Exploring the lived experiences of people on Community Correction Orders in Victoria, Australia: Is the opportunity for rehabilitation being realised?

Published date01 December 2020
DOI10.1177/0004865820957059
Date01 December 2020
Subject MatterArticles
Article
Exploring the lived
experiences of people on
Community Correction
Orders in Victoria,
Australia: Is the
opportunity for
rehabilitation being
realised?
Rachael Green , David Hopkins and
Garry Roach
Jesuit Social Services, Australia
Abstract
The Community Correction Order, introduced in Victoria, Australia in 2012, provides a
sentencing option that enables eligible offenders to serve their sanction in the community,
with access to treatment or other rehabilitative activities. This paper contributes to a scant
body of research investigating the specific needs of this group, their barriers to inclusion and
the extent to which they experience the rehabilitative aspects of Community Correction
Orders. It draws on survey data collected from 200 adults (137 men and 63 women) on
Community Correction Orders in outer west metropolitan Melbourne and qualitative anal-
ysis of in-depth interviews conducted with a sub-set of 20 participants. Long-term unem-
ployment, severe economic hardship, physical and mental health issues, social isolation and
troubled personal relationships were common. While participants experienced the punitive
aspects of Community Correction Orders, there was limited evidence that they were sup-
ported to address key issues that may be predictive of future offending. Support to re/engage
in education, training and employment was a key area of unmet need and engagement in
other therapeutic programs was low. Opportunities to enhance the rehabilitative potential of
Community Correction Orders are discussed, with the paper highlighting that there is a need
for rigorous evaluation of community work program activities.
Corresponding author:
Rachael Green, Jesuit Social Services, 326 Church Street, Richmond, Victoria 3121, Australia.
Email: rachael.green@jss.org.au
Australian & New Zealand Journal of
Criminology
2020, Vol. 53(4) 585–605
!The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0004865820957059
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
Keywords
Australia, community-based orders, Community Correction Order, community service,
community work, mixed methods, offenders, qualitative, recidivism, Victoria
Date received: 8 May 2020; accepted: 5 August 2020
Introduction
Across Australia, the overall rate of incarceration is 2.1 times higher than it was 30 years
ago (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2019; Carcach & Grant, 1999). In Victoria,
rates of incarceration have risen particularly dramatically, with the rate of imprisonment
increasing by almost 50% and overall prison numbers doubling in the past 10 years
(ABS, 2019).
1
Notwithstanding the substantial resourcing implications, research shows
that imprisonment is not an effective deterrent and can itself be criminogenic (Cullen
et al., 2011). In 2018–19 in Victoria, 57% of people sentenced to prison returned to
corrective services within two years (Productivity Commission (PC), 2020).
2
Accordingly, the use, availability and effectiveness of alternatives to imprisonment,
such as diversion programs and non-custodial sanctions, demand the ongoing attention
of scholars, policymakers and justice advocates.
Introduced in Victoria in January 2012, the Community Correction Order (CCO) is
one sentencing option that, on face value, has the potential to keep more people out of
prison. The CCO is described as being able to address the ‘particular circumstances of
the offender and the causes of the offending’ (‘Boulton v The Queen’, 2014, para. 2),
simultaneously promoting the best interests of the community and the person. Intended
to replace several other non-custodial orders, CCOs may include certain conditions set
by the court, such as unpaid community work, medical treatment, curfews and non-
association conditions (Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s. 48), alongside mandatory condi-
tions (including that no further offence is committed). The use of CCOs in Victoria rose
steadily until 2017–18 where, on an average day, 14,561 people were on the orders. In
2018–19, this decreased to 13,361 (PC, 2020). This may be attributable to the recent
exclusion of certain types of violent offences; however, it remains to be seen whether a
downward trend will continue. Community-based orders are available across Australian
jurisdictions but vary in scope and type, with New South Wales and Tasmania having a
similar CCO regime to Victoria (Gelb et al., 2019).
At least on the measure of recidivism, outcomes among people on CCOs appear
better than for those sentenced to prison. In Victoria, the rate of return to corrective
services within two years was 15.6% in 2018–19 (PC, 2020). However, calculations of
recidivism rates are imprecise (Richards, 2011) and comparison of recidivism rates
between cohorts who may have vastly different characteristics, such as prior offense
history, is problematic (McIvor, 2010). The completion rates of CCOs in Victoria,
indicating the extent to which order requirements are complied with, were the lowest
in Australia in 2018–19, at 56.4% (PC, 2020). This has been attributed partly to the
increasing use of CCOs with a ‘more complex cohort of offenders’ (Department of
Justice and Community Safety (DJCS), 2019, p. 21). A separate study suggested that
586 Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 53(4)

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT