Recidivisim Newly Revised

AGONCILLO COLLEGE INC.
Poblacion, Agoncillo, Batangas
COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Recidivism Rehabilitation Programs Implementation
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of College of Criminology
Agoncillo College Inc.
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Criminology
By:
Jeffrey L. Averion
R-vhen Jay De Leus
2023
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Rehabilitation programs is a set of measures that assist individuals
who experience, or are likely to experience, disability to achieve and
maintain optimal functioning in interaction with their environments.
Criminal rehabilitation is essentially the process of helping inmates
grow and change, allowing them to separate themselves from the
environmental factors that made them commit a crime in the first place. So if
inmates learn a different way of living their lives, they'll be less inclined to
commit crimes in the future.
The reintegration of offenders into their own community and society is
one of the universally accepted goals of corrections, whether the latter is
carried out in institutions or through non-custodial measures. To ensure that
offenders discharged from detention centers, jails, penal institutions or
rehabilitation centers re-claim their part and role in society, there is a need to
assist them in their reunification with their families and reentry into the
community.
Thus, it is imperative to sustain rehabilitation and achieve reintegration
through the community-based treatment of ex -offenders. Moreover, the
commission of crime is a result or consequence of the inter-play of factors and
conditions in one’s self, the immediate and bigger environment, and one’s
choices and decision-making processes. Hence, it is necessary that these
human and environmental factors are examined closely and appropriate

measures adopted to assist ex-offenders in their reintegration efforts. (Omer,
S.2 009)
Recognizing that the community is usually also the locus of the offense
or crime, the community must be harnessed to assume greater responsibility
in reforming offenders and preventing recidivism. The community and society
must also play vital roles in the elimination of the psycho-social, economic,
and cultural barriers and other causes of crime in its environment, in order to
prevent crime, ensure peace, and promote development in the locality. To
maximize the role of the community in an offender’s reintegration process,
there is a need to continuously re-examine the concepts related to
community-based corrections. At the same time, new approaches that have
evolved locally and globally, related to this concept should be appreciated.
In this process, best practices in community based corrections must
be documented and replicated, so that they continue to be viable alternatives
to custodial care of offenders.
On July 24, 1976, Presidential Decree No. 968, also known as Adult
Probation Law of 1976, was signed into law by the President of the
Philippines, His Excellency Ferdinand E. Marcos. The law gave birth to the
Probation Administration, a line agency under the Department of Justice.
In fact, it has been widely accepted that incarceration or imprisonment
should be a last resort and utilized for those who have committed serious and
heinous crimes, and that community-based treatment should instead be
promoted whenever possible and feasible to hasten an offenders’

reintegration into society. Imprisonment leads to other problems related to an
offender’s stigmatization and de socialization. (Omer, S. 2009)
Often, prisons thwart the offenders’ potential for growth and excellence,
and spawn dependence and mistrust on their part instead. Prisons usually
alienate offenders from their family, friends and acquaintances. Due to
overcrowding, prisons lead to dehumanizing conditions, which make
reintegration and re socialization even more difficult. Prisons spawn the
formation of “subcultures” among prisoners that tend to harden them. This is
so because prisoners have to counteract the effects of deprivations of
imprisonment and the conditions prevailing in jails which are often rigid and
arbitrary.
Corrective actions and treatment measures are better achieved in a
natural environment such as the community where offenders can highlight
and re-live the areas of their life they want to change. Since the community is
the natural locus for legal, socioeconomic and cultural changes and
development, community based corrections enable offenders to adapt more
effectively to such changes in a more realistic and flexible manner. The
community also provides a network of relationships and a range of activities
that enable offenders to know themselves better in a variety of real life
situations, thus improving their social skills and enhancing their social
functioning.
Moreover, offenders are able to continue dispensing responsibilities
for many day to-day basic socioeconomic commitments such as managing a
home, budgeting resources, deciding on family matters, etc. when s/he is with
their family. This enables them to maintain self-esteem. Due to their exposure
to the day-to-day realities of life in society, they are afforded more
participation in planning, implementing and evaluating their reintegration plans
in natural settings. The planning process is also more responsive and relevant
because both constraints and resources in the community are taken into
consideration by the offender in a “here-and-now” situation which calls for
dynamic responses from them.
This contrasts with imprisonment, where rehabilitation work is based
more on a reflection of past failures and planning for the future. The
implementation and evaluation of rehabilitation and reintegration plans, on the
other hand, can be monitored more closely as these are related to the
offenders’ daily living in the community. Due to this, re-planning can be easily
resorted to, based on immediate feedback.
From an economic point of view, the burden of maintaining an entire
prison bureaucracy is eliminated in community based treatment. It is a fact
that the cost of rehabilitation is relatively cheaper outside of prison, where
huge personnel complements, operating costs, capital outlays and other costs
have to be maintained. The cost of assisting and supervising offenders is
supplemented and complemented by existing community resources and
infrastructures, which are otherwise not present in institutional arrangements.
Moreover, community-based corrections offer opportunity costs that
are not present in most custodial-care arrangements. Examples of these
opportunity costs are the costs of income and productive efforts as head or a
member of the family and the community. (Stockholm:UN. Elliot, Doreen ,
2003)
Municipality of Laurel was one of the municipalities in the province of
Batangas with a high rate of recidivism cases that led the researchers to
pursue this study. Their curiosity on how it possibly happened in the said
municipality guided them to come up with a decision of studying it with an
anticipation of determining if there were already rehabilitation programs
implemented by the authority to reduce recidivism in the municipality of
Laurel.
Thus, the researchers came up with a decision of pursuing this study
that aimed to assess the extent of implementation of the current rehabilitation
programs in reducing recidivism in one of the municipalities in the province of
Batangas, the municipality of Laurel with the end view of proposing an action
plan that may help the government authority enhance its extent of
implementation for the benefits of all the residents of Laurel.
Statement of the Problem
This study entitled” Implementation of Rehabilitation Programs in
Reducing Recidivism” aimed to assess the extent of implementation of
rehabilitation programs in reducing recidivism in Laurel, Batangas.
More specifically, it sought to answer to the following questions.
1. What is the demographic profile of the participant according to
1.1 Age;
1.2 Sex;
1.3 Civil Status; and
1.4 Economic status?
2. What is the extent of implementation of rehabilitation programs in
reducing recidivism in Laurel, Batangas?
3. Is there any significant relationship in the extent of implementation
of rehabilitation program in reducing recidivism when grouped
according to profile of the participants?
4. What comprehensive plan of action may be proposed to address
the complex needs of individuals involved in the criminal justice
system?
Significance of the Study
The anticipated benefits of this study were given to the following
individuals:
Government authorities, with result of this study, they identified in
which particular area or components of implementation of the rehabilitation
programs needs to be enhance since a proposed plan of actions was
intended to be presented to them.
Offenders or also known as the prisoners were benefited in this study
by means of providing the community an overview about the relevance of
social acceptance to their lives that led them to be socially accepted despite
of the crime they have committed and served at the same time through
imprisonment.
Community residents who were targeted respondents were also gained
benefits from this study for they increased their awareness on the needs of
the offenders to be accepted socially as prisoners. This helped them realized
that people in the community were significant factors in eliminating problem
on recidivism.
Researchers, knowing that there were criminology students, this led
them to be responsible enough in treating the offenders or prisoners fairly as
members of the society where they belonged.
Future Researchers, the results of this study would serve as their
available reference or source of information in relation to this topic.
Assumptions of the Study
The researchers formulated the following assumptions as they started
in conducting this study.
• This study had a great significance to many individuals namely, the
researchers themselves, the respondents as well as the
government authorities.
• The researchers of this study are efficient and effective in
accomplishing this very intimidating but meaningful task.
• The respondents of the study are responsible enough in providing
the necessary information for its completion and success.
• The respondents are honest and willing to provide accurate and
reliable information that are to be used in establishing an action
plan to address the problem found in the study.

