Discussion Guide
for the 23rd Asian and Pacific Conference
of Correctional Administrators, Hong Kong (SAR, China),
December 2003.

David Biles ^[1]

This Discussion Guide has been prepared in order to assist the preparation of background papers for the 23rd Asian and Pacific Conference of Correctional Administrators which is scheduled to be held in Hong Kong, a Special Administrative Region within the People's Republic of China, from 7 to 12 December 2003. (The abbreviated title of the conference is: 23rd APCCA Hong Kong)

The APCCA held its first meeting in 1980 and its most recent meeting was in October 2002 in Denpasar, Indonesia. 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 2002 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 23rd APCCA in Hong Kong, 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 all of the conferences in recent years 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. It is also requested that participants offering to accept the responsibility to lead one or more of the specialist workshops, listed below, inform the conference organiser of these offers as soon as possible.

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. A small number of participating nations have in recent years included in their national papers documentation that has been prepared for other purposes and may have been published elsewhere. This practice is not to be encouraged and the host nation has the right to decide not to reproduce such extraneous material.

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 22nd APCCA in Denpasar, Indonesia, the delegates proposed a large number of possible agenda items for the next conference in Hong Kong. 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.

In addition to the four agenda items, the last three meetings of APCCA in 2000, 2001 and 2002, have also included specialist workshops, and these have proved to be very popular. The ad hoc Agenda Committee decided that in 2003 there would be two such workshops, probably held simultaneously, focusing on the subjects listed below. The suggested subjects are:

1. Prison Industry Partnerships; and
2. Training and Succession Planning for Senior Correctional Managers

Participation in these workshops will be optional and national papers are not expected to cover these topics. New Zealand has already offered to present the first of these workshops  and the conference host will no doubt be interested to hear from nations that would like to take the responsibility for the other topic.

As far as the preparation of national reports is concerned, 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 is very useful if reports include 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 is also 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 crimes of violence or 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 the 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 demand 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 programs that have recently been introduced or are being planned. Of particular interest here would be programs which aim to correct specific types of offending behaviour, such as drug and alcohol treatment programs, sex offender programs, anger management counselling, and new approaches to dealing with intoxicated and other irresponsible driving of motor vehicles. If any programs 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.

In summary, it would be helpful if national reports referred to:

• trends in crime, public attitudes and sentencing,
• changes in the size and composition of prison populations,
• (where relevant) non-custodial measures and their use,
• legislation, if any, relevant to corrections,
• new treatment or training programs and their effectiveness,
• correctional staffing issues,
• challenges, problems and proposed solutions, and
• attitudes of politicians and government officials to crime and criminal justice.

2. Dealing with Prisoners' Complaints and Grievances

The way in which prison staff respond to prisoners' complaints and grievances may well be  relevant to the other two substantive agenda items which focus on prison officer culture and the causes and responses to major prison disturbances. An unacceptable prison officer culture and a high incidence of major prison disturbances may be associated with, or made worse by, a general failure to deal with prisoners' complaints and grievances in an effective and humane manner. It is therefore appropriate to consider this item before the other two.

The subject of prisoners' complaints and grievances has been mentioned many times in previous conferences of the APCCA, but on only one occasion, in Beijing in 1991, has the subject been formally listed as an agenda item. On that occasion, the relevant agenda item was defined as "Discipline and Grievance Procedures" and therefore was not exactly comparable with the item on the current conference agenda.

In the past twenty or thirty years it has become increasingly recognised around the world that prisoners still retain most of the basic human rights that are enjoyed by free citizens in the community. Prisoners certainly lose those rights that are directly associated with imprisonment, such as the freedom of movement, but freedom of religion, freedom of thought, and freedom to make complaints, are retained.

This does not mean that issues about which prisoners complain, or express their grievance, will necessarily be resolved to their satisfaction, but it does mean that procedures must be in place to ensure that complaints are listened to and investigated in an appropriate manner.  Prisoners are often satisfied if they believe that their complaints are taken seriously, even if the particular issues about which they feel aggrieved are not resolved.

Prison rules and regulations generally include provisions for prisoners to complain first of all to a more senior officer if they believe they have been treated unfairly or unjustly by an officer of lower rank. These provisions may also allow an aggrieved prisoner to take his or her complaint to the Governor or Director of the prison. Some jurisdictions, such as Hong Kong (China), have established specialist Complaints Investigation Units in order to ensure that all complaints are dealt with professionally and expeditiously.

