Prisoner Resettlement in Europe

Frieder Dünkel, Ineke Pruin, Anette Storgaard, Jonas Weber, Frieder Dünkel, Ineke Pruin, Anette Storgaard, Jonas Weber

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9781351761512
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Criminology
• Index: Social Sciences

Questions regarding how to improve the transitional phase from prison to life in society after release have gained major importance in the last decade in criminal policy. All over the world release preparation and resettlement practice are discussed with the aim to reduce negative effects of imprisonment and re-offending rates. Small and large reforms aiming at the improvement of release processes and reintegration strategies have taken place in many European states.

This book describes the current European landscape of prisoner resettlement and brings together the results and ideas of leading European academic experts with the ambition of furthering national, European and international reform debates. This book presents national reports about resettlement processes and structures in 20 European countries: written by national scholars, these reports reveal important actors in resettlement processes as well as political decisions about the role of the communities in "taking the prisoners back", or the use of early release as a strategy to motivate the released prisoner to enter into a future without crime. Thematic chapters then concentrate on several aspects of prisoner resettlement that are of importance across borders: ethical, legal and practical challenges are discussed with a view on European developments, and theoretical frameworks of prisoner resettlement are used to develop comprehensive perspectives for future reform debates.

The book serves as a fundamental source for researchers, politicians and practitioners in the field of prison and probation reform and practice. It is also useful in the field of social work, in so far that the analyses confirm that prisoner resettlement is not just a problem of criminal, but also of social justice. Sustainable reforms need the will of and good cooperation between all responsible actors and organizations from the justice, social, health and welfare sectors, as well as from society as a whole in the consent for taking released prisoners back.

Part I

Introduction

Chapter 1

Introduction

Frieder Dünkel, Ineke Pruin, Anette Storgaard and Jonas Weber

1.1 Background

Questions regarding how to improve the transitional phase from prison to life in society after release have gained major importance in the last decade in criminal policy. All over the world, release preparation and resettlement practice are being discussed with the aim of reducing the negative effects of imprisonment and re-offending rates.¹

One reason for this development is that the era of “mass incarceration” (Garland, 2001) in the US has been mirrored by an era of mass release: almost all imprisoned offenders are to be released at the end of their (limited) prison sentences and, therefore, the question of prisoner resettlement has become more important from a quantitative perspective. This has led to new research, followed by a demand for a restructuring of transition structures and schemes (e.g. Petersilia, 2004; Travis, 2005). Thus, the issue of prisoner resettlement has entered the political agenda and has become the focus of research. Although Europe did not face situations comparable to those encountered in the US, a remarkable rise in prison population rates was nonetheless noticeable in some European countries (e.g. Belgium, England, the Netherlands and Spain, see Dünkel, 2017a), and problems pertaining to prison overcrowding have prompted European debates on how to better structure and develop concepts for resettlement after release from prison.

In this context, high rates of recidivism among persons released from prison are regularly invoked.² Indeed, the risk of recidivism³ is at its highest in the time immediately following release, as the majority of re-offending occurs within one year of leaving custody.⁴ These results are used as evidence for the presumption that reintegration is not being achieved for a large proportion of offenders released from prisons. Rather, some authors have long stated that re-offending has dynamics of its own (Kerner and Janssen, 1983; Hermann and Kerner, 1988). Freshly released ex-offenders often exhibit a very low degree of social integration that comes into play, for instance, when the label attached to “ex-prisoners”⁵ makes the search for employment arduous, and a resulting lack of structured routines and economic security increases the risk of re-offending.⁶

