REPORT OF THE SEMINAR ON PROMOTING COMMUNITY-BASEDTREATMENT IN THE ASEAN REGION
From 29 September to 1 October 2015, the Department of Probation, Ministry of Justice,
Thailand (DOP), the Thailand Institute of Justice (TIJ), the Rehabilitation Bureau, Ministryof Justice, Japan, and the United Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of
Crime and the Treatment of Offenders (UNAFEI) hosted the Seminar on Promoting
Community-based Treatment in the ASEAN Region (hereinafter, the “Seminar”). This reportsummarizes the proceedings, country presentations and general discussion held throughout
the Seminar.
Proceedings
1. DIRECTOR YAMASHITA TERUTOSHI of UNAFEI opened the Seminar by delivering awelcome address, emphasizing the importance of community support in the
rehabilitation and social re-integration of offenders, as well as the importance of
involving practitioners from all sectors of the criminal justice system and the private
sector in the development of effective measures to reduce reoffending.
2.

MRS YOSSAWAN BORIBOONTHANA, Director of Research and Development Instituteof the DOP, delivered opening remarks, stressing the positive steps taken pursuant to the
ASEAN plus Three Roadmap to promote the sharing of information and experiences oncommunity-based treatment in the ASEAN region.

3.

MS JANE HOLLOWAY, Programme Specialist, Crime and Development of TIJ, delivered
opening remarks stressing the importance of developing effective community-based
treatment for the rehabilitation and reintegration of non-violent offenders, particularly forvulnerable groups such as women and children, and expressing her hope that the Seminar
will facilitate the sharing of best practices and promote the implementation of
non-custodial measures and capacity-building in ASEAN countries.

4.

MR SHOJI IMAFUKU, Director of the Supervision Division of the Rehabilitation Bureau,
Ministry of Justice, Japan, delivered his opening remarks stressing Japan’s high-levelcommitment to facilitating the re-integration of offenders into society and theiracceptance by the community, and encouraging the Seminar participants to embrace theopportunity to exchange information and practices for the improvement ofcommunity-based treatment.

5.

Keynote speeches were delivered by: (1) MS SONYA SPENCER, Executive Director of theJohn Howard Society of Toronto, on “Canadian Community Corrections: A Perspectivefrom the Front Line”; (2) MR YAMADA KENJI, Volunteer Probation Officer andSecretary General of the National Organization for Employment of Offenders, on “TheSpirit of Offenders Rehabilitation (Community-based Treatment in Japan)”.

6.

Country presentations were made by the delegations from Cambodia, Indonesia, Japan,
Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam.

7.

The Volunteer Probation Officers’ Presentations were made by: (1) MRS NONGNUCHSORNRACH, a Volunteer Probation Officer from Thailand; (2) MRS SENG SOO HONG
MONICA, a Volunteer Probation Officer from Singapore; (3) MR REY PAGLINAWAN
MODILLAS, a Volunteer Probation Assistant in the Philippines; (4) MR YAMADA
1

HIROSHI, a Volunteer Probation Officer in Japan.
8.

At the conclusion of the seminar, participating countries discussed (1) the needs andinterest for future training courses and (2) the ASEAN Plus Three Probation Association.

