Reducing the Risk of Re-Offending in Australian Indigenous Offenders: What Works for Whom?

• NCJ Number: 202911
• Journal: Journal of Offender Rehabilitation Volume: 37 Issue: 2 Dated: 2003 Pages: 1-15
• Author(s): Andrew Day
• Editor(s): Nathaniel J. Pallone
• Date Published: 2003
• Length: 15 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Report (Study/Research)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This article outlines some of the assumptions underlying current thinking in offender rehabilitation and considers the extent to which these assumptions are consistent with indigenous cultural models.

Abstract

As indicated by statistics, indigenous individuals are massively overrepresented in all areas of the criminal justice system. It is important that all those working in dominant culture correctional systems are familiar with current debates about appropriate program delivery for indigenous offenders. This paper discusses the application of the “what works” approach to the rehabilitation of indigenous Australian offenders. The “what works” research contains two related strands: (1) it offers both a rationale for the assessment and classification of offenders and (2) some evidence regarding the type of program likely to be most effective in reducing recidivism. This approach or model makes a number of theoretical assumptions. It has been suggested that this approach with its basis in positivistic methodologies, may not be an appropriate model for indigenous offenders. This leads to a discussion about the cultural appropriateness of rehabilitation programs, and the selection of appropriate methodologies for gathering evidence to support particular types of interventions is an important one for those who work with indigenous offenders. There is a view that current program evaluation methodologies are inherently culturally biased and an inappropriate basis for planning. Three options are presented in bridging this cultural divide faced by correctional administrators and include: (1) taking a more pragmatic view about the relationship between epistemological assumptions and appropriate methods; (2) adapting the “what works” approach so that it places value on more contextual factors; and (3) delivering rehabilitation programs in ways that take a less individualistic focus and place more emphasis on social factors. References