Hypothesis
There is no significant relationship between the extent of
implementation of the rehabilitation programs in reducing recidivism in the
municipality of Laurel when assessed according to the demographic profile of
the respondents.
Theoretical Framework of the Study
This study was anchored from the theory of rehabilitation on criminals
which stated that rehabilitation has long been a contentious topic in the fields
of both criminology and penology. The term “rehabilitation” itself simply means
the process of helping a person to re adapt to society or to restore someone
to a former position or rank. However, this concept has taken on many
different meanings over the years and waxed and waned in popularity as a
principle of sentencing or justification for punishment. The means used to
achieve reform in prisons have also varied over time, beginning with silence,
isolation, labor, and punishment, then moving onto medically based
interventions including drugs and psycho surgery. More recently, educational,
vocational, and psychologically based programs, as well as specialized
services for specific problems, have typically been put forward as means to
reform prisoners during their sentence.
Effective rehabilitation programs typically use treatment methods that
are based on behavioral and social learning theories of change. Behavioral
theory suggests that individuals are conditioned to behave in a certain way
based on experiences with reinforcement and punishment (Skinner 1965). In

contrast, social learning theory posits that people learn behaviors from one
another, through observation, imitation, and modeling (Bandura 1997).
Therefore, rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce criminal behaviors
through the positive reinforcement of conventional behaviors learned through
observation or modeling (Lipsey and Cullen 2007). For example, a program
may help a participant learn how to manage his or her anger by modeling
appropriate responses instead.
The most recently formulated theory of punishment is that of
rehabilitation—the idea that the purpose of punishment is to apply treatment
and training to the offender so that he is made capable of returning to society
and functioning as a law-abiding member of the community. Established in
legal practice in the 19th century, rehabilitation was viewed as a
humane alternative to retribution and deterrence, though it did not necessarily
result in an offender receiving a more lenient penalty than he would have
received under a retributive or deterrent philosophy. In many cases
rehabilitation meant that an offender would be released on probation under
some condition; in other cases it meant that he would serve a relatively longer
period in custody to undergo treatment or training. One widely used
instrument of rehabilitation in the United States was the indeterminate
sentence, under which the length of detention was governed by the degree of
reform the offender exhibited while incarcerated.
Although rehabilitation was widely criticized in the United States in the
1970s, it gained greater acceptance once research in the 1980s and ’90s
demonstrated that a carefully implemented rehabilitation program could
reduce recidivism. Critics nonetheless objected to rehabilitation and
sentencing programs that gave significant discretion to
the prison administrator, who could decide to release or further detain an
offender depending on his assessment of the offender’s progress (which
could itself be vaguely defined). At issue were cases in which
this authority led to gross abuses, such as the lengthy detention of an
offender guilty of only a minor crime, simply because of his inability or refusal
to adopt a subservient attitude toward prison officials or other persons in
positions of authority.
Recidivism is measured by criminal acts that resulted in re arrest, re
conviction or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-
year period following the person's release.
Recidivism research is embedded throughout NIT-sponsored research
in sentencing, corrections and policy intervention evaluations. Many NIT-
funded studies of community supervision depend on recidivism measurement
to inform probation and parole policy.
Recidivism is an important feature when considering the core criminal
justice topics of incapacitation, specific deterrence and rehabilitation.
An important connection exists between the concept of recidivism and the
growing body of research on criminal desistance. Desistance refers to the
process by which a person arrives at a permanent state of non-offending. In

effect, an individual released from prison will either recidivate or desist. To the
extent that interventions and sanctions affect the process of desistance, the
research overlaps.
Recidivism has also been implicated in the performance of prisons and
has been used to study the difference between the effectiveness of privately
and publicly managed prisons.

Conceptual Framework of the Study
This research study utilized the IPO Model also known as Input-
process-output model. This was chosen by the researchers in order to easily
illustrate the flow of the study.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
• Demographic
profile of the
participants Assessed Extent of
according to Assessment on Implementation of
the extent of Recidivism
1.1 Age Rehabilitation
implementation of
1.2 Sex Programs
Rehabilitation
1.3 Civil Status
1.4 Economic Programs on
Status Recidivism
through survey Proposed Action
interview with the Plan to enhance its
• Extent of use of survey form Extent of
implementation of implementation
questionnaire
Recidivism
Rehabilitation
Programs
ASSESSMENT
Feedback
Figure 1
Conceptual Paradigm of the Study

The first box in the above illustration represented the input data
wherein the demographic profile of the participants according to age, sex, civil
status and economic status were included as well as the extent of
implementation of the rehabilitation programs in reducing recidivism.
However, the second box represented the process used by the
researchers in conducting the study. They applied the survey interview with
the use of self-constructed questionnaire in gathering necessary data or
information for the completion and success of the study.
Lastly, the third box represented the output of the study wherein the
assessed extent of implementation of rehabilitation programs in reducing
recidivism was shown.
Feedback from the result of the study were gathered and intended to
be used as input for further study of the said topic.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study focuses on the extent of implementation of the rehabilitation
programs involving recidivism in the municipality of Laurel.
The study utilized thirty (30) respondents who are residents of the
municipality of Laurel from different barangays. Their demographic profile
according to age, sex, civil status and economic status will be collected.
Moreover, the descriptive method of research will be applied to
accomplish the said study where the use of self-constructed questionnaire

was given importance as to data gathering procedures as to the extent of
implementation of the rehabilitation programs involving recidivism.
Furthermore, this study had an end view of proposing an action plan to
address the issues on recidivism.
Definition of Terms
For better understanding of the content of the study, the researchers
decided to provide the conceptual definition of the following terms relevant to
their chosen topic.
Incapacitation. It refers to the effect of a sanction to stop people from
committing crime by removing them from the community.
Probation officers. It pertains to a full-time government officials of the
Ministry of Justice who are assigned to either the Secretariat of the Regional
Parole Board or to the Probation Office. Having professional knowledge of
psychology, pedagogy or sociology, they engage in the work of rehabilitating
those who have committed crimes or have turned to juvenile delinquency,
giving them guidance and assistance in everyday life, in collaboration with
volunteer probation officers. They also take charge of the work relating to the
prevention of crime and delinquency.
Recidivism. It refers to one of the most fundamental concepts in
criminal justice. It refers to a person's relapse into criminal behavior, often

after the person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention for a previous
crime.
Reduction of crime. It refers to "repairing" the individual in some way
by addressing his or her needs or deficits.
Rehabilitation. It pertains to the process of helping an individual
achieves the highest level of function, independence, and quality.
Rehabilitation does not reverse or undo the damage caused by disease or
trauma, but rather helps restore the individual to optimal health, functioning,
and well-being.
Rehabilitation programs. These refer to the designed to reduce
recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense by improving
their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to
education and employment.
Rehabilitation of offenders. It is a system designed to give guidance
and assistance to those who have committed crimes or those who have
turned to juvenile delinquency so that they can become sound members of
the society while spending normal social lives; the system is carried out in
cooperation with the nation and the volunteers.
Specific deterrence. It pertains to the terminology used to denote
whether a sanction stops people from committing further crime, once the
sanction has been imposed or completed.

Volunteer probation officers are citizens commissioned by the
Minister of Justice who cooperate with probation officers in providing various
rehabilitation services to offenders and delinquent juveniles

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presented the review of literature and studies relevant to
rehabilitation programs in reducing recidivism.
Related Literature
Foreign Literature
Bersamina, Dolores, Loida Rilvera, and Wilson Tolio (2021) explained
that rehabilitation includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism
among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social
functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become
participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their
involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising
for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.
Auty, Katherine M., and Alison Liebling (2019) expounded that
rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce recidivism among adults who
have been convicted of an offense by improving their behaviors, skills, mental
health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They
may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in
their involvement with the criminal justice system, and programs are typically
provided in conjunction with some form of sanction (e.g., incarceration or
probation). Therefore, most programs are delivered within correctional
settings while the person completes his or her sentence, or in community
settings following their release (i.e., probation or parole-based programs).