Keynote Speeches
9. MS SPENCER shared examples of public-private partnership for community corrections in
Canada. She introduced the background of the Canadian community corrections system,
and reported that the corrections system faces the challenge of the increasingly complex
needs of offenders. Challenges begin at the time of incarceration, and there is a need tofocus on matters such as health care and reintegration efforts. In part this could be
addressed through the rebalancing of budgets that heavily favour the institutional setting,thus decreasing the capacity within the community corrections, both public and private
efforts. In 2009, Correctional Services Canada (CSC) developed a community
corrections strategy linking reintegration strategies with community partnerships. The
Federal Community Corrections Strategy: Vision to 2020 lays down strategic principles
that will guide programme development, interventions and practice. Despite CSC’s 89.3
percent success rate for offenders granted early release, challenges facing community
corrections include (1) community resistance to halfway houses and community grouphomes; (2) providing for the needs of offenders upon release, such as housing andemployment assistance; and (3) developing collaborative relationships with othergovernmental and community agencies. One practice in Canada is the use of supervised
satellite apartments, which provide independent living accommodations for offenders
and offer supervision services at offsite locations. Another practice is “Klink Coffee”,
created by St. Leonard’s Society of Toronto, which utilizes the social enterprise model to
employ released offenders with challenging employment prospects in the gourmet coffee
roasting business. MS SPENCER introduced the activities of the John Howard Society ofToronto, which provides front line services to released offenders on the local level. These
services help released offenders become contributing members of society. Front-line
services include (1) pre-employment training and assistance; (2) post-incarceration
housing support services; (3) residential support facilities; (4) the Partner Assault
Response Programme, which diverts suspects charged with domestic assault forcounselling and treatment; (5) employment at social enterprises and (6) pre-release
institutional services. Further, the Crossroads Day Reporting Centre provides a
one-stop-shop model for local monitoring and supervision, addiction and othercounselling services, assistance (housing, employment and education), crisis
management and community referrals. Finally, the Reintegration Centre is modelled after
the United Way’s community-hub concept, bringing together a variety of service
providers that collaboratively work to address the needs of released offenders. For the
future of community corrections, it is important to focus on the individual. Community
corrections is vital to, among others, protecting the public and reducing reoffending,providing support for victims of crime, and building and maintaining public confidence
in the criminal justice system.
10. MR YAMADA KENJI explained the purpose of the offender rehabilitation system in Japan,
which includes providing support for the reintegration of offenders, protecting society
and enhancing the welfare of the public. Japan enjoys strong public support for offender
rehabilitation, as evidenced by the significant involvement of the public: in Japanroughly 48,000 volunteer probation officers (VPOs), 4,500 members of the Big Brothers
and Sisters Association, 170,000 members of the Women’s Association of Rehabilitation
2

Aid and 14,500 cooperative employers are actively involved in community corrections.
Nevertheless, the recent decline in the number of VPOs shows that the system still faces
challenges. MR YAMADA reported that the majority of the Japanese public believe crimeand delinquency result from social environment rather than the personal characteristicsof the offender. Nevertheless, community resistance to the construction of new halfway
houses is still a problem. The success of community corrections depends on the way thatsociety views crime and offenders. Historically, community-based treatment has its
origins in the actions of concerned citizens in late 19th century in response to theunderstanding that rehabilitation during incarceration has no value if the offender is notsupported upon his or her return to the community. During the post-war era, the Japanesenational government assumed responsibility for offender rehabilitation through theenactment of legislation, recognizing the importance of protecting society and preventing
crime and recidivism through cooperation between the government and society. The
mission of VPOs as set forth in the Volunteer Probation Officers Act is to provide
assistance to offenders and delinquents in the spirit of volunteer social services. To carryout this mission, MR YAMADA shared lessons he learned from other Japanese VPOs,
stating that to encourage change in others, it is necessary to let go of hate and to treat
others as you would like to be treated. He concluded by urging that crime must be
understood as a social problem, that the offender must be viewed separately from theoffence, and that society must adopt the belief that people have the capacity to change
and to recover.
Country Presentations
11. CAMBODIA. Alternative sentencing was introduced through legislation in 2007; however,such measures have not been used in practice, and offender rehabilitation is not aprincipal focus. Challenges include (1) the lack of judicial awareness and training forcommunity-based treatment and (2) the lack of clear guidelines on the use of alternative
sentencing. In January 2014, the Inter-Ministerial Working Group on Alternative
Sentencing issued guidance on the non-custodial measures of judicial supervision,
suspended sentence with probation and community service. The Working Group has been
unable to issue further guidance, for example, on juvenile justice, due to a lack offunding, technical knowledge and cooperation with the judiciary. Regarding public
participation, the Cambodian Law on Prisons requires relevant agencies to engage local
communities to improve offenders’ skills, enhance vocational training, and provide
employment opportunities; however, implementation is lacking. Cambodia’s prisonscurrently house 17,173 inmates, and this figure is increasing due to the prevalence ofdrug trafficking and related offences. There are 2,507 prison officers nationwide, but theratio of inmates to prison officers continues to increase. Prison overcrowding is also achallenge because only 31.3 percent of inmates are convicted. The remaining inmates are
pre-trial detainees or are still involved in the judicial process. Cambodia does not have
halfway houses, but community engagement is facilitated through non-profit
organizations, and religious groups; computer, cultural and vocational training areprovided in the institutional setting. Cambodia faces a unique challenge in that, unlike
developed countries, the cost of incarceration is less than the cost of community
supervision. Additional challenges include insufficient understanding of the causes
underlying criminal conduct, human resources, training, lack of experience incommunity corrections, technical support, poor inter-agency cooperation, and so on.
12. INDONESIA. Probation and parole were established by law in 1964, and the concept ofpunishment in Indonesia includes providing support to the offender and ensuring3

