men and family relationships project - jesuit social...

Parenting AustraliaA Program of Jesuit Social Services

Men and Family

Relationships Project

Final ReportDecember 2002

A National Project funded by the

Commonwealth Department of

Family and Community Services

through the Men and Family

Relationships Initiative

Men and FamilyRelationships Project

MMF report for PDF 6/'03 20/6/03 8:51 AM

“The primary task of every civilization is to teach the youngmen to befathers”

Men and Family Relationships Project

Final ReportDecember 2002

ISBN 0-9750724-2-0

A Project funded by the Department

of Family and Community Services

under its Men and Family Relationships

Initiative

Author: Julian McNally

Project Coordinators:

Julian McNally & Eric Van den Bossche

Project Manager: Constance Jenkin

Revised and edited by Constance Jenkin

& Andrew Badcoe

Designed by Stella Una Graphic Design,

Melbourne

Evaluators: Tony Vinson, Professor

Emeritus, University of New South Wales

Maree Tehan, Senior Project Officer,

Jesuit Social Services

Project commencement date: Aug 2000

Project completion date: Dec 2002

Auspice agency: Jesuit Social Services

Project implemented by:

Parenting Australia a program

of Jesuit Social Services

16 The Vaucluse

PO Box 79 Richmond Victoria 3121

Telephone: (03) 9427 9899

Facsimile: (03) 9427 7119

Email: [email protected]


Con-tents

Preface 2

Executive Summary 3

◗ Introduction 4

◗ Rationale 4

◗ Project Objectives 6

◗ Project Outline 6

◗ Features of the Me And My Family Program 7

◗ Training Workshop Outline 8

◗ Project Evaluation - Stage Two 8

◗ Project Evaluation - Stage Three 10

◗ Discussion 12

◗ Recommendations 14

Final Report 17

◗ Introduction 18

◗ Rationale 18

◗ Project Objectives 20

◗ Project Outline 20

◗ Features of the Me And My Family Program 23

◗ Training Workshop Outline 25

◗ Project Evaluation - Stage Two 26

◗ Project Evaluation - Stage Three 33

◗ Discussion 40

◗ Recommendations 44

◗ Appendices 46

◗ References 56

External Report 59

◗ Introduction 62

◗ Chapter One 65

Brief Overview of Pre-Program Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs

◗ Chapter Two 69

Formative Assessment

◗ Chapter Three 81

Post-Program Evaluation Interviews

◗ Bibliography 94

Contents


Pre-face

Since its inception, Jesuit Social Services has stood up for those who have beenpunished by the criminal justice system. We have worked to have these peopleincluded as part of Australian society, no matter which side of the prison wallsthey find themselves on.

In the broadest sense, when a person is imprisoned, his or her whole family suf-fers too. In the case of male prisoners, wives lose a partner and companion, chil-dren lose a father and protector and parents or grandparents lose a son. Theselosses magnify the disadvantages already experienced especially by the prisoner’schildren. Often we see a cycle of intergenerational crime as a son who has not hadthe opportunity to truly know his father, unwittingly repeats the father’s mistakes,adopting a criminal lifestyle by default. Yet the men we speak to in prison reportthat their relationships with their children, parents and other family members pro-vide the best possible incentive to stay out of prison in future.

Our Men and Family Relationships Project set out to provide men in prison withan opportunity to learn how to enhance their family relationships. A secondaryobjective was to demonstrate to family relationship services that even these most‘difficult customers’ want to have a better family life and are prepared to do thehard work to make this happen.

The “Me & My Family” program, delivered by a team of facilitators fromParenting Australia and Caraniche Pty Ltd, achieved impressive results in increas-ing the confidence of the men that they could improve their family relationships.Indeed, many of the men started to improve their relationships even before theprogram ended. This is heartening to those of us who are often told that when itcomes to changing offenders’ behaviour, “nothing works”.

Those who, like us, want to see both a reduction in crime and a more humane andinclusive response to prisoners and their families now have a tool that can serveboth purposes. We hope that the “Me & My Family” program can be implementedin many prisons and communities in Australia, so that its benefits can be enjoyedas widely as possible.

Bernie Geary, OAMExecutive Director

Preface

2



Men and Family


Executive Summary


4

Introduc-tion

Introduction

Rationale

In 1998 the Federal Attorney-General’s Department convened the First NationalForum on Men and Family Relationships. The Forum was initiated because it wasrecognised that issues associated with men’s well being and relationships had beenoverlooked. It was acknowledged that there was a need for research andinterventions that might reap benefits for men, their families and their communities.

To improve access to family relationship services and to improve outcomes generallyfor men's family relationships, the Federal Government in 1997 authorisedexpenditure of $6 million through the Men And Family Relationships Initiative.Since then the pilot program has been extended until 30 June 2003 and total fundingallocated increased to $22 million. This initiative, administered by the Family andChildren's Services Branch of the Commonwealth Department of Family andCommunity Services, called for proposals of innovative programs designed toenhance the family relationships of all groups of men in Australia.

Jesuit Social Services and Caraniche Pty Ltd, organisations based in MelbourneVictoria, who provide services in prisons, had had considerable success engagingprisoners and released offenders in rehabilitation and behaviour change programsduring and after prison. Staff within both organisations were aware that there werefew opportunities available to marginalised men to discuss family issues, repairdamaged family relationships or plan for the future of those closest to them.

In an attempt to address this gap Jesuit Social Services in collaboration withCaraniche Pty Ltd developed a proposal for a three-stage project to address theparticular family relationship needs of marginalised men.

A research report commissioned by the Commonwealth Attorney-General on men’suse of counselling services (Donovan Research, 1998) found that most menacknowledge the importance of relationships and are willing to discuss them. However,the report also found that more than twice as many women approached familyrelationship services providers for counselling services in 1995 and 1996 than men.

Jordan (1998) has shown that at the time of marital separation many men show signsof psychological and physical distress. Seventy percent of the men surveyed soughthelp from family and friends in preference to family relationship counselling agenciesprior to separation. Although friends and family can provide some support, oftenrelationship problems require professional counselling. Jordan’s research indicatesthat most men recognise that they need help but do not receive professionalcounselling services.

Many family relationship agencies find it difficult to engage men and deliverappropriate services to them. The difficulties they have encountered are perhapsbest articulated by Melvin and Gee (1998):

◗ ‘Most men are either suspicious of professionals and psychological services or at best sceptical of the benefits to be obtained from using such services

◗ They are driven to come by their own internal discomfort or mandated to come byan outside agent

◗ They have a distorted or inaccurate understanding of counselling and the therapeutic process

◗ When they come, it is with a specific problem or issue to be tackled and they expect the professional to give them answers

◗ They are acting in a way contrary to masculine social scripts of self reliance, toughness and a belief in their entitlement not to be questioned or held accountable.’


Melvin and Gee warn that they are generalising, but other observers also note aperception by family services and counselling agencies that men are reluctant toapproach or use these services.

In a paper presented at a Men and Family Relationships Conference in Canberra,Australia, Richard Fletcher (1998) re-cast the problem identified by Melvin and Gee.He argued that rather than men being deficient in failing to approach and engagewith counselling services, these services failed to attract and engage men:

‘In New South Wales we have Parent Line, that’s a telephone line for parents toring for support and in reading their brochure and some of their publicity, I waswondering about them because we’re doing some posters for fathers at themoment, so we wanted to put something on the bottom to say ‘why don’t youcall this line, call this number’. So of course you can imagine I was very excitedto see what they’d done about men, until I noticed this sentence whichexplained it all. It said, ‘mothers use the service most often, reflecting the factthat more women than men feel comfortable with accessing counsellingservices and perhaps take primary responsibility for child-rearing’. That was it.So the reason that they don’t offer or make any special effort to attract men orprovide something that men might want to ring up, is just the ‘natural’ fact thatmen aren’t interested…’

If, as Fletcher suggests, many mainstream men face barriers that make them feeluncomfortable about counselling and consequently fail to access professional counselling support services, the difficulties faced by those who are vulnerable andmarginalised are likely to be many times greater.

In addition, many family relationship agencies work in geographically, culturally andlinguistically diverse communities, have limited human and financial resources andemploy workers with varying levels of experience and training. These factors oftenprevent the effective development and delivery of programs to meet the particularneeds of marginalised men.

Marginalisation covers a broad spectrum of social disadvantage, includinghomelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, poverty, mental illness andimprisonment. Many of these factors overlap and are interrelated. Family conflict and breakdown is often both a cause and effect of this interrelationship. For example,evidence suggests that a majority of juvenile delinquent males come fromhouseholds from which the biological father is absent (Beck, Kline & Greenfeld,1987). At the same time, a reliable predictor of a young man’s incarceration is theprior imprisonment of his father (Harper & McLanahan, 1998). In other words,criminality often reproduces itself within marginalised families, with violent orcriminal behaviour learned from male family members. Criminological research inAustralia and overseas demonstrates the presence of a phenomenon ofintergenerational cycles of crime and violence (Lykken, 1997).

The families of marginalised men are also frequent victims of their violent andcriminal behaviour. The negative outcomes for children living in violent anddysfunctional families are well established, and include removal from family,institutionalisation, truancy, poor educational outcomes as well as the early onset of conditions such as conduct disorders, anxiety and depression. Given the linksbetween criminality, dysfunction within marginalised families and poor outcomes forchildren, it is imperative that decision-makers, service providers and the communityrecognise and address the family relationship issues of marginalised men.

5


The main objectives of the project were to:

◗ develop the Me And My Family program, an innovative group program for marginalised or difficult–to-engage men

◗ assist the men engaged by the Me And My Family program in understanding thebenefits of improved family relationships

◗ assist these men in dealing with personal obstacles to enhancing their family relationships, for example their attitudes and behaviours

◗ assist these men in understanding how to seek and access family relationship services

◗ trial the program with groups in institutional environments such as prisons◗ evaluate the effectiveness of the Me And My Family program by assessing the

extent to which:

◗ the men were engaged in the group program◗ the men’s relationships were enhanced◗ the men believed that positive change in relationships was possible◗ the men’s knowledge of family relationship services and agencies, and

their capacity to utilise them, was enhanced◗ trained facilitators were able to effectively implement the Me And My

Family program in a community setting

◗ make the Me And My Family program available to family relationship services around Australia by developing a two-day training workshop and a program manual

◗ increase the knowledge and understanding of the family relationship issues of marginalised men within agencies and services around Australia

◗ build the capacity of family relationship agencies and their staff to work with marginalised men.

In an attempt to address the particular family relationship needs of marginalisedmen, Jesuit Social Services in collaboration with Caraniche Pty Ltd developed aproposal for a three-stage project.

In Stage One (August 2000 – January 2001) a written draft of the Me And MyFamily manual, focussing on enhancing men’s family relationships, was developed.This was used as the basis for a 10 session trial program at Bendigo Prison inVictoria, a specialist drug treatment prison operated along therapeutic communityprinciples.

In Stage Two (February 2001 - April 2001) a team of four psychologists and twofamily therapists from Jesuit Social Services and Caraniche delivered four Me AndMy Family programs. These ran simultaneously in Port Philip Prison, Victoria, a700-bed remand and assessment prison and Loddon Prison, Victoria, a 300-bedmedium-security regional prison. Each program was co-facilitated by a man and awoman. Two facilitators also ran the program in two Community CorrectionsCentres between July and September 2001.

In Stage Three (May 2001 – March 2002) six facilitator training workshops tookplace in Sydney, Darwin, Brisbane, Newcastle, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart. Theworkshops aimed to train staff from family relationship services in facilitating theMe And My Family program in their communities.

ProjectObjectives

ProjectOutline

6


7

Feat-ures

The Me And My Family program used two 45-minute intake interviews precedingthe group sessions to attract and retain group participants. These interviews weredesigned to:

◗ make the intake process less formal and more friendly by inviting potential participants to ‘have a chat’ with the facilitators before committing to the program

◗ reduce the anxiety of potential participants and help them gain a clear understanding about what the Me And My Family program hoped to achieve

◗ encourage participants to complete the program while reassuring them they would not be forced to remain in the group against their will

◗ gradually increase the degree of trust between participants and their commitment to the aims of the group.

The program concluded with two 45-minute exit interviews conductedindividually with each participant. These interviews were designed to:

◗ help participants reflect on their family relationships goals, to continue to work towards them, and utilise what they have learned to enhance their familyrelationships in the future

◗ help participants develop and discuss plans for achieving these goals and determine a future course of action

◗ help participants realistically assess the feasibility of these plans and anticipate obstacles to their implementation

◗ help participants reflect on their work in the Me And My Family program and the ideas generated in the group, and assess their own involvement

◗ encourage participants to persist when faced with difficulties, and to seek help from others and outside agencies when needed

◗ determine whether additional supports or services are required and provide information about them

◗ acknowledge the achievements of the participants and encourage them to keep working on their relationship goals after the ending of the program

◗ farewell and congratulate the participants on their efforts in the program.

The Men And Family Relationships project used a facilitator program manual toassist the delivery of Me And My Family programs during Stage Two. Theprogram manual contains plans for ten two-hour sessions as well as guides onconducting intake and exit interviews. In addition, it contains detailed informationon how to plan for and deliver the program. Appendices in the manual containvarious documents that support the running of the program, as well as aRelationship Action Plan to be completed at its conclusion.

Features of the MeAnd MyFamilyProgram


8

The facilitator training workshops in Stage Three were delivered in Sydney, Darwin,Brisbane, Newcastle, Adelaide, Perth and Hobart. Training workshops wereconducted over two days.

The workshops were based on the lessons learned in successfully delivering the MeAnd My Family program in Victorian prisons. The content of the training included:

◗ an outline of the Men And Family Relationships project

◗ a summary of the successful delivery and evaluation of the Me And My Family program

◗ ways of successfully engaging marginalised men

◗ marketing and promoting the Me And My Family program

◗ exploring the family relationships of marginalised men

◗ psychological theories underpinning the Me And My Family program

◗ group process / techniques

◗ adapting the Me And My Family program to meet the needs of particular communities

The training workshops were delivered using adult learning principles andincorporated role-plays, discussions and practical exercises. A video depicting ayoung prisoner’s life story was used as a teaching tool in the workshops.

During Stage Two of the Men and Family Relationships Project, a team headed byProfessor Tony Vinson from the University of New South Wales evaluated thefour Me And My Family programs conducted at Loddon and Port Phillip prisons.This external evaluation can be found in the attached report RepairingRelationships Behind Walls. Project staff internally evaluated the two communitycorrections programs at Ballarat and Hume.

Quantitative and qualitative methods were used in both the external and internalevaluations during Stage Two. A complete analysis of the findings is provided inthe Final Report. Here is a summary of these findings:

◗ Was the Me And My Family program effective in attracting and retaining participants?

Of the 45 men who were invited to participate in the four prison programs, 35completed the program, representing a 78% completion rate. No participantdropped out because they found the style or content of the program too difficult,uninteresting or irrelevant to their needs. Given that mandated treatmentprograms in prison commonly have a retention rate of only around 70%, andparticipation in Me And My Family was completely voluntary, these resultsindicate that the program was extremely successful in retaining participants.

◗ Did the Me And My Family program increase the participants’ confidence that their family relationships could be improved?

Participants were asked to rate their degree of confidence that their familyrelationships could be improved on a ten-point scale before and after they completedthe Me And My Family program. The average post-program confidence score was9.2 compared to a pre-program score of 6.4, suggesting that the program was highlyeffective in improving the participants’ confidence that their family relationshipscould be improved.

TrainingWorkshopOutline

ProjectEvaluation Stage Two

◗ Question 1:

◗ Question 2:


In the exit interviews, some participants told the facilitators of changes they werealready making in some of their relationships. One had stopped arguing with hismother, another negotiated with his ex-wife for increased contact with hischildren, and a third rang and asked to speak directly to his brother wherenormally he would have spoken only through his sister-in-law.

◗ Did the Me And My Family program help the participants to recognise the need for seeking assistance with improving their family relationships?

The external evaluation showed that in both locations the participants’perceptions of their need for assistance increased by the end of the program.Combined with the changes that occurred in the participants’ confidence ratings,the results suggest that once the men became more hopeful that change waspossible, they re-evaluated their own ability to make the necessary relationshipchanges, and began a process of taking responsibility for relationship outcomes.

◗ Did the Me And My Family program increase the participants’ knowledge of community and family relationship services and their likelihood of using them?

The external evaluation results show that the participants’ knowledge of supportservices improved only slightly by the program’s completion, with around halfbeing unable to nominate an appropriate service when asked.

◗ Did the participants believe that the Me And My Family program had helped them achieve some or all of their relationship goals?

The results of the external evaluation show that the majority of the participantsdid believe that the program had helped them achieve some or all of therelationship goals they had set for themselves. Eighty-five percent of participantsstated that they had achieved their relationship goals either to some extent or to agreat extent.

Many of the participants who were separated fathers reported that they had madeprogress toward having less conflict when communicating with their ex-partners,reducing their own reactions of stress and frustration and having more frequentcontact with their children.

◗ Did the participants find that there were unexpected benefits of the Me And My Family program?

