Report of the Workshop

REDUCING REOFFENDING: IDENTIFYING RISKS AND
DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS
Fourteenth United Nations Congress
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Kyoto, Japan, 7–12 March 2021

United Nations Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI)
November 2021
TOKYO, JAPANThe views expressed in this publication are those of the respective presenters and authors only,and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United Nations, UNAFEI, or otherorganizations to which those persons belong.

MORINAGA Taro
Director
United Nations Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI)
2-1-18 Mokuseinomori, Akishima-shi, Tokyo 196-8570, Japan

https://www.unafei.or.jp
unafei@i.moj.go.jp

CONTENTS
FOREWORD .................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3
Background Paper ......................................................................................................... 5
Workshop Programme ................................................................................................. 23
PAPERS AND CONTRIBUTIONS ............................................................................... 27
PANEL I (REHABILITATIVE PRISON ENVIRONMENTS)
Dr. Fergus McNeill * (University of Glasgow) .................................................... 31
Ms. Vera Tkachenko (UNODC) .......................................................................... 45
Ms. Mariana Martin (Namibia) ............................................................................ 49
Dr. Emiliano Blanco (Argentina) ......................................................................... 61
Ms. Heidi Bottolfs (Norway) ............................................................................... 75
PANEL II (NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES)
Dr. Matti Joutsen* (Finland) ................................................................................ 83
Ms. Jennifer Oades (Canada) ............................................................................. 121
Ms. Jana Špero (Croatia) .................................................................................... 127
Hon. Teresia Matheka (Kenya) .......................................................................... 133
Dr. Manuel Golloso Co (Philippines) ................................................................ 139
PANEL III (MULTI-STAKEHOLDER APPROACH)
Mr. IMAFUKU Shoji (Japan) ............................................................................ 165
Ms. Sodiqa Williams (Safer Foundation) .......................................................... 171
Ms. Olivia Rope (PRI) ....................................................................................... 209
Mr. Ali Reunanen (KRIS) .................................................................................. 215
Ms. Maria Cristina Mattei (Hedayah) ................................................................ 221
REPORT OF WORKSHOP 2 ....................................................................................... 229
ANNEX ......................................................................................................................... 235*

Denotes keynote speaker

FOREWORD
Reducing reoffending is of critical importance to enhancing public safety and to achieving
sustainable development. On the basis of this recognition, Workshop 2 on “Reducing reoffending:identifying risks and developing solutions” was convened on 8 March 2021 in Kyoto, Japan, within
the framework of the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal
Justice (the “Kyoto Congress” or the “Congress”).
The United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatmentof Offenders (UNAFEI), an institute of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Programme Network (PNI), in collaboration with the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ) and theUnited Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), took the leading role in the administration,organization and preparation of Workshop 2 as an official component of the Congress. As it hasdone since the Tenth Crime Congress in 2000, UNAFEI offered to publish the report of theworkshop.
Workshop 2 drew links between reducing reoffending and sustainable development andunderscored the importance of providing effective, evidence-based treatment and support tofacilitate offender rehabilitation and reintegration in rehabilitative environments throughout all
relevant stages of the criminal justice system. Consisting of three panels – creating rehabilitative
prison environments, community-based approaches that contribute to reducing reoffending, andtaking a multifaceted approach to ensure continuous support and services for rehabilitation andreintegration of offenders – the workshop offered an opportunity for government representatives,
experts and practitioners to exchange information on strategies and best practices for reducing
reoffending. The conclusions of the panel discussions, as summarized by the Chair of Committee
II, appear at the end of the Workshop Report, which is published herein.
The present publication is a compilation of all the presentations and discussions and all thereference papers made available to the workshop. It is our great pleasure to publish thiscomprehensive report of the workshop to further disseminate its outcomes globally.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the keynote speakers and the panellists of theworkshop – prominent experts from all over the world without whose strenuous contributions theworkshop would not have been such an outstanding success. Furthermore, I would like to thank the
UNODC for its guidance and support, the Thailand Institute of Justice for its assistance in planningand preparation and all the individuals whose unselfish efforts behind the scenes contributed
significantly to the realization of both the workshop and this publication.
Finally, I am convinced that this publication is essential reading material for all those who areinterested in reducing reoffending, including criminal justice practitioners, policymakers andacademics. I am also confident that it will serve as a valuable reference source for international, as
well as local, training activities.
November 2021

MORINAGA Taro
Director of UNAFEI-1-1-

- 2- -2 -

INTRODUCTIONBACKGROUND PAPER FOR WORKSHOP 2* * *WORKSHOP PROGRAMME- 3- -3 -- 4- -4 -

A/CONF.234/9

United Nations

Fourteenth
United Nations Congress
on Crime Prevention andCriminal JusticeDistr.: General
3 February 2020

Original: English

Kyoto, Japan, 20–27 April 2020
Item 4 of the provisional agenda*
Integrated approaches to challenges facing thecriminal justice system

Workshop 2. Reducing reoffending: identifying
risks and developing solutions ∗∗Background paper prepared by the Secretariat

Summary∗**

Reducing reoffending is critical to building inclusive, sustainable
societies as envisioned in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development. To reduce reoffending effectively, criminal justicesystems must prioritize offender rehabilitation and social reintegration.
The background paper explores the creation of rehabilitative prison
environments, the adoption and implementation of community-based
approaches that contribute to reducing reoffending, and multistakeholder approaches that ensure continuous support and services foroffender social reintegration, as solutions to reduce reoffending.

A/CONF.234.1.
The Secretariat wishes to express its appreciation to the members of the United Nations
crime prevention and criminal justice programme network of institutes, especially the
Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,
for assisting in the preparation and organization of the workshop.

- 5- -5 -I. Introduction
1.
Sustainable Development Goal 16 of the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development (General Assembly resolution 70/1) is topromote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development,
provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable andinclusive institutions at all levels. To achieve this goal, it is importantfor criminal justice authorities to take measures that ensure therehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society as productive
and law-abiding citizens. Reoffending 1 refers to the perpetration of a
new criminal offence by a person who has already been the subject of acriminal justice intervention. Although reliable global statistics onreoffending rates are currently not available, both developed anddeveloping countries experience reoffending. Reducing reoffending
leads to fewer victims, greater community safety and less pressure on,
and lower costs for, the criminal justice system. To reduce reoffending,there must be effective offender rehabilitation and social reintegration
practices in prison, in the community and throughout the offender’s timein contact with the criminal justice system. Yet seamless andrehabilitative interventions cannot be accomplished by criminal justiceauthorities alone. It is imperative that criminal justice authorities
develop robust partnerships with various public and private sector
stakeholders, engaging them throughout the process towards theoffender’s social reintegration.
2.
The United Nations standards and norms in the field of crime
prevention and criminal justice recognize and encourage rehabilitative
approaches. The revised United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) (General
Assembly resolution 70/175, annex), in particular, highlight the fact thatthe purposes of imprisonment, namely, “to protect society against crime
and to reduce recidivism”, can only be achieved if the period of
imprisonment is used to ensure the reintegration of offenders into
society upon release, so that they can lead a law-abiding and selfsupporting life. The Rules recognize the necessity to tailor treatment to
the individual needs of offenders by assessing the risks that prisoners
may pose and the needs that they may have and preparing a programmeof treatment suitable to their needs, capacities and dispositions. With
regard to offenders with special needs, in particular women andjuveniles, careful individual assessments taking account of those needs
should be undertaken, and specific rehabilitation and reintegration
programmes should be developed, as emphasized in the United Nations
Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial
Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) (Assembly
resolution 65/229, annex) and the United Nations Rules for theProtection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Assembly resolution
45/113, annex). Similarly, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules
for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) (Assembly resolution
45/110, annex) promote the use of non-custodial measures, such asprobation, parole and fines, and emphasize the importance of theinvolvement of volunteers and other community resources in theprocess of offender rehabilitation and reintegration.
3.
In practice, rehabilitative responses should be based on reliable
empirical evidence. This evidence base, which incorporates themonitoring, measuring and evaluation of programmes, should serve to
1

The term “reoffending”, a synonym of “recidivism”, has been used in the present paper inline with the wording used by the General Assembly in its resolution 72/192 for the topic
of the workshop.

-6-6-

plan and improve future interventions. Significant research has been
dedicated to the development of empirical tools to identify appropriate
treatment goals and improve the effectiveness of rehabilitation andreintegration. In particular, the risk-needs-responsivity 2 framework
identifies dynamic risk factors associated with reoffending, also
referred to as “criminogenic needs”, that must be addressed bytreatment. In addition to risks and needs, the framework also
encompasses “responsivity”, which considers the elements that have an
impact on treatment effectiveness, such as how and in what context it isdelivered, and the motivation, characteristics and situation of theoffenders. Cognitive behavioural therapy has been identified as one of
the most effective treatment measures from the standpoint ofresponsivity. Similarly, the desistance theory emphasizes the provisionof support to offenders “to see themselves in a new [and more positive]
light”, 3 encouraging them to find hope for the future and helping themto build new prosocial identities by focusing on family relationships andemployment.
4.
The United Nations standards and norms and collective
professional knowledge gained through practice have brought forth thefollowing important issues that bear consideration:(a) It is well known that imprisonment alone is insufficient toprevent reoffending and that it has a large adverse effect on social
reintegration prospects caused by stigmatization, restricted contacts
with the outside world, including the offender’s family, and the risk ofinstitutionalization, that is, the risk for people to spend long periods oftime in prison and to develop deficits in their social and life skills. Thus,
imprisonment should be imposed as a measure of “last resort”, without
prejudice to the principle of proportionality, the protection of society
and the rights of the victims;(b) Imprisonment can have a positive impact on reducing
reoffending, in that imprisonment can be the “hook for change” 4 in the
lives of offenders if the prison environment is appropriate and if prison
administrations follow a rehabilitative approach to prison management
compliant with human rights standards;(c) The use of imprisonment as the “default option” 5 leads toprison overcrowding, which continues to undermine severely proper
prison management, and thus has a negative impact on the quality andquantity of rehabilitative interventions in prisons;James Bonta and D. A. Andrews, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, 6th ed. (NewYork, Routledge, 2017).
3
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), Introductory Handbook on thePrevention of Recidivism and the Social Reintegration of Offenders, Criminal JusticeHandbook Series (Vienna, 2018), p. 8.
4
Peggy C. Giordano, Stephen A. Cernkovich and Jennifer L. Rudolph, “Gender, crime,and desistance: toward a theory of cognitive transformation”, American Journal of
Sociology,
vol. 107, No. 4 (January 2002), pp. 990–1064.
5
Matti Joutsen, “International patterns in the use of community-based sanctions”, paper
presented at the Twenty-fifth Anniversary Seminar of the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures, held by the Asia and Far East Institute for
the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in Tokyo, from 7 to 9 September
2015. “Throughout the world, imprisonment has solidified its position as the main
punishment imposed for medium-level and more serious offences, and as the ‘default
option’ against which other sanctions are compared. The assumption that imprisonment
fulfils the various functions of punishment and thus is suitable for medium-level andmore serious offences has resulted in a general growth in the number of prisoners.”
2

-7-7-

(d) Community-based treatment, as compared to imprisonment,
is more cost-effective and better supports the social reintegration of
offenders, as it enables offenders to benefit from necessaryinterventions and support while maintaining their lives in thecommunity and avoiding social barriers stemming frominstitutionalization;(e) The overuse of non-custodial measures, as well as their use
without appropriate community support, can lead to “mass supervision”
and “net widening”, whereby the number of persons controlled by thecriminal justice system increases. 6 The excessive use of supervision for
low-risk offenders may increase the reoffending risk, owing to
unnecessary interventions; 7(f) Interventions and support must be gender-responsive andtailored to each offender’s individual risk and needs, which need to becontinuously assessed and reassessed;(g) Preparation for re-entry into society should commence inprison, and interventions should continue until a successful
reintegration is completed;(h) In the pursuit of rehabilitative goals, multi-stakeholder
involvement is indispensable.
5.
Reducing reoffending is critical to building inclusive, sustainable
societies as envisioned in the 2030 Agenda. To reduce reoffending
effectively, criminal justice systems must prioritize offender
rehabilitation and social reintegration by creating rehabilitative prison
environments, adopting and implementing community-based
approaches that contribute to reducing reoffending and taking a
multifaceted,multi-stakeholder approach.

II. Crime prevention and criminal justice issues,policies and practices to reduce reoffendingA.

Creating rehabilitative prison environments
6.
Rehabilitative prison environments are necessary for the
successful rehabilitation and reintegration of incarcerated offenders.
Prisoners in facilities affected by high levels of violence, rampant druguse, organized crime, violent extremist ideologies and human rights
abuses will find it difficult, if not impossible, to start their paths towarddesistance from crime 8 and rehabilitation. Prison environments plagued
See, for example, Fergus McNeill and Kristel Beyens, “Offender supervision in Europe:
COST Action IS1106–final report” (March 2016), p. 2; Michelle S. Phelps, “Massprobation and inequality: race, class, and gender disparities in supervision andrevocation”, in Handbook on Punishment Decisions: Locations of Disparity, vol. 2,
Jeffery T. Ulmer and Mindy S. Bradley, eds. (New York, Routledge, 2018), pp. 45–47;
Marcelo F. Aebi, Natalia Delgrande and Yann Marguet, “Have community sanctions andmeasures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems?”, Punishment andSociety, vol. 17, No.5 (November 2015), pp. 589–590.
7See, for example, James Bonta, Suzanne Wallace-Capretta and Jennifer Rooney, “A
quasi-experimental evaluation of an intensive rehabilitation supervision program”,
Criminal Justice and Behavior, vol. 27, No. 3 (June 2000), pp. 312, 314 (“The risk
principle suggests that the intensity of treatment should be matched to the risk level of theoffender. That is, low-risk offenders require few (or no) services, and higher risk
offenders require intensive levels of service.”).
8“Desistance” is a term used in criminology to refer to the cessation of criminal behaviour.
6

-8-8-

by overcrowding and corruption are guaranteed to exacerbate criminal
tendencies among prisoners, increasing their risk of reoffending upon
release. The emerging threat of violent extremism in prison andcorrectional settings has often been met with attempts to introduce
highly specialized counter-terrorism strategies and initiatives forviolent extremist prisoners. However, it is often overlooked that, forsuch strategies and initiatives to be effective, they need to be built on
stable, sound and well-run prison management systems, which arecompromised in many countries. 9
7.
Estimates suggest that there were more than 11 million people inprison globally in 2018, including both pretrial and sentenced
prisoners. 10 Prison overcrowding remains one of the greatest challenges
that stand in the way of creating rehabilitative prison environments,
with the number of prisoners exceeding the official prison capacity in
121 countries. 11 In overcrowded facilities, there is no capacity, in termsof space, infrastructure and human resources, to provide prisoners with
tailor-made interventions, treatment and support. Also worrying is thetrend towards harsher sentencing policies and long-term sentences. The
number of persons sentenced to life imprisonment increased by almost
84 per cent between 2000 and 2014, and an estimated 479,000 persons
are currently serving formal life sentences worldwide, which poses
fundamental questions about their treatment and rehabilitation
prospects, as well as challenges to manage and care for people who areageing and dying in prison.
8.
Some countries are prioritizing efforts to reduce overcrowding. In
response to prison overcrowding, Kazakhstan thus drastically reduced
its imprisonment rate to 194 prisoners per 100,000 people and closed
eight prisons. 12 This was achieved through justice reform driven bystrong political will, reducing the length of prison terms and increasing
the use of non-custodial sanctions for minor offences.
9.
Lack of access to legal representation and inability to pay
monetary bail are closely linked with poverty and result in excessive
pretrial detention and imprisonment. To ensure equal access to a fairjustice system and the elimination of unnecessary pretrial detention,
criminal justice systems should enhance, inter alia, the offenders’unrestricted access to a legal advisor, including through adequate legal
aid mechanisms, fair bail practices, the use of proper offender file
management and, resource permitting, electronic monitoring.
10. Corruption and violence inside prison environments 13 also
undermine the implementation of rehabilitative approaches.
Transparency and accountability in prisons can be ensured through strict
adherence to all safeguards outlined in the Nelson Mandela Rules,
including internal and external monitoring and inspection schemes, aswell as external investigations into all cases of torture or otherill-treatment, death in custody, disappearance or serious injury,
conducted by an authority independent of the prison or corrections
administration. The Federal Penitentiary Service of Argentina has taken
UNODC, Handbook on the Management of Violent Extremist Prisoners and thePrevention of Radicalization to Violence in Prisons, Criminal Justice Handbook Series(Vienna, 2016).
10
Ibid., p. 2.
11
Roy Walmsley, “World prison population list”, 12th ed. (London, World Prison Brief,
Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Birkbeck, University of London, 2018).
12
Yerbolat Uatkhanov, “Kazakhstan’s prison population drops dramatically in criminal
justice reform breakthrough”, Astana Times, 17 February 2018.
13
UNODC, Handbook on Anti-Corruption Measures in Prisons, Criminal JusticeHandbook Series (Vienna, 2017).
9

-9-9-

steps to tackle corruption through preventive and punitive approaches,such as the creation of the Corruption Prevention Service, a complaint
hotline, whistle-blower protection rules, staff training and monitoringand inspection services.
11. Prisoners face a range of social, economic and personal challenges
that tend to complicate significantly their social reintegration, such as ahistory of social isolation and marginalization, physical and emotional
trauma or abuse, physical or mental disabilities, poor interpersonal
skills or low levels of education, among many others. Simply putting
offenders in prison does not prevent them from reoffending, nor does it
facilitate their rehabilitation, in particular if imprisonment fails to
address their needs. Without effective programmes to help offenders toface their multiple challenges, the likelihood of their successful social
reintegration is very poor. Institutional programmes and interventions
designed to prepare offenders for social reintegration include tailoredphysical and mental health-care interventions, such as programmes totreat drug use disorders, sports activities, counselling, psychosocial
support, education and vocational training courses, creative and culturalactivities, work opportunities and regular access to well-stocked libraryfacilities. Within the prisoners’ rehabilitation component of the Global
Programme for the Implementation of the Doha Declaration, the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has developed aRoadmap for the Development of Prison-based Rehabilitation
Programmes and supported Member States in the establishment orenhancement of education, vocational training and work programmes
for prisoners, with a view to their effective rehabilitation and social
reintegration. UNODC also specifically promotes gender-sensitive
prison-based rehabilitation programmes and post-release services inline with the Bangkok Rules.
12. Prisoners should be assessed as soon as possible upon admission
to prison, as treatment programmes and interventions are most effective
when they are based on such assessments and individualized treatment
plans. Individual risk and needs assessments are key components ofprisoner rehabilitation and are essential for ensuring that prisoners areallocated to facilities that are equipped to meet their education andtraining needs, taking into account social, legal, health-care and otherrehabilitation considerations. Assessments that are exclusively based on
the prisoner’s criminal offence are insufficient. Rather, some evidence
based on risk-needs-responsivity shows that specific risk and needs
factors, such as criminal history, pro-criminal attitudes, pro-criminal
associates, antisocial personality pattern, family and marital
relationships, school or work relationships and performance, substanceabuse and leisure and recreation activities, can assist in predicting future
crime and should be targeted in treatment programmes andinterventions. 14 Attention should also be given to responsivity
considerations that may influence how the correction or prison officer
will relate with the offender and supervise the case, such as motivational
barriers, denial or minimization of the offence, interpersonal anxiety,gender-specific, cultural or ethnicity issues, communication barriers,
mental disability or disorder and psychopathy. 15 In addition, researchdemonstrates that positive outcomes are more likely to be achieved
when interventions and services are based on a “strength-based”
approach to make use of “human capital”, which refers to the capacityof the individual to make changes and achieve goals, and “social
14
15

Andrews and Bonta, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, p. 44.
D. A. Andrews, James L. Bonta and J. Stephen Wormith, “Level of Service/CaseManagement Inventory (LS/CMI)” (Toronto, Canada, Multi-Health Systems, 2004).

- 10 - 10 -

capital”, which helps offenders to address personal challenges to ensure
a successful reintegration, such as employment and family support. 16
Providing prisoners with the resources and motivation to achieve theirgoals constructively is likely to reduce their prospects of getting
involved in criminal behaviour upon release.
13. To achieve effective interventions, prisons must ensure soundprogramme delivery, good case management practices and the presenceof well-trained staff with the skills and expertise necessary to manage
and deliver the interventions. 17 Prison officers can be key players inprisoners’ rehabilitation, encouraging them to participate in educationand training activities and offering other support. Positive and prosocial
relationships between prisoner and staff are also important to thesuccess of rehabilitation. This approach is captured in the concept ofdynamic security, which focuses on the creation and maintenance bystaff of daily communication and interaction with prisoners based on
professional ethics. Creating a sound therapeutic alliance with prisoners
is a pivotal component of effective intervention. Working
collaboratively with them in developing treatment goals, displaying
empathy and warmth and offering encouragement and rewards for
progress facilitate the change process. 18 Furthermore, the capacity andwillingness of prison officers to communicate openly with prisoners, touse a non-authoritarian manner and to respond firmly and fairly are therequisite
ingredientsofappropriate
prisonmanagement.
Acknowledging the crucial role of prison officers, including withregards to fostering a rehabilitative approach to prison management,
UNODC has developed an e-learning course on the Nelson Mandela
Rules 19 tailored to prison staff and other persons working in prison. This
innovative tool couples theoretical learning with 25 interactive videos,
which were filmed in selected prison facilities in Algeria, Argentina andSwitzerland. In those scenarios, the user needs to choose among various
options on how to react to a given situation of daily prison life,
including five that address the role of prison officers in the field of
rehabilitation and social reintegration. In Kyrgyzstan, UNODC
supported prison authorities in building the capacity of prison officers
to establish prosocial relationships with violent extremist prisoners andto introduce vocational training, including for such prisoners.
14. Treatment programmes pursue the goals of desisting from crimeand achieving social preadaptation by focusing on changing offenders’attitudes and behaviours. Risk-needs-responsivity calls for the use ofcognitive behavioural techniques to influence change because they are
the most effective techniques to help offenders to develop new attitudes
and behaviours. In addition, preliminary empirical research suggeststhat the desistance approach can enhance approaches based on riskneeds-responsivity, especially in terms of improving the subject’s
engagement in treatment. 20 Cognitive behavioural therapy has a welldeveloped theoretical basis and is adaptable to a range of offenders andmany cultural and social contexts. By providing rehabilitation
Steve Pitts, “The effective resettlement of offenders by strengthening ‘community
reintegration factors’”, in Resource Material Series No. 82 (Tokyo, Asia and Far East
Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, 2010).
17
UNODC, Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism, pp. 6, 12 and 20.
18
See, for example, Tony Ward and Claire A. Stewart, “The treatment of sex offenders: risk
management and good lives”, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, vol. 34,
No. 4 (2003), pp. 353–360.
19
UNODC, UNODC Global eLearning, Public courses, “The Nelson Mandela Rules”.
Available at www.unodc.org.
20
See, for example, Theresa A. Gannon, and others, “Good Lives sexual offender treatment
for mentally disordered offenders”, British Journal of Forensic Practice, vol. 13, No. 3(August 2011), pp. 153–168.
16- 11 - 11 -

programmes, the Namibian Correctional Service not only aims to adhere
to evidence-based practice, but also aspires to address the specific needs
and characteristics of the Namibian offender population. Programmes
are tailor-made for, and respond to, the Namibian population, realities
and environment. Like most other prison-based programmes, they canalso be offered successfully in the community.
15. The fundamental aim of rehabilitation is to enable prisoners toreturn to their community with skills and attitudes that will help inpreventing reoffending. Education, vocational training and work
programmes allow prisoners to engage in constructive activities while
gaining new skills for potential future work. Many jurisdictions havemade efforts to provide vocational training, education programmes andprison employment opportunities. 21 Studies have confirmed that
prisoners who receive education and vocational training during
imprisonment are less likely to reoffend and more likely to find workthan those who do not receive such opportunities. 22 Efforts should bemade to closely link vocational training programmes to actual demandsin the outside labour market, and to implement those programmes inclose cooperation with vocational training providers in the outsidecommunity.
16. Furthermore, as indicated in the Bangkok Rules, efforts should bemade to address the special social reintegration requirements of womenand to ensure that women prisoners have access to a balanced andcomprehensive programme of activities that takes account of genderspecific needs without falling into gender stereotyping. Indeed, training
women in “feminine” occupations often limits their prospects ofobtaining well-remunerated employment after release. The UNODC
Global Programme for the Implementation of the Doha Declaration has
thus supported the Plurinational State of Bolivia in providing vocational
training to women prisoners in the construction sector, giving women
prisoners a real chance to find employment upon release by training
them in a sector where their skills are in demand.
17. The more isolated and confined a prison environment is, the harder
it will be for a person to return to freedom successfully. The principleof normality (or “normalization”), 23 that is, the idea that life in prison
should be as close as possible to life in the community, is one of thecornerstones of the modern Norwegian Correctional System. Prison
authorities in Norway seek to maintain the lowest possible security level,and prisoners retain as many rights as possible within the framework ofdeprivation of liberty. During incarceration, crucial services for
reintegration are delivered to the prison by local and municipal service
providers. This means that the staff delivering medical, educational,
employment, clerical or library services are providing these services inthe same manner as they would in the community.
18. Owing to social barriers to re-entry, it is not easy for incarcerated
offenders to return to the community and restart their lives upon release.
The importance of “vocational training, education programmes and prison employment
opportunities” for offenders was observed in the report of the Asia and Pacific Regional
Preparatory Meeting for the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice, held in Bangkok from 22 to 24 January 2019
(A/CONF.234/RPM.1/1,
para. 34 (e)).
22
Sharon Critoph, The Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration of Women Prisoners:
Implementation of the Bangkok Rules, Martha Crowley, ed. (London, Penal Reform
International and Bangkok, Thailand Institute of Justice, 2019), p. 29.
23
UNODC, Roadmap for the Development of Prison-based Rehabilitation Programmes,
Criminal Justice Handbook Series (Vienna, 2017), pp. 4–5.
21

- 12 - 12 -Continuity in interventions and support, achieved through collaboration
between prison staff and community-based treatment providers, areextremely important to facilitate rehabilitation and reduce reoffending
risks. Interventions and support in prisons should be aimed at preparing
prisoners for their return to the community. Thus, prisons should
encourage prisoners to establish and maintain regular contacts with theirfamily members or other significant others who will support them after
their release.
19. Advances in technology provide prisons with new ways ofdelivering education programmes for prisoners. The prevalence ofelectronic devices holds great promise for cost-effective prison-baseduse, including the use for videoconferencing in legal proceedings,
family visits and medical consultations. The use of videoconferencing
should not, however, replace face-to-face meetings, as this would becontrary to the principle of normalization and further reduce a prisoner’s
contact with the outside world. In Singapore, the use of videocounselling is being explored, and a mobile application to help former
offenders to reintegrate has been created. 24 In Kyrgyzstan, with
UNODC support, the Skype application is used for some family visits
to reduce the financial and travel burdens for those living far away.

B.

Community-based approaches that contribute to
reducing reoffending
20. Community-based approaches, including non-custodial measuresand restorative justice processes, can effectively reduce reoffending by
ensuring that offenders receive appropriate support and, when necessary,treatment, which maximizes the opportunities for them to live
productive and independent lives as responsible members of society. In
many countries, people with drug use disorders represent a significant
part of the prison population or population in contact with the criminal
justice system. For that population, evidence-based treatment and careinterventions have proven to be effective. 25 In their joint publication
entitled Treatment and Care for People with Drug Use Disorders inContact with the Criminal Justice System: Alternatives to Conviction or
Punishment, UNODC and the World Health Organization examinevarious options to divert into treatment people with drug use disorders
who are in contact with the criminal justice system.
21. Non-custodial measures can be applied at any stage of the justiceprocess. At the pretrial stage, they include conditional discharge, bailand diversion from prosecution, such as through a restorative justiceprocess, for example, victim-offender mediation. In the case of people
with drug use disorders, treatment and care can be provided as analternative to conviction or punishment. Sentencing-phase options
include fines, community service orders, probation and suspended
sentence. Post-sentencing options for incarcerated offenders include
parole and conditional release. Furthermore, restorative justiceprogrammes at various phases can pave the way for or be used inconjunction with non-custodial measures or early release. Some of these
non-custodial sanctions involve community supervision or otherinterventions. In many countries, new methods of supervision, such as
Aquil Haziq Mahmud, “Prisons exploring use of digital platforms to help ex-offenders
better reintegrate into society”, Channel News Asia, 11 January 2019.
25
For cases related to personal consumption and other relevant cases of a minor nature, theinternational drug control conventions allow for treatment and rehabilitation measures tobe applied as an alternative to conviction or punishment (United Nations Convention
against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988, art. 3, para.
4 (c) and (d)).

24- 13 - 13 -

electronic monitoring, are increasingly used as a component ofcommunity supervision in case of conditional release.
22. Sentencing or case-disposition decisions must be made in line withthe principle of proportionality, as well as the fundamental rights of theoffenders, the rights of the victims and concern for public safety. The
practical application of those principles has its challenges, including
gaps in legal and policy frameworks, a lack of capacity among criminal
justice practitioners or insufficient public awareness and acceptance ofalternatives to imprisonment. The use of non-custodial measures ismore likely in jurisdictions where the general public has a positive
attitude towards offender rehabilitation in the community and where thesystem is capable of delivering rehabilitative community interventions(“community-based treatment” or “community corrections”). Somejurisdictions have codified legislative options for non-custodial
sanctions, but those have little to no application in practice owing to
low levels of public understanding and acceptance or the lack ofauthorities or institutions responsible for, or familiar with, deliveringcommunity-based treatment.
23. In deciding adequate penalties or case dispositions and providing
rehabilitative interventions, assessments are necessary to identify theoffenders’ individual risks, needs and environmental factors that may
have a positive or negative impact on their chances of successful social
reintegration. Thus, relevant information needs to be collected at therelevant stages of the criminal justice process, for example, through theuse of pre-sentencing or social inquiry reports at the sentencing stage
and of risk and needs assessments in prison. Furthermore, several
countries have developed sentencing guidelines or established advisory
sentencing councils or commissions to ensure fairness and incorporate
rehabilitative perspectives in the sentencing process.
24. In order to incorporate rehabilitative perspectives in pretrial orsentencing decisions, it is also important to make the judiciary or otherdecision-making institutions aware of rehabilitative perspectives, inparticular the role of prisons and of those responsible for communitybased treatment in offender rehabilitation. In Canada, the “Judges to
Jails” programme gives opportunities to judges to learn about prisonsand parole, including through visits to prisons and listening to parole
hearings. In Kenya, the police department, prison department, children
services department, prosecution, judiciary and probation department
engage in continuous collaboration and information-sharing throughout
the juvenile justice process, so that each authority, including the
judiciary, may perform its role effectively.
25. Restorative justice programmes can contribute to reducing
reoffending when they are implemented in accordance with procedural
safeguards, giving due regard to the rights and needs of both offenders
and victims. 26 As a flexible approach to dealing with crime, they can be
implemented at any stage of the criminal justice process (police,prosecution, courts and prisons), or even independently from it. By
giving offenders an opportunity to fully understand and recognize theconsequences of their actions and the impact that those actions have hadon the victims, their families and members of the community,
restorative justice programmes can contribute to reducing reoffendingby increasing the chance that offenders will take responsibility for their
behaviour and desist from crime. The participatory, flexible and26

Basic principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in criminal matters(Economic and Social Council resolution 2002/12).

- 14 - 14 -

problem-solving approach of restorative justice programmes
encourages a more prosocial attitude, which can reduce reoffending.
When community members participate in a restorative justice process,their informal support can help offenders to acquire prosocial
behaviours, thus motivating them to change. 27 In Austria, for example,
it is reported that 84 per cent of offenders who participated in victimoffender mediation did not reoffend afterwards. 28 In the Philippines, thebarangay, the smallest unit of local government, plays an important rolein the restorative justice process. Stakeholders who participate in theprocess typically include barangay officials, religious members, family
members of the offender and the victim and community volunteers.
26. It is crucial that community-based approaches be implemented
with the individual situations of offenders and community in mind. Dataon persons serving community or semi-custodial sanctions andmeasures from the Council of Europe SPACE II project show that anincrease in the use of community sentencing does not automaticallyresult in a reduction in the use of imprisonment. 29 The indiscriminate
and excessive use of community sanctions without adequate attention
given to individual cases and the community’s capacity brings risks ofmass supervision and net-widening by imposing community
supervision in cases that might previously have resulted in financial
sanctions or other less restrictive options. This practice would not
alleviate prison overcrowding and may exceed the capacity of thecommunity corrections agency, posing difficulties in delivering
appropriate interventions to those who need them. Furthermore,
unnecessary supervision and interventions for low-risk offenders
increase their reoffending risks.
27. Community-based treatment can facilitate the social reintegrationof offenders subject to non-custodial sanctions or dispositions orreleased from imprisonment. The goal is to provide the appropriatebalance of supervision and support through effective collaboration
between criminal justice agencies and community-based stakeholders,
including by seeking community participation. This will create
favourable conditions for the reintegration of offenders into thecommunity under the best possible conditions, considering theirsituation.
28. A common strategy to establish and implement effective
community corrections is to make full use of existing community
resources. For example, the active use of volunteers has been an
effective way to engage the community and provide necessary support
to offenders with multiple needs while, at the same time, saving
governmental resources. In Japan, the volunteer probation officers playa vital role in community corrections by assisting professional probation
officers in conducting community supervision and pre-release
coordination of the offender’s social environment. Similar systems arein place in other countries, including Kenya, Malaysia, the Philippines,
the Republic of Korea, Singapore and Thailand. 30 While the duties ofSee, for example, Andrew Day and others, “Promoting forgiveness in violent offenders: amore positive approach to offender rehabilitation?”, Aggression and Violent Behavior,
vol. 13, No. 3 (June–July 2008), pp. 195–200.
28
Veronika Hofinger and Alexander Neumann, “Legalbiografien von Neustart Klienten”(Vienna, Institut für Rechts- und Kriminalsoziologie, 2008).
29
Vicki Prais and Frances Sheaban, Global Prison Trends 2019, Martha Crowley, ed.
(London, Penal Reform International and Bangkok, Thailand Institute of Justice, 2019), p.
40.
30
Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders,“Report of the second Asia Volunteer Probation Officers meeting”, in Resource Material
Series No. 104 (Tokyo, March 2018), pp. 149–150.
27- 15 - 15 -those volunteers vary from country to country, the core concepts are to
conduct community-based supervision and counselling in a prosocial
environment, using the local knowledge of an established member ofthe community to connect the offender with local resources and creating
positive personal relationships that last beyond the term of supervision.
In Croatia, a new probation system was introduced by taking a step-bystep approach after long and thoughtful planning. Croatia established its
probation service in 2009 upon enacting enabling legislation but choseto establish only a small number of offices in the first three years, tofocus on quality over quantity of service delivery. In 2017, Croatia
merged its prison and probation services, which facilitated the exchange
of information and promoted cooperation between prison and probation
practitioners, who often serve the same clients.
29. When prisoners are released into the community, they frequently
encounter a wide range of social barriers to re-entry, such as challenges
in access to employment, housing, treatment for drug use disorders andprosocial support. The continuum of care from prison to the community
through robust coordination, in particular between institutional andcommunity corrections services, is crucial. Ensuring an adequate periodof support facilitates a smooth transition to society. This can take theform of a support staff assigned to work with the offender in prison andin the community during an initial transition period, to assist theoffender in finding housing and employment, and generally helping theoffender to navigate through the initial stages of re-entry. In Canada,“statutory parole” is granted when two thirds of the sentence has been
served; furthermore, “full parole” allows for earlier release with
community supervision upon the decision of the Parole Board. Fullparole had an extremely high completion rate of more than 98 per centfrom 2017 to 2018. The Parole Board of Canada carries out initiatives
to make the parole process transparent and accessible to the public.
30. Simply monitoring offenders’ compliance with conditions of
release is insufficient for successful community supervision.
Appropriate supervision involves managing the offenders’ risks,
coordinating resources to meet their needs, and developing andmaintaining a trust-based human relationship with them. 31 Other criticalactivities include teaching, support, reinforcing positive behaviour andenforcing consequences for negative behaviour. 32 The process ofsupervision must be informed by an understanding of reoffending andmust focus on developing the offenders’ motivation and capacities forchange. Supervision can contribute to reducing reoffending when it isbased on an adequate assessment of the offenders’ needs, motivationand situation and on a sound case management approach. Staff training
and guidance are particularly important for officers and volunteers
involved in supervision. The Practice Guide for Intervention 33
developed in New South Wales, Australia, is a series of structured
exercises and activities designed to guide interventions and enhance thebehaviour-change focus of supervision sessions. The Strategic Training
Initiative in Community Supervision, 34 which is used in a number ofjurisdictions and has contributed to a remarkable decrease in

UNODC, Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism, p. 59.
Ibid.
33
Mark V. A. Howard and others, “Innovations in a model for enhancing the behavior
change content of supervision with community-based offenders, Advancing Corrections
Journal, 7th ed. (June 2019).
34
James Bonta and others, “Taking the leap: from pilot project to wide-scale
implementation of the Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision (STICS)”,
Justice Research and Policy, vol. 15, No. 1 (June 2013), pp. 17–35.
31
32- 16 - 16 -

reoffending, trains parole and probation officers to better adhere to therisk-needs-responsivity-based model in their interviewing techniques.

C.

Taking a multifaceted approach to ensure continuous
support and services for rehabilitation andreintegration of offenders
31. The importance of public-private partnership and of engaging
members of society in the pursuit of sustainable societies is emphasized
in both the Sustainable Development Goals (in particular in target 17 ofGoal 17) and the Doha Declaration on Integrating Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice into the Wider United Nations Agenda to AddressSocial and Economic Challenges and to Promote the Rule of Law at the
National and International Levels, and Public Participation adopted at
the Thirteenth Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice(General Assembly resolution 70/174). In the criminal justice context,
the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders cannot be
accomplished by criminal justice authorities alone. All segments ofsociety need to be involved at all stages of the process towards social
reintegration. Public-private partnerships and the active involvement of
the community are particularly important to ensure the continuity ofinterventions and support for the prisoners’ smooth reintegration into
the community. Moreover, community-based approaches cannot be
achieved without the understanding and acceptance of the community
and the public at large. It is of vital importance to take a multifaceted
approach by incorporating the active participation of a wide range of
relevant sectors and persons into the rehabilitation and reintegration
process. Political will plays a key role in involving relevant
stakeholders in multifaceted initiatives. Criminal justice authorities
must also identify, activate and mobilize existing public and private
community resources and make efforts to build robust partnerships with
relevant stakeholders. For example, Japan has adopted comprehensive
government-wide strategies whereby various rehabilitative initiatives
addressing employment, housing, education, social welfare, health careand family relations are undertaken on the basis of enhanced publicpublic and public-private partnerships.
32. Stakeholder engagement is critically important in coordinating
employment, housing, education, social welfare, health-care, family andpeer support, enhancing the offenders’ human and social capital,
community supervision and other interventions, awareness-raising andtechnical assistance. Stakeholders can be from the public sector (at theState and local levels, as well as representing international or regional
bodies), from the private sector (including non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs), employers and peer support groups) orindividuals (family members, experts, volunteers or community
members). It is imperative that criminal justice authorities, in particular
corrections and rehabilitation authorities, engage those stakeholders anddevelop cooperative partnerships with clearly defined roles.
33. Employment is a key factor for successful reintegration, as it is
not simply a source of income but helps offenders to reconnect with thecommunity and contributes to the enhancement of their self-esteem,
self-confidence and self-efficacy. 35 A number of interventions to help
35

Joe Graffam and others, Attitudes of Employers, Corrective Services Workers,
Employment Support Workers, and Prisoners and Offenders towards Employing ExPrisoners and
Ex-Offenders (Burwood, Melbourne, Victoria, Deakin University, School of Health andSocial Development, 2004), p. 4.

- 17 - 17 -

offenders to find and sustain employment can be delivered as in-prisonor community-based programmes, such as vocational training, teaching
job application and interview skills, and offering job placement andcareer counselling services. Effective support should also be provided
to employers, such as public subsidies for employing former offenders,compensation for damage, preference in public procurement and tax
credits or deductions. Furthermore, matching the needs of the offenders
and businesses is key to successful support. The Safer Foundation, an
NGO based in the United States of America and working independently
and in partnership with government, offers a range of services to help
formerly incarcerated individuals to secure employment and has
achieved a high rate of sustained employment.
34. The lack of suitable housing poses a reoffending risk and is amajor challenge that former prisoners face at the time of re-entry. 36
Many offenders coming out of prison are or become homeless and facestrong stigmatization, including from their own families, which impede
them from returning to live with their families. Without adequate
accommodation, it is extremely difficult to sustain employment and live
independently. Thus, housing support should start in prison as animportant preparation for re-entry. Since accommodation forms thebasis of life in the community, each offender’s individual circumstances
should be taken into account, and special consideration will benecessary for offenders with special needs, such as those with physicalor mental disabilities, the elderly and those suffering from drug
dependence. Housing support will function best when linked withinitiatives to support employment, social welfare, health care andrecovery from drug use disorders by community development bodies,housing authorities and non-profit and faith-based organizations. Prisonand community corrections authorities should work together with suchinitiatives and organizations to coordinate housing. In the United States,
the Safer Foundation operates adult transition centres accommodating
former offenders in partnership with the Government of the State of
Illinois. In Japan, the probation service begins coordinating offenders’post-release accommodation at the time of incarceration. If the prisoner
cannot rely on family, relatives or friends, the Government provides
offenders with temporary housing options, including publicly run or
subsidized rehabilitation facilities and private housing. In addition,accommodation in social welfare facilities can be arranged for theelderly or disabled.
35. The Nelson Mandela Rules point to the need to provide prisoners
with education and to integrate such programmes into the country’s
educational system. Access to the job market requires a level offunctional literacy and numeracy, as well as other basic working skills,
which many prisoners have simply not achieved. Functional literacy anda secondary school diploma, or a higher-level degree, facilitate
employment. Robust and continuous partnerships with public andprivate education need to be developed. The EQUAL Initiative of the
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion of
the European Commission has taken steps to improve access to
education and training for prisoners in order to facilitate theirreintegration into the labour market, such as distance learning inprisons. 37 The Global Programme for the Implementation of the Doha
Declaration is supporting the Government of El Salvador in setting up
e-learning university and technical studies in several prisons.

36
37

UNODC, Introductory Handbook on the Prevention of Recidivism, p. 45.
Ibid., p. 50.

- 18 - 18 -

36. Prison- and community-based rehabilitative approaches should besensitive to offenders with specific needs, such as women, young people,
the elderly, persons with disabilities, foreigners, the poor andmarginalized groups. Accordingly, building partnerships withstakeholders that can address those specific needs is crucial. Female
offenders, for example, require gender-specific reintegration initiatives,
as outlined in the Bangkok Rules. Fewer rehabilitation opportunities areavailable to women, and the opportunities that exist tend to be lessvaried and of poorer quality than those offered to men. In Georgia, Penal
Reform International, an international NGO, works with local partnerorganizations to deliver rehabilitation and support services to female
prisoners and their children who have experienced violence anddiscrimination.
37. The offender’s family is usually the most important stakeholder
for successful reintegration, because they provide offenders with social,financial and mental support. Therefore, it is crucial to involve family
members in the rehabilitative process whenever possible by facilitating
continued contact with the offender during the incarceration period,
with appropriate exceptions in domestic violence cases. However, manyfamilies also face negative impacts from the incarceration of offenders,
whom they may not be willing or able to support upon release.
Therefore, support for family members may be necessary, including
timely notification of the offender’s release and assistance offered tofamily members in emotional, financial and interpersonal aspects.
38. Peer support and mentoring by former offenders is valuable tosocial reintegration because mentors can empathize with the offenders,
and their input is less likely to be viewed with suspicion. Peer support
focuses on attitude, spirituality and other factors that facilitate social
reintegration. Operating in Sweden and several other countries,
Kriminellas Revansch I Samhället (Criminals Return into Society), isan NGO operated by former offenders that helps other offenders on theirpath to reintegration by listening to offenders’ concerns and giving them
advice.
39. The use of volunteers is an efficient way to involve the communityand provide necessary support. The importance of the role of supervised
volunteers properly trained in the social reintegration of offenders isstressed in the Tokyo Rules. In addition to the use of volunteer probation
officers in Japan and a growing number of countries, other examples
include community member participation in mediation and restorative
justice programmes and volunteer-led NGOs that support offender
rehabilitation.
40. Awareness-raising activities will foster understanding andcooperation of stakeholders and generate public acceptance. Awarenessraising efforts should be directed to various target groups, including
policymakers, and conducted in an appropriate manner. For example,
fostering among the general public a general understanding of theimportance of offenders’ social reintegration is necessary. A good way
to convince the general population could be to showcase success stories.
Various electronic media, such as the Internet, short message services
and mobile phone applications, can be effective means to raiseawareness both in terms of cost and impact, allowing for a wide
dissemination of information and interactive communications. To
convince specific stakeholders to engage in rehabilitative support, faceto-face consultation or other forms of direct communication can also be
effective.

- 19 - 19 -

41. Over the past 15 years, the Yellow Ribbon Project in Singapore
has made significant progress in achieving awareness, generating
acceptance and inspiring community action. The joint efforts bycommunity members and partners, coupled with sustained media
outreach, have built a national culture of acceptance and empathy
towards former prisoners and their families. In a survey conducted in2018, about 65 per cent of the respondents indicated that they wereready to accept former prisoners at school, in the workplace, in thefamily and in the community. Beyond its success as an awarenessraising campaign, the Yellow Ribbon Project has been linked to adecrease in the reoffending rate. 38
42. Technical assistance can be and has been provided by various
players, including UNODC, the Programme Network Institutes of theUnited Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and otherinternational or regional organizations. For example, the Asia and Far
East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders has undertaken long-standing capacity-building for criminal
justice personnel around the world through international training
courses focusing on the reduction of reoffending, paying particularattention to the United Nations standards and norms and the Sustainable
Development Goals. The private sector and NGOs can be key partners
by leveraging relationships within the community and making use of
their expertise, skills and knowledge of the social, religious and cultural
backgrounds of the area that they serve. Technical assistance inpartnership with non-criminal justice sectors may also be effective in
addressing root causes of crime, such as poverty and discrimination.
43. Penal Reform International and the Thailand Institute of Justice
have developed a practical guide for the rehabilitation of female
prisoners with many innovative examples of promising practices fromvarious jurisdictions, which can be used for capacity-building aroundthe world. 39 Hedayah, the international centre of excellence forcountering violent extremism, has developed and launched a monitoring,measurement and evaluation smartphone and desktop application to
help to design programmes to counter violent extremism and to forecast
programme impact. Although focused on countering violent extremism,
the application is well suited to the design of any offender rehabilitation
or reintegration programme. Known as “MASAR”, the application is afree online tool that provides step-by-step guidance on developing a“theory of change” to guide each programme, identifying communitybased resources and designing frameworks for effective evaluation.

III. Conclusions and recommendations
44. Reducing reoffending is critical to building inclusive, sustainable
societies, as envisioned in the 2030 Agenda. To reduce reoffending
effectively, criminal justice systems must prioritize creating
rehabilitative prison management and environments, adopting andimplementing community-based approaches that contribute to reducing
reoffending, and taking a multifaceted, multi-stakeholder approach. To
those ends, criminal justice systems should ensure rehabilitative
processes and environments throughout all stages and pathways leading
to successful reintegration.

Santhi Pandian and others, “Singapore’s Yellow Ribbon Project: unlocking the second
prison”, Advancing Corrections Journal, 7th ed. (2019), pp. 60–72.
39
Critoph, The Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration of Women Prisoners, p. 29.
38- 20 - 20 -

45. The attainment of rehabilitative processes and environments
requires continuing efforts by criminal justice actors, includingprosecution, judicial, prison and probation authorities, as well as actors
in the community, to solve problems stemming from overcrowding,
avoid excessive use of imprisonment, ensure seamless interventions andsmooth transition from prison to community, properly implement
community corrections, enhance offenders’ abilities to live crime-free
lives and foster acceptance by and cooperation of the community. As
such measures encompass many fields, reducing reoffending requires amultifaceted approach with active and robust partnerships among a wide
range of public and private stakeholders. These stakeholders must act ina concerted manner, taking account of the diversity among justicesystems and the social, cultural and other backgrounds of eachjurisdiction.
46. Bearing this in mind, and considering the recommendations
adopted at the regional preparatory meetings, the participants in theworkshop may wish to consider the following recommendations:(a) Member States should ensure rehabilitative processes andenvironments throughout all stages and pathways leading to successful
reintegration, with special focus on: (i) where appropriate, theimposition of less restrictive sanctions and the active and adequate useof non-custodial penalties and dispositions in line with the Tokyo Rules
and the Bangkok Rules; (ii) effective interventions and support
responding to each individual’s specific needs, based on empiricalevidence both in prison and in the community; (iii) the continuity ofinterventions and support throughout the process, in particular fromprison to the community; and (iv) adopting a multifaceted, multistakeholder approach;(b) Member States should take consistent steps to establish arehabilitative environment in all prisons by: (i) ensuring proper prison
administration and case management and eliminating corruption,
overcrowding and violence in prisons; (ii) providing interventions,
treatment programmes, education, vocational training and work to help
offenders to develop skills to lead law-abiding lives; (iii) enabling
offenders to maintain their community and family ties; and (iv) ensuringthat prisoners are treated fairly and with the respect due to their inherent
dignity as human beings. The provisions of the Nelson Mandela Rules
and the Bangkok Rules should be adhered to and applied in practice;(c) Member States should seek to develop and implement
interventions and treatment options that contribute to reducing
reoffending, based on empirical evidence. They should undertake tocollect relevant statistics, conduct research and share such information
nationally and internationally;(d) Member States should develop and implement specificgender-responsive rehabilitation and reintegration policies andprogrammes in line with the Bangkok Rules and based on existing goodpractices;(e) Member States should tailor interventions and treatment
programmes to the individual needs of each offender, in particular for
those with specific needs, such as young people, the elderly, persons
with disabilities, the poor and marginalized groups, and eliminate
barriers to social reintegration;- 21 - 21 -(f) Member States should recognize the importance of
rehabilitative community-based interventions and support to reduce
reoffending and should endeavour to develop effective communitybased approaches. In introducing or implementing community-based
treatment, Member States should identify and strengthen existing
community resources, involve community stakeholders, including
volunteers, enhance their capacity through guidance and training andensure that a mandated and sufficiently resourced public entity is inplace to manage, supervise and support offenders in the community,
such as a dedicated probation service;(g) Member States, in implementing multi-stakeholder
approaches to reduce reoffending, should establish, foster and improvemechanisms and platforms and establish an organizational culture tocontinuously involve all relevant stakeholders, including the public
sector at both the State and local levels, the private sector, faith-basedorganizations, academia, volunteers and community members, so that
all relevant stakeholders are able to work together towards the social
reintegration of offenders. Member States should seek to promote
public-public and public-private partnerships, inter alia, to help
offenders to secure timely job placement and housing after release andaccess to social and medical services, educational opportunities andvocational training;(h) In the introduction and implementation of effective
rehabilitative mechanisms, Member States should seek a realistic, stepby-step approach that considers the availability of resources and thefeasibility of steps to be taken within a certain time frame and that
allocates adequate resources. Taking such an approach, Member Statesshould make full use of existing resources, including those in thecommunity, refer to established measures and experiences in otherjurisdictions and explore the cost-effective use of information
technology;(i) Acknowledging that public understanding and cooperation
are key elements to offender rehabilitation and reintegration into society,
Member States should undertake, and allocate adequate financial andhuman resources for, awareness-raising activities directed to the generalpublic, the private sector, NGOs, volunteers, employers and the family
members of offenders;(j) Member States are encouraged to offer or seek technicalassistance, as appropriate, for the adoption or implementation ofeffective rehabilitative measures. Furthermore, Member States should
actively share information on promising practices and support capacitybuilding efforts for criminal justice practitioners aimed at reducing
reoffending. Member States may also consider seeking technicalassistance from UNODC, the Programme Network Institutes of theUnited Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, otherinternational and regional organizations and relevant non-governmental
stakeholders.

- 22 - 22 -

WORK PROGRAMMEDay One (8 March 2021)
Opening Session
JST

Speakers/Panellists

Contents

Participation
Type

13:00

Dr. Matti Joutsen
Special Advisor, TIJ
Chair of Committee II

Opening

in-person

13:10

Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak
Executive Director, TIJ

Opening Remarks

online

13:20

Mr. SETO Takeshi
Director, UNAFEI

Presentation of the Workshop by the
Scientific Moderator

in-person

Panel I on "Creating rehabilitative prison environments"

13:30

Dr. Fergus McNeill
University of Glasgow

Keynote Address I
Reducing Reoffending and Enabling
Reintegration

online

13:50

Ms. Vera Tkachenko
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Officer, Justice Section, Division for
Operations, UNODC

Creating Rehabilitative Prison
Environments

online

14:05

Ms. Mariana Martin
Commissioner-General: Rehabilitation
and Reintegration, Namibian
Correctional Service, Ministry ofHome Affairs, Immigration, Safety &Security

Applying Risk-Need-ResponsivityBased Rehabilitation: The NamibianExperience

online

14:20

Dr. Emiliano Blanco
President, ICPA Latin America(Former National Director of theFederal Prison Service of Argentina)

Creating Rehabilitative Prison
Environments: Anti-corruption
Policies

online- 23 - 23 -

14:35

Ms. Heidi Bottolfs
Deputy Director General, Directorate
of Correctional Service
Norway14:50

The Principle of Normality – In
Regular and Extraordinary Times

onlineInterventions
Panel II on “Community-Based Approaches that Support Desistance”
Contents

Participation
Type

16:00

Dr. Matti Joutsen
Special Advisor, TIJ
Chair of Committee II

Keynote Address II
Community-Based Approaches That
Support Desistance: A Reassessmentin the Context of the Sustainable
Development Goals

in-person

16:20

Ms. Jennifer Oades
Chairperson, Parole Board of Canada

Community-Based Approaches That
Support Desistanceonline

16:35

Ms. Jana Špero
Assistant Minister, Prison System andProbation of the Republic of Croatia

Introducing a Probation System
Through a Step-by-Step Approach

online

16:50

Hon. Lady Justice Teresia Matheka
Judge, High Court of Kenya, Nakuru
Law Courts

Community Approaches to
Desistance: Meeting of Purpose: The
CCPO and the Special Taskforce onChildren Matters – a Kenyan story

online

17:05

Dr. Manuel Golloso Co
Former Administrator, Parole andProbation Administration of thePhilippines

Village Justice (Katarungang
Pambarangay) System the Inspirationof the DOJ-PPA’s Individualized
Community-Based Restorative
JusticeonlineJST

Speakers/Panellists

17:20

Wrap-up by the Scientific Moderator

17:25

Interventions

17:50

Dr. Matti Joutsen
Special Advisor, TIJ
Chair of Committee II

Closing- 24 - 24 -in-person

Day Two (9 March 2021)

Panel III on "Multifaceted approaches to ensure continuous support and services
for rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders"Contents

Participation
Type

9:00

Mr. IMAFUKU Shoji
Director-General, Rehabilitation
Bureau, MOJ

A Multi-Stakeholder Approach to
Ensuring Continuous Support andServices for Rehabilitation andReintegration of Offenders: Focusing
on Housing Support

in-person

9:15

Ms. Sodiqa Williams
General Counsel and Vice President ofExternal Affairs, Safer Foundation

Building Safe Pathways to
Successful Re-entry for Returning
Residents in the Chicago Area andthe State of Illinois

online9:30

Ms. Olivia Rope
Executive Director of Policy andInternational Advocacy, PRI

Rehabilitation of Women in Prison

online

9:45

Mr. Ali Reunanen
Secretary General, KRIS

Kriminellas Revansch I Samhället(KRIS) / Criminals Return Into
Society (CRIS)

in-person

10:00

Ms. Maria Cristina Mattei
Program Manager, HedayahMultifaceted Approach to Ensure
Continuous Support and Services for
Rehabilitation and Reintegration of
Offenders

onlineJST

Speakers/Panellists

Interventions

10:15

10:40

Mr. SETO Takeshi
Director, UNAFEI

Workshop wrap-up and remarks

in-person

10:50

Dr. Matti Joutsen
Special Advisor, TIJ
Chair of Committee II

Closing

in-person- 25 - 25 -- 26 - 26 -

PAPERS AND CONTRIBUTIONSPANEL 1
* * *PANEL II
* * *PANEL III- 27 - 27 -

- 28 - 28 -

PANEL I
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Dr. Fergus McNeill (University of Glasgow)
PRESENTATIONS
Ms. Vera Tkachenko (UNODC)* * *Ms. Mariana Martin (Namibia)* * *Dr. Emiliano Blanco (Argentina)* * *Ms. Heidi Bottolfs (Norway)- 29 - 29 -

- 30 - 30 -

REDUCING REOFFENDING AND ENABLING REINTEGRATION
Dr. Fergus McNeill *I. INTRODUCTION
Reoffending by people who have been through criminal justice is a challenge forgovernments and societies around the world. A recent review 1 suggests that in mostdeveloped countries reoffending rates after sanctions fall in the 30–50 per cent range. To
sum up a very broad evidence base, we know that:
•
•
•
•
•

Men tend to be reconvicted more often than women;
Younger people tend to be reconvicted more often than older people;
Among offence types, theft and property offences have the highest reconviction
rates;
Among different sanction types, imprisonment has the highest reconviction rates;
Among prison sentences, short sentences have higher reconviction rates.

The costs of reoffending are not just economic. Behind these statistics, there are citizens,families, groups and businesses suffering crime victimization; and very often, it is those
who are already disadvantaged in a variety of other ways that suffer repeated victimization.
Since the protection of citizens – and especially vulnerable citizens – is a key duty of thestate, the failure to protect is also a political problem; indeed, it strikes at the legitimacy ofthe state itself.
But this legitimacy problem also has another important aspect. If a key aim of our penal
systems is to secure the reintegration of those who have offended (see du Bois Pedain,2017), then it seems uncontroversial to suggest that when a punished person goes on to
reoffend, then their punishment has failed in an important sense.
Evidence of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on criminal justice is only now being
gathered and analysed, but we know that in many countries pandemic-related restrictions
have impoverished correctional regimes, limiting opportunities for rehabilitation of people
serving sentences in prisons and communities, and that they have exacerbated re-entry
challenges for those leaving prisons only to enter communities in “lockdown”. 2
Reoffending rates might then be expected to rise yet further, unless we take appropriate
action now.
In many states, the paradoxical reaction to such failure has been to do more of the same(see Figure 1 below); imposing even more punishment and more control and restriction on
those who have offended. Sometimes perhaps, this is the response that hurt, fearful or angry
Professor of Criminology and Social Work, University of Glasgow, Scotland.
See <https://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Reducing-Reoffending-FINAL-Dec-2012.pdf>,
accessed 15 January 2020.
2
See, for example chapter 5 of this report, <https://scotlandinlockdown.files.wordpress.com/
2020/12/scotlock_project_report_full_dec2020-2.pdf>, accessed 4 February 2021.
*
1- 31 - 31 -communities demand of their leaders (although, on closer inspection, public opinion aboutpunishment and reintegration turns out to be much more complex and nuanced than that;see Maruna and King, 2009).
Figure 1: The penal paradox

But, as well as being expensive, increasingly punitive responses also come into conflictwith international standards in relation to human rights. Since they tend to worsen the disintegration and disadvantage that is sadly so typical of those who find their way into prison,
they also waste precious resources, instead fuelling the vicious cycle of reoffending. In
consequence, social stability and solidarity are weakened, and with them, so are theprospects for the kinds of collective flourishing that we all seek, and which are reflected in
the UN Sustainable Development Goals. In this sense, therefore, reintegration is a key
challenge for sustainability – and getting reintegration right is key to criminal justice’s
contribution to that wider goal. Both the UN’s Mandela Rules and the Tokyo Rules indifferent ways reflect this key aspiration – to move away from merely punitive punishment
and towards rehabilitative and reintegrative approaches, whether in prisons or in thecommunity.
Thankfully, as well as these important standards, there is also a rapidly developing
evidence base that we can use to re-direct our policies and practices towards reducing
reoffending and enabling reintegration. It is that evidence base to which I now turn.
II. PRINCIPLES, EVIDENCE AND REINTEGRATION
A. Parsimony, Proportionality and ProductivenessBut before I turn to this positive evidence base, it is important to say something briefly
about what doesn’t seem to work. One very robustly designed longitudinal study – theEdinburgh Study of Youth Transitions – has demonstrated convincingly that, controllingfor all other factors, contact with formal authorities tends to slow down rather thanaccelerate young people’s movement away from crime and towards integration. It seems
that once a young person is labelled and processed as an “offender”, they become more
vulnerable to re-processing; the label “offender” sticks hard and does both symbolic andmaterial harm to young people’s prospects, often driving them back into offending and- 32 - 32 -

further criminalization and penalization (McAra and McVie, 2009).
It follows that, wherever possible, we must respond to individual misconduct andinterpersonal conflict in ways that avoid formal criminalization. As the Howard League
for Penal Reform in England and Wales 3 puts it, even before we think about doing justicebetter, our priority should be to “stem the flow” of people into criminal justice.
When prosecutors decide that formal criminal justice processing is unavoidable, thequestion then becomes not just how to respond most constructively, but also how tominimize the harm that accompanies formal processing? In this regard, we should apply
the principles of parsimony – never intervening in more demanding and intrusive ways
than we must – and proportionality – always ensuring that the scale of the response iscommensurate with the seriousness of the offending. I add a third principle –productiveness – stressing that the form and focus of our approach should reflect positiveefforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate (McNeill, 2019).
1. Four Forms of Rehabilitation
There are four forms of productive rehabilitative intervention that we should always
consider, and which very often need to be combined, if we are to achieve the goal of
reintegration (see Burke, Collett and McNeill, 2018; McNeill and Graham, 2020):•

Personal rehabilitation aims to develop new or existing motivation to change,
as well as building new skills, capabilities and capacities for living differently.

