PREVENTION OF CRIME
AND TREATMENT OF
OFFENDERSANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019AND

RESOURCE MATERIALSERIES NO. 111
PREVENTION OF REOFFENDING AND FOSTERING
SOCIAL INCLUSION: FROM POLICY TO GOOD
PRACTICE

UNAFEI
Akishima, Tokyo, Japan

October 2020

SETO Takeshi
Director
United Nations
Asia and Far East Institutefor the Prevention of Crime andthe Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI)
2-1-18 Mokuseinomori, Akishima-shi, Tokyo, Japan
unafei@i.moj.go.jp

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

PART ONEANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019
Main Activities of UNAFEI.................................................................................................3
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2020 ................................................................................19
Appendix ............................................................................................................................22

PART TWOWORK PRODUCT OF THE 174th
INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR“PREVENTION OF REOFFENDING AND FOSTERING SOCIAL INCLUSION:FROM POLICY TO GOOD PRACTICE”
Visiting Experts’ Papers• Resocialization and Rehabilitation of Offenders in the Community – The Croatian
Probation Service
by Ms. Jana Špero (Croatia) ........................................................................................... 39• Preventing Reoffending in Singapore
by Mr. Matthew Wee Yik Keong (Singapore) .................................................................. 57• Re-Assessing the Role of Community-Based Sentences in the Context of the
Sustainable Development Goals
by Dr. Matti Joutsen (Thailand Institute of Justice) ....................................................... 66
Participants’ Papers• Prevention of Reoffending and Ensuring Social Integration – Legal Aims Versus
Reality in Brazil
by Ms. Ana Cristina Bandeira Lins (Brazil) ................................................................. 103• Effective Treatment and Support for Rehabilitation of Delinquent Juveniles inJapan
by Ms. MIYAGAWA Tsubura (Japan) ........................................................................... 114i• Intervention, Treatment and Support Tailored to Offenders’ Individual Needs inKenya
by Ms. Lilian Akinyi Otieno (Kenya) ............................................................................ 125• Community Service Sentences in Malawi: Management Challenges andPossible Solutions
by Mr. Justus Asante Kishindo (Malawi) ...................................................................... 132• Juvenile Crime Prevention in Thailand
by Ms. Chotima Suraritthidham (Thailand) .................................................................. 138
Group Workshop Sessions• Effectively Incorporating Rehabilitative Perspectives into Penalties and Case
Dispositions
by Group One. .............................................................................................................. 145• Promoting Interventions, Treatment and Support Tailored to Offenders’
Individual Needs
by Group Two. .............................................................................................................. 150• Fostering Public Understanding and Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for
Acceptance of Offenders
by Group Three. ............................................................................................................ 154

APPENDIX .....................................................................................................................159
Supplemental Material• Evaluation of Interventions for Reducing the Risk of Reoffending: Basic Concepts andResearch Examples in Japan
by Dr. YAMAMOTO Mana (Japan) .............................................................................. 161
Group Photo• 174th International Senior Seminar ...............................................................................169
RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES INDEX ..................................................................171ii

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
It is with pride that the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Preventionof Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) offers to the international
community UNAFEI’s Resource Material Series No. 111 under a new title – Preventionof Crime and Treatment of Offenders. The new title is intended to emphasize UNAFEI’score mission in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice and to promote thedissemination of criminal justice policies and practices to an expanded readership. Thisissue contains the Annual Report for 2019 and the work produced in the 174thInternational Senior Seminar, conducted from 16 January to 14 February 2020. The main
theme of the 174th seminar was the Prevention of Reoffending and Fostering Social
Inclusion: From Policy to Good Practice.
In order to build a safe and inclusive society, it is crucial not only to prevent
reoffending but also to facilitate offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration as responsible
members of society. The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs), which, among others, promote “peaceful and inclusive
societies for sustainable development, . . . access to justice for all and . . . effective,
accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels” (Goal 16). Towards the goal ofbuilding inclusive societies, it is important for criminal justice authorities to takemeasures to ensure each offender’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society as a lawabiding citizen. These measures should include rehabilitative approaches to sentencing
and corrections, conducting assessments of each offender and tailoring treatment to each
offender’s unique criminogenic needs, and the provision of treatment through multistakeholder partnerships and community engagement.
UNAFEI, as one of the institutes of the United Nations Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice Programme Network, held this seminar to explore various issues that
relate to reducing reoffending and promoting the reintegration of offenders into society.
This issue of the Resource Material Series, in regard to the 174th International Senior
Seminar, contains papers contributed by visiting experts and selected individualpresentation papers from among the participants. 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 theAsia 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 unselfishlyassisted in the publication of this series.
October 2020

SETO Takeshi
Director of UNAFEI
iii

PART ONEANNUAL REPORTFOR 2019



Main Activities of UNAFEI
UNAFEI Work Programme for 2020
Appendix

UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI(1 January 2019 – 31 December 2019)
I. ROLE AND MANDATE
The Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders(UNAFEI) was established in Tokyo, Japan, in 1962 pursuant to an agreement between the
United Nations and the Government of Japan. Its goal is to contribute to sound social
development in the Asia and the Pacific region by promoting regional cooperation in the field of
crime prevention and criminal justice, through training and research.
UNAFEI has paid utmost attention to the priority themes identified by the Commission on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Moreover, UNAFEI has been taking up urgent,contemporary problems in the administration of criminal justice in the region, especiallyproblems generated by rapid socio-economic change (e.g. transnational organized crime,
corruption, economic and computer crime, and the reintegration of prisoners into society) as themain 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 theinternational training courses and seminars, participants from different areas of the criminal
justice field discuss and study pressing problems of criminal justice administration from various
perspectives. They deepen their understanding with the help of lectures and advice from the
UNAFEI faculty, visiting experts and ad hoc lecturers. This so-called "problem-solving throughan integrated approach" is one of the chief characteristics of UNAFEI programmes.
Each year, UNAFEI conducts two international training courses (six weeks’ duration) and
one international seminar (five weeks’ duration). Approximately one hundred government
officials from various overseas countries receive fellowships from the Japan International
Cooperation Agency (JICA is an independent administrative institution for ODA programmes)
each year to participate in all UNAFEI training programmes.
Training courses and seminars are attended by both overseas and Japanese participants.
Overseas participants come not only from the Asia-Pacific region but also from the Middle andNear East, Latin America and Africa. These participants are experienced practitioners andadministrators holding relatively senior positions in the criminal justice field.
By the end of 2019, UNAFEI had conducted a total of 173 international training courses andseminars. Over 5,800 criminal justice personnel representing 139 different countries andadministrative regions have participated in these training courses and seminars. UNAFEI also
conducts a number of other specialized courses, both country and subject focused, in which
hundreds of other participants from many countries have been involved. In their respective
countries, UNAFEI alumni have been playing leading roles and hold important posts in thefields of crime prevention and the treatment of offenders, and in related organizations.
A. The 171st International Senior Seminar
1. Introduction
The 171st International Senior Seminar was held from 9 January to 7 February 2019. The
main theme was the “Criminal Justice Response to Crime Motivated by Intolerance and3

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Discrimination”. Thirteen overseas participants and six Japanese participants attended theseminar.
2. Methodology
Firstly, the seminar participants introduced the roles and functions of criminal justiceagencies in their respective countries in regard to the main theme. After receiving lectures from
UNAFEI professors and visiting experts, the participants were then divided into group
workshops as follows:
Group 1: The Challenges and Best Practices to Encounter Crimes Motivated by Intolerance
and Discrimination
Group 2:

Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination: Problems and Their
Resolution

Group 3: Best Practices for Supporting Victims of Crime Motivated by Intolerance andDiscrimination
Each group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) inorder to facilitate the discussions. During group discussion, the group members studied thedesignated topics and exchanged views based on information obtained through personal
experiences, the individual presentations, lectures and so forth. The groups presented theirreports during the report-back session, where they were endorsed as the reports of the seminar.
The full texts of these reports were published in UNAFEI Resource Material Series No. 108.
3. Outcome Summary(i) The Challenges and Best Practices to Encounter Crimes Motivated by Intolerance andDiscrimination
Group 1 explored challenges faced by the participating countries in combating crimes
motivated by intolerance and discrimination (hereinafter, “intolerance crimes”), as well as
best practices to respond to such crimes. Recognizing that gender-based violence is acommon problem in all countries, the group reported that some countries face uniqueintolerance crimes (such as those related to ethnicity, political ideology, sorcery and tribal
conflict). The group offered recommendations to enhance the response to intolerance crimes,
stressing the importance of establishing legal frameworks to overcome intolerance crimes.
There are a number of underlying problems which limit the ability of criminal justiceauthorities to respond to intolerance crimes. These problems include: the lack of specificlegal frameworks, making it difficult to prosecute and impose appropriate sentences; lack ofrecognition by some within criminal justice systems that violence against women (VAW) anddomestic violence (DV) are crimes; the prevalence of revictimization; social stigma against
victims of abuse; lack of gender sensitivity; and lack of skilled human and financial resources.
To respond to these problems, specific recommendations were offered in reference to thefollowing categories: (1) legal framework and political will; (2) human resources and staff
training; (3) monitoring and reporting of intolerance crimes; (4) inclusion of victims’
perspectives in policymaking; and (5) public awareness and access to victim support services.
Further, it was noted that social barriers—such as socio-cultural beliefs, attitudes toward
domestic violence, lack of awareness of legal rights and options, and fear of retaliation—
weaken efforts to counter intolerance crimes.
4

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Group 1 stressed the importance of establishing legal frameworks to overcome
intolerance crimes. Each of the countries participating in the group relied on international
conventions, constitutional provisions, penal codes and domestic violence legislation. Several
countries have established national action plans to respond to intolerance crimes, while others
have adopted specific legislation focused on vulnerable groups in need of protection.
(ii) Crimes Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination: Problems and Their Resolution
The members of Group 2 conducted a comprehensive review of the victim and witness
protection measures and legislative approaches to addressing intolerance crimes in theparticipating countries. Noting that intolerance crime is a global problem, each country
reported challenges, particularly in terms of public awareness of victim and witness
protection measures, lack of public confidence in the effectiveness of such measures, andlack of public and professional understanding of laws enacted to counter intolerance crimes.
The group’s analysis focused on intolerance crimes and responses in all five participating
countries. While the specific forms of intolerance crime and the target groups of these crimes
vary from country to country, the group agreed that intolerance crimes are a global problem.
Target groups include religious minorities, immigrants, racial minorities, the LGBT
community, indigenous communities, among many others.
The group’s review of key measures taken to counter intolerance crimes focused on
legislative measures to enhance victim and witness protection and legislative measures tocriminalize or enhance punishment of intolerance crimes. Regarding victim and witness
protection, the challenges identified include: (1) the lack of victim and witness protection
programmes in some countries, (2) lack of public awareness of victim and witness protection
measures, (3) lack of faith in the effectiveness of such measures, resulting in less cooperationfrom the public in law enforcement investigations, and (3) insufficient human and financial
resources.
From the perspective of legislative measures to criminalize or punish intolerance crimes,
some countries have elected to create new substantive offences to criminalize intolerance
crimes, while other have opted for penalty enhancement. Challenges identified include (1)lack of understanding of the new laws and reluctance to prosecute, (2) lack of sentencing
parameters for judges and (3) restrictive definitions of protected groups.
(iii) Best Practices for Supporting Victims of Crime Motivated by Intolerance and Discrimination
Group 3 reviewed the current situation of intolerance crime in the participating countries
and identified best practices to support victims. Intolerance crimes target persons and groups
based on ethnicity, race, disability, religious beliefs etc. and include gender-based violence.
To counter these crimes, the group stressed the need to protect victims and witnesses
throughout all stages of the criminal justice process.
In response to intolerance crimes, a number of approaches used in various jurisdictions
were reported: legislative measures to protect victims and witnesses, special laws for genderbased violence, the creation of special-victim and witness-protection agencies and specificpolice units for gender-based violence, and measures to protect victims and witness
throughout the judicial process, including when giving testimony. While victim and witness
protection measures do encourage cooperation with law enforcement authorities, the group
found that cooperation can be limited due to lack of confidence in the criminal justice system,
5

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

fear of revictimization, the attitude of the victims (including economic dependency,
community norms etc.), and insufficient levels of victim support.
To ensure sufficient support for victims and witnesses, their unique needs during the pretrial, trial and post-trial stages must be addressed. Throughout all stages, the confidentiality ofvictims’ identities should be maintained in order to prevent revictimization. During the pretrial stage, measures to facilitate reporting of crime include providing interpreters,
psychological and legal support, providing hotlines for reporting crimes and utilization of
specialized units for handling intolerance crimes. To facilitate police investigations, the group
recommended establishing safehouses and interview rooms suitable to victims, judicial andpolice protection, and the provision of financial support to victims. During the trial stage, thegroup recommended a number of measures including the use of video-link and witness
screening equipment, providing personal and legal support etc. During the post-trial stage, thegroup stressed the importance of ensuring adequate victim compensation. Further, the group
recommended providing psychological support, safehouses, and keeping the victim
appropriately informed of the status of the offender’s conviction and sentence.
B. The 172nd International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 172nd International Training Course was held from 15 May to 20 June 2019. The
main theme was the “Criminal Justice Response to Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of
Migrants”. Twenty-one overseas participants and seven Japanese participants attended the
Course.
2. Methodology
The objectives of the course were primarily realized through the individual presentations,lectures by visiting experts and group workshop sessions. In the former, each participant
presented the actual situation, problems and future prospects of his or her country with respect tothe main theme of the course. The group workshops further examined the subtopics of the main
theme. To facilitate discussion, the participants were divided into groups to discuss thefollowing topics under the guidance of faculty advisers:
Group 1: Effective Measures to Ensure Cooperation of Witnesses and to Secure Their
TestimonyGroup 2:Prevention and Detention of Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants,
Including Suppression of Related Crimes

Group 3: International Cooperation, Focusing on the Deprivation of Illicit Profits
The three groups each elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), a rapporteur and corapporteur(s) to organize the discussions. The group members studied the designatedsubtopics and exchanged their views based on information obtained through personal
experience, the individual presentations, lectures and so forth. The groups presented theirreports during the report-back session, where they were endorsed as the reports of the course.
The full texts of the reports were published in full in Resource Material Series No. 109.

6

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

3. Outcome Summary(i) Effective Measures to Ensure Cooperation of Witnesses and to Secure Their Testimony
Group 1 addressed the topic of witness cooperation and witness protection in the context
of trafficking in persons and smuggling of migrants (“TIP/SOM”). Securing witness
cooperation is fundamental to the criminal justice process and is vitally important to thesuccessful prosecution of TIP/SOM crimes. However, the group reported a number ofchallenges that prevent or discourage witnesses from cooperating with law enforcement, suchas the failure to report trafficking crimes, legal and procedural obstacles, and challenges thatprevent international cooperation.
Victims and witnesses fail or refuse to report trafficking crimes for a number of reasons.
These include lack of knowledge about the reporting process, distrust of the criminal justicesystem, fear of retaliation or punishment, language, cultural and social barriers, etc. Moreover,victims are discouraged from reporting due to the physical harm and psychological trauma
arising from the crime, including the secondary victimization that results from proceeding
through the criminal justice system. Legal and procedural obstacles, such as the failure torecognize trafficked persons as victims, the lack of legal support etc., discourage victims andwitnesses from cooperating with authorities. The group recommended the following
countermeasures: (i) establishing multi-agency and private-sector reporting channels that
accommodate multiple languages; (ii) establishing victim/witness protection and support
programmes; (iii) creating national strategies, specialized units and standards of operation for
combating TIP/SOM; (iv) overcoming legal challenges through the use of immunity inexchange for testimony and video recording of testimony and (v) enhancing international andinter-agency cooperation during investigations and in the provision of victim support.
Too often, the evidence collected from victims and witnesses is insufficient to prove thecase against the defendants in court. Numerous challenges related to the credibility of victim
testimony were discussed, including the cross-border nature of TIP/SOM cases, vulnerability
due to age, psychological status, fear of physical harm or reprisal etc. At the same time, thecriminal justice system faces the challenges of improperly obtained evidence, insufficientinvestigator skill or experience, insufficient testimony from forensic experts etc. Ultimately,
these challenges can result in false or fabricated evidence being presented in court orinsufficient evidence to obtain conviction. Accordingly, the group stressed the importance ofcorroborative evidence. Additionally, new investigative techniques and forensic examination
can provide credible and corroborative evidence, and the investigation and trial process mustbe speedy in order to avoid memory lapses of the testifying victims and witnesses. Finally,
capacity-building of investigators and prosecutors must be increased.
(ii) Prevention and Detention of Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants, Including
Suppression of Related Crimes
The members of Group 2 focused on the prevention and detection of TIP/SOM, noting
the importance of prosecuting such crimes in order to suppress both supply and demand.
Specifically, Group 2 addressed immigration issues including (i) entry by legal means, (ii)illegal entry across unmanaged borders and (iii) illegal entry with fake documents.
In the case of entry by legal means, immigrants enter the country legally but then overstay
their visas. Additionally, the group identified the practice of using forged or fraudulent
documents in the visa application process. Countries should enhance inter-agency
cooperation to ensure that fraudulent visa applications are identified, and training in
TIP/SOM should be provided to relevant government officials in order to facilitate detection.
7

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

It was also pointed out that TIP victims are likely to be included among those persons whooverstay their visas. Thus, it is important to identify these victims and to obtain informationfrom them on the criminal organizations that trafficked them.
Whether a landlocked or an island nation, national borders are always challenging tocontrol. Illegal entry across unmanaged borders occurs when a person crosses a national
border without undergoing an immigration check. Such border crossings are criminalized, as
is providing assistance to those who cross. In many cases, criminal organizations facilitatesuch crossings, and a number of persons trafficked are exploited by being pressed into forced
labour or prostitution. To counter this threat, the group recommended the criminalization ofillegal hiring, the use of high-tech tools to manage borders, working with the community togather intelligence and leads, to pursue the leaders of criminal organizations (i.e. the “bigfish”), and to secure testimony through plea bargaining and grants of immunity.
Finally, illegal entry with fake documents involves entering based on fraudulent
information or by assuming the identity of another (spoofing). Thus, more effort needs to beplaced into procedures that ensure the passport holder is its true holder. Forgery has become
difficult due to the use of IC chips in passports, so bribery of immigration officers has
become a common practice. To counter corruption, the group recommended improving
recordkeeping in electronic databases to identify corrupt officials and enhancing ethics
education and training.
In conclusion, the group recommended enhanced efforts in the following areas to preventand detect TIP/SOM: (i) the adoption of legislative measures to ensure the protection of
victims; (ii) strengthening of international cooperation, particularly in terms of informationsharing on visa overstays between the country of residence and the immigrant’s homecountry; (iii) law enforcement officer training and introduction of modern technologies; and(iv) public awareness campaigns in countries of origin.
(iii) International Cooperation, Focusing on the Deprivation of Illicit profitsGroup 3 addressed the issue of international cooperation for the purpose of depriving
criminals of their illicit profits obtained through TIP/SOM crimes. In doing so, the groupconsidered financial investigations, informal cooperation and formal cooperation. To
properly identify, trace, freeze, seize or confiscate proceeds of crime, law enforcement
agencies need to know the type, location, ownership and transfer histories of relevant assets.
However, in conducting financial investigations, the group reported that bank secrecy is oneof the challenges to obtaining relevant financial information. To enhance the use of financial
investigation, the group encouraged states to: (i) develop more training courses for financial
analysis/investigation on TIP/SOM and (ii) improve their official websites to share more
information with other countries.
Informal cooperation is useful in financial investigations because it facilitates theexchange of information that can be used as leads and useful to complete investigations
without having to resort to formal requests for assistance. However, this information
generally cannot be used at trial. To enhance the use of informal cooperation, the groupencouraged states to: (i) develop more cooperation frameworks with other countries,
especially those with shared or related languages; (ii) exchange information through FIUs
etc.; (iii) create information-sharing networks among law enforcement officers.

8MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Finally, formal cooperation is governed by domestic legislation, bilateral agreements etc.
It is a time-consuming process, as diplomats act as intermediaries between the law
enforcement agencies of the requesting and the requested countries. Each country selects a“central authority” to serve as the primary point of contact for mutual legal assistance (MLA)
requests. Accordingly, it is always recommended to communicate with the requested central
authority prior to submitting the request. In order to facilitate formal cooperation, regional
associations and joint investigations have also been used. To enhance the use of formalcooperation, the group encouraged states to: (i) consider UNTOC as a legal basis for
extradition; (ii) accept MLA requests flexibly; (iii) contact counterparts in advance(exchanging MLA drafts); (iv) participating in international meetings to develop cooperation
frameworks; (v) stationing legal/police attachés abroad; (vi) preparing updated manuals on
MLA and conducting training programmes for officers on other legal systems.
C. The 173rd International Training Course
1. Introduction
The 173rd International Training Course was held from 21 August to 20 September 2019.
The main theme was “Tackling Violence against Women and Children through Offender
Treatment: Prevention of Reoffending”. Twenty-two overseas participants (including one
course counsellor) and five Japanese participants attended.
2. Methodology
The participants endeavoured to explore the topic primarily through a comparative
analysis of the current situation and the problems encountered. The participants’ in-depth
discussions enabled them to put forth effective and practical solutions.
The objectives were primarily realized through the individual presentations, lectures byvisiting experts and the group workshop sessions. In the former, each participant presented theactual situation, problems and future prospects of his or her country with respect to the main
theme of the course. To facilitate discussions, the participants were divided into groups
workshops.
Group 1:Introducing and Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in the Treatment of VAWC
OffendersGroup 2:Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation to Promote VAWC Offender Rehabilitation andPrevent Reoffending

Group 3:

Non-Custodial Measures for VAWC Offender Rehabilitation and Reoffending
Prevention

Each group elected a chairperson, co-chairperson(s), rapporteur and co-rapporteur(s) toorganize the discussions. The group members studied the situation in each of their countries
and exchanged their views based on information obtained through personal experience, theindividual presentations, lectures and so forth. Both groups examined the course theme. The
groups presented their reports in the report-back sessions, where they were endorsed as thereports of the course. The reports were published in full in UNAFEI Resource Material
Series No. 110.

9

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

3. Outcome Summary(i) Introducing and Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in the Treatment of VAWC Offenders
Addressing the issue of evidence-based practice (EBP) in the treatment of violenceagainst women and children (VAWC) offenders, the group began by reviewing the historicaldebate surrounding the effectiveness of offender treatment, noting that randomized control
trials, quasi-experiments, systematic review and meta-analysis are all scientific methods thathave been developed to measure programme effectiveness. In the 1980s, Andrews and Bonta
developed the Risk-Need-Responsivity (RNR) Model, which establishes criminogenic needs(dynamic risk factors) as the appropriate targets for offender treatment. These needs shouldbe treated through effective evidence-based measures such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy(CBT) and Family Group Conferences (FGC).
Despite this well-established basis for offender treatment, the group identified a numberof challenges to the implementation of effective treatment programmes. In response, thegroup offered the following recommendations: (i) improve stakeholder awareness (including
the awareness and motivation of correctional staff) by promoting the benefits of EBP, such as
public safety, prevention of reoffending and cost effectiveness; (ii) increase the number of
specialists and trained staff by enhancing academic and legal studies and cooperation with
non-governmental organizations; (iii) enhance programme effectiveness by drafting detailed
manuals to standardize programme implementation; (iv) reduce disparities between researchand practice by ensuring that researchers perform their studies in realistic correctional
environments; (v) enshrine principles of inter-agency cooperation in relevant legislation; and(vi) motivate offenders to change, which can be achieved by ensuring that judges impose
rehabilitative sentences and by offering offenders incentives to participate in rehabilitation
programmes, such as meetings with family members, early release etc.
Noting the varied status of EBP in the participating jurisdictions, the group stressed theimportance of implementation of EBP and offered recommendations aimed toward ensuring
programme effectiveness. EBP must be objective (i.e. not based on subjective opinions), andthe results of such practices must be able to be replicated. However, because EBP is notuniversally known or understood, the first challenge is to raise awareness by explaining the
EBP philosophy to fellow practitioners. Second, implementing EBP throughout a system may
be an overwhelming, impossible task. Practitioners are encouraged to identify a specific areaof work, such as sexual offences or domestic violence, to focus on. Third, it is important tobuild capacity of correctional staff through education and training. Once these elements are inplace, the final step is the adoption of certified, effective programmes in accordance withlocal needs and requirements.
(ii) Multi-Stakeholder Cooperation to Promote VAWC Offender Rehabilitation and Prevent
Reoffending
Noting the linkages between criminal justice and promoting gender equality as
established by the Sustainable Development Goals, the group addressed the importance ofmulti-stakeholder cooperation to facilitate the treatment of VAWC offenders and to prevent
them from reoffending. The group concluded that, contrary to the traditional approach ofpunishment by incarceration, correctional systems should prioritize treatment andrehabilitation. The rehabilitative approach should prioritize alternatives to imprisonment,
enabling multiple institutions, both inside and outside the criminal justice system, to facilitate
offender treatment. Furthermore, multi-stakeholder cooperation promises to reduce rates ofimprisonment and recidivism, as well as costs to the correctional system.

10

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEIThe group stressed that rehabilitation programmes must be country specific and musttarget appropriate individuals and identified the following as factors that lead VAWC
offenders toward recidivism: (i) reintegration issues (social stigma, problems finding
accommodations, lack of funds for sustainable treatment); (ii) the lack of aftercare and othersupport services, which leads offenders to return to their antisocial peers and criminal
enterprises; (iii) the failure to leverage key stakeholders throughout the lengthy process ofoffender rehabilitation; (iv) the underreporting of crimes against women due to their fear of
losing social and financial security, lack of access to justice etc.; and (v) lack of educationand guidance for juveniles, which damages their self-esteem, leading them toward a life ofcrime.
In response to these challenges, the following best practices and recommendations wereidentified, inter alia: (i) enhancing the role of public prosecutors by enabling them tocommence rehabilitation at the initial stage by making referrals to psychologists,rehabilitation volunteers and other religious or community resources; (ii) establishingmechanisms to share information and statistics between stakeholders involved in offender
treatment; (iii) enhancing responses to children in conflict with the law through the use of
specialized judges, Gesell Chambers for interviews with and counselling for juveniles,
maintaining juveniles’ confidentiality etc.; (iv) conducting continuous assessments for
VAWC offenders using the RNR and Good Lives models; (v) making use of restorative
justice and alternative dispute resolution programmes.
By providing rehabilitative treatment and support to VAWC offenders continuously andas early as possible, criminal justice systems can improve the offenders’ chances torehabilitate themselves and avoid repeating their crimes. This requires a team-based, multistakeholder approach drawing on specialized expertise of public officials and privateorganizations.
(iii)Non-Custodial Measures for VAWC Offender Rehabilitation and Reoffending Prevention
The group considered the importance of non-custodial measures to the rehabilitation of
VAWC offenders and recidivism prevention, finding that imprisonment is no panacea forprevention of recidivism. Non-custodial measures have the following advantages: thereduction of incarceration, the reduction of recidivism, the effectiveness of rehabilitation andthe enhancement of community involvement. Such measures should be implemented at all
relevant stages of the criminal justice system, particularly the pre-trial stage, the trial andsentencing stage, and the post-sentencing stage.
At the pre-trial stage, the principal non-custodial measure is non-prosecution orsuspension of prosecution. This enables the prosecutor to consider factors such as the gravityof the offence, the age and other characteristics of the offender, the circumstances underwhich the offence was committed etc. During the trial stage, the sentencing authority should
consider the nature of the offence, the purpose of the sentence, the personality of the offenderand the protection of the victim. In implementing non-custodial measures, the following
practices are widely used: suspension of execution of sentence, economic sanctions (fines),confiscation of property, community service orders and the “Weekend Jail System”, whichenables the offender to work during weekdays in order to support his or her family. At the
post-sentencing stage, probationers and parolees are permitted to serve all or a portion of
their sentences in the community, which allows them to work and maintain their liberty
subject to supervision by the relevant governmental and/or community authorities. They mustalso abide by certain conditions that steer them toward rehabilitation. Community support,
11

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019such as accommodation at halfway houses and other counselling or mentoring programmes,is also available.
After identifying a number of challenges facing the implementation of non-custodial
measures (lack of awareness, lack of educational/vocational programmes, lack of community
acceptance, and ongoing threats to victim and public safety), the group made the following
recommendations: (i) ensuring that non-custodial measures are sufficiently incorporated into
legislation and guidelines for prosecutors and judges; (ii) exploring the use of electronicmonitoring as a tool to support the effective implementation of non-custodial measures; (iii)
implementing community-based treatment measures and support, such as volunteer probation
officers, halfway houses, cooperative employers, Circles of Support and Accountability(CoSA) etc.; (iv) establishing crisis shelters to provide protection, guidance and support for
victims.
III. SPECIAL TRAINING COURSES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
A. The Follow-Up Seminar on the Third Country Training Programme forDevelopment of Effective Community-Based Treatment of Offenders in the CLMVCountries
From 22 to 24 April 2019, UNAFEI co-hosted the Follow-Up Seminar on the Third
Country Training Programme for Development of Effective Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders in the CLMV Countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Viet Nam).
B. The Comparative Study of Myanmar and Japan to Improve Prison Management
From 8-19 July 2019, 10 participants from Myanmar attended to study and compare
prison management practices.
C. The 22nd UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEI’s annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training
Programme, took place from 9 October to 15 November 2019. The main theme of theProgramme was “Detection, Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of High-Profile
Corruption”. 26 overseas participants and 6 Japanese participants attended.
D. The Joint Study on the Legal Systems of Japan and Viet Nam 2019 RTI-SPP
Exchange Programme (Japan Session)
From 25 to 29 November 2019, two Vietnamese participants discussed effective
questioning of witnesses and coordination between superior offices and subordinate offices.
E. The Third Training Course on Legal Technical Assistance for Viet Nam
From 25 November to 3 December 2019, ten Vietnamese participants discussed witness
examination and cooperation between high prosecutors’ offices and lower prosecutors’
offices.
F. The Thirteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast AsianCountries
From 17 to 19 December 2019, UNAFEI held the Thirteenth Regional Seminar on Good
Governance at UNAFEI in Tokyo, Japan. Approximately twenty anti-corruption practitioners
from the ASEAN member countries and Timor-Leste attended as official delegates to address
anti-money-laundering measures and asset recovery.
12

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

IV. INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION SERVICES
The Institute continues to collect data and other resource materials on crime trends, crime
prevention strategies and the treatment of offenders from Asia, the Pacific, Africa, Europe andthe Americas, and makes use of this information in its training courses and seminars. The
Information and Library Service of the Institute has been providing, upon request, materials andinformation to United Nations agencies, governmental organizations, research institutes andresearchers, both domestic and foreign.
V. PUBLICATIONS
Reports on training courses and seminars are published regularly by the Institute. Since
1971, the Institute has issued the Resource Material Series, which contains contributions by
the faculty members, visiting experts and participants of UNAFEI courses and seminars. In
2019, the 107th, 108th and 109th editions of the Resource Material Series were published.
Additionally, issues 158 to 160 (from the 171st Senior Seminar to the 173rd International
Training Course, respectively) of the UNAFEI Newsletter were published, which included abrief report on each course and seminar and other timely information. These publications arealso available on UNAFEI’s website at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english.
VI. OTHER ACTIVITIES
A. Public Lecture Programme
On 25 January 2019, the Public Lecture Programme was conducted in the Grand Conference
Hall of the Ministry of Justice. In attendance were many distinguished guests, UNAFEI alumni
and the participants of the 171st International Senior Seminar. This Programme was jointly
sponsored by the Asia Crime Prevention Foundation (ACPF), the Japan Criminal Policy Society(JCPS) and UNAFEI.
The Public Lecture Programmes increase the public’s awareness of criminal justice issues,
through comparative international study, by inviting distinguished speakers from abroad. In
2019, Ms. Santanee Ditsayabut, Provincial Public Prosecutor, Office of the Attorney Generalof Thailand, and Dimosthenis Chrysikos of the Organized Crime and Illicit Trafficking Branch,
Division for Treaty Affairs, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), wereinvited as speakers. They presented on "Thailand’s Effort to End Violence Against Women
Which is One Form of Crime Motivated by Gender Discrimination" and "International
Efforts to Follow-Up on the Doha Declaration of the Thirteenth United Nations Congress on
Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice", respectively.
B. Assisting UNAFEI Alumni Activities
Various UNAFEI alumni associations in several countries have commenced, or are about tocommence, 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 situationinternationally.

13

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

C. Overseas Missions in 2019
Deputy Director Ishihara and Professor Hirano visited Bangkok, Thailand from 22 to 24
January to attend the Asia and Pacific Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Fourteenth
United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Professor Yamada visited Attard, the republic of Malta from 31 January to 1 February toattend the workshop titled “IIJ Global Central Authorities Initiative: Expert Meeting –Curriculum Development”.
Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor Ohinata
visited Santiago, Chile, from 2 to 8 February to attend the Latin American and Caribbean
Regional Preparatory Meeting for the Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor Futagoishi, Chief International Administration
Officer Fujita and International Training Officer Oda visited Singapore from 4 to 8 March tohave meetings with the Home Team Academy and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau(CPIB).
Professor Yamamoto visited Manila, Philippines, from 5 to 13 March to have meetings
about offender treatment with the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), theBureau of Corrections (BuCor) and the Parole and Probation Administration (PPA).
Director Seto and Professor Futagoishi visited Santiago and Valparaíso, Chile, from 13 to
15 March to attend the IPPF Colloquium 2019.
Director Seto and Deputy Director Ishihara visited Beirut, Lebanon, from 18 to 21 March
to attend the Western Asian regional preparatory meetings for the Fourteenth United Nations
Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and International Training
Officer Iinuma visited Phnom Penh, Cambodia, from 20 to 22 March to have meetings about
the situations and preparation for community corrections in Cambodia with the Ministry ofInterior and the Ministry of Justice.
Director Seto, Professor Futagoishi and Professor Furuhashi visited Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia, from 9 to 11 April to attend the African regional preparatory meeting for the
Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Professor Yamamoto visited Manila and Davao, Philippines, from 22 to 26 April to hold ameeting about the Workshop on Management of Offenders to Prevent Violent Extremism.
Director Seto, Professor Futagoishi and Professor WATANABE Machiko visited Vienna,
Austria, from 23 to 25 April to attend the European Regional Preparatory Meeting for the
Fourteenth United Nations Congress on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
Director Seto, Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor Yamamoto, Professor Morikawa,
Chief International Administration Officer Fujita, Senior International Training Officers
Yamada and Saito visited Vienna, Austria, from 23 to 25 May to participate in the twentyeighth session of the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice.
14

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Director Seto and Professor Yamamoto visited Manila, Philippines, from 10 to 14 June tohold the Workshop on Management of Offenders to Prevent Violent Extremism.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 17 to 19 June toattend a UNODC Expert Meeting.
Professor Yamamoto visited Jakarta, Indonesia, from 24 to 25 June to attend theCountering Violent Extremism (CVE) Working Group Workshop on Counter and Alternative
Narratives.
Professor WATANABE Machiko stayed in Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany, from 10
July to 1 August to attend the Program on Countering Transnational Organized Crime.
Professor Yamamoto visited Dili, Timor-Leste, from 16 to 19 July to hold a workshop
entitled the “Management of Offenders to Prevent Violent Extremism: Strengthening theAssessment System in Prisons”.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki, Professor Morikawa and International Training
Officer Matsuda visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 23 to 27 July to attend the Regional
Workshop on Community-based Treatment for Terrorists and Violent Extremist Offender(VEO).
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki visited Bangkok, Thailand, on 30 August to attend theConference on “40 Years of Probation with Probation 4.0”.
Professor Otani visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 4 to 6 September to attend theInternational Seminar on Conflicts of Interest (hosted by the Office of the National AntiCorruption Commission).
Professor Kitagawa visited Arlington, USA, from 15 to 18 September to attend the forum
on Criminal Justice hosted by the National Criminal Justice Association (NCJA) and theInternational Community Corrections Association (ICCA.)
Professor Furuhashi and Senior International Training Officer Onda visited Ulaanbaatar,
Mongolia, from 22 to 26 September to attend the 39th Asian and Pacific Conference ofCorrectional Administrators (APCCA) 2019.
Deputy Director Ishihara, Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki, Professor Hosokawa andProfessor Morikawa visited Nairobi, Kenya, from 23 to 28 September to attend the JICA
meeting with juvenile justice authorities.
Professor Futagoishi visited Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, from 23 to 28
September to attend the Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice – Supreme
People's Procuracy Exchange Programme, Viet Nam Session.
Professor Furuhashi visited Bangkok, Thailand, from 28 to 29 October to deliver a lecture
at the 4th Training on the Management of Women Prisoners hosted by Thailand Institute ofJustice.

15

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki and Professor Yamamoto visited Buenos Aires,
Argentina, from 27 October to 1 November to attend the annual conference of theInternational Corrections and Prisons Association Conference (ICPA).
Director Seto and Professor Morikawa visited Canberra, Australia, from 30 October to 1
November to attend the 2019 Autumn Coordination Meeting of the United Nations Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network and the 2019 conference of theAustralia and New Zealand Society of Evidence Based Policing (ANZSEBP)
Professor Otani, Professor Hosokawa, Professor Kitagawa and International Training
Officer Kondo visited Kathmandu, Nepal, from 3 to 5 November to hold a meeting with the
Office of the Attorney General of Nepal, the Supreme Court, the National Judicial Academy
and the Nepal Police.
Professor Yamamoto visited Davao, Philippines, from 11 to 15 November to hold aworkshop entitled the “Management of Offenders to Prevent Violent Extremism”.
Deputy Director Ishihara and Professor Yamamoto visited Glasgow, Scotland, from 24 to
28 November to have a meeting with Dr. Fergus McNeill, Professor of Criminology andSocial Work at the University of Glasgow.
Professor WATANABE Hiroyuki, Professor Furuhashi and Senior International Training
Officer Hirose visited Mandalay and Insein, Myanmar, from 15 to 20 December to havemeetings about prison management and offender treatment with the Myanmar Prison
Department of the Ministry of Home Affairs.
D. Assisting ACPF Activities
UNAFEI cooperates and collaborates with the ACPF to improve crime prevention andcriminal justice administration in the region. Since UNAFEI and the ACPF have many similargoals, and a large part of the ACPF’s membership consists of UNAFEI alumni, the relationshipbetween the two is very strong.
VII. HUMAN RESOURCES
A. Staff
In 1970, the Government of Japan assumed full financial and administrative
responsibility for running the Institute. The Director, Deputy Director and approximately nine
professors are selected from among public prosecutors, the judiciary, corrections, probationand the police. UNAFEI also has approximately 15 administrative staff members, who areappointed from among officials of the Government of Japan, and a linguistic adviser.
Moreover, the Ministry of Justice invites visiting experts from abroad to each training courseand seminar. The Institute has also received valuable assistance from various experts,
volunteers and related agencies in conducting its training programmes.
B. Faculty and Staff Changes
Ms. WATANABE Machiko, formerly an attorney, General Affairs and Planning
Department, Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, was appointed as aprofessor of UNAFEI in April 2019.

16

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF UNAFEI

Mr. HOSOKAWA Hidehito, formerly a judge, Kumagaya Branch, Saitama Family Court,
was appointed as a professor of UNAFEI in April 2019.
Mr. MORIKAWA Takeshi, a probation officer of the Tokyo Probation Office, wasappointed as a professor of UNAFEI in April 2019.
Mr. YAMADA Masahiro, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the
Yamaguchi District Public Prosecutors’ Office in April 2019.
Mr. HIRANO Nozomu, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Nagoya
District Court in April 2019.
Mr. OHINATA Hidenori, formerly a professor of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Second
Training Department, Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, in April
2019.
Mr. KOSEKI Takahiro, formerly an officer of the Tokyo District Prosecutors’ Office,
was appointed as the chief of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of
UNAFEI in April 2019.
Mr. ONDA Keisuke, formerly an instructor of the Kakogawa Juvenile Training School,
was appointed as a senior officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs Section of
UNAFEI in April 2019.
Mr. KONDO Tomohiro, formerly an officer of the International Cooperation Department,
Research and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, was appointed as an officer of theTraining and Hostel Management Affairs Section of UNAFEI in April 2019.
Ms. KIKUCHI Yoshimi, formerly a chief of the Financial Affairs Section of UNAFEI,
was transferred to the Finance Division, Minister's Secretariat, Ministry of Justice, in April
2019.
Mr. KIGUCHI Ryo, formerly a senior officer of the Financial Affairs Section of UNAFEI,
was transferred to the Tokyo District Public Prosecutors’ Office in April 2019.
Mr. OTA Masaru, formerly an officer of the Financial Affairs Section of UNAFEI, wastransferred to Kasamatsu Prison in April 2019.
Ms. TSUJII Yayoi, formerly an officer of the General Affairs Section of UNAFEI, wastransferred to the Kansai Airport District Immigration Office in April 2019.
Mr. TOYODA Yasushi, formerly a chief of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs
Section of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International Cooperation Department, Research
and Training Institute of the Ministry of Justice, in April 2019.
Ms. NAGAHAMA Arisa, formerly a senior officer of the Training and Hostel
Management Affairs Section of UNAFEI, was transferred to the International Affairs
Division, Minister’s Secretariat, Ministry of Justice, in April 2019.

17

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Ms. ODA Michie, formerly an officer of the Training and Hostel Management Affairs
Section of UNAFEI, was transferred to the Tokyo High Public Prosecutors’ Office in April
2019.
VIII. FINANCESThe Ministry of Justice primarily provides the Institute’s budget. UNAFEI’s total budget for
its programmes is approximately ¥70 million per year. Additionally, JICA and the ACPF
provide assistance for the Institute's international training courses and seminars.

18

UNAFEI WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2020

I. TRAINING
A. Training Courses & Seminars (Multinational)
1. The 174th International Senior Seminar
The 174th International Senior Seminar was held from 16 January to 14 February 2020.
The main theme of the Seminar was “Prevention of Reoffending and Fostering Social
Inclusion: From Policy to Good Practice”. Sixteen overseas participants and seven Japaneseparticipants attended.
2.

The 175th International Training Course
The 175th International Training Course was to be held from May to June 2020. The
main theme of the Course is “Achieving Inclusive Societies through Effective Criminal
Justice Policies and Practices”. The training course was postponed due to the COVID-19
pandemic.
3.

The 176th International Training Course
The 176th International Training Course was to be held from August to September 2020.
The main theme of the Course is the "Treatment of Women Offenders”. The training course
was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
4.

The 23rd UNAFEI UNCAC Training Programme
UNAFEI’s annual general anti-corruption programme, the UNAFEI UNCAC Training
Programme, was to take place from October to November 2020. The main theme of the
programme addresses anti-corruption measures and best practices. The programme waspostponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
5.

The Fourteenth Regional Seminar on Good Governance for Southeast Asian Countries
From 2 to 7 December 2020, UNAFEI was scheduled to hold the Fourteenth Regional
Seminar on Good Governance in Tokyo, Japan, on the theme of “Integrity and Independenceof Judges, Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Officials”. The programme has been postponed
to March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Among other participants, 20 anti-corruption
practitioners from the 10 ASEAN countries are expected to attend as official delegates. The
programme was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
B. Training Course (Country Specific)
1. The Comparative Study on the Criminal Justice Systems of Japan and Nepal
From 19-27 February 2020, twelve Nepalese participants attended to analyse the issues
from a comparative point of view and improve the practice of the criminal justice system in
Nepal under the new Criminal Procedure Code.

