Australia's new "WORCing" class.

An Australian experiment in community-based corrections is changing perceptions of crime, punishment and rehabilitation among rural populations by challenging assumptions about inmates and prisons. The Work Outreach Camp (WORC) program operated by the Queensland Corrective Services Commission provides reparative Community work based in or near rural towns. Early results from an assessment of the program found that costs are lower and offenders are accepted earlier and more readily by local people. This, in turn, encourages and reinforces positive socialization of inmates better than most other forms of custodial supervision.

The Tide Turns

In Australia almost 90 percent of the population lives on the coast, and of those, almost 90 percent live within 50 miles of 12 major cities. Since Australia is almost the size of the continental United States, but has less than 10 percent of the population, the people who live in the interior of the country--the bush--are few and far between. The lines of an old ballad accurately describe the climate of the bush as a place where "the creeks run dry, or 10 feet high," where long droughts are punctuated by massive floods that leave thousands of square miles under water.

In March 1990, almost eight years of drought ended abruptly with a flood that left creeks in much of the interior of the northeastern state of Queensland 30 feet or more above normal levels. At the peak, 15 percent of Queensland, a state more than twice the size of Texas, was under water.

As the flood swept down from the north, the nation's attention focused on the little town of Charleville, some 600 miles from the coast in the west central portion of the state. The people of Charleville fought and ultimately lost a week-long battle to keep the water out of the town. But in losing this fight they won a larger battle. Individuals, organizations and governments, including the Queensland Corrective Services Commission (QSCS), offered assistance to clean up and rebuild the town.

Work Outreach Camps

More than 130 inmates were employed for eight months cleaning up after the floods in Charleville. For them, like everyone else, the living was rough, the conditions hard and dirty. However, the responsibility they were given and the respect they received were extraordinary. The project won widespread support from the local community and received positive media coverage. Because of the success of this effort, the QSCS created the WORC program after consulting with local residents. The program commenced formally in March 1991 with reestablishment of a camp for 20 offenders and two officers in Charleville. In July of that year, the Minister for Corrective Services made the formal announcement that the regional headquarters of the WORC program would be in Charleville.

Program Structure

WORC is a "back-end" program operating on a decentralized basis within an overall system of graduated sentence management. Camps vary in size from 10 to 35 residents and are semi-autonomous centers for reception and induction as well as local work. Inmates and staff change regularly. Staff are on duty for two weeks, off duty for one week. This is because staff are on duty 24 hours a day when in camp, living, working, eating and sleeping alongside inmates. Inmates are rotated similarly, spending four weeks in camp and one week on an approved leave of absence, which means they go home, a highly valued aspect of the program.

WORC facilities, which are semi-permanent fixtures, contribute significantly to many local economies. These camps supply men and materials for local projects, and the work undertaken by a camp is decided in advance by a community advisory committee. In some cases a shire (county) may "loan" WORC participants to neighboring shires for specific jobs. This spreads the benefits of WORC in terms of the labor provided, the money spent by and on inmates, and improvements to the community. Temporary camps also are placed outside other small towns for specific jobs or specific periods. Establishment of the camps, as well as the work performed, is at the request of and involves continuing consultation with local communities.

Most of the existing camps are set up in unused ranches, shearers' quarters, vacated houses and former hospital buildings. Two, including the largest--Charleville--are technically "mobile" in that the camp consists mostly of self-contained accommodation units with up to six single rooms in each that can be disassembled quickly. Eventually, all camps will be transportable in this manner.

It has been a matter of deliberate policy that the program Should be active primarily in the far west and north of Queensland. Large provincial centers have access to a wide range of services, and the economic and social benefits of a camp are comparatively small. At the other end of the scale, camps of even a dozen inmates are a considerable boost to smaller towns. They bring increased economic activity and services and skills (such as construction, electrical and plumbing) that are in short supply in rural areas. As a result, camps have achieved high levels of acceptance by local communities, and there is widespread interest in the program by other rural areas in the state.

To give an indication of the scope of the program, in 1992 and '93 an average of 240 low and open classification inmates participated in the WORC program. This constitutes approximately 40 percent of the eligible prison population who normally would be held in custody.

Organization

The WORC program consists of the Industrial and Community Work Centre (ICWC) situated at the western edge of the state capital, Brisbane, and nine regional camps scattered throughout the central, western and northern areas of the state. All camps are low security and have about two officers(one permanent and one temporary, the latter hired from among local people) for every 10 offenders. A particularly important aspect of the program is the close liaison between WORC and local police.