•

Judicial rehabilitation is a process of formal, legal “de-labelling” where thestatus and rights of the citizen are reinstated. This is a duty that the punishingstate owes to those citizens who have completed their sanction; it signifies andsecures the end of punishment.

•

Moral and political rehabilitation is more informal and focuses on dialogue
between citizen, civil society and state – a civic and civil conversation thatlooks back not just at the offence but at what lies behind it, and that explores
harm and repair.

•Social rehabilitation concerns the individual’s social position and their social
identity. It is about their connections and resources, their social capital; the help
and welcome that they require from other citizens along the path toreintegration.

It is easy to see why these four approaches most often need to be combined. Personaltransformation can easily come undone when confronted with informal social obstacles andformal legal barriers to building and sustaining a law-abiding life.
2. What Works? Risk-Needs-Responsivity
Especially in Anglophone countries, policy and practice have been very muchpreoccupied with personal rehabilitation. On the plus side, this preoccupation has generated
compelling evidence about the kinds of interventions, programmes and staff skills that best
support the kinds of shifts in attitudes, values and behaviours that support a move away
3

See <https://howardleague.org/>, accessed 16 January 2020.
- 33 - 33 -from offending. Perhaps the most developed evidence base surrounds the “Risks-NeedsResponsivity” model of rehabilitation (see Ziv, 2020). Summing this up, the model argues,
firstly, that we should match the level and extent of rehabilitative intervention with the levelof risk of reoffending that a person presents; the greater the risk, the more work needs tobe done. Secondly, we should focus our efforts on “criminogenic” needs; meaning thoseneeds that are most associated with offending – for example, anti-social attitudes, peergroups, substance use, etc. Thirdly, we should intervene in ways that are responsive to
people’s learning styles, since this will maximize the chances that they will be able to learn
what they need to learn, and that they will be motivated to do so.
RNR therefore represents a quite specific form of personal rehabilitation. The model’s
advocates claim that this narrow focus on criminogenic need has been shown to be effective
in terms of reducing reconviction. This may also suit correctional systems in as much as itprovides managers and practitioners with a way of pursuing rehabilitation that does not
require complex partnerships beyond prisons and probation. Because RNR tends to locate
the problem mainly within the “offender”, it situates the solution mainly within the prison
or probation “treatment” room.
3. Who Works? Staff Skills
More recent research suggests that people supervised by staff who demonstrate theskills required to effectively apply these principles, who can develop constructive
relationships with their supervisees, who model pro-social behaviour and who act as
brokers for the other services their supervisees need, tend to have lower reconviction rates
than those supervised by less skilled staff (see Chadwick, Serin and Lloyd, 2020; Haas
and Smith 2020; Trotter, 2020). This body of work helpfully broadens thinking both about
the mechanisms of delivery of effective practice – from programmes to practitioners –and, to a certain extent, about its aspirations: Whereas, the RNR model does not aim
ultimately at reintegration, settling more narrowly for reduced reoffending, these skillsbased approaches do often stretch to include work around social integration.
4. The Good Lives Model
The second influential model of rehabilitative practice is broader than RNR both inits aims and in its approach. The Good Lives Model (GLM) (see Purvis and Ward, 2020)
rests on the assumption that interventions should aim to promote a person’s “goods” aswell as to manage or reduce risks. Hence it aims to help a person develop a “good lifeplan” that identifies ways of effectively securing “primary human goods” withoutharming others. These “primary human goods” include, life, knowledge, excellence inplay and work, agency or autonomy, inner peace, friendship, community, spirituality,
happiness, and creativity. Clearly, this is not just about tackling “criminogenic needs”; itentails a much bigger project of personal rehabilitation involving the rebuilding of
person’s aspirations and identity as well as their behaviour. Also, though still focused on
the individual, the GLM requires practitioners to see the individual within the context of
their social relationships and environment. The GLM is a more recent development thanRNR and so the evidence base is less mature, but it is developing rapidly (see Purvis andWard, 2020), with many countries adopting GLM-inspired approaches.

- 34 - 34 -

III. SUPPORTING DESISTANCE AND REINTEGRATION
A. Desistance Theories and Research
Clearly, proper evaluation is critical to the development of the most effective
approaches to rehabilitation, and I will return to this issue later. But in this field as in any
other area of human development, evaluation research alone is insufficient to guide policy
and practice. It is equally important to better understand the processes of change we aretrying to support. For example, teachers need to understand how and why children learn
and develop, and not just how best to teach them.
Fortunately, within criminology, there is a rapidly expanding evidence base about how
and why people desist from offending. This is important, not least because there is plentyof evidence that most people stop offending without and sometimes even in spite of
criminal justice intervention.
Many desistance theories thus offer accounts of a kind of “natural” or “spontaneous”
rehabilitation.
To say that the process of desistance often happens naturally is not necessarily to saythat it is or should be unassisted; crucially, nor is it to suggest that it cannot be accelerated(see Graham and McNeill 2017, 2020; Johnson and Maruna 2020). Indeed, many of themost common explanations of desistance, on closer examination, do imply some important
forms of assistance. For example, desistance is linked to physical and psychologicalmaturation, but we should understand this not just as a spontaneous and inevitable process
associated with ageing, but also as a social process which can be enabled or impeded by aperson’s associates and environments. Similarly, desistance is often linked to thedevelopment of new social bonds like those associated with intimate relationships,
parenthood or employment; but it should be obvious that we find our ways into theseimportant connections not entirely by accident. More often, they reflect supported changes
in our social positions. Similarly, desistance often involves a gradual shift in identity andpersonal narrative (towards a more positive sense of self). But that too is a process which,for most of us, requires a receptive audience for the reformed (or evolved) self; one thatendorses and supports the change within us.
In other words, in each of these cases, while rehabilitation is not always or even often
engineered by a criminal justice practitioner, it is being supported by other social actors,
relationships, and contexts – and it can be just as easily undermined by them.
B. Supporting Desistance in Criminal JusticeOver the last 20 years, researchers have been exploring whether and how criminal
justice policies and practices can draw on desistance research to find ways to actively
prompt, sponsor, support and sustain desistance. This is where the research on desistanceand rehabilitation has begun to meet and merge. Much of this work has focused onreforming probation practice, though it has wider applications. To summarize some of the
key principles that have emerged (see also McNeill, et al., 2012; McNeill, 2016; Burke etal., 2018):
1. Desistance is not a linear process; it usually involves numerous lapses and setbacks.
We need to find ways to use these as learning opportunities, supporting people
towards compliance rather than rushing to punitive enforcement.
- 35 - 35 -

2. Desistance is process of personal development which different people experience
differently; studies have explored differences, for example, related to gender (Barr,2019) and ethnicity (Calverley, 2013), as well as those related to different socialand cultural contexts (Farrall, 2019). So, we need to individualize the forms of
support we offer, respecting diversity.
3. Desistance is associated with the development of hopefulness and a sense ofagency, or increasing control over the direction of one’s life. We should therefore
work in ways which nurture hope and which enable self-determination, forexample, engaging people in planning their own pathway through and beyond
their sentence, and helping them develop the capacities required to direct theirlives.
4. Relationships are central to desistance; social relations and social capital play key
roles, so we should also work with partners, families, friends and communities tofind ways together to support people through desistance (see Weaver, 2015;
Kotova, 2020).
5. Desistance involves constructive changes in people’s routine activities and social
situations. This means we need to provide practical support for such changes, forexample via public assistance with financial need, housing, access to healthservices, education and training, etc.
6. Recognition of people’s efforts to change has a reinforcing effect. By contrast, if
the attitudes, language and practices of criminal justice practitioners and ofcommunities undermine change (for example, by reinforcing criminalization andexclusion), then they will undermine change. We should therefore focus on finding
ways to recognize, certify and celebrate change.
It is easy so see how these principles correspond to the four forms of rehabilitation
discussed above. Whereas principles 1-3 guide our approaches to personal rehabilitation,
principles 4 and 5 direct us towards the importance of social and moral rehabilitation.
Principle 6 connects with the importance of judicial rehabilitation.
C. Rehabilitative Prisons?
If we turn our attention to another important site where rehabilitation is pursued – theprison – then we find important parallels with findings from yet further kinds of research.
Jewkes and Gooch (2020) have recently examined the concept of the “rehabilitative prison”,
exploring whether this is a contradiction in terms. It is not difficult to see why, in theory
and on the available evidence, we might reach that conclusion. By its very nature,
imprisonment seems an unpromising context in which to support maturation, thedevelopment of positive social relationships and constructive changes in identity, all ofwhich are key to desistance. And, indeed, the empirical evidence from many – perhaps
most – prison systems seems to suggest that, at least as currently configured, prisons aremuch more likely to be sites of suffering and struggle than places of change and growth(McNeill and Schinkel, 2016); and as I have already noted, the pandemic has very probably
heightened levels of suffering and struggle while impeding the rehabilitative possibilities.
Yet, it is also undeniable that, perhaps for a small number of people, prisons cansometimes be places of change and growth (Aresti, et al., 2010; Giordano, et al., 2002;- 36 - 36 -

Kazemian, 2019; Schinkel, 2015). Jewkes and Gooch (2020) therefore examine how theplanning, design, management, operationalization and culture of prisons might be better
adapted for rehabilitation, noting the current popularity of “trauma-informed”’ approaches(Levenson, 2020) and of “normalisation” (Todd-Kvam, and Ugelvik, 2020). Both concepts
are related to efforts to create healthier and more rehabilitative prison environments, inwhich personal development becomes more possible.
The Cambridge-based criminologist Alison Liebling has done some of the mostimportant work on what constrains and enables personal development within prisons, basedon a careful and sophisticated combination of ethnographic and survey research acrossmultiple research sites in many jurisdictions around the world. Liebling (2020) finds thatthe “big five” dimensions of prison quality that influence personal development are:•Bureaucratic legitimacy: meaning the transparency and responsiveness of theprison and its moral recognition of the individual•

Humanity: meaning an environment characterized by kind regard and concern forthe person•

Staff professionalism: meaning staff confidence and competence in the use of
authority•

Help and assistance: meaning support and encouragement for [addressing]problems (including drugs and health care) and progression•

Organization and consistency: meaning the clarity, predictability and reliabilityof the prison regime.

Prisons that score more highly on these indicators also score highly on personal
development and on a range of other measures (including lower rates of self-harm andsuicide, disorder and misconduct; there is also some evidence of lower post-prison
reconviction rates). Importantly the whole prison environment, and not just the “treatment”
or intervention room, needs to reflect these qualities. Specific rehabilitative interventions,like those we have discussed above, are more effective within such contexts. At the mostfundamental level, “seeing and working with the prisoner as an ‘emergent person’ seems
to be transformational” (Liebling, 2020: 204).
Crucially, almost all prison researchers agree that the possibility of developing thesekinds of prison environments diminishes as prison systems swell in size and scale; overcrowded, under-funded and under-staffed institutions cannot provide rehabilitativeenvironments. Therefore, as Liebling (2020: 205) says: “We should make prison a minor,
and therefore properly affordable, but morally intelligible and ‘enabling’ part of therehabilitation effort”.
D. Other Ways of Supporting Desistance and Reintegration
Whether we look at probation research, prison research or desistance research then, we
find that seeking and supporting changes in behaviour depends on and is secured by
actively developing the institutional climates and cultures, and the social relations andcontexts, within which people are enabled to flourish. Absent these systemic and social
preconditions, efforts to reduce reoffending are insecure at best.
- 37 - 37 -This explains why, ultimately, we need to look beyond – and reach beyond – criminal
justice to secure reintegration. As the concepts of judicial, moral and social rehabilitation
imply, we need to strive to create societies that respect the rights of restored citizens tofully participate in all forms of social life. That means examining our legal systems anddeveloping approaches that, as in some Nordic countries, seek to provide “reintegration
guarantees”; securing access to both public services and labour market participation. Itmeans that we should work energetically and enthusiastically to educate the public about
reintegration and to encourage them to play their part in it; here, we might follow theexample of Singapore’s pioneering Yellow Ribbon Project, or of an innovative Scottish
project called “Distant Voices: Coming Home” which uses creative methods to engage
citizens in public dialogue about reintegration. 4 With our citizens better educated about
and better engaged in reintegration, we might be more able to follow Japan’s example inmobilizing volunteers to support people through probation, building bridges rather thanwalls within our communities.
And if, as Liebling (2020) insists, we choose to see and engage the person behind thecriminal label, then we may also start to see in people within our penal systems strengths,
capabilities and assets that can be mobilized for the common good, rather than just threats
and liabilities to be managed (LeBel, 2020). The very promising development of peer
mentoring schemes in criminal justice (Buck 2020), of sports-based (Meek, 2020) and ofarts-based (Caulfield and Simpson, 2020) initiatives, and the notable recent
accomplishments of collectives and mutual aid groups of people with convictions point to
the enormous, and largely untapped potential, that we too often lock-down instead of
guiding and releasing.
Lastly, if, as I argued above, moral rehabilitation is also a critical part of the processof reintegration, then we would do well to attend to the lessons of indigenous andtraditional community justice in many places in Africa, the Americas and Australasia, as
well as to the global movement around restorative justice (Chapman, 2020). These
practices have much more to say to the crucial, relational aspects of punishment andreintegration than the formalized justice systems of liberal democracies.
IV. CONCLUSIONS: DEVELOPING REINTEGRATION THROUGHRESEARCH AND EVALUATION
I will end by briefly commenting on how we might best develop our services andpractices through research and evaluation. Important though it is to collect reconviction
data, evaluative studies that rely on this outcome measure represent an insecure basis forcriminal justice development. The reasons are obvious: An offence does not become aconviction unless and until it is witnessed, reported, detected, prosecuted, convicted andsentenced; so, re-conviction is as much a measure of how people and systems respond toalleged reoffending as it is of behavioural change.
It follows that we need to supplement and compare reconviction data with other kindsof evidence. Indeed, if we are genuinely concerned with building safer and fairer societies,
then we need to generate and use all the forms of evidence reported above, and to employ
a range of knowledge exchange strategies to guide us.
4

See <www.distantvoices.org.uk>, accessed 17 January 2020.
- 38 - 38 -

One good place to start is with listening much more carefully to the experiences ofpeople themselves engaged in the struggles for desistance and reintegration. Studies thatcritically analyse this sort of evidence have helped us understand why reintegration is sodifficult for many people to achieve. Setting aside the profound problems created by themultiple forms of social deprivation apparent in the lives of our penal populations, and theevidence about how punishment itself often serves to further de-habilitate and dis-integratethem, recent “re-entry” studies have provided a fine-grained picture of the multiple barriers
that people face when released from prison (e.g. Western, 2018; Halushka, 2020), and of
the pains that they experience in the process (Durnescu, 2019). Halushka (2020: 533)
neatly summarizes this evidence; though his focus is on the USA, similar evidence exists
elsewhere:
As a lived experience, prisoner re-entry is typically a life course transition marked bysevere material deprivation (Desmond, 2015; Western, 2018). The population returninghome is composed primarily of disadvantaged men of colour, who come from and return
to some of America’s most racially segregated and economically disadvantaged urbanneighbourhoods (Clear, 2007). They face a variety of formal and informal barriers tosecuring stable sources of employment and housing, and disproportionately suffer from avariety of social vulnerabilities, including low levels of human capital and histories oftrauma, substance abuse, physical disability, and mental illness (Harding et al., 2014;
Herbert et al., 2015; Western et al., 2015; Western, 2015).
The “informal barriers” that Halushka mentions refer to the stigma and, more broadly,
negative social attitudes that former prisoners face, and to the associated social isolation
they commonly suffer (Schinkel, 2014). The “formal barriers” are largely state produced
through policies and practices of exclusion and disqualification; other studies also highlightthe challenges faced by former prisoners in navigating complex and, to them, baffling statebureaucracies, including those putatively intended to help them (Durnescu, 2019; Western,2018). It might be wise to focus our research and development partly at least on better
identifying these barriers and, crucially, on discerning what kinds of laws, policies andpractices work to reduce or remove them.
One of criminology’s failings, perhaps, has been to use evaluation approaches that
settle for measuring mainly the absence of negative outcomes – like reoffending – rather
than the achievement of positive social goods. Until recently, in a move partly inspired forme at least by desistence research, criminology has also failed to properly articulate theend-state that criminal sanctions seek.
But if we want to create flourishing and sustainable communities and societies, thenwe have to be brave enough to imagine what these look like. One eminent scholar who didso was Nils Christie (2004). He suggested firstly that if we believe in kindness andforgiveness as values, then we ought to keep “the institution of penal law” a small one;secondly, that if we believe in keeping civil societies civil, then we should keep theinstitution of penal law small; and thirdly, that if we value living in cohesive, integrated
societies, then we must restrain the growth of that institution.
In closing my remarks, I would add only that we should also work to ensure that, when
we must have recourse to the penal law, we should measure and judge it and its
implementation not principally by reconviction rates, but rather by a much more exacting
standard: We should measure the extent to which it secures the reintegration of those that- 39 - 39 -

it punishes. The means and the markers of integration are to be found in employment,
housing, education and health and well-being. Success in these areas is underpinned by oursocial connections and facilitated both by the knowledge and skills we have acquired andby our sense of safety and stability. At the foundation of integration lies our enjoyment ofrights and citizenship. To flourish in our lives and work, we need security, safety,
competence and connection (Ager and Strang (2004, 2008).
Reintegration is or should be seen as the central social function of punishment. It
follows that we must both conceptualize and measure the success or failure of our penal
systems accordingly. The questions we must ask and answer are these: Do these systems
re-establish rights and citizenship? Do they create safety, stability and competence? Do
they build social connections? Do they enable people to secure work, housing, educationand health?
Wherever and whenever the honest answer to these questions is “No”, then it is thesystem we must strive to change, and perhaps the social frailties that it reflects. Because
systems and societies that fail to reintegrate also inevitably fail to meet Goal 16 of the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development 5; which seeks to establish peaceful and inclusive
societies, to provide access to justice for all and to build effective, accountable andinclusive institutions. That is and must be the mark and the measure for all Member States.

5

A/RES/70/1.

- 40 - 40 -

REFERENCES
Ager, A. and Strang, A. (2004). Indicators of integration: Final report. Retrieved fromhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/http://rds.homeoffice.
gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/dpr28.pdf, accessed 8 May 2015.
Ager, A. and Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework.
Journal of Refugee Studies, 21: 166-191.
Aresti, A., Eatough, V. and Brooks-Gordon, B. (2010) ‘Doing Time after Time: An
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Reformed Ex-Prisoners’ Experiencesof Self-Change, Identity and Career Opportunities’. Psychology, Crime & Law,
16(3): 169–190.
Buck, G. (2020) ‘Mentoring in the justice system’ in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill,F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge
Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Burke, L., Collett, S. and McNeill, F. (2018) Reimagining Rehabilitation: Beyond theindividual. London: Routledge.
Caulfield, L. and Simpson, E. (2020) ‘Arts-based interventions in the justice system’, inUgwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C.
(eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal
Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Chadwick, N., Serin, C. and Lloyd, C. (2020) ‘Examining community supervision
officers’ skills and behaviours: a review of strategies for identifying the innerworkings of face-to-face supervision sessions’, in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H.,
McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge
Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Chapman, T. (2020) ‘Restorative justice: a different approach to working with offenders
and those whom they have harmed’, in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F.,
Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to
Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Christie, N. (2004) A suitable amount of crime. Abingdon: Routledge.
du Bois-Pedain, A. (2017) ‘Punishment as an inclusionary practice: Sentencing in a liberalconstitutional state’, in. A. du Bois-Pedain, M. Ulväng and P. Asp (eds.), Criminal
Law and the Authority of the State. Oxford: Hart, Bloomsbury.
Durnescu, I. (2019) ‘Pains of Reentry Revisited’, International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63 (8): 1482-1498.
Giordano, P., Cernkovich, S., and Rudolph, J. (2002) ‘Gender, Crime and Desistance’
American Journal of Sociology 107: 990-1064.

- 41 - 41 -Graham, H. and McNeill, F. (2017) ‘Desistance: Envisioning Futures’ in Carlen, P and
Ayres Franca, L. (eds.) Alternative Criminologies. Routledge: London.
Haas, S. and Smith, J. (2020) ‘Core Correctional Practice: the role of the working alliancein offender rehabilitation’, in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P.,
Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to
Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Halushka, J. (2020) ‘Prisoner re-entry in the United States’, in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H.,
McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge
Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Jewkes. Y. and Gooch, K. (2020) ‘The rehabilitative prison: An oxymoron, or an
opportunity to radically reform the way we do punishment?’, in Ugwudike, P.,
Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The
Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Johnson, K. and Maruna, S. (2020) ‘Doing justice to desistance narratives’ in Ugwudike,P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020)
The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Kazemian, L. (2019) Positive Growth and Redemption in Prison: Finding Light Behind
Bars and Beyond. Abingdon: Routledge.
Kotova, A. (2020) ‘The role of offenders’ family links in offender rehabilitation’, inUgwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C.
(eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice.
Abingdon: Routledge.
LeBel, T. (2020) ‘Strengths-based re-entry and resettlement’, in Ugwudike, P., Graham,
H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge
Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Levenson, J. (2020) ‘Trauma-informed practices with youth in criminal justice settings’,in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C.
(eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Liebling, A. (2020) ‘Prisons, personal development and austerity’, in Ugwudike, P.,
Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The
Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Maruna, S. and King, A. (2009) ‘Once a criminal, always a criminal? ‘Redeemability’ andthe psychology of punitive public attitudes’. European Journal on Criminal Policy
and Research 15: 7–24.

- 42 - 42 -

Meek, R. (2020) ‘The use of sport to promote employment, education and desistance from
crime: lessons from a review of English and Welsh prisons’, in Ugwudike, P.,
Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The
Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon:
Routledge.
McAra, L., and McVie, S. (2009) ‘Youth Justice? The Impact of System Contact on
Patterns of Desistance from Offending’ in Goldson, B., & Muncie, J. (eds.) Youth
Crime and Juvenile Justice, London: SAGE Publications.
McNeill, F. (2016) ‘The fuel in the tank or the hole in the boat? Can sanctions support
desistance’ in Shapland, J., Farrall, S. and Bottoms, A. (eds.) Global perspectives
on desistance. Rethinking what we know and looking to the future. London:
Routledge.
McNeill, F. (2019) Pervasive Punishment: Making sense of mass supervision. Bingley:
Emerald Publishing.
McNeill, F. and Graham, H. (2020) ‘Conceptualising rehabilitation: four forms, twomodels, once process and a plethora of challenges’, in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H.,
McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge
Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
McNeill, F. and Schinkel, M. (2016) ‘Prisons and desistance’ in Jewkes, Y., Crewe, B. andBennett, J. (eds.) Handbook on Prisons. 2nd edition. Routledge: London.
McNeill, F., Farrall, S., Lightowler, C., and Maruna, S. (2012) ‘Reexamining “EvidenceBased Practice” in Community Corrections: Beyond “a Confined View” of What
Works’, Justice Research and Policy 14(1): 35-60.
Purvis, M. and Ward, T. (2020) ‘An overview of the Good Lives Model: theory andevidence’, in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. andTrotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in
Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.
Schinkel, M. (2014) Being Imprisoned: Punishment, Adaptation and Desistance. Series:
Palgrave studies in prisons and penology. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Schinkel, M. (2015) ‘Hook for change or shaky peg? Imprisonment, narratives anddesistance’. European Journal of Probation 7(1):5-20.
Todd-Kvam, J. and Ugelvik, T. (2020) ‘Rehabilitation and reentry in Scandinavia’ in
Ugwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C.
(eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice.
Abingdon: Routledge.
Trotter, C. (2020) ‘Pro-social modelling’, in Ugwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F.,
Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C. (eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to
Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

- 43 - 43 -

Weaver, B. (2015) Offending and Desistance: The Importance of Social Relations, London:
Routledge. Western, B. (2018) Homeward: Life in the year after prison. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Ziv, R. (2020) ‘The evidence-based approach to correctional rehabilitation: current statusof the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation’, inUgwudike, P., Graham, H., McNeill, F., Raynor, P., Taxman, F. and Trotter, C.
(eds.) (2020) The Routledge Companion to Rehabilitative Work in Criminal Justice.
Abingdon: Routledge.

- 44 - 44 -

CREATING REHABILITATIVE PRISON ENVIRONMENTS
Vera Tkachenko *Excellencies,
Ladies and gentlemen,
It is an enormous honour for me to be here and speak at the world’s largest and valuable
forum in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. I want to express sincere
gratitude to the Government of Japan for organizing this event during the unprecedented
challenges posed by the pandemic.
This pandemic continues to cast a heavy shadow over our world, and our prospects ofachieving the Sustainable Development Goals and leaving no one behind are in real danger.
The aim of this presentation is to present areas that contribute to creating safe, decent
and rehabilitative environments in prisons that facilitate the offender’s successful
reintegration into society.
Over 11 million people are imprisoned globally, the highest number yet. A large
number of prison systems around the world are at a stage of crisis. It harms prisoners, theirfamilies and societies as a whole. The reality in many prisons tends to be not only far frominternational standards, but also risks undermining the ultimate purpose of a sentence ofimprisonment: the protection of society from crime.
Around 130 countries reported critical (79 countries > 120 % of capacity) and extreme(51 countries > 150% of capacity) overcrowding, with prison occupancy levels of over 120
and 150 per cent.
Given the global trends and the continued growth of the prison population, it is crucial
for the Member States to give special attention to men, women, and children who are
marginalized in justice systems and often in the wider community.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The size of the prison population is defined by two simple factors: how many people
are sent to prisons and how long they are kept there.
Despite this dire situation, since 2000, the number of people in pre-trial/remand
imprisonment has grown by just over 30 per cent and the world prison population by 24
per cent, with considerable differences between and within the continents. The total prison
population in Oceania has increased by 86 per cent, that in the Americas by 41 per cent,that in Asia by 38 per cent and that in Africa by 29 per cent; in Europe, by contrast, theCrime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer, Justice Section, Division for Operations, United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).

*- 45 - 45 -

total prison population has decreased by 22 per cent. The European figure reflects large
falls in prison populations in Russia (45%) and also in central and eastern Europe; theprison population in Europe other than Russia has increased by 3 per cent. Particularly large
rises have been recorded in South America (175%) and south-eastern Asia (122%).
Though there is no simple explanation for the widely varying rates in the use and overuse of imprisonment, reasons are likely to include social-economic situation, punitive
criminal justice policies, excessive use of pre-trial detention and imprisonment, insufficientmeasures to promote social reintegration, inadequate prison infrastructure and capacity.
The overwhelming majority of people in prisons continue to come from poor,
marginalized and disadvantaged backgrounds and are likely to have a history of abuse andneglect, often experienced as children.
Poor prison conditions, overcrowding, under-staffing and a lack of investment in prison
reform programming all heavily undermine the capacity of prison administrations toeffectively rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners back into societies and contribute to thehigh recidivism rates. Many people are released from prison, only to return there shortly
after.
When penitentiary systems are overstretched and poorly managed, prisons run the riskof degenerating into dangerous places for both prisoners and prison staff and can even turninto “crime schools” and fertile breeding grounds for radicalization.
The magnitude and threat of existing challenges in prisons stemming from overimprisonment became even more evident in efforts to prevent and contain outbreaks of
Covid-19 in prisons. It will require concerted actions at the global level and strong political
will at the national level to solve existing challenges and address new ones brough forth by
the pandemic.
UNODC in partnership with governments, other international partners and civil society
organizations supported more than 60 countries in developing and implementing crime
prevention and criminal justice policies and strategies.
UNODC’s portfolio of programmes and services related to prison reform andalternatives to imprisonment benefited countries on all continents and focused on threestrategic objectives (i) reducing the scope of imprisonment, (ii) improving prison
conditions and (iii) supporting social reintegration of offenders upon release.
Let me refer to the lessons learned from two Central Asia countries – Kazakhstan andKyrgyzstan – that took concrete steps to reduce overreliance on imprisonment by shifting
policies towards prevention and social reintegration.
The organizational culture of prison services dramatically influences how the overall
principles governing prison management are translated into practice. The existence of acivilian prison system with professional staff is a pre-condition for creating safe, decent
and rehabilitative processes and environments in prisons. The experience of the abovementioned countries demonstrated that enhanced investment in the most critical resourceof a prison system, namely its personnel, is crucial to allow them to fulfil their complex
and multifaceted tasks.
- 46 - 46 -Prison conditions relate to the overall quality of accommodation, sanitation, hygiene,
the provision of basic services as well as rehabilitation opportunities. Prison conditions
constitute a vital aspect of the overall quality of prison life and the dignity of prisoners.
While rehabilitation and security are often seen as opposites, the experience from
Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan demonstrates that the contrary is true. A rehabilitative prison
environment enhances safety and security inside prisons, as prisoners who are involved inpurposeful activities are easier to manage and less prone to violence.
Dedicated programmes should be designed to address the root causes of offending andenhance the prospects for prisoners’ social reintegration.
Prisoners need to have access to health services, including essential medicine, free ofcharge and of a standard at least similar to that applicable in the community. Health-care
professionals in prisons must be guided by the same ethical and professional standards as
those applicable to patients in the community. Good prison health also benefits publichealth outcomes and the prevention of recidivism, as many drivers of criminal behaviour
are health-related (for example substance use or mental health disorders).
Particular attention should be given to prisoners with special needs, including children
and young persons, women and elderly, prisoners with disabilities, those with chronic
diseases or mental health care needs, foreign prisoners, prisoners belonging to ethnic
minorities, LGBTI prisoners, those serving life sentences as well as prisoners undersentence of death.
Prisons do not make people better. On the contrary, imprisonment exacerbates many of
the challenges faced by individuals who have come in conflict with the law. In addition,
long and harsh prison sentences may result in so-called “institutionalization” affecting
prisoners’ personalities as well as social and life skills in a way that makes their social
rehabilitation even more difficult.
Last but not least, the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners is a societal task thatcannot be fulfilled by the prison service alone. The support of relevant government entities
is critical and could benefit from the active involvement of civil society. This approach
mitigates the isolation of prisons from the outside world and contributes to the“normalization” of prisons.
Numerous research projects in various countries proved no link between the prison
population and levels of crime. And the experience of Kazakhstan is very relevant here.
The country reduced its prison population by almost 35,000, from 63,445 in 2010 to 28,923
in 2021. This was achieved in part by reducing the length of prison terms (with the averagesentence decreasing from nine and a half years to eight and a half), the increased use ofnon-custodial sanctions (increased from 658 sanctions to 1,086 sanctions) and parole
conditions. Along with this fall in the prison population, measures to encourage therecording of crimes were strengthened in Kazakhstan – but the overall crime rates, despite
the reduction of the prison population, continued to decline. The number of homicides in
Kazakhstan reduced by 24 per cent from 2009 to 2019, and at the same time the prison
population reduced by over 33,000, from 62,997 to 29,913.

- 47 - 47 -

In-depth assessments of national criminal justice systems, combined with a revision of
relevant policies and legislation, enhancing the institutional capacity, improvement ofprison management and infrastructure and strengthening of public oversight mechanisms,
served as the basis for successful interventions within and beyond the prison systems.
The constructive partnership between the state institutions, international partners andcivil society organizations generated political will that contributed to promoting arehabilitative approach to prison management and advancing the rehabilitation and social
reintegration of offenders.
As we look forward, we must ask ourselves about the reasons for the continued growthof the overall prison population and high recidivism rates, understand new challenges
facing established prison systems (which include the increase in prisoners who haveradical political agendas, increase in foreign national prisoners, the increasing use ofprisons as a way to manage socially stigmatized groups in society) and keep on the struggle
to get out of prison the people who should not be there – the sick, the addicted, themarginalized, and to endeavour to ensure that those in prison are treated according to the
UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Nelson Mandela Rules) that
Member States have all supported.
Thank you, and I wish you a productive and successful meeting.

- 48 - 48 -

APPLYING RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY-BASEDREHABILITATION: THE NAMIBIAN EXPERIENCEMariana Martin *I. INTRODUCTIONIn Namibia, implementation of the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy,
principally founded on the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model, has resulted in remarkabledifferences in offender behaviour during confinement, in turn positively impacting thedelivery of programming and other correctional services to offenders. The primary goal of
the strategy is to gear offenders towards successful reintegration following release,ultimately promoting public safety. However, the implementation of scientific andevidence-based approaches presents various challenges, particularly to resource-deficient
nations like Namibia, where various social factors impinge on efforts to rehabilitate
offenders. The paper shares the Namibian experience in introducing its correctional
strategy in its correctional facilities, highlighting the contextual challenges experienced andthe strategies implemented to mitigate them. The paper also highlights the benefits notedwith implementing its risk-and-need-based correctional strategy.
II. BACKGROUND
Recognizing that the provision of scientific and evidence-based rehabilitation of
offenders is key to desistance and ensuring public safety, the Namibian Correctional
Service, being the custodian of both institutionalized and community-based offenders in
the country and having the responsibility to ensure their rehabilitation and successful
reintegration, in 2012 officially inaugurated its Offender Risk Management Correctional
Strategy.
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy guides all operations relating tooffender management, control, rehabilitation and reintegration, promoting a safe andconducive correctional environment and ensuring the reduction of recidivism. Essentially,
it recognizes the individuality of each offender in terms of the factors that may haveprecipitated their offending, the risks they may present for future offending, the needs they
may have to address their criminogenic factors, and in terms of their motivation to address
their needs and work towards changing their lifestyles.
With that ideology, the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy aims toidentify the individual risk factors of offenders in order to manage them more effectively
according to their individual risk profiles.
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy is brought to life by multiple
components, which mutually interact towards effective offender rehabilitation and
Deputy Commissioner-General: Rehabilitation and Reintegration, Namibian Correctional Service,
Namibia (Mariana.Martin@ncs.gov.na).

*- 49 - 49 -

reintegration:
A. Objective Risk/Needs Assessment and Security Classification of Offenders
Risks/needs assessment is the foundation for implementing the Offender Risk
Management Correctional Strategy.
Starting soon after admission, identifying the factors that were/are most involved in thecriminal behaviour of an offender is embarked on through objective risk/needs assessment.
The process necessitates assessment instruments that can identify the right factors leading
to a comprehensive criminal profile of an offender that documents the precipitating factors
to the offence (e.g., emotional state and attitudes at the time, influences from others,
contribution of alcohol or drug use, problems with anger, low ability for problem-solving,
impulsivity, etc.).
A properly completed criminal profile provides direction on repeated patterns of
behaviour that the individual offender may have learned, and needs to unlearn. Together
with a more general and systematic risk/needs assessment of the offender, a picture ispainted of what the offender can work on in attempting to change their behaviour during
their period in custody. Assessment is continued throughout the offender’s period ofincarceration and enables gradual changing of the offender’s security status from one levelof security to another.
B. Correctional Treatment Planning
The understanding generated of the offender’s risks/needs informs a plan of action
where the correctional service can assist the offender to address their needs. This plan ofaction is a detailed outline of the steps the offender can take, both in the shorter-term andin the longer-term to begin to address their areas of difficulty and improve their chances ofsuccessful reintegration. It is specific in outlining who will do what, with what aims, overwhat time frame, and with what other supports. Progress in pursuing the plan is monitored
throughout the sentence, with attention paid to evidence of success in achieving the set
objectives.
C. Case Management
Case Management is the process that takes place to help offenders execute theirindividualized correctional treatment plan.
Primary responsibility to help support and guide the offender in this respect rests withan individual correctional officer, assigned the role of Case Management Officer, thoughother correctional staff also assist with their observation and analysis of the offender’sbehaviour on an on-going basis.
Through regular interaction and the provision of supportive and directive counselling,
the Case Management Officer gets to know the offender, and their style, habits and patternsof behaviour. More than just being someone who responds to complaints, the CaseManagement Officer plays the role of being a mentor to the offender, someone who
consistently directs and redirects the offender towards ways of achieving their life goals,changing their attitudes and benefiting most from the experience of incarceration.

- 50 - 50 -

D. Effective Programme Development and Delivery
The efficacy of the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy hinges, in the end,on the availability and quality of programmes and services to assist offenders.
In line with the responsivity principle, the Namibian Correctional Service ensures thatits programmes respond to the characteristics and needs of its offender population, taking
the prevailing risk factors and the personal weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the offenders
into account.
Programmes are tailor-made to, and respond to, the Namibian population, realities andenvironment. Where programmes that are developed elsewhere are used, they are subjected
to a rigorous process of adaptation and domestication.
E. Unit Management
Unit Management is a generally accepted model in modern correctional practice thataims to cluster offenders into smaller, more manageable groupings within a larger
correctional setting (usually groups of about 80 to 120 offenders) so that there can be more
effective deployment of active, dynamic security as an alternative to only passive, static
security.
The notion is that offender rehabilitation is better achieved through an environment thatfacilitates interaction between correctional officers and offenders wherein there is directsupervision on a human-to-human level rather than simply the guarding and disciplining ofoffenders.
The Unit Management model enables professional relationship-building between
correctional staff members and offenders and works more effectively within an ideal
architectural and physical structure designed to accommodate it and also works more
effectively when there is an appropriate compliment of trained and qualified officers
performing various roles.
III. APPLICATION OF THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY MODEL THROUGH
THE OFFENDER RISK MANAGEMENT CORRECTIONAL STRATEGY
Predominantly based on the risk-need-responsivity model, the Offender Risk
Management Correctional Strategy is premised on the firm belief that offenders are capableof changing. However, it is believed that this change is more likely to happen when
programming is based on scientific and evidence-based practices.
In line with the risk principle, programme interventions are provided based on
individual offender needs since different factors underlie the offending of different
individuals. Correspondingly, offenders undergo thorough assessments to reliably
differentiate low-risk from high-risk offenders, and high-risk offenders are then prioritizedin accessing the most intensive rehabilitation programmes.
Furthermore, in its appreciation of the reality that there are many factors that can beused to explain offending behaviour, the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy
recognizes the need for a multitude of interventions covering a range of offender needs
such as substance use management, education, vocational training, psycho-education, etc.
- 51 - 51 -

Thus, the Namibian Correctional Service essentially provides an assortment of
rehabilitation programmes and activities to offenders on the basis of their needs,
prioritizing the most intensive cognitive-behavioural-based programmes for offenders who
are assessed as posing a significant risk of (violent) reoffending. This is in line with the risk
principle that states that the intensity of services given to offenders must be calibrated tothe amount of risk that they pose.
Where programmes are based on the cognitive-behavioural model, their aim is to help
offenders detach from their antisocial tendencies by providing them with extensive
opportunity to practice, rehearse and pattern more prosocial behaviour.
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy responds to the inference drawn
from the responsivity principle that treatment interventions are to consider personal
strengths and weaknesses such as the motivation and individual learning styles of offenders,
as well as various other barriers to meaningful programme participation.
Thus, offenders who may not be in a position to gainfully participate in intensive
cognitive-behavioural-model-based rehabilitation programmes, due to factors such as low
motivation, are encouraged to participate in less intensive support cognitive-behaviouralbased rehabilitation activities prior to participation in the core cognitive-behavioural-based
programmes. Furthermore, as expounded on further in this document, when grouping
offenders into these programmes, due consideration is paid to their personalities, cognitive
styles, language and literacy abilities and other personal characteristics. Programme Officer
qualities are also attended to as a means to enhance responsivity to the programmes.
IV. THE NAMIBIAN EXPERIENCE IN APPLYING THE RISK-NEEDRESPONSIVIVITY PARADIGM
Since embarking on basing its rehabilitation strategy on modern correctional models(risk-need-responsivity) over a decade ago, the Namibian Correctional Service has learned
that transforming to evidence-based correctional practice is a mammoth undertaking
requiring substantial resources, both human and non-human, in order to attain set standards.
For example, most of Namibia’s correctional facilities are old structures inherited fromthe colonial era, and the infrastructure was largely custody oriented and was established toserve the specific needs of the colonial and apartheid ideology. Although some of its
correctional facilities were constructed after the country’s independence, they did notconform to the design and structural requirements of the Unit Management principle.
It, therefore, follows that significant modifications to the infrastructure had to beundertaken to accommodate the Unit Management concept. However, getting all thetargeted facilities to the required standard has been a taxing endeavour owing to resource
constraints. Work still needs to be done on a number of facilities to get them to meet thecorrect specifications, whereas plans exist to replace some correctional facilities with newly
constructed ones.
The partitioning of facilities into smaller functional segments in place of the large
sections that previously accommodated an average of 500 offenders means that correctional
facilities now have smaller units of different security classifications accommodating the- 52 - 52 -

sentenced offenders. This has resulted in notable rehabilitative and security benefits ascorrectional officers are now better able to monitor and interact with offenders, which, inturn, allows them to more effectively address the needs of offenders and also easily detectand swiftly react to potential risks posed by offenders.
Furthermore, implementation of the Risk-Need-Responsivity-based approach brought
to light the necessity of comprehensive and accurate documentation of offender behaviourand occurrences as well as quality information about their backgrounds and criminal
histories, the nature and circumstances of their offending, their needs and problems,
strengths and potential, etc., all of which feed into a proper analysis of risk.
The Namibian Correctional Service has learned that without comprehensive
information on an offender’s criminal and social history, or on the particulars of theiroffence, it becomes very challenging to conduct a proper analysis of risk. This has abearing on the identification of the offender’s needs for rehabilitation. Lack of quality dataalso has a bearing on the correct identification of offender requirements for successful
reintegration as well the accurate analysis of outstanding risks at the time of release into
society. Furthermore, lack of data makes it impossible to measure growth and successes of
the rehabilitation efforts.
This has been resolved by the implementation of a comprehensive electronic offender
information management system in 2015, which is used to record, monitor and evaluate
offender data. The system is undergoing constant improvement, with a module to track
security incidences committed by offenders having been added in 2016 and othermodifications still ongoing. However, critical ICT equipment shortages are a major setback
to the full utilization of the information system and the timely recording of offender data.
Additionally, the experience of the Namibian Correctional Service in implementing its
risk-need-responsivity-based correctional strategy is that its efficacy is further impacted by
the quality of its workforce. Implementation of the Offender Risk Management
Correctional Strategy has made the Namibian Correctional Service aware that the qualityof its risk assessment and related processes was being adversely affected by a lack ofsuitably qualified and skilled officers. It recognized that a proper Risk-Need-Responsivity
Model requires professional staff with good interviewing skills, and the requisite criticalanalysis and judgment for managing offenders who deny criminal responsibility.
Over the years the Namibian Correctional Service has made significant progress inattaining the appropriately diversified and skilled workforce required to make its offendermanagement strategy work. However, it still has fairly large ground to cover before it has
the required levels of staff to make the desired impact, both quantitatively as well as
qualitatively.
V. ADAPTATION OF THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITY MODEL TO THE
NAMIBIAN CONTEXT
The socio-economic characteristics of the Namibian population present somechallenges that necessitated the correctional service to become creative to ensure that when
delivering rehabilitation programmes, the Risk-Need-Responsibility principles are appliedin a manner that is sensitive to those complications.
- 53 - 53 -Specifically concerning the delivery of its Cognitive-Behavioural-Therapy-based
programme interventions, measures needed to be put in place to ensure they are delivered
in a style and manner that best befits the characteristics of its offender population.
Although some challenges are experienced at some correctional facilities to identify
sufficient numbers of offenders that meet the criteria for participation in programmes basedon their risk factors, this is not a general concern. On the other hand, it is a constantchallenge to find offenders who not only qualify for participation in certain rehabilitation
programmes by virtue of possessing high risks/needs but are also able to optimally benefit
from participation in those programmes based on their language and literacy capabilities.
Despite English being the official language in the country, Namibia is home to a wide
diversity of languages, with the native languages being the most widely spoken andunderstood. While only 1.5 per cent of the country’s population have never had formal
education, 1 a grave picture is painted within the correctional setting. In November 2020 thecountry’s most populous correctional facility, the Windhoek Correctional Facility,
recorded a total of 100 offenders that never had any formal education out of a populationof 639 offenders that were assessed. This represents 15.6 per cent of that population.
Expectedly, a considerable number of offenders are unable to gainfully participate incognitive-behavioural based interventions, because they are unable to comprehend theprimary language of delivery of those programmes (English) and are also not able to reador participate in any written group work. Literacy skills are particularly important to beable to benefit from the cognitive-behavioural-based interventions as written assignments
are acritical aspect of those programmes.
To allow the programmes to be available to as many offenders as possible, theNamibian Correctional Service decided to include offenders presenting with only one of
the barriers (language/illiteracy) in cognitive-behavioural-based programme participation
although such offenders would require the Programme Officers to conjointly address the
problem of literacy and language while attending to their risk factors.
As a way to promote responsivity, the cognitive-behavioural-based programmes aredelivered in a manner that is mindful of the above-mentioned challenges. For example,
since programmes are delivered in English, key concepts are translated into local languages.
This approach is supplemented by pairing Programme Officers in a manner that at least oneof them is able to communicate in a different local language.
Where comprehension of English is a problem, offenders who speak the samevernacular language are also placed in the same group to make it easier for Programme
Officers to translate programme content to them. Offenders who are unable to complete
written tasks in English are further encouraged to do so in their vernaculars.
Where difficulties exist to serve an offender due to language barriers, even after theabove efforts have been made, such offender can be transferred to another correctional
facility that has Programme Officers that are able to communicate with the offender in theirvernacular to enable programme participation.
Namibia Statistics Agency. (2011). Namibia 2011 Population and Housing Census Main Report: Republicof Namibia. <https://cms.my.na/assets/documents/p19dmn58guram30ttun89rdrp1.pdf>.

1- 54 - 54 -Thus, with thoughtful and attentive delivery, offenders with language or literacy
barriers are still able to have their risks and needs addressed through cognitive-behaviouralbased programme participation. 2
Another aspect of programme delivery introduced in Namibia, which is quite resource
intensive, but essential, is that every offender in the group is periodically seen individually
by a Programme Officer for a review and support session. These one-to-one sessions havebeen reported by the Programme Officers to have been very useful and productive,
especially for those offenders with English proficiency problems and those experiencing
the content of the programmes as cognitively challenging.
As a durable solution to the literacy and language problem, the correctional service hasover the last decade redoubled its efforts in revamping and strengthening its educational
activities in appreciation of the full importance and relevance of offender education to thesuccess of the delivery of its core rehabilitation programmes.
However, the concentration of efforts on addressing the basic educational needs ofoffenders is not only done to enable them to benefit from the cognitive-behavioural-based
programmes, but also as a rehabilitation effort on its own to address education andemployability as risk factors.
In the past, literacy and educational upgrading was provided to offenders mostly basedon their expressed interest. However, offenders’ literacy and educational levels are now
recorded upon admission to correctional facilities, and educational services are now
provided more based on need, not just on interest.
VI. EFFICACY OF INTRODUCING THE RISK-NEED-RESPONSIVITYMODEL-BASED REHABILITATION STRATEGY IN NAMIBIA
The management of offenders according to their risk profiles has significantly helped
the correctional service mitigate the challenge of resource constraints by enabling it toconcentrate its scarce resources where they would have the most impact.
As a case in point, the eight correctional facilities that have implemented the Offender
Risk Management Correctional Strategy are classified according to the following security
levels: Maximum, Medium, Low-Medium and Minimum. With the focus and intensity of
security work (both static and dynamic) varying by level of security, the ratio of the number
of offenders and the total number of correctional officers providing security duties in the
different units reflect this difference.
For example, fewer officers are deployed in lower security living units, allowing for alarger concentration of staff in the units requiring stricter security. Where one correctional
officer (security) is required for every six offenders in a maximum living unit, one
correctional officer (security) is required for every ten offenders in a minimum living unit.
Offenders that present with both literacy and language barriers are not able to participate in cognitivebehavioural-based interventions as they pose double challenges, rendering their responsivity toprogramming low. Such offenders are first referred to the literacy programme to develop literacy andEnglish competencies, following which they can become eligible to participate in the cognitivebehavioural-based programmes.

2- 55 - 55 -

Furthermore, fewer infrastructural requirements exist for lower than for higher security
level living units. For example, one of the security features of a maximum security unit isthat its courtyard needs to be roofed by diamond mesh. On the other hand, no roofed
courtyard is required for a minimum security unit. This saves on infrastructure costs that
can then be used to tighten up security at higher security units.
In terms of the outcomes of implementing the Offender Risk Management Correctional
Strategy, it is still premature to properly gain appreciation of its efficacy, both in terms of
its ability to reduce security incidents within correctional facilities as well as in terms of
being an effective approach to reduce recidivism.
Although the implementation of the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy
at the Windhoek, Elizabeth Nepemba and Evaristus Shikongo correctional facilities alreadytook place in 2010, 2011 and 2014, respectively, rolling out the strategy to the Windhoek
Female, Divundu, Walvis Bay, Hardap and Oluno correctional facilities only took place in
2019. Furthermore, this was done with scant resources, particularly relating to humanresources, and with some facilities missing some crucial components of the strategy suchas infrastructure conforming to the Unit Management philosophy.
The ability to gain proper perspective of the efficacy of Risk-Need-Responsivity-based
rehabilitation in Namibia is compounded by the fact that it is a challenge to find proper
data on offender behaviour before the implementation of the electronic offender
information management system in 2015/2016. Preliminary data, however, shows someindication that adoption of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model might be promising in so
far as its ability to positively influence offender behaviour goes.
Analysis was conducted on the incident trends (escapes, assaults & fights) of the latest
four facilities to have implemented the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy
to determine if any changes in the frequency of security incidents occurred since theiradoption of the strategy. As only a year had passed from the introduction of the strategy to
the time of the analysis, comparison could only be made between incidents that had
occurred during the year following introduction of the strategy and those that had transpiredin the year immediately before as well as the year of implementation of the strategy. 3
Figure 1 shows a notable reduction in the occurrence of assaults committed by
offenders at the four facilities to have last implemented the Offender Risk Management
Correctional Strategy since its implementation. Although escapes were generally low at
those facilities even before introduction of the strategy, a reduction was observed since its
implementation. A sharp increase in the occurrence of fights was, however, observed
during the year the strategy was implemented and a sharp decline again thereafter. As aresult, a pattern between the occurrence of fights and the implementation of the strategy
cannot as yet clearly be established at the four correctional facilities.
Only the Divundu, Hardap, Walvis Bay and Oluno Correctional Facilities are included in this analysis,
because they are the most recent facilities to have implemented the strategy and the incident records ofthose facilities before their implementation of the strategy were available at the time of this report. In
contrast, data on the incidents at the Windhoek, Evaristus Shikongo and Elizabeth Nepemba Correctional
Facilities before their implementation of the strategy were not comprehensive, making comparative
analyses of the incidents at those facilities before and after implementation of the strategy challenging.
Furthermore, although the strategy has been rolled out to eight facilities in total, statistics for the Windhoek
Female Correctional facility are usually recorded under those of the Windhoek Correctional Facility.

3- 56 - 56 -

Figure 1: Security Incidents of Facilities after Implementation of the ORMCS

Security Incidents
90
80

79

77

No of Incidents

70
60
50
40

47
44

39
38

30
20
10
0

5
2018

5

3

2019
Escapes

2020
Assaults

FightsAs per Figure: 2, offenders in Namibia across all correctional facilities, including thosethat have not implemented the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy, escaped
significantly more before the adoption of the strategy. 4
In total, 89 escapes occurred from 1997 to 2001, 5 whereas only about a third of thatfigure (32) were experienced from 2016 to 2020. Additionally, the highest frequency ofescapes experienced in a year over the period 2016-2020 was 9. On the other hand, thehighest number of escapes over the period 1997-2001 was 28, with 13 being the lowest
number of escapes recorded in a year during that period.

Separate data focusing only on the facilities that have implemented the strategy is not available. Including
correctional facilities that have not implemented the Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy inthe analysis is possibly likely to undershoot the influence of the strategy on the frequency of escapes.
5
The period 1997-2001 was randomly selected to compare with simply due to convenience ascomprehensive escape records were available for that period, whereas the data accessible for other years
was fragmented. Inconsistencies in reporting formats also made it difficult to compare data between certain
periods.
4- 57 - 57 -

Figure 2: Escapes by Offenders under Custody of the Namibian Correctional Service before and after
Implementation of the ORMCS

Escape Comparisons over Five-Year Periods
30

28

25
19

20
15
15

14

9

10

7

6

6

4

5
0

13

1997-2001

2016-2020
Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5In December 2016 the Namibian Correctional Service implemented a new Community
Supervision framework for the supervision of offenders released conditionally on Full
Parole or Remission of Sentence that is aligned to the Offender Risk Management
Correctional Strategy. Since then (December 2016 to December 2020), 7,717 offenders,were released into Community Supervision, of which 223 ended up getting reconvicted of
new offences, representing a mere 2.9 per cent of the population.
Although, this aspect relates to the management of offenders outside of confinement,
the reality that all offenders released into Community Supervision in Namibia are now
being supervised in terms of their individual risk profiles and corresponding needs acrossthe country provides support for the usefulness of Risk-Need-Responsivity-based offendermanagement in reducing reoffending.
Although more research needs to be conducted for conclusive deductions to be drawn
regarding the impact of the introduction of the Offender Risk Management Correctional
Strategy on the regulation of offender behaviour during incarceration and, ultimately, on
reducing recidivism, the above findings suggest that there are some indications that
implementing of the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model has shown itself to be effective inmanaging offender risk in Namibia.
It is recognized that there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that all targeted
correctional facilities fully implement all components of the Offender Risk Management
Correctional Strategy and fully apply it as intended for its benefits of the to be fully realized.

- 58 - 58 -

VII.

CONCLUSION

Although this paper focused on the approach of the Namibian Correctional Service tomanage offender behaviour and reduce recidivism through its application of a Risk-NeedResponsivity Model, the country’s strategy to rehabilitate offenders is not limited to theaddressing of criminogenic needs.
The Offender Risk Management Correctional Strategy implemented by the Namibian
Correctional Service recognizes that offenders have various other needs and concerns that,
if not attended to, can also interfere with their desistance from crime.
It, therefore, follows that a range of support programmes and services are also in place
to attend to offenders’ personal problems and reintegration concerns.
Furthermore, the benefits witnessed so far from implementing the Risk-NeedResponsivity-based model are attributable to the immense material, human resource andfinancial investments made by the Namibian Correctional Service to ensure the effective
implementation of the model, in addition to the development of new policies and thecontinuous reviewing of old ones to ensure they are aligned to the effective implementationof the model. This is in recognition that all correctional practices, and the correctional
climate as a whole, have a bearing on the effective implementation of its strategy, and on
the ultimate reduction of recidivism.
Overall, albeit with lots of dedication and innovation, the Namibian experiencedemonstrates that the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model is an encouraging approach for
reducing recidivism, and that it shows itself to be implementable in any context with theright mix of ingredients.

- 59 - 59 -

- 60 - 60 -

CREATING REHABILITATIVE PRISON ENVIRONMENTS: ANTICORRUPTION POLICIESDr. Emiliano Blanco *I. INTRODUCTION
When I assumed the position of National Director in 2014, one of the first steps needed
was to define the objectives of the prison administration. These objectives would be thereduction of reoffending and recidivism, 1 public protection and the promotion of desistancefrom crime. This may appear as a trivial question, but in our tradition, it is central, due to,on the one hand, that these objectives where not seen as the purposes of punishment(because of the influence of critical criminology in our region), and on the other hand, as
an aid to orientate and organize the reform process of our system.
Having our objectives in mind, an action plan was implemented to ensure its realization,
based primarily on the need of having an objective system. To this end, it was fundamental
to generate a solid database to be used in the decision-making process.
Likewise, in order to achieve better standards with a positive impact on rehabilitation,
the following actions were taken: the implementation of the initial risk assessment system;
the categorization of prisons according to physical, electronic and dynamic security levels;and the adoption of simple and clear standard procedures. Additionally, we have promoted
evidence-based criminological research as a basis for the decision-making process, we haveconducted a thorough examination and monitoring procedure to assess the institution’s
management processes, and we have developed a policy to promote public integrity and toprevent corruption. All these measures have been introduced to minimize discretionary
decisions, so that the system is more objective and a science-based theoretical foundationis built for our work.
II. FOSTERING REHABILITATIVE ENVIRONMENTS
We would like to mention the importance of the “environment” of a prison, which has
been the subject of several studies. What these studies have indicated is that the moral
quality of a prison is closely related to its rehabilitative capacity. That is, the higher moral
quality of the prison, the more rehabilitative capacity it has. We will later refer to thesestudies, which have been undertaken at our institution based on the research conducted byProfessor Alison Liebling.
President, International Corrections and Prisons Association Latin America (ICPA-LA); Former National
Director of the Federal Prison Service of Argentina.
1
We will use the terms “reoffenders” and “recidivists” to refer to two different groups of inmates, we will
use the term “reoffender” to refer to those inmates who have not been convicted but are admitted to an SPF
prison for a second time, and we will use ‘recidivist’ for those who have been officially declared as such bya court.
*- 61 - 61 -

On the basis of that statement, and the creation of rehabilitative environments being the
topic of the panel, we would like to share two distinct actions that SPF carried out between
2014-2019 in order to attain this goal: the corruption prevention policy and staff
management.
III. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES
Anti-corruption policies have the ultimate goal of creating an environment of integrityin any given institution. Given the question “why should prison administrations prevent
corruption?”, the answer becomes evident as we accept that only a culture defined bytransparency and commitment to ethical values allows the creation of healthy environments
that, in turn, favour the reduction of reoffending and the rehabilitation of offenders.
Corruption has extremely negative consequences, and when corrupt practices become
widespread, they become an obstacle to the attainment of the objectives of reoffending
reduction, the promotion of desistance and public protection, and other standards such as
the Mandela Rules.
In particular, corruption affects the legitimacy and trustworthiness of the system,
generates inadequate working conditions, and creates inequities and grievances that affectthe levels of violence of any prison establishment.
For these reasons and many others, it is necessary to guarantee healthy environments,
and with that in mind, it should be noted that the mere sanction of corrupt practices isinsufficient, as the damage of that particular corrupt act has been made. This punitive
approach should be complemented with a preventive approach, one that promotes public
integrity.
IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF CORRUPTION IN PRISON ENVIRONMENTS
Prisons are closed environments, which conspires against the idea of transparency.
Moreover, the relations between staff and inmates have been described as having a“negotiated nature”. According to Goldsmith, who has studied the phenomenon ofcorruption in prison environments, the transactional nature of the relationship between
inmates and staff implies that some degree of corruption will always be present, which goesagainst the usual “zero tolerance” government policies on corruption.
At this point, it is important to notice that the environment has a direct impact on theindividual’s behaviour. It has been proved that the pressure of authority and peer pressure
are key conditioning factors of our behaviour (Milgram and Asch experiments). For
example, on Asch’s experiment, it was proved that individuals conform or follow thegroup’s behaviour, even when the group appears to be wrong, either because they start tobelieve that the group is right, or out of fear of contradicting others.
This principle applies to the phenomenon of corruption in prisons, the environment ofa prison and the behaviour of the individuals in it vary depending on whether our system isaffected by marginal corruption or systemic corruption.

