Churchill - Institute for Governance and Policy Studies

Kim WorkmanBack to Churchill – An Old Vision forPrisonerReintegrationWe cannot impose these serious penalties upon individuals unlesswe make a great effort and a new effort to rehabilitate men whohave been in prison and secure their having a chance to resumetheir places in the ranks of honourable industry. The presentsystem is not satisfactory.Extract from Winston Churchill’s speech to the House of Commons,29 July 1910 (Churchill, 1910)During his brief reign as Liberal home secretaryin 1910, Winston Churchill embarked upon anambitious reform of the English prison system.His first principle of prison reform was ‘to prevent asmany people as possible getting there at all’. He believedthat there should be a just proportion between crime andpunishment, and that even convicted criminals had rightsagainst the state. Underlying Churchill’s prison reforms wasa real understanding of the nature of imprisonment from theperspective of the prisoner, which drew from his having beena prisoner during the Boer War.His progressive thinking extended to the issues ofprisoner reintegration, and his speech of 1910 contains threeprinciples that could form an important part of prisonerreintegration policy today. They are:1 That the state must invest in supporting ex-prisoners inorder that they make a useful contribution to society.2 That the focus must be on a system of support andaccountability rather than compliance and control –prisoner reintegration is a transition from formal statecontrol to informal community support.3 That diverse community organisations and volunteersshould be supported to take up the work of prisonerreintegration.It is remarkable that in the 99 years since then there hasbeen no political or public support for a comprehensiveprisoner reintegration strategy in New Zealand. Around9,000 prisoners are released into the New Zealand communityevery year, two-thirds of whom will reoffend within twoyears. State funding of prisoner reintegration is negligible,and the Department of Corrections recently deferred thedevelopment of a comprehensive reintegration strategy until2010–11.Equally as remarkable is the lack of a coherent theory toinform prisoner reintegration. Joan Petersilia’s recent bookWhen Prisoners Come Home (Petersilia, 2003) articulates a clearand refreshing vision for the reform of the US system ofex-offender release and re-entry (for a similar British effortKim Workman is the Director of ‘Rethinking Crime and Punishment’ anda member of the Families Commission. He has previously served in seniorpositions in several government departments and as the National Directorof Prison Fellowship. He can be contacted at director@rethinking.org.nz.Page 24 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 5, Issue 2 – May 2009

see Farrall, 2000). Nonetheless, these works of reintegrationtheory remain aberrant exceptions in a research field thatis dominated by descriptive and atheoretical evaluativeresearch. That is, we often ask ‘what works’ but too rarely ask‘how’ or ‘why?’ (Palmer, 1994).The ‘stick and carrot’ model – the odd coupleUntil around 1995 there had developed in New Zealanda ‘mixed model’ culture within the Community Probationservice of the management of ex-prisoners. The prevailingassumption was that Community Probation should assertcontrol over ex-prisoners, and also provide opportunitiesfor treatment. The provision of support to prisoners wouldmake the task more interesting, and, in those days, politicallyacceptable. The model had some inherent difficulties. Insummary:• The result, in other than the most experienced hands,was ‘muddle’ (Dickey and Smith, 1998).• The history of crime control suggests that when bothtools (i.e. the therapeutic and the punitive) are available,the latter will almost always win out or at least underminethe former. More often than not, interventions premisedon a combination control–deficit modelend up ‘almost all stick and no carrot’.• Theoretically, control strategies encourageinstrumental compliance during thesupervisory period, while the treatmentstrategies are designed to help participantsinternalise new moral values. That is,the therapy or the job training is what isreally going to work, but without heavycoercion ex-prisoners will not show up forthe treatment. This hypothesis has someempirical support (MacKenzie and Brame,2001). Persons coerced into drug treatmentprogrammes fare equally as well as thosewho enter voluntarily (Farabee, Prendergast and Anglin,1998).• However, while consistent coercion produces minimallevels of criminal behaviour, it also produces very lowlevels of pro-social behaviour (Colvin, Cullen and VanderVen, 2002, p.28). Punishment only trains a person whatnot to do. If one punishes behaviour, what is left toreplace it? – in the case of high-risk offenders, simplyother antisocial skills. This is why punishment scholarsstate that the most effective way to produce behaviouralchange is not to suppress ‘bad’ behaviour but to shape‘good’ behaviour.