Chapter 3

INTERNATIONAL EXAMPLES

In this chapter, some international examples of offender reintegration programmes are provided. These examples show that all programmes have certain limitations or shortcomings, as well as particular strengths that lessons can be drawn from. The programmes that are discussed include:

Project Reintegration of Offenders, Texas Workforce Commission

Boot camps, United States

Ringe Prison, Denmark

Safer Foundation, Chicago, United States

Delaware Department of Corrections’ Life Skills Programme, United States

Project Reintegration of Offenders, Texas Workforce Commission

Employment remains one the biggest challenges for former prisoners. Without employment, the road back to prison will probably be short. Established in 1985, Project Reintegration of Offenders (RIO) has become one of the most ambitious projects in the United States. Its primary aim is to place people on parole in employment.20 Texas has the second largest prison population after California, numbering approximately 132 000. Operating through the offices of the Texas Workforce Commission (the state employment agency), RIO has more than 100 staff members in 62 offices providing placement to nearly 16 000 paroled prisoners every year in every county of the state of Texas. In addition to its statewide coverage, the following are outstanding features of this project:

Project RIO provides job preparation services to prisoners prior to release in state prisons so that they have a head start in seeking a job after their release.



It represents the close collaboration between two state agencies: the Texas Workforce Commission, where the project is housed, and the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, where assessment specialists funded by Project RIO assist in preparing prisoners for employment, and parole officers refer released inmates to the programme.



As a result of the reputation of the Texas Workforce Commission in the business community, Project RIO has developed a pool of more than 12 000 prospective employers.

An independent evaluation conducted in 1992 found that 69% of RIO participants found employment compared with 36% of a matched non-RIO sample. In the year after release, only 23% of high-risk RIO participants returned to prison compared with 38% of a comparable group of non-RIO former prisoners.

Project RIO operates three different types of offices outside of prison to assist paroled prisoners to find employment:

Full service offices in each of the seven largest cities in Texas offer clients a week-long job search workshop, one-on-one assistance with job placement, the use of a resource room (including computers with job listings, telephone directories and telephones), and post-placement follow-up services.



The rest of the state offices are in smaller jurisdictions and consist of one part-time to three full-time RIO staff members who operate from local Texas Workforce Commission offices.



Itinerant service providers travel periodically to these smaller offices to spend one or two days a week in communities where there are a substantial number of paroled prisoners.

Project RIO’s services also extend to prisons, principally through the Windham School District. Funded by the Texas Education Agency, Windham provides education and training within facilities of the Texas Criminal Justice Department. The following services are provided by the School District to prisoners:

Assessment and testing: Each participant’s skills and employment record are assessed and a RIO assessment specialist develops an employability development plan that reflects the availability of jobs and occupational demands in the community where the prisoner will be released. If necessary, the RIO specialist will refer the prisoner to appropriate academic or vocational training programmes within the prison.



Documentation: Assessment specialists gather the necessary documentation such as birth certificates, general education diplomas and school transcripts with the assistance of family members or relevant officials.



Job readiness training: A specialist meets with every RIO participant who is within two years of release every 90 days to enhance and strengthen his or her skills to cope with eventual job interviews.



Employability and life skills workbook: Under the supervision of a specialist, each participant works at his or her own pace through a series of seven workbooks called Project RIO Occupational Direction (PROD).



Change programme: Windham School District offers a 90 to 120 hour, 65-day life skills programme to RIO participants who are within six months of release. The course addresses self-concept, family relationships, civic and legal responsibilities, victim awareness, personal health and hygiene, and job preparation.

The project’s success can be partially attributed to the fact that it is actively promoted among the Texas prison population:

Brochures on the project are distributed during prison orientation.



All inmates who enrol in Windham vocational courses are required to enrol with RIO.



RIO assessment specialists recruit eligible prisoners to participate in the change programme using a short videotape showing interviews with former prisoners who were assisted by RIO to find well-paying non-menial employment.



Two RIO information specialists — both former offenders — periodically make presentations about the programme to prisoners.



RIO employment specialists visit prisons with employers using RIO clients to talk about the benefits of the programme to employers.



Once they are released, a RIO staff member gives every group of prisoners a 30-minute orientation of RIO, including a card with a RIO hotline number, contact addresses of the nearest RIO offices, and other helpful information.

Employment is important in reintegration, but it is not the only variable. Many clients have serious needs apart from employment, ranging from medical care to shelter to family care, all of which can interfere with the candidate’s ability to find employment and keep it. To address this, RIO employment specialists supply clients with a directory of services or refer them to the appropriate service agent, whether this is a state or non-profit organisation.

