147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERS

PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN OFFENDER
TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION

Elinor Wanyama Chemonges*

I. INTRODUCTION
The rationale for community involvement in offender treatment stems from the fact that offenders comefrom the community and are only in detention facilities for a relatively short period of time, with the exceptionof the minority serving sentences for life or under death sentences – which many countries are underconsiderable pressure to abolish. Secondly, offences are committed in the community and have, among others,
the consequence of severing relationships not only between the offender and the victim, but among community
members, beginning with the immediate family members of both the victim and offender. Thirdly, offenders
inevitably go back into communities after serving their detention sentences and therefore have to inevitablyinteract with community members. Finally, involvement of the community in offender treatment maintains thelink between the offender and the community and to an extent eliminates isolation and stigmatization that theoffender and his or her immediate family suffer. This therefore calls for well thought-out strategies to involvethe community in the rehabilitation of offenders to pave way for the eventual reintegration of ex-offenders into
the community.
Detention of offenders is perceived by most individuals affected by crime and communities at large to
be a means of meting out punishment to the offender for whatever offences he or she may have committed.
This view results in ill treatment of offenders, contrary to the agreed standard treatment of offenders.
In reality, the perception should be shifting towards: firstly, offenders’ being in detention is punishment
in and of itself because of restrictions imposed on their liberty; secondly, offenders’ being in detention isfor purposes of treatment and rehabilitation so that by the time they is released back into the community,
they are reformed, law abiding and responsible citizens respecting the rule of law. A successful shift ofperception will go a long way in realizing the full integration of ex-offenders in the community. It is thereforeof paramount importance that the community recognizes its role in the rehabilitation of offenders andcontinues to play an active role in the lives of offenders during their stay in detention, in the treatment andrehabilitation process and eventual reintegration into the community.
There are different categories of community members, civil society organizations, private sector enterprises,
faith-based organizations and government departments that need to work together to attain successful
rehabilitation of offenders and full integration into the community. This will reduce repeat offending and,
consequently, deal in part with the problem of congestion in detention facilities.

II. CATEGORIES OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND SERVICES THAT THEY RENDERFOR OFFENDER TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION
The individuals and groups that need to be involved in the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders canbe broadly categorized into the following:(i) Family, friends and colleagues of the offender;(ii) Complainants and victims of crime;(iii) Community leaders;* National Co-ordinator, Paralegal Advisory Services Project, Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Uganda.

117

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84(iv) Community members;(v) Civil society organizations, faith-based organizations and volunteers;(vi) Government;

A. Family, Friends and Colleagues of the OffenderThis category is the closest to the offender and, in most cases, due to their association with the offender,
they directly or indirectly suffer the consequences of the crime committed. Often they are stigmatized by
the community because of their association with the offender and the immediate family also suffers from thesocio-economic effects of the absence of the offender and the role he or she was playing in the family andsocial network.
As a result, this category sometimes reacts by distancing themselves from the offender and do not want
to be associated with him or her for purposes of being accepted by the wider community that may have been
negatively affected by the crime. Sometimes it is for purposes of safeguarding themselves against being
isolated by the community. This explains why some offenders are never visited by family and friends during
their time in detention. In so-doing, family, friends and colleagues miss out on the role they would haveplayed in assisting the offender to access justice and in the whole process of treatment, rehabilitation andreintegration of offenders.
It is important to note that this group is the most important category that must play an active role in
the treatment and rehabilitation process of offenders by: providing necessary support to assist in accessing
justice; providing social, emotional and economic support to the offender; maintaining the link between theoffender in detention and the outside world; and the eventual acceptance and support for the ex-offender
after serving his or her detention sentence.
Failure of family, friends and colleagues to offer the above mentioned support is in part responsible forthe prolonged stay of an offender in detention, hence creating overcrowding in detention facilities. It is also
contributory to repeat offending.

B. Complainants and Victims of Crime
This is category that is the most directly affected by the crime committed and may be vital in providing
information for timely completion of investigations and making themselves available as witnesses for theprosecution. Unfortunately, especially in developing countries, once a crime is reported, complainants
and victims tend not to cooperate with the administrators of justice to provide necessary information forexpeditious disposal of cases.
On the other hand, if the needs and concerns of this category of the community are not adequately
addressed, they may pose a challenge to successful reintegration of the offender. This often manifests ifthey are not willing to accept the outcome of the due process of the administration of justice and/or failure toaccept reconciliation and reintegration of the offender in the community. The result is often revenge, which
only creates other offenders.
Unfortunately, this category is often ignored in reintegration of offenders into the community. There
are also few interventions to address their concerns. In instances where the concerns of this category are
addressed they are relatively more responsive to efforts of reintegration of offenders into the community.
This therefore calls for proactive engagement with victims and complainants and focusing on providing alinkages and relevant feedback between them and the offender. In some instances a meeting before releaseof the offender helps to ward off any fears and apprehension on either side.

C. Community Leaders
In every community there are traditional leaders, civic leaders and opinion leaders who are influential
and may play an important role, especially in the reintegration of ex-offenders in the community. This
category may be very helpful in promoting reconciliation between the offender and the aggrieved party.
They may also be helpful in quelling animosity and revenge by the complainants and victims of crime.
On the other hand, they are very helpful in allowing the ex-offender to resettle in the community. While
offenders do actually reform with successful treatment, communities take a long time to accept that118

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

an ex-offender has reformed and as such, they tend to resist their settlement and reintegration in thesame community. Therefore community leaders are very instrumental in negotiating for reintegration of
ex-offenders in their communities of origin.

D. General Community Members
In addition to the support that community leaders offer for successful reintegration of ex-offenders into
the community, the involvement of the general community is also called for. Not only will they allow for
reintegration, but their involvement also allows for greater success of other measures against overcrowding
such as diversion, sentencing alternatives to detention such as community service and parole, as well as
early release.
The existing gap however is that often, communities are not prepared to receive ex-offenders and continue
holding old perceptions about the ex-offender. This is often manifested by resistance to reintegration of theoffender in the community.
On the other hand, it is important to note that the ultimate beneficiary of successful offender rehabilitationis the community itself because it will achieve the goal of crime reduction. Furthermore, community members
will be under less stress to meet the costs of social services which they inevitably incur indirectly in caring for
those affected by crime, including services to family members who may not be able to care for themselves if afamily member is in detention or paying for rehabilitation services for victims of crime.
Community members are also helpful in providing assistance to promote access to justice. They may act
on behalf of either the victim of crime or the alleged offender to provide evidence in courts of law or evenstand as sureties for eligible offenders to access bail and hence reduce overcrowding.
This therefore calls for aggressive and continuous community sensitization on the benefits of community
involvement in the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders and role of the community in promoting accessto justice. Civil society organizations play a vital role in providing this service.

E. Civil Society Organizations, Faith-Based Organizations and Volunteers
These are also part of the community because employees or volunteers are community members. Interventions
by this category often arise due to an existing gap in government service provision or as efforts to complement
services provided by government. As earlier noted, government institutions, especially in developing countries, areoften constrained by limited financial and human resources.
Sometimes civil society organizations and faith based organizations use volunteers who are rehabilitated
ex-offenders. These provide examples and hope which motivate offenders to reform and follow throughtreatment regimes. This category also provides specialized services like half-way houses for offenders forwhom negotiations for resettlement and reintegration into their communities are still ongoing.
This category also takes on roles to provide services that are necessary but may not be provided bygovernment, for example advocacy and community awareness on issues of offender treatment and rehabilitation.
The case of the Paralegal Advisory Services in Uganda will provide examples for this.

