A Discussion Paper
Canadian Criminal Justice Association
Table of Contents
Preface
Executive Summary
Main Text
Discussion Guide
Prison overcrowding and reintegration of offenders
CCJA
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The overcrowding of prisons remains a major challenge and concern in
Canada. As a result, the safety of inmates and staff alike is threatened and,
ultimately, that of the public. The Canadian Criminal Justice Association is
calling on all jurisdictions and the public to address these issues with a view to
bringing about necessary and pressing changes, and to defusing a potentially
explosive situation.
This paper identifies some of the more apparent factors that contribute to
overcrowding and some of the possible avenues for solving the problem, with a
special emphasis on the development of effective community-based options.
We acknowledge that some efforts are being deployed, but this paper, because
of its very nature, focusses on problems that require attention and the
identification of promising opportunities.
There are some clear reasons why Canadian prisons are overcrowded:
1.
We rely excessively on incarceration
Incarceration is perceived as the norm, as opposed to one of a
series of options available to courts.
Incarceration is presented as the best means of ensuring public
protection.
The number of inmates increased dramatically over the past
decade.
Aboriginal offenders continue to be over-represented in prisons.
Rates of parole are declining.
The prison population includes greater numbers of inmates serving
long and life sentences.
A greater number of inmates are designated as dangerous.
Social and mental health services have suffered major cutbacks.
The public has become very intolerant and punitive.
2.
There are several hurdles to the effective operation of release
mechanisms:
The lack of public support for measures other than incarceration.
The inadequacy of current public education efforts.
The emphasis on administrative tasks and resulting backlogs.
The inadequate targeting of programs and the lack of effective
community-based programs.
3.
Release mechanisms do not operate in a timely manner:
Releasing authorities have become overly cautious.
Offenders are serving too great a portion of their sentence in
institutions.
4.
Greater support is required to ensure the successful reintegration of
offenders into the community:
We need to recognize that the retributive approach is not the most
effective and to develop a new mind-set, one which aims to ensure
that all involved derive a greater sense of real justice.
We need political commitment and correctional leadership to
redirect institutional resources toward the community.
We need to develop new and effective sentencing alternatives,
programs, and infrastructures.
More specifically, we need to reinvest in a greatly depleted program
of community residential services.
Professionals need to be supported in the exercising of their
professional judgement.
We need to resist the urge to resort to reincarceration for the
violation of technical conditions of release where there is not
increased risk to the public.
This paper contains a number of suggestions as to what should be done.
First and foremost, this paper is intended to elicit dialogue and to involve
all parties in the discussion. There is no single solution and no one group
or person has all the answers. However, working together, and having
committed to a common set of principles, there is hope that significant
progress can be achieved.
Prison overcrowding and the reintegration of offenders
CCJA
MAIN TEXT
The overcrowding of prisons remains a major concern and challenge in
Canada. As a result, the safety of inmates and staff alike is threatened and,
ultimately, that of the public. The Canadian Criminal Justice Association is
calling on all jurisdictions and the public to address these issues with a view to
bringing about necessary and pressing changes, and to defusing a potentially
explosive situation.
We are conscious that a number of jurisdictions are attempting to deal with
overcrowding in their own way and we appreciate their efforts. As well, there
have been some laudable efforts to develop a more comprehensive and
collaborative approach to dealing with the problem: the Corrections Population
Growth report of the federal/provincial/territorial task force of Ministers
Responsible for Justice is one example; the National Community Corrections
Council is another. However, there still appears to be lacking an overall
strategic plan for criminal justice and corrections, and the collective will to
eradicate this problem. Major decisions must be made and immediate actions
need to follow.
This paper identifies some of the more apparent factors contributing to
overcrowding. It is not intended to downplay the efforts being deployed;
however, by its very nature, its focus is on problems as we perceive them, and,
on a more constructive note, on identifying possible solutions. Our views are
based on an analysis of statistics and our recommendations attempt to guide
us toward a solution while remaining faithful to the principles contained in the
Mandate and Principles of Adult Corrections in Canada, the preface to this
document.
WHY BE CONCERNED?
Here are some of the reasons:
Overcrowding impairs the release planning and reintegration efforts
of offenders and contributes to recidivism.
Overcrowding soaks up vast quantities of resources (human and
financial) to "warehouse" inmates, with negative rather than positive
impacts.
Overcrowding diverts resources from treatment and programs for
those who might benefit from them.
Overcrowding increases stress and potential danger for both staff
and inmates.
Overcrowding contributes to programming backlogs which, in turn,
delay the timely release of offenders.
Overcrowding cripples the ability of the system to deliver programs
and treatment in a timely and appropriate manner.
Overcrowding leads to double-bunking which is inhumane and
infringes upon the basic human dignity of staff, inmates, and
volunteers.
Overcrowding results in part from Aboriginals being over-represented
in the prison population. The issue of Aboriginal over-representation
requires specific attention.
WHY ARE CANADIAN PRISONS OVERCROWDED?
Despite government policy promoting community responsibility and
community-based sentencing,
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
the courts, perhaps influenced by public opinion, continue to rely
excessively on incarceration as a reaction to crime;
there exist many hurdles to effective release mechanisms;
release mechanisms are applied too late during the course of a
sentence;
offenders remain in the community for too short a period of time
following their release, in great part as the result of a lack of
adequate and necessary support mechanisms (or, where they
exist, their under-utilization) and because re-incarceration is used
too broadly in response to technical violations of release
conditions.
OVER-RELIANCE ON INCARCERATION
The fact that Canada is over-reliant on incarceration as a response to
crime is well documented. It is not a new phenomenon. It has been
established for decades now that, amongst western democracies,
Canada is outranked only by the United Stated in terms of its high
incarceration rate. According to figures published in Corrections
Population Growth - First Report on Progress, for the six-year period
between 1990-91 and 1995-96, the incarceration rate rose by 29.9%
from 485 to 630 per 10,000 adults charged. It now stands at 115 per
100,000 population (Juristat, Vol. 18, No. 3, p.3). While the number of
adults charged has decreased, the rate of those charged who are being
incarcerated has increased. Barring intervention, the prison population is
expected to grow by 50% over the next decade.
As there is no real debate around these facts, it is perhaps more fruitful
to try to pinpoint the factors that contribute to the phenomenon, rather
than trying to demonstrate its existence through yet more statistical data.
