Detention and Reintegration Working Group. Workshop on Capacity Building and Training for the Appropriate Management of Violent Extremist Offenders

Transcription

1 Detention and Reintegration Working Group Workshop on Capacity Building and Training for the Appropriate Management of Violent Extremist Offenders 8-9 April 2015 Medan, Indonesia Summary Overview On 8-9 April 2015, the Government of Indonesia hosted the third meeting within the framework of the Global Counterterrorism Forum (GCTF) Detention and Reintegration Working Group (DRWG) in Medan, Indonesia. The meeting, entitled Workshop on Capacity Building and Training for the Appropriate Management of Violent Extremist Offenders, was co-chaired by Indonesia and the Government of Australia, and co-organized with the Global Center on Cooperative Security (Global Center). It focused on the importance of dynamic security and effective interaction and engagement strategies, and methods to monitor and prevent radicalization to violent extremism within the prison system. Building upon the GCTF s Rome Memorandum on Good Practices for Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Violent Extremist Offenders (Rome Memorandum), the presentations and roundtable discussions centered on good prison standards and practices, and the necessity to build professional, positive relationships based on trust between prison officers and violent extremist offenders (VEOs) as a means to ensure institutional order and safety, to prevent recruitment and the spread of radicalization within the prison system, and to facilitate the implementation of rehabilitation and reintegration programs. The meeting was attended by 63 participants from 23 countries and nine organizations. During the opening session, Indonesia underlined the importance of capacity building for corrective services officials and prisons officers by conducting various trainings, the development of rehabilitation and reintegration programs for terrorist inmates, as well as the importance of involving society, including community and religious leaders, in the reintegration process. Australia highlighted that the workshop could serve as a venue to share information and experiences among stakeholders from various countries with regard to corrective services management standards, particularly in the prevention of radicalization in prisons. The Global Center emphasized that the workshop aimed to address challenges in the management of terrorist inmates in prisons through effective treatment and positive engagement. Summary The following is a thematic summary of the workshop. It is not intended to be a transcript of the proceedings.

2 Panel Discussion 1: Good Prison Standards and Practices Representatives from Indonesia and the United States discussed international and regional good prison standards and practices that ensure the running of a safe, secure and well-operating custodial environment, whilst highlighting specific oversight mechanisms and emerging trends. The theme of the panel concentrated on how implementing such standards enables better management of VEOs within prison systems and better prevention of radicalization and recruitment among the larger inmate population. Practices encapsulated in the Rome Memorandum were seen as valuable guidance for countries to consider implementing, although the necessity of tailoring policies and measures to local contexts and needs was emphasized throughout the workshop. Discussion focused on the implications of overcrowding and a lack of manpower and resources, as well as corruption in prison services, which has a big impact on the detainees whilst at the same time putting strains on prison staff and the appropriate management of VEOs. Furthermore, many countries have a considerable on remand population in detention, often mixed with sentenced prisoners, which brings about a host of management challenges. This also highlights the interconnectivity of the criminal justice system, where investigatory and prosecutorial challenges and backlogs in the court system have a huge impact on the corrections system. Lastly, participants also considered the increasing attraction of the ideology of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant among prisoners and how this has reenergized efforts to recruit and radicalize elements of the larger prison population. However, participants emphasized that, since radicalism, violent extremism, and terrorism cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nation, culture or social or ethnic group, the treatment of inmates in prison should not be conducted by discrediting or stigmatizing any particular religion or social or ethnic group. Panel Discussion 2: Dynamic Security and Positive Interaction The important role that prison staff play was detailed in the panel discussion as delegates of the Netherlands, Cambodia, and the Indonesian Center for Detention Studies shared experiences on the issues of dynamic security and building positive staff-offender relationships. Dynamic security is different from physical or procedural security: it concerns the fair but strict treatment of inmates by prison officers, aimed at establishing good relationships to secure a safe, cooperative prison environment. This is based on mutual respect and trust, and does not mean one is too lenient or soft on prisoners. In fact, constructive and encouraging interactions with prisoners can help staff garner valuable information and intelligence to assist in maintaining a safe and secure facility. A well-trained and well-resourced cadre of prison officers is essential in the effective delivery of dynamic security and positive engagement. Discussion focused on the advantages and disadvantages of isolating, segregating and dispersing VEOs, emphasizing that there are many variables to take into account, including the prison infrastructure, staff capacity and resources, size of the VEO population, and individual characteristics of the VEOs. Ensuring that appropriate vetting and monitoring mechanisms are in place for prison staff, visitors and other external actors, was another topic emphasized during the conversation, with some country delegations explaining the screening methods they had set up to

