RESOURCE MATERIALSERIES No. 84

UNAFEI
Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan

July 2011

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

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

v

PART ONEANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010
Main Activities of UNAFEI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2011  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
Appendix  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

PART TWOWORK PRODUCT OF THE 147TH
INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR“COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN OFFENDER TREATMENT”
Visiting Experts’ Papers•

Community Involvement in the Canadian Criminal Justice System
by Mr. Yvon Dandurand (Canada)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  41•

Different Paths to Greater Community Involvement in the Treatment of Offenders
by Mr. Yvon Dandurand (Canada)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  47•

Community Involvement in Treatment of Offenders Prior to Sentencing:
The New Zealand Experienceby Judge Sir David Carruthers (New Zealand)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  56•

Community Involvement in Treatment of Offenders Post Sentencing:
The New Zealand Experienceby Judge Sir David Carruthers (New Zealand)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  67•

Community Justice in Thailand: Partnership in Treatment of Offenders
and Enhancement of Community Quality of Lifeby Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak (Thailand)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  79•

Community Involvement in Offender Treatment: Thailand’s Experienceby Dr. Kittipong Kittayarak (Thailand)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  90•

Community Involvement in Offenders’ Rehabilitation:
The Singapore Prison Service’s Experienceby Mr. Desmond Kim Chin Tham (Singapore)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  105•

Proactive Engagement of the Community in Offender Treatment and Rehabilitationby Ms. Elinor Chemonges (Uganda)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  117

iii

•

Changing Lives and Making Communities Safer: Strengthening Rehabilitation
Through Involving Communities in England and Walesby Mr. Steve Pitts (United Kingdom)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  124•

Enhancing Community Involvement in Institutional and Community-Based Correctionsin the United Kingdom: Recent Experience and Future Plans
by Mr. Steve Pitts (United Kingdom)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  133

Participants’ Papers•

Community Involvement in Offender Treatment: Country Report – Botswana
by Ms. Keamogetse Letsatle (Botswana)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  154•

Community Involvement in Offender Treatment: Country Report – Jamaica
by Ms. Joyce Stone (Jamaica)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  161

Reports of the Seminar•

Measures for a Smooth and Sustainable Rehabilitation and Reintegration Process
through Community Involvement
by Group 1  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169•

Effective Measures to Improve Offender Treatment Programmes and Interventions
through Community Involvement
by Group 2  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

iv

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
It is with pride that the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crimeand the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) offers to the international community the Resource
Material Series No. 84.
This volume contains the Annual Report for 2010 and the work produced in the 147th
International Senior Seminar, conducted from 13 January to 10 February 2011. The main theme of the147th Seminar was “Community Involvement in Offender Treatment”.
Community involvement is an important element of both institutional and community-based
treatment of offenders. Detained offenders will sooner or later return to society. In order to smoothen
the reintegration process and to make it sustainable, it is essential that offenders are provided with anopportunity to achieve economic independence and with a motivation to reintegrate.
The core elements of economic independence are a secure job and accommodation. As government
or correctional authorities cannot directly provide these elements, this responsibility has to be sharedwith the community.
Similarly, measures to encourage offenders and keep them motivated throughout the processof reintegration are also essential, yet rehabilitation and social reintegration can take a substantial
period of time, and hardships are to be expected. As families, friends, and colleagues can provide
help and prevent offenders from becoming mentally isolated, restoring such relationships, orbuilding new ones, will be a very effective crime prevention measure. Support from self-helpgroups and volunteers can serve similar functions, and measures to enhance their involvement arealso worthy of consideration.
The advantages of community involvement are not limited to facilitating the reintegration process.
Many of the correctional programmes and interventions, in both institutional and community-based
settings, can be administered more effectively and efficiently with help from the community.
For example, the involvement of business entities in vocational training provided in prisons canincrease the relevance of these programmes, updating their content and responsiveness to market
needs, and in turn enhancing the employability of offenders.
NGOs, individual experts and volunteers may have more experience and expertise in dealing
with particular types of offenders or offender needs, and therefore may be able to make a
substantial contribution to their rehabilitation, such as via drug and alcohol addiction programmes,
for example.
Other advantages can be derived from the participation of private enterprises in the administrationof correctional institutions. They may have creative ideas and business know-how, otherwise
unavailable to prison authorities, that can result in substantial cost-savings.
The importance of community involvement in offender treatment has long been recognized
and repeatedly mentioned in various standards and norms of the United Nations, including theUnited Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners and the United Nations Standard
Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules). More recently, the Workshop
on “Strategies and Best Practices against Overcrowding in Correctional Facilities”, organized
by UNAFEI in the framework of the Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice (Salvador, Brazil, April 2010), discussed and examined various measures against
prison overcrowding such as diversion, sentencing alternatives to imprisonment, and early releaseprogrammes. The Workshop agreed that the co-operation and understanding of the community
were essential in implementing these measures, and reflected these sentiments in the Workshop’s
recommendations.
However, engaging the attention of the community and enhancing their involvement in thetreatment of offenders is not an easy task. General fear of crime, aversion to offenders, and indifference
are some major obstacles to be addressed. Creating incentives for businesses to employ offenders, andv

providing them with coverage for potential financial loss caused by their reoffending, may have to beconsidered as well. Moreover, a framework within which the government and the community can createa partnership has to be established.
In order to achieve these goals, governments need to develop strategies to promote theircommunities’ understanding that: 1) many offenders are willing to make good-faith efforts to re-entersociety; and that 2) the ultimate beneficiary of successful offender rehabilitation is the community
itself because it will achieve the important criminal justice goal of reducing crime.
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 community
involvement in the treatment of offenders.
In this issue, in regard to the 147th International Senior Seminar, papers contributed by visiting
experts, selected individual presentation papers from among the participants, and the Reportsof the Seminar are published. I regret that not all the papers 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 of Justice, the Japan International Cooperation Agency, and the Asia Crime Prevention
Foundation for providing indispensable and unwavering support to UNAFEI’s international training
programmes.
Finally I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all who so unselfishly assisted in the
publication of this series; in particular, the editor of Resource Material Series No. 84, Ms. Grace
Lord.
July 2011

Masaki Sasaki
Director, UNAFEI

vi

PART ONEANNUAL REPORTFOR 2010• Main Activities of UNAFEI• UNAFEI Work Programme for 2011
• Appendix

UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2010 - 31 December 2010)
I. ROLE AND MANDATE
The Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI)
was established in Tokyo, Japan in 1961 pursuant to an agreement between the United Nations and theGovernment of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social development in Asia and the Pacific region bypromoting regional co-operation in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice, through training andresearch.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent, contemporary problems in
the administration of criminal justice in the region, especially problems generated by rapid socio-economicchange (e.g., transnational organized crime, corruption, economic and computer crime and the reintegrationof prisoners into society) as the main themes and topics for its training courses, seminars and research
projects.

II. TRAINING
Training is the principal area and priority of the Institute's work programmes. In the international training
courses and seminars, participants from different areas of criminal justice discuss and study pressing
problems of criminal justice administration from various perspectives. They deepen their understanding,with the help of lectures and advice by the UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers. Thisso-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 internationalseminar (five weeks’ duration). One hundred and forty nine government officials from various overseas
countries receive fellowships from the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA; an independentadministrative institution for ODA programmes) each year to participate in all UNAFEI training programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants. Overseas
participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from the Middle and Near East, Latin
America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners and administrators holding relatively
senior positions in criminal justice fields.
During its 49 years of existence, UNAFEI has conducted a total of 146 international training courses
and seminars, in which approximately 3,521 criminal justice personnel have participated, representing 117
different countries. UNAFEI has also conducted a number of other specialized courses, both country andsubject focused, in which hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In theirrespective countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and holding important posts in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.

A. The 144th International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 144th International Senior Seminar was held from 12 January to 9 February 2010. The main theme
was “The Enhancement of Appropriate Measures for Victims of Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice
Process”. In this Seminar, 14 overseas participants, seven Japanese participants and two Japanese observers
attended.
2. Methodology
Firstly, the Seminar participants respectively introduced the current position regarding the role andfunction of criminal justice agencies in their country in regard to the main theme. The participants werethen divided into three group workshops as follows:3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

Group 1: M easures for Victims of Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process with Special
Attention to Victims of Sex Crimes/Child Victims
Group 2: M easures for Victims of Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process with Special
Attention to Victims of Violent Crime, including HomicideGroup 3: M easures for Victims of Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process with Special
Attention to Victims of Organized Crime
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) in order tofacilitate the discussions. During group discussion the group members studied the designated topics andexchanged views based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations,lectures and so forth. Later, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group
Workshop reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary Meetings, drafts of
the Group Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty.
Based on these discussions, the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the ReportBack Sessions, where they were endorsed as the Reports of the Seminar. The full texts of these Reports are
published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 81.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Measures for Victims of Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process with Special Attention toVictims of Sex Crimes/Child Victims
Group One discussed the following issues with reference to their respective countries’ experiences:(i) Collection/reception of evidence; (ii) Preservation of evidence; (iii) Improvement of Line Agencies
Co-operation; (iv) Providing for the safety and wellbeing of victims.
The group reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of possible countermeasures in theinvestigation up to the trial stage to protect victims of sex crime, specifically rape.
1.

Giving special consideration to the mental and physical needs of victims:• Development of system/organization (an intake or emergency centre) dealing with medical,
social, welfare and psychological needs, and the collection and preservation of evidence,
including:		 (i)
Special sections for crime victims in police stations;		 (ii) The establishment of a One-Stop support centre;		 (iii)	Collaboration with other concerned organizations: such as hospitals, NGOs, police offices,etc.;		 (iv) Training line agencies’ personnel as part of a collaborating mechanism.
• D evelopment of guidelines on investigation methods such as collection of evidence, preservationof evidence, or interview.
• C ore-group training among police officers (based on a training of trainers programme) on proper
criminal investigation, which includes re-training in basic aspects of investigation as well as thefollowing:		 (i)		 Social measures;
		 (ii) Medical measures;
		 (iii) Psychological (mental and emotional) measures;
		 (iv) Religious/community measures (if need be).

2.

Providing awareness and enlightenment programmes for vulnerable groups:• I nformation dissemination:
		 (i)		 Raising the awareness of students by police officers and teachers;		 (ii)	Raising the awareness of the community, especially parents, by public health professionals
or other officials;

4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

		3.

(iii)	General awareness raising and dissemination of information through the mass media.

Allowing for protection of privacy and dignity of victims:• C reation of special police units or stations designed for handling sex offences in which the
majority of officers are female;• Non-disclosure of basic information which would reveal the identity of victims (such as name,address and nationality);• Behaviour modification of personnel who come in contact with victims directly in the criminal
justice system.

4.

Rendering professional (including psychological) protection and services for crime victims by theState;

5.

Notifying victims and/or immediate family members (when they are not perpetrators) of the status of
the case at every stage of the criminal justice process;6.

Establishing legal frameworks for victim protection and for participation in judicial procedure(including providing the opportunity to make a victim impact statement);

7.

Developing victim advocate programmes for the community. A victim advocate may be one who
volunteers to provide:• Legal support;• Liaison between agencies, etc.;• Case process monitoring;• Escorting of victims to the police station and to court;• Psychological support.

(ii) Measures for Victims of Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process with Special Attention toVictims of Violent Crime, including HomicideGroup Two participants identified five major needs of the victims of violent crime including homicide:
The financial need of such victims; then the psychological need of such victims; the physical safety ofthe victim; access to information; and finally available facilities for medical treatment. The group discussed
existing legal and regulatory frameworks specifically for victims, where such exist, in the participating
countries.
They considered the treatment of victims at the investigation stage of the criminal process, including
the ability of first responders to relate well to victims and to develop a bond of trust and confidence. The
participants felt that such ability was lacking in many of their countries.
The group likewise considered measures for victims at the prosecution stage, as well as alternative
methods of dispute resolution in addition to formal prosecution. They sounded a note of caution about thequality of justice rendered under certain historical methods of dispute resolution.
In most of the represented countries, with the exception of Japan, a codified mechanism for presenting
the views and concerns of victims is lacking. In Japan, the victim is consulted in the case of probation andparole. The victim has also the right to express his or her grievances at the trial stage and also in the victim
impact statement.
The issue of compensation and restitution was thoroughly discussed by each participant.
Finally, most of the participants agreed that there is a misconception in many countries that the role ofvictim is finalized at the sentencing stage when in fact there are many issues in the post-sentencing stage
which are directly related to victims of crime.
After the comprehensive discussions, the following recommendations were made.
1.

Each state may establish a separate national institution responsible for planning and execution ofnational victim policy.

5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

2.

There is need for specific laws providing for victims’ rights to information, compensation andrestitution and other allied services.

3.

Each state should create a victim support fund for all categories of victims of crime, but especiallyfor women and children. Those states with the requisite financial resources are recommended to
institute a system of fine surcharge; some percentage of fines collected from offenders must be
added to the victim support fund.

4.

Each state may incorporate victim impact statements in its criminal justice system.

5.

General practitioners should receive training in issues which commonly arise in dealing with victims,
and advanced training should be mandatory for specialized units, such as those dealing with crisis
interventions.

6.

There must be proper infrastructure and systems to provide information to crime victims, including
separate offices and facilities.

7.

The information-gathering procedure should be simplified with the provision of a “one-stop shop”
service for crime victims.

8.

The nation state must establish a balance between offenders’ and victims’ rights at each stage of thecriminal justice process, without prejudice the rights of suspects or offenders.

9.

Each state must inculcate sensitivity to the rights of victims in its national educational policies.

10. The media should avoid secondary victimization of crime victims by adhering to international codesof ethics for media practitioners.
11. Communities should be involved in victims’ issues through awareness, motivation and participation
campaigns.
12. Each state may encourage public-private partnerships for victim support.
13. Research on victims’ concerns should be both governmental and academic, and modifications in thecriminal justice system can be undertaken in view of given policy recommendations. Independentsources within each state should undertake a national survey of crime victims.
14. States should focus on the 3Ms Formula: man, material and method. Capacity building of humanresources, separate infrastructure and modified procedure and practice will lead to a fairer and morejust system for victims of crime.

(iii) Measures for Victims of Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process with Special Attention toVictims of Organized Crime
Group Three participants considered this topic with particular reference to human trafficking andrecommended both short-term and long-term measures. The group discussed: the current situation withregard to the treatment of victims of human trafficking in participating countries; and measures and countermeasures in place to alleviate the sufferings of victims of human trafficking.
Japanese participants were of the view that Japan could be a destination country for the victims of humantrafficking, and that amidst growing global concern regarding the issue, the Japanese government should
adopt a proactive approach in order to identify the victims thereof in Japan and provide them with necessary
assistance before their respectful deportation to their countries of origin. The group shared the concern thatthe trafficked persons, when detained in transit or destination countries, are, invariably, treated as illegal
residents (immigrants). They are subjected to the same kind of harsh and inhuman treatment that is metedout to the offenders, which make them victims of secondary victimization at the hands of law enforcement
authorities.
The group unanimously agreed that existing laws are not sufficient to protect the victims and witnesses
at all stages of criminal justice process with respect to organized crimes. Even if laws do exist, theirenforcement is defective. The main emphasis of the law enforcement agencies is to arrest, prosecute andpunish offenders (agents) of trafficking-related offences. Little attention is paid to the sufferings and plightof victims, particularly at the investigation stage, which renders them victims of secondary victimization.
The group opined that new legislation was required which should be aimed at protecting the victims of thisorganized crime.

6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEIThe group made the following recommendations:Short-term measures:
1.

States should establish special units to protect victims of and witness to organized crime.

2.

Criminal justice officials, especially investigators, should be sensitized to the suffering of victims ofhuman trafficking.

3.

Co-ordination and co-operation among various agencies and organizations, including NGOs, should
be streamlined by a national commission for prevention of human trafficking.

4.

Vulnerable groups should be targeted in awareness-raising campaigns which highlight the dangers tolife and health caused by human trafficking.

5.

Weak and vulnerable groups should in no way be treated as offenders. If and when detained, theyshould not be confined and should be afforded all possible material assistance and be informed of
their rights.

6.

Affected countries should post representatives on a reciprocal basis to liaise and oversee treatment
provided in each country.

Long-term measures:
1.

An administratively and financially autonomous national level committee should be established toensure provision of immediate assistance to victims of organized crime, particularly human trafficking.
The committee should address rehabilitation and restitution or compensation.

2.

Best practices of treatment of victims should be replicated even if they do not relate specifically tovictims of human trafficking.

3.

A national committee for prohibition of human trafficking, comprising legislators, academics,
intellectuals, representatives of I/NGOs and experienced criminal justice practitioners, should reassess
existing anti-human trafficking laws and suggest amendments as necessary.

4.

Countries of origin, transit and destination should maintain close co-ordination and should signbilateral or multi-lateral MOUs to ensure that victims are treated with compassion and respect, eventhough they may be prima facie offenders.

5.

These MOUs should provide for informal mechanisms of information-sharing to identify and protect
victims of human trafficking.

6.

Private sector participation should be ensured to extend social assistance to victims of humantrafficking.

7.

An independent national institute should be established to study victimology, with reference tohuman trafficking.

8.

To compensate victims, governments should create a victims’ fund from fines collected from all
offenders.

9.

Items recovered or confiscated from offenders should also be used to compensate victims.

B. The 145th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 145th International Training Course was held from 12 May to 18 June 2010. The main theme was“Effective Resettlement of Offenders by Strengthening ‘Community Reintegration Factors’”. In this Course,
10 overseas participants, two international observers and eight Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the Course were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and Group
Workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems and future
prospects of their 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 twogroups to discuss the following topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:

7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

Group 1: M easures to Strengthen Community Reintegration Factors of Offenders with Difficulty in
Finding jobs and Securing Accommodation and/or Establishing Social Relationships
Group 2: C ommunity Reintegration Factors of Offenders with Addiction or Difficult Personality
The two groups elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize
the discussions. The group members studied the designated subtopics and exchanged their views basedon information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and so forth.
During the course, Plenary Meetings were held to discuss the interim outline of the Group Workshop
reports and to offer suggestions and comments. During the final Plenary Meeting the drafts of the Group
Workshop reports were examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Basedon these discussions, the Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back
Sessions, where they were endorsed as the reports of the Course. The full texts of the reports are publishedin full in Resource Material Series No. 82.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Measures to Strengthen Community Reintegration Factors of Offenders with Difficulty in Finding jobs
and Securing Accommodation and/or Establishing Social Relationships
The group conducted its discussion in accordance with 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. The group agreed that the following four impediments werecommon to all countries in their attempts to reintegrate offenders:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Stigmatization
Overcrowded Prisons
Lack of Skills and Motivation
Economic Conditions.

Following its comprehensive discussions, which are detailed in full in Resource Material No. 82, somebasic conclusions were agreed among the members of the group; these can be considered “common ground”
between the countries and the basis of the results of the discussion.
Some legal systems of the countries represented inside the group pursue the punishment of offenders asa 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 gained in this regard. Differences in legal systems do not represent an
unsurpassable obstacle for countries without these specific programmes to consider their adoption andadaptation to each one’s reality 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
those provided in Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom, whose experience in this field canbe traced back many years.
The group made the following recommendations:
Recommendations applicable to all stages of the criminal justice process:The relevant authorities should:
1. Seek possible reintegration as early as possible.
2. Change the mindsets of staff members, inmates and the community.
3. Include re-education in the process of retribution.
4. Cultivate relationships or co-operation between all involved facilities.
5. Support suspects/accused/offenders in finding work and accommodation.
6. Create and/or utilize social resources.

8

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEIAt the pre-adjudication stage, the relevant authorities should:
1. Impose non-custodial measures on first offenders.
2. Reinforce the role of the prosecution service, both in terms of the scope of its investigations andconclusions and the exercise of discretion in disposing cases.
At the adjudication stage:
1. Judges should consider the reintegration of the offender by consulting pre-sentencing reports and/or
other information regarding the offender’s background and personal circumstances.
At the post-adjudication stage, the relevant authorities should:
1. Seek to improve the inmate’s skills (including basic education, motivation, vocational training, andrelationship skills).
2. Seek to improve the skills of staff members to ensure that they execute their duties accurately) andre-evaluate social work techniques employed in the care of offenders.
3. Assess obstacles to promoting more effective reintegration of offenders.
In the community sphere, the relevant authorities should implement public relations campaigns andactivities to raise the awareness of the general public about how the criminal justice system treats offenders
and the correctional treatment provided to them, as well as encouraging the community’s participation inreintegrating offenders.

(ii) Community Reintegration Factors of Offenders with Addiction or Difficult Personality
The agenda of Group Two’s discussions included:•••

Challenges affecting measures to strengthen community reintegration factors of offenders withaddiction or difficult personality;
Existing measures or good practices that should be strengthened; andSuggested measures.

The group acknowledged that the flow of the criminal justice system of participating countries is diverse.
However a consensus was reached to group procedures into the following five stages: 1. Investigation; 2.
Prosecution; 3. Adjudication; 4. Institutional corrections/prisons; 5. Community corrections, which include
probation, parole and aftercare services. The group then discussed each of these stages in turn, as well as
the following: partnership or collaboration with other agencies within or without the criminal justice system;
regulatory framework systems and human resources; and corruption.
The group identified existing beneficial measures for offenders with addition or difficult personality andrecommended that such practices be strengthened. Such measures include: diversion; medical prisons;family units for overnight visits; voluntary probation officers; victim involvement/restoration; victim
participation at trial; and victim compensation.
Regarding suggested effective measures, the group recommended the following:1.

Criminal justice systems should comply with established international standards such as the UN
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners; the UN Standard Minimum Rules for NonCustodial Measures (The Tokyo Rules); etc.

2.

Governments should establish regulatory systems for partnership and collaboration that clearly spellout the roles of partners and that ensure the integrity of services delivered.

3.

Introduce holistic assessment of offenders to facilitate appropriate classification and treatment,
especially for offenders with addiction or difficult personalities.

4.

Through continuous training, enhance human resources and capacity of staff throughout the entire
criminal justice system to ensure and sustain the delivery of rehabilitation treatment programmes.

5.

Establish an information sharing system and common database to ensure the flow of appropriate
information regarding the offender.

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

6.

Improve linkages between partners of the criminal justice system to facilitate “through-care”,
enforce aftercare, and sustain a seamless system.

7.

A pre-sentence report can be useful for offenders with addiction or personality problems.

8.

Create special drug courts for offenders with drug addictions.

9.

Employ stringent measures to curb the supply of drugs and other substances in prisons/correctional
institutions and implement regular urine testing.

10. Identify potential private partners and develop their capacity to understand their role in rehabilitating
offenders. Where possible, encourage community-based or faith-based groups to facilitate
reintegration. (e.g. volunteer probation officers; co-operative employers (who should be given adequate
subsidies); etc.
11. Where appropriate, the criminal records of ex-offenders should be expunged or protected and notused against them as an obstacle to employment or reintegration, especially where there is no
recidivism.
12. Sensitize the community and gain its support in dispelling prejudices and stigma against offenders.
13. The community should be involved in all stages of the criminal justice system where it is appropriate
for them to be so involved.
14. Where possible, introduce combined sentences, utilizing electronic monitoring, and night-time andweekend imprisonment for low-risk offenders.
15. Restorative justice that involves both the community and victims is important to facilitate community
reintegration. This encompasses both the individual or particular victim and the community or society
and makes the offender firstly aware of his or her offensive behaviour and secondly take responsibility
for it.

C. The 146th International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 146th International Training Course was held from 25 August to 1 October 2010. The main theme
was “Attacking the Proceeds of Crime: Identification, Confiscation, Recovery and Anti-Money Laundering
Measures”. Nine overseas participants, two overseas observers and nine Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants of the 146th Course endeavoured to explore the topic of attacking the proceeds of crime.
This was accomplished 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 practicalsolutions.
The objectives were primarily realized through the Individual Presentations and the Group Workshop
sessions. In the former, each participant presented the actual situation, problems and future prospects of
their country with respect to the main theme of the Course. To facilitate discussions, the participants weredivided into two groups.
Each Group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson, rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) to organize thediscussions. The group members studied the situation in each of their countries and exchanged their views
based on information obtained through personal experience, the Individual Presentations, lectures and soforth.
Group 1: Effective Measure to Deprive Criminals and Criminal Organizations of Crime ProceedsGroup 2: Effective Measure to Prevent, Detect and Punish Money Laundering
Plenary Meetings were later held to discuss the interim outline of the Group Workshop reports and tooffer suggestions and comments. During the Plenary Meetings, drafts of the Group Workshop reports were
examined and critiqued by all the participants and the UNAFEI faculty. Based on these discussions, the10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Groups further refined their reports and presented them in the Report-Back Sessions, where they wereendorsed as the reports of the Course. The reports will be published in full in UNAFEI Resource Material
Series No. 83.
3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Measure to Deprive Criminals and Criminal Organizations of Crime Proceeds
The group conducted its discussion in accordance with the following agenda: 1) Measures to encourage
persons or bodies that have useful information on corruption, etc. to supply the information to, andco-operate with, investigative and prosecutorial authorities; 2) Proactive measures to collect information
and/or evidence; 3) Identifying and tracing crime proceeds; 4) Seizure, freezing and confiscation.
Regarding topic 1) they began with a discussion of the current situation of each country with regard to
Financial Intelligence Units (FIUs); Suspicious Transaction Reports (STRs); asset disclosure requirements;
cooperation and information sharing among relevant authorities domestically and internationally; andinternational cooperation. With the exception of Tanzania, all participating countries are members of theEgmont Group, which facilitates international cooperation. However, international cooperation is also
possible on a one-to-one, voluntary basis.
Regarding topic 2) the group discussed legislation for rapid freezing/seizure of property; protection of
the rights of bona fide third parties; and again, international co-operation in freezing and seizure, which is
conducted via mutual legal assistance or through previously concluded agreements.
Regarding topic 3) the group addressed conviction-based confiscation; non-conviction-based confiscation;
administrative forfeiture; ex-parte confiscation; shifting the burden of proof to the defendant; the taxationof criminal proceeds; and finally international co-operation in the above procedures, where applicable. All
participants agreed that in their countries international cooperation on confiscation is possible through MLA
or previous agreements. In all countries, except Vietnam, a judicial order of confiscation from the requesting
country is required to accompany the request.
Regarding topic 4), the participants discussed returning the proceeds of crime and asset sharing. All
participants’ countries have provisions to return the proceeds of crime to individual victims, but in Japan
recovery is only possible for victims of organized crime and money laundering offences – the scope ofrecovery of proceeds of crime is limited. As to international asset recovery, with the exception of Thailand,
all participants’ countries have a system to return the proceeds of crime to requesting countries. Regarding
asset sharing, only Sri Lanka has provisions for this procedure, while in other countries asset sharing
is possible depending on the individual countries’ agreement. However, in Thailand asset sharing is notpossible.
The group agreed recommendations under the five subtopics, summarized below.
I. Measures to identify and trace proceeds of crime:
1.

FIUs should be free of political interference.

2.

FIUs should focus on analysis and dissemination of information, rather than investigation.

3.

Threshold reporting requirements for financial institutions should be relative to the economyof each respective country.

4.

Suspicious transaction reports should be clearly defined, either in law, or by guidelines.

5.

Where appropriate, public officials should be required to disclose assets; the information
should be at least accessible to the competent authorities.

II. Measures to freeze/seize proceeds of crime:
1.

Competent authorities should be empowered to quickly but temporarily freeze property as anadministrative measure; the owner of the property should have the right of appeal.

2.

All countries should adopt a system of confidentiality regarding freezing and seizure. Court

11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

procedures to register requests should be simple, and orders of competent authorities ought
to be executable in requested countries.
III. Confiscation/deprivation of the proceeds of crime:
1.

Countries should consider allowing the collection of sums of equivalent value where crime
proceeds have been transformed, converted, or intermingled with legitimately acquired property.

2.

All countries should consider adopting a system of non-conviction based confiscation.

3.

If countries adopt administrative forfeiture, limitations similar to the US model should beconsidered, and if challenged, the government must bear the costs of the case.

4.

If the burden of proof is reversed, the government should set certain requirements to be metby the prosecutor before the burden of proof can be shifted to the accused.

5.

Countries are urged to consider either adopting or adapting a system of taxing the proceeds ofcrime.

6.

Countries should lower their pre-conditions to providing international co-operation.

IV. Recovery of confiscated proceeds of crime:
1.

Where necessary, countries should broaden the scope for returning recovered assets tovictims and should consider a compensatory fund for victims similar to the USA model.

2.

All countries should consider legislating to comply with Art. 57 of the UNCAC.

3.

Countries should consider legislating for, or otherwise regulating, asset sharing.

4.

If facing obstacles in international co-operation, countries should seek technical assistancefrom organizations such as the Basel Institute on Governance.

V. Capacity building:Training is imperative, and turnover of personnel should be infrequent. The experience and expertise oforganizations such as UNAFEI should be utilized.

(ii) Effective Measures to Prevent, Detect and Punish Money LaunderingGroup Two discussed the above topic according to the following agenda: 1) the basic legal frameworkto address money laundering; 2) advanced legal frameworks and practices to prevent and detect money
laundering; 3) investigation and punishment of money laundering; and 4) promotion of international
co-operation.
Under topic 1), the participants compared the situation in each represented country with regard to
the criminalization of money laundering; the retention of bank records for a substantial period of time;
establishing and empowering FIUs; establishing a suspicious transaction reporting system and securing
compliance with it; and utilizing information gathered and analysed by FIUs.
Under topic 2), the participants addressed the following matter: extension of the STR system to designatednon-financial businesses and professions; increasing the capacities of FIUs and financial/non-financial institutions
to detect money laundering, including development of typologies; conducting enhanced scrutiny of accountsof “politically exposed persons”; asset disclosure requirements for certain public officials; co-operation andinformation-sharing among relevant authorities; and measures to prevent and detect cash smuggling, including
border control.
Under topic 3), the group covered three areas: effective and proactive enforcement of anti-money laundering
legislation; special investigative techniques, including controlled delivery, communications interceptions andundercover/sting operations; and capacity building of investigators in financial investigation.
Under topic 4), the group focused on: international exchange of information among relevant agencies,
including FIUs; mutual legal assistance and extradition in cases of money laundering; joint investigation withother countries or agencies; and obtaining technical assistance provided by international organizations.

12MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEIThe group made the following recommendations under each of the four subtopics:
I. Regarding the basic legal framework:
1.

FATF Rec. 1 should be used as a minimum standard to criminalize money laundering.

2.

Bank records and other reports should be retained for at least five years.

3.

To enhance their analysis, FIUs should have access to a wide variety of information; FIUs
and law enforcement authorities (LEAs) should establish a good working relationship; FIUs
must be spared political interference and must have adequate human resources and efficientorganizational structure.

4.

Reporting entities must be aware of STR requirements; legislation may be required to ensurecompliance.

5.

To ensure that information is fully utilized, FIUs should: (i) be staffed by personnel withvaried specialist backgrounds; (ii) have their own permanent staff; (iii) provide their staff withadequate training; (iv) provide reporting entities with necessary information; (v) develop their
IT systems; (vi) improve the quality of STRs disseminated to LEAs.

II. Regarding advanced legal frameworks:
1.

The STR system should be extended to Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions.

2.

FIUs and financial and non-financial institutions must be in open and continuous communication.

3.

With regard to PEPs, every country should implement FATF Recs. 6 and 12, which should be
extended to PEPs discharging prominent domestic public functions. It is important to have amore specific international definition of PEPs.

4.

Investigative authorities should have access to asset disclosures by public officials.

5.

To observe FATF Rec. 31, comprehensive co-operation and information-sharing mechanisms
should be implemented between relevant authorities.

6.

To detect cash smuggling, countries should implement information-sharing mechanisms
between their respective border control agencies.

III. Investigation and punishment of money laundering:
1.

Countries should effectively and proactively enforce anti-money laundering legislation.

2.

Investigators need constant training on complex special investigative techniques; it is also
critical that investigators utilize IT.

3.

FIUs and LEAs should provide constant training to develop their human resources.

IV. Promotion of international co-operation: The group affirmed the importance of:1.

International exchange of information among relevant agencies, including FIUs, as urged
under the UN Conventions and FATF Recs. 35-40.

2.

Informal channels of communication; they should be utilized to make more effective use of theformal MLA channels.

3.

The need for and usefulness of joint investigations such as Operation Mantis.

4.

Receiving technical assistance from international organizations such as the International
Centre on Asset Recovery.

D. The 13th International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption
The 13th International Training Course on the Criminal Justice Response to Corruption was held from18 October to 12 November 2010. In this Course, 17 overseas participants and six Japanese participants,
all of whom were officials engaged in corruption control, comparatively analysed the current situation ofcorruption, methods of combating corruption, and measures to enhance international co-operation.

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

E. The Fourth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
The Fourth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, jointly hosted by
UNAFEI and the Department of Justice of the Republic of the Philippines was held from 7 to 9 December
2010 in Manila, the Philippines. The main theme was “Securing Protection and Co-operation of Witnesses
and Whistle-blowers”. Twenty-two senior criminal justice officials from eight Southeast Asian countries,
Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam, and two visiting
experts attended. UNAFEI will publish a full report of the Seminar in the latter half of 2011.
F. Special Seminars and Courses
1. The Tenth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya
The Tenth Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya was held from15 February to 11 March 2010. The main theme of the Course was “Development of a Child Care andProtection Officers’ Training System”. Twelve criminal justice officials from Kenya and one Japanese JICA
Long-Term Expert attended.
2. The Sixth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Sixth Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 3 to 18 March 2010. The main
theme was “Effective Criminal Justice Measures against Drug Offences and Related Crimes and Preventionof International Drug Trafficking”. Nine criminal justice officials from Central Asian countries (Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan) attended.
3. The Fifth Country Specific Training Course on Community-Based Treatment of Offenders through theHolistic Approach to Volunteer Resource Development for the Philippines
The Fifth Country Specific Training Course on Community-Based Treatment of Offenders throughthe Holistic Approach to Volunteer Resource Development for the Philippines was held from 22 June to 2
July 2010. Ten participants, who comprised Parole and Probation Officers and Volunteer Probation Aides,
discussed measures to improve the probation system, and the promotion of Volunteer Probation Aides.
4. The 16th Seminar on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice for the People’s Republic of China
The 16th Seminar for Senior Criminal Justice Officials of the People’s Republic of China was held from16 November to 3 December 2010. The main theme was “Expert Analysis of Forensic Evidence”. Fifteen
criminal justice officials from the People’s Republic of China attended.

III. UNAFEI’S CONTRIBUTION TO THE TWELFTH UN CRIME CONGRESSThe Twelfth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice was held in April
2010, in Salvador, Brazil. The over-all theme of the Congress was “Comprehensive strategies for global
challenges: crime prevention and criminal justice systems and their development in a changing world”.
More than 3,000 government and NGO representatives from approximately 100 countries, including
Ministers of Justice and Attorneys General, participated.
UNAFEI co-ordinated the planning and implementation one of the five official workshops of theCongress. UNAFEI’s workshop addressed the topic of “Strategies and Best Practices against Overcrowding
in Correctional Facilities”, and consisted of four presentations and three panel discussions by international
experts representing countries from Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and Oceania, as well as someof UNAFEI’s sister institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme
Network. In all, 16 prominent experts from all over the world contributed to the Workshop, which wasattended by Congress delegates from across the globe. The delegates and panellists interacted via the panel
discussions.
The workshop produced a 16-poinst set of conclusions and recommendations, which later contributed
to the discussions of the Congress. Based on its discussions and deliberations, the Congress adopted theSalvador Declaration, which reflects the political will of the participating states, and which was submitted to
the United Nations Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice as a policy recommendation.
UNAFEI published a comprehensive report of the Workshop in March 2011, which is also available on
the UNAFEI website.

14

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

IV. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
A. Regional Training Programmes
1. Short-Term Expert in the Philippines
Professor Sakonji was dispatched from 4 to 10 July 2010 as a JICA Short-Term Expert to participate in
the Training Course for Volunteer Probation Aides.
2. Short-Term Experts in Kenya
Professor Kawaharada and Professor Wakimoto were dispatched to Kenya, from 31 July to 12 September
2010, to provide technical assistance to the Project for Capacity Building of Child Care and Protection
Officers in the Juvenile Justice System of Kenya.
3. Short-Term Experts in Latin America
Deputy Director Ukawa and Professor Yanaka visited Costa Rica from 2 to 12 August 2010. In Costa Rica
they jointly hosted, with ILANUD, a course on Criminal Justice Reform in Latin America in which sevencountries were represented. Professor Yanaka then visited Honduras from 12 to 14 August 2010 to attend afollow-up seminar on the specific situation in that country.

V. 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.

VI. 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 2010, the 80th, 81st and 82nd editionsof the Resource Material Series were published. Additionally, issues 131 to 133 (from the 144th Seminar to
the 146th Course respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published, which included a brief report oneach course and seminar and other timely information. These publications are also available on UNAFEI’s
web site http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.

VII. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 29 January 2010, 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 144th
International Senior Seminar participants. This Programme was jointly sponsored by the Asia Crime
Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society (JCPS) and UNAFEI.
Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues, through comparativeinternational study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. This year, Ms. Kim Herd, Chief of theVictim Witness Assistance Unit, United States’ Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, USA, and Ms.
Martina Peter, Director of Division RB 2 of the Federal Ministry of Law, Germany, were invited as speakers.
They presented papers entitled “Assistance for Federal Crime Victims at All Stages of the Criminal Justice
Process” and “Measures to Protect Victims in German Criminal Proceedings: A Summary with Special Focus
on the Key Points of the Second Victims’ Rights Reform Act” respectively.

B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about to commence,research activities in their respective criminal justice fields. It is, therefore, one of the important tasks of
UNAFEI to support these contributions to improve the crime situation internationally.

15

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

C. Overseas Missions
Ms. Ayako Sakonji (Professor), Mr. Toru Kawaharada (Professor), and Mr. Kenichiro Koiwa (Staff) visited
Manila and Cavite, the Philippines, from 10 to 16 January 2010 to attend the “Monitoring, Evaluation andInteraction Workshop” held by the Parole and Probation Administration of the Philippines.
Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa and Mr. Masaaki Kojitani (Staff) visited Seoul, Korea from 1 to 5 March2010 to visit the Korean Institute of Criminology (KIC) and other important criminal justice organs in South
Korea, such as the Legal Research and Training Institute and the Supreme Prosecutors Office.
Professor Junichi Watanabe visited Salvador, Brazil and Vancouver, Canada from 13 to 21 March 2010 tomake final preparations for the workshop on the topic of “Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowdingof Correctional Facilities”, organized by UNAFEI, which was held during the Twelfth United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Director Masaki Sasaki, Professor Junichi Watanabe, Professor Ayako Sakonji, Mr. Kazuyuki Nagata(Staff) and Mr. Hideo Takahashi (Staff) visited Salvador, Brazil from 9 to 22 April 2010 to attend the Twelfth
United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa
attended from 14 to 19 April. The UNAFEI delegation organized a Congress workshop on the topic of“Strategies and Best Practices against Overcrowding of Correctional Facilities”, held on 16 April 2010.
Mr. Ryuichi Nishitani (Staff) visited China from 16 to 21 March 2010 as a member of a delegation of
officers from the Ministry of Justice of Japan. The delegation visited the Supreme Court, the Supreme Public
Prosecutors Office, and Shantan Province Prison and Public Prosecutors Office. The delegation also visited
Chinfa University, where they engaged in discussion with Chinese law students.
Director Masaki Sasaki and Mr. Fumihiko Yanaka (Professor) visited Vienna, Austria from 16 to 21 May
2010 to attend the 19th Session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The Director
made a statement to the Commission.
Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa and Mr. Yuichi Tada (Professor) visited China from 29 June to 8 July2010 to meet Chinese criminal justice officials in preparation for the 16th Seminar on Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice for the People’s Republic of China, which was held at UNAFEI in November 2010.
Ms. Ayako Sakonji (Professor) was dispatched to the Philippines from 4 to 10 July 2010 as a Short-Term
JICA Expert for the Training Course for Volunteer Probation Aides.
Mr. Toru Kawaharada (Professor) and Mr. Yuichiro Wakimoto (Professor) were dispatched to Nairobi,
Kenya, from 31 July to 12 September 2010, and from 31 July to 7 September 2010, respectively, to provide
technical assistance to the Project for Capacity Building of Child Care and Protection Officers in the Juvenile
Justice System of Kenya.
Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa and Mr. Fumihiko Yanaka (Professor) visited Costa Rica from 2 to
7 August 2010, and 2 to 12 August 2010, respectively. In Costa Rica, they jointly hosted, with ILANUD, acourse on Criminal Justice Reform in Latin America in which seven countries were represented. Professor
Yanaka then visited Honduras from 12 to 14 August 2010 to attend a follow-up seminar on the specificsituation in that country.
Ms. Ayako Sakonji (Professor) visited Beijing, China from 3 to 6 August 2010 to attend the International
Forum on Halfway Houses.
Mr. Yuichiro Wakimoto (Professor) visited Vancouver, Canada from 2 to 10 October 2010 to attend
the 30th Asian and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators. Professor Wakimoto delivered apresentation at the Conference.
Mr. Junichi Watanabe (Professor) attended the 12th International Corrections and Prisons Association
Annual General Meeting and Conference in Ghent, Belgium from 23 to 31 October 2010.

16

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Director Masaki Sasaki, Deputy Director Haruhiko Ukawa, Mr. Naoyuki Harada (Professor), Ms. Kumiko
Izumi (Professor), Ms. Yoshiko Chihara (Staff), Mr. Takayuki Suzuki (Staff), Mr. Shinichi Inoue (Staff), and
Ms. Grace Lord (Linguistic Adviser) went to Manila, the Philippines, to attend the Fourth Regional Seminaron Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries, which was held from 7 to 9 December 2010. The topic
of the Seminar was “Securing Protection and Co-operation of Witnesses and Whistleblowers”. UNAFEI andthe Department of Justice of the Republic of the Philippines co-hosted the Seminar.
Mr. Yuichi Tada (Professor) visited Courmayeur, Italy, from 9 to 12 December 2010 to attend the annual
Co-ordination Meeting of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Networkand the ISPAC International Conference.

D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI co-operates and corroborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention and criminal justiceadministration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similar goals, and a large part of
ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationship between the two is very strong.
E. Country-Focused Training Course for Nepal
UNAFEI contributed to the programming of a Country-Focused Training Course for Nepal, entitled“Seminar for Comparative Study on Criminal Justice Systems and Criminal Procedure”, which wasconceived by the International Co-operation Department of the Ministry of Justice of Japan. Deputy Director
Ukawa, Professors Higuchi, Harada, Izumi, Yanaka, Tada, Watanabe and Sakonji delivered lectures on theJapanese criminal justice system. Two ad hoc lecturers from the Ministry of Justice of Japan also delivered
lectures. UNAFEI also organized a visit for the participants to Fuchu Prison.
VIII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative responsibility for running
the Institute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine professors are selected from among
public prosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probation and the police. UNAFEI also has approximately 15
administrative staff members, who are appointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and alinguistic adviser. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training
course and seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts, volunteers andrelated agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty Changes
Mr. Tetsuya Sugano, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Principal Expert ofNara Juvenile Classification Home on 1 April 2010.
Ms. Fumiko Akahane, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed Chief of theGeneral Planning Division on Staff Attorneys, Japan Legal Support Center on 1 April 2010.
Mr. Jun Oshino, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred and appointed a judge of Tokyo
District/Summary Court on 1 April 2010.
Mr. Yuichi Tada, formerly a judge of Osaka District Court, was appointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1
April 2010.
Ms. Kumiko Izumi, formerly a prosecutor of Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office, was appointed aprofessor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2010.
Mr. Fumihiko Yanaka, formerly a prosecutor of Yokohama District Public Prosecutors Office, Odawara
Branch, was appointed a professor of UNAFEI on 1 April 2010.
Mr. Yuichiro Wakimoto, formerly a psychologist at Hiroshima Juvenile Classification home, joined
UNAFEI as a professor on 1 April 2010.

17

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

IX. 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.

18

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEIUNAFEI WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2011
I. TRAINING
A. The 147th International Senior Seminar
The 147th International Senior Seminar was held from 13 January to 10 February 2011. The main themeof the Seminar was “Community Involvement in Offender Treatment”. Ten overseas participants and six
Japanese participants attended.
B. 148th International Training Course
The 148th International Training Course was held from 11 May to 17 June 2011. The main theme of the
Course was “Drug Offender Treatment: New Approaches to an Old Problem”. Eight overseas participants,
two overseas observers and eight Japanese participants attended.
C. 149th International Training Course
The 149th International Training Course is scheduled for 25 August to 30 September 2011. The main
theme of the Course is “Securing Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses and Whistleblowers”. Ten
overseas participants and nine Japanese participants will attend.
D. The Eleventh Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System in Kenya
The Eleventh Training Course on the Juvenile Delinquent Treatment System for Kenya was held from15 February to 10 March 2011. Fifteen participants from Kenyan criminal justice agencies reviewed theirprogress in regard to improving their country’s juvenile delinquent justice system.
E. The Seventh Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia
The Seventh Seminar on Criminal Justice for Central Asia was held from 1 to 14 March 2011. The main
theme of the Seminar was “Addressing Corruption which hinders Countermeasures for Drug Offences
and Other Crimes: Especially, Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement
Officials”. Seven government officials from three Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, andUzbekistan, attended.
F. The 14th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme: “Effective Legal and Practical Measuresagainst Corruption”
The 14th UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme: “Effective Legal and Practical Measures against
Corruption” will be held from 13 October to 10 November 2011. In this Course, Japanese and overseas
officials engaged in corruption control will comparatively analyse the current situation of corruption,
methods of combating corruption and measures to enhance international co-operation.
G. The 17th Seminar on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice for the People's Republic of China
The 17th Seminar on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice for the People's Republic of China is
tentatively scheduled for late November 2011. The main theme of the seminar will be “Public Disseminationof Legal Knowledge.” The tentative number of participants and counsellors, who will be high-ranking
criminal justice officials, is 11.
H. Fifth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
The Fifth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries will be held in
early December 2011, at UNAFEI, in Tokyo, Japan. The main theme of the Seminar will be “Preventing
Corruption: Administrative and Criminal Justice Measures”. Approximately 25 participants from Southeast
Asian countries will attend.
II. TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
A. Regional Training Programmes
1. Short-Term Experts in Kenya
Two UNAFEI professors will be dispatched to Kenya in August and September 2011. The professors
will assist the Children’s Department of the Vice-President and Ministry of Gender, Children and Social
Development in the Project for Capacity Building of Child Care and Protection Officers in the Juvenile
Justice System.

19

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

APPENDIX
MAIN STAFF OF UNAFEI
Mr. Masaki Sasaki
Mr. Haruhiko Ukawa

Director
Deputy Director

Faculty
Mr. Motoo Noguchi
Mr. Haruhiko Higuchi
Mr. Naoyuki Harada
Ms. Kumiko Izumi
Mr. Fumihiko Yanaka
Mr. Yuichi Tada
Mr. Yuichiro Wakimoto
Mr. Toru Kawaharada
Ms. Ayako Sakonji
Mr. Junichi Watanabe
Ms. Grace Lord

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

Secretariat
Mr. Masahiro Iida
Mr. Koji Kobayashi
Mr. Katsuhiko Jimbo
Ms. Yoshiko Tani
Ms. Yoshiko Chihara
Mr. Kazuyuki Nagata

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

AS OF 31 DECEMBER 201020

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI2010 VISITING EXPERTS
THE 144TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Prof. Cho Kyoon Seok

Professor
School of Law
Ehwa Woman’s University
Republic of Korea

Ms. Kim Herd

Chief
Victim Witness Assistance Unit
United States’ Attorney’s Office for theDistrict of Columbia,
USA

Ms. Martina Peter

Regierungsdirektorin
Referentin (Legal Officer), Division RB 2
Law of Criminal Proceedings
Federal Ministry of Law
Germany

Prof. John P. J. Dussich(USA)

Director
Tokiwa International Victimology InstituteTokiwa University
Japan

Prof. Dr. Kumaravelu
Chockalingam(India)Deputy Director
Tokiwa International Victimology InstituteTokiwa University
Japan

THE 145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Mr. Steve Pitts

Head of International Relations and External
Programmes,
National Offender Management Service
Ministry of JusticeEngland and Wales
United Kingdom

Dr. Chris Trotter

Associate Professor
Department of Social Work
Monash University
Victoria
Australia

Mr. Stanley Tang

Director
Operations Division
Singapore Prison Service
Ministry of Home Affairs
Singapore21

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

THE 146TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Ms. Jean B. Weld

Senior Trial Attorney
International Unit
Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section
US Department of Justice

Mr. Daniel Thelesklaf

Executive Director
Basel Institute on Governance
Switzerland

Mr. Wayne Patrick WalshHead of the Mutual Legal Assistance Unit
International Law Division
Department of JusticeHong Kong SAR

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

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

THE 13TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION

22

Mr. Demostenes Chryssikos

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Officer
Treaty Affairs
Corruption and Economic Crime Branch
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime

Mr. Koh Teck Hin

Deputy Director
Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau
Singapore

Mr. Steven Lam

Acting Assistant Director
Independent Commission Against Corruption
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
ChinaMAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI2010 UNAFEI PARTICIPANTS
THE 144TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Overseas Participants
Mr. Md. Awlad Ali Fakir

Superintendent of Police
Faridpur District Police
Bangladesh

Ms. Valéria Raquel Pereira
Martirena

Head of Police Officers on Duty
5th District Regional Police Station
Civil Police
Department of the Federal District
BrazilMr. Conrado A. Reyes

LawyerCriminal Cases of the National
Property Register,
Register Security Department
GuatemalaMr. Wawan Muliawan

Chief of Operational Unit
Security Intelligence Division
Indonesian National Police
Indonesia

Mr. Balarabe Nayaya Sulaiman

Assistant Commissioner of Police
Legal Section
Force Criminal Investigation Department
Nigeria Police
Nigeria

Mr. Shakeel Ahmed Durrani

Director of Balochistan Province
Interior Division
Federal Investigation Agency
Pakistan

Mr. Muhammad Athar Waheed

Senior Superintendent of Police
Regional Investigation Branch
Rawalpindi Regional Police Force
Pakistan

Mr. Donald Yamasombi

Director of Criminal Investigations
Crimes Division
Royal Papua New Guinea
Constabulary,
Papua New Guinea

Mr. Eduardo José Tristán Castro

Analayst and Advisor of Importantand Relevant Information,
General Secretariat
National Police of Peru
Peru

23

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

Mr. Manuel Golloso Co

Regional Director
National Capital Region
Parole and Probation Administration
Philippines

Ms. Mari Elvira Bote Herrera

State Prosecutor (Prosecutor II)
National Prosecution Service
Department of Justice
Philippines

Mr. Shem Philip

Coordinator for Liaison Officers
Crime Prevention and Community Safety Unit
Vanuatu Police Force
VanuatuMr. Nam Ha Vu

Head of Police Communication and Command Center
Police Staff Department
General Department of Police
Ministry of Public Security
VietnamMr. Musaed Dhaifallah Qaid
Al-Dhaheri

Deputy General Manager
General Department of Tourism Police
Ministry of Interior
Yemen

Japanese Participants

24

Mr. Mahito Araki

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Yoshiaki Furukawa

Chief
Planning and Co-ordination Department
Tokyo Probation Office

Mr. Masahiro Muroshashi

JudgeTokyo District Court

Mr. Hiroshi Sato

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Ko Takano

Special Assistant to the Superintendent
Naniwa Juvenile Training School

Mr. Ryoji Terado

Senior Researcher
Research Division
Research and Training Institute
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Masaki Yokose

Police Inspector
Personnel Division
Commissioner General’s Secretariat
National Police Agency

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

Ms. Emiko Nishimura

Government Attorney
International Cooperation Department
Research and Training Institute
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Takeshi Nishioka

Government Attorney
International Co-operation Department
Research and Training Institute
Ministry of Justice

THE 145TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Mr. Marcelo de Paula Araújo

Police Chief
The 23rd Police Department
Civil Police of the Federal District
Brasilía
Brazil

Ms. Cynara Figueirêdo da Rocha

Police Officer
Civil Police of the Federal District
Brasilía
BrazilMr. Esteban Vega Calvo

Prosecutor
Supervision Division
Attorney General’s Office
Costa Rica

Dr. Ricardo Enrique Cook Renaux

Director
Toxicology Institute
Ministry of Justice and Public Security
El Salvador

Mr. Ahmed Kamal Al-Azzawi

Chief of Investigation
Baghdad Police
Ministry of Interior
Iraq

Mr. Saad Hammad Al-Qaraghuli

Chief of Investigation
Baghdad Police
Ministry of Interior
Iraq

Ms. Christine Achieng’Okoth Obondi

Senior Assistant Director
Department of Probation and Aftercare Service
Office of the Vice-President and Ministry of Home Affairs
Kenya

Mr. Durga Prasad Dhungel

Under Secretary
Legislative Drafting Division
Ministry of Law and Justice
Nepal

25

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

Mr. Gehendra Raj Pant

Legal Officer
Administration Section
Supreme Court of Nepal
Nepal

Mr. Joseph T. Tondop

Provincial Police Commander
Simbu Province
Royal Papua New Guinea Constabulary
Papua New Guinea

Observers
Mr. Man-lung Chung

Principal Officer
Lai Sun Correctional Institution
Hong Kong

Ms. Yun Young Lee

Inspector
Cheongju Women’s Correctional Institution
Republic of Korea

Japanese Participants
Mr. Tomonori Ishii

Probation Officer
Nagoya Probation Office

Mr. Yukihiro Kato

Public Prosecutor
Mito Public Prosecutors Office

Ms. Nao Nogami

Family Court Probation Officer
Osaka Family Court, Sakai Branch

Mr. Akira Onodera

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Kazuyuki Otake

Section Chief
General Affairs Division
General Affairs Section
Kitsuregawa Rehabilitation Program Center

Mr. Takeshi Tahira

Probation Officer
Kumamoto Probation Office

Mr. Shinji Todoriki

Section Chief
Medical Care and Classification Division
Sendai Regional Correctional Headquarters

Mr. Kanji Tomita

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District Court

THE 146TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Mr. Ubiratan Cazetta

26

Federal Prosecutor
Federal Public Prosecution Service
State of Pará OfficeBrazilMAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

Mr. Fazil Abdool Karimbaksh

Assistant Superintendent of Police
Police Court Prosecutor
Guyana Police Force
GuyanaMr. Anthony Adverse
Vanderhyden

Assistant Superintendent of Police
Police Court Prosecutor
Guyana Police Force
GuyanaMr. Yehu Wangsajaya

Chief
Sub-Division of the Administration Operation
Operational Division
Metropolitan Jakarta Police
Indonesian National Police
Indonesia

Mr. Rene Daniel Aldana Ramírez

Sub-Director of Area
Unit of Criminal Analysis
State of Mexico Security Agency
MexicoMr. Chethiya Goonesekera

Senior State Counsel
Criminal Prosecution Division
Attorney General’s Department
Presidential Secretariat
Sri Lanka

Mr. Gampaha Mudiyanselage
Hirantha Buddhika
SiriwarhanaSuperintendent of Police
Criminal Prosecution Division
Attorney General’s Department
Presidential Secretariat
Sri Lanka

Mr. Ramadhan Ali Nassib

State Attorney/Public Prosecutor
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Ministry of Good Governance
Tanzania

Ms. Tuyet Mien Duong

Senior Lecturer/Researcher
Department of Criminal Law
Hanoi University of Law
VietnamCourse Counsellors
Ms. Julia C. Bacay-Abad

