| 4. In which ways is the initiative creative and innovative?
|
|
The implementation of the TEAM model, the community-based correction integrated model, was the main strategy to improve the quality of probation services. The TEAM model was implemented as a pilot project in 8 probation offices throughout the four regions of Thailand. The participants included 2,995 offenders, 67 POs, 367 VPOs and representatives from CJN. The figures presented that the number of POs was accounted for only 15 percent of the total number of staff members. Clearly, the initiative relied on VPOs and the representatives from CJN. Therefore, the model focused on providing intensive supervision by restructuring the operating structure and maximizing of community involvement. The implementation was divided into three phases.
Our first phase was on a policy level. We strategically established the implementation's policy based on the principle of good governance (efficiency, effectiveness, accountability, participation, decentralization, and transparency). While experiencing a lack of resources, we tried our best to efficiently utilize of the existing ones (e.g. VPOs, CJN, community) in order to maintain the effectiveness of offender supervision and rehabilitation. Under the concepts of accountability and participation, case conferences were used as a tool and a venue for stakeholders to track and appraise progress of the implementation, to participate in the decision making process, as well as to provide recommendations, opinions, and feedback. In addition, the principle of decentralization was incorporated into the TEAM model. Teams that comprised of VPOs and POs were set up to be responsible for the designated areas. Moreover, the concept of transparency (honesty, fidelity, equity) was strictly practiced among our participated staff members and volunteers. For this phase, the stakeholders' acceptance, adherence, and support of the policies were the success factors.
For the second phase, the Five Star Model (Galbraith, 1960) was adopted as our planning framework to ensure that our key development would be the concrete and achievable plan. Following the model from the step of establishing strategies, operating structure, defining process, setting reward systems, and people policies, we initially set our goals to improve the quality of probation services (in order to better protect the community) by restructuring the operating structure and maximizing of community involvement. Then we introduced the TEAM model as our operating structure. Next, operational and collaborative processes were defined. Information sessions on the model implementation for prospective POs, probation offices, VPOs, and representatives from CJN were held in order to establish mutual understanding among stakeholders. Regarding the reward system, participated POs were appraised with higher score due to the improvement of their performances and the abilities to resolve the overdue cases. Whereas, the VPOs were rewarded with positive feedback from the community, and opportunities to become team leaders. Additionally, we emphasized on systematic development of the participated staff members, as our people policies. We focused on selecting the most qualified POs and VPOs, as well as continuously offered training sessions. We empowered them by encouraging partnership, and providing them with opportunities to make appropriate execution plans for their oversee areas.
Lastly, Deming cycle (PDCA) was employed as an execution and quality control tool. For this phase , while each team carried out supervision and rehabilitation activities according to the TEAM model, team meeting and case conferences were arranged regularly to monitor progress/ share/ exchange opinions. Then the teams decided on necessary plan adjustment. Toward the end of the implementation, the evaluation workshop was organized to gather feedback for further development. Success factors for this phase comprised of the strength of community collaboration and partnership, the dedication of all stakeholders, and the consistency of the implementation.
|
|
| 5. Who implemented the initiative and what is the size of the population affected by this initiative?
|
|
The implementation of the TEAM model involved several stakeholders. Those who directly contributed in the implementation were VPOs, representatives from CJN, school districts, religious organizations, municipal offices, and participated POs. They were key players in supervising and rehabilitating offenders in the community. On the other hand, those who indirectly contributed were executives from DOP, as they mainly supported the initiative in policy level.
With stakeholders from various backgrounds, there were a few factors underlining the successful collaboration throughout the implementation. The first factor was positive attitudes of the stakeholders toward the TEAM model. From planning to evaluation stages, the objectives and benefits of the initiative were continuously communicated to all stakeholders, in order create mutual understanding and collaboration among stakeholders. Secondly, the concrete area-based structure of the model allowed all stakeholders to easily follow and adopt as their operational standard. Thus there were few confusions of the cooperative workflow. Thirdly, the partnership management style, that applied case conference as a tool to facilitate involvement of all stakeholders, as well as, to track progress, adjust plan, and evaluate the performance, promoted stakeholder involvement and commitment throughout the process. Finally, the DOP executives' supports enhanced the motivation of other stakeholders, as it represented that DOP placed the initiative in their top priority and it also reflected DOP's appreciation toward their participation.