19

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019
Distribution of Participants by Professional Backgrounds and Countries(1st International Training Course - 174th International Senior Seminar, U.N.Human Rights Courses and 1 Special Course)

研修参加者・セミナー参加者

地域別・職種別一覧表（第1回国際研修から第174回国際高官セミナーまで）
As of 2 October 2020

Professional Background

Judicial and
Other
Administration

PublicProsecutors

Judge

職名

司法行政
（矯正・保護行政を含む）

アフガニスタンバングラデシュ
ブータン
ブルネイ
カンボジア
中
国
グルジア
香港
イ ン ド
インドネシア
イ ラ ン
イ ラ ク
ヨルダン
韓国
キルギス
ラ オ ス
マレーシア
モルディヴ
モンゴル
ミャンマー
ネパール
オマーン
パキスタン
パレスチナ
フィリピン
サウジアラビア
シンガポールスリランカ
台湾
タジキスタン
東ティモールタイト ル コ
アラブ首長国連邦
ウズベキスタンベトナム
イエメン
小計（アジア州）
1
アルジェリア
2
ボツワナ
3
カメルーン
4
コートジボアール
5 Democratic Republic of the Congo
コンゴ民主共和国
6
Egypt
エジプト
7
Ethiopia
エチオピア
8
Gambia
ガンビア
9
Ghana
ガ ー ナ
10
Guinea
ギ ニ ア
11
Kenya
ケ ニ ア
12
Lesothoレ ソ ト
13Liberiaリベリア
14Madagascar
マダガスカル
15
Malawi
マラウィ
16
Mali
マリ
17
Mauritiusモーリシャス
18
Moroccoモロッコ
19
Mozambique
モザンビーク
20
Namibia
ナミビア
21
Niger
ニジェール
22
Nigeria
ナイジェリア23
Somalia
ソマリア
24
South Africa
南アフリカ共和国
25
Seychelles
セーシェル
26
Sudan
スーダン
27
Swaziland
スワジランド28
Tanzania
タンザニア
29
Tunisia
チュニジア
30
Ugandaウガンダ
31
Zambiaザンビア
32
Zimbabwe
ジンバブエ
AFRICA小計（アフリカ州）
1
Australia
オーストラリア2
Cook Islands
クック諸島
3
Fiji
フィジー
4
Kiribati
キリバス
5
Marshall Islandマーシャル
6
Micronesia
ミクロネシア
7
Nauru
ナ ウ ル
8
New Zealand
ニュージーランド
9
Palau
パラオ
10
Papua New Guinea
パプアニューギニア
11
Samoa
サモア
12
Solomon Islands
ソロモン
13
Tonga
ト ン ガ
14
Vanuatu
バヌアツ
THE PACIFIC
小計（大洋州）1
Antigua and Barbuda
アンティグア・バーブーダ
2
Argentina
アルゼンチン
3
Barbados
バルバドス
4
Belizeベリーズ
5
Boliviaボリビア
6
Brazil
ブラジル
7
Chile
チ
リ

11
24

9
15

6

4
1
13

3
5

1
5

10
25
12
3
1
3

33
8
3
3
53

Country/Area

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37

Afghanistan
Bangladesh
BhutanBrunei
Cambodia
China
Georgia
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
JordanKorea
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Malaysia
Maldives
Mongolia
Myanmar
Nepal
Oman
Pakistan
Palestine
Philippines
Saudi Arabia
Singapore
Sri Lanka
TaiwanTajikistan
Timor-Leste
ThailandTurkeyUnited Arab Emirates
Uzbekistan
Viet namYemen
A S I A
Algeria
Botswana
Cameroon
Cote d'Ivoire

20

国 ・ 地域名

22
15
23
5
6
1
13
1
16
24
6
3
12
38
22
2
23
5
11
24
12
2
29
2
1
15
2
388

裁判官

検察官

1
2
13

Correctional
Officials(Adult)Correctional
Officials(Juvenile)

矯正官

矯正官

（成人）

（少年）

5

51
1

46
1

19
2

4
5

2
6

253
4

232

5

2

13
3
5

272
2
1
1
4
4
3

1
8
2
494

6

1
1
3

13
9

2
2
3
2
2
5
4
14
1

Child
WelfareOfficers

Social
WelfareOfficers

Training &Research
Officers

Others

Total

その他

計

教育・研究・
家裁調査官

児童福祉職員 社会福祉職員
調査機関職員

1
1

4

6

2

2
1

5
22
2

1
18

7
7
5
1
1
18
1
3
4
29

Family Court
Investigation
Officers

保護観察官

5
22
23

18
25
4
3

9
2
4

Probation
ParoleOfficers

警察官

7
10
1
12
55
33
8
8
7
6
2
10
52
9
3
12
34
4
48
1
44
7
12
25
2

2
4
2
1
3

PoliceOfficials

8
32
7
15
6
5
2
37

37
2

3
1

9
1
4

1

3
2
6

1
6

5

2
2

4

3

8

4
2

1

6

3

4
3
1

1

2
4
3
8

1

11
3
10
20
1

3

2
1
16

3
1

10
11

9

21

1
22

3

1

1
7

1

3
3

1

8

1
40

85

4

4

2

2

5
1
1

7
1
1
1

8
1

1
1
1

1
6

1

4
49

52

30

3

1

1

1
10

2

20
2

1

2
1

1
1
2
1
3

2
1
1
1

2

1
3
1
1

1
44
1
7
1
1

2
1
1
1
1

1
1

4

1
2

41

1

7
1
1
3
40
1
9

1
17
5
3
2

1

6
2

1

38

3

1
19

2

2

0

1
4
1

1
1

4
1
1

1

1

1
2

6

7

4
4
13
2
9
1
5
6
8
105

3

31

22

17

1
1
1
1

1

1
2

2
1

4
1
1
1
2
27
2
2
7
4
73
1
2
2
2

1
10
1
2
4
2
38

32
4

4
2

2

24
1
3

0

1

2
1

10

4

1

1
1

9
3

0

4
1
22
1

1

4
1
1

0

0

3

1

5
1

1
1

23
1

1

1

32
79
23
6
13
41
1
83
101
142
42
32
14
119
3
42
145
28
9
30
111
5
101
9
158
17
74
133
21
5
2
215
8
1
9
45
4
1,903
6
11
5
19
11
16
5
2
8
7
71
3
1
1
3
4
3
10
3
7
1
16
1
9
5
20
2
25
2
7
8
12
304
3
4
57
1
5
2
2
2
3
75
12
9
19
8
202
2
7
3
3
2
66
8

UNAFEI WORK PROGRAMME FOR 2020
Professional Background

Judicial and
Other
Administration

職名

司法行政
（矯正・保護行政を含む）

8
Colombia
コロンビア
9
Costa Rica
コスタリカ
10
Dominican Republic
ドミニカ共和国
11
Ecuador
エクアドル
12
El Salvador
エルサルバドル
13
Grenadaグレナダ
14
Guatemalaグアテマラ
15
Guyana
ガイアナ
16
Haiti
ハイチ
17
Honduras
ホンジュラス
18
Jamaica
ジャマイカ
19
Mexicoメキシコ
20
Nicaragua
ニカラグア
21
Panamaパ ナ マ
22Paraguay
パラグアイ
23
Peru
ペ ル ー
24 Saint Christopher and Nevis セントクリストファー・ネイヴィス
25
Saint Lucia
セントルシア26Saint Vincent
セントビンセント27
Trinidad and Tobago
トリニダード・トバゴ
28
U.S.A.
米国
29
Uruguay
ウルグアイ
30
Venezuela
ベネズエラ
NORTH & SOUTH AMERICA
小計（アメリカ州）
1
Albania
アルバニア
2
Armenia
アルメニア
3
Azerbaijan
アゼルバイジャン
4
Bulgaria
ブルガリア
5Estonia
エストニア
6 Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia マケドニア旧ユーゴスラビア共和国
7
Hungaryハンガリー
8
Lithuania
リトアニア
9
Moldovaモルドバ
10Polandポーランド
11
Ukraineウクライナ
EUROPE
小計（欧州）
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 国連薬物・犯罪オフィス
1
JAPAN
日
本
##
TOTAL
合
計

3
3

Country/Area

国 ・ 地域名

2

PublicProsecutors

Judge

裁判官

検察官

1
5

1

PoliceOfficials

Correctional
Officials(Adult)Correctional
Officials(Juvenile)

矯正官

矯正官

（成人）

（少年）

Probation
ParoleOfficers

1
1

2

2
3
2

Child
WelfareOfficers

保護観察官

家裁調査官

Training &Research
Officers

Total

Others

児童福祉職員 社会福祉職員

その他

計

調査機関職員

6
2
4
5
1
1
3
1
8
2
2

Social
WelfareOfficers

教育・研究・

警察官

2
5

Family Court
Investigation
Officers

1
1

1
2

1

1

1
1
1
1

1

1
5

1
1

1
1
1
4

10

9
1
4
1

1

5
9
5
1
1
2

1

2
1
1

1

2

13

1
1
1

1
32
1
1
1

22

1
51

3
12
116
2

17

3

2

1

2

1

1
4

1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
7

2
2

4
5

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

1
1

119
628

214
535

336
723

113
907

110
428

102
147

235
368

72
77

38
45

2
57

48
116

1
1
1
93
147

21

14
16
2
6
12
1
5
4
1
11
11
5
1
17
12
27
2
3
2
2
1
3
15
264
3
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
9
22
1
1,482
4,178

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

MAIN STAFF OF UNAFEI
Faculty:
Mr. SETO Takeshi
Ms. ISHIHARA Kayo
Mr. FUTAGOISHI Ryo
Mr. OTANI Junichiro
Mr. WATANABE Machiko
Mr. WATANABE Hiroyuki
Mr. HOSOKAWA Hidehito
Ms. KITAGAWA Mika
Dr. YAMAMOTO Mana
Mr. FURUHASHI Takuya
Mr. MORIKAWA Takeshi
Mr. Thomas L. Schmid
Secretariat:
Mr. FUJITA Takeshi
Mr. KOSEKI Takahiro
Ms. OKUMOTO Ako
Mr. TAOMOTO Akira

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

AS OF 31 DECEMBER 201922

APPENDIX

2019 VISITING EXPERTS
THE 171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Ms. Cristina M. Finch

Head, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination
Department
ODIHR/OSCE

Mr. Mark Walters

Professor of Criminal Law andCriminology
School of Law, Politics and Sociology
University of Sussex

Ms. Santanee Ditsayabut

Provincial Public Prosecutor, Assistant
Secretary to the Deputy Attorney General
Office of Attorney General

Mr. Dimosthenis Chrysikos

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice
Officer, United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime (UNODC)
Division for Treaty Affairs

THE 172ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Ms. Janice Brennan

Barrister
United Kingdom

Mr. Martin Fowke

Team Leader, Normative & Policy
Human Trafficking & Migrant
Smuggling Section
Division of Treaty Affairs
United Nations Office on Drugs andCrime (UNODC)

Mr. Severino H Gana, Jr.

Former Senior Deputy State Prosecutor
Department of JusticeRepublic of the Philippines

23

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

THE 173RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Dr. Kattiya Ratanadilok

Director
Justice Research and Development Institute
Office of Justice Affairs
Thailand

Ms. Mariana Martin

Commissioner: Rehabilitation
Namibian Correctional Service
Ministry of Safety and Security
NamibiaDr. Franca Cortoni

Professor, School of Criminology
Université de Montréal
CanadaTHE 22ND UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMME
Mr. Simon Peh Yun-lu

Commissioner
Independent Commission Against
Corruption (ICAC)
Hong Kong

Mr. David Alexander Williams

Principal Investigator
Operations Department
Independent Commission Against
Corruption (ICAC)
Hong Kong

Mr. Alun Paul Milford

Solicitor
Kingsley Napley LLP
United Kingdom

Dr. Thomas Shara Dougherty

Attorney Advisor
Southeast Asia International Computer
Hacking and Intellectual Property (ICHIP)
Department of Justice
United States

24

APPENDIX

2019 UNAFEI PARTICIPANTS
THE 171ST INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
Overseas Participants
Mr. Andre Lopes LASMAR

Federal Prosecutor
Office of Federal Prosecution in Sao PauloFederal Prosecution Service
BrazilMr. Ahmed SHUHADHead of Northern Operations Command
Divisional Operations Command
Maldives Police Service
Maldives

Ms. Raufa HAIDAR

Assistant Legal Officer
Protocol Division
Supreme Court
Maldives

Mr. Win Myint Zaw

Deputy Director
Division against Transnational Crime
Myanmar Police Forces
MyanmarMr. Shahid JAVED

Deputy Inspector General of Police
Punjab Police
Pakistan

Mr. Tufail AHMED

Senior Superintendent of Police
Central Police Headquarters
Gilgit Baltistan Police
Pakistan

Mr. Jimmy Puieki ONOPIA

Director Prosecutions
Crimes Division
Police Department
Papua New Guinea

Mr. Salvador Jr Mamauag TRONO

Senior Tactical Officer
Philippine National Police Academy
Philippines

25

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Mr. Ranga Srinath Abeywickrema
DISSANAYAKE

Judicial Officer
Magistrate Court-Fort
Judicial Service Commission
Sri Lanka

Mr. Waruna Sanjeewa Ekanayake
JAYASUNDARA

Director in ChargeCounter Terrorism and Investigation Division
Sri Lanka Police
Sri Lanka

Mr. Kodir Voithanovich ASKAROV

Deputy Prosecutor
Chust District Prosecutor's Office
Uzbekistan

Mr. Istam Rustamovich ASTANOVAssistant Professor of Academy
Department of Supervision over the Struggle
against Crime
Academy General Prosecutor's Office
Uzbekistan

Mr. Hai Ngoc NGUYEN

Deputy Director
Research Centre for Criminology and Criminal
Investigation
The People's Police Academy, The Ministry of
Public Security
Viet NamJapanese Participants
Ms. FUJITA Rana

Judge
Ryugasaki Branch
Mito District Court

Ms. ICHIHARA Shizu

Judge
Kobe District Court

Mr. HIMEDA Takuro

Chief of General Affairs Section
Maebashi Prison

Mr. KADOWAKI Kotaro

Deputy Director
Sendai Probation Office

Mr. NUMAMAE Teruhide

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors’ Office

Mr. TAMADA Koji

Public Prosecutor
Nagoya District Public Prosecutors’ Office26

APPENDIX

THE 172ND INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Mr. Julio Cesar De Castilhos Oliveira
COSTA

Federal Prosecutor
Office of Federal Prosecution in Espirito Santo
State
Federal Prosecution Service
BrazilMr. ETTIEN Tiemele

Public Prosecutor
Tribunal of Bouna
Ministry of Justice and Human Rights
Côte d'Ivoire

Ms. Tupa Lituka Bibiche LIFAEFI

Prosecutor's Assistant
Prosecutor Justice Department
Public Justice
D.R. Congo

Mr. Ahmed Mohamed Abdelaziz
OSMAN

Chief Prosecutor
International Cooperation Division of theProsecutor General OfficePublic Prosecution
Egypt

Mr. Riad Amin Mohamed Ahmed
MANSOUR

Chief Judge
Technical Bureau Office
Egyptian Court of Cassation
Egypt

Mr. Yustiar NUGROHOHead of the Organizer Division
Supreme Court Judicial Training and ResearchCentreSupreme Court
Indonesia

Ms. Hellen Khandasi MAFUMBO

Senior Children's Officer
Children's Services
Ministry of Labour & Social Protection
Kenya

Mr. Ulanbek KUDAIBERGENOV

Senior Specialized Intelligence Officer of High
Profile Cases, Expert of Smuggling &Trafficking in Human Beings
Criminal Police Service, Department of
Combatting the Organized Crimes
Ministry of Internal Affairs
Kyrgyz Republic

27

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Ms. Mithounavanh KONGMANY

Director, First Instance Court Judge
Department of Planning and International
Relations
People's Supreme Court
Lao PDR

Mr. Benedicto Benedictus
CHITSAKAMIRE

Principal Resident Magistrate
Judicial Magistracy
Malawi Judiciary
MalawiMr. Muhd Azlan YUSOFF

Co-Ordinations Officer for People Smuggling
Operation
Special BranchRoyal Malaysia Police
Malaysia

Mr. Mohammed Nm ASMAR

Prosecutor
Jenin Prosecution OfficePublic Prosecution
Palestine

Mr. Julio Alberto CAMPINESCORDOBA

Circuit Prosecutor
Decision and Early Litigation Section in Bocas
del Toro
Public Ministry
PanamaMs. Yarania Grisel RENTERIA MENA

Prosecutor
Colon Regional Prosecution Department
Public Ministry
PanamaMr. Ewai SEGI

Senior Investigator
Criminal Investigation Division
Royal PNG Constabulary
Papua New Guinea

Mr. Antinna Marakkala Ajith Wasantha
KUMARA

Judicial Officer
Magistrate's Court of Nugegoda
Judicial Service Commission
Sri Lanka

Mr. Malwattage Chamath Dileepa
PEERRIS

Deputy Solicitor General
Criminal Division
Attorney General's Department
Sri Lanka

28

APPENDIX

Mr. Paulo ANUNO

Investigator
Criminal Investigation Unit
Anti-Corruption Commission
Timor-Leste

Mr. Fedir Vyatcheslavovich OLIINYK

Senior Detective
Main Department of Detectives
National Anti-Corruption Bureau
UkraineMr. Bobir Sobirovich TURDIEV

Senior Prosecutor
Academy of General Prosecutor's Office
Uzbekistan

Mr. Farrukh TURAKHODJAEV

JudgeCriminal Court of Mirzo Ulugbek District
Tashkent City
Uzbekistan

Japanese Participants
Mr. IKEDA Hiroki

Deputy Chief
Security Division, Guard and Rescue
Department
Japan Coast Guard, 6th Regional Coast Guard
Headquarters

Ms. KAMATA Takako

Sergeant
Saitama Prefecture Police

Mr. MANSHO Koshiro

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors’ Office

Mr. MIZOTA Yasuyuki

Judge
Tokyo High Court

Mr. MURONE Yoshinori

Senior Immigration Control Officer
Tokyo Regional Immigration Bureau

Mr. OGUCHI Godai

Judge
Tottori Family/District Court

Mr. SUZUKI Yudai

Public Prosecutor
Tokyo District Public Prosecutors’ Office

29

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

THE 173RD INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
Overseas Participants
Ms. Viviane Cristina SANTANA

CaptainCommunity Police and Human Rights
Directorship
Sao Paulo State Police
BrazilMr. Chun-man CHAN

Principal Officer
Rehabilitation Unit
Correctional Services Department
Hong Kong

Mr. Eriky FERIGINO

Junior Probation Officer
Adult Client Mentoring
Probation Board Class II Bandar LampungIndonesia

Ms. Mijin KIM

Senior Corrections Officer
Security Division
Daegu Correctional Institution
Korea

Mr. Evans Messop MONGARE

Probation Officer 1 in Charge
Kehancha Station
Probation and Aftercare Service, State
Department for Correctional Services
Ministry of Interior and Coordination of
National Government
Kenya

Ms. Bounmany Ma
SAVONGLIENKHAM

Director
Policy Division
Office of the Supreme People's Prosecutor
Laos

Mr. Norulekhsan ABDUL RAHIM

Head of Community Service Unit
Parole and Community Service Department
Prison Department
Malaysia

Mr. Win Naing Lin

Director
Training Division
Prisons Department, Ministry of Home Affairs
Myanmar30

APPENDIX

Mr. Kalu UCHEJE

Senior State Counsel
Administration of Criminal Justice and Reforms
Office of the Attorney General, Federal
Ministry of Justice
Nigeria

Mr. Mujahid RAHIM

Judicial Magistrate
District Judiciary
Islamabad High Court
Pakistan

Ms. Evelyn Caril MEDINAVILLEDA

District Attorney
Chame District OfficePublic Ministry
PanamaMs. Kelisiano LIUSUAVAI

Principal Probation and Parole Officer
Correction, Enforcement and Maintenance
Division
Ministry of Justice and Courts Administration
Samoa

Mr. Francis KIRI

Inspector
Correctional Services of Solomon Islands
Solomon

Mr. Gammaddagoda Liyanage
PRIYANTHA

Additional Magistrate
Chief Magistrate's Court Colombo
Judicial Service Commission
Sri Lanka

Ms. Irani Ganga WAKISHTA
ARACHCHI

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

Ms. Malika KURBANOVA

Leading Specialist
International Department
Ministry of Justice
Tajikistan

Mr. Ukrit SORNPROHM

Project Manager
Thailand Institute of Justice
Thailand31

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019Japanese Participants
Ms. HORIUCHI Aki

Probation Officer
Yokohama Probation Office

Ms. KIMURA Yayoi

Principal Supervisor
Second Treatment Section
Mine Rehabilitation Programme Centre

Ms. MATSUI Ayumi

Public Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors’ Office

Mr. SHIMATO Jun

Judge
Sapporo District Court

Mr. SHIN Koichiro

Probation Officer
Kagoshima Probation Office

THE 22ND UNAFEI UNCAC TRAINING PROGRAMME
Overseas Participants
Ms. Fahima SIRAT

JudgePrimary Court of the Anti-Corruption JusticeCenter (ACJC)
Afghanistan

Ms. Mariam GALSTYANHead of Anti-Corruption Policy Development
Division
Anticorruption and Penitentiary Policy
Development Department
Ministry of Justice
Armenia

Ms. Most Selina Akhter MONI

Deputy Director
Special Inquiry and Investigation
Anti-Corruption Commission
Bangladesh

Mr. Alexandre Collares
BARBOSA

Federal Prosecutor
Criminal Division of the Prosecution Office inParana State
Federal Prosecution Service
BrazilMr. Roger Dalea MONGOLIJudge and Legal Advisor
Justice
DRC Republic Prosecutor's office
D.R. Congo

32

APPENDIX

Mr. Sanjay Prakash SINGH

Acting Inspector/Chief Investigator
Legal Practitioners Unit
Judicial Department
High Court
Fiji

Mr. Hendra Eka SAPUTRA

Prosecutor
Prosecution
Corruption Eradication Commission
Indonesia

Mr. Mohannad Ahmad
ABU-MORAD

Director of Legal Affairs Department
The Integrity and Anti-Corruption
Commission
JordanMs. Gulzhan
SHUGUMBAYEVA

Investigator
Investigation Division
Department of Anti-Corruption Agency
Kazakhstan

Ms. Lampang SIXIENGVANG

Technical Officer
Interpol Department
Ministry of Public Security
Lao PDR

Mr. Fidelis Kondwani
CHINSAKASO

Senior Investigations Officer
Investigations
Anti-Corruption Bureau
MalawiMr. Nik Syahril Bin NIKABDUL RAHMAN

Deputy Public Prosecutor
Appellate & Trial Division
Attorney General's Chambers
Malaysia

Mr. Kyaw Soe Hlaing

Deputy Director
Kayar State Office
Bureau of Special Investigation
Ministry of Home Affairs
MyanmarMr. Sanjeev POKHAREL

Section Officer/Investigation Officer
Human Resources & Management Division
Commission for the Investigation of Abuse
of Authority
Nepal

33

ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2019

Mr. Ibrahim AMADOU
DJIRMEY

Judge of Investigation
High Court of Niamey
Ministry of JusticeNiger

Mr. Faisal Majeed KHAN

District & Sessions Judge
Judge Anti-Corruption Court High Court of
Azad Jammu and Kashmir
Pakistan

Mr. Jorge Luis VENEGASRIVERA

Assistant Prosecutor
Third Criminal Superior Prosecutor of the
Santa
Public Ministry
Peru

Ms. Joan Moyatu Sandeke BULL

Senior State Prosecutor and Legal Officer
Criminal Investigations Department
Sierra Leone Police
Sierra Leone

Ms. Dushmanthee Indeera
RAJAPAKSEAssistant Director
Legal Department
Commission to Investigate Allegations of
Bribery or Corruption
Sri Lanka

Ms. Arphatharee
ARSAPAVIRIYA

Judge
Research Justice Division of the Supreme
Court
Thailand

Ms. Silawan PANOM

Inquiry Officer (Senior Professional Level)
Bureau of Public Sector Corruption Inquiry 1
Office of the National Anti-Corruption
Commission
Thailand

Ms. Olga LUNOVA

Judge, Acting Head of the Court
Vugledar Town Court of Donetsk Region
UkraineMs. Olesia Victorivna
MARENYCH

Chief Specialist–Legal Counsel
International Legal Division
Legal Department
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau
Ukraine34

APPENDIX

Mr. Akmaljon Botirovich
MAMATOV

Leading specialist
Center of Researching Judicial Problems
Supreme School of Judges under theSupreme Judicial Council
Uzbekistan

Mr. Thuy Thanh NGUYEN

Deputy Chief Inspector
People's Procuracy of Hanoi
Supreme People's Procuracy
Viet Nam

Ms. Venrandah MUNYORO

State Counsel II
Attorney General's Office
Ministry of Justice Legal and Parliamentary
Affairs
Zimbabwe

Japanese Participants
Mr. ISOYA Takeshi

Prosecutor
Nagoya District Public Prosecutors’ Office,Okazaki Branch

Ms. MINAMI Urara

Judge
Osaka District Court

Mr. MORI Kazuya

Superintendent
Criminal Affairs Bureau
National Police Agency

Ms. TAKAHASHI Kana

Public Prosecutor’s Assistant Officer(Senior Investigator)
Osaka District Public Prosecutors’ Office

Ms. UJIMA Mayumi

Securities Investigator
Securities and Exchange SurveillanceCommission

Mr. YOSHIKAWA Takuya

Prosecutor
Osaka District Public Prosecutors’ Office35

PART TWORESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
No. 111Work Product of the 174th International Senior Seminar“Prevention of Reoffending and Fostering Social Inclusion: From Policy toGood Practice”

UNAFEIVISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS
RESOCIALIZATION AND REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS IN
THE COMMUNITY – THE CROATIAN PROBATION SERVICE
Jana Špero *I. INTRODUCTION
This paper has the aim to inform practitioners from different countries about thecriminal justice system in the Republic of Croatia. The key is to present changes
regarding the enforcement of the sanctions for offenders who committed a crime after the
introduction of the probation service and the possibilities to work with offenders in thecommunity.
A. The Republic of Croatia
The Republic of Croatia is a European country and a member state of the European
Union. The Republic of Croatia became independent after the dissolution of the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1991. Croatia became the 28th member state of theEuropean Union on 1 July 2013 and is still the youngest one. The population of the
Croatia is 4.3 million, and it is located in the middle of south-eastern Europe. It is a
Mediterranean country with more than 1,200 islands in the Adriatic Sea.
From 1 January to 30 June 2020, Croatia took over the presidency of the Council of
the European Union. Also, the Croatian city Rijeka is the European Capital of Culture in
2020, with the motto “Port of Diversity”. The capital of the Republic of Croatia is Zagreb.
To the north, Croatia borders Slovenia and Hungary; to the east, Serbia; to the south,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Montenegro, while a long maritime border separates it from
Italy.
B. Enforcement of Sanctions
When it comes to the aspect of safety, the Republic of Croatia is a very safe country.
One of the youngest workings of the Croatian criminal justice system is the probation
service. In a short period of time, the probation service has become an important
professional aspect for the enforcement of sanctions for persons who committed a crime,with a strong orientation to the resocialization and rehabilitation of offenders into thecommunity. For many years, persons who committed a crime were sent to prison to servea prison sentence. The key criminal justice laws are the Criminal Code and the Criminal
Law Procedure Act, but in this paper the focus will be on the Law on the Enforcement of
the Prison Sanctions and Probation Act.
*

Jana Špero is the Assistant Minister (Director General) of the Directorate for Prison System and Probationof the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia. She has held that role since 2017. Prior to that, she wasa probation officer/head of probation office from 2011-2012, and she was the head of the Probation Systemfrom 2012-2017.

39

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

II. HISTORY OF ALTERNATIVE SANCTIONS IN CROATIAWhen talking about the development of the probation system in the Republic of
Croatia, we must go back in history before the service was developed to see its roots. Fora long period of time, dating even before the independence of Croatia, while Croatia waspart of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the only alternative to imprisonment
was the suspended sentence. At that time, suspended sentence was a sanction where an
offender received a prison sentence but was not sent to prison. Instead the offender was
permitted to remain in the community provided that the offender did not commit a newcrime within a certain period of time, usually a few years. However, this possibility
shows that the concept of “alternative sanctions”, in a way, already existed in the Croatianlegal system, though not in its present form.
It is also very important to point out that, for many years, measures were available forjuvenile offenders in Croatia very similar to probation measures. As in the past, today’s
measures for juvenile offenders are under the jurisdiction of the social welfare system andwill not be included in this paper. Alternative sanctions under the jurisdiction of themodern, professional probation service in Croatia are for adult offenders only.
So, for adult offenders, a suspended sentence with protective supervision as a sanction,
though different in form from probation, was regulated in 1976 by the provisions of the
Criminal Code of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After becoming an
independent state, Croatia’s Criminal Code of 1997 introduced the possibility of replacing
prison sentences with community work orders but did not develop a probation service atthe time. We can say that the system that was created at the time was a forerunner for the
probation service that Croatia has today. After declaring its independence, the Republic of
Croatia took over this Act, and the sanction was kept and developed. Croatia’s Criminal
Code of 1997 introduced the possibility of replacing prison sentences with community
work orders. Looking to the past, we can say that first community sanctions and measures
started being implemented at the end of 2001, when the changes in the new Criminal
Code led to the development of the special Supervision of Suspended Sentence andCommunity Service Act. Under that Act, community sanctions were executed byprofessionals called “commissioners”. Work of the commissioners was within thejurisdiction of the Directorate for Prison System. Commissioners had university degrees
mainly in social pedagogy, social work and psychology, and they were mostly employeesof the Ministry of Justice–Prison System or the Ministry of Social Welfare.
Commissioners had their full-time jobs in prisons, penitentiaries, correctional institutions
for juvenile offenders, social welfare centres etc. and only worked part-time withoffenders. However, having commissioners demonstrated that Croatia was open to theconcept of alternative sanctions and was ready to work with the offenders in thecommunity even on a larger scale. The best value of this early system was thatcommissioners were promoting the idea of probation in the wider community.
III. THE IDEA OF BUILDING A PROFESSIONAL PROBATION SERVICE
After the period in which “commissioners” were enforcing some alternatives toimprisonment in Croatia, the need to establish and develop a more integral probation
system was recognized by the governmental structures. This new development was40174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

supported by the Council of Europe recommendations and other positive European
practices.
It is also important to underline that this was a time during Croatia’s accession
negotiations for EU membership and related judicial reforms, so we can say that there
was “a good wind” for the development of the probation service.
As a member state of the Council of Europe and future member state of the European
Union, Croatia had a duty and a strong will to reach the highest standards regarding thehuman rights of the persons in prisons. This period offered the possibility to learn fromdifferent countries in Europe through European projects. Starting from the year 2007,
Croatia started implementing European projects orientated to building a professional
probation service. During the following years, there was cooperation with many European
countries in order to learn about practices conducted in Europe, what works and what to
avoid when establishing a probation system. This led to the development of the modern
professional probation service in Croatia.
A. Prison Population at the Time
After the judicial reforms started in 2005, a strong initiative was presented to further
develop the probation system. The main goals of the reform were to reduce the number ofprisoners in overcrowded prisons, make enforcement of criminal sanctions more humane
and help to reintegrate offenders into the community, taking into consideration its safety.
During that time, the Government had concerns about the large prison population andlack of effective means to secure many early release cases.
At that time, Croatia was struggling with the problem of an increasing prison
population. From the year 2005 to year 2011, the prison population was increasing on adaily basis. The prison system was making all efforts to increase the capacity of prisons,but overcrowding remained. In 2005, there was capacity for 3,009 prisoners, while there
were 3485 prisoners; by 2007 there was capacity for 3,267 prisoners, but there were 4,290
prisoners. The capacity in 2008 was increased to 3,351, but the number of prisoners wasincreasing even more: 4,891 prisoners in 2009 and 5,165 prisoners in 2010. Taking into
account that many Croatian prisoners were serving short prison sentences, this was aperfect time to build a professional probation service.
B. European Projects
Looking for solutions, there was strong support for the development of probation, andit was decided to draw on European experience to help develop the best model. At thetime, there were many European projects available to help and support Croatia during thenegotiating time to become an EU member state.
1. CARDS 2004 ProjectWithin the framework of the CARDS 2004 project, the Ministry of Justice,Directorate for Prison System, along with the National Offender Management Systemfrom the UK, conducted in 2007 the EU Twinning light project, “Support to theDevelopment of a Probation System in Croatia”. Within this project, an array of European
practices and experiences were reviewed, enabling Croatia to consider a wide range ofoptions in the strategic planning process. Also, the gaps and needs analysis regarding theestablishment of a probation system in Croatia was conducted. Part of this project wasalso a SWAT analysis – strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats – regarding the41

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

future probation service in Croatia. At the end of 2007, as a main result of the project,
Croatia had a five-year strategy for the establishment of a probation service in Croatia.
This new strategy had two goals:
1. Development of professional probation practice;
2. Development of the professional probation service.
The strategy also included future goals:•

Prepare and present the Probation Act to the Croatian Parliament;•

Build a professional probation service with 70 probation officers;•

By the year 2012, develop a network of probation offices in the Republic of
Croatia;•

Request more assistance from the EU in finding best European probation solutions.

The goals of this strategy were:•

Increasing the efficiency of the criminal justice system;•

Increasing human rights of the offenders;•

Increasing the number of offenders with whom the work will be in thecommunity;•

Decreasing recidivism among offenders;•

Good control of alternative sanctions;•

Decreasing the prison population.

2. The Bilateral SPF Project, “Transitional Support to the Development of the Probation
System in the Republic of Croatia”
The bilateral project between the United Kingdom and Croatia, “Transitional support
to the development of the probation system in the Republic of Croatia”, was implemented
in the period from April 2008 to March 2010. This was an “in between” project that had
the purpose to assist with the development of a probation service in Croatia between the
CARDS 2004 project and the new IPA2008 project. During this project, the following
documents were produced:

42•

Analysis of the cost for the development of the probation service;•

Law on Probation draft;•

National standards for the enforcement of community sanctions;174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS•

Assessment tool for offenders;•

Plans regarding human resources.

The IPA2008 project, “Development of Probation System in the Republic of Croatia”,
lasted for two years. Partners on this project were professionals from the United Kingdom
and the Czech Republic. This was the key EU project that assisted in building a modern
probation service in Croatia. The project started in 2011 and was successfully completed
in 2013. During this project, the following were developed and conducted:•

Standards and professional guidance for probation officers regarding all probation
tasks;•

Harmonization with EU standards;•

Development of the central database – probation information system;•

Management framework;•

Comprehensive training of probation officers;•

Programme and long-term probation training strategy;•

Communication strategy;•

Proposal of a new Probation Development Strategy in the Republic of Croatia.

3. The Transition Facility Project, “Support to further development and strengthening of
Probation Service in Croatia"
Under the Transition Facility in 2013, the European Commission accepted the projecton "Support to further development and strengthening of the Probation Service in
Croatia”. The project lasted 18 months. The partners on the project were Germany andSpain. This project included:•

procurement of official cars for the probation service;•

implementation of the pilot project on “electronic monitoring”;•

education of probation officers for the implementation of special treatment.

C. Formal Beginning of the Probation Service
The process of building the new service formally started after the Strategy for theDevelopment of the Croatian Probation Service 2008–2012 was adopted. The key year
was 2009, when the first ever Probation Act was passed in the Croatian Parliament.
Unfortunately, not all other aspects were ready for the start of a probation service so “thetheory and practice” were timely separated for a short period of time.

43

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

If we view the growth of the Probation Service in the Republic of Croatia like thebuilding of a house, we can say that the ground floor was the Probation Act in 2009, themain parts of the house were infrastructural preparations in 2010, consisting of staff
recruitment, staff training and the preparation of the offices, followed by preparation of
all relevant bylaws in 2011 and a new law in 2013. The roof of this house is the merging
of the Probation Service with the prison system in 2017 and the opening of new offices in
2018.
D. Challenges
When building a new service within the criminal justice system, there are many
challenges to face. First of all, you need to explain both to the decisionmakers and to thegeneral population why we need a new system. Considering that not all people will
sympathize with the offenders, talking about the new system that is “easier” for them canbe very challenging. If there is a good prison system in the country, new ideas forworking with offenders will not be accepted by the general population from the start. It is
not only the general public; it is also a big challenge to present this system both toprosecutors and judges that have been dealing with offenders in a different way for many
years. This is why it is good to present all benefits of the future service from the point ofview of financial savings but also through the facts that offenders that are serving
sentences in the community are less likely to be recidivists. It is also important to show
examples with real statistical data from different countries, especially those countries thatare similar in population, culture, type of crimes committed etc. It is important to prepare
different data and statistics depending on different stakeholders you need to address.
Another issue is the infrastructure of the future service. For a new service you need
offices, staff, training, cars and computers, and numerous other issues need to beaddressed. All this is a burden on the budget. That is why there needs to be a goodprediction of the long run cost savings. Preparing an office for probation services is noteasy, and it is connected with many challenges. First, an office needs to be suitable forwork with offenders, an area that can be approached by offenders but bearing in mind
safety issues for the staff. Some of the offices that are stand-alone can look excellent fromthe infrastructural point of view but will not be the best from the security point of view. In
Croatia, the last two offices that we opened in 2018, after several years of work withoffenders, we decided to open them in the court building, and we hope that we will beable to move the “old” offices to court buildings in the future. When it comes to staff, it is
crucial to attract enthusiastic professionals willing to learn in order to “produce” a first
generation of probation officers. First probation officers were employees of the prisons,homes for children and social welfare offices. It is important to bear in mind that all
probation officers will do the same work with offenders; they do not work in teams. Thismeans that there should be a good system of education with a special focus on different
topics for probation officers with different educational backgrounds. For example, if you
have a person with a background in psychology, this person knows very well how to
conduct motivational interviews but will need more training regarding legal issues andcommunication with the courts. On the other hand, if you have a probation officer with an
educational background from a law university, they will know all about the law but willneed training regarding motivation and conducting interviews.
It is very important to prepare instructions and training that will be delivered to allprobation staff. It is crucial to insist on harmonization of the treatment around the country
because it is the only way to show other stakeholders what to expect from the new service.
44

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

It is always a good idea when building a new service that is treatment orientated toinclude academia from the start. Good research from independent experts will help inmany ways: to show benefits of the service and to get ideas on how to develop it evenfurther.
IV. PROBATION SERVICE TODAY
Today the probation service in Croatia is recognized as a valued and important part of
the Croatian criminal justice system. The Sector for Probation is part of the Directorate
for Prison System and Probation at the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia. It isa professional and specialized service within the criminal justice system. The first
Probation Act in Croatia was enacted in 2009, and the first probation offices opened in
2011. Since the beginning of 2013, the professional probation service has been available
to all citizens. The majority of the probation offices were opened in 2011, but during thefirst few years it was noticed that Croatia needed a broader net of probation offices in its
territory, so two new offices were opened in 2018.

45

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

A. Organization of the Probation Service
Governance of probation is the responsibility of the Sector for Probation, and its work
is under the direction of the Ministry of Justice. The Sector for Probation is anadministrative body. During the first years of its existence, it was separated from theprison system. However, after six successful years of probation it was decided in 2017 tomerge the prison and probation systems under the same directorate in the Ministry ofJustice of the Republic of Croatia – Directorate for the Prison System and Probation. The
Sector for Probation consists of the Central Office and 14 local probation offices acrossthe country. Every probation office has a head of the office, probation officers andadministrative staff. The Central Office manages coordination and service development.
It includes the Department for Probation Tasks, the Department for Probation Tasks
During and After Enforcement of Prison Sentence and Conditional Release, theDepartment for Legal Support to the Probation System, and the Department for Strategic
Planning, Development and Analytics. Probation supervision and direct services for theoffenders are delivered through local probation offices in Bjelovar, Dubrovnik, Gospić,
Osijek, Požega, Pula, Rijeka, Sisak, Split, Varaždin, Vukovar, Zadar and Zagreb (twooffices). Some offices cover larger and some smaller territorial areas depending on
population size and distribution.
B. Probation Officers
All probation work is carried out by probation officers. Probation officers in Croatia
are civil servants employed by the Ministry of Justice. Probation officers are highly
educated and professional; they hold degrees in law, psychology, social pedagogy, social
work, pedagogy and, exceptionally, humanities. In addition to their initial education, allpersons, when employed to work as probation officers, receive initial training and arecontinuously trained by national and international trainers. Education of the probation
staff is crucial in order to be able to respond to specific tasks related to the work withoffenders. This is why probation officers have a wide range of working methods in orderto fulfil the probation tasks. Probation officers perform interviews with the offenders,
their families and other relevant persons. Probation officers, who have special training,
also conduct group work with offenders with specific needs that have led in the past to
criminal behaviour. One of the important tasks of the probation officers is also to analyseand connect different types of information and documents from various sources. Goodwriting skills and ability to notice details is important for probation officers when
performing the task of preparing probation reports. There is special training for new
employees when becoming probation officers, and there are many specific programmes tobe learned.
C. The Mission of the Probation Service
The mission of the Probation Service in Croatia is to provide supervision and support
to the offenders in the community, thus reducing the cost of imprisonment and the risk ofreoffending. It is very important to underline that whenever a probation officer is working
with the offender there must be two types of work: control and support.
The hardest for the probation officers is to find the appropriate and just balance
between control and support. This will always depend on many factors such as the type of
probation work, type of crime, support of the family/society to the offender and theoffender’s willingness to fulfil all obligations requested by the probation office inaccordance with the judgment.

46

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

V. PROBATION TASKS IN CROATIA
In general, it is important to say that probation in Croatia is the conditional andsupervised freedom of the offender. At this moment, we can say that Croatia has aprobation service capable of delivering a wide range of high-quality services.
During conditional freedom, probation officers supervise the offender and apply
professional procedures to affect risk factors, with the aim of resocialization andreintegration into the community. This reduces the cost of penal execution and the risk ofreoffending. Offenders under community sanctions and measures maintain their family,
work and other social relationships. In all of Europe, community sanctions and measures
are an established approach to combating crime, finding the right balance between
sanction, treatment, reintegration and protection of society. Once again, it is important topoint out that probation service in Croatia supervises only adult offenders.
A. Working with Offenders
The law defines the purpose of probation work as the protection of the communityfrom an offender’s criminal behaviour; re-socialization and reintegration of offenders in
the community. Probation officers, when implementing probation sanctions, are expected
to work closely with family members and the various institutions, NGOs and bodies in
the community that can contribute to an offender’s social integration.
Probation officers’ work with offenders is most of the time organized by individual
meetings between the probation officer and offender in accordance with the individual
programme for that offender, but there are also group programmes for offenders.
Probation officers, in order to have more information, also visit offenders in their homes
in order to check the enforcement of community sanctions and measures.
Sometimes probation officers work with the same offender during a very long periodof time; supervision can last up to five years. The key to resocialization and rehabilitation
is in the skills of the probation officers to motivate, support and counsel the offenders intheir resocialization process.
In Croatia, we like to say that we have a “holistic” approach to all offenders. This isbecause probation officers prepare an individual treatment programme for every offenderto address the risk factors and criminogenic needs in order to prevent the commission of
new crimes. So, there is no “copy-paste” approach to treatment. No two offenders are thesame and no two crimes are the same, so no two treatment programmes are the same.
B. Types of Probation Tasks
The Probation Service in Croatia is working with different types of offenders because
probation tasks exist at all stages of the criminal proceedings.
1. Tasks before the Initiation of Criminal Procedure
The first tasks of the probation service can be executed before criminal proceedings.
This includes drafting reports requested by the State Attorney when deciding on criminal
proceedings and later on supervision of fulfilling obligations arising from the decision
issued by the State Attorney. Obligations that can arise from this type of decision are, forexample, community work and drug, alcohol or other addiction treatment.
47

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

2. Tasks during the Criminal Procedure
During the criminal proceeding, the Probation Act gives the probation service thepossibility to report to the court on the type and measure of criminal sanction. It is
important to bear in mind that this report will never give an order to the court about the
sanction. This report is filled with all relevant information that can assist a judge indeciding about the sanction. For example, it will have information if the offender isconsuming alcohol. In this case it is to be expected that the court, if thinking of imposing
an alternative sanction – a community measure – will more likely decide to give thisoffender alcohol treatment than community work (unpaid work). The probation service
likes to say to judges that probation officers are the “eyes and ears” of the courts in thefield, getting information that is not necessarily in the files. These kinds of reports are notrequested very often, but in the longer term we do expect them to increase.
3. Community Sanctions
Most probation cases relate to the enforcement of “alternative sanctions” as part of
final court judgments, namely community work and suspended sentences with protective
supervision and/or special obligations. We can even call this the “core business” because
the majority of all probation cases in Croatia since 2011 is the enforcement of sanctions
and/or obligations in the community. These tasks are the very best way of conducting
resocialization of offenders in the community, the probation service’s “heart”. These
offenders would serve prison sanctions and would be taken away from their families,
work and all social connections if there were no alternatives to imprisonment in Croatia.
This part of the criminal procedure task is actually serving a prison sentence in thecommunity. Under this task, the Croatian probation service has two different sanctions tosupervise:(1) community work orders;(2) suspended sentence with protective supervision of the probation service or withthe special obligation and/or security measures.
(a) Community work orders
Community work orders are, by the numbers, the most frequent sanction in thecommunity in the Republic of Croatia. A community work order sanction can be enforced
as a substitute for a prison sentence or a fine in a way that a prison sentence of up to one
year or a fine of up to 360 days’ income can be replaced with community work hours.
Offenders in Croatia may be ordered to complete a maximum of 730 community work
hours. At first, community work orders were “available” to all offenders, but thenamendments were introduced to the Criminal Code, and now this sanction is no longer
available for recidivists. In Croatia, even a community work order can be ordered
together with protective supervision if the court finds it appropriate.
It is important to point out that community work is unpaid work, and it benefits thecommunity. However, taking into account that there is no forced labour in Croatia,
offenders must agree to a community work order. Probation officers, in assessing
offenders for community work, are responsible for:1. confirming the offender’s consent for replacing a prison sentence with community
work;
48

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

2. organizing and supervising the enforcement of community work orders.
So, as stated, probation officers are in charge of confirming the offender’s consent forthe community work. This is the base for all future tasks and the connection between theprobation officer and the offender. Following the consent, probation officers assess what
type of work in the community would suit the offender the most based on the offender’sskills, knowledge, personality and other circumstances. Offenders perform community
work in legal entities and public authority bodies which include activities of humanitarian,
ecological or communal importance as well as other affairs of general national interest
and of the interest of the local community. We can say that offenders are “paying back”
the community for the damage they caused with their crime. In the Republic of Croatia,
there is a variety of community workplaces: from hospitals, schools, parks, libraries,
NGOs working with persons in need, fire stations, the Red Cross, municipalities to homes
for elderly and sporting places. Choosing the right placement for the offender is a very
important and demanding task for probation officers. It is important to bear in mind allimportant information both for public safety but also for the human rights of the offender.
For example, the offender who committed a crime against children cannot be placed towork anywhere within the reach of children. On the other hand, if an offender is highly
educated, it would be useless not to find a place where the offender’s knowledge is best
put to use. For example, we had medical doctors on community work orders so we did notsend them to clean the park, but we found NGOs and homes for the elderly where they
could help (they did not lose their medical licence because of the crime they committed).
Also, the offender must be able to come to the workplace with no money for traveling, so
probation officers find work that is closest to the home of the offender.
The number of community work orders was increasing in Croatia from 2011 to 2018:from 900 to over 2,000 cases per year. But now, with the new limitations regarding
recidivists, it has become steady.
The community work orders showed excellent results in Croatia. Community workorders have contributed to a decrease of the prison population in the Republic of Croatia.
The decrease of the prison population was one of the goals of establishing a professional
probation service. This is the goal in many countries, but not all succeeded in it. Croatia isproud that the prison population did decrease, and one of the main reasons is thealternatives to imprisonment, mainly the community work order. Back in 2012, there
were over 5,000 prisoners in Croatia and, as stated before, 1,573 cases in the probation
service. During 2015, the probation service and prison system had the same number ofoffenders, and by the next year the number of offenders under the supervision of theprobation service become larger than the number of the prisoners.
Another example of excellent results of the community work is the fact that theoffenders are happy to be able not to go to prison. While doing community work,offenders stay in their homes and keep their family relations and jobs. Community work
is organized in a way that it does not prevent an offender from keeping the job for which
he/she receives money. For offenders who are employed, the community work isorganized in the afternoon and during the weekends. So, the community work can also be
a new life opportunity for the offenders. Many of the offenders have shown this to us
during the past years. Some offenders have been given an opportunity to work for thebodies where they initially performed community work because during that time, they
49

