Frequency and Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Programme Interventions Provided in Prison, Drug Rehabilitation Centres and Halfway Houses

Mr Speaker, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) adopts an evidence-based approach in the rehabilitation of inmates. Factors, such as the inmates’ risk of re-offending, rehabilitation needs, conduct in prison and remaining length of the sentence, are taken into consideration in the allocation of intervention programmes.

In prison and drug rehabilitation centres, inmates undergo psychology-based correctional programmes to change their negative thinking and behaviours and improve their pro-social skills to minimise their risk of re-offending. Inmates may also undergo other types of programmes, such as family programmes, to help them build stronger bonds, employability and skills training, work programmes, education, release preparation and religious programmes.

The frequency of these programmes varies. For example, the psychology-based correctional programmes consist of individual and group-based sessions and take place one to three times a week, with varying intensity from a few weeks to a few months, depending on the inmates’ needs and risks. Religious programmes happen on a weekly basis, while pre-release programmes take place towards the tail-end of an inmate’s sentence.

SPS also partners halfway houses to provide community-based programmes to inmates. At these halfway houses, supervisees undergo a programme to reinforce the skills and concepts learnt in prison to cope with challenges in the community. This programme comprises 11 sessions, usually conducted within four months.

Depending on the programmes that they conduct, SPS staff and partners have a wide range of qualifications. They are selected and recruited on the basis that they have the relevant competency and skillsets to deliver the programmes.

SPS evaluates the effectiveness of its rehabilitation programmes. For example, SPS had conducted an evaluation of its high-intensity psychology-based correctional programmes, which included taking pre- and post-programme measures. The findings showed that inmates who had completed the programmes showed reduced negative thinking patterns and were more confident to stay away from drugs and crime. Inmate feedback on the usefulness of the programmes is also collected.

SPS provides different programmes in prison to help inmates in their rehabilitation and prepare them for reintegration into the society. Ultimately, there are other factors, such as having stable employment and positive pro-social networks, that will help in the successful reintegration of ex-offenders in the longer term. It would also depend very much on the individual’s personal motivation and desire to change.

I thank the Minister of State for the clarifications. Just a full disclosure, I am on the Board of Yellow Ribbon Singapore. In September last year, I asked a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the rehabilitation challenges faced by elderly inmates and also, in the recent cuts in the Committee of Supply, I have asked on rehabilitation efforts.

The Minister of State mentioned about the various rehabilitation programmes, such as the release preparation, religious, work and family programmes. I was just wondering, how many, in terms of percentage, of inmates actually attended those programmes in the last year, in 2021. For those who did not attend, what are the reasons for them not attending? If so, what are the steps that SPS and the Ministry would be taking to enhance attendance in such programmes?

Sir, I thank the Member for the supplementary question. As I have shared earlier, SPS assesses inmates for programmes based on various factors, such as their risks of re-offending, rehabilitation needs and the remaining length of sentence and also looking at their responsivity with regard to the programmes that are available.

So, we assess that psychology-based correctional programmes and family programmes would be suitable for about half of the 2021 admissions into prisons. However, about 5% may, eventually, not attend the programmes due to motivation or mental health issues. For some, they also fall sick.

About 40% of the inmate population as at end-2021 attended skills training. About 30% of the inmate population as at end-2021 attended work programmes. For other programmes, such as educational, religious programmes, the participation ranges from about 5% to 60%, as it depends on the inmates' own needs and preferences.

All inmates, even those who decide not to attend the programmes, can access – using tablet computers – rehabilitation materials like e-versions of psychology-based correctional programmes, motivational talks and various guides on regulating emotions and communication skills.

At the halfway houses, all supervisees would have to go through a programme to reinforce the skills and concepts learned in prison, like what I shared in my answer earlier.

So, as I also said earlier, while SPS provides various programmes to help inmates, there are also other factors that will help in the successful rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders, such as having stable employment and positive pro-social networks. It would also depend a great deal on the individual's personal motivation and desire to change. In fact, that is always the message whenever I visit the prisons to meet the inmates. I will always remind them "while we will do our best to help you to rehabilitate as part of your rehabilitation and reintegration journey, at the end of the day, a large part of it depends on you". Many of them agree. We will continue to support them, so that they are able to reintegrate into the society in a better and stronger way.

I thank the Minister of State for that helpful reply. Just two supplementary questions. One is that, if an inmate, for whatever reason – be it lack of capacity or any other reason – would like to attend educational, rehabilitative or religious programmes, but they find that they do not have access to those programmes, can they make a request to attend such programmes and will that be taken into consideration in giving them access to such programmes, if for any reason they do not have that? That is my first supplementary question.

Second supplementary question: it is my understanding, based on published, publicly available information, that SPS adopts a classification system for inmates based on what is seen as their propensity to be rehabilitated. So, I am wondering whether those who are classified in that way as being less likely to be rehabilitated, can also demonstrate, through acts of good faith, through requests, that they are open to attending these rehabilitative programmes and get access to them, if they demonstrate that.

Sir, as I have shared earlier, we use the risk, need and responsivity model approach, as well as the length of the stay in the prison or institution, to look at how that kind of programmes may be useful for the inmates.

We have received requests from inmates. And I would like to share with the House that every request that we see, we will assess it, consider it and we will also propose to the inmates what will be useful for them.

Rehabilitation is not only about giving them programmes. In fact, we adopt a throughcare approach where the process of rehabilitation begins when the inmates start their prison term, all the way, with the community, at the end of it. And even after the release into the community, SPS still continues to engage the ex-inmates and their families. So, we will look at all the different requests and we do our best to provide them the opportunities to be rehabilitated and reintegrated into the community.