By /

“THE THREE-IN-ONE APARTMENT”: student-prisoner shared housing program

3-in-1 apartment 2000 featured image

Presented by Avraham Hoffmann at the UN 10th Congress on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, Vienna, Austria, 2000.

Introduction

The Three-in-One apartment Program provides an effective answer to two main issues in the area of prisoner rehabilitation:

  1. The need to rehabilitate former inmates in an urban environment and within a normative setting.
  2. The need for society at large to be a partner in the rehabilitation effort.

This program’s particularity lies in the fascinating meeting between the future elite of Israel and the world of delinquency. As far as we know this program is unique in its kind in the western world.

In this program, during a year or two, a young and single former inmate, male or female, lives in an apartment he shares with 2 university students. The main objective of the project is to rehabilitate young offenders and to promote their reintegration into society by ensuring that these offenders will not return to their former criminogenic environment during the traumatic period following their release from prison. 61.5% of them reported they had no contact with former friends during the project. The program is designed to enable the former inmate to adopt a normative lifestyle as the result of daily interaction with the former inmates’ two other roommates. He gets the opportunity to form intensive, dynamic relationships with a normative population, from which he can receive support, encouragement, and peer role models who will help change his ways. He acquires proper work habits, and learns to manage a budget, do household chores, and live with others. At the same time, these students can help reduce the stigma and bring to society at large the massage that rehabilitation is possible.

Research methodology

Researches about inmates have the relative advantage of its population being localised in a specific location. It allows reaching systematically the information sources. The disadvantage is that a person in prison tends to present himself in a manipulative manner also to researchers. Therefore we must always treat the data that are not purely statistics with doubts. Researchers that are studying incarcerated inmates need a great deal of wisdom in presenting the questions, in a way that minimises the influence of the manipulations on the research results.

The real accomplishment in the rehabilitation of released prisoners outside prison is the in overcoming the manipulation. When a genuine association is created between the released inmate and the practitioner – an association that is impossible in the prison conditions. Conducting research about released inmates arouses many difficulties caused from the need to find them in a large geographical area. However, it is easier to “reach” them, and obtain genuine results.

The research was based on questioning four groups: The released inmates, the students, the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority’s (PRA) counsellors, and the program co-ordinators. It was accomplished from September 1, 1995 to August 31, 1996. The data was gathered from questioners, interviews and data from the apartments’ files. Two criteria were used to assess the success or failure of the rehabilitation: The recidivism as a measurable criterion; and the re-absorption into the normative society, the adoption of its values and, organised and stable life style. That is, being sober, to what degree he integrated to society and is persevering at work, the way he handles his budget, uses his spare time, his social relationships and family ties.

Hence, the results of the research about the “The Three-in-One Apartment Program” are so interesting and illuminating. The research results show the importance of the reintegration of the released inmate into society, accompanied by professionals and volunteers.

The particular approach taken by the Israeli Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (PRA), since its foundation in 1984, lies in the acknowledgement that without the co-operation of the society at large in the rehabilitation process, even the most qualified professionals would not be able to provide significant help for the released inmates. Their return back to society can be promoted only by the positive participation of the society, against which they have previously acted and which they are afraid to face.

The Program

This pilot program began in 1986 in Jerusalem, and consequently in Tel Aviv in 1988. The project is run in co-operation with the Units for Social Involvement of the Universities of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. After a decade of running the program a research was conducted by Professor Menahem Amir and Ms. Bilha Sagiv, from the Hebrew University’s Criminology Institute (published in Hebrew by the National Insurance Institute). Its results show the great success and effectiveness of this program. In the following detailed description of the program I shall present data and conclusions from this research.

Since its beginning, 63 former inmates (including those who left of their own free will or those who where dismissed) and 96 students have taken part in it. The data was collected from the apartments’ reports, police records and, questioners and interviews held with the students and former inmates that could be found. Of the inmates only 26 were interviewed, and of the students 55.

The Theoretical Background

This shared housing program is an original program in Israel, and therefore necessitated to address theoretical approaches, that are not dealing directly with the kind of rehabilitation proposed by this program but, especially, with rehabilitation of inmates and specifically rehabilitation in the community.

The success of rehabilitation depends on the degree to which there is accordance between the delinquent characteristics and the type of rehabilitation proposed to him (Palmer 1975, 1992; Smith & Berlin 1979). I believe that the rehabilitation definition should be sensitive and should accept also a relative improvement. According to Smith & Berlin (1979), released inmates that return to the community with no advanced preparation might fail. They need time to adapt to the pressures and necessities of reality outside prison, and foremost assistance in finding accommodation (Shamgar 1973).

