Reports and Publications

Parole and Public Safety:
A Public Forum

FINAL REPORT

September 2001

Prepared by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association in collaboration with the National Parole Board

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We wish to thank the National Parole Board for their financial support of this initiative as well as for the dedication and collaboration of Board members and staff in ensuring its success.

This endeavor could not have succeeded without the commitment and sustained efforts of the members of the Board of Directors of Canadian Criminal Justice Association, its Provincial Affiliates, and countless volunteers who worked diligently to recruit participants, coordinate the local forums, and produce their report on the proceedings.

In attempting to name everyone, we would run the risk of omitting valuable contributors.

Yet, the 30-50 people who gave of their time and energy for nearly one year should know that their efforts and commitment are greatly acknowledged and appreciated and were an essential asset to this forum.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• BACKGROUND
• SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
• FORUM PROCESS
• OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS
• SUGGESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE NPB COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY
• SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FORMS
• RECOMMENDATIONS

BACKGROUND

Late in the Winter of 1999-2000, the Canadian Criminal Justice Association (CCJA) was invited by the National Parole Board (NPB) to assist in the development of a national forum which would be designed specifically for citizens. This exercise was intended to support the broader federal government policy on citizen engagement. The NPB indicated an interest in hearing the views of Canadians from all parts of the country pertaining to the parole process, including their fears and apprehensions, their questions and concerns, and their suggestions. This forum, it was agreed, should not be a public relations or indoctrination exercise; rather, it should provide an opportunity for meaningful discussion of parole with a view to making the parole process clearer, better understood and, ultimately, more effective and responsive to the concerns expressed.

SELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS

Phase I of this project involved identifying citizens from all walks of life, a representative cross-section of the community, who would have an interest in taking part in such a forum. Interest was the main criterion; hence, the views of participants regarding parole were not a factor in determining whether or not they would be invited.

It was decided that 12 fora would be held across Canada in the Spring, Summer, and Fall 2000. Victoria, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Hull, Moncton, and Halifax were the selected sites.

Where possible, the CCJA collaborated closely with its provincial affiliates to develop a list of potential participants; elsewhere, this task was performed by Board or Advisory Council members or staff of the CCJA. Over 900 people were identified through this process. A guideline was established to limit the participation of people from the field of criminal justice and corrections to 10% of participants. That guideline was generally followed.

The issue of timing was significant. For those whose livelihood comes from work in criminal justice, attending such an event is part of their duties. For most citizens, however, attending the forum meant taking a day off work. This presented a problem for the fora that were held on week days. A number of citizens were not interested in giving up a weekend. Should similar functions occur in the future, NPB may want to consider shorter events which could be held during the evening.

Nevertheless, over 900 Canadians were made aware of the NPB's intentions and were provided with an opportunity to make their views known. The recruitment process was a very personal one calling for one-on-one contacts, followed by written material which was to serve as the basis for discussion during the forum. Though about half of those who were invited did not sign up for the forum, these people were provided with background information which may prove useful in developing an awareness of the parole process.

Early in fiscal year 2000-2001, the NPB requested that the CCJA be involved in Phase II, of the initiative. This meant maintaining on-going contacts with potential participants, handling the logistics for each forum, producing a final report for each site, and producing this report which summarizes the full process.

FORUM PROCESS

Of the more than 900 potential participants who indicated an interest in taking part in the forum, some 444 ultimately attended. In addition, 53 students participated in a special session at Grant MacEwan Community College in Edmonton, bringing the actual number of participants to 497. Of that number, 324 filled out an extensive evaluation form which proved very useful in collecting worthwhile and verifiable comments. Despite the NPB's wishes to reach a representative cross-section of the community, the views collected might not represent the views of the general public. Though not an intended outcome, a majority of participants likely had a favourable bias toward parole and social programs in general. Notwithstanding this note of caution, there exists an impressive commonality of thought and perceptions of participants across the country relative to specific issues.

As this was NPB's first endeavour of this type, the program evolved with experience gained. Initially, the first evening included a dinner and a showing of The Shedding of Masks, a documentary depicting the parole hearings of three lifers. The dinner was intended to allow the participants to get to know one another so that they would be more comfortable during group discussions the following day. The dinner was a good idea and greatly contributed to the achievement of the stated objective.

The video was abandoned after the first four fora. As stated in the Winnipeg report: "Many found the format of the video to be confusing, particularly the alternating use of sub-titles." They found that style, and the use of unfamiliar jargon to be distracting from the contents of the video. Comments noted directly in the Evaluation Form suggested that "the video assumed viewers had a knowledge base of the Criminal Justice System, and the jargon associated with the system."

