Resettlement and social rehabilitation: Are we supporting success?
| Author | Andy Bain,Gerry Parkinson |
| Date | 01 March 2010 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550509354669 |
| Published date | 01 March 2010 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Copyright © 2010 NAPO Vol 57(1): 63–74
DOI: 10.1177/0264550509354669
www.napo.org.uk
http://prb.sagepub.com
Resettlement and social rehabilitation:
Are we supporting success?
Andy Bain, University of Portsmouth
Gerry Parkinson, University of Portsmouth
Abstract This article seeks to highlight the continuing debate over the resettlement
and rehabilitation in a social environment, quick to judge, label and stigmatize but
not always as quick to remove the label of ‘offender’, ‘prisoner’, ‘inmate’ or ‘crimi-
nal’. The article reminds us that ultimately the ‘individual’ has the right to return to
the social community, their successful re-integration and rehabilitation is never just
about counting cases, but is also about supporting self-worth, development and
motivation to change, which may as easily be hampered by the social barriers
which seek to protect the wider social whole.
Keywords community intervention, integration, rehabilitation, resettlement
Introduction
Discussions of resettlement are never exhaustive, and as the prison population con-
tinues to grow on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis, the current [adult population]
fi gure standing at 83,151 (Howard League, 22 January 2010: para. 1); the ques-
tion remains of what is to be done with the ever increasing ‘offending’ population.
The current political and policy thinking continues in the direction of ever greater
punitive sentencing. Support, both public and political, seems to suggest an ever
increasing wish to provide for tougher policies, as indeed was the suggestion of
the New Labour government in 1997. If the debate continues to surround public
protection and dangerousness, what then is the purpose of another discussion of
resettlement and rehabilitation? The importance (and therefore its purpose), for
many (see for instance Lewis, 2005; and Robinson and Raynor, 2006), lies in
the increasing pressure that builds upon, not only the criminal justice system but
society as a whole, to provide for safer, more secure communities, whilst actively
63
64
57(1)
neglecting those who remain at greatest risk of increasing exclusion and social
isolation. In turn, the question of importance centres on a discussion of those who
often count amongst the most vulnerable in society, the families, the communities
and the offenders themselves.
Indeed, in order to protect and preserve the social community that we (as a
society) have forged, we too often fail to support those in greatest need because
of their past behaviour, even though – ostensibly – they remain a member of the
community at large. At some point in the future, regardless of the length of sentence,
they will need the support and guidance once afforded them by the probation
offi cer as they move into a whole new phase in their lives. As Ward and Maruna
suggest (quoting Travis, 2000), ‘they all come back’ (Ward and Maruna, 2007:
3). It is not a question of being ‘tough on crime’, that question has been addressed
time and again, in every media available. What exists more importantly today is
the question of what to do with them when they [the offenders] are released.
In terms of what is now referred to as resettlement, policy is driven by three
opposing, but equally valid arguments around the proper punishment of offenders,
the risk of harm and importance of rehabilitation. However, and perhaps as sig-
nifi cantly, this is not another discussion of ‘risk’, nor ‘risk management’ (for that
discussion we suggest you refer to Carson and Bain, 2008; Blackburn, 2000; or
Kemshall and Pritchard, 1995, 1997); we only highlight the fact that in an effort to
control, change and manage, the emphasis has become a spiral of analysis and
assessment, which inevitably has misplaced those at the heart of the discourse – the
offenders themselves. In this short article we have considered and tried to build
upon the arguments made by Robinson and Raynor (2006) in their article ‘The
Future of Rehabilitation: What Role for the Probation Service’, to outline a number
of salient points we feel needs greater consideration. We recognize that in order
to provide for a reduction in re-offending and therefore reconviction, there must be
an increased effort to support and nurture, to resettle, and therefore rehabilitate
the offender. We have decided to centre our argument around defi ning, supporting
and engaging in resettlement, which enables a brief consideration of Raynor’s con-
cerns for the tensions of resettlement (Raynor, 2007), its effects on the family, and
the diffi culties that beset ‘social rehabilitation’, in which we briefl y refer to Farrall’s
discussion of social capital (2002).
The debate of ‘role’
What once started as a debate over the purpose and role of the prison service has
in recent years raised similar questions of the probation service, and the role of the
Offender Manager. Indeed, if the purpose of imprisonment is to serve ‘. . . the public
by keeping in custody those committed by the courts’ with a duty to ‘. . . look after
them with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and
after release’ (HMP, N.D.: para. 1), and if the National Probation Service is driven
by the aims of: (a) the protection of the public; (b) the reduction of re-offending;
(c) the proper punishment of offenders; (d) ensuring offenders’ awareness of the
effects of crime on the victims of crimes and the public; and (e) the rehabilitation of
Bain and Parkinson ● Resettlement and social rehabilitation 65
offenders (Offender Management Act, 2007) (OPSI, 2007: 2, para2), then surely
there is a need to provide for a change/improvement of the social position as much
as there is need for the offender to improve or change their behaviour? Indeed,
Maguire states that ‘imprisonment may actually compound the diffi culties and add
new problems to those they [the offender] face when they leave . . . even if they fully
intend to ‘go straight’, many will face distrust or rejection from ordinary members
of the community . . .’ (NPS, 2007: 398).
This is never more true than for those serving short-term custodial sentences. In
particular, the Halliday Report (Halliday, 2001), the Social Exclusion Unit’s (SEU)
Annual Report (SEU, 2002) and the Carter Report (Carter, 2003), all emphasize
the diffi culties associated with short term prisoners, highlighting the link to the prison
overcrowding crisis, the severity of the problems they faced upon release and, most
startling of all for the government, the exceptionally high reconviction rates. The
SEU report (SEU, 2002) whilst cataloguing the extent of the personal and social
problems experienced by short term prisoners also noted that 61 per cent of males
and 56 per cent of females were reconvicted within 2 years, compared to 58 per
cent and 51 per cent respectively of longer term prisoners. The data compiled by
the SEU painted a depressing picture of the prison population disproportionately
drawn from the marginalized and disadvantaged sections of the community and
suggested that greater disadvantage was experienced by short-term (i.e. serving
less than 12 months) prisoners.
Furthermore, each of these reports noted that many of those released on licence
received an impersonal and bureaucratic response from the probation service.
Probation Offi cers (Offender Managers) were unable to maintain contact with the
offender during the custodial period, due to both fi nancial and time restraints,
which also limited liaison and planning with the prison. Following release, the pri-
mary focus was addressing immediate practical problems, within the all pervading
priority of rigorous enforcement.
The government made various attempts at addressing these diffi culties within
the context of broadening the statutory supervision available to released prisoners,
as well as making supervision a more coherent and meaningful experience. The
...
To continue reading
Request your trial