ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
andRESOURCE MATERIALSERIES No. 99

UNAFEI
Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan

September 2016

Keisuke SENTA
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@i.moj.go.jp

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY NOTE

v

PART ONEANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Main Activities of UNAFEI
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2016
Appendix

 3
 14
 19

PART TWOWORK PRODUCT OF THE 162ND
INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR“MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION IN COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT OF
OFFENDERS”
Visiting Experts’ Papers⃝ Government Policies and Practices That Support Successful Re-entry of Justice-Involved
Individuals
by Ms. B. Diane Williams (United States) 35⃝

Employment and Housing Models for People with Criminal Records
by Ms. B. Diane Williams (United States)

 45

⃝

Improving Efficiency and Outcomes through Collaborations: An NGO Perspectiveby Ms. B. Diane Williams (United States)

 58

⃝

The Relevance of Desistance Research for Probation Practiceby Prof. Robert Canton (United Kingdom)

 69

⃝

Inter-agency Cooperation: How Can It Best Enhance Compliance with the Law?
by Prof. Robert Canton (United Kingdom)

 80

⃝

The Future of Community Penalties
by Prof. Robert Canton (United Kingdom) 91

Participants’ Papers⃝

Multi-agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
by Mr. Joseph Kala Muasya (Kenya)

 102

⃝

Multi-agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
by Mr. Jeffrey Mesa (Papua New Guinea)

 107

iii

⃝

Responding to the Community-Based Correction System for Treatment of Criminal
Offenders through Multi-agency Cooperation
by Mr. Benjamin C. Cutay, Jr. (Philippines) 115

Reports of the Seminar⃝

Effective Multi-agency Cooperation in Terms of Implementation of Non-custodial
Measures at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Processby Group 1⃝

Effective Models for Multi-agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
by Group 2
 124

⃝

Information Sharing in Multi-agency Cooperation
by Group 3

APPENDIX

iv

 119

 131
 137

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
It is with pride that the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) offers to the international community the Resource Material Series
No. 99. This volume contains the Annual Report for 2015 and the work produced in the 162nd International Senior Seminar, conducted from 13 January to 12 February 2016. The main theme of the 162nd Seminar
was Multi-Agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders.
As the challenges facing prison systems around the world have increased, community-based treatment
of offenders has become a global trend. After release, prisoners require not only supervision by probation
officers but also support for their rehabilitation, particularly in terms of employment and housing assistance. Thus, to prevent recidivism effectively, offender rehabilitation agencies and organizations shouldsupervise and support offenders seamlessly and collaboratively to facilitate the reintegration of offenders
into the community.
UNAFEI, as one of the institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Programme Network, held this Seminar to explore various issues that relate to multi-agency cooperationin community-based treatment of offenders. This issue of the Resource Material Series, in regard to the162nd International Senior Seminar, contains papers contributed by visiting experts, selected individualpresentation papers from among the participants, and the Reports of the Seminar. I regret that not all thepapers submitted by the participants of the Seminar could be published.
I would like to pay tribute to the contributions of the Government of Japan, particularly the Ministry ofJustice, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation, forproviding 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.
September 2016

Keisuke SENTA
Director of UNAFEIv

PART ONE
ANNUAL REPORTFOR 2015⃝ Main Activities of UNAFEI⃝ UNAFEI Work Programme for 2016
⃝ Appendix

UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2015 – 31 December 2015)

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 1962 pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in the Asia and the Pacificregion by promoting regional cooperation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, throughtraining and research.
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 reintegration of prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars andresearch 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 the criminal justice field discuss andstudy pressing problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen theirunderstanding, with the help of lectures and advice from 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). Approximately one hundred government officials from various
overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA is 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 the criminal justice field.
By the end of 2015, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 161 international training courses and seminars.
Over 5,000 criminal justice personnel representing 137 different countries and administrative regions haveparticipated in these seminars. UNAFEI also conducts a number of other specialized courses, both country
and subject focused, in which hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In
their respective countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and hold important posts inthe fields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 159th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 159th International Senior Seminar was held from 14 January to 12 February 2015. The main
theme was “Public Participation in Community Corrections”. Eighteen overseas participants (including one
course counsellor) and seven Japanese participants attended the Seminar.
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants introduced the roles and functions of criminal justice agencies in theircountries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from UNAFEI Professors and visiting
experts, the participants were then divided into two group workshops as follows:3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Group 1: Measures for Implementing and Promoting Community-Based Treatment
Group 2: Measures for Enhancing and Promoting Volunteer Participation in Cooperation with Governments (and Judiciaries) Involved in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order to facilitate the discussions. During group discussion, the group members studied the designated topics andexchanged views based on information obtained through personal experiences, the Individual Presentations, lectures and so forth. The Groups presented their reports during the Report-Back Session, where
they were endorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports were published in
UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 96.
3. Outcome Summary(i)			 Measures for Implementing and Promoting Community-Based Treatment
In the context of offender rehabilitation and desistance among adults and juveniles, Group 1 considered(i) diversion mechanisms as alternatives to imprisonment and (ii) community-based treatment after imprisonment. These measures are crucial to offender rehabilitation because the process can only be completed
once the offender has adopted a non-criminal “replacement identity”, which is unlikely to be developed
during incarceration. Ultimately, reliance on alternative measures and rehabilitation will reduce the social
stigma against the offender and lower rates of recidivism.
Before conviction, alternative measures should be considered for minor offences. These measures
should be administered by public prosecutors for offences that implicate the public interest, whereas
offences that implicate private interests (such as common fist fights) are amenable to restorative justiceprocedures. After conviction, suspension of sentence should be utilized to avoid imprisonment but also to
impose alternative measures, such as supervision by probation officers, community service, fines, commitment to halfway houses (allowing offenders to remain in the community), and medical treatment and social–psychological assistance for drug users. For the imprisoned, community-based treatment should begin
on the first day of incarceration, and probation officers should continue to monitor the progress of rehabilitation through psycho-social reports. Moreover, for the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, it is importantfor society to focus on the juvenile, not the crime, and it is necessary to involve the family, victims and thecommunity in the rehabilitation process.
To achieve community involvement in offender rehabilitation, the following measures should be considered: (i) a professional probation service with emphasis on recruiting educated officers with strong interpersonal and counselling skills and a strong desire to rehabilitate offenders; (ii) a system of volunteer probation
officers to support offender rehabilitation in the community; (iii) effective community service programmes;and (iv) a commitment to changing the public mindset in favour of rehabilitation. It was recognized thatmany countries will face difficulties in implementing the proposed practices because of the difficulty ofenacting legislation and changing the mind-sets of societies and governments on offender rehabilitation.
Nevertheless, offender treatment requires “bridg[ing] the gap between offenders’ rehabilitation needs andthe extent of community involvement”.
(ii)		Measures for Enhancing and Promoting Volunteer Participation in Cooperation with Governments (and Judiciaries) Involved in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
The group commenced its discussions by defining a volunteer as “A person or an organization withparticular life skills and experiences who is willing to contribute his/her/its skills, experiences, time andresources for community-based treatment of offenders without remuneration”. It was agreed that volunteers are necessary for community-based treatment because of their local character, their role as non-governmental officials, and their ability to provide “continuity of activities” within the community. Further, volunteers are necessary to remedy the lack of sufficient treatment for released offenders or those serving
non-custodial sentences. The objective of volunteer participation is “to establish, organize and enhance
public participation in crime prevention and community-based treatment of offenders”.
Human resources within communities should be harnessed to reintegrate offenders into the mainstream of society. The recruitment and appointment of volunteers is critically important to achieving successful volunteer participation in community corrections by identifying “mature, credible and dependable,
4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
volunteers with key life skills and experiences who will impart value to the rehabilitation process of the
ex-offender”. The importance of legislation, proper procedures and specified criteria regulating the appointment of volunteers was stressed by the group. It was also stressed that ex-offenders should not be
excluded from volunteering merely due to their status, and the group cited at least one example of ex-offenders serving in such roles.
In addition to recruitment and appointment, the group identified several other areas that require particular attention from practitioners and policymakers: (i) capacity building, training and morale development of volunteers, (ii) resources, funding and organization of volunteers, (iii) welfare and safety of volunteers, and (iv) community resources and public understanding and cooperation.
The group recognized that crime is born in the community and, thus, concluded that volunteer participation is indispensable for offender rehabilitation. Nine specific recommendations—addressing legislation on
volunteer programmes, volunteer training, government support, international standards, and networking
among criminal justice systems, and so on—were detailed in the group workshop report, which was
published in UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series No. 96.
B. The 160th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 160th International Training Course was held from 13 May to 17 June 2015. The main theme was“The State of Cybercrime: Current Issues and Countermeasures”. Twenty-two overseas participants andseven Japanese participants attended this Course.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the Course were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations, lectures byvisiting experts 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 three groups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of
faculty advisers:
Group 1: Effective Cybercrime Legislation from the Perspective of Enforcement Practices
Group 2: Measures for Effective Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of Cybercrime Cases
Group 3: Effective Measures for Strengthening the System for Suppression and Prevention of Cybercrime
The three groups each elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) toorganize the discussions. The group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth. The Groups presented their reports during the Report-Back Session, where they were endorsed as
the reports of the Course. The full texts of the reports were published in full in Resource Material Series
No. 97.
3. Outcome Summary(i) 		 Effective Cybercrime Legislation from the Perspective of Enforcement Practices
Focusing on the development of cybercrime legislation, Group 1 used the Convention on Cybercrime (theBudapest Convention) as a basis for discussion and formulation of its recommendations. The group reported
that four of the nine participating countries have adopted the Convention and encouraged all states to
ratify the Convention as it is the current and foremost global framework on cybercrime.
In considering how long internet service providers should be required to preserve data, the group noted
the difference between data preservation (suspicion of crime) and retention (no suspicion of crime). The
group members concluded that legislation should require the retention of data for one year; a warrant
should be required for data preservation, and the group agreed with the Convention’s 90-day preservation
period, which can be extended.
5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
The group agreed that domestic legislation must provide for the admissibility of digital evidence.
Because this issue is not addressed in the Convention, the group recommended borrowing strategies fromregional cybercrime approaches. Conditions for admitting digital evidence should (1) require a chain ofcustody to guarantee authenticity, (2) maintain victim privacy, and (3) ensure that digital evidence issubjected to forensic examination.
Regarding Internet anonymity, the group agreed that privacy and freedom of expression must be
protected. Thus, in line with the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on Freedom ofCommunication on the Internet (2003), the group supports Internet anonymity and noted that a prohibition
against such anonymity would be difficult to enforce. The group members also considered whether Internet
users should be forced to disclose encryption keys during criminal prosecutions and unanimously
concluded that users should not be required to do so. The burden of proof is on the prosecution, and theright to remain silent should not be abridged in cybercrime cases. However, law enforcement should bepermitted to use advanced investigation techniques that mitigate the problems posed by data encryption.
In addition to its recommendations above, the group members identified numerous enforcement challenges and proposed measures to address them. The challenges identified were: (1) lack of specialized cybercrime laws in most jurisdictions, (2) lack of adequate sanctions to deter cybercrime, (3) the Convention
has not been universally adopted, (4) lack of public–private sector coordination, (5) lack of specialized
personnel, (6) prohibitive costs of cybercrime investigation and enforcement, and (7) lack of international
cooperation frameworks that utilize mutual legal assistance treaties.
(ii) Measures for Effective Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of Cybercrime Cases
Group 2 considered the investigation, prosecution and adjudication of cybercrime cases by engaging in
an intensive review of the current practices in each of the participating countries and by identifying challenges to overcome and approaches and measures to improve current practices. In summarizing their discussions, the group focused on effective measures for: (1) generating cybercrime leads, (2) identifying
criminals and collecting evidence, and (3) prosecution and adjudication.
A majority of the group members reported that their countries do not conduct cyberpatrolling;members whose countries do conduct cyberpatrolling reported that the private sector is often reluctant tovoluntarily submit data records to investigators due to customer-privacy concerns. The group concluded
that all countries should adopt laws requiring service providers to furnish necessary information to authorities. All members agreed that it is critical for investigators who receive or generate leads on cybercrimeto have sufficient technical skills.
When identifying criminals and collecting evidence of cybercrime, the group agreed that obtaining information such as IP addresses and SIM cards is necessary but not sufficient evidence. IP addresses areoften only the beginning of the investigation because perpetrators use proxy servers, TOR onion routers
and applications to immediately erase access logs. Requiring registration of SIM cards and the use of cybercrime experts, international cooperation and traditional investigation methods are also necessary to
trace cybercriminals.
Regarding prosecution and adjudication, common challenges include document authentication and chainof custody issues; the inadequacy of existing criminal procedure laws at handling cybercrime evidence; anddelays in the prosecution of cybercrime cases due to the need for expert witnesses. Solutions to these
problems include the adoption of specialized cybercrime laws and procedures, access to forensic laboratories, specialized training for criminal justice professionals and collaboration between prosecutors andexpert witnesses to present the cybercrime evidence clearly and simply in court.
The group concluded that there are four key elements to proper investigation, prosecution and adjudication of cybercrime: (1) capacity-building of relevant criminal justice professionals; (2) improving publicawareness of cybercrime, which involves recognizing and reporting cybercrime to the relevant governmental contact point; (3) encouraging public-private partnerships to collect evidence and share investigation
techniques; and (4) enhanced international cooperation coupled with the harmonization of legislation on cybercrime. In addition to the recommendations above, many others were detailed in the group workshop
report, which was published in UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series No. 97.
6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(iii) Effective Measures for Strengthening the System for Suppression and Prevention of Cybercrime
Addressing the topic of suppression and prevention of cybercrime, Group 3 discussed the following
issues: (1) establishment of special organizations or units against cybercrime and measures of capacitybuilding for criminal justice practitioners, (2) facilitating international, regional and domestic cooperation
among cybercrime agencies, and (3) facilitating public-private partnerships against cybercrime.
Most of the group members agreed that forensic laboratories and other specialized cybercrime units
are necessary to handle the complexity of cybercrime cases, but some group members expressed concerns
over the organization and administration of such units, as well as conflicts that may result from the overlapping functions of other governmental agencies. Regarding capacity-building, the group members agreed
that two levels of training should be offered. First, all cyberpractitioners, including police officers and otherfirst responders, should be trained on basic knowledge for handling cybercrime cases and to preserve
evidence of cybercrime so that it will be admissible in court. Second, specialized training and certificationis necessary for experts who conduct cybercrime investigations.
To coordinate the suppression of cybercrime, the group recommended the establishment of a 24/7 pointof contact on the international level that operates in line with the Convention on Cybercrime (the Budapest
Convention). In addition to accepting reports of cybercrime from governments and the general public, thecentre could share cybercrime intelligence reports and other relevant information. All members of thegroup agreed that greater cooperation between investigative agencies and digital forensic laboratories isnecessary, but there was no consensus on the need for the expertise of private institutions. The debate
focused on the perception that private institutions offer the advantage of technical expertise but raised
concerns over chain of custody issues involved in relying on a third party analysis of potential cybercrime
evidence.
The group agreed that public-private partnerships are essential to the suppression and prevention of
cybercrime, and recommended a broad cooperation strategy involving internet service providers (ISPs),
telecommunications companies (TELCOs), cooperation with universities and research groups, and enhanced
public awareness of cybercrime. The group’s recommendations included, among others: (1) requiring international regulation for all ISPs and a strict policy of regulatory permitting to ensure compliance; (2)requiring ISPs to preserve traffic data for at least 90 days with the possibility of extending the preservation requirement; (3) requiring TELCOs to register SIM cards to prevent criminals from concealing theiridentities; (4) the creation of CERT or CSIRT in each country in cooperation with the private sector. The
group concluded that although cybercrime will persist, governments, the private sector and citizens must
work together to suppress cybercrime.
C. The 161st International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 161st International Training Course was held from 19 August to 17 September 2015. The main
theme was “Staff Training for Correctional Leadership”. Fourteen overseas participants and four Japaneseparticipants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants of the 161st Course endeavoured to explore the topic primarily through a comparative
analysis of the current situation and the problems encountered. The participants’ in-depth discussions
enabled them to put forth effective and practical solutions.
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations, lectures by visiting
experts and the 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. To facilitate discussions, the participants were divided into two groups.
Group 1: Enhancing the Organizational Strengths of Criminal Justice Organizations
Group 2: Developing Effective Training Curricula
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize the dis7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
cussions. 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. Both groups examined the course theme. The Groups presented their reports in the Report-Back
Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports were published in full in
UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 98.
3. Outcome Summary(i) 		 Enhancing the Organizational Strengths of Criminal Justice Organizations
Group 1 addressed four common issues for improving organizational strength in the correctionalsetting: (A) developing an organizational culture of integrity, (B) stress management for correctional
personnel, (C) passing knowledge and experience to the next generation, and (D) promoting cooperation incapacity-building with other organizations.
Regarding organizational integrity, the group members reported that their systems have controlled systematic corruption, but they stressed the need for vigilance to address the potential for corruption, like theintroduction of contraband into correctional facilities. In response, the group identified a number ofmeasures such as regular vetting of officials, strict anti-corruption enforcement, payment of adequate
salaries, asset declaration, video-recorded investigations, and so on. In addition, all members recognized
the need to deal with issues of unnecessary force, abusive language, and human rights abuses. Appropriate
measures include oversight by human rights organizations, creating channels for reporting complaints, andcreating training programmes and standards of conduct for correctional officers.
The group also recognized that stress among correctional staff is common in all countries due to thestressful nature of the job, insufficient resources (including low pay and insufficient manpower), poor
working environments (including exposure to disease, poor housing, etc.), high expectations of each staff
member, and social development. Measures should be taken to reduce stress, such as “health and balanced
lifestyle” campaigns, promoting family relationships through sports, music, family fun days, etc., regularthematic talks among staff, improving staff quarters, and establishment of a “staff complaint register”.
Succession planning is extremely important to pass knowledge to the next generation and maintain institutional stability. The group reported that the following actions have been taken in some countries: (1)comprehensive training programmes, (2) job rotation and internship programmes for staff, (3) written
policy, emergency and training manuals, (4) mentoring and coaching schemes, (5) cooperation withacademic bodies to research the success of the training curriculum, (6) stipulation of clear career paths foryoung officers, (7) standardization of training materials and content to ensure the quality of training, and (8)the use of e-learning to expand training coverage and reduce the need for resources.
On the issue of cooperation with other organizations, criminal justice authorities are expected to do
more than just lock up offenders. To enhance the ability of these authorities to meet modern correctional
expectations, it is necessary to collaborate with outside organizations, such as academic institutions, local
governmental agencies, and overseas counterparts.
(ii) Developing Effective Training CurriculaGroup 2 addressed the topic of “Developing Effective Training Curricula” based on the following agenda:(1) training staff with high expertise, (2) understanding and respecting international standards as guidance,and (3) the use of effective training methods. The group emphasized that it is important to improve service
delivery by implementing effective training curricula. Training must be in line with the mission, vision andgoals of the correctional system.
Effective training for correctional personnel should be interdisciplinary and designed to address theneeds of specific groups of offenders; offender classification and risk assessment are very important tools inthis regard. Disciplines like sociology, criminology and psychology are important for addressing thetreatment needs of drug, sex and human-trafficking offenders, as well as offenders with links to terrorism.
For example, training for the treatment of drug offenders should include measures ranging from effective
search methods to sensitizing correctional staff to the negative effects of drug abuse, signs of withdrawal
and so on.

8MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEIThe group agreed that training curricula should be in line with United Nations standards and norms,
such as the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (The Mandela Rules) and theStandard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules). For example, training curricula
should incorporate the Tokyo Rules by emphasizing concepts of de-penalization and de-criminalization, encouraging the use of diversion programmes, legal safeguards to protect the dignity and privacy of theoffender and the confidentiality of personal records, and training on the preparation of factual and objective
social inquiry reports.
To create effective training programmes, the group emphasized the importance of selecting the best
training methods by conducting a needs assessment before implementing the training. To conduct such anassessment, it is important to identify: key characteristics of the trainer and the participants (human characteristics), the social and cultural conditions of the participants (social factors), key subject areas, and timeand material factors. Once the proper needs have been identified, the training must be matched with themost appropriate training method, such as brainstorming, lectures, group discussion, role playing, mentorship, case studies, study tours, the use of experts, and demonstrations. Likewise, effective training
materials must be created, such as training manuals and lesson plans, relevant laws and policies, the use ofexperts, photographs and pictures, radio and television documentaries, and working tools.
In conclusion, Group 2 stressed the importance of developing a national systematic training frameworkand conducting impact evaluation of all training programmes. Further conclusions and detailed examples
of correctional training curricula and objectives are contained in the group workshop report, which was
published in UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series No. 98.

III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. The Second Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries
From 25 February to 20 March 2015, UNAFEI held the Second Criminal Justice Training Programme
for French-Speaking African Countries. Thirty-two participants attended from eight African countries andJapan. The participants discussed the themes of “Enhancing the capacity of investigation, prosecution,
advocacy, and adjudication” and the “Criminal Justice Response to Organized Crime”.
B. Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Viet Nam and Japan
From 22 to 26 June 2015, two officials from Viet Nam were invited to Japan to study the criminal policy
and the current situation and issues of criminal justice in Japan and Viet Nam.
C. The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam 2015 RTI-SPP Exchange
Programme Japan Session
From 21 to 27 July 2015, UNAFEI hosted the Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam
2015 RTI-SPP Exchange Programme Japan Session in Tokyo, Japan. The theme of the programme was“Current issues of crime and prosecutorial practice in Viet Nam and Japan” and “white papers on crime”.
D. The Training Seminar for Prison Officers in Myanmar
From 3 to 21 August, UNAFEI co-hosted a seminar in Myanmar in which 90 prison officials from
Myanmar studied prison management in line with international standards and norms.
E. The 25th Anniversary Seminar of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules)
From 7 to 9 September 2015, 13 criminal justice experts and the participants of the 161st International
Training Course shared best practices and challenges related to the implementation of the Tokyo Rules.
F. The Seminar on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region
From 29 September to 1 October 2015, the Department of Probation, Ministry of Justice, Thailand(DOP), the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ), the Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministry of Justice, Japan, and
UNAFEI hosted the Seminar on Promoting Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region in Tokyo,
Japan. Keynote speeches were delivered by Ms Sonya Spencer, Executive Director of the John Howard
Society of Toronto and Mr YAMADA Kenji, Volunteer Probation Officer and Secretary General of the
National Organization for Employment of Offenders.
9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
G. The 18th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
The UNCAC Training Programme was held from 14 October to 18 November 2015. This Programme
dealt with the United Nations Convention against Corruption and examined countermeasures against corruption. The theme of the Programme was Effective Anti-Corruption Enforcement and Public-Privateand International Cooperation. Twenty-four overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended.
H. The Ninth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
UNAFEI hosted the Ninth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries from
14 to 26 November 2015 at the JW Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia. The Seminar was co-hosted by
the Attorney General Office and the Corruption Eradication Commission. The main theme of the Seminar
was Current Challenges and Best Practices in the Investigation, Prosecution and Prevention of Corruption Cases—Sharing Experiences and Learning from Actual Cases. Nineteen participants and observers
from ten Southeast Asian countries attended. The Seminar featured Mr. Tony Kwok Man-wai, Anti-Corruption Consultant and former Deputy Commissioner of the Independent Commission Against Corruption,
Hong Kong.
I. The Second Training Course on Legal Technical Assistance for Viet Nam
From 3 to 15 December 2016, 10 officials from Viet Nam studied the experience of Japan surrounding
the preparation of its white paper on crime and discussed problems related to the enforcement of theamended code of criminal procedure in Viet Nam.

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 2015, the 95th, 96th and 97th
editions of the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 146 to 148 (from the 159th
Senior Seminar to the 161st International Training Course, respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were
published, which included a brief report on each course and seminar and other timely information. Thesepublications are also available on UNAFEI’s website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 30 January 2015, 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 participants of the 159th International Senior Seminar. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
The Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues, throughcomparative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In 2015, Dr. Bonita M.
Veysey, Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University-Newark, Center for Law and Justice, and
Ms. Bernadette Alexander, Deputy Director/Chief Probation Officer, Probation Services Branch, Rehabilitation and Protection Services, Ministry of Social and Family Development, Singapore, were invited as
speakers. They presented papers entitled “Offender Rehabilitation and Reform” and “Community-based Rehabilitation of Offenders in Singapore”, respectively.
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,
10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
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.
C. Overseas Missions
Professor TASHIRO Akiko visited Hanoi, Viet Nam, from 2 to 5 February 2015 to attend the Consultative Workshop on the Draft of the Revised Penal Code of Viet Nam held at the Ministry of JusticeProfessor NAGAI Toru and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia, Vientiane, Lao
PDR, Hanoi, Viet Nam and Manila, Philippines from 27 February to 11 March 2015 to research thecriminal justice systems of the aforementioned countries.
Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Yangon, Myanmar from 23 February to 7 March 2015 to attend
the 4th Asian Conference of Correctional Facilities Architects and Planners (ACCFA), to research thecriminal justice system in Myanmar and to discuss the “Myanmar Country Programme” with related organizations.
Deputy Director MORINAGA Taro visited Bangkok, Thailand and Yangon, Myanmar from 2 to 7
March 2015 to research the criminal justice systems in Myanmar and to discuss the “Myanmar Country
Programme” with related organizations.
Professor TASHIRO Akiko and Professor NAGAI Toru, and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited
Bangkok, Thailand from 22 to 28 March 2015 to attend the Seminar on Promoting Community-based
Treatment in the ASEAN Region.
Professor MORIYA Kazuhiko visited Jakarta, Indonesia from 23 to 27 March 2015 to research anti-corruption efforts in Southeast Asia.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi, Professor TASHIRO Akiko, Professor NAGAI Toru and Professor
AKASHI Fumiko visited Doha, Qatar from 12 to 19 April 2015 to attend the 13th United Nations Congress
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (Congress).
Professor HIROSE Yusuke visited Hong Kong from 11 to 13 May 2015 to attend The 6th Independent
Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) Symposium.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi and Professor NAGAI Toru visited Vienna, Austria from 18 to 22
May 2015 to attend the 24th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Professor MINOURA Satoshi and AKASHI Fumiko visited Tagaytay, Philippines from 20 to 21 May
2015 to attend the ASEAN Plus Three Forum on Probation and Community-Based Rehabilitation.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi visited Bangkok, Thailand from 4 to 5 June 2015 to attend the
AsianSIL Inter-Sessional Regional Conference 2015.
Professor HIROSE Yusuke visited Bangkok, Thailand on 11 June 2015 to attend the Thailand Instituteof Justice (TIJ) Seminar on Criminal Justice Human Resources.
Professor MINOURA Satoshi and Professor AKASHI Fumiko visited Los Angeles, U.S.A., from 14 to
16 July 2015 to attend the Second World Congress on Community Corrections.
Professor NAGAI Toru visited Bangkok, Thailand on 3 August 2015 to attend the 2nd International
Meeting on Offender Rehabilitation.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Beijing, China from 22 to 23 August 2015 to attend the 6th International Forum of Contemporary Criminal Law.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi visited Vienna, Austria from 31 August to 2 September 2015 to attend
the 6th Intersessional Meeting of the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group on Prevention,
11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
UNCAC.
Professor HIROSE Yusuke visited Senegal, Cote d’Ivoire, and Paris, France from 13 to 23 September
2015 to prepare for the Training on Criminal Justice in French Speaking African Countries, which will beheld in February 2016.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi and Professor YOSHIMURA Koji visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 4
to 11 October 2015 to attend the Expert Meeting on the Training Modules for Correctional Staff andTraining of Trainers on the Management of Prisoners in the ASEAN Region, and the 5th Anniversary of
the Bangkok Rules: International Perspectives on Good Practices and Lessons Learned.
Professor NAGAI Toru, Professor AKASHI Fumiko and senior officer SATO Marie visited Melbourne,
Australia from 25 to 30 October 2015 to attend the 17th ICPA (International Corrections and Prisons Association) Annual Conference.
Professor NAGAI Toru visited Bangkok, Thailand from 22 to 27 November 2015 to attend the 35th
Asia and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators (APCCA).
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi visited Seoul, Korea on 30 November 2015 to attend the KIC (Korean
Institute of Criminology) International Forum 2015: Criminal Justice Policies for a Safe Society.
Director YAMASHITA Terutoshi and Professor MINOURA Satoshi visited Lund, Sweden from 11 to
12 December 2015 to attend the Seminar on “Supporting Good Prison Practice”—Experiences and Lessons
Learned, hosted by the Raoul Wallenberg Institute (RWI) and to attend the PNI’s (UN Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice Programme Network Institutes) Coordination Meeting.
Professor YUKAWA Tsuyoshi and Professor HIROSE Yusuke visited Kathmandu, Nepal, from 13 to 22
December 2015 to prepare for the Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal,
which will be held in March 2016.
D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates 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
the 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
and related agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty and Staff Changes
Mr. IWASHITA Shinichiro, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Kumamoto
District Public Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2015.
Mr. YUKAWA Tsuyoshi, a public prosecutor of the Sendai District Public Prosecutors Office, wasappointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2015.
Ms. MIO Yukako, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office on 1 April 2015.
Ms. WATANABE Ayuko, formerly a public prosecutor of the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office,12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI
was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2015.
Ms. TASHIRO Akiko, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Rehabilitation Bureau
on 1 May 2015.
Mr. MINOURA Satoshi, formerly the Chief of the General Affairs and Planning Section, Rehabilitation
Bureau, was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2015.
Mr. KAYA Tomonobu, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, will continue in his post as a member of theOrganized Crime Department, Criminal Investigation Bureau, National Police Agency, effective as of 24
July 2015.
Mr. TSUJI Takanori of the National Police Academy was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI on 24
July 2015.

VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute’s budget. UNAFEI’s total budget for its programmes is approximately ¥70 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF provide assistance for
the Institute’s international training courses and seminars.

13

WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2016

I. TRAINING
A. Training Courses & Seminars (Multinational)
1. The 162nd International Senior Seminar
The 162nd International Senior Seminar was held from 13 January to 12 February 2016. The main
theme of the Seminar was “Multi-agency Cooperation in Community-based Treatment of Offenders”.
Fifteen overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended.
2. The 163rd International Training Course
The 163rd International Training Course was held from 18 May to 23 June 2016. The main theme of
the Course was “Children as Victims and Witnesses”. Twenty-three overseas participants and seven
Japanese participants attended.
3. The 164th International Training Course
The 164th International Training Course will be held from late August to late September 2016. The
main theme of the Course is “Effective Measures for Treatment, Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration ofJuvenile Offenders”.
4. The 19th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEI’s annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme,
will take place from 12 October to 17 November 2016. The main theme of the Programme is “Effective
Anti-Corruption Enforcement (Investigation and Prosecution) in the Area of Procurement”.
5. The Tenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 26 to 28 July 2016, UNAFEI held the Tenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. The main theme of the Seminar was “Contemporary Measures for Effective International
Cooperation”.
B. Training Course (Country Specific)
1. The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
The Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal (7 to 17 March): Ten Nepaleseparticipants attended to study and compare effective measures to expedite criminal procedure (including
investigation, prosecution and trial).
2. The Third UNAFEI Criminal Justice Training Programme for French-Speaking African Countries
From 15 to 26 February 2016, UNAFEI co-hosted the Third Criminal Justice Training Programme forFrench-Speaking African Countries in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. The themes of the Programme wereenhancing the capacity of investigation, prosecution, advocacy, and adjudication and the criminal justiceresponse to organized crime and terrorism.
3. The Seminar on Developing Standards on Community-based Treatment in ASEAN
From 2 to 4 March 2016 in Bangkok, Thailand, the Department of Probation of the Ministry of Justiceof Thailand (DOP), the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ), and UNAFEI hosted the Seminar on DevelopingStandards on Community-based Treatment in ASEAN: Focusing on Treatment for Drug Use / Dependence Offenders.
4. Training Seminar for Prison Officials in Myanmar, the Second Session of 2015 and the First Session of2016 in Mandalay and Yangon (Insein)
During June and July 2016, the Training Seminar for Prison Officials took place in Myanmar. The
Seminar included training sessions for prison officials on international standards and norms, offender classification systems and anger management for prison officers and offenders.

14

WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2016
5. The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam 2016 RTI - SPP Exchange Programme(Japan Session)
From 4 to 14 July 2016, UNAFEI hosted The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam
2016 RTI - SPP Exchange Programme in Tokyo, Japan. The Programme explored the recent amendments
to the Vietnamese Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. Training Seminar for Prison Officials in Myanmar, the Second Session of 2016
In November 2016, the Training Seminar for Prison Officials will take place in Mandalay and Yangon(Insein), Myanmar. The Seminar will include training sessions for prison officials on international standards
and norms, offender classification systems and anger management for prison officers and offenders.
7. The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Vietnam 2016 RTI - SPP Exchange Programme (VietNam Session)
In fall 2016, UNAFEI will host The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam 2016 RTI- SPP Exchange Programme in Viet Nam. The Programme will explore the recent amendments to theVietnamese Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. The Study Tour for Prison Officers in Myanmar
In September 2016, the Training Seminar for Prison Officials will take place in Tokyo, Japan. The
Director General of the Myanmar Prisons Department and a delegation of prison officials will visit Japanto research and tour Japanese correctional facilities.
9. The Third Training Programme on Legal Assistance for Viet Nam
In December 2016 in Tokyo, Japan, UNAFEI will host the Third Training Programme on Legal Assistance for Viet Nam.

15

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Distribution of Participants by Professional Backgrounds and Countries(1st International Training Course - 163rd International Training Course, U.N.Human Rights Courses and 1 Special Course)

Professional Background
Country/Area
Afghanistan
Bangladesh
BhutanBrunei
Cambodia
China
Georgia
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
JordanKorea
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Malaysia
Maldives
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sri Lanka
TaiwanTajikistan
ThailandTurkeyUnited Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Viet namYemen
A S I A
Algeria
Botswana
Cameroon
Cote d’Ivoire
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Egypt
Ethiopia
GambiaGhana
GuineaKenya
LesothoLiberia
Madagascar
MalawiMali
Mauritius
MoroccoMozambique
Namibia
Niger
NigeriaSouth Africa
Seychelles
Sudan
Swaziland
Tanzania
Tunisia
UgandaZambiaZimbabwe
AFRICA
Australia
Cook Islands
Fiji
Kiribati
Marshall Island
Micronesia
Nauru
New Zealand
Palau
Papua New Guinea
Samoa
Solomon Islands
Tonga
Vanuatu
THE PACIFIC
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Barbados
BelizeBolivia
BrazilChile
Colombia
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
EcuadorEl Salvador
GrenadaGuatemala
GuyanaHaiti
Honduras
Jamaica
Mexico16

Judicial and
Other
Administration
11
24
4
1
13
19
15
23
5
6
13
1
11
21
2
2
10
37
20
2
20
5
11
22
12
1
28
2
1
15
2
359
2
4
2
1
3
1
2
13

PublicProsecutors

PoliceOfficials

9
15

6

5
20
18

3
5

1
5

Judge

1
6
1
1

8

2
5

5

8
2
455

1
220

5

2

235
4

5
1
3

258
2
1
1
2
2
1

6

1
1
2

1
1

1
1
1

1
3
1
1

7
1

26

3
30
1

1

9

32

3

1
17

2

2

0

1

1
1
1
5

1

4
2

14
1
2
5
1

1

3
2

37
2

21

9

1

2

9
1
3

18
2

12

7
7
5
1
1
17
1
2
1
29

13
4
3
2

3
1
3
3

3
1

2

2
2
3
2
2
5
4
13
1

Family Court
Investigation
Officers

Child
WelfareOfficers

4

Social
WelfareOfficers

3
2
6

4

3

3
2

1

5

3

4
2
1

1

2
3

8

1
3

2
1
16

3
1

10
11

9

18

40

80

3

2

5
1
1

7
1
1
1

8

5
1

1
1

4

5

47

47

28

3

1

1
7

1

3
3

1

4

2

1

4

1

1

1
10

2

17
2

2
1

1

1
1

21

17

1
4
5
1
1
3
1
8
1
2

1
6

5

10
3
10
20
1

28

28
4
6

Total
2

2
2

3

6
4
4
13
2
9
1
5
6
8
104

4
1
1
1
2
23
2
2
7
4
68
1
2
2
2

Others

8
1

1

4
1
1

Training &Research
Officers

5

2
1

44
1

1
18

33
8
3
3
53

1

1

30
7
14
6
5
1
33

5

5
18
2

8
2
3

2

1
37

Probation
ParoleOfficers

18
20
4
1
48
1

10
22
12
3
1
3

1

4

Correctional
Officials(Juvenile)
1
1

7
10
1
12
55
33
8
8
6
6
1
10
48
3
3
7
32
4
44
1
40
7
12
22
2

1
1

1

Correctional
Officials(Adult)

7
3

1

1
1

1

1

1

1

2

2
1

2

0

0

2
1

10

1
10

1

6
2

0

4
1
16
1

1

4
1
1

0

0

3

1

3
2

1
1

1

1
1

5

5
1

1

1

4

1

1

1
4
2
36

21
1
1

1

1

1

1

1
2

1
1

1

1
1

32
76
18
6
13
41
1
78
101
136
42
32
11
115
2
36
136
17
8
22
107
5
93
6
150
17
74
119
21
2
201
8
1
3
43
4
1,777
6
11
5
9
7
12
5
2
8
7
65
3
1
1
1
1
1
8
3
3
1
15
9
5
20
2
25
2
7
7
12
264
3
2
55
1
5
2
2
2
3
62
9
8
19
8
181
2
7
3
3
2
51
8
14
16
1
6
11
1
4
4
1
11
10
5

DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS
Nicaragua
PanamaParaguay
Peru
Saint Christopher and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent
Trinidad and Tobago
U.S.A.
Uruguay
Venezuela
NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
Albania
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Estonia
Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Hungary
Lithuania
Moldova
PolandUkraineEUROPE
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime
JAPAN
TOTAL

1
1
4

10

1

6
1
4
1

1

1
29
1
1

22

1
38

1

2
1

1
6

1
1

4
5

118
581

200
487

319
667

4
9
4
1
1
2

3
12
108
2

1

2

1

1

2

1
4

13

1
1

16

1

3

2

1

2

1

1

1
1
1
6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

108
849

103
403

98
143

222
341

69
74

38
44

2
55

48
110

0
1
84
135

1
12
12
26
2
3
2
2
1
3
15
239
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
18
1
1,409
3,889

17

MAIN STAFF OF UNAFEI
Directorate
Mr. YAMASHITA Terutoshi
Mr. MORINAGA Taro
Faculty

Mr. YUKAWA Tsuyoshi
Ms. WATANABE Ayuko
Mr. MORIYA KazuhikoMr. HIROSE Yusuke
Mr. YOSHIMURA Koji
Mr. NAGAI Toru
Mr. MINOURA Satoshi
Ms. AKASHI Fumiko
Mr. TSUJI Takanori
Mr. Thomas L. SCHMID

Secretariat
Mr. ANDO Hiromitsu
Mr. SHOJIMA Naoki
Mr. ITO Jin

Director
Deputy Director
Professor
Professor
Professor, Chief of Training Division
Professor
Professor
Professor, Chief of Research Division
Professor
Professor, Chief of Information and Public Relations
Professor
Linguistic Adviser
Chief of Secretariat
Chief of General and Financial Affairs Section
Chief of Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section

AS OF 31 DECEMBER 201518

APPENDIX

2015 VISITING EXPERTS
THE 159TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Dr. Bonita Veysey

Professor
School of Criminal Justice
Rutgers University
USA

Ms. Bernadette Alexander

Deputy Director / Chief Probation Officer
Rehabilitation & Protection Services
Ministry of Social and Family Development
Singapore

SECOND UNAFEI CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING PROGRAMME FORFRENCH-SPEAKING AFRICAN COUNTRIES
Mr. Pierre LAPAQUE

Regional Representative
Regional Office for West and Central Africa
UNODC

Mr. Marc SOMMERER

Vice-président chargé de l’instruction /Juridictions inter-régionales spécialisée (JIRS),
Tribunal de Grande Instance de Paris

THE 160TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Dr. Kim-Kwang Raymond CHOO

Senior Lecturer
University of South Australia
Australia

Mr. Fernando FERNANDEZ LAZARO

Coordinator
Digital Forensics Laboratory,
INTERPOL Digital Crime Centre,
INTERPOL Global Complex for
Innovation (IGCI)
Singapore

Mr. HONDA Yuki

Digital Crime Officer
Cyber Fusion Centre, Digital
Crime Investigative Support Sub
Directorate, INTERPOL Digital
Crime Centre, INTERPOL Global
Complex for Innovation (IGCI)
Japan

Prof. Dr. Marco GERCKE

Director
Cybercrime Research InstituteGermany

19

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015

THE 161ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Mr. Gary Hill

Chief Executive Officer/President
CEGA Services/Contact Center, Inc.
U.S.A.

