GROUP 2
EFFECTIVE MODELS FOR MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION IN
COMMUNITY BASED-TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
Chairperson:
Co-Chairperson:
Rapporteur:
Co-Rapporteur:
Members:

Mr. Zachary SITBAN
Mr. MIZUKAMI Taihei
Ms. Grace Achieng OJUNGA
Mr. Nilton Joaquim de OLIVEIRA JUNIOR
Ms. Sumalee MADAM
Mr. NAKAMURA Hideo
Mr. Seraphin Ramazani NYEMBO
Professor AKASHI Fumiko

Adviser:(Papua New Guinea)(Japan)(Kenya)(Brazil)(Thailand)(Japan)(D.R. Congo)(Japan)I. INTRODUCTION
On the 22nd day of January 2016, group two commenced its workshop. The group elected by consensus,
Mr. Zachary SITBAN as the Chairperson, Mr. MIZUKAMI Taihei as its Co-Chairperson, Ms. Grace
Achieng OJUNGA as its Rapporteur, and Mr. Nilton Joaquim de OLIVEIRA JUNIOR as Co-Rapporteur.
The Group was assigned to discuss the theme of: “Effective Models for Multi-Agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders”.

II. SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION
The group reached a consensus that the best models to adapt to multi-agency cooperation in the community-based treatment of offenders should embrace a combination of evidence-based practices and empirically proven and supported treatments. The models must focus on “the best practices” and “what works”.
Evidence-based practices evolve in a continuum between practice and research. They also form a foundation of intervention programmes designed to reduce recidivism. From the presentations of participants in
the 162nd International Senior Seminar on Multi-Agency Cooperation in Community-based Treatment of
Offenders, there is a consensus that, no single community-based programme can significantly reduce recidivism on its own because many different factors affect it, hence the need to form a synergy and engage
multi-agency cooperation in the community-based treatment of offenders.
A. Types of Offenders Who Benefit from Multi-Agency Cooperation
1. Assessment of Offenders
The model chosen for the assessment of these offenders is the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model which has
three basic principles in the assessment of the offender.1 The Risk Principle requires the matching of themulti-agency programme intensity with the offender’s risk of reoffending. The Need Principle requires
focusing the interventions on those factors that are directly related to offender’s behaviour. These are thecriminogenic risk factors that are dynamic. The Responsivity Principle requires that the service provider
delivers interventions in a manner that matches the individual learning styles and needs of the offender.
For assessment of the offender, we can adopt the popularly referred to “straight eight” model used to
identify the criminogenic risk factors and gather offender information including:➢Criminal Record;➢

Antisocial personality;➢

Antisocial attitudes, beliefs and values;

1 Andrews, D.A. & Bonta, J. (2006-07). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Retrieved

from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/risk_need_200706-eng.aspx 25 Jan. 2016.

124

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR➢

Antisocial associates;➢

Dysfunctional families;➢

Substance abuse;➢

Poor performance in school or at work / lack of education;➢

Lack of involvement in leisure activities or satisfaction in pro-social recreation.

In the assessment, all information regarding the offender’s age, social background, skills, victim impact
statement if any, and their place of residence after release from penal institution or on committal to a noncustodial sentence must be clearly spelled out.
2. Types of Offenders and Offences
The common types of offenders who should benefit from multi-agency cooperation in community-based
treatment of offenders are those who do not pose risk or danger to the public. This approach follows
Section 3.2 of the Tokyo Rules, which requires that “the selection of a non-custodial measure shall be basedon an assessment of established criteria in respect of both the nature and gravity of the offence and thepersonality, background of the offender, the purposes of sentencing and the rights of victims”. There is,however, an emerging trend where reformed serious offenders, drug offenders and sexual offenders arebeing given a second chance in community re-entry, like in the case of Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements in the United Kingdom. The group therefore recommends that the model of individualizationof sentences should be encouraged.
a) Petty offenders charged with misdemeanours should be considered for multi-agency cooperation incommunity-based treatment of offenders;b) Youthful offenders;c) Elderly offenders;d) Vulnerable Women;e) The physically challenged;f) The mentally handicapped;g) The current emerging trends are that offenders previously incarcerated for serious sexual and drug
offences are given a second chance for re-entry in the community.
B. Ideal Structure of Multi-agency Cooperation
There are a variety of non-governmental organizations such as non-profit organizations, privatecompanies, self-help groups and volunteers, and they have different objectives, roles and responsibilities. In
addition, multi-agency cooperation exists where there is complementary and overlapping provision ofservices to the offender by both the government and the non-governmental organizations. Thus, it isimportant to distinguish between multi-agency cooperation and services that are commercially outsourced
by government from the onset, and to distinguish between a variety of agencies and individuals according
to the level of other agencies. 2
1. Types of Agenciesa) Cooperative employers (Japan) where an arrangement for employment is made for offenders before
their release;
2 Robert Canton 2016, Observation by professor in Criminal Justice, De Montfort University Leicester, UK in the 162nd

Senior Seminar on Multi-agency Cooperation in Treatment of Non-Custodial Offenders.

