Social Capital - The ultimate investment in crime prevention (youth policy development)

By Laura Marie Wingate

“The prison system should be organized in such a way that, as far as possible, prisoners are able to maintain family relationships while in jaol. Among other things, this should include adequate telephone and mail contact… The alternative is that people are driven back into a criminal subculture and trapped in criminal activity.”

Resources and services that increase prisoners’ employability are another example of increasing their feelings of community participation. A prisoner’s employability is a major part of rehabilitation. Before vocational programs can be effectively utilized most prisoners need to increase their self-esteem. Self-esteem is the judgment one makes about his or her worth in the eyes of others. When young people participate in opportunities to provide salubrious levels of social capital, their esteem increases and they feel less need to offend. So if social capital were implemented in jail, offenders would have increased self-esteem and be more readily able to complete vocational programs.

A program where only 16% of inmates who completed it return to custody within two years uses this concept. “Inmates share the most intimate details of their lives… build[ing] friendships…in a way that he has never done before… He finds that nobody wants anything from him except for an honest relationship. He builds a sense of trust. He gets honest about who he is, what his goals are, and what he wants to do with his life.” Thus the building of relationships through human resources and service provider facilitation has increased these offenders’ social capital and reduced their re-offending.

If social capital is not implemented and prisoners retain a low self-esteem, they have unequal access to program participation and completion, thus difficulty attaining employment. Consequently their right to employment is infringed. In short, if social capital is not implemented and enforced all four components of social justice are neglected. 

Enforcing Social Capital

Corrective Services was governed using the systems model until the incremental model became into force in the 1980’s. Recently there has been a shift toward a social justice framework, particularly in Queensland. Social justice is “a commitment based on the four interrelated principles of equity, access, rights and participation.” 

Amendments made to the Corrective Services Act 2000 clearly indicate that social justice components have been examined. For example, instead of unyielding and structured program guidelines, the new act simply designates the conditions by which the Chief Executive is to establish services and programs to help offenders. The act silhouettes the rights and obligations of prisoners. It has a direct influence on their potential rehabilitation and recidivism, while endorsing community safety.

The purpose of the act is “community safety and crime prevention through the humane containment, supervision and rehabilitation of offenders” s3(.1). In the act community safety is far more significant than offender rehabilitation. Safety elements are outlined in detail, while rehabilitation is indirectly mentioned. Consequently, assumptions are made about rehabilitation design and implementation.

Mr. Frank Peach wrote Corrections in the Balance in 1999 to review Queensland corrections. His recommendations subsequently became The Corrective Services Act 2000. In the report, Peach made 58 recommendations, which included strengthening the alliance between management structures, accountability mechanisms, and interfacing across government departments within the criminal justice system. The Annual Report 1998-1999 stated that 57 of the recommendations were accepted, although it doesn’t state which one wasn’t and how well they have been implemented. This will be done in the next review.

Part of Peach’s recommendations was to provide a clear purpose for the act, which adhere to a strong social justice framework. The underlying values, philosophy (vision), purpose and product (goals) of the act oversee all of Community Corrections in Queensland. Although the 1988 act predominantly used a conservative treatment approach, Peach recommended the new legislation meet a range of social needs, collective 

intervention, and solve problems current within Corrective Services, which are the focus of Reformist Approach.

The objectives of the act regard providing the prisoners with acceptable quality of life consistent with community norms during containment, protecting the community, reparation, offender programs that maximize the chances of successful re-integration into the community and advice to sentencing and release authorities to assist with post-release orders. Consistent with these objectives would be to constitute effectual opportunities for offenders to attain salubrious levels of social capital. These guidelines commend a move toward social capital within Queensland corrective services. 

Currently, within the act an offender can make phone calls if they have permission from the person they are calling, although they can only receive calls if it is an emergency. This is often impractical because offenders find it difficult to get in touch with busy persons. It would be much easier if a person could call the offender for a chat. Not only is it more likely that the offender would be home, but it also reciprocates community life and reinforces a social norm and therefore aids in the rehabilitation process.