In recent years, however, other jurisdictions have put in place procedures whereby aggrieved prisoners may present their complaints to persons or organisations which are external to, and independent of, the official prison system and its staff. A number of Western nations have adopted the Scandinavian idea of an Ombudsman, sometimes called Parliamentary Commissioner, as a senior public official who has the authority to investigate and report on complaints by citizens, including prisoners. All Australian jurisdictions, and New Zealand, for example, have Ombudsmen whose authority includes dealing with complaints by prisoners as well as free citizens. It is  common in these jurisdictions for prisoners to be one of the largest groups of complainants dealt with by Ombudsmen.

The person holding the office of Ombudsman generally responds to complaints from prisoners by presenting the basic facts to the relevant prison officials with a request for information about the issue and the steps taken to ensure that it was resolved. He may conduct personal interviews with prisoners and staff but in most cases will make a decision based on the written records. If the Ombudsman is not satisfied that a complaint has been handled appropriately, he or she may issue a public report about the matter and require that the report is tabled in the Parliament. Thus, an Ombudsman has a very powerful weapon to use if he or she does not receive the level of co-operation expected.

Other structural arrangements for responding to prisoners complaints include the use of official Prison Visitors, who may be volunteers, or may be judicial officers, such as Magistrates or Justices of the Peace. Under these arrangements the visitors may receive complaints which they generally report to the senior prison management for investigation and resolution. In some jurisdictions, prisoners also have the right to send uncensored letters containing complaints or allegations to Members of Parliament.

In the People's Republic of China, the writer has seen the provision of locked post boxes in prisons which can be used by prisoners to send uncensored letters with complaints or suggestions to: a) the officer in charge of the wing, b) the Director of the institution, c) the Director General of the Corrections Department, or, d) the Procurator-General, an independent and very senior public official.

Whichever approach or structural arrangement is used for responding to prisoners' complaints and grievances, as indicated above, it is most important that prisoners believe that they are listened to and their views are taken seriously. If this is not achieved it is likely that the unavoidable frustrations of being in prison will be increased and the result may well be increased levels of disruptive behaviour, violence (against other prisoners and against staff) or suicide and self harm. It is possible that these consequences could occur at the same time.

It is suggested that national papers on this agenda item describe the procedures that are in place in each jurisdiction for responding to prisoners' complaints and grievances, and indicate whether any changes are being considered. Also, if possible, it would very interesting to hear of any estimates of the extent to which these procedures are viewed as satisfactory by prisoners.

3. Promoting Desirable Prison Officer Culture and Behaviour

The concept of 'prison officer culture' may be difficult to translate into the many languages that are used by participants at Asian and Pacific conferences. In essence, it refers to the general attitudes, values or beliefs, and unwritten rules of behaviour of the custodial staff who work in prisons. It is an important concept for correctional administrators as the prevalent prison officer culture may either significantly assist or significantly undermine efforts that may be made to run an efficient, effective and professional correctional service.

For example, some prison officers may see their main task as essentially to enforce the punishments that are imposed on offenders for breaking the law. They would certainly ensure that prisoners did not have an opportunity to escape and they would impose strict discipline, but they would not see themselves as responsible in any way for the rehabilitation of offenders. Nor would they accept that prisoners retain a number of basic human rights. This could be described as a negative prison officer culture.

In contrast, a positive prison officer culture would be one in which the staff are well trained and professional in carrying out their duties. While they recognise that they are responsible for the safe custody and security of prisoners, they also enthusiastically co-operate with other staff such as social workers, psychologists and education officers in order to reduce the probability of the offenders re-offending, and they respect the human rights of persons in custody.

There may, of course, be a number of intermediate positions between these two extremes where prison officers show some positive and some negative attitudes towards their work. In these cases, it will be necessary for the leadership to take whatever steps it can to encourage the adoption of more positive attitudes.

The most important factor contributing to prison officer culture may well be the selection, training and career development of staff, but many other factors may also be relevant. Salary levels, promotional opportunities, the type of uniforms provided, and the management style of the senior administrators may all contribute to prison officer culture. As indicated in the discussion of the previous agenda item, the way in which prisoners' complaints are dealt with may depend, to a significant extent, on the prison officer culture.

A poor or unacceptable prison officer culture could be indicated by low staff morale, and it is likely to be associated with high levels of sick leave, a reluctance to work overtime, less than perfect cleanliness, poor punctuality, and a general lack of enthusiasm to do the job. Exactly the opposite indicators are likely to be associated with a positive prison officer culture.