Community-based settings may be delivered in inpatient facilities such as
psychiatric hospitals and outpatient treatment centers, or in supportive
residential housing such as halfway houses. In addition, some rehabilitation
programs (such as drug courts) serve as alternatives to incarceration,
diverting them into services in the community rather than into correctional
facilities.
Lipsey and Cullen (2007) explained that rehabilitation programs do not
generally follow a common, well-defined treatment protocol. Instead,
interventions and services may vary significantly by program. All programs
address at least one of the risk factors commonly associated with offending
(such as mental health status, substance use, education level, or employment
status). For example, a drug court program may provide a person who has
been convicted of an offense with treatment only to address substance abuse
issues related to his or her offending. More commonly, however, rehabilitation
programs combine multiple services: for example, a drug court program that
provides an individual not only with substance abuse treatment, but also with
individual counseling and vocational training.
Bersamina, Dolores, Loida Rilvera, and Wilson Tolio. (2021) stated
that the general types of treatment services provided by rehabilitation
programs include group work (structured via protocol or psycho educational
content); cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or CBT-like components
(thinking skills, relapse prevention, or anger management); counseling (group,
individual, mentoring); academic work (GED or college classes); employment-

related (work-release, job placement, vocational training); supportive
residential (therapeutic community, halfway house); drug court or other
specialized court; multi-modal, mixed treatments (individual case
management); intensive supervision (reduced probation or parole); or
restorative interventions (mediation, reparations, community service, victim-
offender conferencing).
Flores-Barolo, Mary Grace, and Jezreel Binwag Vicente, (2019)
emphasized that rehabilitation programs are designed to reduce recidivism
among adults who have been convicted of an offense by improving their
behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education
and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs
during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system, and
programs are typically provided in conjunction with some form of sanction
(e.g., incarceration or probation). Therefore, most programs are delivered
within correctional settings while the person completes his or her sentence, or
in community settings following their release (i.e., probation or parole-based
programs). Community-based settings may be delivered in inpatient facilities
such as psychiatric hospitals and outpatient treatment centers, or in
supportive residential housing such as halfway houses. In addition, some
rehabilitation programs (such as drug courts) serve as alternatives to
incarceration, diverting them into services in the community rather than into
correctional facilities.
Lipsey and Cullen (2007) emphasized rehabilitation programs do not
generally follow a common, well-defined treatment protocol. Instead,
interventions and services may vary significantly by program. All programs
address at least one of the risk factors commonly associated with offending
(such as mental health status, substance use, education level, or employment
status). For example, a drug court program may provide a person who has
been convicted of an offense with treatment only to address substance abuse
issues related to his or her offending. More commonly, however, rehabilitation
programs combine multiple services: for example, a drug court program that
provides an individual not only with substance abuse treatment, but also with
individual counseling and vocational training.
The general types of treatment services provided by rehabilitation
programs include group work (structured via protocol or psycho educational
content); cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) or CBT-like components
(thinking skills, relapse prevention, or anger management); counseling (group,
individual, mentoring); academic work (GED or college classes); employment-
related (work-release, job placement, vocational training); supportive
residential (therapeutic community, halfway house); drug court or other
specialized court; multi modal, mixed treatments (individual case
management); intensive supervision (reduced probation or parole); or
restorative interventions (mediation, reparations, community service, victim-
offender conferencing).
Sean Jackson (April 2020) stated that It is no secret that recidivism is a
major problem in the United States.
A longitudinal study by the U.S. Department of Justice that followed
released inmates from 30 different states found that within three years of
release, 68 percent were arrested for a new crime. That number jumped to 79
percent after six years and to 83 percent after nine years.
This begs the question, what works to reduce recidivism?
The answer to that question is highly complex. However, there are
proven strategies for reducing recidivism in juveniles and adults. Many of the
most effective approaches involve reducing recidivism through education.
Let’s take a closer look at four proven ways to reduce recidivism.
Improving the Defendant’s Motivational Factors
One of the first points at which recidivism can be reduced is during the
sentencing phase of a defendant’s case.
In other words, relationship-building and demonstrating an interest in
the defendant’s ability to be successful helps reduce the defendant’s feelings
of hopelessness and ambivalence to the process. Likewise According to
a National Institutes of Corrections study on evidence-based practices,
building trust between the defendant and the judge, their attorney, probation
agent, therapist, and other stakeholders can be a crucial component of
changing the defendant’s behavior.
Early Assessment of Risks and Needs
When considering what works to reduce recidivism, one must begin by
assessing the risks and needs of the inmate.

First, it must be determined which inmates are at the highest risk of re-
offending. This can be done via an objective risk assessment. Furthermore,
inmates that are identified as being at risk of re-offending should undergo a
criminogenic needs assessment, in which factors are identified that could
have contributed to their criminal behavior. These might include:
Prior criminal activity
Alcohol or drug dependency
Mental health issues
Belonging to an anti-social peer group
By determining who is at risk and developing a unique needs
assessment profile, staff members at jails and prisons can more effectively
develop a rehabilitation program that helps prepare each inmate for release.
This type of early assessment has been suggested at the federal and
state level. For example, the Illinois Community Safety and Reentry
Commission recommended that each inmate goes through a “Reception,
Assessment, and Classification” period during which their risks and needs
would be evaluated and a personalized reentry program would be developed.
Incorporating Education Into Incarceration
Having educational opportunities in jails and prisons is paramount for
reducing recidivism in juveniles and adults alike.
A 2013 meta-analysis of educational programs for adult inmates found
that reducing recidivism through education works very well – inmates who
took part in educational programs while incarcerated had a 43 percent lower

chance of recidivism than inmates that did not participate in educational
programs.
Furthermore, the meta-analysis, which was sponsored by the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, revealed that each dollar spent on education for
inmates saved four to five dollars on the costs of incarcerating an inmate
again later on.
Even very basic education, like adult literacy and basic skills, can
significantly reduce the rate of recidivism. Allowing inmates to finish their high
school diplomas, learn a trade and technical skills, and pursue post-
secondary educational opportunities while incarcerated can greatly reduce
recidivism as well.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons has implemented this reform into its
system, complete with individual education assessments for incoming inmates
to determine the type and level of instruction they need to be successful.
Improving Substance Abuse Treatment
Drug offenses account for one of the most common reasons for
incarceration across the United States. In Wyoming, for example, 17 percent
of arrests in 2017 were for drug-related offenses. And while each of those
arrests didn’t result in incarceration, it’s still a significant number of detainees
with serious mental health needs.
While reducing recidivism through education is a popular and effective
approach, so too is improving substance abuse treatment for inmates.
Substance abuse treatment programs are among the most effective in
reducing recidivism.
Whether treatment takes the form of a deferred sentence while the
defendant is in inpatient drug treatment, or as intensive treatment while in
prison, rates of recidivism for these offenders are reduced by double-
digits compared to the general prison population.
So, when evaluating what works to reduce recidivism, the best
approaches are to intervene early and provide substantive support while
incarcerated. And for the best results that support should continue for the
parolees after they are reintroduced to society.
There are many reasons why a person ends up behind bars. When
considering what contributes to recidivism, there are equally as many
reasons.
Duwe G. (2015) claimed that the challenges of reducing recidivism are
many. From purely economic factors to mental health issues and various
points in between, parolees have to weather many different challenges as
they try to reenter society and stay out of jail.
Below is an exploration of five primary barriers to reentry that
significantly contribute to recidivism.
Lack of Reentry Programs for Prisoners
The challenge of reducing recidivism begins before a prisoner is even
paroled.
Though many educational and job training programs are available in
jails and prisons, it is not a given in each facility. Furthermore, programs that
help socialize inmates and prepare them for entry back into the community
can be underfunded, not rigorous enough, or might not exist at all.

This is unfortunate because reentry programs, like work release
initiatives, have been shown to have a significant, positive impact on reducing
an inmate’s likelihood to re-offend. As Duwe (2015) shows, reentry programs
that focus on job skills and work experience help reduce recidivism while also
improving the parolee’s chances of getting a job.
Without programs like this to help set inmates up for success and
usher them back into society, they can be woefully ill-prepared for living
independently again. The more unprepared a parolee is for life in the real
world, the more likely they are to re-offend. To that end, a challenge for those
in the criminal justice system is ensuring that parolees are prepared for
release in advance and have the support they need once they are released.
Another challenge in reducing recidivism is a one-size-fits-all approach
to reentry that is so prevalent in the American prison system.
In other words, tailoring treatment and supportive programs to the
specific needs of each parolee can be a far more effective approach to
The barrier to this method is, of course, money. Providing
individualized services like this requires funding for programs both inside and
out of jail, as well as training for criminal justice workers, hours for supervision
of parolees, and so forth.
Yet, even in small doses, a more customized approach can be
effective. For example, the Colorado State Board of Parole trains its members
in motivational interviewing techniques. These techniques are applied during
parole hearings as a way to decrease the offender’s resistance to the process

while also promoting their readiness for change. This, in turn, can improve the
inmate’s commitment to their program of release, which reduces the likelihood
that they will re-offend.
Finding a job – let alone a good job – can be difficult for ex-prisoners.
The stigma of having been incarcerated is a significant barrier to employment,
while some careers are simply off-limits to people who have a criminal record.
As Ray, Grommon, and Rydberg (2016) note, having a stable job not
only helps parolees provide for themselves, but it can also foster feelings of
pride, self-confidence, and ties to the community. Without these and other
benefits of employment, the risk of recidivism greatly increases.
Reducing recidivism programs like this demonstrate how successful
planning, coordination of stakeholders, and a commitment to helping parolees
transition back to normal life can be. Yet, these types of programs are not all
that common, making it more difficult to reduce recidivism.
Liem, M. & Kunst, M. (2013) mentioned that the day when a person is
released from prison is often one of great happiness for them. A return to
loved ones and to the free world can be downright euphoric.
But to think that the process of integrating back into society will be
smooth sailing is naive. There are major problems ex-inmates face as they
seek to rebuild their lives. This is particularly true of parolees that served a
very long prison sentence.
Monnrow (2011) emphasized that the key factors increasing the risk of
re-offending included the following:

