Record of the 22nd APCCA
Specialist Workshops
Introduction
The workshop on ‘Community Participation and Engagement in Corrections’ began with presentations by Canada, Hong Kong (China) and Singapore (each of around 10 minutes’ duration). The leaders of those three delegations (Mr Pieter de Vink, Mr Benny Ng and Mr Chua Chin Kiat) then formed a panel for the purposes of discussion. A wide range of issues was canvassed and there was a lively discussion involving representatives from many jurisdictions. Mr Adi Sujatno, the Director General of Corrections for Indonesia, in some closing remarks, summarised the dilemma faced in most parts of the region; namely, that people tend to view criminals as the ‘garbage’ of society and the public enemy.’
However, all three papers revealed a range of strategies that appear to have been successful in addressing such perceptions, enhancing the profile of correctional services, garnering public support and encouraging community involvement. Although several common strategies and themes emerged, it was also recognised that the geographical and societal contexts vary widely across the region. This means that each jurisdiction will need to address the problem within its own particular framework. Mr Chua Chin Kiat of Singapore drew particular attention to this issue, noting the wide geographical variations between countries such as Canada and Singapore; and the different political and societal structures between jurisdictions of a more comparable physical size such as Singapore and Hong Kong.
Canada
Mr Pieter de Vink stated that, in Canada, it is a legislative expectation that the community will participate in the field of corrections. This expectation is fuelled by the fact that over 40% of offenders who are under the jurisdiction of Correctional Services of Canada (CSC) are under some form of community supervision. It has proved to be easier to engage the public with respect to some categories of offenders than others, with sex offenders being the most difficult group. However, the Canadian public appears generally to be prepared to give offenders another chance and to accept the principles behind parole and the community supervision of offenders upon release. This attitude appears to reflect the systematic and wide ranging efforts that have been taken in recent years in improving community ‘outreach’ (ie explaining the role of the CSC in enhancing public safety) and community ‘engagement’ (ie community participation). The initiatives have included:
Ø Citizens’ Advisory Committees for each parole region, which are included in decisions about the release of some prisoners, including placement and half-way houses.
Ø Victims’ Advisory Committees and working groups.
Ø Corporate messages, media relations exercises and pilot projects designed to evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies and programmes.
Ø Harm reduction workshops (to explain controversial policies such as the distribution of syringes and condoms in prisons).
Ø Greater community and citizen support in preparing offenders for release (for example the ‘Lifeline’ programme for long term prisoners.
Ø Aboriginal ‘healing lodges’ to permit more culturally relevant approaches to issues such as family violence.
Ø Greater use of volunteers (currently over 10,000 volunteers are engaged in CSC activities)
Canada therefore appears to have derived considerable benefits in terms of public perceptions and involvement in corrections in recent years. There are areas of tension, including the attitudes of some correctional staff who may feel threatened by the changes. However, the overall benefits include enhanced partnerships, increasing support for offenders upon release, enhanced community responsibility and spirit and an expansion of the supervisory capabilities of the CSC.
Hong Kong (China)
The Hong Kong (China) delegation stressed that success in corrections can be measured by successful reintegration and that this, in turn, depends on public involvement and acceptance.
There have been many interesting initiatives which have been carefully co-ordinated and evaluated. They include the following:
Ø A TV series called “The Road Back”, made by an independent film producer, which traced the real life stories of offenders re-entering society. The first series (May 2000) attracted a very large audience (23%) and a second series has just started.
Ø Posters and other media campaigns
Ø A Committee on Community Support for Rehabilitated Offenders (including numerous representatives of professional and community organizations) has been established to assist in promoting public education.
Ø Development of more partnerships with local communities, including the District Fight Crime Committees
Ø The appointment of ‘rehabilitation ambassadors’ such as pop singers
Ø Public exhibitions around Hong Kong
Ø Fashion shows and other examples of the skills of inmates
Ø The introduction of family-based programmes, including an Inmate/Parent Centre (commencing in 1999).
Ø Formal public recognition of the importance of volunteers, especially during the International Year of the Volunteer (2001).
As with Canada, these initiatives appear to have been successful. An independent market research team was contracted to undertake an evaluation. They discovered that 65% of the Hong Kong (China) population had seen some of the publicity and that 80% of these considered it was worthwhile expenditure.
Singapore
Singapore’s vision statement, developed in 1999, sees prison staff as “Captains of Lives” but it also stresses the importance of family and community support and access to employment as elements of successful reintegration. Singapore believes that, as far as possible, community organizations and volunteers should be involved in incare as well as aftercare. As with Canada and Hong Kong (China), Singapore has developed some important initiatives. One of which is the establishment of the CARE (Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Offenders) Network. The CARE Network aims to provide seamless transition for offenders and to co-ordinate the services offered by community agencies. It operates under the vision “Hope, Confidence and Opportunities for Reforming Offenders.” The CARE Network has also helped to ensure better co-ordination between the government and non-government sectors, a more efficient targeting of resources and less duplication of services.
