Appendix i
Salisbury Street Foundation
By Murray Cree
NZ Prison Aftercare:The Christchurch Experiment (1979-1984)
AbstractIntroductionPrison aftercare remains an historical debate of equity within penal policy frameworks in Aotearoa New Zealand. Inside Te Waipounamu (the South Island), Waitaha describes the Canterbury region; an exemplar territory covering large land areas, a small population and prison beds with poorly supported prisoner recovery services. In the 1970s the Canterbury regional probation and psychological services in Aotearoa New Zealand trialled prison therapy insight groups to reduce recidivism. Inmate participant cohorts highlighted a deeper post-release challenge; poorly structured social support for departing offenders seeking to change old behaviours. A credible community program of social reintegration did not exist in Canterbury!
MethodsThe author created the Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) method of adult action-learning research (1979-1984) to address issues facing ex- prisoners released into the Canterbury community.
Four social research instruments underpinned the PAP: 1. Survey impact research into community government funding processes 2. Project deployment analysis of Justice Department resources3. Network testing of community stakeholders4. Engagement testing with community welfare agency networks Three years funding was provided personally to the author by the NZ Lotteries Control Board.
FindingsHistorically, local prison aftercare services were inadequate. Government funding pathways established this ineffectiveness. Christchurch prison community welfare links (including Methodism) were poorly organised. Negative ex-prisoner feedback proved reliable.
ConclusionsThe PAP learning intervention was successful. PAP aftercare solutions continue today after 41 years sustainable operation.
KeywordsPrison Aftercare Project; Christchurch exemplar; Salisbury Street Foundation; Prisoner Action learning; De Lancey Street model (250 words)
IntroductionPrison aftercare remains a major issue of equity contention, especially within the penal policy frameworks of Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Waipounamu (the nation’s South Island) has been an exemplar geosophical territory covering large land areas with a relatively small population of less than 25 per cent of the nation’s total. Also, Te Waipounamu distinctly reflects Pākehā, (primarily English), colonial dominance of local Māori through socioeconomic instruments like land ownership, economic systems control, and profit harvesting of the lands of Ngai Tahu who remain the resident iwi or tribe (Eldred-Grigg, 1980). Historically, there are some imprisonment contraindications, that is, those occasional times when Māori kept non-Māori as their prisoners: the Pākehā slave phenomenon.But the more compelling evidence from Waitaha Te Waipounamu , over 150 years, reflected the power of the Pākehā farmers from England over local Māori .Furthermore, even in 2019, the nation’s corrections statistics showed that nationally Māori represented a disproportionate 51.8% of male inmates, an enduring pattern of inequity. Equity issues have applied to most prison inmate statistical assessments in Aotearoa New Zealand. These encompass gender numbers, Māori over-representation and socio-economic status levels.In the colonial history of Aotearoa New Zealand, one modern response to prison care and aftercare has been to enlist social workers via the occupational designations of Probation and Parole Officers. In these government employment positions, social workers played a major deviance or quasi-softening role in the area of criminal justice practice through their official sworn positions as officers of the courts with their own narrow powers of intervention and arrest.
In the 1970s Justice Department personnel from the Waitaha( Canterbury) regional probation and psychological services operated limited prison insight therapy groups in the hope of reducing crime and recidivism. However, in these therapy groups participants identified a deeper post-release challenge, that is, poor external support for offenders seeking to end their ‘old’ behaviours and depart from their past peer networks. A credible community program of social reintegration simply did not exist for example in the broad criminal justice geographical region of Canterbury-Westland. Seen another way, prisoners did not fit the societal mould of the day, that is, the ‘landed gentry’ of the local region
On release into the city of Christchurch prisoners faced bleak social integration opportunities beyond self-survival. The reality of this bleak picture facing released prisoners became evident through PAP foundation research into prisoner support services (see Fig1.), a disaggregated array of local structures. Survey research showed that most local community health and human service agencies accepted central government funding for prisoner services that they did not subsequently provide. Historical research indicated a diaggregated patchwork of government services, (PARS) that did not include Waitaha in the 1960-70s era.
Some issues were not just matters of individual fault. Other research evidence has highlighted structural perceptions and experiences of racism as part of the Māori dilemma when it came to societal support. Christchurch amplified this lived experience of social deviance. Christchurch and Canterbury had a reputation for being structurally discriminatory as the Waitangi Tribunal (Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi) subsequently ruled. It found “unconscionable” conduct had been structurally practiced by Pākehā against the resident Māori.
In prison aftercare terms Māori were therefore significant as persons of need. Their own community support systems were not evident at the time of the key PAP research.
Subsequent research has shown hearing loss to be a major problem in Aotearoa New Zealand prisons that faced offenders throughout their respective encounters with the prison system (Stephens, 2019). Many of these hearing problems are likely also to have impacted the cohort of Waitaha (Canterbury) prisoners who were in the scope of this PAP research project, especially in their earlier days while inside schooling systems. Insight therapy in prisons had little prospect, under these conditions therefore, of addressing congenital, structural human problems like hearing deficits.
Development and completion in Waitaha (Canterbury of the Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) took the author 5 years (1979-1984) of intensive participant-observation research. The PAP hosted the shopfront story of a new agency, the Salisbury Street Foundation (SSF). The structural integrity of the PAP drew the attention and support of influential justice system figures like Sir John Robertson and Justice Sir Desmond Sullivan.
Community development
Research progress within the PAP was slow as is typical of the Community Development methodology. In this research, the evaluation focus was on the criminal justice equivalent of a prisoner Community of Interest. Questions arose as to who actually helped prisoners and their social networks? How? Where? When?
Further, this prison aftercare research venture depended heavily on joint funding support from the National Lotteries Board of Control, the Christchurch Methodist Mission, professional supporters, volunteers, and the donated time of the author. Additional resourcing support came from the Aotearoa Department of Justice, and the Social Work Department of Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha, the University of Canterbury. Each stakeholder expressed interest in development of the broader regional community of Interest of released prisoners.
Engagement with local human services agencies was a key part of the Action-Learning methodology of this project. Over its duration, the PAP engaged with a spectrum of agencies ranging from regional government welfare departments across to the regional policing networks and multiple voluntary agencies that were servicing the local community’s social and criminal justice concerns.
In addition, PAP engagement came from regular observation visits via representatives of the then Prime Minister’s social services thinktank. Overall, engagement with the PAP research venture was collaborative in most instances. The PAP intervention drew interest rather than opposition.
An important feature of the Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) after 5 years operation, has been its sponsorship from individuals in the roles of supporters and mentors. Without the time and efforts of these individuals the research of the PAP would not have succeeded. Time and efforts of these sponsors ranged from frontline support interventions like the sewing of new curtains for all rooms in the new SSF premises provided by Sharon Hinds and Sue Abernethy through to participant policy and group learning sessions professionally facilitated by David Robinson and Geoff Samuels. Other support activities occurred in the background, often in policy-making contexts involving solicitor Carolyn Risk, Dame Ann Hercus, Sir John Robertson, Sir Maurice Casey, and Sir Desmond Sullivan.
