Page 952 - Week 03 - Thursday, 23 March 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
effect locked them up and that, once released, beyond maintaining any mandatory reporting because of continuing parole conditions, would not meaningfully engage with it, given that it was led by Corrective Services. It is, I believe, a testament to both the skill and the dedication of our Corrective Services team that this program, which is totally voluntary, has had near full take-up from what can be quite a difficult to engage cohort.
The Social Policy Research Centre based at the University of New South Wales was engaged in June 2015 to undertake an evaluation of the pilot program. The centre defined the overarching evaluation questions as:
What impact has extending Throughcare had on the client group …
What are the costs and benefits to the justice system from extending Throughcare from custody to the community …
How effective is the service delivery model …
I am pleased to say that the simple answer to all of these questions is positive, but I would like to provide the Assembly with a bit more background today.
The evaluation used both a qualitative and quantitative research approach. The study group sample consisted of 616 program clients. Whilst it was initially envisaged that a control group would consist of individuals who chose not to enter post-release support, given that participation is voluntary, there were too few individuals identified who did not participate in the program and therefore an insufficient sample size. As I said, this is in itself quite extraordinary and shows the popularity of the program. An alternative control group based on the through-care clients that had also been incarcerated during the three-year period prior to the commencement of extended through care, consisting of 314 individuals, was used instead.
The evaluation concludes that the program has been very effective in terms of outcomes across both the qualitative and quantitative components of the evaluation. Qualitatively, several interview participants mentioned the value of simply being able to talk to through-care unit and service providers when they needed to. Here is an example of a quote from a participant:
They helped me with furniture, bed, food … which is all good and well but when it came to me being down and out I couldn’t talk to anyone and tell them I feel like crap. And it took me a while to be able to do that, and I rang the Throughcare worker and we’d catch up and have a coffee, and I thought, ‘This guy’s fair dinkum, he actually cares.’
The UNSW report suggests that, in relation to program impact, the rate of clients returning to custody has reduced and those who do return to custody are, on average, remaining in the community for longer periods of time. This is good news for clients, obviously, but it is also good news for the community. We are seeing reduced crime almost across the board in Canberra, and we are making serious headway on reducing reoffending. There is a clear link here.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video