Workman has highlighted (in conversation 2021) that while general lessons can be learnt from the experiences of others, approaches are not easy to transfer to the Aotearoa New Zealand setting due to socio-cultural and legislative differences. There have also been other acknowledgements that the New Zealand Correctional System needs to find our own solutions. The Roper Committee reported that the ‘large-scale fortress prisons found in countries such as the United States, United Kingdom and Australia have been no more successful in reducing recidivism than our smaller prisons. It is no longer appropriate that we continue to look to these overseas models for answers in the penal area’.
Understanding Aotearoa New Zealand Justice - a bicultural indigenous and colonial History
Aotearoa New Zealand is a pacific, bi-cultural and colonial country with its own unique history and context. Pre-colonial Māori society operated a model of justice, for any hundreds of years, based on restorative principles and practices and which did not include prisons or incarceration . Features of a well-functioning Corrections system can be different when considered from a Te Ao Māori worldview because the discussion includes indigenous knowledge from what they already ‘knew’, rather than what we need to do that is ‘new’.
Once European and the people of various Māori communities met, a process of negotiation and exchange began that continues to this day. By the end of the 19th century, the Māori forms of justice had replaced by a justice system based on emergent European concepts and practice which emphasized individual responsibility, demand for order and certainty in punishments, replacement of corporal punishments with imprisonment, and the removal of punishment from public view (ibid 16).
The current New Zealand Justice System is largely based on English Common Law, but Aotearoa New Zealand Justice has it’s own unique history, context, cultural identity and challenges. The constitution has bi-cultural foundations, starting with the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. There are different pakeha and Māori perspectives and experiences of Justice.
In the 180 years since the Treaty of Waitangi was signed there have been many challenges with Criminal Justice, particularly for Māori.
In his 1987 report on Justice Reform in Aotearoa New Zealand, Moana Jackson identified inherent bias and limitations in different research methodologies, highlighting the need to understand socio-cultural and ‘systemic decision and operation’ factors in New Zealand from a Māori perspective and explaining how Māori methodologies and conceptual frameworks can support good socio-cultural research in general. Jackson further highlights that no analysis of any problem can be undertaken without an understanding of its past.
More recently, in 2007 Hepi and Foote highlighted an issue of mainstream research and indigenous cultures. Specific to the New Zealand context, they identify how Māori communities, in general, have not benefited from mainstream research which has tended to emphasize negative statistics without suggesting constructive solutions. They further note how, as a result, Māori treat researchers with suspicion, questioning their motives and methods.
Does Aotearoa New Zealands bi-cultural history and make-up influence prison unit practice and function in any practical way? They certainly do! If we consider specialist prison units operating within the New Zealand prison network we can identify specialist treatment units and drug treatment units like we might find in many western countries but that they operate under a combination of Therapeutic Community and traditional Māori principles and practices, known as kaupapa Māori and tikanga Māori. This hybrid approach is distinctive. In addition, the NZ Custodial network also operates specialist Māori Focus Units and a Pacifica Focus Unit - which are culturally oriented units unique to this region. Māori principles and practices are not derived from modern health science models or from a western worldview and so can not be overseen or accredited by a college of Psychiatrists like in the UK. They do not necessarily have a directly equivalent English word. To be deeply understood they need to be considered within an overall te ao Māori worldview. Tikanga Māori also includes unique practices like haka or whakawhanaungatanga or hongi. These prison units are described and explored further in the following chapters, but this brief summary already shows how a NZ framework needs to be modeled on both - a therapeutic & tikanga community’ framework.
Understanding Aotearoa New Zealand Custodial Context - legislative influences
Historical and ongoing changes that occur within Aotearoa New Zealand justice and wider society continue to influence structure, performance and outcomes at all levels within the department of Corrections as a part of the justice system. Some examples of recent events and circumstances that have been identified as influencing current performance within Corrections and outcomes include changes to justice legislation and backlogs within the court system leading to increasing % of people on remand in prisons. Another local issues is activation of Australian legislation known as ‘501’s leading to deportees entering the criminal justice system. It is widely reported in the media how the gang population in New Zealand has been dramatically increasing and changing over the past decade or more, and the Australian 501 programme is a primary driver in this. This is directly influencing crime and directly influencing the prison population and social dynamics. During informal discussions one New Zealand Prison Director highlighted how the dynamics and influence of gangs in NZ is completely different to that of Europe. As an organisation of around 10’000 staff, 18 Custodial facilities and over 160 Community Probation sites, Corrections is organised in ways that have evolved over time, with a dynamic prison network including sites, units, operating practices, management systems and decision making processes that function in ways that are different to other jurisdictions.
