prisoners, there is a good example of these basic principles being put into practice in the Toyota Mechanics Course at HMYOI Aylesbury which is a high security establishment for young offenders. They write that: The Toyota Mechanics Course replicates the programme taught in Toyoto UK's three training centres. It requires the same course-work and awards the same qualification. However, the NVQ level Ill cannot be awarded because the certifying body stipulates that candidates must be in employment to meet the criteria. The course was first run in early 1999 and two groups of 12 inmates are taught concurrently. Theoretically, the course takes 18 months to complete, but staff shortages and the frequency of lockdowns make it difficult to deliver to timetable. Apprentices undertaking the same course in the community usually take three years to complete it on a day release basis The course combines theoretical study with practical work and each component of the course is examined. There are three levels (steps) to each of the nineteen components on the course. The only difference from the mainstream Toyota course is that the syllabus section on immobilisers and alarm systems is not taught. This decision was arrived at less because such knowledge would be of value to a car thief than because it might be perceived as being so and undermine confidence in the course.


The workshop is equipped to a high specification with an initial investment by Toyota UK of 350,000. Three vehicles are provided, plus tools, simulators and training manuals and workbooks. The Prison Service provides the workshop, instructors and one laptop computer and projector. Toyota UK also provides a budget of 30,000 per annum for equipment and tools (Webster et al, 2001:33) . The report provides this assessment of the programme. Assessment Strengths the content of the course, its delivery and the qualification gained are all of high quality inmates completing the course have realistic chances of gaining well-paid and skilled work the course has been developed almost entirely because of the commitment and dedication of one individual; the entrepreneurial approach of this individual has been pivotal in establishing the course Weaknesses the lack of staff resources within the prison means that the course is being chronically disrupted with negative consequences for those inmates currently engaged in it even though the course is assured of long-term funding its existence would be in some jeopardy should the current instructor leave lack of links with pre-release courses and support on release It is real training for real work. The instructor believes that the fact that the course provides an advanced qualification that can lead to work in motor mechanics makes the course attractive to the young offenders. The instructor has added some input on CV preparation and making contact with dealerships. The comment was made that the program would be more effective if inmates were helped to find employment both before they left prison and on release.

Soft Skills: The Culture of Work

It has been argued that the basic skills are not sufficient for success in getting, and more importantly, retention of the job. The reason for this is the changes in the demands of the workplace. The Offender Employment Specialist Training program lists what surveys have shown the employers want. The SCANS report sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor listed the ability to: Use resources Process information 45

Understand systems Use a variety of technologies Use interpersonal Skills

While a report, What Employers Want, based on the U.S. Census Bureaus National Employers Survey reports that On a scale of 1 to 5.5 being most important, employers ranked these factors that they consider in hiring decisions: Attitude Communication skills Previous work experience Recommendations from current employees Previous employer recommendations Industry-based credentials Years of completed schooling Score on tests administered as part of interview Academic performance Experience or reputation of applicants school 2.4 Teacher recommendations The OSE training manual notes that what is Most striking in these surveys is what employers dont mention. None of the surveys reported that employers mentioned a high level of a specific vocational skill as being important for success in the workplace. Having a positive attitude, being able to solve problems, knowing how to read and write and coming to work on time is critical. Most employers are willing to teach employees vocational skills and provide specific vocational training on the job. Employers are looking for the employee who is job-ready and possesses basic skills. Last, employers dont simply want new hires who have the right attitude and who appear to be dependable, hard-working, honest and team players. They want employees who show these essential characteristics every day. Many offenders, on the other hand, manage to find a job but cannot successfully cope with the stress/pressures of reintegration; in the long run, they cant make the transition (Section 3- Effective Programs, Page 8) Employers are looking for individuals who are good learners and who have excellent interpersonal skills. A good employee: Learns easily Reads, writes, and computes well 4.6 4.2 4.0 3.4 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.1


Listens carefully and speaks coherently Thinks creatively Solves problems Gets along with others Negotiates conflicts Works as a team member Is organized Exercises leadership Sets goals Self-motivates Maintains self-esteem Strives for personal and career development

This would be a challenging list of competencies for almost anyone yet alone the offender coming out of a prison setting. Programs such as the Reasoning & Rehabilitation (1985) program are designed to deal with the offenders cognitive deficits in the areas of Self control/Impulsivity Concrete vs. Abstract Thinking Cognitive Rigidity Interpersonal Cognitive Problem-Solving Egocentricity Values Critical Reasoning

Such social cognitive behavioral training programs are an essential foundation for the offender employment training program. The OSE chart on the next page lists the key elements in the areas of Life Skills, Job Readiness and Job Retention. In the Public/Private Ventures report Hard Work on Soft Skills: Creating a Culture of Work in Workforce Development, Houghton and Proscio describe four workforce development programs that concentrate on the development of the soft skills or what has also been called emotional intelligence as well as the hard skills. The four programs are very different but there are some basic principles that they all follow: 1.Integrate soft skills into every element of the curriculum. 2. Create work or work-like tasks and establish teams to complete them. 3. Put trainees in the employers role from time to time, so that by managing they can learn to be managed. 4. Establish the discipline of the workplace in all aspects of the program. 5. Recreate the physical environment of work to the fullest extent possible. 6. Give participants lots of opportunities to get to know successful people, 7. Support services and soft skills are not the same, but they go hand in hand