RIO has an impressive track record and the following highlights some of the most significant achievements:

In 1995, RIO served 15 366 paroled prisoners, representing approximately 40% of all former offenders and 47% of all those released on parole from prison during this year.



Project RIO has placed 69% of more than 100 000 former offenders in employment since 1985. In 1995, almost 74% of clients found employment at an average wage of $5.15 per hour while the minimum wage at the time was $4.25 per hour.



Of RIO clients, 69% found employment compared with 36% of non-RIO clients.



Two-thirds of both African-American and Hispanic-American RIO clients found employment compared with only 30% of African-Americans and 36% of Hispanic-Americans who were not enrolled in the programme.



In the year after release when most recidivism occurs, research found that 48% of high-risk RIO clients were rearrested compared with 57% of non-RIO high-risk offenders; 23% of these RIO clients were again incarcerated compared to 38% of non-RIO clients.

The question may be asked whether this makes economic and financial sense. A 1995 study by Texas A & M University analysed the project. The Texas legislature provided RIO with $15.8 million for two years. Of this $4.69 million were channelled to the Texas Workforce Commission through an interagency contract with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The Department uses $2.9 million per year for its prison and parole-related Project RIO activities. The programme spent $361 in 1995 for every client who found employment. The study further examined the records of 6 500 clients who received services in 1990. Nearly 20% of them avoided reincarceration partly because of their participation in RIO. The cost of imprisoning these individuals would have amounted to approximately $20 million per year (at $16 000 per individual). Since Project RIO’s costs were about $4 million in 1990, this represents a potential saving of more than $15 million for the state that year.

The Project RIO model may not be applicable in all economies, especially with its strong emphasis on employment in the formal sector. In developing countries, it may be argued that there are limited job opportunities available and to find employment in the formal sector may not be cost-effective. A focus on the informal sector and self-employment is therefore a more realistic approach. However, it is also true that not all former prisoners want to or are able to become self-employed or to be entrepreneurs, or may not have the skills to follow this route. Some may prefer employment in the formal sector and their chances for reintegration will be greatly enhanced if such employment can be secured. Employment for former prisoners in the formal sector remains a need and cannot be ignored just because it is a challenge.

A further strength of the RIO model is that interventions with prisoners start while they are still in prison and are not limited to efforts to increase their chances of employment, but also address issues of personal development. This more holistic approach appears to yield better results than a mere focus on employment would achieve.

It is also evident that RIO enjoys strong state policy, legislative and financial support. There is clearly a commitment by the state to offender reintegration. For those implementing the programme, it is important to know that they enjoy government support, without which programme managers would have to fight a battle on two fronts.

A further strength of Project RIO is the interagency approach. Co-operation between Project RIO, the Department of Criminal Justice, Windham School District and the Texas Workforce Commission is evident in the day-to-day operations of the project. Support from the private sector is also available and with a database of more than 12 000 possible employers, the willingness of the community to accept former prisoners is clearly illustrated.

If Project RIO has a shortcoming, it is perhaps its follow-through services. However, should clients require any other services, information is made available to them. A more intensive and holistic follow-through service will add much to enhance the impact and success of the project.

Boot camps, United States

Boot camps developed in the United States in response to the growing prison population and the strain it placed on resources.21 Crime was not decreasing and intermediate sanctions became necessary. Such sanctions are defined as sentencing options ranging from simple probation to incarceration. These included intensive supervision, fines, restitution and community supervision, as well as combinations of these. Intermediate sanctions normally include multiple goals such as saving money, deterring crime, protecting the public and rehabilitating offenders.

For many people, boot camps with their military style and structure present an attractive opportunity to give direction to the lives of young people. This ‘short sharp shock’ approach in sentencing is appealing as it has a component of retribution that is balanced by the supportive and therapeutic nature of the programme. In the words of a British evaluator:

"[L]ife will be conducted at a brisk tempo. Much greater emphasis will be put on hard and constructive activities, on discipline, on self-respect, and respect for those in authority. We will introduce on a regular basis drill, parades and inspections. Offenders will have to earn their limited privileges by good behaviour."22

The potential positive effects of a military regime, based on strong discipline and structure, form the foundation of the boot camp approach. The highly regulated environment, immediate sanctions, physical demands and uniformity are military characteristics that presumably make it an attractive option for young people who have ‘lost their way’. Boot camps usually consist of a relatively short period of incarceration in a quasi-military environment, followed by a period of supervision in the community. The first boot camp opened in Georgia in 1983 as the Special Alternative Incarceration Programme and soon after, camps were opened in Oklahoma and Mississippi. By 1993, there were at least 59 state and 10 local boot camps operating in 29 American states.