protection of society. Probation offices are the frontline units for the delivery ofcommunity-based treatment, and they have four main duties: preparing social inquiry
reports, accompanying juveniles in court, providing correctional treatment and providing
supervision. Treatment programmes begin in prison, and they follow a progressive track
through release. These programmes are continued in the community through aftercare
programmes. Indonesia does not have a volunteer probation officer programme;
community-based measures include assimilation, conditional release, furlough, andconditional furlough. One practical measure is a programme which helps released
offenders make a high-quality soybean product, which is sold in the community for the
benefit of the offenders. Indonesia’s prisons house 107,507 convicted prisoners and52,145 detainees. Meanwhile, Indonesia has 38,000 parolees and 52,059 probationers
who are overseen by a staff of 1,338 probation and parole officers. Challenges facing
community-based treatment in Indonesia include service delivery in a country with adispersed population, the limited number of probation and parole officers, financial
constraints, and the quantity and quality of human resources.
13. JAPAN. Community-based treatment is administered by professional probation officers
serving in Japan’s 50 probation offices. The activities of the probation officers aresupported by Japan’s 47,872 VPOs who facilitate the smooth reintegration of offenders
into the community. Japanese law requires that VPOs possess sound moral character,have time to fulfil their duties, be financially stable, and be healthy and active. VPOs arecommissioned by the Minister of Justice as part-time government officials. They receive
no salary but are reimbursed for expenses incurred. They serve two-year terms and may
be reappointed until the age of 76; the average VPO age is 64.7 years old. VPOs are
assigned to probation districts, which are subdivisions of the jurisdiction of eachprobation office. VPOs’ duties include probationary and parole supervision; coordinating
the social circumstances of each offender by meeting with the offender’s family,
coordinating family counselling, and coordinating living and employment assistance; andsupporting crime prevention activities by promoting public awareness of the importanceof community-based treatment. VPOs accomplish these tasks by liaising with relevant
governmental agencies and drawing on community resources. A hierarchy of VPOs
associations has been established from the local to the national level, and theseassociations facilitate VPO training and networking. Challenges facing the VPO system
in Japan include recruitment and reinforcing the VPOs’ working environment. In
response, the Ministry of Justice has established offenders rehabilitation support centres
to provide public meeting space for VPOs and offenders. Additionally, the compensation
system for damages and injuries to VPOs has been expanded to include property damage
and injuries to their family members.
14. LAOS. In Laos, the law provides the imposition of fines, confiscation of property
connected to the offence, deprivation of election rights, house arrest, suspended
execution of sentence, conditional release and court referrals for alcohol and drug
treatment programmes administered by the state. For example, property crimes causing
damages less than 65 USD are not considered offences, and children under the age of 18
are generally not processed through the traditional criminal justice system. Re-education
without deprivation of liberty is a measure under which the offender continues his or her
employment subject to garnishment of 5 to 20 percent of the offender’s wages by thestate. In Laos, there were more than 6,000 prisoners in 2014, and the number increases
slightly each year. Drug-related offences account for 60 percent of incarcerated offenders.
Rehabilitation is provided for by law; prisoners are encouraged to reform their lives and4are provided opportunities to learn marketable skills. However, rehabilitation andreintegration cannot succeed solely through treatment within the prison walls.
Reintegration efforts must involve the community and must focus on enhancing familyties and securing employment opportunities. Upon release, offenders’ families, relatives
and village authorities are invited to receive the offenders and to follow up on theirrehabilitation. Prosecutors make recommendations to the offenders on how to live
successful lives in the community, and the offenders promise not to commit crime in the
future. Although the law permits suspension of execution of sentence, Laos does nothave formal probation or parole. The Ministry of Justice is considering how to take thenecessary legislative steps to introduce such systems.
15. MALAYSIA. Malaysia’s current parole system for adult offenders is based on theAustralian system, and it was implemented in 2008. Parole is administered by the
Ministry of Home Affairs. Parole boards investigate and make parole decisions, suspendor revoke parole orders, and impose conditions of parole. Community-based treatment
programmes include vocational training, employment assistance, community service
activities, sporting events, and so on. Malaysia has recently involved the prisons in theidentification of parole-eligible inmates who show exemplary behaviour during
incarceration. A parole officer stationed at the prison conducts an evaluation, including arisk assessment, and submits reports to the Parole Department Headquarters before theapplication is referred to the Parole Board. Over the past seven years, the parole successrate is 97.87 percent, and the success of the programme is expected to encourage inmate
rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and result in more offenders serving their sentences
outside of the prison walls. The Department of Social Welfare provides social services tochildren and many other groups of persons that require social assistance. Children in
conflict with the law typically commit property crimes, drug crimes, or crimes against
persons. The age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old, and children under the age of
18 are diverted from the traditional criminal justice system. Treatment, formal education,and vocational training take place in approved schools for a period of three years;
however, residents may be released early. Other measures include supervised probationand community service orders. Supervision is conducted by 700 probation officers; 5,153
supervision cases were handled in 2014. Members of Child Welfare Committees areappointed by the Minister of Women, Family and Community Development, and they
provide support to probation officers, similar to the role of volunteer probation officers.
16. MYANMAR. No formal probation system has been established in Myanmar, althoughjuveniles under 18 are placed on probationary supervision. However, the 2010 law
establishing Myanmar’s judicial system recognizes the aim of “reforming moral
character in meting out punishment to offenders”. Under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
certain offenders may be released without serving the imposed sentence, depending on
factors such as age, sex, or prior criminal history. Juvenile courts may direct probation
officers to investigate and report on the background and conduct of a juvenile in conflictwith the law, and juveniles may be referred for supervision for a period up to three years.
During this period, the court may entrust the child to the custody of the juvenile’s parents.
In addition to addressing the needs of juveniles, special treatment is provided by the
Ministry of Health for drug users under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Law of 1993. The Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement provides housing,
employment and aftercare assistance. Although Myanmar has no formal
community-based treatment system, the social workers from the Department of Social
Welfare (DSW) provide assistance to vulnerable groups facing social problems, focusing5