Here are a few of the contributing factors:
Incarceration as the norm
"The Criminal Code displays an apparent bias toward the use of
incarceration since, for most offences, the penalty indicated is
expressed in terms of a maximum term of imprisonment. A number
of difficulties arise if imprisonment is perceived to be the preferred
sanction for most offences. Perhaps most significant is that,
although we regularly impose this most onerous and expensive
sanction, it accomplishes very little apart from separating offenders
from society for a period of time. In the past few decades many
groups and federally appointed committees and commissions given
the responsibility of studying various aspects of the criminal justice
system have argued that imprisonment should be used only as a
last resort and/or that it should be reserved for those convicted of
only the most serious offences. However, although much has been
said, little has been done to move us in this direction." (Sentencing
Reform, A Canadian Approach, Report of the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, 1987, p. xxiii)
"In this context, all sanctions other than imprisonment appear to be
'alternatives' to incarceration because they are not expressly
indicated as available penalties for individual offences." (Sentencing
Reform, A Canadian Approach, Report of the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, 1987, p.77)
Those comments, though made ten years ago, are still relevant
today.
"...significant numbers of offenders were sentenced to prison for
crimes that are not particularly serious. For example, 528
individuals were incarcerated for possession of a firearm, 1,363 for
possession of stolen goods under $1,000, fully 7,353 for theft under
$1,000, 1,665 for mischief under $1,000, 854 for soliciting, and
3,455 were incarcerated for simple possession of a narcotic.
These crimes should not be dismissed as being trivial, but is
incarceration an effective response? Is there no community-based
sanction that will suffice to accomplish the goals of sentencing as
specified by the statement of the purposes of sentencing contained
in Section 718 of the Criminal Code? While these offenders were
detained for short periods of time, they still nevertheless cost on
average $127 a day while in detention, and short-term admissions
are complicated for correctional authorities to administer. Several
provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act are aimed at reducing the
use of incarceration for such offenders." (Roberts, Julian V. &
Birkenmayer, Andy, Sentencing in Canada: Recent Statistical
Trends, Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol. 39, No. 4, October
1997, p.470)
"Prison is the most serious sentence handed out in provincial
criminal court and is frequently given as the only sentence. In nine
participating jurisdictions, a prison sentence was imposed in 88,600
convicted cases, or 33% of all convicted cases, and was the only
sentence imposed in almost half of these cases (1995-96). Of the
cases resulting in prison, almost 50% were sentenced to one month
or less, while 3% had sentences of two years or more" (Juristat,
Vol. 17, No. 6, p.8)
Under the dispositions of Bill C-41, which was adopted in the fall of
1996, courts are required to consider all available alternatives to
imprisonment and to use imprisonment only if no other course of
action can ensure the protection of society. It is still too early to
measure the impact of that legislation, but, given that half of the
88,600 prison sentences were imposed for one month or less, it is
doubtful that in the majority of those cases public safety was at risk.
We must therefore conclude one of two things: either the courts are
still operating on the basis of "prison as the norm" or no acceptable
options were available to them. We suspect that both factors come
into play and, if so, two directions need to be explored: (1) place
greater emphasis on judicial education, particularly on matters
related to the purpose and principles of sentencing, and enhance
judicial awareness of available options; (2) increase investments in
the development of suitable community options.
Our concerns are reflected in some of the recommendations of the
Honourable Louise Arbour in the report of the Commission of
Inquiry into Certain Events at the Prison for Women in Kingston
(1996), particularly the following (see page 258):
"13 (b)
that the legal profession increase the awareness of its
members to correctional issues, through Bar
Associations, defence lawyer' organizations, and others
involved in continuing education, offering training to their
members in correctional law;
(c)
that the judiciary be further sensitized to correctional
issues through programs developed by the National
Judicial Institute, which could include a reminder to all
judges of their right to visit any part of any penitentiary in
Canada, pursuant to the provisions of s.72 of the
Corrections and Conditional Release Act;
(e)
that Bar Associations and the judiciary draw on the
expertise of corrections personnel to increase their
awareness of correctional issues;"
Acceptance that incarceration offers the best "public
protection"
"Most of those in prison are not dangerous. However, cruel lockups,
isolation, the injustices and harassment deliberately inflicted upon
prisoners unable to fight back make non-violent inmates violent,
and those already dangerous more dangerous (p.16)" (Sentencing
Reform, A Canadian Approach, Report of the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, 1987, p.43, quoting from The MacGuigan SubCommittee)
"Society has spent millions of dollars over the years to create and
maintain the proven failure of prisons. Incarceration has failed in its
two essential purposes - correcting the offender and providing
permanent protection to society. The recidivist rate of up to 80
percent is evidence of both (p.35). (Sentencing Reform, A
Canadian Approach, Report of the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, p.43, quoting from the MacGuigan Sub-Committee)
"Growing evidence exists that, as educational centres, our prisons
have been most effective in educating less experienced, less
hardened offenders to be more difficult and professional criminals."
(Solicitor General of Canada, A Summary and Analysis of Some
Major Inquiries on Corrections - 1938 to 1977 (p.iv), quoted in
Report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, 1987, p. 44)
It is understandable that one might develop a feeling of increased
safety knowing that a particular offender is incapacitated for a
period of time. But that feeling can relate to that offender only, and
only for that specific period of time. Indeed, each day, a number of
other offenders are being released who may have become the
"more difficult and professional criminals" referred to in the above-
quoted Solicitor General of Canada report. Not all offenders can be
incapacitated at one time. Hence, to the question "Do prisons offer
the best protection?, the answer seems to be "no", when one
considers the prison population as a whole. Further, if elements
such as overcrowding contribute to making prisons even less
effective, prisons contribute that much less to public safety.
Increase in the number of inmates
"During the past decade, Canadians have witnessed considerable
increases in the correctional population. The most dramatic
increases occurred between 1988-89 and 1992-93, when the total
correctional population increased from 109,000 to 152,000 (+39%)."
(Juristat, Vol.17, No.4, p.2)
"On an average day in 1995-96, about 33,800 adults were in prison
in Canada. While this represents the highest number ever, the total
number of adults in jail was about the same as last year. Over the
past decade, the inmate population has consistently increased and
is 26% higher than in 1986-87. An average of 14,055 offenders
were in federal penitentiaries at any one time during 1995-96, the
sixth consecutive annual increase. This represents an increase of
less than 1% over the previous year. The number of offenders in
provincial facilities reached 19,730, down less than 1% in 1995-96
and up 4% since 1991-92." (Juristat, Vol.17, No. 4, p.5). More
recent figures (Juristat, Vol. 18, No. 3, p.4) suggest a certain
levelling-off: "The average number of people in provincial/territorial
facilities in 1996-97 was 20,024, up 1.5% from the previous year.
