GROUP 2
THE IDEAL JUVENILE JUSTICE MODEL: KEY INNOVATIONS AND
PRACTICES
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

AdviserMr. Ugyen Kelzang
Mr. Takuya Furuhashi
Ms. Meunajo Tjiroze
Ms. Ch. Narantuya
Mr. Viliame Vosamuri
Ms. Veronica Aguilar
Mr. Iyad Alzoubi
Mr. Yong-Ju Sohn
Mr. Hiroyuki Dainaka
Mr. Akira Satomi
Prof. Mana Yamamoto(Bhutan)(Japan)(Namibia)(Mongolia)(Fiji)(Peru)(Jordan)(Republic of Korea)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)

I. SPECIAL THANKS
To the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute (UNAFEI), to all its staff, director, deputy director,professors, officers and the rest of the personnel of UNAFEI, we thank you for providing the knowledge,materials and special treatment for all participants. We extend our thanks to the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) for providing the opportunity, logistical support, and special treatment for all theparticipants. Special thanks are also extended to the visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers, the Asian
Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF), Japanese Volunteer Probation Officers and interpreters.

II. INTRODUCTIONGroup 2 agreed to base its discussion on the following agenda: (1) Procedure for Appropriate
Treatment; (2) Risk/Needs Assessment and Treatment Programmes; (3) Reintegration; and (4) Inter-Agency Cooperation and Governmental Support.

III. SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS
A. Procedure for Appropriate Treatment
The participants noted that there were various challenges faced within their jurisdictions, which
included lack of formalized juvenile justice systems, evidence-based assessment and rehabilitation
treatment. However, all the countries agreed that appropriate treatment should include specialized
juvenile police and prosecutors, family/juvenile courts, juvenile rehabilitation centres and community supervision (i.e., probation officers and volunteer probation officers). All members agreed that the aforementioned components were important components of an ideal model and would be immensely beneficial forthe care and treatment of juveniles in the various countries.
Some challenges were asserted by participants as acting as barriers to implementing the ideal modelof juvenile justice due to lack of budget, lack of skilled human resources and lack of appropriate legislation.
Victims’ rights were underscored by the group members as an important element in juvenile justiceand should be considered during the whole process. The incorporation of victims was asserted to start at
the police level and ending with the reintegration process.
B. Risk/Needs Assessment and Treatment Programmes
It was asserted that assessment is the collection and analysis of information which can be used fortreatment planning, action/intervention and review. The five “W’s” questions were also asserted as being
an important component to assessment, as well as the performance of S.W.O.T analysis for the assessmentof juveniles in institutions and by probation officers in the community, which enable us to identify the155

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
critical factors and internal environment (strengths and weakness) and compared with the critical factors
in the external environment (opportunities and threats). The latter was noted by the group as being beneficial in settings where there are no standardized actuarial tools as it is a simple method which does not
require comprehensive technical knowledge (e.g., psychometric skills). There were participants who notedthat in their countries there were no standardized tools and this approach would be beneficial.
Risk/needs assessment was noted as guiding the appropriate treatment intervention for juvenile
offenders. A participant underscored the fact that risk assessment helps people, their personalities andsocial structures. Assessment is also aimed at tapping into the reason for offending. Furthermore, it wasexplained that interviews and tools are administered to ascertain the various focus areas for treatment aswell as the level of intervention. For example, low risk juveniles could be treated in the community; on theother hand, high risk juveniles could be treated in an institution to ensure the best outcomes for various
categories of juveniles.
The group agreed that risk assessment was an important element of the ideal model and some participants shared that there were various levels of risk assessment implemented in their jurisdictions. For
instance, in the Japanese setting, life skills training for drug offenders, violent offenders and sex offenders
were asserted as being guided through assessments of individuals who should receive the respective
training both within institutional settings and community settings.
Members discussed the various treatment approaches available in their countries. They included: life
skills training with a focus on criminogenic risk/needs, emotional development training and vocationaltraining. The argument was made that interventions offered to juveniles were to be based on bestpractice.
Various novel approaches to treatment were discussed including initiatives to promote juveniles’ selfreliance and the ability to make their own decisions. Examples of novel approaches included the JapaneseTraining Schools practice of seijinshiki (i.e., a rite of passage ceremony), which promotes exercise ofagency as it fosters self-awareness as an adult, which is in line with the Good Lives Model. Another novel
approach was the Fijian approach to including various members from the juveniles’ community including
village elders, police officers and social welfare officials in the process of diversion and treatment.
C. Reintegration
Reintegration was agreed as the process through which a person is integrated into the social context
again after a period of deprivation of liberty, rehabilitation or treatment, in particular, for havingcommitted a crime. The purpose of sanctions and sentencing and treatment programmes is the successful
reintegration after release. Ideally reintegration should include the person being reintegrated with thegreatest possible naturalness to live in society as someone who has reinvented him- or herself.
The participants discussed various challenges to reintegration faced in their countries, and they
include: the absence of material and psychological and social support at the time of their release. Someoffenders on the other hand may find it very difficult to break the cycle of release and re-arrest (i.e., may
recidivate).
Another noted challenge was the fact that the transition period from detention to the community canbe particularly difficult for juvenile offenders, and it may be worsened by the stress of being supervised in
the community and the stigma towards ex-offenders within communities. Other challenges include finding
suitable accommodation with very limited means, managing of finances with little or no savings until they
start to make money, access to a range of services and support for specific needs. Research on thevariables that influence successful reintegration reveals the correlation existing between employment,housing, addiction treatment and social network support. The aforementioned barriers to successful reintegration must be taken into account when designing and implementing support programmes.
In some countries, the percentage of convicted criminals who have at least a previous conviction orhave multiple prior convictions is high. These high rates of recidivism involve significant costs to society,both in terms of financial and public safety. Community safety necessitates that governments and communities develop effective interventions to assist ex-juvenile offenders as they reintegrate into the community
156

164TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
and desist from crime. Well-managed resettlement programmes are achieving wider acceptance and canoffer an effective way in terms of costs to prevent crime.
Juveniles face challenges gaining stable employment. These may include personal factors (e.g., low selfesteem, low motivation, lack of skill, lack of training, mental disease and substance abuse), lack of stablehousing and social factors. The influence of negative peers, lack of family support and a history of poorwork are other factors. Most offenders return to disadvantaged communities with limited opportunities towork. Peer groups in these communities tend to offer few contacts with the world of legitimate work, andweak contacts make it difficult to identify and exploit the few employment opportunities available in thecommunity. The state of the economy also affects the reintegration of prisoners. Poor economic conditions
make it particularly difficult for them to find the right job.
The pre-release programme was asserted as an initiative that has been developed within the Namibian
context and prepares offenders who are about to be released by developing and reinforcing skills they
have acquired. The programme also addresses concerns such as the strengthening of family support andreferral to outside agencies for services. The Fijian model of re-entry programmes was also deemed as animportant innovative approach to preparing offenders to successfully reintegrate into the community. The
model encourages families and communities to support the released person and ensure that they maintaintheir reformation.
There are family support houses, family days and family meeting houses (family houses allow offenders
to have visits from family members who stay at the house for a period of two or three days). This wasasserted as a privilege based on good behaviour, implemented in the Republic of Korea. This was noted by
the group as aiding in the rehabilitation and maintenance of close family bonds. The group agreed that
this model was particularly beneficial for juveniles.
D. Inter-Agency Cooperation and Governmental Support
All participants agreed that the factors mentioned below are current good practices from the various
countries, but each practice needs improvement in order to maintain successful living as law abiding
citizens.
The group agreed that though some organizations in their countries are doing a great deal of goodwork within various areas of juvenile justice, there is a lack of information sharing between agencies. A
shared database was proposed as being an important area which requires strengthening. Collaboration
between correctional facilities/institutions and child welfare organizations was noted as being important.
There was an identified gap between the aforementioned agencies and the argument was made forstrengthened collaboration between these agencies. The human resources exchanges practiced between
agencies was asserted as being an integral component of internal collaboration. Risk management wasreported as a challenge, particularly for those who have completed their sentences. The MAPPA model
was noted as an initiative which may be beneficial within various countries for risk management.
Some best practices discussed included the Fijian Prisoners Alleviation Project Fund initiative which isaimed at developing ex-offenders who have been released from prison. There are criteria that offenders
have to meet, and they have to apply in writing (project plan proposal) in order to be recipients of thisfund. Monitoring of the project is carried out by police, social welfare and corrections to evaluate what isbeing done with funds. Non-profit assistance is received. Businesses also assist, based on recommended
areas of support identified by corrections. Faith-based organizations such as Prison Fellowship aid in supporting offenders. There is an inter-agency database which is shared between the police, social welfareand corrections.
Another best-practice was the Republic of Korea’s sharing-of-information component to rehabilitation
and reintegration of offenders. Agencies such as the police, corrections, prosecution and other agencies
share information through a Criminal Justice Information System (i.e., Information Center), which is an integrated system for the sharing of information. Some participants noted challenges in the implementationof similar information systems such as the external criminal justice partners being hesitant to share information within the system. It was stated that accessing correct information would be aided by a more integrated system.
157

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 101
A final best practice discussed by participants was the initiative of non-governmental agencies offering
reintegration support in the areas of accommodation and teaching of various life-skills.

IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
All participants agreed on the following conclusions and recommendations:
1. Establish specialized juvenile police with appropriate skills and promoting better rapport/trust
through various methods such as the wearing of civilian clothing at work;
2. Formalized diversion for police in order to decrease detention for juveniles;
3. Amendment of legislation was proposed to improve the implementation of an ideal model forjuvenile justice (e.g., the establishment of family/specialized juvenile courts);
4. Juvenile prosecutors and juvenile judges were deemed important elements for juvenile justice invarious countries where these entities do not currently exist or function;
5. Public Awareness initiatives should be established to sensitize communities to juvenile justice andsupport crime prevention efforts;
6. Probation officers and volunteer probation officers might be advocated for in countries where thesesystems do not exist. Additionally, mentorship initiatives such as the Big Brothers and Big Sisters
movement are also deemed as invaluable initiatives for juveniles;
7. Raise the level of cooperation with international agencies such as various United Nations offices aswell as non-governmental agencies;
8. Pre-release and after-care programmes might be taken under consideration for the benefit ofjuveniles in participating countries where they do not have them;
9. Specialized skills and training for stakeholders within the juvenile justice system;
10. Twinning programmes (exchange programmes or cooperation on special juvenile justice projects)
by JICA was suggested. This would include training, technical and other forms of support;
11. Information sharing for effective intervention and research, including the establishment of a uniform
database;
12. Promotion of family ties through various initiatives such as family days and family consultationsessions;
13. Risk/needs assessment for juveniles within various cultural contexts specifically designed to guidetreatment for addressing individual risk/needs as well as the evaluation of the effectiveness of thistreatment;
14. The perspective of juveniles should be considered (through interviews) when making decisions on
the appropriate measures to be taken following the commission of an offence;
15. The establishment of low security facilities for juveniles close to schools to enable them to attend
school within settings where there is a lack of resources to provide educational services.

158