Elimination of the video allowed greater focus on the Case Study which proved more conducive to discussion. Participants in the forum were asked to be Board members for a day, and to review the case and make a decision about release on parole. With this case as a backdrop, participants quickly become involved in a lively discussion of parole and related matters. Discussions were wide ranging from crime prevention, youth justice, and poverty to more specific issues such as the goals and objectives of parole, the various forms of release with the corresponding eligibility dates, and the process of risk assessment. Often, the discussion considered the outcomes of conditional release at which point, NPB provided basic statistical information relative to rates of success and reoffending. A majority seemed positively surprised by the stated rates of success, while others suggested that any rate at reoffending was too high. The case study also brought to the forefront the complexities of decision-making, the importance of effective programs/treatment and the scope of supervision by CSC for offenders in the community. These wide - ranging discussions of parole and the consideration of the case took place in the morning session of the second day and consisted of small group sessions.

After lunch, all groups were reunited in a plenary session during which every effort was made to answer questions, address concerns, and listen to suggestions for improvement. While it could be said that ultimately each forum covered the same ground, the order in which issues were addressed was driven by the participants themselves. Given NPB's commitment to be attentive to the concerns of participants, every effort was made to ensure that each point of view could be heard.

OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS

A number of observations and findings emerged as common themes from the various fora and are summarized below. As this report is intended for the National Parole Board, the views and information brought forth by its members and staff are not the main focus and are not summarized in the body of this report; these should be common knowledge within the organization. Our focus is mainly on the issues and questions of concern to the citizens participating in the forum and their reaction to the information presented.

• Many were curious about the appointment process for members of the NPB. There still exists, in some sectors, the notion that appointments are political, not based on competence. In response, the Board explained the criteria for selection, the appointment process and the Board's program of training and continuous learning for Board members. The majority of participants seemed satisfied with this information. Some of the participants were interested in the gender and multicultural make-up of the Board. While the current balance is not perfect, participants seemed to feel that it was better than what they had anticipated. Finally, some participants expressed an interest in applying to become a member of the Board.
• Information on risk assessment was seen as useful and basic to a clear understanding of a parole hearing.
• Much discussion addressed the implications of the law and the fact that certain actions do not come under the Board's discretion. For instance, several people believed that eligibility dates come much too early in an offender's sentence, e.g., temporary absences and day parole. Explaining that the NPB had no choice in the matter of eligibility, and that it was bound by law to consider applications when an offender becomes eligible, generated much discussion, leaving several participants suggesting that the law needed to be amended. On a related matter, many citizens are of the view that parole, in fact, shortens the court-imposed sentence.
• The Case Study elicited a number of questions regarding the possibility of manipulation of Board members by offenders. A number of participants viewed offenders as lacking sincerity, as having a vested interest in performing to meet the expectations of Board members. In contrast, many were quite impressed by the risk assessment process which they saw as much more in-depth than expected; this prompted one participant to state that she now had more confidence in the parole process than the judicial process because decisions involved a greater number of assessments which were conducted over a significant period of time by a variety of professionals.
• The decision-making exercise based on the Case Study proved a valuable tool as it called for each participant to turn to his/her own perceptions and beliefs to come to a decision. There was no compelling case for or against the release on day parole of the offender whose case was described. Participants were made aware of the facts in the case and that the NPB had rendered a decision, but were not made aware of the decision in advance. Interestingly, a majority of participants in the fora across the country voted to release the offender on day parole following extensive discussion of the case. The case in question was used in a "mock" hearing for training purposes and, in fact, the Board had denied day parole to the offender. This exercise was most useful in bringing to light the complexities of decision-making and seemed to generate sincere appreciation of the work performed by Board members. It was also interesting to note that a number of participants were amenable to changing their decision following discussion of the case, and access to new information.
• Case management was the focus of much attention by participants. A majority were of the view that more attention should be paid to ensuring that the sentence provides an opportunity for the training of offenders and the acquisition of useable skills for their eventual return to the community. Participants showed a keen interest in the types of programs available to offenders within the institution and the community, the nature of supervision, the types of controls available, and the tools available to support relapse prevention. There was considerable concern, as well, around the availability of psychological/psychiatric care for offenders which was perceived as an essential need of many offenders. Many also pointed to the need for greater awareness of the special needs of offenders - minority groups, Native offenders, women offenders, and mentally-ill offenders. Issues related to community supervision such as frequency of contact, nature of supervision generated much discussion.
• Many of the issues brought forward were beyond the scope of parole and the parole decision-making process. Yet, these were addressed as they ultimately served to clarify issues or to situate the parole decision-making process in the justice system or a public safety environment.
• A majority of participants expressed a great deal of concern relative to how victims are treated in the criminal justice system. On the issue of parole, views on how and when to involve victims vary, but explanations given by the NPB relative to the current situation and some of the changes under consideration seemed to satisfy most participants. Participants were very interested in knowing to what extent the views of victims were considered in the decision-making process.
• In most locations, there emerged a consensus on the need for increased public information in the area of parole and corrections. The intent of the fora, and the information presented were well received by the vast majority of participants who appreciated these face-to-face meetings with Board members, and expressed strong support for subsequent fora of this type. Many acknowledged that their views on parole had been shaped mostly by media coverage of high profile incidents, and that media reporting appeared distorted, given the factual information provided at the fora.
• While most thought that the material that had been distributed was well written, many questioned whether written documentation was the most effective way to reach the general public. More effective techniques could involve more aggressive and interactive approaches, some of which are highlighted in the suggestions that follow.
• A large majority of participants felt that NPB members and staff at the fora had been energetic, well informed, prepared, and committed to the engagement process. Many also appreciated the fact that both members and staff had been quite respectful of the participants and their views. Certain participants, however, did not appreciate being fed back a question to their question; an approach which they saw as elusive, but which had been intended to elicit the opinions of participants. A few perceived NPB to be defending the system and would have preferred for them to engage in a debate with a moderator.
• One forum concluded that negative public perceptions of the NPB may stem from the fact that it intervenes late in the criminal justice process, after a number of decisions - good and bad - have been made by others. In other words, it carries the burden of all poor decisions made about an offender.