- 62 - 62 -

A marginal corruption scenario occurs when the system works in accordance with its
regulations, and the control organisms detect and sanction corrupt practices when they dooccur. Systemic corruption, on the other hand, occurs when the organizational culture ispermissive of the breach of regulations, corrupt practices are seen as natural, the control
organisms are not effective, impunity is the rule, and those who try to abide the law are set
apart and fear reprisals if they decide to report wrongdoing.
V. CAUSES OF CORRUPTION
It has already been indicated that the problem of corruption, and of corruption in the
penitentiary setting, is extremely complex and must be approached from a multidisciplinary
perspective. Strictly speaking, the efficient cause of corruption is always a decision madeby the subject who performs the act of corruption. The fact that there is discretion indecision making by a public official is not in itself a determining factor of corruption, since
the official can fulfil his duties and act with principles of ethics, honesty and probity. Alongthese lines, if we take as an example the factor that the public official has economic or
financial problems, this situation does not in itself carry a risk of corruption, since theofficial can maintain its integrity and ethics in the exercise of the public function, especiallyto keep their job.
Therefore, the causes of corruption are not determining factors but factors whose
presence facilitates the occurrence of an act of corruption. These factors can be studied witha view on ethical and moral, legal, cultural, sociological, criminological, psychological,
anthropological, economic, political, personal, social, institutional, philosophical andhistorical perspective.
These facilitating elements may be related to personal or individual aspects (subject
values, mood, etc.), organizational aspects of the institution (high level of bureaucracy,
insufficient salaries to cover basic needs, etc.), or external aspects, such as pressure fromthird parties outside the institution.
In general, we can mention the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Absence of rules, regulations, policies and laws.
Weak enforcement systems.
Weak control and supervision systems.
Lack of accountability to the public.
No transparency.
Lack of mechanisms of balance between the powers of the State.
Lack of integrity.
Monopoly of power.
High sense of discretion.
Low salaries.
High profits compared to risks.
Low detection and sanction rate.
Favourable context for corruption.
Problematic and cumbersome regulatory systems.

- 63 - 63 -

Ultimately, it is the official who chooses to act in a corrupt way or to abide by the law.
All these factors that favour corruption have a particular expression in relation to the prison
setting. When taking into account the particular forms of relationship created in thesesettings, there are certain risks – situations that favour or make prison staff be corrupt or
corrupted – that, in addition to the causes described above, are typical of this environment.
According to international experience and John Podmore’s Handbook on AntiCorruption Measures in Prisons, such risks are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Financial problems and family pressures.
Envy and resentment about the conditions of inmates or other staff, especiallysenior staff.
Greed or desire for personal enrichment.
Doing an “altruistic” or good action by means of a corrupt action
Pressure from the close group or from the “culture” in which they are immersed.
The need to commit an act of corruption for survival, whether in terms of psychophysical integrity or career.
Ideological issues.
Lack of clear rules or non-compliance. This is especially true in systems where there
are no written protocols or objective rules, leaving it all to the discretion of officials
Poor training.
No leading by example by senior staff.
Lack of commitment to the strategic direction set by the authorities of prison
administrations.

The factors that are most influential and difficult to address due to their complexity arethose related to the culture that takes place in the prison world and the way of interaction
between the actors in that environment. In fact, the cultural pressure of the environment
can cause large-scale bureaucratic institutions – of any nature – to be at risk of high levelsof corruption caused by the very dynamics of the system. The factor that has the mostinfluence on this point would be the pressure of the environment on staff and inmates toundertake these practices and not report them. This situation creates ideal conditions forthe reproduction and expansion of corruption within the system. Within this framework,
the situation can only be tackled through a progressive cultural change, based on thedevelopment of a new conscience and ethical work culture of the staff, with special
attention to future public officials.
VI. CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION IN PRISONS
The harm generated by corruption is not always detected immediately, which reinforces
the need to act before it occurs, i.e. at the time of prevention. In order to account for themagnitude of the damage, a relationship with the degree of corruption can be established.
As regards specifically the public service that must be provided by prison
administrations, the damages directly caused by corruption are the following:•

Impact on Human Rights: for example, if money intended for the construction or
maintenance of new accommodation spaces is diverted to the benefit of a public
official, as unfair conditions of detention occur for persons deprived of liberty.
- 64 - 64 -•Impact on the public security function of the penitentiary administration: incontexts with a high index of corruption, persons deprived of their liberty could
obtain, in exchange for money, places of accommodation with less security thanthat required because of the risks they pose, which would allow their escape or evencontinue to handle illicit activity from prison.

•

Increased levels of violence: the extension of corruption – accommodation, sale ofaccommodation, gifts, sale of narcotics, etc. – can create a loss of control by theprison administration of the spaces where people deprived of their freedom lie. This
loss of control will almost certainly result in arbitrariness and unequal treatment,
which in turn will encourage conflict and high levels of violence. An institution thatworks on the basis of arbitrariness, bribes or gifts, cannot provide security about the
future of the people who are part of it, which results in increased anxiety and tension
in the environment.

•

Impact on public trust in the correctional institution: people who engage in actsof corruption hide their actions. When the activity is generalized, the affectedorganization becomes isolated and becomes less and less transparent. The lack oftransparency results in the loss of public trust in their actions.

•

Damage to the rehabilitative purpose of the penitentiary administration: theimpact on this function occurs in various ways: on the one hand, because of anundue allocation of resources, which will no longer be used to address criminogenic
needs; on the other hand, because the central axis of the rehabilitation function is
the intervention in the conduct of the persons deprived of their freedom, and amorally unhealthy institution will not have that capacity due to the propagation ofcorrupt acts, or crime replicating practices.

•

Impairment of staff attachment to conduct based on professional standards: if
the principle on which rewards – promotions, salary increases, etc., sanctions,transfers, dismissals – are assigned focuses on corruption, staff will not feel inclined
to develop their careers, but to meet the demands of the system.

•

Creating conditions for increased corruption: the existence of high levels ofcorruption is the breeding ground that increases it, due to the naturalization of thesepractices and, in the absence of legitimate objective parameters, actors are temptedor forced to meet their needs or desires through acts of corruption to survive in thesystem. In this sense, the very dynamics of corruption tend to increase both
qualitatively and quantitatively and end up affecting the entire functioning oforganizations if not properly managed.

•

Loss of legitimacy of the prison system: if prison organization is corrupt, it loses
the trust of users and operators in the public authority and, consequently, its moral
authority to demand changes in behaviour.

•

Generation of individual criminal, administrative and civil responsibility ofstaff and the institution, both nationally and internationally: acts of corruption
are prohibited by law and, those who commit such acts, are subject to a sanction,
including a conviction. In addition to criminal liability, acts of corruption may resultin the civil liability of officials – with an obligation to compensate victims for- 65 - 65 -

money – and also administrative responsibility, which may result in the dismissal
or exoneration of the person responsible, as well as loss of retirement benefits. It
may also affect the State’s responsibility before the international community for
violations of conventions and as civil liability.
•

Damage to staff: high levels of corruption change the rules of the game, affecting
the welfare and the rights of the personnel. In addition, the incidence of corruption
in the levels of conflict creates stressful working conditions that also affect the wellbeing of the staff.

•

Alteration of legitimate rules established by applicable regulations: high levelsof corruption make the benefits, sanctions or rules set by applicable regulation notproperly enforced. For example, if a person deprived of his or her liberty does notmeet the legal requirements for access to a benefit such as house arrest, he/she may
do so by paying a sum of money.

•

Risk of facilitating organized crime and self-government in prisons: highprevalence of corruption in prison creates a risk of self-government. It occurs as aconsequence of the existence of an informal system created by the generalizationof corrupt actions regulating life in prison contrary to what the rules establish. This
creates a number of imbalances in the dynamics of prisons. The risk grows in thecase of organized crime. The following is an example of this: through informal rules,
penitentiary staff, in exchange for money, allow a group of inmates to freely
manage the spaces, and even grant them protection. This could create a situation of
constant abuse and the setting of new rules of coexistence contrary to legal norms;
for example, if the rest of the people deprived of their freedom had to pay thedominant group a certain amount of money in exchange for this group not attacking
or killing them.
VII. ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES WITHIN SPF

Corruption has been perceived as a critical issue by most countries, and as such it has
become an important part of the international agenda. In this sense, a universal instrument
against corruption, that is the UN Convention against Corruption, has been subscribed byseveral countries.
The UN Convention against Corruption encourages the adoption of certain measuresagainst corruption, such as international cooperation, asset recovery and the engagement of
the private sector in the prevention of corruption.
In line with this instrument and others that Argentina has subscribed, the anti-corruption
policy within SPF started in 2014 with a comprehensive diagnosis of the situation of theinstitution in terms of corruption, and it turned out that the main problem was that
corruption had always been present but it had been systematically denied, the risks ofcorruption were higher in some areas than in others, corrupt practices in general wereperceived as natural and there was no specific training on this topic for staff.

- 66 - 66 -The following are concrete policies that were adopted between 2014–2019 to reduce
corruption risks, promoting a culture based on values and principles of law enforcement,
proper management of public affairs and goods, integrity, transparency and accountability:•

Creation of the Corruption Prevention Service: with the objective of designing,
formulating and implementing policies, plans, programmes and actions to prevent
corruption. The main axes of action are: the analysis and measurement of risks andvulnerabilities, the definition of appropriate strategies to address those risks, and thecoordination of activities that everyone involved in the system must carry out to prevent
corruption. Within SPF there are other organisms related to the fight against corruption
besides the Corruption Prevention Service, they are:o The Department of Internal Affairs.
o The Directorate of Information Analysis.
o The Service of Monitoring and Inspection of Prison Establishments and Compliance.

•

Action Plan of the Corruption Prevention Service: The Action Plan is based on five
strategic axes: “Declaration of Institutional Ethical Principles”, “Institutional
Assessment”, “Staff Training and Awareness in Ethics, Transparency and Preventionof Corruption”, “Regulatory Changes and Improvements in Procedures” and “Joint
Detection, Monitoring and Evaluation Actions”.

•

Code of Ethics for the staff of the Federal Prison Service: It embodies the values,
principles and duties of the personnel, taking into account the specificity ofconfinement settings, with the aim of fostering an institutional culture in which theprinciples of integrity, legality, honesty, efficiency and transparency are strengthened.
The Code guides prison staff in the performance of their duties in the face of specificsituations that may arise.

•

Creation of a hotline for complaints: to detect and report irregularities or cases ofcorruption by officers in the institution. The hotline is staffed by Internal Affairs, being
the punitive approach divided from the preventive approach. Anonymous complaints
may be received.

•

Protocol for processing complaints: This instrument establishes, in an exhaustive way,
the procedure to be followed once a complaint is filed. One of its main purposes is toensure at all times the confidentiality of complaints. On the other hand, the protocol
sets categories for the classification of complaints, which ensures objectivity andtransparency. These categories are: 1. Highly probable 2. Probable: 3. Inadmissible.

•

Rules for the protection of whistle-blowers: this resolution provides protection of thejob of officials who, in good faith and with well-founded reasons, report irregularities
or crimes by other prison officials.

•

Map of corruption risks: implemented as a pilot programme at the Judicial Detention
Centre (Unit 28), in order to identify sectors that are risky or vulnerable to abuse or
corruption. Another objective was to foster the participation of staff who provide
services in Unit 28 on a daily basis, trying to break the taboo around the issue of
corruption, and to create a consensual document that integrates the staff of theinstitution in the process of change.

- 67 - 67 -

•Working together with other organizations: for instance, with the Anti-Corruption
Office, the Judiciary, and other security forces and corruption experts.
VIII. STAFF TRAINING

Ethical prison environments cannot exist without an extensive training of staff. Throughthe implementation of a public ethics course, awareness of the importance of the preventionof corruption and the insidious consequences of corruption can be raised. The
organizational culture as a whole can be modified and a culture of integrity achieved. Staff
have to be provided with sufficient resources to generate and maintain positive appropriate
relations with inmates, independently of peer pressure and the transactional nature of staff–
prisoner relations.
It was noted that there was no specific bibliography on the topic of corruption in prison
environments in Spanish and accessible for our staff, other than some publications of theUnited Nations for the reform process of Panama, and therefore the Corruption Prevention
Service published SPF’s Anti-corruption Handbook. This handbook has become the basic
bibliography for the mandatory courses of ascension, and it addresses topics such as theissue of corruption in prison contexts and measures to prevent it. Previously, our policies
were based on John Podmore’s Handbook on Anti-Corruption Measures in Prisons, whichat the time was a preliminary draft that would then be published by UNODC.
SPF’s handbook is the result of academic and applied research and was adapted to theLatin American reality and particularly that of Argentina, and to be accessible to our staff.
IX. IRICOne of the most important preventive measures was the creation of the System ofIntervention for the Reduction of the Corruptibility Index (IRIC) in 2016. The main reason
behind the creation of this system was a shift in the prison population composition. Throughthe course of the last years, our prison system has received inmates with certain
characteristics, risks and needs that differ greatly from the usual profile. This new profile
comprises inmates that committed offences linked to the action of criminal organizations,such as drug trafficking, and those who committed offences linked to corruption or
economic crimes.
Before this trend, the prison administration was used to working with low socioeconomic status inmates, who came from dysfunctional families, with impulse control
disorders, involved in substance and alcohol abuse, with poor symbolic resources and no
external support. Their associated risks in prisons were mostly related to risks of conflictand violence.
On the contrary, the new profile of inmates has a low risk of conflict but has a high riskof escape and of continuing their criminal activity from prison and high risk ofmanipulation, due to their military power, their economic capacity and their links to power,with the objective of obtaining undue benefits and gaining power over the rest of theinmates and, ultimately, the prison as a whole. Further, their deficits and needs arecompletely different.
- 68 - 68 -For that purpose, the concept of corruptibility was created. The concept of corruptibility
indicates, on the one hand, the ability of some people deprived of their liberty to violate,
through acts of corruption, the proper functioning of the prison system and, on the other
hand, the risks of these prisoners to be the victims of acts of corruption during their prison
term. This risk can materialize itself through acts of violence, manipulation or infiltration.
Thus, the ultimate goal of the IRIC system is to detect and manage the corruptibility risks,
to achieve a transparent management of inmates, prevent them from using their resources
to obtain dysfunctional decisions from the administration and guarantee the satisfaction of
their specific needs, under the logic of the principle of normality. From this perspective,
actions are being developed to allow greater closeness and interaction between the staff andprisoners, and information management. In this way, it is possible to prevent any kind ofact that contravenes the normal operation of the system, among them, acts of corruption.
X. MEASURING THE QUALITY OF LIFE
The concept of moral performance has been developed by Professor Alison Liebling asa result of a set of research studies carried out at the Prisons Research Centre at the
University of Cambridge (United Kingdom). Her work on this area was meant tounderstand the complexities of the prison world by analysing the role of values and thequality of life in the prison environment. The study consists in administering a structured
questionnaire to each prisons’ inmates in order to gain knowledge and compare how certain
values of prison life are experienced. Among these values, we may mention “respect”,“trust”, “safety” and “well-being” in prisons. The study is based on the following guiding
principle: what defines the quality of prison life does not only include the material/objective
conditions and access to rights, but also and particularly the way in which those rights aredelivered by the institution; that is to say, the way in which staff–prisoner relationships arebuilt and developed. Another aspect that may be analysed within the scope of this study is
how prisons are operated, by exploring the role of values, emotions and staff–prisoner
relationships inside prisons.
The data obtained from this empirical study is chiefly important as it could be used toformulate policies to promote desistance and to reduce recidivism. In addition, the results
are similar to those obtained from research studies conducted in other countries. This workon moral performance also proves interesting and useful to obtain more information on
violence and conflict issues, humanity and relational dimensions in our prisons, compliancewith management goals and, ultimately, the formulation of public policies that work
effectively in prison, as well as the implementation of reforms that can correct the moral
standard at our prisons and promote any positive aspects detected.
The above-mentioned study on moral performance was also carried out in Module VIof the Federal Prison Complex, where the Intervention Program to Reduce the Degrees ofCorruptibility (IRIC Program) is run, in order to identify the levels of quality of life insideeach prison. Inmates’ perceptions were taken into account to get to know their strengths
and weaknesses. Surveys were conducted between July and October 2018. Taking thisfinding into account, specific actions were taken in order to address this issue and provide
a greater amount of activities.
As a result of this study, we can conclude that:- 69 - 69 -

•
•
•
•
•

85.7 per cent of inmates have claimed that they are treated with respect.
75.7 per cent of inmates stated that staff–prisoner relationships are good.
91.2 per cent of inmates assert that they are not bothered or threatened by the restof the inmates at the facility.
57 per cent of inmates rated the quality of life inside Module VI positively (between
7 and 10 points).
Negative aspects should be considered and improved in Module VI.

These values are considerably different from the other settings we measured, so we cansuggest that in a place where risk of corruption is controlled, there are better perceptions ofother dimensions in daily life.
XI. MEASURING CORRUPTIONAs I said before, corruption is a risk from which no organization seems to escape. In
order to be prevented and punished wherever it occurs, the phenomenon must be
understood in its own manifestations within the specific organization in order to provide
an adequate response.
Consequently, since 2014 an action plan has been implemented to promote public
integrity, to prevent and to fight corruption. Measures such as the creation of its own codeof ethics, the implementation of a system for reporting corruption cases, and thecorresponding protection for the agents who report it have been developed. In addition,
there has been constant training of personnel in matters associated with ethics, transparency
and the prevention of corruption, among others. The truth is that the taboo that always
existed in relation to the issue of corruption has been broken.
Anti-corruption policies must be evaluated to determine their effectiveness and allow
their correction and expansion where necessary; it is a constant and cyclical work. Bearing
this in mind, it was decided to carry out a study on the perception of the staff about it within
the Institution. We need to highlight that we had run some surveys before (Public opinion
in 2014, Models of Management and Working Environment in 2015), where when we
asked about corruption it appeared as a serious issue, but at the same time nothing was saidor done.
So, through this study, it was sought to know the perceptions, expectations andrepresentations about corruption in general and within the Federal Penitentiary Service. In
addition, an attempt was made to gain knowledge about the public policies developed
within the institution to prevent it and the appreciation that prison staff have on the causes
and damages that it generates. The results contribute to detecting the real perception of thepersonnel related to this topic, as well as the knowledge of the actions carried out and thereporting channels. At the same time, it warns about the level of awareness present among
prison agents on issues of public ethics and transparency, allowing a more adequate
understanding of the problems that exist with respect to the design of institutional policies
aimed at addressing this conflict.
Having this in mind, and noting that the reality of Latin American countries is mostly
described by systemic corruption scenarios, it was decided that corruption within SPF
should be measured by the use of some reliable method. To that end, we turned to the- 70 - 70 -

methodologies that some of the most important international organizations that work withthe prevention of corruption have used, Transparency International being the mostrenowned. Their method relies on the perceptions of corruption rather than on reports andlegal cases.
On the Corruption Perceptions Index developed by Transparency International, in 2018
Argentina ranked in the 85th position on a list of 180 countries, with a total score of 40
over 100 (being 100 very clean and 0 highly corrupt). In short, there is a clear perceptionof high levels of corruption in our country, which means that the policies implemented haveto consider that their starting point will be that of a systemic corruption scenario, which
probably does not reflect the reality of Europe or Japan.
In order to measure the perceptions of our staff on the levels of corruption of Argentina
in general and our institution in particular, we developed our Corruption Perceptions
Survey, and some of its key findings were:
•
•
•
•
•

22 per cent of our staff said that SPF is affected by high levels of corruption.
51 per cent of our staff believes that the anti-corruption policy is being effective.
32 per cent of our staff thinks that there is less corruption in our institution today
than 3 years ago.
The most vulnerable areas to corruption, according to our staff, are: cell phonesmuggling, drug smuggling and the management of public funds.
62 per cent of our staff said that corrupt practices are not reported, and that thereason behind that number is the fear of reprisals.

After analysing the results, we have made some necessary adjustments, such as
disseminating the reporting channels and implementing a whistle-blower protection
programme. The survey also proved that corrupt practices are no longer perceived as
natural, which reflects the importance of staff training on ethics and corruption prevention
topics.
The agents were also asked if they knew to whom this type of incident should bereported, and it turned out that:••

40 per cent indicated they knew to whom to report acts of corruption.
The complaint channels best known by agents are: the anti-corruption office,internal affairs, the hotline for complaints of acts of corruption (0800-222-7738),
courts and prosecutors.

Likewise, 46 per cent believe that complaints made for acts of corruption end with the
sanctioning of those responsible.
To find out the level of dissemination that the policies carried out by the Federal
Penitentiary Service to combat corruption have had, the agents were asked to indicate what
actions they were aware of. From this it emerged that the five best known measures tocombat corruption, implemented in the Federal Penitentiary Service are:
1. Code of Ethics for SPF Personnel.
2. Staff wellness programmes.
3. Training on ethics, transparency and prevention of corruption.
- 71 - 71 -

4. Creation of the Corruption Prevention Service.
5. Monitoring and inspection of procedures in penitentiary establishments.
However, much remains to be done regarding dissemination. Although notoriously 60
per cent reported having received one or more trainings on ethics and corruption prevention
issues; and just over 73 per cent knowledge of the Code of Ethics for Prison Service
Personnel.
Furthermore, 54 per cent of the agents indicated that the implemented measures havebeen efficient in their objectives. 32 per cent stated that the level of corruption in the SPF,
at that time, was lower than in the previous 3 years, and 46.3 per cent said the same withrespect to the last 5 years.
On the other hand, the agents were asked to select three questions that they consider
should be resolved within the institution as a priority. As a result, it was obtained:
1. Carry out an efficient selection of personnel entering the SPF.
2. Foster an ethical culture to combat corruption.
3. Provide more material resources to the units.
64 per cent of the agents consider that corrupt personnel should be separated from theinstitution.
With regard to the consequences of corruption, they were offered a list of possible
consequences for the institution so that they could indicate which ones they believe havematerialized. The agents considered that corruption has hindered the proper functioning of
the institution, the security of the prisons, the quality of the work environment, and, to alesser extent, the reintegration of the inmates.
Within the specific risk factors of the prison environment, it was observed that inmateswith high purchasing power can influence decisions that directly affect them, being highly
disruptive for the system and that there are extortionary practices among inmates that allow
the creation of areas of violence.
Finally, a large number of the agents surveyed affirm that the greatest acts of corruption
have to do with purchases and contracting by the State and the entry of drugs and cell
phones into prisons.
XII.

CONCLUSIONS

We can finally suggest, that:
1) There is a direct link between anti-corruption and rehabilitation efforts: a corrupt
prison cannot perform its rehabilitation function correctly.
2) Prisons should promote a “culture of integrity”.
3) All staff should receive training on anti-corruption.

- 72 - 72 -4) There is a case for housing high-risk-of-corruption prisoners in a separate unit withspecially trained staff (Case Study: IRIC Programme).
5) Surveys and specific studies must be carried inside prison services, measuring theimpact of policies and measures.
6) When there is a serious effort to fight corruption in an institution, society cares more
about what the service is really doing for public protection and reducing reoffending,
and we believe that this can affect reintegration in a good way.

- 73 - 73 -

- 74 - 74 -THE PRINCIPLE OF NORMALITY – IN REGULAR AND
EXTRAORDINARY TIMES
Heidi Bottolfs *I. INTRODUCTION
The principle of normality is a guiding principle in the Norwegian Correctional Service.
The purpose of this presentation is to explain the basic components of the principle and its
bearing on two aspects of the Norwegian Correctional Service, namely the import modeland staff recruitment and training. Whereas the pandemic has caused constraints on theapplication of the principle of normality in prison life in most aspects, it has also promoted
it other ways.
The Norwegian Correctional Service is in charge of both the prison and the probation
services. Some of the key characteristics of the Norwegian system are the large number ofsmall-sized units located all over the country, low number of inmates and a high staff–
inmate ratio. There are 33 prisons on 58 locations with a total capacity of 3,850 cells(average occupancy rate of 86%) and 60 prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants in Norway. 22
per cent of these are on remand, whereas 6 per cent are female prisoners. The average lengthof sentenced new admissions is 1.1 years. High-security prisons constitute 71 per cent of
the total capacity, lower-security prisons, 26 per cent and halfway houses, 3 per cent. There
are approximately 3,000 staff.
There are 15 probation offices, with 470 probation officers responsible for 7,000
community sanctions annually. Out of these, electronic monitoring constitutes 3,500
sanctions. In addition, there are sanctions as a response to drunk-and-drive behaviour andspecial sanctions directed towards heavy drug abusers under the supervision of the court.
A recent study on recidivism among persons released from prison in Norway 2015 –2018 show positive results. The results show a summed-up recidivism for all who havebeen released up to 8 September 2020 of 13.4 per cent for female offenders and 22.9 percent for male offenders.
II. THE PRINCIPLE OF NORMALITY
Punishment is the restriction of liberty and no other rights have been removed by thesentencing court. Therefore, the sentenced offender has all the same rights as all others wholive in Norway. No one shall serve their sentence under stricter circumstances thannecessary for the security in the community, and offenders shall be placed in the lowest
possible security regime. During the serving of a sentence, life inside should resemble life
outside as much as possible.

*

Deputy Director General, Norwegian Directorate of Corrections, Norway.

- 75 - 75 -The possibility to implement the principle of normality is of course limited by security
reasons and the framework of the correctional management, the differences in the prisonsand personnel, infrastructural and financial resources.
III. THE IMPORT MODEL
The import model is a key element in normalizing life in prison and bridging the gap
upon release. The import model means that crucial services for reintegration are delivered
to the prison by local and municipal service providers. Prisons do not have their own staff
delivering medical, educational or library services. These are imported from the community.
Also, different faith and clergy services are provided through the import model.
A. The Import Model – Legislative Basis and in Numbers
The Act on the Execution of Sentences ensures the legislative basis of the import model:§4. Administrative cooperation
The Correctional Services shall be engaging in cooperation with other public
services arrange for the convicted persons and persons in custody on remand toreceive the services to which they are statutorily entitled. Such co-operation shalllead to a coordinated effort to supply the needs of convicted persons and persons
in custody on remand and to assist them to adjust to society.
There are currently a little less than 500 staff working in Norwegian prisons who do
not report to the governor of the prison, but to welfare service suppliers outside the prison:
Full-time employed teachers, county
Librarians
Priests
NursesDoctors
Social services agents

276
47
33
106
14
21

B. Education in Prison – An Example of the Import Model in Practice
The principle of normality means that prisoners have the same right to education as anyother citizens. In practice that means the right to complete primary and lower secondary
education. This also includes adults: Anyone over the age of 25, who has completed lowersecondary school – but who has not completed upper-secondary education – has a right toupper-secondary schooling.
An ordinary upper secondary school takes the overall responsibility for the education
offered in each prison. The prison school operates as a branch of that main school. Formally,
the teachers are in the employment of the main school, which also issues testimonials andcertificates for the prison school students. Prison education is an earmarked state measure– the county administration who is responsible for the education in prison, receives extra
funding directly from the state to cover the cost of operating a “prison branch” of the school.
This means that the local school which hosts the “prison branch”, cannot defund this partof their responsibility.

- 76 - 76 -

There is a school department in every prison. At any given time, about 1,400 of the on
average 3,600 prisoners are in one way or another doing some form of education while they
are serving time. Because prisoners have equal rights to education as the rest of the
population, teaching competence should also be equivalent to ordinary education.
As of 2016, about half of the population in prison had comprehensive school as theirhighest level of completed education, whereas this applies to only a quarter of the
population in society at large. Approximately 66 per cent of the “prison population” has aright to education after the Norwegian Education Act, but more than half of those again
refrain from using that right – meaning, they do not participate in education. According toa 2014 survey, 30 per cent of prisoners reported that they had reading and writing
difficulties.
The rehabilitative impact of the import model on educational practices in prison is thatit in reality ensures these needs of the prison population. By importing the services there isalso a guarantee that prisoners have the same education as regular citizens in the community
and that they can continue that education following their release.
C. Advantages and Criticism of the Import Model
The main advantage of the import model is that it ensures a better continuity in thedeliverance of services throughout the sentences and the time after. The offender will
already have established contact during his time in prison. In addition, it ensuresinvolvement from the community with the prison system – more and better crossconnections. It also provides practical advantages in that other bodies finance it as they arepart of the rights of any inhabitant of Norway.
However, the import model also has some limitations and may at times challenge local
cooperation. Some critics have argued that it limits the role of the prison officers to security
matters. At times there is lack of clarity as to which institution is really in charge of theservices and prisoner needs may remain unaddressed. Often security concerns of thecorrectional services may at time be in conflict with the purpose of the imported services,and confidentiality issues keep relevant information from the prison management. Over thelast decade or so, we have also noticed that digitalization at different paces makes
interaction at times more challenging.
In sum though, the import model ensures a higher quality of services inside the prison,
keeping pace with the development outside of prisons. It is also a constant reminder that
prisoners will one day be released, and it is a common responsibility of the correctional andimported services to prepare them for that day.
IV. THE STAFF IMPLEMENTING THE PRINCIPLE OF NORMALITY:PRISON OFFICER TRAINING
The University College of the Norwegian Correctional Service provides a two-year
paid and accredited education required to become a prison officer. The training is acombination of campus training and work in carefully selected training prisons. The main
theoretical topics range from psychology, sociology, criminology, law, social work,
conflict management, ethics and human rights. Every year some 175 students are admitted- 77 - 77 -from between 1,200 and 2,500 applicants. It is now possible to expand with another year
to bachelor level which is not compulsory yet.
Some of the key features of the staff recruitment and training promote the focus on
normality. First, recruitment over several years has ensured a high number of female
uniformed officers. Second, there is no specialization between officers working on security
and those focusing on rehabilitation. This ensures the high focus on rehabilitation among
all prison officers. Moreover, a lot of attention is paid to ensure good communication skillson the side of the prison staff. All staff have for example been training in motivational
interviewing. This is to motivate inmates to deal with their way of life, but also an importantelement in dynamic security approaches keeping a calm environment in the prison. This,
together with the high inmate – staff ratio ensures a low number of negative incidents.
V. COVID-19 CHALLENGING THE PRINCIPLE OF NORMALITY – AND
PROMOTING IT
As most countries, Norway imposed a number of limitations on prison life following
the outbreak of Covid-19. It has limited the contact with the outside world including refusalof visits and day-leave in individual cases or in areas with high risk of infection.
Occasionally committals to prison and intake of inmates have been suspended. Thismeasure will only take effect if it is regarded as safe, although pre-trial confinements havecontinued as before. Life in prison has also become more constrained in terms of the higher
degree of isolation and limited activity, including the absence of teachers at times.
Early in the pandemic it became clear that contact with the outside world should beensured in spite of the limited possibility to receive visitors and undertake leave. For thatreason visits could be undertaken digitally through safe iPad solutions. A number ofprisoners reported that this improved contact with their families in comparison to pre-Covid
regulations. The prisons were also instructed to allow a greater degree of flexibility when
it came to phone calls (allowing some amount of free calls). The correctional service set up
a hotline for family members and relatives. In order to compensate for the lack of activity,
inmates could work in their cells, as well as giving them extended time in fresh air andoutdoor physical exercise. For minors it was also possible to continue their education
schemes digitally. Finally, it has also been possible to transfer inmates from prison to
execution of sentence by means of electronic monitoring for a larger group of inmates thanwhat the ordinary regulations allow for.
In sum, Covid-19 measures have placed an additional burden on inmates and staff,
which the correctional service has not been able to fully compensate for. That being said,
the given circumstances also triggered changes in the practice of the correctional service
which may not have otherwise happened especially when it comes to using digital means
to stay in touch with the outside world, being that of family and friends or the imported
services.

- 78 - 78 -

VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
Principles and values matter. The principle of normality is a good guiding principle
when we deal with our dilemmas. It is not always possible to ensure normal life in prison,but it sets a standard that we should strive for.
Importing regular services may increase quality of life inside of prisons and will
improve transition to the community after prison. Service providers ensure not only
services at the highest level possible but constitute constant supervision and a need fortransparency – challenging the correctional services’ understanding of normality.
It is not possible to apply the principle of normality without careful recruitment andextensive training of staff.

- 79 - 79 -

- 80 - 80 -

PANEL II
KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Dr. Matti Joutsen (Chair of Committee II)
PRESENTATIONS
Ms. Jennifer Oades (Canada)* * *Ms. Jana Špero (Croatia)* * *Hon. Teresia Matheka (Kenya)* * *Dr. Manuel Golloso Co (Philippines)- 81 - 81 -- 82 - 82 -

COMMUNITY-BASED APPROACHES THAT SUPPORTDESISTANCE: A REASSESSMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Dr. Matti Joutsen*

I. APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES AROUND THE
WORLD
Thirty years ago, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial
Measures (the Tokyo Rules) 1 were adopted by the General Assembly. Ten years ago, theUnited Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures
for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) 2 were similarly adopted.
So far, no reliable overview has been prepared of how community-based sentences 3 arebeing used in practice in the different jurisdictions around the world. 4 No readily available
source is available. As noted by the Secretary-General in his report to the Thirteenth United
Nations Congress in 2015,
Sentencing policies refer to the responses of the criminal justice system to thevarious offences as regards the types of sentences, including non-custodial
measures. A comparative assessment of sentencing policies of criminal justicesystems would require the analysis of the type of sentences, including the length ofcustodial sentences handed out to convicted persons, while taking account of theseriousness of the criminal offences committed. At the international level, there are
no available data on the length and type of sentences that allow this type ofcomparative analysis. 5
The situation is slowly changing. In one region of the world, Europe, comparative
statistical data on community-based sentences are being collected. This is only partiallygood news, since not does it cover only one region, but also the process of collection wasSpecial Advisor, Thailand Institute of Justice.
General Assembly resolution 45/110, annex.
2
General Assembly resolution 65/229 annex.
3
Although the Tokyo Rules and the Bangkok Rules use the wider concept “non-custodial measures,” themain focus in this paper is on sentences, which can be defined broadly as punishment imposed by a court(or other duly constituted authority) on an offender, following a formal procedure. The concept includes
decisions made in restorative justice and mediation proceedings.
The terms “non-custodial” and “community-based” are synonyms. The term “alternatives toimprisonment” is widely used but will not be used here, as it implies that imprisonment is the standard andexpected response, and other measures are, in some sense, exceptions to the norm.
4
The present paper updates and supplements data contained in an unpublished paper, Joutsen 2015. This
earlier paper also included data, not repeated here, on the use of restorative justice measures and monetary
sanctions.
5
A/CONF.222/4, para. 37.
*
1- 83 - 83 -

begun fairly recently, and it is too early to use this data set to assess patterns on other thana very general level. However, it does provide a point of departure for at that one region. 6
In time, some data may become available also on a global basis. The American
Probation and Parole Association, together with Community Supervision Solutions, haslaunched the “Supervision Around the World” (SAW) Project, which seeks to collectinformation on community supervision practices in every country around the world. 7 TheSAW Project will identify countries offering supervision services, document current
practices, and create an interactive internet repository for the information that it obtains onsupervision programmes.
A second initiative launched recently, the Global Community Corrections Initiative, issimilarly seeking to collect global data on the use of community corrections. 8 During theinitial stage, the initiative is seeking to identify experts in each of the fifty countries withthe highest prison populations and obtain through them information on the use ofcommunity corrections, both as sentencing options and as post-release measures.
There are several reasons why data on community-based sentences has been so difficult
to collect, and have not been particularly usable for comparative purposes:• community-based sentences are used primarily at the lower end of offence
seriousness, and it is at this end that the scope of criminalized conduct (i.e., conductthat may lead to a response by the criminal justice system) varies considerably fromone jurisdiction to the next;• community-based sentences as a response to criminalized conduct may be imposed
not only by the courts, but also by the police, the prosecutor and even otheradministrative authorities, and decisions may also be taken by community-based
bodies (as with the case of mediation and restorative justice measures);• community-based sentences, even if imposed by a court, are not necessarily enteredinto a centralized register nor recorded in the statistics; and• the terminology varies from one jurisdiction to another, and thus even communitybased sentences referred to by the same term (for example “probation”) may not becomparable.
More generally, there are the considerable difficulties in making comparisons between
how the criminal justice system operates in different countries. 9 Nonetheless, thirty years
after the adoption of the Tokyo Rules and ten years after the adoption of the Bangkok Rules,
it is of interest to try to examine how community-based sentences are being used in different
jurisdictions around the world. This paper is based on the available literature and statistical
data, and seeks to bring together a number of different observations about patterns.

Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE II), Aebi and Hashimoto 2018, and Aebi et al. 2019.
The Council of Europe project uses the term “alternatives to imprisonment”. The working definition does
not include for example measures imposed on the basis of juvenile criminal law, nor persons under theaftercare of probation agencies. Heiskanen et al 2014, p. 27.
7<http://communitysupervisionsolutions.com/saw-project/>.
8
GLOBCCI.ORG
9See, for example, Nelken 2007.
6- 84 - 84 -

A. The Benchmark: International Patterns in the Use of Imprisonment
The patterns in brief:• imprisonment (incarceration, custodial treatment) is without question the basic
form of punishment in criminal justice systems around the world.
• although the global rate of prisoners per 100,000 in population has been stable
over the past few years, the rate has been increasing rapidly in some individual
countries, and decreasing in others.
• the prisoner rate varies considerably from one country to the next, and even from
one neighbouring country to the next – even if these countries have somewhat
similar legal systems and degree of development.
• clear regional and sub-regional patterns can be detected in the use of
imprisonment, as measured by prisoner rates. In general, imprisonment is used
least in Africa and Asia, and most in North America and Latin America.
• in several countries with a high prison population, a present trend is towards“decarceration”, a deliberate policy of lessening the use of imprisonment.

The best current source of data on prison populations around the world has beendeveloped by Roy Walmsley: the World Prison Population List. The most recent versionof this list, the twelfth edition, provides data as of September 2018. 10 The list provides
information on the total prison population and the prisoner rate (the number of prisoners
per 100,000 in population) in almost all countries in the world. The map below is based on
this data.
One point of caution. Sentences, including sentences of imprisonment, are used indifferent ways by different countries. The use of only one indicator, such as the number ofprisoners per 100,000 in population, can be misleading. The data on prisoner rates reflect
only one dimension of the use of prisons: how many prisoners are being held at a certain
time, as a proportion of the total population. Dünkel notes that prisoner rates are a functionof the number of persons entering prison, and the length of stay. Consequently, similar
prisoner rates may hide considerable differences in these two factors. 11
Furthermore, overall prisoner rates do not show possible demographic differences
within the population. Research has shown that the burden of imprisonment falls unequallyon different population groups, with the greatest burden tending to fall on vulnerable
population groups, such as racial and ethnic minorities, and migrants. 12

Walmsley 2019.
Dünkel 2015 provides data showing that Sweden, with a prison population rate of 57 per 100,000, andGermany, with a prison population rate of 76 per 100,000, have roughly the same rates. Even so, theaverage length in Sweden is only two months, while the average length in Germany is four times longer,
eight months. Both are highly developed countries, with roughly the same level and structure of crime, andwith roughly the same criminal justice processes and efficiency – and yet they use sentences ofimprisonment in quite different ways.
12
See, for example, Garland 2014, and in respect of the situation in the United States, Travis and Western(eds.) 2014.
10
11- 85 - 85 -The 2018 edition of the World Prison Population List shows that the global prison
population has continued to grow, exceeding 11 million in 2018. It also draws attention toregional trends, including an almost tripling in the total prison population of South America
since the year 2000 (an increase of 175%), a more than doubling of the total prison
population of south-eastern Asia (an increase of 122%), and an almost doubling in Oceania(an increase of 86%). 13
In just the three years since the previous edition of the World Prison Population List
had been published, the total prison population had increased by around one half in suchcountries as Indonesia (45% increase in prisoners per 100,000 of general population), thePhilippines (48%), Egypt (53%), Nicaragua (61%) and Cambodia (68%). 14
As can be seen from the map, on the regional level, prisoner rates are highest in Northand South America, and lowest in Africa and South-Central Asia. 15
There are many differences within regions. For example, while Africa as a whole has
the world’s lowest prisoner rates, the median prison population rate for western Africancountries is 53, whereas for southern African countries it is 244.
There are even more distinctive differences within Europe. The map shows a relatively
sharp divide between west and east, with prisoner rates in Eastern Europe considerably
higher than in the west. A particularly marked divide can be found between the Nordic
countries on one side, with prisoner rates ranging around 50 to 70, and the neighbouring
Baltic countries (200 – 300) as well as the Russian Federation (467), on the other.
Although the sub-regional differences in Europe are relatively stable and have existed
for a long time, there have been considerable shifts within countries. Dünkel 2015 notesthat from 1984 to 2014, there has been a clear increase in the prisoner rate in for example
England and Wales (from 84 per 100,000 to 149 per 100,000), France (31 to 98), Portugal(70 to 136) and Spain (38 to 140). In some other countries, there has been a decrease; forexample, in Finland from 97 to 55. In the Russian Federation, there has been a significant
decrease in just a fifteen-year period, from 730 per 100,000 in 1999, to 467 per 100,000 in
2014. 16

Walmsley 2019.
Walmsley 2019. The same source notes that during this same relatively brief three-year period, there has
been a significant decrease in the Russian Federation (10%), Viet Nam (11%), Japan (15%), Ukraine(19%), Kazakhstan (21%), Romania (22%) and Mexico (23%).
15
The seminal and in my view most perceptive analysis of national differences in prisoner rates is to befound in the third chapter of Christie 2000. He focuses on the European region. Lappi-Seppälä 2003
contains a global analysis.
16
According to Walmsley 2019, this decrease in the Russian Federation has continued, as the prisoner rate
on 1 December 2020 was reported to be 336 per 100,000 (https://www.prisonstudies.org/country/russianfederation).
13
14- 86 - 86 -

Reassessing the role of community-based sentences

Prisoners per 100,000 in population, 2018
Colour code: dark red: over 300; red: 150 – 299; yellow: 100 – 149; dark green: 70 – 99; light green: under 70
Source: Roy Walmsley, World Prison Population List, twelfth edition (data as of 30 September 2018)

To turn to Asia, Thailand had a prison population of 250,000 in 2002 (400 per 100,000
in population), but through greater use of pre-trial diversion and early release for drug
addicts, the amount had been reduced to 160,000 by August 2005 (250 per 100,000). Morerecently, however, the trend has reversed, with an increase to 210,000 prisoners in 2010
and 364,000 in 2018 (320 and 526 per 100,000, respectively). Japan, in turn, has had arelatively stable rate, with gradual growth to a peak of 81,000 in 2006 (64 per 100,000),
and a subsequent steady decrease to 52,000 in 2018 (41 per 100,000). 17
B. International Patterns in the Use of Probation
The patterns in brief:
•

•

•

17

the quantitative data on the use of probation, either world-wide or within aregion (such as Europe) is so poor that clear patterns cannot be detected. The
reason is that probation exists in many forms, and is used for many purposes.
the statistical data does suggest, however, that there are huge differences
between countries in the use of probation. Some countries use probation
extensively, others use it rarely.
qualitative data at least in Europe suggests that the use of probation is
expanding, as is the range of functions that probation agencies fulfil.

International Centre for Prison Studies website.
- 87 - 87 -

Probation is generally understood as a sentence in which the offender continues to livein the community, but under the supervision of a judicial authority, probation service orother similar body. 18 The element of “under supervision” is important, and distinguishes
this sentence from, for example, simple conditional sentences where the offender is under
no obligation to report to anyone. However, it should be noted that the extent to which
probation actually involves supervision varies considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Probation agencies can be found throughout the world. For example, in Europe they
can be found in almost every country, although with a wide variety in structure and infunctions. Most of the original probation agencies were state-run, but some were nongovernmental, and today some are privately-run businesses. The work of many probation
agencies covers the entire country, but some are regional or even local. In respect offunctions, before the trial stage some probation agencies prepare social inquiry reports forthe prosecutor, and may provide information also to other decision-makers in the criminal
justice system. Some probation agencies provide assistance to victims of crime, andorganize restorative justice interventions. In respect of sentences, probation agencies may
organize not only probation, but also community service orders. And in respect of prisoners,
some probation agencies provide social support for relatives of inmates, and guidance andsupport to prisoners themselves (including debt regulation) in order to prepare for theirrelease and assist with aftercare residential homes. 19
Because of the considerable differences in organization and functions of probation
around the world, there is little statistical data that can be compared. Even in the one region
with a long tradition of compiling comparative statistics, Europe, a research team that has
taken a close look at this regional data warns that cross-national comparisons of thenumbers and rates of persons under the supervision of probation agencies may be
misleading. 20
Bearing that caution in mind, Table 2 in Appendix 1 provides European data on use ofprobation in 1999, 2007, 2013 and 2017. Despite the difficulties inherent in the data, it canbe concluded at the very least that there are considerable differences between European
countries in respect of how often probation is used. For example, England and Wales,
France, Germany and especially Poland appear to use probation very often, in tens of
thousands of cases each year, while in some other European countries, only a few hundred(or even fewer) offenders begin to serve probation during a year.
One source that provides some data on the use of “community corrections” in different
countries around the world is the Global Community Corrections Initiative referred to at
the beginning of this paper. On the website of the initiative, information is provided on the
total number of prisoners and the total number of persons in “community corrections” in
2016. 21 This is provided below in Table 1. As a source, it must be treated with caution, inparticular as it does not give country-specific data on how “community corrections” isHandbook for Prison Leaders 2010, p. 120.
Dünkel 2015. See also Heiskanen et al 2014, pp. 15 – 16, and tables 1 and 2, on pp. 40 – 41 and 43 – 44.
20
Aebi et al. 2014, p. 300.
21
See <http://www.globcci.org/prisonPopulationMap/prisonPop2Map.html>. The project seeks to collectdata from the fifty countries in the world that have the highest prison population (presumably on theassumption that these countries would also use make extensive use on probation). However, data on
probation is apparently available only from 38 of these 50 countries.
18
19- 88 - 88 -

defined. However, the implication given is that this involves probation, i.e., supervision in
the community.
Bearing in mind that the data in Table 1 should be treated with caution, an examinationof the table raises some intriguing questions. Assuming that the data in the “community
corrections” column refers to the number of persons on probation, and that how community
corrections is defined in the different countries is at least broadly similar, it can be seen thatsome countries (Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, and, in respect of adults, Nigeria) do not
use probation.
A second observation is that some countries use probation very rarely, in proportion to
the number of persons kept in imprisonment. The outlier here is Argentina, with some
85,000 persons in prison, and only some 3,400 persons in community corrections. Other
countries in which the number of persons in community corrections is dwarfed by theprison population are Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Peru and the Philippines.
Conversely, some countries have a community corrections population that is about
three times the size of the prison population: Germany, the Republic of Korea and inparticular Poland.
Table 1. Corrections population: total number and per 100,000 in population, by typeof sentence, in 2016 (unless otherwise noted in respect of the year)
Source: http://www.globcci.org/prisonPopulationMap/prisonPop2Map.html
Note: the 2016 prisoner data provided here differ from that provided in the 2016 edition of
the World Prisoner Population List compiled by Roy Walmsley. The calculation ofprisoners and community corrections offenders per 100,000 are by the author.
Countryprisoner
population

prisoners
per100,000

community
corrections
population

Argentina
Australia
CanadaChile
China
Colombia
FranceGermany

85,28342,492
41,14549,063
1,649,804
118,92570,71062,194

198
178
115
274
119
239
110
70

3,433
14,298
101,716
58,198707,058
57,099174,510
180,000 (2010)

community
corrections
population
per
100,000
8
66
284
326
51
115
272
202

Indonesia
Italy
Japan*
Kazakhstan
Kenya

248,389
59,13555,96733,98954,000

98
97
44
192
118

55,00059,554
15,27822,5007,861 (1995)

22
97
12
127
172

Korea, Rep. of55,198110

165,818 (2007)

330

Malaysia
MoroccoMyanmarNigeria

55,41382,512
79,66873,631

182
242
150
40

no probationno probationno probationno probation for adults-- 89 - 89 -community
corrections
population as
percentage ofprisoner population
4%
37
247
119
43
48
247
289
(note different years)
22
100
27
66
146
(note different years)
300(note different years)-

Pakistan

83,71845

23,396 (2015)

13

Peru
Philippines
PolandRussianFederation
South Africa
Spain
Thailand82,023
188,278
73,524
582,889

263
190
193
404

16,11043,194 (2017)
290,000
423,092

53
44
760
295

158,11159,087364,288

292
128
540

70,35655,342
216,616 (2013)

128
120
319

TurkeyUkraineUnited Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan
Viet Nam

232,886 297
292,406374
56,246
154
63,944
176
83,014146
190,439202
2,121,600 699
4,650,900
1531
43,900150
probation est. 2018
130,002 140
47,00050*
Data provided by Mika Kitagawa, UNAFEI

28(note different years)
20
23
394
73
44
94
59
(note different years)
126
114
139
219
36

Finally, there are vast differences in the number of persons in community corrections(presumably referring by and large to the number of persons under supervision) per 100,000
in population. At one end, there were apparently only eight persons in community
corrections per 100,000 in Argentina, twelve persons per 100,000 in Japan, and thirteen
persons per 100,000 in Pakistan in community corrections. At the other end of the range
there were 760 persons in community corrections per 100,000 in Poland, and over twicethat number, 1,531 persons per 100,000, in the United States. 22
Once again, caution needs to be exercised in interpreting this data, especially since nofurther particulars are provided on how the data was obtained, and more importantly on
how each reporting country had defined the concept of “community corrections” inresponding to the request for data.
To look at the qualitative data on probation, which are available only for the European
region, one pattern that has been noted is the growth in the number of new probation
agencies. According to the coordinator for the Council of Europe SPACE II project, thesenew probation agencies have often been detached from the national prison administration,or have expanded on the basis of local offices. A second pattern is the growth in probation
workload, much as a result of the diversification of probation functions at different stagesof intervention (e.g., pre-trial, enforcement, management of postponed sentences,conversion of sentences, or post-release stages). 23 In commenting on the observation thatthe number of prisoners in Europe has not decreased despite the growth in probation,
Delgrande notes:
The paradox of increasing patterns for prison and probation is a very complex
phenomenon and many researchers try to explain this evolution from judicial,political, security or criminal policy perspectives. It can be concluded that for theperiod lasting from the early 2000s until now, the part of prisoners sentenced toshort custodial terms (less than one-year custody) did not decrease at all. In fact it
Noting that there were 699 prisoners per 100,000 in population in the United States, it would seem that in2016, over 2 per cent of the total population of the United States was under the control of the criminal
justice system.
23
Delgrande 2015.
22- 90 - 90 -seemed that there was an overuse of CSM [community sanctions and measures] forthe persons who were not supposed to go to prison. 24
Delgrande’s point refers to what is called the “net-widening” effect of new communitybased sentences. Often, new sentences are developed specifically to replace short terms ofimprisonment, but in practice they may replace less restrictive sentences.
C.

International Patterns in the Use of Community Service Orders

The patterns in brief:• community service orders are a new sanction that is clearly increasing in
use around the world, although so far, the main area of growth appears to
be largely in Europe and North America (with a few notable exceptions in
Asia and Africa).
• in Europe in particular, community service orders are in wide use.
• different forms of community service make comparison difficult.

A community service order (CSO) requires the offender to perform a certain number ofhours of unpaid work, usually for an agency or organization or the benefit of the community.
The community service order was first introduced in England and Wales during theearly 1970s. Following a 1976 Council of Europe resolution 25 calling for member states toconsider adopting community service orders, its use spread to a number of other European
countries. In Asia and in the Pacific region, CSOs have been introduced in at least Australia,Fiji, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand, and in the
Republic of Korea as a supplement to other sentences. 26 In Latin America and the
Caribbean, community service exists in at least Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and Mexico. 27
In Africa, it exists in at least Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Kenya, Malawi,
Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia andZimbabwe. 28
There are considerable differences between countries in respect of the total number of
persons undergoing community service. Table 3 in Appendix 1 contains data from Councilof Europe member states for 1999, 2007, 2013 and 2017 on the use of CSOs. Perhaps theclearest trend that can be seen is the growth in the number of countries using CSOs, and in
the number of CSOs imposed. (Both developments can be seen in respect of Europe in thetable.)A second observation is the large differences in use from one country to another. Some
European countries impose only a few thousand CSOs annually, others (in particular
England and Wales, France, the Netherlands, Poland and especially Spain) impose it very
often.
Ibid.
Resolution (76)10 (1976), available at <https://rm.coe.int/16804feb80>.
26
Sugihara et al 1994, pp. 100, 104, 184 and 201; Challinger 1994, p. 263; Singh 2005, p. 90; Rujjanavet
2005, p. 108; Reddy, p. 224.
27
Carranza et al. 1994, p. 407.
28
Penal Reform International 2012, and Saleh-Hanna 2008 p. 387.
24
25

- 91 - 91 -

Examining the available data on the qualitative use of community service orders,
McIvor et al. note that the stated and actual functions of CSOs “have always been very
unclear and conflicting”. According to them, while the various stated functions of a morehumane alternative to prison, rehabilitation and reparation “are largely shared acrossjurisdictions, within different jurisdictions they are assigned varying degrees of importance.
Furthermore, the relative importance attached to different aims has changed over time ineach jurisdiction.” 29 Melvor at al. also say that rehabilitation continues to remain a statedfunction of CSOs, but it is becoming more narrowly defined as reduction of the risk ofreoffending, and conversely the retributive aspects of CSOs “are being stressed in an effort
to garner public and judicial support”. 30
Dünkel, in turn, notes that the general experience with CSOs has been positive. By andlarge CSOs do appear to be replacing short-term imprisonment, and thus the “net-widening
effect” may not be particularly strong. 31
D. International Patterns in the Use of Electronic Monitoring
The patterns in brief:• electronic monitoring is a new measure that has been spreading in manyindustrialized countries.
• electronic monitoring is used not only as a sanction, but also as analternative to pre-trial detention, and as a condition of parole.
• due to the expense of the measure, electronic monitoring is not in very
wide use in developing countries.
In electronic monitoring, the offender is ordered to remain at home or, at specified times,
at his or her place of employment, educational institution, or other accepted location. The
offender has a monitor attached (usually to his or her wrist or ankle) to help in ensuring
compliance with the order.
Electronic monitoring was first used in the United States in 1983. 32 Its purpose is toensure that the offender remains where he or she is supposed to be, or alternatively that theoffender does not enter proscribed areas or approach specific persons, such as potential
victims. It can be used as a sentence in its own right, or as a condition of probation (oranother community-based sentence). Before conviction, it can be used as an alternative to
pre-trial detention (as for example in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Northern Irelandand Portugal), and at a later stage, as a condition of a prison furlough or of parole fromprison (as in Finland and Sweden).
Although electronic monitoring is a very recent innovation in corrections, it has spread
relatively rapidly from the United States, first to the United Kingdom, and then to Canada,
New Zealand, Australia and South Korea, and to a large number of countries in Europe.
Table 4 in Appendix 1 provides data showing the rapid spread in Europe. While only fivecountries in Europe appeared to be using electronic monitoring in 1999, in 2007 it was in
McIvor et al. 2010, p. 87.
Ibid.
31
Dünkel 2015.
32
Burrell and Gable 2008; Albrecht 2005.
29
30- 92 - 92 -

use in at least 10 European countries, in 2013 in at least 15, and in 2017 in at least 21.
According to Mombelli 2019, electronic monitoring is being used or is being experimented
with in some 40 countries around the world. 33
Equally impressive is the growth in the use of electronic monitoring in individual
countries. Poland, which did not have the sentence as recently as 2007, had almost 17,000
offenders starting to serve an electronic monitoring order in 2013 (Poland did not provide
data for 2017). In France, almost 30,000 offenders began to serve such an order in 2017.
For at least these two countries, electronic monitoring is not just a technological novelty,
but something that is in very wide use.
The differences between countries in the use of electronic monitoring are also evident
in comparison to population. Aebi et al. have calculated that the average total number of
persons in Europe under electronic monitoring in 2010 was quite low (8 per 100,000
population), with the highest rate for England and Wales (42), and the lowest rate in Serbia(close to zero). 34
From the qualitative point of view, Dünkel notes the controversial nature of electronicmonitoring, and the evident danger of net widening. The contribution of electronicmonitoring to the easing of prison overcrowding appears to have been very limited,
although positive results have been reported at least in Finland, the Netherlands andSweden. 35
II. ARE COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES MORE EFFECTIVE THAN
IMPRISONMENT?
Conventional wisdom is that community-based sentences are suitable for only a distinct
range of offences: petty offences (and, in some jurisdiction, medium-level offences), andthat the response to more serious offences should be imprisonment. That statement needs
to be subjected to analysis; it needs to be “unpacked”.
What we deem a petty offence and, respectively, a medium-level and serious offence,varies from one jurisdiction to the next, and from one time to another. 36 For example, as
noted by Yukhnenko et al (2019), more or less the same drug trafficking offence can leadto a community-based sentence in one jurisdiction, and to a sentence of five to ten years of
imprisonment in another.
Furthermore, the range of offences covered by, respectively, community-based
sentences and imprisonment varies from one jurisdiction to the next, and from one time toanother. In some jurisdictions, community-based sentences are used more thanMombelli 2019.
Aebi et al. 2014, p. 300.
35
Dünkel 2015. Also Graham and McIvor 2015 conclude that electronic monitoring alone does notdecrease the risk of reoffending, but should be combined with support and supervision.
36
Christie 1968 has explained the variation with the concept of the “penal value” of a certain sentence. He
argues that in any given society, the “penal value” of, for example, a sentence of ten years of imprisonment
can vary considerably over time, depending for example of the amount of conflict in society and thestandard of living.
33
34- 93 - 93 -

imprisonment. In other jurisdictions, in turn, very few community-based sentences are used
at all.
Both factors suggest that the dominant role of imprisonment in each of our jurisdictions
can and should be reconsidered. If some jurisdictions can maintain social control, prevent
crime and protect the victim and the community with a low level of imprisonment, weshould try to learn from their experience. As noted by the UNODC,
It can be argued that the position of imprisonment as the main punishment for
medium-level, and even for more serious, offences is not and should not be selfevident. Other forms of punishment could just as well be used, as long as they canbe regarded as credible and as fulfilling whatever the function of punishment is seen
to be in society. Imprisonment is not the only type of punishment, nor necessarily
the best type of punishment, especially (but not only) in the case of juveniles, anddisadvantaged groups such as drug users and the mentally ill. Imprisonment should
be reserved for the most serious offences and the most dangerous offenders. In othercases, deterrence, education, rehabilitation, just deserts and even incapacitation canbe promoted by other types of punishment, at a significantly lower social, humanand economic cost. It is for this reason that the United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) and the United
Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures
for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules) were drafted.
It needs to be emphasized that this paper is not intended to suggest that imprisonment
is not an appropriate response to crime. As noted above by the UNODC, imprisonment
should be reserved for the most serious offences and the most dangerous offenders.
However, it should not be used indiscriminately when the same functions can be achieved
through community-based sentences.
In pursuit of such a reconsideration of the role of imprisonment, the following section
examines whether imprisonment does indeed fulfil different purposes of punishment, or isany more effective in fulfilling them than community-based sentences. After all, as notedby the UNODC above, imprisonment is widely believed to• deter the person sentenced from repeating his or her offence;• rehabilitate the offender (by increasing awareness and acceptance of norms, and thus
by leading the offender to reject a criminal lifestyle);• incapacitate the offender, by placing him or her behind locks and bars, thus
presumably keeping the rest of the community safe: and• serve as a warning to other potential offenders not to commit an offence.
As for the “just deserts” purpose of punishment, the question of whether or not
imprisonment is “better” that community-based sentences rests essentially on theperception of the severity of each respective sentence.
This section will also consider the cost implications of both imprisonment andcommunity-based sentences.