Deputy Director
Head, Legal Services Group
Anti-Money Laundering Council Secretariat
Philippines

Mr. Jumpon Phansumrit

Expert Public Prosecutor
Office of Policy and Strategy
Office of the Attorney General
Thailand27

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

Japanese Participants

28

Mr. Naoki Fukuda

Criminal Investigator
Tokyo Regional Taxation Bureau

Mr. Takashi Hashimoto

Narcotics Control Officer
Narcotics Control Department
Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labour

Mr. Toshiyuki Igusa

Public Prosecutor
Sendai District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Tetsuya Konno

Superintendent of Police
Japan Financial Intelligence Center
Organized Crime Department
Criminal Investigation Bureau
National Police Agency

Mr. Katsuhiko Manabe

Deputy Chief of Security Division
Security and Rescue Department
Seventh Regional Coastguard Headquarters
Japan Coast Guard

Mr. Koji Morishita

Chief Public Prosecutor
Okayama District Public Prosecutors Office
Kurashiki Branch

Mr. Akihiro Motomura

Assistant Judge
Osaka District Court

Ms. Shinobu Okada

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Kazuyoshi Tsuji

Assistant Judge
Tokyo District CourtMAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEITENTH TRAINING COURSE ON THE JUVENILE
DELINQUENT TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR KENYA
Overseas Participants
Ms. Carren Morangi Ogoti

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

Mr. Livingstone Amboko Oruuko

Senior Education Co-ordinator
Department of Children’s Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development

Ms. Jacynter Achieng Omondi

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

Mr. Moses KimaniChildren’s Officer
Department of Children’s Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development

Ms. Rhoda Khevali MisikoChildren’s Officer
Department of Children’s Services
Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development

Ms. Teresia Njeri Nugugi

Principal Magistrate
The Judiciary

Mr. Benson Nyaga Ireri

Resident Magistrate
The Judiciary

Mr. Matunnga Clement Okech

Assistant Director
Probation Department
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Florence Mueni Muema

Senior Probation Officer
Probation Department
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Carolyne Atieno Adero

Probation Officer (Legal Officer)
Probation Department
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Jane Wanjiri Kirii

Superintendent of PrisonsPrison Department
Ministry of Home Affairs

Ms. Teresia Wangui Muchemi

Superintendent of Police
Police Department

JICA Long-Term Expert
Ms. Mina Hashiba

29

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

SIXTH SEMINAR ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CENTRAL ASIA

30

Ms. Baibossynova Gulshara

Head
Secretariat on Collegium for Criminal Cases
Supreme Court
Kazakhstan

Mr. Kultaev Kubanychbek
Zuluevich

Deputy Head
Chui Oblast Department of Internal Affairs
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Moldobaev Almazbek

Judge
Pervomaiskyi District Court of Bishkek City
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Nabiev Nurkamal
Burkhanovich

Head
Department for Supervision over Criminal
Procedural and Investigative Activity,
General Prosecutors Office
Kyrgyzstan

Mr. Kholmurodov Askarjon
Abdurasulovich

Head of Investigative Division
Investigative Department
Ministry of Home Affairs
Tajikistan

Mr. Mahmudov Khalim

Head
Criminal Investigation Department
Drug Control Agency under the President
Tajikistan

Mr. Kuchkarov Sherali Pulatovich

Deputy Head
Department on Supervision over the Implementationof the Laws by the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
General Prosecutors Office
Uzbekistan

Mr. Muratov Nodirbek
Sherzodovich

Chief Investigator
Investigation Department
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Uzbekistan

Mr. Shukurov Khurshid
Suratovich

Chief of Division for Combating Illicit
Drugs Dealing,
Department for Combating Illicit Drug Trafficking
and Circulation,
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Uzbekistan

MAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEITHE FIFTH COUNTRY SPECIFIC TRAINING COURSE ON
THE COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS THROUGH
THE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO VOLUNTEER RESOURCEDEVELOPMENT FOR THE PHILIPPINES
Mr. Allan Jose Bibal Alcala

Regional Director
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of Justice

Ms. Amites Bragat Butiong

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Davao City Parole & Probation Office No. 3
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of JusticeMs. Janette Santos Padua

Chief Probation and Parole Officer
Mandaluyong/San Juan
Parole & Probation Office,
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of Justice

Mr. Jener Cariodo Supnet

Senior Probation and Parole Officer
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of Justice

Mr. Clark Niño Nacario Cagigas

Probation and Parole Officer II
Cebu City Parole & Probation Office
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of JusticeMs. Genovava Ricardo Relado

Probation and Parole Officer II
Cavite City Parole & Probation Office
Parole and Probation Administration
Department of Justice

Ms. Maria Borillo Añonuevo

Press Relations Officer
Volunteer Probation Aide
Parole and Probation Volunteers Association Inc.
San Pedro, Laguna Chapter

Mr. Allan Tenefrancia Supnet

Vice President External
Volunteer Probation Aide
Parole and Probation Volunteers Association Inc.
San Pedro, Laguna Chapter

Ms. Teresa Banayanal Fernandez

Volunteer Probation Aide
Cavite City Volunteer Probation Aide Association

Mr. Rey Constancio Jr. Giducos
Cataluña

Volunteer Probation Aide
Mandaue City Volunteer Probation Aide Association

31

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 201013TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESPONSE TO CORRUPTION
Overseas Participants

32

Mr. Sayed Wali Sadat

AuditorInterior Inspection Department
Ministry of Justice
Afghanistan

Mr. Rehman Khan

Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions
Directorate of Public Prosecutions
Attorney General’s Chambers
Botswana

Mr. Stavos Diniz Douglas Moreno

State Attorney (Legislative)
Legal Department
House of Representatives of Pernambuco State
BrazilMs. Vicky Kabiku Muanji

JudgeCounty of Matete
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights
Democratic Republic of the Congo

Mr. Adalberto Julio Abarca Delcid

Sub Chief of the Unit of Disciplinary Investigation
General Inspector’s Office
National Civilian Police
El Salvador

Mr. Idha Endri Prastiono

Anti-Corruption Police Chief
Directorate of Criminal Detective
Indonesian National Police
Indonesia

Mr. Sami Sleman Faqi Al-Surchi

Deputy Public Prosecutor
Public Prosecution Directorate
Ministry of Justice
Kurdistan
Iraq

Mr. Ponce Arturo Velasco

General Director of Internal Affairs
Attorney General of the Republic
MexicoMr. Rajkumar Koirala

District Government Attorney
District Government Attorney, Morang
Attorney General’s Office of Nepal
Nepal

Mr. Tariq Pervez

Assistant Director
Interior Divsion
Federal Investigation Agency
PakistanMAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEIMr. José Anthony Portillo
Martinez

Auxiliary Officer
Internal Affairs Unit
National Direction of Customs
Paraguay

Ms. Marmarie PorcinculaSatin-Vivas

State Prosecutor I
Office of the Prosecutor General
Department of Justice
Philippines

Ms. Samarage Harippriya
Jayasundara

Senior State Counsel
Criminal Division
Attorney General’s Department
Sri Lanka

Ms. Ranjani Madavita
Patabandige Seneviratne

Assistant Director General
Legal Division
Commission to Investigate Allegationsof Bribery or Corruption,
Sri Lanka

Ms. Pinthip Leelakriangsak
Srisanit

Public Prosecutor
International Affairs Department
Office of the Attorney General
Thailand

Ms. Phuong Thi Do

Judicial Inspector
Criminal and Administrative Department
Institute for Judicial Science of theSupreme People’s Court of Vietnam,
VietnamMr. Dumisani Mthombeni

Law Officer
Regional Public Prosecutor
Attorney General’s Office
Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs
Zimbabwe

Japanese Participants
Mr. Toshio Hirano

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors Office

Mr. Atsushi Maekawa

Investigator
Investigation Division, Executive Bureau
Securities and Exchange Commission

Mr. Masanori Mizuno

Judge
Sapporo High Court

Mr. Shinji Yamaguchi

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors Office33

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

Japanese Observers

34

Mr. Hiroyuki Ito

Government Attorney
International Cooperation Department
Research and Training Institute
Ministry of Justice

Mr. Syusaku Tatara

Assistant Judge
Saitama District CourtMAIN ACTIVITIESAPPENDIXOF UNAFEI

16TH SEMINAR ON CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR
THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
Mr. Xian-Dan Huo

Director
Forensic Expertise Administrative Bureau
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China

Mr. Wen-Hui Xi

Deputy Director-General
Forensic Expertise Administration Bureau
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China

Mr. Xin-Zi Zhang

Director
General Office
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China

Ms. Lan Lu

Deputy Director
Division of Prison Work
Institute for Crime Prevention
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China

Mr. Yi-Bao Li

Officer
Political Department
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China

Ms. Jie Shang

Officer
Forensic Expertise Administration Bureau
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China

Ms. Xiu-Li Tian

Program Officer
Mutual Legal Assistance and Foreign
Affairs Department,
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China

Mr. Zhi-Hua Du

Deputy Director-General
Legislation Department
Legislative Affairs Commission of the Standing
Committee of the National People’s Congress
People’s Republic of China

Ms. Bin Liu

Consultant
Research Department
Legislative Affairs Commission of theStanding Committee of the National People’s Congress
People’s Republic of China

Mr. Hong-Bin Wang

Senior Judge
The First Division of Criminal Trial
The Supreme People’s Court of thePeople’s Republic of China

Mr. Wei-Chun Ao

Senior Judge
The Third Division of Criminal Trial
The Supreme People’s Court of thePeople’s Republic of China

35

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

36

Mr. Yun-Tao Gao

Deputy Director General
Department of Duty Crimes Prevention
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of thePeople’s Republic of China

Mr. Lei Chen

Office-Level Procurator
General Bureau of Anti-Corruption and Bribery
The Supreme People’s Procuratorate of thePeople’s Republic of China

Ms. Xiao-Li Liu

Consultant
Administrative Re-examination
The Bureau of Legislative Affairs Department
Ministry of Public Security of thePeople’s Republic of China

Mr. Jing-Jie Liu

Section Chief
Criminal Investigation Department
Ministry of Public Security of thePeople’s Republic of China

Mr. Gong-Yi Wang

Director-General
Judicial Research Institute
Ministry of Justice of the People’s Republic of China

Mr. Hua Guo

Associate Professor
Central University of Finance and Economics

APPENDIX

DISTRIBUTION OF PARTICIPANTS BY
PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND AND COUNTRY(1st International Training Course – 146th International Training Course)
Professional background
Judicial andOther Administration

Judge

7
21

9
13

PublicProsecutors

PoliceOfficials

Correctional Correctional Probation
ParoleOfficials
Officials
Officers(Juvenile)(Adult)Country/Area
Afghanistan
Bangladesh

6

Bhutan4
175

FamilyCourt
Investigation
Officers

Child
WelfareOfficers

4

Social
WelfareOfficers

Training &Research
Officers

5

Others

Total

2

26
67

9

Brunei4

Cambodia
China

1
13

9
2

2
5

1
5

Georgia

7
10

6

1
8

12
41

3

1

74

2
6

6

4
2

2

1

1

Hong Kong

16

India
Indonesia

15
23

10
22

33

1

12

29

3

9

53
28

7
14

1

1
3

1

99
131

Iran

5

12

8

8

6

Iraq
Jordan

6

3
1

3
1

7
5

5

5

2

31
7

3

53

6

28

4

Korea

13

Kyrgyzstan

1

Laos
Malaysia

10
21

6
2

Maldives

1

Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal

3

110

1

2

7
7

10
46

3

33
132

3

2

1

1
7

1

1
1

2
4

34

13

12

32
4
41
1

8

1

2
1

3

13

35

20
2

10

Philippines

18

9

25

39

9

Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sri Lanka

5
10
22

18
20

5
17

7
12
22

3
10
20

TaiwanTajikistan

12
1

4

2

2

1

ThailandTurkeyUnited Arab Emirates

24
2
1

40
1

40
1

17
2

18

Uzbekistan
Vietnam
Yemen

14
1

5

3

8
2

1

A S I A
Algeria

331

212
4

237
2

420

203

Botswana
Cameroon
Cote d'Ivoire
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Egypt
Ethiopia
GambiaGhana
GuineaKenya
LesothoLiberia
Madagascar
Malawi

2
4

1
1

5

1

2
1
3

1
7

4

1

1
1
1

1
1
3
2
2
5
3
12
1

3

1

5

1

4
14

1

1
2
1

1
1
3

8

7

Oman
Pakistan
Palestine

Mauritius
MoroccoMozambique
Namibia
Niger
Nigeria
Seychelles
South Africa
Sudan

42

3
1

3

94

2

5
88
6

5

7

139

1
1

1
1
1

17
73
118

2
1
3

10
11

1

1

7
3
3

21
1
9

38

12

69

1

4

4

8

5
1

4

2

47

42

1
1

175
8
1

1

1
37
3

28

1,635
6

1

3

1

1
7

7
2

2
1

1
1
1
1
1

4
1

1
1
1

2

Swaziland
Tanzania
Tunisia
UgandaZambiaZimbabwe

1

AFRICA

28

4

6
4
3

5
3
1

3

13
2
7
1
5
6
8

22

96

22

1
3
1

5
1

1
20

1
1
1
1
1

1

1
2

2
1

0

10

0

0

2

9

4

10
5
3
4
11
5
2
8
4
40
3
1
1
1
1
6
3
2
1
13
9
4
19
2
21
2
7
7
12
213

37

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2010

Professional background
Judicial andOther Administration

Judge

PublicProsecutors

PoliceOfficials

Correctional Correctional Probation
ParoleOfficials
Officials
Officers(Juvenile)(Adult)Country/Area
Australia

1

Fiji
Kiribati

6
1

Marshall Island

1

1

9

Nauru
New Zealand

1
1

1

Palau
Papua New Guinea
Samoa

10
1

Solomon Islands

3

Tonga
Vanuatu

2

1

THE PACIFIC
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina

25

3

1

2

2

1
10

2

2

1

7
4

3

63
1
2

32

16

2
1

2
1

6
1

26
4
4

1

2
5

0

10
1

1
0

0

3

1

1
1

1

3
1

1

1

1
3
1

2

2
2

1

1

1

1

12

1

2

16
1

1

1

7

1

1
4
4

1

6

1
1
1

1
9
3

1
1

1
1

Peru
Saint Christopher and Nevis

4Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent
Trinidad and Tobago

1

10

4
1

3
9

4
1

4
1

1

1

8
12

2

26
2

1

2
2
2

1
1

1

1
21

27

3
12
98
2
1

1
3
15

1
13

8
4
1

1
1

2
1

2
38
8

1
8
1
2

156
2
7
3

4
2
1
1
3

Haiti
Honduras

NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
Albania
Bulgaria
Estonia26
1Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Hungary
Lithuania
Poland2
1

EUROPE
United Nations Office on Drugs and CrimeJ A PA N
T O TAL

4

0

1

5

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

115
529

181
437

289
592

99
781

95
365

88
129

203
294

66
71

38
44

2
55

48
104

38

17
4

1

Ecuador

51
5
8

3

1

5

U.S.A.
Uruguay
Venezuela

2
1

1

3

PanamaParaguay

3
55
1

2

3

Jamaica
MexicoNicaragua

1
1

2

4
1

1
1

Total

1
2

1

Colombia

GrenadaGuatemala
GuyanaOthers5

19
2

Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
El Salvador

Training &Research
Officers

1

4

Barbados

BrazilChile

17

Social
WelfareOfficers

4
1

BoliviaChild
WelfareOfficers

1
21

Micronesia

BelizeFamilyCourt
Investigation
Officers

3

2

1

2

1

4

11

1

209
3
1
1
2
1
1
1

1
1
0
1
73
120

10
1
1,297
3,521

PART TWORESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
No. 84Work Product of the 147th International Senior Seminar“Community Involvement in Offender Treatment”

UNAFEI

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN THE CANADIANCRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Yvon Dandurand*

I. INTRODUCTION
Over the last 25 years or so, in Canada, there has been a substantial growth in the number and an
improvement in the quality of the opportunities available to the community to become involved in thetreatment of offenders. That growth paralleled the growth of community involvement in crime prevention
and the advent of problem-oriented policing. These trends are all interrelated. In Canada, there is a strong
non-governmental sector in the country and that sector now plays a crucial role in crime prevention, victim
assistance and the delivery of assistance, treatment and supervision services for offenders. There are also
numerous community-based agencies providing mental health and substance abuse services in the community,
often to offenders.
I cannot here give a detailed account of the different ways in which community members can be andare involved in offender treatment. Instead, I would like to focus on five main areas which I think areinteresting for international counterparts. They are: (1) participatory justice and, in particular, the role of thecommunity in what we call “sentencing circles”; (2) the involvement of the community in our youth justicesystem; (3) the role of citizens’ advisory committees within the federal penitentiary system; (4) the role ofcommunity members in what we refer to as “circles of support”; (5) the role of the Aboriginal community insupporting the rehabilitation and reintegration of Aboriginal offenders.

II. PARTICIPATORY JUSTICE
The Law Commission of Canada noted the emergence of a community justice movement in Canada:“Disillusionment with the formal criminal justice system has led to a willingness to innovate and experimentin an effort to do things better. This is reflected in the history of neighbourhood justice centres, the continuing
development of new programmes and processes (such as healing circles and group conferencing), a strong
commitment to seeing results in action, and a growing interest in programme evaluation that is faithful to theconsensus-based goals of community restorative justice.”1
The expression “participatory justice” is not used very frequently in Canada, but it refers generally toa number of community-based initiatives that promote and facilitate the involvement of the community inproblem solving, responding to crime and dealing with the offenders. The emphasis is often on the offender(and the victims) rather than only on the offence. Depending on the scheme, the community acts more orless autonomously from the criminal justice system.
Aboriginal communities, in particular, have shown an interest in becoming involved in what we could referto as “aboriginal community justice”. Aboriginal offenders are very much overrepresented in the Canadiancorrectional system. Aboriginal communities have developed initiatives in response to an overwhelming needfor emotional and spiritual healing in their communities. Furthermore, for many Aboriginal communities,* Senior Associate, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy; Associate Vice-President,
Research and Graduate Studies, University of the Fraser Valley, Canada.
1 Law Commission of Canada (2003). Transforming Relationships through Participatory Justice. Ottawa: Law Commission of
Canada, p. 28.

41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

such initiatives are part of a larger movement to assert control over their own governance and over justiceinstitutions.

A. Sentencing Circles
Circle sentencing is perhaps one of the best Canadian examples of participatory justice. In that process,members of the community can become directly involved in responding to incidents of crime and social
disorder. In Canada, this is usually done through the formation of a Community Justice Committee (CJC)
that may also include representatives from justice agencies. The common objective of the members of sucha committee is to find more constructive ways to respond to conflict in their community. Cases are referredto the committee, generally from the police, prosecutors and judges, although cases may also come from theschools, victim services programmes and families.
The Committee plays an integral role in the overall circle process, including liaising with criminal justiceagencies and community organizations as well as with the various stakeholder groups in the community.2
The operation of the circle sentencing process is community-specific, meaning that it may (and should) vary
between communities. In fact, the circle sentencing process relies heavily upon community volunteers for
its success.3
The circles are also applied in situations involving juvenile offenders. The committee can often mobilize
community support for the victim and the young offender throughout, and following the circle process.
Restorative programmes offer some very real and effective alternatives to more formal and stigmatizing
youth justice measures. In particular, because of their educational value, they are particularly useful for
promoting diversionary measures and for providing alternatives to measures that would deprive a youth of
his or her liberty. Many such programmes offer unique opportunities to create a community of care aroundchildren and youth in conflict with the law. Public support for restorative justice programmes for youth isusually relatively easy to garner.4

B. Community Conferencing
Community conferencing is also used sometimes as an alternative measure programme to which an offendercan be diverted from the criminal justice system. Such programmes tend to be managed by community groups
or agencies, with or without financial support from the government. The conference usually involves those mostconcerned about the offender and the victim and any other member of the community with an interest in theprocess (e.g. a school teacher in the case of a young offender, or an employer). The agency or community groupto which the offender is referred is also responsible for monitoring the offender’s compliance with the terms of
the agreement and may or may not function under the direct oversight of law enforcement or justice officials.
C. Issues of Fairness
The involvement of the community in shaping a response to an offender’s behaviour can sometimes
work at the expense of the procedural safeguards that would normally be in place to protect the rights ofthat offender. There are obviously issues of fairness that cannot be neglected. The Law Commission of
Canada has offered some general recommendations on developing fair participatory processes.5 There
does not exist yet a comprehensive regulatory framework for such initiatives. In the absence of a Canadian
regulatory framework, one may rely on the United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative
Justice Programmes in Criminal Matters . Among other things, these standards emphasize the need to obtainthe consent of both the offender and the victim before applying such measures.

2 Bazemore, G. and C. T. Griffiths (1997). “Conferences, Circles, Boards, and Mediations: Scouting the ‘New Wave’ ofCommunity Justice Decision Making Approaches.” Federal Probation 61, (June), pp. 25-38.
3 Pranis, K., Stuart, B., and M. Wedge (2003). Peacemaking Circles—From Crime to Community. St. Paul (Minn.): Living
Justice Press.
4 Dandurand, Y. and C. Griffiths (UNODC) (2006). Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes. New York: United Nations.
5 Law Commission of Canada (2003). Transforming Relationships through Participatory Justice. Ottawa: Law Commission of
Canada, p. 217.

42

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

III. YOUTH JUSTICEThe Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) encourages the use of provisions to keep young offenders
from being processed in the formal juvenile justice system. Provisions in the Act encourage juvenile justiceofficials to use what are called ‘extrajudicial measures’ for juvenile offenders who have committed less serious
offences.
The Act also sets out very clear objectives for the use of such extrajudicial measures. These objectives
are: (1) to encourage family, victim, and community involvement in the process; (2) to provide theopportunity for the victim to participate in the decision-making process; (3) to repair the harm caused toboth the victim and the community; and, 4) to ensure that the extrajudicial measures used are proportionate
to the seriousness of the offence.
Under the Act, police officers and prosecutors are encouraged to use pre-charge and post-charge
diversionary measures. The following is a list of diversion measures that police and prosecutors areauthorized to use under the YCJA: (1) taking no further action; (2) warnings (informal warnings by police
officers); (3) police cautions (more formal warnings by the police), and (4) police referrals of young persons
to community programmes or agencies that may help them not to commit offences. The referral may be to awide range of community resources, including recreation programmes and counselling agencies.
Although the Act states that the police must consider referring troubled youth to community programmes,
the option tends to be underutilized. There remains a need to strengthen police-community partnerships
by providing programmes and tools to encourage such referrals. As first responders, police are well situatedto prevent youth from continuing down criminal pathways. They need to be connected to the community
resources.
The BC Centre for Safe Schools and Communities, at my university, has just launched a database oncommunity resources which can be used directly and easily by front line police officers. The tool provides
front line police officers with easy access to information that can assist them in referring young offenders
to mental health and drug addiction services in their communities. The database will also enable greater
citizen/community participation in the youth justice system through community programmes and services
for drug addiction and mental health services targeted specifically at youth.
The Act provides a variety of opportunities for justice system personnel to divert youth from the formal
criminal justice process. One of these possibilities is the “family group conference” or the “community groupconference”. The utility of conducting conferences is also acknowledged by the Act. The law authorizes andencourages administrators to use conferences in the decision-making process for young offenders. Under
the Act, ‘a conference is defined as a group of people brought together to give advice to a police officer, judge,
justice of the peace, prosecutor, provincial director or youth worker who is required to make a decision underthe Act’.
Conference groups typically involve a variety of people and may include the youth’s parental figures, thevictim(s), community members or community agency personnel or other professionals whose expertise isneeded in the decision-making process. Conference groups have the ability to make various recommendations
about the following decisions: (1) extrajudicial measures to be used; (2) conditions for release from pre-trial
detention; (3) sentences; and, (4) reintegration (re-entry) plans for the juveniles once they have been released
from custody and are ready to return to their family and the community.
Conferences conducted within the YCJA legislative framework tend to take one of two forms: they are
either restorative in nature or are conducted as professional case conferences. When used as a restorative
mechanism, conferences address the harms caused by the juvenile’s offence to both the victim and thecommunity. A professional case conference on the other hand is conducted to develop and implement
strategies for addressing the young offender’s needs, in addition to determining how community services
may be used to assist the young person.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

IV. CITIZEN ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Citizen Advisory Committees (CACs) are autonomous committees that reflect the interest of citizens
in contributing to the quality of Canada's federal correctional services and programmes. The mission ofeach CAC is “to contribute to the protection of society by interacting with staff of the Correctional Serviceof Canada (CSC), the public and offenders by providing impartial advice and recommendations about
correctional services and by acting as a liaison with the community” (CSC website). They have been in
operation since 1965 (and became mandatory for all penitentiaries in 1977).
According to CSC, close to 600 citizens participate in 106 committees across the country. Committee
members represent various social, cultural, and demographic backgrounds and occupations, and usuallyreside in proximity to the operational unit for which the committee serves. They are appointed for a periodof two years.
The role of the committees is defined in Commissioner directive No. 023, 2003-03-17 : “Citizens’
Advisory Committees: (a) provide advice to the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) regarding correctional
operations, programmes, policies, and plans; (b) act as impartial observers of and provide feedback on the
day-to-day activities and operations of the CSC; (c) liaise with staff and offenders and their representatives,
other organizations including criminal justice and advocacy groups and the community to address
correctional issues; and, (d) in performing these roles, local committees should establish clear objectives
and undertake activities that will support them. (...) These objectives should be reviewed and updated
yearly.”These committees are involved in numerous activities, involving the institutions, the offenders and thecommunity. I can perhaps give you some examples.

V. CIRCLES OF SUPPORT AND ACCOUNTABILITY
A circle of support and accountability is a form of community reintegration programme that seeks to
reduce the risk of reoffending by sex offenders who are re-entering the community without supervisionat their warrant expiry date. Based in the religious community, the circle aims to enhance public safety byworking in cooperation with the police, neighbourhood groups, victims and treatment professionals.
This programme was originally conceived in Canada as a means to fill a gap in services left by government
policy that is, regarding those individuals that had served their entire court sentence in prison and werereleased at the expiration of their warrant. These individuals were being released without a formal process ofaftercare and without any assistance or supervision. The programme was initiated out of necessity to workwith released offenders who were most likely to fail to successfully reintegrate society, presumably because ofa lack of community support or other resources. Many of these individuals were untreated sex offenders andtheir return to the community was very likely to attract significant media attention.6
The programme is a fine example of community participation and of successful partnerships between thecommunity and the justice system. The volunteers involved in the programme are carefully selected fromthe community, professionally trained, and aptly supported. An agreement is established between the core
member (the offender) and up to seven circle volunteers. Participation is voluntary on both sides. However,once the agreement is agreed to, it becomes the road map for both the support and the accountability thatcan be expected by all participants. The outer “professional” circle refers to the support, guidance andinterventions that are provided by professionally trained participants and representatives of official law
enforcement or correctional agencies.7

6 Brown, R. E. and Y. Dandurand (2007). “Successful Strategies that Contribute to Safer Communities”, in Maio, S. (Ed.),
Selected Papers on Successful Crime Reduction and Prevention Strategies in the Urban Context. Riyadh: Naif Arab University
for Security Sciences, pp. 77-88.
7 See also: Wilson, R., McWhinnie, A., Picheca, J., Prinzo, M., and Cortoni, F. (2007). “Circles of Support and Accountability:
Engaging Community Volunteers in the Management of High-Risk Sexual Offenders,” Howard Journal , Vol. 46 No 1. (February2007), pp. 6-7.

44

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

An evaluation of a pilot project based on this model was conducted by Wilson, Picheca and Prinzo.8 It
compared the offenders supported by the programme to 60 offenders from a matched comparison group. The
60 high-risk sex offenders who received the support of the programme reoffended at a rate 50 to 60% below
the expected rate. Furthermore, the offences committed by the Circle supported offenders were less brutal,
less invasive, and less injurious than the index offence – a harm reduction effect.

VI. ABORIGINAL COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTAs I mentioned before, Aboriginal offenders continue to be disproportionately represented at all levelsof the Canadian criminal justice system. According to CSC, at the end of March 2007, Aboriginal people
comprised 17.0% of federally sentenced offenders although the general Aboriginal population is only 2.7% of
the Canadian adult population.
A little over ten years ago, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board of Canada
developed a framework for enhancing the role of Aboriginal communities. Special funds were allocated to theinitiative ($18.6 million over five years; 2000-01 to 2004-05). Research had demonstrated that reconnecting
the offenders with families and communities improved outcomes and reduced recidivism. A lot of thatfunding was therefore used to develop additional Aboriginal healing lodges with Aboriginal communities.
Healing lodges are minimum security Aboriginal community facilities that offer culturally appropriate
services and programmes to offenders in an environment that incorporates Aboriginal peoples’ values,
traditions and beliefs.
This was to be the beginning of greater involvement of Aboriginal communities in the reintegration of
offenders. Initially, while many Aboriginal communities were interested in developing healing lodges, theyoften lacked the capacity and/or expertise to engage in the planning, development and implementation ofcommunity-based alternatives.
Aboriginal communities are also involved through the work of Elders. First Nations, Métis and Inuit
Elders contribute throughout the sentence to meeting the cultural and spiritual needs of diverse Aboriginal
offenders. They provide guidance and leadership in correctional planning/intervention for those who wish tofollow a traditional healing path.
Finally, community involvement is also fostered through the work of Aboriginal liaison officers who help
ensure that the unique histories and needs of individual Aboriginal offenders in institutions and of theircommunities are understood and met. They also facilitate interactions between offenders and non-Aboriginal
staff to ensure that the offenders’ spiritual and cultural needs are addressed.

VII. CONCLUSIONAs shown above, there is no shortage of opportunities for community members to get involved in
the treatment of offenders. Hundreds of groups and thousands of volunteers get involved each year. The
Correctional Service of Canada alone reports that approximately 9,000 Canadians, from all walks of life,
volunteer at the Service, helping in the penitentiaries as well as in the community. Volunteers contribute to avariety of institution-based programmes, including chaplaincy, recreation activities, classroom and workshop
instruction, social events and cultural activities. In the community, they support the families of offenders andhelp released offenders readjust to life in the community.
Many services have effectively become dependent on the help of community members and non-governmentalorganization partners to deliver offender rehabilitation and reintegration programmes. The commitment to public
safety and offender treatment that these community-based agencies and organizations have demonstrated has
greatly enhanced the ability of the justice system to offer correctional programmes. These groups have assisted
the system in dealing with the increasingly complex needs of today’s offender population.
The experience community members have of their involvement in the justice system varies. Some of
8 Wilson, R., Picheca, J.E., and M. Prinzo. 2005. “Circles of Support and Accountability: An Evaluation of the Pilot Project inSouth-Central Ontario”. Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

them comment from time to time on the trivialization of their role and the unnecessarily limits and constraints
imposed on the involvement by the justice and correctional institutions. However, generally speaking, theexperience of these community members seems to be largely positive and rewarding. They, for the most part,feel that their own contribution makes a difference not only in the life of the offenders, but also in terms of
public safety.
We certainly can deplore the general lack of research to assess the impact of community involvement in
the treatment of offenders. In Canada, certainly, that research is very limited. However, most people who
are familiar with the Canadian system would probably agree that the growing involvement of the community
in the treatment of offenders has helped us make our justice system more open and transparent, and moreaccountable. This is indeed a very positive development.

46

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERS

DIFFERENT PATHS TO GREATER COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
IN THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
Yvon Dandurand*

I. INTRODUCTION
The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, just like UNAFEI, is amember of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network of Institutes(the PNI). As such it is frequently invited to participate in research and technical assistance activities insupport of policy reform and capacity building initiatives in various countries. It perhaps gives us at theCentre an interesting perspective on how various countries are approaching the question of the treatment ofoffenders and the role that they reserve for the community’s involvement as part of that process.
The countries we have had the pleasure to work with do not necessarily all recognize the importance ofoffering proper treatment programmes to offenders. Some of them are simply satisfied to rely on deterrence,
through punishment and hard labour, to produce a change in the behaviour of offenders. For them, thetreatment and rehabilitation of offenders are rarely defined as key objectives of the criminal justice system.
Other countries recognize the need for treatment and rehabilitation programmes but do not necessarily
support much of a role for the community in the treatment of offenders. Even among these countries, there
are great variations in how they define and circumscribe the role of the community.
At a broad level, one can identify many factors which affect the likelihood of community involvementin the treatment of offenders. First, the level of community involvement is often a function of the relative
openness and transparency of a criminal justice system. A criminal justice system which is committed tohigh standards of transparency, accountability, integrity and openness is usually much more open to various
forms of community involvement. Repressive systems, on the contrary, are far more reluctant to carvea suitable place for community participation or, for that matter, for any kind of meaningful civil society
involvement. Secondly, the level of development achieved by a country is also often a factor as it directly
impacts the ability of the community to get involved actively. Finally, there are also some cultural andpolitical factors which affect the extent to which the non-governmental and volunteer services sectors areable to develop. In some countries, the non-governmental sector has been actively dissuaded from getting
involved by the authorities. In some instances, the authorities may still perceive any form of community
mobilization or organization as a potential threat to existing political arrangements.
All these factors must obviously be kept in mind. Above all, one must remember that countries tend
to approach both the treatment of offenders and the involvement of the community in that process very
differently. As they discover the merits of community involvement in the criminal justice process, they finddifferent paths to progress and different ways to facilitate that involvement. This should encourage us all tobe creative in our attempts to involve the community.
In this presentation, I hope to offer several examples of these different approaches so that you may form
your own view of what might be applicable in the context in which you work. In doing so, I plan to emphasize
how community involvement can help make the criminal justice system more accountable, but also much
more effective in preventing recidivism and promoting public safety. I will also try to draw your attentionof how community involvement can effectively contribute to the protection of the rights of offenders. I liketo think of these points as the three immediate benefits of community involvement in the treatment of* Senior Associate, International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy; Associate Vice-President,
Research and Graduate Studies, University of the Fraser Valley, Canada.

47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

offenders.
Before I get into the crux of the matter, I would like to note that there are some interesting initiatives
in different parts of the world exploring how the community can be part of the governance of prisonsand correctional programmes. In such initiatives, representatives of the community are typically invited
to participate in the work of prison management boards or in various types of advisory committees.
Members of the community are sometimes included in civilian oversight mechanisms designed to review
complaints or allegations of misconduct and, generally speaking, to hold prisons services and other agencies
accountable for their practices. In Canada, for example, it is mandatory for all federal penitentiaries to havean autonomous citizens’ advisory committee (CAC) to reflect the interest of citizens in contributing to thequality of Canada's federal correctional facilities and programmes. In many countries, legislation encourages
the conduct of inspections and visits by community-based human rights agencies. In many ways, thesebroader interactions between correctional authorities and various elements of the community can be quitetransformational. They are incredibly interesting from the point of view of introducing and supporting broadcorrectional reforms.
However, since this paper’s scope is limited, I will focus my comments more specifically on threevery practical but no less crucial aspects of community involvement in offender treatment. These are: (1)community involvement in the treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders; (2) community
involvement in diversion programmes; and, (3) community involvement in community corrections,conditional release, aftercare and offender re-entry programmes. I will select examples from the manytechnical assistance projects in which we have been involved over the last several years. Some of theseexamples will relate more specifically to programmes and initiatives designed for juvenile offenders whileothers will be somewhat more general in character.

II. THE SOCIAL REINTEGRATION OF OFFENDERSThe concept of “reintegration” generally refers to the social integration measures designed to assist
offenders who are being released from an institution, such as a prison, a detention centre or a reform school,
and help them face the challenges associated with their return to the community. This assistance involves
both addressing the offenders’ needs and managing the risk they may pose to the community. Programmes
and measures must be in place to identify and address offenders’ needs and prepare them for their returnto the community. A key aspect of effective interventions for the social integration of offenders is anunderstanding of the factors that place them at risk and make it difficult for them to function normally insociety.
The intervention programmes developed in various countries to assist the social integration of offenders
vary in efficacy and none are effective for all categories of offenders. The most effective interventions arethose that directly address the needs and challenges faced by the offenders, as well as their risk factors.
Some of these challenges can be addressed while an offender is in an institution, but others can only be
addressed while the offender is in the community. Therefore, institutional programmes must also be
followed by community-based initiatives. The two levels of intervention must complement each other.
The primary criminogenic needs that must be addressed by institutional and community-based treatment
programmes are those related to education, employment, accommodation, drugs and alcohol, mental health,social networks, cognitive skills, and attitudes. Most communities are able to offer resources that can bemobilized to help offenders address these needs and successfully reintegrate society.
The rehabilitation of offenders and their successful reintegration into the community are among thebasic objectives of the criminal justice systems. This is certainly acknowledged in international humanrights standards. Principle 10 of The United Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners state
that: “With the participation and help of the community and social institutions and with due regard to
the interests of victims, favourable conditions shall be created for the integration of the ex-prisoner into
society under the best possible conditions”.2 Principle 8 refers to the need to enable prisoners to undertake
meaningful employment which will facilitate their reintegration into the country’s labour market and permit
2 United Nations Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners. General Assembly resolution 45/111, annex.

48

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

them to contribute to their own financial support and that of their families.
With respect to juvenile offenders, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), requires States Parties
to establish special laws, procedures, authorities, and institutions specifically applicable to juveniles in conflictwith the law. These special laws and procedures must ensure that juveniles are treated with respect for theirsense of dignity and worth and takes into account the juveniles’ age and the need to promote their successful
social integration. Article 40 (1) of that Convention stipulates that States Parties should recognize “thedesirability of promoting the child’s reintegration and the child’s assuming constructive role in society”.

A. Community Involvement in Prison Programmes
Opening the doors of the prisons and encouraging community involvement, as we all know, can havesome immediate and worthwhile effects on the overall management of prisons and correctional programmes.
The community also brings a wealth of resources and practical expertise that prisons cannot otherwise
access or make available to offenders. As I already mentioned, the process is truly transformational. In
Uganda, for example, the Prisons Service adopted a policy document3 to guide transformation and improve
performance within the Service. This was part of a resolute attempt to implement an “open-door policy”
that opened prison gates to all stakeholders in order to address the challenges created by a historicallyclosed prisons culture. This is when that Service began to make some progress in providing some effective
assistance to offenders and facilitating their reintegration.4 One of the unanticipated benefits of a closer
connection between prisons and the community was the development of an innovative programme which
made it possible for pre-trial detainees to enter an early guilty-plea and to be sentenced without further
delay to serve a sentence of community services. This was made possible by the close cooperation between
the Prisons Service and a community-based non-governmental agency. As a result, the number of cases ofindividuals held in pre-trial detention and the length of their stay in prison were both considerably reduced.
With respect to the provision of education and vocational training programmes for prisoners, it isimportant to note that the most successful programmes are almost always those which involve partnerships
with the education system and community-based organizations. These programmes offer education andtraining that are relevant to the labour market and consistent with academic and professional standards.
Some vocational training can be offered in close collaboration with the private sector, as is the case forexample in Singapore. The private sector can offer expertise, equipment, access to technology, and evenbusiness opportunities for the institutions involved. In thinking about such programmes, what usually firstcome to mind are examples of collaboration in manufacturing. However, there are many opportunities for
institutions to collaborate with the private sector or with local communities with respect to training inareas such as agriculture, food processing, organic farming, animal husbandry, and other less-technologydependent areas.
Involving business organizations in the vocational training of offenders can increase the relevance ofthat training and ensure that it remains aligned with the rapidly evolving needs of the labour market. It canalso ensure that training programmes keep pace with new and emerging technologies. Prisons services
sometime find creative ways to involve private sector industries and, if necessary, to provide incentives toencourage their involvement. Corrections officials often have assets, such as land, facilities, or location,
which can be used as leverage to entice the private sector. For private sector businesses, the motivation
is rarely only to provide training or to recruit employees. Instead, their involvement in the provision of
vocation training to offenders is more often part of a broader partnership with correctional authorities and amore comprehensive business plan.
There are many ways in which correctional authorities can explore and promote partnerships withthe private sector and find viable and affordable ways to involve that sector in the training and hiring ofoffenders. Some countries have been extremely successful at doing so, particularly when correctional
officials were very proactive at initiating such partnerships, recruiting new business partners, removing
obstacles to the private sector’s participation, and offering incentives. Once more, Singapore offers a numberof examples of promising practices in that respect. In that country, the private sector partners are supported,
3 Uganda Prisons Service (2000). Policy Document – 2000 and Beyond. Kampala: Uganda Prisons Service Headquarters.

4 UNODC (2010). Persisting Challenges and Emerging Trends: Findings and Recommendations. Report of the UNODC

Prisons Assessment Mission to Uganda. New York: United Nations, p. 8.

49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

celebrated and rewarded. Simple procedures are in place to make these partnerships possible and newopportunities can be explored promptly and efficiently with potential new private sector partners.
Some correctional institutions sometimes conduct simple surveys of private businesses and potential
employers to identify some of the local training needs and labour market openings. In some instances, thissounds the beginning of a much wider collaboration between these businesses and the institutions. A crime
prevention and offender reintegration project of the Ministry of Public Security in Vietnam, in collaboration
with Plan Vietnam, recently used that approach to redesign and improve the vocational training offered toyoung offenders serving a term in the national reform schools. The prior survey of prospective employers iscredited with much of the current success of the programme. The success of the programme is what allowed
the reform schools to move to the next step and work more closely with the private sector to provide job
placements for young offenders at the end of their sentence. In some cases, job placement of a recently
trained young offender is what made possible the early release of the offender.
In addition to the private business sector, other community resources can also be mobilized to offer
better vocational training to offender. For example, community colleges and other educational institutions
may be able to offer training either in the community or in the institutions. At the very least they can play arole in the training and supervision of prisons instructors who deliver vocational training to offenders.
The involvement of the private sector in organizing, facilitating or even delivering advanced vocational
training to offenders also makes it possible for some of the vocational training to take place in thecommunity, not only for offenders serving a community supervision sentence, but also for prisoners who
may qualify from a day-release programme as part of their social reintegration plan.
The community has obviously much more to offer to the treatment of offenders than vocational training
and education programmes. NGOs, individual experts and volunteers may have experience and expertise indealing with certain types of offenders or in offering certain kinds of intervention which does not otherwise
exist within the institutions. Institutional programmes should make use of this rich source of resources.
Self-help groups, members of distinct ethnic communities, people with different language skills, or evenpeople with a certain religious orientation or some special artistic skills may often find it easier to develop a
positive and meaningful relationship with offenders and contribute to their rehabilitation. They may have astronger impact on offenders. They can often contribute insights, support and advice that will help addresssome of the offenders’ criminogenic needs, such as an alcohol or drug dependence. Finally, programmes
which involve the participation of victims of crime - including victim-offender mediation programmes - canhelp offenders understand the consequences of their own behaviour and the effect it had on victims and on
the community. Such programmes have been shown to have a real impact on the successful rehabilitation of
offenders and on the prevention of recidivism. They are obviously not possible without the participation of
victims and other members of the community.
We should discuss together how this is all made possible within a correctional institution setting. Thereis obviously much more to it than simply “allowing” the community to get involved. Promoting community
involvement and making it sustainable involve a number of steps which should not be neglected. Prisonsstaff must be prepared to facilitate community involvement and to welcome it in spite of any practicalinconvenience or additional security, safety and management issues that this strategy always generates.
The community involvement process must be carefully managed, keeping in mind that problems anddifficulties will predictably occur and will require some careful responses. Information, support, facilities,
encouragement and incentives must be provided for the community’s effort to be sustained in the longer
term.

B. Community Involvement in Offender Re-entry Programmes
Assisting the social integration of offenders is important from both the point of view of public safety andthe point of view of protecting the rights of offenders. Efforts to assist their social integration must consider
both the needs of the offenders, as well the risk they present in terms of the safety of the community. 5
5 Griffiths, C. T., Dandurand, Y., and D. Murdoch (2007). The Social Reintegration of Offenders and Crime Prevention. A

research report prepared for the Policy, Research and Evaluation Division, Public Safety Canada. Ottawa: National Crime
Prevention Centre, Public Safety Canada, April 2007.

50

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The primary objective of social integration and reintegration is to provide offenders with the assistanceand supervision that will help them function in society as law-abiding citizens and avoid reoffending. These
programmes provide an opportunity for offenders to connect with their families and community and to live a
productive and law-abiding life. The community, obviously, must also be responsive.
In designing and implementing interventions to facilitate the offenders’ successful reintegration, there
are a number of realities that must be kept in mind. Offenders released from imprisonment are confronted
by a myriad of challenges that will predispose them to reoffend upon release. Many offenders have multiple
needs and issues that must be addressed in a comprehensive manner, including limited skill sets, substanceabuse issues, and an absence of family and community support.
It is imperative for institutions to develop cooperative partnerships with community-based organizations,
volunteer groups, and NGOs to offer seamless interventions that mobilize all available resources to assist
and, when necessary, supervise the offenders.6
When offenders have been placed in an institution, they face additional challenges that are directly
associated with the consequences of incarceration and the following difficult transition back to the community.7
There are therefore several practical challenges that must be faced by offenders at the time of their release,including finding suitable accommodation with very limited means, managing financially with little or nosavings until they begin to earn some lawful remuneration, accessing a range of everyday necessities, andaccessing services and support for their specific needs.8
In most instances, the successful reintegration of offenders hinges upon their ability to secure andmaintain gainful employment. However, offenders typically encounter many challenges with respect tosecuring employment when they are released from an institution. These include challenges due to personal
factors such as low self-esteem, poor motivation, various skills or lack of training, and challenges related to alack of employable skills or a poor employment record.
Among the more important interventions that can be made to assist offenders with respect to employment
are job readiness classes, vocational education, certification, job training, job placement, and employment
monitoring by a case manager. In all of these areas, community organizations and the private sector are
uniquely positioned to offer effective assistance.
In many of the countries we have been working in, there often is very little reintegration assistance available
to offenders who have been institutionalized. This is particularly problematic because the rehabilitation
assistance these offenders have received during their institutionalization was also very limited. In the last
several years, I have had the opportunity to work in Vietnam with the Ministry of Justice and UNICEF on anational survey of social reintegration mechanisms. In that country, the concept is only articulated in generalpolices with no specific programme or project to implement these activities. It was therefore difficult to fully
implement reintegration support policies.

III. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN DIVERSION PROGRAMMESDiversion refers to an alternative process for dealing with offenders in an informal way, outside of theformal administrative or criminal justice systems. It may involve any process used by various componentsof the criminal justice or administrative systems to channel offenders away from formal proceedings andadjudication to community-based responses to their behaviour, needs and circumstances. The objectiveof such a process is to give offenders a chance to take responsibility for their actions and amend their
6 Brown, R. E. and Y. Dandurand (2007). “Successful Strategies that Contribute to Safer Communities”, in Maio, S. (Ed.),

Selected Papers on Successful Crime Reduction and Prevention Strategies in the Urban Context. Riyadh: Naif Arab University
for Security Sciences, pp. 77-88.
7 See: Borzycki, M. 2005. Interventions for Prisoners Returning to the Community. A Report Prepared by the AustralianInstitute of Criminology for the Community Safety and Justice Branch of the Australian Government Attorney General’s
Department. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
8 Borzycki, M. and T. Makkai (2007). Prisoner Reintegration Post-release. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology,
March 2007.

51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

behaviour without having a formal dossier or sanction recorded against them. The Tokyo Rules state thatconsideration must be given to “dealing with offenders in the community, avoiding as far as possible resort
to formal proceedings or trial by a court, in accordance with legal safeguards and the rule of law” (Rule 2.5).
In the case of juvenile offenders, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) requires States parties
to promote the establishment “wherever appropriate and desirable” of measures for dealing with juveniles
in conflict with the law without resorting to formal judicial proceedings, provided that human rights and legal
safeguards are fully respected (Article 40(3)(b)).
The Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules) also directly
promote the use of diversion: “Consideration shall be given, wherever appropriate, to dealing with juvenile
offenders without resorting to formal trial by the competent authority” (Rule 11.1). The Rules also referto the type of community programmes that should be in place “In order to facilitate the discretionary
disposition of juvenile cases, efforts shall be made to provide for community programmes, such as temporary
supervision and guidance, restitution, and compensation of victims. (Rule 11.4)”
Diversion, let us be clear, cannot operate without the existence of strong and credible community-based
programmes and resources. In fact, the implementation of diversion programmes often fails for one of threemain reasons: the community resources do not exist or are insufficient; the community resources exist but
referrals do not take place; or, the programme loses credibility after a publicized controversial failure of an
offender who was often referred to a community programme without a proper prior assessment.
Among some of the most successful diversion initiatives, restorative justice programmes often provide
an expanded role for community members in the resolution of conflicts and in constructing agreements tobe adhered to by offenders. There are many different ways in which community members can be involved
in restorative justice programmes.9 The United Nations Basic Principles on the Use of Restorative Justice
Programmes in Criminal Matters notes that these programmes can enable “communities to understandthe underlying causes of crime, to promote community well-being and to prevent crime”. However, thecommunity does not always perceive these programmes as an effective response to crime. It is therefore
always important to develop materials and create opportunities for the community to better understand theprinciples, practices and merits of restorative justice programmes.
Let us consider some examples.

IV. INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONSThe Tokyo Rules10 were adopted twenty years ago to promote the use of non-custodial measures andalternatives to imprisonment. The rules emphasize that public participation should be regarded as anopportunity for members of the community to contribute to the protection of society and that it “should
be encouraged as it is a major resource and one of the most important factors in improving ties between
offenders undergoing non-custodial measures and the family and community” (Rule 17.1). The rules alsostress the importance of the role of volunteers, particularly when they are properly trained and supervised.

Many of the countries we have been working in are seriously lagging behind others in terms of theirability to offer community-based alternatives to imprisonment. It is not uncommon to encounter countries
which have laws and regulations that allow for community-based sentences such as probation, either forjuvenile offenders or for all offenders, but where no service is yet in place to administer such sentences.
The option is therefore never used by the courts. Some countries, like Uganda, once had a service which
eventually stopped operating because of lack of funds, like of public support or lack of leadership.
Our assessment of the situation of vulnerable groups in Southern Sudan prisons and the resulting policy
development exercise led to the adoption of a national plan of action to implement some alternatives toimprisonment, including the development of a new probation service (with the assistance of the Kenyan
9 Dandurand, Y. and Griffiths, C. (UNODC) (2006). Handbook on Restorative Justice Programmes. New York: United Nations.

10 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules), United Nations G.A. resolution

45/110, December 14, 1990.

52

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Probation and Aftercare Service) and the development of community services orders.11 In a post-conflictsituation and in a country where there is no tradition of community involvement in corrections, it was
decided to start with the development of a probation service for juvenile offenders, as a unit within theSouthern Sudan Prisons Service. I will try to tell more about this particular example.
Alternatives to imprisonment are sometimes promoted as a means to address the problem of prison
overcrowding which plagues many criminal justice systems. One of the challenges facing authorities whoare seeking to develop the use of alternatives to imprisonment as a way of reducing prison population (oralleviating the ever-present problem of prison overcrowding) is that of coming with effective and sustainablestrategies for mobilizing the support of communities.
Communities are not always very responsive to the idea of community-based corrections. The population isoften caught in a punitive mood which does not leave much room for operating community-based corrections
programmes. Non-governmental organizations can help ensure that this issue is kept on the political agenda
and advocate for change. 12 Community-based programmes, such as probation or community services
programmes, can often be hugely successful in rehabilitating certain types of offenders. However, they simply
cannot operate without the support of the community and they often depend on the active participation ofmembers of the community.
There are many ways in which community members can assist in implementing community-basedalternatives to imprisonment without putting the rights of offenders at risk. Involving them has the additional
advantage that they get a first-hand experience of the benefits of keeping people out of prison.
In the case of juvenile offenders, international human rights standards established by the Convention
on the Rights of the Child and other instruments stipulate that alternatives to imprisonment should be
preferred to deprivation of liberty whenever a child is involved: imprisonment is to be used for children andjuveniles only as a last resort and for the shortest period of time possible. The Standard Minimum Rules
for the Administration of Juvenile Justice 13 expresses a preference for community-based measures andstates that “volunteers, voluntary organizations, local institutions and other community resources shall becalled upon to contribute effectively to the rehabilitation of the juvenile in a community setting and, as far as
possible, within the family unit” (Rule 25.1).
It is probably fair to say that, in most countries, the population is generally more willing to support
community-based alternatives for youth than for adults. This can provide a good starting point for developing
community-based alternatives to imprisonment and providing communities with a first positive experience ofcommunity corrections. Initiatives must often start by proposing changes to existing legislation concerning
juvenile offenders. In some instances, the law includes some dispositions that can be used to promote greater
involvement of the community. This is the case in Vietnam, for example, where the Penal Code , the Penal
Procedure Code and the Ordinance on Administrative Sanctions provide the possibility for a young offender tobe sentenced to “education at the commune level”. I would like to share with you some ideas about how thiscan in fact be used to open the door to greater opportunities for meaningful community involvement.
The main problem we often encounter during our technical assistance activities stems from the fact that
community involvement in community-based sanctions rarely happens spontaneously. The implementation ofmost community-based alternatives generally requires an infrastructure in the community. This infrastructure
can rely on a specialist bodies or other official structures such as a probation service or the police. The
police are often given some responsibility with respect to the supervision of offenders in the community. I
remember seeing an example of police involvement in Latvia which certainly could encourage other police
forces to become more directly involved. Typically, these official structures have procedures for involving
the community, recruiting volunteers, or utilizing other community resources. In other instances, the11 Dandurand, Y., et al. (2009). Vulnerable Groups in Southern Sudan Prisons . Abbotsford: University of the Fraser Valley
Press.
12 UNODC (2007). Handbook of Basic Principles and Promising Practices on Alternatives to Imprisonment. New York: United
Nations.
13 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules), General Assembly
resolution 40/33, November 1985.

53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

infrastructure is provided in part by community-based organizations and non-governmental organizations
which have developed community-based programmes for offenders. In Canada, some of these agencies are infact funded by government or operate under a contract for services with the government.

V. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN CONDITIONAL RELEASE AND
AFTERCARE PROGRAMMESMany countries have developed policies and programmes designed to assist offenders who are returning
to the community after their release from an institution. These interventions are variously referred to as“aftercare”, “transitional care”, “reentry” or “re-entry support”, “reintegration”, or “resettlement”.
The vast majority of offenders are released at some stage. A planned conditional release (or “early release’)can facilitate their integration into the community and offer better protection to the population. Assistanceand supervision at the time of the offenders’ release makes it less likely that they will continue their criminal
behaviour. Many countries have conditional release programmes involving the early conditional release of
offenders and their supervision in the community. In some countries, every period of detention is followed by aperiod of supervision in the community, as part of the offender’s sentence. Conditions are normally attached tothese arrangements. If an offender breaches one of these conditions while under supervision in the community,that can result in a change in conditions or in the offender being returned to detention.
The successful completion of a period of conditional release by offenders depends on their compliancewith the various conditions attached to their conditional release, and whether they manage to refrain fromcommitting another offence – or at the very least manage not to get caught for committing one. Success on
conditional release, it is generally assumed, depends in large part on the offenders themselves, but also on
the quality of the supervision and assistance they receive.14
There is a lot of speculation on what constitute effective supervision and there is a growing concern inmany countries about the apparent frequency with which offenders fail to complete their period of community
supervision.15 Yet, this is an area where the available evidence clearly suggests that, with proper training,
volunteers and members of community-based agencies can succeed in offering effective supervision andassistance to offenders with enviable crime prevention results.