SUGGESTIONS PERTAINING TO NPB's COMMUNICATIONS STRATEGY

A majority of participants were quite enthusiastic about the fora which they found stimulating and informative. In this context, they recognized the need for this type of session and voiced a number of suggestions for achieving broad public participation in the future, and for communicating NPB's message in an effective manner.

• While most found the written material informative, they stressed the need for such material to be disseminated more broadly at sites frequented by the public such as courts, police stations, schools, emergency rooms, etc.
• They also stressed its limits in terms of reaching large numbers of people and suggested that the NPB consider mass media for its public information efforts. Written material does not properly convey the process and dynamics of a parole hearing, and has limited potential to reach people and affect the way they think or feel. Televised hearings, it was suggested, could do a lot to affect people's perceptions of parole.
• As well, the NPB should strive to identify a number of community spokespersons who could assist in delivering its message.
• More efforts should be devoted to highlighting success stories. Current perceptions of parole are formed mostly through the media where failures are most often the focus of reporting. As well, efforts should be made to focus on persons as opposed to cases; people relate more easily to other people.
• Fora are a good format, but, in order to successfully engage citizens, public meetings should be held that would be devoted largely to sharing basic information. The average citizen does not possess the basic information necessary to form enlightened judgements.
• Future fora could focus on the roles and responsibilities of other partners, i.e., police, courts, and institutions.
• Forums should target specific communities - e.g., Natives, youth, seniors, business - and should be planned with the intended audience in mind.

SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FORMS

Evaluation Forms were distributed to all participants at all sites. The response rate for competition of the forms was 65%. What follows is a condensed version of these forms which captures the key comments of participants. The views summarized are those of the majority. Where relevant, we have also provided the opposing view. Where a list of answers appear, those in bold are the views that we perceived as being held by the majority; others may have been expressed by one or two people only.

BEFORE THE FORUM

Were the documents mailed to you informative?

Yes:....249 (87%) No:....17 (6%) No Answer:....20 (7%)

Yes. Clear and concise language to depict a fairly complex reality. Added to the participants' knowledge. The statistical information was helpful. The "Myths and Realities" document seemed to be the most appreciated; the Case Study should have been more detailed. Documents should be more widely disseminated. Some felt there was too much information.

Were they clear?

Yes:....246 (86%) No:.... 12 (4%) No Answer:.... 28 (10)

Yes for most, but some found them to be complicated, dry, and bureaucratic in style. One person pointed out that certain people need written material to comprehend an issue while others may respond better to other media.

Did they answer most of your questions?

Yes:....202 (71%) No:....38 (13%) No Answer:...46 (16%)

Yes, but discussions held during the forum were a necessary complement. The importance of having someone familiar with the issues assist in breaking down the information and making it more palatable was noted, although some felt that additional statistical information would have provided a clearer picture of the success rates of parole. The material provided a lot of answers, but raised a number of questions also. Many of the questions, however, were peripheral to parole decision-making and had to do with the larger field of corrections.

Did they raise any concerns?

Yes:....157 (54%) No:....87 (30%) No Answer:...55 (16%)

The documents were thought-provoking and proved useful in raising awareness to: sentencing; violence; recidivism; the impact of public opinion; bias and prejudice; the need for community support and involvement in the reintegration process of offenders; and the need for increased public education, beginning in schools. Several participants expressed concern over the automatic nature of statutory release and accelerated parole review for members of organized crime and drug traffickers. The apparent lack of concern over recidivism when it involves non-violent offences was also identified. Some would have appreciated a more in-depth discussion of risk and of what constitutes an "acceptable" risk. In several instances, the offence of breaking and entering which is not identified as a violent offence under the CCRA, was identified as a concern. Finally, the need to ensure the fair treatment of victims, to protect their rights and to give them a voice in the process was stated by a large number of participants.

