Record of the 22^nd APCCA

Agenda Item Four 

The Reception And Classification Of Prisoners

As The Key To Rehabilitation

Introduction

It is clear from the discussion of this topic and from the national papers that reception and classification is seen by some nations or jurisdictions as a relatively complex process, (for example, the Canadian national paper includes a diagram which illustrates the fine details of the process in that nation) while in others it is a relatively simple matter of helping and guiding prisoners when they first arrive in the institution. This marked difference of perception may explain why a number of the smaller nations in the region declined to discuss this matter in their national papers. It seems likely that, as with a number of other issues discussed by APCCA over the years, this agenda item is one from which there has been genuine learning from each other. If that is so, this is an ideal topic for APCCA ongoing consideration.

Reception Management

It was recognised by all delegates who contributed to the discussion of this subject that the time at which an offender first arrives in a prison can be bewildering and even dangerous. It is a time when both professionalism and sensitivity are required from staff who are responsible for the induction process. A number of the national papers described this process in detail. As an example, the paper prepared by Hong Kong (China) stated:

The reception of people into custody extends from persons remanded for trial or sentence to people newly convicted and sentenced. The basic procedures are provided for by legislation including admission search, custody of personal property, taking of personal particulars,         medical examination, etc. Additional information is gleaned from past record captured in the Department’s Prisoner Information System (PRIS), court documents, police criminal record and special observation passed on by the relevant law enforcement agency, for example, any escape or suicidal attempt while in their custody.

The national paper from Canada contained a paragraph which is almost identical to the statement from Hong Kong (China) above:

   Upon receiving a custodial sentence, the prisoner is interviewed by a caseworker. Whether the recently sentenced offender is at a local jail, remand or detention facility, the caseworker begins the intake assessment process by orienting the prisoner to the system. First, and foremost, caseworkers start with identifying any critical concerns (e.g. suicide potential, personal security, and physical/mental health). Then, the caseworker collects the offender’s court, police, probation, forensic and jail records. Shortly thereafter, this information is transferred along with the prisoner to an institution which has a specialised area designated as the intake assessment unit.

Other national papers contained similar detailed descriptions of their own procedures with the personal needs of the inmates and the need to maintain appropriate security being seen as equally important. In Japan, for example, medical assessments include: medical history, height and weight, eyesight and hearing ability, blood pressure and hepatic function, and where considered necessary, chest X-ray, urinalysis, and fecal examination. HIV screening is also available on a consensual basis. The papers submitted by Sri Lanka and Thailand both described their own systems but also referred to the pressure of increasing prisoner numbers as a factor which impaired the development of a comprehensive classification system. It is interesting to note that some of the smaller nations, such as Fiji and Macau, did not refer specifically to the classification of prisoners, but it is clear from their references to the needs of remand prisoners and drug offenders that the principle of treating prisoners according to their needs and legal status is fully appreciated.

In the People’s Republic of China, legal procedures require a number of issues to be addressed when an offender is first received into custody. These include:

1.      An examination of the relevant legal documents.

2.      A thorough medical examination,

3.      Examination of the body and (the prisoner’s property),

4.      Psychological examination and preparation of a file, and

5.      Induction education (prison rules and regulations).

These procedures all take place before the classification and placement decisions are made. A similar list of procedures is given by the Republic of Korea, Cambodia, Brunei Darussalam, and India.

The national paper from Indonesia includes the statement, “All offenders that have just entered the institution should be observed over a period of one month, at the most. This is meant to [reveal] everything about them including the reasons for their committing crime.”

Definitions and Aims of Classification

In the paper prepared by the Singapore Prisons Department, classification is defined as  “the regular process of assessing an inmate to determine the level of resources he requires” and it is suggested that this process over the past two years has improved the allocation of limited resources through the systematic identification of the inmates’ rehabilitative and custodial needs. Similar definitions were proposed by other nations, and it is to be noted that most contributors to the discussion of this topic saw classification as an ongoing process rather than a single event which occurred at the beginning of a prison sentence.

In Australia, even though there are some differences between the different jurisdictions, classification is seen as a means to:

(a)   determine security risk;

(b)   determine, based on risk and need, which interventions the individual prisoner requires, and

(c) determine what supports are required in the community upon release.

It is also suggested that when prisoners are matched to appropriate programmes and support services, recidivism can be reduced.

In Malaysia, as with most other nations in the world, the correctional authorities accept that the fundamental objective of corrections is rehabilitation and, to this end, following detailed assessment on admission, the prisoner moves through the three phases of orientation, development and re-entry or pre-release. The time spent at each phase depends on the progress of the individual prisoner and the length of sentence imposed.

The national papers submitted by Vietnam and Tonga both describe classification systems which are appropriate to their level of socio-economic development and provide a basis for the effective management of correctional institutions by separating different types of offenders. Similar procedures are outlined in the paper submitted by Papua New Guinea.

The Assessment of Risk and Need

Most contributions to the discussion of this topic drew a distinction between the assessment of risk and need. Generally, risk assessment was seen as determining the risk of re-offending, including the possibility of escaping, and this leads to the security rating which is assigned to the individual prisoner.  (In many nations this resulted in each prisoner being rated as requiring maximum, medium or minimum security, but in some jurisdictions there was a seven-point scale of security.) In contrast, need assessment focuses on the personal aspects of the offender that need to be addressed if rehabilitation is to be achieved. Thus, physical and mental health issues, drug and alcohol use, and education and training will be considered as possible areas of need. In some jurisdictions such as Australia, a third factor, responsivity, is also assessed and this refers to offender-staff interactions and matching offender learning styles. In New Zealand, the assessment of responsivity also interfaces with other programmes which are aimed at encouraging and motivating the offender to subsequently attend criminogenic programmes which address offending behaviour.  The IOM system in New Zealand overarches the entire corrections system from the preparation of pre-sentence reports for the Judiciary, management of non-custodial and custodial sentences through to conditional release on parole.

Assessment Instruments

Most of the assessments that are made of prisoners, whether newly arrived in prison or under review later in a sentence, are made by experienced correctional officers, or by committees or case conferences, but in some jurisdictions checklists or objective tests are used in order to reduce the influence of subjective judgements and attempt to make the process more scientific. For example, in the Canadian federal system, use is made of a ‘Community Intervention Scale’, recently renamed the ‘Reintegration Potential Scale’. This is applied to all prisoners about to be released and also periodically to those on parole. This scale is thought to provide an efficient method of gathering all relevant information and also to assist parole officers in managing individual cases.

Similarly, in a number of Australian jurisdictions, and in New Zealand, assessment scales or checklists are used as a part of the initial and ongoing classification process, but in all cases where objective assessments are used they are seen as supplementary to the more traditional methods of collecting information and making judgements. The national paper from Thailand referred to “score based classification” and suggested that this may enhance the effectiveness of the classification of prisoners, but it seems that other problems in the correctional system of Thailand have prevented this approach from being fully developed.

Conclusions

All conference participants who contributed to the discussion of this agenda item agreed that the management of the reception and classification process is of central importance as far as the reduction of recidivism is concerned. There were many differences of detail, however, with some nations reporting on very sophisticated systems and others reporting on more direct and less complex arrangements. Notwithstanding these differences, there is full agreement with the proposition that the way prisoners are managed during the reception period and the way that they are classified and offered constructive programmes are of fundamental significance to the question of whether or not they are likely to commit further offences after release from prison.

Back