GROUP 3

PROMOTION OF EFFECTIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMMESFOR OFFENDERS
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs
Members

Advisers

Mr. Orisi Vuki Katonibau
Mr. Yuichiro Okuno
Ms. Soo-Hee Kim
Mr. Jonah Muzambi
Mr. Hernan Gallo Grande
Mr. Akira Takano
Mr. Saidamir Badriddinouich Saidov
Mr. Patelisio Leniti Pale
Mr. Wai-fung Law
Ms. Mikako Matsushita
Ms. Sachiko Tokuda(Fiji)(Japan)(Korea)(Zimbabwe)(Philippines)(Japan)(Tajikistan)(Tonga)(Hong Kong)(Japan)(Japan)Prof. Takafumi Sato
Prof. Tamaki Yokochi
Prof. Masato Uchida(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
The purpose of criminal justice is to maintain a safe society by preventing crime. Under criminal justicethe offence and punishment is preset and the court decides and imposes the punishment on the offender inaccordance with the law he/she has violated.
The prison department is responsible for the enforcement of the punishment imposed on the offender by
the court. The imposition of the punishment on the offender will deter him/her from committing further
crime after release from prison. Imprisonment deprives the offender of his/her freedom which he/she enjoys
in the normal community. It also intimidates the criminal behaviour of the offender to make him/her realise
the consequences of his/her criminal act.
Traditionally, the responsibility of prisons was to ensure safe custody of prisoners and the protection ofsociety. Basically, such responsibility focuses only on effective treatment of prisoners to ensure that they
maintain a healthy and well-ordered community life while in custody.
Alone, this approach has been considered a failure because when prisoners are released, the probability of
their re-offending is relatively high because their criminal behavioural problems were not addressed andeliminated while in custody but were merely lying dormant and would re-surface when opportunity allows.
Given this background, most participating member countries’ prisons have placed more emphasis on
rehabilitation in the treatment of offenders in order to reduce recidivism, which is a common problem in all
countries, in their efforts to prevent crime. The group in its discussion identified problems existing in therespective countries’ prisons that restricts or hinders the effective implementation of treatment andrehabilitation programmes of offenders, and offered possible solutions thereof as contained in the following
chapters.

II. PURPOSE OF TREATMENT PROGRAMMESThe SMR1 clearly provides the general purpose of treatment of persons sentenced to imprisonment:
Article 65: “The treatment of persons sentenced to imprisonment or a similar measure shall have as its
purpose, so far as the length of the sentence permits, to establish in them the will to leadlaw-abiding and self-supporting lives after their release and to fit them to do so. The
1 “World Social Situation.” ECOSOC Resolution 663 (XXIV). (Annex: Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of
Prisoners.) 31 July 1957.

137

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

treatment shall be such as will encourage their self-respect and develop their sense of
responsibility.”
Member countries have similar, or almost the same as the above SMR article, purposes stated in theirlegislation or organisation policies. For example:
1)

To promote effective rehabilitation and resocialisation of prisoners in accordance with their individual
characteristics and environments (Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice, “Prison Administration in
Japan”)
To protect the society and promote the individual and public welfare by aiding the reformation andrehabilitation of offenders, appropriately effectuating amnesty, providing for an impartial and proper
system for administering parole and other pertinent affairs and facilitating the activities of crime
prevention. (Article 1 of the Offenders Rehabilitation Law, Japan)

2)

To provide safe, secure and humane treatment of persons in custody by providing opportunities tocorrect offending behaviour, develop life and work skills and perform community service. (Mission
statement-Fiji Prison Services)3)

To encourage and enhance the offenders’ self respect, dignity, sense of responsibility and make themproductive and useful citizens. (BJMP rules and regulations of the Philippines)

Types of treatment programmes vary according to the cultural, historical and economic background ofeach participating country. However, the countries are continuously striving to meet the purpose of thetreatment of offenders as defined in the SMR as best as they can.