Undoubtedly a very popular option, it conjured up images of young men and women experiencing the rigours of a military regime as punishment for their transgressions. At the same time, they were learning about respect, discipline and, above all, about rules. The theory behind boot camps is based on a somewhat romantic notion of the delinquent youth entering the military environment, by choice or through force, and then developing a sense of self-worth and an admiration for discipline. Blair and others describe it as follows:

"The hypothesized logic chain begins with uniformed drill instructors, carefully selected and trained to give offenders strict military-like discipline and supervision. Drill instructors who brook no nonsense from programme participants and consistently enforce prescribed manners of behaviour are central to establishing the boot camp’s structured environment. Programme participants exposed to this environment will learn self-discipline, resistance to peer pressure, and commitment to traditional values. Over time these personal changes will enhance feelings of self worth and reinforce socially desirable behaviours such as seeking and holding jobs, continuing education and resisting criminal activities.

Within the programme’s disciplined structure, participants are better able to focus on and actively engage in educational (remedial or otherwise) courses, life skills training, and counselling. These, too, enhance feelings of worth and accomplishment, instill appreciation and propensity for positive behaviour, and improve chances for resisting damaging peer pressure and criminal behaviour."23

While this option may be popular with the public and politicians alike, it has to be asked whether it is effective. To answer this question, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) made funds available for a two-year evaluation of three boot camp programmes. Guidelines for the demonstration programme were formulated as follows:

It should serve as a cost-effective sanction.

It should promote basic traditional, moral values and instil a work ethic.

It should provide discipline to youth through physical conditioning and team work.

It should promote literacy and increase academic achievement.

It should include activities and resources to reduce drug and alcohol abuse.

It should encourage participants to become productive, law-abiding citizens.

It should ensure that juvenile offenders are punished and held accountable.

The demonstration programmes also targeted specific youth who had to conform to the following criteria:

adjudicated by the juvenile court and awaiting the implementation of the court disposition;

categorised as being at a high risk of continuing delinquency or of abusing drugs and/or alcohol;

under the age of 18 years;

no history of mental illness;

not considered violent or with a history of involvement in violent crimes;

not an escape risk; and

demonstrate motivation to participate in the programme.

The OJJDP selected three teams of public and private agencies to develop prototype demonstration programmes:

the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas in Cleveland, Ohio, in association with the North American Family Institute;



Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Mobile, Alabama, in association with the Strickland Youth Centre of Mobile County Juvenile Court and the University of South Alabama; and



the Colorado Division of Youth Services in Denver, Colorado, in association with New Pride Inc.

Blair and others provide a comprehensive evaluation of the boot camp programmes, indicating that this is not a simple, fit-for-all programme. They found that these programmes are indeed highly complex. For them to be effective or at least achieve some degree of success, detailed planning, highly trained staff and sufficient resources are basic requirements. Some of the key findings and recommendations are presented here in summarised format.

Completing the boot camp was regarded as the first criterion to measure whether participants were on the programme long enough to gain any personal benefits. At all three sites, the majority of participants completed the boot camp: 95% in Cleveland, and 80% in both Denver and Mobile.

The second indicator of successful programme implementation is whether the boot camp stimulated changes in attitudes and behaviour. In the absence of a control group, it was difficult for the researchers to make any definite conclusions on the effect of boot camps on participants’ behaviour and attitude. Nonetheless, it is reported that participants made gains in physical fitness, education and attitude over the three-month period at boot camp. In Cleveland and Mobile, participants increased their educational level by more than one year, although such increases have been documented at other institutional programmes. On this, the study concluded:

"[T]he youths who participated in boot camp did not appear to be any worse off in any measure of educational or behavioural performance at the conclusion of their training."24

Youths who were interviewed just before leaving the boot camp expressed confidence that they made considerable changes in their lives and that their behaviour would be very different in future.

The next conclusion made by Blair and his team is significant for the reintegration process as it clearly illustrates how the gains made over a relatively short period (three months) can be undone in an even shorter period: "What appeared to be a promising prognosis at the conclusion of the boot camp disintegrated during aftercare."25 All three programmes were plagued by high attrition rates for non-compliance, absenteeism and new arrests during the aftercare period. It should be noted that the programmes were affected by unexpected cuts in Federal government support. None of the three programmes were able to find answers to the problem that typically plagues correctional residential programmes: inmates who appear to thrive in the institutional environment, but falter when they return home.