However, the concerns to which recidivism rates give rise do not justify abandoning rehabilitative efforts in the resettlement process. There is a European consensus that rehabilitation is the primary goal of imprisonment and that “imprisonment is by the deprivation of liberty a punishment in itself and therefore the regime for sentenced prisoners shall not aggravate the suffering inherent in imprisonment” (see No. 102.2 European Prison Rules, EPR, Recommendation CM (2006) 2). A consequence of this aim of punishment is the principle of normalization, which shall be applied in all forms of detention as far as possible (No. 5 EPR: “Life in prison shall approximate as closely as possible the positive aspects of life in the community”). Another principle is to counteract the negative effects of imprisonment (e.g. subcultural pressures and violence between inmates). Therefore, basic principle No. 3 of the EPR states that “restrictions placed on persons deprived of their liberty shall be the minimum necessary and proportionate to the objective for which they are imposed”. Structured resettlement programmes can be regarded as a means for compensating deprivations experienced during the stay in prison. Meta-analyses and other evaluation studies of rehabilitation programmes and strategies have revealed that programmes that organize the transition from prison into society by preparing release in due time and providing through-care are likely to significantly reduce re-offending and to improve the social re-integration of offenders (see e.g. Ndrecka, 2014; Seiter and Kadela, 2003; and Dünkel et al. in Chapter 4 of the present volume).

With regard to the non-custodial elements of sanctions (e.g. the probation period following early release), it needs to be borne in mind that such measures can also be intrusive (e.g. electronic monitoring). Therefore, they must be restricted to the least intrusive form which can be justified. Again, this is a consequence of the principle of proportionality (Padfield, van Zyl Smit and Dünkel, 2010; Herzog-Evans, 2014; McNeill and Beyens, 2013; Robinson and McNeill, 2015; McNeill, Durnescu and Butter, 2016; Dünkel et al., 2017; Boone and Maguire, 2018).

Prisoners as well as the typical clients of the probation services have multiple psychosocial, economic and other problems in different aspects of social life (Harper and Chitty, 2005: 41 ff.). While psychosocial and other problems need not necessarily arise directly from the stay in prison, imprisonment can nonetheless exacerbate them (e.g. homelessness). Problems of social re-integration (establishing and/or maintaining social relations) must be addressed through sound cooperation between justice and social welfare agencies.

Discussions on the resettlement of offenders in many countries have effected structural reorganizations within the prison and probation services, which in turn have promoted reforms improving the resettlement process. As in society as a whole, professionalization and new management strategies have been further developed. It is evident that major organizational reforms such as the new regulations concerning the probation services (e.g. in England and Wales or the Netherlands) have had a major impact on how to improve the resettlement of offenders. In this context, one of the best evaluated approaches in offender rehabilitation, the so-called RNR-model (“Risk-Need-Responsivity approach”), has been implemented in many countries (see Bonta and Andrews, 2017). This model is based on principles that have, in quantitative studies, been proven to be effective in the rehabilitation of offenders. The Risk principle serves the notion that more intensive rehabilitative measures should focus on those offenders who show a high risk of re-offending. Rehabilitation strategies are seen as being effective if they target criminogenic needs of offenders (Needs-principle), and finally, rehabilitative measures should be structured in a way that corresponds to the abilities of the offenders to respond (Responsivity-principle). The risk principle implies the assumption that risks can be detected using specific risk-assessment methods, and indeed research on standardized prognostic instruments in the criminal justice system has confirmed their prognostic value to a certain degree. The RNR-model, therefore, has a direct impact on the resettlement of offenders in that it defines the problems which the prison and probation services should address.

In addition, the influence and impact of so-called “desistance research”, a field of research that is primarily qualitative in nature, has recently witnessed substantial increases, especially in Europe. The key notion of desistance research is that desisting from crime is a result of social capital on the one hand (Sampson and Laub, 1993; 2006), and internal reform processes and the discovery of one’s own efficacy (“agency”) on the other (Maruna, 2001). Desistance research, therefore, is focused on changes of the offender as well as on changes that must take place in society. The role of society is of grave importance: Society must accept the offender’s efforts and be willing to support his/her re-integration by opening the pathways to civil life (accommodation, employment, social networks etc.). McNeill (2012) identifies four dimensions of social re-integration after release from prison: only the personal dimension of the offender lies in his/her owns hands, while the social, moral and judicial dimensions are the responsibility of society. The implementation of the results from desistance research constitutes a major challenge for any resettlement policy, which up until now has concentrated more on changing attitudes and the personality of offenders, rather than on improving structural resettlement conditions in society itself.

