REPORTS OF THE COURSEGROUP 2
EVIDENCE-BASED OFFENDER TREATMENT PROGRAMME
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs
Members

Advisers

Ms. Yamamoto
Mr. Rarua
Ms. Rafanan
Mr. Nozaki
Mr. Kawai
Mr. Makuu
Mr. Rameez
Ms. Vaalotu
Mr. Padet
Mr. Bani
Mr. Yoon
Ms. Ogawa
Professor Yoshimura
Professor Tashiro
Professor Izumi
Professor Yanaka(Japan)(Vanuatu)(Philippines)(Japan)(Japan)(Kenya)(Maldives)(Samoa)(Thailand)(Vanuatu)(Korea)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 2 started discussions on 6 June 2012 with the selection of the Chairperson, Co-Chairperson,Rapporteur and Co-Rapporteurs. By consensus, Ms. Yamamoto was chosen as the Chairperson; Mr. Rarua,
as Co-Chairperson; Ms. Rafanan, as Rapporteur; and Mr. Nozaki and Mr. Kawai, as Co-Rapporteurs. The
Group, assigned to discuss the “Evidence-Based Offender Treatment Programme,” agreed to conduct its
discussion in accordance with the following agenda: (1) fundamental concepts learned from the lectures ofthe Visiting Experts; (2) the current situation of correctional programmes in each participant’s country; and(3) the challenges of implementing an evidence-based treatment programme.

II. SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS
A. What Did We Learn about Evidence-Based Offender Treatment Programmes from the Visiting
Experts and Ad Hoc Lecturers?
1. Definition of the Evidence-Based Approach to Offender Treatment
It is a systematic and scientific treatment by means of gathering information, analysis and interpretationof an offender’s risks and needs based on the collected data with the use of psychological profiling tools.
The outcome of the treatment should be measurable and objective for evaluation and assessment to provechange of behaviour, reduce recidivism and assist the offender in becoming a law abiding citizen ready toreturn to mainstream society.
2. Essential Attributes of an Effective Treatment Programme
The effective programmes are based on the risk-need-responsivity (RNR) principles where implementing
assessment before treatment is indispensible. According to the responsivity principle, Cognitive Behaviour
Treatment (CBT) is thought to be effective to prevent reoffending. CBT, which is founded on the Social
Learning Theory, is where new skills and behaviours are modeled since all criminal conduct is thought tobe “learned.” Targeting criminogenic need factors is considered to be effective. In addition to the CBT,the Good Lives Model (GLM), which addresses the motivation of offenders more systematically, is oneof the new trends. Another new approach considered to be effective for the treatment of offenders is theDesistance Theory, focusing on the process in which offenders cease their offending behaviours and refrainfrom offending over an extended period of time (Mr. Leo’s lecture, 14 June, p. 14).
3. Risk, Need and Responsivity Principles
The risk-need-responsivity principles have been supported by research for years. Focusing on high-risk
offenders is an important factor which clearly leads to greater programme effectiveness, and not adhering to140

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

the risk principle may have detrimental effects on offenders’ treatment. There are also findings that support
the increasing level of supervision in accordance with risk level and varying the number of services orreferrals by risk level.
Risk is the issue of “who” to target with the correctional programmes. Risk refers to the risk ofprobability of reoffending and not only the seriousness of the offence. In the plenary session, there was adiscussion about whether or not to include the seriousness of the offence in the level of risk. In our group,
we came to a consensus that basically the risk of offence addresses the probability of reoffending; however,the seriousness of offence cannot be totally be ignored. The three elements of the risk principle are: (1)targeting offenders with higher probability of recidivism, (2) providing the most intensive treatment tohigher-risk offenders, and (3) providing intensive treatment for lower-risk offenders can increase recidivism(Dr. Latessa’s Lecture, 30 May, p. 3).
Need — this involves the question of “what” to target, centering on the criminogenic factors that are
dynamic and highly correlated with criminal conduct. The seven domains of criminogenic needs are: (1)Antisocial Personality Pattern, (2) Antisocial Attitudes, (3) Antisocial Associates, (4) Family/Marital, (5)Education/Employment, (6) Substance Abuse and (7) Leisure/Recreation.
Responsivity — this is the question of “how” the correctional programmes shall target the needs.
The principle states that the most effective programmes are behavioural in nature and that behaviouralprogrammes have several attributes. First, they are centered on the present circumstances and needs thatare responsible for the offender’s behaviour, and second, behavioural programmes are action oriented rather
than talk oriented (Dr. Latessa’s Lecture, May 30, pp. 3, 9 & 14).
4. Interpreting the Result of the Programme: Outcome Evaluation
Interpreting the result of the programme designed for an offender is usually called the outcomeevaluation. There are two types of measurements: (1) the Proximal Outcome, which is the comparison
before and after the programme; and (2) the Distal Outcome, which is the measuring method or followup survey to determine the decline in the possibility of recidivism (Ad Hoc Lecturer, June 8, slide no. 13).
However, there are problems encountered in measuring recidivism: the multiple definitions of recidivism(arrests, incarceration, technical violations, convictions and so forth); length of follow-up (how long shallthe follow-up be?); internal and external factors (change of policies). These contradictory elements may beconsidered as dichotomous (all or nothing) (Dr. Latessa, May 31, slide no. 5).
The proximal outcome is measured by a psychological test, which is done before and after the programme
is implemented and completed. This will measure the change in offender’s dynamic risk (needs) before, during
and upon completion of the programme.
The impact/distal (outcome) evaluation shows the effectiveness of the offence-specific programme in
the reduction of the reoffending rate. It aims to determine the changes attributed to the intervention that isbeing assessed. The strongest research methodology is a randomized experiment, which if done properly,
will produce the most credible conclusion on the effect of the programme. This is because the resulting
intervention and control groups differ from one another only by chance.
However, the randomized field experiments approach is not appropriate for sex-offender treatment due
to ethical implications (Marshall & Marshall, 2007), and this can also be said for other types of offences.
Therefore, the quasi-experimental impact evaluations can instead be used when a randomized experimentis not feasible to assign targets to intervention and control conditions (Method of Evaluation, pp. 7 of Ms.
Yamamoto’s IP).
5. Evaluating the Programme Itself: Process Evaluation
Examining the “input” of a programme or quality of the programme is usually referred to as a processevaluation. It helps determine whether the programme is operating efficiently as well as the integrity of theprogramme. To measure the process or the quality of the programme, the Correctional Program Checklist(CPC) was developed to assess correctional intervention programmes and is also used to ascertain how
closely correctional programmes meet known principles of effective intervention (Dr. Latessa, May 31,