• Age: as age increases the likelihood of recidivism declines.
• Prior prison admissions: each additional admission into prison
increases the likelihood of further admissions occurring.
• Gender: males were more likely to reoffend compared to females.
• Aboriginal status: Aboriginal prisoners were more likely to reoffend
compared to non-Aboriginal prisoners.
• Security Rating: maximum security prisoners were more likely to
reoffend compared to medium security prisoners, who in turn were
more likely to reoffend compared to minimum security prisoners.
• Educational attainment: prisoners who had completed part secondary
education without pursuing further qualifications were more likely to
reoffend compared to prisoners who had completed secondary
schooling or who had pursued some sort of post-secondary
qualification (e.g. tertiary education or an apprenticeship).
• Substance use risk rating: prisoners who were classified as high or
highest risk on the substance use offender treatment checklist were
more likely to reoffend compared to prisoners who were either low or
moderate risk, or who did not complete the checklist.
• Treatment program completion: prisoners who completed at least one
treatment program prior to release were more likely to reoffend
compared to prisoners who did not complete a treatment program.
A number of factors did not appear to be significantly associated with
recidivism. They included:

• Mental illness.
• Intellectual disability
• Violent offending risk rating (those rated a high or highest risk of violent
re offending were no more likely to re-offend than other prisoner
groups).
Sex offender risk ratings also proved interesting: prisoners classified as
high risk on the sex offender checklist were actually less likely to reoffend
than other prisoner groups. Prisoners classified as highest risk were no more
likely to reoffend compared to other prisoner groups.
Of the factors associated with recidivism, the three strongest relationships
were with age, prior prison admissions, and problematic substance use. Over
half of sentenced prisoners released in 2008/09 and 2009/10 were identified
as having highly problematic substance use. These findings along with the
findings that males, Aboriginal prisoners, and prisoners with low educational
attainment were more likely to reoffend, corresponds with national and
international research.
The analysis found that prisoners who completed a treatment program had
an increased likelihood of returning to prison. This is not supported by national
and international research.

According to the Rome Statute; Article 25 Individual criminal responsibility
1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this
Statute.
2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall
be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with
this Statute.
3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally
responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of
the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with
another or through another person, regardless of whether that other
person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which
in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime,
aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted
commission, including providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted
commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a
common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall
either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or
criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose
involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the
Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to
commit the crime;
(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites
others to commit genocide;
(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences
its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not
occur because of circumstances independent of the person's
intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the
crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be
liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit
that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the
criminal purpose.
3. In respect of the crime of aggression, the provisions of this article shall
apply only to persons in a position effectively to exercise control over or
to direct the political or military action of a State.
4. No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility
shall affect the responsibility of States under international law.

Local Literature
Marilyn Baruya Yap, (2015) presented AN ACT AMENDING
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 968, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
“PROBATION LAW OF 1976” AS AMENDED Be it enacted by the Senate and
House of Representative of the Philippines in Congress as assembled:
SECTION 1. Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended, is hereby
further amended to read as follows: “SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. - Subject to
the provisions of this Decree, the trial court may, after it shall have convicted
and sentenced a defendant for a probation able penalty and upon application
by said defendant within the period for perfecting an appeal, suspend the
execution of the sentence and place the defendant on probation for such
period and upon such terms and conditions as it may deem best. No
application for probation shall be entertained or granted if the defendant has
perfected the appeal from the judgment of conviction: Provided, That when a
judgment of conviction imposing a non-probation able penalty is appealed or
reviewed, and such judgment is modified through the imposition of a probation
able penalty, the defendant shall be allowed to apply for probation based on
the modified decision before such decision becomes final. The application for
probation based on the modified decision shall be filed in the trial court where
the judgment of conviction imposing a non-probation able penalty was
rendered, or in the trial court where such case has since been re-raffled. In a
case involving several defendants where some have taken further appeal, the
other defendants may apply for probation by submitting a written application
and attaching thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of conviction. “The
trial court shall, upon receipt of application filed, suspend the execution of the
sentence imposed in the judgment. “This notwithstanding, the accused shall
lose the benefit of probation should he seek a review of the modified decision
which already imposes a probation able penalty. “Probation may be granted
whether the sentence imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only. The
filing of the application shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal. “An
order granting or denying probation shall not be appeal able.”
1 SEC. 2. Section 9 of the same Decree, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
“SEC. 9. Disqualified Offenders. - The benefits of this Decree shall not
be extended to those: “(a) sentenced to serve a maximum term of
imprisonment of more than six (6) years; “(b) convicted of any crime against
the national security; “(c) who have previously been convicted by final
judgment of an offense punished by imprisonment of more than six (6) months
and one (1) day and/or a fine of more than one thousand pesos (Php
1,000.00); “(d) who have been once on probation under the provisions of this
Decree; and “(e) who are already serving sentence at the time the substantive
provisions of this Decree became applicable pursuant to Section 33 hereof.”
SEC. 3. Section 16 of the same Decree, as amended, is hereby further
amended to read as follows: “SEC. 16. Termination of Probation. - After the
period of probation and upon consideration of the report and recommendation
of the probation officer, the court may order the final discharge of the
probationer upon finding that he has fulfilled the terms and conditions of his
probation and thereupon the case is deemed terminated. “The final discharge
of the probationer shall operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or
suspended as a result of his conviction and to totally extinguish his criminal
liability as to the offense for which probation was granted. “The probationer
and the probation officer shall each be furnished with a copy of such order.”
SEC. 4. Section 24 of the same Decree is hereby amended to read as
follows: “SEC. 24. Miscellaneous Powers of Regional, Provincial and City
Probation Officers. - Regional, Provincial or City Probation Officers shall have
the authority within their territorial jurisdiction to administer oaths and
acknowledgments and to take depositions in connection with their duties and
functions under this Decree. They shall also have, with respect to
probationers 2 under their care, the powers of a police officer. They shall be
considered as persons in authority.”
follows: “SEC. 27. Field Assistants, Subordinate Personnel. - Regional,
Provincial or City Probation Officers shall be assisted by such field assistants
and subordinate personnel as may be necessary to enable them to carry out
their duties effectively.”
follows: “SEC. 28. Volunteer Probation Assistants (VPAs). - To assist the
Chief Probation and Parole Officers in the supervised treatment program of
the probationers, the Probation Administrator may appoint citizens of good
repute and probity, who have the willingness, aptitude, and capability to act as
VPAs. “VPAs shall not receive any regular compensation except for
reasonable transportation and meal allowances, as may be determined by the