The OEST manual provides the following list of key elements in the process of job readiness, placement and retention:


Houghton and Proscio end their study by saying that the Fundamental theoretical premise is also the fundamental challenge: Students who develop hard skills alone may end up being just as hard to employ as those who learn no skills at all. Developing both social and technical abilities- not side by side, with the same degree of emphasis and real-world concreteness- is the surest way to equip trainees for the demands of the workplace, both soft and hard (pg.54, emphasis added)

Job Retention: The Need for Long-Term Support

There are some universal job retention problems to be found in the hard-to-serve population, as mentioned the offender/releasee has the criminal history, community discrimination, a lack of housing, a history of drug abuse, low levels of education, and poor work histories. (SEU Report, Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, 2002). These factors tend to lead to limited success at finding and keeping meaningful work. The SEU report states that The literature makes it clear that Work is common, steady work is not Job loss is common, especially in the first four to six months Most earn low wages and wage increase little despite years of work As low-income people work more hours, earning do rise significantly over time Most people find jobs that lack important benefits. Most work non-standard hours or changing hours. As a result of part-time work and intermittent work at low-wage jobs, many people remain poor- or near poor-even after 5 years. The offender employment service provider wants to change most of the above facts since the goal is to for released offenders to remain arrest free over the long haul, and to become competent and self-sufficient members of their communities. In another Public/Private Ventures report, Getting in, Staying on, Moving Up: A Practitioners Approach to Employment Retention, Proscio and Elliott report on Moving Up which is an employment program operated by the Vocational Foundation, Inc. This program does far more than just teach the necessary skills and provide encouragement. For two years after completing the program, students can expect regular and frequent follow-up contacts with VF's career advisors and other program staff. From the time they enroll, participants are the responsibility of several VF professionals, whose performance evaluations depend on the outcomes their clients achieve in the labor force. The program creates an almost immediate atmosphere of workplace discipline buttressed by close, supportive relationships between the students and adult counselorspeople who are chosen precisely for their ability to set high standards and then do whatever it takes to achieve them. That combination of high expectations and firm


support lasts from training and placement through the long and critically important period of follow-up. The results are impressive: two full years after taking their first job, more than 74 percent of graduates are still active in the program in one way or another (including attending college or GED classes, participating In training and seeking new jobs), and 63 percent are still working. About 12 percent had been promoted and 31 percent had been given raises. At the end of two years, the average wage of those employed was $8.64 an hour, a nearly 8 percent increase over the first year. Considering that enrollees are nearly all among the groups that the federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) defines as the most disadvantaged and difficult to place, this record is significant. The critical factor in Moving Up's success with job retention appears to be that it is not a separate "follow-up" program-although that is how it was originally conceived-but a fully integrated element of VF's whole employment strategy. The entire program, from recruitment onward, is designed to focus young people on a career, not just on a job; it is structured to equip them with habits, skills and, most distinctively, adult relationships that will be long-term assets for them in the workplace. The program makes available to every graduate a team of adult counselors and trainers, all of whom have long-term career development as part of their mission. And most Important, by the fourth month in training, every Moving Up client has begun working with the career advisor who will follow and support that client for the next two years (emphasis added, pg.4). When these outcomes are compared to the data in the SEU report, or the retention data from the OES training program, then the results are even more impressive. And these results are being achieved in a context where the real wages are dropping for most young men and women, especially those who are dropouts from high school. But VF is beating the odds through its program design and delivery. The core principles behind the Moving Up program are as follows: 1, Hold staff accountable for ends, not means. 2. Introducing participants to a culture of employment beginning on Day One. 3. Stress coordination and continuity from training to placement to job retention. 4. Hire counseling and vocational staff at least as much for their personal skills and background as for their professional credentials. 5. Maintain a network of service that support the whole person- emotionally, physically and intellectually, as well as vocationally. 6. Give participants an opportunity to develop a close, long-term relationship with at least one successful, caring adult.


7. Once students are employed, incorporate the programs services into the rhythm of their workday, so staff can provide effective support without disrupting the job. 8. Cultivate employers whose requirements you understand, and use every opportunity, no matter how brief, to learn something more about the company and its industry. 9. Retention begins at intake. Tony Proscio and Mark Elliott conclude by saying that From its earliest recruitment efforts, through intake, training, counseling, placement and post-placement services, the Moving Up program focuses not just on employment, but on durable employment-on careers, not jobs. The "virtual workplace" in its offices and classrooms, the students' "paycheck" during training, and the general climate of high expectations and mutual responsibility prepare students to think of their lives as fundamentally changing for the long term. To support that fundamental change, Moving Up provides an open-ended, long term relationship with adult mentors. And that relationship begins not when they have a job, but while they are still in training. The job-retention effort, in other words, starts well before there is any job to retain. The training, placement and post-placement functions are tightly intertwined, not separate parts of a three-phase program. In the view of VF management and staff, that is a central factor-maybe the central factor-in the program's success (pg.30).


Part Three: The Social Enterprise Model (The Economic Machinery of the Third Sector)
Up until this point the discussion has been on preparing the client to fit into the workplace. But there is an alternative, to create a workplace that fits the client. The alternative pathway is with the social entrepreneur and the social enterprise. What is Social Entrepreneurism? Social Entrepreneurism is the application of innovative management and program development strategies in an effort to address critical issues facing society. Individuals who engage in social enterprise, often referred to as Social Entrepreneurs, draw upon the best thinking in both the business and nonprofit worlds in order to advance their social agenda.

