Jacquie Petrusma MP
Minister for Human Services
Level 8, 10 Murray Street
HOBART, TAS 7000
Dear Mrs Petrusma,
Re: Salvation Army Reintegration for Ex-Offenders Program
We are writing to express our concern at the decision to cut funding to the Salvation Army’s Reintegration for Ex-Offenders Program (‘the REO Program’). In our opinion, the decision is short-sighted as the failure to provide ongoing funding will result in increased cost and reduced community safety.
The REO Program has been operational for seven years1 providing access to transitional accommodation and pre- and post-release support for ex-prisoners, remandees and parolees who would otherwise be homeless on release from custody. The program provides six-weeks pre-release support and up to twelve months support to ex-offenders after their release.
A review conducted for the Department of Health and Human Services by the University of Tasmania found significantly reduced recidivism rates for ex-prisoners completing the program.2 Of the hundreds of ex-offenders that have engaged with REO over the last seven years only 6.5 per cent had reoffended. The overwhelming majority (93.5 per cent) have been successfully re-integrated into their communities, by re-engaging with their families, education, training and employment. In short, persons engaging with REO were overwhelmingly less likely to commit crime than persons who did not engage with the program.
We would also draw your attention to the comments of Marica Duvnjak, the Chairperson of the Parole Board of Tasmania, who in her most recent Annual Report noted her concern at the growing number of prisoners eligible for parole but who lack suitable accommodation:3
It has been another challenging year for the Parole Board (Board) and all those who assist the Board to fulfil its statutory functions…
While the implementation of the Parole Awareness Program has assisted in better preparing prisoners in making their applications, a number of concerning factors are impacting on the Board’s ability to determine such applications.
One of the factors remains the absence of adequate accommodation available for prisoners being released on parole. Stable and appropriate accommodation is an essential factor in the Board’s determination and consideration of an application for parole. Its importance is both to promote rehabilitation as well as assist with supervision and thus community protection. The number of prisoners who are eligible for parole but are without suitable accommodation has increased.
The Post Release Options Program’s (PROP) supported accommodation has been discontinued due to lack of funding. The existing programs such as the Salvation Army Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (REO) program provide limited places and waiting lists often result in prisoners completing sentences before availability occurs.
Appropriate and supported accommodation has been shown to significantly affect the likelihood of an offender successfully completing a period of parole and assists with reducing recidivism. Further resourcing is required to address what is clearly a growing problem.
The lack of suitable accommodation is exacerbated by the increasing number of persons in the community applying for public housing. In 2013/14 the public housing waiting list increased from 1,853 applicants to 2,227 applicants. In February 2015 the public housing waiting list had increased to 2668 applicants. In other words, the public housing waiting list has increased by 43 per cent over the last two years.
Finally, we would draw your attention to an independent evaluation funded by the Department of Health and Human Services in April 2010. The evaluation found that the REO program has a cost efficiency factor of 1:4; that is, for every dollar spent on the REO program, the government saved four dollars. To express this in dollar terms, the $257,761 invested in REO saved the Government more than $1,000,000 in keeping the parolee incarcerated. Importantly, this figure is conservative with the evaluation excluding the cost of policing, court time and the detrimental impacts of crime.4
In summary, the Reintegration for Ex-Offenders Program has proven to be a success with independent evaluations concluding that the program delivered on its goals of reducing recidivism and increasing re-integration and as a result ensuring significant cost savings to the Government.
With the support of the Salvation Army we call on you as a matter of urgency to reverse this short-sighted decision.
Refs:
1 The Reintegration for Ex-Offenders Program came into existence in July 2011 following the successful completion of two pilot programs in 2008.
2 University of Tasmania, Evaluation of New Homelessness Services in Tasmania (Housing and Community Research Unit: August 2013) at 42.
3 Department of Justice, Parole Board Annual Report 2013/14 at 2.
4 Final Report on the Evaluation of Parolee Transitional Accommodation Project (Illiad Consulting Services March-April 2010) at 23-24.
*Signed by
Meredith Barton
Principal Solicitor
Tenants’ Union of Tasmania
Pattie Chugg
Executive Officer
Shelter Tasmania
Jane Hutchison
Convenor
Community Legal Centres Tasmania
John Green
A Director
Australian Lawyers Alliance – Lawyers for the people (Tasmanian Branch)
Ken Hardaker
Chief Executive Officer
Advocacy Tasmania
Tom Lynch
General Secretary
Community and Public Sector Union (State Public Services Federation Tasmania) Inc
Richard Griggs
Tasmanian Director
Civil Liberties Australia
Steve Walsh
Secretary
Unions Tasmania
Sarah Charlton
Chief Executive Officer
Holyoake Tasmania Inc
Patricia Turner
Acting CEO
Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre Inc
cc:
Vanessa Goodwin MLC
Tasmanian Attorney-General
Parliament House
Hobart
Will Hodgman
Premier
Parliament House
Hobart
• Jacquie Petrusma: Scaremongering on ex-offenders misinformed
• Steve Biddulph, in Comments: As the very qualified list of signatories demonstrates, this is a terribly misjudged decision by Ms Petrusma and her department. It costs almost half a million dollars a year to incarcerate a prisoner in Australia. And the human suffering – for prisoners and their families – of reoffending and reconviction, is very great too. The research is clear that its in the early weeks and months of leaving prison that a person is vulnerable to returning to crime through lack of ways to make a meaningful alternative path in life. These services were devised and developed for a good reason, and have proven effect. That’s not something you throw away.
• Pete Godfrey, in Comments: … Poor effort Ms Petrusma. Not much of a Christian response to the victims of crimes or to the prisoners.