Probation Administrator, for services rendered as VPAs. “They shall hold
office for a two (2)-year term which may be renewed or recalled anytime for a
just cause. Their functions, qualifications, continuance in office and maximum
case loads shall be further prescribed under the implementing rules and
regulations of this Act. “There shall be a reasonable number of VPAs in every
regional, provincial, and city probation office. In order to strengthen the
functional relationship of VPAs and the Probation Administrator, the latter
shall encourage and support the former to organize themselves in the
national, regional, provincial, and city levels for effective utilization,
coordination, and sustainability of the volunteer program.”
SEC. 7. Separability Clause. - If any provision of this Act is declared
invalid, the provisions hereof not affected by such declaration shall remain in
full force or effect.
SEC. 8. Repealing Clause. - All laws, executive orders, or
administrative orders, rules and regulations or parts thereof which are
inconsistent with this Act, are hereby amended, repealed or modified
accordingly.
SEC. 9. Appropriations Clause.- The amount necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act shall be included in the General Appropriations Act of
the year following its enactment into law.
3 SEC. 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations. - Within sixty (60)
days from the approval of this Act, the Department of Justice shall promulgate
such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of
this Act.
SEC. 11. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect immediately after its
publication in the Official Gazette or in two (2) newspapers of general
circulation.
Maristela (2020) emphasized in his article that the Philippines has been
supportive of the goals of community-based treatment and has continuously
adopted measures consistent with the United Nations Standard Minimum
Rules for Noncustodial measures or the Tokyo Rules. In order to appreciate
fully the goals and advantages of community-based treatment in the context
of the Philippines, there is a need to revisit the old and traditional concepts of
treating offenders and those of emerging ones, specifically from a social
development framework. Social development, as defined by the United
Nations, is the greater capacity of the social system, social structure,
institutions, services and policy to utilize resources to generate favorable
changes in levels of living, interpreted in the broad sense as related to
accepted social values and a better distribution of income, wealth and
opportunities. Social development therefore, covers a comprehensive, yet
integrated, field that encompasses education, health and nutrition, livelihood,
social welfare, etc. It involves the services of educators, medical practitioners,
social workers, psychologists and other social scientists that contribute to
improvement in the quality of human life. Doreen Elliott (1993) argues that
social development values represent an ideology close to that of the values of
social work, except that the values are less individually focused. She argues
further that while social work is essentially individually oriented and politically
conservative, social development is globally and radically oriented. Omer

(1979) suggests that human dignity, equality and social justice are key values
in a social development approach. These values are therefore consistent with
those adopted by the United Nations Minimum Standard that encourages
countries to pursue crime prevention and criminal justice within the framework
of the promotion of human rights, social justice and social development. From
this social development context, it is best to examine old concepts related to
the treatment of offenders vis-a-vis the new approaches in this field.
The traditional concept of treating offenders has been towards
examining the offender’s characteristics, behavior, values and other personal
traits and the causes behind committing a crime, among other factors.
Criminals would be examined from a criminologist point of view, which usually
led to self-blaming. Thus, the treatment approach would be individual therapy,
focusing on behavior modification. The empowerment approach, which is
basically a social development approach, however, looks not only at simplistic
uni causal explanations, but at the offender as a “person-in-environment”, i.e.,
one in a dynamic relationship with their environment and prescribed roles in
varied social situations. It assumes an interdependence of relationships
between the parts (the offender and his/her family) and the whole (community
and society). Thus, while behavior modification continues to be a goal in
rehabilitation and reintegration, empowerment, which is the harnessing of the
offender’s adaptive capacities, decision-making abilities and capability to link
and access to outside resources, is a tandem goal in our present efforts.
Harnessing and honing adaptive capacities are deemed necessary because
of the fast changing conditions in the environment brought about by

globalization, information technology, accelerated development and other
factors. The failure of some individuals and families to adapt to such sudden
and swift changes brings about crisis in their adaptation and social
functioning. This therefore calls for harnessing not only the offender’s capacity
to handle crisis, solve problems, and make right and timely decisions, but also
their own and family’s ability to identify resources. Through this empowerment
scheme, they are made aware of what are the resources from within and
outside the family, which they can tap to address their needs and problems.
Santos (2018) added that consistent with a lesser emphasis on
individual pathology is the move from the analytical approach towards a
systems approach. In the analytical approach, the whole is broken into parts
and examined closely. Thus, an offender’s mental, psychological and
socioeconomic conditions are examined thoroughly and dissected carefully as
basis for treatment goals. In the systems approach, on the other hand, the
parts are linked and integrated as a whole. It is an inter-disciplinary and
holistic approach. Elliott offers a context model or paradigm for the systems
analysis node of guidance in approaching social problems, as shown in Table
I. It ranges through the system levels: international, national, state, regional,
local, organizational, family and individual, and sets these alongside functional
social systems such as economic, political, sociocultural, scientific and
religious. Through this paradigm, problems will be less likely viewed from an
individual pathology but from a systems approach. Elliott is cited as an
example of the examination of the interface between economic (on the social
system dimension) and the drug culture and the individual (on the system
level). Drug culture offers many young people in the cities a quick way to
achieve material goals, which may be closed to them through legitimate
means. The lack of social stimulation and a poor environment clearly
impinges on drug related behavior. Current responses such as border control
and the growth of prisons emphasize social control. A social development
approach, however, would address the problems at various levels, namely: (1)
individual therapy so that immediate and short term considerations are not
ignored; (2) economic re-structuring with a focus on urban and rural poverty;
(3) preventive educational campaigns; and (4) empowerment schemes. Thus,
participants in the drug culture would not be seen as criminal or sick per se,
but as underprivileged and victims of social injustice.
These lead to the adoption of a micro-macro continuum in the
prevention of crime and treatment of offenders. It links micro, or individual
therapy approaches, to macro or systems approaches that enable multi-level
and multi-system intervention. These multi-level approaches and interventions
from the Philippines experience include: 1. Total Family Approach A
recognition of the importance which the family plays in the commission of
crime and on the offender’s rehabilitation continues to be the focus of
contemporary community-based corrections in the country. Today not only is
the offender the focus of intervention, but also their family as well. Realizing
and recognizing that the crime offenders commit can be a symptom of a
deeper problem or dysfunction within the family, the family members are
assisted and harnessed to realize their potentials as individuals in this most
basic unit of society. The family has been considered as a primary support
group for the offender’s rehabilitation and eventual reintegration. Most
rehabilitation efforts are focused on maintaining harmonious relations
between the offender, their family and the community; strengthening and
empowering them altogether.
This stems from the realization that in a number of instances, the
offender’s reason for committing a crime is family-related i.e., the family is
poor or hungry, lacking in basic amenities, needing hospitalization, etc..
Family-related concerns are also reasons frequently given by offenders for
their escape from jails, prisons or rehabilitation centers and their desire to be
free.
The influence of family members is also evident in the rehabilitation
process, especially since most family members constitute the “significant
others” in an offender’s life; thus providing a source of motivation, help and
“healing” to the offender. The total family approach in community Cbased
corrections looks at the offender in the context of their family - its strengths
and weaknesses, its resources and problems, potentials and constraints.
Family resources- both human and material - are pooled together so
that the offender’s reintegration can be hastened and facilitated, while at the
same time addressing the problems of other family members. Family-centered
treatment is therefore adopted and maximized by organizations to assist the
offender and their family. For example, due to realization of the importance of
the family as a support system, youth offenders who no longer have families
are placed in foster care, wage homes or are afforded kinship-support

assistance to ensure that they are provided the benefits and advantages of
living in a natural, home-life situation and atmosphere.
Patulot (2018) stated that next to the family, the immediate community
is seen as a valuable support system for an offender. The community should
assume primary responsibility for the offender, as it is usually the origin of
crime. It is in the community where the offender’s roots are, where his/her
peers and friends are often found, where they can be further educated and
trained, where they practice their religion, pursue life goals and continuously
strive to belong. It is also a resource for their and their family, in times of need
and desolation, and to which they and their family also contribute their share
and resources whenever possible.
The community is thus the bigger locus for an offender’s change and
transformation given its resources, networks and the opportunities it offers to
pursue a productive and useful life. New approaches in community-based
treatment involve the harnessing and maximization of community structures
outside of the family. Schools, the church, community leaders and members,
non government, voluntary and people’s organizations, civic associations,
business groups and other sectors, in addition to government, should be
tapped and mobilized to contribute their resources to the treatment and
reintegration of offenders, and the strengthening of their families.
These community structures complement and supplement the services
for offenders offered by the State With the mushrooming of nongovernmental
organizations, people’s organizations, civic, religious or professional groups,
and other community structures, there are now many resources to help
offenders and their families lead productive and meaningful lives. Volunteer
groups have become necessary components in the rehabilitation of offenders
and their reintegration. Both at the institutional and non-institutional settings,
volunteer groups form part of the rehabilitation resources. They are utilized in
the educational, physical, spiritual, social and cultural activities of offenders.
The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) has a
Volunteer Intervention Program for Youth in Conflict with the Law, which
utilizes senior citizens, women groups, civic, religious and other organizations
and individuals. These volunteers are trained and provided technical
assistance in their volunteer work of assisting and monitoring the youth as
they are rehabilitated and reintegrated into society. The Department of Justice
correctional bureaus also utilize volunteer groups to a large extent. The
Probation and Parole Administration (PPA) utilizes volunteer probation aides
which assist probation officers in rehabilitating parolees and probationers.
Likewise, volunteers are utilized in penitentiaries and penal institutions. The
local government units and the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology,
under the Department of Interior and Local Government, also utilize
volunteers to a great extent in educational, medical, religious, cultural and
recreational activities.
The role of culture in crime prevention and the treatment of offenders
has long been recognized. In the Philippines, certain cultural values are
maximized to assist in the reintegration of offenders and in their “healing
“process. Among the strengths of the Filipino character is a deep faith in God
or belief in a Supreme Being. Such belief arouses reverence, gratitude, the

