The TEAM model: the Community-Based Correction Integrated Model
The Department of Probation Thailand

A. Problem Analysis

 1. What was the problem before the implementation of the initiative?
For the past decades, overcrowding prison has been a major issue for most nations worldwide. According to International Center for Prison Studies, 110 from 199 countries operate theirs prisons at over 100 percent occupancy, and Thailand is in the 110. Although the number of prisoners is increasing dramatically, prisons cannot be built to accommodate this problem due to limited resources. The Thai government has relied on probation system to diverse offenders from the prison system to the community, consequently placing the Department of Probation, Thailand (DOP), the community-based correction unit, with a great challenge. The number of probationers nationwide had increased from 692 to 131,507 cases within the past 30 years (DOP, 2012), not including 177,582 cases of the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act that have been under the department's care since 2002. Each probation officer (PO) is currently handling tripple amount of caseloads (41.6 cases per officers monthly compare to the standard of 15.54 cases). Even though, DOP is well-aware of this issue, its attempts to improve the situation by introducing the Volunteer Probation Officer (VPO) scheme and simplifying workflow hadn't been successful. The VPO scheme drew in the community to work with POs in offender supervision and rehabilitation to alleviate the issue of excessive caseload. However, there were absences of an integrated structure, trainings, and quality control system that effectively utilized and monitored VPOs and the community involved. Therefore, only 10 percent of the cases were allocated to VPOs (DOP, 2011). Furthermore, the simplification of workflow resulted in an elimination of several crucial tasks of offender supervision and rehabilitation, such as, doing home visits, and organizing rehabilitation activities for offenders with special needs. Under such circumstances, DOP struggled to maintain the quality of its services- offenders were not effectively rehabilitated before re-entry into community, thus they tended to re-commit crimes. Consequently, more innocent people became victims, and the society was not fully protected. DOP's statistic showed that recidivism rate had increased approximately 18 percent since 1980. This caused the public to lose their confidence in DOP. Furthermore, from an economical perspective, when DOP fails to rehabilitate one offender, it means that there is one less productive citizen. Therefore, it would hinder the country's development and growth. Moreover, the country needed to spend more on detaining these criminals in prison facilities. According to the Thai Department of Correction, its budget spending has increased from roughly 6,000 to 9,000 millions within the past 10 years. Hence, DOP realized that a new strategy to enhance the quality of our services needed to be identified. Hence, "TEAM model", the community involvement model for community-based correction, was introduced to address the issues. The model was proven to provide a mechanism that improved the utilization of the community involvement and VPOs, offender supervision/rehabilitation system and quality, service satisfaction, and budget spending. Recently, the TEAM model was being integrated with an electronic monitoring pilot project, in order to provide the most effective supervision.

B. Strategic Approach

 2. What was the solution?
As we are aware of the occurring problems, DOP has strived to improve the probation system. Studies were conducted consistently to identify effective strategies. Conferences were held to gather useful opinions from experts in the field of criminal justice, psychologists, POs, VPOs, and representatives from the community justice network (CJN) throughout the countries. After a thorough consideration, all parties had come to an agreement that the problems of ineffective supervision and rehabilitation were mainly rooted from an insufficiency of VPOs utilization, a lack of quality control system, and weak/limited community and alliance network involvement. According to the studies, the prior situation before the implementation of the initiative indicated an absence of cooperative structure between POs and VPOs and a lack of quality control system. The TEAM model initiative was proposed during the DOP conference in 2010. The initiative promoted intensive supervision through an application of the TEAM system that was based on the study of Intensive Probation Supervision in Thailand: Success and Failure (Narkvichetr et. al., 2008), and the study of Intensive Probation Supervision in Cabarrus County: Success and Failure (Narkvichetr, 2005). To enhance the intensity and quality of supervision, the initiative introduced an area-based operational structure. On average, one PO handles 500 cases annually. Under the TEAM model, offenders were divided into 5 groups (100 offenders per group) in 5 different areas. One PO supervised all 5 areas. Additionally, each area was assigned 3 VPOs or representatives from CJN to assist the POs. In total, there were 16 staff members supervising 500 offenders. The ratio of supervision shifted from 1 staff per 500 offenders to 1 staff per 31.25 offenders. This certainly enhanced the intensity of supervision and rehabilitation within the community. Moreover, the new structure provided a concrete area-based operational system for POs, VPOs, and representatives from CJN to work as "a team" within the designated area. POs acted as team leaders, who systematically delegated tasks based on the structure, as well as offered on-the-job trainings to VPOs. As VPOs could perform more tasks, POs' work burden was lessened. Evidently, the initiative alleviated excessive caseload and improved offender supervision and rehabilitation through the enhancement of community involvement (maximization of the VPOs' utilization). In addition, this new structure allowed all parties to interact, discuss issues, share progress, and adjust offenders rehabilitation plans through frequent case conferences. A case conference was considered a major part of the quality control system, and a tool that promoted teamwork. When POs and VPOs interacted more frequently and closely, their relationship was improved- leading to an establishment of partnership between DOP and the community that sustainably fostered the community and alliance network involvement in offender supervision and rehabilitation through the non-custodial measures. We could conclude that the TEAM model caused a positive butterfly effect throughout offender supervision and rehabilitation system by implementing the operating structure that promoted systematic task delegation and encouraged integrative collaboration. The model extracted the utility of the available resources (VPOs and the community) to create such significant impact in all levels of the targeted groups. For the offenders, they got the opportunities to reform themselves, became productive citizens, and live a crime-free life. To the offenders' families, they had their decent family members back. More importantly, the model successfully facilitated the establishment of a partnership between the community and DOP that led to a strengthening of community involvement. The community, then, realized that they also had to protect their own community, just as stated in the Ministry of Justice Thailand's motto- "Justice for All, All for Justice".