on children and youth, women, the elderly, drug users, and the disabled; however, suchassistance is not specifically designed to address the unique needs of offenders. The
DSW also administers social welfare institutions (including rehabilitation centres andtraining schools), manages volunteer social workers, and collaborates with otherdepartments to coordinate the provision of social welfare services. Some social workers
are assigned as probation officers to provide a broad range of institution-based andcommunity-based services to juveniles. Because of the broad scope of social welfare
services, and the fact that they concern all members of Myanmar’s society, community
involvement is extremely important.
17. PHILIPPINES. The Parole and Probation Administration is responsible for providing
individualized treatment to probationers, parolees and pardonees with supervision andmainstreaming them back into society. Community-based treatment involves three main
activities: investigation, supervision and rehabilitation. Volunteerism through theVolunteer Probation Aide Program is one of the key components in the rehabilitation ofprobationers and parolees. The VPA Program was authorized by law in 1976, and 13,056
Volunteer Probation Assistants (VPAs) are currently appointed. VPAs supervise amaximum of five clients, work closely with probation officers to develop treatment plans,and submit monthly reports. Moreover, VPAs serve as counsellors, client sponsors,
mediators, and speakers on offender rehabilitation. Other activities in which VPAs
participate include VPA training, client skills- and job-training courses, VPA associations,fundraising, award ceremonies, conferences on rehabilitation, and community service
and outreach projects. In the Philippines, probation is an alternative to imprisonment thatis only available for first time offenders and once during the offender’s lifetime.
Probation was originally implemented for adults, but the programme has been extended
to minors who committed drug-related offences. Other non-custodial measures include
extinguishment of criminal liability upon successful completion of probationary
supervision, as well as bail and personal recognizance to mitigate pre-trial detention.
18. SINGAPORE. Probation in Singapore is a court-ordered rehabilitation programme thatoffers the courts an alternative sentencing option for offenders who may otherwise beincarcerated. The Ministry of Social and Family Development administers probation.
Volunteers were introduced to probation under the Community Probation Service in 1971,
and the programme was renamed the Volunteer Probation Officer Scheme in 2012 tostress the volunteer nature of the programme. Singapore has 250 VPOs who engage inactivities such as befriending, conducting curfew checks (Operation Night Watch),supporting offenders’ completion of community service (ComServ), conducting school
visits to support probationers (School Liaison Network), and facilitation/organization ofgroup programmes. The probation system introduced community service in 1996 for the
purposes of punishment, reparation and rehabilitation. The success of community service
has been facilitated by building mutually beneficial and creative partnerships between
community-service agencies and Probation Service. The Singapore Prison Service
implements community corrections strategies. Singapore is facing an increase in drug
offences, thus increasing the need for rehabilitation and reintegration of drug offenders.
Community corrections is crucial to preventing relapse upon release, and applies
techniques such as determining appropriate interventions to support inmates’ andsupervisees’ reintegration needs, ensure adherence to supervision conditions andinterfacing with the community. The Community Corrections Command (COMC) has astaff of 200 officers and manages 1,500 supervisees in the community. The casemanagement process has four steps: (1) assess and plan, (2) intervention, (3) review and6