VI. CONCLUSION
I hope that we can draw together some of the lessons that can be learned from some of the several
examples that I have provided. In my own experience, interventions designed to address the dynamic risk
factors of juvenile offenders have a higher chance of success. Successful interventions are those which:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

focus on a specific target group of offenders and their specific needs and challenges;
rely on sound methods for assessing the needs and risk factors of offenders;hold the offenders accountable and responsible for their own actions;build on the offenders’ strength and resiliency factors;
strike a balance between surveillance and control, on the one hand, and support and assistance on
the other;are offered as a coordinated effort of all the agencies involved and supported by strong inter-agency
cooperation;
are supported by sound case management practices and adequate information management systems;
reflect the public safety priorities of the community in which they are developed;
engage the community in both the planning and the delivery of the intervention and foster strong
community ownership; and14 Dandurand, Y., Christian, J., Murdoch, D., Brown, R. e., and V. Chin (2008). Conditional Release Violations, Suspensions and

Revocations – A Comparative Analysis. Vancouver: ICCLR
15 Dandurand, Y., Griffiths, C.T., Murdoch, D., and R. E. Brown (2008a). Failed Social Reentry – Factors behind Conditional
Release Violations, Suspensions, and Revocations. Vancouver: ICCLR.

54

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

have an adequate evaluation component that allows the programme to evolve, self-improve, andremain accountable to the community for crime reduction results.

Lastly, while on the subject of evaluation, which unfortunately I will not have a chance to write muchabout, I should at least mention how little research there really is on community involvement in offender
treatment and on its effectiveness. Some promising practices have been identified, but we are still far awayfrom an evidence-based approach to this kind of programming.

55

VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSRESOURCE MATERIALSERIES
No.84
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN TREATMENT OF OFFENDERSPRIOR TO SENTENCING:
THE NEW ZEALAND EXPERIENCEDavid Carruthers*

I. INTRODUCTION
New Zealand has a very high rate of imprisonment when contrasted with other comparable countries.1
The Treasury briefing to the new Government in 2008 makes for sobering reading:2 “New Zealand currently
faces an unsustainable cost in the construction, operation, and wage cost of the infrastructure requiredby the criminal justice system (specifically prisons, legal aid, courts and police). For instance, for theforeseeable future, the Justice sector has the potential to consume large proportions of the operating andcapital funding available to government.”
Despite this high imprisonment rate, New Zealand also has a number of initiatives and projects whichseek to engage the wider community in the treatment of criminal offenders, many of which are outlined inthis paper. This paper also looks at some of the legislative and other mechanisms available to courts andothers to utilize these processes and enhance community involvement prior to sentencing . By strengthening
the use of community treatment providers and providing for even greater community involvement in thesystem generally there is potential to both reduce the high imprisonment rate and address the causes ofoffending.

II. RATIONALE FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND TREATMENT
It is well recognized in the international community that community involvement in treating offenders
is desirable and necessary. The Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, Adopted and proclaimed byUnited Nations General Assembly resolution 45/111 of 14 December 1990, notes that “With the participationand help of the community and social institutions, and with due regard to the interests of victims, favourable
conditions shall be created for the reintegration of the ex-prisoner into society under the best possible
conditions.”
The so called “Tokyo Rules”3 seek to enhance community involvement in the management of criminal
justice and particularly the treatment of offenders.
While community safety may be secured in the short term by the incarceration of an offender, in thelonger term the release of most offenders is inevitable. Prison isolates offenders from the community; it
can cause them to become dependant and they can become accustomed to the slow and different pace of life
inside. All of this makes reintegration upon release more difficult, and can increase the risk a prisoner poses
to society. An offender who remains in the community is less likely to assimilate to an inmate lifestyle, andinstead is better able to maintain or learn conventional social norms.
* Chairman, New Zealand Parole Board.
1 In March 2010 New Zealand’s imprisonment rate was 185 prisoners for every 100,000 members of the population. By way of
distinction, America is the highest at 756, Denmark the lowest at 63, and New Zealand’s neighbour Australia is at 129.
See http://www.corrections.govt.nz/about-us/facts_and_statistics/prisons/march_2010.html
2 The Treasury, Briefing to the Incoming Minister of Finance: Economic Fiscal Strategy – Responding to your Priorities ,November 2008. Accessible at: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/briefings/2008
3 United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures, Adopted by General Assembly resolution 45/110 of 14
December 1990.

56

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Imprisonment does not of itself reduce reoffending rates. An excellent piece of Canadian research4
examines fifty studies dating from 1958 involving 336,052 offenders to determine whether prison reduced
criminal behaviour or recidivism. The primary conclusion was that prisons should not be used with the
expectation of reducing criminal behaviour. Alarmingly, there was some tendency for lower risk offenders to
be more negatively affected by the prison experience. The authors argued that the primary justification ofprison should be to incapacitate offenders (particularly those of a chronic, higher risk nature) for reasonable
periods and to exact retribution. More recent evidence from the United States of America confirms theresearch that the overuse of imprisonment is likely to increase criminal offending rather than reduce it.
There are also significant cost savings in community treatment against incarceration.

III. GENERAL
In any discussion of community involvement in the treatment of offenders in New Zealand it is necessary
to traverse the varying and escalating intrusions into the life of an offender all of which are calculated totreat the offending behaviour and to create opportunities and enhance abilities to prevent further offending
and to return an offender to a constructive and offence-free lifestyle. In New Zealand the first of theseinterventions can be encapsulated under the heading of “Diversion”.

IV. ADULT DIVERSION
A. Police Diversion (Prosecution Diversion)“Diversion” is a scheme administered by the police (prosecution service) which has been operating in
New Zealand for over two decades, despite there being no statutory basis for it.
Essentially diversion involves a criminal charge, generally of a less serious nature, being dealt with by
the police without engaging any formal court processes. To be eligible an offender must acknowledge full
responsibility for the offence as charged by the police. The offender will agree to undertake a “diversionplan” in exchange for the charge being withdrawn from court. The obvious benefit for the offender is thatthe charge does not result in a conviction being entered by a court with the attendant adverse consequences.
One other benefit is that the process of diversion allows the offender to be “treated” in the community, andfor the community directly affected by the offending to have a say over how the harm caused is redressed.
Some types of offending are deemed too serious to justify being dealt with under the diversion scheme.
The Police Prosecution Service decides whether someone is eligible for diversion on a case-by-case basis after
consideration of the victim’s views and the seriousness of the case and in accordance with the published Police
Diversion Policy. Once it is decided that diversion is suitable, a meeting must be held between the offenderand the police diversion officer in order to formulate a “diversion plan”. While the conditions of each plan will
be individualized, and there is no limit on what conditions can be included, subject of course to the offender’sconsent, the following are common components:
•
•
•
•
•

make an apology to the victim;
make reparation to the victim;
attend counselling, education programmes, addiction treatment or other therapeutic programmes in
the community;
make a donation of a specified sum to an approved group;
be part of a restorative justice process (where appropriate).

When the plan is completed by the offender the police advise the court accordingly and the charge iswithdrawn. Because diversion does not engage the court, any counselling, education or addiction treatment
programme that is part of the diversion plan is provided for in the community by community based providers.
Diversion has no statutory basis. It is possible because the police have always had discretion to arrest
and/or lay charges in court. The grant of diversion is an exercise of that discretion, being a determination
4 Paul Gendreau, Claire Goggin (Centre for Criminal Justice Studies, University of New Brunswick) and Francis T Cullen(Department of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinatti), The effects of prison sentences on recidivism , 1999.

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

that the offending can be dealt with outside of the formal court processes, and by keeping the offender in thecommunity.
Much low level offending does not merit the expense of statutory sanctions involved in the criminal
court. Indeed, there is a growing recognition of this within the police, who are making efforts to resolve
criminal offending in ways without filing charges in court – diversion being one option. While diversion is
primarily a way of diverting low level and generally first-time offenders away from formal court processes
and the possibility of a criminal conviction, there is potential for a widening of the scheme and for greatercommunity involvement in the process. There is scope for greater community involvement in both thedevelopment of a plan, and the monitoring and completion of such plans and some communities in New
Zealand have taken advantage of this opportunity.5

B. Court Diversion
Just as the Police or Prosecution Service has the ability to divert charges from the formal criminal
justice system so too do the courts have the same opportunity, exercised in much the same way, with the
exception that the overriding principle of “openness” must hold sway. This means that the same rules apply
to issues of suppression of name and details as will any other court hearing – it is a public process and mustbe transparent and available to public scrutiny. (See Court of Appeal Decision in Proctor v R, R x Liddell etc(CA 131-00, 29 August 2000). These principles apply equally to persons charged as to those convicted.
That said, the advantages in terms of avoiding a record of conviction, speedy disposition of case, etc.
equally apply as for police diversion.
The invitation to community providers for involvement in the police diversion scheme is managed locallyby approved diversion officers or the district prosecution manager. The police regard it as important that therelationship is at a local level so that police who are involved with local communities can change arrangements
which are not working, keep control of local costs and set up local monitoring arrangements to ensure thatdiversion conditions are being fulfilled properly and within proper timeframes. The one exception to local
relationships relates to the decision about which charitable groups should receive donations made by offenders
who are diverted and that is a decision made finally by Police National Headquarters and is made public.
There are a range of diversion schemes available to the courts which are similar to the police diversion
scheme but, in addition, diversion to community-based organizations or community panels is popular. An
example of one such is Te Whanau Awhina .

V. COURT REFERRED DIVERSION – TE WHANAU AWHINA
The Hoani Waititi Marae (Maori traditional meeting house) in Auckland runs a programme called Te
Whanau Awhina which deals with offenders diverted by a court prior to sentencing (rather than by thepolice). Courts can refer certain offenders to the programme. A panel of nominated members of the Marae(traditional Maori meeting place) community meet with the offender and prepare a plan to address theiroffending. The panel emphasizes the need for the offender to accept responsibility for their offending, and torecognize the impact their offending has had on any victims, their whanau (family) and the wider community.
Equal focus is placed on reintegration – restoring the connections of the offender with their family, whanau
and with the community, particularly the Maori community in an urban setting.
Plans typically revolve around participation in Maori-based programmes and activities, making amends
to the victim, gaining employment or employment skills, or participation in therapeutic/rehabilitativeinterventions. In many cases the plan will take the place of a sentence that the court would have imposed.
Usually when the offender comes back before the court after completion they are discharged without any
conviction being entered in the records about them.
An evaluation of the programme was conducted in 1999.6 The evaluation found that plans were satisfactorily
5 According to the New Zealand Police Annual Report 2009/10 there were 14,208 diversions approved from 158,700 cases
prosecuted – in the previous year 16,230 diverted from 164,000 prosecuted – about 10%.
6 Gabrielle Maxwell, Allison Morris and Tracy Anderson, Community Panel Adult Pre-trail Diversion: Supplementary
Evaluation. Wellington: Crime Prevention Unit (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet) and Institute of Criminology,
Victoria University, 1999.

58

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

completed by 68% of referred offenders. The rate of reconviction after 12 months was 33% compared to 47%
for a control group. There was also a reduction in the seriousness of reoffending among those referred to Te
Whānau Awhina compared to the control group. The evaluation also showed substantial savings – mainly inprogramme provision – resulting from the scheme.
The programme follows traditional Maori customary practices and gains strength from being able toprovide many suitable community-based alternatives to corrections programmes. Its location on a marae andits embeddedness in Maori culture increases its effectiveness for Maori participants.

VI. YOUTH DIVERSION AND FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCES
The enactment of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 introduced a philosophical sea
change in the youth justice system. Prior to this legislation many youth offenders were sent to child welfare
institutions, or in serious cases, detention centres, borstals or corrective training institutions; places where
they would further develop their “bad boy/girl” image and learn new anti-social and criminal tricks.7 Youthoffenders were dealt with by institutions of the state from arrest right through the process. There was somereform of the Court system in 1974 (particularly notable was the introduction of diversionary concepts)
but these new procedures were seen as not working and the new Children’s and Young Persons Court
was consequently too active.8 The failure of the existing system to prevent reoffending, and the manner inwhich it encouraged dependency on the welfare of the state can be seen as the major effects of the previous
system. Further factors which influenced calls for change are summarized by Maxwell:9 “concern forchildren’s rights; new approaches to effective family therapy; research demonstrating the negative impact of
institutionalism on children; inadequacies in the approach taken in the 1984 legislation to young offenders;the failure of the criminal justice system to take account of issues for victims; experimentation with newmodels of service provision and approaches to youth offending in the courts; and concerns raised by Maori
about the injustices that had been involved in the removal of children from their families.”
A new and revolutionary process for dealing with children and young people involved in criminal offending
was created by legislation introduced in 1989 as a response to those concerns.
A report by Mike Doolan was influential10 in securing the final form of the Children, Young Persons andtheir Families Act 1989. Judge Fred McElrea, a leading Youth Court Judge, provides an excellent summary of
the procedure provided for in the 1989 Act:11“A sharp separation is to be found between (a) adjudication upon liability, i.e. deciding whether a disputed
charge is proved, and (b) the disposition of admitted or proved offences. The adversary system is maintainedin full for the former, including the right to trial by jury of all indictable offences, the appointment of a Youth
Advocate in all cases, and the use of traditional rules concerning the onus and standard of proof ( – ie. beyond
reasonable doubt) and the admissibility of evidence.
For really serious offences (“purely indictable”) the young person is dealt with in the adult court unless a
Youth Court judge decides to allow him to remain in the Youth Court – ss 275 and 276.
At the other end of the scale a robust diversion system operates to keep young persons away from theYouth Court. Both of the traditional means of obtaining a suspect's attendance before the court – arrest
and summons – are carefully restricted. Thus no arrest can be made unless it is necessary to prevent
further offending, or the absconding of the young person, or the interference with evidence or witnesses(s 214). And no summons can be issued without first referring the matter to a Youth Justice Co-ordinator
7 Consedine, J. (1999) Restorative Justice: Healing the effects of crime, Ploughshares, Chapter 6 at 102 - 103

8 Watt, E. (2003) A History of Youth Justice in New Zealand at 14. Accessible at www.justice.govt.nz/.../History%20of%20
the%20Youth%20Court%20Watt.pdf
9 Maxwell, G. (2007), The Youth Justice System in New Zealand: Restorative Justice Delivered Through the Family Group
Conference in Restorative Justice and Practices in New Zealand (Institute of Policy Studies, VUW) at 46
10 See Watt (supra n 7) at 23 - 25
11 Judge FWM McElrea, The New Zealand Experience of Restorative Justice Legislation , September 2005. Accessible at
http://www.restorativejustice.org/10fulltext/mcelrea9/view

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

who then convenes a Family Group Conference (“FGC”) – s 245. If the members of the FGC all agree,
including the police officer present, the matter is handled as decided by the FGC and will not go to court.
The FGC is attended by the young person, members of his family (in the wider sense), the victim (withsupporters if desired), a youth advocate (if requested by the young person), a police officer (usually amember of the specialist Youth Aid division), a social worker (in certain cases only), and anyone else
the family wish to be there: s 251. This last category could include a representative of a community
organisation, eg drug addiction agency or community work sponsor potentially helpful to the young
person.
The Youth Justice Co-ordinator (an employee of the Department of Social Welfare) arranges the meetingand of course attends as well, in most cases facilitating the meeting.
Where the young person has not been arrested, the FGC recommends whether the young person should beprosecuted and if not so recommended, how the matter should be dealt with (s 258(b)), with a presumption
in favour of diversion (s 208(a)). All members of the FGC (including the young person) must agree as tothe proposed diversionary program, and its implementation is essentially consensual. Where the young
person has been arrested the court must refer all matters not denied by the young person to a FGC which
recommends to the court how the matter should be dealt with. Occasionally a FGC recommends a sanction
to be imposed by the court. Usually it puts forward a plan of action, e.g. apology, reparation (in money
or work for victim), community work, curfew and/or undertaking to attend school or not to associatewith co-offenders. The plan is supervised by the persons nominated in the plan – which can be anybody,
including a family member – with the court usually being asked to adjourn proceedings, say for 3-4 months,
to allow the plan to be implemented.
The Youth Court nearly always accepts such plans, recognising that the scheme of the Act places theprimary power of disposition with the FGC. However, in serious cases the court can use a wide range ofcourt-imposed sanctions, the most severe being three months residence in a social welfare institution
followed by six months supervision; or the court may convict and refer the young person to the District
Court for sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 1985 (s 283(o)), which can include imprisonment for
up to five years
As with other diversion schemes, if the plan is carried out as agreed the proceedings are usually
withdrawn; if the plan breaks down the court can impose its own sanctions. Thus the court acts as both aback stop (where FGC plans break down) and a filter (for patently unsatisfactory recommendations).”
The Youth Justice system now embodies the idea that as far as possible a young offender should be kept
away from state institutions and their treatment should be in the community from which they come. A youth
offender will only face conventional court procedures where they deny responsibility for the offending, or
when the offending is very serious.
The community, in the sense of the direct community affected by the offending (the offender’s family, thevictim and their family) have a direct input into the “sentence” a young person will undergo via the FamilyGroup Conference. Typically, a Family Group Conference plan will keep the youth in the community, seeking
to address the causes of their offending by strengthening the communities around them.
This approach to youthful offenders has now been adopted by countries around the world. The central
concept of diversion from the criminal justice system in favour of utilizing the strength of family and community
where possible has attracted the attention of many countries which have seen the need to strengthen family
and community responsibilities as a primary purpose in crime prevention. It has been shown by research to beenormously effective.

60

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

VII. RANGATAHI COURTS
A. Maori Over-Representation
It is well documented that the indigenous population of New Zealand, Maori, are grossly overrepresented
in the prison population.12 Despite making up just over 15% of the overall population, around 50% of
the male prison population identify as Maori.13 The overrepresentation of Maori is even more marked
in female inmate numbers; around 60%14 of the total number of female prisoners. They are also grossly
overrepresented in the youth justice system:••••

19% of the 14-16 age group are Maori;
49% of those apprehended in that age group by the police are Maori;
53% of those before the Youth Court are Maori;
Up to 66% of those in youth custody are Maori.

Concern about these statistics has led to the creation of “Rangatahi Courts” as an arm of the Youth Court
in several regions throughout the country – an initiative inspired by the benefits of community involvement
in sentencing and offender treatment. Rangatahi Courts are a judicially-led initiative with the purpose ofhelping to better link Maori young offenders (aged 14-16) with their culture and the local Maori community.
This is achieved by holding regular sittings of the Youth Court on the local Marae (traditional Maori meetinghouses).

Rangatahi Courts do not represent a separate system of youth justice. All young offenders are stillrequired to appear first in the Youth Court. If they do not deny the offending for which they are charged,
they will still be required to undergo a Family Group Conference. At that Conference, a comprehensive plan
will be put in place in the regular way. However, if a Rangatahi Court sits in the region, the Family Group
Conference will consider whether to include provision for regular and consistent monitoring of the young
person’s progress to take place at the designated Marae . It may be that the offending is too serious to be
dealt with a Family Group Conference plan, and in the usual way a formal Youth Court order will instead be
imposed and the Rangatahi Court process will not be used. Essentially, the Rangatahi Court is a sitting of
the Youth Court which is held on a local Marae in order to monitor the young person’s compliance with the
Family Group Conference plan which has been developed for them to address their offending. Once the FGC
plan is approved by the youth court, the next and subsequent hearings will be on the Marae .
A specific direction by a Youth Court Judge is required for each sitting of the case to be on the Marae– there is a specific statutory power allowing the Court to hold sittings at any place.15 In this way, theRangatahi Court is an initiative that works within the current system and processes but at a different venue
and with a strong Maori cultural input, especially using lay, community advocates as provided for in theChildren, Young People and their Families Act 1989.
A Rangatahi Court hearing involves kaumatua (traditional elders) who are greatly respected membersof the marae community. The hearing commences with a formal welcome onto the Marae . After that thehearings of individual young persons’ cases begin. The marae kaumatua sit with a Presiding Judge andthe kaumatua acknowledges in a traditional way young person and whanau . The young person replies andintroduces his/her whanau and supporters. Youth and Lay advocates will then address the court of progress
being made, and the judge engages the young person and other professionals on the case. The Rangatahi
12 See for example The Too Hard Basket: Maori and Criminal Justice Since 1980 , Charlotte Williams, Institute of Policy

Studies, Victoria University of Wellington, 2001 and Over-representation of Mäori in the Criminal Justice System: An
exploratory report , Policy Strategy and Research Group, Department of Corrections, September 2007, at 6. Accessible at:
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/285286/Over-representation-of-Maori-in-the-criminal-justicesystem.pdf
13 Over-representation of Mäori in the Criminal Justice System: An exploratory report , Policy Strategy and Research Group,
Department of Corrections, September 2007, at 6. Accessible at:
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/285286/Over-representation-of-M ā ori-in-the-criminal-justicesystem.pdf (last accessed on 23rd February 2009).
14 Ibid, at 6.
15 See s 4(4) of the District Courts Act 1947.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

Courts are the first in New Zealand to blend our inherited English court processes with Maori culture or
tikanga .
For the Rangatahi Courts to reach their full potential it will be vital that culturally appropriate andcommunity-based rehabilitation programmes for serious young Maori offenders are available and accessible
to the young offenders who have their sentences monitored on the Marae . Such programmes are starting
to appear to support the Rangatahi Courts, including cognitive learning programmes, alcohol and drug
programmes, and cultural strengthening programmes.
By engaging the community of the Marae, and involving it in the treatment and monitoring of youth
offenders, it is hoped that the youths involved will engage with their culture and address the cause of theiroffending, leading to a crime free future.

VIII. MATARIKI COURT
An initiative is being rolled out in the District Court in the far north of New Zealand with a view to
reducing the imprisonment of adult Māori and providing other options based in the community. The“Matariki Court” will deal with cases involving adult Māori offenders prior to sentencing and in potential
sentencing options. The Court will utilize s. 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002 to hear from any person or
persons on:
(a) 	
(b) 	
(c) 	
(d) 	
(e) 	

the personal, family, whānau , community, and cultural background of the offender:
the way in which that background may have related to the commission of the offence:
any processes that have been tried to resolve, or that are available to resolve, issues relating
to the offence, involving the offender and his or her family, whānau , or community and thevictim or victims of the offence:
how support from the family, whānau , or community may be available to help prevent further
offending by the offender:
how the offender's background, or family, whānau , or community support may be relevant inrespect of possible sentences.

The Matariki Court will also refer defendants (when suitable) to available community services to address
their social needs and underlying causes of offending. Discussions will be held with government and nongovernment agencies about available services in the area; however, a key service that will be used by
the court is a pilot programme being developed by Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngāpuhi , the tribal authority forthat district. They will work with the defendant and their whānau during and after the court process. The
pilot programme’s objective is described by Te Runanga-a-Iwi o Ngāpuhi as “a Ngapuhi (tribal) responseto the current rate of imprisonment of its and other people sentenced at the District Court. The Ngapuhi(tribal) overall aim in is to stem that rate of imprisonment. It will do that by assisting offenders and theircommunities to a non-offending perspective, instil a sense of hope in the real prospect of positive growth
and achievement, and support and maintain that change of direction by the development of relevant
capacities and active support structures” .
The Court is still a work in progress and is planned to be operating in early 2011.

IX. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE DIVERSION
While the Youth Court legislation embraced restorative justice practices and community involvement,
recognition of the value of these practices in the adult court took a little longer in New Zealand.
The Ministry of Justice had for some time been seeking to replace piecemeal sentencing provisions
and in 1997 the government released a discussion document entitled Sentencing Policy and Guidance.16
The new Labour government committed itself to a reform of sentencing practice and policy, which saw theeventual enactment of the Sentencing Act 2002 and Victims Rights Act 2002. The Acts contains a numberof provisions which acknowledge and encourage the restorative practices which had been occurring on a
16 http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/s/sentencing-policy-and-guidance-a-discussion-paper

62

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

voluntary basis. Provisions supporting restorative practices are found throughout the Sentencing Act 2002,
the Parole Act 2002 and the Victims Rights Act 2002.17
Unlike Family Group Conferences in the Youth Court, which are organized by a Youth Justice Co-coordinatorfrom Child, Youth and Family (a department of the Ministry of Social Development), restorative justiceconferences in the adult court are run by community-based organizations. The Ministry of Justice provides
funding for 26 community organizations (mostly charitable trusts) to run these conferences, and also performs
a role in supervising the quality of the services a provider delivers. These Ministry of Justice functions reflecta desire to allow RJ processes to be delivered by the community in which offending takes place and to remove
the state from direct involvement.
The groups are able to work in ways that suit their community. They have good links with other communitybased services and can link defendants into appropriate programmes. Some restorative justice groups involve
lay members of the community in the restorative justice meeting. The panel members, as they are known, canbe involved as well as direct victims.
The conferences are a relatively informal meeting between the offender and the people affected. They
are there to talk honestly about what happened, what harm has been caused, who has responsibility toremedy that harm, and to work out ways forward. Conferences are private meetings; however, a report is
prepared for the Court. How participants agree to move forward is for them to decide. Some conferences
result in an agreement on a plan of actions that the offender will do to put things right, but this is not theoutcome at every conference.
Courts must by law take account of the outcome of a restorative conference when passing sentence,and often a successful conference can effectively determine the sentence imposed, and/or be a significantly
mitigating factor such that a term of imprisonment may be avoided.
Restorative justice conferences in the adult court are a further example of the community being involved
in sentencing to a greater extent than traditionally has been the case. Being community-based, these
conferences are able to link an offender into other community-based organizations, such as drug and alcohol
programmes or anger management programmes, which have the aim of addressing the causes of offending.
There is however potential to extend the scope of restorative justice conferences for adult offenders.
While the Youth Court Family Group Conference has the power to draw up a plan of action for the offender
to complete to address the effects and causes of their offending, that is not statutorily provided for in respectof adult conferences – something which may be worth addressing. Producing an agreed outcome rather than
one imposed by the state has several benefits.
Last year the Chief Justice of New Zealand delivered a speech which received widespread coverage inthe media.18 In it she suggested that the traditional criminal court process should not accommodate victims,
focusing as it does on the dispassionate and fair delivery of justice. As noted by USA Professor Howard Zehr
(often called “the father of restorative justice”), restorative justice theory calls for victims to be central tojustice.19 Indeed, restorative justice programmes appear to have significant potential for addressing victim
concerns and needs. Zehr contends that justice for victims will not be achieved while the criminal justicesystem continues to focus on the conventional questions:•••

What laws have been broken?
Who “done” it?
What do they deserve?

17 See http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/r/restorative-justice-provisions-in-the-sentencing-act-2002-

parole-act-2002-and-victims-rights-act-2002/publication for a full discussion of these provisions.

18 The Shirley Smith Annual Address 2009, Blameless Babes . Accessible at http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/speeches-and-papers.
19 See Fundamental Concepts of Restorative Justice , Howard Zehr and Harry Mika, page 41, Chapter 3 in Restorative JusticeCritical Issues (Sage Publications Ltd, 2003).

63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

Zehr asserts that instead we should be asking:•••Who has been hurt?
What do they need?
Whose obligation and responsibility is this?

Incorporating restorative justice conferences as a regular part of criminal procedure would, it is suggested,
go some way to lowering our imprisonment rate, and improving on our reconviction rates. A recent reportcommissioned by the Ministry of Justice in the United Kingdom has found reductions in reconviction rates for
those completing restorative justice conferences.20
Even if using restorative justice has little or no effect on recidivism and crime, it has positive effects forvictims as outlined above, helping them understand the offending and move on with their lives. A successful
conference can also mean an offender will remain in the community for treatment, rather than ending up in
prison.
There may be merit in providing judges with an explicit power to direct a conference wherever a defendant
admits guilt and the circumstances indicate it would be appropriate.

X. PORIRUA COMMUNITY COURT
The growing recognition that Court appearances for many defendants and their families can in fact
be used for therapeutic interventions to address the causes of offending has seen the creation of anotherjudicially led initiative seeking to strengthen community involvement. Inspired by the Red Hook Community
Justice Centre in Brooklyn, New York and the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre in England, New
Zealand Judges John Walker and Jan Kelly have been working hard to engage the local community with the
Porirua District Court.
Red Hook and North Liverpool created “Community Justice Centres” which the Porirua project is modelled
on. Community justice is about engaging with the local community, making the court more responsive to local
people and working in partnership with criminal justice agencies, support services and community groups tosolve the problems caused by offending in the local area. The key principles are maintaining a continuity ofjudges (seeing the same judge in the court each week); multi-agency collaboration, having a range of social
services available for defendants and whanau on site; a problem-solving approach to socially harmful behaviour;
and, vitally important, involving the local community and creating a community resource.
While the Porirua Project is in its early stages, a recent evaluation of the North Liverpool Community
Justice Centre in England found that the community justice approach supports effective and efficient court
operation.21 Unnecessary delays and bureaucracy are avoided, and decisive action against offenders’ nonappearance or breach of their sentences is possible. The Court has seen an increase in the number of guilty
pleas, and a reduction in the number of hearings required compared to national averages.

XI. COMMUNITY LINKS IN COURT (CLiC)
The judges have been assisted by the roll out of a new initiative called “Community Links in Court”(CLiC) by the Ministry of Social Development and Ministry of Justice. So far the CLiC service has beenrolled out in three District Courts – Porirua, Masterton and Auckland.
CLiC aims to meet some of the needs of people affected by family violence by leveraging off their likely
20 Does Restorative Justice Affect Reconviction? Joanna Shapland, Anne Atkinson, Helen Atkinson, James Dignan, Lucy

Edwards, Jeremy Hibbert, Marie Howes, Jennifer Johnstone, Gwen Robinson and Angela Sorsby, Ministry of Justice Research
Series 10/08, June 2008 and see Sherman and Strang (UK). Effects of Restorative Justice Conferencing on Re-offending 2010 –Jerry Lee Code of Criminology.
21 Evaluation of the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre , Katharine McKenna, Ministry of Justice Research Series
12/07 October 2007. Note. The Red Hook Community Justice Centre in New York recorded a seventy per cent drop in
offending over the period of its operation.

64

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

attendance at, or contact with, a Criminal or Family Court. Criminal and Family Courts present an excellent
opportunity to provide individuals affected by family violence with a link to such community programme
providers and other services provided by the state.
The CLiC service will work with defendants and their families to:••••screen their current social situation (housing, employment etc);
identify their needs for social support and discuss their willingness to attend a Domestic Violence
Programme administered by a community group;
when defendants are willing to attend a Domestic Violence Programme, provide the court withinformation on programmes that may be appropriate;link defendants and their families to appropriate social support services;and where appropriate•

provide a report to the judge that includes the outcome of referrals made by the Community Link in
Court and information provided by Domestic Violence Programme providers.

CLiC essentially involves representatives being present in court to provide a case management andservice brokering role, facilitating access for defendants and their families to community groups and/or stateservices in order to address the underlying causes of their offending. CLiC workers will have to establish
effective working relationships across many state services and community-based providers to be an effective
resource.
Successful completion of programmes will be taken into account by the court when sentencing as asignificant mitigating factor. Imprisonment may be avoided, and hopefully the offender is diverted away fromfurther criminal offending.

XII. OTHER THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONSThere are a range of other therapeutic initiatives operating in New Zealand which seek to address thecauses of offending and emphasize community treatment over incarceration. Some of these are listed below.

A. Family Violence Courts
Family violence has been in the spotlight in New Zealand in recent times, with several high profile
incidents drawing intense media attention and prompting nationwide self-reflection. Although it is anincreasing problem worldwide, one author has described family violence as an epidemic in New Zealand.22
The courts have responded by establishing specialist Family Violence Courts in many regions. These Courts
apply a modified procedure to overcome systemic delays in court processes; to minimize damage to families
by delays; to concentrate specialist services within the court process; to protect the victims of family
violence consistent with the rights of defendants; to promote a holistic approach in the court’s response tofamily violence; and to hold offenders responsible for their actions.
The cases are often resolved by programmes relating to drugs, alcohol, anger management and the like. Allof the sentences available to the court are available in the Family Violence Court, but the preponderance tend
to be non-custodial community-based sentences which are intended to provide remedies for the problems ofthe defendant and his family. The assistance of programme providers, victim advisors is encouraged.
An evaluation of the courts at Manukau and Waitakere completed in August 200823 found that the collaboration
between the court and community organizations was a key factor in the success of the Courts.

B. Youth Drug Court
The Christchurch Youth Drug Court (YDC) was established on 14 March 2002. The Court has been an
22 Free from abuse , Hand, J. (2001), New Zealand: Auckland District Health Board.

23 http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/t/the-waitakere-and-manukau-family-violence-courts-an-

evaluation-summary-august-2008/publication

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

innovative programme aimed at reducing offending which is linked with alcohol and/or other drug dependency
amongst young people. The YDC aimed to do this by facilitating early identification of young offenders withalcohol and/or other drug use problems; reducing time delays in community programme delivery to young
people; facilitating effective inter-agency coordination; and monitoring the young people to facilitate thetreatment process. The Court targets young recidivist offenders appearing in the Youth Court who have been
identified as having a moderate to severe alcohol and/or other drug dependency that is linked to their offending.

C. Special Circumstances Court
Another therapeutic court in its early stages is known as the Special Circumstances Court, sitting in
Auckland city. The overall objective of this Court is to aid the reduction of public space offending in Auckland’s
inner city by those who are homeless, and/or have on-going mental illness and/or addictions, or who areintellectually impaired through either injury or disability. The Court is a joint pilot scheme between agencies
including mental health services, the judiciary, police, Housing New Zealand and the Ministry of Social
Development – services such offenders are already likely to have come into contact with.
XIII. CONCLUSION
All the above show a depth of community involvement in the treatment of offenders prior to sentencing by
the courts, often initiated by participants in the system rather than by policy or legislation of the governmentof the day. A regrettable international tendency of recent times has been the way in which many countries
and communities have increasingly left the treatment of offenders to official institutions set up to do thiswork. Typically courts, correctional facilities, probation and others have taken over what used to be theordinary tasks of local communities in identifying and dealing with their own problems. Particularly in the lessserious category of crime, the challenge in New Zealand, as elsewhere, lies in returning that power and that
responsibility back to the communities from which these offenders come. Sometimes there will be a need forcentral agencies to share resources to enable this to be done. New Zealand’s experience however, also showsthat it is important that judges and officials such as police and probation show that they are genuinely keen to
involve such communities and are genuinely prepared to share authority and power with them and genuinely
invite those natural communities to become actively involved in this way. The most significant New Zealandstrategy to ensure community involvement in such treatment starts with such an invitation the promise ofwhich is then carried out in practice.

66

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN TREATMENT OF OFFENDERSPOST SENTENCING:
THE NEW ZEALAND EXPERIENCEDavid Carruthers*

I. INTRODUCTION
As mentioned in the previous paper, New Zealand has a high rate of imprisonment compared with othercountries.1 There is a growing recognition that if current trends continue, expenditure on prisons has
potential to sky rocket, together with all the other negative corollaries of imprisonment.
Despite that high imprisonment rate, we have a number of community-based sentences that can be
imposed by the courts, which are outlined in this paper. Associated with these, there are many ways inwhich the community engages with offenders who are in prison in efforts to address their offending andsupport reintegration on release.

II. RATIONALE FOR COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
It is not necessary to repeat what was said in the first paper. It is enough to say that imprisonment should
always be reserved for the most serious offenders, either to emphasize the egregious nature of the offending,or to keep the public safe, or to deter others from behaving in like manner. Except for relatively small numberof prisoners who may be in prison for life for the most serious offending, all prisoners must eventually bereleased. In New Zealand the average costs of keeping an offender in prison amounts to approximately$100,000 per annum. There are obvious advantages in reducing prison numbers and constructing communitybased sentences to take their place, thereby enhancing rehabilitation, reintegration and reparation. The New
Zealand hierarchy of sentences aims to address the requirement of clarity in respect of the various sentences
and how each compares to the others. There is a principle requiring the Courts to apply the least restrictive
outcome available. The hierarchy of sentences is based on this principle and is as follows:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)

Discharge or order to come up for sentence if called upon;Fines or orders for reparation;
Non-association orders;Community-based sentences of community work and supervision;Community-based sentences of intensive supervision and community detentions;Home Detention; andImprisonment.

III. COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES
There are a number of “community-based” sentences available to a sentencing judge under the Sentencing
Act 2002. The term “community-based” is used in the sense of being an alternative to imprisonment. These
sentences are administered by probation officers working for Community Probation Services (part of the
Department of Corrections). Approximately 38,075 offenders are on community-based sentences at any one* Chairman, New Zealand Parole Board.
1 In March 2010 our imprisonment rate was 185 prisoners for every 100,000 members of the population. By way of distinction,
America is the highest at 756, Denmark the lowest at 63, and our neighbours Australia were at 129. See http://www.
corrections.govt.nz/about-us/facts_and_statistics/prisons/march_2010.html

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

time in New Zealand as at 31 October 2010, compared to 8,506 offenders in prison.
Community-based sentences allow the offender to remain in the community, preventing contamination
with other offenders. They also allow for attendance at community-based programmes to address the causes
of offending. Strong and credible community-based sentences are essential if the prison population is to be
reduced.
Reports show that within four years of release from prison nearly 50% of offenders are convicted of at least
one new offence and end up back in prison.2 Another way of looking at this is to reverse the statistics; about
50% of all offenders do not return to prison within four years of release! The figures for those sentenced to a“community-based sentence” are improving.3 The latest Annual Report from the New Zealand Department ofCorrections talks of a moderate fall in imprisonment rates for the second year in a row amongst offenders whocommenced a community-based sentence.

IV. COMMUNITY WORKIn 1980 an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act 1954 was passed, establishing the sentence of community
service. It was in response to “a growing body of opinion that felt that in some instances it is appropriate to
extract some form of community service from an offender.”4 In 2002 the sentence was incorporated as part of
the Sentencing Act 2002, and is now known as “community work”.
This was the first sentence in New Zealand in which a part of the responsibility for the supervision of an
offender was given to people within the community. It has a content of general reparation to the community
and in some instances may benefit the victim. It costs little to administer and is also inexpensive in terms ofhuman and social cost.
Community work can be done anywhere in the community, from parks and reserves to schools, Marae(Maori meeting places), and churches. It can involve painting, gardening, building, graffiti cleaning, restoration,
recycling, and more. An offender can be ordered by the court to complete between 40 and 400 hours ofcommunity work.
A significant amendment in 2002 was to enable some of the hours of community work to be completed astraining for basic work and living skills. Up to 20% of hours may be substituted in this way.
Last year community work sentences provided 3.7 million hours of offender labour to charitable and local
projects throughout New Zealand. Local Probation Officers are continuing canvassing local charities such as
rest homes, schools, day care centres and other organizations and also are in contact with local government
authorities in the search for appropriate community work projects. Across the country, several thousandsuch organizations are the beneficiaries of work done under community work sentences. Some 40% of all
work is completed under the supervision of community organizations and the remainder is organized by alocal supervisor paid by Community Probation Services.

2 Figures released in March 2008 show that across the entire sample of offenders released from New Zealand prisons in

2002/03, 49 percent were convicted of a new offence and were returned to prison at least once during the 48-months followup period, see Reconviction patterns or released prisoners: A 48 month follow-up analysis , Arul Nadesu, Policy Strategy
and Research, Department of Corrections, March 2008. Accessible at: http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_
file/0006/258864/Recidivism_Report2008.pdf.
3 A report released in March 2008 summarizes patterns of reconviction and imprisonment amongst almost 35,000 offenders
who started community sentences (Supervision, Community Work) and orders (Front-end Home Detention) during the 12month period 1 July 2002 to 30 June 2003. The overall reconviction rate of offenders who started Supervision, Community
Work and Front-end Home Detention was 54% over four years. See Reconviction patterns of offenders managed in thecommunity: A 48 month follow-up analysis , Arul Nadesu, Policy Strategy and Research, Department of Corrections, March
2008. Accessible at:
http://www.corrections.govt.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/289712/Community-sentence-reconviction-report-2008.pdf.
4 NZPD, vol. 427, 1979, p4152

68

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

V. SUPERVISION/INTENSIVE SUPERVISIONSupervision is a rehabilitative community-based sentence which requires offenders to address the causesof their offending. It was introduced in 2002. Offenders can be sentenced to supervision for between six
months and one year by the court. The supervision sentence is aimed at offenders convicted of low level
offences with relatively straightforward rehabilitative needs and a lower risk of reoffending. The sentence
has been designed to minimize contact between CPS and the offender based on international researchshowing that high levels of intervention with offenders at a low risk of reoffending can actually increase theirrisk of reoffending.
Under a sentence of supervision an offender is required to report periodically to his or her probation
officer. Courts almost always also impose a special condition requiring the offender to attend a communitybased programme of some description to address the causes of their offending. The offender’s probation
officer is responsible for ensuring that the programme is attended and completed.
Intensive supervision provides a larger and more complex set of special conditions than is available undera sentence of supervision. Intensive supervision places a greater weight on the acquisition of basic work andlife skills. It is targeted at offenders convicted of more serious offences and who have complex rehabilitativeneeds. Offenders can be sentenced to intensive supervision for between six months and two years.
The sentence requires frequent reporting to probation officers. Probation officers will also make calls at
the offender’s home. Special conditions requiring attendance at a rehabilitative programme are the norm.

A. Judicial Monitoring
Sentences of intensive supervision and home detention include a special condition allowing a judge toimpose judicial monitoring of an offender’s compliance with the sentence. The Court must be satisfied that
judicial monitoring is necessary to assist compliance because of the special circumstances of the offender: s.
54I(2) and s. 80D(3).
If a condition of judicial monitoring is imposed, the probation officer must give the sentencing judge
a report on the offender’s progress within three months of the commencement date of the sentence or
one third of the time into the offender’s sentence, whichever is earlier. The judge may direct that further
progress reports be given at specified intervals or not less than three months: s. 80ZJ.
The progress reports must contain information on the offender’s progress and compliance with thesentence and other information relevant to the sentence.
After considering a progress report, the judge may order the offender to appear before the court if thejudge considers it desirable for the administration of the sentence or the rehabilitation or reintegration of theoffender: see s. 80ZK and the procedure in s. 80ZM.

VI. COMMUNITY DETENTION
This sentence involves an electronically monitored curfew and can be imposed in conjunction with community
work, supervision and rehabilitation programmes. Community detention can only be imposed:(i) if an offender is convicted of a sentence punishable by imprisonment, or a community-based sentenceor home detention is expressly provided for in the enactment specifying the offence (s. 69B(1)); and(ii) the Court is satisfied that:•••

it would reduce the likelihood of further offending by restricting the offender’s movements
during specified periods; or
it would achieve one or more of the purposes of accountability, responsibility, deterrence ordenunciation; andthat an electronically-monitored curfew is appropriate, taking into account the nature andseriousness of the offence, and the circumstances and background of the offender (s. 69C(1));
and69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84(iii) the Court is satisfied that:•••

there is a suitable curfew address within an area in which the scheme is operated; andthe occupants of the address understand the conditions, consent and have been informed thatthey may withdraw consent at any time; andthe offender understands and agrees to comply with the conditions: s. 69C(2).

The maximum period of sentence of community detention is six months (s. 69B(2)).

VII. HOME DETENTIONHome detention is a sentence that requires an offender to remain at an approved residence at all times
under electronic monitoring and close supervision by a probation officer. It can help offenders to maintainfamily relationships, keep working or actively seek work, and enable them to attend training or rehabilitative
programmes in the community.
Home detention as a standalone sentence was introduced in November 2007 as a way of addressing theever-increasing prison population. Prior to the amendments in 2007, home detention was a way in which
sentences of imprisonment could be served if leave was granted by the Parole Board. When the sentence
was being considered it was noted that those on home detention had re-conviction rates that were a third
to a quarter of those who had spent a comparable period of time in prison. Also, compliance rates were highand there were significant costs savings for home detention versus prison.5 It was estimated that making
home detention a sentence in its own right would save 310 new prison beds.
Home detention is now available to the sentencing court whenever the court would otherwise sentence
the offender to a “short term of imprisonment” (defined as any sentence under two years’ imprisonment).
Home detention can last for a maximum of 12 months. Home detention can be combined with community
work and a court can (and frequently does) impose a special condition requiring attendance at a rehabilitative
community-based programme such as a drug and alcohol rehabilitation programme or anger management
programme.

VIII. OPERATING THE HIERACHY OF SENTENCE
A. Community Work
Community work as a sentence is sometimes used as an escalation or when there is no possibility of
paying fines but can also be used constructively to put something back into the community rather thantaking from it. Using community work, for example, for those involved with graffiti, in order to clean up theirneighbourhoods is useful, but there can be other constructive community-based outcomes such as building
children’s parks, clearing scenic tracks and so forth. Also there can be a bonus, such as a young man who
completed the community work for a community construction organization and did so well he ended upgetting an apprenticeship with that organization.
Non-compliance with a community work order can be a problem because the community as a wholeneeds to recognize that it is a valid sentence. Some courts in New Zealand have set up special breach courts
not to monitor compliance but to insist on it. And so, for example, in one community court the authorities
are encouraged to bring breach action immediately – typically an extra day is added to the work andoccasionally a sentence of community detention, i.e. electronic curfew, is added to ensure compliance.
All these sentences which are community-based can escalate into the next restorative intervention
opportunity but prompt action for breaches is always imperative to avoid the perception of an easy sentence.

B. Supervision
Supervision is used for the delivery of necessary interventions such as violence cessation programmes,
drug and alcohol, gambling and budgeting programmes. Sometimes supervision is linked with community
work so there is a punitive element as well.
5 Cabinet Police Committee, Paper 7 – Home Detention, Effective Interventions, para 17.

70

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

C. Intensive Supervision
The next more intrusive intervention is intensive supervision, which can be for a longer period of up to
two years but can also be used for residential treatment in community-based facilities.
The sentence of supervision also can have included in it judicial monitoring which involves three monthly
reports on progress. This keeps the government departments responsible for interventions honest as wellas ensuring offender participation.

D. Community Detention
The next intervention is community detention, which involves electronic curfew and can be used in
two ways. The first is to include a punitive element by restricting liberty but also reduce opportunities
for offending at night – some repeat drunk drivers respond to this. Supervision and community detention
ensures they are home at night, safe from being out driving but able to attend programmes.
E. Home Detention
The last most important intervention is home detention, which is designed to be imposed in placeof short term imprisonment and is a much more controlled mechanism but can have the down side ofinterfering with employment if that employment is not very structured. In New Zealand there is a highbreach rate for home detention (28%) but that is sometimes the result of too long a period with such
restrictions which can provoke the breach.
Breach of home detention in place of imprisonment without adequate explanation will quite often resultin a short period of imprisonment.
A further intervention is called deferral. There is a section of the Sentencing Act – Section 25 – which
supports deferral of sentence so that the Court can monitor compliance with a community-based wrap-aroundprogramme which might involve such important items as literacy, job search, drugs and alcohol treatment, andso forth. A number of community groups provide such wrap-around programmes. The final sentence, after
such a deferral regime, usually reflects on the successful conclusion of other programmes.

IX. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES
Community-based sentences are administered and monitored by Community Probation Services, an armof the Department of Corrections. However, the sentences require a significant input from the community.
CPS staff work with community-based programme providers who provide rehabilitation in the areas offamily violence, drugs and alcohol, gambling and sexual offending. In 2009/2010 3,280 offenders on communitybased sentences spent 140,837 hours attending programmes run by community-based programme providers(note these figures do not include those on drug and alcohol programmes). Most of these programmes arecompleted as part of a sentence of supervision or intensive supervision.

A. Maori Programmes
CPS staff work closely with Maori programme providers to support the management of offenders whoare serving sentences of supervision or intensive supervision. In 2009/2010 1,278 offenders spent 55,125
hours attending community run such programmes. Probation officers work closely with providers andoffenders to ensure the success of these programmes, which aim to connect/reconnect Maori offenders with
their cultural values and to use the strengths of Maori culture to assist them to live offence-free lives.
B. Domestic Violence Treatment
Domestic Violence Treatment programmes are delivered by community-based providers to help offenders
identify their thinking and lifestyle and their use of violence. They teach offenders the skills needed to live
without violence, such as controlling violent impulses and conflict resolution. The Community Probation
Service refers offenders only to external community-based programme providers who are accredited under theDomestic Violence Act 1995 and registered with the Ministry of Justice.
The programmes teach offenders the skills needed to live without violence, such as controlling violent

71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

impulses and conflict resolution. Programme content varies depending on the provider.

C. Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Programmes
Both residential and non-residential alcohol and drug treatment programmes are implemented by anumber of community-based providers across New Zealand for those serving community-based sentences.
These programmes are suitable for offenders with a history of serious substance abuse identified ascontributing to their offending. Problem gamblers have similar opportunities.
These treatment services are primarily funded by the Ministry of Health through District Health Boards;
however, the Department of Corrections also holds contracts for residential alcohol and drug treatment
services for a limited number of offenders per year. These providers in the main are community/churchbased charitable trusts or societies.
In most cases offenders attend residential alcohol and other drugs treatment as a special condition of
their order or sentence and are referred by their probation officer to attend these programmes.
Probation Officers may also encourage community-based offenders to attend Alcoholics Anonymous andNarcotics Anonymous programmes in the community.

D. Child Sex Offender Treatment Programmes
The Department of Corrections has fully funded contracts with three community-based providers forprovision of child sex offender treatment programmes in the community – SAFE Network (Auckland),
WellStop (Wellington) and STOP Trust (Christchurch). These organizations provide treatment for adultsex offenders who offend against children. Each organization employs a similar therapy model of Cognitive
Behavioural Therapy, with a strong emphasis on relapse prevention.
The programmes aim to reduce the risk of reoffending by addressing major treatment issues. Offenders
participating in the adult programme attend group therapy and individual therapy with their counsellor orcase manager. The programme takes fifteen months to complete (three month waiting list and assessment
plus twelve month programme). Regular review meetings include friends and/or family/whanau members
who support the offender.
In addition to providing treatment for adult sexual offenders, all three programmes provide treatment foradolescents who have been sexually abused.

E. Tai Aroha Intensive Programme for Offenders in the Community
Tai Aroha is a residential rehabilitation programme based at Montgomery House in Hamilton. Target
participants are high risk male offenders serving community sentences of Home Detention or Intensive
Supervision, who have multiple treatment needs related to violent offending.
Participants live in a therapeutic community that provides a structured day and pro-social support, andparticipate in an intensive treatment programme delivered by Departmental psychologists and programme
facilitators. The programme runs for 14-16 weeks, followed by through-care in the community.

Tai Aroha has a rolling intake with a maximum of 10 participants at any one time.

F. Community Work
Through community work, New Zealand communities benefit from over 3.7 million hours of labour
annually. Agencies providing placements for individual offenders on community work need to supervise theoffender and report on the person’s progress to a probation officer. Agencies/community groups must be
approved by CPS before they can receive offenders on community work. Specific examples of projects with
community groups include:

72•

In Christchurch, offenders on community work are helping with cleanup efforts following the recent
earthquake and will over time contribute to the longer term redevelopment projects;•

In Wellington, offenders on community work are working with Wainuiomata Marae to undertake
maintenance work and are learning Marae protocol and Maori at the same time. Some offenders are

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

taking this opportunity to learn about and reconnect with their culture;•

In Kaitaia, offenders on community work are helping to restore a local beach’s ecosystem andenhance erosion protection by assisting the Beach Improvement Society;•

In Canterbury, offenders on community work have been helping their local coastguard launch a new
rescue vessel by assisting with maintenance duties around the coastguard building a premises sothat coastguard volunteers can dedicate their time to keeping the waters safe.

X. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN PRISONS
Prison is and will remain inevitable for the worst offenders in our society. Equally inevitable, however,is that the great majority will be released back into the community after serving their time in prison. An
offender who is simply released into the community with no support is very likely to continue offending to
the detriment of everyone in society. All the international research shows that those offenders who receive
assistance from the community or state to reintegrate back into society have a much better chance ofstaying crime free.

XI. PRISON FELLOWSHIPThe Prison Fellowship is a non-denominational Christian community organization which works in prisonsand communities to restore prisoners and ex-prisoners to their communities and families, and to try andreconcile offenders and victims. The Prison Fellowship is involved on a number of different fronts, working
with prisoners both in prison and after release. Some government funding is provided to this group. The
following is a snapshot of its work with prisoners:•

Prison volunteering : The Fellowship has a large body of volunteers who attend prison to help prisoners
in a variety of ways, contributing to the rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners by sharing skills,
experience and knowledge;•

The Faith Unit : In 2003 the Fellowship in collaboration with Rimutaka Prison established a 60 bed
unit for prisoners who wish to explore the Christian faith;•

Prisoner reintegration : New Zealand’s first prisoner aftercare programme using trained mentors
was established by the Prison Fellowship in 2003, to support prisoners released from the faithunit. Known as Operation Jericho, it continues to support released prisoners from the faith unit
and other prison units within the Wellington region, proving support pre-release, and for up to two
years after release. Recently the Fellowship has moved to a “strengths-based” methodology for
reintegration. The traditional approach to prisoner reintegration focuses on addressing prisoners
needs – accommodation, employment, financial management, family relationships. It assumes thatthe prisoner is dependent on the state, or a provider, to meet those needs. The strengths-based
approach discourages dependency. It focuses on the acquisition of skills; moral inclusion of theex-prisoner within a targeted community; encouraging ex-prisoners to actively address harm done
to victims, families and the community; and “paying back” to the community through voluntary
reparation and community service. Restorative reintegration occurs when it draws on community
processes through which informal support and controls traditionally take place. The community istreated as the primary agent for reintegration.
The Fellowship actively promotes the establishment of “circles of support”.

•

Community and church involvement in reintegration : There is a growing call from the wider community
for involvement with prisoners and their families. Many church and community members feel called
to mentor to ex-prisoners and their families, but lack the confidence and experience to do so. The
Fellowship has undertaken to provide training seminars for those in the community with a desire tohelp out in this way. This new initiative encourages wider church and community involvement withprisoners, in a way which ensures that it will provide a safe environment for both volunteers andex-offenders.

•

In-prison victim/offender conferences : The programme involves facilitating safely-structured meetings,
usually in prisons, between those who have suffered from a crime, and the actual perpetrators of thatcrime. Other restorative justice providers have facilitated in-prison victim offender conferences, but
Prison Fellowship is the primary service provider at present. Referrals come from prisoners, the Parole73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

Board, victims, Prison Unit Mangers.
Prison Fellowship also promotes increased awareness of the special transformative and therapeuticpotential to be found in faith-centred biblical-based principles applied to offender rehabilitation andreintegration. At the core of this activity is a strategy to strengthen the church-community partnership andthe development of mutual trust and social cohesion in society, through programmes which bring prisoners,
victims and the community together.

XII. COMMUNITY-BASED TREATMENT FUNDED THROUGH
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSIn recognition of the need for strong support for those being released from prison, Community Probation
Service probation officers work with Maori whanau , iwi groups and other community support groups to plan
for and support offenders being released from prison.

A. Reintegrative Support Services
The Department has contracts with three community-based providers for provision of reintegration
support on a regional basis across New Zealand: Auckland Prisoner’s Aid and Rehabilitation Society, Waikato
Prisoner’s Aid and Rehabilitation Society and the Prisoner’s Aid and Rehabilitation Trust. These providers
are not-for-profit organizations that utilize both paid staff and volunteers to support offenders both in prison
and in the community.
Reintegrative support services assist offenders to address life’s practical problems and issues that, if notaddressed, may have significant impact on their successful reintegration into the community. In particular
this assistance is aimed at:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Acquiring suitable accommodation
Obtaining employment
Managing finances
Managing relationship issues
Developing pro-social community support
Preventing victim-related problems
Achieving continuity of health care post-release.

