Since 1952, the P.O.A.O. has formulated numerous position papers concerning issues within the criminal justice system. Some of these papers have been submitted to various federal and provincial government committees and policy makers examining the criminal justice system. The P.O.A.O. is regarded as a key participate in any discussion related to crime and crime prevention in Ontario. Our history indicates that successive governments have encouraged our input and incorporated our ideas into various program and legislative initiatives.

Issues to which the P.O.A.O. has responded in recent years include: Workload Managment, the Community Corrections Model, strict discipline facilities, the parole internal review process, credentialism, Ministry Directives, the Phase Two Review of the Young Offenders Act, the expanded Alternative Measures Program, the Crime Control Commission, Safety in Our Profession, and Conditional Sentence issues. In addition to specific policy issues, P.O.A.O. strives to enhance public awareness regarding the important role of the Probation Officer in offender rehabilitation and public safety.

The Ontario government directly employs Probation Officers and Probation and Parole Officers in the Ministry of Community and Social Services and Ministry of Correctional Services respectively. There are over 600 Probation/Parole Officers employed by Ministry of Correctional Services, supervising offenders age 16 and over. On any given day, these officers supervise over 60,000 offenders in the community. The average caseload in the province of Ontario is 117 per officer, which is approximately 70% higher than the national average of 70 per officer.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services has approximately 200 Probation Officers who supervise young people who commit offences between the ages of twelve and fifteen (known as Phase 1). On any given day, there are between 9,000 and 10,000 young offenders in the Phase 1 system, with over 95% being under community supervision. Historically, given expectations of the Child and Family Services Act and the importance of early intervention, it has been recognized that caseloads for Phase 1 officers should be lower. In fact, consultants commissioned by the government over a decade ago recommended that appropriate caseloads for these officers should be in the range of 30 per officer. In many areas of the province, caseloads are double that number.

Probation Officers within both Ministries play a crucial role in public safety and offender rehabilitation. The Probation Officer is the designated case manager for the offender population. As research has demonstrated, Probation Officers are the practitioners best able to predict recidivism. Our profession demands that the Probation Officer remain informed of the latest research and intervention methods, which translates into improved public safety. Given the tremendous workloads that exist in community corrections, it is essential that the front-line professional is able to utilize the most effective methods in a limited time period. In addition to working with offenders, Probation Officers intervene frequently with victims, particularly in cases involving domestic violence and sexual offences. In order to prevent re-victimization, the Probation Officer provides counselling and education services to known victims to assist them in making informed decisions. Simultaneously, we assess level of offender risk using collateral information from the victim.

Probation Officers play a key role in public education. Many officers perform outreach functions through public speaking engagements at schools, community functions, and with the media. Through these venues, the Probation Officer increases public awareness of issues related to public safety, crime prevention, and methods for addressing the underlying causes of crime.

The current government has positioned itself as being "tough on crime". It has advocated for a law-and-order agenda and in order to achieve this goal, has hired 1,000 police officers, additional crown attorneys and expanded domestic violence courts. These initiatives have had and will continue to have a profound impact on our profession.

Concurrently, we have experienced a dramatic increase in the complexity of cases facing the front-line officer. Increasingly we are faced with a more volatile and complex offender population including sex offenders, mentally ill offenders, domestic violence, dual disordered, homeless, and weapons-related cases. In essence, probation has become the dumping ground for the Province's most troubled and dangerous individuals.

Given the complex client population and caseload numbers, community corrections is in a state of crisis. The system is at a breaking point. Recent tragic events in Toronto demonstrate the risk level of some of our clients, for example, the Charlene Minkowski and Constable Hancox cases. While we refuse to sensationalize, one must be aware that, given the current supervision levels, the community is at risk. The recent Supreme Court decisions regarding Conditional Sentences stipulated that there must be appropriate resources to ensure an adequate level of supervision. The recent survey of Ontario judges revealed their reluctance to use this type of supervision due to the lack of officers. This lack of confidence in the system that supervises 70,000 offenders on a daily basis must be addressed.

Ministry documents indicate the cost of one Probation Officer including benefits is $64,000 per year. Given current caseload sizes, that amounts to approximately $5 per day to supervise one offender – very inexpensive indeed. POAO acknowledges that the Ministry of Correctional Services is in the process of implementing the Probation & Parole Service Delivery Model. We are cognizant that some of the changes within this model may have a limited impact on workload. We do not concur with the Ministry's position that technology will affect the current crisis. In fact enhanced technology should increase the workload vis-à-vis enforcement and supervision.