evaluate, and (4) terminate; the case management team focuses on motivating theoffender, enhancing the offenders’ skills, and creating opportunities for offenders. In
2012, the recidivism rate for released offenders was 27.6 percent; in 2014, 96.7 percent
of penal offenders and 88.2 percent of drug offenders successfully completed community
corrections programmes in Singapore.
19. THAILAND. The present VPO system was introduced in 1986 and provides support tojuvenile and adult offenders. They are appointed by the Ministry of Justice, and theirduties include submitting reports to probation officers on probationers’ performance,
assisting in post-sentence investigations, supervising and monitoring probationers andparolees, assisting in drug rehabilitation, providing vocational training to probationers,
and promoting public awareness of probation services. Eligible VPO candidates must be
at least 25 years old, must be sufficiently educated, must not have served a prison
sentence, and must complete a three-day training course. Although VPOs are not paid,
they receive transportation allowances for home visits, receive free health care atgovernment hospitals, and can be nominated for royal decorations. Thailand had 15,381
VPOs in 2014, which increased to 21,575 by August 2015. Challenges include increasing
the active participation of VPOs in service delivery, and improving training for newly
recruited VPOs. Another challenge is developing VPOs’ abilities to conduct supervisionand rehabilitation, such as improving report-writing skills and increasing VPO
self-confidence. A strategy to enhance the abilities of VPOs is the use of a team model,
under which one probation officer and three VPOs collaborate and share information andexperiences. In the future, Thailand seeks to expand the duties of VPOs, such as byproviding victim support, improving collaboration with local organizations and othervolunteers, and recruiting younger VPOs.
20. VIETNAM. Although Vietnam has not yet adopted a parole system, community-based
treatment has been implemented as a measure to support probation. Under Vietnameselaw, probation can be granted for a period of 1 to 5 years. Rehabilitation without
detention is another measure imposed on offenders who have stable work and residences.
The period of supervision ranges from 6 months to 3 years, and 5 to 20 percent of theoffender’s wages are garnished by the state: the garnished wages will be refunded uponsuccessful completion of the programme. Probation and rehabilitation without detention
are both administered by the commune in which the offender resides. Local resources are
utilized to provide probationers with job assistance and other guidance. Offenders are
required to submit self-review reports on their observance of the law to their supervisors
quarterly. Vietnam stresses the importance of community involvement in rehabilitation.
Measures include regular contact with family members of the offender at the time of andduring incarceration, cooperation with social organizations to teach offenders to live
healthy lives, providing education and vocational training, and the establishment of theFund for Reintegration to reward offenders for good conduct and support stable
reintegration into society. The government encourages all governmental agencies andsocial organizations to engage in reintegration efforts, which has helped to provide
employment opportunities to offenders. Vietnam is seeking to establish a parole system,
which is hoped to be implemented by 2020.
Volunteer Probation Officers’ Workshop
21. MRS SORNRACH from Thailand presented on the activities of VPOs in Thailand and theuse of VPO coordination centres. Coordination centres provide many activities, such as
drug treatment programmes, religious activities in support of rehabilitation, vocational7

