Reports and Publications

Vision and Strategic Plan 2000 and Beyond

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• 1. INTRODUCTION
• 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN - CANADA IN THE YEAR 2000
• 3. A VISION FOR THE BOARD
• 4. CORPORATE STRATEGIES
• 5. CONCLUSION

1. INTRODUCTION

The Ticket of Leave Act introduced in 1899 set Canada squarely on a course of rehabilitative corrections and conditional release. Proudly, Canada has stayed this course for a century, working constantly to adapt and improve corrections and conditional release, consistent with the requirements of law, the concerns of society for safety and protection, and the needs of offenders.

Canada's enduring commitment to conditional release reflects key values within Canadian society - tolerance, compassion, and the recognition that people can and do change. As the new millennium approaches, the National Parole Board must build on these values. It must look to the future for opportunities to promote and support a sustained Canadian commitment to the principles of conditional release and the safe reintegration of offenders and to a pardon as a long-term indicator of reintegration in the community.

This plan provides a vision and strategic direction for the Board as a base for effective conditional release in the year 2000 and beyond. In addition to this brief introduction, this document includes: an environmental scan; a vision for the Board; and, a set of corporate strategies to support positive change and improvement.

FORTY YEARS OF CHANGE

In 1959, the Parole Act replaced the Ticket of Leave Act and created the National Parole Board, launching the modern era of conditional release in Canada. The 40 years that followed immersed the Board in change; frequently demanding effective response to shifts in the scope of NPB decision-making responsibilities, to major structural change and to adjustments in decision processes.

The Board's decision-making responsibilities have expanded and contracted in response to government policy (e.g. abolition of capital punishment and parole eligibility for offenders convicted of murder), concerns for public safety (e.g. mandatory supervision, detention), new programs (e.g. pardons) and provisions for programs of statute-based release of offenders to the community (e.g. accelerated parole review, statutory release).

Structural change has been an important aspect of NPB development. In 1966, the Board, which included the National Parole Service, moved from the Department of Justice to the newly created Department of the Solicitor General. A decade later responsibility for the Parole Service was transferred to the Correctional Service of Canada. This separation was considered necessary to preserve the quasi-judicial independence of the Board. A year after this separation, the Parole Act was amended to create regional boards and facilitate the appearance of offenders at parole hearings - a measure designed to promote fair and equitable treatment of offenders. At the same time, the appeal function began to take shape in the Board. Through the early 1980s, this function evolved, leading to the establishment of the Appeal Division of the Board in 1984/85.

Structural change was accompanied by refinement of the Board's decision processes. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, introduced in 1982, focussed debate about the appropriate balance between individual rights and collective interests, universal and targeted programs, the primacy of Parliament, and the need for appropriate constraints on the powers of the State. The Charter and evolving jurisprudence created growing pressures for criminal justice organizations to operate fairly. For administrative bodies, the duty to act fairly created increased demands for open and accountable operations. In response, the Board developed decision policies and improved information sharing to ensure that no systemic barriers existed to fair and equitable treatment of offenders. In addition, measures were introduced to ensure that policies and processes respected the needs of diverse groups, including Aboriginal peoples, visible minorities and women. The introduction of decision policies was accompanied by the emergence of the Board's Executive Committee as the policy arm of NPB, responsible for approving conditional release and pardons policy and for dealing with policy implementation issues.

In 1992, the Criminal Records Act, the legislative framework for NPB responsibilities with respect to pardons, was revised, introducing significant change in policies and processes for pardon applications. Also in 1992, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act was introduced, creating the need for significant change in NPB policies, training and decision processes. This Act, which combined the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, entrenched public safety as the paramount consideration in conditional release decision-making, while recognizing the importance of the use of the least restrictive option in release decisions. In this context, the Act emphasized the need to deal expeditiously with first time federal, non-violent offenders, and to focus efforts on high risk, violent offenders. The Act enhanced the openness and accountability of the Board through provisions for sharing of information with victims, observers at hearings, and creation of the Board's decision registry. The Act also recognized the importance of addressing the needs of special group including Aboriginal offenders and women offenders.

