Integrated Youth Offender Project |
 |
External Evaluation of the Three Year Integrated Youth Offender Programme in Boksburg Correctional Centre |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
||
Contents1. Introduction 2. The Integrated Youth Offender Programme 3. Overview of IYOP Programmes and Partners 4. IYOP Programme Delivery Over the Three Years 5. Evaluation Process 6. Impact of the Three Year IYOP 8. Recommendations and Conclusion |
Abbreviations
| AIDS | Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome |
| AVP | Alternatives to Violence Project |
| CADS | Centre for Alcohol and Drug Studies |
| CSVR | Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation |
| DCS | Department of Correctional Services, South Africa |
| DARE | Drug Assessment Rehabilitation Education |
| FGC | Family Group Conference |
| HIV | Human Immune Virus |
| ITT | Interactive Themba Theatre |
| IYOP | Integrated Youth Offender Programme |
| NGO | Non-Governmental Organisation |
| NICRO | National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders |
| RJC | Restorative Justice Centre |
| SANCA | South African National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependency |
| SSAIS-R | Senior South African Individual Scale - Revised |
| STD/STI | Sexually Transmitted Diseases / Sexually Transmitted Infections |
| TAT | Thematic Apperception Test |
| VOC | Victim Offender Conference |
Acknowledgments
The Integrated Youth Offender Programme would like to thank all the participants in Boksburg Correctional Centre, South Africa, for their participation and openness in the programmes, and their agreement to participate in the evaluation process.
The IYOP wishes to thank the Department of Correctional Services for agreeing to support this programme in Boksburg Correctional Centre and to all staff who supported and participated in the programme.
The evaluator would like to thank Kindisa Ngubeni for undertaking the field research for this evaluation; and Tracy Hackland for the psychological analysis and her involvement in the data analysis and evaluation assessment.
1. Introduction
The Integrated Youth Offender Programme (IYOP), a coordinated series of programmes offered by a range of non-governmental organisations (NGOs), was implemented over a three year period (2004 to 2006) to 61 sentenced young male offenders at Boksburg Correctional Centre (prison) in Gauteng, South Africa. The aim of the IYOP was to deliver an integrated programme that tackled a critical range of risk and resilience issues, and factors associated with re-offending.
The IYOP recognised that the success of any Correctional Centre-based intervention depends on the attitudes of Correctional Centre staff and their treatment of offenders. Consequently, in the first year of the project, training was offered to selected Department of Correctional Service (DCS) staff at the Boksburg Correctional Centre. The impact of this training was documented in the 2005 report which offered a review of IYOP in year one.1
The project was committed to developing an effective evidence-based integrated intervention for young offenders and correctional staff in South Africa. As a result, an annual review and evaluation process was incorporated into the implementation of the programme from the beginning. The overall purpose of the evaluation process was to determine if the Integrated Youth Offender approach was an appropriate and effective way of preventing re-offending in young offenders.
The purpose of this report is to present the findings of the evaluation of the three year Integrated Youth Offender Project at Boksburg Correctional Centre. The next section provides an overview of the programme over the three year period, followed by an overview of the programme interventions and the partners that facilitated the intervention, and the delivery of the programme over the three year period. This is followed by the evaluation methodology and limitations of the study. The findings are presented in three parts: a study of the impact of the programme on offender behaviour in the correctional centre; insights on the impact of the programme on offenders who change Correctional Centres during their sentence; and a study of the impact of the programme on post-release behaviour. The final sections assess the effectiveness of the IYOP in preventing re-offending in young offenders and provide recommendations for the future of the integrated programme.
The evaluation of the programme on post-release behaviour and impact is limited to participants who were traced and willing to participate in this study.
2. The Integrated Youth Offender Programme
The Integrated Youth Offender Programme set out to offer a coordinated series of programmes oriented towards addressing key risk factors associated with criminal behaviour, and developing resilience factors that could buffer participants from re-engaging with such behaviour after release from the correctional environment. To this end, a range of programmes were included in IYOP and delivered by seven NGOs operating in the Gauteng Province. The programmes and service providers were (more detail is provided in Section 3 of this report):
- Vuka S'Hambe psychotherapeutic life skills programme offered by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR),
- Phaphama Initiatives Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP),
- National Institute for Crime Prevention and Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) Family Reintegration Programme,
- An HIV and AIDS intervention by the Themba HIV/AIDS Organisation,
- A Substance abuse programme offered by the Centre for Alcohol and Drug Studies (CADS) in years one and two of the programme and Drug Assessment Rehabilitation Education (DARE) in year three,
- A business skills intervention offered by BEntrepreneurING (in year one) and Cathy Park & Associates (years two and three), and
- Restorative Justice processes offered by the Restorative Justice Centre and the Nigel Justice Centre.
The partners were all known to one another and experienced in working in the sector. The thread that weaved the programmes together was provided by the CSVR. The Vuka S'Hambe facilitators were present throughout the process, providing a sense of continuity for the participants.
This series of programmes was offered to a total of 61 convicted young male offenders at Boksburg Correctional Centre (prison) in Gauteng, South Africa over the three year period 2004 to 2006, of whom 75% graduated. Unfortunately, the juvenile centre at Boksburg Correctional Centre was closed in 2007 and converted to a maximum security centre for juvenile offenders. Juvenile offenders who were not serving long sentences were transferred to other juvenile centres.
2.1 Rationale for an integrated approach
The Department of Correctional Service (DCS) is responsible for implementing sentences of the courts. In line with international protocols and the new policy approach towards child justice, the department has operationalised policy and defined strategic goals to effect positive outcomes in offenders during their sentences by focusing on the rehabilitation of offenders and the correction of offending behaviour. There has been public acknowledgement by DCS that it is unable to achieve this single-handedly.
The policy shift in 2003 resulted in an "Integrated Support System" for offenders, which focuses on delivering programmes with non-government and community-based organisations where there is joint responsibility for offender development and rehabilitation. The Department of Correctional Services' White Paper (2005) further calls for families and communities to take greater responsibility for providing for the destitute and finding employment for ex-offenders.
There are a limited number of correctional and therapeutic programmes currently available to offenders. These are offered by members of the Department of Correctional Services, as well as by non-government, faith-based and community-based organisations. At the time of conceptualisation of the Integrated Youth Offender Programme, no integrated or holistic programme for offenders existed, nor did programmes specifically aim to target a critical range of aspects of individual behaviour change and rehabilitation. The Integrated Youth Offenders Programme (IYOP) aimed to pilot and assess an integrated approach to dealing with offending behaviour and re-offending amongst young offenders. It aimed to build resilience among young offenders to enable them to choose a non-criminal life, and to address the factors associated with re-offending.
A range of models, frameworks and research projects encouraged the adoption of an integrated stance towards rehabilitation interventions. The IYOP was built on the theory of risk and resilience,2 and incorporates an understanding of socio-economic dynamics that impinge on a young person in South Africa and influence their offending behaviour.3 Known "protective factors"4 which influence effective reintegration of ex-offenders and prevent recidivism were also considered.
Each person faces many risk factors in their lives, and these include issues such as family instability, poverty, and the prevalence of crime and violence. The opposite of these are protective factors, those factors that support and protect one and prevent one from "doing wrong" or being victimised. These include family stability, employment, community support and having positive role models. The risk and protective factors do influence the choices people make and can push or pull an individual along a particular stream.
The research by Garbarino in the USA indicates that a person is more likely to go down the river towards "concerning behaviour" (such as offending, gang activity, being a bully) if they are overwhelmed by three or more risk factors; in other words they feel they cannot cope.
This model also acknowledges that not everyone commits crime, and that some people who face the same risk factors do not become violent or commit crime. This raises the importance of resilience or coping factors, skills and competencies in one's life that help one to keep afloat in the river and to swim along a river towards positive destinations. These resilience factors include communication skills, a sense of belonging to a community, a philosophical grounding (such as a religion) and problem solving skills.
The model suggests that programmes therefore need to target specific risk factors, build protective factors and help individuals to build the skills to cope. Ultimately, one is trying to shift the currents that negatively influence a person, and to help them to change streams by providing skills to help them swim.
Because the focus of the IYOP was on influencing behaviour change, the Transtheoretical Model5 (cycle of change process) was used to model the approach, methodologies and sequencing of programmes within the overall intervention. The model conceptualises change as a process which tends to move through a number of stages, namely pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance or relapse (whereupon the process starts again). The model is useful in that it draws attention to the different types of processes that can be helpful at each stage in order to support the person through the process of change. Moving from pre-contemplation to contemplation, for example, is likely to require some shift in awareness about the need for change. In order to move from the preparation to action, part of the cycle is more likely to require the development of skills in order to start to break out of habitual ways of doing things and replace these actions or behaviours with a new set of more constructive behaviours or responses.
The integrated approach differs from programmes targeting single protective factors. The benefit is that an integrated approach allows for interventions within the complex co-existence of risk factors and therefore supports the young person to identify these factors in their own lives and to understand the impact of these on their lives and their behaviour and choices. The range of interventions provides knowledge to enable the offender to make informed choices about a number of areas of his life. The integrated approach also supportively challenges the offender to contemplate possible changes he could make, engage in dialogue about the benefits and obstacles to making such changes, and if the young person indicates a determination to change their behaviour, the programme supports the person in taking the necessary action within the Correctional Centre setting. Environmental factors within the correctional centre as well as within communities were taken into consideration at the various stages of the programme. In addition to understanding risk, resilience and protective factors as part of the process of youth offender transformation, the model considered issues of youth development and how this related to offending behaviour, rehabilitation, experience within the criminal justice system and post-release.