training, and livestock rearing. Extraordinarily, MRS SORNRACH self-funded theconstruction of her local centre, the Phra Phuttabat VPO Coordination Centre, anddonated the land upon which it was built. To support the centre’s construction, activities
and maintenance, she engaged local associations such as the Rotary Club for assistance.
With the support of the community, MRS SORNRACH supervises an average of 75
offender visits per month with a maximum of 108 offenders, offering free lunches tothose who attend.
22. MRS SENG from Singapore presented on a community service project at a hospital for theelderly in Singapore. The goal of the project is to promote intergenerational bonding andunderstanding by befriending the elderly, serving them meals, and encouraging them toparticipate in social activities. The programme is intended to develop leadership skills,
compassion, and reflective-thinking and communication skills. Probationers also develop
a sense of responsibility and commitment. The programme allows VPOs to observe theprobationers as they work and develop their skills.
23. MR MODILLAS from the Philippines reported that he finds his work with offenders to bechallenging, but has a feeling of self-fulfilment when his clients are successfully
rehabilitated. The main activities of VPAs include offender supervision, conducting
post-sentence investigations, attending and conducting regular VPA meetings andconducting public awareness campaigns on crime prevention and related issues. Other
activities include facilitating restorative justice through mediation and family/group
counselling and conducting volunteer activities outside of the VPA framework, such as
housing and disaster relief projects.
24. MR YAMADA HIROSHI presented a case study of an attempted murder case in which theoffender was a 71 year old woman who stabbed her unemployed son in the neck with akitchen knife. The son survived, and the mother was granted a suspended sentence. MR
YAMADA discovered that poverty and an unhealthy living environment were the causes of
the crime, as the offender’s home was filled with trash. He arranged for trash removal by
the city government; he also coordinated new living arrangements for the offenderthrough local social welfare services. MR YAMADA also described the role of Offenders
Rehabilitation Support Centers and VPOs activities, such as social contribution activities(cleaning public spaces), cooperation with other organizations, and crime prevention
activities.
General Discussion
25. During the discussion session, two agenda items were addressed: (1) the needs andinterest for future training courses, and (2) the ASEAN Plus Three Probation Association.
DOP summarized the outcomes of the conferences in Thailand and in the Philippines,
and then reviewed the goals of the Roadmap for ASEAN Plus Three on Probation andNon-custodial Measures Cooperation. The Roadmap established three key areas ofaction: knowledge sharing, capacity-building and developing international cooperation
on treatment of offenders. The final Phase IV goal for each key area, to be achieved by
2019, is as follows: for knowledge sharing, the establishment of the ASEAN Plus Three
Probation Association; for capacity-building, the establishment of the ASEAN Plus
Three Probation Training Institute; for international cooperation, the proposal ofstandards or principles on probation and non-custodial measures for adoption.
26. DOP and UNAFEI proposed a schedule for upcoming training courses and seminars that8are planned in line with the Roadmap. It was announced that Indonesia will host the next
ASEAN Plus Three Conference on Probation and Non-custodial Measures in June 2016.
It was also announced that the Thailand Ministry of Justice is sponsoring a three-day
seminar focusing on the treatment of drug offenders, which is tentatively scheduled to
begin on 1 March 2016; another training course is planned for July 2016 in Thailand. For
the next three years, UNAFEI will hold a three-day seminar in September, if the budget
for those seminars is approved. It was also announced that Japan will host the third
World Congress on Probation in 2017, and UNAFEI may host a seminar in conjunction
therewith.