Key individual research supporters known to the PAP have been Sharon Hinds, Miriam Suckling, Anni Watkins, Jacquie Hoffman, Lorna and Ralph Anker, Rev. Wilf Falkingham, Dr Dugald McDonald, Steve McLoy, Richard Palmer, David Robinson, Carolyn Risk, Dr David Riley, Supt. Fleur Grenfell (Corrections), Supt. Humphrey Stroud (Corrections), Sir Desmond Sullivan, Rev. John Roberts, Sir John Robertson, David Leech, Geoffrey Samuels, Supt. John Jamieson (NZPolice), Graham McFelin, Sue Abernethy, Kevin Butson, Keith Hinds, Judith Peterson, David Caygill, Rt. Hon. Sir Maurice Casey and Dame Ann Hercus. Women were key supporters of the PAP research success story.
Evidence based research was a fundamental driver of this action-learning prison aftercare experiment. The primary research was in the southern island city of Christchurch. It followed the phased methodology outlined below:
Welfare agency survey (project research phase 1)The first formal source of Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) evidence was informal discussion among Christchurch (Ōtautahi) welfare service networks where the problem was identified but without evidence of an obvious remedy of targetted help or support aftercare pathways for prisoners at the time of their release. Comments were made about the local Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS). They were largely negative with respect to the extent or quality of service delivered, or indeed the help offered. Engagement with the then Field Officer, Gordon Shakespeare, drew particularly negative criticism from a significant range of prison aftercare stakeholders.
As the picture of inadequate prison aftercare began to unfold, the justification for a formal action-learning research project in Christchurch (Ōtautahi) began to unfold. A viable research design was prepared by the author and submitted to the Aotearoa New Zealand Lotteries Board of Control. It succeeded. The first research step was a proposed survey of funded welfare agencies. The PAP proposal had the benefit and credentialism of the author’s prior work experience as a Probation and Parole Officer and as a past elected executive of the national professional association of probation officers.
Phase 1The survey followed the methodology of a 20-item written questionnaire distributed by hand or through postal mail. Agencies were selected using a snowball method of selection. The completion rate was approximately 80% of the 120 agencies contacted. Most were willing respondents. Often, these agencies did not value the importance of their responses as prison aftercare was not a priority service in their worldview.
Analysis of the responses was conducted by two psychology graduates looking for work under the Aotearoa New Zealand Department of Labour work programs. This analysis was conducted in the computer laboratories of Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha, the University of Canterbury.
Additional endorsement for the PAP came from a key figure in the Christchurch Probation Service and a strong supporter of community aftercare for released prisoners, David Robinson. He had been a facilitator of in-prison therapy groups. He too had heard the stories of poor service from PARS and its Field Officer. He knew of the survey research results well before they were formally accepted for publication.
Robinson learned about a San Francisco self-help program known as the De Lancey Street Foundation. There were discussions between him and a former inmate, David Hall, who wanted to see the trialling of a local version of this USA model. The Methodist religious denomination in Ōtautahi had a strong social service commitment to helping prison inmates. The Methodists leased a house to Robinson and his supporters as a residential aftercare opportunity. The house was in the inner city and its location was 237 Salisbury Street In Ōtautahi.
Salisbury Street offered the base for the newly formed action-learning program known as the Salisbury Street Foundation (SSF). Although small with initial occupancy numbers of just five persons, SSF became the centre of attention for a range of supportive sponsors. At the time the author was assigned to work part-time as a participant observer with the SSF while still an employee of the Christchurch Methodist Central Mission (CMM).
Reflection was another key part of the action learning development process for the new SSF organisation. There was frequent intense discussion about how the new model could operate successfully. It was not an easy process of interaction. There was much internal conflict as participants settled into a viable model of activities and relationships without dependence on the manifest authority of Probation Officers or Prison Officers.
Organisational analysis (project research phase 2)
Organisational research was the second phase of the PAP research strategy. It was based on the results of the prior mentioned survey of the Christchurch (Ōtautahi) network of welfare agencies. It was also based on evaluation of the regional policy structure of the Canterbury penal system, that is, four prisons (one female and three male institutions) all within reasonable distance from the metropolitan courts of the city Ōtautahi (Christchurch). The organisational research included investigation of any regional infrastructure components of a system of prison aftercare.
The evaluation phase of the organisational research confirmed that Canterbury was an appropriately cohesive geopolitical region in which to locate the research even though, over time, the region had changed due to population expansion and tourism development. Through these development processes Canterbury had built an image of being progressive and tolerant of change. Few questions were asked of prison aftercare as they were not considered germane to the economy of the region. The then Secretary for Justice, Sir John Robertson, acted as a key sponsor for this organisational phase of the PAP research. He arranged for SSF to rent residential premises from his department in the affluent suburb of St Albans in Ōtautahi. The rental arrangement that was negotiated with the then SSF Board of Management cost a peppercorn rental for the first five years with a further peppercorn rental extension option for another 5 years. Sir John Robertson saw the potential of this innovative SSF organisational concept. He wished to test the improvement of prison aftercare services and policies in Aotearoa New Zealand.
During the five years of the PAP research, women as well as men were selected to reside in the St Albans operations of SSF. The author’s evidence therefore wholly contradicts subsequent public reports by the management of SSF that from its outset in 1979, SSF only provided community re-entry opportunities for men. Women had definite participant membership and volunteer leadership roles in the PAP research days of SSF St Albans during 1979-1984.
Negotiations were extensive in the development of this partnership relationship between government, church and not for profit stakeholders). Intricate matters had to be negotiated carefully to maintain community and neighbourhood trust, sometimes between competing interest groups. Local media, in the form of television, radio and newspaper outlets, provided opportunities and media contacts were extremely valuable in this process of keeping the wider community informed of the need for improvements in prison aftercare. Previously, the community had been uninformed of the prison aftercare needs of the Canterbury region. and prisoners were in effect abandoned at the prison gate.
Partnership was an important component of national government policy in this period of social policy evolution as Margaret Tennant (2007) recorded in her historical analysis of welfare services in Aotearoa New Zealand. In this field of prison aftercare there was policy tension between central government in Wellington and regional areas like Canterbury. Previous attempts had been made to fill the gap through delegated central government funding via the national office of the Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS). The delegated authority was not supervised. Th Wellington model of a unified policy ethos had not worked in Canterbury as shown by research evidence.
The Casey Review
Within this second phase of the PAP, governmental research into the prison system was conducted in 1979-80 by Justice RT Hon. Sir Maurice Casey (Casey, 1980). He was an advocate in his own right as his professional legal history demonstrated in cases of Māori and Pasifika significance. The Penal Policy Review (the Review) revealed structural fragmentation and performance failure in penal policy and practice across Aotearoa New Zealand. The Review advocated partnerships with community organisations to recommence the penal policy realignment process with their regional communities (Casey, 1980).
SSF fitted this organizational partnership model very well. The early foundations of the partnership provided a powerful platform for subsequent organizational development that did not depend on egotistical personalities. The Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) was an authentic venture in applied social science and the author, a social scientist, knew what it would take to build a model that paralleled the success of the USA De Lancey Street Foundation.