Although the evaluation of the three programmes did not track longer term recidivism rates, it collected data on in-programme recidivism. This was defined as a new arrest that prompted termination from the programme. The three programmes showed significant differences in this rate: Cleveland at 32.8%, 25% in Denver and 11.5% in Mobile.

The evaluators also considered whether the programmes selected the appropriate youths. From the OJJDP’s perspective, the boot camp programme was meant as an intermediate sanction, designed for offenders who did not merit long-term institutionalisation, but whose cases were too serious for diversion or probation. It was found that Mobile probably included too many youths for whom a less restrictive sanction would have been more appropriate. Cleveland and Denver, on the other hand, may have erred by including too many serious offenders. Cleveland participants had 2.8% felony convictions and 27% had been sentenced to an institution prior to boot camp. Denver’s programme also included a number of previously institutionalised youths. After some initial problems, medical and psychological screenings were tightened. Judged by the completion rates, it appears that this was successful.

Although not conclusive, it appears that boot camps may not be the most appropriate sanction for youths who have been incarcerated previously.

The military nature of boot camps also requires further investigation as it poses particular questions around its purpose and end goal. Comparing the correctional boot camp with the military boot camp (similar to basic training in the South African National Defence Force), some questions and issues are highlighted:

"In the military, boot camp is the initiation process that attempts to mould a group of individuals into a cohesive team that will respond without question to authority. Ultimately, the conformity and respect established during boot camp may come into play in life-threatening situations. When a young person leaves boot camp, he remains in the service for a minimum of two years. During this time, the same structure and rules that guided his behaviour in boot camp are in place. In addition, that person has a job, clothing, and a place to live. For many individuals, the military becomes a family of sorts, and a source of structure and support."26

The correctional boot camp, on the other hand, does not focus as much on building a team as on changing an individual’s behaviour and on teaching co-operation. Unlike the military boot camp, when youths leave the correctional boot camp, they leave the structure, support and discipline and return to an environment that has failed them and/or that they have failed in. Because of this basic difference, there are clear limits to what a correctional boot camp can be expected to achieve.

Blair and others suggest that a military school as opposed to a military boot camp may be a more appropriate setting. While still maintaining the military framework, the emphasis is shifted to education. For many youths, such a tough environment may be appropriate to receive ‘treatment’.

Blair and his team made a number of recommendations regarding boot camps. These are not only applicable to this specific type of programme, but in most cases can be applied to offender reintegration programmes across the board. It is clear from these recommendations that the principles of offender reintegration are based on common sense more than on sophisticated treatment models that involve highly specialised professionals. Key aspects of the recommendations are:

Boot camp programmes need to clarify the cause and effect rationales they are using to explain expectations for changing participant behaviour — what are the aims of this activity?



Boot camp programmes should carefully define and select target populations in the light of their goals for rehabilitation, recidivism, cost containment, punishment and other important areas.



Programmes need to identify strategies for smoothing the transition from boot camp to aftercare, and aftercare should explicitly build on the structure, discipline, and learning experiences of the programme’s camps.



The transition from a closely monitored boot camp to aftercare should be less abrupt, permitting youths to adjust more slowly to the community.



The requirements for participation in aftercare should be stiffer and youths should be monitored more closely, particularly immediately after release.



Programmes should have clear sets of disciplinary rules, expectations for behaviour and graduated sanctions for both boot camp and aftercare phases.



In multi-agency programmes, the responsibilities of each agency need to spelled out clearly, especially with regard to the monitoring of youths.



In the light of the effects of the high staff turnover at two of the programmes, there is clearly a need for continuous staff training.

Boot camp is an attractive option for variety of reasons. Apart from the romantic notions surrounding the military environment, it is short in duration, intense, harsh and therefore punitive. Offenders suffer physically although their fitness increases, and they learn to deal with authority. However, Blair and his team concluded:

"The demonstration programmes evaluated in this study demonstrated that boot camps can be implemented in the juvenile justice system. Whether those boot camps work is still unknown. That question merits further research."27

The applicability and usefulness of boot camps in South Africa are questionable. Using military style training and disciplining techniques in a society that is trying to remove military structures and habits from an entrenched repressive culture may in fact be counterproductive. The immediate association between the military and violence should also not be further cultivated in an already violent society. Military institutions and structures in South Africa have a lingering political odour despite efforts to affect the opposite. Seen against this background, boot camps appear not to be an appropriate option in South Africa. It should also be noted that the effectiveness of boot camps in terms of curbing recidivism and actually facilitating reintegration remains to be proven. The biggest problem with boot camps therefore appears to be the context in which they are placed. Moreover, the question is whether they are in fact able to transfer any positive achievements from the camp environment to the day-to-day life of the participant after the programme has ended.

