GROUP 3

TREATMENT PROGRAMMES FOR PERPETRATORS
Chairperson
Co-Chairpersons

Mr. Jae Ho Lee
Mr. Hiroki Sugimoto
Mr. Lameck M.H. Bankobeza
Mr. Chi Keung Kan
Mr. Koji Miura
Mr. Hilbert Macagaling Flor
Mr. Eiichi Suzuki
Mr. Thuya Thein Tun Aung
Mr. Peleniseaila Ifo(Korea)(Japan)(Tanzania)(Hong Kong)(Japan)(Philippines)(Japan)(Myanmar)(Samoa)Visiting Expert

Dr. Harry Stefanakis(Canada)Advisers

Prof. Tamaki Yokochi
Prof. Hiroyuki Shinkai
Prof. Masato Uchida(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteurs
Members

I. INTRODUCTION
Group three was assigned to discuss “Treatment Programmes for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence(“DV”) and Child Abuse (“CA”)”. A tentative agenda for discussion was worked out as follows:(1) The treatment programmes for perpetrators (“the Programme”) in respective countries;(2) The purposes of the Programme;(3) The target participants of the Programme;(4) The Programme setting;(5) The methodology of the Programme;(6) The time frame of the Programme;(7) The funding of the Programme;(8) The staffing arrangements of the Programme;(9) The schedule of the Programme; and(10) The title of the Programme.

II. THE TREATMENT PROGRAMMES FOR PERPETRATORS IN RESPECTIVE COUNTRIESThe Group first reviewed the Programmes of the participants’ countries. While some participants statedthat their countries did not have any specific Programmes for DV and CA, other participants said they hadsome for certain categories of perpetrators. Detailed situations in respective countries are as in Appendix A.
The Group proceeded to discuss the definitions of perpetrators and offenders which would be usedthroughout this study. After discussion, the Group agreed with the following definitions:(1) “Perpetrator” means any person who commits the act of DV/CA or both, whether convicted or not.
(2) “Offender” means any person who commits the offences of DV/CA, or both.

III. THE PURPOSES OF THE PROGRAMMEIn the course of discussing the purposes of the Programme, participants of the Group raised different
issues for consideration including reducing the perpetrators’ violent behaviour, protecting the victims’ safety,
promoting the awareness of the perpetrators, preventing further violence of perpetrators and reintegrating
the perpetrators into their family. After discussion, the Group agreed that the main purposes of theProgramme could be summarized as preventing further violence, rehabilitating perpetrators and protecting
victims’ safety.

177

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

However, the Group was divided on whether to include reintegration of perpetrators into their family as
one of the Programme purposes or not. As pointed out by the Japanese participants, most victims of DV
and CA in Japan might not welcome the return of perpetrators to their families. Hence, the Group would
only recommend including “reintegration” as one of the Programme purposes when both the perpetratorsand the victims wished for a family reunion. The detailed opinions of each participant are contained inAppendix B.
In order to obtain opinions on the “reintegration” issue from the participants of other Groups, this issue
was tabled in the first plenary session for further discussion. The visiting experts said that we had toconsider many factors when we provided perpetrators with any treatment Programme such as the wishes of
perpetrators and their family members or partners, the safety of the perpetrators’ new family, thepossibilities of perpetrators’ rehabilitation, and the accommodation needs of the perpetrators after release.
While it was good to include reintegration as one of the elements of the Programme, we should not force
reintegration in principle. Another advisor drew our attention to a sexual abuse case in which the victim wasremoved away from her family after the perpetrator had returned home. The victim was deprived of her
family’s protection because she had to live alone from the family and we had to consider providing her withnecessary protection.
The participant from Egypt would like us to consider the possibilities that an offender might take revenge
against a victim who reported the case to the Police and led to his incarceration. The participant from
Malaysia suggested if we could consider making reference to the arrangement of sexual offenders being
adopted in the USA which made known the offenders’ identity to their neighbours.

