ABSTRACT
Petersilia (2001) has noted the importance of implementing re-entry measures and parole activities in order to reduce the high levels of re-offending that characterise inmate populations. It is widely recognised that former inmates have serious problems with unemployment and a lack of education, and also that they have weaker ties to the family and to the social support usually associated with such ties (Petersilia 2001, Seiter and Kadela 2003). These problems are due in part to factors associated with their life situation prior to imprisonment, but also to the effects of the prison sentence itself. Having a prior conviction makes it difficult to get a job, for example (Petersilia 2001), particularly if you are a black male (Pager 2008). Petersilia (2001, see also Seiter and Kadela 2003) also discusses how strategies focused on “getting tough on crime” have intensified these problems by introducing legislation that excludes those with a criminal record from a range of different occupations. Petersilia expresses a particular concern for youths who are sentenced to prison at a young age (and other forms of custodial sanctions may be assumed to produce similar effects). Visher and Travis (2003) argue that in order to understand why certain prison inmates re-offend, while others do not, the entire re-entry process must be examined, i.e. beginning with the conditions prior to the prison sentence, through what happens during the period of imprisonment, what happens directly following release and also what happens in a more long-term integrational perspective. In addition to the significance of treatment factors etc., Visher and Travis note that the maintenance of contacts with family, as well as pro-social contacts more generally, has been found to contribute to a more successful re-entry into society. Schlosser (2015 p. 107) refers to similar ideas in a discussion of cognitive treatment programmes. She argues that it is problematic that the programmes she has studied ignore the contexts in which the inmates are living, and in which they have previously lived, in favour of an emphasis on the choices that are (freely) made by the individual. A review of evaluations of various measures focused on inmate re-entry found that measures focused on the labour market, drug treatment and education produced positive results in the form of reduced re-offending. The same was the case for measures involving “half-way houses” (Seiter and Kadela 2003), which in the context of the present study may be likened to the pre-release housing
alternatives that have been developed by a number of the special approved homes. Travis and Petersilia (2001) also describe the importance of measures in a number of different areas, and research on the life conditions of prison inmates in Sweden shows that these are characterised by resource deficiencies across a range of areas by comparison with the remainder of the population (Nilsson 2002). The same is true of the youths placed in Sweden’s special approved homes, and also of those placed in other forms of out-of-home care (Ybrandt and Nordqvist 2015, Vinnerljung and Sallnäs 2008, Shannon 2011). Research on the youth care system also describes the need for help and support provision subsequent to institutional placements. This is necessary in part in order to sustain change that has occurred during the period of institutionalisation, and in part because these youths are more poorly equipped to succeed in life than young people in general (Andersson Vogel 2012, Andreassen 2003). Research also shows that as a group, youths placed in care subsequently experience problems across a broad range of areas (Vinnerljung and Sallnäs 2008, Andreassen 2003, Andersson Vogel 2012, Shannon 2011). Andersson Vogel (2012) also points to a number of specific problems faced by youths in social care as they make the transition to adult life. For such youths, this transition is both condensed and accelerated. Generally speaking, youths making the transition to adult life often require occasional assistance from their parents, but youths who have been in care often lack access to support of this kind, which makes them more vulnerable. The young people sentenced to youth custody comprise part of this population on the threshold of adulthood; still children when they commit their offences, but often young adults by the time they are released. This chapter discusses the youths’ expectations and hopes regarding the period subsequent to their release from youth custody. It looks at what the youths want and what they say they would need in order to achieve this. This chapter also focuses on the staff ’s views regarding what could or should be done within the framework of youth custody sentences in order to make a better life possible for the youths subsequent to their release. The chapter also links these discussions to the significance of institutional leave and more open custodial conditions for the youths’ lives following their release from youth custody.