The differential socialisation theory of Sutherland & Cressey (1978) assumes that the delinquent behaviour is learnt in the same way as the normative behaviour. The difference lies only in the content. In both cases the human behaviour is learnt by the verbal and non-verbal interaction with others. The learning, in general, depends on the personal relations that are created with the close surrounding. It is conditioned both by the environment and the behaviour of each individual. Therefore, in this program each participant plays a crucial role. The co-operation in a small group in an apartment allows the creation of an adequate life framework for the learning of new values and to their gradual integration.

The Chicago School (Shaw & Mckay, 1969) found that delinquents centralise in distress and poverty areas. These areas are full of drug use and delinquent behaviour. Released prisoners that wish to integrate society face a twofold problem: On the one hand, they feel the urge to go back to their previous criminogenic and drug abuse surrounding, being a familiar setting. On the other hand, the society at large is reluctant to accept them. Hence it is necessary to separate them from their natural, pressuring and negative surrounding, and to integrate them in a new setting that offers different and positive stimulus (Haines, 1991; Timor, 1988), as well as new social contacts with a normative surrounding (Glasser, 1964; Haines, 1990).

Findings

Most of the former inmates thought the students cared a great deal for them. 80.8% believed the students were partner to their rehabilitation. They contributed mainly in improving their behaviour, manners, and way of thinking. They helped them develop the ability to overcome crises and deal with frustrating situations. They even said they the students represented for them role models. One of the major problems of inmates is the distrust toward society and its representative; therefore this data proves this program to be the right cure to this problem.

The research shows that the program helps not only for its initial purposes. It serves also as a basis that provides an organised framework from which the inmates go out to seek help from others.

The former inmates have learnt that work is important and a significant part of life (see tables 7-10).

Target population: The program is intended for the former inmates who fulfil the following criteria:

  1. They are single or divorced. Their children, if they have, are not living with them.
  2. The average age: between 20 to 30 years old.
  3. They have not been condemned for murder or sexual abuse. They do not suffer of mental retardation or illness.
  4. They have not been using drugs for at least 6 months.
  5. They have participated in a rehabilitation program.
  6. They are able to socialise and express themselves.

! The program is intended both for former male and female inmates.

Although the criteria are very strict, it is important to note the profile of these inmates:

The reasons for incarcerations were mostly (53.8%) for drug offences and the rest for offences such as, burglary, robbery and violence. Most of the inmates (84.6%) had used drugs before joining the program. Table 4 shows the duration of their drug addiction:

50% of the inmates were drug free more than a year before they joint the program; the other 50% were “clean” from 6 months up to a year. This information may be encouraging seeing the great rehabilitation success among those who complete the program (see table in the conclusions).

The age concordance of the participants is a major factor to the success of the 3 roommates’ contacts and trust:

In most cases the inmates were older than the students — an average of 5 years older. The students noticed that the closer their ages were with the inmates’ the better the contacts and results were, since the inmate did not feel he had to do with inexperienced youngsters. The students also noticed that the same ethnical background (same nutrition, musical habits, etc.) eased the primary contacts.

Implementation

Recruiting participants: Students recruited to participate in the program are interviewed, and those who combine the traits of firmness and warmth and who can relate to the needs and problems of former inmates are chosen. The inmates are also interviewed, and only those who display strong motivation for participation in a rehabilitation program are accepted.

The research shows that 63.6% of the students that took part in this program had volunteered previously, mostly in tutoring children, assisting in learning. They joint the program for various reasons, such as personal interest, curiosity and will to help. The main reason being, the will to take part in a challenging voluntary activity, coming from the belief that it is important and a moral obligation to take the less successful parts of society into consideration, and contribute to society.

Before the inmate’s release, the prospective college roommates meet with him or her at the prison facility, and a mutual decision on their compatibility – or lack of it – is reached. If the students and the inmate feel that they are, in fact, compatible, the inmate, on being released, will move directly into the apartment without returning to his former place of residence. Because of their closeness in age, the students and the inmate have an excellent chance of establishing good rapport and of taking a natural and constructive approach towards the entire program.

The former inmates must be gainfully employed or attend vocational training works. The PRA sees the work as an important part in the rehabilitation of inmates and in keeping it in the long run. For this reason working or receiving vocational training during the rehabilitation programs is an obligation, in this program as in any other PRA rehabilitation program. Table 6 shows most students worked before and during the program. Again presenting a role model for their roommate:

It is interesting to see how the former inmates proceed in the domain of work after completing the program: More than 50% persevere at their present work position for at least one year.