The new St Albans premises for SSF had been used previously as a weekend juvenile periodic detention centre. Detainees attended on weekends to live in a structured judicial facility. The warden had full control and management authority under periodic detention laws. The warden supervised a limited number of detainees in residential facilities for the duration of their court ordered sentences.
In a short time SSF had a fit for purpose residential facility that had previously operated commercially as an 18-bed motel. There were individual bedrooms, lounge rooms for group meetings and a large kitchen for servicing residents, and community events. The neighbourhood was middle class in SES status and supported by a major suburban shopping centre. The new neighbourhood provided a completely different lifestyle and culture for participants. It was a marked change from the previous inner-city Salisbury Street which had been a ‘known track’ for criminals and ex-prisoners walking between two pubs.
For ex-prisoner participants, this new living arrangement was demanding as it involved a commitment to two years of residential participation in the life-skills program. Daily supervision operated on a self-help model of internal leadership, with the occasional coaching assistance of the author, David Robinson (Probation Service) and Geoffrey Samuels (Justice Department psychologist.
The philosophy of SSF was that of a learning community, that is, a blend of sociological, psychological and adult education theory models. Ideas were challenged and different relationships were tested under these new arrangements as part of the adult learning ethos of SSF. Participants paid management to rent their bedrooms including the purchase of inhouse meals from their weekly government benefits. They participated in a loosely structured day program of experiential learning events and activities. The self-management model attracted the interest of the Review with a personal site visit from the head, then Justice Casey.
Salisbury Street Foundation model
Another component of this second phase of Organizational Research was the showcasing of the new residential facility of SSF in the outer suburb of St Albans, Christchurch Ōtautahi. Much of the energy and planning for the SSF day program came from the participants as they were encouraged to take charge of their own lives. Some activities succeeded while others failed as part of the everyday action-learning process for all stakeholders.
The SSF emphasis was also based on autonomous, self-help leadership in order to build the integrity and credibility of the organization among criminal networks. This model was consistent with the espoused values and methods of the USA De Lancy Street Foundation.
SSF had a ban on alcohol consumption on and off the premises of the program. Cigarette smoking was permitted in the grounds of the St Albans property but not in the residence. While living in the residential program participants were discouraged from mixing with old criminal friends and criminal networks. In this part of the action-learning research the intention was to give participants time to build new life-skills. Adherence to the model was tightly invigilated in order to lay an organisational platform for future changes in government aftercare policies. It worked.
Methodism had a role to play in this new model. The Methodist Riverside Community, established in 1941 by pacifist Christians in the Moutere region of Te Waipounamu (the South Island) of Aotearoa New Zealand, was an iconic model of the collective practice of the friendship that the SSF sought to emulate. In Christchurch (Ōtautahi) the links to Methodism came via the agency, the Christchurch Methodist Mission (CMM) and its social service programs in the community.
Community engagement with the SSF occurred through Community Meal nights. They took place each Tuesday night and these nights were open to guests from the community who booked in for a meal. The cost was $2 per guest. SSF participants had the opportunity mix with a range of guests from judges and probation officers through to supporters of improved prison aftercare. The mixing of this array of people provided more opportunities for action-learning praxis. House members cooked the meals and then served them to guests.
Another organisational research dynamic within the Prison Aftercare Project was the decision to become participant-observer activists inside the ineffective regional PARS organization. Devolution into regional structures had begun to emerge across the country but social historian Margaret Tennant (2007) had chosen not to comment on the operations of Canterbury prison aftercare while making clear commentary about the national organization, its philosophy and the operations of its Auckland, Otago and Wellington branches (Tennant, 2007).
In 1982, the author, in his role as the research director of the PAP chose to stand for election as the President of PARS in the Canterbury-Westland region. The subsequent annual general meeting was a resounding success, attended by many stakeholders. The popular election of the author to the role of President began an era of reform in Canterbury regional prison aftercare.
Within a short time a forensic review of the regional PARS performance highlighted systemic problems of internal fraud. Internal organisational research showed that over several years the Field Officer had been able to take funds from the PARS organization as well as another aged care home and its superannuation savings. Faced with the prospect of a police inquiry and a probable prison sentence, the Field Officer committed suicide rather than face the wrath of the many prison inmates he had deceived.
Other changes to the PARS organization quickly followed. They created a new chance for developing a significant improvement in aftercare planning services to the four regional prisons. New relationships were built with the then Prison Superintendents. An energetic new Field Officer (Richard Palmer) built a wholly changed record of achievement and unity that was strongly endorsed by the needs and demands of multiple prison and community stakeholders seeking to end the fragmentation of the past identified by the Review (Casey, 1980).
The Christchurch Experiment (Research phases 3 and 4)The innovation represented by the PAP and Christchurch’s Salisbury Street Foundation Experiment (The Experiment) has proven sustainable whether measured by individual inmate aftercare successes or organisational years of survival. The Experiment has been centred around the Salisbury Street Foundation, the most publicly evident component of the Prison Aftercare Project. Another measure has been the career development of dedicated professional stakeholders whether researchers, professional workers or prison inmates on release. Their SSF involvement has not been forgotten nor ignored in local and wider policy networks.
Instances existed in this period of innovation where, for example, the Minister of Justice released serious inmates into the personal custody of the author as part of The Experiment. Significantly, the SSF entity that started in 1979, continues to operate in 2020, a 41-year exemplar of sustainable prison aftercare. Of course, the structure of the SSF entity has changed over time with different management groups, changed social conditions, including earthquakes, and different specialist sponsors. Expansion has created its own issues as the SSF organization has had to negotiate new arrangements with different stakeholders, particularly government departments and agencies and Māori investors.
Some innovation sponsors of the research have been senior legal figures like Sir Maurice Casey and Sir John Robertson, each with their own sense of fairness and social justice. In the background there have been figures like Lorna and Ralph Anker (community political activists), Dame Ann Hercus (the first woman to serve as the nation’s Minister of Women’s Affairs), Sir Desmond Sullivan (first Chief Justice of the NZ District Courts), Sir James McLay (NZ political leader and diplomat) and David Caygill (local MP).
Findings - PAP success story
The PAP succeeded in its mission. It still exists operationally in 2020 – 42 years after its commencement. In The Experiment in Christchurch Ōtautahi, evidence-based research has been a critical pillar of analysis and decision-making within the modality of participant action-learning. New adult learning tools were trialled and evaluated inside the daily operations of SSF. These ranged from challenging group sessions of realistic psychodrama through to participant led weekly house business meetings where formal business practice skills were taught and practiced. SSF was a dynamic hose of opportunity. SSF member weekly feedback was informative and highly instructive in the development of viable prison aftercare.
Engagement of influential policy makers played an important role in the success of the PAP. Once these distinguished figures were presented with a clear action research plan, they advocated and negotiated in their own circles of influence located elsewhere in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The findings of Justice Casey (Casey,1980) in the Penal Policy Review were fully supported by the background research of the PAP. This was a coincidental confluence of interests that had the early support of the Methodists; historically a proven group of innovation supporters in the social services of the city of Christchurch Ōtautahi (Cree, 2020).
