Discussion Guide for the 22nd Asian and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators, Denpasar, Indonesia, October 2002.
This Discussion Guide has been prepared in order to assist the preparation of background papers for the 22nd Asian and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators which is scheduled to be held in Denpasar, Indonesia, 13 to 18 October 2002. (The abbreviated title of the conference is: 22nd APCCA, Indonesia.)
The APCCA held its first meetings in 1980 and its most recent meeting was in October 2001 in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Most meetings of APCCA are attended by senior correctional officials and observers from 20 or more nations in the region. They represent nearly one half of the total population of the world.
Between 1980 and 2001 the APCCA has developed a number of traditions, one of which is that conference delegates prepare papers on each of the substantive agenda items selected for discussion. The papers are generally used as a basis for the presentations to the conference (even though it is not customary for them to be read in full to the assembled conference), and they have also been used to assist with the training of senior correctional staff in some nations in the region. Some of the national discussion papers are also published on the APCCA Internet web site (www.apcca.org) when specific approval has been given.
At the 16th APCCA in New Zealand in 1996 it was agreed that there would be a slight change in the format of the conference in the following year in order to provide more time for discussion and the exchange of views. Specifically, it was agreed that the first agenda item should be a national report from each delegation covering any matters of current interest in each nation or territory. All delegations would be expected to produce a written report and also to address the conference for up to 10 minutes on their reports. (At the 22nd APCCA in Indonesia, the Conference Chair will be expected to strictly enforce the 10 minute time limit to ensure that all delegations have an equal opportunity to present their views.)
Three other conference agenda items would also be specified and, while all delegations would be asked (if appropriate) to prepare papers on each of these items, they would be asked to formally address the conference on only one of these three items. Thus all delegations will be given two opportunities to make formal presentations to the conference, and all will have adequate time to ask questions and enter into discussions. This format was followed at the 17th APCCA in Malaysia, the 18th APCCA in Canada, the 19th APCCA in China, the 20th APCCA in Sydney and the 21st APCCA in Thailand and has met with the general approval of the delegates.
It is therefore requested that for agenda items 2, 3 and 4, the national discussion papers clearly indicate if these items are regarded as high, medium or low priority.
At all recent conferences the national discussion papers have been copied by the conference hosts and circulated to all delegates in attendance. It has been observed by many delegates that the collection of national papers is so informative and factual that it constitutes an invaluable reference for penal policy in the Asia and Pacific region.
As indicated in previous Discussion Guides the papers themselves need not be very long, the actual length being entirely a matter for individual delegates to decide, but it is common for papers from each nation to include an introductory statement which presents the basic facts about the relevant correctional system. This might include information on the numbers of prisoners, prisons and staff, and also describe any recent changes in general policy or practice. (In order to facilitate the copying of papers for distribution it is suggested that if possible they be prepared on plain paper approximately the same size as this Discussion Guide.)
At the 21st APCCA in Chiang Mai, Thailand, the delegates proposed a large number of possible agenda items for the next conference in Indonesia. The list of suggested items was initially considered by an ad hoc Agenda Committee and later considered by the full assembly of conference delegates. The full conference approved the four agenda items which are outlined in the following pages.
Following a successful specialist workshop on the Classification of Prisoners and Prisons at the 20th APCCA in Sydney and two specialist workshops on Indigenous Offenders and Correctional Through-care at the 21st APCCA in Chiang Mai it was also decided that provision should be made for optional workshops at the 22nd APCCA in Indonesia. The topics proposed for these workshops, which will be held simultaneously, are:
1. Correctional Standards, Service Quality, Benchmarking and the Risk of Reoffending, and
2. Community Participation and Engagement in Corrections.
Participation in these workshops will be optional and national papers are not expected to cover these topics. It has been proposed that the first of these specialist workshops be presented by New Zealand and the second by a panel comprising representatives of Hong Kong (China), Singapore and Canada.
This document is no more than a guide to some of the issues that may be discussed in relation to each agenda item. Delegates should feel free to put their own interpretations on the items. Also, it is recognised that not all of the issues will be equally relevant to all of the nations participating in the conference.
1. National Report on Contemporary Issues in Corrections
As indicated above, this agenda item was selected in order to provide an opportunity for conference delegates to report on and discuss any matters of current interest in correctional policy and practice in their own nations or territories. Therefore, the contents of reports are entirely at the discretion of each delegation. However, it may be useful if reports included an outline of trends in crime and in prison populations, and (if relevant) trends in community-based correctional populations.
