Probation and parole service delivery model: the Ontario experience.

In late 1999, Ontario began implementing an innovative probation and parole service delivery framework, the Probation and Parole Service Delivery Model (PPSDM), which incorporates empirically based approaches to offender assessment, supervision and programming for adult offenders. Anticipated outcomes include enhanced public safety, reduced recidivism, (1) enhanced service and program integrity, and the promotion of staff excellence. Two important components of implementation are staff training and continual evaluation of process and outcomes.

Traditionally, resources were focused equally on all offender needs regardless of their correlation with offender patterns of criminal behavior. There was limited consideration for assessed levels of risk to re-offend and/or criminogenic needs when making case management decisions. Risk/need assessments were primarily used to determine reporting frequency and not systematically used to identify criminogenic targets for intervention. Limited professional discretion was exercised, given that standards dictated how often an offender had to report, based on an assessed risk score. One-on-one supervision was the only in-house option for intervention that was servicewide. In addition, professional training for experienced probation and parole officers was limited.

Core Programs

Under the PPSDM framework, case management standards reinforce the concept of assessment-based decisions; reflect primary intervention and supervision roles that address criminogenic needs and/or risk of re-offending; incorporate Level of Service Inventory-Ontario Revised risk management/treatment guidelines and research findings (2); reflect a case management approach versus one-on-one supervision; support the type of contact approach (3); reflect appropriate supervision levels (4) for all, while reserving the highest supervision for offenders at greatest risk of re-offending; consider public safety issues; and reflect the principle of least-intrusive intervention consistent with public safety.

In keeping with best correctional practices, core rehabilitative programs (5) are being introduced. They are divided into two categories: orientation and intensive programs. These programs are designed to address criminogenic factors that have been empirically determined the most common within the offender population. They include anger management, substance abuse and pro-criminal thinking. Programs are also being introduced to address the needs of two special offender groups--partner abusers and sex offenders.

All core rehabilitative programs focus on criminogenic factors and reducing recidivism. They adhere to components of effective rehabilitative programs that require them to: be based upon established research findings; be delivered by trained staff; have printed program and training manuals; employ behavioral, cognitive-behavioral and social learning methods; and match program intensity to problem severity. They are structured, use stage-appropriate interventions and target those factors directly related to recidivism. In addition, they have an evaluation framework.

Use of a cognitive-behavioral approach consists of a variety of strategies, including reinforcement; development of awareness of thinking and decision-making processes; role-playing; modeling; using cost-benefit analysis; homework; providing feedback; having clients create positive, internal self-talk; developing problem-solving skills; behavioral chain principles; using a wide variety of direct instruction experiences; addressing cognitive and affective factors; being future-oriented, etc. In general, the more intensive the program, the more numerous and varied the cognitive-behavioral strategies.

Intervention/Service Streams

Under PPSDM, probation and parole officers function as case managers, providing services to offenders in one of four intervention/service streams: Basic Service, Rehabilitative Group Service, Individual Service and Intensive Supervision Service. The most intensive levels of supervision are concentrated on offenders deemed most at risk of re-offending and/or causing serious harm (Intensive Supervision Stream). Offenders assessed as being suitable for groups in any one of the five core rehabilitative programs are managed in the Rehabilitative Group Stream. (6) Higher-risk offenders not suitable for any core rehabilitative program or having responsivity issues needing to be addressed, such as language barriers, lower intellectual ability, high anxiety disorders, etc., are managed in the Individual Service Stream. These three streams are generally reserved (7) for higher-risk (medium to very high) offenders. Lower-risk offenders on probation are monitored for compliance with special conditions such as community service but with minimal intervention (Basic Service Stream).

Case management decisions are assessment-based, balanced with public safety considerations. Assessments are comprehensive and include determining the level of risk to re-offend, the identification of criminogenic factors that need to be targeted for intervention and the stage of change related to client behavior associated with that target. According to researcher Mark Corey, "Researchers have made it very clear that a comprehensive assessment process that provides the professional with information to match the offender with the most appropriate response is critical to the efficacy of the intervention." (8)

To implement PPSDM, three training teams of two provided platform training on an area-by-area basis (9) to approximately 700 probation and parole officers during a period of 18 months. Training included five days on the guiding principles, objectives and expected outcomes of the model, and the concepts of effective correctional interventions and their application in day-to-day practice with offenders. Opportunities were also provided for enhanced skill-building for conducting comprehensive risk/need assessments, with emphasis on analyzing the findings and translating them into case management plans. The actual rollout of PPSDM was staggered across the province as offices were trained.

Individual probation and parole offices implement core rehabilitative programs once they are ready to deliver a group program. Prior to facilitating a group, probation and parole officers must complete a training course that involves both content review and skills practice and be prepared to start a group soon after completing their training.