IV. TARGET PARTICIPANTS
The Group went on to discuss the target participants of this Programme. In general, the Group agreed
that perpetrators included two main categories, i.e. perpetrators who had been arrested by the Police, andperpetrators who had not been arrested but they requested to take part in the treatment Programme. The
former category included perpetrators who had been charged by Police and convicted by a court,
probationers and Parolees.
Some Group participants suggested focusing our studies on the treatment Programmes taking place
inside prisons due to their personal interest and work experience. A Group participant from Japan suggested
our target participants should also cover probationers and parolees in order to study the issue of victim’s
safety after the offenders returned to the community. Another Group participant from Japan suggested weshould cover more target participants in order to have a fuller picture of the problem. Besides, it would not
be too time-consuming to do so because the components of each programme were similar to each other.
With advice from Dr. Stefanakis, the Group identified four types of target participants including inmates,
parolees/probationers, persons given a suspended sentence/conditional sentence, and persons taking part in
the programme voluntarily. After deliberation, the Group agreed to focus our studies on the former two
types of perpetrators which were of more interest to the Group participants. The Group then went on to
discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment Programmes for them.

A. Programme for Inmates
The programme for inmates had many advantages. Firstly, inmates were more risky than non-inmatessince inmates had committed more serious crimes than non-inmates. It was necessary to provide them witha treatment Programme in order to change their behaviour and reduce recidivism. Secondly, it was more
economical to conduct an intensive treatment programme on inmates who were kept in custody. Thirdly, it
was convenient to conduct the treatment Programme for both service providers and inmates, and as a result,the dropout rate might be reduced. However, this Programme also had many disadvantages. Some inmatesmight join the Programme only because they wished to secure a better opportunity of parole. The
effectiveness of the Programme was in doubt because its content would be very general and did not suit the
specific needs of each individual inmate. Moreover, as a prison setting was very different from their homeenvironment, the effectiveness of the Programme might be affected after the release of inmates from prison.
Mr. Miura stated that it was always difficult for an inmate to reform himself. Some Group participants also
said that the length of imprisonment terms for some inmates might be shorter than the duration of the178

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

treatment Programme. As a result, inmates were unable to complete the Programme before the expirationof their sentences. Besides, some inmates would prefer not to take part in the Programme as no sanction
would be taken against them. A participant raised a concern over the cost-effectiveness to run the
Programme. Sometimes, the number of target participants incarcerated in a particular prison was very small
and we had to group them together to participate in the treatment programme in one single prison.

B. Programme for Probationers/Parolees
Regarding the advantages of the Programme for probationers/parolees, the Group agreed that it waseasier for relevant authorities to set conditions requiring probationers/parolees to attend the programme.
The motivation for them to take part in the Programme would be higher because it was laid down as one of
the conditions in the Probation/Parole Orders and breach of such condition would be met by appropriate
sanction. Moreover, the Programme content was more geared to the home environment. Research results inmany countries showed that the Programme conducted in the community was more effective in reducing reoffending behaviour than in penal institutions. Besides, probationers/parolees could voluntarily continue totake part in the Programme even if they could not complete the Programme after the expiration of
Probation/Parole terms. The community could also offer assistance to the Programme. Mr. Miura suggested
that probationers would be more likely to change their behaviour than inmates because probationers had alower criminal tendency. However, Dr. Stefanakis pointed out that probationers were found to have a“medium to high” level of risk to commit DV according to the studies conducted in Canada.
On the other hand, the programme for probationers/parolees had its disadvantages. First of all, thedropout rate for this group of perpetrators would be higher as they were not incarcerated and might notattend the Programme. The probationers/parolees could access the victims while inmates could not.
A Group participant from Myanmar commented that there was a problem with the aftercare system in his
country. While most perpetrators would need post-release supervision, some of them were subject to suchrequirements unnecessarily.
Dr. Stefanakis suggested that in order to establish any treatment programmes, it was necessary toconsider the available options based on research evidence.