(...) The average number of federal inmates was 14,143, up 1% ...".
Despite an encouraging improvement, numbers remain too high. A
battle may have been won, but the war rages on.
Over-incarceration of Aboriginal offenders
This problem has long been acknowledged, yet it continues to exist
and requires special attention. Admittedly, numbers pertaining to
Aboriginal offenders are included in those pertaining to the overall
prison population. Therefore, while they do not alter the global
picture, they are very significantly contributing to the problem. And,
because they could be buried in the overall figures, there exists a
danger that many of the issues particular to Aboriginals will remain
unattended. That would not be acceptable.
Aboriginals comprise about 3% of Canada's
population, however, on March 31, 1997, they
accounted for 12% of all offenders under federal
jurisdiction.
Aboriginal offenders are more likely than nonAboriginals to be serving their sentence in an
institution than to be under supervision in the
community. While they make up 15% of the
incarcerated population they represent only 9% of
those under supervision in the community.
Aboriginal offenders are more likely to be
released on statutory release than on full parole.
The release rate shows that proportionately,
fewer Aboriginal offenders are released on full
parole, and, when they are, their release comes
later in their sentence. They are less likely to
complete their supervision in the community,
more likely to be revoked, and more likely to be
returned to prison on a technical violation of
release conditions.
These are but a few of the troubling findings drawn from Toward a
Just, Peaceful and Safe Society - a consultation document released
by the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada (March 1998).
Yet, they are telling.
We need to question why this state of affairs continues to prevail.
We need to develop greater awareness of cultural peculiarities, a
better understanding of behaviour in specific environments, a
greater tolerance of differences, and more culturally-sensitive
approaches and programs for the reintegration of Aboriginal
offenders.
We need to redefine or realign our approach. At least two sections
of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) were
designed to address the needs of Aboriginal offenders. Section 81
provides for the transfer of responsibility for the care of offenders to
Aboriginal communities, while Section 84 reaffirms an intent to
engage Aboriginal communities in the conditional release process.
Very little has been achieved along those lines over the past five
years. Instead, it seems that much energy has been devoted to
making the prison experience more tolerable and more meaningful
for Aboriginal offenders. That approach has some merit. Yet it
should not be the primary goal. The primary goal should be to
ensure that a greater number of incarcerated Aboriginal offenders
are returned to the community as law-abiding citizens and at the
earliest opportune moment. For that to become possible,
governments and Aboriginal communities must give priority to
translating Sections 81 and 84 into reality, and to developing
appropriate support mechanisms in the community.
Given the continuing over-representation of Aboriginals in prison,
there is a need for an independent review of correctional and
conditional release practices to ensure that the issue of systemic
discrimination is reasonably addressed.
Declining numbers of offenders on full and day parole
"The average count of offenders on full parole on March 31, 1996
was 8,493. In the last two years, the average full parole count has
decreased by 8% each year. However, the 1995-96 figure is 8%
higher than 1991-92. The jurisdictional (provincial/territorial) trends
since 1993-94 mirror the national picture, with Ontario showing the
largest decrease (-42%) over the previous two years and the
National Parole Board (NPB) (for provincial offenders) showing à
45% decrease. The number of federally-sentenced offenders on full
parole went down as well (11%). Québec and British Columbia
reported increases of 6% and 3% respectively for the same twoyear period."
"The NPB has authority to grant day parole to offenders under its
jurisdiction, the majority (95%, 1,212) being federal offenders. In
1995-96, the number of releases to day parole decreased by 15%
from the previous year. The grant rate of day parole applications
declined in 1995-96 for the fourth consecutive year. In 1995-96,
59% of applications for day parole were granted. This is down from
67% in 1991-92". (Juristat, Vol. 17, No.4, p.11)
"(...)The conditional release population continued to decline in
1995/96 and 1996/97 (by 2%) and the total offender population
declined (by 1%). Offender population trends, particularly since
introduction of the CCRA (Corrections and Conditional Release
Act), have resulted in the conditional release population declining
as a proportion of the federal population from 41% or 42% to 39%.
The day parole population has declined in number and as a
proportion of the conditional release population since introduction of
the CCRA. In fact, the day parole population has dropped by about
800 or 44% since 1992/93, and currently stands about 650 (37%)
lower than in 1986/87. Day parolees also decreased as a proportion
of the conditional release population, falling from over 20% to just
12% in 1996/97.
Full parolees increased in number in the years leading up to the
CCRA, but remained relatively stable as a proportion of the
conditional release population (50%/52%). The full parole
population continued to increase in 1992/93 and 1993/94, both in
number, and as a proportion of the conditional release population
(reaching 60% in 1993/94). In the last 3 years, full parolees have
declined to 4,780 or 55% of offenders on conditional release;
however, full parolees still remain higher in number, and as a
proportion of the conditional release population than in the years
before the CCRA.
The SR (statutory release) population remained relatively stable in
number from 1986/87 to 1994/95. As a proportion of the total
conditional release population, however, SR ranged from 23%
(1993/94) to 32% (1986/87). In the past 3 years, the SR population
has grown steadily reaching 2,936 in 1996/97 or 33% of the
conditional release population." (National Parole Board,
Performance Monitoring Report 1996-1997, August 1997, p. 5)
In summary, despite an apparent and recent levelling-off, the full
parole population showed sharp declines in recent years and the
decline was even sharper in the day parole population. The
statutory release population has remained fairly stable. However, it
is subject to the greatest number of reincarcerations. All of these
factors combined to exert considerable pressure on prison
populations.
On the provincial/territorial scene, the most dramatic shift has
occurred in the Province of Ontario. 3,427 of 6,306 applicants were
granted parole in 1992-93, a grant rate of 53%. Four years later,
1996-97, numbers had fallen to 1,476 for a grant rate of 35%. This
means that, in 1996-97, approximately 2,000 offenders were kept in
prison who would possibly have been paroled 5 years ago. Why
such a large discrepancy?
Part of the explanation for the decreased use of parole in Ontario
may be found in a Statement by the Solicitor General and Minister
of Correctional Services before the Ontario Legislature (October 31,
1996): "We are protecting our communities by moving quickly to
reform parole in Ontario. Criminals who are a threat to public safety
will be kept behind bars and denied parole. For the first time ever,
we are denying more parole applications than we grant. Ontario
Board of Parole members are now better trained and have better
tools to make good parole decisions."