• The operant conditioning implied in the carrot and stickmetaphor confuses blind conformity with responsiblebehaviour. Clark writes: ‘Compliance makes a poorfinal goal … Obedience is not a lofty goal. We can teachanimals to obey’ (Clark, 2000, p.42).• According to Taxman et al. (2002, p.8), offenders’ pastexperiences with law enforcement, supervision agenciesand treatment providers ‘left them dubious about the realintentions of these agencies and staff. Any further efforts tofind fault, increase revocations, or speed a return to the justicesystem will only undermine the goals of reintegration.’The model has one other major deficit. It focusesalmost exclusively on the ex-prisoner as an individual. Ifreintegration is to be a meaningful concept, it implies morethan physically re-entering society. It should also includesome sort of ‘relational reintegration’ back into the moralcommunity.Winston Churchill understood well the dilemma ofcombining the stick and the carrot. In his day the police wereresponsible for providing post-release support. In his famousspeech, and with his tongue firmly in his cheek, he had thisto say:I have a great admiration for the way in which the policeconduct the business of police supervision of prisonerswho have been released on licence. It is not a bit true tosay they harry a man and hunt him down. At the sametime, it is a great impediment to a man to have to go andreport himself repeatedly to the police, and to have thepolice coming repeatedly inquiring after him, in obtaininghis position in honest industry again.It wasn’t until 1999 that the departmentsought to conduct research which identifiedthe key needs of prisoners on release, andinvestigated how other jurisdictions dealt withreleased offendersCorrections and prisoner reintegration – risk, needs andresponsivityUntil around 1995 the role of New Zealand CommunityProbation Service in prisoner reintegration combined thefunctions of compliance and support. While the Prisoners’Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS) was funded by theDepartment of Corrections to provide services to prisoners,the emphasis was on the provision of welfare services toprisoners and their families: assistance with family visiting,provision of clothes and TV sets to prisoners, and limitedassistance with housing, employment, relational issues andfinancial matters. The PARS ‘halfway houses’ were verymuch places where semi-formal supervision was applied.It wasn’t until 1999 that the department sought to conductresearch which identified the key needs of prisoners onrelease, and investigated how other jurisdictions dealt withreleased offenders (de Joux, 1999)The late 1990s saw responsibility for prisoner reintegrationshift from the Community Probation Service toward the PublicPrisons Service, as an extension of the developing IntegratedPolicy Quarterly – Volume 5, Issue 2 – May 2009 – Page 25

Back to Churchill – An Old Vision for Prisoner ReintegrationOffender Management System (IOMS). The prisoner in thecommunity was at that time, and still is, regarded as the passiverecipient of departmental support and services.In May 2004 the Minister of Corrections, Paul Swain,held a ministerial forum on offender reintegration, issuinga challenge for New Zealand to be a ‘world leader inreintegration’. The framework he presented at that forumwas based on the following key ideas:No one wants the separation of prison andparole more urgently than do prisoners. ...Many would prefer to serve their full sentencein prison rather than be faced with high levelsof supervision.• Reintegration is the ‘cornerstone’ of the department’sapproach to integrated offender management.• The principles of risk, need and responsivity will tell thedepartment how to work with offenders, based on theirrisk of re-offending, their level of need, and responsivityfactors:Risk: by being able to identify those who are most at riskof further offending, and provide services to mitigateagainst that risk, the department can have a significantimpact.Need: services should be targeted at specific needs, and indealing with reintegrative needs the department mayhave to target a multiple range of needs and how thoseneeds relate to each other.Responsivity: there is no point in attempting to either delivera service to someone who doesn’t want it or deliveringit inappropriately without taking into account theirresponse. (Swain, 2004)The ‘needs-based’ approach to reintegration wasan extension of the department’s approach to in-prisonrehabilitation. By 2008 the department had expandedprison-based reintegration services, with the intention ofassisting prisoners to re-enter their communities and thelabour market. Unfortunately, investment