Boundary-Spanners: the New Heroes of Prisoner Reentry?
A common buzzword attracting a bit of a mixed response in corrections these days is the concept of prisoner reentry, characterizing a kind of love-hate relationship where citizens willingly support rehabilitation, but are unwilling to dirty their hands in the process. There is no shortage of public interest stories in this area. Just a cursory sample from recent news reports yields one taken from the the Montreal Gazette just this week, where Richard Condo, an Ottawa convict once deemed too dangerous to be let out on parole was released from Warkworth Institution just outside of Kingston. The designated Long-Term Offender beat his wife so badly that she required reconstructive surgery, and if he hadn't gone to prison, she probably would've died. While some conditions apply, the kidnapper and wife-beater is now out. Thus it is a blessing that a recent article published in the Prison Journal last month is advocating a new and possibly improved method to the art of easing prisoners back into the community. It sounds heroic, and looks too good to be true. "Boundary spanning," according to the authors, "is
an activity designed to permeate previously constructed In general, boundary spanning adds to the traditional ambit of reentry programs, such as including financial programs, identity problems, personal relationship difficulties, and stigma effects, but expends considerable more energy on the latter. Its argument is that stigma is an often crippling consequence of spending time behind bars, marginalizing offenders from their communities, their families, their friends, and their employers once they get back on the street. There are few who would refute such a claim. The rationale behind the pressing need to develop new and innovative ways of securing reentry follows on the heels of a new revolution of thinking - that people are beginning to realize that it is the community's problem as much as it is the prison's problem. Correctional authorities are having trouble keeping up with the needs of offenders, and simply do not have the capacity to serve them. 40% of prisoners are functionally illiterate, 30% have an anxiety disorder, and many suffer from Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Most importantly is that a whopping 600,000 inmates are returning each year to a community near you. Many academics believe the public has shouldered the responsibility upon the correctional system far too long. Politicians have surrendered to public fear and allowed new technologies that advertise the presence offenders and sex offenders through registries and public, even online lookups. This has further increased inequality and restricted access and opportunity for the poor. Traditionally, in the 17 and 18th centuries, those deemed criminal and antisocial were deliberately stigmatized and excluded from the community. We have seen a resurgence in this sentiment with the public shaming movement - a perverse interpretation of Braithewaite's reintegrative shaming movement, taken much too far. Drawing on labeling theory, the authors note that stigma can have the effect of reforming or reaffirming an ex-offender's identity. "Studies suggest that people reframe their experience, explanations, and expectations of their behavior based on labels externally placed on them," they say (p 210). How much do offender and sex offender registries help to promote this public fear? It is reasonable to think that they influence this fear a great deal. To take it further, perhaps even communities without such records are more accommodating to ex-offenders because they are less shocked to think that they are now the ones shouldered with the responsibility of their care. What is most important in successful reintegration is the opportunity to learn positively in a practical environment, learn by trial and error, and afford to learn by trial and error without losing one's employment, patience, or self-respect. A sympathetic, acommodating, and forgiving community is more effective than any prison, if its members accept that responsibility. In reality, the more convictions an offender has, the less likely he is to gain a second chance after his first failure, even though the necessity of having those second chances increases directly with the more convictions an offender has. What are the duties of a boundary spanner? The researchers design the boundary spanner to look at the degree of"fit" between the goals and missions of organizations and the needs of offenders, and works securing funds and partnerships through that fit, all the while employing a thorough knowledge of the scientific rationale, theory and policy implications to guide them in their quest. Apparently, regular breakdowns in communication between traditional offender-treatment outlets, such as addiction services and employment centres, should be properly targeted by boundary spanners. Otherwise, the offender becomes "isolated." (212). Improper referrals, like unsympathetic parole officers, may result in a breach of supervision, sending offender back to prison. Furthermore, a break in the chain in the social service community risks the result of "fragmentation" and breakdown, in what the researchers call the "release-failure-return-release cycle" (p 215) Among some of the essential qualities of a boundary-spanner are:
While it may sound like selling their own product, the researchers say boundary spanning must also include university faculty and staff as key elements of the reentry effort. They would work as consultants, experts, policy planners, researchers, and above all, they would be neutral. Also they have willing and avid students. The increased attention to collaboration and partnerships with universities means enhancements in recruitment and opportunities for exciting, exotic, teaching and research opportunities. The researchers looked at the unique Kansas Reentry Program., which introduces or exposes offenders to social services both before and after their release. The most exciting job for participants is connecting offenders with services they need, making new partnerships, securing the support of the community, and making reentry more of an organic system and less of an assembly-line one. They cited a case in which an offender was experiencing a crisis because he was back addicted to cocaine. Because his case manager was sympathetic and withheld a strong communication with the offender, he allowed him to stay in a detox centre for the night instead of sending him back to prison. This remains a perfect example of what the boundary spanning efforts could accomplish. What kind of challenges wait in store for the boundary spanners? For one, fierce competition among agency administrators for funding, and secretiveness about agency practices. Departments of Corrections are typically seen as cold, powerful and distanced, and the entire correctional industry itself defined by closed boundaries and a hostility effusively characterized by its imposing, forbidding, and ominous facade of concrete, razor wire, drill, and routine. For the correctional authorities, as the authors say, it is "hands off." For the public, "out of sight out of mind." Some highlights about US Parole, Release, and Reentry Rates:
References Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm#highlights Carrie A. Pettus and Margaret Severson, 2006. "Paving the Way for Effective Reentry Practice: The Critical Role and Function of the Boundary Spanner" Prison Journal. 86(2). 206-229. |