Science versus folklore and political expediency

Last week, The Listener (March 28th, 2009, p6) published a letter which in a few paragraphs exposed the main failings of the present government's approach to youth crime. It was written by Prof. John Werry, a child and adolescent psychiatrist, and commented on the Government's promotion of boot camps as a solution to youth crime by the worst offenders in the 12-16 age group. The letter deserves a much wider audience and I'm happy to my bit in the public interest.

The significance of this letter to me is that it highlights how, in yet another area of policy, how "folklore and political expediency" are too often in direct conflict with verifiable reality. Somehow, we as a civilisation have to re-discover how to see things as they really are and not as we might prefer to believe them to be. This cartoon sums that tension up reasonably well.

My own experience working in prisons is in accord with what Prof Werry is saying. We, as Corrections Officers, had no training or background in handling the psychological needs of prisoners. As key-bearers in a prison we oversaw the daily routines of life behind bars and coped with whatever came our way as best we could. But it was as obvious as the nose on Stephen Fry's face that we were way out of our depth in dealing with the state of some of the worst minds held behind bars, yet we were tasked with "case management" of these people.

I don't know how long The Listener leaves letters online, so I'm posting the full text of the letter here.

Boot Camps
The current debate about boot camps for hard-core juvenile offenders is much more than that – it is really about whether social/health policy should be driven by science or by folklore and political expediency.

A body of systematic scientific knowledge about juvenile delinquency has been garnered over at least the past 100 years, yet it is spurned by media in favour of racy but trivialising stories (for example, the recent Nine to Noon interview with a delinquent and then a boot-camp operator, with nary a reference to the scientific facts about how to deal effectively with juvenile criminals).

Likewise, the Government is proposing “be seen to be doing something at all costs” policies that thumb the nose at senior public officials who are unanimously opposed, at the chief Youth Court judge and at scientific expertise.

So, what are the key failings in the proposed government policy on hard-core juvenile offenders?

The focus is rightly on the worst offenders as though they are less than 10% of offenders, they are responsible for half of juvenile crime, commit the worst crimes, start younger, are recidivist and will grow up to be a huge burden to society ($2-5 million) if not somehow changed. This group has been shown not to respond to most publicly funded programmes in the Western world – for example, to boot camps, scared straight, mentoring, alternative schools and borstals – but only to individualised comprehensive and multisystemic programmes founded on behavioural science and delivered by expert staff. Worse, these programmes cannot be mounted for less than $100,000* per youth per year (* Werry later said "The figure of $100,000 for an individualised comprehensive and multi-systemic programme was based on past costs for Youth Horizons, the leading specialist conduct-disorder non-governmental organisation. It now says it can run evidence-based programmes for $20,000. This would reduce the national costs accordingly by four-fifths" - in other words: cheaper) and must be carried on for years, not the Government’s planned one year maximum.

Currently, these residential youth justice programmes are half the proposed length, are run on a shoestring mostly by enthusiastic and caring but untrained Maori providers who believe love and maoritanga are enough. Not surprisingly, then, these have a high failure rate (11 programmes in 10 years in the eastern Bay of Plenty), mostly because of excessively punitive treatment or false accusations of such by youth. Further aggregating juvenile offenders has been shown to actually make them worse and harder to handle.

Most provincial districts – even high-risk ones such as Gisborne – have no residential programmes and must send their youth to programmes anywhere in the country that has a vacancy. This makes work with the families and the youth’s local social worker impossible. Typically there is no aftercare programme and youth are returned to the same malignant environment that created the problem in the first place.

The Minister of Social Welfare’s response to this criticism merely exposed her naivety when she mumbled about mentoring, which has not shown to be helpful, is overly simplistic and would require mentors trained by the Big Brother organisation, of whom there are very few in New Zealand.

Despite the current system being unscientific, underfunded, amateurish, ineffectual and unable to cope with the current load, the Government is proposing to double the length of time of sentences and to extend the lower age limit from 14 to 12, creating a fourfold increase in demand.

Also, the Government has grossly underestimated the number of hard-core offenders – the scientific evidence shows they will be 1-2% of the population in the 12-16 age band, which is several hundred times the Government’s figures.

Worst of all, the Fresh Start programme proposed by the Government cannot achieve the objectives it says it will. It lacks scientific underpinning, has never been tested for efficacy (most programmes fail this test), lacks trained staff and programme managers who simply cannot be found in the numbers required, is far too short to produce lasting change, lacks comprehensive multi-systemic evidence-based approaches (which are the only ones that do work), is not going to be funded at the level required to do any good (at least $300 million a year is needed) and grossly understates the size and difficulty of doing the job.

