RESOURCE MATERIALSERIES No. 78

UNAFEI
Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan

September 2009

Masaki Sasaki
Director
United Nations
Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI)
1-26 Harumi-cho, Fuchu, Tokyo 183-0057, Japan
http://www.unafei.or.jp
unafei@moj.go.jp

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY NOTE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

v

PART ONEANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008
Main Activities of UNAFEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2009  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
Appendix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18

PART TWOWORK PRODUCT OF THE 139TH
INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE“Profiles and Effective Treatment of Serious and Violent Juvenile
Offenders”
Visiting Experts’ Papers
•

•

•

•

•

Issues in the Assessment of Juvenile Offenders
by Dr. Robert D. Hoge (Canada) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders: Assessment and Treatment
by Dr. Robert D. Hoge (Canada) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49

Introduction to the Canadian Juvenile Justice System
by Dr. Robert D. Hoge (Canada) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

Juvenile Justice: A Study of National Judiciaries for the United Nations Asia andFar East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders
by Dr. Joseph Ozawa (Singapore) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

64

The Youth Justice System of England and Walesby Mr. Ian Blakeman (United Kingdom) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

80

Participants’ Papers•

Profiles and Effective Treatments of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders
by Mr. Samuel Tong (Hong Kong SAR)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94•

The Profile and Treatment of Serious Juvenile Offenders in Jamaica
by Ms. Ina Rose Hunter (Jamaica) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120•

Juvenile Crime and Treatment of Serious and Violent Juvenile Delinquents in
Thailandby Ms. Korakod Narkvichetr (Thailand) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

iii

Selected Participants’ Papers on the Profiles and Effective Treatment of Serious andViolent Juvenile Offenders of Japan•On Appropriate Assessments of Serious Juvenile Offenders in the Family Court
by Ms. Kazumi Watanabe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139•

Assessment of Juvenile Offenders at Juvenile Classification Homes in Japanby Mr. Masaru Takahashi  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151•

Effective Institutional Treatment Programmes for Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offenders
by Ms. Mayu Hayashi  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158•

Effective Community Treatment Programmes in the Probation Office for Violent
Juvenile Offenders
by Ms. Akiko Tashiro . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Reports of the Course•

Issues and Methods of Criminal Investigation, Prosecution and Judicial Procedures
for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders
by Group 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174•

Effective Institutional Treatment Programmes for Serious and Violent Juvenile
Offendersby Group 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181•

Effective Community Treatment Programmes for Serious and Violent Juvenile
Offendersby Group 3  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

iv

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
It is with pride that the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crimeand the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) offers to the international community the Resource
Material Series No. 78.
This volume contains the Annual Report for 2008 and the work produced in the 139 thInternational Training Course which was conducted from 19 May to 27 June 2008. The main
theme of the 139th Course was “Profiles and Effective Treatments of Serious and Violent Juvenile
Offenders”.
Even in instances where juveniles commit very serious and violent offences, we cannot lose
sight of the fundamental philosophy of juvenile justice: the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. The
problem areas of juvenile offenders relevant to serious and violent crimes have to be clarified inorder to create proper justice systems and treatment programmes. Although these problems ofjuvenile offenders are seriously complicated, and are deeply rooted in their mental, psychological,
family, school and social situations, it is our obligation to continue our efforts to discover the causesof these problems and find methods to solve them.
The United Nations has tried to establish rules and regulations for the purpose of proper
juvenile justice administration and treatment. “The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for
the Administration of Juvenile Justice” (The Beijing Rules) outlines basic philosophies such as
respecting human rights, pursuing the best interest of juveniles and exploiting social resources,and especially, promoting diversion systems. This rule, together with “The United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child” and “The United Nations Guidelines for the Preventionof Juvenile Delinquency” (The Riyadh Guidelines), provides that treatment programmes in thecommunity must be prioritized because of their protective and rehabilitative value. Treatment
in institutions must be a last resort, but remains necessary, for example, in cases of deteriorated
criminal tendencies and other problems. “The United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles
Deprived of Their Liberty” was enacted to prevent inappropriate treatments and the infringementof the human rights of juveniles. More than that, the United Nations recognizes the importanceof the development of effective treatment programmes for those accommodated in institutions.
Paragraph 9 of resolution 45/113 (1990) of the UN General Assembly, which adopted the rule,
asserts that it is indispensable for Member States to consider treatment methods for serious
and persistent young offenders and requests the UN Secretary-General to report the resultsof considerations at the Ninth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders.
Despite the efforts of the UN Member States to solve these problems, juvenile offending
remains a problem all over the world, involving crimes like terrorism, child abuse, domestic
violence, gun massacres, gang conflicts, and so on. There is an urgent need for us to establish
proper justice systems and to implement effective assessment and treatment methods for these
serious and critical cases.
UNAFEI, as a regional institute of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Justice Programme
Network, decided to hold this Course in order to provide an opportunity for juvenile criminal
justice personnel to consider the various issues for the purpose of clarifying challenges anddiscovering solutions suitable for their own countries.
In this issue, in regard to the 139th Course, papers contributed by visiting experts, selectedindividual presentation papers from among the participants, and the Reports of the Course are
published. I regret that not all the papers submitted by the Course participants could be published.
I would like to pay tribute to the contributions of the Government of Japan, particularly thevMinistry of Justice, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Asia Crime Prevention
Foundation for providing indispensable and unwavering support to UNAFEI’s international training
programmes.
Finally I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all who so unselfishly assisted in the
publication of this series; in particular, the editor of Resource Material Series No. 78, Ms. Grace
Lord.
September 2009

Masaki Sasaki
Director, UNAFEI

vi

PART ONEANNUAL REPORTFOR 2008• Main Activities of UNAFEI• UNAFEI Work Programme for 2009
• Appendix

UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2008 - 31 December 2008)
I. ROLE AND MANDATE
The Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI)
was established in Tokyo, Japan in 1961 pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in Asia and the Pacific region bypromoting regional co-operation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, through training andresearch.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent, contemporary problems in
the administration of criminal justice in the region, especially problems generated by rapid socio-economicchange (e.g., transnational organized crime, corruption, economic and computer crime and the reintegrationof prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars and research
projects.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute’s work programmes. In the international
training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of criminal justice discuss and studypressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding, with the help of lectures and advice by the UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc
lecturers. This so-called “problem-solving through an integrated approach” is one of the chief characteristics
of UNAFEI programmes.
Each year, UNAFEI conducts two international training courses (six weeks’ duration) and one
international seminar (five weeks’ duration). One hundred and forty nine government officials fromvarious overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA; an
independent administrative institution for ODA programmes) each year to participate in all UNAFEI training
programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants. Overseas
participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from the Middle and Near East, Latin
America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators holding relatively
senior positions in criminal justice fields.
During its 47 years of existence, UNAFEI has conducted a total of 140 international training courses
and seminars, in which approximately 3,394 criminal justice personnel have participated, representing 117
different countries. UNAFEI has also conducted a number of other specialized courses, both country andsubject focused, in which hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In theirrespective countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and holding important posts in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.

A. The 138th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 138th International Senior Seminar was held from 17 January to 15 February 2008. The main theme
was “Effective Legal and Practical Measures for Combating Corruption: A Criminal Justice Response”. In
this Seminar, fifteen overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants respectively introduced the current position regarding the role andfunction of criminal justice agencies in their country in regard to the main theme. The participants werethen divided into three group workshops as follows:3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

Group 1: Identifying and Punishing Corrupt Offenders
Group 2: Confiscation of Illegal Benefits and Asset Recovery
Group 3: Strengthening the Capacity and Ability of Criminal Justice Authorities and their Personnel
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order tofacilitate the discussions. During group discussion the group members studied the designated topics andexchanged views based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations,lectures and so forth. Later, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group
Workshop reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary Meetings, drafts of
the Group Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty.
Based on these discussions, the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the ReportBack Sessions, where they were endorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these reports are
published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No 77.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Identifying and Punishing Corrupt Offenders
The Group addressed the above matter by dividing the subject into three subsections: Firstly, measures
to encourage persons or bodies with useful information on corruption to pass that information on to anticorruption authorities, investigative and prosecutorial; secondly, proactive measures to collect informationon corruption and/or evidence; and thirdly, international co-operation. The Group emphasized the potentialof the media and education to create and sustain public support for anti-corruption measures. The Groupalso stressed that to achieve transparency, it is very important that anti-corruption authorities have accessto the declarations of assets made by public servants and high-ranking officials. This is the case in all of
the countries represented in the Group. On the matter of international co-operation, the Group limited its
discussions to the issues of obtaining evidence and information of bank accounts in foreign jurisdictions.
The following recommendations were made:1.

The States Parties to the UNCAC should express their will to prevent corruption by investing in
educational programmes and publicity campaigns to illustrate the damaging effects of corruption;

2.

States should encourage the reporting of offences through various measures such as witness
protection, where financially viable; whistle-blower protection; dedicated hotlines; plea bargaining
or immunity in certain cases; and obliging public servants to report any knowledge of corrupt acts ofwhich they become aware in the course of their duties;

3.

Traditional investigative techniques such as obtaining information from media, other cases andinformants; search and seizure; clearing bank secrecy and surveillance and expert reporting should
be enhanced;

4.

Special techniques such as undercover agents, wire-tapping, and electronic surveillance should beenhanced;

5.

Transparency should be strengthened by the appointment of an Ombudsman; the participation ofcivil society; obliging all public servants to declare their assets and income; and further obliging
public servants to provide requested information in investigations;6.

All countries should ratify the UNCAC and adopt the necessary legal instruments to provide
international co-operation;

7.

The value of informal, direct contact between criminal justice professionals cannot be overstated andshould be strengthened and continually encouraged.

(ii) Confiscation of Illegal Benefits and Asset Recovery
The Group discussed the above topic with reference to the following agenda: 1) identifying and tracing
crime proceeds; 2) seizure, freezing and confiscation; 3) international co-operation in identifying, tracing,4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

seizing, freezing and confiscating the proceeds of corruption; 4) asset recovery; and 5) other related matterssuch as money laundering.
Regarding the identification and tracing of crime proceeds, a majority of participants agreed thatinvestigation agencies need access to the bank accounts and bank records of suspects as well as
government, business and corporate records. It was also the general consensus that such agencies shouldhave access to information on the bank loans and mortgaged properties of the suspect. Collaborating withexperts and maintaining a close relationship with FIUs is important in acquiring reports of suspicioustransactions. Regarding seizure, freezing and confiscation, the group acknowledged that it can be difficult toprove beyond a reasonable doubt the link between the criminal action and the property of a suspect, and that
therefore civil proceedings could be considered in conjunction with criminal proceedings, as provided by thelaws of the respective countries. With regard to the third point, international co-operation, the Group agreed,inter alia , that the UNCAC provides an effective mechanism for such co-operation and as such its ratification
should be encouraged by all countries. With regard to the final agenda item, asset recovery, the Group feltthat countries must put in place legal frameworks which enhance international co-operation pertaining
to asset recovery and emphasized the importance of mutual legal assistance, supplemented by informal
contact.
The following recommendations were made:1.

The Group underlined the need for adequate legal and practical measures to gather evidence incorruption cases;

2.

Investigators must foster credibility to earn the co-operation of banks and other agencies;

3.

Expert help should be requested in deciphering complex transactions;

4.

Countries may consider using NGOs to help and assist law enforcement agencies for the above
purpose;5.

Whistle-blowers should be adequately protected;

6.

Without compromising human rights, countries should implement legal measures for the search,
seizure, freezing and confiscation of assets;

7.

Investigators should receive continuous training in collecting evidence linking the proceeds of crime;

8.

Confiscating assets of an equivalent value should be considered where it is not feasible to confiscate
crime proceeds;

9.

Ratification of the UNCAC should be encouraged as it provides for international co-operation on
identification, tracing, freezing, seizing and confiscation of proceeds of corruption;

10. MLA should be maximized in order to enhance bilateral international co-operation;
11. MLATs and legislation shall provide for the repatriation of criminal proceeds to the requesting state
and the requested state may deduct expenses incurred in the recovery of same;
12. MLAT procedures for bilateral co-operation should be simplified, allowing direct contact between
central authorities of the respective countries;
13. The Group emphasized the need for informal contact between law enforcement agencies ininternational co-operation. For effective assistance, countries may allow teams of prosecutors orinvestigators to travel to requesting countries;
14. Impediments to asset recovery are identified as inter alia , absences of appropriate legal frameworks,
disparity of systems internationally, lack of technical expertise and insufficient financial resources.
Proper frameworks are a necessary first step to addressing these problems. By implementing the5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

measures envisaged in the UNCAC and maximizing MLA supplemented informal contacts countries
can enhance the level of international co-operation which they can provide.

(iii) Strengthening the Capacity and Ability of Criminal Justice Authorities and their Personnel
The Group considered the above topic with regard to the following agenda: 1) ensuring the necessary
independence of the criminal justice authorities; 2) integrity of the personnel of the criminal justiceauthorities; 3) transparency and accountability in the relevant decisions in criminal proceedings; and4) specialization of the criminal justice authorities.
With regard to the first agenda item, the Group suggests that countries in which the criminal justiceauthorities are not fully independent must endeavour to pass, adopt and enforce relevant legislation thatshall clearly define the functional divisions of the three branches of government and stringently observe andput into force constitutional provisions on their independence.
Regarding the second agenda item, the integrity of criminal justice personnel, the Group made thefollowing recommendations:
1.

Increasing remuneration of criminal justice personnel in line with private sector salaries;2.

Measures to underscore and strengthen conduct and ethical standards in public service;3.

The creation by law of a permanent and independent multi-sectoral body that will regularly evaluate
and audit performances of public servants, without prejudice to the independence of criminal justiceauthorities;

4.

Ratification of and full compliance with the UNCAC by all countries concerned, it containing
measures guaranteeing the integrity of the judiciary and the prosecution service;

5.

Countries should adopt and observe pertinent UN guidelines and resolutions, particularly the
Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors and the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.

The Group further noted that, regarding the third agenda item, accountability of law enforcement officials
and prosecutors in their decision making, an internal audit system, like the one presently employed by the
ICAC of Honk Kong, must be considered.
Finally, regarding the fourth agenda item, the Group agreed by consensus that it is preferable for acountry to have specialized criminal justice authorities, and to that end, it is suggested that the creation of
special anti-graft bodies be considered. The ratification of and full compliance with the UNCAC is desirable
in this regard as it contains provisions on specialized authorities.

B. The 139th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 139th International Training Course was held from 19 May to 27 June 2008. The main theme was“Profiles and Effective Treatments of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders”. In this Course, sixteen
overseas participants and eight Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the Course were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and Group
Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems and future
prospects of his or her country with respect to the main theme of the Course. The Group Workshops further
examined the subtopics of the main theme. To facilitate discussion, the participants were divided into threegroups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Issues and Methods of Criminal Investigation, Prosecution and Judicial Procedures for Serious
and Violent Juvenile Offenders
Group 2: Effective Institutional Treatment Programmes for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders

6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Group 3: Effective Community Treatment Programmes for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders
The three Groups elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize
the discussions. The Group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views basedon information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and so forth.
During the course, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group Workshop
reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary Meeting the drafts of the Group
Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Basedon these discussions, the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back
Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The full texts of the reports are publishedin full in this edition of the UNAFEI Resource Material Series.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Issues and Methods of Criminal Investigation, Prosecution and Judicial Procedures for Serious andViolent Juvenile Offenders
The Group divided its discussion of the theme into two distinct areas: 1) investigation; and 2) the
judicial system. Each area was further sub-divided, allowing the Group to focus on the various stages ofinvestigation and court proceedings, and drawing on the professional expertise of the Group members.
Particular consideration was paid to the best methods of interviewing and assessing juveniles, deciding on
the necessity of detention, and the preservation of familial privacy and relationships.
Regarding investigation procedure, the following recommendations were made:1.

Juvenile offenders should be interviewed in a segregated place, separated from other juveniles,
witnesses, or the victim;

2.

It is desirable that criminal justice officials who deal with juveniles be specially trained;

3.

Whether or not the juvenile’s parents may be present should be decided in the best interests of thejuvenile and the best interests of the investigation;

4.

Bearing in mind the different needs and practices in each country, the period of detention should be
as short as possible;

5.

The decision to detain a juvenile must balance the protection of society and the protection of thejuvenile;

6.

With due regard to the gravity of the alleged crime, the decision should reflect the authority’s
concern for the juvenile;

7.

Behavioural and psychological analysis should be integral elements of the investigation;

8.

The privacy of the juvenile, his or her family, as well as the integrity of the investigation, should beprotected;

9.

A complete report of the investigation should be forwarded to the relevant authority.

Regarding judicial procedure, the Group made the following recommendations:
10. Rehabilitation and re-socialization should be the goal of juvenile justice;
11. The role and duties of parents are important, as is the family as an institution;
12. As each juvenile is an individual, the final deposition of the case should be based on a comprehensivesocial inquiry and psychological report;
13. The privacy of the juvenile and his or her family should be carefully protected;

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

14. Victims should, at least, have the opportunity to voice their concerns in court;
15. Detention should be for the minimum period sufficient to rehabilitate the juvenile.

(ii) Effective Institutional Treatment Programmes for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders
The Group carefully considered the theme according to the following agenda: 1) problems and challenges
of assessment techniques; 2) effective treatment programmes for serious and violent juvenile offenders;
3) treatment programmes which consider the victim’s views; 4) problems and challenges of continuous
treatment programmes from institutional care to community treatment; and 5) goals and needs to improve
effective institutional treatment programmes for serious and violent juvenile offenders.
In considering each item of the agenda the Group made careful comparisons of the current systemsof each participating country and identified five common challenges: 1) an absence of clear classification
regulations; 2) the lack of physical infrastructure and financial resources; 3) an insufficient number of
institutional programmes which consider the views of victims; 4) a lack of systematic follow-up programmes;and 5) inadequate information-sharing between institutional and community treatment authorities. Having
carefully considered the situation and practices in each participating country, the Group agreed upon thefollowing recommendations:
1.

The group underlined the necessity of identifying the risk of reoffending and the needs of thetargeted juvenile;2.

Juveniles should also be assessed for mental disorders, maturity and level of intellect;

3.

Levels of offending behaviour should be categorized to connect assessment and treatment;

4.

Assessment should be conducted by specialists in a range of disciplines;

5.

Standardized assessment tools which are adaptive to different situations and combine both
qualitative and quantitative methods should be introduced;

6.

Assessment methods should be properly selected and implemented;

7.

Governments should allocate the necessary human and financial resources to juvenile justice;8.

The minimum essential number of institutions should be constructed;

9.

Existing resources should be utilized to the best extent possible;

10. All approaches should be culturally and socially sensitive;
11. The juvenile justice system should encompass the needs of the juvenile and the concerns of thevictim, and should be administered by qualified personnel in a consistent manner;
12. Consideration should be given to systems of restorative justice to redress the harm that has been
done to victims;
13. Development of programmes which integrate institutional and community-based treatment isrecommended;
14. An organization with responsibility for both institutional and community-based treatment isdesirable;
15. Sharing information between related agencies should be facilitated by the development of electronic
data network systems;
16. At an early stage of the period of incarceration, interventions which prepare the juvenile for releaseshould be applied.

8

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(iii) Effective Community Treatment Programmes for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders
The Group considered the above theme for juveniles who received non-custodial sentences as well as
those released from institutions. The Group was also tasked with addressing the problems and challenges
of continuous treatment programmes, including assessing the achievement levels of same; the relationships
between criminal institutions, government agencies, and NGOs; and crime prevention strategies such as
screening in early childhood and treatment for high-risk children. The Group emphasized the importanceof community-based treatment in the prevention of crime and highlighted the importance of community
support in this endeavour.
The following recommendations were made:1.

Every country should introduce non-custodial sentences and aftercare services for juveniles
released from institutions;

2.

Professionals in each country should seek political support for community-based treatment systems
through the introduction of statistically proven research;3.

A network of NGOs, community groups and businesses should be established, with the dual aim ofcreating financial support for rehabilitation activities and employment opportunities for rehabilitatedoffenders;4.

Public awareness of the work of probation offices and social workers should be increased to ensurethat sufficient numbers of competent staff are recruited;5.

Extensive training should be provided for all officers, especially those who deal directly with juvenile
offenders or children in conflict with the law;

6.

The establishment of halfway houses, whether government run or supported by civil society,would ease the problems of overcrowding, which hampers treatment programmes currently being
implemented;

7.

Family-oriented policies should be implemented to create strong families which can support young
people;8.

An inter-agency committee which develops consistent treatment programmes, co-ordinates
treatment and, with due respect for privacy, distributes information amongst social welfare services,
correctional institutions and probation personnel, would aid the implementation of successfultreatment programmes;

9.

Juveniles should be individually analysed for risk and need levels and programmes should be tailoredaccordingly;

10. Vocational training should be relevant to the current jobs market to increase employment
opportunities;
11. Benchmarking should be utilized to develop common assessment tools and gauge establishedpractices and programmes in different institutions;
12. High-risk families should be assisted by early intervention programming to assist in cultivating
healthy family relationships.

C. The 140th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 140th International Training Course was held from 1 September to 10 October 2008. The main
theme was “The Criminal Justice Response to Cybercrime”. Ten overseas participants, two overseas
counsellors, and five Japanese participants attended.

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

2. Methodology
The participants of the 140th Course endeavoured to explore the investigation, prosecution and trial of
cybercrime. This was accomplished primarily through a comparative analysis of the current situation andthe problems encountered. The participants’ in-depth discussions enabled them to put forth effective andpractical solutions.
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and the Group Workshop
sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems and future prospects of hisor her country with respect to the main theme of the Course. To facilitate discussions, the participants weredivided into two groups as follows:
Group 1: Issues and Measures Concerning the Legal Framework to Combat CybercrimeGroup 2: Challenges and Best Practices in Cybercrime Investigation
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize thediscussions. The Group members studied the situation in each of their countries and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth.
Plenary Meetings were later held to discuss the interim outline of the Group Workshop reports and tooffer suggestions and comments. During the Plenary Meetings, drafts of the Group Workshop reports were
examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Based on these discussions, theGroups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back Sessions, where they wereendorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports will be published in full in UNAFEI Resource Material
Series No. 79.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Issues and Measures Concerning the Legal Framework to Combat Cybercrime
The Group discussed the above topic according to the following agenda: 1) issues and measuresaccording to the criminalization of cybercrime; 2) legal issues related to the procedural law related tocybercrime, including the admissibility of digital evidence; and 3) challenges in combating trans-bordercybercrime, including issues of jurisdiction and international co-operation. The Group reached the following
conclusions:

10

1.

The Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime can be a good reference for minimum standards
that may need to be adopted by the participating countries, and some basic rules regarding collection
and admissibility of evidence from foreign jurisdictions are necessary;

2.

Investigative and judicial mechanisms of international co-operation must be improved; adequate
procedural laws may be implemented to assure the preservation of evidence when requested;3.

With regard to international co-operation, training and technical aid should be available to law
enforcement officials and others;

4.

Amendment of Article 2 of the Convention on Cybercrime to properly address the issue of data
espionage should be considered;5.

Diffusion of unsolicited emails should be suppressed;

6.

The general principles of substantive law of the respective countries may be taken into account inmatters such as illegal gambling, etc. committed in cyberspace;

7.

Private online communication should be protected as a civil right; investigative interception of sameshould be subject to judicial review;

8.

While remote investigation is sometimes the only available option to investigators, it is acontroversial issue and should be the subject of in-depth analysis;

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

9.

National legislatures should consider a mandatory 180 day retention period of Internet traffic data;

10. Measures to record the identity of users of public terminals are desirable;
11. There should be no mandatory disclosure of encryption keys and passwords;
12. The principle of “passive personality” ought to be considered for addition to the Convention on
Cybercrime;
13. There was majority but not unanimous agreement on the importance of strengthening co-operation
between local offices of transnational service providers and national authorities in order to identify
nationals who use remotely located services to commit crimes.

(ii) Challenges and Best Practices in Cybercrime Investigation
The Group discussed the above topic according to the following agenda: 1) initial information gathering
and undercover online investigations; 2) tracing and identifying criminals; 3) digital forensic analysis
of evidence; 4) cross-border investigative abilities; and 5) international co-operation in cybercrime
investigation.
The Group made the following recommendations:1.

Improve initial information gathering by: (i) educating the public about cybercrime; (ii) improving
communication with victims, and training officers in report making; and (iii) increasing cyber-patrol
facilities;

2.

Undercover online investigations should be improved;

3.

Data retention by ISPs and telecoms providers should be enforced and available to criminal justiceofficials in conducting an investigation;

4.

Resources must be devoted to capacity building of specialized units;

5.

It is advisable to follow the recommendations of the International Review of Criminal Policy (No. 43& 44) - United Nations Manual on the Prevention and Control of Computer-related Crime (1994),
art. 198-209;

6.

In each country, a main cybercrime unit should assist smaller units in technically demanding
investigations;7.

A regular, formal training course on dealing with digital evidence, and not restricted to specialists,should be established;

8.

Training activities should be included in international co-operation programmes and efforts;

9.

A properly equipped Computer Emergency Team (CERT) is essential for responding promptly tocyber threats, and government and the private sector should co-operate closely on the operation ofsuch teams;

10. In addressing cross-border investigations, the following are suggested: (i) requests for evidence
be made under existing MLAT, MLA or Letter Rogatory procedures; (ii) 24/7 points of contact beutilized; (iii) embassies be utilized; (iv) networks of foreign counterparts be utilized;
11. General recommendations regarding international co-operation include: (i) implementing 24/7
points of contact; (ii) sharing information through regional organizations; (iii) co-operation inlegal, operational and technical dimensions; (iv) legal frameworks allowing engagement and joint
investigation with foreign countries; (v) using the diplomatic channel to contact other countries’
private sector entities or ISPs.

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

D. Special Seminars and Courses
1. The Fourth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Fourth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 25 February to 14 March 2008.
The main theme was “Countermeasures for Drug Offences and Related Crimes and Treatment for Drug
Abusers in the Criminal Justice Process”. Fourteen criminal justice officials from Central Asian countries(Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) attended.
2. The 13th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China
The 13th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China was heldfrom 3 to 19 March 2008. The main theme was “Reform of the Criminal Justice System: Introducing theViews of Crime Victims and Improving Offender Treatment, Taking into Account the Risks and Needs andNeeds of Offenders”. Nine participants and two course counsellors attended.
3. The Third Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the PPA Volunteer Probation Aide
System for the Philippines
The Third Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the PPA Volunteer Probation Aide
System for the Philippines was held from 15 to 25 April 2008. Nine Parole and Probation Officers andthree Volunteer Probation Aides from the Philippines discussed measures to improve communication andfeedback, and measures to promote Volunteer Probation Aide Associations.
4. The Eleventh International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption
The Eleventh International Training Course on Corruption Control in Criminal Justice was held from16 October to 14 November 2008. In this Course, 15 overseas participants, four Japanese participants, andfive Thai observers, all of whom were officials engaged in corruption control, comparatively analysed thecurrent situation of corruption, methods of combating corruption, and measures to enhance international
co-operation.
5. The Ninth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya
The Eighth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya was held from 5 to
27 November 2008. Four policy-makers and eight senior practitioners from Kenya reviewed their progressin regard to improving the treatment of juveniles in correctional institutions and in the community and theprogress they have made in establishing a Volunteer Children’s Officers programme. The policy-makers
attended from 5 to 14 November, while the practitioners stayed from 5 to 27 November.
6. The Second Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
The Second Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, jointly hosted by
UNAFEI, the Office of the Attorney General of Thailand and the UNODC Regional Centre, Bangkok washeld from 23 to 25 July 2008 in Bangkok, Thailand. The main theme was “Corruption Control in Public
Procurement”. Approximately 25 participants from seven countries, comprising judges, prosecutors andother law enforcement officials, attended.

III. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
A. Regional Training Programmes
1. Short-Term Experts in Kenya
Two UNAFEI professors were dispatched to Kenya, from 26 July to 5 September 2008, to assist in theenhancement of the activities of the Department of Children’s Services, Ministry of Gender, Children andSocial Development.
2. Short-Term Experts in Latin America
Two UNAFEI faculty members visited Costa Rica and Argentina from 16 to 30 August 2008. In Costa
Rica, they jointly hosted, with ILANUD, a course on Criminal Justice Reform in Latin America in which
six countries were represented. They also held a follow-up seminar in Argentina, focusing on the specificsituation in that country.
3. Short-Term Experts in the Philippines
A UNAFEI professor was dispatched from 17 to 26 November 2008 to the Philippines, to participate as

12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEIa short-term expert in the In-Country Training Programme for the Enhancement of the Volunter Probation
Aide System.

B. Second Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
UNAFEI, the Office of the Attorney General of Thailand and the UNODC Regional Centre for East Asiaand the Pacific held the Second Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries in
Bangkok, Thailand from 23 to 25 July 2008. Approximately 25 participants from seven countries attended
the Seminar. The main theme of the Seminar was “Corruption Control in Public Procurement”.
IV. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
The Institute continues to collect data and other resource materials on crime trends, crime prevention
strategies and the treatment of offenders from Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe and the Americas, andmakes use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The Information and Library Serviceof the Institute has been providing, upon request, materials and information to United Nations agencies,
governmental organizations, research institutes and researchers, both domestic and foreign.

V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since 1971, theInstitute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by the faculty members,
visiting experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In 2008, the 74th, 75th and 76th editionsof the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 125 to 127 (from the 138th Seminar to
the 140th Course respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published, which included a brief report oneach course and seminar and other timely information. These publications are also available on UNAFEI’s
web site http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 1 February 2008, the Public Lecture Programme was conducted in the Grand Conference Hall of
the Ministry of Justice. In attendance were many distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni and the 138th
International Senior Seminar participants. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues, throughcomparative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. This year, Mr. Pascal
Gossin, from the Swiss Federal Office of Justice, and Dr. Thomas Cassuto, from the Tribunal de Grand
Instance de Nanterre, France, were invited as speakers to the programme. They presented papers on“International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters” and “Effective Legal and Practical Measures for
Combating Corruption: The French System”, respectively.

B. Regional Forum on Good Governance for East Asian Countries
UNAFEI and the Supreme Public Prosecutors Office of Japan co-hosted a Regional Forum on Good
Governance for East Asian Countries which was held at UNAFEI on 10 and 11 December 2008. The themeof the Forum was “Strengthening of Domestic and International Co-operation for Effective Investigation
and Prosecution of Corruption”, and it was attended by high-ranking officials from 13 East Asian countries:
Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, thePhilippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.
C. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is, therefore, one of the important tasks of
UNAFEI to support these contributions to improve the crime situation internationally.
D. Overseas Missions
Mr. Koji Yamada (Professor) and Ms. Akane Uenishi (Staff) visited the Philippines from 15 to 24 January

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

2008 to attend the In-Country Training Programme for the Revitalization of the PPA Volunteer Probation
Aide System.
Mr. Shintaro Naito (Professor) and Mr. Ikuo Kosaka (Staff) visited Bali, Indonesia from 27 January to 6
February 2008 to observe the Second Conference of the States Parties to the United Nations Convention
against Corruption. They also visited Bangkok, Thailand to make preparations for the Second Regional
Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries.
Director Keiichi Aizawa and Mr. Junichiro Otani (Professor) visited Vienna, Austria from 13 to 20 April
2008 to attend the 17th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The Director
made a statement to the Commission.
Ms. Tae Sugiyama (Professor) visited Canada from 29 April to 4 May 2008 to attend an International
Meeting of Experts at the International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy. The
topic of the meeting was “International Study of Suspension, Recall and Revocation Legislation, Policies,
Practices and Processes”.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto and Mr. Jun Oshino (Professor) visited China from 7 to 17 May 2008 tomeet with personnel from various criminal justice organizations and to prepare for the 14th Special Seminar
for Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China, which was held in March 2009.
Director Keiichi Aizawa visited the Philippines from 28 to 31 May 2008 to prepare for the Third Regional
Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, to be held in Manila in December 2009.
Mr. Shintaro Naito (Professor) visited Busan and Seoul, Korea from 8 to 13 June 2008 to attend theHigh Level Prosecutors Meeting of the 5th International Association of Prosecutors Asia-Pacific Regional
Conference.
Director Keiichi Aizawa, Deputy Director Takeshi Seto, Mr. Shintaro Naito (Professor), Mr. Etsuya
Iwakami (Staff), and Mr. Ikuo Kosaka (Staff) visited Bangkok, Thailand from 20 to 26 July 2008 as co-hostsof the Second Regional Seminar on Good Governance. The focus of the Seminar was “Corruption Control in
Public Procurement”.
Ms. Tae Sugiyama (Professor) and Mr. Tetsuya Sugano (Professor) visited Kenya from 26 July to
22 August 2008 and 1 August to 5 September 2008 respectively. The purpose of the trip was to visit
children’s institutions, observe the conditions of the treatment of children and the activities of volunteer
children’s officers, and exchange ideas with and provide advice to the staff of the Children’s Departmentof the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development. The professors also gave lectures at training
seminars.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto and Mr. Junichiro Otani (Professor) visited Costa Rica and Argentina from
16 to 30 August 2008. In Costa Rica they jointly hosted with ILANUD an international training course on
Criminal Justice System Reforms in Latin America in which six countries participated. In Argentina, theyheld a follow-up seminar, focusing on the particular situation in that country.
Director Keiichi Aizawa, Mr. Koji Yamada (Professor) and Mr. Yuichi Shirakawa (Staff) visited Ulan Bator,
Mongolia from 25 to 30 August 2008 to attend the 12th ACPF World Conference.
Mr. Shintaro Naito (Professor) visited Singapore from 26 to 30 August 2008 to attend the 13th Annual
Conference and General Meeting of the International Association of Prosecutors.
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano (Professor) visited Prague, the Czech Republic, from 26 October to 2 November
2008 to participate in the 10th ICPA (International Corrections and Prisons Association) Annual General
Meeting.

14

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Deputy Director Takeshi Seto went to Medellin, Columbia, from 3 to 10 November 2008, to attend
the Second Expert Group Meeting for the Elaboration of the Digest of Terrorist Cases for Practitioners,
organized by the UNODC and the Government of Colombia.
Mr. Koji Yamada (Professor) visited the Philippines from 17 to 26 November 2008 to participate as ashort-term expert in the In-Country Training Programme for the Enhancement of the Volunteer Probation
Aide System. Professor Yamada gave lectures to the participants of the In-Country Training Programme.
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya (Professor), Mr. Kenichiro Koiwa (Staff) and Ms. Miki Usuki (Staff), visited Langkawi,
Malaysia from 23 to 28 November 2008 to attend the 28th Asian and Pacific Conference of Correctional
Administrators.
Director Keiichi Aizawa visited Courmayeur, Italy, and Geneva, Switzerland from 12 to 17 December
2008. Director Aizawa attended the ISPAC (International Scientific and Professional Advisory Council)
International Conference on Organised Crime in Art and Antiquities, and the 2008 Co-ordination Meeting of
the Programme Network Institutes, respectively.
Deputy Director Takeshi Seto visited Vienna, Austria, from 17 to 21 December 2008 to attend the Openended Intergovernmental Working Groups on Technical Assistance of the UNCAC.

E. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI co-operates and collaborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention and criminal justiceadministration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similar goals, and a large part of
ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two is very strong.
VII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative responsibility for running
the Institute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine professors are selected from among
public prosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probation and the police. UNAFEI also has approximately 15
administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and alinguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training
course and seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts, volunteers andrelated agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty Changes
Mr. Ikuo Kamano, a Professor of UNAFEI, left UNAFEI on 11 January 2008.
Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi, a Professor of the National Police Academy, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 11
January 2008.
Ms. Kayo Ishihara, a Professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed to the Ministry of Justice on 1
April 2008.
Mr. Junichiro Otani, a public prosecutor, joined UNAFEI as a Professor on 1 April 2008.

VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute’s budget. UNAFEI’s total budget for its
programmes is approximately ¥95 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provide assistance for
the Institute’s international training courses and seminars.

15

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

UNAFEI WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2009
I. TRAINING
A. The 141st International Senior Seminar
The 141st International Senior Seminar was held from 13 January to 13 February 2009. The main

theme of the Seminar was “The Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders Through the Enhancementof Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration”. Sixteen overseas participants and nine Japaneseparticipants attended.

B. 142nd International Training Course
The 142nd International Training Course was held from 11 May to 19 June 2009. The main theme of
the Course was “Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities”. Fourteen
overseas participants, two overseas observers and eight Japanese participants attended.
C. 143rd International Training Course
The 143rd International Training Course is scheduled for 28 September to 6 November 2009. The
main theme of the Course is “Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement
Officials”. Twelve overseas participants and five Japanese participants will attend.
D. The Fifth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Fifth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 23 February to 6 March 2009.
The main theme of the Seminar was “Effective Measures against Drug Offences and Related Crimes andEnhancement of International Co-operation in the Criminal Justice Process”. Eleven government officials
from four Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, attended.
E. The 14th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China
The 14th Special Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China washeld from 2 to 19 March 2009. The main theme of the Seminar was “Enhancement of Community-Based
Alternatives to Incarceration at All Stages of the Criminal Justice Process”. Ten participants and three
Course Counsellors attended.
F. The Fourth Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the PPA Volunteer
Probation Aide System for the Philippines
The Fourth Country Specific Training Course on the Revitalization of the PPA Volunteer Probation Aides
System for the Philippines was held from 29 June to 9 July 2009. The number of participants, who wereParole and Probation Officers and Volunteer Probation Aides, was fourteen. They discussed measures toimprove the probation system and the promotion of Volunteer Probation Aides.
G. The Twelfth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption
The Twelfth International Training Course on Corruption Control in Criminal Justice was held from13 July to 7 August 2009. In this Course, Japanese and overseas officials engaged in corruption control
comparatively analysed the current situation of corruption, methods of combating corruption and measures
to enhance international co-operation.
H. The Tenth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System in Kenya
The Tenth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya is scheduled for 15
February to 11 March 2010. Participants from Kenya will review their progress in regard to improving thetreatment of juveniles in correctional institutions and in the community and the progress they have made inestablishing a Volunteer Children’s Officers programme.
II. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
A. Regional Training Programmes
1. Short-Term Experts in Latin America
Two faculty members visited Costa Rica and Nicaragua in August 2009. In Costa Rica they jointly hosted,

16

UNAFEI
MAIN
WORK
ACTIVITIESPROGRAMMEOF UNAFEI
FOR 2009

with ILANUD, a course on Criminal Justice Reform in Latin America in which seven countries wererepresented. In Nicaragua, they held a follow-up seminar on the specific situation in that country.
2. Short-Term Experts in Kenya
Two UNAFEI professors will be dispatched to Kenya in October and November 2009. The professors willassist the Department of Children’s Services of the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Developmentin its training programmes and systems for officers with responsibility for children in need of care andprotection, as well as those in conflict with the law.
3. Short-Term Experts in the Philippines
A UNAFEI professor will be dispatched to the Philippines in October 2009, to attend the In-Country
Training Programme of the Philippines PPA.

B. Third Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
The Third Regional Seminar on Good Governance will be held from 9 to 11 December 2009, in Manila,
the Philippines. The main theme of the Seminar will be “Measures to Freeze, Confiscate and Recover
Proceeds of Corruption, Including Prevention of Money Laundering”. Approximately 25 participants fromSoutheast Asian countries will attend.

17

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

APPENDIX
MAIN STAFF OF UNAFEI
Mr. Keiichi Aizawa
Mr. Takeshi Seto

Director
Deputy Director

Faculty
Mr. Motoo Noguchi
Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi
Ms. Tae Sugiyama
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano
Mr. Jun Oshino
Mr. Ryuji Tatsuya
Mr. Koji Yamada
Mr. Junichiro Otani
Mr. Shintaro Naito
Ms. Grace Lord

Professor
Professor
Chief of Information & Library Service Division, Professor
Chief of Research Division, Professor
Chief of Training Division, Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Professor
Linguistic Adviser

Secretariat
Mr. Sakumi Fujii
Mr. Hitoshi Nakasuga
Mr. Masato Fujiwara
Mr. Masaaki Kojitani
Mr. Etsuya Iwakami
Mr. Kenichiro Koiwa

Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat
Co-Deputy Chief of Secretariat
Chief of General and Financial Affairs Section
Chief of Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section
Chief of International Research Affairs Section

AS OF 31 DECEMBER 200818

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI2008 VISITING EXPERTS
THE 138TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Mr. Jeremy Lo Kwok-chung

Assistant Director of Operations Department
Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC),
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
China

Mr. Pascal Gossin

HeadInternational Legal Assistance Section,Federal Office of Justice,
Swiss Confederation

Dr. Thomas Cassuto

Vice Président chargé de l’instruction
Section économique et fianciére,
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre,
Paris,
FranceMs. Brigitte Strobel-Straw

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer
Crime Conventions Sections,
Treaty and Legal Affairs Branch,
Division for Treaty Affairs,
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

THE 139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Dr. Robert Hoge

Emeritus Professor of Psychology andDistinguished Research Professor
Carleton University,
CanadaDr. Joseph Ozawa

Senior Deputy Director
Family and Juvenile Justice Centre,
Subordinate Courts of Singapore

Mr. Ian Blakeman

Head of Group
Women and Young People’s Group,
HM Prison Service,
United Kingdom

THE 140TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Dr. Marco Gerke

Council of Europe Expert/
Lecturer
University of Cologne,
Germany

Mr. Joel Michael Schwarz

Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section
Criminal Division,
US Department of Justice,USA

19

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

Mr. Junsik Jang

Professor/Senior Inspector
Department of Police Science,
Korea National Police University,
Republic of Korea

THE FOURTH SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA
Ms. Olga Zudova

Senior Regional Legal Adviser
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime,
Regional Office for Central Asia

THE ELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION

20

Mr. Giovanni Gallo

Crime Prevention Expert
Corruption and Economic Crime Section,
Division for Treaty Affairs,
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Mr. Tony Kwok Man-wai

International Anti-corruption Consultant
Former Deputy Commissioner andHead of Operations
Operations Department,
Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC),
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region,
China

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI2008 UNAFEI PARTICIPANTS
THE 138TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Overseas Participants
Mr. Younsi Noureddine

Inspector
Ministry of Justice,
Algeria

Ms. Clelia Fabiana Akizawa

Attorney
Ministry of Economy and Production,Argentina

Ms. Anna Mphetlhe

Assistant Director
Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime,
Botswana

Mr. Marco César dos Santos Sousa

Police Chief
Civil Police of the Federal District,Brasília,
Brazil

Ms. Claudia Alejandra Forner Ortega

Legal Anti-Corruption Adviser
Anti-Corruption Specialized Unit,
Public Prosecutor’s Office,Chile

Mr. Vladimir Georgiev

Head of Department
State Commission for Prevention of Corruption
Secretariat,
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

Mr. Giorgi Phiphia

Head of the Section of theConstitutional Security Department,
In the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Georgia

Mr. Dharam Chand Jain

Deputy Inspector General of Police
Central Bureau of Investigation,
New Dehli,
India

Mr. Harlan Mardite

Section Head of Program Setting
Office of the Attorney General,
Indonesia

Mr. Hassan Ghasemi

Judge and Head of Justice Department
Qazvin Province,
Iran

Mr. Madhav Prasad Ojha

Joint Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Nepal

21

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

Mr. Muhammad Hashim Tareen

Additional Secretary
Health Department,
Government of the Punjab,
Pakistan

Mr. Antonio Pinto Mendoza, Jr.

Chief
Senior Officers Placement and Promotion Board
Secretariat,
Directorate for Personnel and Records Management,
Police Superintendent,
Philippine National Police,
Philippines

Mr. Joselito Delos Reyes Obejas

Second Assistant City Prosecutor
Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila,
Department of Justice,
Philippines

Mr. Alharbi Ali Khalaf S.

Military Affaire
Madinah Branch,
Ministry of Interior,
Saudi Arabia

Japanese Participants
Ms. Mihoko Aso

Director
General Affairs Division,
Kyushu Regional Parole Board

Mr. Hiroshi Fukushima

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo Public Prosecutors Office,Hachioji Branch

Mr. Yasunobu Hishita

Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Shinji Iwayama

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Ms. Satsuki Miyaji

Professor
Research and Training Institute,
Ministry of Justice

Ms. Midori Shoji

Deputy Director
Katano Juvenile Training School for Girls,
Osaka

THE 139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Ms. Claudina Josette Nathaniel-Morgan

22

CorporalRape Unit CID,
Royal Police Force,
Antigua and Barbuda

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

Ms. Salma Begum

Additional Superintendent (Training)
Police Headquarters,
Bangladesh

Mr. Wangdi Tshering

Staff Officer to Chief
Royal Bhutan Police,
BhutanMs. Gloria Barakanye Dithupa

Superintendent
Prisoners Administration and Rehabilitation,
Botswana Prison Service,
Botswana

Mr. Barakanye Kootsene

Senior Social Welfare Technician
Social and Community Development,
North West District Council,
Botswana

Mr. Marcelo Eustaquio Goncalves Cesário

Police Chief
Civil Police of the Federal District,Brasília,
BrazilDr. Álvaro Burgos

Magistrate
Superior Juvenile Criminal Court,
Costa Rica

Mr. Alain-Bertin Tobunelo Bekolo

Director Inspector of Scientific Field
Justice Department,
Democratic Republic of Congo

Ms. Ina Rose Hunter

Educational Co-ordinator
Department of Correctional Services,
Ministry of National Security,
Jamaica

Mr. Hazem Naeem Al-Smadi

Judge
Amman First Instance Court,
JordanMs. Grace Yerro Naparato

Chief
Women and Child Protection Center
Police Regional Office,Calabarzon IV-A,
Philippine National Police,
Philippines

Ms. Korakod Narkvichetr

Director
Nakornratchasima Probation Office
Department of Probation,
Ministry of Justice,
Thailand

Ms. Gonna Satayathum

Judge
Nakorn Panom Provincial Court
Juvenile and Family Division,
Office of the Judiciary,
Thailand23

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

Mr. Fernando Oscar Viera Rivero

Assistant to Director
Police Instructor,
National Police School,
Uruguay

Observers
Mr. Chi-wai Samuel Tong

Principal Officer
Correctional Service Department,
Hong Kong SAR

Mr. Jaemyung Jung

Correctional Supervisor
Prison Industry Section,
Anyang Corrections Institution,
Korea

Japanese Participants
Mr. Hideaki Gunji

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Ms. Mayu Hayashi

Chief Specialist
Haruna Juvenile Training School for Girls

Ms. Naoko Naito

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Kotaro Nakamura

Public Prosecutor
Toyama District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Masaru Takahashi

Chief Specialist
Chiba Juvenile Classification Home

Ms. Akiko Tashiro

Probation Officer
Yokohama Probation Office

Ms. Kazumi Watanabe

Family Court Probation Officer
Tokyo Family Court

Mr. Yoshihiro Uchida

Facilities Planning Officer
Facilities Division,
Minister’s Secretariat,
Ministry of Justice

THE 140TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants

24

Mr. Mirza Abdullahel Baqui

Superintendent of Police
Satkhira,
Bangladesh

Mr. Bafi Nlanda

Chief Prosecution Counsel
Directorate of Public Prosecutions,
Botswana

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

Mr. Elcio Ricardo de Carvalho

Federal Criminal Expert First Class
Technical-Scientific Directorate,
Federal Police Department,
Ministry of Justice,
BrazilMr. Sergio Gardenghi Suiama

Federal Prosecutor
Cybercrime Division Co-ordinator
Cybercrime Division,Federal Attorney’s Office for the State of Sao Paulo,
BrazilMr. Napoleon Bonaparte

Deputy Director
Crime Investigation Department,
South Sumatera Police Region,
Indonesian National Police,
Indonesia

Mr. Saleh Ibrahim Mohammed Altawalbeh

Head of Operation Division in North Region
Public Security Directorate,
JordanMr. Jesus Rodriguez Almeida

Director of IntelligenceState of Mexico Security Agency,
MexicoMr. Syed Abbas Ahsan

Superintendent of Police
Islamabad Capital Territory Police,
Pakistan

Mr. Gilbert Caasi Sosa

Chief
Anti-Transnational Crime Division
Criminal Investigation and Detection Group,
Philippine National Police,
Philippines

Mr. Vijith Kumara Malalgoda

Deputy Solicitor General
Criminal Division,
Attorney General’s Department,
Sri Lanka

Ms. Lam Chun-fa Rita

Senior Computer Forensics Examiner
Technology Crime Division,
Hong Kong Police Force,Hong Kong SAR

Mr. Santipatn Prommajul

Deputy Superintendent
High Tech Crime Center,
Royal Thai Police,
ThailandJapanese Participants
Mr. Hiroyuki Ito

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Takuya Matsunaga

Public Prosecutor
Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office,Kokura Branch

25

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

26

Mr. Yoichi Omura

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

Mr. Koji Sakamoto

Judge
Osaka District Court

Mr. Nozomu Suzuki

Public Prosecutor
Fukushima District Public Prosecutors OfficeMAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

FOURTH SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA
Mr. Ametov Bek

Chairman of the CollegiumWest Kazakhstan Regional Court,
Kazakhstan

Mr. Maksimgereev Baglan Alkenovich

Senior Public Prosecutor
General Prosecutor’s Office,Kazakhstan

Mr. Nurmukhamedov Marat Beibetovich

Senior Public Prosecutor
General Prosecutor’s Office,Kazakhstan

Mr. Yeshtay Akzhan

Judge
Supreme Court of Kazakhstan,
Kazakhstan

Mr. Abdukul Uulu Mavlen

Head Division
Division on Legal Support,
Analysis and Strategy Department,
Ministry of Justice,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Barannikov Sergey

Senior Officer/Investigator
Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Dononbaev Marat

Prosecutor
Office of the General Prosecutor of the
Kyrgyz Republic,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Tashkarev Kanat

Senior Investigator
Drug Control Agency of the Kyrgyz Republic,
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Kamolov Saifiddin Ismonovich

Lawyer of Tursun Zadee
Court of Tursun Zadee,
Tajikistan

Mr. Mirzoev Abdulhakim Latifovich

Vice Chief
Court of Ismoeru Somoni,
Dushonhe City,
Tajikistan

Mr. Okilov Bakhtiyor Davronovich

Head of the Kayrokhum Court
Court of Kayrokhum,
Tajikistan

Mr. Shomusalomov Saidmusalam

ChairmanGorno-Badakhshan Autonomous Oblast Court,
Tajikistan

27

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

28

Mr. Hanmukamedov Begench
Amanmuhamedovich

Chief of Department
Investigative Department,
Ministry of Internal Affairs,
Turkmenistan

Mr. Egamberdiev Muzaffar
Shermamatovich

Head of Investigation Department
Prosecutors Office of Tashkent City,
Uzbekistan

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

13TH SPECIAL SEMINAR FOR SENIOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE OFFICIALS OF
THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Mr. Zha Qingjiu

Vice Director
General Office,Ministry of Justice

Mr. Qi Tengjuan

Deputy Chief Prosecutor
The People’s Procuratorate of Yunnan Province

Ms. Song Jinying

Programme Officer
Department of Judicial Assistance and Foreign
Affairs,
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Li Shouwei

Director
Criminal Legislation Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission,Standing Commission of NPC China

Mr. Huang Yong

Senior Section Member
Criminal Legislation Department,
Legislative Affairs Commission,Standing Committee of NPC China

Mr. Li Ruiyi

Judge
Fifth Criminal Tribunal of the Supreme People’s
Court of the People’s Republic of China

Mr. Li Jian

Judge
Fourth Criminal Tribunal of the Supreme
People’s Court of the People’s Republic of China

Mr. Xu Chuangye

Division Chief of Office
The People’s Procuratorate of Chinquing

Mr. Fang Baofeng

PoliceLegal Affairs Department,
Ministry of Public Security

Ms. Sun Jianying

Vice President
Institute of Judicial Administration,
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Geng Zhichao

Division Director
Department of Judicial Assistance and Foreign
Affairs,
Ministry of Justice29

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

THE THIRD COUNTRY SPECIFIC TRAINING COURSE ON
REVITALIZING THE VOLUNTEER PROBATION AIDE PROGRAMMEFOR THE PHILIPPINES

30

Mr. Rodolfo Pastor Pascua

Assistant Regional Director
Cordillera Administrative Region,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Cecilia Gaddi Dela Cruz

Chief Administrative Officer
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Twila Garingan Dela Cruz

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Boyombong City Parole and Probation Office,Region 2,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Rene Saldon Remollo

Supervising Parole and Probation Officer
Tanjay City Parole and Probation Office,Region 7,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of JusticeMs. Hyacinth Verzosa Castanos

Supervising Probation and Parole Officer
Community Services Division,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Wilfred Dang-ao Gonnay

Supervising Probation and Parole Officer
Bagiuo City Parole and Probation Office,Cordillera Administrative Region,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Joel Romano Cabatos Arjinal

Senior Probation and Parole Officer
Santa Rosa City Probation Office,Region 4,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Juan Raymundo Claravall Angangan

Probation and Parole Officer II
Cauayan City Parole and Probation Office,Region 2,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Mary Ann Claver Aranca

Probation and Parole Officer II
Tabuk City Parole and Probation Office,Cordillera Administrative Region,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of JusticeMAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

Mr. Gideon Michael Rodriguez
PatricioVolunteer Probation Aide
Roxas City,
Region 6,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Mr. Margarito Tanagon Pacilan

Volunteer Probation Aide
Dapitan City,
Region 9,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice

Ms. Virginia Matias Peralta

Volunteer Probation Aide
Santa Rosa City,
Region 4,
Parole and Probation Administration,
Department of Justice31

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

NINTH COUNTRY FOCUSED TRAINING COURSE ON THE JUVENILE
DELINQUENT TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR KENYA
Policy-Makers
Ms. Jacqueline Adhiambo Oduol

Secretary
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Mr. Titus Mwenda Karani

Deputy Commissioner
Prison Department,
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Miriam Ngina Muli

Deputy Commissioner
Police Department

Mr. Odhiambo Jerim Oloo

Director
Probation Department,
Ministry of Home Affairs

Senior Practitioners

32

Mr. Justus David Muthoka

Assistant Director
Department of Children’s Services,
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

Ms. Marygoretti Cheruto Tororey
Chepseba

Senior Principal Magistrate
Kitale Court

Ms. June Eddah Minayo Machayo

Volunteer Children’s Officer
Coast Province, Mombasa District

Ms. Mary Wanjiku Mbau

Deputy Director
Probation Department,
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Rose Nekesa Moturi

Nairobi Provincial Prisons Commander
Prison Department,
Ministry of Home Affairs

Mr. Samwel Kiplangat Ngeno

Provincial Commander
Nakul Provincial Police,
Police Department

Mr. David Barasa Rapando

Acting Principal Economist
Central Planning Unit,High Court of Kenya

Ms. Anne Wambere Waichinga

Chief Children’s Officer
Department of Children’s Services,
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEIELEVENTH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION
Overseas Participants
Ms. Jahanara Pervin(Director) Deputy Secretary		Anti-Corruption Commission,
Bangladesh					
Mr. Tshering Namgyel
Judge		Royal Court of Justice,District Court,
Thimphu,Bhutan					Mr. Tong Vannak
Deputy Director		Administration and Personnel,
Ministry of National Assembly-Senate
Relations and Inspection,
Cambodia					
Mr. Ahmed Mahmoud Moustafa
Chief Investigation Officer-Lt. Col.		
Cairo Public Investigation Department,
Ministry of Interior,
Cairo Public Security,
Egypt					Mr. Mohammed Ali Azeez
Public Prosecutor		Investigating Department,
Ministry of Justice,
Iraq		
			
Ms. Gabriela Martinez Lagarde
Public Defender		Direction of Defence Attention to Victims,
Government of Hidalgo State,
Mexico					
Mr. Rajan Prasad Bhattarai
Deputy Attorney		Investigation Department,
Commission for the Investigation of Abuse		
of Authority,
Nepal					Mr. Shreelal Poudel
Section Officer		
Drafting Division,
Ministry of Law, Justice and Constituent 		
Assembly Affairs,
Nepal					Mr. Cornelio Lopez Somido
Acting Deputy Special Prosecutor		
Office of the Special Prosecutor,
Prosecution Bureau IV,
Office of the Ombudsman,Philippines					33

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

Mr. Geronimo L. Sy

Assistant Secretary		
Department of Justice,
Philippines					
Mr. Nalin Rohantha Abeysuriya
Senior State Counsel		Criminal Division,
Attorney General’s Department,
Ministry of Justice and Law Reform,
Sri Lanka					
Ms. Sunethra Indumathie Jayasinghe
Deputy Director General		Legal Division,Commission to Investigate Allegations of 		
Bribery or Corruption,		
Sri Lanka		
Ms. Uthaiwan Jamsutee

Public Prosecutor		
Thailand Criminal Law Institute,
Office of the Attorney General,
Thailand					
Ms. Tosaporn Leepuengtham
Judge		Buriram Provincial Court,
Juvenile and Family Section,
Courts of Justice,
Thailand					
Mr. Abduljalil Saif Ali Al-Suhaiqi
Head		
Investigation Department,
Law Department,
Central Organizarion for Control and 		
Auditing,		Yemen		Thai Observers						
Mr. Kittikhun Dancharoen
Corruption Suppression Officer		
Office of the National Anti-Corruption 		
Commission					
Mr. Virote Kongwong
Legal Officer 		
Office of the National Anti-Corruption		
Commission					
Mr. Mongkol Sirijunrattana
Corruption Suppression Officer		
Office of the National Anti-Corruption		
Commission					
Mr. Seksan Sommat
Corruption Suppression Officer		
Office of the National Anti-Corruption		
Commission		
Mr. Sorayuth Weteewisai

34

Asset Inspection Officer Level 8		
Office of the National Anti-Corruption,
Commission		MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

Japanese Participants
Mr. Minao Ishiwatari

Public Prosecutor		
Nagano District Public Prosecutors Office,Matsumoto Branch					
Mr. Jun Obayashi
Public Prosecutor		
Sendai District Public Prosecutors Office			
Mr. Toru Yamada
Public Prosecutor		
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office			
Mr. Takehiro Yasunaga
Judge		Osaka District Court		

35

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2008

DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND COUNTRY(1st International Training Course/Seminar - 140th International Training Course/Seminar)
Professional
Background
Country/Area

Judicial and
Other
Administration

PublicProsecutors

Judge

Afghanistan

79Bangladesh

21

13

6

Correctional
Officials(Adult)Correctional
Officials(Juvenile)

Probation
ParoleOfficers

FamilyCourt
Investigation
Officers

Child
WelfareOfficers

Social
WelfareOfficers

Training &Research
Officers

4
1

2

1

7

China

13

5

5

10

Georgia
Hong Kong

16

1
12

4

5

2

6
12

1

8

41

3

1

1
72

6

27

3

9

1

1

2

3

6

India

15

10

53

7

23

22

32

26

14

Iran
Iraq

5
6

12
3

8
3

8
5

6
5

5

2
2

Korea
Kyrgyzstan

13
1

3

53

6
1

26

4

3

35

8

1

10

6

7

10

21

2

7

46

Maldives
Mongolia
Myanmar

1
1
7

3

1

1

1

1
2
4

Nepal

29

13

11

32
3
38
1

8

1

2
1

10

Philippines
Saudi Arabia

18
5

9

24

39
7

9
3

3

11

Singapore
Sri Lanka
Taiwan

10
21
12

18
20
4

5
16
2

12
20
2

10
20
1

3
1

10
11

Tajikistan
Thailand

1
24

40

39

17

18

9

12

TurkeyUnited Arab Emirates

2
1

1

1

2

Uzbekistan
Vietnam

12

5

2

7

1

212
4

227
2
1
1

1
405

199

5

1

Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Seychelles
South Africa
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tunisia
UgandaZambiaZimbabwe
AFRICA

2
3

4

42
29

1
1
1

1
1
3
2
2
5
3
12
1

108
2

1

5

3

1

1

20
1

6

1

38

67

3

88

2

2

4
85
4

1
3

1

7

5
1

6
1

135
17

3
3

1

1

1
1

73
114
21

8

5

1

1

1

8
1

1

1
32

1

4

4

4

1

47

41

26

3

1

1

1
7

7
2

2
1

1
1
1
1
1

4

1

1

1

5

5

4
3
13
2
7
1
5
6
8
95

3

1
1

1

1

2
4

1
3
1

4
1

1
1
26

19

3
20

1

1

1
1

2

2
1

21

132
6
3
14

1
2

1

127

33
3

Oman
Pakistan
Palestine

1
1
3

99

1

6

Laos

1
4

4

5

Malaysia

1
322

64
9

2
1

Indonesia

Jordan

Total

26
5

9

Brunei
CambodiaYemen
A S I A
Algeria
Botswana
Cameroon
Cote d’Ivoire
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Egypt
Ethiopia
GambiaGhana
GuineaKenya
LesothoLiberia
Madagascar
Malawi
Mauritius
MoroccoMozambique

Others4
14

Bhutan36

PoliceOfficials

0

10

0

0

2

9

4

1
174

2
1,592
6
9
5
3
2
11
5
2
8
4
39
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
1
12
1
9
4
19
2
20
2
7
7
12
206

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

Professional
Background
Country/Area

Judicial and
Other
Administration

PublicProsecutors

Judge

Australia

Correctional
Officials(Adult)21

17

Correctional
Officials(Juvenile)

1

Fiji

6

Kiribati

1

Marshall Islands
Micronesia

1

1

9

Probation
ParoleOfficers

10

Samoa

1

Solomon Islands
Tonga

3
2

1

THE PACIFIC

25

3

15

59

Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina

2

0

1
2

1

2

1

1

1

4
1

Barbados

3

1

55
5
2

4

2
7

1

1
3

2

2

2
48

1

5
6
16

1

1

3
31

0

9

0

0

3

1

3

149

1

2
7
2

2
1

1

Brazil

2

4

22

1

Chile

1

1

4

2

Colombia

3

1

2

3

Costa Rica
Dominican Republic

3

5

4

1

1

1
1

8
1
1

4
2

1

11

2

15
1

1
1

1

1

1

1

Haiti
Honduras1
3
1

Nicaragua
Panama

1
1
8

1
9

1
2

Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent

1

Trinidad and Tobago
U.S.A.(Hawaii)

1

10

1

1

6
3

4

3

1
4
1

9
2
1

1
1
1

1

2

1
1

24
1

21

24

2
12
87
2
1

2
15

1
9

3

2

1

2

1

3

10

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

91
351

85
126

195
283

64
69

38
44

2
55

48
102

0
1
70
114

1
2
1

4

0

1

1
1
5

115
516

173
428

272
559

96
747

11
24
2

2
1

1
1

1
8

2
2

2

1

6
6
1
2
1

1

4

3
2
31

1

GrenadaGuatemala
GuyanaNORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
Albania
Bulgaria
Estonia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Hungary
Lithuania
PolandEUROPE
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
JAPAN
TOTAL

1

3

1

Total

2
1
10

2

Vanuatu

Uruguay
Venezuela

Others1

1
16Paraguay
Peru
Saint Christopher and Nevis

Training &Research
Officers

1

Palau
Papua New Guinea

Jamaica
MexicoSocial
WelfareOfficers

1

1

EcuadorEl Salvador

Child
WelfareOfficers

1

1BelizeBolivia

FamilyCourt
Investigation
Officers

1

4
1

Nauru
New Zealand

PoliceOfficials

187
3
1
1
2
1
1
1
10
1
1,249
3,394

37

PART TWORESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
No. 78Work Product of the 139th International Training Course“Profiles and Effective Treatment of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders”

UNAFEI

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSISSUES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Robert D. Hoge*

I. INTRODUCTION
The assessment process involves the collection, processing, and synthesis of information about theindividual. The outcome of the assessment is generally expressed as a judgment or opinion which may,in turn, be expressed as a diagnosis (e.g., bi-polar depression, psychotic, autistic) or categorization (e.g.,borderline developmentally delayed, high risk for violent offending). As we will see below, formal andinformal assessments are conducted in juvenile justice systems by police, prosecuting attorneys, probation
officers, and judges, and these assessments are used as the basis for important decisions about the offender.
Although not a primary concern in our discussions, assessments of risk for antisocial behaviours are also
important in prevention programmes.
While the assessment process is critical to the quality of decisions made about the youth, many
juvenile justice systems depend on badly flawed assessment processes. In some cases there are simply no
systematic assessments conducted. In other cases the assessments are conducted by unqualified individuals
or reflect an absence of adequate standards and procedures. Ample research now exists to show that justicesystems that depend on structured and validated assessment procedures are more effective in producing
reduced reoffending rates than those that do not use these procedures. The use of standardized assessments
constitutes one of the most important of the principles of best practice (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Grisso,2005; Hoge, 1999, 2008; Hoge & Andrews, 1996).

