Sidelights | What Makes Rebuilding Life After Release So Difficult? A Preliminary Exploration of Taiwan's Aftercare Protection Mechanism

Taiwan enacted the Aftercare Act in 2010 with the aim of protecting released prisoners and other eligible persons, helping them achieve self-reliance, adapt to social life, and prevent recidivism... However, following the Ministry of Justice's proposal of "Measures for Ex-offenders Reintegrating into Society and Their Supporting Measures" at the 2017 National Judicial Reform Conference, Taiwan's outcomes in ex-offender protection remain less than ideal. Upon release, inmates face problems such as finding housing, lacking a stable source of income, and encountering social prejudice, further highlighting the inadequacies of the current aftercare protection mechanism.

To reflect on the current aftercare protection system, six summer interns at the JRF—Hsu Li-ch'un, Hsu Yu-chieh, Liu Ch'eng-ying, Wang Yü-chen, Yü Szu-hua, and Hsu Tzu-ting from Chung Yuan Christian University—conducted field research during the summer and organized a seminar titled "What Makes Rebuilding Life After Release So Difficult? A Preliminary Exploration of Taiwan's Aftercare Protection Mechanism." They invited Professor Ch'en Wen-ju from the Department of Social Work at National Taipei University to participate as a discussant, hoping that through the sharing and discussions at this seminar, they could provide suggested directions for future governmental improvements.

Field Research: Challenges of the Current Aftercare Protection System

The students first pointed out that vocational education within the current correctional institution system is severely disconnected from societal needs. The training received by inmates inside institutions and the licenses they acquire provide no substantial help for them in finding jobs after release, nor do they offer much assistance. This issue sparked deep reflection on whether current license-training programs have become completely disconnected from reality. However, when attempting to analyze official statistics from the Agency of Corrections, the students found that Taiwan's data regarding the correlation between vocational education inside correctional institutions and ex-offenders' job hunting are quite crude, making it extremely difficult for researchers to conduct related studies using official statistics. Through interviews with social workers, the students further clearly pointed out that current volunteers inside and outside correctional institutions cannot smoothly coordinate with one another, posing a significant obstacle to follow-up investigations on inmates' reintegration into society.

In addition, through case interviews, the students pointed out the primary needs of ex-offenders after release: housing and a source of income. Although organizations such as the Taiwan Aftercare Association, along with nonprofit organizations like the Liberté Foundation, the Aftercare Fellowship, Taichung Hsin Yuan, and Keelung Geng Hsin Home provide housing for ex-offenders, these institutions still cannot meet the needs of all ex-offenders.

Regarding sources of income, aside from the employment counseling services provided by the Aftercare Association, institutions such as employment service stations, labor bureaus, labor affairs departments, social welfare departments, and township offices also provide counseling services. However, these services are mostly concentrated in high-labor jobs and lack variety. By contrast, the Liberté Education Foundation provides relatively comprehensive services, including pre-employment aptitude testing, vocational training referrals, accompanied interviews, workplace visits, physical and mental counseling, employment counseling, and workplace care. Such mechanisms and services are worth serving as a model for aftercare protection in Taiwan.

This special report also demonstrates that the dilemmas of aftercare protection stem from society's unfriendliness toward ex-offenders. Misunderstandings about ex-offenders lead most members of the public to be unwilling to help them return to society, which is also the impact of the labeling and stigmatization of ex-offenders. Although the current system provides some counseling mechanisms and subsidies for ex-offenders, as mentioned previously, shortcomings remain in many areas. For example, temporary job allowances require involuntary separation from employment to be applied for, and the criteria for emergency relief funds regarding major events are vague. These are major obstacles for ex-offenders returning to society.

In their research findings, the students suggested that the government could reference the Taoyuan City Department of Labor's Resource Map for Vocational Reconstruction Services for Persons with Disabilities to establish an ex-offender resource map, helping them quickly understand the resources available from various agencies. They also referenced Japan's aftercare protection system to propose recommendations for Taiwan's aftercare system, particularly that more personnel should be hired to reduce the caseload for each social worker in order to maintain the quality of aftercare protection.

Following the presentation, Professor Ch'en Wen-ju from the Department of Social Work at National Taipei University served as the discussant and shared her observations on the aftercare protection system, particularly concerning the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) effect toward ex-offenders. She pointed out that problems of labeling and stigmatization against ex-offenders still exist in society, making their situation even more difficult. Professor Ch'en also mentioned that the aging prison population and issues concerning female ex-offenders are topics that require attention, because women generally engage in manual labor in terms of employment, yet they are simultaneously family caregivers; thus, figuring out how to find suitable resources is an important issue. Professor Ch'en suggested that students could interview ex-offenders in the future, rather than solely NGO workers, to gain an in-depth understanding of these issues. She believes that studying the problems of ex-offenders shares similarities with economic issues—we are simply fortunate enough to possess more social capital, which is why we did not choose crime. The fundamental problem for some ex-offenders is poverty, and the low-paying jobs provided under the current system often cannot meet living requirements, which may drive them back to high-risk, high-reward crimes to make a living.

Finally, during the Q&A session, Professor Huang Tsung-min from Chinese Culture University also offered his perspective. He pointed out that work on aftercare protection, from official to grassroots levels, has been overly low-profile, primarily due to the phenomenon of societal stigmatization against ex-offenders. If society is insufficiently friendly toward vulnerable or impoverished individuals, then aftercare protection work will become even more difficult. Professor Huang believes that while certain groups are more sensitive to aftercare protection work, the key lies in making society as a whole realize that aftercare protection requires holistic thinking, such as understanding the connection between poverty and ex-offenders. Only in this way can progress be made in aftercare protection work. Professor Huang emphasized that aftercare protection work should not merely be about extending a helping hand, but should instead be approached with empathy—understanding that these individuals were driven into crime out of necessity—and expressed his hope that students will believe in the value of such empathy.

Conclusion

This lecture clearly set forth profound reflections and challenges regarding Taiwan's current aftercare protection system. To be fair, an offender has already paid a heavy price in prison for the mistakes they committed, but why, after completing such punishment, do they still become figures whom society finds difficult to accept?

If we observe these ex-offenders closely, we might find that they are not essentially different from us. We are merely more fortunate than them, possessing more resources and opportunities that enable us to avoid treading the path of crime. However, while enjoying this fortune, are we willing to extend a helping hand to assist these ex-offenders in reintegrating into society? This is truly the issue and challenge our society must face. Let us ponder how, with empathy and goodwill, to help those who have made mistakes but still yearn to turn over a new leaf, and give them the opportunity to embrace life once again.