1.

Executive summary:
the first paper aimed to compare Australia's imprisonment and recidivism statistics to those of
Nordic nations. According to the survey, Australia has a 46 per cent recidivism rate, while
Norway and Finland have recidivism rates of 20 per cent and 36 per cent, respectively.
Criminals in Australia associate mostly with fellow offenders while in jail, making it difficult
for them to reintegrate into society following their release. In the Nordic nations, jail terms
are geared toward rehabilitation, with convicts having the option of serving part of their
sentence via community service or open prisons. Long before they are released, offenders
become used to life after jail, lowering the recidivism rate. The imprisonment rate of 160 per
100,000 is also higher than 54 and 53 per 100,000 in Norway and Finland, respectively.
Crimes in Australia carry harsher jail penalties, and the number of actions designated as
offences in Australia is more extensive than in the Nordic nations. Finally, the research
recommends strategies for the Australian government to minimise imprisonment and
recidivism rates. As demonstrated by the research, alternative judicial systems, such as
community service and home confinement should be prioritised by the Australian
government. It is also vital to rebuilding Australian jails to provide a platform for more
freedom. After their release, inmates will be able to seamlessly assimilate into society and
move away from the path of crime thanks to such a network. The paper made suggestions
regarding the policies that can be implemented in Australian prisons to influence the rate of
recidivism.
Alternative sentencing paths for low-risk criminals should be implemented as the first policy
adjustment English-speaking nations should make to reduce imprisonment and recidivism
rates. Petty offenders in Australia are sentenced to jail due to a strong communal desire to
punish criminals. This puts a strain on the jail system, and the impact of severe offenders in
jails ensures that petty criminals progress to more severe offences once they are released.
Alternative home detention, early release, and electronic surveillance are all recommended in
the Australian Productivity Commission report. On the one hand, the suggestions will lower
the expense of operating prisons by lowering the imprisonment rate. In the Nordic nations,
prison systems focus on community activities to help criminals get back on their feet.
Prisoners participate in community activities under the supervision of prison personnel. The
Australian government should make community service required before releasing inmates in
order to aid in the reintegration of criminals into society while also lowering recidivism rates.
Moreover, Australia and other English-speaking countries must remodel their jails to make
them more conducive to rehabilitation. The architecture of Australian jails encourages a high
level of isolation, robbing convicts of a range of liberties. This paper focuses on predicting
the expected response of stakeholders and designing strategies to gain their support for
implementing the policies.
 2.
Various prison programmes have shifted from punitive to the rehabilitation of prisoners to
reduce the crime rate and reform people's behaviour towards general goodness. Historically,
prisoners' rehabilitation and education have focused on religion and spiritual enlightenment
by repenting their criminal acts (MacKenzie, 2006). As noted in the above section, various
prisons in Nordic countries focus on developing prisoners' daily life behaviour by keeping
them close to those activities that happen outside of the prisons. The suggestion was made to
focus on this type of rehabilitation programme for prisoners in Australia that will educate the
prisoners and integrate them into society. These aims can be achieved by engaging prisoners
in community services and redesigning their prison environment to create a favourable place
to focus on the rehabilitation of prisoners (Gallant, Sherry, & Nicholson, 2015). Stakeholders
can challenge this suggestion on an economic basis because it can be costly. Moreover, the
stakeholders can view the investment in the rehabilitation and redesign of the prisons because
of the negative results of these policies to reduce recidivism rates in Australia. Several
stakeholders can influence the policies and practices of prisons regarding the rehabilitation of
prisoners.
A stakeholder can be defined as a person who is somehow involved in an institution,
community or organisation and thus, holds certain responsibilities involving the interests and
success of that particular organisation (Post, Preston, & Sauter-Sachs, 2002). Various
research work by overseas scholars demonstrates that the public supports prisoners'
education, especially those who are young and non-violent (see, e.g. Cullen, Skovron &
Scott, 1990; Applegate, Cullen & Fisher, 1997). Another research by Krisberg & Marchionna
(2006), the research study conducted on 1,039 voters from the United States who believed
that prison rehabilitation for non-violent offenders is beneficial before their release into
society.
