Record of the 22nd APCCA
Agenda Item Three
Prison Staff Recruitment, Training and Career Development
Introduction
This topic was previously discussed at the Seventeenth Asian and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators in Kuala Lumpur in 1997. This thematic review of the proceedings of the Twenty Second APCCA draws on many of the same themes as the 1997 report and also considers whether there have been significant changes in the intervening period. Formal presentations by China, Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong (China) and Australia were followed by a lively discussion on a range of themes, primarily addressing the question of quality recruitment and assessment procedures for new staff.
General Concerns
There continues to be great concern across the whole region with ensuring both the recruitment and the retention of high quality staff. All the reports agreed that it is essential that there are adequate training programmes for staff and that it will be easier to retain high quality staff if there are properly structured opportunities for career development and promotion. As the report from Indonesia put it: “A recruitment procedure that meets the requirements and needs of the organisation is needed. Besides, a conducive environment needs also to be maintained for the staff to work effectively. This can be done by providing a development programme for officers with promising prospects.” In the words of the report by China, “prisoners are a reflection of the quality of prison staff.”
Modern recruitment and training procedures must also take account of three increasing demands placed on correctional staff. First, correctional staff are no longer merely “turn-keys” but are required to perform a greater role in the management and treatment of offenders. Secondly, as shown in the discussion of the National Reports on Contemporary Issues, all jurisdictions are placing a greater premium on prison standards and the rights of prisoners. The impacts of such changes on correctional staff are evident even in the five years since this topic was last canvassed at APCCA. In China, for example, the Prisons Law contains a range of provisions designed to protect the legal rights and interests of both prisoners and correctional staff. Another example of support structure being put in place to help staff cope with their changing role is Singapore’s development of a staff ethics structure. This structure emphasizes the importance of maintaining purposeful interaction with inmates without being subjected to manipulation as well as enforcing discipline without affronting human dignity. A third facet of change in many parts of the region is the increasing importance of information technology and other technological advances, which may require some level of computing or other technological expertise. The paper from Fiji drew particular attention to this, noting the introduction of “new infrastructure and designs with high security gadgets.”
General Recruitment Criteria : Physical and Psychological
Correctional systems across the region have generally moved away from ‘militaristic’ approach that dominated thinking 25 years ago. At that time, physical fitness and strength were often regarded as the primary considerations for effective recruitment. This is no longer the case. Certainly, all jurisdictions insist on certain threshold requirements relating to physical fitness, health and adequate hearing and vision. However, the conference papers and discussions focused more on the personal qualities and skills of potential staff than on their physical attributes and fitness levels. The Indonesian report, for example, stressed the importance of a “tight selection process regarding physical condition, academic skills and emotional maturity as well as health.”
Most reports voiced some concerns about how to develop objective criteria to apply to the recruitment of staff and the delegate from Canada observed that it is “ironic that our ability to assess prisoners has outstripped our ability to assess potential staff.” Numerous jurisdictions now make use of psychological assessments and psychometric tests. Some also apply cognitive skills tests. However, as pointed out by the delegations from New Zealand and Singapore, these techniques are far from fool-proof. Thailand stated that for this reason, it imposes a six-month probationary period on new recruits and, if they fail to meet the Department’s requirements, they “must be sacked.” Similar views were expressed by China.
Educational Qualifications and Other Skills
Traditionally, it has been difficult to attract people with high educational qualifications into employment in corrections. However, the general impression raised by this conference is that the situation has probably improved in much of the region since 1995. This would appear to be due, in large part, to improved public perceptions of the job. For example, China reported that the “social status of correctional officers has improved, which has enabled this profession to become more attractive and competitive.” As a result, more middle-school and college graduates have applied for positions and “much more fresh energy” has been added to the corrections profession.
Hong Kong (China) looks for four key characteristics in recruits: good educational qualifications; a stable personality; a mature and sensible outlook on life; and an ability to accept discipline. This last point is considered “very important, as … officers are not suited to impose discipline unless they themselves can accept the same standard.”
The precise educational qualifications that are expected of staff vary across the region and by level of entry into the profession. Although most jurisdictions noted an increase in the educational attainment of new recruits, it was also noted that it is still easier to attract people with university degrees into employment as probation/parole officers rather than as prison staff.
Recruitment of Women, Indigenous People and Ethnic Minorities
In recent years, many jurisdictions have made a deliberate attempt to recruit a more diverse workforce. This is most evident in the case of women. In China, around 25% of correctional staff are now female and some jurisdictions (including Australia and Canada) have made particular efforts to target female recruits. However, as Cambodia noted, it is often difficult to attract and retain female staff.
In Australia, Canada and New Zealand, Indigenous people are grossly over-represented in the prison population and, perhaps for this reason, it has proved very difficult to recruit Indigenous staff. New Zealand and Canada appear to have been rather more successful in recruiting Indigenous staff than Australia, but all three jurisdictions continue to face problems. The importance of recruiting Indigenous staff has been heightened by the changing role of prison officers and the expectation that they will play a key role in programme delivery. Clearly, it is important for such programmes to be culturally appropriate and to maximise the input from Indigenous staff.
There was little discussion in the reports about the recruitment of other minority groups (including people with disabilities) but Canada has a programme of ‘positive discrimination,’ screening into its recruitment pool those people from minority groups who have achieved the highest aptitude scores within their particular group.