Minimizing visits to once a week for a little as one hour s(122.1a) and specifying the duration of the visit s(126.7) are two other examples of where offender’s equity, access, rights and participation in social capital are unnecessarily diminished. Again, the young person needs support from their formal and informal networks. If they are only entitled to one contact hour a week with these persons, how are they to attain the adequate support they need? 

If the purpose of the act and imprisonment were to rehabilitate offenders, then visits from their human resources, especially family, should be entitled and, in fact, encouraged. Time and monetary costs involved in the administrative changes and explaining new procedures to prisoners are minimal, especially when compared to the benefits. 

Reforming, implementing and then evaluating visits and incoming calls to prisoners in the Corrective Services Act 2000 will substantially increase equity, access, rights and participation to social capital. This will consequently reduce re-offending because offenders will feel a sense of community inclusion and be less likely to commit offenses against the community when they are released.

Implementing Social Capital into prisons

The way the prison system is organized isolates people from one another, takes away their ability to make decisions, and leaves them with very little to do. This is contrary to the purpose, vision, philosophy, values and objectives of corrective services. 

It does not take into account the social and developmental needs of young people. Adolescence is the stage in a young persons life when they learn about who they are and what role they have in society. They are beginning to develop their own supports and make informed decisions about their life. If they do not have access, equity, rights and participation in regards to the people and resources that may construct their support network, then they learn not to use their social capital, and thus feel excluded from society; increasing the risk of offending.

One unquestionable social need is the attainment of vocational skills. 56% of men and 63% of women were unemployed at the time of their arrest. 91% of men and 82% of women had not completed their secondary of tertiary education. Another social need is supporting single families. 63% had been raised in single parent families, and more than 80% of these had committed their first offence before they were eighteen.

Persons over eighteen commit 81% of all offences, so the 80% of juveniles who have singles parent families that commit offenses commit only 19% of the crimes. From this data, it is evident that either a single person’s amount of crime increases as they get older, or more people offend after adulthood, or more people get caught at this later stage in their life. Either way, they are a marginalized group with special needs. Locking them up in a place where they learn to reinforce this behavior is detrimental. They need vocational skills, personal skills and decision-making skills. Support networks may help young people to attain access, equity, rights and participation to learn these skills effectively by connecting them to associated services and resources. Without this support, they are much likely to increase their offending. 

Social capital may decrease feelings of exclusion from participating in community life by connecting young people to their associated services and resources in the community. Implementing Social capital effectively is very complicated and intricate [Appendix One]. It would have substantial costs involved in reaching the ideal, because it so different to the current level of capital for prisoners. It is essential that some measures are taken to increase levels of capital because families are often left to help support the prisoner where the prison fails to provide adequate needs. 

Human Capital is the informal and formal persons who help the prisoner to gain social capital. These range from family, other prisoners, community organizations, legal representatives, and private doctors; to vertical associations such as Corrective Services staffs and non-government personnel.

Physical Capital is the things the prisoner can own and use to help gain social capital, such as clothing, adequate nutrition, pens, paper, resume and ideally, a car.

Prisoners get a small allowance a week and an extra benefit if they work. This is their financial capital that is used to pay expenses to gain their social capital. 

Inputting values, political and social policy trends, and community participation can increase human, physical and financial capital. These inputs significantly increase the dynamics of social capital by sharing ownership of these resources to proactively form networks, norms, trust and reciprocity. Consequently, social capital becomes the discourse of access, equity, rights and participation – the ultimate in social justice.

Implementing social capital is also a more ethical practice. In the current legislation, the Chief Executive has the duty to manage the prisoners’ finances s(233-238). Networking, normalizing, trusting and reciprocating pro-active finance management not only helps to increase the prisoners’ life skills and active decision making, it is also more ethical.

Once young people have a healthy level of social capital, they may be better equipped to participate in designing their own programs, management structures and community development. The ultimate in community inclusion - and thus crime prevention.

It is said that we as a society have lost our ‘moral compass’ and that our troubles persist because we lack an effective moral order to guide us. Social capital will increase our means by which to guide a more moral order in society, and by doing so, meet the needs of young people in a bid to decrease their offending and increase their skills, through intricate and ethical behaviors.

By Laura Marie Wingate