The external evaluation results show that generally the participants did feel thatthere had been unexpected benefits. Of 39 respondents, 21 placed a high value onhearing about and learning from the experiences and insight of the other men, 8mentioned a greater understanding of the needs of others and 7 stated that theybenefited from the session that addressed family of origin issues.Overall, the Stage Two evaluation indicates that the men had benefited from beingpart of the Me And My Family program. However, their knowledge of familyrelationship support agencies was only marginally improved.

9

◗ Question 3:

◗ Question 4:

◗ Question 5:

◗ Question 6:


10

ThreeStaff conducted an action research evaluation of the seven interstate Me And MyFamily training workshops. As the structure and content of the workshops variedto reflect the needs and abilities of the trainees, different evaluation methodswere employed.

In Sydney and Darwin, evaluation data were obtained via a simple feedbackquestionnaire completed by trainees before and after the workshops, while inBrisbane trainees only completed these afterwards. In Newcastle, Hobart,Adelaide and Perth, trainees completed a more comprehensive training needsanalysis form before and after the workshops. In addition, in September andOctober 2002, the evaluators conducted telephone interviews with 38 of the 67trainee facilitators to obtain further information on their experiences sincecompletion of the Me And My Family training.

A complete analysis of the Stage Three findings is provided in the Final Report.Here is a summary of these findings:

◗ Did the training workshops improve trainee facilitators’ confidence in running group programs for marginalised men on family relationship issues?

The internal evaluation found that in Newcastle, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth, theconfidence of the trainee facilitators increased by over 25% on three out of fourskill areas that the training targeted for improvement.

From telephone interviews and feedback to the trainers after the workshops,female trainees commented on how the training had helped remove their initialbiases and taught them how not to be intimidated by marginalised men. Byunderstanding the vulnerability of these men and the roots of their anger, theirconfidence to engage with marginalised men was increased. Those participantswho dealt extensively with male clients had their ideas about how to deal with‘tougher eggs’ confirmed and validated.

◗ Were the topics in the training workshops relevant and useful to the trainee facilitators?

In Sydney and Darwin, the evaluators collected quantitative data on the trainees’degree of satisfaction with various aspects of the workshops via a post-programquestionnaire. The results indicated that the workshop was generally highlyvalued by the trainees, with a significant majority rating the aspects of theworkshop as ‘Satisfactory’ or better.

In Newcastle, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth, the evaluators collected quantitativedata on the trainees’ degree of satisfaction with four aspects of the workshops -interest or engagement, relevance, the facilitators’ approach and the usefulness ofthe information provided. The results showed that all aspects of the workshopsachieved average ratings of 7.8 to 8.3 on a ten-point scale.

Trainees reported that they found many aspects of the training transferable totheir everyday work. For example, one trainee reported that the information andnotes taken at the training had been useful in planning a range of programs in hisagency. He said that he had shared this information with other workers and hadused the engagement strategy successfully.

ProjectEvaluationStage Three

◗ Question 1:

◗ Question 2:


◗ For those trainee facilitators who were not able to implement the Me And My Family program, what barriers existed and how might these be overcome?

From the telephone interviews conducted six to fifteen months after the trainingworkshops, it was found that no attempts to implement the Me And My Familyprogram outside Victoria have been successful. Eighteen trainees said that theyhad wanted to implement the Me And My Family program locally, and of theseonly two had attempted to implement the program. Two others said that they stillmight attempt to run the program.

Respondents were asked to nominate barriers to implementing the program intheir locations. The majority mentioned organisational constraints as a barrier toimplementation. Interestingly, only three trainees specified financial constraints.These organisational constraints could either be characterised as a mismatchbetween the goals of the program and the agency’s usual area of service delivery,or as a human resources issue – for instance, not being able to find a suitable co-worker with whom to run the program.

In the telephone interviews, some of the other constraints the trainees mentionedwere:

◗ their organisation has a different focus, for instance family violence or parenting skills

◗ they had not received a final program outline from the trainers

◗ they needed to address time-management issues, or needed to get their agency team together to discuss implementing the program

◗ they only worked part-time, and therefore did not have the capacity to implement the program

◗ their agency needed to deal with domestic violence issues all the time, and therefore put a higher priority on it

◗ they were flat-out running an alternative program

◗ the decision to run the program could only be taken by the agency’s managers

◗ the training was not practical enough, so they didn’t feel confident to implement the program

◗ working in prisons was not a priority for the agency

Overall, the Stage Three evaluations indicated that the trainees’ confidence inrunning groups with marginalised men had increased as a result of the training,but that organisational and other constraints prevented them from implementingthe Me And My Family program in their communities.

11

◗ Question 3:


12

Dis-cussion

The evaluation results indicate that the Me And My Family program wasextremely successful in both attracting marginalised men and maintaining theirinterest and enthusiasm once they had joined the program. The program wasparticularly successful in reducing the anxiety of the participants about discussingtheir family relationships in a group setting. By listening to the participants andtreating them with respect, the facilitators helped them see that they coulddevelop solutions to their own relationship difficulties.

In many cases, the participants’ stories revealed that they could be passionatefathers, husbands, sons and brothers, but also that their lives were full of pain,abandonment, lack of opportunity and unfulfilled hopes and dreams. Many wereintensely angry at themselves and the injustices of their world. The need todeaden or deflect their pain was often turned inwards in the form of drug abuseand self-harm, or expressed outwardly in crime and violent behaviour. The MeAnd My Family program was the first time many of the participants had been ableto tell anyone about their experiences as children and adolescents, and the firsttime that anyone had listened or been interested. Once the participants becameconfident in discussing their family relationships, they readily admitted that theyneeded assistance with their relationship goals.

The Me And My Family program clearly demonstrated that marginalised men arecapable of owning not only the way they think about their relationships but alsohow they behave and communicate with others. It is reasonable to assume that ifparticipants continued to make positive changes in behaviour, the strengthening oftheir connections with their families could play a crucial rehabilitative role andthey would be more capable of sustaining positive relationships with familymembers once they were released. However, little emphasis is currently placedon rehabilitation services and programs that improve prisoners’ mental health andenhance their capacity to re-integrate effectively into their families and societywhen they are released. Consequently, marginalised men often leave prisonangrier, more highly skilled in criminal behaviours, more determined not to getcaught and with more extensive connections to criminal networks than when theyentered. There is a clear and pressing need for decision makers to consider newalternatives for the rehabilitation of offenders.

Correctional facilities are arguably ideal settings for helping marginalised men tobegin the process of understanding how family relationships can work and howthey might go about improving them. With little to do and nothing much to lose,both adult and juvenile offenders represent a ‘captive audience’ for providers offamily relationships programs. A more extensive implementation of familyrelationship programs across correctional systems is therefore worthy of furtherinvestigation as a means to provoking significant cultural change within prisoncommunities. The benefits of such a cultural shift would not only apply to thosewithin prison communities and their families, but the wider community as well.

For young marginalised men the probability of encountering the correctionalsystem is high, and many of these young men are fathers. Few correctionalinstitutions for men document information about the parental status of inmates,unlike women’s correctional settings. Of the participants of the Me And MyFamily program aged between 17-25, 40% were fathers. The 6 young men who

Discussion


were fathers had 8 children between them, and none of them had ever hadcustody of their children. A wider implementation of family relationship programsin correctional settings could help to halt the progress of marginalised young meninto criminal pathways and the breakdown of their families.

Clearly, communities benefit from having resilient, connected families and betteroutcomes for children. Research points to strong correlations between the healthof family interactions and structure and the prevention of crime. In the crimeprevention field, programs with a family component are between 5 and 14 timesas cost-effective as those without. Given that both crime and family dysfunctionoften originate with men and boys, efforts to engage and retain males in familyrelationship programs should be pursued vigorously.

The project evaluation found two major flaws in the Men And FamilyRelationships project. On the one hand, the Me And My Family program failed tomake a significant impact on the men’s knowledge of family relationship servicesand their benefits. On the other hand, trainee facilitators were unable to deliverprograms within their own agencies following training. Although many were keento learn new skills for engaging marginalised men, they did not have theorganisational support, or sometimes the confidence, to implement the Me AndMy Family program. Many trainees said that doing so was too hard and toodifficult to organise in the context of a correctional system that was culturallyunknown and impenetrable.

When taken together, these flaws point to three inter-related needs. First, familyrelationship agencies need to be aware of the kinds of programs that cansuccessfully engage marginalised men. Second, agencies need to be moreassertive and skilled in promoting and delivering such programs. And third,agencies need to link marginalised men within prisons more effectively toongoing family support services in the community. It could be argued that ifagencies worked more closely with each other and with correctional services,they would acquire a greater understanding of the needs of marginalised men andprovide more effective services. A greater cross-fertilization of ideas and skillsand better outcomes for marginalised men would be the result.

The Me And My Family program was not specifically designed to address cyclesof intergenerational crime, and its evaluation did not attempt to measure impactson criminal activity within the families of marginalised men. Nonetheless it wouldbe valuable to know whether assisting marginalised men to improve theirrelationship and parenting skills could enhance connectedness in their families,reduce their risk of recidivism, reduce the risk of their children becominginvolved in criminal activity or improve outcomes for their children moregenerally. Implementing a demonstration model of a family relationships programin a limited number of correctional and juvenile justice settings would helpdetermine this. The model could involve a number of agencies working bothinside and outside these settings to deliver an enhanced Me And My Familyprogram, with a comprehensive evaluation examining the short and long termoutcomes to the participants and their families, as well as changes in the cultureof family relationship agencies and correctional services.

13


The recommendations given here are guided by the awareness that a loving,supportive family allows individuals to develop both physically and emotionallyinto caring human beings, capable of nurturing themselves and others. Theexperience of growing up with conflict and family breakdown compromises thisdevelopment and can lead to isolation, hopelessness and depression. Fordisadvantaged and marginalised men, these effects are often expressed as angry,anti-social or criminal behaviour.

The social problems of crime and fragmented, troubled families can beinextricably linked in a vicious cycle that leaves children and young peopleunwitting victims of traumatic abuse and neglect. Those who grow up in suchfamilies frequently replicate these destructive patterns of behaviour and becomepart of the next generation of criminals. Their antisocial behaviour then damagesand disrupts their own families and can lead to a cycle of intergenerationalcriminality.

The recommendations in this report offer an opportunity to understand andimplement measures to enhance relationships and connectedness within familiesto help break this cycle. By maintaining a safe and supportive environment forchildren and families, these measures help reduce the human and financial costsof traumatic abuse and neglect and intergenerational criminality to thecommunity.

The recommendations are guided by three principles:

◗ That stakeholder organisations, including federal and state governments, correctional services, juvenile justice centres, prison communities, prisoner support services, family and community support agencies, parenting education services and agencies working with children affected by criminal behaviour, have a common interest in assisting marginalised men and their families address relationship issues

◗ That there is a need for stakeholder organisations to jointly develop, promote and implement strategies to increase the capacity of individuals and families to increase protective factors that deter children and young people from entry points to criminal pathways

◗ That there is a need to develop and implement strategies to educate professionals working within stakeholder organisations about the special needs of marginalised men and their families, and thereby increase their capacity to deliver effective programs and services.

Recom-mendations

14


The recommendations are:

◗ Establish a working group comprising representatives from stakeholder organisations with a common interest in assisting marginalised men and their

families address relationship issues to oversee the implementation of the following

◗ Trial an enhanced family relationships program to address the issues of marginalised men and their families. This enhanced program would:

◗ use the existing Me And My Family program as a model

◗ engage a range of agencies to work together in delivering services

◗ be implemented within a limited number of prisons and juvenile justice settings

◗ include selected prison staff as co-facilitators

◗ include new material that addresses the social construction of male identity, fathers and children and parenting strategies

◗ work with prisoners pre- and post-release

◗ work with families pre- and post-release

◗ work with children of prisoners

◗ Trial the Me And My Family program with other groups of disadvantaged families, including those in which fathers are absent through drug abuse or intervention orders

◗ Trial the Me And My Family program with groups of adolescent fathers who are involved in the criminal justice system

◗ Provide training in family-sensitive practice and the particular needs of marginalised men to stakeholder organisations and their staff, in particular prison outreach workers, prison program officers, correctional services managers, selected custodial staff and agencies that support familiesof prisoners

◗ Conduct evaluations of the above family relationship trial programs and training. These evaluations would measure:

◗ the impact of the trial programs on family relationships

◗ the impact of the trial programs on outcomes for children

◗ the impact of the trial programs on the institutional climate within prisons and juvenile justice settings, including the awareness of family relationship issues among prisoners and staff

◗ the impact of training on the work practices within community support agencies to engage marginalised men.

15



Men and Family


FinalReport


18

Introduc-tion

In 1998 the Federal Attorney-General’s Department convened the First NationalForum on Men and Family Relationships. The Forum was initiated because it wasrecognised that issues associated with men’s well being and relationships had beenoverlooked. It was acknowledged that there was a need for research and interventionsthat might reap benefits for men, their families and their communities.

To improve access to family relationship services and to improve outcomes generallyfor men's family relationships, the Federal Government in 1997 authorised expenditureof $6 million through the Men and Family Relationships Initiative. Since then the pilot-program has been extended until 30 June 2003 and total funding allocated increased to$22 million. This initiative, administered by the Family and Children's Services Branchof the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, called for proposals of innovative programs designed to enhance the family relationships ofall groups of men in Australia.

Jesuit Social Services and Caraniche Pty Ltd, organisations based in MelbourneVictoria, had had considerable success engaging prisoners and released offenders inrehabilitation and behaviour change programs during and after prison. Staff within bothorganisations were aware that there were few opportunities available to marginalisedmen to discuss family issues, repair damaged family relationships or plan for the futureof those closest to them.

In an attempt to address this gap Jesuit Social Services in collaboration with CaranichePty Ltd developed a proposal for a three-stage project to address the particular familyrelationship needs of marginalised men.

A research report commissioned by the Commonwealth Attorney-General on men’suse of counselling services (Donovan Research, 1998) found that most menacknowledge the importance of relationships and are willing to discuss them. However,the report also found that more than twice as many women approached familyrelationship services providers for counselling services in 1995 and 1996 than men.

Jordan (1998) has shown that at the time of marital separation many men show signs ofpsychological and physical distress. Seventy percent of the men surveyed sought helpfrom family and friends in preference to family relationship counselling agencies priorto separation. Although friends and family can provide some support, often relationshipproblems require professional counselling. Jordan’s research indicates that most menrecognise that they need help but do not receive professional counselling services.

Many family relationship agencies find it difficult to engage men and deliver appropriateservices to them. The difficulties they have encountered are perhaps best articulatedby Melvin and Gee (1998):

◗ ‘Most men are either suspicious of professionals and psychological services or at best sceptical of the benefits to be obtained from using such services

◗ They are driven to come by their own internal discomfort or mandated to come by an outside agent

◗ They have a distorted or inaccurate understanding of counselling and the therapeutic process

◗ When they come, it is with a specific problem or issue to be tackled and they expect the professional to give them answers

◗ They are acting in a way contrary to masculine social scripts of self reliance, toughness and a belief in their entitlement not to be questioned or held accountable.’

Introduction

Rationale


Melvin and Gee warn that they are generalising, but other observers also note aperception by family services and counselling agencies that men are reluctant toapproach or use these services.

In a paper presented at a Men and Family Relationships Conference in Canberra,Australia, Richard Fletcher (1998) re-cast the problem identified by Melvin and Gee.He argued that rather than men being deficient in failing to approach and engage withcounselling services, these services failed to attract and engage men:

‘In New South Wales we have Parent Line, that’s a telephone line for parents to ring for support and in reading their brochure and some of theirpublicity, I was wondering about them because we’re doing some posters forfathers at the moment, so we wanted to put something on the bottom to say‘why don’t you call this line, call this number’. So of course you can imagine Iwas very excited to see what they’d done about men, until I noticed thissentence which explained it all. It said, ‘mothers use the service most often,reflecting the fact that more women than men feel comfortable with accessingcounselling services and perhaps take primary responsibility for child-rearing’.That was it. So the reason that they don’t offer or make any special effort toattract men or provide something that men might want to ring up, is just the‘natural’ fact that men aren’t interested...’

If, as Fletcher suggests, many mainstream men face barriers that make them feeluncomfortable about counselling and consequently fail to access professional counselling support services, the difficulties faced by those who are vulnerable andmarginalised are likely to be many times greater.

In addition, many family relationship agencies work in geographically, culturallyand linguistically diverse communities, have limited human and financialresources and employ workers with varying levels of experience and training.These factors often prevent the effective development and delivery of programsto meet the particular needs of marginalised men.

Marginalisation covers a broad spectrum of social disadvantage, includinghomelessness, unemployment, drug addiction, poverty, mental illness andimprisonment. Many of these factors overlap and are interrelated. Family conflictand breakdown is often both a cause and effect of this interrelationship. Forexample, evidence suggests that a majority of juvenile delinquent males come fromhouseholds from which the biological father is absent (Beck, Kline & Greenfeld,1987). At the same time, a reliable predictor of a young man’s incarceration is theprior imprisonment of his father (Harper & McLanahan, 1998). In other words,criminality often reproduces itself within marginalised families, with violent orcriminal behaviour learned from male family members. Criminological research inAustralia and overseas demonstrates the presence of a phenomenon ofintergenerational cycles of crime and violence (Lykken, 1997).