V. CHARACTERISTICS OF PERPETRATORS AND PROGRAMME SETTING
A. Characteristics of Perpetrators
Mr. Miura suggested that we should amend our agenda by studying the characteristics of DV perpetratorssuch as their behaviour, attitude and thinking before proceeding to discuss the Programme setting. He
explained that we should identify the common characteristics of DV perpetrators and target the traits. We
should then select an appropriate approach such as education or counselling in correcting perpetrators’
behaviour, attitude and thinking. Mr. Suzuki and Mr. Flor agreed with his suggestion. However, Mr.
Bankobeza pointed out that firstly, there was no treatment Programme for perpetrators in his home country
and secondly, the proposal of Mr. Miura was very difficult to understand by some Group participants. He
opined that we should study the relationship between the Programme and the perpetrators’ characteristics
such as age, sentence, number of previous offences, etc. Mr. Suzuki considered it was necessary for us tounderstand the cause of the perpetrators’ behaviour before mapping out their correction plans and Dr.
Stefanakis agreed with him.
Mr. Suzuki suggested that we deal with DV and CA perpetrators altogether, as most of theircharacteristics were common. For example, they usually committed the offence against their family
members and would try to rationalize their behaviour or put the blame on the victims. Mr. Miura suggested
that male adult DV perpetrators, the majority group of perpetrators, as our target of intervention. Dr.
Stefanakis supported this idea because the characteristics of DV and CA perpetrators were similar, and we
could avoid confusion by only focusing on male adult DV perpetrators.
The Group then proceeded to discuss the typical attitude, cognition/thinking, competence and behaviourof perpetrators based on a literature review and their personal experience. The observations of the Groupare summarised in Appendix C.

179

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

Mr. Ifo commented that in Samoa, the perpetrators would usually show respect to the Police when being
investigated. Perpetrators would cooperate with the Police and give all the information required. Sometimes,
perpetrators would argue that the victims had first stirred up the confrontation. Mr. Miura and Sugimoto
shared their experience in handling perpetrators and both of them had similar observations on perpetrators.
The perpetrators would be nice persons in the community but turned out to be tyrannical in the family. The
Group interpreted such behaviour as a typical example of perpetrators who were the dominator in the family,
tended to shift responsibilities to others, and had the ability to control when to use violence.

B. Feedback from the Second Plenary Meeting
The Group consulted the opinions of other participants on selecting the target participants for the
Programme in the 2nd Plenary Meeting on 15th June 2005 and Mr. Ifo gave the presentation on behalf of theGroup.
During the meeting, Professor Ikeda opined that selection of target participants depended very much on
which agencies were responsible to provide the services. Of course, it would be desirable to provide theservice to all perpetrators particularly those who joined the Programme voluntarily. Dr. Stefanakis suggested
that even though the criminal justice system had a mandate to treat court ordered offenders, one to two
persons could be allowed to receive the treatment voluntarily if space permitted. Professor Senta suggested
classifying the perpetrators into three main groups including inmates, persons undergoing mandatory
treatment programmes in the community, and persons undergoing a voluntary treatment programme. The
group of persons undergoing a mandatory treatment programme could include probationers, parolees, andpersons given suspended/conditional sentence. While the Group discussed and agreed on the suggested
classifications made by Professor Senta, it decided to focus solely on probationers/parolees among the biggroup of persons undergoing mandatory treatment programmes for the continuity of the discussion.

C. Programme Setting
After an explanation by Mr. Miura, the Group agreed to adopt the “Common Hybrid Model” when
considering treatment Programmes for inmates and probationers/parolees based on the successful results in
Canada. A brief description of the model is shown in Appendix D.
In order to speed up the discussion process, the Group also agreed to split itself into two sub-groups
chaired by the Chairperson and the Co-chairperson and to work out the details of the treatment Programme
for inmates and probationers/parolees respectively in their leisure time. Each Group would submit theirobservations in the formal meeting for the consultation of the entire Group.

VI. DETAILED ARRANGEMENTS OF THE TREATMENT PROGRAMMEFOR INMATES AND PROBATIONERS/PAROLEESThe Group conducted an in-depth discussion on the arrangements of the treatment Programme forinmates and probationers/parolees. It examined relevant issues including the service providers, time frame,funding, venue, staffing arrangements, staff training curriculum and treatment curriculum. The observationsof the Group on the programmes for inmates and probationers/parolees are summarised in Appendix E and F
respectively.