THE CHALLENGE FOR THE MILLENNIUM

For four decades, the Board has operated in an environment of change, challenge, and opportunity. As the millennium approaches, there are strong indications that these trends will continue. Events are unfolding which could have a profound impact on the Board - on its legislative framework, on its roles and responsibilities, on its policies and operations, and on its strategies for management of resources. Clearly, the review of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA), and the review of victims issues by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will be of critical importance to the future of conditional release in Canada. Concerns for public safety, low public confidence in the justice system and calls for greater effectiveness and accountability must be addressed in this context.

Issues of cultural diversity and ethnicity will require careful consideration, as will issues related to Aboriginal offenders and communities. Policies, training and decision processes must respect cultural diversity and the needs of special groups, including women and ethnic minorities. Innovative approaches to crime and punishment such as restorative justice, sentencing circles and community-assisted hearings will also have important implications for the Board.

Effective management of resources including management of information for decision-making will remain a critical issue, demanding careful planning, efficient work processes, and productive use of technology.

The challenges facing the Board will be diverse and complex, demanding astute analysis and strategic response. In responding, the Board must reinforce the value of conditional release in Canada and its effectiveness in contributing to public safety. The Board must work to shape its environment and its future to the extent possible, while ensuring flexibility to adapt to critical pressures.

2. ENVIRONMENTAL SCAN - CANADA IN THE YEAR 2000

Societal and economic change in the 1990s catapulted issues of personal security to the forefront of Canadian concerns. Following a period of extensive economic restructuring and radical change in the working lives of many Canadians, economic security became a major issue, as reflected in the public concern about unemployment, the growing prevalence of less secure forms of work, and the fragility of the Canadian dollar on international markets.

Apprehension about declining economic security is accompanied by the perception that Canadian society itself is becoming less secure - that the streets are less safe, that houses are more vulnerable to break-in, and that threats to health are more prevalent and serious. Concerns about health and safety are reinforced by public perceptions that the capacity of traditional response mechanisms have eroded - the justice system is ineffective, and the health and social service sectors are constrained by fiscal pressures.

These perceptions of insecurity influence public response to issues that are reported daily in the media - public deficits and debts, poverty (especially child poverty), ageing, privatization of health care, environmental threats, family breakdown and violence, and the deterioration of urban cores. Public concern is immediate and personal. Canadians are worried about the impact of these issues for their families, and their children's families.

EXTERNAL ENVIRONMENT

Changing Demographics:

Canada's population continues to grow at higher rates than most industrialized nations and is projected to reach 35 million by 2011. Consistent with Canadian values of diversity and tolerance, immigration will fuel population growth as birth rates continue to decline. Increases in immigration levels will be accompanied by shifts in countries of origin for Canadian immigrants. For example, recent reports indicate that for the first time, over 50% of Canadian immigrants were identified as having non-European countries of origin and this trend is expected to continue.

Immigration patterns will contribute to growing cultural and ethnic diversity in many Canadian communities, as is the case with the population of Toronto, where 42% are immigrants, and Vancouver, where 35% are immigrants, with 8 in 10 immigrants being Asian-born.

Canadians are ageing. Life expectancy for males and females is increasing. Health care is gaining importance as Canadians approach longer periods of retirement. Canadians are increasingly becoming city dwellers, with one in every three living in the metropolitan areas of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. The urban shift is expected to continue as numerous immigrants locate in large cities, especially Toronto and Vancouver, reinforcing disparities in regional demographics.

Demographic shifts present important challenges. Increased diversity will be reflected in the fabric of Canadian communities, and in the cultural and ethnic mix of the offender population.

In response, the Board must ensure that the composition of the Board, consistent with section 105 of the CCRA, is representative of the communities it serves and that policies, training and decision tools respect issues of diversity and gender and build understanding of factors associated with risk and public safety for special groups of offenders (e.g. women, Aboriginal peoples), and their communities.

The ageing of Canadian society is expected to heighten public sensitivity to issues of crime and safety, reinforcing the need for the Board to develop and disseminate information which demonstrates the effectiveness of conditional release and engages the community in discussion of strategies for safe reintegration of offenders.