What are social entrepreneurs?

Social entrepreneurs play the role of change agents in the social sector, by: Adopting a mission to create and sustain social value (not just private value), Recognizing and relentlessly pursuing new opportunities to serve that mission, Engaging in a process of continuous innovation, adaptation, and learning, Acting boldly without being limited by resources currently in hand, and Exhibiting a heightened sense of accountability to the constituencies served and for the outcomes created. Successful social or community entrepreneurship requires local leadership, the emergence of what Dr. Tony Gibson, founder of the Neighbourhood Initiatives Foundation, has called 'moving spirits'. Social Entrepreneurs are the equivalent of true business entrepreneurs but they operate in the social, not-for-profit sector building 'something from nothing' and seeking new and innovative solutions to social problems. Their aim is to build 'social capital' and 'social profit' to improve the quality of life in some of the most 'difficult' and 'excluded' communities. Their work reaches the parts of society other policy initiatives do not touch. They identify unmet social need and generate solutions based upon a close reading of the views of those most directly affected. They normally work in creative partnership with central and local government, business, the churches, charities and other local and national institutions and they are skilled at constructing such partnerships. They have frequently achieved ambitious projects and far-reaching change, in the most unpromising circumstances and with minimal resources.


They recognise, encourage and employ skills from different faiths, cultures, traditions and backgrounds bringing them together in new and creative ways to address practical problems. They are skilled at redirecting, using and regenerating underused, abandoned, redundant or derelict human and physical resources (skills, expertise, contacts, buildings, equipment, open spaces). Social Entrepreneurs were mentioned in Tony Blair's first policy speech as Prime Minister, on the Aylesbury Estate in the London Borough of Southwark. The Prime Minister said on 2 June 1997: 'For the same reason we will be backing thousands of 'social entrepreneurs', those people who bring to social problems the same enterprise and imagination that business entrepreneurs bring to wealth creation. There are people on every housing estate who have it in themselves to be community leaders - the policeman who turns young people away from crime, the person who sets up a leisure centre, the local church leaders who galvanise the community to improve schools and build health centres.' (definitions taken from the Community Action Network at The idea is to develop a social enterprise or social purpose business venture for extremely disadvantaged populations such as ex-prisoners. What is a Social Purpose Enterprise? A social purpose enterprise is a revenue-generating venture founded by a nonprofit to create jobs or training opportunities for very low-income individuals, while simultaneously operating with reference to the financial bottom-line. Kramer (2000: 3) lists five governing principles, which in more or less balance, will serve both the objectives of training and placement and of economic viability: Commitment to the goal of transitional, or in some cases permanent, employment for individuals who are unlikely to be served by mainstream employment and training programs; Capacity to maintain social supports necessary to employment for those with multiple barriers; Commitment to principles of business success along with the social mission; Control over a market niche; Expectation of subsidized start-up and possible continued subsidy, either for required expansion, or for the added cost of remedial employment services. (Please note that in


the following case study, Delancey Street has never received any subsidy though it is very good at getting donations of products or services to support its efforts)

Case study: The Delancey Street Foundation

The Delancey Street Foundation is an outstanding example of a social enterprise that has been providing an alternative to the prison for high-risk clients for over 25 years. It integrates most of the ideas discussed in the previous sections. The Delancey Street Foundation, a San Francisco-based, self-help residential treatment center for drug addicts, alcoholics, convicts, and the hardcore unemployed, has demonstrated this reality since its founding in 1971 by criminologist Dr. Mimi Silbert and John Maher, a former heroin addict and convict. They started with a $1,000 loan from a loan shark with four drug addicts as residents. Mimi Silbert has written that While by (its) goal, Delancey Street is defined as a drug/alcohol/criminal treatment program, in its process, Delancey Street has less in common with funded, staffed treatment programs than it does with large extended families or small tight-knit neighborhoods. The Delancey Street population ranges in age from 18 to 68; approximately 1/4 are women; 1/3 African-American, 1/3 Hispanic, and 1/3 Anglo. The average resident has been a hard-core drug addict for ten plus years, and has been in prison four times. Approximately seventy (70%) come from the courts, and about thirty percent (30%) have been homeless prior to entering Delancy Street. Despite the violent and criminal backgrounds of the residents, there has never been one arrest in all the years that the Delancey Street Foundation has been in operation. The Delancey Street resident is expected to stay a minimum of two years; on average, the stay is about three and one-half to four years. However about 25 percent who enter the Delancy Street Foundation drop out in the first 2 months but of these about 1 out of every 10 returns and successfully completes their residency.