- 94 - 94 -

A. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences at
Deterring the Offender from Committing New Offences
The “special prevention” function of a sentence, the impact that it has on the offender,
is seen to operate through a combination of deterrence (warning), rehabilitation (educationand seeking to ensure that the offender can be reintegrated into the community as a lawabiding member) and incapacitation. To the extent that punishment actually has this
impact, it is difficult to distinguish between deterrence and rehabilitation. We cannot know
for sure that, if an offender does not commit a new offence after being punished, this isbecause the offender fears new punishment (the deterrence aspect) or is better adjusted (isbetter able to function as a lawful member of society).
A second difficulty lies in how to research the impact of punishment. Much as
criminologists would welcome the possibility, judges in most jurisdictions would not agree
to a massive experiment, in which offenders guilty of more or less similar offences are
randomly split into two groups, with one being sentenced to imprisonment and the otherbeing sentenced to community-based sentences, and the researchers then seeing whichgroup is less likely to commit new offences (and possibly even interviewing the offenders
in an attempt to see whether deterrence or rehabilitation was the primary factor in such
desistance).
A third difficulty lies in drawing conclusions from whatever results can be gleaned fromresearch. Offenders are different and have different life situations and motivations.
Individual jurisdictions have different forms of imprisonment and community-based
sentences, and their theoretical deterrent and rehabilitative impact may well be quite
different. Finally, even in individual jurisdictions, different sentences may be implemented
in different ways, and consequently could well have a different impact on the offenders
serving the sentences.
Without seeking to generalize too far, one way to proceed is to examine the deterrence
argument from the point of view of short-term imprisonment, as compared to communitybased sentences. If the term of imprisonment is only a few weeks or months, the offenderpresumably could not receive the benefit of very extensive educational, health or social
welfare services which would assist him or her in reintegration into the community.
Studies that can shed a light on this have been carried out in a number of countries. One
example is Wermink et al. (2010), which used the matched samples approach 37 in acomparison of reoffending after short sentences of imprisonment (up to six months) with
reoffending after sentences of community service. The study concluded that the reoffending
rate for those sentenced to community service was roughly one half of that of offenders
sentenced to short-term imprisonment, a result which is in line with earlier studies carriedout in the Netherlands.
Going beyond studies in just one country, a recent review brought together the resultsof a number of studies conducted around the world, similarly comparing the impact ofcommunity service with that of short sentences of imprisonment (Yukhnenko et al. 2019).
Once again, the over-all conclusion was that offenders sentenced to community service hada lower rate of reoffending than did offenders sentenced to short terms of imprisonment.
The matched samples methodology seeks to make any two samples being compared as similar to one
another as possible (such as in respect of the age and gender of the offender and the length of the sentence).

37- 95 - 95 -

On this basis, it would seem that the belief in imprisonment as a greater deterrent thancommunity-based sentences can at least be questioned. At this stage, we need not try to
draw more general conclusions. Imprisonment may well have a deterrent effect on at least
some offenders and in some jurisdictions, but in some cases community-based sentences
produce better results.
B. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences at
Rehabilitating the Offender
One of the fundamental purposes of custodial corrections is to take the offender awayfrom a possibly criminogenic environment and place him or her in a closed rehabilitative,
therapeutic or educational institution for treatment. The treatment may be tailored for the
special health and or mental health needs of individual offenders (e.g., counselling, anger
management, psychiatric treatment, substance abuse), or may be designed to help a wider
spectrum of offenders realize the need to abandon a criminal lifestyle (e.g., religious
counselling, education, vocational training, cognitive skills).
Extensive research has been conducted on the rehabilitative effect of custodialcorrections. 38 Among the classics in the field is Robert Martinson’s 1974 article, “Whatworks? – Questions and answers about prison reform.” Martinson summarized a numberof studies and concluded that “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts
that have been reported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism”. 39 David
Farabee, in his 2005 book Rethinking Rehabilitation: Why Can’t We Reform Our
Criminals? also concluded that on a general level, correctional treatment is not working.
Many reasons have been identified for this failure in corrections. If the penal philosophy
is based on a belief that offenders can be “forced” to change their lifestyle (an approachthat critics refer to as “coercive treatment” or “mandatory treatment”), the offenders may
respond by seeming to adapt to the regime and change their behavioural patterns in afavourable manner, but on release immediately return to a criminal lifestyle. It has also
been pointed out that custodial treatment in itself can do little about the situation in which
the offender will find himself or herself on release. Indeed, as has often been noted, being
sent to prison may in a variety of ways worsen the offender’s ability to function as amember of society.
Custodial corrections in most jurisdictions are underresourced and overburdened. The
availability and quality of counselling, treatment, education and vocational training (as wellas other forms of support and assistance) may be severely limited. With too many prisoners
and too little resources, the staff is unable to conduct a proper risk and needs assessment,much less provide an individualized treatment plan that addresses the needs of each andevery prisoner. Treatment that is specifically tailored to individual offenders (or small
groups of offenders with similar characteristics) in individual cultural contexts has beenshown to work, but matching offenders and treatment programmes, and successfully
implementing such programmes, is very resource intensive.
It should again be emphasized that the research has been conducted primarily in a few industrializedcountries, and it is doubtful that the results can be generalized to all jurisdictions. Indeed, some jurisdictions
report very low rates of reoffending for entire prison populations after offenders have been released from
custodial treatment. However, generally the empirical research to verify these reports is missing.
39
Martinson’s conclusions have been summarized in the short phrase, “nothing works”, but Martinson
himself has disavowed this. He notes that there are successful forms of treatment, but these are tailored to
specific groups, and must be well resourced and managed.
38- 96 - 96 -

Without the supervision of the staff, many prisoners will be spending much of theirtime in a very criminogenic environment, one in which criminal values can be instilled,
new and better ways to commit offences can be learned, new criminal partnerships can beformed, and in general the offenders can become more deeply committed to a criminal
lifestyle.
Poorly resourced and overpopulated prisons may furthermore provide an unhealthy
environment, with gang violence, contagious diseases, substance abuse, and a variety offactors that result in mental health issues.
Throughout 2020 and into 2021, the Covid-19 pandemic has brought renewed attention
to the need to reduce prison populations. The UNODC has noted
Reassessing the resort to imprisonment in general and identifying categories ofprisoners which are at particular risk of being affected by the Covid-19 disease willbe essential to curb the continuing inflow of prisoners and to accelerate the releaseof suitable categories of prisoners. For many countries, reducing the prison
population may even constitute a precondition for introducing meaningfulprevention and control measures. Judges and magistrates play a key role in thisregard and will need to make decisions to remand or sentence an individual subject
to enhanced scrutiny in light of the virus. … Alternatives to pretrial detention andthe commutation or temporary suspension of certain sentences will be valuable
instruments to reduce new admissions to prisons. 40
The criminogenic prison environment can be compared to community-based sentences,which allow the offender to remain in the community. He or she can continue with family
responsibilities, education, vocational training and employment. In most jurisdictions, thequality of community-based health, social services and other services may be rather basic(the constraint on resources is certainly not limited to prisons), but they would tend to bebetter than what is available in a custodial environment. Community-based sentences may
also reduce the social stigma of being an “ex-convict”. Consequently, if rehabilitation is
the goal, providing it in a community setting is more effective. As noted in a recent andrigorous meta-analysis of the available research, “Strong meta-analytic evidence indicatesthat community-based treatment programmes for at-risk or adjudicated individuals,
especially juveniles, are more effective than those offered in secure settings.” 41
The belief that imprisonment is better than community-based sentences at rehabilitating
offenders can thus be questioned. Once again, we need not try to draw more general
conclusions. There are cases where offenders can and will benefit from being taken awayfrom a criminal environment and provided with a variety of services. However, we should
not be under the illusion that imprisonment in underresourced and overburdened
institutions in general is rehabilitative.

40
41

UNODC 2020, p. 4. See also Council of Europe (2020a) and Council of Europe (2020b).
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 77. See also pp. 94-95.
- 97 - 97 -

C. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences atProtecting the Community Through Incapacitation of the Offender
A widely held and understandable belief is that imprisonment has an incapacitating
effect. By placing a criminally active offender who is dangerous to his or her environment
behind bars, the community (or a specific victim) is made safer.
Let there be no doubt about it, serious offenders who are a threat to society or a threat
to specific victims should be placed in prison: those guilty of deliberate offences involving,for example, serious danger to life, health and well-being, serious drug trafficking, serious
theft, serious fraud, serious economic crime and serious crimes against the environment,
and offences that endanger national security.
The research results on the incapacitating impact of imprisonment appears to be mixed,
largely due to the methodological difficulties. Two of the main difficulties lie in predicting
how many offences a prisoner would have committed (based on his or her criminal history)
if he or she had not been sentenced to imprisonment, and the extent to which this individual
would, in time, have desisted from crime. 42
Furthermore, the belief in the incapacitating effect of imprisonment should not be
exaggerated. There are at least three reasons for this. First, offenders may be able tocontinue to commit offences while in prison. This is true in the sense that offenders may
commit for example violent or property offences against one another or staff members
while in prison, and also because offenders may continue to plan and direct offences frombehind prison walls.
A second reason has to do with the possibility (if not probability) in many cases thatremoval of one offender from the community may lead to him or her being replaced byanother offender. This phenomenon has been noticed for example in organized criminal
activity, in particular in drug trafficking.
A third reason is that most persons sentenced to imprisonment will in time be released.
Although it may seem counterintuitive to say that greater use of community-based
sentences increases the safety of the community, what is noted above of the inability of
most prisons in general to rehabilitate offenders suggests that sending a person to prison
may, in the long run, decrease community safety. While in prison, offenders in prison may
learn new ways of committing crime and may form new criminal attachments. This leads
to a cycle of release and imprisonment, which does little to build safer communities.
It can also be noted that allowing offenders to remain in the community provides themwith greater opportunities to enter into community-based substance-abuse programmes,
seek employment, find suitable housing and maintain their family responsibilities, all ofwhich could further contribute to a decrease in the rate of reoffending.
Some recent studies that have examined data on how imprisonment increases the rateof reoffending have concluded that using community-based sentences instead of short-term
sentences of imprisonment can indeed reduce the number of future offences, and in this42

See Travis and Western (eds.) 2014, pp. 140-145.
- 98 - 98 -

way increase public safety. 43 It is clear that this effect depends on a number of variables,in particular the sentencing practice in the jurisdiction in question. In jurisdictions which
already make extensive and effective use of community-based sentences, the effect of sucha shift would presumably be less than in a jurisdiction which makes heavy use of
imprisonment. However, the results of the study do at least draw attention to the periodic
need to reassess our approach to sentencing.
D. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better at General Prevention Than CommunityBased Sentences, By Warning Others Not to Commit Offences
Asides from the special preventive argument that imprisonment can deter, rehabilitate
and incapacitate the individual offender, imprisonment has also been argued to have ageneral preventive impact, by dissuading other members of the community from crime by
example. This general preventive impact is seen to have three components, the severity, thecertainty, and the celerity (speed after commission of the offence) of the sentence.
Extensive research has been conducted on the correlation (and possible causal
connection) between the use of imprisonment and the crime rate. Of the three components(severity, certainty and celerity), the severity of the sentence has been the easiest to change.
If imprisonment had a clear general preventive impact, then an increase in the use of
imprisonment – stipulating imprisonment as the mandatory sentence for a greater range ofoffences, and using longer sentences (for example through “three strikes” laws) – should
result in a decrease in crime. The preponderance of evidence suggests that there may beslight decrease, but in general this decrease is so modest that it is offset by the social, humanand financial costs of the increase in imprisonment. 44 It could also be argued on the basisof the statistical evidence that increasing the severity of sentences has the opposite effectfrom what was intended: placing more people into imprisonment tends to be correlated withan increase in the crime rate. 45 There are, furthermore, examples of countries, such as
Finland, where a deliberate and considerable decrease in the use of imprisonment did notincrease crime rates (as one would have assumed on the basis of a purported generalpreventive impact).
It has been pointed out that persons planning to commit an offence (to the extent thatrational planning is at all involved) tend to discount the likelihood of detection,
apprehension and conviction. Overall, in many countries the likelihood that an offender
will be arrested and brought to justice for such offences as theft, burglary, drug trafficking
and trafficking in persons is quite small.

For example, a major study in the United Kingdom published in 2019 concluded that replacing short
sentences of imprisonment (less than six months) with community-based sanctions reduced reoffending by
13 per cent. See <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-urges-evidence-led-approach-tocut-crime>.
Cowan et al. (2019) examined the use of police and court diversion in Victoria, Australia. The authors
calculate, on the basis of an examination of over one million cases, that for each 100 offenders diverted,eight crimes could be prevented per year. Thus, the authors estimate that greater use of police diversion in
Victoria could have prevented tens of thousands of offences.
44
See, for example, Travis and Western (ed.) 2014, pp. 134 – 140.
45
This conclusion has been contested. Much depends on what time period is considered; for example, in thecase of the United States, it has been observed that the increase in the use of imprisonment from the 1970s
to the 1990s ultimately was followed by a fall in reported crime (beginning during the 1990s) (see, e.g.,
Travis and Western (ed.) 2014, pp. 33 – 69). However, if imprisonment does have a general preventive
effect, this effect should arguably have been seen in a much shorter time span.
43- 99 - 99 -The conclusion is that also the general preventive impact of imprisonment, as compared
to community-based sentences, can be questioned.
E. The “Just Deserts” (Retributive) Argument: The Claim That Imprisonment Is
Demanded by the Public Sense of JusticeIn debates on public policy, an often-repeated argument is that the public “demands”
imprisonment as a response to crime. Imprisonment has become such an entrenchedinstitution in our society that it becomes almost a visceral response to offences. Populist
politics have, moreover, encouraged such a visceral response by emphasizing individualfeatures of particularly horrific offences, and then generalizing them to cover broader
categories of offenders and offences.
It is true that simplistic opinion polls (asking loaded questions along the line of “do you
support harsher punishment for rapists and murderers?”) tend to produce predictable
responses (“yes, the public does demand longer sentences”). Research, however, hasrepeatedly shown that there is considerable variety in the attitudes of different members of
the public, and not one general “sense of justice”. More importantly, when respondents areprovided with more detailed information regarding the background of individual
defendants (criminal record, ethnic background, gender, substance abuse, social history)
and the circumstances of the case, the responses tend to fall more in line with current
sentencing practice by the courts, including application of such fundamental principles asproportionality and equity. 46
Along the same lines, Jan van Dijk has used the international data produced fromvictimization surveys to examine possible correlations between general public opinion(punitiveness) and the rate of imprisonment. He concludes that, worldwide, there is no
relationship between public attitudes towards sentencing and actual imprisonment rates. 47
Indeed, van Dijk has noted that
Public opinion survey research supports the broad proposition that the public, when
considering whether hypothetical cases should result in a sentence to prison, is more
likely to favor a noncustodial sentence when that option is fully developed.
Information at the country level has shown that public attitudes are influenced byavailable sentencing options. If alternative, noncustodial sentences are introduced
in a country, the proportion of respondents favoring this option usually goes up
sharply in the aftermath. … In this regard, it is worth pointing out that noncustodial
sentences are not widely available in developing countries. Reliance on prison
sentences in developing countries seems partly determined by the lack of viable
alternatives for which new institutional arrangements would have to be put inplace. 48
The conclusion is that, when the public sense of justice is assessed, community-based
sentences do find wide support as a response to a broad range of offences. The ability ofthe public to understand and accept such sentences should not be underestimated.

See, for example, Kääriäinen 2018 and the literature cited.
van Dijk 2008, p. 264.
48
van Dijk 2008, p. 265.
46
47

- 100 - 100 -F. The Cost-Effectiveness of Community-Based Sentences
The implementation of any sentence brings with it a variety of costs: human, social andfinancial. These costs are generally factored into public policy decisions on theadministration of justice and are deemed to be offset by the benefits that are seen to result
from bringing an offender to justice. This raises the question of whether the benefits
believed to come from sentences of imprisonment can be achieved through communitybased sentences, but at a lower overall cost.
The human costs of serving a sentence extend primarily to the offender, but they also
affect his or her family. In the case of imprisonment, the human costs to the offenderinclude of course the loss of liberty, but separate reference could be made to the disruptionof contacts with family members, 49 interruption of education, vocational training or
employment, the resulting poorer likelihood of being able to return to the job market at thesame level of income and financial stability, 50 and the possible worsening of health andmental health.
The impact of imprisonment on family members can take many forms. Offenders who
have served time in prison may have difficulties in forming relationships, and thus
partnerships would tend to be unstable, leading perhaps to broken families even after theoffender has been released from prison. The offender may be the main caretaker of thefamily, and placing him or her in prison may deprive the family of necessary parental andfinancial support. Imprisonment tends to weaken family bonds, and affect the well-beingof children, to the extent that the children have behavioural problems, such as aggression
and delinquency, as well as their dropping out from school. These same human costs areless likely as a consequence of community-based sentences, since the offender is able toremain at home, at school and at work.
In assessing the social costs of sentences, it should be kept in mind that any stateimposed sanction – whether imprisonment or a community-based sentence – is part of aprocess of state control, a process which also includes policing, arrest of a suspect, thecriminal procedure and conviction. Policing in any society tends to have a focus onvulnerable communities, which are often regarded as high-crime areas. When we consider
that a sizeable proportion of prisoners come from vulnerable communities, this should raisequestions about the impact of multilayered and concentrated forms of disadvantage in thesecommunities: high crime, but also poverty, poor health, unemployment and intrusive state
control. For this reason, it is difficult, if not impossible, to try to assess the social impact
resulting from sending an offender to prison instead of applying a community-based
sentence.
That said, the fact that the prisons in many countries have an overrepresentation ofvulnerable groups such as racial and ethnic minorities strongly suggests that imprisonment
increases social, economic and political inequality in society. Those in prison tend to bepoor, undereducated, unemployed, in poor health and (in some jurisdictions)disenfranchised. The experience is that the impact of imprisonment will not improve, but
in practice worsen their prospects for full integration into society as law-abiding members.
It should be noted that especially in the case of violent offenders, members of his or her family may
welcome the offender being taken out of the home and being placed in prison. However, in most cases theoffender will be released within a few months or years.
50
Research and experience in many countries indicate that potential employers are reluctant to hire persons
with a criminal record, and in particular persons who have been in prison.
49- 101 - 101 -Although they have been guilty of offences, and should be brought to justice, the questionis whether a sentence of imprisonment is the most appropriate, proportional and effective
response to their offences. 51
As for the financial costs, and without entering into the accounting and budgetarydetails of prison management as opposed to the management of community-based
sentences (which vary considerably for example in accordance with the level of economic
development and the administrative structure in different jurisdictions), these costs include
investment in construction and maintenance of prison facilities, capital costs, staff costs,
the cost of various health, mental health, educational and other support services forconvicted offenders, and technology (whether for example for security in prison, or forelectronic monitoring devices in community-based sentencing). There are also hidden costs,
such as those associated with taking an offender away from his or her employment (to theextent that offenders sentenced to imprisonment are gainfully employed).
Reference should also be made to the financial benefits of correctional administration,
including the economic benefit of providing employment for correctional (and affiliated)personnel, and the income from prison industries. When looking at the bottom line,
however, the financial cost per offender of implementing imprisonment as opposed to
implementing a community-based sentence is many times higher. The conclusion is that,from a costs-benefits perspective, community-based sentences can be implemented atlower costs-per-sentence than imprisonment.
G. What Do We Know About the Relative Effectiveness of Different CommunityBased Sentences?
The general conclusion that can be drawn from the previous sections is that the positionof imprisonment as the punishment of choice for medium-level, and even for more serious,
offences is not and should not be self-evident. In many cases community-based sentences
would seem to fulfil the different functions of punishment in society. Imprisonment should
be reserved for the most serious offences and the most dangerous offenders.
A separate issue is what types of community-based sentences “work”, and why: do they
deter, do they rehabilitate, do they serve as a warning to others in the community, do theyprotect the victim and the other members of the community, does the public regard themas appropriate, and are they cost-effective?
This is a large and complicated issue, and it is made more complex by the diversity oftypes of sentences, the diversity of jurisdictions, and the diversity of offenders who aresentenced. What is more, there is perhaps surprisingly little rigorous research on theeffectiveness of community-based sentences, and caution has to be used regarding theextent to which research results in one jurisdiction can be generalized to apply elsewhere.
When speaking about community-based sentences, however, this discussion on relative
effectiveness can and should be largely limited to those sentences that are intended to havea special preventive impact on the offender. 52 We can leave aside for example monetary

Travis and Western (eds.) 2014.
It should be recalled that some sentences or measures, such as restorative justice processes, are designed
to have an impact also on other persons affected by the offence.
51
52- 102 - 102 -fines, which are primarily intended to have a general preventive effect. 53 (In many
jurisdictions, this means that in practice most community-based sentences would be leftoutside the scope of our examination.)
It should first be noted that most offenders will not necessarily commit new offences.
The criminological literature on the prediction of reoffending refers to the concepts of“false positives” and “false negatives”. In this context, a “false positive” refers to anindividual who, according to risk assessment, is presumed to be likely to reoffend, but infact would not commit a new offence. A “false negative” in turn, is an individual who ispresumed to become law-abiding, but would in fact commit a new offence (an occurrence
which may largely be due to situational circumstances). Although in general, risk
assessment tools have had poor success in predicting future behaviour, what we do know
is that it is easiest to predict correctly who would not reoffend than it is to predict who
would commit a new offence. Out of a cohort of, for example, one thousand persons who
have committed an offence, it is easier for us to predict with relative assurance the several
hundred who will not commit a new offence, than it is for us to predict the perhaps one
hundred who will commit a new offence. 54
Many offenders come from a community that is beset with multiple social problems:poverty, unemployment, lack of economic opportunities, lack of basic services, family
breakdown, marginalized populations and poor social cohesion. If the goal is the preventionof reoffending and thus also the protection of the community, also community-based
sentences should seek to come to grips with these problems. 55
A recent meta-analysis of the available research on “what works” in community-based
sentences can be summarized for the present purposes as follows. Those sentences that seek
to strengthen informal and supportive social controls and reintegration, and to maintain or
repair social bonds (such as restorative justice programmes) have a favourable andstatistically significant effect. The authors suggest that this is because such sentences arehighly specific and targeted, and they involve one-on-one interactions and the building of
personal relationships. On the other hand, sentences that simply place the offender in thecommunity without seeking to provide him or her with a way to internalize or restore
conventional values and relationships do not have an appreciable special preventive impact
on the offender. The authors conclude by saying that this suggests “that interventions
should be implemented at a high level of focus – whether at small places or with high-risk
individuals – and incorporate specific risk factors.” 56
Fines, however, cannot be totally ignored when discussing the appropriateness of different sanctions. If
an offender is unable to pay the fine, he or she may be sentenced to prison for non-payment.
54
Longitudinal studies have generally suggested that a small percentage of a population cohort are “hardcore offenders”, who commit the majority of offences, both petty and serious.
55
Paragraph 29 of the background document to Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9) notes that “When prisoners
are released into the community, they frequently encounter a wide range of social barriers to re-entry, suchas challenges in access to employment, housing, treatment for drug use disorders and prosocial support. The
continuum of care from prison to the community through robust coordination, in particular between
institutional and community corrections services, is crucial. Ensuring an adequate period of support
facilitates a smooth transition to society. This can take the form of a support staff assigned to work with theoffender in prison and in the community during an initial transition period, to assist the offender in finding
housing and employment, and generally helping the offender to navigate through the initial stages of reentry.”56
Weisburd et al. 2016, pp. 97-98. The approach used by Weisburd et al. is based on a rigorous assessmentof the available research, and, using the same method developed in Sherman et al. 1997, divides measures
into “what works”, “what doesn’t work”, “what is promising”, and “what requires more research”.
53- 103 - 103 -Along the same lines, the authors conclude that diversion with services is distinctly
more effective than simple diversion. 57 The authors further conclude that electronicmonitoring, when compared with traditional or intensive probation, or even with
incarceration, was ineffective in preventing reoffending. They argue that this is due to thefact that electronic monitoring is based on formal social control and surveillance. 58 This isechoed by Graham and McIvor, who review international experiences with electronicmonitoring, and conclude that
Overall, the electronic monitoring programmes and approaches which are shown to
reduce reoffending during and/or after the monitored period are mostly those which
include other supervision and supportive factors (e.g., employment and education,social capital) associated with desistance. The effective approaches discussed here
have developed on the basis of high levels of integration with supervision andsupport from Probation Officers and other staff and services. In other words, themore effective programmes and approaches, in Europe in particular, are thosewhere EM is not a stand-alone measure. 59
Overall, Weisburd et al. conclude,… the potential crime-supressing elements of the community, such as positivesocial controls, are not necessarily leveraged by simply placing an offender in thecommunity and assuming that the desire to remain there will act as a sufficient
deterrent to recidivism. The more successful community programs suggest that atargeted and focused approach may be required. 60
This targeting and focusing revolves around the nature of the offence and the offender.
For example, substance abusers, offenders with mental health problems, offenders guiltyof domestic violence, and sex offenders may respond well to community-based sentencesthat contain a treatment and support component.
III. PROMOTING WIDER USE OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES 61
There is a strong interest throughout the world in replacing imprisonment with
community-based sentences. The repeated resolutions and declarations of the United
Nations Congresses on this subject, adopted by consensus, show that all member states areagreed – at least in principle – on the need to reduce imprisonment and to expand the useof effective community-based sentences. Even so, when the United Nations moved toadoption of the Tokyo Rules in 1990, and asked member states to provide data on the statusof community-based sentences, many replied that appropriate community-based sentences
are simply not available, or that the available community-based sentences are used far lessthan they might be or, when used, are used as substitutes for other community-based
sentences and not for imprisonment (the so-called net widening effect).
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 99.
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 100. Also, Dünkel 2015 concludes that the research results on the contribution ofelectronic monitoring to the prevention of reoffending is not evident, and that electronic monitoring seems
to be promising only in combination with social support by the probation and aftercare services.
59
Graham and McIvor 2018.
60
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 100.
61This section of the paper is an updated and abridged version of Joutsen 1990.
57
58- 104 - 104 -The available data presented in this paper on the use of community-based sentences
around the world suggests that even today, thirty years on, Member States continue to meetwith these same challenges.
The main reasons for the inconsistency between stated goals and actual practice arearguably to be found in law, sentencing constraints, policy, resources and attitudes. These
problems cannot be dealt with in isolation from one another. The use of community-based
sentences can be expanded effectively only if all the problems are recognized and dealt
with. The steps that should be taken on different levels and by the different stakeholders
involved are outlined in the following.
STEP 1 Ensure that the law clearly provides an adequate range of community-based
sentences
In most jurisdictions, the courts can impose only those sentences that are expressly
provided in statutory law. In these systems, the first step must be to ensure that statutory
law provides for an adequate range of community-based sentences and outlines theprocedures and conditions for their imposition and implementation. The legislation should
specify the purposes of the sentence and the expectations of the legislator as to the range
of offences for which the sentence may or should be used. This would help judges indetermining the proper place of the measure within the penal system, in line with suchfundamental principles of sentencing as proportionality and equity. 62
Another statutory measure would be a requirement that the court justify why it imposesa sentence of imprisonment rather than a community-based sentence. Such a measure
would compel the court to consider why none of the available community-based sentences
are appropriate in the case at hand. England and Wales has established a Sentencing
Council, which has issued mandatory guidelines for courts on the imposition ofcommunity-based sentences. 63 These provide, inter alia, that
A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the combination of
the offence and one or more offences associated with it was so serious that neither
a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence.
There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies. The
circumstances of the individual offence and the factors assessed by offence-specificguidelines will determine whether an offence is so serious that neither a fine alone
nor a community sentence can be justified. Where no offence specific guideline isavailable to determine seriousness, the harm caused by the offence, the culpabilityof the offender and any previous convictions will be relevant to the assessment.
The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment for themost serious offences. 64
When a new community-based sentence is introduced, it may be difficult for thelegislator and/or the court to assign the sentence its appropriate place in the penal system. 65
See for example paragraph 22 of the background document for Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9).
<https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-us/>.
64
Ibid.
65
Although in theory the legislature could provide specific sentencing guidelines, most such guidelines deal
primarily with the length of sentences of imprisonment, and at most with the borderline between
62
63- 105 - 105 -Is 40 hours of community service the equivalent of one month of imprisonment, forexample? Is it more or less severe than a suspended sentence of a certain length? Insentencing, the court must make a choice among a number of different sentences using
multiple criteria which compare the seriousness of the offence to what are deemed to be
the relevant characteristics of the offender and the penal value of the community-based
sentences available, either singly or in combination. 66
The introduction of community-based sentences is therefore not enough. The courts
should be given clear guidance on how the new non-custodial sentences fit in with present
sentencing policy. This guidance may be provided not only by the legislator, but also by
judicial practice (court precedents), and by sentencing guidelines adopted for example by
the Supreme Court, judicial conferences or professional associations.
Where this would not be deemed a violation of the principle of the separation of theexecutive and the judiciary, the executive branch could consider the possibility of providing
the court with annotated information on current court practice. This can be done in the formof a publication giving the “normal” sentencing range for the basic types of offences, withindications of how, in court practice, aggravating and mitigating circumstances haveaffected the sentence. Such information would be provided to the courts simply as a tool,
showing the judges what other courts have done in similar cases.
Since the selection of the sentence is often determined by the motion of the prosecutor,
or by the way in which the prosecutor otherwise presents the case, also prosecutorial
guidelines could be developed to identify cases which would seem suitable for theimposition of community-based sentences.
STEP 2 Review substantive criminal law in order to ensure that it is in line with thefundamental values of society
Changes in society are often reflected in changed attitudes towards certain behaviour.
A review of criminal law may show that existing penal provisions on certain offences werepassed at a time when these offences were deemed particularly reprehensible; in the lightof present attitudes, a community-based sentence may well be deemed more acceptable,
appropriate and proportionate than imprisonment. The public attitude towards the use of
imprisonment may have changed; in many countries, its “penal value” has increased.
Where imprisonment at one time was imposed in decades, it may now be imposed in years;
where it was once imposed in years, it may now be imposed in months or even in weeks.
At the lower end of the scale of offence seriousness, the possibility of imprisonment
could be eliminated entirely through decriminalization and depenalization. Such “offences”
as vagrancy and public drunkenness have been decriminalized in many countries. Althoughimprisonment and suspended sentences (probation). The most widely known such guidelines are theMinnesota Sentencing Guidelines, which stipulate a “presumptive sentence” for offences. These have been
applied since 1980. The most recent version was adopted as of 1 August 2020; Minnesota Sentencing
Guidelines 2020. The basic sentencing grid can be found at <https://mn.gov/msgcstat/documents/Guidelines/2020/2020StandardSentencingGuidelinesGrid.pdf>.
66
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has issued very detailed and mandatory guidelines on abroad range of offences. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines for the imposition of community andcustodial sentences (Sentencing Council 2016) provides clear guidance for example on the imposition andlength of community service orders, the imposition of electronic monitoring orders, the imposition andamount of fines, as well as the imposition of custodial sentences.
- 106 - 106 -these offences are rarely imprisonable offences in themselves, the persons who are fined
are usually unable to pay any fines imposed, or because of their circumstances would often
be in violation of conditions imposed on, for example, community service. Such nonpayment or technical violations often lead to imprisonment. In this way, decriminalizationof petty offences reduces the use of custodial measures.
STEP 3 Key stakeholder groups should be provided with information and training on thefunctions and use of community-based sentences.
Even if the law provides for a wide range of community-based sentences, and even if
the courts have clear guidelines on how these sentences should be imposed, communitybased sentences will not be used as long as the courts – and other influential groups ofstakeholders – do not consider them effective, appropriate and proportionate in dealing withoffenders. The preamble to the Tokyo Rules lists as such key groups law enforcement
officials, prosecutors, judges, probation officers, lawyers, victims, offenders, social
services and non-governmental organizations involved in the application of communitybased measures.
Ensuring that judges and other key stakeholders understand the purpose and rationaleof community-based sentences and that they are favourably disposed towards using suchsentences requires providing them with information and training. The key groups should
be made aware of the general benefits of community-based sentences and of the generaldrawbacks in the wide use of custodial sentences. They should be made familiar with theexisting community-based sentences and their specific purposes; they should be madefamiliar with sentencing and enforcement. They should be trained in the basic principles oflaw, criminology and psychology (as well as other disciplines) required in their respectiveroles. Finally, they should be made familiar with the rules, procedures and practices of thevarious other services involved, in order to make it easier for them to understand the
problems involved in community-based measures, and the possibilities of working together
to solve these problems.
The credibility of community-based sentences can also be enhanced if these are notseen to be excessively lenient. Visibly punitive measures (such as electronic monitoring)might therefore be an attractive option in some jurisdictions. Even terminology might beused to enhance the perception of community-based sentences as punitive. Instead of
speaking of the “waiving of measures” or “absolute discharge”, for example (both terms
may imply to the general public that “nothing happened”), one might speak of “punitive
warnings” or “penal warnings”.
STEP 4 Criminal justice decision-makers and representatives of community-based service
agencies should work in closer cooperation in order to identify and respond to the needsof offenders, in particular members of vulnerable populations, such as racial and ethnic
minorities, alcohol and drug users, the homeless and foreigners
One theme that has been repeated again and again in the debate over the greater efficacy
of community-based sentences over imprisonment is that many offenders have a large
range of challenges, ranging from health and mental health issues, lack of education and- 107 - 107 -vocational training, lack of a permanent home, to difficulties in forming stable
relationships. 67
Merely imposing a community-based sentence on an offender (unless the sentence itself
addresses underlying needs, such as is the case with a community-based substancetreatment order) will do little to help the offender in responding to these challenges. For
this reason, the various agencies as well as appropriate non-governmental organizations(including peer-support groups) and even the private sector, should find ways of working
in closer cooperation with criminal justice agencies, and of doing outreach work towards
offenders in order to ensure continuous support.
Criminal justice practitioners (the police, prosecutors and judges) will be among thefirst to point out that they are not “social workers”, and that they do not have the training,
resources or time needed to provide offenders with various forms of assistance. That said,
methods of referrals (with due respect to issues of consent and privacy) can be developed,
ranging from simply mentioning to appropriate offenders what services are available andhow to use them, through provision of brochures, to the establishment of community liaison
offices in connection with police stations or courts to serve as a “one-stop shop” foroffenders.
A more direct way of promoting cooperation is to stipulate conditions on police,prosecutorial and court dispositions requiring that the offender be in contact with specificcommunity-based services.
STEP 5 Secure a steady resource base for personnel, training and facilities
The success of community-based sentences in practice depends on the availability ofresources for their implementation. Just as imprisonment requires the prison facilities,
personnel and a prison programme, for example probation requires a suitable infrastructure
for the arrangement of supervision, and community service requires not only a suitableorganization but also designated and appropriate places of work.
The most efficient route to increase the credibility of community-based sentences andthus to promote their use is that the state and local community provide the necessary
resources and financial support for the development, enforcement and monitoring of suchsentences. Particular attention should also be paid to the training of the practitioners
responsible for the implementation of the sentences and for the coordination between
criminal justice agencies and other agencies involved in the implementation of thesesentences in the community.

Paragraph 23 of the background document for Workshop 2 (A/CONF.234/9) notes the importance, insentencing, in case dispositions and in providing rehabilitative interventions, of assessments to identify theoffenders’ individual risks, needs and environmental factors that may have a positive or negative impact on
their chances of successful social reintegration.

67- 108 - 108 -STEP 6 Ensure a continuous research component in planning
One area of concern relates to the possible dysfunction of wider use of communitybased sentences, in particular the so-called net-widening effect. 68 Statistical evidence fromvarious countries clearly suggests that community-based sentences are either used far lessthan they might be or, when used, are used as substitutes for other community-based
sentences and not for imprisonment. In addition, when suspended sentences are pronounced,
the period of imprisonment imposed may be longer than if an unconditional sentence toimprisonment were to be used. In the event of activation of the original sentence, theoffender can therefore go to prison for longer than would otherwise have been the case.
Such dysfunctions of the greater use of community-based sentences may detract fromthe benefits, or even prove to be so serious that rational criminal policy is endangered.
Research has an important role in identifying and suggesting ways to overcome thesechallenges.
With respect to sentencing, research is needed on the factors that are considered by thesentencing judge or tribunal. Unexpected factors may have a decisive influence on thesentencing process. The little research that is available has suggested, for example, thatsome judges will not consider community-based sentences that require a social enquiry
report. Further in regard to sentencing, it is possible that the imposition of communitybased sentences can be made on discriminatory grounds, as has been argued to be the casewith sentencing to imprisonment.
One area of research that is related to research on sentencing, concerns attitudes.
Certainly, the attitudes of the sentencing judge affect his or her decisions on what available
options to use. As important as the attitudes of the sentencing judge are the attitudes ofother persons involved in the implementation of community-based sentences. In particular,
the degree to which a community-based sentence is accepted by professionals as well as by
the community influences the probability that this sentence will actually be applied.
Research on changes in attitudes (showing the causes and extent of such changes) might
be of assistance in the planning of the introduction or expansion of community-based
sentences. A key factor in the success achieved with the use of any community-based
sentence is the extent to which the policymakers, courts, other practitioners and agencies
and the community are provided with evidence-based data on the effectiveness of thissentence.
IV. COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THEPERSPECTIVE OF THE SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS
The assumption that imprisonment best fulfils the various functions of punishment andthus is suitable for medium-level and more serious offences has resulted in a general growthin the number of prisoners. However, societies around the world are becoming increasingly
The background paper for the Workshop (A/CONF.234/9, para. 4(e)) notes:“The overuse of non-custodial measures, as well as their use without appropriate community support, canlead to ‘mass supervision’ and ‘net widening’, whereby the number of persons controlled by the criminal
justice system increases. The excessive use of supervision for low-risk offenders may increase thereoffending risk, owing to unnecessary interventions”.
68- 109 - 109 -aware that the use of imprisonment has significant human, social and economic costs. With
the increase in the number of prisoners, prisons are becoming overcrowded. Since theprisons themselves are often outdated, understaffed and underresourced, hundreds ofthousands of prisoners around the world are being “warehoused” in poor conditions that
impair their physical and mental health and make rehabilitation programmes difficult.
Our overreliance on prison also has an impact on equality in society. In many
communities a considerable number in particular of young men belonging to racial or
ethnic minorities, migrant groups and other such vulnerable groups are or have been in
prison and have to deal with the stigma of being ex-prisoners (a particular difficulty inseeking employment) and possibly also the deprivation of certain rights, such as the rightto use public housing.
In adopting the Tokyo Rules and the Bangkok Rules, the Member States of the United
Nations agreed that the use of imprisonment should be lessened, and the use of communitybased sentences should be expanded.
This review has questioned the basis underlying the predominant role of imprisonment
in our criminal justice system. When assessed in the light of the different functions ofsentencing (deterrence of the offender, rehabilitation, general prevention, “just deserts”,
even incapacitation), we can conclude that imprisonment on a whole has not been able todeliver in accordance with what policymakers and the public have been expecting. In manycases, community-based sentences can fulfil the same functions, and they can do so at lesshuman, social and financial cost. We need to reassess the respective role of imprisonment,
and of community-based sentences.
In 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution that shouldcause us to seriously rethink our dependence on imprisonment, and in turn look for a greaterrole for community-based sentences: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A fair,rational, humane and effective criminal justice system is important in its own right. It
protects societies against crime. It brings offenders to justice. It ensures that the rights ofthe victim are respected and protected. When it fulfils its function fairly, it plays animportant role also in ensuring that the conditions are in place to allow for sustainable
development.
Our criminal justice system is therefore quite properly seen in the light of Goal 16 of
the Sustainable Development Goals, which deals with the promotion of a just, peaceful andinclusive society through peace, justice and strong institutions. It has been said many times
that a strong legal system, including a strong criminal justice system, is a critical enabling
factor in reaching the other Goals. When the rule of law is lacking, the sustainable
development goals that we are seeking are undermined. At the same time, equitable andpredictable forms of justice are fundamental to building societies that have a strong
foundation in the rule of law, and that facilitate growth and development.
All the Goals, however, are cross-cutting. We should see Goal 16, and the operation of
the criminal justice system in the wide sense, in the broader context of the 2030 Agenda.
This means in practice that we should take into consideration how the decisions thatcriminal justice practitioners make could have an impact on the different aspects of the lifeof the victim, the offender and the community – on physical and mental health, on education,
on employment and economic survival, on the rural or urban environment, and so on. For- 110 - 110 -example, when a police officer decides to arrest a suspect (instead of letting him or her gowith a caution), this may affect the suspect’s employment or education. If a judge decides
to impose a sentence of imprisonment, this decision may remove the only provider from afamily, thus leading to the break-up of the family, with a knock-down effect on the
education and future development of the children.
This should not be understood as criticism of the decision to arrest, or of the impositionof the sentence of imprisonment. These decisions may be justified in themselves, and may
even, under the circumstances in the case, be mandatory under the law. Imprisonment has
a definite and important role in protecting victims and society, and in responding tooffenders who have committed serious offences, and who continue to pose a great threat ofharm.
However, it is important to realize that decisions in the criminal justice system do haveconsequences in different sectors of life and society, and that the decision-maker could andshould consider whether the decisions could be made differently, in a way that promotes
sustainable development more broadly, while still ensuring that the purposes of criminal
justice are met. Moreover, judges and decision-makers often have discretion in making
their decision, and in weighing whether or not to opt for a custodial or a community-based
sentence. For this reason, the entire question of sentencing should be examined also within
the context of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the General Assembly in2015.
Having served time in prison deepens the problems faced by members of vulnerable
populations and contributes to their marginalization. This in turn, breeds poverty(hampering progress on Goal 1 of the SDGs), which is one of the major root causes ofcrime and violence. Marginalization also often results in poor nutrition (SDG Goal 2), ill
health (SDG Goal 3), illiteracy (SDG Goal 4) and other challenges to sustainable
development.
Because community-based sentences do not restrict the liberty of offenders as much as
imprisonment, they allow offenders to continue their responsibilities as a family member
and a member of the community, and to continue their education (SDG Goal 4) or
employment (SDG Goal 8) without interruption. Moreover, offenders can continue toutilize the various social welfare and health services (including substance abuseprogrammes) which are easier to provide in the community than in custodial environments(SDG Goals 1 and 2).
Further reasons for the promotion of non-custodial sentences and measures are that they
help to reduce inequality (SDG Goal 10) and strengthen the inclusiveness, safety, resilienceand sustainability of the community (SDG Goal 11).
The strong interest throughout the world in replacing imprisonment with communitybased sentences, noted at the outset of this paper, can be seen in various trends. The strengthof these trends varies from one jurisdiction to the next:• a diversification of community-based sentences through, for example, adoption of
new community-based sentences, increased possibilities for adding conditions toexisting community-based sentences, and increased possibilities for combining
different community-based sentences.
- 111 - 111 -• the diversification of community-based sentences has been paralleled in somecountries by an extension of community-based sentences to a greater range ofoffences and offenders.
• a greater use of the classical community-based sentences such as the fine andprobation.
• development of community-based sentences that include one or a combination ofsuch components as work (as in community service), compensation/restitution andtreatment.
• a renewed interest in traditional indigenous measures (such as restorative justiceprocesses), and in sentences that rely on traditional infrastructures.
Despite these developments, a gap remains between policy and practice regarding
community-based sentences. This gap is reflected on several levels:• On the statutory level, many states report that they do not have an appropriate rangeof community-based sentences, or that the legislation does not provide clear guidanceon the purposes, imposition or implementation of these sentences.
• On the level of sentencing practice, the gap is reflected in the continuing
predominance of imprisonment as the “norm”, as the main measuring stick insentencing. Community-based sentences are either used far less than the law would
allow, or they are used as alternatives for other community-based sentences.
• On the level of resources, the implementation of some community-based sentences
remains hindered in many areas because of the lack of the necessary personnel,
support structures, and funds.
The gap can be diminished only through a change in attitudes. The legislator should bemade aware of the need for legislation that supports the goals of community-based
sentences. The judge and prosecutor (as well as the other practitioners involved) should bemade aware of the need to seek the appropriate community-based sentences and to apply
them whenever possible. Those who decide on resources should be made aware of thebenefits to be derived through expanded use of community-based sentences, and theimportance of well-staffed, well-trained and well-resourced community-based support
services working in close cooperation with the criminal justice system. Where an offender
does have a need for treatment, criminal justice practitioners should seek to ensure that heor she is referred to the proper agencies for help. Finally, the community should be madeaware of the importance of the reintegration of the offender into the community for the
benefit of the offender, the victim and the community as a whole.
Promoting a greater role for community-based sentences is part of sustainable
development.

- 112 - 112 -Appendix 1
Statistical data on the use of selected community-based sentences in Europe
The following three tables have been prepared on the basis of the Annual Penal
Statistics of the Council of Europe (SPACE II). Each table contains data for 1999 (the firstyear for which this data is available), 2007, 2013 and 2017 for selected European countries.
There is a structural difference between 1999 on one hand and the other three years on
the other: the data for 1999 refer to the number of community-based sentences given, while
the data for 2007, 2013 and 2017 refer to the number of persons starting to serve such asentence.
Please note that the number of persons starting to serve a sentence during a year –referred to in SPACE II as the “flow” – is a different indicator from the number of persons
serving a sentence on a given day – referred to as the “stock”. Thus, these figures cannot
be compared with the “stock” figures provided by the Global Community Corrections
Initiative that are given in Table 1 in the preceding text.
These data should be used with caution. It can be seen that data is often missing. For
example, in Table 2, only Denmark and Ireland have provided data for all four years.
A second observation is that there appear to be large differences in the data from year
to year coming from some of the individual countries. For example, the data for the
Netherlands in Table 3 appears to show that almost 37,000 persons began to serve acommunity service order in 2007, and over 32,000 did so in 2017, but in 2013 this was thecase with only 200 persons. Such huge swings can be the result of major changes inlegislation or in the organization of community service in the country in question, but they
can also be because the person(s) responding from these countries used different
interpretations of community-based sentences from year to year, or that there was a simple
error in filling out the questionnaire or in compiling the resulting table.
Table 2. Annual number of probation orders ordered (1999), number of persons that have started toserve probation (2007, 2013 and 2017)(Source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years)( - = data not provided; *** = sentence does not exist / not applicable)country
1999
2007
2013
2017
Austria
14,974
1,705
1,984
Denmark
1,702
1,289
1,822
1,290
England & Wales
58,36843,13442,520Finland
1,297
575
France62,111
69,642
67,385Germany
94,30080,111
Hungary
1,891
2,653
Ireland
1,500
163
732
615
Italy
2,779
6,171
8,691
the Netherlands***
13,073
7,930
8,398
Norway528
589
610
Poland128,561
263,761
255,055
Portugal
1,595
8,739
9,387
Scotland
6,028
Spain
***
28,225
13,503Sweden
5,258
***
***
Switzerland
2,096
175
396
563

- 113 - 113 -Table 3. Annual number of community orders ordered (1999), annual number of persons who havestarted to serve community service (2007, 2013 and 2017)(Source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years)(- = data not provided; *** = sentence does not exist / not applicable)country
1999
2007
2013
2017
Austria
***
3,187
4,249
3,784
Denmark
970
3,259
3,617
4,396
England & Wales
49,59730,27822,177
Finland
3,630
2,960
2,106
1,465
France23,36830,80932,116
Germany
Hungary
5,178
13,537
Ireland
1,342
1,516
2,257
2,215
Italy
***
38
8,903
9,335
the Netherlands
17,29036,928200
32,306
Norway
2
2,228
1,980
Poland103,406
Portugal
2,724
14,31810,057
Scotland
6,200
7,800
9,888
Spain
151,354
84,073Sweden
3,066
4,939
5,814
4,341
Switzerland
2,096
5,354
2,065
33,055

Table 4. Annual number of electronic monitoring orders (1999), annual number of persons who havestarted to serve an electronic monitoring order (2007, 2013 and 2017)(Source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years)(- = data not provided; *** = sentence does not exist / not applicable)country
1999
2007
2013
2017
Austria
***
***
724
891
Denmark
***
1,103
2,512
2,163
England & Wales
661
5,058
7,994
Finland
***
***
223
241
France***7,900
27,10529,569Germany***
42
28
Hungary******
Ireland
***
***
Italy
***
***
***
the Netherlands
47
916
***
***
Norway
***
0
1,889
3,265
Poland******16,927
Portugal
585
185
294
Scotland
206
1,500
2,900
Spain
0
2,904
2,344
2,343
Sweden
3,529
3,364
1,987
1,642
Switzerland
***
463
196
235

- 114 - 114 -REFERENCES
A/CONF.222/4 (2014), State of crime and criminal justice worldwide. Report of theSecretary-General to the Thirteenth United Nations Crime Congress, Report of theSecretary-General to the Thirteenth United Nations Crime Congress, Vienna
A/CONF.234/9 (2019), Workshop 2. Reducing reoffending: identifying risks anddeveloping solutions. Background paper prepared by the Secretariat, Vienna
Aebi, Marcelo F. et al (2014), European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice
Statistics, Fifth edition, HEUNI publication no. 80, Helsinki
Aebi, M. F., & Hashimoto, Y. Z. (2018). SPACE II – 2018 – Council of Europe Annual
Penal Statistics: Persons under the Supervision of Probation Agencies. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe, 2018, available at http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2019/09/SPACEII_report_2018_Final_190930_rev.pdf
Aebi, Marcelo F., Yuji Z. Hashimoto and Melanie M. Tiago (2019), Probation andPrisons in Europe, 2018: Key Findings of the SPACE reports, Strasbourg: Councilof Europe
Albrecht, Hans-Jörg (2005), Electronic Monitoring in Europe. A Summary andAssessment of Recent Developments in the Legal Framework and Implementationof Electronic Monitoring, available at https://www.mpicc.de/files/pdf1/albrecht.pdf
Burrell, William D. and Robert S. Gable (2008), From B.F. Skinner to Spiderman toMarthan Stewart: The Past, Present and Future of Electronic Monitoring of
Offenders, Probation and Parole: Current Issues”, pp. 101 – 118
Carranza, Elias, Nicholas J. O. Liverpool and Luis Rodríguez-Manzanera (1994).
Alternatives to Imprisonment in Latin America and the Caribbean, in Zvekic,
Uglješa, Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, pp. 384 – 438
Challinger, Denis (1994), Alternatives to Imprisonment in Australia and New Zealand, in
Zvekic, Uglješa, Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective,
UNICRI, pp. 253 – 275
Christie, Nils (1968), Changes in Penal Value. Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, vol.
2, Oslo
Christie, Nils (2000), Crime Control as Industry, 3rd edition, Routledge
Council of Europe (2020a), Prisons and Prisoners in Europe in Pandemic Times: An
evaluation of the short-term impact of the COVID-19 on prison populations,available at https://wp.unil.ch/space/space-i/
Council of Europe (2020b), Prisons and Prisoners in Europe in Pandemic Times: An
evaluation of the medium-term impact of the COVID-19 on prison populations,available at https://wp.unil.ch/space/space-i/- 115 - 115 -Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE II) website, available at
http://wp.unil.ch/space/space-ii/
Cowan, David, Heather Strang, Lawrence Sherman and Sara Valdebenito Munoz (2019),
Reducing Repeat Offending Through Less Prosecution in Victoria, Australia:
Opportunities for Increased Diversion of Offenders, Cambridge Journal of
Evidence-Based Policing, vol. 3, pp. 109 - 117
Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public (1990), Government Proposals for Legislation(Government “White Paper”), Cm 965, London
Delgrande, Natalia (2015), interview, Confederation of European Probation, available at
http://cep-probation.org/the-complex-world-of-statistics-in-probation
van Dijk, Jan (2008), The World of Crime. Breaking the Silence on Problems of Security,
Justice and Development Across the World; Sage Publications, Los Angeles,
London, New Delhi and Singapore
Dünkel, Frieder (2015), Imprisonment and Community Sanctions: The Role of Crime
Policy and Sentencing Practice in Europe, paper presented at the 80th Anniversaryof the Criminological Association of Finland, Helsinki, 23 April 2015
Farabee, David (2005), Rethinking Rehabilitation: Why Can’t We Reform Our
Criminals?, Washington, D.C.
Garland, David (2014), Cultures of Control and Penal States, in Beyond Punitiveness:
Crime and Crime Control in Europe in a Comparative Perspective. Selection ofPresentations of Plenary Sessions of the EUROCRIM 2013 Conference,
Proceedings of Criminology Special Issue No. 73, Budapest, pp. 57 – 87
General Assembly resolution 45/110, United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Noncustodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules), 14 December 1990
General Assembly resolution 65/229, United Nations Rules for the Treatment of Women
Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok
Rules), 21 December 2010
GLOBCCI.ORG (undated), available at http://www.globcci.org/index.html
Graham, Hannah and Gill McIvor (2015), Scottish and International Review of the Usesof Electronic Monitoring, Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, research
report no. 8/2015, University of Stirling, available athttps://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/22183/1/Scottish%20and%20International%20Re
view%20of%20the%20Uses%20of%20Electronic%20Monitoring%20-%20Graham%20a
nd%20McIvor%202015.pdf

Handbook for prison leaders (2010), A basic training tool and curriculum for prison
managers based on international standards and norms. Criminal Justice Handbook Series,
UNODC, Vienna- 116 - 116 -Harrendorf, Stefan and Paul Smit (2010), Attributes of criminal justice systems:
resources, performance and punitivity, in Stefan Harrendorf, Markku Heiskanen
and Steven Malby (eds.), International Statistics on Crime and Justice, HEUNIand UNODC, Helsinki, pp. 113 – 151
Heiskanen, Markku, Marcelo F. Aebi, Willem van der Brugge and Jörg-Martin Jehle(eds.) (2014), Recording Community Sanctions and Measures and Assessing
Attrition. A Methodological Study on Comparative Data in Europe. HEUNI
publication no. 77, Helsinki
Herradura, Ismael Juanga (2009), Improving the Treatment of Offenders Through the
Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration: The Philippine
Experience, Resource Material Series No. 79, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 2009, pp. 199 –213
International Centre for Prison Studies website, available at
http://www.prisonstudies.org/about-wpb
Joutsen, Matti (1990), Expanding the Use of Non-custodial Measures, UNAFEI Resources Material Series no. 38, Tokyo, pp. 181-196
Joutsen, Matti (2015), The Framework for Application of the Tokyo Rules: International
Patterns in the Use of Community-Based Sanctions, unpublished paper given atthe 25th Anniversary Seminar on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
Non-Custodial Measures, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 7 – 9 September 2015
Kääriäinen, Juha (2018), Attitudes and public punishment preferences: Finnish results ofScandinavian sense of justice research, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in
Criminology and Crime Prevention, 19:2, pp. 152-169, available athttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14043858.2018.1502946
van Kalmthout, Anton and Ioan Durnescu (2008), Probation in Europe, Nijmegen
Lappi-Seppälä, Tapio (2003), Prisoner Rates: Global Trends and Local Exceptions,
Annual Report for 2002 and Resource Material Series No. 61, UNAFEI, Tokyo,
pp. 37 – 60
Martinson, Robert (1974), What works? – Questions and answers about prison reform,
The Public Interest, pp. 22-54, available athttps://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1974-martinson.pdf
McIvor, Gill, Kristel Beyens, Ester Blay and Miranda Boone (2010), Community Service
in Belgium, the Netherlands, Scotland and Spain: A Comparative Perspective,
European Journal of Probation, vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 82 – 98
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary (2020), Minnesota Sentencing
Commission, available at https://mn.gov/sentencing-guidelines/guidelines/- 117 - 117 -Mombelli, Armando (2019), Swiss-made ankle bracelets ride global prison reform trend,
Geosatis, 5 November 2019, available at https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/geosatis_swiss-made-ankle-bracelets-ride-global-prison-reform-trend/45333054
Nelken, David (2007), Comparing criminal justice, in Mike Maguire, Rod Morgan andRobert Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Fourth Edition,
Oxford, pp. 139 - 157
Penal Reform International (2012), Alternatives to imprisonment in East Africa. Trends
and challenges. London
Reddy, Bala (2009), Community-Based Alternatives in Sentencing [Singapore], Resource
Material Series No. 79, UNAFEI, Tokyo, pp. 220 – 243
Rujjanavet, Somphop (2005), Country Report – Thailand, in Resource Material Series
No. 67, UNAFEI, Tokyo, pp. 103 – 112
Saleh-Hanna, Viviane (2008), Colonial Systems of Control. Criminal Justice in Nigeria,
OttawaSentencing Council (2016), Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.
Definitive Guideline, London, available athttps://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Imposition-definitiveguideline-Web.pdf
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S.
(1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising.
Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute ofJustice, available at http://ncjrs.gov/works
Singh, Runjit Singh a/l Jaswant (2005), Non-Custodial Sentencing Options in Malaysia,
in Resource Material Series No. 67, UNAFEI, Tokyo, pp. 88 – 92
Sugihara. H., K. Horiuchi, N. Nishimura, A. Yamaguchi, S. Sato, I. Nishimura, Y.
Nagashima, M. Nishikawa and F. Saito (1994), An Overview of Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Asia and the Pacific Region, in Zvekic, Uglješa, Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, UNICRI, pp. 95 – 202
Tonry, Michael and Richard Wills (1988), Intermediate Sanctions, unpublished draft
report, November 1988, cited in Annesley K. Schmidt, An Overview ofIntermediate Sanctions in the United States, report prepared for the ResearchWorkshop at the Eighth United Nations Crime Congress
Travis, Jeremy and Bruce Western (eds.) (2014), The Growth of Incarceration in the
United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences, National Research Council of
the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., available athttps://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration.pdf- 118 - 118 -UNODC (2020), COVID-19 preparedness and responses in prisons. UNODC Position
Paper, 31 March 2020, available at https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-andprison-reform/COVID-19/20-02110_Position_paper_EN.pdf
Walmsley, Roy, World Prison Population List (2019), twelfth edition, available athttps://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl12.pdf

Weisburd, David, David P. Farrington and Charlotte Gill (eds.) (2016), What Works in
Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation. Lessons from Systematic Reviews, New
York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht and London
Wermink, Hilde, Arjan Blokland, Paul Nieuwbeerta, Daniel Nagin and Nikolaj Tollenaar(2010), Comparing the Effects of Community Service and Short-Term
Imprisonment on Recidivism: A Matched Samples Approach, Journal of
Experimental Criminology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 325-349, available athttps://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14462106/2010-WerminkHComparing.pdf
Yukhnenko, Denis, Achim Wolf, Nigel Blackwood and Seena Fazel (2019), Recidivism
rates in individuals receiving community sentences: A systematic review, PLoS
One. 14(9): e0222495, available athttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6754149/- 119 - 119 -- 120 - 120 -REDUCING REOFFENDING – IDENTIFYING RISKSAND DEVELOPING SOLUTIONS
Jennifer Oades *I. CORRECTIONS AND CONDITIONAL RELEASE IN CANADAAs a background, the population of Canada is approximately 38 million people with a
median age of 41.1 years. Canada is a bilingual country with English and French as its
official languages. It is a multicultural society with about 5 per cent of the population being
Indigenous.
The Parole Board of Canada (herein referred to as the PBC) is an independentadministrative tribunal that, as part of the Canadian criminal justice system, is responsible
for making decisions with respect to conditional release and record suspension (pardons),
as well as recommendations for clemency. The PBC contributes to the protection of society
by facilitating, as appropriate, the timely reintegration of offenders and the sustained
rehabilitation of individuals into society as law-abiding citizens. Public safety is theprimary consideration in all PBC decisions.
The PBC works in partnership with the Correctional Service of Canada (herein referred
to as the CSC) and both organizations are guided by the same federal legislation, theCorrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA). In Canada, the CSC is responsible formanaging and overseeing federal prisons, community based residential facilities, as well as
providing for the supervision of offenders in the community by parole officers. In contrast,
the PBC is responsible for making conditional release decisions for offenders serving
sentences of two years or more, or offenders serving custodial sentences of six months to
two years less a day in provinces and territories in Canada that do not have their own paroleboard. The PBC is comprised of approximately 90 Board members (full-time and parttime) which include the Chairperson, and the Executive Vice-Chairperson. Board members
are appointed by the Government of Canada for 3- or 5-year terms and these terms can be
renewed. Board members at the PBC represent the diversity of the community and comefrom a wide range of professional backgrounds (criminologists, lawyers, police,
psychologists, social workers, businesspersons, academics, etc.). By law, Board members
are independent in their decision-making responsibilities and make their decisions freefrom outside influence or interference. In the discharge of their official duties and at allother times, Board members are expected to conduct themselves in a manner that promotes
respect for the law and public confidence in the fairness, impartiality and professionalismof the Parole Board of Canada.