Crime Rates and Trends:

After peaking in the early 1990s, Canadian crime rates have declined steadily. In 1997, the police reported crime rate decreased for the sixth year in a row, falling by 5%. This resulted in the lowest rate since 1980. The violent crime rate dropped for the fifth straight year, following 15 years of steady growth. Rates declined for almost all categories of violent offence, including sexual assault, robbery, and homicide. Property crime dropped 8% in 1997, continuing the trend to decline since 1991. The 1997 rate was 18% lower than the rate in 1992 and 13% lower than in 1984.

Over the years, there has been considerable regional variation in rates of reported crime. Historically, crime rates in the Atlantic Provinces and Quebec have been lower than those in Ontario, which in turn have been lower than rates in the western provinces. Since 1993, however, this pattern has changed, with Alberta reporting much lower crime rates than its neighbouring provinces. In fact, violent crime rates in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have been high and are continuing to rise, creating public concerns for safety and challenging the justice system to develop effective strategies for response. Crime rates in the territories are usually higher than those in the provinces.

Generally, violent crime accounts for about 10% of all reported crime and 6 in 10 violent incidents involve minor assault. Property crime accounts for about 60% of all reported crime, while other Criminal Code incidents and offences involving drugs and federal statutes account for 30%. While crime patterns have remained stable for decades, the offence profile of federal warrant of committal admissions has shifted. In the past two decades, the proportion of offenders admitted to federal institutions for non-violent offences has declined from 38% to 20%, while offenders admitted for violent offences, including murder, increased from 51% to 71%.

As the offence profile of warrant of committal admissions shifted, so too did the offence profile of the federally incarcerated population. The proportion of the incarcerated population with a non-violent offence history declined from 32% to 13%, while the proportion with a history of violence, including murder, increased from 59% to 79%. Growth in the proportion of offenders with violent offences may be attributed to numerous factors including the expansion of offences listed in Schedule 1 of the CCRA, and growth in the admission of sex offenders.

Although offence profiles have shifted over the past 20 years, average sentence lengths have remained relatively stable, ranging from 44 to 46 months. Accordingly, 7 or 8 of every 10 offenders admitted to federal institutions each year receive sentences of less than five years.

Trends in crime and incarceration have important implications for NPB policy, training and operations. Increases in the proportion of offenders incarcerated for a violent offence, including a sexual offence, demand that the Board continue to enhance risk assessment tools and training related to these groups. In recent years, the annual number of violent offences by offenders on parole has decreased by about 70%. The Board must work to ensure continued progress in this area.

Annual admissions and average sentence lengths determine the Board's workloads as offenders become eligible for parole. The Board must ensure that it has sufficient resources to respond to these workloads and that these resources are allocated in a manner which addresses regional variations and needs.

Public Attitudes and Perceptions:

Fear of crime and concerns for safety persist, despite recent declines in rates of reported crime and research which demonstrates that Canada is a safe place to live. For example, recent victimization surveys illustrate that more Canadians (25%) report feeling a bit unsafe or quite unsafe when walking in their community after dark. This is up from 20% of respondents who expressed these feelings in 1991.

The public remains sceptical about declining crime rates and criminal justice improvements, focussing instead on media reports of tragic incidents, which are frequently characterized as justice system failures. In this context, conditional release frequently evokes strong public reaction and rigorous public debate. Debate is, however, often set against a backdrop of limited public understanding of the effectiveness of conditional release.

Public demands continue for greater effectiveness in assessing risk of re-offending, particularly for offenders with a history of violent or sexual offences. These demands are frequently accompanied by calls for more punitive approaches to crime, including greater use of incarceration, longer sentences and more limited access to parole. These demands persist despite the findings of research and Canadian experience, which indicate that dependence on incarceration is not an effective strategy for crime reduction, and that conditional release, based on effective risk assessment and supervision in the community, reduces long-term recidivism.

