Baldry, Eileen; Maplestone, Peter --- "Aboriginal Prison Releases in New South Wales - Preliminary Comments Based on ex - Prisoner Research" [2003] IndigLawB 4; (2003) 5(22) Indigenous Law Bulletin 7

Aboriginal Prison Releasees in New South Wales –

Preliminary Comments Based on ex-Prisoner Research

by Eileen Baldry and Peter Maplestone

The numbers and rate of Indigenous Australians' incarceration has been increasing steadily over the past decade. The proportion of prisoners who were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander rose from 14 percent in 1991 to 20 percent in 2001. The rate of Indigenous imprisonment in 2001 was 1,828 per 100,000 compared with 121 for non-Indigenous imprisonment.[1] Indigenous Australians are more likely to suffer the disadvantages associated with imprisonment, such as homelessness, unemployment, illiteracy, poor mental and physical health and alcohol or other drug problems, and to be arrested and reincarcerated at a higher rate than other Australians.[2] There are very few post-release services working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and most Indigenous ex-prisoners return to highly disadvantaged areas where services are scarce and under-resourced, or nonexistent.[3]

The Research

We are members of a research group conducting a study called ‘Ex-Prisoners and Accommodation: Effects on Social Reintegration’, supported by the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (‘AHURI’).[4] We have been following approximately 350 people who were released from prisons in New South Wales (‘NSW’) and Victoria in late 2001 to early 2002. Participants were interviewed pre-release, then at three, six and nine months. Interviews were mainly to gain quantitative data, as virtually nothing is known of this group of people, but we also gathered some qualitative information. Interviews covered their family, housing, employment, drug, agency and support experiences, both pre-incarceration and post-release. By nine months we had either interviewed or had some contact with over 65 percent of our original sample group.

The final figures regarding reincarceration at nine months are pending so we can only discuss preliminary results here. We will only discuss NSW results as the Victorian data is not yet finalised.

Preliminary Results

Of the NSW sample of 196 ex-prisoners, 45 (22 percent) are Aboriginal people and 22 of those are women. This was a deliberate over-representation as the small percentage of women in prison would have meant that a proportional representation would have been too small a number to provide any meaningful statistics. It is also the case that Aboriginal women represent the fastest growing group of inmates in NSW.

At the three months interview stage, it was clear that the Aboriginal women participants in NSW were the most disadvantaged subgroup of the participants with half having been returned to prison, and none having been able to resolve outstanding problems with the Department of Housing. All cited drug use as a serious contributing factor in their reincarceration, whether through direct drug offences, or through property crimes to pay for drugs, or through associating with others doing crime associated with drugs.

Our preliminary analysis at the nine month interview stage indicates that matters have become progressively worse for the Indigenous ex-prisoners in NSW.

Reincarceration

The rate of reincarceration is extremely high. Of the 33 men and women we were able to interview 22 were back in prison, a rate of 66 percent higher than the non-Indigenous rate at nine months. We have not yet been able to establish what happened to the 12 missing people, but NSW Corrective Services is checking to see whether any have been returned to prison. We assume that some will have been. There appear to be many paths back to prison for Indigenous people in this study – once they have been incarcerated it seems almost impossible to avoid rearrest. But most were reincarcerated for non-violent offences, had outstanding warrants or were breached for associating with other criminals (usually members of their family).

Geographical Concentration

This takes us to another outstanding feature – that of geographical concentration. Half the participants came from and most went back to a very small cluster of suburbs: one in western and the other in south-western Sydney. Most of these suburbs have large Department of Housing estates or a large number of public housing properties, and all are high on Vinson’s most disadvantaged suburbs list.[5] These suburbs have poor infrastructure and are extremely economically and socially disadvantaged. There is little alternative for Aboriginal people leaving prison other than to return to these communities that are already drained of social capacity to meet their multiple needs. There is no employment and no prospect of moving away from the groups with whom crime may have been committed in the first place. For this group, the prison treadmill is clearly one that is associated with geography and community.

Housing

Accommodation is associated with geography. Almost all Aboriginal participants moved at least once every three months, with many moving two or more times. Much of that moving was between the same few geographical areas. There was a clear trend towards falling standards such as poorer housing over the nine month period and towards living alone, with 80 percent living alone by nine months. Most ended up back in prison having not secured any suitable housing whilst out. Living with family or friends was generally unsuccessful and by nine months, of those who were still out and could be found, almost half were in marginal housing - virtually homeless. Suitable housing is clearly a key issue for Aboriginal ex-prisoners.

Support

Tied in with housing is support. All literature on post-release matters recognises the importance of support for people being released. Although more than half said they received support, it was almost entirely moral support. The support provided by families seems to have been minimal. Support from professional and parole staff seemed helpful.

Services

All participants used agencies or services, with most of course using Centrelink. Aboriginal use of services was higher than non-Aboriginal but for the most part that did not result in stable housing or in employment for anyone. None had debts resolved and the level of debt seems to have climbed whilst participants were out. Alcohol also appears to have become a greater problem for participants and, as mentioned earlier, drugs were a contributing factor to most reincarcerations.

Conclusion

There are clear directions from these findings. Aboriginal people in NSW are not being assisted whilst in prison, nor when they are released are they assisted in any significant way to stay out of prison. Support workers, for example one Koori worker from the Yulawirri service, had no available housing to send releasees to. Unless supported housing is available immediately after release, the treadmill picks them up and they are on their way back to prison. Prison is further disintegrating these participants’ lives, not helping them towards rehabilitation or social integration. Thus there must be serious, concerted and dedicated diversions from prison to culturally appropriate accommodation and support.

Dr Eileen Baldry is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Social Work, UNSW.
Peter Maplestone is a social worker, researcher and tutor at the School of Social Work, UNSW.

---

[1] ‘Prisoners in Australia: Indigenous prisoners 2001’ (Report no 4517.0, Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2002), <http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/8d5807d8074a7a5bca256a6800811054!OpenDocument> .

[2] BH Hunter, ‘Factors underlying Indigenous arrest rates’ (NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, 2001).

[3] (a) T Vinson, ‘Comparison of the sentencing of Indigenous and non-Indigenous prisoners in New South Wales’, (UNIYA Jesuit Social Justice Centre, 1998).

(b) T Vinson, ‘Unequal in life: The distribution of social disadvantage in Victoria and New South Wales’, (Jesuit Social Services, 1999).

(c) J Conway, ‘Issues paper: Housing Needs of prisoners and their families in Queensland’ (Department of Housing - Brisbane Housing Policy and Research, 1999).

[4] (a) E Baldry, D McDonnell, P Maplestone, M Peeters, ‘Ex-prisoners and accommodation: What bearing do different forms of housing have on social re-integration? Positioning paper’, (Australian Urban and Housing Research Institute, 2002), <http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publish/page.cfm?contentID=15> .

(b) E Baldry, D McDonnell, P Maplestone, M Peeters, ‘Ex-prisoners and accommodation: What bearing do different forms of housing have on social re-integration. Work in progress’, (Australian Urban and Housing Research Institute, 2002), <http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/housing/program.html> .

[5] Vinson, above n 3(b).