Self-Directed Out-of-Prison Work: A Reform Teetering on the Brink of Extinction?

On December 15, 2017, the Control Yuan released an investigation report and an official correction, which may signal that reforms concerning the reintegration of inmates are about to regress. Yet, this development has received very little public attention. The correction centers on an incident where an inmate participating in self-directed out-of-prison work escaped.

Simply put, "self-directed out-of-prison work" allows inmates with stable behavior records the opportunity to work outside the prison prior to their release, without being escorted by guards. This practice is not unique to Taiwan; it is a standard inmate reintegration measure known in English as "work release." The underlying concept is that after a period of incarceration, inmates grow accustomed to prison life and need transitional measures to help them gradually prepare to return to society. Similar transitional measures in Taiwan include external prisons (minimum-security prisons) and parole under probation, among others.

The Promotion of Self-Directed Out-of-Prison Work in Taiwan and the Escape Incident

This recent wave of promoting self-directed out-of-prison work began primarily during Ch'iu T'ai-san's tenure as Minister of Justice. In November 2016, Ch'iu attended a vocational training achievement exhibition at the Taoyuan Women's Prison, where several inmates had obtained care worker licenses. Despite passing the certification exams, they still had to remain in prison because they had not finished serving their sentences, meaning they could not take up employment. To provide a better bridge for their reintegration into society, Ch'iu T'ai-san stated at the exhibition that the Ministry of Justice was revising the "Regulations on Self-Directed Out-of-Prison Work" to allow inmates to undergo employment matching six months to a year before their scheduled release, enabling them to start working. After finishing work each day, they would be required to report back to their original prison or to a correctional institution in another city or county, and regularly submit to urinalysis and other drug tests. This gives employers sufficient time to observe them while also granting the inmates employment opportunities.

Following the Minister of Justice's announcement, the revised "Implementation Rules for Out-of-Prison Work" were finalized in March 2017 and officially launched in June of that year. However, in August 2017, an inmate participating in self-directed out-of-prison work left the prison but failed to arrive at her workplace, instead going home. This triggered media reports. The media mocked Ch'iu T'ai-san, pointing out that despite his previous guarantees that there would be no loopholes, a female fraud offender from the Taipei Women's Detention Center had exploited the opportunity of unsupervised external work to escape home, dealing a heavy blow to the Ministry of Justice. The reports warned that more inmates might take advantage of work outings to escape.

The Control Yuan's Investigation and Correction Regarding the Escape Incident

Following this incident, the Control Yuan intervened to conduct an investigation and issued a correction. The investigation report listed five major recommendations:

1. The screening process used by the Taipei Women's Detention Center to select inmates for self-directed out-of-prison work was inadequate.

   The investigation report noted that while the escaped inmate had a very good disciplinary record in prison and actively applied for self-directed out-of-prison work, and although her separate criminal offense stemmed from a sleeping pill addiction rather than violent tendencies, she enjoyed strong family support, which allowed her to pass the selection process. However, during subsequent reviews, the Taipei Women's Detention Center concluded that she escaped because she inherently possessed a low frustration tolerance and had a long-standing history of abusing sleeping pills to escape reality. Consequently, when faced with pressure, she tended to resort to avoidance and withdrawal, failing to address the frustrations of serving her sentence through normal channels and instead choosing to cut off contact and escape. Citing this reason, the Control Yuan demanded a review of the screening mechanism.

2. The Taipei Women's Detention Center provided insufficient moral instruction and counseling measures for the inmate.

   The investigation report stated that the inmate explained she fled home because she could not reveal her identity at her workplace and was forced to continuously lie. Furthermore, participating in self-directed out-of-prison work meant she had to work outside on weekdays and could not receive visits from family members, nor could she call them when outside, leading to intense homesickness. Although prison authorities asked about her well-being upon her return to the facility, she kept her struggles bottled up and said nothing. Prior to her escape, she had already committed disciplinary infractions on her way to work, yet the authorities merely ordered her to copy work rules and sit in meditation, failing to fully understand or counsel her. Citing these various circumstances, the Control Yuan criticized the Taipei Women's Detention Center for failing to provide adequate moral instruction and counseling.

3. As evidenced by the first two points, the Agency of Corrections failed to properly plan the policy and exercised poor supervision and command over the Taipei Women's Detention Center, warranting an official correction.

4. The Ministry of Justice should supervise its subordinate agencies in establishing proper supporting measures, conducting policy evaluations, and engaging in social communication regarding inmate self-directed out-of-prison work.