The families of marginalised men are also frequent victims of their violent andcriminal behaviour. The negative outcomes for children living in violent anddysfunctional families are well established, and include removal from family,institutionalisation, truancy, poor educational outcomes as well as the early onset of conditions such as conduct disorders, anxiety and depression. Given the linksbetween criminality, dysfunction within marginalised families and poor outcomes forchildren, it is imperative that decision-makers, service providers and the communityrecognise and address the family relationship issues of marginalised men.

19


20

Out-line

ProjectObjectives

ProjectOutline◗ Stage One

The main objectives of the project were to:

◗ develop the Me And My Family program, an innovative group program for marginalised or difficult–to-engage men

◗ assist the men engaged by the Me And My Family program in understanding the benefits of improved family relationships

◗ assist these men in dealing with personal obstacles to enhancing their family relationships, for example their attitudes and behaviours

◗ assist these men in understanding how to seek and access family relationshipservices

◗ trial the program with groups in institutional environments such as prisons

◗ evaluate the effectiveness of the Me And My Family program by assessing the extent to which:

◗ the men were engaged in the group program

◗ the men’s relationships were enhanced

◗ the men believed that positive change in relationships was possible

◗ the men’s knowledge of family relationship services and agencies, and

◗ their capacity to utilise them, was enhanced

◗ trained facilitators were able to effectively implement the Me And My Family program in a community setting

◗ make the Me And My Family program available to family relationship services around Australia by developing a two-day training workshop and a program manual

◗ increase the knowledge and understanding of the family relationship issues ofmarginalised men within agencies and services around Australia

◗ build the capacity of family relationship agencies and their staff to work with marginalised men.

In Stage One (August 2000 - January 2001) a written draft of the Me And My Familymanual, focussing on enhancing men’s family relationships, was developed. This wasused as the basis for a 10 session trial program at Bendigo Prison in Victoria, a specialistdrug treatment prison operated along therapeutic community principles. The projectcoordinator spoke briefly at two prison community meetings, attended by all prisonersand many of the custodial, welfare and programs staff. The project was explained to theprisoners, who were invited to list their names for an initial interview. Twenty-fourprisoners were interviewed over three weeks and twelve were selected for participation.

One difficulty encountered at Bendigo Prison was that the Me And My Familyprogram was scheduled at the same time as a popular recreational activity. Becauseof staffing restrictions a custodial officer had to supervise the Me And My Familyprogram instead of this activity, which caused resentment in the broader prisoncommunity. This situation highlighted some of the difficulties involved inimplementing and delivering a program in the correctional setting.

From an initial ten participants, the number of men involved dropped quite suddenlyby the third session to only four. Of those who withdrew and were later interviewedabout this by the coordinator, most said that the program was not what they wereexpecting. Later it was discovered that prisoners outside the group may have placedpressure on some participants to withdraw from the program.


All those participants who completed the Me And My Family program respondedpositively to it. They commented that they had never before been part of a programthat helped them understand themselves and their behaviours so clearly. Somereported that no-one had ever listened to their stories and the difficulties they hadexperienced as young children and adolescents.

After each program session action research was used to revise, refine and enhance theMe And My Family manual based on the feedback provided by the group participants.On completion of the program the manual was further refined in preparation for StageTwo of the project. The revised Me And My Family manual included a literaturereview on the utilisation by men of family relationship services in Australia and onpsychological intervention models for working with men in groups, guidelines forrunning the intake interviews, detailed facilitator notes for conducting each session and an overview of the psychological theories incorporated into the program.

In Stage Two (February 2001 - April 2001) a team of four psychologists and twofamily therapists from Jesuit Social Services and Caraniche delivered four Me AndMy Family programs. These ran simultaneously in Port Philip Prison, Victoria, a 700-bed remand and assessment prison and Loddon Prison, Victoria, a 300-bed medium-security regional prison. Each program was co-facilitated by a man and a woman.

The team liaised with prison program staff who promoted the Me And My Familyprogram to prisoners and their caseworkers and recommended candidates based ontheir family situation. Candidates were drawn from:

◗ the total prison population at Loddon Prison (average age 34.8 years)

◗ the 72-bed Youth Development Unit at Port Phillip Prison (average age 20.8 years)

◗ remanded and sentenced prisoners from the wider Port Phillip Prison community (average age 32.0 years).

Group facilitators then interviewed each candidate individually, and in collaborationwith them, determined whether they would benefit from the program, were availablefor the next seven weeks and had the necessary interpersonal skills to engage in agroup program. Two interviews were conducted. The purpose of these was to:

◗ give the men a chance to ‘check out’ the facilitators

◗ provide the men with an outline of the ‘Me And My Family’ program

◗ reach agreement on whether the program would help them

◗ help the facilitators learn about the men’s family issues

◗ assist the facilitators in determining which candidates would form a compatible group.

On completion of the first intake interview a second interview was scheduled ifthe men wished to continue. At the end of the second interview, they were invitedto take part in the program if:

◗ it was clear to the facilitators and the men that they would benefit from the program

◗ the facilitators were confident that the men had the necessary interpersonal skills to engage in a group program, and

◗ they were likely to remain in the prison for the next seven weeks.

Once the interviews were completed the men were given a timetable for the Me And MyFamily program and were asked to ensure that they would be available to complete theseven week program. The four programs started in the week after the second interview,with two two-hour group sessions scheduled per week in rooms provided in the prison.

◗ Stage Two

21


On the completion of the ten group sessions, each participant had two exit interviewsheld one week apart with a group facilitator. The aims of these interviews were to:

◗ check if the program had met their expectations and had helped them identify relationships that were in need of attention

◗ plan the next steps for improving their relationships and to devise strategies to maintain and improve family relationships during the rest of their prison sentence

◗ alert them to specific services available in the community to help them and their families during and after their sentences

◗ farewell and provide closure on the relationship between the men and the group facilitators.

During the weeks in which the group sessions for these four Me And My Familyprograms were run, the facilitation team met weekly for a two-hour clinical supervisionsession. These sessions were used by the facilitators to clarify the goals and style of theprogram, to discuss any distressing or concerning events or issues arising from theprogram and to foster a team spirit and sense of common purpose amongst thefacilitators. Without breaching the confidentiality of these supervision sessions, theprogram authors used some of the facilitators’ reflections in revising the program manual.

A research assistant also interviewed the facilitators weekly between programsessions. This process allowed the program authors to also capture the flavour ofthe different groups and to record any deviations from the session structure orcontent which might have resulted in a more productive session for theparticipants. In addition, the evaluator interviewed the facilitators mid-program andthese interviews and comments also informed later revisions of the manual.

To further test the relevance of the Me And My Family program to marginalised men inthe community, two facilitators also ran the program in two Community Centres betweenJuly and September 2001. The first was located in Ballarat and was run in collaborationwith Ballarat Child And Family Services. The second was located at the Hume CommunityCorrections Centre in Broadmeadows. Unfortunately, some of these participantsmisunderstood the nature and goals of the Me And My Family program, and this had animpact on their participation in the program.

In Stage Three (May 2001 – March 2002) facilitator training workshops wereconducted to assist agency staff in engaging marginalised men using the Me AndMy Family program. Professor Vinson’s evaluation report of the Me And My Familyprogram Repairing Relationships Behind Walls was forwarded to those agencies thatwanted to find out more about the effectiveness of the program.

Following the evaluation of the Me And My Family programs, papers were presented atconferences around Australia and overseas. At the same time a video was producedusing a professional actor to portray the circumstances and life story of a young prisoner,presented in such a way as to not identify any of the original Me And My Familyparticipants. This video became a useful teaching tool for the training workshops.

The workshops took place in Sydney, Darwin, Brisbane, Newcastle, Adelaide, Perth andHobart between July 2001 and April 2002. The workshops aimed to train staff from familyrelationship services in implementing the Me And My Family program in theircommunities and in facilitating it. It was expected that most of the trainee facilitators andtheir sponsoring agencies would go on to run the program at least once in their community.Phone and email support was offered to participants who had completed the training.

◗ Stage Three

22


Initially potential trainee facilitators were asked to complete an application formthat outlined their academic qualifications, level of experience in working withmarginalised men and emotional suitability for conducting this type of program.The number of completed application forms received was low and so potentialtrainee facilitators were contacted by telephone and encouraged to attend aworkshop. This process was difficult as many agencies did not see the relevanceof working with marginalised men with family relationship issues.

A unique aspect of the Me And My Family program was the use of two 45-minuteinterviews preceding the group sessions. In many instances, men may be willing andable to access groups dealing with men’s issues simply by signing up without muchmore introduction than reading a flyer or an advertisement. However, the men andfamily relationships literature, and the experience of the program authors, suggestedthat marginalised men would be difficult to attract into the program because of thehigh level of anxiety associated with addressing their relationship issues. Thereforethe intake interviews and the early program sessions were designed to:

◗ make the intake process less formal and more friendly by inviting potential participants to ‘have a chat’ with the facilitators before committing to the program

◗ reduce the anxiety of potential participants and help them gain a clear understanding about what the Me And My Family program hoped to achieve

◗ encourage participants to complete the program while reassuring them they would not be forced to remain in the group against their will

◗ gradually increase the degree of trust between participants and their commitment to the aims of the group.

Therefore, if after the the first interview the potential participant was considered tobe someone who could benefit from the program, they were invited to attend asecond interview at which they could discuss in more detail how they could benefitfrom it. At the end of the second interview, with the potential benefits and therequirements of the program clearly spelled out to them, they were invited to attendthe first group session to see if the program was likely to suit them. At the end of thefirst session, it was assumed that if they did not ask to leave the program, they werecommitted to completing it. In both the interviews and the first group session, it waspointed out that the program would at times be demanding and that they might feellike leaving it, but with courage they would benefit from the program.

On completion of the Me And My Family program, two 45-minute exit interviews wereconducted individually with each participant. Ending the program with these interviewsallowed each participant to discuss privately important issues with a facilitator and weredesigned as a kind of ‘emotional scaffolding’ to support the person in facing the risksinherent in trying to enhance their relationships. These interviews also eased the transitionbetween being part of a group that provided a safe and supportive environment in which toexplore important family relationship issues, and being back in a community without thesesupports. Feelings of loss were addressed and hope for the future was reinforced.

Therefore the exit interviews were designed to:

◗ help participants reflect on their family relationships goals, to continue to work towards them, and utilise what they have learned to enhance their family relationships in the future

23

Features of the MeAnd MyFamilyProgram

◗ Engagementstrategy

◗ Exit strategy


◗ help participants develop and discuss plans for achieving these goals and determine a future course of action

◗ help participants realistically assess the feasibility of these plans and anticipate obstacles to their implementation

◗ help participants reflect on their work in the Me And My Family program andthe ideas generated in the group, and assess their own involvement

◗ encourage participants to persist when faced with difficulties, and to seek help from others and outside agencies when needed

◗ determine whether additional supports or services were required and provideinformation about them

◗ acknowledge the achievements of the participants and encourage them to keep working on their relationship goals after the end of the program

◗ farewell and congratulate the participants on their efforts in the program.

Through these interviews the group facilitators were able to assess the success ofthe Me And My Family program, in terms of:

◗ the participant retention rate

◗ the number and range of relationship goals identified by the participants

◗ the extent to which participants had worked towards and / or achieved their relationship goals

◗ participant satisfaction with the program

◗ participant satisfaction with the facilitators.

The Me And My Family manual was developed over several stages was used as theprimary resource for the delivery of the Me And My Family programs in Stage Two. TheMe And My Family program manual contains plans for ten two-hour sessions as well asguides on conducting intake and exit interviews. In addition, it contains detailedinformation on how to plan for and deliver the program, which includes the following:

◗ who the Me And My Family is aimed at, ie the target group

◗ who should run the group and the personal qualities and professional expertise they require

◗ a brief outline of the history and rationale of the program

◗ a statement of the goals of the program

◗ a description of the unique characteristics of the program and the approach it takes to achieving these goals

◗ detailed guidelines on how to establish a group, including the personal and organisational issues the facilitator needs to consider

◗ how to tailor the program to meet the needs of a different groups of men, including adult prisoners, offenders in the community and men who have been violent in the family

◗ suggestions on how to select participants to form a cohesive group.

Appendices in the manual contain various documents that support the running of theprogram, as well as a Relationship Action Plan to be completed at its conclusion.

In developing the content of the Me And My Family manual, the authors drew from arange of sources, including literature on offender rehabilitation, addiction and substanceabuse, anger and family violence interventions, child development and marriage

◗ The Me AndMy FamilyManual

24


education. Various therapeutic models of intervention were also explored, includingtranstheoretical psychotherapy, systems theory, narrative therapy and family therapy.Adult learning strategies were used throughout the program, with a focus on strength-based early intervention and resilience principles. In collaboration with the groupfacilitators, the authors called upon their own expertise and knowledge of workingwith marginalised men in the community and the criminal justice system.

These theories and principles were not just assembled willy-nilly into a ten-sessionprogram. Rather, they informed and justified the inclusion of specific program activities inthe Me And My Family manual, but were largely invisible to the participants. Discussionsand activities were chosen to provide the participants with a range of learningexperiences, from which they could draw conclusions and initiate actions that would leadto the formulation and achievement of their individual family relationship goals.

In structuring the Me And My Family manual, the authors intended that it should be easilyunderstood and implemented by the facilitators, as well as being engaging and enjoyablefor the participants. They intended that the internal structure of the program’s groupsessions be consistent and predictable for those men who took part in it. And finally, theyaimed to ensure that the closing phase of the program provided participants with a smoothtransition to the task of implementing their relationship plans independently.

To meet the goals of simplicity and predictability, the authors designed each session

to have a common format. Each session is divided into three components:

◗ Check-in, allowing facilitators and participants to ‘catch up’ with each other asa group, and for the facilitators to observe the emotional state of each participant so that if there are signs of distress or pressing issues they can be dealt with immediately so the group’s work is not impeded

◗ Activity and discussion, the main tool for engaging the men. The activities and discussions included in the Me And My Family manual are those that the facilitators of the programs found were successful in engaging the men intellectually and emotionally during Stage One and Stage Two

◗ Review and close, in which participants are asked to reflect on what has been learnt in that session and encouraged to share their thoughts with the group. Participants were also invited to provide some feedback for the authors on what did or did not work in the session.

This structure helped the participants know what to expect during each session. Itdeveloped a sense of trust and safety within the group and encouraged the men toengage in the group process.

Facilitator training workshops were conducted over two days. Day One began withgeneral introductions and a brief overview of the Men and Family RelationshipsProject, Parenting Australia and Jesuit Social Services. An outline of the Me And MyFamily program was then provided, including details of the implementation of StageOne and Stage Two, the results of the external evaluation, and the subsequentadaption of the program for use with marginalised men in a range of settings.

The remainder of the day focused on ‘show-and-tell’ practice demonstrations based onactual sessions selected from the program. For example, a session was first describedto the trainees in a quick summary, with the trainers demonstrating an activity from it.Next, trainees were invited to role-play an activity or discussion from the session withthe group playing the roles of marginalised men. These role-plays were followed by a

25

TrainingWorkshopOutline


26

ProjectEvaluationStage Two

◗ EvaluationAims

◗ EvaluationMethodology

review and discussion of the outcome and relevant issues. Trainees were encouragedto share their personal experiences, techniques and their own exercises used whenrunning groups.

On the morning of Day Two the trainers presented an outline of the theories behindthe techniques and theories of the Me And My Family program. This was followedby practical exercises incorporating techniques derived from these theories. Adiscussion and learning activity was then conducted, exploring how to successfullymarket the program within community support agencies and promote the program tomarginalised men. At the end of Day Two, a final group discussion gave the traineesand facilitators an opportunity to review any plans to run the Me And My Familyprogram and offered phone or email support to encourage its implementation.

The training format outlined above used adult learning principles and was not alwaysrigidly adhered to. The trainers made a point of assessing the needs of the traineesin each group and adapting the structure and content of the training workshops inresponse. A sample training workshop outline is provided in Appendix 4.

During Stage Two of the Men and Family Relationships Project, a team headed byProfessor Tony Vinson from the University of New South Wales evaluated thefour Me And My Family programs conducted at Loddon and Port Phillip prisons.This external evaluation can be found in the attached report RepairingRelationships Behind Walls. Project staff internally evaluated the two communitycorrections programs at Ballarat and Hume.

The Stage Two evaluations aimed to address the following questions:


◗ Did the Me And My Family program successfully engage marginalised men in working towards enhanced family relationships?




◗ Did the participants believe that the Me And My Family program had helped them achieve some or all of their relationship goals?


◗ What aspects of the Me And My Family program should be improved, developed further or deleted before making it available more widely?

The Stage Two evaluations obtained a variety of data from the Me And My Familygroup participants and facilitators.

Quantitative and qualitative evaluation data included:

◗ variations in the age, background and family structure of the participants

◗ change in participant responses regarding knowledge of family relationship services

◗ change in participant confidence in ability to change relationships behaviours


◗ number of participants completing sessions

◗ participant satisfaction ratings

◗ facilitator observations and reflections

◗ project evaluator observations and reflections

◗ participant comments

◗ project coordinator observations and reflections

These data were obtained via:

◗ the participant intake interviews conducted by the facilitators

◗ the pre- and post-program participant interviews conducted by the evaluation team

◗ session rating forms completed by participants at the end of each session

◗ session attendance records

◗ facilitators’ session diary notes

◗ mid-program facilitator interviews conducted by the evaluation team

◗ facilitator session review interviews conducted by a research assistant

◗ project coordinator’s session review notes

◗ project coordinator’s discussions with other facilitators, with the manager of the Ballarat Community Corrections Centre, with program and custodial staff at Port Phillip, Bendigo and Loddon Prisons and with the Men and Family Relationships worker at Ballarat Child and Family Services.