Dr. Matti Joutsen

Director
European Institute for Crime Prevention andControl, affiliated with the United Nations(HEUNI)
Finland

THE 18TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMME
Mr. Richard Findl

Chief Judge
Lundshut District Court
Germany

Mr. Sai Chiu Wong

Former Deputy Commissioner and Head ofOperations
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Hong Kong

20

APPENDIX

2015 UNAFEI PARTICIPANTS
THE 159TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Course Counsellor
Mr. Santi RITTIRAT

Overseas Participants
Mr. Mohammad Anwar MONIRI

Expert in Supervision
Department of Probation
Ministry of Justice
Thailand
General Manager of Biometrics
Biometric
CID Ministry of Interior
Afghanistan

Mr. Mohammed Rabiul ISLAM

Superintendent of Juvenile Development
CentreDepartment of Social Services
Ministry of Social Welfare
Bangladesh

Mr. Mauricio Gotardo GERUM

Federal Circuit Prosecutor
4th Region Office of Federal Circuit
Prosecution
Federal Prosecution Service
BrazilMr. Marcus Castelo Branco AlvesSEMERARO RITO

Coordinator of Development andConsolidation of Normative Acts andAdvisor to the Board of Prison Policies
National Penitentiary Department (DEPEN)
Ministry of Justice

Mr. ALLA Kouame

Judge for Sentence Enforcement
Court of First Instance in Plateau, Abidjan
Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Public
Liberties
Cote d’Ivoire

Mr. SAM Jean Claude

Assistant Manager and Judge
Cell for the Elaboration and Execution
Reforms for the Ministry of Justice
Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Public
Liberties
Cote d’Ivoire

Mr. Omar Qais ALKARKHI

Director, Legal Department
Ministry of Interior/DIYALA Police
Iraq

21

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Mr. Kennedy Odhiambo ACHUNGO

Chief Probation Officer
Probation
Department of Probation and Aftercare
ServiceKenya

Ms. Lydiah Wanjiru KARIUKI

Chief Probation Officer
Division of Aftercare
Department of Probation and Aftercare
ServiceKenya

Mr. TEYUN Thian Eim

State Director
Parole and Community Services
Prison Department of Malaysia
Malaysia

Mr. Nor Haizan MD ISA

Superintendent of Prison
Parole and Community Service
Prison Department of Malaysia
Malaysia

Ms. Odongerel BIRAA

Senior Lecturer
The Judicial Research, Information andTraining Center
The Judicial General Council
Mongolia

Ms. Bulgan DOLGORSUREN

Instructor at Faculty of Social Sciences
Institute of Police
The Law Enforcement University of Mongolia
Mongolia

Mr. Paul Jeb Swanji WAGUN

Juvenile Justice Director
Juvenile Justice Directorate/Branch
Department of Justice & Attorney General
Papua New Guinea

Mr. Rodrigo Garcia MANUEL Jr.

Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of Justice
Philippines

Mr. Abdulsalam Ali Saleh Hussein
ADDALE

Deputy/General Director for Planning andOrganization
Rehabilitation and Reform Authority
Ministry of Interior
Yemen

Japanese Participants
Mr. FUCHIGAMI Yasuro
Mr. FUJIKAWA Hiroshi

22

Deputy Superintendent
Kakogawa Juvenile Training School
Chief Family Court Probation Officer
Miyazaki Family CourtAPPENDIX
Mr. MURAKI Yasuhiro

Chief Probation Officer
Tokyo Probation Office

Ms. OGUNI Mariko

Principal Supervisor
Tochigi Prison

Ms. SHIINA Miyuki

Chief Inspector
Saitama Prefecture Police

Mr. TETSUKA Toru

Director of the General Affairs Division
Kyushu Regional Parole Board

Ms. YAMAGUCHI Atsuko

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

SECOND CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING PROGRAMMEFOR FRENCH-SPEAKING AFRICAN COUNTRIESOverseas Participants
Ms. KANZIE Antoinette

Assistant Prosecutor General
Prosecutors’ Office of Court of Appeal of
Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso

Mr. SANKARA Bonswinde

Deputy Police Superintendent
Central Police of the City of Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso

Mr. YAMEOGO Romuald

Judge
Court of Grand Instance of Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso

Mr. OUEDRAOGO Hugues

Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Republic
Prosecutors’ Office
Court of Grand Instance of Ouagadougou
Burkina Faso

Mr. DIANE Hassane

Government Attorney / Officer in Charge of
Education
Minister’s Office, Ministry of Justice, Human
Rights and Public Liberties
Cote d’Ivoire

Mr. DJEDJET-GOLLY Séraphin Bogard

Judge / Vice-President
Commercial Court of Abidjan
Cote d’Ivoire

Mr. KOUAME Guy Patrick

Deputy Public Prosecutor
Tribunal of First Instance in Yopougon,
AbidjanCote d’Ivoire

23

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Mr. KOFFI Goua

Police Superintendent / Head of Business
Law Violation and Corruption Section
Financial and Economic Investigation
Department, National Police
Cote d’Ivoire

Mr. BIDEKO Murhabazi Juvenal

Deputy Director General
Directorate General of Schools and Trainingof Congolese National Police
Democratic Republic of Congo

Mr. KATANGA MUAMBA LeonFirst Deputy Prosecutor of the Republic
Prosecutors’ Office of the Tribunal of Grand
Instance of Kinshasa / N’djili
Democratic Republic of Congo

Mr. NGOIE Mutombo Jean Claude

Prosecutor
High Judicial Council
Democratic Republic of Congo

Mr. SANGWA Nyembo Guylain

Urban Police Superintendent
Urban Police of Mont-Amba
Congolese National Police
Democratic Republic of Congo

Mr. COULIBALY Abdoulaye

Police Superintendent
Security, Ministry of Internal Security andCivil Protection
Mali

Mr. Mahamadou Bandjougou
DIAWARA

Prosecutor of the Republic
Court of Grand Instance of the FourthCommune of the District of Bamako
Mali

Mr. Amadou TOURE

Judge / Vice-President
Court of Grand Instance of the Third
Commune of the District of Bamako
Mali

Mr. AHMED Issa Mohamed

Investigative Judge / Coordinator of AntiTerrorist Section
Mauritania

Mr. AHMED YOURA Mouhamed Baba

Police Superintendent
Special Department of Judicial Police of the
National Police
Mauritania

Mr. M’BERIK Bah Elbar

Head of Commercial Chamber at Appeal
Courts
Mauritania

Mr. AMADOU ZAKI Moussa

First Deputy Prosecutor
Special Department of the Court of First
Instance of Niamey
Niger

24

APPENDIX
Mr. MALAM ARGI Mamadou

Investigation Officer
Criminal Investigation Department
General Direction of Judiciary Police
Niger

Mr. MANIROU Maman

Investigating Judge of the Special Unit for
TerrorCourt of the First Instance of Niamery /Judicial Section Specialized on the Matter ofCounter-Terrorism
Niger

Mr. Ibrahima Hamidou DEME

Deputy Prosecutor General
Prosecutor General’s Office of the Court ofAppeal in Dakar
SenegalMr. Augustin DIOUF

Investigative Judge
Regional Court of Dakar Sixth Chamber
SenegalMr. Abdoulaye BONO KONO

Head of Criminal OfficeCriminal Affairs Office, Ministry of JusticeChad

Mr. SOULEYMANE ABDOULAYE
TAHIR

Deputy Director of Judicial Police
Judicial Police Department
National Police General Directorate
Chad

Mr. Mahamat Saleh ADOUMDABARA

President of Labour and Social Security
Court of N’djamena
Court of Appeal of N’djamena-Chad
Ministry of Justice
Chad

Mr. NEDEOU TEUBDOYO Gerard

Prosecutor of the Republic
Tribunal of First Instance of LAI
ChadJapanese Participants
Mr. AOI Kenichi

Inspector
National Police Agency

Mr. FUKUBAYASHI Chihiro

Public Prosecutor
Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. SUMI Tetsuro

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. WATANABE Shiro

Judge
Saitama District Court

25

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015

THE 160TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Mr. Kunlay TENZIN

Legal Officer
Legal Division, Crime and Operations, Royal
Bhutan Police
BhutanMr. Werton Magalhaes COSTA

Federal Prosecutor Centre
Federal Prosecutor Office in the State of
Paraiba, Federal Public Prosecution Service
BrazilMr. CHAY Chandaravan

Judge
Civil and Criminal Division, Court of Appeal
Cambodia

Mr. DIABATE Djakaridja

Judge of Investigation
Court of Justice of Yopougon/Abidjan,
Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Public
Liberties
Cote d’Ivoire

Mr. Joash Odhiambo DACHESecretary/CEO
Kenya Law Reform Commission
Kenya

Mr. Thurain Aung

Senior Investigator (Staff Officer)
Nay Pyi Taw Region Division, Seconded to
Financial Intelligence Unit, Bureau of Special
Investigation
MyanmarMr. Arjun Prasad KOIRALA

District Judge
Lalitpur District Court
Nepal

Mr. Ramesh Prasad GYAWALIDistrict Judge
Bajhang District Court
Nepal

Mr. Emil Oscar GONZALEZ Pinto

LawyerLegal Assessor Department, National Police
PanamaMs. Judith Del Socorro GOMEZSERRANO

District Attorney
Public Ministry
PanamaMr. Vincent AGUSAVE

Solicitor in Charge-Goroka
Public Solicitor’s Office, PNG Government
Papua New Guinea

26

APPENDIX
Ms. Irene Cayetano CENA

Chief, Cyber Security Section
Anti-Cybercrime Group, Philippine National
PolicePhilippines

Ms. Karla Torres CABEL

Prosecution Attorney II
National Prosecution Service, Department ofJustice
Philippines

Mr. Faatasi PULEIATA

Deputy Registrar of Court
Civil & Criminal Courts, Ministry of Justice
and Courts Administration
Samoa

Mr. JEAN BAPTISTE Jeffery Alexis

Assistant Superintendent
Criminal Investigation Division, Seychelles
Police Force
Seychelles

Mr. Safarbek NURALIEV

Judge
Ismoili Somoni District Court of Dushanbe
City
Tajikistan

Mr. Wasawat
CHAWALITTHAMRONG

Head of Technology and Cyber Crime
Sector 1
Department of Special Investigation/Bureauof Technology and Cyber Crime, Ministry ofJusticeThailand

Mr. Thongchai ITTHINITIKULDivisional Public Prosecutor
Executive Director’s Office of Criminal
Litigation 10, Office of the Attorney General
ThailandMr. Ihor SEKHIN Sergeyovich

Prosecutor
Department of Criminal Investigations
Supervision, Prosecutor’s Office ofTranscarpathian Region
UkraineMs. Tetiana PAVLIUKOVETS

Prosecutor, Head of Department
Department of Criminal Investigations
Supervision, Prosecutor’s Office of Rivne
RegionUkraineMs. LAI Thi Thu Ha

Senior Procurator-Assistant, Manager ofDivision for Scientific Management
Institute for Procuratorial Science, Supreme
People’s Procuracy
Viet Nam

27

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Ms. NGUYEN Thi Khanh

Japanese Participants
Mr. HOSHI Takeshi

Lecturer
International Law Department, The
University of Prosecution, Supreme People’s
Procuracy
Viet Nam
Inspector
Chiba Prefecture Police

Ms. KAWABATA Yuko

Public Prosecutor
Fukuoka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. SATO Hiroyuki

Judge
Hiroshima District and Family Court,
Fukuyama Branch

Mr. SATO Takeru

JudgeOsaka High Court

Mr. TOYAMA Katsuya

Officer
Narcotic Control Department, Kanto-Shinetsu
Regional Bureau of Health and Welfare

Mr. UEHARA Taku

Coast Guard Officer
5th Regional Coast Guard Headquarters

Ms. URAOKA Naoko

Public Prosecutor
Shizuoka District Public Prosecutors Office,Hamamatsu Branch

THE 161ST INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Ms. Sonam CHODEN

Officer Commanding
Youth Development and Rehabilitation
Centre, Prison Service Division
Royal Bhutan Police
BhutanMr. Beresford Henry HEATHERSuperintendent
Prison Service
Ministry of Justice
Cook Islands

Mr. Teokotai JOSEPH

Chief Probation Officer
Probation Service
Ministry of Justice
Cook Islands

Mr. Henry Karani LIMANYE

Senior Superintendent of Prisons
Security
Kenya Prisons Service
Kenya

28

APPENDIX
Ms. Pamela Monyenche MASESE

Chief Probation Officer
Division of Training
Department of Probation and Aftercare
ServiceKenya

Ms. Purity Mumbi MULANDI

Senior Probation Officer
Probation and Aftercare
Ministry of Interior and Coordination of
National Government
Kenya

Mr. Peter Kimani NDUNGU

Principal Chaplain
Rehabilitation and Welfare
Kenya Prisons Service
Kenya

Ms. Pauline Wanja NGARA

Training Officer
Administration Training Section
Kenya Prisons Service
Kenya

Mr. Ezekiel Gitonga THAIMUTA

Senior Probation Officer
Field Services
Probation and Aftercare Services
Kenya

Mr. Naing Soe Lin

Assistant Director
Prisons Department
Ministry of Home Affairs
MyanmarMs. Elizabeth MIRIOManager-Standards and Monitoring
Probation Service (Community Based
Corrections)
Department of Justice and Attorney General
Papua New Guinea

Ms. Mary Giang TUKAVAI

Senior Provincial Probation Officer
Probation, Parole and Juvenile Court Services
Department of Justice and Attorney General
Papua New Guinea

Mr. LO Lap Yip (Observer)

Principal Officer (Discipline)
Hong Kong Correctional Services Department
The Government of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region
Hong Kong

Ms. Yun Jeong CHOI (Observer)

Director of the Classification andExamination Division
Cheongju Correctional Institution
Korea

29

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Japanese Participants
Mr. HIMURO Hayato

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. MURAGUCHI Seiji

Instructor
Yokohama Juvenile Classification HomeMr. OTOMO Shingo

Assistant Judge
Osaka District Court

Ms. SUZUKI Mariko

Probation Officer
Nigata Probation Office

THE 18TH UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMME
Overseas Participants
Mr. Md Manzur MORSHED

Deputy Director
Pending Matters Cell-2
Anti Corruption Commission
Bangladesh

Mr. Md Nasir UDDIN

Deputy Director
Special Enquiry and Investigation
Anti Corruption Commission
Bangladesh

Mr. Choki PHUNTSHOOfficer Commanding
Division-III, PhuntsholingRoyal Bhutan Police
BhutanMs. DIOMANDE Nanan Assiata

Judge
Trial Court
Court of Appeal of Abidjan
Cote d’Ivoire

Mr. Mahmoud Hassan BAKRY

Public Prosecutor
El-Minia Prosecution Office
Egypt

Mr. Wael Saad Mohamed REFAI

Vice President
Commercial Chamber
Supreme Court of Cassation
Egypt

Mr. Jose Humberto
PALACIOS GUIFARRO

Judge
Tegucigalpa City Criminal Courthouse
Honduras

Mr. Kuanysh BAIMAKHANOV

Chief Expert
Department of Execution of Judicial
Certificates
Ministry of Justice
Kazakhstan

30

APPENDIX
Mr. KUSHIMOV Nurkhat

Head of Division
Division of Analytics and Organization
Department of Internal Security, Ministry ofInternal Affairs
Kazakhstan

Mr. Edwin Ocharo RIOBA

Legal Officer
Legal Department
Ministry of Interior
Kenya

Mr. SARGALDAKOV
Bekbolotovich Iskander

Investigator
Third Department of Investigation
National Security Committee
Kyrgyz Republic

Mr. Sisavat SANGSINSAY

Chief of Division
Division for Anti Crime in Internal andExternal Investment
Economic Police Department, Ministry of
Public Security
Laos

Ms. Fathimath Haifa
ABDUL GAYOOM

Investigation Officer
Investigation Division
Anti-Corruption Commission
Maldives

Ms. Zeeniya ABDULLA

Investigation Officer
Investigation Division
Anti-Corruption Commission
Maldives

Mr. Soe Naung Oo

Director
Investigation and Financial Division
Bureau of Special Investigation
MyanmarMr. Tulsi Ram ARYAL

Under Secretary
Investigation Division No. 4
Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of
Authority
Nepal

Mr. Niaz HASSAN

Additional Director
Human Resource Management Division
National Accountability Bureau
Pakistan

Mr. Akuei Mayuen Deng DUT

Director General
Investigations and Legal Services
South Sudan Anti-Corruption Commission
South Sudan

31

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2015
Mr. Parviz CHORSHANBIEV

Senior Inspector
Corruption Prevention
Agency for State Financial Control and Fightagainst Corruption
Tajikistan

Mr. Phoosit TIRAVANICHPONG

Deputy Provincial Chief Public Prosecutor
Thanyaburi Public Prosecutor Office
Office of the Attorney General
Thailand

Ms. Silawan PANOM

Inquiry Officer
Bureau of Public Sector Corruption Inquiry 1
Office of the National Anti-Corruption
Commission
Thailand

Ms. Olha IVASHCHENKO

Prosecutor
Department for International Legal
Cooperation
Prosecutor General’s Office
UkraineMr. Afzal Abduganiyevich
NURMATOV

Head of Division
Command and Co-ordination Centre
National Central Bureau of Interpol
Uzbekistan

Mr. USMANOV Ulugbek Melisovich

Senior Investigator
Investigation Department
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Uzbekistan

Japanese Participants
Mr. HONDA Shuichi

Chief Inspector
National Police Agency

Ms. KURUJI Naomi

Judge
Saitama District Court

Mr. MARUYAMA Jun

Public Prosecutor
Akita District Public Prosecutors Office,Odate Branch

Ms. OIKAWA Hiromi

Public Prosecutor
Niigata District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. SAKAI Hideomi

JudgeOsaka High Court

Mr. WATANABE Kazutoshi

Securities Investigator
Market Surveillance Division
Securities and Exchange SurveillanceCommission

32

PART TWORESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
No. 99Work Product of the 162nd International Senior Seminar“Multi-agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of Offenders”

UNAFEIVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
GOVERNMENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT SUPPORTSUCCESSFUL RE-ENTRY OF JUSTICE-INVOLVED INDIVIDUALS
B. Diane Williams＊

I. INTRODUCTIONThe United States is often referenced as the “incarceration nation”. Given the number of people undercriminal justice supervision in the United States a more appropriate moniker might be the “corrections
nation”. The United States’ system of punishment is enforced by our corrections system which is not only
made up of prisons and jails but also includes community corrections agencies.
At the end of 2014 there were approximately 6,851,000 adults under corrections supervision in the
United States, about 1 in 36 adults.1 This number represents a decrease of 52,200 (0.7 percent) fromyear-end 2013. It is also the lowest rate the U.S. has experienced since 1996. The number of prisoners heldby state and federal correctional authorities on December 31, 2014 was approximately 1,561,500, a decreaseby 15,400 (down 1 percent from year-end 2013. 2 The great majority of the population is men. However, thenumber of women in prison who were sentenced to more than 1 year increased by 1,900 (up 2 percent) in
2014, from 104,300 in 2013 to 106,200 in 2014. 3 The number of women in the criminal justice system has
been growing at a rate of 3.4 percent per year. However, the important figure to note for purposes of thispaper is the 5,289,500 people who were serving their sentences under community supervision at year-end
2014.
The U.S. federal government and the states have been engaged with sentencing reform over the pastten years, and community supervision and other alternatives to incarceration have been more readily
applied.4 National nonprofit groups like the Council of State Governments Justice Center, Urban Institute,
The Pew Charitable Trusts, Vera Institute of Justice and many other organizations have partnered withfederal and state government agencies to design and implement programmes to reduce the number ofpeople incarcerated. Since 2007, the correctional population has been decreasing on average 1 percent eachyear. 5 While this would appear to be a small decrease, in fact, it is having a significant impact across thecountry with fewer people serving prison or probation sentences. These changes are the result of amomentous national effort to be smarter about public safety at every point on the continuum of thecriminal justice system.
There was a shift of focus in the United States’ public safety analysis. The U.S. has looked more closely
at the sequence of events within our criminal justice system where change in policy and practice could
influence the number of individuals who enter the corrections system.6 Relevant points of contact within
the criminal justice system include entry, prosecution, adjudication/sentencing, and corrections. It also
President Emeritus, Safer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

＊

1 Kaeble, D., Glaze, L., Tsoutis, A, & Minton, T. “Correctional Populations in the United States, 2014” (NCJ 249513). Bureauof Justice Statistics. December 2015. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus14.pdf>.

2 Carson, Anne E. “Prisoners in 2014.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. September 2015. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://

www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14.pdf>.

3 Kaeble et al., op. cit., p. 4.

4 See The Pew Charitable Trusts chart entitled, “Sentencing and Corrections Reforms in Justice Reinvestment States”

Updated June 2015. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2015/06/sentencing_correc
tions_reforms_justice_reinvestment_states.pdf>.
5 The Pew Charitable Trusts. “State, Federal Prison Populations Decline Simultaneously for First Time in 36 Years.”
September 17, 2015. Public Performance Project. Accessed January 10, 2016. <http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/analysis/2015/09/17/state-federal-prison-populations-decline-simultaneously-for-first-time-in-36-years>.
6 See U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal Justice System Flowchart.
Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.bjs.gov/content/largechart.cfm>.

35

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
analyzed the incarcerated population, why they were incarcerated, how long they were incarcerated, andwhat the recidivism rates were after their release. The majority of the correctional population had nonviolent drug related convictions or histories of drug use that influenced their criminal behaviour. Too manyprisoners were serving mandatory minimum sentences although 95% of them would be released fromprison at some point.7
The recidivism rate was stagnant with nearly 70 percent of individuals getting rearrested within three
years. 8 However, there were fewer (55.4 percent) who were actually convicted of a new offense andreturned to jail or prison.9 Re-arrests did not always denote commission of a new crime and earlier recidivism analysis included individuals who violated supervision requirements such as breaking curfews, failing
drug screens, or not paying fines.
Moreover, many individuals with criminal records were facing federal and state legal barriers to successful re-entry in addition to addressing their own personal challenges. There are nearly 45,000 statutory
civil consequences of criminal convictions that exist.10 These legal restrictions serve as collateral sanctions
outside of the penal system and restrict people with criminal convictions from qualifying for certain jobs,
obtaining housing assistance, receiving public assistance, or other essential services. Furthermore, moststates do not limit public access to criminal record information subjecting individuals with criminal records
to lifelong bias and stigma.
Finally, public officials recognized that many formerly incarcerated individuals came from communities
that lacked support services, good educational systems, adequate housing, healthcare, or employment opportunities. By 2008 when Congress passed the Second Chance Act of 2007, it was understood that there
was a need for a much greater focus and emphasis on developing programmes and providing services thatwould prepare prisoners for re-entry and provide the additional services and support they would need in

Source: Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics
7 Hughes, T. & Wilson, D.J. “Reentry Trends in the United States: Inmates returning to the community after serving timein prison.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.bjs.gov/content/reentry/reentry.cfm>.

8 National Institute of Justice. “Recidivism.” N.d. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidi

vism/pages/welcome.aspx>.

9 Ibid.

10 American Bar Association. “Collateral Consequences are Threat to Public Safety, ABA tells task force.” July 2014. ABAWashington Letter. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.americanbar.org/publications/governmental_affairs_periodi
cals/washingtonletter/2014/july/collateralconsequences.html>.

36

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
the community. The Second Chance Act was enacted to break the cycle of criminal recidivism; improve
public safety; and help state, local, and tribal government agencies and community organizations respondto the rising populations of formerly incarcerated people who were returning to their communities.
The passage of this national legislation served as a message that people who make mistakes deserve asecond chance and that public safety is a national concern that requires public and private partnerships tomaintain. Nationally, a new effort arose to promote policies on every level of government that would
support successful re-entry of justice involved individuals.

II. SUCCESSFUL RE-ENTRY
Re-entry is the process of rehabilitation and reconnection to community. It involves ensuring thatjustice involved individuals act as responsible citizens and have the support to do so. There are several
elements of re-entry that are important to the U.S.’s strategy to help people remain crime free: 1.) accessto employment; 2.) access to safe and secure housing; and 3.) access to healthcare. While healthcare is significant, this paper will focus on the first two critical components of re-entry — employment and housing.
Federal, state and local governments have addressed the re-entry needs of people in several ways
including funding research and programmes, providing technical support to practitioners, reforming legislation and policies that serve as barriers to re-entry, and conducting public education.
Responding to the challenge of re-entry is viewed in two frames—addressing the responsibility of theindividual and addressing the responsibility of the public. Successful re-entry requires the individual tocommit to rehabilitation and to actively change their behaviour. The individual has to want to change hisor her life, be willing to seek the services and do the individual work on and for them that will support
that goal. The public’s responsibility is to afford individuals the opportunity to pay their debt to society,fully participate in society through work and other civic activities, and receive help when it is needed.
A. Funding Programs and Increasing Services
In 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor funded the Ready4Work demonstration project to address
re-entry challenges faced by newly released formerly incarcerated individuals by providing coordinatedemployment, case management and mentoring services within community-based organizations and faithbased organizations. The Safer Foundation was an original grantee along with ten other organizations
across the country. In 2005, the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Department of Justice implemented
a joint initiative called the Reintegration of Ex-Offenders (RExO). It was also created to support employment programmes that include mentoring as part of their services in urban communities. These communities were targeted because in most states prisoners came from and returned to the largest urban cities inthe state and due to the sentencing and corrections reforms that were happening, hundreds of thousandsof prisoners were expected to be released each year. These individuals were likely to return to communities that were economically depressed and lacked sufficient community resources to support their re-entry
needs.
In 2008, the Second Chance Act (SCA)11 was enacted to authorize federal grants to government
agencies and nonprofit organizations to provide re-entry services including employment assistance,
substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victim support, and other services
that support corrections and supervision practices aimed at reducing recidivism. The SCA authorized thePrisoner Re-Entry Initiative (PRI), an employment programme that grew out of a pilot programme that
had been administered by the U.S. Department of Labor called Ready4Work. The project provided
mentoring and other transition services for men and women returning from prison and was a partnership
between the U.S. Department of Labor and faith-based and community organizations. PRI expanded
Ready4Work and allowed more grant support to faith-based and community organizations that help justiceinvolved individuals find work, connect with mentors, and avoid relapse into criminal activity.
PRI is another joint initiative between the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and U.S. Department ofJustice (DOJ). DOJ grants are awarded to State agencies for pre-release services to partner anti-recidivism
11 Pub. L. 110–199, Apr. 9, 2008, 122 Stat. 657, known as the Second Chance Act of 2007: Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention and also as the Second Chance Act of 2007.

37

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
efforts with those of faith-based and community organizations. DOL funds are awarded to faith-based andcommunity organizations that provide a variety of assistance to formerly incarcerated men, women, andyouth, including workforce development services, job training, counseling, and other re-entry services.
The SCA also assists States and local government entities, in partnership with nonprofit organizations,to establish prisoner re-entry demonstration projects. Demonstration projects include:⿟⿟ Education, vocational training, and job placement services;⿟⿟ Coordinated supervision of formerly incarcerated individuals between corrections and housing andmental and physical health care providers; and⿟⿟ Programmes that encourage formerly incarcerated people to develop safe, healthy, and responsible
family and parent-child relationships.
B. Training and Technical Assistance for Re-entry Practitioners
The SCA authorized the creation of a National Re-entry Resource Centre (NRRC),12 which serves as
the primary source of information and guidance in re-entry, advances the use of evidence-based practices
and policies and creates a national network of practitioners, researchers, and policymakers invested in
reducing recidivism. The NRRC, though administered by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of JusticeAssistance, is operated by the Council of State Governments Justice Center, Urban Institute, the Association of State Correctional Administrators, the American Probation and Parole Association, the National
Association of Counties, and the Center for Juvenile Justice Reform at Georgetown University’s McCourt
School of Public Policy. It is a national technical support center that provides technical assistance to Second
Chance Act grantees but also partners with more than 150 leading nonprofit organizations and service
providers in the re-entry field to participate in systems change across the country.
Providing technical support and training for practitioners who provide re-entry support is a necessaryfunction of government, particularly for those who provide employment services. Leaders should identify
all of the various places individuals may go for support with entering or re-entering the workforce. Second,trainings must be developed to educate the various re-entry practitioners from community corrections,workforce, substance use treatment, and case management agencies about the unique challenges faced byworkers with criminal records and the role they have in helping individuals to overcome those challenges.
Practitioners need to understand background screening processes, state laws concerning access to criminal
record information, the rights and obligations of workers and employers, how to counsel job seekers to
discuss and document their criminal history on job applications, how to build relationships with employers
to create job opportunities for their clients, and how to help an individual manage other challenges andobstacles they may face while in transition.
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC), an agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal
Bureau of Prisons, provides training, technical assistance, information services, and policy/programme development assistance to federal, state, and local corrections agencies. NIC was charged with cross-training
community corrections officers and workforce development practitioners all across the country on how to
support and provide employment assistance to individuals with criminal records. Comprehensive in-person
trainings were conducted with teams of corrections and workforce practitioners that would work together
in their respective communities. The team participated in the trainings together to ensure each understood their role in employment programming.
C. Government Leadership
Systemic changes require leadership. Government agencies that have some hand in the lives of people
must collaborate and be at the table together to determine ways they can collectively support re-entry.
They can work together to limit the chance of duplicative efforts, potentially reap cost savings by pooling
resources, and streamline service delivery systems for individuals with complex needs. For example, in2011 the former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder convened a cabinet-level council called the Federal Interagency Re-entry Council, which represents 20 federal agencies that work towards a mission to:⿟⿟ make communities safer by reducing recidivism and victimization,
⿟⿟ assist those who return from prison and jail in becoming productive citizens, and⿟⿟ save taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct and collateral costs of incarceration.
12 The National Reentry Resource Center’s website is <https://csgjusticecentre.org/nrrc>.

38

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
The Re-entry Council represents a significant executive branch commitment to coordinating re-entry
efforts and advancing effective re-entry policies. It is premised on the recognition that many federal
agencies have a major stake in prisoner re-entry. Re-entry Council agencies are taking concrete steps
towards not only reducing recidivism and high correctional costs but also improving public health, childwelfare, employment, education, housing and other key reintegration outcomes. The first action by the
Re-entry Council was to issue several fact sheets they called “Re-entry Mythbusters” to educate prison,
jail, probation, community corrections, and parole officials; re-entry service providers and faith‐based organizations; employers and workforce development specialists; and states and local agencies.
The Re-entry Mythbusters clarify existing federal policies that affect formerly incarcerated individuals
and their families in areas such as public housing, access to benefits, parental rights, employer incentives,
Medicaid suspension/termination, and more.   Other actions by members of the Re-entry Council include:⿟⿟ The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency that enforces thecountry’s national anti-discrimination law, led an effort to issue an update of the guidance that theagency released nearly 30 years ago to discourage employers from establishing blanket bans
against hiring people with arrest and conviction records, which could violate Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. 13 Legal and enforcement actions by the EEOC have forced some large
companies in the U.S. to shift their approach to screening job applicants from one that rules out
all jobseekers with felonies to a more tailored one that examines the individual’s crime and its
relevance to the job under consideration.
This guidance came on the heels of the completion of two prominent studies that were funded by the
National Institute of Justice, which found that a criminal record reduces the likelihood of a job callback oroffer by approximately 50 percent. This criminal record “penalty” was substantially greater for African
Americans than for white applicants. The more recent study included Latinos in the test pool and showed
they, too, suffer similar “penalties” in the U.S. labor market. 14 In 2012, when the guidance was issued
African Americans accounted for less than 14 percent of the U.S. population15 but 28 percent of all arrests.
They were even more highly represented in the incarcerated population, comprising almost 40 percent of
those behind bars.16
⿟⿟ The U.S. Attorney General issued a letter to all State Attorneys General asking that they identify
criminal record collateral consequences and develop a plan for eliminating unjustified barriers to
re-entry. Prior to his issuing the letter, the National Institute of Justice funded the American Bar
Association, Criminal Justice Section, to create a national inventory of collateral consequencesthat is an online searchable catalogue of all collateral consequences found in each U.S. jurisdiction.
Until then there was no way to identify all of the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.
They found approximately 44,500 collateral consequences that are catalogued in the NICCC
database.
⿟⿟ The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. federal housing agency, issued
letters to all Public Housing Authorities and to private landlords that use federal subsidies encouraging them to institute fair housing policies that will not unnecessarily eliminate people withcriminal histories from admission consideration. HUD has since issued guidance for Public
Housing Agencies (PHAs) and Owners of Federally-Assisted Housing on Excluding the Use of
Arrest Records in Housing Decisions.17
13 United States. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “Enforcement Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest

and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §2000e et seq.” April 25, 2012. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/arrest_conviction.cfm>.
14 Pager, D. “The Mark of a Criminal Record” (pdf, 39 pages) Exit Notice, American Journal of Sociology 108 (2003):
957–960; Pager, Devah, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski, “Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment” (pdf, 23 pages) Exit Notice, American Sociological Review 74 (October 2009): 777–779.
15 Rastogi, S., Johnson, T.D., Hoeffel, E.M. & Drewery, Jr., M.P. The Black Population: 2010 (pdf, 20 pages), 2010 Census
Briefs, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011.
16 Sabol, W.J., Minton, T.D., & Harrison, P.M. “Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006” (NCJ 217675). U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pjim06.pdf>.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
Similarly, state and city leaders have assembled re-entry task forces that include a broad range ofpartners—including state and county officials, community- and faith-based organizations, local educational
institutions, business associations and employers, and formerly incarcerated individuals and their families—that come together to share data, strategize on how to address challenges faced by individuals during
re-entry, and come up with ideas of how to create opportunities for their success. The first set of tasks forthe group is usually to review pertinent research; evaluate areas and populations most in need; issue areport of findings, and develop a strong message to build political will and momentum around the task
force’s re-entry efforts. The task force must establish a stated focus, create a clear timeline with set goals,
identify common measures of success, designate roles and responsibilities, and maintain consistent andongoing communication as they work toward achieving their goals.

III. RE-ENTRY BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS
As noted above, people with criminal conviction records face numerous barriers to successful re-entry.
However, employment and housing are considered the biggest challenges that have the greatest influence
over an individual’s success of remaining crime free. Nearly 50 percent of individuals in jails were unemployed at the time of their arrest, and between 60 percent and 75 percent of formerly incarcerated people
are jobless up to a year after release.18 Moreover, homelessness often precipitates incarceration. Individuals
incarcerated in jails are 11.3 times more likely to be homeless than the general population and 15 percent
of people in prison previously experienced homelessness.19 While employment is a critical need, housing is
the most immediate challenge faced by people leaving prison.
A. Employment
The employment challenges faced by the people with criminal records are unique to each individual,
though there are some commonalities among various subgroups. The level of difficulty faced by an individual during reintegration is often dictated by the personal, criminogenic, 20 and structural challenges thatexist for that individual.
Personal⃝ Criminal record⃝ Limited education⃝ Limited and outdated job skills⃝ Lack of transportation⃝ Interpersonal skill deficits⃝ M
 ental health/substance abuse
disorders⃝ L ow levels of educational, vocational, or financial achievement⃝ Homelessness

Criminogenic
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝
⃝

History of anti-social behaviour
Anti-social personality
Anti-social attitudes
Anti-social peers
Family stressors
Substance abuse
Poor use of leisure time

Structural⃝ Social exclusion⃝ Discrimination⃝ L egal exclusion from certain occupations, e.g., clinical healthcare⃝ Access to health care

These individual challenges will determine the types of programmes and the intensity of services thatare appropriate to meet a person’s re-entry needs. There are three employment programme models thatare used to serve people with criminal histories. The traditional workforce development model includes
providing job readiness training, skills training, job placement, and retention services. Transitional Jobs isan employment model that provides job readiness training, subsidized work experience, and support
services. Customized employment involves matching a job seeker’s dreams and talents to supported em17 United States. Housing and Urban Development. (2015, November 2). “Guidance for Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) andOwners of Federally-Assisted Housing on Excluding the Use of Arrest Records in Housing Decisions.” Available at <http://
portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=PIH2015-19.pdf>.
18 Petersilia, J. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 2003;
Travis, J. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, Washington D.C.: Urban Institute Press,
2005.
19 Knopf-Amelung, S. Incarceration & Homelessness: A Revolving Door of Risk. In Focus: A Quarterly Research Reviewof the National HCH Council, 2:2. (November 2013). National Health Care for the Homeless Council. Accessed 2016,
January 10. <www.nhchc.org>.
20 Behaviours or activities associated with crime or criminality.

