REPORTS OF THE COURSEGROUP 1MEASURES TO STRENGTHEN ‘COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION FACTORS’
OF OFFENDERS WITH DIFFICULTY IN FINDING JOBS AND SECURING
ACCOMMODATION AND/OR ESTABLISHING SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Advisers

Mr. Joseph Tondop
Mr. Marcelo Araújo
Mr. Esteban Vega Calvo
Ms. Nao Nogami
Mr. Saad Hammad Al-Qaraghuli
Mr. Man-lung Chung
Mr. Yukihiro Kato
Mr. Kazuyuki Otake
Mr. Takeshi Tahira
Mr. Gehendra Raj Pant
Prof. Yuichi Tada
Prof. Kumiko Izumi
Prof. Junichi Watanabe
Prof. Toru Kawaharada(Papua New Guinea)(Brazil)(Costa Rica)(Japan)(Iraq)(Hong Kong)(Japan)(Japan)(Japan)(Nepal)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
On 24 May 2010 Group 1 commenced its workshop. The group appointed by consensus Mr. Tondop
as its chairperson, Mr. Araújo its co-chairperson, Mr. Vega as its rapporteur and Ms. Nogami as its
co-rapporteur. The group was assigned to discuss “Offenders with difficulty in finding jobs and securingaccommodation and/or establishing social relationships” and agreed to conduct its discussion in accordancewith the following agenda: 1) Basic/common obstacles to the reintegration of offenders into society; 2) New
approaches for effective resettlement of offenders in the different stages of criminal proceedings.

II. SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION
A. Common Obstacles to Reintegration of Offenders
At the beginning of the sessions, it was agreed by the members of the group that the main objective ofthe discussion period should be the elaboration of proposals for the effective resettlement of offenders andhow to provide them basic assistance for securing accommodation and obtaining a paid job. The group firstmade a request for each member to explain the actual situations in their countries in regard to the obstacles
that offenders face in effectively reintegrating into society; this first attempt to understand the differences
and similarities between legal systems and political realities was useful in the successive discussion
sessions as each member had an overview of the rest of the group and could relate in a more direct way totheir contributions. Nepal, Brazil, Japan, Iraq, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong and Costa Rica all presented
opening statements about how resettlement and reintegration of offenders is managed in their respective
countries. At the end of this presentation by each member, the group agreed on the following obstacles tosuccessful reintegration as common among participants:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Stigmatization
Overcrowded Prisons
Lack of Skills and Motivation
Economic Conditions.

The analysis is as follows:
1. Stigmatization
The group agreed as a whole that the problem of stigmatization of released offenders poses a serious
threat to them and their chances to effectively resettle into their communities and find not only a steadypaid occupation but also secure accommodation. It was discussed that, in some countries, most companies
require prospective personnel to present an updated criminal record sheet, resulting in released offenders
becoming ineligible for job openings.

72

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

2. Overcrowded Prisons
The group commented first of all on how prison overcrowding is indeed a common problem in therespective penitentiary facilities; in some cases the excess populations reach alarming levels while in others
they barely exceed the maximum capacity. Nonetheless it remains a real problem that undoubtedly affects
the in-prison treatment of offenders as well as stressing the prison staff when resources are insufficient.
3. Lack of Skills and Motivation
Regarding this particular issue, the group focused on how the lack of certain skills in offenders implies
a threat to their effective resettlement and discussed the urgency of strengthening the skill level inmany areas that are essential upon their release. For example, the group discussed how relationships andinterpersonal skills can be a major factor in the successful reintegration of the inmate back into society;anger management, communication and self-esteem revalidation are just some factors that if reinforced,
can help to minimize the risk of reoffending. Furthermore, on this topic, the discussion then turned to thelecture delivered by visiting expert from the National Offender Management Service, Ministry of Justice of
the United Kingdom, Mr. Steve Pitts. In regard to this specific area, it was agreed by the members of thegroup that, as the visiting expert explained, skill development is a factor that sometimes is not properly
addressed even though experiences from various countries steadily demonstrate the importance it has forthe effective reintegration of a released inmate back into the community. In this particular area, the group
discussed how inmates require skills for effective resettlement back into society and how this facilitates
resettlement; references to Mr. Steve Pitts’ lectures were submitted for examination and the overseas
members of the group received an explanation of how Japanese penitentiary authorities consider thedevelopment of skills as one of the bases for treatment prior to release. The sharing of experiences among
countries that effectively train their inmate population to develop skills was considered valuable to othermembers.
In this particular area, the group discussed how the inmate requires motivation for an effective resettlementback into society and how this motivation covers very diverse aspects of the individuals; references to Mr.
Steve Pitts’ lectures were again submitted for examination and the overseas members of the group received an
explanation of how Japanese penitentiary authorities also consider the motivation of their criminal population
as another of the bases for treatment prior to release, and the proven relevance of the efforts to positively
motivate the inmates as a first step to their successful reintegration into the community.
4. Economic Conditions
The economic conditions of a significant part of the world’s population often cause certain individuals
to fall into offending. The members explained that indeed poverty is a common factor among the criminal
populations of each country.