In providing these basic facts it may be helpful if explanations are given of the correctional statistics which are supplied separately. For example, in federated nations it would be helpful to know if offenders held in provincial or local jails, including police facilities, are counted in the total numbers of prisoners that are reported for each nation. (It is specifically requested that in federated nations an effort be made to provide a general national picture of the use of custody or detention so that valid comparisons can be made with mono-jurisdictional nations.) Similarly, it would be of interest to know if persons accused of committing offences and who are held in custody (perhaps known as remandees, detainees or on-trials) are counted as prisoners. The same question arises in relation to persons serving periodic or weekend detention orders.
Furthermore, relevant details of the structure or composition of prison populations would be of interest, particularly if any changes or trends have been noticed. For example, are there any changes in the proportions of the total prison populations who are identified as female, indigenous, foreigners, etc.? Is the average age of prisoners increasing? Are there more prisoners serving sentences for particular types of crimes, such as drug offences? And, are there proportionately more or fewer prisoners who have special needs, such as the need for medical isolation because of infectious disease, or need to be protected from other prisoners.
It would also be appropriate if national reports prepared for this agenda item referred to any new or proposed legislation which has had, or may have in the future, an impact on the size of prison populations. Legislation abolishing the granting of remissions to prisoners for good conduct and industry, for example, has in some jurisdictions had a major impact on the total number of prisoners, but this has not always been the case. It would be of interest to know if legislation of this type was seen as reflecting the attitudes of the general public who may be demanding that offenders must be seen to be severely punished. Any other legislative changes or proposals, such as proposals for treaties facilitating the international transfer of prisoners or the introduction of private prisons, whether or not they have an impact on the total number of prisoners, might also be outlined in the national reports.
National reports may also provide details of any new treatment or training programmes that have recently been introduced or are being planned. Of particular interest here would be programmes which aim to correct specific types of offending behaviour, such as drug and alcohol treatment programmes, sex offender programmes, anger management counseling, and new approaches to dealing with intoxicated and other irresponsible driving of motor vehicles. If any programmes of this type have been evaluated, either internally or by external consultants, the results of such evaluations would be of considerable interest.
Any issues relating to staffing may also be considered appropriate for mention in national reports. For example, is it difficult to attract and retain suitable people to work in prisons (and community corrections), what type of pre-service training is provided, and is in-service training also arranged? The negotiation of staff pay scales and working conditions and the influence of correctional staff unions, particularly if there have been recent changes, may be of particular interest to delegates at the conference.
It is suggested that national reports should make reference to current problems and challenges, as well as to positive or successful initiatives, and therefore it would be appropriate for reports to mention matters which are causing concern, such as overcrowding, escapes, deaths in custody, etc.. For each of the problem areas it may also be possible for information to be provided on approaches or initiatives that have been, or will be, introduced to resolve these problems, in either the short or long term.
Finally, while it is suggested that national reports should primarily focus on the general picture of correctional administration in each nation or territory, reference may also be made to some of the specific issues which are scheduled for consideration under later agenda items. In other words, a subject need not be excluded from the national report simply because it is discussed in more detail under a separate agenda item.
2. Outsourcing of Correctional Services
This agenda item is intended to provide an opportunity for discussion of the various types of arrangements that may be made by correctional organisations for some aspects of the services they require to be supplied by other public or private agencies. There are many different services which are possible targets for outsourcing, and these vary between such relatively small matters as the supply of foreign language interpreters, to very large matters, such as the management of complete correctional institutions.
Even though some jurisdictions have profound objections to the private management of prisons, as became apparent at the 17th APCCA in Kuala Lumpur in 1997 where private sector involvement in corrections was discussed, it is probably the case that some degree of outsourcing of correctional services occurs in all jurisdictions. The words used to describe the process, however, may not always be the same. In fact, it is hard to imagine a correctional organisation that is so completely self-sufficient that it does not need to use the skills or services of other agencies to meet some of its needs.
The motivation for outsourcing may be:
l to maintain high standards, for example in relation to health care,
l to improve efficiency, perhaps in the management of prison workshops,
l to reduce costs, where it would be uneconomical for the correctional organisation itself to supply a service which was only rarely required, or
l to provide more options in education, work and treatment programmes for prisoners.
(It is also possible in some circumstances that outsourcing might be pursued in order to ensure the integrity of staff where dishonesty is suspected and police officers, or private detectives, may be temporarily stationed in prisons under cover in order to locate corruption or other unlawful activity.)
Possibly the simplest form of outsourcing is found in very small institutions where it is more convenient and cost effective for meals to be provided for prisoners or detainees by a local shop or restaurant rather than arranging for cooking to be done inside the institution. Similarly, with the transport and escort of prisoners between institutions, and between institutions and the courts, even in large jurisdictions it has been found to be less expensive for this work to be done under contract by a security firm rather than by police or prison officers.
A major area of outsourcing is the provision of health services in correctional institutions. For example, it is understood that in the Peoples’ Republic of China the regional or provincial health authorities, which provide the full range of medical and hospital services to the general community, are also responsible for the provision of these services to persons in prison in the same geographical area. This arrangement is intended to ensure that prisoners receive the same level of health care as do law-abiding citizens in the community.