40

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
ployment opportunities, which builds to a career of choice. It is an individualized exploration of employment interests and needs, which can be facilitated by any of a number of established tools. 21 No matter
what employment model is used in a programme that serves job seekers with criminal histories, they must
incorporate the following in their service delivery:⿟⿟ Helping participants review and “clean up” their rap sheets and credit reports. An increasing
number of employers rely on background checks to probe an applicant’s criminal history. Some
employers may obtain criminal record information directly from the state’s criminal repository of
criminal records or through a consumer reporting agency or private background checkcompanies. Inaccurate or very old information as well as information on arrests that did not leadto conviction may give an unnecessarily negative profile of the job applicant. Staff must be
familiar with a client’s complete criminal history to conduct appropriate job referrals.
⿟⿟ Helping participants develop realistic short- and long-term career goals. For example, a short-termgoal might be focused initially on job retention in a good job in a client’s field of choice, particularly for clients with episodic work histories. A long-term goal would be more focused on education,
training, or a certificate needed for advancement in the client’s field of choice.
⿟⿟ Helping participants get necessary documentation such as various forms of identification (i.e., stateissued picture identification, social security card, and birth certificate) they will need to apply forjobs.
⿟⿟ Ensuring participants get personal management training, including reviewing the importance ofpunctuality and attendance, appropriate attire, the ability to accept criticism, working collaboratively, and work ethic.
⿟⿟ Providing immediate income while preparing and training clients for employment throughstipends or paychecks that may cover transportation costs (at a minimum). Payment is also an
incentive for participants to attend the programme.
⿟⿟ Providing Post-Employment Services to Promote Job Retention.
⿟⿟ Providing or linking clients to the support services they need to help them retain employment,
including addressing child support issues, alcohol and substance abuse problems, housing, childcare, and transportation, which can all compromise employment success.
⿟⿟ Providing post-placement or follow-up services that include crisis intervention, continued support
and career advancement guidance.
⿟⿟ Forming collaborations with other entities that will enhance and support successful workforce development including community corrections agencies.
Individuals with criminal records not only have to overcome the stigma associated with having acriminal record—even after they have completed their sentence and paid their debt to society—they willoften encounter federal and state laws and policies that make successful re-entry much more difficult.
There are several re-entry policy reforms that policymakers and advocates are seeking to improve the reintegration of people with criminal histories:
1. Ban the Box: Over 100 local jurisdictions as well as ten states have adopted this hiring policy thatprescribes the point at which an employer may inquire about an individual’s criminal record during
the hiring process. Recently, President Obama announced that he would remove the question about
criminal history from federal government applications to open the door to more opportunities for
qualified workers with criminal records to apply for federal employment.
21 ICF International under subcontract to Economic Systems Inc. Customized Employment Works Everywhere. 2009. U.S.

Department of Labor Contract No. DOLQ08942777. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.dol.gov/odep/documents/
vignette_v3_blue_508_final.pdf>.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
2. Certificates of Rehabilitation: Approximately 10 states have laws that create a restoration of rights
process that provides relief of civil consequences and recognizes an individual’s rehabilitation and,
thereby, reduce employment sanctions and disqualifications. These certificates in some states willremove statutory bars to jobs and occupational licenses. They are also documents that are issued byan authority that has reviewed the individual’s rehabilitation history such as the Board of Parole
Review or a judge.
3. Expungement/Sealing: Criminal records can plague jobseekers years after the disposition of theircase when the records are disseminated to employers indiscriminately and indefinitely. Many states
have passed record suppression laws to increase the opportunity for individuals with old or minor
offenses and arrests that did not lead to conviction to compete fairly for employment.
4. Identification: Formerly incarcerated and even homeless individuals have a difficult time obtaining
state identification due to application fees, no other acceptable form of identification, or no transportation to Motor Vehicle offices, which makes it difficult to fully participate in society. Some states
have created new procedures through cooperation between Departments of Corrections and Motor
Vehicles to ensure easier access to obtaining identification documents and other information needed
to secure employment.
5. Negligent Hiring: In response to employers’ concerns about risks and liability of hiring people withcriminal histories, some states have adopted laws, in conjunction with other reforms, to limit theliability of employers that hire people with criminal records.
6. Employer Incentives: The federal government has created two employer incentive programmes toencourage them to hire qualified workers with criminal histories. The Federal Bonding Program
was created in 1966 to provide Fidelity Bonds that guarantee honesty for “at-risk”, hard-to-place job
seekers during the first six months of employment. The bond is insurance to protect employers
against employee dishonesty and covers any type of stealing: theft, forgery, larceny, and embezzlement. There is no cost to the job applicant or the employer. In most states the bonds are madeavailable through the state agency responsible for workforce matters. 22 Second, the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) is a Federal tax credit available to employers for hiring individuals fromcertain target groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment. People withcriminal and addiction histories are identified in this group. The tax credit employers can claim
depends upon the target group of the individual hired, the wages paid to that individual in the firstyear of employment, and the number of hours that individual worked. There is also a maximum tax
credit that can be earned. 23
B. Housing
People with criminal conviction records face multiple challenges to securing safe, stable, and affordable
housing. While some individuals can return home to families, many are confronted with limited housing
options, especially those who suffer with mental illness and/or substance use addiction problems. It isestimated that on average about 10% of parolees are homeless at the time of their release from prison but
in urban communities, that number is likely to be higher for individuals who also have histories of drug
use and addiction. 24 In the United States, there is a scarcity of affordable and available housing. Furthermore, although there are also legal barriers and regulations that bar individuals with certain types of conviction records from qualifying for tenancy in federally subsidized housing the public’s understanding of
the law and federal rules often went far beyond the federal bar, which only applies to individuals subject tolifetime registrations under a State sex offender registration programme and anyone convicted of drug-re22 More about the Federal Bonding Program is available at <http://www.bonds4jobs.com/>. The programme boasts a 99

percent success rate in helping to restore the insured to a bondable status that allows them to qualify for other commercial
bonding with an employer.
23 The Work Opportunity Tax Credit programme is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. Other target populations include veterans, public welfare recipients, designated Community Residents (living in Empowerment Zones or Rural
Renewal Counties), vocational Rehabilitation Referral, Supplemental Security Income recipients, and Summer Youth
Employee (living in Empowerment Zones).
24 Moraff, C. (2014, July 23). “Housing First” Helps Keep Ex-Inmates Off the Streets (and Out of Prison). Next City. Available
at <https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/housing-first-former-prisoners-homelessness>.

42

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
lated criminal activity for manufacture or production of methamphetamine on the premises of federally
assisted housing.
Private landlords and public housing agencies have wide latitude and discretion on their selection
criteria but often err on the side of total exclusion. They may conduct criminal record checks and denyhousing to individuals with conviction records no matter how old or minor the criminal record. A consistent challenge is securing housing for individuals convicted of sex offenses.
The United States has attempted to meet the challenge of creating more housing options for people
with criminal histories through public education (dispelling myths about legal restrictions) and encouraging
landlords and public agencies to loosen their criminal record restrictions and the developing multiple
housing models such as transition and halfway houses that will house people temporarily as they transition
to permanent housing. The housing programmes may range from 3 months, 6 months, or up to or over one
year as participants receive life skills training, case management, and other services that are necessary tostabilize them in the community while the programme works to transition the individual to their own
residence.
Transitional Housing programme structures usually come in three forms. Housing providers may
subsidize the cost of the individual’s own lease agreement and pay a portion of rent directly to a landlord.
Programmes may be the lessors of living residences and sublet the spaces to their clients. The programmeis responsible for paying the rent and creates a sublease or rental agreement with their client who thenpays an agreed amount to the programme. Finally, the programme may own and operate property that
their client rents directly from the programme. The programmes may also provide support services that
may include regular staff contact, crisis services or other services to prevent relapse, such as those
focusing on mental health, substance abuse, and employment.
In 2004, the U.S. Department of Justice issued the publication, “Guide for Developing Housing for Ex-offenders,” that provides a step-by-step approach to developing housing programmes for formerly incarcerated individuals and their families. 25 Organizations are advised to consider five important variables:⿟⿟ The specific segment of the population to be served.
⿟⿟ The type of housing to be provided.
⿟⿟ The stakeholders to be included in each phase.
⿟⿟ The source and availability of funds.
⿟⿟ Management capacity for the programme.
Other options recommended for developing new housing is to:⿟⿟ Work with local service providers, investors, and developers.
⿟⿟ Rehabilitate abandoned housing.
⿟⿟ Expand existing local housing programmes.
⿟⿟ Participate in or create a consolidated planning strategy for affordable housing and homelessness.
In the U.S., consolidated planning was designed by HUD to help states and local jurisdictions to assess
their affordable housing and community development needs and market conditions, and to make data-driven, place-based investment decisions. The consolidated planning process serves as the framework for acommunity-wide dialogue to identify housing and community development priorities that align and focus
funding.
Governments can also incentivize and spur action through tax credits. For example, in 1986 the LowIncome Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) programme, which provides an indirect federal subsidy to developers,
was created to encourage the investment of private equity in the development of affordable rental housing
for low-income households. The tax credit is calculated as a percentage of costs incurred in developing theaffordable housing property, and is claimed annually over a 10-year period. It is estimated that since theprogramme’s creation the LIHTC has helped to finance more than 2.4 million affordable rental-housing
25 U.S. Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. (May 2004). “Guide for Developing Housing for Ex-Offenders” (NCJ
203374). Community Capacity Development Office. Accessed 2016, January 10. <https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/203374.
pdf>.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
units for low-income households. 26
Also, cities and counties are passing legislation that creates other incentives for developers of low-income housing such as bonus densities, fee waivers, and streamlined review processes. Some jurisdictions
are also experimenting with amending zoning codes to allow alternative affordable housing options such as
cottage housing, 27 accessory dwelling units, 28 small lot development or attached houses. The codes include
exemptions or provide for flexibility in applying regulations that help reduce the cost of affordable housing
production.

IV. CONCLUSION
Government can spark a movement toward creating a more coordinated and intentional approach tore-entry that will foster long-term results. It must first evaluate the population and their needs. Review the
research to identify what works and what does not work when servicing the population. Where there aregaps in information, fund the development of more research to get better understanding. More importantly,
government should serve as a model of the agenda it promotes. People who are directly affected by thecriminal justice system should be able to serve as leaders in developing policies that affect their lives andothers who have experienced similar challenges. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice named Daryl
Atkinson as its first-ever Second Chance Fellow to serve the department as an advisor with personal experience, expertise, and leadership in the criminal justice field — he is a practicing civil rights and criminal
defense attorney and is a formerly incarcerated individual. 29 The U.S. Attorney General Lynch noted, “Recognizing that many of those directly impacted by the criminal justice system hold significant insight into
reforming the justice system, the Bureau of Justice Assistance — led by Director Denise O’Donnell —released a competitive solicitation that led to Daryl’s selection.”30
Every stakeholder should be represented in the planning phase of re-entry initiatives. When working toaddress employment and housing, several groups should be at the table along with correctional agencies:
other city agencies like economic development, human resource administration, housing and homelessness,
public health; state and county officials; community- and faith-based organizations, local educational institutions, workforce development agencies; business associations/employers; universities and academics; andmost importantly, formerly incarcerated individuals and their families. The primary decision-makers in thecommunity who hold the power about who qualifies for work and for housing—employers and housing
owners—must be sought-after partners in the re-entry effort. This group should be formalized through alegislative or administrative action.
National legislation is useful not only for authorizing certain programmes or allowances to spurbusiness support; it can be the message piece that promotes re-entry as a major component of public
safety and economic development. Finally, it can also be a message of redemption and the benefit of giving
people a second chance. Reducing recidivism and changing lives will require multiple approaches—different
programme models, innovation, flexibility—to improve and increase employment and housing outcomes forjustice-involved individuals.

26 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. (March 2014). “Low-Income Housing Tax Credits: Affordable Housing Invest-

ment Opportunities for Banks.” Available at <http://www.occ.gov/topics/community-affairs/publications/insights/insightslow-income-housing-tax-credits.pdf>.
27 Cottage houses are a grouping of small, single family dwelling units clustered around a common area.
28 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) are small apartments built on a property with a preexisting home as the primarystructure. For example, a garage that is converted into livable space. See Ryan, Michael. (2014, December 12) “Using
accessory dwelling units to bolster affordable housing.” Smart Growth America. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.
smartgrowthamerica.org/2014/12/12/using-accessory-dwelling-units-to-bolster-affordable-housing/>.
29 U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. (2015, July 30). “Justice Department Announces First-Ever Second Chance
Fellow.” Blog. Access 2016, January 15. <http://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/second-chances-vital-criminal-justice-reform>.
30 Ibid.

44

EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING MODELS FOR PEOPLE WITH
CRIMINAL RECORDS
B. Diane Williams＊

I. INTRODUCTION
In the United States, people with criminal records spend their lifetimes working to overcome personaland structural barriers to community integration and full participation in society. The prevalence ofcriminal record checks in background screening procedures, the availability of substantial amounts ofcriminal record information to the public, and lack of protection against discrimination poses many
obstacles for people when a person with a criminal record applies for jobs or housing. Most employers andlandlords conduct criminal record checks as part of their background screening and selection processes.
Depending on their jurisdiction, they may obtain information directly from a government criminal record
repository or from a private commercial reporting agency. Criminal records conjure a negative reaction
from the public because of concerns about the risk of a person reoffending. At the point that individuals
have to undergo a criminal record screen, the hope is when the criminal record is reviewed the applicant
would have the opportunity to present evidence of rehabilitation that would be considered and weighedagainst and above the fact that a criminal record exists.
These structural barriers operate as social and legal exclusions that prohibit or limit opportunities forpeople with criminal records to move forward and strive to be productive members of society. Thoughmany of these barriers may only be addressed with law and policy changes that promote second chances,some restrictions may be overcome with the help of community service providers that serve as intermediaries and can make strategic connections for their clients. Many justice-involved individuals who lackresources and support will need assistance to address their personal challenges as well as achieve theirgoals to retain a job and affordable and safe housing.
In the United States, government agencies provide some direct services but they also rely upon
community based organizations to help provide reentry assistance to the justice involved population
because of the great numbers of people in need of service and the intensity of the their service needs. This
paper will discuss employment and housing programme models and services that support the re-entry
needs of people with criminal records. While it is not an exhaustive list of programmes operating in the
United States, these are some that have been recognized nationally for their efficiency, longevity, and successful approaches to helping their clients, many of whom face significant personal challenges and havenumerous needs.

II. EMPLOYMENTUnemployment among the formerly incarcerated is as high as 50 percent, costing the United States’
economy up to $65 billion annually in lost productivity and harming growth.1 People who are out of work
are more likely to commit new crimes and less likely to support their children or other dependents.
Therefore, ensuring everyone who is willing and able to work has a job is an economic and public safety
priority for the U.S. The high demand for services requires collaboration between the public and theprivate sectors.
The United States Department of Labor is the federal agency responsible for fostering, promoting, anddeveloping programmes and services that build and strengthen the economy. The agency provides grants
President Emeritus, Safer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

＊

1 Schmitt, J. & Warner, K. (November 2010). Ex‐offenders and the Labor Market, p. 2. Centre for Economic and Policy

Research. Web. Accessed 2016, January 10. <https://cepr.net/documents/publications/ex-offenders-2010-11.pdf>.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
for various types of workforce development programmeming to respond to the needs of community
residents and special populations. A division of the agency, the Employment and Training Administration,
manages the agency’s Reentry Employment Opportunities (REO) initiatives, which are a portfolio of grant
projects that provide pre- and post-release services to both eligible youth and adult formerly incarcerated
populations.
The REO programme provides funding that is authorized as Pilot and Demonstration Projects under
the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, a federal law that focuses on building the nation’s workforce
system. Adult REO programmes are designed to serve urban centres and areas with the greatest need.
These pilots and demonstration projects are designed to test the effectiveness of successful models andpractices found in community and faith-based environments and other government systems, but have notbeen tested for their adaptability in the public workforce system. The agency works to develop strategies
and partnerships that will facilitate the implementation of successful programmes at the state and local
levels with the ultimate goal of reducing recidivism and improving the workforce outcomes. REO isdesigned to strengthen communities through projects that incorporate mentoring, job training, education,legal aid services, and other comprehensive transitional services.
Grants are awarded through a competitive process open to any not-for-profit organization with 501(c)(3)status, unit of state or local government, or any Indian and Native American entity eligible for grants
under the Workforce Investment Act, particularly in areas with high poverty and crime rates. However,the U.S. workforce system is also supported by other federal agencies that administer grant programmes
to providers who serve justice-involved populations including the U.S. Departments of Justice, Health andHuman Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education. Additionally, the National Institute ofCorrections (NIC) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons thatprovides training in leadership, management and specialized corrections topics for state, local and federal
corrections agencies and for community organizations that partner with corrections agencies. NIC covers
a broad range of correctional disciplines and topics, including leadership, jail and prison programmeming,
re-entry, and mental health.
Supporting innovation that strengthens and improves community services for the re-entry population isa major contribution of government. The U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Labor
recently partnered with private philanthropic organizations to fund The Integrated Reentry and Employment Strategies Pilot Project that brought together researchers and expert advisors from corrections andworkforce development fields to create a Resource-Allocation and Service-Matching tool. The tool is
expected to help workforce providers focus on the use of assessments to determine a person’s level of job
readiness and risk of reoffending. These assessments also detect individuals’ responsivity needs (such as
mental illness or learning disorders) that can interfere with workforce interventions, and can be used to
inform how supervision and programming resources can be properly prioritized for higher-risk individuals.
Employment programmes across the country are testing the tool and the results will be used to help policymakers, system administrators, and practitioners collaboratively determine whether resources are being
efficiently used to connect the right people to the right workforce interventions at the right time during
the provision of employment services. 2
Programmes that serve workers who are considered “hard to employ” or “hard to serve”3 are typicallyequipped to help their clients manage personal challenges that may interfere with getting and keeping ajob. These personal challenges, which are not necessarily unique to people with criminal histories, may
affect their employability and possibly their commitment to work. Many individuals who come from low
income communities will have a need for immediate income in order to survive and may have unrealistic
expectations about their wage-earning potential. Some clients may have mental health needs and/or drug
2 See the Council of State Governments Justice Centre’s two-page description of the pilot programme at <https://csgjusticecentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Employment-Pilot-Site-Two-Pager.pdf>; The corresponding White Paper, Integrated
Reentry and Employment Strategies: Reducing Recidivism and Promoting Job Readiness is available at <https://csgjusticecentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Final.Reentry-and-Employment.pp_.pdf>.
3 Danziger, Sandra K. & Seefeldt, Kristin S. (2002). “Barriers to employment and the ‘hard to serve’: Implications forservices, sanctions, and time limits.” Focus Vol. 22, No. 1, Special Issue. Available at <http://fordschool.umich.edu/
research/poverty/pdf/foc221-part3-danziger.pdf>.

46

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
or alcohol addiction issues that have to be managed. Some may have limited or no documented work experience while others may be undereducated with low reading and math skills. Finally, they may need assistance securing stable housing, getting identification, transportation, or addressing civil legal issues such as
child support and other family court problems.
When clients are under community supervision and have criminal records there are additional issues
that programmes must be prepared to address. Individuals who are under community supervision may
have competing mandates and agency obligations like reporting to parole or probation, or participating incertain treatment programmes that could interfere with maintaining a fixed work schedule. They may
also have restrictions that limit where they can work or the hours they are available to work. For example,
an individual may have a curfew and cannot take second or third shift jobs. Clients also need to understand their criminal record, what they are obligated to disclose to employers and how to appropriately
answer questions during interviews and on job applications. When considering job opportunities and career
options, programmes must understand the impact a criminal record may have on occupational licensing
and industry standards, otherwise career planning and job placement efforts can be futile. Therefore, employment programmes must have service delivery designs that incorporate comprehensive assessment
tools.
A. Employment Programme Models
There are three employment programmes that provide model examples that work for large numbers ofpeople in need of employment. The Safer Foundation is a workforce organization that exclusively serves individuals with criminal histories. The organization operates a traditional workforce development
programme model with demand skills training as its newest growing component. Pioneer Human Services
provides employment and other essential services to individuals considered “hard to employ” and has significant corporate partnerships, blended training, and business operations as part of its workforce development model. Finally, the Center for Employment Opportunities exclusively serves justice-involved populations and provides subsidized transitional work to recently released prisoners.
1. Safer Foundation
Safer Foundation4 (Safer) is a not-for-profit agency headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. Safer’s mission is
to assist people with criminal records to become law abiding employed citizens in the community thereby
reducing the rate at which they return to prison. While not all of Safer’s clients have been incarcerated,
they have all been found guilty of committing crimes. Like many agencies, Safer’s clients are predominantly male, minority (in the case of Safer, African American), undereducated, coming from communities withhigh rates of unemployment, high rates of crime, and single family households. Safer provides an array ofservices that include:⿟⿟ Case Management
⿟⿟ Mentoring⿟⿟ Educational Intervention
⿟⿟ Service Learning⿟⿟ Industry Training
⿟⿟ Employment Services
⿟⿟ Expungement
⿟⿟ Follow-Up
⿟⿟ Substance Abuse Treatment
4 The Safer Foundation’s website is www.saferfoundation.org.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
Safer Foundation’s Screening Process: Retention Services Model⿟⿟ Mental Health Services
Private sector employment is the organization’s goal and is accomplished primarily from Safer’s demand-driven workforce development model where the agency helps employers find qualified workers,
retain them and increase their skills to increase their effectiveness on the job after placement. Safer’s orientation process includes assessing the client’s needs and identifying any issues that may impede its ability
to place the client in a traditional job. In this phase the client is also tested to determine his/her aptitudes,interests, abilities, and pre-requisites. Clients are then placed on one of three pathways to determine theiremployment service track: “job ready” with or without credentials; transitional employment; or supportive
services to first address employment barriers. A “job ready” client who has credentials and a work history
is matched to current real-time job opportunities. Clients who do not have credentials but some work
history are placed in a skills training programme and connected to temporary employment opportunities
that fit around the training schedule. Clients who do not have any skills or work history are placed in timelimited, wage-paying jobs that combine real work, skill development, and support services. The transitional
employment provides an opportunity to help them overcome substantial barriers to employment andestablish a work record. The transitional employment is through Safer’s staffing company or through othersubsidized employment opportunities. Upon completion of the transitional employment phase, the client’s
pathway is reassessed for career planning to begin. All of Safer’s clients receive job preparedness training
and job coaching services in addition to skills development.
Safer’s Demand Skills Collaborative integrates both its demand-side and supply side workforce development services. Although Safer already has strong relationships in most industries, a strategic decision wasmade to target industries that needed skilled candidates and had opportunities that could be open to its
clients if they received important services like academic bridge programmes 5 , job readiness training,48

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

industry recognized credentials and job placement services. The sectors are categorized as hubs—healthcare, manufacturing, agribusiness, food service/hospitality, transportation, and telecommunications. For
example, in Chicago, IL there are thousands of open healthcare positions. In fact, in the United States thehealthcare industry is forecasted to have significant worker shortages because of a lack of skilled workers
to meet the growing demand for healthcare services. 6 High-tech manufacturing companies are also
concerned about trained workers to fill key positions. Safer’s clients have the opportunity to earn credentials and secure careers in fields as diverse as advanced manufacturing, commercial truck driving, welding
and new fields like cellular wireless tower engineering and urban and rural farming.
This employer-driven employment model has key processes that lead to job placement, which include
identifying high-growth occupations, preparing justice-involved individuals to compete for those jobs byfocusing on employers’ expectations for skilled, productive, and dependable employees with good personal
management skills, and providing industry-standard training and certifications.7 The Demand Skill Collaborative partnership consists of businesses that have a demand for labor; training organizations that candeliver industry recognized credentials; a workforce development intermediary to identify and screen
qualified candidates and deepen employer relationships; funders to bring resources to the demand-driven
model; and industry experts who can provide understanding of terminology, trends, certifications andindustry needs. The success of the Collaborative requires the partners to have a deep (and mutual) understanding of the labor market, its needs, issues and potential solutions. This workforce model provides a
5 Academic bridge programmes provide students with opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills that will increase theirtransfer eligibility and academic success in a particular field or industry.

6 Lennon, Chauncey. “Jobs in Health Care on the Rise, but Skills Gap Prevents Hiring: Companies and civil leaders need tocollaborate on employment-training opportunities.” Editorial. USNews.com. N.p., 17, Feb. 2015. Web. 14, Jan. 2016. <http://
www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2015/02/17/op-ed-jobs-in-health-care-on-the-rise-but-skills-gap-prevents-hir
ing>.
7 National Institute of Corrections. “The Employer-Driven Employment Model for Justice-Involved.” Accessed January 14,
2016. Web. <http://nicic.gov/employerdrivenemploymentmodel>.

49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
deeper level of employer engagement, is driven by employers’ need to increase outcomes, and is designed
to put candidates on a career pathway with a strong outlook that would lead to financial stability. Safer, inthe end, can successfully train and place its clients in high demand, higher paying occupations.
2. Pioneer Human Services
Pioneer Human Services (Pioneer) 8 is a nonprofit organization that serves people released from prison
or jail in Washington State who are in need of treatment, housing and employment services. Pioneer
operates re-entry centers and work release facilities to help individuals with a successful transition
through an array of services focused on finding and retaining employment, reconnecting with families,
overcoming a substance use disorder and other issues.
Pioneer provides job readiness and occupational training through its Roadmap to Success programme,a 150-hour training course that is given over a four-and-a-half-week period. The training includes personal
management training, including reviewing the importance of punctuality and attendance, appropriate
attire, the ability to accept criticism, working collaboratively, and work ethic. It also focuses on skills
needed to look for work, including developing job search strategies, navigating questions about criminal
history, writing effective resumes and cover letters, and interviewing effectively. The course consists ofskill-building exercises to help trainees learn to make better decisions, both within their personal lives andat work, and to maintain a clean and sober lifestyle.
Pioneer’s occupational training programmes focus on three industries:
⿟⿟ Manufacturing Academy – provides pre-apprenticeship training to men and women interested in
manufacturing. This 10-week course offers the basics in manufacturing and safety to better
position candidates for entry-level positions. The Academy uses an accredited curriculum
sponsored by the Aerospace Joint Apprenticeship Committee (AJAC) and all graduates receive
the following certificates: basic manufacturing; LEAN; forklift driving; flagger; OSHA/MSDS;
first aid/CPR.
⿟⿟ Food Services – Training focuses on the specific culinary skills needed to work in a food services
position. During the 16-week programme, students receive hands-on training to master the skills
needed for planning and preparing food for a restaurant, caterer or commercial kitchen. All
graduates receive a ServSafe Certification upon completion.
⿟⿟ Warehouse and Transportation Logistics – Provides training in the basics of inventory andproduct management, which are needed to successfully work in a distribution center environment.
Students earn certificates in the following: OSHA/MSDS; first aid/CPR; and forklift driving.
All applicants must be graduates of the Roadmap to Success training programme to be eligible
for any of the occupational training programmes. This ensures that clients have been prepared
and assessed for work readiness.
Pioneer operates two social enterprises that yield both a financial and social return. It has Pioneer Industries, which is an aerospace and commercial manufacturing company that is a full-service sheet metal
fabrication and machine shop that operates 110,000+ square feet of manufacturing space. Pioneer Industries’ capabilities include comprehensive sheet metal fabrication, machining, finishing, water jet andassembly services for a wide range of current products in the aerospace and commercial industries. The
business has access to workers who come through Pioneer Human Services’ employment programme who
get to receive skills training, receive relevant credentials, and move straight to full-time employment.
Pioneer also operates two food services lines of business. Its food buying service provides groceries to foodbanks and organizations across Washington State, Idaho, Oregon and several surrounding states. Its
prepared food division delivers fully cooked meals to many of Pioneer Human Services’ residential programmes and other food centers. Both food service lines of business provide work experience for its
clients.

8 Pioneer Human Service’s website is: <http://pioneerhumanservices.org/>.

50

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
3. Center for Employment Opportunities
The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) 9 is a not-for-profit workforce development organization that provides employment assistance to people who are under community supervision. The
programme includes a five-day pre-employment workshop; resume and interview help with job coaches;
three to six months of transitional employment; and job search and job placement. CEO operates a large
network of work crews, providing maintenance, janitorial and grounds-keeping services to both public institutions and private companies. CEO participants work on these crews, supervised by CEO staff, and CEO
is the employer of record. CEO’s work crews serve as an employment lab; teaching participants/employees
how to work while they perform valuable tasks and earn a pay check. The employees get paid each day atthe end of each shift.
The CEO transitional jobs model has been independently proven to increase public safety: a three-year
random assignment evaluation conducted by MDRC showed that CEO made statistically significant
impacts on all measures of reducing recidivism.10 In addition to increasing public safety, the CEO model
also demonstrated a return on investment to the taxpayers; for every $1 spent on CEO’s programme there
was a $4 savings through reductions in recidivism and increased employment.
A critical function of transition jobs is the immediate income received by participants and the ability ofpeople who have little to no work experience to have an immediate positive experience that their family
can witness. Individuals with recent convictions or who are recently released very often face severe joblessness, have an immediate need for income, and have family responsibilities to take up again. CEOtargets this population because these crews provide structure and income, as well as skill-building opportunities that prepare individuals for full-time participation in the workforce. Finally, participants get towork with CEO’s team of job development professionals that provide one-on-one job coaching to address
any problems or job readiness challenges including a lack of commitment to work, interviewing skills,
resolving outside commitments that would prevent full-time work, developing a resume and getting appropriate interview attire.

III. HOUSINGThe United States is working to address the lack of affordable housing facing low income individuals
and families living in its urban centers. There are limited numbers of low income housing programmes
and affordable housing options, which is the nation’s primary cause for homelessness. Homeless individuals
who have a criminal history face even greater challenges to securing permanent housing since private
landlords and public housing agencies have wide latitude and discretion on their selection criteria fortenants. They may conduct criminal record checks and deny housing to individuals with conviction records
no matter how old or minor the criminal record. As a result of these limitations, federal, state and local
governments and community-based organizations have had to come up with creative solutions to meet theneeds and demands for housing homeless individuals with criminal records.
A programme that serves homeless individuals and families in Boston best describes the challenges
faced by many homeless individuals who need, in addition to housing assistance, additional help addressing
issues that are attributed to homelessness.
Many homeless individuals have cycled for years between foster homes, DYS [Department of Youth
Services], DSS [Department of Social Services] (as youths), shelters, correctional facilities, andmarginal housing. Many have also experienced abusive family lives and relationships. Many havenever known opportunity or stability and have experienced repeated failure.
Those experiencing homelessness also most often have inadequate health and mental health care,education, job skills, work experience, social supports, and life and coping skills necessary to succeed
9 The Center for Employment Opportunities’ website is: <http://ceoworks.org/>.

10 Redcross, C., Millenky, M., Rudd, T. & Levshin, V. (2012). More Than a Job: Final Results from the Evaluation of theCenter for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Transitional Jobs Programme. OPRE Report 2011-18. Washington, DC: Officeof Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Human Services.
Available at <http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/full_451.pdf>.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
independently in the community. Lasting success is difficult without also helping people addressthese issues.11
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is the federal agency responsible forstrengthening the housing market to bolster the economy and protect consumers; meeting the need for
quality affordable rental homes; utilizing housing as a platform for improving quality of life; and building
inclusive and sustainable communities free from discrimination. HUD’s mission is to create strong, sustainable, inclusive communities and quality affordable homes for all. HUD oversees several housing programmes and provides grant support to state, local, and tribal governments to provide services directly totheir residents. HUD’s Continuum of Care Programme, which was authorized under the HomelessEmergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act of 2009 (HEARTH Act) of 2009,12 competitively awards grants for new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, leasing, rental assistance, supportive
services, and operating costs for housing units; homeless management information systems, project administration costs; and Continuum of Care planning and Unified Funding Agency costs. The HEARTH Act
consolidated and amended three separate homeless assistance programmes into a single grant programme.
The three consolidated programmes are:⿟⿟ Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Programme: Under the
SRO programme, HUD enters into annual contributions contracts (ACCs) with public housing
agencies (PHAs) in connection with the moderate rehabilitation of residential properties. These
PHAs make Section 8 rental assistance payments to participating landlords on behalf of homelessindividuals who rent the rehabilitated dwellings. Owners are compensated for the cost of rehabilitation (as well as the other costs of owning and maintaining the property) through the rental assistance payments. At the same time, each unit must need a minimum of $3,000 of eligible rehabilitation to qualify for the programme.
⿟⿟ The Shelter Plus Care (S+C) programme provides rental assistance for homeless people withdisabilities, primarily those with serious mental illness, chronic problems with alcohol and/or
drugs, and acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), and related diseases. Rental assistancegrants must be matched in the aggregate by supportive services that are equal in value to theamount of rental assistance and appropriate to the needs of the population to be served. Rental
assistance is provided through four S+C components: (1) Tenant-based Rental Assistance (TRA)
provides rental assistance to homeless persons who choose the housing in which they reside.
Residents retain the assistance if they move; (2) Sponsor-based Rental Assistance (SRA) provides
rental assistance through contracts between the grant recipient and a private not-for-profit
sponsor or community mental health agency established as a public not-for-profit entity that owns
or leases dwelling units in which participants reside; (3) Project based Rental Assistance (PRA)
provides rental assistance to the owner of an existing structure where the owner agrees to lease
the units to homeless people. Residents do not take the assistance with them if they move; and (4)Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Dwellings provides grants
for rental assistance.
⿟⿟ The Supportive Housing programme is designed to promote the development of supportive
housing and supportive services to assist homeless persons in transitioning from homelessness,and to promote the provision of supportive housing to enable homeless persons to live as independently as possible. Grants under the Supportive Housing Programme are awarded through anational competition held annually.
Some large public housing authorities in urban areas around the U.S. have begun to change theirpolicies or develop pilot programmes that allow formerly incarcerated individuals, who were otherwise
11 Friends of Boston’s Homeless. “Moving Beyond Shelter.” Web. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://fobh.org/what-we-support/>.
12 On May 20, 2009, President Obama signed the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing(HEARTH) Act into law (Pub.L. 111–22), reauthorizing HUD’s Homeless Assistance programmes. It was included as part of
the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. The HEARTH Act allows for the prevention of homelessness, rapid
re-housing, consolidation of housing programmes, and new homeless categories.

52

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
classified as ineligible for housing, to return to their family’s household. The Chicago Housing Authority is
testing a pilot programme that will allow 50 convicted felons to obtain apartments or vouchers.13 The New
York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) initiated a two-year pilot to provide 150 formerly incarcerated individuals with supportive services and permission to be added to their family’s lease upon completion of the
programme.14
A. Housing Programme Models
1. Fortune Society
The Fortune Society is a New York City not-for-profit social service and advocacy organization, founded
in 1967, whose mission is to support successful re-entry from prison and promote alternatives to incarceration, thus strengthening the fabric of communities. Fortune has a holistic, one-stop model of service
provision that includes: Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI), drop-in services, employment services,education, family services, health services, housing services, substance abuse treatment, transitional
services such as the Rikers Island Discharge Enhancement (R.I.D.E.) programme, recreation, and lifetime
aftercare. However, it is its housing programmeme that is notable for this paper.
Many of Fortune’s clients were released from incarceration and could not return home to their families
for two reasons; the families were either unwilling or unable to accommodate them. It was difficult to place
individuals in their own housing because the private rental market New York City, like in other urban
centers in the United States, was high and landlords have the discretion to deny housing to applicants withcriminal histories. Moreover local public housing for low income individuals and families deny access to individuals with certain criminal convictions.
The Fortune Society decided to develop its own affordable and supportive housing for its clients. It
created Fortune Castle Gardens, a $44 million environmentally friendly building in West Harlem that is
Fortune’s first permanent housing complex. In 2010 they opened the 11-story building, which has 114 apartments with more than half occupied by people who were formerly incarcerated or homeless; the rest arereserved for low-income residents. Castle Gardens provides its tenants support services such as counseling,case management and financial planning. Castle Gardens adjoins the Fortune Academy, also known as “theCastle.” The Castle is a halfway house that provides emergency transitional living space for up to 62 individuals who are recovery from drugs or alcohol and many residents are recently released from prison. The
Fortune Society has been providing transitional housing since 2002.
The programmeme faced community hostility when it attempted to purchase the property for Castle
Gardens and faced what is called, “Not in my Back Yard” (NIMBY) challenges. People with criminal
histories, particularly with drug and sex crimes, are the most reviled populations. Therefore, Fortune recommends supportive housing developers consider the following:⿟⿟ Recruiting Board of Directors with expertise in areas such as real estate, project capital management and financial planning;⿟⿟ Strategically securing a blend of public funds to finance the project that would not interfere withdecisions about which clients to serve and what programmes and types of housing to offer;
⿟⿟ Hiring legal, architectural and co-developer partners with appropriate experience and outstanding
reputations;⿟⿟ Developing detailed operational and programme details, including intake and screening procedures, services to be offered, staffing requirements, security needs and operating budgets for thedevelopment;
13 Bowen, L. (2015, May 23). “Public Housing Initiative Offers Second Chance to Some with Arrest Records.” Chicago
Tribune. Web. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-housing-ex-offenders-met-20150523story.html>.
14 See Corporation for Supportive Housing. “NYCHA Family Reentry Pilot.” Web. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.
csh.org/csh-solutions/serving-vulnerable-populations/re-entry-populations/local-criminal-justice-work/nycha-family-reentrypilot-csh/>.