B. Analysis of the Obstacles
The following paragraphs summarize the group’s agreement on each of the topics, at the end of the
discussion.
1. Stigmatization
The group concluded that the best way to help offenders to successfully erase the stigma of theirprevious criminal actions is to involve the community in the rehabilitation programmes available in eachcountry so people with a criminal past can be perceived as individuals who made a mistake and who are
ready to take all available measures to prevent the same mistake from happening again.
2. Lack of Skills and Motivation
The group agreed that in fact the positive motivation of the offender should not be viewed as apersonal matter for each inmate but rather as a strategic approach for the authorities to commence a realtransformation in the behaviour of the criminal population. In this area, the general agreement was thatcountries without this specific programme should recommend its immediate adoption, and in the case ofcountries that currently apply it, to strengthen it.
As a conclusion on this particular matter, the group agreed that most of the countries represented
here have no active programmes for the specific purpose of developing skills of incarcerated inmates; the73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

experience of those countries that do have them in operation should be transmitted accordingly.
3. Prison Overcrowding
No country represented in the group has succeeded in a steady decrease of its criminal population; thetendency appears to be an increase of admitted inmates over the years. No specific measure was discussed
to make a formal proposal but instead it was agreed that alternate measures to imprisonment can produce
good results in reducing criminal populations.
4. Economic Conditions
The group considered that global economic conditions cannot be effectively addressed from within the
topic of resettlement of offenders back into society and that the only viable measure to promote effective
reintegration is to assign resources for the securing of jobs and accommodation for the offender once
released.

C. Measures for Resettlement during Different Stages of Criminal Proceedings
The group discussed a proposal presented in one of the sessions regarding the assessment of offenders
at a very early stage and how certain measures can have great impact on positive reintegration of offenders
back into community; this approach focused on all stages of the criminal procedure beginning with theinvestigation of the crime up to the correctional stage once an inmate has been sentenced to incarceration.
Basically, the discussion was focused on specific measures and how they relate to the other members’ own
legal systems; while some differences appeared almost immediately, they were not of such magnitude as tomake agreement impossible. The main structure of the proposal referred to three specific stages of criminal
procedures:
1.
2.
3.

Pre-adjudication Stage
Adjudication Stage
Post-Adjudication Stage.

The approach to the analysis of this model was how the implementation of certain legal tools can enhance
the chances of success in finding a job and secure accommodation. Before the breakdown of each of thesestages began, a discussion was proposed in which each member offered their point of view of the reality ofeach stage in their own country. The main objective of the discussion was to find common denominators;
the group then decided to organize the discussion of each stage as a first step towards achieving final
conclusions and to find common ground between all members, despite their different legal systems.
1. Pre-Adjudication Stage
With regard to this topic, the group discussed the role of both police agencies and public prosecutors
in their respective countries and how they relate to the topic of the discussions; the intention of thisintroductory exercise was to determine if in their activity some measures can be adopted to minimize
recidivism and promote effective reintegration of first time offenders.
First of all, and in the case of police officers, there were more similarities than differences between
the members that belong to those agencies; some of them even have the authority to employ alternative
solution of conflicts thus supporting resettlement and a lower rate of imprisonment.