In the third and fourth phases of the PAP where welfare agency outcomes and activities were intermingled, adult learning principles were applied to improve the operations of the SSF self-help model of action-learning. These processes in The Experiment, in turn, showed the baseline of poor and unrewarded life-skills of the SSF participants. They had lives of abandonment to the vicissitudes of commercial society where they had little inherent value to offer investors or supporters.
For the participant-observer evaluators, some of the learnings were astonishing because of their simplicity. One example was the drug courier who had no idea of the downstream consequences of their crimes or the option of reparation with their victims. Another was the the released offender who in his childhood was known as the “dog” in place of his real first name. That label had shattered his adult self-esteem.
Success in Christchurch Ōtautahi with The Experiment relied partially on the construction of interagency interest and support networks. This was research phase 3 of the PAP. SSF was open to referrals from multiple agency sources. In the early days of the PAP ‘prisoner motivation to change’ was the critical intrapersonal measure of engagement and success. In time the collective power of the SSF organization became its own source of agency energy and achievement. It was similar in some ways to the valuable work of Women’s Refuges supporting the unmet needs of their client families.
Now, 42 years later, SSF continues to operate as a regional aftercare centre in the Canterbury community servicing 4 prisons of female and male inmates. At this stage of the PAP, survey research has been presented back to its respondents to include in their own service planning processes.
The cohesive nature of the regional community of Canterbury supported the PAP research project and its showcase result, the Salisbury Street Foundation. Central government support soon followed the PAP innovation and it offered potential for replication in other regions of Aotearoa New Zealand. Some replication attempts were made but they appear not to have had the sociological credibility or design features of the PAP and its community investment. In its own community The Experiment went on to build robust aftercare relationships and interagency networks. This was research phase 4 where the focus was on engagement with the community and a range of its significant stakeholders.
Funding then began to follow the PAP viable pattern of engagement and accountability: a far different model from the earlier days of poor funds and no evidence of investment in aftercare planning and action. This funding process has completed the PAP planning cycle in the social science field of community development that focused on prisoners at the time of their release into the community.
ConclusionPrison aftercare is not a popular field of social intervention or community development. Nor is it popular for those with applied sociology or social work credentials. There are few rewards, publicly or privately. The prison aftercare history in Aotearoa New Zealand is a story of fragmentation and disinterest as shown through the Penal Policy Review (Casey, 1980). In addition, the government funded Canterbury PARS agency was the victim of employee fraud. The Prison Aftercare Project (1979-84) was a bold social work research intervention supported by sociology and adult development principles of insight, reflection and action learning praxis.
A team of three thinkers with professional credentials in criminal justice service delivery designed a plan for intervention. The author, as the personally funded director, led the PAP research project and its delivery over the 5 years of its implementation. Women and men were key participant stakeholders from the outset. The regional Methodist denomination were supportive social innovators in a region of the English landed gentry (Eldred, 1986). The Methodists had deep links to the interests of the resident iwi, the Ngai Tahu, through their links to the kaumatua (elders) of the Rehua Marae. Innovative thinkers on the policy side of criminal justice added their weight to the resolution of these issues of prison aftercare. They were highly credible and influential advocates whose support resulted in the long-term success of the PAP through a variety of welfare agency networks connected to the Salisbury Street Foundation. Today, 42 years later, the original concept exists and thrives due to the collective efforts of a range of direct and hidden stakeholders.
Four social research instruments underpinned the PAP: 1. Survey impact research into community government funding processes 2. Project deployment analysis of Justice Department resources3. Network testing of community stakeholders4. Engagement testing with community welfare agency networks Three years funding was provided personally to the author by the NZ Lotteries Control Board.
FindingsHistorically, local prison aftercare services were inadequate. Government funding pathways established this ineffectiveness. Christchurch prison community welfare links (including Methodism) were poorly organised. Negative ex-prisoner feedback proved reliable.
ConclusionsThe PAP learning intervention was successful. PAP aftercare solutions continue today after 41 years sustainable operation.
KeywordsPrison Aftercare Project; Christchurch exemplar; Salisbury Street Foundation; Prisoner Action learning; De Lancey Street model (250 words)
IntroductionPrison aftercare remains a major issue of equity contention, especially within the penal policy frameworks of Aotearoa New Zealand. Te Waipounamu (the nation’s South Island) has been an exemplar geosophical territory covering large land areas with a relatively small population of less than 25 per cent of the nation’s total. Also, Te Waipounamu distinctly reflects Pākehā, (primarily English), colonial dominance of local Māori through socioeconomic instruments like land ownership, economic systems control, and profit harvesting of the lands of Ngai Tahu who remain the resident iwi or tribe (Eldred-Grigg, 1980). Historically, there are some imprisonment contraindications, that is, those occasional times when Māori kept non-Māori as their prisoners: the Pākehā slave phenomenon.But the more compelling evidence from Waitaha Te Waipounamu , over 150 years, reflected the power of the Pākehā farmers from England over local Māori .Furthermore, even in 2019, the nation’s corrections statistics showed that nationally Māori represented a disproportionate 51.8% of male inmates, an enduring pattern of inequity. Equity issues have applied to most prison inmate statistical assessments in Aotearoa New Zealand. These encompass gender numbers, Māori over-representation and socio-economic status levels.In the colonial history of Aotearoa New Zealand, one modern response to prison care and aftercare has been to enlist social workers via the occupational designations of Probation and Parole Officers. In these government employment positions, social workers played a major deviance or quasi-softening role in the area of criminal justice practice through their official sworn positions as officers of the courts with their own narrow powers of intervention and arrest.
In the 1970s Justice Department personnel from the Waitaha( Canterbury) regional probation and psychological services operated limited prison insight therapy groups in the hope of reducing crime and recidivism. However, in these therapy groups participants identified a deeper post-release challenge, that is, poor external support for offenders seeking to end their ‘old’ behaviours and depart from their past peer networks. A credible community program of social reintegration simply did not exist for example in the broad criminal justice geographical region of Canterbury-Westland. Seen another way, prisoners did not fit the societal mould of the day, that is, the ‘landed gentry’ of the local region
On release into the city of Christchurch prisoners faced bleak social integration opportunities beyond self-survival. The reality of this bleak picture facing released prisoners became evident through PAP foundation research into prisoner support services (see Fig1.), a disaggregated array of local structures. Survey research showed that most local community health and human service agencies accepted central government funding for prisoner services that they did not subsequently provide. Historical research indicated a diaggregated patchwork of government services, (PARS) that did not include Waitaha in the 1960-70s era.
Some issues were not just matters of individual fault. Other research evidence has highlighted structural perceptions and experiences of racism as part of the Māori dilemma when it came to societal support. Christchurch amplified this lived experience of social deviance. Christchurch and Canterbury had a reputation for being structurally discriminatory as the Waitangi Tribunal (Te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi) subsequently ruled. It found “unconscionable” conduct had been structurally practiced by Pākehā against the resident Māori.
In prison aftercare terms Māori were therefore significant as persons of need. Their own community support systems were not evident at the time of the key PAP research.