Given current realities within the Ministry of Correctional Services, it would be necessary to hire an additional 250 officers to reach the national caseload average of 70 offenders per officer. This would cost $16,000,000 per year. We recognize that, with the climate of fiscal restraint within the government, this is not likely to occur. We would recommend a more balanced approach including possible impacts of the new service delivery model; therefore, it is our position that 100 additional Probation/Parole Officers need to be hired at a cost of $6.4 million per annum. Additionally, within the Ministry of Community and Social Services, 25 additional officers are needed at a cost of $1.6 million. These initiatives would give a clear signal that the government truly stands behind its commitment to public safety.

From a historical perspective, the POAO first presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding the Phase II Review of the Young Offenders Act in 1996. At that time, we made it abundantly clear that we had specific concerns with language regarding the performance of certain duties within the Act. Specifically, the generic term "Youth Worker" is conducive to misrepresentation and abuse by cost-cutting provincial governments. In the province of Ontario, these concerns were indeed prophetic as the provincial government has moved towards privatization and diluted professional standards. For example, Progress Reports under the "Review of Dispositions" section of the YOA are in many cases assigned to Correctional Officers, including those from the private sector. In our opinion, many of these private-sector staff members have a vested interest in the outcome of any review. This subjective approach is unacceptable and should not be encouraged by a weak-kneed legislative federal response.

To illustrate our concerns, in Ontario the Provincial Directors are directly employed as managers by the Ontario government. Many of these managers have supervisory relationships with transfer payment agencies, overseeing items such as budgets and placement of offenders. On an annual basis, they are confronted with cutbacks by the government of the day. Consequently, there are implications for workload and financial constraints. In an attempt to meet the demands imposed by the new fiscal realities, managers have shown themselves to be more than willing to hive off work to inexperienced, inadequately trained staff. The term "Youth Worker" does not prevent this activity, but rather encourages it. It is the Association's position that this is an extremely inappropriate predicament that puts the community at risk, and the rehabilitation of the offender into question.

Regarding Pre-Sentence Reports for adults, the Criminal Code of Canada, Section 721 (1) stipulates that a Probation Officer must prepare a Pre-Sentence Report (actually called "Report by a Probation Officer"). For a reason which is unknown to us, the YCJA only stipulates that a "Provincial Director shall caused to be prepared", but does not indicate by whom. It is totally unacceptable that there would be lower standards and expectations for a PSR prepared on a youth. Both youths and adults must have Pre-Sentence Reports prepared by equally qualified professionals, Probation Officers.

Given the expectations, ethical standards involved, and the demand for objectivity, the Association strongly recommends that the term "Youth Worker" be removed from the YCJA and replaced with the term "Probation Officer". The following, though not an exhaustive list, highlights sections of the YCJA where this amendment in terminology is particularly crucial: Section 39 (1) Pre-Sentence Reports; Section 41 (2) c (conditional discharge); (i) (community service); (k) probation; (l) (intensive support and supervision program); (m) attendance centres; (n) custody and supervision order; (o) deferred custody and supervision order; Section 54 (2) (conditions that may appear in orders); Section 59 (3) (progress reports); and Section 89 (1) and (2) Youth Worker; Section 96 (conditions to be included in custody and supervision order); and Section 104 (2) (conditions to be included in conditional supervision order). Additionally, the term "Probation Officer" must be added to the "Definitions" section of the Act (Section 2.1).

It is the Association's position that these objectives will not be met unless the current terminology is changed as recommended above. Given the fact that many provinces are testing the waters of privatization, does the Parliament of Canada indeed endorse the potential for private sector manipulation of the system? At the end of the day, Youth Workers employed by private corporations will surely feel pressured by the financial motives of the operator and would have their professional integrity compromised by this reality. Given the Standing Committee's positive response to our suggestions in 1996, we are astounded that the proposed changes have not already been made. The Chair of the Standing Committee acknowledged that this "Youth Worker" issue was a real and immediate concern.

Section 84 of the YCJA (Levels of custody) also presents a concern. Given that the judge has all of the relevant facts at the time of the youth's sentencing (including trial evidence regarding the offence, victim impact information, etc.), it would seem much more appropriate that this remain as a judicial function. Again, there must be complete objectivity in determining the level of custody, and no possibility that issues such as availability of bed space could impact this decision.

As a professional association dedicated to improving offender rehabilitation and the protection of society, we are extremely committed to ensuring that these amendments occur. The result will be improved service to youths in the justice system, as well as victims, family members and the general public. All relevant research literature indicates that Probation Officers are the experts in assessing offenders, determining appropriate plans of care, and providing supervision and intervention. High standards must be maintained to ensure that professional integrity is the guiding principle in the administration of youth justice.

In Ontario, over the past several months there have been incidents where violent outbursts directed at Probation and Parole officers have seriously threatened their safety. In this paper we will identify why this is happening and what may be undertaken as preventative measures to increase the level of safety in the office.