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99b) Special adjustment needs / social welfare agencies for social support to the elderly;c) Halfway houses / homeless;d) Labour organizations for skills / vocational training;e) Hospitals for the mentally ill;f) Special schools for difficult children;g) Alcoholic self-help groups, e.g., “AA”;h) Community Settlement Support Centres;i) Community Justice Centres;j) Local government.
2. Challenges of Multi-Agency Cooperationa) There is generally no clear definition distinguishing between multi-agency and inter-agency cooperation, which are occasionally assumed to be one and the same thing;b) The group reached a consensus that there is generally a lack of information and communication
among service providers on the exact services offered by individual organizations;c) Lack of proper coordination and cooperation among organizations is a major challenge; hence it is
not clear as to who provides specific services. Many agencies fail to provide services in an accessible manner and leave out potential clients. Lack of proper coordination can also cause duplication ofservices because agencies do not know what services others provide;d) There is poor communication among agencies. Information sharing through multi-agency cooperation is complicated. There are times when we have to preserve specific information due to individual
fundamental rights. Occasionally this causes a gap between who should be responsible for an
offender’s health and other information not provided;e) The group observed that generally there is a lack of expert knowledge to solve complex problems
among the service providers within multi-agency cooperation. Sometimes people do not know whereto get expert advice. Sometimes other agencies also feel that the other is not practicing as it should;f) 		 Some organizations emphasize profit over provision of service. In these types of organizations,
resources are diverted for purposes other than assisting offenders as expected;g) In some countries, there is unwarranted competition among agencies. Sometimes they experience
sectionalism. As an example, penal institutions in Japan have experienced an increase of elderly andmentally handicapped offenders. In a way, these institutions are required to operate similar tonursing homes. Some penal institutions’ staff members think that it is strange that they should treat
elderly or handicapped offenders in penal institutions instead of providing welfare facilities;h) In practice there are different organizational cultures, where each agency has different objectives
and key performance indicators about multi-agency cooperation. Differences between two or moreorganizations hinder service delivery;i) 		 Bureaucracy causes difficulty in accessing the management of certain organizations to obtain
service;j) 		 In most countries there are very few organizations that can provide services to offenders within the126162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
community compared to people who require help;k) In some developing countries there is a lack of political goodwill to encourage multi-agency cooperation in treatment of non-custodial offenders since priorities are set elsewhere.
3. Solutions to Multi-Agency Cooperationa) Multi-agency and inter-agency cooperation should be seen as forming interplay between the twosince they provide complementary and overlapping services. The focus should remain on reintegration and provision of services to parolees and non-custodial or ex-offenders. According to professor
Robert Canton (2016), “rather than seeing just two options of (multi- or inter-agency), it has beensuggested that these are better seen as ends of a continuum and that there are other models thatsit somewhere in between”3 .
b) A communication model should be formed in all jurisdictions to resolve complicated communication
problems. A definite format of what kind of information should be shared between each agency andwhat cannot be shared due to legal issues must be designed. All agencies must recognize that they
have a role to play in relation to each other in so far as reintegrating offenders within thecommunity is concerned. Communication must therefore be streamlined. The communication may
be one-way or two-way and involve full or partial disclosure of information for the benefit of theoffender;c) A coordinated management information system of data should be developed to avoid duplication ofservices. Each section of related agencies should share the database;d) A cooperation model should be formed in all jurisdictions where agencies continue to maintainseparate boundaries and identities, but agree to work on a mutually defined problems. This may
involve joint action, or it may involve an agency consenting to another taking the initiative to act;e) A coordination model should be formed in all jurisdictions where agencies must work together in asystematic way. Coordinated training should be done such that there can be a positive response
among competing agencies. Agencies can maintain their defined boundaries but may pool resources
to tackle mutually agreed problems;f) 		 To resolve problems of sectionalism among agencies, a federation model should be formed. In thismodel, agencies continue to retain their organizational distinctiveness but also share some central
focus. Solutions such as personnel rotation between correctional bureaus and rehabilitation sections
should be encouraged to widen officers’ concepts and visions of offender rehabilitation. If necessary,agency site visits should be made to understand the circumstances in which each organization is
operating. Site visits can also be made for face-to-face networking. The agencies should finallyrealize that they actually operate integrated services;g) Consultative models should be established, where representatives of relevant agencies converge anddiscuss matters such as multi-agency cooperation. Relevant agencies may hold conferences forreviewing an offender’s treatment before or after release. Organizations should also be able to refercases to other organizations according to their specialty;h) Organizations must employ people with expert knowledge to undertake specific services. Emphasisshould be placed on a series of staff training of correctional and probation officers. Continuous onthe-job training, pre-promotion training and testing of officers to enhance knowledge and skills must
be undertaken. Organizations should also embrace models of both “learning organizations” and “organization learning” to keep abreast of information on treatment of offenders;i) 		 Encourage creation of more Non-Governmental Organizations for a wider coverage of service
provision for offenders. Proper registration of these agencies should be done within the framework
3 Ibid.