This change in policy should be questioned. First, it perpetuates the
myth that prison offers the best form of public protection; second, it
implies that all those who are denied parole are a threat to public
safety; third, it makes no reference to rehabilitation or reintegration
efforts as a means of protecting the public. It is difficult to imagine
that, in previous years, the Ontario Board of Parole was releasing
1,500 - 2,000 dangerous offenders each year. It is also difficult to
reconcile that statement with the Ontario government's commitment
to cost reduction when the average annual cost of maintaining an
offender behind bars at the provincial level is $39,470, (Juristat,
Vol.17, No.4, p. 12), about 4 times as much as maintaining that
same person under parole supervision.
Figures provided by the Board of Parole of Québec indicate that the
grant rate is now almost twice as high as that of Ontario - 64.8%
compared to 35% for the year 1996-97. Still, even in Québec, the
grant rate has dropped by 3.3% and 3.4% respectively for the two
years that followed 1994-95. These drops are attributed to several
factors, notably offenders with more deeply-rooted criminal values.
Finally, the grant rate for British Columbia is comparable to that of
Québec for 1996-97, i.e. 64%. That same rate has averaged 57.9%
over the past six years with significant fluctuations; from 1991-92
and on, the respective grant rates were 60.6%, 59.9%, 54.4%,
49.5%, 59.4%, and 64%. It is unclear what factors contributed to
these fluctuations.
Length of sentences and growing number of long-term
offenders and "lifers"
It is interesting to note that sentences, contrary to what many
believe, are not much longer today than they were five years ago.
According to figures obtained from the Correctional Service of
Canada, in 1995-96, the average sentence for all federal offenders
admitted on a warrant of committal, who were not serving an
indeterminate sentence, was 45.9 months. That figure was 44.9
months in 1990-91 and, in order, for the years that followed, 42.9,
43.4, 43.9, and 44.0. Another source (Juristat, Vol. 18, No. 3, p.7)
indicates that, for 1996-97, the average federal sentence was 43
months. Therefore, length of sentence alone cannot be identified as
a major contributing factor to overcrowding.
The situation is quite different when one considers the numbers
relative to long-term offenders and "lifers". Indeed, the population of
offenders who are serving an indeterminate sentence (including life)
increased by 337 (a small institution), or 13.52%, from 2,155 on
March 31, 1994 to 2,492 on that same date in 1997. Persons
serving life and indeterminate sentences (men and women
combined) make up nearly 18% of the current penitentiary
population and their numbers definitely contribute to overcrowding.
"Admissions for life terms rose from 3% of all admissions in 199293 to 5% in 1996-97. In terms of the numbers of offenders, this
means an increase from 173 inmates in 1992-96 to 210 in 199697." (Juristat, Vol. 18, No. 3, p. 7)
More inmates designated as long-term or dangerous offenders
"Bill C-55 was proclaimed into force in July 1997, creating a "longterm offender" category designed to target sex offenders and
providing for up to 10 years of supervision after release of these
offenders from prison. The long-term offender designation was
accompanied (August 1997) by strengthened dangerous offender
provisions in the Criminal Code. High risk offender provisions were
balanced with new measures for first-time, non-violent federal
offenders including accelerated day parole review (APR), and
directed release to day parole. Day parole eligibility for these
offenders is set at 1/6 of sentence, and review for day parole is
automatic.
A monitoring framework has been created for C-55 provisions.
Subsequent performance reports will document the impacts and
effects of these provisions. Based on experience with APR and full
parole, however, it is reasonable to expect day parole reviews and
the day parole population to increase; completion rates for day
parole to decline; and revocations (with and without offence) to rise.
There is also a possibility that the APR full parole population will
decline if APR day parole cases are revoked at a relatively high
rate, and these offenders remain incarcerated to SR (statutory
release) date." (National Parole Board, Performance Monitoring
Report 1996-1997, August 1997, p.12)
Social and mental health services cutbacks
Cutbacks in social services may exacerbate the social ills that lead
to crime and foster recourse to the criminal justice process to
address social problems. The influx of persons from the mental
health system is but one example of a consequence of cutbacks in
social services. That has had a measurable impact. For example,
according to an article published in the March 7, 1998 edition of the
Globe and Mail (Cleaning Out the Cuckoo's Nest), 1 in 12 people
admitted to Toronto's Don Jail were suffering from a major mental
illness, and 70% of them have had multiple jail admissions.
It is considered as well that unemployment, poverty, homelessness,
and hopelessness also impact in an important way on the crime
rate.
Public intolerance of risk and advocacy of ultra-conservative
lobby groups
Public intolerance of risk is another significant factor. In recent
years, public policy has been guided in great part by public opinion.
Public opinion is often influenced by lurid reports of sensational
crimes and results in emotional reaction, stressing a hard- line,
tough, war-on-crime response. As a result, a vast majority of
jurisdictions have adopted mission statements or other similar
documents which promote public safety as the paramount principle.
We are obviously supportive of the notion of public safety, but there
is a clear need to go beyond expressing it as a principle. For some
groups, the paramount principle is made out to be the "only"
principle; they advocate vengeance and punishment as primary
responses to crime and denigrate any effort aimed at reintegration
or attempting to move away from incarceration.
"Unfortunately, in the case of incarceration, any driving force that is
not rooted in sound correctional philosophy and policy tends to
ignore potentially more effective and less costly solutions that could
contribute to addressing the more fundamental causes of crime."
(CCJA Report on Criminal Justice in Crisis: A National Forum on
Incarceration, September 1995, p.7).
2.
HURDLES TO EFFECTIVE RELEASE MECHANISMS
The lack of public support for alternatives to incarceration
Increasing public demand for law-and-order is a significant hurdle
which pervades literally every aspect of criminal justice and
corrections. In the area of prevention, it may well facilitate the
implementation of police-based or target-hardening type of
programs, but renders difficult the implementation of socialdevelopment efforts which may not show immediate or short-term
results and are often dismissed as expensive forms of social
pampering. For many people, retribution and financial costs emerge
as the only important principles, and a large portion of the public is
oblivious to other social or human costs.
In this context, it is most tempting for elected officials to adopt the
law-and-order agenda and laws are adopted that are increasingly
harsh and coercive, that apply to greater numbers of people and
situations, that gradually erode discretionary powers and judgement
at all levels, and more people are sentenced to prison for longer
periods of time. Yet, it should be clear from experience that
problems cannot be solved through legislation alone and that much
energy has to be expended to address the root causes of those
problems of which crime is only one form of expression.