 3. How did the initiative solve the problem and improve people’s lives?
The TEAM model was unique, as it shifted the focus from POs centric to the offender (in community) centric. While previously offenders needed to approach POs, the model's principle of "client-centered" and "area-based" encouraged proactive supervision and delivery of rehabilitation in the areas where the clients lived. In addition, the model transformed the relationship between POs and VPOs from top-down management to partnership. Since VPOs had to contribute from planning to evaluation stage, the cooperation was more harmonious and efficient. Furthermore, the model addressed the excessive caseload issue and improved the efficiency of the offender supervision and rehabilitation system through the maximization of existing resource utilization. It set a concreted cooperative structure that allowed DOP to exploit more benefits from VPOs and the CJN, whereas, prior to the introduction of the model, there were not any structures. Thus, VPOs didn't involve as much as they should have, and most of the cases were POs' burden. As the structure changes, more cases and tasks were diverged to VPOs, therefore reducing the POs' caseload. In conclusion, the TEAM model was a unique protocol that facilitated cooperative structure and maximized utilization of resources, in order to improve offender supervision and rehabilitation.

C. Execution and Implementation

 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.

D. Impact and Sustainability

 10. What were the key benefits resulting from this initiative?
The most apparent benefit resulting from the initiative was the 5 percent reduction of recidivism rate. We measured the effectiveness by tracking numbers of re-offenses. Prior to the implementation, the recidivism rate was reported to be 20.86 percent. After introducing the TEAM model, the recidivism rate decreased to 14.5 percent. The result exhibited that the model could enhance the effectiveness of the probation service. The mechanism of the model increased the intensity of supervision and rehabilitation, as shown in the frequency of home visits that raised from 1 visit annually to every 15 days to 3 months. Lower recidivism rate meant that DOP fulfilled its jobs regarding offender rehabilitation and crime prevention. In other words, the offenders were given support and chances to reintegrate back to the society, and the community became safer than before. The initiative did not only increase the effectiveness of supervision and rehabilitation, it also improved the efficiency of the probation system, as demonstrated in a decline in number of overdue cases. For example, the probation office in Saraburi province had successfully applied the TEAM model, and was able to complete 106 overdue cases within one week. Due to the fact that the model established systematic work delegation, POs could diverge more tasks to VPOs. Moreover, when the over-caseload issue was relieved via an application of the TEAM model, supervision and rehabilitation of offenders were carried out more effectively. According the evaluation interviews, the participated VPOs reported that they could see the development of the offenders, how they transformed themselves and tried to be a better person. Some offenders were able to get employment, had healthier family relationships, and better quality of life. Consequently, they re-offended less, and again the community became safer. Furthermore, the area-based system allowed VPOs to work with offenders in their culturally acquainted area. When they were working in the familiar community, they stated in the evaluation interview that they had thorough understanding toward the clients, hence, allowed them to provide better supervision and rehabilitation. Besides the fact the TEAM model addressed the problematic issues successfully, it also yielded the other benefits in term of establishing strong partnership with the community. The model transformed the relationship between DOP and the community- from top-down management to partnership. Regular case conferences were utilized to facilitate mutual understanding, two-ways communication, sustainable collaboration, and participation among all parties. The participated VPOs and representatives from CJN provided the evaluation feedback that they felt they had received more respect and value, thus they were motivated to work harder, and were more willing to cooperate. With the assistance from the community, DOP was able to expand and improve the capacity and the quality of service provided to the community. More importantly, the community had learned that they needed to look after each other, in particular, the members who once had slipped into the criminal paths, to get back on a decent track. In conclusion, the TEAM model's benefits were essentially related to the improvement of offender supervision and rehabilitation. The initiative introduced the mechanism that could reduce the caseload burden, improve human resources management and development, and strengthen the community partnership. These mechanisms, then, led to the improvement of the probation system and service's efficiency and effectiveness. Consequently, the recidivism rate was lower, and the society was better protected.