Is this type of information of interest to the general public?

Yes:....231 (81%) No:....17 (6%) No Answer:...38 (13%)

Yes, given the important impact of corrections and parole on society. Participants felt that more information would lead to better public understanding and cooperation. More information would help to reduce feelings of insecurity in the public who now believe that most paroles end up in new offences. The public needs to be made aware of the parole process (eligibility dates and risk assessment). Negative media reporting needs to be counterbalanced with facts. Information should be readily accessible; citizens may not be prepared to put in a lot of effort to get at the information they want. While most view information as key, many also point to the need for information to be presented in a succinct and palatable format. Several participants suggest that more people-friendly approaches be used: public service announcements, clips like Crime-Stoppers, scripted television programs (drama) about parole and corrections; televised parole hearings; and a well designed web site, etc.

Did the documents improve your understanding of parole/pardons?

Yes:....229 (80%) No:....23 (8%) No Answer:...35 (12%)

Yes; however, the face-to-face discussions were perceived as a necessary complement. A number of participants indicated having no prior knowledge about parole and having gained a better understanding of the process and its complexities.

The process was described by some as "more serious than expected". Some would have liked more discussion relative to pardons.

DURING THE FORUM

Were the discussions stimulating?

Yes:....278 (97%) No:....3 (1%) No Answer:.... 6 (2%)

Yes. Exchanges were described as open, spontaneous, interesting, stimulating, enriching, diversified, and respectful of other people's opinions. Everyone had the opportunity to be heard. Issues were raised that had never been considered before by certain participants. Different perspectives came to light, that of victims was appreciated. A few mentioned that certain participants tried to monopolize discussions. Others thought that there was some duplication in the afternoon plenary and the small group sessions of the morning. Some would have liked to spend less time discussing systemic issues and more addressing the community reintegration process.

Did they answer most of your questions?

Yes:....238 (83%) No:....21 (7%) No Answer:...28 (10%)

Yes; including answers to questions never before considered by certain participants. A number indicated being left with several unanswered or partially unanswered questions; others stated having left with new questions resulting from their interactions with other participants, and a few indicated that they would continue their quest for satisfactory answers. A number would like information pertaining to the broader field of corrections. Some would have appreciated more in-depth discussion of certain issues and, for a number of participants, each question gave rise to a new question. In short, it appears that the overall process gave rise to involved participation by most and, given the above, could be defined as thought-provoking.

Did they raise any concerns?

Yes:....177 (62%) No:....71 (25%) No Answer:...39 (14%)

Yes. Several were identified in relation to:

• How differently people view things and the resulting difficulties in coming to a common understanding and approach,
• the ability or inability of the community to provide support for offenders,
• the need for community resources,
• giving a voice and meeting the needs of victims, ensuring the availability of financial resources to facilitate their participation in the parole decision-making process,
• the need to consider the specific needs of various groups, e.g., victims, Natives, women,
• control mechanisms during parole,
• the release of sex offenders,
• meeting the training needs of offenders prior to their release;
• ensuring public safety and that of victims,
• the difficulties inherent to decision-making,
• the dangers of making decisions based on what the offender says as opposed to an evaluation of his behaviour while in prison,
• how to ensure the effectiveness of the system while striving for openness,
• the public's lack of information,
• how to meet the needs of women,
• accelerated parole review and recidivism,
• accountability mechanisms of the NPB,
• community notification,
• the naivete and stereotypical views of many citizens,
• the punitive mind-set of the public,
• erroneous public perceptions of the work of the NPB,
• the influence of politics on the legislative process.

Did the discussions improve your understanding of parole/pardons?

Yes:....268 (92%) No:....10 (3%) No Answer:....12 (4%)

Yes. A lot was learned about the system, the eligibility criteria for conditional release, the decision-making process and mechanisms in place, the appointment process and role of Board members. Some complained of information overload.

How could we improve this process for future events?