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
⿟⿟ Looking ahead to long-term funding possibilities to sustain the housing programme over time;⿟⿟ Visiting existing supportive housing facilities to witness first-hand the way they work and theirpower to transform lives;⿟⿟ Selecting a suitable location for a congregate supportive housing facility, and;⿟⿟ Planning a comprehensive community outreach effort.15
2. Returning Home Ohio
Returning Home Ohio is a supportive housing re-entry pilot that was developed jointly in 2007 by the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) and the Corporation for Supportive Housing fordisabled prisoners returning from state prison to five Ohio cities. The goal of the initiative is to prevent
homelessness and recidivism for people identified as being most likely to require housing linked to support
services in order to maintain housing such as people who are seriously mentally ill, have a developmental
disability, severe addiction, co-occurring disorders, or who have custody of minor children. ODRC hascommitted over $5 million that has been used for rental subsidies, tenant assistance, supportive services,
programme evaluation, and project management.16
ODRC has partnered with eight not-for-profit organizations in five communities to identify a minimumof 84 units of housing for single adults and families. Providers connect programme participants to scattered-site (public housing units spread around a city) and single-site housing and also coordinate theprovision of additional services and resources through other community-based organizations. However, inorder to support the development of the programme and enhance the housing services provided to individuals in need of support, there were policy changes that needed to take place. The pilot allowed ODRC tofund permanent housing and services and to also serve individuals who were not currently under ODRC
supervision. Also, a policy was amended to allow people with conviction records to be an eligible to participate in the rental subsidy programme through the Ohio Housing Finance Agency.
The evaluation of this pilot was completed by the Urban Institute and it found:⿟⿟ Participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested for misdemeanors.
⿟⿟ Participants were significantly less likely to be re-incarcerated.
⿟⿟ Very few individuals – in either the treatment or control group – used emergency shelter.
⿟⿟ Participants received more community-based services, particularly mental health and substanceabuse services.17
3. Just In Reach
The Corporation for Supportive Housing (CSH) is a not-for-profit organization that has for more than 25
years been providing training and education, lending, consulting, and advocacy to provide housing andimportant services for individuals and families to achieve stability and transform their lives.18 In 2014,
CSH implemented the Just In Reach initiative to connect chronically homeless, frequently incarcerated individuals to permanent housing in order to reduce rates of re-incarceration and to end the cycle of homelessness. The initiative is a revamp of a two year demonstration programme that was funded with public
15 Fortune Society and John Jay College of Criminal Justice. “In Our Backyard: Overcoming community resistance tore-entry housing (A NIMBY Toolkit), p. 7. (2011). Web. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://fortunesociety.org/wp-content/
files_mf/14313083881395803928137882725004_TOOLKIT1NIMBY_FINAL_Emailable_110413.pdf>.
16 Corporation for Supportive Housing. “Returning Home Ohio.” Web. Accessed 2016, January 10. <http://www.csh.org/cshsolutions/serving-vulnerable-populations/re-entry-populations/local-criminal-justice-work/returning-home-ohio/>.
17 Fontaine, J., Gilchrist-Scott, D., Roman, R., Taxy, & Roman, C. (August 2012). “Supportive Housing for Returning
Prisoners: Outcomes and Impacts of the Returning Home—Ohio Pilot Project.” Urban Institute. Web. Accessed 2016,
January 10. <http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412632-Supportive-Housing-for-ReturningPrisoners-Outcomes-and-Impacts-of-the-Returning-Home-Ohio-Pilot-Project.PDF>.
18 More about Corporation for Supportive Housing is available at <http://www.csh.org/about-csh/>.

54

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
and private funds in 2008 in Los Angeles but was abandoned. The Just In Reach project also operates inthe Los Angeles, California county jail and targets individuals who:
1. Are currently incarcerated and sentenced;
2. Are expected to be discharged from jail in 60-120 days;
3. Have been incarcerated at least 3 times in the past 3 years;
4. Prior to entering jail were homeless continuously for at least 1 year OR on at least 4 separate
occasions in the last 3 years; AND
5. Has a diagnosable substance use disorder, serious mental illness, developmental disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, cognitive impairments resulting from a brain injury, or chronic physical illness
or disability, including the co-occurrence of 2 or more of those conditions.
The programme uses an intensive case management model to connect the most vulnerable inmates topermanent housing. Staff identify participants and start working with them 2-4 months prior to discharge
from jail, release, through temporary housing, into permanent housing and for as long as necessary. The
goal is to get participants into permanent housing as soon as possible without the need for them to show
“housing readiness” because they work with a multi-agency and inter-disciplinary team that provides
wrap-around support. Finally, the programme is data-driven and outcome-oriented. Support services
include:⿟⿟ Needs assessment and intensive case management
⿟⿟ Temporary housing immediately upon release from jail⿟⿟ Permanent housing placement and short-term rental assistance⿟⿟ Employment assistance (individualized and group)⿟⿟ Benefits enrollment
⿟⿟ Mental health services
⿟⿟ Connection to drug and alcohol treatment
⿟⿟ Mentoring and other community support
⿟⿟ On-going services even once placed in housing
4. Pioneer Human Services
Pioneer Human Services, the not-for-profit organization also featured in the employment section of thispaper, owns and operates more than 850 housing units in four counties in Washington State. Pioneer
provides transitional and permanent housing rental programmes for people with criminal histories or participating in recovery programmes. Its transitional housing programme provides services to homeless adultmen and women exiting jails, hospitals, crisis centers, or inpatient treatment facilities. Individuals are
required to pay a service fee of 30% of their income, or zero with no income and must be committed tocompliance with case management and individual case management plans for more permanent housing.
Case management includes counseling and treatment, vocational programmes and employment services
are available to help residents successfully join the workforce. Pioneer’s transitional housing, also called
sober housing, requires residents to agree to be monitored through urinalysis and breathalyzers.
Pioneer has a number of permanent housing options in neighborhoods across the state. Their flats arefor single-, double-, or family occupancy and some are set aside for special populations including those with
re-entry needs, mental illness, chemical dependency, and veterans. Individuals with criminal histories may
55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
qualify for their housing if committed to an individual re-entry plan and if they comply with participation
requirements. The properties are income producing and support many of the services provided by the organization.
5. St. Leonard’s Ministries
St. Leonard’s House is an example of a smaller community-based programme that has found its nicheand expertise with a specific population. The programme provides interim housing and supportive services
for formerly incarcerated men returning to the community from Illinois prisons. The programme opened
in 1954 and today has two facilities in Chicago, Illinois that serve 40 residents. The rooms vary from sixperson occupancy to single-resident rooms. The facilities have on-site amenities in the buildings, including
a weight room, recreation rooms, a library, a laundry room with free washers and dryers, and a chapel.
The programme provides three meals a day, and residents participate in special events, holiday activities,
and large group gatherings. Through St. Leonard’s extensive community partnerships, residents receive
the following services:⿟⿟ Individual and group psychological counseling and group activities through the Adler School of
Psychology
⿟⿟ Programmes to promote the development of life skills
⿟⿟ On-site intensive out-patient substance abuse treatment
⿟⿟ Addiction counseling and relapse prevention
⿟⿟ Assistance in connecting with community supportive services
⿟⿟ Housing placement assistance (transitional and permanent)⿟⿟ Education and employment services
⿟⿟ Social and recreational opportunities.

IV. CONCLUSION
Daryl Atkinson, the first-ever Second Chance Fellow19 to serve at the U.S. Department of Justice is anadvisor to the Federal Reentry Interagency Council. 20 He was selected because of his personal experience,expertise, and leadership in the criminal justice field — he is a practicing civil rights and criminal defense
attorney and is a formerly incarcerated individual. Mr. Atkinson says it best when describing what works
in re-entry:
In hindsight, the most critical component in my successful re-entry was a viable support system, aloving family who provided food, clothing, shelter, and nurtured my dreams. Having those immediate
physical and emotional needs met gave me the opportunity to pursue higher education and gainful
employment... Of course, not all of the people with criminal records are blessed with a support
system similar to mine and this BRI [Boston Re-entry Initiative] graduate. 21 But society can facilitate successful re-entry by continuing to create secondary support systems with evidence-based
re-entry programming and public policies that remove obstacles to reintegration, thereby giving
19 U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch. (2015, July 30). “Justice Department Announces First-Ever Second Chance

Fellow.” Blog. Access 2016, January 15. <http://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/second-chances-vital-criminal-justice-reform>.

20 The Federal Interagency Reentry Council, established by Attorney General Holder in January 2011, represents a signifi-

cant executive branch commitment (20 federal agencies) to coordinating re-entry efforts and advancing effective re-entry
policies. A chief focus of the Reentry Council is to remove federal barriers to successful re-entry, so that motivated individuals — who have served their time and paid their debts — are able to compete for a job, attain stable housing, support
their children and their families, and contribute to their communities.
21 On January 13, 2016, Daryl Atkinson, the U.S. Department of Justice Second Chance Fellow accompanied U. S. Attorney
General Loretta Lynch on visits to three re-entry programmes in Boston, MA — the Common Ground Institute (CGI), theBoston Reentry Initiative (BRI), and Community Reentry for Women (C.R.E.W.).

56

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
formerly incarcerated people a real opportunity at a second chance. 22
The employment and housing programme models presented in this paper are just some of the many
ways public and private organizations can work together to develop services that respond to theimmediate and long-term needs of people with criminal histories. A common theme among many of the
programmes is the ability to help clients address and manage mental health and behavioural healthproblems such as substance use and alcohol addiction. Although not every person with a criminal history
has an addiction problem, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence reports that 80
percent of people with criminal histories abuse drugs or alcohol, nearly 50 percent of people incarcerated
in jail and prison are clinically addicted, and approximately 60 percent of individuals arrested for mosttypes of crimes test positive for illegal drugs at arrest. 23
Jerry, a former Safer Foundation (Safer) client, often speaks about how pleased he is to have opportunities to assist Safer given the role he feels Safer played in his life. Jerry is currently the Chair of the Social
Work Department at a southern university and holds a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph. D.), Master of Business
Administration (MBA) and Master of Social Work (MSW) degrees. When he was younger, Jerry did not
make all the right decisions. He was involved with drugs and drug-related crimes. He served two prison
sentences before he realized that staying in the revolving door to prison was not how he wanted to live therest of his life. When asked about how he transitioned from a life of crime to getting a Ph.D. and ultimately
becoming the Chair of his department, he tells the story of going to the Safer Foundation when he wasreleased from prison the first time. With Safer’s assistance he found a job. However, at that point, the pullof his friends and drugs was greater than the pull of living the life he knew he should. After his releasefrom prison the second time he went back to Safer, received support in finding another job and with encouragement and assistance in researching educational opportunities, he also went to college. He neverlooked back.
Jerry not only earned several advanced degrees but also benefitted from changed employment policies
that allowed him to compete and secure a job with the federal Housing and Urban Development Agency(HUD) prior to joining academia. As one might expect, while Jerry was employed with HUD, he assisted inestablishing housing programmes for low-income residents and ensured people with criminal records
qualified for those programmes.
There are many success stories that epitomize the effectiveness of re-entry support in the lives of justice-involved individuals. When employment and housing programmes not only focus on the personal needsof their clients but provides support and services that eliminate structural barriers to re-entry, the service
model works. Programmes must be flexible, responsive and able to change or build partnerships that
address the ever-changing needs of their clients. At the end of the day, programme services are an investment in people, and the return on investment for saving one person’s life can be to save hundreds or eventhousands more as seen by Mr. Atkinson and Dr. W.’s stories and accomplishments.

22 Atkinson, D. (2016, January 15). “Return on a Chance.” Blog. Accessed 2016, January 15. <http://www.justice.gov/justice-blogs>.

23 National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, Inc. (2015, June 27). Alcohol, Drugs, and Crime. Web. Accessed

2016, January 16. <https://ncadd.org/about-addiction/alcohol-drugs-and-crime>.

57

IMPROVING EFFICIENCY AND OUTCOMES THROUGHCOLLABORATIONS: AN NGO PERSPECTIVE
B. Diane Williams＊

I. INTRODUCTION
Safer Foundation (Safer) is a not-for-profit organization headquartered in Illinois but also operates either
directly or through technical assistance grants in three other Midwestern states, Iowa, Missouri and
Wisconsin. Its mission is to reduce recidivism by providing services to people with criminal records tohelp them become law abiding employed citizens. To accomplish its mission, Safer does not limit itself todirect services but also includes developing and leading public policy reform efforts. Its partnerships are
critical to every facet of its work.

Incorporated in 1972, Safer set the course for assisting justice-involved individuals. The organization
has avoided “mission creep” (pursuing projects that are not truly aligned to the organization’s mission) andstayed the course. Because of that level of discipline, thousands of people with criminal records are
employed, supporting their families, and contributing to their communities. Tax payers have saved millionsof dollars and while in the United States crime in some places has remained at unacceptable levels, there
are fewer victims because of Safer’s work. Also, because of Safer’s work fewer people return to Illinois’
prisons and jails. Employers have new employees who are excited about going to work and are thankful
for the opportunity. Tax collection revenue for state and federal governments is higher and local
merchants’ sales increase.
When considered in the context of the number of people under corrections supervision the results areeven more laudable. At the end of June 2014 (the most recent data available) the Illinois Department ofCorrections (IDOC) reported they had 48,921 adult inmates in its prisons of which 94.1 percent were malewith an average age of 37 years old.1 Adult parolees were numbered at 28,242 adults and 90.7 percent ofthem were male with an average age of 36 years old. 2 There were 10,200 IDOC staff and only 400 parole
officers.
Cook County Jail, the largest jail in Illinois that primarily serves as a remand facility, admits approximately 100,000 individuals annually and averages a daily population of 9,000 adults. 3 The jail is under thejurisdiction of the Cook County Sheriff’s office. According to the Circuit Court of Cook County, “the Adult
President Emeritus, Safer Foundation, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

＊

1 Illinois Department of Corrections Annual Report 2014, pp. 64-68.
2 Ibid.

58

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Probation Department receives approximately 14,000 new probation supervision cases annually and has anactive caseload of approximately 25,000 probationers, 86 percent of whom have been sentenced for felony
offenses.”4 There are 387 adult probation officers in Cook County who are responsible for supervising individuals sentenced to probation. There are 101 additional counties in Illinois which have considerably
smaller jail populations.
The disproportionate ratios between the number of community supervision officers to the number ofpeople under community supervision makes evident the need for not-for-profit support in the community.
While government provides direct services to those under its supervision through parole, prison, andprobation staff, having effective partners at strategic points in the service continuum can improve the likelihood government will meet its goals to improve community safety, reduce recidivism and effectively
manage the cost to provide corrections services. Ideal candidates for strategic partnerships are Safer
Foundation and other not-for-profits.
This paper will look at Safer Foundation, it’s history, how its structured to serve the criminal justicepopulation, what it achieves and how, performance outcomes, partnerships, and finally, challenges facing
the organization. Know that there are differences in how not-for-profits are structured and how they dotheir work, but all are intent on providing societal benefit.

II. SAFER FOUNDATION’S HISTORY
Safer was founded in 1970 by two men working for the Portland Cement Association in Chicago. Under
contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Portland Cement provided training in cement masonry infederal prisons in three states. Noting that inmates were not finding jobs upon release, the Federal Bureauof Prisons (BOP) asked the Portland Cement Association (the Association) to develop a programme to help
place men being released from federal institutions into construction industry jobs. The Association’s leadership accepted the challenge and assigned Bernie Curran, who worked in the external affairs department at
the time, and Gus Wilhelmy to manage the BOP job placement contract along with their other duties.
A year later, the Association’s leadership decided the programme was not a good fit and wanted to berelieved of its responsibility. Bernie and Gus believed in the mission and elected to lead the programme asa separate entity. They initially co-located with another not-for-profit focused on criminal justice issues andworked with the Association to secure 501C3 tax exempt status. The new entity was called “Safer” Foundation to represent the founders’ desire to keep communities safe.
During the early stage of the organization’s development, Safer only had the federal contract and,
therefore, only placed people from the federal system. The organization was mostly staffed with volunteers
though some of them “worked” full time. The volunteers were people with criminal records and othersfrom the community who cared about helping people change their lives. These individuals worked together,but not always peacefully. One of Safer’s long time board members recalls a time that one of the clients
physically attacked him. The board member was not hurt nor was he deterred from his commitment tosupport Safer’s efforts. After Safer received an increase in the amount of its federal grant, it began to hirepeople in paid positions.
As grant opportunities for state and local governments became available Safer expanded its reach, butstayed true to its mission to secure employment for people with criminal records and improve community
safety. Today Safer serves between 8,000 and 12,000 people each year with nearly 300 staff in communitybased residential, community-based non-residential and institutional settings. Its third and current
President and CEO has significant corporate experience and is leveraging that experience to expand how
Safer works with its clients and corporate partners.

3 Cook County Sheriff’s Office. Cook County Department of Corrections. Available at <http://www.cookcountysheriff.org/

doc/doc_main.html>.

4 State of Illinois Circuit Court. Adult Probation Department Profile. Available at <http://www.cookcountycourt.org/

ABOUTTHECOURT/OfficeoftheChiefJudge/ProbationDepartments/ProbationforAdults/AdultProbationDepartment/
Profile.aspx>.

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99

III. SAFER STRUCTURE
A. Governing Board
United States federal tax law requires not-for-profits to have a volunteer board of directors who do not
personally benefit financially from their work on the board. Not-for-profits review the expertise needed todirect the activities of the organization and engage individuals who can and are willing to add their skills
and knowledge to the governance of the organization. Safer’s by-laws allow up to 30 board members, but
for practical reasons Safer does not seek 30 individuals. Safer’s board members have expertise in policing,banking, legal systems, business leadership, marketing, policy, finance, not-for-profit management, and somehave criminal records.
B. Funding and Endowment Board
Safer receives multi-year government funding for its Adult Transition Programmes and other initiatives. Many of the contracts, even though they are multi-year, require renewal annually and are based on
both outcome and budget management performance. In addition to government contracts, Safer receives
funding from private foundations which range in amounts as small as $5,000 to a five year grant of$5,000,000. Safer is very adept at recognizing what services need to be provided for its clients’ success.
The organization works to secure dollars from one source if possible but will blend funding streams whenappropriate and necessary. For example, some funders are willing to support educational programming
while others may only want to fund job training. Services for one client that include education services andjob training would be supported by both funding sources.
Safer’s financials are audited annually by external independent auditors to ensure government andfunder requirements are met. Safer has been recognized by government agencies and private foundations
as outstanding in the management of its financial resources. Early adoption of a cost accounting systemallows Safer’s funders to follow their grant dollars through the finance system and ensure that the dollars
are expended as directed.

Prior to 1995 Safer established an Endowment to hold all real assets (property) and to serve as a place
for collecting donations to be managed over more than one year. The Endowment exists only to serve
Safer. When projects warrant additional funding and support that cannot be attained anywhere else, theorganization can apply to the endowment for a grant. The Endowment also affords Safer a budget safetynet when grant and contract payouts are not timely. For example, today the State of Illinois is in its
seventh month of the fiscal year and it has not passed a budget. Some not-for-profits that have solely reliedon government contracts to pay for their services have had to close their doors because they could not60162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
sustain themselves during these restrictive periods of time. Safer’s good credit standing and credit line,
access to discounted payouts, and funds that are available through the Endowment has made Safer astrong not for profit that can continue its operations at the same level year to year.
C. Staffing
Safer Foundation has nearly 300 employees and its operations and staffing structure reflects its blendedsocial-service, public policy-business model, and its internal structure and staffing reflects all three. Several
positions are direct reports to the President/CEO so that every aspect of the organization’s operations is
consistently given directly to the President/CEO.

All staff receive competitive compensation packages consistent with their positions. Healthcare, retirement assistance, the same number of paid holidays as their government counterparts, sick and vacation
time are available to employees. While Safer experiences turnover for lower-level jobs in the organization,
Safer is a stable organization with some employees having over 30 years’ tenure at Safer.
D. Safer Foundation Employment Model
Safer Foundation’s primary goal is to connect its clients to jobs that provide living wages that will allow
them to care for themselves and their families. Safer provides employment services exclusively to workers
with criminal histories and all of its services work together to achieve the goal of long-term employment.
Safer’s clients are predominantly male, minority (in the case of Safer, African American), undereducated,and come from communities with high rates of unemployment, high rates of crime, and single family
households.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
According to a report from the Urban Institute, a three state study found approximately 40% of people
released from prison were employed at the time of arrest and the 60% who were not employed had neverheld legitimate jobs. 5 Most of the men are non-custodial parents. While a fair number of women havechildren for whom they resumed custody after release, many who come to Safer are in the midst offighting to regain custody of their children. Safer provides an array of services directly or in partnershipwith other community-based organizations that include:
Mentoring
Educational Intervention
Service Learning
Expungement and other civil legal service support
Follow-Up
Safer

Foundation’s

Screening

Employment Services
Industry Training
Mental Health Services
Substance Abuse Treatment

Process:

Retention

Services

Model

Private sector employment is the organization’s goal and is accomplished primarily from Safer’s demand-driven workforce development model where the agency helps employers find qualified workers,
retains them and increases their skills to increase their effectiveness on the job after placement. Safer’sorientation process includes assessing the client’s needs and identifying any issues that may impede its
ability to place the client in a traditional job. In this phase the client is also tested to determine his/her
aptitudes, interests, abilities, and pre-requisites. Clients are then placed on one of three pathways todetermine their employment service track: “job ready” with or without credentials; transitional employ5 Visher, C., Debus, S., & Yahner, J. (October 2008). “Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three

States.” Research Brief. Urban Institute. Available at <http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publicationpdfs/411778-Employment-after-Prison-A-Longitudinal-Study-of-Releasees-in-Three-States.PDF>.

62

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
ment; or supportive services to first address employment barriers. A “job ready” client who has credentials
and a work history is matched to current real-time job opportunities. Clients who do not have credentials
but some work history are placed in a skills training programme and connected to temporary employment
opportunities that fit around their training schedule. Clients who do not have any skills or work history areplaced in transitional employment that is time-limited, wage-paying jobs that combine real work, skill development and support services.
The transitional employment services provide an opportunity to help them overcome substantial
barriers to employment and establish a work record. The transitional jobs are through Safer’s staffing
company or through other subsidized employment opportunities. Upon completion of the transitional employment phase, the client’s pathway is reassessed for career planning to begin. All of Safer’s clients
receive job preparedness training and job coaching services in addition to the skill development.
Safer has strong relationships in most industries but a strategic decision was made to target industries
that needed skilled candidates and had opportunities that could be open to its clients if they received
important services like academic bridge programmes,6 job readiness training, industry recognized credentials and job placement services. Safer created a Demand Skills Collaborative that integrates both its demand-side and supply-side workforce development services. Safer uses an employer-driven employment
model that includes identifying high-growth occupations; preparing justice-involved individuals to compete
for those jobs by focusing on employers’ expectations for skilled, productive and dependable employeeswith good personal management skills; and providing industry-standard training and certifications.7 The
industries Safer focuses on are healthcare, manufacturing, agribusiness, food service/hospitality, transportation, and telecommunications. The industries are referred to as hubs.
Healthcare is a major industry hub, for example, because in Chicago, Illinois there are thousands ofopen healthcare positions. In fact, in the United States the healthcare industry is forecasted to have significant worker shortages because of a lack of skilled workers to meet the growing demand for healthcare
services. 8 High-tech manufacturing companies have expressed concern that there are not enough trained
workers to fill key positions. Therefore, with this industry and job analysis, Safer has identified several jobs
for which its clients have the opportunity to earn credentials and build careers. Their options are asdiverse as advanced manufacturing, commercial truck driving, welding, and new fields like cellular
wireless tower engineering and urban and rural farming.
The Demand Skill Collaborative partnership consists of businesses that have a demand for labor;training organizations that can deliver industry recognized credentials; a workforce development intermediary to identify and screen qualified candidates and deepen employer relationships; funders to bring
resources to the demand driven model; and industry experts who can provide understanding of terminology, trends, certifications and industry needs. The success of the Collaborative requires the partners tohave a deep (and mutual) understanding of the labor market, its needs, issues and potential solutions. This
workforce model provides a deeper level of employer engagement, is driven by employers’ need to increase
outcomes, and is designed to put candidates on a career pathway with a strong outlook that would lead tofinancial stability. Safer in the end can successfully train and place its clients in high demand, higher
paying occupations.

6 Academic bridge programmes provide students with opportunities to acquire knowledge and skills that will increase theirtransfer eligibility and academic success in a particular field or industry.

7 National Institute of Corrections. “The Employer-Driven Employment Model for Justice-Involved.” Accessed January 14,

2016. Web. <http://nicic.gov/employerdrivenemploymentmodel>.

8 Lennon, Chauncey. “Jobs in Health Care on the Rise, but Skills Gap Prevents Hiring: Companies and civil leaders need tocollaborate on employment-training opportunities.” Editorial. USNews.com. N.p., 17, Feb. 2015. Web. 14, Jan. 2016. <http://
www.usnews.com/news/stem-solutions/articles/2015/02/17/op-ed-jobs-in-health-care-on-the-rise-but-skills-gap-prevents-hiring>.

63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
Safer’s Demand Skill Collaborative Model

E. Sheridan Prison Model
In 2004, then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich re-opened the Sheridan Correctional Centre in an
attempt to make Illinois a national model for drug crime prevention within the correctional system. The
governor recognized that a high percentage of people in prison were drug addicted and, without access totreatment, they would resume the use of illegal drugs upon their release from prison. If the participants
were successful in this programme they would be less likely to recidivate by buying, using and selling
drugs.
Three not-for-profit agencies were selected to provide services that started inside the prison andsupported a seamless transition to community no matter where the inmates were released within thestate. Illinois Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities (TASC) provided case management services,
WestCare Foundation provided substance abuse treatment services, and Safer Foundation delivered employment services. During the admission process inmates classified as medium security level were given
an opportunity to acknowledge a problem with drugs and/or alcohol and agree to treatment.
Inside the prison a modified therapeutic community model offered participants the chance to learn theskills, techniques and strategies to manage addiction challenges. Participants also learned how to workwith and depend on others. Case management staff, like the staff of the other programme segments had
assigned work spaces in the prison and met with their clients individually on a regularly scheduled basis
and in group sessions. An evidence-based curriculum was used to deliver skills training.
Safer used its screening and retention employment model that was discussed but a few additional components were added to support the programme features. A module on supervisory training for correctional
officers taught them how to set expectations, review performance against expectations and give feedback.
This was particularly important since one of the consistent problems for justice-involved individuals in theworkplace is accepting feedback and responding positively to criticism. Both correctional officers and64162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
inmates appreciated this aspect of the training. Safer created evaluation checklists to facilitate the evaluation and feedback. Another change to the standard curriculum was the extensive use of role play withconstructive feedback, again giving participants an opportunity to practice both giving and receiving
feedback. Finally, employers were brought into the prisons to provide interview practice for some participants and actual job interviews for those that were going to be released from prison within a reasonable
period of time. Prior to the client’s release, case managers worked with the men to develop community
re-entry plans. Connection to treatment, mentors, employment services, and community-based case management were some of the components of the plan.
In the 2005 IDOC annual report, results from a one-year study comparing the first 150 inmates
released from Sheridan with a control group; “12 percent of Sheridan parolees were rearrested compared
to 27 percent of the other group (roughly 55 percent reduction); and that 2 percent of Sheridan parolees
were re-incarcerated compared with over 10 percent of the other group (a roughly 66 percent reduction).9
Evaluations were done at scheduled time intervals. While the percent difference between participants andcontrol groups fluctuated, inmates who engaged in the treatment programme recidivated at a lower rate
than those who did not.
Unfortunately, budgetary constraints and administration changes resulted in a shift from a facility
dedicated to treatment to one that was overcrowded. Employment services inside the prison were discontinued and overcrowding in the prison system has spilled over to Sheridan. However, this model when implemented properly does work and should be considered as an option.
F. Policy WorkAs a result of Safer’s long history, large service pool, and exclusive service experience with people withcriminal records the agency is invited often to sit on federal, state and local policy boards and task forcesthat are charged with developing programmes and policies that would have the greatest positive impact.
In 2001, Safer formed the Council of Advisors to Reduce Recidivism through Employment (CARRE), toorganize supportive communities of people and organizations working to support the re-entry needs of justice-involved individuals. CARRE is made up of 100 members representing leaders of support groups,
community organizations, employment and supportive service non-profits, government agencies, faith-based
groups, civil and human rights organizations, universities, and elected officials across the City of Chicago
that work together with public policy advocates, employers, and legislators to develop and implement strategies to reduce barriers to employment and encourage successful reentry.

9 Illinois Department of Corrections Annual Report Fiscal Year 2005, p. 12.

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
CARRE has worked together to successfully advocate for policy changes that support re-entry such as
expansion of the State’s expungement and sealing of criminal records to creating employment programmes
inside and outside of the jails and prisons. CARRE has also helped increase educational and employment
opportunities for formerly incarcerated individuals by working to build political will for support forre-entry and by eroding the stigma associated with criminal record. The group has produced and issued
policy papers and conducted campaigns that have effectively built public and political support for prisoner
re-entry programmes. These efforts have led to the creation of several new laws that created hiring
standards for the consideration of job candidates with criminal records, restoration of civil rights through acertificate of relief of disability, employer tax credit, and negligent hiring protections for businesses. The
group also works together to change the City of Chicago’s hiring standards and develop Cook County ordinances that increased housing and employment services in the county. CARRE secured nearly a quarterof a million dollars in grants for policy and advocacy groups that provide free legal services, housing assistance, and substance abuse treatment.
G. Partnership Structures
Traditional government and private sector partnerships have been contract-based with government
agencies adapting standard terms for all contractors. The government agency served as the “boss” in therelationship and all other parties’ thoughts, opinions, and knowledge were considered subservient to that ofgovernment project leaders. Partnerships were also formed based on funding. In some instances State Departments of Corrections secured federal funding that required partnerships with community-based organizations. In other situations not-for-profits secured private foundation funding that required government
partners. Although many of these partnerships accomplish the desired results, the struggle and tensionthat arise from the unequal power dynamics of the partnership significantly affects implementation andlong-term maintenance of the relationship.
Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff, Professor of Public Administration and International Affairs at George Washington University in Washington, DC in “Government-Nonprofit Partnership: A Defined Framework”
defines the ideal type of partnership:“Partnership is a dynamic relationship among diverse actors, based on mutually agreed objectives,
pursued through a shared understanding of the most rational division of labour based on the respective comparative advantages of each partner. Partnership encompasses mutual influence, with acareful balance between synergy and respective autonomy which incorporates mutual respect, equal
participation in decision making, mutual accountability and transparency.”10
She goes on to note that “Partnership is promoted both as a solution to reaching efficiency and effectiveness objectives…”11 Partnership as defined by Professor Brinkerhoff is exactly right. The best outcomesare generated when all participants are allowed to offer relevant input with an expectation of serious consideration of all participants’ suggestions.
Organizations like the Safer Foundation have established credibility and built relationships for over 40
years. When negotiating contract terms and conditions, performance measurements, and the process forcorrecting problems these agencies and the government body should work together to include specifics
that are relevant to work that will be done rather than using general terms set for all contracts.
Not-for-profits operating in the states are more likely to be involved in early discussions for new initiatives. However, if contracts are to be let as a result of those agreements, care has been taken to not give
any organization an unfair advantage. Today you are more likely to see early inclusion in planning particularly since many federal grants require it. In addition to government partnerships, not-for-profits partnerwith other not-for-profits that offer expertise in different areas as was noted in the discussion on Sheridan.
These partnerships may be formed to seek funding, but in many cases they are formed to better serve
their clients.

10 Brinkerhoff, J.M. (2002, March 12) “Government-Nonprofit Partnership: A Defined Framework.” Public Administration

Development. Vol. 22, n.1.

11 Ibid.

66

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
H. Performance Outcomes
Safer utilizes a scorecard to measure its effectiveness internally. The four major quadrants withmetrics are Mission, Internal-Human Capital Effectiveness, External Market Effectiveness, and Finance.
Quarterly reports are provided to the board and used as a management tool within the organization.
Measurements that are included but also reported externally are the number of Safer clients achieving
employment in a given year, three-year recidivism rates for Safer clients as determined by academic institutions focused on criminal justice programme evaluation.
Safer’s website (www.saferfoundation.org) proudly displays its success in placing people in jobs. The
banner reads “4,200+ Safer client job starts per year.” Client job retention rates are also reviewed at 30, 90,
180 and 365 day markers.
In 2011, Loyola University released a report on the recidivism rate of individuals who received employment services from the Safer Foundation. Loyola tracked clients from FY2008 to FY2011. The study
concluded that the recidivism rate for individuals who received Safer’s employment services and achieved
employment was 24.3 percent.12 The three-year recidivism rate for Safer Foundation clients who achieved
30-day employment retention was 17.5 percent, a 63 percent lower recidivism rate than the statewide recidivism rate of those released from prison during the same time period, 47.0 percent based on the IDOC
FY2011 recidivism percent for inmates released in FY2008 from the Illinois Department of Correction andre-incarcerated within three years of release. Among those who went on to achieve 360-day retention, only
15.7 percent recidivated in a three-year period after achieving the 360-day retention.
I. Organizational Challenges
There are internal and external challenges faced by not-for-profit organizations whose missions areprimarily to provide employment services for workers that have criminal histories. Employment organizations in general must understand and be able to navigate the multitude of laws and policies that may
impact their ability to place their clients in certain jobs. The negative perceptions and stigma faced bypeople with criminal conviction records often creates additional challenges with placing them in a wellpayed position. When the economy and the labor market are in a downturn, workers with criminal records
are rarely considered because there is significant competition for jobs.
Employment and housing are considered the biggest challenges that have the greatest influence overan individual’s success of remaining crime free. Nearly 50 percent of individuals in jails were unemployedat the time of their arrest and between 60 percent and 75 percent of formerly incarcerated people arejobless up to a year after release.13 Moreover, homelessness often precipitates incarceration. Individuals incarcerated in jails are 11.3 times more likely to be homeless than the general population and 15 percent ofpeople in prison previously experienced homelessness.14 While employment is a critical need, housing is themost immediate challenge faced by people leaving prison. The employment challenges faced by the people
with criminal records are unique to each individual, though there are some commonalities among various
subgroups. The level of difficulty faced by an individual during reintegration is often dictated by the
personal, criminogenic,15 and structural challenges that exist for that individual. However, the primarychallenge is making sure the organization is expending its resources with clients who want to live up to
the challenge of overcoming his or her circumstances.

12 Safer Foundation Three-Year Recidivism Study 2008. Loyola University tracked clients from FY2008 to FY2011. Web.

Access 2016, January 10. <http://www.saferfoundation.org/files/documents/Safer%20Recidivism%20Study%202008%20
Summary.pdf>.
13 Petersilia, J. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 2003;
Travis, Jeremy, But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, Washington D.C.: Urban InstitutePress, 2005.
14 Knopf-Amelung, S. Incarceration & Homelessness: A Revolving Door of Risk. In Focus: A Quarterly Research Reviewof the National HCH Council, 2:2. (November 2013). National Health Care for the Homeless Council. Available at: <www.
nhchc.org>.
15 Behaviors or activities associated with crime or criminality.

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99

IV. CONCLUSION
In the United States, government agencies provide some direct services but they also rely upon community-based organizations to help provide re-entry assistance to the justice involved population becauseof the great numbers of people in need of service and the intensity of their service needs. Safer provides arange of programmes and services to help formerly incarcerated individuals find employment. Each year,
Safer Foundation helps thousands of people with criminal records choose a new direction of responsibility,
education, and productivity. Without intervention, 52 percent return to prison. By contrast, fewer than 22
percent of those receiving Safer’s services go back. Its partnership with government agencies and thecommunity at large is critical to improving the efficiency of the public safety plans for communities andimproving the outcomes that are necessary to change lives and ultimately reduce recidivism.
Re-entry services require the involvement of the entire community that is set to receive returning
citizens, and they must be engaged and prepared to positively impact prisoner re-entry to reduce recidivism. Safer Foundation will continue to be a part of collaborative efforts that involve law enforcement,
service providers, businesses and corrections to develop innovative approaches to prisoner re-entry and tocomprehensively address the transitional needs of both the returning clients and their community.

68THE RELEVANCE OF DESISTANCE RESEARCH FOR PROBATION
PRACTICE
Rob Canton＊

I. WHAT IS DESISTANCE?
The term desistance refers to the process of ceasing to offend — and continuing not to offend. It
includes the idea that the individual no longer thinks of himself / herself as an ‘offender’ and comes to be
no longer regarded in that way by other people. It is better understood as a process rather than an event.
Using the metaphor of a journey, ex-offenders and those who work with them often refer to a ‘road out ofcrime’, but this is a road marked by twists and turns — ‘a zig-zag path’. Signs that individuals are starting
to desist include:▪
▪
▪

Fewer offences
Longer intervals between offences
Less serious offences

as well as other changes in their attitudes and their behaviour. But lapses are quite common and it isimportant to remember this when individuals who seemed to have been doing quite well commit further
offences. This need not mean that they are not making progress or that they will continue to commit
crimes. It may be just a turn in their road.

II. DESISTANCE RESEARCH
Criminology has often been concerned with the question why do people commit crimes? but this has
proved to be unanswerable and this may be because it is not a very good question in the first place.
Perhaps how and why do people stop offending? may be a better question — at least for probation staff
and others who are concerned to support the process of desistance. The study of desistance, as we shallsee, has also been encouraged by criminal careers research; by an awareness of the limitations of some influential theories of rehabilitation; and by increasing attention to offenders’ (and ex-offenders’) own accountsof their offending and their desistance. We shall look at all these topics.
A. Why do people offend?
Studies of the characteristics of offenders have identified a large number of factors that are associatedwith offending. For example,
⿟⿟ Individual characteristics (e.g. low intelligence, hyperactivity, risk-taking, low empathy)
⿟⿟ Family influences (e.g. poor parenting, harsh discipline, child abuse / neglect, parental conflict,criminal parents or siblings)
⿟⿟ Socio-economic factors (e.g. low family income, poor housing)⿟⿟ Peer influence (e.g. delinquent peers or associates, peer rejection)
⿟⿟ School experiences (e.g. truanting, exclusion from school)⿟⿟ Neighbourhood factors (e.g. living in a deprived, high crime neighbourhood)
Professor in Community and Criminal Justice, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.