Chairperson, Parole Board of Canada. The following report is supplemental to the presentation by the
Chairperson of the Parole Board of Canada, Jennifer Oades, at Workshop 2 “Reducing Reoffending—Identifying Risks and Developing Solutions” on 8 March 2021. Additional information about the Parole
Board of Canada can be obtained at <https://www.canada.ca/en/parole-board.html>.

*- 121 - 121 -The legislation (CCRA) under which the PBC operates sets out the purpose of
conditional release, which is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe
society by means of decisions on the timing and conditions of release that will best facilitate
the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding
citizens. The paramount consideration for correctional processes by the CSC and decisions
by the PBC is the protection of society. The legislation is highly prescriptive and setsvarious aspects in managing an offender under sentence as well as the requirements andauthorities for conditional release including but not limited to: decision-making criteria,
types of release, eligibility for release, as well as the time frames for conducting conditional
release reviews.
Research and Canadian experience demonstrate that the gradual and controlled releaseof offenders facilitates their safe reintegration back into the community. It is for this reason
that Canada relies heavily on a system of gradual release where offenders are provided
varying levels of supports and structure depending on their risk factors and needs. In
Canada, the system of corrections and conditional release is a continuum of services
between prison and the community. Given the vast majority of offenders are serving fixedprison sentences and eventually return to their communities, the community is where one
can see the true measure of a successful corrections and conditional release system.
In Canada, there are various types of conditional releases that include temporary
absences, day parole, full parole and statutory release. Both escorted and unescorted
temporary absences from prison can also be granted/approved for a period of a few hours
to a number of days for such purposes as attending medical appointments, court
appearances, community service programmes, facilitating family contact and/or attending
programmes in the community such as addictions counselling. Day parole can be grantedby the PBC for a period of up to 6 months (which can be extended) and is designed toprovide more structure for an offender such as requiring them to reside at a communitybased residential facility. Full parole is a more expanded release which enables the offender
to reside at their own residence. Both day and full parole releases require the offender toadhere to a set of standard conditions such as reporting to a parole officer, remaining within
the geographic supervision district, etc. Offenders can also be required to adhere to special
conditions that are imposed by the PBC to address risk factors and facilitate an offender’ssafe reintegration back into the community. Special conditions can include requiring an
offender to abstain from alcohol, attend specific programmes, and/or avoid certain persons,etc. Throughout an offender’s release in the community, they are supervised by a CSC
parole officer. Conditional releases can be suspended, terminated or revoked. With the
exception of offenders serving a life or indeterminate sentence, or those detained to theirwarrant expiry date, an offender is automatically released on statutory release after serving
two-thirds of their sentence and this is not a Board decision. However, similar to parole,
an offender who is released on statutory release must abide by standard and any special
conditions imposed by the PBC. Offenders on statutory release are supervised by a CSC
parole officer until the sentence expires. While statutory release is not granted by the PBC,
it can be suspended and revoked by the PBC.

- 122 - 122 -II. TIME FRAMES FOR CONDITIONAL RELEASE IN CANADA – EXAMPLE
USING A SIX-YEAR SENTENCE• Admission: Eligibility for Escorted Temporary Absence• 1 Year: Eligibility for Unescorted Temporary Absence• 1 ½ Years: Eligibility for Day Parole• 2 Years: Eligibility for Full Parole – 1/3 of sentence• 4 Years: Statutory release – 2/3 of sentence (not a Board decision)• 6 Years: Warrant Expiry Date (end of sentence)
Last year, the total federal offender population in Canada was approximately 23,400 ofwhich 13,200 were incarcerated and about 10,200 were in the community under some formof supervision. There were about 1,400 federal women offenders of which approximately
600 were incarcerated and 800 in the community. Women represent approximately 6 percent of the federal offender population (41% are indigenous). Indigenous people represent
25.5 per cent of the total federal offender population (incarcerated and on conditional
release). Over the last five years, the population of federal offenders under some form ofcommunity supervision has increased by 11 per cent.
In 2019-2020, the PBC made 21,982 conditional release decisions and 10,415
pardon/record suspension decisions. Over the last 10 years, the successful completion rates
have been increasing for all types of conditional release, while revocations for breaches ofconditions, non‐violent and violent reoffending have been decreasing.
In 2018-2019, 99 per cent of federal offenders completed their day parole successfully
without reoffending. Similarly, the success rate for full parole was 97.4 per cent. The
success rate for Statutory Release is somewhat lower at 65.7 per cent given that this is a
nondiscretionary (automatic) release that is not granted by the PBC.

- 123 - 123 -III.

100.0%SUCCESSFUL COMPLETION RATES FOR FEDERAL OFFENDERS
98.1
90.7

90.0%
80.0%

65.7%

70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%

2018-2019
Day Parole

Full Parole

Statutory Release

The high rates of success of conditional release within Canada can be attributed to anumber of factors that include but are not limited to: a gradual and structured releaseframework, quality case information, an evidence-based risk assessment framework, highly
qualified Board members, specialized Board member training and evidence-based
supervision strategies.
Canada’s systems of structured releases ensure offenders have varying levels of support,
and supervision during their transition from prison into the community. Board members
undergo extensive training and mentoring that can take 6 to 8 months to complete. Board
member training is based upon a rigorous, evidence-based risk assessment framework. In
addition, PBC decisions are based on extensive and high-quality case information that
include police reports, criminal records, court reports, judges’ comments, court transcripts,
victim impact statements, institutional programme, psychological and/or psychiatric risk
assessment reports, institutional security information, as well as community-based
information from family, potential employers and halfway houses. Board members are
required to review all relevant and available information when making a conditional releasedecision. The PBC also holds hearings with offenders to gather additional information fromthe offender, the offender’s assistant, and the parole officer about the offender’s criminal
history, programme participation, and release plan. The PBC has also adapted its hearingsfor offenders with special needs that include offering elder-assisted hearings for Indigenous
offenders, should they want one, as well as having hearings that are gender and trauma
informed which is particularly important for women offenders and those with mental healthissues. Board members also consider victim impact statements as part of their decisionmaking and can impose conditions the board considers reasonable and necessary in orderto protect a victim. Finally, the supervision of offenders is conducted by CSC parole
officers who utilize evidence-based supervision strategies and have a manageable caseloadof about 30 offenders to 1 parole officer.

- 124 - 124 -IV. OPENNESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Openness and accountability are important within the Canadian model of corrections
and conditional release so much so that it is entrenched in legislation (CCRA). An
environment of openness and accountability for the PBC includes:•

the ability for the general public to observe a parole hearing;•

the ability for the general public to access the written decisions of the Board;•

the ability for registered victims to receive information about the offender thatharmed them, observe PBC hearings, and submit and read a prepared victim impact
statement for consideration by Board members in their decision-making and;•the ability for victims to receive additional information about the offender thatharmed them such as: the offences, length of sentence, eligibility dates forconditional release, location of the penitentiary, date of hearing, reason for release,date and destination of release, and conditions of release.

In 2019-2020, the Parole Board had over 31,000 contacts with victims. During thissame time frame, 4,998 persons observed PBC hearings (of which 743 of these observers
were victims).
In addition to information provided by attending hearings, the PBC also provides copies
of its decision through its decision registry to victims, members of the public, and the media.
The sharing of decisions contributes to a better public understanding of PBC decisionmaking and promotes openness and accountability. Last year the PBC provided 6,970
decisions through its decision registry.
V. PARTNERSHIPS AND PUBLIC AWARENESSThe PBC and CSC continually seek to forge and foster community partnerships.
Partnerships are the foundation of an improved understanding of conditional release bystakeholders both within and outside the criminal justice system and are an essential
element to the safe reintegration of offenders back into their communities. Numerous nongovernment agencies play a critical role through the provision of residential services,
halfway houses, programmes and counselling for offenders. The list of agencies involved
within the Canadian criminal justice system is extensive, and includes, but is not limited
to: the Salvation Army, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, l’Association
des services de réhabilitation du Québec, the John Howard Society, St. Leonard’s Society,
the Native Women’s Association of Canada, and many others. Communicating effectively
with both the general public and partners within the criminal justice system is important.
For a number of years, the CSC and PBC have contributed to a Judicial Institute programme
entitled “Judges to Jails” where judges, as a part of their training, spend five days learning
about corrections and conditional release by speaking with prison and parole staff, visiting
prisons, remand centres, halfway houses, observing PBC hearings and speaking withoffenders. Through this programme, judges are able to observe CSC operations and theBoard’s decision-making framework in real time. The “Judges to Jails” programme has
been an invaluable opportunity to share information and knowledge with the judiciary so- 125 - 125 -that they can better understand the complexities of the federal system of corrections andconditional release.
In closing, strong partnerships both within and outside the criminal justice system leadto safer communities, and an improved understanding and public acceptance. These
partnerships are integral to supporting desistance and an offender’s successful transition
back into the community.

- 126 - 126 -“INTRODUCING A PROBATION SYSTEM THROUGH A STEP-BYSTEP APPROACH” – REPUBLIC OF CROATIA
Jana Špero *The Republic of Croatia is a European country, located at the seam of central andSoutheast Europe. It is a Mediterranean country with more than 1,200 islands on the
Adriatic Sea. On the north it borders with Slovenia and Hungary, on the east with Serbia,
on the south with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro, while a long maritime borderseparates Croatia from Italy. The Republic of Croatia became independent after the
dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991. After the war for
independence, Croatia started to grow as a new country and today it is recognized as a
successful and developing economy and State. Croatia became a member state of theEuropean Union on 1 July 2013 and still is the youngest member state in the European
Union. The capital city of the Republic of Croatia is Zagreb, and the population is 4.3
million.
One of the youngest parts of the Croatian criminal justice system is the Probation
Service. In a short period of time the Probation Service became an important professionalpart of the enforcement of sanctions for persons who committed a crime with a strong
orientation to resocialisation and rehabilitation of offenders in the community. The
Probation Service in Croatia is part of the Ministry of Justice and Public Administration. It
is part of the Directorate for Prison System and Probation, formed as a Sector for Probation.
The Sector for Probation consists of a central office and 14 local probation offices.
Probation tasks have the purpose of protecting the community from the offender by
resocialization of the offender and helping him/her to be reintegrated in the community and,as such, these tasks are of special interest for the Republic of Croatia.
The prison system has a long history, and prison sentences are also based on
rehabilitation. However, the purpose of probation is to make enforcement of sanctions morehumane and effective and by resocialization and reintegration of the offender making thecommunity safer. So, when deciding on introduction of the Probation Service to thecriminal justice system in Croatia, it is important to point out that when it comes to successof rehabilitation, short prison sanctions should be the last option. It was also important tobear in mind the financial benefit of probation supervision. Probation supervision is lessexpensive than a prison sentence. Offenders on probation do not have 24/7 care of the Stateand must provide all life necessities on their own.
When talking about the development of the probation system in the Republic of Croatia,
we must go back in history before the service was developed to see the roots of it. The
concept of probation already existed in the Croatian legal system, though not in its present
form. For many years measures had been available for juvenile offenders in Croatia, andthese measures were very similar to probation. For adult offenders a suspended sentencewith protective supervision as a sanction, though different in form from probation, wasregulated in 1976 by the provisions of the Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic*

Assistant Minister, Prison System and Probation, the Republic of Croatia.

- 127 - 127 -of Yugoslavia. After declaring its independence, the Republic of Croatia took over this Act
and the sanction was kept and developed. Croatia’s Criminal Code of 1997 introduced thepossibility of replacing prison sentences with community work orders.
First community sanctions and measures started being implemented at the end of 2001,
after a new Croatian Criminal Code came into force. The new Criminal Code led to thedevelopment of the special Supervision of Suspended Sentence and Community Service
Act. But at that time, the enforcement of these sanctions was within the jurisdiction of the
Directorate for Prison System, and community sanctions were executed by professionals
who had university degrees mainly in social pedagogy, social work and psychology, and
who were employees of the Ministry of Justice or Ministry of Social Welfare. These
persons were called “commissioners”, and they had their full-time jobs in prisons,penitentiaries, correctional institutions for juvenile offenders, social welfare centres etc., sothey would only work with offenders part time. The best value of this early system was thatcommissioners were promoting the idea of probation in the wider community. This systemdemonstrated that Croatia was open to the concept of alternative sanctions and was readyto work with offenders in the community.
After that initial period, the need to establish and develop a more integrated probation
system was recognized by the government. This new development was supported by theCouncil of Europe recommendations and other positive European practices. It is also
important to underline that this was a time during Croatia’s accession negotiations for EU
membership and related judicial reforms, so we can say that there was “a good wind” forthe development of the Probation Service.
After the judicial reforms started in 2005, a strong initiative was presented to further
develop the probation system. The main goals of the reform were to: reduce the number ofprisoners in overcrowded prisons, make enforcement of criminal sanctions more humane
and help to reintegrate offenders into the community taking into consideration its safety.
During that time, the Government had concerns about the large prison population and lackof effective means to secure many early release cases.
Looking for solutions, there was strong support for the development of probation, andit was decided to get European experience as help for developing the best model. At thetime, there were many European projects available to help and support Croatia during thenegotiating time to become a member state of the EU. Within the framework of the CARDS
2004 project, the Ministry of Justice, Directorate for Prison System with National Offender
Management System from the UK, conducted in 2007 the EU Twinning light project“Support to the Development of a Probation System in Croatia”. Within this project, anarray of European practices and experiences was reviewed, enabling Croatia to consider awide range of options in the strategic planning process. Also, the gaps and needs analysis
regarding the establishment of a probation system in Croatia was conducted. At the end of
2007, as a main result of the project, Croatia had a five-year strategy for the establishmentof a Probation Service in Croatia.
The process of building the new service formally started after the Strategy for theDevelopment of the Croatian Probation Service 2008-2012 was adopted. The strategy
defined two main goals: (1) the development of professional practice and (2) the
development of a professional organization. This short process might be called “from idea
to professional service”. It included aspects such as solving diverse legal matters, capacity- 128 - 128 -management, human potentials, infrastructure, partnerships, evaluation, stakeholders andcommunication issues.
The key year was 2009 when the first ever Probation Act was passed in Croatian
Parliament. Unfortunately, not all other aspect were ready for a start of a probation service
so “the theory and practice” were timely separated for a short period of time. During 2010,
by-laws were prepared, infrastructure was organized (finding venues for probation offices,
preparing offices) and we were conducting tenders for “future” probation officers.
So, the first Probation Act in Croatia was enacted in 2009 and the first probation offices
opened in 2011. At the same time offices were opened, in 2011, a series of trainings forprobation officers was organized on a regular basis. Since the beginning of 2013, theprofessional probation service has been available to all citizens because all anticipatedprobation offices were opened by then. During the first few years of practice, it was noticed
that Croatia needed a broader net of probation offices, so two new offices were opened in
2018. During the first years of its existence the Probation Service was separated from thePrison System. However, after 6 successful years of probation it was decided in 2017 tomerge prison and probation under the same directorate in the Ministry – the Directorate for
the Prison System and Probation and this is the current organization structure.
Regarding the law, after the first Probation Act in 2009, in 2013 a big change happened.
There were new changes to the Criminal Code that gave jurisdiction to the Probation
Service in more tasks. Following the changes in the Criminal Code, the new Probation Act
was also prepared and enforced from the beginning of 2013. With this new jurisdiction
Probation Service doubled the number of cases. Five years later, in 2018, again a new
Probation Act entered into force. There was no “big news” with this third law. However, it
was prepared to have legal background of all the situations that probation officers have hadin the probation practice since the beginning of the work of the professional Probation
Service in Croatia.
If we show the growth of the Probation Service in the Republic of Croatia like thebuilding of a house, we can say that ground floor was first Probation Act in 2009, the mainpart of the house was infrastructural preparations in 2010, followed by preparation of all
relevant by laws in 2011 and a new law in 2013. The upper part of this house is the merger
with the prison system in 2017 and a new law and two new offices in 2018. The roof
consists of all the challenges during 2020: Covid-19 and earthquakes in Croatia. Also, thereis the plan for future development – steps forward into introducing electronic monitoring.
Considering all above, we are proud that today the Probation Service in Croatia isrecognized as a valued and important part of the Croatian criminal justice system.
Introducing new services had many challenges. In order to become a professional andvalued part of criminal justice we had to gain trust and respect from other stakeholders andprepare the ground for good and smooth cooperation. We had to show that we bring added
value and in order to do so, we had to have motivated probation officers. We had to be
professional, and we had to enforce different tasks of supervision and help for offenders inorganized infrastructure of the probation service from the beginning. Also, it is always
important to show the effect of the Probation Service. In Croatia, the Probation Service
received more than 35,000 cases, out of which 30,000 cases are completed, 89.5 per centcompleted successfully. Verification of the effect of the Probation Service can also bemeasured by the statistics. Taking into account that in Croatia one of the goals was to lower- 129 - 129 -the number of prisoners, it is also important to see the ratio between prison and probation.
During the beginning of the work of Probation Service back in 2011, the Probation service
received 1,067 cases while there were 5,084 prisoners within the Prison System at the sametime. In 2012 the Probation Service received 1,573 cases for enforcement, and there were
4,741 persons serving prison sentences. In 2013 the Probation Service received 3,304 cases.
Over the next few years the number of cases was increasing in probation while the numberof prisoners was decreasing: in 2014 the Probation Service received 3,618 cases and there
were 3,763 prisoners; in 2015 the Probation Service received 3,911 cases and there were3,306 prisoners, in 2016 the Probation Service received 4,147 cases and there were 3,079
prisoners. From 2017 the Probation Service stabilized the number of cases (3,544 in 2017;
4,211 in 2018; 3,825 in 2019) while the number of prisoners started slowly increasing(3,190 in 2017; 3,217 in 2018; 3,533 in 2019). The numbers show that the Sector for
Probation has become an important partner in the criminal justice system, acknowledged
and valued by judges, state attorneys, police and the prison system. Second, an important
fact for the verification of the effect of the Probation Service is the financial benefit. One
day for one offender on probation costs 1.5 Euro, while one day for one prisoner costs 55
Euro. On top of this, we must consider that 500,000 to 600,000 hours of community work
are performed by offenders on probation every year. This unpaid work for the benefit of
the community must be pointed out when evaluating the financial benefits of probation.
Probation Officers are civil servants, employees of the Ministry of Justice and Public
Administration. Every local probation office (14 in total in Croatia) has a Chief of the
Office, Probation Officers and administrative staff. Probation Officers hold a degree in law,
psychology, social pedagogy, social work or pedagogy, and are authorized to perform
probation tasks in accordance with the Probation Act. There is also a special training for a
new employee when becoming a probation officer and there are many specific programmes
to be trained after. The Central Office manages coordination and service development.
At this moment, we can say that Croatia has a Probation Service capable of delivering
a wide range of high-quality services. All probation cases are managed through theInformation System, an electronic database accessible by all employees via a web interface.
The Information System is used as a registry of all persons supervised and as a management
programme supporting administrative processes. At first, this was a Probation Service
system only, but after the merger, we have a new information system for prison andprobation. The new system will be in the future connected with other relevant national
information systems (police, health system, prosecution, courts ...).
The Sector for Probation in Croatia supervises adult offenders only, and probation tasks
are performed through the entire criminal process: from pre-trial to the post-releasesupervision. The Probation Service is a treatment service. Treatment work starts after final
judgment of the competent court. The Probation Service controls the offender and provides
help to the offender. Tasks include education, support, work on learned behaviour with thespecial alert regarding the family situation and personal circumstances. The key idea is forthe offender to adopt non-violent forms of behaviour in order to have a safe community.
This process is only possible if the Probation Service has excellent cooperation with courts,
police, prison service, prosecutors, social services, health institutions, NGOs, universities
and other relevant institutions.

- 130 - 130 -Bearing in mind that the Probation Service is still a young service, it must promoteitself. There must be different types of promotion for cooperating organizations and for thelay public.
Although the Probation Service in Croatia is now a well-established professionalorganization, it still uses all possibilities to grow and to get to know good practice fromother countries. The financial and expert assistance of the EU has been important in thedevelopment of the Sector for Probation in the Republic of Croatia from the beginning andstill is. Starting from 2019 the Croatian Probation Service started new projects from theEuropean funds. We also started a partnership with Norway under the Norwegian financial
mechanism, preparing the permanent introduction of the use of electronic monitoring in thecriminal justice process as a new task of the Probation Service in the future. Project areimportant for the growth of the service and help broaden ideas regarding the probation
possibilities. Every new service should have contact with services from abroad in order to
get good ideas and also to avoid mistakes.
Further development of the Croatian Probation Service should head in two directions:the strengthening of its internal capacities, stronger affiliation with other stakeholders andthe expansion of the scope of the tasks it performs, as well as the advancement in executing
existing tasks. Improvement of professional competencies is a continuous process, and wewant to maintain a high standard of staff competence. Croatia wants the best probation
service we can have and want to create a performance led culture which values quality andcontinuous improvement. The Croatian Probation Service has excellent results andknowledge in building new service, and we are willing to help all services in need.

- 131 - 131 -- 132 - 132 -COMMUNITY APPROACHES THAT SUPPORT DESISTANCE:MEETING OF PURPOSE: THE CCPO AND THE SPECIALTASKFORCE ON CHILDREN MATTERS – A KENYAN STORY
Hon. Lady Justice Teresia Mumbua Matheka *I. INTRODUCTION: THE GOOD LAW…RECOGNIZING that the child occupies a unique and privileged position in the
African society and that for the full and harmonious development of his personality,
the child should grow up in a family environment in an atmosphere of happiness,
love and understanding,
RECOGNIZING that the child, due to the needs of his physical and mental
development requires particular care with regard to health, physical, mental, moral
and social development and requires legal protection in conditions of freedom,
dignity and security…, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION the virtues of theircultural heritage, historical background and the values of the African civilization
which should inspire and characterize their reflection on the concept of the rights
and welfare of the child, CONSIDERING that the promotion and protection of therights and welfare of the child also implies the performance of duties on the part ofeveryone… 1
The Kenyan Children Act 2 domesticates this Charter bringing home the requirement
for legal protection while taking into consideration the unique and privileged position of
the child. This calls for performance of duties by everyone to ensure the promotion andprotection of the rights and welfare of the child. To achieve this the law requires that thebest interests of the child shall be of primary consideration in all actions concerning thechild undertaken by any person or authority. 3
When it comes to the child in conflict with the law, the welfare of the child offendermust be taken into consideration during trial and any detention must only be of the last
recourse and for the shortest time. 4,5 Further, Article 17(3) 6 states that the essential aim oftreatment of every child during trial and also if found guilty of infringing the penal law
shall be his or her reformation, reintegration into his/her family and social rehabilitation.

Judge, High Court of Kenya at Nakuru, Kenya.
Preamble, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.
2
Act no 8 of 2001.
3
Section 4 Children Act, Article 4 ACRWC.
4
S. 187 Children Act Consideration of welfare (1) Every court in dealing with a child who is brought
before it shall have regard to the best interests of the child and shall, in a proper case, take steps forremoving him from undesirable surroundings and for securing that proper provision be made for his
maintenance, education and training.
5
Constitution of Kenya 2010, Article 53(1) Every child has the right: (f) not to be detained, except as ameasure of last resort, and when detained, to be held— (i) for the shortest appropriate period of time; (2) A
child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.
6
ACRWC.
*
1- 133 - 133 -II. FACING THE REALITY: SEEKING HOME GROWN SOLUTIONS
Serving as a children Magistrate in the early years of the Children Act, the law and thereality on the ground were different. There was lack of awareness of its existence among
the agencies that were required to implement it. This was because at that time the statute
had to be printed at the Government Printer, purchased and distributed to the agencies. In
addition, even when they became aware of the law, its implementation was a challenge.
The law had created a complete paradigm shift in the manner in which children in contact
or in conflict with the law were required to be treated.
There were challenges. Pre-trial detention was used as a form of punishment, cases
were delaying in court, committal to rehabilitation school, and Borstal Institutions werefirst often choice despite there being a raft of non-custodial options. Children were still
being held with adults in adult institutions, there was no collaboration among the agencies,
inadequate referral systems, and reintegration programmes/post supervision and upon
release from these institutions, there was no referral system, and use of social inquiry
reports was limited. There was inadequate involvement of the family and community infollow-ups for child offenders in institutions. They carried a stigma which led to rejection
upon release, and reoffending to enable return to their “safe” space. Some of these childoffenders continued reoffending until they ended up in adult prison.
Under the new regime, cases were required to be finalized within 3 to 6 months andSocial Inquiry Reports were required as a mandatory prerequisite to orders regarding thechild. Institutionalization of child offenders was discouraged as first line of treatment, theconsideration of the welfare and the best interests of the child offender at all stages of thecriminal trial from arrest to post-trial supervision required the involvement of the family
and the community, making the use of social inquiry reports inevitable. New forms oftreatment like counselling required bringing on board new stakeholders.
To breathe life into this law, and to create the requisite visible, accessible juvenile
justice system required the creating of awareness of the law and its new approach(knowledge), the procedure of its implementation and the how to (skills). There was also
the important question of the “why” of the law to address the need for a complete attitudechange towards child offenders. This required the understanding of who a child was under
the new regime and why it was necessary to treat them differently.
This realization led me as the Children Magistrate in Nakuru at the time to create theChild Protection Team, a multi-agency team made up of the key stakeholders in the juvenile
justice system. It consisted of the police, who held the tripartite roles of the arresting,investigating and prosecuting officers, the Departments of Children and Protection & After
Care Services, the Prisons, because they ran remand homes (before the new law) and the
Borstal Institutions, and were holding youthful serious offenders, the Rift Valley Law
society, because they were providing pro bono legal services to child offenders, theCharitable Children Institutions to whom we sent child victims for shelter, care andprotection.

- 134 - 134 -The Child Protection Team became the focus group for creating awareness on the newlaw , the why and how of its implementation. of sharing the status of the children in thesystem within the jurisdiction of the children court, statistics, 8 how long cases took, theadherence to the standards set by the law in handling child offenders and the need to ensurethat offenders were not kept together with adults, advocating for separate cells within police
stations, for the child offenders who were arrested and had to spend time at the police
station. The CPT met monthly, and the main goal was to collaborate so as to expedite thecase to prevent the contamination by serious offenders held at the police stations, and eventhe remand homes, while at the same safeguarding their welfare through the use of Social
Inquiry Reports to enable return to home or school or other placement, on for instance,some form of supervision.
7

This worked very well in my jurisdiction, and a juvenile justice system began to emergethat was based on the best interests of the child and welfare of the child offender.
It was while doing this that I was selected to join the Country Focused Delinquent
Treatment Systems training at UNAFEI.
Prior to this I had attended local workshops that tried to address the gaps in knowledge,
skills and attitude in the implementation of the new law.
The training at UNAFEI was mounted by the Government of Kenya in collaboration
Government of Japan through JICA and UNAFEI. Teams of officers from the five key
Juvenile Justice Agencies (JJAs) 9 attended the one-month training and were expected to
implement what they learned when they returned.
In 2009 the idea was born that there was need to bring this training home so as to include
more officers and hence increase the impact.
Professors from UNAFEI conducted Training Needs Assessment, from the five JJAs,
from whom a team was selected to come up with a curriculum and training manuals. The
Child Care and Protection Officers Capacity (CCPO) Building Curriculum was developed
and launched. A team of Training of Trainers (TOTs) was trained, and a National
Implementation Team was put in place. There were five thematic areas:
•
•
•
•
•

Procedures in juvenile justice;Case management;
Rehabilitation/treatment;
Support networking;
Ethics, self-care, responsibility and quality assurance.

For instance, because of lack of availability of the Act to Police Stations, we made copies of the relevant
Rules and distributed them to the officers in charge of the stations. It made it easier to hold them to account
if they violated the same. Eg the requirement to release the parent child on police bond instead of detaining
the child.
8
E.g. how many children were in the Remand home, how long they had been there, how many cases forreview of bond terms, how many child offenders in transit to rehabilitation schools and Borstal Institutions,
how many children in adult prisons? (And it was important to find solutions.)
9
Judiciary, Police, Department of Children Services, Probation and After Care Services, Prison Services.
7- 135 - 135 -The training required that Magistrates, Police, Children, Probation and Prison Officers
sit in the same class and learn from the same curriculum. It was four pronged: theory, thedrawing of work plans, followed by the practicum in teams and supervision.
Impact of training
 Broke down the bureaucratic barriers
 Made all officers realize that at any one stage they were dealing with the same child,and there was need to have same standards.
 Enhanced knowledge, skills, and attitude change towards child offenders
 Use of Social/Reports involvement of family and community
 Development and use of treatment plans, exit strategies for institutions
 Expeditious disposal of cases
 Enhanced collaboration through the CPTs and development of support networks
 Development and strengthening of referral systems
 Post-institutional supervision, The development of Through Care Guidelines
 Overall better service delivery for children
III. CHALLENGES AND MORE HOME-GROWN RESOLUTIONS
The pilot training took place in 2010. In 2015 the CCPO project came to an end due tofunding problems. There was also the need to review the curriculum after the 2010
Constitution. The new Constitution brought changes to the Children Act. The rights of thechild were now protected in the Constitution. 10 There were new institutions as well. Oneof them was the National Council on the Administration of Justice 11 chaired by the Hon,
the Chief Justice.
One of the mandates of the NCAJ was to ensure the establishment of Court User
Committees in all the courts across the country. For clarity, these CUCs are modelled on
the CPT where the specific users of that court come together to deal with issues related tothat court; hence, they are not intended for children courts only but for the whole court, The
Magistrates Courts, the High Court at various stations in the country. Now we have court
user committees for even the specialized courts: Family, Criminal and Commercial
Divisions at the High Court at Nairobi, Environment and Land, Employment and Labour
courts.
At the same time the number of new officers entering the system from all the JJAs had
increased. The police set up changed. There was now the Directorate of Public Prosecutions,and the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. The juvenile justice system had changed.
There was need to regroup and retrain as things were falling back to the bad old days.
The Judiciary saw the need to take stock. In 2016, the then Chief Justice the Hon. Justice
Willy Mutunga as the Chairperson of the (NCAJ) appointed the Special Task Force on

Article 53.
The National Council on the Administration of Justice (NCAJ) is established under Section 34 of the
Judicial Service Act (No. 1 of 2011). It is a high-level policymaking, implementation and oversight
coordinating mechanism as reflected in its membership comprising State and Non-State Actors from thejustice sector.
1011- 136 - 136 -Children Matters (the TF) headed by the Hon Lady Justice Martha Koome, judge of the
Court of Appeal. The TF had 16 Terms of Reference which included:
 Review of the status of the child in the administration of justice Review the laws, policies etc. on administration of juvenile justice Development of training policy and review of the curriculum for persons who
handle children in the justice system.
The Task Force completed most of its work by 20 November 2019 and launched in its
report 12 on its findings and recommendations to reform the Juvenile Justice System. The
Task Force did not just make recommendations.
1. Entrenched and strengthened Children Court Users Committees which are styled
on the model of the Child Protection Team. These CCCUCs were the focus for the
research on the status of the child in the administration of justice within the
Jurisdiction of the Children Courts where the TF visited.
2. The CCCUCs were also trained on the rights of the child in an effort to address theknowledge skills and attitude gap in the implementation of the Children Act.
3. The CCCUCs were the drivers for the reduction of case backlog of children cases
through the Service Weeks 13 established by the TF. During Service Weeks there istraining of the stakeholders, counselling of the children in contact /conflict with thelaw, discussions with the community on the rights of the child, and the emphasis on
prevention of juvenile delinquency, public barazas with members of the public,
their local leaders, and members of the TF of service delivery for children in thejustice system within the jurisdiction being visited. In view of the vast diversity ofcultures, traditions, social, economic situations and challenges in theimplementation of the Children Act across the country, local solutions to issues aresought for ease of implementation by the local CCUC. There is emphasis on the useof non-custodial measures and rehabilitation, the reintegration of child offenders
back into the community.
4. Visited Children Institutions and caused immediate changes in those that were notabiding by the new law
5. Reviewed the Children Bill 2020 and together with other stakeholders pushed forits legislation. It was passed by the cabinet on 25 February 2021 and forwarded to
Parliament. The new law seeks to establish the juvenile/child justice system, raises
the age of criminal liability from 8 to 12 years, entrenches the multi-agency
framework (the CCCUs), and non-custodial modes of dealing with childrendiversion, plea bargaining and ADR among others.
6. Developed a policy on training. Adopted and reviewed with the help of UNAFEI
and JICA the CCPO training curriculum and launched it on 17 February 2021. Thisis key because the CCPO programme found a home under the NCAJ ensuring that
it will be implemented by the JJAs.
<https://ncaj.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/NCAJ-Report-Digital-Version.pdf>.
Service Weeks are weeks set aside in the court calendar when the courts and the stakeholders concentrateon children’s cases.

1213- 137 - 137 -7. Developed guidelines for Children Courts
8. Developed guidelines for JJAs during the Covid-19 pandemic to ensure access tojustice for children
9. Sourced laptops and internet connectivity for the remand homes so as to ensure thatcases for children in custody could still be heard during the pandemic.
IV. WHAT DOES ALL THIS HAVE TO WITH COMMUNITY APPROACHESTHAT SUPPORT DESITANCE?
1. It takes a village to raise a child, 14 and asiyefunzwa na mamaye hufunzwa na
ulimwengu. 15 We also say that it is the sapling stage of a tree that is flexible
otherwise it breaks. The CCCUCs are one way of bringing the village into thejuvenile justice system to re-create the social support system that came with thevillage and has been taken away by both urbanization and the formal legal system.
2. The involvement of the family and the community is at the centre of prevention
against both the offending and reoffending by children. Through the CCCUC there
is emphasis on the responsibilities of the authorized officers: the chiefs, the children
and police officers; the collaboration of teachers and community leaders.
3. The membership of that CCCUC must have the requisite knowledge, skills andattitude to be able to raise the children who come through the system; there must be
standards and levels of accountability, hence the need for training.
4. The CCCUs form a safety net for the child who comes into the system, and for the
one who is outside it to protect them from entry into the system where possible.
This is through the referral systems, collaboration and networking.
5. The CCPOs are a core team of well-trained officers who are found within and across
the JJAs. Among them are TOTs. They provide necessary guidance, training andsupport where necessary. They are members of the TF, CCCUs across the country.
They occupy various positions in government as judges, magistrates, police, prisonand probation officers. They are a network among themselves and take every
opportunity to provide input on the improvement of the juvenile justice system.
They will definitely be playing a major role in the new changes from our various
positions.
6. So the future is here for the Kenyan child. With the above in place, therecommendations of the TF, and the implementation of the same, the New Children
Act on the way, the new training policy and CCPO curriculum, we should findourselves with few or no reoffending cases.
7. Thank you UNAFEI for this opportunity to share a bit of the Kenyan story on how
networking and collaboration can change things for child offenders.
African Proverb.
The Swahili Proverb, He who is not raised/ trained/ taught by the mother will be taught by the rest of theworld, is used for those persons who either refuse parental training or do not get it and end up in trouble.

14
15- 138 - 138 -KATARUNGAN PAMBARANGAY (VILLAGE JUSTICE) – THE
SOUL OF THE PPA’S INDIVIDUALIZED, COMMUNITY-BASEDRESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROGRAMME
Dr. Manuel Golloso Co *I. DEFINITION OF TERMS
1. Restorative Justice is a process through which remorseful offenders accept
responsibility for their misconduct to those injured and the community that, in
response allows the reintegration of the offender into the said community. It creates
obligation to make things right through proactive involvement of victims,
ownership of the offender of the crime, and the community in search for solutions
which promote repair, reconciliation, reempowerment, and reassurance.
2. Restorative Justice Programme means any programme that utilizes restorative
processes or aims to achieve restorative outcomes.
3. Restorative Process means any process in which the victim, the offender, and/or
any individual or community members affected by a crime actively participate
together in the resolution of matters resulting from the crime or offence, often withthe help of a fair and impartial third party.
4. Restorative Outcome means any agreement obtained as a product of a restorative
justice process.
5. Restitution is a process upon which the offenders accept accountability for thefinancial and/or non-financial losses they have caused to the victim.
6. Community Work Service is work performed without compensation by an
offender for the benefit of the community as a formal or informal sanction.
7. Parties or Stakeholders mean the victim, the offender and the community affectedby a crime that may be involved in a restorative justice process.
8. Facilitator is a third party who is fair, honest and impartial, whose role is tofacilitate the restorative processes.
9. Victims are those who are directly injured or affected by the crime committed.
10. Community is a stakeholder who is indirectly injured or affected by the crimecommitted.

CESO I, Former Administrator of the Parole and Probation Administration; Former Member of the Boardof Pardons and Parole; President, Integrated Correctional Association of the Philippines; President, Crime
Prevention Practitioners Association of the Philippines (ACPF Philippine Chapter).

*- 139 - 139 -11. Offenders are clients of the Parole and Probation Administration who were granted
probation, parole or conditional pardon.
12. Mediation is a voluntarily process facilitated by a Mediator, with conformity toachieve voluntary agreement through communication and negotiation regarding the
dispute.
13. Conciliation a process facilitated by an impartial conciliation to act as intermediaryto open the line of communication between disputing parties with the objective toresolve their disputes.
14. Arbitration is a voluntary dispute resolution process facilitated by one or more
arbitrators, appointed in accordance with the agreement of parties or rules
promulgated pursuant to law, resolve a dispute by rendering award (Section 3(d))
RA 9285.
15. Complainant is a party filing complaint before the Lupon or Pangkat.
16. Respondent is a party being complaint before the Lupon or Pangkat.
17. Katarungan Pambarangay is a system of justice administered at the village level
for the purpose of amicable settling of disputes through mediation, conciliation or
arbitration without resorting to Courts of Law.
II. INTRODUCTION
The development of criminal justice is a clamour of society to achieve public justice.
Public Justice is the forerunner of punishing law violators by depending on prison as a wayof dispensing justice. In the past, private justice is characterized as a private vengeance,
and which assume that prison is less punitive and more humane. In reality, private justice,in broader context is not necessarily private, and does not necessarily involve vengeance.
This, however, contributes to explore other ways of dispensing justice and now thedevelopment of private restorative justice. Private in the sense that persons affected by the
impact of crime decided to meet together, voluntarily and actively participate in the
resolution of their differences.
III. PRISON AND HUMAN RIGHTS
A basic postulate which is almost always present in all fundamental laws of every stateis that “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law
or be denied the equal protection of law.” 1
As defined in the Criminal Justice System, Philippine Criminal Law is a branch ordivision of law which defines crimes, treats of their natures and provides for theirpunishments (12 Cys.129). 2
1
2

Philippine Constitution of 1987, Article III.
The Revised Penal Code, Criminal law, Book I by Luis B. Reyes, Article I, 19th edition, 2017, page 1.

- 140 - 140 -By definition, criminal law is a product of a Classical School of thought established toprotect the society through the imposition of a State standard punishment anchored on
retribution or punitive justice. The idea of retributive justice, in the words of Justice
Melecio-Herrera, rests on some dubious, interesting and intriguing assumptions. 3 First,
Justice can be done by making the offender worse off (though imprisonment or execution);
Second, there is a reasonable manner of determining the “just dessert” of criminal conduct
in terms of prison sentences; and Third, the issue of justice is addressed by evaluating past
event (crime committed). The focus therefore is on individual guilt and guilt is whatjustifies punishment. The victim, the raptured public order, the offence, all these recede to
oblivion while the full attention is on the “just dessert” that the criminal deserves.
Deprivation of liberty, as a penalty is a costly intervention, and has a lot of added
dehumanizing effects. In our country, prisoners are forced to survive under the worst
conditions. The requirement of minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners arecompletely not observed, and the effects:
1. Congestion in confinement facilities aggravated by subhuman conditions due toinadequate supplies and services;
2. Lack of rehabilitation and intervention programmes to help prisoners improve or
acquire social, economic and other life skills in preparation for their rejoining
society;
3. Reported human rights violations;
4. Failure to provide adequate facilities and services to prisoners differently able andwith special needs;
5. Unfair/unequal treatment of prisoners tilting to favour influential and prominent
personalities deprived of liberty;
6. Jail/prison disturbances ushered by the existence of underworld organizations andother syndicates;
7. Absence of an effective reintegration programme for released offenders,
particularly those who have been discharged from prison after completely serving
their sentences;
8. Failure of administration of justice as private offended parties are unable to becompensated for their damages; and9. The community or the raptured social fabric issues and problems are notappropriately handled and therefore unresolved.

The Criminal law Context of Restorative Justice by Justice Ameurfina Melecio-Herrera, published in the
CBCP ECPPC Pagkalinga 25 years of Prison Pastor core 1975-2000.

3- 141 - 141 -IV. ALTERNATIVE WAY OF JUSTICEAn Act of Providing For A Local Government Act of 1991, specifically chapter 7,
Section 399 to 442, 4 provides the landscape of Katarungan Pambarangay (Barangay
Justice). It paved the way to establish a means a settling of disputes in the village level andlessening the caseloads of the Courts and other Agencies in the Justice System.
The Philippine Society is described as a highly personal and intimate community of“interrelated persons” of which the present political unit is structured. The most dominantcharacteristic of Philippine Society is the encompassing influence of close personal
relations upon almost any conceivable human dealings or transaction. 5 With that, sincecrime or conflict happen in the context of the intricate web of personal relationships,
adversarial and retributive conflict resolution methods such as litigation are usually notsuitable.
In an association of people, what controls them is the degree of connectedness; ofrelationship, anchored on common and shared interest and a sense of connection based onthat shared interest. These bonds of common feelings constitute “communitarian
existence.” 6
When a crime or conflict is committed in a community, the assumption is that three (3)relationships are disturbed:
1. Relationship between victim and the offender;
2. Relationship between offender and the community; and sometimes
3. Relationship between the victim and the community.
The three stakeholders are affected by the impact of crime or conflict, and relationshipis disturbed, and deserve to be addressed appropriately. The offender should be accountableto rectify/correct a wrong committed and restitute whatever damages are inflicted(Accountability). 7 The victim deserves to be compensated and be empowered again(Competency Development). The community deserves an orderly and peaceful society(public safety).

Presidential Decree No. 1508, The Katarungan Pambarangay Law of the Philippines, promulgated inJune 1978, and further amended by Republic Act No. 7160, An Act of Providing For A Local Government
Act of 1991, Chapter 7, Section 399 to 442.
5
Pe, C and Tadiar, A (1982),(Ecls) International Survey of Conciliation system,Sosmena, J 88 APOM
Papers at 291. Cited in the Barnes Paogram or conlict Resolution Working Papers.
6
National Institute of Correction, US Department of Justice: Restorative Justice Principles, Practices and
Implementations (1983), a Resource for state and local corrections
7
An assessment of the Implementation of PPA’s Restorative Justice Program in the Parole and Probation
Administration Offices of Bataan Province, Sta. Rosa City and Baguio City submitted to the National
Defense College of the Philippines, by Manuel G. Co, page 33.
4- 142 - 142 -V. KATARUNGAN PAMBARANGAY (KP) – ASCENDANT OF DOJ-PPARESTORATIVE JUSTICEThe KP System (Village Justice) was institutionalized under Presidential Decree No.
1508, which took effect on 30 December 1978. 8 Its real intent is to recognize the cultural
heritage of the Filipinos, where differences among people are not resolved through a formal
or adversarial manner, but by means of an effective problem-solving mechanism ofnegotiation, mediation or conciliation. This is a time-honoured tradition of the Filipino
people rooted on our historical background. 9 The essential objective is to achieve apeaceful and harmonious resolution of conflicts anchored on Filipino values which wetreasured most like: pakikisama (community spirit); Utang na Loob (debt of gratitude) andkinship. In addition, relevant values such as pakikipagkapwa-tao (human relation),pakikiisa (unifying spirit), generosity and helpfulness, love and caring, respect, strong
family and community ties, and other sets of values that a majority of Filipinos endeavour
most in their lives.
VI. LUPON-TAGAPAMAYAPA-KATARUNGAN PAMBARANGAY (VILLAGEJUSTICE)A system of settling disputes or differences operating in all barangays in the country
with the objective to promote, among others, the speedy and effective administration ofjustice, by laying the ways to amicably resolve personal and family differences among
barangay members which considerably reduced the bloating of court dockets.
The Katarungan Pambarangay is put to flesh by a “Lupon Tagapamayapa” to solve
disputes within the village level before going to court. It consists of 10 to 20 members in
the Barangay and chaired by the Barangay Chairman (Village Chief). The Members of the
Lupon shall possess the following qualifications: Residing or working within the village;
possess integrity; impartiality; independence of mind; sense of fairness; reputation; and notdisqualified by law.
If there are matters involving questions of law, the provincial, city legal officer or themunicipal legal officer or prosecutor shall provide legal advice on matters of questions oflaw whenever necessary.
The Lupon of each barangay has the power to settle disputes with the following
exceptions:
1. Where one party is the government or any subdivision or corporate body;
2. Where one party is a public officer or employee, and the disputes relate to theperformance of official functions;3. Offences where there is no private offended party;

A Guide to the Katarungan Pambarangay System by: Atty. Gregorio Austral, Philippine Center for Civic
Education and Austral Democracy.
9<https://owlcatron.com>social-services>.
8- 143 - 143 -4. Offences punishable by imprisonment of more than one (1) year or a fine of Five
Thousand Pesos (P 5,000.00);
5. Where conflict involves real property located in different cities or municipalities
unless the parties agree to submit their differences to the settlement by the Lupon;
6. Conflict involving parties who actually reside in Barangays (Village) of different
cities or municipalities, except where Barangay (Village) units adjoin each otherand the Parties agree to submit their differences; and7. Such other classes of disputes which the President may determine in the interest of
Justice or upon recommendation of the Secretary of Justice.
A. The Three Components of KP 10
1. Lupong Tagapamayapa
2. Pangkat ng Tagapagsundo
3. Legal Advisers
Components of Katarungan Pambarangay 11

Lupon
Tagapamayapa(Peace Making
Council)

Pangkat ng
Tagapagkasundo

Legal Advisers(Conciliation
Panel)

B. Pangkat ng Tagapagkasundo (Conciliation Panel)
It is a panel composed of three (3) members who are chosen by the parties to the disputefrom the list of the members of the Lupon (Council). In case the parties fail to agree on thepangkat membership, the same shall be determined by lots drawn upon by the Lupon
Chairman.

<http://zabalketa.org>upload>Guideto theKCP2016/02Zalbaketa>.
Zabalketa.org>2016>02>Gu, Chapter 2, A guide to the Katarungan Pambarangay, by Atty. Gregorio
Austral, Philippine Center for Civic Education and Democracy page 6.

1011- 144 - 144 -C. Who Is Disqualified from Membership in the Pangkat
1. Relationship
2. Bias
3. Interest
4. Any other similar ground
D. Lupon/Pangkat Authority
Basically, the Lupon and the Pangkat have no power to punish parties and theirwitnesses for contempt as it is only an inherent power of the Courts of Law. 12 However,the Lupon and the Pangkat, may file an application to cite any party or witness who refuses
to appear without justifiable reason to cite uncooperative personalities for indirect contempt
before a Court of Law. If found guilty, the person cited may be fined not exceeding Five
Thousand Pesos (P 5,000.00) or imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both.

Complaint

Mediation
before the
Lupon Chairman

Conciliation
thru Pangkat

Settlement isreached

Failure to settle

Execution of
Agreement

No settlement isreachedFiling of
Criminal
Complaint with
Certificationthat No
Settlement isreachedCase Filed

E. Stages of KP
The Katarungan Pambarangay (KP) has three stages as shown below 13:
1. Mediation
2. Conciliation
3. Arbitration

Mediation

Conciliation

Arbitration

Zabalketa.org>2016>02>Gu, Chapter 4, Chapter 2, A guide to the Katarungan Pambarangay, by Atty.
Gregorio Austral, Philippine Center for Civic Education and Democracy page 39.
13
A Dissertation entitled “The Barangay Justice System in the Philippines: Is it an Effective Alternative to
Improve Access to Justice for Disadvantaged People?” Silvia Sanz – Ramos Rojo, September 2002.
12- 145 - 145 -F. Pre-Condition to Filing of Complaint Before the Court of Law
Katarungan Pambarangay is not a Court of Law as duly recognized by theConstitution. 14 It is an innovation of the Philippine Justice System to usher the resolutionof disputes at the Barangay (Village) level to achieve peace and harmony and likewise to
be an accessible and effective form of achieving justice without resorting to adversarial
proceedings.
G. Consequences of Non-Appearance
Upon the non-appearance of the complainant, the Lupon may dismiss the complaint
and its dismissal shall bar the complainant from seeking any judicial recourse for the samecause of action. 15 On the other hand, the non-appearance of the respondent may bar the
respondent from invoking counterclaims caused by or necessarily connected with the action
filed by complaining party and, if invoked, may be dismissed. Its dismissal shall bar the
subject respondent from filing a counterclaim in court. Likewise, unreasonable nonappearance may be a ground for issuance of a certification to file action and as consequence
wilful failure or refusal may be a ground for citation for indirect contempt of court.
VII.

BASIS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN THE PPAThe United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (ECOSOC)
through draft Resolution recommended to the UN Economic and Social Council the
adoptions of the “Basic Principles on the Restorative Justice Programme in Criminal
Matters.” 16 The said document is a formulation of UN standards in the field of mediation
and restorative justice. The Philippines being a signatory, ensured the adoption of thisresolution in its law and procedures.
In the Philippines, the restorative paradigm become an alternative mode of settling
disputes in all areas of legal, political, economic, environmental, social and even in
administrative proceedings. 17 In a post-conviction, the Parole and Probation
Administration (PPA) adapted restorative justice as a way to reintegrate offenders byreconciling with the victim and the community, and the opportunity to make things right.
Restorative Justice is founded on four (4) key values 18:
1. Encounter: Create opportunities for victims, offenders, and the community
members who voluntarily decide to meet together and discuss the crime and its
aftermath;
2. Amends: Expect offenders to admit accountability and take steps to repair harmthey have caused;<http://www.unafei.or.jp>topic3>.
Zabalketa.org>2016>02>Gu, Chapter 4, A guide to the Katarungan Pambarangay, by Atty. Gregorio
Austral, Philippine Center for Civic Education and Democracy page 40.
16
ECOSOC Resolution 2000/14,UNODC.E/2000/INF/ADD.2at35(2000)teoppo
17
An Assessment of the Implementation of PPA’s RJ Program in the Parole and Probation Offices of
Bataan Province, Sta Rosa City and Baguio City (2008).
18“Working For Justice That Heals (2006)” A Source Book of Prison Ministry, Published by the Catholic
Bishop Conference of the Philippines-Episcopal Commission on Prison Pastoral Care (CBCP-ECPPC)(Source: Daniel Vann Noss).
14
15- 146 - 146 -3. Reintegration: Seek to restore victims and offenders as a whole and help them
become contributing members of society; and4. Inclusion: Provide opportunities for parties with a stake in a specific crime toparticipate.
A. Supervision and Treatment Components
The Parole and Probation System (DOJ-PPA) is a line-bureau type of organization
established under the Department of Justice in the Philippines. In carrying out its mandate,
the Administration is organized into sixteen (16) Regional Offices, and as of December
2019, it has 227 City and Provincial Field Offices strategically located all over thePhilippine Archipelago.
The Agency twin-concepts of corrections such as way to alternative treatment ofoffenders through probation or suspended sentence or as a re-entry intervention like paroleand pardon with parole conditions, are the significant mandate of the Agency. The central
goals of community corrections is to enhance the safety of the State and its citizens by
preventing reoffending of offenders and making them productive and law-abiding citizens.
The “flesh and bone” of the community-based correction of offenders is its treatment
intervention. The Agency adapted a three (3) pronged approach in the treatment ofoffenders with Restorative Justice as its philosophical foundation, Therapeutic Community
Ladderized Program as its major treatment modality, and volunteer mobilization as its leadcommunity resources.
B. Restorative Justice
My discussion will just centre on Restorative Justice as the philosophical foundation of
the Agency in reconnecting and integrating offenders into the mainstream of thecommunity.
The Agency’s Restorative Justice programme treats crime as a violation of people andright relationships. It creates an obligation “to make things right and to right the wrong”
committed through proactive involvement of victims, ownership of crime by the offender,
and the participation of people in the barangay (Village) as community resource.
With this, the Agency Restorative Justice programme is inspired by the Katarungan
Pambarangay (KP) or Village Justice. The intervention is to elevate or allow the importantparticipation of the victims and the community leaders and members through their more
active involvement in the justice process, holding the offender directly accountable to thepeople and providing a range of opportunities for dialogue, negotiation and problem
solving, which can lead to a greater sense of community safety, social harmony and peace
for all.
RJ in the heart of the Agency mandate anchored on Communitarian Spirit of Justiceand sense of Community relation to address the disturbed relationship as it hurts people
and their connections with each other.
By way of illustration, please see below:- 147 - 147 -Crime or conflict hurts people and relationships. The three stakeholders are disturbed
by the impact of crime or conflict; therefore, their relationship is affected, and they deserve
the end-goals of restorative justice. The client-offender should be accountable to correct
his or her mistake, and restitute whatever damages were inflicted (accountability). The
victim has to be compensated and be empowered again (competency development). The
community and its inhabitants deserve an orderly and peaceful society (public safety).
The DOJ-PPA’s role, through its provincial and City Field Offices, is very vital in theimplementation of the RJ programme with respect to its clientele who are in the process ofsupervised rehabilitation and reintegration. The RJ programme, which has implications on
the total efforts in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, has vital national
consequence on the evolving issues of human rights and social justice. These offenders, if
not properly managed, and if the appropriate treatment is not implemented, certainly havean impact on national security.
Restorative justice emphasizes the importance of elevating the role of the victims andthe community members through more active involvement in the justice process, holding
offenders directly accountable to the people they have violated and providing a range
of opportunities for dialogue, negotiations, and problem solving, which can lead to agreater sense of community safety, social harmony and peace for all.
1. Three (3) Fundamental Principles of Restorative Justice
Crime is more than law breaking:i. therefore, victims, offenders and the affected communities should haveopportunities for active involvement in the justice process as early and fully as
possible;ii. justice therefore, requires that all stakeholders should work to heal victims,
offenders, and the communities who have been affected;- 148 - 148 -iii. therefore, we must rethink the relative roles and responsibilities of the government
and the community. In broad terms, in promoting justice, government is
responsible for preserving just order, and the community for establishing just peace.
2. The Basic Elements of Restorative Justice•Encounter: Create opportunities for victims, offenders and the community members
who want to meet and discuss the crime and its aftermath;•Amends: Expect offenders to take steps to repair harm they have caused to their
victims;•

Reintegration: Seek to restore victims and offenders as a whole and help them
become contributing members of society; and•Inclusion: Provide opportunities for parties with a stake in a specific crime toparticipate in the resolution.

3. The Goals of Restorative Justice•Exert effort to appropriately respond to the victim’s harm;•

Accordingly hold offenders accountable;•

Reduce the revictimization;•

Improve active involvement and cooperation of victims; and•Protect and empower victims.

4. The Benefits of Restorative Justice•

It views criminal acts more comprehensively: rather than defining crime only as
lawbreaking, it recognizes that offenders harm victims, communities and eventhemselves;•

It involves more parties: rather than giving key roles only to government and theoffender it includes victims and communities as well;•

It measures success differently: rather than measuring how much punishment has
been inflicted, it measures how much harm has been repaired or prevented;•

It recognizes the importance of community involvement and initiative in responding
to and reducing crime, rather than leaving the problem of crime to the government
alone.

- 149 - 149 -5. The Objectives of Restorative Justice•

To proactively involve the community to support and assist in the rehabilitation of
victims and offenders;•

To attend to the needs of the victims, survivors and other persons impacted by thecrime as vital participating stakeholders in the criminal justice system, rather thanmere objects or passive recipients of service or intervention that may be unwanted,
inappropriate or ineffective;•

To reintegrate offenders to the social mainstream and to encourage them to assume
active responsibility for the injuries inflicted on the victims and the community;•

To ultimately heal the effects of the crime or wrongdoing suffered by the respective
stakeholders; and•To prevent further commission of crime and delinquency.

6. Comparison of Retributive and Restorative JusticeRETRIBUTIVE JUSTICERESTORATIVE JUSTICEState and Community
Crime is an act against the State; a Crime is an act against an individual
violation of law; an abstract idea.
person and/or the community
Control of crime lies in the criminal
Control lies in the community
justice system
CommunityisperipheralasCommunity as a facilitator in the
represented by the State through therestorative process
court, prosecution and defence attorney
Offender and Victim
Reliance on justice professionals

Direct participation by the stakeholders

Victims are central to the process ofresolving a crime
Focus on establishing guilt and the law Focus on problem solving regarding
violated by looking at the past (Did liabilities/obligations by looking to thehe/she do it?)future (What should be done?)
Responsetoaddress
harmfulResponse to address offender’s pastconsequences of offender’s behaviour;emphasis on the future
Victims are peripheral to the process

Relationship
Emphasis on adversarial relationship Emphasis on dialogue and negotiation(win-loss)(win-win)
Accountability- 150 - 150 -Crime is an individual act with Crime has both individual and social
individual responsibility
dimensions of responsibility
Accountability is defined as assuming
Offender accountability is defined as
responsibility and taking action to
taking punishment.
repair the harm.
Punishment alone is not effective in
Punishment is effective; threat ofchanging behaviour and is disruptive topunishment deters crime; punishmentcommunity harmony and goodchanges behaviour.
relationships.
VIII. VICTIMS OF CRIME
A. Victimology
Victimology is the scientific study of victimization, including the relationships between
victims and offenders, the interactions between victims and the criminal justice system –the police, prosecution, court and corrections services – and the connections between
victims and the other social groups and institutions. In RJ, no such classification of
victimless crime is acceptable, because all crimes have direct or indirect victims and eventhe offender is also in broad terms considered a victim.
In reality, the issue of victimization is an encompassing issue that involves not just thedirect victims, but likewise the indirect victims who have suffered the effect ofvictimization. The traditional justice system does not recognize the suffering of theseindirect victims like the members of the family of the complainant (victim), and thecommunity that are affected.
Restorative efforts shifted the definition of a case from an offender-based focus tovictim-focus, and likewise change the nature of the intervention to humanize and transformthe means by which community safety, accountability, competency development andhealing of victims is achieved. The community, a side stream victim, facilitates the process
through participative dialogue, and responds to present and future needs and obligations ofstakeholders. In the case of the offender, restorative efforts are directed towards “righting
the wrong” committed, and voluntarily understanding harm from the other person’s pointof view; recognizing the fact that he or she has choices; taking steps to make changes forthe better so that it will not happen again. To a victim, the above are his or her possible
expectations and will satisfy his or her craving for truth and justice thereby reducing thechronic and catastrophic stressors that traumatized the victim.
B. 10 Fundamental Victim’s Rights in the UN Declaration
1. The fundamental rights for victim to be treated with compassion and the dignity ofthe victim to be respected.
2. The right of the victim to receive information.
3. The right of the victim to provide information to the authorities; that is it allows forthe views of the victim to be presented and considered in the course of criminal
proceedings.