Ringe Prison, Denmark

Ringe Prison in Denmark is a unique and remarkable prison.28 A description is included to illustrate that offender reintegration can already start in prison, provided that the prison management understands the philosophy and theory underpinning successful reintegration and that it is committed to achieve this goal. Ringe has as its first priority the preparation of inmates to live as normal members of society after their release. There are no bars or armoured glass, although it is a closed maximum security prison surrounded by an inconspicuous enclosing wall and equipped with a sophisticated video surveillance system. The prison is built on a plateau and the surrounding walls are sunk into a natural depression, permitting a view of the surroundings. This stands in stark contrast to the new maximum security prison in Florence, Colorado, which was designed so that prisoners have no view of other cells, or of the Rocky mountains in the distance.29 At Ringe, the workshops and gymnasium, the latter also for use by the neighbouring population, are outside the perimeter wall and can be accessed though a passage from the main building. Inmates at Ringe have a degree of freedom of movement.

The general principle in Denmark is that all sentences must be served in open prisons. Placement in a closed prison, such as Ringe, depends on the nature and importance of the crime and the length of the sentence. It can also be used in cases of drug addiction and drug trafficking, or for prisoners who have violated the obligations of open prisons. Young men and women between the ages of 20 and 25 years are kept at Ringe.

Ringe tries as far as possible to approximate life outside. For example, every week an employee of a local bank gives cash to inmates, including the wages earned in the workshops and a basic allowance for subsistence. There is no central kitchen and inmates must purchase their own food from a branch of a supermarket operating in the prison. Food is prepared by inmates in their own housing unit. Prisoners are responsible for their own budgets and no advance loans are permitted. Should they run out of money, they must depend on support from their fellow inmates. There are no social workers permanently assigned to the prison and inmates are expected to deal with their own problems. Social workers are assigned to the prison occasionally to deal with problems that the inmates cannot resolve themselves. This policy encourages self-reliance and aims to move inmates away from a social welfare mentality.

In essence, Ringe rejected the therapeutic model and places the responsibility for reintegration with inmates who are encouraged to do as much as possible for themselves. A result of this was the ‘deprofessionalisation’ of staff. Standard officers, as they are known, concentrate on the functions of prison guard, counsellor and work instructor. Counselling is not done psycho-therapeutically but at the level of the ‘reasonable man or woman’. Standard officers can be assigned to any duty in the prison. Specialisation is particularly avoided to prevent conflict between custodial staff, therapeutic staff and instructors. It is also interesting to note that, with few exceptions, none of the standard officers have had previous experience in prisons.

Male and female inmates are allowed to mix and, as one observer put it, "this is merely an extension of conjugal visits, which is a matter of course in Danish corrections."30 Social and sexual intercourse occurs regularly between inmates, and staff members will only intervene to prevent exploitive or forced relationships. Contraceptives are available from the prison supermarket. According to Rotman, discipline is not a problem and inmates appear to be less aggressive and more polite than in other prisons. Rotman concludes:

"Ringe prison is the most tangible expression of the recent transformation of the rehabilitative concept. The new concept is not considered applicable to offenders with diminished responsibility, such as those arising from immaturity or mental disturbance, thus excluding the traditional idea of treatment inherent in the biomedical model. Inmates are deemed to be fully responsible, and the goal of their imprisonment is punishment. However, rehabilitation plays an important role insofar as staff members are supposed to keep in close contact with the inmates, become aware of their problems, and help them overcome their difficulties in coping with life in freedom. The counselling is not carried out by high-level, specialised therapists, however by average staff members. In this way inmates are prompted to work out by themselves the practical solutions to their problems."31

The convergence of the traditional ‘professions’ in correctional institutions (social worker, guard and instructor) is a significant characteristic of Ringe Prison. The immediate consequence is that every staff member has an obligation to be involved with the inmates and not merely be a ‘key turner’. Ringe also attempts to answer the question: How can someone be trained for freedom in captivity? Placing the responsibility with the inmates to solve their problems, individually or as a group, while being supported by the staff is a radical shift from the traditional model of imprisonment where everything is done for the prisoner by the custodial staff, and when a prisoner has an emotional or social problem, an appointment is made with the therapist or social worker (if such a service is available). Peer support and counselling have the advantage that the ‘counsellor’ has legitimacy as he or she is probably experiencing or has experienced a similar problem as the ‘patient’.