III. PROBLEMS AND COUNTERMEASURES IN RELATION TO IMPLEMENTINGEFFECTIVE PROGRAMMESIn spite of the various treatment measures for offenders available in the participating countries’ prison
systems, problems of treatment programmes emanate from a lack of proper resources and programmes, asevidenced by the high rate of recidivism experienced in the respective member countries. For example, inFiji, the recidivism rate in 2001 was about 50. 2%2.
Offenders have unique criminal characteristics hence the types of crime they commit varies. For
example, in Japan, they have researched the factors contributing to recidivism (see Appendix A). The
treatment programmes available in the prisons may not be suitable for certain types of offenders and there isa need to identify and establish appropriate programmes for these offenders. The Group identified some of
the contributing factors that lead to crimes being committed by offenders in their respective countries, as
follows:a) Unemploymentb) Lack of basic academic backgroundc) Lack of social relationships (poor family environment, poor personal relationships, poor background,inability to communicate with others, lack of understanding of social life)
The above contributing factors would determine the most appropriate rehabilitation programmes interms of work, education, social relations and aftercare that the offender would be subjected to, however, theeffectiveness of such programmes would very much depend on the existence of an efficient classification
system, and also the provision of a privilege grading system that would enhance such a programme. In any
rehabilitation programme, it is essential that the programme be holistic and at least should include thefollowing components to realise its effectiveness as discussed and agreed by the group:a) Classificationb) Privilegesc) Workd) Educatione) Social relations and aftercare

2 Annual Reports for the Year 1997-2001, Fiji Prison Service, Ministry of Justice.

138

127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

A. Classification
Classification is an integral part of the treatment process and is provided for by the relevant provisions of
the SMR, as follows:
Article 67: “The purpose of classification shall be;(a)
To separate from others those prisoners who, by reason of their criminal records or
bad character, are likely to exercise a bad influence;(b)
To divide the prisoners into classes in order to facilitate their treatment with a view totheir social rehabilitation.”
Article 68: “So far as possible separate institutions or separate sections of an institution shall be used
for the treatment of the different classes of prisoners.”
Article 69: “As soon as possible after admission and after a study of the personality of each prisoner
with a sentence of suitable length, a programme of treatment shall be prepared for him in
the light of the knowledge obtained about his individual needs, his capacities anddispositions.”
The classification is a dual process in that it determines the appropriate containment and reformation
process of the prisoner. Some of the constraints that hinder the effectiveness of the classification systemthat exists in the member countries are due to archaic conditions of the prison facilities that restrict theimplementation of such a programme and do not conform to the spirit of correcting the offending behaviourof inmates. It would be worthless to shift the emphasis from a custodial approach towards a correctional
approach when facilities do not permit the implementation of such programmes. The following member
countries have highlighted hereunder the existing problems in their prisons that affect their prisoners’classification process.
In the Philippines, the lack of prison space and overcrowding exacerbated by the lack of skilled humanresources and financial resources to some extent limits the effective implementation of their classification
process. Construction of additional facilities, recruitment of additional personnel skilled in special field
sciences for therapeutic programmes would address these problems.
Conversely, in Fiji, the outdated infrastructure in most prisons is indeed a problem, which deserves to behighlighted as it borders on contravening certain aspects of the SMR. Fiji was a colonial state, which only
gained independence from Britain in 1970. The colonial hangover cannot be discounted, as it is evident in all
the prisons design and layout. Suva Prison, for example, was built in 1912 and exhibits the colonial legacy asemphasised in the way the infrastructure is set up. The prison cells are structured purely for containmentand do not accommodate modern facilities for rehabilitation purposes. Also the problem of overcrowding andlack of proper rehabilitation programmes in the prisons have hindered, to a great extent, the effectiveness of
its prisoners’ classification system. Growth and development in the correctional circle has demanded anadjustment and improvement of the existing facilities so that proper rehabilitation programmes could bemade available to conform to the spirit of correcting the offending behaviour of inmates and to enhance theeffectiveness of the classification process.
In Japan, there are two sets of criteria, namely ‘Allocation Categories’ and ‘Treatment Categories’; but
almost all prisoners admitted to prison are classified in the ‘G’ category3. Therefore, it is difficult to properly
assess the individual prisoner so that it would facilitate his/her treatment and rehabilitation. As a whole, thecurrent classification only provides guidelines for the supervision of inmates. A combination of classification
categories is too ambiguous and difficult to implement. The limited number of rehabilitation programmes
available in the prisons is inadequate to cater for the various classification categories of inmates. The current
classification system needs to be reviewed and improved in order to reflect the actual rehabilitation
programmes existing in the prisons. It is also essential to increase the number of training programmes in theprisons to meet the various classification categories.