Understanding Aotearoa New Zealand Custodial Context - the scale of Operating Environments
One of the challenges is identifying sites to study that are already wellbeing oriented. Stevens has previously identified that it can be difficult to define prison environments like therapeutic communities, noting that “A treatment method as complex and multifaceted as the therapeutic community” is difficult to operationalize due to “the different processes and mechanisms potentially at work.” TCs in the UK and US differ somewhat; in the US they are hierarchical and treat substance misusing populations, whilst in the UK they are democratic and offer group therapy and structured community living.
Because this is a new and novel research proposal, there are no prisons or prison residential units/communities that are clearly identified through academic research to meet our proposed multi-stakeholder model of Wellbeing orriented Custodial environments, based on Hokai Rangi and its purpose statement.
As previously discussed, there are some international examples of whole prison systems recognized as being high performing, with positive measurable whole of society outcomes (including people in prison, staff and wider society in general). This includes, notably, the northern European countries like Norway, Finland, Sweden and Denmark. Germany is also recognized.
Some other countries have individual prisons within their wider network that operate under significantly different operating principles and practices to their wider prison network, such that they are also getting different outcomes. Examples include Grendon & Springhill in the UK, Marngoneet Correctional Centre In Australia, the CCR’s in Dominican Republic. For ongoing periods these facilities have been different in a variety of ways. Including the design of their facilities, their operating budgets, staffing levels, staff capability and their day to day operational policies and processes.
Unlike many of these other countries, New Zealand does not currently have a whole system or any whole prisons within its network that are operating under conditions significantly different.
There has been an attempt to reform the entire prison network through a 1989 strategy called Te Ara Hou. It was ultimately unsuccessful in its long-term goals and was stopped and superseded in 1994 but did show some promising signs with Newbold (1994) concluding "The results (of Ara Hou) have been rather dramatic. In the first year of He Ara Hou alone, there was a threefold increase in the number of inmates completing educational coursework. Nearly a quarter of all prisoners are engaged in academic courses (Braybrook & Southey, 1992). In addition, there has been a 75 percent reduction in misconduct reports and escapes, and suicides have remained low, at about four a year (Department of Justice, 1991). In 1992, there was only a total of 40 assaults by inmates on staff in the entire country, most of which were minor and involved no injury (He Ara Hou, August 1992; Newbold, 1992).
Its worth noting that in 2005 Northland Regional Corrections Facility (NRCF) opened with a Māori focus approach applied to the whole facility, to embrace a holistic approach to re-offending although we have not found any evidence of its implementation or of significantly different outcomes. Also that a new custodial therapeutic community facility ‘Hikitia’ is currently in development in the Waikato near the city of Hamilton. It is a partnership project between Corrections, the Waikato District Health Board and the local Maori Iwi. It will be an entire Custodial facility and that will operate under a unique kaupapa Māori based therapeutic model, but that this facility is not yet operational.
Since the 1990’s though, New Zealand has had examples of individual prison units that have operated under somewhat different conditions.
Identifying and evaluating unit level prison environments
Ara Poutama Aotearoa / Corrections NZ publishes information about its different functions and units on its website, as well as reports of evaluations of performance of Custodial functions published within its online journal ‘Practice’ and through other reports. The stated aim of Practice: The New Zealand Corrections Journal (NZCJ) is to promote good practice and encourage professionalism by offering in-depth, academic and practice focused articles. Corrections recommends it for all those working professionally with offenders, especially in New Zealand.
A review of the published information(Table T) as a part of a preliminary identification and validation process confirmed that there are no examples of whole prisons within the 18 site network that are operating under significantly unique conditions (e.g. under a Therapeutic Communities model like Grendon (UK) or other operating approach like Bastoy or other Scandinavian prisons) and that are recognised for getting significantly different outcomes.
Our assessment of performance differentiated Custodial Units from Pathways, Programmes and Services (ref Table FG).
Table FG
By differentiating initiatives in this way, we were able to identify a number of different prison units that appear to operate differently to the norm and also appear to get better outcomes.