II. CONTEXTS AND PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENTS
Table 1 provides an outline of the major decision areas encountered in juvenile justice systems. These
range from the initial police contact with the youth to final discharge from the system.
Table 1
Major Decision Areas in Juvenile Justice Systems

Pre-arrest diversion
ArrestCriminal charge
Pre-trial detention
Waiver to adult court
Competency to stand trial
Adjudication
Sentencing/disposition
Rehabilitative intervention planning
Some of these decisions relate to legal issues involving, for example, judgments about guilt or innocence.
Those issues are outside the scope of our interest. However, many other decisions involve assessments
relating to the psychological functioning of the youth or his or her circumstances. For example, a decisionof the police or prosecutor to formally charge the youth may be affected by judgments about the youth’s
cognitive abilities or emotional maturity. Other decisions such as waiver to the mental health system
may involve more complex diagnoses relating to the youth’s psychiatric status. Disposition or sentencing* Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

decisions made by a judge or magistrate may be affected by a probation officer’s assessment of the family
circumstances of the youth. These are all important decisions and highlight the importance of conducting
careful and valid assessments of the youth.
As suggested by the above examples, the focus of assessments will vary. In some cases the concern
is with describing the criminal history of the individual. In other cases the concern is with describing or
diagnosing internal conditions of the youth, relating, for example, to his or her emotional state or propensity
for violence. In still other cases the goal is identification of problems existing with family circumstances,educational achievement, peer group associations, or substance abuse. Still another focus may be on theattitudes and values of the young person.
Many decisions require that the assessment be expressed as an evaluation of risk for engaging in
future criminal behaviour (criminogenic risk). This may be a factor in decisions about pre-trial detention or
diversion. For example, programmes designed to divert youth out of the criminal justice system without
further processing are generally reserved for low risk individuals. Risk level may also be a consideration in
deciding on an appropriate disposition following a finding of guilt. This could, for example, be the basis for
deciding whether custody or community supervision is the appropriate courses of action.
Assessments may also be expressed as criminogenic needs. In this case we are attempting to identify
the risk factors that can be changed through interventions to reduce the probability of future offending. For
example, associations with antisocial peers is a risk factor, but it is something we can influence and, to theextent that we succeed, we can reduce the risk level. Needs assessments are very important whereverinterventions or treatments are to be provided within the judicial action. We will talk more about risk andneed assessments later in the paper.
Under some circumstances legal criteria may be available for guiding the assessment process. For
example, specific psychiatric assessments may be indicated where decisions are to be made regarding
competence to stand trial (Grisso, 1998, 2004). In still other cases regulations may guide the decision
process. We will see in a later paper that the Canadian Province of Ontario has specified procedures to befollowed in preparing pre-disposition reports for judges. However, in many cases rules or regulations for the
conduct of assessments are not available, leaving open the possibility for decisions to be based on invalid or
biased assessments.
The primary concern in our sessions will be with diversion and disposition decisions based on risk andneed assessments. These assessments will be used to make decisions about the proper placement of the
youth in the system and the kinds of interventions or treatments they should receive while in the system.
We turn next to some issues relevant to this matter.

III. ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT
The following is an introduction to some key concepts relevant to the assessment process. The reader isreferred to Grisso (1998), Grisso, Vincent, and Seagrave (2005), Hoge (1999, 2008), and Hoge and Andrews(1996) for further discussions of these issues.

A. Screening versus Assessment
A distinction is sometimes made between screening and assessment procedures, although the line
between these is not always entirely clear. Screening instruments are generally relatively simple measuresdesigned for use with all individuals within a group. The Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–
Version 2 (MAYSI–2 ; Grisso & Barnum, 2000), for example, is a self-report form used as a preliminary
screening device for detecting emotional, behavioural, and psychological disturbances. It does not yield
psychological diagnoses, but it does provide initial information about symptoms that may require more
intensive assessments. Screening measures of this sort generally do not require a high level of training orexpertise for administration or interpretation.
Psychological assessments, on the other hand, involve more thorough analyses of psychological or
behavioural functioning. This might, for example, involve a comprehensive evaluation of cognitive and42

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

personality functioning through the use of standardized tests and clinical interviews. This would beappropriate where signs of serious disorder are present. Many psychological assessments will require theservices of a mental health practitioner such as a psychiatrist or psychologist.
However, as we will see below there are other assessments that can be conducted by non-mental healthprofessionals such as probation officers, youth workers, or teachers. These generally involve a period of
training and supervision in the use of some standardized measure.

B. Clinical versus Standardized Assessments
We can distinguish two general categories of assessment. Clinical assessments involve the unstructured
collection of information and the interpretation of that information on the basis of past clinical experience.
A probation officer, for example, might conduct an open-ended interview with a youth, interview parents,
examine file information and conclude that the youth is high risk for continued criminal activity. Someclinical assessments do involve a certain amount of structure, but clinical interviews are relatively
unstructured and allow the assessor considerable latitude in collecting and interpreting information.
Decisions within juvenile justice systems are often based on clinical assessments.
Standardized assessments, on the other hand, represent more structured procedures for forming
assessments. These are instruments or procedures with (a) fixed stimulus, response, and scoring formats;(b) yielding quantitative scores; and (c) for which normative and psychometric data are available. The
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV (WISC–IV ; Wechsler, 2004) and the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory – Adolescent (MMPI-A ; Butcher et al., 1992) are examples of standardized
psychological measures.
Mechanical or actuarial prediction represents a special form of standardized assessment procedures
whereby the procedures yield a specific prediction regarding an outcome. We will examine somecomprehensive risk/need assessment instruments later and see that they yield specific estimates of risk for
reoffending. These mechanical or actuarial predictions are always based on empirical analyses and provide
information on reliability and validity.
We will examine another form of standardized assessment later. This is referred to as guided professional
assessment or structured professional judgment (Webster, Hucker, & Bloom, 2002). This involves the use ofclinical judgments within a structured framework. These instruments or procedures are based more or lessdirectly on empirical data and may be accompanied by psychometric information. We will present examples
in a later section.
Considerable research is now available demonstrating that the use of standardized assessments,
particularly actuarial or guided professional assessments, is preferable to a dependence on clinicalassessments (Borum & Verhaagen, 2006; Hoge, 1999, 2008).

C. Normative Scores
Norms or normative scores are also important assessment terms, particularly with reference tostandardized measures. Normative scores reflect performance on a measure relative to the performanceof a group of respondents. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV (WISC-IV; Weschler, 2004),
for example, is scored in terms of a large and representative sample of children. An individual’s score isexpressed relative to that sample. A full-scale WISC–IV score of 100 for a nine-year old would indicate thatthe child’s raw score was at the mean level for the normative sample of nine-year olds, while a score of 115
would indicate a performance one standard deviation above the mean. The quality of the normative data
forms one basis for evaluating the utility of a standardized measure.
D. Evaluating Assessment Measures
It is very important to pay attention to the quality of a screening or assessment measure when deciding
whether to incorporate it into the system. Reliability and validity are the primary qualities we look for whenevaluating quality, and the basic forms of these constructs are defined in Table 2. Only a brief introduction
will be provided to these terms in this paper, and you are referred to Grisso (2005), Hoge (2008), and Hogeand Andrews (1996) for more thorough discussions.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Reliability refers to the stability or consistency of a measure. More formally, it refers to the relative
proportion of true and error variance in a measure.
Table 2
Definitions of Psychometric Terms

Reliability
The stability or consistency of a measure; formally defined as the relative proportion of true or error
variance within a measure.
Content Validity
The adequacy with which a measure represents the conceptual domain it is expected to encompass.
Construct Validity
The theoretical meaning of scores from a measure; the accuracy with which the measure represents
the construct in question.
Criterion-Related Validity
Extent to which scores from a measure relate to a criterion of performance; the two forms ofcriterion-related validity are concurrent and predictive validity.
Dynamic Predictive Validity
The sensitivity of a measure to changes in the dimension being assessed; also referred to astreatment validity.
Incremental Predictive Validity
The extent to which a measure exhibits improvements in prediction relative to other procedures.
Three standard procedures are available for evaluating reliability: test-retest, inter-rater agreement,
and internal consistency. Each provides a somewhat different approach to detecting the extent to which
extraneous or error factors are affecting scores on a measure. Reliability coefficients are generally
expressed through correlation coefficients.
Reliability constitutes an essential condition in a measure. Lack of stability or consistency in a measureseriously interferes with its utility in applied assessment situations. If, for example, we found that scores ona personality test were affected by factors not related to the personality trait being assessed and that scores
fluctuated in a more-or-less random fashion over time, we could have little confidence in that measure.
Validity is a more difficult construct to define since it is used in a number of different ways in different
contexts. However, where referring to psychological tests or procedures, the term refers in its broadest
sense to the meaningfulness of scores from a measure (Messick, 1995). Table 2 defines a number of different
forms of validity, but only two will be noted in our discussion.
Construct validity is sometimes regarded as the key form of validity and may be defined as referring to
the theoretical meaning or accuracy of a measure. It is also often defined as referring to the extent to whicha measure is measuring what it says it is measuring.
Some illustrations of the definition may be useful. In raising a question of the construct validity of an
intelligence test we would be raising a question about the meaningfulness of scores from the test. Just what
does a full-scale score of 113 mean so far as the cognitive functioning of the youth is concerned? We could
also ask how well that score reflects what we consider the meaning of “intelligence.” Consider a second
example. If we raised a question about the construct validity of a measure of behavioural pathology we would
be asking about the actual meaning of scores from the measure. How do those scores define behavioural
pathology? Construct validity may be evaluated through theoretical and empirical procedures.
Criterion-related validity is a second form of validity important for our purposes. It refers to the extent
to which scores on a measure relate to some criterion of performance. The two forms of criterion-related
validity are concurrent validity (where predictor and criterion scores are collected at the same time) andpredictive validity (where predictor scores are collected at one point and criterion scores at a later time).
Criterion-related predictive validity is particularly important in applied settings because we often

44

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

need to know how well scores from a measure predict future behaviour or performance. For example, thecomprehensive risk/need measures described below are designed to identify the current risk and needfactors exhibited by the youth as a means of estimating their likelihood of engaging in continued criminal
activity. Data from criterion-related predictive studies would provide us with that kind of information.
It is important to have some familiarity with the meaning of the reliability and validity constructs,
and it is extremely important to obtain information about the reliability and validity of instruments being
considered. Measures that do not display adequate levels of reliability and validity are of no value to us.

IV. TYPES OF ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS
This section will provide a brief overview of the major categories of assessment instruments andprocedures relevant to juvenile justice settings. More thorough discussions may be found in Grisso (1998),
Grisso et al. (2005), Hoge (2008), and Hoge and Andrews (1996). A further discussion of tools for assessing
risk for violence in juveniles will be provided in the second paper in this series.
Two broad categories of assessment instruments can be identified. The first includes measuresdeveloped for general application but relevant to assessment in juvenile justice settings and the second
includes instruments and procedures specifically developed for forensic application.

A. General Application Measures
A large number of personality tests, structured interview schedules, rating/checklist measures andattitude measures have been developed that have proven useful sometimes in assessing juvenile offenders.
The Minnesota Multphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A ; Butcher, Williams, Graham,
Archer, Tellegen, & Ben Porath , 1992) and Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale (RADS ; Reynolds, 2002)
are just two examples of the many standardized personality tests useful in the psychological assessment ofadolescent offenders. These tests generally require special training in scoring and interpretation.
Structured interview formats designed for assessing behavioural and emotional pathologies may also
play a role in these forensic assessments. Examples include the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children(DISC ; Shaffer et al., 2000) and Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS ; Hodges, 2000).
Standardized rating and checklist measures have also proven very useful in these assessments. Thesemay serve as screening tools for the preliminary identification of problems or as part of more intensive
psychological assessments. The parent, teacher, clinician, and youth forms of the Child Behavior Checklist(CBCL ; Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) has proven invaluable in identifying behavioural pathologies inyouth. More focused rating instruments such as the Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version
2 (MAYSI–2 ; Grisso & Barnum, 2000) and Aggression Questionnaire (AQ ; Buss & Warren, 2000) may also
be useful. Some of the rating/checklist measures are only suitable for use by mental health professionals,
but others can be used by probation officers, teachers, or youth workers with some training in scoring andinterpretation.

B. Forensic Assessment Instruments
This category includes instruments and procedures specifically developed for assessments injuvenile justice systems. Some of these are specialized measures designed for evaluating legally relevant
considerations. An example is the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool–Criminal Adjudication(MacCAT-CA ; Poythress et al., 1999) instrument.
Several standardized self-report measures of antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs are alsoavailable, including the Criminal Sentiments Scale – Modified (CSS-M; Simourd, 1997) and How I Think
Questionnaire (HIT ; Gibbs, Barriga, & Potter, 2001). The latter is especially important because it helps
identify specific aspects of defective reasoning that can lead to antisocial actions.
Comprehensive risk/need assessment instruments constitute another important category of measures.
These are generally in the form of structured checklists and employ either an actuarial or structured
professional judgment approach. The instruments are designed to guide disposition and treatment planning

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

decisions by identifying risk and need factors in the youth. Two examples include the Youth Level ofService/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI ; Hoge, 2005; Hoge & Andrews, 1996) and Estimate of Riskof Adolescent Sexual Offence Recidivism (ERASOR ; Worling & Curwen, 2001). This type of measure will be
discussed further in the second paper in the series.

V. PRACTICAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES
We will conclude the paper with brief introductions to some practical and ethical matters you should
consider in designing an assessment system.

A. Selecting Relevant Measures
A choice of assessment measure or procedure should be guided, first, by the purposes of the assessment.
There would be little value, for example, in using a personality test to aid in a decision about pretrial
detention or an intelligence test to guide a decision about length of probation. It is also important to ensurethat the assessment instrument is appropriate for the individual being assessed. This depends on therelevance of available normative, reliability, and validity data for the youth. For example, a personality testdeveloped and evaluated with samples of boys between 8 and 12 years may not be relevant for a 17-yearold girl. Age, gender, ethnic group membership, and the presence of physical or mental handicaps are among
the factors that should be considered in selecting assessment tools. Many of the standardized aptitude,
personality, and behavioral measures have been evaluated for a wide range of respondent types, but this is
not true of all instruments, and it is important to keep this issue in mind in selecting assessment tools.
B. Evaluating the Measures
We have already commented on the importance of researching the reliability and validity of the measures
being considered. Information about these properties will be available from manuals or guides accompanying
the instrument and from reference materials such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook and any number of
web-based sources.
C. CostThe cost of test materials and their administration is also a factor to be considered in evaluating thesuitability of measures. Psychological services are sometimes expensive, and it is important to weigh thosecosts against the potential benefits of using the services. However, research shows that following principles
of best practice, including the use of standardized assessment procedures, can lead to significantly reduced
levels of reoffending. The savings there will often offset the costs of the assessment.
D. Professional ExpertiseStandardized assessment instruments and procedures require varying levels of training and experience,and this must be considered in planning the assessment. As we have seen, some of the tools can be usedby professionals such as probation officers, youth workers, or teachers with some special training. In
other cases, however, the assessments must be conducted by qualified mental health professionals suchas psychiatrists or psychologists. All professionals involved in the assessment should have a thoroughunderstanding of child and adolescent development. A related point is that the use of the assessment
instruments and procedures should be continually monitored, with periodic retraining provided for thoseusing the measures.
E. Ethical and Legal Considerations
Some juvenile justice systems will provide explicit guidelines regarding the conduct of assessments,
while others may provide more guidelines, and still others will give no guidance on the matter. One goal
should be to encourage all systems to provide explicit guidelines. This will help to ensure that all youth aretreated in a fair and consistent manner.
Professional associations in some areas have developed guidelines regarding the conduct of assessments.
Examples include Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing developed by the American
Educational Research Association and American Psychological Association and the Specialty Guidelines
for Forensic Psychologists from Division 41 of the American Psychological Association. The British andCanadian associations of professional psychologists have also developed assessment guides.

46

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles .
Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families.
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct–Fourth edition . Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson.
Borum, R., & Verhaagen, D. (2006). Assessing and managing violence risk in youth . New York: Guilford.
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. L. (2000). Aggression questionnaire manual . Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Kaemmer,
B. (1992). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent . Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press.
Gibbs, J. C., Barriga, A. Q., & Potter, G. B. (2001). How I Think (HIT) questionnaire . Champaign, IL:
Research Press.
Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles . Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Grisso, T. (2005). Why we need mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice systems. In
T. Grisso, T. Vincent, & D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp.
3-21). New York: Guilford.
Grisso, T., & Barnum, R. (2003). Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument–Version 2: User’s manualand technical report . Sarasota, FL: Personal Resource Press.
Grisso, T., Vincent, G., & Seagrave, D. (Eds.). (2005). Mental health screening and assessment injuvenile justice . New York: Guilford.
Hodges, K. (2000). Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale . Ypsilanti, MI: Eastern Michigan
University.
Hoge, R. D. (1999). An expanded role for psychological assessments in juvenile justice systems. Criminal
Justice and Behavior , 26, 251-266.
Hoge, R. D. (2005). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. In T. Grisso, T. Vincent, &D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 283-294). New York:
Guilford.
Hoge, R. D. (2008). Assessment in juvenile justice systems. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer(Eds.), Treating the juvenile offender (pp. 54-75).
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (1996). Assessing the youthful offender: Issues and techniques . New
York: Plenum.
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2002). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory user’s
manual . North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of iferences from person’s responses
and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist , 50, 741-749.
Poythress, N. G., Bonnie, R. J., Monohan, J., Otto, R., & Hoge, S. K. (2002). The MacArthur Competence
Assessment Tool–Criminal Adjudication: Professional manual . Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Reynolds, W. M. (2002). Reynolds Adolescent Depression Scale–Second Edition . Lutz, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Shaffer, D., et al. (2000). Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (DISC–4) . New York: New YorkState Psychiatric Institute.
Simourd, D. (1997). The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and Pride in Delinquency Scale:
Psychometric properties and construct validity of two measures of criminal attitudes. Criminal Justice andBehavior , 24, 52-70.
Webster, C., Hucker, S., & Bloom, H. (2002). Transcending the actuarial versus clinical polemic inassessment risk for violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 29 , 659-665.
Wechsler, D. (2004). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition . San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Worling, J. R., & Curwen, M. A. (2001). Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism(ERASOR) . Toronto, ON: Thistletown Regional Centre.

48

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSSERIOUS AND VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS:ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT
Robert D. Hoge*

I. INTRODUCTION
Many adolescents engage in risky rule-breaking behaviours. This may involve under-age drinking,cheating on a test, vandalism, or involvement in a physical fight. Minor legal infractions and rule breaking
are normative during adolescence. However, it is important to observe that the majority of young people do
not engage in serious criminal activity and are, in fact, responsible citizens.
On the other hand, a minority of youth engage in criminal acts serious enough to merit attention by
the police and judicial system. Most of these youth have not committed a serious crime and most do notcontinue to engage in criminal activities. However, a small group of young people commit serious crimes ofa non-violent (e.g., auto theft, drug trafficking) or violent (e.g., aggravated assault, rape) nature. Some will
only engage in these acts once, while others will exhibit a chronic pattern of offending.
The primary concern of this paper is with youth who commit serious criminal actions repeatedly,
whether of a violent or non-violent nature. We will examine some of the research on the characteristics ofthese young people and consider the available assessment and intervention strategies. We turn, first, though
to a closer look at the categories of youth we are interested in.

II. DEFINING SERIOUS AND VIOLENT CRIMINAL ACTS
Identifying criminal actions as serious and violent is sometimes complicated. Jurisdictions may differ
in the way in which individual actions are regarded. For example, cigarette smoking by children is treatedas a serious criminal act in Singapore but treated as a very minor transgression in other areas. Similarly, aphysical confrontation between two youth in the school may be treated as a serious criminal action in somejurisdictions but regarded as simply a disciplinary matter for the school to deal with in others.
However, non-violent criminal acts involving, for example, car theft, drug trafficking, and burglary arerecognized in most jurisdictions as serious. Similarly, violent actions such as homicide, aggravated assault,
rape, and robbery are almost always treated as serious violent crimes.
Some ambiguity is also associated with the identification of chronic serious criminal activity. There areno firm rules about the number or duration of criminal actions that define chronicity. Generally speaking,though, we are concerned with youth who engaged in repeated antisocial actions over a period of time.
We will not worry too much about these issues in definition. Our concern is with youth exhibiting apattern of repeated serious criminal activity or those at risk of this. We turn next to a brief overview ofdevelopments from theory and research on the causes of antisocial behaviours in youth.

III. IDENTIFYING PATTERNS OF SERIOUS AND CHRONIC CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
Research in developmental criminology has identified a number of relatively stable patterns or
trajectories of antisocial behaviour (see Arseneault, Tremblay, Boulerice, & Saucier, 2002; Frick, 2006;
Loeber, 1988; Moffitt, 2003, 2006). These patterns describe groups of individuals following similar paths in
the expression of criminal behaviours.
* Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

One of the paths is particularly relevant to our discussion of chronic criminal behaviour. The lifecourse-persistent pattern is characterized by youth who exhibit symptoms of a difficult temperament
during the early years, the appearance of various forms of conduct and oppositional disorders during thepreschool years, an escalation of the incidence and severity of antisocial actions during early childhood andadolescence, and the persistence of the antisocial behaviours into adulthood. These are individuals with along history of behavioural problems, and they constitute the majority of those we refer to as chronic serious
offenders. Their antisocial behaviours may be expressed in violent actions or as serious non-violent criminal
actions.
Caution needs to be observed with this pattern. Not all youth who exhibit an early difficult temperamentand serious conduct disorders during later childhood and adolescence will continue a life of criminal activity.
Some do manage to cease their antisocial life style by the time they reach the adult years. However, some do
not desist and will continue their criminal actions into adulthood.
The other major pattern identified in the research cited above is referred to as the adolescent-limited
trajectory . This is characterized by normal development during the childhood years and the more-or-lesssudden appearance of antisocial behaviours during adolescence. Youth exhibiting this pattern normally desist
from further criminal actions during later adolescence and the adult years. These are youth who suddenly
get into trouble during their teens but revert to a pro-social life style later on. Youth exhibiting this patternare of concern to us in the juvenile justice system, but they present a somewhat lesser challenge than those
who exhibit the life-course-persistent pattern.
These two patterns do not characterize all youth who engage in criminal activities. Some will not beginserious criminal activities until adolescence but will continue them into adulthood. Another pattern wesometimes observe involves persistent and chronic non-serious criminal activities. These are people who
never engage in serious criminal acts but who seem to have continual conflicts with the judicial system.
Our primary concern in this case is with the youth who seem at risk of life-course persistent criminal
activity, and we turn now to some research and theory relevant to explaining this phenomenon.

IV. SEARCHING FOR THE CAUSES OF SERIOUS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY
The fundamental challenge in the search for the causes of antisocial behaviours arises from thecomplexity of human behaviour. Many of the early theoretical positions regarding the causes of criminality
focused on a single causal variable, whether poverty, weak ego, deficient self-control, or the XXY
chromosome anomaly. These approaches were clearly inadequate. We now know that a wide range of factors
can influence the commission of a criminal act. Some of these are internal (e.g., aspects of temperament,social competencies, modes of perception) and some external (e.g., influences of parents and peers,
features of the immediate situation in which the action occurs). Further, these factors do not operate inisolation; rather, it is complex interactions among factors that have the causal impact. Further still, thedynamics of these factors are complicated. For example, individual predispositions relating, for example, toimpulsivity and aggressiveness, are likely the product of complex interactions among genetic, biological, andenvironmental influences.
A wide range of theories have been advanced to explain the commission of serious antisocial
acts, including those of a violent nature. The most satisfactory of the contemporary theories are thedevelopmental life-course theories incorporating a social learning theory perspective into a broad-based
integrative framework (see Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Guerra, Williams, Tolan, & Modecki, 2008a; Farrington,
2004; Rutter, 2003). Catalano and Hawkins’ (1996) Social Development Model is an example of thisapproach. It describes causal chains leading to the development of pro-social or antisocial life styles. The
theory incorporates a broad range of ecological and individual factors and tries to show how these operate
at different points in the developmental sequence. Boxer & Frick (2008) and Frick’s (2006) analysis of thefactors leading to a life-course-persistent pattern expressed in violent actions is an example of a recent
formulation focusing specifically on violence.

50

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

This theoretical work is being supported by sophisticated research on the correlates and causes ofdelinquency. The most important research is based on prospective longitudinal designs involving the studyof the same individuals over a period of time, tracking changes in their behaviours, and exploring factors
associated with those changes.
The Cambridge Study in delinquent development is an example (Farrington, 1997, 2003, 2004;
Farrington, Coid, Harnett, Jolliffe, Soteriou, Turner, and West, 2006). The study was initiated in theearly 1960s with the collection of data from a group of 411 eight and nine-year old males drawn largely
from working class districts of London. The researchers are continuing to collect measures from theseparticipants who are now in their late forties. A wide variety of psychological measures have been employed,
including psychological tests, questionnaires completed by teachers and peers, and interviews conductedwith the participants and their parents. The incidence of criminal activity on the part of the participants
constitutes the primary outcome variable, and this has been measured through official records and selfreports. This research has yielded very important information about factors affecting the development ofantisocial behaviours.

V. RISK AND NEED FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH SERIOUS AND VIOLENT CRIME
These theoretical and empirical developments are important in a number of respects, but it is theircontribution to the identification of risk and need factors associated with serious and violent crime that is ofprimary concern to us. A brief introduction to these terms is required. Risk factors refer to characteristics of
the youth or his or her circumstances associated with antisocial actions. Having a history of criminal activity,
coming from a dysfunctional home environment, friendship with antisocial peers, and aggressive tendencies
are examples. These factors place the youth at risk of continuing criminal activity. Need factors are risk
factors that can be changed, and, if changed, reduce the chances of future criminal activity. Improving parentchild relations and reducing associations with negative peers will, for example, reduce the probability ofcontinuing criminal activity.
We now have considerable information from the theoretical and research efforts cited above about risk
and need factors associated with serious and violent criminal activity. This work will be briefly reviewed
here, and you are referred to Hoge (2001), Loeber and Farrington (1998, 2000), and Rutter, Giller, & Hagell(1998) for further discussion of the factors.
Table 1 identifies the major categories of risk and need factors associated with serious and violent
criminal activity. It is the presence or absence of these factors that contribute to the likelihood the youth will
engage in serious antisocial acts or develop a pattern of criminal activity. They are divided in the table into
proximal factors that have a direct impact on the criminal action and distal factors that operate through theproximal factors.
Table 1: Major Risk/Need Factors

Proximal Factors
Antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs
Dysfunctional parenting
Dysfunctional behaviour and personality traits
Poor school/vocational achievement
Antisocial peer associations
Substance abuse
Poor use of leisure time
Distal Factors
Criminal/psychiatric problems in family of origin
Family financial problems
Poor accommodations
Negative neighbourhood environments

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

While all of these factors are likely relevant to the evolution of a life-course-persistent pattern expressedin violent behaviour, special attention should probably be paid to three factors when analysing a propensity ofviolent actions: a history of aggressive conduct disorders, certain personality and behavioural dispositions,and embracing antisocial attitudes and values.
Individuals who persistently engage in violent crimes generally have a history of serious conductdisorders. In fact, the research shows that a history of antisocial behaviour is the single best predictor of
future criminal activity. However, this does not represent a need factor since we cannot do anything about
history.
The second important factor relates to personality and behavioural dispositions. Youth who engage inserious and chronic crime often exhibit signs of impaired learning ability, poor self control expressed in
impulsivity, a propensity for risk taking, and high levels of aggressive emotions. These traits are common
among all youth who engage in criminal actions, but they are particularly pronounced in those exhibitinga life-course-persistent pattern involving violent actions. Some of these youth also exhibit a callous andunemotional type of orientation (Boxer & Frick, 2008; Frick, 2006). These are individuals who do not seem
capable of forming normal attachments with others and who lack a capacity for empathy. This characterizes
some of those engaging in the most serious violent crimes.
The third type of critical factor includes antisocial attitudes and values. This is reflected in negative
feelings about police, judges, teachers or anyone else in positions of authority. It is also reflected in
dysfunctional modes of perception and information processing. For example, many youth who engage inpersistent violent behaviours exhibit a tendency to perceive hostile intent in the actions of others evenwhen no such intentions are present.
Several cautions should be stated in interpreting the content of Table 1. First, individual factors do not
operate in isolation. For example, there is often a close link between poor parenting and associations with
antisocial peers. Second, the importance of these factors may vary with age level. For example, the qualityof parenting is likely a more important factor during late childhood than during adolescence. Third, while
this list of factors seems to apply across gender and culture, there may be differences among these groups
in the weighting of the factors and the way in which they impact the youth. For example, research suggeststhat girls may be more affected by a dysfunctional home environment than boys. Finally, it is important torecognize that strength or protective factors are as important as risk and need factors in describing theyouth. Even young people engaging in serious crime and displaying many risk factors may also possess
sources of strength that need to be recognized. The youth may have an interest in sports, or exceptional
abilities in an academic area, or a caring and co-operative parent. As we will see, these can often be used aspart of a treatment programme.

VI. IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT
We now have considerable information from programme evaluation research about effective andineffective practices in the treatment of the juvenile offender (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Guerra, Kim, &Boxer, 2008b; Hoge, 2001; Loeber & Farrington, 1998). Several of these principles are relevant to our
discussion. This research demonstrates that:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

52

Effective programmes use standardized assessment tools and procedures;
The risk principle of case classification is observed: high risk cases are provided intensive services,while lower risk cases receive less intensive services;
The need principle of case classification is observed: targets of service are matched with the specificneeds of the youth;
The responsivity principle of case classification is observed; interventions take account of individual
or circumstantial characteristics of the youth;
Interventions are structured and focused and are based where feasible on evidence-based
programmes;
Interventions are delivered in the community setting where feasible;
Interventions are multimodal; address the full range of needs of the youth.

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

There are some additional rules that, while not extensively researched, reflect the clinical experience ofprofessionals:•••

Goals and means of achievement are realistic for the youth;
Staff delivering services are selected with care and provided adequate training and support.
Staff take care to ensure that they represent pro-social models.

The following are brief discussions of some specific implications of these principles for the assessment
and treatment of serious and violent offenders.

A. Assessment
Assessment of the full range of characteristics and circumstances of the youth is critical to the successof any intervention effort (Hoge, 2008; Hoge & Andrews, 1996). Assessments will be used to ensure thatthe risk, need, and responsivity principles are applied in case planning. Practical guidelines in the conduct ofassessments were discussed in the first paper in this series. It was shown there that assessment tools must
demonstrate adequate levels of reliability and validity.
Full psychological assessments conducted by a mental health practitioner may be called for in the caseof very serious chronic offenders, particularly where there are indications of emotional disorder. These
assessments will generally involve standardized personality and intelligence tests as well as structured
interview procedures.
However, full psychological assessments are not required in all cases, and a number of structured
assessment tools for evaluating risk and need factors in youth engaged in serious and violent crimes areavailable for use by non-mental health professionals. This includes probation officers, youth workers, or staff
of institutional facilities. The instruments do require a background in child studies and special training in
administering, scoring, and interpreting the measures.
The Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI; Hoge, 2005; Hoge & Andrews,2002) is an example of a standardized actuarial measure providing estimates of risk for serious and violent
offending and a framework for developing case plans based on a risk/needs assessment. The risk/needs
section of the inventory contains 42 items reflecting characteristics of the youth (e.g., “truancy”, “chronic
drug use”) or his or her circumstances (e.g., “parent provides inadequate supervision”). The section yields
an overall risk/needs score and scores for the following domains: Prior and Current Offences/Dispositions;
Family Circumstances/Parenting, Education/Employment, Peer Relations, Substance Abuse, Leisure/
Recreation, Personality/Behaviour, and Attitudes/Orientation. An opportunity is also provided to indicate
areas of strength. Subsequent sections provide formats for developing a case plan based on the risk/needs
assessment. Reliability and validity research has been reported for the measure.
Other instruments in this category include the Early Assessment of Risk List for Boys (EARL–20B;
Augimeri, Koegl, Webster, & Levene, 2001); Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY;
Bartel, Borum, & Forth, 2005); and the Washington State Juvenile Court Assessment (WSJCA; Barnoski,2004). Borum and Verhaagen, 2006 and Grisso, Vincent, and Seagrave (2005) have provided extended
discussions of these measures.

B. Treatment
Interventions with serious and violent juvenile offenders often involve purely punitive sanctions, with
incarceration in a correctional institution the most common response. However, research clearly shows that
punitive sanctions are generally ineffective in reducing criminal activities (Andrews & Bonta, 2006; Lipsey& Wilson, 1998). Effective interventions are based on the principles of best practice reviewed earlier in thepaper. That is, they adjust the intensity of the intervention to the risk level of the youth, direct interventions
at the specific needs of the youth, and take account of responsivity factors in selecting the intervention.
Further, where possible we will select standardized treatment programmes that have proven effective indealing with high risk youth (evidence-based programmes).
Research has shown that youth engaged in serious and violent criminal activities can exhibit a wide

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

range of risk and need factors, some of them individual characteristics (e.g., impulsivity, substance abuse,educational failure) and some characteristics of their situation (e.g., poor parenting, lack of community
resources). However, it is individual characteristics relating to poor impulse control, attention deficits, highlevels of anger, antisocial attitudes, and defective social-cognitive information-processing that seem mostclosely related to the serious criminal activity.
A number of structured intervention programmes for dealing with these individual deficits have beendeveloped and for which some empirical support for efficacy is available. These are identified in Table 2. Itshould be clear, however, that applications of these programmes require the careful selection and training ofindividuals administering them.
Table 2: Examples of Evidence-Based Treatment Programmes

Anger Control Therapy
Aggression Replacement Training
Equip Program
BrainPower Program
Anger Coping Program
Gang Resistance Education and Training Program
Social Competence Promotion Program

VII. FINAL COMMENTS
The introduction of standardized assessment procedures and structured intervention programmes
requires financial resources. However, these should be regarded as investments rather than simply
expenses. The use of proven techniques and procedures can produce significant reductions in the criminal
activities of youth and this can represent meaningful savings in the legal and social costs associated withthose activities.

54

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2006). The psychology of criminal conduct (Fourth Edition) . Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson.
Arseneault, L., Tremblay, R. E., Boulerice, B., & Saucier, J. F. (2002). Obstetric complications andadolescent violent behaviors: Testing two developmental pathways. Child Development , 73, 496-508.
Augimeri, L. K., Koegl, C. J., Webster, C. D., Levene, K. S. (2001). Early Assessment Risk List for Boys:
EARL-20B, Version 2 . Toronto, ON: Earlscourt Child and Family Centre.
Barnoski, R. (2004). Assessing risk for re-offense: Validating the Washington State Juvenile Court
Assessment (Report No. 04-03-1201. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
Bartel, P., Borum, R., & Forth, A. (2005). Structured Assessment of Violence Risk in Youth (SAVRY) .
Tampa, FL: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida.
Borum, R., & Verhaagen, D. (2006). Assessing and managing violence risk in youth . New York: Guilford.
Boxer, P., & Frick, P. J. (2008). Treatment of violent offenders. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer(Eds.), Treating the juvenile offender (pp. 147-170).
Catalano, R. F., & Hawkins, 1996. The social development model: A theory of antisocial behavior. In
J. D. Hawkins (Ed.), Delinquency and crime: Current theories (pp. 149-197). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Farrington, D. P. (1997). Early prediction of violent and non-violent youth offending. European Journal on
Criminal Policy and Research , 5, 51-66.
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Key results from the first 40 years of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent
Development. In T. P. Thornberry and M. D. Krohn (Eds.), Taking stock of delinquency: An overview offindings from contemporary longitudinal studies (pp. 137-183).
Farrington, D. P. (2004). Conduct disorder, aggression, and delinquency. In R. M. Lerner, & L. Steinberg(Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology Second Edition (pp. 627-624). New York: Wiley.
Frick, P. J. (2006). Developmental pathways to conduct disorder. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics
of North America , 15, 311-332.
Grisso, T., Vincent, G., & Seagrave, D. (Eds.). (2005). Mental health screening and assessment injuvenile justice . New York: Guilford.
Guerra, N. G., Williams, K. R., Tolan, P. H., & Modecki, K. L. (2008a). Theoretical and research advancesin understanding the causes of juvenile offending. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer (Eds.), Treating
the juvenile offender (pp. 33-53). New York: Guilford.
Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Boxer, P. What Works: Best practices with juvenile offenders. In R. D. Hoge,
N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer (Eds.), Treating the juvenile offender (pp. 79-102). New York: Guilford.
Hoge, R. D. (2001). The juvenile offender: Theory, research, and applications . Boston: Kluwer.
Hoge, R. D. (2005). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory. In T. Grisso, G. Vincent, &D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile justice (pp. 283-294). New York:
Guilford.
Hoge, R. D. (2008). Assessment in juvenile justice systems. In R. D. Hoge, N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer(Eds.), Treating the juvenile offender (pp. 54-75). New York: Guilford.

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (1996). Assessing the youthful offender: Issues and Techniques . New
York: Plenum.
Hoge, R. D., & Andrews, D. A. (2002). Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory user’s
manual . North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1998). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders: A synthesisof research. In R. Loeber & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors andsuccessful interventions (pp. 313-345). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Loeber, R. (1988). Natural histories of conduct problems, delinquency, and associated substance use:
Evidence for developmental progressions. In B. B. Lahey & A. E. Kazdin (Eds.), Advances in clinical childpsychology (Volume 11) (pp. 73-124). New York: Plenum.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998) (Eds.) Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors andsuccessful interventions . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moffitt, T. E. (2003). Life-course-persistent and adolescence-limited antisocial behavior: A 10-year
research review and research agenda. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, & A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conductdisorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 49-75). New York: Guilford.
Moffitt, T. E. (2006). Life-course-persistent versus adolescence-limited antisocial behavior. In D.
Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology (Second Edition) (pp. 570-598). New York:
Wiley.
Rutter, M. (2003). Crucial paths from risk indicator to causal mechanism. In B. B. Lahey, T. E. Moffitt, &A. Caspi (Eds.), Causes of conduct disorder and juvenile delinquency (pp. 3-24). New York: Guilford.
Rutter, M., Giller, H., & Hagell, A. (1998). Antisocial behavior by young people . Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.

56

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSINTRODUCTION TO THE CANADIAN JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
Robert D. Hoge*

I. INTRODUCTION
This paper presents a description of some features of the Canadian youth justice system, including
the principles underlying the system and procedures followed in the system. We will begin, though, witha review of the importance of addressing youth crime, some alternative models of juvenile justice, andprinciples of best practice.

II. THE ISSUE OF YOUTH CRIME
Criminal activity of children and adolescents represents one of our most significant social issues. Its
importance is reflected in public opinion polls where the issue of youth crime is nearly always cited as oneof the leading public concerns. It is also reflected in the media, where reports of youth crime, particularly
violent crime, inevitably receive prominent coverage. Its significance is represented well in the rhetoricof some politicians who build political platforms around concerns about juvenile crime and who frequently
advocate drastic solutions to the “problem.”Our society places a great deal of emphasis on youth and this is undoubtedly one factor accounting forour intense concern with youth crime. There are other considerations as well. Fear of being a victim ofcrime is a factor. Surveys show, for example, that many young people and their parents are concerned withviolence in schools, and there are data showing that many people do not feel safe in their neighbourhoods.
These fears may be exaggerated in some cases, but they are real to the people holding them.
There is likely a general feeling as well that we have less control over the actions of children andadolescents than adults. There are two considerations. First, we recognize that primary responsibility forcontrolling the behavior of young people rests with parents, and there is a widespread feeling that many
parents are unable or unwilling to meet their responsibilities in this respect. Second, there is a perception
on the part of some that the justice system is too “lenient” with children and adolescents than adults. This isoften an erroneous perception, but it does influence public opinion.
Finally, criminal activity on the part of young people often represents social conditions that we finddifficult to confront. Poverty, racial prejudice, unemployment, family conflict and violence are all conditions
associated with youth crime, and they also represent difficult social problems for which we often have noeasy solutions. Some of our anxiety about youth crime probably reflects our feelings of helplessness in theface of these problems and perhaps some degree of guilt over our inability to solve them.
These observations about the bases for our concerns about youth crime are not intended to deny its
importance. Tremendous costs are associated with these activities. First, there is the significant harm
often suffered by the victims of crime. Physical pain and psychological trauma to the victim are often
the consequences of violent crimes, and the families of victims may also suffer from these actions. Evenso-called property crimes such as vandalism, shoplifting, and petty theft may result in burdensome monetary
costs to individuals and organizations, as does the need to fund police and security services. There are,as well, significant costs associated with the processing of young people in juvenile justice systems andhousing them in custody and other residential facilities. These costs escalate dramatically, of course, where
the young person continues the criminal activity into adulthood.
* Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

One should also consider the consequences for the young person engaging in the criminal activity. It
is sometimes difficult for those who are the victims of crime and for those who work closely with theseyouth to feel compassion for them. Some, in fact, do “get away” with their crime and some are treated in an
apparently lenient way by the justice system, but many boys and girls do experience the consequences of
their actions through stigmatization, periods of removal from their family and community, or, where they do
not desist from their criminal actions, through continued conflicts with the justice system. In the latter case,the highest price is paid by society through its loss of a productive member of the community.
Parents and families of the youth committing the crime may suffer. Some parents may be indifferent totheir child’s criminal activity and cases exist where parents encourage the activity. These, however, areexceptions, and in many cases the criminal activity of the youth places great strains on parents and has anegative impact on the functioning of the family.
One final potential cost associated with youthful criminal activity should be noted. Some politicians andmembers of the public have used fears about alleged escalating rates of youth crime to propose drastic
solutions. The latter may involve suspending or modifying traditional judicial rights or introducing severe
punitive measures. However, these actions do not always have the desired effects and in some cases may
have unintended and undesirable consequences. To illustrate, some jurisdictions in an effort to “crack
down on youth crime” have increased the numbers of youths incarcerated in custody facilities. However,incarcerating youths, especially low risk young people, may have the effect of increasing levels of criminal
activity. Judicial systems within a democracy are fragile creations and should be tampered with only withgreat caution.

III. ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF JUVENILE JUSTICE
We can identify three broad goals for a juvenile justice system. First, systems are responsible forproviding the public with protection from criminal activity. This is particularly important from the pointof view of public support for any police or juvenile justice system. Second, the system is responsible forproviding accountability to victims of crime. Victims have a right to see that those who have harmed them areheld accountable for their actions and, where possible, receive some form of compensation for their injury.
Third, and this a somewhat more controversial point, a juvenile justice system is responsible for addressing
the factors that placed the youth at risk of the criminal activity. The goal in this case is developing positivecompetencies in the youth to reduce the likelihood they will engage in further criminal activity.
Controversies arise over the best strategies to achieve these goals, and the controversies arecomplicated by the perception that three goals are contradictory. That is, strategies for ensuring public
protection may run counter to strategies required for improving the youth’s competencies throughrehabilitative strategies. We will see later that strategies for achieving the goals do not have to becontradictory in spite of the polarized public debates.
Corrado (1992) has provided a useful framework for describing alternative strategies for addressing theissue of youth crime. At one extreme is the Corporatist model where the treatment of the youthful offenderis integrated into the broader social service system. The Scottish system represents this approach, where
educational, mental health, juvenile offending, and child protection are all integrated into a single social
service system for children and families. At the other extreme is the Crime Control model where the focus
is solely on limiting criminal activity through the use of judicial processing and punitive sanctions.
However, most juvenile justice systems are based on what Corrado terms Justice or Modified Justicemodels. These are systems that incorporate both punitive and rehabilitative strategies within a formal
judicial framework. We will see this approach illustrated in the Canadian juvenile justice system discussed
later in the paper.

IV. THE RESEARCH EVIDENCE
The two earlier papers in this series indicated that considerable research has now been reported on bestpractices in the treatment of juvenile offenders (see Loeber & Farrington, 1998, Guerra, Kim, & Boxer, 2008;
Hoge, 2001). We can ask what lessons that research provides us in selecting among the alternative models.

58

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

A. General Findings from the Research
Research on the effects of alternative intervention strategies has provided us with four important
conclusions:••••

Early prevention programmes carefully targeted to the needs of the child and the family anddelivered effectively can be effective in reducing future antisocial activities;
Punitive sanctions are generally not effective in discouraging initial criminal activity or reducing the
likelihood of continued activity on the part of those exposed to the punishment;
Appropriate treatment programmes delivered effectively can be effective in reducing criminal
activity;
Appropriate prevention and treatment programmes delivered effectively can reflect a favourable
cost/benefit ratio; that is, the programmes can pay for themselves in longer term outcomes.

B. Importance of Best Practices
Two important qualifications represented in the latter two conclusions should be noted. First,
programmes must be delivered effectively or with fidelity. In too many cases evidence-based programmes do
not have the desired effects because of inadequacies in their delivery.
The second point relates to the qualification regarding ‘appropriate treatment programmes.’ Not
everything works and some programmes work better than others. Fortunately we now have guidelines
for effective programmes based on the principles of best practice emerging from research in psychology
and criminology. These guidelines, reviewed in the second paper in this series, indicate that effective
programmes (a) observe the risk, need, and responsivity principles of case classification, (b) deliver services
in the community setting where possible, (c) where institutionalization is necessary, provide needed
services, (d) address the full range of needs of the youth (multimodal), and (e) utilize evidence-based
programming. The effectiveness of any juvenile young offender system will depend on the extent to whichthese principles are observed.

V. THE CANADIAN YOUNG OFFENDER SYSTEMThe Youth Criminal Justice Act is the current law governing the treatment of youth (ages 12 to 18)
engaged in criminal activity. The law is an act of the Federal Parliament of Canada, while the administrationof the law is the responsibility of each of the 10 provinces and three territories of Canada. The Act provides
guidelines regarding definitions of illegal acts, legal procedures to be observed in dealing with the youthful
offender, and the range and conditions of available dispositions for youth convicted of a criminal action.
The provinces and territories are then responsible for the structure of the court, the probation system, thevarious institutional facilities used with juvenile offenders, and juvenile offender programming. We will see
more details on this later in the paper.

A. History
No special laws relating to juvenile crime existed in Canada prior to 1908, although an Act for
Establishing Prisons for Young Offenders was passed in 1857 to establish separate prisons for youthful
offenders. The first law specifically applying to young people charged with criminal acts was passed in 1908and since that time two other laws have been declared:•••

Juvenile Delinquents Act (1908-1984)
Young Offenders Act (1984-2003)
Youth Criminal Justice Act (2003-present)

Each of those acts was preceded by heated parliamentary debates over the most effective strategy foraddressing youth crime. Those debates always revolved around the three goals of juvenile justice systems
discussed above with the real issue the balance of punitive and rehabilitative focus. However, the resulting
system has always reflected what Corrado (1992) refers to as a Modified Justice model. That is, it is asystem including both punitive and rehabilitative elements within a formal judicial system. The Canadianjudicial system has always exhibited a more child welfare oriented approach to youthful offenders than manyother systems, but still the relative emphasis on the punitive and rehabilitative elements has shifted backand forth over the years.

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

The current act, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, represents an interesting compromise. It provides
somewhat harsher dispositions for very serious offences than did the earlier Young Offenders Act, but it
places considerable stress on diversion and rehabilitative strategies for youth charged with lesser crimes.
An effort was made to observe the principles of best practice reviewed above in developing the Act. The
following section provides a discussion of the major principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

B. Principles of the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act
The Act is built on three general principles. These state that the youth criminal justice system isintended to:•••Prevent crime by addressing the circumstances underlying a young person’s offending behaviour;
Rehabilitate young persons who commit offences and reintegrate them into society; andEnsure that a young person is subject to meaningful consequences for his or her offence in order topromote the long-term protection of the public.

As can be seen, provision is made for both rehabilitative and punitive strategies. The goal of
accountability to the victim is also represented through the indication that dispositions should “encourage
the repair of harm done to victims and the community.”
The Act also includes sentencing guidelines for judges, and while these allow for the provision of punitive
sanctions including incarceration, there is also a strong rehabilitative emphasis represented. The following
are the major sentencing principles:•••

All available alternatives to custody must be considered;
The sentence must be the least restrictive sentence consistent with other sentencing principles;
The sentence selected must be that most likely to rehabilitate the young person and reintegratethem into society and promote a sense of responsibility in the young person.

As indicated above, the Act also provides for a harsher sentence for 14 to 18 year old youth committing
serious violent crime by allowing the judge to assign an adult sentence. However, the parole eligibility dates
are earlier for offenders committed as youth, and there is an assumption that the individual will receive
rehabilitative services while in custody. The provision is not used often.

C. Specific Provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act
The principles of the Act are then supplemented by a set of specific guidelines regarding appropriate
actions. The following is a brief discussion of some of the major provisions.
1. Extrajudicial Measures
These measures are designed to divert youth from the justice system. The use of this option is at thediscretion of the police, with the following options available: release, release with informal warning, releasewith formal warning, or referral to a community-based intervention programme. The provision is designed
for low to moderate risk youth committing relatively minor crimes. The goal is to keep youth out of the
judicial system wherever possible but to provide interventions where needs exist. Restorative justiceprocedures may also be included as extrajudicial measures. Details of one of the diversion programmes will
be presented later.
2. Extrajudicial Sanctions
These are alternatives to formal court processing and are applied after the youth has been charged with acrime but prior to trial. They represent a post-charge diversion action designed to reduce the use of custody.
The sanction will generally involve successful completion of a community-based treatment programme.
3. Probation
A period of supervision in the community by a probation officer is the most common disposition foryouth convicted of a crime. Because of the rehabilitative focus of the Act, services are to be provided during
the probation period to address the risk and need factors of the young person. Probation officers are also
responsible for supervision of youth for a period of time following release from custody.

60

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

4. Custody
Each province and territory is required to maintain institutional settings for youth assigned a custody
disposition. These are generally secure facilities or more open group homes. Authorities are responsible for
ensuring that appropriate programming is provided the youth in these settings. However, as we have seen
above, the Act directs judges to use custody only where all alternatives are considered inappropriate. In fact,
the use of custody has declined significantly since introduction of the Act in 2003.
5. Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision
These programmes represent community or institution-based interventions for youth with serious
mental health issues. They are staffed by mental health professionals.

D. Applications of the Youth Criminal Justice Act in Ontario
As indicated above, the administration of the Youth Criminal Justice Act is the responsibility of theprovincial and territorial governments. This inevitably means that there will be some variability acrossCanada in the actual treatment of a juvenile offender. Some of this variability will arise from financial
considerations and some from cultural differences among regions of the country. However, the Act provides
reasonably strict guidelines for the treatment of the offender, and the differences across regions of thecountry tend to be relatively minor. The following is a description of some features of the application of the
Act in the Province of Ontario.
Ontario is one of the larger provinces in terms of population and relatively speaking one of thewealthiest. However, it confronts a number of serious issues. The immense size of the province andrelatively small populations in more remote areas presents serious problems in providing services. The
larger cities have also had to deal with large numbers of immigrant families, many from third-world
countries. Special challenges are also presented by the remote Aboriginal communities in the north of theprovince, many of which face serious economic and social problems. These issues should be kept in mind inconsidering the following discussion of some features of the province’s juvenile justice system.
1. Diversion Programmes
Diversion of as many youth as possible out of the justice system is one of the most important goals of
the Act. Each region of the province is required to have a structured diversion programme, although someare more advanced than others. The City of Ottawa has developed one of the most effective programmes
operated by the Boys and Girls Club and Ottawa Police Services. Police Services perform the initial
screening of the youth, and those deemed eligible for the programme are then referred to the Boys and GirlsClub for more intensive assessment and referral to community-based programmes suited to the needs ofthe youth. This programme addresses two of the major goals of the Act by diverting low and moderate risk
youth out of the justice system and by providing rehabilitative services for those in need.
2. Probation Services
The Province of Ontario has developed a case management system operated by the Youth JusticeDivision of the Ministry of Children and Youth. Within this system a probation officer is responsible for the
youth from the time of adjudication to discharge from the system. The probation officer’s responsibilities
include ensuring that the youth observes the conditions of the sentence and that the young person is able
to access community-based services consistent with his or her needs. Where the youth is incarcerated, theprobation officer works with institutional personnel in developing an intervention programme. The officer isalso responsible for monitoring the youth for a period following release from custody. Probation officers holda university degree and are provided six weeks of intensive training by the Ministry.
3. Alternative to Custody Programmes
We have seen that the provision for community-based post-adjudication programmes forms an importantpart of the Youth Criminal Justice Act. Ontario has established a variety of these programmes across theprovince. One example is the Attendance Centre programme. The initial step of the programme involves anintensive assessment of risk and need factors of the youth. The youth then attends group-based intervention
programmes designed to address specific need areas: attitudes/behaviour change, peer group associations,alternatives to aggression, pro-social problem solving, substance abuse, and education/employment.
The Intensive Support and Supervision Program of Eastern Ontario Youth Justice Agency is an example

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

of a community-based programme specifically designed for youthful offenders with serious mental healthissues. Staff members are experienced clinicians who are able to work intensively with the youth and his or
her family. Community-based mental health services are also accessed.
4. Custody
The province directly operates five secure custody facilities for youth and contracts with non-profit
organizations for an additional five facilities. The other type of custody facility, open custody, is lessrestrictive, and these involve group homes operated under contract by private or non-profit organizations.
All facilities are expected to have intervention programmes available to meet the needs of the youth.
5. Aftercare Services
The Youth Criminal Justice Act stipulates that after release from custody youth must receive a period ofsupervision by the probation officer. Some specialized programmes have also been introduced for this postrelease period. An example is the “A Different Street” programme in Ottawa. This programme is specificallydesigned for 16 to 18 year-old youth released from custody who would otherwise be homeless on release.
The programme is housed in a residence accommodating 24 males. Staff within the programme are able toprovide intensive counselling services for the young men and refer them to needed services outside theresidence. The programme focuses on developing living, educational, and vocational skills in the clients.

E. Barriers and Strengths
The Youth Criminal Justice Act and the programmes being created across Canada in connection with that
Act represent efforts to incorporate research-based principles of best practice and, as well, the UNICEF
Guiding Principles for Organizations and Individuals Dealing with Child Welfare and the United Nations
Convention on the Child.
However, it is useful to acknowledge barriers in fully implementing the Act. Political barriers arise fromadvocates of tough-on-crime policies that emphasize the use of punishment and consider rehabilitative
efforts a waste of money. This type of pressure is seen from the public and politicians and, regrettably,sometimes from staff of juvenile justice systems. Educational efforts are the only way to counter this type of
resistance.
Economic barriers arise because many programmes effective in addressing the needs of the youth areexpensive and produce resistance from the public and politicians. Two responses to these economic barriers
are appropriate. First, many of the community-based programmes, even the more costly ones, are often
less expensive than incarceration. Second, many of the programmes are cost effective. In other words, if theinterventions are implemented effectively, the costs will be recovered through future reductions in offending
rates, lower school drop out rates, lesser demands on adult mental health facilities and other such outcomes.
Fortunately, we are beginning to obtain good information from cost/benefit analyses that provide actual
figures on the economic returns of many programmes (see Tyler, Ziedenberg, & Lokke, 2006).
Finally, we sometimes encounter practical barriers to implementing our programmes. First, and as wehave seen, the range of our options may be limited by economic and resource considerations. We all have
limited resources, and sometimes difficult choices must be made. The only response is to observe, as
closely as possible, the principles of best practice. Another practical obstacle derives from the fragmented
nature of our human service systems. Our youth often exhibit special needs in many areas and may havecontacts outside the juvenile justice system, including special services in the schools, treatment in themental health system, and services from child protection and other such service agencies. All of thesesystems must work together to effectively address the needs of the youth, but in too many cases barriers
exist to that co-operation.
There are, on the other hand, positive developments to note. First, our understanding of the causesof youth crime and of the most effective means of addressing the phenomenon are advancing rapidly
through psychological and criminological research. Second, and perhaps most important, are the countless
individuals working in our juvenile justice systems who care about young people and who are willing to
make efforts to address their needs. The potential profits of their efforts to society are incalculable.

62

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Corrado, R. R. Introduction. In R. R. Corrada, N. Bala, R. Linden, & M. Le Blanc (Eds.), Juvenile justicein Canada: A theoretical and analytical assessment (pp. 1-20). Toronto, ON: Buttersworth.
Guerra, N. G., Kim, T. E., & Boxer, P. What Works: Best practices with juvenile offenders. In R. D. Hoge,
N. G. Guerra, & P. Boxer (Eds.), Treating the juvenile offender (pp. 79-102). New York: Guilford.
Hoge, R. D. (2001). The juvenile offender: Theory, research, and applications . Boston: Kluwer.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (1998) (Eds.) Serious and violent juvenile offenders: Risk factors andsuccessful interventions . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Tyler, J. Ziedenberg, J., & Lotke, E. (2006). Cost effective corrections: The fiscal architecture of rational
juvenile justice systems . Washington, DC: The Justice Policy Institute.