We know our clientele. We are aware that they are offenders many of whom display problematic behavioural traits as a result of substance abuse, parental abuse and abandonment, as well as psychological and emotional maladjustment. Awareness of these problems does not mean probation officers need to jeopardize their safety and become victims of client's outrageous and unacceptable behaviour. It is becoming crystal clear that probation officers who are in direct contact with volatile offenders are continually at risk. They see offenders who are becoming more agitated and hostile for any number of reasons. These very same hostile clients were confined to detention and correctional settings serving a sentence and supervised by well trained correctional officers who have at their disposal all the necessary equipment needed to protect themselves. These same offenders who were in leg irons and chains in court are routinely seen by probation officers who have never received even the most rudimentary training to handle aggressive clients and who work in an overall environment most ill equipped to deal with these aggressive people.

The intent of this paper is to reduce the risks probation officers face in dealing with hostile clients who together with the nonviolent offender also have every right to benefit from services that foster rehabilitation and reduce recidivism. Given the legislative changes over the past decade in respect to sentencing and changes to the Mental Health Act, the offenders in this province are increasingly criminally complex and violent.

There are a number of changes over the past decade which have brought about profound changes in both the numbers and type of offenders under community supervision. Individuals previously detained in psychiatric hospitals have been released into the community without adequate programs to support them. As a result these individuals have been charged and convicted for a range of offences of varying severity. These offences have brought people previously in the Mental Health system to Corrections which is ill prepared to deal with them.

This emerging mental health client poignantly puts the focus on the lack of training probation officers have received to deal with this growing crisis. Probation officers desperately need training to ascertain “typical” symptoms associated with different types of mental illness as well as the benefits of certain medication. Training is also needed in diffusion of hostility and measures that can be taken when a client's behaviour begins to escalate and poses a threat to safety. Probation is often a point of entry into a supportive system for the mental health client. Probation is mandated to find and provide the programs that will stabilize and provide counselling for the client. Given the complexity of these clients it is crucial that professionals in the field receive the appropriate training to deal with these mentally disordered offenders.

Assaultive offenders are generally high-risk clients who have very poor anger management skills and little regard for authority. These same clients have only a limited tolerance for administrative processes. Violent and aggressive offenders tend to become easily annoyed and angered when a probation officer is not readily available to intervene in time of need. This has resulted in aggressive and assaultive behaviour directed at probation officers and support staff. With larger caseloads, and less time devoted to clients including those who pose higher risk, the intent of therapeutic intervention is compromised and the benefits to the client diminished.

Increased case loads as well as the administrative mandates have placed tremendous stress on the probation officer as he/she attempts to balance the need to provide frequent and meaningful interaction with the client and the Ministry's inordinate demands for proper administrative practices. These expectations limit the amount of time spent on assessments, identifying collateral contacts and gathering information. Traditionally, increased time spent with a client enhances the rapport and trust factor, two characteristics essential in any healthy and therapeutic relationship. A thorough knowledge and solid understanding of the client facilitates the probation officers' ability to anticipate behaviour and intervene in a timely fashion thus avoiding potentially destructive aggressive and damaging outbursts.

In 1996, Bill C-41 created among other things, the Conditional Sentence Release Act. As a new disposition available to the Courts it came with the promise that it would offset the number of incarcerates and consequently increase the number of offenders on community supervision who would otherwise serve their time in jail. Since the implementation of this new act, it has become abundantly clear that the number of incarcerates has not decreased and neither has the number of probation orders issued by the courts. However, the number of conditional sentence orders imposed is over 40,000 to date. Many of these conditional sentences have been considered highly inappropriate, risky and time consuming. With this new workload there has been no corresponding increase in the number of probation officers hired to supervise these clients.

Another facet of the problem in response to the public demand for greater safety has been the mass hiring of police officers across the province of Ontario. This has lead to more arrests which in turn has resulted in the need for more Crown Attorneys, Judges and court room facilities to prosecute the charges. There has been no corresponding hiring of probation officers who find themselves at the end of the “system” dealing with burgeoning caseloads. This new phenomenon has resulted in staff burnout, stress and increased health and safety concerns. In July 1999 changes to Bill C-41 stipulated that the Courts incarcerate offenders only when there is no other community-based option. This can only lead to a huge increase in the number of conditional sentence orders. Is there any likelihood that more probation officers will be hired to reflect the new current day reality?

Lately there have been newspaper articles across the province, which stated the need for more probation officers to handle the increased caseloads. At a recent Professional Development Day in Toronto, criminology professors Dr. Julian Roberts of the University of Ottawa and Dr. Anthony Doob, from the Centre for Criminology at U of T stated that there need to be more probation officers as well as improved training. Judge David Cole, sitting at the Scarborough Provincial Court and James Chaffe, Crown Attorney also supported the call for more probation officers.