To understand the impact of the programme on behaviour change and the ability of an individual to change criminal behaviour, reintegration "scenarios"6 relevant to young people in South Africa were considered in the IYOP approach. The age of the offender entering and leaving incarceration (the "scenarios") impact on developmental considerations such as levels of maturity, the formation of self-identity, mental health and cognitive capacity, educational levels and experience and openness to education, formation of family roles and relationships, experience and competence for employment and employability, ability to live independently, and individual ability to understand, experience and cope with the criminal justice system.
For example, the development of a juvenile offender may fall within one of these scenarios as detailed above:
- Convicted as child and released as child (14-17 years)
- Convicted as child and released as a juvenile (18-21)
- Convicted as child and released as a young adult (21-25)
- Convicted as a juvenile and released as a juvenile (18–21)
- Convicted as a juvenile and released as a young adult (22-25)
- Convicted as a juvenile and released as an adult (25-30)
Consequently, the experience of incarceration may affect the young person's development and may affect the ability of the young person to benefit from an intervention in and out of prison, to shift from a life of crime and resume socially constructive and productive roles in society.7
Furthermore, the theoretical and practical approach of the IYOP was informed by national and international research and evaluations. The research highlights a range of critical practices that inform the focus of interventions, methodologies and approaches. The following findings on effective juvenile rehabilitation and reintegration programmes that informed the IYOP model are highlighted below.
Programme content:
1. Programmes which focus on behaviour (such as focusing on the way an offender thinks and positive techniques to avoid situations that led to offending), have been found to reduce reconviction rates by up to 14%;8
2. Reconviction rates were 11% lower for two-thirds of offenders who completed an alcohol and drug addiction recovery project:9
3. Various initiatives to find job placements and job-skills training programmes for offenders found that less than 6% were known to have re-offended.10
Programme approach and methodology:
4. Effective programmes were designed by a researcher or had research as an influential component of the treatment setting;11
5. Customising services to offenders needs to be carefully designed and address specific needs, characteristics and problems of offenders, which take into account their strengths, limitations and learning styles. The specific factors that can be influenced need to be targeted12/13 and services need to be comprehensive and address all risk and needs,14
6. Accurate risk and needs assessments should be done;15
7. Programmes are more effective if they are implemented in a way that is
appropriate for the participating offenders and that use therapeutic techniques known to work,16
8. Programmes that require offenders to spend a reasonable length of time and meaningful contact in the programme are more likely to bring about the desired changes.17/18 The Gottfedson and Barton19 study on What works What doesn't in Crime Prevention suggests that the amount of treatment and quality of the intervention may be the important factor in reducing recidivism, regardless of whether the intervention is offered in an institution or in the community setting.
9. Programmes that use cognitive, skill-orientated and behavioural treatment methods and interventions,20/21 "based on theoretical models such as behaviourism, social learning, or cognitive behavioural theories of change that emphasise positive reinforcement contingencies for pro-social behaviour and are individualised as much as possible";22
10. Programmes that provide continuity of these services after release and involve community structures and resources.23 In addition, the Urban Institute24 process highlights the "critical importance of re-entry strategies that increase the psychosocial maturity, competencies, and resilience of youth so that they can successfully overcome diverse sets of challenges and go on to obtain employment, education, and close relationships with others".
The specific objectives and outcomes of the programme, in relation to the identified resilience and protective factors are presented in Section 2.2 below.
2.2 Expected outcomes
The overall objective of the IYOP was to address individual attitudes and responses towards education, personal development and employment, and to assist in opening up prospects to access employment and other opportunities.
The expected outcomes of the integrated approach were developed from the understanding of resilience and coping skills gleaned from current successful rehabilitation and reintegration research available. These outcomes would intentionally address risk factors associated with an understanding of South African offending behaviour amongst male youth.
The specific outcomes that the programme aimed to achieve and the target risk factors were:
Expected outcome 1:
Improvement in cognitive skills, and demonstrates positive (open) attitudes towards education and learning opportunities.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Poor cognitive skills and learning challenges, school refusal or drop-out.
Expected outcome 2:
Demonstrate improved communication skills, assertiveness and self control.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Anti-social attitudes, poor impulse control and lack of emotional control; poor communication skills and poor interpersonal relationships.
Expected outcome 3:
The participant is open to opportunities to transform conflict and to see
possibilities that problems can be solved. Demonstrate these skills in their life given the correctional centre context.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Lack of problem solving skills and violent or aggressive behaviour.
Expected outcome 4:
Increased knowledge and ability to engage in dialogue to inform attitudes and possible behaviour changes in relation to substance use and healthy living.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Participation in risk behaviour (substance and alcohol use and abuse), inhibition and poor judgement as a result of substance use and abuse.
Expected outcome 5:
Develop greater understanding of HIV and AIDS, sexuality and sexual
relationships to make informed decisions in their own lives.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Participation in risky behaviour (sexual relationships) and poor relationships, lack of self-care and/or disregard for the safety of sexual partners.
Expected outcome 6:
The offender acknowledges they can access and create employment
opportunities away from crime.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Lack of employment and vocational training, lack of financial independence away from a life of crime.
Expected outcome 7:
Improved relationships with the family while incarcerated and to develop plans for post release housing and family acceptance.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Family breakdown and disrupted family relationships and negative interaction with the community, weak social ties, lack of family stability and lack of support networks.
Expected outcome 8:
Understand the consequences of their actions on themselves, the victim, their family and community; and gain insights into restorative justice possibilities and processes.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Not taking responsibility for actions, maintaining negative and harmful cycles of violence with victims, family members and the community, extreme egocentrism, and anti-social attitudes.
Expected outcome 9:
Develop a sense of purpose and hope for the future and courage to face up to life challenges. This will be gained through increased understanding of how risk factors have impacted on their lives and greater understanding of the world in which they live.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Lack of coping skills and networks, lack of sense of belonging (weak social ties) and philosophical grounding, demoralisation, despondency, passivity.
Expected outcome 10:
Develop the social, interpersonal and coping skills to enhance friendships and participate in meaningful self-development activities based on the strengths and skills of the individual. Demonstrate the growth by shifting away from criminal gang activity towards positive interaction with peers, and greater acceptance of others.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Identification with anti-social or criminal role models, weak social ties, and anti-social attitudes and feelings.
2.3 Method of programme delivery
To address the identified risk factors and meet the expected outcomes, a range of programmatic interventions were considered. These included a psychotherapeutic life skills intervention, conflict management, family reintegration, healthy living (HIV and substance abuse) restorative justice and business skills. These interventions were offered by seven non-government organisations based in the Gauteng Province. The lead-in period to the first programme being offered to offenders in the Correctional Centre was two years, which allowed the partners to develop the integrated programme, discuss and agree on the principles and practice for the programme, develop a 'team-approach' and receive funding for programme delivery.
The overview of the partners and the programmes is presented in Section 3.
The programmes were offered in a phased approach. The sequence of the programmes intended to build on the core protective factors known to prevent re-offending and to reinforce core messages and values to meet the programme outcomes as discussed previously. The programmes complemented each other for the range of targeted factors and links between the programmes were made as issues arose. The content or sections of some of the programmes was reviewed based on the annual evaluation and feedback. This review ensured the compatibility of the programmes, the strengthening of integration and the effectiveness of the intervention to build on achievements across the partners, and to address gaps in the approach.
Actual delivery is illustrated and discussed in Section 4.
2.4 Management
The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation (CSVR) undertook the management of the programme. Monthly IYOP meetings were held with all partners to monitor delivery, report on progress, discuss hand-over issues and ensure the delivery of the programme. The hand-over process was important as it allowed the next facilitator team (or individual) to understand the emerging and current group dynamics, successes to-date, issues and concerns about logistics and possible solutions found. Furthermore, it acted as a debriefing process for the team exiting the programme.
The project acknowledged the importance of sustaining the outcomes of the programme with the participants as well as in the juvenile section of the Correctional Centre. The original programme proposal stated that the participants would receive follow-up support on a monthly basis would be provided for at least an additional year. This support was intended to provide peer-support programmes to facilitate the practical use of what the participants had learnt within the Correctional Centre community, and enable them to run small interventions on their own. Strategies and commitment to take the process forward with the participants in the Correctional Centre were discussed during the team meetings (and are reflected in the minutes). Although a number of the partners maintained regular contact with the participants through ongoing visits, the follow-up work was not sustained as participants were transferred to other centres or released, and lack of funding did not enable the partners to maintain the contact.
2.5 Selection of participants
The juvenile and youth offenders who participated in the IYOP underwent a selection and assessment process prior to programme commencement. The process involved the identification of approximately 30 potential participants by the Boksburg Correctional Centre staff.
The selection criteria included the following:
- Length of sentence remaining, as those who were to be released prior to completion of the intervention were excluded;
- Type of offence, to ensure a range of offending behaviour (although those convicted of sexual offences were excluded as the programme was not aimed at addressing this offending behaviour);
- The completion of Grade 9 (although a few participants had an educational level below this but requested participation in the programme and met the rest of the criteria);
- Offenders who were identified (by the Correctional Centre psychologist and social workers) as having severe mental health problems were excluded as the programme did not set out to address these factors per se.