63

JUVENILE JUSTICE:A STUDY OF NATIONAL JUDICIARIES FOR THE UNITED NATIONSASIA AND FAR EAST INSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND
THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
A focus on Singapore and selected comparisons with California (USA) & Australia
Joseph Ozawa*

I. SINGAPORE
When Singapore is mentioned in various parts of the world, there are certain predicable responses, often
focusing on Singaporean laws or the judicial system. “Oh, the place that makes chewing gum illegal!” or“The country that caned Michael Fey for spraying graffiti!” or “The nation that makes it a crime not to flusha toilet!” However, despite these sometimes amusing though derisive attributions, taking decisive action on
minor infractions was subsequently popularized and advocated by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kellingin their 1982 treatise entitled, “broken windows.” Here Wilson and Kelling argued that actually tolerating
broken windows will actually result in larger and more extensive crimes. A successful anti-crime strategy is
to fix problems when they are still minor. New York City government used much of Wilson’s and Kelling’s
theory in “cleaning up” New York streets.
Whatever the end product of “small laws,” Singapore has 12 times the population of Vancouver but justhalf the crime rate. It is difficult finding many recent international crime comparisons and as researchers
know, comparing crime rates is filled with methodological problems. However, in general, in 1993, thejuvenile delinquency rate in Singapore was rated at 538 per 100,000 persons whereas Japan was rated 1,220
per 100,000 and the USA 5,460 per 100,000. Similarly, in 1994, property crimes in the UK were 7,107 per
100,000, the USA 4,654, Japan 1,248 and Singapore 874 per 100,000. Finally, a 2004 study by the United
Nations on homicide rates found that of all nations studied, Singapore had the lowest homicide rate, anda rate which has been consistently below other nations such as the United Kingdom, the USA, and most
European nations.
Anecdotally, many foreign companies find Singapore not only safe but clean and a very open environment
for foreign investment and business activities. Singapore is a popular tourist destination, receiving overeight million visitors a year. At just 700 sq. kilometres, and little more than 4.5 million people with nonatural resources, Singapore has an annual GDP that competes with leading nations of Europe. This gives
it the world’s fourth most competitive economy. The city-state also has a high standard of living, low
unemployment, and a literacy rate of 98 percent.
All this despite, or perhaps due to, Singapore’s pluralistic society. In the 2000 census, the Singapore
citizen population was 76.5% Chinese, 13.9% Malay, 7.9% Indian and 1.4% others. Since then, in 2007,
seven years later, the demographics have changed - foreigners were estimated to be around 25% of the total
population and about 30% of the total work force. From Muslims to Western technological companies, from
Chinese to Malays to Indians to Japanese to Australians, Singapore is usually experienced as a welcome
home to all races, cultures, and religions.
Further, Singaporeans are globally effective, successful in top universities, and the rate of suicide or
severe mental disorders is low. Health services are some of the best in Asia. Corruption is rarely heard of.
To what can the “Singapore story” be attributed? One factor is its judiciary which, though maligned by* Senior Deputy Director, Family and Justice Centre, Subordinate Courts of Singapore.

64

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

pundits, has consistently been rated as one of the best in Asia and in the world. In 2006-2007, the Hong
Kong-based Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) ranked Singapore in the top three positions forjudicial systems in Asia, together with Hong Kong and Japan. In PERC’s comparative risk report for 2007,
Singapore retained its ranking as the overall least risky country in Asia.
The PERC report also pointed out that Singapore and Hong Kong are the only two systems in Asia thathave judiciaries which are rated on par with those in developed Western societies. Singapore is also highly
rated in matters of judicial independence. There are three essential elements of judicial independence: thecourts and individual judges are publicly perceived to be impartial in their decisions; the judicial decisions
are accepted by the contesting parties and larger public; judges are perceived to be free from undue
interference from other branches of government.
Singapore was also ranked top in another report – the World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators.
This report covers six dimensions, including the rule of law. Among nine Commonwealth countries,
Singapore was ranked number three, after New Zealand and Canada.

II. SOCIETAL “ANOMIE” VERSUS SHARED MORAL VALUES
It might be argued that crime deals with violations of laws, and that laws reflect prohibitions against a
breach of human relationships as well. For example, assault is essentially an attack on another’s physicalbody. In the case of protection orders, even emotional abuse of a family member can be consideredgrounds for a legal order. Child protection is a defence against adults neglecting or abusing a much weaker,
defenseless child; divorce matters are considerations of the disintegration of marital relationships and theconsequences on children and property; theft in dwelling is the unlawful entry into another’s personal/
professional building or living quarters for the purpose of stealing their property; rioting or unlawful
assembly is the gathering of individuals with the collective intention of doing harm to someone.
In this sense, justice is not just an abstract concept, but the rectification of or recompense forinterpersonal wrongs. Crime rates thus reflect not simply matters of rules and regulations, but theviolation of societal norms, interpersonal values, and principles governing behaviour and the treatmentof other citizens within a given nation. At one extreme, there is what this author has termed, “anomie ,”the breakdown of moral values, the absence of interpersonal connections, the development of purely selfcentered, hedonistic, developmentally immature patterns of behaviour which lead to random acts of violenceand suicide. Nineteenth century French sociologist Emile Durkheim discussed “anomie ” in relationshipto suicide which reflected an absence or diminution of standards or values, a “normlessness,” alienation,
purposelessness and in a moral sense, a lawlessness. Durkheim argued that societal “anomie ” rather thannegative events in an individual’s life, led to suicidal behaviour. He also argued that it was religion which
provided the shared moral values to counter-act anomie .
Contrary to anomie , or a society of alienation, is a society of low crime and high interpersonal care andconcern. This is a society which not bred of retaliatory rules nor simply reduced to fear of legal sanctions,but steeped in the heart of the citizens - a high regard for interpersonal and familial connectivity.
Even though Singapore is a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic society, commonly shared highreligious and cultural moral values are integrally woven into a judicial system of high standards of justice,integrity, and fairness. This is the Singapore model.

“The time has come for the Court to develop a new family and juvenile justice pathway…(taking) an
integrated approach to tackling the problems of marital breakdown and poor parenting, which in turn leadto problems of juvenile delinquency, and, in a vicious circle, lead to problems of marital breakdown and poor
parenting in the next generation…” The former Chief Justice of the High Court of Singapore, His Honour,Chief Justice Yong Pung Howe Jan 2002.
Reparation is not so much an execution of legal rules as rectification of human relationships gone awry
and the violation of cultural, moral and religious values. This is reflected in the characteristics of court
users. Somewhere, there has been a wrong against another, whether actual, perceived, or even imaginary.

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Somewhere, there is usually an interpersonal conflict, often between neighbours, friends, and family
members. In courts we often find:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

seemingly intractable disagreements
acrimonious confrontations
emotions that have gone out of control
interpersonal traumas
revenge, lack of forgiveness, retaliation
dysfunctional families
addictions
violence
generational cycles
societal “anomie ”

As the Chief Justice of the High Court of Singapore has reflected in the above quote, this requires
an “integrated pathway,” one which is legal but also informed and in dialogue with the social sciences psychology, social work, counselling, social science research, forensic science, sociology. No prison term,
however restrictive or lengthy, can, in and of itself, deal with lack of forgiveness, post-traumatic stressdisorder, suicidal ideation, drug addiction or chronic, impulsive violence. The rate of recidivism will always
be extremely high when simple punitive approaches based on deprivation of key familial and community
interpersonal relationships is seen as a solution crime which is largely interpersonal in nature.

III. REDEMPTION VERSUS RECIDIVISM
In sum, the courts of Singapore are of the belief that courts are not dealing simply with complex legal
matters but with complex human relationships within an overall context of societal values based on religious
and moral traditions. It is not recidivism which is the touchstone of Singaporean justice, but rather theredemption of individuals from lives which violate high norms of interpersonal behaviour.
As a relatively “new” nation, Singapore is rooted in shared values, a common sense of justice based upon
the vibrant cultural, ethnic and religious values of its citizens, including a high value placed on interpersonalharmony within a diverse, multi-cultural context. Thus, a foreigner in Singapore comes quickly to learn
that, Singaporeans do not allow child abuse or rape to take place despite what may have been the norm in
an individual’s homeland. Further, revenge and retaliation are not high moral values in Singapore. Confucianvalues of families and home, of respect for the elderly and for parents, of honesty over corruption, ofachievement over cronyism, of honesty over cheating, of respect for the lives of all people whether adultor children, male or female, or of a different religion, race, or culture, prevail. Foreigners are treated with
dignity and people of other skin colour, religions or cultures are respected rather than denigrated.
To visitors from many other lands, this feels like “over-control.” “Doing your own thing” and “freedomof expression,” related to “indecent” actions are not permitted in Singaporean society which still exercises
censorship, demands modest dress codes of all students, and respect for teachers and elders. There is
an Islamic Sharia Court which operates in specific matters pertaining to Islamic families and many of the
Muslims in Singapore insist on conservative values and morality. This is supported by a conservativeevangelical Christian community as well.
The courts of Singapore are rooted in English law and as a former Crown Colony, Singapore’s system oflaw seeks to be impartial, denoting the absence of bias or prejudice in favour of, or against, particular parties
or classes of parties. The courts seek to maintain an open mind in considering all issues. In this sense, thejudiciary is also independent, reflecting reasoning which does not manifest discrimination, prejudice or
influence through outside/social contacts.
Thus, juvenile justice within Singapore reflects not just a system of laws, but norms and values related
to interpersonal connectivity, such as honesty, mutual respect, protection of weaker, more vulnerable
individuals (e.g. children or women) from perpetrators of crime, restitution, restoration, respect for
authority and family, yet prohibitions against interpersonal abuse or neglect, rights of advocacy, equality
under the law, freedom from corruption or outside influences, integrity of action, objectivity, and as66

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

mentioned above, judicial impartiality. The yardstick of success is not merely less recidivism but theredemption of individuals.

IV. CONVENTIONS RELATED TO JUVENILES AND CHILDREN
Within these high societal moral and legal values comes a basic regard for vulnerable citizens, in thiscase, children and juveniles. Presuppositions regarding children and juveniles set the stage for juvenile
justice. The definitions of “child” or “juvenile” establish judicial norms.
Nowhere is the redemption of individuals more highlighted than in Singapore’s juvenile justice system.
In Singapore, the presupposition is that anyone who is broadly a child/juvenile/young person is not an adultand therefore requires assessment, treatment, protection, and sentencing which may be “special,” meeting
their particular needs and protecting them as they are especially vulnerable or developmentally less mature.
This is in keeping with international conventions.
Following the Convention on the Rights of the Child (U.N., 1989), United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (“The Beijing Rules”) adopted by General Assembly
resolution 40/33 of 29 Nov 1985, children must be “dealt with for an offence in a manner which is different
from an adult. Thus, the age at which an offender is considered a “child” is important.
Further, the “United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty” adopted byGeneral Assembly resolution 45/113 of 14 Dec 1990 reads: “Deprivation of the liberty of a juvenile should bea disposition of last resort and for the minimum necessary period and should be limited to exceptional cases.
The length of the sanction should be determined by the judicial authority, without precluding the possibilityof his or her early release.”
In examining this matter, it appears that most nations consider those under 18 to be a “child,” but theapplication and exceptions makes this a complex matter indeed. For example, in the USA and Australia,
the age range (low end of accountability for crimes committed and high end for transition to adult status) is
10-18 whereas for Singapore it is 7-16.
Some considerations include:
•
•
•
•
•
•

At what age is a person held “criminally responsible”?
Is there a “presumption against” criminal responsibility?
Is the age of criminal responsibility different from international, cultural or “legal” norms of the age
at which a child becomes an adult? (e.g voting, smoking, driving, enlisting in military, etc.)
What is the person’s developmental/psychological maturity (i.e. is someone who is of “lowfunctioning” mentally to be considered an adult)?
What is the age at which a person develops “sufficient maturity of understanding”?
At what age does a person develop adequate “moral reasoning” or “moral accountability”?

Thus, superficially, Singapore appears to be less juvenile friendly than California. However, in Singapore,though the lower age limit is seven, rarely is a child below ten considered to be of “sufficient maturity ofunderstanding” to be charged as a juvenile so the net effect is that the age of actual criminal responsibility
is around ten. On the other hand, though California law highlights 18 as the upper age bracket for juvenile
offenders, in fact, someone who is 14 can be tried as an adult for many crimes (e.g. robbery with a weapon,
crimes with guns, drug crimes, escaping from detention, etc.), making California’s effective upper limit 14
rather than 18 in some cases. Due to some high profile crimes, the slogan in the US became, “adult crime,
adult time,” and these “super-predators” who were juveniles, were tried and sentenced as adults. As will
be discussed below, Singapore has formed a new court, the Community Court designed to provide more
rehabilitative practices for offenders even up to age 21!
In point of fact, paradoxically to some, but actually quite predictably, according to Amnesty International,
since 1990, the United States has had one of the highest rates of “executions of child offenders” in theworld (along with China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan). Thus, despite the 18 year upper limit, even young
offenders are “executed” for crimes in the U.S.A. Singapore has executed no juveniles.

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

V. JUVENILE COURT SYSTEMS
Discussing or comparing juvenile justice systems is therefore fraught with complexities, and perhaps
only broad strokes can be used. For example, an examination of the overall crime rates, incarceration rates,
and recidivism would yield some comparisons. Reforms and innovative (and successful or unsuccessful)programmes and “best practices” are worthy of consideration.
For example, as California led the USA in juvenile arrests and incarceration in 1997, the severity ofproblems was immense. California then proceeded with a series of reforms including disposition planning
processes, treatment of juveniles by multi-disciplinary teams, the provision of aftercare, reintegration
through “step-down” facilities and graduated sanctions for parole violators, more mental health services,
improved conditions at detention centres, risk assessment, and community-based youth crime and violence
prevention programmes. In 2006 in California and across the USA in general, the rate of juvenile violent
crime arrests has consistently decreased. In California, crime went down 46% from 1994 to 2005.
Yet on 26 April 2008, the San Jose Mercury News (California) published a scathing indictment of thejuvenile justice system in California, alleging, among other things:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Abused/neglected children not adequately dealt with
Poor legal representation“Broken Families, Broken Courts”
Lack of youth offenders programmes, inadequate mental health care, drug treatment, and limitedcare for teenage girls
Public safety is at “risk”
Poor judicial leadership
Poor resources for youth offenders
High caseloads and overly superficial court proceedings
Incomprehensible language in courts.

What then causes a juvenile justice system to fail? Conversely, what are some of the attributes ofsuccessful systems?

681.

National legislation governing and mandating special treatment for juveniles with specific delineationof ages at which they are criminally responsible for crimes and the upper limit at which point they
are charged as adults.

2.

Community-based diversionary programmes which are “upstream” and designed to deal with“at-risk youth” in lieu of having them charged in the juvenile justice court system, making theassumption that juveniles may be “adolescence-limited” offenders passing through a developmental
stage of maturation.

3.

Specialized courts dedicated only for children and juveniles including procedural safeguards which
differentiate juvenile court processes from adult criminal processes to minimize stigma and ensure
the consideration of developmental needs and restorative practices.

4.

Broad-based scope of legal handling of children and juveniles involving not only juvenile arrest
cases, but child abuse and protection, child victims of family violence, personal protection orders,child responses to acrimonious divorces which places them at risk, custody evaluations, and status
offenders (or “beyond parental control” cases).

5.

Separating juveniles who commit crimes from children who are victimized, abused, or neglected;
providing special, non-stimatizing courts and treatment for children who are abused, neglected,
rejected, and who suffer the fallout of adult criminality, broken relationships, and pathology.

6.

Holistic and integrated, inter-disciplinary treatment of offenders, including family therapy, treatmentby psychologists, social workers, counsellors, lawyers, medical/psychiatric care for mental healthmatters and medication, community intervention specialists, and judicial officers. The developmentof and working out of “treatment plans” based upon “risk assessment instruments.”

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

7.

Graduated dispositional orders (“sentencing” in adult terms) including various degrees of probation
options in order to differentiate between offenders and ensure that juveniles are given every
opportunity to reform within home and community settings rather than in custodial centres.

8.

In-court programmes and specialized treatment such as restorative family conferences, risk andtreatment assessments, specialized social science consultations, and counselling services.

9.

Treatment options including custodial sentences but which may have a variety of potential
dispositional orders such as counselling for the juvenile and parents, community service, workshops
on such matters as smoking cessation or violence prevention, theft intervention, and thedevelopment of pro-social relationships.

10. Specialized detention facilities which are designed to accommodate juveniles (and not adultprisoners), providing less obviously criminogenic surroundings and exposure to hardened criminals.
These facilities provide educational and vocational training opportunities, religious and moral
education, restorative practices, and counselling opportunities.
11. Community-based integrated and collaborative services involving family services/counselling
centers in local communities, co-operation with schools, police involvement, employment, andmanagement of dysfunctional families in the community. The belief that “It takes a whole village toraise a child.”
12. Systems integrating the “state of the art” in terms of social science applications including forensic
assessments, case planning, counselling and group work, and rehabilitative practices.

VI. SYSTEMIC VALUE SYSTEMS AFFECTING JUVENILE JUSTICE
Having visited the juvenile justice systems of Australia and Japan, having been raised in California (andwith a daughter who is an Assistant District Attorney in California) and having worked in Hawaii, and finally,
being a court psychologist in Singapore, has given me the ability to offer very rough comparisons between
different nations. What appears to be one way of studying nations is not just examining the mechanisms ofjuvenile justice but the fundamental underlying values in each nation regarding crime and young people.
The following are impressionistic rather than factual, yet offered as potential comparative descriptionsof national landscapes. Certainly warranting a much more in depth analysis, one might offer some of thefollowing quick comparisons:

A. USA (California)
America, and certainly California, one of America’s most prominent and populous states, is a nation
which explicitly promotes “freedom” and the “pursuit of happiness.” Divorce rates are high, people often
live together without being married, juveniles often have access to lethal weapons (reflecting the “right tobear arms”), drugs/alcohol, violence and sexuality are graphically depicted in the cinema and media, racialand ethnic inequalities are deeply rooted, and poverty remains a salient problem. Reacting to high crime,gang violence, broken families, and murder as major issues in inner city California, especially amongst
Hispanics and African-Americans, the juvenile justice system has often become punitive. In America,
incarceration rates are high. One recent response to waves of juvenile gang crimes in California has been
to maintain public safety by placing offenders under the California Youth Authority (CYA) and placed indetention centres. However, it should be noted that for every 1,000 youth cited by police only six will beplaced on formal probation and one referred to CYA. Many are released without adequate rehabilitation.
B. Australia
One Australian juvenile court judge said to me recently, “We are a Commonwealth nation, much like theUK, but we are sliding towards America!” Indeed, in my visit in May 2008 to the courts of Australia, I notedthat they too have a high divorce rate (one judge estimated 40%), broken families, inequalities (especially,
according to judges, regarding the “aboriginal” peoples), drugs/alcohol, and family violence. However, they
have much tighter gun control laws than in the USA, an absence of flagrant sexually explicit/violent drama or
media, and a juvenile justice system which is rarely punitive but much more focused towards rehabilitation.
The nation has very exceptional training for social workers, psychologists, and other helping professionals,
69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

substantial insurance support for counselling, and a high judicial regard for the role of psychologists andmental health professionals within the court itself (or under the Attorney General’s Office). Mental healthteams, court “consultants” and case workers are actively involved in their court processes. Australia also
appears not to have the same major divide between rich and poor as in America; it appears to be a strong
welfare state, providing quite amply for the less fortunate.

VII. JUVENILE JUSTICE IN SINGAPORE AND “PRAGMATISM”
Singapore is known as a “pragmatic” society, governed by individuals who are less concerned withphilosophy or politics than whether a policy operates in a positive and effective manner. Thus, despite
international derision over “chewing gum,” “no-spitting,” “no-littering” laws, it saves millions of dollars
annually from having to clean up public facilities from various forms of problems. The public transportation,
irrigation, road pricing, educational system and retirement “schemes” are all based upon what has beeneffective in other nations. These policies are subsequently adapted to local needs and norms.
Similarly, the juvenile justice system is based upon what works (what we today might call, “best practices”)
in other similar nations. Much has been adapted from Hong Kong, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia,
and other Commonwealth nations with similar legal systems. Singaporeans are always eager to import“expert consultants” from nations whose systems are effective to “teach” the local government and equallyare very quick to even instantaneously adapt the new learning. Thus, although there are many aspects tothe juvenile justice system of Singapore, the following are not always “innovative” or “unique” to Singapore,but adaptations of successful systems of other nations. As a partial result of this system, crime rate is one of
the lowest in Asia, indeed, in the world, violent crimes are low, murder is rare, mental health disorders anddisabilities are dealt with, schools are relatively orderly and free of gangs, violence or severe bullying, andgeneral youth in the nation are polite, decently dressed, and genuinely have “pro-social” attitudes.

VIII. SINGAPORE:
MENTAL HEALTH DISABILITIES / DISORDERS AND CRIME
To make this matter concrete, let us examine a recent issue under national scrutiny: mental healthdisabilities and disorders. Although the overall numbers of mental disorders appear to be about 16% of the
population (Changi General Hospital study, 2006), this number may be similar to the United States in which
about 22% suffer from mental disorders or substance abuse disorders. If substance abuse disorders areadded to the 16%, it may come up to about 20%, which is similar to US figures.
But in Singapore, the “stigma” of mental disorders is greater than in the USA. More than one in three
Singaporeans believe that the mentally ill are “dangerous” and almost half the population believes that the
public should be “protected” from those with mental problems (Straits Times, 29 Oct 07). This becomesincreasingly problematic when psychiatric disorders are clearly related to criminal arrests. One of theseminal studies was done by Joan McCord and Cathy Spatz Widon in Juvenile Crime, Juvenile Justice(2001) in which they studied various research and concluded that psychiatric disorders are 3 – 5 times
higher in incarcerated juveniles than in the normal population. Many juveniles naturally have conductdisorders, but members of those with depression are also high. This study did not include personality
disorders. In Singapore, as well as in other nations, if we include those with developmental delays, mental
disabilities such as low intelligence levels, the number of complaints, arrests, and charges (not necessarily
incarceration) figures related to mental problems would be very high indeed.
How does Singapore confront the issue of mental health and juvenile crime? First, in Singapore, theproblem must be identified, which has been done, statistically as well as anecdotally. Then, psychiatrists,
psychologists, social workers, counsellors, were hired to deal with the problem. In the mid-1990s,
the Ministry of Community Development (the main social welfare arm of the government) began thePsychological Services Unit (PSU) under the direction of a clinical psychologist, Dr. Ozawa. The unit
began assessments of child abuse and especially of juvenile arrest cases brought under the purview of
the Probation Services Branch. Pre-treatment assessments which helped to formulate rehabilitation
programmes in the Singapore Boys/Girls Homes (the basic youth institutions for custodial sentences) were
implemented.

70

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

In approximately 1999-2000, the government began a further step under Dr. Ozawa by beginning
psychological services within the court system. The full integration of psychological and mental healthservices within the justice system is something also found to be efficacious in Canada, Hong Kong, andAustralia. A team of psychologists, social workers, and counsellors were hired to deal with cases involving
family law, domestic violence, child abuse/protection and juvenile arrests.
In 2005-2006, the mental health screening, assessment and referral services (as well as coordination
with the government’s Institute of Mental Health and Prisons Department) was been further expanded to
16-18 year old offenders under the newly formed Community Court which in various ways also now acts asa “mental health court” (a model found in United States jurisdictions as well). In 2008-2009, the age range
was expanded to 16–21 years of age as this age cohort is often the genesis of subsequent criminal behaviour.
New criminal laws, including a “Mandatory Treatment Order” (MTO) in which young offenders withmental disorders can be involuntarily placed for treatment (for any recommended disorder or offence) andcounselling/psychotherapy/medication are under consideration. This will reduce the incarceration of suchoffenders, and lead to a panoply of community treatment options.
Under the “Community Court” (as it involves the collaboration with community family service centres,
hospitals, and mental health treatment facilities), the courts are now focused on reducing crime even further
by treating and rehabilitating youth offenders with mental disabilities and disorders in a holistic, communityand family-based system. As in most issues in Singapore, the true test will be not only the reduction ofrecidivism rates, the longitudinal success of MTOs, and the overall reduction in youth crime but additionallywhether the people of the nation are more resilient, productive, prosperous, embracing of others, even morealtruistic. This requires a revolutionary re-definition of justice outcomes.

IX. SINGAPORE JUVENILE JUSTICE PRINCIPLES
A. Deterrence versus Restoration
The pendulum of juvenile justice appears to swing to and fro in various nations depending on the juvenile
crime rate and the public outcry; there also appears to be “politically correct” language and theoreticalconcepts, often in conformity with international norms. In Singapore, the pendulum does not swing very
wildly in any direction; rather the Confucian notion of “balance” is often applied.
Part of the movement of juvenile justice, in Singapore and in many Commonwealth nations, in the last
decade has been in utilizing concepts such as “transformative,” “therapeutic” or “restorative” justice indicating that the judicial process is a broad process meant to rehabilitate and reform the wayward juvenile,
to reconcile broken relationships and promote forgiveness, and to support the notion that much juvenile
crime is “adolescence limited,” behaviour linked to a developmental stage which will pass with maturity andtime.
On the other hand, Singaporean juvenile justice is equally concerned with protecting the public and withdealing proportionately with “life course persistent” offenders, those who are more “incorrigible” (to use
Western terminology), less prone to reform or restoration. In this sense, severity of offences, protecting the
public (esp. more vulnerable youths and students), deterrence (i.e. sending messages to peers), redressing
wrongs, providing restitution and compensation to victims are also salient objectives of the juvenile justicesystem in Singapore. It is essentially a balance.

B. Defining “Child” and “Juvenile”
The juvenile justice system of any nation is reflected in the legal definitions of “child” or “juvenile.”
Further, this is not only reflected in the actual legal definition but also in the practice of the law (especiallyin the “exceptions” to the law). A highly punitive system might prosecute children at a young age and holdthem accountable as adults at an early age as well. On the other hand, a more permissive system might notprosecute children until they are adolescents and maintain more protected status for young people until
them are much older.
In Singapore, a “juvenile” is defined under the Children and Young Persons Act as a male or female
person who is above seven years of age and below the age of 16. As many Western jurisdictions have thebase age at ten years of age and the upper limit as 18 years of age, Singapore’s law would seem at first71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

blush to be unduly punitive of juveniles. However, the “practice” of the law is such that rarely is a childunder ten ever prosecuted in Singapore due to the “presumption of insufficient maturity of understanding.”
Thus, without the maturity or cognitive ability to understand right from wrong, to understand the charges
or indeed the crime itself, young children are not prosecuted. Further, rarely are exceptions made so thoseunder age 16 are rarely prosecuted as adults. Finally, Singapore has instituted a Community Court in which
offenders 16-21 years of age are given special consideration in terms of treatment, rehabilitation, andsentencing. In fact, compared with say the United States where offenders as young as 14 can be prosecuted
as adults and where even those who are 17 can be subsequently executed for their crimes, the Singapore
system is actually considerably more restorative than the system of say, Texas.

X. SINGAPOREAN JUVENILE JUSTICE PRACTICES
A. Courts and Detention Facilities
As in most jurisdictions, Singapore has established a separate court to handle juvenile cases (Children
and Young Persons Act, 1993). The Juvenile Court is housed in a separate building from adult criminal cases,
surrounded with more comfortable surroundings, and has no open gallery for the public, thus protecting theconfidentiality of the identities of juvenile offenders. If being brought from remand, the juvenile offenders
are brought to court through corridors and passageways where their identities cannot be revealed. All
matters before the Juvenile Court are held in confidentiality and the press is forbidden from using any namesof juveniles in their reports.
Equally, the detention facilities, often called “correctional institutions” in many American jurisdictions,are called, “Boys Home” or “Girls Home” in Singapore, helping to reduce stigma. Further they are not“sentenced,” but have a “dispositional order” passed.
Of critical importance is that rather than having routine litigation with legal representation (thoughengaging legal counsel is an option for all cases), the juvenile can be represented by his/her parents. Parents
are given the right to stand with their children in court, offering whatever “mitigation” or “representations”
might normally be offered by a legal counsel. They are brought into Juvenile Court Conferences (see below)
and are usually asked to offer their input in such Conferences regarding the proposed dispositional order.
This is highlighting the importance of parental involvement in the restorative process of juveniles. Thisdiffers markedly from a nation like Australia in which parents are not routinely involved in the sentencing
of juvenile offenders for in Australia, juveniles are seen as quite independent and free from parental
constraints.

B. Community-Based Involvement
With a diversity of universities, many of which are related to foreign universities, a broad spectrumof trained social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists, and counsellors, with extensive multi-cultural,multi-religious, and multi-ethnic range of family service centers which provide counselling, social work,
psychological and consultation services to families, and with a government which actively seeks to develop
a justice framework informed by the social sciences, research, and “best practices” in medicine, psychiatry,and psychology, Singapore provides a fertile context for the growth of community-based treatment foroffenders and families.
The military, police, prisons, social welfare agencies, Ministry of Education and courts all havepsychological services units, and private practitioners in psychiatry and psychology can be found in every
medical hospital. Every school has a counsellor and referral network to psychologists. There is an extensive
department of forensic psychiatry and a developed addictions medicine department at the nation’s Instituteof Mental Health.
1. Ministry of Education: Counselling Services & Restorative Counselling
Through the Psychological/Guidance Services Branch of the Ministry of Education (MOE), the schools
attempt to identify at-risk cases throughout the nation. Besides obvious “at risk” behaviour, conductdisorders, and attention deficit disorders (ADHD), the MOE has a very targeted programme to deal withdepression and suicidal children and youth. Teachers and school teams under the supervision and training of
the Psychological/Guidance Branch can be rapidly mobilized to deal with school crises and suicidal matters.

72

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The Psychological/Guidance Services Branch has also been instrumental in developing a nation-wide“Growing Years” programme aimed at providing education and guidance regarding teenage sexuality,
thereby reducing moral danger, and risky sexual activities.
Finally, the MOE has begun a new series of family counselling initiatives based upon the Subordinate
Courts’ Juvenile Court Family Conferencing model. Trained by Australian psychologists, school personnel
and external community agencies team up to provide “restorative justice family conferences” whereby
school officials, mental health professionals, and family service counsellors meet with family members,
students, and related parties to deal with infractions of school rules such as violation of dress code, truancy,
theft, bullying, smoking, etc. In this manner, the school becomes the frontline for intervention and treatmentof “at risk” juvenile delinquents.
2. Singapore Police Force’s “Guidance Programme”
Besides the schools, the other “front line” dealing with “at risk” juvenile behaviours is the Singapore
Police Force. Whereas in years past, the police issued, “cautions” or “warnings,” then ended up arresting
and charging youth who did not heed their “warnings,” in 1997, the police joined with the Attorney
General’s Chambers (AGC), the Ministry of Community Development, and social service agencies, to form
the “Guidance Programme” (GP) for youth offenders.
When a juvenile is first apprehended for committing a minor crime (often such as shoplifting/shop theft),the police will “divert” the juvenile into GP to provide:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Counselling for juvenileCounselling for parents/families
Group work
Visits to juvenile’s home
Family camps
Community service
Training on self-control, taking responsibility, life skills, etc.

GP has been extremely successful and the re-offending rate has been reduced from 33% to 10%.
Due to this notable achievement, GP is now being expanded by:•••Extending the age of GP candidates to offenders 16-19 years of age in keeping with the newCommunity Court expansion;
Extending to intellectually/mentally disabled offenders,Developing “risk assessment” evaluations in order to “tailor” programmes for different types ofoffenders;
Using outdoors activites, treks, climbing, etc. for offenders’ rehabilitation.

3. “Streetwise” Programme of Family Service Centres
Some family services centres which offer low cost treatment to individuals and families in various
Singapore communities specialize in youth programmes. As a result, the “Streetwise” programme wasstarted for youths who have unwittingly drifted into gang involvement. It is an intensive six months
structured programme that incorporates elements of peer support, counselling, recreation and academic
activities in order to “turn around” youths before they become more entrenched in anti-social gangs,
violence, and theft.
4. Singapore Children’s Society Diversionary ProgrammeSingapore Children’s Society (SCS), an NGO, is one of the most active community agencies in Singapore
and has a special focus on juveniles. When a juvenile is below the age of 16, they can be brought before theJuvenile Court for a “Beyond Parental Control” (BPC) application (also called “status offenders” in American
jurisdictions). In Singapore, the most common behavioural manifestations of BPC are:••Defiance towards parents
Running away from home73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

•
•
•
•
•

Keeping late nights
Playing truant
Gangsterism
Vice, drug taking
Moral danger

Of these, a large percentage are related to females who defy their parents, run away, and become
involved in sexual activities at a young age. Due to the Internet, the number of such females “at risk” iscertainly a matter of grave concern. In order to deal with these BPC cases as diversionary (in order toprevent them from coming to court), SCS has the following programmes:(a) Beacon Works
The objective of this six month diversionary rehabilitative programme is to help the youth and families
stabilize existing behavioural problems that endanger the cohesiveness of the family unit. Individual andfamily counselling is critical to this process. This is a programme which requires voluntary admission on
the part of both the parents and child and Beacon Works is suggested before a Beyond Parental Control
complaint is applied for in Juvenile Court.
(b) Round Box
Round Box is a drop-in centre targeting youth-at-risk through a variety of performing arts programmes.
At this centre, youth are able to express their creative energies, learn new skills as well as make newfriends through activities such as dance, drama, puppetry, mime, circus and music. The classes, conductedby professional trainers or volunteers, are offered at no charge to these youths.

XI. JUVENILE JUSTICE CONTINUITY
One of the most significant movements in the Subordinate Courts of Singapore has been the recognition
that many families have multiple applications in various courts over time - such as divorce, custody, access,maintenance, family violence, juvenile arrest, and adult criminal arrest cases all in the same family. It is
this “dysfunctional” family which needs to be dealt with, not in a piecemeal fashion, but “holistically,” in an“integrated” manner. This is the original intention of what in other jurisdictions has been called the “unified
family court.” It is recognized that a young boy who enters the system as a child protection case can become
a “beyond parental control case,” then a “juvenile arrest case,” and then an adult “criminal offender.”Thus, besides community-based or early intervention programmes, the court deals with juvenile crime inboth a preventive, “pre-emptive” manner and in a current, even “prospective crime” evaluation.

A. Children Care Court (CCC)
Recognizing that dysfunctional families affect even the youngest children, CCC was set up to deal withcare and protection cases. In addition, if there are applications for Protection Orders on behalf of a child ora custody case in which child abuse emerges as a potential issue, these cases can be referred to CCC for
disposition. Exploitation of children, girls in moral danger, child abuse/neglect, emotional/psychologicalabuse, are all dealt with in order to stop “upstream,” cases which could one day evolve into juvenile or adultcriminal cases. BPC are also handled in this court as BPC children and youth are not actually charged withany criminal activities.
B. Children Care Court (CCC) Clinic
The CCC Clinic is headed by a psychologist and assists the court in its functions. The Clinic assesses
cases as they arise initially in a “triage” function, then refers the cases to the social welfare ministry(MCYS) for in depth assessment, evaluation and action. Under the direction of the CCC judge, the Clinic
staff also hold conferences with parents and families whose children are placed under care and protection tofacilitate the eventual reintegration of the child into his/her nuclear family.
C. Family Transformation and Protection Unit
The genesis of juvenile delinquency is often through the door of extreme family violence. Such cases
often come through the Family Court at the Family Transformation and Protection Unit (FTPU). Thesefamily violence cases (which are related to application for Personal Protection Orders/PPOs) can sometimes

74139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

be sent for Family Justice Team (FJT) meetings in which issues are dealt with in a holistic manner throughmediation and counselling.

D. “Beyond Parental Control” (BPC) Cases
When young people finally begin to exhibit signs of pre-delinquent behaviour, it can be uncovered by
the schools (in which case, the Ministry of Education takes active steps described above) or it is manifest
in defiance and wayward activities at home. When the juvenile is below 16, they can be brought to Juvenile
Court by his/her parents who can “lay a complaint against them.” The complaints are enumerated above.
If diversionary programmes are not effective, then these BPC cases are placed under the supervision ofSingapore Children’s Society case workers who provide not only structured supervision, but counselling andalternative programmes. The BPC child can also voluntarily be placed in a more structured environment, areligious institution, or “home” which provides 24 hour supervision and monitoring as well as rehabilitative
programmes.
XII. JUVENILE ARREST CASESThe Juvenile Court is the “last stop” for recalcitrant offenders. Usually, all the above options have been
exhausted. Most juveniles charged with a crime such as shop theft or rioting have probably committed
such offences many times before but were not apprehended or were “given another chance” by upstream
agencies eager to “divert” such wayward youths from juvenile homes (i.e. detention facilities). Yet, when
juveniles victimize others, extort money from their fellow classmates by force, intimate or physicallyassault others (often for “just staring the wrong way”), then the juveniles are usually charged in court.
These are not mild offenders, but those who flagrantly defy school authorities, show no responsiveness to
supportive counselling, and consistently thumb their noses at devoted teachers and caring parents. Manyare indifferent, complacent, and appear before the Juvenile Court judge with a “chip on their shoulders” andsporting dyed hair grown too long for school codes. They even stand indifferently in court.
The “wonder” of Juvenile Court is the wide array of options available to the Juvenile Court judge - fromvery mild orders to an order of three years in the Singapore Boys/Girls Home (i.e. custodial sentences). If of
the appropriate age, they can even be sent to adult prison (to the Reformative Training Centre, which is theinstitution within the adult prison for young offenders).

A. The Pre-Sentencing Report of the Probation Service
Upon being charged, the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports (MCYS) will have a probation officer
investigate the offender’s background. This thorough analysis includes interviews with the offender and his/her family, school reports, psychological testing for risk and protective factors, and forensic assessments
for the development of subsequent care plans. Psychiatric mental assessments are also available from theChild Guidance Clinic if needed. If the offender is found suitable for probation, he/she is then supervised forvarious periods of time with time restrictions, a community service order, and other measures.
Additional orders might include: parental bond to exercise proper care and guardianship (i.e. if theparents fail to participate in the rehabilitation process they can be fined); Theft Intervention Programme(TIP); Smoking Cessation Programme; Mandatory Counselling Order for the parents or family to getcounselling and a bond to complete the counselling process; a visit to the Singapore Boys/Girls Home to see
what a custodial sentence can be like; electronic tagging to monitor a boy’s/girl’s movements.
If the offender’s profile and PSR indicate more severe pathology, an offender can be sent to an “open”
institution where schooling can take place under a more regimented and structured “home.” And finally, if
the risk level appears to be high and the rehabilitative potential low, an offender can be placed in a custodial
institution and older offenders can even be sent to adult District Court where they can be sentenced to the
Reformative Training Centre (RTC) in Changi adult prison for up to four years.

B. Restorative Processes through the Ministry of Community, Youth and Sports
Once an offender pleads guilty or has been found guilty, he/she is either placed on probation or sent
to various approved institutions and schools depending on the dispositional order. Some may be closed
institutions, other open, some related to religious education and others secular.

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Within each institution there are case managers, social workers, and usually access to psychologists andpsychiatrists as well. In all institutions, intakes are assessed and care plans developed. Case management
might then include participation in such programmes as theft intervention programmes, anger management,“Positive Adolescent Sexuality Treatment” (PAST) for juveniles who have offended in crimes related tosexuality, moral education, and religious education in an offender’s chosen religion. In the Boys and Girls
Home, there is also vocational training, education, special programmes for mental disabilities, drug andsubstance abuse counselling, and programmes and workshops for the parents of offenders.

XIII. JUVENILE COURT PROCESSES AND PROGRAMMES
A. The Family and Juvenile Justice Centre (FJJC)
The Family and Juvenile Justice Centre (FJJC) is the joining together of several court support arms
related to the social sciences within the judicial system. Consisting of psychologists, social workers, andcounsellors, the FJJC provides staff for support services for the courts including: intake and assessments
of family violence applications; assessments of juvenile offenders; conducting of Juvenile Court family
conferences (below); mediation and counselling of Family Court cases of divorce, custody, and access;consultations in Children Care Court cases involving child abuse and neglect; Child Care Court conferences;
operation of Family and Juvenile Court programmes.
B. Juvenile Court Conferences
Under the Children’s & Young Persons Act of Singapore, the Juvenile Court Magistrate is empowered
to convene “family conferences.” Not to be confused with family group counselling sessions, these
special Juvenile Court Conferences are legally convened with powers which can lead to “formal cautions,”
assignment/recommendation of community service, compensation for damages, mandatory counsellingorders, and in most cases, recommendation to the Juvenile Court Magistrate of relevant dispositional
orders. Conducted in a room adjoining Juvenile Court and in cases where a young person is held on remand,adjoining a “holding” room for juveniles brought over from remand, these meetings are usually “presentencing” conferences immediately preceding open court final sentencing orders. They are formal andconsist of a court representative, the social welfare officer, offender, parents, and often many others involved
such as school officials, investigating officer, psychologists, and social workers. The sessions are a mixture of
judicial mediation, problem-solving, advocacy and often confrontation of offender and/or parents with regard
to their behaviour which may impede rehabilitation.
One variation of Juvenile Court conferences is “HEAL” conferences (“Healing, Empowering And
Linking”). These are specifically dealing with cases where victims may be involved. The primary focus is
NOT the offender, but rather the best interests of the victims. Reconciliation may take place, but only if it
furthers the best interests in the eyes of the victim. Restitution, compensation, apologies from the offenderand his/her family, are common results of HEAL conferences. If the victim chooses to do so, he/she canconfront the offender. If the victim does not want a face-to-face meeting, “victim impact statements” aretaken and presented. A special MCYS team prepares the victims and follows up with them to ensure thatthey receive maximum care and support in the process.

C. Juvenile Offender Behaviour Scale (JOB)
Developed with international consultation and using portions of assessment tools developed abroad,the Juvenile Offender Behaviour Scale (JOB) is used as a judicial tool. It is a “reference” tool and though it
has numerical figures and guidelines, it is used as seen fit by the magistrate. Some magistrates use it as a
general guide whilst others may ignore it entirely. Based upon risks and needs assessment and developedwith local norms and input (e.g. with input from Singapore police, detention home staff, probation officers,
psychologists, judges, and court advisers), the JOB provides an actuarial tool derived from the PreSentencing Report (see above PSR). The JOB has been used for over five years and has been shown to beaccurately predictive of breach patterns.
D. Panel of Advisers
The Panel of Advisers are nominated by the Ministry of Community Development Youth and Sports(MCYS) and appointed by the President of the Republic. They are esteemed members of the community
who participate in an advisory capacity to the Magistrate of the Juvenile Court. They come from a variety ofbackgrounds: school principals, community leaders, psychologists, professors, and business people, etc. and76

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

provide the Juvenile Court with a perspective which reflects the interests and values of the community atlarge.

E. Other Juvenile Court Related Programmes
Various other Juvenile Court programmes have been developed in collaboration with outside NGOs andagencies to enhance and complement the work of Juvenile Court. They are monitored by FJJC staff and theJuvenile Court Magistrate.
1. Youth Family Care
Youth Family Care (YFC) was formed to provide “family role models” for Juvenile Court families. As
Singapore places a high premium on families in the rehabilitative processes of juveniles, it was found thatmany families have dysfunction and pathology for generations and despite counselling, have little knowledgeof how a “functional” family operates. Volunteer families are then “matched” with Juvenile Court families forage, race, culture and religion, then trained by the Singapore Children’s Society (a local NGO) in procedures
and aspects of dealing with offender families, formally appointed by the Juvenile Court Magistrate, thenassigned for the period of the dispositional order to meet with and act as role models for the given offender’sfamily.
2. Buddy Care
The “Buddy Care” programme is rooted in the concept that juveniles often have no healthy “peers” withwhom they can relate and therefore turn to peers who lead them astray or who provide negative role models
for them. As group and peer attachment are critical to juveniles, volunteer “buddies” are recruited who aretrained by Singapore Children’s Society, matched for background, and who then meet with and act as friends
to the offenders. Always older and more mature, the “buddies” are seen as “older brothers or sisters” andprovide companionship and support from youth (rather than from adults).
3. Peer Group Advisers
Peer Groups Advisers (PGA) are students from Secondary Schools in Singapore who are exposed to theworkings of the Juvenile Court in order to educate students about juvenile justice, not only in concept but inpractice. Many misconceptions and distortions result from often sensationalistic media reports and rumours
passed from juveniles to their peers. Participating PGA schools select students to come to Juvenile Court,
meet with the Juvenile Court Magistrate, and observe “real cases without actual identities” and chamber
discussions. They are given the opportunity to “evaluate” cases themselves (of course, anonymously
presented), provide their own reflection, input, and recommendations to each case. At points, PGA students
may even have a “mock” trial in which they act as various members of the Juvenile Court and handle a“mock” case. Usually, PGA concludes with a “finale” in which the participating schools compete in an
activity centered around juvenile justice issues.

XIV. THE COMMUNITY COURT
In 2006, the new Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Singapore initiated the Community Court,
which more than being a court for the “community,” was a court in which certain classes of offenders
would receive differentiated treatment. Amongst the designated offenders were accused aged 16-18. In
this manner, though Singapore Juvenile Court handles cases involving children under 16 years of age, theCommunity Court began to provide increased attention up to age 18. In May of 2008, the upper age of theCommunity Court was raised to 21 years of age. In a study done in 2002, the Subordinate Courts foundthat the 16-21 year old cohort group was particularly vulnerable to shop theft and drugs and that treatmentof this cohort could conceivably reduce subsequent recidivism. In addition, other studies in the USA(SAMSHA) and in European nations found that in matters of brain development, vulnerability to alcohol anddrug abuse, and maturation, those under age 21 were less mature than offenders in their 20’s and 30’s.
The Community Court thus began special probation assessments parallel to Juvenile Court assessments,
provisions under the Probation of Offenders Act for fewer custodial sentences and more probationary
sentences, and piloting of various assessment tools such as the YLS-CMI to examine not only risk levels,
but treatment plans as well. The Community Court was also tasked to deal with mental health disorders anddisabilities, providing a nexus of mental health and youth offenders. A special “Senior Case Manager” and a
Senior level psychologist were assigned to the court to deal with cases and to convene special Community

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Court Conferences, gathering social workers, investigating officers, attorneys (defence and prosecution),families, and other professionals (e.g. psychiatrists from the state mental hospital) together to assess cases.
In 2008-2009, the Criminal Procedure Code and the Probation of Offenders Act are being amended.
Proposals regarding the Community Court will empower the Community Court to order Mandatory
Treatment Orders (MTOs) for offenders, not only for probationers, but for all. In that manner, offenders aged
16-21 might be sentenced to community service orders, mandatory counselling, treatment for drug/alcohol
problems, special programmes for shop theft, impulse control/violence, or sexual offending behaviours.
Their differentiated sentencing will be on a continuum with juvenile offenders in the Juvenile Court.

XV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A relatively young nation, Singapore is a Commonwealth nation and shares much of the judicial-legal
flavour of the United Kingdom. Very similar to its “Australasian” neighbour, Australia, Singapore also shares
many values of its North American counterparts. Yet, with a population drawn from ancestral roots in China,
Malaysia, India and other parts of Asia and Southeast Asia, and populated with religions of the region (mostly
Buddhist, but also strongly Christian, Muslim, and Hindu), Singapore is also infused with Confucian values.
These values in English and Chinese are: compassion (“ren ”); filial piety (“xiao ”); righteousness (“yi ”);
propriety (“li ”); loyalty (“chung ”), and reciprocity (“shu ”). In this schema of life, for example, “reciprocity”
sees persons not so much as individuals, but as persons caught up in an intricate web of relationships. Filial
piety requires fidelity to parents who in this way of life are always part of accountability and responsibility.
Righteousness means acting for the greater good of society rather than for one’s own limited needs.
Propriety requires harmony (balance) and reciprocal courtesy.
Thus, within this contextual blend of British legality and Confucian values, Singapore has developed
into a unique hybrid of juvenile justice. Justice and propriety are paramount as is respect for the law andparental rights and responsibilities. The Western notions of the pursuit of individual rights, freedom fromsocietal constraints, or passionate expression of contrarian views are difficult for some Singaporean Asians
to comprehend.
Juvenile justice in Singapore is thus marked by reciprocal interaction between the government andcommunity, by the active respect for familial participation at all levels, by compassion yet for the furtheranceof the common good, by balance of deterrence with restoration, and by an inherent respect for marital/
relational fidelity (not necessarily synonymous with monogamy). At each level, whether in school,community agencies, police, social service agencies, courts, or prisons, these “values” are inculcated andreinforced.
Finally, as was raised at the outset, Singapore has survived because it is also a pragmatic nation, quick
to adapt (not to adopt wholesale) systems and technologies, borrowing juvenile justice models (such ascommunity-based involvement, up-stream preventive measures, the use of assessment tools which arelocally normed, the infusion of social scientists and professionals with expertise in human behaviour, at thesame time a formalization of parental rights and responsibilities) which, in essence, work. Perhaps, the highsuccess of Singaporean youth (in a global assessment) is reflected in quantifiable results: the low crimerate, the relatively low use of drugs, and the low rate of teen suicide. To bemused Singaporeans, this makes
the “banning of chewing gum” as onerous as the “banning of eating durians (a local fruit known particularly
for its offensive smell but good taste) in public places.” If it renders the society more felicitous, then why
question it?

78

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Internet :Restorative Justice / juvenile delinquency:
http://www.lawgazette.com.sg/2001-7/July01-focus3.htm
http://www.restorativejustice.org/rj3/Feature/2003/feb/singapore.htm
http://www.gov.sg/judiciary/subct/Juvenile/publications/LawgazetteJuly01(focus3).pdf
Publications:Ozawa, J.P., “Co-Morbidity, Dual Diagnosis and Tobacco Use,” Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division,
Department of Health, USA, Honolulu, Hawaii, 19 July 2007
Ozawa, J.P. “The Family and Juvenile Justice Centre,” in R. Magnus, Lim Hui Min, M. Mesenas & V.
Thean (eds.), Rebuilding Lives, Restoring Relationships: Juvenile Justice and the Community. Eastern
University Press: London, 2003.
Ozawa, J.P. “Transformative Psychological Intervention: The Family Justice Team -- treatment for“anomie” in Singapore and Japan,” in Advances in Psychological Research, Nova Publishers: Hauppauge, NY,
2003, in final draft form.
Ozawa, J.P. Relational Distress and Self-Destructive Behaviours in Singapore. Plenary paper presented
at the Japan Society of Social Psychiatry, 23rd Annual Congress. Morioka, Japan, 4 March 2003. Published inJapanese, Jan 2004.
Ozawa, J.P. Developing Holistic Approaches (to Restorative Justice) in Singapore, Restorative Justice
Online , International Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, Prison Fellowship International, February 2003.
Ozawa, J.P. Juvenile Delinquency: An Asian Perspective. In Lim K.Tham & Lynette Balotta (Eds.),
Hedges and Edges: A Compendium for Social Workers, Counsellors and Family Therapists , Care Corner:
Singapore, 2002, 17-24.
Ozawa, J.P. Transformative Justice: Psychological Services in the Criminal, Family and Juvenile JusticeCentres of the Subordinate Courts of Singapore, Applied Psychology: An International Review , 2002, 51,
218-235.
Ozawa, J.P. Addressing the Criminogenic Effects of Divorce. Law Gazette , Law Society of Singapore,
August 2001, 32-34.
Ozawa, J.P. Juvenile Offender Behaviour (JOB) Criteria: Assessing Risk of Recidivism in Juvenile Court.
Law Gazette , Law Society of Singapore, July 2001, 14-16.
Ozawa, J.P. The Internet and Juvenile Crime in Singapore. Workshop paper presented at the 8th Congressof the ASEAN Federation for Psychiatry and Mental Health, Singapore, 18 March 2001.
Ozawa, J.P. & Teong, E. A profile study of female juvenile offenders. Research Bulletin, Subordinate
Courts of Singapore , 26, January 2001.
Ozawa, J.P. & Teong, E. Alcohol or drug abuse: relationship to domestic violence. Research Bulletin:
Subordinate Courts of Singapore , 25, December 2000.
Ozawa, J.P., Overview of the Assessment and Classification of Juvenile Offenders -- The Singapore
Model. Paper presented at the Youth Justice 2000 Conference, Singapore, 13-15 Sept 2000.
Ozawa, J.P. & Loh, D. Wait unit your father comes home: a study of institutionalized male juveniles andparenting styles. Research Digest, Ministry of Community Development , Singapore, 3-4, March 2000, 1-16.

79

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING
EXPERTS’SERIESPAPERSRESOURCE
MATERIAL
No.78

THE YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM OF ENGLAND AND WALES
Ian Blakeman*

I. INTRODUCTION
This paper will describe the Youth Justice System of England and Wales, beginning with the legal
framework setting out the Court arrangements, the work done on prevention and the options for disposal,
before going on to discuss the governance commissioning and delivery frameworks for youth justice. It willthen explore the background to youth offending in England and Wales, looking at numbers of offenders andthe range of court disposals, including the use of custody and the causes of offending. It will also look atwork on international comparisons of the use of custody. The second part of the paper will focus on the workof the public sector Prison Service caring for young people in custody. This will begin by outlining the aims
set out in Prison Service Order 4950 which governs the care of young people; it will then go on to explore
measures to ensure that young people are held in safe and decent conditions; the work that is done to
reduce the risk of young people reoffending; and how the Prison Service and the outside agencies, primarily
the Youth Offending Teams, work together to deliver Offender Management. Finally the paper will consider
possible future developments.

II. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Age of Criminal Responsibility
Section 50 of the Children & Young Persons Act 1933 states: “It shall be conclusively presumed that nochild under the age of ten years can be guilty of any offence.”
B. Definition of ‘Children’ and ‘Young People’
In the criminal justice system a ‘child’ means a person under the age of 14; and ‘young person’ means aperson who has attained the age of 14 and is under the age of 18 (see, for example, section 117 of the Crimeand Disorder Act 1998). However, for the purposes of the Children Acts 1989 and 2004, a ‘child’ is anyone
who has not reached their eighteenth birthday. Although the phrase ‘juvenile’ is still widely used to describe
young people under 18 in English it carries connotations of childish and of immature behaviour which can beseen as labelling and so we are increasingly seeking to use the term ‘young people’.
C. Aims of Youth Justice System
Section 37 (1) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 establishes that the principal aim of the youth justicesystem is “to prevent offending by children and young persons.”
D. Prevention
Government policy in England and Wales has explicitly sought to promote work to prevent offending by
young people. Through the work of local Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) a wide range of prevention worktargeted at offenders and at those who are seen as being most at risk of offending has been developed.
One of the best and most cost-effective ways to reduce youth crime is to prevent young people fromgetting into trouble in the first place, by dealing with the problems that make it more likely they will commit
crime or anti-social behaviour. Early intervention to prevent young people offending could save public
services more than £80 million a year, according to the Audit Commission’s report Youth Justice 2004: A
Review of the Reformed Youth Justice System .
Problems that may lead to a young person’s troublesome behaviour include a lack of education, poor
* Head of Women and Young People’s Group, HM Prison Service for England and Wales.

80139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

family relationships, having family members or peers who have offended, and misuse of substances. The
following programmes aim to deal with risk factors, engage young people’s interests and increase theirknowledge:
1. Youth Inclusion Programme (YIP)
Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs), established in 2000, are tailor-made programmes for 8 to 17 year
olds who are identified as being at high risk of involvement in offending or anti-social behaviour.
YIPs are also open to other young people in the local area. The programme operates in 110 of the mostdeprived/high crime estates in England and Wales.
YIPs aim to reduce youth crime and anti-social behaviour in neighbourhoods where they work. Youngpeople on the YIP are identified through a number of different agencies including Youth Offending Teams(YOTs), police, social services, local education authorities or schools, and other local agencies.
An independent national evaluation of the first three years of YIPs found that:•••arrest rates for the 50 young people considered to be most at risk of crime in each YIP had been
reduced by 65%;of those who had offended before joining the programme, 73% were arrested for fewer offences after
engaging with a YIP;of those who had not offended previously but who were at risk, 74% did not go on to be arrested
after engaging with a YIP.

2. Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs)
Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) aim to prevent anti-social behaviour and offending by 8 to 13
year olds who are considered to be at high risk of offending.
They have been designed to help the YJB meet its target of putting in place, in each YOT in England andWales, programmes that will identify and reduce the likelihood of young people committing offences.
Panels are made up of a number of representatives of different agencies (e.g. police, schools, health andsocial services). The main emphasis of a panel’s work is to ensure that children and their families, at theearliest possible opportunity, can access mainstream public services.
3. Parenting
Parenting programmes provide parents with an opportunity to improve their skills in dealing with the
behaviour that puts their child at risk of offending. They provide parents/carers with one-to-one advice
as well as practical support in handling the behaviour of their child, setting appropriate boundaries andimproving communication. Poor parenting is seen as one of the major risk factors associated with young
people at risk of offending.
Parents with a child who has become involved with the youth justice system may be offered theopportunity to voluntarily attend a parenting programme by the local YOT, if they consider that it would be
useful. However, if voluntary participation cannot be achieved, a Parenting Order can be sought by the YOT
which compels the parents/carers of a child at risk to attend.
4. Safer School Partnerships
The Safer School Partnerships (SSP) programme enables local agencies to address significant
behavioural and crime-related issues in and around a school. A result of the YJB’s proposal to develop a newpolicing model for schools, the SSP programme was launched as a pilot in September 2002, and brought into
mainstream policy in March 2006.
All schools involved in the Safer School Partnerships initiative have a police officer based in their school.
The school-based officer works with school staff and other local agencies to:81

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

•
•
•
•
•
•

reduce victimization, criminality and anti-social behaviour within the school and its community
work with schools on whole-school approaches to behaviour and discipline
identify and work with children and young people at risk of becoming victims or offenders
ensure the full-time education of young offenders (a proven preventative factor in keeping young
people away from crime)
support vulnerable children and young people through periods of transition, such as the move fromprimary to secondary school
create a safer environment for children to learn in.

Close working between police and schools is seen as crucial to keeping children in education, off thestreets and away from a life of crime. This is a joint initiative between the Department for Children, Schools
and Families, the YJB and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
5. Mentoring
Mentoring pairs a volunteer with a young person at risk of offending. The volunteer’s role is to motivateand support the young person on the scheme through a sustained relationship, over an extended periodof time. The relationship is built upon trust and a commitment to confidentiality and equality between thementor and the young person.
The relationship must be structured and have clearly identified objectives. These objectives should be tohelp the young person identify and achieve educational, vocational or social goals which address the factors
in the young person’s life that put them at risk of offending.

E. The Court System
When a young person is charged with an offence, they will appear before the youth court. If the casecannot be dealt with immediately, the court will make a decision as to whether the young person will bebailed or remanded into custody.
If a young person pleads not guilty, a date will be set for the trial when the magistrates will hear all theevidence and decide whether or not the young person is guilty. If the decision is guilty, they will then decideon the most appropriate sentence. If the case is very serious, the youth court will send the case to the
Crown Court for trial and/or sentence.
1. The Youth Court
Adult magistrates’ courts can only undertake trials and sentence people for offences for which the
maximum penalty is six months in prison. Magistrates’ courts deal mainly with cases involving people over
the age of 18. They can deal with young people, but only if they are being tried with an adult.
The youth court is a section of the magistrates’ court and can be located in the same building. It deals
with almost all cases involving young people under the age of 18. This section of the magistrates’ court isserved by youth panel magistrates and district judges. They have the power to give Detention and Training
Orders of up to 24 months, as well as a range of sentences in the community.
Youth courts are less formal than magistrates’ courts, are more open and engage more with the young
person appearing in court and his or her family. Youth courts are essentially private places and members of
the public are not allowed in. The victim(s) of the crime, however, has/have the opportunity to attend thehearings of the court if they want to, but they must make a request to the court if they wish to do so. The
needs and wishes of victims will always be considered by the court and, through the youth offending team
(YOT), they often have the opportunity to have an input into the sentencing process.
2. Non Custodial Disposals
When young people first get into trouble, behave anti-socially or commit minor offences, they can usually
be dealt with, by the police and local authority, outside of the court system, using a variety of orders andagreements. This is to stop young people getting sucked into the youth justice system too early, while still
offering them the help and support they need to stop offending.

82

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Pre-court measures• Reprimand• Final Warning
Anti-social behaviour measures• Acceptable Behaviour Contract (ABC)• Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO)• Individual Support Order (ISO)Other measures• Local Child Curfew
3. Sentences in the Community• Supervision Order• Community Rehabilitation Order• Community Punishment Order• Action Plan Order• Attendance Centre Order• Referral Order• Reparation Order• Fine• Conditional Discharge• Absolute Discharge
4. Custodial Sentences(i) The Detention and Training Order
Section 73 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (now section 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts(Sentencing) Act 2000), established a new custodial sentence, the Detention and Training Order (DTO)
for young people aged under 18 years. The new sentence was devised to rationalize the sentencing
arrangements which previously existed for those aged under 18 and to make custody more effective inpreventing reoffending. The DTO replaced the sentences of detention in a young offender institution (DYOI)
for 15-17 year olds, and the sentence of the secure training order (STO) for 12-14 year olds.
The only DTO sentences available to the courts are ones of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18 and 24 months. Half ofthe sentence is served in custody and the other half under supervision in the community. Consecutive
sentences are also available to the courts but only up to a maximum of 24 months (i.e. 12 months incustody). Young people sentenced to a DTO who reach the age of 18 will continue to serve the DTO; itcannot be converted into a term of DYOI.
Section 37 (1) of the Crime and Disorder Act establishes that the principal aim of the youth justicesystem is “to prevent offending by children and young persons.” Section 37 (2) imposes a duty on everyone
working in the youth justice system to have regard to that aim. The DTO is designed to ensure that themost appropriate form of training is provided for each young offender to help prevent further offending. To
enable this, the DTO can be served in a secure children’s home (SCH), in a Secure Training Centre (STC),
in a YOI and in any other place that the Secretary of State determines.
For those serving eight months or more but under 18 months release from custody one month earlier orlater than the mid point of the total sentence is possible. For those serving 18 months and over, release from
custody two months earlier or later than the mid point of the total sentence is possible. However, decisions
to transfer early or late will be authorized only when clearly established criteria have been met. There is apresumption in favour of early release.