What participants liked most was the exchange between professionals and lay persons and the discussions around the case study. While the majority seemed quite pleased with the overall process, a number of suggestions were made, to enhance similar fora in the future. These suggestions reflect the personal experiences of participants and, therefore, present opposing views, at times. For example, some participants called for the fora to be more focussed on parole while others called for involvement of other criminal justice professionals and broad discussion of the justice system. In a similar manner, some participants called for larger groups while others suggested that groups should be kept small and focussed

• Promote the forum more effectively to ensure broader public participation and a better cross-section of the public who are external to the criminal justice system-seniors and students, and people from different walks of life.
• Advertise the forum in the media to reach larger numbers of potential participants. Target specific groups: ethnic, cultural, etc.
• Define and communicate the objective and the scope of the forum more clearly and stick to the plan.
• Define the role of the public more clearly.
• Involve more people from other professions to broaden the scope of discussion and expertise. Target and involve more community and business leaders with specific supports to offer.
• Ensure the continued presence of parolees and ex-offenders to share their perspectives.
• Try to attract more of the "unconverted".
• Ensure adequate preparation of participants by distributing relevant documentation well ahead of time. Make short courses available to the public.
• Provide a more in-depth overview of the criminal justice system and its components, situating each in relation to the other.
• Recap written documentation at the outset of the forum.
• Make sure people understand, and then seek out their input.
• Keep groups small and focussed.
• Limit the number of topics for discussion. Keep documents short and to the point.
• Make more use of case studies to illustrate a variety of situations. Flesh out the case studies.
• Make better and increased use of audio-visual material. Videotaped hearings would be a useful tool to better understand how Board members do their job.
• Hold forums on a more regular (frequent) basis.
• Consider having forums on the Internet with advance promotion in newspapers.
• Involve participants in recruiting new participants. If they have liked their experience, they will be convincing.
• Make sure everyone has an opportunity to express their views. Be directive with people who take up too much time pushing their personal agenda.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Was this forum of value to you?

Yes:....277 (97%) No:....2 (1%) No Answer:......8 (3%)

• Yes; it provided an opportunity to hear the views of others on an important matter.
• Parole and the decision-making process were presented as a constructive process which can benefit the offender and the community.
• It opened my eyes and my heart.
• It allowed for a better understanding of the work of the NPB and to view the parole decision-making process as serious and difficult.
• It allowed for the expression of views to people who can affect change, a rare opportunity.
• The forum was very informative; the networking was outstanding.
• Hopefully, all views expressed at the forum will be taken into account.

Did you have an opportunity to express your views?

Yes:....275 (96%) No:....5 (2%) No Answer:......7 (2%)

An overwhelming yes. Participants felt that the atmosphere was friendly and open and that other people were listening. Some would have liked to have more time and for the discussion to cover the criminal justice system as a whole.

Did you feel you were being heard?

Yes:....269 (94%) No:....3 (1%) No Answer:....15 (5%)

The vast majority felt they were being heard and a number attributed this climate to the facilitators who endeavoured to seek out everyone's opinion. Several thought that the facilitators had been very respectful and praised their work. There were a few critical comments:

• One stated that there is a difference between being heard and being understood,
• Another thought that certain ideas were being dismissed when they did not fit in rather than being explored further,
• Another expressed serious doubt that any change would result from these discussions.

What would you hope will result from this Forum?

Almost all participants hoped for at least one thing to result from this forum. An attempt has been made to draw up a wish list which groups together comments of similar nature:

• Greater investments in prevention, training and education at all levels, particularly for incarcerated offenders.
• Advocacy for resource funding, particularly community resources.
• A constant questioning of services provided to offenders with a view to improving them.
• That decisions be made on a case-by-case basis as opposed to categories.
• A dramatic change in decision-making policies as they pertain to criminal gangs.
• Increased public information efforts and increased use of the media in public information. Improved knowledge of the conditional release system in the general public. Correction of misconceptions and myths about parole. More information pertaining to the work of the National Parole Board and the services available to incarcerated offenders. That the NPB continue to provide information to participants with a view to improving their knowledge and understanding. Efforts to reach a broader spectrum of the public. Efforts to ensure that the public is made aware of the positive outcomes of parole, not just the failures as generally reported in the media. Improved public education techniques.
• Concerted efforts by NPB and the Correctional Service of Canada to inform the public about their respective realities and how the system is changing.
• That the NPB will devote time to reviewing the suggestions emanating from this forum and look at ways of implementing them. That it will have a clearer perception of the community's beliefs and concerns and take them into account in its practice.
• Increased public sensitivity to parole and offenders, and increased public support for same.
• Ongoing communications between the NPB and the public.
• That the views collected will be of assistance in developing more effective information packages directed at the public.
• Better media relations.
• One of the most often repeated wishes: That efforts be made to promote a better understanding of the plight of victims and their role in the parole decision-making process. That the victim's right to be heard at a parole hearing be expanded. An increased use of offender-victim mediation.
• That the public have a greater role in victim assistance.
• Public education targeting students on the consequences of criminal behaviour.
• Greater public involvement in the conditional release process.
• A more effective process, one that is better understood by all of society.
• More openness and greater access to information by NPB.
• New legislation which would tighten the parole system, lengthen eligibility periods.
• That similar events be held on an annual basis, all the while ensuring that ongoing consultation occurs with experienced people.
• That the fora have a ripple effect and that participants share with others what they have learned though this process.
• A respectful, truthful evaluation of the NPB and reforms that involve offenders, victims, and the community.
• That a report be produced, including recommendations, and that it be shared with all participants so that all can be apprised of the various opinions expressed across the country. That new ideas will be explored and possibly implemented. That the product of these fora be communicated to lawmakers. That suggestions stemming from these fora be taken into consideration, particularly those pertaining to women, Natives, and reintegration. That the report be widely disseminated.