B. Supported Accommodation
The Department funds a supported accommodation service through community providers in Auckland(Auckland Prisoner’s Aid and Rehabilitation Society), Hamilton (Anglican Action), Hawke’s Bay (SalvationArmy), Wellington (Salvation Army), Christchurch (Salvation Army) and Dunedin (Otago Prisoner’s Aid andRehabilitation Society).
The supported accommodation service assists offenders at high risk of reoffending who have a high levelof reintegrative need to transition back into independent community living. It provides offenders with up to
13 weeks’ single accommodation and support with money management, literacy and numeracy, finding workor training, forming positive community links and support.
The supported accommodation service may be followed by an additional 13 weeks of reintegrative
support for the offender if required. The Department funds 54 houses nationwide.

C. Salisbury Street Community Residential Centre
The Department contracts with Salisbury Street Foundation for delivery of a residential programme
in Christchurch for men who have spent substantial time in the criminal justice system. The programmeaims to prevent further offending and to facilitate reintegration by providing vocational, recreational andeducational skills, and by confronting inappropriate behaviour. Offenders attend the programme for between
six months and two years, dependent on individual need.

74

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Salisbury Street Foundation is a 12 bed facility.

D. Whare Oranga Ake
The Department of Corrections is currently establishing a new reintegration programme, Whare Oranga
Ake , which the Government funded in the 2010 Budget. This residential reintegrative programme formale prisoners will entail a Maori environment within which prisoners are supported to reconnect with
their culture and identity, address identified reintegrative needs, and live offence-free lives. A contracted
community provider will deliver the programme.
Prisoners involved in Whare Oranga Ake will live in 16-bed unit built in the style of existing prison selfcare units, with a communal facility alongside. One is to be located on the Hawkes Bay Prison site and theother on the Spring Hill Corrections Facility site. The unit will be located on prison land but outside thesecure perimeter fence. Whare Oranga Ake is expected to open in July 2011.

Whare Oranga Ake will focus on a prisoner’s reintegrative needs. For example, helping with employment,
post programme rehabilitation, finding supported accommodation and improving whanau relationships. Prisoners
will be supported to look for and be engaged in employment and/or further education. The service providers
for Whare Oranga Ake will ensure that there is community support for prisoners on their release by linking
prisoners, whilst in Whare Oranga Ake , to community support networks.
Whare Oranga Ake will also help prisoners by providing relapse prevention support for programmes
which the prisoner has already undertaken. Prisoners will be expected to live communally within Whare
Oranga Ake , and they will take on all of the responsibilities of daily living, e.g. cooking and cleaning. While
security at Whare Oranga Ake will be provided by Prison Services the day-to-day running of Whare Oranga
Ake will be contracted out to community providers. Corrections’ Rehabilitation and Reintegration Services
will manage the relationship with the contracted service provider and provide support where deemednecessary.

XIII. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE
A. General
1. Court-Based•Prior to Sentence – The process of restorative justice is now utilized in various courts in New
Zealand. Although the practice has no statutory definition, various provisions of the Sentencing Act
2002 contain reference to restorative justice processes and practices.

•

Broadly speaking, restorative justice processes bring together offenders, victims and others who
have a specific stake in the offence to collectively determine how the offender should be held
accountable, how amends to the victim should be made, and how further offending can be prevented.

2. References to Restorative Justice in the Sentencing Act 2002
The following provisions in the Sentencing Act make reference to restorative justice or similar processes.
•

Section 7: Purposes of sentencing. This section reinforces consideration of restorative justiceoutcomes in reaching a sentencing or other decision.

•

Section 8: Principles of sentencing. The Court must take into account any outcomes of restorative
justice processes that have occurred, or that the Court is satisfied are likely to occur, in relation to
the particular case: s. 8(j).

•Section 9: Aggravating and mitigating factors. The Court must take into account any offer, agreement,
or measure of a kind referred to in s 10: s. 9(1)(f).

•Section 10: The Court must take into account any offer, agreement, response, or measure to makeamends. Among the measures to take into account are any agreements between the offender and thevictim as to how the offender may remedy the wrong, the response of the offender or the offender’sfamily to the offending, and any measures to make compensation to the victim.

•

Section 25: Power of adjournment for inquiries as to suitable punishment. A Court may adjourn75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

proceedings after the offender has been found guilty or has pleaded guilty and before the offender
has been sentenced or otherwise dealt with to enable a restorative justice process to occur, or toenable a restorative justice agreement to be fulfilled: s. 25(1)(b) and (c).
•Section 26(2)(c): Pre-sentence reports. Pre-sentence reports may include information regarding any
offer, agreement, response, or measure of a kind referred to in s. 19(1) or the outcome of any otherrestorative justice processes that have occurred in relation to the case.

•Section 27: Offender may request the Court to hear a person speak on the personal, family, whanau ,community, and cultural background of the offender. That person may speak on, amongst othermatters, any processes involving the offender and his or her family, whanau, or community and thevictim or victims of the offence, or that are available to resolve, issues relating to the offence: s.
27(1)(c).

•Section 32: Sentence of reparation. When determining the amount of reparation to be made, theCourt must take into account any offer, agreement, response, measure or action.

•

Section 62: Determining placement of offender for community work. Probation officers must takeaccount of the outcome of any restorative justice processes that have occurred in the case when
deciding on a placement of an offender for community work: s. 62(e).

•Sections 110 and 111: Come up for sentence if called upon. The Court may order an offender tocome up for sentence if called upon. Under s. 111, the offender under such an order may be called up
for sentence if he or she fails to comply with any agreement or fails to take any measure or action ofa kind referred to in s. 10 that was brought to the attention of the Court at the time the Court madethe order under s. 110.

(i) Parole Act 2002
The following provisions in the Parole Act make reference to restorative justice or similar processes:•

Section 7: Parole Board guiding principles. These include the principle that any restorative justiceoutcomes are given due weight.

•

Section 43: Start of process. The information to be provided to the Parole Board prior to an offender’shearing for parole or home detention (and which is also relevant to the setting of parole/releaseconditions) includes any reports arising from any restorative justice processes the offender has
engaged in: s. 43(1)(b).

3. Key Points for Restorative Justice Referrals
The following points have been generally agreed to by judges:

76•

There must be a firm guilty plea.

•

The plea must be recorded.

•

Ascertain willingness of offender and victim – of the offender through counsel and of the victim
through the Victim’s Adviser (not through an agent of the offender). Attendance is entirely voluntary.

•

The case is then referred to a trained and professional independent facilitator who is familiar withresource materials such as the Ministry of Justice’s Manual on Restorative Conferencing (2001).

•

The facilitator should be provided with a copy of the charge(s), summaries of facts, any victim impact
statement, the contact details of the offender and victim, and the name and base of the officer incharge.

•

The facilitator must ensure that the police are invited to attend.

•

Victims and offenders should be encouraged to have support people present.

•

The conference cannot proceed unless both victim and offender are actually present (agents or
representatives are not appropriate).

•

Lawyers are entitled to attend but not in the role of advocate.

•

The facilitator will write a report recording any agreements reached, arrangements for monitoring
and completion of agreements, and adequate information to enable the Judge to appreciate the147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

processes of communication that took place.
4. Back to Court
Upon the offender completing a restorative justice contract, sentencing should normally occur in theusual way in open court with due regard to successful completion or non-completion.

B. Post-Sentence
A more recent development in the general field of restorative justice has been its use as part of thegeneral parole system post-sentence and, often, in prison.
The primary purpose of parole is to manage the safe release of prisoners from prison back into thecommunity. International research shows that sensible parole decisions based on the best research possible
can be three to four times more successful in preventing reoffending than automatic release at the end of a
fixed sentence.
This of course makes sense in an ordinary common sense way, because obviously those who are managed
in a helpful way to get work, to have an income, to have a good place to live, to have pro-social people
surrounding them, are going to do better than people who are simply dropped out of prison without any suchsupport.
The Parole Board has now an agreement with the Department of Corrections for funding of recommended
restorative justice conferences. New Zealand has had its own successes with restorative justice post-sentence.
There is a vigorous restorative justice programme being run in parts of the country by the Prison Fellowship(see above), although it is not yet systemic. There are many examples of successful interventions, particularly
from the victim’s point of view.
For example, a young man down in the South island was in prison on a murder sentence. He had killed ayoung street kid some years ago, he and others after torturing the victim in accordance with satanic rituals.
In prison he became a Christian and supported that by a change in behaviour. There was finally a restorative
justice conference at his insistence at which the family of the street kid who was murdered attended. It wasamazingly successful. The sister of the boy said to him “I have been in terror of you being released. I had
enormous fear of you. It has stopped me from doing what I wanted in my life. Today I am getting rid of thatfear. I have never wanted it; it has stopped me from doing things for myself and now I don’t have it anymore.
I wish you well.”That is an astonishing result. The New Zealand experience is that victims are often more generous andforgiving than expected. These things do not happen unless there is genuineness and honesty. Everyone inthese meetings is alert to that. The result is that the tragedy will remain a tragedy and the loss will remain
the loss. But it means that fear of reprisals is put to one side and if these people ever meet again in thesmall country of New Zealand it will be done without embarrassment and with dignity and some mutual
respect. Family and friends and other who are contaminated by all of this can also be freed to continue theconnectedness of life which is New Zealand.
When a successful restorative justice conference has been held, there has often been, if not forgiveness,
an understanding and an ability to both move on and to allow others to do the same which has been truly
impressive and often very humbling. It makes the Board’s decision making very much easier, which is ofcourse a secondary function.

XIV. CIRCLES OF SUPPORTThere are other opportunities arising from general restorative practices post-sentence. The faith-based
communities in Canada have developed the concept of “circles of support” for indefinitely detained prisoners– often child sex offenders who are notoriously difficult to support back into the community. This way ofworking – constructing artificial support where no natural support now exists – is well known as “therapeuticcommunities” and it is to be found also in the UK. New Zealand is just starting to develop its version
incorporating its own particular culture.

77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

XV. CONCLUSION
There are many opportunities for community involvement in offender treatment post-sentence. The
above narration sets out some of these. Inviting community members and organizations such as churches,
faith-based communities, non-government organizations and other groups forms part of the responsibilitiesof the Corrections/Services who generally advertise for tender these types of involvement – but often also
community groups, with a keen appreciation of the difficulties for prisoners, organize themselves to provide
for gaps in services and approach government for funding. The process is dynamic and flexible. The needs
are great. The government role is necessary to ensure adequate resources but finally, it is the communities
themselves who are effective in providing rehabilitative services and of receiving and welcoming offenders
back.
In respect of high risk offenders being released from prison, local probation officers canvass local communities
for both skills and local sponsors. The community arrangements are therefore more frequently completed on an
individual needs basis using local community strengths to engage with an offender and work with them following
release or completion of sentence. Probably the biggest issue for community probation services in New Zealandin respect of offenders leaving prison is the provision of appropriate housing and that has been achieved bycanvassing national organizations, local housing authorities and community-based providers.
In New Zealand, with its common law system based on the English system, it has been found very effective
to use the judge or judges as independent persons talking to community groups and inviting community
participation.
Where that is not possible, the New Zealand experience is that a community court co-ordinator - anofficial of the court with a liaison function to the community - is the next best person to issue the invitation.
In all areas there are natural groups and community strengths which can be harnessed for the use of thecriminal justice system but the New Zealand experience is that often such groups do not know how toaccess the courts and will not make their skills and resources available unless invited to do so. In the Porirua
community court a community link co-ordinator funded by one of the Government departments fulfils thisrole in co-operation with two energetic District Court judges who make a point of speaking to community
groups during the weekends and at week nights.
That has been found to be very effective in inviting and obtaining community strengths to assist theoffenders in facing their offending and making changes to their lives.

78

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSCOMMUNITY JUSTICE IN THAILAND:PARTNERSHIP IN TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS AND
ENHANCEMENT OF COMMUNITY QUALITY OF LIFE
Kittipong Kittayarak*

I. INTRODUCTION
Crime prevention and control have long been viewed as tasks of criminal justice agencies and approaches
that have been traditionally adopted are to enforce laws and punish or rehabilitate those who violate them.
In this sense, the formal criminal justice agencies, i.e. police, prosecutors, courts and corrections, are themajor players and offenders are the focus of the justice system. Recently, a new concept has been introduced
and changed the view of crime and the ultimate goal of the justice system. Such a paradigm shift proposesthat crime and disorder in society are problems which should be dealt with by the community and that therole of the criminal justice system should be to promote quality of life and safety in communities, not just to
punish offenders. Criminal justice agencies and professionals should work with the community in responding
to crimes. This paradigm is often referred to as “community justice” and is now widely accepted as aneffective method to complement the formal justice system in dealing with crimes in Thailand.
Community justice underlines the involvement of the community in the justice process. The concept ofcommunity justice is rather a complement to, not a replacement of, the mainstream criminal justice ideal.
In Thailand, this concept is not a totally new idea. The Thai communities have a centuries-old tradition ofcontributing to the maintenance of peace and order. Even in the modern administration of justice, we have
had community involvement in the criminal justice system for many decades. However, the concept ofcommunity justice is more than merely the involvement of community members. It is based on the profoundidea of building partnerships between the community and the state, creating justice at the grass roots leveland developing sustainable communities. To clarify this concept, the Thai experience in implementing
community justice will be used as a case study. This case study will detail how we established community
justice, to what extent we implement it, what benefits we gained, and what we learned from it.

II. FROM VOLUNTEERS TO COMMUNITY JUSTICE
The involvement of communities in the criminal justice system has been recognized for many years.
The private sector and community members work closely with criminal justice agencies in reporting
crimes, rehabilitating offenders and assisting in social reintegration of offenders. One of the most prominent
examples of community involvement in criminal justice is the Volunteer Probation Officer Scheme (VPO),
which was established in Thailand in 1986. VPOs are community members who voluntarily work with the
Department of Probation (DOP) in providing probation services. From the beginning, the VPOs have been
an integral part of the probation system, since they provide a linkage between the State and the generalpublic. They also serve as multiplying factors in the attempt by the DOP to reach out to the community,
either through various schemes to disseminate information, to educate people, or to sensitize the public
to various issues, including certain types of criminal offences. One of these important roles is to provide
effective monitoring for the offenders who are serving probation orders within the community to ensure
their conduct is in accordance with the conditions set by the Court.
In performing such duties, these volunteers are also responsible for providing help to, and assessing the
progress made by these offenders – an indispensable element of the successful probation system. Thus, the* Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Thailand.

79

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

volunteer probation officers make an invaluable contribution to foster the effective reintegration of offenders
back into society, particularly through their roles in narrowing the gaps that exist between the lives ofoffenders and those of the normal citizen, and help the offenders overcome the alienation they feel upon
their return to the society.
The following list comprises the basic qualification requirements for those interested in joining as avolunteer:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Be of at least 20 years of age
Live in a permanent residence
Be literate
Be a person of integrity and honesty
Have a suitable income
Maintain law-abiding behaviour
Have completed the required training course
Have no criminal record except for petty offences or negligence.

After being trained on core knowledge in rehabilitating and supervising offenders, VPOs will assist
probation officers in supervising and monitoring probationers in their local communities. As of 2011, a totalof 13,082 VPOs are working in the Department of Probation nationwide.

A. Volunteers in the Right and Liberty Protection Scheme
This Scheme is another example of a project carried out by the Rights and Liberties Protection Department,
Ministry of Justice. This scheme, established in 2005, has recruited community members who wish to become
voluntarily involved in justice activities. Their roles are to educate other members on rights protection issues
and provide counselling and conflict resolution services if needed in the community. Volunteers under thisscheme have been selected and trained by the Department. This year, there are 11,185 volunteers participatingin this scheme. Apart from volunteer schemes, the Ministry of Justice also initiated several other programmesof community participation under the ministerial strategy of “Justice for All, All for Justice”. For example, there
are community networks to fight against drug abuse; and the justice networks in the Southern border provinces.
The nature of the volunteer activities is to assist criminal justice agencies in casework and to participate
in some assigned activities that are mostly initiated by officials. Although their work is valuable, most ofthem are limited to activities that respond to the needs of these agencies, such as helping in casework andreporting crimes and rights violations. The roles of volunteers are usually assigned by justice agencies, not
as a direct response to the community’s needs. In other words, the relationship between justice agencies
and the participating community members normally follows a top-down, one-way model.
However, these schemes demonstrate the community’s interest in justice-related activities and its
concerns for safety and public order. This new paradigm of criminal justice was presented to communities in
the 2000s. As they responded positively, activities related to community justice were initiated.

III. EMERGENCE OF COMMUNITY JUSTICE IN THAILAND
With advent of the progressive, pro-rights Constitution of 1997, the Thai justice system has undergone
major reform. One of the important factors which accelerated such changes was the problem of overcrowding.
Due to a misguided drugs policy which has placed too much emphasis on inflicting heavy penalties on drug
addicts, the numbers of inmates had doubled, from 120,000 in 1997 to 260,000 in 2003. In order to quickly
solve the overcrowding problem the government had to come up with innovative ideas for alternatives
to imprisonment. Drug diversion programmes and other community-based rehabilitation alternatives areamong the major schemes presented to reduce courts’ caseloads and inmate numbers. Under the new policy,
drug users and drug addicts, who previously had been prosecuted as criminal offenders, are to be regarded
as patients who need rehabilitation treatment. According to the law, the court may divert the case fromthe traditional criminal justice system and refer the person to designated facilities for drug assessment. If
the evaluation result shows that the person is a drug abuser or addict, he or she will be required to attend
treatment programmes for a specific period of time. After a successful completion of the programmes with80

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

satisfactory results, the criminal case will be dropped with no criminal records.
The Department of Probation (DOP) has been given the important task of shouldering the burdens of
the new programmes designed to reduce the excessive numbers of inmates, especially drug addicts, whose
numbers constituted more than half of the inmate numbers. Although the DOP has done excellent workin providing successful adult probation programmes in the past, it has been as yet unable to expand its
scope of work to cover new, community-based alternatives to incarceration. Lack of overall criminal justicepolicy planning, lack of interagency cooperation and coordination among key actors, and inadequate funding
were among the major reasons hampering the successful introduction of community-based treatment asalternatives to the long-held practices based mostly on retributive, custodial measures. With the expanded
scope of probation work from the traditional probation to the new frontier of prevention and diversion, the
DOP has been pressed to come up with innovative ideas to carry on its new assignments and, at the sametime, maintain the quality of its traditional functions.
Restorative justice and community justice were two new paradigms in criminal justice administration
which have been introduced by the DOP as a strategy to promote support for community-based approaches.
As restorative justice emphasizes informal methods of dealing with crime, particularly with the increasingroles of the victims, offenders, and the community, it more or less supports community-based treatment
options. Likewise, the concept of community justice views the community as the co-producer of justice andconsiders the community should be empowered to work as a partner with other criminal justice agencies inmaintaining public order and safety.
The community justice concept was put into practice for the first time in 2003 under a project called“Community Justice Networks in Offender Rehabilitation.” The major objective was to expand the base of
support by the community so as to be able to cope with much more demanding responsibilities, especially on
the rehabilitation of drug addicts. With the concept of ‘community justice’, whereby the community can workin partnership with the government, it was hoped that the community could help during the rehabilitation
and reintegration of drug addicts to society. In Thailand, the concept of people in the community joining
hands with the authorities in law enforcement and providing justice has long been a tradition in Thai ruralcommunities. This tradition has lately been neglected since the modern criminal justice agencies were
established. The pilot project initiated by the DOP has been successful in harnessing this hidden strengthof the community. It was found that through the unity and bonding between members in the community, it
was possible to bring about positive outcomes in terms of helping and caring for the needy in society. By
empowering the community to be more active and get involved in day-to-day justice activities, community
resources and social capital can be fully utilized to achieve the desired result.
As the concept of community justice was new and its implementation was different from that of VPOs,
the DOP conducted a series of action research projects from 2003 to 2006. One of the most prominent wascalled “Community Justice Network in Fighting Against Drug Abuse” with the aim of studying how thecommunity justice model might be successful in the Thai context. Important knowledge and information
were gained from this project. Training courses and materials for justice officials on necessary skills toeffectively work with the community, as well as key mechanisms and processes to develop community
partnerships, were drawn up and were applied by related agencies.
After the success of the concept of community justice in the area of offender rehabilitation and reintegration,
the Ministry of Justice in 2004 decided that community justice may be an appropriate approach to lessen the
problem of violence in the southern border provinces as community justice reduces the gap between thegovernment and the community. Thus, another pilot project was launched in three southern border provinces.
In this new pilot project, the scope of activities with the community under the community justice concept
was not limited to the treatment of offenders but was instead expanded to new areas. It aimed to strengthen
the community, create an environment conducive to reconciliation, and to provide restoration to victims ofviolence. To achieve such goals, communities in the targeted area must be involved and work as partners withjustice agencies. Eventually, the visible outcome of the project was the establishment of community justicecentres, which were used as a hub for community members to work with the justice agencies. Both projects
proved that community justice can respond to complex problems which were not easy to deal with using
conventional approaches.

81

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

The use of the community justice concept in the southern border provinces has made the concept ofcommunity justice widely known to the public as well as within the Ministry of Justice. The scope of theactivities of the community is not limited to rehabilitation and re-entry, as in the past, but also involves
crime prevention, reconciliation of conflicts, legal aid, etc. The Ministry of Justice saw the concept ofcommunity justice as a strategic policy to engage the public to join hands with the government with the aimof providing better access to justice and more effective crime prevention. Convinced of the usefulness of
this policy, the Ministry of Justice in 2005 has made community justice initiatives a major ministerial policy
under the strategy of “Justice for All, All for Justice”.
To prepare for a nation-wide implementation of the policy, the Ministry of Justice launched action researchcalled the “Community Justice Development Pilot Project” in 2005. This research project was conducted in 17
provinces to determine the most effective approaches and processes to strengthen communities and promote
community justice centres that respond to the community’s needs and context. A total of 36 communities
participated in this project and were developed to be model communities of community justice. The outputs ofthe project included producing a curriculum for educating community justice members and justice personnel
in basic knowledge of community justice, community work, community empowerment, and conflict resolution;a manual for working with communities; and research studies on developing approaches and processes forcollaboratively working with communities and justice agencies.
The promulgation of the 1997 and 2007 Constitutions also contributed to the growth of community justicepolicy. In accordance with the spirit of the new constitutions, much progress has been made in the areas ofdecentralization and local governance in Thailand. Local government is expected to show more initiative andprovide more opportunities for public participation. Many duties, including some previously allocated to thecentral government, were transferred to local authorities, such as the Provincial Administrative Organizations(PAOs) and Tambon Administrative Organizations (TAOs). Services directly affecting locals, such as basic
education, development of the quality of life, and public health, are now administered by local administrative
organizations. As decentralization empowers people and communities as well as local government bodies, theMinistry of Justice was confident about implementing community justice at the local levels throughout thecountry.
In addition, government policy on drugs has placed great importance on the role of the community.
While much effort has been made for many years to combat drug problems, the situation of drug abusestill remains serious. Previously, drug abuse, especially that involving methamphetamine (Yaba ), tended
to be concentrated among labourers; however, in recent years it has spread to youth, students, and factory
workers. The presence of drug dealers in a community is a cause of concern as well as a threat to the safety
and well-being of the whole community. The complexity of the drug problem means that state agencies
alone cannot solve it: they urgently need cooperation from the public and private sectors. In this connection,
the government realized that communities can play a vital role in drug prevention and control. Community
justice is undoubtedly an effective means to solving the drug problem and responding adequately to thenational policy on drug control.

IV. UNDERSTANDING COMMUNITY JUSTICE IN THE THAI CONTEXTThe American Probation and Parole Association offers the following working definition of community
justice: “a strategic method of crime reduction and prevention, which builds or enhances partnerships withincommunities. Community justice policies confront crime and delinquency through proactive, problemsolving practices aimed at prevention, control, reduction and reparation of the harm crime has caused. The
goal is to create and maintain vital, healthy, safe and just communities and improve the quality of life for all
citizens.” This broad definition can be applied to Thai community justice.
However, in the Thai context, the scope of community justice goes beyond problems of crime. Our
experiences in working with the community show that people, especially the poor, feel that community
justice needs to address the prevalent problems of injustice in the community. These may include the lackof legal knowledge which made them susceptible to being abused and taken advantage of, the difficulties
of getting legal aid and services, the violation of their rights by the authorities or the well-to-do, etc. The
framework of community justice in the Thai context, therefore, covers a variety of social problems, such as

82

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

rights violations, inequal access to the justice system, and drug abuse, and aims to create peace and justicein the community.
Given the broader scopes of the definition of community justice in Thailand, the nature of work with thecommunity may cover a variety of activities such as dissemination of legal knowledge, providing legal advice
through “Justice Clinics”, mediating and resolving conflicts, crime prevention and making reparations tovictims.
As the concept of criminal justice views the community as the co-producer of justice with the state,
the keyword for community justice, which may explain its differences from the idea of volunteers, is“partnership.” The key success factor is how to enter into or establish a partnership with the community.
By creating partnership with the community, it definitely does not mean that one can instruct or assign
the other to do things. In other words, this is not a top-down or one way approach. However, before any
activities or projects are initiated in the community, the benefit of such activities should be mutuallyagreed by the community and the government agencies involved. To do that, there must be a great deal of
consultation and interaction between the communities and the government agencies. In our experience,
we adopted our own method of collaborating with the community by using slogans like: “thinking together,planning together, implementing together and gaining together.”This may sound easy but in reality, as in the case of Thailand, it was very difficult to implement. Thai
communities used to have strong bonds and actively participate in public service. However, as a result ofstrong centralization during the past several decades, the community has lost its autonomy, dynamism
and self-initiative. In addition, the government authorities, which are mostly centrally appointed, seemto be accustomed to the command and control approach. This is also true in the context of criminal
justice agencies. Local people seemed to rely too heavily on the police to solve their problems. With suchbackground, the revival of the community justice spirit was quite a challenge for us.
In our pilot project on community justice in 17 provinces and 36 different communities around Thailand,
we found out that the most appropriate approaches in entering into a “partnership” with each particularcommunity were different. Some communities are more active and strongly bonded than the others. This
may result from their common heritage, religious beliefs, shared historical incidents or common concernsof day-to-day problems in their communities, etc. For instance, it would be relatively easier to work in
partnership with a community which had past experiences of fighting floods, fires or other national disasters
together than a peaceful community where its members do not see the need to work together to achievecommon goals. Our trained officers should know the right approach to draw the interest of and create trust
within each particular community. It is thus necessary that government officers be specially trained and havethe necessary skills and the right attitudes to work with the community.
In Suan Aoy Community, Klong Toey District, a slum area, situated right in the heart of Bangkok, wefound that the community justice idea drew great interest from community leaders. The community sharedcommon concerns of fire, sanitation and drugs. They were convinced that if a community justice centre
was established within the community with direct links to the relevant government office at the Ministryof Justice, the drug situation would be better controlled and their sons and daughters would be safer. The
community leaders agreed to set up a “community justice centre” there. The commitment on their partwas that they had to arrange for their own funding for the rent. The Ministry of Justice, on the other hand,provided assistance in securing the premises, organized the panel of community representatives who werewilling to serve the community, and provided the necessary training for volunteer helpers who would be
responsible for running the community programmes.
The training for community volunteers provided by the Ministry of Justice involved: basic legal knowledge;
how to respond to complaints; how to compile data and share it with the MOJ; and in certain instances how
to forward cases to relevant MOJ agencies. The training topics also covered basic mediation skills and otherrestorative justice techniques, including how to organize group meetings for problem-solving at community
level.
It should be noted that each community, with different backgrounds and varying degrees of readiness83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

or resources, requires a specific approach in order to build trust and create an environment conducive to
successful community participation.
For certain villages, like the Suan Aoy Community, whose members share common concerns over certain
issues, such concerns can serve as an entry point for engaging the community members to come up withdesirable programmes to cope with such problems. In other types of communities where traditional beliefs
or customs still exert considerable influence on the people, such values can serve as a solid core aroundwhich the community justice activities can be organized.
On the other hand, in some areas where there is no common issue or strong sense of cohesion, one
possible approach is to try and identify individuals, already recognized by community members as theirnatural leaders, who are interested in expanding their concerns to encompass broader issues. A good
assembly of such strong leaders sometimes is the first step toward building a healthy community justice
network.
All things considered, what matters is the understanding of the complex and diverse nature of each
community, and to come up with approaches with sufficient flexibility to avoid being trapped in a ‘one-sizefits-all’ mentality.

25,00020,09820,00015,252

15,00010,00013,012

13,5552008

2009

11,334

8,057

5,000
0
2005

2006

2007

2010

Figure 1. Number of newly recruited community justice members

250

204

200

100

155

134

150

151
90

81

50
0
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Figure 2. Number of newly established community justice centres

At present, there are 815 community justice centres with 81,308 community justice members. The
government has realized the importance of the community justice programme and more funds will beallocated to set up community justice centres as well as expand the services provided by them. In addition
to relying solely on budget support from the central government, appropriate linkage between community
justice centres and local governments should be explored to find a sustainable mechanism whereby local
resources can be maximized for a sustainable programme activities in the future.
Community justice members can act in the following way to help their communities.

84

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Services/Activities provided by Community Justice Centres in 2010

Number of Cases

Receiving complaints

4,336

Reporting crimes and illegal activities

1,284

Providing assistance and counselling service to crime victims

2,337

Conducting conflict resolution services

5,627

Assisting in pre-sentence investigations

3,025

Supervising probationers

578

Rehabilitating offenders

2,331

Providing aftercare service to ex-offenders

2,106

Participating in justice activities

934

Attending meetings conducted by the Ministry of Justice476

Participating in crime watch and crime prevention activities

1,523

Publicizing information on justice matters

5,576

Source: C ommunity Network Sub-division, Community Affairs and Community Service Division, Departmentof Probation

V. COMMUNITY JUSTICE: SERVING OFFENDERS AND THE COMMUNITY’S NEEDS
Unlike the rehabilitation approach conducted by criminal justice agencies, approaches designed andemployed by community justice centres are more localized and flexible. This is because the community has anopportunity to tell justice professionals which factors they see as most closely tied to the quality of community
life. As the community’s needs may differ from one community to another, the programme developed bycommunity justice can be diverse and serve not only the offenders’ needs but also the community’s needs.
The following cases illustrate the different roles of community justice centres which relate to treatment
of offenders and crime control activities.

A. Restoring the Community
The Lat Mayom Canal Cleaning project is an example of a project that serves the interests of the community.
Lat Mayom canal is located in Talingchan District, an outer area of Bangkok. It has been a landmark of
the Talingchan community since 2004 when it was developed as a floating market and eco-tourism spot.
Initiated by Mr. Chuan Chujan, a local farmer, who was concerned about the deterioration of the environment
in his community and wanted to improve it, Lat Mayom canal and surrounding areas were developed as
an environmental conservation area and community-based tourism site. Community members, under theleadership of Mr. Chuan, improved the environment of Lat Mayom Canal by cleaning the area and setting up
a green floating market where they can sell organic vegetables, freshly cooked food and home-made desserts.
Lat Mayom Canal has become a popular tourist attraction. Realizing the strength of this community, theTalingchan Probation Office proposed a community justice project to community members.
When the community justice centre was set up, the Lat Mayom community justice members and theTalingchan Probation Office worked together to draft a rehabilitation plan for probationers that would directly
serve the interests of the community. The Lat Mayom Canal Cleaning project is a part of community service
work for probationers living in this district. Every month, locals, community justice members, and volunteer
probation officers join with probationers to clean the canal and surrounding area. A task that used to be
performed by locals has become part of offender rehabilitation. Offenders contribute to revitalizing an area thatis the heart of the community and are informally accepted by the community.

B. Reintegrating Offenders
The philosophy of Sufficiency Economy, developed by His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, is the
major movement that all sectors in Thailand are applying as a guide to the way of living and behaving

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

toward “the middle path.”1 Focusing on moderation and contentment, the philosophy sets out to shield
the people and the country from adverse shocks and acknowledges interdependency among people at alllevels. Because the philosophy of Sufficiency Economy provides guidance on appropriate conduct covering
numerous aspects of life, it is now applied to rehabilitation of offenders under the Kamlangjai (Inspire)
Project initiated by Her Royal Highness Princess Bajrakitiyabha.
In order to maintain the continuity of the project, the community justice centres in the participating
provinces, namely Chiang Rai, Petchaboon, Trat, and Chainat, are taking part in the Kamlangjai Project at
the reintegration stage. Before the offenders under the project are released, the probation office will invite
community justice members to become involved in the pre-release programme. The community justicemembers will get acquainted with offenders and set the reintegration plan with them. Additionally, when theparticipating offenders are released to the community, community justice members will monitor and support
the offenders to continue applying Sufficiency Economy to their lives after release. This means that offenders
will be able to acquire a suitable job, adapt to the community way of life, and develop immunity to offending
behaviour.
As Sufficiency Economy has been extensively linked to the Thai way of life, the application of this philosophy
to offender rehabilitation and reintegration under the Kamlangjai project undoubtedly gives an opportunity
for offenders to seamlessly integrate to the community. Besides, with the support from community justicemembers, reintegration of offenders is more likely to be accomplished.

C. Resolving Conflict
The Panomsarakam community justice centre demonstrates that collaborative work among justice agencies
and local communities can effectively and powerfully improve the community’s capacity to solve problems.
Panomsarakam, a district in Chachoengsao province, located 100 kilometres from Bangkok, set up thecommunity justice centre in 2005. Due to the strength of the community, the centre has conducted various
activities and implemented significant programmes representing the community justice idea. The directorof the Chachoengsao Probation Office introduced the community justice concept to the community and thenworked with the leaders, prominent community members, and other justice agencies. A network has been
set up in the community, which is primarily comprised of a district school, police station, private sector, andprobation office.
After understanding the concept and learning new approaches, the community identified their problems andcollaboratively worked with other local organizations to solve the problems. For example, the Panomadulvittaya
School, the district school in Panomsarakam, applied the restorative approach and probation measure learnt
from the community justice centre and the probation office to solve physical fights and disputes in school.
Although the programme was started by the deputy director of the school, students are the key persons of the
programme. When a dispute occurs, a group of students called a Dispute Resolution Committee will invite thedisputing parties to discuss the dispute and solution in a meeting facilitated by students only. If all involved
parties can make an agreement, the committee will monitor the completion of the agreement which may bein the form of community service. Teachers and students observed that disputes in the school apparently
decreased and positive behavioural change among students increased. The programme has been widely
acknowledged and received a gold medal award for school innovation from the Teacher’s Council of Thailand
in 2006. The restorative approach is also valued by the Panomsarakam Police Station, which has cooperated
with the community justice centre to provide conflict resolution services at the station. The police officers
observed that compoundable offences have been significantly reduced and satisfaction has increased. The
community justice centre at Panomsarakam has continually established conflict resolution centres in subdistricts and provided support to other community justice centres. The Panomsarakam community justicecentre has evidently become a success story of community justice.

D. Promoting Community Safety
The Chaktaduang community located in Rayong province has concerns about drug abuse among youth
in their community and realized that this problem is linked to minor crimes in the community. Young drug
abusers often steal villagers’ property to buy drugs. When the Rayong Probation Office presented the
1 A Buddhist teaching to neither deprive nor indulge oneself to one’s detriment.

86147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

community justice idea, community members agreed that it would help them deal with their concerns. The
probation officers then worked with the community members to develop a Drug Watch Programme. It wassuggested to the community leader and members to classify youth according to drug related behaviour.
Three groups were identified: a risk group, drug abuser group, and drug dealer group. A committee wasarranged to supervise the targeted youth. One committee member was assigned to watch three youths andtheir families. If the risk group shows any signs of drug involvement, the committee will closely supervise
them to prevent drug use. The community member also conducted random urine tests with youth to deter
drug use. Drug abusers were encouraged to get treatment by their families and the committee. Whenthey are rehabilitated, the community will welcome them back. Some ex-addicts joined the Drug Watch
Programme and provided information of drug trafficking in the community to justice agencies.
The Chaktaduang community members admitted that at the beginning, they did not understand the
purpose of community justice. After the community leader and probation officers explained the project andraised concerns about drug problems, which is the critical issue in the community, the community strongly
agreed that this problem should be dealt with urgently. When the Drug Watch Programme proved that it canhelp youth quit using drugs and prevent others from becoming involved, the community entirely supported
the community justice centre and felt that their quality of life was improved and that community ties were
strengthened.

VI. STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Involving the community in justice activities is not an easy task. Some communities may be ready toparticipate but many are not. For justice professionals, communities seem to be new territory outside theirwork. To ensure effective partnership with communities, strategies to promote community involvement areproposed as follows.

A. Building Relationships with Community Members
Based on the assumption that a good relationship will lead to accurate information, justice personnel
should start by building relationships with community members. Approaches for building relationships
include informal methods, such as small talk and greetings, and formal methods, such as inviting community
members to participate in official activities and joining the community’s activities. The relationship between
justice personnel and communities should reflect trust, mutual respect, and genuineness.
B. Understanding Community Needs and Strengths
Understanding communities is an important step. Justice personnel should understand the problems
and concerns occurring in the targeted communities from the viewpoints of local people. Information on
the strengths of the community should be collected. Community mapping is a useful tool to identify key
community organizations, key partners, and resources and skills that exist within the community, as well as
to assess the social and human capital of the community.
C. Serving the Community
To strengthen the relationship with the community, justice agencies may serve the community by setting
up a small project that meets the community’s needs, such as cleaning the cemetery, conducting vocational
training for youth, or arranging a community forum. By working with the community at the early stage before
launching the targeted project, we can help community members develop confidence and build relationships
with justice agencies.
D. Developing a Vision and Action Plans
Justice personnel should assist the community to develop their vision based on their interests and capacity.
After the vision is set, the action plan for the targeted project will be made by the community and officials.
Community members should have an opportunity to generate practical ideas into the plan. Finally, it isimportant that the vision and action plan must gain wider public support.

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

VII. LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE COMMUNITY JUSTICE INITIATIVE
The community justice idea has been implemented in Thailand for over five years. However, it is still
evolving. The model that is best suited for Thai society has not yet been found. During the search for thebest practice, some lessons can be drawn up to help in establishing the programme in other systems.

A. Communicating Key Concepts of Community Justice to Justice Officials and Communities
Community justice is about changing the perspectives, values, principles, and assumptions under which
we have traditionally operated. It brings in radical changes to the justice system; from focusing on offenders,
crime control, and caseload to focusing on the community quality of life. As a result, some officials may resist
this change. They may think that approaches based on community justice, such as educating communities
about their rights, victim restoration, and mediation, are not their responsibilities. Some officers may nottrust or believe that communities can deal with their problems. Furthermore, communities may themselves
not believe that they are capable of preventing and controlling crimes. We learned that if the community
justice idea was not well understood, justice officers and community members may resist the programme andits implementation may be unsuccessful. It is recommended that key concepts of community justice should
be communicated to all stakeholders in the programme through various channels, e.g. community forums,
training, and workshops. As the programme continues and shows some impact, staff and community members
will have a clearer vision of what they are doing and participation will be more effective.
B. Equipping Staff with Knowledge and Skills for working with Communities
Justice officials are traditionally trained to be law enforcers. Their characteristics and skills are for dealing
with crime incidents, criminals, and criminal behaviour. Most of them do not have sufficient knowledge
and skills to work with communities. Working with communities requires officers to be sensitive to thecommunity’s needs and problems, more flexible and informal, and open-minded. Before implementing
community justice initiatives, staff working in the programme should be trained on basic subjects, suchas resource management, information gathering, communication skills, conflict management, community
assessment tools and public speaking.
C. Working Collaboratively with Other Agencies within and outside the Criminal Justice System
The goals of community justice, which are enhancement of community quality of life and promotion ofsocial justice, cannot be accomplished by a single agency. Community problems are diverse and requiredifferent approaches and resources. From our experience, we have learned that collaboration of governmental
agencies is essential to the implementation of community justice projects. Responsible agencies must expand
the boundaries of their practice and break down the barriers separating them from other components andorganizations within and outside the criminal justice system.
In this case, the Ministry of Justice created Provincial Justice Offices to be coordinating centres forproviding justice related services and supporting community justice centres throughout the country. The
Provincial Justice Office will integrate work and missions of agencies under the Ministry of Justice, such as
the probation office, prisons, narcotics suppression office, and rights and liberty protection centre, throughthe matrix model. Staff from these agencies are rotated to work in the Provincial Justice Office for a certain
period of time. The director of the office is also selected from the different justice agencies to operate theoffice on a rotating basis. In addition to the Provincial Justice Office, the probation office in each province will
provide assistance to community justice centres by acting as a resource agency for referral and cooperation
with other agencies outside the criminal justice system.

D. Creating Strong and Continuous Support from the Public and Communities
To implement community justice centres nationally, support from public, local communities, local
administrative organizations, as well as central government organization, is necessary. People from thecommunity may lack interest in joining the activities, or local organizations may not financially support the
programmes proposed by community justice centres, if they do not understand or recognize the benefits ofthese programmes. To gain support from the public and communities, we must publicize our programmes andsuccessful results locally and nationally. Since the community justice initiatives were launched in 2003, theMinistry of Justice has publicized the project by conducting seminars and conferences, distributing printing
material, research reports, VDO clips, and presenting information about community justice in a TV drama.
For example, information of the community justice centre and its tasks were presented in a prime-time TV

88

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

drama. By introducing community justice through a famous leading actor, we expect that the message will
attract wider public attention. To make the community justice initiatives sustainable, strong and continuous
support is greatly needed.

VIII. THE OUTLOOK FOR THE FUTURE
Since its reintroduction to Thai society through the piloted scheme by the Ministry of Justice almosta decade ago, community justice has proved to be a promising platform where community members canwork in partnership with government agencies toward meeting the needs of the community. Underlying thecommunity justice concept is the guiding principle which treats the community as actor in promoting accessto justice and maintaining public safety for the community. With the ability to identify areas of concern andmobilize local resources, the community has limitless potential to play an active role in both enhancing theexisting activities and expanding the scope of work piloted so far.
Also intrinsic in this new mode of public participation is the recognition that members of a local community,
through the voicing of their concerns and needs, are key actors in the collective effort to address the basic
imbalance in the power structure at the national level – a problem with serious implications for Thai society
as a whole. Such fundamental inequality often manifests itself in the form of inequality in access to justice,and has been voiced on various occasions, including the most recent political protest, which escalated toconfrontation and violence in May 2009. Since then, there has been an urgent call for national reform to look forways to address inequality in key areas, including justice. As part of the new scheme to ‘reform the nation’, thegovernment has set up a number of independent forums tasked with mobilizing various stakeholders acrossthe nation to synthesize a national plan to address the structural problems faced by Thailand.
The National Reform Committee has been formed to mobilize national stakeholders and come up withsuggestions and recommendations for the programmes to be implemented in the hope of providing redress
for the most urgent problems, such as land dispute between the people and state agencies, and to promoteequal access to social justice, as a means of national reform. The NRC views community justice as animportant vehicle where national reform effort can be realized at the most fundamental level. The ultimate
goal of the effort is to equip the members of local communities and individual citizens with the institutional
tools for them to reduce the gap in access to equal justice. With new emphasis added and increased chances
for mobilizing resources, community justice stands a better chance to serve as the local engine of change
toward creating the sustainable local mechanisms where members are empowered through their working
hand-in-hand with other stakeholders, including the government agencies.
Taking a hint from the NRC, the government has recently announced a new policy of focusing on empowering
the citizens in key areas, including access to justice. In this new policy, the community justice network will be thefocus of a national attempt to strengthen the local community in order to promote better access to equal justice.
The government plans to introduce a community justice centre at local districts, or Tambon, across the nation,
hoping to equip people with legal knowledge, provide legal aid, and receive complaints on the problems facedby the community members. I believe that with coordination and strong commitment, the new policy, with its
focus on enhancing visibility and providing adequate budgets to support the activities at community level, will
be further enhanced by the parallel effort by the NRC to support the networking and knowledge-sharing among
local communities across the nation.
In conclusion, community justice in Thailand has come to an important juncture. At the root of the
problem also lies the seed for the solution. With the strong political will from the government, and thecommitment and vision of the NRC which helped promote the shared sense of urgency for equal accessto justice, it can be hoped that community justice will undergo another phase of growth as a forum of true
public participation and public empowerment. This will in turn provide a healthy foundation for the society
through the establishment of effective community forums for dispute resolution and other important areas ofcommunity empowerment and development.

89

VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSRESOURCE MATERIALSERIES
No.84
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN OFFENDER TREATMENT:THAILAND’S EXPERIENCE

Kittipong Kittayarak*

I. INTRODUCTION
The principal objectives of this paper are to provide general information on the role of the community
in the treatment of offenders in Thailand and to share with the audience some relatively successfulprogrammes and activities that we have conducted so far.
The paper is divided into four main parts: the first deals with the significance of community involvement
in recent years; the second demonstrates key players whose partnership in the areas of correctional andnon-custodial treatment of offenders have played significant roles in enhancing the quality of offender
treatment; the third demonstrates some of the relatively successful programmes and activities aimed atenhancing participation from the wide array of like-minded alliances, with the focus on ‘correctional network
and alliances’ for adult offenders, as well as the programmes in collaboration with key partners in the areasof probation and juvenile protection; and the last discusses the lessons learnt in offender treatment andthe implication of community involvement in the enhancement of programmes and activities to support
the treatment of offenders. By the end of this paper, the audience should have a better understanding ofcommunity involvement in correctional and related areas of work, including the community-based treatment
of offenders. For policy makers and practitioners, this paper reveals Thailand’s experience in involving thecommunity with the treatment of offenders which, more or less, can be adapted to improve the quality ofservices in their jurisdictions.

II. WHY ‘COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT’?
Until recent years, like in many other jurisdictions, the administration of the criminal justice system
in Thailand had been a relatively ‘closed’ business which limited access from outside. Individuals, either
living in or working for it, were not necessarily recognized by the public. Even if they were, their image wasusually negative. This was particularly true in the areas of corrections, and the administration of juvenile
justice. Therefore, by bringing in outsiders and educating them about prison work and prisoners, society
would have a better understanding of the system and would recognize the significant roles of the system andthe benefits of community involvement.
In the area of corrections, for instance, it has been common knowledge that the prison staff had to endure
working in an unsafe and stressful atmosphere, especially when the prison population dramatically rose
between the late 1990s and the 2000s. The Thai corrections service has also had a chronic, severe lack ofstaff. The ratio of corrections officers to inmates has been around 1 to 22. Accordingly, they have to wear many
‘hats’, i.e. ‘guards’, ‘teachers’ and ‘counsellors’, even though they are not necessarily experts in those areas.
Prisoners, on the other hand, cried quietly for improvement of their living conditions. The management thenacknowledged the need for change when they encountered various challenges at the time, including serious
security incidents, and found that these problems could not be dealt with by the Department of Corrections(DOC) alone. Rather, they should be professionally and systematically managed by all parties involved – bothpublic and private sectors, within and outside the criminal justice system. This was when the public witnesseda range of attempts to make the offender custody and treatment process ‘accessible’ by the public. ‘Prison Visit* Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Thailand.

90

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

for Students’ , ‘Family Day’ and ‘Correctional Consultation Committees’ were among initiatives implemented to
involve the community, families of prisoners and the public in correctional works.
Similar observations can be made in the area of work relating to the community-based treatment undertakenby the Department of Probation (DOP). Due to the expanded scope of work in 2002 to include compulsory drug
treatment under the responsibility of the DOP, probation officers have to face heavy caseloads. Employing only
2,000 probation officers, the DOP has to deal with 300,000 cases of probationers, parolees and drug addicts
each year. To cope with such a caseload, the Department has to seek help from outside agencies. Various
schemes aiming to gain assistance from the public in community-based treatment have been increasingly set
up in recent years. These include the volunteer probation officer scheme, community justice network, andmulti-agency drug rehabilitation.
In addition to helping with the caseload, the DOP needs support and assistance from the public in reintegrationof offenders into society. Without cooperation and understanding from the public, offenders can not live in thecommunity. Existing agencies in the community, ranging from local organizations to social networks, are allimportant in providing essential support for offender resettlement, such as employment, housing, education,
welfare services, and health services. Involvement of these agencies can be in the form of technical assistance,
financial support, and cooperation in specific programmes.
The door of opportunity for the agencies in the criminal justice system was opened even wider when the
Office of Civil Service announced its policy to reform the civil service system in Thailand in the early 2000s.
The new public management scheme is one of the developments launched to promote the transparency andaccountability of public agencies. According to this new movement, each agency is subject to public scrutiny
and is encouraged to promote community involvement. The criminal justice agencies took the advantage ofthis reform policy to improve their organization management and services, one of which was to engage thepublic in prison management. The initial strategies involved inviting outsiders to visit prisons and juvenile
detention centres, educating the public of missions and the limitations of corrections, creating opportunities
for them to participate in the offender treatment process and publicly recognizing their contribution. At theend of the day, the expertise and experience of the outsiders in the areas in which the staff of the criminal
justice system lack such skills definitely reinforced the effectiveness of the offender treatment process.
For a bigger step to promote public support, the Ministry of Justice of Thailand has imposed a policy toenhance cooperation between criminal justice agencies and all sectors of society for effective aftercare services
and reintegration, in accordance with the Strategic Plan of ‘Returning Decent Citizens to Society’. Within thisframework, the DOC, for instance, launched its initial campaign in 2006 to educate the public of correctional
works and their limitations. The original targeted audience were Sub-district Administration Agencies,
which are the lowest level of local government agencies. At the initial phase, the two partners worked
together to improve the quality of ‘welfare provision’. Each prison was encouraged to sign a Memorandum ofUnderstanding with the local Sub-district Administration Agency to set a framework on their operations.
In addition, the DOC also declared the ‘correctional network and alliance’ policy which aimed at bringing
in all stakeholders. Apart from the local governments, key institutions and individuals in the community,
such as employers, scholars, educational institutions, temples, etc., were invited to join the network to
help improve the three main areas of corrections: therapeutic programmes, pre-release activities andreintegration.

III. PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIP NETWORKS
To serve the new set of vision and missions of adult and juvenile corrections, which focus on transparency
and accountability, one of the pioneering strategies is to draw support from the general public. As presented
in the previous section, the roles played by the community and the private sector are deemed necessary
and invaluable for the effectiveness of the treatment process, particularly in terms of financial resources andstaff. In the adult correctional services, key players can be considered at two levels: national and local. At
national level, the significant roles of representatives from various sectors of society can be viewed throughthe establishment of the Correctional Advisory Council (CAC) in 2004. The CAC comprises 25 individuals
who are retired and current senior prison administrators, academics, public attorneys, law enforcement

91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

administrators, business people, representatives from the press, NGOs and senior administrators fromother public sectors outside the justice circles. The responsibilities of the CAC include coordinating with all
stakeholders within and outside the criminal justice system to improve the quality of custodial measures andprisoner rehabilitation; receiving complaints relating to prison management from prisoners and the public; andsuggesting policy on aftercare and reintegration.
In addition, in order to strengthen the reintegration process, the DOC has worked closely with eight
government agencies, namely the Department of Social Development and Welfare, Department of Local
Administration, Department of Employment, Department of Skill Development, Provincial Administration
Organization Council of Thailand, the National Municipal League of Thailand, Sub-district Administration
Organization Council of Thailand, and the City of Bangkok Metropolitan. Agreements between the DOC
and these agencies were signed in 2008 to systematically manage offenders’ pre-release programmes andpromote the community reintegration process and activities (in particular, employability development andpublic acceptance promotion) which are believed to help prevent recidivism. The focus of this cooperation is
on two principal activities:
The agreements signed between the DOC and its partners indicated clearly the responsibility of eachparty:

Framework for Correctional Facility
1. Update prisoners statistics;
2. Survey and provide relevant local agencies with ex-prisoners’ data;
3. Strengthen constructive relations with relevant agencies;
4. Provide necessary pre-release programmes;
5. Cooperate with the partner agencies in arranging pre-release programmes for prisoners and educating
the community for a better understanding of prisoners;
6. Arrange Restorative Justice activities to reconcile the conflicts between victims, prisoners, andprisoners’ families during the period of incarceration or, where possible, after release;
7. Request partner agencies to report escapes;
8. Cooperate with partner agencies to conduct assessment and follow-up measures; and9. Carry out other activities depending on the facilities’ competency and conditions.
Framework for Partners
1. Cooperate with correctional facilities in the delivery of pre-release programmes for both prisoners
and for community, such as offering instructors, introducing vacant jobs, and funding prisoners’
welfare, etc.;
2. Provide opportunities for ex-prisoners i.e. hire them;
3. Support ‘house visit’ programme for local ex-prisoners;
4. Financially support staff and visiting costs, including welfare for pre/post-release prisoners and theirfamilies;
5. Support justice activities such as Restorative Activities for Prisoners, Families, Community, andVictims. Inform victims about prisoners’ behaviour (where possible). Arrange activities for prisoners’
repentance;
6. Provide vehicles and staff for tracing escaped prisoners;
7. Assist in the follow-up and assessment of prisoner programmes and activities; and8. Carry out other activities depending on the partner’s capacity and what is in the agreement.
This ‘social welfare partnership’ in corrections provides benefits for all parties involved. With thecooperation of other government agencies and the community, the prison system is able to deliver a morecomprehensive and effective offender treatment service without requiring a great amount of public funds.
Correctional networks and alliances as well as the public should have a better understanding of the offender
treatment process and its limitations and can take part in helping improve the quality of such services.
Moreover, this scheme provides the ‘outsiders’ a chance to observe and scrutinize the works of the DOC

92

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

with a principal aim to make the correctional system more effective and efficient. Last but not least,
offenders can benefit from the well-organized programmes and activities which could help them reintegrate
into the community after release. They are made aware that all parties involved are ready to give them asecond chance so that they have confidence and determination to change not just for themselves but also forsociety as a whole.
At local level, in addition, the early attempt at drawing support from the general public involves the volunteers
in prisons’ rehabilitative programmes and activities. A recently published research paper (Rehabilitation ResearchGroup, 2009) reveals that there were 3,969 volunteers participating in offender treatment of the DOC. These
volunteers can be roughly divided into two main groups: government and non-government agencies. The
government agencies are categorized into those in the criminal justice system and those outside the perimeter.
On the other hand, the non-government agencies and individuals were varied in their backgrounds, ranging
from business owners, NGOs representatives, company employees, academics, retired civil servants, monks
and farmers. The number and the diversity of these volunteers (so called ‘correctional alliances’) have gradually
increased each year, reflecting the success of the initial attempt to include as many stakeholders as possible inthe correctional system.
As presented in Chart 1, the majority of volunteers (23.5%) participated in donation activities. Prisons,juvenile detention centres and probation offices across the country always encourage and welcome donations
from the public. They can donate almost anything deemed suitable for the wellbeing of imprisoned offenders,from financial to material donations.
%
25

23.5

21.7

20
14.2
15

13.6
9.2
6.7

10

6.4

4.3

5
0

0.4
Donation

Religious Education Vocational Public
Activities
Training Relations

Legal
Consult

Health

Employment

OthersChart 1: The Roles of Networks and Alliances in Corrections

IV. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT PROGRAMMES AND ACTIVITIESWorking with all stakeholders from the community can come in different forms and methods. Over the
past decades, the agencies in the Ministry of Justice have received relatively strong support from all sectorsof society, from the first step whereby offenders enter the criminal justice system until they finish serving
their sentences. This section highlights the projects and activities which reflect constructive partnerships
between those agencies and the community. They are categorized into four groups, with reference to theirprincipal goals (although some projects may contain various goals). The first group includes the projects andactivities which involve the community in strengthening self improvement and the therapeutic element ofoffender rehabilitation; the second are those which attempt to raise public awareness and acceptance; thethird are community-based diversion programmes with cooperation from all stakeholders including victims;
and, finally, I would like to mention the Kamlangjai (Inspire) Model of the Kamlangjai project under the
initiative and support of HRH Princess Bajrakitiyabha, which has become a unique and effective model of
public involvement in the treatment of offenders in Thailand.