(ii) Sentences for Serious Offences
Section 90 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (formerly Section 53(1) of theChildren and Young Persons Act 1933) provides that a person aged under 18 (at the time of the offence)
convicted of murder shall be sentenced to be detained at Her Majesty’s pleasure. Section 91 (formerly
Sections 53(2) and 53(3) of the 1933 Act) provides that children and young people convicted of certain83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

specified “serious” offences other than murder which in the case of an adult are punishable withimprisonment for 14 years or more, may, if no other methods of disposal are deemed suitable, be sentenced
up to the adult maximum for the offence, which may be for life. Those sentenced under Section 90 or 91 areliable, under Section 92 (formerly part of Section 53(3) of the 1933 Act), to be “detained in such place andunder such conditions as the Secretary of State may direct or arrange with any person.”
A Section 90/91 sentence is passed not only to meet the requirements of retribution and deterrence
but also to reflect the fact that special attention needs to be given to the offender’s rehabilitation. Suchsentences vary considerably in their length and consequently in terms of how and where the offenders
spend their time in custody. At one end of the scale is the young person who is sentenced to no more than a
few months’ detention and who, because of his/her age or vulnerability, will spend the whole of the custodial
period in secure accommodation in a SCH. At the other end of the scale are those who are convicted ofmurder or some other grave crime and who, after spending periods first in a SCH or STC and then in a
Prison Service under 18 establishment, will eventually move, via a young adult (age 18-20) YOI, to the adultprison system to complete the custodial part of their sentence.
A determinate sentenced ‘section 91’ young person will in most cases receive automatic release on
licence at the mid-point of their sentence. Home detention curfew will normally be available. The licence
period in the community lasts until the sentence expiry date.
The procedures for the release of those young people sentenced to detention at her Majesty’s pleasureor detention for life are similar to those for adult Lifers and involve consideration by the Parole Board.

(iii) Sentences for Public Protection and for Certain Violent or Sexual Offences
Section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that young people convicted of a specified sexual or
violent offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment or more and who are considered by
the court to be dangerous will be eligible to receive a sentence of detention for public protection unless thecourt considers that:••a Section 91 sentence of detention for life (see above) is justified; oran Extended Sentence under section 228 (see below) would be adequate in terms of public
protection.

A section 226 sentence means that the young person must remain in custody until the custodial part(the tariff) set by the Court has been served, at which time the offender will become parole eligible. Releasefrom custody is at such a time as the Parole Board feels that it is safe for them to be released, i.e. when a fullrisk assessment indicates that they no longer pose a significant risk to the public. Home Detention Curfew
is not available. Once released, the young person may remain on license indefinitely, but in contrast to life
licensees, they can apply to have their licence reviewed at the 10 year point by the Parole Board and atyearly intervals thereafter. The licence will be terminated if the Parole Board considers it safe to do so on
the grounds of public protection.
Section 228 of the 2003 Act provides that young people who have been convicted of specified sexual
or violent offences (including if they have been convicted of an offence carrying a maximum penalty of 10
years or more) and who are considered by the court to be dangerous, will be eligible to receive an Extended
Sentence which extends the period on licence and excludes them from early release except on parole.

III. GOVERNANCE, COMMISSIONING AND DELIVERY FRAMEWORKS
A. Responsibility for the Youth Justice System
To ensure an integrated approach to Youth Justice in which justice and child welfare policies are inharmony and practitioners in both fields can work together effectively, the Department for Children, Schools
and Families (DCSF) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have been given a shared responsibility for youth
justice policy and funding. A Joint (DCSF/MoJ) Youth Justice Unit has been established with the dual aims of•84

contributing to the protection of the public by developing policy and law in relation to children who
offend and are at risk of offending, to ensure implementation and delivery; and139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

contributing to the outcomes of Every Child Matters in terms of ensuring children and young people
in contact with the criminal justice system achieve all five outcomes.

This last bullet point is a reference to the 2004 Children’s Act which underpins the “Every Child
Matters: Change for Children” programme in England and a number of similar initiatives in Wales. All these
programmes/initiatives lay particular emphasis on multi-agency working at local level to improve outcomesfor children.
Section 10 of the 2004 Act (Section 25 for Wales) requires cooperation between local authorities andother specified bodies or agencies to improve the well-being of children in the authority’s area; and it defines“well-being” by the following five outcomes:
•
•
•
•
•

physical and mental health and emotional well-being
protection from harm and neglect
education, training and recreation
the contribution made by them (the children) to societysocial and economic well-being

B. The Commissioning Framework
1. The Youth Justice Board (YJB)
The YJB is a non-departmental public body set up by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (Section 41). Its
purpose is to monitor the operation of the youth justice system and the provision of youth justice services;and to advise the Justice Secretary about how the principal aim of the youth justice system might mosteffectively be pursued, and on the content of any national standards he or she may set with respect to theprovision of the entire secure juvenile estate. The Joint Youth Justice Unit is the departmental sponsoring
body for the YJB.
(i) Community Supervision(a) Youth Offending Teams
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (section 39) requires local authorities with social services andeducation responsibilities to establish a Youth Offending Team or teams, in partnership with the police,
probation service and health authorities. The YOTs, which have been in place in all areas of England andWales since April 2000, must include social workers, police and probation officers and education and healthstaff, and may include staff from other agencies, including local custody providers, if this is consideredappropriate. Managers from other agencies may also be involved in local steering arrangements for theteams. The role of the YOTs is to work with young offenders and those at risk of offending in the community
to turn them away from crime. The teams deliver or co-ordinate the delivery of a range of youth justiceservices, including bail support and the supervision of community sentences and of young people released
from custody. How these services are to be delivered and funded locally and the functions and funding of the
youth offending teams have to be set out in an annual youth justice plan, drawn up by the local authority inconsultation with other agencies, and which is submitted to the YJB and published. Local custody providers
should be consulted in drawing up the plan. Inter-departmental guidance on establishing YOTs was issued on
22 December 1998 and sent to Governors.
A key feature of the DTO is the importance attached to the continuity of work with each young person
after transfer to the community. To ensure this, a supervising officer will be appointed by the YOT to eachyoung person immediately after sentence and will establish and maintain contact with them throughout theirtime in custody, contributing to the sentence planning, review and preparation for release. The supervising
officer is the establishment’s main point of contact with the YOTs, these being the means by which effective
inter-agency planning and co-operation will be organized and delivered locally. Governors must keep thesupervising officer informed of all the developments and the difficulties experienced by the young person
in custody and put in place arrangements to facilitate quality contact between the establishment, the young
person and supervising officer.
(b) Commissioning of Secure Accommodation
From April 2000, under powers conferred by Section 41(5) of the Crime and Disorder Act (as amended
by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000), the YJB became the commissioning and85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

purchasing body for all forms of secure accommodation for children and young people.
2. Secure Accommodation
There are three types of establishment in which 10 to 17 year olds sentenced or remanded to custody inEngland and Wales can be placed:•••secure children’s homes
secure training centres (STCs)
young offender institutions (YOIs).

(i) Secure Children’s Homes
Secure children’s homes are run either by local authority social services departments or by privatecompanies, overseen by the Department of Health and the Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Out of the three types of establishment, secure children’s homes have the highest ratio of staff to young
people, and are generally smaller, ranging in size from six to 40 beds. They are usually used to accommodate
younger children (those aged 12 to 14), young women up to the age of 16, and 15 to 16 year old young men
who are assessed as needing extra care.
(ii) Secure Training Centres
STCs are purpose-built centres for young people up to the age of 17. They are run by private operators
under Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (YJB) contracts, which set out detailed operational
requirements. There are four STCs in England:••••

Oakhill in Bedfordshire
Hassockfield in County Durham
Rainsbrook in Northamptonshire
Medway in Kent.

(iii) Young Offender Institutions
YOIs are run either by the Prison Service or by the private sector, and can accommodate 15 to 21 year
olds. The YJB commissions and purchases the places for under-18s (i.e. 15 to 17 year old boys and 17 year
old girls), who are held in units that are completely separate from those for 18 to 21 year olds. About 81%
of young people in custody are held in YOIs. YOIs have lower ratios of staff to young people than STCs andsecure children’s homes, and accommodate larger numbers of young people.
In 2006/7, the last year for published population data, there were an average of 2,914 young people under
18 in custody; of those 226 (7.7%) were in Secure Children’s Homes, 257 (8.9%) were in Secure Training
Centres and 2,431 (83.4%) were in Young Offender Institutions. Of the total 2,704 were male and 211
female.

IV. YOUTH OFFENDING IN ENGLAND AND WALES
There are about 4.7 million young people between 10 and 17 in England and Wales. Of those about
130,000 committed an offence dealt with by the courts; in all there were nearly 300,000 offences in 2006/7.
Of these, 236,000 were committed by boys and 60,000 by girls. The most common offences were theft andviolence against the person (both 56,000), criminal damage (41,000) and motoring offences (37,000). Other
notable offences are drugs (12,000) robbery (7,000) burglary (5,700) and sexual offences (1,800).
Public attitudes towards offending by young people have been characterized by a growing intolerance
towards quality of life crimes leading to the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, and concern about
increasing evidence of gangs and serious violent crime, particularly knife and gun crime where the victims
are other young people.

V. INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONSThe YJB have recently published a study of youth justice systems across different jurisdictions. It is
explicitly aimed at influencing policy in England and Wales. The paper ‘Cross-national comparison of youth

86139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

justice’ by Neal Hazel of the University of Salford looks at the different models of youth justice. Drawing
on a topology developed by Cavadino and Dignan, Hazel describes the England and Wales system as being
Neo-correctionalist, characterized by stressing the responsibility of parents and children, the need for earlyintervention and prevention, a focus on victims and on the need for effectiveness in treatment. This iscontrasted with the Welfare models of Europe and Japan and the Justice models of the US. Hazel also notes
a gap between the views of policy makers in England and Wales and those of the public and politicians who
remain wedded to a Justice model.
Hazel also reviews attempts to compare juvenile prison populations by collecting data from eachjurisdiction. However, it is clear that any such comparison is fraught with difficulties as each jurisdictionuses different definitions around age and crucially what constitutes custody. It is clear that some countries
use reform schools which young people cannot leave at will but which aren’t considered custody. On any
count though it is clear that England and Wales has a particularly high population of young people in custodyat 46 per 100,000 compared to an average in Western Europe of around 17 per 100,000, though the figure for
the US remains much higher at 336 per 100,000.

VI. HER MAJESTY’S PRISON SERVICE FOR ENGLAND AND WALESHM Prison Service is managed as part of the National Offender Management Service. NOMS is
responsible for delivering Prison and Probation Services in England and Wales. The Prison Service has
always been responsible for delivering custodial sentences for offenders 15 and over. Since 2000 all 15–17
year olds held in prison have been held in dedicated prisons for young people. Two YOIs are run by privatecompanies: Ashfield near Bristol and Parc in Wales. There are fourteen YOIs for young people run by the
public sector; four are small separate units for 17 year old girls within larger prisons for women at Eastwood
Park near Bristol, New Hall near Wakefield, Foston Hall near Nottingham and Downview near London.
There are four YOIs holding only young men aged 15–18: Wetherby near Leeds, Huntercombe near Reading,Warren Hill near Ipswich and Werrington near Stoke. The remaining places holding young men do so inseparate units within prisons that also hold young adults aged 18-21; they are Stoke Heath and Brinsford
near Wolvehampton, Castington near Newcastle, Feltham in London, Hindley near Manchester and
Lancaster Farms in the North West.

A. Management Arrangements and the Role of the Women and Young People’s GroupThe YOIs in the public sector are managed within regional structures by Area Managers for Prisons, whodeliver against the Service Level Agreement with the YJB. Area Managers and Governors are supported by
the Women and Young People’s Group. The relative roles and responsibilities are set out in the SLA whichstates the following.
1. The Roles and Responsibilities of Governors
The Governors are to operate safe and secure establishments, operating within all relevant PSOs, PSIs and
YOI rules including specifically PSO4950, reflecting service standards and actions set out within continuous
improvement delivery plans, whilst focused on reducing offending; provide the places prescribed in the SLA
at paragraph 4.10; provide reliable data, facilitate visits, communicate appropriately, provide access to records
and utilize support available from W&YPG; continue to operate an open and transparent relationship with the
YJB – providing reliable data, facilitating monitoring visits and providing access to records, and communicating
appropriately with the YJB SLA Management Team; seek to continuously improve delivery against YJB
Outcomes; and report progress against the Continuous Improvement Delivery Plan.
2. The Roles and Responsibilities of Area Managers
The Area Managers are to ensure that establishments’ continuous improvement delivery plans are
realistic, challenging but achievable and deliver the YJB Outcomes; sign off the Action Plans requested by
the Performance and Development Board; hold Governors accountable for delivery; operate an effective
working relationship with W&YPG utilizing the support they can provide to the Area Team; ensure
establishments are appropriately resourced and supported to deliver effectively; and act as a point ofescalation for issues relating to establishments in their area.
3. The Roles and Responsibilities of the Women and Young People’s Group
The Women and Young People’s Group is to represent the Prison Service in taking the lead in the87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

negotiation of the SLA with the YJB; on behalf of the Deputy Director General, ensure that the Prison
Service meets commitments in the SLA; advise and support establishments and Area Offices to improvedelivery; understand the performance of establishments and their ability to develop further; provide support
and guidance to establishments and Area Managers on the development of Continuous Improvement
Delivery Plans that meet YJB Outcomes; deploy resources to support establishments and Area Offices
as appropriate, providing a specialist resource on operational issues at young people’s establishments;
facilitate meetings between the YJB SLA Management Team, YJB Commissioning Team and Area
Managers when required by any party within a reasonable timescale; ensure the timely delivery of allContinuous Improvement Delivery Plans to the YJB; ensure all establishments are in possession of an
up-to-date version of the Delivery manual; work towards ensuring resources are distributed across sites
to enable maximum delivery against YJB outcomes and provide visibility on this distribution. This will beachieved by developing activity analysis for YJB funded establishments within the scope of Prison Service
policies and initiatives; using the information as the base for the 2010/11 budgets of all YJB commissioned
establishments; facilitate and support the YJB in relation to agreed development in the secure estateand operationalize new policy for the Prison Service across the YJB commissioned places; support
implementation of projects agreed in the workplan providing dedicated project support and expert advice
relating to young people held in custody; engage as appropriate with the YJB Placement and Casework
Service, to ensure delivery against the Allocations Strategy; and the Head of W&YPG has final authority
within the Prison Service with regard to the allocation of young people to prison places.

VII. AIMS OF IMPRISONMENT
Section 47 of the Prison Act 1952 provides that the Secretary of State may make rules for the regulationand management of prisons and YOIs (and STCs) and for the classification, treatment, employment,
discipline and control of persons required to be detained in those establishments. The regimes which theprison service provides to young people are accordingly governed by the Young Offender Institution Rules
2000 and the Prison Rules 1999 (both sets of Rules having last been amended in 2005). The YOI Rules apply
to sentenced young people and the Prison Rules to those held on remand.
The detail of the regimes which establishments in the prison service young people’s estate are required
to provide, as agreed with the YJB, is set out in Prison Service Order 4950 (which is incorporated in the
SLA between the prison service and the YJB). PSOs do not have the force of law, but the courts will expect
establishments to follow the policies contained in them unless they can show good reason for not doing so.
The regimes are built upon the evidence-based research into ‘what works’ with offenders and upon
effective practices established for young people, male and female, within the young people’s secure estate
and the community as set out in the YJB’s Key Elements of Effective Practice.
Key features of the PSO 4950 regimes are:•••

A child centred approach reflecting responsibilities under the Children Acts 1989 and 2004;
A special emphasis on safeguarding the provision of a safe environment for all young people at all
times;
Special attention to every young person’s physical, mental and social health, including the promotionof healthy lifestyles;

and, more particularly:
•
•
•
•

88

Screening on day of arrival to ensure all immediate healthcare and other needs are identified andprovided for;
Provision of an induction programme including information materials about the establishment andsources of help and advice;
Sentence plans - based on each young person’s needs and regularly reviewed and updated –which set realistic objectives for the young person and help prepare them for their return to thecommunity;
An intense early focus on assessing a learner’s needs, formulating those into an individual learning
plan and ensuring those needs are delivered through a specification - the Offender’s Learning
Journey – which the teaching contractors are required to deliver;

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

•
•
•
•

A range of offending behaviour programmes which reflect the diversity and individuality of the young
people as well as their educational abilities. [See section on JET below];
A child appropriate approach to behaviour management with greater focus on interventions toaddress the causes of the young person’s poor behaviour and to help them towards a more positive
attitude;Rewards and sanctions schemes designed specifically for young people and offering realistic andmotivating incentives which nurture and reward good behaviour;
An independent Advocacy Service aimed at providing a useful additional source of help and advice.

VIII. SAFE AND DECENT PRISONSAt the heart of what of HMPS do is recognition of the privilege of potentially being able to make apositive change and impact on the life chances of children and young people whose lives, experience, andbehaviour are characterized by difficulty, disruption and social exclusion.
The almost 3,000 15-18yr old young people HMPS looks after are legally children. This is a huge
responsibility, and it’s vital that staff have the trust of the young people themselves, their parents/carers,
other responsible agencies like children’s social care, as well as the trust of the commissioning authority the
YJB, and the general public.
A typical young person in the care of the Prison Service is likely to have experienced multiple disruption
and difficulty. Up to a half may have been in care, most are likely to have significantly disrupted education or
be excluded from school. Many are likely to be facing unmet resettlement needs on release such as suitableaccommodation.

A. Feeling Safe
The starting point for engendering this trust has to be delivering an environment where the young
people and staff feel safe. This a priority for HMPS and the YJB who have invested in a dedicatedsafeguarding programme integrating child protection, suicide prevention, self harm management andviolence reduction policy and practice and, provided dedicated senior safeguarding managers, training, young
people’s advocacy programme and capital works improvements. Effective working partnerships with local
authorities and YOTs are seen as vital to secure positive outcomes.
Establishments aim to respond appropriately (firmly where necessary) and consistently to the behaviourof young people, and need to take forward a joint YJB programme to develop young people specificstrategies such as guidance for adjudications, and look at the use of separation with young people, and how
to adopt “time out/calm down” type approaches that might provide a more instant management response.
Establishments are also piloting restorative justice approaches.

B. Code of Practice on Behaviour Management
YOIs are working to the YJB Code of Practice on Behaviour Management which includes the approaches
outlined below.
1. Management Responsibilities
It is important to place behaviour management within a framework of overall management responsibility.
The senior managers of each establishment are responsible for leading the approach to managing behaviour;and in particular, they must:••••

demonstrate a commitment to a child-centred culture that encourages a calm, ordered, andrespectful living environment (which therefore promotes self-control);ensure that every relevant member of staff receives appropriate training for all aspects of managing
behaviour;
ensure that monitoring systems are in place to identify the extent of compliance with the Code;ensure that lessons learned from monitoring information and from incident analysis are used to
inform and improve the development of effective practice within their establishment.

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

2. An Acceptable Behaviour Statement
The establishment must have a clear, widely distributed statement, written in child-friendly language,
about what behaviour is acceptable and unacceptable.
This statement must be made available to the young person as part of the induction process, and becontinually referenced (for example, through personal officer/key worker relationships and during careplanning meetings). Information about the consequences of unacceptable behaviour must be made clear (seesection 3 below).
3. A Coherent and Fair System of Rewards and Sanctions
The establishment must have a clear, widely distributed statement, written in child friendly language,
about the rewards and sanctions that are used, and the kind of circumstances in which they are deployed.
Restorative justice principles should be at the heart of the system. This statement must be made available tothe young person during the induction process, and be continually referenced (for example, through personal
officer/key worker relationships and during care planning meetings).
4. A Planned Approach to Managing Individual Behaviour
Behaviour management must be specifically covered in care and sentence planning processes. Triggers
to unacceptable behaviours, and tactics for avoiding or defusing them should be identified in the planning
process, in consultation with the child or young person. A child or young person who is assessed to need it
must have a tailored behaviour management plan in place, which is formulated at planning meetings, and in
consultation with the child or young person, his or her parents/carers, and relevant professionals. Behaviour
management plans must be reviewed at each planning meeting. Parents/carers and relevant professionals
must be kept informed of behavioural problems and achievements.
5. Processes for Consulting with Children and Young People
The establishment must demonstrate a commitment to consulting with children and young people
about issues that affect them, and provide information about the processes that are in place to support thiscommitment.
6. A Complaints Procedure
The establishment must demonstrate that it has an effective complaints procedure. Information on theprocedure, written in child-friendly language, must be provided to children and young people, and followed
up by explanations from staff during their induction. Children and young people must have access to anindependent advocacy service to support them through the complaints procedure. There must be a staged
or tiered procedure for resolving complaints. The initial stages of the procedure must seek to resolve
complaints locally, informally and swiftly.
Restorative justice principles must be used in resolving complaints wherever possible. There must
be clear signposts, where necessary, linking complaints by a child or young person to child protection
procedures. The establishment must have a monitoring system in place to review the operation of thecomplaints procedure, both in terms of the nature of the complaints made and their outcome, from the childor young person’s perspective, and at an individual and an aggregate level.
7. An Independent Advocacy Service
The establishment must ensure that children and young people have access to an advocacy service that is:•••child/young person-led;
independent of the establishment;
confidential (within the limits of child protection and security requirements).

8. Diversion, De-escalation and Defusing Processes
The policies of the establishment must emphasize de-escalation, and defusing potentially violent or
conflict situations. Restorative justice principles should be used where possible to help de-escalate anddefuse conflict. This approach must be reflected in the establishment’s training strategy.

90

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

9. Removal from Normal Location
Removing children and young people from their normal location and separating them from theirpeers is a procedure used throughout the secure estate to assist in the management of certain types of
behaviour. Although the language and some practical aspects of the process differ according to the type ofestablishment, the following principles must underpin the process wherever it takes place.
The decision to remove a child or young person because of problematic behaviour must be made only on
the basis of an assessment that:••the continued presence of the child or young person in the normal location threatens the good orderof the establishment; orthe child or young person will benefit from a period of separation to assist him or her in bringing his
or her behaviour under control.

The decision to remove the child or young person must be taken by a senior member of staff. It mustnot be used as a punishment. The reasons for the decision must be made clear to the child or young person.
Every effort must be made to assist the child or young person in addressing the behaviour that led to theremoval, so that he or she may be restored to the normal location as soon as possible. While the childor young person is separated, he or she must continue to have access to regime activities, particularly
education. The separation arrangement must be reviewed frequently to ensure that it is still justified. Whenthe period of separation is over, the child or young person must be given the opportunity to debrief with asuitable member of staff.
10. A System for Restrictive Physical Intervention
Only staff who are properly trained and competent to use restrictive physical interventions should
undertake them. Restrictive physical interventions must only be used as the result of a risk assessment.
They must be mindful of the particular needs and circumstances of the child or young person being
restrained (for example, medical conditions or pregnancy). Restrictive physical interventions must not be
used as a punishment, or merely to secure compliance with staff instructions. Any intervention must be
in compliance with the relevant rules and regulations for the establishment, and carried out in accordancewith methods in which the member of staff has received training. Restrictive physical interventions must
only be used as a last resort, when there is no alternative available or other options have been exhausted.
Methods of restrictive physical intervention that cause deliberate pain must only be used in exceptional
circumstances. Restrictive physical interventions must be carried out with the minimum force, and for the
shortest possible period of time.
The degree of physical intervention must be proportionate to the assessed risk. Every effort must be
made to ensure that other staff are present before the intervention occurs. Medication must only be used
for treatment of a medical condition, and not as a means of control. After the intervention, the child or young
person must have the opportunity to debrief with a suitable member of staff, with the support of an advocate
if requested. A medical examination must be arranged immediately if there is any evidence of injury, or if
the child or young person complains of discomfort or pain, or requests it. There must be clear policy links
between restrictive physical interventions and child protection procedures (i.e. there must be signposts
to the need for a child protection referral if a child or young person is injured, or complains about theintervention).
Staff must have the opportunity to debrief with their manager. Family/carers and appropriate
professionals must be informed of the intervention. A monitoring system must be in place to record
individual incidents in a way that allows them to be aggregated over time to give a total picture of the useof restrictive physical interventions in each establishment. The establishment must prepare an annual
report, which evaluates practice in the area of restrictive physical interventions for the previous year.
The establishment must have processes in place to ensure that practice is informed and developed by thedebriefing and monitoring information.

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

IX. INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE REOFFENDING
The interventions in YOIs are built around the needs of young people. Primarily these are exclusion frommainstream education through social exclusion or through behaviour management that results in a low levelof educational attainment that in turn means young offenders are excluded from employment opportunities;
substance misuse; and cognitive behaviour deficits. So the primary interventions are a focus on education asubstance misuse service and cognitive skills courses.

A. Education
The YJB have prioritized education funding for young people in custody, providing 15 hours of structured
education within an overall programme of 30 hours’ activity that includes physical education, somevocational work and other interventions. The main emphasis of the education provision is on basic skills in
literacy and numeracy, with a target to raise attainment levels by one level on the national framework during
the period in custody. Education is provided in small groups of about 8 young people with a teacher andteaching assistant in each class.
B. Substance Misuse Service
Drug Services in HM Prisons were put in place in 1998 and were a structured approach to what wasessentially a concern about problematic class A drug use. The approach was very adult focused and it did notinclude interventions on alcohol, solvents or nicotine.
At that time only 20% of young people accessed Prison Drug Services. A more child orientated approach
was pioneered within the North West Prison Area between 2000 and 2003. Following the success of thiswork, the YJB have invested about £4million per year for a dedicated substance misuse service for young
people.
The Young People’s Substance Misuse Service (YPSMS) team are in all Prisons - one worker per 30
young people (i.e. Wetherby has 12 workers). All young people have an initial assessment and all receive
substance misuse awareness. Those assessed as appropriate are offered one-to-one work and group work.
The main substances covered are alcohol and cannabis – these accounts for 90% of assessed need. Less
than 2% of YP are assessed as needing in-patient detoxification from heroin/benzodiazepine/alcohol; most of
those that do are females.
The service links closely to community services in terms of continuity of care.

C. Juvenile Enhanced Thinking Skills (JETS)The JETS Living Skills programme is a cognitive behavioural programme, based on principles ofcognitive behaviour theory. It aims to teach younger offenders how to behave and think in more pro-social
ways by changing maladaptive thinking patterns, and providing opportunities for practising new more
effective ways of thinking and behaving. It aims to equip them with a range of skills that will enhance theirabilities to behave in pro-social ways and interact more effectively with other people e.g. skills in self
control, perspective-taking, problem solving and reflective thinking. The programme contributes directly tothe principal aim of the youth justice system - to prevent offending by young people.
The programme evolved from evaluating existing interventions and looking at what facilitators andTreatment Managers felt were effective methods with this age group. The aim was to ensure that exercises
were exciting, practical and easily accessible to the young people.
The value of the programme is in the potential it has to impact as a core effective regime activity. It
adheres to the YJB’s ‘Key Elements of Effective Practice’ criteria for offending behaviour programmes but
also, because it takes a holistic and integrated approach, it is designed to fit into the existing regime andresettlement structures.
The programme has been written specifically for the 15-17 age group. It is targeted at males (though it
could be easily developed further to make it more responsive to females) who have a medium to high risk ofreoffending, who are motivated sufficiently to participate in the programme and who have the offence related

92

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

needs in terms of cognitive deficits but who do not have current mental illness, or significant language
barriers that would prevent participation.
The programme consists of 25 sessions. The formal group work sessions amount to approximately
48 hours but in addition to this there are a further 7 hours of individual support, and a further 25 hours of
homework assignments involving practise of skills. This amounts to a total of 80 hours’ treatment work.

D. Sex Offenders
For adult sex offenders HMPS deliver the Sex Offender Treatment Programme in group sessions.
The nature of this programme and the particular vulnerabilities of young people mean that SOTP is not
appropriate for under 18s. Where there is a clear need for intervention that cannot wait for the offender
to complete SOTP as an adult due to sentence length there is a programme of one-to-one work which isprovided in partnership with The Lucy Faithfull Trust, a charity specializing in working to prevent the sexual
abuse of children.
X. OFFENDER MANAGEMENT AND RESETTLEMENT
Responsibility for young people serving DTOs rests with the local Youth Offending Team. YOTs workwith YOIs to ensure effective Offender Management during and following the period in custody. A common
Offender Management tool - Asset - is used and increasingly this is provided through an I.T. solution thatis being rolled out under a strategy for ‘wiring up Youth Justice’. The emphasis of offender management ison responding to identified need both in terms of vulnerability and the reasons for offending. The YOT caseholder attends case conferences in custody, helping to prioritize work to address offending while in prisonand planning for a successful resettlement on the return to the community when the same YOT worker willbe the lead professional providing supervision.

XI. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
The Prison Service continues to work with its commissioner, the YJB, to develop the services provided.
The SLA sets out a comprehensive action plan for 2008/9 which prioritizes further developing the Behaviour
Management Framework, a Workforce Development Plan that aims to increase the specialization andprofessional skill base of staff, and a move to rationalize the young people’s estate and begin a strategic
move towards dedicated sites. These developments will need to be made within the context of changing
attitudes, and a reduced tolerance, to youth offending. There are early signs of a loss of confidence in the
YJB, both from those who promote a welfare approach, and also from those who advocate a more punitive
approach. It will be important to be able to demonstrate success in the system to continue the programmeof work undertaken over the last decade. The UK is also entering the part of the political cycle that usuallymarks a shift to more punitive criminal justice policies.

XII. CONCLUDING REMARKSThis paper has set out the legislative administrative and political context for the Youth Justice System inEngland and Wales with a particular emphasis on the role of the Public Sector Prison Service. It has looked
at research on international comparisons, at the causes of Youth Offending and at the preventive work donein the community before looking at the regimes in place and the treatment interventions offered withincustody. It concluded with some thoughts on future developments.

93139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPARTICIPANTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’SERIESPAPERSRESOURCE
MATERIAL
No.78

PROFILES AND EFFECTIVE TREATMENTS OFSERIOUS AND VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERSSamuel Tong*

I. INTRODUCTION
Hong Kong, like many other countries and cities around the world, applies special procedures andsystems for young offenders.
This paper will firstly outline the prevailing juvenile justice system in Hong Kong, with a detailed
discussion of the relevant legislation, the juvenile court, the procedures after arrest of a young offender, thecourt procedures and sentencing principles.
After that, the paper will analyse the aspects of the assessment and treatment methods for young
offenders, with highlights on different correctional regimes administered by the Hong Kong Correctional
Services Department (HKCS).
Lastly, the paper will study the prevention methods that help young offenders under HKCS’ programmes
to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. There will be a detailed description of HKCS’ rehabilitation
services which specifically target young offenders.

II. JUSTICE MODEL AND PROCEDURES
A. Brief Description of Hong Kong’s Juvenile Justice System
1. Legislation
The policy and procedures for the handling of youths in Hong Kong’s juvenile justice system is primarily
governed by the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance (JOO) (Cap 226). Other relevant legislation includes theProtection of Children and Juveniles Ordinance (Cap 213); the Probation of Offenders Ordinance (Cap 298);
the Detention Centres Ordinance (Cap 239); the Training Centres Ordinance (Cap 280); the Community
Service Order Ordinance (Cap 378); the Rehabilitation Centres Ordinance (Cap 567); and the Reformatory
Schools Ordinance (Cap 225).
2. Juvenile Court
The minimum age of criminal responsibility in Hong Kong has been raised from seven to 10 after theJuvenile Offenders (Amendment) Ordinance 2003 (the Ordinance) came into force1. Any persons below theage of 10 cannot be guilty of an offence in law, but they may be subject to care and protection proceedings
under the Protection of Children and Juveniles Ordinance.
The Juvenile Court is presided over by a permanent magistrate, who has the jurisdiction to adjudicate
alleged criminal offences, other than homicide, committed by a juvenile aged 10-15.
Nevertheless, there are occasions on which juveniles may be transferred to adult courts for trial. These
exceptions include a juvenile being:* Correctional Services Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China.

1 The Secretary for Security set 1 July 2003 as the commencement date of the Juvenile Offenders (Amendment) Ordinance2003. The commencement notice was published in the Gazette on 25 April 2003 and tabled at the Legislative Council on 30
April 2003 for negative vetting.

94

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS(i) charged jointly with a person who has attained 16 years of age;(ii) charged with aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring, allowing or permitting an offence with which aperson who has attained the age of 16 years is charged at the same time; or(iii) charged with an offence arising out of circumstances which are the same as or connected with thosegiving rise to an offence with which a person who has attained the age of 16 years is charged at thesame time.
There is no statutory requirement for magistrates appointed to hear juvenile cases to possess any
particular background or training. Nevertheless, before sitting in the Juvenile Court, a Juvenile Court
magistrate will be briefed by his or her predecessor on the court practice and procedures. From time totime, Juvenile Court magistrates are encouraged to attend seminars and conferences on related topics.
3. Procedures after Arrest of a Young Offender(i) Interview
A juvenile arrested by the police will only be interviewed in the presence of a parent, a guardian, ora person (e.g. an older brother or sister) who is of the same sex of the juvenile being interviewed. The
absence of such person when a statement is obtained from a juvenile may be considered oppressive and canbe sufficient reason for the court to exclude the statement from evidence.
After the interview, the police have the discretion to handle minor offenders informally by cautioning thejuvenile. Should the offence warrant formal measures, the police may deal with the case by proceeding withprosecution. Appendix I contains a flowchart which outlines the process of handling a young offender underHong Kong’s juvenile justice system.

(ii) Bail/Detention
Section 4 of JOO stipulates the conditions for the release of a juvenile on bail pending trial. It provides
that a juvenile aged under 16, apprehended with or without warrant, must be brought forthwith before aJuvenile Court. Where that cannot be done, an inspector of police or other officer of equal or of superiorrank, or the officer in charge of the police station where such a person is brought, must enquire into the caseand grant bail unless: the charge is one of homicide or other grave crimes; it is in the juvenile’s interest to
remove him or her from association with an undesirable person; or the officer has reason to believe that therelease of the juvenile would defeat the ends of justice. If a juvenile is not allowed bail, JOO requires that thejuvenile be detained in the police station, but must be kept separate and apart from adult detainees.
(iii) Police Cautioning
In Hong Kong, a juvenile aged under 18 who commits a minor offence may receive police cautioning
under the Police Superintendent’s Discretion Scheme. Under the Scheme, the young offender isinterviewed by a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent and given a severe warning about theoffence and the consequences of such conduct in future. The juvenile is subject to visits by police officers of
the Juvenile Protection Section so as to reinforce the warning with continued police contact.
4. Court Procedure(i) Admitting/Denying the Charge
When a juvenile is brought before a Juvenile Court for any offence, it is the duty of the court to explain to
the juvenile in simple language the substance of the alleged offence. If the court is satisfied that the juvenile
understands the nature of the alleged offence, the court will ask the juvenile if he or she admits or denies
the charge rather than asking him or her to plead guilty or not guilty.
If the juvenile admits the offence, the usual procedure is for the court to receive a statement of facts
from the prosecutor. If the court is satisfied that the offence is made out, the facts will be explained in simple
language to the juvenile.
The juvenile will then be asked whether or not those facts are admitted. If the facts are accepted and thecourt finds the offence is proved, the court will proceed to sentence.

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78(ii) Hearing
If the offence is not admitted, or if the court is not satisfied that the juvenile understands the nature of
the alleged offence, the court will proceed to hear evidence. At the conclusion of the provision of evidenceby the prosecution witness, the court will ask the juvenile, or, if it sees fit, his or her parent or guardian,
whether he or she wishes to question the witness. The defendant is allowed to make a statement instead ofasking a question if he or she so wishes.
If it appears to the court that a prima facie case is made out, the juvenile is allowed to give evidence
and call defence witnesses, but is not obligated to do so. After hearing all the evidence, the magistrate willrender the verdict. If the verdict is not guilty, the court will release the youth. Otherwise, the magistrate will
make a finding of guilt and the case proceeds to sentencing.

(iii) Legal Representation
A juvenile is entitled to instruct a private lawyer, to apply for legal aid, or to seek legal assistance fromthe Duty Lawyer Service (in Magistrates Courts and Juvenile Courts) to represent him or her in court
proceedings.
(iv) Parents/Guardians’ Involvement
The parent or guardian of the juvenile must attend all stages of the proceedings unless the court orders
otherwise.
(v) Protection of Privacy
JOO safeguards the privacy of the youths who appear before the Juvenile Court for trial. It has laid down
restrictions on the reporting of and access to the court proceedings in the Juvenile Court.
(vi) Reporting Restrictions
It is an offence for any person to publish written reports or broadcast any proceedings in the Juvenile
Court or on appeal from the Juvenile Court, revealing the name, address, school or any particulars calculated
to lead to the identification of the juvenile or any witness concerned in the proceedings. The court may
dispense with these restrictions if it is in the interests of justice to do so.
(vii) Access to Juvenile Court Hearing
Juvenile courts are not open to members of the public. Only the following persons can be present: themagistrate and officers of the court; parties to the case before the court, their solicitors and counsel, andwitnesses and other persons directly concerned in that case; bona fide representatives of newspapers or
news agencies; and such other persons as the court may specifically authorize to be present.
5. Sentencing
In determining the method of dealing with a juvenile who has admitted an offence or been found guilty
after the trial, the Juvenile Court will obtain such information, maybe by way of calling for a pre-sentence
report, as to the juvenile’s general conduct, home surroundings, school record and medical history.
In addition, the Juvenile Court magistrates may seek advice from a Young Offenders Assessment Panel(YOAP) to assist them in sentencing young offenders. YOAP was formed on 1 April 1987 by HKCS andthe Social Welfare Department (SWD). It currently consists of seven members of different disciplines fromHKCS and SWD, such as correctional services officers, social workers, clinical psychologists and education
officers. YOAP provides a co-ordinated view of the most appropriate sentencing option for offenders aged
14-25, and the panel will interview the offenders and consider all relevant factors before rendering its advice
to the magistrates for consideration.
Section 11 of JOO restricts the imprisonment of juveniles by specifying that no juveniles shall besentenced to detention if he or she can suitably be dealt with in any other way. As such, imprisonment
should be the last resort to be used where the nature and seriousness of the offence make imprisonment
necessary in the public interest, or where the offence merits imprisonment and all other methods of disposal
have been excluded.

96

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

6. Court Environment
Procedures in the Juvenile Court tend to be less formal than that in a Magistrate’s Court. For example,
the defendant does not sit in the dock and is accompanied by his or her parents or guardians sitting alongside
or behind him or her. Further, the magistrate sits on a slightly raised bench or on the same level as thedefendant.
Section 6 of JOO requires that no juvenile shall be permitted to associate with an adult (not being a
relative) who is charged with any offence other than an offence with which the juvenile is charged, while
being conveyed to or from any criminal court or waiting before or after attending any criminal court.
Further, in order to ensure a complete separation between adult and juvenile defendants, the courtroom
used for juvenile proceedings should be completely separate from the one used for proceedings involving
adult offenders. Where the same courtroom is used for both adult and juvenile defendants, JOO requires aclear one hour break between the sittings of a juvenile court and the sittings of an adult court.

III. ASSESSMENT METHODS
A. Violent Crime in Hong Kong
According to Hong Kong Law Chapter 589 Section 2, “serious crime” means any offence punishable:
in relation to the issue or renewal, or the continuance, of a prescribed authorization for interception, by amaximum penalty that is or includes a term of imprisonment of not less than seven years; or in relation
to the issue or renewal, or the continuance, of a prescribed authorization for covert surveillance, by amaximum penalty that is or includes a term of imprisonment of not less than three years or a fine of not lessthan $1,000,000.
As classified by the Crime Statistics (Appendix II), violent crime includes offences such as “Homicide”,“Robberies”, “Wounding and Serious Assault”, “Criminal Intimidation”, “Blackmail”, “Arson”, “Rape” and“Indecent Assault”.
According to the statistical table in Appendix III, the general trend of the crime committed by young
people has been quite steady in the past few years. In 2006, there were 4,974 young persons and 4,510
juveniles arrested (total: 9,484 persons), whereas in 2005, the numbers were 4,780 and 4,531 respectively(total: 9,311). However, when compared with the figures from 2004 and earlier, the total number of young
persons and juveniles arrested in 2005 and 2006 showed a decrease.
Another statistical table compiled by Hong Kong HKCS in Appendix IV shows that in 2007, the total
number of young male offenders being sentenced to correctional institutions was 1,100 whilst that of young
female offenders was 476, but in 2006, the two different numbers were 1,065 and 908 respectively.

IV. TREATMENT METHODS
A. Sentencing Options for Young Offenders in Hong Kong
If the court is satisfied that the juvenile is guilty of an offence, it may deal with the case in one or more of
the following ways:(i) by dismissing the charge;(ii) by a discharge upon entering into a recognizance;(iii) by a probation order under the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Ordinance. The court may
make a probation order requiring the offender to be under the supervision of a probation officer for aperiod of between one and three years;

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78(iv) by release on a bond of good behaviour under section 96(b) of the Magistrates Ordinance (Cap 227)2;(v) by an order under the Protection of Children and Juveniles Ordinance, if in need of care andprotection;(vi) by sending the offender to a reformatory school under the Reformatory Schools Ordinance for aperiod of between one and three years, and in any case not longer than until the offender attains theage of 18 years;(vii) by ordering the juvenile to pay a fine, damages or costs;(viii) by ordering the parent or guardian of the offender to pay a fine, damages or costs;(ix) by ordering the parent or guardian to give security for the good behaviour of the offender;(x) where the offender is a young person aged 14-15, by sentencing him or her to imprisonment or todetention in a Training Centre established under the Training Centres Ordinances or to detention ina rehabilitation centre within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Centres Ordinances. The period ofdetention in a Training Centre is from six months to three years, and that in a rehabilitation centre isfrom three to nine months;(xi) where the offender is a male person, by dealing with him under the provisions of the Detention
Centres Ordinance. For those aged over 14 and under 25, the period of detention is from one to six
months;(xii) where the offender is aged 14-15, by ordering him or her to perform community services notexceeding 240 hours within a 12-month period under the Community Service Orders Ordinance; or(xiii) by dealing with the case in another manner in which it may be legally dealt with, e.g. imprisonment,
as the last resort.
The criminal courts play a key role in the criminal justice system and the options available to them are
related to the pertinent ordinances. Then the courts decide which are the most appropriate sentences within
their jurisdiction to achieve these objectives.
It is recognized in the criminal justice system that young offenders are a separate group who deserve
separate sentencing and treatment programmes. The main reason for this is that they are not as mature as
adults and they are still developing in connection with their character and personality.
In other words, there is a likelihood that the young offenders could be transformed. For this age group of
offenders, the goal of rehabilitation is of greater importance than the other three. Besides, reintegration into
society is also an important factor to be considered. Therefore, noncustodial sentences such as probation,fine, bind-over, community services order, etc., would be first considered by the courts.
However, there are several conditions for which non-custodial sentences seem to be inappropriate: if itappears that the young offender is unable or unwilling to respond to non-custodial sentences; if a custodial
sentence is necessary for the protection of the public; or if the offence was so serious that a non-custodial
sentence cannot be justified.
It is also stipulated in Section 109A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance that no court shall sentencea person of or over 16 and under 21 years of age to imprisonment unless the court is of opinion that noother method of dealing with such person is appropriate. However, this provision shall not apply to young
2 This provision prescribes for delivering the offender “to his parent, guardian or nearest adult relative or, if the offender isan apprentice or servant, to his master or mistress or, if the offender is a pupil, to the person in charge of the school at which
the offender is attending, on such parent, guardian, relative, master, mistress or person in charge of a school executing a bond,with or without sureties, that he will be responsible for the good behaviour and also, if the magistrate thinks it necessary, forthe proper education of the offender for any period not exceeding 12 months”.

98139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

offenders who commit serious offences.
Therefore, it is clear that in sentencing young offenders in Hong Kong, the basic rule is that incarceration
should not be taken for granted. Moreover, among the different types of custodial sentences, imprisonment
should be the last choice. Even if a custodial sentence is necessary, detention in a Boys’ Home, Reformatory
School, Detention Centre, Rehabilitation Centre, Training Centre or Drug Addiction Treatment Centre
should be first considered by courts, whereby the offenders will undergo different rehabilitation programmes
according to the place of detention so as to achieve the aims of sentencing or the objectives of the criminal
justice system.
1. Roles of Relevant Agencies
Having the case tried and the defendant found guilty of the charge, then the court faces the questionof sentencing. Bearing in mind the goals of the criminal justice system, there is always more than one
option for sentencing unless the punishment of the offence is already fixed by law. The option usually takes
into consideration the following information concerning the offender: age of the offender; nature of theoffence; criminal history; past institutional performance (if any); physical and mental condition; educational
background and school performance; family background and relationship; and working experience. This
information is particularly helpful to the sentencing of young offenders.
HKCS and SWD are responsible for providing a range of rehabilitation programmes intended for young
offenders. Each differs in design in the context of the programme to aim at particular target group of
offenders. However, according to Section 11 of the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance, a child who is under theage of 14 should not be sentenced to imprisonment or committed to prison in default of payment of a fine,damages or costs. Therefore the rehabilitation programmes for young offenders between the ages of 10 to 14
are limited to the domain of the SWD.
In the rest of the paper, the main focus will remain on the treatment programmes offered by the HKCS.
At present, the major programmes for young offenders run by HKCS are the Detention Centre
Programme; the Rehabilitation Centre Programme; the Training Centre Programme; the Drug Addiction
Treatment Centre Programme and the Young Prisoners Programme.
2. Detention Centre Programme
The first point of entry into the HKCS institutions for young offenders in the early stage of theirdeviation from the law would be the Detention Centre. This system of the Detention Centre provides analternative means of dealing with young offenders who cannot learn to respect for the law by non-custodial
sentences like fine or probation, or when it is in the interest of the general public that a custodial sentence is
imposed.
The Detention Centre is administered under the Detention Centre Ordinance Chapter 239 which wasenacted in June 1972. It provides for the establishment of a correctional agency set up as Detention Centres
where young first offenders are detained and undergo programmes with the aim of inducing in them respect
for the law and deterring them from further criminal activity.
The period of detention for young offenders (age 14 to 21) in the Detention Centre will not be less than
one month and not more than six months. Following release from the centre, the young offender is required
to undergo statutory supervision for one year. Non-compliance with the terms of the supervision could
result in being recalled to the Detention Centre for further training.
In 1976, the Detention Centre Ordinance was amended such that the programme was extended to young
adult offenders aged between 21 and 25, but their detention period would not be less than three months andnot more than 12 months.
The Detention Centre is basically a regime of brisk and firm discipline, with emphasis on hard work andthe highest standard of achievement. The design is to give a “short, sharp, shock” treatment to the young
offenders in their early stages of deviation.
The rehabilitation programmes of the Detention Centre do not cease on the day when the young offender99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

is released from the centre. The general terms of the Supervision Order require the offender: to inform hisor her after-care officer of any change in place of residence or occupation; to lead an honest life and not toassociate with known bad characters including members of unlawful societies; to obey the instructions of hisor her after-care officer and to consult him or her whenever necessary; to see his or her Rehabilitation Unit
officer in person at least once every month; to remain at home or at another designated place between 11:00
p.m. and 6:00 a.m. every night unless otherwise authorized; and to keep away from all undesirable places
frequented by triad or gang members.
So throughout the 12 month period of supervision, the young offender is constantly reminded of his or
her obligation to respect the law, and a violation of the supervision conditions may result in recall for further
training, or a conviction by the court.
3. Rehabilitation Centre ProgrammeWith the enactment of the Rehabilitation Centres Ordinance Chapter 567 in 2001, the Department
started operating rehabilitation centres on 11 July 2002. The centres provide an additional sentencing
option for the courts to deal with young offenders aged from 14 to under 21 who are in need of a short-term
residential rehabilitation programme.
The programme consists of two phases. The first phase provides two to five months’ training ina correctional facility. It focuses on discipline training with the aim of helping young offenders learn
to exercise better self-control and develop a regular living pattern through half-day basic work skills
training and half-day educational/counselling programmes. During the second phase, young offenders areaccommodated in an institution of a half-way house setting for a period of one to four months. They may
go out for work; attend vocational training and educational courses; and participate in community service
programmes. Discharged young offenders are subject to one year’s statutory supervision by aftercare
officers.
4. Training Centre Programme
The Training Centre Programme in Hong Kong is operated under the Training Centre Ordinance 9
Chapter 280 which was enacted in March 1953. The ordinance provides for the establishment of Training
Centres for the training and reformation of young offenders aged between 14 and 20.
Although admission to the Training Centre also requires a suitability report as stipulated in Section 4(3)of the Training Centre Ordinance, the construction of the section only demands the courts to consider therecommendation of the suitability report but it is not necessary that the conclusion of the report must agree
in order to pass such sentence . However, the courts cannot sentence a young offender to the Detention
Centre if the suitability report does not agree, so admission criteria to Training Centre is much more flexible
than that which applies to the Detention Centre.
The regime of the Training Centre is focused on the training and reformation value of detention withemphasis on productive and constructive activities for the young offenders. Young offenders, of either sex,
and aged not less than 14 but under 21 years can be sentenced to a Training Centre if the court thinks that
it is in the interest of the community and it is expedient for his or her reformation and for the prevention ofcrime.
The Training Centre Programme is composed of two major aspects. Firstly, Section 12(1) of the Training
Centre Regulations provides that every Training Centre inmate, unless excused on medical grounds, shall be
employed on suitable work calculated to assist him or her in earning a livelihood on discharge. Secondly, thelaw also provides that each inmate is required to take remedial education classes which are adjusted to his or
her educational background for his or her own benefit.
The period of detention in Training Centres is indeterminate, ranging from a minimum of six months toa maximum of three years. A Training Centre inmate’s suitability for discharge is decided and evaluated bya Board of Review which periodically interviews each inmate to consider his or her progress. When a young
offender is assessed to have reached the peak of his or her performance, he or she is released.
Following the release, the young offender is required to undergo a statutory supervision period of three100139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

years. If the young offender fails to comply with the terms and instruction as laid down in the Supervision
Order, he or she can be recalled to a Training Centre for further detention and training.
5. Young Prisoners’ Programme
Imprisonment is the last resort of the various options for disposal of young offenders by courts. It is
explicitly stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Ordinance that it should be the final preference for courts
to sentence a young offender to imprisonment. Moreover, the stipulation in Section 8(A) of the Detention
Centre Ordinance; Section 10 of the Rehabilitation Centres Ordinance and Section 7(2) of the Training
Centre Ordinance empower the Chief Executive to transfer a Detention Centre/Rehabilitation Centre/
Training Centre inmate to prison if he or she is reported by the Commissioner of Correctional Services to be
exercising a bad influence on other young offenders, or he or she is considered to be incorrigible.
Presumably those young offenders sentenced to imprisonment should primarily be persons whom thecourts consider the most difficult and incorrigible young offenders who have advanced a considerable way
along their criminal trajectory.
Apart from the stipulation in the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and the age criterion, no other exclusion
principle is stated in the law as admission criterion to sentence a young offender to imprisonment. There isno suitability report in relation to a sentence of imprisonment.
However, there are other reasons for which the young offenders will be sentenced to imprisonment. The
most numerous of such cases are those of young illegal immigrants who are convicted of offences listed in
the Immigration Ordinance, Chapter 115, such as “Remaining in Hong Kong without authority” and “Using
an Identity Card relating to another person”. After serving their terms of imprisonment and being released,
they are subject to deportation or repatriation. Therefore they are unable to undergo the statutory periodof supervision which is a vital and inseparable element of treatment in the Detention Centre, Rehabilitation
Centre or Training Centre Programme. Besides, usually their immediate family members are not residentsof Hong Kong therefore the mechanism of building stronger family ties to develop their personalities could
not be applied.
Prisons in Hong Kong are operated under the Prisons Ordinance and the Prisons Rules, Chapter 234.
The length of sentences for young offenders is specified in the court order. However, they are entitled tohave one-third of the sentence reduced as remission provided that it is not less than thirty-one days. They
shall be subject to a one year period of statutory supervision after release if their sentence is three months’
imprisonment or more (except those sentences which could be reduced by paying fines or if they reach theage of 25). Those who are illegal immigrants need not undergo the supervision period. Failure to comply
with the conditions of the Supervision Order would result in recall to prison.
The Prisons Ordinance and Prison Rules give little distinction between young and adult prisoners. First,
the two age groups should be detained in different penal institutions. The other difference is that young
prisoners are required to attend educational classes. The law states that every prisoner shall engage in workfor not more than ten hours a day and young prisoners may be required to attend educational classes andtime in class will be counted as time engaged in useful work.
The regime of the prisons for young offenders focuses on the training and reformation value of detention.
The treatment programme is basically designed in the form of half-day vocational training and half-day
educational classes. Besides, discipline is emphasized in the treatment of young offenders by requiring themto perform footdrill. Imprisonment should be the last option in sentencing a young offender.
6. Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Programme
The Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Ordinance Chapter 244 was enacted in January 1969. It provides
for the establishment of Drug Addiction Treatment Centres for the cure and rehabilitation of offenders foundguilty of criminal offences who are suffering from drug addiction.
It empowers the court with the authority to sentence a drug addict convicted of offences of a relatively
minor nature yet punishable by imprisonment to detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre if thecourt considers that a period of treatment in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is more beneficial than101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

a term of imprisonment. Besides, the ordinance stipulates that when a court makes a detention order, noconviction shall be recorded, unless in the opinion of the court, the circumstances of the offence so warrant.
In accordance with Section 4(3) of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre Ordinance, similar to theDetention Centre, Rehabilitation Centre and Training Centre Ordinance, the court shall consider a suitability
report before an order for detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is made. The criteria ofadmission is concerned with the relevancy of the offence, whether the offender is a drug addict and whether
it is in the interest of the offender and the public interest to detain in the centre in lieu of prison.
A drug addict who is over the age of fourteen may be sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre.
Therefore, the programme is not limited to young offenders only. However, young offenders sentenced to a
Drug Addiction Treatment Centre are separated from the adult inmates. The two groups are either detainedin different centres or in different sections of the same centre.
The period of detention in a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre is indeterminate, ranging from a minimumof two months to a maximum of 12 months, followed by 12 months of statutory aftercare supervision. The
actual length of treatment is based on the inmate’s health and progress and the likelihood of remaining freefrom addiction to dangerous drugs after release.
The problem of drug addiction and its treatment are complicated and its causes are varied. The prevailinglegal framework allows the Superintendent of the Drug Addiction Treatment Centre to order an inmate toattend any course, class or lecture which he or she considers could be beneficial to the inmate.
There are three aims of the compulsory drug treatment programme: detoxification and restoration ofphysical health; up-rooting of psychological and emotional dependence on drugs; and preparation for theinmate’s reintegration into society.
In summary, young offenders who are drug addicts may be sentenced to a Drug Addiction Treatment
Centre in lieu of other sentence options so far as the courts think appropriate. The aim is to restore thehealth of the offender and to develop his or her resistance against drug dependence. The programme is acombination of medical treatment, work therapy and counselling. On the whole, it is therapeutic rather thanpunitive in nature.

V. PREVENTION METHODS
A. Rehabilitation Services
As an integral part of the Hong Kong criminal justice system, HKCS is committed to providing safe
and secure custodial services and preparing offenders for successful reintegration into the community
as a law-abiding and productive citizen through the provision of comprehensive rehabilitative services.
HKCS’mission is to protect the public and help reduce crime.
The effectiveness of HKCS’ work in rehabilitation is not only affected by the quality of the custodial
regime and rehabilitative programmes, but also the motivation and responsivity of offenders towards suchprogrammes, as well as community acceptance of rehabilitated persons. Since the establishment of a
Rehabilitation Division in 1998, HKCS has been forging ahead with a two-pronged approach of enhancing
its rehabilitative services and programmes, and cultivating community involvement in the provision ofsuch services, including pre-sentence assessment services, prisoners’ welfare and counselling services,
psychological services, education programmes, vocational training and post-release supervision services.
In order to enhance the success of reintegration of offenders, HKCS has substantially enhanced
vocational training and education for offenders in recent years so as to better equip offenders in theirreintegration into the community after discharge. HKCS has also organized public education and publicity
activities to increase the public’s understanding of offender rehabilitation and to appeal for their support inthis connection.

102

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

1. Vocational Training for Offenders
Employment is a key reintegration factor. This is confirmed by a survey conducted by HKCS in 2000
to identify the needs of rehabilitated persons. The results of the survey revealed that over 60% of therehabilitated persons considered that securing employment was their immediate concern at the initial stageof their release. Therefore, HKCS has strengthened the vocational training available to offenders in custody.
The purpose is to enhance their employability through vocational training that keeps pace with developmentof the community and through the recognized qualification they obtain after the training.
Young offenders under the age of 21 will receive half-day compulsory vocational training on technicalor commercial skills. HKCS constantly reviews the vocational training courses provided to them to ensure
such courses are in line with market needs. The current courses include decorative joinery, electricaland electronic servicing, mechanical engineering crafts, plumbing and pipefitting, vehicle body painting,computer-aid drafting, computer servicing, food and beverage service and printing and desktop publishing.
In 2006, young offenders attempted 525 public examination papers and trade tests, and the overall passing
rate was 96%.
2. Education for Offenders
Enhancing the education level of offenders can help them tackle the challenges they face, and also
improve their employability, upon their return to the society after discharge. For young offenders, HKCS’
policy is to bridge the education provided for young offenders to mainstream education. Having regard to
the introduction of a new senior secondary education (NSSE) curriculum in Hong Kong, HKCS has started
the necessary preparations to introduce NSSE subjects for inmate students in 2009 and to prepare them tosit the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination in 2012. The preparations include, interalia , identification of suitable NSSE subjects for introduction in correctional institutions and development ofexisting teaching staff or recruitment of teaching staff with relevant qualifications to teach the new subjects.
3. Community Involvement
While HKCS is committed to providing the best possible opportunity for all offenders to make a new startin life upon release, the efforts made by the government and the offenders themselves are not adequate.
Their successful reintegration also depends on how ready the community is to support and accept them.
The common misconceptions about offenders and, to a certain extent, the prison regimes, are mainly due
to lack of information and public education. This not only creates obstacles to the smooth reintegration ofrehabilitated persons but also leads to wastage of resources devoted to their rehabilitation.
Recognizing the importance of community acceptance and support of the successful reintegrationof rehabilitated persons, HKCS established in late 1999 the Committee on Community Support for
Rehabilitated Offenders, comprising community leaders, employers, education workers, professionals andrepresentatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and government departments, to advise on
rehabilitation programmes and reintegration and publicity strategies.
Since then, a series of publicity and public education activities targeting four community groups,
students, the general public, employers and community leaders at district level, have been organized
to appeal for community support for offender rehabilitation as well as to educate the public on crime
prevention. These activities include, inter alia , special TV and radio programmes, roving exhibitions at
district level, a TV documentary drama on rehabilitated persons – “The Road Back”3, appointment of local
celebrities and public figures as Rehabilitation Ambassadors, and television and radio announcements in the
public interest.

3 The HKCS, in collaboration with Radio Television Hong Kong, produced three 10-episode series of a TV docu-drama entitled‘The Road Back’. The series were produced in 2000, 2002 and 2004 and all were well-received. The first series was awarded
the Silver Award for Best Television Programme and the New Television Programme Award in 2000. The second series in2002 was awarded the Gold Award in Entertainment Programme and Silver in the Best Television Programmes Award. The
third series in 2004 was awarded the Gold Remi Award at The Houston International Film Festival and the Bronze Plaque inthe 53rd Columbus International Film & Video Festival. The fourth series was telecast from May to July 2006.

