Commissioner's Speeches Archives

OFFENDER REHABILITATION
IN THE 21^ST CENTURY

'International Collaboration on Corrections'

Remarks by:

Lucie McClung
Commissioner of the Correctional Service of Canada

December 2, 2002
Hong Kong SAR, China


Check against delivery

---

Good morning / Jo Sun.

I am extremely pleased to have been invited to the International Conference on Offender Rehabilitation in the 21^st Century presented by the China Prison Society and the Society of Rehabilitation and Crime Prevention, Hong Kong. This is a great honour.

It is time well spent for me - not only professionally but also personally, as I have the opportunity to greet my friends.

My presentation this morning will hopefully assist in setting the stage for the Commissioners' Panel to follow.

It is true that our countries are different in many ways. But it is not our differences that bring us here before you today. We are here today because of the common interest, the common mandate we share, which is to contribute to the safety of our respective communities.

It is within this context that I will:

offer comments about some of the challenges that we, together, are facing so that perhaps we may indeed move towards a shared agenda;

share with you some of the lessons that we, in Canada, have learned about how to meet our mandate; and

provide you with some thoughts about how to advance the work that we all do.

First, the challenges.

Across and within our respective borders, each of us is facing the realities of globalisation. While advances in technology and communication have expanded opportunities for economic and social growth, they have also resulted in more sophisticated and organized criminality.

At the same time, we are facing the developing urgency of coming to terms with substance abuse, as well as mental illness or disorders.

Within this environment, people are much more sensitized to the impact of crime and its aftermath on their personal safety and that of their community.

As a result, I believe that citizens have a heightened sense of expectation of the key role that the criminal justice system plays in the peace, order and good governance of nations. Criminal justice is seen, more than ever, as a pillar of society -- societies where people may live without fear of crime or violence; where people may live and raise their families; and where people may build a strong foundation for economic and social development.

Indeed, higher quality of life in our societies depends on our success in not only dealing with the aftermath of crime, but with the prevention of crime itself. It is now better understood that correctional services, as part of the criminal justice system, have an integral role to play in crime prevention.

According to international research, the most effective approaches to crime prevention are those that focus on social development and inclusion. This means engaging those at risk or those on the margins of community life, equipping them with social and marketable skills, and providing each with opportunities to become productive members of society.

To improve our efforts at crime prevention, we will need to seek better knowledge and tools to do our work. Each of us here today knows fully well that, in our efforts to rehabilitate offenders, it is critical to translate the best research into correctional practice.

And more than ever before, as we are called upon to account for our performance, we have to look to correctional results achieved by others around the globe to ask whether or not somebody has found better ways to effect change.

The context in which we operate has become much larger. It is global, it is seen and interpreted by all citizens, and it is demanding. In order to meet expectations, we must develop our correctional policies and practices in a global, visible, engaging and results-based manner.

Indeed, our organizations must be flexible enough to recognize and integrate the "new" while we continue to meet the expectations of our citizens.

It is well recognized that managing change is daunting. It is also well recognized that dealing with the vulnerable and managing their transformation is also daunting.

I am suggesting that doing both is extremely daunting -- because this means looking for the new while responding to the need. However, I am suggesting that this describes the context in which correctional systems operate today.

The question is: are we equipped? The complete answer does not lie within each system - I believe it lies across many systems.

I would be remiss if I were not to share some of what we, in Canada, have learned over the years to allow us to contribute to public safety.

So let me briefly present Canada's approach. Of course, this approach is adapted to the ways of Canadian citizens and society. Some of it may, or may not, be relevant to your respective jurisdictions. I invite you to be rigorous in assessing its application to your particular context.

As a government institution, at the federal level, the Correctional Service of Canada's mandate is to serve citizens. It does so by looking to reduce the potential that offenders have to recommit crime. Public safety is the paramount consideration in all of our operations and decisions.

Canadian federal corrections is based on a balance between control and assistance -- each may pull in opposite directions at specific times during the administration of sentence. However, the focus of Canadian corrections is the integration of control and assistance in our operations and in each of our decisions.

Most offenders are serving sentences of a fixed length and will eventually come back into our communities. Because we view our mandate as finding ways to reduce the potential for re-offending, we must transform the thinking and behaviour of offenders.

Given the scope of the work to be done for each individual, this transformation starts on the first day of the sentence, when we begin to focus on the preparation of offenders for release.