F. Government
It is important to recognize that governments alone, although responsible for detaining offenders, theycannot adequately provide all the required services for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. As
such, government institutions responsible for detention of offenders need to adopt an open door policythat allows other stakeholders to play a role in the treatment and rehabilitation and eventual reintegrationof offenders into the community. However as a prerequisite, governments need to ensure that adequate
resources, both financial and well trained and facilitated human resources, are made available to institutions
responsible for detention.
Governments can then provide vocational and formal training and avail of work opportunities for detainees
to help them acquire new skills or put to use their skills while in detention to enhance their employability andreintegration in the community.

119

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

III. THE ROLE OF THE PARALEGAL ADVISORY SERVICES (PAS) – UGANDAIN OFFENDER TREATMENT AND REHABILITATIONThe Paralegal Advisory Services – Uganda is an initiative aimed at promoting access to justice forindigent offenders in the criminal justice system. The programme provides basic legal aid services by nonlawyers including paralegals and social workers to persons in conflict with the law. The programme, althoughinitiated and funded by some of Uganda’s Development Partners under the Legal Aid Basket Fund, ismanaged by one of the leading national human rights organizations- Foundation for Human Rights Initiative(FHRI).

A. Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI)
The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative has the following objectives:(i) Promote citizen awareness of basic human rights and duties guaranteed in the Ugandan Constitution,
regional and international human rights instruments;(ii) Undertake research, monitoring and documentation of human rights practices;(iii) Promote good governance, respect for the rule of law, democracy and human rights;(iv) Promote access to justice through public interest litigation and provision of legal aid services.
The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) has made significant contributions to improved accessto justice in Uganda and advocating for observance of human rights and adherence to human rights standards.
Notable among the many contributions of FHRI is the advocacy for legislative reform – specifically theamendment of the Prisons’ Act (2006) which now largely conforms to the International Basic Principles for
Treatment of Prisoners; advocacy against the death penalty in Uganda; and the right to reparations for victimsof torture.
The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI), through a bidding process, won the contract to manage
the PAS programme, an initiative promoted by development partners, based on the organization’s contributions
to the Justice Law and Order Sector in improving the administration of justice.

B. The Paralegal Advisory Services (PAS) – Uganda
As a programme under FHRI, the Paralegal Advisory Services programme provides interventions aimed
at empowering the users of the criminal justice system with the end result of making them “active players
and partners” in the administration of criminal justice, including, among others, interventions for thetreatment and rehabilitation of offenders. More specifically, the programme fills some of the existing gaps in
the administration of justice by participating in the process of decongestion, engaging in practice advocacy,
and raising the visibility of the demand side of the criminal justice system.
The Paralegal Advisory Services uses a partnership approach of implementation and therefore FHRI–PAS
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Uganda Prisons Service which directly implements eightof the existing eleven programme sites throughout the country while three programme sites are managed bygrassroots civil society organizations. The programme also uses referrals to other legal aid service providers
for complementary services, especially representation of cases on pro bono schemes.
The Paralegal Advisory Services programme activities are a response to challenges and gaps that exist in
the administration of justice, namely:•

Delays in dispensing justice, especially for the indigent;•

Congestion in police cells and prisons;•

Lack of access to services of lawyers, especially for the indigent on petty offences;•

Ignorance of suspects, prisoners and the general public on procedures of the criminal justice institutions
and the basics of administration of justice;•

Limited regular coordination among the criminal justice institutions in the administration of justice;•

Lack of effective linkages with the community for expeditious administration and delivery of justice.

120

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The Paralegal Advisory Services programme relates more specifically with the Prisons Welfare andRehabilitation Section whose mandate is very similar. In fact the relevance of the Paralegal Advisory Services
is largely dependent on funding and human resource gaps in the Uganda Prisons Service.
1. Activities of Paralegal Advisory Services and Responses to the Existing Challenges
The Paralegal Advisory Services engages in the following activities:•

Educating suspects of crime, prisoners, complainants/victims and the community on the basics oflaw and procedures of the criminal justice system for improved access to justice;•

Links suspects at police and prisoners in detention to the criminal justice institutions and thecommunity through tracing of sureties, negotiating for community service sentences for minor
offenders and linking capital offenders to advocates for legal representation;•

Contributing to the process of decongestion in prisons and police cells through facilitating reductionof overstay on remand, fast tracking plea of guilty cases for quick case disposal and diverting petty
cases from the formal justice system;•

Contributing to change of practices within the criminal justice system through advocacy and civic
engagement.