VII. CONCLUSION
Group three agreed that the perpetrators of DV/CA need to undertake a special perpetrators programme,then we decided to utilize the “Common Hybrid Model” as a model programme/model guideline. In order toimplement this programme/guideline in each field, we have to consider the different settings in respective
countries. For implementation, the following issues should be considered:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

180

States are obliged to promote treatment programmes for DV/CA perpetrators.
Treatment programmes must address the risks, needs and characteristics of target perpetrators.
States must consider the status of perpetrators such as inmates, probationers/parolees.
States can utilize programmes which are proven to be effective based on research evidence. States
may change such programmes depending on the particular conditions of respective countries.
State government needs to co-operate with other stakeholders, such as, civil organizations, etc.

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

6.
7.
8.

Staff competency is important for successful treatment programmes; therefore, appropriate training
is essential.
Proper evaluation of the treatment programmes is important.
Safety of victims and their family members should be considered in developing treatment
programmes.

181

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

APPENDIX A
Treatment Programmes for Perpetrators in Different Countries
Countries

Treatment Programmes for Perpetrators

Hong Kong• There are some programmes for offenders in prisons and in society.
• Also, some programmes are available for victims as provided by the government NGOs.

Japan• There is one pilot programme for DV offenders within prisons.
• There are specified manuals on DV and CA for the Probation Office to follow when handling
parolees who are under supervision, with the assistance of Volunteer Probation Officers.
• Some programmes are provided by NGOs.

Korea• There are programmes organized by social welfare services and within prison.
• Similar services may be introduced to prisons by NGOs.

Myanmar• There is no specific programme.
• However, perpetrators including the families and police should be educated on DV and CA witha view to modifying their behaviour.

Philippines

Some treatment programmes for DV and CA perpetrators are treated under the Penal Code before
enactment of a new law.

Samoa

• The Police and Women’s Commission arrange a periodic publicity campaign to promote publicawareness of DV and CA.
• Also, inmates will also be given lectures to prevent them from committing DV and CA.

Tanzania• DV and CA are seen as serious problems.
• They are treated as crimes under the existing criminal law in order to protect the victims.
• However, there is no specific treatment programme for perpetrators of DV and CA

APPENDIX B
Opinions as to whether “Reintegration of Perpetrators into their Family” should
be one of the Programme Purposes
Agreement

Disagreement

A perpetrator deserves an opportunity to change his
behaviour and support his family.

Some victims of DV and CA and their family members
might not welcome the return of perpetrators. This
amounts to undesirable and unwanted reintegration.

In some countries of different cultural background, afamily may have to depend on the perpetrators to
support them.

Unfounded expectation of the perpetrator:
A perpetrator may think that if he participates in the
programme, he could go back to his family automatically.

To evaluate the performance of the perpetrator and theeffectiveness of the treatment programme

Victim’s safety cannot be secured.

Burden on the government or non-governmentalorganizations to take care of the perpetrators’ family
members particularly when the family is large.

The purpose of this programme should be only
“rehabilitation of offenders” and “prevention of violence”
and should not be “re-integration” because we should
respect victims’ will firstly.

182

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

APPENDIX C
Observations on the Attitude, Cognition/Thinking, Competence and Behaviour of Perpetrators
Attitude• Attitude is similar to belief, it talks about the way that one thinks and feels about something.
• Typical examples of perpetrators’ attitudes are gender dominance, power dominance and believingthat violence can solve problems.
• Life examples include “a wife must obey her husband”, “my wife must take care of me”, “if mypartner makes me angry, I can hit her and teach her what is correct”, “men are superior towomen”.

Cognition/
thinking• It refers to the mental process of understanding that affects how one sees and understands anevent. If one person has an improper cognition, he often misinterprets the situation.
• Typical examples of perpetrators’ cognition/thinking are cognitive distortion, minimization/denial/justification/lack of awareness of violence.
• A life example is that when a man watches his wife talking with her colleague, he may think that
she is having an affair with that guy.

Competence• Refers to whether the perpetrators have the skills or not.
• Typical examples of perpetrators include lack of empathy for others/understanding of others
behaviour, and lack of skills in problem solving/communication/conflict-resolution/assertiveness/anger management.