Relevant questions that might be considered in the preparation of national papers on this agenda item include:

• What steps are taken to ensure that prison officer culture is as positive as possible in your system?
• Is the predominant prison officer culture good, bad or varied in your correctional system?
• Does the prison officer culture vary between different prisons? and
• If it is different in different prisons, what factors seem to be associated with positive or negative cultures?

4. Major Prison Disturbances: Causes and Responses

It is probably true to say that major prison disturbances are more common in the United States, in some of the nations in South America, and in Northern Ireland, than they are in Asian and Pacific nations. Nevertheless, serious disturbances have occurred in prisons in this part of the world, and may well re-occur in the future. Fortunately, they are rare events but some, possibly most, of the administrators at the conference will probably have had first hand experience of strikes by prisoners, riots, fires, and loss of control by staff, possibly involving prisoners taking hostages.

The discussion of this topic provides an opportunity for administrators to consider one aspect of an increasingly challenging future as it is possible that problems of safe custody will increase if prisons end up accommodating more prisoners found guilty of politically motivated violence or terrorism. As Fiji noted in 2001, such prisoners may be less co-operative and more dangerous than the majority of non-political prisoners.

Research into prison disturbances in the United States has produced two major findings which may also be relevant to the Asia and Pacific region. In the first place it has been found that the underlying causes of prison riots are often not the same as the grievances which are expressed by the rioting prisoners. For example, prisoners may say that they are striking or rioting as a protest about the quality of the prison food, but close questioning reveals that the real causes were the operation of the parole system, access to visitors, or some other less obvious reason.

Secondly, the American experience has shown that prison disturbances are highly "contagious", or likely to spread or be copied, as shown by the fact that when a prison riot occurs in one part of the nation there are likely to be riots in other parts of the nation. The probable explanation for this is that news of prison disturbances, especially on the radio, is likely to provoke intense interest and excitement in other prisoners who are thus prompted to behave in a similar manner.

To reduce the possible spread of disturbances between institutions, the wardens of federal penitentiaries in the United States are required to inform all other institutions of disturbances as soon as they occur. Steps can then be taken to prepare for disturbances by, for example, tightening security or increasing staff levels. Contagion could also possibly be avoided by denying prisoners access to the media and also denying them the right to have visitors or write and receive letters, but such restrictions would almost certainly be seen as a denial of basic human rights.

The most obvious long-term approach to preventing prison disturbances is to do everything  possible to remove the systemic causes or grievances, but, as indicated above, this may be more complex than it seems. All experienced prison officers, however, develop the ability to assess the mood of a prison and therefore predict when disturbances or escapes are likely to occur. In some prisons, this "sixth sense" of staff has been formalised into Intelligence Units comprising  small numbers of experienced officers whose task it is to collect information that would enable them to take action against disturbances before they occur.

One of the actions that can be taken by prison managers to prevent disturbances is to remove prisoners who are seen as "trouble-makers" to different locations, including different institutions. This may provide a short-term solution (and may help to prevent the formation of gangs) but it does not eliminate the underlying causes of grievance.

Apart from long-term preventive action, a professional prison service will also have plans ready for the steps that should be taken if disturbances do occur. These contingency plans will include guidelines for the use of riot or emergency squads of specially trained prison officers. The officers in these squads may have access to incapacitating gas or sprays, stun grenades and other sophisticated equipment that would be used only in extreme circumstances.

The plans should also make provision for the use of trained negotiators, especially if hostages have been taken, and they should also specify when it is appropriate for the police or armed defence personnel to be called in. In addition, it will be necessary to have arrangements in place with fire and ambulance services to respond when required. An effective, coordinated and timely response may also depend on the design of the prison in question and may be enhanced by modern technology.

National papers on this agenda item may provide outlines of contingency plans for the control of prison disturbances (without revealing confidential material) and they may also indicate what are understood to be the likely causes of disturbances in each jurisdiction. It is recognised that the possible causes of disturbances may cover many different aspects of correctional management, but it would be valuable to have an indication of any specifically regional factors. This is also a topic upon which there is potential for developing greater regional collaboration on risk management strategies.

[1]

25 Kidston Crescent, Curtin, A.C.T., 2605, Australia E-mail: biles@netspeed.com.au

Tel: +61 2 6281 5634 Fax: +61 2 6232 4463