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
and the purpose of registration;j) 		 For the purpose of smooth reintegration of offenders into society we should put emphasis on
providing educational programmes to offenders, as well as opportunities to work in prison;k) National Professional Standards should be adopted to include international standards and norms
such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the Tokyo Rules;l) 		 The merger model should be developed among agencies. In this model agencies become indistinguishable from one another in working on a mutually defined problem, and they form a collective
resource pool (Liddle and Gelsthorpe 1994) 4 . For example, this may occur where there are two or
more types of support for offenders: the rehabilitation money for offenders discharged from prison
and amount of support money provided temporarily. Some offenders keep receiving rehabilitation
money even after they are stable. There should be a merger for one organization to provide rehabilitation money to avoid a situation where those who have been successfully rehabilitated continue
receiving funds.
4. Legislation
The current legislation situation is different from country to country. Some countries have legislation
establishing legal frameworks for partnerships between government and civil society organizations in amutually supportive way. Other countries do not have specific legislation governing NGOs.
5. Current Situationa. Japan:Legislation on NGOs and individuals in the private sector dealing with offenders is embedded in the
Offenders Rehabilitation Act No 88 of June 15, 2007. Article 2(1), (2), (3) and 30 empowers theJapanese government to promote activities which contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders to be
carried out by organizations or individuals in the private sector. The government shall coordinate
and cooperate with such persons and shall endeavour to deepen the understanding of the generalpublic and attain their cooperation for the rehabilitation.
Local governments may, considering that the activities set forth in the preceding paragraph contribute to improving the safety of the local community and the welfare of residents, provide necessary
cooperation for such activities. The citizens shall endeavour to contribute, according to their positionand capability, in order to achieve the purpose of rehabilitation.
The director of a probation office may request public agencies, schools, hospitals, organizations
relating to public health and welfare, and other persons to provide necessary assistance and cooperation for the purpose of performing the affairs under its jurisdiction.
b. Brazil:
The Brazilian Law Nº 13.019/2014 establishes the legal framework for partnerships between government and civil society organizations in a mutually supportive basis for the attainment of public
and mutual interest. For these NGOs to rehabilitate or assist in re-entry employment of offenders,
they need to participate in a selection process through public hearings. They must have, at least,
three years of existence before they can enter into partnerships with the government, and must
demonstrate previous experience in the area where they intend to act.
c. Kenya:
In Kenya, there is the NGOs Coordination Act no 19/1990, which allows for the facilitation and coordination of all national and international Non-Governmental Organizations operating in Kenya.
This includes NGOs dealing with rehabilitation and re-entry programmes for offenders. There is an
NGOs Board which advises the Government on the activities of the Non-Governmental Organiza4 Liddle or Gelsthorpe – “Inter-Agency Crime Prevention: Organizing local delivery, Home Office Crime Prevention Unit

Paper 52. London: Home Office.