in additional inprisonreintegration staff was not matched by investment incommunity provision. A prisoner needs analysis ensured thatsome prisoners were released with a ‘reintegration plan’. Formost prisoners, tangible reintegrative support stops at theprison gate.The Community Probation Service – left holding the stickThe development of a prison-based reintegrative service leftthe Community Probation Service without a significant rolein prisoner reintegration, other than with parolees. Overthe last ten years they have shifted to a model of parolecompliance and control. Barry Matthews, chief executive ofthe Department of Corrections, made that clear in a recentpublic statement:Culture change was the main factor in improving parolemanagement, but took time, he said. ‘We have somestaff that still believe the role of a probation officer islike a social worker and that sentence compliance shouldtake a second step. We’ve been emphasising ... sentencecompliance is the No 1 issue in terms of public safety.’(Matthews, 2009)Underlying the ‘risk management’ approach isthe belief that released prisoners will respond bestto the constant threat of sanctions. Turning thatbelief into policy has led to a range of sentencemeasures, including electronic monitoring,intensive supervision (i.e. additional homeand office visits), random drug testing, homeconfinement, extensive behaviour restrictions,strict curfews and expanded lengths of supervision.The basic idea is that tough community controlscan reduce recidivism by thwarting an offender’scriminal instincts (Gordon, 1991; Cullen, 2002).There is no evidence to support that. What evidencethere is tells us that:• Additional controls increase the probability that technicalviolations will be detected, leading to greater use ofimprisonment and higher taxpayer costs. Petersilia andTurner’s nine-state random-assignment evaluation foundno evidence that increased community surveillancedeterred offenders from committing crimes (Petersiliaand Turner, 1993).• Prisons do not serve as an effective deterrent (Gendreau,Goggin and Cullen, 1999).• Power-coercive strategies are the least likely to promoteinternalisation and long-term change (Chin andBenne, 1976). Kelman (1958) discusses three means ofchanging behaviour: change via compliance, change viaidentification, and change via internalisation. Power andcoercion may achieve instrumental compliance, Kelmansays, but is the least likely of the three methods to promote‘normative re-education’ and long-term transformationonce the ‘change agent’ has been removed (Bottoms,2000).• In MacKenzie and De Li’s rigorous study of intensivesupervision probation they write:The disappointing factor is the possibility that theoffenders may be influenced only as long as they arebeing supervised. …When probation is over, theseoffenders may return to their previous levels of criminalactivity because the deterrent effect of arrest maywear off when they are no longer under supervision(MacKenzie and De Li, 2002, pp.37-8).• Heavy-handed control tactics serve to undermine respectfor the Probation Service (Tyler et. al, 1997). Paroleconditions that include prohibitions against associationwith criminal associates or entering licensed premises,both of which are impossible to enforce, are often viewedPage 26 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 5, Issue 2 – May 2009

as evidence that the entire parole process is a joke.Persons returning from prison with few resources andlittle hope become defiant when they are faced with apile of sanctions (Sherman, 1993; Blomberg and Lucken,1994). Constant threats that are not backed up can leadto a form of psychological inoculation (Colvin, Cullenand Vander Ven, 2002).• Ex-prisoners consider they have paid their debt to society:when they ‘get out’, they want to ‘be out’. Mobley andTerry (2002) write:No one wants the separation of prison and parole moreurgently than do prisoners. Any compromise or halfmeasure,any ‘hoops’ or hassles placedin their path, breeds resentment.Many would prefer to serve their fullsentence in prison rather than be facedwith high levels of supervision.