It sounds good but is a complete fiasco. The public should not be fooled by spin and outright propaganda.

John Key has an opportunity to move from being a politician to a statesman who is not afraid to say, “I was wrong and we must now do a complete rethink basing our programme on expert scientific knowledge.” Will he do it? I doubt it but I hope I am wrong.
Professor John Werry
Child and adolescent psychiatrist
(Mt Eden, Auckland)

Judith Collins and Barry Matthews

Not surprised Barry Matthews (CEO of the Corrections Department) is still in his job. He has had a long and successful career in a profession (policing) with a tough-minded culture.

By comparison, Minister responsible for Corrections, Judith Collins, is a lightweight.....AND she fluffed the whole thing by grandstanding. Attitude is no substitute for competence.

It's now obvious National wanted to get rid of Barry Matthews so they could appoint someone who would oversee the dismembering of the prison service and bring in private operators to suck at the public teat for profits doing what is now done at cost.

Good luck with that.

National all set to make a mess of prisons

Prison is one of those things many people have strong opinions about while knowing very little (or nothing) about it really.

The National Party and ACT would have us believe people in prisons are living the high life. Coddled. Plasma TVs and underfloor heating. The sub-text is they are better off in prison than hard working, law-abiding people. Being pampered instead of punished.

That picture isn't even remotely accurate, but the broader public don't know that and the public servants who work in prisons aren't allowed to talk about their work. As is often the case, the people who do know can't say and those who don't know fill the void.

Anyone who has spent much time in a New Zealand prison knows just how ugly, barren, dangerous and deeply boring they really are.

The prison I worked in had two prisoners in many cells. Staff are well aware of the risks this presents to other prisoners and to staff. I've had a few "moments" myself on several occasions with a pair of prisoners with a "view" on how things should be. With single prisoner cells, the staff have the upper hand (2 to 1) when they unlock a door. With 2 prisoner cells, it's even money.....unless change the rules and require 3 or 4 staff to open the doors...and then you better be prepared to pay for more staff.

Good luck, as prisons have been made so ugly and barren by the short-sighted hang'em high crowd that few want to work in them anyway. I don't think paying more is what National has in mind. The main pool of workers appeared to be ex-military people who, I supposed, were used to ugly, barren, cold-concrete surroundings. Where else can you risk injury or death for $22/hour on a 10-day shift run at any time of the day or night?

National wants to make sure prison staff are paid a lot less than the present rates and that there are a lot fewer staff per prisoner. That's the ONLY way you save money running a prison. They can't cut costs on food. They barely spend $4 / day per person as it is. They tried to cut heating costs by using the most efficient means available that is also resistant to prisoners wrecking it - under-floor heating buried in concrete.....but the National Party portrayed that as a "luxury".

Another angle is having two prisoners in a cell will help the gangs tighten their grip on prisons. The gangs already use NZ's prisons as a major recruiting ground and training camp for prospects. Gangs build their esprit de corps in prisons. It's their version of right of passage by trial.

If you want people to be violent criminals, just lock them up and allow them to be stood over and brutalised and you'll get what you wished for. If you want people to come out of prison and make a change for the better, then you MUST start treating them like the people they need to be on the day you let them out....or you have wasted all your time and money. Sure, some people are just rotten to the core - a form of permanent mental dysfunction - and can't be reformed or rehabilitated. Some prisoners are like that. But the vast majority aren't like that...or needn't be.

I've talked about this before, most fully on May 15th last year, just after the escape attempt from Mt. Eden. For a more detailed idea of what working in a prison is like, have a read. Walk the halls with me.

When / If considering private prisons in NZ......

...it might be a good idea to bear this BBC story from the US in mind.  Two judges in the state of Pennsylvania, Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan, have admitted taking kickbacks from private prison operators in return for sending more people to their institutions and for longer sentences.

... Campaigners have complained that Mr Ciavarella gave out overly harsh sentences for minor offenses. 

A spokeswoman for the non-profit Juvenile Law Center said 1,000-2,000 juveniles who came before the judge between 2003 and 2006 received excessively harsh sentences. Many of the children were first-time offenders and had no lawyers to  defend them. 

The judge sent a quarter of his juvenile defendants to detention centres from 2003 to 2006, compared with a state average of one in 10, the AP reported.

The profit motive and the administration of justice don't appear to sit well together. Texas has had serious problems with private prisons due, in large part, to the state corrections administration being consistently lax in monitoring compliance with contracts. Perhaps a few kickbacks have been going on there, too. Not unique to Texas by any means, the US has many private prisons and the insight this BBC story provides may help us understand why they are so keen to hand out long sentences and at the same time have the highest proportion of their population in prison of any country in the world.