Subsequent research has shown hearing loss to be a major problem in Aotearoa New Zealand prisons that faced offenders throughout their respective encounters with the prison system (Stephens, 2019). Many of these hearing problems are likely also to have impacted the cohort of Waitaha (Canterbury) prisoners who were in the scope of this PAP research project, especially in their earlier days while inside schooling systems. Insight therapy in prisons had little prospect, under these conditions therefore, of addressing congenital, structural human problems like hearing deficits.
Development and completion in Waitaha (Canterbury of the Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) took the author 5 years (1979-1984) of intensive participant-observation research. The PAP hosted the shopfront story of a new agency, the Salisbury Street Foundation (SSF). The structural integrity of the PAP drew the attention and support of influential justice system figures like Sir John Robertson and Justice Sir Desmond Sullivan.
Community development
Research progress within the PAP was slow as is typical of the Community Development methodology. In this research, the evaluation focus was on the criminal justice equivalent of a prisoner Community of Interest. Questions arose as to who actually helped prisoners and their social networks? How? Where? When?
Further, this prison aftercare research venture depended heavily on joint funding support from the National Lotteries Board of Control, the Christchurch Methodist Mission, professional supporters, volunteers, and the donated time of the author. Additional resourcing support came from the Aotearoa Department of Justice, and the Social Work Department of Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha, the University of Canterbury. Each stakeholder expressed interest in development of the broader regional community of Interest of released prisoners.
Engagement with local human services agencies was a key part of the Action-Learning methodology of this project. Over its duration, the PAP engaged with a spectrum of agencies ranging from regional government welfare departments across to the regional policing networks and multiple voluntary agencies that were servicing the local community’s social and criminal justice concerns.
In addition, PAP engagement came from regular observation visits via representatives of the then Prime Minister’s social services thinktank. Overall, engagement with the PAP research venture was collaborative in most instances. The PAP intervention drew interest rather than opposition.
An important feature of the Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) after 5 years operation, has been its sponsorship from individuals in the roles of supporters and mentors. Without the time and efforts of these individuals the research of the PAP would not have succeeded. Time and efforts of these sponsors ranged from frontline support interventions like the sewing of new curtains for all rooms in the new SSF premises provided by Sharon Hinds and Sue Abernethy through to participant policy and group learning sessions professionally facilitated by David Robinson and Geoff Samuels. Other support activities occurred in the background, often in policy-making contexts involving solicitor Carolyn Risk, Dame Ann Hercus, Sir John Robertson, Sir Maurice Casey, and Sir Desmond Sullivan.
Key individual research supporters known to the PAP have been Sharon Hinds, Miriam Suckling, Anni Watkins, Jacquie Hoffman, Lorna and Ralph Anker, Rev. Wilf Falkingham, Dr Dugald McDonald, Steve McLoy, Richard Palmer, David Robinson, Carolyn Risk, Dr David Riley, Supt. Fleur Grenfell (Corrections), Supt. Humphrey Stroud (Corrections), Sir Desmond Sullivan, Rev. John Roberts, Sir John Robertson, David Leech, Geoffrey Samuels, Supt. John Jamieson (NZPolice), Graham McFelin, Sue Abernethy, Kevin Butson, Keith Hinds, Judith Peterson, David Caygill, Rt. Hon. Sir Maurice Casey and Dame Ann Hercus. Women were key supporters of the PAP research success story.
Evidence based research was a fundamental driver of this action-learning prison aftercare experiment. The primary research was in the southern island city of Christchurch. It followed the phased methodology outlined below:
Welfare agency survey (project research phase 1)The first formal source of Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) evidence was informal discussion among Christchurch (Ōtautahi) welfare service networks where the problem was identified but without evidence of an obvious remedy of targetted help or support aftercare pathways for prisoners at the time of their release. Comments were made about the local Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS). They were largely negative with respect to the extent or quality of service delivered, or indeed the help offered. Engagement with the then Field Officer, Gordon Shakespeare, drew particularly negative criticism from a significant range of prison aftercare stakeholders.
As the picture of inadequate prison aftercare began to unfold, the justification for a formal action-learning research project in Christchurch (Ōtautahi) began to unfold. A viable research design was prepared by the author and submitted to the Aotearoa New Zealand Lotteries Board of Control. It succeeded. The first research step was a proposed survey of funded welfare agencies. The PAP proposal had the benefit and credentialism of the author’s prior work experience as a Probation and Parole Officer and as a past elected executive of the national professional association of probation officers.
Phase 1The survey followed the methodology of a 20-item written questionnaire distributed by hand or through postal mail. Agencies were selected using a snowball method of selection. The completion rate was approximately 80% of the 120 agencies contacted. Most were willing respondents. Often, these agencies did not value the importance of their responses as prison aftercare was not a priority service in their worldview.
Analysis of the responses was conducted by two psychology graduates looking for work under the Aotearoa New Zealand Department of Labour work programs. This analysis was conducted in the computer laboratories of Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha, the University of Canterbury.
Additional endorsement for the PAP came from a key figure in the Christchurch Probation Service and a strong supporter of community aftercare for released prisoners, David Robinson. He had been a facilitator of in-prison therapy groups. He too had heard the stories of poor service from PARS and its Field Officer. He knew of the survey research results well before they were formally accepted for publication.
Robinson learned about a San Francisco self-help program known as the De Lancey Street Foundation. There were discussions between him and a former inmate, David Hall, who wanted to see the trialling of a local version of this USA model. The Methodist religious denomination in Ōtautahi had a strong social service commitment to helping prison inmates. The Methodists leased a house to Robinson and his supporters as a residential aftercare opportunity. The house was in the inner city and its location was 237 Salisbury Street In Ōtautahi.
Salisbury Street offered the base for the newly formed action-learning program known as the Salisbury Street Foundation (SSF). Although small with initial occupancy numbers of just five persons, SSF became the centre of attention for a range of supportive sponsors. At the time the author was assigned to work part-time as a participant observer with the SSF while still an employee of the Christchurch Methodist Central Mission (CMM).
Reflection was another key part of the action learning development process for the new SSF organisation. There was frequent intense discussion about how the new model could operate successfully. It was not an easy process of interaction. There was much internal conflict as participants settled into a viable model of activities and relationships without dependence on the manifest authority of Probation Officers or Prison Officers.
Organisational analysis (project research phase 2)
Organisational research was the second phase of the PAP research strategy. It was based on the results of the prior mentioned survey of the Christchurch (Ōtautahi) network of welfare agencies. It was also based on evaluation of the regional policy structure of the Canterbury penal system, that is, four prisons (one female and three male institutions) all within reasonable distance from the metropolitan courts of the city Ōtautahi (Christchurch). The organisational research included investigation of any regional infrastructure components of a system of prison aftercare.