3 allow certain religious leaders to go into prisons to prevent extremist teachings. Another subject that was stressed during the panel was the need for the system to follow through in the relationship with VEOs, indicating that parole officers play just as important a role in preserving positive relationships with former prisoners in the hope to keep them from re-radicalizing after returning to society. Panel Discussion 3: Managing Violent Extremist Offenders Security Challenges The session on security challenges was enriched with case studies from the Philippines, Thailand, and Kenya. VEOs can pose a range of prison security concerns, from challenging the prison authorities to recruitment and the formation of prison gang-like groups; at the same time, they can also pose longer-term, national security challenges when they are not fully rehabilitated and re-offend after release, or when they put the new skills or contacts they have developed on the inside to use outside of prison. Discussion thus centered on the difficult challenge of balancing on the one hand the need for institutional security and the safety of both staff and prisoners, whilst on the other hand allowing inmates a certain degree of autonomy to enable positive interaction and facilitate their participation in rehabilitation and reintegration programs. Having sufficient information about each inmate, ranging from investigatory data to court dockets and case files from previous detention facilities, is vital to ensure an effective analysis of individual security challenges, motivations and needs. Hence, presentations and discussions highlighted the need to enhance interagency information sharing and develop effective intake and risk assessment procedures to ensure that new inmates are classified and housed accordingly, and receive the appropriate care. Furthermore, when applied on an ongoing basis, these assessments can inform the adjustment of the initial classification and provide insights into the impact of certain measures, programs and interventions. Providing inmates with structure, regularity and predictability is essential in creating a safe and orderly prison environment. Security is not solely realized through high walls, closed gates and repressive interventions, but more often than not through positive engagement. For instance, the provision of basic education may improve the inmates critical reflection and thinking and thus increase their resilience to (violent) extremist ideologies, and engaging them in sports and a variety of cultural activities may foster cooperation and friendship among people from different backgrounds, cultures and religions. Discussion highlighted that overcoming negative assumptions about mistreatment by the authorities and creating a sense of ownership by the detainees for the safety and security of the prison may help in realizing a stable prison environment. Panel Discussion 4: Managing Violent Extremist Offenders Identifying, Monitoring and Responding to Radicalization The strains of imprisonment and deprivation of various fundamental needs can induce in inmates a psychological and social state that makes them more receptive to violent extremist ideology or joining violent extremist groups, especially in cases where charismatic extremist leaders or strong groups, which can fulfill certain physical and social needs, are present. Panel delegates from Australia, Indonesia, and Pakistan discussed how their prison systems respond to the