The factors mentioned above impressively established a strong collaboration among all parties. The situation had shown that POs and DOP could not work alone. This initiative would have failed to alleviate the over-caseload and diminishing quality of supervision and rehabilitation issues without the commitment and dedication of POs, VPOs, representatives from CJN, and other stakeholders. Since, the TEAM model was not relying on any advanced technologies to make changes, it must depend on the power of collaboration to make the differences.
|
| 6. How was the strategy implemented and what resources were mobilized?
|
|
The initiative was funded by the National Research Council of Thailand in the total amount of 1.58 million Baht, after it was proposed in 2011. Other resources included human capital (executives from DOP, POs, VPOs, representatives from CJN and the community).
The budget of 1.58 million was mainly invested to organize several events that aimed to develop our human resources and strengthen the community cooperation and involvement, as they were the key success factors of the TEAM initiation. Those events included information sessions, training sessions on the initiative's implementation and offender supervision and rehabilitation, team meetings, evaluation workshop conferences, and community centers. They were organized to facilitate learning, commitment, teamwork, involvement, and collaboration of the stakeholders. For example, the information sessions and meetings were held to establish mutual understanding among all stakeholders, so that they would be willing to participate and commit. Other meetings and workshop conferences were venues for stakeholders to work together, share opinions, appraise the implementation, then make adjustment to further improve. Furthermore, the community centers were established within the designated area, and were used as the team offices, as well as places for organizing supervision and rehabilitation activities.
Besides the financial and human resource, we also relied on technical resources. It was the knowledge on offender supervision and rehabilitation. The information was stated in item 10 in the Department of Probation's National Standards, and was used as the guideline for POs and VPOs during the implementation of the initiative. Additionally, sub-topics related to the standard (counseling skills, basic criminal laws, helping skills, social intervention, risks and need assessment, planning and organizing supervision and rehabilitation activities ) were incorporated into the training curriculum for POs and VPOs.
To summarize, the mentioned resources were managed in the way that they complimented each other to maximize the productivity of the initiative. Since this initiative mainly relied on the human resources as the key players in the model, investing in human resource development was crucial. Resulting from the major budget allocation in human capital, the participated staff members were equipped with the necessary skills that they were able to to contribute and operate under the TEAM model cooperatively and effectively. Therefore, excessive caseload was alleviated, and supervision and rehabilitation were conducted more intensively. According to the evaluation's results, the initiative received many positive feedback from the offenders, as well as, participants from DOP and the community, in term of quality of service, and level of satisfaction.
|
|
| 7. Who were the stakeholders involved in the design of the initiative and in its implementation?
|
|
The implementation of the initiative yielded several outstanding outputs. Firstly, according to the data collection from the participated probation offices in the four regions of the country, there were 2,995 offenders who had been intensively supervised under the TEAM model structure. Under the TEAM area-based management, the accessibility of service was enhanced. The community centers were set up to extend the services -allowing POs, VPOs, and representatives from CJN to work closely with offenders within the designated area. The evaluation results revealed that the staff members and offenders were more satisfied, as they no longer needed to travel long distance to probation offices. In addition, the budget spent on transportation for staff members and offenders was minimized.
Secondly, this initiative had produced 434 skillful staff members (67 POs, and 367 VPOs and representatives from CJN) who could provide intensive supervision and rehabilitation to offenders within the community. As part of the initiative's implementation, these staff members had completed several crucial skills trainings. As a result, they could operate better as a team and could provide services more effectively. To illustrate, as VPOs had gone through the necessary trainings, POs were more confident in their abilities, and started to delegate more cases/tasks to them. After tasks had been systematically delegated, the operational workflow, then, became more efficient. This result was supported by the evaluation's outcome that indicated fewer numbers of overdue cases, and higher level of the stakeholders' satisfaction in the aspect of providing service in a timely manner.