Training and Evaluation

Training for intensive programs is longer in length, and is divided into two sessions. The first lasts three days and focuses on program content, understanding offender assessment (e.g., anger management deficits for the anger management program), and program facilitation skill development. Following this session, participants return to their offices and assess potential program participants. The second session lasts five days and focuses on interpreting the assessment findings, gaining an in-depth understanding of the program content, practicing working with group dynamics and using the program material. Intensive programs require co-facilitators. Co-facilitation by a probation/parole officer and a community agency staff member is encouraged, and training is completed jointly. To date, at least 39 probation and parole offices have run in-house programs in one or more program areas for a total of 68. The majority are orientation programs.

Ongoing professional development is deemed essential for the successful integration of effective correctional interventions into day-to-day practices with offenders. Professional development is also necessary to help move probation and parole officers beyond the mere administration of supervision orders (traditional service) toward the proactive and strategic delivery of correctional services in Ontario. Therefore, in addition to the courses and training already described, courses on the following topics either have been or are being developed and will soon be made available to probation and parole officers starting this year: building motivation for change, (10) working with core program content, (11) relapse prevention, introduction to working with partner abusers, introduction to working with sex offenders and risk assessment for sex offenders. (12)

Evaluation (13) is another important component of PPSDM implementation. The evaluation uses multiple measures and is both process and outcome in nature. Outcomes being measured include a more streamlined approach to client service, enhanced service integrity, reduced recidivism and improved cost-efficiency. At this early stage of PPSDM implementation, one of the objectives of evaluation is to foster learning and to identify areas needing either modification or improvement before becoming embedded into common practice.

Nominal Group Technique 

One of the process measures used on an ongoing basis is the Nominal Group Technique (NGT). (14) The process was applied with several different focus groups, comprised of area managers and probation officers. Two new questions, related to PPSDM, were introduced to each group for consideration and deliberation. An example of the questions put to an NGT focus group for consideration is: "What did you/your office do that worked to ensure that comprehensive assessments occur as required under the PPSDM Case Management Standards and as taught during the Platform Training?" All NGT results are summarized and shared with front-line staff through a PPSDM newsletter and offices across the province are able to benefit from the experience of others and adopt best practices when making decisions about implementation.

Collaborative Evaluation Process

Another process evaluation technique, the Collaborative Evaluation Process (CEP), is used to assess probation and parole officers' behavior after PPSDM platform training. CEP refers to an office assessment/implementation evaluation process designed to measure the level of congruence of probation and parole officers to PPSDM concepts, i.e., the translation of PPSDM information and skills into daily practice. The CEP evaluation involves two formal processes: a file review process and behavioral observations of probation and parole officers during interviews with clients. The file review indicates how PPSDM concepts are translated into comprehensive assessments that target appropriate criminogenic factors and adhere to model standards, while the behavioral observations indicate the agents of change in the direct one-on-one contact with the client. Every office will undergo a CEP evaluation.

CEP findings still suggest that the implementation of PPSDM is well under way across the offices reviewed, but some areas of weakness were identified. For example, with regard to the assessment process, although client data collection and identification of criminogenic targets are aligned nicely with PPSDM concepts, the motivational stage of change of the client is not consistently identified and, therefore, not a consideration in the formulation of the offender management plan in which intervention strategies should be stage-of-change appropriate. Also, although probation and parole officers demonstrate excellent general interviewing skills, such as neutral tone of voice, avoidance of power struggles, being respectful, having empathy, exhibiting attending behavior, etc., there is a need for better cognitive behavioral strategies/methods during the interview process. These strategies/methods include exploring discrepancies by the use of cost-benefit analyses, which lead to the teaching of thinking errors and the behavior chain and practices such as modeling to clients, prompting and shaping of their behavior, using graduated practices, etc. This is not surprising given that these are skills that were not expected in Ontario's traditional service delivery and that a number of probation and parole officers are just beginning to be conscious of them.

Challenges

Implementation is not without its challenges. Ontario is presently going through a huge change agenda in areas such as technology, service delivery models, young offender legislation, major hiring initiatives, etc. PPSDM initially faced resistance from some staff, but there was general buy-in into its concepts. However, once platform training began, interest and momentum toward implementation at the field level quickly followed. The introduction of technology as a case management tool, however, somewhat derailed the implementation of PPSDM. The Offender Tracking Information System (OTIS) was perceived as not being consistent with PPSDM and the learning curve regarding OTIS proved overwhelming for many.

High caseloads are another factor that negatively impacted implementation. When PPSDM was first introduced, the average adult caseload was approximately 112. Partly to address the workload issue, 165 additional probation and parole officer positions were created in 2001. The anticipated workload reduction for these officers, however, has yet to be realized, given that many of the successful applicants were drawn from the existing unclassified and classified staff pool, resulting in a domino effect that has led to continued hiring to fill ensuing vacancies. It is predicted that more manageable caseloads will facilitate ongoing PPSDM implementation.