The findings of the Stage Two evaluations are presented here in the form ofanswers to the evaluation questions above.


As part of the evaluation at Port Philip and Loddon prisons, the internal and externalevaluators collected quantitative data on the number of men who attended the twointake interviews and on the number who went on to complete the Me And MyFamily program.

Of the 72 participants who attended two intake interviews at Loddon and PortPhillip Prisons, 45 elected to start in the Me And My Family program. Given that all prospective interviewees were advised that the program was experimental innature, and that no benefits could be guaranteed, this suggests that the promotion of the program within the prison communities and the intake interviews did attracta significant percentage of those prisoners who expressed interest in participating.

Of the 45 men who were invited to participate in the four prison programs, 35completed the program, representing a 78% completion rate. Table 1 indicatesthat the reasons for participants failing to complete the program were largely of an external nature. In other words, no participant dropped out because they foundthe style or content of the program too difficult, uninteresting or not relevant totheir needs. Given that mandated treatment programs commonly have a retentionrate of only around 70%, these results indicate that the Me And My Familyprogram was extremely successful in retaining participants.

27

EvaluationFindings◗ Question 1:


◗ Reason for cessation Number of prisoners

Relocated - other prison 2

Relocated - other unit, same prison 3

Withdrew - suspected victim of bullying 2

Withdrew - imminent release 1

Pressure to attend work in preference to program 1

Loss of privileges (penalty for breach of prison rules) 3

TOTAL 12

The total of this column is more than 10, because in two cases more than one reason forcessation applied to the individual

Qualitative evidence also suggests that the program was successful in attractingand retaining participants. For example:

◗ a number of participants told fellow prisoners about the program, many of whom requested that they be put on a waiting list for the next program

◗ participants stated that other prisoners had challenged or questioned their involvement in the program and that they had actively defended their involvement. This implies that they were prepared not only to complete the program but also to articulate reasons why they should do so

◗ participants at the Bendigo Prison program continued to take part in the program even when pressure was exerted on them by other prisoners to stop attending.

◗ Did the Me And My Family program successfully engage marginalised men in focussing on their family relationships?

As part of the intake interviews at Port Philip and Loddon prisons, the externalevaluators collected quantitative data on the participants’ important relationships.In their responses, outlined in Table 2, participants consistently identified thatrelationships with members of their immediate family (parents, siblings andpartners) were important.

◗ Number of times significant others mentioned as most important relationships

Significant others Number of times mentionedPort Phillip Loddon

Parents 20 15

Siblings 18 15

Partners / girlfriends 17 17

Friends 14 2

Children 8 16

Other 4 3

Participants at Loddon prison were aged approximately between 20 and 55 years,and more frequently mentioned relationships with children, girlfriends, wives andde facto partners. Those at Port Philip prison were younger, aged approximatelybetween 17 and 42 years, and more frequently mentioned parents, siblings andfriends.

The fact that the participants could identify important relationships in the intakeinterviews suggests that they were, to some extent, already thinking about theirfamily relationships prior to the Me And My Family program, and understood thatthe program would address relationship issues.

28

◗ Table 1:

◗ Question 2:

◗ Table 2:


Qualitative evidence also suggests that the program was successful in engagingparticipants in focussing on the family relationships. For example:

◗ the facilitators noted that many participants either talked sincerely about their relationships and/or listened to what other members of the group had tosay about their close relationships

◗ participants frequently reported that they were working on their close relationships in their own time outside the program - writing letters, making telephone calls to relatives and asking after absent family members during contact visits

◗ several participants told the facilitators and the evaluation staff that they were talking about issues and events within their families that they had never before spoken to anyone about. They discussed events such as being abandoned by one or both parents, being abused by parents or other carers, being left by partners, losing contact with their children and coping with their child’s death

◗ in interviews with the facilitators, and in group discussions, several participants revealed their hopes for reconciliation with their partners, parents, children and siblings

◗ group facilitators found that many participants stayed back at the end of each group to discuss their individual relationship issues

◗ group facilitators found that many participants asked for particular strategies to deal with the many difficult family relationships they were facing

◗ a number of prison officers commented to the facilitators that the participantswere getting a lot out of the program

◗ several participants commented that they felt they could talk about most issues.Facilitators commented that they believed a sense of trust and rapport had beenestablished in the early group sessions and that this had helped the participants focus their energies on their family relationships throughout the program.


As part of the external evaluation at Port Philip and Loddon prisons, the evaluatorscollected quantitative data on the participants’ degree of confidence that their familyrelationships could be improved. Participants were asked to rate their degree ofconfidence on a ten-point scale before and after they completed the Me And My Familyprogram. The averaged post-program mean confidence score was 9.2 compared to apre-program score of 6.4, suggesting that the program was highly effective in improvingthe participants’ confidence that their family relationships could be improved.

This conclusion is also indirectly supported by the high level of confidence participantshad in using their Relationship Action Plan. Of the 32 participants who completed the MeAnd My Family program, three-quarters were either ‘confident’ or ‘very confident’ thatthey would use it, implying that they were also likely to be confident about improvedtheir relationships more generally. Page 83 - 85 of the external evaluation report,Repairing Relationships Behind Walls, contains a more detailed analysis of these results.

Qualitative evidence also suggests that by building the participants’ sense of hopeand self-efficacy, the Me And My Family program was successful in increasingtheir level of confidence. For example:

◗ during the program many participants changed the way they talked about their relationships from hopelessness to possibility over the course of the program

29

◗ Question 3:


◗ during the program participants increasingly asked the facilitators for advice on improving aspects of their relationships

◗ in the exit interviews, some participants said that they did not think they would need the help of a family relationship agency in the future as they felt confident about achieving further positive change in their relationships on their own

◗ in the exit interviews, some participants told the facilitators of changes they were already making in some of their relationships. One had stopped arguing with his mother, another negotiated with his ex-wife for increased contact with his children, and a third rang and asked to speak with his brother where normally he would have spoken only through his sister-in-law.


As part of the external evaluation at Port Philip and Loddon prisons, theevaluators collected quantitative data on the participants’ recognition of the needto seek assistance with improving their family relationships before and after theycompleted the Me And My Family program. The results show that in bothlocations the participants’ perceptions of their need for assistance increased bythe end of the program. Page 85 of the external evaluation report, RepairingRelationships Behind Walls, contains a more detailed analysis of these results.

Qualitative evidence also suggests that the Me And My Family program helpedthe participants in recognising their need for help. For example:

◗ many of the younger participants spoke of the need to reconcile with their parents and siblings and make amends for the disruption and emotional upsetthey had caused their families

◗ most of those participants who were expecting to return to living with their children expressed a desire to learn more about parenting skills

◗ those fathers who did not expect to be living with their children after release expressed a desire to work towards having more influence in their lives, but admitted that they would need some help in finding the best way to approach the children’s primary carer.

Combined with the changes that occurred in the participants’ confidence ratings,the results suggest that once the men became more hopeful that change waspossible they re-evaluated their own ability to make the necessary relationshipchanges, and began a process of taking responsibility for relationship outcomes.


As part of the external evaluation at Port Philip and Loddon prisons, the evaluatorscollected quantitative data on the participants’ knowledge of community and familyrelationship services before and after they completed the Me And My Familyprogram. Information regarding these services was disseminated during the second-last session of the program, both by the group facilitators and visiting agency staff,including representatives from the Brosnan Centre, the Victorian Association forthe Care and Resettlement of Offenders (VACRO) and Lifeworks.

These results show that the participants’ knowledge of support services improved only slightly by the program’s completion, with around half being unable to nominatean appropriate service when asked. Pages 26 - 27 of the external evaluation reportRepairing Relationships Behind Walls contains a more detailed analysis of these results.

30

◗ Question 4:

◗ Question 5:


However, qualitative evidence suggests that the Me And My Family program didincrease some participants’ knowledge of relationship services. For example:

◗ some participants at the Ballarat Community Corrections Centre said that they wouldbe comfortable attending a men’s group program or using the counselling services of Ballarat Child and Family Services if they had a relationship problem in future

◗ several participants were observed writing down the names of family relationship agencies in their Relationship Action Plans at or following Session 9

◗ at Loddon Prison, most participants took copies of the leaflets handed out by the Lifeworks representative in Session 9

The Me And My Family programs at Port Philip Prison were affected by a securitylockdown that occurred just prior to Session 9. This lockdown meant that theVACRO representative was unable to present any information to one group ofparticipants and the amount of time available to the Brosnan Centre representativewas substantially reduced, which may have affected the evaluation results.

However, the fact that the programs at Loddon prison were not affected in this waywould indicate that overall the programs were only marginally successful inhighlighting the relevance of these outside support services and encouragingparticipants to use them. This suggests that many of the benefits the participantsderived from the program sessions were not supported by opportunities for follow-up work with agencies outside the prison.

◗ Did the participants believe that the Me And My Family program had helped them achieve some or all of their relationships goals?

During the post-program interviews conducted as part of the external evaluation at PortPhilip and Loddon prisons, the evaluators collected quantitative data on whether the MeAnd My Family program had helped the participants to learn how to repair and/orenhance important relationships. In addition, the participants were asked to complete asingle page feedback sheet at the end of each session, which focused on the content ofthe session and its perceived relevance to the achievement of their relationship goals.

The results of the external evaluation show that the majority of the participants didbelieve that the program had helped them achieve some or all of the relationship goalsthey had set for themselves. 85% of participants stated that they had achieved theirrelationship goals either to some extent or to a great extent. Pages 81- 83 of the externalevaluation report, Repairing Relationships Behind Walls, contains a more detailed analysisof these results.

Qualitative evidence also suggests that most participants believed the Me And My Familyprogram had helped them achieve some or all of their relationship goals. For example:

◗ many of those participants who were separated fathers reported that they had made progress toward having less conflict when communicating with their partners, reducing their own reactions of stress and frustration and having more frequent contact with their children

◗ in his exit interview, one separated father stated that he now saw the relationship with his ex-wife differently to the way he had seen it before the program. Even though he didn’t like her personally he could see the value in treating her as a partner in the raising of their child

◗ in his exit interview, another separated father stated that when he was released hewould be concentrating his energy on establishing a reliable contact regime with his children, rather hoping to re-establish the marriage or regain the property he had lost in the property settlement prior to entering the program

31

◗ Question 6:


◗ many participants told fellow prisoners who had not attended their group thatthe Me And My Family program was great. Many also told the facilitators that the program was the best program they had ever done

◗ some participants were protective of the group and the group facilitators and were at the same time suspicious of the evaluators. They believed that the facilitators were being judged and admitted to trying to protect the facilitators by not completing or providing misleading information on their group session evaluation forms

◗ at Loddon Prison several participants urged the facilitators to pressure the prison authorities to either continue the program or to have it conducted again. Others stated that they would like to revisit the program within six months of their release. One participant suggested that the same facilitators should offer the same or a similar program to their partners

◗ at Ballarat Community Centre many participants compared the Me And My Family program favourably to other prison programs, saying that they appreciated the way in which the issues they raised were followed up and discussed or resourced by the facilitators

◗ one participant related how he had used an approach taught in the program to negotiate a civil agreement regarding contact with children and child support payments with his ex-wife. He stated that before he participated in the program this kind of collaborative conversation would have been unimaginable

◗ prior to the group commencing, facilitators and prison staff believed that one participant would have difficulty dealing with the entrenched animosity he felt towards his ex-wife. However, by the end of the program the participant acknowledged that he needed to shift his emotional energy from blaming his ex-wife for perceived injustices to rebuilding relationships with his children.


During the post-program interviews conducted as part of the external evaluation atPort Philip and Loddon prisons, the evaluators collected quantitative data onwhether the participants had experienced any unexpected benefits of the Me AndMy Family program. The results show that generally the participants did feel thatthere had been unexpected benefits. Of 39 respondents from Port Philip and Loddonprisions, 21 respondents placed a high value on hearing about and learning from theexperiences and insight of the other men, 8 mentioned a greater understanding ofthe needs of others and 7 stated that they benefited from the session that addressedfamily of origin issues. Page 82 - 83 of the external evaluation report, RepairingRelationships Behind Walls, contains a more detailed analysis of these results.

Qualitative evidence also suggests that most participants believed there had beenunexpected benefits of the Me And My Family program. For example:

◗ many participants stated that the program was the first time they had felt safe to speak openly about their own aspirations and difficulties, and to acknowledge the human value and complexity of others

◗ many participants commented that they had learned, for the first time, that other men in the same prison had undergone greater trials than themselves

32

◗ Question 7:


33

Three

◗ Question 8:

ProjectEvaluationStage Three

◗ EvaluationAims

◗ Professor Vinson, a man well acquainted with prison systems, commented that he was struck by the deep impression the program had made on the men. In particular, he commented on how the participants were themselves surprised by their own reactions that it had affected them so much and their enthusiasm when they spoke of it. He noted that he never got to meet the fellow who perceived that everyone else was better off than him.

◗ What aspects of the Me And My Family program should be improved, developed further or deleted before making it available more widely?

During the post-program interviews conducted as part of the external evaluation at PortPhilip and Loddon prisons, the evaluators collected quantitative data on what two changesthe participants would make to the Me And My Program if they were responsible forrunning it in the future. A wide range of responses were received, many of them qualifiedby the sentiment that the program was generally satisfactory and therefore majorchanges were not required. In particular, significant numbers of participants suggested:

◗ having some more or longer sessions

◗ being able to ‘try out’, under supervision, the new skills they were acquiring in a communit setting

◗ having more homogenous groups

◗ having a tighter, more specific agenda.

Pages 88 - 89 of the external evaluation report, Repairing Relationships BehindWalls, contains a more detailed break-up of the participants’ responses.

Other suggestions made to the facilitators included:

◗ more homogeneous groups

◗ more exploration of family of origin and family structures

◗ sessions on parenting skills

◗ more breaks to relax during difficult discussion topics, for example loss and grief

◗ opportunities for counselling to discuss individual family issues.

During Stage Three of the project, staff conducted an action research evaluationof the seven interstate Me And My Family training workshops.

The Stage Three evaluation aimed to address the following questions:


◗ Were the topics in the training workshops relevant and useful to the trainee facilitators?

◗ For those trainee facilitators who were able to implement the Me And My Family program, what were the outcomes?


◗ What benefits did trainee facilitators derive from completing the facilitator training?

◗ How could the training workshops be improved?


The Stage Three evaluations included a variety of data from the Me And MyFamily trainee facilitators and the project coordinator.

Quantitative and qualitative evaluation data included:

◗ trainee facilitator satisfaction ratings

◗ change in trainee facilitator confidence levels

◗ trainer observations and reflections

◗ project coordinator observations and reflections

◗ trainee facilitator comments and reflections.

As the structure and content of the training workshops varied to reflect the needsand abilities of the trainees, different evaluation methods were employed indifferent locations.

In Sydney and Darwin, evaluation data were obtained via a simple feedbackquestionnaire completed by trainees before and after the workshops, while inBrisbane trainees only completed these afterwards. In Newcastle, Hobart,Adelaide and Perth, trainees completed a more comprehensive training needsanalysis form before and after the workshops. In addition, in September andOctober 2002, the evaluators conducted telephone interviews with 38 of the 67trainee facilitators to obtain further information on their experiences sincecompletion of the Me And My Family training.

The findings of the Stage Three evaluations are presented here in the form ofanswers to the evaluation questions above.


In Sydney and Darwin, the evaluators collected quantitative data on theconfidence of the trainees in running group programs with marginalised menbefore and after the training workshops. The responses of the trainees, shown inTable 3, indicated that they were on average only marginally more confident aboutrunning group programs on completion of the workshop.

◗ Trainees’ ratings of confidence running programs with marginalised men pre- and post-training, Sydney and Darwin workshops

Rating Pre-Training Post-Training Change (%) % n % n

Extremely Confident 8 2 11 2 +3Somewhat Confident 28 7 37 7 +9 Not Sure/ Neither Confident Nor Apprehensive 44 11 47 9 +3 Somewhat Apprehensive 20 5 5 1 -15Extremely Apprehensive 0 0 0 0 0

N=25 N=19

In Brisbane, trainee facilitators were not specifically asked to rate their confidencein running group programs before or after the training workshops. However, theywere asked whether they thought they could adapt the material to suit their ownwork, and whether they were likely to use what they had learnt in the future. Thefact that a significant majority of trainees gave positive answers to these questionsmight indicate that their level of confidence had in fact increased.

◗ EvaluationMethodology

◗ EvaluationFindings

◗ Question 1:

◗ Table 3:

34


In Newcastle, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth, trainee facilitators were asked to ratetheir confidence in those skills the workshop aimed to teach before and after thetraining workshops. The results of two-tailed tests on these ratings, shown inTable 4, indicated that the trainees were on average significantly more confidentabout their skill levels on completion of the workshop. On all criteria except‘working with men’ the average improvement was over 25%.