B. Privileges
The provision of a system of privileges is articulated in most of the statutes of the participating countries.
Basically, the purpose of such provision is to encourage good conduct, develop a sense of responsibility and3 ‘G’: Those who need living guidance.

139

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

secure the interest and co-operation of the prisoners in their treatment that are on par or near the SMRs4.
Some of the existing problems and proposed countermeasures that came to light in the group’s discussion,
are as follows.
In Japan, the progressive stage system does not in any way determine an inmate’s eligibility for parole. In
other words, even if a prisoner keeps good behaviour, it does not guarantee his/her early release. Also theprogressive system is inadequate in motivating inmates serving short and long-term sentences, because
inmates serving imprisonment for a short period, such as three months, would not be able to complete thewhole progressive stage system and whereas inmates serving a longer prison sentence, such as twenty
years or more, the benefits of the system is limited for them. So the motivating effects of such a system arealso limited. A more gradual practical system should be established to cover both short and long-term
sentences.
In the Philippines, there is no progressive treatment system, but good inmates can avail for early releasethrough good conduct time allowance, in which an inmate with good behaviour may be given a one month
reduction for a one year sentence. However, the progressive system can be introduced to improve thetreatment programme.
Whereas in Fiji, the amount of stage gratuity being earned by inmates ranges from $2 to $6 per monthaccording to their stage which does not have much of an effect as an incentive to their good behaviour andgeneral discipline. An increase in their stage earnings would increase the incentive.

C. Work
The SMR provide that all physically and mentally fit convicted prisoners are required to work5. They are
to be given adequate employment to keep them gainfully occupied. The group discussed and identified theexisting problems in their respective countries and proposed countermeasures to these problems.
In Fiji, about 75% of convicted prisoners are employed in some form of agricultural work (Including themaintenance of cemeteries) with around 10% occupied in cooking and cleaning and the final 15% engaged ineither manufacturing or maintenance of prison buildings. The emphasis on agricultural work may bedesirable for prisoners who come from the villages or a farming background and are likely to return to themafter release with newly acquired farming skills. However, for prisoners who do not come from villages or
have a farming background and whose future employment is likely to be in the manufacturing or service
industries, concerted efforts should be made to increase the range of manufacturing industries in the prisons
to cater for the latter group of inmates. Such industries should have real prospects for the employment of
ex-prisoners that would reduce the probability of their re-offending by giving them job skills which willassist their rehabilitation.
In the Philippines, a work programme is mainly used so that they can get jobs when they leave prison.
Due to a lack of space, resources, and custodial personnel for security, specific work is only given to selected
offenders based on their criminal record and behaviour inside prison. Remuneration is given to offenders
according to the specific work they do. The money they earn is within their disposition either to spend it orgive to their family during visits. Prisons have the authority to initiate efforts to improve facilities andprovide work opportunities for all prisoners as far as the circumstances of the prison permits.
In Japan, the variety of work offered in prison is limited and insufficient orientation is given to prisoners.
Prison authorities focus more on security than work and inmates are not given adequate training. The work
they do does not make them conscious of the importance of work nor encourage them to work outside theprison. The prisoners should be offered work that can impress the significance of work on them. It is also
important to acquire qualified work instructors to train prisoners.

4 Article 70 of the SMR states, “Systems of privileges appropriate for the different classes of prisoners and the different

methods of treatment shall be established at every institution, in order to encourage good conduct, develop a sense of
responsibility and secure the interest and co-operation of the prisoner in their treatment”.
5 Article 71.(2) of the SMR states, “All prisoners under sentence shall be required to work, subject to their physical andmental fitness as determined by the medical officer”.

140

127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

D. Education
Article 77 of the SMR states that “Provision shall be made for the further education of all prisoners
capable of profiting thereby, including religious instruction in the countries where this is possible. The
education of illiterates and young prisoners shall be compulsory and special attention shall be paid to it by
the administration”. Problems existing in some of the participating countries’ prison education systems andtheir countermeasures are as follows:
In Fiji, in 2001 about 45.7% of the total number of prisoners admitted to prison either have no formal
education or only attained primary education level. At present its education programme is mainly focused in
one of the prisons (a Young Offenders Prison). The programme needs to be extended to other prisons toensure that other prisoners are given a similar opportunity to further their education level.
In the Philippines, offenders in prison are often either school dropouts or have a low level of literacy. The
government should provide a literacy programme through the department of education, culture and sports toenable them to know how to read and write. And provide an education programme to undergraduate
offenders and give them accreditation after passing the examination given by the department of education,
culture and sports, so they can continue their study after release.
In Japan, more emphasis is placed on labour rather than education. Most of the prisoners are sentenced
to imprisonment with labour and required to work eight hours a day, leaving less time for educational
programmes. Education is not mandatory for inmates although the prison administration may find it fit thatthe inmates need education. The current legislation needs to be reviewed to allow more emphasis on theimportance of educational programmes for the rehabilitation of inmates.