＊

69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
There are many theories that attempt an explanation of offending — physiological / genetic, psychological, social. Yet it is surely a mistake to think that any one set of these factors is ‘the cause’ of offending.
Probably there are many complex interactions among these factors that make it more or less likely thatpeople come to commit crimes. And even if we knew the answer with any confidence, we might not beable to make the necessary changes — or at least not through the agencies and systems of criminal
justice. Criminal justice agencies — police, prosecution, courts, prisons, probation — can do little or nothing
to influence the way in which children are brought up, where they live, their education and the social,economic and cultural circumstances that make up the context of their lives and of their offending. So
perhaps we need a different question for those who are concerned to try to change offenders or help themto make changes themselves.
B. Criminal Careers Research
Our understanding has been enhanced by an area of research known as criminal careers. This introduces some new ways of inquiry and understanding and offers a set of useful concepts. Criminal careers
research, for example, studies
⿟⿟ Onset — When and in what circumstances does the criminal career begin?
⿟⿟ Duration — How long is the ‘total career’?
⿟⿟ Frequency — How often does the individual offend?
⿟⿟ Intermittency — What are the time intervals between crimes?
⿟⿟ Type of crime / specialism — Does the offender commit one type of crime, or is the offender
more of a generalist?
Two other key concepts are desistance and resilience. Resilience is of particular interest here. Many
young people have lots of the problems / factors discussed earlier, but do not go on to commit crimes.
This has prompted inquiry into resilience or protective factors. What is going on in their lives that leads
them not to offend? Perhaps if more was known about this, we could concentrate on these protective
factors, building on people’s strengths rather than trying to remedy weaknesses. There are obvious
parallels between this idea and the concerns of desistance research.
The study of criminal careers has started to help us to understand much better the reasons why
offenders come to stop offending. A good beginning to the inquiry is suggested by the well-known ‘agecrime curve’. The graph below is from the USA although other countries would produce a curve of asimilar shape even if the details are probably a bit different.
Our concern here is not with the detail — for instance, the age at which offending is at its peak. The
point to emphasise is that, while a few offenders continue offending into later life and indeed into old age,most offenders start to desist in early adulthood. How might this be explained? Broadly there are threekinds of explanation.
⿟⿟ Maturing / getting older. Maturational reform (or ‘ontogenic’) theories have the longest history
and are based on the established links between age and certain criminal behaviours, particularly
street crime. But there are many changes that take place as people get older. What exactly is it
about getting older that is linked with desistance?
⿟⿟ Social bonds theory. Social bonds (or ‘sociogenic’) theories suggest that ties to family or employment or other life projects in early adulthood explain changes in criminal behaviour across the life
course. Where these ties exist, they create a stake in conformity, a reason to ‘go straight’. Where
they are absent, people who offend have less to lose from continuing to commit crimes. Moreover,the informal social controls exercised by partners, friends, employers, colleagues and which arise
spontaneously from living full lives are a much more compelling inducement to good behaviour
than the external controls of criminal justice. There is a great deal of truth in this, but it is evenmore persuasive when combined with the third type of explanation.
70

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Figure I. Numbers of offences committed from age 7 to age 70 for a sample of adolescent offenders

Source: Laub and Sampson (2003: 86, fig. 5.21).

⿟⿟ Narrative theory. Narrative theories have emerged from research which stresses the significanceof subjective changes in the person’s sense of self and identity, reflected in changing motivations,
greater concern for others and more consideration of the future. Thus, desistance resides
somewhere in the interfaces between developing personal maturity, changing social bonds associated with certain life transitions, and the individual subjective narrative constructions which
offenders build around these key events and changes. It is not just the events and changes thatmatter; it is what these events and changes mean to the people involved. Probation staff shouldnote that this way of finding and making meaning in life events can be encouraged in the context
of supportive professional relationships. (McNeill and Weaver 2010)
C. Limitations of Theories of Rehabilitation
The Anglo-American approach to rehabilitation has for many years been dominated by a model known
as Risks-Needs-Responsivity (RNR). A great deal of research has looked at the effectiveness of interventions or programmes. Can it be shown that people have stopped offending after (and maybe because of) a
particular form of treatment? Fifty years ago, there was a great deal of pessimism about this and someresearchers took the view that nothing worked — or that nothing could be shown to work — or at least to
work better than anything else. But a bit later, research — much of it undertaken in Canada and USA —seemed to show that some interventions did work so long as they were targeted at the right individual
offenders and delivered as they should be. It was claimed that programmes — sequenced and structured
interventions — could reduce predicted reoffending by measurable amounts, and these insights were thebasis of English policy for probation in the late 1990s and the early years of this century. (The case for
RNR is set out conveniently in Andrews and Bonta (2010). See also Bonta (2010).)What were the characteristics of these successful programmes? They focused on▪

 isks — the higher the risk of reoffending, the more intensive and extended the supervisionR
programme should be. This principle can accordingly be used to determine who should be worked
with and to what level.

71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99▪

 eeds — the focus of intervention must be on those needs or factors associated with theirN
offending. These are known as criminogenic needs. These differ from person to person, of course,
but common needs include: pro-criminal attitudes (‘thoughts, values and sentiments supportive of
criminal behaviour’); pro-criminal associates; employment; poor personal relationships; substanceabuse (drugs, alcohol) (Andrews and Bonta 2010: 46).

▪

 esponsivity — ‘ensuring that all interventions, programmes and activities with offenders are runRin a way which is engaging, encourages full participation and takes account of issues of identityand diversity.’ (Dominey 2007)

and were▪

 ulti-modal (different methods / skills) — offenders’ problems are diverse, calling for a correM
spondingly diverse repertoire of interventions. It is implausible that one single method will be appropriate for all problems or (as the principle of responsivity reminds) for all people.

▪

 elivered as intended (programme integrity) — Andrews and Bonta (2010) found that RNR prinD
ciples are not always implemented with the required rigour and this can detract from a
programme’s effectiveness. This may be especially important if we do not know the ‘active ingredient’. It may be possible to evaluate the effectiveness of the programme, but the influential components and the precise mechanisms that bring about change may be much less clear.

▪

 ommunity based — Programmes in the community are said to be more effective than those unC
dertaken in prisons. This seems plausible — after all, living in the community affords opportunities to put learning to test in the real world. (On the other hand, programme completion is associated with effectiveness and, in principle, institutions should be able to ensure good completion
rates.)

This continues to be a highly regarded and well-tested model for probation practice. But some researchers have posed some challenges (Ward and Maruna 2007). Notably, many people stop offending without rehabilitative interventions; and many people take part in offending behaviour programmes but continue tooffend; the model emphasises changes in thinking and attitudes, but does it take sufficient account of social
circumstances and life opportunities? Other criticisms are that the model:
⿟⿟ Pays insufficient attention to individuals’ strengths, being concerned with weaknesses (risks andneeds);⿟⿟ Is preoccupied with aversive goals (things to avoid), whereas approach goals (things to aim for)constitute stronger motivation;
⿟⿟ Concentrates on methods of intervention — with the implications that change is a process led byintervention, rather than an offender-led process which probation should support;
⿟⿟ Over-emphasises the past that offenders are keen to put behind them, by attending all the time topast patterns of offending;⿟⿟ Neglects how the process of change occurs. RNR research usually looks at the characteristics ofpeople who participate in programmes and then compares their subsequent offending with amatched group who did not participate to see if there has been any effect on predicted rates of
reoffending. This does not require any engagement with the individuals themselves and even if it
can tell us what works it sheds little light on how an intervention has its effect. This has considerable implications for attempts to develop programmes and to introduce them elsewhere. (McNeill2006)
The better-judged criticisms of the RNR model acknowledge its insights and its value, but believe thatit can be strengthened by attention to the findings from desistance research.

72

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
D. Listening to Offenders and Ex-offenders
Anglo-American criminology has tended to neglect the views and experiences of offenders themselves.
In contrast, research that has tried to understand the process of desistance has given careful attention to
offenders’ own experiences. Probation staff will be immediately sympathetic to this because interviews andconversations with people who have offended are at the heart of our work.
Yet some of the findings from interviewing people about their experiences of probation have not been
especially encouraging. For example, an early study found that, from a sample of probationers in New
Zealand,‘Few … spontaneously cited probation as a factor in their desistance and only half of the sample
considered probation to have been useful in this regard. Instead, individuals suggest that revision of
personal values, reassessing what is important, responding to new family commitments, desire for abetter future and the development of self-respect were reasons for wanting to desist. This wascoupled with fears of consequences and shame about what could happen if their offending was tocontinue.’ (Leibrich 1993, quoted Shapland et al. 2012)
These probationers also spoke about how they had managed to tackle their personal problems using interpersonal resources, accompanied by ‘life management’ — a sense of being in control of their own lives
and able take their own decisions. The more recent Sheffield Desistance Study has been interviewing
many young persistent offenders (for summary and references, Bottoms 2012). The researchers have foundthat while the past record of offending is significant (the longer the criminal record, the more likely further
offending), social circumstances make a big difference. Most said they would like to stop or that they hadtaken the decision to stop. But it was not often that people simply stopped. This study confirmed earlier
research that showed that the ‘road out of crime’ is twisting and turning and marked by lapses. Even so,
most of their sample had ‘started to desist’ — fewer and less serious offences, with longer intervals in
between. (In passing, it may be noted that the usual way of measuring the effectiveness of a programme isto see if there has been a further conviction within a specified time period, but this fails to reflect theprocess of desistance while even further offending — so long as it is less serious, less frequent and so on— can represent a success.)Many of those who felt they were making progress said things like ‘I think before I act now’, or that ‘I
think more about the future’. When asked about good things in their lives, ‘50 participants (57%) identified
a relationship with a girlfriend, the importance of having children of their own, reconciliations withparents, or other family events, as the primary “good thing” recently in their lives’. The researchers foundthat desistance involved a ‘series of processes whereby offenders move gradually towards a less offending
life: they become more aware of others’ views; they try to take more responsibility for themselves andother people; they try to think before they act; and they find themselves obliged to work out the specifics
of learning to live another life, often with less money and less excitement’. While this is a process ofmaturing, of growing up, it is ‘is an active, not a passive maturation: it requires effort, and — given theoffenders’ past criminality and social deficits — it is often difficult.’ (Bottoms 2012)
Respondents were asked what kind of person you would like to become? — in other words, they wereasked to describe what has been called the ‘desired self’ (Paternoster and Bushway 2009). The responses
were surprisingly conventional: most said they would like to ‘go straight’, ‘be drug-free’, ‘live a normal life’,‘be a good person’, ‘be a family man’ and so on (Shapland and Bottoms 2011: 262). This too is an interestingfinding. It has sometimes been supposed that offenders have values and ambitions that are different fromthose of other people. This study suggests, however, that they are much the same.
Finding a different identity — understanding oneself in a different way — is often crucial. The following
example may be of interest. This is a picture of flooding in Croatia in central / southern Europe in May
2014. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/05/floods-balkans)73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99

Croatia has a very young probation service and most members of the public have never heard of it.
They have the sentence of unpaid work / community service and when the flooding was at its worst, theleader of the probation service had the idea of sending some offenders serving this community sentence tothe flooded areas to help. They carried children, elderly people and people with disability to safety; they
rowed boats and they filled sandbags; and they worked tirelessly in extremely difficult and dangerous conditions. One of the effects of this was to raise the profile of the probation service which was acclaimed for
its contribution to this crisis. But we should also think of what it meant for these offenders themselves.
People who were seen as thieves and as drug addicts and indeed who saw themselves in that way were
now national heroes and this sense of self-respect will be invaluable in helping them to find ways of living
within the law.
There is more and more research into offenders’ own accounts of their experiences. Early in 2014, thejournal EuroVista published a special issue on Desistance (3.1) (2014) (free online, though only available in
English). 38 individuals from many different countries (including Japan) wrote their own accounts of theiroffending and their attempts at desistance. Introducing the issue, the editor remarked that ‘themes ofbelonging, recognition and escape occurred across some people’s narratives of their offending.’ Olga
(Russia), for example, felt that as a displaced person in search of a sense of connection she found, at least
for a time, a sense of belonging and solidarity within her criminal fraternity or network. Gerritsen (theNetherlands) says that his offending was a manifestation of the lack of meaning or investment he had in alife that had been scarred by loss and trauma; Dixon’s (Canada) drug related offending behaviour was underpinned by a sense of disaffection, confusion and anger at the world from which he found some respite
in drug use. Nabill (England) recalls a sense of emptiness as a young child, a sense of being ill at ease. His
enduring desire for escape from reality and for recognition is one he remembers from his youth; his early
offending provided excitement, meaning and purpose and for a while, or to an extent, occupied this void.
Like Dixon, his later participation in substance use was an extension of this desire to escape but which
served only to compound his feelings of despair. Trauma and loss characterised Williams’s (Wales) earlychildhood and, in this context, his involvement with gangs and drug use was as much about finding ameans of escape as it was a search for belonging.
We have seen that both the autobiographical and academic literature on desistance often draw on
metaphors of travel — of roads, journeys and pathways — into and out of crime. Some writers have usedthe concept of a trajectory, defined as ‘a pathway or line of development over the life span, such as work
life, marriage, parenthood, self-esteem or criminal behavior … long-term patterns of behavior …’ (Sampsonand Laub 1993: 8). Yet we have also seen that the path to desistance is zig-zag (Glaser, cited by McNeill &Weaver 2010: 53), marked by twists and turns, sometimes sharp and unexpected. A trajectory implies
direction and continuity, but turning points involve discontinuities and a change of direction. Some of thecontributors to the special issue used this kind of language. The significance of an event is not always
apparent at the time.
The turning points and trajectories which have influenced my life since my last release from prison
74

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
seemed insignificant when they occurred. It is only in hindsight, after thoughtful reflection, that
their importance is exposed. I am confident there were other turning points that I am not aware of
and whose significance is as yet not understood.
Another ex-offender (from Ireland) recalled two specific events. The first of these he described in thisway:
… a life changing event was the loss of my grandfather. He had been a father figure to me and I
had always hid the realities of my life from him as I did not want to disappoint him. After myGranddad died in 2003 I began smoking heroin again which helped numb the pain I felt and started… buying, selling or transporting drugs around the country.
 second event which the same individual also identified as crucial — though in a quite different way
A— was when
In 2003 I was sentenced to six years with two suspended. Within one month of being in Mountjoy
prison my cell mate, who was a friend before prison, was stabbed to death. This was truly lifechanging as within 20 minutes of his death I heard prison guards laughing.
The significance of the meaning that people make and find in events is well illustrated here. These two
events — death of grandad and the violent death of a friend in prison — could have had quite different interpretations and consequences. For example, the death of grandad could have shamed this individual into
seeking a better life rather than leading to more serious offending. On the other hand, the killing of thefriend in prison, which made this man start to work hard to keep out of trouble could, for other people andin other circumstances, have led to despair, anger and further offending. So although the idea of a turning
point is a useful one, it is not always easy to identify these turning points or to anticipate how they will beinterpreted and the effect that they might have.
Adam from England was nearly killed in a violent attack:As I lay in the hospital bed I wondered what people would have said about me if the knife had beena few fatal millimetres in the other direction. My wanting those close to me to be able to genuinely
say good things about me is what prompted my change.
An event, then, can be no more than a catalyst and sometimes an opportunity for change. It is then up
to the individual to make something of it. Abbott puts it well: ‘A major turning point has the potential toopen a system the way a key has the potential to open a lock … action is necessary to complete theturning.’ (1997: 102).
It is one thing to change direction, but to continue on the new route and follow a new trajectory calls
for personal determination and often for the support of others. One person here wrote of ‘the help of mybest friend, my mum, allowed me stay away from a life of crime. Constant encouragement, assistance andunconditional love …’.
The Japanese contributor to this issue, Atsushi, tells a fascinating, instructive story which illustrates
many of the themes to be found in accounts of desistance. The main points of his account are summarised
below.
I dropped out from high school after three months. Then, I joined a group of biker gangs. It was
because I felt insecure without belonging to something.
I did not like loneliness.
With the biker gangs, I repeatedly mobbed and robbed people. For operating as a biker gang, we
had to pay “protection money” to Yakuza every month.
I robbed people for the necessary money using violence. I used violence towards many people.
Then, I came across many good people one after the other. They were slightly older than me
and I felt they were like my older brothers. They invested a lot of their time on me. Even when I
betrayed them many times, they did not abandon me. They gave me a lot of affection.
75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
With those acquaintances, I was able to find hope in the future. I became able to envisage agood image for my future. I hoped to become a man like them in the future.
I became strongly aware that if you could change yourself, the people around you would alsochange. Things would change hugely depending upon yourself. Your life would be determined byyourself.
I really changed. But I received a lot of love from strangers. Really a lot.
Now, I would like to return a favour to society. I would like to use the best out of my negative
experiences and strongly desire to help young people.
And I would like to spend the rest of my life in that way so that I can say at the end of my lifethat it was a positive life.
There are so many themes in this story that are echoed in other accounts from desisters. The supportof others; the sense of taking control of your own life; the very human needs to belong and to give.
In this connection, it may be of interest to note the roles that, in some countries, some ex-offenders areable to undertake in working with offenders who are struggling to desist. Many parts of the UK have set
up schemes of ‘peer-mentoring’ where ex-prisoners and ex-probationers meet with those in prison or undercommunity supervision. They use their own experiences to act as a mentor, or a big sister or brother, tooffer guidance and a ‘model’. Indeed sometimes these mentors are themselves still under supervision. One
example is a scheme in many prisons where serving prisoners are appointed to provide crisis support toprisoners who are feeling suicidal. A colleague of mine is undertaking research into the work of former
drug users who are supporting those trying to beat their addiction. There is considerable interest in trying
to find out how effective these schemes are in terms of helping offenders to stay out of trouble. But wemust also consider the benefits for the mentor in affording them the opportunity to make valuable contributions to other people’s lives and to establish or confirm their identity as someone who helps others.

III. DESISTANCE RESEARCH: MAIN FINDINGSLet us attempt to summarise the main findings from desistance research.
1. Since desistance is an inherently individualised and subjective process, approaches to supervision must
accommodate diversity. People are different in many ways (as well as being the same in many otherrespects) and an intervention that is right for one person may not be suitable for another. (McNeill andWeaver 2010).
2. The development and maintenance of motivation become key tasks for probation. It has been well said
that “the two basic and necessary forces of motivation are the push of discomfort and the pull of hope”(Compton and Galaway 1984: 136). It is necessary to believe that something is wrong and need tochange — this provides the push of discomfort. But one must also believe in the possibility of change.
Nothing is more demotivating than the belief that you cannot change. The belief that change is possible
is the necessary ‘pull of hope’.
3. Desistance can only be understood within the context of human relationships; not just relationships
between staff and offenders (though these matter a great deal) but also between offenders and those
who matter to them (McNeill 2006).
4. Although in England and Wales there is a tendency to focus on offenders’ risk and needs, offenders also
have strengths and resources that they can use to overcome obstacles to desistance — both personal
strengths and resources and strengths and resources in their social networks. Supervision should
support and develop these capacities (Maruna and LeBel 2003).
5. Since desistance is about discovering agency, interventions need to encourage and respect self-determination; this means working with offenders not ‘on’ them (McCulloch 2005; McNeill 2006).
6. Interventions based only on human capital (or developing offenders’ capacities and skills) will not beenough. Probation needs to work on social capital (fair opportunities, social inclusion, access toresources) with communities and offenders.
76162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR PROBATION
Asked about their experiences of probation, ex-offenders have said that they value⿟⿟ having someone that they could get on with and respect;⿟⿟ who treated them as individuals;
⿟⿟ was genuinely caring;⿟⿟ was clear about what was expected of them and trusted them when the occasion called for it.
(Leibrich 1993)
Negative recollections of the relationship included a sense that the individual was simply being‘processed’; the probation officer having been late or missing appointments; and where the officer gave theimpression of being curious rather than genuinely concerned. The desisters, like the probation officers, emphasised the need to identify and address the causes of offending. They also highlighted how essential theindividual’s own motivation is to the change progress. (Shapland et al. 2012)
A. Desistance and Probation
Some of the main points about probation’s role in desistance can be summarised as follows:⿟⿟ Fairness and encouragement can bring a sense of personal loyalty and accountability;⿟⿟ Desistance seldom results from specific probation interventions, although help in finding work andmending damaged family relationships can be particularly important;⿟⿟ Interventions must pay greater attention to the community, social and personal contexts in which
they are situated;⿟⿟ Talking with probation staff can lead to clarifying and identifying problems (this clarification isoften essential to tackling them).
On this final point, McCulloch comments:… it is noted that the process of talking about their life with probation officers did lead to the probationer clarifying and identifying problems which they could work on. Whilst it may be that theprobation officer did not ‘do much’ in terms of solving these problems, the identification of the
problem was also a step which, it can be argued, would not have been taken without the help of theofficer. (McCulloch 2005).
B. Probation Relationships
Listening to what offenders themselves say about their experience of being supervised has returned
attention to the importance of a professional relationship. Modern probation work is often undertaken in
partnership with many different organisations and this can be confusing for the individual offender. A
strong relationship with the professional probation officer — or as often in Japan a volunteer probation
officer — is needed to help the offender to make sense and to benefit some of these interventions and opportunities. And research suggests that a relationship — based on trust and mutual respect — is every bit
as important as the particular treatment method adopted. A recurring finding from research is that no
method or intervention is any more effective than the rest; rather it is common aspects of each intervention that bring about change — for example, warmth, respect, genuine concern, patience and avoiding
negative judgement. Relationship skills are at least as critical in reducing reoffending as programme
content. And ex-offenders are much more likely to recall the influence of a person than of a programme.
Desistance research shows, however, that more is needed than motivation and changes of attitude. How
people behave depends on not only what they want to do and on their abilities and skills, but also on theopportunities available to them to express these capabilities. Probation has often concentrated on motiva77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
tion and abilities, but people need fair opportunities to develop lives in which offending has no place. So
another implication for probation work is the importance of encouraging the community to recognise its
responsibilities. Indeed as Mr Satoshi Minoura has put it, in his paper on volunteers in Japan,
In order to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders into the community, it is crucial that the citizens
in the offender’s community understand, accept and stand by the offender as a neighbour andcitizen. VPOs, as liaisons between offenders and their communities, are the key individuals to facilitate this sense of acceptance by the community as well as the rehabilitation of offenders.
This proposal is fully supported by the findings from research into desistance.
References and further readings
Abbott, A. (2001) Time Matters: On Theory and Method, Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Andrews, D. and Bonta, J. (2010) ‘Rehabilitating Criminal Justice Policy and Practice’, Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law 16 (1): 39–55
Bonta, J. et al. (2010).) ‘The Strategic Training Initiative in Community Supervision: Risk-Need-Responsivity in the Real World’, Public Safety Canada – online at http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/
pblctns/2010-01-rnr/index-eng.aspx)
Bottoms, A. (2012) ‘Active Maturation: Why Crime Falls in Early Adulthood’ EuroVista 2 (1) 39–4: http://
euro-vista.org/eurovista-vol2-1/
Compton, B. and Galaway, B. (1984) Social Work Processes, (3rd edition) Chicago Ill.: Dorsey Press
Dominey, J. (2007) ‘Responsivity’ in Canton, R. and Hancock, D. (eds.) Dictionary of Probation and Offender
Management, Cullompton: Willan
EuroVista (2014) Special Issue on Desistance - http://www.euro-vista.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/EuroVista-vol3-no1-complete1.pdf
Laub, J.H., & Sampson, R.J. (2009). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Harvard
Ma: Harvard University Press (a useful summary is available online at https://www.soc.umn.
edu/~uggen/Chay_Precis1.pdf)
Leibrich, J. (1993) Straight to the point: Angles on giving up crime, University of Otago Press
Maruna, S., & LeBel, T.P. (2003) ‘Welcome Home － Examining the Reentry Court Concept from aStrengths-Based Perspective’ W. Criminology Rev., 4: 91–107
McCulloch, P. (2005). ‘Probation, Social Context and Desistance: Retracing the Relationship’ Probation
Journal 52 (1): 8–22
McNeill, F. (2006) ‘A desistance paradigm for offender management’, Criminology & Criminal Justice, 6 (1):39–62
McNeill, F. and Weaver, B. (2010) Changing Lives? Desistance Research and Offender Management, http://
www.sccjr.ac.uk/publications/changing-lives-desistance-research-and-offender-management/
Paternoster, R. and Bushway, S. (2009) ‘Desistance and the “feared self”: toward an identity theory of
criminal desistance’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 99: 1103–1156.
Shapland, J. and Bottoms, A.E. (2011) ‘Reflections on social values, offending and desistance among young
adult recidivists’, Punishment & Society 13 (3): 256–282
Shapland, J. et al. (2012) The Quality of Probation Supervision – (Shapland et al.) https://www.shef.ac.uk/
78

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
polopoly_fs/1.159010!/file/QualityofProbationSupervision.pdf
Ward, T. and Maruna, S. (2007) Rehabilitation, London: Routledge
See also online:
Desistance Blog <http://blogs.iriss.org.uk/discoveringdesistance/>.
Film ‘The Road from Crime’ <http://blogs.iriss.org.uk/discoveringdesistance/documentary/>.

79

INTER-AGENCY COOPERATION: HOW CAN IT BEST ENHANCECOMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW?
Rob Canton＊

This paper will consider inter-agency work. The expression is commonly used, but perhaps it is notalways understood by everyone in quite the same way and this could lead to confusion, especially when
agencies actually attempt to work together. The advantages of working in this way will be discussed.
While ‘inter-agency work’ plainly implies some degree of cooperation, sometimes agencies seek to go
further than this and to create arrangements in which their work is integrated. There are differences inthe degree of integration that is sought and achieved and some working arrangements from the UK will
be set out as examples. In England and Wales, the aspiration of inter-agency work has transformed
probation’s understanding of its role, and probation now sees working in collaboration with other agencies
as essential to achieving its objectives — and some other agencies share the belief that their own responsibilities and remit can best be advanced in this way. Yet the policy commitment to inter-agency work has
been expressed for many years now and still there are signs that agencies have a limited appreciation ofeach other’s roles, skills and resources. They often communicate poorly and referrals among agencies do
not always achieve quite what was intended. In short, inter-agency work does not always achieve as muchas has been hoped and if we are to make progress we need to understand the difficulties as well as the advantages.
The paper will therefore go on to consider some of the complications and challenges involved in establishing inter-agency partnerships. A parallel will be drawn between inter-agency work and inter-national
work in Europe. It is widely agreed that some problems cannot be managed by countries working on theirown, but the ambition to work together is sometimes frustrated by misunderstandings, as well as by differences of culture, law, economic resources and political priorities. The paper will conclude with an attempt
to set out the strengths and weaknesses of inter-agency work, the opportunities it presents and the threats
to their achievement, before finally offering a few suggestions about what might be done to enable interagency arrangements to flourish and achieve their potential.

I. WHAT IS INTER-AGENCY WORK?
At its most simple, inter-agency involves two or more agencies deciding to work together in partnership. It originates in the recognition by these agencies (or by policy makers at a higher level) that they
have a common concern and / or that they are often working with the same people. It is possible that anagency may not even be aware that other agencies have the same concern so that they make their contribution without regard to the involvement of others. But most agencies now appreciate that (for example)
when the offender who is under probation supervision and the drug misuser who attends the clinic are thesame person, then some degree of collaboration and information exchange will help both agencies to dotheir work more efficiently and effectively. They may then discover that this same person is unemployed
and perhaps at risk of becoming homeless and at that point they may want to liaise with accommodation
and with employment agencies.
Complex problems, then, call for the expertise and resources of different agencies. In the particularcase of criminal justice, the offending-related needs of many offenders require a coordinated and complementary inter-disciplinary response. But how close a partnership ought this to be? A useful distinction canbe made between multi-agency work — which may be said to begin when several agencies become awarethat they share concerns and clients and begin to think about how to work together — and inter-agency
work which implies at least some degree of blending, mixing or fusing. We shall say more later about theselevels of cooperation and integration.
Professor in Community and Criminal Justice, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.

＊

80

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

II. WHY WORK IN THIS WAY?
The advantages of agency cooperation are obvious. Different agencies have their own duties, their own
expertise and resources. The European Probation Rules put it this way:
Probation agencies shall work in partnership with other public or private organisations and local
communities to promote the social inclusion of offenders. Co-ordinated and complementary interagency and inter-disciplinary work is necessary to meet the often complex needs of offenders and toenhance community safety. (European Probation Rules 2010: Rule 12)
These Rules affirm social inclusion as a guiding principle of probation practice. If the social inclusion of
offenders is to be achieved, probation must work in close cooperation with a wide range of other agencies.
Organisations, for instance accommodation and employment agencies or services for drug users, have aduty to provide services to all eligible clients and may need the guidance of probation to help them makesure that their services are readily and fairly accessible to offenders.
Let us look more closely at these ‘complex needs’. Many factors have been thought to influence thechances of people offending. These are set out in the table below, where the right hand column identifies
some of the agencies that may be able to make a contribution to influencing these factors.
Individual / psychological / health factors

Psychologists, doctors, teachers

FamilyCounsellors, social workers, child guidance, parenting guidanceSocio-economic

Financial support and advice, housing providers, employment
agencies

Peers and associates

Youth workers, police, community workers

SchoolSchool, education welfare staff

Neighbourhood

Local authorities, planning, housing agencies

A UK Government report in 2002 (Social Exclusion Unit 2002) drew attention to the number of offencesthat are committed by people leaving prison. It emphasised that in England and Wales prisoners are verysocially disadvantaged. The report identified a particular set of social influences on offending that areplainly linked with chances of reoffending or, if changed for the better, may support someone in developing
a way of living in which offending has no place. These are:⿟⿟ accommodation
⿟⿟ education, training and employment;⿟⿟ health⿟⿟ drugs and alcohol⿟⿟ finance, benefits and debt
⿟⿟ children and families
⿟⿟ attitudes, thinking and behaviour
Other countries may well recognise the factors listed here, even if they might want to add or subtract
one or two of them. The similarities between these factors and those set out in the table are also to be
noted. In the same way, these influences seem to call for an inter-agency response. A point to emphasise isthat while it is possible to set out needs separately in a list, in the lives of individuals they are not experienced in this way. Problems and needs interact and many difficulties (for example, drug misuse) makeother problems (for example, offending) even worse. Just as needs are experienced in this way,
81

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
agencies need to take account of their interactions in their response.
It is also to be noted that most of the agencies identified are not agencies of criminal justice. A very
basic question is: which agency or agencies has a responsibility to try to reduce crime? In the UK, and I
suspect in many other countries as well, the first reaction is to think of the agencies of criminal justice —the police, the courts, the prosecutor’s office, the prison and probation services — but as we have just seen
many other agencies have a role here too. Theories of crime prevention (crime reduction is a better term)
sometimes distinguishes between situational and social crime reduction. Situational crime reduction looks
at how and where crimes take place and tries to block opportunities, by security devices or increasing surveillance — either ‘natural’ surveillance or CCTV. For example, the architecture and design of houses andshops, the lighting and layout of streets, transport routes can all make a difference to patterns of theft andassault. Product design is also very important here. Whenever a new product is being designed now, themanufacturers are being encouraged to think about how to guard against it being stolen or about the ways
in which it might be misused for criminal purposes. For instance, cars are much more difficult to steal
than they were 10 years ago. New technologies change opportunities for crimes and designers should also
be trying to anticipate crime opportunities and to block them. ‘Social’ crime prevention is what most of
this paper has been discussing so far. This recognises that educational, employment, accommodation,
health and other social provision, especially when directed towards those most likely to offend, can make adecisive difference.
What type of agency cooperation is needed to work on crime reduction may depend on whether this isapproached through situational or social measures. For example, the police know a great deal about how
and where crimes take place and so do shopkeepers, who may be victims of thefts. They need to work
together and with security experts and product designers. But if the emphasis is on social prevention, avery different team is needed. Our concern here is mostly with social rather than situational crime
reduction, but among the first and most important matters to note is that which agencies are to work
together and how depends, first of all, on the concern they are attempting to address and how the
problem is understood. And these are policy decisions.
Some of the areas that seem to need a collective response of some kind include:⿟⿟ General crime prevention
⿟⿟ Violence in the home⿟⿟ Keeping children safe⿟⿟ Drug misuse⿟⿟ Mental health
These are some of the biggest crime problems that almost all modern societies have to confront andare at the centre of criminal justice work. Rather than being something exceptional, therefore, inter-agency
work has come to be seen as the best way of trying to address these problems.
It may be of interest that some European countries report that when, in the spirit of the European
Rules just cited, probation agencies approach other organisations, the first response they often receive isthat these other agencies say they have no legal obligation or authority to work in this way: it is not their
job to work with ‘the clients of probation’. But they soon come to see that some of their most problematicclients or, just as importantly, some of the neediest people they have a duty to help but whom they arefinding it hard to reach are under probation supervision. Sometimes the initiative is taken by these otheragencies. For example, in one country where I have undertaken some work, concerns about violence in thehome, usually against women and / or children, were first identified by social services and welfare agencies
who approached probation and police in the belief that this needed a collective response. Gradually, then,other agencies are becoming aware that probation has a contribution to make to their work in some areasthat are the concern of all.

82

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

III. DEGREES OF INTEGRATION
Once agencies have recognised a need to work in collaboration, the next question is what form thispartnership ought to take. Let us consider someone who is leaving prison with nowhere to live — very
common in UK — or perhaps leaving a halfway house to find independent accommodation. Perhaps he also
has a history of drug misuse and his unsettled lifestyle has made it difficult for him to persuade an
employer that he should be given a job. There will be a need in such circumstances for some degree ofliaison between the agencies with the skills and resources to support him in his efforts at desistance. In
order for all these agencies to do their work properly, they will need to liaise.
At a simple level of multi-agency cooperation, it may be sufficient to set in place agreements about
exchange of information; about referral — about how and when a probation worker should approach andseek to involve other agencies. For example, if a probation worker is aware that someone is at risk ofmisusing drugs, how are they to access the right kind of support for the client? Bilateral service levelagreements might be negotiated between senior managers to make sure that the agencies are working
well together, that there is a shared understanding of what each agency can expect of the other(s), aboutmechanisms of referral, about payments and so on. Each agency retains its own identity and may not needa great deal of detailed knowledge about how the other agency operates. In principle, this degree of integration ought not to pose too many problems and indeed the partners will be helping each other to fulfil
their duties. In the case of the accommodation agency, the probation service is helping the agency to fulfil
its responsibilities by putting them in touch with very needy people whom they should be keen to serve.
Yet even at this level cooperation has sometimes been frustrating. There have been any numbers ofgovernment reports and inquiries in the UK that suggest misunderstandings between individuals and organisations, that communication has been poor and that agencies do not call on one another’s services appropriately. Problems also arise when one agency feels that the other is not practising as it should — forexample it may be failing to provide its services in a way that can be accessed by some of its potential
clients — and challenges it to review and maybe to change its practises. For instance, some agencies do
not give former prisoners fair opportunities or reasonable access to their services and need to think about
how to do this.
It is easy to see how negotiations like these could develop in a direction towards inter-agency work.
Rather than seeing just two options (multi- or inter-agency), it has been suggested that these are better
seen as ends of a continuum and that there are other models that sit somewhere in between.
⿟⿟ The communication model — where agencies recognise that they have a role to play in relation
to each other, but do not go beyond communication. The communication may be one-way or
two-way, and may involve full or partial disclosure of information.
⿟⿟ The cooperation model — where agencies maintain separate boundaries and identities, but
agree to work on a mutually defined problem. This may involve joint action, or it may involve one
agency (or more) consenting to another taking the initiative to act.
⿟⿟ The coordination model — agencies work together in a systematic way; there are defined
agency boundaries but agencies may pool resources to tackle mutually agreed problems.
⿟⿟ The federation model — in this model agencies retain their organisational distinctiveness but
also share some central focus. The agencies operate integrated services.
⿟⿟ The merger model — in this model agencies become indistinguishable from one another inworking on a mutually defined problem and they form a collective resource pool. (Liddle andGelsthorpe 1994)

IV. SOME EXAMPLES FROM THE UK
Here are some examples from England of agencies working together.

83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
A. Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA)
These are inter-agency arrangements designed to manage offenders who may cause serious harm toothers. Many of these are people who have served their prison term and are now in the community. The
principal agencies involved are police and probation, but prison staff (sharing their knowledge of offenders
from the time when they were in prison), psychologists, social workers (child protection), housing department (area of residence) and sometimes others may also be involved. They agree that that their sharedobjective is to work out how best to protect the community from the offender’s risks. But they may notalways agree about how this is best to be achieved and may make assumptions about what other agencies
are contributing. A central part of the process, therefore, is the MAPPA meeting where these different
personnel meet together to devise a protection plan, discuss and monitor its implementation. This includes
negotiating any disagreements and clarifying any potential misunderstandings. Between meetings, they
will often need to communicate by phone and email. They remain working as staff in their respective
agencies, where they are regarded as holding a specialist role.
This is very different from the general strategic inter-agency work discussed earlier in relation tocrime reduction. MAPPA is normally concerned with the management of particular cases rather thanwith a general policy or strategy. On the other hand, attention to individual cases will sometimes callattention to difficulties that require a change in general policy, (the distinction between policy andpractice is not always easy to discern), so this too must be reviewed periodically.
These staff have had to learn to work together and it has usually taken time to build understanding
and confidence. But MAPPA is widely believed to be successful and the model of working in this way has
been extended to other groups. There are now in England Prolific and Persistent Offender Projects where
police and probation staff work very closely together to manage the most persistent offenders — not manyof them especially serious offenders (and therefore not suitable for the intensive and expensive MAPPA
scheme). There are also Integrated Offender Management schemes in many areas, again involving both
police and probation (Home Office / Ministry of Justice 2015). In terms of the models set out earlier, this is
more than just multi-agency communication or cooperation and is moving closer to inter-agency coordination, where agencies work together in a systematic way: there are defined agency boundaries but agencies
may pool resources to tackle mutually agreed problems.
B. Youth Offending Teams
The greatest step towards agency integration in England has been Youth Offending Teams (YOTs).
The move towards this was prompted by the recognition that the behaviour of young people is a responsibility of services including but well beyond the criminal justice system. Many links are obvious — forexample, not going to school can lead to crime; drug use is associated with health risks and problems. In
1998, to response to this, Youth Offending Teams were established. These Teams have their own offices
where staff, seconded from several agencies, go to work — police, social work, probation, health andeducation services. Staff will often say that they are YOT workers, rather than (say) police officers orsocial workers.
Does this mean that a new agency has been created? If so, how does it relate to all the others? Thereseem to be two opposite risks to be avoided here. On the one hand, unless the team develops its own
working objectives and ethos, it will not have achieved the full integration intended. On the other
hand, if it does establish this separate identity, it may have become just another agency which must
now find ways of working with all the others. In some places, YOTs have started to recruit their own
staff, many of them minimally qualified and inexperienced, leading to a lack of professional identity andwithout any connection with the ‘parent’ organisation. This undermines the original policy ambition tocombine specialist expertise, with the range of different skills and perspectives that different organisations
represent. As Liddle and Gelsthorpe (1994) put it “internal factors can ... lead to a separation of individual
representatives from their own agencies, and to a perception that particular representatives are not‘bringing their agencies with them’ to the work.”