In contrast to Ringe Prison, South African prisons still follow the model of separated staff functions: security, educational, and social work and psychology staff, with security being the overriding concern. While security staff have the most contact with prisoners and probably ‘know’ them better as individuals than the other staff, they are under no obligation to provide more than security. The military style and history of the Department of Correctional Services have also not contributed to the development of staff who take a wider responsibility than just ensuring that security is maintained. Social services and education are still regarded as functions separate from those performed by warders. Prisoners have the most contact with the warders who also determine what prisoners do on a daily basis and when. It is fair to say that there is a considerable level of antagonism at this stage between prisoners and warders in South African prisons, and as long as this remains the case, reintegration efforts will be undermined.

Ringe Prison is probably the closest approximation of what Reitan calls the invitation to be part of the community of good citizens.32 Everything that happens in Ringe is an embodiment and extension of this invitation. The fact that this is a prison and that its purpose is to exclude certain individuals from society does not detract from the main purpose, namely to increase the chances for successful reintegration. This stands in sharp contrast to what most prisons in the world view as their purpose: to discipline, punish, exclude, control and isolate people.

It is doubtful that a prison like Ringe will ever be established in South Africa, but much can be learned from Ringe in terms of how imprisonment should be approached as part of reintegration, and what can be done to train people for freedom while in captivity. It would necessitate a radical departure from what is now regarded as the purpose of imprisonment and how prisons are managed in South Africa. Prisons are in such a crisis, however, that it is indeed worthwhile to investigate radical options.

Safer Foundation, Chicago, United States

The Safer Foundation is a provider of employment services for former offenders similar to Project RIO, but is a community-based organisation, relying heavily on volunteer support, as well as financial assistance from the private sector.33 The Safer Foundation has a staff of nearly 200 professionals in six locations in two states and an annual budget of $8.6 million, and makes use of approximately 300 volunteers. The organisation was established in 1972 with a grant from the Department of Justice and has since assisted more than 40 000 former offenders to find employment. According to the Safer Foundation, its clients have the following basic profile: 92% are from minority groups, 70% have a history of untreated substance abuse, 75% are functionally illiterate and the majority live in poverty.

The Safer Foundation has a comprehensive and holistic approach to its clients and sets higher standards than most other programmes of a similar nature. Whereas most other service providers in this field would consider a client as being successfully placed in employment when he or she is hired, the Safer Foundation only regards a client as being placed when he or she has remained employed for 30 days. Table 6 outlines the services of the Safer Foundation, showing a number of traditional former offender services, but incorporating some unusual features.

PACE makes extensive use of volunteers and each volunteer has to commit to six consecutive weeks of tutoring, but most remain for one to two years. About 60% of PACE volunteers are college students who receive course credits for this field experience. Volunteers receive a 30-page handbook, a basic orientation and a list of do’s and don’ts. According to the PACE director, the most common problem with new volunteers is that, once they realise that their students fail to fit the stereotype of the hostile, unmotivated criminal and instead turn out to be polite and interested, the volunteers think: ‘This guy is an exception, so I can bend the rules about never giving him my phone number, calling his attorney, or bringing him some gum’.

Overall, the Safer Foundation’s service appears to be on the right track. The cost per client placed in employment is approximately $1 370 and after staying in employment, the cost was $1 960. While this may appear substantial, it should always be compared with the direct cost of incarceration, as well as secondary costs as a result of a crime. A limited follow-up study found that, after 30 days, 81% of those placed in employment were still employed, after 60 days, 75% and after 90 days, 57%.

The Safer Foundation’s Youth Empowerment Programme (YEP) showed equally positive results at the end of 1996:

More than 60% of the 72 participants who completed the course achieved at least a 12.5% increase in the General Equivalency Diploma (GED).



More than two-thirds (67%) of participants entered school, vocational training or employment, with 58% maintaining their placements after 180 days.



Of participants who entered school, vocational training or employment, 99% had not been convicted of a new crime after 180 days.

The Safer Foundation services again illustrate the importance of linking different agents, ensuring continuity and support, and providing former offenders with a real alternative. Providing someone with skills is not sufficient and therefore great emphasis is placed on job placement and supporting the client in keeping such employment for up to a year. The Safer Foundation’s method of training in the basic skills programme is also noteworthy as it has a dual effect in the education process: skills are transferred, and former offenders are given the opportunity to share their skills and abilities with others.

It is clear that the Safer Foundation’s staff are well-trained and have the ability to apply an empowerment methodology with their clients. Through experience, the Safer Foundation has also developed its own performance indicators in order to ensure adherence to a satisfactory standard.