The evaluation phase of the organisational research confirmed that Canterbury was an appropriately cohesive geopolitical region in which to locate the research even though, over time, the region had changed due to population expansion and tourism development. Through these development processes Canterbury had built an image of being progressive and tolerant of change. Few questions were asked of prison aftercare as they were not considered germane to the economy of the region. The then Secretary for Justice, Sir John Robertson, acted as a key sponsor for this organisational phase of the PAP research. He arranged for SSF to rent residential premises from his department in the affluent suburb of St Albans in Ōtautahi. The rental arrangement that was negotiated with the then SSF Board of Management cost a peppercorn rental for the first five years with a further peppercorn rental extension option for another 5 years. Sir John Robertson saw the potential of this innovative SSF organisational concept. He wished to test the improvement of prison aftercare services and policies in Aotearoa New Zealand.
During the five years of the PAP research, women as well as men were selected to reside in the St Albans operations of SSF. The author’s evidence therefore wholly contradicts subsequent public reports by the management of SSF that from its outset in 1979, SSF only provided community re-entry opportunities for men. Women had definite participant membership and volunteer leadership roles in the PAP research days of SSF St Albans during 1979-1984.
Negotiations were extensive in the development of this partnership relationship between government, church and not for profit stakeholders). Intricate matters had to be negotiated carefully to maintain community and neighbourhood trust, sometimes between competing interest groups. Local media, in the form of television, radio and newspaper outlets, provided opportunities and media contacts were extremely valuable in this process of keeping the wider community informed of the need for improvements in prison aftercare. Previously, the community had been uninformed of the prison aftercare needs of the Canterbury region. and prisoners were in effect abandoned at the prison gate.
Partnership was an important component of national government policy in this period of social policy evolution as Margaret Tennant (2007) recorded in her historical analysis of welfare services in Aotearoa New Zealand. In this field of prison aftercare there was policy tension between central government in Wellington and regional areas like Canterbury. Previous attempts had been made to fill the gap through delegated central government funding via the national office of the Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society (PARS). The delegated authority was not supervised. Th Wellington model of a unified policy ethos had not worked in Canterbury as shown by research evidence.
The Casey Review
Within this second phase of the PAP, governmental research into the prison system was conducted in 1979-80 by Justice RT Hon. Sir Maurice Casey (Casey, 1980). He was an advocate in his own right as his professional legal history demonstrated in cases of Māori and Pasifika significance. The Penal Policy Review (the Review) revealed structural fragmentation and performance failure in penal policy and practice across Aotearoa New Zealand. The Review advocated partnerships with community organisations to recommence the penal policy realignment process with their regional communities (Casey, 1980).
SSF fitted this organizational partnership model very well. The early foundations of the partnership provided a powerful platform for subsequent organizational development that did not depend on egotistical personalities. The Prison Aftercare Project (PAP) was an authentic venture in applied social science and the author, a social scientist, knew what it would take to build a model that paralleled the success of the USA De Lancey Street Foundation.
The new St Albans premises for SSF had been used previously as a weekend juvenile periodic detention centre. Detainees attended on weekends to live in a structured judicial facility. The warden had full control and management authority under periodic detention laws. The warden supervised a limited number of detainees in residential facilities for the duration of their court ordered sentences.
In a short time SSF had a fit for purpose residential facility that had previously operated commercially as an 18-bed motel. There were individual bedrooms, lounge rooms for group meetings and a large kitchen for servicing residents, and community events. The neighbourhood was middle class in SES status and supported by a major suburban shopping centre. The new neighbourhood provided a completely different lifestyle and culture for participants. It was a marked change from the previous inner-city Salisbury Street which had been a ‘known track’ for criminals and ex-prisoners walking between two pubs.
For ex-prisoner participants, this new living arrangement was demanding as it involved a commitment to two years of residential participation in the life-skills program. Daily supervision operated on a self-help model of internal leadership, with the occasional coaching assistance of the author, David Robinson (Probation Service) and Geoffrey Samuels (Justice Department psychologist.
The philosophy of SSF was that of a learning community, that is, a blend of sociological, psychological and adult education theory models. Ideas were challenged and different relationships were tested under these new arrangements as part of the adult learning ethos of SSF. Participants paid management to rent their bedrooms including the purchase of inhouse meals from their weekly government benefits. They participated in a loosely structured day program of experiential learning events and activities. The self-management model attracted the interest of the Review with a personal site visit from the head, then Justice Casey.
Salisbury Street Foundation model
Another component of this second phase of Organizational Research was the showcasing of the new residential facility of SSF in the outer suburb of St Albans, Christchurch Ōtautahi. Much of the energy and planning for the SSF day program came from the participants as they were encouraged to take charge of their own lives. Some activities succeeded while others failed as part of the everyday action-learning process for all stakeholders.
The SSF emphasis was also based on autonomous, self-help leadership in order to build the integrity and credibility of the organization among criminal networks. This model was consistent with the espoused values and methods of the USA De Lancy Street Foundation.
SSF had a ban on alcohol consumption on and off the premises of the program. Cigarette smoking was permitted in the grounds of the St Albans property but not in the residence. While living in the residential program participants were discouraged from mixing with old criminal friends and criminal networks. In this part of the action-learning research the intention was to give participants time to build new life-skills. Adherence to the model was tightly invigilated in order to lay an organisational platform for future changes in government aftercare policies. It worked.
Methodism had a role to play in this new model. The Methodist Riverside Community, established in 1941 by pacifist Christians in the Moutere region of Te Waipounamu (the South Island) of Aotearoa New Zealand, was an iconic model of the collective practice of the friendship that the SSF sought to emulate. In Christchurch (Ōtautahi) the links to Methodism came via the agency, the Christchurch Methodist Mission (CMM) and its social service programs in the community.
Community engagement with the SSF occurred through Community Meal nights. They took place each Tuesday night and these nights were open to guests from the community who booked in for a meal. The cost was $2 per guest. SSF participants had the opportunity mix with a range of guests from judges and probation officers through to supporters of improved prison aftercare. The mixing of this array of people provided more opportunities for action-learning praxis. House members cooked the meals and then served them to guests.
Another organisational research dynamic within the Prison Aftercare Project was the decision to become participant-observer activists inside the ineffective regional PARS organization. Devolution into regional structures had begun to emerge across the country but social historian Margaret Tennant (2007) had chosen not to comment on the operations of Canterbury prison aftercare while making clear commentary about the national organization, its philosophy and the operations of its Auckland, Otago and Wellington branches (Tennant, 2007).
In 1982, the author, in his role as the research director of the PAP chose to stand for election as the President of PARS in the Canterbury-Westland region. The subsequent annual general meeting was a resounding success, attended by many stakeholders. The popular election of the author to the role of President began an era of reform in Canterbury regional prison aftercare.
Within a short time a forensic review of the regional PARS performance highlighted systemic problems of internal fraud. Internal organisational research showed that over several years the Field Officer had been able to take funds from the PARS organization as well as another aged care home and its superannuation savings. Faced with the prospect of a police inquiry and a probable prison sentence, the Field Officer committed suicide rather than face the wrath of the many prison inmates he had deceived.
Other changes to the PARS organization quickly followed. They created a new chance for developing a significant improvement in aftercare planning services to the four regional prisons. New relationships were built with the then Prison Superintendents. An energetic new Field Officer (Richard Palmer) built a wholly changed record of achievement and unity that was strongly endorsed by the needs and demands of multiple prison and community stakeholders seeking to end the fragmentation of the past identified by the Review (Casey, 1980).