V. PROBATION AND INTER-AGENCY WORKThe move towards increasing inter-agency cooperation has fitted well with other policy initiatives inprobation in the UK. Twenty-five years ago, the UK government said, ‘Probation officers must see them84

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
selves less as exclusive providers of services and facilities, and more as managers of supervision programmes’ (Home Office 1990). Given the wide range of social needs associated with offending and with desistance, it made sense for probation to work with other agencies of civil society. There are other organisations whose task it is to help people who are homeless, help them to find accommodation, offer drug
treatment and so on. Rather than try to create these services within the probation agency, it would bebetter for probation to work in partnership with these other organisations to make sure that offenders
have fair and reasonable access to their service in just the same way as other citizens.
As well as seeking to consolidate cooperation with established agencies, however, this initiative led tothe emergence of a variety of voluntary independent agencies (NGOs). For example, instead of offeringcounselling to a drug user, probation staff were now expected to refer them to a drug agency. These
trends were not universally welcomed. Some probation staff were doubtful about the quality of service
provided by others and highly suspicious that the partnership enterprise might undermine their job
security. Probation officers were keen to guard what they regarded as their ‘professional autonomy’. There
were accordingly differences in the quality of partnership activity between areas in different parts of thecountry. “Moreover, the inexperience of senior managers in developing and supporting contracted services
contributed to early difficulties in resolving tensions between practitioners at ground level.” (Rumgay 2007).
As time went by, however, levels of mutual confidence and trust increased.
“Confidence in its ability to protect its boundaries, recognition that voluntary sector workers had
little interest in taking over core Probation Service responsibilities and a diminution of central
interest in this particular variety of partnership were perhaps strong factors in a relaxation ofprobation officers’ preoccupation with this threat to their autonomy during the later 1990s.” (Rumgay
2007)
Here, perhaps, is another important general message about inter-agency work. It can take time todevelop. People need to come to understand and trust each other and this is best achieved by actual experience of discovering each other’s skills and reliability in working with particular cases. It cannot just be
made to happen by the instruction of senior management.
Inter-agency work, then, is one of the origins of the idea of offender management. This has given its
name to modern English probation — which is part of a National Offender Management Service. The
probation officer is now called the offender manager and coordinates the involvement of other specialist
agencies, including making referrals and checking with them that any work they undertake with individual
offenders is proceeding as it should. The offender manager, in relation to a particular case, can be seen as
a leader of a team involved in a collective endeavour. This too is a most important point. If many workers
are involved, there is a risk that a collective responsibility will end up being the responsibility of
no one at all. A key worker or case manager holds final responsibility, even though they do notundertake all the tasks personally. This is yet another model of inter-agency work. Here it is not always
necessary for every agency to be concerned with the involvement of every other. Rather than the image ofthe jigsaw on the slide, a better image may be of a wheel — the different agencies being the spokes andthe offender manager the hub of the wheel.
This offender manager / probation officer also offers a consistent figure for the individual offender. A
professional relationship is central to the success of this way of working 1. The offender manager /probation officer is best placed to hold that role in the UK, although of course other arrangements apply inother countries. This person is also responsible for enforcement — making sure that the individual does
what is expected of them and responding to non-compliance. Thus, if an individual is required to undertake
drug treatment but does not cooperate, the drugs agency will report this to the probation officer who will
1 A strong relationship with the professional probation officer — or as often in Japan a volunteer probation officer — isneeded to help the offender to make sense and to benefit some of these interventions and opportunities. And researchsuggests that a relationship — based on trust and mutual respect — is every bit as important as the particular treatment
method adopted. A recurring finding from research is that no method or intervention is any more effective than the rest;
rather it is common aspects of each intervention that bring about change — for example, warmth, respect, genuine concern,
patience and avoiding negative judgement. Relationship skills are at least as critical in reducing reoffending as programme
content. And ex-offenders are much more likely to recall the influence of a person than of a programme.

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
take appropriate action. In this respect too, the professional relationship is critical. It is believed that people
are much more likely to comply when they trust the person with whom they are working, recognising thelegitimacy of the requirements expected of them and aware that this is a professional who has a genuine
concern for them.

VI. SOME COMPLICATIONS AND CHALLENGES
Since there has been such a long-standing commitment to inter-agency work and no one really opposes
it, it is worth asking why this agenda has not made even more progress and continues to pose challenges
and complications — at least in the UK. Some of the reasons for this include:⿟⿟ agencies have different responsibilities and priorities;
⿟⿟ there are differences in power and influence — some agencies can ‘set the agenda’ much more
readily than others;⿟⿟ some organisations send their most senior staff to inter-agency meetings while others send morejunior representatives — this ought to depend on the purpose of the meeting, but at a policy level
the representative must be seen as credible and someone with the status and authority to commit
their agency to any agreement;⿟⿟ staff have different professional backgrounds and training — this is a strength, of course, but it
can also lead to misunderstandings and, at worst, even to professional rivalries;⿟⿟ senior managers set targets or key performance indicators for their own agencies and these may
take precedence over the targets negotiated among different organisations; the targets and priorities of different agencies are likely to be different and they may not fit together easily; internal
imperatives and priorities can hinder sensible cooperation;
⿟⿟ the involvement of too many people can make for difficult committee meetings and excessively
complex working arrangements;
⿟⿟ while inter-agency work should help everybody to work more efficiently and effectively, it can takea lot of resources to make it work; smaller agencies may struggle to find capacity to contribute asmuch as they would like and to attend all the meetings;
⿟⿟ agencies may have different ideas about what exactly the problem is that needs to beaddressed collectively and what would count as a solution to it ;⿟⿟ sometimes arrangements are agreed at a senior management or policy-making level, as we haveseen, but do not work so well at the level of practice⿟⿟ on the other hand, practitioners may have mutual confidence and understanding, but are nothelped by differences at the level of policy and targets or are let down by uncertain agreements
among the organisations involved. (Pycroft and Gough 2010)

VII. INTERNATIONAL WORKThe next part of this paper may seem like a sharp change of direction, but I hope that its relevance
will soon become clear. The European Probation Rules were mentioned earlier and a bit more needs to besaid about these. This is a map of Europe with the 47 member states of the Council. You will see that thisis much larger than the European Union and includes many countries outside the EU — for example, theRussian Federation, Turkey, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan.
It is Europe’s oldest political organisation (1949). The EU is first and foremost an economic union. The
Council represents a European commitment to human rights.

86162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Starting with the European Convention on Human Rights, the Council sets
standards in many areas and especially inthe area of criminal law and punishment.
It inspects practice (notably the Committee
for the Prevention of Torture) and alsoenables cooperation and development.
Europe is increasingly aware that its
several nations face many common crime
problems. For example:
⿟⿟ International crime⿟⿟ Drug trafficking
⿟⿟ Human trafficking
peoples⿟⿟ Immigration and movement of⿟⿟ Most prisons in Europe hold very large numbers of people from other countries
⿟⿟ Transfers are often appropriate
None of these problems can sensibly be addressed just at the level of the nation state, and the need totry to manage them through international cooperation is obvious. Perhaps the parallels with inter-agency
work within a single country are already becoming apparent. While all countries believe that they must
work together, they immediately encounter the challenge that they have:⿟⿟ Different legal systems
⿟⿟ Different agency arrangements
⿟⿟ Different histories, cultures, attitudes towards law enforcement⿟⿟ Various economic / political pressures⿟⿟ Differences in prison conditions and overcrowding (which complicates transfer)
Perhaps the reason for introducing this topic into a presentation on inter-agency work is now clear. All
are agreed on cooperation, but the way in which this is to be achieved is not at all straightforward.

VIII. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS (SWOT)
OF INTER-AGENCY WORK
A. Strengths
⿟⿟ Complex problems need the expertise and resources of different agencies
⿟⿟ It makes no sense for agencies to duplicate the services that are offered by other experts and specialists
⿟⿟ The whole can be greater than the sum of the parts
⿟⿟ A collective endeavour is potentially much more efficient and effective

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
⿟⿟ There are some examples of inter-agency cooperation working well, notably MAPPA, andcertainly other countries would have examples to offer
B. Weaknesses
⿟⿟ Disagreement about priorities
⿟⿟ Communication is not always effective
⿟⿟ Referral to other agencies is important, but just giving individuals the address of the other agency
and telling them to go there is unlikely to be effective; probation has no control over the quality ofservice offenders then experience⿟⿟ Lack of clarity about aims and objectives
⿟⿟ Disputes about roles and responsibilities⿟⿟ Misunderstandings about other agencies
⿟⿟ Evidence of effectiveness is quite weak⿟⿟ Shared responsibility can lead to a lack of coordination and a reluctance to take lead responsibility
⿟⿟ Confusion for service users
⿟⿟ Needs trust — and can take time and resources to build this up
⿟⿟ Sometimes works well at practice level, but not at management level⿟⿟ Sometimes the other way round
C. Opportunities
⿟⿟ For a community to be responsible for responding to crimes⿟⿟ Mutual respect and understanding⿟⿟ Communication
⿟⿟ Organisation
⿟⿟ Joint training⿟⿟ Joint targets / key performance indicators
D. Threats⿟⿟ “Partnership has itself become an industry, spawning an expanding population of consultationgroups, steering committees, working parties and inspectorates designed, perhaps unintentionally,
to have the effect of perpetuating the process rather than producing the outcomes of multi-agency
collaboration.” (Rumgay 2007)
⿟⿟ Markets and private sector involvement can turn partners into competitors
⿟⿟ Partnership initiatives come to be valued only for their effectiveness in crime prevention

88162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

IX. EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT INTER-AGENCY PRACTICE
Some of the reasons why inter-agency arrangements do not always function as hoped are well summarised by Judith Rumgay:
The complexities of delivering effective inter-agency work include issues in establishing appropriate
and committed leadership, achieving clarity of aims, objectives and professional roles, and determining action plans and evaluative measures. None of these requirements are easily met and the historyof many inter-agency working relationships have been troubled by conflicts, often rooted inignorance of other agencies’ priorities and constraints, professional perspectives and resources.’(Rumgay 2007)
Not easy indeed, but certainly achievable. Among the factors that can contribute to sound inter-agency
work are:⿟⿟ Establishing agreement about overall aims
⿟⿟ Acknowledging the legitimacy of other points of view, especially other conceptions of what
the problem is and what a solution would be like⿟⿟ Being willing to subsume agency loyalty to a partnership identity
⿟⿟ Being aware of the risk of inter-agency or inter-professional rivalries
⿟⿟ Retaining strong connections with parent agency even as you work towards a shared ethos
⿟⿟ Agreeing clear guidelines regarding accountability and what might be realistically expected fromeach participating agency
⿟⿟ Ensuring full and regular communication. (Liddle and Gelsthorpe 1994). In some (especially verylarge) organisations, internal communication is already difficult. Even when different divisions or
departments are engaged in the same business for the same employing agency, there will
sometimes be misunderstandings and miscommunication. Communication between different
agencies will always be challenging and must be worked at patiently and continuallyInter-agency work is not a single and static arrangement. There are different ways of establishing interagency work and the configuration of agencies and the structures needed to support their work will
depend on the areas of practice in which they are seeking to cooperate. As the work progresses, there will
be a need to consider whether the lines of accountability and the supporting management systems are fit
for their task. The aspiration of inter-agency work is compelling and is surely right in its principles, but as
we have seen it is not easy to achieve and needs strong leadership — including leaders with the good
sense and humility to learn from the experience of practitioners — mutual respect and trust between
agencies, resources and time.
References
European Probation Rules (2010) — <https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1575813>.
Home Office (1990) Supervision and Punishment in the Community: A Framework for Action, Cm 966.
London: HMSO.
Home Office / Ministry of Justice (2015) Integrated Offender Management: Key Principles <http://tinyurl.
com/h432r79>.
Liddle, M. and Gelsthorpe, L. (1994) Crime Prevention and Inter-Agency Co-Operation, London: Home
Office.
Pycroft, A. and Gough, D. (2010) Multi-agency working in criminal justice: Control and care in contempo89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
rary correctional practice, Bristol: Policy Press.
Rumgay, J. (2007) ‘Partnerships in probation’ in in Loraine Gelsthorpe and Rod Morgan (eds.) Handbook ofProbation, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister –available online at <http://tinyurl.com/lpthfwr>.

90THE FUTURE OF COMMUNITY PENALTIESRob Canton＊

This paper will begin by offering a definition of community penalties and giving some specific examplesof the form that they take. While countries have different community penalties, there are some that arecommon to many different nations and indeed the challenges of policy and implementation are often muchthe same. The origins of probation and community punishment in England and Wales will be briefly
discussed: although our concern here is with the future, this cannot be properly explored without due
attention to the past and the present. The paper will go on to raise some questions about the purpose (orpurposes) of community penalties and the extent to which these can be achieved. There will be a brief
consideration of new technologies, the difference these are making both to the nature and to perceptions ofpractice. Before some final reflections on the likely futures of community penalties in England and Walesand indeed in Europe, the paper will set out some of the strengths and weaknesses of community
penalties, the opportunities for positive development and some of the obstacles and threats.

I. WHAT ARE COMMUNITY PENALTIESThe Council of Europe 1992 Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures1 offer the following definition:
The term ‘community sanctions and measures’ refers to sanctions and measures which maintain theoffender in the community and involve some restriction of his liberty through the imposition of conditions and / or obligations, and which are implemented by bodies designated in law for that
purpose. The term designates any sanction imposed by a court or a judge, and any measure taken
before or instead of a decision on a sanction as well as ways of enforcing a sentence of imprisonment
outside a prison establishment.
The Council dislikes the very common expression alternatives to custody, incidentally, because it seems
to imply that prison is the usual and standard case — the starting point, as it were, so that other sanctions
have to prove their worth by the standards of prison. In its Rules, Europe regards prison as a last resort.
While it can be readily agreed that community penalties take place outside of prison, should the expression mean more than this? Should the community be involved somehow? How? These are topics towhich we shall return. These penalties are very common in many countries, although they do not often
receive as much attention as prison in the academic literature. In the first decade of this century, there
were more than twice as many people on probation or parole in America as there were in prison. In
Europe it has been estimated that some 2 million people are in prison while about 3.5 million are subject tosome form of community sanctions. Again, very many people in prison go on to spend some time subject
to community measures like parole.

II. SOME EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY PENALTIES
While the term penalty implies a punishment for an offence, we may also wish to consider related
measures. For example, many countries have bail systems so that people do not have to be held in police
custody or in prison when they are awaiting trial at court. Alternatives to pre-trial detention include suchmeasures as requiring a suspected offender to reside at a specified address, to be supervised and assisted
Professor in Community and Criminal Justice, De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.

＊

1 If there is a distinction to be made between sanctions and measures and, on the other hand, penalties, it is not relevant

for the purposes of this paper.

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
by an agency specified by a judicial authority. This is not a punishment, because punishment may not be
imposed upon people unless and until they are found guilty. Another measure that should be mentioned isconditional release from prison followed by post-release supervision — often known as parole. In somecountries, this is not regarded as punishment in itself — rather as a protective or preventive measure that
follows the punishment of imprisonment, but many of the same practice challenges arise.
Here are some examples of community penalties. In many countries, a probation order is used as anindependent sanction. This typically involves keeping in regular (though not necessarily frequent) contact
with a representative of the probation service. Sometimes courts order a suspended term of imprisonment
and at the same time imposes conditions with which the individual offender must comply. Treatment
orders for drug or alcohol misusing offenders and those suffering from a mental disturbance that is related
to their criminal behaviour are also used in many countries. There may be more intensive supervision for
appropriate categories of offenders. There are also penalties that restrict the individual’s freedom of
movement by means of, for example, curfew orders or electronic monitoring. Community service (i.e.
unpaid work on behalf of the community) is extremely common in Europe. Victim compensation / reparation / victim-offender mediation is less common, but of increasing interest for many reasons, as we shallsee.

III. PROBATION IN ENGLAND AND WALES
Probably the oldest and best known community punishment is the probation order. There is a legend
about probation’s origins in England. A man called Frederic Rainer visited the London Police Courts in
1876 and, dismayed by what he saw, wrote a letter to a Society of the Church of England in which heasked; “Offence after offence and sentence after sentence appear to be the inevitable lot of him whose foothas once slipped. Can nothing be done to arrest the downward career?” His letter is a defiant statement,
expressing hope against pessimism, his belief in the possibility of change and rejecting the inevitability ofincessant crime and punishment. Rainer wanted to reject never-ending punishment with a response towrong-doing that respects dignity, decency and affirms a belief in the possibility of change. As it seems tome, Rainer was especially urging the ethical importance of giving people a fair chance to change. Theseare ethical and expressive values — by which I mean that we should be interested not only in what
probation does but about what it says and represents in and through its work. The result of Rainer’s letter
was to introduce a small number of ‘Police Court Missionaries’ who attended court and offered, in suitablecases, to help individual offenders where the courts felt there was such a need and a reasonable opportunity to make a difference. These early probation officers gave practical help and used the influence of theirpersonalities to bring about change. (I suspect that they would have immediately understood the ethos ofprobation volunteers in Japan.) When, thirty years later, these practices were formalised in law, probation
was to be instead of punishment in appropriate cases. And what this was especially rejecting — though
only in suitable cases — was corporal punishment, fines (which people often couldn’t afford to pay) andprison.
Since then, probation in England has gone through a number of phases in which it has understood its
work in different ways and attempted to present it accordingly to courts and to the public. The table below
sets this out.
Phases of probation in England

92

Approximate dates⃝

helping people to change⃝– 1930s⃝

rehabilitative treatment⃝

1930 – 1970s⃝‘nothing works’⃝Mid 1970s⃝

alternatives to custody⃝

Late 1970s – 1980s⃝

punishment in the community⃝

Late 1980s – 1990s⃝

what works?

⃝

Late 1990s⃝

public protection; offender management⃝

To date162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
This is too simple, of course (for a bit more detail and for further references, Canton 2011). Ways ofworking and of presenting work carry on and are never quite displaced by new ideas or methods. But
roughly this sets out probation’s objectives over the years. Helping was often very practical – for instance
helping people to find a job or somewhere to live, perhaps trying to mend relationships with their families but there was also the idea that a strong personality — perhaps a parent figure or an older brother orsister — can help to bring about change. Then followed a more scientific understanding — the use of some
psychological techniques (especially counselling) to rehabilitate. In the mid-1970s, however, there was foundto be a shortage of evidence that any particular form of intervention worked to reduce reoffending. In theUK, for example, Brody wrote:
It has seemed … that longer sentences are no more effective than short ones, that different types of
institutions work about equally as well, that probationers on the whole do no better than if they
were sent to prison, and that rehabilitative programmes … have no predictably beneficial effects.
(1976: 37)
But if probation could not show itself to be better at reducing reconviction than other types of punishment, at least it was no worse and in particular it could provide a less damaging and cheaper alternative
to prison. Meanwhile, as the issue of crime and punishment became more and more political — an area inwhich political parties competed — there was a perception that the public demanded punishment.
Community penalties were considered to be too easy or lenient and probation was challenged to makethem more demanding. This was a crucial step: probation and other community penalties were no longer
to be instead of punishment but punishment in their own right. Whether or not the courts and the public
saw them in this way is another matter.
Towards the end of the 1980s, research from North America challenged the pessimism that nothingworked very well. New research seemed to show that some methods do work (I shall say more about thislater) and a new period in English probation was based on these claims. But meanwhile the increasing
political priority came to be the management and reduction of risk and these new concerns came todominate policy and practice. This digression into probation’s history in England is a reminder that the
purposes that people set for probation — and the way in which it is understood — change. Over time, thekinds of community punishments available have changed and different purposes have been set for them.
One of the most important community penalties was first introduced in England in 1972. Community
service is a community penalty which involves offenders working without payment for the benefit of thecommunity as real or symbolic reparation for the harms their crimes have caused. Over the years this has
become a very common punishment in almost all European countries. But it is a good example of the difficulties involved in trying to specify a particular single purpose for a community penalty. For example,
some have argued that community service should be regarded as a punishment because it takes away
people’s time, labour and skill. Others insist that the work itself should be tough — it ought to be hardlabour and nothing easy. But it can also be a form of rehabilitation — because giving people useful things
to do enables them to develop their skills and interests and, at best, enables them to develop useful work
habits and a more considerate attitude to others. It makes amends — by undertaking useful work offenders
can really begin to pay the community back for the harm they had done. Some feel that the tasks assigned
to offenders should in some way emphasise social inclusion. Having several different purposes — andpurposes that may not always easily fit together — is very typical of community punishment in general. It
is rare that a penalty has just one purpose, but if there are a number of purposes hard questions arise: arethe several purposes compatible? (can they all be pursued?) are some purposes more important thanothers?

IV. PROBATION OBJECTIVES IN EUROPE
Nowadays different countries set one or more of the following objectives for community penalties. It is
to be noted that these are different objectives and evaluation of their success would therefore needdifferent indicators.
⿟⿟ To reduce prison numbers by providing alternative sentences
⿟⿟ To protect the public by controlling offenders in the community
93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
⿟⿟ To reduce reconviction through rehabilitation
⿟⿟ Reparation and mediation
We shall have a look at these objectives one by one in more detail.
A. Reduce Prison Numbers by Providing Alternatives to CustodyThis could be done either by sending fewer people to prison and instead imposing community penalties(‘closing the front door’) or by early release schemes like parole under which prisoners would be supervised
after leaving prison (‘opening the back door’). (Or by both methods, of course.) But community penalties
have been disappointing in their effects in this respect. They do not seem to reduce the prison populationand may not even much slow down its increase. Rather than displacing people from custody, they justdraw more people into a net and subject them to increased levels of intervention. In most European
countries, large numbers of people subject to community punishments are offenders who would probably
not otherwise have gone to prison, but would have been dealt with in other ways — by financial penalties,
warnings, other community penalties (Aebi et al 2015). And many of those early released from prison arethen recalled for violations of their conditional release. The judgement has been taken that the public will
only tolerate early release if they can be assured that there will be tight enforcement and that any
violation will lead to a recall to prison. In the UK, this has led to large numbers being received back into
prison. In the USA, this tendency has been even more marked. In 2006, almost 2/3 of all prison admissions
in California were parole violations and many of them were technical. (See Robinson, McNeill and Maruna2013). And of course once someone has been seen to ‘fail’ on parole, authorities will often be most reluctant
to give them another chance. The general message is clear. Community penalties are not an efficientmeans of reducing the prison population. They have contributed to some successes in certain countries(Lappi‐Seppälä 2007), but many countries, especially in eastern Europe where there is often a legacy ofhigh prison populations from their Soviet days, have discovered that establishing a probation service andcreating a range of community penalties will not solve this problem on its own.
B. Protect the Public by Controlling Offenders in the Community
Public protection is political priority in many countries. There are examples of arrangements wherehigh risk offenders have been managed safely in the community. England and Wales is very proud of its
Multi-agency public protection arrangements (MAPPA) under which several agencies, usually led by thepolice and by the probation service, work together combining their skills and resources to guard against
serious offending by dangerous people. These achievements must not be under-estimated. But here too
there is a challenge of credibility. The public only becomes aware of public protection when things gowrong — a serious crime takes place and arrangements are judged to have failed. Even when inquiry
shows that probation and other agencies have done everything possible, there is still often politicalcriticism and calls for changes to be made. Can community punishment ever match the certainty in protection that imprisonment seems to offer?
C. Reduce Reconviction through Rehabilitation
The pessimistic idea that nothing works was challenged by research findings, especially from Canada
and the USA, that some kinds of programme were successful in reducing reconviction after all. These successful programmes focused on:▪

 isks — the higher the risk of reoffending, the more intensive and extended the supervisionR
programme should be. This principle can accordingly be used to determine who should be worked
with and to what level.

▪

 eeds — the focus of intervention must be on those needs or factors associated with theirN
offending. These are known as criminogenic needs2 .

▪

 esponsivity — ‘ensuring that all interventions, programmes and activities with offenders are runRin a way which is engaging, encourages full participation and takes account of issues of identity

2 These differ from person to person, of course, but common needs include: pro-criminal attitudes (‘thoughts, values and sen-timents supportive of criminal behaviour’); pro-criminal associates; employment; poor personal relationships; substanceabuse (drugs, alcohol) (Andrews and Bonta 2010: 46).

94

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
and diversity.’ (Dominey 2007)
and were▪

 ulti-modal (different methods / skills) — offenders’ problems are diverse, calling for a correM
spondingly diverse repertoire of interventions.

▪

 elivered as intended (programme integrity) — supporters of RNR claimed that where resultsD
were disappointing this may be because they had not been implemented appropriately (Andrews
and Bonta 2010)▪

 ommunity based — Programmes in the community were said to be more effective than thoseC
undertaken in prisons.

It was claimed that programmes — sequenced and structured interventions — could reduce reoffending below the predicted rates by measurable amounts and these insights were the basis of English policy
for probation in the late 1990s and the early years of this century. There were ambitious claims madewhen these programmes were developed in the UK, but they have not, perhaps, fulfilled the whole of theirpromise. Assessing the achievements of these programmes after 20 years of experience in England, it
could be said that:⿟⿟ Some things work quite well — if conditions are optimal
⿟⿟ Some things work in one context but not another, e.g. perhaps they work in the community but
not so well in prison
⿟⿟ Some things work with some people but not others — for example, perhaps they work quite wellwith men, but less so with women; or they work well with younger people, but not so well witholder⿟⿟ Programmes must be well-designed and targeted at those who are ready to change⿟⿟ Programmes must be completed and must be followed up by probation staff
It is to be noted that by far the most usual form of community supervision in Europe remains 1:1 supervision (rather than group work) and undertaken in a fairly unsystematic way. While this is the mostcommon arrangement, very little is known about how probation staff undertake this work and, forexample, whether some approaches are more successful than others.
Whatever the value of programmes of intervention, most countries are fully aware that prisoners (andpeople subject to community punishments) experience huge social disadvantage. A UK government reportfound:
Compared with the general population, prisoners are thirteen times as likely to have been in careas a child3 , thirteen times as likely to be unemployed, ten times as likely to have been a regulartruant from school, two and a half times as likely to have had a family member convicted of acriminal offence, six times as likely to have been a young father, and fifteen times as likely to be
HIV positive. Many prisoners’ basic skills are very poor. 80 % have writing skills, 65 % numeracy
skills and 50 % reading skills at or below the level of an 11-year-old. 60 to 70 % of prisoners wereusing drugs before imprisonment. Over 70 % suffer from at least two mental disorders. And 20 % ofmale and 37 % of female sentenced prisoners have attempted suicide in the past. The position isoften even worse for 18–20-year-olds, whose basic skills, unemployment rate and school exclusion
background are all over a third worse than those of older prisoners. (Social Exclusion Unit 2002: 6,
emphasis in original).
3 In care means brought up in a children’s home or a foster family.

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
It is plausible to link these disadvantages with their offending and unless their life chances are
improved, further offending is likely to result. Even if their attitudes and thinking can be changed byprobation interventions, they need fair opportunities to develop lawful ways of living — lives in which
offending has no place.
The report particularly identified the importance of the following factors in influencing further
offending or desistance:⿟⿟ Accommodation
⿟⿟ Education, training and employment;
⿟⿟ Health⿟⿟ Drugs and alcohol⿟⿟ Finance, benefits and debt
⿟⿟ Children and families
⿟⿟ Attitudes, thinking and behaviour
It seems likely that many countries would report a similar experience, even if they would add or
subtract from this list and perhaps give a different emphasis to some of these factors. Given this wide
range of social needs, it made sense for probation to work with other agencies of civil society. There areother organisations whose task it is to help people who are homeless, help them to find employment, offer
drug treatment and so on. Rather than try to create these services within the probation agency, it would
be better to work with these other organisations to make sure that offenders have fair and reasonable
access to the services available to other citizens. In England, these insights have transformed the way inwhich probation goes about its work and the expression ‘offender management’ is now commonly used.
This has given its name to modern English probation — which is part of a National Offender Management
Service. At its best, this represents the idea of social inclusion and means that community punishment ismore than just punishment-outside-prison.
Yet it has also been emphasised that, without a guiding relationship, offender management is likely to
be uncoordinated, confusing (especially for the offender in the middle of these often complex arrangements)and fragmented. Listening to what offenders themselves say about their experience of being supervised
has returned attention to the importance of this working relationship. A relationship — based on trust andmutual respect — turns out from research to be every bit as important as the particular treatment
method favoured. Without a relationship none of these benefits is likely to be achieved. Again, the similarity to the role of Japanese VPOs is apparent.
To summarise findings about rehabilitation: the predominant model of rehabilitation in Europe andNorth America is Risks-Needs-Responsivity. But the insights of desistance research — finding out more
about the circumstances in which people come to stop offending — have emphasised that there is not only
a need for personal change — change, that is, in the attitudes and motivation of offenders — but also in
the opportunities available to them. Typically people stop offending by establishing ways of living in which
offending has no place, where they come to see themselves not as offenders but as workers, perhaps, ashusbands and wives, as parents and are regarded in this way by other people as well. In other words, theycome to lead to good lives. But not everyone has the same understanding of what a ‘good life’ is andoffenders must be allowed to flourish as they decide. Rehabilitative methods like RNR emphasise weaknesses and limitations — risks and needs — but more attention should be paid to offenders’ strengths,
their potential and their own ambitions. These ‘positive’ goals constitute more powerful motivation than
the aversive goals associated with risks and needs. Probation can support these developments but cannot
and should not try to lead them.

96162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
D. Reparation and Mediation
Attention to the needs and rights of victims has prompted many probation agencies to introduce into
their policies and practices ways of working with and for victims. In many parts of the north and west ofEurope, this has proved quite difficult as well-established agencies, created to work with offenders, have
tried to work out how to add on — or, better, to integrate — work with victims. Newer services in Eastern
Europe have managed this better, perhaps, and Romania and — especially — the Czech Republic havedeveloped their new services with a full understanding of the importance of working with victims. The
Czech Probation Service is named the Probation and Mediation Service. These are the guiding principles
of working in this way.
⿟⿟ the response to crime should repair as much as possible the harm suffered by the victim;
⿟⿟ offenders should be brought to understand that their behaviour has had real consequences for thevictim and the community;
⿟⿟ offenders can and should accept responsibility for their action;
⿟⿟ victims should have an opportunity to express their needs and to participate in determining thebest way for the offender to make reparation;
⿟⿟ the community has a responsibility to contribute to this process. (Czech Republic Probation andMediation Service 2013).
Traditional justice represents the relationship between the state and the offender. Reparation considers
the offender and the victim, but at best goes further than this. The community — at a local rather than anational level — has an interest and a responsibility in responding to crime — in supporting the victim,
holding the offender to account, trying to bring it about that the offender does not offend again. And as wehave seen this involves not only personal change, but also opportunities. One obvious example is employment. It is well established that being employed is a very strong influence in avoiding further offending,but if employers take the view that they will not employ offenders because they are untrustworthy, thenthis ‘pathway’ out of crime can be blocked. Reparative approaches have the potential to enable communities to see that a crime could be interpreted as a sign of something wrong in society and a challenge to
see how it can be put right — not only for this offender but to avoid offending by others.

V. NEW TECHNOLOGIES
Probation in Europe and in North America has been influenced in its work by new electronic technologies. Most obviously, the emphasis on case recording and the inputting of data onto computers leads many
probation staff in England to complain that they spend much more of their working time staring at ascreen and typing at a keyboard than in meeting with offenders or victims. The capacity to build andanalyse large data sets has led to a mode of ‘actuarial’ criminal justice where offenders are dealt with not
as individuals but as members of groups. There are also other technologies that have the potential totransform probation practice. This seems, in Europe and North America at least, to make a difference to
our thinking about the future of community penalties.
Electronic monitoring is widely used. At the moment, in UK, this mostly takes the form of a device
fitted to the individual’s ankle that communicates with another device attached to their home telephone.
This is how curfews4 are monitored. If the offender is away from home, the monitoring centre will receive
an alert and as soon as possible someone will attend the premises to find out what is going on. Note thatwhile this device can report an absence, it cannot tell you where the offender is (if away from theappointed place). Increasingly, this technology is looking likely to be replaced by GPS technology, using satellites to locate the offender — just like cell phones. Exclusion zones could be monitored in this way. For
example, an offender might be ordered to stay away from a particular area and the GPS tracking device
would be able to monitor this.
4 A curfew is a requirement to remain at home at certain hours, usually and especially at night time.

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
There are plenty of other devices besides. These include devices that detect the presence of alcohol
through a deep lung breath sample. The results are transmitted remotely through a telephone connection.
Test results are matched against a highly reliable biometric voiceprint to make sure that it is the offender(and not their sober friend!) who is blowing into the tube. At the start of a programme, subjects are visited
to set up the system and the voice verification process is explained to them. An initial voice recording istaken from the subject, which is used as a blueprint for all future communication by telephone. Manufacturers claim “Our technology enables us to check the unique voice of the subject against our recorded andstored version each and every time the subject calls through.”
In London there has been an experiment to allow offenders released from prison and those serving
community penalties to report to electronic kiosks rather than to probation officers. Some people would
like this to be extended. Offenders will log into the machines, located in probation service offices, using fingerprints. Biometric reporting, as it is known, is used in the US, where the machines interact with large
numbers of offenders. The machines ask offenders a series of questions, including whether they havechanged their address or job and if they have been arrested since their last report or wish to speak tosomeone. Probation service managers will also be able to add individually tailored questions to those asked
by the machines, which are believed to cost around £130,000 a year to operate. (23,348,433 Yen; $ 191,000).
Whether this is considered expensive depends on judgements about how much probation officer time theymight be able to replace.
Technology brings both opportunities and threats. Will technology add to or replace the personal relationship? The Council of Europe prefers electronic monitoring to be used to support conventional probation
supervision. But maybe some offenders would prefer an impersonal intervention. There is some evidence(Nellis 2010) that electronic monitoring can have some rehabilitative benefits – by bringing some structureand discipline into people’s lives — but it is not promoted to the general public or marketed in this way somuch as a surveillance / control device. A personal worry is that the involvement of commercial firms inthe manufacture of these devices, and often in their deployment, will have the effect of greater and greater
use and lead to an expansion of penal control. Perhaps the most important message is that we must makesure that we use technology to support our work — technology should not lead it and we should not dothings just because we can.

VI. STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS
Before moving finally to consider the future of community penalties, it will be useful to look at theirstrengths and weaknesses, the opportunities they present and the threats of which we must be aware.
A. Strengths
Here are some of the conspicuous strengths of community penalties.
⿟⿟ Avoiding the negative effects of prison.
⿟⿟ Potential to support desistance — people have to learn to stop offending in the community. Prison
cannot bring this about. It has been said that you cannot teach someone to live responsibly in
freedom by locking them up.
⿟⿟ Flexibility — several types of intervention can be combined to meet the diverse needs and circumstances of offenders.
⿟⿟ Relative financial costs — in principle, community penalties cost society much less than imprisonment.
⿟⿟ Represent the belief that people can change — the hope that Rainer expressed.
⿟⿟ Try to promote social inclusion. The prison wall ‘says’ you are apart, not one of us. Community
penalties try to convey a very different message.
⿟⿟ Encourage communities to take responsibilities towards (ex)offenders and probation can advise98162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
how to do this. (Japanese probation seems to do this very well. “The mission of all volunteer
probation officers shall be, in the spirit of volunteer social service, to assist persons who havecommitted crimes and juvenile delinquents to improve and rehabilitate themselves, and toenlighten the public on crime prevention, thereby enhancing the local community and contributing to the welfare of both individuals and the public. (Art. 1, VPOs Act)” (Minoura,emphasis added)
B. Weaknesses
On the other hand, community penalties have a number of weaknesses.
⿟⿟ They are not easy to explain to courts and to the public.
⿟⿟ They do not always look like a sufficient punishment.
⿟⿟ It is hard to find good evidence that community penalties achieve their objectives.
⿟⿟ Community involvement is often limited — ‘community’ often means no more than ‘not in prison’.
C. Opportunities
⿟⿟ Community penalties challenge the automatic assumption that punishment must involve prison.
⿟⿟ If used well, community penalties can contribute to reducing the numbers of people in prison.
Community penalties have had no more than limited success in lowering prison populations, as
we have seen, but unless these sanctions exist and are well-developed, prosecutors and courts will
have fewer options.
⿟⿟ Community penalties can help a community in recognising its responsibilities in reducing and responding to crime.
⿟⿟ Help to bring it about that offenders have genuine access to services available to the rest of thecommunity — “VPOs, as liaisons between offenders and their communities, are the key individuals to facilitate this sense of acceptance by the community as well as the rehabilitation of
offenders.” (Minoura)⿟⿟ Greater participation of victims — who are often overlooked entirely in some criminal justicesystems.
⿟⿟ Potential to solve problems rather than avoid them — prison avoids or postpones problems.
Community penalties can attempt to solve them. 5
D. Threats⿟⿟ Community penalties have often drawn more people into the processes of control and punishment
rather than displacing them from prison.
⿟⿟ The increasing involvement of commercial and technology could lead to expansion.
⿟⿟ There is a risk that community penalties will be valued only as a device for reducing thenumbers in prison not for their own intrinsic worth.
⿟⿟ Political demands for tough punishment could make it even harder to explain the value of
5 The concept of ‘community justice’ is of relevance here. It has been said that this rests on three principles: “First, thecommunity is the ultimate consumer of criminal justice. Rather than offenders, or even victims, it is communities that thesystem ought to serve. Second, community justice is achieved in partnership at the local level. Third, it is problem focused:problems are addressed rather than cases processed.” Winstone and Pakes 2005: 2)

99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
community penalties to a sceptical public.
⿟⿟ There is a risk that if community penalties are made more demanding in an attempt to show thatthey are ‘credible’ punishment, this could lead to more imprisonment (as has happened in parts of
the USA). More requirements lead to more potential violations; then tight enforcement leads tomore prison.