As alluded to earlier, follow-through and post-release services are crucial in any offender reintegration programme. The lifeguard system used by the Safer Foundation (for up to one year after release) appears to be an effective strategy. Every client knows who his or her lifeguard is and that this person is always available should there be an emergency. This approach has two important advantages. Firstly the client is not lost in a bureaucratic system as there is one person to liase with; secondly, from a management point of view, a staff member is responsible for specific people and cannot pass responsibility to someone else.

Follow-through support services are often perceived to be an expensive and cumbersome ‘addition’ to the core service provided by a programme. The fact is that these support services can make or break a programme, no matter how good it is. It is also not an addition or add-on, but forms an integral component of the service and should be regarded as such. A programme cannot be regarded as holistic if it does not apportion equal importance to all its components. The boot camps programmes illustrated clearly that most of the achievements during the so-called core activity were quickly undone as a result of poor or limited follow-through support.

The empowerment methodology followed by the Safer Foundation through the use of clients (prisoners) as trainers in the basic skills development course is a significant strategy. Prisoners and former prisoners often have many positive skills that can be shared, provided that they have the opportunity to do so in a facilitative environment. It is a fallacious assumption that only trained professionals can provide skills training and facilitate courses. The empowerment and ‘deprofessionalisation’ approach is particularly attractive and has great potential in environments where resources are limited.

Delaware Department of Corrections’ Life Skills Programme, United States

Many studies have concluded that there is a link between adult academic education and a reduction in recidivism. The question is, however, if there is also such a link between life skills training and a reduction in recidivism. The Delaware Department of Corrections’ life skills programme shows encouraging results in this regard.34 The programme is offered to approximately 300 prisoners every year of whom 85% graduate from the programme. In 1997, Delaware had a prison population of roughly 5 000, including 930 pre-trial prisoners. The life skills programme is a four-month programme run twice a year with up to 150 inmates in each of the cycles. The curriculum of the programme consists of three core components:

Academic subjects: reading comprehension, mathematics and language expression.



Violence reduction: Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT), anger management and conflict resolution training.



Applied life skills: credit and banking, job search, motor vehicle regulations, legal responsibilities, family responsibilities, health issues, social services, educational services, cultural differences, government and law.

Moral Reconation Therapy (MRT) is seen as the core of the programme and can be described as:

"a non-traditional, cognitive-behavioural treatment for offenders, substance abusers and other individuals with resistant personalities. The course uses a step by step process of raising the moral reasoning level of students through 16 hierarchically graded moral and cognitive stages."35

The course uses group and workbook exercises designed to achieve therapeutic goals through educational means in order to change the way individuals act by changing the way they think. A typical exercise will ask students to draw pictures of their biggest problem areas and pictures of what they think will lead them to happiness. Another exercise asks them to identify the five worst experiences of their lives and the five best experiences of their lives, and to consider what made each of these good or bad. Each student is required to share his or her results with the rest of the class. As part of MRT, students are required to:

establish goals and identify the necessary means to achieve them; and



assess the quality of the relationships that they currently have with other people and formulate strategies on how to improve valued relationships.

MRT is used widely in the United States and 20 000 prisoners participate annually in the programme in 32 states. The Delaware Department of Corrections uses MRT as part of its life skills programme and utilises the academic and applied life skills components of the programme so that MRT goals are reinforced. Ethical and moral issues are raised when dealing with applied life skills such as banking and credit, or when dealing with a specific piece of literature in the academic component. According to one course facilitator, "the idea is to challenge their belief system repeatedly so they begin to think in terms of what is the right thing to do."36

Life skills teachers integrate other important themes into the entire programme such as caring for others, being honest, taking responsibility, and planning for the future. It is especially planning for the future that appears to hold particular value for prisoners, as one prisoner explains:

"Usually you only think about when you’re going to leave prison, but MRT forces you to think beyond the date of release. The most important part of the Life Skills course is writing out your goals - what is the first thing you will do when you get out, the second thing, and so on."37

Teachers are allowed to determine the amount of time they spend on each of the three basic programme components, but it is estimated that 65% is spend on violence reduction (principally MRT), 20% to 25% on applied life skills and 10% to 15% on academic subjects. Due to the availability of other academic courses, teachers are of the opinion that students can focus on this component during these courses and therefore prefer to focus on MRT-related topics.

Strong emphasis is placed on re-establishing or improving ties with families and programme facilitators spend a substantial amount of their own time and money to assist prisoners with this often challenging task. At three of the institutions (security arrangements at the fourth does not permit it), open days are arranged in each course cycle by the teachers so that some socialising can take place between families, teachers and students. Family members are also occasionally invited to participate in the programme and participate in small group discussions on issues such as how to receive a released family member and what problems can be expected. Family members and prisoners are then asked to present their solutions to the whole group. Family members are also invited to graduation ceremonies.

