Uni Psych Symposium (Part 2) by Alyssa

Session A7 – Effective Correctional Rehabilitation in Singapore

Speakers:

Karam Singh (Deputy Director, Psychological Services & Policy Planning, Singapore Prison Service) & Troy Jack Thevathasan (Deputy Director, Correctional Rehabilitation Service, Singapore Prison Service)

About the talk:

The speakers briefly introduced themselves and their backgrounds – Karam is a Psychologist while Troy is a Correctional Rehabilitation Specialist, and both of them have MAs in Applied Psychology. Having both served in the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) for about 20 years each, their jobscopes throughout the years have included both direct work (assessment, therapy, and programmes) as well as indirect work (advocacy, programme development and research). They then introduced SPS, emphasising that their revised mission and vision focuses on rehabilitation and the reduction of re-offending.

They shared the history of rehabilitation to give us an idea of how rehabilitation has grown over the years. Before the 19^th Century, prisons were seen as places to house criminals who were going to receive punishments in the form of death or torture. Rehabilitation then took on different forms, from religious reflection in the 19^th Century to medical treatment in the 20^th Century. Eventually, the breakthrough in rehabilitation research came when a group of Canadian psychologists came up with the “What Works” movement where they created the principles of effective rehabilitation. This includes varying treatment intensities according to how high risk the offender is.

In Singapore, rehabilitation started in 1999 with humble origins – there was only 1 psychologist back then! In a move towards more evidence-based rehabilitation, evidence-based psychological assessments were used and models behind the assessments were utilised to understand how offending works. Tests are still being used now, with latest tests even being able to formulate qualitative risk assessments to understand not just the risk, but also the context in which someone might re-offend.

The speakers also shared about the rehabilitative models they use, such as the Risk-Needs-Responsibility Model and their advocacy for the use of Cognitive Social Learning methods. Therapeutic models used included Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT). The speakers emphasised the creation of transformational environments in prison to create a community for inmates so that they can try to understand each other through living together. This is built on Social Learning principles that illustrate the power of the social environment in affecting the psyche of a person.

The speakers then went on to share about Psychology-based Correctional Programmes (that span over 70 sessions or more!). These programmes bring together the highest risk offenders of different crimes, making it a multi-criminogenic programme. They also spoke about Evidence-informed Community Corrections where rehabilitation is expanded to even when the inmates leave prison, with a wide range of corrective programmes including befriending. Ultimately, the speakers emphasised the role of integrating evidence-based approaches into every aspect of rehabilitation, from the advocacy of such approaches to their superiors to even integrating Social Learning methods into the training of regular prison officers.

Reflections:

I thoroughly enjoyed the talk and found it extremely insightful. Karam and Troy were very engaging (and humourous!), sharing personal experiences to illustrate the effectiveness of evidence-based approaches in effective correctional rehabilitation. What struck me the most was how passionate they were about advocating for such evidence-based approaches, having persevered in pushing for such approaches even when they were slightly more unconventional at that point in time. In the past, rehabilitation was thought of as cruel punishment and it’s scary to think that some people might still have the same impression of rehabilitation in prisons now! Karam and Troy illustrated how it is important to always look at the research behind certain practices, and not to be afraid to try out new, evidence-based approaches. The talk also reinforced how we can apply basic principles of Psychology such as social learning to larger scale systems and, if done correctly, could even revolutionise approaches taken in such institutions.

Session B4 – MSF’s Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service

Speaker:
Isobel Tan (Clinical Psychologist, Trauma Systems Specialist Unit, Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service, Ministry of Social and Family Development)

About the talk:

The speaker first introduced the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF)’s Clinical and Forensic Psychology Service (CFPS) as a service within the Rehabilitation and Protection group of MSF. She then introduced both Clinical Psychology as well as Forensic Psychology, briefly touching on the focus of each. CFPS aims to improve the psychological well-being of their clients, which include abused children or youth.

The speaker also introduced the organisational chart of the different centres in the division, including the Centre for Forensic Mental Health and Centre for Planning Excellence. The CFPS also works with partners like Child Protective Services, Adult Protective Services and Probation & Community Rehabilitation Services in ensuring the mental health of clients in each service, providing treatment to the clients if needed. Other partnerships include working with policy branches for legal procedures and well as media awareness branches that educate the general public on topics like family violence.

The speaker then shared the extensive jobscope of her work at CFPS: assessments, treatments, community partnerships, implementation science, training and consultation, research and evaluation and crisis intervention. She also emphasised the role of secure attachment for proper development in children, and the nature of trauma and its potential long-lasting impacts (if untreated). Building on to this understanding, she then explained the different types of treatment services, working in accordance with Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model. The types of treatment services include abuse and trauma therapy, which includes Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (TFCBT) and Trauma Systems Therapy (TST), offence-specific therapy for offenders and families, the Positive Parenting Programme and Functional Family therapy. As part of her jobscope, she also conducts crisis intervention where she might need to provide on-site interventions for critical incidents.

Finally, she talked about her career background and progression. After graduating with a Psychology degree in National University of Singapore (NUS), she worked as a policy officer at MSF for 5 years. She then pursued a Masters in Clinical Psychology in NUS and chose a local Masters programme as she wanted to work with the local population during her practicum. After she graduated as a Clinical Psychologist, she went back to MSF to work for the CFPS.

Reflections:

Isobel’s passion for her work was extremely evident in her talk. She approached the topic well and I felt highly engaged throughout. I was very inspired when she spoke about her personal career journey with MSF and how her experience as a Policy Officer (prior to being a Clinical Psychologist) shaped her understanding of how to work with clients and further reinforced her interest in pursuing a Masters in the Clinical field. She also gave us useful tips if we were interested in pursuing a similar career pathway, stating that a job like hers (especially in the Ministry) would require a candidate to have a Postgraduate degree in Clinical or Forensic Psychology, relevant experiences in clinical or forensic settings, good report writing skills and good interpersonal skills. I also appreciated how she shared that the biggest challenges she faces in her job do not pertain to the direct work with the child, but rather, the surrounding systems might actually be more difficult to influence and change. This illustrated the kind of resilience needed to persuade the child’s parents, yet the professionalism to respect that the parents might not be able to fully comprehend the reasons behind certain interventions.