128

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
tions and their role in development within Kenya. They also provide policy guidelines to the NonGovernmental Organizations for harmonizing their activities to the national development plan for
Kenya.
d. Thailand:
In Thailand there is no specific legislation governing the registration of non-governmental organizations. The NGOs working with juvenile offenders and vulnerable women must register their activities with the relevant ministries.
e. Democratic Republic of Congo:
In Congo, there are not special laws which establish the terms and functioning of NGOs; each NGO
works and cooperates according to the field of each government department, e.g., education, health,agriculture.
f. 		 Papua New Guinea
In Papua New Guinea the legislation regulating NGOs, FBOs and CBOs is embedded in various actsof parliament, e.g., the Probation Act 1979, the Parole Act 1979, the Juvenile Court Act 1991 and theCorrectional Services Act 1995. They work under the Investment Promotion Authority Act.
6. Ideal Legislation on Multi-Agency Cooperationa) There should be monitoring and controls instituted by the government on how resources are spent
on offenders;b) There must be information sharing between agenciesc) Financial auditing/financial reports must be provided by NGOs to the government. They should also
give monthly progress reports and feedback.
d) Each ministry directly related to the services being provided by an NGO should take direct control.
The management of NGOs usually attracts controversy due to autonomy, so we should develop mutual
relationships with organizations since it is not easy to fully control the activities of private entities. It is
important to acknowledge that NGOs have different priorities. It is not easy to obligate an independent
NGOs unless they are willing. The relationship should be mutual not obligatory. We should therefore
endeavour to establish a scheme of notification through a circular of institutional cooperation, after which
we should abide by cooperation.
Sharing information is a very big issue. We have to give information and at the same time preserve information. There is a contradiction with the individual’s rights and feelings. For example, in Japan, when aprobation office asks for other agency’s cooperation, the probation office seeks the offender’s consent.
However, in the case of an emergency or the necessity to protect the public from a heinous crime, it might
not be necessary to obtain an offender’s consent for multi-agency cooperation.
7. Evaluation of Treatment Provided through Multi-Agency Cooperation:a) What is successful cooperation?
Successful cooperation means constant communication and information sharing properly done
among relevant agencies. Successful cooperation is also action between civil society and governmental agencies together with the general public. When offenders are incarcerated we must think ofoffenders’ needs. Satisfaction of criminogenic needs is very critical, such as employment, housing andmedical care. It is important for agencies to liaise with one another for placement of offenders.
b) How can multi-agency cooperation be evaluated?
The recidivism rate is essential in the assessment of rehabilitation success and is one of theimportant measures to evaluate the success of multi-agency cooperation. On the other hand, the recidivism rate is based on a variety of factors, such as economic, social situation, family support andindividual issues. Thus, other measures are also effective to evaluate the success of multi-agency cooperation. If offenders are not employed, their recidivism rate is higher; if they are not housed, re129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
cidivism is also high. Hence, one of the measures of evaluation can be the counting of the number ofoffenders who find accommodation on re-entry into a community as a result of cooperation and coordination. The numbers of offenders who can start working and continue to work is also anothermeasure. Another standard of benchmarking is the retention of the same job and the same
employer for a lengthy period of time.
c) Who should be responsible for offender rehabilitation?
Responsibility for offender rehabilitation is for offenders themselves and every related agency. Thiscannot be left to only the actors in the criminal justice system. Everyone in society has the responsibility, but the last intervener on the offender has the responsibility for the offender’s proper transition to further rehabilitation. Thus, it is crucial to employ the “through care” model to refer
offenders to other appropriate agencies or individuals.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSCrime remains a perennial problem. Hence, to achieve effective rehabilitation of offenders, it is inevitable that we must adopt multi-agency cooperation in community-based treatment of offenders. In order toestablish effective multi-agency cooperation, the following four pillars are important.
1. Mutual Understanding
It is important to understand which agencies and individuals we can cooperate with for offender rehabilitation. We must understand their role, mission and responsibility for mutual understanding and for
effective cooperation. For example, periodic meetings, conferences, personnel exchanges and staff training,
including on-the-job training, among agencies are effective to enhance mutual understanding among organizations. What is most important is ‘face-to-face’ relationships. Thus, site visits are critical to get to knoweach other.
2. Information Sharing
Information sharing is the main point of multi-agency cooperation. A common data management information system of offenders should be established as an ideal plan among criminal justice agencies. Before
release of offenders, case conferences between agencies dealing with the offenders must take place toaddress the needs of the offenders. Use of the ‘though care’ model at this stage is important.
3. Legislation
Development of legislation that promotes rehabilitation of offenders within the community should be encouraged. It is also important to establish a structure for multi-agency cooperation. For example, somecountries make use of memoranda of understanding (MOU) or circular notifications among agencies to put
multi-agency cooperation into practice.
4. Budget
For effective practice of multi-agency cooperation, we need enough monetary resources. For example,
recurrent funding for holding conferences, training, establishing a data management system and recruitment of expert staff must be secured. Organizations handling offenders should seek political goodwill,
support and public understanding. They should be able to persuade politicians that they need monetary
support for the purpose of multi-agency cooperation. Politicians should be invited to visit penal institutions
and other related agencies, halfway houses to promote understanding of the importance of offender rehabilitation.

130