will to obey and serve and other positive values. In ordaining and
promulgating the country’s Constitution, and in everyday life, the Filipino
people invoke the aid of Almighty God, whether this God at the individual level
is Jesus Christ, Allah, Buddha, Jehovah, etc.. We ascribe human traits, our
fate, and fortune to a supernatural God whom we honor and love. This
enables us to accept reality in the context of God’s will and plan. Due to this
sense of spirituality, we can be optimistic even at the most pressing of times.
Spirituality encourages a life with values based on truth and love rather than
the acquisition of material things. This sense of spirituality is thus recognized
and considered in formulating treatment measures for the socially and
economically disadvantaged, including offenders.
The spiritual dimension of reintegration not only into the family and the
community, but also with one’s Creator makes the treatment plans more
complete and holistic. It also makes the offender more remorseful and
insightful because of the belief that “man does not live by bread alone” and
that s/he must also take care of what happens to their spirit. Spiritual
programs are therefore integrated among the services and opportunities
afforded to offenders, both in institutional and non-institutional settings,
enabling them to strive towards moral purity and healthy living in accordance
with God’s intent and purposes. Moreover, among the regular volunteers in
prisons, jails or rehabilitation centers, as well as community-based programs,
are spiritual and religious groups. These groups contribute to the
improvement and betterment of the offenders’ personality and character, by

giving deeper meaning to life and the enhancement of the corrections’
programs.
Recent development of management practices at the sub-regional
levels of the country have also contributed to the micro-macro continuum of
the treatment of offenders. In 1992, the national government through the
Local Government Code, devolved responsibility for the provision of basic
services, together with the corresponding funds, manpower and other
resources, to the local government units in the provinces, cities, municipalities
and barangays (villages). This signaled the change of responsibility from
national agencies to local government units over the provision of basic social
services. Included in this devolution is the management of community-based
services along with the socio-economic development of families within the
local government’s area of responsibility.
Mendoza (2017) reiterated that local government units have therefore
taken primary roles in the alleviation of poverty among their constituencies,
the promotion of peace and order, and socio-economic development in their
areas. Due to this devolution, support services needed for the rehabilitation
and reintegration of offenders into the community became closer and more
accessible to them and their families. In view of the autonomy given to local
governments, they have embarked on new and innovative ways of managing
and administering basic social services aimed at improving the lives of their
constituents and promoting growth with equity. This move complemented the
strengthening of families and communities as support groups for the
disadvantaged such as the offenders. It also afforded local governments the

opportunity to craft new services that are relevant and responsive to the local
residents, given their resources and the problems to be confronted. In fact, a
number of provincial governments have made innovations in the management
of provincial jails which are now under them, a welcome development in the
reintegration of offenders.
He also mentioned that in 1994, the Philippines launched the Social
Reform Agenda (SRA) which is the commitment of the Ramos Administration
to attain a balance between economic growth and social equity. The SRA is a
package of programs and reforms that addresses the minimum basic needs of
families, and the reform needs of basic sectors to reduce poverty. It is likewise
a strategy of effectively converging all sectors — government, civil society and
business sectors-and matching their programs with the needs of target
communities and families. It is aimed at improving the quality of life of Filipino
families, especially those whose income falls below the poverty threshold.
A feature of the SRA that directly relates to the reintegration of
offenders and strengthening of their family is the use of the Minimum Basic
Needs (MBN) approach in assessing the socioeconomic levels of poor
families. It addresses purposively the survival, security and enabling needs of
poor families through 33 indicators.
The MBN for survival comprise of maternal and child health, adequate
nutrition, water and sanitation and basic clothing. The MBN regarding security
is addressed by the program in terms of income and employment, security
and safety of families, and housing. Specifically, under the security minimum
basic needs, two indicators are identified directly with crime prevention, i.e.,
Indicator no. 18 (no family member is to be victimized by crime against
persons) and Indicator no. 19 (no family member is to be victimized by crime
against property).
Since there is a purposive targeting of families in given communities
through the MBN, the poor conditions that spawn crime and impinge on the
successful reintegration of offenders are improved. Also, the prevention of
crime is made manifest at the family and village levels, because target
families of the program consciously exert efforts to prevent crime and avoid
being victims or offenders. The enabling needs addressed are education,
people’s participation and family care/psycho-social requirements.
Like many countries, the correctional system in the Philippines has
both an institution-based and a community-based component. It also has
separate treatment systems for youth offenders and adult offenders. The
custodial care of adult offenders is handled by the following: 1. The Bureau of
Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) under the Department of Interior and
Local Government (DILG) which has supervision over all district, city and
municipal jails and detention centers. These jails house detainees awaiting
judicial disposition of their case and offenders whose sentence range from
one (1) day to three (3) years. 2. The Provincial Governments, which have
supervision and control over provincial jails. These jails house court detainees
and prisoners whose prison terms range from six (6) months and one (1) day,
to three (3) years. 3. The Bureau of Corrections (BUCOR) under the
Department of Justice (DOJ), which has control over the national penitentiary
and its penal farms, houses convicted offenders with prison sentences
ranging from three (3) years and one (1) day, to life imprisonment. Youth
offenders in the Philippines are treated differently.
A youth offender is defined as a child over nine (9) years but below
eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the commission of an offense. Under
the country’s laws, these youth offenders are entitled to a suspended
sentence. Instead of serving their sentence, they are rehabilitated in regional
youth rehabilitation centers, which are managed and supervised by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD).
There are ten (10) rehabilitation centers for youth offenders, one of
which is a National Training School for Boys and the other, a National
Training School for Girls. Their stay in the center can be shorter than their
sentence term, depending on how they respond to the rehabilitation process
therein.
The non-institutional treatment of adult offenders is managed primarily
by the Department of Justice (DOJ) through its Parole and Probation
Administration and the Board of Pardons. Probation for adult offenders is
available to those whose penalty of imprisonment does not exceed six (6)
years. It is considered as a matter of privilege and not of right. Hence, the
adult offender has to apply for probation before the court upon conviction.
This is also true for the parole system.
The Department, in cooperation with other agencies and the Asia
Crime Prevention Philippines Inc. (ACPPI), now operates the recently
constructed Philippine-Japan Halfway House, a new alternative for treating
adult offenders. On the other hand, community-based rehabilitation services

for the youth are administered by the DSWD through its regional field offices
nationwide, in coordination with the local government’s social welfare and
development offices. After-care and follow-up services are likewise carried out
for youth offenders by the DSWD.
The management of community-based treatment measures for persons
in conflict with the law has its share of problems and weaknesses. Firstly, low
priority has been given to budgetary outlays and support for offenders and
prisoners because of the stigma attached to crimes and offenses. Secondly,
the general public perception on offenders continues to be in the context that
they have violated laws and human rights.
Thus, continuous advocacy efforts have to be done to change the
mind set about offenders and their capacity to be rehabilitated and be
productive. Thirdly, while village level efforts are welcome and widely used,
personal and familial ties sometimes influence decisions at that level, thus,
affecting the efficacy of some corrective measures. This is a disadvantage of
the informal system, which can be addressed by constant orientation,
information, and education of community leaders and residents.
Fourthly, while youth offenders are welcomed easily, adult offenders
are less accepted by communities because of the fact that they are perceived
to have full cognizance of their offenses and wrongdoing. Thus, there are
more opportunities for youth offenders than adult, because of the perceived
higher chance of rehabilitation by the latter.
The fifth, and most important lesson, is that investing in prevention and
developmental programs, to ensure economic stability and social equity

among the populace, is far better and less costlier than the treatment of
offenders. This is in consonance with the old saying that “an ounce of
prevention is better than a pound of cure.”
Thus, the government and civil services are investing in strengthening
families as a basic unit of society that should nurture, care and develop its
members to be useful and responsible members of society. Crime prevention
and the treatment of offenders are among the most important tasks and
responsibilities of governments. This fact is confirmed by the 1997 World
Bank Development Report that listed the five fundamental tasks of the States
in our changing world. The five tasks are: 1. establishing a foundation of law.
2. Maintaining a non-distortionary policy environment, including
macroeconomic stability. 3. Investing in basic social services and
infrastructure. 4. Protecting the vulnerable. 5. Protecting the environment.
Clearly, tasks numbers 1 and 4 (above) cover crime prevention and control
and treatment of offenders, respectively. Thus states of the world should
invest in this endeavor in order to ensure that its development goals are
achieved and its progress attained. To fully operate these state tasks,
particularly in the field of the community based treatment of offenders and ex -
offenders, there is a need for a comprehensive and integrated planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation system between and among the
five (5) pillars of the criminal justice. Since these pillars have the same goals
that vary only in degree of congruence and emphasis, they form a chain of
efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate offenders.