Before an offender is placed in a camp, the local police are notified .of the name and criminal history of the offender. Although all program participants are carefully screened, police have a right to veto the transfer of any individual into their community. A 1992 survey of local police about the program showed that they endorse the concept and are satisfied with inmate selection and operation of the camps.

Dispersal of camps across a large part of Queensland, differing requirements and expectations from each community, and limitations on accommodations and access require a variety of strategies to manage the operation. However, there are three fundamental elements that do not change. Every camp has highly trained and motivated staff on duty 24 hours a day. The community is closely involved, and work is supervised by committees consisting of representatives from local government, police, service and charitable organizations and industrial unions. Most importantly, program officials work closely with community and government agencies and emergency services personnel to decide on projects that will enhance the community and provide work experience for inmates.

Benefits of WORC

One of the biggest benefits of WORC is that it is less expensive than traditional forms of incarceration. The daily cost per offender is $48 ($35 in U.S. currency), which is lower than almost all forms of incarceration except state prison farms. However, state prison farms have less than half the capacity of the WORC program and cannot be readily expanded. Similarly, the escape rate for the WORC program is low. Only three escapes have been recorded among more than 1,000 participants. In addition, despite initial skepticism, most local governments seem very pleased with the standard of service and have a long list of projects with which they want assistance.

An evaluation of the operations and outcomes of the WORC scheme is underway. Among other things, this will determine the extent to which WORC costs are lower than average costs of maintaining offenders in institutions, including offsets for the value of community work performed. One of the important aspects of the WORC program is the financial value of inmate labor and the boost it gives to local economies. The hours worked and the value of the labor increased by nearly 65 percent during the 1992-93 financial year, from 126,127 hours to 207,810 hours, and from $1.32 million to $2.18 million. During the same period, the average number of inmates per camp rose only 19 percent, from 202 to 240. WORC contributed almost $1 million to local economies in 1992-93 through purchases of food, fuel and other products. Community perception of work standards and the long-term value of the program will be major elements in assessing the program's success.

The effect of WORC on recidivism has not been determined yet. The little data available indicate that inmates who have participated in the WORC program have a readmission-to-custody rate of approximately 1.3 percent. The evaluation will consider alternatives for post-release monitoring of participants to determine whether long-term reoffense rates confirm this early trend. It also will attempt to identify the contribution of WORC as a modifying influence on behavior and whether success rates for reintegration increase.

Finally, the evaluation will put the operation and evolution of the WORC program into its organizational context. No matter how successful the program may seem, its impact on the QCSC as a whole must be studied. One important focus will be on perceptions and attitudes of staff, inmates and the community as to whether WORC enhances or reduces the effects of other programs, treatments or incarceration.

Two of QCSC's major concerns are increasing capacity for inmates serving short sentences and expanding community-based corrections programs. Both these priorities are addressed by the WORC program because they have the same offender target population--minimum security property offenders. Sexual and violent offenders are not permitted in the WORC program, and QCSC uses community corrections rather than custodial corrections for minimum security property offenders, thus reducing the pool of possible participants.

This could have an adverse correctional and administrative impact if, as part of changing sentencing policy, WORC becomes a third alternative in sentencing where prison is not necessary but probation is considered an insufficient deterrent. This "net-widening" would defeat the purpose of WORC by institutionalizing people who would otherwise have remained out of custody and effectively increasing the duration and cost of custodial care. If, on the other hand, the WORC concept can be kept separate from the community corrections system and remain a successful adjunct to medium and minimum security custodial supervision, it has long-term financial and policy ramifications for QCSC. Specifically, it raises questions about the continued need for some existing and proposed minimum security facilities and the need to modify or build new medium security facilities.

As with any organizational program, WORC must be efficient in terms of meeting its program goals and effective in terms of its contribution to overall organizational performance. It is still too early to be sure, but it appears that the program may represent a major innovation in correctional reform. Alternatives to imprisonment in community-based corrections and work release schemes are commonplace around the world, but they have focused on achieving success through working with the individual. The WORC program is a radical departure in both practice and philosophy because it operates on a group basis and deliberately links the force of group dynamics with powerful social pressures to encourage behavior modification.

In addition, people associate the remote locations of work outreach camps with the fabled rugged conditions endured by shearers, drovers, fettlers and others who live in the bush. This association, if somewhat mythical, is positive, enabling program participants to shed the stigma of imprisonment and gain a degree of personal confidence and social acceptance they otherwise would not enjoy.

Keith Hamburger is director-general of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission, Brisbane.