Those who were then selected were invited to participate on a voluntary basis. No remuneration or incentive (such as early release or parole) was given. Each year, 20 participants were selected and, if they agreed, participated in the programme.25
In the first and second year of the programme, the identified offenders were invited to undergo the assessment process conducted by the CSVR.
The Senior South African Individual Scale - Revised (SSAIS-R) was used for assessment of the participants' cognitive ability. This intelligence test standardised for South African pupils between the ages of seven and sixteen years, measures verbal and non-verbal factors. It was administered in the participants' language of choice (isiZulu, SeSotho, English, and Afrikaans) and yielded valuable information about the participants' learning potential and thus their suitability for the programme. Participants were further assessed on their emotional and personality make-up using projective tests (Draw-A-Person), and Incomplete Sentences and Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). Interpretation of these projective tests yielded information on each participant's interpersonal relatedness and ability to communicate, sense of self, personality traits, mood and anxiety states. A decision was then taken whether the individual would be suitable for a group intervention.
A team of psychologists undertook the two hour individual assessment process and prepared a report on each person in terms of each of the areas assessed in year one. This part of the assessment process was not conducted in years two and three due to resource constraints and the labour intensiveness and therefore costliness of the individual assessment process. This meant that baseline scores could not be compared to post-intervention results on these instruments. However, the information it yielded was a valuable diagnostic tool for decision-making regarding selection of participants, programme content and individual case management throughout programme delivery.
2.6 Participant profile over the three years
The IYOP reached 61 male juvenile offenders over the three years. Baseline data was collected from 48 participants, of whom, as is evident from Graph 1 below, approximately a third of the group (33.69%) were 19-20 year olds. Almost half of the group (44.6%) were between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age.
Graph 1: Ages of participants at start of IYOP participation
As is evident from Graph 2, a third of the group (33.3%) consisted of those convicted as juveniles and released as young adults. A further 44.4% of the group, consist of those who would exit the system as juveniles, either being juveniles or children at the point of conviction. For year two, the largest group (37.5%) consisted of those convicted as children exiting the system as juveniles. No participants were convicted as a child and later released as a child. Data for year three was not available.
The relevance of this aspect might become more significant if experiences during incarceration were explored on this basis or on analysis of what happens during the reintegration phase. Unfortunately, due to financial constraints, the evaluation process was unable to explore this further.
Graph 2: Developmental Scenarios
Approximately 70% of the participants complied with the stated selection criteria of a Grade 9 education level. There were however, participants with an education level as low as Grade 6. This is illustrated in Graph 3.
Graph 3: Educational Levels
Just over a third of the group (37.3%) had one or more previous convictions. More than half of the group (55.9%) had no previous convictions. Therefore, the IYOP was addressing both first time (sentenced) offending and repeat offending behaviour.
Graph 4: Participant Conviction History
An effort was made as part of the selection process, to include a range of offences. As is evident from the Graph 5, the vast majority of participants were in fact convicted of an economic offence. Economic offences do not rule out aggression or violence, nor do they rule out the use of substance use. The substance abuse programme report for example, noted that all members of the group had used or abused substances at some point. No participants were selected who had been convicted of sexual offences, as the IYOP did not address this behaviour.
Graph 5: Crime types committed by participants
Sentences of between two to ten years were part of the selection criteria, in order for participants to complete the programme. However, due to parole conditions (and extraordinary mass releases),26 a number of participants were released earlier. Consequently, in year three the selection criteria were altered to ensure that all participants had sentences in excess of three years. As illustrated in Graph 6, the majority of sentences handed to participants by the Court were between three and ten years.
Graph 6: Length of Sentences of participants over the three years
3. Overview of IYOP Programmes and Partners
As discussed in Section 2 of this report, the conceptual model for the Integrated Youth Offender Project (IYOP) was built on the theory of risk and resilience, and focused on addressing the factors associated with re-offending. The outcomes of each programme specifically targeted risk factors, and aimed to build the resilience and protective factors associated with preventing re-offending as highlighted in Section 2.2. The programme interventions are presented below to provide an understanding of the content and process of the IYOP. The profile of the intervention partners are discussed in this section. These review the programme content and process changes over the three years, and present issues raised by the facilitators and management team that were addressed or remain issues for consideration (which are addressed later in the report, particularly in the recommendations emerging from this summative evaluation).
Programme Intervention: Psychotherapeutic life skills
The objective of this programme intervention was to develop the social, behavioural and socio-economic skills to enable the young person to develop resilience in the face of life difficulties. The programme was offered by the Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation.
The Vuka S'Hambe programme is a psychotherapeutic approach to life skills that promotes the development of self-knowledge, psychological well-being, and promotes authentic self-esteem. Expected programme aims included assisting young offenders with anger management, stress management, developing relationships with others, and developing decision-making skills. In year one, the programme included a restorative justice approach to encourage participants to take personal responsibility for their actions, and to create awareness of the impact of actions on the victim.
The methodology was based on an experiential process to engage participants in creative ways to reflect upon themselves and learn new ways of thinking, feeling and behaving. Games and puzzles were used to promote thinking skills, the management of emotions, problem-solving, sharing, decision-making, the management of conflict and self-awareness.
Each session began with the lighting of a candle and placing it in the centre of the circle to provide continuity and safety. To promote self-knowledge, facilitators gave participants the opportunity to self-monitor changes in their behaviours, thought (attitudes) and feelings. They were encouraged to share their reactions and experiences in the group and encouraged to give and receive feedback.
The Vuka S'Hambe programme was a thread that weaved through IYOP. Even though other programmes came and went, the Vuka S'Hambe facilitators remained constant and gave a sense of continuity, assisting participants with emotional difficulties as they emerged, and provided debriefing opportunities when incidents arose such as fights in the sections.
The length of the intervention was 26 two-hour sessions in each year, providing 52 hours of engagement.
In year one, two sessions provided an overview of restorative justice and "set the scene for the participants to take responsibility for their crimes and to recognise how their actions impacted on the victims".27 The programme review in year one recognised that this topic was not addressed adequately. As a consequence, a Restorative Justice component was added to the programme for the following two years.
In years two and three, a trauma intervention was included to replace the two restorative justice and one self-esteem sessions. These sessions assisted participants to identify signs of trauma in themselves and others, and developed a supportive group for those experiencing trauma. In year two, one participant was severely affected by a previous trauma and individual counselling was provided to him after each of the sessions. The Correctional Officials reported to the facilitators that a number of participants were voluntarily requesting contact with the Centre's Social Worker after the trauma sessions in order to seek support while incarcerated. This therapeutic support was provided by one of the facilitators of this programme who was a psychologist.
According to the programme staff, the challenges confronted included how best to sustain and deepen the changes brought about by the programme during the remaining time in the correctional centre and how to address the need for follow-up with offenders post-release.
Programme intervention: Conflict Management
The purpose of the conflict management intervention was to develop conflict management and problem solving skills to support successful interpersonal interactions.
The Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP), offered by Phaphama, is a series of workshops presenting pre-emptive conflict management skills enabling individuals to build successful interpersonal interactions, gain insights into themselves and find new and positive approaches to their lives. It provides experiences of respect for all, community building, co-operation and trust. Three workshop levels are offered:
| AVP Basic | This workshop deals with affirmation, communication methods, developing cooperative attitudes, developing a sense of community, and creative conflict resolution. |
| AVP Advanced | The group selects a topic of concern for further exploration and to develop skills to transform conflicts non-violently. Typical themes include dealing with anger, fear, resentment, forgiveness, stereotyping, relationships between men and women and negative peer pressure. |
| AVP Training for Facilitators | Participants who wish to become AVP facilitators after completing the basic and advanced workshops are trained in group process skills, leadership skills and methods, and developing team building. |
The methodology is an experiential learning process based on various activities which are used to illustrate and explore individual and group behaviour, engage participants in dialogue, and seek alternative acceptable behaviour. Each AVP programme was run over four hours over four consecutive days. The AVP basic was run at the beginning of the IYOP (as the first intervention), the AVP advanced one to two months later, and the AVP Training for Facilitators (T4F) towards the end of the programme.
At the beginning of a new session participants were able to reflect on their growth and challenges they had faced since the last workshop as assessment and evaluation processes were integrated into the programme.
Participants trained as facilitators were invited to join the AVP Facilitator team to undertake workshops while in prison and post-release. In year two, joint facilitation by the AVP team and trained IYOP facilitators resulted in three basic workshops being run in one of the cell-blocks, which meant that about 80% of the section experienced a basic workshop. All the facilitators noted the increased interest in the programme as was evident in increased numbers of offenders (across all races) voluntarily coming forward to participate.
The advanced workshop in 2005 provided an opportunity for the participants to reflect on their own behaviour in a conflict situation that had occurred in the Centre that week which involved a number of the participants.28 The participants reflected that they had not applied the AVP principles of listening to each other, and that they had taken sides in the conflict, thereby increasing the tension. This highlighted a recurring challenge to the group - that of putting into practice what had been learnt during the training.
Programme intervention: Family reintegration
The objective of the family reintegration intervention was to reintegrate and rebuild family relationships and networks with the offender while in prison and post release.