• The traditional public view is thatimprisonment equates to punishmentand control. Alternatives are thereforeonly suitable when neither punishmentnor control are necessary. Parole cannotcompete with prison when it comes to ensuring compliance(Camp and Camp, 1997; Bottoms, 2000, p.93; Colvin,Cullen and Vander Ven, p.23).What next? Moving beyond risk and needsChurchill must have known something. In his 1910 speech heproposed another way:The proposal I make is that we should establish a newcentral agency of a semi official character, half officialmembers representing the authorities and half therepresentatives of all these prisoners’ aid societies.That would combine official power with what I thinkessential: that there shall be an individual study of everycase; that all convicts shall be distributed by the centralagency between different prisoners’ aid societies of all thedifferent denunciations, and all the different charitablesocieties; that the whole business of police supervisionshall be absolutely suspended and the whole systemof ticket of leave come to an end completely; and thatexcept in the case of refractory persons, a convict, whenhe leaves prison, will have nothing more to do with thepolice. They need not see them nor hear of them again,but will be dealt with entirely through the agency of thesesocieties, working under the central body, whose onlyobject will be to do the best for the convict.What would these societies do? How would they behaveto towards ex-prisoners? The clue we have is containedwithin Churchill’s speech when he proclaimed belief in thepossibility of redemption. He spoke ofan unfailing faith that there is a treasure if only you canfind it, in the heart of every man – these are the symbolswhich in the treatment of crime and criminals mark andmeasure the stored-up strength of a nation, and are thesign and proof of the living virtue in it.The Singaporean Prison Service has a prison posterwhich says: ‘We are trained to look for the spark, not just theflaw.’ Churchill would have supported that idea: the idea thatall humans have gifts, skills or strengths that if acknowledgedand nurtured can make a difference. Success comes notthrough treating an offender as someone to be corralledlike a wild horse or understood through clinical analysis.It comes not from an image of an offender as a motor car,with defective parts, which ‘needs’ attention, but as a vibranthuman being who, if treated with dignity and respect, hasthe potential to change.‘released prisoners find themselves “in”but not “of” the larger society’ and ‘sufferfrom a presumption of moral contamination’‘Restorative reintegration’ – a strengths-based approach toprisoner reintegrationStrengths-based or restorative approaches focus on thepositive contribution the person can make rather than on theirdeficiencies. It is not a new idea in prisoner rehabilitation,but its re-emergence throughout the social service sector hasresulted in increased research and understanding about howthis approach could work with offenders.Targeting strengthsStrengths need to be assessed and ‘targeted’ in the sameway that risks and needs traditionally have been. To do soone simply asks: ‘How can this person make a useful andpurposeful contribution to society?’ Jeremy Travis puts it thisway: ‘Offenders are seen as assets to be managed rather thanmerely liabilities to be supervised’ (Travis, 2000, p.7).The strengths narrative assumes that ex-prisoners arestigmatised persons, and that is what makes them likelyto re-offend. As Johnson writes, ‘released prisoners findthemselves “in” but not “of ” the larger society’ and ‘sufferfrom a presumption of moral contamination’ (Johnson,2002, p.319).The strengths-based narrative combats stigmatisation bydeploying a range of strategies. They include:• Providing opportunities for ex-prisoners to make amends,demonstrate their value and potential and make positivecontributions to their communities. The goal is to ‘deviseways of creating more helpers’ (Pearl and Riessman, 1965,p.88). These accomplishments lead to ‘a sense of hope,an orientation toward the future, and the willingness totake responsibility’.• Providing public recognition, including rituals ofcertification which symbolically ‘de-stigmatise’ thestigmatised person and send a message to the communitythat the offender is worthy of further support andPolicy Quarterly – Volume 5, Issue 2 – May 2009 – Page 27

Back to Churchill – An Old Vision for Prisoner Reintegrationinvestment (Bazemore, 1999). The offender is transformedfrom a taker into a giver.• Devising situations in which ex-prisoners produce thingsthe community wants, such as gardens, graffiti-freeneighbourhoods, a less dangerous community, habitablehousing for the homeless (Dickey and Smith, 1998,p.35).• Active engagement in parenting provides a ‘stabilityzone’ for offenders which ‘softens the psychologicalimpact of confinement’ and may help reduce recidivismand ‘transmit pro-social attitudes to a future generation’(Toch, 1975; Lanier and Fisher, 1990, p.164). That mayinclude programmes specifically designed for prisonersand ex-prisoners.It is only in recent times that there has beenofficial recognition that whänau continueto be a key cultural institution for Mäoriand are therefore a key (and potentiallyhighly effective) site of intervention and/ordevelopment.