Success Story
Though 20 to 25% of those who graduate do end up back on drugs, welfare, or in prison, the majority do succeed. An average of 59% have successfully passed through the program and then gone on to obtain legal jobs as taxpaying citizens leading successful lives, including lawyers, truck drivers, sales people, the various medical professions, realtors, mechanics, contractors, and even a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, the President of the San Francisco Housing Commission, a deputy coroner, and a deputy sheriff. Over 30 years that means over 18,000 success stories. So their success rate is the same as the failure rate of many criminal justice systems. The Delancey Street housing complex, and headquarters, in San Francisco was built by the residents in 1990, and the $10 million unsecured loan (from the Bank of America) that was required for the construction was paid off in a few years. Today the residents of Delancey Street can look at their modern facilities. and know that they built it themselves without really knowing


what to do at the start, but that then they had learned all the necessary construction skills as they worked together. From this headquarters, 500 residents run an award-winning, swanky restaurant and catering company, an upscale bookstore, a silk-screen company, an auto service center, a coffee shop, a print shop and northern California's largest independent moving company. They also operate seasonal businesses such as hugely successful Christmas tree sales and holiday decorating for large buildings. Over the past 30 years it has grown into a major social purpose enterprise that is now being replicated in four other cities (Los Angeles, New Mexico, New York and North Carolina). It is also the first federal credit union run by and for ex-felons. It some ways it is a workers collective quite similar to the Mondragon Collective in Spain. Mimi Silbert was recently recognized at APA's 2001 Annual Convention with the Harry V. McNeill Award for innovation in community health.

Key Components of the Delancey Street Culture

The Delancey Street approach is based upon the following components: 1. Getting In 2. Miniyan. Your mini-family. 3. Dissipation: Forgiving Oneself. 4. Tolerance and Celebration of Diversity. 5. Learning to care: The Basics of Interpersonal Relationships. 6. Acting as If. 7. Learning and Pushing Yourself. 8. Risking, Making Mistakes & Growing 9. No Government Funding. 10. The Person is not the Problem, The Problem is the Problem. 1.Getting In. To get into the program the individual must make a personal request for admission and then go through an interview conducted by four of the senior residents. It does not grant residency before the individual has at least made a statement of accepting personal responsibility for past actions, the present situation and where the individual will be when the individual leaves Delancey Street Foundation. For every place that is available at Delancey Street there are 10 people who are hoping to be given a chance. 2. The Miniyan. This is the individuals mini-family within the larger Delancey Family. Delancey Street is operated as a total therapeutic community, a kind of family. The emphasis on family begins on the first day of a resident's stay when he or she is placed in a group of ten people. Those ten residents are taught to be responsible for one another instead of just themselves. Mimi Silbert promotes the family culture building starting with the small group dynamics of the miniyan. "So we have ten people who, of course, are sworn to kill each other, because there's a Mexican Mafia member in with a member of the Aryan brotherhood in with a ... you know. They all don't just dislike one another, they despise everything about each other. And here


they are in this little miniyan and they have to work together. They sleep together in a crowded dorm ... and all we want from them in those early days is the basics. Show up to work, which is simply pushing a broom. Try to do what you're told, try to get through the day, you know, no threats, no nastiness. And pretty soon they get tangled up with each other all day long, saying, 'What's going on here, he's got the good broom and I got the shitty broom! ... people think I'm not working, but I'm working harder than he is! . . . you like him better, you gave him the good broom! (emphasis added). All these interactions become material for the development of interpersonal competency (which is called the Vatican Room function). Delancey Street is always pushing the person to move past their limited knowledge base and ingrained prejudices about themselves and others. 3. Disssipation: Forgiving Onself. If Delancey Street has an rite of passage in order to get into Delancey Street, it also has a rite of forgiveness. After a period of adjustment to Delancey Street, usually around six months, there is a public confession, or examination of conscience. By six months, most residents have usually gained enough confidence to be able to look honestly at their past for the first time. "We do this in a weekend marathon session called a Dissipation, which is set up to help them shed the guilt of past behaviors. This is very important because our residents are caught in a downward spiral of self-destructive acts that lead to guilt, which leads, in turn, to self-hatred." Residents spend the weekend in small groups of 15 or so, reliving every horrible deed they've ever committed so they can rid themselves of the guilt. The marathon concludes with the older residents (peers who have done as bad or worse) guiding the newer members toward an understanding that they have, indeed, become someone new and are capable of behaving differently. 4. Tolerance and Celebration of Diversity. Delancey Street deliberately puts people together with all the individuals with whom theyre uncomfortable... teach them how to interact, how to get out of their ghetto mentality and into the mainstream, how to deal with every race, every ethnic group, every kind of person, every skill. Thus Delancey Street celebrates every ethnic groups important days and stories. 5. Learning to care: the Basics of Interpersonal Relationships. The cognitive-behavioral literature has identified deficits in this area as one of the major risk factors for re-offending. Most Delancey residents have either been victims and/or absuers in all of their past interpersonal relationships. Their world is one in which people are seen as being either a potential victim or a potential threat. There is no real understanding of the idea of working together or mutual caring and respect. Relationships inside Delancey Street go through clear stages that are monitored by the wider community. It is all about learning how to treat each other in a loving and caring way. Friendships are as big an issue as sexual relationships since most residents are worse at friendships. People are always being corrected on how they are treating each other. Training and Learning in these Soft Skills (what Delancey Street calls the Vatican Room function) is an ongoing responsibility for everyone.


Delancey Street teaches both individual responsibility and responsibility to one's immediate community.Delancey Street demands that individual demonstrate that they care for each other. This is about people helping each other. Its not enough in life to take care of yourself ...Life isnt just about you.