Inadequacy of public education efforts
Many people believe that crime deserves punishment and that
punishment means prison.
Incarceration does not necessarily lead to increased public safety;
that, we believe, is a view commonly held by a majority of informed
criminal justice and correctional professionals. Yet, it remains a
timid affirmation in most documents aimed at informing the public
who persist in believing the opposite. Much of the public education
material focuses on explaining the law and the processes set in
place to ensure its application. However, there is also a need to
emphasize the goals and objectives of the law and such processes,
to discuss the thinking behind their adoption and, if necessary, to
challenge existing beliefs, particularly when the anticipated results
are not achieved. Ultimately, public views should prevail, but these
should be founded on knowledge, understanding and factual
information. Ideally, the democratic process is based on a well
informed and discerning public.
Emphasis on paperwork and resulting backlogs
We have already stated that a certain need for self-protection has
led many criminal justice workers, more particularly correctional
workers, to focus almost exclusively on risk and case management
and the tools developed for that purpose, to the detriment of faceto-face human and professional contacts. While this phenomenon
cannot be documented statistically at this time, it is nonetheless
perceivable and perceived by several experienced observers. An
almost inevitable consequence of that approach is the requirement
for paper trails to be developed and, as a result, countless hours
are devoted to the development of files and documents, once again
to the detriment of a more meaningful and helping relationship. It is
not unusual for staff to be consumed and overwhelmed by
paperwork; in the end, not only are inmates deprived of quality
interventions, but, as well, when the work cannot be completed on
time, they are deprived of timely access to existing release
mechanisms and, consequently, of opportunities for reintegration.
The lack of adequate or timely case preparation leading to delays
and postponements is not acceptable and must be addressed as a
priority, in accordance with the principles of sound correctional
practice.
Nature and availability of programs
There is a logical relationship between this point and the former. If
indeed the emphasis is on assessing risk and managing cases, it
flows naturally that there remains less time for the evaluation of
personal needs and of the programs best suited to meet those
needs. As a result, inmates are often enrolled in programs that bear
little relationship to their particular needs, deprived of programs that
would serve a useful purpose, or, at the other extreme, enrolled in
an overabundance of programs that amount to little more than
occupational therapy (e.g., AA for people who do not have an
alcohol or drug abuse problem).
For programs to be effective, there needs to be meaningful
interpersonal contacts, an assessment of actual needs, monitoring
of progress from both an objective (scales, grids, prediction tables,
etc,) and a subjective (sustained personal contacts, interviews, etc)
point of view, and the ability to adjust these approaches according
to the individual's progress.
In our view, the balance has been lost between the objective and
the subjective approach. It needs to be restored.
Finally, it is important to ensure that all obstacles to the delivery of
effective programs are eliminated and that inmates are granted
timely access to the programs they require. This does not appear to
be the case under all circumstances at present as the following
comment indicates:
"The Service (Correctional Service of Canada) over the years, with
the proliferation of institutional programming, has become
dependent on this extended period of incarceration, between parole
eligibility and statutory release, to provide programming. There
appears to be a reluctance on the part of case management staff to
give consideration to conditional release as an option until such
time as these programs have been completed, many of which could
be provided under supervision in the community. The current
population increase, caused in part by offenders remaining in
institutions to complete programs, has further delayed timely
access to these programs which, in turn, extends the period of
incarceration and adds to the population growth.
This cycle of dependency is unlikely to be interrupted until such
time as the Service accepts and takes action on the principle that
the protection of society is served through the timely re-integration
of offenders as law abiding citizens. A continuation of business as
usual in this area will promote further population growth and will
impact measurably on the viability of the system's current decisionmaking processes, the efficiency and effectiveness of existing
institutional programs, and the ability of the Service to provide
equitable and just treatment in a responsive fashion to the inmate
population." (Annual Report of the Correctional Investigator 19961997, p.27)
3.
APPLICATION OF RELEASE MECHANISMS
Over-cautiousness of releasing authorities resulting in
declining rates of release
We have already discussed the influence of public pressure.
Further, we have quoted statistics that clearly point to a general
decline in the various forms of conditional release. With recidivism
rates remaining rather constant, as is the case with patterns of
offending (violent vs. non-violent), we need look elsewhere for
factors which can influence the granting of conditional releases.
There was a time when the concept of "reasonable risk" was one of
the key considerations in determining whether or not an offender
would be released. Over time, that concept has all but been
replaced by that of "no risk". A good example of over-cautiousness
is the proliferation of "special conditions" imposed by paroling
authorities on those who are released. It is at times difficult to relate
those conditions to criminogenic factors which may be present in a
given case. Yet, it is clear that an over-abundance of conditions
create that many more opportunities for breaches and failures.
Another example can be found in the "instant success" of residency
conditions imposed on people who come out on statutory release
and which make it mandatory for them to live in a residential facility.
Many simply choose not to comply, others abscond, and many
derive absolutely no benefit from this process. Further, this
approach dramatically and negatively impacts on the role and
purpose of halfway houses.
Risk is an integral part of any release decision; releasing authorities
need to determine what level of risk is acceptable in a given
circumstance and be prepared to defend their decision based on
that determination, along with other key factors inspired and guided
by sound correctional practice. The idea that we would accept no
level of risk would ultimately dictate that we abolish all releasing
authorities because it is impossible to devise a risk-free correctional
system. That is not an option: the Association firmly believes that
gradual release is one of the most effective forms of reintegration
and, because of that, society must be prepared to accept a
reasonable level of risk. Reasonable being defined as the relative
assurance that an offender will not recidivate and that, if he or she
does re-offend, it will be in a manner that does not cause personal
harm to other persons.
Timing of release
There may be a number of factors to explain why releases have
been granted increasingly later during the course of a sentence, but
the fact remains that they have and, as a result, inmates have been
remaining in prison for longer periods of time, thereby swelling the
ranks of the prison population. According to figures presented by
the National Parole Board in its Performance Monitoring Report
1996-1997, "Nationally, and in each region over the past five years,
offenders have been serving larger portions of their sentences
(28% in 1992/93, 36% in 1996/97) before first release on day
parole" (p.18). How does this impact on overcrowding? Let us use
Correctional Service of Canada figures as an example. According
to the CSC, the average length of sentence in 1995-96 was 45.9
months. Let us settle on a figure of 45 for 1996-97 serving 36% of
their sentence instead of 28% before their first release on day
parole means that, on average, inmates served 16.2 months
instead of 12.6, or 3.6 months more than they would have served in
1992-93. As 2,693 inmates were granted day parole in 1996-97,
they collectively served an additional 9,695 months, i.e. 808
person/years (2 four hundred-bed institutions for one year).