E. Social Relations and Aftercare
Article 79 of the SMR states, “Special attention shall be paid to the maintenance and improvement ofsuch relations between a prisoner and his family as are desirable in the best interests of both”. In relation tothis, the problems existing in some of the participating countries’ prisons and proposed countermeasures are
as follows:
In Fiji, the standard entitlement to family visits is one visit of fifteen minutes duration every four weeks.
One must realise that one of the most important factors leading to a crime-free society is the maintenance of
close family ties. The current frequency and duration of visits is inadequate to achieve that and hence thevisits need to be extended. Consequently this would require provision of adequate visiting facilities andextra staff to supervise visits. It is recommended that the frequency and duration of the visits be increased
to a desirable standard subject to the provision of adequate visiting facilities and staffing.
Also in Fiji, environmental adjustments before releasing offenders are conducted in a pre-release
institution. Aftercare programmes are not part of the prison’s responsibility; however, within three months
before discharge the legislation provides that the prison authorities should make arrangements with families
or relatives of the prisoner to facilitate his/her smooth transition back into the community.
The Ministry of Fijian Affairs is tasked with the responsibility of aftercare programmes for Fijian
prisoners when discharged. The Ministry makes necessary arrangements with village elders to assist inproviding pieces of land for the prisoners to farm and produce derived from the farm is utilised for theirconsumption and the surplus sold to market for income to meet other expenses. However, due to lack offunding, the Ministry on most occasions is unable to fully implement this programme. So a provision ofadequate funding is necessary if this programme is to realise its full potential.
In Japan, there are aftercare programmes, but the programmes are not obligatory for all offenders.
Therefore, ex-offenders who do not go through the programmes are likely to re-offend. It is crucial that more
aftercare programmes be in place to cater for the rehabilitation of offenders when released from prison inorder to prevent them from re-offending, particularly for prisoners who are released at the end of their fullterm of imprisonment. The prison authorities need to share information and co-ordinate activities ofaftercare programmes with their counterparts in the probation department to ensure the effective
socialization of offenders or ex-prisoners in the general community.

141

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

IV. EVALUATION OF TREATMENT PROGRAMMES
Evaluation of treatment programmes of offenders is necessary to measure the success or otherwise of
the programmes. Collation and analysis of programme data would determine this end. As discussed, mostmember countries do not have a specific system of evaluating their treatment programmes. However, thenormal practice in some member countries, is to use their annual reports as a basis to evaluate theirtreatment programmes; however, the reports do not always cover the whole treatment programmes. All themembers have agreed that a more structural evaluation system be implemented.
The Group determined that the provision of an evaluation mechanism should be established in all
member countries’ prison systems and propose a model for consideration (See Appendix B).

V. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are drawn from the problems and countermeasures existing in theparticipating countries (For clarification, please refer to problems and countermeasures of each participating
country as mentioned above):•That improvement or replacement of archaic prison facilities be made to improve prisoners’ living
conditions.

•That provision of additional facilities and recruitment of additional personnel experts in psychology
and psychiatry for therapeutic programmes be acquired.

•That review and improvement of the existing classification system be made to reflect the actual
rehabilitation programmes existing in the prisons.

•That review and introduction of a more practical progressive stage system be made in all prison
systems.

•

That a review of stage gratuity (stage earnings) be made to increase the amount of money for stage
earnings to be equivalent to the value of the prisoner’s actual work.

•

That industries with real work potential in the outside industries be introduced in the prisons for the
benefit of prisoners on release.

•That suitable work be made available in all prisons to provide work for prisoners and prevent theirdeterioration.

•

That all prison legislation be reviewed to incorporate in them provisions for prisoners’ education.

•

That all prisons be fully fledged with integrated rehabilitation programmes, including education.