In addition to their work within Delancey Street, residents are encouraged to help others in the community. They work with senior citizens, juveniles from poor areas, people who are disabled, and they give back to the community in myriad ways, including picking up trash on surrounding streets and running a food-distribution service for 60 charitable organizations in the San Francisco area. Delancey Street has always worked hard to earn the acceptance of the local community. 6. Acting as If. First one behaves in a certain way, then one becomes that way of thinking, feeling and acting. Silbert is a clinical psychologist who used her own life experience of growing up in a caring community (the original Delancey Street) and her professional training and experience in the design of Delancey Street. It is based on social learning theory, especially the critical role of the mentor or model. Everyone at Delancey Street is a peer (an ex-offender, drug addict, prostitute) and therefore a potential role model. Sibert has said that We act as if we are all the things we want to become. We act as if were decent and caring and bright and talented. And we eventually become these things .....They have to act as if they care about each other. They have to be there for each other. They have to hold each other when the other person wants to give up. They have to talk that person into staying and believing when they dont believe themselves Thus in the transition period, when the old way of being is lost and the individual doesnt yet see the reality of the new, the Delancey residents will talk each other in trying even when they are not sure themselves. 7.Learning and Pushing Yourself. Delancey Street pushes its residents to try out new and different things (jobs and relationships) so that the acquisition of new self-narratives becomes possible. Each resident is required to earn a high school equivalency degree and learn three marketable skills. One must involve physical labor such as construction, moving or automotive; another must be accounting- or secretarial- or computer-related; and, finally, every resident is exposed to people occupations such as waiting tables or doing sales. Once they've experienced all three, residents are free to major in one of them. But first they must experience profoundly different possibilities from what they already know about or expect from themselves. Delancey Street has three functional areas described as rooms: The Vatican Room (where residents work on their soft skills). The State Room (where residents work on administrative chores such as accounting, scheduling the use of a car, housing arrangements). 57

The War Room (where they manage the businesses and training schools. Each business is also a training school).

Rather than just trying to help the person to fit in to the existing options, Delancey Street, Moving Up, and other successful programs try to get the person to dream, to try and to succeed in ways, and to a degree, far beyond what they had thought possible. Many of the success stories go far past dead-end McJobs. As Silbert emphasizes, We are always pushing you to the next uncomfortable level, trying to find your dream. 8. Risking, Making Mistakes & Growing. The only real failure at Delancey Street is not trying. If one is trying new things then there will be mistakes. Mistakes are not wrong, rather mistakes are an oportunity for learning. Therefore the organization has taken on projects about which it knew little or nothing at the start. Silbert uses her inability to make sense of construction plans as an example of this process. She slowly and painfully had to learn. Thus she was modeling not mastery but coping and skill acquisition. So she says that: "If you're going to become good at something, you have to take the kinds of risks that mean you'll fail because you won't know what you're doing . . , that's what a risk means, by definition. So you have to practice ... with everybody watching. And then you eventually become good it ... and you no longer have to look good because then you are good enough to say, 'Oh, I made a mistake.' You need to get rid of this false pride that says, you know, everything we do we have to succeed in right away. You have to have real confidence to say, 'Oh, sorry. My mistake. I screwed that up. How can I fix it?' Because if you believe you are a mistake, which is what our people believe about who they are, then you have to defend everything you do The process of Acting as If Learning and PushingYourself Risking, Making Mistakes & Growing creates a new self-narrative in which real profound change becomes possible. It has made Delancey Street an internationally famous success story. Delancey Street is all about making hope an operational reality. 9.No Government Funding. Delancey Street does not get any federal, state, or local government funding. It is an independent, self-reliant entity largely supported through the businesses run by its residents. However Mini Silbert is also very good at getting donations of products such as the glass for its restaurant windows, its residents wear clothing donated from the GAP and Brooks Brothers, and the Bank of America provided a $10 million unsecured construction loan to build the complex in San Francisco. This self-reliance was an organizational necessity since no government agency would lend them funds at the start. It has now become an organizational virture. People have to earn their own self-resepct..If the government gave us our money, it would be just like a welfare check, we wouldnt need to rely on our residents .. And they wouldnt have


to devlop their strengths. This way, if our residents dont become talented very quickly, then we dont eat. Though overall Delancey Street is economically successful, it does not concern itself with profit as a first priority. Rather it finds areas where its resiedents can work, learn and grow. Mini Silbert has applied the principle of acting as if to most of Delancey Streets enterprises. It is not about individual success at a task, rather it is about individual trying and learning. 10.The Person is not the Problem, the Problem is the Problem. This is a basic principle of narrative therapy. Delancey Street refuses to use language of personal deficiency or pathology. It does not put people into categories. It does not deny the reality of the problems, just seeing the individual as the problem. "You know," she says, "there are plenty of middle-class and wealthy people who commit horrible crimes, but they aren't filling up the jails. We as a society are not mad at them. We're mad at this underclass because they are disgusting and violent and vicious and nasty and stupid and ignorant and mean. "They are all of these things. But no one has helped them not to be. If we're ever going to solve social problems, we have to teach them to be decent, to have integrity, to be kind, compassionate, forgiving. We have to teach them how to be productive, to take the same piece of pie that everybody else wants to take . . . and take it legitimately. "These people are just as capable as anybody else out there. Just because they haven't learned in traditional ways doesn't mean they can't learn ... and we'll keep looking for non-traditional ways to help them until we succeed . . . " People are seen as valuable untapped resources, they are the real solution to the problem. Therefore the goal is to just develop the persons overall pro-social competency- the combination of whatever hard and soft skills that are necessary for success for this person. "We've refused to be a one-issue organization," says Silbert. "For years, everybody wanted to know what we were. 'Are you a drug program?' No. 'But your people are all drug addicts.' Yes, but that's not what we're about. 'Well, most of your people are criminals, so are you a rehab organization?' No. 'Everybody has to get a high school equivalency degree - does that make you a literacy center?' No. 'Are you a vocational training center?' No. "You see, we teach people everything they need to know. We teach them how to set a table -- but we're not a table-setting organization! We teach them what clothes to wear and how to wear them and what wool and polyester and cotton are ... we teach them everything. But that doesn't make us a clothing organization. And on and on and on." Each person helps each other. A helps B and A gets well. Everyone is always both a teacher in some area and a learner in another. This empowers the person since the role of giving/teaching is central to the development of a real sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Mini Silbert came to this critical insight during her work in prison.