The third output was the 52 million Baht that was saved through the maximization of community involvement. There were 367 VPOs and representatives from CJN participated in the initiative. If DOP was to hire 367 POs, it would cost approximately 52 millions Baht for their minimum annual salary. However, when DOP recruited VPOs and representatives from CJN on a volunteer basis, these people did not receive any compensations. They dedicated their personal time and talents to work with DOP because they determined to make their community a better place. They started to volunteer with altruism, and willingness to help. When the TEAM model was introduced, roles of VPOs and representatives from CJN were magnified, these volunteers sensed the importance of their presences. Their willingness to assist and cooperate with DOP was even greater.
Lastly, the TEAM model handbook was our final output. The handbook could be used as guidelines in other projects.
|
|
| 8. What were the most successful outputs and why was the initiative effective?
|
|
DOP applied the Deming Cycle (Edward, 1986), or PDCA (Plan, Do, Check, Act) cycle as a protocol for quality control and evaluation. Milestones were set for each stage. For Preparation and Planning stage (P), the milestones were the stakeholders' awareness on the urgency, agreement to support/participate in the initiative, and their understanding regarding the implementation of the TEAM in the responsible areas (e.g. Forming teams to supervise offenders in each area, designing supervision frequency and rehabilitation activities, asking alliance network for additional supports, set concrete/measurable supervision and rehabilitation goal). During the stages of implementation and monitoring, the milestones were specified that each team could provide supervision and rehabilitation activities according to plan , and that case conference was arranged at least once a month to track progress and adjust the plans (if necessary). Finally, organizing the evaluation workshop to gather feedback for further improvement was set as the milestone for the evaluation stage.
Throughout all stages, we monitored whether each milestone had been achieved. The accomplished milestone indicated effective implementation of the strategies. To illustrate, during the preparation and planning stage, we monitored the number of prospective stakeholders who agreed to participate after they attended the information session or being approached, then we tracked the number of completed implementation plans through surveys during several meetings. At the implementation stage, their performance data that were collected from progress tracking forms, were compared to the initial goal. We also monitored the frequency of case conference held in each area by interviewing the participated POs. Then, to appraise the overall results of the implementation, both qualitative and quantitative data were collected among staff members and the involved community using questionnaire survey and focus groups at the final evaluation workshop.
Finally, the results revealed that each milestone was accomplished. In total, there were 434 participated staff members. Overall, the participants followed through the TEAM structure, and arranged regular case conferences. As a result, intensive supervision was provided more effectively that the recidivism rate was reduced by 5 percent, and that POs had fewer caseload burden. Moreover, the outcome that exhibited an increase in VPOs' participation rate, signified an improvement of the community involvement. Furthermore, the results from evaluation interviews showed positive feedback and a higher level of satisfaction regarding their overall experience working under the TEAM model structure.
|
|
| 9. What were the main obstacles encountered and how were they overcome?
|
|
Implementing the TEAM model was practically a major restructuring of offender supervision and rehabilitation system. Thus resistance to change within DOP was unavoidable. As we had speculated the obstacle to be intense during the introduction of the initiative, we adopted Kotter's 8-Step Change Model. We incorporated the steps into our action plan starting from establishing a sense of urgency among DOP executives, heads of probation offices, and VPOs nationwide. Then we asked for their participation on a voluntary basis to reduce the resistance. Next, we followed step2 to 8 of creating the guiding coalition, developing a change vision, communicating the vision for buy-in, empowering broad-based action, generating short-term wins, never letting up, and incorporating changes into the culture. To illustrate, during the planning phase, we repeatedly praised the stakeholders' abilities to make changes, emphasized on our goal, and explained the mechanism of the TEAM model and how it could attenuate the existing issues. They were encouraged to contribute by proposing new ideas and sharing their opinions during the meetings, in order to strengthen their involvement and cooperation. Moreover, training sessions and on-the job training systems were organized to empower and boost their confidence in their abilities to achieve the goals. Goals were broken down into several steps starting from the simple to the more complex ones to foster their sense of achievement. Finally, we accentuated on the constant improvement and the transference of the initiative to other settings by arranging evaluation workshop seminars and by convincing DOP executives to continuously support the implementation of the initiative.
Another obstacle experienced during the initiative's implementation stage was the lack of some resources (such as, financial resources, venues and utilities) to organize rehabilitative activities. However, we overcome the issue by seeking sponsorship and additional assistance from our alliance network and the community.
|