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Community involvement and participation in various aspects of offenders’ correctional and rehabilitative
process narrows the gap between the public at large and the offenders. It helps change the negative attitude
of society towards offenders. To help diversify and enrich HKCS’ service delivery, it needs the regular andactive participation of NGOs and religious bodies.
As a result of HKCS’ incessant publicity efforts, supportive connections and partnerships conducive
to offenders’ reintegration have been established. At present, there are more than 60 religious bodies andNGOs partnering with HKCS to provide services to help prisoners reintegrate into the community.
These organizations are actively involved in a variety of services ranging from the provision ofcounselling services and religious sacraments to the organization of cultural ventures and recreational
projects in correctional institutions. To strengthen co-operation amongst NGOs and provide all NGO
partners with an opportunity to exchange views on matters relating to rehabilitation services, HKCS holds
annual forums with NGO representatives on top of regular service reviews.
In addition, a web-based messaging platform has been set up to provide users with an interactive site topost topics for open discussion. Another remarkable example of partnership between HKCS and NGOs is
the implementation of a “Continuing Care Project” since early 2004 wherein seven NGOs provide followup services for supervisees who are assessed to be still in need of and are willing to receive counselling
services after completing the statutory supervision. As at the end of May 2007, a total of 352 cases havebeen successfully referred to respective NGOs for the service.
Responding to HKCS’ call for support and assistance to offender rehabilitation, the involvement ofand sponsorship from renowned community organizations and local charitable organizations4 in various
programmes for the benefits of offenders and rehabilitated persons have been increasing in recent years.
The various initiatives include the running of professional beautician certificate courses and hairdressing
courses for female prisoners.
To enhance the employment opportunities for rehabilitated persons, HKCS has also facilitatedenthusiastic business organizations to launch a “One Company One Job” campaign5 since 2004 in local
districts to promote fair job opportunities for rehabilitated persons.
To further broaden the scope of public involvement, HKCS formed the HKCS Rehabilitation Volunteer
Group in early 2004. The Group, comprising over 200 volunteers who are mostly university students
and serving teachers, aims to supplement the services of HKCS, particularly in terms of addressing thereformative, emotional, educational, social and recreational needs of inmates. Apart from conducting interest
groups on such topics as languages, computer studies and other cultural pursuits for offenders in various
correctional institutions, they also assist in other areas of rehabilitation work, such as public education
activities for promoting community acceptance of rehabilitated persons.
To ensure co-ordinated channels for disseminating our messages, HKCS needs to establish a network
at different local districts to deliver the message that rehabilitation can help prevent crime and reduce
reoffending, a message signifying social responsibility on the issue.
HKCS accordingly co-operates with all of Hong Kong’s 18 District Fight Crime Committees6 by inviting
them to organize publicity activities relating to offenders’ rehabilitation. Senior correctional officers are
4 These organizations include, among others, the Care of Rehabilitated Offenders Association, Lok Sin Tong Benevolent

Society, Kowloon, Rotary Clubs, International CICA Association of Esthetics, Zonta Clubs, Lions Clubs, etc.
5 The campaign is about promoting to the members of those business organizations the employment of at least one
rehabilitated offender in each of their companies.
6 The District Fight Crime Committees which are district bodies appointed by the Government to advise on means tocombat crime, consist of both members of the public and government officials. They help monitor the crime situation at
district level; co-ordinate community resources to assist in fighting crime; and make recommendations to the Central
Fight Crime Committee with regard to fight crime measures and community involvement. Chaired by the Chief Secretaryfor Administration of the Hong Kong SAR Government, the Central Fight Crime Committee draws up plans to reduce;co-ordinates efforts in fighting crime; monitors the results; and determines ways in which the public can be stimulated tocontribute to the reduction of crime.

104139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

appointed as Regional Liaison Officers to facilitate the co-ordination of these activities and to provide
necessary support. With this network of channels functioning, HKCS organize year-round activities in all
districts and sustain a broad and pervasive permeation of the rehabilitation message to the public.
Rehabilitative work, being the collective responsibility of the whole community, requires the participationof all citizens rather than the sole effort of correctional jurisdictions. The ultimate goal is to build a safer andmore inclusive society. Providing public education for the next generation is a long-term target in soliciting
support for offender rehabilitation as well as crime prevention. In this regard, HKCS has been undertaking
a number of public education initiatives for youth over the years. These initiatives include those outlined
below.

(i) Personal Encounter with Prisoners Scheme7 (PEPS)HKCS has been running PEPS since 1993 with a view to generating attitudinal and behaviouralchanges among youth at risk. Under this Scheme, participants will visit one of the designated correctional
institutions, and have face-to-face discussions with reformed prisoners. The objective is to prompt theparticipants to think about the consequences of committing crimes. At the same time, the participating
prisoners can develop a positive self-image and build up confidence through the experience sharing sessions.
In 2006, a total of 207 visits were arranged for a total of 3,399 young people and students under PEPS.
(ii) Green Haven Scheme8 (GHS)HKCS started the Scheme in January 2001 to promote anti-drug messages and the importance ofenvironmental protection among young people. Under the Scheme, participants visit the mini drug museum
at a Drug Addiction Treatment Centre and meet with young offenders there to learn about the harmful
effects of drug abuse. They also take part in a tree planting ceremony to pledge support for rehabilitatedoffenders and environmental protection, and as a vow to stay away from drugs. In 2006, a total of 33 visitswere arranged for 904 participants under GHS.
(iii) “Options in Life” Student ForumTo demonstrate the willingness of rehabilitated offenders to make a contribution to society, HKCS
organized a series of district-based student forums in all 18 districts from late 2003 to late 2005 to provide
opportunities for secondary school students to interact with rehabilitated offenders, and to discuss withthem the detrimental consequences of committing crimes. A total of 20 student forums have been organizedwith 3,300 participants. In line with HKCS’ community involvement strategy, arrangements have been madefor similar forums to be run by 12 non-government organizations (NGOs) since 2006. HKCS provides thenecessary support and steer to the NGOs.
In the run-up to the tenth anniversary of the Rehabilitation Division in January 2008, another seriesof publicity and public education activities for rehabilitated persons were organized from August 2007 to
January 2008. Some of the major events include district-based publicity activities co-organized with all
18 District Fight Crime Committees, a Liu Shih Kun Concert9, production and broadcast of new TV andradio announcements in the public interest, an experience sharing forum with NGOs, a Rehabilitation Fair,a symposium on employment for rehabilitated persons, an NGO service day, a professional development
workshop on offender rehabilitation, and a TV variety show.

7 The Scheme was awarded “The Outstanding Performance Award for the Crime Fighting Staff ” by the Fight Crime
Committee in December 2001.
8 The Green Haven Scheme has won a Gold Award in the 2002 Hong Kong Eco-Business Award. The venue for conducting
the Scheme, namely Hei Ling Chau, has also been certified to ISO 14001:1996 standards for its environmental management
system by the Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency.
9 Mr. Liu Shih Kun is a pianist well-known among Chinese over the world and the concert aims to bring care, concern andencouragement to inmates as well as appealing to the public to accept and give opportunities to the persons under custody or
who have completed a period of incarceration.

105

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

B. Programmes Targeted at Young Offenders
1. Offending Behaviour Programme
The Offending Behaviour Programme (OBP) in HKCS has been developed with a view to helping young
offenders to develop attitudes and skills which are instrumental to reducing the risk of reoffending, taking
into careful consideration the elements of effective treatment. Three of the basic considerations in thedevelopment and implementation of OBP included: the enhancement of the motivational state of young
offenders; the application of the cognitive-behavioural conceptualization of criminal behaviours in treatment
and rehabilitation efforts; and the matching of treatment materials and formats to the general characteristics
of young offenders.
For punishment to be effective the punishment should be immediate; the pattern of punishment schedulehas to be constant and consistent; and most important of all, the person has to draw a link cognitively
between the behaviours and the punishment received. As these criteria are hard to meet under the present
legal system, to effect behavioural change more effort has to be made in rehabilitating offenders rather thanrelying solely on the punitive effect of imprisonment.
Various offender programmes are developed and conducted in Canada and the United States in both theprobation and prisoner setting. Recent evaluation studies report remarkably encouraging results which
supported treatment work on offending behaviours in reducing recidivism. For example, Losel (1995)
made a review of 13 meta-analyses on offender treatment studies and found that all have positive effects.
Of greater relevance to the young offender population is the large-scale study made by Lipsey (1992). He
made a meta-analysis of 400 control or comparison group studies of treatment for delinquency since 1950,
involving over 40,000 subjects aged from 12 to 21 and found an average treatment effect of 10 % reduction inrecidivism. In fact, over 100 prisons in England are running such treatment programmes. In HKCS, the OBP
has been developed with the aim of reducing the recidivism rate of young offenders and helping offenders
develop a new set of values, attitudes and skills which are essential for pro-social adjustment.
There is a considerable body of evidence that suggests offenders as a group differ from non-offenders interms of a number of individual characteristics. Factors identified to be characteristic of persistent offenders
include egocentricity, rigid thinking, impulsivity, poor problem-solving abilities, low self-esteem and poor
emotional handling, just to name a few. For example, Ross and Fabiano (1985) showed that offenders had
deficits in their ability to conceptualize consequences, means-end reasoning, understanding the feelings ofothers, etc. J. McGuire (1999) focused on offenders’ poor interpersonal problem solving skills while J. Bush(1995) and Yochelson and Samenow (1976) pointed out deficits in thinking styles such as entitlement andvictim stance.
In short, offenders are undersocialized; they lack the values, attitudes and skills essential for a pro-social
way of life. Therefore, the OBP directs treatment efforts at those “criminogenic” factors, those aspects ofindividual characteristics conducive to offending behaviours. Apart from dealing with criminogenic factors,
the important risk factor of substance abuse is also one of the targets for treatment.
Substance abuse cannot be considered a direct criminogenic factor as it can hardly be categorized as anindividual characteristic, like impulsivity and egocentricity. However, it is likely that substance abuse will put
a person at a relatively higher risk of reoffending as substance abuse will magnify other criminogenic factors,
for example, by increasing a person’s impulsiveness, decreasing a person’s ability in consequential thinking,affecting a person’s problem solving skills and relaxing a person’s emotional control.
Being part of the OBP, modules on the prevention and treatment of substance abuse share the sameprime objective of recidivism reduction rather than focusing only on achieving abstinence or controlled useof substances. Lastly, the OBP also works on strengthening a person’s protective factors against crime.
Family, being the most prominent protective factor against crime, is one of the treatment targets.
Therefore, helping young offenders improve their family relationships and family communication is an
important element in OBP. Parallel to the work with young offenders, services are also rendered to parental
figures who would like to improve their communication and parenting skills with their young ones. The
content modules of the OBP are summarized in Appendix V.

106

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS(i) Principles of Responsivity
To enhance programme effectiveness, the principles of responsivity were carefully considered andincluded when developing the OBP for young offenders (Antonowicz and Ross 1994).
Four important elements of responsivity, namely the employment of a consistent conceptual model,
Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), employment of motivational techniques, the employment of the Risk
and Needs principles for programme matching and employment of materials and formats congruent withyoung offenders’ characteristics are integral parts of the programme.

(ii) Employment of the Risk/Need Principles
Research has shown that offender programmes are most effective when directed at offenders of relatively
higher risk of recidivism. In evaluating the overall risk of offenders both the static risk factors (behavioural
history) and the dynamic risk factors (changeable criminogenic needs and others) are taken together.
For programme matching, the dynamic needs take precedent as they are the changeable treatment
targets. Priority of participation in OBP is determined first by the level of need and then the level of static
risk of the offender.
To further refine the principle of risk and need, modules of the programme are matched to the different
specific needs of the offenders. For example, those with considerable need in the area of “criminal attitude”
would be matched to the module dealing with “Criminal Attitudes and Thinking Styles”. Those withconsiderable need on impulsivity may be matched to the module on “Problem Solving Skills” and “Anger
Management”.
With this double matching of offenders’ risk level and specific need areas to specific OBP Modules, theeffectiveness of the OBP should be enhanced.

(iii) Employment of Motivational Techniques in the Offending Behaviour Programme
Responsivity also depends greatly on young offenders’ motivational state. Motivational Interviewing has
been proven an effective strategy for offender intervention and is widely applied on treatment of addictive
behaviours (Miller, 1994, 1996, 1998, etc.). This directive, person-centred counselling method is powerfulin developing the intrinsic motivation of clients to change by helping them explore and resolve theirambivalence about change (Johnson, 2005).
In the design of programme activities for various modules of the OBP, the five basic principles ofmotivational interviewing, expressing empathy, developing discrepancy, avoiding argumentation, rolling withresistance, and supporting self-efficacy were applied, with special effort paid to suit the needs of the young
offender population.
Whereas empathy is an important attitude, the message is clearly conveyed that it is not the juvenile’s
offending behaviour that is accepted, but their person as a whole, and they are repeatedly guided to think ofreasons to desist offending for their own sake. Programme facilitators are well versed with the philosophy
and techniques of Motivational Interviewing and they are trained to listen reflectively and empathetically.
The discrepancy between their ideal future and realistic outcomes of repeated offending is developed in
the format of games and written exercises. This intentional creation of “cognitive dissonance” can serve as astrong drive for young offenders to make a decision to change their past anti-social lifestyle.
As young offenders are generally rebellious and many have a past history of problems and conflicts
with authority figures, it is particularly important not to play the expert role or argue with them, which
would cause resistance to develop. Therefore, the OBP is carefully designed and delivered to avoid being
judgmental and confrontational. For example, the metaphor of visual illusion has been used in the discussionof criminal thinking and joint effort in exploration of the pro-social alternatives.
To improve young offenders’ self-efficacy, activities are also designed to help offenders identify theirpersonal strengths. Together with presentation of cases (in the form of audio-visual materials) who havesuccessfully desisted, their self-efficacy in anticipating and working on self-improvement towards a non-107

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

offending life is enhanced.

(iv) Employment of a Consistent Conceptual Model (CBT)
Application of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy has been found to be effective in the modification ofemotional disorders (Beck 1979), and applicable to the adolescent population (Kazdin, 1994), including
those with behavioural problems (e.g. Feindler & Ecton, 1994). In particular, a strong cognitive element was
identified as an ingredient for effective intervention in offending behaviour (Ross & Fabiano, 1985).
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy assumes that individuals would actively construct their reality. It ishypothesized that emotions, thoughts and behaviour are inter-related, while behaviours and emotions can beaffected and changed by thoughts. In addition, it is postulated that identification of attitude, expectancy andappraisal will help in the assessment of psychological and emotional problems.
When applying CBT in Offending Behaviour Programme design, psycho-education, skills training andskill rehearsals are applied. The interaction between thoughts, emotions and behaviour is initially introduced
through psycho-education. Such information serves to facilitate understanding the consequences of one’s
behaviour, in particular those related to offending behaviour.
Identification of one’s own thoughts and thinking style is an important element in the OBP. For example,
young offenders are helped to identify their common thinking and attitude behind offending behaviour
through selected illustrative examples and participation in games. They are helped to examine, selfchallenge and change their distorted criminal thinking.
Furthermore, participants are invited to identify their personal high risk factors of offending. Social
cognitive skills training then targets three different areas: cognition, behaviour and environment. They arethen provided with opportunities to practice adaptive coping skills for replacement of problematic behaviour.
Moreover, a good deal of cognitive restructuring and skills training are required to help young offenders
to cope with or avoid environmental risk factors. In addition, during skill rehearsals high risk offending
situations are re-constructed for clients and involve active participation in role-play, using both examples
from institution scenarios to enhance learning and practice, and community scenarios for generalization into
real life situations.

(v) Matching Programme Format and Design with Young Offender Characteristics
Young offender characteristics are carefully considered when developing and designing the OBP as young
offenders’ participation, responsiveness and involvement are crucial to the success of the programme.
Firstly, HKCS recognizes that young offenders are very much a heterogeneous group with great
individual differences in different aspects. To cater for individual differences, the OBP provides different
options in the format of OBP modules. The more open, disclosing and expressive clients may be more
ready to join small treatment or counselling groups of 8-10 persons while the more private and conservativeclients can join the self-help programme which allows much more personal space. There are CD-ROM
formats and a large class format to cater for clients with varying degrees of readiness for disclosure, open
discussion, open support or open criticism.
As most young offenders do not like complicated definitions, abstractions and intellectually taxing
exercises, difficult and abstract concepts are presented in the form of daily life examples supplemented withvisual presentations such as graphs and charts. For example, criminal attitudes are presented in common
daily anti-social behaviours and the strength of such attitudes is presented in the form of a bar chart.
To overcome young offenders’ fear of long-winded materials and to maintain their attention, a variety
of presentations are used in the programme. Presentations of ideas can be in the form of a video clip,
song, cartoon pictures, pamphlets with short phrases, short newspaper cuttings, magazine excerpts, andadvertisements, etc. Clients are allowed ample opportunity to be actively involved in different activities,
such as games, competitions, role plays, discussions, case analysis, drawings, etc.
As most young offenders are school failures and have a relatively unsophisticated level of literacy,
long articles are cut into small passages accompanied by graphics and pictures where appropriate. Simple

108

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

and colloquial language is used. And to compensate for their expressive ability, responses can be made in
the form of short sentences, questionnaires, multiple choices, yes/no answers, matching exercises anddrawings.
With considerations of the different characteristics of young offenders, it is hoped that young offenders
can become actively involved in the programme and hence more capable of overcoming their deficits,
learning new skills and consolidating and generalizing what they have learned in their rehabilitative process.

(vi) Effectiveness of the Offending Behaviour Programme
The OBP represents an evidence-based approach in the rehabilitation work of young offenders. A
careful review of research findings has confirmed not only the effectiveness of offender programmes but
also identified crucial elements of effectiveness. The OBP is developed by integrating local experiencesin the young offenders’ culture with Western findings on treatment effectiveness. It adopts the cognitivebehavioural conceptualization, focuses on the criminogenic needs of offenders, and addresses the
responsivity of young offenders, particularly their motivational level and characteristics. Integration of bothelements has shown promising results. Attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of individual modules of the
OBP were made and findings are generally positive.
2. Inmate-Parent Programme
It had been shown in many Western findings that the behavioural problems of youngsters wereassociated with family backgrounds. Dynamic factors regarding family relationships (Cashwell & Vacc, 1996)
particularly on the sufficiency and quality of parenting (McDonald & Frey, 1999; Chambers, et al., 2000,
Sanger, et al., 2004) and the parent-child bond (Widom, 1992; Yeung, 1997; and Thornberry, et al., 1999)
were found to be significant factors contributing to the criminal behaviour of youth. Family intervention,in the format of family therapy (Lipsey & Wilson, 1998), family empowerment (Dembo, et al., 2001), andsystematic skills training (Don Dinkmeyer, 1997), were found effective in reducing the recidivism of young
offenders.
The Inmate-Parent Program (IPP) was launched in June 1999 by the Psychological Unit of HKCS.
To enhance the competence of the parents and the offending children in relationship enhancement, theprogramme was delivered to both the parents and their children. Services for parents target: facilitating thereintegration of the young offenders into their families by enhancing the communication skills of the parents
and reducing young offenders’ risk of reoffending by strengthening the parents’ capability in supervising
their children. Apart from the captioned rich theoretical background of IPP, there were a number ofcharacteristics of the programme contributing to its success.

(i) Services for Parents
A survey was conducted in 1999 to explore the needs of the parents. Three hundred and seventy nineparents of young offenders participated in the survey. It was found that family communication (particularly
in conflict resolution, understanding the needs and feelings of children, and lowering the resistance ofchildren) and parenting skills (particularly in making children comply and meet their expectations as wellas handling anti-authority behaviour) were the major concerns of the parents. Seventy eight per cent of theparents expressed interest in joining the IPP. The most preferred formats of the IPP were talks, audio visualmaterials and counselling groups. The parents’ cognitive style, their ambivalence towards their children, andtheir other sources of stress were also considered in the programme design.
(ii) Easily Accessible and Needs-Matching Services
Parents, who are very often occupied by other life tasks, may not always be able to make use of theservices. Besides, their needs for services may vary. Hence, IPP was designed in different formats andwith different focuses. A letter was issued to all parents at the beginning of their children’s incarceration
publicizing the IPP. An Inmate-Parent Series in leaflet format was issued to target general skills. The
skills included family communications (namely initiating conversations and self-expression), parenting(namely reinforcement, punishment, and praising) and general guidance skills (namely importance of family,
emotional management, and helping children to stay away from substance abuse) were available in thevisitors’ room of young offenders institutions.

109

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Parents were invited to participate in two in-depth skills training video seminars targeting
communications and parenting skills. Micro communication skills and conflict resolution skills wereintroduced in these video seminars. Finally, talks were conducted periodically on special topics like
“Enhancing children’s self-esteem”, “Effective handling of emotions”, and “Understanding children’s
substance abuse behaviour”. The parents could enroll in the programme when the programmes wereconducted in correctional institutions or in the downtown counselling room.

(iii) Emphasizing Motivational Enhancement
An effective programme for parents should firstly enhance the motivation of the participants so as toraise their receptiveness to the programme. The IPP had adopted a number of motivational enhancement
techniques to gain the parents’ participation. It included confrontations of cognitive distortions, facilitating
insights of the ineffectiveness of previous communication or parenting styles, emphasizing the effectivenessof the recommended techniques, and making use of models who shared similar personal characteristics withthe parents (e.g. like style of speech, their emotional state, etc.).
(iv) Emphasizing Skills Training
IPP made use of lively examples to repeatedly demonstrate the skills. There are always concrete andpractical steps for the parents to take in order to carry out each skill. A number of techniques attaining thesame goal of communication or parenting were available for parents to choose according to their personalstyles.
(v) Emphasizing Consolidations of Skills
For video seminars and talks, there were usually some guided discussions for the parents to consolidate
the skills learned. Complementary video compact discs (VCD) were granted to each participant for theirrevision of the skills in the future. Posters and reminder cards, with a summary of the communications andparenting skills, were issued for the participants as well.
(vi) Systematic Evaluations
Up to September 2005, a total of 7,705 copies of the Inmate-Parent Series had been issued while 2,274
participants had benefited from 153 video seminars or talks. The outcome evaluations on the video seminars
confirmed the effectiveness of skills training by video seminars and the complementary VCD as a booster.
In total 289 young offenders, selected by convenience sampling, participated in the evaluation. Simple
statistics and T-tests were performed. A customer satisfaction survey found that the parents perceived theprogramme as useful to them. They maintained a positive change of parenting and communication skills six
months after their participation in the programme. The children whose parents participated in the program
also viewed their parents as more competent in terms of parenting skills and as more affectionate in theirparent-child relationships. The positive findings in evaluations support continuous implementation of IPP in
young offender institutions.
(vii) Services for the Inmates
With family as a system, the reciprocal and dynamic interplay among parents and their children performs
a significant role in determining the quality of the family relationship. On such a ground, the IPP was not
only designed for parents of young offenders. As a parallel programme, it was tailor-made to fit the needs ofyoung offenders in enhancing the family relationship. With the same targets as the services for parents, the
IPP for young offenders aimed at (1) facilitating the reintegration of young offenders into their families and;(2) reducing young offenders’ risk of recidivism.
From Jan 2004 to July 2005, there were 1,569 young offenders admitted into HKCS. They aged from
14 to 20, with 74% of them having completed lower secondary educational level schooling. Regarding
their principal offences, quite a number of them (42%) committed offences against property while therest committed narcotics offences (15%), and offences against local law (15%), etc. The IPP was planned
according to the profile of these young offenders.

(viii) Programme Design Dependent on the Needs of the Young Offenders
Upon admission, each young offender would undergo a Risk and Need Assessment. Followed by theassessment, programme matching would be provided according to his or her needs. The IPP targeted110139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

young offenders’ needs in the family domain. Nonetheless, programmes targeting other criminogenic
needs, namely the drug, criminal thinking and personal/emotional domains, also played peripheral roles
in supporting attitudinal change in the family relationship. For instance, improved emotional regulation
facilitated better conflict resolution in the family. Conversely, it is believed that the quality of family
relationships could have a dynamic impact on all these need domains.

(ix) Programme designed with Consideration for the Characteristics of Young Offenders
When designing the programme, consideration was given to the individual differences, cognitive ability,
attention span, educational level, language ability and motivational level of young offenders. As young
offenders used to have shorter attention spans, the programme applied appealing games to hold theirattention and to facilitate their learning in a more at-ease atmosphere. Role-play and interactive activities
were adopted to deepen their impression of certain abstract concepts in a more vivid presentation. For those
who had a lower educational level and weaker cognitive ability, the programme starts with more easy-tograsp concepts with frequent use of daily examples for illustration. Simple language matching with colourful
pictures, cartoons and graphics were used to make the reading more pleasant and amusing. Multiple
choice questions and matching were commonly used exercises so that most of the young offenders could
master the programme concepts well. For those who were relatively unmotivated, making use of the groupdynamics also facilitated their motivation to learn. Besides, all the programmes were run on a voluntarybasis. With the purpose of lowering their defences, young offenders were free to share their experiences in aharmonious and supportive environment.
(x) Different Modules for Service Matching
All the afore-mentioned means of learning were applied in both Group Counselling and Self-Help
Modules. In the Group Counselling, the learning was more interactive, with opportunity for the young
offenders to model each other. When young offenders mutually challenge and support each other in a group,
their participation is enhanced and their learning maximized. On the other hand, the Self-Help Program
was a highly individualized and personalized programme that could be implemented according to a young
offender’s progress and treatment plan. It made good use of self-reflective questions, audio-visual materials
and interactive exercises.
(xi) Emphasizing Motivational Enhancement
Motivational skills and strategies were adopted to stimulate young offenders to improve their family
communication. One of the core strategies was changing their attitude towards their parents throughperspective-taking exercises. For instance, young offenders were stimulated to find the similarity between
themselves and their parents and to understand the developmental background of their parents. By stepping
into the shoes of their parents, young offenders’ understanding of their parents’ behaviours and thinking
was enhanced. This in turn raised their acceptance of their parents. Besides, by using songs and recallingprevious positive family interactions, young offenders’ affiliations with their parents were enhanced. Veryoften, these contents were touching enough to impress upon the young offenders the inner apprehension ofparents.
(xii) Emphasizing Skills Training
Skill training started with the identification and correction of past communication errors. The
previous dysfunctional interactions between young offenders and their parents were examined. Cognitive
restructuring was introduced and practiced in order to change their old way of thinking and to develop
insight for new thinking. Communication skills like ice-breaking, starting a conversation, attentive listening,questioning, sharing of feelings, showing appreciation, etc. were then highlighted. Finally, the training on
conflict resolution was conducted. Young offenders were coached step by step in identifying the problem,
clarifying viewpoints, expressing expectation, making contracts, etc. in role-plays.
(xiii) Emphasizing Consolidation of Skills
As well as teaching verbal and non-verbal communication skills, role-plays of numerous scenarios werevideo-taped for comment and sharing among group participants. In order to consolidate the skills learnt, thevideo-taped role-plays of young offenders were discussed thoroughly one by one. This interesting evaluation
process further enhanced their insight and strengthened their learning.

111

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78(xiv) Effectiveness of Inmate-Parent Program
The Inmate-Parent Program received positive and encouraging responses from both parents and theirchildren. It was promising in enhancing the family relationship of young offenders. Both parents and young
offenders mentioned the importance of parallel programmes in creating a mutual effort to improve family
communication and to modify family dynamics. Actually, effective family intervention for both young
offenders and their parents will help in reducing juvenile offending.

VI. CONCLUSION
Hong Kong has a juvenile justice system and correctional regimes that help, as far as possible, young
offenders to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. However, these efforts alone cannot achieve successfulreformation. We need more to succeed.
Looking forward, we need to do more work to knit tightly together the four following factors: Quality
Custodial Services; Comprehensive Rehabilitative Services; Offenders’ Responsivity and Determination;
and Community Support.
By Quality Custodial Services, we mean: being one of the core business of HKCS, quality custodialservices manifest HKCS’ duty to provide a humane, secure, decent and healthy penal environment for young
offenders. Yet, it is not a simple task to sustain the correctional setting with good discipline and order as well
as detaining offenders in a stable and harmonious manner. It relies on professional teamwork across HKCS
as well as effective and efficient management systems.
For human resources management, HKCS has focused on maintaining a highly committed andmotivated workforce through the provisions of strategic development and training. Likewise, HKCS has
well-developed monitoring systems to assure all the relevant rules and regulations are complied with. In
addition, there are ongoing renovation and redevelopment projects to improve the penal environment and tomodernize facilities.
By Comprehensive Rehabilitative Services, we mean: as almost all young offenders will return tosociety, HKCS strives to help them rehabilitate and reintegrate as law-abiding citizens, so comprehensive
rehabilitative services are of paramount importance. Through timely and appropriate intervention, HKCS
aims to address young offenders’ offending behaviour and criminal thinking, improve their skills to makea living, and eventually help them reintegrate into society. To achieve such a purpose, our professionaland qualified staff deliver systematic and effective rehabilitation programmes, which cater for offenders’rehabilitative needs. To adopt an evidence-based and scientific approach in offender rehabilitation, HKCS willcontinue to work on the “Risks and Needs Assessment and Management Protocol for Offenders” which was
adopted in October 2006.
By Offenders’ Responsivity and Determination, we mean: apart from our foremost duty to provide
quality custodial services and comprehensive rehabilitative services, the process of rehabilitation would
not be successful without young offenders’ own effort. Their inner motivation and willingness to cherish
rehabilitation chances and to live a new life after discharge are an indispensable part of their successful
reintegration. Likewise, such motivation and willingness will directly affect the programme effectiveness. Ifthey can sustain their willingness to rehabilitate, it will be easier for them to resist temptation, remain lawabiding and leave the vicious cycle of reoffending.
Yet, their determination is affected by a myriad of independent but interlocking criminogenic, personaland socio-economic factors. While, HKCS has been strengthening its rehabilitative services to help
enhance young offenders’ responsivity towards the programmes offered, it also draws in non-governmentalorganizations (NGOs) to provide services to facilitate their reintegration into the community.
By Community Support, we mean: community support occupies a significant position in building a safer
and more inclusive society. In fact, the community’s understanding, acceptance and support could help stopthe vicious cycle of reoffending. The best way to achieve this is through continuous public education. Since
the nineties, HKCS has been actively involved in youth education, for example, through the “Personal
Encounter with Prisoners Scheme”, to promote crime prevention and offender rehabilitation. To enlist wider

112

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

public support and involvement, HKCS has been organizing various rehabilitation-related activities acrossthe community in recent years.
It would be unrealistic to say that crime can certainly be reduced or recidivism be prevented if the factors
aforementioned are being implemented effectively, but, we believe that when we have the right vision andmission that lead us ahead, we will be doing the right job for the ‘right’ persons.

113

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

REFERENCES
Antonowicz, D. H. & Ross, R. R. (1994). Essential components of successful rehabilitation programme
for offenders. International Journal of offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Vol. 38(2): 97-104.
Beck, A. T. (1979). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. New York: New American Library.
Bush, J. (1995). Teaching self-risk management to Violent offenders. In J. McGuire (ed.) What works:
Effective methods to reduce re-offending. Sussess, England: Wiley.
D’Zurilla, T. J. & Nezu, A. M. (1992). Development and preliminary evaluation of the Social Problem
Solving Inventory, SPSI. Psychological Assessment, 2, 156-163.
Feindler, E. L. & Ecton, R. B. (1994). Adolescent anger control: cognitive-behavioral techniques. Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, W. R. (2005). Motivational Interviewing and Criminal Justice Populations. A presentation in the
Advanced Workshop on Motivational Interviewing in CSD, HKSAR.
Kazdin, A. E. (1994). Psychotherapy for Children and Adolescents. In Bergin, A. E. & Garfield, S. L. (ed.).
Handbook of psychotherapy and behavior change (4th ed.). New York: J. Wiley, pp. 543-594.
Lipsey, M.W. (1992) The effect of treatment on juvenile delinquents: Results from meta-analysis. In F.
Losel, D. Bender & T. Bliesener (ed.). Psychology and Law: International Perspectives. Berlin, New York:de Gruyter, pp.131-143.
Losel, F. (1995) The efficacy of correctional treatment: A review and synthesis of meta-evaluations. In
J. McGuire (ed.). What Works: Reducing Re-offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice. Chichester:John Wiley and Sons.
McGuire, J. (1999) Problem solving training: Pilot work with secure hospital patients. In Mason,
J, Mercer, D, Mckeown, M & McCann (eds.). Forensic Health care Planning: Directions & Dilemmas.
Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Miller, W. R. (1994). Motivational Interviewing: III. On the ethics of motivational intervention.
Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 22, 111-123.
Miller, W. R. (1996). Motivational interviewing: Research, practice, and puzzles. Addictive Behaviors, 21,835-842.
Miller, W. R. (1998). Enhancing motivation for change. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating
addictive behaviors: Processes of change (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press
Ross, R. R. & Fabiano, E. A. (1985). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention andoffender rehabilitation. Johnson City, TN: Institute of Social Science and Arts.
Simourd, D. J. & Andrew, D. (1994). Correlates of delinquency: A look at gender differences. Forum on
Corrections Research, 6, 26-31.
Simourd, D. J. & Van de Ven, J. (1999). Assessment of criminal attitudes – Criterion related validity of the
Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified and Pride in Delinquency Scale. In Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26,
No. 1, March 1999, 90-106.
Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S. E., (1976). The criminal personality, Vol. 1: A profile for change. New York,
Jason Aronson.

114

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

APPENDICES
I. OPERATION OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN HONG KONG
Release due to insufficientevidence or otherconsiderations

Policeinvestigation

Action required

Police discretion

Minor offence, admission
to involvement, offender
aged under 18

Prosecution

Judicial
appearing/hearing

Police Superintendent’s
Discretion Scheme

Supervision under theJuvenile Protection Section

Guilt
deniedGuilt
admitted

Court hearing

Acquittal

Verdict

Sentencing

Discharge

Order to pay fines,
bond of good
behaviour, care andprotection order, etc.

Communitybased sentence

Custody115

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

II. CRIME STATISTICS
Comparison of 2008 and 2007 Crime Situation

7029
1325
5
98
1
2
402
703
151
552
282
144
38
90
10
160
3200
27
101
891
173
1826
109
391
630
209
580
178
402

7402
1293
2
122
414
704
152
552
272
163
37
69
13
107
3351
33
115
828
220
1939
115
596
640
188
629
204
425

2008 (Jan) Comparedwith 2007(Jan)
Numerical%
373 5.0
+
32 +
2.5
+
3 +
150.0
24 19.7+
1+2
12 2.9
1 0.1
1 0.7
+
10 +
3.7
19 11.7
+
1 +
2.7
+
21 +
30.4
3 23.1+
53 +49.5
151 4.5
6 18.214 12.2+
63 +7.6
47 21.4
113 5.8
6 5.2
205 34.4
10 1.6+
21 +11.2
49 7.826 12.7
23 5.4

460
462
18
123

462
533
58
124

-

2008
(Jan)
1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
17.

18.

Overall Crime
Violent Crime
Homicide (1)All Robberies (1), including :- Robbery with Firearms- Robbery with Arms (Stun Guns)- Robbery with Pistol Like Object- Bank Robbery- Goldsmith/Watch Shop Robberies
Burglary
Wounding and Serious Assault (1)- Wounding- Serious Assault
Serious Narcotics Offences
Criminal Intimidation (1)Blackmail (1)Arson (1)Rape (1)
Indecent Assault (1)All Thefts, including :- Snatching- Pickpocketing- Shop Theft- Theft from Vehicle- Miscellaneous Thefts- Missing Motor Vehicles
Deception
Criminal Damage
Triad-related Crimes
Domestic Violence- Crime Cases- Miscellaneous Cases
Persons Arrested for Crime- Juveniles (aged 10 - 15)- Young Persons (aged 16 - 20)- Mainland Illegal Immigrants- Mainland Visitors

2007
(Jan)

2
71
40
1

-

0.4
13.3
69.0
0.8

Note :(1) Belongs to a type of violent crime.
Last revision date: April 24, 2008

Source: http://www.police.gov.hk/hkp-home/english/statistics/compare08.htm

116139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

III. JUVENILES AND YOUNG PERSONS ARRESTED FOR CRIME (1997-2006)
JUVENILES AND YOUNG PERSONSARRESTED FOR CRIME, 1997 - 2006

10,000

PersonJuveniles (Aged 10 - 15)*

Young Persons (Aged 16 - 20)

8,000

6855

6,000

5964

7038
6613

6465
6229

5834

6145
5909

5486

6027
5335

6018

5812

5156
4897

4974
4780
4531
4510

4,000

2,000

0
97

98

99

00

01

02

03

04

05

06

Year
* Prior to July 2003, “juveniles” refers to those aged 7-15. Thereafter, due to the change of the minimum age ofcriminal liability, it refers to those aged 10-15.

117

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

IV. ADMISSION OF REMANDS / PRISONERS / INMATES BY CATEGORY
按還押犯 / 監獄囚犯 / 所員類別劃分的收納人數
Admission of Remands / Prisoners / Inmates by Category
類別 CATEGORY收納人數 ADMISSIONS

A. 還押犯 Remands

2005

男 MALE
2006

2007

2005

女 FEMALE
2006
2007

1. 聆訊的法院
For hearing in :(a) 區域法院 District Court
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years
21 歲及以上 21 Years and over(b) 裁判法院 Magistrates’ Courts
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years
21 歲及以上 21 Years and over

50
499

24
323

19
198

12
78

6
61

6
52

446
5746

493
6112

588
6424

194
2296

166
1942

153
1972

2. 於高等法院受審
For trial at the High Court
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years
21 歲及以上 21 Years and over

4
49

2
23

2
27

2
8

0
3

0
6

3. 等候報告確定是否適合判入戒毒所
Pending suitability report for sentence to a drug
addiction treatment centre
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years
21 歲及以上 21 Years and over

175
2004

212
1569

423
1850

25
337

23
257

50
335

4. 等候報告確定是否適合判入教導所 #Pending suitability report for sentence to a
training centre#
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years

20

41

34

95

80

96

829
198

865
176

811
191

##

5. 等候報告確定是否適合判入勞教中心Pending suitability report for sentence to adetention centre##
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years
21 歲及以上 21 Years and over
6. 等候報告確定是否適合判入更生中心
Pending suitability report for sentence to arehabilitation centre
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years
小計 Sub-total :不適用 N.A.

不適用 N.A.

不適用 N.A.

不適用 N.A.

不適用 N.A.

不適用 N.A.

72

41

64

59

76

65

10092

9881

10631

3106

2614

2735

B. 定罪監獄囚犯 / 所員 Convicted Prisoners / Inmates
1. 判處監禁
Sentenced to imprisonment
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years
21 歲及以上 21 Years and over

496
12831

384
11855

332
10783

1097
8775

828
7059

375
5261

2. 召回監獄
Recalled to a prison
不足 21 歲 Under 21 Years
21 歲及以上 21 Years and over

6
20

4
19

11
21

0
1

0
1

0
2

備註 : # 包括等候報告判人教導所 / 更生中心犯人
Notes :
Including those pending suitability reports for sentencing to a training / rehabilitation centre.
## 包括等候報告判人勞教中心 / 教導所 / 更生中心犯人
Including those pending suitability reports for sentencing to a detention / training / rehabilitation centre.

118

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

V. MODULES OF OFFENDING BEHAVIOUR PROGRAMME

OBP

Criminogenic

Protective Factors

Risk Factors

Drug Prevention

Criminal Thinking

Motivation Enhancement(Drug)

Problem Solving

Relapse Prevention(Drug)

Empathy Training
Emotional Handling

Relapse Prevention(Crime)FamilyMoral Enhancement

InmateParents (IPP)

Motivation Enhancement(Crime)119

THE PROFILE AND TREATMENT
OF SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN JAMAICA
Ina Rose Hunter*

I. INTRODUCTION
One of Jamaica’s growing concerns is the state of crime and violence and in particular the involvementof children in criminal activities. The fear is that the fate of successive generations is precariously poised if
this trend continues. Factors such as unstable family life, poverty, peer pressure, exposure to drugs and gangrelated activities as well as an erosion of strong morals, values and attitudes have been linked to the increasein the incidence of crime among our children.
This paper seeks to put in perspective the profile and treatment of children in Jamaica who are in conflictwith the law, especially those who commit serious and violent offences. The treatment of these children isplaced within the context of pre-trial, trial and institutional care. The main focus is placed on the Departmentof Correctional Services, the state agency responsible for the care and custody of offenders, and in whosecharge the most violent and serious offenders are placed.
In recent years, the profile of children who commit crimes has changed. For those involved in serious
crimes, the persona as summarized by journalist Geof Brown in the local Daily Observer of 21 October
2005, gives an indication of the extent of this change: “Police tell us that if you face a gunman in his early or
mid teens, your chances of survival are virtually nil. Older gunmen in their 20s and 30s will spare you on thebasis of your appeal that you have a family dependent on you”.
The general profile of a violent and serious child offender is a male, 15 to 16 years of age, who lacks
basic literacy and numeracy skills and who is armed with a type of bravado which appears to make him feelruthless and invincible. Such a profile has resulted in calls from different areas of the society for a moveaway from the interest and welfare of the child offender, toward one which is more concerned with public
safety. The justice system is however undergirded by a rehabilitative thrust which places the welfare of
the children first and foremost, while acknowledging the threat to themselves and to the society. The
understanding is that there are factors and experiences which are impacting on these children’s behaviour
and given the appropriate interventions, change is possible.

A. Legislative Support
Issues affecting children have always been given priority attention. Further to the United Nations
Conventions on the Rights of the Child, a National Plan of Action for Children was developed. The
formulation of a National Policy for Children in 1997, as well as a task force and a monitoring committee
which directed the legislative process and the subsequent enactment of the Child Care and Protection Act
in 2004, emerged from the justice review process. The legislative framework was further strengthenedby the appointment of a Children’s Advocate in 2006 and the establishment of the Office of the Children’s
Advocate. The Children’s Advocate acts as an Ombudsman for matters affecting children and the Office of
the Children’s Advocate makes legal representation on their behalf.
The legislative framework makes provision for the care and protection of all children who offend thelaw, irrespective of their offences. The Child Care and Protection Act, the main domestic instrumentthat implements rights recognized by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and related internationalguidelines, uses the term “child” instead of “juvenile”. It defines a child as “a person under the age of* Educational Co-ordinator, Department of Correctional Services, Ministry of National Security, Jamaica.

120

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

eighteen years” and stipulates that “it shall be conclusively presumed that no child under the age of twelve
years can be guilty of an offence” (Section 63).

B. Reasons for which Children were brought before the Court
The reasons for which children were brought before the Court in 2006, as indicated in Table 1, paints
a disturbing picture of the needs of our children and their involvement in criminal activities. There were2,629 cases of children appearing before the court, an increase of 365 compared to 2005. The offences withthe highest frequencies were Wounding, Dangerous Drugs, Armed with Offensive Weapon and Assault
Occasioning Bodily Arm. Of major concern is that over the years offences have noticeably shifted frommainly simple larceny and wounding to include more serious ones which are related to sex, guns and drugs.
Table 1: Reasons for which Children were brought before the Courts in 2006

Major Offences/Reasons
MurderAssault
Carnal Abuse
Rape
Indecent Assault
Robbery with Aggravation
Unlawful Possession
Attempted Larceny & Praedial Larceny
Breaking & Entering & Larceny
Wounding
Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm
Dangerous Drugs
Armed with Offensive Weapon
Malicious Destruction of Property
Care and Protection
Other Major Offences
Minor & Other Offences
Grand Total

Male
13
40
24
25
63
35
1
105
41
173
93
184
161
26
409
110
176
1679

Female
3
19
3
16
3
75
39
8
14
9
525
40
196
950

Total
16
59
24
25
66
35
1
121
44
248
132
192
175
35
934
150
372
2629

Annual Report, Department of Correctional Services 2006

Although the number of children brought before the court for care and protection was 15 fewer than2005, there is much cause for concern. Care and protection of children are underlying issues for some ofthe serious offences. This is evident in the increase in the number of children who transition from Placesof Safety (usually for care and protection) to Juvenile Correctional Centres for offences which are related to
conduct disorders. It is mooted that the young age at which people take on the responsibility of parenting
is contributing significantly to this scenario. Children are having children and the implication is that thereis the need for the necessary guidance and training of these young parents so that they can pass on theappropriate norms and values of the society.

II. PRETRIAL
When a child comes into conflict with the law, the Child Care and Protection Act empowers the police
to take the child into custody. If the child cannot be brought forthwith before the Court, the officer or subofficer in charge of the police station to which the child is brought has the responsibility to find an immediate
placement for the child in one of the Places of Safety which are operated by the Child Development Agency(which falls directly under the Ministry of Health). For an offence deemed violent and/or serious, the child
may have to remain in the custody of the police until the matter is brought before the Children’s Court orbefore a Resident Magistrate in chambers if there is no sitting of the Children’s Court in that parish.
“Any court on remanding or committing for trial a child who is not released on bail shall commit that childto custody in a juvenile remand centre named in the commitment, to be detained there for the period for121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

which the child is remanded or until the child is there delivered by a course of law” (Section 68 (1).
There is however only one male juvenile facility and it has a capacity for 48 children. Currently there
is no female juvenile facility. This is posing a major problem as offences by females have been increasing
steadily. The reality is that children who commit serious offences have had to be remanded in adultfacilities. While this is not desirable, the legislative framework makes such a provision but stipulates thatchildren should not be placed within the same areas as adults and should have attained the age of 14 years.
The pie chart below indicates that a total of 440 children were remanded in the care of the Departmentof Correctional Services in 2007 (Research, Planning and Evaluation Unit, Department of Correctional
Services).
PIE CHART SHOWING JUVENILES REMANDED IN 200725%
(108 female)

75%(332 male)

Male
FemaleAlthough remand is intended for short term placement, children sometimes spend over a year on
remand. This no doubt affects their state of mind as they become preoccupied with the uncertainty of theoutcome of their case. Affected as well is the ability to plan effectively given the uncertainty of a rolling
population and the infrastructure limitations of adult facilities.

III. TRIAL
In examining each case, the Juvenile or Family Court usually requests a Social Enquiry Report (SER)
from the Probation Officer assigned to the case. Included in this report are the findings from interviews withthe victim(s), the community, school, parents and the child accused of the offence. A psychiatric evaluation
may also be requested.
In summing up the case, the Probation Officer makes a recommendation to the Court from his or herfindings on the home surrounding, school record, health and character/profile of the child.
Based on the circumstances surrounding the case and what it deems to be in the best interest of thechild, the Court may choose one of the options which include but are not limited to the following:(i) an order committing the child to the care of a fit person;(ii) an order placing the child for a specified period not exceeding three years under the supervision of aprobation aftercare officer, a children’s officer, or some other person selected for the purpose by the
Minister;(iii) an order (Correctional Order) sending a child to a juvenile correctional centre.
The Correctional Order places the child into the custodial care of the Department of Correctional
services for a period not beyond the 18th birthday, on the premise that a structured environment with
opportunities for rehabilitation best serves the interest of the child. There are situations however, in whicha child who commits a serious and or violent offence is treated differently. In such instance, the commitment
may be made for the child to be detained beyond the 18th birthday. The child having attained the age of 18 isthen transferred to the adult facility to complete his/her sentence.
“The death sentence however, shall not be pronounced or recorded against a person convicted of an
offence if it appears to the Court that at the time when the offence was committed he was under the age

122

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERSof eighteen years, but in place thereof such person shall be liable to be imprisoned for life” (Section 77,
Child Care and Protection Act). The court may specify the period which the person becomes eligible forparole. The person should be 14 years old before being committed to an adult correctional centre. However,according to Section 78 (5), “a child under fourteen years old may be sentenced to a maximum of twenty
five years if the court considers this to be the only suitable sentence where a child is convicted of a serious
offence”.

IV. INSTITUTIONAL CARE AND TREATMENT
A. The Department of Correctional Services
The Department of Correctional Services in Jamaica falls directly under the Ministry of National Security
and is mandated to contribute to the safety and protection of the society by keeping offenders placed by the
court in its facilities secure and facilitating their rehabilitation. The Department carries out its mandate
within the guidelines of a number of Acts including but not limited to the Corrections, the Child Care andProtection, the Probation of Offenders, the Criminal Justice Reform and Parole Acts. It is also guided byinternational bodies such as the United Nations.
The Department’s Chief Executive Officer is the Commissioner of Corrections, who is presently Major
Richard Reese. Custodial Services and Human Resource Management/Community Services are the twomain areas of the Department and are each managed by a Deputy Commissioner. The rehabilitation of
offenders is one of the core strategic functions of the Department. In 2000 the Rehabilitation Unit wasestablished to streamline and better manage the rehabilitative services for adult and child offenders, whichwere up to that time infused in the general operations of the Department. The Unit works closely with the
Director of Juvenile Services (who has direct supervision of juvenile institutions) on matters pertaining to
the welfare of children in custodial care.
Consistent with the idea of empowerment through rehabilitation, the correctional process of the
Department of Correctional Services, Jamaica, is one that seeks to provide an environment that will
empower and rehabilitate those in its care and custody, so that upon their release to open society they
will be successfully reintegrated and become peaceful, responsible and productive law abiding citizens.
Stinchomb and Fox (1999) see this as replacing correctional control with self-control.

B. Juvenile Institutions
Although the Child Care and Protection Act uses the word “child” instead of “juvenile” there is yet nochange in legislation for the renaming of juvenile centres. There are three Juvenile Correctional Centres(two for males) in which offenders between the ages of 13 and 17 are placed subsequent to the ruling by the
court. There is also a Juvenile Remand Centre for males who are awaiting a final disposition of their cases.
Each juvenile centre embraces the home and school concept and is managed by a Superintendent and acadre of Correctional Officers, Teachers, Instructors, a Welfare Officer, a Case Manager, House Mothers andother support staff. As much as is possible, activities for schools in the centre mirror those in the regularschools which are operated by the Ministry of Education.
Institutional care and treatment however, take place in institutions which accommodate children
above their physical capacity. Table 2 gives the capacity and the population (muster) in adult and juvenile
institutions as of 5 March 2008. This indicates one of the highest numbers of children in the care of the
Department of Correctional Services (for both males and females). Of note is that there is a significant
increase in female offenders.

123

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Table 2: Juvenile Correctional Centres Capacity Status as of 5 March 2008

JUVENILE CENTRES
Armadale (females)
Hill Top (males)
Rio Cobre (males)
St. Andrew Remand (males)
ADULT CORRECTIONAL/REMAND
Fort Augusta (females)
Horizon (males & females)TOTAL

CAPACITY
45
98
120
48

MUSTER
65
103
126
46

EXCESS
20
5
6
-

311

39
52
431

39
52
120

(Research Planning & Evaluation Unit, Department of Correctional Services)

C. Assessment Procedures
On entry into correctional facilities an initial interview is conducted with the child to welcome and inform
him/her of the nature of the facility, the opportunities for rehabilitation and what is expected of him/her. The
concerns and needs of the child are noted. Within 30 days of admittance, a risk/need analysis is done using
the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI). This is a Canadian-based instrumentused subject to the training of all persons who use the instrument, as a condition to preserve its integrity
and to guard against its misuse.
The use of this instrument is predicated on the assumptions that the causes of youth offending arise frominterrelated variables and that intervention with high-risk youths can be effective in reducing the chances ofanti-social activity. Information gathered is used to classify children according to their risk needs levels andfor special occasions such as the granting of licence and other conditional release programmes.
The YLS/CMI is skewed more toward a psychological assessment of the factors which predispose
persons to commit crimes and those factors which may result in recidivism. The major challenge inusing this instrument is that there is some disconnect between the Social Enquiry Report (SER) and theinformation required by the instrument. Arising from this, not enough information is obtained from thefirst assessment. However as the assessor interacts more with the child, the assessment which is done six
months after provides more reliable information and more effective use of the instrument. The Department
is now challenged to review the SER form to facilitate greater harmony with the risk assessment
instrument.
Periodic assessment informs behaviour modification and treatment regimes. A treatment plan isdeveloped for each child and managed by a Case Manager who is assigned to each of the juvenile remand andcorrectional centres as well as the adult correctional centres in which the children are placed. The efforts of
the Case Managers are complemented by psychiatrists, psychologists, medical doctors and other specialized
service providers. Each centre also has a welfare officer who sees to the general needs of the children
and whose duties include conducting risk assessment, scheduling visits, making medical/dental and otherappointments and facilitating the relationship between children and the outside world.
In the past children were separated based on the types of offences as Juvenile Correctional Centres wereclassified based on the level of security. The more serious offenders and older children were placed at theHill Top Juvenile Correctional Centre. Overcrowding in all the facilities however, has led to children being
placed based on the availability of space and not so much on the nature of the offences. Additionally, similar
security features now exist in all the institutions and it is difficult to differentiate the security levels basedon physical appearance. Risk assessment now assists in standardizing the risk levels of child offenders.
Scores of low, medium, high and very high immediately convey to authorities the security risk of each child.

D. Education and Training
The Child Care and Protection Act makes education compulsory for children in the care of the state. Eachjuvenile facility has an education programme which offers academic, vocational and development training.

124

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

Children are placed in ability groups and are exposed to all areas of training. They are prepared for internal
as well as external examinations. A recent study conducted in juvenile correctional centres indicates that
more than 75% of the children are motivated to achieve academically. The findings suggest however, thatthe teaching modalities are not meeting the needs of most of the children. The emotional and psychologicalissues which the children bring to the classroom impact negatively on teaching and learning, a situation
made worse by the lack of expertise among the teachers to effectively manage the psychological effects ofcustodial care on learning.

E. Behaviour Modification
Each child’s progress is monitored through several means such as the disciplinary committees, caseconferences, peer counselling and special awards systems. Children who improve in their behaviour are
granted special privileges. Twice per year, in the summer holidays and at Christmas, children who qualify
are allowed home leave. Some are granted licence, a form of conditional release whereby they are given theopportunity to spend the remaining portion of the Correctional Order in their community, under statutory
supervision of a Probation Aftercare Officer. Any breach of conditions for licence can result in a recall to thejuvenile correctional centre.
F. General Care and Protection
The understanding is that children are in custodial care as punishment and not for punishment. Everyeffort is therefore made to protect children from physical, emotional and other types of abuse. Corporalpunishment is forbidden and mutual respect encouraged. Officers assigned to juvenile remand andcorrectional centres are carefully selected and receive additional training in how to treat children, especiallythose with conduct disorders.
Support systems are in place to ensure and encourage communication between children and their homes.
Each child is entitled to visits and telephone calls. Special events such as Parents Day, Probation Day, Sports
Day and Christmas Dinner provide opportunities for all children to meet with their families.
Efforts toward rehabilitation however, are impeded by overcrowding and the placement or transfer
of children to adult facilities. The Montpelier Camp, situated in St. James, a parish in the western endof the island, has been officially declared as the site for a new juvenile remand and correctional centre
with a capacity to accommodate two hundred and fifty children. Budgetary constraints however present aformidable challenge to this venture.

V. REINTEGRATION AND COMMUNITY INTERVENTIONS
It is argued that the true test of rehabilitation is the ability of persons to remain focused and law
abiding upon their return to open society. While this is true it can be further argued that in any behaviour
modification, a support system is necessary for continued progress. The major hindrance to the support
mechanism is that the Department of Correctional Services has no legal authority over children once they
are released from its care even if they have not attained the age of eighteen.
On moral grounds and in the best interest of the children, the Department seeks placement ineducational institutions including colleges and monitors the process for the smooth transition into education
programmes. The probation offices are available for those who choose to utilize the services. Those children
who show an aptitude or interest in vocational training are referred to HEART/NTA, (Human Employment
and Resource Training/National Training Agency) for vocational training. Parents are also encouraged to bea part of the reintegration process and are asked to seek out institutions in close proximity to their homes
for placement. Interest in entrepreneurship is facilitated as financial and material support is available forchildren so inclined.
Hoge, Guerra & Boxer (2008) advise that treatment for serious and violent offenders should be riskfocused and strength-based. A major issue requiring such consideration is an assessment of the needs ofchildren who are from volatile communities with very fragile support. The risks/needs of these children
would best be served if after their release from the correctional centres they were placed in a facility forfurther support as they make the transition back into open society. The introduction of a halfway house

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

for children who need to be distanced from the negative influences of their community and placed in anenvironment for furthering their education and general development is an idea that the Department has
advanced. This however requires policy change and additional financial, human and material resources.
The Department embraces the Asian adage that “it takes a whole village to raise a child”. Aware of
the challenges which parents have in carrying out their role effectively, parental seminars are held in theinstitutions, at Probation Offices, at Parent-Teachers’ Meetings and in aspects of the communities. Someschools have been experiencing challenges which stem from problems in the home. In their effort to findsolutions to the growing indiscipline among students, they have been requesting tours of correctional
facilities. The Department continues to facilitate these requests and the feedback is that the visits serve as a
wake-up call for students and a positive influence on their behaviour.
Representatives of the Department are usually invited to speak on issues of correctional management
and opportunities for service in correctional institutions. Counselling services for parents and children
are available at the probation offices which are located island-wide. Together with parents/guardians andteachers, proactive measures are undertaken. However, if the situation warrants the intervention of thecourt, this is sought. For those matters in which children are considered uncontrollable, parents are usually
made aware of the implications of taking the matter before the court, which include the possibility that thechild could be removed from their custody as a measure of last resort.

VI. CONCLUSION
Like many developing countries, Jamaica is challenged by the involvement of children in criminal
activities. The change in the profile of these children and the corresponding change in the landscape of thecrimes in which they are involved are areas of major concern. While there is evidence of a sensitive justicesystem through reform, the corresponding processes need to be in tandem with the needs of our children,
especially those who are on remand.
The efforts of the Department of Correctional Services, the agency responsible for custody andrehabilitation of offenders, are being hampered by the limited infrastructure. The lack of appropriate
facilities for remand cases results in children being placed in adult facilities. Although this conforms to thelegislative framework it is far from desirable given the limited provisions in adult facilities. The effective
management of treatment for child offenders, especially those who commit serious and violent offences,
requires a smoother transitioning from the correctional process back to their communities. In this regard,
the concept of a halfway house is an idea which is worth pursuing to minimize the risk of reoffending.

126

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Department of Correctional Services, Jamaica. (2006). Annual Report.
Hoge, R.; Guerra; & Boxer, P. (2008) Treating the juvenile offender . Guilford Press, New York.
Stinchomb, B. & Fox, V. (1999). Introduction to corrections . Simon & Shuster, Prentice Hall.
The Child Care and Protection Act, Jamaica (2004).
The Child Care and Protection Act, Jamaica (2004). Implementation handbook for professionals.

127

JUVENILE CRIME AND TREATMENT OF SERIOUS AND VIOLENTJUVENILE DELINQUENTS IN THAILAND
Korakod Narkvichetr*

I. OVERVIEW OF JUVENILE DELIQUENCY
Owing to its history and position, Thailand is a leading partner in Southeast Asian trade and politics.
As a result of socio-economic development, political change and globalization in recent last decades, Thai
society has been transformed from a completely agricultural country to a semi-industrial country. While
globalization has provided some groups in society with new opportunities for social mobility, it has also
created new sources of inequality and insecurity for others. Moreover, urbanization and industrialization
have created complicated communities that have a variety of competing cultures, thus breaking down
previous tradition and more cohesive patterns of values. Subsequently, crime rates, including deviance andcrime among children and youth, have increased.
According to the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection’s statistics, the number of juvenile
delinquents (7 to 18 years old) who were arrested by the police and sent to the Juvenile Observation andProtection Centers across the country increased from 29,915 in 2003 to 51,128 in 2007, an increase of 70.91% in the space of 10 years. (Table 1)
Table 1: The Number of Juveniles in 2003-2007, Classified by Gender

Year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007

Male
27,17430,36832,75644,161
46,593

Number of Children and Youths
Female
2,741
2,940
3,324
4,057
4,535

Source: The Juvenile Observation and Protection Department, Ministry of Justice, 2008.

Total
29,91533,30836,08048,21851,128

However, the number of juvenile offenders in 2007 (51,128) is only 0.45% of the total national juvenile
population of 11,233,070 in 2008 (Department of Provincial Administration, 2008).
In Table 2, the number of juveniles, whose age range is from 7 to 18 years, has increased substantially.
The age distribution of juveniles is shown in Table 2. More specific demographics of juveniles in 2003 to2007 are shown in Tables 2 to 5.
Table 2: The Number of Juveniles in 2003- 2007, Classified by Age

Age
7-14 years old
15-18 years old
Total

2003
4,313
25,602
29,915

Number of Children and Youths/Year
2004
2005
2006
5,177
5,872
8,078
28,13130,20840,14033,30836,08048,218Source: The Juvenile Observation and Protection Department, Ministry of Justice, 2008.

* Director of the Probation Office, Region 3, Department of Probation, Ministry of Justice, Thailand.

128

2007
8,888
42,24051,128

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

Table 3: The Number of Juveniles in 2003-2007, Classified by Level of Education

Education
Non-education-Below G1Grades 1-6
Grades 7-9
Grades 10-12 or higher
Others
Total

2003
498
10,305
12,433
5,420
1,259
29,915

Number of Children and Youths/Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
586
1,024
2,333
2,235
11,001
11,951
14,522
15,35013,836
15,05019,197
20,434
5,885
6,381
9,521
10,019
2,000
1,674
2,645
3,090
33,30836,08048,21851,128Source: The Juvenile Observation and Protection Department, Ministry of Justice, 2008.

Table 4: The Number of Juveniles in 2003-2007, Classified by Residence

Residence
Together with Parents
Separated familyHomeless
Single parent
Stays with others
Stays alone
Total

2003
14,495
15,420
495
8,374
5,810
741
29,915

Number of Children and Youths/Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
16,196
17,981
24,175
24,95017,112
18,09924,043
26,178
481
308
142
128
9,296
9,688
12,36913,192
6,476
7,233
10,724
11,995
859
870
808
836
33,30836,08048,21851,128Source: The Juvenile Observation and Protection Department, Ministry of Justice, 2008.

Table 5: The Number of Juveniles in 2003-2007, Classified by Causes of Offence

Causes of Offence
Mental disorder
Quarrel and fightEconomic status
Induced / forced
Family condition
Peer group
Unawareness
Impetuousness
Indictment on charge
Total

2003
2,400
3,220
15,3104,484
4,501
29,915

Number of Children and Youths/Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
135
79
2,515
2,432
2,381
2,510
3,375
3,505
1,849
1,870
2,760
3,129
3,867
3,060
17,213
19,035
19,374
20,215
4,735
4,853
5,722
5,539
5,566
7,839
6,219
6,553
5,815
6,589
33,30836,08048,21851,128Source: The Juvenile Observation and Protection Department, Ministry of Justice, 2008.

