SCRA Committee Report

3.2 Since most inmates are eventually released into the community, it must be recognized that incarceration is only a temporary means of ensuring public safety; only sustainable change in offender behaviour can ensure the long-term protection of the community. A number of studies on incarceration - contrary to the positive results of studies on the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs adapted to offenders' needs - have shown that incarceration in itself does not ensure sustainable change in offender behaviour.

3.3 The John Howard Society of Canada brief made this point very well. It emphasized that rehabilitation programs are fundamental to successful reintegration into the community by stating:

It is also important to differentiate activities which supervise and control from programs and services which develop changes in the person. The first set of activities imposes external controls while the latter encourage internal controls. Both have a valid role and often are concurrent and complementary. If we are not vigilant to the differences, however, the external control methods will overwhelm attempts to develop internal controls. For instance, imprisonment (external control) will stop a person from consuming alcohol but unless the person can deal with his addiction (internal control) the risk of failure after release from prison will remain high. We must recognize that by the time the warrant expires and external controls are no longer available, we must depend entirely on the internal controls that the individual has developed to ensure our continued safety. It makes sense, therefore, to give strong support for appropriate and effective programs and services.¹⁵

3.4 Like the John Howard Society of Canada, the Sub-committee recognizes the importance of distinguishing between activities that aim to control offender behaviour and programs and services that aim to change it in a long-lasting way. It therefore unconditionally supports the purpose of the correctional system as set out in section 3 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, which recognizes that an approach balanced between assistance to and control of offenders is essential in ensuring community protection. Although, the Sub-committee realizes that these two objectives can be hard to reconcile for corrections workers, who must both supervise and assist, and administrators, for whom day-to-day penitentiary management necessarily involves a number of controlling factors, it considers that the Correctional Service must do all it can to achieve this balance.

3.5 The Sub-committee is firmly convinced that the best way to protect the public is to prepare offenders for their reintegration into the community. In the Sub-committee's opinion, the Act rightly recognizes that all interventions within the correctional system must be designed and implemented bearing in mind this eventual reintegration of the offender.

3.6 Federally sentenced offenders often suffer from social inadequacies, such as insufficient education, lack of occupational skills, drug abuse, and mental health problems, which inhibit them from leading productive lives in society; addressing these inadequacies effectively reduces recidivism. The Sub-committee is therefore convinced that it is entirely logical to encourage and help inmates to become law-abiding citizens.

3.7 Although the Sub-committee's consideration of the Act did not allow it to consider the Correctional Service rehabilitation programs in depth, it will make general recommendations on the rehabilitation of offenders and their safe reintegration into the community. These recommendations for effective correctional plans to reduce recidivism are based on testimony heard by the Sub-committee during its consideration of the Act, including in camera meetings with offenders and persons working as employees and volunteers within the federal correctional system.

3.8 This chapter deals with the following issues:

• access to reliable and timely information on offenders;
• adaptation of rehabilitation programs to the specific needs of offenders;
• community rehabilitation programs; and
• the need for rehabilitation programs and services taking into account the needs of offenders who are women, Aboriginal, young, elderly, or dealing with serious health problems.

3.9 As part of its mandate, the Correctional Service is responsible for assisting and encouraging offenders to return to the community as law-abiding citizens, by providing them with rehabilitation programs and services likely to foster their successful reintegration into the community. Thus, in addition to supervising offenders and meeting their basic needs for food, clothing, shelter and health services, the Correctional Service must provide offenders with programs and services likely to help them change their behaviour. The following sections of the Act set out this responsibility imposed on the Correctional Service.

Section 3. The purpose of the federal correctional system is to contribute to the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by

(b) assisting the rehabilitation of offenders and their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens through the provision of programs in penitentiaries and in the community.

Section 5. There shall continue to be the Correctional Service of Canada, which shall be responsible for

(b) the provision of programs that contribute to the rehabilitation of offenders and to their successful reintegration into the community.

3.10 Since a thorough understanding of the problems faced by offenders is essential to managing risk in institutions and in the community, and for implementing effective programs that can reduce recidivism, the Correctional Service must have timely access to reliable information on offenders.

3.11 In carrying out its mandate, the Correctional Service conducts intake assessments of all offenders, on their admission to federal correctional institutions, in order to identify their needs for supervision and rehabilitation programs. Present Correctional Service policy allows no more than 56 days to complete the intake assessment,¹⁶ which is used to determine the institution in which the offender will serve the sentence¹⁷ and to develop a suitable correctional plan for the offender.