The NICRO intervention focused on family relationships between the offender and the family. The objectives were to facilitate family involvement and contact with the offender, increase awareness of the rights and responsibilities of families during imprisonment and after release, and involve families in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.
The programme involved group discussions, contact with family members (by telephone or a personal visit), and one-on-one counselling with the offender. The intervention aimed to provide continuity between what happens inside the Correctional Centre and outside. Where necessary, action plans or further referrals were made.
Given that the group sessions were offered in accordance with the needs of the group each year, the actual numbers of sessions varied across the years.
The first session explored the family as an institution in terms of who and what is a family, the role of a family and different roles within a family structure. Activities allowed participants to explore the differences between functional and dysfunctional families. The second session unpacked the participants' relationship with their family. This session tended to be difficult for some participants as they shared personal details with the group. This was very touching and brought out many emotions and issues in family relationships. The third session focused on identifying any issues or needs the participant might want to restore in their family relationships. This was based on the drawing the participants had done of their families between the second and third sessions. This provided insights into the nature and state of the relationships for the facilitator, and possible areas for intervention.
NICRO reported a positive group climate in that there was respect for one another and adherence to the group rules which had been agreed upon. Furthermore, NICRO reported that they received positive responses in the evaluations of the sessions from the offenders who participated.
The group sessions were followed by one-on-one sessions with each participant. In addition, the facilitator held telephonic conversations with family members to mediate relationships, convey concerns of participants, and restore family communication. Where it proved necessary, home visits were undertaken towards the end of the programme. The social worker experienced difficulty in trying to contact some family members and to re-establish connections with a few of the participants. Many family members did not have telephones, worked long hours or had moved and were difficult to trace. In one instance, the family members did not want to have anything to do with the offender. This highlights the challenges of the reintegration, a phase of great significance in buffering against recidivism.
The original proposal indicated that family group conferences would be held after the one-on-one sessions. However, this was dependent on the needs of the participants.
Programme intervention: Healthy Living
The objective of the healthy living component was to enable participants to make informed decisions about healthy living in relation to drug and alcohol use, HIV/AIDS and sexual relationships.
Two interventions were offered. One focused on HIV and AIDS and the other on substance abuse.
A. HIV and AIDS
The HIV and AIDS intervention was offered by the Themba HIV/AIDS Organisation. The organisation uses the "Interactive Themba Theatre" (ITT) methodology to help individuals explore ways of transforming their lives and giving them techniques to practice behaviour to keep themselves safe within the context of HIV and AIDS. The ITT methodology was developed specifically in South Africa, and includes aspects of drama therapy, psychodrama, theatre games, improvisation, formal teaching methods, forum theatre, play devising, play directing and performance.
The initial performance-workshop aimed to:
- Provide up-to-date accurate information about HIV and AIDS and related issues.
- Provide an opportunity for the audience to practice strategies for safe/safer sex.
- Promote and affirm "staying safe" through the role modelling of the actor-educators and the performance characters.
- Challenge stereotypes, discrimination, stigma and prejudice and address the South African context of HIV and AIDS.
The initial performance-workshop (given to a larger group of offenders at the prison) was followed by 14 action-based workshop sessions with the young people. These workshops developed participants' practical skills, such as using a condom properly, articulating changes in attitudes towards HIV positive people, related health and social skills, redefining relationships to others in terms of "there's more to loving someone than just having sex", and developing the ability to talk about intimate activities openly and to ask questions, participating in a public performance, sharing information with other offenders.
The sessions raised a number of issues about sexuality, sexual relationships, sexual development and masturbation. Programme staff highlighted the need to provide further workshops on issues such as pregnancy, birth, and the biological aspects of being human and "being alive". In year three the number of sessions increased to fourteen. There remains a need to include the rehearsal time into the sessions in future correctional centre interventions.
The organisation planned to implement a peer support programme after the intervention in year three, which was supported by the officials. However, this was not successful as the participants were transferred to other Centres when the juvenile centre changed from a Medium to a Maximum security centre.
One of the challenges the programme faced was gaining the support of the DCS health department regarding HIV testing procedures within the custodial setting and gaining the support of healthcare staff in relation to communicating safer sexual practices.
The issue of confidentiality regarding HIV positive participants remains a priority concern in the correctional context, so to, is it essential that confidentiality is maintained regarding sensitive issues (including sodomy and sexual orientation) by all during the programme.
B. Substance abuse
The Centre for Alcohol and Drug Studies (CADS), a division within SANCA (Johannesburg) provided the substance use intervention in the first two years of the intervention. In the third year (2006) the intervention was provided by Drug Assessment Rehabilitation Education (DARE).
The CADS programme involved a prevention and awareness programme that dealt with addiction, information on drugs and alcohol, the impact of addiction on the physical, spiritual and psychological functioning, dealing with peer pressure, coping with relapse and high risk situations, and the links between drugs, HIV and STDs. The focus of the programme was to engage offenders in positive behaviour change through promoting healthy living and habits, and encouraging individuals to take responsibility for meaningful interpersonal relationships. Six sessions were held.
The CADS methodology incorporated providing information through the use of videos, brochures, guest speakers (for example a recovering alcoholic), handouts and activities, followed by discussion, feedback, group presentations, role plays and opportunities for questions and answers. The role-plays provided opportunities for offenders to experience being in different situations and to face the challenges of 'saying no' and changing their behaviour. Offenders were also given opportunities to be honest about their drug-related behaviour and the consequences of it. Individual high-risk situations were identified and participants developed original and realistic ideas and plans on how to overcome personal addictions.
The CADS facilitators were concerned that the offenders gave model answers, indicating their level of awareness of issues and 'correct attitudes'. However, it was not possible to detect their honesty especially as what was often written about did not correspond to the verbal response or experience.
CADS self reported that the programme had not been successful over the two years, and did not achieve the desired outcomes. The original programme sessions had not been followed, and the participant assessment indicated that they had not understood the content. There were discussions to re-run the programme as an intensive process at the end of the year however this did not happen. On review, the CADS programme offered an awareness programme which did not meet the needs of the offenders nor the purpose of the IYOP intervention. The intervention needed to move beyond awareness towards a more treatment-based intervention.
In the third year (2006) the substance use intervention was provided by DARE. The programme encompassed three stages. The first stage was general awareness and education around substance abuse and the addiction process. The second stage divided the participants into two groups according to whether they were in the process of recovery from addiction; or a second group with those who had already completed a period of sobriety and required a maintenance programme, or had no history of substance abuse. This stage included ongoing participation in either the recovery or the maintenance group. The final stage involved two follow-up sessions at a later date in the integrated programme to assess the progress of the group in terms of recovery, maintenance of sobriety and analysis of further needs.
After the initial sessions, it was established that all the participants in the year three programme had abused substances. Therefore, it was decided to keep the group together and work through the recovery programme. Small group discussions or a discussion in the whole group tended to work better than participants individually completing the activities.
The expected outcomes of the DARE programme were:
- Make informed choices about substance abuse after receiving information on addiction as well as the drugs.
- Develop self-awareness and identify own high risk factors for addiction and relapse.
- Develop psychological and social skills in order to maintain recovery from substance abuse and build meaningful relationships.
The training methodology used in the education programme included:
- Information sessions - to make sure that participants had the correct information about the effects of the drugs and to dispel any myths around certain drugs. Information on the types of addiction and the addiction process were also given.
- Question and answer sessions to reflect on information that had been shared and also check understanding.
- Brainstorming sessions were used to get the group to participate, share their own experiences and develop problem solving skills.
- Individual tasks and worksheets allowed for self-reflection and the development of self-awareness.
- A video was shown to emphasise the consequences of substance abuse and make the information sessions more "real".
- Group therapy sessions allowed participants to talk about the difficulties they experienced in giving up drugs and their fears of relapse.
- A training manual was provided to reinforce the information sessions and for future reference.
Participants were concerned with the damage they may have done to their health through their use of substances, and tended to blame the risk factors associated with substance abuse rather than accepting responsibility for some of the choices they had made. Participants also found it difficult to understand and accept that addiction is a lifelong process, and this remained a discussion theme throughout the sessions.
Attendance was challenging due to correctional centre functioning (for example, officials not fetching participants from their cells and not allowing the facilitators to bring the material into the centre), the cold weather, and individual commitment to the programme (their was a core group of eight participants that regularly attended and wanted to address their own behaviour). The facilitators noted that there was a shift in the core group as individuals started to take responsibility for their own recovery.
Programme intervention: Business Skills
The business skills intervention aimed to address individuals' attitudes and responses towards education, development and employment, and assist in opening up opportunities to access employment and other opportunities. The programme was offered by BEntrepreneurING in year one, and by Cathy Park and Associates in the following two years.29
The programme aimed to develop participants' self-knowledge and self-management skills, help them re-frame their current context and the skills they have acquired in the business of crime so they are empowered and motivated to change, and to develop a future vision of themselves and a sense of purpose. In addition, the programme aimed to teach practical skills to start up and sustain a business that reinforced and developed their unique package of skills.
The programme in years one and two was 16 hours long, and in year three was extended to 24 hours. This allowed the facilitators time to develop relationships with the participants and gave the participants more time to integrate the learning and practical exercises.