141

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

pp. 11). However, it is also recommended that the cost effectiveness and constant review of the Programme
be included in the checklist since, in the real world, funding is of high importance to such programmes.

B. The Current Situation of Correctional Programmes in Each Participant’s Country
1. Japan — Corrections• There are assessment tools not for general but for specific offenders (drug, sex and alcoholic).
• CBT-based programmes are implemented for specific offenders (drug, sex and alcoholic) who areassessed by using these specific tools.
• Outcome evaluations are implemented for these specific programmes. Especially for sex-offender
treatment programmes; process evaluations are implemented, too.
2. Kenya — Probation••

The individual treatment programme is determined through the risk/needs assessment. However,depending on the region, the risk/need is adjusted since different regions have different traditions,
thereby varying the approach to the evidence-based treatment that is being implemented. Throughfollow-ups, the results indicate that offenders benefit.
Kenya has a system for the evaluation and classification of inmates of low, medium and high risk.

3. Maldives — Corrections and Probation•••

There are some assessment tools for general and drug offenders. They are classified according totheir risk assessment, and treatment is matched according to their needs.
Therapeutic-community-based programmes are implemented for drug offenders.
Outcome evaluation is implemented only for calculating recidivism, but it is not used for estimatingprocess.

4. Samoa — Probation•••

There is a need for assessment tools and relevant treatment programmes depending on their risk/needs-level evaluation.
In Samoa, basic programmes such as life skills and vocational training in arts and crafts are available
in the probation and parole services while referrals are made to non-governmental organizations forother services which are not offered. There is generally a lack of programmes in Samoa related to
specialized areas such as sex, violent propensity, and drugs and alcohol.
There is a need for process and outcome evaluation.

5. South Korea — Corrections•••

There are some assessment tools for general offenders but none for specific offenders.
CBT-based programmes are implemented for general offenders. It means that we use some CBTprogrammes focused on security rather than reducing recidivism, and the result of assessment tools
is not usually considered for the treatment.
Outcome evaluation is implemented only for calculating recidivism rates and correctional-accidents
rates, but there is no process for evaluation.

6. Philippines — Jail•••142

The detainees are assessed using the security risk to identify the low-, medium- and high-risk
detainees and undergo an interview process during admission to identify their needs.
From the information gathered, the different jail programmes for their development/rehabilitation
are introduced during the orientation stage; however participation is optional. The jail programme
has no evidence-based approach to determine its success.
There are no evidence-based evaluation tools in the Philippines.

151ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

7. Thailand — Corrections•••

There are no specific assessment tools for general offenders. Security is the priority rather thanreducing recidivism.
CBT-based programmes are not usually considered for the treatment. There are two rehabilitation
programmes for drug offenders: therapeutic-community and rehabilitation-camp programmes.
The need for process and outcome evaluation exists in Thailand

8. Vanuatu — Corrections and Probation••

There are assessment tools for general offenders but not for specific offenders.

•Vanuatu does not have any outcome or process evaluation; however, the existing assessment
programmes that have been listed were utilized for all offence types.