• Developing a role for ‘wounded healers’ or the‘professional ex-’, defined as a person who desists froma ‘deviant career’ by ‘replacing it’ with an occupation asa para-professional, lay therapist or counsellor (Brown,1991). Although it is impossible to measure the true extentof the ‘professional ex-’ phenomenon, Brown estimatedthat around three-quarters of the counsellors workingin the more than 10,000 substance abuse treatmentcentres in the United States are former substance abusersthemselves. Describing female ‘wounded healers’, Richiewrites:Most services that are successful in helping womenreintegrate into the community have hired (or areotherwise influenced by) women who have beensimilarly situated. The extent to which women havea peer and/or mentoring relationship with someonewhom they perceive is ‘like them’ is critical. (Richie,2001, p.385)• Encouraging mutual efforts at reconciliation, whereoffender and society work together to make amends –for hurtful crimes and hurtful punishments – and moveforward (Johnson, 2002, p.328).There is evidence that nurturing behaviour is inconsistentwith a criminal lifestyle. Sampson and Laub found that onetimeoffenders who were employed and took responsibilityfor providing for their spouses and children were significantlymore likely to desist from crime than those who made nosuch bonds. It is a common reason for desistance by gangmembers (Sampson and Laub, 1993). Roy Dunn, leader ofthe Notorious chapter of the Mongrel Mob, put it this way ina speech to the Prison Fellowship Conference in May 2008:At the end of the day, I have been thinking, what’s themeaning to life? There must be more to this, you know,there must be more to life. As a parent, a Rangatira,you have to look at all those angles, eh, and to me it wasabout – well, enough was enough. Keep going the way weare, we will live in the past and we will stay there. So, itwas all about time to change. That was my vision. WhenI came out of jail, I was looking for people in the societyto help direct and put me on that way, not for my journeybut for our kids and our whānau. In the old days, it wasabout our patch, we couldn’t see nothing else. Butnow, time’s changed. It’s time to build their future;not let them go down the paths we’ve been.The role of families and whänauThe strengths of youths, families and communitiesare the most commonly wasted resources inthe justice system. It is only in recent times thatthere has been official recognition that whänaucontinue to be a key cultural institution forMäori and are therefore a key (and potentiallyhighly effective) site of intervention and/ordevelopment. The recent emphasis on whänauin social policy acknowledges that changes in thewell-being of individual Mäori can be broughtabout by focusing on the collective of whänau – somethingMäori have always known.The extent to which the state responds positively ornegatively to the concept of whänau or family has a significantpotential impact on our capacity to promote communitybasedprisoner reintegration. One recent promisingintervention is La Bodega de la Familia in New York City.Support is provided not to the individual under criminaljustice supervision, but rather to the person’s family – thepeople who will be supporting the individual when he or shereturns from prison. Initial evaluation research has been verypromising (Sullivan et al., 2002). Travis writes: ‘We shouldrecognize that a strong family can outlast any program andcan work in ways that no one else can’ (Travis, 2003, p.4).The impact of strengths-based reintegrationIn 2003 Prison Fellowship, in partnership with the Departmentof Corrections, established a faith-based unit at RimutakaPrison. Described as a Christ-focused, community-centredenvironment, the programme provides for each prisoner tobe mentored by a community volunteer eight months beforerelease and for up to two years following. It is based on thebelief that reintegration starts on the first day of the sentence,and the programme includes the elements described aboveas restorative reintegration.The unit has yet to be formally evaluated by the department.We know that one useful measure of the effectivenessPage 28 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 5, Issue 2 – May 2009

of a prison unit in rehabilitation is the level of prisonermisconduct. Gendreau and French have established thatprisoners released from those units with a low level of prisonincidents are more likely to achieve significant reductions inreoffending (French and Gendreau, 2006). As can be seen inFigure 1, covering the period 1 May 2007–30 April 2008,the faith unit (Unit Seven) fared well in comparison with theother residential 60-bed units at Rimutaka.Reintegration beyond the prison walls - handing it back to thecommunityWhat would restorative reintegration look like beyondthe prison walls? Maruna (2006) considers there are fourelements:Restorative reintegration is community-ledWhereas reintegration is typically characterised by aninsular, professionals-driven focus on the needs and risks ofoffenders, restorative reintegration needs to draw on andsupport naturally