These pillars constitute the sectors in a reintegration continuum:
community (development, prevention, early detection); law enforcement
(interrogation,-detention); prosecution (investigation); courts (adjudication);
corrections (retribution, rehabilitation) The initial step towards this integrated
approach is ensuring a common paradigm in reintegration that starts and
ends with the community as the vital and leading component of a reintegration
continuum.
Proceeding from a systems approach in rehabilitation, reintegration
goals must permeate and be integrated in all pillars of the criminal justice
system. This also calls for a comprehensive and holistic view of reintegration
as a continuum - starting at the point where an offender is separated from
their community, to the time s/he is brought before law enforcement entities,
the prosecution, the courts, the corrections authorities and finally back to the
community. Thus, even at the first instance when s/he is apprehended, the
police must view an offender not just as a criminal, but a human resource that
can be a potential loss and a subject for rehabilitation and eventual
reintegration. Subsequent pillars, to which the offender must be exposed,
should also have these common goals. At the initial stages of interrogation,
detention and investigation, therefore, an offender must be seen not only as
an individual whose criminal behavior needs to be contained or curtailed, but
also as a person in an especially difficult circumstance who should
nonetheless be helped in facing their problems and coping with life’s realities.
Similarly, while the prosecution and the court pillars treat offenders as
worthy of deterrent measures and punishment, they must have reintegration

in final view. Correction officials and staff should not, therefore, be the only
advocates for reintegration.
This reintegration continuum approach, at the formal criminal justice
pillar levels, must be supplemented and complemented by informal social
control and economic growth mechanisms at the community level to improve
quality of lives and strengthen the prevention of crime at its very source - the
individual, their family and community.
These efforts must be supported by all the elements and sectors of a
nation that must see crime as a manifestation of weaknesses in a given
society. For in ultimate analysis, the strength of a nation can only be truly
tested at the level of its poorest and most vulnerable families, and those of its
weakest communities.
Related Studies
Foreign
Maruna (2020) reported that over 2 million adults were placed
under correctional supervision in the United States. In addition, these people
are incarcerated and stigmatized because of their criminal record, aside from
the problems that lead to re-offending. In the Philippines, correctional
establishments are not even capable of a massive population, so the increase
of prisoners and recidivism rates. Aside from some failure to justice that is
supposed to protect the innocence from conviction, the deemed criminals
have difficulties to seizing survival. Moreover, the local problem includes

stigmatization that significantly affects ex-offenders toward perceiving life.
Perchance,as they barely maintain intimate relationships with their immediate
family while being incarcerated, will become a gaping wound of the
relationship that causes much arousal of problems. Leaving prison, thus, is
also reminding them that their families are already broken, that no homes are
willing to receive them, and that their employment capabilities do not matter at
all.
(Moore & Tangney, 2017; Moore et al., 2018; Phillips, 2016) Ex-
offenders are individuals that are even at the risk of many determinants. Their
conviction was even more threatening as it has enforced the feeling of being
strained to violence and other incarceration difficulties such as abuse that
later on can impact their ethical decision making. The abhorrent conviction of
young individuals, particularly those whose life after prison cannot reintegrate
into society, will handicap them for unemployment that drives them survives
differently.
Lipsey (2019) conducted a meta-analysis to examine the effect of
rehabilitation programs on reducing recidivism for adults who have been
convicted of an offense. Studies were included in the review if they 1) involved
a qualifying psycho social intervention or treatment designed to, implicitly or
explicitly, reduce criminal behavior or improve skills, mental health, or social
functioning; 2) included a sample that comprised at least 50 percent convicted
persons and 60 percent adults of a mean age of 18 or older; 3) compared
outcomes for at least one participant group of at least 10 individuals receiving

treatment with those in at least one qualifying control group of at least 10
individuals; 4) included participants who were randomly assigned to treatment
and control conditions, or matched on or compared on baseline variables that
included at least one pretest criminal history/risk variable or two relevant
personal demographic characteristics; 5) reported at least one outcome
variable for recidivism or other outcomes indicative of successful intervention
such as employment, mental health, or substance use; and 5) were
conducted during or after 1950 in the United States or another English-
speaking, culturally similar country (e.g., Canada, United Kingdom, Australia,
New Zealand).
The studies primarily measured outcomes related to recidivism,
substance use, employment, mental health, anger/hostility, or
aggression/violence. Some studies contributed effect sizes in more than one
outcome category. When studies reported outcomes for more than one
variable in a given construct category (e.g., recidivism for different offense
types), only the broadest effect size was included in the analysis (e.g.,
recidivism for all offenses). However, this Crime Solutions practice review
focused on the outcome of recidivism. Recidivism was calculated using a
random effects inverse-variance weighted mean effect size.
Ray, B., Grommon, B., & Rydberg, J. (2016) mentioned in their studies
that there is no single method of supportive reentry that works the best.
Instead, what is crucial to the success of parolees is what is delivered to
them, by whom, and in what fashion.

In other words, tailoring treatment and supportive programs to the
specific needs of each parolee can be a far more effective approach to
Liem & Kunst, (2013) revealed in their studies that the longer an inmate
is incarcerated, the more likely they are to experience post-traumatic stress
disorder-like symptoms. These symptoms are commonly called post-
incarceration syndrome.
The manifestation of post-incarceration syndrome involves PTSD-like
symptoms – anxiety, alienation, and social-sensory disorientation.
Furthermore, institutionalized personality traits are also common and typically
take the form of social withdrawal and mistrust of others, to name but two.
Parolees with post-incarceration syndrome face a significant uphill
battle once they reenter society. As noted earlier, finding a job and housing
can be extremely difficult as it is, but with significant mental health issues
present, successful reentry becomes that much more difficult to attain.
Again, without proper supports in place, newly-paroled people are all
but left to “go it alone,” which can be a recipe for re-offending.
According to a National Institutes of Corrections study (2010) on
evidence-based practices, building trust between the defendant and the
judge, their attorney, probation agent, therapist, and other stakeholders can
be a crucial component of changing the defendant’s behavior.
The study specifically points to the effectiveness of trust-building and
motivation-building for defendants in drug courts. In instances in which the
defendant had personal interactions with the judge, the defendant’s

engagement and participation in the sentencing process improved. This, in
turn, promoted higher levels of motivation to alter the behaviors that landed
them in court in the first place.
In other words, relationship-building and demonstrating an interest in
the defendant’s ability to be successful helps reduce the defendant’s feelings
of hopelessness and ambivalence to the process. Likewise, it encourages
them to take an active part in the proceedings and can result in improved
chances of avoiding incarceration in the future.
Local Studies
Palagan and Apolinario (2022) emphasized in their study that ex-
offenders are deemed for lifetime conviction as they are subjected to neglect
and restrictions since most perspicacity stigmatizes individual who were sent
to prison for constant deviance. The overall intent of this case study was to
explore how ex-offenders can live life after incarceration while they grapple
difficulties outside such as alienating their capability to live anew. Their
perceptions on the encountered challenges and vantage on the overcoming
strategies they generated themselves after their release; and, reflective
insights, were burrowed. Utilizing interview guide questions to instrument the
in-depth or one-on-one interview of the five participants agreed from the initial
search through purposive sampling, open-ended responses were obtained
and carried through thematic analysis. From the excerpts of the candid data, it
is found that people are pertinent for ex-offenders on living their lives after
release that either trigger problems or motivates constructive-drive in