The tables show that most of the juvenile offenders are 15 to 18 years old. Most of them have an
education that ended between the seventh and ninth grades. A large number of them are from separated
families and lived with their single parents. Most juveniles reported that they committed the offence
because of peer group influence. The interrelationship of these factors is, on the surface, self-evident.
Economic pressures create problematic situations in the family and these situations impact family relations,which can result in pushing juveniles under the influence of their peer groups. Peer groups then create
their own subculture, which can have positive or negative influences on the juveniles. Unfortunately,
most of the peer groups’ influence is assumed negative. In addition, the juveniles might be tempted by thechanging materialistic values concomitant with economic development. While this is speculation basedon many Western criminological assertions, from a practical perspective policies are approached on theseassumptions. However, the approach of the juvenile system in Thailand assumes that no single factor alone
can be identified as responsible for the causation of juvenile delinquency and that the above factors areconditions to be considered.

129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

There are research findings which affirm that most juveniles, who were found guilty by the Central
Juvenile and Family Court and were sentenced to attend a programme at a training school for boys, finishedelementary school, were involved with drugs, and came from broken families (Prinya, 2001). Another otherstudy found that the juvenile’s marital status, level of education, job, deviant behaviour, neighbourhood,family income, and debt and criminal record of family members do not have any relationship with the crime
they committed but associated friends and associated victims do have a relationship with the incident(Puttidej, 1999).
Table 6: The Number of Juveniles in 2003-2007, Classified by the Offences

Offences
Against property
Homicide & bodily injury
Sexual offence
Public peace & security
Drug abuse
Weapons & explosives
Other offences
Total

2003
8,886
4,843
1,735
1,016
5,897
1,957
5,581
29,915

Number of Children and Youths/Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
10,496
10,733
14,314
14,764
5,969
6,112
8,284
7,784
2,416
2,680
3,652
2,154
1,149
1,271
1,731
3,247
5,310
6,542
8,803
10,279
2,031
2,404
3,414
3,650
5,937
6,338
8,020
9,250
33,30836,08048,21851,128Source: The Juvenile Observation and Protection Department, Ministry of Justice, 2008.

From Table 6, the largest group of juvenile delinquents was committed to the centres for property
offences. Significantly, the number of juveniles who committed homicide and bodily injury offences increased
from 4,843 cases in 2003 to 8,284 cases in 2006 and dropped slightly in 2007. In the last two decades, heroin
was the major drug problem among both adults and juveniles, but since 1996 methamphetamines haveplayed a significant role, followed by various kinds of volatile substances such as glue, thinner, lacquer, etc.
The findings of Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Education research interviews with drug users
aged between 17 and 23 stated that the most common characteristics of drug abusers were that they comefrom broken families and suffer from low self-esteem. Youths took methamphetamines so they could feel
more relaxed and relieved of their troubles. They sought instant gratification, to escape from hard workand academic difficulties. Most abusers resort to stealing and end up trading in methamphetamines due tothe easy profits to be made (Rojanaphruk, 2001). Similarly, research organized by the Foundation for Child
Development found that some school students used drugs and had to find money to afford the drugs theyused. Moreover, children were also introduced to the business by adults who saw a loophole in the law
because of the light punishment for children who commit such offences (Tulyawasinpong, 2002).
Besides drug abuse offences, offences against property as well as bodily injury and homicide cases areserious problems, especially in the big cities. The Metropolitan Police Bureau 9 declared that in the first
five months of 2003 five hundred children were arrested for crimes ranging from robbery, pick-pocketingand bag-snatching to extortion. The number of youth gang offenders held in police stations had more thandoubled during the two-month school holidays. Most of them were aged from 9 to 15. They robbed victims
and used the money to buy drugs, play video games and go out. Youths were committing more serious
crimes and at younger ages. The victims are also young and sometimes young offenders get to know their
victims through the Internet (Hanpanyapichit and Somsin, 2003).
The other concern for teenagers is the battleground between rival student gangs. The main culprits in thestreet fights are vocational students, who are typically aged 16 to 18. Formerly, students used their school
equipment, such as T-squares, iron rulers, cutters, and their belts as weapons, and the fighting rarely caused
death. Nowadays teen gangs, including students, use guns to shoot students from the rival institutes without
knowing those students personally. In addition, the events always occur in public places such as on buses,
in shopping malls, etc. Thus, students who joined gangs, normal students, and bystanders are easily injured
or killed in violence between teenagers. Students attest to the level of violence that has been used in nearly
2,000 attacks recorded by police in the capital during 10 months in 2004. Recently, fighting that culminatedin running battles involving nearly 100 students left nine injured, and the education ministry ordered two

130139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

schools shut for a chance to bring their students into line or face permanent closure. In addition, a total of 12
schools have been placed on a government watch list because of violent behaviour (Chaisatien, 2003).
Many reasons and theories are suggested to explain juvenile offences. Some officials in charge of juvenile
cases say that fighting gives some students their only role in life. The students who lead the battle wantsociety to accept them, so they do something to draw people’s attention and fighting is the best way to get
attention rather than winning scholarships, which benefits only a few people. The police claim that problems
have been compounded by the failure of schools to try to solve the problem by denying their involvement
and often stating that troublemakers had already been expelled or left. Moreover, psychologists indicatedthat contributing factors to teen deviance also include the media, peer pressure, and biological disorders(Chaisatien, 2003). Additionally, young people are becoming increasingly violent and blaming society andtheir own families for their behaviour. In a student forum, students stated that they resorted to violence asa means to solve every problem. They brawl because they cannot win against one another and they are all
feeling the pressure of strict school rules and the decrees of their parents and society, so they are releasing
their stress through violence. Some accepted that they absorbed violent behaviour from violent computer
games. However, most students agreed that resorting to corporal punishment will not solve the problem(Na Mahachai, 2003). Nevertheless, from a larger societal perspective, juvenile delinquents are a reflectionof the failure of the family unit, curriculum and school administration, and poor criminal justice procedureand rehabilitation. The Thai Farmer Research Center’s survey on children in the capital found that children
in Bangkok were living under pressure due to family, love, and financial problems. Sixty percent of the920 children interviewed said they had family problems, while 69% said their schools and colleges were
not drug-free. In addition, most juvenile delinquents came from broken families, families which failed toinculcate morals in their children, or families where parents often used violence to solve problems and failed
to act as role models (Bunnag, 2001).
Looking at the family, the researchers suggest that parents of delinquents are often struggling to reachhigher living standards and ignore their relationships with their children. The education system is also
given some responsibility for the problems, and critics argue that the system has produced virtually nothing
except selfish individuals who strive solely for upper social status or wealth. Poor school management also
has been criticized for failing to protect students from social problems (Chaisatien, 2003). The criminal
justice system is also considered culpable for its failure in crime prevention, correction, and rehabilitation.
About 15% of juveniles released from detention are later rearrested. This reflects the practice of merely
warehousing them at detention centres where many learn to commit more serious crimes, and for
responding to the problems with only punishment (Roujanavong, 2001). Thus, criminal justice officials andlegal experts are searching for alternative and innovative approaches to delinquent corrections and juvenile
justice reformation.

II. THE THAI JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM
A. Juvenile Justice System
The Thai juvenile justice system has been based on the assumption that young offenders are notconsidered to be criminally responsible for their actions and that they should not be treated the sameas adults. Children aged ten and younger are not punishable under Thai law, and the criminal code does
not allow for any kind of punishment to be levied upon any person below 14 years of age. It had been thepractice to send juvenile delinquents to a vocational school under the Primary Education Act of 1935 or toa reformation school under the Act on Instruction and Training of Certain Classes of Children of 1936 fortreatment after trial rather than having them imprisoned. However, under these provisions, treatment of thejuvenile was available only after the court’s order and there were no special provisions made for juveniles
before adjudication. Juveniles were, therefore, detained in the same detention facilities as adult criminals andthey were required to undergo the same court procedures as adults. In 1952 the Central Juvenile Court andthe Observation and Protection Center were established under the Juvenile Courts and the Juvenile Court
Procedure Act of 1951, which was later revised as the Juvenile and Family Courts Act of 1991. The Act
embraces the principle of the “best interests of the child” with respect to the protection of children and theirfamilies. A child who has committed a violation of the law shall not be regarded as an offender, consideringthat he or she is under-aged and victimized by a corrupted environment and that his or her wrongdoing
is not committed out of malice. The child can repent and express willingness to undergo correction andrehabilitation under adult care and supervision.
131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

B. Guidelines for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders
Guidelines relating to the treatment of juvenile offenders are stipulated in Articles 32 to 57 of theJuvenile and Family Court and its Procedural Code Act of 1991, which distinguish juvenile justice from thegeneral administration of justice in seven major ways:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

The consideration of a juvenile case is undertaken in confidentiality and in a room separate fromadult cases.
Some flexibility may be exercised when considering cases involving juveniles.
An investigation will be conducted into a juvenile’s social background and his or her behaviour. The
findings of the investigation will be submitted to the juvenile and family court when it considers thecase.
Juveniles under investigation or awaiting trial are kept in a detention facility that is separate fromthat of adults.
Juvenile offenders will receive both physical and psychological examinations.
The Juvenile and Family Court may change the final verdict if it deems it appropriate to do so.

The Juvenile and Family Court can consider cases involving family members (Economic and Social
Council, 1996).

III. JUVENILE CRIMINAL CASE PROCEDURE
A. Arrest
Arrests of the accused child are prohibited unless he or she committed a flagrant offence, an injured
person identified him or her and insisted on the arrest, or a warrant for arrest is made under the criminal
procedure code. After apprehension, the police officer is required by law to notify the director of the
Observation and Protection Center (OPC) and the juvenile’s parents, guardians or a person with whom he or
she is residing.
B. Inquiry and Investigation
During this process, it is required that a counsellor or legal adviser is provided for the juvenile. In
addition, the presence of a public prosecutor, psychologist or social worker and the juvenile’s parents iscompulsory during interrogation and is an essential element to protect the juvenile. The inquiry must becompleted within 24 hours from the time of arrival at the office of the inquiry official. After the inquiry, thejuvenile shall be sent to the OPC and the file of inquiry will be sent to the public prosecutor.
C. Detention and Provisional Release on BailIn general, the juvenile may be detained during the investigation at the remand home of the OPC.
The director of the OPC may keep the juvenile in custody. A request for provisional release on bail of thearrestee shall be made to the custodial authorities (Ukris, 2002).
D. Criminal Prosecution and Deferred Prosecution
The government is represented in both criminal and civil matters by public prosecutors stationed
throughout the country. The public prosecutor has to enter a charge in the JFC within 13 days from the time
the juvenile was arrested. In a case where the alleged juvenile offender escapes from custody while thecase is being conducted, the time during the escape shall not be included in the period of charging. In caseof necessity, when the charge against the offender cannot be filed within the mentioned period, the police
officer or public prosecutor shall apply by motion to the court for a deferment (extension). In case of an
offence where the minimum imprisonment is five years or more, the court may grant a longer deferment.
E. Trial
The court trial is the fact-finding process in which the truth of the guilt stated in any claim is ascertained
and used as a tool in deciding the case. The JFC has the authority to transfer an accused juvenile to the
Criminal Court for trial and adjudication after the JFC considers the juvenile’s physique, intelligence, health,and habits. The JFC has the discretion to determine that the accused juvenile has the same status as aperson who is 18 years old or older. Correspondingly, the Criminal Court may transfer any accused person
who, when the offence was committed, was not over 20 years old to the JFC when the Criminal Court
exercises its discretion that that person should be treated as a juvenile. The JFC procedure will be informal

132

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

and simplified in the interest of the juvenile. The trial is held in private. The persons present at the trial are
the accused, parents, guardians, attorney, witnesses, prosecutor, members of the court and other persons
permitted by the court. Photographs and reports on facts presented at the proceedings are not to be released
to the public (Central Juvenile and Family Court, 1996).

F. Adjudication
The judgment process is based on two stages: the adjudication of guilt and sentencing. An adjudicationof guilt means that the court gives a judgment on whether or not an accused is guilty in accordance with the
charge. If the judge considers all the evidence and is uncertain that the accused has committed the offence,
regardless of whether the accused pleads guilty or not, he or she will dismiss the charge. On the contrary,
if the judge is certain that the accused committed the offence he or she will convict the accused and thendecide a punishment. However, after the trial is completed, prior to a judgment or an order being given, thecourt will review the social investigation report submitted by the OPC. In addition, Section 75 of the Thai
Penal Code provides that whenever any person over 14 years but not yet over 17 years of age commits any
act provided by the law to be an offence, the court shall take into account the sense of responsibility andall other things concerning him or her in order to come to a decision as to whether or not it is appropriate
to pass judgment by inflicting punishment on him or her. If the court does not deem it appropriate to pass
judgment inflicting punishment, it shall adopt other correctional measures short of punishment. If the court
deems it appropriate to pass judgment inflicting punishment, it shall reduce the scale of punishment provided
for such offence by one half. Section 76 of the same Code also states that whenever any person over 17 years
but not yet over 20 years of age commits any act provided by the law to be an offence, the court may, if it
thinks fit, reduce the scale of the punishment provided for such offence by one third or one half.
IV. TREATMENT OF SERIOUS AND VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Serious juvenile offenders are those who commit the following felony offences: larceny or theft, burglaryor breaking and entering, extortion, arson, and drug trafficking or other controlled dangerous substanceviolations. Violent juvenile offenders are those who commit the following felony offences: non-negligent
manslaughter, homicide, rape or other felony sex offences, mayhem, kidnapping, robbery, or aggravatedassault.
There are three principal organizations dealing with juvenile delinquents, Juvenile and Family Courts, theJuvenile Observation and Protection Department, and the Department of Probation.

A. The Juvenile and Family Courts (JFC)
The JFC has jurisdiction in any criminal case involving children aged 10 to 14 years old and youths aged
15 to 18 years of age, and also handles civil actions involving any minor (under 20 years old) under the Civil
and Commercial Code. A trial in the JFC is adjudicated by two professional judges and two lay judges, whereat least one of the four must be a female. An appeal against a judgment or order of the JFC is heard by the
Courts of Appeal. The JFC consists of the Central Juvenile and Family Court, 10 Provincial Juvenile andFamily Courts, and 31 Divisions of Juvenile and Family Court in the Provincial Courts. Thailand is divided in
to 76 provinces; therefore, in those provinces where the JFC or the juvenile and family section do not exist,
accused juveniles must be dealt with in adult courts. Definitely, the JFCs are authorized to transfer serious
and violent juvenile delinquents to criminal court or place them in adult prisons but this only happens ina few cases. The reason is that the courts have to hear the Juvenile Protection Committee’s resolution
before they exercise this authority. Additionally, all or most authorities, including the court, consider thattreating juvenile delinquents in the vein of adult criminals is actually more likely to lead to recidivism andretention in the juvenile justice system. In addition, their recidivism rates as well as the severity of theiroffences appear to increase after they are released from prison. Therefore, the great majority, or all, of thejuveniles who are found guilty as charged are placed under the responsibility of the Juvenile Observation andProtection Department, the institutional rehabilitation organization, and the Department of Probation, thenon-institutional rehabilitation organization.
B. The Juvenile Observation and Protection Department (JOPD)
The JOPD is the institution that provides care, protection, and training to juvenile offenders in
the institutions. The mandate and responsibilities of the Department include keeping juveniles underinvestigation and those awaiting trial under detention, preparing the social investigation report, and133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

supervising remand homes and training schools. The JOPD consists of the Administration Divisions, theBangkok Observation and Protection Center, the Provincial Observation and Protection Centers, andJuvenile Training Centers. At present, there are 76 Observation and Protection Centers nationwide.
Normally, both serious, violent offenders and non serious, non-violent offenders have to participate in
the same basic treatment programmes. However, serious, violent juvenile offenders will be classified by aclassification form and will be placed on some proper programmes. The rehabilitation programmes in OPCs
are run by teachers, social workers, psychiatrists and doctors. Programmes include non-formal education,
instruction in moral values, art, music, and sport activities. Institutional treatments are divided into three
types: the training school, the vocational training school, and the therapeutic community centre.
1. Training Schools
There are 17 training schools throughout the country. Since juveniles are admitted to the training schools
for “reformative treatment” and are still at the stage of character formation, educational programmes are
conducted. The OPCs and school programmes aim to develop adjustment skills and life skills of inmates
through regular guidance, vocational training, education, moral and religious instruction, and recreational
activities. While most of these activities help instill specific disciplines, general discipline is encouraged
by granting or revoking rewards and privileges such as home visits, pre-release, participation in special
activities, etc. The conduct of a juvenile staying in the institutes is evaluated by means of ascertaining his
or her performance at training school in regard to study, vocational training, work, personal appearance,
language, behaviour, respect for authority, care of property, and co-operation. The director of the OPCs isempowered to send an incorrigible juvenile who is a source of danger to other juveniles for detention in a
prison.
2. Vocational Training Schools
The vocational training school under the JOPD has a capacity of 200 persons. The salient featuresemphasize positive working attitudes as well as helping juveniles to acquire work-related skills, andarrangements for juveniles to undergo a test of the Trade Standard Testing Committee, of the Ministry ofLabor and Social Welfare. The school conducts treatment and operates eight vocational training courses.
However, the enrollment schedule and number of juveniles are fixed because of the limited capacity of theinstitute.
3. The Drug Addict Treatment Center
The Drug Addict Treatment Center, the Ayudthaya Therapeutic Community Center, provides compulsory
treatment and rehabilitation programmes for juvenile addicts. The programmes are intended to restore
physical health, uproot psychological and emotional dependence on drugs, and apply the therapeuticcommunity models and techniques (Ukris, 2002).

C. The Department of Probation (DOP)
Prior to 2003, the Department of Probation’s main duties were to conduct pre-sentence investigation,
supervision, and rehabilitation only for adult probationers ordered by adult courts. Six years ago, thedepartment was reorganized in accordance with the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of 2001, which
has authorized the Department of Probation to be the principal organization of community-based corrections
for all types of offenders in communities, including juvenile probationers and juvenile parolees shifted fromthe JOPD, and adult parolees shifted from the Correctional Department. Moreover, the other new missionsof the department include the co-ordination of reintegration efforts of medical and social agencies and Drug
Rehabilitation Centers in accordance with the Drug Rehabilitation Act of 2002, and also to provide aftercare
services for offenders in communities.
The DOP consists of six technical and support units in the central administration of the department; 76
provincial probation offices nationwide; 14 leaders/or representatives of the provincial groups; and one Drug
Rehabilitation Center.
The Drug Rehabilitation Center, the other initiative of the Department of Probation starting in 2003,
has been organizing compulsory treatment for drug users under the Drug Rehabilitation Act of 2002. The
major concept is to provide arrestees who used or processed small quantities of any illicit drug and did notcommit other offences to undergo treatment like a patient instead of prosecuting them as a criminal. If the134

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

arrestees are willing to receive treatment and relinquish their drug habits, the prosecutors will drop the
charges and the arrestees will have no criminal record and will be assisted in continuing their daily lives in
the community as ordinary people. A benefit of the compulsory treatment system is that it can provide an
opportunity to divert offenders from the general criminal justice procedure, and especially to reduce thenumber of suspects in courts and thereby to reduce the number held in jails and juvenile detention centres.
To ensure success, the Department of Probation, in its capacity as the co-ordinator of the programmes, has
worked closely with many government and non-government agencies as well as communities all over thecountry. It is believed that by concentrating seriously on rehabilitation and prevention, the compulsory drug
treatment system will be an effective strategy for curbing crime committed by drug abusers (Kittayarak,
2003; Kalyanasuta, 2002).
Probation for juveniles is commonly used for first offenders who commit a relatively minor offence.
Therefore, serious, violent juveniles come to the probation office by parole assessment. Parole is a measurefor juveniles who have been conditionally released from the training school by the decree of the JFC. The
term of parole supervision is usually up to the remaining term of his or her sentence, with early discharge
in cases of serving one quarter of the period of training with good behaviour. Screening of inmates forrelease on parole requires conditions such as good results in treatment and rehabilitation programmes, anda good home environment. Supervision of the parole process is the same as the process of supervision ofprobationers, starting with a court’s prescription of supervision conditions for juveniles, such as forbidding
them to: enter any place or locality which might corrupt them; leave their residences at night except incases of necessity; associate with any person who is deemed undesirable by the court; and do any act whichmight corrupt them. The court may also order them to present themselves from time to time to the court
or to the probation officer or social worker who was assigned by the director of the OPC, and order them topursue an education or substantial occupation.
In practice, a probation officer is to provide supervision and personal guidance or individual counsellingto juveniles through interviewing the juvenile and visiting his/her home regularly. Moreover, the probation
officer also provides group counselling, family counselling, religious training, skill-oriented programmes, andmultiple services, combinations of services or treatments that involve several different approaches, such ascommunity service, life and occupational training, restorative justice processes, and compulsory treatment
programmes for drug addicts. Therefore, the probation officer is to exercise professional skill and knowledgeof local resources to meet the juvenile’s needs and, where necessary, provide the family members withfinancial assistance, employment, etc.
In addition, the DOP has operated a volunteer scheme for probationers which aims at providing greatercommunity involvement in the rehabilitation of offenders. Under this scheme, selected volunteers provide
probationers with personal and moral support and help juveniles develop meaningful hobbies and habits,
cultivate healthy pursuits, find jobs, and provide tuition for them. Besides, the community justice network
was implemented within certain communities around the country in 2004 with the DOP’s support andunder the policy of the Ministry of Justice. These networks will assist in persuading drug users to receive
voluntary treatment without the necessity of arresting them, and will also support the treatment andaftercare of drug addicts in the compulsory system. The networks will collaborate closely with the volunteer
probation officers in the aftercare and the follow-up of drug users within the community. If they perform
well, the networks’ responsibilities will be extended to other functions such as the prevention of crime,
community mediation, etc. (Kittayarak, 2003).
Regarding the success rate of the juvenile rehabilitation programmes of the DOP, 76 per cent of juveniles
are fully discharged from probation with no violations of conditions or rearrests. Less than 7 per centbecome recidivist offenders after release from probation supervision. For JOPD’s services, there is a study
indicating that juvenile delinquents who participated in group counselling showed a significantly greater
increase in self-concept than the juvenile delinquents who did not. (Kanchana, 1992). Additionally, theresults of a study found that juvenile delinquent recidivists had an average age of 17.1 years, graduated fromthe sixth grade and largely committed drug and narcotics offences. Environmental factors after release fromthe juvenile centres, such as associating with their peer groups, financial status and types of delinquency,
were significantly related to recidivism. However, factors of family relationship, residential location andtraining in Central Observation and Protection Centers had no relation to recidivism (Ruangchai, 2000).

135RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Both institutional and non-institutional rehabilitation organizations are faced with the same difficulties inproviding more effective intervention or treatments for serious, violent juveniles. The major difficulties arelegal measures which are not suitable for rehabilitation of juveniles in conflict with the law to reintegrate
into society (Suphunsa, 2004); lack of juvenile rehabilitation administration personnel such as counsellors,
psychologists, criminologists, or sociologists (which are not in proportion to the number of juveniles in
the criminal justice system); and lack of advanced skill for implementing special programmes focusing on
matters such as interpersonal skills, social interactional skills, aggression replacement training, etc.

V. CONCLUSION
Crime rates seem to parallel the growth of industrialization, urbanization, and globalization, especiallywhen the economy is unstable. Along with this growth, juvenile delinquency, especially serious, violent
juvenile delinquency, increases. In addition, more serious crimes are being committed by ever-younger
children. Therefore, effective treatments play an essential role in any strategy designed to diminish therates of juvenile delinquency. Currently, the Thai criminal justice system, including juvenile justice, is in theprocess of reorganization and performance redesign. Additionally, many innovations are being created andadopted; many national laws and practices dealing with juveniles are being raised to international standards
for the administration of juvenile justice and to break the cycle of youth crime. Nonetheless, reforming thecriminal justice system alone will never solve crime and the juvenile delinquent problem because, in one
way or another, crime is a symptom of social disorganization. As such, other social issues, especially the gap
between urban and rural living standards and disparities in income distribution, must be addressed by thegovernment.

136

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEPERTICIPANTS’ PAPERSREFERENCES
Bunnag, S. (2001). “Parents Blamed for Rise in Number of Young Criminals.” Thai Youth Issues inThailand . See: www.thailandlife.com/thaiyouth.html (9/5).
Central Juvenile and Family Court (1996). Guide to the Juvenile and Family Court and the Protection
Centre of Thailand . Bangkok: Grangrow Printing.
Chaisatien, A. (2003). “Bring Them Up Right.” Thai Youth Issues in Thailand .
www.thailandlife.com/thaiyouth.html (6/19).
Charoenpo, A. (2003). “Families Set to Have Rehab Role.” Bangkok Post (6/6). Pathumwan, Bangkok.
Futrakul,V. (2003). Fact Sheet on the Royal Thai Government Anti-Narcotic Drugs Policy . Ministry ofForeign Affairs of Thailand, (Narathip3/3).
Hanpanyapichit, S. and B. Somsin (2003). “Police on Holiday Youth Patrol” The Nation (5/8). Bang Na,
Bangkok: Nation Multimedia Group.
Kalyanasuta, K. (2002). “The criminal justice system and community-based treatment of offenders in
Thailand” Paper presented at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute For the Prevention of Crimeand the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI), Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan.
Kanchana Imsumranrach (1992). “Effects of group counseling on juvenile delinquents’ self-concept”.
Thesis (M.Ed.), Chulalongkorn University.
Kittayarak, K. (2003)). “Restorative Justice: The Thai Experience”. UNAFEI Resource Material Series
No.63. Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan.
Office of the Judiciary (2004). The Judiciary of Thailand . Retrieved 14 October 2004 from:http://www.judiciary.go.th/eng/engjud.htm
Na Mahachai, S. (2003, June 19). “Fighting: the first solution.” The Nation (6/19). Bang Na, Bangkok:
Nation Multimedia Group.
Prinya Lernguthai (2001). “Factors affecting the conforming of delinquent juveniles to the rules of theCentral Protection and Observation Center: a case study of Ban Karuna training school for boys” Thesis,
Chulalongkorn University.
Public Relations Department (2003). THAILAND: International Narcotics Control Strategy Report .
Bangkok: Office of the Prime Minister, Thailand.
Puttidej Bunkrapue (1999).“Factors relating to the incidence of violent crime among delinquent youth”
Thesis (M.A. (Sociology)), Chulalongkorn University.
Rojanaphruk, P. (2001, July 9). “Teenage methamphetamine users” The Nation (7/9). Bang Na, Bangkok:
Nation Multimedia Group.
Roujanavong, W. (2001). “Alternative Juvenile Justice: Innovative Approaches to Delinquent
Corrections”. Paper presented at the Ministry of Justice seminar, Bangkok.
Ruangchai Ruangpaisan, Pol. Capt. (2000). “Social factors affecting recidivism of juvenile delinquency:a case study of the central observation and protection center in Bangkok metropolis” Thesis (M.A.
(Sociology)), Chulalongkorn University.

137

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Suphunsa Somsee (2004). “Legal measures on rehabilitation of children in conflict with the law throughcommunity, offender and victim involvement”, Thesis (LL.M.), Chulalongkorn University, 2004.
Tulyawasipong. S (2002). More Children turn to Selling Drugs: Children’s Problems . Foundation for Child
Development: Bangkok.
Ukris, D. (2002). “Juvenile Justice System in Thailand.” UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 59 andAnnual Report for 2000. Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan.

138Selected Participants’ Papers on the Profiles and Effective
Treatment of Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders of JapanON APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENTS
OF SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN THE FAMILY COURT
Kazumi Watanabe*

I. INTRODUCTION
In Japan, many people are concerned about recent serious crimes committed by juveniles. They are,in particular, shocked that juveniles under the age of 14 years old commit serious offences. Furthermore,some juveniles do not exhibit any signs of criminal intent until just before the crime is committed. Anxiety
and embarrassment slowly spread through society because the public is unable to understand why juveniles
commit such serious offences.
In the Family Court, we have conducted detailed investigations from various viewpoints to find out
what has caused the crimes, and to make suitable judgments for juveniles. However, there is a lot we do
not yet understand about these juveniles’ psychological conditions, backgrounds, etc. In the Family Court,
appropriately assessing serious juvenile offenders has become an urgent problem.

II. THE ORGANIZATION AND THE FUNCTION OF THE FAMILY COURT
Before discussing the main subject, let us review the system of the Family Court in Japan.
The Family Court was established in 1949 with the concept of maintaining the welfare of families andseeking the sound upbringing of juveniles. It is a court specialized in dealing comprehensively with domestic
relations cases and juvenile delinquency cases, and it is a court of first instance. There are 50 head offices
throughout Japan with at least one in each prefecture. The Family Courts have 203 branches in total. In
addition, there are 77 local offices of the Family Court in towns throughtout Japan.
It goes without saying that the Family Court has a judicial function. In addition, the Family Court has
the following characteristics. First, it looks at juveniles through the lens of human science to solve theirproblems. Next, it can do casework when it is necessary. Finally, it has the function of providing welfare andeducation in the procedure of the Family Court. The Family Court probation officer is a professional uniqueto the Family Court to enforce these purposes.
As previously stated, the Family Court deals with domestic relations cases and juvenile cases. Typicalexamples of domestic relations cases are: guardianship of adults, permission to adopt a minor, requesting
maintenance for bringing up a child, designation of parental authority and alteration thereof, partition of
estate, marital relationship disputes, and divorce. Typical examples of juvenile delinquency cases are listed
as follows: theft, extortion, bodily injury, violation of Road Traffic Laws, etc.
Family Court probation officers conduct investigations into the facts of these cases and co-ordinate
human relationships for the proper disposition of cases of domestic relations, personal affairs, and juvenile
delinquency, and submit reports to the judge.
Family Court probation officers are specialists in the field of human sciences such as psychology,sociology, pedagogy, and social work, and are engaged in the scientific function of the Family Court byutilizing their technical knowledge and skills. However, the acquisition of such knowledge and skills is noteasy. They do this by taking a two-year training course at the Research and Training Institute for court
officers. The course also strengthens their practical capabilities. After the course, Family Court probation* Family Court Probation Officer, Tokyo Family Court.

139

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

officers will be able to handle cases by themselves.

III. THE SYSTEM OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY CASES IN JAPAN
Figure 1 shows the procedure of juvenile delinquency cases in Japan. The Family Court usually receives
juvenile delinquency cases by referral from police officers, public prosecutors, or the chiefs of a childguidance centre.
These cases may involve juveniles who are arrested, or those who are still at large. The arrested juvenile
delinquent is placed in a juvenile classification home and receives a mental and physical evaluation. The
standard maximum detention period is four weeks. Almost all juvenile offenders who commit serious crimes
will enter a juvenile classification home.
When the Family Court receives a juvenile delinquency case, a judge orders the Family Court probation
officers to investigate. This investigation is generally called a “social inquiry”.
The objective of the juvenile procedure is to uncover the facts of delinquency cases as well as todetermine the necessity for educative measures. The necessity for educative measures is directly related tothe possibility of recidivism. The main purpose of the investigation is to clarify the existence and degree ofrisk of recidivism.
Family Court probation officers investigate juveniles or any other people involved. They evaluate the riskof recidivism by utilizing their knowledge of related fields of human science. In addition, the Family Court
has psychiatrists on its staff and can receive advice from the technical standpoint if necessary.
Family Court probation officers conduct the investigation by summonsing juveniles, parents, school
teachers, or any other persons concerned to come to the Family Court. It also interviews the juvenile andmay use methods of psychological testing. Also, they may visit the juvenile’s home to observe his or her
environmental situation, or make inquiries to the juvenile’s school regarding their school life. They may also
investigate the situation of the victims.
Family Court probation officers examine the juvenile’s personality, habitual behaviour, personal history,
environment, etc. By these investigations, they assess the risk of recidivism from a medical, psychological,
and social viewpoint. In other words, they evaluate current developmental problems and developmental
stages of the juvenile. At the same time, they consider how strong an influence the environmental factor
has on juveniles. They then determine how it is related to the act of delinquency and evaluate the risk ofrecidivism. Finally, they submit reports regarding what kind of treatment the juvenile needs to the presiding
judge or judges.
Based on the investigation results, judges decide whether or not to hold hearings for the juveniles.
The final dispositions are as follows: 1) dismissal without hearing; 2) dismissal after hearing; 3) protective
measures; 4) referral to the chief of a child guidance centre; or 5) sending a case to a public prosecutor.
Protective measures are as follows: probationary supervision, commitment to a juvenile training school,commitment to a home for juvenile training, or to a home for dependent children.
Regarding serious juvenile offenders, the Juvenile Law was revised in 2000. According to the current law,when a juvenile intentionally takes the life of a victim, a judge should send the case to the public prosecutor.
The revised law takes into consideration the viewpoint of the victim and the protection of the public.
The Juvenile Law Article 20-2 says;

The Family Court should send the case of the juvenile, who takes a life of victim by an intentional actof crime, and who is over 16 years of age at the time of the offense, to the public prosecutor. However, theFamily Court can determine other measures if it recognizes that disposition except sending the case to
the prosecutor is suitable, by considering the motivation of the juvenile delinquency, the situation after thecrime, the character, age, behavior, environment and others, as a result of investigation.

140

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

In short, the Family Court aims for the realization of the ideal of “sound upbringing of juveniles” bymeasuring suitable depositions for juveniles. Family Court probation officers play an important role in thisprocedure. Of course, by the Juvenile Law, a serious juvenile offender who lets a victim die intentionallyshould to be subject to the same justice process as that applied to adult penal trials from the viewpoint ofvictims and those seeking social protection. However, even in serious cases, the rehabilitation of juvenile
offenders should not be made light of. Therefore the Family Court can determine protective measures ifthey are required. We can be certain that the appropriate disposition of the case is the most important objectof hearings in Japan.

IV. STATISTICS
A. Recent Trends of Serious Juvenile Offences
Graph 1 shows the change in the number of serious juvenile cases and of juvenile theft cases in Japanover the last 20 years. (In judicial statistics in Japan, serious offences mean the four offences of “murder,
robbery, rape and arson”.)
The number of serious juvenile offenders has remained steady over the past 20 or so years. The annual
percentage has also been steady at around 1% of the total number of juvenile penal cases since 1985. In
2006, 0.8% of cases were classified as serious. Even in 1997, when it is said that serious juvenile offences
increased rapidly in Japan, only 1.3% of cases fell into this category.
Graph 2 shows the rate of four serious offences committed by juveniles out of 1000 children between 10
and 20 years of age. Murder and arson cases remain steady at less than 0.05%. Likewise, the number of rapecases does not vary. The only change is in robbery cases. However, this is due to the increase in “robbery on
the road,” dating from 1997. Most road robbery are incidents of constructive robbery, where a victim is hurt
in a mugging by an assailant on a bicycle or a scooter. This number increases and decreases according to
the policy of arrest and prosecution. Therefore, by this graph alone, it does not follow that Japanese juvenile
delinquency has become more serious.
However, it is true that serious juvenile delinquency which has caused public concern has occurred
frequently in recent years. As a result, the Juvenile Act was revised in 2000. Therefore, we wonder ifjuvenile delinquency has really become more serious. It seems in part that the media has formed thatimage. But it is a fact that there have been several cases which a child who has previously been regarded as“obedient and good” at home and school suddenly displays cruel and brutal behaviour. These cases were notseen in the past, so why are they happening now? Later, I shall try to give an account of the characteristics
of recent serious juvenile offenders.

B. Judgments on Serious Juvenile Delinquent Offenders
Next, let us now look at judgments in serious juvenile delinquency cases in Japan. Graph 3 shows thepercentages of judgments reached on serious juvenile delinquents in 2006, 1996, and 1986. For comparison,
Graph 4 shows the percentages of judgments rendered in theft juvenile cases. The results are as follows:••

Judgments in theft cases haven’t changed over the last 20 years.
In contrast, for serious juvenile cases, the percentage of cases resulting in custodial treatment has
risen.

Note: The reason for this is that, in regard to robbery, cases sent to a public prosecutor have greatly
increased. (It seems that the increase has resulted from the revision of the Juvenile Law in 2000.)

V. CHARACTERISTICS OF SERIOUS JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Recently, several adequate practical and pragmatic research studies have been made by the Family Court
to deepen understanding of these cases. We’re concerned with the characteristics identified by the research.

A. Characteristics of Personality and Behaviour
1. High Impulsivity
Serious juvenile offenders tend to grasp situations at a level of pleasure or pain and cannot express their141

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

feelings using appropriate vocabulary. As a result, juveniles are compelled by their immediate emotions
and act impulsively. Juveniles only feel irritated without knowing the reason why. Therefore, they are apt
to commit offences impulsively. The main reason for this problem is the lack of a process of development
by which other children with a healthy parental relationship develop skills to express their feelings
appropriately.
2. Cognitive Distortion
Serious juvenile offenders tend to avoid, repress and deny events which are unpleasant for them. Since
juveniles cannot objectively grasp the relationship between themselves and those around them, they tend
to cling to their own beliefs and have excessive feelings of being unnecessarily persecuted. This distorted
view leads to inappropriate reactions which contribute to them committing an offence. Moreover, this trend
is stronger in groups than in individuals.
3. Bad Self-image
Many serious juvenile offenders have a bad self-image. Because they believe that those around them may
attack them, they become defensive. Their self-esteem is strongly affected by minor triggers. As a result,they become emotionally confused and commit offences.
One of the reasons for this problem is that many juveniles grow up without interacting well with others.
Here is a typical example: a juvenile was physically abused, neglected and rarely praised. For the juvenile,
his or her home was not a secure base psychologically or physically. In such terrible circumstances ajuvenile cannot learn to rely on him or herself.
Juveniles who committed offences in a group display this tendency strongly. Because juveniles
strengthen ties with friends of similar circumstances and become dependent on each other, they cannot stopthemselves from escalating the offences they commit for fear that they will be excluded from the group.
Some juveniles immerse themselves in fantasies such as TV games to avoid hurting their self-esteem.
Because these juveniles have fewer relationships with those around them, there are big gaps between theirself-images and societal reality. Subsequently, the juveniles are sensitive, and their sensitive self-esteem iseasily affected by small things.
4. Insufficient Interpersonal Skills
It is extremely difficult to form and to keep good relationships for both juveniles who commit offences
alone, and for those who commit offences with a group. Therefore, their circle of acquaintances is very
limited. Since they are extremely cautious and cannot believe others, they avoid forming new relationships,
and their feelings of isolation deepen.
In contrast, some juveniles seem to be adjusted to society and live their lives peacefully. For suchjuveniles, the evaluations from people around them are good. However, in reality, they superficially makethemselves agreeable to everybody in order that they are not excluded by their friends. It is, as it were, anover-adjustment. These relationships with friends are not mentally stable. Consequently, when the juveniles
can no longer endure these painful situations, their emotions burst, resulting in the committing of offences.
Since both types of juveniles are strained by human relationships, they do not develop their interpersonal
skills.
5. Social Restriction by Developmental Disorders and Mild Mental Retardation
Many juveniles who commit serious offences alone have some developmental disorders such as
Pervasive Developmental Disorders, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorders or mild mental retardations.
The backgrounds of juveniles who commit offences are as follows:
•
•
•

142

The juveniles have extreme cognitive distortion, and thus they cannot deal in appropriate ways with
events which occur in daily life.
The juveniles have fixations with specific things. Therefore they cultivate odd behaviours.
Since the juveniles cannot form healthy relationships, they cannot adjust to group environments.

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

Because of these characteristics, such juveniles are susceptible to causing trouble at school and at home.
However, most of them do not receive appropriate support, and thus they are in a vicious spiral; the moretrouble they cause, the worse their adjustments to society. Of course, the existence of these disorders does
not directly connect with offences. But, if these juveniles are adversely affected by their social environment,in addition to disorders, they more easily become unstable and commit offences.

B. Characteristics of Circumstances Surrounding Serious Juvenile Offenders
1. Characteristics of Family Relationships
Almost all juvenile offenders’ families are dysfunctional. These families can be described as follows.
(i) Families in which Problems are Evident(a) Families with a violent daily life
This type of parent uses violence to discipline children, and such violence also exists between theparents. Furthermore, these juveniles may also experience multiple changes of environment, such as theirparents’ divorce, or moving house because of neighbourhood troubles, etc. Such changes have serious
effects. Their home is not a secure base for them.
(b) Families in which the parents neglect the children
Some parents do not have the mental or economic resources to take care of their children. In this typeof family, the parents are not conscious of the juveniles’ problems, or they ignore them though they areconscious of them. The parents repeat temporary solutions, such as scolding or corporal punishment. This
cycle only aggravates the juveniles’ problems.
(c) Families in which parents cannot raise children because of their own mental disorders
This type of family is one where the parents have some mental disorder such as depression, personality
disorder or alcoholism. The parents’ mental states affect the juveniles, and thus the juveniles are susceptible
to instability. In addition, the parents are dependent on their children in many cases.

(ii) Families in which Problems are not Evident(a) Families with less emotional interaction
This type of family ostensibly looks like a usual family. Though both parents are in the home and thereis plenty of money, the family lacks warm communications. The reason is that parents do not express their
feelings enough, or that there is underlying family animosity, and so on. As a result, the juveniles in thesefamilies cannot express their real intentions and feelings, increasing their discontent.
(b) Families in which parents have excessive expectations of their children
In this type of family, parents overestimate the juveniles, demand of them to be “an ideal child” andintend to look at only the good side of them. The juveniles continue to pretend to be “a good child” for as
long as possible without showing their true nature to their parents. But this burden is too heavy to be borne
for long. The juveniles cannot live up to their parents’ expectations, which causes them to commit offences.
2. Characteristics of School and Friends(i) Changes of School Atmosphere and Relationships with Teachers
Though juveniles’ families may have serious problems, school (especially an elementary school) cansometimes become a strong social resource. While teachers can support these juveniles in appropriate ways,
juveniles do not cause excessive problems. However, juveniles lose support when teachers are transferred,
and the juveniles can become mentally unstable. Upon entering a junior high school in particular, theprofessional distance between juveniles and teachers changes greatly and study quickly becomes moredifficult. Although these changes press juveniles to adapt, many of the troubled ones cannot cope with thechanges.

(ii) Bullying
Many juveniles have experienced bullying which greatly damaged their self-esteem. There are two typesof juvenile offenders who commit offences alone: the first type is a juvenile who directly attacks the person
who bullies them; the second type is a juvenile who vents his or her aggression on his or her family and on
the weak instead of directing an attack at the perpetrator of the bullying.

143

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78(iii) Association with Delinquent Peers
Juveniles who are not comfortable in their homes strengthen ties with friends under similar circumstancesand form associations with delinquent peers. In the groups, ranking is born by physical strength, build,
intelligence and so on. These juveniles tend to attack the weaker members of the group. Furthermore,group dynamics often work as follows:••

As the juveniles deny their own inferior feeling, they try to satisfy their need to dominate withviolence.
The juveniles who are influenced by their peers and want to prove their fearlessness tend to act inconcert with groups.

As a result, the juveniles cannot stop themselves from escalating their offences.
3. Social Changes(a) Compared with the past, neighbours are indifferent to each other, and there are fewer stablecommunities. Therefore juveniles and their families who need some support tend to remain
unaided. The function of oral traditions regarding childcare or culture has shifted from the family andcommunity to some institutions.
(b) It has become much easier for juveniles to acquire things without their parents’ knowledge, atconvenience stores or volume sales stores. In addition, most people have a wide variety of goods,
and people tend to consume more in order to differentiate themselves slightly from those aroundthem.
(c) Juveniles are greatly influenced by the media, which has not yet been proved to have direct causality
with crime. To take an example, many juveniles who have committed murder learn something about
their offences from TV programmes or DVDs. Almost all juveniles play video games and watch
DVDs daily. Some of them have interest in horror movies and video games with violent or disturbing
contents, and they cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. The juveniles are exposed to a great dealof distorted information which is beyond the imagination of most adults.
In this chapter, we considered the characteristics of serious juvenile offenders from both aspects;
individual factors such as personality and behaviour, and environmental factors such as family, school andsociety. The important point to note is that there is not only one factor directly connected with serious
juvenile delinquency, but that various interacting factors drive juveniles to commit serious offences.

VI. PROGRESSION TO SERIOUS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
Let us now consider how the characteristics mentioned above influence juvenile delinquency. Figure 2
shows the typical progression to serious juvenile delinquency. This schematic diagram appeared in practicaland pragmatic research, based on case studies concerning serious juvenile offenders under 14 years old in
the Family Court. However, this idea can be applied to juveniles over 14 years old.
First, let us start with the family. Juvenile offenders interact inappropriately with other family members,
for example, some face domestic violence, neglect, little emotional interaction and their parents’ own
problems. These juveniles’ emotions have not developed sufficiently by the time they reach puberty. The
juveniles cannot deal with negative feelings on their own. Therefore they tend to have poor emotional
control, act impulsively, and also deny their own feelings. As the juveniles grow up, their problems getworse. If the juveniles have developmental disorders or mental retardation, their personality and behaviour
become more distorted than their peers who do not have these problems. Their personality and behaviour
are also greatly influenced by the atmosphere of the community to which they belong, or by the amount of
support they receive from public institutions.
Puberty is a critical phase when juveniles change physically and psychologically. Rapid bodily
developments shake their self-image. These changes press parents to deal with juveniles’ problems and toreconstruct family relations. Juveniles experience a conflict between independence and dependence at thisdevelopmental stage. The conflict between dependence and independence becomes very strong between

144

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

parents and juveniles, and thus parent-child relationships become unstable. In addition, juveniles need toadjust to new environments in this stage.
Therefore juveniles and the environments surrounding them are susceptible to instability. Juveniles
are worried and stressed, they cannot solve their problems without consulting anyone, and thus they
feel depressed. Some of them cause many small problems frequently but do not ask for assistance. If thepeople around them do not deal with the problems, the juveniles’ depressive emotions intensify, and they
are consumed by stress and discontent. At that time, juveniles tend to feel that minor issues which they
have experienced previously have increased and become very unpleasant. These stimulations become atrigger. This trigger rapidly increases their accumulated discontent, anxiety and pent-up feelings. Moreoverjuveniles believe that this trigger is the cause of their discontent and stress. As a result, juveniles violently
attack the target, and crimes occur. To use an analogy, a balloon which has been over-inflated is grazed by aneedle.
As we have now seen, there is certainly a process by which juveniles accumulate stress or discontent
through the interaction of various factors until serious cases of juvenile delinquency occur. We need to follow
carefully the progression of juvenile delinquency, and we need to understand why juveniles commit offences.

VII. CASE STUDY
The following is a case which I have handled in the past. I introduce it to you hoping to make more
specific the characteristics and process mentioned above.

A. Outline of the Facts
The public prosecutor sent this case to the Family Court as a bodily injury case, but it was actually an
attempted murder case. This juvenile was a 14-year-old boy, in the third year of junior high school. He lived
in very small two room apartment with his mother. He felt a strong pressure to pretend to be an “honest andserious type of man”, which was for a long time considered to be his true character by his classmates andteachers at both his school and cram school. One day he had a trifling misunderstanding with his only friend.
It made him feel sick and tired of his whole life and everything in it. He thought that he did not have any way
to be free except by killing his mother. In the night he prepared a long fluorescent light and a kitchen knife.
He hit his sleeping mother with the fluorescent light, and stabbed her with the knife, but she struggled andhe could not kill her. Later he said: “if I could kill my mother, I would dismember her body and throw thepieces into the river near my apartment, like some scene that I saw in a TV drama before.”
B. This Juvenile’s Personality and Behaviour
This juvenile had no criminal record. His IQ was 87(WISC-III). According to the physical andpsychological examination, he was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, not otherwise
specified. He has a deep attachment to the “Romance of Three Kingdoms (Sangoku-shi )” which is one of
the most famous Chinese classics, and reads very many related books. He remembers all the details of thecharacters, especially those from a video game based on the “Romance of Three Kingdoms (Sangoku-shi )”.
This juvenile’s ideation is self-centered and lacked objectivity. He is too sensitive to anything that others
say and do against him. He tends to regard every trifling stimulus from those around him as persecution. He
becomes increasingly discontented without conveying his feeling to others. Since he believes that he is very
poor at human relations, he retracts into his own shell and indulges in a kind of childish delusion that he isalmighty. Therefore he is alienated from those around him, but he actually wants to be accepted by others.
At the time of his interview, he pleaded with me to understand his pain.

C. The Family
His family consisted of him and his mother. He did not have his own private room in the apartment. Hisparents divorced when he was in the second year of elementary school. The main reason for the divorce wasthat his father was unfaithful to his mother and that he frequently changed his job. According to his mother,during some periods his father had stayed indoors at home for whole days at a time. This means that there
might be some possibility that his father had some kind of mental disorder. The juvenile sometimes met
his father at his father’s request, but reluctantly. When he was in elementary school, he and his mother had

145

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

a very close relationship. During elementary school, he was always with his mother at home after school.
However, he kept away from his mother after he entered junior high school and she began to tell him to
study hard. In addition, since the juvenile entered the second grade of junior high school, his mother had
been associating with a man who already had a wife and children.

D. School and Friends
The juvenile did not speak at all at school. He was bullied at elementary school by some classmates. At
junior high school, he spoke only to a male classmate who had the same unsocial tendencies. He mixed up
this friend with a famous sexy female TV star and projected her onto him sometimes. He even had a kindof loving feeling for this friend. He hated studying and was doing poorly at school, but he did not refuse toattend.
E. Educative Measures
The judgment was to send this juvenile to a juvenile training school for one and a half years. He was sent
to a training school which specializes in treating juvenile offenders who have developmental and emotional
disorders.
F. Additional Considerations
Because this juvenile had a developmental disorder, it was very difficult for him to react appropriately indaily life. He often did unexpected and startling things at school, so his classmates bullied him. Therefore hedid not speak at school. He had tried to form fewer human relationships, in order to avoid hurting his selfesteem. He was withdrew into himself and never opened his mind to anybody. He did not have any chance
to develop the skills to express his emotions with suitable words and behaviour, nor did he have any chance
to correct his cognitive distortion. However, the parent-child relationship was very close and his home was asecure base for him in his elementary school years.
As mentioned above, however, after he entered junior high school, his environment suddenly changed.
His schoolwork rapidly became more difficult and his mother told him to study hard. In addition, his motherbegan to associate with a man. He wondered if she would choose this new man over him. His anxiety about
being deserted increased and his home was not a secure base for him any longer. However, he was not awareof his anxiety and discontent and did not know how to express his feelings appropriately. He felt increasingly
isolated and frustrated. Developmentally, he was approaching puberty, thus he was liable to be unstable.
Under such circumstances, he had a trifling misunderstanding with his only friend, and this issue was thetrigger. He was cornered mentally and selected his mother as his target because she was the only the
person to whom he could express his emotional dependence.

VIII. CONCLUSION
The objective of the Family Court is the accurate assessment of serious juvenile offenders, appropriate
judgment suitable for each juvenile, and classification of the treatment programme. In order to realize theobjectives, it is necessary for the Family Court to tackle the following points.

A. Accumulation and Sharing of Case Studies
Research regarding serious juvenile offenders has just started. At present, Family Court probation
officers depend heavily on their past experience in their work. If the Family Court cannot provide
continuous accurate assessments, it cannot make appropriate judgments. The Family Court needs to gain
experience in dealing with serious juvenile cases, to advance practical and pragmatic research on both risk
factors and protective factors, and to share the knowledge gained in doing so.
B. Improvement of Interview Skills and Enrichment of Training
We often encounter difficulty in interviewing serious juvenile offenders, because they are poor at
expressing their feelings verbally and have developmental disorders or mental retardation. It is importantfor each Family Court probation officer to improve his or her interview skills in order to carry out accurate
assessments. In addition, the Family Court should have a more integrated training system.
C. Co-operation with Institutions Concerned
I think that one of the Family Court’s important roles is to smoothly connect juveniles and the146139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

institutions which can help them. In order to fulfill that role, co-operation with those institutions is
indispensable.
In order to indicate the point of the treatment programme, Family Court probation officers must be very
knowledgeable about what treatments are available at each institution. In addition, it is very useful for the
Family Court to know not only the contents of treatments, but the effect of the treatments.
Furthermore, the Family Court needs to co-operate not only with institutions for correctional education,
but also with other institutions such as hospitals or educational counselling centres, etc. Juveniles who
have obvious problems (e.g. developmental disorders, mental retardation) are sometimes sent to the Family
Court for minor delinquency before committing serious offences, but most of these juveniles and theirfamilies do not receive appropriate support. From the viewpoint of the prevention of offences, we need toconnect these juveniles with the institutions suitable for them.
Finally, society’s views of serious juvenile offenders have gradually hardened over the years. Everytime serious juvenile delinquency is reported in the media, there is a public appeal for more severe
punishment of juveniles. Considering this issue from the viewpoint of the victim, that opinion may standto reason. However, it is obvious that the more serious a juvenile delinquent case is, the bigger and deeper
the problems the juvenile has. I think that it is the duty of society to re-educate them before they reachadulthood. But I do feel it is a serious problem for the Family Court to keep a balance between both sides,
namely, the rehabilitation of delinquent juveniles and victims, in making judgments, and thus I have notreached any solid conclusion myself.

147

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Graph 1: Comparison of the number of juvenile theft cases and serious cases
160,000
140,000

Theft cases
Serious cases

120,000
100,000
80,00060,00040,00020,000
0
5

198

7

198

9

198

1

199

3

199

5

199

7

199

9

199

1

200

3

200

5

200

Graph 2: Comparison of four types of serious juvenile cases
0.25
murdercases
robbery
cases

0.20

rape
cases
arson
cases

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

148

1973

1976

1979

1982

1985

1988

1991

1994

1997

2000

2003

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

Graph 3: Percentage of various judgments in serious juvenile cases in Japan
Sending a case toa public prosecutor

1986 5%27%

Committing ajuvenile to aJuvenile Training
School67%

Others1996 4%

2006

30%

9%

0%

67%

47%

20%

44%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Graph 4: Percentage of various judgments in theft cases in Japan

1986

1.8%

Sending acase to a
public prosecutor

98.0%

Committing
a juvenile toa Juvenile
Training
School

1996

1.7%

2006

4.7%

0%

Others

98.2%

94.6%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

149

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Figure 1: Procedure of Juvenile Proceeding
Family Court
Judicial
policeofficerJuvenile
offenderPredeliquency

PublicProsecutor

Child
Guidance
CentreJuveneile
under 14years of age
alleged tohave violated
any criminal
law orordinance

Dismissal
without
hearing

Protective measures

Probation
supervision

Investigation
Order toproceed tohearing

Other

Sending a caseto Public
Prosecutor

Child
education andtraining
Juvenile
Training
SchoolJuvenile
Classification
Home

Sending a caseto Chief ofChild
Guidance
Dismissal
after hearing

Figure 2: Typical progression to serious juvenile deliquency

Family• Attitude of a person whobrings up a child• Emotional interaction• Violation• Mental states of the person
who brings up the child• Dealing with a juvenile’s troubles• Co-operation with institutions
concerned• Stress from environment• How to relieve stress• Emotional development• Emotional development• Minor troubles• Quality and quantity offriends• Bullying• Environmental
change by moving
and entering a newschool• School’s reaction toa juvenile's problem

Environment• Community atmosphere• Support from institution
concerned

150• Pent-up feelings• Isolated and unaided feeling• Control of impluse

o
v
e
r

• A developmental disorder• An intellectual problem

Juvenile

C
h
a
n
g
e

Change of environment;
moving, entering a newschool, etc.

Present stateand change ofself-evaluation• Increase inpent-up feelings• Increase inisolated feelings• Onset ofpuberty• Frequent small
problems• Changing friends

P
e
r
i
o
d

T
r
i
g
g
e
r

A serious
juvenile
offenceoccurs!

• Purpose ofaggression• Target ofaggression• Way ofaggression

Sources: Practical research regarding
serious juvenile offenders under 14 years old
by the Research andTraining Institute for
Court Officers (2005)

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

ASSESSMENT OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS AT JUVENILE
CLASSIFICATION HOMES IN JAPANMasaru Takahashi*

I. INTRODUCTION
This paper summarizes the current situation of assessment and classification systems for juvenile
delinquents in juvenile classification homes in Japan and presents some ideas to improve and enhance thequality of assessment. The paper consists of four parts, (1) an outline of juvenile correctional institutionsin Japan; (2) the basic framework of classification at juvenile classification homes; (3) problems of current
assessment systems and development of risk assessment tools; (4) challenges in designing and introducing
risk assessment tools.

II. OUTLINE OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS IN JAPANIn Japan, juvenile correctional institutions are composed of juvenile training schools and juvenileclassification homes. There are 104 juvenile correctional institutions (52 juvenile classification schools and
52 juvenile training homes) in Japan as of April 2008.

A. Juvenile Classification Homes
A juvenile classification home is mainly designed to admit juveniles who have been the subject of aprotective remand decision by the Family Court and to conduct assessments on their physical and mental
problems, and criminal predispositions, based on the expertise of personnel in in medicine, psychiatry,
psychology, sociology, and other academic fields, for a Family Court hearing. Juvenile offenders who
committed serious and violent offences or who need immediate protective interventions because of theirdeteriorated family or social environments usually enter juvenile classification homes.
Each home has a general affairs section and a classification section. A classification section consists ofofficers in charge of classification and protective detention. Juvenile classification homes are relatively small
and 33 out of 52 have less than 20 staff officials.
The number of juveniles newly admitted to juvenile classification homes has been on the decrease inrecent years, as shown in Figure 1 of the Appendix.

B. Juvenile Training Schools
A juvenile training school accommodates juveniles subject to a Family Court adjudication to becommitted there as a protective measure in order to give them correctional education programmes. There
are four types of juvenile training schools (primary, middle, special, medical) categorized by ages, levelsof criminal tendency, and physical and mental conditions of juveniles. Males and females are detained
separately, except in medical juvenile training schools. The types of schools are decided by Family Court
hearings.
Juveniles committed to juvenile training schools may be detained legally, in principle, until they reachthe age of twenty. Within this legal detention term, there are three types of treatment programmes which
are designed to be conducted in different administrative terms: general short-term programmes (maximum
term of detention is six months); special short-term programmes (maximum term of detention is fourmonths); and long-term programmes (maximum term of detention is two years).
* Classification Department, Chiba Juvenile Classification Home, Japan.

151

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

In the following chapters, I would like to introduce how classification homes tackle the assessment ofserious and violent juvenile delinquents and how they plan to find a solution to the problems they encounterin their work.

III. BASIC FRAMEWORK OF CLASSIFICATION AT JUVENILE CLASSIFICATION HOMES
Under the Amended Juvenile Law, a Family Court can remand a juvenile into protective detention for
two weeks. The term can be extended by a period of two weeks, and this is generally sufficient for theclassification of the juvenile to be completed. However, the Amended Juvenile Law also allows for two
further extensions, to a total maximum term of eight weeks. This generally only occurs in cases of serious
and violent crimes. Classification and assessment have to be completed within this timeframe.
Figure 2 illustrates the regular flow of assessment at juvenile classification homes.

A. Interview for Classification
Individual interview sessions are usually conducted in a bright and peaceful atmosphere to allay the fear
and anxiety of the subject juveniles. The interview aims to find out what the juveniles feel and how they
respond to their environment, such as their families, friends, schools, and workplaces.
B. Psychological Tests
Group psychological tests are conducted on juveniles within a few days of their entry to a juvenileclassification home, aiming to comprehensively understand their intelligence, personality, and attitudes. If
more detailed investigation is needed for juveniles’ attributes, individual psychological tests are conducted
separately. The following are psychological tests usually conducted in juvenile classification homes:
1. Psychological Tests Conducted in a Group- New Tanaka Intelligence Test B- Ministry of Justice Personality Inventory (MJPI)- Ministry of Justice Sentence Completion Test (MJSCT)- Ministry of Justice Attitude Test (MJAT)- Ministry of Justice Driver Attitude Test (MJDAT)
2. Psychological Tests Conducted Individually According to Need
- Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS - III)- Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC - III)- Rorschach Test
- Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)- Baum Test
- House-Tree-Person Test (HTP)- Tokyo University Egogram- Szondi Test
- CRT Driver Aptitude Test

C. Behavioural Observation
In juvenile classification homes, juveniles’ behaviour and attitudes towards tasks such as essay
assignments, drawings, paper crafts, group discussion, writing remarks on books or film programmes, etc.,
are closely observed in order to understand their characteristics and behavioural problems, and to clarify
their distinctive lifestyles and interpersonal relationships concretely and objectively.
D. Medical Diagnosis
Health checkups are conducted when juveniles enter juvenile classification homes. If a juvenile is foundto be suffering from an injury or illness, he or she will be treated by a medical doctor. Juveniles suspected ofhaving a mental disorder will undergo examination and diagnosis by a psychiatrist.
E. Classification and Assessment Report
Finally, the classification and assessment report is developed and submitted to the Family Court. This
includes the treatment recommendation which is based on the analysis of the personal information collected152

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

through the methods mentioned above and determines the types of protective measures necessary. The
report is recorded and sent to a Family Court as a supporting document for the hearing. Usually one
psychologist is assigned to develop the report; however, in difficult cases, such as serious and violent
juvenile offences, several psychologists will jointly work on collecting and analysing information anddeveloping reports.
The judge determines the protective measures to be taken for the juvenile based on the results ofthe social inquiry report prepared by Family Court probation officers, the classification and assessment
report, and hearing procedures. These measures include placing juveniles under probationary supervision,commitment to a juvenile training school, and commitment to a support facility for the development of theself-sustaining capacity of children. When the judge considers it unnecessary to take protective measures,the case is dismissed after giving an admonition to the juvenile. If protective measures are ruled necessary,
the results of hearing are sent to the organizations in charge of treatment, such as juvenile training schoolsor probation offices.