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

demonstrated their abilities. Some of the offenders were working in the local community,
and they gained the respect they did not have before because they showed the “other side”
of their personalities, i.e. helping others. It is great to know that many offenders on
community work orders have worked with the homeless, with abandoned animals in
shelters and with other vulnerable groups and that they have decided to stay there as
volunteers after the community work was done. One more example of the best use of thecommunity work order that Croatia is very proud of is during the serious flooding in
Croatia in 2014, the probation service responded by organizing assistance in the affectedareas by offenders performing their community work orders directly in the affected areas
or by working with services where humanitarian aid was collected and delivered. A groupof thirty offenders who provided direct assistance in the flooded areas were housed in avolunteer camp and were involved in flood damage recovery (carcass removal, cleaning
streets, pumping water out of buildings etc.) until the closing of the volunteer camp.
During these activities, offenders performed a total of 11,000 community work hours inflood relief work.
All good examples presented show how good the decision was to have offenders
serving sentences in the community. From being an offender to being a respectedneighbour by serving a sentence in the community is the best possible case of the
resocialization and reintegration of offenders in the community with the assistance of theprobation service.
But when talking about community work orders, of no less importance are thesignificant budget savings if we compare it to the offender’s time in prison. The cost of a
day in prison is considerably more expensive than one day under community sanctions.
This is logical because people in prison are there 24 hours a day. The prison needs toorganize everything for life – food, clothes, medical assistance etc. When the probation
service, with the assistance of international experts, analysed the cost of one prison daycompared to one under probation, the results showed that one prisoner in Croatia costs thestate budget approximately 50 Euro per day, while an offender under probation
supervision costs approximately 1.5 Euro per day. In addition to these savings, when an
offender is on a community work order, he/she is doing unpaid work for the local
community that also helps the budget, so there is a double savings. Considering offenders
in Croatia perform more than 500,000 hours of work on community work orders during
the year, budget savings are significant.
(b) Suspended sentence with protective supervision
Suspended sentence with protective supervision is the second most represented
alternative sanction – sanction in the community – in the Republic of Croatia. Suspended
sentence with protective supervision is ordered as a replacement for a prison sentence if
the judge considers it is important to monitor and check the behaviour of offenders
without imprisonment. The average length of the probation time of suspended sentencewith protective supervision is two years, but it can range from one to five years. In orderto enforce this sentence, a probation officer will draft an individualized treatment
programme and will be in constant contact with the offender. During the supervision,
offenders are obliged to cooperate with the probation officer by visiting the office,providing information and consenting to home visits. The offender also has to fulfil theobligations imposed by the court. These special obligations can be alcohol or drug
addiction treatment etc. If the special obligation is psychosocial therapy, it can be
enforced in the probation office or outside the probation office but under probation
50

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

supervision. Treatments regarding the addictions are always enforced outside theprobation office in relevant institutions but under the supervision of the probation officer.
The probation officers support the offender in meeting the obligations. The duty of theprobation officer is to report to the court about the enforcement of the supervision. The
key task for the probation officer is to provide professional guidance and assistance tooffenders to help them change their behaviour and reduce the risk of reoffending.
Meetings with offenders on supervision are often, regular and always include
motivational interviews. If a suspended sentence has a special obligation or security
measure that is enforced outside the probation office, institutions and other bodies inwhich the offenders carry them out report the results to the probation office. Whenassessing the offenders for supervision and in the next phase, probation officers use theoffender assessment system (SPP) to assess the risk of reoffending, the risk of serious
harm to others and the treatment needs. This assessment is used to create individual
treatment programmes but also to draft reports. This assessment tool is based on acomprehensive analysis of criminogenic needs and risk factors generated by the SPP and
the professional judgment of the probation officers. Probation officers are speciallytrained to identify the static and dynamic factors which affect criminal behaviour and to
identify means to address the criminogenic needs with the help of the offenders.
4. Tasks during the Enforcement of the Prison Sentence
The last criminal process phase where the Probation Service is involved with its tasks
is the phase of the enforcement of the prison sentence. There are two key tasks in thisphase:(1) preparing reports for enforcement judges when reaching decisions on thetermination of sentence and conditional release;(2) supervision of persons on conditional release.
There are also reports for the prison and penitentiary when deciding on the treatmentof the inmate and cases where the inmate has to report to the probation office during
prison leave, but these cases are rare so they will not be described in detail.
(a) Reports for enforcement judges
Preparing reports for enforcement judges is the most requested report in the Probation
Service. Probation officers draft reports for the enforcement judge when deciding on
conditional release of prisoners. For many years in Croatia, conditional release was
decided by the parole board. During that time, the Probation Service was not involved in
the process because it consisted of judges, prosecutors and prison staff. However, there
was a change in Croatia, and today conditional release is decided by enforcement judges,
judges from the second level courts. Since this change happened, the judges always ask
for the probation report before taking a decision. For this purpose, probation officers
assess the conditions and risks of the inmate’s acceptance in the community and evaluate
the possibilities for the continued enforcement of the obligations that started being
enforced in prison. Also, this report always addresses specific circumstances of theconditional release request. For example, sometimes prisoners ask for conditional releasein order to help with children because someone’s wife is in the hospital, so the probation
officer will check the information in order to find out whether the wife is in the hospitaland if there is anyone else to take care of the children. Another example is if the prisoner
states he has to help with the roof damage on the family house, the probation officer will
51

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

check the house and sometimes even attach a photo of the house to the report. As in otherreports, the probation service will prepare all information for the court but without
proposing approval or rejection of the conditional release. The decision is to be made by
judges only, and the Probation Service is there to provide relevant information that canhelp reach a just decision.
(b) Conditional release
Conditional release is a possibility for the prisoner to be conditionally released before
the expiration of the terms of imprisonment, but during the time till the end of the initialsentence of imprisonment this person is not “free” even if released from prison to thecommunity. In order to maintain control but also to help persons when they get out ofprison, the Probation Service supervises the offender during this time. So, after a prisoner
has been approved for supervised conditional release, additional obligations or special
obligations, as well as protective supervision, may be ordered for the duration of theconditional release in order to reduce the risk of reoffending. The tasks of the probation
officer are to supervise the offender’s compliance with the obligations and to provide
assistance and support during the process of readjustment to life in the community.
During this task, probation officers will have the key role and will put all emphasis on theimportance of cooperation between different institutions and the non-governmental sector
in order to help with this adjustment. Persons on conditional release are very different,
and it is always very individual what will be the key for good resocialization andadjustment. If a person has family, that control will be the key issue for the probation
officer. If the person has no family support, then the role of the probation officer will also
be to focus on support. The big difference is the fact of how long the person was in prison.
If this was a short sentence, then the person is very likely to adjust in the community withno problem. However, if a probation officer is supervising a person who was in prison fora long period of time, then there will be a need for a lot of assistance in order for the
person to adjust into the community. Sometimes the Probation Service needs to assist
these persons to find appropriate shelter and medical help after release. How demanding
this can be is best seen with this example: a young man committed a murder in his local
community and was in prison for over 20 years. The changes that had happened in the“outside world” during this time were tremendous: there was a war in Croatia the lasttime he was free; his parents had died and he had no more family to rely on; he lost allsocial connections; there was no Internet and there were no bank cards and mobile phones
back then. So, after being conditionally released, this person needed more support fromthe probation officer than he needed supervision. This is also why every probation
programme is individual and every approach to each offender depends on different issues.
Supervision of conditional release is a very important task of the Probation Service in
Croatia. It is also the task that brings the most dangerous criminals to the probation office.
Conditionally released persons are those who committed serious crimes, including war
crimes, murder, rape etc. Supervision of this kind is a hard task for every probation
officer, but good results and positive changes are the best reward for it.
In this last phase, there is also a possibility of supervision of offenders by theProbation Service even after the completion of the prison sentence in its entirety, but tothis day there have not been cases in practice.

52

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

C. Special Tasks/Tools
For the purpose of conducting probation tasks, probation officers are making special
assessments of criminogenic risk and needs for every person granted probation, whennecessary. In accordance with the results of the assessment of criminogenic risk andneeds for treatment, probation officers prepare individual treatment programmes foroffenders.
1. Assessment of Criminogenic Risk and Needs
The Probation Service in Croatia uses the Offender Assessment System as its specific
tool in the work with perpetrators of criminal offences and as the basis for planning theirtreatments. Using this system, which is based on the English offender assessment system
OASYS, assessments of offenders’ risks as well as on their criminogenic needs are made.
During its application, significant changes have been made to it, and the current version
was updated in 2015. The Offender Assessment System was digitalized through an EU
project. This tool measures significant factors relevant to the likelihood of recidivism:
information on the crime committed, the attitude of the offender, accommodation,
education, financial management, relationships, lifestyle, family and friends, drug/alcoholabuse, emotional stability etc.
2. Individual Treatment Programmes
Probation officers create individual treatment programmes for the purpose of
conducting probation tasks. Individual treatment programmes must comprise special
obligations ordered by the competent court or the State Attorney’s Office, including,when necessary, the identification of criminogenic factors affecting the perpetration of thecriminal offence committed by the person on probation, determining measures aimed atelimination of these factors, defining methods and deadlines for implementation of suchmeasures, as well as providing a list of bodies competent for certain activities. Persons
granted probation take part in drafting the individual treatment programmes, which are
based on their personality assessment, personal situation, health condition and expert
qualifications, on the assessment of criminogenic risk and needs of the person in question,and other information important for conducting the sanction.
VI. BENEFITS OF THE PROBATION SERVICE
After explaining all alternatives to imprisonment in Croatia – all probation tasks – it iseasy to see that the resocialization and rehabilitation of offenders in the community in the
Republic of Croatia is very efficient. There are three important components that support
this:1) Financial benefit of the community sanctions – during the European project, theprobation service, with the assistance of international experts, made an analysis on
the costs of a prison day compared to a probation day. The results showed that one
day of one prisoner in prison in Croatia costs the State budget approximately 50
Euro, while one day of one offender under probation supervision costs the Statebudget approximately 1.5 Euro.
2) The number of prisoners in Croatia has decreased. Croatia had a problem withovercrowded prisons so one of the expected goals of the probation service was tolower the number of prisoners. In 2012, there were over 5,000 prisoners in Croatia
53

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

and 1,573 cases under the jurisdiction of the Probation Service. During 2015, theprobation service and the prison system had the same number of offenders, and by
the next year the number of offenders under the supervision of the Probation
Service became larger than the number of prisoners. Today prisons in Croatia are
not overcrowded.
3) About 90 per cent of all cases under the supervision of the Probations Service aresuccessfully completed each year.
A. The Workload of the Probation Service
The workload of the probation service is one of the best pieces of evidence that, in ashort period of time, the probation service has become a relevant professional service.
During the beginning of the work of the Probation Service back in 2011, the Probation
Service received 1,040 cases, and in 2012 it received 1,573 cases for enforcement.
Already the next year, in 2013, a big change took place. There were new amendments to
the Criminal Code that expanded the jurisdiction of the Probation Service. Following thechanges to the Criminal Code, the new Probation Act was also prepared and enforced
from the beginning of 2013. With this new jurisdiction and the new Probation Act, in2013 the Probation Service received 3,304 cases. This was a big change for the probation
practice, considering that the service doubled the number of cases but also had to adopt its
work practices to new tasks. Over the next few years, the number of cases increased: in2014 the Probation Service received 3,618 cases; 3,911 cases in 2015; 4,147 cases in
2016; and in 2017 the Probation Service received 4,444 cases. The number of cases overthe last two years started decreasing (we believe it is better to say that they have“stabilized”). In 2018, the Probation Service received 4,211 cases and 3,851 cases in 2019.
The numbers show that the Sector for Probation has become an important partner in thecriminal justice system, acknowledged and valued by judges, State attorneys, police andthe prison system.
B. The Success of the Probation Service
Croatia received a lot of compliments from different stakeholders worldwide and, infact, the Croatian Probation Service has been recognized as one of the best models on
how to develop a Probation Service by the Council of Europe. Also, in October 2019,
Croatia was the first country ever to win the Development of National Probation Service
Award by the Confederation of European Probation. Today, probation officers are expertsthat work on different European projects regarding probation services. Croatian probation
officers helped in building the new Probation Service in the Republic of Slovenia. Many
probation officers are members of working groups that are developing probation
standards at the international level.
C. Future Plans for the Probation Service
The plan of the Probation Service in Croatia is to continue to develop through projects
on the international level, to learn from the best and to exchange knowledge with othercolleagues across the world. Further development of the Croatian Probation Service
should head into two directions:•54

the strengthening of its internal capacities and stronger affiliation with otherstakeholders such as the prison system;

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS•

the expansion of the scope of the tasks it performs, as well as the advancement inexecuting existing tasks.

The strengthening of internal capacities of the Probation Service would be realized
through improvement of material-technical conditions of existing probation offices andthe strengthening of human resources as the most important resource in our service,through providing continuous supervision support and the advancement of knowledge andskills by way of new training, as well as through knowledge and experience exchanged
with colleagues of other European probation services. Improvement of professional
competencies is a continuous process, and we want to maintain a high standard of staff
competence. Croatia wants the best Probation Service we can have and wants to create aperformance-led culture which values quality and continuous improvement.
With the new project under the Norway Grants, the Croatian Probation Service ispreparing to introduce electronic monitoring. This is a big task that will be implemented
together with the prison system and colleagues from the prosecution, the courts and thepolice.
VII.

CONCLUSION

Today, the Probation Service in Croatia is a well-established professionalorganization. The desired outcomes so far have all been accomplished:•

Full-scale and clear legal and programme frameworks for the performance of
probation work;•

Infrastructure tailored to the size and the capacity necessary for the performanceof all probation activities throughout the whole territory of the Republic of
Croatia;•

Enough well-trained and motivated probation officers qualified for the
professional performance of all probation activities;•

Effective organizational structure with clear and efficient mutual communication
channels;•

Developed strategies of effective interaction with the community, along with thedeveloped identity of probation as socially responsible and competent.

About 90 per cent of all cases during the year are successfully completed.
Nevertheless, the Croatian Probation Service still uses all possibilities to grow and to get
to learn good practices from other countries. The financial and expert assistance of the
EU has been important in the development of the Sector for Probation in the Republic of
Croatia from the beginning, and it still is. Starting in 2019, the Croatian Probation Service
started new projects through European funding. As stated with respect to future plans,
Croatia also started a partnership with Norway under the Norway Grants. Having said this,and knowing that Croatia won the Development of National Probation Service Award by
the Confederation of European Probation in 2019, it is justified to say that resocialization

55

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

and rehabilitation of offenders in the community by the Croatian Probation Service
represent a great and effective example of criminal justice system practice.

56

PREVENTING REOFFENDING IN SINGAPORE
Matthew Wee Yik Keong *I. INTRODUCTION
Corrections in Singapore achieved a major breakthrough in the last two decades withseveral paradigm shifts, including the introduction of various technologies in the
management of offenders and initiatives to prepare them for their re-entry to society. The
result of this transformation is a 20.7 percentage point drop in the recidivism rate between
the cohort released in 1998 (44.4%) and the cohort released in 2016 (23.7%). The prison
population has also decreased by 27.7 per cent 1 from 18,000 in 2002 to about 10,800 in
2018.
This paper examines the approach taken by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) andthe Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) in preparing offenders
for their eventual reintegration.
II. BACKGROUND – THE SINGAPORE CONTEXT
Singapore is a city-state located in between the Malayan Peninsula and Indonesia’s
Riau Islands. It is the smallest nation in Southeast Asia at 720 km2; however, it is one ofmost densely populated countries in the world at 7,866 2 people per square kilometre.
The city-state is a multi-racial and cultural society with a population of 5,638,700. 3
76 per cent of the citizen population are Chinese, 15 per cent Malays, 7.5 per cent Indiansand 1.5 per cent others. English is the official and working language. Mandarin Chinese,
Malay and Tamil are also widely spoken.
Singapore is a parliamentary republic, patterned after the British Westminster model.
Its legal system is based on English Common Law traditions. Singapore is well known forbeing corruption-free and for its strong public and corporate governance. Transparency
International’s 2018 Corruption Perception Index ranks Singapore as the third leastcorrupt country in the world, after Denmark and New Zealand.
Since independence in 1965, Singapore’s national income has grown exponentially,transforming the city-state from a fishing village in the 1960s to a metropolis in 2019. It
has seen strong growth over the last twenty years in GDP per capita of about US$428 4 tomore than US$64,000 5 in 2018.

*

Chief Executive Officer, Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE), Singapore.
SPS Stats Release 2011. “Leading Reform” – Chua, 2017.
2
Singstats Population and Population Structure 2019.
3
Singstats Population Trends 2018 and Prime Minister’s Office Population Report 2019.
4
CEIC Data.
5
IMF Singapore July 2019 Country Report 19/233.
1

57

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

This exponential growth can be attributed to a safe and secure environment for
citizens and foreign investors. Singapore has been ranked first in Gallup’s Global Law
and Order Report for six consecutive years. The most recent Gallup Global Law andOrder Report 2019 indicated that Singapore was ranked first in the Law and Order Index.
94 per cent of residents reported that they felt safe walking home alone in theirneighbourhoods at night. In addition, Singapore was also ranked first for order andsecurity in the “Rule of Law Index” by the World Justice Project. 6
A. Crime and Drug Rate in Singapore
A majority of Singapore’s population is law abiding. With 581 7 cases of reported
crime per 100,000 population in 2018, the crime rate in Singapore is one of the lowest in
the world. With an offender population of about 10,800 8, the incarceration rate is 189 per
100,000 population. 70 per cent 9 are convicted for drug-related offences. This is a resultof Singapore’s zero tolerance policy against drugs. The Central Narcotics Bureau adopts acomprehensive approach in tackling both drug supply and demand. On average, about
3,250 10 drug abusers are arrested each year.
B. The Singapore Prison Service (SPS)
The penal history in Singapore can be traced to 1925 with the setting up of penal
settlements to house convicts transported from British India. SPS was institutionalized asa department on its own in 1946. Since independence, SPS had evolved from a traditionalcustodial agency faced with challenges of overcrowded prisons and manpower shortagedue to high staff turnover and poor public perception. Today, SPS is a leading
correctional agency characterized by effective inmate management and sustained low
recidivism rates.
SPS administers 15 institutions grouped under five Commands. They provide safe andsecure custody for about 12,800 inmates and are staffed by 2,405 uniform and civilian
officers. SPS’s tagline – “Rehab, Renew, Restart” emphasizes – their commitment torehabilitate inmates who desire to change, renew and restart their lives for the better, withthe support of the community.
C. The Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE)
SCORE’s roots can be traced to Prison Industries, which was started in 1965 as asection within the SPS for inmates to learn market-relevant trades. However, Prison
Industries faced several constraints such as inadequate manpower and a lack ofoperational flexibility to meet market demands due to the Government’s administrativeand financial regulations. Against this challenging operating environment, theestablishment of a separate agency was recommended to replace Prison Industries.
On 1 April 1976, SCORE was established as a quasi-government agency under the
Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). Its status as a statutory board and separate entity fromSPS enabled it to play a vital role in the Singapore correctional system by rebuilding lives
and enhancing the employability potential of offenders. SCORE focuses on the domainsof skills training, work programme, employment assistance and community partnerships
6

Gallup’s Global Law and Order Report 2019 and Rule of Law Index 2019 by the World Justice Project.
Singapore Police Force Statistics Release 2018.
8
Singapore Prison Service Statistics Release 2018.
9
Central Narcotics Bureau Statistics Release 2018.
10
Central Narcotics Bureau Statistics Release 2018.
758

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

in preparing offenders for their eventual reintegration into the national workforce and thecommunity.
As lead agencies in offender rehabilitation, SPS and SCORE form a symbiotic
relationship in transforming the corrections landscape.
III. THE REHABILITATION JOURNEY
SPS and SCORE believe that prison sentences are not just meant to punish and deter.
It is important that rehabilitation administered by SPS and SCORE provides ample
opportunities for offenders to turn their lives around. However, it must be complemented
with the offender’s own desire to change for the better. Not every offender may be willing
to reform, but the right kind of rehabilitative strategy can motivate offenders to rebuild
their lives.
The rehabilitation journey of an offender is divided into two main phases: Incare andAftercare. To achieve Throughcare, there should be seamless transition from Incare to
Aftercare, which in turn facilitates reintegration. The following framework illustrates this“Throughcare” concept.
INCARE (PRISON)
Deterrence
Security &Rehabilitation
Classification

Developmental

AFTERCARE (COMMUNITY)
Pre-Release

Halfway Care

Reintegration

Structured
Supervision /Reintegration

Review of Security
and/orRehabilitation

Orientation
Looking Forward
Education
Community Maintenance Programmes

Psychology-Based Correctional ProgrammesWork / Employment Preparation Programmes
Arts / Personal Development Programmes

Reintegration Programmes

Family Programmes

Community Based
Programmes
Employment Assistance
Religious and Family Support Services
Safe and Secure Environment with Positive Support

Befriending Services and Case Management Services
Community Support

Singapore’s approach is based on the Risk-Needs-and-Responsivity (RNR) Model,
which is an internationally recognized model for treatment and assessment of offenders.
The RNR principles for effective correctional intervention are divided into the domains of
the Risk Principle, the Need Principle and the Responsivity Principle:
59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Risk Principle
Need Principle
Responsivity
Principle

The level of rehabilitation services would match the risk level of reoffending. Offenders
with a higher risk of reoffending would be prioritized for intervention and treatment.
Offenders with major dynamic risk factors found to be associated with reoffending, i.e.
anti-social associates and substance abuse would be presented with interventions toaddress their reintegration needs.
Interventions would aid in offenders’ learning and be tailored to the specificcharacteristics of offenders, such as their level of motivation for change.

Upon admission, offenders are assessed to determine their criminogenic risks andrehabilitation needs. Based on their identified risks and needs, appropriate programmes
are charted for intervention. The programmes include psychology-based correctional
programmes, family programmes, skills training and religious services. Prior to theirrelease, offenders will also undergo programmes to prepare them for reintegration into thecommunity.
A. Employment
In the domain of employment, SCORE is the lead agency in the provision of
employment opportunities. It adopts a holistic approach in preparing offenders for
employment through Employers Engagement, Employability Skills Training, Career
Coaching and Job Placement Services.
SCORE works closely with trade associations, clans and corporations to provide
employment opportunities for ex-offenders. As a result of its active outreach, the numberof employers in SCORE’s job bank had grown from 4,745 in 2015 to about 5,600 11 in2019.
A key paradigm shift for SCORE in 2019 was to partner employers that can provide
careers instead of jobs to deserving ex-offenders. Suitable ex-offenders can be given
progression and skills upgrading opportunities as part of the employer’s careerdevelopment programme.
Employers are regularly invited into prisons to conduct job placements to interview
and assess potential candidates before offering them a job. This model proved to be
successful where 96 per cent 12 of ex-offenders assisted secured a job before their release.
Ex-offenders who secure jobs through Placement Exercises are assigned a Job Coach.
To help ex-offenders remain on the job, SCORE Job Coaches regularly engage exoffenders at their workplace to provide support and set behavioural goals. Job Coaches
also work closely with the employers and supervisors to resolve work-related issues andunderstand the support that ex-offenders need.
B. Education and Employability Skills Training
Another priority is the provision of academic education and vocational skills training
for the purpose of levelling up the inmates’ educational status and skills. SPS facilitates
the offender’s academic education through professional teachers seconded from the
Ministry of Education.

11
12Singapore Prison Service Statistics Release 2019.
Singapore Prison Service Statistics Release 2019.

60

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

Aside from formal education, SCORE looks into the provision of vocational andgeneric skills training for offenders. Its training administration is aligned with the national
training framework to prepare offenders for employment after their release. SCORE
engages training providers to provide about 27,000 13 training places, and about 5,923 14
inmates are trained annually.
C. Art and Personal Development Programmes
Art programmes are conducted in prisons as a key component in the offenders’rehabilitation, where the focus on skills training and mind-set change plays an integralrole in their eventual reintegration. These include Theatre Arts, Performing Arts andVisual Arts.
D. 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 they give inmates astrong sense of purpose, direction and meaning in life. Inmates are therefore encouraged
to develop their spiritual well-being by turning to their respective 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 andcounselling sessions for them.
E. Family 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 in 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 have been set up in SPS to provide social assistanceand support to inmates’ families to help them cope during inmates’ incarceration, i.e. in
the areas of financial difficulties, accommodation issues and emotional needs.
F. Community Volunteering
The work of rehabilitation cannot be done by SPS alone. It requires partnership withthe community to further its mission. Volunteers have been at the forefront in meeting thepotential reintegration needs of our inmates. The volunteer base has grown from 124 in1999 to more than 1,900 volunteers over the last 20 years.
To enhance the capabilities of volunteers, the Development Framework for Offender
Rehabilitation Personnel (DORP) was launched in 2014 to improve capacity-building
through training. It was further enhanced in 2018 through a collaboration with the Social
Service Institute (SSI) – a national human capital development institution for the social
service workforce to offer a greater suite of training courses. Such training enables SPS towork closely with its volunteers to deliver more effective and strategic intervention plans
to better help offenders and their families.
In a separate initiative, SPS had initiated the “Yellow Ribbon Community Project” in2010. It is an upstream intervention programme, where volunteers are forward deployedin the residential areas of offenders. The volunteers will reach out to families of newly
admitted inmates to help them cope with the impact of incarceration. This involves
13
14

Singapore Prison Service Statistics Release 2019.
Singapore Prison Service Statistics Release 2019.

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

helping them link up with relevant government entities and NGOs for social assistanceand support. Annually, more than 400 volunteers are mobilized to assist over 8,000 15
youths, ex-offenders and families.
G. Community-Based Programmes
Offenders face a myriad of challenges in the community. Therefore, aftercare
interventions seek to provide them with adequate support upon their release. Suitable andeligible offenders may be considered for the Community Based Programme (CBP), where
they may serve the tail-end of their sentence in the community under supervision. It
includes Home Detention, the Work Release Scheme and the Mandatory Aftercare
Scheme.
H. The Halfway House Scheme
The Halfway House (HWH) Scheme was started in April 1995. It allows selected
offenders without strong family support to spend the last stage of detention at the halfway
houses. Currently, there are eight independent faith-based halfway houses participating in
the HWH Scheme, and the programme comprises counselling, work therapy andmoral/religious education. Under the scheme, HWHs are mandated to operate under astructured and more consistent programme to better meet offenders’ reintegration needs.
In 2019, SPS and SCORE set up the Selarang Halfway House (SHWH). It is the firstgovernment-run HWH to strengthen aftercare support for selected higher-risk exoffenders placed on the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme in the domains of employment andaccommodation. It operates as a 24-hour residential facility with a capacity of 576 16 forresidents of both genders.
The SHWH adopts a supervised step-down approach to facilitate their gradualreintegration into society. It replicates a normalized living environment for ex-offenders
and applies the key learning points from the pre-release programme the ex-offenders had
undergone in a real-life situation. Ex-offenders attend counselling sessions and areallowed to work or attend vocational training to enhance their employability. Suitable exoffenders are also given time-off to return home and spend time with their families orparticipate in community activities.
IV. REHABILITATION AND THE COMMUNITY’S ROLE
Preparing the community and creating conditions that encourage sustained desistencefrom criminal behaviour is a difficult and complex task. It requires political support,
multi-agency collaboration, grassroots activism and the active engagement of civil society
as a whole.
SPS and SCORE actively reach out to involve the community for both Incare as wellas the Aftercare phase of an inmate’s journey. For more than two decades now, SPS and
SCORE have invested considerable resources and energy into this area.
A. The CARE Network
In 2000, SPS and SCORE led the formation of the Community Action for the
Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders Network (CARE Network). This network is an alliance of
15
16

Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association’s website.
Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises Annual Report 2018.

62

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

the main players in the area of offender reintegration in Singapore. The CARE Network
aims to ease the reintegration journey for ex-offenders and their families through interagency collaborations and implementation of aftercare interventions.
The CARE Network comprises the MHA, the Ministry of Social and Family
Development (MSF), SPS, SCORE, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS),
Industrial & Services Co-Operative Society Ltd (ISCOS), the Singapore After-Care
Association (SACA), the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA) and the Yellow
Ribbon Fund (YRF). These are all nationally accredited organizations, responsible for thedelivery of programmes and services supported by the Government.

As the fifth government agency in the network, NCSS was established in 1958 toprovide leadership and direction in social services in Singapore. Today, it is an umbrella
body for some 450-member social service agencies.
SANA was formed in 1972 as an NGO to complement the work done by the Central
Narcotics Bureau in preventive drug education and to support former drug offenders.
Today, SANA administers the Yellow Ribbon Community Project and runs a Step-Up
Centre.
SACA was formed in 1956 as a key aftercare agency providing welfare andrehabilitation services for discharged offenders. Besides that, SACA plays an active rolein the training of prison volunteers and aftercare professionals. SACA also conducts
research as an initiative of the CARE Network to uplift the aftercare sector in Singapore.
ISCOS was formed in 1989 as a social cooperative for ex-offenders. It serves toconnect ex-offenders with supportive employers and positive peers and mentors. A key
focal area by ISCOS is the prevention of intergenerational offending through provision ofacademic assistance and life skills to children of the incarcerated.

63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

YRF was set up in 2004 as the first national charitable fund devoted entirely to exoffenders and their families. It is registered under SCORE and disbursed $1,161,910 in2018, benefitting 3,816 ex-offenders, families and children of the incarcerated. Its key
focal areas are in the provision of emergency financial assistance, funding residential
support programmes, administering programmes in education and training, and family
support programmes. The YRF has also been conferred Institute of Public Characterstatus, which allows them to issue tax deductible receipts to donors who want to claim tax
relief based on the amount of qualifying donations made. The status and position of the
YRF are thus significantly different to similar organizations that operate in othercountries, which are typically charities formed by advocacy groups, likeminded people or
religious organizations.
B. 3Ps Partnership – People, Private and Public
As secretariat to the CARE Network, SCORE’s partnership strategy is based on thepremise of 3Ps; People, Private and Public sector. Through this segmentation, SCORE isable to ensure greater synergy and stay effective in its partnership efforts.
Within the People Sector, the CARE Network has seen tremendous growth in the
support and attention to the work of offenders’ rehabilitation and reintegration. It started
with eight core member agencies in 2000 and admitted its ninth member, YRF, in 2015.
Today, the network has harnessed the support of more than 100 other NGO aftercare
agencies through the 250 key aftercare professionals it engages with regularly.
Collectively, the corrections community in Singapore sees about 2,650 volunteers, whose
unwavering support has made significant contributions to the lives of offenders and theirfamilies.
In the Private and Public Sectors, SCORE works with an extensive mix of partners
annually. Comprising almost 6,700 partners, they include key government agencies,
employers, trade associations, chambers of commerce and ethnic clan associations.
C. Yellow Ribbon Project – Reaching Out and Touching a Nation
This strong support is largely attributed to the success of the Yellow Ribbon Project(YRP). Launched in 2004 by the former President of the Republic of Singapore Mr S.R
Nathan, the YRP is known globally as the only national second chance campaign for exoffenders. Its purpose is to generate awareness of the difficulties ex-offenders face after
release, encourage acceptance of their return to society and inspire public action to
support their reintegration.
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 awaiting 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 Yellow Ribbon Project was conceived with three main objectives: 1. to createawareness of the need to give second chances to ex-prisoners; 2. to generate acceptanceof ex-prisoners and their families by the community; and 3. to inspire community action
64174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

to support the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-prisoners. It is based on the rationalethat every offender encounters two prisons: the first being the physical prison during
incarceration, and the second is that the person is in a ‘social and psychological prison’post-release. It is accepted that programmes delivered in custody are essential; however, it
is equally important that community support and services are available for the
reintegration of ex-offenders into mainstream society. This integrated approach wasconceived as a basis to reduce recidivism and improve individual, family, community andsocietal outcomes.
The success of the YRP can be attributed to the media campaign and outreachstrategies, and the strong community ownership of the Yellow Ribbon brand.
V. CONCLUSION
Serving time should never be a waste of time. The period of incarceration allows SPS
and SCORE an opportunity to rebuild lives and help offenders to have another shot at life.
The end in mind is to reduce the recidivism rate.
Today, Singapore is witnessing a sustained improvement in the two-year recidivism
rate, which has fallen to record low levels. However, the five-year recidivism rate
hovered around 40 per cent. 17 More can be done to help ex-offenders stay crime free,longer.
Rehabilitation and reintegration are the two key ingredients for successful offenderreform. They cannot be confined to within the prison walls. However, the Yellow Ribbon
moniker can be leveraged as a powerful unifying brand which the Singaporean
community can rally behind as one.
The government will provide support to those who need assistance. However, thecommunity can play an even more important role by providing support andencouragement. By working as one, Singapore can overcome challenges, regardless of
their circumstances, and emerge ready to build a safer future.

17

Speech by Minister K Shanmugam at the CARE Network Workplan Seminar 2019.

65

RE-ASSESSING THE ROLE OF COMMUNITY-BASEDSENTENCES IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT GOALS
Matti Joutsen *I. APPLICATION OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES AROUND THE
WORLD
Almost thirty years ago, the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Noncustodial Measures (the Tokyo Rules) 1 were adopted by the General Assembly.
So far, no reliable global overview has been prepared of how community-based
sentences 2 are being used in practice in the different jurisdictions. 3 No readily available
source is available. As noted by the Secretary-General in his report to the Thirteenth
United Nations Congress,
Sentencing policies refer to the responses of the criminal justice system to thevarious offences as regards the types of sentences, including non-custodial
measures. A comparative assessment of sentencing policies of criminal justicesystems would require the analysis of the type of sentences, including the lengthof custodial sentences handed out to convicted persons, while taking account of
the seriousness of the criminal offences committed. At the international level,
there are no available data on the length and type of sentences that allow thistype of comparative analysis. 4
The situation is slowly changing. Comparative statistical data on community-based
sentences are being collected in Europe by the Council of Europe. This is only partiallygood news, since it covers only the European region, the process of collection was begun
fairly recently and it is too early to use this data set to assess patterns on other than a very
general level. However, it does provide a point of departure for at least one region in theworld. 5*

Special Advisor, Thailand Institute of Justice.
General Assembly resolution 45/110, annex.
2
Although the Tokyo Rules use the wider concept “non-custodial sanctions,” the main focus in this paper ison sentences, which can be defined broadly as punishment imposed by a court (or other duly constituted
authority) on an offender, following a formal procedure. It includes decisions made in restorative justiceand mediation proceedings.
The terms “non-custodial” and “community-based” are synonyms. The term “alternatives toimprisonment” is widely used but will not be used here, as it implies that imprisonment is the standard andexpected response, and other measures somehow exceptions from the norm.
3
The present paper updates and supplements data contained in an unpublished paper, Joutsen 2015. This
earlier paper also included data, not repeated here, on the use of restorative justice measures and monetary
sanctions.
4State of crime and criminal justice worldwide. Report of the Secretary-General to the Thirteenth United
Nations Crime Congress, A/CONF.222/4, para. 37.
5
Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics (SPACE II); available at http://wp.unil.ch/space/space-ii/. The
most recent publication is from 2018: Aebi and Hashimoto 2018, and Aebi et al., 2019. The Council ofEurope project uses the term “alternatives to imprisonment”. The working definition does not include, for
166

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

In time, some data may become available also on a global basis. The American
Probation and Parole Association, together with Community Supervision Solutions, haslaunched the “Supervision Around the World” (SAW) Project, which seeks to collectinformation on community supervision practices in every country around the world. 6 TheSAW Project will identify countries offering supervision services, document current
practices and create an interactive Internet repository for the information that it obtains onsupervision programmes.
A second initiative launched recently, the Global Community Corrections Initiative, issimilarly seeking to collect data on the use of community corrections. 7 During the initialstage, the initiative is seeking to identify experts in each of the fifty countries with thehighest prison populations, and obtain through them information on the use of community
corrections, both as sentencing options and as post-release measures.
There are several reasons why data on community-based sentences has been so
difficult to collect, and have not been particularly usable for comparative purposes:• community-based sentences are used primarily at the lower end of offence
seriousness, and it is at this end that the scope of criminalized conduct (i.e. conductthat may lead to a response by the criminal justice system) varies considerably fromone jurisdiction to the next;• community-based sentences as a response to criminalized conduct may be imposed
not only by the courts, but also by the police, the prosecutor and even otheradministrative authorities, and decisions may also be taken by community-based
bodies (as with the case of mediation and restorative justice measures);• community-based sentences, even if imposed by a court, are not necessarily enteredinto a centralized register nor recorded in the statistics; and• the terminology varies from one jurisdiction to another, and thus even communitybased sentences referred to with the same term (for example “probation”) may not
be comparable.
More generally, there are the considerable difficulties in making comparisons
between how the criminal justice system operates in different countries. 8 Nonetheless,almost 30 years after the adoption of the Tokyo Rules, it is of interest to try to examine
how community-based sentences are being used in different jurisdictions around theworld. This paper is based on the available literature and statistical data, and seeks tobring together a number of different observations about patterns.

example, measures imposed on the basis of juvenile criminal law, nor persons under the aftercare ofprobation agencies. Heiskanen et al., 2014, p. 27.
6
http://communitysupervisionsolutions.com/saw-project/.
7
GLOBCCI.ORG.
8
See, for example, Nelken 2007.

67

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

A. The Benchmark: International Patterns in the Use of Imprisonment
The patterns in brief:
•
•

•

•

•

imprisonment (incarceration, custodial treatment) is without question the basic form ofpunishment in criminal justice systems around the world.
although the global rate of prisoners per 100,000 in population has been stable over the past
few years, the rate has been increasing rapidly in some individual countries, and decreasing inothers.
the prisoner rate varies considerably from one country to the next, and even from oneneighbouring country to the next – even if these countries have somewhat similar legal systems
and degree of development.
clear regional and sub-regional patterns can be detected in the use of imprisonment, asmeasured by prisoner rates. In general, imprisonment is used least in Africa and Asia, andmost in North America and Latin America.
in several countries with a high prison population, a present trend is towards “decarceration”,
a deliberate policy of lessening the use of imprisonment.

The best current source of data on prison populations around the world has beendeveloped by Roy Walmsley: the World Prison Population List. The most recent versionof this list, the twelfth edition, provides data as of September 2018. 9 The list provides
information on the total prison population and the prisoner rate (the number of prisoners
per 100,000 in population) in almost all countries in the world. The map below is basedon this data.
One point of caution. Sentences, including sentences of imprisonment, are used indifferent ways by different countries. The use of only one indicator, such as the numberof prisoners per 100,000 in population, can be misleading. The data on prisoner rates
reflect only one dimension of the use of prisons: how many prisoners are being held at a
certain time, as a proportion of the total population. Dünkel notes that prisoner rates are afunction of the number of persons entering prison, and the length of stay. Consequently,
similar prisoner rates may hide considerable differences in these two factors. 10
Furthermore, overall prisoner rates do not show possible demographic differences
within the population. Research has shown that the burden of imprisonment falls
unequally on different ethnic, racial and other population groups, with the greatest burden
tending to fall on vulnerable population groups. 11
The 2018 edition of the World Prison Population List shows that the global prison
population has continued to grow, exceeding 11 million in 2018. It also draws attention toregional trends, including an almost tripling in the total prison population of SouthAmerica since the year 2000 (an increase of 175 per cent), a more than doubling of the9

Walmsley 2019.
Dünkel 2015 provides data showing that Sweden, with a prison population rate of 57 per 100,000, andGermany, with a prison population rate of 76 per 100,000, have roughly the same rates. Even so, theaverage length in Sweden is only two months, while the average length in Germany is four times longer,
eight months. Both are highly developed countries, with roughly the same level and structure of crime, andwith roughly the same criminal justice processes and efficiency – and yet they use sentences ofimprisonment in quite different ways.
11
See, for example, Garland 2014, and in respect of the situation in the United States, Travis and Western(eds.) 2014.
1068174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

total prison population of south-eastern Asia (an increase of 122%), and an almost
doubling in Oceania (an increase of 86%). 12
In just the three years since the previous edition of the World Prison Population List
had been published, the total prison population had increased by around one half in suchcountries as Indonesia (45% increase in prisoners per 100,000 of general population), thePhilippines (48%), Egypt (53%), Nicaragua (61%) and Cambodia (68%). 13
As can be seen from the map, on the regional level, prisoner rates are highest in Northand South America, and lowest in Africa and South-Central Asia. 14
There are many differences within regions. For example, while Africa as a whole has
the world’s lowest prisoner rates, the median prison population rate for western Africancountries is 53, whereas for southern African countries it is 244.
There are even more distinctive differences within Europe. The map shows arelatively sharp divide between west and east, with prisoner rates in the former socialist
countries in Eastern Europe considerably higher than in the west. A particularly marked
divide can be found between the Nordic countries on one side, with prisoner rates ranging
around 50 to 70, and the neighbouring Baltic countries (200 – 300) as well as the RussianFederation (467), on the other.
Although the sub-regional differences in Europe are relatively stable and have existed
for a long time, there have been considerable shifts within countries. Dünkel 2015 notesthat from 1984 to 2014, there has been a clear increase in the prisoner rate in, for example,
England and Wales (from 84 per 100,000 to 149 per 100,000), France (31 to 98), Portugal(70 to 136) and Spain (38 to 140). In some other countries, there has been a decrease; forexample, in Finland from 97 to 55. In the Russian Federation, there has been a significant
decrease in just a fifteen-year period, from 730 per 100,000 in 1999, to 467 per 100,000
in 2014.

12

Walmsley 2019.
Walmsley 2019. The same source notes that during this same relatively brief three-year period, there has
been a significant decrease in the Russian Federation (10%), Viet Nam (11%), Japan (15%), Ukraine (19%),
Kazakhstan (21%), Romania (22%) and Mexico (23%).
14
The seminal and in my view most perceptive analysis of national differences in prisoner rates is to befound in the third chapter of Christie 2000. He focuses on the European region. Lappi-Seppälä 2003
contains a global analysis.
13

69

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

To turn to Asia, Thailand had a prison population of 250,000 in 2002 (400 per
100,000 in population), but through greater use of pre-trial diversion and early release fordrug addicts, the amount had been reduced to 160,000 by August 2005 (250 per 100,000).
More recently, however, the trend has reversed, with an increase to 210,000 prisoners in2010 and 364,000 in 2018 (320 and 526 per 100,000, respectively). Japan, in turn, has
had a relatively stable rate, with gradual growth to a peak of 81,000 in 2006 (64 per
100,000), and a subsequent steady decrease to 52,000 in 2018 (41 per 100,000). 15
B. International Patterns in the Use of Probation
The patterns in brief:
•

•

•

15

the quantitative data on the use of probation, either world-wide or within a region (such as
Europe) is so poor that clear patterns cannot be detected. The reason is that probation exists inmany forms, and is used for many purposes.
the statistical data does suggest, however, that there are huge differences between countries in
the use of probation. Probation is widely used around the world, but some countries use
probation extensively, others use it rarely.
qualitative data at least in Europe suggests that the use of probation is expanding, as is therange of functions that probation agencies fulfil.

International Centre for Prison Studies, available at http://www.prisonstudies.org/about-wpb.

70174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

Probation is generally understood as a sentence in which the offender continues tolive in the community, under the supervision of a judicial authority, probation service orother similar body. 16 The element of “under supervision” is important, and distinguishes
this sentence from, for example, simple conditional sentences where the offender is under
no obligation to report to anyone. However, it should immediately be noted that the extent
to which probation actually involves supervision varies considerably from jurisdiction tojurisdiction.
Probation agencies can be found throughout the world. For example, in Europe they
can be found in almost every country, although with a wide variety in structure and infunctions. Most of the original probation agencies were state-run, but some were nongovernmental, and today some are privately run businesses. The work of many probation
agencies covers the entire country, but some are regional or even local. As for functions,
before the trial stage some probation agencies prepare social inquiry reports for theprosecutor, and may provide information also to other decision-makers in the criminal
justice system. Some probation agencies provide assistance to victims of crime andorganize restorative justice interventions. In respect of sentences, probation agencies may
organize not only probation, but also community service orders. And in respect ofprisoners, some probation agencies provide social support for relatives of inmates, andguidance and support to prisoners themselves (including debt regulation) in order toprepare their release, and assist with aftercare residential homes. 17
Because of the considerable differences in organization and functions of probation
around the world, there is little statistical data that can be compared. Even within Europe,
where the Council of Europe SPACE II project has sought to collect data since the 1990s,
a research team that has taken a close look at this European data warns that cross-national
comparisons of the numbers and rates of persons under the supervision of probation
agencies may be misleading. 18
Table 2 in Appendix 1 provides European data on use of probation in 1999, 2007,2013 and 2017. Despite the difficulties inherent in the data, it can be concluded at thevery least that there are considerable differences between European countries in respect of
how often probation is used. For example, England and Wales, France, Germany andespecially Poland appear to use probation very often, in tens of thousands of cases eachyear, while in some other European countries, only a few hundred (or even fewer)
offenders begin to serve probation during a year.
One source that provides some data on the use of “community corrections” indifferent countries around the world is the Global Community Corrections Initiativereferred to in part A. On the website of the initiative, information is provided on the total
number of prisoners and the total number of persons in “community corrections” in
2016. 19 This is provided below in Table 1. As a source, it must be treated cautiously, inparticular as it does not give country-specific data on how “community corrections” is16

Handbook for Prison Leaders 2010, p. 120.
Dünkel 2015. See also Heiskanen et al., 2014, pp. 15 – 16, and tables 1 and 2, on pp. 40 – 41 and 43 – 44.
18
Aebi et al., 2014, p. 300.
19
See http://www.globcci.org/prisonPopulationMap/prisonPop2Map.html. The project seeks to collect datafrom the fifty countries in the world that have the highest prison population (presumably on the assumptionthat these countries would also make extensive use of probation). However, data on probation is apparently
available only from 38 of these 50 countries.
17

71

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

defined. However, the implication given is that this involves probation, i.e. supervision in
the community.
Bearing in mind that the data in Table 1 should be treated with caution, an
examination of the table raises some intriguing questions. Assuming that the data in the“community corrections” column refers to the number of persons on probation, and that
how community corrections is defined in the different countries is at least broadly similar,
it can be seen that some countries (Malaysia, Morocco, Myanmar, and Nigeria in respectof adults) do not use probation.
A second observation is that some countries use probation very rarely, in proportion
to the number of persons kept in imprisonment. The outlier here is Argentina, with some
85,000 persons in prison, and only some 3,400 persons in community corrections. Other
countries in which the number of persons in community corrections is dwarfed by theprison population are Australia, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, Peru and the Philippines.
Conversely, some countries have a community corrections population that is about
three times the size of the prison population: Germany, the Republic of Korea and inparticular Poland.
Table 1. Corrections population: total number and per 100,000 in population, by type of sentence, in2016 (unless otherwise noted in respect of the year) 20
communitycommunity
corrections
prisoners
community
corrections
prisoner
population as
countrypercorrections
population
population
percentage of
100,000
populationper
prisoner
100,000
population
Argentina
85,283
198
3,433
8
4%
Australia
42,492
178
14,29866
37
Canada41,145
115
101,716
284
247
Chile
49,063274
58,198
326
119
China
1,649,804
119
707,058
51
43
Colombia
118,925
239
57,099115
48
France70,710110
174,510272
247
Germany
62,19470
180,000 (2010)
202
289**
Indonesia
248,38998
55,00022
22
Italy
59,13597
59,554
97
100
Japan*
55,96744
15,27812
27
Kazakhstan
33,989192
22,500127
66
Kenya
54,000118
7,861 (1995)
172
146**
Korea, Rep. of55,198110
165,818 (2007)
330
300**
Malaysia
55,413
182
no probation
Morocco82,512242
no probation
Myanmar79,668150
no probationno probation for adults
Nigeria
73,63140
Pakistan
83,71845
23,396 (2015)
13
28**
Peru
82,023263
16,11053
20Philippines
188,278
190
43,194 (2017)
44
23
20

Source: http://www.globcci.org/prisonPopulationMap/prisonPop2Map.html. Note: the 2016 prisoner
data provided here differ from that provided in the 2016 edition of the World Prisoner Population List
compiled by Roy Walmsley. The calculation of prisoners and community corrections offenders per 100,000
are by the author.