"If you spend any time at all in prison," she says, "and you have a job like mine, to be a prison psychologist and turn people's lives around, you find out it isn't therapy they need. Therapy doesn't change behavior all that much. You change your behavior by changing your behavior ... and awareness doesn't necessarily lead to a different behavior." During those years, "at the end of the day, a lot of people would say to me, 'thank you, thank you, thank you, you've meant so much to me,' and I would finish my day and say "what a good girl Mimi is" because I was helping so many people and, you know, doing what I was brought up to do with my life. And it really wasn't until a few years went by that it struck me one day: Who wants to be on the other side of that? Who wants to be the person that says about her life, 'Thank you so much, you did so much for me, the asshole.' "Nobody should be only a receiver. If people are going to feel good and be accomplished and be part of something, they have to be doing something they can be proud of. We ought to set it up as a circle, so you're always receiving and giving simultaneously. That's really the only way to become somebody, and everybody wants to become somebody. For this group of people, the only place they are somebody is in a gang or in prison or in the anti-world they've set up. So if we want them to be pro-society, then we ought to set up the vehicles that help them be somebody in more traditionally socially positive ways. Thus Delancey Street tries to do things with people but does much less for them and tries to avoid doing things to them. It is a mutual two way self-help community in which a person is always receiving and giving simultaneously. It combines training in both hard and soft skills in a Therapeutic Community that provides long-term support and a sense of hope.

Making Hope
Like all the other successful programs, Delancey Street is really all about making hope. Many persons with social disabilities have a long history of learned helplessness (Seligman,1975). The experience of prison tends to make things worse, produce depression and increased learned helplessness. Martin Seligman writes that A much grimmer setting for an "experiment of nature" took place in prison. We measured the depression level and explanatory style of male prisoners before and after incarceration. Because suicide in prison is such a prevalent problem, we wanted to try to predict who was at most risk for becoming depressed. To our surprise, no one was seriously depressed upon entering prison. To our dismay, almost everyone was depressed on leaving. Some might say this means the prisons are doing their job, but it seems to me something deeply demoralizing is happening during imprisonment. At any rate, we once again correctly predicted who became most depressed of all: those who entered as pessimists. This means pessimism is fertile soil in which depression grows, particularly when the environment is hostile ( emphasis added, 1999:78). Shadd Maruna described a sample of long-term, persistent offenders in Liverpool, England thus: 60

The long-term, persistent offenders in this sample generally said that they are sick of offending, sick of prison, and sick of their position in life. Several talked at length about wanting to go legit or at least doing some thing different with their lives. Yet, they said that they feel powerless to change their behavior because of drug dependency, poverty, a lack of education or skills, or societal prejudice. They do not want to offend, they said, but feel that they have no choice I characterize the narrative of persistent offenders as a condemnation script. The condemned person in the story is the narrator (although he or she reserves plenty of condemnation and blame for society as well). Active offenders in this sample largely saw their life scripts as having been written for them a long time ago (emphasis added, 2001:7475).

The long-term, persistent offenders were very realistic about the obstacles that faced them. They were also very pessimistic about their chances of making a real change. They showed clear signs of learned helplessness. Shadd Maruna found that those long-term, persistent offenders who were able to desist were quite optimistic about changing even though it seemed to quite unrealistic to have such hopes. They showed learned optimism. Over the past three decades, Martin Seligman has shown that both pessimism and optimism are the results of learning. Learned helplessness can be unlearned. In many ways the successful individual needs to develop a new self-narrative in which drug abuse, crime and a return to prison is not seen as a inevitable outcome. The individual must replace the learned helplessness with learned optimism.

There is a growing body of evidence on what works with individuals leaving prison. Successful re-entry and inclusion is possible. However in order for such programs to be delivered it is necessary for a major change in our understanding of the role of the prison so that long-term public safety becomes as important an operational priority as the short-term maintenance of safety and security. It is critical that programming for re-entry and social inclusion start within the prison setting at the point of admission. It is critical that the prison actively network with external agencies in order to ensure successful re-entry. There are some examples of the potential for the prison to be a health promotion setting. However at present the majority of resources go to the front end of the criminal justice system for the purpose of reactive crime control. If the prison is to be a mechanism for crime prevention through health promotion that there needs be a major commitment of sufficient resources to the prisons so that they can carry out the mission of the healthy prison. Successful re-entry and social inclusion programs teach both hard and soft skills integrated together in as realistic settings as possible. Some programs such as Delancey Street have created social purpose enterprises in order to ensure that there are opportunities for meaningful employment. All the successful programs provide ongoing support in the transition period from the known pattern of social exclusion to the new reality of social inclusion. The transition period can often take 2 years plus. The successful programs are there over this long term period in order to ensure the success of the individual.