VII. THE FUTURE OF COMMUNITY PENALTIES
Penal policy is influenced by social, political, economic and cultural factors that can be hard to anticipate. For example, penal policy has become much more ‘political’ in the UK and the USA than it was forty
years ago. It has become more punitive and it is now hard for politicians to change direction for fear of accusations of ‘being soft on crime’. On the other hand, financial pressures have brought about changes insome states of the USA, succeeding in reducing prison populations where other arguments have failed.
Community penalties have been able to adapt by being presented in different ways – as punishment, as rehabilitation, as control. Public confidence / legitimacy is extremely important and is won by stating clearly
what you are attempting to do and then doing it well — not by making unrealistic claims about rehabilitation or public protection.
One future for community penalties is that they will come to be seen just as means of surveillance andcontrol. Political and / or public pressures will be seen to make it necessary for community penalties to bepunitive and ‘prison-like’. Increased technology might replace the human relationships on which probation
fundamentally depends and more people will be drawn into an expanding system.
Another and better future might be this. Community penalties could be used to place an emphasis onsocial inclusion and to support opportunities for desistance. Crime can be regarded and used as an opportunity for the community to reflect on what is going wrong and to try to work out how arrangements
might be improved. Japan again offers this vision of community involvement.
In order to promote public awareness of the importance of offender rehabilitation, improve social environments and engage communities in the prevention of crime, various activities are carried out inlocal communities by VPOs. These activities include street parades, small symposia for local
citizens, video forums in school, essay competitions and displaying posters. VPOs conduct thesecrime prevention activities in cooperation with municipal governments, community citizens, policeand other volunteer groups. Through these activities, local communities promote bonds in thecommunity, and as a result, those efforts build safer and stronger communities. (Minoura)
Finally, I suggest that community penalties could be greatly enhanced by more attention to the voice ofoffenders themselves. In the UK, probation areas are establishing ‘user councils’ to find out what probationers and ex-prisoners themselves find to be best and, on the other hand, what needs to change. In UK
probation has not taken these opportunities before, but is increasingly discovering that this is an invaluable
guide to policy and to practice.
References
Aebi, M., Delgrande, N. and Marguet, Y (2015) ‘Have community sanctions and measures widened the netof the European criminal justice systems?’, Punishment & Society, 17 (5): 575–597.
Andrews, D. and Bonta, J. (2010) ‘Rehabilitating Criminal Justice Policy and Practice’, Psychology, Public
Policy, and Law 16 (1): 39–55.
Brody, S. (1976) The Effectiveness of Sentencing: a review of the literature, Home Office Research Study
No. 35, London: Home Office.
Canton, R. (2011) Probation: Working with Offenders, Abingdon: Routledge.
Council of Europe (1992) European Rules on Community Sanctions and Measures - <http://tinyurl.com/
qbxgvw5>.
100

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Czech Republic Probation and Mediation Service (2013) Best Practice Manual: Restorative Justice —Support and Counselling for Crime Victims, <http://tinyurl.com/zuxjewk>.
Dominey, J. (2007) ‘Responsivity’ in Canton, R. and Hancock, D. (eds.) Dictionary of Probation and Offender
Management, Cullompton: Willan.
Lappi‐Seppälä, T. (2007) ‘Penal Policy in Scandinavia’ in Michael Tonry (ed.) Crime, Punishment andPolitics in Comparative Perspective, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Minoura, S. Volunteer Probation Officers in Japan.
Nellis, M. (2010) ‘Electronic monitoring: Towards integration into offender management’ in Offender Supervision edited by McNeill, Raynor and Trotter Cullompton: Willan.
Robinson, G., McNeill, F. and Maruna, S. (2013) ‘Punishment in Society: The Improbable Persistence ofProbation and Other Community Sanctions and Measures’ in Jonathan Simon and Richard Sparks(eds.) The Sage Handbook of Punishment and Society, London: Sage.
Social Exclusion Unit (2002) Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister —available online at <http://tinyurl.com/lpthfwr>.
Winstone, J. and Pakes, F. (eds.) (2005) Community Justice, Cullompton: Willan.

101

PARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION IN COMMUNITY-BASEDTREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
Joseph Kala Muasya＊

I. INTRODUCTION
The need for all agencies involved in the criminal justice system to work together in order to reduce
the rate of recidivism cannot be over-emphasized. Probation and aftercare services in this regard work incollaboration with a host of agencies who play different roles in treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.
Whatever contribution a partner is able to give towards the welfare of a reforming offender goes a longway in positively changing his/her life. Working in sync with all relevant players will ensure that information and other resources are shared and better results are achieved in the long term, as well as guaranteeing public safety.
The Probation Department, in recognition of the over-riding importance of collaboration and networking amongst the key agencies in offender treatment and rehabilitation, has in place a programme in the department for reform and collaboration which is managed by an Assistant Director of Probation whose
mandate includes1: identification of relevant agencies or partners with whom to work, preparing an
inventory of the same, exploring areas of cooperation, signing of MOU’s on how to engage, establishment ofa focal point for ease of operations by all agencies and research among other important issues2 .
The programme’s activities have been cascaded to the sub-county or community level where reports on
engagements at this level are furnished to the probation headquarters on a quarterly basis, further
showing how important this component of reforms and collaboration is to the department. All these activities are framed in a manner purposed to help in treatment and rehabilitation of all community-based
offenders in order to succeed in gaining their full rehabilitation and reformation. With society being themost important stakeholder in that the offenders spend over 95% of their time in the same, its inclusion in
all activities is paramount. As other areas of offender treatment and rehabilitation are worked on, theimportant role of psycho-social support is played by the offender’s family and society at large. In thisregard, the society carries the biggest burden in the rehabilitation process and hence the need to make itaware of the same in order to forestall or stifle any chance of stigmatizing the offender which is most
likely to come from the community and which can negatively affect the rehabilitation process.
The key partners or agencies identified and who closely work with the Probation Department include:
1. Judiciary
2. Police service
3. Labour Ministry
4. Non-governmental organizations
5. Church and Faith-based organizations
6. Prison service
Chief Probation Officer, Probation and Aftercare Service, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government,
Republic of Kenya.
1 Probation and Aftercare Service (2014). Standards Operating Procedure Manual.
2 Ibid (1).
＊102

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
7. The community.
However, the goal of reducing recidivism cannot be achieved if there is no synergy among all thementioned stakeholders. The effectiveness of community-based treatment is dependent on all players
playing their roles with commitment 3 . Evidence of cooperation in these critical areas of job and housing assistance in regard to offenders can be seen in the following engagements.
A. Job Assistance for Offenders
An engaged person has no time for anti-social thoughts and activities as the desire to meet his/herneeds is satisfied. In regard to offenders, therefore, provision of jobs helps them attain self-reliance, greatly
reducing the possibility of recidivism. The jobs available can either be in the formal or informal sector. In
formal employment, the Probation Department has partnered with the Labour Ministry to secure jobs foroffenders undergoing treatment and rehabilitation within the community. The Labour Ministry handles all
matters related to employee welfare as well as recruitment4 . Most organizations contact the Ministrywhenever vacancies arise and especially in respect to semi-skilled and unskilled labour. The Labour
Ministry, being a member of the department’s case committee5 , ensures that such information is passed on
to the department for immediate action. As such, offenders undergoing rehabilitation are immediately
referred, and those found to be in need of employment are able to secure such opportunities. This makes
them more acceptable to the society as they can support themselves, their dependents and even participate in development projects within their communities.
In regard to informal job support, several agencies give much needed assistance. The Children’s Department, which falls under the Labour Ministry, manages a social welfare fund for vulnerable groups
within the society all over the country; they give each identified beneficiary a monthly stipend of Kshs
3000/- (approximately 28 US dollars) to cater for their basic needs. Though it may seem little, this money
has had a significant impact on offenders under rehabilitation, especially those found to be vulnerable. In
collaboration with the Children’s Department, we are able to enroll them in the programme, offer them therequired entrepreneurial skills and help them start small businesses whose proceeds they use for theirown sustenance.
Non-governmental organizations equally play an important role in rehabilitation and treatment ofoffenders. While still in penal institutions, they receive vocational training which in most cases is notadequate. Once released, the NGOs come in to assist in further training of the offenders to a level where
they can either get employed or employ themselves by starting small businesses. This is normally throughour recommendation; we also work together to equip them with tools in line with the training skills gained
which makes it easy for them to start businesses, open workshops and even offer employment to othermembers within their societies. Therefore, instead of being looked at as criminals or rejects and stigmatized, they are seen as resourceful members of their respective families and society earning a lot of
respect and making rehabilitation efforts possible.
The existing legal framework ensures that data of all offenders is captured and safely kept for futurereference by the Kenya Police Service for the purpose of tracking and management of crime and analysis
of criminal trends which include fingerprinting. This therefore implies that offenders going throughtreatment and rehabilitation or those who have already gone through it cannot acquire a certificate of good
conduct, a very vital document demanded by employers before offering a job to prospective job seekers.
However, through our cooperation with the Police Service, those offenders being rehabilitated or those whohave satisfactorily completed their sentences, are able to get this document if we so recommend. This
gives the offender a chance to join the job market and earn an honest living, hence keeping away frombehaviour which may lead him/her to recidivism.
B. Preventing Recidivism through Housing Assistance.
Shelter is a potent basic human need. Abraham Maslow in his theory of the hierarchy of human needs
takes cognizance of this fact and places it first amongst food, water and air. It is therefore impossible to
3 Probation service strategic plan 2008-2009.

4 Directorate of personnel management – January 2006.
5 Probation of offenders Act, Cap 64 (schedule R2).

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
attempt to rehabilitate offenders without first fulfilling this requirement. A significant number of offenders
find themselves in a very tricky situation once released from penal institutions due to lack of a place they
can call home. They either face rejection from their immediate families or they do not have anywhere they
can call home if at the time of arrest they were living in the streets. Therefore, once released from prison
they go back to the same streets that they knew as home. This calls for measures to offer them temporary
shelter as a permanent solution is sought on their settlement and reintegration back into the society.
According to research carried out by the University of Cincinnati6 , successful management of halfway
houses or homes requires incorporation of the following: proper leadership and efficient implementation
strategies, trained and adequate staff, appropriate and effective offender assessment and relevant components, and core correctional practices. All these will prepare the offender for smooth reintegration into
society and greatly reduce his/her chances of recidivism.
The provision of halfway homes therefore comes in handy as a stop gap in the long reintegration
process. This, however, is yet to fully take root in Kenya but despite this, a few NGOs have come up withfacilities to help this category of offenders. There are several halfway homes in the country but key among
those who cooperate with the Probation Department are Philemon Trust7, which has a fully furnishedhome to receive these offenders, and The Nest.
In addition to providing shelter to these offenders, Philemon Trust has partnered with the Probation
Department to equip them with tools in line with training skills gained while in custody. This helps themestablish businesses once they are allowed to join their families, making rehabilitation and treatment
efforts succeed.
The Nest for example targets female offenders. They rescue children left behind by mothers sentenced
to serve custodial sentences, and, once released, they take them in at their halfway house to reside with
their children and provide shelter for a period of between three to six months. During this period, themothers are given entrepreneurial skills as their families are prepared to receive them, and at the time ofrelease, they are given capital to establish simple small businesses to help them earn viable and legal
incomes8 . As a department we step in as guarantors as the majority have no collateral to help them secure
the offered seed capital; this is also a way of monitoring as we partner with the agency to rehabilitate andreintegrate them back into their societies.
Faith-based organizations also play an important role in providing temporary homes to offenders
released from penal institutions, they take them in and besides accommodating them, they offer psycho-social support and even jobs in case such opportunities arise. Given the role these organizations play in thesociety in meeting members’ spiritual needs, it becomes easy for them to facilitate seamless reintegrationof these offenders into their communities. Some communities unconditionally accept the offenders once
released from penal institutions; they even offer to assist in their rehabilitation, materially or sharing information with the supervising agency. This underlines the critical position the community holds in the entire
offender rehabilitation and treatment process. Suffice it to say that this is an area which needs more focus
as it can bridge the gap between the offenders and their communities in the reintegration process.
C. Effective Multi-Agency Cooperation.
Offenders undergoing community-based rehabilitation and treatment normally face myriad challenges
which mostly slow down or deter effective treatment processes. Though there are several agencies
engaged in helping the offenders, their efforts duplicate each other, fall short of expectations, out competeeach other or lack focus. There is hence need for all agencies in the criminal justice system to cometogether, collaborate and share resources in order to achieve the desired goal of fully rehabilitating andtreating offenders within the community. There could be differences in the way all these agencies operate,
but one common factor is helping the offender reform within the convenience of his community and, in theend, reducing recidivism and ensuring public safety. Some of the challenges faced at different levels are as
follows:
6 <www.sciencedaily.com./release/2011/07/110711104759.htm>. Science Daily, 11th July 2011.
7 philemon.kenya@gmail.com.

8 <www.nathanb.com>safaris>conservation>.

104

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS✓ L
 ack of recognition at the ministerial level of the need to bring together all agencies dealing withoffender treatment to operate under one roof.
✓ L ack of data on agencies giving aftercare to offenders who have gone through penal institutions
such as halfway homes/houses.
✓ F ailure to formulate policies to guide and regulate all agencies on areas of cooperation intreatment of offenders.
✓ F ailure to allocate resources to oversee collaboration of all agencies handling the treatment andrehabilitation of offenders.
✓ S uspicion and mistrust among the agencies dealing with offender treatment.
✓ I nadequate skills on offender treatment by some of the agencies involved.
✓ S ociety’s negative attitude towards its own members who have been caught up in the complex
world of crime.
The situation however can improve immensely if the following steps are considered: first there is needto establish a government department to bring together all these agencies whose mandate is to help intreatment and rehabilitation of offenders in the community to allow networking and sharing of information.
This will not only ensure that there is no duplication of services rendered but also will address theoffenders’ needs. A legal framework and policy to guide and bring together all these bodies needs to be put
in place in order to streamline the operation of all these agencies. This will address the grey areas in theiroperations and bring parity in handling the affairs of the offenders in the face of the law.
In regard to halfway homes, the government must take up the responsibility of establishing the sameand fully support those that exist to help smooth reintegration of released offenders back into the society
instead of leaving their fate in the hands of other non-committal agencies. It should allocate adequate
resources for the required infrastructure and lead the way in ensuring that the entire process of rehabilitation and treatment of offenders is properly handled as a way of improving the security of its citizens. Capacity-building also needs to be carried out within all agencies so that they may operate at the sameknowledge levels.
Sensitization needs to be carried out for members of the society to make them understand their roleand ensure that they participate in rehabilitation of their own as this will drastically reduce the level ofstigma and at the same time increase the level of acceptance back into the society. Each agency also needs
to have a data bank of all other partners and their mandate so that if there is need for referral, the samecan be channeled to the right partner within the appropriate timeframe.

II. CONCLUSION
A holistic approach needs to be adopted so that efforts by all agencies bear fruit and the same aretransferred to the offenders whose lives will not only change, but society’s view towards them will also
positively change. The challenge therefore is to all agencies using various methods to rehabilitate and treat
offenders to re-examine their mode of operation, renew their energies, come together and work as a teamin order for their efforts to be felt in society.

105

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
References
Government of Kenya, (2010). The Constitution of Kenya. Government printer, Nairobi. Kenya
Kenya National Crime and Research Centre’s Report (2014) Government printer, Nairobi. Kenya.
philemon.kenya@gmail.com
Probation and Aftercare Service (2014). Standards Operating Procedure Manual Government printer,
Nairobi. Kenya.
Probation Service Strategic Plan (2008-2012) Government printer, Nairobi. Kenya.
United Nations Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (1990). 45/110. Retrieved on 10 th February 2014
from <www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/r110>.
United Nations Rules for Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women
Offenders, (2010). Retrieved on 20th February 2014 from <www.ohchr.org/documents/ga.res/811>.
<www.nathanb.com>safaris>conservation>
Science Daily, <www.sciencedaily.com./release/2011/07/110711104759.htm> accessed 11th July 2011.

106

MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION IN COMMUNITY-BASEDTREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
Jeffrey Mesa＊

I. CRIMINAL JUSTICE CHALLENGES IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA
A. Socio-Economic Influences
Papua New Guinea (‘PNG’) is a developing country, with a population breaching 12 million people. Like
any developing state, a large populace places a great demand on the National Government and its institutions as its socio-economic landscape continues to grow.
While the majority of the population subsists in the rural areas, urban drift has seen a large influx ofpeople into the already heavily populated urban areas, testing the bounds of municipal authorities, andresulting in settlements springing up in and around cities and towns.
Formal employment is not always readily available for job seekers, and so most resort to the informal
sector to eke out a living. The demographic competing for these limited job opportunities is mostly young
adults (17-28 years) turned out into the economy with little qualification after secondary school, who cannot
continue further into tertiary institutions for lack of meeting the required grades or placing, for sheer
numbers vying for finite spaces. Housing standards are poor, and decent houses are too expensive to rentor purchase; families are forced to live together, two (2), three (3) generations at once in often small houses.
There are reports that the country’s economy is strengthening with the major natural gas andpetroleum projects currently in progress. Business investment is said to be growing and gaining firmly;
however, these prospects have not translated into improved living standards for the larger population who
are in the middle and lower classes. The Public Service conditions of employment are still in starkdisparity to the cost of living, with remuneration levels hardly adjusted to meet the economic climate.
Bleak economic opportunities and the steep cost of living are probably the major challenges in the shiftof the country; it is little surprise, then, that crime is a relative consequence of all these combustible
factors. The hand-to-mouth culture has seen an increase in criminal frequency mainly out of the need tosurvive, let alone subsist.

II. ROLE OF COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT AND ITS EFFECTS
With the rate of crime and overburdened correctional facilities, alternatives to imprisonment are a
viable measure toward rehabilitating offenders and curbing reoffending. The Criminal Code Act gives discretionary power1 to the National Courts (‘Courts’) of PNG to impose alternative punishments to imprisonment. Indeed, the Courts have taken to suspending sentences imposed on prisoners with a view that there
is some chance for rehabilitation 2 and as a design to prevent reoffending as stated by Justice Hinchliffe,“The suspension of a sentence of imprisonment is not an exercise in leniency, but an order made in thecommunity interest designed to prevent reoffending which a prison sentence alone seldom does.”3
A. Historical Development
Historically, the concept of court-sanctioned probation began with the church, particularly, the Churchof England Temperance Society (CETS) in 1876. A system was created where offenders were released by
Principle Legal Officer (Indictable Offences), Public Solicitors Office, Papua New Guinea.

＊

1 Section 19 (1) (f), Criminal Code Act of 1974, Chapter 262; Papua New Guinea.

2 Acting Public Prosecutor v. Clement Maki and Tom Kasen (1981) SC205 (Miles, J).

3 The State v. Frank Kagai [1987] PNGLR 320, citing William Davey [1980] A Crim R 254 (Muirhead, J).

107

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
the Magistrates’ Courts only on condition that they communicated with appointed missionaries from CETS
and accepted guidance from them. These missionaries would later gain recognition as ‘probation officers’ in
1907, with the enacting of the Probation of Offenders Act in 1907 (England). This was particularly
momentous, as the Act also allowed for the Courts to suspend part or all of an offender’s sentence, on
condition that the offenders enter into recognizance and be supervised by a probation officer4 .
What was regarded as ‘probation work’ was eventually developed with the British Home Officeassuming control of the probation service in 1938, and it went further to improve its services by particularizing care for children and women, together with offenders in need of psychiatric care. By the 1980s, inter-agency partnerships had developed and systems were put in place with alternatives to imprisonment
programmes, dialling into the reduction of reoffending.
1. PNG Probation Service
PNG, being a former British and then Australian colony, adopted the laws and Court systems of theCommonwealth. Indeed, our Criminal Code and Criminal Court systems are adopted from Queensland,
Australia; needless to say, laws involving Probation and Parole were similarly adopted.
Community-based rehabilitation in PNG then, is supervised by the Probation Service, a part of what is
now known as the Community Based Corrections (‘CBC’) agency. The Probation Service is established by
the Probation Act 5 and is instrumental in providing an alternative punishment to serving an imprisonment
term, thereby alleviating the prison population and providing a community-based form of rehabilitation.
B. Mission
The mission of the PNG Probation Services is similar to that of the mother agency (Department ofJustice and Attorney General): ‘Delivering excellent legal and law and justice services to the State andpeople of Papua New Guinea’.
The Probation Service’s core responsibilities are:➢Ensuring appropriate compliance with, and administration of, sentences and orders;➢ roviding accurate and timely information to the judiciary and parole board to inform the senP
tencing process and release conditions of offenders; and,➢Supporting reparation in the community.

These responsibilities entail that probation officers:➢

Supervise offenders;➢

Conduct counselling and skills programmes➢

Conduct community work and education programmes.

These responsibilities and the Mission are synonymous with the historical origins (above) of theprobation service.
C. Overview of Agencies Related to Prevention of Recidivism
It is an unfortunate circumstance that crime is seen as a common occurrence in the country, due inlarge part to a poor economy. This rising rate of crime has to be absorbed by the criminal justice system(‘System’) and its agencies on a national level, and this task is an immense one. The economic strictures
are all too resonant here, when there is a real need to strengthen and broaden the agencies.
With greater accessibility to the urban and rural communities, and they to it, the agencies’ collabora4 The Guardian; Wednesday 2 May, 2007.

5 Section 4, Probation Act of 1979, Chapter 381; Papua New Guinea.

108

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS
tive activities would certainly work to curb the crime rate and prevent reoffending.
1. Police
The Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary is established in each of the country’s 22 provinces, with a
Ministry of its own. Presently it is hampered with practical impediments, such as insufficient personnel
and non-availability of utilities such as vehicles, field equipment and housing for its members around thecountry. This issue of accommodation for officers in the rural areas and smaller urban centres (indeed
major urban police barracks are in such a state of dilapidation) truly blunts the Constabulary’s efficacy.
Where there is little or no presence of the police, lawlessness will be encouraged; with the arduous
geography and remote reaches of the rural areas, policing is very challenging.
Coupled with these is the ominous in-fighting in the Constabulary and the perceived political influenceof its higher rank and file. It does not bode well for the public’s sense of confidence and security for an
already tenuous agency to be publicly embattled.
2. Correctional Service
The Correctional Service is also established in the majority of the provinces, and it also has its own
Ministry. Its institutional facilities were built during PNG’s colonial era, and have not been reconstructedto accommodate the population growth and crime rate expectancy. The rate of prison breaks has becomefrequent in recent years due to the poor upkeep of prison structures, and the decrease in correctional
personnel has seen a dangerously low disproportionality of the guard to prisoner ratio.
The Court processes are also long and slow, the effect being overpopulation in the prison facilities.
Everyday there are newly arrested persons who are removed from the police station holding cells to thecorrectional facilities to undergo the Court process. This is a real problem as remandees can wait foralmost two (2) years to have their cases dealt with; one can imagine in that time, more people being
remanded to the point of overcrowding the prisons and costing the National Government millions of Kina
(PNG national currency) for their keep.
3. Courts and Court Systems
The country’s Court system comprises the Lower Courts, which are the Village Courts and Magistrates Courts, and the Higher Courts, which are the National Courts and the Supreme Courts. For theirpart, the Courts, particularly the National Courts and Magistrates’ Courts through the National Judicial
Staff Service 6 and the Magisterial Services 7, have risen to meet this challenge; each has undergone
vigorous restructuring to increase the number of judges and magistrates, with the aim of having multiple
judges and magistrates to cater for each province.
Indeed, the last ten (10) years have seen this growth by the judiciary to accommodate the provinces(PNG has 22 provinces) with 43 appointed judges 8; still more judges are needed. Again, the growing population has become better educated, and knowledge and awareness of rights at law has increased, therefore,
the Courts have to meet two (2) general fronts: civil complaints of private citizens and criminal prosecutionof offenders by the state.
D. Implementation of Community Based Treatment of Offenders
During a prisoner’s Court process, their defence counsel (the Public Solicitor) would have submitted to
the Court that the prisoner was a good candidate for probation. To assist in determining this, the Courts
direct the Probation Service to prepare a Pre-Sentence Report 9 (PSR) to garner more information.
The PSR will include detailed information about the prisoner’s personal circumstances, attitude towardcommitting the offence and attitude toward a preferred sentence; the same information would be soughtfrom the victim(s)/complainant(s) of the offence, and any independent source of reference for the prisoner.
6 National Judicial Staff Service Act 1987 Chapter 11; Papua New Guinea.
7 Magisterial Service Act 1975 Chapter 43; Papua New Guinea.

8 Ano Pala, Attorney General of Papua New Guinea, The National Friday 23rd October, 2015.
9 Section 29, Probation Act of 1979, Chapter 381; Papua New Guinea.

109

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
This is compliant with the Probation Service’s responsibilities outlined above.
1. Candidates for Probation
In PNG, capital punishment is the maximum punishment for crimes of wilful murder, piracy andtreason. For these offences, probation would rarely be, if ever, considered.
Likewise crimes of aggravated violence like armed robbery and serious sexual offences seldom see suspensions of sentence and probationary orders. Kidu, CJ said: “Rehabilitation or reformation is a factor tobe considered in assessing a sentence. But in serious cases…it is something to be aimed at only in so far
as it is compatible with the main function of the Court of protecting the public.”10 Therefore, it follows thatthe nature of the offence would be a determining factor to begin with.
With the growth of urban centres, a larger educated populace and easier access to technology, softcrimes like misappropriation, forgery, stealing and other property related offences have increased. These
offences are mostly done out of need to feed a family or other financial reasons; therefore the Courts haveheld that imprisonment for these types of cases should be a last resort.11 Community-based rehabilitation
is preferred, with the peculiar sentence/orders that go with it. Again, the nature of the offence works tothis end; these offences are not as aggravated, and the chances of reparation between the victim andoffender, coupled with the offender’s rehabilitation, are greater.
The peculiar facts and circumstances of the offence and offender are considered. The Court stated:“While there is a need to maintain uniformity of sentence for the purpose of deterrence, the Court should
not hesitate to depart from this uniformity where the particular facts of an individual case demand it. In
this case, the facts militate in favour of leniency and against the imposition of a custodial sentence.”12
For the sentence then, it is important to note that the Probation Officer (PO) will have input in the PSR.
Having inter-acted with the prisoner, and spoken to the victims/complainants in compiling the PSR, thePO would be in a unique position to make a recommendation to the Courts on the prisoner’s candidacy fora suspension of sentence13 . The PO’s experience in this regard is particularly relevant, as it will be theProbation Service that will play the principle supervisory role as only it can14 .
2. Community-Based Sentence Example
A practical example of a community-based sentence through the Probation Act would be Community
Work (‘CW’), where the offender is sentenced to perform work in the community. This is supervised by a
Probation Officer who identifies said area and maintains a schedule of the hours worked; the sentence iscomplete after the offender has worked all the hours set by the Court in the sentence.
i. 		 Case Study: The State v. XX, YY & ZZ
 his is an actual Probation Sentence imposed on three (3) co-offenders in 2004 by the NationalT
Court in Port Moresby, PNG. To protect their identities, their names and circumstances have beenaltered, but the offence and sentence situation has not.
 he three (3) offenders (2 males and a female) all worked together in a government department.
T
The men were experienced agricultural field officers while the third (female) was in the accounts
section. The three collaborated to adjust Annual Leave entitlements, with the female offendermaking false invoice entries to include ghost names for each of their claims for air travel expenses.
These false invoices were processed, and each offender was paid a larger claim then they ought tohave been; the total misappropriated in the fraud was K 35,000.00.

10 John Elipa Kalabus v. The State [1988] 193 at 196-197.

11 Wellington Bellawa v. The State [1988-89] PNGLR at 381.
12 The State v. Keputong Nagong (1980) N225.

13 Acting Public Prosecutor v. Don Hale [1998] PGSC 26; SC 564 (Amet CJ, Kirriwom, Kandakasi JJ) & Edmund Gima &Siune Arnold v. The State [2003] PGSC 3; SC730 (Kirriwom, Kandakasi, Batari JJ).
14 The Public Prosecutor v. Sima Kone [1979] PNGLR 294 (Prentice CJ, Saldanha, Greville-Smith, JJ).

110

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS ll three (3) offenders appeared in Court and pleaded guilty to the charges of conspiracy and misapA
propriation. The Public Solicitor appeared for each of the offenders and asked for a PSR for each ofthem. The PSR recommended they all be placed on probation, which the Public Solicitor pressed forin seeking an appropriate sentence.
 ach offender was sentenced to four (4) years’ imprisonment, but the sentences were suspended andEthey were ordered to enter into CW. This provided that they must perform four (4) hours of freelabour, cleaning in and around the General Hospital in Port Moresby for two (2) years; the Probation
was to supervise them and return quarterly reports to the Court.
 ach offender successfully complied with the CW probation orders and were discharged after two (2)Eyears. They have each gotten employment again and are living normal lives.
It should be noted that the opportunity to restitute the K 35,000.00 was investigated as well by theProbation Service, however, each offender was not in a situation to fully restitute any money.
Therefore, only CW was ordered them.
E. Preventing Recidivism through Community-Based Treatment
As stated above, a large majority of offenders are educated, some very highly skilled in technical or
forensic areas, examples being accountants, IT systems operators, and engineers. Returning into society
for such persons is difficult by any measure, with the offender having to cope with being seen as recalcitrant.
The public attitude is one of mistrust and avoidance, which may cause the offender to feel ostracized
and isolated. The psychological bearing of this negativity can drive an offender to feel stigmatized and sohe or she, invariably, finds solace in criminal circles; the crime cycle then is enabled, as reoffending easily
follows. The same is true for an offender who is not so well educated and the danger to reoffend is evenmore apparent.
To give every possible chance to inhibit reoffending then, the CBC must network with the wider public,
government institutions and the private sector to source potential organizations who would willingly field
the offenders on supervised CW. The CW itself must be oriented to accommodate offenders, where
possible, with veritable technical or professional skills or knowledge so that it will be meaningful to thecommunity, and to the offender as being accepted as a productive member. The opportunity to find employment is also increased considerably if the offender proves to be a valuable contributor.
To underline this needed change, the Probation Act is widely empowered to venture beyond the usual
CW schedules involving menial cleaning work. This was raised as a serious concern by the Court15 andasked for more initiative from the Probation Service when speaking on CW orders for offenders.
1. Parole Service
The Parole Service was also established in the vein of community rehabilitation16 and was integrated
into the CBC with the Probation Service. Offenders would have served a third of their sentences andwould then be deemed ‘minimum’ security before being considered for release on parole. This form of
release serves the greater purpose of assisting in the integration of the offender back into the communityand society at large. It is more heavily supervised than one on probation, the rehabilitation process is moreconcentrated for the offender to give him/her every chance of succeeding to restart his/her life out ofprison.
2. Juvenile Justice and Supervision
A third service provided by the CBC is the supervision of the juveniles in the Juvenile Courts17 andtheir rehabilitation. This was fully enabled in 2003 when the National Government proclaimed the Juvenile
Courts Act in its entirety, observing that the primary concern is that juveniles are protected from the in15 Mogish, J, 14 October 2015, Waigani, Papua New Guinea.
16 Parole Act of 1991; Papua New Guinea.

17 Juvenile Courts Act 1991; Papua New Guinea.

111

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
fluences of prison.
Miles, J observed: “…The National and Supreme Courts exercise the judicial power of the people (Constitution, section 158 (1)) and have therefore a constitutional responsibility for the welfare of minors. The
nation’s long term interest lies in the reformation if at all possible of young offenders, and reformation ismore likely to be affected by assistance and supervision in the community rather than by incarceration ina prison, even though such assistance and supervision may be scarce.”18
Volunteer Juvenile Court Officers were recruited to assist and liaisons made between the CBC, police,
Salvation Army, City Mission (NGO) and the Courts to drive rehabilitation programmes.
i. 		 Case Study: The State v. XZ (Juvenile)
Again, the name of the offender is changed to protect his identity.
 he offender, then aged sixteen (16), was part of an attempted robbery in 2004; of the five (5)Tsuspects, he was the only one apprehended. He was defended by the Public Solicitor and pleaded
guilty to the offence; due to his age, a PSR was asked for. At the time, he was in the custody of theSalvation Army Juvenile Detention Centre.
 he PSR revealed that he had been training as a mechanic in a vocational school, and that heTwanted to return to it, while being placed in custody of his parents. The Court accepted that thiswas an ideal situation to rehabilitate a young offender other than imprisonment, and sentenced him
to a probationary term of three (3) years to be supervised by the Probation Service. The quarterly
reports to the Court progressed with the offender completing his vocational training, getting a qualification and then securing a job with an Auto Parts Dealer and Workshop.
However, since the inception of the Juvenile Courts Act, the Courts’ attitude toward youthful offenders
has shifted somewhat.19 As described above, it is this very class of the population that is the largest andmost active in the society. It is true then that they would represent the more frequent demographic ofoffenders; therefore, the Courts of late have not been too keenly accommodating of the plea for leniency forbeing a youth. Further, a change in budgetary allocation has seen juvenile projects cut and a shortage of
officers and resources to amply support the juvenile courts’ programme.
The compelling story here is that the Courts must continue to strike a balance to deter re-offending, as
the reformation of young offenders would be best achieved through community-based correction, by
probation, as opposed to the corrupt influences of the jail. 20
F. Measures to Enhance Public Awareness & Obtain Public Support for Community-Based Treatment
Smart use of the media, like television and radio, with aggressive advertisement campaigns may beplanned to spread awareness about this issue. Social media is also a very effective tool, and if anything, ismuch faster and direct to the general public. As much as gender issues and domestic violence issues areimportant, this is an equally important issue that ought to be given attention.
In PNG, there is a healthy base for promoting awareness on important issues, where rallies andmarches are held, and special days are observed. The agencies, led by the Probation Services and Attorney
General’s Department, can lend voice through these means. As this is a community concern, the churches
must be part of any such activities, where information may be disseminated through their members; after
all, they are probably the ‘founders’ of the probation service.

18 Acting Public Prosecutor v. Clement Maki and Tom Kasen (1981); SC 205.
19 The State v. Willie Paul Songul (1997) N1757 (Kirriwom, J).
20 Lahey v. Sanderson [1959] Tas SR 17 at 21.

112

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

III. MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION IN COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT:PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS IN PNG
The base cause of crime in PNG is the poor economy of the country, and the hard circumstances thatcome with it. Crime will continue to be prevalent as long as it remains difficult to survive in urban areas
where populations are large and job opportunities are minimal.
A. Methods and Solutions for Improved Multi-Agency Cooperation
While the prisons remain overpopulated and expensive to maintain, Community-Based Corrections canno longer be viewed with half-heartedness. A genuine effort in investing into its programmes and facilities
must be made by the National Government. Importantly, the church is an integral partner in the schemeof community-based treatment; their involvement ought to be more augmented to reflect its historical connection to probation. CBC must be established throughout the country, on par with the growth of the
National Courts and Magistrate Courts, and staffed sufficiently.
Past liaisons and programmes must be re-established, for instance with the Salvation Army, andregular meetings with heads of partner agencies in the police, corrections, Courts and the law offices(Public Prosecutor and Public Solicitor). Better coordination can then be meted out between their relative
functions, and more aggressive awareness strategies developed.
Information Technology is a most useful tool, and for PNG it is lagging in its development. Compiling ofdata and statistics, and CW programme studies must be improved as it is this feed to the National Government that substantiates its positive work in the country, especially since community-based corrections ismore cost effective than imprisonment.
B. Challenges Facing Multi-Agency Cooperation
The main challenges are: funding, communication and conflicting priorities. These three (3) factors
inhibit any material work that can be achieved effectively and are the bane of the concerned agencies’ cooperative efforts.
1. Funding
As with any government in the world, there are only finite funds allocated to government agencies fortheir core business and programmes. PNG is no different; although the national budget seems to increaseeach year, it is primarily because of global economic influences that, if anything, only make the cost ofliving higher.
Government agencies are made to justify their budgetary needs during budget presentations, and aremostly met with hard, immoveable attitudes from budget committee panels that assent to very little. Thus,
law and justice sector agencies are in this situation, where anything outside of their normal business activities are hardly entertained; unfortunately, considerations for community-based treatment (probation) programmes feature very little.
The result is, agencies have very little funding to pursue probation programmes or rehabilitation programmes for reoffenders.
2. Communication
Agencies themselves do not effectively maintain open communication with each other. This is an
obvious challenge as it seems as if each is isolated to its own part in the criminal justice system, notstopping to see the c of the offender, as he continues on to jail, if he is convicted.
3. Conflicting Priorities
With poor communication, an added impediment is that agencies have priorities which almost always
are not communal with their peer agencies. This situation is true when dealing with matters in Court; as
far as the Courts and police are concerned, the priority is getting the cases dealt with as soon as possible
to clear the number of pending cases — rehabilitation is for corrections to administer. Until CommunityBased Correction becomes a shared priority, there will be some semblance of disjuncture among theagencies concerned.
113

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
C. Case Examination
1. Provincial Justice Centres
There was an idea piloted by the Public Solicitors Office in 2011 by the former Public Solicitor (nowNational and Supreme Court Judge), Fraser Pitpit, called the ‘Provincial Justice Centre (PJC)’ programme.
This was a plan to have all the cooperating agencies of the law and justice sector adequately housed in one
building in each of the 22 provinces of PNG.
This would enable better, effective communication and performance toward improving the law andjustice sector in the provinces; moreover, it would lead to an improved reporting mechanism for the law
and justice sector from the national level to the provincial level, through to the district and local levels, andvice versa. Clients of respective law and justice agencies would have easy access to each of the offices, allbeing housed together within the same building.
The idea would have been an ideal situation where rehabilitation programmes could be run andmonitored by the concerned agencies, and would conceivably extinguish the three (3) challenges posed
above.
Three (3) provinces (Manus, New Ireland and East Sepik) were selected to pilot the PJC programme, as
land had already been available to construct respective PJC buildings. However, the idea was again met byfunding problems and political nuances, which hampered its progress and eventually the project wasdisavowed. This was most disappointing for all concerned as it was a visionary pathway toward providing
basic services to the country, and a vehicle for other worthy projects.

IV. CONCLUSION
There is proof that community-based corrections programmes work; two (2) of the many case examples
are given above, and CBC is a sure measure against reoffending. The legislation, structures and agencies
are in place, but more impetus from the national government is needed to realize the full potential of theCBC’s principle services in probation and parole.