overcoming. In conclusion, ex-offenders are concerned on the objective
approach for challenges that impacts their immediate family, risk their lives,
and compels recidivism requiring them to decide adhering with conventional
activities and detach from friends. Refusal to social association is their
subjective approach to criticisms and stigma in the society, hence became
passive on receiving comfort and acceptance assimilated by immediate family
and by the liberty they are exercising outside the prison.
Besin-Mengla (2020) stated that most ex-convicts in Cameroon
became recidivists because of their inability to reintegrate into society. It is
found that ex-convicts' rejection causes them to consume vices and commit
crimes leading to re-imprisonment.
As Chikadzi (2017) mentioned, ex-convicts face myriad challenges
that could drive their recidivism. Their adjustment to broken family and
community, unemployment, and after-care services are among the factors
that struggle them, so the crime-fighting strategy is an essential component
for an offender to reintegrate. It is said that human interaction improves ethical
decision-making, so with ethical-decision making weakens when social
disconnection occurs.
United Nations (2017) Their study specifically points to the
effectiveness of trust-building and motivation-building for defendants in drug
courts. In instances in which the defendant had personal interactions with the
judge, the defendant’s engagement and participation in the sentencing

process improved. This, in turn, promoted higher levels of motivation to alter
the behaviors that landed them in court in the first place.
It encourages them to take an active part in the proceedings and can
result in improved chances of avoiding incarceration in the future.
According to Tan et al. (2016), stigmatization was often pointed to by
criminals as a problem and was established as a significant obstacle to
reintegration. Furthermore, respondents who regarded criminals as unwilling
to improve, as well as those who felt more morally outraged by the crimes
they had committed, demonstrated a greater preference for social distance.
Criminals are considered lifetime criminals as it is an expected stigma of the
convicts (Moore et al., 2016). They can internalize those stigmas and absorb
heavily, which found riskier for mental health and development to anti-social
behavior and avoidance to the environment.
Pansag (2016) suggested that an ex-convict observer’s coping
strategy provide him/her with an ability to live more. Further, (De Guzman et
al., 2020) research posited the positive effects of the prisons’ negative
climate, specifically to Filipino elders’ prisoners. Besides, prison experiences
could be either a help or harm to them in a way that in order to cope with the
prison environment, the participant chose to become subjective, to bear the
consequences of their actions, to remain busy and to remain active in
religious activities (Flores-Barolo & Vicente, 2019). Ex-offenders are deemed
for lifetime conviction as they are subjected to neglect and restrictions since
most perspicacity stigmatizes individual who were sent to prison for constant
deviance. This emphasizes that they are expected for social disconnection
and constraint as already a punishment even after their conviction. It is surely
difficult to combat all these factors, hence, there are ex-offenders who have
continued to live their life, regain self-esteem, establish healthy personalities,
and interact along with family, friends, and other people.
Estel and Portes (2016) reiterated in their study that as of 2012 there
has been an alarming increase of 20% Filipino recidivists (Bureau of
Corrections, 2012). It continues to increase up until the present time. Thus,
this study examined how Individual Differences, Family, Peers, State Policies
for Employment, and Spirituality foster successful reintegration of ex-
offenders and ultimately lessen recidivism among them. Through delving into
the personal lived experiences of the ex-offender during their re-entry, the
researchers intend to know how these factors play out in their successful re-
entry experience. Findings suggest that these factors heavily affect the
reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals. However, a new factor,
politics, emerged in our present study indicating that it also assists successful
reintegration. The six factors are interdependent and found to have
corresponding sub themes. In addition, the researchers have found out that
the factors may overlap with one another and may or may not exist without
the other. In general, findings provide several suggestions for better
correctional facilities, better government policies, and alternative approaches
for successful reintegration and lessening recidivism rates.

Bibliography
United Nations (2017). ‘The Role of Social Factors in Development,’ Expert
Group Meeting on Social Policy and Planning, Background Paper No.2, p.2.
Stockholm:UN. Elliot, Doreen (2003) ‘ Social Work and Social Development:
Towards an Integrative Model for Social Work Practice,’ International Social
Work, Sage; London, Vol.36 pp.21-36.
Omer, S.(2009) ‘ Social Development ‘ International Social Work, Vol. XXII
(3):11- 26
Rules and Regulations of the Board of Pardons and Parole, Department of
Justice, 2010
―Revised IRR of Republic Act No. 10575.‖ Official
Bersamina, Dolores, Loida Rilvera, and Wilson Tolio. ―Grasp Behind Bars:
The Persons Deprived of Liberty Lived Experineces.‖ Asian Journal of
Education and Human Development 2 (2021).
Flores-Barolo, Mary Grace, and Jezreel Binwag Vicente. ―Challenges
and coping mechanisms of persons deprived of liberty of Sablayan

prison and penal farm in the Philippines.‖ International Journal of
Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences 8, no. 11
(2019): 49–97.
https://garph.co.uk/IJARMSS/Nov2019/G-2759.pdf.
Lebbie, Kumba Hannah. ―An Examination of the
Relationship between Rehabilitation and Recidivism.‖ The Repository @
St. Cloud State. Thesis, St. Cloud State University.
https://repository.stcloudstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a
rticle=1021&context=cjs_etds. (2021).
Auty, Katherine M., and Alison Liebling. ―Exploring the Relationship
between Prison Social Climate and Reoffending*.‖ Justice Quarterly 37,
no. 2 x: 358–81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1538421. (2019).

Recidivisim Newly Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recidivisim Newly Revised

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recidivisim Newly Revised

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGONCILLO COLLEGE INC.

Poblacion, Agoncillo, Batangas

Recidivism Rehabilitation Programs Implementation

The Faculty of College of Criminology

Agoncillo College Inc.

Poblacion, Agoncillo, Batangas

Of the requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Science in Criminology

R-vhen Jay De Leus

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Rehabilitation programs is a set of measures that assist individuals

who experience, or are likely to experience, disability to achieve and

maintain optimal functioning in interaction with their environments.

Criminal rehabilitation is essentially the process of helping inmates

grow and change, allowing them to separate themselves from the

commit crimes in the future.

The reintegration of offenders into their own community and society is

one of the universally accepted goals of corrections, whether the latter is

carried out in institutions or through non-custodial measures. To ensure that

offenders discharged from detention centers, jails, penal institutions or

Thus, it is imperative to sustain rehabilitation and achieve reintegration

through the community-based treatment of ex -offenders. Moreover, the

commission of crime is a result or consequence of the inter-play of factors and

choices and decision-making processes. Hence, it is necessary that these

human and environmental factors are examined closely and appropriate

measures adopted to assist ex-offenders in their reintegration efforts. (Omer,

or crime, the community must be harnessed to assume greater responsibility

in reforming offenders and preventing recidivism. The community and society

prevent crime, ensure peace, and promote development in the locality. To

maximize the role of the community in an offender’s reintegration process,

there is a need to continuously re-examine the concepts related to

community-based corrections. At the same time, new approaches that have

evolved locally and globally, related to this concept should be appreciated.

In this process, best practices in community based corrections must

be documented and replicated, so that they continue to be viable alternatives

to custodial care of offenders.

Probation Administration, a line agency under the Department of Justice.

In fact, it has been widely accepted that incarceration or imprisonment

heinous crimes, and that community-based treatment should instead be

promoted whenever possible and feasible to hasten an offenders’

reintegration into society. Imprisonment leads to other problems related to an

offender’s stigmatization and de socialization. (Omer, S. 2009)

alienate offenders from their family, friends and acquaintances. Due to

overcrowding, prisons lead to dehumanizing conditions, which make

reintegration and re socialization even more difficult. Prisons spawn the

formation of “subcultures” among prisoners that tend to harden them. This is

so because prisoners have to counteract the effects of deprivations of

Corrective actions and treatment measures are better achieved in a

natural environment such as the community where offenders can highlight

development, community based corrections enable offenders to adapt more

effectively to such changes in a more realistic and flexible manner. The

community also provides a network of relationships and a range of activities

that enable offenders to know themselves better in a variety of real life

Moreover, offenders are able to continue dispensing responsibilities

for many day to-day basic socioeconomic commitments such as managing a

to the day-to-day realities of life in society, they are afforded more

participation in planning, implementing and evaluating their reintegration plans

consideration by the offender in a “here-and-now” situation which calls for

dynamic responses from them.

This contrasts with imprisonment, where rehabilitation work is based