A. Involving the Community to Strengthen Self-Improvement and Rehabilitation Programmes
In the first group the projects and activities which involve the community to strengthen the self-improvement

93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

and therapeutic element of offender rehabilitation will be the focus of discussion.
1. Vocational Training and the Prison Product Exhibition
For adult offenders, vocational training has been a key rehabilitative programme for prisoner rehabilitation
for decades. As a supplement to the formal educational curriculum offered inside prisons, a wide range ofvocational training programmes are provided for prisoners interested in developing and/or improving theirworking skills. Results from the classification process are also taken into consideration when assigning
prisoners to a training course. This is to effectively respond to a prisoner’s risks and needs. At present,
courses provided include carpentry, construction, hair dressing, cooking, Thai massage, etc. With reference toour experience, the more employability that the offenders have, the less likely it is that they will reoffend.
The community involvement in vocational training is twofold. Firstly, they can participate in the training
courses as instructors. Currently, most instructors in the programmes are those invited from outside prisons,for example, from local vocational training colleges, schools and local companies, all of whom are experts intheir particular fields. Secondly, the public can support prisoners’ vocational training programmes by donating
financial resources and training equipment and purchasing prisoners’ finished goods.
Each year the Annual Prison Product Exhibition is held to promote a vocational training programme for
prisoners. Also, it can raise public awareness and acceptance. It is expected that visitors will have a better
understanding of prisons and prisoners, at least of the aspect that prisoners spend a meaningful time behindbars by attending activities that can reshape their attitudes and behaviours. In addition, prisoners’ capacity
will be recognized through the products and services that they produce and deliver. When a prisoner’s
products are purchased, 50% of the profit will be deposited to the prisoner’s account as their reward. The
Exhibition is considered one of the significant channels to connect prisons and prisoners with the outside
world. Moreover, it is treated as a labour market where employers are invited to observe the potential of
prisoners who, in the near future, might be their skilful employees after release.
In recent years, during the Exhibition, the DOC has brought out some well-trained prisoners to teachshort vocational courses for interested people. As the name Kru Kon Kook (literally meaning ‘teachers frombehind bars’) suggests, the main aims of this project are twofold: firstly, prisoners are offered a venue in thereal world to practice what they have learnt inside, and secondly, giving a formal lecture to a public audienceis a well-planned strategy which promotes acceptance and respect for prisoners almost with no cost. The
courses taught by prisoners cooking, baking, ‘batik’ painting, water colour painting, etc.
2. Prisoners with Higher Education Programme
In addition to a basic educational curriculum and vocational training programmes, the DOC offers higher
education courses for prisoners who are keen to equip themselves with knowledge and skills of theirinterest. With close and extensive cooperation from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University (STOU), the
DOC has been able to systematically manage the higher education programme for prisoners since 1987.
The enrolment process, course materials and assessment are of the standard offered to the general public.
Prisoners who are interested in participating in the programme can request the application form from theuniversity through their prisons. The applications then will be sent out to the university. If the prisoners’
qualifications fit with the requirements, they will be eligible for enrolment. Course materials will then be
sent to the prisoners. Particular prisons are designated as STOU centres where prisoners are temporarilytransferred in order for them to participate in the activities required by the course and also to sit exams.
After they achieve all requirements and their degrees are awarded, the annual graduation ceremony will beheld in Bangkwang Central Prison where all graduates are presented with certificates.
Generally, prisoners are responsible for all related expenses when they choose to pursue higher education.
Accordingly, at the early stage of this programme, prisoners who had financial difficulty were unintentionallyleft out. The significant move of the DOC to effectively deal with this situation was the establishment of‘Prisoner Education Fund’ in 1995. The main goal of the fund is to provide financial assistance for prisoners
who are in need. They, however, must also demonstrate good behaviour and good results from their study to beeligible for this subsidy. The fund committee is responsible for the administration of the fund and make the final
decision for scholarship awards.
Recent statistics from the Educational Promotion Division, DOC, show that the numbers of prisoners
enrolled at the STOU during the past three academic years were relatively stable (5,534, 5,570 and 5,512

94

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

prisoners in 2007, 2008 and 2009 respectively). When looking the number of graduates from 1987 to 2009,
there were 1,519 prisoners completing their degrees while serving time in prisons. The majority of them(34%) graduated with law degrees. Most of them informally reported that they wanted to study the law sothat they could understand and fight their cases.
Rank

Subject

1987–
2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total

%

1

Law

332

46

47

39

53

517

34.04

2

Management Science

143

29

35

35

34

276

18.17

3

Agriculture andCooperatives Promotion

126

19

41

26

40

252

16.59

4

Communication Arts

97

12

15

13

18

155

10.20

5

Political Science

79

19

13

12

21

144

9.48

6

Liberal Arts

37

3

4

3

8

55

3.62

7

Science

1

1

27

6

7

42

2.76

8

Economics

23

1

8

4

4

40

2.63

9

Education

10

4

–

2

–

16

1.05

10

Home Economics

16

–

–

–

–

16

1.05

11

Human Ecology

0

–

–

1

5

6

0.39

Total

864

134

190

141

190

1,519

100.00

Table 1. Number of prisoners who graduated from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, from 1987–2009.

600
517

500

Number

400

276

300

252

200
155

144

100
55

42

40
16

16

EducationHome
Economics

6

0
Law

Management Agriculture and Communication
ScienceCooperatives
Arts
Promotion

Political
Science

Liberal Arts

Science

Economics

Human
Ecology

Subjects

Chart 2. Number of prisoners who graduated from Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University, from 1987–2009.

As of February 2011, there are currently 3,266 prisoners enrolling with the STOU (this number is
expected to increase when the admission process for the current semester (Spring 2011) is complete).
Unsurprisingly, the favourite course among prisoners is still law (n=914, 27.99%). At present, each prisonis encouraged to seek cooperation from local universities and colleges to expand opportunities for higher

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

education for prisoners. Mahasarakam Provincial Prison, for instance, signed an MOU with Mahasarakam
University to provide prisoners with access to a range of courses at both undergraduate and graduate level.
Rank

Subject

Male

Female

Total

%

1

Law

859

55

914

27.99

2

Management Science

569

148

717

21.95

3

Agriculture and Co-operatives Promotion

557

43

603

18.46

4

Political Science

427

21

448

13.72

5

Communication Arts

247

69

316

9.68

6

Liberal Arts

80

36

116

3.55

7

Science and Technology

60

7

67

2.05

8

Human Ecology

24

22

46

1.41

9

Economics

23

1

24

0.73

10

Education

7

3

10

0.31

11

Others

3

–

5

0.15

Total

2,860

406

3,266

100.00

Table 2. Top ten favourite subjects for the academic year 2010-11.

3. Drama Therapy
A new intervention combining theatre work and drama has been employed to rehabilitate juvenile offenders
and young drug abusers. With assistance from drama groups, the Department of Probation and Departmentof Juvenile Observation and Protection now attempt to apply drama therapy with juvenile offenders. Thisinitiative has been proposed by the community drama groups who believe that the use of theatre techniques
could help young offenders build their self-esteem and modify their behaviour. These drama groups voluntarily
organize drama therapy workshops for interested young offenders. After participating in the programme, young
offenders said that they felt more confident, enjoyed their lives, and had a better relationship with others.
Besides, a group of participating young offenders can perform on stage, in plays, mimes, and poetry readings,
for their families and general audiences. Although it is still a pilot scheme which cannot be continuously
implemented, more drama groups are interested in this scheme and eager to accept young offenders to takepart in their workshops.
4. Art Therapy: ‘Art for All’ ProjectThe ‘Art for All’ Project is considered an innovative alternative for prisoner rehabilitation which aims todeal with prisoners’ emotions, attitudes and perceptions by using art as a tool. Supported by the ‘Art for All’
Foundation, the programme emerged in 2004 following the gracious guidance of HRH Princess Maha Chakri
Sirindhorn. Prisoners in the programme are able to learn not only about art, art appreciation and the creationof art works of their interests from outside professional artists, but they also have a chance to learn about
themselves. The principal philosophy behind the project is that every prisoner has talent which they might or
might not acknowledge and that it is the job of the correctional system to encourage them to use that talent
in the right way. Art is just one mechanism that helps bring out prisoners’ creativity and imagination and thatreflects what is in their minds. This is of great value for related and further therapeutic programmes. Productsof their participation are regularly presented to the public at the prisoners’ art exhibitions which are held atboth national and local venues. Besides, ‘Art Camp’ is also arranged for prisoners so that they are able to meetwith their peers who have similar interests and who can share their knowledge and experience.
5. Music Therapy and the Prisoner Choir
With a similar approach to ‘Art for All’, music therapy has been employed as an alternative method
for prisoner rehabilitation for a decade. The project emerged in the early 2000s to initially deal with drug
offenders. These offenders often present a high risk of reoffending if no appropriate rehabilitation programmes
are provided. The DOC acknowledges the need to find a range of initiatives to tackle their issues and findsthat music therapy is one of many options that has potential to effectively respond to drug prisoners’ risk andneeds. With cooperation from the private sector, in particular the Christian Prison Ministry Foundation, the96147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

music therapy programme was delivered in a number of correctional facilities for drug offenders at its firststage before being expanded to cover general prisons. Prisoners in the programme are able to learn various
skills in music like vocals, singing, and performing from professional music therapists, singers and musicians
who volunteer to work in the programme. More importantly, there are sessions that enable them to learn
about and understand themselves—i.e. their capacities, their mistakes and their responsibilities Each year
major concert events are held for these prisoners to perform in front of the public and their families. Mostof these concerts are charity events which grant an opportunity for prisoners to give back to the community.
The success of this project is evidenced by the booked seats at every concert the prisoners perform!

B. Raising Public Awareness and AcceptanceIn addition to the programmes and activities designed specifically to help the offenders gain a toehold in
their effort to reform and rehabilitate, it has been widely acknowledged that programmes aimed at raisingpublic awareness and acceptance can provide an environment conducive to such efforts. Below are listed
some of the key activities:
1. TV Series: ‘Before Eighteen ’
The use of appropriate media can effectively educate and raise the awareness of the public. ‘Before
Eighteen ’ is one good example. This television series, based on true stories, launched by the Department ofJuvenile Observation and Protection in cooperation with a TV channel in Thailand, presented the life stories
of six juveniles who had different backgrounds but all ended up in juvenile detention centres. The series
aimed to provide the public with stories from other angles, in particular the juveniles themselves, theirfamilies and government agencies. The viewers would understand why these juveniles did what they did andhow society could prevent that from happening. It also attempted to deter at-risk juveniles from following
the same path and also to give support to those who were already in detention centres. The series ended bysuggesting that there is always hope for everyone, even those who used to do something wrong, and mostimportantly, that everyone needs a second chance.
2. ‘Sports Behind Bars’
As part of rehabilitation and reintegration, the ‘Sports Behind Bars’ Project was initiated to promoteprisoners’ capacity in sports and to encourage them to meaningfully make use of their time behind bars.
Moreover, this project is aimed at showing society that many prisoners have talents in something, in thiscase sports, and that what they need from society is a second chance. This project invites a range of sports
authorities, professional sports associations and private sponsors, for instance the Ministry of Tourism andSports, the Sports Authority of Thailand, the Professional Boxing Association of Thailand and the Football
Association of Thailand, to participate in prisons’ sport events. Support has been overwhelming in termsof budget, trainers and equipment. A number of qualified prisoners were sent out to compete in numerous
significant events and at different levels - international, national and local.
One of the most recognized prisoner athletes is Samsun Sor Siripon. She was convicted of a drug offence
and participated in boxing training while an inmate in a facility for female drug offenders on the outskirts of
Bangkok. Her talent caught the trainers’ eye and gave her an opportunity to fight outside prisons. With her
dedication and determination, Samsun won a World Champion title (Flyweight Class) of the World Boxing
Association (WBA) in 2007. She soon became very well-known. Her success opened the door of opportunity
for many other prisoners, especially those with sport talents.

‘World Cup Behind Bars’ is also a well-known prison event. Although it is held every four years likethe formal FIFA World Cup, the event receives attention and remarkable support from the sport agencies
involved, in particular, the Football Association of Thailand and Ministry of Tourism and Sports, as well as
the media and the public. Foreign prisoners, especially from countries which have qualified for the final
rounds of the World Cup, together with Thai prisoners, compete for the ‘Wold Cup Behind Bars’ champion
title and a trophy resembling the real one. Meanwhile, those who are not qualified for a player position areencouraged to participate in the event as supporters. Judging from the public’s and the press’ feedback, thecriminal justice system benefits a great deal from this event in terms of public awareness. In most news
coverage, if not all, prisoners were presented as individuals who had made a wrong decision and mistakes,
not as criminals. Optimistically, this suggests that society is likely to give prisoners a second chance if it iseducated and assured that prisoners are treated effectively and have paid a certain price for what they did tosociety.

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

3. Prison Open Days for Diplomats and the Press
Occasionally, the DOC arranges Prison Tours for diplomatic representatives and the press to generate
a better understanding of correctional works domestically and internationally. Deemed a public-relations
channel to inform the outside world about prisons, the project invites press and diplomatic officers to join
the tour to visit a prison and witness life behind bars. This activity solidly and positively demonstrates thedifficulties of correctional tasks.

C. Diversion Programmes
1. Family and Community Group Conferencing
Family and Community Group Conferencing (FCGC) provides an opportunity for family and the community
to become actively involved in rehabilitating and holding juvenile offenders accountable through the restorative
justice process. Implemented by the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection in 2003, the Family
and Community Group Conferencing (FCGC) scheme has been used to divert juvenile offenders from thejuvenile justice system as well as provide an opportunity for victims to be restored and offenders to be held
accountable for what they have done. When a child arrested by the police is sent to a detention centre, thedirector of the centre can arrange FCGC if both victim and child agree. The conference will consist of victim(s),the juvenile offender and his or her family, representatives from the community, police, a psychologist, anda facilitator. In case that the involved parties, i.e. victims, juvenile offender and their families, can make anagreement and the offender consents to be under the control of the director in the follow up monitoring, thedirector will send a proposal to the prosecutor for a non-prosecution order. The outcomes of this scheme are
significant: victim satisfaction, a better understanding within the family of offenders, and a decrease in the
reoffending rate among participating offenders.
2. Diversion Programmes for Drug Addicts
This alternative approach was adopted as a result of a new policy to tackle narcotic drug problems in
2002. The new emphasis was on the holistic approach to the solution of drug problems. Particularly, thepolicy stressed that drug users and drug addicts, who previously had been prosecuted as criminal offenders,
are to be regarded as patients who need rehabilitation treatment.
A new legal framework has been introduced to allow for integrated treatment of drug-related offenders.
Under the new scheme, concerned government agencies work closely together to provide integrated responses
to the treatment of drug offenders. These agencies include the Office of the Narcotic Control Board, the Royal
Thai Police, the Department of Corrections, the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection, the Courtof Justice, the Royal Thai Army, the Royal Thai Navy, the Royal Thai Air Force, the Ministry of Public Health,the Ministry of Interior, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration, and the Department of Probation serving as
the focal point.
The 2002 Drug Rehabilitation Act stipulates that a person charged with “drug addiction”, “drug addiction
and possession”, “drug addiction and possession for disposal”, or “drug addiction and disposal,” if the amountof possession is less than the limitation of the law, is to be transferred to the court within 48 hours, andin the case of young persons, 24 hours. The court then will be able to divert the case from the traditional
criminal justice system and refer the person to designated facilities for drug assessment. The evaluation
which follows would determine whether the person is a drug addict and, if so, he or she is to be referred to adrug rehabilitation centre for a specified period of time. After a successful completion of the programme withsatisfactory results, the criminal case will be dropped, with the offender having no criminal record.
There are two types of rehabilitation schemes available for drug-related offenders in Thailand: compulsory
and voluntary rehabilitation. While the compulsory rehabilitation programmes are implemented as prescribedby law, the success of such rehabilitation is closely related to the degree to which concerned agencies areable to convince the drug users or drug addicts to receive treatment in the voluntary programme. In thisconnection, the involvement of the community, especially through the ‘Community Justice Network’, not only
provides a strong foundation for the active engagement of the family members of the drug addicts, it also plays
a major role in the persuasion of drug users/addicts to receive treatment in voluntary treatment programmes
without having to arrest them. Family and community support and encouragement thus plays essential roles
during and after the treatment. These networks collaborate closely with the volunteer probation officers in theaftercare of drug users and addicts within the community after the treatment.

98

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

3. The Kamlangjai Project
The Kamlangjai Project (literally “inspiration”) provides a unique platform where a dynamic and sustainablemodel of community and public participation can be fostered.
The Project was launched on 31 October 2006 under the strong leadership of HRH Princess Bajrakitiyabha.
Much of the early effort has been focused on enhancing the quality of life of female inmates and the babies bornto incarcerated mothers, in a way that supplements the work of the DOC. In addition to providing the rightincentive and support for the DOC to pay closer attention to providing adequate healthcare for female inmates
and their babies at key women’s correctional facilities nationwide, the Project has grown to attract a numberof key partners from the private sector, charity organizations and NGOs who bring in unique types of support
according to their specific areas of specialty, thus significantly enriching the overall quality of the programme.
The royal initiative receives various kinds of support from prominent private organizations. For instance,
the Rutnin-Gimbel LASIK Centre, among the first partners of the Project, came up with an idea to provide
free eye care to female inmates. When the scope of the Kamlangjai Project extended to Chiang Mai Women’s
Correctional Institute, the Rotary Club, Chiang Mai University and Naresuan University took part in providing
health and sanitary care to pregnant inmates and their infants. Vocational training for female inmates was alsosignificantly enriched with a great variety of curricula that suits the needs of inmate trainees, thanks to many
private companies who volunteered to provide training. Because of the success of the Project in Bangkok andChiang Mai, the “Kamlangjai model” of involvement of the local private sector in the city of a prison’s location,
the Kamlangjai Project has expanded its successful model of cooperation to other provinces such as Ayuthaya,
Nakornsrithammarat, Trang, Rayong, etc.
On the social awareness campaign, the Kamlangjai Project took partnership with the Mall Department
Store and TV Channel 3 to initiate a ‘Bra Charity: Spirit of Love’ which allowed the general public to show
their moral support for women in prison. Grammy Music Production dispatched a number of artists to bringentertainment into the correctional facilities under the ‘First Real Love’ programme, while the RS – anothermajor entertainment network company, pooled their great talents to compose a song in honour of Her RoyalHighness’s great work, entitled ‘Jai Nam Tang’- literally, “the heart leads the way” or “Flame of Hope”.
Realizing that the issues faced by female inmates in Thailand are not limited to Thai society, the Project
took on a broader and more universal approach to the problem by bringing the experience of female inmates
seen through the Kamlangjai Project to the world audience at the Seventeenth Session of the Commission
on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice (CCPCJ) at the United Nations Office at Vienna, Austria, and byinviting the international criminal justice community to begin to look at the standards and norms governing
the prison regimes with greater sensitivity to gender difference. From this realization has emerged anotherroyal initiative called “Enhancing Lives of Females Inmates” or the ELFI Project, which successfully rallied
for a new standard for the treatment of female inmates. The so-called the United Nations Rules for theTreatment of Female Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Female Offenders, or the Bangkok Rules,
was adopted in the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 2010. It can be expected that the
new standards will supplement the existing standards and norms on the treatment of prisoners, which havebeen in force since 1955, by introducing a gender perspective.
In addition to the focus on female inmates, the Kamlangjai Project has also taken a keen interest in thequality of life of juvenile offenders. For the past five years, not only has HRH Princess Bajrakitiyabha given
her support to female inmates, but her deep concern for the underprivileged also led her to extend her
support to children and youths under the care of the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection,
Ministry of Justice. The idea is to enhance juvenile rehabilitation through the introduction of religious
teaching. The Dhamma Club of Wat Panyanantaram was created to teach Dhamma (Buddhist truth or
wisdom) to children in the juvenile facilities to help them to adapt to society. Vocational training is also
provided by Chitralada Vocational School, among others.
At present, the Project is treading a new path, growing into an organization fit for undertaking a widearray of enterprises, ranging from enhancing the quality of life of female inmates to providing sustainablesupport for offenders in their efforts to reintegrate into society and providing aftercare services. The new
direction can be perceived through various undertakings by the Project in recent years. From vocational

99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

training, where focus has been placed on support for developing adequate skills for female offenders, theProject has now begun to emphasize elements which will enable the products made by the offenders to betruly marketable and thus serve as an effective vehicle for sustainable programme management. In addition
to the fact that one can now find Kamlangjai products on the shelves of major department stores in Bangkok,
on certain occasions, one may come across a new breed of coffee shop where every item on display in thestore, from the cookies and brownies, to paintings on the wall, to the set of wood chairs and tables, areproducts hand-made by inmates.

V. WHAT ARE THE LESSONS LEARNT FROM THAILAND’S EXPERIENCE?
In this section, the lessons learnt from the Thailand’s experience in working with the community will be
discussed.

A. Making Community Involvement a Major Policy of the Organization and Creating Clear
Structures and Frameworks to Work with all Stakeholders
We found that if we want to encourage community involvement in the treatment of offenders we haveto work hard. Normally, public perception of corrections work is not positive. In the eyes of the public, aprison is an off-limit, danger zone, where nobody knows what is going on behind those high walls. Most
people are afraid to live near prisons, not to mention go inside or work directly with prisoners. As forthe corrections officers, they are not normally trained to be good community coordinators. They need togiven clear instructions and guidelines as to what extent the public should be involved in prison activities.
For this reason, to be effective, community involvement should be a major policy of the organization. In
addition, some concrete frameworks should be formulated so that all stakeholders, including the community
members and corrections officers at every level, are properly and adequately informed of what is expectedof them. In this connection, the Thai experience in setting up organizational structures at national and local
levels and the clear frameworks stipulated in Memoranda of Understanding with key partners has given a
tremendous boost to community participation in corrections activities, both in terms of quality and quantityof involvement.
B. Encouraging Community Involvement as ‘a partner’ as Early as Possible
To enhance the quality of offender treatment, the community, particularly the groups that will becomea close network and alliance with corrections, should be encouraged to participate in the process as earlyas possible. The earlier they get involved, the more knowledge and understanding they will have about
prisoners. This will also strengthen the sentence plan of offenders by responding to the risks and needs ofoffenders more effectively. For those in prisons, the role of community should be continuously promoted
from admission until release. In addition, evidence shows that community involvement is very crucial in thetransition and reintegration process. Nelson and Trone (2000, pp.7-8) point out that:“Protecting the investment, large or small, in pre-release programming requires developing some form ofcommunity follow-up. Research suggests that prison programming focused on life issues, such as employment,
drug abuse, and family relations, is most effective if the work continues in the community after release.
There are many ways to create links between custody-based programs and services in the community. The
Montgomery County Pre-Release Center is staffed by several community coordinators who place offenders
with service agencies before release. The Metropolitan Transition Center in Baltimore plans to partner withthree community development corporations that will take a case management approach to helping inmates
get the services they need after release. In Ohio inmates learn about organizations that can help themafter release because these agencies run the state’s mandatory pre-release course. Officials at the Illinois
Department of Correction took that approach one step further by hiring a local non-profit agency to run two
community corrections centers in Chicago.”
From Thailand’s experience, projects which treat the community as ‘a partner’ at the earliest stage,i.e. inviting them to help in planning prisoner programmes or welcoming their comments and suggestions
before finalizing the programme, tend to gain more support than usual projects or activities which invite thecommunity to participate later in the process. In other words, the sense of ‘partnership’ can increase thecommunity’s commitment in offender treatment. That is, when they feel that they also are the ‘owner’ of the100147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

programme and that they need to effectively manage and support it.

C. Utilizing the Media to promote a Positive Attitude towards Offender Treatment
Although many programmes and campaigns received a warm welcome from the community, some appeared
to have difficulties in achieving their goals. The outcome analysis by programme administrators revealed thatpublic attitudes towards prison and prisoners is one of the key factors that every programme should take into
consideration. This implies that the criminal justice agencies need to work harder to educate the public for abetter understanding of prison work, the offender treatment process and its limitations. Changing the public
attitude is not easy, yet it is achievable.
It goes without saying that public attitude can be influenced by the media. Prisons, for example, areportrayed in most Hollywood movies as places of harsh punishment, poor hygiene and corrupt management.
In the real world, escapes, security incidents and prison assaults are the kinds of news which make front
page news. Sadly, ex-offenders who have completed all required rehabilitative programmes and successfully
reintegrated into the community after release with permanent jobs and understanding families do not
draw much attention from the media. It is, therefore, an important strategy to know how to use the media
to ensure people understand more about corrections work, particularly of how important it is that the
public should give inmates a second chance to reintegrate into the society. It is also important to involvethe media in the work of justice agencies. Inviting the press to join justice seminars and training on somerelevant topics, or arranging a press tour to visit prisons and observe what is going on inside, are among
the proactive approaches employed by Thailand to provide correct information on justice and prison work
for a better understanding and a positive image. As mentioned earlier, producing movies to tell the stories
of juvenile offenders, bringing out prisoner choirs to perform in public and encouraging prisoner boxers tocompete in public tournaments are also parts of the proactive strategies to use the media to change public
attitudes. As experience suggests that creating and maintaining a positive image are not simple tasks, thecriminal justice system can no longer afford to wait for an incident to happen and then respond to all thenews coverage of the case.

D. Information Sharing between Agencies
Confidentiality can be a problem for criminal justice agencies when working across organizations. The
National Institute of Corrections (2004) points out that “organizational boundaries often serve as a firewall
to stymie information sharing. Confidentiality requirements legitimately protect citizens’ interests. But
agencies often interpret confidentiality requirements expansively, and invoke them as blanket limits on
information sharing” (p. 36). It also suggests that:“While many agencies have a stake in the transition process, their priorities, policies and procedures relating
to transition often are inconsistent or countervailing. The flow of information among these agencies is impairedby organizational boundaries, incompatible information systems, or conflicts in priorities. When offenders are
released to community supervision, too often there is little continuity between their prison programs andactivities, their re-entry plans, and the type of supervision and services they receive once released. (p.37)”
When the DOC first started to step out of its comfort zone to cooperate with other agencies and the private
sector, one of the significant problems was the complexity and inconsistency of information, let alone theconfidentiality issue. Meetings at every level, from policy to operations, were the main mechanism to sortout the problem. They paved the way for staff at operational levels to reorganize the information system,
especially that of offenders’ profiles. So far, the offenders’ profiles, for example, shared by the DOC and theDepartment of Probation, have been organized and managed professionally and systematically by staff at local
establishments.
The management of information, therefore, should be taken seriously as it would help produce an appropriate
plan for each prisoner. Agencies involved should establish an information sharing system so that every party will
be able to deliver a service based on the same database and knowledge.

101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

E. Finding Moral, Public Figures to promote Community Involvement
Moral figures have proved to be one of the key elements of offender treatment. The significant roles of themoral figures are to inspire offenders to develop pro-social attitudes and constructive perceptions as well as topromote community involvement in the treatment of offenders. With a monarchical constitution, Thailand is
blessed with a gracious royal family whose members have dedicated themselves to the happiness of the Thai
people, regardless of their gender, race and socio-economic status. The royal family have been the centre of
the society and the highest moral figures for all Thais, including those serving their sentences in the criminal
justice system. The ‘Art for All’ and the ‘Prom Punya’ Library for prisoners of HRH Princess Maha Chakri
Sirindhorn, and the ‘Kamlangjai’ Project of HRH Princess Bajrakitiyabha, are examples of projects initiated bythese moral figures. Offenders participating in the projects reported positive feedback and the support from thecommunity for these projects was overwhelming.
Samsun Sor Siripon, the first female prisoner boxer to win a WBA World Champion title, is also a rolemodel for other offenders. Her determination, dedication and capability are a message that she sent out toher fellow prisoners, other offenders in the system and the public. Moral figures, therefore, can be anyone.
In jurisdictions with no monarchy, the administrators may consider inviting athletes, actors, celebrities oreven ex-offenders who present an interest in offender treatment and, most importantly, have a positive
impact on society.

F. From Agencies to Individuals
The aforementioned examples of prisoner programmes demonstrate a certain level of success in inviting
the public to participate in offender treatment. Relevant agencies, in particular from the public sector, tend tobe the biggest supporter of the criminal justice system, particularly the prison service. Their support in termsof budget and other resources, however, are limited, as they also have their own obligations. Administrators,
therefore, recognize the need to seek more cooperation from other areas, including the private sector andNGOs, and the necessity to promote involvement at the individual level. The opportunity is that the private
sector and NGOs are now educated in how the criminal justice system works and have a better understandingof offenders.1 To encourage individuals to participate in correctional activities these days should be moreconvenient than in the past. What the system needs to take into account is the improvement of appropriate
access channels for interspersed individuals.
A study by the Office of Correctional Administrative and Research and Development (2009) on the attitude
of correctional networks and alliances revealed that the majority (35.0%) participated in prisoner treatment
because they were requested by prisons and that 33.1% volunteered to work with prisoners (Table 3). The
main reasons to participate in prisoner programmes suggested the willingness of these individuals to help
prisoners (Table 4). In addition, most of current participants agree that the public sector should be encouraged
to take part in offender treatment process (Chart 3). Results from this study suggest that there are many
individuals out there who have potential to become ‘correctional partners’. The administrators, therefore,should consider launching an effective campaign to bring them in and utilize their capacity.
Channels

Number%Requested by prisons

189

35.0

Volunteers

179

33.1

Suggested by others

94

17.4

Encouraged by the media

21

3.9

Others (i.e. ‘working with agencies which alreadyparticipated in the programmes’ and ‘working
nearby the prison and willing to help’)

57

10.6

Total

540

100

Table 3: Access points for current correctional networks and alliances

1 83% (N=360) of correctional networks and alliances reported that after participating in offender treatment process, they
have a better understanding of prisoners (Office of Correctional Administrative and Research and Development, 2009).

102

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

Reasons

Number

%To make themselves beneficial to others

88

24.4

To make ‘a merit’2

22

6.1

To help the underprivileged

100

27.8

All three above reasons

134

37.2

Others

16

4.4

Total

360

100

Table 4: Reasons to participate in correctional works2
Do not agree2%

Uncertain
2%

Agree
96%

Chart 3: Attitude towards private sector involvement

VI. CONCLUSION
For the effectiveness of offender treatment, the community is one of the key players whose role is sosignificant that the administrators of the criminal justice agencies cannot overlook it. In fact, their contribution
should be regarded as a top priority. Donation money, equipment and clothes might be tangible materials thateveryone is acquainted with. However, what is more important is the second chance which the community
can offer offenders. To achieve this, it is necessary to engage the community in the system from the earliest
stage possible so that they can see how the system works and what can be done to improve such operations.
The involvement, where it begins at the earliest stage possible, allows for the development of a system
which treats all parties involved as ‘partners’ or ‘stakeholders’ in the mission. As a ‘co-producer’ of offender
treatment programme, the community will have a chance to learn about the offenders and develop a better
understanding about them. This will ultimately raise an awareness and acceptance among the members of
the community which will be of great benefit for the prisoner reintegration process – the ultimate goal of thecriminal justice system.

2 According to Buddhist belief, one method of making merit is helping other human beings and animals, especially those inneed, without expecting anything in return.

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

REFERENCES
National Institute of Corrections (2004). Transition from Prison to Community Initiative . Washington DC.
Nelson, M. and Trone, J. (2000). Why Planning for Release Matters . New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Office of Correctional Administrative and Research and Development, Department of Corrections (2009).
Community Alliance and Prisoner Release .

104

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN OFFENDERS’ REHABILITATION:
THE SINGAPORE PRISON SERVICE’S EXPERIENCE

Desmond Kim Chin Tham*

I. AN OVERVIEW OF THE SINGAPORE PRISONS SYSTEM
A. Mission & Operations Philosophy
In Singapore, tough laws and strict regimes in prisons have served us well in deterring potential criminals
from offending, and keeping criminals out of circulation. While incarceration and punishment for offenders
remains a priority, it is also imperative that they do not recidivate. The Prison Service Mission was firstpromulgated in July 19881 to encapsulate the essence of our beliefs. The mission, which was subsequently
re-crafted in 1999, states: “As a key partner in criminal justice, we protect society through the safe custody andrehabilitation of offenders, cooperating in prevention and aftercare.”Together with the Prison Service Mission, a common Operations Philosophy was established as well.
The three elements of security , humanity and rehabilitation were emphasized as key concepts to guide
every officer’s actions. The Operations Philosophy provides the guidelines reflecting our management andmotivation, and enables our prison officers to effectively carry out their institutional objectives.

B. Key Inmate Demographics
As at 30 November 2010, there were about 12,515 incarcerated persons in prisons, of whom about 9.5%
or 1,185 were female. About 29.3% or 3,672 of the inmate population are between 31 and 40 years of age.
About 51.1% of all inmates were incarcerated for drug-related offences.
Based on the release cohort of 2007, Singapore’s recidivism rate2 stands at approximately 26.5%, a slightincrease from the 25.1% of the 2006 cohort.

C. Organizational Structure
The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) administers four maximum, five medium and four low-medium
security institutions. They make up SPS’ line units, and are grouped under three clusters, namely Clusters
A and B (housed within the main Changi Prison Complex) and Cluster C (comprising of decentralized
institutions, i.e. Changi Women’s Prison, Kaki Bukit Centre, Admiralty West Prison and the Selarang Park
Community Supervision Centre) to synergise services and enhance operational efficiency.
At staff level, SPS has six main divisions, viz. Operations, Staff Development, Corporate Services,
Rehabilitation & Reintegration, Strategic Planning & Research, and Intelligence Divisions, comprising 29 units
together with three standalone units, i.e. Public Affairs, Provost and Prison Staff Inspectorate.

D. The Business Framework
The SPS Business Framework is underpinned by the four purposes of imprisonment, i.e. Punishment,* Deputy Director of Prisons/Chief of Staff, Singapore Prison Service, Singapore.
1 The mission in 1988 states: “To strive for excellence and professionalism in support of the Singapore Criminal Justice
System in the safe custody, humane treatment and successful rehabilitation of offenders in preparing them for return to society
as law-abiding citizens”.
2 Recidivism Rate is defined as the percentage of local inmates detained, convicted and imprisoned again for a new offence
within two years from their release.

105

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

Incapacitation, Deterrence and Reform. These serve to guide SPS in carrying out its three core duties of
Executing Justice, Reducing Reoffending and Preventing Offending .
1. Executing JusticeThis is the fundamental purpose of our prisons system, i.e. to execute sentences and corporal punishment
meted out by Singapore’s Courts. Under the arm of “executing justice”, SPS also provides effective andefficient remand services to fellow law enforcement agencies, for example, the immigration authorities andpolice force.
2. Reducing Reoffending
Our second area of responsibility is “Reducing Reoffending”. Our prison system is focused on ensuring
the inmate is adequately rehabilitated so that he or she does not offend again, and adequately resourced tohelp reintegrate him or her back to the community.
3. Preventing Offending
SPS aims to “prevent offending” by moving further upstream of the socio-economic system and stemming
the flow of potential and at-risk persons from entering the cycle of crime. By leveraging the considerable
criminal knowledge we have within our prisons, SPS helps the police and other law enforcement agencies fightand prevent crime.

E. The Rehabilitation Framework
The goal of rehabilitation is the successful reintegration of the offender back to the community as acontributing member of society. The establishment and maintenance of positive community and family
relationships will assist offenders in their reintegration as law-abiding citizens. Strong families can provide
security and meaning to life. Similarly, support and acceptance from the community is just as important in
helping an ex-offender as he or she journeys through this path of recovery.
What ultimately determines successful rehabilitation is the offender’s own desire to change for the better.
Not every criminal or drug abuser may be willing to reform but the right kind of rehabilitative strategy canmotivate offenders to rebuild their lives. In 2000, the Singapore Prison Service’s Rehabilitation Framework
was developed to guide us in our offender’s reformation efforts.
Under the new rehabilitation framework for penal offenders, inmates undergo the following phases:
1. Admission
Inmates are objectively assessed and classified into four broad classes: Class A, B, C or D. The classification
process enables SPS to channel its resources to those with the best chances of benefiting from rehabilitationand to manage the others in an effective manner. A Personal Route Map (PRM) for each penal offender isdrawn up, based on the assessment of his or her risk and needs determined during admission.
2. Deterrence
From admission, the inmate moves through to the deterrence phase which includes periods of selfreflection and drill. Progressive assessments are conducted by the inmate’s personal supervisors during thisperiod.
3. Treatment
In the treatment phase, inmates are employed in either prison industries or domestic work, dependingon their respective PRMs. For instance, Class ‘B’ inmates are given compulsory education to raise theirbasic literacy level and vocational training in skilled prison industries to address their educational andemployment needs. SPS also administers a suite of Specialised Treatment Programmes (STPs), developed
and delivered by prison counsellors and psychologists, which target criminogenic risks, such as substanceabuse, violent behaviour, sexual offending and criminal thinking. Delivered either individually or in groupsessions, these programmes aim to increase offenders’ propensity and motivation to change, help themunderstand the roots of their offending behaviours and to equip them with the necessary skills to avoid arelapse.

106

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

4. Aftercare
For those inmates who need assistance upon their release, the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative
Enterprises’ (SCORE) Employment Assistance Unit (EAU) assist them in securing employment. Aftercare
case management and other welfare assistance are also available through the Singapore Aftercare
Association (SACA), Community Development Councils (CDCs) and other voluntary welfare organizations(VWOs).

II. COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN OFFENDERS’ REHABILITATION
A multi-faceted approach is adopted to achieve our core business of “Reducing Reoffending” and recidivism
in Singapore. This involves not just SPS and the offenders themselves, but also other Voluntary Welfare
Organizations (VWOs), governmental agencies, the community at large, as well as families of the inmates.
Active community involvement is present for both in-care as well as the aftercare phase of an inmate’s journey
through incarceration.

A. Community Involvement during In-Care
1. Areas of Involvement
Currently, community partners are involved extensively in the rehabilitation programmes of SPS in thefollowing specific areas:(i) Work
With rehabilitation as an important objective, it is imperative that inmates are taught marketable skills
that will secure them steady employment when they return to society. Hence, SCORE was established asa Statutory Board in November 1975, and it is entrusted with establishing and managing prison industries,
as well as providing vocational training in prisons. It also provides rehabilitative and aftercare services
to inmates before and after their discharge from custody. For instance, SCORE’s EAU looks after theemployment needs of inmates and ex-inmates while they are on the Work Release Scheme (WRS) and
immediately after their discharge. The EAU has a databank of suitable jobs by actively collaborating withmore than 800 private companies in the manufacturing, engineering, building and transportation and service
sectors.
(ii) Education
Another priority is the provision of education (academic or vocational) for the purpose of improving theinmates’ educational status and skills. Academic education is provided through teachers seconded from the
Ministry of Education, while SCORE provides vocational and skills training.
(iii) Religion
Religion is a source of moral support and guidance to many in prison. Faith-based programmes can be
powerful tools in the rehabilitation process as it gives inmates a strong sense of purpose, direction andmeaning in life. Inmates are therefore encouraged to develop their spiritual well-being by turning to theirrespective faiths. Those who wish to embrace any of the main religions, such as Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism
or Christianity, are encouraged to do so. Volunteers from respective faiths conduct religious services andcounseling sessions for them.
(iv) Family-Focused Services & Programmes
The impact of incarceration on families and children of inmates, the unintended victims of crime, is often
significant and negative. Inmates’ families are often is disarray when their family member is imprisoned.
Hence, seeing families through this difficult phase can help foster stronger family bonds and networks upon
the inmates’ release. Since 2006, Family Resource Centres (FRCs) have been set up in SPS to provide social
assistance and support to inmates’ families to help them cope during inmates’ incarceration (for e.g. in theareas of financial difficulties, accommodation issues and emotional counselling) by providing information
and referral services or case work management for the family in need. Additionally, service providers fromthe community are engaged to deliver family programmes such as workshops and group sessions to theinmates to help prepare them for their roles as parents and to encourage reconciliation of broken familial
relationships when they are released.

107

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84(v) Halfway-House Scheme
The Prisons Halfway House (HWH) Scheme, started in April 1995, allows amenable offenders of drug
rehabilitation centres and prisons without strong family support to spend the last stage of detention at
the halfway houses. Currently, there are ten halfway houses participating in the HWH Scheme and theirprogramme comprises counselling, work therapy and moral/religious education. More recently in October
this year, a new HWH Service Model was developed to enable HWHs to operate a more consistent anddedicated programme to better meet offenders’ reintegration needs.
SPS also works closely with the Industrial and Services Cooperative Society Limited (ISCOS), a multipurpose cooperative that seeks to enhance the employment and entrepreneurial opportunities of discharged
inmates. Established in 1989, ISCOS offers ex-offenders job opportunities to help them regain their selfworth and esteem with meaningful employment. This objective is met through providing inmates withon-the-job training and job exposure through enterprises or cooperation with other private companies on a
joint venture or consultancy basis.
Engagement of inmates by ISCOS starts right from the in-care phase, where ISCOS representatives brief
all inmates on the various resources and schemes of work available. Through employment, positive peers
and pro-social activities such as group sports, an ex-offender can benefit much from his or her association
with ISCOS. As at 31 October 2010, total ISCOS membership stands at about 11,000.
2. Community Volunteers – A Critical Partnership
The work of rehabilitation cannot be done by SPS alone. It requires partnering with the community tofurther its mission. Our volunteers have been at the forefront in meeting the potential reintegration needsof our inmates. SPS’ volunteer base has grown from 124 in 1999 to more than 1,200 volunteers over the lastten years.
3. Volunteer Training Programmes
To improve our volunteers’ capabilities to support SPS’ core functions of rehabilitating offenders, astructured pilot training package for volunteers was conducted from January to March 2010. As the trial proved
to be successful with positive feedback from the participants, SPS then decided to launch the volunteer training
programme on a full scale with an expanded scope of training. The volunteer training programmes are targetedat all prison volunteers. Its twin objectives are:•

To orientate and equip the volunteers with the necessary knowledge and skills to engage the prisoners
purposefully, while appreciating the rules and regulations of SPS; and•To upgrade and develop the volunteers’ professional skills through certified courses issued byrecognized and accredited training institutes.

Such training enables SPS to work closely with its volunteers who are aligned and trained to deliver
effective offenders’ rehabilitation programmes.

B. Engaging Strategic Community Partners in the Aftercare Sector
For many, the transition back to society remains a struggle. Maintaining the motivation not to reoffend
requires strong community support, understanding, as well as encouragement from their families. SPS has
pursued several initiatives to pave the way for a more successful offenders’ reintegration. These are elaborated
in the following sections.
1. CARE Network
Formed in May 2000, CARE (Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-Offenders) Network brings
together key strategic partners,3 both in government and in the community, who are responsible for offenders’reintegration in Singapore. The Network engages the community in rehabilitation, co-ordinates member
agencies’ activities and develops innovative rehabilitation initiatives for reforming offenders with the following
objectives:
3 Members of the CARE Network include the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Ministry of Community Development, Youthand Sports (MCYS), the Singapore Aftercare Association (SACA), Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA), the National
Council for Social Services (NCSS), SCORE and ISCOS.

108

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

•
•
•
•
•

To improve the quality of rehabilitative services through knowledge-sharing;
To build awareness and understanding of the rehabilitative process amongst the general public;
To increase efficiency by reducing duplication of work and services between member agencies;
To create a seamless transfer for offenders from in-care to aftercare; andTo mobilize and facilitate the community to take action toward rendering appropriate support
services to help ex-offenders and their families reintegrate into society.

2. Case Management Framework
One of the first initiatives of the CARE Network was the Case Management Framework (CMF) for
reforming offenders in the aftercare phase. This service is delivered by full-time Aftercare Case Managers(ACMs) from the Singapore Aftercare Association4 (SACA) and the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association5(SANA), who aim to facilitate the reintegration of ex-offenders and ex-drug addicts into families and thesociety. Under the CMF, the ACM and client identify the aftercare needs of the client in reintegrating well.
An Individualized Service Plan (ISP) is then drawn up which charts out the resources required in meeting
those needs. The ACM will look for resources from other agencies for services that they do not provide andalso ensures any follow-up required is attended to.
In October 2010, the CARE Network’s website6 was also set up to provide the public with access to
information on the Network and its initiatives. Through this website, a comprehensive directory of community
partners involved in the work of offenders’ rehabilitation is listed to facilitate ease of communication andknowledge sharing within the aftercare industry.

C. The Yellow Ribbon Project: Advocating Community Acceptance & Enhancing Community
Involvement
Ex-offenders often live with the stigma of having served time behind bars. This can often be moredifficult than the prison sentence itself. Many ex-offenders, once released, find themselves stepping into asecond prison of suspicion from society at large because of their past misdeeds. In the absence of community
intervention and support, there is a higher chance of reoffending. Therefore, the importance of community
involvement and the integral role it plays in the reintegration journey of our ex-offenders who are motivatedand desire to change cannot be over-emphasized.
The CARE Network launched the Yellow Ribbon Project (YRP) in 2004, which is an annual campaign
aimed at changing society’s mindset towards ex-offenders by giving them a second chance to succeed in life.
The inspiration behind YRP was taken from a 1970s song entitled, “Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole’ Oak
Tree.” The lyrics of this song aptly describe an ex-offender’s desire for acceptance and forgiveness from his
loved ones and await the community to set him free: “I’m really still in prison and my love she holds the key,a simple yellow ribbon’s what I need, to set me free…”
The key drivers of the YRP campaign are SPS and SCORE, supported by the CARE Network agencies.
1. Objectives of the YRPThe objectives of YRP are categorized into the ‘Three As,’ which are:
4 The Singapore After-Care Association (SACA) is a voluntary welfare organization acting as the key agency providing welfare
and rehabilitation services for discharged offenders and their families. SACA’s aim is to assist clients and their families to copewith problems arising from the offending behaviour and the consequent incarceration. This is done with the belief that suchassistance will give clients the chance to reintegrate into society successfully, thereby reducing the chances of recidivism.
5 The Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA) is a voluntary welfare organization and was first established in 1972 toassist in the rehabilitation of drug addicts in Singapore. SANA runs various programmes in drug abuse prevention and drug
rehabilitation. SANA was also tasked by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NACADA) to be the coordinating agency
for preventive action against drug abuse in high-risk youth.
6 With a new website in place, not only can agencies exchange aftercare best practices, resources as well as current andrelevant news, the public can also be more informed of CARE Network’s activities and events. In this way, CARE Network
can better engage the community in effecting positive changes in the lives of ex-offenders and their families. Source: www.
carenetwork.org.sg.

109

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84•••

To create ‘Awareness’ of giving second chances to ex-offenders.
To generate ‘Acceptance’ of ex-offenders and their families into the community.
To inspire ‘Community Action’ to support the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders.

2. Thematic Development
Each year, a different theme will be developed for the YRP campaign to intensify the level of community
engagement, while building upon the successes of campaigns from the preceding year. While the first few
YRP campaigns focused on generating awareness, subsequent campaigns aimed to deepen the YR message
by actively engaging the community through reformed ex-offenders (see Annex A).
3. Publicity & Media Engagement
Brand positioning has also been instrumental to the effectiveness of the YRP campaign. The iconic
yellow ribbon, together with its associated meaning, is easily identifiable and recognizable by Singaporeansfrom all walks of life. The success of the brand also lies with the consistency and discipline of the Yellow
Ribbon message year after year.
YRP also extensively leverages the media as a strategic tool for our campaign messaging. The publiccampaign is launched through print, broadcast, and online advertisements and news features and information.
New social media, such as YouTube, Facebook, mobile phone messages and local internet forums, werealso tapped to effectively publicize our events. In addition, YRP also enjoys wide media coverage from theSingapore media. It provides the media with a fertile spread of interesting story angles, such as highlighting
anecdotal stories with a human touch, the arduous journey of rehabilitation undertaken by ex-offenders, andthe impact it has on their loved ones.
4. Community Engagement Activities
In order to ensure recall and familiarity among the general public, community partners and stakeholders,
media campaigns and key community engagement activities for YRP are always concentrated in the monthof September, which is designated as the official Yellow Ribbon month each year.
A sample of the main YRP events held thus far are as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Yellow Ribbon Concert (2004, 2006 & 2008);
Yellow Ribbon Walk (2005 & 2007);
Yellow Ribbon Conference (2004 to 2008);
Movie Screening “One More Chance” by local celebrities (2005);
Yellow Ribbon Fairs (2004 to 2007);
Yellow Ribbon Creative Festival (2004 to 2010);
Yellow Ribbon Community Art Exhibition (2007, 2008, 2009 & 2010);
Yellow Ribbon Job Fairs; andYellow Ribbon Prison Run (2009 & 2010).

5. Active Involvement of Inmates & Ex-offenders
Inmates and ex-offenders form an integral part of our campaign initiatives. Our fundamental belief is that
inmates and ex-offenders should not be just receiving, but they should also be giving back as much as they
can to others. Therefore, opportunities are given as much as possible to involve inmates and ex-offenders
in our outreach activities. Since the commencement of YRP, inmates have handmade up to 2,000,000 Yellow
Ribbons for distribution. They have also participated in community service projects7 where the proceeds were
donated to charitable causes to help the less fortunate in society (see Annex B). Ex-offenders have also pitched
in by providing transportation and logistics assistance during events, distributing Yellow Ribbons and even
7 In 2006, inmates from SCORE bakery baked 7,000 croissants and raised S$11,000 to help needy children through the ST

Pocket Money Fund. In 2007, inmates baked cookies and sold them at the Yellow Ribbon Fair and raised $12,997 for theHandicap Welfare Association. In 2008, inmates baked mooncakes and raised $5,000 for Yellow Ribbon Fund. In 2009 and 2010,
inmates and ex-offenders cooked and served 500 less privileged in the Tribute of Love Luncheon co-organized with Lions
Clubs of Singapore.

110

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

performing to showcase their talents and reformed ways.
6. Celebrity Engagement & Rehabilitation Ambassadors
Celebrities and Rehabilitation Ambassadors form an important part of the engagement strategy. With theirwide popularity and influence, they are well positioned to help spread the YRP message, serve as crowdpullers, and more importantly, serve as ambassadors in support of the YR campaign. Local and regional artistes
featured consistently in many of our YRP events over the past few years.
7. Community Partnerships
As the YRP was centres on community acceptance, a majority of our YR campaigns were initiated with theintention of running a campaign for the community, by the community. With strong branding of the YRP, many
community and corporate organizations have taken the initiative to collaborate with SPS (see Annex C). Many
community and grassroots leaders, politicians, corporate partners and celebrities had made time and effort
to grace such events, often bringing with them a passion to spread the message of community acceptancefor offenders’ rehabilitation. Community involvement and partnerships also came in the form of donations
and sponsorships, or showing cause for support by donning the Yellow Ribbons, fund-raising or simply byparticipating in the YRP events.
SPS has learned some pertinent lessons from its engagement strategy with community partners. These
include:(i) Central Body for Coordination
A central coordinating body for community involvement in the aftercare sector is most effective. In SPS’case, it has the leverage of the CARE Network initiative, where it can then take the lead to forge strategic
community partnerships for the delivery of both in-care and aftercare programmes and services.
(ii) Preparing the Community to Receive Ex-offenders
As governmental agencies seek to collaborate under the umbrella of CARE Network, the community
at large can be brought on board through national campaigns such as the YRP, where strong community
messages are reinforced and events targeting the various social groups are conducted.
(iii) Selecting a Core Team for Effective Planning & Implementation
In the preliminary planning phase, it is essential to have a committed team of core personnel who will
work with the identified stakeholders on the ‘Branding’, ‘Engagement’ and ‘Execution’ of community
projects. In Singapore’s context, the CARE Network Secretariat holds this responsibility.
(iv) Maximizing the Strengths of Volunteers
The strength and capabilities of community volunteers cannot be underestimated. Besides tapping into
this valuable community resource, there is a conscious need to build on the capabilities of volunteers from the
VWOs and religious organizations for more effective outreach of rehabilitation programmes within prison.
8. The Impact
Into its seventh year of campaigning, the YRP has achieved the following:
•
•
•
•
•

The Registration of Criminals (Amendment) Act was amended in May 2005 to help ex-offenders
reintegrate back into society more easily by making it possible for criminal records to be wiped clean
if the offender stays “crime-free” for no less than five consecutive years;
In 2006, the Land Transport Authority reviewed the guidelines for issuance and renewal of
vocational licenses for drivers of public service vehicles to make it more flexible for ex-offenders to
be issued with the license;
A public perception survey conducted in 2007 found that 94% of Singaporeans were aware of the
YRP core message;
For its contributions to the YRP, SPS was given an Honourable Mention in 2007 for outstandingachievement in public relations campaigns which best exemplify the ideals and goals of the United
Nations;
YRP also received the Public Relations in the Service of Mankind (PRISM) Excellence Award under
the Public Service Campaigns category in 2008;

111

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

•
•
•
•
•
•

In 2009, the Yellow Ribbon Tattoo Removal Programme received the Ministry of Home Affairs’
Operational Excellence Award;
A total of 1.985 million Yellow Ribbons were distributed;
313,000 Singaporeans participated in the YR events;
807 new employers registered with SCORE’s Job Bank;
908 volunteers signed up to volunteer for YRP; andS$7.8 million was raised for the Yellow Ribbon Fund (YRF).

Another key milestone for Care Network was the establishment of the Yellow Ribbon Fund (YRF). The
YRF is the first national charitable fund devoted entirely towards the development and implementation ofrehabilitation and reintegration programmes and services for ex-offenders and their families. Registeredunder NCSS, YRF was granted Institute of Public Character (IPC) status since 1 August 2004.
9. The Success Factors
Over the years, the YRP had been successful in its outreach and has built a high level of awareness andgoodwill. This can be attributed to the following key factors:(i) Passionate Core TeamLed by SPS and SCORE, the core team planned, conceptualized and executed the YR projects to ensure
consistency in messaging. In addition, as key stakeholders of ex-offenders reintegration issues, the coreteam drove each YR project to a higher level as inherent ground knowledge and experiences were translated
into workable community engagement campaigns.
(ii) Branding
A consistent branding strategy helped to send out a clear message to the community so that lay people
could easily relate the YRP to the cause of helping ex-offenders and their families reintegrate into society.
(iii) Effective Use of Levers
The YRPs identified key governmental bodies, community leaders and celebrities as effective levers whose
direct support and engagement lent weight to the project as a cause worthy of support.
(iv) Touching the Heart of the Community
Through the sharing of ex-offenders’ testimonies (successes and failures) and stories of the plights families
faced, especially the impact of incarceration on children, the community can better appreciate the reality ofincarceration. This in turn goes a long way towards helping them to understand reintegration issues faced by
our inmates.

III. UPCOMING INITIATIVESTo enhance coordination of rehabilitation efforts, an Inter-Ministry Committee was set up by the Ministryof Home Affairs (MHA) in April 2009 to study and propose recommendations to address the problem of
reoffending in Singapore. A two-pronged approach of moving further upstream to prevent inter-generational
offending and downstream by preventing offenders’ reoffending were the key thrusts of this Committee.
One of the recommendations made included the need to strengthen community-based networks that would
serve to provide protective factors for inmates, as well as to strengthen SPS’ volunteer engagement system bybuilding both capacity and capability in the community.
Another key focus is to leverage on the grassroots and community in taking ownership of offenders’rehabilitation. This can be seen from the increasingly active participation and initiatives mooted by community
groups to reach out to inmates and their families residing within their jurisdictions.
While currently still a work-in-progress, it is expected that when these recommendations are fully
implemented, it will further strengthen the rehabilitation and aftercare efforts in Singapore.