Two main initiatives undertaken by the CARE Network are the “Case Management Framework” and the “Family Support Programme”. The Case Management Framework assesses the needs of individual offenders through the help of aftercare officers two months before the inmates’ release.
In addition, the Singapore Prisons Department has embarked on an ambitious Corporate Image Campaign to inform and educate the public on the role of corrections in producing a safer society and the professionalism of the organization. Run under the banner “Rehab, Renew, Restart”, this programme has included advertisements in the media, on TV and on buses.
Like Canada and Hong Kong (China), Singapore appears to have had significant success through these programmes. Research which was conducted before and after the campaign indicated a change in public attitudes, greater understanding and a greater willingness to consider a career in the prison service.
Conclusions
Representatives of Indonesia, India, the Philippines, and Australia all contributed to the discussions and a number of disparate issues were raised. There was a brief discussion of the role of half way houses; it was noted that this is an issue of increasing interest and that both the public sector and community organizations have a role to play in the provision of such facilities. There was a brief discussion of ‘restorative justice’ mechanisms as a way to enhance community input but it was suggested that restorative justice is really dependent upon voluntary and community groups rather than formal government agencies such as Correctional Departments. The representative of the Philippines strongly expressed the view that privatization may cut across community involvement because volunteers and community organizations will be less motivated to assist the private sector. It was accepted that this may be a problem but that much will depend on the relationship between the government and the private contractor.
Overall, the workshop revealed some positive options. Although public perceptions do present a very difficult hurdle for correctional administrators, public education campaigns appear to have been successful in Canada, Hong Kong (China) and Singapore. This success is evident in improved public attitudes to corrections, enhanced corporate standing and greater public participation in the reintegration process.
This workshop was presented by Mr Mark Byers and Mr Phil McCarthy of New Zealand, and about 40 of the conference delegates participated. The presentation was assisted by power point projection with copies of the slides being provided to all participants. Ample time was made available for questions and discussion.
The workshop initially focussed on Government Strategic Goals which in turn influenced Corrections Strategic Goals. The main outcome sought by Corrections was to:
Ø “Protect the Public” and this was to be achieved through
Ø “Reducing reoffending”, and
Ø “Contributing to safe communities” (through effective management of custodial sentences, etc)
Each of these key outcomes was then defined, or specified, in detail.
The Strategic Goals of the New Zealand Department of Corrections were then identified as:
Ø effective offender management,
Ø reducing re-offending, and
Ø enhancing capacity and capability,
and ten separate output measures were also identified, each with its own budget allocation. Outcome measures, including a recidivism index and a rehabilitation quotient, derived from a detailed study of the offender data base, were then defined.
Next, details were presented of the internal purchase agreements and the external contracts and agreements currently being used by the New Zealand Department of Corrections. These included, for example, contracts for the provision of prisoner escort and courtroom custodial services, the management of the Auckland Central Remand Centre, and the provision of a range of services by the New Zealand Prisoner Aid and Rehabilitation Society.
Procedures used for performance monitoring were explained within the context of risk management. Risks were assessed in terms of the consequences of failure, with more attention being paid to activities or programmes where the risk of failure was highest. One aspect of performance measurement of particular interest was international benchmarking. This is done by comparing New Zealand information with comparable information from Australia, Canada, England and Wales, and Scotland. When making such comparisons it is important to know that the same definitions and counting rules are being used. For the five nations listed, data were presented showing the comparative costs per inmate per day, inmate-staff ratios, occupancy rates, and other indicators such as rates of assaults, escapes and deaths in custody.
It was pointed out that international comparisons were particularly useful at times when the media released sensational reports of problems in the prisons relating, for example, to escapes or deaths in custody. At these times, the international data may be able to be used to reduce public anxiety by placing the particular events causing concern in a broader context. The international data are also of interest to correctional administrators as they provide an objective view of their comparative performance.
The last major topic covered by the presentation was Predicting and Modelling the Risk of Re-offending. A statistical tool based on Risk of Conviction/Risk of Imprisonment (RoC/RoI) is used by probation officers when giving advice to judges in pre-sentence reports and when advising the parole board. It was explained that the RoC/RoI measure was based on static factors, such as prior criminal history, and that it sometimes produced scores, or predictions, which seemed to be anomalous, or not in accord with the real probability of recidivism. In these cases ‘override rules’ were applied. Despite these occasional problems, the predictive validity of the RoC/RoI measure was claimed to be remarkably high with 50% of offenders with a 50% risk of re-offending found to have actually re-offended within a year of release. Also, it was found that 81% of offenders with an 80% risk of re-offending actually re-offended within a year.
After the formal presentation, a number of questions were raised which indicated that there was considerable interest in the topic.
Full details of this presentation and supplementary documentation may be obtained by writing to:
The Chief Executive
Department of Corrections
Private Box 1206
Wellington
New Zealand.