Canadians continue to call for governments at all levels to operate in an open and accessible manner with meaningful opportunities for public input to legislative and policy development, and for close scrutiny of operational performance. This is especially true for corrections and conditional release where public safety is the top priority.

In this environment, the Board must ensure that Board members have the policies, training and tools necessary for effective risk assessment and risk management. Working with its key partners, the Board must ensure that the best possible information is available for decision-making, and that appropriate processes and systems are in place to ensure timely access to information by decision-makers.

Limited understanding of conditional release coupled with public expectations for meaningful debate of key issues of public safety, create urgent pressures for the Board to engage communities in discussion of conditional release, and to forge community partnerships for the safe reintegration of offenders. Community engagement must be supported by clear and accurate information about the effectiveness of conditional release and by processes, which monitor performance, including high profile incidents. Review of high profile cases must ensure that lessons learned from these cases regularly inform NPB policy development, training and risk assessment, and that the results of reviews are shared with the public as required.

Victims of Crime:

Pressures continue for the justice system to provide better support and assistance for victims of crime and more meaningful involvement of victims in criminal justice processes.

The CCRA contains several sections dealing with victims' issues including provisions for: sharing information with victims; for observers at NPB hearings; and, for access to the Board's registry of decisions. Victims who have been in contact with the Board have generally expressed satisfaction with the quality and timeliness of information and assistance that they received. Some, however, have expressed concern about the need for more inclusive processes and victims speaking at NPB hearings. Others have called for access to more information about offenders including information about the effects of programs and treatment. Victims' concerns were highlighted in consultations for the CCRA review, and firmly reinforced in the report by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights entitled "Victims' Rights - A Voice Not A Veto". The report included 7 recommendations aimed at providing victims with a more meaningful role in criminal justice and corrections processes.

Four of the Committee's recommendation have a direct impact on the CCRA, with two having greatest impact for the Board. The first calls for audio recordings or transcripts of NPB hearings to be made available for consultation purposes to victims, on request. The second recommends that victims have an enhanced role in release proceedings, including the presumptive right to attend hearings (which already exists) and to read an updated victim impact statement into the record in person, or by audio or video tape. The other two recommendations touch on CSC responsibilities and involve an explicit obligation for CSC to notify victims (who have indicated a wish to be kept informed) of offender escapes or transfers, and for CSC to notify victims of their right to stop unwanted communications from offenders. CSC is also called upon to ensure that all possible steps have been taken to prevent unwanted communication with victims from inmates in federal institutions.

Ministry agencies, including the Board, have indicated that they are prepared to consider favourably the recommendations of the Committee. The Ministry has suggested, however, that these recommendations be discussed in detail during the Committee's review of the CCRA. Given recent developments, the Board must work with Ministry partners to prepare a response to the Standing Committee. As the work of the Committee progresses, the Board must also begin preparatory work for implementation of the recommendations including development of new policies and revised processes as well as preparation and delivery of training for Board members and staff.

Aboriginal Offenders:

Challenges related to Aboriginal Peoples and the justice system are a grave concern. Rates of incarceration for Aboriginal Peoples in Canada are six times the rates for non-Aboriginal. As a result, Aboriginal peoples are significantly over-represented in the correctional system, including federal corrections. While representing about 3% of the Canadian population, they account for 16% of offenders in federal institutions and over 50% of the inmate population in some western provinces. Problems posed by the relatively high numbers of Aboriginal offenders are complicated by the fact that Aboriginal peoples do not form a homogeneous group, either in terms of culture, geography or status. Approximately 71 percent of the Aboriginal inmate population identify themselves as Indians, 25 percent are Métis and 4 percent are Inuit. It is estimated that about 70% of all Aboriginal people sentenced to penitentiaries are either residents of urban (non-reserve) communities or commit their offences while off a reserve.

Aboriginal offenders are more likely than non-Aboriginal to be incarcerated for a violent offence and, once incarcerated, they are also more likely to be assessed by the Correctional Service of Canada as high risk. Aboriginal offenders are more likely to serve their sentence in an institution as opposed to the community on conditional release. If released, Aboriginal offenders are more likely to be released on statutory release (at two-thirds of sentence) than on full parole (at one-third of sentence). Aboriginal offenders are also more likely than non-aboriginal to have their conditional release revoked for a breach of conditions of release and for a new offence.