occurring community processes throughwhich informal support and controls traditionally takeplace (Farrall, 2004). Citizens, not professionals, would bethe primary agents of reintegration. Circles of support andcommunity-led mentoring are key elements of a communityledprocess (Petrunik, 2002). Efforts by groups such as PrisonFellowship, PARS, Pillars and other organisations to offerdirect support and assistance to the families of offendersbefore and after incarceration is also central to restorativereintegration (Sullivan et al., 2002). It is these family members(and not the over-worked probation officer with an overstretchedcaseload) who will be counted on to do the realwork of aiding and befriending the ex-prisoner upon release(Bobbitt and Nelson, 2004).Restorative reintegration is reparation-basedPeacemaking needs to begin almost immediately in anyrestorative framework (Marshall, 1999). The fact that somany victims are still angry, afraid or punitive toward theirassailants five to ten years after the event and at the pointof the prisoner’s release shows just how much more workneeds to be done in this regard in terms of healing the painof the criminal event, apologising and making amends forthese acts.Central to the restorative model is the notion of ‘makinggood’, or ‘earned redemption’ (Maruna, 2001; Brazemoreand Erbe, 2004). Traditionally, this is won by actively makingpositive contributions to one’s community in a reparativefashion. This abstract ‘wider community’ is often theprimary victim of many of the crimes in our justice system.In civic community service work, individuals are offered anopportunity to volunteer their talents on projects meant tomeet community needs, build community capacity and repairthe harm caused by crime. They take on leadership roles withinthese projects and often work side by side with volunteers fromthe wider community who are not involved in the criminaljustice system. Again, the community would lead this process.Restorative reintegration should be symbolically richNew Zealanders make quite an impressive show or ritual ofpunishment – from the drama of the courtroom to descendinginto the cells, to prisoner uniforms, the barred windows and apreference for ‘boot camps’ and ‘three strikes’. As a society wehave become masters of what are called status degradationceremonies (Garfinkel, 1956). If we are going to ritualise theprocess of exile, we need to do the same for the return. Anumber of theorists have started to write about what ‘statuselevation ceremonies’, or ‘reintegration rituals’, might looklike (Braithwaite and Mugford, 1994; Maruna, 2001).Restorative reintegration needs to eventually involve wiping theslate cleanPerhaps the strongest form of symbolic de-labelling an offendercould receive from the state is the chance to officially wipethe slate clean and literally alter his or her past as recognitionof these forms of restitution and social contribution. Thissort of permission to legally move on from the stigma ofFigure 1504535302520151050U4 U5 U6 U7 U8WeaponsPornCashCellphone and ChargesTattooing EquipmentOthersDrugs & AlcoholPolicy Quarterly – Volume 5, Issue 2 – May 2009 – Page 29

Back to Churchill – An Old Vision for Prisoner Reintegrationone’s past is a key component of the amnesty process that hasbeen central to peace and reconciliation processes worldwide.More use could be made of this important last step in thereintegration process for ordinary offenders.The role of the communityChurchill realised that to shift responsibility for prisonerreintegration to the community there would need to beresources to accompany it:The Chancellor of the Exchequer has been good enoughto assign me £7,500 a year for the development andstrengthening of the methods by which we are to enableprisoners, on release from penal servitude, to have a fairchance of taking their place in the ordinary life of thecountry.The emerging view is that the state does not have a rolein reintegrating ex-prisoners. Criminal justice professionalscannot reintegrate anyone into the community, regardless oftheir training. Ex-prisoners can reintegrate themselves andcommunities can reintegrate ex-offenders. The most the statecan do is to facilitate and support the community in its efforts(McNeill, 2006). Reintegration happens in the community, bythe community and for the community.As the reach of criminal justice and social services expand,the impact is to weaken historically stronger community netsand inadvertently undercut the role and responsibility ofcitizens, neighbourhood institutions and community groupsin socialisation and informal sanctioning (Braithwaite, 1994;McKnight, 1995). As Clear and Karp (1999, p.38) observe:When agents of the state become the key problemsolvers, they might be filling a void in community; butjust as in interpersonal relationships, so in communityfunctioning, once a