Although training is recognized as key to the successful outcomes of PPSDM, the competing demands on training resources resulting from the high number of change initiatives limits the pace at which PPSDM-related training is delivered and at which probation and parole officers are available for training. The challenge is to maintain the ongoing professional development that will be needed to support PPSDM change initiative.

Another challenge is to help probation and parole officers become comfortable with spending less time with lower-risk clients and focusing less on noncriminogenic factors, both practices that were encouraged under the traditional service delivery system.

Conclusion

Ontario has adopted a probation and parole service delivery framework that incorporates current "what works" correctional literature into its day-to-day practices with offenders, moving from an approach that focused primarily on conditions of a supervision document to an approach that also embraces rehabilitative services with potential for reduced recidivism. The level of service and supervision for each offender is directly linked to a comprehensive assessment that identifies the risk to re-offend and criminogenic needs.

Embedding such practices in field settings is not without its challenges, especially when coupled with other major change initiatives. However, Ontario is confident that this is a "good corrections" model and that, through the continued commitment and leadership of both management at all levels of the organization and frontline probation and parole officers, it will reach sound fruition within the next four to five years. The focus at this point of implementation is to expand the availability of rehabilitative group programs and reinforce the concepts of effective correctional interventions by providing ongoing enhanced professional and skill-building training to probation and parole officers across the province.

[GRAPHIC OMITTED]

ENDNOTES

(1) The PPSDM evaluation plan calls for a long-term recidivism study. When reduced recidivism rates are realized, it is anticipated that real cost savings for institutions and other justice sectors will follow.

(2) All new admissions to Ontario Probation and Parole Services undergo a comprehensive risk need assessment using the LSI-OR, developed by Donald A. Andrews, as the primary assessment tool.

(3) Interventions that focus on offenders' criminogenic needs, applying principles of effective correctional interventions (Risk Principle, Need Principle, Responsivity Principle and Principle of Professional Discretion, Andrews et al., 1990) and using intervention strategies that are stage-of-change appropriate (Prochaska and Diclemente, 1986).

(4) The most intensive levels of supervision are concentrated on offenders assessed to be at the greatest risk of re-offending and/or causing serious harm. Compliance with probation conditions such as community service continues to be monitored for lower-risk offenders, but with minimum officer/probationer contact.

(5) To ensure a coordinated approach to core correctional rehabilitative program development, implementation and evaluation in both institutional and community settings and across the province, the ministry recently created a position called the core rehabilitative program consultant.

(6) High-risk offenders managed in the Intensive Supervision Stream have access to core rehabilitative programs delivered through the Rehabilitative Group Stream.

(7) Lower-risk sex offenders, parolees and offenders on conditional sentences are exempt from the Basic Service Stream and are managed in the Individual Service Stream since they are required to have ongoing contact with a probation/parole officer.

(8) Corey, M. 1997. Cog probation, Perspective, 30:13

(9) Ontario has 40 probation and parole areas comprising 127 probation and parole offices. On any given day, there are approximately 66,500 offenders reporting to Probation and Parole Services, 85 percent of whom are adults.

(10) Building Motivation for Change is a skill-building course on how to use motivational interviewing concepts and counseling skills that are stage-of-change appropriate in a correctional environment.

(11) In order to work most effectively with offenders, it is important to address those criminogenic factors that contribute to offending. This course provides participants with overview information about how to address, on a one-on-one basis, the three criminogenic areas, that are most common among the offender population: anger management, criminal thinking and substance abuse.

(12) Ontario is participating in a three-year nationwide initiative on sex offender assessment called the Dynamic Supervision Project. The project is conducted under the auspices of the Solicitor General of Canada and headed by R. Karl Hanson and Andrew Harris.

(13) All evaluations are coordinated through, and most often designed by, the Correctional Services Division Program Effectiveness Unit.

(14) NGT is a process whereby individuals in a group are asked to independently generate ideas in response to questions that are recorded by the facilitator in a "round-robin" fashion and are then clarified among participants and the facilitator. Participants, independently and secretly, rank the ideas in terms of importance and they are then voted on by the participants, aggregating the group's view of the most important ideas generated. NGT has advantages over more common and less disciplined group problem-solving methods. First, idea generation is separate from idea evaluation. Second, balanced participation occurs and the effects of dominant individuals on group decision-making are lessened. Third, it ensures the systematic movement toward the aggregation of votes to determine a preferred outcome.

Ghislaine Cote is implementation coordinator for the Probation and Parole Service Delivery Model of the Ministry of Public Safety and Security's Correctional Services Division in North Bay, Ontario.