(i) Papua New Guinea
The representative of this country explained that the police have the authority to bring offenders before a
Village Court for examination by local judges; if the issue is resolved between all parties, the case is not sent
to the prosecutors office, thus minimizing the imprisonment of offenders and at the same time favouringresettlement.
(ii) Brazil
The participant of this country explained that police officers have the power in cases of minor theft togive the offender an official warning instead of arresting him or her due to a disposition that enables police
to drop the case if no aggravating circumstances are present; this favours the offender’s return to thecommunity instead of being sent to prison.

74

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE(iii) Iraq
The member from this country explained that police officers must arrest the suspects of a crime andpresent them before a judge regardless of the type of offence, resulting in a legal system that currently allots
no specific role to the police to solve minor crimes before they are presented either to a prosecutor or ajudge.
(iv) Prosecutorial Discretion
Regarding the public prosecutors’ authority to take measures for better resettlement of the offender
instead of formal indictment, two opinions were discussed.
(a) Suspension of Prosecution
In the case of Japan, as explained by one of the members, public prosecutors have the power toauthorize the suspension of prosecution as a primary measure to effectively resettle an offender whenassessment of his or her personal conditions show possibilities for resettlement and reintegration; these
conditions include the working status of the offender as well as family support and a fixed address. Whenthe detailed analysis of these variables determines that the offender presents no risk to the community
and that the suspension of prosecution can prevent the individual from losing his or her job, family or
housing, and the gravity of offence is not prohibitive, this measure is authorized and has an immediate
impact on effective resettlement of offenders back into the community.
(b) Mandatory Prosecution
In Costa Rica, it is mandatory for public prosecutors to indict offenders regardless of their personal
characteristics and of their chances of favourable reintegration, such as a fixed job and accommodation.
The only exception to this principle is when the victim exercises his or her right to require an alternative
measure to formal prosecution and agrees to suspend the proceedings against the offender in exchange
for his or her compliance with a series of conditions that the victim can demand. This exclusion to formal
prosecution, however, is restricted to specific characteristics of the crime reported.
2. Adjudication StageIn the case of the adjudication stage, the group first commented on the lecture of Dr. Chris Trotter,
Visiting Expert, from Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
During his presentation, he analysed the sentencing options for adults in his country, which include
Imprisonment, Combined Custody and Treatment Orders, Drug Treatment Orders, Home Detention, Intensive
Correction Orders, Suspended Sentence, Youth Justice Centre or Youth Residential Centre Orders, Community
Based Orders, Dismissal, Discharge and Adjournment and Fines. The group began the discussion of the
adjudication stage issue with the lecture from Dr. Trotter as background and analysed how in this particular
stage some measures can be proposed to increase the chances of released offenders finding steady jobs andsecuring accommodation. It was noted that certain countries also have additional measures, such as:•••

Suspension of execution of sentences instead of incarceration when certain conditions are met andrequirements are filled: with the exception of Iraq, all other countries have current regulations on
this matter;
Pre-sentence reports: these were suggested as one measure that might be considered as they offer afollow-up process on the inmate and provide useful information that can help decide which treatment
is more suitable;
Summary trial: this promotes speedy resolution of cases and as such, resettlement can begin before
the conditions of the offender deteriorate in aspects such as family support, job conditions andhousing.

After discussion, an agreement was reached that to prevent recidivism and successfully reintegrate
offenders back into society, judges must exercise the tools provided by each legal system, such as those
explained by Dr. Trotter and referred to by the members; this will greatly increase the possibilities ofoffenders finding steady jobs within their own communities and securing fixed accommodation. Other
measures such as bail and electronic monitoring were briefly discussed but no specific agreement wasreached on these topics because of the obstacles they might face within the different legal systems.