   The investigation report pointed out that foreign countries implement supporting measures when promoting self-directed out-of-prison work, such as establishing work release centers. These centers collaborate with employers and probation officers, utilizing GPS tracking to monitor inmates' movements. Such centers can also provide vocational training and allow families to live together. More importantly, foreign experience with work release shows that failure to return from escape is an inevitable policy risk, no matter how rigorous the screening process. However, when the Ministry of Justice formulated the self-directed out-of-prison work policy, it failed to reference foreign legislation, resulting in insufficient supporting measures. It also failed to conduct concrete evaluations of the failure rate, making it impossible to assess policy effectiveness. Because the risks of failure were not fully considered, the Ministry failed to adequately communicate with society and help the public understand why individual escapes are bound to occur, yet why the policy remains necessary to implement.

5. The Ministry of Justice must face the fact that promoting self-directed out-of-prison work will increase the workload of correctional institutions.

   The investigation report noted that if self-directed out-of-prison work is to be properly promoted, both counseling and custodial personnel must be increased. The Ministry of Justice should accurately assess the required costs and study ways to improve administrative efficiency.

The Control Yuan's Recommendations Threaten to Render Self-Directed Out-of-Prison Work Dead in Practice

Among the Control Yuan's five major recommendations, one in particular threatens to render self-directed out-of-prison work dead in practice: the first recommendation, "reviewing the screening mechanism." If we follow the Control Yuan's fourth recommendation—comparing foreign legislation and carefully examining the screening of the inmate in this case—we find that even under the standards of other countries, this inmate had a very high likelihood of passing the screening.

Taking the state of Washington in the United States, which has long promoted work release, as an example, its criteria prohibiting participation in work release are as follows:

--	Washington State Prohibition Standards (US)	Taiwan's Prohibition Standards	Whether the Inmate in This Case Qualifies
In-Prison Management Assessment	Not belonging to the minimum security level (will not score minimum or be assigned Minimum 1 custody)[1]	Must have no disciplinary records within the past year; otherwise ineligible for selection.	Likely qualified
Violence Assessment	Convicted of first-degree murder Assessed as presenting a high risk of violence and a potential threat to local residents	Convicted of a domestic violence offense as defined in Article 2, Subparagraph 2 of the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, or a protection order violation under Article 61 of the same Act.	Qualified
Sex Offense Assessment	Convicted of first-degree rape and has not served 3 years of the sentence Sex offenders who are non-compliant with treatment and pose a threat to public safety Deemed subject to civil commitment (similar to Taiwan's sex offenders assessed as having a high risk of reoffending and subject to post-sentence compulsory treatment)	Convicted of any offense listed in the various subparagraphs of Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Sexual Assault Crime Prevention Act.	Qualified
Physical and Mental Health Aspect	Severe physical or mental health problems Refusing assessment or failure to complete addiction treatment	Health condition must be suitable for out-of-prison work; otherwise ineligible for selection. Convicted under the Narcotics Hazard Prevention Act, with exceptions for offenses under Articles 10 and 11.	Qualified
Subjective Willingness Aspect	Lacking active willingness to participate in education or vocational training	No stipulation	Qualified
Escape Risk Aspect	No stipulation	Convicted of offenses listed in Article 161 of the Criminal Code, having a history of escape behavior, or factual evidence giving rise to a risk of escape.	Qualified
Other Considerations	Failing to meet standards for contracting with local release centers Subject to high media attention locally Subject to felony warrants with subsequent extradition to authorities Subject to Immigration and Customs Enforcement warrants with subsequent extradition Having an out-of-state release plan Required to serve consecutive sentences in another state	Having pending security disposition to be executed.	Qualified

Judging from Washington State's criteria for selecting inmates for work release, the focus is placed less on whether an escape might occur and more on the threat posed to public safety—particularly the potential for violence and sexual assault. The inmate who escaped in this case was convicted of fraud and suffered from long-term abuse of sleeping pills due to low frustration tolerance, which represents a very low level of risk in violence and sex offense risk assessments.

From both a comparative law perspective and a practical social security maintenance perspective, selecting this escaped inmate to participate in self-directed out-of-prison work was entirely unproblematic. In truth, strictly following the Control Yuan's standards to select inmates for self-directed out-of-prison work would destroy the system altogether. This is because the Control Yuan effectively demands that whenever prisons anticipate or retrospectively imagine any possibility or reason why an inmate might escape, that inmate should be barred from participating in self-directed out-of-prison work. Under the circumstances of this case, as long as an inmate is subsequently deemed to have low frustration tolerance, they would be excluded from selection. One can hardly imagine this system becoming anything other than a dead letter.

What is even more questionable is that the Control Yuan's discussion of policy evaluation still revolves around assessing "failure rates," keeping its primary focus on the possibility of escape. This points the direction of policy evaluation entirely in the wrong direction. In evaluating the effectiveness of work release, research literature^[2] actually focuses on identifying precisely which groups of people benefit from the measure. In other words, from the perspective of social reintegration, which individuals need and are suited for out-of-prison work as a means to readjust to society. Reference indicators for effectiveness may include recidivism rates (including delayed recidivism patterns) and employment status (speed of finding employment, job stability, salary, etc.).