1.2 International recommendations as a common standard

As a common base for (and as a consequence of) these ongoing debates, international and European human rights standards on prison and probation issues⁷ highlight the importance of release schemes. Particularly the more recent recommendations at the UN and European levels provide recommendations for release preparation and the cooperation of different stakeholders. The most recent recommendation in this respect is the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the European Rules on community sanctions and measures (CM/Rec (2017) 3) from 22 March 2017. It highlights inter alia that all community sanctions and measures (among them probation orders) shall always work to support desistance from crime (Rule 37) and that all responsible authorities “shall work actively in partnership with other public or private organizations and local communities to meet the needs of suspects or offenders, promote their social inclusion and to enhance community safety” (Rule 50). “Community, including private individuals and private and public organizations, shall be encouraged to participate in the implementation of community sanctions and measures. Attempts shall be made to assist suspects and offenders in developing meaningful ties in the community, in broadening their opportunities for contact and support and to encourage the community to make a positive contribution to their social reintegration” (Rule 51). “Implementing authorities”, i.e. the probation services, “shall work in cooperation with other agencies of the justice system, with support agencies and with the wider civil society” (Rule 74).

The European Prison Rules of 2006 (see Recommendation (2006) 2) set standards for release preparation during the offenders’ stay in prison. In Rule No. 103.6, the EPR require that “there shall be a system of prison leave as an integral part of the overall regime for sentenced prisoners”. Concerning preparation for release, Rules No. 107.1–5 establish further standards for a gradual transition into society that underline the importance of continuous (through-) care. Preparation of release shall start “in good time prior to release” (No. 107.1) and provide pre-release programmes “in prison or by partial or conditional release under supervision combined with effective social support” (Rule No. 107.3). “Prison authorities shall work closely with services and agencies that supervise and assist released prisoners” (No. 107.4).

More detailed regulations concerning the necessity of systematic release preparation (in good time with different forms of regular prison leaves) and of continuous care in cooperation with the aftercare services can be found in the European Rules for Juvenile Offenders Subject to Sanctions or Measures (ERJOSSM) of the Council of Europe of 5 November 2008 (Recommendation (2008) 11).⁸

The so-called Nelson Mandela Rules of the United Nations,⁹ Recommendation CM/Rec (2003) 22 on conditional release (parole) of 24 September 2003, Recommendation CM/Rec (2003) 23 on the management by prison administrations of life sentence and other long-term prisoners of 9 October 2003, Recommendation CM/Rec (2010) 1 (Probation Rules) as well as Recommendation CM/Rec (2014) 3 concerning dangerous offenders of 19 February 2014 all comprise further regulations pertaining to arrangements for the transition process from prison into society.

1.3 Terminology: why do we talk about “resettlement”?

“Resettlement” is not the only term used to describe what happens or what should happen when preparing for and following release from prison. In the US, the term “prisoner re-entry” is more common. From a linguistic perspective, prisoner re-entry rather describes the moment of release, whereas resettlement adds an aim. This aim is also described as “prisoner rehabilitation” or “prisoner reintegration” in an international context. CM Rec (2017) 3 focuses on goals such as “social inclusion” (Basic Principle No. 1) and “social reintegration” (Rule 31). This terminology can be questioned with prominent reference to the fact that many adult prisoners had not been “settled” prior to imprisonment, and rarely have adequate social structures to “re-enter” (Durnescu, 2011: 4; Décarpes and Durnescu, 2014: 47). McNeill and Graham discuss the different aims later in this book (see Chapter 3.1).

However, in the present book, we want to focus on measures, ideas, schemes and forms of cooperation that support prisoners on their way from prison back into society. We think that the term “prisoner resettlement” works best, as it comprises the whole process including release preparation within prison, probation and aftercare. Sometimes support is accompa...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of contributors
• Part I Introduction
• Part II Country reports
• Part III Comparative analyses
• Part IV Conclusion
• Back Cover