72

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS
Poland73,524
193
Russian Federation
582,889404
South Africa
158,111292
Spain
59,087
128
Thailand364,288
540
Turkey232,886297
Ukraine56,246
154
United Kingdom
83,014
146
United States
2,121,600
699
Uzbekistan
43,900150
Viet Nam
130,002
140*
Data provided by Kitagawa Mika, UNAFEI**
Note different years

290,000
423,092
70,35655,342
216,616 (2013)
292,406
63,944
190,4394,650,900
probation est. 2018
47,000

760
295
128
120
319
374
176
202
1531
50

394
73
44
94
598**
126
114
139
219
36

Finally, there are vast differences in the number of persons in community corrections(presumably referring by and large to the number of persons under supervision) per
100,000 in population. At one end, there were apparently only eight persons incommunity corrections per 100,000 in Argentina, twelve persons per 100,000 in Japan,
and thirteen persons per 100,000 in Pakistan in community corrections. At the other endof the range there were 760 persons in community corrections per 100,000 in Poland, andover twice that number, 1,531 persons per 100,000, in the United States. 21
Once again, caution needs to be exercised in interpreting this data, especially since nofurther particulars are provided on how the data was obtained, and more importantly on
how each reporting country had defined the concept of “community corrections” inresponding to the request for data.
To look at the qualitative data on probation, which are available only for Europe, one
pattern that has been noted is the growth in the number of new probation agencies.
According to the coordinator for the Council of Europe SPACE II project, these newprobation agencies have often been detached from the national prison administration, or
have expanded on the basis of local offices. A second pattern is the growth in probation
workload, much as a result of the diversification of probation functions at different stagesof intervention (e.g. pre-trial, enforcement, management of postponed sentences,conversions or post-release stages). 22 In commenting on the observation that the numberof prisoners in Europe has not decreased despite the growth in probation, Delgrande
notes:The paradox of increasing patterns for prison and probation is a very complex
phenomenon and many researchers try to explain this evolution from judicial, political,
security or criminal policy perspectives. It can be concluded that for the period lastingfrom the early 2000s until now, the part of prisoners sentenced to short custodial terms(less than one-year custody) did not decrease at all. In fact it seemed that there was an
overuse of CSM [community sanctions and measures] for the persons who were notsupposed to go to prison. 23

21

Noting that there were 699 prisoners per 100,000 in population in the United States, it would seem that in2016, over 2 per cent of the total population of the United States was under the control of the criminal
justice system.
22
Delgrande 2015.
23
Ibid.

73

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Delgrande’s point refers to what is called the “net-widening” effect of newcommunity-based sentences. Often, new sentences are developed specifically to replaceshort terms of imprisonment, but in practice they may replace less restrictive sentences.
C. International Patterns in the Use of Community Service Orders
The patterns in brief:• community service orders are a new sanction that is clearly increasing in use aroundthe world, although so far, the main area of growth appears to be largely in Europe
and North America (with a few notable exceptions in Asia and Africa).
• in Europe in particular, community service orders are in wide use.
• different forms of community service make comparison difficult.

A community service order (CSO) requires the offender to perform a certain numberof hours of unpaid work, usually for an agency or organization or the benefit of thecommunity.
The community service order was first introduced in England and Wales during theearly 1970s. Following a 1976 Council of Europe resolution 24 calling for member states
to consider adopting community service orders, its use spread to a number of other
European countries. In Asia and the Pacific region, CSOs have been introduced in at least
Australia, Fiji, Hong Kong, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Thailand,
and in the Republic of Korea as a supplement to other sentences. 25 In Latin America andthe Caribbean, community service exists in at least Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica and
Mexico. 26 In Africa, it exists in at least Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Kenya,
Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia andZimbabwe. 27
There are considerable differences between countries as regards the total persons
undergoing community service. Table 3 in Appendix 1 contains data from Council ofEurope member states for 1999, 2007, 2013 and 2017 on the use of CSOs. Perhaps theclearest trend that can be seen is the growth in the number of countries using CSOs, andin the number of CSOs imposed. (Both developments can be seen in respect of Europe in
the table.)
A second observation is the large differences in use from one country to another.
Some European countries impose only a few thousand CSOs annually, others (inparticular England and Wales, France, the Netherlands, Poland and especially Spain)
impose it very often.
Examining the available data on the qualitative use of community service orders,
McIvor et al. note that the stated and actual functions of CSOs “have always been very
unclear and conflicting”. According to them, while the various stated functions of a morehumane alternative to prison, rehabilitation and reparation “are largely shared acrossjurisdictions, within different jurisdictions they are assigned varying degrees of24

Resolution (76)10 (1976), available at https://rm.coe.int/16804feb80.
Sugihara et al, 1994, pp. 100, 104, 184 and 201; Challinger 1994, p. 263; Singh 2005, p. 90; Rujjanavet
2005, p. 108; Reddy, p. 224.
26
Carranza et al, 1994, p. 407.
27
Penal Reform International 2012, and Saleh-Hanna 2008, p. 387.
25

74

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

importance. Furthermore, the relative importance attached to different aims has changed
over time in each jurisdiction.” 28 Melvor et al. also say that rehabilitation continues toremain a stated function of CSOs, but it is becoming more narrowly defined as reductionof the risk of reoffending and retributive aspects of CSOs “are being stressed in an effort
to garner public and judicial support”. 29
Dünkel, in turn, notes that the general experience with CSOs has been positive. By
and large CSOs do appear to be replacing short-term imprisonment, and thus the “netwidening effect” may not be particularly strong. 30
D. International Patterns in the Use of Electronic Monitoring
The patterns in brief:• electronic monitoring is a new measure that has been spreading in many industrializedcountries.
• electronic monitoring is used not only as a sanction, but also as an alternative to pretrial detention, and as a condition of parole.
• due to the expense of the measure, electronic monitoring is not in very wide use indeveloping countries.

In electronic monitoring, the offender is ordered to remain at home or, at specified
times, at his or her place of employment, educational institution or other accepted
location. The offender has a monitor attached (usually to his or her wrist or ankle) to help
in ensuring compliance with the order.
Electronic monitoring was first used in the United States in 1983. 31 Its purpose is toensure that the offender remains where he or she is supposed to be, or alternatively thatthe offender does not enter proscribed areas or approach specific persons, such as
potential victims. It can be used as a sentence in its own right, or as a condition ofprobation (or another community-based sentence). Before conviction, it can be used as analternative to pre-trial detention (as, for example, in Belgium, France, the Netherlands,
Northern Ireland and Portugal), and at a later stage, as a condition of a prison furlough orof parole from prison (as in Finland and Sweden).
Although electronic monitoring is a very recent innovation in corrections, it has
spread relatively rapidly from the United States, first to the United Kingdom, and then to
Canada, New Zealand, Australia and South Korea, and to a large number of countries in
Europe. Table 4 in Appendix 1 provides data showing the rapid spread in Europe. While
only five countries in Europe appeared to use electronic monitoring in 1999, in 2007 it
was in use in at least ten European countries, in 2013 in at least fifteen, and in 2017 in atleast twenty-one. According to Mombelli 2019, electronic monitoring is being used or isbeing experimented with in some forty countries around the world. 32
Equally impressive is the growth in the use of electronic monitoring in individual
countries. Poland, which did not have the sentence as recently as 2007, had almost 17,000
28

McIvor et al., 2010, p. 87.
Ibid.
30
Dünkel 2015.
31
Burrell and Gable 2008; Albrecht 2005.
32
Mombelli 2019.
29

75

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

offenders starting to serve an electronic monitoring order in 2013 (Poland did not provide
data for 2017). In France, almost 30,000 offenders began to serve such an order in 2017.
For at least these two countries, electronic monitoring is not just a technological novelty,
but something that is in very wide use.
The differences between countries in the use of electronic monitoring are also evident
in comparison to population. Aebi et al. have calculated that the average total number of
persons in Europe under electronic monitoring in 2010 was quite low (8 per 100,000
population), with the highest rate for England and Wales (42), and the lowest rate in
Serbia (close to zero). 33
From the qualitative point of view, Dünkel notes the controversial nature of electronicmonitoring, and the evident danger of net-widening. The contribution of electronicmonitoring to the easing of prison overcrowding appears to have been very limited,
although positive results have been reported in Finland, the Netherlands and Sweden. 34
II. ARE COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES MORE EFFECTIVE THAN
IMPRISONMENT?
Conventional wisdom is that community-based sentences are suitable for only adistinct range of offences: petty offences (and, in some jurisdictions, medium-level
offences), and that the response to more serious offences should be imprisonment. Thatstatement needs to be unpacked.
What we deem a petty offence and, respectively, a medium-level and serious offence,varies from one jurisdiction to the next, and from one time to another. 35 For example, as
noted by Yukhnenko et al. (2019), more or less the same drug trafficking offence canlead to a community-based sentence in one jurisdiction, and a sentence of five to ten yearsof imprisonment in another.
Furthermore, the range of offences covered by, respectively, community-based
sentences and imprisonment varies from one jurisdiction to the next, and from one time toanother. In some jurisdictions, community-based sentences are used more thanimprisonment. In other jurisdictions, in turn, very few community-based sentences areused at all. It would be absurd to conclude that few petty offences (and perhaps evenmedium-level offences) are committed in the latter jurisdictions and come before thecourts.
Both factors suggest that the dominant role of imprisonment in each of ourjurisdictions can and should be reconsidered. If some jurisdictions can maintain social
control, prevent crime and protect the victim and the community with a low level ofimprisonment, we should try to learn from their experience. As noted by the UNODC,
33

Aebi et al. 2014, p. 300.
Dünkel 2015. Also, Graham and McIvor 2015 conclude that electronic monitoring alone does notdecrease the risk of reoffending but should be combined with support and supervision.
35
Nils Christie has explained the variation with the concept of the “penal value” of a certain sentence. He
argues that in any given society, the “penal value” of, for example, a sentence of ten years of imprisonment
can vary considerably over time, depending for example of the amount of conflict in society and thestandard of living.
34

76

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

It can be argued that the position of imprisonment as the main punishment for
medium-level, and even for more serious, offences is not and should not be self-evident.
Other forms of punishment could just as well be used, as long as they can be regarded as
credible and as fulfilling whatever the function of punishment is seen to be in society.
Imprisonment is not the only type of punishment, nor necessarily the best type of
punishment, especially (but not only) in the case of juveniles, and disadvantaged groups
such as drug users and the mentally ill. Imprisonment should be reserved for the mostserious offences and the most dangerous offenders. In other cases, deterrence, education,
rehabilitation, just deserts and even incapacitation can be promoted by other types ofpunishment, at a significantly lower social, human and economic cost. It is for this reason
that the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (the Tokyo
Rules) were drafted.
It needs to be emphasized that this paper is not intended to suggest that imprisonment
is not an appropriate response to crime. As noted above by the UNODC, imprisonment
should be reserved for the most serious offences and the most dangerous offenders. It
should not be used indiscriminately when the same functions can be achieved throughcommunity-based sentences.
In pursuit of this, the following section examines whether imprisonment does indeed
fulfil different purposes of punishment, or is any more effective in fulfilling them thancommunity-based sentences. After all, as noted by the UNODC above, imprisonment is
widely believed to• deter the person sentenced from repeating his or her offence;• rehabilitate the offender (by increasing awareness and acceptance of norms, andthus by leading the offender to reject a criminal lifestyle);• incapacitate the offender, by placing him or her behind locks and bars, thus
presumably keeping the rest of the community safe; and• serve as a warning to other potential offenders not to commit an offence.
As for the “just deserts” purpose of punishment, the question of whether or not
imprisonment is “better” that community-based sentences rests essentially on theperception of the severity of each respective sentence.
This section will also consider the cost implications of both imprisonment andcommunity-based sentences.
A. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences at
Deterring the Offender from Committing New Offences
The “special prevention” function of a sentence, the impact that it has on the offender,
is seen to operate through a combination of deterrence (warning), rehabilitation(education and seeking to ensure that the offender can be reintegrated into the community
as a law-abiding member) and incapacitation. To the extent that punishment actually has
this impact, it is difficult to distinguish between deterrence and rehabilitation. We cannot
know for sure that, if an offender does not commit a new offence after being punished,77

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

this is because the offender fears new punishment (the deterrence aspect) or is better
adjusted (is better able to function as a lawful member of society).
A second difficulty lies in researching the impact of punishment. Much as
criminologists would welcome the possibility, judges in most jurisdictions would notagree to a massive experiment, in which offenders guilty of more or less similar offences
are randomly split into two groups, with one being sentenced to imprisonment and theother being sentenced to community-based sentences, and the researchers then seeing
which group is less likely to commit new offences (and possibly even interviewing theoffenders in an attempt to see whether deterrence or rehabilitation was the primary factor
in such desistance).
A third difficulty lies in drawing conclusions from whatever results can be gleaned
from research. Offenders are different, and have different life situations and motivations.
Individual jurisdictions have different forms of imprisonment and community-based
sentences, and their theoretical deterrent and rehabilitative impact may well be quite
different. Finally, even in individual jurisdictions, different sentences may be
implemented in different ways, and consequently could well have a different impact on
the offenders serving the sentences.
Without seeking to generalize too far, one way to proceed is to examine thedeterrence argument from the point of view of short-term imprisonment, as compared tocommunity-based sentences. If the term of imprisonment is only a few weeks or months,
the offender presumably could not receive the benefit of very extensive educational,
health or social welfare services which would assist him or her in reintegration into thecommunity.
Studies that can shed light on this have been carried out in a number of countries. An
example is Wermink et al. (2010), which used the matched samples approach 36 in acomparison of reoffending after short sentences of imprisonment (up to six months),
compared to reoffending after sentences of community service. The study concluded thatthe reoffending rate for those sentenced to community service was roughly one half ofthat of offenders sentenced to short-term imprisonment, a result which is in line withearlier studies carried out in the Netherlands.
Going beyond studies in just one country, a recent review brought together the resultsof a number of studies conducted around the world, similarly comparing the impact ofcommunity service with that of short sentences of imprisonment (Yukhnenko et al. 2019).
Once again, the over-all conclusion was that offenders sentenced to community service
had a lower rate of reoffending than did offenders sentenced to short terms ofimprisonment.
From this, it would seem that the belief in imprisonment as a greater deterrent thancommunity-based sentences can at least be questioned. At this stage, we need not try to
draw more general conclusions. Imprisonment may well have a deterrent effect on at least
some offenders and in some jurisdictions, but in some cases community-based sentences
produce better results.
36

The matched samples methodology is one way of seeking to make two samples being compared assimilar to one another as possible (such as age, gender and length of sentence).

78

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

B. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences at
Rehabilitating the Offender
One of the fundamental purposes of custodial corrections is to take the offender awayfrom a possibly criminogenic environment and place him or her in a closed rehabilitative,
therapeutic or educational institution for treatment. The treatment may be tailored for the
special health and or mental health needs of individual offenders (counselling, anger
management, psychiatric treatment, substance abuse), or may be designed to help a wider
spectrum of offenders realize the need to abandon a criminal lifestyle (religious
counselling, education, vocational training, cognitive skills etc.).
The rehabilitative effect of custodial corrections has been extensively researched. 37
Among the classics in the field is Robert Martinson’s 1974 article, What works? –Questions and answers about prison reform. In it, he summarized a number of studies andconcluded that “with few and isolated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that have beenreported so far have had no appreciable effect on recidivism”. 38 David Farabee, in his
2005 book Rethinking Rehabilitation: Why Can’t We Reform Our Criminals?, also
concluded that, on a general level, correctional treatment is not working.
Many reasons have been identified for this failure in corrections. The mind-set that
offenders can be forced to change their lifestyle (referred to as “coercive treatment” or“mandatory treatment”) sets up a situation in which offenders may seem to adapt to theregime and change their behavioural patterns in a favourable manner, but on release
immediately return to a criminal lifestyle. It has also been pointed out that custodial
treatment in itself can do little about the situation in which the offender will find himself
or herself on release. Indeed, as has often been noted, being sent to prison may in avariety of ways worsen the offender’s ability to function as a member of society.
A major difficulty with custodial corrections in most jurisdictions is that it is underresourced and overburdened. The availability and quality of counselling, treatment,
education and vocational training (as well as other forms of support and assistance) may
be severely limited. Due to the over-population of many prisons, the staff is unable toconduct a proper risk and needs assessment, much less provide an individualized
treatment plan that addresses the needs of each and every prisoner. Treatment that is
specifically tailored to individual offenders (or small groups of offenders with similar
characteristics) in individual cultural contexts have been shown to work, but matching
offenders and treatment programmes, and successfully implementing such programmes,
is very resource intensive.
Without the supervision of the staff, many prisoners will be spending much of theirtime in a very criminogenic environment, one in which criminal values can be instilled,
37

It should again be emphasized that the research has been conducted primarily in a few industrializedcountries, and it is doubtful that the results can be generalized to all jurisdictions. Indeed, some jurisdictions
report very low rates of reoffending for entire prison populations after offenders have been released from
custodial treatment. However, generally the empirical research to verify these reports is missing.
38
Martinson’s conclusions have been summarized in the short phrase, “nothing works”, but Martinson
himself has disavowed this. He notes that there are successful forms of treatment, but these are tailored to
specific groups, and must be well resourced and managed.

79

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

new and better ways to commit offences can be learned, new criminal partnerships can beformed, and in general the offenders can become more deeply committed to a criminal
lifestyle.
Poorly resourced and overpopulated prisons may furthermore provide an unhealthy
environment, with gang violence, contagious diseases, substance abuse and a variety offactors that result in mental health issues.
This criminogenic prison environment can be compared to community-based
sentences, which allow the offender to remain in the community. He or she can continue
with family responsibilities, education, vocational training and employment. In mostjurisdictions, the quality of community-based health, social services and other services
may be basic (the constraint on resources is certainly not limited to prisons), but theywould tend to be better than what is available in a custodial environment. Communitybased sentences may also reduce the social stigma of being an “ex-convict”.
Consequently, if rehabilitation is the goal, providing it in a community setting is more
effective. As noted in a recent and rigorous meta-analysis of the available research,“Strong meta-analytic evidence indicates that community-based treatment programmes
for at-risk or adjudicated individuals, especially juveniles, are more effective than thoseoffered in secure settings.” 39
The belief that imprisonment is better than community-based sentences atrehabilitating offenders can thus be questioned. Once again, we need not try to draw moregeneral conclusions. There are cases where offenders can and will benefit from being
taken away from a criminal environment and provided with a variety of services.
However, we should not be under the illusion that imprisonment in under-resourced andoverburdened institutions in general is rehabilitative.
C. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences atProtecting the Community Through Incapacitation of the Offender
A widely held and understandable belief is that imprisonment has an incapacitating
effect. By placing a criminally active offender who is dangerous to his or her environment
behind bars, the community (or a specific victim) is made safer.
Let there be no doubt about it, serious offenders who are a threat to society or a threat
to specific victims should be placed in prison: those guilty of deliberate offences
involving for example serious danger to life, health and well-being, serious drugtrafficking, serious theft, serious fraud, serious economic crime and serious crimes against
the environment, and offences that endanger national security.
The research results on the incapacitating impact of imprisonment appear to be mixed,
largely due to the methodological difficulties. Two of the main difficulties lie inpredicting how many offences a prisoner would have committed (based on his or her
criminal history) if he or she had not been sentenced to imprisonment, and the extent towhich this individual would, in time, have desisted from crime. 40

39
40

Weisburd et al., 2016, p. 77. See also pp. 94-95.
See Travis and Western (eds.) 2014, pp. 140-145.

80

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

Furthermore, the belief in the incapacitating effect of imprisonment should not be
exaggerated. There are at least three reasons for this. First, offenders may be able tocontinue to commit offences while in prison. This is true in the sense that offenders may
commit, for example, violent or property offences against one another or staff members
while in prison, and also because offenders may continue to plan and direct offences frombehind prison walls.
A second reason has to do with the possibility (if not probability) in many cases thatremoval of one offender from the community may lead to him or her being replaced byanother offender. This phenomenon has been noticed for example in organized criminal
activity, in particular in drug trafficking.
A third reason is that most persons sentenced to imprisonment will in time be released.
Although it may seem counterintuitive to say that greater use of community-based
sentences increases the safety of the community, what is noted above of the inability of
most prisons in general to rehabilitate offenders suggests that sending a person to prison
may, in the long run, decrease community safety. While in prison, offenders in prison
may learn new ways of committing crime and may form new criminal attachments. This
leads to a cycle of release and imprisonment, which does nothing to build safer
communities.
It can also be noted that allowing offenders to remain in the community provides themwith greater opportunities to enter into community-based substance-abuse programmes,
seek employment, find suitable housing and maintain their family responsibilities, all ofwhich could further contribute to a decrease in the rate of reoffending.
Some recent studies that have examined data on how imprisonment increases the rateof reoffending have concluded that using community-based sentences instead of shortterm sentences of imprisonment can indeed reduce the number of future offences, and in
this way increase public safety. 41 It is clear that this effect depends on a number ofvariables, in particular the sentencing practice in the jurisdiction in question. In
jurisdictions which already make extensive and effective use of community-based
sentences, the effect of such a shift would presumably be less than in a jurisdiction whichmakes heavy use of imprisonment. However, the results of the study do at least draw
attention to the periodic need to reassess the approach to sentencing.
D. The Claim That Imprisonment Is Better Than Community-Based Sentences inGeneral Prevention, By Warning Others Not to Commit Offences
Aside from the special preventive argument that imprisonment can deter, rehabilitate
and incapacitate the individual offender, imprisonment has also been argued to have ageneral preventive impact, by dissuading other members of the community from crime by41

For example, a major study in the United Kingdom published in 2019 concluded that replacing short
sentences of imprisonment (less than six months) with community-based sanctions reduced reoffending by
13%. See https://www.gov.uk/government/news/justice-secretary-urges-evidence-led-approach-to-cutcrime
A study to be published in the Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing (Cowan 2019; in print)
examined the use of police and court diversion in Victoria, Australia. The author calculates, on the basis ofan examination of over one million cases, that for each 100 offenders diverted, eight crimes could be
prevented per year. Thus, the author estimates that greater use of police diversion in Victoria could have
prevented tens of thousands of offences.

81

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

example. This general preventive impact is seen to have three components: the severity,
the certainty and the celerity (speed after commission of the offence) of the sentence.
Extensive research has been conducted on the correlation (and possible causal
connection) between the use of imprisonment and the crime rate. Of the three components(severity, certainty and celerity), the severity of the sentence has been the easiest tochange. If imprisonment had a clear general preventive impact, then an increase in theuse of imprisonment – stipulating imprisonment as the mandatory sentence for a greater
range of offences, and using longer sentences (for example through “three strikes” laws) –should result in a decrease in crime. The preponderance of evidence suggests that there
may be a slight decrease, but in general this decrease is so modest that it is offset by thesocial, human and financial costs of the increase in imprisonment. 42 It could also beargued on the basis of the statistical evidence that increasing the severity of sentences has
the opposite effect from what was intended: placing more people into imprisonment tends
to be correlated with an increase in the crime rate. 43 There are, furthermore, examples ofcountries, such as Finland, where a deliberate and considerable decrease in the use of
imprisonment did not increase crime rates (as one would have assumed on the basis of apurported general preventive impact).
It has been pointed out that persons planning to commit an offence (to the extent thatrational planning is at all involved) tend to discount the likelihood of detection,
apprehension and conviction. Overall, in many countries the likelihood that an offender
will be arrested and brought to justice for such offences as theft, burglary, drug trafficking
and trafficking in persons is quite small.
The conclusion is that also the general preventive impact of imprisonment, as
compared to community-based sentences, can be questioned.
E. The “Just Deserts” (Retributive) Argument: The Claim That Imprisonment Is
Demanded by the Public Sense of JusticeIn debates on public policy, an often-repeated argument is that the public “demands”
imprisonment as a response to crime. Imprisonment has become such an entrenchedinstitution in our society that it becomes almost a visceral response to offences. Populist
politics have, moreover, encouraged such a visceral response by emphasizing individualfeatures of particularly horrific offences, and then generalizing them to cover broader
categories of offenders and offences.
Research, however, has repeatedly shown that although simple opinion polls (asking
loaded questions along the line of “do you support harsher punishment for rapists andmurderers?”) tend to produce predictable responses (“yes, the public does demand longer
sentences”), there is considerable variety in the attitudes of different members of the
public, and not one general “sense of justice”. More importantly, when respondents areprovided with more detailed information regarding the background of individual
defendants (criminal record, ethnic background, gender, substance abuse, social history)
42

See, for example, Travis and Western (ed.) 2014, pp. 134 – 140.
This conclusion has been contested. Much depends on what time period is considered; for example, in thecase of the United States, it has been observed that the increase in the use of imprisonment from the 1970s
to the 1990s ultimately was followed by a fall in reported crime (beginning during the 1990s) (see, e.g.
Travis and Western (ed.) 2014, pp. 33 – 69). However, if imprisonment does have a general preventive
effect, this effect should have been seen in a much shorter time span.
4382

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

and the circumstances of the case, the responses tend to fall more in line with current
sentencing practice by the courts. 44
Along the same lines, Jan van Dijk has used the international data produced fromvictimization surveys to examine possible correlations between general public opinion(punitiveness) and the rate of imprisonment. He concludes that, worldwide, there is no
relationship between public attitudes towards sentencing and actual imprisonment rates. 45
Indeed, van Dijk has noted that
Public opinion survey research supports the broad proposition that the public,
when considering whether hypothetical cases should result in a sentence toprison, is more likely to favor a noncustodial sentence when that option is fully
developed. Information at the country level has shown that public attitudes are
influenced by available sentencing options. If alternative, noncustodial
sentences are introduced in a country, the proportion of respondents favoring
this option usually goes up sharply in the aftermath. … In this regard, it is worth
pointing out that noncustodial sentences are not widely available in developing
countries. Reliance on prison sentences in developing countries seems partly
determined by the lack of viable alternatives for which new institutionalarrangements would have to be put in place. 46
The conclusion is that, when the public sense of justice is assessed, community-based
sentences do find wide support as a response to a broad range of offences. The ability ofthe public to understand and accept such sentences should not be underestimated.
F. The Cost-Effectiveness of Community-Based Sentences
The implementation of any sentence brings with it a variety of costs: human, socialand financial. These costs are generally factored into public policy decisions on theadministration of justice, and are deemed to be offset by the benefits that are seen to
result from bringing an offender to justice.
This raises the question of whether the benefits believed to come from sentences ofimprisonment can be achieved through community-based sentences, but at a lower overall
cost.
The human costs of a sentence extend primarily to the offender, but they also affecthis or her family. In the case of imprisonment, the human costs to the offender include ofcourse the loss of liberty, but separate reference could be made to the disruption ofcontacts with family members, 47 interruption of education, vocational training or
employment, the resulting poorer likelihood of being able to return to the job market atthe same level of income and financial stability, 48 and the possible worsening of healthand mental health.
44

See, for example, Kääriäinen 2018 and the literature cited.
van Dijk 2008, p. 264.
46
van Dijk 2008, p. 265.
47
It should be noted that especially in the case of violent offenders, members of his or her family may
welcome the offender being placed in prison. However, the offender will in time be released.
48
Research and experience in many countries indicate that potential employers are reluctant to hire persons
with a criminal record, and in particular persons who have been in prison.
45

83

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

The impact of imprisonment on family members can take many forms. Offenders who
have served time in prison may have difficulties in forming relationships, and thus
partnerships would tend to be unstable, leading perhaps to broken families even after theoffender has been released from prison. The offender may be the main caretaker of thefamily, and placing him or her in prison may deprive the family of necessary parental andfinancial support. Imprisonment tends to weaken family bonds, and affect the well-beingof children, to the extent that the children have behavioural problems, such as aggression
and delinquency, as well as to drop-out from school.
These same human costs are less likely as a consequence of community-based
sentences, since the offender is able to remain at home, at school and at work.
In assessing the social costs of sentences, it should be kept in mind that any stateimposed sanction – whether imprisonment or a community-based sentence – is part of aprocess of state control, a process which also includes policing, arrest of a suspect, thecriminal procedure, and conviction. Policing in any society tends to have a focus onvulnerable communities, which are regarded as high-crime areas. When we consider thata sizeable proportion of prisoners come from vulnerable communities, this should raisequestions about the impact of multi-layered and concentrated forms of disadvantage inthese communities: high crime, but also poverty, poor health, unemployment andintrusive state control. For this reason, it is difficult, if not impossible, to try to assess thesocial impact resulting from sending an offender to prison instead of applying acommunity-based sentence.
That said, the fact that the prisons in many countries have an overrepresentation ofvulnerable groups such as racial and ethnic minorities strongly suggests thatimprisonment increases social, economic and political inequality in society. Those inprison tend to be poor, undereducated, unemployed, in poor health and (in somejurisdictions) disenfranchised. The experience is that the impact of imprisonment will not
improve, but in practice worsen their prospects for full integration into society as lawabiding members. Although they have been guilty of offences, and should be brought tojustice, the question is whether a sentence of imprisonment is the most appropriate andeffective response to their offences. 49
As for the financial costs, and without entering into the accounting and budgetarydetails of prison management as opposed to the management of community-based
sentences (which vary considerably for example in accordance with the level of economic
development and the administrative structure in different jurisdictions), these costs
include investment in construction and maintenance of prison facilities, capital costs, staff
costs, the cost of various health, mental health, educational and other support services forconvicted offenders, and technology (whether for example for security in prison, or forelectronic monitoring devices in community-based sentencing). There are also hidden
costs, such as those associated with taking an offender away from his or her employment(to the extent that offenders sentenced to imprisonment are gainfully employed).

49

Travis and Western (eds.) 2014.

84

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

Reference should also be made to the financial benefits of correctional administration,
including the economic benefit of providing employment for correctional (and affiliated)personnel, and the income from prison industries.
When looking at the bottom line, however, the financial cost per offender of
implementing imprisonment as opposed to implementing a community-based sentence ismany times higher.
The conclusion is that, from a costs-benefits perspective, community-based sentences
can be implemented at lower costs-per-sentence than imprisonment.
G. What Do We Know About the Relative Effectiveness of Different CommunityBased Sentences?
The previous section considered whether community-based sentences are more
effective than imprisonment according to various criteria. A separate issue is what typesof community-based sentences “work”, and why: do they deter, do they rehabilitate, dothey serve as a warning to others in the community, do they protect the victim and theother members of the community, does the public regard them as appropriate and are they
cost-effective?
This is a large and complicated issue, and it is made more complex by the diversity oftypes of sentences, the diversity of jurisdictions and the diversity of offenders who aresentenced. What is more, there is perhaps surprisingly little rigorous research on theeffectiveness of community-based sentences, and caution has to be used regarding theextent to which research results in one jurisdiction can be generalized to apply elsewhere.
When speaking about community-based sentences, however, the discussion can andshould be largely limited to those sentences that are intended to have a special preventive
impact on the offender. 50 We can leave aside, for example, monetary fines, which areprimarily intended to have a general preventive effect. 51
It should first be noted that most offenders will not necessarily commit new offences.
The criminological literature on the prediction of reoffending refers to the concepts of“false positives” and “false negatives”. In this context, a “false positive” refers to anindividual who, according to risk assessment, is presumed to be likely to reoffend, but infact would not commit a new offence. A “false negative” in turn, is an individual who ispresumed to become law-abiding, but would in fact commit a new offence (an occurrence
which may largely be due to situational circumstances). Although in general, risk
assessment tools have had poor success in predicting future behaviour, what we do know
is that it is easiest to predict correctly who would not offend than it is to predict who
would commit a new offence. Out of a cohort of, for example, one thousand persons who
have committed an offence, it is easier for us to predict with relative assurance the several
hundred who will not commit a new offence, than it is for us to predict the perhaps one
hundred who will commit a new offence. 52
50

It should be recalled that some sentences or measures, such as restorative justice processes, are designed
to have an impact also on other persons affected by the offence.
51
Fines, however, cannot be totally ignored when discussing the appropriateness of different sanctions. If an
offender is unable to pay the fine, he or she may be sentenced to prison for non-payment.
52
Longitudinal studies have generally suggested that a small percentage of a population cohort are “hardcore offenders”, who commit the majority of offences, both petty and serious.

85

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Many offenders come from a community that is beset with multiple social problems:poverty, unemployment, lack of economic opportunities, lack of basic services, family
breakdown, marginalized populations and poor social cohesion. If the goal is theprevention of reoffending, and thus also the protection of the community, also
community-based sentences should seek to come to grips with these problems.
A recent meta-analysis of the available research on “what works” in communitybased sentences can be summarized for the present purposes as follows. Those sentencesthat seek to strengthen informal and supportive social controls and reintegration, and tomaintain or repair social bonds (such as restorative justice programmes), have afavourable and statistically significant effect. The authors suggest that this is becausesuch sentences are highly specific and targeted, and they involve one-on-one interactions
and the building of personal relationships. On the other hand, sentences that simply place
the offender in the community without seeking to provide him or her with a way tointernalize or restore conventional values and relationships do not have an appreciable
special preventive impact on the offender. The authors conclude by saying that thissuggests “that interventions should be implemented at a high level of focus – whether at
small places or with high-risk individuals – and incorporate specific risk factors.” 53
Along the same lines, the authors conclude that diversion with services is distinctly
more effective than simple diversion. 54
The authors further conclude that electronic monitoring, when compared withtraditional or intensive probation, or even with incarceration, was ineffective in preventing
reoffending. They argue that this is due to the fact that electronic monitoring is based onformal social control and surveillance. 55 This is echoed by Graham and McIvor, whoreview international experiences with electronic monitoring, and conclude that
Overall, the electronic monitoring programmes and approaches which are
shown to reduce reoffending during and/or after the monitored period aremostly those which include other supervision and supportive factors (e.g.,
employment and education, social capital) associated with desistance. The
effective approaches discussed here have developed on the basis of high levels
of integration with supervision and support from Probation Officers and otherstaff and services. In other words, the more effective programmes andapproaches, in Europe in particular, are those where EM is not a stand-alone
measure. 56
Overall, Weisburd et al. conclude,

53

Weisburd et al. 2016, pp. 97-98. The approach used by Weisburd et al. is based on a rigorous assessmentof the available research, and, using the same method developed in Sherman et al. 1997, divides measures
into what works, what doesn’t work, what is promising and what requires more research.
54
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 99.
55
Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 100. Also, Dünkel 2015 concludes that the research results on the contribution ofelectronic monitoring to the prevention of reoffending is not evident, and promising only in combination
with social support by the probation and aftercare services.
56
Graham and McIvor 2018.

86174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS…the potential crime-supressing elements of the community, such as positivesocial controls, are not necessarily leveraged by simply placing an offender inthe community and assuming that the desire to remain there will act as asufficient deterrent to recidivism. The more successful community programs
suggest that a targeted and focused approach may be required. 57
This targeting and focusing revolves around the nature of the offence and the offender.
For example, substance abusers, offenders with mental health problems, offenders guiltyof domestic violence, and sex offenders may respond well to community-based sentencesthat contain a treatment and support component.
III. PROMOTING WIDER USE OF COMMUNITY-BASED SENTENCES 58
There is a strong interest throughout the world in replacing imprisonment with
community-based sentences. The repeated resolutions and declarations of the United
Nations Congresses on this subject, adopted by consensus, show that all member states
are agreed – at least in principle – on the need to reduce imprisonment and to expand theuse of effective community-based sentences. Even so, when the United Nations adopted
the Tokyo Rules in 1990, and asked member states to provide data on the status ofcommunity-based sentences, many replied that appropriate community-based sentences
are simply not available, or that the available community-based sentences are used far
less than they might be or, when used, are used as substitutes for other community-based
sentences and not for imprisonment (the so-called net-widening effect).
The available data presented in this paper on the use of community-based sentences
around the world suggests that member states continue to meet with these samechallenges.
The main reasons for the inconsistency between stated goals and actual practice are to
be found in law, sentencing constraints, policy, resources and attitudes. These problems
cannot be dealt with in isolation from one another. The use of community-based
sentences can be expanded effectively only if all the problems are recognized and dealt
with. The steps that should be taken on different levels and by the different stakeholders
involved are outlined in the following.
STEP 1 Ensure that the law clearly provides an adequate range of community-based
sentences
In most jurisdictions, the courts can impose only those sentences that are expressly
provided in statutory law. In these systems, the first step must be to ensure that statutory
law provides for an adequate range of community-based sentences, and outlines theprocedures and conditions for their imposition and implementation. The legislation
should specify the purposes of the sentence and the expectations of the legislator as to therange of offences for which the sentence may or should be used. This would help judges
in determining the proper place of the measure in the scale of penal values.
57
58

Weisburd et al. 2016, p. 100.
This section of the paper is an updated and abridged version of Joutsen 1990.

87

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Another statutory measure would be a requirement that the court justify why it
imposes a sentence of imprisonment rather than a community-based sentence. Such ameasure would compel the court to consider why none of the available community-based
sentences are appropriate in the case at hand. England and Wales has established a
Sentencing Council, which has issued mandatory guidelines for courts on the impositionof community-based sentences. 59 These provide, inter alia, that:
A custodial sentence must not be imposed unless the offence or the
combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it wasso serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can bejustified for the offence.
There is no general definition of where the custody threshold lies. The
circumstances of the individual offence and the factors assessed by offencespecific guidelines will determine whether an offence is so serious thatneither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified. Where no
offence specific guideline is available to determine seriousness, the harmcaused by the offence, the culpability of the offender and any previous
convictions will be relevant to the assessment.
The clear intention of the threshold test is to reserve prison as a punishment
for the most serious offences. 60
When a new community-based sentence is introduced, it may be difficult for thelegislator and/or the court to assign its appropriate place in the scale of punishment. 61 Is
40 hours of community service the equivalent of one month of imprisonment, forexample? Is it more or less severe than a suspended sentence of a certain length? Insentencing, the court must make a choice among a number of sentences using multiple
criteria which relate the seriousness of the offence to what are deemed to be the relevantcharacteristics of the offender and the penal value of the community-based sentences
available, either singly or in combination. 62
The introduction of community-based sentences is therefore not enough. The courts
should be given clear guidance on how the new custodial sentences fit in with present
sentencing policy. This guidance may be provided not only by the legislator, but also by
judicial practice (court precedents), and by sentencing guidelines adopted, for example,
by the Supreme Court, judicial conferences or professional associations.

59

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/about-us/ .
Ibid.
61
Although in theory the legislature could provide specific sentencing guidelines, the currently existing
guidelines primarily deal with the length of sentences of imprisonment, and at most with the borderline
between imprisonment and suspended sentences (probation). The most widely known guidelines are theMinnesota Sentencing Guidelines, which stipulate a “presumptive sentence” for offences. These have been
applied since 1980. The most recent version was adopted in August 2019; Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines
2019. The basic grid can be found on p. 79.
62
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales has issued very detailed and mandatory guidelines on abroad range of offences. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines for the imposition of community andcustodial sentences (Sentencing Council 2016) provides clear guidance for example on the imposition andlength of community service orders, the imposition of electronic monitoring orders, the imposition andamount of fines, as well as the imposition of custodial sentences.
60

88

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

Where this would not be deemed a violation of the principle of the separation of theexecutive and the judiciary, the executive branch could consider the possibility ofproviding the court with annotated information on current court practice. This can bedone in the form of a publication giving the “normal” sentencing range for the basic typesof offences, with indications of how, in court practice, aggravating and mitigating
circumstances have affected the sentence. Such information would simply be provided tothe courts as a tool, showing the judges what other courts have done in similar cases.
Since the selection of the sentence is often determined by the motion of the prosecutor,
or by the way in which the case is presented, also prosecutorial guidelines could be
developed to identify cases which would seem suitable for the imposition of communitybased sentences.
STEP 2 Review substantive criminal law to ensure that it is in line with the fundamental
values of society
Changes in society are often reflected in changed attitudes towards certain behaviour.
A review of criminal law may show that existing penal provisions on certain offenceswere passed at a time when these offences were deemed particularly reprehensible; in thelight of present attitudes, a community-based sentence may well be deemed more
acceptable and appropriate than imprisonment. The public attitude towards the use of
imprisonment may have changed; in many countries, its “penal value” has increased.
Where imprisonment at one time was imposed in decades, it may now be imposed inyears; where it was once imposed in years, it may now be imposed in months or even in
weeks.
At the lower end of the scale of offence seriousness, the possibility of imprisonment
could be eliminated entirely through decriminalization and depenalization. Such“offences” as vagrancy and public drunkenness have been decriminalized in many
countries. Although these offences are rarely imprisonable offences in themselves, thepersons who are fined are usually unable to pay any fines imposed, or because of theircircumstances would often be in violation of conditions imposed on, for example,
community service. Such non-payment or technical violation often leads to imprisonment.
In this way, decriminalization of petty offences reduces the use of custodial measures.
STEP 3 Key stakeholder groups should be provided with information and training on thefunctions and use of community-based sentences.
Even if the law provides for a wide range of community-based sentences, and even if
the courts have clear guidelines on how these sentences should be imposed, communitybased sentences will not be used as long as the courts – and other influential groups ofstakeholders – do not consider them effective and appropriate in dealing with offenders.
The preamble to the Tokyo Rules lists as such key groups law enforcement officials,
prosecutors, judges, probation officers, lawyers, victims, offenders, social services andnon-governmental organizations involved in the application of community-based
measures.

89

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Ensuring that judges and other key stakeholders understand the purpose and rationaleof community-based sentences and that they are favourably disposed towards using themrequires providing them with information and training. The key groups should be madeaware of the general benefits of community-based sentences and the general drawbacks ofwide use of custodial sentences. They should be made familiar with the existing
community-based sentences and their specific purposes; they should be made familiar
with sentencing and enforcement. They should be trained in the basic principles of law,criminology and psychology (as well as other disciplines) required in their respectiveroles. Finally, they should be made familiar with the rules, procedures and practices of thevarious other services involved, in order to make it easier for them to understand the
problems involved in community-based measures, and the possibilities of working
together to solve these problems.
The credibility of community-based sentences can also be enhanced if they are notseen to be excessively lenient. Visibly punitive measures (such as electronic monitoring)might therefore be an attractive option in some jurisdictions. Even terminology might beused to enhance the perception of community-based sentences as punitive. Instead of
speaking of the “waiving of measures” or “absolute discharge”, for example (both terms
may imply to the general public that “nothing happened”), one might speak of “punitive
warnings” or “penal warnings”.
STEP 4 Criminal justice decision-makers and representatives of community-based service
agencies should work in closer cooperation in order to identify and respond to the needsof offenders, in particular members of vulnerable populations, such as racial and ethnic
minorities, alcohol and drug users, the homeless and foreigners
One theme that has been repeated again and again in the debate over the greater
efficacy of community-based sentences over imprisonment is that many offenders have alarge range of challenges, ranging from health and mental health issues, lack of educationand vocational training, lack of a permanent home, to difficulties in forming stable
relationships.
Merely sentencing an offender to a community-based sentence (unless the sentence
itself addresses underlying needs, such as with a community-based substance treatment
order) will do little to help the offender in responding to these challenges. For this reason,
the various agencies as well as appropriate non-governmental organizations (including
peer-support groups) and even the private sector, should find ways of working in closer
cooperation with criminal justice agencies, and of doing outreach work towards offenders.
Criminal justice practitioners (the police, prosecutors and judges) will be among thefirst to point out that they are not “social workers”, and that they do not have the training,
resources or time needed to provide offenders with various forms of assistance. That said,
methods of referrals (with due respect to issues of consent and privacy) can be developed,
ranging from simply mentioning to appropriate offenders what services are available andhow to use them, through provision of brochures, to the establishment of community
liaison offices in connection with police stations or courts to serve as a “one-stop shop”
for offenders.