In some other nations, it is common for prison doctors, nurses and other medical staff to be employed directly by the corrections authority, but the establishment of Corrections Health Boards, which supervise all prison issues, are becoming fairly common in some jurisdictions. A similar, but perhaps radical development, is for all medical and pharmaceutical services required in prisons to be contracted out to private organisations. This has happened in recent years in some jurisdictions in Australia.
A similar development has occurred in some nations with the contracting out of education and training services to local colleges as an alternative to the prison itself employing teachers and trade instructors. This type of arrangement has the advantage of bringing new ideas into the prison, but it is essential that the performance of the visiting teachers is monitored to ensure that appropriate standards are being maintained. It is also necessary that security requirements are met, especially in maximum security institutions.
Another major area of outsourcing in corrections is that of prison workshops. In different nations many different types of arrangements have been made, including signing contracts for private businesses to employ prison labour, either inside or outside the prison, or simply to purchase prison-made products. Possibly the nations with the widest experience of the integration of private business with prison industries is Singapore. The conference will no doubt be very interested to learn of developments in that nation.
The ultimate level of outsourcing of correctional services is for the management of complete correctional institutions to be undertaken by private companies under contract with the relevant government. As indicated above, this is a very controversial subject, with many nations being strongly opposed to the establishment of private prisons. This agenda item is intended to cover a much wider concept than private prisons, however, and it is therefore hoped that all participating nations at the conference will have something to contribute to the discussion of this topic regardless of their views on prison privatisation.
3. Recruitment, Training and Career Development of Correctional Staff
Over the past 21 years the APCCA has discussed many aspects of staffing in corrections. Most recently, at the 17th APCCA in 1997, Prison Staff: Recruitment, Training and Career Development was discussed, and before that, at the 14th APCCA in 1994, Staffing and Management Systems in Corrections was discussed. Also, related topics, such as The Changing Work Role of Prison Staff and The Status of Prison Officers were considered at even earlier conferences. Such continued interest in this and related topics is clear evidence that staffing is a subject of continuing concern to correctional administrators in the Asia and Pacific region.
The recruitment, training and career development of correctional staff are three separate topics, even though they are closely related. The first, recruitment, is itself quite complex as it incorporates the notion of ensuring that sufficient numbers of people seek employment as correctional workers, the establishing of appropriate standards of education, intelligence, physical fitness, etc,. and, most importantly, it includes the process of selecting those who are to be offered training and future employment. In many nations in the past, the most important consideration for working in corrections was physical size and strength. Big, strong men, with a basic ability to read and write, and to count, were considered as suitable for working in prisons. Around the world, the situation is quite different today with women having equal opportunity in correctional work as men, and education, intelligence and appropriate attitudes now being regarded as much more important than physical strength.
It would be of interest if conference participants indicated the current requirements in their jurisdictions for the selection of staff into corrections. For example:
(It is recognised that in some jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong (China), there are different selection criteria for basic recruits and those seeking selection as trainee officers.)
It would also be of interest to know if difficulties are experienced in attracting sufficient numbers of appropriately qualified applicants, and, if there are difficulties, what steps are being taken to overcome them? Relevant to this question is the relative pay scales available to correctional officers, compared with police, fire and ambulance officers, and others in service industries.
Training, for the purpose of this discussion, will refer only to the initial training offered to correctional workers, with in-service or pre-promotional training being regarded as a part of career development. As with recruitment, it would be of interest if participants indicated the duration and basic contents of initial training, with a distinction being drawn between formal, or classroom, training, and on-the-job training. It would also be relevant to know whether or not there is any probationary period before a correctional officer is made permanent.
The third element in this agenda item, career development, is intended to cover all activities which aim to ensure job satisfaction and professionalism of correctional workers over a life-time of work. Central to the concept of career development is the encouragement of further training and education together with the possibility of promotion to more responsible positions. An important aspect of career development is the availability of advice or guidance to junior staff members in relation to further education and training courses that are available. In larger correctional organisations which have their own academies, or colleges, to provide initial and in-service training, the academy staff may include some senior officers who are designated as responsible for the provision of this form of guidance to staff throughout their careers.
For those corrections organisations which are responsible for community-based, as well as custodial, corrections, community corrections officers, who are sometimes known as probation, parole or community service officers generally have completed university degrees before they start work. They may be seen as, or see themselves as, better educated than those who work in institutions, but this perception may be overcome in some jurisdictions by the creation of integrated correctional services. An integrated correctional service is one in which the majority of staff are sufficiently well trained and motivated to work in any aspect of corrections. Thus, an individual correctional worker may spend some time working in an institution, then work in a community corrections position, such as probation or parole, before working in a semi custodial area, such as periodic detention. He or she is therefore able to have a much more varied and interesting career than would otherwise be the case.