In the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes 2007, the Australian Institute of Criminology
generated a report on the perception of Australians about justice and crime (Robert and
Indermaur, 2009). this study was conducted by 8133 surveys and demonstrated that the
majority of the people showed little or no confidence in the rehabilitation centre of the
prisons and showed a lack of interest in teaching prisoners’ skills and in alternative
punishments. The findings of this study shed insight on the public's opinions of prison's
effectiveness as a rehabilitation facility in Australia. It's likely that the community considers
incarceration to be ineffective. The community's belief that the jail experience would result in
personal improvement for inmates may influence policy and practice inside and around
Australia's prison systems.
At the recent International Correction and Prisons Association conference, Sir Martin Narey,
the former head of prison services in Whales and England, discussed the importance of
rehabilitation and investment in these programs. He talked in support of the prison
rehabilitation programs and expected long-term benefits in terms of gaining lower recidivism
rates (Narey, 2019). He also pointed out the structure of the social environment and the
prison norms where these types of programmes or other alternative punishments are
perscieved as shameful. Thus, re-offending rates were not able to decrease. Therefore, he
noted that investment in mass prison rehabilitation centres yielded poor results in the
unfavourable environment. This money can improve the prisons or make them morally
upright places.
However, at the conference, this view was perceived as highly pessimistic (Andrews &
Bonta, 2010). Moreover, the rehabilitative capability of prison environments is defined by
three aspects, according to Schalast et al. (2008): perceived inmate safety; assistance offered
by correctional personnel and inmates; and the inmate's opinion of the atmosphere as
favourable to therapeutic improvement. A positive prison atmosphere, in their opinion, is
supportive, safe, and provides an opportunity for individual growth for inmates. According to
Day & Vess (2017), the degree to which convicts feel safe has the most significant potential
to influence rehabilitation programme success.
Moreover, the view of community-based services as an alternative to imprisonment is also
viewed as both valuable and useless by the stakeholders in the past. The conventional belief
is that community-based sentencing is only appropriate for a narrow spectrum of offences:
minor (and, in certain jurisdictions, moderate) felonies and that more severe felonies should
be punished with incarceration. It's important to understand that sentence. What constitutes a
minor crime, a moderate offence, and a major criminal offence varies from county to county
periodically. For example, as Yukhnenko et al. (2019) point out, the same drug smuggling
crime can result in a community-based punishment in one state and a five- to a ten-year
prison sentence.
Furthermore, the types of offences governed under community-based and prison terms differ
from one state to the next, as well as from one historical period to the next. Community-based
sentencing is utilised more often than prison terms in some countries. In contrast,
community-based penalties are rarely employed in other countries. It would be ludicrous to
argue that few minor (and maybe even moderate) crimes are committed and brought before
the authorities in the latter jurisdiction (Villettaz, Killias, & Zoder, 2006). These
considerations indicate that the dominant function of incarceration in each of our countries
should and should be re-examined. We should endeavour to learn from what happened in
counties that can maintain social control, prevent crime, and protect the vulnerable and the
society with a low level of incarceration (Joutsen).
Thus, based on these previous researches and reactions of the key stakeholders, the
suggestions in this study can be seen in a negative and positive light. While in many states,
the criminal offence can determine the nature of the penalty, the results of this alternative
punishment can be influenced by some factors and the social and ideology of the community.
Such as in some communities, these punishments are seen in positive light and prisons are
viewed as correction institutes rather than punishment centres. Therefore, the reaction of
stakeholders in various states and regions can depend on this type of belief.

3. Building support for proposal:

Several strategies can be implemented to gain support for the proposal of developing
alternative punishments based on their long-term impacts on reducing the rate of recidivism.
Such as by gaining public support, raising awareness regarding the positive side of these
policies through the press and social media, and making policymakers understand the
perspective of citizens and prisoners. These strategies can be used to gain the support of
stakeholders and influence their decision making process by making them aware of the issue
at hand and the harmful impacts of alternative policies (Paul, 1983).