Do you see a role for citizens in the reintegration process?

Yes:....254 (90%) No:....4 (1%) No Answer:....24 (9%)

A strong majority responded affirmatively. A review of individual answers reveals that their yes pertains more to their willingness to become involved than actual means of involvement. Many spoke of understanding, trust, support, tolerance, open-mindedness, and information sharing as a role for citizens. Other more concrete suggestions pertain to providing employment for offenders, taking part in circles of support and restorative justice initiatives, volunteering at various levels of the criminal justice system and within various programs, engaging in dialogue with various correctional agencies, assisting in training, providing citizen assistance in parole hearings (with no voting privileges), participating in citizens' advisory committees, and taking part in public education initiatives. The need for more information on how and where to volunteer was identified. Each of the more concrete suggestions were voiced by one or two people at most. Responses suggest that when citizens are informed on issues and when their concerns are addressed, there emerges a willingness to become involved and to support the system.

However, it is incumbent upon agencies/organisations within the system to develop mechanisms and opportunities which will foster citizen participation.

What is the key thing you will be taking back from this Forum?

What follows is a paraphrasing and grouping together of similar answers:

• The extent to which the public is misinformed on this issue. The need for increased public information programs. Parole is a contentious issue around which there is no unanimity.
• The word parole has a different meaning for ordinary people and those who work in the system.
• Granting parole is NOT about forgiving or condoning someone's actions, it is about determining whether someone can safely be reintegrated into society.
• That so many people showed an interest in participating in this forum.
• A better understanding of the parole system and the decision-making process. The seriousness of the process. The fact that the NPB is first and foremost concerned with public safety. An appreciation of the risk assessment process. The type and extent of the information considered in decision-making. The difficulties inherent to decision-making. That the NPB manages a sentence and does not alter it. The importance of a case-by-case approach. The need to have and utilize a parole process. Increased respect for the system.
• Information relative to Elder-assisted hearings and the NPB's intention to expand the role of victims at hearings. A greater appreciation of the progress still needed relative to victims' services and rights.
• The importance of community support and involvement.
• Increased open-mindedness and confidence in the system.
• That change may be slow, but is happening.
• The NPB's willingness to hear the public's views. The extent of the NPB's involvement and its concern with ensuring that issues identified by citizens are not only addressed but considered in its policy development.
• That so much more money is spent on incarceration than prevention.
• A better understanding of the situation as revealed through statistics. The system is working better than people believe.
• That one's actions and opinions are influenced by one's life experience.
• An appreciation of the professionalism that prevails within the National Parole Board.
• That there exists within the NPB a desire to be more human and to improve.

What did you like most?

• The fact that the forum was open to anyone from the public.
• The opportunity to meet people from a variety of backgrounds, including victims, Parole Board members, and the organizers of the forum.
• The presentations by the NPB .
• The information that was circulated, particularly "Myths and Realities"
• The frank and respectful exchange of opinions. Clear and simple language.
• The broad range of participants.
• The small group discussions.
• The discussions around the case study.
• Learning about the decision-making process.
• Information on victims' rights.
• Information about Aboriginal culture within institutions; more information would be appreciated.
• The demystification of applicable laws and of the role of each of the relevant players.
• That my opinion mattered. The opportunity provided for everyone to express themselves freely. Hearing the views of others,
• The efforts of the NPB to address the concerns of citizens relative to public safety. The competency of Board and staff members.
• Many relevant questions and clear answers to those questions.

What did you like least?

• The small turnout. Limited input from key groups: victims, media, politicians. Too many participants working in the field of corrections.
• That this may have been purely a public relations exercise on the part of the NPB.
• That certain people took up too much time. The attitude of certain participants who did not listen to others or did not want to hear them. Some off-topic discussions that were allowed to go on.
• The fact that certain people had not prepared properly by reading the material that was forwarded to them.
• The superficial nature of discussions. Ideological and ethical issues were not sufficiently addressed.
• The lack of cohesiveness and consensus on solutions (although it still remains to be seen).
• The fact that certain issues will receive no follow-up because they come under the responsibility of another agency or department.
• That certain questions came up repeatedly.
• Being limited to a single case study: the issue of violent offenders who are released and kill their spouse was not covered.
• Having to give up a Saturday. The 8:00 a.m. start.