- 151 - 151 -4. The right of victims to have proper assistance throughout the legal process.
5. The right of victims to protection of privacy and physical safety.
6. The right of victims to participate in any formal dispute resolution (restorative
justice was not included in the 1985 UN Declaration).
7. The right of victims to social assistance.
8. The right of victims to restitution by the offender.
9. The right of victims to state compensation.
10. The right of victims that the State should build partnerships between government
agencies, NGOs, and civil society to promote victims’ rights.
IX. STAGES OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
Restorative justice, as a new model of balanced justice, is globally emerging andexperiencing remarkable growth of awareness and interest as a newly discovered
correctional theme, guiding framework or paradigm shift ultimately focused to promoteand encourage active involvement of the three (3) stakeholders in a crime situation,
specifically the victim, offender and the community. As an emerging concept, the treatmentof crime is future oriented, and it affords the stakeholders a chance to be heard andparticipate in the making of a better and brighter future by arriving at a solution which
promotes repair, reconciliation, reassurance and re-empowerment.
A. Investigation Stage
This starts the introduction of RJ concepts and processes to victims and their family
and the community. Probation and Parole Officers get in touch with the victim and thecommunity to listen to the victims’ version of the offence, the effect of victimization on
their lives, families, future, and plans to overcome the impact of victimization should begiven importance in the RJ process. Likewise, obtaining victims’ suggestions on how thedamage/harm inflicted by the crime could be repaired, and accordingly healed. Soliciting
stakeholders’ interest for their introduction to the restorative process shall commence
during this stage.
B. Supervision StageAn RJ programme (e.g. payment of civil liability or any RJ outcome as a result of an
RJ process during the stage) should be part of the condition of client’s conditional release
incorporated in his My Personal Development Plan (MPDP) previously called Supervision
Treatment Plan (STP).
C. Basic Guide for the DOJ–PPA Restorative Justice Practitioner•

The Parties should be brought within the programme of their own free will. Parties
should have the right to seek legal advice before and after the restorative process;- 152 - 152 -•

Before agreeing to participate in the restorative process, the parties should be fully
informed of their rights, the nature of the process, and the possible consequences of
their decision;•

Neither the victim nor the offender should be induced by unfair means to participate
in RJ processes or outcomes;•

Where no agreement can be made between the parties, the case should be withdrawn
from the restorative process;•In the event agreement was reached by the parties, it should be put in writing togive substance/essence to the agreement. The failure to implement any provision of
the agreement made in the course of the restorative justice is a basis for thewithdrawal of the case from the programme; and•Discussion and disclosure made during the process shall be treated with strict
confidentiality and shall not be disclosed and used against the parties involved.

D. Supervision Process with Restorative Justice Impact
1. A Probation and Parole Officer individually assigned to handle investigation andsupervision caseloads shall act as RJ planner. As such, he/she has the following
responsibilities:
a. Identifies and recommends to Chief Probation and Parole Officer (CPPO) a
potential case for a peacemaking encounter;b. Conducts dialogue to explore together the possibility of the RJ process;c. Coordinates/collaborates with responsible members and leaders ofcommunity for their participation in the conference;d. Serve as facilitator of the conference;e. Assists in the healing process of stakeholders based in the STP;
f. Prepares case notes reflective of RJ values utilizing the following points:
i. Impact of crime and effect of victimization;
ii. Victim inputs and involvement opportunities;iii. Offender opportunity to take direct responsibility for the harm.
2. A chief Probation and Parole Officer shall have the following responsibilities:
a. The CPPO approves the case for a Peace Encounter Conference and issues
office order;- 153 - 153 -b. Monitors plans and agreement for implementation achieved during theconference and sets direction to realize success of the process.
3. Volunteer Probation Assistants (VPAs) have the following responsibilities asassigned or designated by the CPPO or OIC:
a. Work in close consultation and cooperation with the Supervising Officer inthe conduct of the RJ process;b. Keep all information about the supervisee in strict confidentiality;c. Make reports of activities in relation to the RJ process;d. Denote a substantial and quality time for supervision of clients;e. Act as resource individual, as donor, lecturer, speaker, organizer,
coordinator, facilitator, mediator and planner for RJ activities;
f. VPAs assigned to supervise clients may be deputized to secure a Circle ofSupport venue, provide refreshments, etc.;
g. Endeavour to heal the victim, client and community relationships; andh. Attend RJ activities as may be required.
E. Ground Rules to Ensure Order during the Restorative Justice Process
1. When somebody is talking, participants are expected to listen and refrain frominterrupting.
2. When a participant wants to be heard, he should raise his hand and wait until the
mediator/facilitator recognizes him to speak. Likewise, a participant should be
advised to remain seated throughout the process and may only stand when
acknowledged by the facilitator or mediator.
3. Participants are asked to refrain from saying foul or vulgar statements or making
unnecessary comments.
4. Cell phones or any gadgets which may disturb or disrupt the process must be turnedoff.
5. Sharp or pointed objects and any deadly weapon are not allowed inside the activityroom.
6. All matters discussed are to be kept confidential.
F. Four Sequential Objectives
During and at the conclusion of the restorative sessions, the stakeholders on any RJ
process should:- 154 - 154 -1. Admit the harm inflicted. When crime happens there is damage to the stakeholders(e.g. broken relationships, physical harm etc.). This realization is essential for theoffender as he needs to reach that point of accepting the fact that he had caused
harm. Thus, it is important for the facts to be discussed carefully.
2. Share and understand the harmful effects of the crime. Sharing feelings about what
happened can promote openness to the stakeholders. Personal liberation can beachieved and every incident properly discussed can transcend perspectives.
Differences are levelled off as feelings are expressed to one another.
3. Agree on terms of reparation. An agreement entered after undergoing the processof careful dialogue and discussion is an indication of a successful encounter. Stepsfor total reconciliation with the victims are laid down through the terms stipulated
in the agreement of the parties. This also provides re-employment of the
stakeholders who were previously degraded by the crime.
4. Understand future behaviour and plan actions. This is carrying out of the plans for“amends”. Renewed behaviour and actions of the offender signify his remorse forthe crime committed and that he is working towards righting the wrongs of the past.
This ensures that the reforms implemented are genuine.
G. DOJ – PPA’s RJ PROCESSES
1. Mediation
Mediation is also known as VOM (Victim-Offender-Mediation). It is a form ofalternative dispute resolution (ADR), a way of resolving disputes between parties withconcrete effects. Typically, a third stakeholder, the mediator, assists the parties to negotiate
a settlement. The mediator may moderate disputes in a variety of fields, such ascommercial, legal, diplomatic, interested victim/s an opportunity to meet the offender in asafe and structured setting, and engage in a mediated discussion of the crime. In mediation
for criminal cases, a neutral third party provides a bridge for dialogue between Victim andOffender.
2. Conferencing
Conferencing is a voluntary, structured meeting between offender/s, victim/s and/or
both parties’ family and friends, in which they address consequences such as restitution
and other outcomes.
a. Family Conferencing – composed of different members of the family;b. Group Conferencing – composed of the victim’s and the offender’s support groups.
3. Circle of Support
Circle of support (COS) is a model of RJ which provides an opportunity for victims,
offenders and community to discuss the crime, and its aftermath, particularly its effects on
the relationship in the community. It also provides opportunities for stakeholders toparticipate in its resolution and expects offenders to take steps to repair the harm they havecaused. Its ultimate objective is to restore broken relationships among the victims,
offenders and community.

- 155 - 155 -Circle of support can be considered as an appropriate RJ Model in the communitybased treatment of offenders because of the active involvement of community as
represented by the Volunteer Probation Assistants (VPAs) or other members such as but
not limited to barangay officials in the process. The success of the Circle of Support lies
not only on the skill of the facilitator, but more importantly, on the readiness and opennessof parties – (victims, offenders, supporters and community representatives) to cometogether and to collectively decide on what can be done to repair and restore broken
relationships among the stakeholders.
The role of the Probation and Parole Officer is only to facilitate the process. We want
the community to eventually own the model and espouse or use any of the other RJ
processes as tools in healing broken relationships among its members. With this end inview, the stakeholders will hopefully benefit from the results thus, rendering thecommunity as the strongest pillar of our criminal justice system.
X. INDIGENOUS PRACTICES
A. Guidelines and Principles for Indigenous Practices
1. Guidelines on the Conciliation Practices of Indigenous Tribal Clients of PPA-DOJ(Based on the Paper of PPO II Joyce A. Rendon, Region XI)

It is the policy of the PPA-DOJ to:•

Preserve, promote and protect the rights of the PPA tribal clients to cultural integrity
and identity and to prescribe mechanisms to protect their customary beliefs;•

Ensure and guarantee the due exercise of rights of the concerned tribal community
to reject or allow the intervention, documentation and publication of PPA-DOJ of
the indigenous conciliation practice undertaken.

2. Operating Principles of Indigenous Process
In the implementation of the RJ programme to PPA tribal clients, the following
measures shall be adopted:•

Protection of cultural intellectual rights and cultural treasures. PPA-DOJ shall give
utmost respect and recognize the religious beliefs, tradition, ceremonies and cultureof the concerned community. Any risks or foreseen adverse impacts must be fully
disclosed to the concerned community. Thus, measures for the elimination or
mitigation of the occurrence of such risks must be given utmost attention.

•

Tribal community consent. Prior consent by the concerned tribal community shallbe secured before any case referral of the DOJ–PPA may commence. Their
voluntary consent should be based on informed opinion which means that theyshould be fully informed of what the activity is all about, the resources collated andthe expected output, among other concerns.

•

Culture sensitivity. The cultural peculiarities and specific circumstances of theconcerned community shall be respected and given due compensation.

- 156 - 156 -•Participatory. The full anticipation of the tribal community in all levels and stagesof the activity shall be required. The nature and dynamics of participation ofconcerned stakeholders shall strictly adhere to customary laws. The Probation and
Parole Officers shall limit themselves only to referral, coordination to the concerned
indigenous community, documentation, monitoring to the agreement reached andevaluation of the whole activity.

3. Role of the Probation and Parole Officer•

Identification and referral of a potential case for indigenous conciliation practice to
CPPO;

•

Proper approval of the case referral and issuance of an Office Order;•

Make coordination to the concerned indigenous community;•

Ensure compliance to the concerned indigenous community;•

Facilitate, coordinate and document the whole activity;•

Assist the concerned indigenous community in the crafting and execution ofagreements;•

Monitor compliance of the terms and conditions of agreements entered into;•

Prepare case notes reflective of the progress of the indigenous conciliation practiceundertaken;•

Coordinate with the National Commission on Indigenous People if necessary.

B. Kinds of Indigenous Practices
1. The Ifugao Justice System(Based from the Article of Prof. Mary Constancy Barrameda)

The Ifugao Justice System can be described as the process by which peace and harmonyin the Ifugao community should be preserved and maintained, through a peaceable
resolution of a dispute over a wrong or wrongs that threaten an eruption of conflict. This isbased on public determination of the truth concerning the alleged wrong or wrongs
participated in by the community or its representatives, permitting a collective decision or
judgment of guilt or innocence, with appropriate sanctions, compliance of judgment, andrituals for healing and restoration of social fabric.
Vital to this justice system is the Ifugao religion. It is the firm belief that justice isbasically the intervention of their God in the vindication of the innocent and the exposureand condemnation of wrongdoing in the breach of peace, and the purging of sin committed
in the latter case through repentance by prompt acknowledgement of guilt, atonement
through payment of stipulated reparation, and reconciliation with aggrieved parties throughhealing rituals called hidit.

- 157 - 157 -2. The Manobo Justice System
When conflict is caused by gossip, the Datu will conduct his investigation. Then, boththe identified source and subject of the gossip are summoned to his presence. Based on the
merit of his investigation, he would counsel and warn them not to repeat the issue. Whenboth parties agree, he would cover the gong to symbolize an end to the conflict or gossip
and will no longer hear the issue. However, if the gossip continues, the offender will be
fined or penalized to the Datu’s specification. Then, the Datu will say:•

Tampud Tabahon – cut a rattan to close the case;•

Tadto Mata Alaw – point to the sun and promise not to do it again;•

Abukkatuso – turn off the lamp to indicate that the gossip is off;•

Sagpong Talinga – cover the ears so that one will not hear;•

Sagpong Ta Mata – even if she sees it, she will keep quiet so that there will be notrouble;•Sablagan – the offender will give the offended party food or animals. When she
receives the sablag, she will not do anything because the fairies had blessed her.

3. Manabo-Dulangan Justice System
The Justice System of the Manobo-Dulangan ICCs is called Antang-antang. The
common infractions are coveting another man’s wife, theft, cattle rustling, homicide,murder and land disputes. These disputes are usually brought to the attention of the Sultan
or Datu for resolution.
C. Restorative Justice Outcome
Restorative Outcome is an agreement obtained as a product of a restorative process.
Each hallmark of the restorative process – Mediation, Conferencing, Circle of Support andother indigenous ways of setting disputes – ends with an agreement on how the offender
will make amends for the harm caused by the crime. The two traditional justice sanctions
used in a restorative response to crime are Restitution and Community Work Services.
1. Restitution
Restitution is the payment by an offender of a sum of money to compensate the victim
for the financial losses caused by the crime.
2. Community Work Service
As an integral component of Restorative Justice, Community Work Service (CWS)
imposed upon an offender whether as a probation or parole condition or part of thetreatment plan. In a way, work service in the community as an intervention if properly
implemented will connect the missing link between the offender struggling to reintegrate
himself and the community disturbed by the effect of the offender’s behaviour necessary
to make the treatment therapy a workable intervention, and not just to restrain offender’smovement, or merely an added compliance with imposed conditions, thereby defeating its
real purpose.

- 158 - 158 -a. Definition of Community Work Service
Community work service (CWS) is a work performed by the offender withoutcompensation for the benefit of the community as an outcome of an RJ process reached ona restorative agreement among stakeholders. CWS is:•

A free public labour performed by a criminal offender as a sanction for an offence
for the benefit for the benefit of the community.

•

Its essence is to present a meaningful lesson for the offender-client to realize thatcrime he has committed has a public repercussion, and therefore on his part incurred
restorative obligation to settle.

•

As a restorative practice, it should be included either as a condition of his releaseon individualized community-based programme or incorporated in the My Personal
Development Plan (MPDP)

b. Goals of Community Work Service•

Holds offender accountable for the harm caused to the community.

•

Provide communities with human resources that can improve the quality of life inpublic environment, business and even individual residences.

•

Helps offender develop new skills through supervised work activities.

•

Allows victim a voice and occasionally some direct benefit by recommending thetype of community work service.

•

It has three aims: Accountability on the part of the offender; Competency
development; and Community Protection or safety.

c. Forms of Community Work Service•

Mentoring and Integrational Service – Offenders will develop their maturing needs
through caring for other people; example: with senior citizens, orphanage or street
children.

•

Economic Development – to link directly in a business project; examples: cleaning
downtown area, tree planting, maintenance of business zones, housing restoration,
garbage and waste management, cleaning of esteros, recycling, construction, repairof streets, and the like.

•

Citizenship and Civic Participation – experiential activities which involve solving
community problems; examples puppet shows that showcase values, street dramas,
peer-counselling.

•

Helping the Disadvantaged – This will enhance offender’s self-esteem; examples:
assist handicapped, assist in soup kitchen, tutor peers, visit the aged in jails andhospitals.

- 159 - 159 -•Crime prevention Projects – Examples: “barangay ronda”, giving testimony to theyouth.

d. Coverage
For Probationers: All, except when:•

The community does not accept them;•Due to ill health that may hinder performing CWS;•

If working or staying outside the country with proper authority;•

Other work/job which may not give probationers time for CWS;•

All at the discretion of the supervising officer.

For Parolees/Pardonees: All, provided they will not pose danger to the community.
e. Time frame
Serving client should be granted time to adjust to life which is not more than six (6)months before doing CWS. Its duration should depend on the length of the project, needsof the offender and the community within the RJ framework.
Probation / Surveillance Period
6 years but not less than 5 years
Not more than 5 years but not less than 4 years
Not more than 4 years but not less than 3 years
Not more than 3 years but not less than 2 years
Not more than 2 years but not less than 1 year
Less than 1 year

Length of CWS
144 hours or 6 hours/week
120 hours
96 hours
72 hours
28 hours
24 hours

f. Procedural Implementation
1. Such community work shall be recommended as one of the conditions on the caseof probation and/or included in the My Personal Development Plan (MPDP),
specifying the number of hours of community work to be rendered by the offender,
the type of work service, and possibly the place and the contact person in thecommunity. A successful community work service programme basically requires atrue public-private partnership. All these may be done in coordination with local
government units, other government offices, civic and religious organizations andother significant community support and healing circles.
2. During initial supervision, the client offender shall execute an undertaking duly
subscribed before the Chief Probation and Parole Officer (CPPO) that he/she iswilling to render community work service in compliance with the conditions of
his/her probation or My Personal Development Plan (MPDP).
3. The undertaking shall be in triplicate distributed as follows: 1) Supervision Case
Folder, 2) Responsible persons or office giving community work to client, 3) Client.

- 160 - 160 -4. After completion of Community Work Service, the offender shall secure a
Certification that he/she performed work service in a particular community,
indicating therein the type or kind of work performed, the number of work hours
rendered, and the date when community service is done.
5. Such Certification obtained by the client shall be surrendered to the PPA Office tobe filed in his folder.
6. Compliance of this condition on Community Work Service shall be indicated in the
Final or Summary Report submitted by his/her Supervising Officer to the court or
Board of Pardons and Parole.
g. CWS Indicators of Success1. Must have satisfactorily completed the prescribed number of hours of community
work service;
2. Presence of established community linkage and work resources;
3. Has gained a certain degree of recognition and/or benefited the community;
4. Has maintained a favourable relationship with his/her community worker and thecommunity;
5. Gained positive attitude towards work and sense of satisfaction for his voluntary
service; and6. Gained or enhanced competency in a specific area of work.

- 161 - 161 -- 162 - 162 -PANEL III

PRESENTATIONS
Mr. IMAFUKU Shoji (Japan)* * *Ms. Sodiqa Williams (Safer Foundation)* * *Ms. Olivia Rope (Penal Reform International)* * *Mr. Ali Reunanen (Criminals Return Into Society)* * *Ms. Maria Cristina Mattei (Hedayah)- 163 -

- 163 -

- 164 -- 164 -

A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER APPROACH TO ENSURINGCONTINUOUS SUPPORT AND SERVICES FOR REHABILITATION
AND REINTEGRATION OF OFFENDERS: FOCUSING ON
HOUSING SUPPORTIMAFUKU Shoji *I. OVERVIEW
In 2003, reported Penal Code offences reached the highest-ever number. Further, in
2006, the number of newly admitted reimprisoned inmates reached its peak. However, theratio of reimprisoned to newly imprisoned inmates has remained high over the years,
reaching 58.3 per cent in 2019, as revealed by the line graph in Figure 1. This figure reveals
that the majority of offences were committed by recidivists.
Figure 1 Reimprisoned inmates among new sentenced inmates, and percentage ofreimprisoned inmates

Source: Annual Report of Statistics on Corrections 2019
Furthermore, among those who were sentenced between 1948 and 2006, 1 million wererandomly selected and the tendency of these subjects was investigated and analysed. As
shown in the pie chart below, when looking at the extracted cases by offenders, 71.1 percent were first-time offenders, while 28.9 per cent were repeat offenders. On the other hand,looking at the number of cases caused by each, the number of cases caused by first-timeoffenders is 42.3 per cent, while the number of cases caused by repeats offenders is 57.7
per cent. In other words, about 60 per cent of crimes are committed by about 30 per cent ofrepeat offenders in Japan.
*

Director General of the Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan- 165 - 165 -Source: White paper on crime 2007
This recognition led to the development of national strategies for the prevention ofcrime, particularly reoffending. To effectively reduce reoffending, it is necessary to meeteach offender’s individual diverse needs. Therefore, criminal justice authorities are
required to involve various stakeholders in areas such as employment, housing and social
welfare services to facilitate offenders’ smooth re-entry into society. In Japan, thecontinuous development of reoffending prevention strategies requires the involvement of
all relevant ministries. They are implemented by governments from the national to the local
level and involve both the public and private sectors.
II. MEASURES IMPLEMENTED BY THE GOVERNMENT
A. Comprehensive Measures to Prevent Recidivism
On 20 July 2012, the Council of Ministers for Crime Countermeasures decided on“Comprehensive Measures to Prevent Recidivism.” This is a comprehensive measure takenby the government to prevent the recidivism of released offenders, and the initiative’snumerical target to be achieved 10 years after its formulation is as follows: “the ratio of
those who will re-enter prison within 2 years after being released from prison will be
reduced by more than 20 per cent in the next 10 years.” Further, in 2016, a milestone thatmarked five years after decision was made on this comprehensive measure, a follow-up
was conducted of the initiative’s achievements and challenges.
In addition, the Council of Ministers for Crime Countermeasures declared “No
Returning to Crime, No Facilitation of a Return to Crime” in 2014, and the government
provided various measures for recidivism prevention. As a result, a circle of cooperationby community volunteers such as hogoshi and cooperating employers was widely
facilitated. On the other hand, many drug addicts who face various challenges in recovery
and the elderly and disabled who have committed crimes have fallen between the criminal
justice system and the local community and have been reoffending without the necessary
support. Therefore, “Emergency Measures to Prevent Reoffending by Drug Addicts andElderly Criminals” were decided to prevent recidivism of such criminals by the Council of
Ministers for Crime Countermeasures in 2016.
B. Act for the Prevention of Recidivism
The Act for the Prevention of Recidivism (hereafter, “the Act” in this section) enacted- 166 - 166 -in 2016 aims to comprehensively and systematically advance initiatives to prevent
recidivism, prevent people from becoming the victims of crime, and contribute to therealization of a society in which people can live safely and peacefully in accordance withthe following principles:a. Laying down fundamental principles for recidivism prevention;b. Clarifying the responsibilities of the central and local governments regarding
initiatives to prevent recidivism;
c. Specifying the basic aspects of recidivism prevention measures, andcomprehensively and systematically implementing these measures.
The Act emphasizes local governments’ endeavours to implement initiatives thatfacilitate the appropriate sharing of roles with the State according to the circumstances in
the areas under their jurisdiction. Based on the Act, criminal justice agencies, including
probation offices, provide guidance and information on recidivism prevention measures tothe local governments and support the formulation of the “Local Recidivism Prevention
Plan” with the cooperation of the community volunteers who support offender reintegration.
Further, the local governments play an important role in recidivism prevention in adherencewith the Act and its “Recidivism Prevention Plan.” As of 1 October 2020, 71 local
governments, not only prefectural governments but also municipal governments, acrossJapan have established their own Local Recidivism Prevention Plans, and prefectural andmunicipal governments have strengthened cooperation in the field of reoffending
prevention (see subsection (3) in this section).
C. Recidivism Prevention Plan
Currently, the Recidivism Prevention Plan, which was formulated in 2017, consists of
7 priority issues with 115 specific measures based on a nationwide multi-stakeholder
approach. The plan highlights the importance of employment, welfare services, housing
and so on.
D. Regional Recidivism Prevention Model Project
To promote recidivism prevention in accordance with the Act, the Ministry of Justicehas been implementing the “regional recidivism prevention model project” since 2018 incooperation with local governments. Accordingly, the local governments carry out several
activities such as (1) researching the status of recidivism in the region and formulating amodel project implementation plan, (2) implementing the model project and (3) examining
the effects of the model project. As of 31 December 2019, 37 projects have been
implemented by 36 local governments.
III. JAPAN’S APPROACH TO SECURE HOUSING
Housing forms the basis of our daily lives by providing us with a place to call our own.
It gives us a sense of stability and security. The same is true for people who re-enter society
after serving time in prison. For them, securing a place to live is closely linked to the ability
to find employment, receive welfare benefits, become a member of the community and soon.

- 167 - 167 -In Japan, there are more than 500 privately run or publicly run facilities that support therehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. The offender rehabilitation facilities, whichfunction as so-called halfway houses, have played an important role as the last bastion for
released inmates who could not secure a residence. Since those released inmates haveincreased, it is necessary to secure various measures and residences systematically. To
ensure that offenders are able to secure housing by themselves in the community, theprobation officer provides them with knowledge and information on securing housing, suchas the procedures to rent a house, and guidance to help them live independently. In addition,
for probationers and parolees who have nowhere to live, the probation officer actively
secures employers who can provide a residence and helps them move into the National
Center for Offender Rehabilitation as well as offender rehabilitation facilities.
Correctional institutions and probation offices in Japan collaborate in coordinating
offenders’ re-entry, such as by securing housing tailored to each inmate’s needs. In
correctional institutions, specialized staff conduct assessments of inmates at the beginningof incarceration to identify their needs. Such information is shared with probation officers
in a timely manner. Moreover, at major prisons, a probation officer is stationed full time
for coordination of offenders’ reintegration into the community.
Coordination and information sharing between correctional institutions and probation
offices are systematically and continuously conducted for almost all inmates regardless of
their offence. These practices start from the early stage of incarceration and continue up to
the point of release, making it possible to find housing tailored to each inmate’s needs. The
regional parole boards and probation offices promote securing housing for released inmatesin cooperation with housing support corporations, which provide support for securing
housing for people in need of housing support, such as those in need of housing, the elderly,
and the disabled, as stipulated in the Act on Promotion of Offering of Rental Housing to
Persons Requiring Special Assistance in Securing Housing.
To find the most suitable place to live after release, probation officers consult with avariety of stakeholders. For instance, for those who need welfare or medical support, theprobation officers consult with the welfare or medical section of local governments which
can offer housing or other accommodation with access to welfare or health-care service.
For people with addictions such as drugs and alcohol, the probation officers contact selfhelp groups which can offer accommodation with rehabilitative programmes. For those
who cannot return to their family and cannot find a proper place to live, the probation
officers coordinate temporary housing.
When coordinating re-entry into the community, it is of vital importance that it is done
according to the conditions relevant to the community to which the offenders return. Thus,
hogoshi (volunteer probation officers), as community volunteers, help probation officers
coordinate re-entry.
For instance, hogoshi visit the offender’s future residence, interview the offender’sfamily or guardian, and foster the relationship between the family or guardian and theoffender during his/her incarceration. Furthermore, if the offenders are released on parole,
the same hogoshi are generally assigned to conduct their community supervision and tosupport them as a good neighbour. Under the national strategies, criminal justice authorities
have engaged these stakeholders and have developed cooperative partnerships with themwith clearly identified roles.
- 168 - 168 -However, it is hard for some members of the general public to understand theimportance of accepting offenders back into society, and they often refuse to cooperate. For
example, there are some cases in which released offenders cannot rent an apartment or theycannot be employed because of their criminal records. To tackle these challenges, probation
officers make full use of their contacts and resources in the community, particularly hogoshi.
Hogoshi are usually highly respected senior members of their communities. Using theirpersonal networks and knowledge of their communities, hogoshi regularly make efforts torecruit and encourage community stakeholders who can potentially offer housing and othersupport to released offenders.
Furthermore, other volunteers such as members of Big Brothers and Sisters, theWomen’s Association for Rehabilitation Aid and cooperating employers, also play animportant role in gaining public understanding of the importance of successful reintegrationof offenders into society.
IV. CONCLUSION
Still, the process of reintegration into society is complicated, and some offenders needa long time to reintegrate into the community. In these cases, the local governments are
required to provide continuous support for those offenders, because they have the authority
and the responsibility to take care of their own residents’ housing and welfare issues.
Therefore, the Ministry of Justice provides the local governments with the necessary
information for prevention of reoffending in order to take effective measures in cooperation
with them. According to such a mechanism, each local government has individually beendeveloping a local recidivism prevention plan.
To facilitate communication among relevant governmental agencies, the Ministry ofJustice has taken the initiative to establish platforms for cooperation between the national
and local governments, such as the Conference of Prefectural Officials and the Conferenceof Mayors.
According to the statistics, 26.9 per cent of prison inmates did not have proper andstable housing at the time of release in 2008. Since then, comprehensive efforts to intensify
housing support as above mentioned have been implemented. In the result, the percentage
had decreased to 18.7 per cent in 2019 (Annual Report of Statistics on Corrections 2019).
In conclusion, the multi-stakeholder approach to ensuring continuous support andservices for the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders emphasizes the following three
key points: enhancing the multi-stakeholder approach based on public-private partnership,
activating stakeholders’ strengths engaged in a variety of areas of services and support, andgaining public understanding for successful offender rehabilitation and reintegration into
society. This approach will be further promoted through practices as a legacy of the 14th
United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.

- 169 - 169 -- 170 - 170 -INTENSIVE COMMUNITY RESTORATION: THE NEED FOR
EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT RE-ENTRY INFRASTRUCTURE
PROVIDING HOLISTIC SERVICES
Sodiqa Williams Esq. *I. INTRODUCTION: THE STATE OF MASS INCARCERATION IN THE
UNITED STATESIn May of 2020, a viral video of the killing of George Floyd at the hands of a police
officer in Minneapolis, Minnesota, led to a national reckoning on the disproportionate
effect that the American criminal legal system has on its black and brown communities.
For years, the Black Lives Matter movement has driven the effort to reanalyse our broken
criminal legal system, not only as a matter of public safety but also as a matter of publichealth. This movement has gained broader traction than ever before, finding an increasing
international stage. A poll conducted by ABC News/ Washington Post in July of 2020
found that 69 per cent of Americans surveyed believe Black people and other minorities
do not receive equal treatment in the criminal justice system. 1
People with arrest and conviction records are permanently deprived of certain rights
and stripped of opportunities for housing, education, employment, social services andother necessities. It has become clear that contact with the criminal legal system canpermanently disable individuals’ ability to readapt to society resulting in substantialsocial and economic costs and a lifetime of social stigmatization. The economic fallout
is widespread across all systems, compounding the negative effects of poverty, foodinsecurity, housing insecurity, employment, violence, physical health needs, mental
health needs and education.
The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated the difficulties associated with re-entry, as
the pandemic has prompted a wave of early release. According to Rob Jeffreys, acting
Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC), the Illinois prison population
has fallen by more than 18 per cent during the pandemic. This means that as records ofnumbers of people return to their communities it is imperative that state and local leaders
provide the critical services required for successful re-entry to avoid high rates ofrecidivism. 2 While this early release is positive news, it has put a strain on existing
services and increased competition for already rare employment opportunities.
Considering that as of September 2020 the number of nonfarm jobs decreased in all
fourteen Illinois metropolitan areas, and that no industry sector saw job gains in mostGeneral Counsel and Vice President of External Affairs, Safer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, UnitedStates of America. This article was co-authored by Ben Osborne M.A. Ed.
1
Langer, G. (2020, July 21). ABC news. Retrieved from <https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/63-supportblack-lives-matter-recognition-discrimination-jumps/story?id=71779435>.
2
Ebert, J. (2020, October 14). Illinois prison population decreased by 18 percent since start of pandemic.
Retrieved from <https://thedailyline.net/chicago/10/14/2020/illinois-prison-population-decreased-by-18-percentsince-start-of-pandemic/>.
*- 171 - 171 -metro areas, the need for services will only increase. 3 Without vital support services, thepandemic will exacerbate human suffering and recidivism rates.
However, the current state of existing support services is dire. In early 2020 theCouncil of State Governments conducted a survey of community-based service providers
and found that only 30 per cent of re-entry service providers were operating at full capacity
during the rise of the pandemic in the first quarter of the year. 4 Concurrently, the survey
found that “significant numbers” of programmes such as “in-reach services in jails andprisons, educational support in the community, and employment services” had largely
ceased functioning altogether. 5 In addition, nearly 20 per cent of organizations hadreported layoffs, with more expected in the future. 6 The deficiencies of the current nonprofit system were made starkly clear, reliant as it is on piecemeal acquisition of resources
via a cumbersome and unpredictable grant system. As the economy stumbled, andresources began to run dry the effect on non-profits and small community-basedorganizations quickly led to the shuttering of many agencies.
It is imperative that people re-entering their communities from incarceration berecognized as being among the most vulnerable members of society. With the economic
fallout of the pandemic, it is certain that local, state and federal budgets will be
constrained, meaning those most vulnerable will bear the brunt of the effects. The
challenges people impacted by mass incarceration face are numerous and deep, and theinequities being revealed by the pandemic will only be deepened without aggressive,proactive action. We must acknowledge the existence of these inequities engage in areconciliation process to begin to repair the harm.
This report discusses the ways re-entry is directly tied to a wide range ofsocioeconomic problems faced by people impacted by mass incarceration, each with
their own set of bureaucratic, social and financial obstacles. A discussion of the social
determinants of health displays the complexity of re-entry, challenging the traditionalview of addressing “crime” and “recidivism” as merely bad choices or any number ofoutmoded versions of cultural blame or deficiency theory. 7 By viewing the issue of reentry through a holistic lens and appreciating the complexity and unique experiences ofpeople with records, it becomes clear that the issues we are facing are not as simple as“crime” or “violence”, but a complex web of interrelated socioeconomic inequities
embedded within much of the fabric of America.
Ultimately, the story of re-entry is one of cyclical poverty, racism, systemicanachronisms, inequity, and all too often, despair. However, more than ever communities
are coming together to solve these issues, collaborating closely to find innovative
solutions to historically entrenched problems. To continue this work, communities need
Illinois Dept. of Employment Security. (2020). Illinois Still Impacted by COVID-19 Pandemic,
Unemployment Rates Up Compared to Last Year. (2020). Retrieved from<https://www2.illinois.gov/ides/SitePages/NewsArticleDisplay.aspx?NewsID=518>.
4
The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center. (2020). Survey Shows Reentry Services Halting
Across U.S. (2020, June 25). Retrieved from <https://csgjusticecenter.org/survey-shows-reentry-serviceshalting-across-u-s/>.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
7
“Cultural deficiency” refers to “the perspective that minority group members are different because theirculture is deficient in important ways from the dominant majority group”. Salkind, N. J. (2008). Cultural
deficit model. In Encyclopedia of educational psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 217-217). SAGE Publications, Inc.
3

- 172 - 172 -long-term, sustained investment.
This report, in discussing the sheer numbers of people with records and the challenges
they face, argues that the services required for successful re-entry is among the mostimportant areas of social investment. As this report will show, there is a desperate need for
an effective and efficient re-entry infrastructure geared towards increasing quality of lifeand reducing recidivism and violence. By addressing the challenges discussed within thisreport policymakers and community activists can take a bold step towards ending the cycleof poverty that all too often leads individuals back to crime and violence. Without sustainedand dedicated support systems, we will see more homelessness, more poverty, more
desperation, more crime and ultimately more violence within our communities. Recent
research by the Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority has found a direct
relationship between criminal offending and victimization by homicide in Illinois,
particularly in Cook County. Between 2015 and 2016, 40 per cent of suicide victims had
an arrest record and 3 per cent had a prior incarceration, while 77 per cent of homicide
victims had a prior arrest and 31 per cent had been previously incarcerated. 8 These chilling
statistics paint a stark picture. Holistic re-entry services are a means of reducing violencein our communities.
Considering the current fiscal state of the United States and the State of Illinois it is
now more critical than ever that we act decisively and proactively to get in front of the
problem by investing the resources required to provide a smooth transition back into society
for individuals exiting incarceration.
Currently, relevant agencies are siloed in a range of service sectors, including healthand behavioural health, housing and homelessness, employment, criminal justice, family,
and social services, etc. As is, re-entry is made up of a hodgepodge of policies andprogrammes. The allocation of an insufficient amount of funds to re-entry efforts has
resulted in an infrastructure inadequate to the task of facilitating the successful re-entry of
the formerly incarcerated. Indeed, a report by the Collateral Consequences Resource
Center (CCRC) states “there is nothing coordinated about the current system.” 9 Rather,
this lack of a unified response is attributable to a policy approach that devolves
responsibility to municipalities and non-profit agencies that currently lack the sustained,
reliable resources required to provide efficient, coordinated, mid-to-long-term responses.
What is required by the re-entry, and workforce development sectors is an integrated
tool that pulls together “the best thinking about reducing recidivism and improving job
placement and retention to guide correctional supervision and the provision of communitybased services”. 10 Within this, a “multidimensional approach that considers the inmatesthemselves along with the broader social context…could incorporate assistance with

Prior Criminal Justice Involvement of Persons Experiencing Violent Deaths in Illinois. (2020). Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority. Retrieved from <https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/priorcriminal-justice-involvement-of-persons-experiencing-violent-deaths-in-illinois>.
9
Love, M., & Schlussel, D. (2020, September 8). "The Many Roads to Reintegration": A 50-state report onlaws restoring rights and opportunities. Retrieved from <https://ccresourcecenter.org/2020/09/08/the-manyroads-to-reintegration-a-national-survey-of-restoration-law/>.
10
Duran, L. (2013). Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies: Reducing Recidivism and Promoting
Job Readiness. Retrieved from <https://nicic.gov/integrated-reentry-and-employment-strategies-reducingrecidivism-and-promoting-job-readiness>.
8- 173 - 173 -housing and job training for the soon-to-be-released, to smooth their transition. 11 This
report provides background context specifically related to the following subjects: processof re-entry; housing; workforce development and employment; health (physical and mental
health, as well as substance abuse); and criminal justice reform.
By reviewing existing studies, reports and the best available data and comparing withthe results of Safer’s own qualitative investigations and institutional experience, this reportattempts to provide a more systematic understanding of the complexities and problems
attendant with prisoner re-entry as both concept and practice, taking into consideration thecritical need for a holistic continuum of services spanning pre- and post-release fromincarceration. In addition to existing research, this report is informed by oral histories
conducted by Safer staff with people directly impacted by mass incarceration. Oral History
is a method used by social scientists to help inform the context of a certain historical event
using the perspective of those who lived through it. Everyone's story is unique, and while
no person’s story falls neatly into any one clear category these rich narratives illustrate thecomplexity of re-entry in Chicago and the way these obstacles interweave and cascade,rendering re-entry a complex and stressful process that requires a dedicated and holistic setof services.
In Illinois, the benefits to sufficiently supporting holistic re-entry services will becounted both in dollars and in lives. The sheer numbers of people impacted by mass
incarceration is nothing short of a crisis. With over 3.3 million Illinoisans arrested orconvicted of a crime since 1979 12 and 54 per cent of these individuals expected to havereturned to Chicago, 13 it is reasonable to presume that at a minimum 1,782,000 individuals
with records currently reside within Chicago. The Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory
Council (SPAC) calculates that the cost of each individual reconviction costs taxpayers anaverage of $151,662, 14 and considering that 17 per cent of formerly incarcerated people
will reoffend within one year while 43 per cent will reoffend within three years, 15 the cost
to Illinois taxpayers could reach $13 billion by 2023. 16 The Council estimates that reducing
recidivism by a mere percentage point could potentially save the state of Illinois $10
million annually. This takes on a particular resonance in the midst of a continuing
pandemic and a devastated economy.
At the national level, the cascading costs of imprisonment are passed along from theindividual to the family and on to the community, the state and ultimately the nation.
Buckner and Barber (2016) estimate that nationally the cost related to shutting people with
11

Weidner, R. R., & Schultz, J. (2019). Examining the relationship between U.S. incarceration rates andpopulation health at the county level. SSM - Population Health, 9, 100466.
doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100466
12
Heartland Alliance 2020 Poverty Report. (2020). Retrieved from<https://www.heartlandalliance.org/heartland-alliance-2020-poverty-report/>.
13
Visher, C., & Farrell, J. (2005). Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry. PsycEXTRA Dataset.
doi:10.1037/e720022011-001
14
Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council. (2018). Illinois Results First: The High Cost of Recidivism
2018 Report. Retrieved from <https://spac.illinois.gov/publications/cost-benefit-analysis/high-cost-ofrecidivism-2018>.
15
Lyon, E. (2019). Illinois Calculates the High Costs of Recidivism. Retrieved from<https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/feb/5/illinois-calculates-high-costs-recidivism/>.
16
Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council. (2018). Illinois Results First: The High Cost of Recidivism
2018 Report. Retrieved from <https://spac.illinois.gov/publications/cost-benefit-analysis/high-cost-ofrecidivism-2018>.

- 174 - 174 -records out of the economy equates to an annual GDP loss of between $78-87 billion. In
2008, job discrimination against ex-offenders in the U.S. alone removed 1.5 to 1.7 million
workers from the labour market, leading to a productivity loss of $57-65 billion dollars thatyear (Bucknor and Barber, 2016; National Conference on State Legislatures, 2018).
Aside from loss of productivity and purchasing power, according to Guyer, Bachrach
and Shine (2015) 4.2 per cent of adults who have had contact with the criminal justicesystem are accountable for an estimated 7.2 per cent of hospital costs and 8.5 per cent ofemergency department expenditures. Furthermore, considering the heavy interplay
between incarceration and homelessness, the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
estimates that each individual suffering from chronic homelessness costs the public
between $30,000 to $50,000 per year in associated costs. Conversely, research from
Portland State University found that each dollar invested in assisting justice-involved
homeless individuals results in a savings of $13.
The costs above are well documented, yet when one attempts to investigate the true
numbers of individuals with criminal records in the United States, it becomes more difficult
to tease out the specifics. This difficulty is replicated at the state level, making estimationsdifficult though not impossible. Despite these challenges, attempts to calculate the numbers
are currently being made, and the work that has become available demonstrates that the
sheer numbers of residents of Illinois, Cook County, and Chicago with criminal records
are staggering, and considering the myriad challenges people attempting to re-enter society
from incarceration face, the issue amounts to no less than a public emergency.
II. THE STATE OF RE-ENTRY IN ILLINOIS: A LOOK AT THE NUMBERS
According to the Prison Policy Initiative, within the American criminal justice system
there are approximately 2.3 million people incarcerated within 1,833 state prisons, 110
federal prisons, 1,772 juvenile correctional facilities, 3,134 local jails, 218 immigration
detention facilities, and 80 Indian Country jails. 17 More than 600,000 Americans are
released from prisons each year, and the number of people who enter and leave jails eachyear has been estimated at 9 million. 18 In fact, if all Americans with arrest records werecombined into a single nation it would be the world’s 18th largest country. Estimates showthat by age 23 nearly 33 per cent of Americans will have an arrest record, and Bucknor andBarber contend that in the U.S., one-third of the adult population are subject to thecollateral consequences of involvement with the criminal justice system. 19 In 2020, theracial disparities within the criminal justice system are widely known, yet still Black people
are incarcerated in state and federal prisons at a rate almost six times that of whites, andnearly double the rate for “Hispanics”. 20 In fact, the disparity in arrest rates is so systemic
Wagner, W. (2020). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2020. Retrieved from<https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html>.
18
Leverentz, A. M., Chen, E. Y., Christian, J., & Maruna, S. (2020). Beyond recidivism: New approaches toresearch on prisoner reentry and reintegration. New York: New York University Press.
19
Buckner, C., & Barber, A. (2020, February 6). The Price We Pay: Economic Costs of Barriers to
Employment for Former Prisoners and People Convicted of Felonies. Retrieved from<https://cepr.net/report/the-price-we-pay-economic-costs-of-barriers-to-employment-for-former-prisonersand-people-convicted-of-felonies/>.
20
Weidner, R. R., & Schultz, J. (2019). Examining the relationship between U.S. incarceration rates andpopulation health at the county level. SSM - Population Health, 9, 100466.
doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100466.
17- 175 - 175 -that midlife physical health disparities found to exist along racial lines are due primarily
to disproportionate rates of incarceration. 21 “Over the past quarter century, there has beena profound change in the involvement of women within the criminal justice system. Thisis the result of more expansive law enforcement efforts, stiffer drug sentencing laws, andpost-conviction barriers to re-entry that uniquely affect women.” 22
The re-entry crisis in Illinois holds astounding economic and psychologicalconsequences for impacted individuals, their families and the larger communities. There
are over 3.3 million Illinoisans 23 and over 1.7 million individuals with arrest and conviction
records in Chicago, Cook County, with an average of 54 per cent of Illinois residents
returning from IDOC facilities to Chicago-Cook County every year between 2005 and2019. 24 The Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council (SPAC) calculates that the costof each individual reconviction costs taxpayers an average of $151,662. 25 Considering that
17 per cent of formerly incarcerated people will reoffend within one year while 43 per centwill reoffend within three years, the cost to Illinois taxpayers could reach $13 billion by2023. 26
As in all fields, gender inequities are of great significance within issues related to mass
incarceration. Despite national trends towards declining incarceration rates, nearly all of
the decrease in the number of people in state prisons since 2009 has been among men, withwomen’s prisons actually growing by 834 per cent over the past 40 years, doubling the rateof men over the same period. 27 This will be critical work, as evidence shows that once
released from incarceration the collateral consequences of having a record make finding
employment, housing and financial support even more difficult for women. 28 As stated in
The Sentencing Project’s fact sheet Incarcerated Women and Girls, “Over the past quarter
century, there has been a profound change in the involvement of women within the criminal
justice system. This is the result of more expansive law enforcement efforts, stiffer drug
sentencing laws, and post-conviction barriers to re-entry that uniquely affect women.” 29This is a critical factor to keep in mind throughout this report, and while this work wishes
to draw attention to the challenges specifically faced by women, the topic will be more
fully investigated in future research
That the United States’ system of mass incarceration is institutionally racist is well

Ibid.
Hill, H. (2019, July 10). Incarcerated Women and Girls. Retrieved
from <https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-girls/>.
23
Heartland Alliance 2020 Poverty Report. (2020). Retrieved from<https://www.heartlandalliance.org/heartland-alliance-2020-poverty-report/>.
24
Illinois Department of Corrections, “Annual Reports,” www.illinois.gov (Illinois Department ofCorrections), accessed 20 September 2020,<https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Pages/AnnualReports.aspx>.
25
Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council. (2018). Illinois Results First: The High Cost of Recidivism
2018 Report. Retrieved from <https://spac.illinois.gov/publications/cost-benefit-analysis/high-cost-ofrecidivism-2018>.
26
Ibid.
27
Prison Policy Initiative, P. (2018, January 9). The Gender Divide: Tracking women's state prison growth.
Retrieved from <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/women_overtime.html>.
28
Ibid.
29
Hill, H. (2019, July 10). Incarcerated Women and Girls. Retrieved from<https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-girls/>.
21
22- 176 - 176 -documented, 30 yet there remains little political will to alleviate the structural issues thathave plagued our communities for hundreds of years. Across the United States, Black
people and people of colour are arrested at higher rates than that of whites. In fact, Black
people are incarcerated in state prisons at rates five times higher than those of white
people. 31 This is perhaps best exemplified by the fact that while drug use rates areapproximately the same among white and Black people, Black people are almost four times
as likely to be arrested for a drug offence as white people. 32 This disparity has been so
consistent that research shows that the racial disparities in incarceration cannot be
explained by crime rates alone, and point toward social factors. 33 This is corroborated by
the fact that serious crimes such as homicide do not show the same racial disparities thatare apparent for more minor crimes such as those related to drugs. 34 In fact, the racialdisparities increase the further along the legal process an individual moves. 35 This suggests
biased processes inherent within the system itself.
According to recent research presented by the Heartland Alliance within their 2020
Poverty Report, since 1979 at least 3.3 million adults within Illinois have been arrested orconvicted of a crime (904,729 women and 2,314,877 men). 36 Of these arrests, 1.2 million
resulted in convictions (36.7%), 602,201 of which were felony convictions (18.5%). 37
Arrest and conviction numbers show that Black people are disproportionally represented
in Illinois. For example, while Black people make up only 13.8 per cent of Illinois’ adult
population, they make up 34.9 per cent of the individuals convicted of crimes overall, and45.3 per cent of those convicted of felonies. 38 The disparity is clear when the numbers arecompared against arrest rates for white people. While white people make up 73.2 per centof Illinois' adult population, they only account for 64.4 per cent of criminal convictions, aswell as only 47.8 per cent of those convicted of felonies. 39
Numbers for people exiting IDOC facilities for the past 15 years have been on average
32,018 (median: 30,639). 40 Those who have been mandated to stay in Illinois for parole
have been on average 28,799 (median: 28,043). 41 As of September 2020, there wereapproximately 31,010 people in the custody of the Illinois Department of Corrections. 42
This was down from a total of 32,500 in June 2020, which is indicative of a gradualdecrease from 36,900 in March 2020 resulting from the initiation of early release at the
Balko, R. (2020, June 10). Opinion | “There's overwhelming evidence that the criminal justice system isracist. Here’s the proof.” Retrieved from<https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminaljustice-system/>.
31
Nellis, A., & Hill, H. (2019, January 10). The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic Disparity in State
Prisons. Retrievedfrom <https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnicdisparity-in-state-prisons/>.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
Heartland Alliance 2020 Poverty Report. (2020). Retrieved from<https://www.heartlandalliance.org/heartland- alliance-2020-poverty-report/>.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid.
40
Illinois Department of Corrections Prison Population Data Sets.
<https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Pages/Prison-Population-Data-Sets.aspx>.
41
Ibid.
42
Ibid.
30

- 177 - 177 -beginning of the Covid-19 quarantine period. 43
Cook County is the largest county in Illinois and one of the largest in the United Stateswith an estimated 5,277,575 residents in 2016. 44 Of those on parole, 15,555 return to Cook
County on average (median: 15,215) each year. 45 Chicago is by far the largest city in Cook
County, accounting for 52 per cent (2,714,017) of the entire population in 2016. Based onarrest data for the City of Chicago, between 2001 and 2019, there was a total of 1,943,597
arrests in Chicago according to the City of Chicago’s Data Portal. Unfortunately, there is
no way to track the portion of arrestees who have never been arrested; however, as
discussed above it is feasible that at least 1,782,000 Chicagoans have arrest or conviction
records. Based on IDOC’s Prison Population Data Set for 31 December 2019, the numberof inmates with exits planned for 2020 was 12,116 (10,329 to be released to parole
supervision plus 1,787 whose sentence is scheduled to be discharged during 2020).
However, considering the return rate of 35 per cent, for the immediate future this suggests
approximately 4,240 former inmates would return to Chicago during 2020 (n.d.). However,this estimation was developed prior to the rise of the Covid-19 pandemic, and theacceleration of early release means that this number will increase for so long as the
pandemic maintains its momentum. Research has shown that as recently as 2019 the Cityof Chicago was home to 35 per cent of returning residents released from Illinois state
prisons. 46 Of these, nearly all returned to six of the Chicago’s 77 Community Areas: Austin,
North Lawndale, East Garfield Park, West Englewood, Humboldt Park, and Englewood. 47
Given the scope of the personal and financial costs of mass incarceration within Illinois,
it has become evident during the pandemic that in order to understand the true impact ofmass incarceration upon individuals, family and society there must be a sustained effort tosupport and fund community-based applied research efforts. Within this, research efforts
that are based in an equitable collaboration between community-based organizations andresearch institutions will go a long way in finding the most effective means of organizing
and delivering critical services.
III. SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND RECIDIVISM
A conversation about the social determinants of health can help us to better understandthe long-term effects of mass incarceration on individuals. The United States Office of
Disease Prevention and Health Promotion describes the social determinants of health as“conditions in the environments in which people are born, live, learn, work, play, worship,
and age that affect a wide range of health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes andrisks”. 48 In consideration of this, Dr. Keesha M. Middlemass defines a felony conviction
as a “social disability”, explaining that those convicted of felonies:
Ibid.
Loyola University Center for Criminal Justice Research: Cook County’s Criminal Justice System: Trends
and Issues Report: 2nd Edition. (2019, November). Retrieved from<https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/ccj/pdfs/CookCountyTrendsandIssuesReportNovember2019.pdf>.
45
Illinois Department of Corrections Prison Population Data Sets.
<https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Pages/Prison-Population-Data-Sets.aspx>.
46
Carson, E. A. (n.d.). Bureau of Justice Statistics: Prisoners in 2018. Retrieved from<https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&amp;iid=6846>.
47
Ibid.
48
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (n.d.). Social Determinants of Health. Retrieved from<https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health>.
43
44- 178 - 178 -are legally disabled and incapacitated which limits their ability to engage with andin society. Once someone is convicted of a felony, his or her conviction carries
an unexamined power over his or her body. When felons exit prison, society
stigmatizes, discredits, and fears them, which results in a societal exclusion thatis more complete than for adults living with a disability. 49
Having a record, regardless of having “served one’s sentence,” condemns people to a
lifetime of hardship by systematically negatively impacting the primary social determinantsof quality of life, like safe housing, health care, education, sustainable job opportunities,
job trainings, social supports, exposure to violence and the associated effects ofconcentrated poverty. 50
A substantial body of research has established that there are a common set ofsocioeconomic obstacles to re-entry. These are:•Housing insecurity caused by a “lack of access to affordable housing and housing
discrimination”;•

Unemployment, resulting from “lack of education and skills, lack of experience”,
discrimination and stigma from incarceration”;•

Substance abuse disorder. 51

Navigating the systems that surround these social determinants are made infinitely
more complex when one has an arrest record or conviction, which can easily result in acycle of poverty and recidivism that directly impacts family and in turn the greatercommunity. Research shows that the close quarters involved with incarceration has
negative effects on community-level social dynamics as well as public safety and healthdisparities. 52 The concentration of justice-impacted individuals can lead towards a
stigmatization of the community, leading towards the criminalization of the medicallyunderserved, spiralling educational achievement gaps and family dissolution as children
lose parental support, both emotional and financial. 53 High rates of incarceration canbecome “criminogenic rather than deterrent, increasing the likelihood of victimization andassociated stressors among members of high-incarceration communities”. 54 In fact,
research shows that mass imprisonment as a national policy may be harming the physicalhealth of black women in particular by increasing the likelihood of obesity, hypertension,and cardiovascular disease, while the work of Wildeman (2012b) found that incarceration
was correlated with substantially increasing the black–white life expectancy gap. 55
Keesha M. Middlemass, Convicted and Condemned: The Politics and Policies of Prisoner Reentry (NewYork: New York University Press, 2017).
50
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (n.d.). Social Determinants of Health. Retrieved from<https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-health>.
51
Jacobs L.A., Katcher K., Krummenacher P., Tonnesen S. (2017) Root & Rebound: An Innovative
Program Paints the Reentry Landscape. In: Stojkovic S. (eds) Prisoner Reentry. Palgrave Macmillan, NewYork.
52
Weidner, R. R., & Schultz, J. (2019). Examining the relationship between U.S. incarceration rates andpopulation health at the county level. SSM – Population Health, 9, 100466.
doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100466
53
Ibid.
54
Ibid.
55
Ibid.
49

- 179 - 179 -Individuals who frequently encounter crisis systems, such as shelters, hospitals, andjails, are more likely to experience negative social determinants of health. 56 A 2015 study
by the Prison Policy Initiative found that poverty has a direct correlation to involvement in
the justice system. The study found that prior to incarceration incarcerated people had a
median annual income 43 per cent lower than non-incarcerated individuals from similarcohorts. 57 Within the study, this factor stood true across gender, race and ethnicity, drawing
a direct line between poverty and negative involvement in the justice system. It is importantthat issues facing re-entry populations and their families and communities be addressed
through a concerted policy and programmatic focus that also requires an examination of
the root causes of poverty across the state.
For instance, research shows that people with incomes less than 150 per cent of thefederal poverty guidelines are 15 times more likely to be charged with a felony than people
with incomes greater than 150 per cent of the federal poverty level. 58 In other words, thepoorer one is the more likely to be arrested. Furthermore, at least 33 per cent of incarcerated
individuals fall under the poverty line at the time of arrest. 59 Poverty is not merely
associated with a standard of living but contributes directly to future choices. Research has
shown that poverty has a significant effect on cognitive functioning, directly affecting
decision-making and the setting of priorities. 60
Any successful re-entry model must address the six outcomes (health, education,
employment, housing, substance use and recidivism) of greatest importance to the re-entry
population. 61 Yet, in impoverished and oppressed communities “housing, employment andeducational opportunities, transportation infrastructure, and health care services areinaccessible, limited, or nonexistent”. 62 Therefore, individuals from low-income families
and neighbourhoods are disproportionately impacted by the challenges individuals faceupon re-entry.
Despite this available information, in an analysis of data from the Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) evaluation, Gill and Wilson discovered that less thanhalf of the participants obtained the services they required upon re-entry. 63 This is due inpart to the lack of “specificity in matching services to individuals’ unique risk and needprofiles”. 64 As of now, there is no triage, no case management, and therefore no organizedsystem within which people re-entering society from incarceration can participate in orderto access the variety of services available that can prove critical in ensuring successful reentry. The absence of an existing system to facilitate re-entry can be overcome with the
Ibid.
Prison Policy Initiative. Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of the imprisoned.
(2015, July 9). Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html.
58
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition- Return to Nowhere: The Revolving Door Between Incarceration andHomelessness. (2019, February). Retrieved from<https://www.texascjc.org/system/files/publications/Return%20to%20Nowhere%20The%20Revolving%20
Door%20Between%20Incarceration%20and%20Homelessness.pdf>.
59
Ibid.
60
Ibid.
61
Washington State Institute for Public Policy Benefit-Cost Results (2019). Retrieved from<https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost>.
62
Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2015). Prisoner Reentry Programs. Crime and Justice, 44(1), 517-575.
doi:10.1086/681554
63
Gill, Charlotte, Wilson, David B. Improving the success of reentry programs: Identifying the impact ofservice- need fit on recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 44, (3), 336-359.
64
Ibid.
56
57

- 180 - 180 -organization and coordination of existing agencies and institutions and the provision of
sufficient and reliable resources required to ensure the maintenance and improvement ofthat system. The following sections analyse the three main socioeconomic obstacles for
successful re-entry – housing insecurity, economic mobility and health – compounded withthe barriers presented by the criminal legal system, and offers the PEERR Model℠, 65
designed by Safer Foundation as a response to the wave of early releases from prisons inthe state of Illinois throughout the pandemic, as a solution to address these obstacles.
A. Housing
Policy and practice in public housing and the private housing markets discriminate
against returning residents and create a significant social disability that prevents them fromsuccessfully reintegrating into community. Access to safe and secure housing is considered
fundamental to successful re-entry upon release from incarceration, yet each year
approximately 50,000 Americans enter homeless shelters directly upon release fromcorrectional facilities. 66 For many, family or friends provide the first option for housing
after release from a correctional institution. For those who cannot rely on families orfriends for housing, even at least temporarily, the other options are transitional housing,homeless shelters, hotel or motels, and homelessness. 67 The necessity for housing isparticularly critical for the parolee population because it affords stability for compliancewith requirements of release, serves as a base for service provision and facilitatescommunity integration. 68
The importance of stable transitional housing is made evident by the statistics. In thefirst national estimates of homelessness among the previously incarcerated, the Prison
Policy Initiative found that formerly incarcerated individuals are almost 10 times more
likely to be homeless than the general public”; almost 20 per cent of single homeless adults
have been previously incarcerated; 15 per cent of incarcerated people experience
homelessness in the year prior to being incarcerated; people who have been incarcerated
just once become homeless at a rate nearly seven times higher than the general public while
those who have been incarcerated more than once have rates of homelessness 13 times
higher than the general public. 69 Furthermore, those without access to stable or reliablehousing are more than twice as likely to commit additional crimes when compared to thosewith access to housing. 70 Homeless youth are particularly vulnerable to violence, including
victimization and perpetration of violent behaviours according to recent research
conducted across seven U.S. cities that found 45 per cent of homeless young adults had
experienced direct or indirect gun violence, while 17 per cent had perpetrated gun violence
themselves. 71
Video recording of PEERR℠ Panel discussion at Safer Foundation’s CARRE Conference (October2020).
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYoMmD9jHkY&feature=emb_title>.
66
Cortes, K., & Rogers, S. (2010). Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers' Guide. Council of State
Governments.
67
Couloute, L. (2018, August). Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people.
68
Kras KR, Pleggenkuhle B, Huebner BM. (2016). A New Way of Doing Time on the Outside: Sex
Offenders' Pathways In and Out of a Transitional Housing Facility. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol.
69
Ibid.
70
Tran-Leung, M. (2015). When Discretion Means Denial. Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty
Law.
71
Hsu HT, Fulginiti A, Petering R, Barman-Adhikari A, Maria DS, Shelton J, Bender K, Narendorf S,
Ferguson K. Firearm Violence Exposure and Suicidal Ideation Among Young Adults Experiencing
Homelessness. J Adolesc Health. 2020 Aug;67(2):286-289.
65- 181 - 181 -The interplay of homelessness and incarceration is even more stark when mental healthissues are taken into consideration, as 40 per cent of incarcerated respondents in a national
survey reported use of mental health services and/or medications for a mental illness,
which is a rate twice that found among incarcerated individuals without a history ofhomelessness. 72 A study conducted by the Department of Justice found that of incarcerated
individuals reporting a mental health disorder, 31 per cent had major depressive disorder,
25 per cent had bipolar disorder, 18 per cent had an anxiety disorder and 16 per cent had
PTSD. 73
As is often the case, the issues related to incarceration, homelessness and mental health
hit women the hardest. A study by the Marshall Project found that 66 per cent ofincarcerated women reported having a history of mental illness, while 20 per cent reported
recently experiencing psychological distress while in prison. 74 Considering that formerly
incarcerated women are more likely to be homeless than formerly incarcerated men, thecycle of homelessness and incarceration is exacerbated by the higher prevalence of mental
health issues reported by incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women. 75
The increasing criminalization of homelessness coupled with the difficulty in finding
consistent mental health resources has created a near hopeless situation, as homelesspeople are frequently arrested for minor crimes directly related to their condition. The
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty describes the criminalization ofhomelessness as “when law enforcement threatens or punishes homeless people for doing
things in public such as sleeping, resting, sheltering oneself, asking for donations, or
simply existing in public place”. 76 A cycle of criminalization and homelessness means thatpeople in poverty find it nearly impossible to extricate themselves, facing an increased riskof reincarceration. This risk is compounded by the inherent dangers of sleeping outdoors,
contributing toward difficulty in complying with probation requirements (lack of a stableaddress); difficulty accessing reliable transportation in order to meet supervision
requirements; and loss or theft of personal items, such as cell phones, due to sleeping roughor in crowded shelters. 77 These issues are particularly salient in Illinois.
Many of the clients 78 that come through Safer Foundation experience homelessness
after incarceration. One Safer Foundation client, Liam, had been in and out of incarceration
since he was 14, as a ward of the Department of Child & Family Services (DCFS) of theState of Illinois. He explains how his record forced him into homelessness and is making
it hard to escape poverty:
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition- Return to Nowhere: The Revolving Door Between Incarceration andHomelessness. (2019, February). Retrieved from<https://www.texascjc.org/system/files/publications/Return%20to%20Nowhere%20The%20Revolving%20
Door%20Between%20Incarceration%20and%20Homelessness.pdf>.
73
Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Indicators of Mental Health Problems Reported by Prisoners.
Retrieved from <https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/imhprpji1112.pdf>.
74
Equal Justice Initiative. (2019). More Incarcerated Women than Men Report Mental Health Problems.
(2019, October 16). Retrieved from <https://eji.org/news/more-incarcerated-women-report-mental-healthproblems/ >.
75
Couloute, L. (2018, August). Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people.
76
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (2019). Housing not handcuffs - Ending the
Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities.
77
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition- Return to Nowhere: The Revolving Door Between Incarceration andHomelessness. (2019).
78
All qualitative interviews were conducted by Christian Flores.
72- 182 - 182 -I've never had a house at any point after DCFS. At one point, I stayed at hotels. I
was paying the equivalent of rent for a one bedroom for essentially a space nolarger than the cell I had in jail. I had no microwave. No refrigerator. No oven.
Just a bathroom in the hotel. After spending $800 a month for that space, for acouple months, I decided I could save money and either bunk up with a friend or[live on the streets] and save money. Right now, I'm staying with a friend on theSouth Side and my IT job is up North. There are only certain times I can be at thehouse. It affects my ability to get to and from work.
Although Liam has received several support services from Safer Foundation, including
finding a job with an IT firm, his inability to access affordable housing is prohibitive andthreatens the sustainability of his job. The lack of access to affordable housing makes it
difficult to survive even with a basic income. While Safer Foundation can connect people
like Liam to other organizations that work more directly with transitional housing andhomelessness, the lack of a formalized system or process makes it difficult for clients tonavigate on their own. People with records often need to find stopgap solutions, like Liam
did with cheap hotels and friends, because transitional housing options are in high demandwith little space.
The housing options that most people who experience incarceration are often
unsustainable. A survey of 323 Safer Foundation clients found that 75 per cent of clients
who were released between March and June of 2020 went home to family or friends. 79
While this may be an initial solution, these living arrangements are often short lived. Evan,
another Safer Foundation client, experienced the difficulty of finding sustainable housing
after returning from prison. While he was initially able to stay with family, he explains thechallenges:
It was really tough because who wants a ‘criminal’ living [with them]? You don't
have money to go anywhere really. Like I have family that lives in Joliet, but they
don't want you to be living there. They will because they're family. But it's only
gonna be so long you're gonna be able to be on that couch, especially in the suburbs
without a car and I didn't have a license... I still don't.
The hostility that Evan felt at home led him back to the streets, where old friends led
him back to old habits of substance abuse. Greg was incarcerated again and had to findother living arrangements upon return to his community. This time, he had opted to attempt
one of the transitional housing opportunities – typically referred to as a “halfway house” –that was promoted by the penitentiary.
However, that option was another gateway to recidivism:
I had to go to a halfway house [that] was so nasty and dirty. There were bed bugs
all over the place. There was people smoking crack and shooting heroine. My
roommate [overdosed] like four times. And this is the place that came to the prison
and told us to come there because they were offering us money. They offered us like
$500 if we went there and so everybody was going there and it was literally
disgusting. And like those are sanctioned places. I saw the flyer at the prison for
Otto, Barbara; Flores, Christian. “Prison Emergency Early Release Response (PEERR) 2020 Report.”
Safer Foundation; Smart Policy Works. October 2020. p. 22.

