[Home] [Help] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Feedback]
	Human Rights Defender

Barriers to Social and Economic inclusion for those leaving prison

Eileen Baldry (UNSW) and Peter Maplestone (UNSW)

Introduction

Poverty, being a ward of the state, Aboriginality, lack of secure home due to abuse or other negative factors, drug abuse, mental illness, intellectual and learning disabilities, debt, unemployment, lack of education and poor social skills and social isolation are all factors over-represented amongst those facing criminal court, those in juvenile detention and adult prisons and amongst partners and families of prisoners. (Baldry 2001)

Policy responses to these very serious forms of cumulative disadvantages associated with a large number of those in prison and thus of those being released from prisons have been long on rhetoric but short on action. On the whole people in these situations have been treated as if their problems were entirely due to individual failings and pathologies and the remedies have been equally based on individual treatments and crisis interventions.

Rise in prisoner population

All OECD countries have seen a rise in prisoner numbers and rates over the past decade:

For example those in the UK have risen by 40% (UK Parliament 2001)

In Australia according to the ABS (2001)

Although there is no national data on those being released from prison Commonwealth Department Family and Community Services (FaCS) estimates that, in the 1999-2000 financial year some 43,000 persons were released from Australian prisons (Andersen 2000). The majority had served sentences of 6 months or less.

Exclusion of ex-prisoners

Significant developments in exclusion / inclusion theory have permeated much social thinking in Europe and the UK over the past 5 years. (For a discussion on social exclusion, see: Mandelson, 1997; OECD 1998, Young 1999). This has resulted in the recognition of the harm individuals and groups suffer when their human rights are ignored and they are structurally excluded from society due to one, or more likely a cumulation of, disadvantages. The harm, it is argued, extends to the society as a whole. Those in prisons and detention and under various orders tend to be among the most excluded and the chances of them slotting nicely back into a society in which they were never included in the first place is highly unlikely. Those with a mental disturbance, a drug problem, an intellectual disability, without social skills or education or employment prospects and without support, are just going to continue to cycle in and out of courts and prisons. In the contemporary post-welfare system there is nowhere else for them to go, there is no way to include them in the general community. Communities and families are now expected to manage and support people with metal and intellectual disabilities and those without employment skills. The resources to do this are very meagre and prison has become the default the institution for many such "difficult" people.

Australia’s policy/practice in this area is incoherent - in fact it is virtually non-existent. Criminal Justice is a state matter. But one of the agencies most affected by the burgeoning numbers of prison releasees and their families is the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS). FaCS is responsible for Centrelink and for the variety of family, unemployment and disability benefits paid through it. Almost all people leaving prison and their families both whilst they are in prison and often when they are released, depend upon such payments to survive. State agencies such as Community Services, Health and Housing also though carry much of the financial and social burden resulting from ever larger numbers being cycled through the states’ prison systems because very few have stable housing, jobs or families to which to return.

Although there have recently been serious moves in some states such as Victoria and Western Australia to rectify this lack, no government department takes responsibility for people being released from prison.

Prison releasees’ research

In a reasonably large scale research project funded by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, approximately 350 people being released from prisons in NSW and Victoria were interviewed pre-release, at then at 3, 6 and 9 months post-release. (For position and work in progress reports see: Baldry et al 2002a &2002b). The project is now winding up. To date over 60% of participants have been interviewed or information on their progress has been compiled. They were asked about their family relations, housing, employment, addiction problems, their use of services and in general how things were going.

The key features of this sample of releasees and of pre-release interviews are:

This description of the participants confirms their highly marginal (or at risk of marginalisation) social position. The notion that after a year or even a few months in prison these persons were going to be able to move into society and participate (when they had clearly not been doing so prior to imprisonment) without extensive assistance, is nonsensical.

Preliminary observations on results

Although the research has not yet been finalised, there are very obvious trends, some of which were clear at the three-month interview (Baldry et al 2002b). Significant attacks on these persons’ rights can be seen in their rapid reincarceration rate, their almost complete lack of suitable and stable housing and employment and their generally very low use of services and agencies.

In NSW Aboriginal participants, as a group, fared the worse with Aboriginal women the most seriously affected. Fully 66% (22 of 33) of Aboriginal participants interviewed post-release were back in prison by the nine-month interview. Many of the 12 we have not been able to contact may also be reincarcerated – we are awaiting Corrective Services data on that matter. In general, what went wrong for the non-Indigenous went even more badly for the Indigenous participants.

The participants, (more so in NSW than Victoria but it was marked in both states) came from a very small number of clustered suburbs and towns, almost all of which figured highly in Vinson’s table of disadvantaged postcodes (Vinson 1999).

There is no question that most participants’ social and economic conditions worsened considerably as a result of their incarceration. Arrangements must be made before someone is released, especially those on short sentences, to ensure they have stable accommodation and support. Unless this is done, the majority of releasees bounce between family (often living in public housing), friends, the street and boarding houses without any hope of completing rehabilitation programs, especially not of managing alcohol and other drug problems and mental illness.

Discussion

Some 70-80% of those caught up in the criminal justice system and therefore of those released from prison, are excluded from socially accepted means of making their way in society. As we have noted, this is due largely to the consequences of belonging to economic and socially excluded groups. These consequences may include lack of social skills, poor education, low social support, poverty, racial discrimination, and homelessness. For those in these groups who have a variety of disabilities such as mental disturbance and intellectual disability, the exclusion is compounded.

Are sanctions, such as prisons or periodic detention the best way to go about minimising the risks and costs incurred by both these people and society? The answer to such a question is no because the costs and risks are actually increased the more these sanctions are used. Social inclusion theory points to addressing the exclusion. The increasing levels and concentrations of those with such excluding disadvantages in prisons means an increasing number of persons being released in even greater disadvantage than prior to incarceration. Not only is it ethically and morally repugnant to use the criminal justice system increasingly to deal with problems of excluded citizens, but it is socially disastrous as well. We are building up an ever-growing pool of citizens from disadvantaged groups who are unable to function in their and our society. In regard to those already caught up in this cycle, all means should be used to help stop the cycling in and out of prison and courts by addressing the exclusionary factors in a holistic and integrated manner.

References

Andersen, J. 2000 Crisis Payment & Prisoner Statistics. Internal FaCS paper.

Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001 http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/8d5807d8074a7a5bca256a6800811054!OpenDocument

Baldry, E., McDonnell, D., Maplestone, P., Peeters, M. 2002a Ex-prisoners and accommodation: what bearing do different forms of housing have on social re-integration? Positioning paper AHURI, Melbourne. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publish/page.cfm?contentID=15

Baldry, E., McDonnell, D., Maplestone, P., Peeters, M. 2002b Ex-prisoners and accommodation: what bearing do different forms of housing have on social re-integration: Work in progress AHURI, Melbourne. http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/housing/program.html

Baldry, E. 2001 "Homelessness and the Criminal Justice System". Parity Vol 14, no 10:5-8.

Mandelson, P. 1997 Labour's next steps: tackling social exclusion. Fabian Society, London.

OECD 1998 The battle against exclusion. Paris

UK Parliament 2001 http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-083.pdf.

Vinson, T. 1999 Unequal in Life: the distribution of social disadvantage in Victoria and New South Wales. Jesuit Social Services, Melbourne.

Young, J. 1999 The exclusive society: social exclusion, crime and difference in late modernity. Sage, London.