◗ Average confidence ratings pre and post-training, Newcastle, Hobart, Adelaideand Perth workshops

Training need Mean Mean % change pre-training post-training

Working with men 7.08 8.19 +15.6 Working with marginalised men 6.06 7.87 +29.8 Men’s family relationship issues 6.50 8.22 +26.3 Group facilitation skills 6.05 7.73 +27.8

These results contrast starkly with those obtained for the Darwin and Sydneyworkshops. This could be partly explained by the fact that the training workshopwas redesigned following the Brisbane workshop in response to suggestions thatit required a tighter structure. It is likely that the trainees in Newcastle, Hobart,Adelaide and Perth benefited from the more structured approach.

Qualitative evidence also suggests that the training workshops helped improvethe confidence of some trainees in running group programs. For example:

◗ a few trainees who had not previously worked with men told the trainers thatthey wanted to work with them immediately after training, and also felt it more achievable to work with those who were marginalised

◗ a female trainee said privately that the training had helped her to see that running groups for marginalised men was both possible and interesting However, she said that as a woman, she had felt intimidated by two male work colleagues who also attended the training and were outspoken and arrogant about their skills in working with marginalised men. She intended to seek other supports to run men’s groups as she did not believe that they would include her in their work with men

◗ in general, female trainees commented on how training removed initial biasesand taught them how not to be intimidated. Many who had little experience with male clients, expressed their gain in confidence as a heightened awareness, whilst those who had dealt with them extensively in the past had their ideas confirmed and validated on how to deal with ‘tougher eggs.’

However, other qualitative evidence suggests that the training workshops did notchange the confidence of some trainees in running group programs. For example:

◗ one trainee said that he was not impressed with the training and he had expected more. He stated that it did not equip him to work in jails, despite having thirty years’ experience in working with men

◗ another trainee said that the training was orientated too much towards working in prisons, and that he was not confident that what he had learned could be generalised or transferred.

35

◗ Table 4:


◗ Were the topics in the training workshops relevant and useful to the trainees?

In Sydney and Darwin, the evaluators collected quantitative data on the trainees’degree of satisfaction with various aspects of the workshops via post-programquestionnaire. A summary of the proportion of trainees rating aspects of theworkshop as either ‘Satisfactory’ or ‘Very Satisfactory’ is shown in Table 5. Theresults indicated that the workshop was generally highly valued by the trainees, witha significant majority rating the aspects of the workshop as ‘Satisfactory’ or better.

◗ Trainees’ ratings of aspects of training, Sydney and Darwin workshops

Aspect of workshop ‘Satisfactory’ ‘Very Satisfactory’ Total % Number % Number %

Chance to participate 5 26 13 69 95 Clarity of presentations 8 42 4 21 63 Weight given to topics 12 64 1 5 69 Modelling of facilitator role 10 53 8 42 97 Balance of content and group process 12 63 2 11 74

In Brisbane, trainee facilitators were not asked to rate aspects of the workshop.

In Newcastle, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth, the evaluators collected quantitativedata on the trainees’ degree of satisfaction with four aspects of the workshops -interest or engagement, relevance, the facilitators’ approach and the usefulness ofthe information provided. The results, in Table 6, showed that each aspect of theworkshops achieved a high average rating.

◗ Trainees’ average ratings of aspects of training, Newcastle, Hobart, Adelaide and Perth workshops

Aspect of workshop Average rating Newcastle Hobart Adelaide Perth

Interest / Engagement 8.67 7.00 9.38 8.71 Relevance 8.13 6.47 9.22 7.19 Training Approach 8.50 7.03 9.25 8.48 Usefulness of skills / materials 8.54 6.41 9.13 7.91

The usefulness and relevance of the skills taught and the material presented werenot as highly rated as the trainers’ approach or their ability to engage thetrainees. This is most likely reflective of the variety in the workplace duties ofmany of the trainees, many of whom were not expected to run group programs inthe near future. Similarly, some of the training material was not relevant to thosetrainees with no specific brief to work with marginalised men. On the other hand,many of the trainees were already highly skilled in engaging men from a variety ofbackgrounds and so did not require basic information on this issue.

Qualitative evidence also suggests that the topics in the training workshops wereuseful and relevant to the trainees. For example:

◗ One trainee stated that he was able to transfer much of the information presented in the workshop for use in other programs

◗ Several trainees said that it was useful to revisit many of the psychological theories presented in the workshops, and that they still guided aspects of their work

◗ Question 2:

◗ Table 5:

◗ Table 6:

36


Julian McNally

Still to do: 1. Bookmarks and hierarchy 2. Lock document against editing. 3. Check web ability.

◗ One trainee said that the information about fathering issues had helped them in running community-based parenting groups for fathers

◗ One trainee said that he had gained a lot from the Stages of Change model presented in the workshop and had subsequently used it successfully as an educational tool in a domestic violence program

◗ One trainee reported that the information and notes taken at the training had been useful in planning a range of programs in his agency. He said that he had shared this information with other workers and had used the engagement strategy successfully.

◗ For those trainee facilitators who were able to implement the Me And My Family program, what were the outcomes?

In September and October 2002, the evaluators conducted telephone interviewswith 38 of the 67 trainee facilitators in an attempt to collect qualitative andquantitative data on the experiences of those who had implemented the Me AndMy Family program. At the time of writing, no attempts to implement the Me AndMy Family program outside Victoria have been successful.


In September and October 2002, the evaluators conducted telephone interviewswith 38 of the 67 trainee facilitators to obtain quantitative data on the experiencesof those who had not implemented the program. Eighteen trainees stated thatthey had wanted to implement the Me And My Family program locally, and ofthese only 2 had attempted to implement the program. Two others said that theystill might attempt to run the program.

Respondents were asked to nominate barriers to implementing the program intheir locations. Table 7 shows a summary of the reasons cited for notimplementing the program. The majority of respondents nominated organisationalconstraints as a barrier to implementation. Interestingly, only 3 trainees specifiedfinancial constraints.

◗ Reasons given by trainees for not running program

Reasons given for not Number of traineesimplementing program giving reason listed1

Organisational – Human Resources 3 Organisational – Financial 3 Organisational - Any Restrictions 12 Other Priorities 6 Waiting for manual 4 Limited need – not enough clients 6 Have similar programs already 4 Don’t know – didn’t say 7 1 This column totals more than 38 as some respondents named more than one reason

In examining the responses where organisational restrictions were named, it wasfound that these could either be characterised as a mismatch between the goals ofthe program and the agency’s usual area of service delivery, or as a humanresources issue – for instance, not being able to find a suitable co-worker withwhom to run the program.

37

◗ Question 3:

◗ Question 4:

◗ Table 7:


In many of the training workshops, discussions with trainee facilitators providedtrainers with qualitative evidence of barriers to the implementation of the Me AndMy Family program. Some of the responses of the trainees were that:

◗ their organisation has a different focus, for instance family violence or parenting skills

◗ they had not received a final program outline from the trainers

◗ they needed to address time-management issues, or needed to get their agency team together to discuss implementing the program

◗ they only worked part-time, and therefore did not have the capacity to implement the program

◗ their agency needed to deal with domestic violence issues all the time, and therefore put a higher priority on it

◗ they were flat-out running an alternative program

◗ the decision to run the program could only be taken by the agency’s managers

◗ the training was not practical enough, so they didn’t feel confident to implement the program

◗ working in prisons was not a priority for the agency

When asked how the barriers to implementing the program might be overcome,only two of the respondents offered answers. One respondent said that becausestaff turnover in their agency was high, the resources and ongoing developmentneeded to run the program were not available, and therefore the only solution wasto reduce staff turnover. The other respondent suggested that more time neededto be spent on team development to understand the needs of marginalised menand their families and provide more training.

◗ What benefits did trainee facilitators derive from completing the facilitator training?

In the telephone interviews conducted in September and October 2002, theevaluators obtained quantitative data on the benefits trainee facilitators derivedfrom the facilitator training. When asked whether they felt more confidentengaging with marginalised men as a result of the training, 20 respondents repliedin the affirmative. Three-quarters of respondents were able to identify at leastone benefit of the training when asked. The types of benefits trainees nominatedfall into five broad categories as shown in Table 8.

◗ Types of benefits derived from Me And My Family facilitator training

Type of Awareness General Group Professional Confidencebenefit of men’s value of facilitation practice, with groups

issues – program skills theoreticalmarginalised issues

men Number of responses 12 6 7 14 4

◗ Question 5:

◗ Table 8:

38


Discussions with trainee facilitators in the workshops also provided trainers withqualitative evidence of derived benefits. For example:

◗ one trainee said that he enjoyed hearing about the way others worked with marginalised men

◗ one trainee stated that he had found the discussion about different theories ofmen’s behaviour and family dynamics stimulating

◗ one trainee said that they had learned a lot from the way the group facilitators modelled the group facilitation process

◗ a number of trainees said that the training had affirmed their own approach toworking in prison settings.

◗ How could the training workshops be improved?

In the telephone interviews conducted in September and October 2002, theevaluators obtained quantitative data on how the facilitator training could beimproved. Seventeen interviewees provided responses to this question.Suggestions for improvement included:

◗ structuring the training workshops more tightly

◗ providing more opportunities to role-play activities from the program

◗ making the training more ‘practical’

◗ widening the focus of the program to include target populations other than marginalised men.

Discussions with trainee facilitators in the workshops also provided trainers withideas for improvement. For example:

◗ several trainees said that receiving further training would be useful

◗ several trainees stated that greater ongoing support from the Me And My Familyteam following training to help implement the program locally was needed

◗ several trainees commented that their training experience would have been better if they had been able to refer to a completed Me And My Family program during the training workshop.

39

◗ Question 6:


Dis-cussion

The evaluation findings indicate that the Me And My Family program wasextremely successful in both attracting marginalised men and maintaining theirinterest and enthusiasm once they had joined the program. The findings alsosuggest that by increasing the participants’ confidence that their relationshipscould be improved, and by providing a safe environment in which they could sharetheir experiences, the program helped them to recognise the need for change inorder to improve their family relationships. This success was reflected in the factthat most participants agreed that they benefited greatly from the program andhad achieved some or all of their relationship goals.

What the program did particularly well was to reduce the anxiety of theparticipants about discussing their family relationships in a group setting. Thiswas done by providing the men both with an invitation and a challenge to improvethings for themselves and those close to them, rather than coercing or mandatingthem to do so. By listening to the participants and treating them with respect, thefacilitators helped them see that they could develop solutions to their ownrelationship difficulties.

One of the common assumptions about the kind of men who participated in theMe And My Family program is that they are tough, self-interested and unfeeling.They are rarely seen by society and its institutions as loving fathers, caringhusbands or loyal sons and brothers. The facilitators and evaluators of theprogram found that this assumption was often quite incorrect. In many cases thestories the participants told made it clear that they could be passionate fathers,husbands, sons and brothers. In their stories, they revealed lives full of pain,abandonment, lack of opportunity and unfulfilled hopes and dreams. For many, theexperience of living in a family was devoid of care, connection, guidance and love,and often filled with abuse and hopelessness. Given the intense anger atthemselves and the injustices of their world, their need to deaden or deflect painhad been either turned inwards in the form of drug abuse and self-harm, orexpressed outwardly in crime and violent behaviour.

Whilst the facilitators and evaluators did not condone this criminal behaviour, theyrecognised that most participants had had few opportunities for sustained andgenuine support in examining the source of their anger. As many of theparticipants themselves revealed, the Me And My Family program was the firsttime they had been able to tell anyone about their experiences as children andadolescents, and the first time that anyone had listened or been interested. Thereis a belief among many Australian men, especially among those targeted by theMe And My Family program, that asking for help is a sign of weakness. In spite of this, the results showed that the participants readily admitted that they neededassistance to achieve their relationship goals, once they became confident indiscussing their family relationships.

The opportunity to share their stories was perhaps the key factor in enhancingthis confidence. In being exposed to a range of views and experiences, theparticipants changed the way they thought about their own situations andrelationships and became aware that they could make small changes in behaviourthat would lead to positive outcomes. In turn, the knowledge that small changeswere possible provoked the realisation that larger, more significant relationshipchanges were within their reach. With this realisation, the benefits of improvedrelationships became more evident, and consequently the participants were opento new possibilities and motivated to find ways of living their lives that were moresatisfying and meaningful.

Discussion

40


The Me And My Family program clearly demonstrated that marginalised men arecapable of owning not only the way they think about their relationships but alsohow they behave and communicate with others around them. Directly examiningthe benefits of this ownership on the participants’ families was outside the scopeof the Me And My Family program. However, it is reasonable to assume that ifparticipants continued to make positive changes in behaviour, the strengthening of their connections with their families could play a crucial rehabilitative role andthey would be more capable of sustaining positive relationships with familymembers once they were released.

Currently, imprisonment is emphasised as a means of punishment and as the mosteffective way of protecting society from the harm caused by criminal activity.Significant financial resources are therefore being directed towards expanding thephysical and organisational infrastructure needed to incarcerate large numbers ofcriminals. At the same time, little emphasis is placed on rehabilitation servicesand programs that improve prisoners’ mental health and enhance their capacity tore-integrate effectively into their families and society when they are released.Consequently, marginalised men often leave prison angrier, more highly skilled incriminal behaviours, more determined not to get caught and with more extensiveconnections to criminal networks than when they entered. In the medium to longterm this approach is ultimately likely to prove self-defeating, increasing crimerates, recidivism and the levels of fear and insecurity in the community. There is a clear and pressing need for decision makers to consider new alternatives.

Correctional facilities are arguably ideal settings for helping marginalised men tobegin the process of understanding how family relationships can work and howthey might go about improving them. With little to do and nothing much to lose,both adult and juvenile offenders represent a ‘captive audience’ for providers offamily relationships programs. The fact that many prisoners who were not directlyinvolved with the Me And My Family program heard that it was worthwhile andasked the facilitators whether they could join future programs demonstrates thatfamily relationship programs can, with effective promotion and engagementstrategies, attract large numbers of participants. It also hints at the far-reachingimpact they can have on members of the prison communities in which they arerun. A more extensive implementation of family relationship programs acrosscorrectional systems is therefore worthy of further investigation as a means ofprovoking significant cultural change within prison communities. The benefits ofsuch a cultural shift would not only apply to those within prison communities andtheir families, but the wider community as well.

For young marginalised men the probability of encountering the correctionalsystem is high, and many of these young men are fathers. Few correctionalinstitutions for men document information about the parental status of inmates,unlike women’s correctional settings. Of the participants of the Me And MyFamily program aged between 17-25, 40% were fathers. The 6 young men whowere fathers had 8 children between them, and none of them had ever hadcustody of their children. For young offenders with and without children, enteringa correctional facility is a kind of crisis that may to lead to intense self-assessmentand the consideration of the need to change. If family relationship programs wereintroduced more widely into these settings, an effective early interventionstrategy could be established to help halt the progress of marginalised young meninto criminal pathways and the breakdown of their families.

41


In addition, evidence suggests that most young offenders are not attracted intoexisting treatment programs that are designed to help them, and so the time theyspend incarcerated is a wasted opportunity. For example, a worker at a JuvenileJustice facility expressed his disappointment that only five inmates from a populationof seventy could be persuaded to take part in an intensive drug treatment program.These programs might benefit from the innovative engagement strategy that wassuch a significant factor in the success of the Me And My Family program.

Clearly, communities benefit from having resilient, connected families and betteroutcomes for children. Research points to strong correlations between the healthof family interactions and structure and the prevention of crime. For example, astudy in the United States (Tracy, Wolfgang, & Figlio, 1985) has shown that 6% ofboys in any birth cohort will commit about half of all crime. David Lykken fromthe University of Minnesota in the United States has described how some familiesbecome ‘crime factories’ (Lykken, 1997). In a later study, Lykken (2001) foundthat 70% of violent criminals are reared in fatherless homes and that half of thevariation in violent crime rates between all U.S. states can be predicted from therate of fatherless children ten years earlier. This research indicates that the familyis often the origin of the crime problem.

However, other evidence shows that families can also be the most valuable andcost-effective source of the solution. The Washington State Institute for PublicPolicy (WSIPP) analysed over 400 American and Canadian research studies onrecidivism reduction programs (Aos, Phipps, Barnoski & Lieb, 2001). The WSIPPanalysis was strictly economic, comparing the estimated return on funds investedin each program. Table 1 in Appendix 9 shows the net return per dollar invested ina selection of these programs, and whether each program had a family treatmentcomponent that either directly targeted the family of the participant or had a majorfocus on family issues (including partnering, parenting or family of origin).

What is most notable from this table is that the programs that had a familycomponent were between 5 and 14 times as cost-effective as programs that didnot have this component. For example, prison-based drug treatment programsproduced US$3.87 of benefit to the community for every dollar invested, butrarely dealt with family issues. In contrast, the three categories of family-orientedtreatment initiatives that were implemented with juvenile offender populationsproduced average returns ranging from US$21.12 to US$28.81 per dollar. Theseprograms generally saved 2 to 10 times as much money as conventional offenderrehabilitation programs. The WSIPP study only estimated the crime preventionbenefits of the programs, and did not take into account other possible gains suchas reduced family breakdown, reduced incidence of unreported child abuse anddomestic violence or improved health, education and employment outcomes.