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

3. Post-Adjudication StageIn this particular area of discussion, the group decided to analyse more thoroughly the measures thatcan be adopted for the adequate correction of inmates during their imprisonment and the rehabilitation thatsupersedes it once the inmates are released. The lectures by visiting experts provided a new perspective
on how certain countries have been able to establish strong rehabilitation programmes for offenders whilein penitentiary facilities as a first step towards definitive reinsertion back into society. It was agreed that
offenders require adequate treatment before they are released, and after, in order to minimize recidivism.
The case in point that opened the discussion was the case of Singapore and the Singapore Prison Service(SPS) presented by Mr. Stanley Tang, Director, Operations, Singapore Prison Service. Mr. Tang’s opinion
is that the time spent in prison must not be wasted, but be a chance for prisoners to be involved inprogrammes targeted to dissuade reoffending. Mr. Tang’s presentation first addressed sentencing options
aimed at a more direct reintegration back into society; furthermore he explained the purposes of imprisonmentin Singapore as Punishment, Reformation, Incapacitation and Deterrence.
Among the members of the group and in regard to the post-adjudication stage, a distinction was madebetween the correctional and rehabilitation stages.

(i) Correctional StageThe Japanese participants stressed the need for secure custody of inmates as well as the need forinvestigation and classification of inmates as a necessary step prior to the beginning of treatment; furthermore,
the strengthening of the skills in each individual remain a fundamental step towards reducing recidivism.
Also, a view of the obstacles that inmates face during imprisonment and the best way to overcome them was
explained during the sessions and thoroughly detailed; these include low motivation, few skills (academic,
vocational knowledge, interpersonal relationships), physical and mental conditions, difficulty in finding steadyjobs, and difficulty in securing stable accommodation. In his opinion, the proven measures to overcome the
obstacles in his opinion were:•••

Prison Work: The objective of prison work for all inmates is to promote hardworking habits among
the criminal population and at the same time, achieve motivation in the inmates for labour. In theexperiences discussed in the group, it was explained that prison work helps smooth reintegration of
offenders back into society once working habits have been established as part of daily activity.
Guidance for Reform: The purpose of this particular measure is to make inmates aware of their
responsibility for the crimes for which they are imprisoned. It is also established that the insightprocess of inmates begins in this stage as a first measure to prevent recidivism. Pioneer measures suchas the “Puppy Program” in Japan explore the possibilities of new ways to motivate prisoners.
Academic Guidance: The goal is to give inmates certification of basic studies as a useful tool to
obtain a steady job upon release.

Professor Watanabe’s lecture on “Institutional Corrections in Japan” reflected and supported thisopinion: the general trend in modern treatment of offenders states that a more in-depth evaluation of theinmate upon their arrival at the criminal facilities is an accelerator of the successful rehabilitation processof released inmates. The discussion then became an exchange of experiences in this matter and as a firststep to establish if the countries represented in the group provide some attention for incarcerated inmatesas a measure to reduce recidivism. With the exception of Iraq, whose political and military situation makes
implementation of any reintegration programmes impossible, all members concluded that depending oneach country’s particular circumstances, some minimum degree of treatment for the prevention of offending
is given inside their respective prison facilities. In Japan and Hong Kong, a fully functional and successfulprogramme for the treatment and reintegration of offenders is already in operation, as evidenced in theindividual presentation made by the observer from Hong Kong.

(ii) Rehabilitation Stage
The discussion among the group members then required that the Japanese participants who were directly
involved in the area of correction and rehabilitation share their experiences with the group and explained thechallenges that offenders face once released. Factors such as no accommodation, no fixed job, no family
support, lack of communication for social relationships and a tendency to reoffend were addressed andexplained. The measures to overcome these obstacles include:76

145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

•

•

•

•

Support in finding and securing jobs: One of the most important factors in the rehabilitation stage,
as agreed during the discussions, was the urgent need to provide the offenders with opportunities toobtain and keep a steady job. By accomplishing this measure, the group commented, the chances for
successful resettlement will be greatly improved.
Accommodation: Stable accommodation is necessary for the effective resettlement of released
offenders once they are back into society and into civilian life with conditions shared by mostmembers of the community. Even though not all countries represented in the group currently
contemplate specific measures in order to achieve this particular goal, the lectures by visiting
experts as well as the experiences of members provided a general view on how steady housing
contributes to the effective resettlement of offenders. Although the manner in which each country
accomplishes this measure varies, it remains a useful tool for securing reintegration.
Social welfare for ex-offenders: This measure was the most controversial for it implies the useof funds to support ex-offenders once they are released back into civilian life; furthermore, theeconomic situation of many of the countries represented in the group prevent most of the nations
from adopting this measure. In that sense no concrete conclusions or agreements were obtained inthis matter.
Probation: The role of probation officers should be further examined in those countries that currently
do not have this measure as the success of this programme in the follow-up process of resttlingoffenders back into society is proven.