90

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

A more direct way of promoting cooperation is to stipulate conditions on police,prosecutorial and court dispositions requiring that the offender be in contact with specificcommunity-based services.
STEP 5 Secure a steady resource base for personnel, training and facilities
The success of community-based sentences in practice depends on the availability ofresources for their implementation. Just as imprisonment requires the prison facilities,
personnel and a prison programme, for example, probation requires a suitableinfrastructure for the arrangement of supervision, and community service requires not
only a suitable organization but also designated places of work.
The most efficient route to increase the credibility of community-based sentences andthus promote their use is that the state and local community provide the necessary
resources and financial support for the development, enforcement and monitoring of suchsentences. Particular attention should also be paid to the training of the practitioners
responsible for the implementation of the sentences and for the coordination between
criminal justice agencies and other agencies involved in the implementation of thesesentences in the community.
STEP 6 Ensure a continuous research component in planning
One area of concern relates to the possible dysfunction of wider use of communitybased sentences, in particular the so-called net-widening effect. Statistical evidence fromvarious countries clearly suggest that community-based sentences are either used far lessthan they might be or, when used, are used as substitutes for other community-based
sentences and not for imprisonment. In addition, when suspended sentences arepronounced, the period of imprisonment imposed may be longer than if an unconditional
sentence to imprisonment were to be used. In the event of activation of the original
sentence, the offender can therefore go to prison for longer than would otherwise havebeen the case.
Such dysfunctions of the greater use of community-based sentences may detract fromthe benefits, or even prove to be so serious that rational criminal policy is endangered.
Research has an important role in identifying and suggesting ways to overcome thesechallenges.
In regard to sentencing, research is needed on the factors considered by the sentencing
judge or tribunal. Unexpected factors may have a decisive influence on the sentencing
process. The little research that is available has suggested, for example, that some judges
will not consider community-based sentences that require a social enquiry report. Further
in regard to sentencing, it is possible that the imposition of community-based sentences
can be made on discriminatory grounds, as has been argued to be the case with sentencing
to imprisonment.
One area that is related to research on sentencing concerns attitudes. Certainly, theattitudes of the sentencing judge affect his or her decisions on what available options touse. As important as the attitudes of the sentencing judge are the attitudes of other persons
91

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

involved in the implementation of community-based sentences. In particular, the degree
to which a community-based sentence is accepted by professionals as well as by thecommunity influences the probability that this sentence will actually be applied.
Research on changes in attitudes (showing the causes and extent of such changes)
might be of assistance in the planning of the introduction or expansion of communitybased sentences. A key factor in the success achieved with the use of any communitybased sentence is the extent to which the policymakers, courts, other practitioners andagencies, and the community are provided with evidence-based data on the effectivenessof this sentence.

IV. CONCLUSIONS
The assumption that imprisonment fulfils the various functions of punishment andthus is suitable for medium level and more serious offences has resulted in a general
growth in the number of prisoners. However, societies around the world are becoming
increasingly aware that the use of imprisonment has significant human, social andeconomic costs. With the increase in the number of prisoners, prisons are becoming
overcrowded. Since the prisons themselves are often outdated, under-staffed and underresourced, hundreds of thousands of prisoners around the world are being “warehoused”
in poor conditions that impair their physical and mental health, and make rehabilitation
programmes difficult.
In adopting the Tokyo Rules almost thirty years ago, the member states of the United
Nations agreed that the use of imprisonment should be lessened, and the use ofcommunity-based sentences should be expanded.
This review has questioned the basis underlying the predominant role ofimprisonment in our criminal justice system. When assessed in the light of the different
functions of sentencing (deterrence of the offender, rehabilitation, general prevention,“just deserts”, even incapacitation), we can conclude that imprisonment on a whole has
not been able to deliver in accordance with what policymakers and the public have been
expecting. In many cases, community-based sentences can fulfil the same functions atless human, social and financial cost. We need to reassess the respective role ofimprisonment, and of community-based sentences.
In 2015, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution that shouldcause us to seriously rethink our dependence on imprisonment, and in turn look for agreater role for community-based sentences: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable
Development.
A fair, rational, humane and effective criminal justice system is important in its own
right. It protects societies against crime. It brings offenders to justice. It ensures that therights of the victim are respected and protected. When it fulfils its function fairly, it plays
an important role also in ensuring that the conditions are in place to allow for sustainable
development.

92

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

Our criminal justice system is therefore quite properly seen in the light of Goal 16 of
the Sustainable Development Goals, which deals with the promotion of a just, peacefuland inclusive society through peace, justice and strong institutions. It has been said manytimes that a strong legal system, including the criminal justice system, is a criticalenabling factor in reaching the other Goals. When the rule of law is lacking, theSustainable Development Goals that we are seeking are undermined. At the same time,
equitable and predictable forms of justice are fundamental to building societies that havea strong foundation in the rule of law, and that facilitate growth and development.
All the Goals, however, are cross-cutting. We should see Goal 16, and the operationof the criminal justice system in the wide sense, in the broader context of the 2030
Agenda. This means in practice that we should take into consideration how the decisions
that criminal justice practitioners make could have an impact on the different aspects of
the life of the victim, the offender and the community – on physical and mental health, on
education, on employment and economic survival, on the rural or urban environment, andso on. For example, when a police officer decides to arrest a suspect (instead of letting
him or her go with a caution), this may affect the suspect’s employment or education. If ajudge decides to impose a sentence of imprisonment, this decision may remove the only
provider from a family, thus leading to the break-up of the family, with a knock-down
effect on the education and future development of the children.
This should not be understood as criticism of the decision to arrest, or of theimposition of the sentence of imprisonment. These decisions may be justified inthemselves, and may even, under the circumstances in the case, be mandatory under thelaw. Imprisonment has a definite and important role in protecting victims and society, andin responding to offenders who have committed serious offences, and who continue topose a great threat of harm.
However, it is important to realize that decisions in the criminal justice system dohave consequences in different sectors of life and society, and that the decision-makercould and should consider whether the decisions could be made differently, in a way that
promotes sustainable development more broadly, while still ensuring that the purposes ofcriminal justice are met. Moreover, judges and decision-makers often have discretion in
making their decision, and in weighing whether or not to opt for a custodial or acommunity-based sentence.
When we look at who are in our prisons, we find that they tend to be members ofvulnerable populations, such as racial and ethnic minorities, substance abusers andmigrants. Because of our over-reliance on prison, in many communities a considerable
number in particular of young men belonging to such vulnerable groups are in prison, or
have been in prison and have to deal with the stigma of being ex-prisoners (a particulardifficulty in seeking employment) and possibly also the deprivation of certain rights, suchas the right to use public housing.
Having served time in prison deepens their problems and contributes to their
marginalization. This in turn, breeds poverty (hampering progress on Goal 1 of the SDGs),
which is one of the major root causes of crime and violence. Marginalization also often
results in poor nutrition (Goal 2), ill health (Goal 3), illiteracy (Goal 4) and otherchallenges to sustainable development.

93

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Because non-custodial sentences and measures do not restrict the liberty of offenders
as much as imprisonment, they allow offenders to continue their responsibilities as afamily member and a member of the community, and to continue their education (Goal 4)or employment (Goal 8) without interruption. Moreover, offenders can continue to utilize
the various social welfare and health services (including substance abuse programmes)
which are easier to provide in the community than in custodial environments (Goals 1 and
2).
Further reasons for the promotion of non-custodial sentences and measures are thatthey help to reduce inequality (Goal 10) and strengthen the inclusiveness, safety,
resilience and sustainability of the community (Goal 11).
The strong interest throughout the world in replacing imprisonment with communitybased sentences, noted at the outset of this paper, can be seen in various trends. The
strength of these trends varies from one jurisdiction to the next:• a diversification of community-based sentences through, for example, adoption of
new community-based sentences, increased possibilities for adding conditions toexisting community-based sentences, and increased possibilities for combining
different community-based sentences;• the diversification of community-based sentences has been paralleled in somecountries by an extension of community-based sentences to a greater range ofoffences and offenders;• a greater use of the classical community-based sentences such as the fine andprobation;• development of community-based sentences that include one or a combination ofsuch components as work (as in community service), compensation/restitution, andtreatment;• a renewed interest in traditional indigenous measures (such as restorative justiceprocesses), and on sentences that rely on traditional infrastructures.
Despite these developments, a gap remains between policy and practice regarding
community-based sentences. This gap is reflected on several levels:• On the statutory level, many states report that they do not have an appropriate rangeof community-based sentences, or that the legislation does not provide clear
guidance on the purposes, imposition or implementation of these sentences;• On the level of sentencing practice, the gap is reflected in the continuing
predominance of imprisonment as the “norm”, as the main measuring stick insentencing. Community-based sentences are either used far less than the law would
allow, or they are used as alternatives for other community-based sentences;• On the level of resources, the implementation of some community-based sentences
remains hindered in many areas because of the absence of the necessary personnel,
support structures and funds.
94

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

The gap can be diminished only through a change in attitudes. The legislator should
be made aware of the need for legislation that supports the goals of community-based
sentences. The judge and prosecutor (as well as the other practitioners involved) should
be made aware of the need to seek the appropriate community-based sentences and to
apply them whenever possible. Those who decide on resources should be made aware of
the benefits to be derived through expanded use of community-based sentences, and theimportance of well-staffed, well-trained and well-resourced community-based support
services working in close cooperation with the criminal justice system. Where an offender
does have a need for treatment, criminal justice practitioners should seek to ensure that heor she is referred to the proper agencies for help. Finally, the community should be madeaware of the importance of the reintegration of the offender into the community for the
benefit of the offender, the victim and the community as a whole.
Promoting a greater role for community-based sentences is part of sustainable
development.

95

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Appendix 1
Statistical data on the use of selected community-based sentences in Europe
The following three tables have been prepared on the basis of the Annual Penal
Statistics of the Council of Europe (SPACE II). Each table contains data for 1999 (thefirst year for which this data is available), 2007, 2013 and 2017 for selected European
countries.
There is a structural difference between 1999 on one hand and the other three years on
the other: the data for 1999 refer to the number of community-based sentences given,
while the data for 2007, 2013 and 2017 refer to the number of persons starting to serve
such a sentence.
Please note that the number of persons starting to serve a sentence during a year –referred to in SPACE II as the “flow” – is a different indicator from the number of
persons serving a sentence on a given day – referred to as the “stock”. Thus, thesefigures cannot be compared with the “stock” figures provided by the Global Community
Corrections Initiative that are given in Table 1 in the preceding text.
These data should be used with caution. It can be seen that data is often missing. For
example, in Table 2, only Denmark and Ireland have provided data for all four years.
A second observation is that there appear to be large differences in the data from year
to year coming from some of the individual countries. For example, the data for the
Netherlands in the Table 3 appears to show that almost 37,000 persons began to serve acommunity service order in 2007, and over 32,000 did so in 2017, but in 2013 this was
the case with only 200 persons. Such huge swings can be the result of major changes inlegislation or in the organization of community service in the country in question, butthey can also be because the person(s) responding from these countries used different
interpretations of community-based sentences from year to year, or that there was asimple error in filling out the questionnaire or in complying the resulting table.

96

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

Table 2. Annual number of probation orders ordered (1999), number of persons
that have started to serve probation (2007, 2013 and 2017) 63
country
Austria
Denmark
England & Wales
FinlandFranceGermany
Hungary
IrelandItaly
The Netherlands
NorwayPolandPortugal
Scotland
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland

1999
1,702
58,368
1,297
62,111
1,500***
128,561
6,028
***
5,258
2,096

2007
14,974
1,289
1,891
163
2,779
13,073528
263,761
1,595
175

2013
1,705
1,822
43,134
69,642
94,300
2,653
732
6,171
7,930
589
255,055
8,739
28,225
***
396

2017
1,984
1,290
42,520575
67,385
80,111
615
8,691
8,398
610
9,387
13,503***563

Table 3. Annual number of community orders ordered (1999), annual number of
persons who have started to serve community service (2007, 2013 and 2017) 64
country
Austria
Denmark
England & Wales
FinlandFranceGermany
Hungary
IrelandItaly
The Netherlands
NorwayPolandPortugal
Scotland
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland

1999
***
970
49,597
3,630
23,368
1,342***
17,290
6,200
3,066
2,096

2007
3,187
3,259
2,960
5,178
1,516
38
36,9282
103,406
2,724
4,939
5,354

2013
4,249
3,617
30,2782,10630,80913,537
2,257
8,903
200
2,228
14,3187,800
151,354
5,814
2,065

2017
3,784
4,396
22,177
1,465
32,1162,215
9,335
32,306
1,980
10,057
9,888
84,073
4,341
33,05563(source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years) (- = data not provided;*** = sentence does not exist / not applicable).

64

Source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years (- = data not provided;*** = sentence does not exist / not applicable).

97

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Table 4. Annual number of electronic monitoring orders (1999), annual number of
persons who have started to serve an electronic monitoring order (2007, 2013 and2017) 65
country
Austria
Denmark
England & Wales
FinlandFranceGermany
Hungary
IrelandItaly
The Netherlands
NorwayPolandPortugal
Scotland
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland

65

1999
***
***
661
***
***
***
***
***
47
***
***
206
0
3,529
***

2007
***
1,103
***
7,900
***
***
916
0
***
585
2,904
3,364
463

2013
724
2,512
5,058
223
27,105
42
***
***
***
1,889
16,927
185
1,500
2,344
1,987
196

2017
891
2,163
7,994
241
29,569
28
***
***
3,265
294
2,900
2,343
1,642
235

Source: SPACE II; selected countries that have provided data for some years (- = data not provided;*** = sentence does not exist / not applicable).

98

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

References
Aebi, Marcelo F. et al., European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics,
Fifth edition, HEUNI publication no. 80, Helsinki, 2014
Aebi, M. F., & Hashimoto, Y. Z. (2018). SPACE II – 2018 – Council of Europe Annual
Penal Statistics: Persons under the Supervision of Probation Agencies. Strasbourg:
Council of Europe, 2018, available at http://wp.unil.ch/space/files/2019/09/SPACEII_report_2018_Final_190930_rev.pdf
Aebi, Marcelo F., Yuji Z. Hashimoto and Melanie M. Tiago, Probation and Prisons in
Europe, 2018: Key Findings of the SPACE reports, Strasbourg: Council of Europe,
2019
Albrecht, Hans-Jörg, Electronic Monitoring in Europe. A Summary and Assessment of
Recent Developments in the Legal Framework and Implementation of Electronic
Monitoring, 2005, available at http://www.mpicc.de/shared/data/pdf/albrecht.pdf
Burrell, William D. and Robert S. Gable, From B.F. Skinner to Spiderman to Marthan
Stewart: The Past, Present and Future of Electronic Monitoring of Offenders,
Probation and Parole: Current Issues”, 2008, pp. 101 – 118
Carranza, Elias, Nicholas J. O. Liverpool and Luis Rodríguez-Manzanera. Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Latin America and the Caribbean, in Zvekic, Uglješa, Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, UNICRI 1994, pp. 384 – 438
Challinger, Denis, Alternatives to Imprisonment in Australia and New Zealand, in Zvekic,
Uglješa, Alternatives to Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, UNICRI 1994, pp.
253 – 275
Christie, Nils, Crime Control as Industry, 3rd edition, Routledge 2000
Cowan, David, What is the context of police and court diversion in Victoria and what
opportunities exist for increasing police diversion of offenders, Cambridge Journal of
Evidence-Based Policing, 2019 (in print)
Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public, Government Proposals for Legislation(Government “White Paper”), Cm 965, London, 1990
Delgrande, Natalia, interview, Confederation of European Probation, available athttps://www.cep-probation.org/the-complex-world-of-statistics-in-probation/, 2015
van Dijk, Jan, The World of Crime. Breaking the Silence on Problems of Security, Justiceand Development Across the World; Sage Publications, Los Angeles, London, New
Delhi and Singapore 2008
Dünkel, Frieder, Imprisonment and Community Sanctions: The Role of Crime Policy and
Sentencing Practice in Europe, paper presented at the 80th Anniversary of the
Criminological Association of Finland, Helsinki, 23 April 2015

99

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Farabee, David, Rethinking Rehabilitation: Why Can’t We Reform Our Criminals?,
Washington, D.C., 2005
Garland, David, Cultures of Control and Penal States, in Beyond Punitiveness: Crime andCrime Control in Europe in a Comparative Perspective. Selection of Presentations of
Plenary Sessions of the EUROCRIM 2013 Conference, Proceedings of Criminology
Special Issue No. 73, Budapest 2014, pp. 57 – 87
GLOBCCI.ORG, available at http://www.globcci.org/index.html
Graham, Hannah and Gill McIvor, Scottish and International Review of the Uses ofElectronic Monitoring, Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, research report
no. 8/2015, University of Stirling, 2015, available athttps://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/22183/1/Scottish%20and%20International%2
0Review%20of%20the%20Uses%20of%20Electronic%20Monitoring%20%20Graham%20and%20McIvor%202015.pdf
Handbook for prison leaders. A basic training tool and curriculum for prison managers
based on international standards and norms. Criminal Justice Handbook Series,
UNODC 2010
Harrendorf, Stefan and Paul Smit, Attributes of criminal justice systems: resources,
performance and punitivity, in Stefan Harrendorf, Markku Heiskanen and Steven
Malby (eds.), International Statistics on Crime and Justice, HEUNI and UNODC,
Helsinki 2010, pp. 113 – 151
Heiskanen, Markku, Marcelo F. Aebi, Willem van der Brugge and Jörg-Martin Jehle(eds.), Recording Community Sanctions and Measures and Assessing Attrition. A
Methodological Study on Comparative Data in Europe. HEUNI publication no. 77,
Helsinki 2014
Herradura, Ismael Juanga, Improving the Treatment of Offenders Through the
Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration: The Philippine
Experience, Resource Material Series No. 79, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 2009, pp. 199 – 213
Joutsen, Matti, Expanding the Use of Non-custodial Measures, UNAFEI Resources
Material Series no. 38, Tokyo, 1990, pp. 181-196
Joutsen, Matti, The Framework for Application of the Tokyo Rules: International Patterns
in the Use of Community-Based Sanctions, unpublished paper given at the 25th
Anniversary Seminar on the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for NonCustodial Measures, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 7 – 9 September 2015
Kääriäinen, Juha, Attitudes and public punishment preferences: Finnish results ofScandinavian sense of justice research, Journal of Scandinavian Studies in
Criminology and Crime Prevention, 19:2, 2018, pp. 152-169, available athttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14043858.2018.1502946
van Kalmthout, Anton and Ioan Durnescu, Probation in Europe, Nijmegen 2008100

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINAR
VISITING EXPERTS' PAPERS

Lappi-Seppälä, Tapio, Prisoner Rates: Global Trends and Local Exceptions, Annual
Report for 2002 and Resource Material Series No. 61, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 2003, pp. 37– 60
Martinson, Robert, What works? – Questions and answers about prison reform, The Public
Interest, 1974, pp. 22-54, available at https://www.gwern.net/docs/sociology/1974martinson.pdf
McIvor, Gill, Kristel Beyens, Ester Blay and Miranda Boone, Community Service inBelgium, the Netherlands, Scotland and Spain: A Comparative Perspective, European
Journal of Probation, vol. 2, No. 1, 2010, pp. 82 – 98
Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines and Commentary, Minnesota Sentencing Commission,
2019, available at
http://mn.gov/msgcstat/documents/Guidelines/2019/MinnSentencingGuidelinesCommentary.pdf
Mombelli, Armando, Swiss-made ankle bracelets ride global prison reform trend,
Geosatis, 5 November 2019, available at https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/geosatis_swiss-made-ankle-bracelets-ride-global-prison-reform-trend/45333054
Nelken, David, Comparing criminal justice, in Mike Maguire, Rod Morgan and Robert
Reiner (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Fourth Edition, Oxford 2007,
pp. 139 - 157
Penal Reform International, Alternatives to imprisonment in East Africa. Trends andchallenges. London 2012
Reddy, Bala, Community-Based Alternatives in Sentencing [Singapore], Resource
Material Series No. 79, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 2009, pp. 220 – 243
Rujjanavet, Somphop, Country Report – Thailand, in Resource Material Series No. 67,
UNAFEI, Tokyo, 2005, pp. 103 – 112
Saleh-Hanna, Viviane, Colonial Systems of Control. Criminal Justice in Nigeria, Ottawa,
2008
Sentencing Council, Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences. Definitive
Guideline, London 2016, available at https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wpcontent/uploads/Imposition-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf
Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P., & Bushway, S.
(1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn’t, what’s promising. Washington,
DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, available at
http://ncjrs.gov/works
Singh, Runjit Singh a/l Jaswant, Non-Custodial Sentencing Options in Malaysia, in
Resource Material Series No. 67, UNAFEI, Tokyo, 2005, pp. 88 – 92

101

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

State of crime and criminal justice worldwide. Report of the Secretary-General to theThirteenth United Nations Crime Congress, A/CONF.222/4, Vienna 2015
Sugihara. H., K. Horiuchi, N. Nishimura, A. Yamaguchi, S. Sato, I. Nishimura, Y.
Nagashima, M. Nishikawa and F. Saito, An Overview of Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Asia and the Pacific Region, in Zvekic, Uglješa, Alternatives to
Imprisonment in Comparative Perspective, UNICRI 1994, pp. 95 – 202
Tonry, Michael and Richard Wills, Intermediate Sanctions, unpublished draft report,
November 1988, cited in Annesley K. Schmidt, An Overview of Intermediate
Sanctions in the United States, report prepared for the Research Workshop at theEighth United Nations Crime Congress
Travis, Jeremy and Bruce Western (eds.), The Growth of Incarceration in the UnitedStates: Exploring Causes and Consequences, National Research Council of the
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 2014, available athttps://johnjay.jjay.cuny.edu/nrc/NAS_report_on_incarceration.pdf
Walmsley, Roy, World Prison Population List, twelfth edition, 2019, available athttps://www.prisonstudies.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/wppl_12.pdf
Weisburd, David, David P. Farrington and Charlotte Gill (eds.), What Works in Crime
Prevention and Rehabilitation. Lessons from Systematic Reviews, New York,
Heidelberg, Dordrecht and London, 2016
Wermink, Hilde, Arjan Blokland, Paul Nieuwbeerta, Daniel Nagin and Nikolaj Tollenaar,
Comparing the Effects of Community Service and Short-Term Imprisonment on
Recidivism: A Matched Samples Approach, Journal of Experimental Criminology,
2010, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 325-349, available athttps://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14462106/2010-WerminkH-Comparing.pdf
Yukhnenko, Denis, Achim Wolf, Nigel Blackwood and Seena Fazel, Recidivism rates inindividuals receiving community sentences: A systematic review, PLoS One. 2019;14(9): e0222495, available athttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6754149/

102

PARTICIPANTS' PAPERSPREVENTION OF REOFFENDING AND ENSURING SOCIALINTEGRATION – LEGAL AIMS VERSUS REALITY IN BRAZILAna Cristina Bandeira Lins*

I. INTRODUCTION
Since 1984, Brazil has, no doubt, one of the most modern laws on penal execution,
which aims primarily at reintegration of the condemned person into society, rather thanpunishing. The laws give more value to non-custodial measures rather than imprisonment,a prison progression system and various modalities of assisting the condemned persons.
International rules and norms that followed the reform of the General Part of the Penal
Code 1 and of the Law on Penal Execution 2 provided little innovation on this legislationthat already foresaw, as its explicit objective and goal, the creation of conditions allowing
the social integration of the offenders. In practice, however, the Brazilian State appears to
disrespect the law since its enactment: the reality of Brazilian prison life is quite different
from what national and international rules impose. Despite various legislation enlarging
the hypothesis of alternative non-custodial penalties and measures, the prison population
is increasing. Meanwhile, the creation of more humane modes of serving a penalty of
imprisonment, favouring the reduction of penal reoffending in the country, cannot beignored, featuring a widening of alternative penalties or pre-trial measures as well as thecreation of public policies that help effective social reintegration.
II. LEGAL FRAMEWORK VS. PRISON REALITY
The reform of the general section of the Penal Code (Law nº 7.209/84) and the Penal
Execution Code (N° 7.210/84), recognizing the uselessness of imprisonment as a method
to prevent reoffending, allows social reintegration. Thus, non-custodial measures were
foreseen besides furlough and parole, such as rendering of community service, temporary
limitation of rights and restrictions on weekends, and monetary penalties. A
differentiation and progression of prison regimes was provided, allowing that a large partof penalties were initiated in the so-called semi-open regime (allowing the prisoner toleave prison to work) and the open regime (returning to a halfway house at night),
considering the size of the penalty, characteristics of the individual and the nature of thecrime committed. Furthermore, the rules on the prescription periods of crimes wereenlarged. Imprisonment should be the exception. 3* Procuradora da República (Federal Public Prosecutor), São Paulo, Brazil.
1
Law Nº 7.209/84.
2
Law N° 7.210/84.
3
In: Statement of motives (Exposição de Motivos) Nº 211 (of 9 May 1983), of the Law 7.209/84.
Available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/legin/fed/lei/1980-1987/lei-7209-11-julho-1984-356852exposicaodemotivos-148879-pl.html.

103

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

The presentation of the motives for reform of the Penal Code already clearly indicatedthe need to increase, in the future, possible further alternative solutions to imprisonment.
Later, Law n° 9099/95 introduced the possibility of negotiating non-custodial measuresprior to a penal process, and the conditional suspension of the process (prior to judgment)
for crimes with a minor offensive potential. In 1998, Law n° 9.714 widened themodalities of alternative penalties and authorized the substitution of imprisonment for
non-custodial measures in cases of intermediate gravity, 4 committed without violence or
serious threats, provided the individual conditions so permitted.
Despite these various legal reforms, the prison population of the country continued toincrease dramatically. Brazil has the world's third largest prison population (746,532
persons actually in prison), of which more than one-third are pre-trial detainees. 5 The
legal objective to make incarceration the exception and give preference to non-custodial
measures has not yet been achieved. In 2018, 63.9 per cent of all penal sentences
executed (219.3 thousand) were imprisonment. 6
This resulted in a continuous increase in the absolute number of prisoners and of theprison population rate. If, prior to the legal reform, in 1973, the prison population rate
(prisoners per 100,000 inhabitants) was 32, it showed a significantly increasing scale,passing 107 in 1995, 132 in 2000, 180 in 2004, 249 in 2010 and 301 in 2014, culminating
at 348 in 2019. These numbers should be compared to the worldwide average, which is145. 7 See the following chart:

Prisons are overcrowded, with an occupancy level of 167.8 per cent. If one were to
take into account the cases where imprisonment had been ordered and not yet executed (atotal of 586,000), this would almost double the number of incarcerated persons. In 2018,74 per cent of all imprisoned persons were in the “closed” regime (i.e. full-time
imprisonment). The facilities allowing the semi-open regime (24.13% of all imprisoned
persons) are insufficient, and there are virtually no halfway houses (1.7%) allowing the4

For convictions of up to four years of imprisonment.
In August 2019, at https://www.prisonstudies.org/, accessed on 09/10/2019.
6
In Sumário Executivo. Justiça em números. 2018, at https://www.cnj.jus.br/wpcontent/uploads/2011/02/da64a36ddee693ddf735b9ec03319e84.pdf, accessed on 10/10/2019.
7
Idem.
5

104

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS“open” regime; thus, that measure has been substituted by nightly recoil, 8 which is, in fact,
not controlled in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Among those incarcerated, only 15 per cent have access to work and 12 per cent tostudying. 9 The sanitary conditions in the prisons are extremely precarious, leading tohealth issues. In a study on the prison population in Rio de Janeiro, it was found that thelevel of tuberculosis incidents among prisoners is 35 times higher than in the overall
population. 10
These problems are aggravated by the effective loss of control of the State over mostof the prisons to criminal organizations, and this leads to the truly precarious state of theBrazilian prison system currently. Whereas in the Southeast (São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro),criminal organizations are already hegemonic in prisons, the North and Northeast aremarked by disputes for new markets and routes for drug trafficking, and the conflictamong the criminal organizations leads to assassinations inside the prisons, in numbers
not to be neglected. Only this year, there have been two large cases of “slaughtering” ofimprisoned people for this reason. On 26 and 27 May 2019, 55 people were killed inprisons in Manaus. On 29 July 2019, 57 imprisoned people were assassinated in Altamira.
It is notorious that organized crime is recruiting its new members inside the prisons,be it voluntarily or by force. 11 Using the words of one of the leaders of the largest
criminal organization in Brazil, the Primeiro Comando da Capital (“PCC”), Prison is the“machine to make the PCC”. 12
III. CRIMINAL RECIDIVISM IN BRAZIL
There is no reliable databank yet that would allow to provide effective numbers on
criminal recidivism in Brazil. Few surveys have been carried out, with partial data only,
and there is no clear concept on how to define recidivism; thus, data are not comparable.
In the study on criminal recidivism of the Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada –IPEA 13, the following data were gathered in the survey:

8

Data from August 2018, in CNJ, Banco Nacional de Monitoramento de Prisões, at www.cnj.jus.br,
accessed on 09/10/2019.
9In DEPEN, Levantamento Nacional de Informações Penitenciárias, 2016, available at
http://depen.gov.br/DEPEN/noticias-1/noticias/infopen-levantamento-nacional-de-informacoespenitenciarias-2016/relatorio_2016_22111.pdf, accessed on 10/102019.
10
DIUANA et Alii, Saúde em prisões: representações e práticas dos agente de segurança penitenciária no
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, available at http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102311X2008000800017, accessed on 10/10/2019.
11
Camila Caldeira Nunes Dias, Da pulverização ao monopólio da violência: expansão e consolidação doPrimeiro Comando da Capital no sistema carcerário paulista, 2011, available at
http://pct.capes.gov.br/teses/2011/33002010028P1/TES.PDF, accessed on 03/10/201912https://noticias.uol.com.br/cotidiano/ultimas-noticias/2018/08/01/criminoso-que-atuou-nos-ataques-de2006-diz-que-prisao-e-maquina-de-fazer-pcc.htm, accessed on 03/10/201913
Institute of Applied Economic Research, cf. IPEA. Reincidência criminal no Brasil, available at
http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/relatoriopesquisa/150611_relatorio_reincidencia_criminal.pdf, accessed on 03/10/2015.

105

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111•

Rate of generic reoffending (commitment of a crime – including people
detained provisionally and the accused – following a prior conviction for acrime): 70 per cent 14.

•

Rate of penitentiary recidivism (new imprisonment of a person previously
imprisoned): between 45 and 50 per cent. 15•

Rate of legal recidivism (a second crime – with conviction – wascommitted following a final and unappealable sentence of a firstconviction, within 5 years following the end of the execution of thepenalty): between 24.4 16 and 34 per cent 17.

In a study of the Grupo Candango of Criminology of the law faculty of the UNB,
relating to a sample for the period 1997 to 1999, the recidivism index in non-custodial
penalties was said to be 24.2 per cent, whereas the rate for those condemned to serving an
actual prison sentence was said to be 53.1 per cent. 18
The reoffending rates are fairly high, showing that a penalty of imprisonment
continues to be inefficient for the prevention of further crimes.
IV. POSITIVE INITIATIVES
In view of the failing of the system of imprisonment, various initiatives have beenlaunched to seek solutions for a more effective response to criminality, aiming at
diminishing the reoffending rates. Instead of waiting for national law initiatives, theNational Councils of Justice and of the Public Ministry innovated the criminal processes,
regulating the Agreement not to criminally prosecute (Acordo de Não Persecução Penal),a Custody hearing (Audiência de Custódia), and stimulating measures of Restorative
Justice. Within the prison system, differentiated methods, such as the “Respect module”(módulo de respeito) and the Association for the Protection of and Assistance to theCondemned (associação de proteção e assistência aos condenados – “APAC”) basethemselves on the valuing of the human being and discipline, offering better conditions toallow social reintegration. Following the release from prison, government projects andnon-governmental initiatives join forces to allow reintegrating the released person into thelabour market. Alternative penalties, procedural suspensions and penal settlements havebeen a rather effective means to achieve social reintegration.

14

Data based on the report on the management of DEPEN, dated 2001, in the parliamentary investigative
committee on the prison system (CPI do sistema carcerário), in 2008, and is frequently repeated inspeeches of Judicial authorities.
15
According to samples collected by Adorno and Bordini between 1974 and 1976 and by Kahn between
1994 and 1996. These indices are also corroborated with the research carried out by Luis Flávio Sapori, in
the Centro de Estudos e Pesquisas em Segurança Pública, which arrives, based on the analysis of samples
in Minas Gerais, at a rate of 51.4 per cent.
16
Survey of IPEA on the basis of data in five Brazilian States, dated 2013.
17
According to the survey Censo Penitenciário Nacional of 1994.
18
https://www.unbciencia.unb.br/humanidades/57-direito/301-penas-alternativas-reduzem-reincidencia.

106174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

A. The Agreement Not to Prosecute (“ANPP”)
The National Council of the Public Ministry 19 (Conselho Nacional do Ministério
Público), the official external control body of that institution, mitigated the principle ofcompulsory criminal prosecution, seeking acceleration of the process and a solution thatwould avoid the prejudicial social effects of a criminal penalty. Based directly on theprinciples of the Tokyo Rules, it created the possibility of a settlement (“plea agreement”)
in case of crimes of small or medium gravity 20 that did not involve violence or serious
threats. The plea agreement, to be concluded prior to official accusation, must foresee,
cumulatively or in isolation, the repair of any harm done, the voluntary handing over of
any instruments used and of any result or benefit from the crime, as well as the renderingof community service, financial compensation and/or other measures. 21
Even though the constitutionality of this form of plea agreement was quite disputed inlegal doctrine, and sometimes even rejected by judges due to lack of a proper legal
provision in Brazilian law on which they could be based, such plea agreements were de
facto concluded by the organs of the Federal Public Ministry before the advent of the newlaw n. 13.964, of 24 December 2019, that will enter in to force on 24 January 2020.
Between May 2018 and September 2019, more than 1,700 plea agreements have beenconcluded by the Federal Public Ministry, primarily in the areas of smuggling, false
import declarations and other types of falsifications. 22 As they impose alternative
measures to incarceration, the plea agreements are considered to contribute to therehabilitation and social reintegration of the offender and the reduction of reoffending.
B. Custody Hearing (Audiência de Custódia)Based directly on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on theAmerican Convention on Human Rights (both integrated into the Brazilian legal system
in 1992), the National Justice Council approved Resolution n° 213/2005, following aninterim injunction of the Federal Supreme Court in an action on non-compliance with thefundamental norm n° 347 that imposes on judges the realization of custody hearings,
determining the duty to present any arrested person to a judicial authority within 24 hours.
In that hearing, the legality of the arrest, the integrity of the arrested person and thepossibility of an immediate release are being verified.
Even though almost 70 per cent of all cases analysed relate to non-violent crimes(mostly drug trafficking, theft, dealing in stolen goods etc.), it is noted that still 57 percent of all arrests are converted into provisional arrests. A mere one per cent are released
without any restrictions. The remaining arrested persons are being released withprecautionary measures such as having to report to the judge, nightly house arrest,electronic monitoring (anklet) or other forms of precaution. 23 In any case, these measures
have contributed to a reduction of the provisional arrests.
19

The Federal Public Ministry – Ministério Público Federal – is the body of prosecutors (procuradores)
with competence for all crimes at the federal level. Each State has Public Ministries with prosecutors(Promotores da justiça) competent for all other crimes (unless special jurisdictions apply). The National
Council embraces all public ministries.
20
In case of crimes where the law foresees a penalty of less than four years, and where a settlement is notsuitable (foreseen for cases of crimes with a maximum penalty of two years, or three years in case ofenvironmental crimes). With these parameters, such a settlement would be possible in the majority ofpenalty types foreseen in Brazilian legislation.
21
Resolution CNMP nº 183/2018, at http://www.cnmp.mp.br/portal/images/Resolucoes/Resoluo-183.pdf.
22
Data supplied by the 2nd Chamber for the Coordination and Revision of the Federal Public Ministry.
23
IDDD, O fim da liberdade, 2019, available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/wp-content/uploads/conteudo/arquivo/

107

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

C. Restorative Justice
The Brazilian justice system and the UNDP, driven by Resolution 2002/12, initiatedmore than 15 years ago pilot projects on the application of the method of restorative
justice that, in the context of criminal law, privileges the dialogue between the victim, theoffender and possibly other members of society as well as the repair of any damage
caused by the crime over retributive justice. Since then, various efforts have been made toextend the application of this concept, via specific projects and training courses, promotedby the international agency.
The National Justice Council (“CNJ”) issued Resolution n° 225/2016, determining theimplementation of programmes of restorative justice through the courts and theconstitution of programme managing committees. A mapping by the CNJ found thatvarious courts created some form of exclusive structure for that purpose, and various
confirmed using its principles in the criminal context, especially in penal processes oncrimes of minor offensive potential and domestic violence. 24
Applying such initiatives still depends very much on the personal initiative of theprosecutor or judge assigned to the case, as there does not yet exist an institutionalframework within the courts for such purpose, and not even an express legal provisionthat would oblige them to use the proper instruments of restorative justice. The potential,
however, of such mechanisms to contribute in fact to strengthen the social relations andthe rehabilitation of the offenders is being recognized, and it may develop in the future.
D. Respect Module
Inspired by the Spanish model, the State of Goiás introduced this model ofdifferentiated incarceration in Brazil, creating separate wings inside the prisons. With amore humanized treatment of the condemned person, jointly with strict rules on conductand coexistence, the right to work in prison is guaranteed in those modules, and there are
educational and cultural activities (just as foreseen in the Brazilian penal execution
legislation). The incarcerated persons are subject to a continued evaluation of their
behaviour. Stealing, aggression and the use of drugs are not tolerated in these wings. In
case of bad behaviour, the condemned returns to the “normal” prison.
The respect model is recognized by the incarcerated as a means to achieve a change(“who wishes to change his life”), and in order to volunteer for such respect modules,
they will have to have shown good behaviour. Many incarcerated persons desist fromapplying for access to this regime because it would mean waiving any access to drugs(that are illegally offered in the “normal” system).
Fewer fugitives are reported from the respect modules than from the common system
of incarceration. 25 There are no studies available, however, on the rate of reoffending.

2019/09/bf7efcc53341636f610e1cb2d3194d2c.pdf, accessed on 10/10/2019.
24
CNJ, Mapeamento dos Programas de Justiça Restaurativa, 2019, available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/wpcontent/uploads/conteudo/arquivo/2019/06/8e6cf55c06c5593974bfb8803a8697f3.pdf, accessed on
10/10/2019.
25
IPEA, Reincidência criminal no Brasil, available at: http://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/PDFs/
relatoriopesquisa/150611_relatorio_reincidencia_criminal.pdf, accessed on 03/10/2019.

108

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

E. APAC – The Association of Protection and Assistance of the Convicted
In 1974, the first APAC was formed, based on the idea of a group of Christian
volunteers, with the motto “to kill the criminal and save the man”. It is based on 12
elements: participation of the community; “recoverees” (as they call the prisoners) help
non-recoverees; work; spirituality; legal aid; health; dignity of the human being; family;
voluntariness; infrastructure as a social centre; merit; and social activities with externs.
These associations are of a religious imprint, are non-profit organizations that
conclude an accord with the State to participate in the management of prison life, fromthe construction of the infrastructure (or adaptation of a public building) to the actual
execution of the activities of the system.
The units are small (mostly under 100 interns) and no overcrowding is allowed. The
structure and furniture are much more differentiated compared to ordinary prisons. The
treatment of the incarcerated is very humanized. All interns have the possibility to workor to study, have access to health care, legal aid, as well as religious (nondenominational) activities and recreation, assisted by a group of volunteers.
The incarcerated and their families participate in the managing council of the prison,
jointly with the volunteers of the association. Admission is restricted to only thoseincarcerated who lived in the location of the establishment, so as to guarantee theeffective participation of their families, thus avoiding the rupture of the affectionate links
to them, which is a common problem in normal models of incarceration.
The incarcerated persons themselves carry out the tasks that would be carried out by
the personnel or third parties in the common prison system. It is the inmates themselves
who conduct the activities like opening and locking of doors, receiving visitors,
inspecting the cells, and controlling to keep the timetable.
Just like in the Respect Modules, discipline and merit are quite highly valued, but inthe case of APAC, it is the internal council of the incarcerated itself that controls the
behaviour of the others, on a rotating basis. There are sanctions for non-compliance withthe rules or lack of discipline. Delays in carrying out duties lead to a loss of recreation
time. It is prohibited to speak about crimes. Acts of violence are not tolerated. The
incarcerated are responsible for the order and cleanliness of their cells and must keep thenightly silence. A repeated disrespect of the rules may lead to returning the incarcerated
person to a common prison unit.
Based mostly on voluntary work and the work of the “recoverees”, the cost of
maintenance of APAC-managed facilities is much less than of the normal prison. In theState of Minas Gerais, the yearly cost for each intern is around R$ 12,655.00, 26 compared
to R$ 23,000 per year for a normal prison, according to the Federal Tribunal of Accounts.
This model is quite appreciated by the incarcerated people, especially for its direct
participation in the management of the establishment and the absence of prison agents
26

Estudo preliminar: a metodologia APAC e a criação de vagas no sistema prisional a partir da
implantação de centros de reintegração social, available at:
http://depen.gov.br/DEPEN/depen/ouvidoria/EstudoPreliminarAMetodologiaAPACeaCriacaodevagasnoSis
temaPrisionalapartirdaImplantacaodeCentrosdeReintegracaoSocialSITE.pdf, accessed on 03/10/2019.

109

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111(employees of the State) that would control them. 27 No escapes from this model of prison
have been reported.
Currently, there are about 100 of these APAC models in Brazil, 28 out of a total of
2,600 prisons overall. Therefore, it is very difficult for an incarcerated person to manage atransfer to such a unit. The rate of reoffending in the APAC model is only around 15 per
cent, much below the estimated 70 per cent for prisons in general. 29
F. Alternative Penalties and Measures
Alternative measures – whether prior to the penal process (in the form of plea
agreements or settlements), during the process (conditional suspension of the process) orafter conviction (substituting a penalty of imprisonment) – have generally resulted in amuch lower rate of reoffending than those of offenders that were condemned to serve
time in prison; furthermore, these measures prove to be an effective tool of social
reintegration and are infinitely cheaper for the public.
In the State of São Paulo, 192,292 alternative measures were imposed and registeredin the monitoring centres between 2002 and June 2019. The recidivism index was a mere
3.5 per cent. The costs of these measures were a mere R$ 26.40 per month 30 (orR$ 317.88 per year), which is really minimal, compared to the cost of maintaining an
incarcerated person, which bears a cost of R$ 23,000 per year, according to the Federal
Tribunal of Accounts (Tribunal de Contas da União).
1. Data of the Federal Justice System in the Subsection of São Paulo
When analysing the data of the Centre of Penalties and Alternative Measures of theFederal Justice in São Paulo (Central de Penas e Medidas Alternativas da Justiça Federal– CEPEMA,) 31 one will note that the substitution of incarceration penalties by alternative
measures and alternative penalties is very positive for social integration, provided it iswell-structured and directed, in particular if in the form of the convicted providing
community service or paying pecuniary penalties.
CEPEMA, which counts in its ranks professionals in the field of psychology andsocial assistance, entertains accords with public and private bodies for those offenders
that shall render public services as an alternative measure to imprisonment. The selected
entities allow the absorption of various professional profiles, either in terms of the levelof school or academic education or in terms of the area of activity (there are agreementswith more than a hundred entities, public and non-governmental, in the areas of healthservices, child education up to university levels, public libraries, cultural entities,
organizations providing assistance – be it to persons leaving the prison, persons withphysical deficiencies, homeless people, elderly people, sheltered children and teenagers
27

IPEA, Reincidência Criminal no Brazil, 2015, available at https://www.ipea.gov.br/portal/images/stories/
PDFs/relatoriopesquisa/150611_relatorio_reincidencia_criminal.pdf.
28
http://www.fbac.org.br/, accessed on 03/10/2019.
29
Tribunal de Justiça do Estado de Minas Gerais, Programa novos rumos, 2018, available atwww.tjmg.jus.br › lumis › portal › file › fileDownload, accessed on 03/10/2019.
30
Data of the State of São Paulo at http://www.reintegracaosocial.sp.gov.br/db/crsckyu/archives/59d698315987a3c6bcdb3bab0e56b5fe.pdf, accessed on 09/10/2019.
31
Justiça Federal, Central de Penas e Medidas Alternativas da Justiça Federal – CEPEMA, Report on the
Activity (Relatório de atividades), 2018, available at:
http://www.jfsp.jus.br/documentos/administrativo/NUAL/Relatorio_de_atividades_5anos_CEPEMA.pdf,
accessed on 11/10/2019.