•

That the frequency and duration of the visits be increased to a desirable standard subject to theprovision of adequate visiting facilities and staffing.

•That a mechanism is in place between the prison department and probation department to coordinate aftercare programmes.

•

That an evaluation mechanism is in place in all prisons to evaluate the success or otherwise of theirrehabilitation programmes.

VI. CONCLUSION
This report was compiled following extensive group discussions, in which all members participated,
expressing their ideas and bringing useful and relevant perspectives from their own countries. The paper
explains the countermeasures to improve effective treatment programmes. “There is substantial evidence
that rehabilitation programmes work. There is a body of research supporting the conclusion that sometreatment programmes work with at least some offenders in some situations. Effective rehabilitation

142

127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

programmes are structured and focused, use multiple treatment components, focus on developing skills(social skills, academic and employment skills), and use behavioural (including cognitive-behavioural)
methods (with reinforcements for clearly identified, overt behaviour as opposed to non-directive counselling
focusing on insight, self esteem or disclosure.” 6
The Governments of the various countries need to take the lead in committing resources to improve theconditions of the prison facilities and to introduce rehabilitation programmes that are holistic which would
ensure promotion of effective treatment programmes for offenders so that the rate of recidivism is reduced.

6 Evidence-Based Crime Prevention Crime prevention in the courts and corrections Doris Layton Mackenzie, p. 385.

143

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

APPENDIX A
Research on Factors Contributing to Recidivism
There is a significant difference between recidivists and the rehabilitated group
Group A: recidivists
Group B: rehabilitated
1. Intelligence Quotient (a rate of less than IQ=59)
Group A: 22.7%
Group B: 9.0%
2. Educational background(i) Unfinished compulsory education
Group A: 26.3%
Group B: 21.9%(ii) Received a high level of academic education (more than high school)
Group A: 11.7%
Group B: 22.6%

3. Occupation (the rate of unemployed)Group A: 50.5%
Group B: 12.7%
Note: Especially, recidivists who committed theft, have a higher unemployment rate
Group A: 65.0%
Group B: 37.8%
4. “Bouryokudan” Gangster group
Group A: 38.2%
Group B: 7.7%
5. Family condition(i) Persons with no fixed abodeGroup A: 21.5%
Group B: 9.8%(ii) Those living together with wife and children
Group A: 6.5%
Group B: 25.0%
6. Relations with family (the troublesome person of the family)
Group A: 54.5%
Group B: 17.4%

144

127TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

7. Habits(i) Alcoholic dependenceGroup A: 31.0%
Group B: 3.0%(ii) Drug dependenceGroup A: 11.1%
Group B: 2.2%

Source: The Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice research bulletin 32 (1989), 33(1990).

145

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.67

APPENDIX B
1. Basic model of evaluation research:
Input  Output  Outcome
Input: Treatment programme (i.e. vocational training)
Output: Product of the treatment (i.e. employment)
Outcome: Decrease of recommitment
2. Research on ‘Output  Outcome’To find out what kinds of outputs (factors) are effective in decreasing recommitment.
For example, if statistics show that offenders who have a steady job are less likely to commit crime again
than others, ‘Employment’ shall be recognised as an important ‘Output’.
3. Research on ‘Input  Outcome’To compare two groups of offenders; one group receives an ‘Input’ (treatment), while the other does not.
Research on ‘Input  Outcome’ has 3 major disadvantages:
1) Subject of the research is limited to treatments that are actually practiced.
2) The research is impossible to contribute to the improvement of basic treatments.
In the research, researchers compare offenders who receive an additional treatment programme withother offenders. Therefore we cannot evaluate basic treatment programmes, which both of thegroups equally receive.
3) Ambiguity of definition of ‘Input’
We sometimes discuss Inputs (treatment programmes) with no distinction between Outputs andtreatment methods.
4. The above two research methods will work well in combination with each other. There is much researchon treatment programmes, and some researchers have started making efforts to overcome the above
disadvantages.

Reference: “KEISEI” Vol.110 No.7-9, “Research on Evaluation of Treatment Programmes (1) - (3)”, Hiroshi
Tsutomi (1999).

146

PART TWOWork Product of the 128th International Training Course“MEASURES TO COMBAT ECONOMIC CRIME, INCLUDING MONEY
LAUNDERING”

UNAFEI