If the Control Yuan insists on obsessing over "failure rates," a more rational direction for evaluation would not be demanding "zero recidivism" or "zero escapes," but rather assessing whether self-directed out-of-prison work actually helps participants "reduce recidivism" compared to inmates who have not received such treatment. This approach is consistent with the effectiveness evaluation methods used for external prisons, parole under probation, and other pre-release and post-release reintegration treatments.

Conclusion: Reintegration as a Human Right

From the perspective of social reintegration, promoting practices like "self-directed out-of-prison work" that allow inmates to gradually return to society is extremely important. Taiwan needs to carry out comprehensive corrections policy reforms genuinely centered on how to help inmates return to society. Such a direction requires greater cross-departmental cooperation, particularly with the Ministry of Labor. As noted in the Control Yuan's investigation report, current employment matching often relies on the personal networks of institutional heads and prison supervisors, lacking institutionalization. Regarding inmate vocational training and employment, the Ministry of Labor should step in to assist in providing resources and establishing systems.

Admittedly, the promotion of "self-directed out-of-prison work" suffers from a lack of adequate supporting measures—especially issues highlighted in the Control Yuan's report, such as the inability to receive family visits on weekdays, the need to lie to conceal one's identity in the workplace, insufficient moral instruction and counseling, and daily routines differing from those of other inmates—which urgently need systematic resolution. However, these insufficient supporting measures merely reflect the existing predicament of inadequate prison treatment resources; they are not problems that emerged only today.

What is most concerning about future developments is that the Control Yuan has provided flawed recommendations for screening and policy evaluation, overemphasizing the absolute prohibition of escapes. Such a mindset will only cause all measures facilitating early contact with society to ultimately become dead letters, making similar reforms difficult to advance in the future.

Furthermore, following the release of the Control Yuan's correction, it is worrying whether frontline correctional personnel will be penalized due to the inmate's escape. Indeed, when confronting problems, our country still habitually turns to individual accountability. However, a much more modern perspective is the "organizational accident model"^[3], which shifts the focus to understanding what structural factors caused an event to happen and how to improve to prevent similar incidents from recurring in the future. Overly pursuing individual responsibility not only easily overlooks institutional adjustments, but also tends to prompt individuals to cover up mistakes or adopt passive working attitudes purely to avoid being held accountable.

Finally, if measures like "self-directed out-of-prison work" are to be successfully promoted, an unavoidable prerequisite is a shift in social attitudes. Historically, society has often viewed the reintegration of inmates as a favor—a chance bestowed by good people upon bad people. The prevailing notion was that if you failed to cherish this opportunity and committed a crime again, no further chances would be granted. However, from the perspective of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the social reintegration of inmates is a right, not a favor.

Criminal policy must take social safety into consideration and restrict the personal liberty of offenders based on social safety—a point that is widely understood. But why is an inmate's reintegration into society a right? Perhaps we can reflect on this through our daily lives: Have you ever committed mistakes or inappropriate behaviors? Were these mistakes and inappropriate behaviors connected to your entire upbringing and personality? Even though you felt regretful and hoped not to repeat them, did you find it extremely difficult, moving forward and back, and perhaps even wanting to give up on yourself or self-destruct? If you have had such experiences, perhaps you can better empathize with the recidivism of certain inmates. Burdened by a past and a self they cannot discard, they can only accept who they are and face various hardships. From this perspective, responding to an escape or disciplinary infraction is perhaps not about withholding future chances, but rather using the incident to understand what difficulties the individual encountered and how they can be helped to adjust.

Why is social reintegration a human right, and why must it be one? Because it is a manifestation of the human condition. To bring a little bit of difference to this condition, to offer a sliver of hope—this is the continuous, humble aspiration of human rights.

※ This article was published in the PTS News Issues Center on Dec. 21, 2017.

---

Notes

1. For Washington State's inmate classification regulations, refer to the Washington State Department of Corrections introduction.
2. Taking Washington State in the U.S. mentioned in the text as an example, articles discussing its effectiveness include: Turner, S., & Petersilia, J. (1996). Work release in Washington: Effects on recidivism and corrections costs. The Prison Journal, 76(2), 138-164. Drake, E. (2007). Does participation in Washington’s work release facilities reduce recidivism?. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
   Additionally, there is Weisburd, D., Hasisi, B., Shoham, E., Aviv, G., & Haviv, N. (2017). Reinforcing the impacts of work release on prisoner recidivism: the importance of integrative interventions. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(2), 241-264. Published in 2017, this is quite recent, and its literature review is relatively comprehensive. Friends interested in this topic can use its literature review to find further articles of interest.
3. This model is the model for reviewing miscarriages of justice proposed by Judicial Reform National Congress Group 1 members Chao I-shan (Chao Yi-shan), Ch'en Lung-ch'i, and Huang Chih-hao. The rationale applies equally to accidents occurring within correctional institutions.