2. Achievements of the Paralegal Advisory Services
According the most recent evaluation report (2011) of the Paralegal advisory Services 2007 – 2010 conductedby the Law and Development Partnership Consultancy firm based in UK, the following is a summary of theachievements of the Paralegal Advisory Services in Uganda.
Uganda’s Paralegal Advisory Services (PAS) has been seen as a major access to justice success story in
Uganda, providing cost effective ‘legal first aid’ to poor people caught up in the criminal justice system by:•

Filling gaps where the criminal justice system operates in a dysfunctional manner
PAS does this by assisting criminal justice staff to undertake their duties more effectively – forexample, supplying prison social workers with motorcycles and mobile phones to enable them more
effectively to link inmates to the outside world and with the possibility of finding a surety to enable
them to be bailed. PAS also assists with the overall running of the criminal justice system - forexample finding lost files, and identifying cases that have been waiting longest for trial, so that they
can be heard as a priority.

•

Providing basic legal advice and assistance to detainees in the criminal justice system
This is provided in police cells, court cells and prisons. This is done through legal advice clinics forgroups of detainees, by providing one-on-one advice, and where appropriate by linking detainees tolawyers or to other organizations who can give them assistance when this is outside the scope of thePAS.

(i) Has the PAS contributed to the process of physical and case file decongestion of the criminal justicesystem?
The PAS paralegals and social workers contributed to the release of over 26,600 detainees from thecriminal justice system in eleven months, an average of about 2,425 per month, or more than one release
per day for each of the PAS 77 paralegals and social workers.
Levels of prison overcrowding did not change significantly over the period of PAS operations, and prison
capacity continues to stand at about 225%. There has however been a significant shift in the proportion of
inmates awaiting trial. Overall, prison remand figures have fallen during the period of PAS operations from
63% in 2005 to under 55% in 2010. This reduction can only in part be attributed to the PAS, which operates
in 38 prisons, covering 57% of the prison population. But PAS appears to have been highly effective in
reducing the number of petty offenders on remand, with an average of 545 prisoners being released fromprison on bail each month due to PAS intervention.

(ii) To what extent has the PAS diverted cases from the criminal justice system?
A key aim of the PAS is to remove appropriate cases from the criminal justice system before they reachprison – after a suspect has been arrested but before charges are brought. Stopping such cases before they121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

enter the court and prison system is clearly a highly effective method of decongestion.
The single most effective PAS intervention has been at police stations - assisting suspects to accesspolice bonds.

(iii) Has the PAS changed practices within the criminal justice system?
Through its engagement at the ‘sharp end’ of the criminal justice system, the PAS is exceptionally wellplaced to identify systemic failings in the criminal justice system and through its engagement with criminal
justice institutions to catalyse changes in practice within the system PAS has been responsible for somesignificant changes in working practices on the ground.
(iv) Has the PAS linked the demand and the supply sides of the criminal justice system?
The PAS has clearly provided improved access to justice for an impressive number of defendants in thecriminal justice system through:•Campaigns and public outreach – for example, radio talk shows on local radio stations;•

Paralegal advice clinics held in police stations and prisons – where paralegals and social worker
provide general information to detainees about their rights and the working of the criminal justicesystem;•Providing one-on-one advice to individual detainees in police stations, courts and prisons to empower
them to represent themselves;•

Referring detainees charged with capital offences to lawyers willing to provide their services for free
under pro bono schemes.