In contrast with the Canadian non-aboriginal population which is generally ageing and experiencing a decline in the birth rate, Aboriginal communities are experiencing a baby boom, with increasing numbers of Aboriginal youth approaching what are perceived to be the most crime prone years. In addition, more Aboriginal youth are moving to urban centres in search of employment or alternate lifestyles. These trends could influence Aboriginal crime rates and patterns and perhaps exacerbate Aboriginal over-representation in the justice system.

Pressures will continue and intensify for Aboriginal self-government, for a separate justice system and for strategies to support the development of Aboriginal communities, which currently lack the capacity for alternative sentencing options and community care. There will also be expectations for innovative and effective service delivery models as Aboriginal communities evolve and develop. Meeting the needs of the Nunavut Territory will be a key priority in this context.

The Board must continue to provide policies and risk assessment training which recognize the unique societal and cultural factors related to Aboriginal offenders and their communities, develop alternate models for parole hearings, including the use of elders and community assistance, which recognize traditional values of healing and tolerance. NPB must ensure that it continues to maintain a workforce profile that includes appropriate Aboriginal representation among Board members and staff. The Board must also work with CSC to develop agreements under sections 81 and 84 of the CCRA which provide Aboriginal communities with the opportunity for active involvement in reintegration of Aboriginal offenders.

Government Initiatives:

There are numerous government initiatives in the justice and social sectors with important implications for the Board. Youth justice proposals could result in significant numbers of "serious and persistent" youthful offenders coming before the Board for parole decisions.

Commitments in the Speech from the Throne for "safe streets and safe communities" and for crime prevention also have important implications for the Board, both in terms of safe reintegration of offenders as well as building public understanding that conditional release is a sound crime prevention strategy.

The federal response to the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People includes a clear commitment to enhance the safety and security of First Nations, by providing them with access to effective and appropriate police services and corrections. Numerous projects are underway to support this initiative (e.g. Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations) which will require the Board to participate in consultations and assist Aboriginal communities in addressing their needs. In this context, provision of services to the Nunavut Territory will be a key priority, challenging the Board to develop training policies and decision processes, including models for hearings which address the unique culture, values and traditions of the territory. Language issues will also present a challenge.

Restorative justice models are gaining support as Canadians express growing dissatisfaction with traditional justice models - backlogged courts, scarce funding for community-based alternatives, high levels of incarceration, and adversarial processes that focus on the offence and injury to the state. Victims and communities are demanding greater involvement in the justice process, and advocating community reintegration strategies that are safe, comprehensive, and involve restoring the well-being of all stakeholders. Restorative justice could have significant impact on the Board, demanding careful review of decision policies, processes and training and, in fact, challenging its formal roles and responsibilities.

Ministry plans for effective corrections include proposals with major impact for Board operations, policy, research, training and public information. To respond the Board will be required to enhance its risk assessment instruments and training, develop innovative parole decision models and engage the community in partnerships, which support community corrections and safe reintegration.

Federal initiatives for social union and good governance will demand that the Board engage the public and continue to work in partnership with provincial and territorial governments and provincial boards of parole to develop effective strategies for conditional release. Involvement in work to develop an integrated justice information system will be a key priority for the Board, in this context.

Government Service:

Governments at all levels are working to improve services, eliminate needless duplication and reduce costs, leading ultimately to better value for money for Canadian taxpayers. Innovative and efficient service delivery, including models for shared service delivery, are priorities for the federal government and for the Board. In this context, the Board must continue to make improvements in the process for pardon applications based on productive use of technology, revised law and policy and re-engineered business processes.

Legislative Review:

The review of the CCRA by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is in its preliminary stages. Most of the work for the review will be carried-out over the next 6 months with a final report expected in 1999.

The Ministry position is that the CCRA provides a basically sound framework for corrections and conditional release, although there may be areas where positive proposals for change will be considered. In this context, the Ministry can expect numerous proposals for change from Committee members and from those who appear before the Committee.