Providing the necessary resources over a sufficient amount of time does lead to a success rate of 60 to 80% with the same population that usually recidivates at a rate of 60 to 80%. To provide the appropriate and adequate programming that is necessary for successful re-entry and social inclusion is a health promotion and human rights issue quite similar to the use of DOTS (Direct Observation Treatment Services) in the treatment of TB. Either prisons will be unhealthy cages or prisons will be health promotion settings that can lead to peacemaking and social inclusion. It is fundamentally a political decision, since we do have the human technology for an effective, efficient and humane rehabilitation system along with an understanding of what is necessary for successful re-entry and social inclusion. Cages or Citizens? The choice is ours.


In the following references, attempts were made to provide references that can be acquired from the Internet. Andrews, D.A. and Bonta, James. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Anderson Publishing Co. 1994. 2nd Edition in 1998. Antonwicz, D.H., Izzo, R.L. and Ross, R.R. Characteristics of Effective Offender Rehabilitation Programs in Thinking Straight: The Reasoning and Rehabilitation Program for Delinquency Prevention and Offender Rehabilitation. Complied and Edited by Robert R. Ross and Roslynn D, Ross, AIR Training & Publications, 1995. Baldry, Eileen; McDonnell, Desmond; Maplesone; and Manuel Peeters. Ex-prisoners and Accommodation: What bearing do different forms of housing have on social reintegration of ex-prisoners? Paper presented at the Housing, Crime and Stronger Conference, 6-7 May 2002. Melborune, Australia. Paper is available at Australian Institute of Criminology under past conferences at Boschee, Jerr and Syl Jones. The Mini Silbert story: Re-cycling ex-cons, addicts and prostitutes. The Institute for Social Entrepreneurs, 2000. Of the many articles about Delancey Street, this one comes closest to conveying its philosophy and organizational culture. Available at Buck, Marcia L. Getting Back to Work: Employment Programs for Ex-Offenders. Public/Private Ventures, Fall 2000. Available at Cleam, Constance. Annotated Bibliography on Offender Job Training and Placement, 2nd Edition. National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice. September 1999. Available at Clear, Todd. Blackfire: When Incarceration Increases Crime in Fulbright, Karen (editor). The Unintended Consequences of Incarceration. Vera Institute of Justice. January 1996:120. Available at Dion, M. Robin; Derr, Michelle K., Anderson, Jacquelyn and LaDonna Pavetti. Reaching All Job-Seekers: Employment Programs for Hard-to-Employ Populations. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. October 1999. Available at Franklin, Patricia. Delancy Street: A Working Model in Outside the Wall: Reintegration Strategies for the Millennium, ACEA, 1999 Conference. Available at www.nald,ca/fulltext/outsidew/41.htm. Friendship. Caroline; Blud, Linda; Erikson, Matthew and Rosie Travers. Findings 161: An Evaluation of cognitive behavioral treatment for prisoners. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office. 2002. Available at


Finn, Peter. Successful Job Placement for Ex-Offenders: The Center for Employment Opportunities. NCJ 168102. March 1998. Available at Finn, Peter. Chicagos Safer Foundation: A Road Back for Ex-offenders. National Institute of Justice. NCJ 167575. June 1998. Available at Finn, Peter. Washington States Corrections Clearinghouse: A Comprehensive Approach to Offender Employment. National Institute of Justice. NCJ 174441. July 1999. Available at Finn, Peter. The Delaware Department of Correction Life Skills Program. National Institute of Justice. NCJ 169589. August 1998. Available at Fulbright, Karen (editor). The Unintended Consequences of Incarceration. Vera Institute of Justice. January 1996. Available at Gendreau, Paul; Goggin, Claire; and Glenn Gray. Case need domain: Employment, Forum for Correctional Research, Vol.10, No.3, Sept, 1998. Available at General Accounting Office. Prison Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs. June 2001. G.A.O-01-483. Available at Hampden-Turner, Charles. Sane Asylum: Inside the Delancey Street Foundation. Simon & Schuster. 1976. This is one of the few detailed studies of Delancey Street. It is rather dated now, and is hard to find. Charles Hampden-Turners more recent writings are in the area of the management of cultures and rapid change. Helfgott, Jacqueline. Ex-offender needs versus community opportunity in Seattle, Washington, Federal Probation, 06/1997. Houghton, Ted and Proscio, Tony. Hard Work on Soft Skills: Creating a Culture of Work in Workforce Development. Public/Private Ventures. Available at Kramer. Fredrica. Social Purpose Business: Supported work and Training Setting for Hard-to-Place Welfare Recipients. Welfare Information Network Design Brief, Vol.1, No.2, September 2000. Available at


