Case Management in the Custodial Setting.
It has to be recognised that the criminal element has altered dramatically over the last few decades. When I started in the prison system in 2001, so called Bikie Gangs were not as prevalent and although drug use was a contributing factor towards crime, it appeared that drug fuelled criminals were still “old hands”, more long term, and well established within their own criminal networks. Burglars, Bank Robbers, Car Thieves and even a Safe Breaker were regular recidivists.
Then the tide seemed to shift. The introduction of cheaper, easy to access, home manufactured drugs, such as Methamphetamine, allowed crime to generate a different path. Youth, 18 to 24 year olds, were becoming a key factor. Immaturity and the inability to think rationally or to make educated decisions and then throw socioeconomic issues, poor schooling, minimal support networks, overburdened or non-existent public services and diminishing job opportunities for the lesser educated groups into the mix, and it becomes inevitable that crime rates will rise. The rise in violent drug fuelled crime rose, the apparent disregard for the law and lack of fear for the punishment was more apparent, and once a new offender had served that first sentence of imprisonment, the likelihood of seeing that person in the prison system again, was high.
It has long been perceived by the public that the best way to deal with the criminal element is to “lock ‘em up and leave ‘em”. That may be all well and good to the believers in this theory who seek peace of mind by thinking that once a criminal is caught, tried and sentenced, they will never be free again to roam the streets. In reality however, this will never be the case. Prisons are becoming more overcrowded than ever and the court system finds itself in a situation where it has to protect the public, to act in a way that will appease the public and to also administer a level of punishment that will stand as a deterrent to others. There will always be questions as to whether the system works, or which system works best, and what the most effective rehabilitation strategies are that will reduce the risk of reoffending and ultimately protect the public.
In an attempt to address the issues of recidivism, Case Management was introduced to some Australian prison jurisdictions in around 1998. This was seen as a new initiative. Case Managers were employed, Individual Management Plans (IMP) were created, drug and alcohol programs were introduced and educational programs were established. Surely this was the answer, but nothing seemed to get better. Recidivism didn’t reduce, if anything, reoffending got worse.
Over the proceeding ten years, every effort was made, but Case Management appeared to be failing. So what wasn’t working? The “lock ‘em up and leave ‘em” theory clearly wasn’t the way to go and now Case Management had its retractors. Had Case Management made the system too soft? Had prison time become too easy? Was the prospect of three square meals per day, clean clothes, health care and time out from the hard slog of everyday civilian life too appealing to turn down, or could something be done to turn things around.
Case Management was set up hastily in prisons and since then, a handful of procedure reviews had been attempted without success. Lack of vision, poor funding, and increasing demands in other areas may have been contributing factors. In 2007, almost 10 years after its introduction, Case Management finally received a much needed injection of funding and full support from the Correctional Services Executive Committee. With increasing pressure from local government, the Department for Correctional Services had to act and fulfil the requirements of the Departmental Business Plan. The need to reduce recidivism and protect the public became paramount.
The process of review began with the current procedures. In the haste to establish Case Management, or any process for that matter, procedures are often put into place that are cumbersome and do not cater for either Departmental or local requirements. The procedure for Case Management could be described as operating like an oil tanker, taking a long time to get going and if you want to change direction, taking a few miles to slow down before you can start to turn and alter course. This needed changing. To use a comparative analogy, the procedure needs to be more like a series of speedboats that can weave in and out and change direction quickly, but when one speedboat turns it cannot be allowed to disrupt the others, unless there is a need to do so. The speedboats can be categorised as the six key principals of Case Management within the custodial setting, namely Admission, Assessment, Planning, Implementation, Review and Reintegration.
The six key principals must stand individually but written in such a way that they interlink, like a chain. If one link is removed, the rest don’t work, if one link is weak, the rest highlight it. This system ensures responsibility and accountability, spread right across the prison system and to such an extent that even the prisoners have to take responsibility and be accountable for their level of input in the Case Management process.
All six elements have their own level of importance. The key is to individualise the process, create a plan for each prisoner that will address their personal needs. Basing the plan on risk and need. Targeted planning, supported by thorough assessments, all implemented and then reviewed on a regular basis, provides an intended, seamless approach.
The Assessment and Planning stages are vital. These must identify the need for participation in programs. They must identify the criminogenic needs of the individual. The “Scatter Gun” approach, sending every prisoner to the same program, is a waste of resources. Why put somebody through a drug and alcohol program if they don’t use drugs or alcohol or drugs and alcohol were not relevant in the lead up to the episode of offending? Why put them through a Violence Prevention Program if they haven’t been violent? The system must make better use of its already limited resources. Surely, the best way is to assess the criminogenic need, such as identifying if alcohol was a contributing factor in the lead up to the episode of offending. If so, refer the prisoner to alcohol related programs, if not, do not waste the resource.
Once these assessment processes are complete, including Discharge Planning, which includes the preparation for accommodation, banking, tax file details and a suitable Sentence Management Plan has been formulated and agreed to by the prisoner, work can begin on implementing what needs to be done to maximise the prospect of successful reintegration into society. Regular Case Reviews must take place, with any necessary changes recommended, target dates for the completion of programs must be set, case notes recorded, reports written and so on, all of which must be considered by the Parole Board when the time comes to assess the individual’s suitability or eligibility for release on parole. The whole process is supported by the prisoner’s level of input. This plays a role in how fast they move through the system.
The prospect of being accommodated within a lower security institution can be one incentive for the prisoner to get involved and use the time they have to their best advantage. The targeted approach to Case Management will maximise the use of resources whilst providing individual prisoners with a tailored suite of programs. Upon release from prison, the plan can carry over into Community Corrections, thus paving the way towards a seamless transition back into society.
About the Author
Nick Carter was formerly with the South Australian Department for Correctional Services having performed roles including Case Management Coordinator, Project Officer, Principal Project Officer and Programs Manager Case Management. Nick currently works within the Immigration Detention sector.