27. DOP introduced plans for holding the Training Course on Development of Effective
Community-based Treatment which will be held in the framework of JICA third country
training. The course will focus on capacity-building and will target the “CLMV”
countries (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam). In year one, the course will address
main concepts and principles. The target group is senior and mid-level officials, such as
judges, prosecutors, correctional officers, and policy makers. By the end of the course,
participants should be able to design a system that suits their respective countries. Yeartwo will address strategies for implementing community-based treatment. The target
group is mid-level officials in order to create a roadmap to implement community-based
treatment. Year three will focus on providing in-depth knowledge about treatment
programmes and necessary skills for offender supervision and rehabilitation. The target
group is mid-level officials. Participants will be able to design treatment programmes andaddress human resources. The course methodology includes lectures, workshop anddiscussion, presentations and study visits. The proposed training period is two weeks.
Discussion Regarding Future Training Courses
28. DOP stated that the seminars planned in line with the Roadmap were proposed to last
three days; the training courses were proposed to last two weeks. The delegates from
Cambodia and the Philippines expressed concern over the plan to hold two week courses,
noting the difficulty for high-level officials to be away from work for extended periods.
It was suggested that training modules should be planned carefully, and course length
should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Support was also expressed for limiting thetraining course to one week. The Philippines proposed a compromise involving a
one-week training course focusing on theory followed by one week spent in the homecountry focused on practical application of the theory, and resulting in the submission ofa report.
29. Several other ideas for future training courses were shared during the discussion. A
delegate from Thailand noted that language is a barrier and that consideration should begiven to providing interpretation services for other languages. A delegate from Indonesia
identified the need for training that addresses high-risk offenders, drug offenders,
corruption and terrorism, as well as an anger-management for correctional officers.
UNAFEI noted that information sharing could be improved by collecting anddisseminating laws, regulations and handbooks related to community-based treatment.
30. UNAFEI asked the non-host-country delegations for comments on whether future
training courses should focus on developing probation systems or treatment programmes.
While there was no consensus, some countries stated that both are important. However,
the responses suggested that countries without established probation systems would be
9interested in legislative and other guidance to develop probation systems. Meanwhile,countries with established systems seemed to express greater interest in treatment
programmes.
31. DOP asked the delegations for comments on which government officials should be thetarget group for upcoming seminars. A delegate from Cambodia noted that in countries
without a community-based treatment system in place, target groups are difficult to
identify due to the lack of any responsible agency.

ASEAN Plus Three Probation Association
32. The Philippines stated that the goal of the knowledge-sharing prong of the Roadmap, asagreed during the Senior Officials’ meeting at the Second ASEAN Plus Three
Conference held in Thailand, is to establish an ASEAN Probation Association, notingthat a sample constitution and bylaws had been circulated for discussion purposes.
Acknowledging that some countries have already expressed political concerns regarding
the establishment of an association, it was suggested by the Philippines that the purposeof having an association would be to ensure unified interpretation and implementationof the Roadmap. If established, the association would strengthen relationships between
ASEAN countries, develop members’ competence and increase efficiency in theimplementation of community corrections. It was also suggested that membership in theassociation could be open to countries, organizations and individuals. Finally, the role of
the association would be to set an agreed direction and to keep moving forward withefforts to enhance community-based treatment.
33. UNAFEI stated that the ASEAN plus Three forum on probation and non-custodial
measures is an informal framework; because China has never joined the forum, it makes
it difficult for the “Plus Three” countries (China, Japan and Korea) to join theframework. It was noted that any association must be officially recognized by ASEAN
Secretariat and that the Senior Officials’ Meeting next year will decide whether the
association moves forward or not.

1 OCTOBER 2015
TOKYO, JAPAN10