Liebling, Alison and Arnold, Helen. Findings 174: Measuring the quality of prison life.. Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, Home Office. 2002. Available at Lynch, James P., and Sabol, William J. Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Crime policy Report, Vol. 3. Septemebr 2001. Urban Institute. Available at www.urban,org. Maruna, Shadd. Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild their Lives. American Psychological Association. November 2001. A recent and very important study on the process of desistance. Anyone working with prisoners would find this book to be of great value. McArthur, A. Verne. Coming Out Cold: Community Reentry from a State Reformatory. Lexington Books, D.C, Heath and Company, 1974. This is a old work but still important. Its findings are still valid today. McGuire, James. Liverpool University. Cognitive-Behavioural Approaches: An introduction to theory and research. Available at Moore, Joan. Bearing the Burden: How Incarceration Policies Weaken Inner-City Communities in Fulbright, Karen (editor). The Unintended Consequences of Incarceration. Vera Institute of Justice. January 1996: 67-90. Available at Moses, Marilyn C. Project Re-Enterprise: A Texas Program. National Institute of Justice. NCJ 161448. August 1996.Available at Motiuk, Larry. Targeting employment patterns to reduce offender risk and need, Forum for Correctional Research, Vol.8,No.1, January 1996. Available at Morgan, Ron and Owers, Ann. Through the Prison Gate. 2001. Major thematic review from HM Chief Inspector of Probation and HM Chief Inspector of Prisons. Available at National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice. Offender Employment Specialist Training. 2000. In addition to the manuals available for download there are a series of videos showing a training session. Many of the useful comments made in the videos are not available in the print materials. Available at National Institute of Corrections, Department of Justice. Building Futures, Offender Job Retention for Correctional Professionals. 2002. This training program is available at Nelson, Marta and Jennifer Trone. Why Planning for Release Matters. Vera Institute of Justice. 2000. Available at Owers, Ann. Annual Report of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales, 2001-2002. London.2002. Available at 65

Parent, Dale G., Barnett, Liz. Abt Associates Inc. Transition from Prison to Community Initiative. Prepared for Cranston Mitchell, Project Officer, National Institute of Corrections. Available at Pearson, Frank S., Lipton, Douglas S., Cleland, Charles M., and Dorline S. Yee. The Effects of Behavioral/Cognitive-behavioral Programs on Recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, Vol. 48 No.3, July 2002, 476-496. Proscio, Tony and Elliott, Mark. Getting In, Staying on, Moving Up: A Practitioners Approach to Employment Retention. Public/Private Ventures. Available at Sherman, Lawrence; Gottfredson, Denise; MacKenize, Doris; Eck, John; Reuter, Peter; and Bushway, Shawn. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesnt. Whats Promising. A Report to the United States Congress. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice. 1997. Available at and Seligman, Martin Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death. W.H.Freeman & Co. 1975. Seligman, Martin. Learned Optimism. Alfred A. Knoff, Inc. 1990. Seligman, Martin. What You Can Change & What You Cant. Alfred A. Knoff, Inc. 1993. Seligman, Martin Authentic Happiness: Using the New Positive Psychology to Realise Your Potential for Lasting Fulfillment. Nicholas Brealey Publishing Ltd. February 2003. Martin Seligman is a leading expert on human motivation. He did the original research on learned helplessness in the 1960s and 70s. More recently he has been working on learned optimism and the idea of a positive psychology. He is a past president of the American Psychological Association. More information is available at his web site at Social Exclusion Unit. Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. July 2002. Available at A excellent review of the issues though its recommendations are not as adequate as its analysis. STRIVE (started by the East Harlem Employment Service Inc.) This program is quite controversial since it uses a very confrontational approach. It is highlighted in the OSE video. Its web page is where there are some evaluation reports documenting its success. Like Delancey Street, it works with the most difficult cases and gets good results. Taxman, Faye S., Young, Douglas; Byrne, James, Holsinger, Alexander; and Anspach, Donald. From Prison Safety to Public Safety: Innovations in Offender Reentry. Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland, 2000. Available at


Taxman, Faye S., Young, Douglas; and Byrne, James. Emerging Roles and Responsibilities in the Reentry Partnership Initiative: New Ways of Doing Business.. Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland, 2002. Available at Taxman, Faye S., Young, Douglas; and Byrne, James, Targeting for Reentry: Matching Needs and Services to Maximize Public Safety. Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland, 2002. Available at Taxman, Faye S., Young, Douglas; and Byrne, James. Engaging the Community in Offender Reentry. Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland, 2002. Available at Torjman, Sherri. Reintegrating the Unemployed Through Customized Training. Caledon Institute of Social Policy. June 1999. Available at Travis, Jermey. Public Health, Public Safety and Prisoner Reentry: Challenges for the Future. The Urban Institute. June 13,2000. Available at www.urban,org. Travis, Jermey. But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoners Reentry. Sentencing & Corrections, Issues for the 21st Century,No.7. May 2000. Available at Travis. Jermey; Solomon, Amy J., and Waul, Michelle. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Urban Institute, June 2001. Available at www.urban,org. Webster, Russell; Hedderman, Carol; Turnbull, Paul J., and May, Tiggey. Building bridges to employment for prisoners, HORS Study 226, Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate, September 2001. Available at This is one of the best reviews available in the English language. It also includes an excellent review of the European literature which is under-reported in the US documents. Western, Bruce; Kling, Jeffrey R. and Weiman, David F. The Labor Consequences of Incarceration. Working Paper #450, Princeton University, Industrial Relations Section.January 2001. Available at