WSIPP could not examine a family-oriented treatment program working withadult prisoners like the Me And My Family program because they are rarelyimplemented or evaluated for their crime prevention impact. However, in itsstyle, its theoretical base and the issues it addresses, the Me And My Familyprogram is most similar to the Functional Family Therapy program, which wasestimated to produce a net return of US$28.34 per dollar invested.

Cost-benefit analyses conducted on interventions for child abuse reduction revealsimilar returns to those shown above. For example, Olds (1992) found that whenthey are provided to low-income families, the population from which an excessiveproportion of juvenile offenders originate, home visitation programs involving both

42


parent education and maternal support components pay for themselves within 4years and return roughly US$20 per dollar invested. Given that so many of theproblems outlined here originate with men and boys, it seems clear that efforts toengage and retain males in these programs should be pursued vigorously.

The findings from the Stage Two and Stage Three evaluations indicated two majorflaws in the Men And Family Relationships project. On one hand, the programparticipants were unable to see the relevance of community support agencies andservices outside the prisons. The program therefore failed to make a significantimpact on the men’s knowledge of family relationship services and their benefits,and probably did not increase the likelihood that they would use them on release.On the other hand, trainee facilitators were unable to deliver programs within theirown agencies following training. Although many family relationship agencies andtheir workers were keen to learn new skills for engaging marginalised men, theydid not have the organisational support, and sometimes the confidence, toimplement appropriate programs. In interviews conducted at the conclusion of theproject, many trainees said that doing so was too hard and too difficult to organise inthe context of a correctional system that was culturally unknown and impenetrable.

When taken together, these flaws point to three inter-related needs. First, familyrelationship agencies need to be aware of the kinds of programs that cansuccessfully engage marginalised men. Second, agencies need to be more assertiveand skilled in promoting and delivering such programs. And third, agencies need tolink marginalised men within prisons more effectively to ongoing family supportservices in the community.

It could be argued that agencies would acquire a greater understanding of the needsof marginalised men and would provide more effective services if programs weredelivered jointly. For example, a family relationship counsellor could work with acorrectional programs manager, a substance abuse treatment worker with apsychologist or a youth outreach worker with a family therapist. The WSIPP studyshowed that one of the most cost-effective models of service delivery was the‘Coordinated Services’ model in which a single worker acted as a broker for a rangeof services. The Me And My Family program evaluation results suggest that thisapproach could be enhanced if a number of professionals with different backgroundsand networks were to work closely together to deliver services. A greater cross-fertilization of ideas and skills would result in an overall improvement in worker skilllevels as well as better outcomes for the marginalised men targeted.

The Me And My Family program was not specifically designed to address cyclesof intergenerational crime, and its evaluation did not attempt to measure impactson criminal activity within the families of marginalised men. Nonetheless it wouldbe valuable to know whether assisting marginalised men to improve theirrelationship and parenting skills could enhance connectedness in their families,reduce their risk of recidivism, reduce the risk of their children becominginvolved in criminal activity or improve outcomes for their children moregenerally. Implementing a demonstration model of a family relationships programin a limited number of correctional and juvenile justice settings would helpdetermine this. The model could involve a number of agencies working bothinside out outside these settings to deliver an enhanced Me And My Familyprogram, with a comprehensive evaluation examining the short and long termoutcomes to the participants and their families, as well as changes in the cultureof family relationship agencies and correctional services.

43


Recom-mendations

The recommendations given here are guided by the awareness that a loving,supportive family allows individuals to develop both physically and emotionallyinto caring human beings, capable of nurturing themselves and others. Theexperience of growing up with conflict and family breakdown compromises thisdevelopment and can lead to isolation, hopelessness and depression. Fordisadvantaged and marginalised men, these effects are often expressed as angry,anti-social or criminal behaviour.

The social problems of crime and fragmented, troubled families can be inextricablylinked in a vicious cycle that leaves children and young people unwitting victims oftraumatic abuse and neglect. Those who grow up in such families frequentlyreplicate these destructive patterns of behaviour and become part of the nextgeneration of criminals. Their antisocial behaviour then damages and disrupts theirown families and can lead to a cycle of intergenerational criminality.

The recommendations in this report offer an opportunity to understand andimplement measures to enhance relationships and connectedness within familiesto help break this cycle. By maintaining a safe and supportive environment forchildren and families, these measures help reduce the human and financial costsof traumatic abuse and neglect and intergenerational criminality to thecommunity. The recommendations are guided by three principles:

◗ That stakeholder organisations, including federal and state governments, correctional services, juvenile justice centres, prison communities, prisoner support services, family and community support agencies, parenting education services and agencies working with children affected by criminal behaviour, have a common interest in assisting marginalised men and their families address relationship issues

◗ That there is a need for stakeholder organisations to jointly develop, promote and implement strategies to increase the capacity of individuals and families to increase protective factors that deter children and young people from entry points to criminal pathways

◗ That there is a need to develop and implement strategies to educate professionals working within key stakeholder organisations about the special needs of marginalised men and their families, and thereby increase their capacity to deliver effective programs and services.

Recom-mendations

44


45

The recommendations are:

◗ Establish a working group comprising representatives from stakeholder organisations with a common interest in assisting marginalised men and their families address relationship issues to oversee the implementation of the following

◗ Trial an enhanced family relationships program to address the issues of marginalised men and their families. This enhanced program would:

◗ use the existing Me And My Family program as a model

◗ engage a range of agencies to work together in delivering services

◗ be implemented within a limited number of prisons and juvenile justice settings

◗ include selected prison staff as co-facilitators◗ include new material that addresses the social construction of male identity, fathers and children and parenting strategies

◗ work with prisoners pre- and post-release

◗ work with families pre- and post-release

◗ work with children of prisoners.

◗ Trial the Me And My Family program with other groups of disadvantaged families, including those in which fathers are absent through drug abuse or intervention orders

◗ Trial the Me And My Family program with groups of adolescent fathers who are involved in the criminal justice system

◗ Provide training in family-sensitive practice and the particular needs of marginalised men to key stakeholder organisations and their staff, in particular prison outreach workers, prison program officers, correctional services managers, selected custodial staff and agencies that support familiesof prisoners

◗ Conduct evaluations of the above family relationship trial programs and training. These evaluations would measure:

◗ the impact of the trial programs on family relationships

◗ the impact of the trial programs on outcomes for children

◗ the impact of the trial programs on the institutional climate within prisonsand juvenile justice settings, including the awareness of family relationship issues among prisoners and staff

◗ the impact of training on the work practices within community support agencies to engage marginalised men.


App-endices

1 Project reference group members 46

2 Program implementation schedule 47

3 Participant demographics 48

4 Training workshop outline 48

5 Brisbane feedback sheet blank 51

6 Brisbane feedback - aspects of presenters - summary 51

7 2002 training needs form pre and post 52

8 2002 session rating form 53

9 Economic benefits calculated by WSIPP of crime prevention programs 54

10 Papers published and presentations made 55

◗ Jesuit Social Services Men and Family Relationships Project Reference Group Members

The project reference group comprised the following members:

◗ David Murray, Policy Director, Jesuit Social Services

◗ Marie Tehan, Senior Project Officer, Jesuit Social Services

◗ Professor Tony Vinson, University of New South Wales Department of Social Work

◗ Marlene Morison, Chief Executive Officer, Caraniche Pty Ltd

◗ Eric Van den Bossche, Senior Psychologist, Caraniche Pty Ltd

◗ Bernard Geary, Programs Director, Jesuit Social Services

◗ Constance Jenkin, Manager, Parenting Australia, Jesuit Social Services

◗ Julian McNally, Project Coordinator, Parenting Australia, Jesuit Social Services

Appendices

Appendix 1

46


◗ Me And My Family Program - Stage One Implementation Schedule

Date: Task: Location:Thu 7 Sep 2000 Meet Bendigo Prison staff, presentation to Bendigo

prisoner groups of Me And My Family

program, call for interviews

Mon 25 Sep 2000 First Intake/Assessment Interview round Bendigo

Thu 28 Sep 2000 Second Intake/Assessment Interview round Bendigo

Mon 2 Oct 2000 First Session of Me And My Family program Bendigo

Mon 6 Nov 2000 Ninth Session of Me And My Family program Bendigo

Mon 13 Nov 2000 Last Session of Me And My Family program Bendigo

Thu 16 Nov 2000 First Me And My Family program exit interviews Bendigo

Wed 22 Nov 2000 Second Me And My Family program exit interviews Bendigo

◗ Me And My Family Program - Stage Two Implementation Schedule

Date: Task: Location:Mon 6 Nov 2000 Meet Loddon Prison staff Loddon

Wed 29 Nov 2000 Port Phillip Prison staff induction program Port Phillip Prison

Thu 30 Nov 2000 Port Phillip Prison staff induction program Port Phillip Prison

Thu 7 Dec 2000 First Facilitator Team Training Day ?

Thu 21 Dec 2000 Second Facilitator Team Training Day ?

Tue 9 Jan 2001 First intake interviews: candidates 1-15 Port Philip

Wed 10 Jan 2001 First intake interviews: candidates 1-15 Loddon

Thu 11 Jan 2001 First intake interviews: candidates 16-30 Port Philip

Fri 12 Jan 2001 First intake interviews: Candidates 16-30 Loddon

Tue 16 Jan 2001 Second intake interviews & external evaluation

interviews: candidates 1-15 Port Philip

Wed 17 Jan 2001 Second intake interviews & external evaluation

interviews: candidates 1-15 Loddon

Thu 18 Jan 2001 Second intake interviews & external evaluation

interviews: candidates 16-30 Port Philip

Fri 19 Jan 2001 Second intake interviews & external evaluation

interviews: candidates 16-30 Loddon

Tue 23 Jan 2001 Me And My Family programs x 2 commence Port Phillip

Wed 24 Jan 2001 Me And My Family programs x 2 commence Loddon

Tue, 27 Feb 2001 Me And My Family programs x 2 end Port Philip

Wed, 28 Feb 2001 Me And My Family programs x 2 end Loddon

Thu 1 Mar 2001 First exit interviews Port Philip

Wed 7 Mar 2001 First exit interviews Loddon

Tue 6 Mar 2001 Second exit interviews Port Philip

Thu 8 Mar 2001 Second exit interviews & post-program external

evaluation interviews Port Philip

Fri 9 Mar 2001 Second exit interviews & post-program external

evaluation interviews Loddon

Tue 13 Mar 2001 Post-program external evaluation interviews Port Philip

Wed 14 Mar 2001 Second exit interviews & post-program external

evaluation interviews Loddon

47

Appendix 2


◗ Program Participant Demographics

Group Average Age Std.Dev. Minimum Maximum

Port Phillip Adult Unit 35.86 5.67 28 42

Port Phillip Youth Unit 20.38 1.85 17 23

Loddon Group 1 40.29 11.46 25 55

Loddon Group 2 32.73 8.84 20 44

Loddon non-participants1 37.13 13.86 24 64

Port Phillip non-participants2 22.80 3.12 19 32

1 Non-participants are those men who did not complete the program or those who were

interviewed for the program at least once and either chose not to participate or were

unable to start the program.

2 Except for one 32-year old prisoner, all of the Port Phillip non-participants were from

the Youth Unit and the majority were refused entry to the program simply because the

twelve available places were already taken.

◗ Training Workshop Outline

Detailed Training Outline - Day 1

Introductions

Trainers introduce themselves, including work history, experience running groups and

working with target populations, and motivation for working in this area.

Trainers outline the two days of training and provide brief overview of Jesuit Social

Services programs

Trainees introduce themselves. Trainees pair up and tell each other the answers to the

following questions:

1. What sorts of groups do you run?

2. What sorts of people take part in them?

3. What theories inform your groups?

4. What are your beliefs about what you have to do to successfully run these groups?

5. What are the outcomes you are aiming to achieve in your groups?

6. What shift in their thinking and behaviour are you looking for, and how do you

know that it has happened?

Trainers and trainees discuss these issues in the group.

Project History & Design

Trainers outline the history of the project and its design, covering the following:

◗ The project initiated from Men and Family Relationships Conference 1998

◗ Partnership relationship between Jesuit Social Services & Caraniche

◗ Why prisons?

◗ Why strengthen men’s family relationships?

◗ Why groups?

◗ Program development process, including Program Manual and evaluation

◗ The evaluation results - better than expected, completion rates, problem with

communicating information about family relationship services, anecdotes

Appendix 3

Appendix 4

48


◗ Discuss ways of overcome difficulties associated with family relationship services

understanding how to promote their services to marginalised men

Morning tea break

Me And My Family program delivery - Forming the group

Trainers outline the process of forming the program group:

◗ Intake interviews

◗ Communicating program objectives

◗ What questions we asked

◗ Group rules

◗ What happened

◗ Barriers to cohesive group formation

Trainees roleplay group formation

Lunch break

Me And My Family program delivery - Goal-setting & Clarification

Trainers outline the process of helping the group to set and clarify goals:

◗ Determine group goals and motivations

◗ Develop group resources

Trainees roleplay group facilitation as described in Session 3 of manual

Trainers review roleplays:

◗ What things worked?

◗ What helped them become more involved?

◗ What helped them feel safe to speak?

◗ What made them feel accepted?

Trainers share anecdotes about what happened when they ran this session.

Afternoon tea break

Me And My Family program delivery - Exploring Relationships

Trainers outline the process of exploring relationships:

◗ Allow the group to reveal themselves to each other

◗ Explore ways to deepen the group’s commitment to each other

◗ Explore communication techniques and responses

◗ Discuss theories of relationships and child development

◗ Discuss Maslow’s needs hierachy

Trainees to roleplay an exercise from Session 5.

Trainers review roleplays:

◗ What things worked?

◗ What motivated them to become more involved?

◗ What helped them feel safe to ask questions or admit ignorance?

Trainers share anecdotes about what happened when they ran this session.

Trainers ask trainees what they want to cover during Day 2

Trainers conduct wind-down exercise

49


Detailed Training Outline - Day 2

Warm up

Trainers conduct ice-breaker exercise

Trainers review Day 1

Me And My Family program delivery -Theories Underpinning the Program Model

Trainers discuss:

◗ Stages of Change

◗ Schlosberg & Kagan ‘Families in Perpetual Crisis’

◗ Jenkins’ Restraint Theory & Invitational Approach

◗ Narrative approaches and valuing the client’s stories

Morning tea break

Me And My Family program marketing

Trainees identify and brainstorm solutions to difficulties or obstacles to successful

implementing the program in their agency or community

Trainees discuss marketing ideas and ways to promote the program

Lunch break

Closing the group

Trainers discuss the process of ending the Me And My Family group:

◗ Grief and loss issues

◗ What the participants got out of it

◗ Exit interview process

◗ Evaluation

◗ Roleplay the final session

Trainers review Day 1 and Day 2 of training:

◗ What things did the trainers do that worked?

◗ What did the trainees get out of it?

◗ What could be improved?

Trainees discuss their future plans for running the group

Wind down exercise

Trainers hand out training evaluation sheets

Trainers farewell trainees

50


◗ Training Workshop Evaluation Sheet - Brisbane Workshop

BRISBANE

Date:

Name:

1. Tell us about one aspect of the training that you:

enjoyed:

did not enjoy:

informed your practice:

will use in the future:

2. On a scale 1 to 10 (1 representing lousy, 10 representing excellent), how would you rate the group leaders’ performance:

demonstrating the theory

working as a team:

being clear in presenting the material

balancing the theory with practice

dealing effectively with the topics

3. Do you feel you could adopt the material to suit your own work?

NO (please explain) MAYBE YES

4. How would you improve the training?

5. Any other comments:

◗ Summary of Brisbane Workshop Feedback Forms

Q. 1: Tell us about one aspect of the training you:

Enjoyed Did not enjoy Informed your Will use in future

practice

Shared wisdom - Structure too loose Importance of Session structure

emphasis on process language outline

Sharing knowledge Wed PM session Group experience Some activities

rambled without

structure

Experiential learning Confused discussion Use of self-disclosure Greater use of

in afternoon client’s energy

Role-play - taking Process informs Specific

client’s position content micro-skills

51

Appendix 5

Appendix 6


Q.2: How would you rate (1 = lousy, 10 = excellent) the leader’s performance on:

demonstrating working as a clarity of balance theory dealingthe theory team presentation and practice effectively

with topics

Average 6.91 8.45 7.09 6.82 6.91

Q. 3: Do you feel you could adopt the material to suit your own work?

Of 12 trainees, two did not answer the question, one responded ‘Maybe’, 9 said‘Yes’, none said ‘No’.

◗ Training Needs form used in 2002 Training Workshops (Pre and Post-Workshop Measure)

Training Needs Rating Scale - Before Training

Name

Agency/Organisation:

Training Program

Session #

Facilitator(s):

Date: Thursday, 28February 2002

Please help us understand what you hope to learn in this training. Rate howconfident you are in the following areas by placing a cross (X) on the linenearest to the level that best fits your level of confidence. Marks to the leftrepresent low levels and marks to the right represent high levels.