The Programmes include: admission, classification, spiritual counselling, cell visitation, family visitation,
life-skills training, parental counselling, community work, and sports and recreation. CBT-based
programmes are not available to target specific offences (e.g. sex and drug offences)C. The Challenges and Solutions in Implementing the Evidence-Based Treatment Programme
The evidence-based treatment of offenders is a new approach primarily introduced to change thebehaviour of an offender and thus reduce recidivism. Usually when something new is being introduced,
different reactions are expected both from the offender and the staff that will cause difficulties in itsimplementation. As such, Group 2 has identified four general categories of problem areas that need to beaddressed in order to have an orderly and smooth implementation. Solutions are enumerated in reference tothe lectures and experiences of the visiting experts and from the group members’ own countries.
First, the Staff. Problems such as untrained staff, job rotation, lack of technical staff, lack of motivation,and resistance to change were identified. In order to address these issues, staff should be given theright training in order to enhance their skills and thus increase their knowledge of the new programme.
Utilization of a checklist and monitoring of the programme should be implemented to ensure quality. The
assurance that staff handling the programme will not be easily transferred from one job to another should betaken into consideration by the administration. However, in the event that such is inevitable, simplifying thetools being used in the programme should be considered in order to easily share information.
It was also recognized that technical staff are the right people to handle the treatment programme ofthe offender. The hiring of additional staff with special skills, such as psychologists and sociologists, may
be an option. However, due to budgetary constraints, the hiring of technical staff may be addressed byseeking the assistance of stakeholders, including consultants and university specialists. In this regard, otherstaff may be utilized by undergoing training on scientific-evaluation tools and developing skills in handlingtreatment programmes. It is also important for the staff to be motivated in performing their daily duties.
Communication between all the staff members should be open, not only within the treatment department
but also beyond. According to Mr. Leo’s lecture: “Having a Shared Vision is not enough. We need Visionaligned staff” to achieve our goal. Stress management support should be made easily available to anyone
who is experiencing a crisis situation. According to Mr. Leo, a support team should be accessible whenever astaff member has a significant problem resulting from work or family.
Second, Programme. In the utilization of programmes developed from foreign jurisdictions, it does
not mean that such programmes are applicable and will be successful in the recipient country. There areprecautions that should be taken in using such programmes, and the following factors were identified as
relevant: cultural conflict, lack of consistency, lack of evaluation tools and lack of inmate’s motivation. Thesemay be addressed by tailoring the foreign programmes to suit the present need of the recipient country.
Operation Manuals should be the guiding principle in the implementation of each programme including
the evaluation measures that will be applied to protect the integrity and sustainability of the programme
to the offenders. The overall cooperation of all staff should be well organized in order to ensure smooth
implementation. It is expected that for the programme to have integrity in its implementation, each staff
member should assume the necessary actions and responsibilities of monitoring by use of scientific tools.
This should occur regularly by relatively experienced staff and/or an independent specialist.

143

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.88

Third, Capital Resources. Whenever a new programme is being implemented, the problems of funds
and infrastructure are always identified as one of the most important parts in planning. Funds are essential
in order to have a smooth and successful programme implementation. Funding should be allocated for
additional programmes by government. However, in the event that no budget is allocated or only a small
amount is given, the donor-partners may be tapped to help the programme. The utilization of “tri-media”
to increase public awareness will help support the success of the programme, including inmates’ hopes for
reintegration into society. Reduction of recidivism will reduce the costs of operating prisons/jails. Presenting
the success rates of treatment programmes will help raise budget allocations. Prison/jail congestion may beaddressed whenever funds are appropriated for the construction of new infrastructure and programmes may
attain their goals of success. Suitable venues for the programme should be made available at all times.
Fourth, Information. Communication plays a vital role in the success of programme implementation.
Technology, networking and lack of cooperation from the different working groups are inevitable problems.
To address such issues, appropriate information technology, such as electronic databases (e.g. Integrated
Offender Management Systems), should be provided in order to gain easy access to immediate informationand sharing of information online will increase the speed of record access and retrieval to/from otherrelevant agencies. With the use of modern technology, problems of geographical remoteness can be solved.

III. CONCLUSION
After extensive discussions on the theory, participating countries’ situations, the challenges andsolutions in introducing the evidence-based offender treatment programme, Group 2 reached a consensus on
the following recommendations:•Staff should be given the right training in order to enhance their skills and, thus, increase theirknowledge of the new programme.

•In order to increase the number of staff to implement the treatment, hire additional staff with specialskills, such as psychologists and sociologists.

•Communication between all staff members should be open, not only within the treatment department
but also beyond.

•In the utilization of programmes developed from foreign jurisdictions, programmes should be adjusted
accordingly to match the recipient country’s situation.

•Operation Manuals should outline policies and procedures which will allow consistency in theimplementation of the programme. To safeguard the integrity of the programme, regular monitoring
using scientific tools is needed.

•The utilization of the “tri-media”to increase public awareness will help support the success of theprogramme, including inmates’ hopes for reintegration into society. Presenting the success rates oftreatment programmes will help raise budget allocations.

•Appropriate information technology, such as electronic databases (e.g. Integrated Offender ManagementSystems), should be provided in order to gain easy access and retrieval of information online between
relevant government agencies.

144