Indeed, research and experience show us that preparing offenders through gradual and structured forms of supervision is perhaps the best way to contribute to public safety.

And a snapshot of our long-term results supports this.

For example, for individuals who completed their sentence in 1999-2000 and who were subsequently tracked for a two-year period:

• 90 percent did not come back to federal corrections during that period. That means that 90 percent did not commit a crime that would lead to a new sentence of two years or more. These figures have remained relatively constant over the last several years.

So what have we learned from our experience and research on offender rehabilitation?

First, we have learned that, when we match interventions to the specific risks and needs of offenders, the results are better.

To do this effectively, we need to be systematic and objective in offender risk and need assessment.

There is a large body of well-established research findings to guide our intervention efforts in a number of important areas.

Some major targets for intervention include, but are not limited to:

• attitudes, values and beliefs that are supportive of law violations,
• criminal friends and associates,
• addictions, and
• skill deficits in such areas as employment, parenting and self-control.

And we need to re-evaluate from time to time the progress each offender makes in altering these crime-causing factors to assess whether or not our interventions have been effective.

Second, we have learned that well-designed and structured rehabilitation programs that are cognitive behaviour-based are the most effective.

There are extensive reviews of the correctional treatment literature. Essentially, they have all come to the same conclusion that well-designed correctional interventions can and do work.

We know that interventions, such as problem solving, reasoning, self-control and self-instruction, are used to change offenders' thinking patterns, attitudes, values and expectations that otherwise would maintain their criminal life style. The research supports the notion that if we don't make changes in these areas, then offenders will likely continue to be involved in crime.

Third, we have learned that establishing clear expectations for prisoners and follow-up in the community works best.

This means that there is a continuum of programs and services for prisoners from the moment they arrive at the institution until the end of their sentence. Our goal is that they will carry this learning beyond the end of their sentence as law-abiding citizens in the community.

In Canada, our research has shown that the period of greatest risk for re-offending is immediately following release from custody. Consequently, supervision and support in the community after release is essential to successful rehabilitation.

The percentage of safe returns to the community is higher for supervised offenders than those released with no supervision.

A supportive community is key.

Upon release, offenders need halfway houses, they need access to social and employment services. I believe that the goal of building community readiness and capacity must form part of correctional agendas.

First, we have to inform citizens about what we are trying to do and how we go about it. Offenders come from the community and return to the community. When citizens understand that, when they are given more information and know what we do in some detail, they are generally more supportive of our approach and willing to get involved.

Involving members of the community is a win-win situation as supportive communities are key to easing offenders into the realities of being law-abiding citizens.

Finally, we have learned that correctional services cannot and should not work in isolation. Not only do we need domestic support, but we also need the support of our international colleagues.

As corrections professionals from around the world, we have so much in common with respect to the many challenges of offender rehabilitation. Partnerships and sharing information through conferences such as this are of the utmost importance as we pursue our respective goals of contributing to public safety.

I think that the timing is right to build on what we have learned and to move the correctional agenda forward at the international level.

Today, there are increased opportunities for countries to work together not only on research efforts, but in training or technical assistance, as we look to strengthen our respective capacities. An example of this type of cooperation is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) enjoyed by the Correctional Service of Canada through its association with the Correctional Services Department (CSD) of Hong Kong and the Work Program with China Prison Society. Such agreements allow for the exchange of staff, visits, the electronic exchange of information through a bulletin board on the Web site, and research training initiatives.

Memoranda of Understanding are proving to be effective platforms to create common ground and advance thinking across correctional systems. They are effective because they draw on the strengths of participating members. They are set up for success.

From being ad hoc, tentative joint initiatives at their inception, I believe that, if carefully nurtured, they may become the preferred methods for developing policy and establishing operational practice. Their future may lie beyond increasing the number of bilateral agreements; it may lie within a network of Memoranda established worldwide. Perhaps it is time to take a moment to assess their contributions to organizational development.

For instance:

• What are the key ingredients that foster effective MOUs?
• What are the targeted areas that form the basis of MOUs today?
• What are the results achieved across MOUs?
• How are the results shared?

Answers to these questions may lead us to explore exciting new avenues as, together, we strive for excellence. They would provide corrections administrators much knowledge to assist them in proposing and shaping policy advice at home.

I believe that we are on the verge of something big.

Now, I would like to turn to my esteemed colleagues for their thoughts.

Thank you. Dot-yay.