Would you like to participate in similar events in the future?

Yes:....266 (93%) No:....9 (3%) No Answer:....12 (4%)

The vast majority responded affirmatively. Most enjoyed the format and the nature of discussions. Many would be prepared to assist in the recruitment of participants and would have an interest in assisting in the development of greater public awareness and information on issues.

Would you like to receive information about parole/pardons from time to time?

Yes:....251 (87%) No:....18 (6%) No Answer:....18 (6%)

Yes; with few comments. Of the comments received, people would want to receive information that is not too lengthy, particularly if changes to the system are being considered.

Will you be discussing this forum with family/friends/colleagues?

Yes:....280 (98%) No:....0 (0%) No Answer:......7 (2%)

The vast majority say yes. In short, the fora seem to have generated a great deal of good will in the public and, should have a significant ripple effect. Many say that the forum was a learning experience, and that they are interested in sharing their knowledge with others because the issues are important and they now feel more confident in discussing them. Some add a qualifier: under proper circumstances and with open-minded people. A number would also encourage their friends and relatives to participate in these types of events if they were to be repeated. One indicated that he would because there was a lot of prejudice in his family; another intended to present a report to his senior citizens club of 800 members. A teacher will be informing his students of the deliberations in which he participated. Other participants will be reporting respectively to their victims' support group, their Citizens Advisory Committee, a Youth Justice Committee, their town council, their co-workers, and their neighbours.

What is the main message you would want to send to the National Parole Board or to the Solicitor General of Canada?

This section presents an extensive list of suggestions from participants. The list paraphrases the bulk of the messages that were collected. These have been edited for style, but not for content.

Each bullet corresponds to one message. Several sentences under one bullet indicates that several people made similar suggestions:

• More resources should be made available for the purpose of gradually increasing prevention efforts from the elementary school level to the secondary and post-secondary, as well as with youth organizations: boy scouts, sports organizations, church groups, etc.
• Start directing funds toward community support systems to reduce the potential for clients in the future. Invest in high-risk children today to reduce the prison population tomorrow.
• Training and education should occur in schools and in the community at large; information combined with education leads to prevention. The NPB should look into the possibility of sponsoring "civic" courses/workshops as part of the Grade XI and XII curriculum.
• Consulting citizens is surely of benefit to the NPB.
• Involve more ex-offenders in future consultations.
• Do not let what you have learned from these forums sit on a shelf. We are learning that healing works for all people. Focus on healing for all parties involved.
• It is delightful to see women as members of the NPB; the Board should aim for a 50% split: decisions would show more balance.
• Make more resources and funding available for victims. It is important for victims to be heard; they have a special interest in the release of an offender. Show concern for victims' rights. More support for victims of violence. Develop an effective system to deal with victims of violent crime. (Several comments of this nature)
• Continue the practice of holding public fora with a view to improving the process and achieving better results. Promote citizen involvement.
• Find ways to involve citizens in the rehabilitative/reintegration process.
• Find ways of involving youth so that they come to perceive crime as their own problem and become interested in finding solutions.
• Establish a citizen-based national council that meets periodically to consider the parole (justice system) and produce a report card on how they are doing, highlight problems - it would be independent and therefore would help to de-politicize the debate - and provide a credible voice for discussion, promotion of the system.
• The NPB needs to maintain ongoing contacts with citizens and listen to what they have to say. The Solicitor General should ensure that all those responsible for the administration of justice at all levels take into account the views of the public.
• A public education campaign should be launched; people increasingly lack respect for and confidence in the criminal justice system, parole, the reintegration process, and rehabilitation.
• The NPB needs to let the public know that it is not a "secret organization", that the information is available to the public and that the public can in fact be observers at hearings. The public needs to know what the NPB does and how they go about making decisions.
• Investments are required to properly inform the public; a public information program should stretch over 2 or 3 years; its results should be measured and evaluated. For example, a lot was invested in communicating the changes to the firearms legislation with little positive results.
• The parole system is effective and the public should be made aware of this.
• It is important to dispel the negative myths that surround NPB; the Board's positive contribution to society should be conveyed to the public. Endeavour to counteract the negative impact of the media who portray but one side of the issues.
• Be transparent.
• Stop repeating that the media only reports failures (which is true) and be proactive in getting information out to the public.
• Make use of radio, television, weekly and trade newspapers for public education. Use story-telling techniques which are more effective than dry written material. Explore other innovative techniques to reach the public.
• Produce Leo-type stories as one-pagers that could be inserted into local newspapers in a "You be the judge" type column. Follow-up with actual outcome of each case, using the opportunity to slip in a few statistics.
• Build on the list of identified concerns for future workshops; mail those out in advance.
• Involve all the key players in public education (NPB, CSC, police, courts, etc.)
• Turn to professionals for assistance in public education.
• Keep up the good work! Emphasize the positive outcomes of parole and make sure people are aware of how day parole operates, thereby contributing to an increased feeling of personal safety. Make sure the public is familiar with eligibility criteria and risk assessment practices.
• More and more people need to realize that offenders will eventually return to their community and that it is incumbent upon all to facilitate their reintegration.
• It is important to have society's best interest at heart when considering the release of an offender, but equally important to be concerned that all opportunities for rehabilitation be made available to that offender.
• Humanize the conditional release process by focussing on the training of offenders to facilitate their reintegration into the work place.
• More resources are needed for community programs that support the reintegration process: halfway houses, drug and alcohol programs, circles of support, alternative healing programs, etc..
• Adopt different formats for hearings to adapt to different cultures across the country.
• The reintegration process is most important; everyone has the ability to change and adopt a positive lifestyle.
• The responsibility for offenders needs to be shared by the system as well as by the offender. In other words, there must be resources available to support the intent of rehabilitation.
• It is important that as much energy be expended for the care of victims as for the care of offenders, and to ensure that continuous care is provided, particularly in cases of rape and incest.
• Laws and regulations should be reviewed every ten years to pinpoint their shortcomings and reflect the views of society.
• Make it mandatory for offenders to participate in community service programs.
• Add restorative justice elements to parole.
• Review eligibility criteria for accelerated parole release in the case of drug traffickers, organized crime and criminal biker gangs.
• It is essential that the concept of statutory release be reviewed; the automatic nature of this process does not ensure public safety.
• It is important that the NPB have regular informed opinion on the daily operations on the Board; reaction at the field level, but not filtered through interested parties (e.g., CSC, lawyers, etc.). A committee should be set up in each region to meet with NPB officials for constructive, honest criticisms; independence and composition is very important; regular consultation.
• Offenders are too pampered (TV, good food, health club facilities, etc.). If they are in prison, it is to pay for the wrong they have done, not for a vacation
• The current system is too focussed on early release.
• Do not grant parole too easily; be assured that the offender is well motivated and that his behaviour warrants his release; make sure a lot of structure is in place.
• Take into account institutional behaviour and the influence of the offender's immediate family (parents, brothers and sisters).
• Be less tolerant relative to breaches of conditions.
• Impress upon lawmakers that the system should not allow drug traffickers and notorious criminals to take advantage of the system at any eligibility date. Those who show no sign or no will to reform should not be released, except at warrant expiry. As these cases are often portrayed in the media, they impact negatively on the credibility of the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board, and the criminal justice system as a whole.
• Current legislation on parole needs to be reviewed with a view to tightening the system and prolonging eligibility periods for various forms of release.