3.12 The purpose of correctional plans is to help offenders change their behaviour and ultimately to become law-abiding citizens. These detailed individual plans, based on intake and subsequent assessments, include all the treatments and programs offenders are to follow during their sentences, and the associated objectives they are to achieve.

3.13 If correctional plans are to reduce recidivism effectively, that is, if the treatment and programs are to address directly the factors underlying the criminal behaviour of individual offenders, the Correctional Service must have reliable information on those factors.¹⁸

3.14 Both the Barreau du Québec and psychologist Dr. Marnie Rice, Director of Research at the maximum security Oak Ridge Division of the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre, believe that high quality information at this stage of the process is essential to ensure community protection since it allows for appropriate offender classification (in institutions adapted to individual offenders' security classifications and needs for rehabilitation programs) and is an important component in the offender's file in case of future decisions on conditional release.

3.15 In her brief to the Sub-committee, Dr. Rice emphasized the importance of obtaining complete, reliable information on offenders, saying:

Obtaining the right kind of comprehensive information about offenders is absolutely critical for accurate risk assessment. The most accurate instruments for the prediction of future violence among offender populations depends critically upon having accurate information from several sources, a fact that was recognized in the development of the CCRA.¹⁹

3.16 According to the Barreau du Québec, it is also important that this information be forwarded as soon as possible to the Correctional Service, so that it can classify offenders programs that meet their needs. A number of witnesses told the Sub-committee that delays in receiving access to information can seriously jeopardize offender rehabilitation. In its brief to the Sub-committee, the Barreau du Québec noted:

[An] inmate should be classified as quickly as possible so that he or she can have access to rehabilitation programs that are suited to his or her situation, and that will enable the inmate to be reintegrated into society while not presenting a greater risk to the community.²⁰

3.17 During its review of the Act, the Sub-committee was told that the Correctional Service had difficulty in obtaining in a timely manner all the information it needed to conduct effective intake assessments of the offenders entrusted to it. As has been pointed out, this situation may well lead to inaccurate assessment of the risks offenders represent and their specific needs for programs, as well as inappropriate decisions regarding conditional release. After reading the most recent Report by the Auditor General of Canada on the process of offender reintegration,²¹ and the testimony of a number of witnesses on the shortcomings with respect to offender information,²² the Sub-committee was convinced that problems with information sharing among the various parts of the criminal justice system can hamper the process of offenders' reintegration into society; and timely, complete, high-quality information on offenders is essential for developing effective correctional plans. Nevertheless, the Sub-committee considers that the problems noted by these witnesses stem not from the Act itself, which recognizes the importance of information sharing,²³ but from its application. The Sub-committee therefore encourages the Correctional Service to continue its efforts to improve information sharing among the various component parts of the criminal justice system as the best way of overcoming the current problems in this regard. We note that the Correctional Service has signed official information-sharing agreements with the National Parole Board and with nine provinces.

3.18 In light of the preceding considerations and the fact that much remains to be done to improve information sharing among the various component parts of the criminal justice system, the Sub-committee makes the following recommendation:

RECOMMENDATION 6

3.19 During its review of the Act, the Sub-committee also learned about the characteristics of effective correctional and community programs that foster offender rehabilitation and their reintegration into the community.²⁴ On this point, witnesses told the Sub-committee that the rehabilitation programs that best protect the public from recidivism are the ones that target offenders' criminogenic needs and adapt the level of intervention to the level of individual offenders' risk of reoffending.

3.20 A number of witnesses, including the John Howard Society of Canada and the John Howard Society of Newfoundland, emphasized that programs must address the factors underlying offenders' criminal behaviour, stating:

[Programming] must target criminogenic needs, those dynamic risk factors that when changed are associated with changes in criminal conduct such as anti-social attitudes and feelings, pro-criminal peer associations, substance abuse and problem-solving skills. Programs which target these dynamic factors have been shown to have the most promise in reducing recidivism.²⁵

The likelihood of gradual release being successful can be enhanced through the presence of good prison programs that address those factors that relate to offending behavior.²⁶

3.21 In giving testimony before the Sub-committee in Halifax, Terry Carlson of the John Howard Society of Newfoundland emphasized the importance of adapting the level of intervention to individual offenders' risk of recidivism. He argued that, if offender programs are to be effective in reducing recidivism, they must be oriented and organized according to the risk individual offenders present to the community. Carlson also argued that, the higher an individual offender's risk of recidivism, the more intense should be the level of intervention and that, in accordance with the goal of effective reduction of recidivism, the Correctional Service must focus on programs for offenders with medium or high risks of recidivism.