Converting percentages to people does shed a different light on the
situation. However, the average proportion of time served prior to
release on full parole has decreased slightly during that same
period from 40% to 38%. (p.25). One might be encouraged by the
latter statistics; yet we need to remember that these figures are still
5% in excess of the actual eligibility date and that there is still room
for improvement as the preceding calculations indicate.
4.
SUPPORT TO OFFENDERS IN THE COMMUNITY
(REINTEGRATION)
"What does the state do well and not so well? In the corrections area, the
obvious answer is that the state is good at incarcerating offenders. What
does the state not do so well? I think it is the social integration of
offenders. I know we all can do better" (The Honourable Andy Scott,
Solicitor General of Canada, in an address delivered before the 26th
Canadian Congress on Criminal Justice, Ottawa, Ontario, September
20th, 1997)
Need for a new paradigm
Clearly, the retributive approach to criminal justice has not yielded
satisfactory results. There has been no significant decrease in
crime or recidivism rates, prison populations have grown steadily,
and public safety has not been improved. While recognizing that
incarceration remains necessary in certain circumstances and that
punishment can have limited effects, it stands to reason that more
of the same will only yield similar results. The time has come to look
elsewhere for new and more effective approaches that will lead to a
more satisfying justice for all, while in no way jeopardizing public
safety. Restorative justice is one of the trends that is currently
gaining momentum; its concepts find an application in programs
such as family group conferencing, victim/offender conciliation,
circle sentencing, mediation, and others. We are certainly
supportive of the concepts that underlie the restorative justice
approach, although we acknowledge that several restorative justice
programs need to be evaluated to confirm their effectiveness. Still,
restorative programs are but one approach; there exists a variety of
directions and other options that may not conform to the strict
definition of restorative justice, but that nonetheless deserve to be
examined closely; most of them are offered in the community
(diversion, fine option programs, community service orders,
electronic monitoring, halfway houses, and others).
Certainly, effective crime prevention strategies must be developed
and implemented. It is self-evident that, if a problem is prevented,
there is no need to devote energy and resources to solving it. Our
calls for more investment in crime prevention are well documented.
Yet, we are conscious that not all crime can be prevented and that
we need to deal realistically with the crime that does occur. We are
firmly opposed to the notion of incarceration as the normal sanction
within the criminal justice process, with every other measure being
considered an alternative. It is our belief that this notion is at the
very basis of the current problem of overcrowding and at the source
of much of the resistance to implementing other approaches which
are thereby perceived as "getting off lightly".
Lack of political commitment and correctional leadership to
divert resources to community alternatives
We are encouraged by some of the recommendations contained in
Corrections Population Growth First Report on Progress for
Federal/Provincial/Territorial Ministers Responsible for Justice,
February 1997; they point in the right direction. However, many
appear as a reiteration of statements often repeated over the years
and do not tackle problems in an aggressive and concerted way.
What is required now is concrete action to support the stated
intentions. A strategy is needed to address the issues of the day
collectively, to challenge the current assumptions that guide the
development of public policy, and to ensure the development of
community-based options. There is no clear consensus. In fact,
some jurisdictions seem headed in opposite directions: for example,
in recent years, Québec has closed some of its institutions and
placed a cap on its prison population. By contrast, Ontario is
building mega-institutions, it has eliminated its halfway house
programs and, more recently, significantly reduced its support for
Community Service Order Programs (CSO). A cohesive strategy
involving all jurisdictions is required to reduce crime and prison
populations. It is possible. Speaking at an international symposium
held recently in Kingston, Ontario, Tappio Lappi-Seppala, Director
of Finland's National Research Institute of Legal Policy, stated that
his country's declining incarceration rate is due to a concerted
policy.
"We agreed in the 1970s that it was a disgrace to have
this type of situation, and we had to do something about
it.
Judges began to reduce the length of prison sentences
for such non-violent crimes as theft, while they
simultaneously increased the proportion of inmates
sentenced to community service.
Parole was extended to a point where 99% of Finish
inmates are now released under the program", said Mr.
Lappi-Seppala. He said that Finland's politicians never
campaign with promises of a law-and-order crackdown,
while the press rarely sensationalises crime or lobbies
for tougher sentences.
The number of prisoners per 100,000 people has
dropped from 120 in 1978 to a recent low of 60. (Globe
& Mail, March 19, 1998, p. A3)
We appreciate the political nature of the forum that brings together
federal/provincial/territorial ministers responsible for justice. Yet, it
is telling that all of the discussions are taking place in the absence
of any significant voice from the voluntary and community sectors in
Canada. In our view, the successful collaboration of governments
and the voluntary sector cannot be the product of an after-thought.
"Correctional services are an essential part of a
coordinated and interdependent criminal justice system,
and are provided by various levels of government as
well as the voluntary sector in Canada."
"10. Correctional objectives should be met through
shared responsibility and cooperative action by the
community, correctional workers, other segments of the
criminal justice system and the offenders themselves."
(Mandate and Principles of Adult Corrections in Canada)
Now is the time to involve all parties in the discussion and the
search for solutions in a true spirit of cooperation and with a view to
shifting some of the burden for corrections away from institutions
toward the community. Is there a will to do so?
"It seems to me we have been content to play the underdog rather
than standing up for what we know to be true."
"We cannot keep silent."
"We cannot keep on doing what we are doing ... the need is urgent
and important." "Will we have the courage to stand against those
whose knowledge is less, whose values are counter-productive to
sustained public safety, who argue for more and more incarceration
and less and less programming." (Ole Ingstrup, Commissioner,
Correctional Service of Canada, quoted in the Globe & Mail, March
17, 1998, p.A2)
Lack of sentencing alternatives
Some may question whether there is in fact a lack of sentencing
alternatives. Indeed, there exists a multitude of alternatives at the
conceptual level. The issue is whether enough of these alternatives
translate into real programs to which the courts can turn. Is there a
will to implement more of these programs across the country? Are
such programs an option for the courts or a mere experiment
available in certain jurisdictions?
We need to be humble enough to borrow from other countries who
have had demonstrated successes with approaches not currently in
place in Canada. In our report, Criminal Justice in Crisis: A National
Forum on Incarceration, we cited what appeared to be promising
avenues being explored by other countries in addressing
overcrowding:
Italy is looking at administrative sanctions (e.g.,
confiscation of driver's licenses, of gun permits, and
passports) instead of jail sentences for offences related
to the personal use of drugs.