True public support entails more than just individuals comprehending the problem or a large
group of people eager to go and speak out at a demonstration or public hearing. When most
people respond to your issue by recognising it and seeking solutions, you'll have genuine
public support. To get to that stage, one must first ensure that the public is aware of the
problem and must inform community people about the problem and assist them in
comprehending its significance. Once these aims are achieved, others can be persuaded of the
issue's importance to them and the community and that fixing it is both their and society's
obligation. People will rally behind an attempt to fix the problem if they embrace that duty.
Moreover, educating the stakeholders regarding the policy is also essential. Managing
communications and learning how to successfully deal with groups or individuals who may
resist the Correctional Industry agency's efforts are part of informing stakeholders about the
objective. Given the sometimes-skewed perceptions of prison industries due to a lack of
knowledge or miscommunication, it is critical for every organisation to effectively sustain
and enhance stakeholder interests so that the organisation can actively manage its
communication to sustain continuous support for its programme. It's also critical for CI
professionals to educate interested parties with limited insight or experience in the
correctional industry (Correctional Industries).
 Stakeholders will be informed and communicated with regularly, which will:
 Verify the CI program's record of success.
 Inform judgement about the project's beneficial impact.
 Illustrate how resources are utilised responsibly and effectively.
 Share evidence-based and best practices with your community.
 Attract new collaborators or strategic partnerships.

The more people are aware of the Correctional Industry's initiatives, the more inclined they
are to support it. It can be performed in the following ways:
Stakeholders could become advocates for the institution and function as advisers and
representatives in favour of the organisation's goals and objectives by tracking programme
accomplishments and making the data available.
Aspects of planning may gain many benefits and strategic partnerships to build new or
strengthen collaborations, including programme creativity, availability of new resources, and
improved favourable publicity through common media connections.
The public's opinion of an issue as significant is often impacted by what the media decides to
be important. Therefore a lack of attention from a major individual or the press can act
against it. "In the instance of AIDS in the 1980s, President Reagan aided postpone the rising
of the pandemic on the media narrative solely by disregarding it"( Dearing, Rogers & Rogers,
1996).

As a result, focusing on the following can promote efforts to acquire public support:
  Leaders in the society and those with clout. This group includes clergy, corporate
leaders, those recognised for community service, local sports heroes or media figures,
and residents with significant concentrations of communal credibility. Once you've
got them on board, there will be no stopping them.
 Representatives from the media:  The media's ability to support your cause is
undeniable. The work would be considerably easier if the help of certain prominent
journalists or media executives is obtained (VanDeCarr, 2015).
 People who are most affected by the problem (such as prisoners and their families): 
Their backing also offers credibility to your campaign and provides you with a wealth
of personal tales of the issue's consequences to utilise in public education.
 Policymakers. It's critical to have individuals who determine policy on your side, even
if you seek to influence government or regulations. They can assist you in keeping the
subject in the public spotlight, and their backing will bring you the favour of their
fans.
 Activists:  Those involved in community concerns generally have a following and
understand how to get their message through.
 Leaders of the opinion:  Everett Rogers defines these people as "those who are one of
the first to try something new or embrace fresh concepts, and who influence the
opinions of others" in his book Diffusion of Innovations. It's best if you can attract as
many of these early pioneers as possible (Engage Stakeholders).
Taking advantage of the globalised world and the role of media in shaping public opinion
should also be utilised in binging this proposal forth and gaining support from relevant
stakeholders. By creating a mutually beneficial relationship with the media and local
newspapers, TV and radio, anything the citizens can assess easily can be used to gain their
support and raise awareness regarding the issue. Moreover, the internet can also be used to
build a large platform for community support where numerous people can assess the
information on the issue and the consequences of ignoring it (Gaining Public Support for
Addressing Community Health and Development Issues). Additionally, one organisation
should focus on one time because the matters of gaining public support take time. Thus, if
support for one organisation or platform is gained, others will follow suit.