 11. Did the initiative improve integrity and/or accountability in public service? (If applicable)
The TEAM model is proven to be sustainable in several areas. The first example illustrated that it is economically sustained. If we consider that DOP is one bureaucratic unit that involves in the country's human resource development, because offenders are considered part of the country's population. When the initiative can facilitate DOP's success in offenders rehabilitation, it means that there will be more productive citizens in the nation, as well as, lower crime rate. A higher numbers of productive citizens and safer community are the foundation factors that lead to the country's economic growth and an increase in GDP. Moreover, the initiative is also socially sustainable, as it can strengthen the community in term of establishing a sense of ownership, and promoting the community to take part in crime protection as well as offender rehabilitation. When people start to take care of each other, the community possesses better immunity to negative influences, then the society will develop more sustainably. Furthermore, the improvement in public safety by increasing community involvement reduced the budget spent on crime protection and imprisonment. Hence, we can consider that the initiative is financially sustainable. To conclude, besides the education system, probation system and services are another mean of the country's human resource development. The initiative provided a sustainable improvement in probation system and services that subsequently allowed DOP to create significant positive impact on the development of the country's human resources, public safety, the nation economic growth and productivity. Since the TEAM model offered numerous benefits and positive impact, it has been extended and replicated to other services- in organizational and national levels. First, more than 20 probation offices have currently started to implement the model, and by 2014 the number is expected to reach 106 offices. Second, it has been transferred and applied in the aftercare process. The area-based structure is utilized in ex-offenders follow up, after they completed the probation periods. Moreover, as part of intermediate sanction development, in 2013, the TEAM model has been integrated with electronic monitoring to increase the intensity of supervision of juvenile offenders. In addition, since the model was proven to be successful in attracting community involvement to enhance capacity and quality of probation system and services, it has been implemented in the supervision of pre-release offenders as a solution to the issue of overcrowding prisons. In 2012, a group of VPOs and representatives from CJN were trained to specifically supervise this particular group of offenders as well as offenders with substance abuse/use problems. The distinctions of the initiative regarding the area-based management, and a concrete community involvement management structure made this model suitable for replication in the settings that an improvement in service capacity and quality are needed, while there are constraints on financial and human capitals. The initiative not only could establish the community partnership, but could also maximize the utilization of the community resources to ensure the best service delivered to the society.

 12. Were special measures put in place to ensure that the initiative benefits women and girls and improves the situation of the poorest and most vulnerable? (If applicable)
The overall experience in implementing the TEAM model had been quite challenging for DOP, as there were many changes to be made following its introduction. However, the strategies applied to address the expected obstacles, in particular, the issue of resistance to changes, had worked well. Thus far, the results were worthwhile, and more importantly, DOP and other stakeholders had gained more experiences and had learned many valuable lessons. Firstly, we learned that even though the TEAM model provided a concrete structure as the foundation framework for offender supervision and rehabilitation system, for best practice, the subsequent tasks needed to be adjusted to a particular culture and tradition in each local area. Moreover, the community centers should be established in each area, in order to facilitate and strengthen the collaboration. Secondly, we needed the executives to maintain their supports on the implementation of the TEAM model, in order to transfer the initiative to other settings. Thirdly, the evidence-based practice was crucial, because it could provide the feedback on the implementation regarding its progress, outputs , and evaluation results that could be useful for the future development. Since, the initiative relied mainly on the community involvement, volunteer spirit and philanthropy of the community members were part of the success factors. Besides, specific skills and knowledge regarding offenders supervision and rehabilitation, the participated VPOs and representatives from CJN needed to be willing to help, to dedicate and to share the same visions and to understand the implementation directions. In addition, a sense of community ownership should be strengthened to empower these volunteers. Finally, we discovered that trainings not only could be a powerful tool to equip staff members (POs, VPOs, and representatives from CJN) with the necessary skills, but they could be used to motivate, illustrate, and even convinced them to adopt certain attitudes, perspectives, and mindsets that were crucial for probation works; such as, the concept of humanistic view, non-custodial measures, and teamwork. Although, the implementation of the initiative had taught us several lessons that we should bear in mind, there are still gaps that can still be fulfilled for future development. The first recommendation is that DOP should provide stakeholders with accessible and stable electronic database system that comprises of information regarding offenders' profiles, and details of VPOs and other the representatives in each area. Moreover, the system should be available in both local and national levels. Next, besides utilizing case conference as a tool to establish the cooperation and communication within each team, there should be other means of communication that encourage extensive knowledge management nationwide. Probation offices throughout the country should be able to share their lesson learned, and others could use the information to further improve.

Contact Information

Institution Name:   The Department of Probation Thailand
Institution Type:   Government Agency  
Contact Person:   Korakod Narkvichetr
Title:   Director of Probation Development Bureau  
Telephone/ Fax:   +6621414893
Institution's / Project's Website:  
Address:   Government Complex Ratchaburidirek bld. 6th fl. Chaengwattana Rd. Laksi
Postal Code:   10210
City:   Bangkok

          Go Back

Print friendly Page