In addition to committing themselves to working at a steady job, the released inmates must be prepared to act as full-fledged partners in all aspects of shared accommodation: meeting expenses, cooking, cleaning, laundry, etc. For their part, the students agree to “carry their own load” in the program and to include their roommate in all normal social activities.

The three roommates eat their evening meal together and use the opportunity to discuss schedules and any other problems that might arise. The students tutor their roommate four hours a week. This is of great importance, because most former inmates have considerable difficulties regarding their education.

The inmates have stated the human relations as the major domain the students had helped them with, which included representing for them a role model, advising them in their relations with friends and women, spending time together, and introducing them to new friends. However they did not underestimate the practical help.

In order to “formalise” their obligations, the inmate and the students sign a joint contract and affirm that the Prisoner Rehabilitation Authority (PRA) and the students Council of the students’ university are co-sponsors of the program. The contract lists additional obligations, some of which are: the former inmate must return home at a reasonable hour in the evening; he or she can bring guests to the apartment only if prior agreement has been receive from the student roommates; the inmate cannot use alcohol or drugs.

Despite the restrictive appearance of these commitments regarding the recently released inmate, they serve to help him learn about freedom by getting it in teaspoon-size portions. If the situation were one of total, uncontrolled freedom, the former inmate would most likely be overwhelmed and would probably be back in prison.

The apartments selected for the program are located in good neighbourhoods and thus the rent payments are relatively high. Therefore the rent is subsidised by the PRA, the Ministry of Construction and Housing, and the universities’ Unit for Social Involvement/Intervention. The students pay a specific amount annually towards the rent, while the inmate does not. All the other expenses, on the other hand, such as municipal taxes, water, gas, and electricity are shared equally by the three roommates.

The program begins each year with a two-day excursion for all the participants. Once every two weeks, the project co-ordinator visits the apartment and speaks with the roommates. A monthly group meeting is held with all the participants, each time in a different apartment. The goal of these meetings is to provide the participants with advice and support. Any participant can request private or group consultations if any special problems arise in the course of the program.

The Special features of the project

This program engages students, who are future professionals (see table 13 below), in a direct experience with rehabilitation. A by-product being their efficient contribution to the demystification of the stereotypes and to the convincing of the society that rehabilitation is possible. They will be able to utilise their experience in the program in order to “sell” the idea of inmate reintegration into society and hopefully in order to fill an important role in Israeli society. Many of the students felt the program had strengthened their belief that rehabilitation is the main way to deal with the problems of crime on the social and personal levels, and that every one has the right to a second chance. Some had developed a strong identification with the rehabilitation issue, its importance for the offenders, and even more for the society.

The faculties in which the students study, and the degree they acquired:
Few students have mentioned the program as influencing their decision regarding their consecutive studies and profession. They had decided for example to become social worker. The awareness to the inmates’ issue arose in them the will to work with this kind of population. Only a few reported that no change had occurred as a result of their participation in the program.

Through the program the students had learnt personal as well as social skills:

  • To know people they would have never met otherwise. They learnt of the great strength of will and perseverance the former inmates have – a thing worth imitating.
  • That it is possible to deal with the problematic parts of society. They have opened emotionally and developed sensitivity to social conditions they ignored previously.
  • How to deal in stressful situations, and that you can always give more than you know you can.
  • To improved their ability to listen to other people and accept them, even when they cannot understand them or necessarily agree with them.
  • How to deal with a feeling of frustration.

This interaction not only demystifies the stereotypes the society has of inmates. The image that the former inmates have of the students changes. They find out that the students are not all rich and nerds, and that they must work to pay their university fees and daily expenses. This new perception of society diminishes the estrangement the former inmates have from society, and as a result their re-absorption into society goes a step farther.

The research shows that 77% of the former inmates have changed their opinions about the students. After the program they thought they were friendly, human, considerate, willing to accept others, with a high preparedness to help others, men of principles. They were now able to see the students, in spite of the differences, also as equal human beings with the similar daily or emotional problems, even if not the same ones.

Conclusions

Up to the present time, 63 former inmates have taken part in this program, including those participating this year. Today, the first graduate of the program is working as a paraprofessional counsellor in a drug-abuse therapeutic community.

From police criminal records we learn of the recidivism rate. It should be noticed that the data refers to the total of 63 inmates that have participated in this program since its beginning, including those participating during the time the research was conducted.

Less than 25% of those who complete the program were sentenced to incarceration. It is important to stress that some have not completed the program, due to offences they committed during the program. The numbers of those who were unsuccessful have decreased over the years. Among these the recidivism rate is obviously higher (54%).

We conclude that the trial to bring together population from two completely different ends was successful. It opens gates to innovative rehabilitation techniques and to the increasing co-operation of the normative society in rehabilitating released inmates.