Attracting the Right People: Comparisons with Other Occupations and Professions
Two related themes emerged very clearly during the presentations and discussions with respect to the recruitment of the ‘right’ people: the perceived status of correctional staff and remuneration compared with other occupations and professions. As noted under Agenda Item One and in the report of the Workshop on “Community Participation and Engagement,” Hong Kong (China) and Singapore have made considerable advances in elevating the public status of correctional staff. However, in many parts of the region (including Fiji, India, Mongolia, Philippines, Sri Lanka and Tonga), public perceptions apparently remain a major hindrance to the recruitment of quality staff.
Many of the papers made reference to the fact that correctional staff are paid less than people in the other disciplined forces such as the police and the armed forces. In Australia, salaries for correctional staff recruits are below the levels that apply to police, firemen and ambulance officers. In Brunei, a proposal has been forwarded to the government to improve the salary package (though rising unemployment rates have, in any event, assisted the recruitment process). In Malaysia, correctional staff are paid less than police officers of equivalent standing, but the same as firemen. In Tonga, correctional staff were put on the same salary level as police and firemen in July 2002 and it is hoped that this will help to redress public perceptions that being a prison officer is a “third class occupation, open to anyone with no more than a minimum education, average intelligence and good health.”
It comes as no surprise to find that those jurisdictions that treat prison staff in the same way as comparable professions and offer attractive remuneration packages have much less difficulty in the recruitment and retention of quality staff. In China, for example, ‘prison police’ are generally remunerated in the same way as other types of police. In Hong Kong (China), the pay levels for correctional staff are similar to those of other disciplined forces but are “normally better than those of the civilian public servants and employees working in the private sector with similar academic qualifications.”
The Problem of ‘Contamination’
The changing nature of the correctional officer’s job brings a further difficulty. New recruits, who have been trained in accordance with contemporary mission statements, ethical positions and modern correctional philosophies, may well find themselves working in a prison environment that is dominated by an older and very different set of beliefs held by more ‘experienced’ and more senior officers. In developing this point, the New Zealand delegation referred to a “race against time to prevent the residual contaminating the new staff.” Australia, Canada and Singapore expressed similar concerns. As a result, several jurisdictions are developing training programmes for existing staff to attempt to unify the culture amongst prison staff.
These debates are reminiscent of a theme that was discussed at the 1997 conference; namely that training and skills development programmes should be developed for all staff and not limited to new recruits and those who are destined for promotion. Often it is long-serving base-grade officers who effectively set the tone of an institution and it is therefore essential that they are kept up-to-date with contemporary approaches. To ensure adequate training opportunities for all staff, Singapore has put in place a Coaching Framework that allows individual officers to participate in the charting of their training routemap through discussions with their coach.
Training and Development Programmes
It is impossible, within this short report, to summarise the range of training and development programmes that are available in the region and details should be sought in the reports themselves. The nature, extent and complexity of such programmes are very varied. For example, the paper from Tonga expressed concern that there is no funding for any formal training other than the initial 6 - 8 months training for new recruits. Cambodia, Mongolia and Vietnam seem to face similar constraints.
However, in most parts of the region, the last five years have witnessed some significant developments. Two, in particular, stand out. First, there appears to have been an expansion of specialist training academies within correctional departments. Such academies have long been a feature in countries such as Japan and Korea. Japan, for example, has a Training Institute with eight branches, each with its own professors. Korea has a similarly structured approach. Hong Kong (China) also has a well-established Staff Training Institute which provides residential and non-residential programmes to over 300 staff per month and which seeks to ensure that all levels of staff are involved. In several other jurisdictions, training has traditionally been more ad hoc. However, this is changing. For example, in New South Wales (Australia), there is now a Corrective Services Academy which aims to provide more sustained and systematic training and staff development programmes.
The second development over recent years has been increased links between universities and correctional services. It is increasingly recognised that some tertiary institutions may be able to offer relevant and cost-effective programmes, especially in the areas of criminology, penology and correctional management. There are variations in the extent to which this occurs but Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand are certainly exploring and developing these linkages. Hong Kong (China) has strong links with all the local tertiary institutions, as do many parts of Australia.
International Collaboration
One of the objectives of APCCA is to foster regional understanding and collaboration. It is therefore pleasing to note that the conference revealed many examples of this and, in particular, that staff exchange programmes and visits have become far more frequent over the past five years. The following are just some examples of these developments. Korea, Malaysia and Thailand (amongst others) sponsor suitably qualified staff to study at overseas universities. The Crime Research Centre at the University of Western Australia, through its links with APCCA, has arranged academic/vocational training for a Korean staff member and has also attracted postgraduate students from Indonesia and Thailand. Following the Nineteenth APCCA in Shanghai (China) in 1999, New South Wales (Australia) has developed arrangements for staff training and development in Shanghai. Finally, Canada and Hong Kong (China) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding, have very regular staff and professional exchanges and have also embarked on some joint research and evaluation exercises.
Conclusion
There are many difficult issues confronting corrections departments across the region in terms of the recruitment, training and retention of high quality staff. These issues generally revolve around the difficulty of balancing limited budgets with the increasing demands for professionalism and the increasing expectations being placed on prison staff. However, there are several positive signs. They include signs of an improvement in the public standing of correctional staff in some jurisdictions; an improvement in relative remuneration levels; some productive partnerships between correctional departments and universities; and beneficial regional exchange programmes. These are developments to which APCCA has already made a valuable contribution and upon which it can build in future years.