110

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

and even organs of the Judiciary). This way, the “collaborator” (term used for thesentenced as well as the offender who concluded a plea agreement or settlement prior toconviction) is steered, following an initial interview, to the type of service that is mostadequate to his/her professional and social profile, taking into account also criteria likecloseness to home and the compatibility of the timetable of the rendering of services withthe exercising of normal work duties of the collaborator.
The entities that are entrusted with receiving such services confirm that the renderingof qualified services, related to the education and professional experience of thecollaborator, break the stigma of the “convicted” felon, leaving behind all forms ofprejudice or discrimination. Furthermore, the sense of responsibility of the collaborator isbeing enforced, his/her impact on the entity is positive and one perceives a true reparation
to society. 32
Should there be a violation in the performance of the service (delays, absences, failureof commitment), estimated to amount to less than 5 per cent, a new hearing will be set togive a formal warning, and the obligations (such as having to appear before the judge toreport on and justify the activities actually performed) may be made more intense. 33
Interviews carried out when the person is being released upon completing the service
prove that the collaborators changed their own perception of themselves as criminals,
realizing how their activities were valued by the employees and users of the entities.
Furthermore, a major social engagement of the collaborator can be observed, it being
common that he/she wishes to continue the activity as a volunteer of the entity.
Matching the collaborator to the social service rendered, jointly with the adequate
monitoring of the process by the judge responsible for the penal execution, is what
guarantees the success of the measure, according to the coordinating Federal Judge of the
CEPEMA in São Paulo, Dr. Alessandro Diaferia, both in relation to the social
reintegration of the offender and the low level of reoffending. 34 He even mentioned thecase of the recruitment of the (former) offender as an employee by the benefiting entity.
In the five-year-period from October 2013 to October 2018, of a total of 2,651
offenders registered in this system, 1,408 were arising from alternative penalties. The
remaining included those with plea agreements, settlements, suspension of the process orinterim measures. From all archived files, a mere 1 per cent related to cases where acollaborator was sent to jail, which would mean a serious non-compliance with theservice obligations or a reoffence during the time when the measure was applied, whereas
a total of 62 per cent related to full completion of the service. The remaining cases thatwere archived (37%) relate to prescription, pardon, personal conditions that prevented thefulfilment of the measure (such as illness) or a transfer of residence of the offender (inwhich case the process was transferred to the new jurisdiction, and the case closed in Sao
Paulo). 35 These numbers indicate, indeed, that the alternative measures to incarceration,
32

Ibid.
Interview conducted by the author with the Federal Judge and Coordinator of CEPEMA in São Paulo, Dr.
Alessandro Diaféria, on 11/10/2019.
34
Ibid.
35
Justiça Federal, Central de Penas e Medidas Alternativas da Justiça Federal – CEPEMA, Relatório deatividades, 2018, available at:
http://www.jfsp.jus.br/documentos/administrativo/NUAL/Relatorio_de_atividades_5anos_CEPEMA.pdf,
33

111

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

when well administered and accompanied, are quite satisfactory for the prevention of
reoffending.
With regard to pecuniary settlements, following the norms of the CNJ and the Councilof the Federal Justice, payments are collected in an account at the disposal of the judge
responsible for the execution of penalties, to be used after public selection processes onsocial projects. CEPEMA selected projects of non-governmental organizations for the
professional training of persons released from prison; the donation of mattresses andclothing for homeless people; professional empowerment of fugitive immigrants;
construction of shelters for fugitives; cultural workshops for socially vulnerable children,etc. Again, according to the coordinating judge of CEPEMA, who participates directly inthe selection of the contemplated projects, the pecuniary penalties do not only serve toreintegrate the offender into society, but also to “reintegrate excluded persons into
society”, the major part of victims of crimes falling into the competence of the Federal
Justice.
G. Specific Initiatives of Reintegrating Incarcerated Persons and Persons Released
from Prison into the Labour Market
A major obstacle to successful social rehabilitation of an ex-offender is thereintegration into the labour market. Not only will the normal work activity have beeninterrupted for years, as there are few opportunities to actually work while incarcerated,but there is also a prejudice (or at least great reluctance) against recruiting an incarcerated
person or person released from prison. In order to overcome such hurdles, various
programmes have been developed by the Executive and Judiciary organs.
The National Policy of Work within the Prison System (Política Nacional de Trabalhono âmbito do Sistema Prisional 36 ) seeks to increase the absorption of prisoners andpersons released from prison into the labour market. It determines that all public
contracting of the Federal Government (direct and indirect administration) in excess of avalue of R$ 330,000 must offer between 3 per cent and 6 per cent of the selected workers
to incarcerated people or persons released from prison.
In the State of São Paulo, the Programme for Social Reintegration for Prison Leavers(Programa de Reinserção Social para Egressos do Sistema Prisonal) 37 provides for theintermediation of workforce (register of professionals and of available positions),
professional qualification (in-prison training on tasks for which there is employment
available in the region) and treatment seeking the social reintegration (providing social or
psychological assistance to persons released from prison or their family members). The
programme allows the State organs to demand, in public tender processes for construction
works or services, the contracting of at least 5 per cent of persons released from prison.
Since 2003, more than one million attendances were provided to ex-offenders and theirfamilies. Since 2010, more than 60,000 convicted persons sentenced to the half-open
regime were provided a job opportunity through the programme. 38

accessed on 10/10/2019.
36
Federal Decree n° 9.450/2018.
37
State Decree (Decreto Estadual) nº 55.125/2009, available at: https://www.al.sp.gov.br/repositorio/
legislacao/decreto/2009/decreto-55125-07.12.2009.html.
38
Report, available at http://www.reintegracaosocial.sp.gov.br/db/crsc-kyu/archives/
59d698315987a3c6bcdb3bab0e56b5fe.pdf.

112

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

In the judicial ambit, the CNJ created a project in 2009 called “Start again”, aiming at
promoting actions of social reintegration of incarcerated persons and persons released
from prison. It is composed of educative actions, professional capacitation, and having adata bank of available professional positions at the disposal of persons released fromprison. 39 That project stimulates partnerships between the different organs of the
Judiciary with public and private entities for the offering of courses and created a gateway
to workplace opportunities. Of the 18,882 job offers registered, 14,042 were actually
filled. 40 Various initiatives have been formed throughout the country in the form ofaccords between the Judiciary and non-governmental organizations, mainly for the
professional capacitation and absorption of the work force of persons released fromprison.
V. CONCLUSION
The goals already enshrined in the 1984 legislation in Brazil are, unfortunately, still
far from being achieved: imprisonment should be the exception, but it still is the rule; andthe prison should be a place respecting the dignity of the human being, aiming toward
reintegration into society, whereas in practice most of the minimal rights of the prisoners
are not guaranteed and the recruitment of the offenders by organized crime is intense.
Despite the different legal and regulatory initiatives to avoid a conviction andincarceration, the number of incarcerated people in Brazil is still increasing in absoluteand relative terms. The most humanized models of imprisonment are the exception, a true
minority, and the common prisons, in reality quite remote from what is foreseen by thelegal framework, have contributed little to the prevention or reduction of reoffending.
Even though reliable data are missing that would allow a correct assessment of theactual reoffending rate on a national level, the studies and partial data available clearly
prove that the non-custodial measures – whether before or during the process or at thestage of the execution of the penalty – are much more effective for the social reintegrationof the offender, as well as to prevent reoffending. Those measures are also much cheaperfor society and contribute directly to the promotion of social inclusion of marginalized
sectors of the society. It is urgent that decision-makers face those facts and promote aradical breakthrough in the practice of criminal justice and the penal system.

39

Resolution CNJ nº 96/2009, available at https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/atosnormativos?documento=65.
40
Data of CNJ, available at https://www.cnj.jus.br/portal-de-oportunidades-comecar-denovo/projetocomecardenovo/index.wsp, accessed on 03/10/2019

113

EFFECTIVE TREATMENT AND SUPPORT FOR REHABILITATION
OF DELINQUENT JUVENILES IN JAPANMIYAGAWA Tsubura *I. INTRODUCTION
Considering that many delinquent juveniles are immature, have disadvantaged family
backgrounds and have been abused or badly treated at home, it is important to ensure thateach juvenile and his or her needs receives adequate intervention, treatment and support.
Although non-custodial measures should be chosen for low-risk juveniles, custodial
measures are appropriate for some at-risk and delinquent juveniles. This paper discusses
the effective treatment and support for rehabilitation of delinquent juveniles in custody inJapan, mainly focusing on the functions of the institutions where they reside.
II. OVERVIEW OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY IN JAPANA. Definition of “Delinquent Juveniles”
The Juvenile Act 1 classifies juveniles whose cases are heard by the family court into
the following three types 2:A juvenile offender (a juvenile from 14 to 20 who committed a Penal Codeoffence);A juvenile engaged in “illegal behaviour” (a juvenile under 14 who has violated
criminal laws and regulations);
A pre-delinquent juvenile (a juvenile who is likely to commit an offence or violate
criminal laws and regulations in the future in light of his/her personality or living
environment and his/her tendency not to submit to the legitimate supervision of
the custodian).

In Japan, the police and the prosecutors refer all cases of juvenile offenders to thefamily court. The prefectural governor or the directors of child guidance centres can also
refer juveniles who engage in illegal behaviour and pre-delinquent juveniles to the family
court.
B. Delinquency Trends in JapanThe number of delinquent juveniles whose cases were cleared for Penal Codeoffences in 2017 was 35,108, which indicates a significant decrease compared to 178,950
in 1997, decreasing almost 80 per cent in two decades. Of those 35,108 juveniles, larceny
makes up the largest percentage of delinquency, which is about 60 per cent (21,340). 10.7*

Chief Instructor, Okinawa Juvenile Training School for Girls, Japan.
Act No.168 of 15 July 1948.
2
In this paper, “delinquent juvenile” refers to all three types of juveniles unless otherwise specified.
1

114

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

per cent (3,810) of those juveniles had cases that were cleared for embezzlement, 7.2 percent (2,553) for bodily injury, and 4.3 per cent (1,546) for assault. The number of predelinquent juveniles and the number of juveniles who are referred by the police forprosecution for using or possessing stimulants also decreased. 3 The decrease may partly
be explained by the decrease of about 30 per cent in the total population of juveniles from10 to 19 over the past two decades. 4 Although there might be other explanations related
to changes accounting for the decrease of delinquent juveniles, such as the developmentof social welfare and social media, this paper will not discuss them further.
C. Assessment for Protective Measures
The family court may order a family court investigating officer to conduct aninvestigation of a delinquent juvenile’s social environment. In addition to theinvestigation, when it is necessary to conduct a hearing, the family court determines
whether protective detention is necessary. The decision commits the delinquent juvenile
to a Juvenile Classification Home (JCH), and the family court may requirecomprehensive assessment by psychologists at the JCH. There is a unified assessment
tool called the Ministry of Justice Case Assessment tool (MJCA) developed by theCorrection Bureau of the Ministry of Justice and implemented in 2013. MJCA is based on
Risk-Needs-Responsivity principles and estimates the juvenile’s risk of reoffending. The
JCH conducts classification based on the result of the assessment and submits a report tothe family court.
D. Overview of Protective Measures
In light of the result of the investigation and the classification, the family court canplace the juvenile under one of following three protective measures:Probationary supervision;Commitment to a child welfare institution;Commitment to a Juvenile Training School (JTS).

In addition, juveniles who commit particularly heinous crimes can be charged andprosecuted as adults.
The JTS is an institution under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice to which
delinquent juveniles are committed upon the order of the family court. JTSs have thefollowing characteristics:


They accommodate delinquent juveniles from approximately 12 to 20 5;They are single-sex facilities which accommodate either boys or girls;



There are 51 JTSs in Japan and 9 of them, including branches, are for girls

3

Refer to the “White Paper on Crime 2018” published by the Research and Training Institute of the
Ministry of Justice for detailed numbers.
4
Refer to the “Japan Statistical Yearbook 2019” published by the Statistical Bureau of Japan for detailed
numbers.
5
Strictly speaking, a young adult aged under 26 can be accommodated in a JTS. Refer to article 4 of theJuvenile Training School Act for the age limit for residence.

115

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

including;They operate under the Juvenile Act and the Juvenile Training School Act 6;
They are headed by a governor and divided into mainly two sections: theEducation and Support Section (also divided into the Education Unit and theSupport Unit) and the General Affairs Section.

The following sections summarize the system of the JTS and analyse how the system
works effectively to support delinquent juveniles’ reintegration into society.
III. FUNCTIONS OF CUSTODIAL MEASURES
A. Assessment for Effective Treatment
Correctional education for each juvenile is carried out based on an Individual
Treatment Plan (ITP), which provides the most effective treatment for each juvenile. The
process of planning the ITP is described below.
There are 15 classifications of delinquent juveniles in JTSs. Each JTS develops its
Correctional Education Curriculum (CEC), the standard courses, including the contents
and the standard duration of education, for each classification. For example, the Okinawa
JTS for girls has 11 CECs. Every JTS is required to review its curricula at least once a
year to revise them if necessary.
When a juvenile is admitted to a JTS (hereinafter referred to as a “resident”),
instructors formulate the ITP for each resident based on the designated CEC. In order toformulate an effective ITP, instructors refer to the results of the classification by the JCH
and the report of the social environment investigation by the family court to identify theresident’s risk, needs and responsivity. The ITP includes the expected duration of custody,
goals of correctional education from the viewpoint of relapse prevention and the contents
of education and treatment, including methods of the training to achieve the goals. The
goals are closely related to the step-by-step process toward release, which will be
discussed in the next section.
B. Step-by-Step Process for Social Reintegration
1. Introduction of the Step-by-Step Process
The ITP includes the expected duration of custody, of which a resident and his/herparent or a guardian will be informed. However, unlike an adult prisoner whose term of
imprisonment is stated by the sentence, the duration of incarceration can vary depending
upon the development of the resident. The duration of custody is divided into three stages,
the goals of which are clearly stated in the ITP.
Stage 3, the Orientation Stage, is the first stage starting from admission to the JTS.
During this period, a resident makes a mental and physical adjustment and prepares forrehabilitation. Instructors build relationships with the juvenile to motivate him/her tocultivate a positive approach to life in the JTS.

6

Act No. 58 of 11 June 2014.

116

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

Stage 2, the Intermediate Stage, is the second and normally the longest one. At thisstage, a resident is expected to actively participate in education and treatment
programmes for the purpose of improvement by understanding his/her problems. The
resident also needs to consider a career path after release, such as completing school orfinding a job.
Stage 1, the Pre-release Stage, is the final stage during which the juvenile isencouraged to carefully consider life after release and prepare for the transition to society.
During this period, the juvenile undergoes a series of programmes to prepare for social
reintegration. The juvenile needs to find a guardian (if a parent is not suitable) and a place
to live since it is necessary to be released on parole. 7 As the time for release from the JTS
approaches, the juvenile is transferred to a separate dormitory to prepare for release.
2. How to Get Promoted?
JTS residents need to achieve the goals of their ITPs in order to get promoted to thenext stage; thus, the duration of incarceration will be longer than stated in the ITP if thejuvenile fails to be promoted. 8 Performance assessment shall be conducted aiming at
confirming how individual goals are achieved, and an elaborate procedure is required for
conducting fair assessments; Instructors assess the degree of achievement of the goals at
each stage, how the resident associates with instructors and other residents and how hard
he/she works on education and treatment programmes. Finally, the assessment iscompleted at the Treatment Review Board headed by the governor of the JTS.
Once the performance assessment is conducted, the resident is notified of the results
immediately. 9 Along with informing the resident of the degree of the achievement of
his/her goals, instructors clearly explain the next assignments to each resident to help theresidents work on them. A promotion ceremony is held to celebrate the promotion ofresidents to the next stage. These ceremonies are normally held twice a month and, at theceremony, a resident who gets promoted to the next stage is given a new badge by thegovernor in front of the instructors and other residents, which motivates the otherresidents.
C. Education and Treatment Tailored to Individual Needs
As stated above, the education and treatment for each juvenile is carried out based oneach ITP. Practically, the content of the education and treatment is composed ofprogrammes provided by each JTS. These programmes are divided into the following fiveareas:
1. Basic Skills Training
Basic skills training is the core educational programme at JTSs. Broadly speaking, itaims to help residents develop basic knowledge, attitudes and skills to live as responsible
members of society. The training is administered in groups and through interviews with
instructors. JTSs also provide therapeutic treatment programmes targeting each resident’s
problems. For example, anger-management and mindfulness programmes are consideredeffective for helping resident’s control their feelings and manage anger.

7

In Japan, more than 99 per cent of JTS residents are released on parole.
One failure generally causes two weeks’ extension of release.
9
A resident’s parent or a guardian is also notified of the results of the performance assessment.
8

117

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Problems such as violent tendencies and drug addiction are regarded as high-riskfactors of reoffending. Therefore, there are special programmes for offenders who
committed offences involving murder, physical injury or sexual assault. It is compulsory
for most sex offenders (only male) to complete 12-unit-group-based sessions based on
cognitive behavioural therapy. There is also a programme for residents who committed
murder or physical injury. This programme also consists of 12-unit-group-based sessions,as well as 21 individual sessions. Family members or relatives of the victims
occasionally visit the facility to talk to the residents since it is meaningful for theoffenders to hear stories of their grief.
Basic skills training also includes facilitating a resident’s relationship with his or her
family, which is important, especially for those who hope to live with their families after
release. JTSs regularly inform the parents or guardians of the progress of rehabilitation.
Furthermore, JTSs invite the parents or guardians to participate in events and classes toenhance their understanding of education at the JTS.
2. Vocational Training
Literature and statistics demonstrate that employment greatly supports a resident’s
reintegration after release. Therefore, JTSs are enthusiastic about enhancing residents’motivation to work and ensuring that they obtain useful knowledge, skills andqualifications for employment. It is compulsory for most residents to complete 108 unitsof the Basic Job Skills Training, which consists of an elementary course in personal
computers, communication skills training, career counselling sessions and so forth.
3. Guidance in School Courses
Residents may take the national examination to obtain qualifications equivalent to ahigh school diploma. At some JTSs, there are courses available for residents planning totake the examination. As for residents who have not completed compulsory education(normally under 15), the JTS must provide education through the junior high school level.
4. Physical Activities
JTSs provide a broad range of physical activities to foster a healthy body. Under
Article 49 of the Juvenile Training School Act, JTSs are required to give residents anopportunity for exercise or physical training at least one hour a day. For example, at the
Okinawa JTS for Girls, physical activities include jumping rope, volleyball, badminton,running, dancing (Eisa 10) and swimming.
5. Special Activities
Special activities aim to raise a moderately cultured person. It consists of club
activities (flower arrangement, music, pottery, calligraphy, kendo 11 and so forth), outdoor
activities and social contribution activities. Annual events based on Japanese tradition
such as the coming of age ceremony, the Doll Festival, the Star Festival and Christmas
gathering are also held.

10
11

Eisa is a traditional Ryukyu dance which is played with big and small drums.
Kendo is traditional Japanese martial art of swordsmanship.

118

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

IV. REHABITLITATIVE ENVIRONMENTS OF JUVENILE TRAININGSCHOOLS
In order to provide effective interventions, ensuring rehabilitative environments ofcorrectional facilities is vital. Issues such as overcrowding, bullying among residents,
abuse by staff and corruption can occur in any correctional system, causing human rights
violations and unjust and unfair treatment of residents inside the facility. Therefore, theCorrection Bureau has been keen to address these problems in various ways.
As for overcrowding, as a result of the decrease of the number of delinquent juveniles
discussed above, the number of delinquent juveniles committed to JTSs decreased bymore than half in two decades: from 4,989 in 1997 to 2,147 12 in 2017. 13 Other problems
related to the rehabilitative environments are discussed below.
A. Protection of Human Rights
In 2009, four instructors at the Hiroshima JTS were arrested over allegations that they
abused the residents of the facility, and they were dismissed due to misconduct. This
incident revealed that the human rights of residents in JTSs had not been fully protected,
leading to amendments of the Juvenile Training School Act, which was finally enacted in
2014. For the purpose of prevention of abuse by staff, the revised act aims to increasetransparency by the measures discussed below.
1. JTS Visiting Committee
For each JTS, the revised act established a “Juvenile Training School Visiting
Committee”, whose members include doctors and attorneys. The committee studies thecircumstances of the administration of the JTS by visiting JTSs, holding interviews withjuveniles reading letters from juveniles, and receiving explanations from the JTS. The
Visiting Committee gives its findings and recommendations to the governor. 14
2. Resident Complaint Procedure
Unlike prison, a process for handling residents’ complaints had not been implemented
in JTSs until recently. That is why, when the violation of human rights took place inHiroshima, the victims could not reveal the incident to anyone. In order to prevent such
incidents, the act established a process for seeking relief. A resident may file a complaint
with the Minister of Justice if the resident has a complaint with regard to the measuretaken by the governor of the JTS. The Minister of Justice then conducts an inquiry into
the matter and is required to notify the resident of the results. Upon the inquiry, if the
Minister of Justice finds that the measure taken was illegal or unjust, the measure can be
rescinded or modified.
JTS residents may also file complaints with the inspector who conducts the inspection
at least once a year and the governor of the JTS. The inspector or the governor must also
notify the resident of the results. The protection of confidentiality of complaints isrequired, and no staff member of the JTS may treat residents adversely for having filed a
12

Of the total number, the ratio of larceny offenders is 34.6 per cent (743) and that of bodily injury is 15.3
per cent (330). Except for penal code offences, 48 juveniles were committed to JTSs for using or
possessing stimulants.
13
White Paper on Crime 2018.
14“Connecting Tomorrow: Pamphlet of Juvenile Training School”, Correction Bureau, Ministry of Justice,Japan.

119

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

complaint.
3. Proper Procedure Regarding Human Rights
Increasing transparency requires proper procedures regarding the restriction of aresident’s rights. Until the implementation of the revised act, most restrictions were left tothe discretion of the governor of the JTS, along with regulations of each JTS. In 2014, theprocedures on restriction of a resident’s rights were clearly stated in the revised act, suchas correspondence, visiting, use of retained articles and so forth.
One of the significant improvements is the procedure for disciplinary punishment. In
cases where a resident breaks the rules of the JTS, an investigation by instructors shall be
conducted. When the investigation is completed, the Treatment Review Board is held todecide whether it is necessary to punish the resident and, if so, what punishment isappropriate. There are two kinds of punishment: admonition by the governor andsuspension for up to 20 days. 15 The procedure is clearly stipulated in the revised act, andevery punishment is formally recorded in each resident’s file. The revised act guarantees
that a resident shall have the opportunity to convey his or her opinion to the Board, which
was not the case before.
B. Supportiveness and Safety
The rehabilitative environment of the JTS also includes a supportive and safe
atmosphere. Bullying, fighting or violence shall never be allowed in a correctional
facility, especially in one for juveniles. In JTSs, formulating a support group is effective
to maintain the rehabilitative environment.
The daily life of residents of a JTS is basically group based. The group-based lifestyle
helps residents develop interpersonal relationships, communication skills and other social
skills. For example, sharing a room and equipment inevitably means that the residents
need to cooperate with each other to keep the dormitory clean and comfortable, which is agood opportunity for the residents to learn social skills.
Another function of group living is to motivate residents to work on their educationand training in earnest. For example, since only residents of the first stage are assigned
important roles in their dormitories, such as being selected as a monthly leader, otherresidents respect them, learn how to contribute to the group and are determined to work
hard to get promoted. Rewards are also effective to cultivate motivation. The Juvenile
Training School Act contains articles about rewards, and every reward is formallyrecorded in each residents’ file. Residents are normally rewarded when they pass an
examination, obtain good grades on performance assessment or perform well in classes.
By being commended at the promotion ceremony in front of instructors and otherresidents, this motivates and improves the self-esteem of the residents.
Although residents live in a group, it should be noted that the residents are prohibitedfrom discussing their personal lives with each other for their own safety. In general, they
are prohibited from revealing their age, hometown and the crime they committed. These
concerns often distract their attention from rehabilitation and lead to the formation of
informal groups among the residents, which often results in bullying. In addition to safety,
15

According to the facts of or reasons for disciplinary offences or the degree of reflection, admonition by
managerial staff may be taken in lieu of disciplinary punishment.

120

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

the restriction prevents them from contacting each other once they are released from thefacility because socializing with ex-residents could drag the juvenile back into adelinquent life.
C. Medical Care
Since proper health management of JTS residents is required, medical care isprovided for free by medical staff who work for the facility, and drugs are prescribed if
necessary. Based on a doctor’s decision, a resident can see a doctor or a dentist outside
the facility when escorted by staff. If constant medical care is necessary for a sick or
injured resident, the resident will be referred to a medical JTS.
V. JTS RESOURCES
There is no doubt that the lack of adequate capacity and resources deteriorates therehabilitative environments of correctional facilities. Thus, every JTS should be well
staffed, and living conditions should be reasonably comfortable. The following part ofthis section discusses the resources of JTSs, such as budget and staff, and also mentions
resources outside the facility.
A. Budget
1. Materials Supply
In order to make the life of residents comfortable, proper management of the facility
is essential. JTSs supply all the materials for the residents for free. Examples of suppliedmaterials are as follows:

clothes (school uniforms, training wear, pyjamas, underwear, socks, caps, shoes,
sandals);

stationary and school supplies (bags, notebooks, pencil cases, pencils, pens,textbooks, dictionaries);

toiletries (towels, soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrushes, sanitary items).

All the materials for the residents should be reasonably clean and supplied fairly. At
the same time, it is possible for the residents to buy additional items if they can afford
them. They are given an opportunity to order goods at least once a month.
2. Meals
JTS staff cook and serve meals to residents three times a day, and they also servesnacks occasionally. The meals need to be not only nourishing but also moderately tasty
so that the meals delight the residents, which is very important at a custodial facility. 16
Vegetables grown at a farm in the facility by the residents as a part of the vocational
training curriculum are sometimes cooked and consumed there.
A Menu Meeting is held at least once a month with managerial staff of the facility to
discuss the menu, budget and food allergies of the residents. It is also required to conduct
16

An example of three meals at the Okinawa Juvenile Training School for Girls in November 2019: white
rice, miso soup, natto (fermented soybeans), and seasoned laver (seaweed) for breakfast; boiled pumpkin,meat-stuffed cabbage roll and milk for lunch; vegetable curry, salad, pickles and yogurt for dinner.

121

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

a survey by asking residents to complete a questionnaire about the menu. On the other
hand, the residents are strictly prohibited from bringing food or beverage into the facility.
3. Facility
JTS residents usually live in a furnished shared room in a dormitory, and they also
share a living room, bathroom, toilet and appliances such as a washing machine and a
television. At daytime on weekdays, training and programmes are held in classrooms inseparate buildings or outside for farming and gardening. For exercise and physicalactivities, a playground, a gymnasium and a pool (only available at some JTSs) areprovided.
B. Staff
Most correctional officials who work for JTSs are officials called “instructors”. In
order to be employed, one needs to pass a specialized examination to become an
instructor. Once employed by a JTS, a broad range of training programmes is provided
according to their experiences and aptitudes. As explained above, JTS instructors work
closely with residents on a personal basis to help them through the rehabilitation process
and re-join society. Their work may be different from that of other countries because an
instructor’s duties can be described as a combination of multiple occupations such as acounsellor, a teacher and a guard.
It is also noteworthy that most of staff members 17 of JTSs are instructors, including
the governor and staff of the General Affairs Section. Consequently, even if an instructor
is not directly involved in education or treatment of residents, he/she contributes to therehabilitation from the viewpoint of an instructor. Some descriptions of their daily work
are as follows:
1. Dormitory Staff
Dormitory staff members are instructors assigned to a dormitory, and the staff
members work together as a team of each dormitory. It is assumed that most delinquentjuveniles have not been well cared for or educated at home or school. Therefore, in that
context, instructors play multiple roles as an older sibling, parent or teacher in order tomentor the residents. They advise the residents about healthy eating, teach them how toclean the dormitory and do laundry, exercise together, help them with reading and writing,and encourage them to read books.
The dormitory staff not only provides daytime guidance in the form of educationalclasses and treatment programmes but also works the night shift to provide evening
guidance from 5 to 9 pm and to patrol the facility at night. The patrol is necessary to
prevent escape from the facility, violation of regulations, fights among residents orbullying. In order to work in close cooperation, the dormitory staff members share
information about all the residents in the dormitory on a daily basis.
2. Individual Assigned Instructor
Individual assigned instructors are key players in the treatment of residents. Every
resident is allocated an individual assigned instructor, an instructor who takes charge ofthe resident, among the dormitory staff. The individual assigned instructor advises the17

Exceptions are medical staff and a psychologist who was originally employed at a JCH and temporarily
works for JTSs.

122

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

resident on overall life in the facility by interviews and exchange of notes. Although it isdifficult for the instructor to build a relationship with the resident because many of them
have serious trust issues influenced by abusive experiences, building a close relationshipwith the resident is critical.
3. General Affairs Section Staff
An instructor not only works for the education and support section but also for the
General Affairs Section. Instructors assigned to the General Affairs Section are in chargeof administration, budget management, planning menus and preparing meals, maintaining
the facility including simple repairs, and supplying materials as explained above. They
also work on the night shift when necessary and even work as guards in emergencies.
C. Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships
The above section discussed the resources provided by the JTS. However, it is evident
that the JTS alone is not able to provide all required support for residents. This section
introduces private and public sector support for corrections and also an example of apartnership with the Okinawa JTS for Girls and existing community resources.
1. Close and Cooperative Relationships with the Public and Private Sectors
Since building bridges from a correctional facility to the community is required forsmooth reintegration into society, cooperation and coordination between institutional andcommunity corrections are essential. For this reason, conferences and meetings are
regularly held several times a year, and a case conference is held to strengthen support
after release. If a resident is planning to go back to school, cooperation with the school isalso necessary. JTSs regularly send reports about the progress of residents’ education to
the school.
In order to support residents’ employment, the local public employment agency works
closely with the JTS. A career counsellor of the agency visits the JTS to interview
residents or lecture about their courses after release. As a part of the private sector,
registered employers are cooperative resources that help residents find jobs. They
sometimes visit the facility to conduct job interviews so that the resident can obtain a job
before release. In some cases, they even provide a residence if the resident cannot livewith his/her family.
2. An Example of a Multi-Stakeholder Partnership
The last part of this section introduces an example of a multi-stakeholder partnershipof the Okinawa Juvenile Training School for Girls. JTSs work closely with existing
community resources and build robust partnerships with them.
In 2019, the Okinawa Juvenile Training School for Girls launched a new project
named “3Re-Smile”, 18 collaborating with multiple sectors of society. The Okinawa
Prefectural Government is aiming to cull (euthanize) fewer stray dogs and cats byencouraging their adoption. For that reason, it has begun outsourcing the training andmanagement of the adoption process to the Centre of Protection and Management of
Animals of Okinawa. The centre keeps abandoned dogs and cats and tries to find new18“3Re-Smile” means “Rehabilitation”, “Reward” and “Return”, and also refers to the three smiles of aresident, a dog and people in the community.

123

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

owners for them before they are culled. Training the dogs is important to finding anowner in a short time.
The “3Re-Smile” project involves training dogs inside the JTS and finding an ownerfor the dog in collaboration with the centre. A resident of the Okinawa Juvenile Training
School for Girls spent nearly four months training a dog supported by a professional dog
trainer sent by the centre. At the same time, all the residents worked together to create aposter to find an owner for the dog. In order to publicize the project, the centre updated its
social networking site (Facebook) with photos of the training. Finally, a couple applied
for and became the owner of the dog.
Upon the closing ceremony of the project, the resident handed the lead of the dog tothe owner in tears, which showed the emotional development of the resident. Throughout
the project, including preparation beforehand, the Okinawa Juvenile Training School for
Girls succeeded in promoting partnerships with multiple sectors and public understanding
about rehabilitation in the facility.
VI. CONCLUSION
Although less restrictive sanctions or dispositions should be considered prior tocustodial measures, a correctional institution is responsible for effective rehabilitation as
the “last resort”. This paper introduced and discussed the system and functions ofcustodial measures for delinquent juveniles in Japan mainly from three perspectives: first,
JTSs run a broad range of educational curricula and treatment programmes based on anelaborate plan formulated for each of them; second, JTSs establish rehabilitativeenvironments for residents; third, JTSs make effective use of resources such as budget,
staff and multi-stakeholder agencies. Instructors support residents’ rehabilitation througha holistic approach. Through these key measures, the JTS system effectively supports
residents’ reintegration into society.

124

INTERVENTION, TREATMENT AND SUPPORT TAILORED TO
OFFENDERS’ INDIVIDUAL NEEDS IN KENYA
Lilian Akinyi Otieno *The United Nations posits that no crime prevention strategy is complete without
effective measures to address the problem of recidivism. For that reason, effective social
integration or reintegration programmes are essential means of preventing reoffending
and increasing public safety, two very important social policy objectives in all countries.
Reoffending is defined as a person's continued criminal behaviour after receiving some
sanctions or undergoing intervention for a previous crime. Reoffending is one of theserious problems faced by developing countries all over the world. Social inclusion refers
to provisions of qualities (requirements) and opportunities of life in the mainstream(normal) life.
I. EFFECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF OFFENDERS IN COMMUNITY-BASEDTREATEMENT
According to Probation and Aftercare Service Kenya, assessment of offenders is theprocess where a probation officer evaluates a person to inform decision-making. It
involves taking into account myriad factors that surround a person and weighing them todetermine their risks or needs. Probation officers carry out assessment when preparing
Bail Information Reports, Probation Officer’s Reports, Community Service Orders
Report, Power of Mercy Pre-release Reports, Victim Impact Assessment Reports andEnvironmental Adjustments Reports. They also conduct assessment to guide insupervision, rehabilitation and resettlement processes. Probation officers evaluate accused
persons, offenders and ex-offenders.
Effective assessment of offenders is fundamental to achieving prevention of
reoffending and fostering social inclusion. It is a prerequisite to community-based
treatment of offenders with a view to preventing reoffending, promoting social
acceptance and incorporation of offenders under supervision in social engagements withsupport for perceiving a sense of value and importance among community members. It
helps in identification of the offender’s individual risks and needs and the social
environment presenting their risks and protective factors for their social reintegration.
Assessment should be conducted carefully with regard to male, female, youth andjuvenile offenders. Consequently, appropriate tools should be designed and applied to therelevant offender. Risk factors are those characteristics that increase the likelihood that aperson will engage in offending behaviour. On the contrary, protective factors are thosethat decrease the likelihood of engaging in offending behaviour.

*

Senior Probation Officer, Field Services, Probation and Aftercare Service, Kenya.

125

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

A. Current Situation and Practical Challenges in Community-based Treatment of
Offenders in Kenya
1. Current Situation
Information gathering done by probation officers for pre-sentence, resentencing andpre-release reports for courts, penal institutions and the Power of Mercy Committee is toguide decision-making and the suitability of the offender to be considered for communitybased treatment and supervision. These reports are compiled from interviewing theoffender and victims (primary and secondary victims), and a detailed social inquiry
involving the offender’s family, community members and significant others is conducted.
Also, penal institution authorities for adults in prisons and juveniles in Borstal Institutions
are interviewed to establish the inmate’s conduct, skills acquired for reintegration andlevel of risk reduction based on the custodial rehabilitation programmes administered. For
juveniles and youth offenders, the risk and needs assessment tool utilized wasdisseminated during the Swedish Prison and Probation training conducted in the year
2016. It is administered separately, and information gathering is done with the content of
the tool in mind since it informs the probation officer’s report in which the intervention
strategies must be indicated. For male and female adult offenders, a different tool is used
and filled upon placement of an offender on a non-custodial sentence using theinformation in the report to determine the level of risk and needs for supervision purposesand designing the offender’s Individual Treatment Plan (ITP) and Individual Supervision
Plan (ISP). Nevertheless, assessment is noted sometimes to be challenged since, during
quality assurance caseload inspection, some ITPs do not adequately address thecriminogenic needs of the offender. Also, the notes recorded during appointment sessions
at times do not significantly reflect the implementation of the ITP, thus posing a concern
over the knowledge, skills and attitudes of probation officers in conducting effective
assessment. Nevertheless, in practice, some probation officers diligently journey with theoffenders and do commendable work which might not be comprehensively andsystematically recorded as concerns intervention, treatment and support to each offenderas per the risks and needs. This is attributed to the many functions probation officers
undertake, as stated above, about generation of advisory reports for dispensation of justiceand decision-making by courts and penal institutions in addition to supervision ofprobation orders, Community Service Orders (CSO), aftercare supervisees, effecting
victim support and welfare programmes, conducting family conferencing, offenders’home visits, CSO work centre visits, initiating projects and monitoring progress, reporting
offenders’ progress in review of case conferences and case committees, review of ITPs
and ISPs, monthly and quarterly returns submission and many more. In reality despite thechallenges of offender assessment tool utilization, probation officers do much inadministering treatment programmes to offenders based on strengths, weaknesses,
opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis they conduct from the initial face-to-faceinterview with the offender, community and home visit social inquiry and uponplacement of the offender on a non-custodial supervised sentence, probation orcommunity service orders and aftercare supervision for rehabilitation, resettlement andreintegration.
While working with the offenders based on risk and needs orientation, intervention,
treatment and support tailored to prevent reoffending include but are not limited to thefollowing: offering counselling and guidance (a basic counselling course is mandatory forprobation officers in this regard) though not all have been trained due to limited funds.
Helping juvenile offenders get back to school for formal education, vocational training ofinterest like hair dressing and beauty, tailoring and dressmaking, mechanics, welding,126

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

carpentry, masonry, cooking among others through regular training or encouraging theoffenders to seek apprenticeships based on whichever is convenient. The Probation andAftercare Department has hostels for temporary accommodation of offenders and offerssome of such skills empowerment. They are Nakuru Girls and Siaya Female Probation
Hostel, Shanzu and Kimumu Junior for young juveniles and the Nairobi Probation Hostel
for the youths. As field stations, we utilize the hostels by sending clients there for formal
education and skills empowerment as the hostile home environment gets harmonized.
Day care centres are as well in place to address needs for skills acquisition by theoffenders. In the month of June 2019, the AthiRiver Station obtained information on
Kenya Youth Employment Opportunities (KYEOP), a programme funded by the WorldBank to empower the youths aged between eighteen to twenty-nine years with skill andsupport for entrepreneurship. Application was online and on very short notice. Nine youth
offenders were supported at the office by a probation officer to access the Internet using
office resources and applied for the course. Probation open day is an event we hold atleast once in a year and provide free atmosphere for our clients on community-based
treatment including willing victims and relatives to interact and share experience on theirrehabilitation, resettlement and reintegration process. As a measure for youth
empowerment with ideas, during the open day held on 29 May 2019 AthiRiver Sub
County Youth Officer was invited and he sensitized the youth on the available support
programmes for the youth in his department including the latest one (KYEOP). In one
case, an offender who lacked basic literacy and wished to know how to read was assisted
and referred to the AthiRiver Adult Education Department for help. One of our casecommittee members, Bishop Doctor Nicholas Muli, accepted a male offender who had
been involved in bhang smoking in his church. He identified the offender’s ability to play
the keyboard; hence, he allowed him to play the church keyboard as he continued helping
him reform and stop reoffending. The bishop informed the probation office about theoffender’s progress. After some time, he reformed, shaped up and announced his wedding
after meeting a woman he fell in love with. He completed his probation sentence as a
success story of preventing reoffending and fostering social inclusion. These are someexamples of the ways of fostering social inclusion; enabling offenders to participate insocial or group activities to feel accepted, valued and important as any other person in thecommunity, thereby preventing reoffending.
A challenging case involved a female offender, aged thirty-four years, who was arepeat offender and was tagged as a notorious dealer in illicit liquor. She was proud anddefied authority. She could not comply with non-custodial orders due to her lust for quickmoney. She had been arrested twice, and she paid a fine in 2016. In 2018, she wasarrested again for a similar offence and was placed on CSO. She repeated the offence, anddue to community outcry against her conduct, the CSO was revoked and she was
imprisoned. After five months, she was considered for a pre-release report due to a prison
decongestion exercise. Her family members were involved in the family conference with
her in prison, and she promised to change her behaviour and venture into the hotelbusiness after release, which her father was ready to support, instead of illicit liquor. The
court placed her on three months for the period that had remained. She served a CSO for
five days and reoffended again. She was arrested with illicit liquor and arraigned in courtwith a fresh charge. Consideration made based on the Bangkok Rules 1 could not save her
this time as the community was tired of her and had no more interest in her case. Due to1

United Nation Rules for Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-Custodial Measures for Women
Offenders (Bangkok Rules).

127

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

her pride and disrespect, she was left to face the law, the community withdrew fromparticipating in her issues leading to incarceration for one year without the option of
paying a fine. In the course of time, her son dropped out from class eight as a candidate
and disappeared from home. Her alcoholic husband could not maintain the home. It was alesson that community participation and social inclusion in prevention of reoffending
depends on the character of the offender.
2. Practical Challenges
Practical challenges are immense, starting from the point of recruitment. Probation
officers are drawn from the faculty of social sciences with diverse backgrounds. The
induction course that provides a platform for building a uniform base for probation work
is usually done within a short period of one week (five days) for newly employedprobation officers. This is barely sufficient for them to understand and apply
comprehensively all aspects of rehabilitation. Hence, there is great reliance on on-the-job
training after posting to various stations. This requires that the experienced officer
training them should be adequately knowledgeable and skilled and have a positive
perspective on sharing knowledge and skill. Inadequate funding by the Government fortrainings is a hindrance to properly equipping the officers with the needed knowledge andskills.
The Probation and Aftercare Service has not developed a standardized psychosocial
offender assessment tool for use by all probation officers. The process is still underway,
and in the recent past, some stations, especially within Nairobi capital city and its
environs, have benefited from the Swedish Prison and Probation Service training on
offender assessment and classification tool, but the same has not been rolled out. Hence, amajority of probation officers countrywide are still handling offenders on the basis of thepreviously introduced tool which has gaps, hence trial and error in offender assessment.
Few probation officers had been trained on a different tool for assessment of juvenile andyouth offenders aged twenty-five years and below. The few shared the skills and trained
their fellows within the selected pilot stations on the tool and are applying the same, likethe AthiRiver Station. Many probation officers are not aware about the existence of sucha tool. The emerging issue of juvenile and youth radicalization is a serious concern in
Kenya that requires careful assessment and relevant treatment of those entrapped in thecriminal justice system. As concerns the assessment of women offenders, there is no
separate assessment tool in place relevant to their unique issues, but the one used for adultmale offenders is applied for women. Therefore, a gap exists in matching thecriminogenic needs with the right interventions and treatment. Hence sometimes like themedical analogy our situation is like a wrong diagnosis, wrong prescription leading tofailed treatment.
Relapse and reoffending by Alcohol and Drug Abuse (ADA) offenders are serious
problems all over the country. For referral, there is only one Government facility forinstitutionalized treatment of such offenders at a subsidized cost, that is, Mathari Mental
Hospital Drug Rehabilitation Unit, but a majority of the offenders cannot afford treatment
there due to poverty. The Probation and Aftercare Department lacks its own facilities for
non-custodial offenders. Another challenge is the lack of skills in handling psychiatricoffenders released under Presidential Pardon and referred for supervision by probation
officers. This special category requires adequate psychosocial assessment knowledge andskills.

128

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

Commercial sex workers on community-based treatment present challenges sincemost of them do not want their nature of work to be disclosed to their family members forfear of shame and rejection. In the recent cases handled at AthiRiver Station, some ofthem are married and pleaded with the probation officer to keep secret and not even
disclose to their husbands that they are a serving probation sentence; one refused to carryher probation order home so that her husband would not see it, but she promised tocomply with attending appointments with her supervising officer.
During information gathering through social inquiry and conducting the initialassessment, the finding of risk and needs level and the identified intervention strategies
are given in the report. However, probation officers encounter a number of challenges.
These include the following: false information given by some offenders, the offender’srelatives hiding vital information, at times community members decline to giveinformation fearing that they may be called upon as a witness in court since they do notunderstand the difference between a probation officer and a prosecutor. Also, some fearthat the offender may know that they gave negative information about him, and he may
harm them when released. Corruption is a serious problem that influences some probation
officers to deal dishonestly by submitting either favourable or unfavourable reports forthe offender’s release back to the community. Limited resources, inadequate funding andtransport challenges for conducting home visits and community social inquiry coupledwith vast distance from the probation office to some of the homes and, in some instances,the court gives a short period for submission of the report leading to shoddy desk work
reports generated through phone calls. Due to bitterness, some victims refuse to beinterviewed, yet some may have relationships with the offender, a factor that contributes
in the treatment plan. In some areas due to lack of awareness about community-based
correctional services, community members recognize imprisonment as the genuine
punishment; hence, they display resistance to non-custodial sentences for communitybased treatment, thinking that it is just a way of setting criminals free, especially when theoffence is habitual or serious in nature. Community hostility and insecurity caused bysome high-risk cases have led to probation officers being attacked and injured in thecourse of social inquiry. All these are impacting negatively on the initial assessment of
the concerned offenders, thus resulting in less effective offender individual treatment
plans that do not meticulously address the risk and criminogenic needs of the offender. A
poor-quality report may result in inappropriate decision-making and a superficial
treatment plan for community-based treatment that does not address the underlying risk
and needs factors; hence, there is little chance of preventing reoffending. As describedearlier, probation officers are few and must handle a very big caseload
Offender assessment is vital. Research from the American Heart Association showsthat a risk-and-protective-factors approach is consistent with a public health model of
disease and prevention and gave an example that children of parents who have heartdisease are more likely to develop it themselves; however, exercise can buffer thecorrelation between family history and heart disease as well as decrease the likelihood ofheart disease without considering the family history. Also, researchers illustrate theimportance of assessment as not only limited to making judgment on reoffending but also
useful for guiding treatment. They explain that, from the assessment of multiple domainsof criminal conduct, dynamic (criminogenic) and static risk factors, offender assessment
can guide the intensity of treatment. Therefore, the risk principle tells us who to treat andhelps in matching the level of service to the level of risk such that it is the higher risk
offender rather than the lower risk offender who receives most of the treatment services.
129

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Then the need principle tells us what to treat (criminogenic needs). Further, they state that
offender assessment can guide on how we provide treatment, that is the responsivity
principle (tells us how to treat) based on the individual’s learning ability, which isdependent upon a number of personal, cognitive and emotional factors. Hence, it isimportant to use cognitive-behavioural interventions with attention to the personal needsof the offender.
Advancement in research has led to the development of the Fourth Generation Risk
Assessment: The integration of case management with risk/needs assessment. The
assessment is explained as quoted below:
Fourth generation instruments emphasize the link between assessment and casemanagement. This means more than adhering to the risk principle and targeting
criminogenic needs. It acknowledges the role of personal strengths in building a
prosocial orientation, the assessment of special responsivity factor to maximize
the benefits from treatment and the structured monitoring of the case from the
beginning of supervision to the end. Fourth-generation instruments include the
COMPAS, used in parts of the United States and the most researched fourth
generation instrument, the Level of Service/Case management Inventory(LS/CMI: Because of the wealth of research and the instrument’s welldeveloped theoretical base, the LS/CMI is used to illustrate the features of the
fourth-generation assessment. 2
3. Identified Underlying Problem
In view of the current situation in Kenya as explained earlier, probation officers –save probably the few who have been trained through Swedish Prison and Probation
Service – are not tuned to effective utilization of the offender assessment tool to recountits benefits on prevention of reoffending and fostering social inclusion for offender
rehabilitation. Probation officers are few in number, yet they do a lot of work due to lackof specialization. Limited funds for training is another problem. Reaching out to thevillages far from the station is a problem due to transport problems.
4. Possible Solutions to the Underlying Problem
The Probation and Aftercare Service Department needs to train all probation officers
on fourth generation offender risk and needs assessment for utilization for better results inoffender treatment and prevention of reoffending. Conducting benchmarking andexchange programmes with other countries which prosper in reducing reoffending forsharing experiences and good practice is motivating and eye opening as regards offenderassessment and the goal of preventing recidivism. Enhancing resources and funding forprevention of reoffending is necessary. To keep constant supervision of offenders in far
places has been eased through recruitment of volunteer probation officers in AthiRiver inthe month of September 2019. The recruitment process involved holding open public
meetings in the villages and sensitizing people about probation and the CSO noncustodial option for community-based treatment of offenders and social inclusion for
reintegration and resettlement. More efforts are needed to strengthen and work with
community-based structures for effective offender rehabilitation and compliance withcourt orders, for example, faith-based organizations, community-based organizations,

2

Bonta J. & Andrew D.A: The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (New York, 2017: Routledge).