The former West Germany has focussed with some
success on improving the working relationship and
cooperation between lawyers, prosecutors and the
judiciary. No legislative changes were necessary.
Austria has implemented a number of alternatives to
incarceration in line with the principle of resorting to the
least restrictive sanction consistent with the protection of
society. Victim-offender mediation, reparation and
restitution play an increasing role in preventing minor
cases from being dealt with through the criminal justice
system.
Finland has resorted to a comprehensive strategy of
policy changes to de-emphasize imprisonment; the
median length of sentences has been reduced
significantly and success is credited to the attitudinal
readiness of civil servants, the judiciary, and prison
authorities to use all available means to bring down the
prison population.
The Netherlands is pursuing an approach that deals
with drug addiction as a health issue, thereby permitting
these persons to be removed from the prison
population.
No one program will ever solve all of our problems. We need to
experiment with a variety of approaches, targeting specific needs.
The cumulative effect of a variety of community-based programs
could impact significantly on the prison population. And, when a
program proves successful, the required infrastructures should be
established to support it and broaden its potential impact.
Improper allocation of resources
This issue has been addressed in part. It relates to the political or
societal choices we make and to the foundations of those choices.
Why does it seem that monies can always be found when it comes
to building institutions, but appears so difficult to come by when it
comes to developing community options?
"Governments spent $1.9 billion on correctional services for adults
in 1994-95, or $65 for every person in Canada. Constant dollar
expenditures increased by 68% between 1978/79 and 1985/86, or
by an average of 7% each year. More recently, however, growth
has been relatively flat, since 1986/87, average annual decreases
of less than 1% have been reported.
In 1994/95, the federal share of total adult correctional operating
costs ($913 million) neared one-half (48%). Most of this money
funded custodial services for offenders sentenced to two years or
more in prison (75%). The remainder paid for community
supervision services (7%), the National Parole Board (3%), and
national headquarters and regional office costs (15%). Provincial
and territorial governments allocated a somewhat larger share of
expenditures to custodial services (83% in 1994/95)." (Juristat, Vol.
17, No. 3, p.6)
"One of the factors that has enabled the federal government to
contain prison costs is the use of 'double-bunking'. Today, about
one-quarter of the cells originally built for one inmate are shared by
two inmates. Although current figures are not available, the
provinces also use 'double-bunking' to control costs." (Juristat, Vol.
17, No. 3, p.6) "...the housing of two individuals in a secure cell
designed for one individual, for up to twenty hours a day, for
months on end, is inhumane. This practice, which continues
unmonitored at either the regional (federal) or national level, defies
not only any reasonable standard of decency but also the standards
of international convention." (Annual Report of the Correctional
Investigator 1996-1997, p.30). There are currently in excess of
5,000 inmates in double-bunk situations in federal and provincial
institutions. Views similar to that of the Correctional Investigator
were expressed by a senior official of the Québec Ministry of Public
Security who was defending his ministry's use of temporary
absence programs to cope with overcrowding: "The concept of
humanitarian grounds may also be invoked in dealing with
overcrowding. (...) It is inhumane to house two people in a cell
designed for one." [translation] (LeDroit, October 3, 1997)
The federal government and provincial/territorial governments
allocated respectively 75% and 83% of their correctional resources
to prisons. It is noteworthy that the Juristat analysis speaks of
constant dollars; indeed the graph showing both constant and
current dollars reveals that costs have continued to rise significantly
in current dollars since 1986/87, and would have risen even more
had it not been for double-bunking. During that same period, a
number of community organizations suffered dramatic cuts: e.g.,
NVO's (National Voluntary Organizations), several of which provide
direct services to offenders and ex-offenders, were cut back by
approximately 30% in their federal funding and by 100% of their
provincial funding in Ontario. Since 1986/87, the occupancy rate of
halfway house beds available to the federal correctional service has
been approximately 80%. This means that, on average, close to
300 beds (a small institution) were available at less than half the
cost of maintaining an inmate in prison, even with double-bunking.
Institutional costs have risen and community resources have been
cut back. What does this tell us about prevailing correctional
philosophy?
Statistical information is not available to us at this time relative to
other community programs or options. However, most seem to be
struggling for survival and the onus is on governments to
demonstrate a real commitment to their growth and participation in
the correctional process. Further still, governments need to
demonstrate their will to develop the community component of their
own correctional operations. Many questions arise when we are
informed that, within the very operations of government-managed
corrections, significant amounts of money earmarked for community
corrections are being redirected toward institutional programs. That,
in and of itself, is very disturbing.
Lack of community programs, options, and infrastructures
We have already addressed the gist of this issue. Suffice it to say
that, except for rare exceptions (halfway houses perhaps), most
community-based programs do not figure as an integral part of a
structured correctional strategy. Many programs are used on an ad
hoc basis and continue to be perceived as an alternative to the
official sanction of incarceration. No plans exist for nation-wide or
jurisdiction-wide implementation of community-based programs that
have demonstrated some success. Most of them are treated as
experimental and, as a consequence, no infrastructure exists to
sustain or promote their development. For community-based
programs to thrive, there would need to be a commitment to
assuring them of adequate and continuing funding. New monies
may be difficult to find. However, a commitment to "de-carceration"
could free up the necessary amounts and contribute to relieving the
pressure on institutions as demonstrated in our discussion around
the availability of halfway house beds.
Erosion of the halfway house system
The halfway house movement was at the very basis of the
development of day-parole and other temporary release programs
in Canada. Its effectiveness has been demonstrated. Once
operated almost exclusively by non-profit organizations, the
concept was soon to be espoused by government jurisdictions,
particularly the federal correctional service who established a
parallel network of community correctional centres (similar to
halfway houses, but with little community participation), thereby
reinforcing the value of gradual release in a residential framework.
There was a time when several offenders had to be placed on
waiting lists for admission to a residential facility. Today, an
average of 20% of available beds are not used, while institutions
are double- and triple-bunking inmates. It is difficult to imagine why.
As stated earlier, and for example, in 1995, the government of
Ontario closed 350 beds in Community Resource Centres (halfway
houses) and has reduced its rate of full parole by 42% since
1993/94. How many of those 42% could have been referred
successfully to a halfway house? As well, a steady decrease in
temporary absence releases has further reduced the number of
inmates benefiting from community programs. While the
government of Ontario introduced a program of electronic
monitoring (1996) to offset the effect of the above decisions, this
program remains woefully under-utilized. The case of Ontario is but
one example. How many other jurisdictions could downsize their
institutional population if they supported a more vibrant halfway
house system?