Working with men:(ability to approach and engage men, comfort in handling their communications)

I——————————————————————————————————I

Marginalised men:(recognising different needs and values, ability to change approach to suit them)

I——————————————————————————————————I

Family relationship issues & men:(knowledge of men’s family relationship concerns and values, how to opendiscussion on these issues)

I——————————————————————————————————I

Group facilitation:(understanding group processes, balancing content and process, structure andengagement)

I——————————————————————————————————I

Appendix 7

52


Other training needs? __________________________________:(Write on the blank line above, any other area that you would like to benefit induring this workshop)

I——————————————————————————————————I

Thank you for completing this. Please hand to the facilitator at the start of thefirst break.

◗ Training Session Rating Form used in 2002 Training Workshops (End of each day measure)

Training Session Rating Scale

Name

Agency/Organisation:

Training Program

Session #

Facilitator(s):

Date: Thursday, 28February 2002

Please rate the session or workshop by placing a cross (() on the line nearest tothe description that best fits your experience.

Interest or Engagement:

I—————————————————————————————————I

Relevance:

I—————————————————————————————————I

Approach or Method:

I—————————————————————————————————I

Usefulness:

I—————————————————————————————————I

Write anything else you want us to know below:

53

Appendix 8


◗ Selected Examples of Crime Prevention Program Types Evaluated by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy (WSIPP)

Program Type US$ Benefit Per Family

Dollar Invested Component?

Multidimensional Treatment Foster Care 43.70 Yes

Multi-Systemic Therapy 28.81 Yes

Functional Family Therapy 28.34 Yes

Coordinated Services 25.59 In some cases

Other Family-Based Therapy Approaches 21.12 Yes

Adult Cognitive-Behavioural Sex Offender

Treatment (including Relapse Prevention) 4.13 No

Intensive Juvenile Supervision 4.00 No

Prison-based Drug Treatment Programs 3.87 No

Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment 3.38 No

Community-Based Substance Abuse Treatment 3.30 No

Prison Therapeutic Community

(With Community Aftercare) 2.69 No

Prison Therapeutic Community

(No Community Aftercare) 1.91 No

Juvenile Boot Camps 0.81 No

Explanatory Notes

1. The WSIPP study analysed over 400 evaluation studies of crime prevention andoffender rehabilitation programs. Programs were categorised firstly by age-stage at which the intervention occurred (early childhood, middle childhood and early adolescence, juvenile offenders and adult offenders) and then by program type as shown in this table. In this way, the programs were divided into 43 separate categories. Some ‘branded’ programs such as Functional Family Therapy and Multi-Systemic Therapy have been implemented widely and given their own category. Programs under other headings (e.g. Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment and Prison Therapeutic Community) are generic.

2. All of the programs listed above were trialled and evaluated in more than one site and implemented by teams not directly involved in the program’s development. This selection above is not comprehensive. Early and middle childhood programs have been excluded. Some adult offender programs such as Reasoning and Rehabilitation have also been excluded. These programs were not widely implemented, and unlike drug treatment and sex offender treatmentprograms do not target a specific offence.

3. All the family-oriented programs listed above were targeted at juvenile offenders or at-risk young people. There were no adult-focused programs that addressed family issues.

4. There are economic benefits associated with the prevention of crime that flow to both actual and potential victims and to taxpayers in general. Although the WSIPP study estimated the victim-related costs and benefits, the estimates in the above table are only of the benefits to taxpayers. Benefits to actual or potential victims have not been included.

5. Coordinated Services targeted juvenile offenders using a brokerage-advocacy approach, and occasionally involved the use of family support or family therapy services.

Appendix 9

54


◗ Publications and presentations made during the Jesuit Social Services Men and Family Relationships Project

“Engaging Incarcerated Young Men in a Family Relationships EnhancementProgram”. Julian McNally and Constance Jenkin. Poster presented at the 7thAnnual Congress of the International Association for Adolescent Health, Salvador,Brazil. May 10-14, 2001.

“Engaging Marginalised Men in Enhancing Family Relationships: SynthesisingTheories And Models Into Practice”, 4th National Men’s and Boys’ HealthConference, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, NSW. September 26-29,2001.

“Brett” Video, Directed, Peter Curry, Screenplay, Peter Curry & Julian McNally,Brett - Andrew Curry. Melbourne: November, 2001.

Repairing Relationships Behind Walls, Professor Tony Vinson. 5th NationalParenting Conference, University of Melbourne, Victoria. 22-23 November, 2001.

The “Me And My Family Program” and “Brett” Video, Julian McNally. 5thNational Parenting Conference, University of Melbourne, Victoria. 22-23November, 2001.

“Boys To Men”, Evening Forum on alternate pathways for boys and young meninvolved in the criminal justice system. Held at Parenting Australia, May 10, 2002.

“Doing Good Work With ‘Bad’ Men”. Training workshop at Parenting Australia,Melbourne, October 31, 2002.

55

Appendix 10


Refer-ences

References Adalist-Estrin, A. (1995). Strengthening inmate-family relationships: programsthat work. Corrections Today, 57 (7), 116-120.

Aos, S., Phipps, P., Barnoski, R. & Lieb, R. (2001). The Comparative Costs andBenefits of Programs to Reduce Crime. Washington State Institute for Public Policy:Olympia, WA.

Bank, L., Patterson, G. & Reid, J. (1987). Delinquency prevention through trainingparents in family management. The Behaviour Analyst 10, 75-82.

Beck, A., Kline, S. & Greenfeld, L. (1987). Survey of youth in custody.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Birgden, A. (2002). Therapeutic jurisprudence and ‘good lives’: A rehabilitationframework for corrections. Australian Psychologist, 37 (3), 180-186.

Birgden, A. & McLachlan, C. (2002). Reducing reoffending framework: Setting thescene. Office of the Correctional Services Commissioner (Victoria). Onlinepublication.http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/legalchannel/dojsite.nsf/dab0606eefd3be6bca256ab0003f4687/3fc71ab8334d1364ca256bf1001e55b3/$FILE/RehabPaper1.pdf

Bower, M. & Alessandrini, M. (2000). Parenting and Contact from the Inside: AGood Beginnings Project.

Brewer, M.B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the sametime. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475-482.

DeJong, P. & Berg, I. K. (1998). Interviewing for Solutions. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole Publishing.

Donovan Research, (1998). Men’s Counselling Research: Report to Attorney-General’s Department Family Services Branch. Canberra, Australia: Attorney-General’s Department.

Farrington, D. P. (1989). Early predictors of adolescent aggression and adultviolence. Violence and Victims, 4, 79-100.

Fletcher, R. (1998). Supporting men in change: Lessons from 10 years of men’shealth activity. Online publication.(http://www.law.gov.au/aghome/commaff/lafs/frsp/mensforum/people/fletcher.htm)National Forum on Men and Family Relationships, Canberra, Australia, 9-11 June,1998.

Gee, T. & Melvin, T. (1998). On the back foot: Men, relationships and accessingservices. Online publication.(http://www.law.gov.au/aghome/commaff/lafs/frsp/mensforum/people/39.htm)

Hairston, C. (1988). Family ties during imprisonment: Do they influence futurecriminal activity? Federal Probation Journal. 52, (1), 48-52. March 1988.

Harper, C. & McLanahan, S. (1998). Father absence and youth incarceration.Paper presented at the 1998 annual meetings of the American SociologicalAssociation, San Francisco, CA.

Healy, K., Foley, D. & Walsh, K. (2000). Parents in Prison and their Families:Everyone’s Business and No-One’s Concern. Brisbane, Australia: Catholic PrisonMinistry.

56


Julian McNally

57

Holt, N. & Miller, D. (1972). Explorations in Inmate-Family Relationships.Sacramento, CA: Research Division, Department of Corrections, State of California.

Jordan, P. (1998). The Effects of Marital Separation on Men - 10 Years On. Onlinepublication.(http://www.law.gov.au/aghome/commaff/lafs/frsp/mensforum/people/jordan1.htm)National Forum on Men and Family Relationships, Canberra, Australia, 9-11 June,1998.

Jorgensen, A. Santos, H. and Warren, R. (1986). Addressing the social needs offamilies of prisoners: A tool for inmate rehabilitation. Federal Probation Journal. 50,(4), 47-52, Dec. 1986.

Lykken, D. T. (1997). Factory of crime. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 261-270.

Lykken, D. T. (2001). Parental licensure. Invited address to the Annual Meeting ofthe American Psychological Association in August, 2001.

Olds, D.L. (1992). Home visitation for pregnant women and parents of youngchildren. American Journal of the Diseases of Children, 146, 704-708.

Ouimette, P.C., Finney, J.W. & Moos, R.H. (1997). Twelve-step and cognitive-behavioral treatment for substance abuse. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 65(2), 230-240.

Prochaska, J.O. & DiClemente, C.C. (1984). The Transtheoretical Approach:Crossing the Traditional Boundaries of Therapy. Homewood, IL: Dorsey/Dow Jones-Irwin.

Tohn, S.L. & Oshlag, J.A. (1996). Solution-Focused Therapy with MandatedClients: Cooperating with the Uncooperative. In Miller, S.D., Hubble, M.A. &Duncan B.L. (Eds.) Handbook of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy. San Francisco, CA:Jossey-Bass 152-183.

Toumbourou, J.W. & Gregg, M.E. (1999). Evaluation Report of Program for Parents:A National Youth Suicide Prevention Project. Parkville, Australia: Centre forAdolescent Health, Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne.

Tracy, P., Wolfgang, M. & Figlio, R. (1985). Delinquency careers in two birth cohorts.Washington DC: National Institute for Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.Department of Justice.

Tudball, N. (2000). Doing It Hard: A Study Of The Needs Of Children And FamiliesOf Prisoners In Victoria. Melbourne, Australia: Victorian Association for the Careand Resettlement of Offenders


OFFICE OF THE CORRECTIONALSERVICES COMMISSIONER

Reducing re-offending framework:

Setting the scene

PAPER NO. 1

Astrid Birgden, Manager, Rehabilitation FrameworkDr Colin McLachlan, Senior Project Officer, Rehabilitation FrameworkStrategic Planning & Program Development Team

January 2002

2

PURPOSE

The purpose of this paper to provide an overview of the framework to reduce re-offending inthe Victorian correctional system. More detailed plans regarding service delivery models andimplementation plans for specific areas concerning assessment, intervention, offendermanagement, staff training, and evaluation will be forthcoming, once developed together withproviders.

Taken into consideration is the OCSC framework for reducing offending, developments incorrectional case management, the redevelopment of Community Correctional Services,issues considered in the CORE Sex Offender Programs redevelopment project, and the prisonreconfiguration envisaged by 2004. The principles of the OCSC state that in order to protectthe community and encourage prisoners and offenders to adopt a law-abiding lifestyle, theOCSC will contain and supervise prisoners in a safe, secure and just manner, provideopportunities for rehabilitation and facilitate reparation to the community. That is, provideproper supervision and deal with offenders in a fair, open, and humane manner whileengaging in inclusive, supportive and respectful working relationships. While in Australia wehave "…arguably become the experts in the language of rehabilitation, we quite clearlyremain amateurs in the practice of rehabilitation" (Ogilvie, 2001, p 9). The aim is tocommence a service system approach to reducing re-offending with interim measures untilnew developments have been completed.

The concept of rehabilitation is considered outside the scope of this paper, as this requires awhole-of-system approach across departments. The current concern for the OCSC is toreduce re-offending with a 600 bed diversion ongoing by 2005.

BACKGROUND

In October 2001 the Expenditure Review Committee provided substantial state governmentfunding towards developing a framework to reduce re-offending. Over the past two decades,research has shown that re-offending rates can be reduced through rehabilitation of offendersrather than punishment alone. The increased funding indicates a shift in accordance withcontemporary correctional policy. However, there is no single, definitive approach toreducing re-offending and therefore a multi-disciplinary and multi-agency systemic approachis required.

PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING REDUCING RE-OFFENDING

Service System Approach

Rehabilitation within the correctional system necessitates an interaction between law andpsychology. The law provides the opportunity to harness the "therapeutic moment" when theoffender is in crisis before the criminal justice system. The way in which the correctionalsystem responds may increase offender resistance to change offending behaviour or increaseoffender determination to change offending behaviour. Reducing re-offending requires asystemic approach that maximises the therapeutic effects of the law and minimises the anti-therapeutic consequences of the law (Wexler, 2000). This needs to be an interdisciplinary

3

endeavour that involves members of the judiciary, mental health professionals andcorrectional staff. Rather than using the law as a stick-and-carrot approach to coerceoffenders into programs, legal and correctional staff should harness the law to providerespectful external motivation for offenders to participate. This approach should occur fromconviction at court to completion of sentence. The result will increase the likelihood thatoffenders are making informed decisions about participating in offending behaviour programsand so increase the likelihood that they will attempt behaviour change

A reducing re-offending framework should have the dual goals of offender risk managementand increased offender capabilities (Ward & Stewart, in press). Offence-specific and offence-related programs have a rehabilitative goal of risk management (i.e. rehabilitating offenders toavoid harm to the community). Thus, offence-specific programs that address criminogenicneeds include sexual, violence, and drug and alcohol-related offending. The OCSC willdevelop a service delivery model to address these areas. Offence-related programs addressareas also related to offending in some instances such as problem solving, family support,harm from drug use, and accommodation, education and employment. The OCSC willaddress these areas by supporting pre- and post-release for prisoners and community-basedsupport for offenders through the expansion of Community Correctional Services, Bridgingthe Gap and the development of Community Transitional Units. At the same time,interventions that meet noncriminogenic needs such as anxiety, low self-esteem andpsychological distress are also required to motivate offenders to change offending behaviour.Such interventions have a rehabilitative goal of enhancing capabilities (i.e. improving qualityof life and so reducing the likelihood of offenders harming themselves and others). This needwill be partially met through the offender management system outlined below. In addition, aconsistent system of sentence management is required to underpin the framework. Again, amultidisciplinary and multi-agency approach is required.

Service Delivery

Recidivism in offenders can be reduced by 10% and up to 50% through offence-specificprograms that meet particular criteria. From the “what works” literature, 12 principles willunderpin the reducing re-offending framework (Andrews, 1995; McGuire & Priestley, 1995):

1. Classify risk: The higher the risk classification, the greater the likelihood of re-offending. More intensive programs target higher risk offenders (offence-specificprograms) while minimal intervention target lower risk offenders (offence-relatedprograms).

2. Meet criminogenic needs: Characteristics associated with a reduction in re-offending aretargeted through offence-specific and offence-related programs to manage offender risk.Non-criminogenic needs will also be addressed to enhance offender capabilities.

3. Match learning styles: Effective programs meet the needs of offenders. Active,participatory learning techniques provide a match between the learning style ofoffenders and staff. Standardised risk and need assessments and interventions should beapplied in an individualised way to the offender.

4. Increase motivation: Lack of motivation can be a criminogenic need and should be thetarget of intervention rather than used to exclude offenders from programs.

4

5. Deliver "smart" punishment : Punishment alone, without developing pro-social skills toaddress offending behaviour, is ineffective.

6. Emphasise community: Programs based in the community are more effective becausenew skills learned can be immediately applied. However, prison-based programs canalso be effective if adequate reintegration into the community occur.

7. Use effective treatment methods: The most effective programs address a variety ofproblem areas (multimodal methods), are skills-oriented (teach coping skills) and usecognitive-behavioural methods (address thoughts, feelings and behaviour).

8. Encourage responsibility-taking: Offenders demonstrate accountability for behaviourand increase victim awareness.

9. Use sound methodology: A scientific, rational and empirical approach to research,development and service delivery is used.

10. Maintain program integrity: The stated aims are linked to the methods being used andadequate resources and trained staff are available. Program monitoring and evaluationsystematically occurs.

11. Apply professional discretion: In addition to standardised methods, decision-makersmust also respond to moral, ethical, economic and legal considerations i.e. makenormative judgements.

12. Adequate program development and implementation: Effective consultation andorganisational cultural change is crucial.

SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL

In order to set the scene for reducing re-offending in Victoria, the process of matchingoffenders to programs should focus on three principles- classifying risk, meeting criminogenicneed and matching learning styles. The need assessment determines the problem areas to beaddressed and the risk assessment the level of intervention intensity required. Matchinglearning styles of offenders means that programs need to be developed for offenders who tendto be concrete thinkers and with low verbal skills. Most importantly, a correctionalenvironment conducive to program delivery is required in order to increase motivation tochange offending behaviour.

Target Group

The target group for the rehabilitation framework are those offenders with moderate to highrisk/needs in the area of sexual, violent, and drug and alcohol related offending. Within thecorrectional system, drug and alcohol treatment should also address criminogenic needs and itis unclear to what extent this is currently occurring. Although all sentenced offenders will beassessed, those receiving sentences of six months or less will be precluded from participationin offence-specific programs as experience indicates that they cannot complete all requiredprograms. Repeat offenders on short sentences who have previously been assessed are morelikely to receive a program upon re-conviction if the subsequent sentence allows the length oftime required. An estimation of the throughput of offenders in the moderate to high risk/need

5

categories has been calculated for sex offenders but is required for violent offenders and drugand alcohol related offenders in order to determine resource requirements.