Many of these proposals will call for harsher approaches including longer sentences, later parole eligibility, and reduced use of parole. Increased use of detention could also be proposed. Many will take opposing positions, advocating more extensive use of parole, and earlier parole eligibility. From the Board's point of view, legislative reform emphasizing offender responsibility, effective treatment and case specific risk assessment for all conditional release would be preferred.

The recommendations of the Standing Committee and the government response will shape conditional release for the next decade. The Board must work with its partners in the Ministry to provide the information that the Standing Committee requires and provide input to the government response which ensures continuation of effective programs of conditional release, and a professional, open and accountable Board in the new millennium.

INTERNAL NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD ENVIRONMENT

Mission and Values:

The Board has operated for over a decade with a statement of Mission and values. Originally developed in 1986, the Mission and its statement of purpose and principles were renewed in 1995 to ensure consistency with the CCRA. The Mission and the statement of purpose and principles in the Act have provided broad direction for the Board's policies and operations. In the new millennium, a firm commitment to conditional release through the Mission will be essential. The Board will have to keep the Mission squarely in its sights as it responds to important challenges and opportunities.

Professionalism and Quality Decisions:

As pressures continue for increased professionalism in NPB decision-making, the definition of professionalism will expand and evolve. Effective risk assessment based on thorough training and rigorous decision processes will remain a key criterion along with respect for the duty to act fairly. Community partnership and alternate decision models, such as community assisted hearings and restorative justice approaches will, however, add new dimensions to decision-making, requiring the Board to consider community values and standards in evaluating risk and public safety. Board decision-making must serve the community and be responsive to the community and the diverse interests it represents.

In recent years, the Board has introduced numerous measures to promote professionalism and quality decision-making. The selection process and criteria for Board members have been enhanced, as have Board members' orientation and training. The Board has also introduced a Code of Conduct and a Guide on Professional Standard for Board members as a foundation for professionalism in all aspects of their work. Further, the Board has established a detailed framework for assessing organizational and individual performance and has improved processes for integration of the results of case audits and investigations in training and development.

These improvements have yielded results. Rates of successful completion of conditional release have improved and recidivism rates have declined, particularly for day and full parole. In fact, less than 1 in 10 releases of offenders on conditional release results in new offences of any kind and 1 in 100 results in a new violent offence. The annual number of violent offences involving offenders on parole has declined by 70% over the past five years. These results demonstrate that conditional release is an effective strategy for community safety and the reintegration of offenders.

National Consistency/Regional Flexibility:

As an agency of the federal government with national responsibilities and an extensive legislative framework, the Board must sustain a national character with national policies and processes. These policies and processes ensure that offenders and communities are provided with consistent access to services and fair and equitable treatment. In practical terms, however, national consistency must also acknowledge the need for regional flexibility and individual needs related to linguistic, geographic and gender issues, literacy, culture and ethnicity. In this context, the Board must strike a proper balance between national consistency based on national policy frameworks, standards and norms as well as diverse community issues and concerns, all of which must respect the law and the NPB mission. A strong commitment to conditional release, while recognizing the complexities of human behaviour and the concerns of communities, must also be maintained.

Information Sharing and Technology:

The environment for technological advancement is complex, characterized by frequent change and innovation. Issues related to year 2000 and the Board's dependency on CSC and the RCMP also add complexity, requiring the Board to work in partnership for technology initiatives. The Board is dependent upon effective information sharing for quality conditional release and pardons decision-making. Technology has become the key instrument for collecting and sharing information. The Board exploits technology to support the work of Board members and staff. Opportunities in this area are significant as plans are in place for reconstruction of the Board's key information systems: the Offender Management System (OMS); the Canadian Police Information Centre (CPIC); and the Pardons Application Decision System (PADS). The Board must ensure that these systems are designed to yield maximum benefit to the Board, and that once designed, appropriate training and support accompany them. As systems are redesigned the Board must also ensure that work processes are reviewed in order to streamline operations and introduce greater efficiency, while improving the quality of case preparation and information for decision-making.