At the end of the discussions of this matter, the group agreed that indeed, crime in itself is a social
problem that requires that all authorities involved in addressing it choose the best approach for each case.

D. Community
At this stage, the group addressed the role of the community in the process that offenders face upon
release. Additionally, it was noted that a positive attitude from community leaders can help offenders
find steady accommodation and secure a fixed job. Furthermore, one of the common obstacles that wereaddressed during the first part of the sessions is closely related to this issue: stigmatization. Experiencesfrom visiting experts as well as lectures from volunteer employers and co-operators showed the importanceof strong community support.
1. Change of Mindset
This particular approach presents the most favourable options in community involvement: with specificmeasures directed to change the way that offenders are perceived and how successfully they can bereintegrated back into society, a true change can be accomplished. The measures that were deemed more
useful to obtain this goal were:(i) Open Facilities for Better understanding of Treatments
Disclose information regarding aspects of treatment in correctional institutions to change the perceptionof offenders by the public and convey successful reintegration experiences.
(ii) Obtain Support of the General Public
It was explained by visiting experts that public opinion can raise awareness of specific topics,
rehabilitation of offenders being one of them. As such, the main approach that members considered canpresent better chances in obtaining support from the public was the mobilization of social resources tofavour the establishment of partnerships with the private and voluntary sectors, such as private employers
and related agencies.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conclusions
After the discussions ended, some basic conclusions were agreed among the members of the group;
these can be considered common ground between the countries and as the basis of the results achieved inthis process.
Some legal systems of the countries represented inside the group pursue the punishment of offenders as

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.82

a main objective whereas other countries focus on rehabilitation as the objective of the criminal system.
Methods for the treatment of offenders during their incarceration process and afterwards do exist andextensive experience has been achieved in this matter. Differences in legal systems do not represent an
insurmountable obstacle for countries without these specific programmes to consider their adoption andadaptation to their respective situations and characteristics.
Some countries lack reinsertion/rehabilitation-specific programmes designed to provide offenders withbasic needs upon their release from imprisonment and aimed at an effective decrease in recidivism, such as
are provided in Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom, whose experience in this field can betraced back many years.

B. Recommendations
At the end of the discussions the Group reached a consensus to make the following recommendations
to assist reintegration of offenders in society in terms of securing jobs, accommodations and social
relationships.
After discussing the community reintegration factors, the group moved to make recommendations on
how to overcome the obstacles for offenders with difficulty in finding jobs and securing accommodation and/or establishing social relationships.
The recommendations are made in the same process as the group discussion:
1. Pre-Adjudication Stage• To enforce the role of prosecution;• To impose non-custodial measures.
2. Adjudication Stage• To recommend judges to consider reintegration of offenders by utilizing pre-sentence reports orother information.
3. Post-Adjudication Stage• To arrange for offenders to have assessment of the obstacles which contribute to their reoffending, if
any;• To offer treatment/training courses to improve prisoners’ skills (basic education, motivation,
vocational training, relationship skills);• To improve the skills of involved staff members to discharge their duties for an accurate execution of
mission;• To have an evidenced-based evaluation of the treatment/training courses and of the social work
techniques.
4. Community• To promote public relations activities to educate the general public.
Apart from the recommendations in accordance with the four stages in the process of the discussions, therest of the recommendations are somehow common to all stages or could not easily be classified:
•
•
•
•
•

78

To search for the possibility of reintegration;
To change the mindsets of staff members, prisoners and community;
To promote the relationship/co-operation between all involved facilities;
To support finding jobs and secure accommodation in all stages;
To add the perspective of ‘re-education’ to ‘retribution’.