The Christchurch Experiment (Research phases 3 and 4)The innovation represented by the PAP and Christchurch’s Salisbury Street Foundation Experiment (The Experiment) has proven sustainable whether measured by individual inmate aftercare successes or organisational years of survival. The Experiment has been centred around the Salisbury Street Foundation, the most publicly evident component of the Prison Aftercare Project. Another measure has been the career development of dedicated professional stakeholders whether researchers, professional workers or prison inmates on release. Their SSF involvement has not been forgotten nor ignored in local and wider policy networks.
Instances existed in this period of innovation where, for example, the Minister of Justice released serious inmates into the personal custody of the author as part of The Experiment. Significantly, the SSF entity that started in 1979, continues to operate in 2020, a 41-year exemplar of sustainable prison aftercare. Of course, the structure of the SSF entity has changed over time with different management groups, changed social conditions, including earthquakes, and different specialist sponsors. Expansion has created its own issues as the SSF organization has had to negotiate new arrangements with different stakeholders, particularly government departments and agencies and Māori investors.
Some innovation sponsors of the research have been senior legal figures like Sir Maurice Casey and Sir John Robertson, each with their own sense of fairness and social justice. In the background there have been figures like Lorna and Ralph Anker (community political activists), Dame Ann Hercus (the first woman to serve as the nation’s Minister of Women’s Affairs), Sir Desmond Sullivan (first Chief Justice of the NZ District Courts), Sir James McLay (NZ political leader and diplomat) and David Caygill (local MP).
Findings - PAP success story
The PAP succeeded in its mission. It still exists operationally in 2020 – 42 years after its commencement. In The Experiment in Christchurch Ōtautahi, evidence-based research has been a critical pillar of analysis and decision-making within the modality of participant action-learning. New adult learning tools were trialled and evaluated inside the daily operations of SSF. These ranged from challenging group sessions of realistic psychodrama through to participant led weekly house business meetings where formal business practice skills were taught and practiced. SSF was a dynamic hose of opportunity. SSF member weekly feedback was informative and highly instructive in the development of viable prison aftercare.
Engagement of influential policy makers played an important role in the success of the PAP. Once these distinguished figures were presented with a clear action research plan, they advocated and negotiated in their own circles of influence located elsewhere in Aotearoa New Zealand.
The findings of Justice Casey (Casey,1980) in the Penal Policy Review were fully supported by the background research of the PAP. This was a coincidental confluence of interests that had the early support of the Methodists; historically a proven group of innovation supporters in the social services of the city of Christchurch Ōtautahi (Cree, 2020).
In the third and fourth phases of the PAP where welfare agency outcomes and activities were intermingled, adult learning principles were applied to improve the operations of the SSF self-help model of action-learning. These processes in The Experiment, in turn, showed the baseline of poor and unrewarded life-skills of the SSF participants. They had lives of abandonment to the vicissitudes of commercial society where they had little inherent value to offer investors or supporters.
For the participant-observer evaluators, some of the learnings were astonishing because of their simplicity. One example was the drug courier who had no idea of the downstream consequences of their crimes or the option of reparation with their victims. Another was the the released offender who in his childhood was known as the “dog” in place of his real first name. That label had shattered his adult self-esteem.
Success in Christchurch Ōtautahi with The Experiment relied partially on the construction of interagency interest and support networks. This was research phase 3 of the PAP. SSF was open to referrals from multiple agency sources. In the early days of the PAP ‘prisoner motivation to change’ was the critical intrapersonal measure of engagement and success. In time the collective power of the SSF organization became its own source of agency energy and achievement. It was similar in some ways to the valuable work of Women’s Refuges supporting the unmet needs of their client families.
Now, 42 years later, SSF continues to operate as a regional aftercare centre in the Canterbury community servicing 4 prisons of female and male inmates. At this stage of the PAP, survey research has been presented back to its respondents to include in their own service planning processes.
The cohesive nature of the regional community of Canterbury supported the PAP research project and its showcase result, the Salisbury Street Foundation. Central government support soon followed the PAP innovation and it offered potential for replication in other regions of Aotearoa New Zealand. Some replication attempts were made but they appear not to have had the sociological credibility or design features of the PAP and its community investment. In its own community The Experiment went on to build robust aftercare relationships and interagency networks. This was research phase 4 where the focus was on engagement with the community and a range of its significant stakeholders.
Funding then began to follow the PAP viable pattern of engagement and accountability: a far different model from the earlier days of poor funds and no evidence of investment in aftercare planning and action. This funding process has completed the PAP planning cycle in the social science field of community development that focused on prisoners at the time of their release into the community.
ConclusionPrison aftercare is not a popular field of social intervention or community development. Nor is it popular for those with applied sociology or social work credentials. There are few rewards, publicly or privately. The prison aftercare history in Aotearoa New Zealand is a story of fragmentation and disinterest as shown through the Penal Policy Review (Casey, 1980). In addition, the government funded Canterbury PARS agency was the victim of employee fraud. The Prison Aftercare Project (1979-84) was a bold social work research intervention supported by sociology and adult development principles of insight, reflection and action learning praxis.
A team of three thinkers with professional credentials in criminal justice service delivery designed a plan for intervention. The author, as the personally funded director, led the PAP research project and its delivery over the 5 years of its implementation. Women and men were key participant stakeholders from the outset. The regional Methodist denomination were supportive social innovators in a region of the English landed gentry (Eldred, 1986). The Methodists had deep links to the interests of the resident iwi, the Ngai Tahu, through their links to the kaumatua (elders) of the Rehua Marae. Innovative thinkers on the policy side of criminal justice added their weight to the resolution of these issues of prison aftercare. They were highly credible and influential advocates whose support resulted in the long-term success of the PAP through a variety of welfare agency networks connected to the Salisbury Street Foundation. Today, 42 years later, the original concept exists and thrives due to the collective efforts of a range of direct and hidden stakeholders.