130

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

non-governmental organizations, “Ten household managers (Nyumba kumi)” for keeping
watch over one’s neighbours, social welfare groups, merry-go-rounds, among others.
When a strong social support network is present and the offender is able to fit in well,then with proper assessment, addressing offenders’ criminogenic needs would be easy
and there would be no labelling or discrimination. Issues such as drug and alcohol abuse,family and marital problems, poverty, unemployment, enrolling in school, living in acrime prone area, peer influence, among others would be addressed with social support
and translate into to prevention of reoffending.
Reference
http://www.probation.go.ke/2015-11-07-10-14-45/2015-12-01-12-56-44.html© 2019 Probation and Aftercare Service.

Copyright

131

COMMUNITY SERVICE SENTENCES IN MALAWI:MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
Justus Asante Kishindo *I. INTRODUCTION
Rule 8 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures(the Tokyo Rules) states in part that a judicial authority, having at its disposal a range of
non-custodial measures, should take into consideration in its decision the rehabilitativeneeds of the offender; the protection of society; and the interests of the victim. The victim
should be consulted whenever appropriate. The rule lists a number of alternatives tocustodial sentences which include community service, admonition, suspended or deferredsentence, conditional discharge, and restitution or a compensation order to the victim.
Malawi has in its section 25 of the Penal Code 1 a number of punishments that can be
inflicted by a court. There are several non-custodial punishments, including fine;compensation; finding security to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, or to come up
for sentence; liability to police supervision; forfeiture; suspended sentence; public work;community service; probation; weekend or public holiday; and attendance centre orders.
Among the various non-custodial measures in Malawi, I am of the opinion that
community service is the one that has elaborate rules and structures to ensure its smooth
implementation. 2
It is worth noting that in Malawi, community service is not completely a new form ofpunishment. Prior to the introduction of community service in 1999, there was in effect aform of community sentence called public work. Section 3(1) of the Convicted Persons(Employment on Public Work) Act 3 states that when a person is convicted of any offence
by a court and such court is of the opinion that the offence would be adequately punishedby a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding six months, the court may, instead of
imposing a sentence of imprisonment, order such person to perform public work for aperiod not exceeding six months. Over the years, however, presiding magistrates andjudges have neglected meting out this form of punishment to offenders for reasons I
cannot readily outline since I may need to actually talk to some of them to find out if they
are aware of this provision and, if they are, why they do not make use of it. No matter
what the reason is for abandoning public work, the punishment is still in the statutes andit can still be imposed as a valid sentence.

*

Senior Deputy Registrar of the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, Malawi.
Chapter 7:01 of the Laws of Malawi.
2
Community Service (General) Rules made under section 364A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence
Code, Chapter 8:01 of the Laws of Malawi.
3
Chapter 9:03 of the Laws of Malawi (enacted on 28th May 1958).
.
1

132

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

II. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
A sentencing court will have to take into account three major factors when deciding
whether to impose a community service sentence or not. The factors are: the maximum
term of the applicable sentence; the nature of the offence committed; and the eligibility ofthe offender for such sentence. Other factors to consider include: personal attributes andantecedents of the offender; whether the offender has a fixed place of abode; whether theoffender has a family, dependants or other responsibilities in the community; whether theaccused is employed; whether the offender is engaged in academic or other educational
pursuits; distance to the placement institution; and age and capacity of the offender.
Before a community sentence is imposed, it is important that the offender should
consent to that sentence. The court is obliged to explain to the offender what community
service entails and should also point out other alternatives available to the offender.
Where the offender withholds consent, community service may not be imposed, 4 butother non-custodial sentences would apply.
An offender is expected to perform forty hours of community service in a month. 5
Therefore, the maximum number of hours that can be imposed in a community service
sentence is four hundred and eighty hours.
It is important to place an offender at a public institution (a placement institution) thatis appropriate for the offender’s skills, talents and other attributes for the benefit of boththe community and the offender.
A placement institution must confirm that it is willing to receive and supervise an
offender on community service. Where there is no placement institution close to theoffender’s home, or where no placement institution is willing to receive an offender, theoffender may be placed at a courthouse or at a police formation. Even though courts andthe police are public institutions, it is usually discouraged to place offenders on
community service at these institutions.
III. MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES OF COMMUNITY SERVICE IN MALAWIThe main purpose for introducing community service in Malawi was to assist in
reducing congestion in prisons and rehabilitate offenders who had committed minor
offences. However, opponents and sceptics argued that, at a time when serious offencessuch as robbery and burglary were on the increase and the public was crying out for evenstiffer custodial sentences against offenders, community service would be seen as offeringa soft option for offenders. 6 It is very likely that there is still a significant number of
persons, including judicial officers, who still hold the opinion that community service isno punishment at all.
There seems to be a misconception among magistrates that community service has
replaced all other non-custodial sentences. During the opening ceremony for a series of4

Malawi Government, Community Service Revised Handbook (2017).
Form CS/6 under the Community Service (General) Rules.
6
Malawi Government, Community Service Revised Handbook (2017).
5

133

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

workshops 7 in the month of March 2003, Chief Justice Leonard Unyolo 8 lamented thatwith the advent of community service as an alternative to custody the courts were tending
to overlook the application of other forms of suspended sentences even where they might
be appropriate. It was the Chief Justice’s advice that just because an offender fails to meetthe criteria for community service it should not follow automatically that he or she must,
therefore, be imprisoned. Under section 25 of the Penal Code (the so-called basket ofpenalties) there are many non-custodial options that can be used if community service is
not appropriate. 9 Once a court entertains the idea of sentencing an offender to community
service, it should be safely assumed that the court never intended to send the offender toprison in any event.
Community service stands out from the other forms of punishment due to the fact that
offenders on community service are made to repay the community that they haveoffended, and the community directly benefits from the unpaid work done by theoffenders. Even though public work is similar to community service, section 5(b) of theConvicted Persons (Employment on Public Work) Act provides that offenders can residein labour camps and the District Commissioner is obliged to feed them while offenders on
community service fend for themselves and their families. It is assumed that thisarrangement allows for offenders who are employed to keep their jobs. 10 There is,however, no guarantee that an offender cannot be dismissed from his or her employmenton the basis that he or she was not sent to prison. Certain offences that involve dishonesty,
like theft, might warrant instant dismissal or other disciplinary measures in some
workplaces.
Section 364A of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code empowers the Chief
Justice to make rules relating to the imposition of and performance of community service.
Community Service (General) Rules 2000 govern, among other things, the procedure
before, during and after the imposition of a community service order and the appointmentof national coordinators and regional coordinators of community service. The
coordinators and community service officers are responsible for investigating thesuitability of offenders for community service. They are also responsible for monitoring
offenders when they are placed on community service. Supervision of offenders is doneby heads of institutions where community service is being performed. The supervisors are
expected to file a report to the court when the sentence is completed or when the offenderdefaults.
Community service supervisors already have several other responsibilities as public
officers. Therefore, they may not consider it their responsibility to monitor offenders on
community service, especially when they do not get any monetary compensation for their
extra responsibilities.

7

The theme for the workshops was “Alternatives to Custodial Penalties: Judicial Role in Promoting Rightsof Offenders”.
8
Chief Justice Leonard Unyolo retired in or around 2006.
9
The Chief Justice’s speech was reported in a magazine called The Reformer. Malawi National Committee
on Community Service, The Reformer (Lilongwe, 2004).
10
Malawi. Malawi National Committee on Community Service, A Hand-book on Community Service inMalawi. (Undated).

134

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

IV. RECOMMENDATIONSCommunity service is aimed at rehabilitating the offender. By continuing to stay inthe community, the understanding is that the offender will be treated by the community asa person who just made a mistake and not as a criminal. There is need for a massiveawareness campaign by organs of State to sensitize the general public on the importanceof accepting and supporting community service. We do not want a situation where an
offender completes a community service sentence but he or she is still labelled by his or
her community as a criminal.
According to the Malawi Magistrates’ Handbook, 11 rehabilitation is a sentence
imposed for purposes of aiding an offender to reform so that he or she does not offend
again. What does not come out clearly is whether an offender can reform by simply beingoutside of prison. I believe that there is need for extra interventions like counselling andskills training for the rehabilitation to succeed.
In my view, it is an anomaly for the Malawi judiciary to set up a department tospecifically monitor one form of punishment when all the other punishments areadministered by the executive arm of government. It is very likely that, in areas where
there are no court-appointed community service officers, community service orders will
seldom be imposed. In my view, therefore, under the current decentralized form of local
government, offenders who receive community service sentences should be supervised by
the district social welfare officer or any other officer appointed by the District
Commissioner.
The recent statistics 12 released by the Judiciary’s Directorate of Community Service
show that, despite the sentence’s good intentions, there is a high rate of defaulters. Out of
843 offenders placed on community service, 174 offenders defaulted on their sentences.
A majority of the defaulters are in urban areas. They live on rented premises and do nothold permanent jobs. It is recommended that there should be specific officers assigned toindividual offenders who can monitor the offenders’ movements even when the offenders
are not at the placement institution. There is also need to revise the way community
service officers conduct background checks on offenders before sentencing. It is very
likely that community service sentences are being imposed without due regard to thesuitability of the offender for community service.
According to the recent Malawi Inspectorate of Prisons report, 13 Malawi prisons areholding 14,788 inmates against an occupancy of 5,000. The Malawi Human Rights
Commission recommended that some prisoners be released and community service beintroduced for petty offenders. The report acknowledges that the current capacity ofprisons does not match the country’s population. While waiting for the construction of
more prisons, courts keep sending offenders to the already congested prisons. There is alimit as to how far community service can go in reducing congestion in prisons. The
danger of concentrating too much on congestion in prisons is that the courts and other key
11

Malawi. Judiciary. (2005). Handbook for Magistrates (revised edition) at page 5.
Accessed on 11 September 2019 through monthly and quarterly reports.
13
As reported in the The Nation newspaper on 29 September 2019, available athttps://mwnation.com/malawi-prisons-not-fit-for-occupancy-inspectorate/.
12

135

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

stakeholders in the criminal justice system might lose focus on rehabilitation of offenders,the major aim of community service and other non-custodial sentences.
The success of community service in Malawi is measured by the number ofcompleted orders against those registered regardless of the circumstances under which
they were completed. The fact that an offender has completed a community service
sentence might not in itself be an effective tool for measuring whether an offender has
been rehabilitated or not. Whichever department will take over the administration ofcommunity service must come up with tools for measuring the extent to which an
offender placed on community service is reformed.
V. CONCLUSION
Section 339 and section 340 of the Criminal Evidence and Procedure Code implore asentencing court to always consider a non-custodial sentence when dealing with first-timeoffenders. The framers of this provision must have had very good intentions towards thepeople they represent. First-time offenders should be given a second chance in life. Thereis no doubt that cases will arise that deserve tough penalties, but each case must be dealt
with based on its unique facts. Well established sentencing principles must be followed.
While it is generally accepted that community service is a very useful tool inrehabilitating offenders, there is no concrete evidence to show that offenders placed oncommunity service really get rehabilitated. There is no way of measuring the extent of therehabilitation.
Major players in the criminal justice sector should look at ways of reforming thepractice and procedure in criminal proceedings so that rehabilitation of offenders comesout clearly as a major consideration when dealing with offenders at any stage of thecriminal proceedings. Consideration of alternatives to imprisonment should start even at
the pre-trial stage. Alternatives like diversion, mediation and reconciliation can be
introduced to cater for adult offenders in deserving cases.
Apart from pre-sentencing reports from the judiciary’s Community Service Officers,
other reports can be received from the victims of the offence, community leaders andnon-governmental organizations, among others, to determine the best way of dealing with
an offender without causing public outrage.
Since most of the criminal cases are heard in the subordinate (magistrates’) courts,
superior courts of record like the Supreme Court of Appeal and the High Court must
endeavour to regularly issue sentencing guidelines to ensure a uniformity of approach incases of a similar nature.
During the process of reviewing sentences imposed by subordinate courts, the High
Court should be able to impose a community service sentence or any other non-custodial
sentence even on offenders who have served part of their sentences in prison.
Community service should be managed by a specialized department (preferably a
department of correctional services) that will be charged with supervising or designing

136

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

rehabilitative programmes for offenders. This development would take the burden ofmonitoring sentences after they have been imposed by the courts.
There should be a deliberate effort by the state to sensitize the general public and key
stakeholders in the criminal justice system on the importance of rehabilitating andaccepting back into the community persons who for some reason or the other have broken
the law. This is particularly important now that mob justice has become common place.

137

JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION IN THAILAND
Chotima Suraritthidham *I. INTRODUCTION
Many social problems arouse public concern. One of them is juvenile delinquency,
which has been a concern for a long time. This paper presents a brief scope and the duties
for juvenile crime prevention of the Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection(DJOP), which is an organization in the Thai juvenile justice system. The paper shows
statistical data of juvenile delinquency and important processes leading to crime
prevention, particularly assessments before adjudication hearing and interventions injuvenile training centres, which are secure confinements for youth. Challenges andsolutions are combined in each topic as well.
The DJOP was established to serve juvenile and family courts before adjudication
hearings and after dispositional hearings for juvenile delinquents. It has duties asestablished by the Juvenile Court and the Juvenile Procedure Act (B.E. 2553) and theAdministration of Juvenile Delinquent Rehabilitation Act (B.E. 2561). The goal of the
DJOP is to reduce recidivism of juveniles who are adjudicated as delinquent. Minors whoare charged and enter the juvenile and family court system are under the age of 18 years
and not less than the age of 10 years. The DJOP supervises Juvenile Observation andProtection Centres (JOP) located in all 77 provinces of Thailand and 19 Juvenile Training
Centres (JTCs) in main provinces such as Bangkok, Chiang-mai, Rayong, and Song-kha.
The JOP centres serve juveniles before adjudication, while the JTCs serve the juvenile
after the family court has entered an official disposition order to commit the juvenile. The
DJOP’s responsibilities, thus, are related to the processes before the adjudicational andafter the dispositional phases.
A JOP centre works as an intake unit. At the initial phase of a juvenile court process,all juvenile offenders are referred immediately to the JOP centre. Some of them can betaken into custody by court order. They will be placed in juvenile detention at the JOP
centre. The detention provides services for the welfare, health and safety of the detained
juveniles. Furthermore, probation officers of the JOP centre conduct pre-disposition
reports of all referred juveniles to a juvenile and family court to determine an appropriate
disposition.
The pre-disposition report provides essential information for a judge to decide the best
disposition and sanctions based on each case and suitable to the youth’s needs. It outlines
the juvenile’s background (i.e. the current offence, the juvenile’s past offences, asummary of information concerning family relationships, home environment, thejuvenile’s educational and employment progress, and results of psychologicalassessment), a level of a likelihood of future reoffending, a summary of the availability of*

Director, Samutsongkam Juvenile Observation and Protection Centre, Department of Juvenile Observation
and Protection, Thailand.

138

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

alternative dispositions, and a treatment plan including recommendations for services
which are expected to reduce the likelihood of recidivism for a juvenile offender.
After the disposition phase, juvenile delinquents whom a judge decides to place in aconfinement facility will be incarcerated in a JTC for periods generally ranging from a
few months to a few years. The JTC is commonly known as a juvenile correctional
institution. It not only serves incarcerated youths for basic needs, but it also provides
rehabilitative treatment programmes, academic and vocational education. If youths have aduration of incarceration for four months, they will be transferred to a reintegration phaseand participate in a reintegration programme to prepare to return home, such as planningfor their futures. The programme is offered by a social worker and other professional
staff. After completing this phase, youths will be released from the JTC and will receive
assistance for resettling for one year after release. In addition, the DJOP tracks therecidivism of these youth for three years by checking their re-arrest history from the
Criminal Records Division, Royal Thai Police Headquarters.
II. JUVENILE CRIME STATISTICS
According to the DJOP’s statistics of juvenile crime from the fiscal years 2016 to
2019, 1 the numbers of juvenile offenders have continually decreased each year. The
number of juveniles arrested and referred to JOP centres were 30,361 in 2016 and 20,934
in 2019. The percentage decrease is 31. Male offenders consistently accounted for morethan 90 per cent of arrests of those under age 18. The number of offenders who are 17
years of age is the highest every year. The most common juvenile crimes in Thailand are
drug law violations (51% of arrests in 2019), property crimes (14% of arrests in 2019),
and offences affecting life and body (10% of arrests in 2019), respectively. These top
three crimes are the same each year. However, the percentage of property crimes andoffences affecting life and body has gradually decreased since 2015, whereas thepercentage of drug law violations has increased. Of every 1,000 youths in 2018, threejuveniles were arrested and referred to the JOP centres. The highest arrest rate is seven,which is in the Northeast of Thailand.
For the level of youths’ future reoffending, approximately 77 per cent of youth whoare assessed have moderate risk of future reoffending, 16 per cent have low risk and 7 percent have high risk. Three-fifths of all youths held in JTCs had a moderate risk ofrecidivism. As a result, the JTCs have to provide treatments and rehabilitation
programmes affecting the reduction of the likelihood of recidivism of incarcerated youths.
Drawing on DJOP data on 4,167 juveniles who were released from JTCs in 2015, thereport found almost half (45 per cent) had been arrested again within three years after
release. Also, 41 per cent of the 4,263 juveniles released in 2016 were rearrested. The
report showed that the highest rate of rearrest was in the first year after release. Most
released juveniles committed drug and property offences. Nevertheless, the number ofjuveniles who reoffended and who have been diverted from the juvenile justice system isobviously small, which is less than 10 per cent. Most juveniles recommit drug offences.

1

Department of Juvenile Observation and Protection (2019). Juvenile crime statistics.

139

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

Therefore, emphasis is placed on important processes leading to the reduction of therecidivism rate of incarcerated juveniles in JTCs.
III. JUVENILE CRIME PREVENTION
A. Classification in Juvenile Observation and Protection Centres
For JOP centres, most tasks relating to crime prevention are completed before
dispositional hearing. These tasks are investigation, assessment and making a predisposition report. There is an important intake interview by a probation officer. Youths
arrested for an offence eligible for juvenile court will be referred to JOP centres by thepolice. The probation officers use the Risk and Needs Assessment Instrument (RNI) as a
guideline for interviewing these youths. The RNI has an objective to assist the probation
officers to collect relevant information which can identify a likelihood (or risk) of future
reoffending and also youths’ needs for treatments and interventions. This instrument
contains many items reflecting personal characteristics and life circumstances. The
probation officers use this information to make recommendations about dispositions andservices matching the youth’s needs (i.e. a plan for rehabilitation). The intake process
takes about 1.30 hours. Also, the RNI needs the probation officers to gather further
relevant information by interviewing the youth’s parents and visiting the youth’s home,community and school.
The RNI was developed by DJOP’s multidisciplinary team including psychologists,
probation officers, nurses and social workers, as well as professionals from universities.
The theory behind the RNI is the Risk-Need-Responsivity Model (RNR). It is used for
guiding offender assessments and treatments. The RNI includes eight domains ofcriminogenic risks and needs which are family, education and vocation, history ofoffending, delinquent peers, environment, conduct behaviours, drug use and physical andmental health problems. Each domain has items. Most items are scored, and a total score
identifies a likelihood of recidivism, which includes low, moderate and high risk. As the
RNI has to be scored for calculating the level of risk which is more complicated, it haschanged from paper and pencil to a computer-based programme, which automaticallycalculates individuals’ level of risk of recidivism after entering the data into the RNI
programme.
The RNI is functional because its result is more objective and accurate than only
professional judgment; however, there are challenges. First of all, probation officers needadditional interviewing skills training and related knowledge (e.g. forensic psychology
and criminology) to help them establish a good relationship and also gain more relevant
and reliable information from youths and their parents. Second, errors of information andmissing values in the RNI database need to be improved as statistics provided by data
which are full of errors have limitations for analysis and interpretation. Finally, the RNI
needs to be reconsidered and amended. There is new empirical evidence and knowledgeof criminogenic risks and needs, methods of assessment and other significant models
associated with crime prevention (i.e. the Good Lives Model). That information can be
developed and applied to the RNI. Additionally, some items in each domain of the RNI
should be re-examined for receiving more statistical significance. The DJOP is aware ofan opportunity for development, so the RNI is being revised and improved.
B. Reassessment and Interventions in Juvenile Training Centres
JTCs offer secure confinement. Practitioners in the JTCs are composed of two
psychologists, two social workers, two nurses, academic instructors and vocational
140

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

instructors. They work as a multidisciplinary team to provide interventions forincarcerated juveniles. First of all, the multidisciplinary team reassesses and further
interviews youths for assigning youth to housing, identifying a level of supervision andmaking an individual rehabilitation plan. The objectives of the plan are to make sure that
the JTCs provide specific services meeting each youth’s basic needs, to define eachyouth’s criminogenic needs and match them to interventions and treatment programmes,
and to keep youths occupied with productive activities. As there are a limited number ofprofessionals for running the interventions and treatment programmes for juveniles, theDJOP trains the instructors to get more knowledge and essential skills for being juveniles’
counsellors. Each counsellor is assigned a group of youths to supervise until they are
released. The counsellors have two main duties, which include advising youths andensuring that the youths receive interventions and attend activities as planned.
For implementation of an individual rehabilitation plan, after the multidisciplinary
team gathers complete information, a conference is set for discussing and making adecision on the youth’s rehabilitation plan. Even though all incarcerated youths haverehabilitation plans tailored to their needs, there is an important challenge existing. These
plans are sometimes difficult to completely implement. As juveniles can be categorized inmany groups depending on their needs, the JTC needs good management to scheduleenough practitioners to run several interventions and activities at the same time. In fact,some JTCs do not have enough practitioners to conduct treatment programmes for youths
having serious problems, as well as some basic activities such as programmes assisting
youths to adapt themselves for living in the JTC. Psychologists and social workers areavailable for youths with serious needs, especially mental health problems and mental
disorders, and also they have to look after all youths in the JTC to assure that the youths
do not have a high level of negative emotions (e.g. anxiety and depression), and staff
provide mental health services when they are necessary.
For interventions, most programmes are designed to solve criminogenic needs andstrengthen life skills for living in harmony with the community even though there are no
specific treatment programmes made only for serious types of offenders. Psychologists
use Forensic Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (FCBT), which focuses on cognition, toadjust antisocial attitudes and inappropriate values and beliefs. Anger management andcommunication programmes are examples of utilizing FCBT. FCBT programmes will beassigned to youths who have a high risk of recidivism with having criminal thoughts,
which are identified by psychologists’ assessments. Although JTCs do not have specifictreatment programmes for serious types of offenders, the JTCs design a system andinterventions for responding to these groups of offenders. For serious and high-risk
offenders, the JTCs have the system of Individual Routing Counselor (IRC). It is anintensive intervention that provides monitoring, supervising and support for youths. Eachyouth of this group is assigned an IRC. The IRC provides assistance and supervision
since youths arrive at a facility until one year after they are released. One IRC receives 10- 12 youths to supervise. At first, the DJOP’s research on the IRC system showed that it
significantly reduced the rate of juvenile recidivism. After implementation of the IRC
system in all JTCs, a few challenges for recidivism prevention were found to exist. Oneof them is an insufficiency of experience and skills of some IRCs to handle serious
juvenile cases. The DJOP offers mentors to coach the IRCs who need a consultant forwork and also provides intensive trainings to enhance their competencies and knowledge.
In addition, there is a professional team from the DJOP headquarters visiting IRCs at their141

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

workplaces to give any suggestions and support. This assistance is likely to make IRCs
have more confidence in their jobs.
The DJOP launched a campaign to stop all forms of violence in JTCs a few years ago.
Staff and practitioners are trained how to positively communicate and manage negative
behaviours instead of harsh control. “Do and Don’t” regulations were implemented toreduce interpersonal violence for staff and youths. In addition, the physical and mental
health situation of each youth has become a concern. The DJOP set the standard rules ofproviding physical and mental health services to guarantee that all youths will be given
appropriate services relating to good physical and mental health while they areincarcerated in the JTCs.
According to the Act for the Procedure for Juvenile and Family Court of B.E. 2553
and the Administration of Rehabilitation for Juvenile Delinquents Act of B.E. 2561, all
JTCs have to provide education for all incarcerated youths. When youths enter the JTCs,
they have to continue their study in non-formal and informal education if they have notfinished grade 9. However, youths can study vocational education as an extra course
while they are studying primary or secondary education. A big challenge of providing
education is an insufficiency of instructors who can teach basic education. The DJOP
handles this by taking on educational partners to become involved with the educational
activities within the JTCs. These partnerships seem promising; nevertheless, someeducational partners can only participate temporally. Good organization to maintaineffective collaboration needs to be a top concern.
C. Reintegration
When incarcerated youths enter the reintegration phase, which is about four months
before release, social workers provide activities to prepare youths for going back homeand living in their communities. In this phase, youths have an opportunity to work as
trainees in workplaces. Social workers contact entrepreneurial partners to recruit youths
who are interested in working. Youths who want to continue their studies will also get
support such as educational funds and information to apply to schools. Family guidance isalso available for youths’ families and parents to help them understand youths’ changes
while they are incarcerated in JTCs and to be able to support them as they adjust to newenvironments after release.
Furthermore, youths in the reintegration phase will have their criminogenic risks andneeds reassessed. Their families are also interviewed to identify current situations of theirrelationships, economics, home environments, and families’ concern about youths. The
information gained from the assessment and interview will be used to make an individual
reintegration plan. This plan determines the frequency of visiting youths, specificassistance and services that are necessary for reducing the likelihood of recidivism after
youths are released. The plan covers only one year after release. Partners in communities
have a role to supervise and support some youths. They work as assistants to social
workers. Only youths who are identified as having a low level of risk and needs will beassigned to the partners.
There are five elements that the DJOP uses as indicators of successful reintegration.
The elements include study or work, having productive leisure or recreation, associatingwith conventional peers, having good relationships with family and having an appropriate
place to live. These elements are a part of the Good Lives Model (GLM) of offender142

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARPARTICIPANTS' PAPERS

rehabilitation for lives in transition. 2,3 The GLM assumes that enhancing personalfulfilment will lead to a reduction of criminogenic needs. It promotes an alternative andenhancement to RNR by focusing on positive factors and strengths of offenders. The fiveelements are used to make a reintegration plan for youth in the reintegration phase. Most
assistance and services are offered to youths during this phase to help them accomplish
those five elements.
A challenge in the reintegration phase is that a social worker of a JTC has to referyouths and their reintegration plans to social workers of JOP centres located in provinces
where they will live after leaving the JTCs. The social workers of the JOP centres have
responsibilities to supervise and assist them at least one year after release. As a result, thesocial workers of the JOP centres have to develop good relationships with youths andtheir parents for a certain time period. A poor relationship between a social worker andhis/her clients can lead to failure of following the plans and loss of cases.
D. Community Cooperation
Having good partnership is important for the DJOP’s operations to reach its ultimate
goal, which is a reduction of juvenile recidivism. Roles of partners in communities can beclassified into four types. They are roles of support or enhancing any activities related totreatment programmes, basic and vocational education, employment and study, andsupervision of youths after release. Partners can be any person in communities,
organizations, companies, schools and so on. However, their qualifications have to meetthe DJOP’s criteria.
Building cooperation with partners for working with JOP centres and JTCs aredesigned by using the concept of public participation. Participation can start at a moderatelevel to an intensive level. The DJOP expects an intensive level of participation forworking with partners. The intensive level is engagement. At this level, partners haveopportunities to give feedback and receive information, plan, make decisions and work
together with the centres.
There are a few processes of seeking and preparing partners for working with JOP
centres and JTCs. First, each youth’s needs, according to the five elements of the GLM,
are surveyed, and then the survey data are used to seek partners whose roles match theyouths’ needs. The partners who are interested in working with the centres and supporting
youths will get essential information to clarify their roles and explain how to work withyouths, such as information about the centres’ mission and duties, juvenile delinquency,
factors relating to delinquency and tertiary crime prevention. Then, a conference between
the centres and partners will be held for sharing, discussing and making an annual
operation plan. A few challenges include an inconsistency of encouraging partnerships
and insufficiency of maintaining strong relationships between partners and the centres.
However, the DJOP usually reviews and evaluates outputs and processes as well as
obstacles found in operations, and it will propose new solutions and methods to solve theproblems at the end of the year.
2

Ward, T. (2002). Good lives and the rehabilitation of offenders: Promises and problems. Aggression andViolent Behavior, 7(5), 513-528.
3
Fortune, C. A., Ward, T., & LL Polaschek, D. (2014). The Good Lives Model and therapeutic
environments in forensic settings. Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal of TherapeuticCommunities, 35(3), 95-104.

143

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

IV. CONCLUSION
The trend of juvenile crime in Thailand has continually decreased for a few years;
however, the rate of juvenile recidivism is likely to stabilize. The DJOP is responsible forcrime prevention, particularly reducing juvenile recidivism. Important operations of the
DJOP leading to tertiary crime prevention comprise our significant processes which areassessing juveniles’ criminogenic risks and needs, appropriately matching interventions
and juveniles’ criminogenic needs, reintegrating incarcerated juveniles before releasefrom JTCs and supporting community cooperation for crime prevention. There are somechallenges that the DJOP has been working on, such as a revision of an assessment tooland sustainability of operations.

144

GROUP WORKSHOP REPORTS
GROUP 1
EFFECTIVELY INCORPORATING REHABILITATIVEPERSPECTIVES INTO PENALTIES AND CASE DISPOSITIONS

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Members

Advisers

Rapporteur: Ms. Supattra Warotamasikkhadit (Thailand)
Co-Rapporteur: Ms. Belinda Mumbua Kiilu (Kenya)
Ms. Ana Cristina Bandeira Lins
(Brazil)
Mr. Pamila Ratnayake(Sri Lanka)
Ms. Marietta Roseline Behiri(Cote d’Ivoire)
Mr. Laimo Asi(Papua New Guinea)
Mr. SHIRASHI Atsushi(Japan)Ms. INADA Mitsuyo(Japan)Prof. WATANABE Machiko(UNAFEI)
Prof. FUTAGOISHI Ryo(UNAFEI)
I. INTRODUCTION

During the 174th UNAFEI International Seminar, it was noted, through the diverse
discussions, that many countries are still using the criminal justice system as a way topunish, more than to guarantee the rehabilitation of the offenders and to avoid recidivism.
After almost 30 years since the adoption of the “Tokyo Rules” by the United Nations
General Assembly, many countries are not adequately using all instruments for noncustodial measures. Moreover, in many of these countries the judiciary and otherdecision-making institutions do not sufficiently consider the individual risks and needs ofthe offenders or their rehabilitative perspectives.
Although it has been demonstrated that prison is not necessarily the best solution forrehabilitation and prevention of reoffending, and it less cost-effective than non-custodial
measures, it is still the preferred disposition in cases of criminal sentencing in many
countries.
The main purpose of this group workshop was to discuss the reasons as to why inmost of our jurisdictions it is preferable to use custodial instead of non-custodial
measures, to suggest possible solutions in order to effectively use non-custodial measuresin sentencing and to explore effective policies and practices to incorporate rehabilitative
perspectives into dispositions and sentencing.
There are several non-custodial and rehabilitative measures which are considered asimportant mechanisms, as well as effective modes of treatment of offenders, in order toemphasize rehabilitation. Moreover, several challenges, both legal restrictions anddifficulties of implementing non-custodial measures, and how to overcome those
problems, were discussed. The following aspects were studied by comparison of the legal
systems and practices in the countries represented in the group.

145

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

II. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
A. Current Situation of Incorporating Rehabilitative Perspectives into Penalties
and Case Dispositions
It was identified that most countries have adopted some kind of non-custodial
measures, but some of them use basically suspended sentence and fine as alternatives toprison. Others have many alternative dispositions, as summarized in the Table 1.
Table 1 Types of non-custodial measures in the participating countries
Restrictionof rights

NonProsecution

Suspension
ofproceeding

Suspended
sentence

Fine

Communitywork

BrazilCôte
d’Ivoire(transaction)







PNG
ThailandJapan
Sri Lanka
Kenya





-




-

















(not
(judicial review)
implemented)






Healthtreatment

Community
fine

Restorative
justice


-


-

-







-





When considering the issuance of non-custodial measures in their jurisdictions, mostof the countries have several considerations and criteria to be used, mainly as follows:
personal background, criminal history, type of crime, repentance and related individual
circumstances. The views of the victims or their consent to the non-custodial measure isimportant; for example, in domestic violence cases, in some jurisdictions, the victims’views are considered by the authorities.
Most of the members of the group believe that, in their countries, there is satisfactory
information collected about the offender during investigation or criminal procedure.
However, for some countries, the willingness of offenders to give such information could
prove difficult, as some systems principally use direct interviews with the offender and do
not have special tools or human resources to collect personal information about theoffender, for instance, from his community or work.
In the case of juvenile offenders, most of the countries do consider rehabilitative
perspectives and provide treatment for them, such as training schools for juvenile
rehabilitation. The members of the group agreed that rehabilitative perspectives are vital
principles for treatment of juvenile offenders. However, in the case of adult offenders,rehabilitative perspectives are still not the major consideration in sentencing or casedisposition. Besides the adoption of the Tokyo Rules, some of the countries also havenational laws or guidelines imposing rehabilitation as a factor or as the aim of the penal
system. In reality, decision-makers do not take this into consideration much, and they still
give much value to punishment and retribution.
The mindset of the authorities about the advantages and importance of the use of noncustodial measures, the absence or inefficiency of the probation service and the pressure
made by the society in order to send offenders to prison as retribution still represent thereality in most jurisdictions.

146

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARGROUP WORKSHOP REPORTS

Prisons in many countries are overcrowded and, instead of preventing recidivism,
they are places where offenders learn more about crimes and are integrated into criminalorganizations.
B. Legal Impediments and Practical Challenges
In most countries, statutes place a limitation on imposing non-custodial measures forsome types of crimes or maximum penalties, or exclude their use in “grave crimes” (orcrimes with violence and drug trafficking). The lack of some non-custodial measures insome countries (such as restriction of rights and community service) was identified as alegal impediment that limits the consideration of rehabilitative perspectives in casedispositions.
One of the biggest obstacles identified is the attitude, both from the public and theauthorities, towards the use of non-custodial measures in the pre-trial phase, as well as
non-custodial sentences/measures in final case dispositions. This mindset can be
attributed to the following reasons:a.

framing of sentencing laws that place an emphasis on custodial measures;b.

the belief of the authorities that pre-trial detention is the best method to ensure
court attendance;c.

the belief that pre-trial detention is the best way to ensure non-interference in theinvestigation and to ensure public safety and security;d.

the media influence on the general public and the pressure on prosecutors andjudges to mete out custodial sentences/measures;e.

the belief that custodial measures are the best to protect the community; andf.

prison being seen as the most effective punishment and means of deterrence towould-be criminals.

The lack of analysis by authorities of the individual risk and needs of the offender is
identified as a practical challenge for rehabilitation.
In most countries, the different criminal justice players each have a role that they play,and information is often not shared between the various agencies. The lack of synergy
between the agencies does not provide a true picture of the offender, affecting theoffender’s rehabilitative prospects.
III. POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO PROMOTE THE INCORPORATION OF
REHABILITATIVE PERSPECTIVES INTO PENALTIES AND CASEDISPOSITIONS
Law and Policy Review – the revision of laws and offender-treatment policies should
be considered where needed in order to create more options for meting out non-custodial
measures that achieve rehabilitation and avoid recidivism. Introducing the importance ofusing imprisonment as a last resort might also help change the mindset of authorities. The
147

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

possibility of decriminalizing certain offences, such as the use of drugs and instead ofincarcerating the addict they are offered treatment in drug rehabilitation facilities throughthe health care system (and not by criminal justice), is also a measure that would focus
more on rehabilitation and that could be considered by some jurisdictions.
Alternatives to pre-trial detention – it was agreed that, in some cases, instead of pretrial detention, the possibility of non-custodial measures, such as a judicial review toimpose restriction of rights (e.g. impounding passports, house arrest, imposition of
curfews, electronic monitoring), bail or bonds, could be considered. The use of pre-trial
judicial hearings to collect testimonial evidence can also be effective in avoiding pre-trial
detention as a way to prevent the manipulation of testimony and to ensure the availabilityof credible testimony at trial.
Use of evidence such as statistical data – Evidence-based methods on the benefits of
non-custodial measures should be collected and provided to the community andauthorities. The prison-overcrowding and reoffending statistics should be publishedcontinually, and evidence illustrating the effectiveness of the use of non-custodial andcustodial measures should be shared.
Identifying individual needs – It was identified that the creation or improvement ofprobation services might help to identify best individual solutions for rehabilitation
instead of, or complementary to, imprisonment. After identification of the individual
needs, a better rehabilitation programme or treatment can be designed specifically foreach offender in order to prevent recidivism. For the reintegration of offenders into thecommunity, it is important to have an aftercare system to promote offenders’ reinsertion
into the labour market. This can be done by having skills training and helping offenders tofind jobs, accommodation and also by giving social or psychological support to theoffenders and their family members.
Promote awareness and the benefits of the use of non-custodial measures – Generally,
there is a need to promote awareness of the effectiveness of non-custodial measures toprevent reoffending and rehabilitate ex-offenders, as well as awareness of the fact that
non-custodial measures have a lower cost to society (budgetary considerations), incomparison to incarceration.
a) Encourage judicial officers and practitioners to use more non-custodial measuresby raising their awareness about the advantages of non-custodial measuresthrough the use of statistics, training seminars, among others.
b) Keeping the media accountable and encouraging the media to report responsibly,
especially on criminal justice matters, is also fundamental for the acceptance of
non-custodial measures and the incorporation of rehabilitative perspectives into
penalties.
c) Creating public awareness of the importance of rehabilitative perspectives of noncustodial measures is fundamental. This can be done by providing information to
the general public on the advantages of non-custodial sentences. Further,promoting the acceptance of ex-offenders back into the community helps to avoid
reoffending. The public can also be involved in projects supporting the offenders,such as the volunteer probation officer programme in Japan and the Yellow
148

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARGROUP WORKSHOP REPORTS

Ribbon Project in Singapore; such efforts can also contribute to changing themindset of the general public.
Creation of synergy – The creation of synergy between the criminal justice chain andthe criminal justice authorities (police, prosecutors, judges, correctional and probation
officers) would also help to foster attitudinal change in case dispositions.
IV. CONCLUSION
Statistics prove that non-custodial measures are more effective in offender
rehabilitation, community reintegration and preventing recidivism. Non-custodial
measures are more cost-effective in both monetary terms and rehabilitative aspects thancustodial measures. The creation and strengthening of synergy within the criminal justicesector chain will enhance the effectiveness of incorporating rehabilitative aspects inpenalties and case dispositions.

149

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

GROUP 2PROMOTING INTERVENTIONS, TREATMENT AND SUPPORTTAILORED TO OFFENDERS’ INDIVIDUAL NEEDS

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Members
Advisers

Rapporteur: Mr. Justus Kishindo (Malawi)
Co-Rapporteur: Ms. Chotima Suraritthidham (Thailand)
Co-Rapporteur: Ms. TATEOKA Yoshiko (Japan)
Mr. ISHIHARA Junichi(Japan)Ms. Winanti(Indonesia)
Mr. Mohammad Azlin Bin Sadari(Malaysia)
Mr. Braulio Jose Feliz Cabrera(Dominican Republic)
Prof. KITAGAWA Mika
(UNAFEI)
Prof. FURUHASHI Takuya(UNAFEI)
I. INTRODUCTION

Most of the inmates who are incarcerated in prisons have generally committed crimes
several times, and some of them come back to prison after release. As effective
interventions have some effects on reducing recidivism, organizations in the justicesystem need effective tools and interventions to deal with those inmates who are more
likely to reoffend.
This paper focuses on effective risk assessment and intervention in prison and thecommunity, leading to preventing inmates from continuing their criminal behaviour. It
aims to discuss the challenges and good practices in selected countries (i.e. theDominican Republic, Indonesia, Japan, Malawi, Malaysia and Thailand). In addition,
recommendations to deal with the challenges will be stated.
II. CHALLENGES AND GOOD PRACTICES
It is generally agreed that the need to prevent crime and reoffending cannot be
overemphasized. Various countries have put in place measures to assess offenders andthen place them under programmes that will assist them to change into better persons intheir society. It is acknowledged that every offender has to be treated according to theoffender’s own circumstances. As will be noted from the discussion below, this paper has
focused on the treatment plans available in prison and in the community through theprobation service.
A. Justice System
1. Prison Environment
Treatment programmes in prisons are sometimes hampered by lack of appropriate
structures and overcrowding. It is also difficult to carry out a treatment plan in thecommunity in the absence of a functional probation system or with a probation systemthat has overstretched human resources.
The Dominican Republic is an example of how reforms can be implemented inprisons to achieve a reduction in recidivism. This nation is moving from its traditional
150

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARGROUP WORKSHOP REPORTS

prison system to the New Penitentiary Management Model, in which all prisoners shall be
guaranteed their constitutional and human rights, including enough clothing, food,housing and security in prison. This prison reform made it possible for the authorities toprovide all inmates with evaluations to determine the type of treatment they will receive
while serving their sentences and the rehabilitation programmes in prison.
2. Treatment in the Community
Currently, some countries have no community supervision system. During thediscussions, the group found that other countries have good models of probation systems
which can be displayed as good practices. In the particular case of Japan, in addition tohaving probation officers, they also have volunteer probation officers, who collaborate in
the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders into society.
B. Human Resources
Human resources are important factors needed in conducting assessments andinterventions. The accuracy of the results of the assessment is determined by the qualityof the officers carrying out the assessment. Likewise, the effectiveness of treatment isalso determined by the competence of human resources carrying out the treatment.
Current conditions related to human resources in the participants’ countries are:● Insufficient numbers of human resources possessing the qualifications to carry out
assessments and treatment;● Considerable variations of competence in carrying out assessments and treatment.
Several countries (e.g. Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia and Thailand) conduct assessment
trainings for officers who are responsible for assessment. Besides that, a simple
intervention training programme is conducted for prison officers so that they canovercome the simple psychological and emotional problems of prisoners (Dominican
Republic, Indonesia and Japan), whereas more complex interventions or treatments will
be carried out by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists.
C. Assessment
Risk assessment attempts to predict individuals’ likelihood of recidivism by exploringand evaluating their risk factors. Good risk assessment enables the tailoring of treatment
plans and the administration of treatment programmes conforming to an individual’s
needs. This tailored treatment reduces the recidivism rate.
There are, however, some challenges in the tool and its practice. First, in somecountries, it is only available for certain juvenile delinquents. Furthermore, the standardof the risk assessment tool might be questioned. Empirical evidence and updated
knowledge about risk factors can be used to improve the tool by determining significant
factors associated with different types of offences. In addition, some studies indicate that
protective factors reducing the impact of risk behaviours and promoting an alternative
pathway should be considered. These risk and protective factors need to be added in thetool for use with a particular group, and the tool has to be validated and standardized bystatistical methods.

151

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

D. Specific Treatment Programmes
Many offenders face difficulties in their lives associated with their criminal
behaviours such as conflicts in their family, chronic drug use, any type of abuse, andphysical and mental impairment. Some of them need to be rehabilitated with certain typesof treatment programmes in order to overcome such difficulties. Unfortunately, existingtreatment programmes for dealing with these offenders may be ineffective andinsufficient to respond to significant risk factors related to the likelihood of reoffending,particularly serious and violent offending. As several psychological and social factors
mitigate behaviours associated with risk, treatment programmes should be designed toincrease protective factors and decrease risk factors. A treatment programme needs toattend to various needs of the offender, have appropriate duration and be suitable to theoffender’s characteristics such as age and gender. Evaluation and statistical testing for thetreatment programmes may need to be done. Furthermore, cooperating with partners (e.g.
academic institutions) to develop and revise specific treatment programmes is a possible
alternative to achieve effective outputs.
E. Awareness of the Community
The community should be aware that it has an important role to play in helping toprovide effective offender rehabilitation. If the community does not help, theconsequences of repeated offences by the offenders will have a negative effect on thesociety itself.
Governments need to be aware of the importance of community cooperation. They
must have a precise and consistent policy on this issue by considering a form ofprogramme that is intimate and can build good relationships between offenders and thecommunity. The "Yellow Ribbon Project" in Singapore is an influential programme thatbuilds strong and close friendships between the community and offenders. It is already awell-known brand and has been followed by other countries around the world. This has
given aspiration to the offenders that they still have value to society. The same theme oressence needs to be created in all countries.
Awareness of the community is very important in playing a role in the rehabilitationof offenders. This understanding does not come easily. There must be a constant effort
and a high level of commitment. When there is “trust” between the community,
government and the offenders, the percentage of recidivism will decrease.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
From the foregoing discussion, several recommendations have been proposed to assist
in the prevention of recidivism in the various countries. Some of the recommendations
arise out of best practices obtaining in some participating countries in the seminar. The
recommendations are as follows:● Establishing or improving probation systems and, if necessary, a volunteer
probation officer system in which citizens with integrity in the community help
offenders rehabilitate themselves;● Building facilities and introducing tailored programmes for offenders both inprison and in the community in order to enhance the chance of rehabilitation;152

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARGROUP WORKSHOP REPORTS● Improving the quality of assessment, which enables the tailoring of treatment
plans and the provision of treatment programmes conforming to an individual’s
needs;● Educating and training practitioners who conduct assessment and treatment inorder to enhance the chance of reintegration of offenders into society;● Strengthening public cooperation, which plays an important role in helping
offenders return to ordinary life.
IV. CONCLUSION
With a concerted effort, reforms that pay particular attention to the prevention ofrecidivism are very possible. Apart from introducing innovative ideas to prevent crime or,where a crime has been committed, to prevent reoffending, various countries should be
open to learning about systems that are working in other countries and adapting them totheir unique circumstances.