112

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

IV. CONCLUSIONSPS should never function in a vacuum. It needs to tap into the expertise of its strategic partners andthe community at large. The success of its various initiatives is attributed to a very supportive pool ofcommunity partners, who are passionate in working toward a common cause of successful reintegration of
ex-offenders.
The work on rehabilitation is also an ongoing effort. What it takes to make it work is passion and effort,and developing one initiative at a time. This is best summed up in the words of the former U.S. President
John. F. Kennedy, who once said: “All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it befinished in the first thousand days, Nor in the life of this administration, Nor even perhaps in our lifetime on
this planet. But let us begin...
And this is something SPS has begun.

113

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

ANNEX A
THEMES FOR YELLOW RIBBON PROJECT CAMPAIGNS (2004 - 2010)
Campaign
Year

2004

2005

2006

Engaging theCommunity

Engaging
ExOffenders

2007

2008

2009

2010

Giving Back

This isMy Yellow
Ribbon.
This is My
Journey.

ThemesCreating
Awareness

IntentGoing
Engaging the
ExtendingInmates andbeyondSelling thecommunity
Widening the our reach,awareness ex-offenders
Message –Give themfor action
inspiringreach, deepplaying a roleto action
Help Unlock
a Second
to help exaction inening theto give backby actively
the Second Lease of Life
offendersinmates andmessageto society
engaging thePrisonreintegrate
ex-offenders
community

114

Giving Back

Beyond Just
Words

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

ANNEX B
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE ON YELLOW RIBBON PROJECT

115

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

ANNEX CKEY COMMUNITY COLLABORATIONS OF THE YELLOW RIBBON PROJECTYear

Key Community Collaborations

Outcome2006

Joint collaboration with North East Community Development
Council to hold a Yellow Ribbon Job Fair in prisons.

Helped inmates to secure employment before theirrelease; led to placement exercises in prisons since
then.

2007

Joint collaboration with Raffles Hotel to hold the first Yellow
Ribbon Cooking Competition in prisons.

Discovered inmates’ talents. Led to the developmentof the Yellow Ribbon Culinary Programme whereinmates get to undergo a certified culinary course.

2008

Joint collaboration with AVIVA to raise awareness and funds for
the YRF through the AVIVA Ironman Triathlon Competition.

Over $20,000 was raised for the Yellow Ribbon Fund.

2009

Yellow Ribbon Tattoo Removal Programme for inmates who want
to remove their gang related tattoos. The two-year programmethat cost S$1 million is fully sponsored by a community partner.

Over 100 inmates benefited from the programme.
Continuation of the programme is in discussion.

2010

YR NECDC Rekindle Programme with North East Community
Development Council for Reformative Training Centre inmates.
The programme aims to reconcile inmates and their families
and prepare them before the release of the inmates.

Over 30 inmates and 60 family members benefited
from the programme. The programme will continue
for another two years.

116

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERS

PROACTIVE ENGAGEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY IN OFFENDER
TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION

Elinor Wanyama Chemonges*

I. INTRODUCTION
The rationale for community involvement in offender treatment stems from the fact that offenders comefrom the community and are only in detention facilities for a relatively short period of time, with the exceptionof the minority serving sentences for life or under death sentences – which many countries are underconsiderable pressure to abolish. Secondly, offences are committed in the community and have, among others,
the consequence of severing relationships not only between the offender and the victim, but among community
members, beginning with the immediate family members of both the victim and offender. Thirdly, offenders
inevitably go back into communities after serving their detention sentences and therefore have to inevitablyinteract with community members. Finally, involvement of the community in offender treatment maintains thelink between the offender and the community and to an extent eliminates isolation and stigmatization that theoffender and his or her immediate family suffer. This therefore calls for well thought-out strategies to involvethe community in the rehabilitation of offenders to pave way for the eventual reintegration of ex-offenders into
the community.
Detention of offenders is perceived by most individuals affected by crime and communities at large to
be a means of meting out punishment to the offender for whatever offences he or she may have committed.
This view results in ill treatment of offenders, contrary to the agreed standard treatment of offenders.
In reality, the perception should be shifting towards: firstly, offenders’ being in detention is punishment
in and of itself because of restrictions imposed on their liberty; secondly, offenders’ being in detention isfor purposes of treatment and rehabilitation so that by the time they is released back into the community,
they are reformed, law abiding and responsible citizens respecting the rule of law. A successful shift ofperception will go a long way in realizing the full integration of ex-offenders in the community. It is thereforeof paramount importance that the community recognizes its role in the rehabilitation of offenders andcontinues to play an active role in the lives of offenders during their stay in detention, in the treatment andrehabilitation process and eventual reintegration into the community.
There are different categories of community members, civil society organizations, private sector enterprises,
faith-based organizations and government departments that need to work together to attain successful
rehabilitation of offenders and full integration into the community. This will reduce repeat offending and,
consequently, deal in part with the problem of congestion in detention facilities.

II. CATEGORIES OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND SERVICES THAT THEY RENDERFOR OFFENDER TREATMENT AND REHABILITATION
The individuals and groups that need to be involved in the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders canbe broadly categorized into the following:(i) Family, friends and colleagues of the offender;(ii) Complainants and victims of crime;(iii) Community leaders;* National Co-ordinator, Paralegal Advisory Services Project, Foundation for Human Rights Initiative, Uganda.

117

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84(iv) Community members;(v) Civil society organizations, faith-based organizations and volunteers;(vi) Government;

A. Family, Friends and Colleagues of the OffenderThis category is the closest to the offender and, in most cases, due to their association with the offender,
they directly or indirectly suffer the consequences of the crime committed. Often they are stigmatized by
the community because of their association with the offender and the immediate family also suffers from thesocio-economic effects of the absence of the offender and the role he or she was playing in the family andsocial network.
As a result, this category sometimes reacts by distancing themselves from the offender and do not want
to be associated with him or her for purposes of being accepted by the wider community that may have been
negatively affected by the crime. Sometimes it is for purposes of safeguarding themselves against being
isolated by the community. This explains why some offenders are never visited by family and friends during
their time in detention. In so-doing, family, friends and colleagues miss out on the role they would haveplayed in assisting the offender to access justice and in the whole process of treatment, rehabilitation andreintegration of offenders.
It is important to note that this group is the most important category that must play an active role in
the treatment and rehabilitation process of offenders by: providing necessary support to assist in accessing
justice; providing social, emotional and economic support to the offender; maintaining the link between theoffender in detention and the outside world; and the eventual acceptance and support for the ex-offender
after serving his or her detention sentence.
Failure of family, friends and colleagues to offer the above mentioned support is in part responsible forthe prolonged stay of an offender in detention, hence creating overcrowding in detention facilities. It is also
contributory to repeat offending.

B. Complainants and Victims of Crime
This is category that is the most directly affected by the crime committed and may be vital in providing
information for timely completion of investigations and making themselves available as witnesses for theprosecution. Unfortunately, especially in developing countries, once a crime is reported, complainants
and victims tend not to cooperate with the administrators of justice to provide necessary information forexpeditious disposal of cases.
On the other hand, if the needs and concerns of this category of the community are not adequately
addressed, they may pose a challenge to successful reintegration of the offender. This often manifests ifthey are not willing to accept the outcome of the due process of the administration of justice and/or failure toaccept reconciliation and reintegration of the offender in the community. The result is often revenge, which
only creates other offenders.
Unfortunately, this category is often ignored in reintegration of offenders into the community. There
are also few interventions to address their concerns. In instances where the concerns of this category are
addressed they are relatively more responsive to efforts of reintegration of offenders into the community.
This therefore calls for proactive engagement with victims and complainants and focusing on providing alinkages and relevant feedback between them and the offender. In some instances a meeting before releaseof the offender helps to ward off any fears and apprehension on either side.

C. Community Leaders
In every community there are traditional leaders, civic leaders and opinion leaders who are influential
and may play an important role, especially in the reintegration of ex-offenders in the community. This
category may be very helpful in promoting reconciliation between the offender and the aggrieved party.
They may also be helpful in quelling animosity and revenge by the complainants and victims of crime.
On the other hand, they are very helpful in allowing the ex-offender to resettle in the community. While
offenders do actually reform with successful treatment, communities take a long time to accept that118

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

an ex-offender has reformed and as such, they tend to resist their settlement and reintegration in thesame community. Therefore community leaders are very instrumental in negotiating for reintegration of
ex-offenders in their communities of origin.

D. General Community Members
In addition to the support that community leaders offer for successful reintegration of ex-offenders into
the community, the involvement of the general community is also called for. Not only will they allow for
reintegration, but their involvement also allows for greater success of other measures against overcrowding
such as diversion, sentencing alternatives to detention such as community service and parole, as well as
early release.
The existing gap however is that often, communities are not prepared to receive ex-offenders and continue
holding old perceptions about the ex-offender. This is often manifested by resistance to reintegration of theoffender in the community.
On the other hand, it is important to note that the ultimate beneficiary of successful offender rehabilitationis the community itself because it will achieve the goal of crime reduction. Furthermore, community members
will be under less stress to meet the costs of social services which they inevitably incur indirectly in caring for
those affected by crime, including services to family members who may not be able to care for themselves if afamily member is in detention or paying for rehabilitation services for victims of crime.
Community members are also helpful in providing assistance to promote access to justice. They may act
on behalf of either the victim of crime or the alleged offender to provide evidence in courts of law or evenstand as sureties for eligible offenders to access bail and hence reduce overcrowding.
This therefore calls for aggressive and continuous community sensitization on the benefits of community
involvement in the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders and role of the community in promoting accessto justice. Civil society organizations play a vital role in providing this service.

E. Civil Society Organizations, Faith-Based Organizations and Volunteers
These are also part of the community because employees or volunteers are community members. Interventions
by this category often arise due to an existing gap in government service provision or as efforts to complement
services provided by government. As earlier noted, government institutions, especially in developing countries, areoften constrained by limited financial and human resources.
Sometimes civil society organizations and faith based organizations use volunteers who are rehabilitated
ex-offenders. These provide examples and hope which motivate offenders to reform and follow throughtreatment regimes. This category also provides specialized services like half-way houses for offenders forwhom negotiations for resettlement and reintegration into their communities are still ongoing.
This category also takes on roles to provide services that are necessary but may not be provided bygovernment, for example advocacy and community awareness on issues of offender treatment and rehabilitation.
The case of the Paralegal Advisory Services in Uganda will provide examples for this.

F. Government
It is important to recognize that governments alone, although responsible for detaining offenders, theycannot adequately provide all the required services for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders. As
such, government institutions responsible for detention of offenders need to adopt an open door policythat allows other stakeholders to play a role in the treatment and rehabilitation and eventual reintegrationof offenders into the community. However as a prerequisite, governments need to ensure that adequate
resources, both financial and well trained and facilitated human resources, are made available to institutions
responsible for detention.
Governments can then provide vocational and formal training and avail of work opportunities for detainees
to help them acquire new skills or put to use their skills while in detention to enhance their employability andreintegration in the community.

119

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

III. THE ROLE OF THE PARALEGAL ADVISORY SERVICES (PAS) – UGANDAIN OFFENDER TREATMENT AND REHABILITATIONThe Paralegal Advisory Services – Uganda is an initiative aimed at promoting access to justice forindigent offenders in the criminal justice system. The programme provides basic legal aid services by nonlawyers including paralegals and social workers to persons in conflict with the law. The programme, althoughinitiated and funded by some of Uganda’s Development Partners under the Legal Aid Basket Fund, ismanaged by one of the leading national human rights organizations- Foundation for Human Rights Initiative(FHRI).

A. Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI)
The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative has the following objectives:(i) Promote citizen awareness of basic human rights and duties guaranteed in the Ugandan Constitution,
regional and international human rights instruments;(ii) Undertake research, monitoring and documentation of human rights practices;(iii) Promote good governance, respect for the rule of law, democracy and human rights;(iv) Promote access to justice through public interest litigation and provision of legal aid services.
The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) has made significant contributions to improved accessto justice in Uganda and advocating for observance of human rights and adherence to human rights standards.
Notable among the many contributions of FHRI is the advocacy for legislative reform – specifically theamendment of the Prisons’ Act (2006) which now largely conforms to the International Basic Principles for
Treatment of Prisoners; advocacy against the death penalty in Uganda; and the right to reparations for victimsof torture.
The Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI), through a bidding process, won the contract to manage
the PAS programme, an initiative promoted by development partners, based on the organization’s contributions
to the Justice Law and Order Sector in improving the administration of justice.

B. The Paralegal Advisory Services (PAS) – Uganda
As a programme under FHRI, the Paralegal Advisory Services programme provides interventions aimed
at empowering the users of the criminal justice system with the end result of making them “active players
and partners” in the administration of criminal justice, including, among others, interventions for thetreatment and rehabilitation of offenders. More specifically, the programme fills some of the existing gaps in
the administration of justice by participating in the process of decongestion, engaging in practice advocacy,
and raising the visibility of the demand side of the criminal justice system.
The Paralegal Advisory Services uses a partnership approach of implementation and therefore FHRI–PAS
signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Uganda Prisons Service which directly implements eightof the existing eleven programme sites throughout the country while three programme sites are managed bygrassroots civil society organizations. The programme also uses referrals to other legal aid service providers
for complementary services, especially representation of cases on pro bono schemes.
The Paralegal Advisory Services programme activities are a response to challenges and gaps that exist in
the administration of justice, namely:•

Delays in dispensing justice, especially for the indigent;•

Congestion in police cells and prisons;•

Lack of access to services of lawyers, especially for the indigent on petty offences;•

Ignorance of suspects, prisoners and the general public on procedures of the criminal justice institutions
and the basics of administration of justice;•

Limited regular coordination among the criminal justice institutions in the administration of justice;•

Lack of effective linkages with the community for expeditious administration and delivery of justice.

120

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The Paralegal Advisory Services programme relates more specifically with the Prisons Welfare andRehabilitation Section whose mandate is very similar. In fact the relevance of the Paralegal Advisory Services
is largely dependent on funding and human resource gaps in the Uganda Prisons Service.
1. Activities of Paralegal Advisory Services and Responses to the Existing Challenges
The Paralegal Advisory Services engages in the following activities:•

Educating suspects of crime, prisoners, complainants/victims and the community on the basics oflaw and procedures of the criminal justice system for improved access to justice;•

Links suspects at police and prisoners in detention to the criminal justice institutions and thecommunity through tracing of sureties, negotiating for community service sentences for minor
offenders and linking capital offenders to advocates for legal representation;•

Contributing to the process of decongestion in prisons and police cells through facilitating reductionof overstay on remand, fast tracking plea of guilty cases for quick case disposal and diverting petty
cases from the formal justice system;•

Contributing to change of practices within the criminal justice system through advocacy and civic
engagement.

2. Achievements of the Paralegal Advisory Services
According the most recent evaluation report (2011) of the Paralegal advisory Services 2007 – 2010 conductedby the Law and Development Partnership Consultancy firm based in UK, the following is a summary of theachievements of the Paralegal Advisory Services in Uganda.
Uganda’s Paralegal Advisory Services (PAS) has been seen as a major access to justice success story in
Uganda, providing cost effective ‘legal first aid’ to poor people caught up in the criminal justice system by:•

Filling gaps where the criminal justice system operates in a dysfunctional manner
PAS does this by assisting criminal justice staff to undertake their duties more effectively – forexample, supplying prison social workers with motorcycles and mobile phones to enable them more
effectively to link inmates to the outside world and with the possibility of finding a surety to enable
them to be bailed. PAS also assists with the overall running of the criminal justice system - forexample finding lost files, and identifying cases that have been waiting longest for trial, so that they
can be heard as a priority.

•

Providing basic legal advice and assistance to detainees in the criminal justice system
This is provided in police cells, court cells and prisons. This is done through legal advice clinics forgroups of detainees, by providing one-on-one advice, and where appropriate by linking detainees tolawyers or to other organizations who can give them assistance when this is outside the scope of thePAS.

(i) Has the PAS contributed to the process of physical and case file decongestion of the criminal justicesystem?
The PAS paralegals and social workers contributed to the release of over 26,600 detainees from thecriminal justice system in eleven months, an average of about 2,425 per month, or more than one release
per day for each of the PAS 77 paralegals and social workers.
Levels of prison overcrowding did not change significantly over the period of PAS operations, and prison
capacity continues to stand at about 225%. There has however been a significant shift in the proportion of
inmates awaiting trial. Overall, prison remand figures have fallen during the period of PAS operations from
63% in 2005 to under 55% in 2010. This reduction can only in part be attributed to the PAS, which operates
in 38 prisons, covering 57% of the prison population. But PAS appears to have been highly effective in
reducing the number of petty offenders on remand, with an average of 545 prisoners being released fromprison on bail each month due to PAS intervention.

(ii) To what extent has the PAS diverted cases from the criminal justice system?
A key aim of the PAS is to remove appropriate cases from the criminal justice system before they reachprison – after a suspect has been arrested but before charges are brought. Stopping such cases before they121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

enter the court and prison system is clearly a highly effective method of decongestion.
The single most effective PAS intervention has been at police stations - assisting suspects to accesspolice bonds.

(iii) Has the PAS changed practices within the criminal justice system?
Through its engagement at the ‘sharp end’ of the criminal justice system, the PAS is exceptionally wellplaced to identify systemic failings in the criminal justice system and through its engagement with criminal
justice institutions to catalyse changes in practice within the system PAS has been responsible for somesignificant changes in working practices on the ground.
(iv) Has the PAS linked the demand and the supply sides of the criminal justice system?
The PAS has clearly provided improved access to justice for an impressive number of defendants in thecriminal justice system through:•Campaigns and public outreach – for example, radio talk shows on local radio stations;•

Paralegal advice clinics held in police stations and prisons – where paralegals and social worker
provide general information to detainees about their rights and the working of the criminal justicesystem;•Providing one-on-one advice to individual detainees in police stations, courts and prisons to empower
them to represent themselves;•

Referring detainees charged with capital offences to lawyers willing to provide their services for free
under pro bono schemes.

(v) Is the PAS cost effective?
The PAS appears to be a highly cost effective intervention. Each advice session (both legal advice clinics
and individualized advice sessions) costs on average US$2.60 per attendee.
The cost benefit of PAS can be demonstrated in relation to the release of detainees. If PAS can bring aprisoner’s release forward by more than two weeks, it saves the prison service US$20, which covers thecost of the PAS intervention. If PAS brings forward a prisoner’s release by six weeks, then the saving rises
to US$60 – three times the cost of the intervention, and a return on the PAS investment of 200%. (The rateof return on PAS investment would be even higher if we took into account the economic benefit of the work
the released prisoner would undertake e.g. assuming a US$1 a day wage the rate of return would rise to300%.)High Court mini-sessions facilitated by PAS were even more cost effective. Seventy five case were
disposed of in five days, at a cost of US$ 1,300 (USh 3 million). The speedy disposal rate was due to PAS
interventions and to defendants pleading guilty. If these cases had proceeded to full trial, the cost to the
Judiciary (not including the Directorate of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and police) is estimated to be US$
35,000 (USh 80 million). The PAS intervention thus saved the system US$ 33,700. As the average cost to
PAS per release is US$20, the costs in relation to the 75 defendants would have been of the order of US$
1,500. The cost benefit ratio is more than 1:22 – an extraordinary return on investment of over 2,000%.

(vi) How effective is the PAS in different criminal justice institutions?
The service that the PAS provided is clearly appreciated by all the criminal justice institutions in which
it operates (police stations, DPP, courts, prisons and remand homes) at both the policy and operational level.
Senior officials interviewed in all these organizations were clear that PAS is performing a valuable service,
and enabling them to do their jobs better.
When working with the police and the DPP, PAS has an oversight role – to see that cases are properly
handled, and the rights of detainees respected.

(vii) How effective are the linkages between the PAS and other legal aid service providers?
Paralegals and social workers can provide only basic legal assistance – legal first aid . For complex
cases, and particularly capital cases which are tried in the High Court, detainees need the assistance of a122

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

fully qualified advocate. The PAS clearly makes an attempt to connect detainees to other legal aid service
providers and private advocates for pro bono services in these circumstances. Each paralegal makes on
average just over one such referral a month. But the key problem faced by PAS is the limited availability offree legal advice from lawyers.
3. Other Initiatives in Uganda aimed at Improving Community Involvement in Offender Treatment
The Uganda Prisons Service’s welfare and rehabilitation section is continuously improving with moregovernment and civil society support to perform their role. For example, more social workers are being
recruited to revamp activities of this section. The section is also co-implementing a number of civil society
initiatives for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.
Uganda has a National Community Service Programme which aims at providing alternative sentences todetention, especially for petty offenders. This contributes to reduction of overcrowding in detention facilities
as well as providing avenues for reintegration of offenders into communities with active participation ofcommunity members.
Under the Uganda Law Society, a national legal aid pro bono scheme is being implemented to provide
offenders with advocates for representation services in courts of law. This promotes community skills –advocates to help offenders to access justice.
The civil society movement in Uganda has largely taken up responsibility for legal aid service provision,
including offering psychosocial support for offenders and victims of crime through paralegals and social
workers. The government, through a new pilot initiative of Justice Centres managed by the Judiciary, isslowly making its contribution.

IV. SUMMARY
A holistic approach to the treatment of offenders cannot be achieved without the proactive engagementof the community. Different sections of the community have specific contributions which are complementary
and need to be adopted and implemented together with government efforts in offender treatment.
It has also been proven that multidisciplinary teams involving practitioners such as lawyers, social
workers, paralegals, medical practitioners, psychosocial therapists are all necessary for comprehensive
interventions.
On a similar note, the partnership approach to service provision between government and civil society
organizations yields sustainable and comprehensive services.
Finally, given the fact that offenders are members of the community who eventually end up in thesame communities after serving prison sentences, and that crimes are committed in the community withconsequences being borne by different members of the community, it is inevitable that successful efforts
to treat and reintegrate offenders in the community have to involve community interventions to avoid
resistance and a backlash expressed by vengeful actions which could result in more crime.

123

VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSRESOURCE MATERIALSERIES
No.84
CHANGING LIVES AND MAKING COMMUNITIES SAFER:STRENGTHENING REHABILITATION THROUGHINVOLVING COMMUNITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES
Steve Pitts*

I. INTRODUCTION
This paper will address the experience of England and Wales – that part of the United Kingdom within
which my organization, the National Offender Management Service – or NOMS – operates. The effective
rehabilitation of offenders is a critical matter - one that affects not only offenders, but of course their victims,
families, and directly and indirectly, communities and society as a whole. Successful rehabilitation means
fewer victims, more settled communities and the potential for ex-offenders to contribute beneficially tosociety. The benefits are not only personal and social: financially, in the United Kingdom, we have estimatedthat the cost of reoffending by prisoners is about £11 billion per year.
We also know that it is possible to improve rehabilitation and so to reduce reoffending. Our more recent
research shows that we can reduce reoffending by between 10 and 30%, against a predicted rate, by using
the most suitable approaches. But we also know that this impact cannot be achieved by the correctional
services alone, and that is certain. Our natural logic is borne out by research. Successful rehabilitation
requires prisons and probation services to be working with offenders in ways that challenge them andsupport them, that provide a sense of direction and hope, and that help to connect them to organizations,
resources and individuals. These support the sense of strength in community and the belief that theindividuals’ efforts will succeed. And this work requires community involvement, the subject of this paper.

A. Presentation Overview
A word about the structure of this paper:
Following this brief introduction I will present an introduction to NOMS, I then want to explore quite
briefly some of the major developments of the last few years in our understanding of what is effective inchanging lives and making communities safer. This has been a time of investment and change in our prisonand probation services, including a significant growth in what is known as evidence-based practice or “WhatWorks”. The major focus of this work is reducing reoffending, but enhancing Public Protection has been
another very important aim.
I will turn then to the main part of my presentation, the “Essential Partnership” between Prisons, Probation
and Communities. These are the partnerships without which we know for certain the success of the statutory
services will be at best steps partial. This paper will focus especially on work with the private and civil sectors,* Head of International Relations and External Programmes, National Offender Management Service, Ministry of Justice,
United Kingdom.
I would like to emphasize the enormous value that I, and my organization, places on the opportunity offered by UNAFEI, theJapan Criminal Policy Society Foundation, and the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation to participate in international learningand collaboration in programmes such as UNAFEI’s training courses and the Public Lecture Series. I have been fortunate
to visit a detention facility in Japan, and to meet with Volunteer Probation Officers. Together with the work of the Ministryof Justice of Japan and the host organizations it is quite clear that we are able to speed up the pace of exchange and mutual
learning through these events. I am extremely grateful for this opportunity. I very much hope that you will find some of thispaper relevant. What is entirely clear to me is that I and my own organization and country will benefit from these exchanges –and I am extremely grateful to all of you for making this possible.

124

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

although it is important to acknowledge that public partnerships, for example with police, local authorities,
social services, and health services may also be critical in many cases, including public protection work withmore serious, especially violent, cases.

II. THE NATIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE
A. What is NOMS?
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is new. It was created in April 2008 as an executive
agency of the Ministry of Justice with the goal of helping prison and probation services work together
effectively and efficiently to manage offenders throughout their sentences.
The Director General of NOMS is responsible to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justiceand sits on the Board of the Ministry, chaired by the Permanent Secretary. The responsibility of the NOMS
Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is to deliver the sentences and orders of the courts of Englandand Wales by:•••commissioning adult offender services in custody and the community from public, private and civilsociety organizations;providing the public prison service; andoverseeing the Trusts which provide the public probation services.

In operating through providers and partners in the public, private and civil society sectors, NOMS
endeavours to manage offenders in an integrated way. What work needs to be done – and who does the work
– is based on evidence and driven by ensuring value for money for the public.
NOMS manages offenders throughout both their custodial and community sentence, working witharound 260,000 offenders a year. We carry out prison sentences in England and Wales: there are 135 prisonsof which 124 are run by the public sector and 11 by private contractors. We also manage offenders on
community sentences, and provide services to offenders, victims, witnesses and the courts. There are 35
probation areas – areas which became Trusts during 2010 – a change designed to provide an increased levelof independence and clear accountability for delivery, whether by the Trust or through its partners.
Courts are advised through NOMS by the preparation and presentation of Pre Sentence Reports. These
reports are prepared by Probation Officers, consulting with and drawing information widely from thecommunity. This is often the first stage of community involvement. Reports may make recommendations on
sentence and sentence content, and this leads to the next part of the paper

III. THE SENTENCING FRAMEWORK
A. The Sentencing Framework
The England and Wales sentencing framework, like the effective practice and resettlement frameworks
which follow, has a relatively recent genesis. The framework was designed with a number of purposes ofsentencing in mind, and these are set out in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act:
1. The Purposes of Sentencing
The 2003 Criminal Justice Act sets out the five purposes of sentencing:
•
•
•
•
•

the punishment of offenders;
the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence);
the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;the protection of the public; andmaking reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.

A number of important principles underpin the sentencing framework. These include the need to ensurethat sentences are fair and proportional to the offence, and that sentences of imprisonment are delivered ina seamless fashion from prison to the community as a “whole sentence” . Purposes of sentencing should be
addressed in both the custodial and aftercare stages of the sentence.

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

2. Prison Sentences
The structure of prison sentence depends on sentence length. Implementation is progressive:(a) Under 12 months (currently no supervised licence): The intention of the act is:•
Custody period 2-13 weeks, licence period 6-9 months;•
Court sets licence conditions;•Executive recall.
(b) Imprisonment for 12 months or longer:•
Served half in custody and half in community;•
Case Manager agrees intervention plan and conditions;•Executive recall.
(c) Intermittent and Suspended (court handles breach) options.
(d) In the case of life, indeterminate and extended sentences for serious and public protection cases, theParole Board decides the release date.
The intention of the Act is that many of the options applicable to community sentences are also available
on post-release licence.
3. Community Sentences
Since the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, there has been a single community orderfor offenders aged 18 or over that can comprise up to 12 requirements depending on the offence and theoffender. These are:•unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete
between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;•

activity – for example to attend basic skills classes;•

programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;•prohibited activity – requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offences ornuisance;•

curfew – electronically monitored;•

exclusion – not much used as no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;•

residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;•

mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);•

drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);•

alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);•

supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour;•

attendance centre – three hours of activity, usually on Saturday afternoons, between a minimum of
12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total.

Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements
there will be. Most orders will comprise one or two requirements but there are packages of several available
where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate through the guidance of the pre-sentence report.
Whilst the 2003 Act continues to provide the main sentence framework for the work of the prison andprobation services, the new Government has introduced a Green Paper which may lead to significant change,
including an increased emphasis on restorative justice. Community involvement may already be an important
aspect of delivery of almost all requirements. The Green Paper makes clear this is likely to increase further
still, including creating more opportunities for civil society organizations and volunteers to be involved inrehabilitation.

126

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

IV. WHAT WORKS TO REDUCE REOFFENDING AND PROTECT THE PUBLIC?
NOMS has introduced three systems to reduce reoffending. All three have an impact on how the organization
approaches communities:•

An Offender Assessment System (“OASys”) – designed to assess risk and needs and to inform casemanagement•

The National Offender Management Model – intended to manage offenders safely and effectively,
including managing prisoners consistently and fairly from prison to the community and ensuring anaction plan is developed, implemented and reviewed.

•

Interventions – including unpaid work, employability programmes, and accredited programmes toaddress a wide range of offending-related or “criminogenic” needs including “thinking skills” such as
aggression control, victim empathy and problem solving.

However evidence also tells us that effective interventions are less likely to work on their own. In orderfor interventions to be effective, most offenders need to feel motivated, to have a sense of hope and beliefin change, and that they will succeed in the community. They need both “human capital” and “social capital”(ideas to be found in the more recent theories on desistence from offending). Involving communities isabsolutely vital therefore in making links in terms of community integration and social capital. Links withsupportive members of the community can also play a valuable role in human capital.

A. The OASys Assessment System
OASys has been developed jointly by the prison and probation services. It is an IT-based system whichassesses offending-related need and risk of reconviction and serious harm. There is on-going validation of
accuracy against actual reconviction. The OASys tool also guides individual sentence planning, measureschange, and provides management information. Data is aggregated centrally, regionally and locally to support
analysis and service planning – of NOMS and stakeholders.
OASys measures a wide range of factors statistically shown to be relevant to offending. These include
education, training and employability, accommodation, financial management and income, relationships,
lifestyle and associates, drug and alcohol mis-use, emotional well-being, and thinking skills and attitudes.
The risk assessment element measures harm to the public, children, staff, prisoners, offenders themselves,
and to adults known to the offender, indicating whether risk is low, medium, high or very high. Action to
manage risk is then triggered including through MAPPA arrangements described later.
OASys data may be analysed in many ways: Data is able to demonstrate the offending-related needs ofa national probation sample by type of need and by gender. The data might also, for example, be analysedby prison or probation caseload or by region or city. Our OASys data shows that the most common needsof offenders, related to their offending , include education, employment, with a wide range of other needs
including “thinking skills” (such as problem solving), accommodation and drug problems not far behind. This
complexity of need makes our work more difficult, and influences consideration of the aims of community
organizations, across all sectors, with whom we work. This point will be returned to later.

V. SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION
A. Development of the Overall Approach
I would now like to touch briefly on the NOMS approaches to social exclusion, community reintegration
and resettlement.
Genesis of the resettlement and community reintegration framework has followed a similar timescale
to the sentencing and what works frameworks. In 2001 the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU)
published a report on prisoner resettlement and social exclusion. The findings were startling and showed,
for example, that prisoners were far more likely than the general population to be unemployed (67% ofprisoners – pre-sentence – and 5% of the general public respectively), to have no qualifications, to behomeless, and to suffer from mental disorders.

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

The NOMS reintegration and resettlement framework is based on the Social Exclusion Unit’s work. The
report, which was researched and prepared in close collaboration with the Prison and Probation Services,
proposed a needs-based “pathway” approach through which offenders’ needs are addressed via crossgovernment agreement and action.
As noted by Maguire and Raynor (2006), the SEU’s location in the office of the Deputy Prime Ministergave the recommendations political weight and allowed development of a cross-departmental approach tosocial inclusion and reducing reoffending. A national strategy and action plan on reducing reoffending (2004)
extended the pathway approach to community sentences.
The resettlement framework comprises seven rehabilitation “pathways” for men and women. Each pathway
addresses areas of work critical to prisoners and to work with offenders in the community. The pathways
support close work between prisons and probation areas to ensure that pathways are continuous from custody tocommunity. The pathways are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Accommodation
Education, training and employment
HealthDrugs and alcohol
Finance
Families
Attitudes, thinking and behaviour.

Two additional pathways have recently been added for work with women, including attention to abuse anddomestic violence.
The pathways provide us with clear and impartial evidence on which to base priorities in strategy, policy
and practice, including our work with communities.

VI. STRENGTHENING REHABILITATION THROUGH INVOLVING COMMUNITIESI come now to the core of the paper – strengthening rehabilitation through involving communities –which addresses a range of approaches to work with the private, public and civil sectors of society in order tomeet those objectives of reduced reoffending and public protection. This paper will focus on involvement of
the private sector and civil society, but it is important to note that this involvement is supported by linkages
across the public sector, for example in relation to statutory health or employment services, and in relation
to the more serious public protection cases where multi-agency arrangements involving the police and otherservices are demonstrating value.

A. Work with the Private Sector
As noted at the outset, NOMS is a commissioning agency. Whilst the large majority of prisons are
directly managed by the agency, eleven out of 135 are privately operated. These eleven prisons are runby three companies. Electronic monitoring is also delivered by the private sector and other areas of work
are being considered. Whilst this involvement of the private sector as managers and delivers of services
for offenders has significant benefits, it is another kind of involvement that I want to focus on today – theinvolvement of companies in the community in support of offender rehabilitation.
Some of the most innovative and beneficial examples of private sector involvement in work to reduce
reoffending and social exclusion have been in the field of improving prisoner employment.
The Corporate Alliance is a banner for the government’s employer engagement activities for offenders.
It includes partnerships with private, public and voluntary sector organizations to improve the skills andemployment outcomes for offenders. It seeks to:
•
•

128

encourage more employers to employ and support offenders during the process of finding and retaining
employment;
support and disseminate good practice involving employers improving the skills and employment of

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

offenders; anduse employers to ‘market’ the Corporate Alliance to other employers.

There are three levels of engagement that enable employers to get involved with offenders in ways thatbest suits them. These are:•Level One – activities to support improvement in employability, focusing on donating materials thatcan be used to train offenders, and donating staff time for interview training, CV preparation, and formentoring offenders;•Level Two – activities in support of designing and delivering training programmes, including paid
work placements; and•Level Three – delivering “real life” employment in prisons (something we are keen to increase) in
preparation for release and recruiting directly from prisons and probation.

Promotion of the Corporate Alliance at national and regional level has resulted in over 100 employers,
who are already involved with offenders or planning to get involved, using their involvement to promote thecase with other employers.
To ensure that developments to engage with employers are informed and steered by employers, a ReferenceGroup, chaired by a business leader, consisting of major as well as medium and small employers from theprivate, public and voluntary sectors has been established.
1. Business in the Community
Business in the Community (BIC) is an independent business-led charity with more than 830 Companies
in membership. Through its “Unlocking Talent” programme, BIC aims to develop skills and talent of theworkforce as a part of its members work in support of Corporate Social Responsibility. BIC has a specificoffender-employment initiative: This work is itself an example of partnership between NOMS and theprivate sector: work on employing ex-offenders is sponsored by the Barrow Cadbury Trust.
Business in the community has a clear offender-employment perspective: “Through its member companies,
Business in the Community works to improve the ability of ex-offenders to find employment. A good stablejob is the single greatest factor in reducing reoffending. Not only does it provide individuals with the necessary
resources and self-esteem to improve their lives but benefits all sections of society through reduced levels ofcrime.”
Another perspective addresses direct benefits to the employer: “We share in common with most employers
a recurring headache – the recruitment and retention of staff, and we have had to learn to think beyond the
traditional recruitment routes. There is undoubtedly a large pool of under-utilised skilled men and women in
our prisons who are due for release into your communities, and who are keen and willing to work. Those wehave employed have been exemplary employees.”
Business in the Community is clear about the business case for employing ex-offenders. Arguments insupport of the case include:(a) Savings to Private Sector through crime reduction: Crime costs business £19 billion year, reoffendingby ex-prisoners costs £11 billion year. Ex-offenders in work are 33% - 50% less likely to reoffend andsome schemes reduce risk to 10%.
(b) Recruitment cost savings of 40% - 60% have been identified.
(c) Mentoring ex-offenders brings skills and experience benefits for existing employees, including inmanagement, communication, listening and team building
2. Examples of Corporate Involvement in Training or Employing Ex-offenders(a) NOMS prisoner retail contract with DHL/Booker (supply chain management) employs some 500

129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

prisoners in DHL supervised facilities across a number of prisons;(b) Travis Perkins (tool hire and builders merchants) opened their first training centre in HMP Stocken
just over a year ago and has already expanded into another workshop in the same prison with total
employment of 90 prisoners. Travis Perkins are now employing prisoners on release around their
many sites and are growing their partnership into a second prison, HMP Ford. The workshop in thisprison was expected to employ around 50 prisoners by the end of 2010;(c) Timpson’s (shoes) now have two “Academies” (at Liverpool and Wandsworth prisons), demonstratinga strong interest in the rehabilitation of offenders. The Director of the company has issued a statementof support for employing ex-offenders: “I find the staff we’ve recruited from prisons are among the bestcolleagues we’ve got. We see this as a great way of not only helping people but of getting people towork for us. Seventy-five percent of those who join us from prison are still with us after six months”(d) Morrisons (retail) runs a pre-release training course in three prisons leading to employment on release.
Significantly, the company achieves a 80% success rate in retention.
(e) The Compass Group “Rehab” project employs serving female prisoners in a defence establishment where
they learn catering and related skills.
(f) Toyota supports a purpose-built workshop for young offenders offering the “Toyota Modern Apprenticeship”.
Recognizing employers’ needs and concerns in relation to risk is a fundamental aspect of gaining employer
confidence.
Disclosure of Criminal Records is set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, updated by the
Criminal Records Bureau, launched in 2002. Both an Advisors Guide and an Offenders guide are available,
providing information and advice on previous convictions in relation to CV preparation and interviews.

B. Work with Civil Society Organizations, Social Enterprises, and Volunteers
NOMS attaches very great importance to the involvement of civil society. In October 2008 the Ministryof Justice and NOMS published the action plan ‘Working with the third sector to reduce reoffending –securing effective partnerships 2008-2011’.
Aims include to inform strategic and operational policy by providing advice on reducing reoffending from athird sector perspective, overseeing progress on a third sector reducing reoffending strategy, and promoting
potential, diversity, volunteering, good innovative practice, social enterprises.
1. Work with Civil Society Organizations
NOMS works with civil society organizations at national level and locally. Examples include:(i) CLINKS
CLINKS, at national level, fulfills an umbrella organization role, supporting other third sector organizations
that work with offenders and their families. Over nine hundreds voluntary organizations are responsible
for more than two thousands projects that provide services to offenders. CLINKS role includes promoting
the work of civil society organizations, facilitating effective partnerships, and undertaking research anddevelopment.
As well as supporting civil society, including mentoring organizations, CLINKS estimates that about
three quarters of prisoners would be willing to do voluntary work if it were available. Prisoners provide
an increasingly rich source of volunteers – working as peer mentors sometimes alongside paid or othervoluntary staff. In total, more than seven thousand volunteers contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders
nationally.

(ii) NACRO
NACRO directly delivers a range of services which support the work of other organizations working withoffenders in the public, private or civil society sectors. Services include:

130

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS(a) Resettlement consultancy in prisons - working closely with prison governors and other prison staff
to help develop positive regimes with resettlement advice projects.
(b) Resettlement training – regular training courses at the Prison Service College and at individual
prisons, including training prisoners as peer advisers. NACRO has developed specialist training
material, including on dealing with older prisoners and managing money.
(c) Resettlement Plus Helpline offers information and advice to professionals working with prisoners
and ex-offenders – as well as to individuals and their friends and family members.
(d) Resettlement Service Finder. This online database holds details of more than 10,000 community
services for ex-offenders.
(e) Resettlement provision in prisons. NACRO runs resettlement advice services in nearly 40 prisons.

(iii) SOVA
“Supporting Others through Volunteer Action” is a leading national volunteer mentoring organization
working with those socially and economically disadvantaged in England and Wales. It delivers more than 60
projects.
(iv) St Giles Trust
The St Giles Trust delivers a range of services to serving prisoners and following release, including toshort-term prisoners who do not receive statutory support from the probation service. One of the mostinnovative approaches is the Peer Advice Project. This meets demand for advice services amongst theprison population by using an under-used resource – serving prisoners. It trains serving prisoners to NVQ
Level 3 in ‘Information, Advice and Guidance’ and enables them to help other prisoners by gaining valuable
practical experience as part of the vocational element of the course.
The course is externally verified by Advice UK and is an excellent way of improving the skills of serving
prisoners and preparing them for employment upon release.
The Peer Advice Project was initially set up to address the high levels of homelessness amongst theprison population by training serving prisoners to act as Housing Advisors. However, in some prisons,advisors cover other areas such as employment and training opportunities.
Peer Advisors often find that they are regarded as highly credible, trusted sources of support as they
are serving prisoners themselves. This is a real strength of the project and one the St Giles Trust aims toreplicate through our other services. Other prisoners in open prisons undertake the course on day release at
the organization’s head office in south London.

(v) Free As a Bird
Continuing the theme of peer support, “Free as a Bird” is a project for women offenders and ex-offenders
in London. The website is for women who have experience of the criminal justice system who can use
the website to share their thoughts. Peers advise each other on resettlement issues, and pass on practicalinformation, drawing on the strengths that come from having shared some of the same experiences andfound solutions.
2. Social Enterprises(i) What are Social Enterprises?
Social Enterprises have the following characteristics:•

They are independently constituted businesses, driven by a business agenda, and aiming to meetsocial as well as financial objectives.

•

They make profits or surpluses that are re-invested into the business to support its social purpose.

•

They are socially owned and accountable to a wider community through a membership and democratic

131

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

structure.
The benefits of social enterprises include cost savings, building links with local communities, innovationand creativity. NOMS research has recently shown that 62% of probation areas are involved in Social
Enterprise (about 40% of them connected with Community Payback). About 53% of Prisons are involved.
However, 47% of prisons and 95% of prisons would like to expand that number.

(ii) Examples of Projects operating at Local Level including Social Enterprises
The following provides an indication of the range of civil society and social enterprise projects working
with ex-offenders.
(a) Acumen•

Provides skills in horticulture in prison and supports development of housing for those inneed on release.

(b) The ‘Clink’ – Catering
•
•
•
•
•
•

The ‘Clink’ is a restaurant at HMP High Down.
It provides training and employment experience in a high quality restaurant environment.
It employs 16 serving offenders at any one time as trainees.
It is managed by social enterprise Eco-Actif CIC.
Profits are used to pay staff, provide training and qualifications and follow up support.
It also employs ex-prisoners.

(c) HMP Dartmoor Resettlement Unit••••

This project is linked with a high profile public garden – the Eden project.
Prisoners, guided by the staff of the Eden project, have turned unused open space in theprison into productive vegetable gardens.
Boxes of vegetables are delivered free of charge to elderly and poor members of local
community.
The project has received many letters of thanks from local people.

(d) Reach – Prinknash Abbey Gardens•

This project provides activities to unlock the potential within people who feel socially excluded
or who have committed offences.

•

The project has transformed an ancient abbey garden which had become overgrown. The
garden is now a centre for learning trades and for providing leisure for the members of public
or disadvantaged people.

VII. CONCLUSION
I hope the huge significance and contribution of communities to offender rehabilitation will be evident.
If further evidence is needed of our commitment to even more involvement, we need only to look at our
new Green Paper on sentencing and rehabilitation. Involving communities more in deciding what work isundertaken by community service workers is one example. But also, we are intending to increase volunteer
opportunities – whether from individuals, companies, universities, faith groups or other organizations,and to identify and remove as many barriers as possible to volunteering. All of this is also in tune with theEuropean Year of the Volunteer which has just begun.
Finally, we are determined to find new ways to involve communities and community organizations in
helping to achieve our goal – a “virtuous circle” involving all sections of society working in partnership to
support rehabilitation, for the benefits of family and the community, to change lives and to make communities
safer.

132

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING
EXPERTS’ PAPERSENHANCING COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN INSTITUTIONAL AND
COMMUNITY-BASED CORRECTIONS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM:RECENT EXPERIENCE AND FUTURE PLANS
Steve Pitts*

I. INTRODUCTION
A. Presentation Overview
A word about the structure of this paper:
I will begin by looking at some common challenges – challenges which observation and discussion tell me
are indeed common to a number of countries, including I suspect several of the countries represented in the147th Training Course.
Secondly, I will address some of the potential benefits of Community Involvement, benefits which help toaddress the challenges I will outline, and some of the approaches to community involvement.
Following an introduction to NOMS, I then want to explore some of the major developments of the last
decade or so. This has been a time of investment and change in our prison and probation services, including
a significant growth in what is known as evidence-based practice or “What Works”. The major focus of thiswork is reducing reoffending, but enhancing public protection has been another very important aim. We
know from evidence that we can achieve reductions of 10% or even 20% using the best approaches – oreven significantly more in some cases involving a range of approaches and, importantly, community agencies
and groups. Achieving these impacts is increasingly a key criterion for the next part of the paper – work in
partnership across all sectors of society.
I will turn then to the most substantial part of my paper: the steps we have taken to involve communities
in working with us, especially in support of the twin aims of reducing reoffending and protecting the public:
I need to clarify that I have referred to many different kinds of partnership including public, private, civil,
and the work of volunteers. I want to address all of these, in each case referring to strategy, some of theapproaches, and some of the lessons.
Finally, I will conclude by coming right up to date. In particular I want to draw attention to four or fivedevelopments which reflect the lessons of recent years and the priorities of the new government. These
include an increased focus on Commissioning and what we might call “Localism”, Payment by Results,
Diversion, and Restorative Justice. It is no coincidence that every one of these involves closer work with
communities and, as you will see from our use of the term “Big Society”, closer links with communities iscentral to the direction we are taking.
* Head of International Relations and External Programmes, National Offender Management Service, Ministry of Justice,
United Kingdom.
This paper is about the experience of England and Wales – that part of the United Kingdom within which my organization, theNational Offender Management Service – or NOMS – operates. I would like to emphasize the value that I, and my organization,
places on the opportunity offered by UNAFEI to work in a way that is another kind of partnership – the partnership ofinternational learning and collaboration. This paper references practice in Canada, Singapore, New Zealand and several othercountries. That is a reflection of how we have wanted to learn from the experience of others. International dialogue speeds up thepace of learning and I very much hope that this paper will be relevant to the situations faced in other countries. What is entirely
clear to me is that my own country will benefit from these exchanges – and I am extremely grateful to UNAFEI for making thispossible.

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

The overall approach in this paper is therefore to start with the larger picture and then to move progressively
to case examples and the detail.

B. Some Common Challenges
I suggest that the following are some of the most pressing - and common – challenges:
•
•
•
•

•
•

Fewer resources (25% over four years in the case of NOMS)
Increasing workload
Prisons at or beyond full capacity
Strong focus on, and public expectation of:
Reducing reoffending
Public protection
EffectivenessValue for money
Prison security and decency
Offence trends/recognition (gangs, trafficking, family violence, hate crime, foreign nationals)

In the case of England and Wales, we are anticipating a budget reduction of about 25% over the next four
years. Everybody will appreciate what a challenge meeting this target will be. At the same time we needto maintain, or even to improve, our effectiveness in reducing reoffending, in resettling offenders, in public
protection. We all value what this means - fewer offences, fewer victims, more settled communities and thepotential for ex-offenders to contribute more beneficially to society.
The benefits are not only personal and social: Financially, in the United Kingdom, we have estimated thatthe cost of offending by prisoners to be about £11 billion per year. We also estimate that offending, and the
response to offending, by one individual can be as much as £1million over a lifetime. Therefore, increasing
our effectiveness – focussing on what is most effective, and delivering this work in partnership with others and efficiently, should lead to some of the savings we will be making.
Before commencing the major sections of the paper, I would like to draw attention to some of the benefitsof involving communities. These include:
Flexibility and skill in meeting specialist needs, the strengths that partnership can bring to public protection,and the potential benefits of competition in raising standards and stimulating innovation. Of course there areothers, which will be addressed later.

II. THE NATIONAL OFFENDER MANAGEMENT SERVICE
A. What is NOMS?
The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is new. It was created in April 2008 as an executive
agency of the Ministry of Justice with the goal of helping prison and probation services work together
effectively and efficiently to manage offenders throughout their sentences.
The Director General of NOMS is responsible to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justiceand sits on the Board of the Ministry, chaired by the Permanent Secretary. The responsibility of the NOMS
Agency, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is to deliver the sentences and orders of the courts of Englandand Wales by:• commissioning adult offender services in custody and the community from public, private and civilsociety organizations;• providing the public prison service; and• overseeing the Trusts which provide the public probation services.
In operating through providers and partners in the public, private and civil society sectors, NOMS
endeavours to manage offenders in an integrated way. What work needs to be done – and who does the work
– is based on evidence and driven by ensuring value for money for the public.

134

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSNOMS manages offenders throughout both their custodial and community sentences, working witharound 260,000 offenders a year. We carry out prison sentences in England and Wales: there are 135 prisons,of which 124 are run by the public sector and 11 by private contractors. This is the first area of engagementof communities I will discuss later – in this case the private sector. We also manage offenders on community
sentences, and provide services to offenders, victims, witnesses and the courts. There are 35 probation areas –areas which became Trusts during 2010 – a change designed to provide an increased level of independence andclear accountability for delivery, whether by the Trust or through its partners.
NOMS aims to help offenders change their lives in order to reduce their chances of reoffending. In recent
years, NOMS has had an impressive record in relation to target, meeting or exceeding 27 of 28 national
performance targets (missing one slightly) and contributing to a fall in the number of reoffences committedof 11.1% between 2005 and 2007. The number of reoffences classified as serious fell by 9.8% over the same
period. Like many government departments around the world we have been required to make efficiency
savings even before the current large reductions brought about by the recession. We met an £81million
efficiency savings target for 2008/09 and an even larger saving of about £171 million 2009–10.
NOMS announced a new structure in January 2011, designed to reduce senior level Director posts
and costs by more than 40%. It is noteworthy too, in the context of partnership, that a combined post of
Director of Probation and Contracted Services has been created, emphasizing the contractual nature of therelationship that has developed between Government and the local delivery of community sentences.
Close to 50% of NOMS services now fall in the area of contracted rather than direct Government
deliveryIII. THE SENTENCING FRAMEWORK
A. The Sentencing Framework
The England and Wales sentencing framework, like the effective practice and resettlement frameworks
which follow, has had a relatively recent genesis. The framework was designed with a number of purposes ofsentencing in mind, and these are set out in the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.
1. The Purposes of Sentencing
The 2003 Criminal Justice Act sets out the five purposes of sentencing:
•
•
•
•
•

the punishment of offenders;
the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence);
the reform and rehabilitation of offenders;the protection of the public; andmaking reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences.

A number of important principles underpin the sentencing framework. These include the need to ensurethat sentences are fair and proportional to the offence, and that sentences of imprisonment are delivered ina seamless fashion from prison to the community as a “whole sentence” . Purposes of sentencing should be
addressed in both the custodial and aftercare stages of the sentence.
2. The Question of Offence Seriousness
Whilst courts are obliged to have regard to these principles, sentence will generally be determined according
to seriousness of the offence. Seriousness is made up of:••harm caused by the offence; andculpability of the offender in committing it.

There is also a presumption that recent and relevant previous convictions make an offence more serious.
Thresholds of penalty are based on seriousness:••

offences that are so serious that only custody will represent a sufficient response;
offences that are serious enough to warrant a community sentence.

In cases where neither of these thresholds is reached then a fine or a discharge will be appropriate.

135

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

3. Prison Sentences
The structure of a prison sentence depends on the sentence length. Implementation is progressive:(a) Under 12 months (currently no supervised licence): The intention of the act is:•
Custody period of 2-13 weeks; Licence period of 6-9 months;•
Court sets licence conditions;•Executive recall.
(b) Sentences of imprisonment for twelve months or longer•
Are served half in custody and half in community;•
Case Manager agrees intervention plan and conditions;•Executive recall.
(c) Intermittent and Suspended (court handles breach) options;(d) In the case of life, indeterminate and extended sentences for serious and public protection cases, theParole Board decides the release date.
The intention of the Act is that many of the options applicable to community sentences are also available
on post-release licence.
4. Community Sentences
Since the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, there has been a single community orderfor offenders aged 18 or over that can comprise up to 12 requirements depending on the offence and theoffender. These are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

unpaid work (formerly community service/community punishment) – a requirement to complete
between 40 and 300 hours’ unpaid work;
activity – for example to attend basic skills classes;
programme – there are several designed to reduce the prospects of reoffending;prohibited activity – requirement not do so something that is likely to lead to further offences ornuisance;
curfew – electronically monitored;
exclusion – not much used as no reliable electronic monitoring yet available;
residence – requirement to reside only where approved by probation officer;
mental health treatment (requires offender’s consent);
drug rehabilitation (requires offender’s consent);
alcohol treatment (requires offender’s consent);
supervision – meetings with probation officer to address needs/offending behaviour;
attendance centre – three hours of activity, usually on Saturday afternoons, between a minimum of
12 hours and a maximum of 36 in total.

Typically, the more serious the offence and the more extensive the offender’s needs, the more requirements
there will be. Most orders will comprise one or two requirements but there are packages of several available
where required. The court tailors the order as appropriate and is guided by the probation service through a presentence report.
Whilst the 2003 Act continues to provide the main sentence framework for the work of the prison andprobation services, the new Government has introduced a Green Paper (referred to later in this paper)
which may lead to significant change, including an increased emphasis on restorative justice and changes toindeterminate sentencing.

IV. THE EFFECTIVE PRACTICE OR “WHAT WORKS” FRAMEWORKNOMS has introduced three systems to reduce reoffending. All three have an impact on how the organization
approaches communities:

136

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS•

An Offender Assessment System (“OASys”) – designed to assess risk and needs and to inform casemanagement;•

The National Offender Management Model – intended to manage offenders safely and effectively,
including managing prisoners consistently from prison to the community;•

Interventions – including unpaid work, employability programmes, and accredited programmes toaddress a wide range of offending-related or “criminogenic” needs including “thinking skills”, domestic
violence, sex offending, and drug or alcohol misuse.

The effective practice framework flows naturally from the sentencing framework.

A. The OASys Assessment System
OASys has been developed jointly by the prison and probation services. It is an IT-based system whichassesses offending-related need and risk of reconviction and serious harm. There is on-going validation of
accuracy against actual reconviction. The OASys tool also guides individual sentence planning, measureschange, and provides management information. Data is aggregated centrally, regionally and locally to support
analysis and service planning – of NOMS and stakeholders.
OASys measures a wide range of factors statistically shown to be relevant to offending. These include
education, training and employability, accommodation, financial management and income, relationships,
lifestyle and associates, drug and alcohol misuse, emotional well-being, and thinking skills and attitudes.
The risk assessment element measures harm to the public, children, staff, prisoners, offenders themselves,
and to adults known to the offender, indicating whether risk is low, medium, high or very high. Action to
manage risk is then triggered including through MAPPA arrangements described later.
OASys data may be analysed in many ways: Data is able to demonstrate the offending-related needs ofa national probation sample by type of need and by gender. The data might also, for example, be analysedby prison or probation caseload or by region or city. Our OASys data shows that the most common needs ofoffenders, related to their offending , include education and employment, with a wide range of other needs
including “thinking skills” (such as problem solving), accommodation and drug problems not far behind. This
complexity of need makes our work more difficult, and influences consideration of the aims of community
organizations, across all sectors, with whom we work. This point will be returned to later.