References
Aimers, J. and Walker, P. (2016). Community development in Aotearoa New Zealand: A historical journey. Whanake: the Pacific Journal of Community Development, 2(2), 3-12. Unitec. Auckland.Corrections, 2019. Quarterly Statistics. Corrections Department. Wellington.https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/research_and_statistics/quarterly_prison_statistics/prison_stats_december_2019Cree, M. (1980). Salisbury Street Foundation: Submissions to the Secretary for Justice. Salisbury Street Foundation .Christchurch. pp.1-16.Cree, M. (2020). Iconic Social Work in Aotearoa New Zealand - Christchurch’s Central Methodist Mission. Aotearoa New Zealand Journal of Social Work (in publication process)Hough, D 2003 A History and Analysis of the Salisbury Street Foundation in ChristchurchUniversity Canterbury ChristchurchStephens, C. (2019) Listen Hear! New Zealand. National Foundation for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing – New Zealand. Parnell Auckland. De Lancy, (2020). The De Lancy Street Foundation. About Ushttp://www.delanceystreetfoundation.org/aboutus.phpDr Rawiri Taonui. Is Christchurch the capital of white racism in New Zealand?Murray Cree and Deidre Maynard. Your Success in the Workplace. Longman Cheshire, Melbourne (1992)Cree & Baring (1991) Desperately Seeking Ethics. Australian Accountant May pp21-22M. Cree, J.A. Hoffman and D.N. Riley. Castles in the Air; Welfare Services for Ex-Prisoners. Aust Journal of Social Issues vol 21 No.3 1986M.Cree, J.A.Hoffman and D.N. Riley. Prison Aftercare: Community’s Responsibility? Aust-NZ Journal of Criminology vol 18 1985Eldred-Grigg, S. (1980). A southern Gentry: New Zealanders who Inherited the Earth. AH & AW Reed. Wellington. NZ. Whatever Happened to the Gentry? THE LARGE LANDOWNERS OF ASHBURTON COUNTY, 1890-1896* NZ Journal of History > 1977 Volume 11 > No. 1 O'Malley Pat. The Uncertain Promise of Risk. First Published December 1, 2004 Research Articlehttps://doi.org/10.1375/acri.37.3.323 ANZ Jnl of Criminology 2004 Vol 37, Issue 3, 2004Revolve Y, 2019. Vicki Buck. https://www.revolv Y.com/page/Vicki-BuckRiverside, 2020. Riverside Community.https://www.riverside.org.nz/about-usRossiter, C.I. 1984. Probation in Issue: The Report of the Penal Policy Review Committee NZ Legal Information Institute vol 237. pp. 67-77 http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZLRFOP/1984/237.pdfTe Ara A history of New Zealand 1769 – 1914. NZ Government. Wellington.https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/history-of-new-zealand-1769-1914'History of New Zealand, 1769-1914 ', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/culture/history-of-new-zealand-1769-1914, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 11-Dec-2019Brown, M. and Young, W. 2000. Recent Trends in Sentencing and Penal Policy in New Zealand.International Criminal Justice Review, vol. 10, 1: pp. 1-31. Copyright © 2019, UMA Broadcasting Ltd: www.waateanews.comJohnston, P. 2015. Twenty years of Corrections - The evolution of offender rehabilitation Practice: the New Zealand Corrections. Journal Vol. 3. Issue 2. Dept. of Corrections. Wellington. https://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/newsletters_and_brochures/journal/volume_3_issue_2_december_2015_evidence_based_practice/twenty_years_of_corrections_the_evolution_of_offender_rehabilitation Tennant, M. (2007) The Fabric of Welfare: Voluntary Organizations. Government and Welfare in New Zealand, 1840-2005. Bridget Williams Books. Wellington. NZ. DOI: 10.7810/9781877242373_1Young, W. 2000. Prison policy, prison regime and prisoners’ rights in New Zealand NZ Law Commission. Ministry of Justice. Wellington.https://www.hrc.co.nz/enquiries-and-complaints/faqs/prisoners-rights/WIAL, 2020. What is Action Learning? Retrieved 20 February, 2020 https://wial.org/action-learning/
Probation History
http://www.nzlii.org/nz/journals/NZLRFOP/1984/237.pdf
PARS
https://www.facebook.com/PARSCanterbury/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARCUWDypk9gvBqdXYcZ4TItGsLIEaK_7hfEC1eVUOKx9V3wrxLTyYKTPrNJ-scuNW3os0Kxck2VW31RZ&hc_ref=ARRipes_CdWa0aVPvNFai9ei9ltJQ-ZeEc6aQRieDPi7Ss--Ck1aMstwI1gDIQQTbdE&fref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARBLYgsedrhVzMukcaZOwNVEkgLlMjZBkD-Wnvi9M8sA_u8olO3wRYzePtA8hqsSU6QKMBy9BZ86E9fcR-le_ye3LXjaNIlw99gC20atUYYLcGpFWEQZa61AE5oyEaUxYl5V_MUENa6iOz6a2wAG13fmj2s3oCvrc1TSZole6rmbV9Q3uZe1d70osh-CR3BEiSF-pBuJQgsnpkwAFTgiV52BnVAn1LffWT8CbfwGwKe0Zkn8Ix8S-ylltNT2PwFfqQompoQy50CY2rvizwh0elR9N6Amz75dyyV6UZq5OrJaMwq-ecgAnmcizenNpu4WLf9JyR7G-8nTsHSQ1a18pg
Copy specification1. The article must be the author’s original work. It cannot have been submitted for publication to any other journal.2. Original articles should not exceed 7000 words including references and abstract. Viewpoints should be between 1500 – 2000 words including references.3. The article must not contain material or language that is discriminatory in any way.4. Please provide the text in Microsoft Word format using 1.5 line spacing and a 12 point font. The text file should be non-identifying of the authors. 5. Authors using tables or illustrations from other authors/publishers should provide relevant permissions. Please contact the editors if unsure.6. Authors should declare any funding sources, conflicts of interest and acknowledgements.7. Please include a statement of the ethical approvals obtained for research reported in your article and a brief discussion of relevant ethical issues. Text structurePlease observe the following structure for your article. Failure to do so may mean it is returned for additional information, re-writing or editing:1. Title: A brief indication of the article’s subject.2. Abstract: Outline, in no more than 250 words, your main findings or arguments and the implications for practice or policy. Please structure the abstract using the following headings: introduction, methods, findings, and conclusions for empirical articles and introduction, approach and conclusions for theoretical articles. See an example. 3. Keywords: Please provide four to six keywords separated by semi-colons.4. Subheadings: Use subheadings sparingly and indicate these by bold type.5. Tables: Keep tables to a minimum. Number them (e.g. Table 1. Table 2.) with a self-explanatory title.6. Illustrations: You can submit black and white illustrations that are relevant to the article. Label these Figure 1 with a self-explanatory title.7. Footnotes: Do not use footnotes.8. Referencing: Peer reviewers and editors require authors to adhere strictly to the APA 6th referencing style both within the text and for listing references at the end of the article. Please refer to APA Publication Manual (6th Ed.).9. Style: In general, authors should refer to APA 6th on all matters relating to structure, content and style. For example, APA recommends that authors do not use quotation marks to emphasize words but use other aspects of syntax to express points. The APA blog is a good source of advice on correct use of APA.Peer reviewAotearoa New Zealand Social Work is a scholarly journal that uses a blind peer-review process. We encourage prospective authors to submit using the online submission process. You may submit your article online at any time. As a result of these reviews, we may suggest major revisions of your article, minor revisions, accept as is, or suggest your article may be more suitable for another publication. The editors also reserve the right to edit the article as necessary for final publication.The Editorial Collective email address for inquiries is editors@anzasw.nz Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.1. The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).2. The submission file is in Microsoft Word document file format.3. Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.4. The text uses 1.5 line spacing and a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.5. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.6. If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in Ensuring a Blind Review have been followed. Copyright NoticeAuthors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.You and any co-authorsIf you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.First publicationBy submitting the work you are:1. granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;2. confirming that the work is original; and3. confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Note.Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
CopyrightYou assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
Note.Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
CopyrightYou assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.