(v) Is the PAS cost effective?
The PAS appears to be a highly cost effective intervention. Each advice session (both legal advice clinics
and individualized advice sessions) costs on average US$2.60 per attendee.
The cost benefit of PAS can be demonstrated in relation to the release of detainees. If PAS can bring aprisoner’s release forward by more than two weeks, it saves the prison service US$20, which covers thecost of the PAS intervention. If PAS brings forward a prisoner’s release by six weeks, then the saving rises
to US$60 – three times the cost of the intervention, and a return on the PAS investment of 200%. (The rateof return on PAS investment would be even higher if we took into account the economic benefit of the work
the released prisoner would undertake e.g. assuming a US$1 a day wage the rate of return would rise to300%.)High Court mini-sessions facilitated by PAS were even more cost effective. Seventy five case were
disposed of in five days, at a cost of US$ 1,300 (USh 3 million). The speedy disposal rate was due to PAS
interventions and to defendants pleading guilty. If these cases had proceeded to full trial, the cost to the
Judiciary (not including the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and police) is estimated to be US$
35,000 (USh 80 million). The PAS intervention thus saved the system US$ 33,700. As the average cost to
PAS per release is US$20, the costs in relation to the 75 defendants would have been of the order of US$
1,500. The cost benefit ratio is more than 1:22 – an extraordinary return on investment of over 2,000%.

(vi) How effective is the PAS in different criminal justice institutions?
The service that the PAS provided is clearly appreciated by all the criminal justice institutions in which
it operates (police stations, DPP, courts, prisons and remand homes) at both the policy and operational level.
Senior officials interviewed in all these organizations were clear that PAS is performing a valuable service,
and enabling them to do their jobs better.
When working with the police and the DPP, PAS has an oversight role – to see that cases are properly
handled, and the rights of detainees respected.

(vii) How effective are the linkages between the PAS and other legal aid service providers?
Paralegals and social workers can provide only basic legal assistance – legal first aid . For complex
cases, and particularly capital cases which are tried in the High Court, detainees need the assistance of a122

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

fully qualified advocate. The PAS clearly makes an attempt to connect detainees to other legal aid service
providers and private advocates for pro bono services in these circumstances. Each paralegal makes on
average just over one such referral a month. But the key problem faced by PAS is the limited availability offree legal advice from lawyers.
3. Other Initiatives in Uganda aimed at Improving Community Involvement in Offender Treatment
The Uganda Prisons Service’s welfare and rehabilitation section is continuously improving with moregovernment and civil society support to perform their role. For example, more social workers are being
recruited to revamp activities of this section. The section is also co-implementing a number of civil society
initiatives for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.
Uganda has a National Community Service Programme which aims at providing alternative sentences todetention, especially for petty offenders. This contributes to reduction of overcrowding in detention facilities
as well as providing avenues for reintegration of offenders into communities with active participation ofcommunity members.
Under the Uganda Law Society, a national legal aid pro bono scheme is being implemented to provide
offenders with advocates for representation services in courts of law. This promotes community skills –advocates to help offenders to access justice.
The civil society movement in Uganda has largely taken up responsibility for legal aid service provision,
including offering psychosocial support for offenders and victims of crime through paralegals and social
workers. The government, through a new pilot initiative of Justice Centres managed by the Judiciary, isslowly making its contribution.

IV. SUMMARY
A holistic approach to the treatment of offenders cannot be achieved without the proactive engagementof the community. Different sections of the community have specific contributions which are complementary
and need to be adopted and implemented together with government efforts in offender treatment.
It has also been proven that multidisciplinary teams involving practitioners such as lawyers, social
workers, paralegals, medical practitioners, psychosocial therapists are all necessary for comprehensive
interventions.
On a similar note, the partnership approach to service provision between government and civil society
organizations yields sustainable and comprehensive services.
Finally, given the fact that offenders are members of the community who eventually end up in thesame communities after serving prison sentences, and that crimes are committed in the community withconsequences being borne by different members of the community, it is inevitable that successful efforts
to treat and reintegrate offenders in the community have to involve community interventions to avoid
resistance and a backlash expressed by vengeful actions which could result in more crime.

123