The programme was offered as four modules. The first module explored the self in terms of meeting the expected outcomes of the programme, particularly in terms of a strengthened self-image; increased awareness of own skills and talents; drawing out positive aspect of self and the individuals past; and creating a sense of possibility and hope for their future. Module two was undertaken in a group discussion, whereby participants brainstormed business ideas based on the skills and resources available in the group. They were then taught to undertake a feasibility study. The outcomes were to look at the world with an entrepreneurial 'eye', develop a sense of various business opportunities outside, and to learn skills for testing business ideas.
Module three provided guidance on developing basic business plans, cash flow margin and profit, and provided an understanding and basic business vocabulary. A cartoon story book was used as a learning tool. The final module focused on marketing oneself and the business, and managing oneself as an entrepreneur.
The modelling of one of the course facilitators was powerful as being self-employed and an entrepreneur made it appear possible. Key outcomes included the recognition and valuing of existing experience and skills of the offenders; the exposure to the option of legal self-employment (the offenders were excited to know that they could make money legally); enhanced self-esteem; the gaining of practical skills and knowledge, and the exploration of a vision for themselves and their community.
The participants were given the contact number of the organisation for further support in being self-employed after release.
Programme intervention: Restorative Justice
The year one review indicated the need to include a restorative justice component, and this was subsequently included in years two and three. The objective of the restorative justice intervention was that, through the restorative justice process, participants would address the issues of taking personal responsibility and recognising the impact of their actions on themselves, the victims, their families and support people. This intervention was provided by the Restorative Justice Centre and the Nigel Justice Centre.
In year two, 11 participants were referred to the Restorative Justice Centre (RJC) for the Victim Offender Mediation (VOC) programme. Two participants from the group did not attend as they were involved in cultural activities, and one participant had been released. The first workshop provided an understanding of the RJC functions and how a restorative process could benefit the participants in restoring justice both in their lives and in the lives of their victims. The RJC facilitators undertook a session with the offenders to identify and assess the real needs of the participants. The process engaged participants in a dialogue to address fears and to understand the concept of forgiveness and how it can be achieved. The process was voluntary and not all participants indicated or were assessed as being ready for the process. Two of the participants were "about 90% ready" for the process, and the facilitator decided to begin the process with these two participants. The Nigel Justice Centre undertook the engagement with the victims as they lived in this geographical area. Follow-up sessions were held with the victims. One of the participants underwent a Family Group Conference (FGC), and two VOC processes with the two victim families were held.
Working contracts were drawn and signed by all VOC and FGC participants. The contract clearly indicated the task each person would do in the process. The RJC maintained responsibility to oversee the process and monitor progress.
The year three programme involved an initial orientation session with the nineteen participants. Eleven of these participants indicated an interest to participate in the Family Group Conference process where they could meet their victims and make peace with them by taking responsibility for their actions and asking for forgiveness. Seventeen of the participants were involved in the preparation session. Of those, eleven wrote letters to their victims as part of the process.30 Ten of the youth offenders were assessed for the pre-Family Group Conference. Three victims were prepared for the process, and consequently three FGC's were held.
Through the restorative process, the participants began to see their criminal acts as a result of individual behaviour and choice, and to understand the extent to which their harmful behaviour affected people at different levels, including themselves, their victims and those around them. Furthermore, attention was drawn to negative influences such as friendships and the use of drugs and alcohol on their criminal activity.
Families and victims were given an opportunity to clarify issues pertaining to the crime committed and to voice their emotions. In one FGC, the parent and participants developed a strategy to improve the communication between them, and two other groups the participants agreed to take more responsibility at home. In addition, plans were made for the reintegration of the offender after release. Apologies were given by four participants by kneeling down in front of the victims and their families as a sign and token of shame and forgiveness.
The FGC and the restorative process improved the relationship with the participants' families as it provided a forum for open communication, sharing of emotional responses to behaviour, and provided the space for all parties to make agreements on the reintegration process. However, as the IYOP is limited in its duration, no follow-up was able to be made with the families to monitor adherence to the agreements, nor to determine the effectiveness of the FGC. The FGC's invited members of the community to participate in the process, and this included pastors, extended family members, and significant people in the participants' lives, such as a neighbour. The response from these participants was positive as it altered stigmatising attitudes and opened the door for meaningful relationships post-release.
During year three, one of the RJC facilitators was attacked by three armed youths in an attempted car hijacking in the Nigel area. This had a profound affect on him and the restorative process as he shared his experience and his emotional response. It raised issues of the level of support the programme and process needs to give to victims. This is extremely important, given that it is essential that the victim be at the centre of restorative justice work. The majority of the victims displayed high levels of anger, and were not receptive to restorative initiatives from their side towards the offender unless it involved remuneration. This suggests the need for support for the victims, and the necessity of sustaining a long-term restorative process with the participants. The experience also speaks of the difficulty and highlights the need for caution in respect of perpetrator-initiated restorative justice processes.
4. IYOP Programme Delivery Over the Three Years
In general, over the three years of the IYOP the sequencing of programmes occurred in a similar manner, with the therapeutic life skills component weaving through the interventions and providing the thread to assess change, mentor growth, address concerns, and facilitate co-ordination of the interventions. The general structure is cohesive and provides a logical framework for an integrated approach.
There were however a number of alterations to the programme as a whole over the three year period. The year one review31 indicated the need to include a restorative justice component to the programme. This was included in year two through the Restorative Justice Centre. However, the feedback from participants, and reflection by the partner organisation and the programme team indicated that the sessions needed to be included earlier in the programme. Consequently, the restorative justice sessions began earlier in the programme in year three. The year three evaluation indicated that the restorative justice intervention needs to begin even earlier in the programme in order that it can be completed over the duration of IYOP. This is as a result of the time required to facilitate the process (meeting with families and victims, preparation of offenders), as well as the commitment of participants during the programme which wanes after release. This is an issue which requires a great deal of consideration, as it is quite likely that a fair amount of personal intervention and personal work is required to get the offender to a place of authentic readiness for the restorative justice process. This suggests that the total duration of the process needs to be extended.
The evaluation process in year two indicated that the substance abuse component was not having the desired impact, and the partner at the time indicated that they were not able to continue in year three of the programme. Therefore, Drug Assessment Rehabilitation Education (DARE) were approached and invited to participate. Based on the results of the year three programme, DARE recommend that the substance abuse intervention be condensed into a three week period to increase the intensity of the programme, which aims to increase the impact on the emotional level of change of participants. In addition, they recommend the explicit inclusion of substance abuse issues in activities of other programme interventions, such as the HIV component and the Vuka S'Hambe programme.
The level of intensity of participant and programme contact averaged 374 hours each year, excluding the one-on-one sessions with the NICRO social worker and the Restorative Justice facilitators. The table below indicates the level of intensity of the programme for each year:
Table 1: Number of hours of the intervention over the three years.
| Year | Number of hours |
| 2004 | 384 |
| 2005 | 372 |
| 2006 | 366 |
The number of hours of the programme decreased each year due to adapting programme sessions based on the feedback from participants and annual evaluations, and due to timing issues, such as public holidays, availability of facilitators, maternity leave, etc. The NICRO family programme in year three had fewer sessions due to the facilitator being on maternity leave and an increase in the number of sessions allocated for the restorative justice intervention.
Not all participants attended all the sessions, or all the programmes, and consequently the level of participation varied. If participants attended more consistently then facilitators noted a firmer commitment towards change, and deeper change – not just surface change but genuine response and honesty in talking about the struggle to change and the struggle to put the new knowledge and attitudes into practice.
Challenges in delivery of the programme over the three years included:
- A lack of a fixed venue and space within the prison to conduct the training which disrupted the group process; the sense of group identity; the security of having a regular space; and the time that the group was then able to start.
- Participants who work in the centre were regularly called out and missed sessions.
- Participants were often ill and missed sessions.
- Some participants did not attend due to the weather: in winter it was too cold and they wanted to stay in bed, or they wanted to sit in the sunshine.
- Early release of offenders.
- Prison activities that disrupted the schedule: However, a number of DCS officials in the Centre were extremely helpful in negotiating with other officials for longer sessions and ensuring that the participants still received food when the food times were changed or when sessions continued into the afternoon.
- Follow-up and support for the participants after the programme was completed.
- DCS officials getting the participants to the session.
Over all three years, the majority of participants indicated that they wanted to participate because they wanted to learn something, and they were "hungry for knowledge". It was also evident that supportive relationships that were established with facilitators served as a motivation to be part of the programme. Offenders were aware of the commitment of facilitators and their constructive interaction with them, which contributed towards them attending the programme.
Across the three years, the participants consistently rated the programme high on overall satisfaction (93%, 100%, 100%);32 that it helped them to be more positive about their lives (93%, 100%, 100%), and that it helped them to cope with life in prison because of being part of a group (100%, 100%, 100%). All participants across the three years indicated that they felt that the programme had helped them to get on better with people in prison. Participants in general felt guided across all the interventions (87%, 91%, and 100%) and their feedback indicated that the sequencing of the interventions was correct and that each component followed on from the next. Participants in each year indicated the value of being part of a group that was supportive and caring, and one that contributed towards positive emotions while being incarcerated. Only one participant in 2005 indicated that he felt threatened in the group, but no further explanation was provided. One participant in 2005 also mentioned that the programme gave him a sense of 'family'.