3.22 The Sub-committee believes the community is better protected if Correctional Service rehabilitation programs are effective and relevant, and thus considers it essential that the Correctional Service work to ensure that the range and availability of offender programs correspond to offenders' criminogenic needs and the risks of recidivism they present to the community.

3.23 Having learned during its visits to the penitentiaries about the principle of differentiation, or orienting and organizing interventions with offenders in accordance with individual offenders' risk of recidivism, the Sub-committee wants to encourage the Correctional Service to continue its efforts to tailor its interventions to the risks individual offenders present to the community.

3.24 In the Sub-committee's opinion, the principle of differentiation recognizes the importance of reintegrating offenders into the community while at the same time reducing the risk of jeopardizing public safety. This principle, as defined in the Correctional Service's case management manual, is applied as follows:

Offenders with high reintegration potential: In such cases, intervention oriented towards release should be pursued. Low-intensity should be planned in institutions (where necessary); if there is a need for core intervention (living skills, substance abuse, sex offender treatment, family violence or literacy), these should be addressed in the community.

Offenders with medium reintegration potential: In such cases, institutional intervention must be combined with intervention in the community; the core programs that are intended strictly to make the risk acceptable to public safety must be implemented in the institution, followed in the community by other core programs or by lower-intensity programs (relapse prevention, maintenance).

Offenders with low reintegration potential: High-intensity intervention. Core interventions (living skills, substance abuse, sex offender treatment, family violence or literacy) must be applied in institutions prior to release and must continue in the community. ²⁷

3.26 Some witnesses before the Sub-committee considered community rehabilitation programs more effective in many cases than institutional programs in reducing recidivism. In its brief to the Sub-committee, the John Howard Society of Newfoundland stated, "While quality prison programming is important, the research has demonstrated that community-based programs can be even more effective."²⁸ Emphasizing in its brief that the problems offenders face are often social, the Quebec Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies argued that a correctional institution is often not the best place to solve these problems.²⁹

3.27 As has been pointed out, the Sub-committee considers that an approach aimed at reducing recidivism involves providing both community rehabilitation programs and appropriate supervision. It therefore paid special attention to the inadequacy, noted by a number of witnesses, of community programs and resources for supporting offenders.

3.28 Thomas Hoban, president of the Miramichi Community Corrections Council Inc. in New Brunswick, had this to say to the Sub-committee about the lack of community programs:

There is a gross imbalance between Institutional Programming and Community. There is ample or considerable programming within the Institutions, however, NONE within the community. Some programming can be found in the urban areas, however there are none to be found in the rural areas of this country. Persons receiving programming in the institutions are being released daily into communities wherein there is no continuance of the programs available.³⁰

3.29 The Sub-committee also learned about the shortcomings in community programs recently noted by the Auditor General of Canada in the report tabled in Parliament in April 1999:

While the Service has developed a continuum of rehabilitation programs from the institution to the community, its ability to deliver these programs to offenders in the community falls short of current needs. Research indicates that many intervention programs that deal with offenders' criminogenic needs are more effective when delivered in the community.³¹

3.30 The Sub-committee believes that offender rehabilitation in the community would be greatly facilitated if the institutional programs in which offenders participated were also provided in the community, and that this ongoing programming is essential since, if there are no community programs that continue the work done in the correctional institutions, the chances of offenders' falling back into criminal habits remain high. The importance of continuing programming has long been recognized; one reason justifying the transfer in the 1970s of responsibility for supervising offenders on conditional release from the National Parole Board to the Correctional Service of Canada was a desire to provide ongoing programming in the community.

RECOMMENDATION 7

The Sub-committee recommends that the Correctional Service of Canada increase its efforts in community programs and allocate more resources to them, in order to ensure that offenders on conditional release receive the support considered necessary for their successful reintegration into the community.

3.32 The Act gives the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board "legislative and operational flexibility to ensure that programs, treatment and decision-making address the diverse needs and circumstances of the offender population and groups within the offender population."³³

3.33 Although the Sub-committee understands why the Act specifically recognizes the problems faced by women and Aboriginal offenders, for example, through specific criteria ensuring that policies and practices meet these two groups' special needs, it also wants the special needs of offenders who are young,³⁴ who are elderly, or who have serious health problems to be recognized explicitly in the Act. The Sub-committee is aware that the practices of the National Parole Board and the Correctional Service already take these groups' special needs into account, it believes these offender groups must be explicitly referred to in the Act: the Sub-committee feels that legislative amendments in this regard would provide visibility for their special needs.

3.34 The Sub-committee therefore considers it important to amend the statement of principles guiding the Correctional Service of Canada and one of the general provisions governing the National Parole Board, so the Act explicitly recognizes the special problems and needs of these offender groups.