function is being performed by oneparty it becomes unnecessary for another to take it on ...parents expect police or schools to control their children;neighbors expect police to prevent late night noise frompeople on their street; and citizens expect the courts toresolve disputes ... informal control systems may atrophylike dormant muscles, and citizens may come to see theformal system as existing to mediate all conflicts.From criminal justice to social developmentThe recent work of the Ministry of Social Development instrengthening families and communities suggests that if thereis to be state support for ex-prisoners and their whänau/families, it would be most appropriately located withinFamily and Community Services, in the Ministry of SocialDevelopment. The excellent work it is doing in strengtheningfamilies and communities, and supporting community groupsin such areas as family violence prevention, positive parentingand after-school activity, gives it an entrée into and relationshipwith community organisations. It has the capability to engageeffectively with ‘hard to reach’ families, including the familiesand whänau of ex-prisoners. It is a service familiar with thestrengths-based approach, and understands the importanceof building community resilience and social cohesion. Mostimportantly, it understands that its role is not to deliver thoseservices itself, but to build community capacity and capabilityin order for that to happen.Agreement on how the state and the community shouldwork together to support ex-prisoners and their whänau/families will not depend solely on the extent to whichstakeholders can reach agreement. The future of effectiveprisoner reintegration lies in the government’s willingness tomove beyond the existing preference to control ex-prisoners,on one hand, and on the other to respond to their perceivedindividual needs. It lies not in an obsession with managerialismand the culture of control. Instead, it must be based on a visionfor prisoner transformation that has at its heart concern forthe social advancement of all New Zealanders.That was Churchill’s vision.ReferencesBazemore, G. (1999) ‘After shaming, whitherreintegration: restorative justice andrelational rehabilitation’, in G. Bazemoreand L. Walgrave (eds), Restorative JuvenileJustice: repairing the harm of youth crime,Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice PressBazemore, G. and C. Erbe (2004)‘Reintegration and restorative justice:toward a theory and practice of informalsocial control and support’, in S. Marunaand R. Immarigeon (eds), After Crimeand Punishment: pathways to offenderreintegration, Cullompton: WillanBlomberg, T. and K. Lucken (1994) ‘Stackingthe deck by piling up sanctions: isintermediate punishment destined to fail?’,Howard Journal, 33 (1), pp.62-80Bobbitt, M. and M. Nelson (2004) The FrontLine: building programs that recognizefamilies’ role in reentry, New York: VeraInstitute of JusticeBottoms, A.E. (2000) ‘Compliance andcommunity penalties’, in A. Bottoms, L.Gelsthorpe and S. Rex (eds), CommunityPenalties: change and challenges,Cullompton: WillanBraithwaite G.J. (1994) ‘Thinking harder aboutdemocratizing social control’, in C. Alderand J. Wundersitz (eds), Family GroupConferencing in Juvenile Justice: the wayforward of misplaced optimism?, Canberra:Australian Institute of CriminologyBraithwaite, J. and S. Mugford (1994)‘Conditions of successful reintegrationceremonies: dealing with juvenileoffenders’, British Journal of Criminology,34, pp.139-71Brown, D.J. (1991) ‘The professional ex-: analternative for exiting the deviant career’,Sociological Quarterly, 32, pp.219-30Camp, C.G. and G.M. Camp (1997) TheCorrections Yearbook, South Salem, NY:Criminal Justice InstituteChin, R. and K.D. Benne (1976) ‘Generalstrategies for effecting changes in humansystems’, in W.G. Bennis et al. (eds), ThePlanning of Change, 3rd edition, New York:Page 30 – Policy Quarterly – Volume 5, Issue 2 – May 2009

Rinehart and WinstonChurchill (1910) Speech to the House ofCommons, Hansard, 20 Jul 1910,col.1354Clark, M.D. (2000) ‘The juvenile drug courtjudge and lawyer: four common mistakes intreating drug court adolescents’, Juvenileand Family Court Journal, 51 (4)Clear, T. and D. Karp (1999) The CommunityJustice Ideals: preventing crime andachieving justice, New York: Western PressColvin, M., F.T. Cullen and T.M. Vander Ven(2002) ‘Coercion, social support, andcrime: an emerging theoretical consensus’,Criminology, 40, pp.19-42Cullen, F.T. (2002) ‘Rehabilitation andtreatment programs’, in J.Q. Wilson and J.Petersilia (eds), Crime: public policies forcrime control, Oakland, CA: Institute forContemporary StudiesDickey, W.J. and M.E. Smith (1998) DangerousOpportunity: five futures for communitycorrections. The report from the focusgroup, Washington, DC: US Department ofJustice, Office of Justice ProgramsFarabee, D., M. Prendergast