The graduation ceremony was an important milestone in the development of each individual, and provided an opportunity for participants to demonstrate their achievements to their families, the correctional officials, and peer offenders. In addition, it provided an opportunity for the group to affirm each other in the progress they had made, and in publicly stating their hopes and dreams. The handing over of their certificates, the wearing of the t-shirts they had painted, and the sharing of their stories (through poems, song and drama) provided a symbol of the inward journey they had travelled.
The partners in IYOP continued to work together over the three years. Partners were able to be open in their concerns, successes, challenges faced over the duration, and shared lessons, experience and progress. The early establishment of the team approach, agreement of the common goal, development of shared principles and methodological approaches, the regular team meetings, the handover processes, and the shared assessment of individual participants' growth over each programme were important processes in maintaining the working relationships and ensuring the effectiveness, and efficiency of the three year programme. The regular attendance and consistency of attendance by managers and facilitators increased over the three year period, and contributed further to the effectiveness of the programme.
The programme was supported over the three years by Irish Aid. Additional support was provided by the individual partners and their funders during the period.
Table 2: Overview of the Integrated Youth Offender Programme Delivery over the Three Year Period
| IYOP Schedule | Jan | Feb | March | April | May | June | July | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec | Total Number of Sessions |
| Year 1: 2004 | |||||||||||||
| Selection of participants | |||||||||||||
| AVP | Basic | Advanced | Facilitator | All levels: 12 days | |||||||||
| Vuka S'Hambe | 6 Sessions | 5 Sessions | 6 Sessions | 2 Sessions | 3 Sessions | 4 Sessions | 26 Sessions | ||||||
| NICRO Family Prog | 3 Sessions | 3 Sessions | 4 Sessions | 7 Sessions | 6 Sessions | 5 Sessions | 27 Sessions | ||||||
| CADS substance abuse | 6 Sessions | 8 Sessions | 14 Sessions | ||||||||||
| Themba HIV/AIDS Org | 3 Sessions | 4 Sessions | 3 Sessions | 3 Sessions | 13 Sessions | ||||||||
| BEntreprenuerING | 4 Sessions | 4 Sessions | |||||||||||
| Restorative Justice | Not in programme | ||||||||||||
| Graduation | Graduation | ||||||||||||
| Year 2:2005 | |||||||||||||
| Selection of participants | |||||||||||||
| AVP | Basic | Advanced | Facilitator | All levels: 12 days | |||||||||
| Vuka S'Hambe | 4 sessions | 8 sessions | 4 sessions | 5 sessions | 5 sessions | 26 sessions | |||||||
| NICRO Family Prog | 6 sessions | 4 sessions | 3 sessions | 4 sessions | 4 sessions | 21 sessions | |||||||
| CADS substance abuse | 8 sessions | 2 sessions | 10 sessions | ||||||||||
| Themba HIV/AIDS Org | 4 sessions | 3 sessions | 3 sessions | 4 sessions | 14 sessions | ||||||||
| Cathy Park & Associates |
6 sessions | 6 sessions | |||||||||||
| Restorative Justice | Not in programme | ||||||||||||
| Graduation | Graduation | ||||||||||||
| Year 3: 2006 | |||||||||||||
| Selection of participants | |||||||||||||
| AVP | Basic | Advanced | Facilitator | All levels: 12 days | |||||||||
| Vuka S'Hambe | 5 sessions | 7 sessions | 8 sessions | 1 session | 3 sessions | 2 sessions | 26 sessions | ||||||
| NICRO Family Prog | 2 sessions | 2 sessions | 5 sessions | 4 sessions | 13 sessions | ||||||||
| DARE substance abuse | 4 sessions | 4 sessions | 1 session | 1 sessions | 10 sessions | ||||||||
| Themba HIV/AIDS Org | 6 sessions | 9 sessions | 15 sessions | ||||||||||
| Cathy Park & Associates |
3 sessions | 2 sessions | 5 sessions | ||||||||||
| Restorative Justice | 2 sessions | 8 sessions | 10 sessions | ||||||||||
| Graduation | Graduation | ||||||||||||
5. Evaluation Process
5.1 Evaluation methodology
A review of evaluative and research material pertaining to evaluations and reviews with young offenders was undertaken to provide a sound methodological approach for the evaluation. In the commentary accompanying Article 30 of the UN Beijing Rules (1985), the following is stated: "A constant appraisal of the needs of juveniles, as well as the trends and problems of delinquency, is a prerequisite for improving the methods of formulating appropriate policies and establishing adequate interventions, at both formal and informal levels. In this context, research by independent persons and bodies should be facilitated by responsible agencies, and it may be valuable to obtain and to take into account the views of juveniles themselves, not only those who come into contact with the system."
Key issues that emerged from the review were the rights of the juvenile and youth offenders, validity of responses from offenders, validity of data from a range of tools, the quality of the individual programme assessments, language and literacy levels, the time and limited resources available for the evaluation, and the range of factors being measured. These were taken into account in the planning and design of the IYOP evaluation process.
The monitoring and evaluation system was developed at the start of the programme and was incorporated into programme delivery over the three years. It was integrated into the management of the programme, informed the selection process of participants, monitored programme intervention delivery, and provided empirical evidence of impact during programme.
The summative evaluation therefore involved a desk-top review of the data collected, interviews with Correctional Officials and an evaluation process with participants still serving sentences and those that had been released.
The methodology used a participative action-reflection approach for the pre and post evaluation processes during the three year period, and in the instruments used in the summative evaluation.
The benefits of this approach are:
- Ownership rests within the Correctional Centre community of staff, juvenile offenders, community structures and civil society;
- Relevant findings emerge based on experience and practice that are relevant for the specific context within which correctional services and youth offending occur;
- Participation in the research process is more likely and programmes are more likely to be sustainable in the longer term;
- The needs of a diverse group are reflected and their opinions and perceptions are taken into account in the future design and implementation of the programme; and
- Both the immediate practical needs as well as the long-term interests of stakeholders and juveniles are acknowledged in terms of respect for rights and responsibilities.
5.2 Participant consent and confidentiality
Given the nature of undertaking evaluation assessments with juvenile offenders, a briefing was given to the selected participants on the role and purpose of the evaluation of the IYOP. The evaluator asked the offenders if they wished to participate voluntarily in the evaluation process and explained the nature of the confidentiality of the information they would share.
It was stressed that no incentives or benefits would be given to the offenders for their involvement in the programme or the evaluation, but the information would help the IYOP to strengthen its programme for other offenders and build our knowledge of reintegration, rehabilitation and preventing re-offending. Each participant was given the option to refrain from participating in the evaluation with no repercussions at any point in the process.
5.3 Evaluation instruments
Demographic surveys and baseline questionnaires were completed by the participants prior to the programme intervention in year one and year two. This survey provided information on the life history and unchangeable risk factors that the young offenders had experienced. This included information about housing, schooling, bereavement, experience of substance use, criminal activity, family criminal associations, family relationships, poverty and economic support. The demographic was not completed in year three due to resource constraints.
The assessments undertaken by each programme and implementation reports, as well as other documents of the process (such as the minutes of meetings and the annual evaluation reports), were collated to provide evidence for the summative evaluation over the three years.
The summative evaluation involved a focus group, with IYOP participants serving their sentence in Leeuwkop Correctional Centre, a post-intervention survey and projective drawings - the last mentioned being administered by a psychologist. Interviews were conducted with participants on parole and those who had completed their sentences to gain data on their post-release experiences and the impact of the IYOP on post-release experiences.
The summative evaluation further involved one-on-one interviews with four Correctional Officials in Boksburg Correctional Centre who worked in the juvenile centre at the time that the IYOP was being implemented.
5.4 Sample
In total, 14 participants were interviewed post the IYOP programme (in 2007), providing a 23% sample size. Only one participant (from the 2005 programme) was re-arrested post-release, and this was for a crime that was committed prior to his first sentence. He is currently serving an additional sentence in the adult section of the Boksburg Correctional Centre. One other participant (from 2004) was arrested for a crime (vehicle hijacking) he committed after his release. It was not possible to conduct an evaluation interview with either of these participants.
Three participants from the 2006 IYOP were interviewed in Leeuwkop Correctional Centre, and four staff members from the Boksburg Juvenile Centre were interviewed for the summative evaluation. From available data on the whereabouts of the participants in June 2007, it is estimated that 20% are still serving their sentences in juvenile and adult centres.
In order to determine the impact of the IYOP on enabling youth offenders after release to choose a non-criminal life, efforts were made to trace the participants from the three programmes offered in Boksburg Correctional Centre. This involved requesting information from the Department of Correctional Services on where juveniles still incarcerated had been transferred to (as Boksburg juvenile centre had closed), the date of release of the participants, and information on those released under parole conditions. A focus group was undertaken with three participants who had been transferred to the juvenile centre in Leeuwkop, Gauteng. The process further involved requesting the Department to undertake a focus group and interviews with participants still under parole. Unfortunately, this was not possible. Therefore, the CSVR Vuka S'Hambe co-ordinator, made telephonic contact and undertook family visits to participants who had been released and that could be traced through the family reintegration intervention with NICRO using the contact details that were available from that programme. Participants were then invited to participate in this evaluation process on a voluntary basis.
Five participants from the 2005 programme were interviewed, and six participants from the 2006 programme. Unfortunately, no participants from the 2004 programme could be contacted.