RECOMMENDATION 8

The Sub-committee recommends that paragraph 4(h) and subsection 151(3) of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act be amended by adding offenders who are young, elderly, or have serious health problems to the list of offender groups considered to have special needs.

3.35 There have been a number of studies on the difficulties faced by the Correctional Service and the National Parole Board in managing the sentences of women and Aboriginal offenders. These studies have often helped improve our knowledge of the special needs of these groups and the correctional services available to them.

3.36 Despite progress made in the past few years and although paragraph 4(h), sections 77, 80 through 85, and subsection 151(3) of the Act already recognize the importance of providing programs and services adapted to the special needs of women and Aboriginal offenders, the Sub-committee considers that much remains to be done in order to improve the situation of these two offender groups in our penitentiaries. The following section of this chapter therefore deals with women and Aboriginal offenders and the Sub-committee's recommendations for appropriate programs and services for them.

3.37 Because women account for between 2% and 3% only of all federally sentenced offenders, it is difficult to provide programs and services that pave the way for their reintegration into the community. Furthermore, a number of studies have shown that women offenders do not have access to programs or services that are comparable to those available to male offenders.

3.38 It is not surprising, therefore, that the Sub-committee repeatedly heard during its hearings that programs and services for women offenders were still inadequate, in spite of an overall improvement in the situation of women offenders since the regional correctional institutions for them had been opened.

3.39 As well, having noted during its visits to penitentiaries in all parts of Canada that programs for women offenders are inadequate, the Sub-committee paid special attention to testimony from certain witnesses, including Lisa Addario of the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, Marie-Andrée Bertrand of the École de criminologie at Université de Montréal, and Kim Pate of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. These witnesses stated that the obvious lack of adequate programs and services for women offenders constitutes prejudice against this offender group.

3.40 The Sub-committee recognizes that the small number of women in the offender population makes it difficult for the Correctional Service to provide diversified programs for women offenders. For example, on the subject of women inmates in maximum-security institutions, the report of the CCRA Working Group stated:

Programming is often impeded by the small numbers, which also mitigate against effective programming. Small numbers mean most women receive individualized assistance (e.g. school) and one-to-one counselling which is not ultimately desirable, nor in many instances, effective in helping to reduce risk.³⁵

3.41 The St. Leonard's Society of Canada warned the Sub-committee against an analysis based solely on the cost-effectiveness of programs for women offenders:

There really is no simple cost effective response to corrections for women. The numbers do not allow for economies of scale. However, by using best practices in women's programs, we will lead the way to improvements in corrections for men and we will see the successful integration of women to their communities - measures which benefit us all.³⁶

3.42 The Sub-committee does not consider the small number of women offenders a valid reason for failing to work to ensure that women offenders obtain services that will facilitate their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens. Recognition of the Correctional Service's difficulties cannot justify abandoning the ongoing search for solutions.

3.43 The Sub-committee recognizes that the Correctional Service has made a number of efforts to solve this problem since the 1990 report by the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women entitled Creating Choices, and the creation of the position of Deputy Commissioner for Women, following a recommendation by Madam Justice Louise Arbour in her 1996 report. In spite of all this, it believes the Correctional Service must continue its efforts to ensure that federally sentenced women offenders have access to rehabilitative programs and services.

3.44 In this regard, the Sub-committee considers it particularly urgent that the Deputy Commissioner for Women, with the Correctional Service, develop and implement modern work and training programs both in the correctional institutions for women and in the community. As is required in paragraph 4(h) and section 77 of the Act, these programs will have to be adapted to the specific needs of women offenders, and foster their reintegration into the community.

3.45 Insofar as Aboriginal offenders are concerned, the figures published in the Solicitor General's report are alarming. Aboriginal persons account for some 3% of the Canadian population overall, but 12% of federally sentenced offenders. Compared with non-Aboriginal inmates they usually serve longer portions of their sentences in institutions rather than in the community, and they are more often referred for detention hearings.

3.46 Studies have repeatedly shown that existing Correctional Service programs and management practices did not always meet the specific needs of Aboriginal offenders. The Correctional Service must therefore recognize these offenders' special needs and ensure that Aboriginal offenders benefit from correctional services and programs that foster their reintegration into the community as law-abiding citizens.

3.47 The Act now recognizes that the overall Correctional Service approach, rehabilitation programs, and reintegration into the community must be sensitive to Aboriginal culture. A number of witnesses considered this recognition alone to be a significant improvement to the correctional system. Even so, the Sub-committee heard from witnesses who criticized the lack of programs adapted to Aboriginal offenders' special needs, and emphasized the specific problems of federally sentenced Aboriginal offenders.