Moreover, appreciating the winners publicly, such as focusing on the other countries who are
successfully implementing these policies and people in your own country who are
contributing positively to the cause, should also be appreciated publicly to cast an impression.
If possible, hand over control of the initiative to the community. A society may be more
ready to support a local effort if it is viewed as indigenous (VanDeCarr, 2015). You and your
company should stay active, but not usually as the project's head. The problem and what
needs to be done will determine if community governance matters in your community.
4.
Despite the opposition and some negative results, implementations of the recommendation
mentioned in the above study are necessary because life inside a jail is frequently unpleasant.
Being incarcerated may be traumatising, resulting in mental health issues and difficulties
reintegrating into society (Cullen, & Gendreau, 2000). The rehabilitation impact of
incarceration has been widely studied. Robert Martinson's 1974 paper, What Works? -
Questions and Answers on Prison Reform is considered a classic in the area. He analysed
some research and found that "the rehabilitation initiatives documented so far have no
substantial influence on recidivism, with very few and solitary instances."  In hisbook
Rethinking Rehabilitation: Why Can't We Reform Our Criminals? David Farabee (2005)
likewise found that correctional therapy is ineffective on a broad basis. Many factors have
been recognised as contributing to the failure of corrections.
The belief that violators can be compelled to change their style of life (also known as
"coercive therapies" or "required treatment") creates situations in which perpetrators appear
to make adjustments to the authoritarian rule and start positively changing their behaviour
traits, only to come back to a criminal life after release. It's also been noted that incarceration
alone will not change the criminal's position in finding themselves after release. Indeed, as is
often highlighted, incarceration can impair an offender's capacity to operate as a citizen of a
society in some respects (McGuire, 2010). Most jurisdictions' custodial correctional systems
are underfunded and overloaded, which is a big problem. Counselling, therapy, education,
and vocational courses (as well as other types of assistance and guidance) may be few and of
poor quality. Because many jails are overcrowded, personnel cannot complete a thorough risk
and needs analysis, much alone develop an individualised treatment plan that meets the needs
of every inmate. Therapies that are individually tailored for perpetrators in different cultural
settings were effective. Still, corresponding perpetrators and rehab facilities and
implementing effective such programmes require many resources (Joutsen).
Many inmates will be continuing to spend most of their time in criminogenic surroundings
without the direction and supervision, one where criminal qualities can be ingrained, better
and fresh ways to commit offences can be managed to learn, specific criminal collaborations
can be formed, and perpetrators could become more strongly committed to a criminal life in
overall. In addition, overcrowded and under-resourced jails may create an unpleasant
atmosphere, with gang violence, contagious illnesses, drug misuse, and other conditions that
contribute to psychological problems (Gallant, Sherry, & Nicholson, 2015). Community-
based punishments, which enable the offender to stay in the community, might contrast this
criminogenic jail atmosphere. They can feel compassion for their family and pursue school,
occupational education, and work. Although the quality of community-based care, social
care, and other facilities may be fundamental for most countries (resource constraints are not
confined to prisons), they are often superior to what is provided in a custodial setting. If
penalties are served in society, becoming an "ex-convict" may be less stigmatised. As a
result, if rehabilitation is the aim, it is more beneficial to provide it in a community setting.
"Strong meta-analytic data proves that community-based rehabilitation programs for at-risk
or convicted persons, teenagers, are more successful than those delivered in secure settings"
(Joutsen).   In Australia and other countries, prisoners wear prison uniforms, are confined to
their cells, and therefore have no ability to vote (Day, 2020). Such lifestyles create a divide
between life inside and beyond the prison walls. As a result, there is a difficult transition
period following release, which raises the chance of inmates committing crimes when they
are released. Prisoners under the Nordic nations' model live in dorms rather than cells, enjoy
the ability to vote, and can even work full-time while incarcerated (Villman, 2021).
As a result, the Australian government must guarantee that prison life matches that of the
outside world, allowing inmates to learn a new lifestyle outside of crime. While such
investments raise the expense of administering a jail, the administration stands to benefit
more in the long run by increasing the number of individuals leading to economic growth.