Behaviour• Refers to acts of people.
• Typical examples of perpetrators’ behaviour include physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect,
psychological abuse (e.g. emotional abuse, use of abusive language, low respect for family),shifting the blame to the victims, abuse of alcohol or drugs, inconsiderate, superficial obedience toauthority and selective use of violence.

183

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

APPENDIX DBRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMON HYBRID MODEL
In 1990, the B.C. Association of Counsellors of Abusive Men (ACAM) (recently re-named the Ending
Relationship Abuse Society) introduced the term “The Common Hybrid Model” to describe multi-model
programmes that emphasize safety, personal responsibility, self-awareness, compassion, skill development
and the promotion of attitudes of equality and respect that support the maintenance of non-violent
relationships. All programmes tend to have the following: a cognitive-behavioural foundation; are profeminist based (view violence as tactics of power and control and promote equality); hold offenders
accountable for their behaviour; confront rationalizations and excuses; challenge beliefs, attitudes andexpectations that support violence and inequality; help offenders identify high risk situations; teach skills
which include emotions management, conflict resolution, problem solving, assertiveness and respectfulcommunication. Some programmes also incorporate family systems strategies, trauma work, couple work, afocus on attachment theories and psychodynamic approaches to meet some of the individual needs of themen in the programmes, but all within the framework of promoting personal responsibility and motivation to
behave non-abusively toward others. Modelling of respectful relationships in interactions with theparticipants and between co-therapists is a foundation of the ACAM model. The emotional and physicalsafety of women, children and men is the primary goal of programme delivery and is reflected not only in thetreatment programme itself but also in pro-active participation in a coordinated community response.
The Correctional Services of Canada programmes for moderate and high intensity family violence
offenders are accredited based on the following eight criteria that have shown to be effective:• An explicit empirically based model of change• Targeting of criminogenic needs• Use of proven effective methods of facilitating• A skills development orientation• Attention to responsivity issues (e.g. culture)• Continuity of care or relapse prevention• Sufficient intensity or dosage• Ongoing monitoring of the integrity of programme delivery and programme evaluation.

Framework for Change
Dr. Stefanakis identified the following transitional processes in men who desist from violence inrelationships: Acknowledging the Abuse, Creating Commitment, Stopping the Violence, and Sustaining
Change. The five stages of change are referred to as the Precontemplation (lack of awareness or
acknowledgement of the problem, feel coerced into changing, no intention to change), Contemplation (someawareness/acknowledgement of the problem but no commitment to change, not accepting responsibility),
Preparation (accepting responsibility, intention to change), Action (accepting full responsibility, taking
consistent steps to change) and Maintenance (relapse prevention) stages.
Programme Content
Programmes for male domestic violence offenders include the following areas:• Identifying abusive behaviours• Identifying the elements of respectful relationships• Identifying individual factors that get in the way of having stable relationships and high risk
situations• Confronting minimization, denial and blame• Changing beliefs that lead to violence• Teaching skills for managing difficult emotions• Conflict resolution skills and assertiveness skills• Understanding the impact of abuse on self, partner and children• Empathy and compassion building• Communication skills; problem solving skills• Self-care• Managing jealousy• Family of origin work
• Parenting skills• Financial management184130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE•