5.5 Limitations
The evaluation instruments were only available in English. Their content was translated into isiZulu by facilitators during implementation and the responses of participants were translated back into English. Some variance in the actual and translated meaning may be evident. The instruments were piloted in year one and refined based on the emerging findings and available resources.
The second limitation is that the post-evaluations were conducted immediately after the final sessions before the graduation ceremony during the three year programme.
Thirdly, the longitudinal study to determine the impact of the programme on post-release reintegration, behaviour change and accessing opportunities was hampered by the difficulty in tracing participants after release. In addition, the resources available for the summative evaluation did not allow for an in-depth longitudinal study.
Finally, the external evaluator came in at periodic intervals to undertake the evaluation, and therefore this summative evaluation relies to a large extent on the level of reporting of each partner, and their observations.
6. Impact of the Three Year IYOP
6.1 Participant Completion of the IYOP
A total of 61 offenders took up the offer to participate in the programme, of whom 46 (75%) graduated. Graph 7 below indicates the number of participants selected each year for participation and graduation levels.
Graph 7: Participation levels of young offenders across the three years
During the programme delivery, four participants (6.5%) were released from incarceration (of whom one in year two voluntarily returned to graduate). Three participants were transferred to Correctional Centres nearer their homes, and one to the adult section which made it difficult for him to complete the programme. Four participants did not complete the programme due to working in the Centre (and therefore not being able to attend regularly), three (4.9%) were not competent in the language (the IYOP was conducted in isiSotho), and one participant decided to play soccer instead of being part of the group.
Table 3: Reasons for participants not completing the IYOP over the three years
| 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | |
| Number released | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| Number transferred | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Number did not complete | 1 | 1 | 0 |
6.2 Impact in the Correctional Centre
6.2.1 Impact on participants in the correctional centre
The impact of the programme on individuals and on the individual groups is documented in the annual evaluation reports. Based on the results of the annual evaluation instruments and the management reports, the impact of the programme is summarised below. The summative evaluation focus group with three of the 2006 group, confirmed the findings.
Expected outcome 1:
Improvement in cognitive skills, (problem-solving, decision-making etc) and demonstrates a positive attitudes towards education and learning opportunities.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Poor cognitive skills and learning challenges, school refusal or drop-out.
Results:
- Insight into risk and resilience factors, and their impact on their personal circumstances as a basis of the choices they made, and potential application in their own lives in and out of the correctional centre.
- Growth in writing skills as writing becomes more expressive, and improvement in language structure.
- Increased confidence to share own depth of understanding through speaking, reading poems and writing extracts.
- Increased openness and willingness to engage in school activities or participate in further study opportunities.
- For some participants, increased ability to comprehend evidenced by their ability to summarise and make links to what was learnt previously.
Expected outcome 2:
Demonstrate improved communication skills, assertiveness and self control.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Anti-social attitudes, poor impulse control and lack of emotional control; poor communication skills and poor interpersonal relationships.
Results:
- Increased ability to deal with own emotions positively and greater understanding of their emotions and individual reactions to emotions.
- Demonstration of improved communication skills which was observed in individual body language, improved self esteem, confidence in interacting with other people. This was specifically noted in increased eye contact during the sessions, displaying open rather than closed posture, and increased engagement with the activities.
- Increased confidence in sharing personal experience in a safe and supportive environment where people were respected and listened to.
- Improved verbal and listening skills.
- Increased ability to express feelings and reactions to situations.
- Improved communication with officials in the correctional centre.
Expected outcome 3:
The participant is open to opportunities to transform conflict and to see
possibilities that problems can be solved. Demonstrate these skills in their life given the correctional context.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Lack of problem solving skills and violent or aggressive behaviour.
Results:
- An increase in knowledge and skills of how to transform conflicts from negative incidents to more positive outcomes.
- An understanding of how emotions and inappropriate responses to the emotion had contributed to their negative behaviour.
- Honest and genuine reflection of own responses to conflict, and an understanding that there are different ways of responding to conflict.
- Acknowledgement of the difficulty in applying conflict resolution skills in the correctional context per se, but this was not preventing participants from applying the skills in their own lives and daily interactions with offenders and officials.
- Demonstrating the skills learnt in the IYOP sessions to resolve conflicts, violent incidents and seek forgiveness based on actual incidents experienced.
Expected outcome 4:
Increased knowledge and ability to engage in dialogue to inform attitudes and possible behaviour changes in relation to substance use and healthy living.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Participation in risk behaviour (substance and alcohol use and abuse), inhibition and poor judgement as a result of substance use and abuse.
Results:
- Increase in recognising the importance of living a healthy life after release from the correctional centre.
- An individual understanding and commitment towards living a better and healthier life style.
- Greater awareness of the harmful effects of alcohol and substance abuse on individual health and life style.
- Increased awareness of the impact of drugs and alcohol on their lives and recognition of how this contributed towards their criminal behaviour.
- Increased awareness of sexual health and its relationship to a healthy lifestyle and the role drugs and alcohol can play in risk taking behaviour.
Expected outcome 5:
Develop greater understanding of HIV and AIDS, sexuality and sexual
relationships to make informed decisions regarding their sexual relationships and behaviour.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Participation in risk behaviour (sexual relationships), lack of self-care and/or disregard for the safety of sexual partners.
Results:
- Increase in knowledge about HIV and AIDS, sexual intercourse, sexuality and sexual relationships.
- A shift toward a more positive attitude towards taking care of oneself and others who are infected or affected by HIV and AIDS.
- Increased openness to raise issues and talk about health concerns.
- Increased awareness of risk-taking sexual behaviour that may have put them and their partners at risk (including the link with drugs and alcohol abuse).
- Increased contemplation of changing their own sexual practices and behaviour.
- Making judgements based on communication and trust rather than on stigmatisation.
- Increased confidence and commitment to negotiating sexual relationships and practicing safer sexual practices.
- Increased willingness to be tested for HIV and for some participants a commitment to be tested (in or out of the correctional centre).
Expected outcome 6:
The offender acknowledges they can access and create employment
opportunities away from crime and has a sense of possibility of achieving this.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Lack of employment and vocational training, lack of financial independence away from a life of crime.
Results:
- A greater commitment to living a positive life (being a "normal person").
- Realisation by participants that they had skills from criminal acts that could be used in business.
- Awareness of individual capacities that motivated them to begin working on their own business skills while incarcerated.
- Developed an intention for post-release behaviour based on a feasible business plan.
- Acknowledgement that family members may be more willing to support them if they see a concrete road ahead for the participant.
- Sharing of past business experience to increase feasibility and reality of generating an income away from criminal activity.
- Increased possibilities of a range of legal economic activities participants could become engaged in after release.
- A commitment by participants not to return to a life of crime.
- Acknowledgement that a business could be started with very little economic backing or resources and can be built up over time.
Expected outcome 7:
Awareness of the importance of family and community support, improved
relationships with the family while offender is in prison, and preparing for reintegration post-release (family acceptance).
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Family breakdown and disrupted family relationships, and negative interaction with the community, weak social ties, lack of family stability, and lack of support networks.
Results:
- The process of family reintegration was driven by individual needs and followed individual processes dependent on issues, personalities and family dynamics.
- Acknowledgement that pre-conviction lifestyles of the participants impacted on the family members and family unit. Family members were hurt emotionally by the actions of the child and the stigma this had placed on them. In some instances, the family 'punished' the participant by not visiting them.
- Family group conferences provided an opportunity for family members to dialogue issues in an open and honest manner and this benefited the family relationships.
- Increased awareness by participants of the role they can play in the family and mentor younger siblings towards a positive and healthy lifestyle.
- Participants gained a deeper insight into what it means to be part of a family and the roles, relationships and importance of caring, guidance, communication and accountability within the family network.
- Clarity on where they would live and support participants could expect post-release.
- Initial steps were planned between the offender and their family to heal the harm and build relationships.
Expected outcome 8:
Understand the consequences of their actions on themselves, the victim, their family and community; and gain insights into restorative justice possibilities and processes.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Not taking responsibility for actions; maintaining negative and harmful cycles of violence with victims, family members and the community; extreme egocentrism; and anti-social attitudes.
Results:
- Taking responsibility and acknowledgement of their criminal act and acknowledgement of the choices they made.
- Increased willingness to undertake restorative processes with the victim of their offence.
- Initial steps were taken by a number of the participants to ask for forgiveness from the victims and to begin the healing process for themselves.
- Increased empathy towards the victim and the consequences of their actions on family members and the broader community.
- Offender and family members were able to speak truthfully about the crime, the consequences of the offender's criminal activity and family relationships in the FGC's.
- Initial steps were planned between the offender and their family to heal the harm and build relationships.
- Individual participants began to detach themselves from wrongful influences, illustrated by participants standing up for themselves despite peer offenders laughing at them for committing to a new way of behaving.
Expected outcome 9:
Develop a sense of purpose and hope for the future and courage to face up to life challenges, through an increased understanding of how risk factors have impacted on their lives and a greater understanding of the world in which they live.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Lack of coping skills and networks; lack of sense of belonging (weak social ties) and philosophical grounding; demoralisation; despondency; and passivity.
Results:
- Increase in feelings of hopefulness about individual futures.
- Greater acceptance of who they were and how their past had impacted on their actions and responses to situations.
- Recognition that the past will not stop them from achieving their goals in future.
- Initial steps can be taken while in the correctional centre to apply what they have learnt in their daily interactions with other people and how they react to situations.