The target group will also need to include offenders with special needs such as intellectualdisability, mental illness, acquired brain injury, severe personality disorder, sensoryimpairment and so on. The throughput of offenders with special needs will need to bedetermined and offence-specific programs adapted accordingly. Programs will also need tobe designed for female offenders and adapted to address cultural issues. In addition, it willneed to be determined how specialist services will be delivered to CCS offenders in remotelocations. On occasion, service delivery will need to be provided on an individual basis tospecial needs offenders and those in remote locations.

Assessment

Assessment is a dynamic process that evaluates the offender throughout sentence anddetermines the timing, focus, format and content of intervention. Actuarial (or statistical)assessment tools together with structured clinical judgement are considered most accurate indetermining risk. Research has found that the clinical judgement alone by psychologists,psychiatrists, social workers, correctional staff or parole board members is less reliable.However, there are still limitations to actuarial assessments so clinical judgement mayadditionally be required to inform the result.

Tier 1: Risk and need assessment screen

The development of a Victorian correctional risk and need assessment tool has commencedand is due to be completed by 2003. The developed tool will be administered to prisoners bySentence Management Unit staff and to offenders by Community Corrections Officers.CORE conducted a review need risk/need assessment tools. As a result, a brief screeningversion of an established tool developed in Canada (LSI-R: SV) will be administered by thesecorrectional staff as an interim measure.

The need and risk assessment currently being developed by the OCSC will initially assess forrisk level and indicators of need. The resulting Offender Management Plan will include (1)an assessment of risk level, (2) offence-specific and offence-related needs, (3) readiness-to-change in terms of motivation to engage in programs, (4) risk of self-harm, (5) any specialneeds, and (6) an initial Exit Plan for prisoners focussed on needs upon release. Securityclassification for prisoners will be included and impact on community safety in relation tosentence compliance for offenders determined.

Tier 2: Detailed risk and need assessment

Those offenders who are deemed moderate or high risk/need will complete a cognitive skillsprogram. Clinicians will then administer a more detailed risk and need assessment prior toentry into offence-specific programs. This Clinical Assessment will be tailored to the type ofoffence (sex, violent or drug and alcohol related offending) and provide an individualised caseformulation i.e. hypotheses about why the offences may have occurred and what problemareas need to be addressed. These problem areas are those criminogenic needs that are mostlikely to reduce offending. Specific detailed assessments are required to be tailored accordingto offence type.

6

The Clinical Assessment will be re-administered by the clinician after completion of offence-specific programs in order to determine whether there has been an impact on dynamic riskfactors and identified problem areas. This information will also inform the ongoingevaluation of offence-specific programs. The Completion Report will include anindividualised Relapse Prevention Plan for correctional staff to manage together with theoffender. The format of the Relapse Prevention Plan should be consistent for all offence-specific programs across prisons and community correctional services to ensure thatCommunity Corrections Officers can adequately manage offenders in the community. Forprisoners, the initial Exit Plan should be reviewed 6-12 weeks prior to release to preventproblems from compounding upon release.

In summary, the process for assessment throughout sentence will be as follows:1. Initial assessment by correctional staff including an Exit Plan for prisoners ? Offender

Management Plan.2. Pre-intervention assessment by clinician ? Clinical Assessment Report.3. Post-intervention assessment by clinician ? Completion Report including a Relapse

Prevention Plan.4. For prisoners, a report by community corrections staff to the Adult Parole Board taking

the Completion Report into consideration and providing an updated Exit Plan for release? Parole Officer Assessment Report.

Currently, the CORE Sex Offender Programs and Caraniche Drug and Alcohol Services haveboth developed a risk and need assessment process. These assessments should continue in theinterim. A clinical assessment process will need to be developed for violent offenders.

Intervention

Intervention will primarily be based on a group therapy model using cognitive-behaviouraltechniques and activity-based learning. The OCSC, in consultation with providers, willdetermine the most effective offence-specific programs and then monitor their delivery toensure program integrity. In this way, a coordinated service system approach can bedeveloped within a seamless continuum of care model.

The ERC partially funded the requirements for offence-specific programs. The ERC arguedthat as there was little evidence of effectiveness for current offending behaviour programs inVictoria, funding from existing programs should be reallocated. That is, offence-specificprograms currently being developed will replace existing programs.

Based upon the Tier 1 initial risk and need assessment, an Offender Management Plan willrecommend offence-specific programs for those offenders identified as moderate or highrisk/need. However, those offenders identified as low risk/need will still require offence-related programs that enhance offender capabilities (e.g. appropriate family and personalrelationships, education, vocation, leisure and other everyday living skills.). The exception tothis will be sexual offenders who, even if considered low risk/need, will still require offendermanagement with a risk management plan as each re-offence potentially has major impact.

1. Cognitive skills programs

Cognitive skills programs teach problem-solving, self-control, moral reasoning andsocial skills. They are foundational programs and so are necessary pre-requisites to

7

moderate and high intensity programs. Therefore, this program should be completedearly in sentence. This will also assist in offenders on longer sentences resolvingpotential conflict situations in prison. Cognitive skills programs need to be available insome Community Correctional Services locations, and maximum and medium securityprisons at the beginning of sentence.

At present, the OCSC is recommending the Problem Solving Training and OffenceBehaviour (PST&OB) program by McGuire. The Cognitive Skills Program is basedupon rehabilitation principles, targets criminogenic need, has a standardised manual, hasbeen evaluated as effective in the UK and is cost effective. CORE has recently pilotedthe program in a prison and community correctional setting. Further planned deliveryincludes the outcomes of the CORE evaluation, for example, increasing the sample size,addressing process issues and selecting more targeted measures of change. TheCognitive Skills Program is expected to replace a suite of current programs that addressanger management, conflict resolution, problem solving, stress management, victimawareness or empathy, and so on. This will provide the opportunity for consistentpreparation of offenders for offence-specific programs and allow ongoing monitoringand evaluation. The Cognitive Skills Program needs to be co-facilitated by at least oneinternally-employed practitioner competent in cognitive-behavioural intervention and aco-facilitator who may be a programs staff member, correctional officer or externalprovider. In prisons, correctional staff should be present in group sessions so that skillslearned can be reinforced in the unit. An Implementation Plan for service delivery,evaluation and monitoring will be developed together with the appropriate providers.

2. Moderate and high intensity programs

Moderate and high intensity programs are required in the areas funded by governmenti.e. sexual, violent, and drug and alcohol related offending. The international standardfor dose (number of sessions) for varying intensity of programs has been determined forsex offenders, but is required for violence and drug and alcohol related offences.

In prisons, offence-specific programs need to be delivered towards the end of sentenceso that the offender can prepare a Relapse Prevention Plan for release. This modelmeans that long sentenced prisoners (10 years+) require a continuous low dosePreparation Program to maintain motivation to change.

Offence-specific programs require staff skilled in clinical assessment, case formulation,groupwork, cognitive-behavioural method and activity-based learning. As outlinedabove, adaptations will need to be made for offenders with special needs. Groups needto be co-facilitated by professionals competent in cognitive-behavioural intervention.Groups may be co-facilitated by internally-employed staff or by external providers withparticular expertise.

Until the prison system re-configuration is determined, it is recommended that moderateand high intensity sexual, violence and drug and alcohol related offender programscontinue to be provided in CORE prisons as well as drug treatment in Fulham Prison. InCommunity Correctional Services, sex offender programs already exist but locationswhere other moderate and high intensity programs can be delivered should benominated and these programs made available to offenders from other locations.

8

3. Maintaining change programs

Because of the importance of generalising new skills from a prison setting, maintainingchange after offence-specific intervention while in prison awaiting release and whenreleased into the community is of paramount importance. Currently, CORE providesMaintaining Change Programs to treated parolees who are sex offenders in thecommunity. However, such programs have not been previously available to violentoffenders, or drug and alcohol related offenders either within prison or the community.

Maintaining Change Programs should be co-facilitated by clinicians and correctionalstaff and should aim to ensure that the Relapse Prevention Plan has successfully adaptedto the “real world”. At least one of the co-facilitators should be known to prisoners toimprove the generalisation of skills upon release. The most crucial time regarding re-offending is upon release from prison and so parolees should be allocated toMaintaining Change Programs as soon as possible after release.

Interagency cooperation is vital for maintaining change in offenders and so coordinatedservice delivery approaches and protocols need to be developed between CommunityCorrectional Services and both government and non-government agencies. Prisonersshould be referred to pre- and post-release transitional programs where a moderate orhigh risk/need is identified and eligibility criteria are met. Victorian Adult Parole Boardsupport for the reducing re-offending framework for all offenders is required.

Offender Management

An environment conducive to rehabilitation is required to maximise the therapeutic effects ofthe law. That is, effective correctional programming is supported by staff who relate tooffenders in clear, open and enthusiastic ways; have a firm but fair stance; demonstrate andreinforce pro-social behaviours; and assist in concrete problem-solving. The goal ofdifferentiated case management as outlined by Dunne (2000) is the timely, just and effectivemanagement of offenders consistent with risk and need. In essence, it is a logical extension ofthe concept of unit management within prisons. The reducing re-offending framework reliesupon effective management of all offenders by correctional staff to maximise opportunities tochange behaviour. There are methods all correctional staff can use to increase and maintainmotivation to engage in rehabilitation. Additional assistance in harnessing the law can beobtained through clear direction regarding expectations to participate by the courts and, forprisoners, by the Victorian Adult Parole Board.

Moderate and high risk/need offenders require more intensive case management. This goesbeyond managing the file administratively and includes careful psychological management ofthe offender. Correctional staff working with the offender on a daily basis (Contact orPersonal Officers) require skills in motivational interviewing techniques with these clients.The motivational techniques are targeted according to the readiness-of-change stage theoffender is at. The initial stages where the offender may move towards contemplating changerequire supportive and persuasive techniques by staff. Once the offender ready to engage inchange, clinicians provide cognitive-behavioural and activity-based intervention. For fiveyears, the CORE Sex Offender Programs has successfully trained Community CorrectionsOfficers in the concepts of readiness-to-change and motivational interviewing for the effectivemanagement of sex offenders. An Offender Management System will be developed further in

9

conjunction with providers. See the attached diagram of a proposed offender managementsystem.

Most importantly, effective offender management is based on values, attitudes and principlesheld by staff that are conducive to encouraging behaviour change. The principles and valuesof the OCSC include dealing with offenders and prisoners in a fair, open and humane manner.However, correctional staff bring to the workplace their own values and attitudes aboutoffending behaviour that impact upon offender management practice. For example, personalviews supporting abstinence hinder a harm minimisation approach to drug management.Increasing awareness of values and behaviour in correctional staff requires activity-basedtraining that provides real-life grasp of complex everyday situations. This form of training isstaff-driven and operationalises rehabilitation principles, converts them to situations that staffare likely to experience daily and provides insight into offender thoughts, feelings andbehaviour. Activity-based training addressing values and principles has been effective inprisons both in Victoria and on an international basis. It is particularly appropriate as asystem change agent. Without addressing underlying principles regarding the goals ofreducing re-offending, any offender management system will flounder.

In the ERC bid, the differentiated case management system was not funded as individual casemanagement was seen as a current requirement for all prisoners. Since then, a fundingtransfer has been approved to commence the implementation of the risk and needs assessmentprocess. It is recommended that the process commence with staff training in offendermanagement; an integral part of the differentiated case management system.

STAFF TRAINING

Staff training and support is required in values and principles, offender management, risk andneed assessment, and groupwork. Correctional staff in prison and community locationsproviding cognitive skills programs, offence-specific programs and the Offender ManagementSystem should initially be targeted. These locations are yet to be determined together withproviders.

1. Values and principles

In order to set the scene for reducing re-offending in the Victorian correctional system,training in underlying values and principles regarding rehabilitation is required inprisons and community corrections. In December 2001, senior management of theVictorian correctional system were exposed to the concept of "Ethics in Action"training.

2. Offender management

Offender management skills include understanding the differentiated case managementsystem, implementing the Offender Management Plan, identifying the readiness-to-change stage the offender is experiencing, and using the appropriate motivationalinterviewing techniques. Training of Contact or Personal Officers is required.Competency-based training of Offender Management Supervisors to monitor andmentor Contact or Personal Officers is also required.

10

3. Risk and need assessment

Training of Community Corrections Officers assessing offenders at court, and SentenceManagement Unit staff assessing prisoners upon sentencing is required. These staff areto be competent in assessing risk and need, determining readiness-to-change, usingmotivational interviewing techniques and developing clear Offender Management Plans.In addition the judiciary- judges, magistrates and the Victorian Adult Parole Board-require information sessions regarding the rationale for differentiated case managementand the role of motivational interviewing. Such information sessions should beprovided in conjunction with Community Correctional Services.

2. Offence-specific programs

Training of clinicians and correctional staff who will become group co-facilitators isrequired in group process work and the use of activity-based learning to meet offenderlearning styles. In turn, correctional staff should either observe offence-specific groupsor at least be provided information regularly by group facilitators in order to reinforceskills learned with offenders in prison units and in the community.

EVALUATION

The offence-specific programs require evaluation. According to Dunne (2000) evaluationshould take the following format:

1. Process evaluation

This form of evaluation determines whether the strategy or offence-specific program isrunning in accordance with the aims, method, procedures and design. The OCSC, inconsultation with stakeholders, experts and a Steering Committee, will determine whichprograms best meet the rehabilitation principles and international best practiceguidelines. The delivery of the identified programs will then be monitored for programintegrity by the OCSC against objective, observable and measurable performanceindicators. Process evaluation will also examine any management issues inimplementing the programs that might have effected program outcomes.

2. Outcome or impact evaluation

This form of evaluation demonstrates the effectiveness of offence-specific programs inreducing offending behaviour. The quality and quantity performance measures includedata about: (1) how much was done, (2) how well it was done, (3) how much effort wasrequired and (4) what were the results. This form of evaluation can be assisted byexternal research and evaluation organisations.

3. Program standards and accreditation

The OCSC will provide standards and specification regarding assessment, interventionand management of offenders to ensure a consistent service system approach. Thesestandards will then be used to guide the development of service delivery models andimplementation plans between the OCSC and providers. The agreed upon model willrequire approval by the Commissioner. Once implementation is underway with the

11

relevant providers, the OCSC will monitor the project. Ideally a network for programimprovement through an accreditation panel representing the correctional system ineach state in Australia should be developed.

COMMUNICATION STRATEGY

The OCSC Executive and providers have endorsed this document. It will be disseminated toproviders and stakeholders for information.

Offenders will also need to have an understanding of the differentiated case managementsystem and so a suitable communication strategy will need to be devised. In addition offenderadvocates such as the Ombudsman, Equal Opportunity Commission, Legal Aid, chaplains andso on will need to be informed of the strategy.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Paper No. 1 has broadly outlined the method to set the scene for reducing re-offending,particularly in relation to offence-specific programs. Proposed interim and future strategiesfor offender assessment, intervention and management have been outlined. The OCSCExecutive and providers in the Victorian correctional system have endorsed the frameworkfor dissemination.

More detailed service delivery models and implementation plans will be developed togetherwith providers in relation to risk/need assessment, offence-specific program delivery, stafftraining and support, and research and evaluation. A Steering Committee representingproviders will endorse each phase of the service delivery model as it develops prior toapproval by the Commissioner. An Expert Advisory Group will provide independent adviceon the standards for each project. Staff nominated by providers will develop WorkingGroups to assist in the development of service delivery models and implementation plans foreach project.

For further information and queries please contact:

Astrid BirgdenManager/Forensic PsychologistOCSC Rehabilitation [email protected] (03) 9627 6600

12

REFERENCES

Andrews, D. A. (1995). The psychology of criminal conduct and effective treatment. In J.McGuire (Ed). What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines for research and practice(pp. 35-62). John Wiley & Sons: UK.

Birgden, A. & Langthaler, L. (Sept 2001). CORE Sex Offender Programs RedevelopmentProject.

Dunne, F. (Sept 2000). A framework for reducing offending: Differentiated Case Management(DCM) in Victorian Corrections.

McGuire, J. & Priestley, P. (1995). Reviewing “What Works”: Past, present and future. InJ. McGuire (Ed). What works: Reducing reoffending: Guidelines for research andpractice (pp. 3-34). John Wiley & Sons: UK.

Olgilvie. E. (2001). Post-release: The current predicament and the potential strategies.Criminology Research Council, 5-13.

OCSC. Correctional Case Management in Victoria: Draft Framework, Version 4 (July 2001).

OCSC. Prison Reconfiguration Workshop (September 2001).

Ward, T. & Stewart, C. (in press). Criminogenic needs and human needs: A theoretical model.Psychology, Crime& Law.

Wexler, D. B. (2001). Therapeutic jurisprudence: An overview. Thomas M. Colley LawReview, 17(1), 125-134.

For more information on therapeutic jurisprudence: www.law.arizona.edu/upr.intj

www.law.arizona.edu/upr.intj

13

Reducing Re-offending Framework

Readiness to Change

MaintainingChange

OffenderManagement

MotivationalIntervention

Risk & NeedAssessment

OFFENDERMANAGEMENT

ETHICS IN ACTIONConducive Rehabilitation Climate

Maintenance

Action

Preparation

Contemplation

Pre-contemplation

Offence-SpecificPrograms

Moderate-HighRisk & Need

LowRisk & Need

File Offender

{Therapeutic Jurisprudence}

Offence-Related

Programs

men and family relationships project - jesuit social...

Documents