Healthy intimacy and sexual interactions

Victim Safety
This work with men has as its primary goal the safety of women and children in relationships. This
doesn’t suggest that the man’s needs are second. In fact, it is easily argued that the programmes are also
about keeping the men safe. It takes time for change to occur, however, and programmes need to provide
external structures for safety while the men are building internal structures. These need to include:• Contact with women partners before and during the programme.
• Referral to resources such as counselling, shelters and legal aid.
• Notification if the man stops attending the programme or if there is any indication she may be at risk.
• A clear message that simply because a man is attending treatment does not ensure her safety.
(programmes must not be used as part of her safety plan.)• Safety takes priority over confidentiality.
• Programme facilitators do not advocate for custody, removal of no-contact orders or reconciliation.
• While the men are often very likeable in the group programmes it is important to remember the
potential for violence that exists in the primary relationship.
• The development of clear standards of practice regarding safety.
Community Coordination
One of the strengths of the response to domestic violence was the strong focus on community
coordination. Many communities had committees comprised of representatives from victim services,
women’s shelters, police, crown counsel, probation, hospitals, mental health services, child welfare services,clergy and other family services. A key component of these committees was to recognize their shared visionof stopping violence and to work in their own agencies and together to develop policies which would be
more likely to lead to reduction of violence against women in relationships. The following arerecommendations that will help make coordination effective:• Get the right people on board. Include people with power to make change in their organizations.
• Make a commitment to collaboration and hold regular meetings.
• Work together on mission, vision and values.
• Have the courage to speak up about personal experiences and problems in the system. Address
territoriality, confidentiality and inequality in status and power of those at the table.
• Honour each other’s work.
• Coordinate activities within and between organizations and initiate multi-disciplinary and interagency education and training.
• Establish protocols for interdisciplinary collaboration and service delivery.
• Collaborate on projects.
• Build trust be undertaking concrete, achievable tasks.
• Work together to educate and engage the public.
Extracted from the paper on “The Implementation of Programmes for Offenders of Intimate Partner
Violence in British Columbia” presented by Dr. Harry Stefanakis at UNAFEI in June 2005.

185

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

APPENDIX E
Treatment Programme for Inmates
Service
ProvidersService providers include the government (e.g. Prisons, Social Welfare Department), NGOs (withexpertise in handling inmates, family affairs and treatment programmes), and religious groups.
Good collaboration will be maintained among all service providers. Training for relevant personnel
should be conducted by experts.

Time Frame

Based on the Canadian experience, the treatment programme should last from six months to one
year. According to the Risk Principle, higher risk cases benefit most from higher levels of service,whereas lower risk cases should have a low level of service.
However, if the imprisonment term is shorter than the duration of the treatment programme, theaftercare office should be empowered by the law to arrange for ex-convicts to undergo theremaining treatment programme after release. Alternatively, we can arrange ex-convicts to takepart in the Programme voluntarily in NGOs, or a modified Programme should be worked out for the
short-termers.

Funding

Funding can come from national and local governments and NGOs.

Venue

Prison should be the venue considering the security requirements.

Staffing
Arrangement

Prison officers, psychologist, psychiatrist, and relevant professionals in the government and NGOs
could be employed to deliver the service. According to the Canadian experience, the typicaltherapeutic team should be mixed gender. It should include at least two counsellors with interns.
All staff engaged should possess professional qualifications to ensure standards of ethics andpractice are maintained in providing the treatment programme. Staff should also have knowledge ofthe dynamics of abuse, skills at therapeutic engagement and the attitudes that are respectful to men
and women

Staff Training
Curriculum

All staff assigned to conduct the treatment Programme must have the minimum academic
qualifications and attend induction training on the programmes provided in the organizations.
Any staff that do not have the professional qualifications should work under the guidance of qualified
staff. They should be provided with on-the-job training.
All staff should attend regular refresher and development courses, e.g. seminars, workshops,
conferences, international training courses, etc.

Treatment
Curriculum

According to the Canadian experience, the treatment should start with an assessment stage firstwhich will identify risk, suitability, and other treatment needs. Preferably, the inmates’ partner
should be contacted at the assessment stage to obtain more information.
“The stages of change” include pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance.
A detailed description of each stage can be found in this report. If there is not adequate time tocomplete the whole programme in prison, we may conduct only pre-contemplation/contemplation/
preparation in the prison, and collaborate with the aftercare office to follow up the remaining parts ofthe programme.
The content of the treatment programme should include identifying abusive behaviours/theelements of respectful relationships/individual factors that get in the way of having stable
relationships/high risk situations, confronting minimization, denial and blame, challenging beliefs
that lead to violence, teaching skills for managing difficult emotions/gender issues/conflict
resolution / communication / problem-solving / assertiveness / parenting / empathy & compassionbuilding, understanding the impact of abuse on self, partner and children/jealousy/healthy intimacy
and there should be relapse prevention plans.

OthersIn order to make the treatment programme successful, the service providers should bear in mind thatsafety and support of the victims and their family members and perpetrators are of vital importance.
Besides, good liaison and collaboration must be maintained among all parties involved.
Programme evaluation should be carried out regularly.