A number of universities are now offering degree courses in correctional administration or correctional management, some of which are linked to courses offered by corrective services academies, which may be taken by either distance education or direct attendance. These courses, if they attract sufficient numbers, may be the starting point for the establishment of truly professional correctional organisations which comprise, at least at the senior levels, only persons who have gained tertiary qualifications which are directly relevant to their work. They should also provide a basis for the habit of life-long learning which is essential in a field which is constantly changing as is corrections.
4. The Reception and Classification of Prisoners as the Key to Rehabilitation
This agenda item is intended to provide an opportunity for delegates to exchange views about those aspects of the treatment of prisoners which are considered to be particularly relevant to the question of whether or not they are ultimately rehabilitated. The original proposal for this agenda item, which is an amalgamation of a number of related suggestions, contained the term ‘entry management’. This term has been replaced by the more familiar term ‘reception’, but it is accepted that the original wording, even though unfamiliar, has the advantage of emphasising that the reception of prisoners into custody, especially first-time prisoners, is a process requiring management if it is to be the start of a constructive and positive experience for the offenders involved.
Throughout its history, the APCCA has on many occasions discussed the concept of rehabilitation and how it may be facilitated, but, apart from the specialist workshop at the 20th APCCA in 2000, this is the first time that classification has been considered in relation to rehabilitation. On that occasion, classification was seen particularly as a mechanism for the efficient management of correctional institutions, but for the current discussion the primary focus will be on the relationship between classification and rehabilitation.
When offenders are first admitted to prison following sentencing by the courts, a modern and progressive correctional system will immediately start the reception process, which may continue for several days, or even weeks if it includes classification and allocation to institutions and programmes. The first matters to be addressed must be the physical and mental health of the newly received prisoner. It may be the case that the prisoner is suffering from a physical injury requiring treatment or an infectious disease requiring isolation, or it may be the case that he or she is depressed to the point of being suicidal or may be suffering from some other mental illness. Drug addiction problems may also be revealed at this stage. If any of these conditions is found, the appropriate treatment must be applied in the interests of the individual as well, in the case of infectious diseases, the interests of other prisoners who may be at risk.
If the first stage of the reception process reveals that the prisoner is not suffering from any physical or mental health problems, the next issue to be addressed is the provision of information. The newly received prisoner will need to be informed as soon as possible of his or her rights and obligations as a prisoner, as well as what he or she may expect to happen as the process continues. Also at this stage, it may be necessary for immediate welfare needs to be addressed, such as informing his or her family of the outcome of the trial or, in some cases, making arrangements for wages to be collected, personal property to be stored, etc..
Depending on the length of the sentence imposed, the classification process which follows reception, will be more or less intensive. Longer sentence prisoners will generally be subjected to more intensive classification than those who receive short sentences, unless there are particular reasons to change this practice. Classification itself will require assessments to be made, generally through interviews, by a number of different specialists.
The determination of the security status of the individual is of crucial importance to the integrity of the total correctional system, and generally takes into account the offender’s criminal record, the nature of the current offence, prior history of escapes or disruptive behaviour, personal circumstances, and attitudes as indicated in interviews. This determination is most likely to be made by a committee, which includes experienced security experts, and it may be varied as the sentence continues. The security classification of the individual prisoner is used to assign the prisoner to a specific institution, or section of an institution. As far as possible, as a matter of principal, prisoners are not to be held in security conditions which are more rigorous than indicated by their individual security ratings.
Apart from the assessment of security, the major part of the classification process comprises a detailed collection of information, from interviews, but also possibly including psychological and aptitude testing, to establish the education, training and treatment needs of the individual. An important issue to be resolved at this stage is the allocation of the individual prisoner to a work assignment which will not only encourage good work habits, but also may provide a basis for employment after release.
This information collection may lead to the preparation of a sentence management plan which is used to guide all aspects of the prisoner’s life for the duration of the sentence, and perhaps even longer (as would be the case, for example, if the continuation of a treatment programme was a condition of release on parole). As with the security rating, the sentence management plan should also be subject to review and modification according to the progress made by the prisoner.
The description above is of a reception and classification process which may be more ambitious than is to be found in many jurisdictions in the Asia and Pacific region, but there may well be some jurisdictions in which procedures are even more advanced. It is suggested that national papers on the agenda item indicate the reality of these processes in each participating nation, together with an indication of any plans that have been made to improve or modify the system. An indication of the specialist staff required to operate these systems would also be of interest.
[1] APCCA Coordinator, 25 Kidston Crescent, Curtin, A.C.T. 2605, Australia. Fax: +61 2 6232 4463