Other Comments:

• A number of participants expressed an interest in observing a hearing.
• A number wish to receive a copy of this report.
• A number would like to attend more events of this type.
• Can means be found to cut down the cost of the criminal justice systems?
• Endeavour to have the Charter amended so that responsibilities are tied to rights.
• Role playing and videotaped hearings should be used in the future. These are useful pedagogic tools.
• Those working in the system should not be allowed to intervene in discussion to justify their actions, but only to add information.
• The results of this forum should not be presented as public consultation; it is a good start but there were too many people and too little time. The forum has merely scratched the surface.
• Time well spent. Informative and stimulating.
• Many bravos and thanks.

Recommendations based on participants' comments:

1. That the NPB maintain its current efforts to reach the general public to develop a better understanding of the parole process.
2. That the NPB continue to hold regular Citizens' fora that are well publicized.
3. That the NPB conduct a thorough analysis of the planning process for this forum with a view to identifying the do's and don'ts applicable to similar events in the future.
4. That NPB explore the possibility of involving its correctional or criminal justice partners in future endeavours as many issues are system-wide.
5. That the NPB draw on the good will of the participants in this forum to assist in the development of future fora and in the recruitment of participants.
6. That the NPB seek to improve its current documentation and develop new material to address the issues and concerns raised by citizens through this forum.
7. That the NPB explore new, modern, and interactive techniques to deliver its message.
8. That the NPB make increased use of the media, particularly, radio and local newspapers, to reach the public.
9. That the NPB be more proactive in communicating the facts about parole.
10. That NPB engage in a well structured and aggressive public information campaign that focusses on the positive aspects of parole.
11. That the NPB consider turning to professional communication firms to assist in the development of an effective public education campaign.
12. That the NPB identify ways and means of reaching youth as early as possible and on an ongoing basis through the schools and youth-centred organizations.
13. That the NPB highlight its concern for victims, particularly victims of violent crime and seek every reasonable means of giving them a voice in the system.
14. That the NPB consider establishing a national committee of citizens to act as a sounding board, advisors and spokespersons in its efforts to maintain a positive relationship with the general public.