186

130th INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSEREPORTS OF THE COURSE

APPENDIX F
Treatment Programme for Probationers/Parolees
Service
ProvidersService providers include government agencies (e.g. Social Welfare Department, Probation Office,Prisons), NGOs (with expertise of handling family affairs and relevant treatment programmes),
religious groups, etc.
The government must take part in the services. It is essential for the government to provide
adequate protection to both victims and perpetrators. The government should also work hand inhand with other NGOs so that their services can be complementary with each other, e.g. thegovernment could provide resources while the NGO could provide expertise and other assistance.
The Group is open to the idea of allowing private professional associations like psychologists andpsychiatrists to take up the services provided they have the competence and expertise. The
standard of services should be properly monitored by the government through contracts,
memorandums of understanding, etc.

Time Frame

The Group has studied the Japanese Model (18 sessions) and the Canadian Model (27 sessions in 52
weeks). Considering that the Japanese Model is still under trial and targeted to voluntary
participants, the Canadian Model is a better option which runs once every two weeks. The Groupconsiders that the sessions should not be too frequent as it may affect the job of probationers/
parolees.
Judges should preferably be asked to take note of the programme requirements for probationers/
parolees when passing sentences. In the Philippines, Korea, and Hong Kong, probation reports on
the offenders will be submitted to the judge for consideration.
Mr. Bankobeza considered that the subjects’ consent should be a prerequisite for participating in thetreatment programmes considering the practical difficulties in providing treatment programmes toreluctant clients. Some other participants considered that the experts should determine which
offenders should take part in the treatment programme based on different factors, e.g. the safety ofthe victim and offenders. However, Dr. Stefanakis stated that in Canada, offenders ordered to take amandatory programme would be sanctioned if they did not attend the programme or they turned
hostile in the programme. He remarked that if offenders could have the choice, most of them would
not take part in the programme. Anyhow, trained personnel could handle reluctant clients
effectively in most cases.
The Group also considered the question of whether it is strictly necessary to immediately send aprobationer/parolee back to jail for breaching any probation/parole conditions. While the practices
vary between countries, the Group agreed that each country should promulgate relevant guidelines
for enforcing the Probation and Parole Orders.

Funding

Possible sources of funding include national and local governments, NGOs, religious bodies,
donations from a Trust Fund or individuals, and overseas funding such as Official Development
Assistance. Probationers and parolees should pay some fees fixed at a rate affordable for them.

Venue

The venues can be provided in the Probation Offices, NGO offices, Community Centres, or religious
houses.
The venue should be comfortable, warm and friendly so that probationers/parolees can take part in
the treatment programme more easily. The venue design should allow the identities ofprobationers/paroles to be kept confidential and not cause any embarrassment to them.

Staffing
Arrangement

The service should be delivered by qualified staff from the government/NGOs/religious groups suchas competent professional social workers, clinical psychologists, psychotherapists, prison officers(with relevant training) and probation officers. Mixed gender teams should be employed in providing
the services.
A suitable staff and participants ratio should be fixed and the group size for a Psycho-educational
orientation group should be 15-20 participants whereas a Therapeutic group should be 8-12 men.
Staff should preferably be multi-skilled and willing to work shifts.

187

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.69

Staff Training
Curriculum

All staff assigned to conduct the treatment Programme must have the minimum academic
qualifications and attend induction training on the programmes provided by the organizations.
Staff who do not have the professional qualifications should work under the guidance of qualified
staff. They should be provided with on-the-job training.
All staff should attend regular refresher and development courses, e.g. seminars, workshops,
conferences, international training courses, etc.

Treatment
Curriculum

The treatment content should have three stages, i.e. Assessment stage, Therapeutic stage andPost-parole Supervision stage. The former two stages were similar to the Assessment Stage andprovisions of “Stages of Change” specified in the Programmes for inmates.

OthersIn order to make the treatment programme successful, the service providers should bear in mind
that the safety and support of the victims and their family members and perpetrators is of vital
importance.
Besides, good liaison and collaboration must be maintained among all involved parties.
Programme evaluation should be carried out regularly.

188