Termination of conditional release
One of the factors contributing to overcrowding is the fact that a
large number of offenders released conditionally or otherwise are
returned to institutions.
In the case of recidivists, there may be fewer choices, depending
on the nature of the offence. Yet, we need to determine whether a
larger number of those offenders could be dealt with through means
other than incarceration and whether the necessary support
structures were in place to prevent recidivism in the first place.
Others are sent back for a breach of condition. Of course, breaches
have to be addressed, but is termination of release too often the
preferred solution? A review of NPB statistics, included in its
Performance Monitoring Report 1996-1997 (pp.48-51), reveals that,
for 1996-97, a total of 2,644 offenders were returned to institutions
on technical violations - almost 3 times as many as were returned
for recidivism (988). How many of these 2,644 could have been
maintained in the community without presenting a real or increased
threat to the community? The use of attendance centres, required
daily reporting, peer support groups, the buddy or mentor concept,
and increased monitoring or supervision might well reduce the
number of returns for technical violations.
There needs to occur a thorough assessment of the factors leading
to suspensions or revocations and we need to question whether reincarceration is always necessary.
We need to look for creative options and alternatives, and to assess
their effectiveness, all the while maintaining public safety as a
paramount consideration.
If we preach restorative approaches and diversion at the front end
of the system, why could we not consider similar approaches
further down the line?
The ultimate decision is a matter of discretion. It is difficult to gather
statistical information on what motivates people; yet, many
experienced observers have noted that many case supervisors
have become over-cautious and are no longer prepared to take
reasonable risks in dealing with the more difficult offender. Once
again, it appears that many have become "gun-shy" and fearful of
public backlash. Certainly, if a person presents a real and
immediate threat to society, it is important that this person be
incapacitated. But, such is not always the case. We need to
reinforce the fact that quality decisions made in good professional
judgement will not lead to undue sanctions for the supervisor and to
encourage professionals to trust their judgement. By definition,
people are released under certain conditions because they require
a minimal amount of control and some assistance to adjust to their
new environment. It is important that professionals acting as
supervisors be afforded a reasonable amount of latitude in
performing their dual role, without fear of reprisal. It is equally
important that they have access to resources that will enable them
to meet their responsibility to the public.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
1.
Commit to change
Acknowledge the need for change on fiscal, social, and
humanitarian grounds.
Facilitate a national dialogue on the nature of justice.
Affirm prevention as the best source of long-term protection for
the public.
Recognize that, if prevention fails and a crime has been
committed, the best means of ensuring public safety in the long
term is the effective reintegration of offenders into the
community. Effective reintegration is contingent upon an indepth evaluation and a thorough knowledge of personal
dynamics resulting from interpersonal contacts of the individual.
Only then can one be in a position to recognize and use
appropriate community resources.
The judiciary, correctional, and paroling authorities should
commit to using incarceration only as a last resort with respect
to the sentencing and conditional release of offenders, as well
as to decisions regarding the suspension and revocation of
conditional release.
Promote and implement structured and effective community
resources.
Recognize community options as an appropriate response in
their own right, not solely as an alternative to incarceration.
Acknowledge incarceration as only one of a list of options, and
not the norm.
Commit to a set of principles and be prepared to be judged on
their application. To that end, we propose that all jurisdictions
consider adopting the "Mandate and Principles of Adult
Corrections in Canada", developed and published by the
Canadian Criminal Justice Association in 1985, following two
nation-wide consultations with all levels of government and the
voluntary sector. Some 2,000 people participated in the first
consultation and 200-300 in the second. The vast majority
expressed support for that statement which was based on
sound correctional philosophy and practice and, though the
fiscal climate and the public mood have changed, these should
not, in our view, guide our beliefs. Many of the problems which
we have stressed throughout this paper can be linked to a
breach of one of the principles included in our statement. For
example, double-bunking constitutes an infringement on the
rights and dignity of offenders, Principle #1; not adopting the
least restrictive course of action, Principle #3; the overcautiousness of releasing authorities could be assessed in the
context of Principles #4 and #5; not promoting a wide range of
programs and services, Principle #8; developing and using
institutional programs when these are available and accessible
in the community, Principle #9; the quality of public education
efforts and the lack of voluntary sector involvement in
discussions could be linked to Principle #10; depriving staff of
positive working conditions, Principle # 12; improperly allocating
resources, Principle #13.
2.
Learn from other countries and improve on their experience
Develop the political and administrative will.
Commit to overcoming the fragmentation of the system.
Elicit cooperation from all levels and components of the system.
Ensure that adequate professional development is available and
accompanies programme initiatives.
3.
Develop a fundamentally different approach to crime and
corrections, and pursue a more satisfying justice system
Determine the needs of all those affected by crime.
Reorient the system toward the principles of healing,
participation, accountability, support, restitution, and safety.
Reduce prison inflow by developing and implementing a range
of community sentencing options and commit to using
incarceration as a last resort only.
Provide the courts with effective community options.
Enlist public support for those options.
Work at ensuring that all conditional release mechanisms are
offered in a timely manner to all those who deserve to benefit
from them and set measurable goals.
Restore balance between casework and paperwork.
Affirm parole as an effective tool for reintegration and public
safety.
Begin closing some prisons as options become available.
4.
Increase public awareness, understanding, and support
Undertake a national public education campaign on the benefits
of community-based corrections with the Department of Justice,
the Ministry of the Solicitor General, provincial/territorial
ministries and National Voluntary Organizations working in
collaboration.
Challenge the belief system that views punishment as a
guarantor of public safety.
Counteract sensational media comments with factual
information.
Emphasize the necessity of meeting the needs of victims.
Involve the voluntary sector in developing solutions.
Empower communities through experiences of participatory
justice.
Engage the public in major crime prevention strategies.
5.
Begin the process of reviewing resource allocation in a major
way
Direct and reserve the majority of institutional resources toward
the treatment of serious and violent offenders.
Divert resources away from institutional maintenance toward the
development and maintenance of community-based programs,
infrastructure, ownership and innovation.
Ensure offender access to existing community programs
developed for the general public, particularly in the fields of
education and employment.
Develop a strategy that involves the community and communitybased organizations as partners in corrections.
Back to the table of contents