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.