That the Ministry increase the number of probation officers in order to reduce the caseloads which will facilitate a more effective and safe rapport with offenders. The more time probation officers have to spend with their clients, the better the rapport, thus reducing the chances of their own personal safety becoming at risk.

The following is an except of a paper prepared by the director of policy and protocol. The paper contains the results of a survey of probation and parole officers across Ontario on this controversial subject. You can see the entire paper by clicking on this pdf version (110 KB) of the paper.

The concerns expressed by Probation and Parole staff in the survey were indicative of a mounting frustration felt at the field level by those attempting to work within the legal framework of this legislation without the appropriate operational support. For example, house arrest conditions have become the norm in the Toronto area, especially since the Proulx decision. The Ministry has failed to address this reality and the Probation and Parole Officers who are supervising these orders are acutely aware that a major aspect of the CS order is left to an “honour system” on the part of the offender. Clearly, the police are not prepared to actively monitor these conditions or curfew conditions, and yet the judiciary continues to frame their CS orders around these conditions.

Probation and Parole Officers as a group would welcome the opportunity to participate in a pilot program that would see selected (on a voluntary basis) PPOs working with police to make home visits to the residences of high-risk offenders at random times, to ensure they are in compliance with their curfew/house arrest conditions.

Mere telephone calls are not enough to ensure that the offender is in his/her residence, with options such as call forwarding available on a wide basis. Supervisors know that offenders can and often do forward their residence telephone to a cell phone or even a pager and can seem to be at home when they are not. In addition, the bulk of the curfew conditions list times that are long after the most diligent Probation and Parole Officer has finished for the day. Most curfew conditions range from 9:00 p.m. to midnight or later. Therefore, even if PPOs were inclined to make telephone calls on a random basis, these calls would have to be made from home - not an option with the telephone technology available to the general public today.

In order to adequately and realistically address the issue of house arrest/curfew conditions on CS orders, it is imperative that the Ministry of Correctional Services take the lead in this area and invite the major stakeholders to find ways to make this sentencing option work. It is the position of the Probation Officers Association of Ontario that the only way that the issue of public confidence in this sentencing option can be improved is to have representatives from MCS, MAG, MSG and IJIT sit down and plan a strategy that would allow for actual surveillance and improved enforcement of Conditional Sentence Orders. If used correctly, the Conditional Sentence Order should be a true alternative to incarceration and should result in a reduction in institutional admissions and a corresponding savings to the Ontario taxpayer. Further, it is the position of the POAO that the surveillance part of supervision should not be contracted out to a private agency, but instead should be a combination of experienced staff from both institutional and community corrections working in partnership with local police services to provide the best evidence for enforcement purposes and to ensure that the management of offenders in the community continues to be provided in a high quality and professional manner. We have been working with this legislation for the past four years and are the best equipped to operationalize any new initiatives that may be developed.

The final question on the survey pertained to the use of electronic monitoring with Conditional Sentence Orders and whether or not Probation and Parole Officers should be involved in this type of surveillance. Respondents indicated their overwhelming agreement that if EM is used to facilitate the monitoring of house arrest/curfew conditions, then Probation and Parole Officers should be involved. As previously noted, consideration could be given to a different type of PPO position with different hours of work and a distinct mandate (similar to specialized positions currently in place such as Institution Liaison Officer, Court Liaison Officer, Common Services Unit, etc.). These positions, along with those Correctional Officers currently working as EM Officers, could be teamed with police, especially in larger urban areas, and could form the basis of a new approach to the concerns expressed by the public and the judiciary about the monitoring of curfew and house arrest conditions. These specialist positions would report any infractions to the case manager (the PPO responsible for the offender) and would prepare witness statements to be used in enforcement proceedings.

In summary, the results of the Conditional Sentence survey indicate that Probation and Parole Officers are interested in providing the best possible service to the communities in which they work. They want to make use of available technology and they want to see results when they initiate enforcement proceedings. They have been struggling for the past four years to supervise Conditional Sentence Orders with no additional resources and without adequate training. Most believe that this type of sentence could become more effective if changes were made at all levels. Many suggested that Probation and Parole Officers should be consulted prior to the sentencing stage (perhaps by way of a “Stand Down” Presentence Report request) when the option of a Conditional Sentence is being considered. And, of course, it is essential that the judiciary respond to breaches of the CS order with appropriate and timely sanctions. Only if all of the partners in the judicial system work together will this and other community dispositions become effective tools in the crime reduction arsenal.