Expected outcome 10:
Develop the social, interpersonal and coping skills to enhance friendships and participate in meaningful self-development activities based on the strengths and skills of the individual. Demonstrate the growth by shifting away from criminal gang activity towards positive interaction with peers, and greater acceptance of others.
Risk factors associated with this outcome: Identification with anti-social or criminal role models; weak social ties; anti-social attitudes and feelings.
Results:
- Increased self-development and improved social skills towards each other, their families and the programme staff.
- A shift away from anti-social associations towards a 'more positive life' demonstrated by reflecting on positive and negative friendships.
- Greater awareness of the influence (positive and negative) of peers on individual actions.
- The formation of positive friendships through participation in the IYOP and the modelling of a new kind of friendship.
- Development of a sense of community in the group process and a shift away from individual isolation.
- Individual participants began to detach themselves from wrongful influences, illustrated by participants standing up for themselves despite peer offenders laughing at them for committing to a new way of behaving.
The following outcome was added as the results from the IYOP evaluation indicated the growth of individuals during the programme.
Outcome: self development
Risk factors: Poor or immature sense of self; lack of self insight; lack of self confidence; and lack of self esteem.
Results:
- Increased awareness and acknowledgement of internal strengths and needs.
- Improved sense of self-identity.
- Increased self-esteem and commitment to being true to oneself.
- Improved "self-talk" demonstrated in participants indicating that although the sexual health performance made them fearful, they "could do it".
- A significant increase in participants' ability to reflect on themselves, group processes and their involvement (positive and negatively) in the group.
- Acknowledgement by participants of their individual growth.
6.2.2 Psychological assessment
The difficulty of rehabilitation work is still apparent despite the positive impact of IYOP on participants. However, substantial positive impact was still evident from the results of the evaluation instruments, the perceptions by the participants themselves gathered through interviews and the qualitative data and the observations by the DCS officials and IYOP facilitators, the psychological assessment33 of drawings made by three participants in the summative evaluation focus group in Leeuwkop.
The psychological assessment of the three offenders highlights some of the more entrenched and enduring aspects which could potentially impact on behaviour post-release.
A sense of self is something years in the making. Change at the level of self-concept can require substantial personal work. The projective tests results suggest that a certain level of immaturity remains in at least one of the offenders. Another participant remains very group conscious. These features could result in attempts to impress peers. In the case of one of the other offenders, there is evidence of personal insecurity particularly in social settings which could potentially result in withdrawal from the social context and social isolation.
The results also suggest that these offenders may return home with a sense of difference and even alienation from their social or familial contexts. Some of the potential differences noted include self-perception, perceived levels of sophistication, values, or conformity with particular norms. Such discrepancies could make reintegration a challenging process as the person is faced with a social context at odds with who he now perceives himself to be, despite potentially being dependent on those around him for company, a sense of belonging and having material needs met.
The inner rehabilitation of the offender usually requires some support or enabling from the external environment once released. Besides those needs already mentioned, the projective assessments highlight the need for structure which could be provided by study or work, work aligned to personal competencies and styles, clear boundaries and limits being set by others, others helping the offender to reengage with important family and societal values and a family into which reintegration can occur. Whilst the results suggest that the offenders do have various coping skills, these are not so robust as to suggest that support from the social context will not be required. In the case of these offenders, it is also suggested that those around should ideally be able to detect when the offender is not coping and not simply be taken in by a façade of coping.
Whilst in no way suggesting that the IYOP programmes failed to have an impact on the emotional development of the offenders, the projective tests do caution against global assumptions that emotional issues have been fully worked through. At least one of the offender's results suggests angry and resentful feelings towards the social context. Another appears to require more assistance with working through lingering feelings of guilt. The third sits with disappointment and appears to be vulnerable to a lack of recognition. The fear of failure, of not achieving peer recognition and even fear of social situations was also noted in the analysis.
Anti-social attitudes can also be difficult to shift. At least one of the offenders appears to be resistant to personal change, though camouflaging this, whilst taking pleasure and pride in outwitting others and getting away with it.
Case Study: Joseph34One of the offenders assessed displays a host of risk factors. These include possible anti-social personality features,35 a resistance to personal change which is camouflaged by an apparent interest in such change, unresolved anger and resentment towards others, a devil-may-care attitude which in his eyes sets him apart from others in his family which he perceives as conformists, immaturity and an interest in "playing others" and getting away with things rather than taking responsibility for his actions. He is likely to search for peer recognition and potentially be open to challenges (even negative in nature) which could result in others fearing or respecting him. Of interest was that this participant did not complete the IYOP as he requested a transfer to Leeuwkop Correctional Centre towards the end of the intervention. A review of his level of participation indicated that:
|
This review of his participation and the psychological assessment suggest the importance of completing the range of interventions of IYOP. The evaluations conducted throughout the IYOP programme during 2006 indicate that he did benefit from the programme, and that much progress was made in terms of meeting the expected outcomes of the programme. However, their appears to be a huge gap in that the final stages of family reintegration and the restorative process were not completed - aspects which have the potential to establish the boundaries, to create the space for honesty and truth in the harm he has caused and in taking responsibility for his own actions. Furthermore, this case study highlights the more in-depth psychotherapeutic work that some offenders may require. Additional support would appear to be warranted to avert a return to criminal behaviour. Tracking this particular individual would show in time if the continuing existence of these risk factors do culminate in recidivism.
In short, the projective tests on a limited sample of the participants of IYOP suggest that continued psychological, emotional and social support is called for. Such support would help to entrench the gains made during IYOP and confront some of the underlying psychological issues that remain.
6.2.3 Transfer of participants between Correctional Centres
Of interest was the feedback from these participants, who had been transferred from Boksburg to Leeuwkop Juvenile Centre three months previously, that the staff at Boksburg Centre treated them, and the other offenders "better". They further indicated that the Boksburg staff knew who they were and they could talk to them. The IYOP programme was credited by these three participants as having a large role to play in how they were treated.
All three participants indicated that they had benefited from IYOP, and that it had helped them in the transition from one Centre to the next. They were open to attending programmes on offer, they were all working while in the Centre, and they felt they had better communication skills which were helping them to meet new offenders and adapt to the overcrowded cells. In addition, they felt they knew where they had come from and had a plan or goal of where they wanted to go. The participants stated that it was difficult to talk to the officials at Leeuwkop, as they did not know them and the officials were not open to getting to know them, nor were they very communicative beyond giving instructions to offenders.
Applying what they had learnt from the IYOP programme in 2006 within the correctional centre context was "not difficult" because the staff, co-participants and peer offenders knew about the programme and supported them in changing and in living as a role model. However, in Leeuwkop, they were surrounded by people that did not know about the programme, did not know how they had changed, and consequently they found it more difficult to be themselves – the "new self".
According to the participants, other offenders in the prison view the IYOP participants as "being better than them, and they keep trying to bring us down". All three participants recommended that IYOP be established at Leeuwkop and work with the officials and offenders, because of the benefits to themselves, to officials' interaction with offenders, and to the prison environment. All three further recommended that a weekly or monthly session be held to provide a forum where they can share their feelings, thoughts, and experiences to help overcome the challenges of being in a new centre.
The participants stated that relationships with their family members had improved, they were able to share "things and talk openly". Their family had continued to support them after they had been transferred. One participant indicated that the family reintegration component had helped him to heal his relationship with his mother. All three participants reported that the restorative justice intervention was challenging even though it helped to heal themselves and relationships with their family. None of the three had participated in a victim-offender mediation conference.
6.2.4 Impact on correctional centre context and staff relationships
The IYOP facilitators noted a change in the attitude of the correctional officials at Boksburg Correctional Centre towards the IYOP participants over the three years. The officials were more open to the participants who regularly attended the sessions as this indicated to them that the offender acknowledged that they had "messed up" and were making efforts to change their behaviour. Because of this commitment, the officials gave responsibilities to the participants and tended to support them in their efforts to change. The first year of the programme (2004) was viewed by facilitators as "very difficult" because of the lack of trust between the officials and the service providers, and the benefit of the programme was not observed or known. Years two and three were easier because the benefit and outcomes had been observed in the participants and consequently these participants were "easier" to deal with and their work was therefore less stressful. The Centre over the three years became easier to manage because of the role the participants played in role modelling and intervening appropriately in daily interactions between peers and between officials and offenders.
The IYOP facilitators noted that not all the officials were supportive, and over the three years, sessions had to be cancelled or participants did not arrive due to logistical problems or lack of support from a few officials. The initial staff training was important and staff who attended benefited from it. However, staff indicated that all of them needed to be involved in it. Despite this, the core group of officials who supported the programme influenced the section and contributed towards creating a more rehabilitative and "family orientated" context. Rehabilitation was viewed by the officials as being very broad, and that an integrated programme could address many aspects and that staff needed to look holistically at the offender and do what they could in their day-to-day interactions to support rehabilitation. The officials further indicated that it was difficult to keep the participants motivated to stay in the programme and attend regularly, particularly when participant had an "off day" or were struggling to come to terms with what they were experiencing. The t-shirts helped to build the group and to keep participants involved. The certificates were valued and participants were proud of their achievement, and in year one and two, participants who had been released near the end of the IYOP returned for the graduation ceremony.
Correctional officials indicated that the participants were more open than the other offenders to d