79- 183 - 183 -this place and I went there. So it's like, are you expecting me not drink in this crap?
I needed a drink. It was a breeding ground to go back to prison. How can you takesomeone who was locked up and in prison all this time and then put them at a
halfway house where everyone is drinking, everyone is doing drugs, maybe one
person is working and expect that person to not go back, to not get involved in allof that. Like, that is a tough pill to swallow. I don't see very many people not goingback to those old behaviours that sent them to prison, which is why I got that parole
violation. I went back to prison. Not blaming it on anybody else. But I didn’t haveanything positive.
Safer Foundation found that (IDOC) contracted “halfway houses” – many which werealso licensed as recovery homes – were the second most common option for the 323 clientssurveyed, with 20 per cent reporting that they were released to a “halfway house.” 80 Like
Evan, many clients express that these homes felt like hostile environments for recovery.
Most survey participants who reunited with family reported having more access to basic
needs and financial support than those returning to halfway houses.
However, home is not always a safe place to return to, especially for women. Sylvia,
for example, was released from DuPage County Jail in October of 2019, after serving 8
months for an aggravated assault case which she was found not guilty of. To be discharged,
she had to prove she had a place to go to. She explains how this stipulation forced her to go
back to an abusive relationship for housing:
I went back to a very difficult relationship which I was trying to get away from,from the beginning when I first ended up with them charges. I was in a domestic
violence relationship. I ended up catching the case because I was trying to get awayfrom that relationship. That’s how I ended up homeless, and I ended up running
into that man [who pressed charges]. Being in jail, like I said, I didn’t have myfamily. My family is in... My mother’s side of the family lives in Texas and myfather’s side of the family lives in Puerto Rico, so I really didn’t have anybody. So,
when I came out of jail, I had no choice but to come back to that person, you know,
to that relationship, and things got worse. Things got worse. It was scary, confusing.
You know, you go through all these different emotions, because sometimes you
can’t help who you love because you try to see the good in people, and then every
day they show you how horrible they are, and it’s like, I don’t know, I guess you
grow accustomed to certain things, and it makes it hard for you to get away, tobreak that cycle.
Despite national trends towards declining incarceration rates, nearly all of the decreasein the number of people in state prisons since 2009 has been among men, with women’sprisons growing by 834 per cent over the past 40 years, doubling the rate of men over thesame period. 81 This increase complements the expansion of incarceration begun with the
War on Drugs and continues today as drug convictions make up a disproportionately highpercentage of convictions for women – in particular, women of colour. 82 Like Sylvia, many
women have been increasingly caught up in the criminal legal system as a direct result of
Ibid.
Prison Policy Initiative, (2018, January 9). The Gender Divide: Tracking women's state prison growth.
Retrieved from <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/women_overtime.html>.
82
Heartland Alliance 2020 Poverty Report. (2020). Retrieved from<https://www.heartlandalliance.org/heartland-alliance-2020-poverty-report/>.
80
81- 184 - 184 -their attempts to resist or escape from abusive situations. Many states’ policies effectively
limit women’s options when attempting to respond to gender-based abuse anddiscrimination, such as limiting women’s options for self-defence in cases of domestic
violence; criminalizing running away among abused minors; and criminalizing“misbehaviour” by school-aged girls.
To get away from that hostile home situation, Sylvia attempted to live in a shelter.
However, she explains how the shelter she stayed at was not habitable either:Due to the pandemic, they haven’t had domestic violence shelters available
because they’ve been maxed out. There have been shelters that at first I was able
to go, but right now with this pandemic has been difficult. The last shelter I was in,it was rough. It was rough, because it wasn’t a domestic violence, it was like a lastminute resort kind of thing that they opened up, so they had to put me in that shelter.
The experience wasn’t too good, for the fact of the background that I come from. It
didn’t make it easy, because it was male and female mixed, so it really made it hardin there. They had certain people on their staff during the night that really mademe feel, not only myself, but other people that were there with me, they made us
feel like our life could have been in danger, you know. They weren’t doing nobackground checks, they weren’t really doing much to uphold the safety, thewelfare of people. They were letting just people come and go, especially in thispandemic, so, yeah, it was a pretty hard experience.
The difficulty of acquiring housing is compounded when gender is factored in. Secure
housing options for women are scarce in Illinois. In Chicago, there exist 19 domestic
violence shelters for women. Outside of Chicago, there are only 47 domestic violence
shelters in the rest of the state, most of them concentrated in the suburbs of Chicago. 83 Thelack of safe housing options for women re-entering society leads many back to the streets,
unable to recover.
In the State of Illinois, research by the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) and
Illinois Justice Project (IJP) has shown that the lack of affordable permanent housing
options for people returning to the community means that as many as 60 per cent of
unsheltered men and 58 per cent of women report being previously incarcerated, while 40
per cent of women report being unable to pay rent. 84 Research conducted by the Chicago
Coalition for the Homeless shows that each year as many as 1,200 people are released
directly from prison to homeless shelters in Chicago, with 48 per cent of individuals living
in emergency shelters reporting a felony conviction. 85 Given the need, it is noteworthy that
the State of Illinois does not set aside specific funding to provide or support housing forthe re-entry population. 86 These estimates likely understate the problem because counting
the intermittently homeless is not a full measure of homelessness, which should include
those who have experienced homelessness for sustained periods in the last year (the causesof homelessness last longer than an individual’s last night on the street), and as such, “there<https://www.dhs.state.il.us/page.aspx?item=31886>.
Metropolitan Planning Council. (2019). Re-entry Housing Issues in Illinois: The Current Situation,
Challenges, and Possible Solutions.
85
Hamlin, M. (2017). Giving Prisoners Another Chance Through Affordable Housing. Retrieved from<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-10/giving-prisoners-another-chance-throughaffordable-housing>.
86
Ibid.
83
84

- 185 - 185 -is not yet a way to calculate this fuller picture of homelessness among formerly
incarcerated people”. 87
B. Economic Mobility and Opportunity
According to the World Health Organization, poverty is the single largest determinantof health. 88 The correlation between imprisonment and poverty is starkly revealed when
considering that a National Institute of Health study found that 90 per cent of people withcriminal records were food insecure. 89 Food insecurity is one symptom of the negative
lifelong effects of mass incarceration, as people typically have poor employment outcomesfor years to come upon release from incarceration, as well as low earnings when able tofind work. This results in a weak attachment to the formal sector. 90 Research shows thatnationwide, 66 per cent of people on probation make less than $20,000 per year, andapproximately 30 per cent of people on probation make less than $10,000 per year, anamount much lower than the official poverty line. 91 In fact, Looney and Turner found thatin the first full calendar year after release, a mere 55 per cent of people with records
reported any earnings at all. 92 The work of Saluja and Rosen found that between 40 to 50
per cent of people with criminal records report no annual income quite a few years after aperiod of imprisonment while wage growth itself, even when people with records are able
to find a job, is reduced by over 30 per cent for those with criminal records. 93 Even thosethat were able to find jobs often were only able to secure low-paying jobs, with a medianannual pay of $10,090 while only 20 per cent of individuals reporting earned incomes
above $15,000. 94 These numbers look even more bleak when considering the researchfindings that imply that each additional year of incarceration diminishes earnings potential
by as much as 12 per cent and future earnings growth by as much as 30 per cent. 95
Unsurprisingly, the earning gap between men and women persists even within prisons,
where women make less than men. 96 Even after leaving prison, women typically have
Couloute, L. (2018, August). Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people.
World Health Organization: Regional Office for Europe. (2020, November 17). Poverty and social
determinants. Retrieved from <https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/urbanhealth/activities/poverty-and-social-determinants>.
89
Cook County Food Access Task Force. Final Recommendations: Improving Food Access for Individuals
with Justice-System Involvement and Their Families. (2020, May 13). Retrieved
from <https://www.chicagosfoodbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020_CCFATF-Report.pdf>.
90
Looney, A., & Turner, N. (2018, March 14). Work and opportunity before and after incarceration.
Retrieved from <https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-opportunity-before-and-afterincarceration/>.
91
Finkel, M. (n.d.). New data: Low incomes – but high fees – for people on probation. Retrieved from<https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/04/09/probation_income/>.
92
Looney, A., & Turner, N. (2018, March 14). Work and opportunity before and after incarceration.
Retrieved from <https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-opportunity-before-and-afterincarceration/>.
93
Saluja, S., & Rosen, H. (2019, August 22). Why public health practitioners should care about job
prospects for people with criminal records: Employment challenges and successful prison and jail reentry.
Retrieved from <https://harvardpublichealthreview.org/why-public-health-practitioners-should-care-aboutjob-prospects-for-people-with-criminal-records-employment-challenges-and-successful-prison-and-jailreentry/>.
94
Looney, A. (2018, March 20). 5 facts about prisoners and work, before and after incarceration. Retrieved
from <https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/03/14/5-facts-about-prisoners-and-work-before-andafter- incarceration/>.
95
Looney, A., & Turner, N. (2018, March 14). Work and opportunity before and after incarceration.
Retrieved from <https://www.brookings.edu/research/work-and-opportunity-before-and-afterincarceration/>.
96
Prison Policy Initiative, P. (2018, January 9). The Gender Divide: Tracking women's state prison growth.
Retrieved from <https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/women_overtime.html>.
87
88- 186 - 186 -lower wages, lower employment rates and higher rates of underemployment than men. 97
These numbers illustrate the myriad difficulties that individuals re-entering fromincarceration face, not least of which is widespread employer discrimination correlatedwith a rise in the use of criminal background checks. Data from the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) shows that between 2010 and 2014, the utilization of criminal history
records for non-criminal justice reasons increased 22 per cent, with 30 million records
provided. 98 In consideration of this, a survey conducted among employers in 2012 foundthat 69 per cent reported regular use of criminal background checks, 99 and a 2009 study
conducted by the Justice Department found that a criminal record of any kind reduces the
chances of a job offer by half, with a compounded effect being felt by Black job applicants
as compared to white applicants. 100 This is significant not only for people with convictions
on their record, but also for those Americans who merely have an arrest record. As has
been found, background checks sometimes do not make a distinction between arrests that
led to a conviction and those that did not, adding unwarranted punishment and pressure
upon people. This line of reasoning stands in contrast to available evidence, as researchshows that individuals with records are no more likely to be arrested than any other personon the street. 101
Research suggests there is an inherent racism intertwined with the system ofbackground checks by hiring entities. Indeed, white applicants who themselves haverecords actually receive more job callbacks than Black applicants, even when the Blackapplicants are equally qualified and do not even have a criminal record. 102 Compounding
unofficial, employer-based discrimination, people with records must face institutional
obstacles as well. Within Illinois, there exist 1,189 unique collateral consequence laws of
which 982 create severe obstacles to gaining employment. 103 Collateral consequence laws
can be understood as the “legal disabilities imposed by law as a result of a criminal
conviction regardless of whether a convicted individual serves any time incarcerated”. 104
These difficulties often relegate people with records to low paying jobs, contributing tomaintaining individuals and families trapped in poverty and fostering a potential spiralback towards recidivism. In fact, sustainable employment with a living wage can be an
important factor in whether an individual feels they must engage in criminal activities
simply in order to survive. Duane, La Vigne, Lynch and Reimal (2017) state that
individuals with records who earn $10 or more per hour are less likely to be imprisoned

Heartland Alliance 2020 Poverty Report. (2020). Retrieved from<https://www.heartlandalliance.org/heartland-alliance-2020-poverty-report/>.
98
Ibid.
99
Friedman, M. (2015, November 17). Just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal Records as College
Diplomas. Retrieved from <https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/just-facts-manyamericans-have-criminal-records-college-diplomas>.
100
Pager, D., & Western, B. (2009). Investigating Prisoner Reentry: The Impact of Conviction Status on the
Employment Prospects of Young Men. Retrieved from<https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228584.pdf >.
101
Blumstein, A., & Nakamura, K. (2009). 'Redemption' in an era of widespread criminal backgroundchecks. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e516022010-003.
102
Heartland Alliance 2020 Poverty Report. (2020). Retrieved from<https://www.heartlandalliance.org/heartland-alliance-2020-poverty-report/>.
103
Ibid.
104
Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions Judicial Bench Book (2018, March). Retrieved from<https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251583.pdf>.
97- 187 - 187 -again than corresponding individuals earning lower wages. 105
Considering the uphill battle those with records face in finding stable, sustainable
employment, it is not difficult to understand why some make the decision to participate in
the informal economy, potentially risking re-arrest, simply as a strategy of survival. Many
Safer Foundation clients like Evan experience this uphill battle several times. Even though
Greg was a high school graduate and had some college education, he found it nearly
impossible to find a job that paid a living wage. He explains:
The jobs [I had post-incarceration] were like... it wasn't that hard, but those weren't
really jobs. Everything was through temp services. It was like you are an employee,
but you don't have any benefits. So it was like you're just a number to them. So I
was like "Oh yeah, they're offering you ten dollars an hour." Which is, you know,
if you don't have any money coming in, ten dollars an hour sounds great. But thiscompany that referred you, they are getting $16. So, you're working to give themsix dollars, you know what I mean? There's no moving up in the company, you know,
no that's not gonna happen… But when you don't have any skills and you don't haveanything to offset those background checks and stuff like that, it's like, what kind of
job can you really get… It's a rock and a hard place. Cause when do you have timeto go to school without working?
In order to offset the stigma of his conviction, Evan needed some form of education.
Clearly, the solution is to provide alternatives as well as access to the knowledge,
experience and skills required to participate in the twenty-first century economy. It is here
where the role of in-prison educational opportunities, as well as post-release educational
programming is critical. Considering that nearly two thirds of new jobs created since 2010
require a minimum basic digital competence, 106 and the fact that many employers arehesitant to hire individuals with records, providing access to relevant educational
opportunities is a critical step in successful re-entry, and plays a direct role in attaining
sustainable employment and upward mobility. Research shows that most people who enter
correctional institutions have “limited marketable work experience, low levels of educationor vocational skills” to begin with, and as such need suitable educational opportunities todevelop knowledge and skills. 107 Harlow found that 31 per cent of offenders on probation
had not finished high school or acquired a GED compared with 18 per cent of the general
population. 108 Considering that educational attainment directly impacts job prospects, job
placement, and opportunities to advance on the job, the necessity of educational
opportunities for incarcerated individuals is paramount. Not surprisingly, access toemployment with sustainable wages also directly lessens the chances of recidivism.

Duane, M., Reimal, E., & Lynch, M. (2017). Criminal background checks and access to jobs. Retrievedfrom<https://greaterdc.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/91456/2001377_criminal_background_checks_and_access_to_jobs_dc_case_study_1.pdf>.
106
Muro, M., Liu, S., Whiton, J., & Kulkarni, S. (2018, October 12). Digitalization and the American
workforce. Retrieved 3 March 2021, from <https://www.brookings.edu/research/digitalization-and-theamerican-workforce/>.
107
Solomon, A., Osborne, J., LoBuglio, S., Mellow, J., & Mukamal, D. (2008). Life After Lockup:
Improving reentry from jail to the community. Retrieved from<https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/life-after-lockup-improving-reentry-jail-community>.
108
Bureau of justice statistics special report education and correctional populations (2003). US Departmentof Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from <https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf>.
105- 188 - 188 -Despite the fact that in-prison education has been proven to be a significant means of
reducing recidivism, more effective even than more aggressive approaches such as bootcamps and even vocational development, access to education has been difficult within
prisons. 109 Historically, most in-prison college programmes have been dependent uponfederal aid such as Pell Grants, and as such dependent upon the decisions of policymakers.
The rise and precipitous decline in educational opportunities in prisons is an artifact of
the chilling effect the 1994 Violent Crime Bill had upon educational opportunities forincarcerated people. In 1982 nearly 27,000 incarcerated individuals were enrolled in a totalof 350 college-in-prison programmes (9% of the national prison population that year). 110
By the 1990s, estimates show that the number of available in-prison college programmes
had grown to 772 (a 121% increase from the previous decade) and were operating in 1,287
correctional facilities. 111 Despite this positive trend, policy decisions in the 1990s led to a
drastic decrease in in-prison college opportunities which has had cascading effects on
individuals, families, communities, and as shown above, on local, state and the national
economy. The decline primarily began in earnest in 1992 when people serving life
sentences without parole and those sentenced to death became ineligible to access Pell
Grants. This policy change was followed in 1994 by the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act, which banned anyone incarcerated in prison from receiving federal Pell
Grant aid. 112 The impact on in-prison college opportunities was dramatic, with estimatesshowing that by 1997 there were only eight in-prison college programmes across the entire
United States (down from 772 in the 1990s). 113 In addition, access to educational
opportunities was often further restricted at the state level, with many states following thefederal government’s example to increase restrictions on accessing funds within regional
programmes.
Nearly a decade later, in 2005 there existed a mere 12 prison programmes despite thefact that research released that very same year found that recidivism rates were 46 per centlower for those who participated in prison education programmes versus those who had
not. 114
The first light began to appear in 2016 when the Education Department’s New Second
Chance Pell Pilot Program was released, expanding college access to 12,000 incarcerated
individuals in partnership with 68 universities throughout the country. 115 Still, this number
remains 56 per cent lower than the enrolment rates of the early 1980s. Ironically, as of2015 approximately the same number of Americans had criminal records as had four-year
Prison Studies Project (2018). Why prison education? Retrieved from<https://prisonstudiesproject.org/why-prison-education-programs/>.
110
Sawyer, W. (2019, August 22). After Pell Grants were cut, college participation in prisons dropped byhalf. Retrieved from<https://news.prisonpolicy.org/t/ViewEmail/r/45EC2A695D322EE62540EF23F30FEDED/36BCA921E958
08A5DDA3541AF197FE1F>.
111
Ibid.
112
Ibid.
113
Ibid.
114
Prison Studies Project (2018). Why prison education? Retrieved from<https://prisonstudiesproject.org/why-prison-education-programs/>.
115
U.S. Dept. of Education (2016, June 24). 12,000 incarcerated students to enroll in Postsecondary
educational and training programs through Education department's new second chance Pell pilot program.
Retrieved from <https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/12000-incarcerated-students-enroll-postsecondaryeducational-and-training-programs-through-education-departments-new-second-chance-pell-pilot-program>.
109- 189 - 189 -college degrees. 116
Organizations like Safer Foundation are essential to mitigate the challenges to workfor folks with arrest and conviction records. Through a broad spectrum of supportive
services, Safer Foundation offers clients the tools they need to acquire stable employment,
including intensive case management that can help clients access behavioural healthtreatment, training and certificate programmes, resume and interview coaching, and legal
services. Working with legal service providers like Rights and Restoration Law Group,
Legal Aid Chicago, and Cabrini Green Legal Aid, Safer Foundation can connect clientswith lawyers to seal and expunge their records, obtain executive clemency, and acquire
waivers needed to work in certain industries with a record, such as health-care worker
waivers and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) waivers for the financial
industry. Tiana was one client who had a lengthy arrest and conviction record for offences
committed in the 1990s. In 2017, she was able to get all but three records sealed through a
Safer Foundation programme looking to pair people with arrest and conviction records
with jobs in the health-care industry. Working with Cabrini Green, she got the remainderof her records sealed. In an interview, Tiana expressed a tremendous sense of joy:
My background sealed now, the story is, ain't no stopping me! I'm going to the top
now! I got them three [records] sealed. Yes. Two years. Two years of me working
hard, crying, you know, trying to get it done so I can work at the jobs I'm working
now. So after I got them sealed, my first job was at West Suburban Hospital. I did
three years there. So I resigned from them, you know you gotta go out right, ‘cause
Chicago Public Schools had got me a job. So I gave them a two week’s notice. They
did not want me to leave because by me working through warehouses and laborready, they was letting us come in with backgrounds. That's how I got myexperience for my resume. I had a resume...
Through the legal relief options Safer was able to offer Tiana, her job prospects were
instantly amplified. She no longer had to worry about being rejected by workforce
screening companies because of her record, and she was able to get stable jobs at schools
and hospitals for the first time in her life.
While clients explore their legal relief options, Safer Foundation works on building out
the connections to get them successfully employed. Clients are prepared for the workforce
through several job readiness programmes. Safer Foundation then creates relationships
with employers in diverse industries, like JP Morgan Chase Bank, West Suburban Hospital,
Freedman Seating, and Jolt Technologies. Account Executives at Safer then work to
educate these organizations on the benefits of hiring people with records, including higher
retention rates and company loyalty. Account Executives build out pipelines of highly
trained candidates to match with these employers. This relationship gives clients from
Safer Foundation a foot in the door. Through Safer Foundation’s services and thoughtfulcase management Evan was able to find a good paying job that provides a higher standardof living and a brighter future.
I've been working at Freedman for nine months and I got two raises and a
promotion in two months… Ernest [Safer Foundation Account Executive] was aFriedman, M. (2015, November 17). Just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal Records as College
Diplomas. Retrieved from <https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/just-facts-manyamericans-have-criminal-records-college-diplomas>.

116- 190 - 190 -big help! Everything that I told him was going on, he listened and he did what hecould. I got a CNC Mill and a Material Safety and Data certifications. Without thatcertification I would never have gotten this job. I had never seen a dial caliber. I
didn't know what a micrometer was. I had never even seen a blueprint before.
Without Safer I would've never gotten any of that stuff. Like, it's insane to see where
my life was two years ago and like where I am now. I went on vacation! I actually
was at my job long enough that I get vacation days! I'm going to Bali. I'm like...
dude, to think this person... I was homeless! I was sleeping in a truck. Fromsleeping in a truck and going to Bali in two years. So the sky's the limit. I just wanna
be happy and just peaceful… Remain grateful for the opportunity and takeadvantage of what you've been given, you know what I mean? Just take advantageof what it is. And then try to change it into what you want it to be.
These job readiness and certificate programmes were able to give Evan the education
he needed to overcome the stigma of his record. Once in the workforce, Greg proved
himself a loyal and competent worker and was quickly promoted. However, if Evan had
never found Safer Foundation, his potential may have never been discovered.
The reality is that people with arrest and conviction records have a lot of untapped
potential that is being withheld from the economy. People who have experienced
incarceration have a unique life experience to share and build on. Their perspective isinvaluable. Liam, for example, has used his experience to create innovative ideas in theworld of app development. Liam went through the Safer Foundation IT Training Programand successfully gained employment. He explains:
I currently work for [an app development] company. There's over 29,000
laundromats in the USA, mostly in inner cities and underserved communities. I’mworking on an app [that] brings people with washers and dryers into the gig
economy... It's exciting to see how this will come along and disrupt a whole industry
that historically hasn't really provided economic value to the communities that itserved. [At laundromats] all the transactions are done in cash, there's a lot ofmoney that's not reported by those laundromats, therefore, they're not paying taxes
on, that's not going back into the communities that they're at. And they're not reallyemploying anyone there within that community, they're not creating jobs in that
community, and they're not paying their fair share of taxes. This app could
drastically change that.
Liam was able to discover a product that was desperately needed in the communities
he was a part of. His life experience and innovativeness, combined with his training in
information technology acquired through Safer, allowed him to create a solution to his
community’s needs. Social services like those provided by Safer Foundation help topotentialize growth and stimulate the economy. Ultimately, if the United States’ economy
continues to ostracize people with records, it is wasting untapped potential like Liam’s.
C. Physical and Behavioural HealthMany of the formerly incarcerated do not receive needed medical treatment despite thenecessity for timely and continuous access to care. Despite this, Greifinger argues that theAmerican prison health system does not do enough to ensure that the incarcerated return- 191 - 191 -to society in good health. 117 Many of those within correctional institutions entered
incarceration with existing health-related issues ranging from mental illness to substanceabuse histories and/or relatively high rates of communicable diseases. Despite treatment
options while incarcerated, often these health difficulties resume upon release andprogressively grow more serious due to difficulty in accessing and maintaining care. Anytreatment inmates receive while incarcerated usually ends when they re-enter thecommunity due primarily to a lack of health insurance. For example, less than 25 per centof those with chronic disorders see a physician in the first-year post-release while 80 per
cent report no community treatment preceding their last arrest. This is of particular concern
as many of the individuals cycling in and out of correctional institutions have above
average rates of chronic medical conditions, acute mental health disorders, and substanceabuse disorders. 118 Guyer, Bachrach and Shine note that before Medicaid expansion, lessthan 20 per cent of the incarcerated were enrolled in Medicaid prior to re-entry and morethan 60 per cent gained coverage less than a year subsequent to expansion. 119
According to Binswanger et al., previously incarcerated individuals are “at high risk fordeath after release from prison, particularly during the first 2 weeks”, with the leading
causes of death being drug overdose, cardiovascular disease, homicide and suicide. 120 In a
study involving previously incarcerated beneficiaries of Medicare fee-for-service foundthat 1.4 per cent of individuals were hospitalized within 7 days after release, 3.9 per centwithin 30 days and 8.3 per cent within 90 days. The study also found that approximately
1.4 per cent of former inmates were hospitalized for an acute condition within seven daysof release, and 8.3 per cent by 90 days, a rate much higher than in the general population.
Evan illustrates how the vicious cycle of substance abuse perpetuated itself each time he
was released:
That whole time I was just doing drugs man. Like, I had been able to, like, put
together some sober time, you know what I mean? I would stop drinking and stuff
like that until like I got an ok job. And then an apartment. But then I would go backto drinking and then like I would lose all of that stuff. And so it was the same thing
when I got out of prison. You know like, I got a job, but then I started drinking andlike it didn't matter, you know what I mean? It was just like, you know, it's my job
to get away with it, it's their job to catch me. A whole messed up thought process
behind that, you know what I mean. Not even just thinking about drink – well not
drinking, but like thinking about drinking and thinking about how like how selfish
I was and how my brain was just warped to think that it was ok to lie and it was ok
to hurt people and it was okay to do all of these things, because that's the way theworld is. You know what I mean? That's how I used to look at it. Only through God,AA, and Safer. You know, seriously bro, Safer allowed me to go to school to get my
Greifinger, R. B., Bick, J. A., & Goldenson, J. (2010). Public health behind bars: From prisons tocommunities. NewYork, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
118
Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017, June). Indicators of Mental Health Problems Reported by Prisoners
and Jail Inmates, 2011-12. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved from <https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail>.
119
Guyer, J., Bachrach, D., & Shine, N. (2015). Medicaid Expansion and Criminal Justice Costs: PreExpansion Studies and Emerging Practices Point Toward Opportunities for States. State Health Reform
Assistance Network.
120
Binswanger, I., Al., E., Author Affiliations From the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
Okie, S., Gibney, E., J. H. Beigel and Others, . . . A. G. Letizia and Others. (2007, January 11). Releasefrom Prison - A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates: NEJM. Retrieved from<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsa064115>.
117- 192 - 192 -certifications [manufacturing] and helped out and [helped with] my rent because
I had to quit the job that I was at to get into, you know like, the program, cause it
was school five days a week, and like they gave me bus passes, you know, so I could
go not only to school but to my AA meetings too.
While Evan found alcoholics anonymous and Safer Foundation to support him throughhis recovery, after years of recidivism, most people who return from incarceration do notfind these community resources in time.
Many times, people with arrest and conviction records do not know their health-care
options if they do not have a community-based navigator to help them. When talking about
the most valuable resources Safer Foundation was able to provide, Liam expressed accessto mental health services was chief among them:Besides training and employment resources, transportation to those trainings, havebeen very helpful, and general guidance on where I can go for treatment for
depression or anything like that. Different psychiatrists and therapists they could
point me toward or how I can just go about talking to someone... Which I currently
do speak to a therapist and psychiatrist on a monthly basis. Thanks to Safer, I wasable to find one.
The deep and extensive impact of incarceration in terms of the development of severe,
long-term health limitations is laid bare by the fact that any contact at all with incarceration
is in general more statistically significant upon health than the degree and extent of contact
with incarceration. 121 In other words, one experience with imprisonment is often enoughto imprint permanent negative health outcomes. Even the discrimination experienced while
searching for employment has been shown to be linked to negative health outcomes suchas high blood pressure as well as mental illness. 122 Thus, community-based services thatconnect people with arrest and conviction records to basic physical and mental health carebecome necessary for their survival.
As in all aspects of mass incarceration, the stressors associated with incarceration
extend beyond the individual to directly impact family members negatively. Researchshows that children of incarcerated parents also experience a variety of negative healtheffects such as ADHD, developmental delays including speech and/or language problems
and behavioural issues. 123 According to Turney “Incarceration is likely compounding thedisadvantages…setting them further behind, and contributing to racial and social classinequalities in children’s health”. 124 Children of incarcerated parents experience an arrayof negative health outcomes, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,developmental delays, speech or language problems and behavioural or conduct
problems. 125 This impact is so great, that the work of Wildeman et al. show that “massMassoglia, M., & Pridemore, W. A. (2015). Incarceration and Health. Annual review of sociology, 41,
291–310. Retrieved from <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-073014-112326>.
122
Pascoe, E., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review.
Retrieved from <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19586161/>.
123
Morsy, L., & Rothstein, R. (2019). Mass incarceration and children's outcomes: Criminal justice policyis
education policy. Retrieved from <https://www.epi.org/publication/mass-incarceration-and-childrensoutcomes/>.
124
Turney, K. “Stress Proliferation Across Generations? Examining the Relationship Between Parental
Incarceration and Childhood Health,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 55, no. 3 (2014): 302-19
125
Ibid.
121

- 193 - 193 -incarceration has increased both intracountry inequality in child health in the United Statesand intercountry inequality in child health between the United States and other developed
democracies.” 126 In other words, mass incarceration in the United States has such a highimpact on child health that it affects the country’s standing within comparativeinternational health indicators.
Women in jails especially report high rates of mental health issues compared to men.
Inmates with a past of a mental health disorder, 31 per cent had major depressive disorder,
in comparison to bipolar disorder (25%), an anxiety disorder (18%) or PTSD (16%). 127
Combined, poor physical and mental health, the trauma of incarceration and the stigma of
having a criminal record make it even more difficult for formerly incarcerated women tofind employment, a critical factor in maintaining a healthy, stable life. Sylvia explained
her own trauma after being in jail for 8 months:
It’s a lot of mental abuse with these jails. They think because you’re behind bars or
behind doors that they take it as, that’s a way of them controlling you. They will sit
there and have you go through necessities. Simple necessities, like a simple showeror your meal. At times, the food wasn’t even up...you know, it was expired or it was
just nasty, and they expected us to eat that. I had a lot of females open up to me inthis jail and let me know how [the guards] would sit there and record themsometimes. I’ve seen it...one time, I seen the camera. I was in the hold downstairs
in DuPage County, and they brought in a female, and they stripped her naked in
front of males. One of the male officers had a camera recording. I heard when thisfemale told an officer, “Please,” and I seen it, and they told the officer, “Please,
don’t be touching me improperly. I’m not...” They ended up fondling her. They put
complaints about the sexual assault in there by officers… I’ve seen it for myself
how these officers would take the authority and do whatever they wanted to thesepeople’s lives.
Women have a higher chance of entering incarceration with a history of abuse, trauma
and mental health issues and while in prison are more likely to suffer serious psychologicalstress, often related to the fact that women face sexual abuse by both staff and otherincarcerated women. Sylvia, as was mentioned earlier, went back to an abusive relationshipafter incarceration. After all that trauma, Sylvia did not know how to cope. Treatment
options are often lacking or completely unavailable for women who have experienced
incarceration.
It was not until Sylvia reached Safer Foundation that she finally had the resources tohelp her address these traumas:
The only health condition I have, and I’ve been dealing with it, is PTSD, posttraumatic stress disorder, for the, you know, for the things that I’ve endured in mylife and the experiences and the things that have happened to me. They had put me
on a few medications, but I noticed that it’s no point of you taking any medication
when you don’t have the other part of the treatment, which is the counseling, thetherapy... I am a domestic violence [survivor] right now, [and] that’s where Safer
Wildeman, C., Goldman, A., & Turney, K. (2018, June 1). Parental Incarceration and Child Health in the
United States. Retrieved from <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29635444>.
127
Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Indicators of Mental Health Problems Reported by Prisoners ...
Retrieved from <https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/imhprpji1112.pdf>.
126- 194 - 194 -Foundation also plays in. I’m a new client, and they’re helping me with trying to
get counseling and things like that. It’s been a very hard experience. A lot of people
have no way of speaking about their experience because they don’t have anyone
they can trust, because everyone that has had the opportunity, or has had theresources to help, they take advantage of them resources and they don’t use themfor good.”
Without community-based organizations, Sylvia would have been at a loss. Thanks to
Safer, she received the help she needed to recover from her experience with the criminal
legal system. In order to ensure that all communities are healthy, the state must
aggressively invest in community-based organizations that can connect people with arrest
and conviction records to the resources they need.
IV. CRIMINAL LEGAL SYSTEM REFORM
In the State of Illinois and throughout the United States, we disproportionately punish
those who are poor, Black, and brown and underserve people with arrest and conviction
records, their families, and their communities. The current criminal justice system sets
those returning from prison up for failure by limiting their movement, failing to provide
access to essential resources, and overscrutinizing technical parole violations.
Comprehensive criminal justice reforms designed to reduce incarceration and lessen theimpact of collateral consequences will help the state refocus its efforts towards equity andjustice. Addressing social determinants of crime and incarceration will require immediateand sustained reform. The recommended policies provide effective alternatives toincarceration and ensure that people receive the services and treatment they need topromote their successful re-entry to society.
Correctional agencies place individuals on electronic monitoring to ensure that they
are in compliance with conditions of pre-trial release, probation or parole with little to no
regard on the restrictions they place on people’s lives. According to a study by the Pew
Charitable Trust, electronic monitoring rose 140 per cent in the United States over a 10year period. For more than two decades, the Illinois Department of Corrections has beenusing electronic monitoring, which has cost the state over 32.5 million dollars since 2014.
Currently 2,400 individuals are on electronic monitoring according to the Illinois
Department of Corrections as a condition of mandatory supervised release.
Sean, who served 28.5 years in detention and was released during the pandemic,
explains what being on electronic monitoring was like:
About three days after I was out, they'll tell you to stay put and somebody's going
to come out to your house and hook an ankle monitor up. I'm on an electronic
device where I had to be in the house at a certain time and I could leave the houseat a certain time... My movement is seven to seven. That means from seven o'clockin the morning till seven at night, I can move. Any time after that, I'm not supposed
to be moving. I'm on there for two months... Then they was rioting from Thursday
all the way till Monday of last week. The parole officers call and they say anybody
on electronic movement, your movement has been suspended for the whole week.
That means Monday till Friday we couldn't leave the house because they weremaking sure that we wasn't participating in the rioting...

- 195 - 195 -That restriction in movement is severely limiting for returning citizens. The first twomonths after release are pivotal to readapting to society and going through the processesof becoming a citizen again, from bureaucracy like obtaining a State ID to getting a job.
The time restriction also makes it difficult to gain access to part-time employment that
operate for overnight shifts or early morning shifts, jobs which are typically more friendly
to people with criminal records.
Electronic monitoring renders even the most basic of daily tasks a potentially life
altering decision, and small missteps can have cascading effects. As a report by the Greater
Chicago Food Depository states, the “restrictions placed on individuals during electronicmonitoring may make it difficult for them to go to the grocery store, food pantry, or seek
medical attention in a timely way.” 128 The strictest conditions of electronic monitoring
include but are not limited to:
•

•
•

•
•

Not being allowed to go to a hospital in an emergency without first obtaining
permission from the parole officer, regardless of the time of day or the seriousnessof the situation.
No working overtime or changing work schedule without permission from theparole officer.
Submitting a detailed description of all movements out of the house two weeks inadvance, including the departure and arrival details of transportation and household
movement and work assignments for jobs (i.e., house cleaning, construction, andgardening)
Restricted times of bathing
Drug testing during working hours without the parole agent making priorarrangements with employers.

The Illinois Prisoner Review Board issued a memorandum that, among other things,
altered the conditions of electronic monitoring. The rule, effective immediately as of July
2019, requires IDOC to grant those on monitoring at least twelve hours of movement, or
time outside of the house. However, the rule is poorly enforced. People in the programme
report that they are usually given much less than 12 hours and are not made aware of the
new regulation at all. 129
The concerns surrounding electronic monitoring are exacerbated by the Covid-19
pandemic. As judges release more people from Cook County Jail in response to thecoronavirus outbreak, many individuals are being placed on electronic monitoring. Nearly
2,000 people recently released from prison are on electronic monitoring as part of the termsof their release, many of them in Cook County. In May, Cook County Jail announced that
it was facing a shortage of electronic monitoring equipment. Due to the shortage, anyone
assigned to electronic monitoring will be held at the jail until a judge modifies their bond
– a process that could take months. Furthermore, the thousands of people who already had
ankle monitors before the pandemic are not getting off them because of court closures,worsening the shortage.
Cook County Food Access Task Force. Final Recommendations: Improving Food Access for Individuals
with Justice-System Involvement and Their Families. (2020, May 13). Retrieved
from <https://www.chicagosfoodbank.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020_CCFATF-Report.pdf>.
129
Lerner, K., Vaughn, J., Weill-Greenberg, E., & Corey, E. (2019). Illinois loosened Ankle-Monitor
restrictions, but advocates say it's too soon to celebrate. Retrieved from <https://theappeal.org/illinoisloosened-ankle-monitor-restrictions-but-advocates-say-its-too-soon-to-celebrate/>.
128- 196 - 196 -A client of Safer Foundation, Warren, explains how after he was released from prison,
it was nearly impossible for him to get a State ID – the most basic tool he needed to accesshis finances, housing and employment – while he was on electronic monitoring:
Most of the guys here in the house with me need IDs. So, the DMV was closed. They
opened up a couple weeks ago on a Monday, and we went out there that firstMonday, and there was over 200 people in line when we got there about 8:30. Theyclosed it off [before we could get our IDs] ‘cause there was too many people, they
couldn’t have too many people, because of the virus, working inside. So, we cameback home, and we had decided to come the next day, but later on that day the
IDOC parole officer for our whole house, basically told us we couldn’t leave. We
were on lockdown, no movement until further notice. They give us a 30-day
certificate that allows us to redeem the state ID free. We hadn’t used it, so I tried
to call the Parole office a couple times to let them know I wanted to move, go out
and try to get the license. They never called me back after the calls I left for them,three or four times. Once I get my electronic monitoring off, I’m going to try to be
down there first in line and just try to go through without. But they talk about August
as the time frame, before they’re going to start reopening. So that’s really kind of
hard. We need IDs to do most anything you need to do.
Parole and electronic monitoring were prohibitive especially during the summer of
2020, amidst the pandemic and social upheaval. We found that several clients, even those
who spent only a few months in prison for DUI and other non-violent convictions, wereusually on electronic monitoring. Of 273 clients who were surveyed on the condition of
their parole, 39 per cent were on electronic monitoring. This limited the movement ofclients and in some cases complete lockdown hindered them from getting access to carepackages, ID, food, clothing, employment and health-care services.
Those on electronic monitoring who are ill are faced with the challenge of choosing
between their own health and the health of their families or being reincarcerated if they
violate the restrictions placed on them. Receiving permission to leave the house, even in
emergencies, is a process that can take up to three days. For any medical emergency, inorder to not to violate monitoring conditions, information including the name and title ofthe medical personnel and location, the exact time of the appointment, and the mode oftransportation must be emailed to the electronic monitoring unit 72 hours in advance. The
Cook County Sherriff’s office has no data on whether they are tracking how many people
on EM have Covid-19.
Data transparency around electronic monitoring in the State of Illinois is severely
lacking. Despite, the cost of electronic monitoring and the strict rules people must abide
by, there has been little to no research conducted on how well monitoring programmes
work. The Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council (SPAC) examined a sample ofpeople under electronic monitoring for people leaving prison between April and June of
2018. The report revealed that the IDOC had no guidelines or criteria when using electronicmonitoring. 130 For example, those who have committed sex crimes and violent offences
are required under state law to wear an ankle monitor; however, the report shows that thosewith violent convictions were not given one. The council’s report also found that theoverwhelming majority of people being tracked had committed nonviolent offences. The
130

Ibid.

- 197 - 197 -report concludes that there is an increased chance that a low-risk offender will recidivate
when placed on an electronic monitor due to technical violations.
In response to this lack of data and information, the Illinois legislature unanimously
passed HB0386 which requires correctional officials to release an annual report recordingon who goes on electronic monitoring. The data breakdown includes demographic of themonitored population – including race, gender, and age. Agencies must also record
whether someone is being monitored because it is mandated by law or according to the
Prisoner Review Board. Additionally, correctional officials will need to track what
offences people are convicted of, and how many returns to prison due to violations. So far,there has been no issued report by IDOC tracking these new regulations.
Another critical issue facing many is the continued use of cash bail. Across the nation
the requirement of cash bail results in minorities being detained in jails at a significant
disproportionate rate. Whites who typically have the family and personal wealth to pay
cash bail, post bail and are released. Minorities who do not have the family or personal
wealth cannot afford to post bond and are detained in jails for the same charges. cash bailis a de facto racially discriminatory system. Detention in jail should be based uponassessment of an individual’s flight risk, danger to themselves or the public, not the abilityof the person to post cash bail. Safer Foundation client, Sharon, explains how her pre-trial
detention upended her life completely:
I caught a DUI in 2017. I had never been in any trouble. I had arrests but neverbeen convicted. So, I caught a DUI out in King County and I had to go to jail. Went
back and forth with the court for a year and a half and I had to do 12 days in KingCounty Jail to keep my case from being a felony, I didn't want to be a felon. So, I
did the 12 days in jail and I was placed on probation, which I'm on probation rightnow, I get off in December. I hate it when I got my DUI because I had never beenin trouble, had never been to jail or anything and I just thought my world would
end. I lost my job in the process of that because of what I went through.
For the last twenty years, the primary driver of mass incarceration has been pretrial
detention. 131 Increasingly, people who are not convicted of crimes and awaiting trial areincarcerated in local jails and prisons. Almost 18 times as many people are admitted to jailthan in prison annually. And nearly 730,000 people are held in more than 3,000 jails acrossthe US on any given day. 132
In Illinois, the Pretrial Fairness Act was passed on 13 January 2021 by the statelegislature. 133 This law would make Illinois the first state in the nation to end cash bail, if
signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker. In order to end the discriminatory criminal legal system,ending cash bail and electronic monitoring are necessary steps that the state and the nationmust take.

Wagner, P., Sawyer, W. (2018). The Prison Policy Initiative. Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2018.
Copp, J.E., Bales, W.D. (2018). Jails and local justice system reform: Overview and recommendations.
The
Futureof children, 28(1), 103-124.
133
Kiran Misra, “Illinois Poised to Become First State to End Wealth-Based Pre-Trial Detention,” The
Guardian (Guardian News and Media, 21 January 2021), https://www.theguardian.com/usnews/2021/jan/21/illinois-pre- trial-fairness-act-wealth-based-detention.
131
132- 198 - 198 -V. THE PRISON EMERGENCY RELEASE RESPONSE (PEERR℠) 134 MODEL:CREATING FORMALIZED PATHWAYS TO SUCCESSFUL RE-ENTRY
On 6 October 2020, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker voiced his support for successful reentry when he stated the need to “Prioritize rehabilitation and reduce the risk of recidivism
by increasing access to housing and healthcare for returning residents. The state iscommitted to expanding opportunities, supports, and services for people who are exiting
the prison system so that they are set up to succeed upon return to their communities, andwhich will save taxpayers money by reducing the number of people trapped in a cycle ofrecidivism.” Well before this announcement, Safer Foundation has been working with
community partners to provide the services required for successful re-entry. When theCovid-19 virus began hitting jails and prisons hard, Safer Foundation was able to step up
and act when needed most.
At the request of the Governor’s Office and in partnership with the Illinois Departmentof Corrections (IDOC), in March of 2020 Safer Foundation developed an interdepartmental
emergency release crisis response team and a hotline to receive and work with the hundredsof people returning to the Community. Dubbed the Prison Emergency Early ReleaseResponse team (PEERR℠), this group comprises eight agencies organized to receivereferrals from re-entry navigators and provide services, resources and support forindividuals released early during the pandemic. The PEERR℠ collaboration beganproviding immediate, emergency support to Illinois prison inmates and jail releasees who
were released early due to the Covid-19 outbreak to limit the spread of Covid-19 in thecorrectional populations via a hotline set up with the IDOC Director of Reentry and Cook
County Jail and continues operating today. Functioning like a Virtual Triage Call Center,
PEERR℠ maintains a hotline number provided to inmates at the time of their release. To
facilitate a smoother transition and hinting towards the need for the development of prerelease services and planning, IDOC provides a copy of each inmate’s release file to Safer
with information regarding existing behavioural health issues, physical health, and otherconfidential but relevant information, upon inmate consent, to ensure each individual isprovided with the precise services they require. The PEERR℠ group also established asystem to safely and securely assess people upon exit and determine their urgent needs,
such as medications, benefit assistance (Medicaid and SNAP), State IDs, immediate cash
assistance, housing and clothes, and other immediate needs.
Safer's Reentry Navigators have been working to triage the immediate needs of people
returning from incarceration to stabilize them via the services available through the
PEERR℠ network of provider partners. Once stabilized they are put on a career pathway
for long term self-sufficiency. By addressing these immediate needs and providing
socioeconomic opportunities, PEERR℠ is providing people with alternate pathways thana life of crime and reinvolvement with the justice system. To successfully accomplish this,
we must put in place a systemic, holistic re-entry process for people returning from prisons.
While efforts are underway to improve the re-entry process, there are not formalized
pathways for people to be successful post-release. To address this, it is critical thatprocesses such as PEERR℠ are formalized and become a standard part of the re-entry
system on a state and municipal level.
Please see PEERR℠ Report included as appendix to this document as well as a presentation on
PEERR℠ at Safer Foundation’s CARRE Conference (October 2020):<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYoMmD9jHkY&feature=emb_title>.

134- 199 - 199 -VI. CONCLUSION
There currently is no systemic, holistic re-entry process in place for people returningfrom prison. While efforts are underway to improve the re-entry process, there is a lack ofengrained pathways for people to be successful post-release. It is critical that processes
such as the Prison Emergency Release Response effort become a standard part of the reentry process for individuals coming home. The cost of doing nothing or not enoughthwarts efforts to reduce prison populations due to Covid-19 and efforts to reduce violence.
The demand for critical services due to the Covid-19 Pandemic continues each week andwill continue for the foreseeable future as we begin to see evidence of a resurgence in theillness around the country. And while we are moving into a new phase with the pandemic,
Safer continues to receive referrals from IDOC, as the problems are not going away any
time soon. In particular, the need for housing for people released early as a result of Covid19 is growing rapidly as returning residents are beginning to have difficulty living in theirapproved host sites. The housing backlog grows by the day. Some have already become
homeless, and it has been a struggle to find placement in alternative housing with limited
resources.
Any re-entry system must be accessible, effective, coordinated, fair and administrable.
Developing such a system requires an understanding of the great diversity of the formerly
incarcerated, and the equally diverse, yet unique, challenges they face “as an essential firststep”. 135 In consideration of this, Safer has engaged in a systematic effort to identify thepathways of prisoner reintegration and examine what factors play significant parts insuccessful or unsuccessful re-entry experiences while identifying how to inform public
policy most effectively. Safer plans to continue a systematic recording and analysis of there-entry process as informed by individuals directly impacted by incarceration, including
family members of those who have spent time imprisoned, and leaders in the field of reentry.
In order to document the historical significance of the period and draw applicablelessons capable of informing future direct services and public policy decisions, Safer
Foundation included within its PEERR℠ work a qualitative research component intended
to continue into the foreseeable future. This research includes rigorous interviews withindividuals re-entering from corrections facilities as well as conversations with direct
services providers who have worked within PEERR℠. To effectively document this work
Safer Foundation is collaborating with subject matter experts and process systems
consultants Smart Policy Works to create Journey Maps, effective tools that put a face tothe numbers and tell the story of those released in an impactful way. Utilizing an oral
history methodology and journey mapping, these interviews provide actionable
information to service providers as well as policymakers. Safer Foundation plans tocontinue the qualitative investigations begun within PEERR℠ and work to continuously
provide practical, actionable recommendations for service providers and policymakers
while also contributing towards the growing body of knowledge in the field of re-entry.
This approach reflects what is needed in the field of re-entry, in particular theexamination of re-entry from the perspective of the returning individual while also
considering the unique challenges facing women as the fastest growing demographic
Christy Visher, Nancy G. La Vigne, and Jeremy Travis, Returning Home: Understanding the Challengesof Prisoner Reentry (Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore) (Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute, 2003).
135- 200 - 200 -within jails and prisons. As noted by Holtfreter and Wattanaporn, while “‘one-size fits all’correctional programmes may represent efficient and cost-effective approaches to re-entry
in terms of implementation, failure to attend to gender responsive factors may prove more
economically and socially costly in the long run.” 136 This report argues that any effective
paradigm of prisoner re-entry must consider the perspectives expounded by those impacted
by mass incarceration. Through their individual and collective experiences, people
returning from imprisonment offer first-hand experience of what successful re-entry
involves from their point of view. It is with this perspective, coupled with nearly half acentury of public service, that Safer Foundation intends to continue this work for anothercentury and provide our communities with the sustainable re-entry services they deserve.

Holtfreter, K., & Wattanaporn, K. A. (2013). The transition from prison to community initiative.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(1), 41-57. doi:10.1177/0093854813504406

136- 201 - 201 -ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Primary Authors:
Benjamin Osborne M.A. Ed.
Sodiqa Williams Esq.
Contributing Authors:
Christian Flores – Qualitative research acknowledgement and writing support
throughout. All interview components were taken from qualitative interviews
conducted by Christian Flores. Falon Young – Primary author of Criminal JusticeReform section.
Baseline research support provided by the University of Illinois at Chicago’s Great Cities
Institute.
Special thanks to the individuals who participated in qualitative interviews.

- 202 - 202 -BIBLIOGRAPHY
Binswanger, I., Al., E., Author Affiliations from the Puget Sound Veterans Affairs
Medical Center, Okie, S., Gibney, E., J. H. Beigel and Others, A. G. Letizia andOthers. (2007, January 11). Release from Prison – A High Risk of Death for
Former Inmates: NEJM. Retrieved fromhttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmsa064115.
Blumstein, A., & Nakamura, K. (2009). 'Redemption' in an era of widespread criminal
background checks. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e516022010-003.
Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017, June). Indicators of Mental Health Problems
Reported by Prisoners and Jail Inmates, 2011-12. US Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail
Buckner, C., & Barber, A. (2020, February 6). The Price We Pay: Economic Costs ofBarriers to Employment for Former Prisoners and People Convicted of Felonies.
Retrieved from https://cepr.net/report/the-price-we-pay-economic-costs-ofbarriers-to-employment-for-former- prisoners-and-people-convicted-of-felonies/.
Bureau of justice statistics special report education and correctional populations (2003).
US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ecp.pdf.
Carson, E. A. (n.d.). Bureau of Justice Statistics: Prisoners in 2018. Retrieved fromhttps://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&amp;iid=6846
Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions Judicial Bench Book (2018, March).
Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/251583.pdf.
Cook County Food Access Task Force. Final Recommendations: Improving Food Accessfor Individuals with Justice-System Involvement and Their Families. (2020, May
13). Retrieved from https://www.chicagosfoodbank.org/wpcontent/uploads/2020/06/2020_CCFATF-Report.pdf
Copp, J.E., Bales, W.D. (2018). Jails and local justice system reform: Overview andrecommendations. The Future of Children, 28(1), 103-124.
Cortes, K., & Rogers, S. (2010). Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers' Guide.
Council of State Governments.
Couloute, L. (2018, August). Nowhere to Go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated
people.
Duane, M., Reimal, E., & Lynch, M. (2017). Criminal background checks and access tojobs. Retrieved fromhttps://greaterdc.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/91456/2001377_criminal_background_chec ks_and_access_to_jobs_dc_case_study_1.pdf.