and M.D. Anglin(1998) ‘The effectiveness of coercedtreatment for drug-abusing offenders’,Federal Probation, 62 (1), pp.3-10Farrall, S. (ed.) (2000) The Termination ofCriminal Careers, Burlington, VT: AshgateFarrall, S. (2004) ‘Social capital and offenderreintegration: making probation desistancefocused’, in S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon(eds), After Crime and Punishment:pathways to offender reintegration,Cullompton: WillanFrench, S.A. and P. Gendreau (2006) ‘Reducingprison misconducts: what works!’, ClinicalJustice and Behaviour, 33 (2), April,pp.185-218Garfinkel, H. (1956) ‘Conditions of successfuldegradation ceremonies’, American Journalof Sociology, 61, pp.420-24Gendreau, P., C. Goggin and F.T. Cullen(1999) The Effects of Prison Sentenceson Recidivism, report to the CorrectionsResearch and Development and AboriginalPolicy Branch, Ottawa: Solicitor General ofCanadaGordon, D. (1991) The Justice Juggernaut:fighting street crime, controlling citizens,New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers UniversityPressJohnson, R. (2002) Hard Time, 3rd edition,Belmont, CA: Wadsworthde Joux, V. (2009) Post-order Support:offenders’ needs and models of response,Wellington: Department of CorrectionsKelman, H.C. (1958) ‘Compliance,identification and internalization: threeprocesses of opinion change’, Journal ofConflict Resolution, 2, pp.51-60Lanier, C.S. and G. Fisher (1990) ‘A prisoners’parenting center (PPC): a promisingresource strategy for incarcerated fathers’,Journal of Correctional Education, 41MacKenzie, D.L. and R. Brame (2001)‘Community supervision, prosocialactivities, and recidivism’, JusticeQuarterly, 18 (2), pp.429-48MacKenzie, D.L. and S. De Li (2002) ‘Theimpact of formal and informal socialcontrols on the criminal activities ofprobationers’, Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency, 39, pp.243-76McKnight, J. (1995) The Careless Society:community and its counterfeits, New York:Basic BooksMcNeill, F. (2006) ‘A desistance paradigm foroffender management’, Criminology andCriminal Justice, 6, pp.39-62Maruna, S. (2001) Making Good: how exconvictsreform and rebuild their lives,Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation BooksMaruna, S. (2006) ‘Who owns resettlement?Towards restorative re-integration’, BritishJournal of Community Justice, 4 (2), pp.23-33Marshall, T.E. (1999) Restorative Justice: anoverview, London: Home Office ResearchDevelopment and Statistics DirectorateMatthews, B. (2009) Dominion Post, 21FebruaryMobley, A. and C. Terry (2002) ‘Dignity,resistance and re-entry: a convictperspective’, unpublished manuscriptPalmer, T. (1994) A Profile of CorrectionalEffectiveness and New Directions forResearch, Albany, NY: Suny PressPearl, A. and F. Riessman (1965) New Careersfor the Poor: the nonprofessional in humanservice, New York: The Free PressPetersilia, J. (2003) When Prisoners ComeHome: parole and prisoner reentry, Oxford:Oxford University PressPetersilia, J. and S. Turner (1993) ‘Intensiveprobation and parole’, in M. Tonry (ed.),Justice: annual review of research, 19,Chicago: Chicago University PressPetrunik, M.G. (2002) ‘Managing unacceptablerisk: sex offenders, community response,and social policy in the United States andCanada’, International Journal of OffenderTherapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(4), pp.483-511Richie, B. (2001) ‘Challenges incarceratedwomen face as they return to theircommunities: findings from life historyinterviews’, Crime and Delinquency, 47Sampson, R.J. and J. Laub (1993) Crime inthe Making: pathways and turning pointsthrough life, Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity PressSherman, L.W. (1993) ‘Defiance, deterrence,and irrelevance: a theory of the criminalsanction’, Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency, 30, pp.445-73Sullivan, E., M. Mino, K. Nelson and J.Pope (2002), Families as a Resource inRecovery from Drug Abuse: an evaluationof La Bodega de la Familia, New York: VeraInstitute of JusticeSwain, P. (2004) Presentation at theDepartment of Corrections communityforum on offender reintegrationTaxman, F.S., D. Young, J.N. Byrne, A.Holsinger and D. Anspach (2002) FromPrison Safety to Public Safety: innovationson offender reentry, College Park:University of MarylandToch, H. (1975) Men in Crisis: humanbreakdowns in prisons, Chicago: AldineTravis, J. (2000) But They All Come Back:rethinking prisoner reentry. Researchin brief – sentencing and corrections:issues for the 21st century, NCJ 181413,Washington, DC: US Department ofJustice, National Institute of JusticeTravis, J. (2003) In Thinking about ‘WhatWorks’, What Works Best, Urban InstitueJustice Policy CentreTyler, T.R., R.J. Boeckmann, H.J. Smith andY.J. Huo (1997) Social Justice in a DiverseSociety, Denver: Westview PressPolicy Quarterly – Volume 5, Issue 2 – May 2009 – Page 31