3.48 Since the Sub-committee believes that programs and services must meet the special needs of Aboriginal offenders and have as their goal effective correctional planning to reduce recidivism, it recommends that, in order to improve correctional services for Aboriginal offenders, a position of deputy commissioner for Aboriginal offenders be created within the Correctional Service that is similar to the existing deputy commissioner for women position. The deputy commissioner for Aboriginal offenders would be responsible for studying, analyzing and endeavouring to solve problems relating particularly to Aboriginal offenders in the correctional system. In the opinion of the Sub-committee, the deputy commissioner would be responsible for planning and developing policies and programs, monitoring and reviewing Correctional Service operations, and supervising studies on issues affecting Aboriginal offenders. As a member of the Correctional Service executive committee, the deputy commissioner for Aboriginal offenders, like the deputy commissioner for women, would also take part in all decisions that directly or indirectly affect Aboriginal offenders in the correctional system.

RECOMMENDATION 9

The Sub-committee recommends that the Correctional Service of Canada create a deputy commissioner for Aboriginal offenders position, with powers and responsibilities similar to those of the existing deputy commissioner for women position.

3.49 As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, the Sub-committee was unable to consider Correctional Service rehabilitation programs in depth. Having noted during its review that the November 1996 and April 1999 Reports by the Auditor General of Canada on offender reintegration did not evaluate the process of reintegration into the community as it applied specifically to women and Aboriginal offenders, the Sub-committee believes that an in-depth evaluation of the programs and services provided for these offender groups would be very helpful to the Correctional Service, these offender groups, and the population as a whole.

3.50 The Sub-committee therefore considers it essential that the Auditor General of Canada carry out an evaluation identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the present process of reintegration into the community that is available to these two offender groups.

RECOMMENDATION 10

Since previous Auditor General of Canada audits of the process of reintegration into the community have not addressed issues specific to women or Aboriginal offenders, the Sub-committee recommends that the Auditor General carry out an evaluation of the process of reintegration into the community available to women, as well as an evaluation of the process available to Aboriginal offenders in the federal correctional system.

15^# Brief, p. 9.

16^# Auditor General of Canada, "Chapter 1. Correctional Service Canada - Reintegration of Offenders," Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, April 1999.

17^# The institution selected must match the offender's security level and provide the support and programs the offender needs.

18^# This point is explored in greater depth in the next section of this chapter.

19^# Brief, p. 4.

20^# Brief, p. 7.

21^# In this report, the Auditor General analyzes shortcomings with respect to information on offenders. Auditor General of Canada, "Chapter 1. Correctional Service Canada - Reintegration of Offenders," Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, April 1999.

22^# Individual and organizational witnesses noting shortcomings concerning information on offenders included the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, the Barreau du Québec, the Ontario Parole Board, the Criminal Lawyers Association, Charlene Mandell, and Dr. Marnie Rice.

23^# Subsection 23(1) of the Act.

24^# For more information on the characteristics of effective treatment programs, see D. Andrews, J. Bonta et R. D. Hoge, "Classification for Effective Rehabilitation : Rediscovering Psychology," Criminal Justice and Behavior, 1990, vol. 17, p. 19-52.

25^# Brief, John Howard Society of Newfoundland, p. 4-5.

26^# Brief, John Howard Society of Canada, p. 9.

27^# The principle of differentiation is defined in: Correctional Service of Canada, Case Management Manual: Standard Operating Practices, February 1999 Edition, "700-00 Introduction - Reintegration Process", p. 7.

28^# Brief, p. 4.

29^# Brief, p. 2.

30^# Brief, p. 1.

31^# Auditor General of Canada, "Chapter 1. Correctional Service Canada - Reintegration of Offenders," Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, April 1999.

32^# Evidence, May 31,1999, 15:40.

33^# Solicitor General of Canada, Towards a Just, Peaceful and Safe Society - Consolidated Report - The Corrections and Conditional Release Act Five Years Later - Report of the CCRA Working Group, 1998, p. 142.

34^# While testifying before the Sub-committee, Susan Reid-MacNevin, Professor and Director of the Criminology and Criminal Justice Department at St. Thomas University in Fredericton, emphasized the importance of considering young offenders to be a population with special needs.

35^# Solicitor General of Canada, Towards a Just, Peaceful and Safe Society - Consolidated Report - The Corrections and Conditional Release Act Five Years Later - Report of the CCRA Working Group, 1998, p. 161.

36^# Brief, p. 8.