B. The National Offender Management Model
The National Offender Management Model is underpinned by a number of principles intended to support
engagement with communities. These include:
•
•
•
•
•

One Offender Manager, an individual probation officer, who manages the case throughout the sentence(including time in prison) to provide continuity;
The Offender Manager is community-based – even for prisoners;
One sentence plan is developed for the entire sentence;
A system of resource “Tiers” allocates resources according to risk and needs;
The concept of the “Offender Management Team” - all responsible agencies operate to common
agreed goals.

The model provides the means by which NOMS ensures the right services are harnessed from within
the service and from partners, and delivered to each offender according to risks and needs assessed through
OASys assessment.

C. Interventions - The “What Works Core Curriculum”
The third system is referred to as the “Core Curriculum”. This is the suite of interventions most closely
associated with “what works” – interventions based on tested independent research evidence of effectiveness.
NOMS “what works” interventions are based on a process of accreditation. Accreditation is carried out
by an independent group of international experts – the “Accreditation Panel”. The panel has developed

137

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

Interventions Criteria against which new approaches are assessed. Key criteria are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

A clear model of change;
Specified offender selection criteria;
Targeting of offending risk factors;
Employment of effective methods;
Skills orientated;
Appropriate sequencing, duration and intensity of intervention;
Motivation and engagement;
Continuity of Services;
Maintenance of Integrity;
Evaluation and Monitoring.

The core curriculum contains more than twenty programmes, and is continuing to expand. The creationof NOMS provided an opportunity to rationalize programmes historically developed separately by the prisonand probation services and to build continuity of programme design and delivery. For example, sex offender
treatment begun in prison can be reinforced post-release.
The programme range includes cognitive skills, substance misuse, sex offender treatment, violence andemotional management, women offenders, drink impaired drivers, and resettlement. Most are designed forgroup delivery. However there are also programmes for delivery to individuals - who might for example live
in an isolated area where it would be impractical to deliver to a group.
It is important to note that we know from experience and research that programmes are only effective
when delivered as intended by well-trained, managed and supported staff. Delivery quality is so importantthat NOMS has developed detailed guidance, audit and support to ensure these standards are met in prisonsand the community.

D. “What Works” Evaluation
Evaluation evidence is promising. The 2006 Evaluation Cohort allows comparison with year 2000 results.
The frequency of reoffending was reduced by an average of 22.9%. For offences classified as most serious,
the reduction was of 11.1%. Over the same period, the proportion of offenders reoffending fell by 10.7%.
This translates into significantly fewer victims and reduced costs associated with crime.

V. SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND COMMUNITY REINTEGRATION
A. Development of the Overall Approach
I would now like to touch briefly on the NOMS approaches to social exclusion, community reintegration
and resettlement.
Genesis of the resettlement and community reintegration framework has followed a similar timescale
to the sentencing and “what works” frameworks. In 2001 the Government’s Social Exclusion Unit (SEU)
published a report on prisoner resettlement and social exclusion. The findings were startling and showed,
for example, that prisoners were far more likely than the general population to be unemployed (67% ofprisoners – pre-sentence – and 5% of the general public respectively), to have no qualifications, to behomeless, and to suffer from mental disorders.
The NOMS reintegration and resettlement framework is based on the Social Exclusion Unit’s work. The
report, which was researched and prepared in close collaboration with the Prison and Probation Services,
proposed a needs-based “pathway” approach through which offenders’ needs are addressed via crossgovernment agreement and action.
As noted by Maguire and Raynor (2006), the SEU’s location in the office of the Deputy Prime Ministergave the recommendations political weight and allowed development of a cross-departmental approach to138

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

social inclusion and reducing reoffending. A national strategy and action plan on reducing reoffending (2004)
extended the pathway approach to community sentences.
The resettlement framework comprises seven rehabilitation “pathways” for men and women. Each pathway
addresses areas of work critical to prisoners and to work with offenders in the community. The pathways
support close work between prisons and probation areas to ensure that pathways are continuous from custody tocommunity. The pathways are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Accommodation
Education, training and employment
HealthDrugs and alcohol
Finance
Families
Attitudes, thinking and behaviour.

Two additional pathways have recently been added for work with women, including attention to abuse anddomestic violence. The pathways are underpinned by four cross-cutting themes:••••

Assessment and Case Management
Diversity
Public Protection
Partnerships.

One of the most far-reaching recommendations of the SEU report encouraged prisons to think in terms of“mainstream permeability” , the idea that prison walls should not be barriers to prisoner access to mainstream
services. Government departments have responsibility for developing policy on offender access to mainstream
services. This recommendation has speeded up the introduction of mainstream staff working closely in prisons,often through a system of “in-reach” staff co-located with prison staff in resettlement units.
The pathway approach has enabled us to gain a national, regional and local picture of resettlement needand to involve other departments and partnerships based on this accurate picture. When OASys needs
are placed within the pathway structure we see that education, employment, thinking skills, relationships(including family), substance misuse, and accommodation are at the top of the list. This provides us withclear and impartial evidence on which to base priorities in strategy, policy and practice, including our workwith communities.

B. Lessons in Resettlement
In parallel to the work of the SEU, a number of evaluated development projects, including the Resettlement
Pathfinders (1999- 2003), demonstrated some vital characteristics of effective resettlement. These also
influence our approach to work with community organizations – in particular those engaged in social inclusion.
The pathfinders found resettlement was more effective when:
•
•
•
•
•

The sentence plan is based on sound assessment of risks and needs;
Intervention begins as soon as possible after sentence;
Intervention includes attention to attitudes and thinking…;…and attention to practical needs, with links to mainstream provision and community facilities
Case management is delivered “through the prison gate” and includes work on motivation, ideallydelivered by the same person or, if not possible, team.

C. The Importance of Personal and Social Factors in Inclusion, Reducing Reoffending and Resettlement
Before looking in detail at work to enhance community involvement, I want to conclude this part of thepaper by describing some new and exciting developments in inclusion, reducing reoffending and resettlement.
These focus on the interaction of personal and social factors in supporting change and integration.

139

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

1. DesistanceFirst I would like to do draw attention to the rise in understanding of what helps offenders to desist fromreoffending. Desistence theory emphasizes long term change over short term control, and the collective
interest of the community in integration of offenders. The focus is on supporting offenders to see themselvesin a new and more positive light with hope for the future. Desistence theory may argue that individuals need
a combination of motivation, human capital and social capital in order to succeed. Human capital includes thecapacity of individual to make changes and achieve goals. Social capital includes factors such as employment
and supportive family or other relationships.
Successful resettlement therefore depends on helping offenders in all three areas, recognizing that progressin all is unlikely to be direct or continuous. It is said that 90% of offenders remain ambiguous about their future
until and even beyond apparently stable reintegration.
2. Motivation(i) F.O.R. A Change
F.O.R. A Change is a resettlement programme which draws on desistence theory, motivational theory, theproven effectiveness of cognitive behavioural work, and practical support to engage offenders in planninga new future. The aim is to create both confidence and commitment to change. The programme builds onthe motivational cycle of change to move individuals through five stages of accepting the need for change,
recognizing problems, defining how to overcome problems, developing their own plan for change, andcontrolling of risks of relapse.
The programme involves 12 × 2 hour sessions, delivered in groups and individual sessions, with support
post-release offered by the probation service or the voluntary sector. One of the most successful and innovative
features of the programmes is the “Community Market Place” . This innovative approach involves inviting
representatives of public agencies and civil society organizations into the prison where they set up “Market
Stalls” displaying the services they offer. Prisoners are able to walk around the “market place” and to approachorganizations that would be helpful to them, making appointment to follow up these contacts once they are
released. Prisoners therefore become active rather than dependent participants in their own resettlement andfeel the rewards of their own positive action. This in effect building social capital, and taken as a whole, theprogramme aims to improve motivation, confidence and community opportunities.
The F.O.R. A Change programme has been run in several male and female prisons with good success andhas received accreditation by the UK’s panel of independent experts.
3. Decency and CitizenshipOne further area I would like to touch on before describing work with communities in detail is thatof “Decency”. We increasingly see the benefits of treating prisoners with the values and respect that wehope they will demonstrate on release. Reasons why what we term the “Decency Agenda” is so important
include:•••Prison staff, especially officers, are the “human face” of prisons;
They are 24 hour role models, able to demonstrate “pro-social” behaviours;
Prison staff have the opportunity to demonstrate judgement, consistency, appropriate fair authority,and leadership.

Other aspects of the approach include ensuring that communications, written and verbal, are clear andpositively framed and worded. Benefits are that prisoners are better prepared for release in the qualities
of respect and tolerance, and that staff too benefit from an improved work environment, staff morale, andperformance.
Delivery is measured by “Quality of Prison Life”, Inspection and Independent Monitoring Reports.
Together with prison security and decency, “what works” and the pathway approach provide a framework
for closer engagement across all sectors in the community. Commissioning and contracting aim to achieve
impact in reducing reoffending and public protection, ensuring that attention is paid to needs, to effectiveness,and to representing best value.

140

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

VI. INVOLVING COMMUNITY PARTNERS: RECENT EXPERIENCE
I come now to the core of the paper which addresses a range of approaches to work with the private,public and civil sectors of society in order to meet those objectives of reduced reoffending and public
protection.

A. Work with the Private Sector
1. Private Sector Contracted Delivery
As noted at the outset, NOMS is a commissioning agency. Whilst the large majority of prisons are directly
managed by the agency, eleven out of 135 are privately operated. These eleven prisons are run by threecompanies. Nine are what are termed “Design, Build and Operate” contracts, whilst two were built andfinanced by the public sector but are managed by private companies. It is possible that further public prisons
may be “market tested”. It is important to note that the aim is competition – the public sector may bid too. Not
only that, but bids may be cross-sector, for example involving a private company and a civil society organization
or CSO. There is a further option in that internal services may also be delivered by private organizations.
Examples include catering or cleaning.
What are the benefits of this approach to the opening of delivery? Some of the benefits which have beenfound include:
•
•
•
•
•

Increased innovation in approach (the Social Impact Bond described later in this paper is run by oneof the private prisons working with two civil society organizations);
Reductions in cost per bed-space;
Reduced reoffending, most noticeable in the case of younger offenders;Some improvements in staff relationships with prisoners;
Evidence of motivation of improvement in public sector prisons.

However it is important to note that it is not always easy to get the contracting right (price, flexibility,
outcome), and there have been instances of complex start up issues, of staff turnover, and also of degree ofconfidence of newly appointed staff.
Other areas of work that have been contracted to the private sector by NOMS include Electronic Monitoring,in this case two companies at the present time. EM can be regarded as tough, flexible, effective and efficient.
It has been used with over 685,000 individuals, and at any one time about 21,000 individuals are being
managed this way. Uses include bail (about 29%), court order (about 54%) and post-release (about 15%). Froma contracting point of view it is important to note that the contract providers in the 69% of cases which are“single requirements” provide all of the functions from supply of equipment and monitoring to dealing with any
violations and initiating breach action.
Although not a recent experience in terms of contracting, NOMS is also about to contract Community
Service (known as Community Payback to emphasize the reparative aspect of the order). Benefits are intended
to include cost savings and contractors will be expected to maintain the close ties with communities developed
through “Justice Seen, Justice Done” during which more than 18,000 votes were cast by the public to help
prioritize work they would like to see delivered, using methods such as internet voting or local panels. In
some schemes local people engage in activities to identify needs and projects which will help reduce local
reoffending.
Opportunities to vote are publicized through the local media.
Community Service has the highest profile of the all the community sentences in England and Wales. It
attracts public awareness, media coverage and political interest. Although the main purpose is to provide
punishment and reparation, for some offenders they are also rehabilitative benefits as Community Payback
projects can provide an opportunity to develop life and vocational skills that reduce the risk of reoffending.
Up to 20% of the hours can be spent on skills and employment preparation. More than 62,000 offenders
successfully completed Community Payback Sentences in 2008-2009. Work may take place in groups or

141

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

single placements. Projects benefit the community such as decoration and renovating buildings, tidying
local areas, graffiti removal, recycling and working directly with local charities. Beneficiaries may be either
in individual placements (such as a charity shop) where the Beneficiary provides the direct supervision ormore typically in a supervised work group where a “Provider” (for example a probation service or third
sector organization) employed supervisor oversees the work.
Opportunities to vote may be publicized through the local media.
2. Private Sector Involvement in work to Reduce Reoffending and Social Exclusion
Some of the most innovative and beneficial examples of private sector involvement in work to reduce
reoffending and social exclusion have been in the field of improving prisoner employment.
The Corporate Alliance is a banner for the Government’s employment’s employer engagement activities
for offenders. It includes partnerships with private, public and voluntary sector organizations to improve theskills and employment outcomes for offenders. It seeks to:•••encourage more employers to employ and support offenders during the process of finding and retaining
employment;
support and disseminate good practice involving employers improving the skills and employment ofoffenders; anduse employers to ‘market’ the Corporate Alliance to other employers.

There are three levels of engagement that enable employers to get involved with offenders in ways thatbest suits them. These are:•••Level One – activities to support improvement in employability, focusing on donating materials thatcan be used to train offenders, and donating staff time for interview training, CV preparation, and formentoring offenders;Level Two – activities in support of designing and delivering training programmes, including paid
work placements; andLevel Three – recruiting directly from prisons and probation.

Promotion of the Corporate Alliance at national and regional level has resulted in over 100 employers,
who are already involved with offenders or planning to get involved, using their involvement to promote thecase with other employers.
To ensure that developments to engage with employers are informed and steered by employers a ReferenceGroup, chaired by a business leader, consisting of major as well as medium and small employers from theprivate, public and voluntary sectors has been established.

(i) Business in the Community
Business in the Community (BIC) is an independent business-led charity with more than 830 companies
in membership. Through its “Unlocking Talent” programme, BIC aims to develop the skills and talentsof the workforce and a part of its members work in support of Corporate Social Responsibility. BIC has a
specific offender-employment initiative: This work is itself an example of partnership between NOMS andthe private sector: work on employing ex-offenders is sponsored by the Barrow Cadbury Trust.
Business in the community has a clear offender-employment perspective: “Through its member
companies, Business in the Community works to improve the ability of ex-offenders to find employment. A
good stable job is the single greatest factor in reducing reoffending. Not only does it provide individuals with
the necessary resources and self-esteem to improve their lives but benefits all sections of society throughreduced levels of crime.”
Another perspective addresses direct benefits to the employer: “We share in common with most employers
a recurring headache – the recruitment and retention of staff, and we have had to learn to think beyond the
traditional recruitment routes. There is undoubtedly a large pool of under-utilised skilled men and women in
our prisons who are due for release into your communities, and who are keen and willing to work. Those we

142

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

have employed have been exemplary employees.”
Business in the Community is clear about the business case for employing ex-offenders. Arguments insupport of the case include(a) Savings to the private sector through crime reduction: Crime costs business £19 billion year,
reoffending by ex-prisoners costs £11 billion year. Ex-offenders in work are 33% - 50% less likely toreoffend and some schemes reduce risk to 10%;(b) Recruitment cost savings of 40% – 60% have been identified;(c) Mentoring ex-offenders brings skills and experience benefits for existing employees, including inmanagement, communication, listening and team building.

(ii) Examples of Corporate Involvement in Training or Employing Ex-offenders include:(a) NOMS prisoner retail contract with DHL/Booker (supply chain management) employs some 500
prisoners in DHL supervised facilities across a number of prisons;(b) Travis Perkins (tool hire and builders merchants) opened their first training centre in HMP Stocken
just over a year ago and has already expanded into another workshop in the same prison with total
employment of 90 prisoners. Travis Perkins are now employing prisoners on release around their
many sites and are growing their partnership into a second prison, HMP Ford. The workshop in thisprison was expected to employ around 50 prisoners by the end of 2010;(c) Timpson’s (shoes) now have two “Academies” (at Liverpool and Wandsworth prisons), demonstratinga strong interest in the rehabilitation of offenders. The Director of the company has issued a statementof support for employing ex-offenders: “I find the staff we’ve recruited from prisons are among the bestcolleagues we’ve got. We see this as a great way of not only helping people but of getting people towork for us. 75% of those who join us from prison are still with us after six months”;(d) Morrisons (retail) runs a pre-release training course in three prisons leading to employment on release.
Significantly, the company achieves a 80% success rate in retention;(e) The Compass Group “Rehab” project employs serving female prisoners in a defence establishment
where they learn catering and related skills;(f) Toyota supports a purpose-built workshop for young offenders offering the “Toyota Modern Apprenticeship”.

(iii) Private Sector as a Direct Manager of Employment Support:
Private sector companies are now also to be found in the provision of specialist offender rehabilitation
services such as employment. Working Links is a private company that describes its vision as “to help
the most socially excluded individuals to fully take part in society, creating brighter futures for them, theirfamilies and communities” One of its projects is “Kormo Shadin” – or ‘freedom to work’ – a programme
started in June 2007 which aims to guide and support jobseekers through a range of activities enabling them
to become socially and financially better off. It aims to support positive relationships with local criminal
justice services, drugs treatment agencies, youth and community organizations, housing associations andthe faith sector, helping Bangladeshi ex-offenders in East London to over come their barriers to find workand move into employment.
(iv) Risk and Disclosure of Criminal Records
Recognizing employers’ needs and concerns in relation to risk is a fundamental aspect of gaining employer
confidence. NOMS has adopted “Tiered Case Management” which allocates resources and level of punishment,
help, support in making change, and control to four levels according to assessment, which will be multi-agency
in the case of the highest risk levels. The four levels are:••••PunishPunish and help
Punish, help and change
Punish, help, change and control (including MAPPA).

Disclosure of Criminal Records is set out in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, updated by the143

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

Criminal Records Bureau, launched in 2002. Both an Advisors Guide and an Offenders guide are available,
providing information, and advice on CV preparation and interviews.

B. Work with the Public Sector
Community Safety Partnerships, or CSPs, are a new arrangement in place only since April 2010. Theybring together Police, Local Authorities (including their responsibility for housing), Fire & Rescue, Healthand Probation, together with suggestions for working with prisons, other parts of the Criminal Justice
System including Youth Offending Services, and the voluntary sector to prevent crime and disorder, antisocial
behaviour, substance misuse and to reduce reoffending. Budgets devolved from central government
departments are then combined by agencies closer to the ground, working in partnership to meet identified
patterns of need. CSPs are a good example of this model in operation:
CSR member organizations work together to deliver work according to the ASPIRE model, first developedby the probation service. ASPIRE provides partners with a relatively simple model for cooperation. The five
cooperative ASPIRE steps are:
•
•
•
•
•

A ssess the profile of reoffending in the area including social exclusion data;
S trategically P lan for action;
I mplement the plan, drawing on case managed intervention, mainstream and commissioned services;
R eview performance;
E valuate success to review outcomes and value for money.

CSPs place a statutory duty on organizations to cooperate. This duty is set out in Section 108 of the
Policing and Crime Act 2009. I would like to quote the argument put forward in support of this approach:“Success in reducing reoffending can only be achieved by local partners working beyond traditionalorganizational boundaries… More effective partnership working as a result of these changes will help
to reduce crime and reoffending, protect the public and improve public confidence in the criminal justicesystem, the police and in other local partners, in a way that allows people to see and feel the difference intheir local communities”.
The CSP Executive Summary continues “Adults and young people convicted of offences are often someof the most socially excluded within society. The majority of offenders have complex and often deep-rooted
health and social problems, such as substance misuse, mental health problems, homelessness, high levels of
unemployment and possibly debt and financial problems. Tackling these problems is important for addressing
the offender’s problems and providing “pathways out of offending”, and to break the inter-generational cycleof offending and associated family breakdown” . CSPs therefore give local expression to the national aim of
reducing reoffending through reducing exclusion.
Because CSPs are so new, it is not yet possible to provide examples of completed projects. But I canprovide examples of work delivered as a result of the preceding Crime and Disorder Act of 1998. The 1998
Act created Crime and Disorder Partnerships (CDRPs). A national dissemination programme, known as the
Beacon Scheme, has subsequently celebrated and promoted some of the most successful and innovative
partnerships. Four of the areas selected for Beacon status focussed on creating safer communities throughreducing reoffending. All have had to demonstrate six “hallmarks” of excellence:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Empowered and Effective Leadership
Visible and Constructive Accountability
Intelligence-led Business processes
Effective and Responsive Delivery Structures
Engaged Communities
Appropriate Skills and Knowledge.

Examples of partnership practice, facilitated by the multi-agency community approach, and frequently
involving the private sector too, include:

144

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS(i) Safer Sunderland Partnership
Sunderland is the largest city in the north-east of England. The Sunderland project aimed to improve therate of young offenders engaged in education, employment or training. 60 local businesses were approached,
many of them corporate victims of crime. Offenders were then placed with them to provide unpaid work andgain work experience, so contributing to restorative justice. As well as the skills specific to the employment
sector, the offenders learnt basic aspects of employment including timekeeping and dress. By 2008
Sunderland achieved 91% of young offenders in education training or employment, exceeding the national
average by 20%.
(ii) Mentoring in Leicestershire
A scheme in the city of Leicestershire involves companies in offering two weeks’ mentored support toyoung offenders in what is often a first step in experiencing employment.
(iii) Youth Involvement in Sunderland
Another scheme in Sunderland engaged young offenders in the design and development of projects to
reduce reoffending. This provided a positive learning experience as well as producing useful intervention
materials including DVDs on the effects of substance misuse and knife crime.
(iv) Domestic Violence
The Sunderland partnership also piloted a scheme for the male perpetrators of domestic violence. A
development of the multi-agency approach includes a hostel for 8 men who are removed from the domestic
home and receive interventions to reduce violence, whilst at the same time agencies work with the victims,
and the children in the 98% of cases in which children are also involved.
(v) Tower Hamlets London – Safe Exit Diversion Scheme
This scheme works with women involved in street prostitution through linking criminal justice services,
Local Authorities and third sector organizations. Following an holistic assessment of needs, women can bereferred to one of 12 agencies. Well over 50% of women referred completed the scheme and had their cases
discontinued.
(vi) The “Be Safe Bolton” Scheme
This scheme demonstrated the benefits of information and intelligence gathering and was able to ensure
police and reintegration resources were targeted at offenders with the highest risk of harm or conviction.
Local agencies have identified “Single points of Contact” for prisoners approaching release. The intelligence
focuses improvement work on localities with high crime rates, and helps identify the most successful
approaches. It was one of the first to involve residents in deciding the focus of community service workby offenders. Known as “Community Payback”, more than 50% of community service work is targetedfollowing “Community Walks” on which residents decide on priorities to improve local safety. “Alley-gaters”
to prevent run-throughs by groups of young people were one of the first developments.
(vii) Others
Other schemes addressing offender employment include “Community Hubs” in Tower Hamlets, London
which links employers and employment support. Prisoners are where possible met at the prison gate.
Ex-offenders are engaged in the meeting service and in delivering the employment programme, a model
which also develops their own skills and helps them make life changes. The scheme employs male andfemale ex-offender mentors, and also tries to address specific religious faiths. Other schemes map theoffenders experience in gaining work and then involve partnership agencies in working together to improve
the process.
CSPs are only one example of agencies working together at the local level. Other statutory partnerships
work with specific groups of offenders including MAPPA partnerships to co-ordinate work with those
offenders that present higher risk of harm, and PPO partnerships working with Prolific and other Priority
Offenders. Others target drug misusers or deliver intensive case management with recently released
prisoners who have served short sentences.
MAPPA (Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements) have a statutory basis in the Criminal Justice145

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84& Court services Act 2000. They involve the Probation Service, Prison Service, and Police (which together
form the “responsible authority) to work together:•••

To establish arrangements for assessing and managing risks posed by sexual and violent offenders;
To review and monitor the arrangements;
As part of reviewing and monitoring arrangements, to prepare and publish an annual report on theiroperation.

A range of other agencies have a duty to cooperate locally. These include: the police, Local Authority Social
Services, Primary Care Trusts, Jobcentre Plus, Youth Offending Teams, housing authorities and relevant
providers, and electronic monitoring providers.
There is also a requirement to appoint two lay advisers to each of the strategic management boards that
review the MAPPA.
MAPPA arrangements target Sexual, Violent and other Dangerous Offenders and arrange three levels ofmanagement according to risk:
1.
2.
3.

Information sharing
Active Multi-Agency Management
Senior Management Oversight/Resources.

C. Work with Civil Society Organizations, Social Enterprises, and Volunteers
NOMS works with a wide range of civil society organizations working with offenders directly or providing
support to other organizations delivering direct work.
1. Strategic Developments for NOMS – Work with Civil Society
In October 2008 the Ministry of Justice and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) published
the action plan ‘Working with the third sector to reduce reoffending – securing effective partnerships 2008–2011’. The plan sat beneath the Ministry’s overall Third Sector Strategy published in June 2008 and aimed tobuild on work to reduce barriers to the sector’s role in reducing reoffending, protecting the public, achieving
safer communities, and tackling social exclusion. It also sought to enable and promote effective volunteeringand mentoring with and by offenders and ex-offenders.
Progress against objectives and actions is being monitored by the Ministry of Justice/NOMS Reducing
Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group.
The strategy has three overarching aims:(a) to improve third sector “voice” and partnership working;(b) to transform services;(c) to drive up the quality and diversity of volunteering and mentoring.

(i) Action Plan Progress(a) Improving voice and partnership working
A new Reducing Reoffending Third Sector Advisory Group , has been set up. The purpose of the Advisory
Group is to provide advice to Ministers and senior officials on reducing reoffending from a civil society
perspective and to present concerns and opinions about future priorities, issues and policies which might affectthe sector. The Group has a key role in advising and overseeing progress on the implementation of ‘Working
with the Third Sector to Reduce Reoffending 2008-2011’. The Chair will also sit on the NOMS Reducing
Reoffending Policy Board.
The Advisory Group has indicated that it believes the success of the action plan will be judged by:•“An increase of front-line services to offenders by third sector organizations, including small andlocal organizations, and Black and Ethnic Minority organizations and faith groups, and•An increased involvement in design and development of services, and ensuring effective partnerships
between statutory, private and voluntary sectors drawing on complementary strengths”.

146147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

The Ministry’s strategic funding to national third sector infrastructure – Clinks, Action for Prisoners’
Families, and the Development Trusts Association – is now in the second year. The funding has enabledthese organizations to support and represent their members and a wider group of third sector organizations
to government, NOMS, and the range of agencies working with and funding the third sector to reduce
reoffending.
The independent Arts Alliance was launched in November 2008. The Anne Peaker Centre is jointly
funded by the Ministry of Justice, Arts Council England, and the Indigo Trust to co-ordinate the Alliance.
The Arts Alliance aims to provide a strong network and coherent voice for the arts sector working withoffenders. The Ministry of Justice also set up a cross-departmental, cross-sector Arts Forum to engage with
the Arts Alliance. The Forum enables dialogue between the responsible government departments, Arts
Council England, and arts providers and funders with the aim of reducing barriers to and promoting the roleof the arts in offender management and rehabilitation.
(b) Transforming services
NOMS has been developing its approach to commissioning in the civil society sector, reflecting out in the2008 “Working with the Third Sector to Reduce Reoffending”, including the importance of harnessing thepotential of the third sector, alongside the public and private sectors, to deliver services for offenders. This
work has included support to “market development” and ensuring a level playing field in which civil society
organizations can compete individually or in consortia.
Funding is of course a critical aspect of work with civil society organizations in partnership. NOMS
supports closer work through a combination of:
•
•
•
•
•

Grants (supported by the NOMS National Grants Programme);
Payment for contracts/service delivery (which may be competed alone or in partnership e.g. withprivate sector);
Donations;
Fund raising;
Other initiatives, including, most recently – Payment By Results.

(c)Volunteering
A Volunteering and Mentoring Network has been set up to promote collaboration between deliveryorganizations and volunteering infrastructure, to encourage diversity and identify good practice, to collate
evidence, and to promote all aspects of volunteering and mentoring to reduce reoffending. The steering group,
chaired by “Volunteering England”, is currently advising on the production of guidance for organizations
involving volunteers and mentors in work with offenders and ex-offenders.
Since March 2009, a Volunteering and Mentoring e-bulletin for organizations working with offenders has
been sent out from CLINKS (see page 148) on a monthly basis to a distribution list of over 2500 organizations
from all sectors.
CLINKS training and resource packs have been further developed. The ‘Volunteering in Prison’ training
pack has been updated and available since September 2008. The ‘Volunteering with Offenders in theCommunity’ training pack has also been updated and includes material on community safety and victim
contact and support. It has been available since January 2009.
The most recent version aims to:
•
•
•
•
•

Promote Volunteering nationally and locally;
Overcome barriers to volunteering;
Improve information e.g. volunteering whilst receiving benefits;
Develop “factsheets” to promote good practice and the revised Compact;
Develop “Peer Mentoring”, including ex-service personnel.

(ii) Other work in Progress
Significant other work in conjunction with the civil society is in progress including in relation to diversion
of offenders with mental health problems, with learning disabilities, which work with women, with black and147

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

ethnic minority groups, and with faith-based organizations. In brief, this work includes:
In response to the Bradley Review on the diversion of offenders with mental health problems or learning
disabilities away from prison , the Government set up a National Advisory Group of third sector representatives,with a third sector chair.
The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) decided that it would not develop a Charteron funding faith-based organizations , but set up a consortium of faith communities to look at religious literacy
training to improve the knowledge and skills of public agencies to work with faith communities. The Ministry’s
Third Sector Team worked with colleagues in CLG and the “Office of the Third Sector” (OTS – a Department
located close to the centre of Government) to support and promote this work in relation to faith-basedorganizations working with offenders and to strengthen the engagement of faith organizations.
The Ministry also commissioned research into the support needs of the women’s organizations and projects
that deliver services to women offenders and those at risk of offending, the aim being to help to identify how tostrengthen support for, and the engagement and sustainability of, the women’s sector in reducing reoffending.
With funding from the Lloyds TSB Foundation and building on previous initiatives, NOMS ran a numberof roundtables to identify key achievable actions that will strengthen diverse Black and Minority Ethnic
third sector voice in reducing reoffending. This included looking at the role of infrastructure and what needs
developing further to strengthen BME sector engagement at all levels.
A review of existing schemes that broker the relationship between third sector organizations and prisonsand probation was put in progress.
2. Civil Society Organizations: Working with Prisons or Probation Services
NOMS works with civil society organizations at national level and locally.

(i) CLINKS
CLINKS , at national level, fulfils an umbrella organization role, supporting other third sector organizations
that work with offenders and their families. Over nine hundred voluntary organizations are responsible formore than two thousand projects that provide services to offenders. CLINKS role includes to:
•
•
•
•
•
•

Promote the work of the VCS;
Provide representation and voice;
Tackle racism and discrimination;
Facilitate effective partnerships;
Increase service user involvement;
Undertake research and development.

As well as supporting civil society, including mentoring organizations, CLINKS estimates that about
three quarters of prisoners would be willing to do voluntary work if it were available. Prisoners provide
an increasingly rich source of volunteers – working as peer mentors sometimes alongside paid or othervoluntary staff. In total, more than seven thousand volunteers contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders
nationally.

(ii) NACRO
NACRO directly delivers a range of services which support the work of other organizations in the public,
private or civil society sectors. Services include:(a) Resettlement consultancy in prisons – working closely with prison governors and other prison staff
to help develop positive regimes with resettlement advice projects.
(b) Resettlement training – regular training courses at the Prison Service College and at individual
prisons, including training prisoners as peer advisers. NACRO has developed specialist training
material, including on dealing with older prisoners and managing money.
(c) The Resettlement Plus Helpline offers information and advice to professionals working with prisoners
and ex-offenders – as well as to individuals and their friends and family members.

148

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS(d) Resettlement Service Finder. This online database holds details of more than 10,000 community
services for ex-offenders, creating a valuable resource for professionals working in the field(e) Resettlement provision in prisons. NACRO runs resettlement advice services in nearly 40 prisons.

(iii) SOVA
“Supporting Others through Volunteer Action” (SOVA) is a leading national volunteer mentoring organization
working with those socially and economically disadvantaged in England and Wales. It delivers more than 60
projects:
•
•
•
•
•

For clients in and leaving the care system;
In the Criminal Justice sector;
For young people on youth offending orders;
For the socially and economically disadvantaged and long-term unemployed;
For refugees and asylum seekers.

(iv) St Giles Trust
The St Giles Trust delivers a range of services to serving prisoners and also following release, including
to short-term prisoners who do not receive statutory support from the probation service. One of the mostinnovative approaches is the Peer Advice Project. This meets demand for advice services amongst the prison
population by using an under-used resource - serving prisoners. It trains serving prisoners to NVQ Level 3
in Information, Advice and Guidance and enables them to help other prisoners by gaining valuable practicalexperience as part of the vocational element of the course.
The course is externally verified by Advice UK and is an excellent way of improving the skills of serving
prisoners and preparing them for employment upon release.
The Peer Advice Project was initially set up to address the high levels of homelessness amongst the prison
population by training serving prisoners to act as housing advisors. However, in some prisons advisors coverother areas such as employment and training opportunities.
Peer Advisors often find that they are regarded as highly credible, trusted sources of support as they
are serving prisoners themselves. This is a real strength of the project and one the St Giles Trust aims toreplicate through our other services. Other prisoners in open prisons undertake the course on day release at
the organizations Head Office in south London.

(v) Free As a Bird
Continuing the theme of peer support, “Free as a Bird” is a project for woman offenders and ex-offenders
in London. The website is for women who have experience of the criminal justice system who can use thewebsite to share thoughts. Peers advise each other on resettlement issues, and pass on practical information,
drawing on the strengths that come from having shared some of the same experiences and found solutions.
Women register with Free As A Bird’s social network to discuss questions around family, housing, money,
health, work and how to get back on their feet. The discussions are in a password protected space only for
women offenders and ex-offenders.

(vi) Prisoners Abroad
Prisoners Abroad addresses the specific needs of British prisoners who are imprisoned abroad. It is asmall, UK-based charity that provides assistance to those affected by imprisonment, and helps ex-prisoners
start a new life free of crime after their release. Prisoners Abroad was formed in 1978 when caseworkers forthe drugs charity Release noticed an increased need for support amongst Britons arrested overseas.
3. Social Enterprises(i) What are Social Enterprises?
Social Enterprises have the following characteristics:•

They are independently constituted businesses, driven by a business agenda, and aiming to meetsocial as well as financial objectives.

149

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84••

They make profits or surpluses that are re-invested into the business to support its social purpose.
They are socially owned and accountable to a wider community through a membership and democratic
structure.

The benefits of social enterprises include cost savings, building links with local communities, innovationand creativity. NOMS research has recently shown that 62% of probation areas are involved in Social
Enterprise (about 40% of them connected with Community Payback). About 53% of Prisons are involved.
However 47% of prisons and 95% of prisons would like to expand that number.

(ii) Examples of Projects operating at Local Level including Social Enterprises
The following provides an indication of the range of civil society and social enterprise projects working
with ex-offenders.
(a) ‘The Clink’ – Catering• ‘The Clink’ is a restaurant at HMP High Down.
• It provides training and employment experience in a high quality restaurant environment.
• Employs 16 serving offenders at any one time as trainees.
• Managed by social enterprise Eco-Actif CIC.
• Profits to pay staff, provide training and qualifications and follow up support.
• Employs ex-prisoners.
(b) Leeds City Credit Union – Financial• Provides access to banking - addressing financial exclusion.
• Includes a simple process involving the prison to overcome the problem of personal identification.
• Operates 500 accounts for prisoners.
• A money management scheme addressing rent arrears, mobile phone contracts and any pre-existingdebt.
(c) HMP Dartmoor Resettlement Unit
• This project is linked with a high profile public garden – the Eden project.
• Prisoners, guided by the staff of the Eden project, have turned unused open space in the prison into
productive vegetable gardens.
• Boxes of vegetables are delivered free of charge to elderly and poor members of local community.
• The project has received many letters of thanks from local people.
(d) Reach – Prinknash Abbey Gardens• This project provides activities to unlock the potential within people who feel socially excluded or
who have committed offences.
•

The project has transformed an ancient abbey garden which had become overgrown. The garden is
now a centre for learning trades and for providing leisure for the members of public or disadvantaged
people.

(e) Inside Job Productions• Trains women on day release from prison in the professional media.
(f) “Cementaprise”• Cementaprise brings together prisons, the probation service, employers, education and employment
services, local authorities and the voluntary sector.
•

Together they support offenders in gaining employment in construction industry.

•

Offenders are able to “taste” a range of trades and to engage in craft training in short manageable
courses, to develop personal skills for employment as well as practical skills and to gain the healthand safety certificates that are a requirement for work in the construction industries.

150147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS(g) “Changing Directions”
High risk offenders will require special attention to ensure the risk they pose is managed. The Changing
Directions initiative provides self-employment opportunities for sex offenders, or those who pose a risk tochildren. The programme involves:•••

Delivery of a prison-based enterprise training programme;
Drawing up of individual business plans;
Development of a small business support network designed to empower beneficiaries to sustain small
businesses.

VII. FUTURE PLANS: 2010 – 2011
There is no doubt that NOMS is at a turning point and this includes in relation to closer involvement withthe community. The priorities of the new Government, very substantial reductions in funding, a different
approach to society, indeed the “Big Society”, increasing awareness of promising developments in otherjurisdictions, and developments at home, including a broadening of “what works” to embrace desistence(strength-based) approaches, to staff engagement skills, and a focus on outcome rather than process, areclear evidence of change.
The latter has led to a trial of “Payment by Results”.
England and Wales continues to have a large prison population in comparison to many other western
European countries, although with signs of stabilization in recent months. Replacing short prison sentenceswith appropriate community sentences has become an aim, as has working more effectively with those who
do receive prison sentences.
This final section of this paper looks at some of these recent developments, including the implications for
closer engagement with communities.

A. The “Big Society”“The Big Society is about a huge culture change, where people, in their everyday lives, in their homes,
neighbourhoods and workplace, don’t always turn to officials or government for answers to the problems
they face, but instead feel both free and powerful enough to help themselves and their own communities.”
Prime Minister David Cameron, Liverpool, 19 July 2010.
The Government summarizes the key messages of the Big Society thus:
•
•
•
•
•

About ‘turning Government on its head’;
Giving increased power to people to solve problems closer to where they live;
More responsive government with a new relationship to a more self-reliant participatory society;Not about ‘doing it on the cheap’ or expecting charities and volunteers to replace the state;
We all have a part to play.

Key themes include Public Service Reform, Social Action and Community Empowerment, to be achieved
by decentralizing power and breaking down the bureaucratic barriers, by making information more transparent,
and by building the capacity of individuals, communities and organizations.
More specifically, in relation to Criminal Justice, the Big Society means:
•
•
•
•
•

Elected Police and Crime Commissioners;
Crime information made more readily and frequently available;
Increasing volunteering opportunities;
Looking at system reform;
Opening up more opportunities for independent organizations to deliver services as part of a ‘rehabilitation
revolution’.

Whilst the Coalition Programme for Justice includes plans to:151

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

•
•
•
•
•

Introduce a ‘rehabilitation revolution’ that will pay independent providers to reduce reoffending, paid
for by the savings this new approach will generate within the criminal justice system;
Conduct a full review of sentencing policy to ensure that it is effective in deterring crime, protecting
the public, punishing offenders and cutting reoffending. In particular, we will ensure that sentencing
for drug use helps offenders come off drugs;
Explore alternative forms of secure, treatment-based accommodation for mentally ill and drug offenders;
Implement the Prisoners’ Earnings Act 1996 to allow deductions from the earnings of prisoners inproperly paid work to be paid into the Victims’ Fund;Introduce effective measures to tackle anti-social behaviour and low-level crime, including forms ofrestorative justice.

The Governments Green Paper on sentencing and Rehabilitation points to:
•
•
•
•
•

“Working Prisons”;
Increased reparation to victims through Restorative Justice, implementing the previous administration’s
Prisoners Earnings Act;
Payment by Results;
Simplifying the Sentencing Framework;
Working with communities to reduce crime, including:“Localism”, creating opportunities for other providers, increasing transparency.

The Green Paper coincides with a new Compact for work between Government and Civil Society whichmakes priorities of a strong, diverse and independent Civil Society; effective and transparent design anddevelopment of policies; responsive and high quality programmes and services; clear arrangements for
managing changes to programmes and services and an equal and fair society.

B. Commissioning
Commissioning continues to be at the centre of the approach. However, commissioning reflects the principlesof the “Big Society”. This means that commissioning will in future involve communities more closely by:•••

Designing services “with” rather than “for” users;
Motivating offenders to become active partners in their own solutions rather than recipients;
Specifying outcomes rather than “what” and “how” a service is delivered.

Commissioning will be underpinned by a programme of Specification, Costing and Benchmarking. The
SBC programme will specify 75 services delivered to offenders, defendants, victims and courts; support
decentralization by specifying “what” but not “how”; and define expected costs if delivered efficiently.

C. Localism
Pilots are looking at how greater visibility of agency budgets locally can facilitate more effective spending.
1. Total Place
Total Place adopts an approach to community engagement which allows local organizations to work together
in partnership to establish needs and priorities. They look at all the money spent and have permission toorganize to deliver services according to their own priorities to achieve the best results and value. Pilots
include work on offender management, substance misuse and employment.
2. Community Budgets
Community Budgets are going a step further and piloting, in 16 areas, pooled community budgets from
April 2011. Community budgets will focus on families with complex needs, including justice.

D. Intensive Partnerships to Reduce Reoffending
These approaches adopt intensive partnerships to bring agencies together to divert offenders from custody(replacing short prison sentences with community alternatives).

152

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

1. Intensive Alternatives to Custody
Intensive Alternative to Custody projects work closely with courts. They may combine community service
work (delivered at an accelerated rate), electronic monitoring, group work programmes, and police surveillance,
the aim being to divert offenders from custodial sentences.
2. Integrated Offender Management
Designed for persistent high risk offenders, this approach involves intensive joint management and rehabilitationof offenders, delivered by a range of statutory and civil society partners. Work is aligned with local criminal
justice agencies plans and addresses gaps. The London Diamond project, for example, includes police, local
authorities and others delivering voluntary support after prison. The project is showing remarkable impact onreoffending rates.

E. Offender Engagement and Professional Judgement Projects
Both projects are taking professional discretion closer to the “front line”.
1. Offender Engagement ProjectThis project acknowledges that the one-to-one relationship is an important factor in change. It builds ondesistence evidence, increasing the quantity and quality of contact time between offenders and probation
officers. Aims include to reduce bureaucracy, place time on front line staff, and to support the offender inbeing active in determining the focus of work. Staff have discretion on the amount of contact they have withoffenders.
2. Professional Judgement Project
The project is piloting a new Probation Performance Framework which reduces the number of targets by
50%. The aims include to avoid over-prescription, to allow the right approach, by the right person, at the righttime.
The expectation is that pilots will roll out nationally from 2011. They have already demonstrated a dramatic
reduction in data collected and provided to the centre, and are delivering improved responsiveness at reduced
costs.

F. Payment by Results
The Social Impact Bond, delivered at Peterborough Prison, is a pilot involving a private provider of prisons,two civil society organizations and a number of social financers, backed by the Government.
The project involves a six year Bond and will involve three cohorts each of one thousand short term
prisoners. Five million pounds of external funding initially pays for services, most of the money coming fromsocial investors. Work is delivered by proven civil society Providers (the YMCA and St Giles Trust) who
offer intensive intervention before and after release from prison. Services include housing, employment,
drugs advice, and financial advice.
The payment by results funding model means that the pilot must reduce reoffending by at least 7.55%.
If not, investors do not receive a return on their investment. A reduction of 7.5% – 10% means thatinvestors receive the cost of services delivered from the Government. A 10% or more reduction means thatinvestors will receive up to £3m return on their investment. In this initial pilot, lottery funding is providing
some capital. However the overall aim of the model is that savings at local level resulting from reduced
reoffending fund the delivery of service.
The aim is a “Win-Win” situation which reinforces reward for positive results, using investment where
it counts, and involves all sections of society in working towards the common goals of safer societies, fewer
victims, and increased prosperity, social inclusion and well-being.

153

PARTICIPANTS’
PAPERSRESOURCE
MATERIAL SERIES
No.84
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN OFFENDER TREATMENTCOUNTRY REPORT – BOTSWANA

Keamogetse Letsatle*

I. INTRODUCTION
Rehabilitation and restoration of the offender have over the years superseded safe custody and security
in becoming the most important aspects of the offender’s experience in prison. Offender treatment has
become a strong focus and it is used to target factors that interact to increase the likelihood of the offender
engaging in criminal activity. The type of community one grows up in, or is a part of, is regarded as a risk
factor for an offender’s initial crime or recidivism, although it is not a straightforward connection. Even
more influential to the criminogenic factors is the individual’s immediate social environment (family, school,
neighbourhood, etc).
These factors, when considered, indicate clearly that there is a need to include the community in theprocess of rehabilitating the offender. The community can be a very important resource in the treatmentof the offender and there is abundant information that shows that they can be a significant catalyst in
the altering of the offender’s character and criminal ways. Botswana as a country recognizes all of theabove, but as this paper will show, actions to incorporate this knowledge into the offender rehabilitation
programmes by the criminal justice system have been extremely slow. To start the discussion though, thepaper will give a brief history of offender rehabilitation in Botswana (most of it will concentrate on the prison
system as that is currently where most of the rehabilitation work is done). Then it will outline community
involvement in Botswana, including the successes and the challenges. The paper will also discuss how thechallenges to community involvement in the treatment of the offender can be addressed.

II. BRIEF HISTORY
The Botswana Prison Service (BPS) introduced rehabilitation as part of its core mandate in 1979 when
it realized that the heavy emphasis on safe custody and security was not yielding desired results in terms of
curbing and preventing further crimes by offenders. Similar to other prisons in the world (but perhaps a little
behind the times) the department was moving away from being punitive, to ensuring that the offender was
rehabilitated through psychosocial treatment, education and training in various skills.
Different professionals were introduced to the BPS to offer vocational training to the offenders toequip them with a means of taking care of themselves after release from prison. The next year (1980)
professionals from sectors including Social Work, Chaplaincy, Health and Adult Education were also
introduced. These professionals were responsible for ensuring that on release from prison, offenders would
be changed people, no longer interested in criminal activities and also able to provide for themselves andtheir families utilizing the trade skills that they learnt while incarcerated.
The programmes introduced by these professionals have grown, but despite having the highest numberof professionals, the Prisoner Administration and Rehabilitation Office (PARO) is facing many challenges.
These include shortage of skilled staff which results in the use of unskilled manpower, high attrition, pooror lack of facilities and poor funding. The Division therefore struggles to offer rehabilitation programmes tooffenders.

* Coordinator, Psychology Unit, Botswana Prison Service, Ministry of Justice, Defence and Security.

154

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

III. CURRENT SITUATION OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN OFFENDER TREATMENT
The government agencies that make up the criminal justice system in Botswana were previously locatedin different Ministries but have been all recently moved into one Ministry (Ministry of Justice, Defence andSecurity). The BPS, which was previously under the Ministry of Labour and Home Affairs, has been the
major stakeholder in offender treatment as most sentences in Botswana are custodial. Given this background,community involvement in offender treatment for Botswana has been a serious challenge for the criminal
justice system. Generally, there is a culture of ‘‘out of sight, out of mind,’’ and Batswana have been satisfied
with knowing that an offender had been arrested, tried, and given a custodial sentence. (A situation that has
seen the country have the third highest rate per 100,000 of its incarcerated population (Tkatchuk, 2003)). The
public (it would seem) believed that offenders were getting their just desserts and trusted that the BPS would
do their job with no interference/assistance from them. This attitude from the public was supported or rather
perpetuated by the guarded culture that the BPS has had in the past. The department emphasized Security and
Safe Custody over Rehabilitation . Safe Custody and Security were perceived as more important because, as it
has popularly stated “who will you rehabilitate if the prisoners are not there or have escaped” . The emphasis
on security often meant that the community was kept out of all activities carried out by the department as it
was believed that any involvement could lead to a security breach.
The environment described above had an impact on the BPS’s ability to engage the community in theprocess of rehabilitating the offender. This however did not deter everyone in the community as there
was still a small number who were determined to assist the prison service. These were mostly religiousorganizations and associations, though there were individuals that have become involved in offender
treatment.
In the past two years, the department has seen a dramatic change in the community’s level of involvementin the treatment of offenders. This change can be attributed to the current Commissioner Colonel Silas
Motlalekgosi, who values the important role that the community can play in helping the department rehabilitate
offenders. Commissioner Motlalekgosi strongly believes that Rehabilitation and Reintegration are just as
important as Safe Custody and Security and this has influenced the current focus on community involvement
in offender rehabilitation. This has seen a paradigm shift in the department where there has been an effort toequalize all the support (e.g. management support for projects, funding, infrastructure, lobbying for politicalsupport etc.) given to aspects of the BPS’s mandate. The Commissioner has started with lobbying the Bogosi ,1private businesses, non-governmental organizations and faith-based organizations as well as artists, athletes andother individuals that are seen as key stakeholders. The Commissioner has held a series of events (breakfast
meetings, Kgotla2 meetings etc.) that were aimed at sensitizing the community to the needs of the department.
The BPS has started a strong campaign in the community targeting all stakeholders, including those
who are deemed especially important to the rehabilitation and reintegration process. In fact, stakeholder
involvement has become an important part of the department’s strategic plan for 2010-2016 (Botswana
Prison Service 2010). The Strategic objective P1 states that “The Botswana Prison Service will strengthen
partnership with the communities, volunteers and other stakeholders in order to provide coordinatedsupervision of programmes” (Botswana Prison Service 2010). Another strategic objective P3 statesthat “Botswana Prison Service will improve communication in order to strengthen partnership with thecommunity, volunteers, and other stakeholders to intensify effective and efficient two way communication”(Botswana Prison Service 2010). These strategic objectives clearly indicate that the department is dedicatedto the involvement of the community in its treatment programmes for offenders.
The Prisoner Administration and Rehabilitation Office (PARO) Division, as the spearhead of rehabilitation
efforts, is committed to ensuring community involvement in its programmes, as evidenced by its plans
to introduce case management and restorative justice to the department. Case management will help the
department determine the individualized needs of the offender and therefore make it easier for us to determine
the areas in which the community can assist us. On the other hand, taking a restorative justice stance willallow the department (and the criminal justice system as a whole) to start involving victims in the treatment ofoffenders. Victim and offender reconciliation is an area that the country is lagging behind in but the department
1 “Bogosi” is a Setswana word referring to the chieftainship. Botswana has been very successful in including its chieftainshipin the Criminal Justice System.
2 “Kgotla” is where Chiefs hold their meetings and “Kgotla” meeting refers to a public meeting.

155

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

is determined to incorporate it into its programmes.
To ensure that this happens, the PARO Division is in the process of devising a new rehabilitation policythat will make community involvement an integral part of its rehabilitation programmes (PARO, 2010). The
BPS is planning to introduce a rehabilitation system that allows for individualized plans for each offenderthat will start from initial contact with the prison to time of release. With this will be the introduction of casemanagement, restorative justice and aftercare. At the heart of all these strategies is the idea of involving thecommunity as the department has realized that rehabilitation efforts have a better chance of succeeding if
the community is involved.

A. Examples of Community Involvement in Offender Treatment
1. Religious Community
Religious groups in Botswana (especially the predominant Christians) have been providing assistance forthe treatment of offenders. Churches not only visit the prisons to hold regular services but also provide forother needs that the offenders may have, such as spiritual counselling, clothing and toiletries for those whohave no or little family support, and also connecting with the families of the offenders to offer them support
as well. Recently we have had churches donate television sets to the prisons along with satellite dishes sothat they can access free channels. Pastor Justine of World Community Counselling Centre donated eight
television sets and eight DVD players while the Seventh Day Adventist Church donated television sets anddecoders to all the prisons in the country (Chaplains Unit, 2009). This has enabled the offenders to watch
personal growth channels that cater to their spiritual needs as well as provide much-needed entertainment.
The Christian Fellowship has also been very active in visiting prisons and providing spiritual counsellingto the prisoners. One of the members (Pastor Tonic) has started an after-care programme for ex-offenders
that provides follow-up services. There is also Pastor Reddly in Palapye in the Central District who
conducts services at Serowe New Prison (Chaplains Unit, 2010). Pastor Reddly has also started a gardening
programme for ex-offenders by providing land where the ex-offenders can grow their own vegetables tosell and feed their families. These services that are provided by the community have greatly helped as thedepartment has not yet established after-care programmes for ex-offenders.
2. Industries and Vocational Training
Vocational training has been slow in coming up with programmes to assist prisoners in using these skills tocreate jobs for themselves and other Batswana once they complete their sentences. Community involvementin this regard has also been sparse with only a few private companies and individuals offering their assistance.
Examples are Line Feed (Upholstery) and Western Furniture (Carpentry) which hire ex-offenders in theirworkshops. The Department has however realized that unemployment and low socioeconomic status are ahuge risk factor for recidivism. To address this problem, the department is in the process of introducing the‘Kick-Start3’ programme. The aim of the programme is to assist offenders who have been released from prisonby allowing them the use of prison workshops, providing them with materials for production. Ex-offenders will
be encouraged to use the facilities and materials supplied to make some money so that they can eventually
start their own businesses. The department has also engaged other government agencies that offer financial
assistance and training to help by coming up with packages that will assist the ex-offenders in setting up theirown businesses. This programme will also be encouraging the community to help where they can by theirfacilities available to ex-offenders (e.g. vocational training centres and brigades).
3. Social Welfare
The Social Welfare Unit is responsible for liaising with local authorities to ensure that offenders are offeredassistance after release and to ensure continuity of care for those that have been receiving treatment. For
instance, ten prisoners received clemency from the president at the beginning of the year. All these offenders
had served long sentences (all had served over 20 years) and had participated in the rehabilitation programmes
and responded well to the treatment programmes. Offenders were, upon their release, handed over to theirlocal Kgosi ,4 social worker, health authorities, and families. This was done to ensure that these offenders would
reintegrate well into their communities, which was expected. Prison Social Workers who visit them monthly
3 The Kick-Start programme started as a response to President Lieutenant General Seretse Khama Ian Khama’s plea forgovernment departments to improve service delivery. The programme is in the planning stages and is currently awaiting approval
from the Ministry of Finance and the Attorney General’s Chambers.
4 “Chief” in the Setswana language.