4 problem of radicalized inmates and recruitment. The discussion reconfirmed the importance of structurally re-administered risk assessments as well as sufficient investments in staff training to ensure they are capable of identifying and managing VEOs and radicalization in prison. This is no simple challenge, as it is difficult to differentiate between regular inmate behavior and radical behavior in some cases, what looks like radicalization could in fact be a coping strategy to survive the prison environment. The discussion focused on the need to implement a highly individualized assessment of, and response to, radicalization. Deradicalization and disengagement strategies need to be tailored to the motivations and needs of the prisoner for instance through the involvement of psychologists and religious scholars and the provision of counter-narratives and will likely take a great deal of patience, trust, and positive engagement from the prison staff. Especially in underdeveloped, under-resourced and understaffed corrections systems, it may make more sense to train prison officers to implement individual interventions to prevent or counter radicalization, than to set up a prison-wide deradicalization program. Participants also highlighted the possibility of staff being influenced by charismatic violent extremists to the extent that they themselves become radicalized. Panel Discussion 5: Violent Extremist Offenders Trust Building and Positive Interactions Representatives of the Australian National University, the Indonesian Institute for Social Empowerment, and the Duayjai group in Thailand, presented their research and experience relating to building trust and positively interacting with VEOs. To start building the necessary trust to allow space for positive interactions between prison staff and inmates, it is important that there is an understanding of the different phases of incarceration an inmate goes through and the effect that this has on his/her state of mind and openness to engage with others. It is vital that staff have an understanding of the (different) religious beliefs, ideologies and cultures of the prisoners, in order to create mutual respect and avoid misunderstandings. Ensuring that the human dignity of inmates is preserved, no matter the severity of their crime, was deemed an important precondition for positive engagement. Furthermore, members of staff and other individuals interacting with the prisoners need to be sincere and coordinated in their approach. Benefits and positive incentives, such as extra vocational classes and family visits, can be powerful tools, but they need to be used consistently and should not become a bargaining chip for the VEOs. Involving family and community members in the engagement with prisoners, and keeping them informed of their progress, can help to increase trust and ensure a positive and welcoming home environment. Several participants emphasized that volunteers and nongovernmental actors can play an important role in bridging the gap between the VEO and his/her family and facilitating communication. Panel Discussion 6: Incorporating Violent Extremist Offenders Management in Prison Staff Training and Identifying Capacity Building and Training Needs The final panel consisted of panelists from the Philippines and the Global Center, focusing on identifying capacity building and staff training needs in different settings where prison authorities are faced with the challenge of managing VEOs and radicalization. The discussion

5 highlighted that many countries currently do not have standardized protocols for the intake, assessment and management of VEOs and the prevention of radicalization within their prisons, nor is related training incorporated in the curriculum of national training academies or provided through specialized courses for corrections staff. Investments are needed in this regard, which should built on national capacities and contexts. Furthermore, participants pinpointed a need to improve chain management throughout the criminal justice system and improve coordination and information sharing between different actors. When developing and implementing policies and programs aimed at managing VEOs, it is critical that they take into account both short-term institutional security needs and longer-term rehabilitation and reintegration objectives. Furthermore, they need to incorporate a level of flexibility to respond to changing challenges, and should include success indicators and evaluation mechanisms. Lastly, community members and civil society actors could be engaged to assist in engaging with VEOs, especially in cases where the authorities may be lacking credibility and capacity. Wrap Up In conclusion, a few key observations were highlighted throughout the workshop: 1) The importance of humane, positive and consistent interactions between staff and inmates, which can create cognitive dissonance and openings for changes in thinking and behavior; 2) The necessity of implementing structural and repeated risk assessments to ensure that inmates are classified, housed and managed appropriately and interventions are adjusted according to their progression; 3) The need to invest in prison staff training to identify, monitor, and address radicalization within the prison system. Going forward, the recommendations of this workshops, as well as those of upcoming DRWG meetings, will be developed into a guidance document detailing good practices for the detention and management of VEOs and the prevention of radicalization to violent extremism in the prison system, as well as into a training module to build the capacity of corrections services. In close partnership with the Governments of Australia, Indonesia and two partner countries, the Global Center will develop this module as a three day train-the-trainer course for prison officials and corrections officers that deal with terrorism offenders on a daily basis, to help them better identify, assess and manage terrorism offenders and radicalization in prisons. The next DRWG workshop will focus on education, life-skill courses and vocational training for VEOs and is tentatively scheduled to take place in East Africa in late August 2015.