- 203 - 203 -Duran, L. (2013). Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies: Reducing Recidivism
and Promoting Job Readiness. Retrieved from https://nicic.gov/integratedreentry-and-employment-strategies- reducing-recidivism-and-promoting-jobreadiness
Ebert, J. (2020, October 14). Illinois prison population decreased by 18 percent since
start of pandemic. Retrieved fromhttps://thedailyline.net/chicago/10/14/2020/illinois-prison-population-decreasedby-18-percent-since-start-of-pandemic/
Equal Justice Initiative. (2019). More Incarcerated Women than Men Report Mental
Health Problems. (2019, October 16). Retrieved from https://eji.org/news/moreincarcerated-women-report-mental- health-problems/
Finkel, M. (n.d.). New data: Low incomes – but high fees – for people on probation.
Retrieved fromhttps://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2019/04/09/probation_income/.
Friedman, M. (2015, November 17). Just Facts: As Many Americans Have Criminal
Records as College Diplomas. Retrieved fromhttps://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/just-facts-manyamericans-have-criminal-records-college-diplomas.
Gill, Charlotte, Wilson, David B. Improving the success of reentry programs: Identifying
the impact of service-need fit on recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 44,(3), 336-359.
Greifinger, R. B., Bick, J. A., & Goldenson, J. (2010). Public health behind bars: Fromprisons to communities. New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.
Guyer, J., Bachrach, D., & Shine, N. (2015). Medicaid Expansion and Criminal Justice
Costs: Pre-Expansion Studies and Emerging Practices Point Toward
Opportunities for States. State Health Reform Assistance Network.
Hamlin, M. (2017). Giving Prisoners Another Chance Through Affordable Housing.
Retrieved from https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-10/givingprisoners-another-chance-through-affordable-housing
Heartland Alliance 2020 Poverty Report. (2020). Retrieved fromhttps://www.heartlandalliance.org/heartland-alliance-2020-poverty-report/
Hill, H. (2019, July 10). Incarcerated Women and Girls. Retrieved fromhttps://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/incarcerated-women-and-girls/.
Holtfreter K, Wattanaporn KA. (2014). The Transition from Prison to Community
Initiative: An Examination of Gender Responsiveness for Female Offender
Reentry. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 2014;41(1):41-57.
doi:10.1177/0093854813504406- 204 - 204 -Hsu HT, Fulginiti A, Petering R, Barman-Adhikari A, Maria DS, Shelton J, Bender K,
Narendorf S, Ferguson K. Firearm Violence Exposure and Suicidal Ideation
Among Young Adults Experiencing Homelessness. J Adolesc Health. 2020
Aug;67(2):286-289.
Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority. (2020). Prior Criminal JusticeInvolvement of Persons Experiencing Violent Deaths in Illinois. (2020).
Retrieved from https://icjia.illinois.gov/researchhub/articles/prior-criminaljustice-involvement-of-persons- experiencing-violent-deaths-in-illinois
Illinois Department of Corrections Prison Population Data Sets.
https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Pages/Prison-Population-DataSets.aspx.
Illinois Department of Corrections, “Annual Reports,” www.illinois.gov (Illinois
Department of Corrections), accessed 20 September 2020,
https://www2.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Pages/AnnualReports.aspx
Illinois Department of Employment Security. (2020). Illinois Still Impacted by COVID19 Pandemic, Unemployment Rates Up Compared to Last Year. (2020).
Retrieved fromhttps://www2.illinois.gov/ides/SitePages/NewsArticleDisplay.aspx?NewsID=518
Illinois Sentencing Policy Advisory Council. (2018). Illinois Results First: The High Costof Recidivism 2018 Report. Retrieved fromhttps://spac.illinois.gov/publications/cost-benefit-analysis/high-cost-ofrecidivism-2018
Jacobs L.A., Katcher K., Krummenacher P., Tonnesen S. (2017) Root & Rebound: An
Innovative Program Paints the Reentry Landscape. In: Stojkovic S. (eds) Prisoner
Reentry. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2015). Prisoner Reentry Programs. Crime and Justice,44(1), 517-575. doi:10.1086/681554
Kras KR, Pleggenkuhle B, Huebner BM. (2016). A New Way of Doing Time on theOutside: Sex Offenders’ Pathways In and Out of a Transitional Housing Facility.
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol.
Langer, G. (2020, July 21). ABC news. Retrieved fromhttps://abcnews.go.com/Politics/63-support-black-lives-matter-recognitiondiscrimination-jumps/story?id=71779435.
Lerner, K., Vaughn, J., Weill-Greenberg, E., & Corey, E. (2019). Illinois loosened
Ankle-Monitor restrictions, but advocates say it's too soon to celebrate. Retrieved
from https://theappeal.org/illinois-loosened-ankle-monitor-restrictions-butadvocates-say-its-too-soon-to-celebrate/.
Leverentz, A. M., Chen, E. Y., Christian, J., & Maruna, S. (2020). Beyond recidivism:
New approaches to research on prisoner reentry and reintegration. New York:- 205 - 205 -New York University Press.
Looney, A. (2018, March 20). 5 facts about prisoners and work, before and afterincarceration. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/upfront/2018/03/14/5-facts-about-prisoners-and-work-before- and-afterincarceration/
Love, M., & Schlussel, D. (2020, September 8). "The Many Roads to Reintegration": A
50-state report on laws restoring rights and opportunities. Retrieved fromhttps://ccresourcecenter.org/2020/09/08/the-many-roads-to-reintegration-anational-survey-of- restoration-law/
Loyola University Center for Criminal Justice Research: Cook County’s Criminal
Justice System: Trends and Issues Report: 2nd Edition. (2019, November).
Retrieved fromhttps://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/ccj/pdfs/CookCountyTrendsandIssuesReport
November2019.pdf.
Lyon, E. (2019). Illinois Calculates the High Costs of Recidivism. Retrieved fromhttps://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2019/feb/5/illinois-calculates-high-costsrecidivism/
Massoglia, M., & Pridemore, W. A. (2015). Incarceration and Health. Annual review ofsociology, 41, 291–310. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc073014-112326
Metropolitan Planning Council. (2019). Re-entry Housing Issues in Illinois: The Current
Situation, Challenges, and Possible Solutions.
Middlemass, K. Convicted and Condemned: The Politics and Policies of Prisoner
Reentry (New York: New York University Press, 2017).
Morsy, L., & Rothstein, R. (2019). Mass incarceration and children's outcomes: Criminal
justice policy is education policy. Retrieved fromhttps://www.epi.org/publication/mass-incarceration-and-childrens- outcomes/.
Muro, M., Liu, S., Whiton, J., & Kulkarni, S. (2018, October 12). Digitalization and theAmerican workforce. Retrieved 3 March 2021, fromhttps://www.brookings.edu/research/digitalization-and-the-american-workforce/.
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. (2019). Housing not handcuffs –Ending the Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities.
Nellis, A., & Hill, H. (2019, January 10). The Color of Justice: Racial and Ethnic
Disparity in State Prisons. Retrieved fromhttps://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnicdisparity-in-state-prisons/
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (n.d.). Social Determinants ofHealth. Retrieved from https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-- 206 - 206 -objectives/topic/social-determinants-of-healthOtto, B., Flores, C. (2020). Prison Emergency Early Release Response (PEERR) Report2020. Safer Foundation, Smart Policy Works.
Pager, D., & Western, B. (2009). Investigating Prisoner Reentry: The Impact ofConviction Status on the Employment Prospects of Young Men. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/228584.pdf
Pascoe, E., & Smart Richman, L. (2009). Perceived discrimination and health: A metaanalytic review. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19586161/
Prison Policy Initiative (2015). Separation by Bars and Miles: Visitation in state prisons.
Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/prisonvisits.html
Prison Policy Initiative, P. (2018, January 9). The Gender Divide: Tracking women's
state prison growth. Retrieved fromhttps://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/women_overtime.html.
Prison Policy Initiative. Prisons of Poverty: Uncovering the pre-incarceration incomes of
the imprisoned. (2015, July 9). Retrieved fromhttps://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/income.html.
Prison Studies Project (2018). Why prison education? Retrieved fromhttps://prisonstudiesproject.org/why-prison-education-programs/.
Saluja, S., & Rosen, H. (2019, August 22). Why public health practitioners should careabout job prospects for people with criminal records: Employment challenges andsuccessful prison and jail reentry. Retrieved fromhttps://harvardpublichealthreview.org/why-public-health-practitioners-shouldcare-about-job-prospects-for-people-with-criminal-records-employmentchallenges-and-successful- prison-and-jail-reentry/
Sawyer, W. (2019, August 22). After Pell Grants were cut, college participation inprisons dropped by half. Retrieved fromhttps://news.prisonpolicy.org/t/ViewEmail/r/45EC2A695D322EE62540EF23F30F
EDED/36BCA921E95808 A5DDA3541AF197FE1F
Solomon, A., Osborne, J., LoBuglio, S., Mellow, J., & Mukamal, D. (2008). Life After
Lockup: Improving reentry from jail to the community. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/life-after-lockup-improving-reentry-jailcommunity
Texas Criminal Justice Coalition. (2019). Return to Nowhere: The Revolving Door
Between Incarceration and Homelessness. (2019, February). Retrieved fromhttps://www.texascjc.org/system/files/publications/Return%20to%20Nowhere%20
The%20Revolving%2
0Door%20Between%20Incarceration%20and%20Homelessness.pdf- 207 - 207 -The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center. (2020). Survey Shows Reentry
Services Halting Across U.S. (2020, June 25). Retrieved fromhttps://csgjusticecenter.org/survey-shows-reentry-services-halting-across-u-s/
Tran-Leung, M. (2015). When Discretion Means Denial. Sargent Shriver National Centeron Poverty Law.
Turney, K., “Stress Proliferation Across Generations? Examining the Relationship
Between Parental Incarceration and Childhood Health,” Journal of Health andSocial Behavior 55, no. 3 (2014): 302-19
U.S. Dept. of Education (2016, June 24). 12,000 incarcerated students to enroll in
Postsecondary educational and training programs through Education department's
new second chance Pell pilot program. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/12000-incarcerated-students-enrollpostsecondary-educational-and-training-programs-through-educationdepartments-new-second- chance-pell-pilot-program.
Visher, C., & Farrell, J. (2005). Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry.
PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e720022011-001
Visher, C., La Vigne, N., Travis, J. (2003). Returning Home: Understanding the
Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore)(Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2003).
Wagner, P., Sawyer, W. (2018). The Prison Policy Initiative. Mass incarceration: The
whole pie 2018.
Wagner, P., Sawyer, W. (2020). Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2020. Retrieved
from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html.
Walsh, A. (2016). States help families stay together by correcting a consequence of the
Adoption and Safe Families Act. Retrieved fromhttps://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2016/05/24/asfa/
Washington State Institute for Public Policy Benefit-Cost Results (2019). Retrieved fromhttps://www.wsipp.wa.gov/BenefitCost.
Weidner, R. R., & Schultz, J. (2019). Examining the relationship between U.S.
incarceration rates and population health at the county level. SSM – Population
Health, 9, 100466. doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100466
Wildeman, C., Goldman, A., & Turney, K. (2018, June 1). Parental Incarceration andChild Health in the United States. Retrieved fromhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29635444.
World Health Organization: Regional Office for Europe. (2020, November 17). Poverty
and social determinants. Retrieved from https://www.euro.who.int/en/healthtopics/environment-and-health/urban-health/activities/poverty-and-socialdeterminants- 208 - 208 -REHABILITATION OF WOMEN IN PRISON
Olivia Rope *I. ABOUT PRI AND OUR WORK ON WOMEN’S IMPRISONMENT
Penal Reform International (PRI) is a non-governmental organization working globallyto promote criminal justice systems that uphold human rights for all and do no harm. We
work to make criminal justice systems non-discriminatory and protect the rights ofdisadvantaged people. We run practical human rights programmes and support reforms thatmake criminal justice fair and effective.
Women’s imprisonment is a priority for PRI – not least because we know that
implementation of the UN Bangkok Rules on women has remained piecemeal in many
respects. One grave indicator of this is that the number of women in prison worldwide
continues to rise; our latest analysis shows an increase of 17 per cent globally since the
Bangkok Rules were adopted a decade ago. 1 PRI has undertaken a significant amount ofwork to support rehabilitation of women who find themselves in conflict with the law
including in Georgia, a small country in the South Caucasus. Our approach when we workwith women in criminal justice systems is based on the simple premise of putting into
practice the UN Bangkok Rules as summarized below.
II. DATA AND RESEARCH FOR A GENDER-SENSITIVE APPROACH TO
REHABILITATION OF WOMEN
What is the first step in delivering a programme on rehabilitation of women? It is
knowledge. Before embarking on any sort of intervention or programme of work we ask
ourselves: What is the situation on reoffending for women and here I point to Bangkok
Rule 67 which calls for “…comprehensive, result-oriented research on the offences
committed by women, the reasons that trigger women’s confrontation with the criminal
justice system, the impact of secondary criminalization and imprisonment on women, thecharacteristics of women offenders, as well as programmes designed to reduce reoffendingby women…”
What are the typical barriers women in criminal justice systems face in a certain country
or region? PRI’s research has shown common barriers to rehabilitation are often different
for men, or if not different, impact women in a unique way.
It is therefore important for rehabilitation to be gender-sensitive because if they are tobe effective, they need to address the multiple, overlapping needs of the person, the root
causes of criminal behaviour, and these include those that are specific to women.

Executive Director, Penal Reform International. PRI is a non-profit association, registered in the
Netherlands (Registration no 40025979) (orope@penalreform.org; www.penalreform.org).
1<https://www.penalreform.org/blog/addressing-the-105000-increase-in-the-global-female/>.
*- 209 - 209 -III. COMMON BARRIERS FOR WOMEN’S REHABILITATION
Based on PRI’s extensive research, and supported by other evidence, the different
gender-specific issues commonly include:•

Violence: there is ample evidence that high numbers of women in prison haveexperienced violence. And in some cases, this violence is linked to their offence. It
is key to address consequences of such violence.

•

Stigma and rejection of women who have been involved in crime or in prison isoften felt disproportionately, mainly because they are deemed to have broken social
norms as “mothers, carers”. Impacts of such stigma include child custody issues orrelationships where, for example, women may accept bad relationships as they are
rejected from their families.

•

Rate of mental health conditions are generally higher among women in prison
compared to their male counterparts. This is now exacerbated by the impacts ofcoronavirus measures in prisons.

•Another common barrier for women’s rehabilitation is related to their status as solecarers of children or dependents – the anxiety, worry and consequences ofseparation while in prison are well-evidenced.

•

Finally, poverty and low social status of all people in prison is certainly true in thecase of women. Although with women we know that poverty is frequently
connected to the offence, and in many cases the ability to get out of poverty is moredifficult because of the issues I have just mentioned.
IV. MEETING THE NEEDS OF WOMEN IN PRISON IN GEORGIA (INRELATION TO REHABILITATION)

In Georgia, where we implemented a specific programme on the topic, a PRI survey
and a subsequent study by UN Women documented the top three requirements that women
identified as needing support with to build law-abiding lives after prison.
These were: health and counselling, employment, and help with childcare and family
reunification. Our project was designed to provide these support needs and others identified.
As a minority group (women make up about 3.7 per cent of the national prison population
total of just over 10,000 people in Georgia), they needed a specific approach.
We teamed up with partner organizations to deliver rehabilitation and support services
to female prisoners and their children over a two-year period. The identified support needs
were met through interventions from work and training opportunities, business start-up
grants to psychological counselling, financial support for health care and a dedicatednursery and childminder at the mother and baby unit in prison so women could participate
in programmes (see table):- 210 - 210 -Identified need (PRI / UN Women)

Service delivered

Insufficient rehabilitation, vocational andemployment opportunities

Vocational training,
management skills

Experiences of violence

Opening of a shelter

Legal issues

Legal aid

Difficulties to find employment

Small grants and training

Practical issues

Mother and baby unit in prison, shelter
post-release

Health-care issues (including mental
health)Psychological counsellingsmallbusiness

A. Shelter
The shelter was important as women leaving prison often face so much stigma anddiscrimination and this, coupled with the absence of a social network, criminal record andcaring usually for young children, means they are in a vulnerable position. Thisvulnerability and economic reality may lead them to reoffend again. The shelter provided
a safe place and helped those released from prison, especially after a longer sentence. It
prevented them returning to violent relationships. Also wrap around services were provided
at the shelter (for example, access to legal aid and health care).
B. Legal Aid, Counselling and Psycho-Social Assistance
Legal aid and psychological counselling proved pivotal in the rehabilitation process forsome women, allowing them to overcome long-term problems such as obtaining custodyof children, issues accessing identification documents or overcoming a lack of confidence
due to the stigma from been in prison.
The project also supported 97 children of imprisoned mothers by providing them
psycho-social assistance. Psychologists provided therapy to children experiencing
behavioural disorders, and social workers facilitated rebuilding relationships between
children and their mothers through joint sessions. Transportation for regular visits was- 211 - 211 -facilitated. They assisted children and their families in applying for relevant state
programmes to increase their access to education and health care.
C. Economic Empowerment and Tackling Poverty
Economic empowerment and tackling poverty were other central objectives for our
project, as having no money when coming out of prison is one of the main drivers of
reoffending. This is particularly the case with women where common offences are related
to poverty. For instance, in Georgia, common offences committed by women attracting aprison sentence are theft or property related, and the second most common type is drugrelated offences, often committed in a context of financial need. While interventions inprison cannot address the underlying gender inequalities for women in society, micro-level
programmes can help women on the pathway to employment and independence.
As well as vocational training and small business management, the project also helped
women to find employment and/or gave small grants so they could start their own business.
This was deliberate in order to overcome the issues of high levels of unemployment anddifficulties for former prisoners to find jobs. Training focused on the registration of anenterprise, legal regulations, taxes, marketing and budgeting, as well as developing abusiness plan.
These courses not only had a therapeutic effect, boosting self-esteem but it helps
recipients regain their status as carers for their families, provided structure to their daily
routines and gave them opportunities to socialize.
D. Coordination of Multi-Sectoral Stakeholders
The programme involved multi-sectoral stakeholders including mental health, justice,civil society and women affected. This was key to its success as the approach ensured
joined-up service provision, for example, women accessing one service could be referred
on to other services as needed. There was also positive support from state institutions forthis project.
V. CHALLENGES FACED AND SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE OR OVERCOMEAs always with projects that seek to overcome complex problems, our work in Georgia
faced some challenges that are common elsewhere. Firstly, regarding infrastructure there
are limitations, for instance insufficient availability of spaces or rooms for rehabilitation
programmes to take place in prison, or there is no conducive environment. We therefore
took on the challenge, for instance, by refurbishing the mother and baby unit purchasing
furniture and toys, etc. Similarly, with the shelter, the authorities allocated the premises,
but it needed furniture. It is critical to allocate funds and energy early on in such efforts.
Secondly, for sustainability beyond the project life, some challenges were faced.
Ensuring buy-in from the state was going well during the project; however, a major
restructuring in the government involved significant staff changes. A political shift broughta reprioritization with women in prison no longer a key priority of government. We sawthat it is important therefore to plan for all possibilities, and for donors and the international
community to ensure pressure alongside civil society for sustainability.

- 212 - 212 -Finally, another challenge in any project on women is in tackling gender norms.
Programme design is important, and therefore in our work in Georgia we sought tocontribute to gender equality by giving women in prison the sort of training andopportunities which will lead to jobs and not fall back into roles those traditionally seen as
appropriate for women. We also sought to ensure that the job training and other support
was in line with the reality of the labour market so that there were real job prospects.
VI. IMPACT OF THE PROJECT IN GEORGIA
The project had significant success in terms of reoffending rates. 85 per cent of thebeneficiaries of the project did not reoffend. Of the 121 out of 819 who did reoffend, 7 ofthese women were sentenced to prison and the rest were placed on probation or received
another non-custodial sanction.
VII.

GUIDANCE ON REHABILITATION OF WOMEN IN PRISON

The lessons from this project in Georgia and many others around the globe are captured
in guidance published in 2019 by PRI with the Thailand Institute of Justice, titled “Guide
to the rehabilitation and social reintegration of women prisoners: Implementation of the
Bangkok Rules”. 2
The tool is designed for use by prison management, staff, policymakers and others
involved in the criminal justice process, including legislators, judges and law enforcement
officials. It aims to provide practical guidance on improving existing rehabilitation
programmes and services and designing new ones, looking at different country contexts
and considering location-specific challenges and opportunities. It outlines 10 key principles
for gender-sensitive rehabilitation programmes.
It summarizes the importance of good prisoner rehabilitation and social reintegration
programmes and identifies the main barriers to successful rehabilitation, including thebarriers faced by female prisoners and by specific groups of female prisoners such as girls,
foreign nationals and women from ethnic minority groups. Identifying these barriers
provides an insight into why additional efforts are needed to assist the rehabilitation of
women offenders.
Finally, it includes some of promising practices from around the world showcasing
good prisoner rehabilitation and social reintegration.
VIII. GUIDANCE ON REHABILITATION OF WOMEN SERVING NONCUSTODIAL SANCTIONS
PRI’s work in Kenya with the Probation Service, and with the support of the Thailand
Institute of Justice, showed that there are various issues faced by women serving probationor community service that are a barrier to their successful rehabilitation. For instance, thewomen struggled to save money to pay for transport to attend monthly appointments at the2<https://www.penalreform.org/resource/guide-to-the-rehabilitation-and-social-reintegration-of/>.

- 213 - 213 -probation office and had issues getting to their placement; problems with the length andscheduling of community service work meant clashes with family obligations like fetchingwater or childcare, worsening the financial situation; safety issues when supervised by maleofficers, etc.
A key outcome of our work in Kenya showed, again, that economic empowerment of
women was critical to their rehabilitation. A package of resources, including a guide,“Gender-sensitive community service and probation: Model for Reform” 3 documents theoverall experiences and findings of the pioneering, multifaceted project that focused on theexperiences of women completing non-custodial sentences in Kenya. It lays out 10 key
steps to take when replicating the project in an international context, in order to introduce
a gender-sensitive approach to non-custodial sentences.

3<https://www.penalreform.org/resource/gender-sensitive-approach-model-reform/>.

- 214 - 214 -KRIMINELLAS REVANSCH I SAMHÄLLET (KRIS) / CRIMINALSRETURN INTO SOCIETY (CRIS)
Ali Reunanen *I. INTRODUCTION
Hi, my name is Ali, and I am an addict and a former criminal. I want to start with that
presentation, which we do at every group meeting we have at our local KRIS association.
We do this because it is important for us to identify that we are addicts and that our drug
freedom is not guaranteed. It's something we work on every day, one day at a time.
I would like to thank you very much for inviting KRIS to come here and present ourorganization, and we hope that our experiences can be useful to you. I will tell you a little
about my own experiences, but as an organization we are always a “we-association”. Quite
simply explained, it means that – “what I cannot do alone, we can do together”.

II. EVERY CRIMINAL ADDICT HAS A HISTORYThis is me as a child one day that I may not have been in my very best mood, so the
picture may symbolize the feelings that I often lived with already during my early life.
Those feelings of guilt, shame, fear, anger, sadness and anxiety followed me to my adultlife and were growing the longer my addiction continued. I will try to explain to you thatevery addict and criminal has a history, and it can be filled with things like bullying, abuse,trauma, segregation, poverty, alcohol and drugs, violence, war, crime and much more.
For my personal part it was about bullying, trauma and abuse. The hardest thing for me
personally was that I was bullied by older kids and sexually abused by a paedophile when
I was 9 years old. That made me angry and hateful when I got older. When I was 14 years
old and with my friends, we came in contact with alcohol which for me became my first
drug and which made me feel happy, free and helped me to be the Ali I wanted. I soon
learned that I could get that feeling when drinking, which then became an important partof my life. Unfortunately, there was also a lot of violence and other consequences inconnection with my use.

Secretary-General, RIKSKRIS, Gröndalsvägen 194, 117 69 Stockholm, Phone: +4686420006, Mob:
+46702834051, E-mail: info@kris.a.se, E-mail: ali.reunanen@rikskris.se, Home: www.kris.a.se.

*- 215 - 215 -I felt sad and lonely and found alcohol and drugs the only way to help me deal with mylife. I did not tell anyone about the sexual abuse that the paedophile did to me; it became asecret that I kept to myself for 30 years. This is something that no child should have toexperience, and I feel sorry that there was no adult that I dared to talk to this about. I talked
about it for the first time during my treatment in prison, and it made me understand what itmeans “to heal by sharing”. So what I mean is that every addict and criminal has a history
and that I think it is more important to understand than to be understood.
III. IT OFTEN ENDS UP IN PRISON
Many of our members have grown up with broken families or no families at all. They
have often grown up in support families or orphanages and learned to survive but have notbeen taught to live. Many of our target group live or have lived a life with a criminal
lifestyle, which also requires a lot of work to leave. When they come out of prison, it isusually the old friends and drugs meeting them, and it only leads them back to prison,
institutions or death, unless something else enters life that can give purpose and meaning.
A lot of different bad consequences can bring you to end up in prison, and then it is up
to yourself if you want to feed the white or the black wolf inside yourself. We in KRIS do
believe that no one is hopeless and that if you get the right treatment and the right help
anyone can succeed. Here are some of the ideas that can be useful in a life change.
IV. PRISON CAN BE A TURNING POINT
A good beginning is if a person asks for help; that would be a really good start. Then
we believe in treatment similar to the 12-step programme which can help you to change
your mindset and give back hope and faith. Then you can work with self-help groups, tofind a new supporting fellowship, and when you get out you will need a lot of support ofpeople who already have done the change.
That´s what KRIS is offering. In KRIS, we see addiction as a lifelong and incurable
disease that we can break, become drug-free and learn to live with one day at a time. We
can change our criminal lifestyle with a programme called “challenging a criminal
lifestyle”. I will return to this a little later in the presentation. For us, it is important to be
drug-free one day at a time, and this applies to all drugs including alcohol. The more aperson can work with himself already inside the prison, the easier it will be when he comesout.
V. A LITTLE ABOUT MY OWN EXPERIENCE
I also want to take the opportunity to mention a little from my own life. I became drugfree and honest thanks to the police, the judicial system, the prison and the 12-step
programme they offered at the institution where I served my last sentence. From 1 April
1994, when the police arrested me, I have not used any drugs or alcohol since, and I do it
one day at a time. With that decision and the work I have done with my criminal lifestyle,
I have lived honestly and tried to be a role model for others.

- 216 - 216 -When I received my sentence, I was in custody, and I received the information that
there was a prison that had started 12-step treatment. I got the possibility to apply for it,
which I did. The decision came and I had to come to the institution and what was special
about this institution was that not only rules and staff kept the institution drug-free, but also
the inmates made sure that no drugs would enter the prison, which I was informed of by
the prisoners' trust council.
In prison, I had to see how my addiction had taken over my life and that it had
consequences in all areas of my life. I had turned my back on my family, I had no "real"
friends left except some criminal addicts. I had come to the point where I accepted that I
was a drug addict; I ignored it and basically was prepared to drug myself to death. It wentso far that I started thinking about suicide. Fortunately, the police caught me before I hadtime to do something really, really stupid.
So when I came out and started to stand on my own two feet trying to live a normal life,
many parts of life were difficult. I needed both time and support to be drug-free and honest.
Then it was about housing, finances, education, family, social, physical, etc. And of course,
to make amends for everything I had done during my active years. We grow as humanbeings by taking responsibility for our decisions and their consequences. When I do that, I
start to gain self-respect, which in turn leads to self-esteem, and over time I start to trust
myself and gain self-confidence as a human being. With the help of the 12-step programme,
meetings, support groups and of course KRIS, I today have a fantastic life filled with bothgoals and meaning where I also can help others.
VI. A NEW CHANCE
Prison with good content can be a really good opportunity to start a new drug-free andhonest life. Then there will be more tasks and problems to solve when you are free. Then
there will be a great need for support and help building a new life. And of course, KRIS is
one of the supports that many really need as a complement to other efforts that a person
may need to build a new and better life.

VII. KRIMINELLAS REVANSCH I SAMHÄLLET (KRIS)
The reason KRIS started was due to a need for something that did not exist, which wassome kind of group or association that understands our problems and that can both help
and also set boundaries, not accepting all the lies addicts and criminals live with. CRIS in
English means Criminals Return Into Society, and that means we get a second chance insociety. Getting an opportunity to make amends for things we have done and theopportunity to be able to become role models in society and help others who want to leave- 217 - 217 -a life full of addiction and crime. Therefore, we have built our association based on four
cornerstones which are:Honesty – We do not commit crimes. We are honest with each other and withourselves.
Drug-free – In KRIS we are completely drug-free, which also applies to alcohol,
we use drug tests and breath tests to make our members feel safe.
Fellowship – We care about the well-being of our friends and respect our fellow
human beings.
Solidarity – We help, respect and care for each other. 24 hours a day.
KRIS conducts institutional visitation activities where members from all our local
associations make regular visits to give hope that there is a way out of addiction, crime andexclusion. In total we make about 1,500 – 1,600 visits a year, which are much appreciatedby the inmates.
During these visits, there are different rules at the prisons. Sometimes we can meetwhole wards with inmates and can then have nice group talks or lectures. At other times, itis the individual motivating conversation. Often it is the individual inmate who wants to
get in touch with KRIS, which gives us an opportunity to meet them when they are released.
It also happens that we get a possibility to hold study circles inside the institutions. Often,
they include deep discussions about living honestly in society. I have not met any criminal
addict who had as life plan – when he or she was young and curiously tried alcohol, drugs
or snatched something in the store – to become a drug addict and criminal and would spend
his or her life in prison.
KRIS local associations conduct daily structured activities where everyone has a
responsibility to make it work. The associations organize specific study circles and groups
in certain areas such as crime, violence, traditions, parent groups and also study circles on
topics such as guilt, shame, anger, fear, grief, etc. We also organize KRIS days when wemeet in pleasant conditions and socialize and work with those topics. When we are out
visiting the local associations, they offer food which is always nice and is also part ofbelonging to a community; many of our members are not used to having food every day.
We have some members who are homeless and who need special support, which we try toprovide.
It has been and is a very unusual time in society in this last year when we cannot or
may not get into the institutions, and we all hope that it will get better and that we can getback inside the institutions to give the inmates support and hope.
VIII. CHALLENGING A CRIMINAL LIFESTYLE
Challenging the criminal styles of thinking and to see the motives and drives for acriminal lifestyle and giving the person a message of hope: There is a way to anotherlifestyle without criminality and the message is that you can have a new way of life and bea part of the society.
Most people commit some crimes during their childhood. For some, the problem
becomes more serious, and they may need help to keep from going any further. Those who- 218 - 218 -have difficulty quitting, often despite severe consequences, can get trapped in a criminal
lifestyle. In the end, it can be just as difficult to leave the criminal lifestyle as to break witha drug addiction. What characterizes a criminal lifestyle is, for the adult, irresponsibility,
an image of oneself as an "outsider", criminal thought patterns and impulsive action
patterns.
As early as the 1950s, researchers noticed that there were various ways in which
criminals used to “speak to themselves” to silence their consciences. You could call it aform of a defence-mechanism. Later it came to be known as criminal thinking patterns.
These thinking patterns are, according to Glenn Walters, the founder of the Criminal
Lifestyle theory
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Justification
Cut-off or shielding
Power and control
Entitlement
Sentimentality
Superoptimism
Cognitive Indolence
Inconsistent thoughts

The driving forces of crime are several. One basic thing is fear. Fear is about notbelieving in coping with life but what crime can bring: Belonging, status and confirmation.
Other basic driving forces are lack of self-control, lack of inhibitions, emotional coldness
and suspended emotions. In addition to these, there are other driving forces such as greed,
shame, power and control, tension and lust. The goal of challenging the criminal lifestyleis to convey hope that there is another way of life.

IX. LIFE IS ABOUT MORE THAN JUST BEING DRUG FREE AND HONEST
Getting a good start is to have a good home where there are no drugs and where there
are people who have changed their life and one thing which is very important for a newlife, that is to take care of themselves and to be able to make amends, to pay back the people
you have hurt and to paying back continue society by helping others who need help andthat´s where our slogan is handy. It is simply, “Help yourself by helping others!”- 219 - 219 -Another important part of life is to support your self-confidence. You really have towish for an honest job and be able to keep it. KRIS started some social businesses for ourmembers, as a possibility to learn a trade and to do some good work. Of course, they will
make mistakes, and it is better that the do them at KRIS, instead of in an ordinary workplace.
Some of our members have never had a job, so we have to teach them from the beginning,
to be in time, to follow rules, to listen to a boss and so on.
Many with our background have bad or no experience with either education or work,
so it is difficult for our members to be able to compete in the labour market. So in order to
get a good job and with the life experiences we have, we have created our own education
called Lifestyle Coordinator. It is a basic training in working with addiction and crime.
The training lasts for 1 year and includes a lot of internships, and the course is basedon the 12-step programme and challenging a criminal lifestyle. It is a process education,
which means that the students go through all the elements in their own lives which meansthat their own experiences come in handy. In addition to addiction and crime, we spend a
lot of time on working with shame, guilt, anger, grief, violence, early sexual abuse andother trauma treatment. Over 65 per cent of the students are offered a job already during
the education, which we are very proud of.

X. SUPPORTAs an organization, we have a great need for support from important people in society,both from business and politics, and some of those who are honorary members are the royalfamily. Here are two of our honorary members H.M King Carl Gustav 16th and Queen
Silvia. A nice memory with Queen Silvia is when KRIS celebrated its 20th anniversary,and the queen spontaneously went up on stage and told about her memories where she
participated in various KRIS events and told us how important the organization is and what
difference we can make for our target group.
Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to come here to tell a little about
KRIS and our activities. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Swedish police,
the legal system and the prison service for the efforts they made to stop me and then to help
me to a new life. And in conclusion, I want to say again, hello my name is Ali, and I am a
grateful recovering addict and former criminal. Thank you.

- 220 - 220 -MULTIFACETED APPROACH TO ENSURE CONTINUOUS
SUPPORT AND SERVICES FOR REHABILITATION AND
REINTEGRATION OF OFFENDERSMaria Cristina Mattei *I. INTRODUCTION
Hedayah, the International Center of Excellence for Countering Violent Extremism(CVE) based in Abu Dhabi, developed an innovative technological tool for Monitoring,
Measurement & Evaluation (MM&E) of rehabilitation and reintegration programmes forviolent offenders. MASAR is a desktop and smartphone application that assists users indeveloping a step-by-step framework to evaluate and assess the results and project the longterm impact of CVE programmes, 1 including rehabilitation and reintegration programmes.
MASAR specifically focuses on impact-evaluation and not on other types of evaluation(e.g. performance evaluation/process evaluation), it includes an indicators’ generator, alibrary of existing case studies gathered worldwide and a section on lexicon andterminology related to MM&E. This app can support better design and impact-evaluationof rehabilitation and reintegration programmes for offenders and is available for free in iOS
and Android.
II. PRESENTATION
Hedayah is an international, apolitical and independent hub created in 2012 and basedin Abu Dhabi (UAE), reporting to a steering board of 12 Governments. The organization
was launched by the Global Counter Terrorism Forum (GCTF) 2 which is a governmental
platform focused on developing solutions and identifying good practices to counter
terrorism and counter violent extremism. 3 As part of its mission, Hedayah is mandated todevelop tools for governments and practitioners, implement capacity-building programmes
and gathers global good practices in the field of countering violent extremism, including
on rehabilitation and reintegration of violent extremist offenders. Most of these practices
are also relevant for rehabilitation and reintegration of mainstream criminal offenders.
As mentioned, one of the key tools developed by Hedayah is MASAR. Indeed, MM&E
is a pressing challenge in rehabilitation and reintegration, for a number of reasons:•

There is a challenge in defining “success” and the vision of programmes, acrosspractitioners and governments;•

Outcomes and impact require a long time, and immediate change is not always
visible;Program Manager, Hedayah, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates.
<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/resources/interactive_cve_apps/masar/>.
2<https://www.thegctf.org/>.
3<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/about/our-story/>.
*
1- 221 - 221 -•In general there is a lack of specific resources dedicated to MM&E acrossgovernments and organizations. 4

At the same time, effective MM&E practices are crucial to link overarching goals andobjectives to the visible results of recipients (i.e. criminal offenders). MM&E is also thebest mechanism to inform future practices and therefore should be prioritized, despite thechallenges.
MASAR proposes a simple, yet comprehensive, framework inclusive of steps to guide
governments and practitioners in developing effective impact-evaluation plans for a variety
of programmes, including rehabilitation and reintegration. The steps include:1) Evaluation of the context2) Development of a Theory of Change3) Identification of goals and activities
4) Key indicators and indicators’ generator5) Collection methods
6) Resources and limitations
7) Capturing results8) Displaying results
These steps are included in a user-friendly interface that proposes examples, casestudies and definitions to help the development of tailored evaluation plans. One of the key
principles in MASAR is that MM&E needs to be embedded at the outset of programmingand not as the final step of rehabilitation and reintegration. A proactive approach indesigning the MM&E log-frame would ensure that evaluation could be run throughout all
the phases of rehabilitation and reintegration, and not as a last step. Indeed, limiting
evaluation at the end of a programme seriously affects the quality and feasibility ofcapturing results.
To showcase the applicability of MASAR, Hedayah proposed a case study on the Dutch
Probation Service, based on information contained in a publicly available evaluation study(Der Heide & Schuurmann, 2018). 5
The Dutch Probation Service is an independent organization focused on criminal justicein the Netherlands. Among its activities, it plays an advisory and supervisory role during
court sessions and detention of convicted terrorists as well as individuals suspected ofterrorism. Team TER (Terrorism, Extremism and Radicalization) is a unit embedded in the
Dutch Probation Service and is mandated with supporting the rehabilitation andreintegration process of terrorist offenders; providing plans for after-care, upon offenders’release and; gather evidence-based practices to inform future programmes. Its statedoverarching goal, according to the study, is reducing likelihood of recidivism to Terrorism.
Team TER was established based on a number of assumptions:-

It was deemed as the best entity to focus on effective rehabilitation and reintegration.

Mattei & Zeiger, Evaluate your CVE Results: Projecting your impact (2018). Available at<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/File-16720189339.pdf>.
5
Der Heide & Schuurman: Reintegrating Terrorists in the Netherlands, Evaluating the Dutch Approach(2018)
4- 222 - 222 --De-radicalization (narrative approach) was considered the best approach to reach abehavioural change (disengagement), in recipients.

-

The programmes were based on an approach of incentives and prohibitions andfocused on a variety of topics to include theological counselling and vocational
training.

The study highlights that out of 189 clients between 2012 and 2018, only 8 returnedback to terrorism. This corresponds to 4.2 per cent terrorism recidivism compared to thegeneral Dutch rate of 45.3 per cent for mainstream inmates (2013). 6 However, no
information is available on whether the individuals graduating from the programme were
fully reinserted and reintegrated into society or were still at the fringes of society. The lackof this information raises a question on whether the programme could be still considered
fully successful. In addition, the study highlights that competition with other entities andmunicipalities was also a serious challenge, especially at the beginning of Team TER’s
activities. Lack of information-sharing protocols and coordination was in fact one of theissues highlighted in the evaluation study. 7 This leads to questioning the initial assumption
set by Team TER of being the natural entity to be in charge of rehabilitation andreintegration in the first place.
By applying MASAR’s framework, the presentation aimed to demonstrate that it ispossible to proactively develop an effective system that anticipates challenges and needs indesigning and evaluating the programme. Notably, MASAR offers assistance topolicymakers and programme designers in developing an effective structure that is
conducive to better evaluations and capturing of results.
For instance, MASAR’s STEP 1 (Evaluating the Context) provides a number of guiding
questions that help the app users to reflect about the nature of the programme and theexisting stakeholders involved in the same field. Through this step, it is possible todetermine whether there are other competing organizations working on the subject and tobetter define the nature of the programme. This is key to also define what “success” meansin the programme. As a matter of fact, several practitioners working in Team TER
highlighted that one shortcoming was the lack of consensus on what can be defined as
success. Was success defined as graduating the programme and being disengaged fromviolence or was success defined as full reinsertion and reintegration into society? 8
Furthermore this step also allows to better define and describe the recipients of the
programme. Profiling recipients would have the advantage to see whether a narrative
approach (deradicalization) could actually be the relevant rehabilitative approach, as inseveral cases ideology was not the preeminent reason for individuals to join terrorist groups.
STEP 2 guides the users to develop a theory of change which links the underlying
assumptions gathered in STEP 1 and articulate them in a concise statement that maps thelogical flow of inputs, activities, outcomes and projected impact. In its simplest form, a
ToC Statement can be expressed through an “IF”…. “THEN”…. “BECAUSE” statement. 9

Ibid.
Ibid.
8
Ibid.
9
Mattei & Zeiger, Evaluate your CVE Results: Projecting your impact (2018). Available at<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/File-16720189339.pdf>.
67- 223 - 223 -This step is important as it helps the user to define the overarching vision of the
programme and better determine what success means. It also includes the specificconditions that need to happen to ensure the programme is effective. The definitions ofthese conditions are crucial as these are often the externalities that impede the success ofprogrammes. For instance, one necessary condition to ensure effectiveness of a programmeis that clients need to be willing to participate and/or that staff is appropriately andadequately trained. Without these requirements/conditions satisfied, the programme would
not be successful. It is therefore important that the ToC is rooted in a robust understandingof the context, resources and potential externalities. In the case of Team TER, a basic ToC
could be defined as follows:
IF Coordination mechanisms are put in place to share information with Team TER
AND Practitioners are provided with adequate and continuous training andsupport to ensure full capacity
AND Approaches implemented are suited to the individual’s needs
AND Clients are willing to accept the intervention
AND Resources are allocated to ensure full monitoring upon release
THEN Clients will increase their capacity and opportunity to live a functional,
fulfilling pro-social life and resist joining terrorist groups
BECAUSE Clients will be equipped with, skills, tools and tailored alternatives tolive a pro-social life and resist recidivism;
In other words, MASAR guides the user to write the ToC statement and help users
reflect on the different conditions and externalities that are required to happen to see change
in the recipients (i.e. violent extremist offenders). Some of these conditions can be managed
by programme designers and implementers, while others are externalities that may not be
predicted. Nonetheless, the latter are still important to be identified to ensure that mitigation
strategies and alternatives can be developed.
After defining the ToC statement, STEP 3 guides the user in unpacking the vision of
the programme into overarching goals, sub-goals and activities. MASAR also helps theuser to frame the goal in a positive manner. For example, Team TER’s initial objective“Reducing the likelihood of terrorism” could be redefined as “Increasing Clients’ capacityand opportunity to live a functional life and resist joining terrorist groups”. Reframing thegoal has the advantage to ensure a facilitated evaluation of the progress, as it is much easier
to measure progress towards an increase, rather than measuring reductions. It also
strengthens the definition of success, defining it as full reintegration into society. This
STEP also guides in breaking down ambitious and broad goals into sub-goals that are moremeasurable and manageable.
In MASAR, the broad goal can be in fact broken down into:
1) Clients’ increased openness towards the programme;
2) Clients’ progress towards pro-social ambitions and activities;3) Clients’ increased skills competencies to access alternatives in society.
Defining sub-goals has the potential to ensure a better monitoring of the violent
extremist offenders’ progress in the rehabilitation and reintegration programme. In turn,- 224 - 224 -these sub-objectives need to be mapped to specific activities (i.e. input) that can ensure
concrete rehabilitation and reintegration.
STEP 4 and STEP 5 help the user identify the relevant indicators mapped to each subgoal. Indicators are distinguished between qualitative indicators and quantitative indicators.
Qualitative indicators are meant to capture the qualitative change in attitudes andbehaviours, and quantitative indicators are meant to capture the output, meaning any
change that can be measured numerically. Both types of indicators need to be mapped tothe sub-goals. In other words, they need to be an expression of the progress towards the
sub-goals and in turn, the overarching goal of the programme. MASAR also includes anindicators’ generator function that allows the user to browse different types of indicators
depending on the sub-goal. While this function does not automatically select the bestindicators, it still helps the user reflect and identify the best indicator to capture positivechanges and progress. This function can be very useful in those cases where evaluation
specialists are not available in organizations.
In the case of Team TER, some of the indicators suggested by MASAR included:
Sub-goal 1: Clients’ increased openness towards the programme• Indicator: Number of times the client proactively communicates, shows interest in
participating in the activities
Sub-goal 2: Clients’ progress towards pro-social ambitions and activities• Indicator: Existing/number of activities he/she participates in (personalcommitment)• Indicator: Existing/number of pro-social interests, ambitions identified andmobilized.
Sub-goal 3: Clients’ increased skills competencies to access alternatives in society.
• Indicator: Quality and Number of activities performed in the community• Indicator: Quality employment opportunities after release• Indicator: Quality and Number of pro-social activities after release.
As mentioned, STEP 5 helps the app user to select the appropriate collection methods
to capture the above-mentioned indicators. Direct observation, structured professional
judgment, needs assessment, information sharing protocols across agencies, interviews andquestionnaires are all valid collection methods that can help capture the relevant indicatorsof progress.
STEP 6 introduces a topic that is quite crucial for MM&E. This STEP is actually anunderlying principle encompassing the whole evaluation and guides the user to reflect
about the existing resources and limitations to carry out and complete the vision of the
programme. In particular, the app helps the user reflect on:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Available funding
Existing staff
Available facilities
Technical capabilities and materials
Timelines- 225 - 225 -This STEP helps to bridge the gap between the reality of the programme
implementation and the overarching vision behind it. Notably, if programme implementersrecognize any challenges or gaps in any of the above-mentioned categories, the best courseof action would be to reframe the overarching goal or the sub-goals, as they may be too
ambitious, or select different indicators and collection methods.
STEP 7 AND STEP 8 helps the user to reflect on the collected indicators and distinguishthem into results. Notably:•

Outputs are measurable products (usually quantitative) of a programme’s activities
or services. (e.g. number of clients “graduating” from the programme).

•

Outcomes are intended qualitative results of programme activities or services (e.g.
number of clients who enhanced their openness to different worldviews, showedinterest and commitment towards pro-social activities.)•

Impact refers to the overall vision of the programme which in this case is clients’increased capacity and opportunity to live a functional life and resist joining
terrorist groups. As actual impact is a long-term change in recipients, and oftentimes
difficult to capture in the scope of the programme implementation, MASAR
suggests that by successfully measuring intended outputs and outcomes, it can bepresumed that violent extremist offenders will be successfully reintegrated andrehabilitated, in the long-term. This is also linked with the ToC statement previously
defined in STEP 2. Measuring “impact” of rehabilitation and reintegration
programmes can require time and additional resources that are not always available
and often outside the legal scope of the programme itself. MASAR can help project
the long-term impact by referring back to the ToC and to the requirements andconditions needed to occur, to ensure the vision is satisfied. By utilizing outcomes
and outputs as proxy indicators of impact, MASAR offers a contribution to thepressing challenging of measuring the long-term impact of rehabilitation andreintegration programmes.

In conclusion, MASAR is a technological resource that can facilitate the developmentof an MM&E framework and build the vision of the programme. By doing so, evaluation
is proactively embedded in programme design. MASAR has been developed by Hedayah,
the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) and 21Unicorns through the allocations of funds
provided by the Governments of Canada, Spain, the United Kingdom and Australia. In
Summer 2020, MASAR was updated with the inclusion of additional case studies, basic
features in the Arabic language and inclusion of an indicator’s generator. For more
information, please visit hedayahcenter.org.

- 226 - 226 -BIBLIOGRAPHY AND LIST OF REFERENCES
Bjørgo, T. (2009). Processes of disengagement from violent groups of the extreme right. In
T. Bjørgo & J. Horgan (Eds.), Leaving terrorism behind: disengagement frompolitical violence (pp. 30-48). London / New York: Routledge.
Burke, L., & Collett, S. (2014). Delivering rehabilitation: the politics, governance andcontrol of probation. London: Routledge
Der Heide & Schuurman: Reintegrating Terrorists in the Netherlands, Evaluating the Dutch
Approach (2018)
Horgan, J. (2009). Walking away from terrorism: accounts of disengagement from radical
and extremist movements. New York: Routledge.
Koehler, D. (2017). How and why we should take deradicalization seriously. Nature
Human Behaviour, 1. 0095. doi:10.1038/s41562-017-0095
Mattei & Zeiger, Evaluate your CVE Results: Projecting your impact (2018). Available at<https://www.hedayahcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/File16720189339.pdf>.
Soufan, A., Fallon, M., Freedman, D., Borum, R., Horgan, J., Gelles, M., . . . McManus, B.
(2010). Risk reduction for countering violent extremism: explorative review by theinternational resource center for countering violent extremism. Retrieved from<http://www.soufangroup.com/risk-reduction-for-countering-violent-extremism>.
Silke, A., & Veldhuis, T. (2017). Countering violent extremism in prisons: a review of key
recent research and critical research gaps. Perspectives on Terrorism, 11(5), 2-11

- 227 - 227 -- 228 - 228 -WORKSHOP REPORT

A/CONF.234/L.4

United Nations

Fourteenth
United Nations Congress
on Crime Prevention andCriminal JusticeDistr.: Limited
9 March 2021
Original: English

Kyoto, Japan, 7–12 March 2021

Agenda item 4Integrated approaches to challenges facing thecriminal justice system
1.
Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders, which is part of the United Nations crime
prevention and criminal justice programme network, assisted the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) in the preparation andorganization of the workshop. The Committee had before it thefollowing documents:(a) Background paper prepared by the Secretariat for theworkshop on reducing reoffending: identifying risks and developing
solutions (A/CONF.234/9);(b) Working paper prepared by the Secretariat on developments
regarding crime prevention and criminal justice as a result of thecoronavirus
disease(COVID-19) pandemic (A/CONF.234/15);(c) Discussion(A/CONF.234/PM.1);

guide

for

the

Fourteenth

Congress(d) Reports of the regional preparatory meetings for the
Fourteenth
Congress(A/CONF.234/RPM.1/1,
A/CONF.234/RPM.2/1,
A/CONF.234/RPM.3/1,
A/CONF.234/RPM.4/1
and
A/CONF.234/RPM.5/1).
2.
At the 1st meeting of Committee II, on 8 March, the Chair of theCommittee opened the workshop. Opening remarks were delivered by
Kittipong Kittayarak of the Thailand Institute of Justice. The workshop
was moderated by Seto Takeshi, Director of the Asia and Far East
Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.
The keynote address was delivered by Fergus McNeill of the Universityof Glasgow, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Presentations were made by the following panellists: Vera Tkachenko,
UNODC; Mariana Martin, Namibian Correctional Service; Emiliano
Blanco, Latin America Chapter of the International Corrections andPrisons Association; and Heidi Bottolfs, Directorate for Correctional
Services, Norway. Statements were made by the representatives of- 229 -

- 229 -

Morocco, Mexico and the Philippines. Statements were also made by
the observers for the Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and the International Federationof Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture.
3.
At the 2nd meeting of Committee II, on 8 March, the keynote
address for the workshop was delivered by the Chair of the Committee.
Presentations were made by the following panellists: Jennifer Oades,
Parole Board of Canada; Jana Špero, Ministry of Justice and Public
Administration of Croatia; Teresia Matheka, High Court of Kenya; andManuel Co, Parole and Probation Administration of the Philippines.
Statements were made by the representatives of Japan, Honduras,
France, the Philippines and Italy.
4.
At the 3rd meeting of Committee II, on 9 March, presentations
were made by the following panellists: Imafuku Shoji, Ministry ofJustice of Japan; Sodiqa Williams, Safer Foundation; Olivia Rope,
Penal Reform International; Ali Reunanen, Criminals Return into
Society (KRIS); and Maria Cristina Mattei, Hedayah. Statements weremade by the representatives of Canada, Japan, the United States ofAmerica and China.
Chair’s summary5.
During the opening remarks, the importance of employing aholistic approach to reducing reoffending, including through multistakeholder cooperation, was stressed. The keynote speaker, in his
opening of the first panel discussion, on creating rehabilitative prison
environments, emphasized the principle of proportionality that should
guide interventions aimed at the personal, judicial, moral and social
rehabilitation of offenders. He recalled the importance of evaluatinginterventions, including the offenders’ perspectives of them, with theaim of identifying barriers to reintegration. It was noted that the mostvulnerable populations suffered the most as a result of the State’s failure
to prevent reoffending. He concluded with the suggestion that criminal
justice systems should be assessed by their ability to enable social
reintegration.
6.
The first panellist highlighted the alarming rates of prison
overcrowding in the world, identified measures that contributed tocreating rehabilitative prison environments and shared the experiencesof Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The second panellist shared the
Namibian experience in applying the “risk-need-responsivity” model,
which demonstrated potential for reducing reoffending. The third
panellist discussed corruption in prisons as a major obstacle torehabilitation efforts and the experience of Argentina in reducing
corruption and the risk of corruption in prisons, including through theenhancement of the status of prison staff and integrity training. The
fourth panellist shared the Norwegian experience in adopting the“principle of normality” in prison administration, by promoting
continuity of service and community participation, and other efforts that
increased the quality of life of prisoners.
7.
During the discussion, several speakers highlighted theimportance of establishing legislation and using non-custodial measures,combined with efforts to raise awareness of the benefits of suchmeasures among criminal justice practitioners and the wider public.
Some speakers shared national examples of rehabilitation programmes
in prisons and described the health, educational and vocational training
components of those programmes. One speaker noted that Governments- 230 -

- 230 -

must keep detailed statistics in order to measure and monitor
reoffending.
8.
The second panel discussion, on community-based approaches
that support desistance, began with a keynote speech in which it wasemphasized that community-based approaches were less costly andoften more effective than imprisonment in supporting desistance. It wasnoted that community-based approaches could strengthen
implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, for example,
through improved access to social services, education, employment andreduced social inequality.
9.
During the first presentation, the use of community-based
approaches to reduce reoffending in Canada was shared, and thefundamental importance of effective partnerships within and outside thecriminal justice system was stressed. The role of the parole board in
Canada in reviewing the conditional release of offenders was also
outlined. The second presentation covered the Croatian experience increating a professional probation system, which had significantly
increased the use of non-custodial measures and reduced the prison
population since its establishment in 2009. The promotion of theconcept, benefits and results of probation were mentioned as critical toits expanded use. In the third presentation, the panel heard about the
judiciary-driven multi-agency approach in Kenya in cases involving
children, which had led to more children benefiting from non-custodial
measures and to reduced pretrial detention, increased provision ofcounselling and successful diversion from the criminal justice system.
The focus of the fourth presentation was the barangay (village) justicesystem of the Philippines, under which the smallest unit of local
government facilitated access to justice through restorative justice.
Information was also shared on the parole and probation administrationin that country.
10. During the discussion, many speakers highlighted that having awide range of community-based approaches was effective inrehabilitating and reintegrating offenders. One speaker noted theefficacy of using community probation volunteers as a measure to
involve the community and mobilize its resources in rehabilitating
offenders. One speaker stressed the need to provide systemic support
for children in conflict with the law, with a strong emphasis on
prevention. Speakers stressed that providing fair and effective
opportunities for rehabilitation to former offenders was the mosteffective way of reducing reoffending and promoting public safety.
11. The third panel discussion, on a multifaceted approach to ensure
continuous support and services for the rehabilitation and reintegrationof offenders, began with a presentation on the Japanese experience inpreventing reoffending through identifying and meeting diverse needs
for rehabilitation, including housing, employment and social welfare.
The second presentation covered the disproportionate impact ofcriminal justice policies on minority communities and highlighted theneed for government and private investment in effective rehabilitation
and reintegration programmes. The third presentation was focused on agender-sensitive approach to rehabilitation, covering identified needs,
common barriers and appropriate services for rehabilitating women in
prisons. In the fourth presentation, the importance of providing support
that met the individual needs of the offender, including by
understanding the offender’s history and background, was highlighted.
The role of civil society in that effort was also highlighted. The fifth
presentation featured the panellist organization’s step-by-step- 231 -

- 231 -

monitoring and evaluation framework, called masar (“pathway” inArabic), designed to help policymakers and practitioners design
effective programmes for rehabilitation and reintegration.
12. During the discussion, several speakers shared their national
experiences and reiterated the importance of employing a multistakeholder approach in reducing reoffending. It was noted thatrehabilitation programmes should provide support that met individual
needs, and that housing and employment opportunities were often themost critical needs of former offenders. One speaker noted theimportance of collecting and maintaining detailed statistics onreoffending rates so as to inform the development of criminal justicepolicies. Another speaker stressed the importance of funding forcommunity-based programmes that supported reintegration.
13. The Chair recalled that reducing reoffending was critical tobuilding inclusive, sustainable societies as envisaged in the 2030
Agenda for Sustainable Development. He emphasized that criminal
justice interventions should be in line with the principle of the least
restrictive sanction and the principle of proportionality, with the aim of
rehabilitating offenders in the community whenever possible, and that
programmes to reduce reoffending needed to be multifaceted, involve
all relevant stakeholders and ensure the necessary continuity of carewithin rehabilitative environments. In that context, he invited
participants to consider the following points raised during thediscussions:(a) With a view to reducing reoffending, Member States should
undertake to collect relevant statistics, identify the root causes ofoffending and reoffending, including the impact of poverty,
unemployment, homelessness, discrimination and health – in particularmental health – issues, evaluate social reintegration approaches, andshare data, research and evaluation outcomes nationally andinternationally;(b) Member States are encouraged to develop effective
interventions for the rehabilitation and social reintegration of offenders,
recognizing that this is crucial to public safety and social inclusiveness,
applying a realistic, step-by-step approach that considers theavailability of resources and the feasibility of steps to be taken within acertain time frame, refers to experiences in other jurisdictions andexplores the cost-effective use of information technology;(c) Member States are also encouraged to apply a multistakeholder approach towards the social reintegration of offenders,involving the public sector at both the State and local levels, the private
sector, faith-based organizations, academia, volunteers and community
members. Member States should seek to promote public-public andpublic-private partnerships, to ensure continuity of support and to help
offenders to secure employment and housing and access to legal, socialand medical services, as well as educational opportunities andvocational training;(d) Acknowledging that public understanding and cooperation
are key elements of the reintegration of offenders into society, Member
States are invited to undertake awareness-raising activities directed at
the general public, the private sector, non-governmental organizations,
volunteers, employers and the family members of offenders to increase
understanding of the impact of both imprisonment and non-custodial
measures on victims, on the social reintegration of offenders and on- 232 -

- 232 -

public safety, and elicit public support for the community reintegrationof offenders;(e) Member States are invited to recognize the effectiveness ofrehabilitative community-based interventions and ensure that amandated, sufficiently resourced and adequately staffed public entity,
such as a dedicated probation service, is in place to manage, supervise
and support offenders in the community. Member States are also invited
to take inspiration from successful experiences with the involvement ofcommunity volunteers who support the reintegration of offenders;(f) Member States are encouraged to implement penal responses
guided by the principle of proportionality and assessed by their ability
to enable the reintegration of offenders; use imprisonment as a lastresort, recognizing that the prison environment is generally lessconducive to rehabilitation and social reintegration than communitybased measures; make use of an adequate and innovative array of noncustodial measures as alternatives to imprisonment and to pretrial
detention, building on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) and the United Nations
Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial
Measures for Women Offenders (the Bangkok Rules); and consider theuse of gender-responsive, child-friendly and human rights-compliant
restorative justice interventions, in view of their potential benefits forvictims, their value for the community affected by crime and theirpositive impact on the social reintegration of offenders;(g) Member States are invited to establish rehabilitative prison
environments, in line with the Nelson Mandela Rules and the Bangkok
Rules, by ensuring that prisoners are treated fairly, with the respect due
to their inherent dignity as human beings, and supported in theirpersonal, judicial, moral and social rehabilitation; ensuring that
prisoners’ lives in prison reflect life in the community; ensuring proper
prison administration and case management and addressing
overcrowding, poor prison conditions, violence in prisons andcorruption; providing interventions, treatment programmes, education,
vocational training and work that are responsive to each individual’s
specific risks and needs; enabling offenders to maintain theircommunity and family ties; and ensuring the recruitment of prison staff
who display an attitude supportive to the rehabilitation of offenders andinvesting in multidisciplinary training for staff;(h) Member States are encouraged to tailor interventions andtreatment to the needs of each offender, in particular for those withspecific needs, such as young people, the elderly, persons withdisabilities, the poor and marginalized groups, and eliminate barriers tosocial reintegration;(i) Member States are also encouraged to develop andimplement specific gender-responsive rehabilitation and reintegration
policies and programmes in line with the Bangkok Rules, based on
research on specific barriers faced by women in their rehabilitation,such as stigmatization, and on existing good practices;(j) In dealing with alleged offenders who are children, Member
States are further encouraged to widen the use of diversion from judicial
proceedings
andnon-custodial measures and to ensure that deprivation of liberty is used
as a measure of last resort and that any action taken promotes therehabilitation and social reintegration of the child. Multisectoral- 233 -

- 233 -

cooperation was identified as a key requirement for achieving thoseobjectives;(k) Member States are encouraged to share information on
promising practices and consider the development, under the auspicesof the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice and withthe support of UNODC, of model strategies to reduce reoffending thatreflect, among others, the good practices discussed during theworkshop;(l) Member States are also encouraged to support capacitybuilding efforts for criminal justice practitioners aimed at reducing
reoffending and are invited to consider seeking technical assistancefrom UNODC, the United Nations crime prevention and criminal justiceprogramme network, other international and regional organizations andrelevant non-governmental stakeholders.

- 234 -

- 234 -

ANNEX

List of Participants (Chair, Scientific Moderator, Speakers and Panellists)***

Photographs- 235 - 235 -- 236 - 236 -List of Participants (Chair, Scientific Moderator, Speakers and Panellists)
Chair
Dr. Matti Joutsen

Opening Remarks
Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak

Scientific Moderator
Mr. SETO Takeshi

Special Advisor
Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ)
Bangkok, Thailand
Former Executive Director
Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ)
Bangkok, Thailand
Director
United Nations Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime and theTreatment of Offenders (UNAFEI)Tokyo, JapanPANEL I
Keynote Address
Dr. Fergus McNeill

UNODC
Ms. Vera Tkachenko

Namibia
Ms. Mariana Martin

Professor
University of Glasgow
Glasgow, United Kingdom
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Officer
Justice Section
Division for Operation
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime(UNODC)
Vienna, Austria
Deputy Commissioner-General:
Rehabilitation and Reintegration
Namibian Correctional Service
Ministry of Home Affairs, Immigration,
Safety & Security
Windhoek, Namibia- 237 - 237 -Argentina
Dr. Emiliano Blanco

NorwayMs. Heidi Bottolfs

PresidentInternational Corrections and Prisons
Association (ICPA) Latin America(Former National Director of the Federal
Prison Service of Argentina)
Deputy Director General
Directorate of Correctional Service
Lillestrøm, Norway

PANEL II
Keynote Address
Dr. Matti Joutsen

CanadaMs. Jennifer Oades

Croatia
Ms. Jana Špero

Kenya
Hon. Lady Justice Teresia Matheka

Philippines
Dr. Manuel Golloso Co

Special Advisor
Thailand Institute of Justice
Bangkok, Thailand
Chairperson
Parole Board of Canada
Ottawa, Canada
Assistant Minister
Prison System and Probation of the
Republic of Croatia
Zagreb, Croatia
JudgeHigh Court of Kenya
Nakuru Law Courts
Nakuru, Kenya
Former Administrator
Parole and Probation Administration of thePhilippines
Manila, Philippines- 238 - 238 -PANEL III
Japan
Mr. IMAFUKU Shoji

Safer Foundation
Ms. Sodiqa Williams

PRI
Ms. Olivia RopeKRIS
Mr. Ali Reunanen

HedayahMs. Maria Cristina Mattei

Director-General
Rehabilitation Bureau
Ministry of JusticeTokyo, Japan
General Counsel and Vice President ofExternal Affairs
Safer Foundation
Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
Executive Director
Penal Reform International (PRI)
London, United Kingdom
Secretary General
Criminals Return into Society (KRIS)Stockholm, Sweden
Program Manager
HedayahAbu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates- 239 - 239 -- 240 - 240 -PHOTOGRAPHSThe Congress Workshop

Opening by Dr. Matti Joutsen
Chair of Committee II- 241 - 241 -Opening Remarks by Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak

Keynote Address by Dr. Fergus McNeill- 242 - 242 -