Human Resource Management:

Effective human resource strategies will be a critical issue for the Board. Much progress has been made in enhancing the criteria and selection processes for Board members and these efforts must continue. The Board must ensure that it attracts knowledgeable and experienced members who represent and are representative of the communities they serve. The Board faces equally important challenges for staff. Hiring and retention of excellent people are critical issues for the Board as a small organization with limited flexibility for succession planning and developmental assignments. Ageing in the workforce will create pressures to which the Board must respond. Training and development are also key issues as the Board strives for quality decision-making based on rigorous assessment of risk. The complexity of issues related to risk demand ongoing training - a continuous learning environment. Government initiatives such as La Relève, and the Leadership Network provide valuable opportunities and models for effective human resource management.

Fiscal Restraint:

A decade of fiscal restraint has resulted in very limited resource flexibility for the Board. Rigorous priority setting, innovation and productivity improvements have enabled the Board to manage resource challenges, to date. Recent workload pressures, and costs related to information technology have, however, exceeded the Board's capacity to respond. As the Board approaches the new millennium, anticipated workload issues such as growth in conditional release reviews, and the growing complexity of these reviews, involvement with victims of crime, public information, and policy-based research will exceed the Board's capacity to respond.

3. A VISION FOR THE BOARD

The Board's environment presents complex challenges. Environmental pressures are diverse, reflecting divergent perspectives and differing ideological assumptions for crime and justice in Canadian society - right versus left, punitive versus rehabilitative, reactionary versus progressive.

Ultimate resolution of these issues lies beyond the direct control of the Board. The Board can, however, contribute to key decision processes in an attempt to manage change, and in the longer term shape change in directions which reflect its Mission and values, and its enduring commitment to conditional release. The vision for the Board is set in this context. It portrays the Board in an ideal state. In this vision:

• The Board is perceived to be a world leader in quality decision-making, working constantly to improve its ability to identify those offenders who will succeed in the community from an increasingly diverse offender population. Recidivism, particularly violent recidivism, continues to decline.
• The Board works within an enabling legislative framework, which allows it to apply its expertise in quality decision-making to the full extent. Quality case specific risk assessment, and risk management based on the results of research, and enhanced community supervision ensure timely and safe reintegration of offenders.
• The Board, as an inquisitorial body, is, and is perceived to be, open and fair, respecting the duty to act fairly and the unique needs and circumstances of diverse groups in its decision policies and processes.
• The Board selects highly qualified people as candidates for appointment as Board members and as staff - people who are knowledgeable about, and committed to, the safe reintegration of offenders. Excellence is sustained through continuous learning and effective succession planning, as well as entrenchment of the Board member appointment process in law.
• The Board is perceived to be a community board, representing, and being representative of, diverse communities and their concerns, including the concerns of women, ethnic minorities, the elderly and youth. Public understanding of the Board and conditional release is high and there is increased confidence in conditional release as an effective strategy for community safety.
• The Board forges new community partnerships, creating a network of citizen spokespersons for conditional release and safe reintegration of offenders. Information sharing and public consultation characterizes all aspects of the Board's work.
• The Board develops innovative decision processes that meet the needs of victims and recognize the value of restorative approaches with emphasis on inclusiveness for victims, offenders and their respective families, and the community.
• The Board, in partnership with communities, develops innovative models for parole decision-making (eg. First Nation models for community justice) which address the unique needs and circumstances of Aboriginal offenders and the role of Aboriginal communities in the safe reintegration of these offenders.
• The Board works effectively with its key partners, including CSC, the voluntary sector, community groups, and other levels of government to promote an effective criminal justice system focussed on a common goal of protection of society, and characterized by balanced systems and processes.
• The Board processes most pardon applications within weeks. There is widespread public recognition of a pardon as a long-term indicator of rehabilitation and pardon recipients receive greater benefit for fees paid, in terms of the level of service provided and in wider public recognition of the value of a pardon.
• The Board derives maximum benefit from information technology and integrated justice information systems. The quality and timeliness of case preparation and information for decision-making meets NPB standards in all circumstances.
• The Board has sufficient resources to do its work. Resource levels provide sufficient flexibility to address workload growth, new government priorities, continuous learning, technological advancement and innovation.