Table T
It is important to note the limitations on this brief evaluation. Studies of the relationship between imprisonment and outcomes have several methodological complications. Auty and Leibling 2018 highlight how reconviction studies offer only a proxy measure of reoffending, since only a very small proportion of crimes result in a conviction, methodologically valid control groups are hard to establish, the probable existence of intervening variables makes identifying causal mechanisms difficult. Official data is often insufficiently detailed to be able to link a factor to an outcome. In summary, it is not easy to isolate or confirm a specific effect of a situation this is especially problematic in prisons research, where prisoners may serve their sentence in several different establishments. It's important to acknowledge that individual outcome measures have limitations. Pierce 2019 explains that “Major prison reforms, especially those that involve significant infrastructure investments, are often measured by narrow indicators such as cell space, number of program hours, and eventual crime or recidivism rates, it is important to build a more holistic picture of incarcerated people’s daily experiences and what changes they consider important to their well-being.
Even so, the Departments Hokai Rangi 2019-2024 Strategy identifies (p.g. 13) that ‘some of our programmes are making a positive difference and will remain part of our service provision. Our current programmes, assessments, and facilities including; Mauri Tū Pae (run at all Te Tirohanga units and Northland Region Corrections Facility); Tamaua Te Koronga (rangatahi programme); Specialist Māori Cultural Assessment (SMCA); The Whare programme; Te Whare Tapa Whā Alcohol and Other Drug Intensive Treatment Programme; Tikanga Māori; Whare Oranga Ake (2 units); Te Tirohanga (5 units); and Tiaki Tangata (reintegration support)’.
As a statement of intent, Hokai Rangi also noted that ‘We will keep what currently works, but kaupapa Māori-based approaches will be the foundation of our practice, processes, and pathways’ (pg 19). Within the existing prison network through, at the ‘unit level’ there are residential units that are acknowledged as operating under different principle and practice frameworks.
Custodial Residential Units
Note: Many of the units identified as operating within different models (principles and practices) are ‘special units’, working with a particular cohort, e.g. Drug treatment, Sex Offenders , mothers. There is an argument that these people might be more ‘compliant’ such that the research outcomes would have limited transferability to other units. This issue and others will need to be addressed within research design, to be finalised within the validation stage.
Validation insights and summary
*these insights are based on published findings only, not analysis of source data
A primary focus of published performance evaluation has been rehabilitation.
The strongest evaluation focus has been on programmes and services, rather than the influence of daily life. There are examples of acknowledgement of the influence of daily life but it has not had significant evaluation focus.
Rehabilitation Quotient (RQ) is identified by Corrections as a reliable and established validation indicator for prisoner rehabilitation and behaviour that is used in around 40 distinct rehabilitation/ reintegration services.
The department has acknowledged the associated use of other data sources for programme effectiveness, including fieldwork-based evaluations and reviews of quality of delivery and participant response.
STURP facilities and Te Tirohanga Maori Focus Unit facilities appear to have the most potential as positive outliers. Both these unit types that are recognised as achieving more positive outcomes than the general population units. They are also acknowledged as having deliberately designed environments. The majority of research focus is on programme delivery rather than the influence of the daily living environment and associated principles, practices and processes (or tikanga). Additional anecdotal feedback has also been received for Te Ao Marama, identifying it as a particularly positive outlying Te Tirohanga unit
Conclusions
This paper has been a reflective review addressing the question of oranga wellbeing within the custodial context. It began with a question about Custodial Facilities then looked inwards, to provide context about Ara Poutama Aotearoa The department of Corrections and its strategic commitment to wellbeing.
The paper then looked outward to explore relevant international literature and identify the concept of prison social climate as a valid and reliable theoretical concept and proxy for our identified definition of wellbeing. This is one, that it is able to maintain a harmony between the complimentary and yet sometimes competing positive outcomes for the rehabilitation and heath of people in prison, for the safety and engagement of staff and the maintenance of order and security for benefit of the wider public safety.
Building on the social climate concept, examples of outcomes driven operational frameworks were then presented to explore what is required to best meet these different outcomes concurrently.
A brief summary of these frameworks highlighted some key themes and one issue identified in particular was the importance of local context leading to a key conclusion that while valuable lessons can be learnt from international examples, it is vital to build explicit models and explanations of how a wellbeing orriented custodial facility should operate from local examples, knowledge and experience. To illustrate this finding the paper explores the particular context of Aotearoa New Zealand highlighting cultural and practical considerations that would need to be addressed within an operational framework for a wellbeing oriented custodial unit for it to be suited and useful.
Finally a selection of ‘outlier’ custodial units that are currently operating within the Aotearoa New Zealand Custodial System was identified from published literature and presented. Of this group, STURP facilities and Te Tirohanga Maori Focus Unit facilities were identified as having the most potential for study as positive outliers. Both these unit types that are recognised as achieving more positive outcomes than the general population units and they are also acknowledged as having deliberately designed environments.
No comments:
Post a Comment