Engaging First Nations Australians in Correctional Treatment: The Perspectives of Program Recipients and Facilitators

• Published date: 01 January 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231207059
• Author: Meaghan Trudgett,Andrew Mcgrath,Bianca Spaccavento
• Date: 01 January 2024

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2024, Vol. 51, No. 1, January 2024, 24 –42.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231207059

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2023 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

24

ENGAGING FIRST NATIONS AUSTRALIANS IN

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT

The Perspectives of Program Recipients and

Facilitators

MEAGHAN TRUDGETT

ANDREW MCGRATH

BIANCA SPACCAVENTO

School of Psychology, Charles Sturt University

Developing and delivering effective rehabilitation programs that meet the specific needs of First Nations people and overcome

barriers to engagement has been suggested as a way to address the overrepresentation of First Nations Australians in the cor-

rectional system. This project used a critical realist epistemology to understand perceptions of First Nations people participating

in rehabilitation programs to contribute to improvements in treatment responsivity. Semi-structured interviews were conducted

with five First Nations people serving community-based orders and five First Nations Program Facilitators. The data were

analyzed thematically. Four overarching themes emerged: (a) the importance of culture and colonization, (b) intrinsic motivation

to change, (c) communication and language: the role of the First Nations facilitator, and (d) connection: life after jail. These

findings highlight the need for cultural healing as a crucial factor for programs aimed at First Nations Australians.

Keywords: responsivity; rehabilitation programs; corrective services New South Wales; first nations; qualitative

First Nations Australians1 are grossly overrepresented in the criminal justice system

(Weatherburn, 2014). More than three decades after The Royal Commission into

Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (Johnston, 1991), imprisonment rates for First Nations

Australians continue to climb. First Nations Australians make up about 2.5% of the

Australian adult population; however, they account for 29% of the adult prison population

(Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2021). From July 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021,

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in prison increased by 8% (947) to 13,039. The

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander imprisonment rate increased by 5% from 2,294 to

2,412 people in prison per 100,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander adult population.

AUTHORS’ NOTE: This article is based on the dissertation completed by Trudgett (2021).Correspondence

concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew McGrath, School of Psychology, Charles Sturt

University, Panorama Avenue, Bathurst, New South Wales 2795, Australia; e-mail: amcgrath@csu.edu.au.

1207059CJBXXX10.1177/00938548231207059Criminal Justice and BehaviorTrudgett et al. / First Nations Australians in Correctional Programs

research-article2023

Trudgett et al. / FIRST NATIONS AUSTRALIANS IN CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS 25

First Nations people experience higher recidivism rates, with 78% of First Nations

Australians in custody having been imprisoned previously, compared with 52% of their

non-Indigenous counterparts (ABS, 2021).

A key purpose of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate individuals and ensure safer

communities (Tamatea, 2017). The modern Australian justice system reflects perspectives of

criminality from a culturally determined, Western way of thinking, and in this regard, courts

and prisons have been said to maintain the status quo by representing only the dominant

culture’s ideologies (Day, 2003). Living in a colonized nation where most of the population

is non-Indigenous places First Nations Australians at a significant disadvantage. Members of

First Nations Australian groups have argued that the criminal justice system is not designed

to serve and protect them, but rather reinforces systematic inequality (Hovane et al., 2014).

The risk, needs, and responsivity model is a widely accepted and practiced correctional

framework (Andrews et al., 1990; Bonta & Andrews, 2007). Psychological research has

made significant advances in understanding offending behavior and rehabilitation, includ-

ing the development of empirical and standardized approaches to the assessment and treat-

ment of people in forensic settings. Risk–need–responsivity principles can guide

decision-making in a system where resources are limited (Tamatea, 2017).

The risk principle states that the intensity of treatment should match risk of reoffending,

where individuals most likely to reoffend are prioritized for rehabilitation programs (Andrews

& Bonta, 2015). The needs principle states that the content and treatment targets of programs

should address the known criminogenic needs (antisocial personality pattern, procriminal

attitudes, antisocial peers, substance abuse, family/marital relationships, education/employ-

ment, and recreational activities; Andrews & Bonta, 2015). Given First Nations Australians

have been found to have high risks and needs, they should be well represented in the current

programs. Recent research from the Department of Corrective Services showed First Nations

people in custody were both less likely to participate in and complete programs (Howard &

Lobo, 2020). Although the reasons for this were not clear, it remains the case that attending

to risk and need alone is not sufficient to reduce recidivism—sustained engagement of par-

ticipants is a key factor to successful rehabilitation programs (Carl et al., 2020).

The responsivity principle holds that programs should be designed and delivered in ways

that consider participants’ individual characteristics. General responsivity in program

design uses cognitive social learning methods to change behavior, whereas specific respon-

sivity delivers programs in a way that overcomes any barriers to engagement, such as learn-

ing style, motivation, cognitive capacity, or literacy (Andrews & Bonta, 2015). These

aspects of responsivity are typically based on research with non-Aboriginal males and do

not consider cultural needs relevant to engagement, or the effects of First Nations Australians’

histories of suffering and distress in the context of broader historical, social, and cultural

contributors to criminalization (Day, 2003; Heffernan et al., 2014).

RESPONSIVITY IN FIRST NATIONS AUSTRALIANS

LEARNING STYLE

Learning style is a responsivity factor particularly relevant to First Nations Australians.

Mals et al. (1999) interviewed 14 mostly First Nations human service workers with experi-

ence of rehabilitation programs in Western Australia. Respondents emphasized the impor-

tance of group discussion over formal didactic instruction; how shame limits self-disclosure