156

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

have found that these offenders are settling well and getting a lot of assistance from the community.
4. Health
Health is a big problem in Botswana as the country is one of those most affected by HIV and AIDS with aprevalence rate of 17%. Prisons have also been affected and have a prevalence rate of 14% (Health Unit Annual
Report). Tebelopele5 has been assisting the service and comes once a week to provide HIV counselling andtesting for inmates and officers. According to the Health Unit Annual Report (2008/2009), of the 2,586 people
that received counselling, 1,909 agreed to be tested for HIV. Of this number only 272 tested positive for HIV.
This has made it easier for the Health Unit (in collaboration with the Ministry of Health) to offer antiretroviraltherapy to prisoners.
The Health Unit has also been successful in engaging the family of offenders with HIV and AIDS in theircare. It introduced a Home Based Care programme for offenders who terminally ill. In this programme theinmate is handed over to their family so that they can look after them at home. The prison health staff andsocial worker continue to look after the offender by doing home visits to offer the family support in looking
after them. Care for offenders who are HIV positive continues after they are released as the health workers
ensure that they are referred to community health services so that they can continue their treatment.
5. Young Offenders
Juvenile offenders (14 to 18 years) in Botswana are generally not given prison sentences but despite
this there is one juvenile detention centre, located in Molepolole (Ikago Centre). The centre is operated
by the Department of Social Services and caters for young offenders between the ages of 14 and 18. These
young offenders are given vocational skills while receiving psychosocial assistance from social workers.
Unfortunately this facility only caters for male offenders and thus, female offenders do not have any
custodial facility.
Other juvenile offenders are given probation instead of being sent to Ikago Centre and are placed under
the care of probation and after-care officers in the Department of Social Services. The probation officer
liaises with community service providers such as psychologists and social workers as well as other youth
organizations to ensure that the juveniles get the necessary assistance.
All other young offenders above the age of 18 are generally sent to Moshupa Boys Prison6 (again there isno female equivalent). This prison has a number of challenges such as shortage of staff and poor rehabilitation
resources (including facilities, materials and infrastructure). Fortunately, we have the support of Boikhutso
Khubamang, a young professional boxer who has been engaged with the department for a few years now.
Mr. Khubamang helps the boys’ development, not only with boxing skills, but also by engaging otherprofessionals in programmes to develop music skills, entrepreneurial skills and even to provide mentoring
and counselling (Mr. Khubamang in a private conversation, 2010). He has also engaged other local agencies
such as the Local Entrepreneurial Agency, and the Citizen Entrepreneurial and Development Agency to helpin empowering the young boys with business skills as well as funding (upon release). The department is fullyusing Mr. Khubamang’s services and he has recently embarked on a roadshow funded by the Ministry ofYouth, Sports and Culture that allowed him to extend his service to other prisons in the country. The roadshow
started with prisons in the northern region of the country and included boxing matches and music from local
artists and the local entrepreneurial services that will be available to the offenders. In the next year the roadshow will be taken to other prisons in the southern region.
6. Publicity
The public relations office has been very active in trying to engage the community in the treatment
of offenders. The unit has been participating in a number of talk shows on the national television channel(Botswana Television), and has also been engaging with various stakeholders to teach them about theimportance of taking part in offender rehabilitation. The Commissioner of Prisons, Col. S. Motlalekgosi, hasalso started a project titled “Working with the Community to Empower the Offender” (Organising Committee
Draft Report, 2010). The aim is to sensitize the community to offender rehabilitation and treatment needs by
5 Tebelopele is a non-governmental organization that provides voluntary counselling and testing for HIV.

6 Moshupa Boys prison started operating in 2009. Before then there was a boys prison in the capital Gaborone but this has
since been turned into an adult facility.

157

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

showing them that even during imprisonment, offenders are still part of the community and therefore deserve
some compassion, assistance and acceptance. The project aims to involve local artists, businesses, and civilsociety in general to highlight to the community that it is imperative that offenders be transformed into better
citizens before they go back to society. It is also aimed at improving the inmates’ chances of reintegration backinto society once released from prison. In Botswana it has been observed that some offenders deliberately
commit crimes so that they can go back to prison where they are sure of care and this makes this project
absolutely essential. It is also hoped that the project will promote reconciliation and reconnection of prisoners
with the society by engaging the community in interventions that will improve the attitudes, and (criminal)
behaviour of the offenders.

B. Challenges
Rehabilitation and reintegration are a serious challenge for the BPS. As stated before, the nation of
Botswana has historically had an “out of sight, out of mind” mentality to those who enter the prison system.
The nation however is not the only stumbling block in this endeavour as the department has challenges thatare idiosyncratic to it. The organizational culture (which emphasizes a paramilitary leadership) is a serious
challenge to rehabilitation in Botswana. According to a needs assessment by Tkachuk and Mason in 2003,
this culture is a hindrance in engaging the community and other stakeholders. This culture makes it hard forthe community to trust the department.
The reserved culture has also made it difficult for the community to know about BPS’s rehabilitation
efforts and is therefore making it hard for them to believe offenders are capable of change. This issue has
also contributed to the poor reintegration of offenders as the community is not willing to assist them byhiring, accommodating, or even believing that they have been rehabilitated. The media has also been aproblem as they tend to run only negative articles about the department or offenders, thus making thecommunity fear them.
Poor coordination within the department has also been a problem as there have previously been noprocedures or policy to guide the process of community involvement. This left the department vulnerable
to losing potential partners, as well as in some cases, being exploited by partners. Additionally, correctional
facilities are not a top priority for governments and are therefore poorly funded (as compared to other criminal
justice departments) and this is no different in Botswana. Lack of funds has often resulted in the few membersof the community that were concerned with helping offenders losing interest because of the lack of funds.
There has also a serious problem of shortage of skilled manpower as well as poor deployment of therehabilitation staff. Lack of human capital has meant that some of the programmes that were meant torehabilitate offenders have been poorly executed. It has also meant that there has been no office that was
directly concerned with the involvement of the community and other stakeholders.
Legislation has also been a problem in Botswana as we do not have any statutes that support offender
rehabilitation. For instance, we do not have legislation that allows for community service sentences. This
could be one way of showing the public that not all offenders are dangerous and that they can be of service tothe community. The section that talks about rehabilitation in the Prisons Act (ss. 90-91, Botswana Prisons’Act 2000) is very short and vague. It does not talk about any form of rehabilitation in any specific terms andmerely states that they will be given training and treatment. There is no mention in the Act of engaging thecommunity. It must be stated for the record that the BPS is currently in the process of changing the PrisonsAct.

C. Way Forward
The BPS has undergone a shift in the way it perceives offender treatment and has over the past two
years made changes that signify its commitment to offender rehabilitation that is not only effective, butinvolves the community. To address the challenges that it is facing (e.g. staff shortage, poor deployment,etc.) the department has revised its organizational structure7 and the new structure will be supportive of all
rehabilitation efforts, including community involvement. However there is still some work that needs to bedone to make this a reality, including:
7 The organizational structure is awaiting approval by parliament before it is implemented.

158

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS•

Rebranding to improve the organization’s image and reputation in the community.

•

Improving the department’s policies and procedures to make it conducive to community involvement.

•

Benchmarking with other countries (especially African and other developing countries) that haveachieved community inclusion in their rehabilitation of offenders.

•

Legislating to allow for community sentences and community-based rehabilitation.

•

Increasing funding of all rehabilitation programmes.

•

Collaborating with civil society to start halfway houses and other community-based treatment
facilities.

•

Increasing public awareness efforts aimed at engaging the community in offender treatment, especially
utilizing the print and broadcast media.

•

Government policies in general need to be changed, e.g. the BPS and the Department of Social Services
policies that target offenders need to be aligned so that there is no duplication of duties or any blind
spots.

IV. CONCLUSION
Community involvement in the treatment of offenders is no doubt very important to the outcome of therehabilitation efforts of the prison service. The Botswana Prison Service recognizes this issue and is making
efforts to incorporate it into its operations. There are however many challenges to this as has been discussed
in the paper and a lot of effort is going to be needed for community involvement to become a reality. There ishope however, as the department has a strong management that is committed to offender treatment in general.
As discussed in the paper the strategic foundations of the department clearly indicate this. There is a strong
belief that in the next few years, Botswana society will know that offenders do not cease being a part of thecommunity when they are sent to prison. The community will be made to see that when offenders see thecommunity believing in them and assisting them then change becomes easier and more enduring.

159

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

REFERENCES
Botswana Prison Service (2010). Draft Strategic Plan: 2010-2016 . Ministry of Justice, Defence andSecurity.
Chaplains Unit, (2009). Botswana Prison Service Annual Health Report . Ministry of Justice, Defence andSecurity.
Health Unit (2009). Botswana Prison Service Annual Health Report . Ministry of Justice, Defence andSecurity.
Internal Organising Committee (2010). Draft Committee Report Community Involvement in Offender
rehabilitation . Botswana Prison Service. Ministry of Justice, Defence and Security.
Khubamang B. (2010) A private conversation, 8 November 2010.
Prisoner Administration and Rehabilitation Office (2010). Botswana Prison Service Draft Rehabilitation
Policy . Ministry of Justice Defence and Security.
Prison Act, (2000). Laws of Botswana Chapter 21:03 . Government of Botswana.
Tkachuk B. & Mason B. (2003). Needs Assessment Report: Botswana Prisons and Service . International
Centre for Criminal Law and Reform and Criminal Justice Policy, Vancouver.

160

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’
PAPERSPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERSCOMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT IN OFFENDER TREATMENT:
COUNTRY REPORT – JAMAICA

Joyce Stone*

I. INTRODUCTION
Jamaica, like many developing countries, is faced with its own challenges. Noted among them are highunemployment, a weak economy and high incidences of crime. However, violent crimes have become oneof the most pressing concerns for Jamaicans. It has had a negative impact on all spheres of society and has
been cited as a significant factor in the low levels of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) recorded by Jamaica
over the years. (Vision 2030 Jamaica/National Development Plan, p. 99) The tentacles of crime, which claw
their way into every community, negatively affect every individual, either directly or indirectly, and present avalid argument in support of community involvement in the treatment of offenders.
Jamaica’s National Development Plan gives consideration to the multiplicity of complex issues surrounding
national security, particularly the relationship between law enforcement agencies and communities. The
strategies outlined in the plan propose to reform and modernize the law enforcement system, and to strengthen
the capacity of communities to participate in creating a safe and secure environment. The aim is to foster
greater collaboration among civil society, the private sector and government in implementing and financing thestrategies (Extract, Vision 2030).
This paper will: present a brief overview of the Department of Correctional Services and prisons in Jamaica;
attempt to explain the current situation of community involvement in offender treatment; outline the possible
field of services in which the community can be involved; and propose realistic measures which can be utilized
to increase community involvement in the treatment of offenders.

II. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
The Department of Correctional Services (Jamaica) is an arm of the Ministry of National Security and was bornout of the amalgamation of the prison services, juvenile facilities and probation unit in 1975. The Department isheaded by a Commissioner, whose responsibility is to ensure that government’s policy directions for convicted
offenders are effectively carried out. He is assisted by a Deputy Commissioner for Custodial Services and a
Deputy Commissioner for Human Resource/Community Services. The Mission Statement of the department
is a key reminder of the tasks to be accomplished and reads thus: “To contribute to the safety and protection ofsociety by keeping offenders secure and facilitating their rehabilitation and reintegration as law abiding citizens,
while developing a professional and committed staff.”
The Department of Correctional Services is guided by: The Corrections Act, The Child Care and Protection
Act, The Parole Act, and the amended Criminal Justice (Reform) Act which gives legal powers to courts forCommunity Sentencing. There are 16 probation offices, eight adult institutions and four juvenile facilities
in Jamaica. Correctional facilities are classified according security level: maximum, medium and low. The
present prison population averages approximately 4,560 inmates daily, with only a small number of females
incarcerated.
A review of prison conditions in Jamaica will reveal excessive overcrowding, a large number of inmates
who are uneducated and unskilled, limited educational and vocational training programmes for inmates, old* Superintendent, Department of Correctional Services, Ministry of Justice, Jamaica.

161

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

and deteriorating physical structures, staff shortages and dwindling financial resources.
As custodians of offenders, custodial managers are cognizant that most, if not all, inmates in correctional
facilities will one day return to open society. Therefore, it is important that the bond between correctional
institutions and the community remains strong and unbroken for the successful rehabilitation and eventual
reintegration of inmates into open society.

III. CURRENT SITUATION OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENTIN OFFENDER TREATMENT
Community involvement in Jamaica during the past was usually limited to contributions of cash and kindwhich supported the welfare needs of inmates and the provision of vocational and educational training. However,in recent years there has been an increase in the number of organizations and individuals who are volunteering
their time and skills towards the treatment of offenders.
Community contributions can be classified into three broad areas: educational/vocational training, welfare
needs, and purposeful activities. The main contributors who support the government’s effort towards thetreatment of offenders are the private sector and nongovernmental organizations, international organizations,religious and faith-based groups, individual volunteers and family members of convicted inmates.

A. Family Units Providing Emotional and Physical Support
The family unit is recognized as one of the strongest pillars of the support system in penal facilities,
and cannot be overlooked, because of the emotional and physical support it provides for the treatment ofoffenders. Family visits are regular and are significantly increased during holiday seasons. Although no
research has been carried out in our penal facilities, it is noted that inmates who receive consistent family
support general show improved behaviour and are the least likely to reoffend.
Increased family involvement is encouraged through the hosting of bi-annual ‘Family Days’ on the groundsof some institutions. This provides the opportunity for incarcerated inmates to interact and bond with theirchildren, a situation which otherwise would not be allowed.
Research by: Hairston (1988: 1991), Dowden and Andrews (1999), Slaght (1999), have pointed to theimportance of family support and its positive impact on individuals, during and after incarceration. According
to Harriston (2001), questions are being raised about the impact of imprisonment on children and families
and the extent to which families might be resources and assets, rather than liabilities, in promoting safer,
resourceful communities.

B. Private Sector and Non-governmental Organizations’ Involvement
Members of private sector organizations give much needed, but limited, contributions towards treatment
of offenders. Many correctional institutions are located in urban areas in the midst of big businesses, whereneeds are quite visible. However, only a few private sector organizations contribute in any meaningful way
to the treatment of offenders. The level of contributions from the private sector may be influenced by thehigh incidences of violent crimes committed by offenders and its adverse effects on society.
Total contributions from external stakeholders in 2007 was valued at JA$32,791,525. Donations are usuallyof kind, such as food items, hygiene kits, computer equipment and bedding.
1. Inmates’ Public Work Programme
One area of community involvement that receives some support from the private sector is the Inmates’
Public Work Programme, dubbed ‘Highway 2000’ . The programme utilizes the skills of inmates to maintainthe aesthetic appeal of public spaces. Teams of inmates are tasked with maintaining one of the country’s
major highways, and the National Heroes Park, where the remains of some of Jamaica’s national heroes andformer Prime Ministers are laid to rest. Due to the success of the programme it was extended in 2007 to
five of the country’s fourteen parishes.
The inmates’ work programme not only provides meaningful activities for inmates, but it also creates anopportunity for them to give back to the community. While a vacuum exists for greater contribution from the162

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

private sector, the support for the programme is viewed as a step in the right direction.
2. Food for the Poor – Donations, and Provision of Housing and Welfare
Contributions from non-governmental organizations towards offender treatment are significant. Of theJA$32,791,525 mentioned above, JA$29,274,178 was donated by the non-profit organization, Food for the Poor
(DCS Annual Report, 2007). It is to be noted that the overall amount indicated above does not capture the total
assistance provided by Food for the Poor.
In addition, Food for the Poor provides assistance to ex-prisoners to assist in their reintegration. Assistanceis given in the form of housing structures, tools and equipment. Except for rehabilitation grants provided bygovernment, which will be mentioned later, Food for the Poor is the only organization which provides welfare
support to ex-offenders.
3. Athletes – Sports as a Vehicle for Change
The use of cricket to help disadvantaged children turn away from a life of crime was first conceived by
Mr. Mikey Thompson, a Jamaican cricket coach who grew up in North London. It was introduced into theprisons by the Courtney Walsh Foundation in 2009. Courtney Walsh was a successful fast bowler on theWest Indies Cricket Team and is one of cricket’s stalwarts. He and his team conduct coaching clinics forinmates at the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre. Certificates are issued to inmates who successfullycomplete the programme, and those who have excelled have been recruited by cricket clubs upon theirrelease.
4. Students Expressing Truth – Capacity Building
Students Expressing Truth (SET) is the brainchild of Mr. Kevin Wallen, a motivational speaker. The concept
is geared towards channelling inmates’ capacity and leadership skills into purposeful activities, while moulding
them into becoming responsible citizens. It was first introduced at the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre
and has since been expanded to the Fort Augusta and St. Catherine Adult Correctional Centres and Rio Cobre
Juvenile Facility.
The SET programme involves a group of inmates who are selected from among their peers to be rolemodels for the wider prison population. The group is closely supervised by correctional officers and acoordinator who provides guidance and support. A Board is appointed and committees formed to manage
the group’s activities. A popular committee established at all institutions is the Sports Committee whichorganizes competitions such as domino, netball and in-house football. SET members meet once monthly andat each session a topical issue is discussed. Members are given training in peer counselling, mediation andconflict resolution.
The SET programme at the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre also operates the FREE FM (Fostering
Rehabilitation, Education and Entertainment) Radio Station which is aired within the confines of the institution,
but can heard on the worldwide web. The radio station disseminates useful information and provides healthy
and responsible entertainment for the general population.
5. Religious Volunteers
The chaplaincy unit was established as a support service in the Department of Correctional Services
and as a means of broadening its scope to achieve a more effective and efficient rehabilitation programme.
In addition to the provision of counselling and spiritual nurturing, chaplains assist custodial managers tocoordinate activities of church groups and other faith-based organizations.
Religious volunteers give significant contribution to the treatment of offenders through spiritual counsellingand provision of welfare items to the neediest of inmates. Regular religious services are conducted by local
church groups, and in 2007, 65 inmates from five institutions responded to the (Christian) Gospel throughwater baptism.

C. International Cooperation
1. Multi-faceted Approach by the Department for Individual Development, the UK
The Department for International Development (DFID), a department of the UK government, has taken
a multi-faceted approach to offender treatment and is currently facilitating developmental training courses

163

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

and seminars for persons working in the department.
Beneficiaries of the courses include Administrators from the department’s head office, Probation Aftercare
Officers and Senior Correctional Officers. One of the main areas of training is the International Standards for
the Treatment of Prisoners to which Jamaica is a signatory at the United Nations Convention. In addition todevelopmental courses, the organization is improving the infrastructural capacity of the department to make it
more effective.
DFID also funded repairs to buildings. Correctional personnel benefited from a refurbished staff collegewith an improved environment more conducive to learning. Skill areas for inmates were expanded andretooled, the hostel, which is a halfway home for inmates was refurbished, and a visitors’ waiting area wasbuilt at the Tower Street Adult Correctional Centre.
2. ‘Hush the Gun’ - Combining Literacy with Skills Training‘Hush the Gun’ is a behaviour modification programme sponsored by The Canadian International Development
Agency (CIDA). It is aimed at quieting the guns in violent communities and was introduced at the Tower Street
Adult Correctional Centre in 2007. The programme targets illiterate and unskilled inmates and combines literacy
and skill training to equip inmates for the job market upon their release. The programme is being supplementedby Springboard, a component of DFID.

D. Volunteerism Helping to Improve Accountability
A team of volunteers from a wide cross section of society offers their services in time and effort aimed
at ensuring transparency and accountability in correctional institutions. These volunteers are appointed tocommittees referred to as the Board of Visitors and are legislated by the Corrections (Board of Visitors)
Regulations, 1991 to inspect correctional facilities (juvenile/adult), and to hear and intervene into complaints
made by inmates. Annual reports are then submitted to the Minister of National Security.
Judges and magistrates are also encouraged to make at least one yearly visit to penal facilities, but thisrarely happens.

E. Consultative Approach in Decision Making
The community services unit within the Department of Correctional Services deals expressly with
community corrections. The unit supervises offenders who are given non-custodial sentences to reduce
reoffending, thereby assisting offenders’ integration into society. Parole Aftercare Officers attached to theunit investigate and prepare Social Enquiry Reports for Courts and Parole Board, prior to a sentencing
hearing or parole consideration.
Community responses form an integral part of Social Enquiry Reports and require community participation
in a consultative capacity. Information supplied by the community includes: victim’s views about the crimecommitted and feelings toward the offender, attitude and behaviour of offender prior to incarceration, andlikelihood of the offender reoffending if he returns to society. Participation of community members in thisdecision-making process can also be a means of encouraging community members to exert social pressure toencourage ex-offenders to conform to acceptable standards.
Figures taken from the Department of Corrections Annual Report, 2008 shows a total of 8,451 reports
completed in 2008, a 9.2% increase over the previous year.

F. Community Service Order
Community Service Orders (CSO) given to non-violent offenders provide an alternative to custodial
sentencing and require fewer resources. The cost to government is significantly lower to maintain noncustodial clients when compared to custodial clients. With already dwindling financial resources, savings
can be diverted towards rehabilitation programmes. Figures show that in the year 2008 to 2009 it cost the
government approximately JA$776,723 less per annum to maintain each non-custodial client (DCS Annual
Report, 2008 p. 15).

164

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

Table 1

Inmates$863,786.50 per annum

Juveniles$764,286.68 per annum

Remandees$570,323.52 per annum

Non Custodial Clients$87,063.77 per annum

Cost of Maintaining Custodial and Non-Custodial Clients: 2008 − 2009

“Many offenders, including those who are drug addicted, may be dealt with in a more efficient, humane andeconomic manner” (Day, 2007). A CSO is multi-faceted as it holds offenders accountable for the harm they
have caused to the community; provides communities with human resources that can improve the quality oflife in public environments; and helps offenders develop new skills through supervised work activities. CSOs
assist the ‘at-risk’ juvenile population into becoming productive citizens and living a more meaningful life. It isalso well suited in preventing first time offenders from being admitted to correctional institutions and coming
into contact with so-called ‘hardened’ criminals, as well as the reduction of recidivism.
In 2007, 793 Community Service Orders were issued by the courts in Jamaica (DCS Annual Report, 2007).

IV. POSSIBLITIES AND OBSTACLES
A. Possible Fields of Services in which the Community can be Involved
1. Introduction of Advisory Committees
A number of jurisdictions, including Australia and Canada, introduced advisory and consultative committees
to develop and foster links with the local community on a range of matters, or to build community links andaddress public concerns with respect to prison security and prison management. (Record of the 20th APCCA).
It was reported that this approach reaped success; therefore it could be further examined by the Jamaican
government with a view to having retired senior managers from DCS volunteering their services on the board.
Former employees of the Department are recommended because of their wealth of experience and as a meansof exercising quality control.
2. Extending Social Agencies Assistance
The successful reintegration of offenders into society is sometimes hampered by lack of social support
systems. As a means of social investment, social welfare organizations should extend the benefits of the
National Health Fund and PATH Programme to offenders upon the first six months of their release.
3. Certification of Training Programmes
A large number of incarcerated inmates are from a low socio-economic background, uneducated and unskilled.
Programmes of rehabilitation in confined environments must be geared towards assisting offenders in improving
their social status in life. Using a popular adage, “teach a man to fish, and feed him for life – give him a fish, andfeed him for a day” .
Educational programmes and skills training offered in the institution include, but are not limited to, computer
courses, carpentry, welding and woodwork. The certification of candidates upon successful completion of thecourses will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of these training programmes. Certification, though not an
end in itself, offers that important link to improving offenders’ marketability, thereby increasing their chances in
the job market. Collaboration between DCS and the Human Education and Resource Training/National Training
Academy (HEART/NTA) provides such an opportunity.
4. The Role of the MediaThe role of the media is critical to information sharing and should be harnessed as a partner in the rehabilitation
process, and in helping to change public perception. However, managers of Correctional Services must also
develop marketing strategies that can assist in changing public attitudes towards offenders.

165

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

B. Obstacles to Community Involvement
1. High Level of Fear and Stigma
Several factors impinge on government’s effort at mobilizing community support in the treatment ofoffenders. Of significance are the stigmas attached to the high level of fear of offenders in society, and ageneral lack of trust in rehabilitated inmates. Despite the majority of offenders not returning to prison, many
persons remain skeptical of reformed inmates.
The steady increase in the incidences of violent crime in the country has heightened this fear. In 2008,of a total of 1,849 inmates admitted to penal facilities, 515 were reoffenders. The rate of recidivism in 2008
stood at 28%, an increase of 7% over the previous year (See Tables 2 and 3 below).

(i) Recidivism
The Department of Correctional Services currently measures recidivism based on the number of times
that an offender re-enters its care and custody having been brought before the court and sentenced to acorrectional facility. Aware of the need to be consistent with international practice, a review is underway toredefine the indicators. The review will take into consideration, among other things, a time frame during
which an offender is considered to have reoffended.
Table 2

Recidivism by Age and Institution – January to December 2008
TOWER STREET A.C.C

ST. CATHERINE A.C.C

FORT AUGUSTA A.C.C

1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total 1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total
Under 17

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

GRAND
TOTAL

0

0

17 – 20

4

0

0

0

4

8

0

0

0

8

0

0

0

0

0

12

21 – 25

16

3

0

0

19

36

6

1

0

43

0

0

0

0

0

62

26 – 30

16

4

0

1

21

28

10

9

2

49

0

2

0

0

2

72

31 – 35

6

6

3

7

22

37

16

17

1

71

1

0

1

1

3

96

36 – 40

15

8

2

6

31

37

10

19

5

71

0

0

0

0

0

102

41 – 45

2

2

2

5

11

21

13

24

7

65

8

0

1

0

9

85

46 & Over

4

2

2

5

13

29

15

19

8

71

2

0

0

0

2

TOTAL

63

25

9

24

121

196 70

89

23

378

11

2

2

1

16

86
515

Table 3REOFFENDERS ADMITTED TO ADULTINSITUTIONS BY SEX 2004 - 2008
SEX

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

MALE

628

437

487

371

499

FEMALE

5

8

9

11

16

TOTAL

633

445

496

382

515

Reoffending Rate

29%

24%

24%

21%

28%

Five hundred and fifteen (515) reoffenders were admitted in 2008, an increase of 133 or 35% more than2007 (382). The age cohort 21−45 accounted for 332 or 64% reoffenders.
The reoffending rate has increased from 21% in 2007 to 28% in 2008.
2. Public Image
A poor public image of prisons and prisoners remains one of the greatest challenges in the ability to
attract community support. This image is often encouraged by a media slanted towards sensationalism,
which often neglects to highlight positive aspects of incarceration. Media coverage of activities in prison isusually limited to escapes, riots, violent deaths or controversial situations. Negative media coverage doesvery little to promote community involvement.

166

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS’ PAPERS

3. Competitive Environment
The challenges are further heightened in a competitive environment where community involvement in thetreatment of offenders must compete with more attractive causes such as children, the elderly, and physicaland mentally challenged groups.
In a country where unemployment is high, employers become even more reluctant to engage the servicesof ex-convicts. The situation for the offender is further worsened in a recession, where resources are negatively
impacted.

V. MEASURES TO ENHANCE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
IN THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS
A. Increasing Public Awareness through ‘Corrections Week’
The Department in its effort to improve its public image and strengthen the link between institutions andcommunity has dedicated the last week of October each year as ‘Corrections Week’ .
Activities are conducted throughout the week help to increase public awareness and minimize negative
perceptions held by the public, while providing a platform to encourage and foster greater community
involvement. Highlights of the week include: a church service, panel discussion, debate competition, sports
day, award function and an exposition which showcases a wide variety of items produced by inmates. Items
are sold to the public and proceeds used to support rehabilitation programmes.
But, more significantly to the display and selling of items, is the unconscious, but emotional link which
it forges between the producers and buyers with heightened interest between inmates and the wider
community.

B. Rehabilitation Grants
The government, in recognizing the difficulties inmates experience in reintegrating into theircommunities, provides welfare assistance in the form of rehabilitation grants. These are given to inmates
who are released from prison and have exhibited interest and the necessary skills required to become selfsufficient.
C. Restorative Justice
Global trends are pointing towards the concept of Restorative Justice as a useful strategy for increasing
community involvement, while reducing the level of crime. Managers of Correctional Services must consider
the value and benefits of this new strategy, as the way forward.
VI. CONCLUSION
Community involvement has long been recognized by the government of Jamaica as an important element
for the prevention of crime, and the successful rehabilitation and integration of offenders.
The challenge however, though not insurmountable, is to identify, motivate and harness the commitmentof stakeholders to contribute their time, resources and efforts into assisting offenders to lead productive
lives. According to Marcus Day, 2007 “...the fight against crime is not just a matter for professionals
employed by the state, but also for elected politicians, local authorities and the voluntary sector”.

167

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

REFERENCES
Day, M (2007). A Manual for the implementation of community service Orders in the Caribbean, CDARI
Press, Castries.
Department of Correctional Services (Jamaica) Report, 2008, p. 50.
Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (1999). What works for female offenders: A meta-analytic review. Crimeand Delinquency , 45(4), 438-452.
Hairston, C. F. (1988). Family ties during imprisonment: Do they influence future criminal activity?
Federal Probation , LII(1), 48-52.
Hairston, C. F. (1991a). Family ties during imprisonment: Important to whom and for what? Journal of
Sociology and Social Welfare , XVIII(1), 87-104.
Hairston, C. F. (Paper 2001). Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues During Incarceration.
Slaght, E. (1999). Family and offender treatment focusing on the family in the treatment of substanceabusing criminal offenders . Journal of Drug Education, 19(1), 53-62.
Record of the 20th APCCA, http:www.apcca.org/Pubs/20th/agenda3.htm 25/11/2010

168

REPORTS OF THE SEMINARGROUP 1MEASURES FOR A SMOOTH AND SUSTAINABLE REHABILITATION AND
REINTEGRATION PROCESS THROUGH COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members

Advisers

Mr. Márcio Schiefler Fontes
Mr. Yasuhiko Maezawa
Mr. Ahmad Ishaque Jehangir
Mr. Mohammad Zahidul Hasan
Ms. Joyce Stone
Mr. Janardan Nepal
Ms. Motoko Kurisu
Mr. Noboru Yamamoto
Prof. Junichi Watanabe
Prof. Toru KawaharadaProf. Yuichi Tada
Prof. Fumihiko Yanaka(Brazil)(Japan)(Pakistan)(Bangladesh)(Jamaica)(Nepal)(Japan)(Japan)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
Group 1 was assigned to discuss “Effective Measures for a Smooth and Sustainable Rehabilitation andReintegration Process through Community Involvement”. The discussions lasted from 27 January 2011 to
8 February 2011. It was agreed that discussions would be guided in accordance with the following agenda:(i) Community Involvement: Obstacles to the Reintegration of Offenders; (ii) Community Involvement:
Institutional Treatment of Offenders; (iii) Community Involvement: Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders; (iv) Measures/Recommendations to enhance Community Involvement in the Treatment of
Offenders.
The Group elected by consensus Mr. Márcio Schiefler Fontes, from Brazil, as Chairman, Mr. Yasuhiko
Maezawa, from Japan, as Co-Chairman, Mr. Ahmad Ishaque Jehangir, from Pakistan, as Rapporteur, andMr. Mohammad Zahidul Hasan, from Bangladesh, as Co-Rapporteur. In his opening remarks, the Chairman
encouraged members to speak freely and openly, clarifying that views expressed by participants will not be
deemed as the official position of each country.

II. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSIONS
A. Community Involvement: Obstacles to the Reintegration of Offenders
It should be noted that views expressed by participants were specific to the situation in each country.
According to Japanese participants, community involvement is an integral component in the treatment ofoffenders. Voluntary Probation Officers (VPOs) and privately run halfway houses were a few of the examples
cited. However, the number of VPOs being registered is declining.
Several participants said treatment of offenders was not a priority in many developing countries, as there
are many basic problems to be addressed first. The participant from Jamaica identified lack of supportive
legislation/policies and distrust of offenders as two main factors which impinge on community involvement.
Traditionally, prisons operate as closed communities which fuels public mistrust, and discourages openness
and transparency. The situation is worsened by a media which only highlights negative occurrences.
Participants agreed that communities often fail to see any beneficial link between themselves and offenders,and so were not motivated to become involved in their treatment. In addition, society views treatment ofoffenders as an exclusive function of government, and considers that what is needed most is punishment foroffenders. It was posited that the stigma attached to crime and deteriorating economic conditions weakenfamily support.
All participants were in agreement that public perception of prisons and prisoners was the single greatest
barrier that militates against community involvement in the treatment of offenders. Participants hailed
successful strategies, such as Singapore’s Yellow Ribbon project, as long as they respect each country’s
peculiarities.

169

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

During the discussion, the following intervention strategies were proposed to reduce obstacles: (i)Public campaigns utilizing politicians, public figures, celebrities and ex-offenders to increase awareness ofthe treatment of offenders; (ii) Media to promote rehabilitation efforts to help change public perception; (iii)
Private organizations and NGOs to lobby government for legislative/policy changes to improve openness andtransparency in prisons and promote public confidence.

B. Community Involvement: Institutional Treatment of Offenders
The discussion was focused on preparing offenders for economic independence on their release. It was
generally agreed that private organizations’ and NGOs’ support is invaluable, as governments struggle
to adequately provide many critical requirements for the successful reintegration of offenders. Japaneseparticipants agreed that the economic downturn and its impact on resources was making it difficult, even in
Japan, to support the economic independence of ex-offenders.
The participant from Jamaica stated that prisoners were largely from low socio-economic backgrounds,
uneducated and unskilled, and needed educational and vocational training to prepare them for successful
reintegration, a view which was widely accepted. The Rapporteur added that prisons in developing countries
should introduce special assessment and aptitude tests, similar to those being carried out in Japan.
Participants from Japan explained how the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) concept was contributing to
the solution, but added that improved family support was necessary to achieve better results. The Japan
Employment Support Provision Organization was established in January 2009 by Nippon Kardonner, Japan
Chamber of Commerce, Toyota, Nippon Steel and other central economic associations and companies toraise funds for potential employers, an effort which has contributed to an increase of cooperative employers.
From a broader perspective, pre-release orientation is an essential component in rehabilitative regimes,
as it prepares offenders for a smoother transition into society, wherein they can lead a productive life. It istherefore necessary for private sector organizations to extend their contribution to this programme. Prof.
Watanabe underlined that the work of VPOs with offenders in the community has been broadened andextended to prisons.
Individuals, private organizations and NGOs can be a useful resource to help motivate offenders during
rehabilitation. The Courtney Walsh Foundation in Jamaica was noted as a good example of private sector
support. Views were varied and reflected cultural differences according to each country, although members
were in agreement that poor socio-economic conditions, low self-esteem and poor attitude were factors
impinging on prisoners’ level of motivation. Participants from Japan added that education was also criticalto improve motivation levels and reduce recidivism. The Chairman remarked that both self-esteem andstable jobs are critical to levels of motivation, besides adding that motivation differs between juveniles andadults, as well as between males and females; therefore, consideration should be given thereto. Also, it wassuggested that motivation should be addressed in three spheres: inner motivation , motivation from social
circles and institutional motivation . The suggestion was considered and widely accepted during discussions.
The Group believed that inmates’ motivation levels can improve if family relationships are strengthened,
and the gap between community and inmates is narrowed. Workshops focusing on building self-esteem andmodifying behaviour were necessary to motivate inmates towards rehabilitation. This should be enhancedby public figures and celebrities who could be invited to visit prisons to deliver motivational talks. Prof.
Watanabe added that ex-prisoners and victims can also be utilized to help in this effort. Support groups are also
important and can motivate future ex-prisoners into becoming responsible citizens. Big Brother, Big Sister(BBS) associations which provides peer mentoring to juvenile offenders, and Circles of Support (ex-offenders’associations) were cited as successful examples.
Organizations can be encouraged to strengthen their support to prepare inmates for successful reintegrationin many ways. The participant from Jamaica said it was very challenging for ex-offenders to gain employment
in formal organizations; therefore skills training in penal facilities should be geared towards self-employment.
The Rapporteur suggested the identification of cottage industries near prisons which will result in benefits toboth the local businessperson and inmates, while the Chairman highlighted the Begin Again programme which
provides a bridge between inmates and prospective employers. Participants agreed that present-day businessanalyses, such as SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) and PESTLE (Political, Economic,

170

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

Social, Technical, Legal, Environmental), should be considered by judicial and correctional officers.
Prof. Watanabe emphasized that to increase effectiveness and efficiency, assessment of inmates is very
critical, as well as providing a match between skills training of inmates with needs of employers. It waspointed out that a shift in public perception was needed and criminal justice administrators should discover
innovative ways to entice media partnership. Visiting Expert Ms. Chemonges (who participated in thediscussions on the second day) urged the need for better health facilities in jails to control contagious andother diseases.

C. Community Involvement: Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
Participants supported the view that the economic independence of ex-offenders contributes to a decisive
reduction in recidivism rates and a safer society in which to live and work. Participants from Japan highlighted
several areas in which the community was involved in providing economic independence for ex-offenders intheir country. Conversely, several participants indicated that very little, if any, economic support was being
provided for ex-offenders in their countries. The participant from Nepal observed that other countries will haveto look at strategies of Japan in order to move forward.
The participant from Jamaica noted that the first six months of release are the most critical for ex-offenders,
who are often estranged from family and without economic support, and as such accommodation and job
placement are most important. The Group agreed, and proposed that private organizations establish programmes
during this crucial phase to help ex-offenders take control of their lives and contribute productively to society.
The Co-Rapporteur, however, preferred the view that organizations which target poverty eradication indeveloping countries can be encouraged to assist ex-offenders in starting small businesses.
The Group agreed to the following proposals regarding this issue: (i) Establish and manage halfway houses
to provide accommodation to ex-offenders during the first six months of release; (ii) Establish Employment
Bureaus to teach résumé writing skills, conduct mock interviews and link ex-offenders with employment
opportunities; (iii) Expand the job market; (iv) Encourage private organizations not to refuse micro-credit toassist ex-offenders in starting or managing their own businesses.
The discussion on how individuals and organizations can support ex-offenders covered a range of issues,
including: family support; the influence of community leaders and their ability to motivate; the impact ofreligion; the level of trust between client/stakeholders and support systems; and the impact of economic
conditions on motivation levels in different countries.
Several members expressed the views that family and faith-based organizations were also elements which
can help ex-offenders maintain requisite motivation levels to achieve economic independence. Additionally,
private organizations can play a very important role by establishing and managing supportive programmes tomaintain motivation standards. Suggestions included the Free as a Bird project and FOR a Change as usefulexamples. The Chairman cautioned that wholescale importation of foreign-based programmes will have to be
tailored to fit cultural differences in respective countries.
At this point, the Group agreed that the following measures are important: (i) Establish groups tostrengthen bonds between inmates and family/community; (ii) Provide specialized treatment for drug
offenders; and to provide residential care for mentally and intellectually challenged inmates is desirable; (iii)
Utilize websites and social networks to share information and find solutions among peers.
Participants expressed the view that it is the responsibility of different tiers of government and criminal
justice practitioners to engage the community in the treatment of offenders, rather than waiting on thecommunity to make the initial contact. To encourage support, the community must be convinced of the benefits
to be achieved, and which should be evidenced by tangible results. Among the issues mentioned were therisks involved when ex-offenders are employed by private organizations and the need for policies to encourage
private entities for continued engagement. Group members agreed that there is a need to develop public
relations strategies that promote openness, transparency, and trust as interrelated and critical components.
The following methods of encouragement were proposed: (i) Develop public relations strategies which

171

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

emphasize crime reduction as a potential benefit to the community; (ii) Publicly recognize and acknowledge
national awards to individuals and entities involved in the rehabilitation of offenders; (iii) Share information
among agencies involved in treatment of offenders; (iv) Utilize social-networking websites; (v) Nurturepartnerships with electronic and print media; (vi) Target and encourage prospective organizations andindividuals for continued assistance; (vii) Government to give tax incentives and subsidies to businesses toencourage employment support; (viii) Conduct volunteer training sessions to improve service delivery; (ix)
Establish and increase community work programmes for inmates.
It was felt that information sharing is critical to improving effectiveness and efficiency. As part of thestrategy, participants proposed use of public figures, celebrities, and the media to communicate their support
to the rehabilitation of ex-offenders. Public relations activities should focus on the benefits to society andconvincingly convey this message to the community. Participants also expressed the view that carefulassessment of the needs of the correctional system and the resources available in the community to find asuitable match is one of the ways to increase effectiveness and efficiency.
Providing information to organizations involved in the treatment of offenders, supported by open and honest
communication, is also an approach to be considered. However, information sharing requires legislative changes
and amendments in government policies, and this has to be done as a way forward. Training for volunteers is
also very important as it conveys and clarifies the expectations for all parties involved.

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The main obstacles to community involvement in the treatment of offenders are: (i) Stigmatization of
offenders; (ii) Lack of public awareness of the relationship between rehabilitation and crime reduction; (iii)
Inadequate approaches to the community by criminal justice practitioners; (iv) Limitations in legal frameworks;(v) Social exclusion of offenders.
To address these issues, it is necessary to bridge the gap between offenders’ rehabilitation needs and theextent of community involvement. Institutional and community-based programmes need to be widened toreduce reoffending and provide a better social environment for all.
The Group proposed the following recommendations:
1.

The State organ responsible for justice and law and order in each country should take up the role ofleader in offender treatment. The first step is to ensure that judicial, police and correctional officers
understand the necessity of giving treatment to inmates consistent with their inevitable return tosociety;2.

All correctional institutions should develop a public relations strategy, based on partnership withelectronic and print media;

3.

Public campaigns, including commercial spots on TV and radio, should also emphasize programmes
related to victims, especially compensation;

4.

Educational awareness should be developed and extended to schools and universities, showing thecorrelation between reintegration of ex-offenders and low recidivism. Also, highlight the reduction insocial and financial costs;

5.

Successful strategies, such as Singapore’s Yellow Ribbon Project should be implemented, althoughrespecting each country’s peculiarities. Support structures for victims should also be emphasized;

6.

Present-day business analyses, such as SWOT and PESTLE, should be considered by judicial andcorrectional officers;

7.

Administrative frameworks of correctional facilities should allow correctional managers to search forand implement local solutions to specific problems;8.

Correctional managers should be encouraged to be proactive in garnering individual and community
organizations’ support;

9.

Legal frameworks should be tailored to enhance community involvement in offender treatment aswell as emphasizing diversion and restorative justice mechanisms;

172

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

10. Programmes such as the Japanese VPO system, which have been successfully adopted by the Thai,
Korean and Philippine criminal justice systems, should be considered, especially by countries withminimal community involvement in the treatment of offenders;
11. Correctional facilities should provide training focusing on employability skills, specifically related tocottage industries, in order to facilitate self-employment;
12. Governments should provide tax incentives and subsidies for those private companies that accept
ex-offenders as their employees.

173

REPORTS OF THE SEMINARGROUP 2
EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO IMPROVE OFFENDER TREATMENTPROGRAMMES AND INTERVENTIONS THROUGH
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Co-Rapporteur
Members
Advisers

Mr. Marlon Shemfe
Ms. Yuko Furuhashi
Mr. Shinji Higami
Ms. Keamogetse Letsatle
Mr. Yuichi Endo
Mr. Hotma Victor Sihombing
Mr. Yadab Ghimire
Mr. Frank Men Tunduwa
Prof. Ayako Sakonji
Prof. Yuichiro Wakimoto
Prof. Naoyuki HaradaProf. Kumiko Izumi(Nigeria)(Japan)(Japan)(Botswana)(Japan)(Indonesia)(Nepal)(Papua New Guinea)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)(UNAFEI)

I. INTRODUCTION
On 27 January 2011, Group 2 commenced its workshop. The group appointed by consensus Mr. Shemfe
as its Chairperson, Ms. Furuhashi as its Co-chairperson, Mr. Higami as its Rapporteur, and Ms. Letsatle
and Mr. Endo as its Co-rapporteurs. The group was assigned to discuss “Effective measures to improvetreatment programmes and interventions through community involvement” and agreed to conduct its
discussion in accordance with the following agenda: 1) Effective measures to rehabilitate offenders; 2)
Institutional treatment of offenders; 3) Community-based treatment of offenders; 4) Measures to enhancecommunity involvement.

II. SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSIONS
A. Effective Measures to Rehabilitate Offenders
At the beginning, the Group made a request for each member to explain the actual situations in theircountries in regard to the most serious crimes offenders commit and the treatment of such offenders. (Itwas confirmed by all members that the word “treatment” includes rehabilitation, supervision of offenders,approaches to shorten the duration of detention for unconvicted persons, and bail.)
Regarding the most serious crimes, each participant referred to their own country’s serious crimes, suchas, robbery, kidnapping, terrorism, street crimes, women trafficking, poaching, rape, incest, armed holdups, corruption, fraud, recidivated theft, drug offences, crimes committed by women or elderly persons, etc.
(Note: Not listed in order of gravity.) About this subtopic, the Group shared some valuable information.
Regarding the rehabilitation of offenders, many participants stated that they are facing many difficult
problems because of their different social conditions, legal matters and governmental funding, etc. Eachmember shared his or her valuable experiences about rehabilitation programmes (e.g. cognitive behavioural
treatment or other treatments for classified offenders, religious services, child care, vocational training,etc.). Many countries wish to implement these programmes but they are expensive and priority has to begiven to other demands. Some countries are concentrating on matters such as pardon, amnesty and gun
control to both prevent crime and to hasten the return of offenders to their communities. However, it isstill important to ensure that some rehabilitation should take place before offenders are released to theircommunities.

B. Institutional Treatment of Offenders
The Group discussed possible solutions to the problems in the institutional treatment of offenders.
All participants noted that the hesitance of institutional agencies to adopt open-door policies is borne of174

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

fear and negative public perception.
Participants therefore felt that private companies, non-governmental and faith-based organizations andindividuals can play a good role in offender treatment and called for an open-door policy to incorporate them.
Another participant stated that the private sector can contribute in key areas that require high skills(programme planning, legal consultation), or do not require expertise (maintenance, patrolling), and thegovernment can encourage the private sector by giving it professional, financial or other (such as selfrealization) merits, sharing information and cooperating in a sound relationship with them.
More private finance and public funds can be sourced to build rehabilitation centres, designed for institutional
treatment, like Mine Rehabilitation Programme Centre in Japan.
Another participant stated that charitable associations such as the Lions Club or the Rotary Club should
be invited to offer assistance in both in-care and out-care programmes for offender treatment. It was also
noted that multinational corporations can be encouraged to build facilities as part of their corporate social
responsibility programmes to enhance offender treatment.
The group also noted that the family has a great role to play in facilitating offender treatment, resettlingoffenders and curbing recidivism.
One participant pointed out that the paralegal system in Uganda (mentioned in the paper of Visiting Expert,
Ms. Chemonges) is a good example of how foreign aid can be harnessed to support treatment of offenders, byoffering free legal advice.
Some members were also of the view that volunteers play useful supportive roles in offender treatment
and that a wide range of retired professionals, like doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers etc. canprovide services, at little or no cost. To encourage private organizations and individuals to assist, a strong
partnership will have to be developed with the community. The SCORES (Singapore Corporation of
Rehabilitative Enterprises) project in Singapore (mentioned in the paper of Visiting Expert, Mr. Chin) is aclear example.
Another participant also suggested the importance of proper criminogenic assessment of offenders’ needs,
to stimulate participation of private companies, organizations and individuals. The Strategic Action Plan todeliver these special intervention programmes (e.g. sex offenders’ programmes) should be drawn, updated,
reviewed and evaluated, with input from both the government and active organizations, to build trust andcooperation.

C. Community-Based Treatment of Offenders
The first question addressed by participants is: “Why the need for community involvement in offender
treatment?”.
The consensus reached is that even the best in-care, without community support, will only continue toincrease recidivism.
This point is well illustrated by the two halfway houses we visited during our Study Tour: it is clear thatcare-providers still face frustration from some sections of the community.
The starting point, we all agree, has to be an open-door policy that will educate and attract the community
to give more support. The criminal justice agencies should train their officers to engage with the community,
and also develop guidelines and policies so that all stakeholders know what is expected of them. (Thisviewpoint was referred to by Visiting Expert, Dr. Kittipong.) There is the need to establish a correctional
advisory council to coordinate activities of stakeholders within and outside the criminal justice system toimprove offenders’ rehabilitation.
Participants feel that it is necessary to engage the participation of organizations, clubs and societies with175

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

interest in offenders to use their expertise and resources to complement institutional treatment of offenders.
Halfway houses and community skill acquisition centres can be built and managed by these bodies. The
Nigerian participant stated that after-care support services where tools are provided to support discharged
offenders can also be provided by other community associations. Job placement and accommodation are criticalfor efficient treatment and this can be provided by cooperative employers and halfway houses. Mentoring,counselling and role-modeling from notable members of the community and celebrities can do a lot at lower
or no cost. The participants feel that the government can experiment with out-sourcing rehabilitative work
previously exercised by state agencies, especially in the areas of job placement, accommodations and otherinterventions.
The Papua New Guinean participant suggested that victim-and-offender reconciliation is necessary to
reduce social exclusion and encourage resettlement of ex-offenders back to their homeland.

D. Measures to Enhance Community Involvement
All participants agreed that in some developing countries that have no alternatives to imprisonment,
existing legislation should be reviewed and new legislation enacted.
One participant from Japan suggested that in order to enhance the involvement of the private sector, various
methods of cooperation should be used, such as “the trial employment and guarantee system” (subsidies forthree month payment and cover for accident by insurance).
Participants shared the view that intensive media and public enlightenment campaigns should be
implemented, like Singapore’s Yellow Ribbon Project and the Japanese Movement for a Brighter Society,
Thailand’s media and diplomats’ open day visit to prisons, and the U.K.’s National Offenders Management
Programmes. These programmes have been proved to be effective in garnering community support in theirrespective countries. In relation to this, one participant from Japan stated that the media need to be wellinformed about the processes involved in offender treatment to avoid undue sensationalism in reporting events
that relate to penal institutions.
All participants agreed that Community Volunteers Associations should be formed for effective coordinationand public participation. Community engagement activities should be developed to stimulate public interest,
while respected community leaders and volunteers should be identified to support treatment programmes aspracticed in Japan (VPOs, Women’s Association for Rehabilitation Aid, BBS). Ex-offenders who have changed
and are contributing positively to society could be involved as role-models.
It was the view of participants that trust funds should be established to mobilize public and private funds
to support offender treatment, like the U.K. credit union established to give start up loans to ex-offenders.
All participants agreed that continuous community outreach should be reviewed to raise social awarenessand acceptance of offenders in society. In doing so, stated some participants from Japan, the government
should educate young people, such as high school students, about treatment of offenders, as well as
introduce some kind of collaborative court which involves people in the sentencing procedure with judges,
so that the public will gradually become aware of the treatment of offenders. One participant from Japan
stated that collaboration on human resources should be achieved between the courts and the community andtherefore finding cooperative enterprises needs to be focused on people who have experienced the court’s
sentencing procedure. Additionally, some participants stated that HIV infection raises serious problems inoffender treatment and that the government and NGOs can support HIV infected inmates and help to reduce
the stigma attached to their diagnosis.

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Conclusions
After the discussions ended, the following conclusions were agreed among all participants:
1.

176

From the lectures given by Visiting Experts, international evidence has clearly established that offender
treatment programmes are improved and more effective when appropriate cultural input is allowed.
Therefore all programmes adopted must be adapted to the cultural and socio-economic situations of eachcountry.

147TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARREPORTS OF THE SEMINAR

2.

Categories of serious crimes vary in each country. This depends on each country’s social conditions,
legal matters and other realities. The levels of treatment of offenders are also varied from one
place to the other. Most developing countries are still faced with challenges that limit standards andrehabilitative assistance to offenders.

3.

The importance of offender rehabilitation needs to be emphasized throughout criminal justice procedure.

4.

The role of an offender’s family is important and needs to be included as early as possible in thecriminal justice process.

5.

Private organizations and individuals can play more important roles in institutional and communitybased offender treatment. Private enterprises can provide many services effectively or at low cost. The
huge resources derived from charitable organizations, voluntary associations, NGOs, community-basedorganizations, including multi-national corporations, e.g. the Toyota Programme in the U.K., should be
harnessed to assist in offender treatment and management.

6.

Thorough needs assessment is important to guide community participation in offender treatment.

7.

Public relations campaigns, incentives and awards are veritable motivational tools that can encouragecommunity participation in offender treatment.

8.

Victim-and-offender reconciliation is necessity to enhance integration of offender into society.

9.

Ex-offenders face difficulties in finding jobs and resettling after their prison terms due to stigmatization,social exclusion, and rejection. Aftercare services for ex-prisoners are therefore critical to help withreintegration.

10. Other obstacles that impede community involvement are: fear, stigmatization, lack of understanding,indifference to offenders, sensational reporting by the media, lack of regulations or legislation, poor
funding and inadequate resources.

B. Recommendations
At the end of the discussions the Group reached a consensus on the following recommendations:
1. Institutional Treatment Stage••••To re-orientate the mindsets of the prison staff and offenders to allow the community to partner withthem, especially in the developing countries;
To ensure thorough assessment of the needs of offenders to guide the involvement of the community;
To promote vocational training for prisoners to increase their employability, including self-employment;
To recommend an open-door policy for correctional institutions to enhance community involvement.

2. Community-Based Treatment Stage
•
•
•
•
•

To promote victim and offender reconciliation;
To promote government and community partnership in offender aftercare services;
To recommend the government to support the community at local level by providing funding toNGOs or CBOs, especially on the treatment of juvenile offenders;
To recommend organizations such as the U.N. to promote voluntary associations targeted at offender
treatment;
To recommend communities to harness resources to establish and manage community-based rehabilitation
centres such as halfway houses and skill acquisition centres.

3. All Stages of Criminal Justice Procedure
•
•
•
•
•

To promote public relations activities to raise public awareness;
To garner media support in public relations activities;
To seek support for offenders’ families and offenders from relevant organizations;
To revise legislation and regulations to allow for community involvement;
To encourage charitable associations, NGOs and multi-national corporations to be involved inoffender treatment;

177

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No.84

•
•
•
•
•
•

178

To give incentives to organizations that employ ex-prisoners;
To educate young people about the harmful effects of crime and offer them a second chance;
To introduce collaborative court proceedings which involve lay people in sentencing;
To involve the community in the planning and delivery of offender treatment to encourage ownershipof the programmes;
To promote collaboration on human resources between the courts and the community;
To recommend the government and NGOs to support HIV infected inmates in an effort to reduce
stigmatization.

APPENDIXCOMMEMORATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS• 147th International Senior Seminar

UNAFEI

147th International Senior Seminar

Left to Right:
Top:
Dr. Kittayarak, Prof. Higuchi
Fourth Row:
Mr. Iida (Staff), Mr. Jimbo (Staff), Ms. Tani (Staff), Ms. Yamada (Staff), Ms. Iwakata (Staff), Mr.
Takahashi (Staff), Mr. Saito (Staff), Mr. Jehangir (Pakistan), Mr. Sihombing (Indonesia), Mr. Inoue(Staff), Mr. Kobayashi (Staff)
Third Row:
Ms. Sakai (Chef), Mr. Kawai (Chef), Mr. Fontes (Brazil), Mr. Higami (Japan), Mr. Maezawa (Japan),
Mr. Tunduwa (Papua New Guinea), Mr. Ghimire (Nepal), Ms. Furuhashi (Japan), Mr. Nepal (Nepal), Mr.
Nishitani (Staff), Ms. Yamamoto (JICA), Mr. Suzuki (Staff)
Second Row:
Ms. Chihara (Staff), Prof. Yanaka, Prof. Harada, Mr. Endo (Japan), Mr. Yamamoto (Japan), Ms. Kurisu(Japan), Mr. Shemfe (Nigeria), Mr. Hasan (Bangladesh), Ms. Stone (Jamaica), Ms. Letsatle (Botswana),
Ms. Lord (LA), Prof. Tada, Prof. Izumi
First Row:
Prof. Wakimoto, Prof. Sakonji, Deputy Director Ukawa, Ms. Chemonges (Uganda), Ms. Chin (Canada),
Mr. Dandurand (Canada), Director Sasaki, Judge Sir David Carruthers (New Zealand), Mr. Chin (Singapore),
Mr. Pitts (UK), Prof. Watanabe, Prof. Kawaharada