153

GROUP 3
FOSTERING PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING AND MULTISTAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIPS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF
OFFENDERS

Chairperson
Co-Chairperson
Members

Advisers

Rapporteur: Ms. Aminath Rasheed (Maldives)
Co-Rapporteur: Ms. MIYAGAWA Tsubura (Japan)
Mr. Vanahnakone Chanthapanya(Lao PDR)
Mr. MATSUMURA Tadanori(Japan)Mr. Oka Parama Budita Anak Agung(Indonesia)
Ms. Lilian Akinyi Otieno(Kenya)Mr. Soe Naing(Myanmar)Ms. HAYASHI Kyoko(Japan)Prof. MORIKAWA Takeshi(UNAFEI)
Prof. WATANABE Hiroyuki(UNAFEI)
I. INTRODUCTION

Recent research reveals that support by stakeholders is required to tackle crime
prevention and facilitate rehabilitation. At the same time, creating awareness about themagnitude of the matter is not easy. Although statistics show that Japan has a low crimerate, the country faces different challenges in rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.
The topic allocated to group three was “Forming multi-stakeholder partnerships andengaging the community in the social reintegration of offenders.” At the initial stage ofthe group discussion, all the members highlighted the situation of their own countries.
The member countries in this group include: Japan, Laos, Myanmar, Kenya, Indonesia
and Maldives. The specific discussions include the public/private stakeholders and theirinvolvement in the pretrial, post-trial and trial phases. It was identified that the member
countries who have a well-established relationship with stakeholders in this matter are
Japan and Kenya. The main discussions of the group focused the challenges faced
regarding stakeholder involvement, solutions and best practices that can be suggested.
Accordingly, based on the lectures provided and field visits, recommendations areprovided to the pressing issues in all member countries of the group.
Hence, it was agreed that the most prevalent issue in all the countries is the concern
on eliminating public stigmatization and enhancing offender acceptance. In order toovercome the mentioned issues, it is important to foster public understanding and multistakeholder partnerships for acceptance of offenders.
Based on the group discussion, several stages regarding the stigma and discriminationof offenders were identified. Therefore, the group came up with three steps according to
the level of acceptance by the community and proposed the best practices based on thediscussion.

154

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARGROUP WORKSHOP REPORTS

II. ISSUES AND CHALLENGES
In the group discussion, the following three steps were identified to eliminate
prejudice against offenders:A. Public Awareness
The first step is to make the public aware of the need to support offenders and prevent
recidivism.
In Japan, challenges must be overcome in order to demolish stigma anddiscrimination against offenders. Many intervention programmes have been conducted
throughout the country. One of the main programmes is the Brighter Society Movement,
which is a nationwide movement launched by the Ministry of Justice in 1949. The aim of
the movement is to make society brighter and inclusive through the deeper understandingof offenders, their rehabilitation and their need for support from all the people in Japan.
Every year the Ministry of Justice holds festivals that include the distribution of flyers
and booklets. In addition, social media is used to create awareness among the public.
In addition to the movement, the public prosecutors’ offices in Japan launched reentry support in 2009. The support aims to provide social welfare services to suspects, incooperation with social welfare agencies. The public prosecutors’ offices take every
opportunity to promote the importance of support because it is critical to prevent crime.
In Kenya, the involvement of community members in supervision throughCommunity Probation Volunteers promotes the sense that the community is rehabilitating
their own offender for community safety. Also, the Community Service Order (CSO)
supervisor is from the community, and the work done is for the benefit of the community.
Open days are held where successfully rehabilitated offenders tell their stories andencourage community members to help in social reintegration of offenders.
However, despite these challenges explained above, it is assumed that stigma anddiscrimination against offenders are still prevalent. It should be noted that thesechallenges have only involved people who are interested in offender rehabilitation. As aresult, people who are not interested in the issue have not been sufficiently influenced.
B. Acceptance of Offenders into the Community
The second step is to eliminate prejudice against offenders without imprisonment.
There is no doubt that offenders face discrimination in the community. It is
understandable that people seek safer communities; therefore, offenders might beregarded as threats to the community. However, what should be emphasized from theviewpoint of building a safer community is as follows.
First, in many countries, most offenders who return to the community without
imprisonment have committed minor crimes. It is doubtful that these offenders will
become a threat to the community. Second, based on research, offenders often have abroad range of problems including lack of education, diseases, disadvantaged family
backgrounds and so forth. Therefore, exclusion from the community will worsen the
problems and cause reoffending.

155

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

C. Acceptance of Ex-inmates into the Community
The third step is to eliminate prejudice against ex-inmates: offenders who served timein a correctional facility. The ex-inmates released both before and after completion of theterms of their sentences face harsher stigma and discrimination than offenders without
imprisonment. People fear ex-inmates because they are usually regarded as vicious
criminals who are likely to commit crimes again. Thus, ex-inmates have difficulty finding
housing, employment, healthcare services and getting married.
The general public understands that people who have been released from prison needto live without discrimination in society in order to reintegrate and prevent recidivism, butthey refuse to accept offenders as their neighbours, which prevents the offenders fromliving normal lives.
In some countries, the ex-inmates released from prison receive various forms of
support, such as admission to a halfway house, employment support and welfare support.
In addition, some countries provide support through volunteer probation officers.
However, not all of these interventions have been successful.
In response to this problem, for example, in Laos, where Buddhism is widespread,some ex-inmates released from correctional institutions are likely to become monks.
However, it is not practical to adopt ex-inmates released from prisons or correctional
institutions in countries with relatively low interest in religion. It is also possible to makea fresh start by living in a different area, where no one knows about the offender’scriminal record. Even in this case, the Internet is so advanced that, even if offenders move,their criminal records may be revealed, and this does not lead to a fundamental solution.
On the other hand, in some countries, ex-inmates are still facing the difficulties in finding
housing, employment and health care services due to lack of links to the community.
III. BEST PRACTICESIn the discussions, it was proposed that the following best practices can be used inorder to build more inclusive communities which discriminate less against offenders. It is
critical to change the perception of people in the community. Based on the lessons andexperiences obtained from both seminars and group work sessions, it should be noted that
inclusive communities would effectively reduce recidivism. Especially, ex-inmates needtailored bridges linking them between the prison or correctional institutions and society interms of rehabilitation and reintegration after they are released. At the same time, the stateand society should organize programmes or projects with public participation in order toraise awareness for people in society on understanding and providing more chances forthe ex-inmates in terms of reintegration into society and living together.
A. Awareness RaisingFirst, as discussed above, raising the community’s awareness about offender
rehabilitation is critical. For this purpose, public awareness campaigns by criminal justiceagencies and other related agencies would be helpful. The more attractive and catchy
tools will bring more effective results. For example, to publicize how offenders’community work or activities contribute to the community would be persuasive, as in

156

174TH INTERNATIONAL SENIOR SEMINARGROUP WORKSHOP REPORTS

some countries, offenders are obliged to do something for a community as diversion or acondition of probation.
Singapore is a country that has a lower crime rate in comparison to other countries. A
visiting expert from Singapore shared success stories related to the Yellow Ribbon
Project in Singapore. The purpose of the Yellow Ribbon Project is to create awareness ofthe need to give second chances to offenders, secondly, to generate acceptance ofoffenders and their families by the community and, thirdly, to inspire community action
to support the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-inmates. The success of the Yellow
Ribbon Project can be attributed to the media campaign and outreach strategies andstrong community ownership of the Yellow Ribbon brand.
In order to make such projects more attractive, a symbol can be used to create andvisualize the efforts to support reintegration. In general, in order to attract young people
who are not interested in such activities, the government works to raise awareness of the
Yellow Ribbon Project through public relations activities that make full use of SNS,
marathons and concerts that seem to be largely successful. The point of this plan is tocreate a symbol of the activity, involve young people and clarify the goals, and it can be
adopted in each country. In addition, Japan's Movement for a Brighter Society has createda mascot character called "Hogo-Chan", which can be taken up as a best practice.
B. Providing Support Services for Offenders
Second, in the discussion, the group members highlighted information delivered byvisiting lectures who provided information about best practices in their respective
countries. One of the best practices was the success of the Probation Service in Croatia,
which aims to effectively resocialize and reintegrate offenders into the community. The
positive effect brought to the country within a short timeframe is a key factor toacknowledge. Due to the positive outcome of the service, it has been acknowledged at thenational and the international levels. Substitution of prison sentences with community
work orders has had a significant role on public acceptance of offenders into thecommunity. Those participating countries, such as Maldives and Myanmar, that do nothave established mechanisms can adopt the best practices of the Croatia Probation
Service.
In Japan, various public and private partners engage in supporting offenders. Some ofthe examples are volunteer probation officers (VPOs), who are volunteers working under
the close supervision of the probation office and who play crucial roles in offender
rehabilitation in the community. Big Brothers and Sisters (BBS) works with youth andjuvenile offenders. Hello Work works for the promotion of employment support projects
for ex-offenders. The establishment of halfway houses in Japan has played an importantrole in the accommodation and support of offenders who are released back to thecommunity.
In Kenya, some of the following practices help with the acceptance of offenders
within the community. Offenders perform community service orders (CSOs), which is
unpaid public work to pay back to the community for the offences committed, forexample, by doing afforestation for environmental conservation, rehabilitating
community access roads and the like. Offenders with technical skills, like carpentry,
make classroom desks for pupils and repair broken ones including school doors andwindows. Empowering offenders is done, for example, with school fees for education and
157

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

technical skills including capital to start a business to be productive members of thecommunity. This gives hope to the community that offenders will change positively andpromotes acceptance.
C. Appreciation and Persuasion of the Community
Third, rewarding the community in various ways is also effective. In Japan,
employers are paid money by a public agency when they hire an ex-inmate. Thisapproach can also be applied to an offender. For example, instead of building facilities
such as prisons or correctional institutions, it may be effective to improve roads in thesurrounding area. Giving incentives to companies that let offenders work may also be
effective. In order to resolve the high costs, we believe that the costs of prison should be
reduced by community work whenever possible. Although the reward does not help tochange the community’s perception itself, it could enhance the acceptance of offenders.
It is also important to demonstrate the effectiveness of support for offenders to reduce
crimes. It should be noted that most people in a community do not know that excluding
offenders from the community possibly causes reoffending. Therefore, the criminal
justice agencies are obliged to demonstrate that support for offenders will prevent crimes
and contribute to building a safer community. At the same time, how to deliver the
information to people in the community should be considered. Merely publishing a white
paper or distributing a booklet to related agencies is not the best way to reach to people
who are not interested in rehabilitation of offenders. Finding ways to involve those people
is a key which we identified through discussions.
IV. CONCLUSION
Acceptance of an offender back into society by the public is a topic of global interest.
Most developed countries face several stages of offender stigmatization anddiscrimination which tend to result in reoffending. However, it was agreed that in the past
few years, few interventions have been done in their respective countries towards
eliminating offender stigmatization and discrimination within the community. Effective
measures are needed to overcome these issues. Implementation of the best practices
mentioned in this report would minimize stigmatization of offenders and increase public
acceptance in accordance with integrated approaches of all multi-stakeholder partnerships,
including both public and private partners.

158

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES
No. 111APPENDIX

UNAFEISUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALEVALUATION OF INTERVENTIONS FOR REDUCING THE RISKOF REOFFENDING: BASIC CONCEPTS AND RESEARCH
EXAMPLES IN JAPANYAMAMOTO Mana *I. INTRODUCTION
This article reflects on practical considerations in conducting evaluations and ininterpreting the results of evaluations of interventions for reducing the risk of reoffending.
Several studies conducted in Japan are introduced briefly to illustrate these considerations.
In order to prevent reoffending, it is important to demonstrate what practices andtreatment programmes are efficient and effective at preventing crime and rehabilitating
offenders. Efforts have been developed to focus on “interventions” to prevent crime anddelinquency and to examine the effects of interventions based on whether or not therecidivism rate has been reduced. There is a field of study called "programme evaluation"in which knowledge about methods are accumulated. Programme evaluation mainly
includes (1) programme improvement, (2) knowledge generation and (3) accountability as
its purposes (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). Programme improvement has the purposeof identifying problems and points that can be improved by evaluation and taking steps toimprove the effectiveness of the intervention. Knowledge generation has the purpose ofobtaining knowledge that contributes to future interventions in the process of evaluating
the intervention actually performed. Accountability is to publicly explain whether theintervention was implemented effectively, efficiently and within budget.
These demands for interventions in the prefectural and local governments haveintensified recently in Japan. For example, in July 2012, the “Comprehensive Measuresfor Preventing Recidivism” were agreed upon at the Ministerial Conference on Crime
Control, setting numerical targets for 2022. Accordingly, the need for policy evaluation in
the field of crime prevention and criminal justice is growing.

*

Training Institute for Correctional Personnel, Ministry of Justice, Japan. The views and opinions
expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry of Justice or
its officers. Dr. Yamamoto has 15 years’ experience in the treatment of offenders and children in conflictwith the law in correctional institutions. From 2010 to 2013, she was responsible for management andevaluation of the sex offender treatment programme in prisons in Japan. From 2016 to 2020, she was aprofessor at the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders (UNAFEI), where she was in charge of international training courses for criminal justicepersonnel and provided technical assistance to developing countries. On 1 May 2020, she was appointed toher present position. As to her academic background, she has a Ph.D. from Tsukuba University and also is alicensed psychologist. Email: mana_ya14@yahoo.co.jp

161

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

II. NECESSARY STEPS FOR EVALUATION
In order to examine the effectiveness of any intervention, two main questions must be
answered: (1) Is programme effectiveness only due to the intervention, and (2) isprogramme effectiveness due to the intended intervention? Moreover, it is important totake into account the data collection plan before conducting the intervention on theassumption that an evaluation of effectiveness will be performed.
A. Is Programme Effectiveness Only Due to the Intervention? (Ensure That theIntervention’s Effectiveness Was Not Influenced by Bias)
When conducting an evaluation, researchers should focus on the impact of theintervention itself. The effects of intervention can be considered to be factors related tointervention (content and frequency). Other relevant factors include the attributes andenvironment of implementation, the motivation of the target person, psychologicalcharacteristics and state, etc. In other words, even if the person does not reoffend, it isunclear whether this is due to the intervention or other psychological characteristics.
Without understanding why the person does not reoffend, we cannot discuss effectivenessof the intervention itself. Thus, the evaluation process includes the exclusion of factors
other than the intervention in order to clarify that the intervention itself had some effect.
The possibility that known or unknown variables other than the intervention caused theobserved effect is called “bias” (Torgerson & Torgerson, 2008).
I am going to touch on selection bias and dropout bias as forms of bias that threaten
the validity of verification, and I will introduce an evaluation of a sex offender treatment
programme conducted in prisons in Japan as a study where these forms of bias can be
seen. First, selection bias occurs when offenders who are likely to succeed in theintervention are selected over other offenders who are less likely to succeed. Those whoare likely to succeed in the first place may have a naturally lower recidivism rate thanother offenders. As a result, even if the recidivism rate is lower, the effectiveness of theintervention cannot be proved. Dropout bias means that those who drop out of a certain
intervention may have unique problems associated with criminality and social
adaptability, and when those persons are removed from the treatment group, the apparent
effect is that the recidivism rate of the treatment group is lower than that of the control
group. Referring to the report on the effectiveness of the sex offender treatment
programme in Japan (Yamamoto & Mori, 2016), static and dynamic risk scores indicatethat recidivism risk is higher in the control group (poor/no attendance) than in the treatedgroup (see Table 1).

162

APPENDIX
Table 1. Basic Statistics and Differences between the Treated Group and Control Group

Treated Group

Number of times
imprisoned
Age at release
Parole rate
Number of days served
IQ-equivalent
Static risk score
Dynamic risk score
Observation period

Control Group

Number of Average Standard
offendersor %deviation

Number of Average
offendersor %Standard
deviation

1198

1.6

1.5

949

2.2

2.44

1198
1198
1198
1196
1198
1198
1198

38.5
65.0%
917.6
89
3.9
6.5
604.2

11.67
435.53
13.49
1.96
1.88
352.67

949
949
949
865
949
874
949

42
37.8%
1032.5
81.4
4.4
6.9
620.2

12.99
951.93
18.38
2.04
2.11
379.25t or χ2-6.055 **-6.466157.23-3.44510.275-6.007-4.893
-.997

**
**
**
**
**
**

**p < .01

Note: Emphasis added by author

The reason is that those who did not attend the programme due to problematic
behaviour in the facility did not enter the treatment group (selection bias), and those who
were highly problematic dropped out if they participated in the programme (dropout bias).
Since it is not possible to accurately evaluate the programme by simply comparing therecidivism rates of both groups as is, this evaluation was dealt with by using the quasiexperiment method. A method was used in which the treatment group and the control
group were compared in the case where test scores of static risk (covariates) are the same(see Table 2).
Table 2. Results of regression analysis of "all types of recidivism" among all sex offenders inthe sample, using Cox proportional hazard models in which the static risk score and the statusof participation in the programme are independent variables
Covariate
Static risk score
Status of participation in the
programme**p <.01, *p <.05

Model 1
Coefficient (Odds ratio).35**(1.41)-

Model 2
Coefficient (Odds ratio).34**(1.40)-.22*(.80)

Note: It was shown that the instantaneous probability of recidivism for the Treated Group was 0.80 times that for
the Control Group Putting it the other way around, it was demonstrated that the instantaneous probability ofrecidivism for the Control Group was 1.25 times greater(1/.80=1.25) than that for the Treated Group, thereby
demonstrating the effectiveness of the programme.

If these biases are eliminated and more accurate evaluation results are sought,
measures such as planning a randomized controlled trial (RCT) may be considered at thestage of introducing the intervention. Even if it is impossible to introduce an RCT, it isnecessary to collect covariate data in order to perform analysis by using the quasiexperiment method. Also, it is important to address these biases when interpreting theresults.
B. Is Programme Effectiveness Due to the Intended Intervention? (Ensure That theIntervention Was Performed as Intended)
When conducting an evaluation, researchers should determine whether theintervention was conducted as intended. Theoretically, the evaluation of effectiveness canbe explained as the process of clarification of the series of relationships leading to the
reduction of the recidivism rate (outcome) as being directly caused by the intervention(input). It is also important to clarify whether or not the intervention was carried out as
intended. If the expected effect was not obtained from the intervention, it would be

163

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

unclear whether there was a problem with the execution of the intervention or with thetheory itself. For example, by examining this, we may sometimes find that the number ofstaff was insufficient, or the content of the intervention was difficult for the target person
to understand.
As a specific research example, Yamamoto & Mori (2015) measured changes incoping skills before and after drug programmes, determining that the recidivism rate was
reduced by obtaining coping skills (see Table 3 and Table 4, below).
Table 3. Result of T -test change before and after
treatment
Score
Treatment Programme
before28.75 (6.43)
after
31.35 (6.15)
t (df )
-4.74 (108)p.00 ******p <.001
Note: It was shown that the score of the coping skill was
significantly higher after treatment than before.
Table 4. Result of regression analysis using Cox proportional hazard models in which age atthe beginning of treatment, the number of times imprisoned, and the coping-skills score at theend of treatmentβOdds ratio
coefficient
.01
1.01
.38
1.46
-1.12
.33

CovariancesWaldp-value.14.71
age at the beginning of treatment
number of times imprisoned
4.09
.04 *
coping-skills score at the end of treatment
6.32
.01 *
*p <.05
Note: It was demonstrated that the instantaneous probability of recidivism for the group with low copingskills scores was 3.03 times greater (1/.33=3.03) than that for the group with high coping-skills scoresat the end of treatment.

This is a suitable example to demonstrate that by understanding the change ofpsychological factors caused by the programme and confirming that the recidivism rate
had fallen, it was possible to verify that the programme was working as intended. That is,by examining whether changes in psychological factors occur as a result of the treatment
programmes and whether those changes contribute to the reduction of reoffending, it ispossible to identify psychological factors that impact reoffending and to improvetreatment programmes (see Figure 1, below).
Psychological factor changes
through the treatment programme

BeforeInput(Treatment
Programme)

Improvement of psychological factors by thetreatment programme lowers the recidivism rate

Aft

ReleaseIncarceration Period

After release (Follow-up Period)
Outcome(Prevent Reoffending)Figure 1. Logic model of the study conducted by Yamamoto & Mori (2015)

164

APPENDIX

C. Interpreting the Results of Evaluation
I would like to touch upon some important points in interpreting the results ofevaluation. First, although many studies have pointed out the effectiveness of
psychological interventions in recidivism studies, the longer the follow-up period (thefollow-up period after being issued), the worse the result. Therefore, for example, it isimportant to analyse areas for improvement and to make changes for subsequent
treatment instead of concluding that the treatment was ineffective due to reoffending
within X years. As a result, if the period until the next offence has been X + α years, it isnecessary to analyse what has and has not been done while understanding what wasdifferent from the time of the previous crime.
Second, when evaluation is conducted on the basis of recidivism, there are manycases in which a positive result occurred but cannot be seen. It is a difficult task toprevent recidivism, and it may not be possible to detect the effect in the process of
examining each and every intervention. In such cases, it is necessary to establish a systemthat can construct an effective intervention through trial and error. As a result of
evaluation, there is a possibility to argue that the intervention may be determined to beineffective and a wasteful allocation of budgetary resources, but it should be kept in mind
that interventions into the lives of offenders may not always be overnight solutions. Whatis most important is to understand the results of evaluation objectively and use the resultsin the next step.
D. Conducting Research in Correctional Environments
Perennial issues associated with conducting research within a rigid environment, likethe correctional environment, can stymie research projects and the enthusiasm toundertake them. Field, Archer, & Bowman (2019) identified problems and provided
solutions, where possible, to challenges routinely encountered in prison-based research,
including:[1] Overly hasty data collection, where a focus on getting as many responses
as possible in a limited timeframe predominates, is likely to produce poor
quality and incomplete data. It is important to remember that it is not easy,
and often not possible, to correct or complete poor quality data. . . . In addition,
the corrections environment is a fluid one in which inmates are often relocatedor released. In light of these difficulties, precision and patience in datacollection are encouraged, and the need to realistically plan for data collection
by allowing a generous amount of time to collect sound and complete
responses is emphasized. A comprehensive orientation for data collectors andother research staff who may not have experience working in a corrections
environment is indispensable. (Field et al., 2019, p. 9). . . .
[2] Perhaps the biggest issue associated with collecting data from inmates
relates to the accuracy of self-report data. In particular, it can be difficult for
inmates to accurately estimate behavior prior to incarceration. This problem
understandably increases with the length of time a person has been in prison
and as their memories of many aspects of their life in the community fade.
Inmates may also be reluctant to respond accurately to questions relating to
specific topics, such as their offending history or the likelihood they will
165

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

recidivate, as doing so may have serious repercussions for them. Certain
aspects of prison life have also proven difficult to explore due to inmate
reluctance to self-report. (Field et al., 2019, p. 10). . . .
[3] Inmates may also be circumspect because they do not trust researchers.
This may be due to an authoritarian and often dangerous environment. Trustcan be gained when inmates are approached honestly, with respect, and when
the purpose of research is explained to them in meaningful ways. Wheneverresearchers engage with inmates, researchers should make a point of
introducing themselves. (Field et al., 2019, p. 11). . . .
[4] Full disclosure regarding the purpose of the study and the use of data, andthe assurance that they may withdraw from participation at any time and theirdata will be destroyed puts to rest the majority of concerns participants may
have. (Field et al., 2019, p. 11). . . .
[5] Researchers have to build productive relationships with organizations andindividuals working within the corrections environment and to ensure thatprocedures are in place to ensure proper oversight and clear, appropriate
feedback. (Field et al., 2019, p. 12)
According to Field et al., these factors should be considered before the research is
conducted. They concluded by stating that “undertaking research in the corrections
environment is by no means easy, it remains, for those who undertake it, an exceptionallyrewarding experience”. (Field et al., 2019, p. 12-13)
III. CONCLUSION
Although it is a positive change that reference to evaluation has becomecommonplace, it is necessary to avoid neglecting important points as a result of seeking
rapid results. Therefore, it is important to establish a common understanding that
evaluation effectiveness of interventions for offenders involves various difficulties and isa challenging task.

166

APPENDIXREFERENCES
Field, C., Archer, V., & Bowman, J. (2019). Twenty Years in Prison: Reflections on
Conducting Research in Correctional Environments. The Prison Journal, 99(2), 1-15.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation A systematic approach(7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA Sage Publications.
Torgerson, D.J. & Torgerson, C.J. (2008). Designing randomized trials in health,education and the social sciences: An introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Yamamoto, M., & Mori, T. (2015). Yakubutsujihanjyukeisilya no Jiko-kouryokukan to
Saihan tono kanren ni tsuite (Relationship between recidivism and coping skills
among inmates of drug-related offences). Shinri Rinsyogaku Kenkyu (Journal ofJapanese Clinical Psychology), 32 (6), 716-721.
Yamamoto, M., & Mori, T. (2016). Assessing the Effectiveness of the Correctional Sex
Offender Treatment Program. Online Journal of Japanese Clinical Psychology, 3, 113.

167

The 174th International Senior Seminar

Left to Right:
Above
Dr. Matti Joutsen (Thailand Institute of Justice)
4th Row
Ms. Odagiri (Chef), Ms. Yamada (Staff), Mr. Toyoda (Staff), Ms. Matsuda (Staff), Ms. Warotamasikkhadit(Thailand), Ms. Bandeira Lins (Brazil), Ms. Iinuma (Staff), Ms. Okumoto (Staff), Mr. Kondo (Staff), Mr.
Taomoto (Staff), Mr. Hirose (Staff), Mr. Tsukamoto (Staff), Ms. Tateoka (Japan), Mr. Saito (Staff)
3rd Row
Ms. Ide (JICA), Ms. Miyagawa (Japan), Ms. Kiilu (Kenya), Ms. Suraritthidham (Thailand), Mr. Ratnayake(Sri Lanka), Ms. Otieno (Kenya), Ms. Rasheed (Maldives), Ms. Behiri (Cote d’Ivoire), Mr. Kishindo(Malawi), Mr. Sadari (Malaysia), Mr. Ishihara (Japan), Mr. Soe Naing (Myanmar), Ms. Winanti (Indonesia),
Mr. Chanthapanya (Lao PDR), Mr. Matsumura (Japan), Mr. Anak Agung (Indonesia), Mr. Shiraishi (Japan)
2nd Row
Prof. Hosokawa, Ms. Hayashi (Japan), Ms. Inada (Japan), Ms. Abe (Japan), Ms. Yokoyama (Japan), Ms.
Suzuki (Japan), Ms. Shima (Japan), Ms. Mikajima (Japan), Ms. Koyano (Japan), Mr. Sueyoshi (Japan), Mr.
Hirano (Japan), Mr. Toida (Japan), Mr. Asi (Papua New Guinea), Mr. Feliz Cabrera (Dominican Republic),
Prof. Morikawa, Mr. Onda (Staff)
1st Row
Mr. Koseki (Staff), Prof. Furuhashi, Prof. Futagoishi, Prof. Watanabe, Prof. Kitagawa, Mr. Keong(Singapore), Director Seto, Ms. Špero (Croatia), Prof. Watanabe, Prof. Yamamoto, Prof. Otani, Mr. Fujita(Staff), Mr. Schmid (LA)169

APPENDIXRESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES INDEX
Vol. Training Course Name

Course No.

Course Dates

1

Public Participation in Social Defence

25

Sep-Dec 1970

2

Administration of Criminal Justice26

Jan-Mar 1971

3

[Corrections]27

Apr-Jul 1971

[Police, Prosecution and Courts]

28

Sep-Dec 1971

Social Defence Planning

29

Feb-Mar 1972

Treatment of Crime and Delinquency

30

Apr-Jul 1972

United Nations Training Course in Human Rights in the
Administration of Criminal Justicen/a

Aug-Sep 1972

Administration of Criminal Justice31

Sep-Dec 1972

Reform in Criminal Justice32

Feb-Mar 1973

Treatment of Offenders

33

Apr-Jul 1973

7

[Administration of Criminal Justice]34

Sep-Dec 1973

8

Planning and Research for Crime Prevention

35

Feb-Mar 1974

Administration of Criminal Justice36

Apr-Jun 1974

International Evaluation Seminar37

Jul 1974

Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents and Youthful Offenders

38

Sep-Nov 1974

The Roles and Functions of the Police in a Changing Society

39

Feb-Mar 1975

Treatment of Offenders

40

Apr-Jul 1975

n/a

Oct 1975

4
5

6

9
10

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 1-10 (p. 139)
11

Improvement in the Criminal Justice System

41

Sep-Dec 1975

12

Formation of a Sound Sentencing Structure and Policy

42

Feb-Mar 1976

Treatment of Offenders

43

Apr-Jul 1976

13

Exploration of Adequate Measures for Abating and Preventing
Crimes of Violence

44

Sep-Dec 1976

14

Increase of Community Involvement

45

Feb-Mar 1977

Treatment of Juvenile Delinquents and Youthful Offenders

46

Apr-Jul 1977

Speedy and Fair Administration of Criminal Justice47

Sep-Dec 1977

Prevention and Control of Social and Economic Offences48

Feb-Mar 1978

Report of United Nations Human Rights Training Coursen/a

Dec 1977

Treatment of Offenders

49

Apr-Jul 1978

Dispositional Decisions in Criminal Justice Process50

Sep-Dec 1978

Treatment of Dangerous or Habitual Offenders

51

Feb-Mar 1979

Community-Based Corrections

52

Apr-Jul 1979

18

Roles of the Criminal Justice System in Crime Prevention

53

Sep-Dec 1979

19

Arrest and Pre-Trial Detention

54

Feb-Mar 1980

Institutional Treatment of Adult Offenders

55

Apr-Jul 1980

Institutional Treatment of Adult Offenders

55

Apr-Jul 1980

Integrated Approach to Effective and Efficient Administration of
Criminal Justice56

Sep-Nov 1980

15

16
17

20

171

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 1-20 (p. 203)
21

Mar 1981

Crime Prevention and Sound National Development

57

Feb-Mar 1981

Integrated Approach to Effective Juvenile Justice Administration(including Proposed Guidelines for the Formulation of theStandard Minimum Rules for Juvenile Justice Administration: A
draft prepared by UNAFEI on the basis of the reports of thestudy groups at the 58th International Training Course)

58

May-Jul 1981

Contemporary Problems in Securing an Effective, Efficient andFair Administration of Criminal Justice and Their Solutions

59

Feb-Mar 1982

Secruing Rational Exercise of Discretionary Powers at
Adjudication and Pre-adjudication Stages of Criminal Justice
Administration

60

Apr-Jul 1982

23

Improvement of Correctional Programmes for More Effective
Rehabilitation of Offenders

61

Sep-Nov 1982

24

Promotion of Innovations for Effective, Efficient and Fair
Administration of Criminal Justice62

Feb-Mar 1983

Community-Based Corrections

63

Apr-Jul 1983

The Quest for a Better System and Administration of Juvenile
Justice64

Sep-Dec 1983

Documents Produced during the International Meeting ofExperts on the Development of the United Nations Draft
Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile
Justicen/a

Nov 1983

International Cooperation in Criminal Justice Administration

65

Feb-Mar 1984

Promotion of Innovation in the Effective Treatment of Prisoners
in Correctional Institutions

66

Apr-Jul 198427

An Integrated Approach to Drug Problems

67

Sep-Dec 1984

28

Contemporary Asian Problems in the Field of Crime Prevention
and Criminal Justice, and Policy Implications

68

Feb-Mar 1985

Report of the Fifth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committeeof Experts on UNAFEI Work Programmes and Directions

n/a

Mar 1985

Report of the International Workshop on the Role of Youth
Organizations in the Prevention of Crime Among Youthn/a

Jul 1985

Follow-up Team for Ex-Participants of UNAFEI Courses

n/a

Dec 1985

Community-Based Corrections

69

Apr-Jul 1985

29

In Pursuit of Greater Effectiveness and Efficiency in the Juvenile
Justice System and Its Administration70

Sep-Dec 1985

30

Promotion of Innovation in Criminal Justice Administration for
the Prevention of New Criminality

71

Feb-Mar 1986

The Quest for Effective and Efficient Treatment of Offenders in
Correctional Institutions

72

Apr-Jul 1986

Economic Crime: Its Impact on Society and Effective Prevention73

Sep-Nov 1986

Report of the International Seminar on Drug Problems in Asiaand the Pacific Regionn/a

Aug 1986

Advancement of Fair and Humane Treatment of Offenders andVictims in Criminal Justice Administration74

Feb-Mar 1987

Non-institutional Treatment of Offenders: Its Role andImprovement for More Effective Programmes

75

Apr-Jun 1987

22

25

26

31

32

172

APPENDIX

33

Evaluation of UNAFEI's International Courses on Prevention of
Crime and Treatment of Offenders, and Drug Problems in Asia

76

Aug-Sep 1987

Crime Related to Insurance77

Oct-Dec 1987

Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committeeof Experts on UNAFEI Work Programmes and Directionsn/a

Sep 1987

Report of the Workshop on Implementation Modalities for the
Twenty-Three Recommendations Adopted by the International
Seminar on Drug Problems in Asia and the Pacific Regionn/a

Sep 1987

Footprints, Contemporary Achievements and Future
Perspectives in Policies for Correction and Rehabilitation of
Offenders78

Feb-Mar 1988

Search for the Solution of the Momentous and Urgent Issues inContemporary Corrections

79

Apr-Jul 1988

Resolution of the Asia and Pacific Regional Experts Meetingn/a

Mar 1988

Report of the Meeting of Experts on the United Nations Draft
Standard Minimum Rules for Non-Custodial Measures (TheTokyo Rules)n/a

Jul 1988

35

Quest for Effective International Countermeasures to Pressing
Problems of Transnational Criminality

80

Sep-Nov 1988

36

Advancement of the Integration of Criminal Justice
Administration

81

Feb-Mar 1989

Innovative Measures for Effective and Efficient Administrationof Institutional Correctional Treatment of Offenders

82

Apr-Jul 1989

Report of the Expert Group Meeting on Adolescence and Crime
Prevention in the ESCAP Regionn/a

Aug 1989

Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice in the Context ofDevelopment83

Sep-Nov 1989

International Workshop on Victimology and Victim's Rights

n/a

Oct 1989

Policy Perspectives on Contemporary Problems in Crime
Prevention and Criminal Justice Administration

84

Jan-Mar 1990

Wider Use and More Effective Implementation of Non-custodial
Measures for Offenders

85

Apr-Jun 1990

39

Search for Effective and Appropriate Measures to Deal with the
Drug Problem

86

Sep-Dec 1990

40

Development of an Effective International Crime and Justice
Programme

87

Jan-Mar 1991

Institutional Treatment of Offenders in Special Categories

88

Apr-Jul 1991

n/a

n/a

34

37

38

NB: Resource Material Series Index, Nos. 21-40 (p. 333)
41

Effective and Innovative Countermeasures against Economic
Crime

89

Sep-Dec 1991

42

Quest for Solutions of the Pressing Problems of Contemporary
Criminal Justice Administration

90

Jan-Feb 1992

Further Use and Effectual Development of Non-Custodial
Measures for Offenders

91

Apr-Jul 1992

43

Quest for Effective Methods of Organized Crime Control

92

Sep-Nov 1992

44

Policy Perspective for Organized Crime Suppression

93

Feb-Mar 1993

Current Problems in Institutional Treatment and Their Solution

94

Apr-Jul 1993

173

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

45

Effective Countermeasures against Crimes Related to
Urbanization and Industrialization—Urban Crime, Juvenile
Delinquency and Environmental Crime95

Sep-Dec 1993

46

Promotion of International Cooperation in Criminal Justice
Administration

96

Jan-Mar 1994

Effective Treatment of Drug Offenders and Juvenile Delinquents

97

Apr-Jul 1994

47

Economic Crime and Effective Countermeasures against It

98

Sep-Dec 1994

48

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice: Public
Participation and the Prevention of Corruption

99

Jan-Mar 1995

The Institutional Treatment of Offenders: Relationships with
Other Criminal Justice Agencies and Current Problems in
Administration

100

Apr-Jul 1995

49

The Fair and Efficient Administration of Criminal Justice: The
Proper Exercise of Authority and Procedural Justice101

Sep-Dec 1995

50

Crime Prevention through Effective Firearms Regulation

102

Jan-Mar 1996

51

Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through theStrengthening of Non-custodial Measures

103

Apr-Jul 1996

International Cooperation in Criminal Justice Administration

104

Sep-Nov 1996

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice for thePrevention of Corruption by Public Officials

105

Jan-Feb 1997

The Quest for Effective Juvenile Justice Administration

106

Apr-Jul 1997

The Role and Function of Prosecution in Criminal Justice107

Sep-Nov 1997

The Ninth Meeting of the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee ofExperts on UNAFEI Work Programmes and Directionsn/a

Oct 1997

Current Problems in the Combat of Organized Transnational
Crime

108

Jan-Feb 1998

Effective Treatment Measures for Prisoners to Faciliate Their
Reintegration into Society

109

Apr-Jul 1998

Effective Countermeasures against Economic and Computer
Crime

110

Aug-Nov 1998

The Role of Police, Prosecution and the Judiciary in the
Changing Society

111

Jan-Feb 1999

Participation of the Public and Victims for More Fair andEffective Criminal Justice112

Apr-Jul 1999

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice for thePrevention of Corrupt Activities by Public Officials

113

Aug-Nov 1999

International Cooperation to Combat Transnational Organized
Crime—with Special Emphasis on Mutual Legal Assistance andExtradition

114

Jan-Feb 2000

Current Issues in Correctional Treatment and Effective
Countermeasures

115

May-Jun 2000

Effective Methods to Combat Transnational Organized Crime in
Criminal Justice Processes

116

Aug-Nov 2000

Current Situation and Countermeasures against Money
Laundering

117

Jan-Feb 2001

Best Practices in the Institutional and Community-Based
Treatment of Juvenile Offenders

118

May-Jul 2001

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

174

APPENDIX

Current Situation of and Countermeasures against Transnational
Organized Crime

119

Sep-Nov 2001

60

Effective Administration of the Police and the Prosecution in
Criminal Justice120

Jan-Feb 2002

61

Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration
at all Stages of the Criminal Justice Process

121

May-Jul 2002

62

The Effective Administration of Criminal Justice to Tackle
Trafficking Human Beings and Smuggling of Migrants

122

Sep-Oct 2002

63

The Protection of Victims of Crime and the Active Participationof Victims in the Criminal Justice Process Specifically
Considering Restorative Justice Approaches

123

Jan-Feb 2003

64

The Effective Prevention and Enhancement of Treatment for
Drug Abusers in the Criminal Justice Process

124

Apr-Jun 2003

65

Effective Countermeasures against Illicit Drug Trafficking andMoney Laundering125

Sep-Oct 2003

Sixth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

6th
UNCAC

66

Economic Crime in a Globalizing Society—Its Impact on theSound Development of the State

126

Jan-Feb 2004

67

Implementing Effective Measures for the Treatment of
Offenders after Fifty Years of United Nations Standard Setting
in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice127

May-Jun 2004

Measures to Combat Economic Crime, Including Money
Laundering

128

Aug-Oct 2004

Crime Prevention in the 21st Century—Effective Prevention of
Crime Associated with Urbanization Based upon Community
Involvement and Prevention of Youth Crime and Juvenile
Delinquency

129

Jan-Feb 2005

Integrated Strategies to Confront Domestic Violence and Child
Abuse

130

May-Jun 2005

7th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2005

68

69

Seventh Special Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

Nov 2003

70

The Use and Application of the United Nations Declaration of
Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse ofPower—Twenty Years after Its Adoption

131

Aug-Oct 2005

71

Strengthening the Legal Regime for Combating Terrorism

132

Jan-Feb 2006

Eighth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

8th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2005

72

Effective Prevention and Enhancement of Treatment for Sexual
Offenders133

May-Jun 2006

73

Challenges in the Investigation, Prosecution and Trial ofTransnational Organized Crime

134

Aug-Oct 2006

Ninth International Training Course on Corruption Control in
Criminal Justice

9th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2006

74

Promoting Public Safety and Controlling Recidivism Using
Effective Interventions with Offenders: An Examination of Best
Practices

135

Jan-Feb 200775

Effective Measures for the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders andtheir Reintegration into Society

136

May-Jun 2007

175

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES NO. 111

76

Corporate Crime and the Criminal Liability of Corportate
Entities

137

Sep-Oct 2007

Tenth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption

10th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2007

77

Effective Legal and Practical Measures for Combating
Corruption: A Criminal Justice Response

138

Jan-Feb 2008

78

Profiles and Effective Treatment of Serious and Violent Juvenile
Offenders

139

May-Jun 2008

79

The Criminal Justice Response to Cybercrime140

Sep-Oct 2008

Eleventh International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption

11th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2008

The Improvement of the Treatment of Offenders through the
Enhancement of Community-Based Alternatives to Incarceration

141

Jan-Feb 2009

Effective Countermeasures against Overcrowding ofCorrectional Facilities

142

May-Jun 2009

Twelfth International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption

12th
UNCAC

Jul-Aug 2009

Ethics and Codes of Conduct for Judges, Prosecutors and Law
Enforcement Officials

143

Sep-Nov 200981

The Enhancement of Appropriate Measures for Victims of
Crime at Each Stage of the Criminal Justice Process

144

Jan-Feb 201082

Effective Resettlement of Offenders by Strengthening"Community Reintegration Factors"

145

May-Jun 2010

83

Attacking the Proceeds of Crime: Identification, Confiscation,
Recovery and Anti-Money Laundering Measures

146

Aug-Oct 2010

The 13th International Training Course on the Criminal Justice
Response to Corruption

13th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2010

80

84

Community Involvement in Offender Treatment

147

Jan-Feb 201185

Drug Offender Treatment: New Approaches to an Old Problem

148

May-Jun 2011

86

Securing Protection and Cooperation of Witnesses and Whistleblowers

149

Aug-Sep 2011

14th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2011

Effective Legal and Practical Measures against Corruption
87

Trafficking in Persons—Prevention, Prosecution, Victim
Protection and Promotion of International Cooperation

150

Jan-Feb 201288

Evidence-Based Treatment of Offenders

151

May-Jun 201289

Trafficking in Persons—Prevention, Prosecution, Victim
Protection and Promotion of International Cooperation

152

Aug-Sep 2012

15th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2012

Effective Legal and Practical Measures against Corruption
90

Treatment of Female Offenders

153

Jan-Feb 2013

91

Stress Management of Correctional Personnel—Enhancing the
Capacity of Mid-Level Staff

154

May-Jun 201392

Effective Collection and Utilization of Evidence in Criminal
Cases

155

Aug-Oct 2013

Effective Measures to Prevent and Combat Corruption and to
Encourage Cooperation between the Public and Private Sectors

16th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2013

176

APPENDIX

93

Protection for Victims of Crime and Use of Restorative Justice
Programmes

156

Jan-Feb 201494

Assessment and Treatment of Special Needs Offenders

157

May-Jun 201495

Measures for Speedy and Efficient Criminal Trials

158

Aug-Sep 2014

17th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2014

Effective Measures to Prevent and Combat Corruption Focusing
on Identifying, Tracing, Freezing, Seizing, Confiscating andRecovering Proceeds of Corruption
96

Public Participation in Community Corrections

159

Jan-Feb 201597

The State of Cybercrime: Current Issues and Countermeasures

160

May-Jun 201598

Staff Training for Correctional Leadership

161

Aug-Sep 2015

Effective Anti-Corruption Enforcement and Public-Private andInternational Cooperation

18th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2015

99

Multi-Agency Cooperation in Community-Based Treatment of
Offenders

162

Jan-Feb 2016

100

Children as Victims and Witnesses

163

May-Jun 2016101

Effective Measures for Treatment, Rehabilitation and Social
Reintegration of Juvenile Offenders

164

Aug-Sep 2016

Effective Anti-Corruption Enforcement (Investigation andProsecution) in the Area of Procurement

19th
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2016

102

Juvenile Justice and the United Nations Standards and Norms

165

Jan-Feb 2017

103

Criminal Justice Procedures and Practices to Disrupt Criminal
Organizations

166

May-Jun 2017

104

Rehabilitation and Social Reintegration of Organized Crime
Members and Terrorists

167

Aug-Sep 2017

Effective Measures to Investigate the Proceeds of Corruption
Crimes

20th
UNCAC

Nov-Dec 2017

105

Enhancing the Rule of Law in the Field of Crime Prevention andCriminal Justice: Policies and Practices Based on the United
Nations Conventions and Standards and Norms

168

Jan-Feb 2018

106

Criminal Justice Practices against Illicit Drug Trafficking

169

May-Jun 2018

107

Treatment of Illicit Drug Users

170

Aug-Sep 2018

Effective Criminal Justice Practices through International
Cooperation and Engagement of Civil Society for Combating
Corruption

21st
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2018108

Criminal Justice Response to Crimes Motivated by Intolerance
and Discrimination

171

Jan-Feb 2019109

Criminal Justice Responses to Trafficking in Persons andSmuggling of Migrants

172

May-Jun 2019110

Tackling Violence against Women and Children throughOffender Treatment: Prevention of Reoffending

173

Aug-Sep 2019

Detection, Investigation, Prosecution and Adjudication of HighProfile Corruption

22nd
UNCAC

Oct-Nov 2019

Prevention of Reoffending and Fostering Social Inclusion: From
Policy to Good Practice174

Jan-Feb 2020111

177