References:

Applegate, B. K., Cullen, F. T., & Fisher, B. S. (1997). Public support for correctional
treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 237-
258.
Dearing, J. W., Rogers, E. M., & Rogers, E. (1996). Agenda-setting (Vol. 6). Sage.

Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. (2010). Viewing offender assessment and rehabilitation through the
lens of the risk-need-responsivity model. Offender supervision: New directions in theory,
research and practice, 19-40.
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy. Practice,
and Prospects. Criminal Justice, 3.
Cullen, F. T., Skovron, S. E., Scott, J. E., & Burton Jr, V. S. (1990). Public support for
correctional treatment: The tenacity of rehabilitative ideology. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 17(1), 6-18.
Day, A., Darwinkel, E., & Vess, J. (2017). The characteristics of registered sexual offenders
in an Australian jurisdiction. Journal of investigative psychology and offender
profiling, 14(2), 120-132.
Day, M. (2020). Covid-19: identifying and isolating asymptomatic people helped eliminate
virus in Italian village. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online), 368.
Engage Stakeholders: Correctional Industries: A Guide to Reentry-Focused Performance
Excellence available at: https://info.nicic.gov/cirs/node/34
Farabee, D. (2005). Rethinking rehabilitation: Why can't we reform our criminals?.
Gaining Public Support for Addressing Community Health and Development Issues. (Online
source). Available at: https://ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/assessment/getting-issues-on-
the-public-agenda/gain-public-support/main. Assessed on (29 May, 2022).
Gallant, D., Sherry, E., & Nicholson, M. (2015). Recreation or rehabilitation? Managing
sport for development programs with prison populations. Sport management review, 18(1),
45-56.
Jonson, C. L., Cullen, F. T., & Lux, J. L. (2013). Creating ideological space: Why public
support for rehabilitation matters.
Joutsen, M., RE-ASSESSING THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS.
Krisberg, B., & Marchionna, S. (2006). Attitudes of US voters toward prisoner rehabilitation
and reentry policies. NCCD.
Mackenzie, L., Byles, J., & D'Este, C. (2006). Validation of self-reported fall events in
intervention studies. Clinical rehabilitation, 20(4), 331-339.
Martinson, R. (1974). What works? — Questions and answers about prison reform. The
Public Interest, 35, 22–54.
McGuire, J. (2010). Rehabilitation of offenders.
Narey, M. (2019, November). Forget rehabilitation: The real and moral challenge is to make
imprisonment humane. Olvidemos la rehabilitación: el verdadero desafıo moral es lograr una
detención humana. Paper presented to the International Corrections and Prisons Association
conference, Buenos Aires.
Paul VanDeCarr., (2015). 3 Tips for Telling Stories That Move People to Action. Available
at: https://www.philanthropy.com/article/3-tips-for-telling-stories-that-move-people-to-
action/
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sauter-Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation:
Stakeholder management and organizational wealth. Stanford University Press.
Roberts, L., & Indermaur, D. (2009). What Australians think about crime and justice: Results
from the 2007 Survey of Social Attitudes.
Schalast, N., Redies, M., Collins, M., Stacey, J., & Howells, K. (2008). EssenCES, a short
questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatric wards. Criminal
Behaviour and Mental Health, 18(1), 49-58.
Swets, Paul M. (1983).  The Art of Talking So that People Will Listen: Getting through to
Family, Friends & Business Associates.  New York, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc.s
Villettaz, P., Killias, M., & Zoder, I. (2006). The effects of custodial vs. non‐custodial
sentences on re‐offending: A systematic review of the state of knowledge. Campbell
Systematic Reviews, 2(1), 1-69.
Villman, E. (2021). Work, support and solitude: prisoners’ desistance expectations and self-
regulating strategies. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 60(2), 95-116.
Yukhnenko, D., Sridhar, S., & Fazel, S. (2019). A systematic review of criminal recidivism
rates worldwide: 3-year update. Wellcome open research, 4.