4. CORPORATE STRATEGIES

The vision for the Board presents the key elements of an ideal state. Corporate strategies outline concrete activities the Board can pursue to progress toward the ideal state - that is, they provide a framework for constant progress and improvement.

Commitment to Quality:

All aspects of the Board's work must reflect a commitment to professionalism, fairness, public safety and public service. The Board must strive constantly for the highest quality in conditional release and pardons decision-making and clemency recommendations based on enhanced training, policy development, policy-based research, statistical analysis and ethical management. Quality decisions must recognize issues of cultural diversity and ethnicity in the offender population and in the community. In this context, quality decision-making must be reflected in an effective framework for national consistency in policy, training, and processes, while recognizing the need for regional flexibility to address the different needs and concerns of offenders and communities.

Continuous Learning:

Quality decision-making demands the latest knowledge and information about risk and about how risk can best be managed in the public interest, as well as information about the law and NPB policies. The Board must ensure that decision-makers and the staff who support them have access to this information through a process of continuous learning and development. The Board will strive to enhance the national training program, which sets out priorities and standards, and ensure that the results of research and new information are integrated regularly with the training program. In addition, efforts must be made to ensure that Board members and staff are provided with opportunities to participate in developmental opportunities designed to enhance the quality of their work.

Openness and Accountability:

In response to public demands for government agencies to be more open to public scrutiny and to take greater responsibility for their decisions, the Board must continue to implement measures to promote an environment of openness and accountability. In this context, the Board must provide access to decisions and reasons for its decisions through the decision registry, ensure that victims receive the information and support they are entitled to receive and that they participate in decision processes as prescribed by law. The Board must share information and consult openly with the public, and provide access to meaningful information about its performance - successes and failures.

Citizen Engagement/Community Partnerships:

Misinformation often surrounds public debate of crime issues and conditional release, distorting priorities and impeding progress toward sound criminal justice policy. In addition, the public has expressed strong interest in more effective involvement in discussion of crime and public safety. Citizens have called for engagement as opposed to traditional consultation. In response, the Board must develop and implement plans to share information with communities more extensively, and must meet with community groups to discuss conditional release and provide opportunities for them to express their positions on issues of policy and operations. Information sharing and discussion must serve as a foundation for forging new partnerships geared to building support for conditional release and recognition of shared responsibilities for the safe reintegration of offenders.

Effectiveness and Efficiency:

Sound fiscal management and workload pressures demand constant efforts to improve NPB operations. Effective and efficient operations will enhance the Board's commitment to public protection and public service. In this context, the Board must continue to develop policies and design processes and systems that improve the quality of conditional release and pardons decision-making, streamline and add value to the work effort, and eliminate needless constraints and duplication. The Board must ensure that it makes productive use of technology for information sharing and that its key operating systems (OMS, CPIC, PADS) are designed to support quality decision-making and that system design is accompanied by appropriate training and hardware to support system implementation.

5. CONCLUSION

For forty years the Board has been involved in a process of change and adaptation. Throughout this process, the Board has remained committed to the goals of public protection and safe reintegration of offenders.

In recent years the Board and its key partners in criminal justice, have made considerable progress toward these goals, while addressing issues of fairness and equity, and more inclusive processes for victims of crime and public accountability.

As the millennium approaches, the Board faces new challenges and opportunities in an environment that is more complex than ever before. This vision acknowledges issues of complexity, and the need for constant adaptation and improvement, but is unwavering in reinforcing the Board's commitment to conditional release as an effective strategy for safe homes and safe streets in the 21^st century.

The vision issues a challenge to all members and staff of the Board to work to their fullest potential in pursuit of the protection of society, sensitivity to diversity and respect for individual rights as set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Through these individual and collective efforts the foundation will be built to ensure that conditional release in Canada is as effective and viable in the next century as it has been in the past 100 years.