114

RESPONDING TO THE COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTION SYSTEMFOR TREATMENT OF CRIMINAL OFFENDERS THROUGH
MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION
Benjamin C. Cutay, Jr.＊

I. LEGAL BASES AND OVERVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENTOF OFFENDERS AND PREVENTION OF RECIDIVISM
The Philippines engages in crime prevention and promotes the treatment and rehabilitation of criminal
offenders. It has laws that support saving and redeeming valuable human resources and programmes andservices that enhance and develop their capacities to become responsible, productive and law-abiding
members of society.
The Probation Administration was created by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 968, “The Probation
Law of 1976”, to administer the probation system. Under Executive Order No. 292, “The Administrative
Code of 1987”, which was promulgated on November 23, 1989, the Probation Administration was renamed
as the “Parole and Probation Administration” and given the added function of supervising prisoners who,
after serving part of their sentence in jails, are released on conditions of parole.
Effective August 17, 2005, by virtue of a Memorandum of Agreement with the Dangerous Drugs Board,
the Administration also performs the function of investigating and supervising first-time minor drug
offenders pursuant to Republic Act No. 9165.
The PPA in its vision statement declares that it is a model component of the Philippine Correctional
System that shall enhance the quality of life of its clients through multi-disciplinary programmes andresources, an efficient organization, and a highly professional and committed workforce in order to promotesocial justice and development. Its mission is to rehabilitate probationers, parolees and pardonees andpromote their development as persons by utilizing innovative interventions and techniques which respect
the dignity of man and recognize his divine destiny.
The 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “the State promotes a just and dynamic social order thatwill ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free from poverty through policies thatprovide adequate services, promote employment, rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life
for all.”
It is evident that the Philippines is a people-centered country, whose ultimate goal is the welfare of its
citizenry. It is a member country of the United Nations and signatory to many international treaties andcovenants that respect human rights and promote total human development.
In its continuing endeavours, it seeks to address poverty, crime, corruption, violence and terrorism andmany societal issues that obstruct development of human beings. It has introduced numerous development
programmes and basic services to address basic needs such as food, clothing, shelter, education and even
vocational skills that would generate employment to improve income of individuals and families and, contribute to the country’s gross national product (GDP), as well.
In the 1970s, President Ferdinand E. Marcos introduced the concept of “Bagong Lipunan” or the “NewSociety” where socio-economic development programmes were extended to the people to eradicate poverty
and diminish unemployment and social unrest in the country.
During the time of President Fidel V. Ramos from 1992-1998, the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) was imAssistant Ragional Director, Parole and Probation Administration, Region XI, Department of Justice, Philippines.

＊

115

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
plemented through the Comprehensive and Integrated Delivery of Social Services (CIDSS) Project, for the
purpose of addressing the minimum basic needs that consist of survival, security and enabling needs. Its
ultimate goal was to reduce poverty incidence and attain an improved quality of life (IQL) among the
project beneficiaries. It prioritized poor provinces and municipalities and targeted the poorest of the poorfamilies to address their survival, security, health and enabling needs. The Department of Social Welfare
and Development (DSWD) was the lead agency, and other departments of the government served as line
agencies supporting the implementation of the whole project. It was finally institutionalized throughRepublic Act No. 8425, dated June 3, 1998.
The Parole and Probation Administration (PPA), since the inception of its community-based correction
system in 1976, has developed multiple approaches to crime prevention and treatment of criminal offenders.
Various community-based development interventions were made with involvement of community resources.

II. THE PAROLE AND PROBATION ADMINISTRATION (PPA)’S MULTI-AGENCY
COOPERATION EXPERIENCEOver the years, the PPA has sought to give meaning to its mission statement by designing andexecuting viable and effective rehabilitation programmes responsive to the needs of its clients. It believes
that individuals, particularly criminal offenders, will fail to achieve a great amount of personal change if
the economic and social structures of the family and community are weak or unavailable. If they are unemployed and have nowhere to stay, the tendency of falling back into old habits and criminality is possible.
A supporting social and economic environment that fully embraces them is needed so that they can live
normal lives. Thus, the PPA aims at providing its clients access to employment by giving them skills andlivelihood training programmes.
Probation and parole officers and support staff are provided with training courses to develop their professional skills and inculcate positive attitudes towards probation and parole work so that they have theability to be directly involved in the treatment and rehabilitation of clients. The PPA fosters institutional
partnership with international agencies like Daytop International in the United States, the Japanese International Cooperation Agency (JICA) and the United Nations Asia and the Far East Institute (UNAFEI) to
provide training courses for its probation and parole officers on Therapeutic Community (TC) Modality andapproaches and strategies to crime prevention and treatment of criminal offenders, respectively, with the
maximum involvement and participation of communities.
The PPA forges and maintains networking and convergence with local community resources involvedin the delivery of social services. To mention a few: Local Government Units (LGUs), the Department ofSocial Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Department of Education (DepEd), the Department of Health(DOH), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), the Technical Education and
Skills Development Authority (TESDA) and some educational institutions. The PPA involves local people
as volunteer probation aides (VPAs), to serve as community partners of probation and parole officers in the
supervision and rehabilitation of its clients, and develops job referral systems among public and private employment agencies and individuals to address joblessness among clients and prevent recidivism.

III. METHODS OF MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATIONThe PPA adheres to the principle of interdependence through institutional convergence to expedite
delivery of services needed by its clients. It believes that for the basic human organization to survive it has
to connect with other social systems in the community and work with them collectively and mutually help
each other. For several years, the world has gone into globalization and undertaken measures to promote
unity and cooperation among nations to respond to global issues and concerns such as poverty, terrorism,
crimes, gender inequality, and climate change, among others. The PPA works in the local and national
community by involving agencies and community resources to treat offenders by improving their lives.
Below is a profile of multi-agency cooperation as an approach to community-based treatment ofoffenders used by the PPA:

116

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERSAGENCIES/INSTITUTIONSPROGRAMMES AND SERVICES

Department of Social Welfare and Development

Foodstuff, skills training, livelihood and cash assistance, familyplanning, population control methods,

Department of Education

Alternative learning system, scholarship grants

Department of Health

Medical, dental and clinical services, training on aftercare services

Department of Environment and Natural
Resources

Seedlings, trainings and seminars on conservation of natural
resources

Department of Trade and Industry

Skills training, entrepreneurial seminars

Department of Labor and Employment

Training kits, job placement

Department of Agriculture

Trainings and seminars on farming & construction of training facilities, planting materials

Department of Interior and Local Gov- Seminars and trainings on fire prevention, and other crime,
ernment
man-made disaster initiatives
Local Government Units (barangay,
municipal, city and provincial levels)

Lot for the convergence/skills training center, funding assistance,
foodstuff, support/office personnel, seedlings, fuel, honoraria forprobation officers, office supplies, office equipment, seminars on
Gender and Development (GAD) matters,

Technical Education and Skills Develop- Skills and livelihood trainings & scholarship grants
ment Authority
Dangerous Drugs Board

Drug-test kits, seminars on aftercare services, etc.

Religious Groups

Spiritual formation, training venue and seminars, counselling services
and faith-based sessions.

IV. PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED AND MEASURES ADOPTED IN MULTI-AGENCY
COOPERATIONThe PPA’s experience in multi-agency cooperation provides learning opportunities for probation workers
and other community resources. It strengthens the concept of interdependence among community
resources/agency for collective efforts in addressing the needs of offenders. In the multi-agency cooperation approach, each community resource or agency is part of the whole system and has a great and significant role to make or unmake the development goals and processes.
A piecemeal approach by service agencies blocks holistic and integrated development. Some service
agencies or community resources have limited knowledge of cooperative development approaches intreating criminal offenders. Thus, what happened was that they worked based on their available resources
and focused on their assigned clients. They failed to consider other development systems in the community
where they could access and share resources for maximum development of clients. Lack of initiative ofsome community resources to promote crime prevention and treatment of offenders is another one. As aconsequence, building initiatives for collective action towards reforming criminal offenders are underestimated and, at the very least, the resources are underused for the purposes they were allocated.
Through its probation workers the PPA established an effective collaboration with government service
agencies/community resources through a development interface or convergence of various services. It
ensures that clients are able to get the services and programmes they need from other agencies. Probation
officers participate in the budget planning session to receive funding from their respective local government units and involve themselves in most important and major initiated activities of the government
service agencies/community resources to maintain effective networking and alliances.

117

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99

V. CHALLENGES FACING MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION
There is a need to shift from an individualistic approach to multi-agency cooperation through institutional convergence among community resources and service agencies. The principle of interdependence
through collective action should be upheld and given paramount consideration. Correction or probation
workers who belong to the profession of transforming and developing the capacities of offenders should be
reoriented on development concepts and approaches, e.g., multi-agency cooperation, to enable them tobecome more effective implementers of the community-based corrections system.
The PPA, as a lead agency in the prevention of crime and treatment of offenders, should strongly
develop and exercise teamwork not only among its workers in the probation system but, with and amongcommunity resources. The multi-agency approach is viable only if all agencies act as team players andbelieve that community resources are potent agents to reform and develop human beings, particularly
criminal offenders.
The initiative of building and maintaining a consistent and well-organized institutional partnershipamong agencies and entities in the government and individuals in the community requires great determination and serious commitment. A probation officer or any correction worker should have enoughknowledge about the mandate of each agency to unite people and agencies, and should know how to use its
resources for the benefit of offenders. Social interactions through planning, focus-group discussions, andproper implementation of the project should be effectively carried out. Periodic monitoring and evaluationof programmes and projects should be conducted, to ensure that what has been planned out is well
executed.
Initially, more capacity-building activities should be conducted to strengthen the capacities of correction/probation workers and service agencies or community resources and promote a well-organized partnership and alliances among those directly involved in the delivery of basic services to achieve an effective
community-based corrections system.

VI. REFERENCES
1. Parole and Probation Administration. (1999). PPA Service Manual, Manila.
2. Parole and Probation Administration. (2009). Info-kit, Manila: PPA.
3. Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended.
4. Republic Act No.8425 an Act institutionalizing the social reform and poverty alleviation program,creating for the purpose the national anti-poverty commission, defining its powers and functions, andfor other purposes
5. The Administrative Code of 1987
6. The 1987 Philippine Constitution
7. www.probation.gov.ph118

REPORTS OF THE SEMINARGROUP 1
EFFECTIVE MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION IN TERMS OF
IMPLEMENTATION OF NON-CUSTODIAL MEASURES AT EACH STAGE
OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE PROCESS
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members
Visiting Expert
AdviserMr. Allah Dad ROSHAN
Ms. Hosne Ara AKTER
Mr. Takeshi JIMI
Mr. MIN Kyaw Thu
Mr. Yuichiro WAKIMOTO
Mr. Thachvud PUTTISOMBATMr. Joseph Kala MUASYA
Ms. Beverly Diane WILLIAMS
Prof. Ayuko WATANABE(Pakistan)(Bangladesh)(Japan)(Myanmar)(Japan)(Thailand)(Kenya)(USA)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 1 started its discussion on 22nd January 2016. The Group unanimously elected Mr. Allah Dad
ROSHAN as its Chairperson, Ms. Hosne Ara AKTER and Mr. Takeshi JIMI as its Co-Chairpersons, Mr.
MIN Kyaw Thu as its Rapporteur and Mr. Yuichiro WAKIMOTO as its Co-Rapporteur. The Group had
ten sessions, discussing the issue of multi-agency cooperation under the topic, “Effective Multi-Agency Cooperation in Terms of Implementation of Non-Custodial Measures at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice
Process.”

II. SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION
A. Justifications
Why is multi-agency cooperation necessary in criminal justice? Why should the Group discuss it?
Firstly, we need it to reduce recidivism. Secondly, it is necessary to facilitate offenders’ smooth transition,
as well as reintegration, into the community. Thirdly, multi-agency cooperation promotes alternatives tocustodial measures, which are considered cost-effective and humane. And lastly, the community is safely
protected through multi-agency cooperation. In light of the multi-faceted needs and challenges of offenders,the importance of engaging relevant agencies in the community cannot be over-exaggerated; no one
agency can single-handedly deal with crime prevention and treatment of offenders. For these reasons, theGroup discussed multi-agency cooperation.
B. Method of Discussions
Multi-agency cooperation can take place in every stage of the criminal justice process. Therefore, theGroup discussed the issue taking three stages into consideration, namely, pre-trial, trial and post-trial
stages. And, for the purpose of in-depth analysis of multi-agency cooperation, the Group divided the topic
into sub-topics in the following manner; 1) types of offenders who benefit from multi-agency cooperation, 2)
ideal structure of multi-agency cooperation, 3) information analysis of offenders and information sharing, 4)
problems of legislation, and 5) evaluation of treatment provided through multi-agency cooperation.
C. Contents of Discussions
1. Types of Offenders Who Benefit from Multi-Agency Cooperation
To begin with, the Group discussed what should be the targeted population for multi-agency cooperation. This led to the following questions: what types of offenders are most appropriate for multi-agency cooperation; what types of offences are most appropriate; and how can we identify them?
As to targeted population, some members argued that we should exclude such offences as corruption,
treason, terrorism and other forms of offences that are deemed unsuitable due to their anti-social nature;others contended that even those offences can be included in the multi-agency cooperation scheme if theoffenders’ characteristics are appropriate for it. In this regard, the Group agreed that the focus should be
119

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
on the offender rather than the offence.
In the following discussion, the Group unanimously pointed out that underprivileged and/or vulnerable
offenders such as handicapped offenders, juvenile offenders, elderly offenders, and offenders suffering fromserious chronic illness should be considered for multi-agency cooperation schemes given their needs andchallenges; their needs and challenges are better addressed when relevant community agencies’ interventions are available. In addition, the members stated that lower-risk and first-time offenders are more appropriate than high-risk and habitual offenders; the former is fit for diversion whereas the latter needs formal
criminal justice proceedings.
To identify such offenders/offences, the Group stressed the importance of assessment, which should be
conducted in consideration of the offenders’ personal characteristics (i.e., age, behaviour, health conditions,employment, educational background, economic status, prior criminal record, etc.) as well as social environment (i.e., housing/accommodation, family background, neighbourhood environment, etc.).
It should be noted that “housing (accommodation)” may lead to different decision-making according to
the stages of criminal justice. Offenders who have no place to go after their release from prison are candidates for multi-agency cooperation; halfway houses or other forms of housing arrangements should be considered to facilitate their smooth re-entry into the community. Homeless offenders in the pre-trial stage, on
the other hand, are more likely to be detained due to their high risk of absconding.
Drug addicts are another example where some members stated different opinions. Some insisted that
drug addicts in the pre-trial stage should be taken out of the formal criminal justice process to be placed
under medical treatment. Meanwhile, other members maintained that drug addicts in the pre-trial stage
should be formally prosecuted because of their high recidivism rate. The difference of opinions resulted
from views on “drug addiction” in each jurisdiction; drug addicts are considered either “patients in need of
medical interventions” or “criminals who repeatedly commit drug offences” depending upon the jurisdictions and criminal justice practices.
2. Ideal Structure of Multi-Agency Cooperation
What is an ideal structure of multi-agency cooperation? To effectively explore the issue, the Groupexamined 1) related agencies and 2) possible dispositions regarding diversion, and 3) problems and challenges of the existing structures.
In each stage of the criminal justice process, particular agencies are responsible for diversion of
offenders in cooperation with community resources. For example, in the pre-trial stage, the investigative
agencies (the police and prosecutors’ offices) mainly deal with diversion of offenders; probation offices, thejudiciary, defence lawyers, and other community resources are involved depending on the nature of thecases.
At trial stage, it is the courtroom workgroup, i.e., the judiciary, public prosecutors and defence counsel,
that are responsible for diversion, with probation offices and detention centres being partners. At the posttrial stage, probation offices, parole boards and prisons are involved in releasing offenders into thecommunity.
The Group agreed that, to implement release, diversion or reintegration of offenders to the community,
criminal justice agencies need cooperation from non-criminal-justice agencies such as hospitals, welfare facilities, NGOs and public offices, regardless of the stages.
Some members expressed concerns, stating that private entities and the community are reluctant to be
involved in offender treatment because of potential risk. Others, however, felt this hurdle can be remedied
through active use of incentives such as subsidies, tax reduction, rewards, prizes, and honours, quoting an
example regarding successful utilization of Japan’s volunteer probation officer system.
Possible dispositions (i.e., non-custodial measures) in each stage are as follows: in the pre-trial stage,discharge, bond/cash bail and suspension of prosecution; in the trial stage, acquittal, fine, suspended
sentence and suspended execution of sentence; and in the post-trial stage, parole, remission and pardon.
120

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINARThe Group, however, found that non-custodial measures available are different according to the jurisdictions due to differences in legal framework. One typical example is Japanese public prosecutors’ discretionary suspension of prosecution; they, at their discretion, can suspend prosecution even when enoughevidence to establish guilt is available. Another example is restorative justice and ADR (Alternative
Dispute Resolution) utilized in some members’ states; in these measures diversion is informally implemented heavily depending upon community resources.
The Group agreed that, for the ideal implementation of multi-agency cooperation, stakeholders andrelevant agencies need inter-linkages, consultation, and information-sharing; MoUs should be signed where
necessary.
The Group further discussed that multi-agency cooperation does not work when there is a lack of trust,
legislation, coordination, institutional confidentiality or when bureaucratic barriers and negative responses
from the community are in place.
The Group concluded that an ideal structure can be put into practice when dispositions available ineach stage match the community resources available with coordination, inter-linkage and information
sharing among such agencies.
3. Information Analysis of Offenders and Information Sharing
Subsequent to the previous discussion, the Group moved on to discuss “information analysis of offenders
and information sharing”. First of all, agencies need offenders’ information to effectively carry out interventions. The Group, however, could not draw a clear line on information sharing because of different judicial,
cultural and historical backgrounds. Yet the Group agreed that necessary information is the same as what
has been discussed regarding assessment, i.e., prior criminal records; medical records; economic, employment, housing status; educational background; family and neighbourhood environment; situations of victims;
and so on.
Through discussions, the Group found that there are challenges regarding information sharing; theagencies cannot disclose information to protect offenders’ privacy as well as victims’. In addition, information sharing is difficult if agencies’ confidentiality policy is present. This issue is further complicated if thenature of information is sensitive (e.g., criminal records) especially when the private sector is included in
the scheme. Moreover, not all offenders are willing to disclose their personal information.
In this regard, some members contended that the agencies should obtain offenders’ consent in advance
before sharing their information with relevant organizations.
4. Problems of Legislation
The Group found that no jurisdictions have legislation that specifically and exclusively deals with multiagency cooperation although all the jurisdictions have such fundamental acts as the Penal Code, theCriminal Procedure Code, the Prison Act and the Probation Act. In other words, legislation regarding
linkage as well as coordination among stakeholders and relevant agencies does not exist.
For this reason, some members stated that, to fill the gap among existing acts, MoUs (Bilateral, Multilateral) and/or agreements among agencies should be signed. Others contended that a law exclusively
intended for multi-agency cooperation should be enacted. Some others, however, showed concerns; they
pointed out that despite such measures, political interference, corruption, insufficient budgetary allocation
and bureaucratic barriers may disrupt smooth coordination/inter-linkage among agencies.
5. Evaluation of Treatment Provided through Multi-Agency Cooperation
The Group agreed that evaluation is necessary to understand how effective/ineffective multi-agency cooperation is. Therefore, the Group discussed 1) indicators of success, 2) evaluating bodies, and 3) timing ofevaluation.
The Group identified the indicators of success as follows: lowered recidivism rate, reduction in prison
overcrowding through the frequent use of non-custodial measures and multi-agency cooperation, expanded
sentencing options (non-custodial measures) resulting from multi-agency cooperation, and positive feedback
121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
from the community.
The evaluating bodies should be concerned agencies such as the judiciary, probation offices, public prosecution offices, prisons, and the police. Some members stated that an independent body’s monitoring isuseful for the purpose of unbiased research and analysis. The Group pointed out that the result of the evaluation should be open to the public whenever possible to invite feedback by means of mass media, publicforum, seminar, social media and so on. Evaluations should be conducted on an annual basis in consideration of the calendar/fiscal year.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe Group discussed multi-agency cooperation to reduce recidivism, to facilitate offenders’ smooth reintegration into the community, to promote non-custodial measures, and to establish a safer environment.
The discussions centred on types of offenders/offences, structure of cooperation, information sharing, legislation and evaluation.
With those in mind, the discussions covered three stages of criminal justice proceedings, i.e., pre-trial,
trial and post-trial stages. As it turned out, however, the Group could not find any significant differencesamong stages although the post-trial stage is slightly different from the other two stages because prisons,probation services and NGOs are more involved than in the earlier stages.
Based upon the preceding discussions, the Group came up with recommendations as follows:
For all the parties concerned▪

Collective effort on cooperation among different agencies should be encouraged.

▪

 ystem of information sharing should be established; the issue of privacy and confidentiality,S
however, should be addressed especially when agencies of the private sector are included.

▪

Legislation, agreements and MoUs should be considered to facilitate coordination among agencies.

Mainly for CJ agencies▪

 ore options of non-custodial measures should be introduced through such technology-based inM
terventions as electronic monitoring, drug testing devices and others.

▪

 national database of offenders should be established for the CJ agencies’ easy access to informaA
tion.

▪

 aintaining good practices and benchmarking based upon the results of evaluations is encourM
aged.

▪

Training and research are necessary.

Mainly for the private sector▪

Employment and housing for ex-offenders should be more available and accessible.

▪

I ncentives (e.g., subsidies, tax reduction, rewards, prizes and honours) should be provided tomotivate agencies of the private sector; sufficient budget allocation is necessary as well.

For the general public▪

Public awareness should be raised.

The Group, in conclusion, unanimously agreed that the goal of criminal justice is achieved if the gap
122162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
among agencies is bridged, seamless interventions are made, and non-custodial measures are more effectively utilized through multi-agency cooperation in the treatment of offenders. Although the Group was
unable to cover every aspect of multi-agency cooperation due to the participants’ different experiences andbackgrounds, the Group did discover possible systems and ways forward for the betterment of society.

123

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

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

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

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

Antisocial personality;➢

Antisocial attitudes, beliefs and values;

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

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

124

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR➢

Antisocial associates;➢

Dysfunctional families;➢

Substance abuse;➢

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

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

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

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

125

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

127

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

Paper 52. London: Home Office.

128

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

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

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

130

GROUP 3
INFORMATION SHARING IN MULTI-AGENCY COOPERATION
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members
Advisors

Mr. Benjamin C. Cutay Jr.
Mr. Thiago Ferreira OLIVERA
Mr. Tashi PHUNTSHOMr. Jeffrey Mala MESA
Mr. George Odhiambo DIANG’A
Ms. SHIMADA Tamaki,
Mr. NISHIMOTO Masao
Professor MINOURA Satoshi(Philippines)(Brazil)(Bhutan)(Papua New Guinea)(Kenya)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 3 was composed of 7 members from 6 different countries. By consensus Mr. Benjamin C. Cutay
Jr was elected as Chairperson, Mr. Thiago Ferreira Olivera as Co-Chairperson, Mr. Tashi Phuntsho as
Rapporteur, and Mr. Jeffrey Mala Mesa as Co-Rapporteur.
The group’s topic for discussion was “Information Sharing in Multi-Agency Cooperation”. Discussionscommenced on 22 January 2016, after a steering address by the Advisor, Professor Satoshi Minoura. The
Chairperson then assumed the lead and set a tentative discussion schedule for the related sub-topics asfollows:
1. 22 January 2016: Types of offenders who benefit from Multi-agency Cooperation.
2. 25 January 2016: Information Analysis of offender and information sharing.
3. 28 January 2016: Information Analysis of offender and information sharing.
4. 1 February 2016: Problems of Legislation.
5. 2 February 2016: Problems of Legislation.

II. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION
A. Types of Offenders and Offences Who Benefit from Multi-Agency Cooperation
1. Types of Offenders
D iscussion: Various types of offenders receive treatment from Criminal Justice Agencies. Define whattypes of offenders are fit for Multi-Agency Cooperation
The discussion surrounded what types of offenders should be subjected to treatment within multi-agency cooperation. The majority of the representatives (Bhutan, Brazil, Kenya and The Philippines) agreed
that all types of offenders, irrespective of their age, gender, race and criminal history, should be included in
multi-agency cooperation, as the treatment facilitated a greater assurance of reintegration into thecommunity.
There was a noted concern (Japan and PNG1) for all offenders with special considerations such as
juvenile and elderly offenders, offenders who are physically impaired and those that abused stimulant substances. These were viewed as special situations that would benefit from multi-agency cooperation, particularly as the recidivism rate among such offenders is very high in their respective countries.

1 Papua New Guinea

131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
2. Types of Offences
Discussion: Analyse the various types of offences committed that are fit for Multi-Agency Treatment
There was agreement that multi-agency cooperation should render treatment for all types of offences(Brazil, Kenya and The Philippines), for misdemeanours, petty misdemeanours and violations (Bhutan). Recidivism was prevalent in offences such as substance abuse, larceny/robbery, and if not addressed properly
the offender may continue to affect themselves and the people around them (family, neighbours, community
at large), even to the extent of leading possibly to his/her death. For this reason, particular offences withhigh recidivism rates should be primarily treated (Japan and PNG).
3. Types of Support
Discussion: What types of support are available to offenders through multi-agency treatment?
Multi-agency cooperation support services are made available through various agencies’ collaboration,
and when an offender commences or receives treatment, the success of keeping them from reoffending
may depend largely on the type and form of support they had during the process of reintegration.
Crime is committed for a variety of reasons but largely due to lack of housing, employment, skills,
mental impairment or substance addiction. Once this is recognized, the support programmes are made toaddress these situations with the aim to prevent recurrence of offending, and the multi-agency cooperation
ensures this support as per their needs. Support may be in the form of:
1. Job Assistance2. Housing Assistance
3. Medical treatment
4. Psychiatric treatment
5. Educational programmes
6. Rehabilitation clinics for substance abuse
7. 		 Social benefits
8. Any other assistance for offender treatment.
The information sharing in this regard is most useful as it enables the respective agencies to establish
information-based programmes which will or may effectively support offenders in their required situations.

Best Practice : All offenders, irrespective of the offence committed, should be treated through multiagency cooperation in information sharing. The recidivist should be primarily addressed, and the support
assistance for such offenders is primarily essential in starting a successful treatment.
B. Information Analysis of Offenders and Information Sharing
1. Information Which Should Be Shared among the Agencies.
D iscussion: What kinds of information are necessary for the effective implementation of multi-agency
cooperation?
Multi-agency cooperation is best explained as cooperation between agencies working in partnership for
a common concern (reduction of recidivism) in pursuit of a common goal, using their collaborative expertiseand resources.
To that end, the representative discussion was unanimous that a mutual working relationship andeffective information sharing should be observed by the multi-agency collaborative partnership which
would ensure the successful implementation of the treatment programmes.
The respective criminal justice systems may have bounds (legal or regulatory) within which respective
agencies can acquire or provide information concerning an offender. Therefore, information may be given132162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
when needed, and then only in measured proportion and relevance as per an agency’s role and responsibility. An example is given by Japan; information on a juvenile collated by a Family Court Probation Officer
may be acquired by the organizations for the treatment of juvenile offenders. (When a juvenile reoffends,
the previous social investigation report will be used in the trial and the respective organizations involvedin the treatment of juveniles.) However, information for an adult will be restricted to a degree after thetrial.
It was interesting to note how personal information is approached and is treated in various countries.
Most can distinguish personal information to be sensitive/personal as opposed to general/personal; theformer being subject of stringent protection, and the latter more easily accessed. Although the Japanese
Personal Information Protection Act distinguishes sensitive information such as personal criminal records
from general information, even general information is strictly controlled by law as well as in practice.
Importantly, however, it was confirmed that sharing of private personal information in some countries
in the nature of (but not restricted to) personal bank account details (financial privacy), communication
privacy (telephone calls, text messages, emails, photographs, written correspondence/articles) and sensitive
personal health related matters (HIV AIDS, Tuberculosis) is strictly regulated and requires either ajudicial warrant or the express written consent of the offender for it to be accessed and shared. Juvenile
information and its access are also stringently regulated in keeping with the child’s best interest.
Recognizing all the above, it is agreed then that the following categories of information may be shared
among agencies for offender treatment:
1. Offender’s biographical data.
2. Nature of the offence.
3. Offender’s history of previous offences.
4. General health and mental conditions.
5. Behaviour and conduct while in a correctional facility.
6. Behaviour and conduct while in residential community.
7. 		 Education and skills training/level.
8. Employment history.
9. Offender’s compliance with previous court orders or sentences.
10. Circumstances and environment of the victim, and any compensation or civil commitment condition
to which the offender is subjected to pay by the Court.
This information is found to be necessary for the offender’s treatment/rehabilitation process at its respective stages involving the respective agencies. To share or acquire this information, the government
agencies must observe the protocol and courtesy of a formal request in writing to each other for it. Information can also be acquired through a shared database like the NCIS 2 (The Philippines), the CCIS 3(Bhutan) and the NCCPIP4 (PNG). In every instance that the file transfers may occur (privacy restrictions
notwithstanding), thereafter where necessary to ensure the operation of the process.
2. Sphere of Information
Discussion: Each Criminal Justice Agency holds different amounts of information on one (1) offender.
2 National Crime Information System.

3 Crime and Criminal Information System.

4 National Court Criminal Process Improvement Programme.

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
Consider not only how his/her information should be handled in the criminal justice process, but also
how much the private sector needs such information to provide effective cooperation.
Within the criminal justice process, the personal information of an offender must be shared freely
between involved government agencies, and all propriety must be observed by each in doing so, given the
responsibilities and discretion they are bounded by under the law.
Situations often arise where information must be shared with private agencies, who are also involved in
the treatment of offenders. How much information they are entitled to will depend on the nature of their
particular treatment service/facility, and it must be confined to what their requirements are, based onwhat is necessary.
Information sharing with private agencies should be done with great sensitivity toward the offender’spersonal privacy, considering the discussion above. While government agencies are bound by a legal duty
to apply an offender’s information in the proper circumstances for their treatment, private agencies may
operate outside of legal periphery which may lead to loss of confidentiality and trust where the danger of
information misuse may occur.
It follows then that, the type of personal information that needs to be shared with a private agency
must be what is necessary for that particular treatment/rehabilitation programme and without prejudice
to the offender where the misuse of an offender’s personal information outside of this purpose (treatment)
may result in legal action for privacy violation.
Private agencies are also subject to compliance with the formal written request protocol, as government agencies are.
3. Problems in the Handling of Offenders’ Personal Information
Discussion: Much information that is handled in the criminal justice process is offenders’ personal information. How should criminal justice agencies disclose the information collected by one agency toother agencies, including other government bodies and the private sector?
There is a concern that the personal information stored in databases of criminal justice agencies is susceptible to being hacked/illegally accessed. Such large volumes are competently stored and, considering
the frequency of its use by respective agencies at similarly frequent intervals, the problems cited are:
1. Privacy principles.
2. Unlawful practices or misuse of data, insecure practices.
3. Risk during data retention associated with data theft and network security threats.
4. Loss of drives or using portable drives while storing and carrying information.
Notwithstanding the above, it is recognized that all stakeholders and agencies have the right to accessinformation to effectively implement programmes based on their respective roles, but to work in collaboration with each other, the following recommendations are proposed:
1. Appoint designated data handlers with SOP5 to prevent unauthorized access and disclosure.
2. Timely exchange of information.
3. Information should be what is necessary, proportionate, relevant, accurate, and secure.
4. Share with consent wherever necessary.
5 Standard Operating Procedures.

134

162ND INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR
5. Frequent scrutiny regarding use of information provided should be carried out.
6. Integrated IT systems like the NCIS in the Philippines or the collaborative database of criminal
justice information of Japan is recommended for information sharing.
The victims’ perspective also needs to be considered here. This party’s information was valuable overall
in terms of restorative justice and mediation, all commensurate with the Probation and Volunteer Probation
Officers’ treatment of the offender. Consideration should be given to the burden placed on victims when
they are forced to relive the trauma by relating it repeatedly to different agencies during the criminal
justice process; the physical and psychological stress combined would be too taxing and insensitive.
To spare the victim, the initial interviewing agency should share information provided by the victim as
required to other government agencies in the process; victim information provided to private agencies
must be necessary to the particular treatment programme/facility. Further, the interviewing agency
should follow up on the victim over time as their circumstances might have changed enough to capably
handle treatment processes like speaking to the offender about the offence and expressing their feelings.
Best Practice: Information should be shared among all agencies concerned with the treatment ofoffenders, in proportion to their roles. Information given to private agencies is qualified for all purposes,
and the personal/sensitive information is subject to consent or a warrant. Formal written requests are tobe observed, and all data should be competently secured in databases. Victim information is valuable, to beobtained once and shared to agencies through the process. The victim can be a significant participant in
the treatment process of the offender.
C. Problems of Legislation
Discussion: What is the extent to which offenders’ personal information must be protected by laws
when criminal justice agencies and the private sector engage in multi-agency cooperation?
Legislation that pertains to agencies’ functions and roles in multi-agency cooperation and privacy laws
is fundamental in most countries (Japan, Kenya, the Philippines, Brazil and PNG); however, not all agencies
in Bhutan have a definitive legal basis, especially probation-oriented services. The group agreed that there
ought to be distinct legislation that links all agencies into a multi-corporate function of information sharing,working in tandem instead of at random.
Further, better coordination among the agencies would make a better working atmosphere with aculture of trust, cooperation, mutual understanding and commitment towards the common desired goal,
the treatment of offenders to reduce or prevent recidivism. This could be advanced by:a. Enacting laws or MOUs6 in countries that define agencies’ roles and their legal basis.
b. Ensuring that agencies understand their own functions and purposes, and operate more efficiently,
especially data collation.
c. Ensuring that agencies have a better understanding of each other’s functions and roles, and how
they are linked through multi-agency cooperation.
d. Regular meetings of the multi-agency cooperative for better cognizance.
e. Establishing better professional rapport between agencies.
f. 		 Better sharing of information between the agencies
g. Need to tackle institutional problems that prevent effective coordination.
All the participants agreed, when privacy is a concern, some information that can be disclosed is
6 Memorandum of Understanding.

135

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 99
handled as stated as above. Information that cannot be shared freely among the agencies include,
1. Bank account information
2. Communication privacy information
3. Fiscal information
4. Serious health conditions
Consideration turned to when an offender is seeking employment or housing in the private sector, howmuch of his/her information can be protected from a potential employer/tenement? It is a difficult scenario.
To begin with, the stigma of being avoided because of criminal history is a reality in every country.
Disclosing criminal history, especially if it was violent or aggravated in nature, may jeopardize chances for
employment or other opportunities. On the other hand, an accurate report of his/her prior history (e.g.,theft of a bike, not murder) may alleviate any anxiety a potential employer may have had, and lead to theoffender’s employment. This is consistent with the positive reaction that honest disclosure will assist in furthering any opportunity. In the end, it was observed that while the offender had the right not to disclose
his/her criminal history, the employer also had the right to protect his/her business and reputation —thus, the necessity to know as much as possible about an individual, offender or not. It is the contest ofbalancing the offenders’ interests against the employers’ interests.
A strategy that may strike this balance is that of completing a Statement of Purpose (the Philippines)
where an offender submits his/her history and other information, which the employer uses in good faith
only. Interestingly, when an employer has employed an offender, he now becomes held to protecting theoffender’s history absolutely; failure to do so will result in legal action for privacy violation if that information was misused to the offender’s detriment. A related experience (Japan) is that where an offender is
employed with a company, only the CEO is given the offender’s information and no one else in the company
knows, so that the information provided is protected and secure.
Best Practice: Healthy working rapport must be established among partner agencies to promote
efficient and effective treatment of the offender. Specific legislation to this end would be ideal to link themall. Private companies must exercise absolute discretion about the offender who is seeking employment,
housing, etc.

III. CONCLUSION
The group after deliberate discussion came up with the Best Practice approaches for every topic
discussed, and their collective summation is the best way to approach information sharing in multi-agency
cooperation.
In summary, all types of offenders and offences will benefit from multi-agency cooperation, treatment
and support. In order to achieve this, the sharing of both the offender’s and victim’s information among theagencies involved in the criminal justice process is important, simultaneously acknowledging that information privacy should always be observed wherever necessary.
To give emphasis to multi-agency cooperation, it would be practical to enact legislation that links eachagency, thereby establishing a legal structure and basis to operate within. To complement the work ofmulti-agency cooperation, the community as a whole, both public and private, must treat offender information with sensitivity and due discretion when engaging with them. In the end, this goes to ensure that
offenders are reintegrated as members of the same community.

136

APPENDIXCOMMEMORATIVE PHOTOGRAPH⃝ 162nd International Senior Seminar

UNAFEIThe 162nd International Senior Seminar

Left to Right:
4th Row
Ms. Iwakata (Staff), Ms. Odagiri (Chef), Ms. Yamada (Staff), Ms. Hando (Staff), Ms. Sato (Staff),
Mr. Miyagawa (Staff), Mr. Toyoda (Staff), Mr. Endo (Staff), Mr. Ozawa (Staff)
3rd Row
Ms. Oda (Staff), Ms. Yamamoto (JICA), Mr. Jimi (Japan), Mr. Nishimoto (Japan), Mr. Wakimoto(Japan), Mr. Oliveira Junior (Brazil), Mr. Nakamura (Japan), Mr. Mizukami (Japan), Mr. Sitban (Papua
New Guinea), Mr. Nyembo (Democratic Rep. of Congo), Mr. Cutay, Jr. (the Philippines)
2nd Row
Mr. Mesa (Papua New Guinea), Ms. Ojunga (Kenya), Mr. Oliveira (Brazil), Mr. Phuntsho (Bhutan),
Mr. Min (Myanmar), Ms. Madam (Thailand), Mr. Roshan (Pakistan), Mr. Dianga (Kenya), Mr. Puttisombat (Thailand), Ms. Shimada (Japan), Mr. Muyasa (Kenya), Ms. Akter (Bangladesh)
1st Row
Mr. Ando (Staff), Prof. Yukawa, Prof. Hirose, Prof. Yoshimura, Prof. Minoura, Prof. Canton(United Kingdom), Director Yamashita, Ms. Williams (United States), Prof. Akashi, Prof. Moriya,
Prof. Nagai, Prof. Watanabe, Mr. Ito, Mr. Schmid (LA)