Outside speakers are invited to address topics related to the transition from prison to freedom. Representatives from the Department of Labour explain how former offenders can find decent employment, entrepreneurs provide information on how to start own businesses, staff from the Department of Motor Vehicle Registration give advice on how to register a vehicle or how to get a suspended licence returned, and the Head of the Polytechnical School gives information on free vocational courses after release from prison.

According to the programme administrator, the power of the programme lies in its capacity to hire and train correctional educators who are motivated to help incarcerated students. He outlines the following personality characteristics as requirements for programme facilitators:

creativity — being able to link MRT components with other aspects of the programme;



flexibility — switching back and forth between different programme components;



stamina — teaching two three-hour classes a day with often outspoken and unhappy students;



a willingness to extend themselves beyond the technical requirements of the job — contacting relatives in the evenings or over weekends;



an ability to handle the intense emotions elicited by MRT among students;



the modelling of behaviour they try to instil in their students — openness, honesty and not always acting in expectation of a material reward;



the ability to challenge students constantly to live up to their own stated priorities and goals.38

The Delaware programme combines a variety of skills education and training and relies on quality staff to engage with the students. The programme is admittedly weak in the after release phase, although it is not completely ignored. The following summarises some of the most significant characteristics of the students in the programme:

Of the 826 students who enrolled in the programme between June 1994 and November 1996, 85% graduated. The 15% who dropped out (64 out of 127) were mainly the result of transfers to other institutions.



Programme participants consisted of 68% African-American, 5% Hispanic, and 26% white non-Hispanic.



Age categories consisted of 49% between the ages of 20 and 29 years, and 35% between the ages of 29 and 35 years.



Sentence composition consisted of 38% for violent crimes and 39% for non-violent drug offences.

An independent evaluator assessed the reduction in recidivism as a result of the programme and made the following conclusions:

It was estimated that a 7% reduction in recidivism is the minimum requirement to make the programme cost-effective, in other words, for the state to recoup the costs of the programme.



For the first programme cycle at all four prisons, the recidivism rate was 19% compared to the 27% of control group members.



At one of the prisons, the rate was higher for the students than for the control group and it was found that students at this prison remained incarcerated for longer after the course than at the other three prisons, indicating that the programme may be less effective when too much time lapses between graduation and release.



When analysing two groups of males (40) and females (20) over a two-year period, it was found that only three females and nine males reoffended, compared with 51% of the female control group and 50% of the male control group.39

Finn makes the following recommendations regarding the implementation of the life skills programme:

involve local stakeholders and other top prison officials when planning the programme;



hire highly qualified and experienced teachers; and



house students in a separate section in the prison or work with security staff to arrange for their timely transport to and from class.40

Similar to the Safer Foundation, the Delaware programme places a lot of emphasis on the quality and commitment of its staff. The requirements for staff, as set out above, show that truly motivated and committed staff members are required to achieve sustainable results. Prisoners and former prisoners can be extremely challenging clients and unmotivated or poorly trained staff can do more harm than good.

The value of a supportive prison management cannot be underestimated when running programmes inside or connected to prisons. Allowing students or course participants to be kept separate from non-students enhances the impact of the programme substantially. It provides the space for inmates to practise the skills they are acquiring on a daily basis and to interact with one another in a way that echoes these skills. It also increases the potential for the development of peer support networks that are not threatened by the ordinary rigours and politics of the prison inmate population.

An holistic and comprehensive offender reintegration programme has to involve prison management in a partnership so that management also buys into the programme and is able to contribute in a manner that will support the principles, policies and practices of the programme. For example, a basic change such as separating programme participants prior to release from other prisoners will greatly enhance the impact of the programme.

A further lesson from the Delaware programme is the timing of the programme. The evaluation results show that this is a significant variable determining the impact of the programme. The time lapse between skills and knowledge acquisition and their application has to be of such a length that momentum and enthusiasm are maintained. It has been observed in some South African prisons that the time lapse between programme completion and release is so long that prisoners become frustrated and have indeed become negative towards the programme and its administration. Other programmes have also been reported where prisoners receive entrepreneurial training 12 months and more before release with counterproductive results. The prisoners became motivated through the programme to apply their skills, but because it is impossible to apply these in the prison environment, it led to disappointment and frustration.

It is also important to note that facilitators of the Delaware programme are cautious about information overload and prefer to spend approximately 80% of the time on applied life skills (MRT) and 20% on academic topics. This again emphasises that programmes should be relevant and needs-based.