IV. PROBLEMS OF CURRENT ASSESSMENT SYSTEMS AND DEVELOPMENT OFACTUARIAL RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS
A. Present Situation and Issues of Classification
The main purpose of classification systems is to analyse the offending behaviours and to support the
Family Court in understanding the risks of reoffending and the protection needs of juveniles in order tomake proper protective treatment orders. The classification report is also used to make an appropriate
intervention plan at treatment institutions (such as juvenile training schools) and community-based
treatment agencies.
The current classification system for juvenile offenders in Japan functions well on the whole, but there
are some problems to be solved to improve and enhance the quality of assessment.
1. Reliability and Validity of the Classification Report
In the current classification system, officers in charge (psychologists) have considerable autonomy
in how they assess juvenile offenders and what to recommend in the classification report. Although thesupervisors check the results of assessment and classification, the quality of the assessments depend upon
the skills and knowledge of each psychologist. We have training programmes and manuals specificallytailored for psychologists in charge of juvenile cases which focus on the methods of clinical interview,
psychological testing, and behavioural observation. However, there are many discrepancies among
psychologists in terms of professional skills and knowledge. Moreover, there is no comprehensive andstandardized assessment inventory for measuring the risk of reoffending based on empirical research.
As described above, the aim of the classification report is to assist the court in determining the mostappropriate treatment method. So, we need more consistent and validated approaches to measure the risks
and needs of juveniles.
2. Planning and Evaluation of Treatment Programmes
There is limited empirical research on the recidivism of juvenile offenders in Japan, and also limited
research on the evaluation of the effectiveness of treatment programmes practiced in juvenile training
schools and in probation offices. It is difficult for practitioners to measure objectively changes of risk factors
which are composed of attitudes, cognitions, and behaviours related to reoffending, because as mentioned
above, there is no standardized assessment inventory designed for juvenile offenders which measures risks.
The introduction of a standard assessment instrument which evaluates offending-related risk and need
would enhance the planning of intervention, the evaluation of the effectiveness of institutional and noninstitutional correctional treatment, and the collaboration of multiple agencies.

B. Overview of Risk Assessment Tools
During the past 20 years, there have been significant developments in the area of offender assessment.
The introduction of actuarial risk assessment tools helps practitioners to evaluate the risk of recidivism
and to plan appropriate intervention programmes. Much evidence-based research has shown that actuarialassessments of risk are significantly superior to clinical assessments.
153

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Representative actuarial risk assessment tools which are used in practice in Western countries are as follows:
1. Violent Offenders- VRAG (Violence Risk Appraisal Guide)- HCR-20 (Historical Clinical Risk Management-20)
2. Sex Offenders- ERASOR (Estimate of Risk of Adolescent Sexual Offense Recidivism)- Static-99- MnSOST-R (Minnesota Sex Offender Screening Tool-Revised)- VASOR (Vermont Assessment of Sexual Offender Risk)- SORAG (Sex Offender Risk Appraisal Guide)
3. Juvenile Offenders- YLS-CMI (Youth Level of Service / Case Management Inventory)- ASSET
Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2006) described the development process of risk assessment tools. The
first generation consisted mainly of unstructured professional judgments of the probability of offending
behaviour. A variation of this approach is now called “structured clinical judgments”. Second-generationassessments were empirically based risk instruments but were atheoretical and consisted mostly ofstatic items. Third-generation assessments were also empirically based but included a wider sampling ofdynamic risk items, or criminogenic needs, and tended to be theoretically informed. The fourth-generationassessments guide and follow service and supervision from intake through case closure. With post-closure
follow-up, outcome may be linked with intake assessments of risk, strengths, need, and responsivity; withreassessments; and with service plans, service delivery, and intermediate outcomes. The point is not
only the development of management information systems but also the development of human service
assessment and treatment systems. A major goal of the fourth generation instruments is to strengthen
adherence to the principles of effective treatment and to facilitate clinical supervision devoted to enhancing
public protection from recidivism. Examples of the fourth generation instruments include the Offender
Intake Assessment (OIA) of the Correctional Service of Canada and the Level of Service/Case Management
Inventory (LS/CMI).

C. Present Situation of Design and Development of Risk Assessment Tools in the Japanese Criminal
Justice System
In our country, an actuarial risk assessment tool called ‘RAT’ (based on Static-99) was introduced toassess adult sex offenders in 2007, but unfortunately, there is not yet any such tool for juvenile delinquents.
The Juvenile Correction Division of the Correction Bureau of the Ministry of Justice, which is in charge ofthe administration of juvenile classification homes and juvenile training schools, is now planning to develop arisk assessment tool for use with juvenile offenders aged 14-19.
It is intended to provide a common framework for assessment. Also it is designed to be different
from tools used with adults in order to reflect the particular risks and needs of juvenile offenders. The
introduction of such a tool is expected to improve the quality of practice in assessment and planning.
The draft form was designed and influenced by two primary sources: the review of literature relating torisk factors for juveniles and the professional opinions of correctional officers. This trial version of the risk
assessment tool has 11 main sections as follows:- Family relationship (22 items)- Employment (9 items) or Education (9 items)- Leisure/Lifestyle (3 items)- Companions (5 items)- Criminal history and characteristics of current offence (19 items)- Substance misuse (10 items)- Mental problems (3 items)- Cognition of self and others (6 items)- Antisocial personality patterns (11 items)

154

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers- Antisocial attitudes and beliefs (10 items)- Motivation to change (4 items)
Assessors are required to rate each item above on a scale of 0-3. Each item has an objective rating,sources of information, terms of rating, criteria of rating, and examples of rating.
This tool includes some static factors (e.g. criminal history) but focuses on dynamic factors as to measurechanges over time. Of course, some of the most significant actuarial information is static, including age,gender and criminal history, and they are very important in terms of risk classification, as they can provide
the most accurate predictions of likelihood of reconviction. However they gives less help in planninginterventions because static risk factors cannot be changed.
This trial tool is not intended to predict specific recidivism such as serious and violent offences, but
if juvenile offenders who are most likely to continue to offend could be identified at the earlier stages of
their development, we could take steps to prevent further offending. It is not yet decided when and how to
introduce this tool into practice at a national level; a pilot study began in March of 2008.

V. POSSIBLE PRACTICAL PROBLEMS IN THE DESIGN AND INTRODUCTION OF
RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS
Several practical problems are expected in implementing the risk assessment tool.

A. How to Merge the Results Obtained from Tools with the Classification Reports
Risk assessment tools are sometimes viewed by practitioners as an isolated piece of work and are
not closely linked into practice such as classification report writing. Therefore, before introducing the
instrument, it is necessary to establish systems which integrate the results of the instrument into
comprehensive assessment procedures, especially the development of the classification report. In sum, it
is necessary to introduce a tool to help practitioners to complete the accurate and practical classification
report. If the results of the instrument cannot be integrated into inclusive assessments, they will only
burden practitioners with extra work. Although actuarial risk assessment tools have their disadvantages, if
properly used, they would serve as integrating theory, practice, and research in the area of juvenile offenderassessment and treatment. In this regard, it is essential to explain the merits and values of instruments for
improving practice to officers who work in the juvenile criminal justice system.
B. Professional Discretion and Risk Assessment Tools
Baker (2002) pointed out that the introduction of Asset as a common assessment tool for Englandand Wales had sometimes been viewed as part of a “managerialist” agenda which replaced professional
discretion with an uncritical routinized approach to practice. Andrews and Bonta (2003) stated that “we must
be careful that professional overrides are not used in a haphazard and irrational manner and that they do not
become the preferred choice for making predictions.”
As mentioned previously, classification officers in our system have considerable autonomy in how
they assess juvenile offenders, and in what they decide to recommend in classification reports. Like theintroduction of any novel approach, staff resistance may lead to the undermining of the efficacy of the risk
assessment tools. Of course, there is room and need for professional judgment, but we should consider
and define what “professional discretion” is and how and when professional judgment is allowed in a wholeassessment process.

C. Lack of a Comprehensive Computerized Case Management Database
In Japan, all matters regarding corrections, including the management of correctional institutions,is under administrative control of the Correction Bureau of the Ministry of Justice. Unlike some othercountries where a correctional agency manages both the custodial institutions and community treatments,
the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice has control over community-based treatment ofoffenders in Japan. Each Bureau maintains a separate database; they are not linked to each other. One of theadvantages of using risk assessment tools is that data could be collected in a standard way in large numbers
across the country. So, it is essential to build a comprehensive computerized case file management systemthat gathers, stores, and retrieves information through institutional and community-based treatment.
155

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Figure 1: Trends in the number of inmates in juvenile classification homes (1998-2007)

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

0
1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Year

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Total

19,421 20,382 22,525 22,978 22,767 23,063 21,031 19,628 18,166 15,800

Source: Annual Report of Statistics on Correction

156

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

Figure 2: Flow of classification in juvenile classification homes
Admission

Orientation Interview
Physicalcheckup

Initial interview for classification

Gathering of
information from

MedicalGroup psychological test

schools, family, etc.

examination anddiagnosis
Framing of classification plan
Behaviour
PsychiatricObservation
Further interview for classification

examination anddiagnosis
Individual psychological test

Classification meeting

Formulating classification report
before hearing

Formulating guidelines
for treatment(in case of

Hearingcommitment tojuvenile training
school)Discharge

157

EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMMESFOR SERIOUS AND VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERSMayu Hayashi*

I. HARUNA JUVENILE TRAINING SCHOOL FOR GIRLS
Haruna Juvenile Training School for Girls (hereinafter referred to as HJTS) is one of the nine juvenile
training schools for girls in Japan. HJTS accommodates those juveniles who have been adjudicated by a
Family Court to have come under Category I (14 or over but under 16 years old), Category II (16 or overbut under 20 years old), or Category III (16 years old or over but under 23 years old with advanced criminal
tendencies) mainly in the metropolitan area.
HJTS is the only juvenile training school for girls in Japan that provides long-term treatment
programmes for up to a maximum of two years. Inmates in these type of programmes need a relatively longtime with a possibility of extension of the specified term as needs arise. The Family Court makes somerecommendations on the treatment programmes in its decision in accordance with the criminal tendenciesof the juvenile. Based on the recommendations, one of the eight treatment courses is provided in line withthe educational requirements of the juvenile. Specifically, HJTS has academic education courses for those
who need compulsory education or senior high school education (E1, E2), living guidance courses for those
who are extremely difficult to treat (G1, G2, G3), a vocational guidance course (V2), and special education
courses (H1, H2). The G2 course targets juveniles of foreign nationalities who need treatment different tothat given to Japanese juveniles. Juveniles who are designated as requiring G2 treatment and need special
consideration are sent to HJTS from family courts nationwide. The G3 course was established for suchjuveniles as will need special correctional treatment due to the heinous nature of their crimes and extremelycomplex and serious problems. Juveniles designated as G3 at a juvenile classification home in the Nagoya
region are also sent to HJTS. Furthermore, HJTS confines such juveniles as had been transferred to an
adult court and received a prison sentence in the said region up to the age of 16 years. The course for suchjuvenile prisoners is referred to as the JtW course.

II. CASE STUDY
Now that the profile of HJTS has been outlined, examining an actual case of treatment of a juvenile who
committed injury resulting in death will help in considering effective educational programmes for youths
who have committed serious and violent offences.

A. Overview
This case deals with actively implementing the “victimization awareness programme” for a juvenile
who assaulted a passive victim over a period of hours with seven boys, causing the death of the victim.
During her stay at HJTS, she heard the feelings of the bereaved family from a probation officer in the Kanto
Regional Parole Board. Through this experience, along with correctional education at HJTS, she came torealize her great culpability in depriving the victim of his life and made a firm resolution to take good care ofothers as well as herself.
B. Facts of the Case
1. The Juvenile
This case concerns a 16 year-old girl who was committed to HJTS under Category II (16 or over but* Chief Specialist, Classification and Aftercare Co-ordination Section, Education Division, Haruna Juvenile Training School for
Girls.

158

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

under 20 years old) by Saitama Family Court in August, 2002. Upon this decision, the juvenile (hereinafterreferred to as “Hanako,” an assumed name) was admitted thereto in the same month. She was placed in theliving guidance course. In July, 2005, she was released on parole. The period of her detention at HJTS wasapproximately two years and eleven months.
2. History of the Delinquent Prior to this Offence
Before Hanako committed this offence, she had violated the Traffic Control Law and received a protective
measure of “dismissal after hearing” from the Family Court and was required to take lessons in the Traffic
Control Law.
3. Incident
Hanako committed the crime of bodily injury resulting in death. In June, 2002, she and seven accomplices
continuously assaulted a 15 year-old boy for three hours in a park. The victim was repeatedly struck on his
chest and abdomen with fists and the saddle of a bicycle. His assailants also kicked him, threw the bicycle
towards him, drove a motorcycle into his abdomen and chest, bound his wrists with a rope and hung him
on athletic equipment in the park, and burned his pubic hair with a lighter. As a result of these persistentassaults, he died in the park the following morning from a loss of blood resulting from rib fracture andrupture of the liver.
4. Features of the Juvenile’s Delinquency
From childhood, Hanako had defective hearing, and grew up with delusions of persecution and a sense ofisolation. Therefore, she developed a biased sense of value whereby she could impose violent sanctions on a
person just because she disliked him or her.
5. Family Background
There are five people in Hanako’s family: her father, her mother, her elder sister, her elder brother, andherself.
Except for her brother, who is a company employee, all the family members were unemployed. The
family had an average economic status. Since the time of her birth, her father was often sick and was
repeatedly hospitalized. Her mother had to work hard to make a living and thus was not often at home.
Additionally, her mother’s temper was variable. Hanako had a jaundiced view that her mother did not takecare of her as well as her sister and her brother. She did not feel as if her life had a purpose enough and herhome was not a solid basis for her to rely on.
Two years after her admission to HJTS, her parents purchased a duplex house and moved in with theirelder daughter and her family, but the father and the elder daughter did not get along well. For that reason,
her parents left after only two months, and moved to an apartment where Hanako later came to live after
release.
6. Life History
Hanako was born in 1985. During her first year at junior high school, her academic performance was
not good. In 1999, her rebellious acts became habitual. She smoked, violated the school dress code, andprotested against schoolteachers. She felt bored at school. When she was 14 years old, she self-harmed by
cutting her wrist. In 2001, she graduated from junior high school. She was enrolled in a part-time seniorhigh school. As a senior high school student, her academic performance was not good. In her first year, sheverbally abused a teacher and a schoolmate and received a disciplinary measure from the school. When she
was 16 years old, she was the victim of an attempted rape. In 2002, she physically assaulted a friend. In thesame year, without having a driver’s license, she drove a borrowed motorcycle. In the same year, she again
self-harmed by cutting her wrist. She was arrested the day after the attack causing the death of the 15-yearold and dropped out of senior high school. She was committed to a juvenile classification home.
7. Attributes of the Juvenile(i) Physical Condition
Hanako has defective hearing. When she was six years old, she suffered from inflammation of the rightand left middle ear. Her disease was treated, but the hearing problem remained. Her right ear is especiallyweak, and she has worn a hearing aid in her right ear since the first year of junior high school.

159

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78(ii) Mental Condition and Personality
Hanako’s IQ is 73. She is not good at handling tasks speedily, yet her work has few errors. She has anadequate level of general knowledge, writing and verbal expression abilities. Her activity level is high.
She is short of self-restraint and acts on impulse. She tends to lose her temper over trivial matters andher emotions are unstable. Her impulse to turn to violence is sometimes directed towards others, andsometimes towards herself. She wants to rely on others, but has a deep-rooted distrust of others, especially
adults. Thus, she does not consult others to find constructive solutions to her problems.
8. Treatment Policy Recommended by the Juvenile Classification Home
Hanako did not have someone to talk to who could understand the loneliness and suffering caused by her
defective hearing and communication problems. She began to develop a sense of atonement for the victim
through a series of legal measures that accompanied her hearing and treatment. However, she still could
not embrace the gravity of killing a person, and tried to escape from the difficulties facing her and grew
desperate. Therefore, it was highly recommended that Hanako deepen her atonement towards the victim
and make compensation for the consequences of her action throughout her life by considering seriously thegrief and pain of the bereaved family.
Besides, it was proposed that Hanako reflect on her life and be aware that sanctioning others withviolence is wrong. Furthermore, she needed to accept the weaknesses behind her anger, and cultivate her
attitude to solving her problems in a constructive way. Lastly, she had not yet made a realistic and concrete
future life plan, and it was necessary for her to make such a plan by incorporating compensation for thevictim’s family. She had the plasticity to be rehabilitated by treatment and warm support around her, taking
the above points into consideration.
9. Disposition
In her hearing, Hanako received a disposition of commitment to a juvenile training school to accommodate
Category II inmates with a recommendation by the Family Court that she needed a considerably longcorrectional treatment of approximately three years.

C. Treatment Process at HJTS
1. Individualized Educational Goals
An individualized treatment plan was formulated for Hanako. Her individualized education goals were as
follows:(a) Prompting her to understand the pain of the victim and the grief of his bereaved family to sense thegravity of this offence, learn the preciousness of life and become firmly determined never again tophysically assault someone;(b) Teaching her how to assert herself appropriately, developing problem-solving skills and interpersonalabilities to maintain harmonious relationships with others;(c) Instructing her to sort out her feelings towards her family members, discuss ways to compensate
the victim’s bereaved family, and make a solid life plan.
In order to accomplish these final goals, step-by-step educational objectives were established at eachstage of the education process.
2. Lower Second Grade (92 days)(i) Educational Objectives at this Stage(a) Considering problems in her life so far.
(b) Being able to honestly express her feelings.
(c) Mastering basic lifestyles in the school.

(ii) Educational Contents and Methods(a) Guiding the juvenile to reflect on her life to date through introspection and thematic composition.
(b) Stabilizing her mood, motivating her to lead a life in the training school and establishing trusting
relationships with an instructor through individual interviews. Considering what she really feels
about her family through meetings and correspondence with family members.
(c) Instructing her in basic lifestyle principles through orientation and group drill training.

160

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers(iii) Especially Effective Treatment at this Stage
Individual interviews were most effective at this stage. Because of her hesitation to show her weak
points, she was not good at expressing her true feelings; however, with this method, she began to realize theimportance of explaining her true feelings to others.
(iv) Treatment Matters Given Special Attention
Staff members, including the Principal Specialist of the Education Division, the Educational ResearchSpecialist, the Chief Specialist of the Planning, Coordination, and Education Section, the Dormitory
Chief, and the Instructor in charge of Hanako formed a project team and examined this case periodically.
The members jointly trained her according to the plan. She had a two-week intake and a subsequent twoweek individual treatment period. Thereafter, she was transferred to a group dormitory. Group dormitory
instructors had explained to other students that Hanako had a hearing problem. Because of suchconsideration in advance, other students were mindful of her handicap and approached her kindly.
3. First Term of the Intermediate Stage I Upper Second Grade (114 days)(i) Educational Objectives at this Stage(a) Reflecting on her life before admission and thinking of situations where she resorted to violence.
(b) Interacting with others without making herself look good or bluffing.
(c) Sorting out her feelings towards her family members.

(ii) Educational Contents and Methods(a) Through a treatment programme for violence, prompting her to realize that she has resorted toviolence without any thought for the future and tried to solve problems with physical force.
(b) Prompting her to express her feelings non-verbally by using sand play therapy, a treatment method
where toys are placed in sand inside a box to exhibit one’s inner world. Along with this, individualinterviews and exchanging a diary with her instructor helped her to establish a rapport with her
instructor. By doing so, she gained experience and confidence in speaking freely about what is on her
mind and acknowledging her problems.
(c) Promoting mutual communication between Hanako and her family members through visits andcorrespondence.
(iii) Especially Effective Treatment at this StageIn the treatment programme for those with violent tendencies, she had group sessions and did roleplaying. This class was effective in having her be aware that she wanted to get things as her own way, withphysical force, if necessary.
(iv) Treatment Matters Given Special Attention
At this stage, she started doing introspection on the date of the victim’s death each month. She was likely
to be influenced by her self-righteous, preconceived ideas. Because she lacked empathy and it was difficultfor her to establish smooth interpersonal relationships, instructors advised her how to relate to otherinmates or staff.
(v) Matters Especially Mentioned at this StageIn December 2002, Hanako self-harmed without attempting a suicide and received a warning from thePrincipal Specialist of the Education Division. In a meeting with her father in the same month, she could
not apologize to him for her offence. She interpreted this as a lack of repentance for the offence and became
angry with herself. For this reason, she hit herself on the left elbow and scratched the back of her left hand.
4. First Term of the Intermediate Stage II Upper Second Grade (153 days)(i) Educational Objectives at this Stage(a) Considering her problems and reasons for resorting to violence easily.
(b) Co-operating with others and not being emotional when she does not have her own way.
(c) Conveying her true feelings to her family members.

(ii) Educational Contents and Methods
Through role-lettering, Hanako hypothetically exchanged letters with others. This facilitated her inunderstanding other people’s feelings by considering a situation from their viewpoint.

161

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78(iii) Especially Effective Treatment at this Stage
By offering incense on the anniversary of the victim’s death, she came to imagine herself visiting his
bereaved family after her discharge and apologizing to them. Also, on the first anniversary of the victim’s
death, an individual memorial service was held and she really recognized the victim’s death as a reality.
(iv) Treatment Matters Given Special Attention
In order to build confidence and a positive self-image, she took intensive classes in sales as a businessskill. She was awarded a sales clerk third grade certificate.
5. Second Term of the Intermediate Stage I Lower First Grade (153 days)(i) Educational Objectives at this Stage(a) Deepening empathy with the pain and the grief of the victim and his bereaved family.
(b) Judging surrounding situations appropriately without being affected by the atmosphere and her own
feelings.
(c) Understanding the effect that her actions have had on her family and thinking about future family
relationships.

(ii) Educational Contents and Methods(a) Prompting her to think about the gravity of her offence and to recognize the preciousness oflife through the cultivation of aesthetic sentiments by raising small animals and growing plants,
individual interviews, and introspection. Additionally, having her realize the suffering of the victim
and people related to him by reading books and watching videos on the feelings of victims at the timeof an offence and thereafter.
(b)	Making her aware that her friendships and associates, as well as her offence, were problematic,
through lectures and discussions in the treatment programmes for pre-delinquency. Also, throughassigned duties in her dormitory, improving her levels of co-operation and a sense of belonging to agroup.
(iii) Especially Effective Treatment at this Stage
Through role-lettering, she hypothetically wrote a letter to the bereaved family and replied to the letterby herself. She realized how self-centered she was, and she become aware of the deep sorrow the bereaved
family must be feeling. Moreover, she realized the difficulty of conveying her apologies to the bereaved
family.
(iv) Matters Especially Mentioned at this StageIn December 2003, her behaviour became wild and she received a disciplinary measure of reprimandfrom the Superintendent. In the previous month, she had had a small misunderstanding with an instructor,
but complained disproportionately. She was continually furious, and verbally abused the instructor by callingher “noisy,” and saying “Do not stand beside me.” Soon thereafter, she hit and kicked the door and the wallof her room with her fist and foot several times.
6. Second Term of the Intermediate Stage II Lower First Grade (182 days)(i) Educational Objectives at this Stage(a) Realizing the problems she has in resorting to violence and the grave responsibility she carries.
(b) Speaking and behaving with good consideration for other people’s feelings and situations.
(c) Being aware of the role she plays in her family, in view of the compensation for the damage she has
caused.

(ii) Educational Contents and Methods(a)	Through school events and performing duties assigned to her, fostering her self-reliant attitude andresponsibility for her conduct.
(b) Having her imagine the feelings of her family members towards her and appreciate them bypracticing “naikan ,” which is the Japanese method for reflecting on one’s family relationships. It
requires the person to consider “what my parents did for me,” “what I did for my parents,” and“what trouble I caused to my parents.”(iii) Especially Effective Treatment at this Stage
Introspection using articles and essays written by victims of juvenile crimes gave her insight into her

162

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

offence from multiple perspectives.

(iv) Matters Especially Mentioned at this StageIn April 2004, she was moved to another group dormitory. With this transfer, she recognized that
she tried to have human relationships based on power and always wanted to be superior to others. She
associated this notion with her offence and decided that she would correct her problem of looking at humanrelationships only from a power-structure viewpoint.
7. Pre-Release Stage I Upper First Grade (184 days)(i) Educational Objectives at this Stage(a) Realizing the gravity of the offence she committed and the importance of life.
(b) Considering others and behaving responsibly and with consideration for the future.
(c) Discussing with her family members and realistically planning for the damage she caused to thevictim’s bereaved family.

(ii) Educational Contents and Methods(a) Through interviews with a counsellor specializing in life and mind issues, having her realize thesignificance of life. Child-rearing lessons provided her with an understanding of respecting life andknowledge on giving birth to and raising a child.
(b) Through vocational guidance (firstly horticulture; secondly, a caring services course), encouraging
her to acquire a professional licence and a steady work habit.
(iii) Especially Effective Treatment at this StageFor six months, she studied in a caring services course. She learned from this class how moving andfulfilling it is to consider other people’s standings and the benefits of mutual help. She was awarded a second
grade certificate in “home help” caring services. She hoped that she would take advantage of the licence andget a job in the field of human welfare, to compensate, in a sense, for her offence.
(iv) Matters Especially Mentioned at this StageShe had interviews with instructors and wrote thematic compositions to reflect on her offence and how
she came to commit it. Consequently, she noticed her egotistical ideas.
8. Pre-Release Stage II Upper First Grade (174 days)(i) Educational Objectives at this Stage(a) Making a firm resolution not to resort to violence again, based on her deep understanding of the
preciousness of life.
(b) Gain confidence through taking responsibility, performing her assigned roles, and being
acknowledged by others.
(c) Thinking about how she should live from now on and making a concrete life plan, including
compensation for the victim and his bereaved family.

(ii) Educational Contents and Methods
Through volunteer activities in social and child welfare facilities in the community, guiding her to a deep
understanding of the meaning of respect for life, consideration for others, and support for others.
(iii) Especially Effective Treatment at this Stage
Through extramural education in social and child welfare facilities and practical training in nursing care,she realized the necessity for people to supplement and help one another without distinguishing between
the strong and the weak, and the able-bodied and the handicapped. She felt the worth of being helpful toothers and being appreciated for what she did.
(iv) Matters Especially Mentioned at this StageAt this stage, her sorrow for the victim led her to believe that she would give up her own chance of a
happy future due to her strong sense of guilt and remorse for her crime. However, gradually she reaffirmedthat she would need to live a steady and sincere life while always remembering her regret, being aware of
the bereaved family’s situation, and compensating them step-by-step. In June, 2005, she had an interview
with a probation officer.

163

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Then, she heard from the probation officer that he had a letter for her from the victim’s mother. In thesame month, she read the letter in the presence of her instructor. She was faced with the real feelings of the
bereaved family towards her and realized the harsh reality awaiting her after release, which had previously
been beyond her imagination.

III. PROBLEMS AND FUTURE IMPLICATIONS
As we have seen in section I above, HJTS accommodates many juveniles who have pronounced
proclivities to commit crime, for example, those who have committed an atrocious crime, are associatedwith organized crime and have been committed to a juvenile training school twice or more. Juvenile training
schools also house many juveniles who are greatly in need of protection; for example, because they arebeing brought up in an unstable family where their parents or guardians lack abilities to take care of the childproperly.
Although part II of this paper outlined a relatively successful example of the victimization awarenessprogramme, I had some cases where juveniles reoffended after release, even though they had lived a stable
and solid life inside the institution. In order to prevent this problem, the roles of juvenile training schools are
to strengthen a juvenile’s mental resolve and to adjust his or her environment to a degree that will allow hisor her smooth and systematic re-socialization.
Firstly, instructors at juvenile training schools need to have a rapport with the juveniles and empower
them. Juveniles should be rehabilitated and educated in how to establish a settled life for themselves after
discharge, reducing the likelihood of reoffending. In order to develop juveniles’ social skills, programmes
are to be selected carefully to match the individual need of each juvenile. For instance, in our case study
described in Chapter II, the victimization awareness programme was given to Hanako, who committed
an offence which has had a serious influence on the victim. As juvenile delinquency issues become morediverse and complicated, we need to develop and enrich treatment programmes to respond to each youth’s
need appropriately. For example, HJTS has not yet implemented an anger management programme;
however, there is much room for developing and offering such a programme for violent and serious juvenile
offenders.
Secondly, it is most difficult to change the juvenile’s surrounding circumstances for the better; yet,juvenile training schools should tackle this demanding task by utilizing such methods as the programme on
one-day or overnight visits to the juvenile at the pre-release stage from his or her family members, which
has already been implemented in HJTS. In the programme, the family members discuss various issues
that will affect their family life after release in order to gradually reduce anxieties. Another role of juvenile
training schools is to function as a liaison between related agencies and to establish support systems whicha juvenile can take advantage of as helpful social resources. For instance, employment support is provided
while a juvenile is still in a juvenile training school. Therefore, an inmate may look for a job through the
public job security offices during his or her stay in order to arrange for post-release life. Furthermore,
aftercare, providing guidance and advice for parents or guardians of juveniles, is also crucial and this is
stipulated in the Amended Juvenile Law 2007. We need to further strengthen comprehensive treatment ofinmates in this direction.
In conclusion, juvenile justice proceeds with the close connection of all the parties involved; juvenile
offenders, victims, families, community residents, and juvenile justice professionals. Thus, juvenile justiceultimately aims to strike the best balance in its five functions of deterrence, incapacitation, restoration,
rehabilitation, and retribution.

164

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY TREATMENT PROGRAMMESIN THE PROBATION OFFICE FOR VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Akiko Tashiro*

I. INTRODUCTION“The Advisory Council for the Regeneration of the Rehabilitation System,” set up in July 2005, submitted
its final report, named “The Proposal of Reformation of the Rehabilitation System; Aiming to Build a Safe
Country and Community”, on June 2006. The Rehabilitation Bureau of the MOJ and the Rehabilitation
Service throughout Japan are now undergoing various reforms to improve and regenerate the rehabilitation
system.
Because this Advisory Council was established in response to several serious tragic offences committed
by adult probationers/parolees from 2004 to 2005, the new policies to reinforce the probation/parole
treatment system were mostly focused on adult probationers/parolees. However, serious and violent
reoffending by juvenile probationers/parolees still occurs. Therefore, reinforcing the treatment of serious
and violent juvenile probationers/parolees is one of the crucial issues facing the Japanese rehabilitation
system.
In this paper, I would like to outline for you the actual situation and the characteristics of the violent
juvenile probationers/parolees that we handle in the Japanese rehabilitation service, and then I will introduce
the two structured programmes which have been lately introduced to the Japanese Rehabilitation Service,i.e. the Atonement Programme and the Violence Prevention Programme.

II. OUTLINE OF VIOLENT JUVENILE PROBATIONERS/PAROLEES
A. Number of Violent Juvenile Probationers/Parolees
Table 1 shows the number of newly received juvenile probationers, by type of offence. According tothis table, among the total number of newly received juvenile probationers in 2006, which was 19,475, thenumber of violent juvenile probationers (who committed an offence of homicide, injury, robbery, or violationof the physical violence law) was 3,236, constituting 16.6% of all juvenile probationers.
Table 2 shows the number of newly received juvenile parolees, by type of offence. According to this table,
among the total number of newly received juvenile parolees in 2006, which was 4,711, the number of violent
parolees (who committed an offence of homicide, injury, robbery, or a violation of the physical violence law)was 1,084, constituting 23% of all juvenile parolees.

B. Characteristics of Violent Juvenile Probationers/Parolees
Various surveys and statistics show the characteristics of violent juvenile probationers/parolees asfollows.
1. Offence
In 2005, the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice made a survey of 86 case recordsof juveniles who had intentionally committed serious crimes (e.g. murder), by the amendment of theJuvenile Law, and had been placed on probation/parole. According to the survey, the offence can be classified
into four categories, which are: (i) the Group Category (committing a crime with accomplices); (ii) the Single
Category (committing a crime without accomplices); (iii) the Family Category (juveniles and victims are
related, including cases where a juvenile kills his or her lover’s child); and (iv) the Traffic Category. The* Senior Probation Officer, Yokohama Probation Office.

165

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

percentage of each category of the total is as follows: (i) Group: 59 cases (68.6%); (ii) Single: 7 cases (8.1%);(iii) Family: 17 cases (19.8%); (iv)Traffic: 3 cases (3.5%).
2. Complicity Rate
The statistics of the section above are limited to the most serious offences, such as intentional killing;
however, other statistics show that many of the other violent offences by juveniles are committed withaccomplices. Statistics from the National Police Agency (2004), which are not limited to probationers/
parolees, show that the complicity rate of robbery is 57.8% and that of injury is 35.5%, which shows areasonably higher rate of complicity than that of all types of offences (26.8%).
Moreover, all of the cases of serious reoffending by juvenile probationers/parolees committed in 2007
were committed by groups (Rehabilitation Bureau material).
3. Repetition RateThough not limited to probationers/parolees, the National Police Agency (2008) shows the repetition
rate of juvenile offenders (the ratio of juveniles who have committed offences in the past to the total numberof juveniles whose cases were handled by police). The repetition rate for all types of offences is 30.3%,
whereas for serious offences (homicide, robbery, larceny, and rape) it is 59.4% and for of violent offences(violence, injury, carrying weapons, and extortion) it is 53.4%.
Since this repetition rate does not refer to what type of offence they committed in the past, it does
not show that violent offenders more easily reoffend; however, the statistics do show that juveniles withan advanced level of delinquency and/or juveniles who committed offences in the past are more likely tocommit serious and violent offences.
4. Motivation for Offending
A 2006 survey by Family Court probation officers of Osaka Family Court, Sakai Branch of 126 juveniles
who committed violent offences classifies the cases by their motivation for offending. There are six
categories, listed in order of their prevalence: (i) expression of unpleasant emotion; (ii) desire to beperceived differently; (iii) punishment; (iv) compulsion to subordinate others; (v) personal retaliation; and(vi) damage recovery and defence. This survey also shows that the ratio of type (iii) and (iv) decreases injuveniles over 17 years old, and that those over 17 years old are likely to use violence intentionally, forexample to gain money or escape from police, etc. These statistics are not solely those of probationers/
parolees, however, from my fieldwork experience as a probation officer, the tendencies seem to be the samefor probationers/parolees.
5. Outcome of Probation/Parole Supervision
The reconviction rate is the ratio of those who were sentenced to penal sanctions or protective measures
because of reoffending, or for delinquent behaviour during their probation/parole period. Compared to 17.9%,
which is the reconviction rate for juvenile probationers in total, the reconviction rate of those who wereplaced on probation for causing injury is 18.1%, while for burglary the rate is 15%. Moreover, the percentageof those placed on probation for causing injury, and being reconvicted for the same offence during theprobation period is only 4.2%.
Compared to the reconviction rate of juvenile parolees in total, which is 22.2%, the reconviction rate ofthose who were placed on parole for committing an injury is 22.4%; while for burglary it is 17.9%; and for
homicide it is 6.3%. Moreover, only 5% of those placed on parole for causing injury were reconvicted for thesame offence during the parole period.
These statistics show that the reconviction rate of juveniles who committed violent offences, which
is one good indicator of the outcome of probation/parole supervision of violent juveniles, is not relatively
higher than the rate of reconviction of juveniles who committed other types of offences.

166

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

III. THE ACTUAL SITUATION OF TREATMENT FOR VIOLENT JUVENILEPROBATIONERS/PAROLEES
I will not refer in detail to the system or the process of probationary/parole supervision for violent
juveniles in this paper. The Japanese probation service does not have specialized, exclusive treatment forviolent juveniles. A categorized treatment system, which was introduced in 1990, groups offenders into 13
categories. Among those categories, there are five which include juveniles who have violent tendencies: (i)domestic violence; (ii) school violence; (iii) belonging to organized gangs; and (iv) joy-riding. However, forthose juveniles who have violent tendencies, we do not have “structured” treatment programmes focusing
on their violence. In the categorized treatment system, a probation officer and a volunteer probation officer
co-operate in supervising the probationers/parolees, understanding the actual conditions of their daily lives,and giving necessary guidance and intervention. They also sometimes assist the probationer/parolee toutilize social resources.
In 2000, the Rehabilitation Bureau set forth the national guidelines for the treatment of the most serious
juvenile offenders on probation/parole: those who caused the death of their victims. The outline of theguidelines is as follows:(i) (For parole cases.) The probation officer must be involved in the case from the inquiry into living
conditions stage, while the juvenile is still in juvenile training school; strengthen co-operation withthe juvenile training school; and make sure that treatment before and after release is sufficiently
consistent.
(ii) Pay attention to and take care of juveniles’ mental health, guide their social nature, and deepen theirintrospection.
(iii) Help the juvenile to consider the appropriate ways to communicate with others, and promote theiradaptation to the community.
(iv) Help the juvenile and their family to understand each other, arrange and adjust their family
relationships, and maintain healthy emotions.
(v) Cultivate the juveniles’ awareness of their victims, and guide them and their families in how to face
their victims.
Since juveniles to whom these guidelines were applied did not reoffend seriously during their probation/
parole period, this treatment for such juveniles can be said to be successful to some extent; however, thispolicy indicates only the basic guidelines on how to treat those offenders, which is different from a so-called
structured programme.
Furthermore, although not introduced as a treatment focused especially on violent juvenile probationers/
parolees, social participation activities were added to the rehabilitation system in 1994. Participating in
nursing care activities and volunteer activities for the aged helps violent juvenile probationers/parolees toempathize and sympathize with other people as well as building a positive self image. Social participation
activities have now become established in rehabilitation services throughout Japan.

IV. THE ATONEMENT GUIDANCE PROGRAMME
A. Introduction of the Atonement Guidance Programme
Since March 2007, the Japanese rehabilitation service has implemented a new atonement guidance
programme for probationers/parolees who seriously injured or killed their victim. (A serious injury is aphysical injury that requires six or more months of treatment.) This programme is applied to adults too. The
programme aims to have the probationers/parolees behave in accordance with their victim’s wishes withconsideration for the victim’s feelings. This can only happen if the probationers/parolees realize how serious
their offence is, and the damage and impact it has had on their victims. The probationers/parolees ought todevelop empathy for their victims by understanding the offence from the victim’s viewpoint. Ultimately, theprogramme aims to formulate within probationers/parolees a determination not to reoffend.
B. Content of the ProgrammeThis programme consists of four sessions, and the object of each, from the point of view of the offender,
is outlined below.

167

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Session 1: Look back over your offence, and recognize its seriousness.
Session 2:	Understand the actual situation of your victim, i.e. their feelings, their present
situation.
Session 3:	Think from the viewpoint of your victim and realize the responsibility offenders
have to apologize and make reparations.
Session 4: Make your own atonement plan.

C. The Procedure of the Programme
At the initial interview at the beginning of the probation/parole supervision period, the probation officer
shall explain the content and the procedure of the programme to the offender. The probation officer shallspecify when to start the programme and include it in the treatment plan. The probation officer decides
when to start the programme taking into account the treatment given in the correctional facilities andthe current work and educational situation of the offender, etc. Both professional and volunteer probation
officers can deliver the programme, which is conducted on a one-to-one basis.
After starting the programme, the probationers/parolees must complete one session each month. The
probationers/parolees must finish their homework every session and discuss it with the probation officer andvolunteer probation officer.

D. Implementing the Atonement Plan
When carrying out the Atonement Plan made by the probationer/parolee in Session 4 of the programme,
the probation officer or volunteer probation officer gives guidance or advice to the probationer/parolee tobe careful with the victim’s feelings and to make sure that the victim is ready to receive the offender’sapologies or reparation.
E. Points to Consider(i) The probation officer or volunteer probation officer must be careful not to divulge the victim’s
information without consent.
(ii) When delivering the programme, the probation officer or the volunteer probation officer shall explain
the programme to the parents or guardians of the juvenile in order to gain their co-operation.
(iii) When parolees have already participated in a victim awareness programme in a juvenile training
school, the probation officer or volunteer probation officers must be consistent with the guidance
given by the tutors of the juvenile training school.
F. The Actual Practice of the Programme
From March to September 2007, 36 juvenile probationers and 31 juvenile parolees nationwide
participated in this programme.
V. THE VIOLENCE PREVENTION PROGRAMME
From 2008, the Rehabilitation Bureau will introduce the new Violence Prevention Programme to all
Probation Offices. I took part in the Rehabilitation Treatment Programme Research Board hosted by the
Rehabilitation Bureau, and was involved in developing the programme for violent offenders. Since thisprogramme has not yet been implemented, it is still a little early to reference it; however, as it is a newchallenge to cope with violent offenders, I would like to refer to the outline of this programme.

A. Basic Theory of the Programme
The basic theory of the programme is cognitive-behavioural therapy, in particular, anger management
methods and the relapse prevention theory.
1. What is Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT)?
CBT has been chiefly used as the background theory of this programme. Sakano (1995), defines
cognitive-behavioural therapy as follows: “A structured therapy that focuses on the individual’s behaviour
and cognition, planned to solve behavioural problems and physical problems rationally, and the processof a teaching method of problem solving and self control based on self-understanding.” In other words,
concerning a certain problem of an individual, we must understand the circumstances they are in, andthen structurally understand their self cognition, behaviour, emotions, and physical reaction. Secondly, the168139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

client must be made to comprehend the mechanism by which their problem occurs to facilitate their selfunderstanding.
By indentifying the factor which perpetuates the problem or by searching for an easier way to solve
the problem, the client learns the problem solving method, and determines the particular target using
behaviour-modification and cognitive reframing, which results in solving the problem.
2. Use of CBT in Probation in Japan
Although CBT is a relatively new treatment theory in the history of clinical psychology, its development
has nevertheless been remarkable. Its original objects were depression, obsessive compulsive disorder,
panic disorder, PTSD, anxiety disorder, and schizophrenia, etc. In the 1980s and 1990s the judicial
institutions, such as correctional services or probation services, in North America and Britain started using
CBT as a treatment for offenders. For instance, from the 1990s, the Probation Service of the UK developed
and practiced many evidence-based CBT treatment programmes for many types of offending behaviour.
They named this policy the “What Works Initiative” and rolled out these programmes to all the probation
offices throughout the UK (Takushima (2002)).
In Japan, some probation officers have attempted to utilize CBT individually with the probationers/
parolees in their charge. However, in 2005, the Correctional Bureau and the Rehabilitation Bureau jointly
set up the Sex Offender Treatment Programme Research Board, organized by outside psychologists andpsychiatrists etc., and developed a sex offender treatment programme, for use in both prison and probation,
based on CBT. This means that CBT has nationally and systematically become one important option in our
probation/parole treatment. (Sex Offender Treatment Programme Research Board (2006)).
Following the sex offender treatment programme we decided to develop and introduce a programme
targeted at violent offenders, using CBT as the basic theory.
3. Essential Principles of CBT
According to Ito (2005), there are six essential principles in CBT as follows.
(i) It uses a basic model to understand the client.
It is assumed that therapists must understand the client’s experience using the basic model preparedfor each programme.
(ii) It uses co-operative positivism.
The counsellor and the client will form a team and work together from an empirical viewpoint, which
is different from traditional counselling where we expect the counsellor and the client to face eachother. (Communications in CBT will not be of a “listen to” type, rather the counsellor and the client
will interact.)(iii) It is problem solving oriented.
The focus is applied to resolving “here-and-now problems”. It doesn’t mean that the method doesn’t
address the past, for instance, the counsellor listens carefully to the client’s experiences of theirinfant stage and past trauma, and handles it by asking, “How does it influence the present problem?”(iv) It values psycho-education, and assumes as a consequence the client’s self-treatment and selfcounselling.
(v) The procedure of the whole programme and each session is structured.
(vi) It specifies the particular target of the counselling, and makes use of the package of various skills toachieve the target.
4. Anger Management
Anger management is a system of psychological therapeutic techniques and exercises based on the CBTframework mentioned above. It provides information on the nature of anger and coping skills for dealing
with the emotion. It uses cognitive-reframing, behaviour-modifying and skill acquisitions to control anger.
Honda (2007) explains that anger is the impulsive energy derived from various chaotic feelings, andexplains that anger management is to develop a consciousness of the process of accumulating anger and an
appropriate method of resolving the problem. Honda also assumes that the object of anger management is
not to endeavour not to be angry but to notice feelings of anger and to control those feelings using one’s

169

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

mind, while acquiring the skill to express one’s feelings.
5. Relapse Prevention Theory (RP)RP theory, known as one realm of CBT therapy, is proposed by Marlatt and Gordon in the field of
addiction, such as alcohol and drug abuse. RP has been adapted to various types of behaviours which canbe seen as addiction, including aggression. RP theory for violent offenders aims to have the client acquireparticular skills to avoid violence. It does this by specifying an “early warning sign” and a “high risk
situation” that increases one’s distorted cognitions or inappropriate behaviour which results in violence. RPteaches the offender to notice physical reactions and his or her behavioural tendencies when they encounteran “early warning sign” and a “high-risk-situation” and helps them to acquire useful skills to extricate
themselves from those situations.

B. Offenders Appropriate for the Programme
The violence prevention programme (VPP), based on the theories mentioned above, is suitable for theoffender whose violence has close relations with his or her poor emotional control, immaturity in emotional
expression, or immature communication skills.
On the other hand, is the VPP is not regarded as appropriate for those who have acquired the peculiar
thinking style or behavioural style of organized gangs (yakuza ), or those who carefully, artfully uses violence
as means of accomplishing of their objective. The programme is not effective with such offenders.
Moreover, because this programme urges intellectual understanding through language, an offender withintellectual disability (LD) must be individually evaluated to decide whether or not he or she can understandthe ideas of this programme.

C. Assessment
The assessment before starting the programme is crucial to its effective delivery. Not only is selecting
the right person for the programme vital, but by pointing out where and how serious the offender’s problem
is, you can also clarify which element of the programme requires focus, and can make use of the result of theassessment when practicing the programme.
As risk assessment tools for violent offenders, STAXI and HCR20, both developed in North America,
are well known. In the rehabilitation services of Japan, according to the proposal of the Board mentioned
above, probation officers are given the opportunity to take the training course for using HCR20 during
their professional training. Although the use of HCR20 is not compulsory in the rehabilitation services, it isrecommended before starting the VPP programme.

D. Programme Procedure
This programme will be practiced on a one-to-one basis in Japan. Similar programmes for violent
offenders are usually delivered in groups in prisons and probation offices in North America and the UK, etc.,
because it is assumed to be effective to deliver these programmes in groups, making best use of the groupdynamics and the mutual communication of the programme participants to come upon their own cognitive
distortions. However, in the probation offices of Japan, it was assumed that it would be very difficult to adjust
the schedules of probationers/parolees who go to work or school, and there was anxiety about probationers/
parolees acquiring further problematic traits or forming new delinquent friendships through group sessions.
Finally, probation officers in Japan are not used to group therapy.
E. Content of the Programme
1. Necessary Elements of the Programme
According to the report of the Board mentioned above, there are four necessary elements for a
programme for violent probationers/parolees.
(a) Analysis of their own problem
It is necessary to make the participant thoroughly and precisely analyse their environment, situation,ideas, feelings, and body when they feel anger and behave violently.
(b) Psycho-education and knowledge
It is necessary to make the participant understand intellectually why the state referred to above in170

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers(a) happens and teach the participant how to avoid using violence.
(c) Particular behavioural training
It is necessary to make the participants practice the particular skills repeatedly and acquire the skills
that they learned intellectually in (b) mentioned above.
(d) Self monitoring
It is necessary to make the participants use the skills they have learned to avoid violent behaviour intheir daily lives, and to teach them to check that they are using the right skills.
2. Composition of the Programme
The composition of the programme is as follows. The session contains the elements mentioned in 1
above. We referred to the content of the violence prevention programmes in other countries, mainly the
VPP programme used in Canada. The programme requires the offender to do the following.
(a) Introduction: Look back over your own offence
Through looking back over the participant’s own offence in detail, including the damage caused to
the victim, the offender must sincerely acknowledge their own offence and strengthen his or her
determination not to use violence again. They must also be motivated to attend the programme.
(b) Session 1: Violence Analysis
Through analysing your violent behaviour in three stages: event, idea, and consequences, learn thatan event or situation which arouses anger does not always result in violence. This means that you
can control yourself and refrain from violence.
(c) Session 2: Attitude Modification
Understand that even if the trigger occurs, if you have attitudes that do not lead you to violence,
your behaviour will change accordingly. Modify your thinking patterns from that of a violenceinducing-attitude to a violence-avoiding-attitude.
(d) Session 3: Violence “Danger Signals”
Specify the events or ideas that could be a trigger to violence, or a bodily reaction that informs youof rising stress, causing you to become angry easily, and signalling you to become violent. After
specifying your own “danger signals”, repeatedly practice the coping skills you have learned tolessen or eradicate the signal and acquire coping skills that are useful and appropriate for you.
(e) Session 4: Improve Interpersonal Skills
Use role-plays to observe your own behaviour and communication style objectively by adopting
the perspective of other persons. Learn the appropriate ways to express your feelings, and how tocommunicate with others without using violence.
(f) Session 5: Relapse Prevention Plan
Using all the knowledge, information and skills you’ve learnt through this programme, build a
relapse prevention plan which includes your “danger signals” and effective coping skills.
To end the programme, motivate the participant that it is important to carry out their own relapse
prevention plan in order not to reoffend in the future.

F. Problems in Effective Practice of the Programme
The violence prevention programme of Canada shows a 16% reduction in the reconviction rate of middlerisk offenders, and a 30% reduction in the reconviction rate of high risk offenders (Correctional Bureau BC2005).
We have only very little pilot practice of this programme in Japan, so we cannot refer to the effectivenessof the programme developed by the Japanese rehabilitation services. We must continuously monitor the
programme, and try to clarify both its effects and limitations. We must improve and modify the programme
based on empirical data.
1. Improving the Skill of Probation Officers
Improving the practical skills of the probation officers who will implement the programme isindispensable. It is necessary to provide training for the skills required in the programme, besides
understanding the theory of CBT. Anger management skills, relaxation skills, behavioural training, and roleplay methods are relatively new for probation officers. Training courses for these skills should be requiredfor probation officers.

171

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

2. Obligatory Attendance
At present, there are no plans to designate this programme as a special condition for probationary
supervision for juvenile probationers/parolees. The number of juvenile probationers/parolees attending thisprogramme voluntarily is estimated to be quite low.
However, recently, the Rehabilitation Bureau has been instructing probation officers to supervise serious
violent juveniles directly, without the support of volunteer probation officers. Therefore, it is expected thatprobation officers will use the VPP programme for the treatment of serious violent juvenile offenders whoare placed under their direct supervision so that they can establish regular direct contact with the offenders.

VI. CONCLUSIONAs I have shown above, the Rehabilitation Bureau has just introduced two new programmes which are
expected to be effective in the treatment of violent offenders.
I must emphasize here that even after these programmes have been introduced, the traditional styleof Japanese probationary supervision, namely, probation officers and volunteer probation officers working
together, observing the daily lives of probationers/parolees by means of one-to-one interviewing, visiting
their families, and intervening quickly when problems occur, will continue as the basic method of probation
treatment in our country.
Particularly important is treatment to adjust the daily lifestyle of violent juvenile offenders who mostly
lead unhealthy and unwholesome lives, e.g., loitering outdoors at night with their delinquent friends, coming
home only several times a week, etc. I would say that the volunteer probation officers living in the juveniles’
neighbourhoods, observing them very closely, and interviewing them frequently have a significant influenceon them.
Moreover, as I mentioned in section II above, many juveniles commit violent offences in groups. To deal
effectively with gangs of local youths, co-operation between probation officers, junior high schools and/or
local police stations can be effective, based on past experience.
I suppose the effectiveness of these new programmes depends on how probation officers will combine
these new structured programmes with the traditional methods of our community-based practices.
Rather than replacing our traditional Japanese rehabilitation system, I imagine that these newprogrammes will instead be effective in strengthening it.

172

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Selected Participants’ Papers

REFERENCES
Ministry of Justice (2006) Annual Report of Statistics on Rehabilitation for 2006
Research and Training Institute, Ministry of Justice (2005) White Paper on Crime 2005 –Juvenile
Delinquency–
National Police Agency (2004) 警察庁「少年非行等の概況」平成１６年１月～１２月
National Police Agency (2008) 警察庁「少年非行等の概況」平成１９年１月～１２月
Osaka Family Court Sakai Branch (2006) 粗暴少年に対する保護的措置「家裁調査官研究紀要号」平成２０年２月

第７Sakano (1995) 坂野雄二「認知行動療法」日本評論社（１９９５）
Takushima (2002) 多久島晶子英国における一般的犯罪行動プログラム「犯罪と非行」
Sex Offender Treatment Programme Research Board (2006) 性犯罪者処遇プログラム研究会「性犯罪者処遇プログラム研究会報告書」（２００６年３月）
Ito (2005) 伊藤絵美「認知療法 , 認知行動療法カウンセリング初級ワークショップ」星和書店（２００５）
Honda (2007) 本田恵子「キレやすい子へのソーシャルスキル教育教室でできるワーク集と実践例」
ほんの出版
Correctional Bureau of Canada (2005) Violence Prevention Program Evaluation with Community andCustody Sentenced Group
Rehabilitation Treatment Programme Research Board (2008) 更生保護処遇プログラム研究会「更生保護処遇プログラム研究会報告書」（２００８年３月）日本更生保護協会

173

REPORTS OF THE COURSEGROUP 1ISSUES AND METHODS OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION,PROSECUTION AND JUDICIAL PROCEDURES FORSERIOUS AND VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members
Visiting Expert
Advisers

Mr. Hideaki Gunji
Ms. Gonna Satayathum
Mr. Marcelo Cesário
Mr. Fernando Rivero
Mr. Al-Smadi
Ms. Naoko Naito
Mr. Kotaro Nakamura
Dr. Robert Hoge
Prof. Shintaro Naito
Prof. Junichiro Otani
Prof. Jun Oshino
Prof. Haruhiko Higuchi(Japan)(Thailand)(Brazil)(Uruguay)(Jordan)(Japan)(Japan)(Canada)UNAFEIUNAFEIUNAFEIUNAFEI

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 1 started its discussion on 2 June 2008, and elected, by consensus, Mr. Al Smadi as its
Chairperson and Mr. Gunji as its Co-Chairperson. Mr. Cesário was elected as Rapporteur and Mr. Rivero as
Co-Rapporteur. Soon after the first meeting of the group, Mr. Al Smadi unfortunately had to leave UNAFEI
and return to Jordan unexpectedly, so Mr. Guniji assumed the position of Chairperson and Ms. Satayathum
became Co-Chairperson.
The group, which was assigned to discuss “Issues and methods of criminal investigation, prosecution,and judicial procedures for serious and violent juvenile offenders”, agreed to conduct its discussion inaccordance with the following issues: 1) investigation; and 2) the judicial system.
Besides this, the group divided each issue into the following sub-topics:
1.	Investigation:
A. Interview
B. A rrest and Detention
C. Social Environment/Technical Assessment
D. Report.
2.	Judicial System
A. C
 ourt Procedure in Juvenile Justice System
B. I nvolvement of Victims
C. Disposition for Juveniles.

II. INVESTIGATION
A. Interview and Violent Cases
Regarding this specific point in the investigation procedure, paying particular attention to serious andviolent cases committed by juveniles, the group discussed different methods of interviewing the juvenile
offender. The Chairman asked the participants, principally those who are police chiefs, to relate their own
experiences.
Mr. Rivero spoke of the extremely difficult conditions during the interview; sometimes the juveniles
can be very unstable and, sometimes, a little aggressive. Mr. Rivero also remarked on the juveniles’
vulnerability and noted the difference between three types of interview for an investigation, which are: theprimary interview by the police, trying to establish the relationship between the crime and the suspect; thesecond interview, by the prosecutor or judicial officers, searching for the details of the offence; and the third

174

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

interview, for technical assessment.
Mr. Cesário told of his experience in Brazil, where there are specialized police stations for investigationof juvenile offenders, completely separate from those places for adults. He also told the participants about
the importance of the presence of the juvenile offender’s parents during the interview.
On this specific point, Dr. Robert D. Hoge, whose honoured us with his presence during this discussion,
said that, from the point of view of psychology, the value or benefit of the presence of the parents during theinterview of the juvenile offender will vary, case-by-case, and that it is very difficult to form a general rule on
this issue.
Still on the matter of interviews, Mr. Nakamura recalled that the initial interview by the publicprosecutor is mainly for judging the necessity of detention, not for fact-finding.
Whether the atmosphere where the interview will take place is formal or not it is much more a questionof “interview techniques” than related to the interview itself, which implies that formal environments could
vary according to each case.
After all of these topics were discussed, the group agreed that there are two specific points about
interview of juvenile offenders, including but not limited to serious and violent juvenile offenders, that must
be considered: the place where the interview is to be held and the presence or not of the parents of thejuvenile offender during his or her interview.

B. Arrest/Detention
Recognizing the existence of serious and violent crime committed by juvenile offenders, our discussionof the topic above began with a brief explanation by Mr. Nakamura of the Japanese system for arrest anddetention, at the invitation of the Chairperson, Mr. Al Smadi.
According to Mr. Nakamura, a judge’s approval is always required for the detention of a juvenile. Besides
this, he emphasized that the measure of depriving the juvenile of freedom is more necessary if there is anaccomplice, in order to avoid communication between the two and, therefore, the destruction of evidence.
Mr. Nakamura ended by saying that it would be better to research the necessity of arrest of the juvenile
before the enforcement of the measure itself, and concluded that the main objective of the investigation in
Japan is “to find the truth,” and that there is no exception in matters of serious and violent juvenile crime.
Mr. Rivero gave a brief explanation of the arrest and detention system of a juvenile in Uruguay.
Mr. Cesário emphasized that the factors that imply the need to take the juvenile into custody must be of
two different orders: “social needs” (or “social claims”) and “juvenile protection”, which form an equation tobe solved by the judge regarding the balance of those two factors.
Ms. Satayathum told us that in Thailand, in most cases, the juvenile will be released, except when the
alleged offence is very serious.
On the other hand, Mr. Gunji asked us to focus on the factors that really imply the necessity of taking ajuvenile into custody and to think about the factors that should be considered in order to detain a juvenile.
At this specific point, Mr. Cesário said that the factors need to reflect the aims of the investigation, andproposed that “preservation of the evidence” and “preservation of the integrity of the juvenile” should be
the priority factors.
Mr. Nakamura said that we should not put factors into a priority order, but should analyse them all.
Besides this, he added that the detention place for juvenile should be separate from those places assigned
for adults.
Finally, Mr. Al Smadi pointed out that during the arrest minimum force should be used, including
handcuffs, unless extremely necessary, and properly justified.

175

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

By the end of the discussion of this topic, the group agreed that the most important point about arrestand detention in the investigation is consideration of what factors lead to the requirement to detain thejuvenile.

C. Social Environment
First of all, and in order to better delimit such a vague issue, the group decided that it is paramount todefine what constitutes “social environment”.
At this point, the Chairman, Mr. Gunji, suggested that the “Countermeasures to protect the privacy of
the family and of the juvenile” could be a topic, and asked us to talk about our experience in each country.
In that way, Mr. Rivero said that it is necessary to prescribe guidelines concerning information gathered
through investigation.
We also introduced the topics of regulation and the present situation of the reports of juvenile cases by
the press in each respective country.
After some members of the group gave accounts of their own experiences, the following issues wereconsidered most important when talking about social environment: preservation of the privacy of the family
and of the juvenile and the importance of maintaining information gained through investigation.

D. Report
Regarding the report of the investigation, Mr. Rivero introduced the theme by giving us a brief overview
of the rules in Uruguay.
After this, Mr. Al Smadi pointed out that we should discuss if recommendation has to be assigned or notin the final report of the investigation, besides asking “who has the right of drop the case”?
On the other hand, the group has not achieved any consensus about the inclusion of the recommendationin the final report, as well as about the competent authority to allow the case to be dropped, as thepeculiarities of each country demand different treatment on this specific point.
At the conclusion of discussion of this topic, the group has accorded that every case has to be reported
and sent to the competent authority, no matter what authority this is.

III. JUDICIAL SYSTEM
A. Court Procedure in the Juvenile Justice System
First of all, the group decided to draft a comparative table of the situation in the four countries whose
participants make up the group:
Principle

JAPAN
Protection

THAILAND
Rehabilitation(philosophy, idea)
Age of criminal

BRAZIL
Full protection and

URUGUAY
Protection andrehabilitation

rehabilitation

14 to 19

10 to 18

12 to 17

13 to 17

Family Court

Juvenile and Family

Juvenile Court

Family Court(protective) or

Court

responsibility(Juvenile)
Type of Court

176(protective) andDistrict Court

Adolescent Court(criminal)(criminal)

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

Persons Present

For the Family

1. Judge

1. Judge

1. Judge

Court:

2. Public Prosecutor

2. Public Prosecutor

2. Public Prosecutor

1. Judge

3. Probation Officer

3. Public Defender

3. Public Defender

2. Lawyer Attendant

4. Parents

4. Parents

4. Parents

3. Probation Officer

5. Legal Adviser of

5. Probation Officer

4. Parents

defendant

5. Persons approvedby judge who canbe helpful forrehabilitation
For the District
Court:
1. Judge
2. Prosecutor
3. Defence Counsel
Maximum

18 or above: death

Punishment

penaltyin an educational

14 to 17: life sentence

establishment

Duration of

23 days + 8 weeks

Life sentence

60 days

3 years of internment 5 years of internment

45 days

60 daysdetention before
final disposition

Each participant spoke about his or her own judicial system, briefly explaining the procedure, in order tocompare different systems.
This topic - Court Procedure in the Juvenile Justice System - was divided into two main sub-topics,
which are: 1) the role of parents; and 2) special consideration during the justice procedure.
Regarding the role of parents during the juvenile justice procedure, Ms. Naito told us that in Japan, theparents of the juvenile have the right to attend the hearing in the Family Court. In some cases however, thepresence of the parents can be prejudicial for the juvenile, and so the Family Court, in those cases, can ask
the parents to leave and can hold hearings for the juvenile and the parents separately. On the other hand, inthe District Court the parents do not have the right to be a part of the proceedings, but as the trial is open to
public, they can observe the trial.
Ms. Satayathum explained that in Thailand the presence of the juvenile’s parents is required during allprocedures.
Mr. Rivero said that in Uruguay the presence of the juvenile’s parents is also required during the trial,
but that there is no sanction for those who don’t appear, just advice.
Still on this topic, Mr. Cesário said that Brazil is just like Uruguay and Thailand, meaning that thepresence of the juvenile’s parents is always required, but if they don’t appear the hearing will not be
postponed, but an ad hoc legal representative for the act will be pointed by the judge.
The method of using social inquiry reports was one of the special considerations during justice systemprocedures that the group discussed. On this specific topic, Ms. Naito explained that in Japan the social
inquiry report is basically prepared by the Family Court probation officer and the official of the Juvenile
Classification Home (JCH). The first is dedicated to social data and the recommendation for disposition;
the second attends to psychological aspects such as IQ tests and behavioural tendencies, besides giving
recommendations for the appropriate treatment.

177

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

In Thailand, according to Ms. Satayathum, the social inquiry report is basically prepared by the probation
officer and its aim is to advise the most effective treatment.
According to Mr. Rivero, in Uruguay this report is made by the forensic office and also looks torecommend the best treatment.
Finally, Mr. Cesário pointed out that Brazil a specialized section of the Juvenile Court, staffed by social
welfare and psychology specialists, do make a social inquiry report, with the same objective of the of Thai
reports.
Aspects like, inter alia, who has access to the reports, the possibility of taking or making copies, andthe stage of proceedings when the report is read by the judge were also included in the discussion of social
inquiry reports.

B. Involvement of Victims
Our discussion of this issue began with a request by our Chairperson to each participant to explain his or
her own experience of (or country’s policy on) the involvement of victims during juvenile criminal justiceprocedure.
After a brief explanation by each member, two issues were identified as important when discussing the
involvement of victims: the effect on the juvenile and the effect on the final decision.
On this topic, according to Ms. Naito, it is possible to make the juvenile think about the seriousnessof his or her conduct by letting him or her know about the feelings of the victim. On the other hand, thepresence of the victim during the hearing could make the juvenile feel uncomfortable when talking about thefacts, leading to the juvenile not expressing his or her real feelings.
The group also discussed the convenience or otherwise of the full involvement of the victim in the trial.
The extent of the involvement of the victim in the hearing/trial, including contact with the juvenile, wasdiscussed exhaustively, in order to ascertain the advantages or disadvantages of this kind of procedure. In
spite of the differences between the countries, the group accorded that in juvenile criminal justice procedure
the feelings of the victims should be considered, giving them at least the opportunity of being heard.

C. Disposition for Juvenile Offenders (Including Serious and Violent Juvenile Crime)
The group’s main worry regarding this topic was to discuss which measures are the most appropriate
for the juvenile offenders to be disposed by the judge according to the main objectives of focusing on thejuvenile, resocialization and rehabilitation. In this way, each member briefly exposed the legal measuresexisting in his or her own country, making possible the following table.

Japan

Main Types of Disposition for Juvenile Of fenders

Ter m of Incarceration

1. Protective Measures

Indeterminate(i) Probation(ii) Juvenile Training School
ThailandCriminal Punishment(i) Office of the Obser vation and Protection Center

Determinate(ii) Probation
Brazil

1. Protective Measures
2. Socio-educational Measures

Indeterminate

Ur uguay

1. Socio-educational Measures(i) Educational ProgrammeIndeterminate(ii) Community Work
2. Criminal Punishment

178139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

During discussions on this issue, it emerged that it is important to have some flexibility in dispositions
for juveniles, in order that the length of their sentences not always be fixed, but that there is somediscretion accorded to the authorities to evaluate the best moment to release the juvenile, according to his
or her development during the imposed treatment period.
Another point discussed was related to the competent authority to release the juvenile after theenforcement of the treatment imposed or after the juvenile has reached an acceptable level of re-habilitation.
Recalling that the main theme of the Course is “Profiles and Effective Treatments of Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offenders”, Ms. Naito explained that in Japan there is a provision in the Juvenile Law that, inprinciple, serious cases in which a juvenile intentionally acted causing the victim’s death should be sent to
the public prosecutor, meaning that a criminal sentence should be imposed by the Criminal Court, when thejuvenile is 16 or over.
According to the participants from countries other than Japan, there is no similar provision in theircountries to restrict a judge’s discretion regarding disposition.
According to Mr. Cesário, in Brazil, by the occasion of the final disposition, the juvenile judge has thediscretion to choose between any of the socio-educational measures, but once “internment in an educational
establishment” has been chosen, a minimum of six months has to be observed, with the obligation ofre-examining the juvenile’s development and condition every six months. Besides this, in Brazil there is no
criminal punishment for juveniles, including serious and violent juvenile offenders.
Regarding criminal punishment and socio-educational measures, it is important that these issues be
discussed separately, taking into consideration that they are completely different and have different naturesand characteristics.

IV. CONCLUSIONS
After nine sessions of work and discussion, the Group has agreed on the following terms:

A. Investigation
1.	The interview of the juvenile offender should be conducted in a separate and reserved room, in order
to avoid putting the juvenile in contact with other juveniles, the victim, witnesses, and people ingeneral, and also to protect the privacy of the juvenile.
2.	Specialized training for those who deal with and interview juvenile offenders is desirable.
3.	Regarding the presence of the parents of the juvenile during the interview, the juvenile’s wish should
be respected regarding whether he or she will feel more or less comfortable, with due consideration
for what would be most effective for the investigation.
4.	The period of detention of a juvenile offender shall be as short as possible, even though theappropriate period of time cannot be specified because of the special needs of each country.
5.	The factors that must be considered preponderant when deciding upon the detention of a juvenile
can be summarized as “preservation of the evidence” and “protection of the juvenile”. These factors
reflect the balance that must be struck between the “claims of society” and “the preservation of therights of the juvenile” by those who make requests in these matters as well as those who ultimately
make decisions regarding detention.
6.	When deciding upon the detention of a juvenile during the investigation, the judge or the proper
authority must focus more on the juvenile him or herself than on the crime as a fact by itself, notforgetting the seriousness and the gravity of the crime.
7.	The perspectives of behavioural analysis and psychological conditions should be respected in theinvestigation of the juvenile case.

179

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

8.	It is vital to protect the privacy of the juvenile offender as well as that of his or her family, byprotecting the secrecy of the investigation as much as possible and by imposing limits on media
reports of juvenile crime.
9.	In every case, the results of a formal investigation must be reported, and the report shall contain asmuch information and evidence as possible in it.

B. Judicial System
1.	The goal of juvenile judicial system should be the rehabilitation and resocialization of the juvenile
offender, not punishment;
2.	During the juvenile procedure, the role of parents is always important, considering two main factors:
protection of the juvenile and the duties of parents and family as an institution;
3.	The social inquiry report, with sufficient information and analysis, such as family and educational
background, in addition to psychological aspects of the juvenile, is an essential document to give
support to the final disposition on the ground that each juvenile shall be considered as an individual in
his or her own particular circumstances;
4.	All those who handle information about juvenile offenders must be careful to keep it safe andconfidential in order to protect the privacy of the juvenile and his or her family, avoiding any kind of
unnecessary exposure;
5.	In the juvenile procedure, the feelings of the victims should be considered, giving them at least theopportunity of being heard by the court;
6.	The disposition for the juvenile shall not be too harsh regarding the period of time, but should givethe competent authority some discretion or flexibility to evaluate the best moment to release thejuvenile offender, taking into consideration two main factors: the minimum as well as the sufficientperiod necessary for rehabilitation of the juvenile.

180

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSEGROUP 2
EFFECTIVE INSTITUTIONAL TREATMENT PROGRAMMESFOR SERIOUS AND VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs
Members

AdvisersDr. Álvaro Burgos
Ms. Salma Begum
Ms. Claudina Morgan
Ms. Gloria B. Dithupa
Mr. Wangdi Tshering
Ms. Mayu Hayashi
Mr. Masaru Takahashi
Mr. Yoshihiro Uchida
Mr. Jung Jaemyung
Prof. Tetsuya SuganoProf. Ryuji Tatsuya(Costa Rica)(Bangladesh)(Antigua and Barbuda)(Botswana)(Bhutan)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(Korea)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI )I. INTRODUCTION
Group 2 started its discussion on 2 June 2008. The group elected, by unanimous consensus, Dr. Álvaro
Burgos as its Chairperson, Ms. Salma Begum as its Co-Chairperson, Ms. Claudina Morgan as its Rapporteur,and Ms Gloria B. Dithupa and Mr. Wangdi Tshering as its Co-Rapporterus. The Group, which is assigned
to discuss “Effective Institutional Treatment Programmes for Serious and Violent Juvenile Offenders”,
agreed to conduct its discussion in accordance with the following agenda: 1) Problems and challenges ofassessment techniques; 2) Effective treatment programmes for serious and violent juvenile offenders;
3) Treatment programmes taking into consideration victims’ viewpoints; 4) Problems and challenges ofcontinuous treatment programmes from institutional care to community treatment; and 5) Goals and needs
for improving effective institutional treatment programmes for serious and violent juvenile offenders.

II. PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES OF ASSESMENT TECHNIQUESThe group first reviewed the definition of juveniles in each participant’s country. The legal ages forjuveniles vary from country to country, ranging from the lower limit of seven years old in Bangladesh
through the upper limit of 19 years old in Korea and Japan (refer to Table 1 below).
Table 1: Juveniles’ Legal Age of Criminal Responsibility and Possible Maximum Penalty
Countr yAge

Possible Maximum Penalty for Juveniles

Antigua-Barbuda

8 – 16 yrs

Indefinite sentence

Bangladesh

7 – 16 yrs ( According to the Children

10 years

Act, 1974 the definition of “children”
embraces all up to the age of 16 years.
“Juvenile” is not defined in age terms
anywhere in the Children Act.)
Bhutan10 – 18 yrs

Half of the applicable sentence for an adult.

Botswana

14 – 18 yrs

Indefinite sentence with the possibility of parole.

Costa Rica

12 – 18 yrs

10 years (for juveniles aged 12-14)

The death sentence is not applied in Bhutan.

15 years (for juveniles aged 15-18)
Japan

14 – 19 yrs

Life sentence with parole (for juveniles aged 14-17)
Death penalty (for juveniles aged 18-19 at the timeof committing a crime)

Korea

14 – 19 yrs

15 years (for juveniles aged 14-17).
Indefinite sentence (for juveniles aged 18-19)

181

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

The group then discussed situations of assessment for juvenile offenders in each member’s country.
Specifically, the group focused on assessors, the stages at which assessment is conducted, and problems
and challenges of assessment (refer to Table 2 below). As a result, we found that major assessors include
probation officers, social workers, psychologists, police officers, and instructors. Assessment is carriedout mainly in court, correctional institutions, and other places, such as probation offices. Also, cases wereassessed at multiple case handling processes, such as the as pre-trial/hearing, during the trial/hearing, at theinitial stage of institutional treatment, and at the middle stage of institutional treatment. The group agreed
the following four reasons as the purposes of assessment:
1.	To clarify the type of treatment the juvenile needs;
2.	To assist decision-making for appropriate disposals at court;
3.	To make an individual treatment plan;
4.	To evaluate the outcome of treatment.
The participant from Korea raised an issue regarding point 1 above. In Korea, gangster juveniles and nongangster juveniles are confined in the same facility and there is no distinction made between them. Thus,
non-gangster juveniles are susceptible to negative influence by gangster juveniles. The Korean participantemphasized the significance of classification and division of juvenile offenders who are in gangs/groups
and those who are not. The participant from Botswana also commented that systems in her country do notmake a distinction between serious juvenile offenders and general juvenile offenders, which is a problem.
The group additionally discussed what to assess for juvenile offenders and consented that the juvenile’s
internal factors, including mental state, personalities, thinking patterns, intellectual abilities, as well as thejuvenile’s social background, including involvement in organized crime groups, family, school, employment,
and community, should be comprehensively assessed. Furthermore, many participants stressed thattaking cultural differences and varieties in ethnic backgrounds into consideration is critical in conducting
assessment. For example, the participant from Antigua and Barbuda noted that a large number of immigrants
has had some level of effect on the present crime rate in her country. The participant from Costa Rica also
stated that immigration issues are important in conducting assessment. His country has many immigrants
from Colombia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and so on, and a high correlation has been identified between
robberies and a low economic situation among juveniles.
Problems and challenges of assessment voiced by participants are summarized as the following four
points:1.	Lack of infrastructure (e.g. funds, facilities);
2.	Insufficiency of professional staff and training (e.g. medical doctors, social workers);
3.	Shortage of clear classification regulations;4.	Lack of resources to assess the effectiveness of programmes.
Concerning point 3 above, the participant from Bhutan, for instance, said that his country has no clear
standards and regulations to classify juvenile offenders and the formulation of such acts are now in progressby the government. With regard to point 4, Mr. Takahashi, from Japan, mentioned that importing assessment
tools from developed countries and using them tailored to each country’s situations would be useful indealing with this issue.

182139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE
Table 2: Current Situation: Assessment for Juvenile Offenders
Countr y

AntiguaBarbuda

Assessor(Who?)

Case stage

PurposeProblems and challenges of(When?)( What for?)assessment for effective treatment○ From initial○ To assist with the best ○ The cases should be dealt with at thestage through to possible disposal of
court in a timely manner in submitting○S ocial worker
end
the matter being dealt
reportswith○P robation○ Other persons involved (police, social
officer○ To assist the offenderworkers, probation officers) are notsufficient to enhance efficiency of the○ To maintainprocess
procedural standards○P sychologist○ To provide adequate
treatment to juveniles
Bangladesh○ Probation
officers○ Instructor at
the Juvenile
Certified
Institute○P re-trial○D uring hearing○ To clarify what type of ○ Lack of infrastructural facilities
treatment the juvenile○ I nsufficient number of probation
needs
officers○ To help decision○ Social workers are not that muchmaking for
involved in the assessment process
appropriate disposal atJuvenile Court○ To decide whether
to send to a certified
institute or to keep
the juvenile on
probation - under theguidance of parents
or relatives and under
the supervision of theprobation officer

Bhutan○ WCP (Women ○ Before trial
and Child fter trial○A
Protection
Unit)○ Investigation
officers○ To help decisionmaking for early
disposal at the court○ To minimize thesentence as far as
possible○ Staff of YDRC○ Absence of a Juvenile Act○ Inadequate knowledge among police
officers or responsible staff○ Absence of facilities○ No psychologists○ Lack of infrastructure○ No half way home facilities○ Lack of after release care services andmonitoring systems for juvenile○ Risk of reoffending is very high

Botswana○ Social workers ○ Upon admission ○ To provide counselling ○ Lack of skilled manpower to deal withserious and violent juveniles (e.g.
into an institution and guidance on an○ Employment
psychiatrists or psychologists)
individual basisof Prisoners○ W ithin one○ No monitoring tool to assess themonth ofand Allocation○ To conduct groupextent of effectiveness of programmes
sessions to help
incarceration
Committee
develop social
and interpersonal
competence○ To assist inmatesto make decisions
based on interest andability especially withvocational training
programmes

183

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Costa RicaJapan

○ Psychologist at ○ Before trial
Juvenile Court○ After trial○ Psychologist
for thesentencing○ Psychologist
at Juvenile
Classification
Homes○ Probation
officer at
Family Court○ Instructorat Juvenile
Training
SchoolKorea○ Classification
officer atJuvenile
Classification
Homes○ Pre-hearing○ Initial stage ofinstitutional
treatment○ Middle stageof institutional
treatment○ To determine the○ Small number of psychologists andmental capacity of theforensic scientists for all the wholejuvenile
country○ To help with personaltreatment○ To help decisionmaking for
appropriate disposals
at the Family Court○ No standardized tool for measuring
the risk of recidivism○ To classify and keep
conformity within atreatment group○ To make an individualplan for institutional
treatment○ To evaluate theoutcome of treatment○ Before trial○ Same as Japan○ Ordinary juvenile offenders are
not always separated from juvenile○ Before releasing ○ To decide on the kindgangsters
juveniles fromof confinement facility
Juvenile Training to be used
○ No rules or regulations to separate
Schooljuveniles according to the nature of○ To decide when to
their crimes○ Investigator atrelease the juvenile
Family Court

III. EFFECTIVE TREATMENT PROGRAMMES FOR SERIOUS AND
VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS
A. Current Situations
1. Japan
In Japan, serious and violent juvenile offenders are usually committed to special or medical juvenile
training schools or juvenile prisons where those offenders can receive treatments specifically tailored
for their conditions, such as the victimization awareness programme which will be described later. Japan
provides individual treatment programmes for juvenile offenders. In juvenile correctional institutions,each juvenile is assigned an individual instructor at the initial period of admission. An individual instructor
frequently conducts interviews with the assigned juvenile and strives to deeply understand the inmate.
However, in such facilities, not only the individually assigned instructor, but also many staff members
are involved in the treatment of juveniles throughout the whole process. For example, inmates haveopportunities to communicate with dormitory staff, officers in the classification and aftercare co-ordination
section, and the general affairs section. Such daily contacts with many people prompt co-operative
relationships. Thus, Japan approaches juvenile inmates in every part of daily life. Japan also offers
counselling by psychiatrists and group guidance by the type of offence, such as violence. However, thechallenges include conducting more research on the effectiveness of programmes and enriching anddeveloping them, based on research findings. Securing the necessary number of treatment staff members,
especially medical doctors and psychiatrists, is also a crucial issue in order to respond to each juvenile’s
needs appropriately.
2. Antigua and Barbuda
In Antigua and Barbuda, serious and violent juvenile offenders are usually committed to the boys’ homeor adult prisons. The Child and Family Guidance Center provides anger management and conflict resolution
programmes for juveniles, vocational training (e.g. PC skills), commuting to school outside the facility, andcommunity activities in the boys’ training school. Ms. Nathaniel-Morgan noted three issues in her country.
Firstly, evaluation of programmes is insufficient. Specifically, the correctional institution’s priority does not
go beyond meeting basic needs. Secondly, her country has no follow-up, aftercare programme due to thelimited number of probation officers. Thirdly, programmes for juveniles are not very rehabilitation-oriented,

184

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

but rather punishment-oriented, reflecting public opinion.
3. Bangladesh
In Bangladesh, serious and violent juvenile offenders are usually committed to Juvenile Development
Centers. There are two juvenile development centers for boys and one such center for girls. Bangladesh
provides primary and high school level academic education, vocational training to boys for their economic
rehabilitation, and other kinds of training for girls such as tailoring, handicrafts, etc. There are recreationaland medical facilities, and counselling services for juvenile inmates are provided in the Juvenile
Development Center. Counselling sessions are conducted on an individual or group basis. For the inmates,
there are classes on social norms and values, good behaviour, religious belief, and manners and etiquette. In
the certified institutes, serious and violent juvenile offenders are kept separated from others.
4. Bhutan
In Bhutan, serious and violent juvenile offenders are usually committed to a Youth Development
Rehabilitation Center (YDRC). Bhutan provides HIV programmes, vocational training programmes(handicrafts, hairdressing), and guidance on the concept of giving hope for a better future. Moreover,Bhutan adopts behaviour modification systems. It encourages the inmates to continue their education. On
weekends, an outing programme is provided for inmates who have engaged in pro-social behaviours. If
inmates misbehave, these privileges are forfeited.
5. Botswana
In Botswana, serious and violent juvenile offenders are usually committed to a boys’ prison. There,social workers compile a social assessment and make an individual treatment plan, and the prison
committee decides on appropriate treatment. Based on this decision, social workers provide counsellingand guidance for inmates. A new programme called the “Character Moulding Programme” was initiatedin 2005. This programme was introduced from Canada and consists of eight modules, including stressmanagement (all inmates including juveniles are required to take this programme); assertiveness training;
anger management; positive parenting (a child under two years is housed with his or her mother until theweaning stage); respective relations; and project management (for juveniles who want to start a businessupon release). One social worker, with input from NGOs, conducts programme sessions by using manuals
and textbooks. Each class meets once a week and lasts for three months. Target groups are selected basedon risk assessment, except for the “stress management” programme. Trained vocational staff members inevery vocational area offer vocational programmes, such as carpentry, welding, and horticulture, for boys,
and tailoring for both genders. Juveniles’ progress in programmes is monitored by social workers. Products
manufactured through vocational training courses are sold to community residents. Inmates get incentive
for their labour. Ms. Dithupa called attention to some issues in her country. No aftercare programme exists,
because the public tend to think that punitive sanction is better even for juvenile offenders, as in the casein Antigua and Barbuda. Other problems include a lack of human resources and research on the correlation
between undergoing the programme and the recidivism rate. The Character Moulding Programme isrelatively new and as such its effectiveness has not been evaluated yet.
5. Costa Rica
In Costa Rica, serious and violent juvenile offenders are usually committed to specialized prisons.
Costa Rica provides institutionalized juveniles with sex offender programmes, computer training, a theatre
programme, and a sport programme. These programmes are not mandatory for all inmates, but voluntary
for inmates when the following conditions are met: (i) inmates are assessed as requiring the programme
based on psychological testing, and so forth; and (ii) both inmates and their parents sign a contract and agree
to take the programme. Mr. Burgos mentioned that the small number of specific institutional treatment
programmes for serious and violent juvenile offenders is an issue in his country.
6. Korea
In Korea, serious and violent juvenile offenders are usually committed to juvenile training schools.
However, more emphasis is placed on confinement rather than treatment programmes. The public has few
interests in juvenile offenders although there are many homicide and robbery cases committed by juveniles.
The participant from Korea further emphasized the gangster matters in his country as an underlying factor
of many serious and violent juvenile offences. Several years ago, a TV drama which glamourized gangsters
became popular among young people. Consequently, many youths were attracted to gangs and joined them.

185

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Gangs have enlarged their territories and recruited more gang members. Therefore, he suggested thatmeasures should be taken to separate gangster juvenile offenders and non-gangster juvenile offenders to
avoid the negative influence of gangs spreading further, and for gang members, treatment programmes
dealing with gang problems are necessary.

IV. TREATMENT PROGRAMMESTAKING INTO CONSIDERATION VICTIMS’ VIEWPOINTS
A. JapanIn juvenile training schools in Japan, there are victim awareness programmes provided for inmates
who have committed offences against other people. This programme which is especially considered to be
crucial for serious and violent offenders is offered mainly at the intermediate and pre-release stages in thetreatment process. At the orientation stage, inmates are usually not yet ready to think about their crime
victims because inmates tend to be more concerned about their families and themselves than their victims,
and crime victim issues involve sensitive topics. Therefore, instructors, especially an instructor individuallyassigned to an inmate, frequently conducts individual interviews and takes time to create a trusting
relationship with the inmate. Also, inmates are often abused and hurt by violence before commission to thejuvenile training school, and they need grief care. With this close and harmonious relationship between theinmate and the instructor, inmates gradually open their hearts and speak their minds to instructors. This is
an important foundation to get inmates to ready for the victim awareness programme.
As for the contents of the victim awareness programme, it includes such methods as writing thematic
essays; group guidance and group discussions on violence; watching videos and reading books on crime
victim issues; individual interviews; and using the role lettering method, by which inmates write letters totheir victims and victims’ families. The letters are not actually mailed to victims/victims’ families. Then,
inmates read letters that they wrote and reply to letters by themselves, in the position of their victims.
Additionally, for inmates who have committed a fatal offence, individual religious education and a monthly
memorial service are provided to mourn the victim. For example, Buddhist followers burn an incense
stick and put it on a Buddhist altar and recite a sutra inside the institution with a priest from outside theinstitution. Moreover, juvenile training schools hold lectures by crime victims or crime victim supporters,
and have individual counselling sessions on life and mind, by counsellors who are specialists in the welfare
or medical field. In order to teach inmates the preciousness of life, animal therapy, such as having a dog as apet, is also provided for inmates. Finally, in order for inmates to make plans to apologize to and compensate
victims, the juvenile’s efforts and their family members’ co-operation are essential. Therefore, juvenile
training schools also approach guardians to increase their abilities in leadership as guardians and put
importance on their visits to and communication with their children in the facility.

B. Antigua and Barbuda
There is no particular institutional programme which takes victims into consideration; however, there aresupport groups more for victims of serious violence, domestic violence, AIDS, and rape. Victims and people
concerned hold meetings and the support groups serve as social resources. The groups are not structured,
not official, and more for the community, and thus they are not considered restorative justice, which can be
defined as leaving out official justice and allowing victims to speak on their own behalf. The victims of rape
are offered sexually transmitted disease screening and HIV testing as well as pregnancy testing. All victims
are offered counselling.
C. Bangladesh
There is no particular institutional programme which takes victims into consideration. However, in theprocess of the criminal justice system, victims can appear in court and voice opinions. Social counsellingis also available for victims, which functions as mental support for victims. In rural areas there is a systemcalled “Shalish” which is applied for juveniles as well as adults. In the non-cognizable offence cases, anelected Chairman of an area or an elderly, learned and wise person holds meetings where victims, offenders,
and the parents all contribute to decision-making. Neighbours of victims and offenders, the representativesof society, also remain present in the meetings. Councillors in the village discuss how to recover the damage
inflicted on victims of minor offences. If the case is not resolved, it is transferred to court. So far, most of
the minor or non-cognizable offence cases have been agreed upon and settled. Sometimes the decision is
written on an agreement document, but this is not compulsory. The underlying principle of this system is186

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

that the community and families pay respect to the elderly. That is why the elderly make a fair decision andthe community obeys it.

D. Bhutan
In the Women and Child Protection Unit, and police departments, counselling is provided for inmatesand victims. Victims can receive counselling before and after the sentence of offenders. Inmates canreceive counselling after the sentencing. In Bhutan, compensation for victims is given by offenders and it ismandatory.
E. Botswana
There is no particular institutional programme which takes victims into consideration. However, there isa counselling programme available for rape victims. A non-governmental organization (NGO) provides thecounselling. Additionally, compensation to the victim is made by offenders. If offenders commit crimes suchas theft they must pay money to their victims. For sex offenders, the NGO “War Against Rape” provides
programmes for offenders and victims to solve the problems caused by this crime. This programme is also
applied to juveniles. In sex offence cases, the court orders HIV testing for offenders and victims. HIV testingfor offenders is conducted before the trial. If the offender tests HIV positive, he receives 15 years. If theoffender tests HIV negative, he receives 10 years. If the offender knew that he was HIV positive before
committing rape, he receives 20 years to a life sentence. Furthermore, in order to protect rape victims, theprohibition on abortion is lifted in rape cases.
F. Costa Rica
Few particular institutional programmes which take victims into consideration exist. The court judge has
to listen to the victim before rendering a decision. In cases where mediation is done, hearing the victims’
opinion is compulsory for the judge. However, in sexual/domestic violence cases, and homicide, mediation
is not allowed. There are specific guidelines and social workers, first instance court judges, medical doctors,
prosecutors, and attorneys, trying to help victims. A specialized judge deals with the execution of sentence
taking into consideration the victim’s point of view.
V. PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES OF CONTINUOUS TREATMENT PROGRAMMESFROM INSTITUTIONAL CARE TO COMMUNITY TREATMENT
A. Japan
Currently, juvenile training schools have a close connection and communication with probation offices
in order to prepare inmates for smooth re-entry into society. Especially in cases of serious and violent
offenders, juvenile training schools need close contact with probation offices in order to find proper places
for offenders to go back to and plan carefully their future lives. Approximately one month after the admissionof a juvenile into the facility, staff members of the Classification and Aftercare Coordination Section prepare
documents on the inmate’s offence, personality, and background, based on the Juvenile Book, taken fromthe juvenile classification home, and the social investigation report, sent from the Family Court. When therelevant probation office receives the document from the juvenile training school, environmental adjustment
begins. In principle, one probation officer and one volunteer probation officer are assigned to each inmate.
Every two or three months, the probation officer sends the environmental adjustment report to the juvenile
training school, based on the report from the volunteer probation officer. The juvenile training school sends
the probation office periodical reports on the progress of the inmate. The inmate exchanges letters withthe volunteer probation officer. Sometimes, the volunteer probation officer or the probation officer visits
the juvenile training school to interview the inmate. In this way, the volunteer probation officer and theprobation officer build strong relationships with the inmate while he or she is still in the juvenile training
school. If there is some concern about environmental adjustment (e.g. no visit to the inmate by his or her
parents or guardians), the juvenile training school first approaches the parents or guardians, and if this does
not produce positive results, contacts the appropriate probation office to seek assistance.
Before inmates’ release from the facility, juvenile training schools explain to them conditions to beobserved during parole. Inmates also have an opportunity to make an observation visit to a probation
office near the facility at the pre-release stage. Juvenile training schools also explain the parole system tojuveniles’ parents or guardians on occasions like guardians’ meetings or visits. After release, the juvenile
goes to the probation office and meets the volunteer probation officer once a month and reports his or her

187

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

life conditions. Approximately one month after release, the juvenile training school sends the Juvenile Book,
the record of treatment at the institution and the juvenile’s achievement to the relevant probation office.
However, the absence of a computerized information network system between the Correction Bureau,
which has jurisdiction over institutional treatment, and the Rehabilitation Bureau, which has jurisdiction
over community treatment, is a serious issue in Japan. Databases of these bureaus are not electronicallyinter-linked. As such, sharing information between juvenile training schools and probation offices isconducted in writing. Establishing the electronic information network system is an urgent issue to further
bridge the gap between juvenile training schools and probation offices. If such a database is created, it would
create the following benefits:
1. Mitigate the work of inputting information on the juvenile;
2. Make accumulation of research activities on continuous treatment easier;
3. Allow smoother communication between juvenile training schools and probation offices.

B. Antigua and Barbuda
The lack of education of the general population in regard to the criminal justice system is a major
barrier to persons who have returned to their communities. The lack of awareness and ignorance of the
judicial system does not allow for a smooth transition to a home environment. The treatment programmes
must incorporate the community if there is to be productive life after incarceration. Aftercare treatment
programmes, though effective in theory, are useless if the persons to be treated do not make themselves
available for treatment, because they are afraid of what may be said about them and they do not trust theconfidentiality of the system. They would rather do without the care that in some cases may save their lives.
Finger pointing, name calling, teasing, and labelling affect these persons very deeply and lead to reoffending.
Aspects of cultural, ethnic and religious beliefs and philosophies must also be considered because tolerance
levels vary in different cultures. There is a growing concern as well for persons who are mentally challenged
and need to be on medication, but who, in some cases, were not assessed appropriately. In these cases theaffected persons have not been afforded the opportunity to lead normal lives within their limits.
C. Bangladesh
There is little structured community treatment in existence. In Bangladesh, finding jobs suitablefor juvenile offenders, who often have not received adequate education, is a challenge to be dealt with.
Communities do not always treat juvenile offenders cordially. Probation officers and the juvenile’s parents
counsel the juvenile. Upon and after release, probation officers sometimes help the juvenile to find a job.
Police keep the records of the juvenile offender. Certified institutes also keep such records.
D. Bhutan
In Bhutan, the community treatment system has not yet been implemented and whatever is required
to be done depends entirely on the parents once the juvenile is released from the centre. Records are kept
for future reference. Prior to release we inform the parents to report to the institution to complete thenecessary formalities and during release we obtain a letter from the juvenile undertaking to stay away from
crime for our records and to prevent the juvenile from committing further offences.
E. Botswana
There are two programmes that are mainly concerned with continuous treatment programmes frominstitutional care to community treatment. These are extra-mural labour and parole. Before placement ofoffenders in these programmes, a social enquiry report is made reflecting the environment, employment
and accommodation aspects of the offender’s potential placement. For extra-mural labour the offendershould be placed in an employment facility near his or her place of abode to avoid transportation costs as
the employment is not paid but rather takes the form of community service. The offender is only provided
with monthly food rations at government expense and other expenses are taken care of by the family as
they are expected to participate in his or her rehabilitation. But as for parolees, they are only provided
with guidance and counselling as they are expected to find paying jobs to sustain themselves. There areproblems and challenges concerning these programmes. The community continues to deny responsibility
for crime prevention and this leads to expectations that custodial sentencing alone will provide a solution.
Stigmatization/labelling of offenders is also a problem as it is inconducive to their rehabilitation. Limited
resources to implement best supervision practices in community treatment programmes are also a barrier.
188

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

F. Costa Rica
A specialized new law dealing with the execution of sentences for juveniles was enacted. This law isbased on the principle that juveniles must be treated differently from adults and that the best interest of
the juvenile has to be pursued. Judges, prosecutors, and public defenders specializing in sentencing andthe execution of sentences of juvenile offenders were stipulated in the law. There are two types of judges:(i) those for sentencing; and (ii) those for execution of sentence. A multi-disciplinary team, including
psychologists, educators, and social workers, provide treatment for juveniles. Another basic principle isthat prison is used as the last resort. Based on this policy, the sentence rate of juveniles in Costa Rica isfairly low. Eighty-five percent of the cases are disposed of by measures other than commission to prison.
In prison, there is a classification department. Different professionals, such as psychologists and educators,
conduct interviews with inmates. Structured community programmes dealing with juveniles are provided.
Juveniles, their legal advisers and their parents or guardians sign a specialized agreement and the juveniles
engage in community volunteer service, in such places as a fire department, the Red Cross, homes for theelderly, and special education facilities. If juveniles do not do well in community treatment, they can be sent
to jail.
G. Korea
The gangster issue is also a serious issue in the transition from institutional to community care. Since
no distinction is made between non-gangsters and gangsters in correctional institutions, non-gang member
juveniles are easily affected by gangsters, and the possibility of their involvement with gangs after release
increases and this poses a grave risk to community treatment.
VI. GOALS AND NEEDS FOR IMPROVING TREATMENT PROGRAMMESFOR SERIOUS AND VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS
After reviewing the current situations and issues, the group identified several relatively common
challenges, such as:
•
•
•
•
•

A shortage of clear classification regulations;
A lack of infrastructure (e.g. funds, facilities);
An insufficient number of institutional programmes taking victims’ viewpoints into account;
A lack of systematic follow-up programmes;
Inadequate information sharing between institutional and community treatment authorities.

Based on the findings of these relatively common problems, the group agreed the following
recommendations as possible solutions for the effective treatment of serious and violent juvenile offenders.
1.	Identifying the risk of reoffending and the needs of the targeted juvenile;
2.	Assessing such factors as the degree of danger of mental disorders, maturity, and intellectual leveland juveniles at risk of reoffending;
3.	Categorizing specific levels to connect assessment and treatment;
4.	Utilizing multiple-disciplinary assessors;
5.	Introducing standardized assessment tools, combining both quantitative and qualitative methods,
adaptive to different situations;6.	Establishing proper selection and implementation of assessment methods;
7.	Allocating necessary human and infrastructural resources;
8.	Utilizing the existing resources as best possible;
9.	Constructing the minimum essential number of institutions;189

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

10.	Taking into consideration varied cultural contexts;
11.	Creating an integrated package holistically encompassing the needs of the juvenile and the concernsof the victim and having it implemented by a cadre of qualified personnel, maintaining standards ofconsistency and continuity;12.	Considering the restorative justice system for compensating victims for the harm suffered;
13.	Developing programmes integrating institutional and community-based treatment as a package;
14.	Establishing a united organization handling both institutional and community treatment;
15.	Developing electronic data network systems between related agencies for smooth information
sharing;16.	Conducting intervention at the early stage of incarceration to prepare the juvenile for discharge.

190

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSEGROUP 3

EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY TREATMENT PROGRAMMESFOR SERIOUS AND VIOLENT JUVENILE OFFENDERS

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs
Members
Advisers

Ms. Ina Rose Hunter
Mr. Barakanye Kootsene
Ms. Grace Yerro Naparato
Mr. Chi-wai Samuel Tong
Ms. Akiko Tashiro
Mr. Alain-Bertin Tobunelo Bekolo
Ms. Kazumi Watanabe
Ms. Korakod Narkvichetr
Prof. Tae Sugiyama
Prof. Koji Yamada

Jamaica
Botswana
Philippines
Hong KongJapan
Democratic Republic of CongoJapan
Thailand
UNAFEIUNAFEI

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 3 was required to discuss effective community treatment programmes for serious and violent
juvenile offenders released from institutions as well as those who receive non-custodial sentences. We
were specifically asked to address the problems and challenges of continuous programmes from institutionalcare onwards, including the achievement levels of same. In addition, we were to examine the relationships
between criminal justice institutions, government agencies and NGOs, as well as crime prevention
strategies, such as screening in early childhood and treatment for boys and girls in high risk families.
It was the consensus that community-based treatment is very important in the prevention of crime.
Robert Hoge, (2008) noted psychologist, suggests that because the treatment is in the juveniles’ real-life
setting it affords the opportunity to treat them in an authentic way.
Our discussion was informed by a general exploration of the topic and individual reports on the current
situation in the different countries. Common problems were identified and their attendant issues discussedwith a view to finding practical solutions and recommendations.

II. CURRENT SITUATION IN PARTICIPATING COUNTRIESIn order to provide a background for the discussion, the group considered it necessary to understand theperspectives of different countries.

A. Botswana
A Probation Order is one of the sentencing options available to courts in Botswana. However, there areno full time Probation Officers in Botswana. Supervision of juveniles (up to 18 yrs) who are on communitybased sentences or extra-mural services are carried out by the local police and traditional leaders.
After release from correctional institutions, there is no statutory supervision. However, in situations
where supervisees are serving non-custodial sentences, they are required to adhere to supervision
requirements which involve performing extra-mural services for up to six months. Breach of conditions canresult in the young offenders being taken to court.
Chiefs (traditional leaders) can exercise community-based jurisdiction. There was a time when thechildren were the responsibility of the entire community but such support is now diminishing.

B. Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
When juveniles (those under 18 years of age) commit infractions, the Judge of the Peace has two options.
One is to return the young offender to the care of his or her family with the recommendation that the family
ensures the juvenile’s good behaviour. The other option is to send him or her to the Establishment of Guardand of Education of the State (EGEE). After release, no service is provided.

191

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

C. Hong Kong
The non-custodial sentencing options for juveniles/young offenders (those aged from 10 to 20 years) in
Hong Kong are as follows:(i) discharge upon entering into a recognizance;(ii) a probation order;(iii) a bond of good behaviour;(iv) a care and protection order;(v) attendance at a reformatory school;(vi) fine, damages or costs (paid by offender or his or her family).
The Social Welfare Department is in charge of some of the non-custodial sentences.
The custodial sentencing options for young offenders (those aged from 14 to 20 years) in Hong Kong are:(i) commitment to a detention centre;(ii) commitment to rehabilitation centre;(iii) commitment to a training centre;(iv) commitment to a drug addiction treatment centre; or(v) imprisonment.
When an inmate is released from the institutions, statutory supervision by the Correctional Services
Department is provided but the period of supervision varies according to the kind of programme theparticular inmate receives.

D. Jamaica
The Community Probation Officers supervise adult and child offenders on community-based sentences;
adults on parole; children on license and children on statutory supervision (whose Correctional Order
expires before their 18 th birthday). In Jamaica, the Probation Service is a part of the Department ofCorrectional Services (Ministry of National Security) which is responsible for the custody and rehabilitationof adult and child offenders. The non-custodial sentencing options include, but are not limited to, thefollowing: Community Service Orders; Curfew Orders; Fit Person and Probation Orders.
Recipients of community-based sentences are expected to comply with the conditions of their order. Noncompliance may result in the matter being referred to the court. A breach of a Probation Order, for example,
may result in the court upgrading the Probation Order to a Correctional Order. Conversely, a breach of theconditions for license may result in recall to the juvenile correctional centre. The latter is the purview of the
Department of Correctional Services.

E. Japan
In Japan, the Rehabilitation Bureau of the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) is responsible for the overall
administration of community-based treatment of juvenile offenders (those aged from 14 to 19 years). The
Probation Officers (POs) and Volunteer Probation Officers (VPOs) provide guidance and support for juvenile
offenders.
There are two types of community supervision for juveniles. One type of supervision involves juvenile
probationers who are placed on probation by a decision of a Family Court. The other involves juvenile
parolees who are granted provisional discharge from juvenile training schools.
When placed on probation or parole, certain conditions are imposed on the offenders. On breaching suchconditions, the juvenile offenders may be sent to court and be returned to the juvenile training school by thedecision of the Family Court.

F. Philippines
In the Philippines, the community-based treatment system and supervision is carried out primarily by
the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) through the Local Social Welfare Officers(LSWDO). However, once a child aged between 15 years plus one day but below 18 years of age hascommitted a serious and violent crime the court, instead of pronouncing the judgment of the child being in
192

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

conflict with the law, will place him or her under probation in lieu of service of his or her sentence taking
into account the best interest of the child. The monitoring and supervision shall then be carried out by
probation officers (of the Probation and Parole Administration).
The Child in Conflict with the Law (CICL) together with the parents will sign a contract which stipulates
requirements such as the mode of reporting compliance, attendance at seminars and counselling, etc. If
the CICL breaches the said undertaking, the Social Welfare Development Officer and/or Probation Officers
supervising and monitoring the subject CICL will then make a written report addressed to the court withjurisdiction. Furthermore, the non-compliance on the part of CICL warrants the court to issue stringent
measures.

G. Thailand
In Thailand, the Department of Probation is in charge of juveniles’ (those aged from 10 to 18 years) noncustodial treatment. Probation Officers and Volunteer Probation Officers (VPOs) supervise juveniles. On
the other hand, the Juvenile Observation & Protection Department is in charge of institutional treatment.
When the juveniles are released from correctional institutions (training school, vocational training school,
therapeutic community centre, etc.) very few of them are released with parole. If released with parole,
offenders will be under the supervision of probation officers.
III. COMMON ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The members of the group agreed that there are several factors which contribute to the problems andchallenges of community-based treatment. For those offenders released from institutions, the lack of asmooth assessment and treatment process into community-based treatment is a major factor, except in thecase of Jamaica where probation and institutional treatment fall within the same Department. The group also
identified negative influences, labelling and stigmatization as factors affecting juvenile offenders. High-riskfamilies, exposure to drugs and guns, and problems in schools were identified as factors which could lead toserious and violent delinquency. In our discussions of these factors some common issues emerged.

A. Resources
The group saw this issue as critical to the continuity or success of all treatment programmes. The lackof resources is one of the prevalent issues which undermine the effectiveness of treatment programmes.
Participating countries expressed that most of the time the resources needed were not regarded aspriority funds by their government. It was also noted that some governments needed to be convincedof the importance of community-based treatments and this could be proven by research. However, nongovernment organizations (NGOs) do provide support in some countries. Sadly, in some cases, thegovernment is unable to procure the finances required for community-based treatment. In such instances
there is no follow up or aftercare programme following the institutionalization of the juveniles.
B. Staffing - Probation, Supervision (Parole)/Social Workers/Corrections
An effective treatment programme requires adequate manpower. Staff members should be proportionallypaid and well trained. In some countries, probation service or work is not a popular profession for graduates
and job seekers because such work is not widely known to the general public. It does not attract the same
remuneration as other comparable professions such as psychologists and social workers. Although in mostcountries probation officers require at minimum an undergraduate degree, it was agreed that based on theincreasing complexity of juvenile offences, probation officers need to receive more comprehensive training.
C. Community Support (Education and Infrastructure)
In all treatment programmes, community support plays a vital role in achieving the desired goal. Itspresence is imperative to the total rehabilitation of juvenile offenders. Although the laws exist to protect therights and welfare of juvenile offenders the implementation of effective treatment is retarded when there
is very limited education, infrastructure and support from community members. Both Japan and Thailand
benefit from the service of Volunteer Probation Officers. For the other countries, this is a workable idea.
There are instances where juveniles are released and have no accommodation or community support isvery fragile. It was agreed that the support of halfway houses as used in Hong Kong, Japan, the Philippines
and Thailand is very important and a worthwhile consideration for other countries. In the case of the193

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

Philippines these houses are managed by NGOs but supervised by the department of Social Welfare andDevelopment.
Adult responsibility in the treatment of juveniles, a point mentioned during one of our individual
presentations, is very important. The stigma attached to offending sometimes makes it difficult for offenders
to get employment. Support for employment is important, especially for those serious and violent juvenile
offenders who were in institutions and who were disconnected from their employment. Their risk ofreoffending can be significantly reduced through gainful employment.
The family, as the primary and basic element of society, has a great impact on the reintegration ofjuveniles from institutions as well as those who are given non-custodial sentences. It is important that thehome provides a stable environment with the necessary guidance which will help in keeping these offenders
away from criminal activities. This task is made even more difficult because the family structure in many
communities is not as strong as it used to be. A community collaboration of civil society groups, schools,
courts, social welfare agencies and correctional institutions is important to provide support to the home.

D. Interagency Communication
Effective assessment and treatment can be made easier through interagency networking of relevantbodies, such as departments of corrections, probation, health, social welfare and education, as well as NGOs.
However, the situation as reported in most countries is one that is fragmented. Because of this, there is alack of communication and problems such as overlapping functions, mismanagement of resources and gaps
in the flow of the services and treatment programmes.
One of the participants averred that although there are initiated or scheduled forums or meetings
between these agencies only high ranking officials are required to participate. These persons are usually not
in touch with what is happening on the ground. The prime movers or those directly involved on the groundwould actually benefit more from those meetings because they have the practical and hands-on informationand experience.

E. Assessment Procedures
The group discussed the fact that one of the major challenges to an effective community-based treatment
is a lack of a reliable scientific assessment process. The practice in some countries is that treatment relies
heavily on non-standardized assessment. Because of this, the results may vary according to the tool/methodof assessment used. This unreliable source of assessment cannot adequately ascertain the risks posed by
and needs of serious and violent juvenile offenders. The implication, we agreed, is that such unreliable
assessment will not produce an appropriate treatment plan and the multi-modal programmes which researchsuggests should be in place for effective treatment. Special mention was made of the Youth Level of Service/
Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI), a risk assessment tool developed by Dr. Hoge to determine thecrimonogenic needs and risk of reoffending in serious and violent juvenile offenders. The group considers
this a useful instrument and thinks that it could be used to provide a scientific means of assessment.
Another problem in the assessment process is that information is not shared or transferred to different
treatment points. Family court or institutional assessment is not necessarily transferred to communitybased treatment authorities, e.g. in Japan, the Family Court, Classification Homes/Juvenile Training Schools
and Probation Office conduct separate assessments. This can also be seen in Thailand and perhaps in somedeveloped countries. Because of this, results vary depending on the assessment tools applied. The situation
however is worse in some countries where there are no assessment mechanisms in place at all.

F. Development of Treatment ProgrammesThis issue is very relevant since this is a great avenue for helping juveniles to cope with their society’s
norms through the development of more practical and result oriented treatment programmes. These norms
are being influenced by forces such as globalization and the innovations in information and technology.
The group agreed that programmes in institutions and in the community must be relevant to the needs ofoffenders in their rapidly changing societies.
The group therefore explored the gap which exists in offender training and market needs, particularlyin the institutions, where some areas of vocational training are no longer economically viable. A similar gap

194139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

exists in matching the risk/need level with a specific individual plan in the community.

G. Evaluation of Treatment Programmes
The group acknowledged that a broad based multi-modal approach is also necessary to narrow the gaps
between the assessment and treatment regimes. Most countries have no systematic way of knowing theextent to which their programmes or interventions help juvenile offenders, especially those juveniles whoare considered serious and violent.
The group agreement was that programmes and activities were conducted repeatedly and with somebeneficial results. However, better results could be achieved from an evaluation process which would
determine the need to revise programmes, discard programmes or introduce other programmes. It was ourbelief that because most countries do not have standardized assessment tools it was difficult to evaluate
the outcomes of their programmes because the outcomes of programmes which use standardized tools
are usually specific and measureable. The same cannot be said for some non-standardized assessment
procedures.
Furthermore, evaluation is very significant in communicating the effectiveness or non-effectiveness ofthe programmes to the public. It is usually difficult to persuade the public or the government to fund certain
programmes without providing evidence of their success or potential for success.

H. Monitoring
One of the challenges to the treatment regime is the ability to monitor juvenile offenders. Most
participants’ jurisdictions had similar conditions which are imposed on the juvenile offenders in thecommunity, which may result in the matter being referred back to the court for stricter options, including
institutional treatment.
During the discussion it was noted that there are differences when it comes to monitoring thosejuveniles or children in conflict with the law. These differences vary in terms of the period of reporting;manner of supervision or monitoring; requirements or conditions stipulated by the court concerned; persons
involved in the supervision and monitoring; and the mode of supervision or contact with the juveniles/
CICLs. In some countries probation officers are responsible for supervision while in other countries it is the
responsibility of the local police or the corrections department.
Concerning the breach of conditions or requirements, in Japan and Hong Kong, the probation officers/
corrections officers are entitled or vested with the authority and legal premise to arrest the juvenile who isin breach or fails to comply with the conditions and requirements expected of them. On the contrary, in mostof the participating countries, the probation or corrections service do not have such authority as this is thepurview of the law enforcement agencies.
In the final part of the discussion on monitoring, the group examined electronic monitoring, which isconsidered to be a harsh option for monitoring juvenile offenders. For instance, the United Kingdom utilizes
the electronic monitoring system specifically for violent and serious offenders but its use is combined withintensive supervision. In Thailand, they are considering a pilot programme of electronic monitoring, while
in Hong Kong, after a long debate, the city decided not to introduce the system because of the debate abouthuman rights considerations.
Some participants were not in agreement with applying electronic monitoring to juveniles and thoughtthat it could be suitable for adult offenders as a diversion from imprisonment. In strengthening thisargument it was observed that using electronic monitoring with serious and violent juvenile offenders might
result in reduced motivation to rehabilitate and stigma which may carry undesirable effects.
Another point raised was that although the use of electronic monitoring is useful to locate the offenderphysically, it is not necessarily effective to prevent them from reoffending. Some participants considered theelectronic system ideal as an intermediate sanction for serious and violent juvenile offenders rather thanimprisonment. Although it cannot prevent reoffending, because the offender can be easily tracked down andmonitored, it may serve the purpose of protecting the public and appease their cry for stricter penalties forjuvenile offenders.

195

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

The group could not reach a single conclusion concerning the issue of electronic monitoring. However,using electronic monitoring in restricted conditions, i.e. clarifying the purpose, selection of the subject
juvenile and combination with other treatment measures, could be an option for the treatment of serious andviolent offenders.

IV. CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMMES IN THE COMMUNITY
A. Early Detection
In looking at crime prevention, we recalled Dr. Hoge’s lecture on “Issues in the Treatment of Juvenile
Offenders Part II”, and his reference to “Life-Course Persistent Delinquency”. He identified several factors
for our understanding of crime prevention. The factors are: (i) that signs of difficult temperament appear
very early in childhood; (ii) levels of conduct disorder escalate through early childhood and adolescent years;(iii) antisocial behaviour may be expressed in violent or nonviolent forms; and (iv) in many cases, it will
persist into early adulthood. The challenge is that these signs may go undetected in the home and in theschool because of lack of knowledge. It was agreed that the medical screening of children in early infancy
and early childhood provided in most countries is intended mainly to ascertain their physical wellbeing andis not aimed at psychological or behavioural problems.
Another view was that these check ups are meaningful in identifying children who have developmental
disorders or mental disorders. Although the objective of health checkups is not to predict future offences, it
might be of some help to intervene early before disorders become very serious. For example, in Japan, theofficers concerned have a legal obligation to report to a Child Guidance Center when they detect children
whose situation requires intervention.

B. Relationship BuildingChildren at risk are common to all countries because they are faced with similar issues of divorce,
domestic violence, abuse and other situations which put them at risk. Our group’s examination of thesefactors pointed us to Dr. Ozawa’s presentation and his emphasis on relationships and how these children
should be treated. We agreed with his idea of a holistic approach (individuals, families and community)
which is needed to forge relationships, identified as a critical support mechanism. In support of this idea we
discussed his philosophy that at the root of crime is the breakdown in relationships and unanimously agreed
that strong and healthy relationships at home and in the community are important for crime prevention.
C. Interventions for Families
All members of the group agreed that the family is regarded as the basic unit of society. However,
because of the high rate of divorce, domestic violence, lack of supervision by parents, abuse and otherfactors, in many cases the family unit is not able to function effectively. This situation puts at risk thosechildren who are not in conflict with the law, and it is therefore necessary to give support as a meansof crime prevention. Such support may come in the form of interventions. Some participants however
cautioned that there are legal issues when it comes to intervening in families which have children who
are at risk. Other forms of support include the education of parents on how to be better parents. In somecountries, the Probation Service conducts seminars with parents who experience problems with theirchildren as well as those who lack parenting skills.
D. Interventions for Schools
Some participants pointed out that the schools can be very useful in crime prevention. Some juveniles
exhibit offending tendencies at school, but these are sometimes ignored or not viewed as potential problems.
In some cases for example, students who show symptoms of autism and attention deficit hyperactivity
disorders are regarded as rude or difficult to manage. These types of behaviour sometimes worsen intodelinquency and offending. The conclusion was that the lack of information among teachers and the absenceof experts (psychologists) are contributing factors to juvenile offending which surfaces in the classroom.
In some countries personnel from the criminal justice system participate in intervention strategies.
In Jamaica, for example, Probation Officers are involved in school programmes and the Department ofCorrectional Services facilitates requests from schools to visit adult and juvenile institutions as a part ofcrime prevention activities. Likewise, in the Philippines, the Women and Children Protection Centers andPolice Community Relations Division conduct information drives or advocate in schools and universities.

196

139TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

E. Community Corrections/Community AwarenessCorrection is about community awareness. The Asian proverb “It takes a village to raise a child” speaksof the need for community involvement in the correction process. Community correction is our ultimate
test and it is the part of corrections which has the highest visibility for the public and about which the
public cares most. We firmly believe that the safest release is a supported, supervised, conditional release(parole/aftercare supervision). Just as the serious and violent offender/CICL must become integrated withthe community, so must the relevant government departments/agencies and NGOs be integrated with thecommunity they serve.
The group recognized that there is indeed a need for continuous improvement to enhance co-operation inbringing about successful integration. This is because communities are not static, and interaction with themmust be continuous and progressive. We require our probation officers, parole officers, aftercare officers andsocial welfare officers to be experts and active in their communities, but we also believe it is important totake a strategic approach to this critical part of corrections.

V. CONCLUSION
From our discussion, there are many problems and challenges which affect the effectiveness ofcommunity-based treatment programmes for serious and violent juvenile offenders. One of the major
problems for these offenders released from institutions is the lack of continuity from institutional treatment
into community based treatment. This disconnect, which arises chiefly from a lack of communication anda fragmented approach, requires a networking of the relevant personnel so that a better understanding ofjuvenile cases and their appropriate assessment and treatment can be achieved.
Community support has been identified as having a major impact on community-based programmes. It
is not always easy to get the support of the community because some peoples’ attitudes toward juvenile
offences have become hardened and this is sometimes reflected in the lack of employment opportunities forjuvenile offenders. However, in our group, we believe that an effective community treatment system cannot
be realized through forcing severe punishment alone. We believe that humane treatment, in a warm andco-operative community setting is the best way to help juvenile offenders.
Although juveniles in conflict with the law require special attention, an effective community programmeis one which is also geared towards crime prevention. There are many factors which prevent the early
detection of signs and which can lead to offending. Although public education, screening and other methods
can help, it was the consensus of the group that relationship building is not only important when juveniles
offend, but is a critical success factor in crime prevention. The group endorsed Dr. Ozawa’s philosophy
that “crime is primarily an offence against human relationships and secondarily a violation of law.” It is thisrelationship building that will reduce the level of risk in families, schools and in the community and will help
to achieve the goals of rehabilitation which is to reduce the risk of reoffending as well as to prevent first
offences.

VI. RECOMMENDATIONSHaving examined the challenges of effective community-based treatment for serious and violent
offenders, the following recommendations were considered useful. The intent is that as much as is possible
participants will seek to implement them or at best refer them to those in authority.
1.	Every country should introduce non-custodial sentences as well as aftercare services for juveniles
released from institutions;2.	Seek support from government and politicians on funding for community-based treatment systems,
e.g. an offending behaviour programme, an assessment programme, and monitoring systems, throughthe introduction/implementation of statistically proven research;
3.	Build up networking of NGOs/the community, and the business sector, to raise funding and support(donations and expertise), etc. and to encourage them to employ former juvenile offenders;197

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.78

4.	Enhance public awareness of the work of probation officers and social workers so as to attract andrecruit bright and able staff, since a limited number of personnel may deter the smooth application of
the treatment programmes;
5.	Implement extensive training (train-the-trainer methodology). This will enable the office to train apool of trainers, especially those who directly handle juvenile offenders or Children in Conflict with
the Law (CICLs);
6.	Establish halfway houses. These institutions or establishments may be the initiatives of thegovernment or supported by NGOs. This will lessen the problems of overcrowding which hampers
the effectiveness of treatment programmes;
7.	Empowerment of the family to become a primary source of support;
8.	Establishment of a joint approach or an interagency committee to design and develop consistenttreatment programmes; co-ordinate the treatment services, e.g. case conferences; sharing of
database of inmates amongst probation offices, correctional institutions and social welfare services,with utmost respect for confidentiality of the given information;
9.	Effective analysis of risks/needs and programme planning (in relation to the needs of individual
inmates);
10.	Review of vocational training with consideration for its relevance to the current job market to make iteasier for former juvenile offenders to find a job;
11.	B enchmarking with established practices and programmes and the development of a common
assessment tool for correctional institutions;12.	Early intervention programmes and planning for high-risk families and high-risk children to look after
their needs and to help them to cultivate good relationships.

198

APPENDIXCOMMEMORATIVE PHOTOGRAPH• 139 th International Training Course

UNAFEIThe 139 th International Training Course

Left to Right:
Above:
Dr. Hoge, Dr. Ozawa, Mr. Blakeman, Prof. Higuchi, Prof. Naito
4th Row:
Mr. Shirakawa (Staff), Mr. Iwakami (Staff), Mr. Koiwa (Staff), Ms. Tomita (Staff), Mr. Matsumoto(Chef), Mr. Nakayasu (Staff), Mr. Takagi (Staff), Mr. Kitada (Staff), Mr. Kojitani (Staff), Ms. Usuki(Staff), Ms. Ota (Staff), Ms. Ono (Staff)
3rd Row:
Ms. Uenishi (Staff), Mr. Kootsene (Botswana), Mr. Uchida (Japan), Mr. Tong (Hong Kong),
Mr. Jung (Korea), Mr. Gunji (Japan), Mr. Nakamura (Japan), Mr. Tshering (Bhutan), Mr. Takahashi(Japan), Mr. Tobunelo Bekolo (DR Congo), Dr. Burgos (Costa Rica), Ms. Obayashi (JICA)
2nd Row:
Mr. Al-Smadi (Jordan), Ms. Hayashi (Japan), Mr. Cesário (Brazil), Ms. Tashiro (Japan),Ms. Narkvichetr (Thailand), Mr. Rivero (Uruguay), Ms. Begum (Bangladesh), Ms. Watanabe(Japan), Ms. Yerro Naparato (Philippines), Ms. Hunter (Jamaica), Ms. Naito (Japan), Ms. Satayathum(Thailand), Ms. Dithupa (Botswana), Ms. Nathaniel-Morgan (Antigua and Barbuda)
1st Row:
Ms. Lord (LA), Mr. Nakasuga (Staff), Prof. Yamada, Prof. Sugiyama, Prof. Sugano, Deputy Director Seto,
Director Aizawa, Prof. Oshino, Prof. Otani, Prof. Tatsuya, Mr. Fujii (Staff), Mr. Fujiwara (Staff)